Welcome. Hey, it's our newcomer here with
dead cat. Katie's laughing at me.
She's here Tom's here. We have our friend Deepa
longtime friend from The Wall Street Journal, who's been
involved in the Facebook files. Reporting is covered Facebook
forever. Iran has been listening to this
podcast. I think with some irritation and
the goal of this podcast, in my mind is to solve the Facebook
issue. I mean, I I sort of I didn't
want to do it. I thought it to be like, sorry
for issue with us. This is like a Marc Maron
podcast because I thought it, I thought it was more of a therapy
session my cell. We good.
Are we good deeper? Are we good?
I mean, I think there's been so much Facebook coverage that.
Yeah, it's a fast. Lady media story also which is
why we've talked about it and there's a certain like oh my
God, is this story? Just going to go on forever when
at the same time it feels like nothing's changed.
So I want to try and structure this a little because it does
feel like a lot and deeper. You're the expert here, I guess
it's to help organize it I think a good starting point would just
be like in your mind if you had to give us two or three of the
core like Facebook, open threads.
Like if we have all this report, Eating obviously, you had a
bunch of different topics in the Facebook files.
If you're like, oh, the real story lines about Facebook if
you had to narrow down just so we can focus around something.
Start off with. What would you say are like the
key open threads? I mean, okay.
They're all going to be kind of obvious, because this cover this
company's been covered so aggressively and for so many
years. But like I think if I'm thinking
about different storylines for Facebook, that I find the most
interesting. Most important one.
It's like the consolidation of Power by Mark.
This is a company that is always had Mark Zuckerberg at its
center, right? I mean like like shareholder,
he's all the voting power, use a chairman, he's a CEO.
He's, the founder is because those cultural cachet and said
the company, but lately, like, if you look at all these
different external bodies that are supposed to check the
company if they don't really do much of what the oversight board
was likely lied to right in the process of its creation.
I haven't done anything. Have they publicly rebuked?
Mark. I don't know.
No, write the actual board was at one point.
It included people who disagreed with Mark and wanted to push
back against him and then they got replaced last year, right?
And, and, you know, there's nothing that shareholders can
really do if you look at all shareholders, not named Mark
Zuckerberg, most of them are unhappy with the current
governance structure, but it doesn't matter because they're
not named Mark Zuckerberg, right?
And so I think there's That is a threat.
I think a lot about. I think about the fact that like
so much power is concentrated in this one person and that's not
something you see in government, like necessarily, you don't
necessarily you don't really see that.
In other companies, I've covered where it's like, literally one
person is making all these calls and the name of this podcast,
obviously isn't right? Very episode of him.
Consolidating control. Would you relate the rise?
Of zuckuss emperor of Facebook to that moment that has become,
you know, eponymous with our show that he was able to create
this dual class structure that allowed him to.
Even if he was selling off his shares, maintain absolute voting
control over things. I mean, was that like the
villainous turn in his leadership that brought him to
where things are today? I think it's one of the moments,
right? I think there's a lot of
different periods in time where Mark, like collects more power.
I mean, like think like, I personally as a reporter when I
think, Worth going back to the early days where this share
structure was even decided, right?
Like this is like, you know, Sean Parker like trying to
convince Mark that this is that he needed to make sure he
retained as much power as possible.
Like I want, I think more. I'd love to know a little bit
more about those conversations and I'd love to know a little
bit more about like because that to me, is starting moment where
he just starts to wield incredible.
Like he always had technical power like you always Has had
the control of Youth of the company but then like what you
seen in the last couple of years is a willingness to exercise
that power. So before the 2016 election know
Mark was the majority voting shareholder, right?
But it was the Sheryl Sandberg as his partner in crime and
right and she handled all the government Affairs and all the
politics and she and he, where is he, like really focused on
the technology and then that content that's completely
changed in the last few years, right?
And each Each one of these is a little Sway and that
conversation the dead pack. Conversation is one of them
because, you know, he's convincing me.
Marc Andreessen is so in his Corner, he's texting him in the
middle of a supposedly independent board meeting about
like a committee meeting about like the share structure, right?
I mean, like, it's right, it's in, it's just incredible.
Yeah, and it's the infrastructure that was put in
place to keep at least mark. Brick specifically in throned
has been set and they're sort of nothing we can do about it, we
can dig into all these and obviously we love the Mark
Zuckerberg control one because it's personality and fun.
Yeah. Like and it's sort of, you know,
value neutral. So reporters can like really
wade into that because it's just sort of like anyway.
But I want to go through your sort of big, faceless narrative.
So, what's number two? So that's one.
And then the second is, I mean, one another is Facebook and the
continuing kind of erosion of democratic Norms, right?
And look, what is the role? That one's a little, that one's
a little murkier. There's a lot of complex reasons
why Democratic Norms around the world have changed and I mean
and casebook is a potentially contributing factor in a lot of
those cases. It's it's like what do you say I
mean what do we say at this point, right?
So much has been written about that but does the flood of
disinformation misinformation. Nation, you know what is the
effect that it has on society? What does it have on democracy?
And the way that people like facts that they believe in and
what they believe is real and how they vote?
I mean, I actually think there's that moment.
I was in the room for that economy conference in 2016 and
Tory has one, you know? Or yes, me too.
Hello wow. Royalty.
I was I felt flattered and I you know, I was I was, you know, you
know, see you were there when he was.
Like yeah, it's pretty crazy to think about.
Well, I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
I don't even, this isn't even a. So I write basically the day
after the election, there was a conference and Zuck was
scheduled to speak. So, of course, the first
question Zach is asked, is, do you think that Facebook played
any role in Donald Trump's election in his victory and
Zuckerberg I said, Depot, what was do you remember exactly what
he said? Well, I remember to the words he
says, I think of yes, pretty crazy.
Pretty crazy to think that Facebook affected the election.
Yes. I mean, you know, I don't
remember in the room, I remember the room being kind of like
silent and like there wasn't like some Big Lagoon, Collective
gasp or anything, but like externally on social media like,
yeah. It was like a like a bomb.
It was the day after the election.
Everyone was pretty numb for the most people are in the room.
Nobody had any emotional reaction to Thing and that only
now I remember to in terms of picking up pieces of words that
he said during that, I think he said that people make their
election voting decisions based on lived experiences rather
than, you know, the information that they consume online.
I think what was the point is, right?
It would take him like it would take him what seven years later
to acknowledge that. Facebook is a lived experience.
When he renamed his company, medical things at all anymore.
Like, that's a good boy. Yeah, yeah.
And I mean, I actually, in some ways, I think there is a
continues to be like a debate about the extent to which
Facebook's responsible for, for that 100%.
I don't think it's worth saying that he, that was that insane of
a statement to make. I mean, like we can laugh about
it. Now as we can, I don't wanna
interrupt you. But yeah, I don't I don't want
to say okay I don't want to posit that as like a completely
crazy thing that he said, I think this many years later if
there's reasonable debate to be had.
Yeah, on whether or not that was right now.
The discussion with Alex and we'll come back to that.
Yeah, yeah. I remember the discussion with
Alex. Well, then I and then, you know,
I think there's also another thread, it's just Facebook and
like, like harms to like mental health, like, the way that it
sort of, I mean, like the Teen Health story, which I know we're
going to talk about, there's also the problematic use slash
Tech addiction storyline, right? Like, we're people are
compulsive. Only using Facebook and they to
the point where they don't spend time with their kids, there's a
subset of that. There's some sort of those
users. That's something that came out
of the Facebook files documents. And so, there's just a lot of
how does Facebook personally harm to get the Tom's Point?
Like how does it personally harm the individual?
There you? Yeah, you.
Yeah. And so I think there's there's
that there's that, there's so many others names, but those are
the ones, those are the ones. I'm and some, my, some I argue
that theme. Yeah.
Two and three are related as well.
Yes they were all right. Now we have a even go.
Like this is helpful. This is a well organized as
review of Facebook. Yeah, it's almost so deep as
been thinking about for a long time, a long time, I mean, there
is a lot by the way, there's a lot of Prior just like three.
Can I ask you on these on these points as you are thinking about
them and doing your reporting How Deeply do?
Do a lot of your sources at Facebook, contemplate.
These things. There's such a broad range
right. There are definitely people who
think that this is all bullshit, but okay, yeah, maybe Facebook
had a role in Myanmar, okay, fine.
Yeah. Maybe, you know, disinformation
is bad, but we don't necessarily know how this information like
affects votes. I mean, okay, January 6, you
know, like there's definitely people who are a little bit in
denial and that's like kind of the mental, what their thinking,
their train of thought. And then there's Definitely
people who it's hard for them to engage in this conversation
because they feel like the media is out to get them.
All right? There's a whole media versus
Facebook theme to, which is, I don't think particularly
helpful, but it is something that a lot of people think
they're at, you know, there's a feeling of like, oh well the
media's. I've actually had Facebook
people argue to me before like the media is jealous of of us
because we make so much money and we're taking all their
influence and, you know, that's We got to the truth to it, but
it's very complicated. I don't want.
Yeah. I mean reporter is by their very
profession Believe In Like A reported intentional way of
knowing things about the world, they believe in like truth.
They believe in like fact checking and they believe that
people who do those things in our virtuous and that way should
get rewarded in some sense for it and Facebook loves reward
people. I mean Ryan Broderick at garbage
day was just I dream about, you know, these viral like the cat
breastfeeding episode, you know, like social media, whether it's
Tick-Tock or Facebook sort of thrive on pumping out things
that are like obviously Falls. And I think any of us is
reporters, it can drive us crazy because we believe in like truth
and we think it's bad that these platforms just in and of itself,
feed people stuff, that's obviously not true.
Just to make them angry for a second to get engagement.
And so, is that bias? I don't know.
We all share. That's literally never been a
motivating factor. Anything I've thought about
recording, we share like a worldview about like you don't
agree with that. No, I don't like I don't, I
don't think that's like something that motivates me to
report at all. 100% know the couple times I've written about
Facebook that was literally not something.
I thought about what did I think about.
Here's a list of people. I need to call.
Here's a list of things. I need to know.
I have X amount of hours to get the information, and I'm going
to get it. And I'm going to Roger this file
and someone else is going to clean it up and I hit publish.
That's what I thought was very, it wasn't.
It wasn't known as easier for like the Mark Zuckerberg sort of
style bucket one but like, bucket, two and three have a lot
of like, what are your values, your values play into it or
Depot. I mean, if you want them to, I
mean, but like deeper, when you let's go like drill and
specifically on the year, a member of the media and you're
only writing critically about us because you're jealous of our ad
money or Something. I mean and if you've actually
had these conversations because I never have a, you see it play
out on Twitter which is the world's worst medium to have a
meaningful and nuanced conversation with someone.
But yeah, as you are engaging with, you know, in a background
setting, so you can speak sort of freely with someone and they
and they put to you this like, you know, Canard about what the
media is, are you able to have like a reasonable conversation
with them about it and, you know, and maybe your mind is
changed slightly by them and vice versa.
It's like kind of gets down to the function of news though.
Like if your I had a I went to journalism school and I had this
professor in college, he talked about how during the Vietnam
war, he felt like it was newspapers responsibility to
consistently shove in people's faces.
The pictures will coffins coming home, you know like repeatedly
show it to them. Like he I think he used the word
force, it down their throats and not because they like it like
like news is one of those weird Industries or it's not just you
don't give people what they want or what they say.
They want you give people What? The, you know, you as an
institution, think they need, and if we as an institution,
thank you. Hey, you need to understand, and
highlight the harms of Technology.
Then I mean, that's yeah, I guess that's an editorial
choice. But like, you know, that's the
purpose of news and to highlight issues so that people can kind
of make their choices and understand, because they're
going to get PR from everywhere, right?
There's advertising that like, you know, if you, if you're a
think of Like a Facebook user, you will get a lot of
information about Facebook from the news.
But Facebook has all these other routes right there is actual
Facebook, right product that is used by millions of people.
Lots of men. I know they pump out whenever
Sheryl, Sandberg has some live stream.
I get some notification in there.
I am suddenly listening to her directly, it's extreme.
It's a huge microphone. That's my favorite show every
time and you know, so that they have their own platform, they
have advertising, they have, you know, there's still a lot of
places. At will, like, do interviews
with them that are crossed off Bali.
Like, I don't, you know, I don't know if it's that's not my job.
My job isn't to be PR. It's not your job to be like,
this is the number one movie in America, you know what I mean?
So, mainstream media, Where The Red Pill.
All right. So so the sort of Alex Stamos,
sort of democracy fight. I mean this fits into sort of
the media has an agenda because I think a key framing there for
him was this idea? Year, that Facebook was guilty
in that, they, you know, let the Russians like by, you know, get
some ads that sort of manipulated people, but that
campaign was much smaller than the effect of the actual hack,
which was sort of laundered through the media and that the
media was far more complicit and that the media has an interest
in blowing one of those two scandals out of proportion.
And And that's, that's sort of where we are.
Do you disagree with, with that argument?
It's like two different sets of media, though, right?
Like, I mean, Tech reporters who are the media is not like a blob
in that, like a blob, is really moves in unison, right?
And it's not even though we're not like look, we're not
organized enough to be like a conspiracy, like we don't have
like enough look, I don't know what my colleague who sits next
to me is doing. I got any at Maybe like more
than half the time, right more than half the time.
And like, not that I have any colleagues who sit next to me
anymore, but you know what I mean?
Like, I don't give your kids right now and I also don't know
what my kids are doing. I relate.
And so, I just think that, you know, I, I detect reporters were
focusing on, on Facebook and sort of the impact of the Russia
campaign, and there isn't necessarily A like, what's the
like those same I'm reporters weren't involved in a lot of the
Hillary Clinton, like, kind of the week coverage that Alex is
talking about, right? Like this is like where I am way
out of my depth like it but it's not the same individual
reporters. So who should who should answer
that? Question is so hard for me to
answer it but also the other thing that Alex sort of he this
the store if you end the story at the 2016 election, I think
his point is very strong but what he then goes on to say and
he does not link these Points is that disinformation
misinformation bad information, democracy.
Eroding information is now spread by everyday Americans.
We actually don't need Russia to hack.
Tom podesta's, email, and grab it and give it to reporters now,
everyday Americans are taking care of that, but the tool they
are using, is still Facebook. And so I under, like I said, if
you stop his narrative at 2016, I think it is very strong, but
what we do, he Aunt, do is extend the timeline to show that
you no longer need Russians to hack anyone because Americans
are taking care of it themselves, but the tool that
they need in order to spread that information is Facebook.
You know, if I can just say one thing that is probably like just
sort of a side point. Alex has broader point about the
media introspection and like how reporters need to really think
about the editorial choices they made.
I don't, it's like, to me, it's separate from Facebook's
responsibility, but it's also Men like true, but I agree like
reporters need to be constantly thinking about it, but when it
comes to issues and I don't think we as an industry, do
enough to interrogate ourselves and look at our choices.
Specially our editorial choices, right.
A lot of the criticism is the Masthead level rather than beat
reporter level. Yeah and we're talking to the
beat reporter obvious, right. But I also kind of think those
are separate questions from the impact of technology and
whenever I talk to somebody who's very defensive about Out
technology. They're always try to like, kind
of throw it to this other argument, which is the media.
And I'm like this is like these aren't the same topic well, but
do they agree with that because the media has made it.
I mean, like, you know, this is the argument that tech people
will always make is like, you can pull the audience, but the
audience is just a reflection of the media that they consume
which we've now. Agreed is the case, one way or
the other, then you know they can definitely say an agenda is
responsible for that sentiment. Well, I mean, if it is I don't
know. If you look at just what could
like, just look at consumers. Southeast will use Facebook
constantly. Look, I've been writing about
this company for almost seven years.
I use Facebook. I sold my couch recently on
Facebook Marketplace. I do best program.
I'm not anti Facebook, right? Like if these things aren't this
is its these it's not it mutually exclusive to use
Facebook products but also be critical of the company's harms.
It's like, I don't know. We all vote.
We live in a democracy but we can still challenge our
Democratic leaders. The Fect of all this reporting
on Facebook, is that there's like a there are people are,
like, shut Facebook down or it does, it does feel like, you
know, some of it can feel like it's so relentless, because the
goal is to get rid of Mark Zuckerberg or because it's like,
well, he's responsible. There's been no change.
How can you believe, you know that?
The company really means to change when the guy in charge.
Yeah, and I know, you can't say one way or the other whether you
think Mark Zuckerberg should be replaced.
Yes, but I don't know. What can you say about the
relationship between the fact that it's one guy and sort of
the relentlessness? I mean, I think that this, I
just think he's a crude, a lot of power and I think he's
probably more. He appears to be, at least from
the outside, right? There's a lot, we don't
necessarily know, but he appears from the outside to be like, you
know, as powerful a situation as a 10.
Anytime before right guy, I don't see him stepping.
Yeah, he literally floats above water right.
He's he has godley's a crude. Godlike abilities.
That's a, he's using a hydrofoil hydrofoil New York Times.
It was not. It was not a windsurf, it was it
was a hydrofoil, right? What are the worst Corrections?
I've seen in the times history and so there's there's a real
question of Okay. So what's been the impact of all
this reporting this fairly good, investigative reporting on
Facebook. And I think there's a lot of
people within one thing that I find really interesting.
So you guys remember Cambridge analytic about the under that
that all that episode unfortunately.
Yes and so camera J. Let It Go.
Was it was interesting for a lot of reasons like it.
I don't there is that narrative that, you know, the data Was
taken by. Let me see if I can remember it.
I haven't thought about this in a long time like Hogan and then
Alexander Cogan, right? That's his name, I think.
And then, it was given to Cambridge analytical and then
Cambridge analytic gotta supposedly fed that into their,
like, kind of their machine learning software, whatever, and
then were able to Target would be Trump voters or like voters
in general, didn't Action and flip their votes, either got
them to vote for Trump or got them right to not vote for
Hillary. And I think that feels super
hard to prove. Like, I don't, it's a fake
scandal-ridden into your times, the nobody believes anymore,
that they've never really apologized for.
I mean, that's also the guardian.
Eric, there are absolutely right.
And then when they there was a Pulitzer campaign, there was a
lot of drama around, which side should get credit there, but I
do like the the times is the only publication.
Remember For writing that story. I mean, that's what I read.
I mean, it's very influential no.
But that, that is a good point. That is a good point.
I mean, no Angry. Like, why is the times the only
publication remembered for writing that story?
Because it wasn't just the time special, it was the guardian.
It was the guardian for I believe won awards for it.
They broke the story, right? And like every other publication
matched is so why is the times, the only what time is it?
The Forefront would know. First of all, they did have, you
know an ultra Ultra long story? No, we had to, we had to team up
with the guard. DS.
Yeah, it's see that. You'll see that care her by
lines on all of the stories. I mean this is sort of similar
wiser - coverage of Facebook. It's like because New York Times
is the most powerful you know, like news Alan people hold it in
highest. I'm not, I'm not saying I'm not,
I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize.
I'm just wondering like, why you only want the times to
apologize, I trust the times 10x to the guardian so I don't care.
Really. If the guardian even though
Carol called baller is now credited with actually breaking
the story. Archie has a very strong.
She's a very opinionated report anyway, totally different.
Yeah, we're but we also trusted Journal equally to the time I
do. Trust the journal.
Yeah. Well what I was going to say
that so that part was like kind of hard to prove but what if
absolutely demonstrated was that there was a time when you could
just like kind of suck up user data from Facebook and then the
company infinite absolutely no idea where it went right?
And the end and that is a legitimate issue and I think
they were kind of and then they Addressed it.
And, you know it was like Mark, Zuckerberg took five days to
sort of sit down and like, understand what was going on.
Come up with a bunch of scenes and are fixes or whatever and
then, finally spoke up criticized for waiting that
long. I mean, there's certain certain
things in hindsight that are I mean like this like the five-day
wait how big of a scandal is it? I mean it's it's a little in the
like kind of as we go further pass it.
I don't run running was the biggest scan true skin on.
That whole thing, that was, what morning?
Remember the Facebook comms front ran the actual issue
because that it made them look guilty and then everybody was
like oh fuck Facebook was nothing reporters, hate more
than front running. Like yeah that what's the five
days they took a while to actually like figure it out and
come up with this substantive response to the like the kind of
contract. Because I remember I actually
remember this very well because I was in the process of planning
my wedding, during the Cambridge analytic has gone away.
It was a beautiful wedding, thank you.
It was also really hard to plan at a certain point.
I just sort of like stepped. I was like, okay I'm I can't
plan what you did to religions multiple days at a retreat.
It was wow, that's nice. Eric was actually there.
While I was getting ready when the published time, that is your
fault. And I'm so anyway, we so we just
Just we, you know, the actual thing that I think is really
important is that is the leak of data.
And so anyway, if you remember the Facebook response to that
was, okay, we're really sorry. We this is what all the things
we're doing around privacy, these are all the different
steps were going to take etcetera, etc.
Etc. You haven't seen that this time,
right? With the, with the documents
that right? That were published in the
journal and then later by a lot of other outlets, like what the
Whistleblower got. Like, you just You haven't seen
that level of apology in fact, what you see his Defiance.
And I think that's a reflection of can Mark gaining more power,
just feeling more confident, and sort of asserting what he thinks
is, right? And like our understanding is,
it is and it's been reported elsewhere.
Is that a lot of that is being driven through, Mark, with sort
of saying, I don't want apologies.
I want us to be tough and they happen to us when they get into
arguments, like I feel like they're doing our hair.
Like I do think there's six. Feeding is it Facebook files,
like, champagne. They're only Facebook files.
If it's published in the Wall Street Journal and anywhere
else. It's sparkling sparkling wine.
Yeah, right, this is what we called our series.
And then, like guess one, the Consortium got it.
They were like, we don't want to go on to Facebook files, but it
isn't it? I forget, which reporter said
that you don't want to call it. I forget, what do they call it?
They called it like the Facebook because Casey, the left over,
right? So they want to bring like the
Facebook papers. So like, Yeah, you know, some
people say Facebook papers Facebook, but this is evidence
here that media does not glued very well.
You know, Eddie like, yeah, so you're you know, the Facebook
file story, The tell us about your Instagram story.
We've talked about on the podcast, somewhat, maybe in ways
you disagree with so I don't care.
We've always been incredibly positive about all the journals
Facebook stores. I mean and a lot of like all
credit kind of goes to my colleague.
Jeff for basically convincing Francis, how good.
Come forward and provide all these documents and it's been
awesome to work with him. And he actually is funny.
I I was on maternity leave earlier this year and he's like,
hey, I can, I come over? I just want to talk to you about
this like project were working on and I had three month old
daughter at the time and like, listen, three months, you know,
Tom knows its base, they're like they're a lot and and so he's
sitting in like he's sitting there.
It's like post vaccine times. He's like a cliff that I really
want your help on this project. I'm like okay fine yeah what is
it is like we have a bunch of internal documents and they're
really revelatory and I was like okay I don't look at wasn't
processing at all and then my daughter vomited on me and then
like all these things happened and then you know key it wasn't
that like the moment where things click tree, like wait a
second. There's something that is putrid
and gross that lives inside an organism that when it gets out
says something about the world and what it means to me, if I
had the mental capacity to think like that, Maybe but I've had
nothing. I was so fried and I you know, I
just I didn't really appreciate what he was talking about until
like I came back like a few weeks later and started going
through the documents and I was like, this is amazing.
Like it was just fascinating, right?
And in part because you know, you asked this question that I
didn't really fully answer earlier about, like, what's the
conversation internally at the company?
Like, all right, and they're definitely people who are
defensive and feel like the media is out to get them.
There's also so many people there, That are really
thoughtful conscientious, and like trying the furnace, right?
There's a lot of earnestness in there, where they believe that
they can effect change which, you know, we can debate whether
that's ever possible at a company like that, but they
believe that they have a duty to do that.
And you see that in a lot of these.
You see that on a lot of these comments and you see this in
what, you know, she captured. And I think that's that thing,
that's meaningful. You know, it's not a monolith,
it to Riley. The media is not a block.
Facebook's not a block either, there's a lot of, right?
I mean there's an argument that this sort of way you're saying
that part of what the Facebook files are our employees inside
the company, sort of doing research aligned with the
reporters outside the company. I mean, I laugh sometimes when
we talk about company companies like you, we talk.
We talk about Facebook a lot and you write about Facebook but
like, who is Facebook? Because sometimes Facebook is
like calms people write like a lot of times that's Of the
ultimate because we sometimes talk about Facebook is being
sort of separate from Mark Zuckerberg even though he's
like, very in control and then, there are obviously people who
are doing the research that you're sort of writing about
positively and they're saying, that's not Facebook, so it can
be very confusing. Yeah.
Been talking about a company to, to say that Facebook's like
getting one point when it's yeah, yeah, I mean, like that's
what we that's true and we should just be a little bit
more. Located about what we're talking
about when we say Facebook right?
Like is that leadership, is it Zuckerberg Cheryl?
You know, all these different Executives that are up stopping
company? Are you talking about, is this
like a message coming from the Integrity folks, which is where
a lot of This research, is being conducted?
Is it? You got to think through the
differences of Instagram and WhatsApp and Facebook.
They all have different and discreet cultures.
I mean, there's a it's obviously I mean like this is this is very
obvious, I think but it is not a yeah it's all a single Be like
blah bright. Like the way all companies and
the way the media is it's just it's a really complex place and
I think one thing I've enjoyed about and I've been proud about
with our coverage is the fact that I think we've highlighted
that because we're talking about these sort of Divisions within
the company and in terms of how to approach certain issues and
how the Integrity teams that were built and tasked with,
protecting the company, and protecting users are often side.
I'd lined. You know, so I you know, has the
chi like in terms of impact, I'm not sure if you like the company
is restricting access to that kind of research now, they are
really cutting down on leaks. Someone was telling me that now
data scientists are a lot more careful about how they were
their conclusions. Like, they don't want to,
because, like, they have to think, okay, this is going to be
leaked. So, how do I say it?
And I mean, we haven't heard them pulling research, right?
Like felt like they're disbanding.
Any That study is addiction or whatever, but we don't know
what, what else might be going. I mean, is this central question
of the Facebook files? You know, is Facebook just like
a tobacco company? Or like, are we going to look at
that? I mean, do you think the Tobacco
Company metaphor? Because it's like very oriented
around, what your internal research says?
Yeah and how that can come back to bite you sort of as negative
opinion sort of evolved over time I think it's not Okay, so I
don't I think like the similar coverage strategy, right?
Like, where are you? And in part, because strategy is
almost too fancy of award. We don't we didn't know that
this data This research existed before it was like, like we had
all heard of a lot of This research, but like, we've nobody
had seen it, right? And so that parallel is
unplanned, I guess, but so yeah, we're looking at what the
company's own assessment of itself.
You saw this with like that like Exxon coverage.
I think a few years ago and how they are, scientists knew that I
liked about the company's effect on climate change and, you know,
like there's a lot of this framework and this about the
strategy of coverage is common in a lot of Industries.
Write the stories were good because it was about what
Facebook knew about their own behavior.
Not just what's happening? Yeah, and also what they, you
know, like that's one thing with the teen.
Health, and mental health stuff. You know, there is an argument
out there that this stuff, this research, you do these five
research reports, some of which included, surveys of, tens of
thousands of people that they weren't conclusive and fine
fair. But then, you know, the company
then then you look at what the choices the leadership made
like, did they then go do the more intense research did they
then go like, partner with any of these academics that have
been studying this stuff and try to get their opinions?
All right, we're taught we're talking around the Instagram
story. This point frame.
Yeah, and like let's let's get into the meat of the.
Alright. So that was the story.
I was involved in the initial run.
You know we've done a lot of stories since then but an
initial run, the Instagram team helped Stories the way that the
general conceit of the story is that Facebook had internal
research that Instagram had undermined the mental health of
a subset of teams, right? So you had not all gains but
like a lot of teams you had If you were experiencing body image
issues for one in three teens Instagram, made it worse, for if
you were experiencing kind of suicidal ideation, if you were,
if you were in that mindset for a small percentage of those
teens and the UK and in the u.s. Instagram, made it worse, right?
And and so you look at the study and they're like, there's a,
there's a sizable percentage of teams that are not just, it's
not neutral. It's like Actually harmed by
what they see in our platform and through the actual feed
through and through the explore page.
And you know, the story then also goes into what leadership
actually did about it. You know, and they, there was a
one particular feature that they decided to launch.
It was like, an opt-in feature to remove likes, right?
From your, from your From your feed.
And, you know, a lot of the researcher said, well, that
isn't really going to solve the problem and Instagram went
forward with it anyway, because and this is also from their
internal documents. I thought it would be a PR with,
so, it raises some questions. Sorry, what would be rolling
out? Like a optional feature to
remove your like, counts likely using a removing the likes.
Sorry. It hurt people.
No, so one of excel, I'm not being clear.
I think one research just said that removing the likes would
not. Do anything.
And so why bother and Facebook said, well the reason to bother
us because would be a PR one and like the idea being that, you
know, the hypothesis was like, if you remove likes and you
remove that social comparison issue, right?
Where you're like, comparing yourself against like somebody
else in your class and then if they get more likes that might
make you feel bad. And you know, so maybe one
solution was removed the likes but they found that that doesn't
really help if it's especially if it's optional, right?
But Facebook, went ahead with it anyway because I thought it
would look good. And so there's there's there's a
lot of in there about not just like the problem itself.
But then the way the company went about, like, quote-unquote,
solving it. And like the way they just sort
of like they sort of sidestep the issue and try to put
Band-Aids on on some of these on some of these problems and I
think I'm actually so now I'm curious like what did you guys
think? Like, that's so that's the story
that's actually generated a lot of heat.
Well And just yeah, I mean like the critics they all say the
critics point to the fact that the research wasn't as dire as
the headlines might have made it seem and the sales throughout
the entire story. And I think that what has been
lost for in you let me know, you let us know why you think has
happened. What has been lost in the
reading of these stories? Is this focus on what the
company does with information rather than whether or not.
The information is objectively, good or bad, whether it's
objectively as harmful as it could be.
You're not quite fitting into that.
I think we've said on and maybe Katie said, I forget, who but
does Facebook need to be clearly worse than Vogue for this story
to have impact. And I do think how the headlines
framed, it's like, oh some percentage of women feel bad
when they see Instagram or teenage girls, excuse me, you
know, is that true of Vogue? And if it's not worse than
Vogue, like why is that the headline or not?
Even just worse than Vogue but if the metaphor is going to hold
it, Being a tobacco company in which there is clear and
unarguable, medical evidence, that smoking dramatically
increases your likelihood of getting lung cancer, other kind
of negative health effects. That's not the same thing as
like, a subset of, you know, people, it's all smokers have a
higher percentage, likelihood of getting cancer and so does that
kind of hurt you think the the the strength of the metaphor and
you know, contribute to an idea of overhyping the actual
findings of this report? Yeah, I do.
Don't, you know, it's interesting.
I just pulled up the story because I wanted to make sure I
was remembering this, right? And like I've gone back and
reread the story because I feel like when it's been quoted back
to me, sometimes I don't recognize the story at all.
And so the story says, you know, 32 percent of teen girl, this is
actually quoting from the slide, right?
32 percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about
their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse.
This has been quoted back to me as 13 teen girls Being destroyed
by Instagram, right? And that's not the same thing,
and I don't, you know, unlike I sort of have to step in and sort
of, you know, I do what I can, you know, I'm like, oh, well
actually that that had to do with body image issues.
And I think we were very responsible and careful and how
we trained it. We drew it directly from their
side presentations. What do you think about the
accusation that you guys selectively pulled information
that prove that point. But slides, that actually showed
there were beneficial aspects of Instagram People to feeling
better. That was something Alex.
I think brought up on it and I know others have as well.
I mean what's your response to that?
I think everything we want to be like little careful about how I
say this because I want the story to stand for itself and I
think we did a good job of expressing the individual data
points. But there is a distinction
between what we wrote in our story and then how it gets
interpreted by other news, outlets commentators Advocates
activists like that kind of thing.
And so there are people that I have taken that stat, the 32%
Scott, and, you know, they don't couch it or or, you know,
describe it the way it's written in both our story and the slides
right eye. So it's a little hard for me,
too. I don't know.
You guys have been in the situation.
I'm sure a number of times, like, what happens when someone
is saying? Hey, this version of the story
that's been circulating is wrong, okay?
I really exciting. We've all experienced as
reporters is some subject hates the story and they're like, this
is false and you're like, well, I've been through it with
columns every line of it is factually, true.
Like, you guys aren't contesting on anything any individual
person, calms or a lawyer would think is false.
You know, like isn't that the definition of what truth and
falsity is the like all the claims are true and then the
subjects and the public are like, well, it reads false to me
and I do think we sometimes, you know, for a lot of my Career.
I would get lost in the journalistic side of it, but I
do think there's there's there's a valid point that if, like,
people feel like your article is leading them somewhere, right?
Given other facts. They wouldn't believe then
there's like a falsity even if obviously all the moves are fair
and I as a reporter, obviously I'm sympathetic it's terrible to
say some things like false when the lot when it's truly
constructed and fair and the journal in particular is very
judicious in a way that other outlets aren't.
I mean you You read back the Thera, no story, which we've
been talking about. Obviously, it really speaks, you
know, at the time I'm sure I would have criticized it for
pulling its punches. A hated win when Bloomberg would
do this, but there is something to be said for the restraint in
positioning stuff and then which may be played into, you know,
Francis has reason to lie, specifically to the journal.
I think she's mentioned that, that she thought that Jeff was a
pretty even-handed operator, but I want to go back for a second
on the Facebook front because I think what a lot of the wife as
we get such an interesting Company on this topic is that
there is so much that people personally feel about the
company at this point that it almost doesn't matter how nuance
and even-handed your story is because once certain conclusions
that are in there, get interpreted by the people and
get mixed in with their preconceived, notions about
things. It's just, it's out of our
control as the media and and it really struck me when I was,
when I was prepping for the episode with Alex and I went
back and I read all the stories about Russia gate that you were
by lined on many of And I found the stories to be very
even-handed and and not alarmist and just sort of laying out what
was in Facebook's report that they were going to be
demonstrating to to Congress. And that's the same of the New
York Times and the journal and the garden, all these places.
But then we see an article by a very smart journalists columnist
Margaret Sullivan, who completely Miss interprets, the
conclusion of that report who we love.
I feel like we've had to criticize her but most of her
work, well, we think Great. I said she's smart.
Like I think she's great, but she misinterpreted the report
and said, we need to come to the realization that had Facebook
not have allowed you know, whatever mishegoss on the part
of the, you know, Russians to post like you know, spend eighty
thousand dollars promoting fault.
Fake articles that Donald Trump would not be president, which is
not something that Facebook's report ever said, there's no
backing of that. And I think what happened here,
and what probably happened so often with Facebook, is that a
well-reasoned and nuanced story? Gets out there and gets, you
know, mixed up in all of the personal issues that people have
with the government, with Facebook, with Mark Zuckerberg,
with whatever. And and I think it's and I think
this is what people don't recognize about the media.
When I say people, I mean, like Tech critics is that there's
only so much that we can do, because once the sort of stories
out there, it's out of our control, it was always amazing
to me, you know, I covered a lot of uber, I wrote a lot of the
negative stories about Uber, and then I come across people that
had such Such a Negative view of Hubert, I didn't share, you know
what I mean? Like it is just amazing with
like, you're not. I mean, obviously there are
other things and people have different sort of moral calculus
as but it is interesting that like people can read your body
of work and then come to just a much more like yeah, like a
finite and a vehement sort of just an activist crowd, has a
different sentiment than like reporters do.
Do and read this stuff was such like a lens.
I think what Tom said, it's sort of speaks to two things.
One, the idea of the media, the problem with the media and the
reason I hate the moniker, the media is that it clumps
reporters and columnists into one group.
When reporters and columnists are almost always working at
Cross purposes, right? Call us.
Call columnists, like, I had this debate with a friend of
mine, who's a, he's a columnist, and a thought leader here in
Washington DC. And he has like very little
regard for reporting. He thinks it's dumb.
He thinks that he's the person who controls the conversation,
which is fine, because actually I kind of agree with this
assessment. But the thing is, is he wouldn't
be able to control a conversation.
If reporters were not mining facts and bringing them to him.
To converse about that said, his job is something that hurts and
I would say hurts his job. What it will do is, we'll take
attention away from the facts on the ground because he is running
it through his Worldview machine.
So the idea that the media is this monolith includes both
commentary and Reporting. I think it's horrifying, but
there seems to be, like, no way to change it like we can like
what do we do to undo this knot in the age of Twitter too?
Yeah, right. It's like we're all the media.
It's like that Gary stronger book, super sad.
True love, story, are you Media or you credit?
Like, it's like this horrifying World anyway.
And then, the other thing is gas.
So you have this like view of the media.
And then, I think the His view on Facebook, running it through
that machine. One of the reasons why we then
start depending on these very lazy comparisons.
Like the tobacco industry comparison is because it's like
one that everyone in the media seems to be able to be
comfortable with because there might be some reporting to Bear
it out and it's like, easy for Abed writers to kind of use
because it's so visceral when they're writing a column, when
the tobacco, when those sorts of comparisons are like incredibly
lazy and make zero sense, Like at all, you know, tobacco
company made cigarettes and push them to people Facebook, created
some technology. But the product is made by Deepa
and me and Tom and Eric, we're the ones pushing toxic shit to
one another. So the only way to you can stop
to back the tobacco industry, by shutting down their factories.
The only way to stop Facebook is to get all of us off the
platform. That's totally different.
Well, I don't know about that. Yeah.
Right algorithm I think, is, is a complex a fire there?
I mean, like, yeah. Yeah, absolutely.
The algorithm has a lot of control, but at the end of the
day that people creating the real excitement.
I actually think, I mean, deep is reacting to this, but Katie's
position is very far from. I think deeply you're just say,
simply that it's not. I think that might be giving
Facebook too much credit. I mean there is this really
fascinating story that was in the original series.
I wasn't involved in my colleague Keech road and it was
a, there's this Eastern European political party that after face,
Book changed. Like it's news feed algorithm.
They complain to the company and said listen, like before it was
like 5050 - positive but ever since you've changed the
algorithm like we can't, we like the positive stuff isn't
reaching. So we've now shifted to, I think
80/20 and like that's an example of like that's not coming,
that's a party responding to the to, you know, whatever the
record books, whatever the news feed algorithm is promoting,
right? You look at these top Facebook
content, producers. I mean, they're all spam.
It's right. It's clear that if you want to
get engagement on Facebook, I mean, buzz buzz.
Feeds whole Insight was like chasing the algorithm.
You know what? Like I mean obviously there.
Oh yeah, I'm not, I'm not I guess what I meant by.
That was just that by having that kind of lazy comparison,
what it does is it distracts us from any kind of real solution
because the comparison implies a solution that does not apply to
this industry. Well I don't think the
comparison is the solution for tobacco was like well just shut
down. In the factories and don't make
the cigarettes anymore. So if you're if you're going
down that road, well that's not the sky, that solution was that
we make the tobacco companies, try to wean people off their
product and there is a similarity know that the
solution was actually making the product too expensive.
The solution was making the product very, very expensive.
That was the solution was a market solution.
Well, making the product make it less addictive, which Facebook
could do. There are a lot of thing.
I like, but I like them, but they don't, they never made
tobacco's. They never made tobacco.
Less addictive, trust me. Will you?
Is regulated, right? Well, the amount of nicotine was
was brought down but the never made it less addictive.
That is a ridiculous thing to say.
But the idea that using the metaphor will get you to
Solution on social media, I think is just wrong.
It's wrong. And yeah, you know, this story
and particular, I think really sparked those comparisons, but I
just think it's an opening. Look, we want to know more,
right? Like I could you guys introduce
This that metaphor, is that in the?
I do not think we did introduce that metaphor.
It was an enterprising. Op-ed columnist, who read the
story? Yeah.
If you did, we can take it out. But, you know, it's so
Blumenthal set it in his, in a comment to us.
Marc benioff, said it before you guys even realize, remember, oh,
that's pretty awesome. I mean, I don't know if it was
the first one but his was after Trump's election.
He because, you know, there was this period where all these Tech
leaders that were not social. A company's per say we're trying
to differentiate themselves from me.
Tim Cook, most memorably but benioff also which we I think
under plays the fact that you know, Salesforce is my Twitter.
Yeah. What else was he just a super
addictive product. I mean, I love myself can't get
enough of my sales for us but um, but yeah, I know, right?
They were gonna be in that game. He was gonna buy the worst one
of them all there. We get a by like the absolute
like pure distilled Cesspool of the internet, which is I'm gonna
ask her cascoon doing question. I feel like we reporters You
know, I don't know. There's a strong, especially if
you work for a big Outlet to not want to say like that.
The story is fully like are tight like you wouldn't change
anything. Like there are a lot of
institutional. I do think of failure of media
is, there's a lot of institutional pressure to say,
like stand by every word of the story.
We don't change, you know? But is there anything in the
Instagram story that you would do differently?
Now, sort of just watching all play out knowing that you
probably can't say yes but I mean I do think it's an issue
with Media that we will never say yes.
I don't, you know, I wish I was, I wish had come across more.
That I can, I can I look, I wish it and come across at this was
based on, not just like one or two internal studies, but
several, I wish it went to come across more, was that?
Yeah. There's a range of studies.
Some of them were small, some of them bow included, tens of
thousands of people. I wish that it really is somehow
like the idea that we wasn't our our findings, right?
Like we aren't quoting ourselves and we're not put, we're using
the researchers descriptions. This is what they think it is.
I wish that I could write it sort of a hard response.
Facebook's is sort of like, it's our research and it's bad,
right? That sort of their defense,
right? And it's like, then why in
should you be headlining research that they think is,
like, pretty weak, but do they think it's weak?
And I guess the thing is, is that we're looking at five
different studies, and I think it's also that point in this One
Direction that's where I and I thought this is my thing.
I that I really wish to come across.
It's just like it. Like even if the Steve's, even
if all these studies are really inconclusive.
What's really important is what how does the company respond?
How does the company like push get decide to to address these
issues, maybe they do a big deep study and they find it's a
really small number of people, but you remember that even in
their Public statements afterwards or like you know even
one person who feels that this all started on on Instagram is
too many right. So like there's their standard
is quite high right? They're not.
You know it's not and how they're responding is shutting
down all the teams right or just for our reader.
Well they outdid the controls right.
I mean that happened a couple weeks ago but that's something
they could have done years ago. Yeah yeah so they do control
type. If a pause they put a pause on
Instagram kids although they haven't committed to a We
killing it, right? So they're still thinking of
going forward with that, but they're going to go slow and you
know, Adam Masseria was in front of Congress and there's there's
something there have been some changes, they've been some
discussions, you're seeing the story, the critical part of how
they responded just to spell that out.
The part that we've outlined in our story is when presented with
different options. They picked an option that
didn't necessarily have the biggest mental health impact,
but did have a PR impact. Hi.
Ding likes, right? But there's a way to frame that
as sort of they're doing with the media in Katie's version
where it's like this chattering class.
That's not very informed, not like necessary with the beat
reporters would say they should do what.
So right. I mean in some ways like the
public and the media chattering class would have thought,
removing likes was the best idea and in some ways the media
pushes them to to what seems intuitively useful rather.
What scientists researchers or smartphone?
Right? Think is useful and I mean,
that's like all the points I said that, just now that I
wanted that, I wish you'd come across more work in the story
but there and there's a lot of nuance in the store and there's
a I was also surprised by the internal research that showed
that removing likes had. No real wasn't really gonna make
an impact of that was counterintuitive to me.
Yeah. But it means that's the
conclusion and you know, I just wish that I do wish as even
though it's part of our story. Tori.
It's like the part that didn't like a lot of people focus on
other aspects of it. I think those are really
important and I don't want them to get lost.
Right? And, you know, I mean, to finish
up on the tobacco thing too. I think there's, there's
actually nuance and bringing it up not again because Facebook
causes cancer. But again, because this was
internal research, that the company ended up sort of
ignoring because it was inconvenient to their, to their
bottom line, or it'll to them. And again, I think that that's
one of those things where it actually is a good metaphor in
that sense. But it's not.
It's not that The accepted interpretation of it which
almost makes you think. It's maybe not a great metaphor
but I do want to make sure that we get to one quick thing here
because it's super relevant the Deepa.
So what's your thoughts on Francis Haugen and and her
becoming of a media, a figure because you guys had her
Anonymous or the research was given to you by an anonymous
person and she is the engine behind all the reporting behind
it. And then on the last day she
sort of like steps forward and it's going to be testifying for
Congress and now you know is on the The, I don't know if the
cover but had, you know, photo shoot for Vogue and she's got a
rival book with the Wall Street Journal now, they're
competitors. I don't think that's not.
Yeah, because the Journal of the journal won't Explore her like
beliefs and crypto. For example, were you surprised
that she decided to come forward in the way that she decided to
come forward? And how do you think her
becoming a figure impacted the the interpretation of the
studies that she made? Yeah, I was, I surprised by the
way, she came forward. I mean, I, I, it's what is the
playbook for coming forward after you, you know?
Like, is there a parallel? Like, I guess I didn't, I didn't
know what to expect. Yeah, okay.
I mean, I didn't really know what to expect.
I didn't really know that like Chelsea Manning also.
What, what it would look like for somebody who had what kind
of copied all these different documents, and And like how she
would? Yeah, I got it.
I didn't really know how she would come forward and think
about, and present herself. So I didn't it's hard to say
whether or not anything surprised me because I like I
would just truly just had no expectations.
I don't, I don't, you know, think I am your second question.
I'm just thinking, like, how does it change the effect of the
actual? And I've talked to, I've been
talking to a lot of people, what kind of activists who are on the
left and people who are on the right, and a lot of people who
believe that Facebook needs to be broken up.
And one thing that's been very interesting is, like, at least
when they're talking to me, what, there's a distinction
being drawn between her the figure and the documents you.
Right? Like there are she doesn't think
that Facebook needs to be broken up.
That's not, you know, she actually thinks that would be
bad for society, etc, etc. She should make sure like a
complicated figure for a lot of the maximalist.
Exactly. And, you know, antitrust
legislation is like one of those things that there's by part.
There are plenty of, by people in both the right and the left
who think that Facebook should be broken up, should be reined
in all these different ways. And, and You know, she doesn't
comport with those beliefs and I think that there is a like so I
think that that that is that makes it really complicated but
like the actual documents themselves and that's what
distinguishes her I think from basically everybody else has
come, there been a lot of Facebook dissenters she's come
out with with her own opinions and a description of her
experiences which I think are really interesting but the but
she's got documents. There are a lot of hard evidence
of what company internal companies.
And so like around these issues and I think plenty of people
just separate that they're like, you know what, she's that's
great. Thank you so much for the
documents. Did she betray The Wall Street
Journal? I think that Francis had always
wanted these documents to go out there and to be kind of read and
interpreted and understood by as many people as possible.
I'm pretty grateful. She gave it to us first and let
us run with it for as long as we did.
I mean it's a fun conversation but like you know, think deeply
about some of these Facebook issues on just pure personality
level. Just like some fun Facebook.
Like I know, obviously if you had the full picture, there
would be a profile of this, maybe you have to hold back some
but like your general sense of the Mark and Cheryl relationship
and then Marc Andreessen, and Peter teal to the extent, you
can you have any observations about the role they play on the
board just like the Fascinating People and what you're sort of
gut sense of how, how involved they are right now, what you're,
what you would tell us. Yeah, I mean I've been reporting
on both of those topics and it does seem like and the times has
done some good reporting on the to.
It's sort of the Mark and Cheryl partnership was always like the
co-ceo thing. And then it feels like after the
2016 election. There was just a loss of a loss
of trust or something. There is a fee.
Feeling of, oh well politics is supposed to be Cheryl's job,
right? And she maybe dropped the ball,
but is that a reasonable expectation and picked the wrong
team and was going to leave for the Hillary Clinton rice?
And this was, this is like the Dark Universe for her.
Like you're not supposed to happen this The Darkest Timeline
and obviously I celebrate her for picking the wrong team, you
know? I mean but as a pure sort of
cynical sort of calculating move it.
Was a loser and but there is a real question to be asked, like
why was that her job? Why was it all left up to her
anyway, right? Like that, that isn't really a
realistic way of structuring a company.
And so what I think you've seen is rather than like a co-ceo
thing. She's just become one of the
Lieutenant's. One of the the one of the things
that we got through the documentation is, Like or charts
right? Like see ability to see.
So one of the so we did this graphic in October that showed
that over time Cheryl's, share of the company has actually
shrunk right. She's got cheese to have like a
lot of people, I don't remember the numbers anymore, but like
she's to have a big chunk of the company and like, over the last
five years it's gotten smaller. And like what does that tell you
about their Partnerships and right?
And so that I think that that era of the market Cheryl is sort
of over and it's now just its Mark right there moments.
During the Cambridge analytic, that's saying we're Cheryl would
tell her friends. We reported this, I think other
people reported this. She thought she was thing get
fired because Mark was really angry about the way in, which
the company was being portrayed in in media and press whatever.
And I think that's the cell is just like interesting to me
because like there's a lot of things that Facebook app.
Currently thinks her like a lot of Facebook executive thing for
like, comms problems. And like, hey, if you'd only
just like explain this properly, then the Press would get it, and
then they would get off her back, but Some of these issues
are not comms problems. A lot of these issues our
product issues, right? And like there's nothing I don't
know what a common person can really do to like to solve for
product issue and I think there's like that continuing
tension continued that is there but you know and I don't know.
It just does feel like Cheryl has just defeated a lot like
she's really receded. She's in the back, she's not his
coat like partnership anymore. At some point during the last
few years, she's just say something.
Started to say something, or at least people started to tell me.
She was saying things like, I serve at the pleasure of Mark
sad. That's always a good.
Like he's yeah. I mean that's basically what
advisors say which right that's her role.
Now is incredibly diminished from the lean in days.
Do you have a Peter teal Marc Andreessen take?
Oh yeah. They teal in particular, I don't
have like the strongest read on on Entry sins, roll.
It does feel like he's I mean just from the title of your
podcast, you know. He's a Mark Zuckerberg booster
right now while they're well. They're deep in web three
though. At like Chris Dixon is on
Twitter shitting on web to while Marc Andreessen is on the board
of Facebook, they don't name Facebook, but to me, there is a
sort of, I mean, that's the magic of Andresen that somehow
don't know. Now, we're seeing Jack Dorsey
and people sort of fight back against it but that they could
simultaneously have been responsible or heavily involved.
And in web to while arguing, that web 3 is an indictment of
web to is mystified using Facebook, also trying to
graduate like, isn't aren't there, right?
Like I don't know, but it may not be a lot and it's, that's
the kind of thing that I think Marc Andreessen has been has
also just kind of gotten away. Not, you know, he said a lot of
things that do remember the whole India thing.
Yeah. Oh yeah.
Now where he's like a something about well, like like think it's
a, oh, how did Independence workout for your economy India?
Like, when, when Facebook's internet.org got cut, like,
kicked off the kicked out of the country and ain't there, he had
to like deleted asshole Twitter and then more storms are ecology
Market to make an apology. And you don't know core things
like did Marc Andreessen support Donald Trump?
Like, I feel like we don't have, there isn't a definitive answer?
Like, what? I don't know that isn't he is
avoided Idea to an extent that we don't have clear answers
about huge, huge things about what about teal though?
What do you have on him? I think Tails interesting.
Yeah but he'll we do at morita-ya to is definitely
interesting teals one of these like there's always like rumor
as kind of circulating the teal wants to leave the board.
You know that eels like a disillusion but he stays on the
board and he is and he is like as far as our reporting goes,
he's been influential, right? I mean, he is incorrect.
There was a point when Mark had our Facebook had a couple of
board members who wanted to create like an independent
committee that would report to the board.
And I kind of think through all the different, like, risks and
issues and whatever that Facebook was going to, that
might impair or Facebook. And, you know, because the board
said, no, right? Because this wouldn't report to
mark, it would report to this. Pennant committee would be
outside of his control deal. You know, are reporting in our
understanding is a big reason why Mark has been a big
encourager of Mark, maintaining that kind of control and making
sure that he's sort of at the center of everything right?
He doesn't. And I think there's that's very
powerful, interesting somewhat mystifying relationship it
because I'd love to know more. So it's interesting too because
I've heard the, you know, teal is going to be moving here to
Washington, and he does still have A lot of influence that he
managed to grow during the Trump era here with a lot of people
who will be making decisions about what to do around social
media companies. And I wonder if that will change
his relationship with Mark improve his relationship with
Mark, make them closer. If he continues to try to become
a Washington player that was Max Shopkin who we've also had on
this podcast his argument was yeah that Peter Thiel is only
going to become more politically influential that this is The
beginning. I'm not sure I'm convinced of
that yet but it's a provocative thesis.
Well if you're a Mark Zuckerberg, why not just keep
him close because that's that could be a very valuable
relationship for you. And you know Peter also remember
Peter was there at the beginning a like he knew Mark way back
when right? He's the first investor one of
the First Investors in Facebook and big believer and legitimize.
Ur of the the company and Mark is loyal.
Like I think he he appreciates and I I think values loyalty and
I think that factors into their relationship as well.
Again, these are sources, who described him.
Directly, I am not talk to Mark directly about this relationship
so and 20, let's actually end on that note.
So when's the last time you talked to Mark, what's what was
your sense of sense of the man? And the way he views things,
it's been a really long time, you know, I think when he talks
to, I didn't see you in the Any of the Instagram videos.
So you have been invited to go. Water are skiing with them, I'm
sure just got lost. What do I think of him?
I mean, I think he's, I don't know.
He's not like, I never. So I know that there's this,
this reputation for him, like, as a robotic and stuff, but I
actually never, I don't know if I experienced that.
Thanks so much for coming on, much like Cheryl scenario.
We serve at your pleasure as our friend, so thank you.
For thank you for doing this a loyal listener.
They yeah, love listening. I actually really do love
listening to this podcast and I don't say that about a lot of
podcasts which is interesting, given the fact they've had
multiple of gas and we ourselves have dissected so many of the
articles that you have done. And so I appreciate that you've
continued to listen. Yeah.
Now no. Now she gets the opportunity,
you know, when you're like reading a story and you're like
shouting into nothing about like your response to it.
Now she is actually like I mean, they're definitely have been a
couple of moments where it like there is a like, you know, we're
someone was saying like well did the Instagram thing is based on
only like a couple of studies or small.
I wanted to be like, no, it was like five or six studies, one of
them, tens of thousands of people, but whatever.
So that's me shouting in fear now.
Thank you so much stupa. Thank you.
Yeah. Thanks for having me guys.
Goodbye. Goodbye.
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye. Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye. Goodbye.