Welcome. So people read the Facebook
Stories? Yes.
How can we not read the Facebook stories?
They're really good. And I'm somebody like, I mean
loves to ignore Facebook. Stories.
This is a clearly Pulitzer Contender for sure.
Well, what's funny about it is like the times are we?
I guess this is. This is how but here's the
reason I actually you know I think the journal is paint be
doing a better job on this is that the New York Times was
always struck stuck in this situation talking about the
election and and Russia with like how can we prove the
impact? I mean, you know there's
obviously something to be said about whether disinformation
cause certain people to not vote.
Whatever. But, you know, I remember when
it came to privacy and like a lack of interest and user
privacy. There was a piece of the times
did, in which they were literally taking reporters
outside, like, in New York and, like accosting.
Regular people showing them how, you know, their data was no
longer safe for, or kept private on Facebook and they're like,
doesn't this make you mad? Doesn't this make you mad?
And it was the strangest story but it was also to be very clear
that we're like. Okay look we've got to prove,
you know, real world impact of this to be a stronger Pulitzer
piece and so they went and did that.
And it was this completely forgettable story that I think
kind of prove that it's very tough which we were kind of
talking about last week with a lot of tech stories to like,
explain to lay people why this matters and if you can make the
case that that's the reason Trump won.
Okay? That's that's something.
But what the journal was very effective at with the story?
Do you want to give to you want to set up the stories real
quick? Just basically what the journal
has done is its amass. An enormous Trove of documents
and conducted scores of interviews with people who are
Company to show essentially that the company knows that it is
doing harm in the world. That is really cognizant of
this. That it's have full
conversations internally with Executives and up to and
including the chief executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg and
that despite all of this changes were not implemented swiftly and
their public facing message has been that these harms that they
speak of, so clearly in their own internal Presentations and
internal corporate conversations their public facing message.
Has been that these harms are not happening and so far, the
journal has laid out three and signal that we're going to see
more including on things like child sex trafficking.
But the three that they've currently laid out, include the
idea that Instagram, the popular photo showing up where we see a
lot of celebrities and a lot of people looking really great.
That Instagram is, has contributed to the deleterious.
His can't has contributed to deleterious Mental Health.
Flex for young women and that it's known.
It's something the company has known something, the company has
chosen not to address in order to preserve its business model.
It's also shown that the company was well aware of the fact that
changes that it made to its algorithm in the way that people
share news did not necessarily just increase bonds between
users, which was the stated goal made them angry, but it made
them anger made them, it created Division and that it encouraged
people to share and to engage out of a place of anger, hate
lack of trust, and all these things that we are legitimately
worried about in terms of its impact on democracy.
And then third was the original story that Jeff published which
I'm actually pulling up right now.
It was that the elite are exempt?
Yes, that right there is none from the rules x check process
and that not only are Elites exempt but that when Facebook
created its own board to adjudicate what to do about
high-profile users, It was not honest, with its own board,
about the fact that it had a program that whitelisted, the
behavior of high-profile users often times but not always bad
behavior, right? Yeah.
So, of the three pieces that have been published so far.
The one that I thought, really made the strongest case that
there is real impact to all of these problems is the one about
young women and Instagram because, and now I, you know,
you we can argue You whether or not I'm interested in you, which
one's the worst is an interesting framing.
Oh, for sure. The one today about about - you
know, anger on Facebook granted, it's also the one I've not read
the closest but I just feel like again story.
Well, to me, it's the oldest Story.
I mean, like we're now mold many years into this discussion over
Facebook and social media being - on our national discourse and
it only highlighting the most, you know, aggrieved sentiments.
And It being useful to Facebook's business model that
you know the most outspoken people are the ones who are the
angriest. So I just, I'd be shocked if
there's anything that feels strongly new to me.
Because, aside from the fact that there was internal teams at
Facebook showing that we had data to back it up.
It's just, we don't know to meet to me, we've been there and I
don't, obviously have a problem with people writing more stories
about it but I just I'm going to be less influenced by it than
something like. Well I thought the anger 12 me
my Ranking would be sort of how they treat the elites
differently. Then the anger one.
Then the teen girls one, I don't know.
To me the teen girls story and you know, I have never been a
teen girl. No, but it seems, it seems more
about sort of, You Know, The Human Condition.
I don't know. It's like, well magazine, it's
used to show pictures, you know, like different and also it's,
you know, different teen. Girls have different reactions
to Instagram. So part of the game of that.
Or he is basically to say, you know, oh this subsection, you
know, was made much worse but yeah you take any poles, some
people felt better because of it.
Some people felt worse and sort of the game of the story is to
just focus on the people who felt worse because of Instagram.
I don't think that's correct. I think that what the story
shows us, not just that, I don't think it's the game to show that
only people who felt worse, are important.
I think, what's important is the hypocrisy where the story A
shows that Facebook is cognizant of a problem.
Instagram knows about a problem, they discuss the problem, but in
public, they say, we found the Instagram.
Actually makes people feel better about themselves.
That is that would cover up. Rocks of the story.
Is a cover up. Yeah, not some game by reporters
today. Well, I was nip.
You late the idea that teen girls have bad self-esteem and
it's Instagram and I and what was so effective about it.
To me was they were able to pair the findings from this internal
study with public statements that Zuckerberg had made that
Adam Very had made in which they work as directly about this
topic in there, like, we found that.
It's actually good for you. I mean in real story that's been
an important use of all three of the stories we've seen so far
and I imagine it will be a very important piece of the stories
that you know, the subsequent stories in this year company.
They can't help lying, you know? And the Wall Street Journal is
usually I mean they are very careful here.
I think even in calling fit saying that Facebook lied to its
oversight board. They quote an of an independent
expert who reviewed the journals findings and have that person
say that Facebook lied to the board.
And I think, I mean that, that shows sort of the Wall Street.
Journal's. I think we're straight in.
Yeah, we're doing these things which is super interesting but
but I mean, it's pretty clear that the Facebook just like lies
and lies to everybody. And that allows these stories to
keep coming because I mean I didn't I think that one of the
What has really been happening and with vis-à-vis Facebook in
the media is that after an extraordinary honeymoon period
with the press that was like bye.
It was almost like the business press forgot that Facebook was a
business. It was extreme.
You saw even before the 2016 election different reporters,
try to show that Facebook had a less than glowing happy side.
You saw The Wall Street Journal do in a story called, I believe
was what they know which took aim, it all sorts of tech
companies, not just Facebook, but the idea of tracking the
idea of surveillance, the idea of these companies really
understanding us better than we understand ourselves and then
selling in mining our data, you saw different reporters right
about the fact that Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg?
Probably more Mark than Cheryl at that time.
How weren't being forthcoming or had made mistakes because of a
privacy. And that there was a sense that
inside of the Bunny. It was done knowingly, but that
publicly, the apology was always.
Oh my gosh, we're going to try harder, right?
I think my crew, we're getting to a point where because of
things like the election. The public is now, more on board
for more critical stories about Facebook.
The reporters are getting more access to sources in part
because there's more discontent with within the company and the
company is making bigger and bigger and bigger error.
So, it's sort of this perfect storm of these stories are
starting to hit and have more More impact even if the
reporters can't, for example, prove that, you know, Facebook
had this disastrous impact on the election with 100 certitude
or even through Porter, can't prove it 100% servitude.
That Instagram is making teen girls more likely to have an
eating disorder. Certainly the public, you know,
the public isn't a place, the reporters are in a place, the
cultures and in place where these conversations are just
more interesting to us all the recording, right?
But another way of saying what you're saying is that Reporters
are ruled by the posture of the moment towards a particular
entity, right? Early on their way to not.
Okay, let me think that because there were reporters who weren't
ruled by the posture of the moment who did, right, right?
There were investors means but they were dismissed by a lot of
what I think is, is interesting, is two things.
One, I think there were a lot of people myself included that
wondered and maybe thought that in a post Trump World, the need
to attack Facebook constantly or sorry to investigate Facebook,
very aggressively. Was going to subside because
Facebook was sort of seen by many people as the enabler of
the Trump presidency for a lot of reasons.
And, you know, here we are however, many months in a Biden
presidency and there is still huge stories that are coming out
from from the big newspapers showing that there are all kinds
of problems internally. So, you know, I think there were
a lot of people at Facebook that thought it was going to go away.
And clearly, it isn't well weird.
Contradiction of Facebook obviously, right.
I mean, Katie talked about this earlier that because the public
is now So cynical of Facebook because of the coverage in part,
it's much easier to motivate like critical coverage of
Facebook, but of course, the public critiques and Facebook
are totally different. Right there is the Democrats who
hate hate Facebook for a set of reasons and other Republicans
who hate Facebook's for perceived bias.
But then it's this sort of amalgam of contradictory
objections to Facebook that allow sort of these really
critical Facebook Stories to have much resonance.
I don't know. I I distinctly these stories
stay away from politics right with certain areas.
Great stories are really impactful in part because they
are addressing issues that no matter where you sit on the
political Spectrum or what part of the country you live in ya,
Urban or rural. You can't have not noticed how
toxic things are on Facebook, right?
Even this is an original point. But I to me, they read as
writing about Facebook as if it's the tobacco industry,
right? It's like a really internal
research. They did on Of.
Here's how they knew what they were selling you is bad.
Here's how when the regulator's came to them, they misled an
obfuscated. And and so yeah to me this is a
series that's really trying to frame Facebook as akin to the
tobacco industry. Now we can does a great job of
that. Yeah and that's been that's been
a comparison that's been going around for a couple of years.
Now I remember Marc benioff at some conference a couple of
years ago was explicit about Bout that which, you know, I
think there's a lot of self-serving nests on the part
of tech Executives to call out Facebook.
I mean, certainly apple is the best example of that, you know,
when Tim Cook was going around saying that they're stealing
your data and apple is the Privacy protection company,
right? Yeah, there's a lot of that
going on there. I have a tough time with the
tobacco comparison. I don't think it's a it.
I don't think it stands up to much scrutiny other than it
speaks to like the power of business.
I think there's a huge difference between an addictive
Product that has only deleterious health effects to
something like, you know, the national discourse that Facebook
is affecting or teen self-image. That Facebook is affecting,
which are so much more challenging.
I mean there's sociological problems are not health
problems. You can add are thinking real
science, you know, in a decade. I don't know what we could but
looking back I think decade that we expect technology to protect
us from what we could thinking of decade that this was a
hysteria. You know, I mean I thought there
was a great there is A great story that Joe Bernstein wrote
for. I don't remember where he was
orders. Yeah yeah like a buzzfeed
reporter. I think we took a year off and
did some, you know, I thought deeper anything research
fellowships. Yeah.
And he made a really strong case
that like look, we just don't really know the effect that
anything has on on the way we think.
And you could argue that advertising which is, you know,
influential advertising, that is the base of how so much of our
economy Works. Maybe that's not even that
effective too. And so to basically say there's
there's the really cynical argument that the storyline that
Facebook is able to manipulate us as fundamentally good for
Facebook's business. Because it convinces advertising
writers, write its this all-powerful platform with which
to control the public. And so, as much as Facebook
wants to resist that when it comes to dealing with lawmakers,
it's sort of a reputation that it's not totally opposed, right?
Just like the idea of cigarettes are extremely addictive, is not
necessarily bad for an industry. See, that's trying to convince
investors that can always get customer.
He's right. It's a great business model.
Good. All right.
Yeah, yeah. But you know, I wonder what will
happen. I mean, to a certain extent
despite the fact that it's great reporting in the Wall Street
Journal and it's important to expose internal tensions over
things like this that some of these subjects are better
discussed and like academic journals and and mental health
journals because it's their this is going to move the public.
Yeah well and also I think Tom the real problem, the real place
where the Comparison between the tobacco industry and Facebook
breaks down. Is it a backhoe industry was
creating a product that we smoked or at least?
Then I smoked. But we were creating a product
that they could that they could stop not anymore kids, but
creating a product that that you we could stop production of you
can shut down a tobacco Factory. You don't need to harvest the
crop anymore. You cannot make a cigarette.
Facebook is creating a product that we actually create as
people. And so there's no way to shut
down. Down production on Facebook
because it would mean, everybody would just have to leave the
platform. I just spent the summer in New
England, if you are not in a place where for example, small
businesses towns Municipal Services have created their own
websites, they all live on Facebook, you're not going to
know what's going on with your kids elementary school.
If you live in rural, Maine, unless you're on Facebook,
you're not going to get not know what's going on with your fire
department, if you're a Massachusetts, unless you're on
Facebook dark. So, I mean, what what so you
can't shut off. The cigarette factory when it
comes to Facebook. Yeah.
And and it gets complicated and the journal story dealt with
this to about like, well what are the other social media
platforms doing and are they better for our mental health
than that and I know from covering snap that there is a
deep belief on you know, the CEO Evan Spiegel is part.
A lot of people there that like we did it right?
You know, we have moderated, the new section, we don't allow for
Mass amplification of false stories.
And then I think the journal story Also mentioned like oh
Tick-Tock doesn't really, you know, hurt your mental health
because it's more about being fun than it is about, you know.
It is fun. Would it take it consumes so
much of my time? I mean, it is and I never
remember anything. I believe my mental health has
been impaired in some, right, right.
I feel like I just skipped over that period of time, like I it's
just like I'm a racing time for my life where after it's done.
I'm like what did I get out of it?
You know what I mean? Yeah, I enjoyed it.
I guess while I was consuming it, To me, like the craziest
kind of cover-up on the part of a corporation that I can think
of that's happened in the last however, many decades was X on
knowing full, well about global warming.
And the fact that they had done studies showing that, you know,
the consumption of fossil fuels is contributing to carbon in the
atmosphere and raising temperatures because that was
something that I don't believe was widely known at all at the
time. I mean this was something that
was like years and years before Al Gore was making his political
Koval career off of it and, you know, like, cigarettes people
probably knew for a long time, maybe not that it was addictive
but that, you know, it wasn't good for your health.
And then with Facebook, there have been a lot of third-party
studies that have gone on for a long time.
Saying like, yeah, this is really fucking with young girls
brains. I think a clear thing on Venus,
on the Exxon poor women's Brains to jfy.
I say as a senior citizen on the Exxon point, I mean, I just
think an important thing to remember in these stories is
that the companies think about themselves way More than we do,
right? I mean, Facebook is obviously
doing this research on themselves, like they
professionally. The culture is just much slower
to sort of digest all the different problems that these
companies have whereas they're professionally interested as a
regular routine in the 90s people didn't know about
ExxonMobil, the culture, it was in the culture.
What the difference was was the no I'm not saying that people
didn't know about. No, I was just I was actually
harm said about like people not Ali knowing people don't
understand the difference was that they were finally nailed
through. Variety of things including
reporting including Congressional hearings, where
documents came to light, showing that their critics had been
correct. I may be Exxon like the their
initial studies happen in like the late 70s.
Yeah. They cover things up for a long
time, this might be a tangent but you know what?
September 11th. There was this whole like
copypasta going around around that flight where the, you know,
The people took it over and stopped it from being used by
the hijackers. What's nine point ninety?
Three. I know my pet like wow the tax
just had our 20th anniversary, the tax light with the text
people were posting Eric was like for was fake.
You know it's like created by some Christian sites.
Nopes fact checked in you know they say it ends in a prayer.
Like it's based on truth, the facts but they like made a whole
fake transcript. Nobody online like gives a fuck
about it. Probably more people read that
story than have ever. I read my cumulative writing
ever and it's just like totally made up and I don't know what's
my objection here. It's just that.
At the end of the day Facebook's capacity to distribute things is
what you know. If you just made up one fake
post and told it to one person that would have had a small
impact, maybe it would have been wrong or like, deceitful, but it
would have been small. But now every major we have all
these like fake just for the extinct because of Facebook.
I was gonna say in part because of us because Facebook allows
you and me to post, pretty much. We don't care about the truth.
People don't get it then. So until Facebook, clamps down
in some way, right? And our ability to post,
whatever we want in real time, they can take it down later but
a lot of damage can be done before.
It's taken down until that happens, it's really hard to see
a solution but as an aside because you guys we've talked
about BuzzFeed what's going on with Vice.
That's that's falling apart. Like what?
Let's go. Is it?
It's not happening. Yeah, no snow.
Does that mean we have no voice someday with?
No, they raised. They raised more money.
I can, I can give a shout-out to my, former colleague, Jessica to
Uncle who wrote the piece on it. They that you have this back
fell apart and they were able to squeeze more money out of their
investors. And so, it's your call.
Whether investors now that the pivot to videos, always worked
out for everyone. Yeah, it's really nice.
TV channel at this point. So happy I'm not writing about
this shit anymore. So walking a happy isn't vice
vice is one of those companies where if you polled reporters
back then everybody covering it. What it said, this is a disaster
that's never going to work. Oh, is he faster?
That's never going to work? Yeah, I mean, obviously
reporter. The reporter consensus is wrong.
Some of the time but it it is always like, is it like, what
are the main ones? That's interesting.
Sidebar, I'd be interested to hear the Ones where you think
the reporter can? I mean, Facebook dying in the
pivot to mobile Facebook? Early days?
We report. I mean that was before us but
reporters were see entire mythology that the media helps
support, that technology companies were were good forces
for good in the world rather than John we're talking about,
picks on, like particular valve. Okay.
Yeah. Alright, face.
Where reporters were super wrong on likes?
I think there were a lot of people who actually said that
Vice was going to be this huge force in media and then to those
people believe it or they're just like I'm sure but it'll but
Vice was almost all to Disney for a bit.
Dollars if somebody believed it for a hot second more more than
that. Yeah.
I mean it was they yeah it's a complicated story because they
like all of these media companies raise a shitload of
money during a time where there was a belief that these digital
media companies were actually tech companies and should be
valued on these like insanely large multiples and that it
wasn't going to be two companies that swallowed up all the
digital advertising dollars over the next couple of years.
And so their growth trajectory is all got completely thrown Own
off and I don't know like buzzfeed's probably going to go
public through its back so we can see what that looks like.
I still think a lot of these companies man were way off here,
like it's not like it's like the end of Candyland when you go
public, like, you still have to be a company.
Is it, is it weird for me to feel like, BuzzFeed is starting
to be this like, receptacle for all sorts of companies that
can't exit. So, they're just glomming onto
buzzfeed's thing. Get out through this back.
Like this pack is going to collapse under the weight of 4
million Acquisitions before The end of the year.
Yeah, I mean, well, this pack Market clearly is already
falling apart anyway. I mean, I guess we should have
Brian Goldberg on here some week, so he can tell us why.
I text, you sent me a quote defending BuzzFeed for one of my
newsletters that was like, I just obviously like, well,
whatever's good for BuzzFeed is good for me.
So I'm gonna say, you know, I will say about about Vice.
I don't watch their TV show because it's on cable, I mean,
that's it, unbelievably stupid, or it was, I think now, Oh, it's
on Hulu or something. I've heard it was pretty good,
but like their Tech reporting is good like they're, you know,
motherboard has some pretty great stories still.
Yeah. Yeah.
No. Like yeah, like Joseph Cox who
does their kind of security? Cybersecurity stories?
Is like he will put out like a great story at least a month.
I'm super envious of a lot of their work.
So I hope the business does well because it's like, it's still
good journalism. It's just I don't know how much
stock I put in that business model, right again, we never
talked about how I'm so happy. Not the immediate report every
every time we have these conversations, it makes me glad
her and glad you saw Adam moceri.
The head of Instagram, you who was quoted in the teen.
Girls story was at the Met Gala, right?
Here's one of the chairs Eric get it together.
He was one of the she's one of the chairs and I posted the
pictures. Like what's the beautiful eyes?
What's the Instagram version of Let them eat cake.
Like I can't believe he went with the timing of that story.
I mean that's true is probably in the works for so long, right?
And he agreed to be the chair. Probably a year ago.
Yeah. Elsa.
His outfit looked like he was like fucking Alice in
Wonderland. I mean, everybody.
The megaliths out. We're not very good, but You
know, what is it about being the head of Instagram that causes
these Executives to think that their Fashion Icon.
Well, that's sort of interesting.
You've actually seen a lot of people from magazines and the
fashion world like, Vanity, Fair and bow, go to Amazon, and apple
and, you know, Instagram Etc. So, there is this weird way in
which the fashion world has been trying to court technology in
part because technology, especially Instagram has really
taken a lot of Glossy magazine, world's clever way, not just an
advertising but also in trend-setting.
So if you look at what was happening with this year's New
York Fashion Week, you saw a lot of things that didn't really
feel like they made sense, they were, they've been on a drawing
board for a year and a half speaking to a cultural moment
that is no longer exist because life is moving so quickly.
And that's what we saw at New York Fashion Week.
Whereas people who are on Instagram posting that entire
time, they were setting and resetting micro trends.
It's for the entire last year and that moves you know,
commercial buying that moves merchandise.
So you know there's a way in which vogue's ability to tell
people what they're going to wear, has been greatly
diminished because of a company like Instagram Kevin.
So there isn't, so there isn't but it's real value.
Anna, Wintour wants Instagram there, I definitely think
Instagram is setting fashion far more than Vogue.
I would say even much more. Like what you're saying 10x?
I agree. 100%. I just think the laughable.
Thing is that the person who happens to run the corporate
structure that is Instagram matters no style at all in that
world. You know, like all you're doing
is channeling like a long tail of fashion.
People the corporate structures. I mean, if you receive your
medal and moved to San Francisco and we went, I think we went to
a bar, we met, we had to leave because I was the only reward, I
think Valencia area Mission, it was so hilarious, man ever seen.
Anything like it like he sure it's paired with slacks paired
with man, Bernice Ox. Well, it's back to like the
fashion Tech connection to. I mean this is what has been
going on for a couple of years in the funniest example of it.
To me was the I think it's still probably going to happen but the
Vanity Fair Tech media new establishment which was mostly
old. Entertainment Executives and
their six people, but one year, they had Kevin Systrom.
Who was then the still the CEO of Instagram on stage with.
I think interviewed by maybe on a winter or something like that.
Yeah, info and Lena Dunham. And yeah, and I was seeing like
Kevin up on stage, talking about Paris, fashion week or some shit
like that dress, like he was in sprockets or something.
And it was like, this is something about this job.
Yeah, something about this job, like warps the brains of tech
Executives to think that they're, like, fashion forward
and just just wealth. Fucking like, yeah, I guess
that's who they're all like. Carl logging.
And like, three weeks earlier. They were.
Yeah, they were probably hanging out on zux, like, you know,
Kawaii compound like wearing, you know, sandals and socks and
whatever thoughts are actually kind of in right now.
Tom are they? But that is why they get
invited, but they but coming back to it, Eric was saying
about how the irony of having atomos Airy at the Met Gala as
this devastating story is coming out about his company's, you
know, impact on young, women was certainly not lost on a lot of
people on social media. Also, what I found, fascinating
about that story with it. Most Terry gave on the record
quotes and the here they gave up all the stories they've given on
the earth. We all know the executives do
not do that, unless they think they must and that's another
great indication. The Wall Street Journal had the
goods, because there is one story, he would have gone on the
record if he did not. I would love to know like Just
the, who the LIE, obviously, who you want to know who's leaking,
but like a company like Facebook, I mean, Katie maybe is
closer to it than I am. But, I mean, they have lots of
like X sort of democrat Obama, Thai people running around in
high level like policy, comms job.
I just have to imagine like execs or, you know, execs are
flipping on them, both in policy and columns, and Leadership some
of the people giving quotes are like.
I mean, it's just like, at what point Point the company, it
would be so hard to have a coherent sort of corporate
response in an organization like Facebook, where I imagine people
and gay people are engaging directly with those reporters
because they have and also it's a company that tells you, you go
there to have like these principles.
So then everybody feels entitled to sort of, you know, defend
themselves to the reporters. I mean, it must be a mess to
deal with PR on that story. I cannot imagine it's sort of a
Lockdown situation. Where you have like this one
calms person going to the Wall Street Journal and it's totally
controlled. It must be pretty, pretty
chaotic would be my my guess. I don't know if you guys have
thoughts on that. I just wonder at this point, how
much, Facebook cares? I mean, it's obviously care
enough, well, because Zach has complete control over the board
and everything the company dry, so he can never be removed.
So, how much do you like when you're can never get new right?
This isn't new for them. I mean, when the New York Times
and others did their Spate of stories, a couple years ago and
they hauled Zuck in front of Congress multiple times and now
Facebook is worth over a trillion dollars and it's very
unclear, you know regulatory Why's what people are going.
I know there are antitrust suits and those are messy and I
definitely defer to Katie. I'm like, you know, the
trajectory that those will go on, but, like, at some point
like Facebook, you know, they don't want to be seen as the
villain in public, but if they can do that, and also compensate
people, you know, their Executives and their employees
and the stock keeps going up for the time being.
Maybe they're just happy to like take the punches on Twitter.
Well, I think enough people like I don't one way to read these
stories to me, is that There are a lot of people at Facebook,
creating reports because they don't like Facebook, they want
it to change. They think they should reform,
right? Then that doesn't happen.
Why doesn't happen? Because Mark Zuckerberg is in
charge. He's a dictator in Chief with
Sheryl Sandberg, his loyal lieutenant.
And so even if you are a super senior, the company, you're not
going to succeed in getting them to change.
So then that creates a whole apparatus of people, they're
creating the reports somehow, those reports are getting leaked
to the Wall Street Journal. There's like, you could see a
lot of Facebook, be no line. And with these Wall Street
Journal stories because they want change at the top, right?
So, to save, Facebook thinks is sort of incoherent.
I think you would say there's the Mark Zuckerberg view where
he's sort of stopping all these lower level decisions and then
there are the sort of Executives that are loyal to him.
And then there are these sort of more sort of professional
Executives. In the more those executives are
tied in to the actual Rank and file.
They're going to be responsive obviously to the findings that
those rank-and-file are. Seen and are getting ignored.
So I would love to know, I mean obviously this is a reportable
thing that would be a frustrating to the reporters.
Probably. But just yeah, how much of how
much of Facebook itself is on board with?
Yeah, I don't know. The company is also trying to
figure that out as well. I mean worship we should we
could put a pin in this one and have Casey Newton on some time
who obviously would know more directly than it's so hard on
poverty. Like easier for me to say this
because I don't have her Facebook so I can just
extrapolate from other stories, but I feel like once once you're
on the be, the one thing you can't really talk about is the
level of like how much are people sort of defecting even
when they're sort of principal actors for the company?
I think there's zero upside and any of us ever talking about our
sources. But every new tapes including
that we shouldn't You don't you think?
I'm out of school here as a reporter to say it was.
No, I'm just saying that I've told my sources.
I won't tell people who they are and so I keep that promise.
I don't know, that's our premium episodes.
We can talk more explicitly about who we talk, but I just, I
mean these stories reflect an organization that is not happy
tribal that you'll true. I mean, if the organization was
happy, Banks, wouldn't really come in organizations really
naughty and they were no leaks that I'm right, this, by the
way, is like the fundamental thing that At people in Tech,
don't understand about reporting and it happens every fucking
time when they're just like, why to reporters keep writing
negative stories about these companies.
And it's like because the employees that your company's
don't like the way things are going.
And I don't like working there. They're mad at you and they're
talking to us. Yes.
It's like you were blaming the wrong person.
Exactly. Can you can complain on the
margins about like angles and stuff?
But like, you know, like the beatings will continue so long
as morale, doesn't mean, you wouldn't want to look inside.
Mmm. Yeah.
But not in the way that you want to which is just to ruin.
We actually And actually, they don't want to look inside,
speaking of tech spending. By the way, we're coming here,
the day after the California recall, resoundingly defeated by
people, actually deciding to vote.
And I got to say, for the certain Tech Executives that
spent money on the voting to recall, I wouldn't call that
good Roi. Doug Leone, great investment,
David Sachs. Well done.
Peter teal, what did Peter tell us?
I don't remember. I think so, yeah.
I'm not going to weigh out on this.
You guys stop it. You can your business reporter?
You can talk about Roi. Like it's like, I just it's not
it's because I did not, I am not as I didn't do it.
I didn't study the California recall as Tom did or you did.
And so I would just be I don't like to speak about things.
I know nothing about. Yeah, well we could come back to
this one another time but I would say the every no vote Next
Shopkins book, the contrary and I'm a fifth of the way through
its good and good. It really frames so far.
The whole Peter teal world is like a sort of political Club,
more than anything that a big you know, David Sachs Keith her
boys. Like the thing they shared was
conservative libertarian incoherent in some cases
politics and so it's super interesting light of the recall
effort, but I think everybody we should finish reading.
You guys should get the book I should fit.
Yeah. Yeah, before we talk, I'm
excited to read it. I'm I wonder though with Peter
teal, does the media over rate, how important he is?
He's on the board of Facebook. I mean he's I mean, he was the
president's around people just want to say.
I mean, it's like, do we do well, here does the media over
rate. How important the president
United States is like, I guess, maybe, but like Peters.
That's a lie. That's a lie.
It was like the biggest most important donor to President
Trump, right? I mean, he will go do, I do
things like Robert Mercer lung terms of his political influence
and in terms of his business influence, I mean he's on the
board of one of the scariest come.
He's a billionaire. All these guys have these.
All these guys have power in ways that I never fully
understand but I just don't want to go too far in this because
I'm looking forward to reading my exes, but Zuckerberg is more
important than Peter teal. Is that the question?
Certainly, the Pure or the coke Brothers.
Or the living one? Yeah.
What? Living one?
He didn't go back to the tape on that replay.
Yeah. I just I mean, I don't know that
ranking extremely wealthy, people who are able to call,
almost anybody at the world, when it whoever they want,
whenever they want is really a useful exercise, but like I'll
do it. I guess.
No, I would agree is to Proclaim his that if you control attack
platform, Like Facebook or Twitter, you're more powerful
than people who just have money. I don't know if Tom is I would
buy on to that. Here's my question.
Here's my contrarian question. It's like Duggar does the media
over rate his particular does he Loom very large in the mind of a
lot of reporters because of his role in The Gawker suit that you
know very specifically cast him as but he succeed at what one of
the biggest villains. So much of politics is all T
fucking killed a new site like that's right.
No one's done. Done that before and and you
know where he funded a suit that that effectively did that.
And I shall I just wonder, I mean freedom of the press.
Yeah. I mean that's real impact.
Yeah and I just wanted had that not happened but he still was a
guy that gave money to Trump in was you know sitting at the
right hand and all that other stuff if he would matter as much
but Gawker is how we just covered in.
Just give us an example of why he matters more than other
investors. You literally just gave us an
example of why he matters more than other investors.
He was a mistake. The reason he killed Gawker was,
he was getting covered a ton of already so be even even aside
from the reason he was right. Even aside from the reason he
killed it, the fact that by your own admission, he did something
no other really investors ever done.
That had run short of an impact on the press and an impact and
we think of like how money can stifle freedom of the press that
doesn't that indicate that he is possibly more important than
other investors? I'm not saying things like some
Puppet Master. I'm saying the time like Tom's
the one dressed like he's I know and understand and that, you
know, basically says that there were a lot of crazy, kooky sort
of anti-climate change, level type people that teal suggested
Trumbo Point. And even you know, the Trump
people were Steve band and we're like, these are two kooky for us
and teal didn't get a lot of those but I mean, some of, you
know, the CTO was a teal I think there were some people.
There are teal guys over the administration but it sure.
Could he pick the Secretary of Defense?
It didn't seem like it. So, yeah, I mean, I don't, but I
don't really believe in Puppet Masters, but in terms of
billionaires that are super powerful, I think he's much more
powerful than his actual wealth, or there are much richer people,
there are less less powerful. I have very realistic.
I got a, I have to I have to make this phone call.
It's because I need this information.
And so I gotta go unlike Eric. I'm I'm not gonna tell you who
my sources are. I didn't tell him Eric's, not
going to pressure me into revealing how I get information
joking. No, I do have to go because I
have to make this call and great.
So I hope that you guys are good of America, you know?
I hope you come up with a definitive ranking of which Tech
billionaires are the most influential vis-à-vis, how much
they're By the press and please shoot that over to me because
I'm curious to see it. It's a changing.
It will be exchanging. Yeah, it'll be like a power
ranking list. Yeah.
Get. Can we start doing a power
ranking list on the pool? Yeah, well, we could run in my
work, my friends desperately want me to do more power
rankings, just for clickability. I've been opposed to truly sort
of capricious judgments just because I have a following, but
I do think it'd be good. People want to consume list of
who's in, who's out? Shouts.
Oh yeah, absolutely. Well isn't that all that she you
know I'm actually getting slacked out by co-workers to I
guess I do my God. Yeah.
Eric you have to do the same job.
We have to do is just you have no boxes, all right?
Exactly. So I can procrastinate then do
it at two in the morning and run a very good sort of mental
health experience, right? You're also offer Two weeks to.
So you better you better burn that oil for the next couple
days while Katie and I have to figure out what to talk about.
Yeah. All right we can we can call it
though. Okay bye.
Bye Katie. So I guess once again We've
Ended episode with Katie having to do a real job and now she
disappear last episode. Yes, yes, she disappeared
because there wouldn't even last episode is coming into her movie
theater and she had to like, talk them down and then when she
came back on the zoom called, we were already gone.
But we ended the last episode without her and I think that's
gonna have to be like a weekly thing.
Now she's only the, he's a special guests.
It's her, it's her duties. Maybe don't include your Napa.
So yeah, she's a pain. So, work on Sally, goodbye.
Goodbye. Goodbye.
Goodbye, goodbye.
Goodbye. think that's gonna have to be like a weekly thing.
Now she's only the, he's a special guests.
It's her, it's her duties. Maybe don't include your Napa.
So yeah, she's a pain. So, work on Sally, goodbye.
Goodbye. Goodbye.
Goodbye, goodbye.
Goodbye.