Scott Galloway · 28:10
The defamatory thing that gets the blame and the liability for it and not the platform that is hosting it. That's part one, and that's the part that a lot of people pay attention to. And then the second part of it, basically says that to encourage sites to moderate the content on their platform and to create things like family friendly areas of the Internet that is, you know, without spam and hate and porn and all of that kind of stuff. If you do moderate the content on your platform, you are not liable for those moderation choices, and that includes for content that you leave up.
Kara Swisher · 28:45
Right. So it seems pretty clear that what Twitter did was fine then under the law.
Scott Galloway · 28:50
Yes. Yes. What Twitter did was clearly fine under the law and also not just under two thirty. There's there's this concept some people have said of, like, violating two thirty. There's nothing you can violate. There's nothing in two thirty that It was a helper.
Guest · 29:05
It's a... It's it's protection. Isn't it? Isn't it?
Scott Galloway · 29:09
You're... It's saying whether or not you're liable. And the thing that is important, and I think a lot of people miss in the debate, is that the First Amendment backs up all of this. Right? So, you know, the content that Twitter put in terms of, like, the fact check on the president, which created all of this, you know, recent mess and concern in the executive order, you know, the content that they wrote themselves has nothing to do with 02:30 because it's content that Twitter itself wrote. So that's not third party content, and it's not moderation. So what they wrote, that one little line, like, get the facts about, that is... That has nothing to do with two thirty. It's not protected by two thirty, but it is protected by the First Amendment because it's Twitter speech, and it's perfectly, you know, clear and protected speech. There's nothing illegal about what they said. And so I think that gets confused all of the time. And which brings into the the the follow-up question of like, well, what should be done about 02:30 and what does the executive order do or purport to do or what should it do? And, you know, the executive order does nothing. It it basically just creates a lot of heat and asks for different, you know, basically studies to be done on 02:30. It asked the attorney general to create a reference law to sort of try and mess up 02:30, though it's not clear what what can actually be done there. And it asked the FCC to come up with an interpretation of two thirty, which it it doesn't directly ask them because the president can't ask the FCC to do anything. It asks the commerce department to ask the FCC, and it sort of suggests an interpretation of two thirty that is completely at odds with what the law actually says and also what case law for twenty plus years has has said. So it's kind of a joke, but it could create a lot of distraction for for a long time.
Guest · 31:00
Isn't that the point? Or it seems to me that the president in 02/30 is just an enormous distraction and an unproductive conversation. Isn't it really about law twenty three years ago that was supposed to protect nascent technologies. Isn't that the term they use? Nascent technologies or platform... Platforms, which by virtue of that means it's incredibly outdated. And so that...
Scott Galloway · 31:28
So I'm gonna disagree with that. I I think that that is some of the sense. And certainly at the time, I mean, it was 1996, you know, when when this discussion was happening. And so, you know, certainly the Internet was nascent and the platforms were nascent. But, you know, whether or not that means that the law is outdated is a separate question. I would argue that it's not outdated and that the law to this day is incredibly important. And without it, we would have actually more of the problems that the two of you are often concerned about and that you're
Kara Swisher · 31:57
often They'll talking censor it more. But get into the idea that what... So what Scott's asking about is should it just be reformed versus gotten rid of? Unless, Scott, you think it should be gotten rid of.
Guest · 32:10
I would ask the question a different way, and that is why are these platforms subject to less scrutiny than any other media platform?
Kara Swisher · 32:19
Viability, especially.
Scott Galloway · 32:20
See, and I think that's wrong. Right? I mean, so section two thirty protects all Internet websites and all... It also protects users. So if you retweet something or something, you are not liable for that. It is designed to encourage widespread speech and also the creation of better moderation tools and allows for different kinds of experimentation, different kinds of approaches. Whether or not you agree with all of the approaches, that's one thing, but it allows for that experimentation. Without it, you have a few different problems that come about. And most of the reform proposals that are out there lead to these same problems. One of which is, if you do become liable for the content on your site, you have what's called the moderator's dilemma, which is, you know, either you're encouraged not to look at anything
Guest · 33:13
Mhmm.
Scott Galloway · 33:14
Because you don't wanna get that liability of how... You know, the the way it works, if you don't have two thirty is there... You would have some sort of, like, distributor liability, which is the concept, and and that depends on knowledge and how much knowledge you have. So one way to avoid that is not to look at anything. Right? So then Right.
Kara Swisher · 33:29
So let all hell break loose.
Scott Galloway · 33:31
Right. You're you're sort of encouraging more four chance rather than the opposite. Then the other is to, you know, is to think that, well, okay. If I'm going to be liable, I have to now check over everything very, very carefully. And then you get a very, very different world in which everything has to be limited. You don't get the sort of open platforms that allow people to speak. You don't get the sort of emergent innovation around like the conversations that happen on Twitter or things like podcasting. It becomes a risk whoever's hosting the podcast, if they're liable for everything that is said on it becomes a problem. Do they need to do that? You sort of back into a world that is very much the traditional broadcast media, and you shut out all of these other voices. And as we've seen, what's happening in the world today, a lot of this is coming about because people are able to speak out and people who in the past were not able to be heard and voices that were silenced or not listened to or suddenly being heard and people are able to speak out and speak their mind is because the Internet allows that. And without two thirty or with most of the reform proposals that we've seen, that would be greatly, greatly limited.
Guest · 34:40
Would you argue hold on would you argue the state of play is acceptable? The vibe I'm getting from you is that, yeah, there's some issues with this, but it's the least bad thing we could have. Are you comfortable with the state of where we are in terms of Facebook and Twitter and social media in terms of this rage machine? Do you think that's something we have to live with?
Scott Galloway · 35:03
Well, I think the idea that state of things today is a constant is not quite correct. Mean, I think these things are constantly changing and there is all sorts of pressure from all sorts of different places, including you guys and Cara, you know, Cara has a long history of actually creating change through through speaking.
Guest · 35:24
So let me just disavow you that we're going to fix this. And is the trend headed in the right way? This notion that it'll eventually self police and self correct. Do you see that happening?
Scott Galloway · 35:33
Yeah, do think it will. And I think that this is just sort of the nature of these kinds of technological revolutions. And you've seen it in the past. When you allow more people to speak out, then at the beginning, there is chaos and people are trying to figure out. And some of it is that society itself has to adapt and change and catch up to it.
Guest · 35:53
I think that over printing time press, we have a couple hundred years of chaos and then people figure it out. That's sort of
Kara Swisher · 35:58
Well, also, but Mike, one of the things you and I talk about is it's different than other chaos because it's so massive in the amount of data, the amount of noise, the amount of badness, that it does become amplified in ways that are a little different than previous technologies. So should there be any liability at all? This is an industry that has nearly zero liability for a
Scott Galloway · 36:23
And I would push back on that too. The idea that there's zero liability is not true either. Know, you have a few different things. One is that there is liability for the content that that the platforms themselves create. And we've seen that, you know, in cases like the roommates case where they were, you know, effectively creating content that was violating fair housing laws.
Kara Swisher · 36:43
Yes.
Scott Galloway · 36:43
And so when the platforms themselves do it, there are couple cases, I'm not sure I agree with them, but we've seen certain cases like the Internet brands case, where if a platform is seen as negligent, and it reaches a standard of negligence, then they can get blame also. We've seen other cases and again, like I'm not necessarily comfortable with these cases, but we've seen them play out with things like Airbnb and Amazon, where they can also be held liable and responsible. You know, they're they're... The idea that it's like a complete, you know, freedom. Also, you know, two thirty has nothing to do with intellectual property. So any intellectual property things, there's still liability there. Sure. And criminal law, federal federal criminal law is exempt from from two thirty two. So there are all these things that, like, the idea that that two thirty is this big, like, giant get out of jail free card is not true. And then the the last part is, like, the whole setup of it is designed to that, You know, if people are liable and responsible like the the liability goes to them, it doesn't. It doesn't wipe out liability. And if the issue is that I think I think you're raising is that you want these platforms to do more, taking away two thirty doesn't fix that. It's it's... Two thirty allows them to experiment and allows them to make these
Kara Swisher · 38:04
What do you imagine is gonna happen? And then Scott, you can ask last time. What do you imagine? Because there's all... You have Joe Biden saying, get rid of it. You have heard Nancy Pelosi sort of dance around it. You've heard Josh Hawley with his stuff. It's... And Elizabeth Warren. This this is a group of people that literally couldn't have dinner in a restaurant together. Maybe the first maybe Elizabeth Nancy Pelosi.
Scott Galloway · 38:24
But You know, But I think it's important.
Kara Swisher · 38:26
What is gonna happen? What is gonna actually happen from your perspective?
Scott Galloway · 38:30
I I have no idea. I mean, part of the problem is that everybody misunderstands two thirty. So you have all those people that you just named who are very, very diametrically opposed on lots of other things who all hate two thirty, but they hate two thirty for different reasons. Some of them hate two thirty because it's allowing for moderation. Some of them hate two thirty because it's not leading to enough moderation. So I don't think they actually agree on why they hate two thirty. They hate two thirty just because everybody right now hates two thirty. So based on that, there's a good chance that something is going to happen with two thirty. Whether or not it gets revoked entirely, I find to be very unlikely. But I think that there will be reforms that will be pushed through, and I don't think that they will solve the problems that they're designed to solve. And I don't think they're going to help the situations that you guys are talking about. I don't think it's going to encourage Facebook to do any better. And in fact, you know, we just went through this where there was a reform for 02/30, which is now referred to as Fosta. It was also in the past referred to as Sesta and it was supposedly targeting sex trafficking, right? And what happened there was you had a lot of people protesting how it would create problems. The the one big tech company that went to the other side was Facebook and Facebook said, hey, this is great. We support it. You know, we we think this is good. And then what happened was it didn't do any of the things that it said it was going to do. It hasn't been used to shut down any sex trafficking platforms. What it has done is it it led to a bunch of smaller, like, dating sites shut down because they were afraid they were going to be liable for it. And what happens a few months after that, Facebook launches its own dating platform.
Guest · 40:00
Yeah. But didn't back page go away? Didn't the adult listing, adult services on Craigslist go away?
Scott Galloway · 40:08
Craigslist shut down its dating pages. Craigslist shut down, you know, it's erotic section, whatever it
Guest · 40:16
was called.
Scott Galloway · 40:16
Think it was called that years ago, almost a decade ago. That had nothing to do with Backpage. The entire point of of Sesta and Foster, we we were told over and over again directly was to go after Backpage. Backpage, first of all, the founders of Backpage were arrested many months before all of that debate. And then the DOJ went in and shut down Backpage the week before Fosta passed. So the idea that it was necessary to shut down to shut down Backpage is wrong, and it was blatantly wrong. They shut it down. It was that the DOJ didn't do anything for many, many years.
Kara Swisher · 40:47
Using existing laws.
Scott Galloway · 40:48
Using existing laws. And then Right. You know, know, they knew that Fosta was passing. If they really wanted Fosta, they could have waited a week. One more They didn't do anything for a decade. They could have waited one more week. So the idea that foster was necessary or that it's helped. And instead, what we've seen is all sorts of evidence that it's done tremendous harm for To sex workers. For sex workers and places where sex workers communicate with each other that help keep them safe. It's actually put women in danger when all this was passed with the idea that it would help protect women.
— Predictions segment begins —
Kara Swisher · 41:18
All right. So last question, what is your prediction? Is it just going to be a lot of yelling by Josh Hawley and Elizabeth Warren? And then Trump is going to weigh in every time? I think there's absolutely nothing Trump can do about this unless they put something false. If they wrote something false and libelous about him other than read here about mail in bailouts, ballots doesn't seem to be that libelous. Or this is possibly misleading or this could promote the language is very careful. We're just going to have to like rely on them to make these decisions, correct? Is that real? And Mark doesn't want to make any whether kind of does and Google kind of does. And they end up doing it anyway because they also edit all the time all over the service. So where do you imagine it going a year from now?
Scott Galloway · 42:05
I mean, I think there will be attempts to eat away at 02:30 and there are a few other attempts right now and people have talked about other ways to sort of use the FAFSA playbook on 02:30. So I think it's very, very likely that we'll see attempts to eat away at 02:30 whether or not they'll be successful. That's that's completely, you know, outside of my crystal ball.
Kara Swisher · 42:25
And what do you want? What do you think should happen?
Scott Galloway · 42:27
I think 02:30 should be left alone. I I think that I think that it is all of the complaints that people are making about 02:30 are misdirected at 02:30 and that there are other better ways to approach those issues. There are other better ways to encourage better moderation. There are other better ways to encourage a better setup of the Internet that is not so problematic. And I think part of that is encouraging more experimentation on these platforms, encouraging more competition between the different platforms and allowing much better behavior to come about through that. You know, the law is not going to do it, especially not 02:30.
— Predictions segment ends —
Kara Swisher · 43:02
It's just shame. You want just me to keep yelling at them.
Scott Galloway · 43:04
Yeah. You're the best at it. You know? And and you're very effective. That's scary. Yeah. That is true. But not, you know, obviously, not just you. I mean, I I honestly think, you know... And if you look at how these platforms have changed in their moderation, you can complain about them today. But if you look at how much they've changed in the last, you know, five years because of public pressure and, you know, two thirty allows them to change. Right? It doesn't lock them into a set of this is this is the exact guidelines. It allows them to change an experiment when they realize every time that they mess up. And and you tell them that they mess up or or I tell them that they mess up.
Guest · 43:39
So you're confident
Scott Galloway · 43:40
that that's effective.
Guest · 43:42
You're confident that we're safer, that there's a lower probability of the weaponization of elections at the hand of bad actors on Facebook this election? You think things are headed in the right direction?
Scott Galloway · 43:55
Mean you're bringing up a whole other area around like election manipulation.
Guest · 44:02
Well I guess what I'm going is I would like to believe that the market and shaming and Kara Swisher are gonna save us here, and I just don't see any evidence of that.
Kara Swisher · 44:11
Yeah. Me neither.
Scott Galloway · 44:12
Well, I I disagree. I mean, I... It's it's broader than that, and I'm a little bit snarky in just saying it's Kara, obviously. But the fact is, like, people speak out about these things.
Guest · 44:22
Right.
Kara Swisher · 44:23
Captain Marvel right here.
Scott Galloway · 44:25
And, again, you're very effective. But, like, it it... You know, I I think that if you have not paid attention to how much these companies have changed and if you have not spoken to the people at the companies about how seriously they do take this, and if you talk to the people who are on the trust and safety teams about how they think about these things and how deeply concerned they are about all of this stuff Mhmm. This is... You know, they are not taking it flippantly. And and, like, there is this assumption out there that they don't care, and that may be true of, like, certain top executives at some of these firms. But if you talk to the people who are actually responsible for making these decisions Mhmm. Like, they care and they put a lot of thought into it, and they recognize that every one of the decisions that they're making has tremendous trade offs. And it is not as easy as it seems like for all of us sitting in our homes, you know, talking over Zoom or whatever, thinking that the answers are easy. They're not. Every every single one of these has a trade off, and and the people who are thinking through them are taking it seriously. Yep.
Kara Swisher · 45:26
A 100%. But that's why they get paid the big bucks, Mike, and not us. Anyway, I really appreciate it. I always think you're such a smart dick. You always change my mind on things, and I do appreciate all of the things over time. He, like, whacked me one, and I think he was right to do so. Anyway, Mike Masnik, you can keep trying, but not on everything. The founder and editor of Tektor and an excellent thinker on section two thirty. Please read him. He's terrific. Mike, thank you
Guest · 45:48
so Mike. Nice meeting for having me.
Kara Swisher · 45:51
Alright, Scott. One more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails.
[Ad break]
Kara Swisher · 46:49
Okay. Stop. We're back. That guy's smart, isn't he?
Guest · 46:52
Oh, yeah. He's a maverick. I'm trying... What what what does he do again?
Kara Swisher · 46:56
Techter. He writes. It's a site that's really good. It's I've been following him for many years on lots of stuff. We've gone a lot of rounds, but I have a huge respect for him and he's always so reasonable. I had a podcast with him and two others, one of whom I disagreed with him, one of whom was an academic in the middle. Yep. And, it was just great. It was a really... Was... You got to really think hard. That's my whole point about this. Donald Trump doing an executive order is the most slapdash, ridiculous, productive thing to do here. We have to really think hard. And that's even if you disagree with me, we have to come together in some way that works for everybody rather than have knee jerk reactions. Anyway, so Scott wins and fails. What do you... Let me hear. What do you got?
Guest · 47:34
I have two wins. They're both brand based.
Kara Swisher · 47:36
Wins? You don't have a fail? Okay.
Guest · 47:38
No, and I have a fail. It's more of a question for you is my fail. So I thought great brand moves are bold and timely and they involve a certain amount of risk and occasionally on the wrong side of that risk and occasionally on the right side of the risk. But I thought Mayor Bowser am I pronouncing your name right? Yeah, I thought the emblem or the mural of Black Lives Matter across the avenue leading up to the White House is going to go down as one of the great kind of brand moves in terms of capturing the moment. And we're a visual species. I just thought it was just so incredibly creative and innovative.
Kara Swisher · 48:18
It was interesting. Interestingly, my son, who has been getting very politicized recently, my 14, 15 year old, he was like, Fine, it's just PR. Why does why did she keep funding the police even more? Like, he was he was already past that. So it was interesting that he wasn't buying it. I thought it was... I said it was great. Then we had this discussion about allies that we like. We may not like one thing and we can like another. And he goes, I don't care if she paints anything. I care about if she's not doing police reform. And it was really, it was interesting. I was like, oh, interesting. So you didn't like this. And no, I don't care. It doesn't matter. So interesting.
Guest · 48:54
The other win, because I thought it was a... I said it was a loss. Nike is kind of along the lines of everyone else. Thought that they sort of overproduce messaging, brand building things on TV were... That that era had come to an end. It was more about actions. And just as I put out a blog saying that Nike, you know, just stop it. It's time to have you you know, the music match the words. Your actions are really an indicator of your character, not your words. Later that afternoon, they announced that they pledged $100,000,000 in concert with Michael Jordan to fight systemic. It strikes me that Nike continues to sort of capture the moment, and I think and they'll fall under a lot of criticism for this, but I do think they take risks and they're not afraid to take action. I think $100,000,000 is real cabbage, even for a company like Nike, so I think it's a win. And I don't know, I just have a lot of respect for their, you know, there's so many companies in that space they always seem to sort of take, I don't know, take the action.
Kara Swisher · 49:56
Wait, we have the CEO on, how about that? We bring him on, we'll talk about it.
Guest · 50:00
He's the old eBay guy, right?
Kara Swisher · 50:01
Yeah, yeah, John Donnell.
Guest · 50:02
Yeah, Very interesting. So who are your wins? And then I'll do my logical question for you.
Kara Swisher · 50:07
I I think the wins are for the protesters. I thought they... The peaceable... The peace... Across the country. What are
Guest · 50:12
It seems like it's gotten more... I don't know what the term is, more productive, more peaceful. Yes.
Kara Swisher · 50:17
Of course it has to be. That murder was so appalling and
Guest · 50:22
know that the protest could have gone one or the other way.
Kara Swisher · 50:24
They couldn't make that. Yeah. But it just, you know, I just was like the kid... They were just all weekend long here in DC. I had some dummy tweet me like, Oh, it's anarchy there. And I took pictures. I'm like, This isn't anarchy. If this is anarchy, get the hell out of this country. This is beautiful. You know what I mean? Like I was just really moved by the protesters of all ages. Just was... And I actually, And I liked that my kids got political too. It was really a win. I was just like, they just picked their frigging heads up out of there and started looking around. My kids are good that way, but they got better. I really, know, that's just my life and my very privileged tall white children. But it was really something to see. Just think... And I think there's going be a lot of leadership from this and there you've seen a lot of leadership, from all over the place. I think my fail is Roger Goodell once again. Every time he opens his mouth, I wanna
Guest · 51:13
just What we really meant to say was
Kara Swisher · 51:15
What we really meant to say is Colin Kaepernick is fine.
Guest · 51:17
You know? Don't call did you notice did you notice he didn't use his name? He didn't even use his name.
Kara Swisher · 51:23
Whatever. It's too little too late, Roger. You were on the wrong side of history before, and now you look like a panderer to the right side of history. And I know we're supposed to bring in allies like I just said, but no. No. That one, no, no, no. Colin Kaepernick was always a hero for doing what he did. And for you to late acknowledge this after ruining his career, you can... I'm not going to curse right now, but you know what I want to say,
Guest · 51:47
which is We're working like when needed you, Roger.
Kara Swisher · 51:48
Right. Exactly.
Guest · 51:49
So my last is a question to you. And obviously the question is pregnant with a comment because otherwise I wouldn't be asking the question. But do you think the firing of James Bannon and the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, do you think it was good or bad? Mean to I bifurcate it. What are your thoughts on
Kara Swisher · 52:06
Look, I don't know the ins and outs of the firing. I think he had to go. I think he had to go. I think the other guy also had to go. Don't know the... See, I don't know all the details of what happened. I have some... Because I am not an actual employee of The New York Times. So I am not in... I wasn't in any of those meetings. I just read about them on Twitter. I'm not allowed. Can you imagine letting me into a New York Times meeting? Trust me it's overrated. It's over. Okay. I didn't go. I've heard they were very heartfelt. They heard they were great discussions. I heard they were very emotional. This is just people there have reported to me. I that one, I looked at AG Salisbury's remarks and I think it wasn't... I think they made... First of all, I would never have put Tom Cotton in. I just don't know why they have feel they have to like entertain. You know, I know they're trying to do diverse whatever. But honestly, you can make choices. And I think the Wall Street Journal doesn't or the Fox News doesn't worry about having diverse voices and stuff. And I get the New York Times is better and this and that. But they've gone to... I thought James's thing and I like James Bennett very much is and he's been he hired me there. So I know him very well. I think there was a number of things that had happened over time that I think this was the with the choice of Tom Cotton, I thought it was a bad one. I think that he didn't read it was not great. And he had to take responsibility and that the editing errors are so massive. I'm actually reading a column this week. Just the idea that they allowed Tom Cotton to whitewash himself in the pages of New Times, I think was just astonishing because he had done such a famous tweet about shooting people like no quarter, trying to hide it by using the word no quarter, which everyone understands what it means. And that wasn't in the piece. And so it allowed him to have a Twitter, a really malignant Twitter personality, and then a more measured personality. And the Times, I thought that was a mistake. And you have to like, look, James did what he needed to do. He couldn't lead going on and he stepped down. And I think that was, he did the right thing. And the New York Times did the right thing. And I know people are all mad and they're making it about just this mob thing. It's ridiculous. There were other things over the past year that also, know, like it's not just one thing. And I don't think, I think to allow Tom Cotton and president Trump to turn it into this woke thing is ridiculous. It's just... It's not what's... It's not the truth. And I think James, like the way he is, he knew he made a mistake and he took responsibility for it. And that's what happened. And that's that that that... And especially around the editing and the editing, oversight of this thing and allowing such a badly edited, piece to go in The Times. You can't... You know, The Times has standards and they just shouldn't have let it in. So I don't think that's a very particularly controversial thing. Again, I don't have any knowledge, I will be writing about it. So maybe you can tell me what you think of it once I do. But I just think in this day and age, conversations about not letting people speak out. And I think it's such a canard. That's such a canard. Everybody gets to speak out. You don't get to speak out everywhere and you don't necessarily get to speak out.
Guest · 55:08
I'm not sure that when... And maybe there's a reason for this, that we're in such an emotional raw time that everyone feels comfortable speaking out. I think there's a danger that if you don't or a feeling that if you don't sign up to a certain orthodoxy, that anything you say, even if it's meant to be a productive part of a dialogue, puts you at huge risk in this cancel culture. I worry that without embracing something outside of your own orthodoxy that we don't end up in a dialogue that results in enduring change. All right, but
Kara Swisher · 55:39
why Tom Cotton? We know what he liked. But why not show the full Tom Cotton? Not the he's in a nice white shirt.
Guest · 55:45
But the question is, I think that was a mistake. And I think that the byline on the Philadelphia story, you know, buildings lives matters too, was just ridiculous. The question is, should that...
Kara Swisher · 55:56
And there's timing, too. What use a of a phrase at And this moment in
Guest · 56:01
they're big boys and they make a lot of money and they're paid to make those kind of laws.
Kara Swisher · 56:04
Being an editor is about judgment. You make a bad judgment, you lose your job.
Guest · 56:07
But at the same I get that. But do we end up sending a signal to editors that they just have to be so milquetoast and not take any risks and not...
Kara Swisher · 56:16
We're just talking about that with Mike, right?
Guest · 56:18
Yeah.
Kara Swisher · 56:18
You know? No, it doesn't make milquetoast. It's just... I just feel like, look, edit, if I was running that section, which I never will in a million years Yeah. Like, what's wrong with having your point of view and, like, deciding that's the thing, this idea that think both of those the listened point of to. Mm-mm. Yeah. I don't think why. And by the way, there's lots of other voices that didn't get listened to. Like, why Tom Cotton? Why not blank? You know, I just...
Guest · 56:42
It's I'm not I'm not arguing whether the Tom... I don't think that Tom Cotton... They they shouldn't given... Have given any oxygen to that. Or if they had a format, they should have had somebody push back like an interviewer going, Yeah, but aren't you being really hypocritical here, Senator Cotton? I agree with you, it a bad decision. I guess my question is, does it if you look at the movie that was these persons' careers, to me it plays out that it's a movie that strikes and I don't know them that well, but the guy at the Philadelphia Inquirer, in four years had doubled the percentage of reporters who were people of color. He'd won Pulitzers, and then you kind of step in it during a raw time and you're out.
Kara Swisher · 57:19
Wow. You know what? It's tough up there. That one I don't know the whole history, but I think that headline was a pause. Was like, literally, I think Margaret Sullivan said it best, who writes for the week, she's been an ombudsman and stuff like that. There's something called, Hey boss, look at this. This looks problematic. Like where in all of these things, like where is that one, that headline? I'm like, Who did that? I want to like be in the room to go, What the fuck? And I have been in those rooms, where they just like, Oh, whatever. And then you're like, What? Like what? Like, I've been the person who said what? And I have had that said to me, and I say, Thank God for those people. You know, and if you don't, I'm sorry if you do, if you have a room of the same kind of people, whether it's income or education, literally you never get someone saying, what? What the hell is that? And every person who has said, what the hell is that to me? I thank them. And every time I've said, what the hell is that to people? I think I've done a nice job. So I don't know. It's the way it goes. And I, again, I like James and, I like writing for The New York Times. I write about tech. Don't write about these much more important issues. But I will be writing about it this week because I think they let his internet persona... They never let his internet persona and his New York Times persona meet. And that was, you know, that was a mistake. There's lots of mistakes here. So, but you know, I like I like work work memorization. I think they have all, I think they try to think about these things really hard. And when they think that they've been sloppy to their own standards, they do something about it. So Mhmm. But it's certainly not mob, honestly. What a ridiculous, ridiculous configuration of what happened there. Anyway
Guest · 59:06
What do got on tap for the week, Kara? What's on tap?
Kara Swisher · 59:08
So much. I have so many good people interviewing. I'm interviewing John Stewart, stuff like I'm interviewing, like, lots of people. Yes. Have a Minotoso. I've got, so I've got, a Simone Sanders, who is... Is... Who worked for the Sanders campaign and has now worked for the Biden campaign. I've got... Let me look, honestly. I've got such a good lineup this week. So a lot of stuff. A lot of stuff. I got my kid... I'm going up to Vermont eventually. And, I'm interviewing Spike Lee, which I'm excited about. I just interviewed Jill Lepore. Yeah. And, I got a lot of stuff coming up. I'm trying to think who else I got. I got lots of people, and I'm excited for that. And then, of course, Recode Decode is ending July 1.
Guest · 59:55
Recode Decode is ending. Wow. That's an end of an era. End of an era, Kara.
Kara Swisher · 1:00:00
I will be where... I will be at the New York Times where I'll be not interviewing the center of Cotton unless I can really give it... Give a good what right
Guest · 1:00:07
to do. Well, this week on prop prop g, I'm interviewing the largest owner of the seventh largest Chevrolet dealership in Delray Beach. What? Was mocking you
Kara Swisher · 1:00:17
on Oh, I'm kidding. What do you what do you who do you have on Prof G and all your various things that
Guest · 1:00:22
you I go wonky. I go other academics. I'm trying to be more about can't I can't play the famous names thing.
Kara Swisher · 1:00:29
No. I liked your academic. What are you talking about? I... Who who did you... Give me the academic that you would love to talk about. I think you had him on the show. Right?
Guest · 1:00:37
Oh, well, had Dean Henry, who's fantastic.
Kara Swisher · 1:00:39
I'm gonna have That was great. That looked fantastic.
Guest · 1:00:41
I'm gonna have, Anastasia Crosswhite, who thinks a lot about education. We're talking about education reform and I forget who else, Andy Slavitt who I know you've had on. So yeah, you know, small ball
Kara Swisher · 1:00:54
I junior like... No. No. No. No. No. I think... I like your thinkiness. So you're... When you turn into professor Galloway, I think that's great. My thinkingness. My thinking. That said, stay away
Guest · 1:01:06
from with my Labrador watching PBS.
Kara Swisher · 1:01:09
If you go see Lucy Schurz, there's gotta be a third person in the room. That's all I gotta say. So you don't you don't mess with his brain. He's so smart. If you, like, if you manipulate his brain, I don't know what I'll do. Anyway. Alright, Scott. We're gonna have a lot we're gonna talk about Thursday. There's so much news happening. We will have lots
Guest · 1:01:25
to do. Lot going on.
Kara Swisher · 1:01:26
Lot going on. So don't forget if you have story in the news and you're curious about and wanna hear our opinion on, even really unusual ones, because we like to talk about unusual things too, not just the major stories of the day. Email us at pivot@voxmedia.com to be featured on the show. Scott, please read us out.
Guest · 1:01:42
Today's episode was produced by Rebecca Sinanis. Our sound engineer is Fernando Fanete. Our executive producer is Eric Anderson, and special thanks to Drew Burrows. If you like what you heard, please download or subscribe. Have a great rest of the week, and we'll see you on Friday.
[Ad break]
Guest · 1:03:08
October 21, US only.
[Ad break]
Scott Galloway · 1:03:09
online
[Ad break]
