GuShiio.com Original interview: Tucker Carlson, American political commentator;
Guest: SBF, founder of FTX;
Compiled by: DeepSeek
Editor’s note: In this interview, SBF discussed with Tucker Carlson his life in prison, his interactions with Diddy, the Democratic betrayal of him, the future of cryptocurrencies, and his reflections on effective altruism. SBF described the monotony and challenges of prison life, reflected on the reasons for the FTX collapse, and criticized the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s regulation of the cryptocurrency industry. Although he still believes in the principles of effective altruism, he acknowledges that helping others requires a deeper understanding. The interview also touched on SBF’s uncertainty about the future and his legal and interpersonal dilemmas.
The following is the original content (the original content has been compiled for ease of reading and understanding):
What is prison life like?
Tucker Carlson: Where are you now?
SBF: I’m in a small room in NDC, Brooklyn.
Tucker Carlson: How is it here? How long have you been here?
SBF: I’ve been in prison for about two years.
Tucker Carlson: What kind of experience was that?
SBF: It can be said to be a bit dystopian, but fortunately there is no physical danger where I am. And to be honest, a lot of the staff here are really trying their best to help, doing what they can within the current constraints. But at the end of the day, no one wants to go to prison. You can imagine locking 40 people in one room, all of whom had been charged with at least a crime, and for years, with all the keys thrown away. In this case, even the most trivial things will become the only thing they care about.
Tucker Carlson: Really? Have you had any problems?
SBF: Nothing particularly serious, like I haven’t been attacked or anything like that. But I encountered many logistical problems, the most serious of which was that I had almost no access to legal information during my trial. Normally, the trial day process is that they wake me up at 4 a.m., and I spend five hours in various buses, trucks and waiting rooms until the morning trial begins. The court then lasted until 5 p.m., and then went through four hours of waiting room and transportation. It was already 9 p.m. when I returned to the cell, and by then, I had long missed the time to check legal documents. This is the biggest obstacle to my case.
Tucker Carlson: So what do you usually do when you’re not in court?
SBF: There is nothing to do in prison. I read books, started reading novels again, played chess occasionally, and tried my best to prepare for my legal case. I have appeals and other legal matters, and I will try my best to do whatever I can. But the most devastating thing about prison is the lack of meaningful things to do.
Tucker Carlson: To be honest, we haven’t talked before, but I’ve been watching you. I would also like to say that no matter what a person is accused of or done, I feel sorry for all those who are in prison and I don’t think people should be locked up.
Tucker Carlson: Of course, I know the law says it has to be done, but I really feel sorry for everyone in prison. You can call me “liberal”, but I have to say that after two years in prison, you seem healthier and less tense than before.
SBF: You know, I have a lot of time to reflect on how to communicate with people. Looking back, I don’t think I’d done a good job in communicating enough, especially at the beginning of the crisis and in the following month. I made a mistake I often make-I became addicted to details and forgot to grasp the overall situation.
Did SBF take drugs before being imprisoned?
Tucker Carlson: Every time I see you on TV, I think you’re as excited as Adderall. But now you don’t look like this. Did you really not take it?
SBF: No, I didn’t. My thinking is almost stagnant because there are so many things to deal with. Normally, during my time at FTX, I would go for interviews, but while the interview was going on, there might be two urgent issues in the company that needed to be resolved. So I used Slack to respond to messages while doing interviews. In addition, I knew there were other things to do after the interview that I had not had time to prepare, so I was trying to plan ahead in my mind.
Tucker Carlson: So the digital world may not be good for us? What’s your opinion? You are now forced to stay away from your mobile phone. This must be a big feeling, right?
SBF: That’s true, but if I had a choice, I would still prefer the digital world. In the end, for me, it’s not about enjoyment, entertainment or leisure, but about productivity and the ability to make an impact in the world. From this perspective, without the digital world, it would be extremely difficult to achieve anything.
SBF meets Diddy in prison
Tucker Carlson: So did you make friends there? How was it going with Diddy? I heard he was in there too.
SBF: Yes, he was. But… I don’t know what to say. He was kind to me. I also made some friends. The environment here is very strange. There are several people like me who have been involved in high-profile cases, and many young people, or so-called former gang members.
Tucker Carlson: He is indeed a “so-called” former gang member. So, what about Diddy herself?
SBF: I only saw one side of him, which was Diddy in real life. He is very friendly to everyone here, and he is also to me. But after all, this is a place that no one wants to be, and obviously neither does he, let alone I. As he said, this is a soul-destroying place for anyone. Moreover, all we can come into contact here is the people around us who are also in it, not the outside world.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I can imagine. Besides, you two are the most well-known prisoners in the world, and you are still in the same unit. What do others, like armed robbers, think of you?
SBF: That’s an interesting question. Of course, some people may think that this is an opportunity to meet people from different circles who don’t have the chance to meet us at all. From their perspective, this idea is actually logical, although it is not at all for me.
Tucker Carlson: So that’s not what you think, is it?
SBF: No, but sometimes laughing may be the only thing you can do. You know what? These people are very good at chess, which is one thing I learned here. For example, many of those armed robbers in the past did not speak English and may not even graduate from junior high school, but they were quite good at chess. Of course, I’m not saying they are chess masters, but their level far exceeds my expectations. I often lose to them, but I never expected this to happen.
SBF’s shift in perspective after imprisonment
Tucker Carlson: Have these experiences changed your perspective?
SBF: I think this is just part of a broader perception. One of the most profound things I have learned in my life, which I still don’t fully understand, is-our so-called IQ, IQ, is of course important, and hard work is also important, but in addition, there are some things that we can’t define accurately. I still haven’t found the right word to describe it. But some people, with these unspeakable qualities, have demonstrated extremely outstanding abilities that even exceed everyone’s expectations.
Of course, not everyone has these qualities, and everyone’s situation is different. But at FTX, we often encounter situations where some people have almost no highlights or relevant experience based on their resumes, but ultimately surpass most people in the company. They have resilience, intuition, and a firm sense of commitment. They know how to work, how to collaborate with others, and how to quickly find solutions to problems. These things are often more important than mere IQ or experience.
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I’ve met a lot of people who make a lot of money in finance, and they seem particularly stupid, but obviously they have some kind of talent that I don’t understand. They are just like that in my eyes.
SBF: Hmm? I’m curious what type of person you’re talking about. I used to work on Wall Street and there were indeed all kinds of people there.
Despite the large donations of SBF, Democrats refused to rescue him
Tucker Carlson: I don’t want to delve into the details of your case too much, but overall, it seems that your company has intended to build political relationships through political donations. This is not surprising. Many entrepreneurs do this, and it can even be said to be industry practice. But you donated so much money to the Democrats, I thought they would eventually save you. What about your Democratic friends? They usually keep their own people out of prison, like Tony Podesta is fine, why did you go in?
SBF: Obviously I can only guess the answer because I have no way of knowing what they really think. But one fact may be worth noting-even in 2020, my stance was center-left, and I donated to Biden’s campaign. I was optimistic that he would be a moderate centre-left president. In the next few years, I traveled frequently to Washington, stayed there for a long time and made dozens of visits. But I was shocked by what I saw. This government was not in an ideal direction. By mid-to-late 2022, I have started privately donating to Republicans, which is similar to the amount I gave to Democrats. Moreover, just before and after the FTX crash, this fact began to become known.
Tucker Carlson: Why are you shocked? I know you have been in Washington for a long time and have had contact with many politicians. What shocked you?
SBF: Some things are more extreme than what I originally feared, such as cryptocurrency regulation. I never thought the Democrats as a whole would do well on financial regulation, but there are some good people in both parties and a lot of thoughtful policymakers.
But the Securities and Exchange Commission under Gary Gensler is a nightmare. For example, if a company wants to provide a product or service in the United States, the SEC will directly sue them on the grounds that they were not registered. But if a company goes to Gensler, expresses its willingness to register, and asks what category to register in, the SEC usually responds-“There is no registration category for you” or even no solution at all.
They require companies to obtain certain licenses, but they themselves do not know how to issue them. Basically, the entire cryptocurrency industry is trapped by this situation. This is a very disturbing phenomenon I see.
Tucker Carlson: Can you explain it in more detail? Anyone like me can see that Gary Gensler is obviously corrupt, and everyone knows it. But what were his motives? What does he want?
SBF: Although I couldn’t get into his mind, I could share some impressions. He likes to control power very much. Of course, many people like to be in power, and he is no exception. To some extent, this is a power struggle. He wants his agency to have more power, even if he has no real plan to move the industry forward, but just wants to stop the entire industry from moving forward. For example, he asked all crypto companies to register with him, but if those companies didn’t find him, he would lose power. Even though he didn’t know how to regulate these companies, he still wanted them under his jurisdiction.
There are many rumors about him (Gary Gensler) that he is very politically ambitious and feels that if he can expose enough in media such as MSNBC, express enough opinions, and shape his image, he may one day become an important position such as Treasury Secretary. It is unusual for him to succeed as one of the Democratic Party’s representatives in the field of financial regulation.
Tucker Carlson: Interesting, that sounds very consistent with Washington. I’ve seen this before.
SBF: It’s not because of moral considerations, or because he has deep-rooted communist beliefs or anything, right?
Tucker Carlson: Yeah, I know that’s not the case. His driving force is more like personal interest than some firm belief. So, when things started to get worse and you were criminally charged, or realized you might be criminally charged, you donated so much money to the Democratic Party.
In business, donors typically call politicians they have funded and say,”Hey, I’m in trouble, can you help me?” Have you contacted Chuck Schumer or any other politician you support and asked them to put pressure on the Biden administration’s Justice Department to help you get out?
SBF: I didn’t, for multiple reasons. First of all, I don’t want to do anything inappropriate. Secondly, many people quickly made their position clear and quickly distanced themselves from me. By that time, I may have a better relationship with the Republican Party in Washington than with the Democratic Party, although this is not clear to the outside world and will not be so obvious from the outside.
SBF: There is actually a more complicated story behind this, involving a law firm that played an unusual role in the case. But before I gave up control of FTX or even filed for bankruptcy, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) was already determined to deal with me.
Tucker Carlson: So you weren’t trying to get connections or ask for help? Interesting. So, what do you think of the future of cryptocurrencies? Obviously, your feelings on this topic may be mixed because of your experience, after all, you used to run a cryptocurrency company and are now behind bars for it. But you have a deep understanding of the industry, and the cryptocurrency field is developing very fast. What do you think is its future? I know this question seems strange to you, but I can’t help but want to ask.
The future of cryptocurrencies under Trump
SBF: Well, I hope the future will be better. If you look at what the Trump administration said when it took office, many things were positive. Compared with the current government, there are many differences. Especially the direction taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Obviously, execution is the most important thing, and we are actually at this stage right now-we will see how the future holds. It’s not surprising that changes in government sometimes bring about changes, but financial regulators are huge and they are not the kind of institutions that can change instantly. Over the past decade, they have been a big obstacle in the cryptocurrency space. You see, the United States has a 30% share of global finance, but its share of the cryptocurrency market is only about 5%. This is entirely a regulatory issue. It is particularly difficult for the United States to cooperate in this regard.
SBF: So the big question is, when the real challenge comes, will the current government make the necessary decisions and find the right way to implement them?
Tucker Carlson: I remember when cryptocurrencies first appeared in the public eye, the view was that it was a currency that could restore individuals ‘commercial freedom. In other words, I can buy and sell things without government control and still have privacy. But obviously, this has never happened and it seems that it will never happen. Now it seems that cryptocurrency is just another asset scam. How come everything about privacy is gone? How has everything changed?
SBF: In fact, it also has to do with technology, such as payment methods such as remittances-these are not just investment issues. Many people once believed that cryptocurrencies could change the world. You see, these things are usually slower than the pace of investment. In fact, the rise of social media is similar. You will see bubbles growing and bursting, changing very rapidly, and the development of technology is based on a longer-term basis.
Currently, cryptocurrencies have not developed enough to become a tool that a quarter of the world’s population can use every day. The goal has not yet been achieved, but it is not far off. If–and this is an assumption–the industry continues to advance and is not overly distracted by fluctuations in market prices, then in five to ten years, you can imagine a world where anyone can have a crypto wallet that even a billion people can use every day, and is private, secure, fast, cheap, international-all the things promised, rather than distracted by gimmicks and hype.
Tucker Carlson: Do you think governments will allow this to happen? If the global population were allowed to conduct financial transactions without government control, wouldn’t the government collapse immediately?
SBF: There is actually a lot of discussion about the extent of regulatory control. If you look at examples like Bitcoin, the wallet is anonymous, but there is a public ledger for every transaction. Therefore, the government can obtain certain levels of information without full control.
But it should be pointed out that not all governments in the world have the same view on this matter. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. government has had a view on its control of global monetary affairs. Not only the United States, but countries such as France also have similar positions. Another view you see is that it is more authoritative, and even in many authoritarian countries, the control is more closed. Half of the world’s countries do not actually attempt to engage in such large-scale government intervention in daily financial transactions as the United States does.
Does SBF have any money?
Tucker Carlson: Do you still have money after all this?
SBF: Basically, no. The company I owned was bankrupt. Without intervention, it would now have approximately $15 billion in liabilities and approximately $93 billion in assets. So the theoretical answer is yes. There was enough money then or now to pay everyone back, and there was even a large amount of interest left over, leaving tens of billions of dollars for investors. But things didn’t develop that way. Instead, everything was dragged into bankruptcy, and assets were quickly depleted by those who controlled them, who siphoned off tens of billions of dollars worth of funds. This was really a huge disaster. And my failure to prevent this from happening is the greatest regret in my life.
Tucker Carlson: You know everyone in the crypto industry. Before the accusations and all this, you were one of the most famous people in the industry. To be as honest as possible, do you consider yourself the biggest criminal in the crypto industry?
SBF: I don’t think that’s a crime. So the answer is obviously no. I think the Justice Department may think I am, but I don’t care what they think.
Tucker Carlson: You are in prison now. Anyway, that’s what they say. But I want to know that I have indeed criticized your business and other similar businesses in the past. However, I will not go into the details of your case in depth because it is too complicated. I just want to ask, do you think there is a lot of shady behavior in the crypto industry? Be honest.
SBF: Yes, the answer was clearly yes 10 years ago, at least relative to the size of the industry. You see around 2014 and 2017, the industry was much smaller than it is now, and a lot of transactions-or at least a large part of them-were for some less than glorious purposes. For example, on Silk Road, people buying drugs online was one of the common uses of cryptocurrency at the time. Obviously, there will be criminals in any industry, but over time, the proportion of this part in the industry has dropped significantly. This is partly due to growth in other aspects of the crypto space, but also due to greater government involvement in anti-money laundering. So, there are still some, but not as common as before.
Tucker Carlson: You were known for your worldview or ideology-or even religion-of “effective altruism.” Its core idea is, do the greatest good thing for the largest number of people, and you make money to help the largest number of people possible. Someone pointed out that ironically, when your company went bankrupt, about 1 million people lost money. So in the effort you describe to “do the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, many people have been harmed. I wonder if all this makes you rethink the principles of effective altruism?
SBF: It doesn’t make me rethink these principles. Obviously, I feel very bad about what happened. This is not what I wanted at all, nor is it anyone’s original intention. If you screw up, the outcome may be different. Eventually people got their money back, but the wait was painful. They got back in dollars, not in the original form. And most of the good things I had hoped to do for the world disappeared with the collapse of the company.
Tucker Carlson: What I want to say is that I find it difficult for most people to understand the idea that helping people they have never met is more worthwhile or valuable than helping people in front of them. In other words, helping your wife, girlfriend, mother, daughter, brother, college roommate is more valuable than helping a village in a country you have never been to. I think this is the intuitive feeling of most people. But you disagree.
SBF: I disagree, but there is one premise. Indeed, one of the classic mistakes people make-and I have made it on some occasions-is when you don’t really know people far away, you think you know what they need. It’s a bit like a condescending attitude. You know, there are a lot of international aid projects that end up failing and completely wasting money because no one really understands the lives of those recipients. They just guess what the other person needs, and the results are often wrong. For example, they took a bunch of water pumps to a Fijian village that did not lack water at all but lacked food. These people dropped out of Harvard to distribute unwanted water pumps. Similar examples abound. And when you help people you know, you obviously know better how to help them. This effect is real. Even if I think life in one place is as important as life in another place, that doesn’t mean you know the same way how to help everyone.
Tucker Carlson: I feel like you’re refuting your stance. I mean, my problem with effective altruism is that it’s too easy. For example, eradicating polio is easy, but making the same woman happy for 30 years is very difficult. So maybe it makes more sense to do harder things.
SBF: What I want to say is, taking malaria as an example, no one has died of malaria in the United States, basically no one. But around the world, malaria still kills about 1 million people every year, which is terrible. This is a disease we should have eradicated, and we should definitely address it globally. But because it is somehow “easy”, this should not stop us from helping others. You see, if we put resources into many interventions in the poorest areas of the world, the scale of resources required is actually not large. If done efficiently, it will not have much impact on our domestic aid. But efficiency is the key. You can distribute useless water pumps at will to villages without food, but it won’t help anyone.
Tucker Carlson: Yes, I think you have a point. Aid to Africa over the past 60 years has proven this, despite declining life expectancy. But as a moral issue, how can you prove that while worrying about malaria, your cousin is addicted to Xanax? Shouldn’t you solve this problem first?
SBF: If I could. But ultimately, we all have responsibilities. If I know my cousin well and know how to solve this problem, then I have an absolute responsibility to do it. But if I try and can’t make progress, and I can save lives internationally, or someone can do it, then I don’t think that will diminish the good things they can do internationally, even if they can’t solve their own family’s problems.
Tucker Carlson: Okay, I see what you mean. I don’t think that’s a crazy idea. Last question: Can you think of a recent international aid project that was clearly successful?
SBF: To some extent, but I won’t say which project it is. This is not a government project, but some private project. In fact, malaria is a good example. Through mainly private donations, global malaria incidence has dropped significantly, especially in Africa and India, which may save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, at an average cost of several thousand dollars per life saved. In terms of relative scale, this is an astonishing success.
We’re not talking about a trillion dollars, we’re talking about billions of dollars that are being used for malaria prevention and control through very careful work. Of course, you can also see that some government projects are completely ineffective. If you’re looking for a successful government project, the Marshall Plan may be a good example-although it goes back a long time-of rebuilding Germany after World War II and was a huge success in many ways.
Tucker Carlson: Yes, although we may have ruined it by blowing up the North Stream Pipeline. But you’re right. How old are you now?
Can SBF really get out of prison?
SBF: To be honest, I have to think about it. In prison, time becomes blurred, and every day is just like the day before, mixed up. The answer is, tomorrow is my birthday, so now I am 32, but soon I will be 33.
Tucker Carlson: How do you plan to celebrate your birthday?
SBF: I don’t celebrate. I don’t celebrate birthdays much when I’m out there, and celebrating another year in prison is not exciting for me.
Tucker Carlson: So you won’t tell Diddy tomorrow is your birthday? I don’t believe it.
SBF: Maybe others will tell him, but I have no plans to.
Tucker Carlson: Okay, you’ll be 33 tomorrow. If you had not been pardoned, how old would you be when you were released from prison?
SBF: This is a complicated calculation. I don’t fully understand the details because there is a possibility of commutation. If you simply add my sentence to my age, the answer is close to 50 years old.
Tucker Carlson: Can you bear it?
SBF: Sorry, I made a mistake. If you add all possible commutations, it could be in your 50s. But the correct answer is that I was 32 years old when I was convicted and served a 25-year sentence, so I was 57 years old.
Tucker Carlson: You have served 2 years and you have 23 more years to go. Do you think you can make it?
SBF: That’s a good question. I’m not sure. The hardest thing is that there is nothing meaningful to do here. You see, studies show that suicide rates in prisons are about three times higher than normal. So multiplying the 25-year sentence by 3, plus the fact that I was 32 years old at the time of my conviction, might get an answer. Maybe.
Tucker Carlson: I think this is a little weird. You are probably the most extreme example of someone I’ve talked to who jumped from one world to another completely different world. You used to be in a world of digital currency, but now you are in a world without money. What is the medium of exchange in prison?
SBF: You know, what people have on their hands. Like muffins, the little muffins wrapped in plastic, like you see at the gas station counter, placed in a plastic ball containing individually wrapped muffins that had been at room temperature a week ago. Imagine something like that, and that’s the standard. Either a packet of ramen soup, or a packet of disgusting fish soaked in oil, also at room temperature.
Tucker Carlson: So, you moved from cryptocurrency to the muffin economy. That’s right. How do you compare the two? Obviously, muffins are more difficult to circulate internationally, but as a currency, what do you think?
SBF: In the short term, muffins are unlikely to become a global strategic reserve currency. They are a demand currency with no other use and little recommendation value. But ultimately, they are somewhat interchangeable. Although not completely interchangeable, it is close enough. The two muffins are similar, so you can swap them. As long as the transaction amount does not exceed $5, they can still be used. But if you want to make a $200 deal with muffins, that’s not realistic.
Tucker Carlson: It’s too heavy.
SBF: That’s right. One thing you quickly realize is that everything in prison has shrunk in size. You will see people fighting over a banana, not because they care how much they care about that banana, but because they have no other outlet.
Tucker Carlson: That sounds cruel. Do you eat those muffins? Or just trade them?
SBF: I just trade them. I don’t eat them. I mainly eat rice, beans and ramen.
Tucker Carlson: It looks like it’s good for you. Do you have a tattoo?
SBF: I don’t. I know some people do, but I don’t.
Tucker Carlson: Have you ever thought about it?
SBF: I did think about getting tattoos. But after talking to fellow inmates about their disinfection procedures-or lack thereof-the idea was dispelled. I’m not interested in tattoos anymore. It’s not worth the risk of getting hepatitis. They probably don’t disinfect them until they have used needles on four or five people.
Why did everyone around SBF abandon him?
Tucker Carlson: Okay, so you can’t get a tattoo. Now that you’ve left the outside world and faced a 23-year sentence, I want to know that the people you’ve helped-I mean, you went to prison because you hurt people, but you also helped a lot of people in Washington by donating millions of dollars. Did one of them call you and say,”Good luck and hope everything goes well”? Or did they say nothing?
SBF: Immediately after the crash, I received friendly messages from many people, including some in Washington. But six months later, no one contacted me. By the time of the trial, I was put in prison and there was no news from me. It became too politically sensitive and people were reluctant to risk contacting me. I even heard people say nice things about me in private, but no one wanted to contact me directly.
Tucker Carlson: Has anyone contacted you? I noticed that someone I thought was your girlfriend testified against you. Do you have friends who have always supported you faithfully? Or almost no?
Tucker Carlson: This is disgusting. I interviewed him at home. I think they also accused his wife. What they did was completely immoral.
SBF: I completely agree. They broke their promises, which completely shattered any notion of integrity. This is disgusting. He’s a good person, and he doesn’t deserve this.
Tucker Carlson: Have you realized how fast the world outside is changing? By the time you get out of prison, the world may be completely different than it was when you left. For example, with the development of AI, it sounds like we are approaching General Artificial Intelligence (AGI) or some sort of singularity.
SBF: Yes, I feel this deeply. It’s a feeling like the world is moving forward and you’re left behind.
Tucker Carlson: Is having children part of your philosophy of effective altruism?
SBF: No. Different people in the community have different views on this. For the past five years, I feel like I have about 300 children every day-my employees. Obviously, I cannot treat all of them like a father, but I have a responsibility to them. I am very sad that their jobs have been destroyed. But while running FTX, I had almost no personal life. Now in prison, I obviously have no conditions to have children.
Tucker Carlson: Did any of those 300 employees come to visit you in prison?
SBF: No. I think the answer is no. One or two people may have been here.
Tucker Carlson: You might want to consider having a few real children at some point because they’ll be there for you when things go wrong.
SBF: It got me thinking about what the real reliance is and the extent to which intimidation can be achieved in some systems in our country. But it also made me realize how important it is to have people I can rely on.
Tucker Carlson: Other people are everything. SBF, I appreciate you doing this interview, which is probably the only interview where you haven’t been asked about business, because that’s someone else’s business. But I am very happy to talk to you about this, and I hope you will say hello to Diddy for us.
SBF: I will.
Tucker Carlson: I can’t believe you and Diddy are in the same prison.
SBF: I know, right? If someone had told me three years ago that I would be with Diddy every day, I would have found it interesting. I guess he’s also dabbling in cryptocurrencies?
Tucker Carlson: Life is so strange. I wish you all the best, thank you. Looks like YouTube is suppressing the show. In a way, it’s not surprising that they did it. But from another perspective, it’s shocking. At a time when so much has changed in the world, in our economy and politics, and on the brink of war, Google has decided that you should get less information, not more. This is completely wrong. What can you do tomorrow? We can complain, but that’s a waste of time. We cannot control Google. Or we can find ways to get around it so that you can actually get real information, rather than deliberately misleading information.
“Original link”
