--:-- Narrator: Nobody knows your customers better than your team, so give them the power to make standout content with Adobe Express. Brand kits make following design rules a breeze, and Adobe quality templates make it easy to create pro-looking flyers, social posts, presentations, and more. You don't have to be a designer to edit campaigns, resize ads, and translate content. Anyone can in a click. And collaboration tools put feedback right where you need it. See how you can turn your team into a content machine with Adobe Express. A quick and easy app to create on-brand content. Learn more at adobe.com slash express slash business.
--:-- Narrator: Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door. Expertly cleaned and folded. So you could take the time once spent folding and sorting and waiting to finally pursue a whole new version of you. Like Tea Time You. Mmm. Or this Tea Time You. Or even this Tea Time You. Said you hear about Dave? Or even tea time, tea time, tea time you. Mmm. So update on Dave. It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher in the south of France.
--:-- Scott Galloway: And I'm Scott Galloway in Cannes. In Cannes.
--:-- Kara Swisher: We're not together, though. Once again, we're in the same place, but not together.
--:-- Scott Galloway: No, I can probably see your hotel from mine, though.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Really? I don't know. Don't look at my hotel. Anyway, I was just walking along, what's it called? The Croisette.
--:-- Scott Galloway: The Croisette.
--:-- Kara Swisher: The Croisette. We have many fans here. A lot of selfies.
--:-- Scott Galloway: We do. A lot of selfies.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah. It's nice. It's very popular. Do people ask you where is Scott?
--:-- Scott Galloway: Everyone asks me where is Kara. Yes, all the time.
--:-- Kara Swisher: And then they have a word or two for you, either good or bad. Some of them love you, some of them don't. And it's great, actually. So I have some thoughts I'll share with you later. Catalyzing a dialogue.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Catalyzing a dialogue.
--:-- Kara Swisher: That's what, no, you know what? That's what they say. They say we're catalyzing dialogues. I interviewed John Legend and Chrissy Teigen this morning.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Oh, how was that?
--:-- Kara Swisher: They're the handsomest couple going. They're very good looking. Sharp as tacks. They're real into activism, but it seems lovely coming from them. And she's a pistol, I'll tell you that. She's just like she is on the Twitter. Although she's not on the Twitter anymore. But they're doing a lot of stuff around mass incarceration and women's... And he's like, he's on concert tour. He's a lovely guy. He's playing tonight at the Spotify thing.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, they're supposed to be lovely. And I agree with you. Occasionally I see them in New York and they're both impossibly good and talented and all that good stuff. Very entrepreneurial. They have a wine thing. They got dog food. They got food.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Oh, really? He's got a baseline. He almost got some for you, a little facial situation.
--:-- Scott Galloway: A baseline? Yeah, like it's called Loving Zero Wats. You want to know my skincare routine?
--:-- Kara Swisher: What? No, yes.
--:-- Scott Galloway: At least once a week, I splash water on my face.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Oh, my God. Do you not have a skincare routine? I would think you would do that.
--:-- Scott Galloway: No, I don't. I really don't. I mean, occasionally I shoot poison into my face, so I look like I'm dead inside.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Oh, okay. But it's called Botox. But other than that, I'm aging, not gracefully. I'm leaning into the ugly.
--:-- Scott Galloway: You would be surprised. Guess who loves a skincare product, Kara Swisher?
--:-- Kara Swisher: I do. You have very nice skin.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I do have beautiful skin because I spend a lot of time with the expensive. I do. Try this.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Thank you. Thank you. I do. You're right. I have spectacular radiant skin. I'm sorry. I'm just channeling white men. Of course I do.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, yeah. We're all like that.
--:-- Kara Swisher: I do, actually, because I spend a lot of time with all the Barber, Stermer, all that stuff. I do get nice health care. I mean, in the facial area.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Guys can get away with bad skin. They can. It doesn't matter. All I need to do is stand on my wallet. Is that wrong?
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Is that wrong?
--:-- Kara Swisher: It's wrong. I don't do that. That's the part I don't do. I have beautiful skin care regimen instead. Anyway, here on the South of France talking about our skin. We have a lot to get today.
--:-- Scott Galloway: There we go. Because we have a live pivot tomorrow.
--:-- Kara Swisher: We do. We've got parties to go to. There's a lot of parties tonight. One of them that was canceled, which I'll talk about later, was a Washington Post one at La Colombe d'Or.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Oh, yes. He's canceled. It got canceled?
--:-- Kara Swisher: It got canceled.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Oh, I love that. You know who? Speaking of newspapers, you know who I ran into last night?
--:-- Scott Galloway: It was Meredith Levin. Levin. Levin. Levin. Meredith Levin. She's delightful. New York Times. She's having a great time at the New York Times. The Washington Post people. Don't they seem incredibly well run right now?
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yes, they really are. And she's like hitting it all cylinders. And man, we'll get to it in a minute because it's been a real, this guy. It reminds me of the writer's strike. A bunch of people who think they're really fucking precious. Wake up to the real world, folks. Washington Post newsroom. I'd love to deal with them right now.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, except this is not the newsroom's fault. This is a management and Jeff Bezos problem.
--:-- Kara Swisher: What's happening there? It's some British guy.
--:-- Scott Galloway: What is it? Well, we'll just start with it. We'll start with it because we're going to talk about troubles at Amazon too. But just before we get to it, we're going to do disinformation research groups under attack by the far right, OpenAI hinting some big changes to its governance. They a for corporation Scott apparently.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Really? Really? Really?
--:-- Scott Galloway: They're not a nonprofit. Shocking as it may seem. Who would have thought that? I mean, they might as well admit the obvious right. Our friend of Pivot is California State Senator Scott Weiner, who used to be my representative in the Castro. He's leading the charge on AI regulation bill. Very smart California legislator in California. Anyway, there's so much going on. Let's start with this Washington Post situation.
--:-- Kara Swisher: So the guy who the CEO, Will Lewis, got into big trouble for paying, you know, lots. He did a terrible meeting with the staff. He really did. It was a terrible meeting. And then he did this weird third newsroom thing, but he never said what it was. And I'm still unclear what the second newsroom is. I believe he's talking about editorial, which isn't a newsroom. So he confused and upset people. And believe me, they have every right to be upset. They asked some cogent questions because he ended up hiring one of his pals from Britain and then firing the editor just all of a sudden, like, because she didn't like his third newsroom plan, which nobody likes, FYI, and it's stupid. And so then that was trouble. And then this week, the New York Times sent a pack of reporters to London, and so did the Washington Post, by the way, and so did others, to investigate and found even more crazy shit when he was working for Murdoch, when he was working for the other places he worked, a lot of payoffs for phone records that were stolen that they used.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Payoffs. That's old news though, right?
--:-- Kara Swisher: No, this is new. That was different. He was cleaning up the hacking. And then they had a guy that was pretending, trying to get Tony Blair's memoir, or trying to get lists of rich people that bought a Maybach. All this stuff, they wrote a big, he wrote a big investigative piece of who was buying the new Maybach because they stole the records. They tricked the Mercedes guy out of the records. And so this guy fessed up.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Isn't that a hardcore investor? I just love it when self-hating liberals go after each other and eat their young.
--:-- Kara Swisher: No, don't start with the self-hating liberals bullshit. This is, no, I'm not going to allow this. This is big news. This I am not going to allow because I happen to be an actual reporter. You don't do this. You don't do this. Not, you don't. You don't.
--:-- Scott Galloway: So what's the there there?
--:-- Kara Swisher: You don't steal, Scott, how would you like it if someone stole your phone?
--:-- Scott Galloway: I'm acquiescing to your journalistic domain expertise here. I know, I'm going to ask a question. Would you like someone tacking your phone and listening to your phone calls and then you doing a report?
--:-- Kara Swisher: No, so I don't allow TikTok on my phone.
--:-- Scott Galloway: And by the way, I'm constantly every day trying to lobby against Mena because they do what you're talking about every fucking minute. I get it but reporters aren't supposed to. Okay. Agreed. Okay. So they anyway, he's gotten even more trouble with this investigation by the New York Times. And then the Post followed up with an even worse one about all kinds of lies he told. So he's under a lot of pressure, but I don't think Bezos is going to let him go. It's the newsroom. It's not the newsroom's fault in this case. And I agree with you on slow-moving routes. So the newsroom is in open revolt against him. It looks like it.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah. I mean, they just – no one knows what to do because the only person that matters is Jeff Bezos in this thing.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Right. And so as long as Jeff, but at some point, it reminds me a little bit of an academic institution where the faculty just has way too much power and the dean has to get along with the faculty because they can make his life miserable or her life miserable if they don't get along with them. But at the end of the day, if the newsroom is in open revolt, Bezos needs to fire him and say, it sucks to be a grown up. You've lost the confidence in the newsroom. It's time for you to move along.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Right. But in this case, in fact, the newsroom might be right. I know you love to attack the media, but it's not in this case. That's not the case.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I like the Washington Post. I'm rooting for them.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Let me just support the Washington Post team. I wrote a whole part about the Post being really slow to all the Internet stuff. In this case, these reporters, and I've talked to a lot of them, and this staff knows they have to change. This is not a whiny, oh, no, the Internet is here gang. This is a we are fucked and we got to move. And so in this case, I think this guy's lost the trust. That said, if Bezos doesn't want to get rid of him because they did this big search after finding the other guy, he's the only shareholder. And so the question is, will he?
--:-- Scott Galloway: But having said that, as the only shareholder and a fiduciary, as a fiduciary to the other stakeholders, which include the newsroom, the employees, the nation, because the Washington Post plays a critical role in the zeitgeist and the dialogue. And as a fiduciary, if he has an obligation to recognize that the newsroom, which is the key, the heartbeat, the white meat, the epicenter, whatever you want to call it, ground zero for this organization, correctly or incorrectly, that doesn't fucking matter. If he has lost their confidence, Bezos needs to call him and say, sorry, boss, you got to move on. Otherwise, this turns into a bigger drama than it needs to be.
--:-- Kara Swisher: That is correct. That is correct. One person who I was talking to, a media person who was in the running for the CEO and actually dropped out, said to me, like, this is not, they need to be looking like they're forward moving right now.
--:-- Scott Galloway: What happened to Patti Stonecipher? I thought she was running the time.
--:-- Kara Swisher: She didn't want to run it. And so they found someone else and she was part of the, and there were several different people. And she was part of the search, and there were several different people. And she's a big supporter of Sally Busby. She gave a party for her last night.
--:-- Scott Galloway: And what's Sally's role in this? I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this.
--:-- Kara Swisher: She was the editor-in-chief. She was the editor-in-chief.
--:-- Scott Galloway: This is like the world's worst off-off-Broadway soap opera. It plays to an audience of seven people.
--:-- Kara Swisher: No, no, no, no. Anyways, who is Sally Busby? Who is Sally Busby? She was the editor. She was the editor. This is an important newspaper ahead of this big election it is. I would say the second or third most important newspaper in the country. But I would say the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post. That's how I would stand correct. Anyway, so anyway, so we'll see. So in any case, my whole particular moment in this is there was a dinner tonight that Will was throwing at La Colombe d'Or, which I've never been to. I bet you have.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I don't know. The fancy.
--:-- Kara Swisher: It's a beautiful, apparently a beautiful place. And I was very excited.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I think that's a private school outside of L.A.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah, right. If you want your kid to speak French and you're like a total douchebag. La Colombe d'Or. So they canceled it. So he's not here. He's not coming.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Little Lisa goes to Colombo. To Colombo.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Anyway, we'll see what happens. We hired this guy who's pretending she's a rower to get into USC. Oh, never mind. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I have a particular interest in the Post since I started there, and I started in the mailroom. So it matters.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Well, you're also sleeping with someone who works there.
--:-- Kara Swisher: No, that is not why. You need to disclose that.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I did. I say that all the time. She works there. This isn't good for her, for me to talk about it, by the way, in such a negative way. She's safe. She's good at what she does. She is. She is. She is. But I was at The Washington Post first, let's just say. I was there first.
--:-- Kara Swisher: That's kind of great work there. Yeah. Well, okay, now that we've gone down this rabbit hole, what do you think they should do and what happens? There's a lot they could do. You know, I've always – they just – right now, they need to get a CEO. Look, they hired a – he did bring in a temporary editor after Sally decided not to go with him, a guy named Matt Murray from The Wall Street Journal, who he did work with, who I think I have great regard for in the newsroom. So keep him there and make editor, editor, and then hire a digital person, a really smart, capable digital person to figure out how to create new revenue streams just for now until the election and then have a rethink in December. Who wants to go to the Washington Post and make no money? I get that. But I'm just saying there are people who would do it. It's a big challenge.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, I agree. It's an iconic property. Just something to calm it the fuck down after their kind of feckless editor and now this guy who's a hot mess. They went from a feckless guy to a hot mess and now they need... All roads lead to the same... I don't even need to know the situation. I know what they should do. All roads lead to the same place. They need to fire this guy.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah.
--:-- Scott Galloway: And then let us take over. We need to turn the page. We should take over.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah, that would work.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I know. Given my journalistic credibility, yes, I'm in. Hello. I'm here with the penis jokes. I'm head of HR.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Oh, maybe not. That would set an interesting tone.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, that would.
--:-- Kara Swisher: But you know what? We'd be calm in comparison. Anyway, we'll move on. The other thing that's going on, Amazon, now Jeff doesn't run Amazon, but One Medical is under fire for how it deals with calls from elderly patients. According to a report from the Washington Post, speaking of which, which is good for them for doing it, the primary care service routes elderly callers to inexperienced contractors with only two weeks of classroom training. Within one month, the Post found more than a dozen incidents where staff failed to seek immediate attention for callers with urgent symptoms. The main qualification listed for the job is the ability to use a computer and a phone. Amazon acquired One Medical in February of last year. One Medical's main competitors also use call centers to field patient inquiries. One Medical used to be a little more solicitous in lots of ways. They used to have pickup service, all this stuff. And Amazon cut some costs in trying to make it more efficient. It was this wonderful startup that everybody loved. I am a One Medical member. You are too, correct?
--:-- Scott Galloway: Me too, yeah.
--:-- Kara Swisher: But it's problematic. They're making it too efficient, especially among people that need more care. Or they should at least push people to good care, right? Like, I don't know what I'm talking about. Let's get you to a doctor immediately. That kind of thing.
--:-- Scott Galloway: So, look, I'm going to—these stories, the larger story here is that, in my opinion, the media—and it's easy to be the editor of the media globally and appoint yourself a global editor. I think they're focused on the wrong things. I think that the drama at The Washington Post is sort of interesting, but what's more interesting is that journalism is slowly but surely being euthanized by a company that is controlled or influenced by the CCP where every day, and we're at this conference and they don't want to admit that the thing that is putting all of these people slowly out of business is that there are 1.7 billion people on a media platform called TikTok. The media ecosystem has gotten very unhealthy. It's turned into sort of a giant spying network that molests your data, and then it's figured out that rage is the most popular way to engage you. And then around One Medical, okay. One Medical is trying to outsource expensive seniors. So I think this stuff is sort of interesting and gossipy but it really isn't that important.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Gossipy? Come on. People are actually getting sick.
--:-- Scott Galloway: No, I don't think it's one or the other. See, I think you're saying we have to cover this because we're not covering this. Now people have covered TikTok. Forbes, I'm thinking of that reporter. Forbes is doing a great job on here, Emily Baker White. Lots of people are covering the TikTok situation. I have covered all the issues around social media for years and years and years. At the same time, here's Amazon deciding to get in the medical business and cutting corners in ways that aren't right. It's a different story, right?
--:-- Scott Galloway: But that's – I agree with you. They should fix this, and they've brought light to it. But the healthcare industry in general is dramatically in need of organizations like this to come in and take a more cost-driven kind of approach to it. And granted, I'm not an old person with palpitations. I'm a sort of old person that has palpitations. True story. I actually had an arrhythmia when I was younger.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Did you get that checked?
--:-- Scott Galloway: I've ever been hospitalized. It was right after the best college basketball player in the nation, a guy named Hank Gathers, went down the floor, did a monster dunk, and on the way back, collapsed and died. And so anyone with an arrhythmia was stuck in the hospital. Anyways, and I think they primarily stuck me in the hospital because I was overinsured, and they're like, okay, stick him in the hospital because he can pay his bills. But anyways, because the healthcare system is so desperate for this type of disruption and good for journalists for saying, okay, there is a clash between private sector and public sector goods when you have a for-profit company trying to outsource costs around seniors. Anyways, I'm glad they brought it up and I hope they fix it.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Your point is that one medical is a good direction. The thing is, if they're going to go in this direction, they still have to do a good job. That's my feeling. And I think pointing this out, they can't, they just can't, they can't treat it like you're getting a package that didn't get delivered. It's a different business. And that's how they deal with, they're so efficient on the stuff that's easy to make efficient. The problem is people are fucking complex, right? It's not like.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Well, the reality is, is that old people are expensive and unproductive. And I can't wait to get feedback on that comment. But young people don't even... Young people, for the most part, unless they're pregnant, don't really need health care. They don't get sick. And what most medical companies want to figure out is unless we can get you obese and then get the government to pay for your cholesterol, your knee replacement, your hip replacement, and turn you over to the diabetes industrial complex. If you're just a senior that needs more care and needs more hand, you're more expensive, so we want to outsource it. This is where the public and the for-profit and not-for-profit run into each other. And then insurance companies, if you want to, the company, the best business in the world has been insurance. I agree. This is an area of reform.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Well, we'll see where it should be innovated, for sure. Both of us agree with that. Anyway, they'll probably get sued. Anyway, one good thing for Jeff Bezos this week, he's got two negatives, but Blue Origin has won a spot in the Pentagon's rocket launch contract sweepstakes for the first time. The winning bid comes as part of contracts awarded under the National Security Space Launch Program, SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, which are the old guys. We're also awarded contracts and have already been competing under previous phase of the program, and now Blue Origin gets to come in. They'll be eligible to compete for contracts through mid-2029.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I like that they have more competitors, right? This is a good thing.
--:-- Kara Swisher: It's great. Yeah, this is good. Innovation in space is important.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, and it can't just be SpaceX. It cannot just be SpaceX.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah, I agree.
--:-- Scott Galloway: It's the other billionaire that kills seniors. No, I'm kidding. And it's somewhat related to seniors is that 40% of all government spending now goes to services for seniors. It's about to be 50%, which crowds out things including NASA and space exploration and technology and education and all the things that have a bigger ROI.
--:-- Kara Swisher: You don't like old people, do you? Because you're going to be one.
--:-- Scott Galloway: That's why. No, I just find that my generation, I'm going to say my generation, is unlike previous generations, is not paying it forward and continues to evoke old people such that we vote ourselves more money and not invest in the future. And $1.4 trillion goes to Social Security every year. Previous generations have always made a concerted effort to elect people who will think long-term, invest in technology, invest in young people, invest in education. And now my generation is, no, no, no, increase my Social Security and lower my fucking taxes. There is a virus that has infected my generation where we are no longer making forward-looking investments. I don't know if it's because we haven't been invaded. I don't know if it's because social media makes it so much like get yours or, you know.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah, get out. Get your own. I agree with you on this. My generation is not living up to the same American standard of investment. We need to give back. We need to give it. You know what? We could put the elderly on these rockets.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I'm going to get letters.
--:-- Kara Swisher: I don't think they should be. I don't think they should be put on.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Getting letters. Getting letters. I want to be you for a moment. That's the letters Carol will find again.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah, I don't know if you, yeah, I'm not sure you'd enjoy it.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I'm just saying, I'm trying to bring two stories together, and then they can work for the Washington Post.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Anyway, okay, let's get to our first big story. The Stanford Internet Observatory, a prominent disinformation research group, is facing an uncertain future following ongoing political and legal attacks in the far right. We've talked about this and where it was going to lead, and it did. Several key staffers have already departed, including founder Alex Samos. Some contracts have not been renewed, and other employees were told to look for jobs elsewhere, according to Platformer. Stanford has disputed the observatory is going away entirely, saying in a statement the group will continue under new leadership with its critical work on child safety and other online harms. You know, we've heard from Alex and also Rene DiResta, who has a new book out about all the attacks by the right, and they've been sort of tasered into not doing anything. There's all kinds of things going on. The observatory's work included research on election integrity, which seemed to have attracted the most attention, AI and child sexual abuse material. Representative Jim Jordan, who led the charge on investigating these research groups, posted this on social media saying, free speech wins again. Harvard shut down a disinformation research center last year. The main researcher later cited pressure per meta, although that's in dispute. In any case, there's been a real campaign to discredit these researchers. You know, Elon sued one of them and then dropped, lost the lawsuit. He didn't lose it. He never moved forward. But there were two ongoing lawsuits and two congressional inquiries into the observatory that have cost Stanford millions in legal fees, according to the Washington Post. And former researcher, as I said, Renee DiResta, has a piece in The Atlantic about her experience getting attacked by online conspiracy theorists. She worked in a summer fellow program for the CIA when she was a kid. And so now they've decided she's CIA Renee. They have all these crazy conspiracy theories that she's the one that's behind all this. It's nutty. This piece is really something. Anyway, what do you think about this? Do you think information research, which is critical disinformation research, is getting shut down?
--:-- Scott Galloway: I think it's incredibly disappointing. And I will say, you know, we try to call balls and strikes. There's a lot about Jeff Bezos in terms of tax avoidance and some of the employee practices that I haven't been a fan of. But having said that, I genuinely believe that he wants the Washington Post to pursue the truth. And I think there's something very noble and very American about that. And I think a lot of elements of the far right see the media as nothing but something that helps craft their narrative around their issues. And they will use intimidation and have weaponized their own media companies, and this is an example of that. It's not that they're mad at them for censoring, it's that they're not censoring, that they're not crafting the narrative that they want to blanket over the nation. And what's also disappointing, I understand Stanford's decision that like this is just more headache than it's worth, but at the same time, Stanford has so much money. It's such a, Stanford, and I'm critical of higher ed, but Stanford is just such a gift to California and to technology and to research that I just it's weird what the faculty and students get riled up about. And they don't get riled up about being intimidated by a bunch of right wing lawsuits and basically putting this thing out of business. So I think it's disappointing and more example of the way the steps to fascism are. You get control of the media, you get control of the economy, then you get control of the military and boom, it's all over. And this feels to me like an attempt. And there's some people on the left to try and do this as well, but not as much. You know, the left does it in a very non-systematic way. This is a systematic way around trans rights, everything. They have a plan around with abortion, you know, and there's this whole effort to try to get rid of New York Times versus Sullivan, the idea around libel. And Trump has talked about this idea about prosecuting and going after media. Bannon has basically said, we're going to kill them. That's what it feels like.
--:-- Kara Swisher: You know, we're going to get them or get them, get them, get them is their constant refrain. It's part of their plan. And so the question is, is there anything to fight back when they're doing constant lawsuits?
--:-- Scott Galloway: Right. This is the problem. And so I don't know if there's anything that you can do with if you've decided this is a thing you want to kick out. This is a part of democracy. You want to kick out so you can get control. The kickers are always in a better situation. Those trying to stop the kicking.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah, it's disappointing because I don't know Alex as well as you, but he's always struck me as a very thoughtful guy who calls balls and strikes. He also strikes me as fearless. He just says, I've seen him speak at conferences and I like him because you're not, he doesn't sign up to a political narrative. He just says, this is what the data reflects. And he also at the last conference I saw said you know there's a lot of misinformation coming from the left. And I like guys like that who call balls and strikes. But he's exactly the kind of person you want heading a laboratory like this. This is exactly the kind of laboratory that should be sponsored and hosted at an academic institution. And Stanford is exactly the place, the region that should be hosting it. It's just, this feels so right on so many levels, and yet they're being kind of bullied by what feels, at least on the surface, to be right-wing organizations that aren't interested in pursuing the truth, they're interested in crafting a narrative to their own objectives.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Look, this just feels wrong. It just feels bad.
--:-- Kara Swisher: And twisting the numbers, right?
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah. So I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know. It's very dangerous for the 2024 election and future elections not to have academic research. Whether or not you agree with it is no difference. It's that if they can do their studies and they can back it up, you have to accept what it's doing. What they do is they take information, like saying that Renee herself got 22 million pieces censored, when in fact she just recommended 2,000 misinformation things and only like 15% of them got taken down. And so they spin it into this idea of this person behind the scenes manipulating when, in fact, speaking of Chrissy Teigen, it was Trump who asked to take down her "pussy-ass bitch" tweet, not someone else, right? They do it, too. They do it, too, in terms of trying to take stuff down. And so what they do is they weaponize the First Amendment in a way that's just really heinous because they don't want—because of their own political narratives. Anyway, it's a real shame. And Stanford should fucking pay for this thing, I think. They're not very brave as people.
--:-- [Break for advertisements]
--:-- Kara Swisher: All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, OpenAI announces its latest board member and hands it some big changes. And we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, California State Senator Scott Wiener, about his AI regulation bill that's causing a ruckus in Silicon Valley.
--:-- [Advertisements play]
--:-- Kara Swisher: Scott, we're back. OpenAI appears to be addressing recent security concerns with a new addition to its board of directors. The company announced last week that retired General Paul Nakasone will be joining the board. He'll also sit on a newly formed safety and security committee. Nakasone was director of the NSA, which is causing a lot of the crazy right to go crazy about this and say it's a deep state—including Elon, I think—and led the U.S. military cyber command before stepping down earlier this year. He's very well regarded. But again, this is a big appointment. OpenAI said in a statement that this appointment underscores the growing significance of cybersecurity. Edward Snowden wasn't happy. He posted on social media saying, "Do not ever trust OpenAI or its products. There's only one reason for appointing an NSA director to your board." So, as usual, without proof, Edward. But, you know, okay, sure, spy, spy. So it's one of those open-ended questions that never really has an answer or any proof attached to it, but that's okay. They can do that. So it's a thing. What do you think about that?
--:-- Scott Galloway: I absolutely love it. Anyone who's an army general and works their way up—General Nakasone is a very impressive person. And also, this person has proven themselves a patriot. For all these weirdos on the far right who think there's a deep state, and for all these weirdos on the far left who are under the assumption that peace is a natural right, that it's not something that requires constant vigilance and sacrifice—we need... The NSA does an amazing job keeping Americans safe. And it's important that we have laws that keep them in check. But at the same time, I worry that America has become so naive to this notion that peace is a right. It is not. It is earned, and it is not the natural order. As soon as people can come for our Netflix and espresso, folks, they will. And they won't do it by interesting, nice means. They'll be violent about it, just as we need to be violent and smart about protecting our borders. So to have someone like this on the board of OpenAI to occasionally raise their hand and say, "You know what, that is a threat to America and I'm not down with this," I love having this guy on the board of OpenAI. I think it's a wonderful thing.
--:-- Kara Swisher: It's interesting because it sort of sets up these "deep state, leave us alone, don't tread on me" gang. And I mean that in a negative "don't tread on me" way, the sort of demented "don't tread on me." In Edward Snowden's case, I recognize it. He did uncover some really heinous behavior by our security officials. That said, there's plenty of argument to be made that how he handled it was wrong. But look, we can debate Edward Snowden all you want. I interviewed him once. It's a very complex topic. But the fact that assuming every NSA chief has malintent is the way to bring down all institutions. Now, they've been abusive enough that there needs to be strong laws and oversight in place. Absolutely. If a spy is going to spy, that is just the way it goes, right? There's no other way to put it, including the Chinese government. They're going to spy whether you have proof or not. That's what they do. In this case, as many people on the board now, I would also put on someone who is more of an opposite to him. That could be interesting. So you have all the different outlooks brought there. The problem they had was they had people that were so at cross purposes, there was no agreement. And I think if they bring in someone who's more distrustful of government, but then challenges government overreach, I think that's fantastic too, right? That's what you kind of want on a board. But this guy has a very, very strong reputation. The immediate attacks on him were fascinating to watch in a lot of ways.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Speaking of OpenAI, they're further angering the peer crowd. CEO Sam Altman has told some shareholders the company is considering changing its governance to a for-profit business that a nonprofit board doesn't control, according to The Information. I'm shocked. I'm shocked. What? I'm shocked. They are a profit company. One option is forming a for-profit benefit corporation similar to what Anthropic and xAI have in place. You could explain what a for-profit is. I don't understand it. Altman said the restructuring conversations are fluid and that he and his fellow directors could end up taking a different approach. Oh, come on, Sam. Come on. You can't stand that nonprofit situation. So OpenAI reportedly is on pace, by the way, for $3.4 billion of annual revenue. Well done. If OpenAI did become a for-profit company, what's your prediction for an IPO? They just hired a very well-regarded person, Sarah Fryer, who was a former CEO of Nextdoor, as its chief financial officer. She used to work for Square. She's terrific. She dealt with IPOs at Nextdoor as well as Square, as I've said. What is that called now? I forget the new name for Square. I call it Square still. But what do you think about this? Talk about this a little bit.
--:-- Scott Galloway: So all of the stuff about the drama at the board and it going back and forth and Sam being fired and then rehired—it's a bit of noise because now OpenAI, in the last six months, they've doubled their revenue base. They're kind of running away with it. And if you look at their run rate right now relative to their valuation, they're actually the most reasonably valued company in AI, despite the fact that they're the leader. They are clearly putting on their best dress for an IPO because the individual that you reference is an incredibly street hire. It's like when Google brought in Ruth Porat—she wasn't there to take them public, but this is a very street hire. So they're clearly getting ready for an IPO. And all of the kind of noise around OpenAI—I saw these numbers on how they're doing. They are running away with it. OpenAI right now has their revenue rate—they're like 20% of all AI revenues.
--:-- Kara Swisher: You know what they have, Scott?
--:-- Scott Galloway: What's that?
--:-- Kara Swisher: They've decided to be Google and not Netscape. That's what it is. Decided to be Google and not Netscape.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Oh, I see what you're saying. Netscape had it and then lost it. Google almost lost it and then had it, right? They really pushed aggressively.
--:-- Kara Swisher: It's also expanding into healthcare with a cancer co-pilot. It's working with Color Health to develop an AI assistant using OpenAI. They're doing deals all over the frigging map. They're like running circles around the competitors. But go ahead.
--:-- Scott Galloway: No, you're exactly right. We have a tendency to focus on the soap opera end of this. But despite all of this distraction, they are growing their revenues faster. Mistral, this company in France, which I think will do well because I think a lot of European companies and regulators would like an AI company in Europe to emerge. But if you look at just sheer revenue growth and size of revenues, it's really right now NVIDIA and OpenAI. It's OpenAI and the seven doors of AI. And then in infrastructure, it's NVIDIA and—okay, who are the rest? I mean, you could argue that Dell and Oracle have done a good job of positioning themselves in the sunlight here. But when I saw these numbers from OpenAI, I'm like, oh my gosh, kudos to them for being able to walk and chew gum at the same time because there's been a lot of distraction there.
--:-- Kara Swisher: The next thing that we're going to be talking a lot about that people aren't spending a lot of time talking about is just the sheer amount of energy consumption that's going to come from AI. Guess who has a hydrogen fusion, whatever? Sam Altman. Is that right? He's into little small nuclear devices, just so you know. He's got an answer for everything. And it takes 10 to 17 times the amount of energy to do a query on ChatGPT versus a general search query.
--:-- Scott Galloway: No, I know. That's going to be the next.
--:-- Kara Swisher: But that's what he's working on. That's another Sam Altman investment—energy. And to sell it to these companies to do that, he's way ahead. He's making the pickaxes in the gold rush is what's happening. I don't know, anyway. There you go. It's not stupid. Not stupid.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Anyway, we've got a lot more to discuss on the AI front, so let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Scott Wiener is a California state senator. He introduced an AI regulation bill earlier this year that aims to establish common sense safety standards for AI companies in California. The bill passed through the state senate last month and is now making its way through the state assembly, but it's facing a lot of pushback from AI companies, venture capitalists, and tech trade associations. Welcome, Scott.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Thanks for having me. Good to see you.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Good to see you.
--:-- Kara Swisher: So it just came out a little while ago. Several amendments are getting proposed or added to this AI bill. Not a surprising thing. That's what happens. Talk a little bit about the bill and explain the potential impact of these changes. Let me just say the original bill includes requiring companies to prevent models from causing critical harm—a little unspecific—ensuring systems can be shut down, which is the one that really seems to drive them crazy, and reporting on safety tests, which seems reasonable enough. So talk a little bit about that bill and the changes.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Great. Yeah. So the bill, which actually got some bipartisan support in the Senate, got a really strong vote. The basic gist of it is that if you're going to train and release a huge model—we define it as larger than 10 to the 26th flop, costing more than $100 million to train—just do some basic safety evaluation and identify if there are potential catastrophic harms. And then if you identify catastrophic risks, take basic steps to try to reduce those risks, not eliminate them. It's life. You can't reduce risk to zero, but at least reasonable steps to mitigate the risks. The large labs all say that they're doing this or wanting to do this. They keep committing to doing it and sold it in the White House before Congress. And so we are putting it into a law. It does not require government permission or licensing before you train or release a model. It's not government micromanagement in any way. It's simply saying, let's do a safety evaluation.
--:-- Scott Wiener: The amendments that are being proposed by the Assembly Privacy Committee, which will hear the bill this week, are pretty reasonable. They create more flexibility in terms of the size threshold. We've gotten a lot of feedback from industry and from experts that having a permanent 10 to the 26 flop threshold is not flexible enough. So we provide some more flexibility over time. We require third-party safety audits starting in 2028. And the whistleblower protections will be strengthened. We've always had whistleblower protections in the bill from the very beginning, but they're going to be refined and strengthened.
--:-- Scott Galloway: And then the ensuring systems can be shut down. Pretty much every techie is like, "That's ridiculous. It's not even possible."
--:-- Scott Wiener: Yeah, so in the bill, it's always been this way, but we've made it more clear recently that the requirement for a shutdown provision or a shutdown aspect to the model is only if the model is in your possession. Once it leaves your possession, you're no longer responsible for ensuring it can be shut down, because that's the feedback that we were getting—that once I release it, someone else has it, I can't ensure that. So that was always our intent. And we made that clear. We also put an amendment in recently that if someone does significant fine tuning, then that becomes their model and not the original developer's model.
--:-- Kara Swisher: But the pushback is massive from tech people. They're calling you an idiot, essentially. Scott, you know that.
--:-- Scott Wiener: I have been called far worse than that. First of all, we have a big coalition behind this bill, including a lot of AI technologists. We have folks who have started companies. And so it's not just me. Like I woke up one morning and dreamt this. So we think it's quite feasible. And in fact, they're all saying that they're doing it or wanting to do it. And that's one of the odd things about this. All we're saying is do what you say you want to do or what you say you are doing and just certify that you've done it. And it's doable. And it's not government overreach.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I think one of the pushbacks is similar to GDPR—that only the big companies will be able to serve you in what you're doing, and then the smaller ones... I know you have that size limit, the size has to get to a certain size, but that's one of the worries obviously.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Yeah. And this is much, much narrower than what the EU has done. Dramatically narrower. It's a safety evaluation. And it only applies to these huge models that effectively exempts startups. So there's been a narrative that this is going to be some sort of regulatory capture. I think that's just completely untrue.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Okay, Scott, the other Scott. Nice to meet you, Scott.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Hi, other Scott.
--:-- Scott Galloway: I realize that I'm going to be preaching to the choir here, but you want to put a car—you want to sell a car to the general public, you have to put it through crash test safety standards. What on earth are the arguments here other than saying, "Well, Sam Altman knows better than a regulator because he speaks in hushed tones"? What are the arguments for not slowing down or at least having some kind of crash test safety dummies here to make sure we're not putting a Ford Pinto times a billion or a Corvair unsafe at any speed? What is the pushback that these people can regulate themselves? What are the best arguments? Play the other side. Be Robert McNamara and empathize with the enemy. What are the best arguments that the other side is putting out?
--:-- Scott Wiener: Sure. And I do empathize. These are a lot of people who I know really, really well. I represent San Francisco. I'm part of the area right to the south of the city. And so I am surrounded by the AI world every day. And that's why I will just be clear that we have been intensively meeting with opposition, with folks who are open to supporting skepticism. We've made a series of amendments in response to constructive feedback. But the lines of argument are: one is just trust us. We'll do it on our own. You don't need to tell us to do it. And as I've made clear, even if you trust all the CEOs and the C-suite folks today, even if you completely trust everyone, you don't know who's going to be running these companies tomorrow or in a year and what pressures they're going to be facing. The other is an argument that I just don't think is accurate, respectfully. They will say, "Well, this is like regulating or requiring a safety evaluation for the printing press. It's not about the printing press. It's about what people use it for." Because they say regulate the application, not the model. Of course, both are very important. And Kara, I'm not trying to brown-nose or anything, but in your book, you talked about that—that when you build a ship, there is going to be a risk of catastrophic harm, a crash, et cetera. And yes, that can be because of a malicious actor or negligent operation. It could also be because of an inherent flaw or problem in the design. Or it could be that the design makes it too easy for someone to maliciously or negligently crash it. And so we would never say, as you noted, Scott, just focus on the pilot. Regulate the pilot of the plane. Don't regulate the plane itself. You regulate both and you make sure that both are safe and you minimize and you reduce risk. You're not going to eliminate risk. You reduce it.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Well, they just don't like regulation at all. They don't like any regulation. They're not used to it because we never have regulated them. So in a substantive way, they would argue they have. They are not allowed to murder people yet. Although I would argue some of them do in some different ways. But what's the timeline looking for a passage? And are you concerned that if this bill becomes law, some AI companies will leave California? That's always their threat. They're always on their way out the door. Silicon Valley is in a rupture. I don't think Silicon Valley is one thing, but their tendency is toward non-regulation in just a second. And even someone who I find relatively reasonable, Meta's chief AI scientist Yann LeCun, who is reasonable, has posted that regulating basic technology will put an end to innovation, which is rather dramatic from him. So what are you worried about? Because, look, AI is now reinvigorating San Francisco, who you represent. It really is. You can see the difference and the excitement and the companies are locating there. OpenAI is creating concentric circles of companies, etc. All the AI people are staying in San Francisco. So how do you look at this concern that they're going to leave? They're going to Texas or Florida or wherever?
--:-- Scott Wiener: Yeah. And to be clear, first of all, I'm a fan of AI. I think it has so much potential for good. And I love that San Francisco is the beating heart of AI innovation. And I've been a supporter of fostering and having a strong tech presence in San Francisco. There have been some really melodramatic statements, including from Yann, and I have a lot of respect for him. But I think some of his statements and others made by some other folks have been really extreme and over the top and sometimes have not even accurately described what the bill does. I do not think that this is going to somehow push people out. There's always this statement that we're going to push people out. Even when Elon Musk said he was moving Tesla out, he didn't really move it out. He was expanding Tesla in California.
--:-- Kara Swisher: He's a different character. He is a drama queen.
--:-- Scott Wiener: But I don't see that happening. In addition to the fact that what triggers this bill is not being headquartered in California. It's doing business here. And so the idea that they're not going to even do business in California is sort of laughable. So I don't think that that is a real risk, to be honest.
--:-- Scott Galloway: So I would imagine one of the arguments put forward is that China and Russia aren't going to have this type of regulation. And as a result, they're going to be able to go faster and their AI weaponized warriors will come for our children. Is that an argument? And how would you respond to that?
--:-- Scott Wiener: I mean, there is this argument that we have to have bigger and more powerful and more dangerous and more whatever AI models in order to compete with their deadly models. To me, that's probably not the direction we should be going. And just to be clear, this bill does not ban anything. They can build these powerful models. They can deploy these powerful models. It does not limit them in any way. It just says do a basic safety test, the kind of test that you say that you are already doing. And if it identifies a real risk that it might shut down the grid for six months, maybe take some step to at least reduce that risk. I don't think that that is unfair. And I don't think the competition with China is an excuse to say anything goes.
--:-- Kara Swisher: They do use that. Yeah, they do. As Scott's correct, they use that "she or me" argument for years and years. I mean, the idea of—I always say this. I'm like, you have the ship, the shipwrecks. What's wrong with the lighthouse? They don't want a lighthouse. They really don't. I feel like I'd love to know what legislation they would want to make. But actually, you know, it goes to a bigger problem, Scott. Why are you doing this, right? Why is the state of California—not you, what the hell are you doing with your life, Scott, but other Scott? That's a bigger question. Yeah, but why is the federal government moving into this? Like, that's really the issue. I know Biden put out the executive order, which has some of these elements in it, by the way. But any kind of restriction seems like it should come from the federal government. So we have consistency across all 50 states and a decision making that isn't done by California legislators as much as you might be the epicenter of it.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Oh, I agree with you a thousand percent. It would be better for the federal government to do this. And let's wait and see if the federal government actually ever does it, especially since Steve Scalise, House Republican majority leader, said last week that nothing of significance was going to happen. Let's remember that Congress has never passed a data privacy law.
--:-- Kara Swisher: I remember.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Congress has done nothing on social media.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Well, they're trying to do labeling today. But anyway, go ahead.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Yeah. Well, Congress has never enacted a net neutrality law. I authored California's net neutrality law in 2018, thinking maybe I would be preempted at some point in the next few years. Never happened. And so other than banning TikTok, the last major federal tech law that was passed was in the 90s. And so I don't have a lot of confidence. I hope I'm wrong. And if they pass some comprehensive, fantastic federal regulation and maybe preempt our law, that could be a really good result. But they're not doing that right now.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Supposedly, you're going to run for the Pelosi seat when she leaves it. I understand. Is that correct?
--:-- Scott Wiener: Well, we have a fantastic member of Congress.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Yeah, whenever she decides, makes her own decision, then I'll definitely—I love representing San Francisco.
--:-- Kara Swisher: I want to bring you—I'm not putting you on the spot, but I just did. So you live there and you represent the city. You were my representative in the Castro for people that in the city government. You represent the city as state senator. There's been this negative narrative about San Francisco for a while, and I don't think you've pretended it wasn't—the troubles were not happening. It's been called a failed city, a dystopian hellscape. I have to say, it's quite vibrant. AI is part of it, AI companies. And it seems like it's on a comeback loop. There's a very exciting mayor's race. It's very competitive and very different visions of San Francisco. Many of them would be considered conservative. Well, it wouldn't be that conservative. But what is your message for now for San Francisco's critics? I think that sort of hellscape narrative is sort of moving to a new place because everything's getting better and things are getting fixed slowly. Very difficult to be a city in a post-COVID. But what is your message for San Francisco's critics, who are all back, by the way?
--:-- Scott Wiener: Yeah. And, you know, there's a national pastime of predicting San Francisco's demise and writing our obituary. People have been doing it for, I don't know, probably 100 years. And this is a city that burned down in an earthquake. Our mayor was assassinated along with Harvey Milk. We once were probably the hardest hit from HIV. And everyone over and over again said San Francisco was over. And then we came back. And so, yeah, we've been going through some tough times, particularly with our downtown, because of the lack of full return to work. Our neighborhoods are thriving. The neighborhoods are so vibrant. We have amazing, massive outdoor events. Everyone wants to be outside with their friends, with their community. We are seeing with not just with AI, but with biotech, with healthcare, with a number of different industries, a real surge. And even in the shopping center that was the store closure heard around the world where Nordstrom closed, there are people who are leasing spaces in that shopping center. We obviously got hard hit with homelessness and fentanyl, which is affecting all big cities, especially on the West Coast. And Mayor Breed has been taking some pretty aggressive strategies and the street conditions are dramatically better than they were a year ago. There's still more work to do, but it's getting better. And I'm optimistic about the city's future.
--:-- Scott Galloway: If you were to be elected to federal office one day, do you think that individuals who leverage the infrastructure, the culture, the amazing universities, the public infrastructure, the public investments that California taxpayers and specifically citizens of San Francisco pay such that they can create these unbelievable companies—people aggregate a ton of wealth, and then have a habit of deciding to spend more time with their father or they just can't handle San Francisco any longer, just about the time they're going to recognize an enormous capital gain and they move to Texas or Florida—would you be open to sponsoring legislation that's similar to options on equity, recognizes where those individuals actually accreted that wealth and applying those taxes such that you could reinvest in the great infrastructure that was responsible for that wealth? That was a word salad, but I think you know where I'm going with this. And he's not talking about anyone specifically, but go ahead.
--:-- Kara Swisher: There's a lot of them. I'm teasing you, Scott. You're absolutely talking about people.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, there are.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Yeah, I think I would certainly be open to that. I think there are a lot of people who have made fortunes in California because of our state, including with public investments in some situations. And I'm glad that they made a fortune. That's great. But I also think fair taxation is important. And I'm not a fan of the whole "make my money there and then leave."
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yeah, they like to do that, though. Anyway, Scott, you're a great public servant. I really enjoy talking to you. You're quite a sensible fellow. People always have this idea of San Francisco legislators as very different from reality. How old are you, Scott?
--:-- Kara Swisher: So another 50 years, you can run for Pelosi's seat. Jesus Christ. Churn, folks. We need churn. Bring in this incredibly young, reckless 54-year-old, for God's sakes.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Sorry. That was an endorsement in case you didn't recognize it.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Thank you.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Thank you.
--:-- Scott Wiener: I do have to say, I spend quite a bit of time around Nancy Pelosi, and I pray to God that I am half as sharp as she is. She really is. I got to tell you. I mean, she is.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Ladies are not like the old guys.
--:-- Kara Swisher: An impressive woman. An impressive woman. She still is.
--:-- Scott Galloway: She's an extraordinary person. She really is, Scott.
--:-- Kara Swisher: She's going to now kill you. Let's crown her legacy. She's now going to kill you. Just watch out. She's going to take you down. That's not someone who is old in any way. Anyway, but nonetheless, you're right. Churn, as Scott says. Scott, thank you so much.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Other Scott.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Thanks, Scott. We appreciate it.
--:-- Scott Wiener: Thank you so much for having me.
--:-- [End of interview segment]
--:-- Kara Swisher: All right, Scott, do you like the other Scott? He's impressive, isn't he?
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yeah, I hope. And this goes back to what you were saying about the NSA. I know a lot of people in our security apparatus. This is who these people are. Incredibly well credentialed. Incredibly hardworking people. People who decide to give up a lot more money to go work in service of their nation. And the fact that people on the far left are suspicious of them and dismissive of them and people on the far right think there's some sort of like, I don't know, weird. These are the people protecting your rights to say these batshit crazy things and have a decent quality of life. And they really do deserve our respect. And I can't stand the extremists on the left and on the right that all unify to shitpost people on our security apparatus. Not just Paul, but just and Scott, too.
--:-- Kara Swisher: I mean, I think one of the reasons I want to bring him on is like he's considered conservative in San Francisco, though he's not. Right. He's just reasonable. And I think one of the things that's important is like, let's take a fucking second and actually meet these people and show what kind of work they're doing instead of making everyone a cartoon character of a city or a country, including on the right, by the way, saying I just interviewed Brad Raffensperger, the one who pushed back on Trump. Very conservative, but incredible public servant. Incredible public servant. And I wouldn't vote for him, but incredible public servant.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Also, I hope the general makes a shit ton of money. I'd like to see him. That's exactly the kind of person that makes General Nakasone. It's the kind of person I'd like to see make a lot of money.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Absolutely. Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails. Would you like to go first or I can?
--:-- Scott Galloway: You go first, Kara.
--:-- Kara Swisher: So I was going to talk about the Mississippi nonprofit newsroom facing the free press challenge, which you must read about this. This is the Mississippi press. They're doing amazing work and they are getting pilloried by Republicans who just don't like it. They never question the work. They just want to stop them in their tracks by gumming up the works with all kinds of legal fees. I was going to talk about that. But actually, I want to talk about a story that's in the Wall Street Journal. I think, Scott, this is something that's important to you, too. But the influencer is a young teenage girl. The audience is 92% adult men. This story is not a surprise, and it's not something that I was, oh, no. But it was an incredible explanation of how difficult it is, one, for these tech companies to push back against all these men and the people who are doing this stuff online, young people, how it's very hard to protect them. And at the same time, in order to be successful, you have to have a lot of engagement. And the people that have engagements around young girls are more men. Let me read the first part. And you must read the story. The mom started the Instagram account three years ago as a pandemic-era diversion for her and her daughter, a pre-teen dancer, to share photos with family, friends, and other young dancers and moms. The two bonded, she said, as they posted photos of the girl dancing, modeling, and living life in a small Midwestern town. The mom, a former marketing manager, oversaw the account and watched as the number of followers grew. Soon, photographers offered to take professional shots for the girl. Brands began sending free apparel for her to model. We didn't even have a page for a month, and brands were like, can we send her dancewear? The mom said she'd be popular really fast. The mom also began to notice a disturbing trend in the data that showed up on the account dashboard: most of the girl's followers were adult men. And then it goes, it gets worse from there in terms of their comments and everything else. And she kept blocking them and kept blocking them and all kinds of stuff was happening. And it's a fucking tale as old as time, but boy, is it amplified online. And it's, I don't know what to say. It's just not a surprise and yet it's repulsive. You can't use these tools without immediately becoming a sewer in so many ways. So there's a big story today about putting warnings on social media sites, by the way. I've got to read about it, but we'll talk about that maybe on stage this week, tomorrow. So anyway, that was a really disturbing story. On the positive side, Bridgerton this season is so good.
--:-- Scott Galloway: You love it?
--:-- Kara Swisher: So good. I binge watched it on the TV. Now, look, all the boobs and sex are adult. So, you know what I mean? It's for adults. It's sexy. It's, like, fun. They have a whole thing about a girl that's a wallflower who then becomes the star of this season. She's amazing, by the way. And she does talk about her terrific boobs, which are, she is correct about that. But anyway, just a really fun, wonderful show. I love that show. And I love it every season. And they focus on a different person. And the woman, I don't know her name, who plays the queen, cracks the shit out of me. She's so funny. And so Shonda Rhimes, you are the OG best person ever. I'm sorry. It's the Shonda Rhimes show on Netflix. And man, is it good. All right. That's it.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Just with respect to that article on the influencer in the Wall Street Journal, like this conference we're at, it used to be an advertising conference, but it's the same thing. It's tech. And that is the fact that men and a lot of women are very drawn towards sex and anything connoting sex, that's a tale as old as time. It's a big part of our economy because propagation is something that's a key to survival of the species. But what we also, generally speaking, have decided as a society is that we're going to limit the exposure, engagement, and threat of these things that can lead dark places to people under the age of 18. And then came Instagram. Instagram begins from a place of perversion, and that is all of the incentives for young people to get on Instagram, especially for young women, are to sexualize themselves such that a group of their peers and strange men — in this instance 92% of the engagement — are to be evaluated by strange men from around the world evaluating the sexual attractiveness of a minor. We used to decide that's not cool. That is not right. That leads to bad places. And this entire article is nothing but, again, let's move to solutions. We need to age-gate social media.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Yes, I would agree with you. I was sickened by this story.
--:-- Scott Galloway: But every incentive is like a path towards put on a bathing suit. Show up without a bra in a loose shirt and jump around, and all of a sudden your video is going to get 10 times the number of videos. You need to age-gate this shit. Don't put kids in a position where they are seduced into sexualizing themselves as minors. And don't create incentives for the parents. Don't create incentives for men to feel like they're not doing anything wrong when they start engaging in content with minors. This is on social media. I couldn't get into R-rated films when I was 16 and 17. There was a reason for that.
--:-- Kara Swisher: And one of the things, can I just make out, there's another story today in the Post that I thought was good. TikTok lifted this family out of public housing, see their life before and after. So in a lot of ways, this is kind of great business, great entrepreneurship, great this, great that, great opportunities for people, especially in the fun stuff, the dancing, the, you know, makeup. Like, I kind of like it, like, in that regard. I don't think it's as stupid as other people do, but it immediately degenerates. And honestly, there's nothing, these, I feel terrible for these tech companies, too, because there's no way to, there's just not having it is the, like, someone's like, how do you stop? And I'm like, not having it is the only choice because I don't even know what the solution is.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Age gating is the only solution, not allowing them on these platforms. But just around the revenue argument, okay, Tracy Lords made a shit ton of money for a 16-year-old by being in porn, and that was wrong. And we had age limits, and it almost brought down the porn industry as it should have because people recognized there was no real concerted effort to check her true age. All paths lead to the same place, and I think we'll eventually get there. I was talking to someone and I said, how old are your kids? And they said, six and nine. I'm like, by the time your kids are ready for social media, we will have, as a society, finally gotten our head out of our ass and realized that anyone under the age of 16 should not be on social media. And any platform that is letting 16 and 17 year old people be sexualized should not be protected by 230. This leads nowhere good. And yeah, some people won't make as much money. Okay, fine. What would you have your 16-year-old girl do for money? This shouldn't be it. And it has to be universal. It has to be collective action because if you try and take everyone and all the people who say, well, just take their phone away, do not have children. Because if all your kids' friends are on social, they have to be social. Otherwise, they're more depressed because they're ostracized. All roads lead to the same place. We need to get your friend Scott elected. Age gating, for God's sakes. I've come around, especially with my daughter. I'm like, I felt sick to my stomach reading this. Anyway, what are your wins and fails?
--:-- Kara Swisher: Well, I kind of have what I'll call two wins, but Team England beat Serbia 1-0. Not a huge win, but I think we're just not showing our cards to the competition. I'm, of course, talking about the European Championship here. But Team England, my favorite players, Bukayo Saka from Arsenal, Cole Palmer, who's just this kid wonder who plays for Chelsea. Jude Bellingham won the goal last night, but it's going to be just an amazing tournament. Super excited about it. I would also say, and I'm not going to go into specifics here, but to fans from England who've made the trip to Germany, Premier League football is probably one of England's strongest exports. It's going to build tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. When you're just not a good guest in their country, you're really hurting England. And this is, of all of the industries that are emerging in the UK, something that the UK does really well is the Prem, Premier League. And just as the NBA and the NFL have been huge economic drivers in the United States, it could be a huge economic driver. Anyways, I'm excited about the European Championship and Team England. And my fail, I'm at that age, Kara, and just a quick shout out. All my friends' parents are passing away, and I have a nice story. My best friend is a guy named Lee Lotus, who I met in college. He was the best man at my wedding. His husband is a godparent to my oldest, Alec. His father, Lee Sr., is doing very poorly and will likely pass soon. And there was a couple moments I remember with his father. His father came and visited Lee and me. We were living together in San Francisco, and Lee had a kidney stone. So me and Lee, he said, will you do some with my dad? So, of course, me and Lee's father went to see the USS Pomponito, which is that submarine in the Fisherman's Wharf. It's great. But this guy was a man's man. He had a furniture store. He was one of the people that gave me the confidence to start a business. And I remember going visiting him at the furniture store, and he would be so focused on detail. And I think that stuck with him. It's the little things that matter.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Stuck with you.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Stuck with you, not him. Stuck with you.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Stuck with me.
--:-- Scott Galloway: But the one thing I remember the most was this guy looked like Burt Reynolds. Like, when you were a young man, you looked at this guy. He was just so handsome. Married the same woman, Carolyn Lotus, for 60-plus years. But this guy was so good-looking. And I remember this exact moment. He walked into Lee's apartment. He shook my hand and he turned to Lee. And you know what they did? They kissed. And I thought, oh, my God, I've never. They kissed on the lips like Italian people do sometimes. And it seemed so natural and so wholesome. And I remember thinking, and I came from a background where men just did not kiss each other. And I remember thinking that if a guy who looks like Burt Reynolds can kiss his son, I can kiss mine. And I kissed my sons because of Lee.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Oh, Scott, you kill me. You're killing me. This is what people love about you, Scott, when you go here, I'll tell you.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Anyway, this guy, literally a man's man, kissed his son. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to kiss you on the lips tomorrow. That's what I'm doing.
--:-- Kara Swisher: With that porcelain skin?
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yes, with my perfect skin. I'm going to kiss you on the lips live on the French Riviera.
--:-- Kara Swisher: That's a beautiful story. Nice.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Yes, that's a beautiful story. I'm so sorry.
--:-- Kara Swisher: That sounds like a life well lived. It really is a wonderful guy. Anyway, I don't know what to say. That's a great story. Let's just end on that. So we want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business tech. You almost made me cry, Scott, but not quite. Not quite. Or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. Okay, Scott, that's the show. We're launching a special series tomorrow on the future of travel, a three-part series where we look at the business and tech trends affecting travel from planes to trains and automobiles. Tomorrow, we kick it off with a look at the future of high-speed rail. That was a cool show. And why other countries have better trains than we do. They all do. And we started the whole train thing. No, we didn't. But nonetheless, we should have better trains. Then on Friday, we're bringing you our episode taped live at Cannes. We're very excited. Scott, read us out.
--:-- Scott Galloway: Today's show was produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Aaliyah Jackson engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Milsa Vario. Nishat Krua is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Dads, kiss your sons. Scott, happy Father's Day.
--:-- Kara Swisher: Likewise to you, Kara and Amanda.
