On with Kara Swisher - From Trump to TikTok: Chris Hayes on the Rise of Attention Capitalism

Episode Date: January 23, 2025

Attention is our world’s most endangered resource — and whoever commands it, commands power. That’s the thesis of Chris Hayes’s new book, The Sirens’ Call, which chronicles the rise of attention capitalism and how it’s fundamentally disordering our politics, our media, and our brains. It’s a book Hayes felt partly inspired to write after years covering President Trump, an unparalleled expert in manipulating this attention age. Well, unparalleled until Elon Musk. Kara and Chris discuss how big tech got us here, what makes Trump and Musk so good at commanding attention, and why Democrats should steal from their playbook.  Questions? Comments? Email us at [e-mail] or find us on Instagram and TikTok @onwithkaraswisher  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi everyone from New York Magazine and the Box Media Podcast Network. This is On with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. Today my guest is Chris Hayes, the host of All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, host of Why Is This Happening?, the Chris Hayes Podcast, and author All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, host of Why Is This Happening?, the Chris Hayes podcast, and author of a new book called The Sirens Call, How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource. As Hayes puts it, we live in an age where we're constantly overwhelmed by the compulsion to pay attention to things we don't actually care about, mostly around our smartphones.

We've been bombarded by so much information that it's hard to know what is actually important to pay attention to. According to Hayes, that's because life is now filled with sirens, as in the sirens from the Odyssey, except now our phones are the beautiful alluring voices telling us to just check them all the time. But this book isn't just about how we're all addicted to our phones and social media, it's about our crowded attention age and as a cable news host whose job it is to capture our attention, that's something Hayes understands all too well. Obviously this is a problem I've covered for years and talked about incessantly and I'm

interested in talking to Chris about how these tech companies have stolen our souls over and over again and they do it every day and then we pay them for doing so. And I think it has to change and it will change going forward. At the same time, they've never been more powerful and richer than ever and so it's a very dangerous time for the average citizen when they come up against these modern-day super villains essentially. Our expert question today comes from one of Hayes' colleagues in holding people's attention, Rachel Maddow. She has a tough question for him and a good one, so stick around. Let's get started. Let's get started.

Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started.

Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started.

Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's get started. Let's create the agent-first future together. Head to salesforce.com slash careers to learn more.

Nerds. Support for the show comes from NerdWallet. When it comes to finding the best financial products, have you ever wished that someone would do the heavy lifting for you? Take all that research off your plate? Well, with NerdWallet's 2025 Best of Awards, that wish has finally come true. The nerds at NerdWallet have reviewed more than 1,100 financial products like

credit cards, saving accounts, and more to highlight and bring you only the best of the best. Check out the 2025 Best of Awards today at nerdwallet.com slash awards. In a darkly comedic look at motherhood and society's expectations, Academy Award-nominated Amy Adams stars as a passionate artist who puts her career on hold to stay home with her young son. But her maternal instincts take a wild and surreal turn as she discovers the best, yet fiercest, part of herself. Based on the acclaimed novel, Nightbitch is a thought-provoking

and wickedly humorous film from Searchlight Pictures. Stream Nightbitch January 24 only on Disney+. -♪ It is on. -♪ Chris, welcome and thanks for being on On. It's great to be here. So, you're in my territory right now. You've moved over to the attention economy, I see, which I'm very welcome.

I know you're, you know, of all the people I deal with on television, you're quite a, you're not a Luddite, I would say. You are a forward thinking old media person, although you have a lot of interest in online media. Yeah, I mean, I, you know, when I was 13 years old, I convinced my parents, 13 or 14 convinced my parents I didn't wanna muck around with AOL or Compiserve.

I wanted my own ISP. And I got on the internet and I started browsing the web on Lynx, the text browser before Mark Andreessen created graphical user interfaces for the web. I mean, I was like, I really got on the internet early and was pretty hardcore, and it has been pretty formative for my life. So tell me why you wrote the book now, because as you noted, the phrase attention economy was coined in the 1970s.

In the past couple of decades, there's a lot written about the internet, our phones, the commodification of our attention. And I want to know what was urgent to you. And I was just remembering a Microsoft executive who called it, this was 15, 20 years ago, said, we are all going to be in a state of, and this is a great phrase, her name was Linda Stone, continuous partial attention, that we're sort of paying attention but not, and that has stuck with me for many, many years, this idea of continuous partial attention.

So why did you decide to do a, you could have done a political book, like why attention from your perspective? A few reasons. One is that my experience doing the television show means that the craft and technique that I have been working on for over a decade now, 13 years hosting a cable news show, is about attention.

It's about grabbing people's attention and holding it. Or not as much as it used to, right? That's the problem. Well, yes, although that's a great example because that speaks to the kind of vagaries of it, right? Like I can't control what I can't control. What I try to do is do the best version I can of holding attention, but in some ways,

it's often outside your control. And the difficulty of that, it's a really hard thing to do, has made me think deeply for over a decade on this question. And then when I'm not doing that, I'm online. Yeah, you were very online. I'm very online, and we all live in this world. And it just became clearer and clearer to me that this thing, attention, is the most valuable resource of our age. It's the defining resource of our age.

And it is also the substance of life. It is our life will be in the end, moment to moment, what we have paid attention to, what we have ignored. And there is something profound at a philosophical level about the thing that is most essential to us, the substance of our lives being extracted from us, often in a way that feels against our will. Oh, and we like, which is very similar to addiction in that regard. Yes, we like, I mean, I think it's a complicated version of like, right?

Like in the same way that we seek it out, but I do think there's a generalized, and I think this is also crescendoed in the last two years, even in the course of writing the book, a generalized sense of disgust. I mean, really people feel disgusted by it at this point. Is this book sort of an adult version of Jonathan Hates, The Anxious Generation?

That's actually a pretty good summary of it, right? Like, I think one of the things I think it's interesting about, and I think the hate book is really provocative and very persuasive, that I think we tend to focus, and you see this in the social dilemma on Netflix, we tend to focus the fear on teenagers, but like, it's all of us. And it's also, I also think it's actually really important

to make this distinction. There's an empirical question about what the literature says to the degree we can measure it, about what this is doing to the degree we can measure it, about what this is doing to diagnosable pathologies like addiction, depression, anxiety, things like that, right? But then there's a deeper philosophical question, which is, is this the way we want to live? And is this the way that we want to live is kind of the question that the book is asking, which is a little independent of like, well, no, it's not making me clinically depressed.

Like, I mean, for some people, I think it is, but for me, it's not making me clinically depressed. But I can decide that this is a weird and alienating way to go through life independent of that as the empirical outcome. And I think one of the things you've seen in some of the reaction to the hate book is like this question about like, what does the literature say definitively about the causal mechanism and the levels of addiction,

you know, of anxiety or depression? There's a deeper philosophical question. What do we want to do with our lives and our minds? We get one shot at this life. And right now it feels to me and feels to many people like the way the market is set up and the institutions are set up is to maximize the extraction of something that is essential to me to make fortunes for

other people for basically pennies on the dollar in terms of what I get out of it. A lot of the companies, like the ones you were at war with tech companies, which I find would be just shoplifters, a constant series of information thieves. I think Walt Mossberg called them rapacious information thieves. Well, I just want to say something about that, about data and information, because I think there's two things they're taking from us.

They're taking data and information, they're also taking our attention. And to me, the attention is the more valuable resource, not in market terms necessarily, but in the sense that like, it doesn't really matter to me. It doesn't affect my life if 10 firms have my data or 100 or 1000 do. Like, I don't really know. It's out there somewhere. Everyone's using it. They're trading it. What does matter to me is whether they have

my attention because either I have it on the things I want or they have it on the things they want. And so it's the finitude of attention that is so key here. It's the zero-sum-ness that is the source of its value and the reason it's so contested. Except they're using that data to get your attention. To get my attention, precisely. Yes, to engineer. And so they take from you, chew it up, vomit it back into your mouth and you pay and say thank you for it. That's, you know what I mean? If you think about it. Right. But it's important, important I think to actually map that out

because the information is the means to the ultimate end. Like the reason the information is useful to them is to get my attention, which is to try to get an ad in front of me that is more targeted towards me, that's more socially indexed on me. But the ultimate end, the ultimate thing that matters is that attention.

So just the other, yesterday I was talking to Scott and he has sort of a theme where he talks about TikTok. This idea of a lot of other stuff, Reddit, YouTube, are more like, you know, OxyContin, but this is heroin. Like, I was like, oh, you're stack-racking drugs at this point because I think they're all bad. But, do you equate it to drugs? Is that something you think about a lot? Yeah, I think it's similar. I think the relationship to it is similar, and there's a few ways that it's similar. But I think the reason the drug metaphor is insufficient. So I think our personal experience of it is similar to our experience

of drugs or people that are in any substance abuse disorder, sorry, substance use disorder situation, which is you kind of hate yourself for it, but there's a compulsion to keep using it. You need bigger and bigger payloads, right, to get the same effect. And that feeling of like hangover and guilt and shame after a long, you know,

a long jag on the internet is very similar. Why did I stay up so late scrolling? I didn't want to do that, but I did it. Why did I go out drinking and now here I am, I have a hangover the next morning? Like those are all similar. The real key difference though is drugs and alcohol are not the dominant markets in America. They're not like, they're not, it's to me, the better metaphor is food. The reason that food is a better metaphor is that some, that- Pervasiveness.

The pervasiveness and the fact that everyone has to put their attention somewhere and everyone's gotta eat. And this is actually the thing that makes food and food addiction and disordered eating so difficult. People that have substance problems, whether it's tobacco or it's alcohol or it's drugs, one possibility is abstinence, right? People that have disordered relationships with food

don't have that option. You are going to have to eat and you're gonna have to live with it and it's gonna be everywhere and it's ubiquitous and it's unavoidable and it's woven into your biology every moment. So that's, attention to me is much more like an appetite and hunger than it is drugs, because drugs, drugs are other substances can be abstained from, and they can be cordoned off, and they don't sort of dominate our lives in a sort of ubiquitous fashion for all of us the way

that that food does. Right. So the key argument early in the book is that attention we give our phones and screens makes us less human. So it's not just the phones that are bad for us, they're existentially disruptive. And talk a little bit briefly about what human qualities we're losing and talk about yourself. I'm not an addictive personality and I have to try really hard to put it down as not an extension of myself in some fashion. I mean, I think the big thing is being alone with our thoughts,

which again- Boredom, just basic boredom. Boredom. And I think one of the things I've enjoyed about the book is it's about this very contemporary phenomenon, but when you push through it, you get to something essential and enduring about being a human on the earth. And so it's like, at some level, some of these problems are literally what the Buddha was wrestling with sitting under the banyan tree. Before there was anything recognizably modern

in his world or media, right? The Stoics, some of the stuff we're dealing with, the Stoics thought about. So part of this is just being a human in the world. And part of being a human in the world is the unquiet mind, the unsettled self, the difficulty of sitting with your own thoughts, and the desire to put your attention on something else. And that desire, which is endemic to being a human. Blaise Pascal in the 17th century says, I've come to the conclusion that all the foibles of man stem from his inability to sit alone in his own chamber.

Restlessness. Restlessness. And I think I have that in spades. In fact, to be totally honest, an antidote for me is to write a book. Oh, okay. I had a lot of trouble writing a book myself because of that. I find that it orders, it's like, it gives me a deadline, it gives me a project, it orders my thinking. If I go for a walk, I'm thinking about the book and then I come back and

I work on it. And that is therapeutic to me weirdly, because I'm doing thinking. I am alone with my own thoughts, but it's structuring the way that I'm alone with my own thoughts in a way that for me is psychologically beneficial. And I think that's part of the work of being a human, is working to be alone with our own thoughts. But these are amplified versions of what you're talking about. You could look at trees and birds and maybe art, you know, before. Yeah, totally. And now it's constant, like it never ends.

And it's always interesting. And we'll get to the interesting parts, but there also is a whole nother world of humans accessible to our phones. And this is something I noticed early on, people connecting, which was, you know, at the time I saw a bunch of quilters connecting on AOL and I met them, then they met in person

and it was so powerful. Very powerful. Very community-based. You're seeing it in Los Angeles this month, people connecting through mutual aid groups. You could argue that phones give us tools to be better humans. Is there something you find good about these technologies? Yeah, dude, I'm a partisan of the internet. I love that the parts of, there are parts of digital culture and the internet that genuinely

connect us to other people. I write about in the book, the group chat. I love the group chat. The group chat, and why do I love the group chat? I'm keeping in touch with people that are geographically disparate, but very close to me personally. I know what's going on in their lives in a way that if I didn't have it, I probably wouldn't.

And it's not a commercial space. No one is trying to monetize my attention in the group chat. No one is trying to sell me an ad. We're just talking to each other. This is a digital facilitation of genuine connection, which was the promise. Like that's what Facebook says they're selling you, right? So when you can get the non-commercial internet,

or even versions of the commercial internet, your AOL Quilter example, that facilitates genuine human connection I think that's great. Like I love that. I don't want to like burn everyone's phones or you know, You know cut the cable that brings the internet across the Atlantic, right? like I think that One of the things I think and I think I'd be curious to hear what you think of this because you know this better

Than I I keep reminding people And I think I'd be curious to hear what you think of this because you know this better than I I keep reminding people That in our lifetimes, we have already seen the non-commercial internet defeat the commercial internet once Mm-hmm that the verse first version of the mass internet was a well copy servant prodigy Mm-hmm, and it fell to the open web And that open web was a much more which was a non-commercial space, it was a much more wide open place. People could pop, you weren't like knocking around in AOL groups. And the fact that we've recreated a commercial internet

that sort of mirrors that walled garden is not the final story. Like we could have another open internet, you know? Yeah, I just, I do, I think it's who's controlling it and how they're controlling it because the link between addiction and necessity is really critical. You can't live without it. And I think the pandemic accelerated that, right?

The pandemic and one particular person, President Trump, who is, you know, I think I wrote a column in the New York Times where I called, you know, if Roosevelt was the radio president and JFK was the TV president, he's the Internet troll president, right? And he used Twitter to occupy attention. Roosevelt was the radio president and JFK was the TV president. He's the internet troll president, right? And he used Twitter to occupy attention. Is he one of the reasons you felt compelled to write the book? Because he is the perfect political figure of this attention age, as you call it. Yes.

I think Donald Trump, at a very base level, born of his own personal pathologies, rather than sitting around theorizing, instinctively intuited that attention is the most valuable resource and exploited that for tremendous gain. Explain how, explain from your perspective how. I have thoughts on it, but I would like you to explain how. The one, there's one neat trick to quote an old internet meme, right?

Like a way of getting your attention. The one neat trick I think he's used to reduce it is, he will always choose negative attention over no attention. And most politicians traditionally have made the other choice. Most politicians, if you give them a choice between negative attention or no attention, they're like, I would rather have no attention.

I don't wanna make news because I don't wanna polarize people against me because fundamentally I have to get people to like me. And when you think about someone being political or like, if you describe someone in your high school as like, like a politician, you're describing someone who wants to be liked by as many people as possible and is kind of a gladhander. Right.

You're not describing a polarizing troll. And what Trump realized is that the methodology Right. You're not describing a polarizing troll. And what Trump realized is that the methodology of polarizing troll is a more effective means of wielding power in our age than before. And that to me is the short version. It is kind of an old meme though. He's the villain. People love a villain, right?

Yes, that's true. An interesting villain. And they're compelling. But they usually don't vote for villains. Yeah. Like, part of what makes this work is how important attention is detached from persuasion. Right. You know, there's kind of a trade-off, and I write about this in the book, like, let's

say you're running for local office, right? You need to get name recognition. Like, and we're not talking about like one of these big races where there's millions of dollars. Like you're running for state, you know, state rep, right? And you knock on doors. People need to know your name, first of all, maybe you'll raise some money and send them mailers. Now, presumably there are ways you could get everyone to know your name. That would be negative. Like, if you went canvassing naked or you know created some huge incident in a public space where you were like screaming slurs at someone, you would probably be on the nightly news and people would know your name. But that would the problem with that

is that there's a trade-off between that and being able to persuade people to vote for you. But what has happened is because attention has become so important, it's crowded out the other concerns such that just getting people's attention is kind of enough to wield power. Although not everybody can do it, right? No, that's the other thing. Yeah. That is right. And that's fascinating. I mean, Rudy Giuliani certainly hasn't perfected it. No, he never shuts up. Think about all the Trump-like characters who've gotten their butts kicked in elections. I mean, Mark Robinson, who's kind of a troll and says outrageous-

This is the North Carolina lieutenant governor. Lieutenant governor Mark Robinson ran for governor in a state that Trump won. That's basically a 50-50 state. And, you know, he lost 52 to 40. He lost, like, he got his butt kicked. And there's a bunch of candidates, Kerry Lake in Arizona, who's lost two statewide races that were probably winnable. And there's a bunch of candidates, Kerry Lake in Arizona, who's lost two statewide races that were probably winnable. Blake Masters, who ran statewide, Doug Mastrino in Pennsylvania, Herschel Walker. There are a bunch of people who have tried the same playbook

that it's backfired for precisely the reasons I'm describing here. That like, there is actually a trade-off. And for some reason, the two people who have pulled the trade-off off are Trump and now Musk. Those are really the two that I think pulled the trade off off are Trump and now Musk. Those are really the two that I think have made it work. We'll be back in a minute. What's up, Spotify? This is Javi.

I remember this one time we were on tour. We didn't have any guitar picks and we didn't have time to go to the store, so we placed an order on Prime and it got there the next day ready for the show. Whatever you're into, it's on Prime. Support for On with Kara Swisher comes from DeleteMe. Entering our personal information online can seem like just a regular part of life now. But if you want to safeguard that information from data brokers, you might want to try DeleteMe. DeleteMe is a service that removes your personal info from hundreds of data brokers.

You can tell DeleteMe exactly what you want deleted, and their experts take it from there. I've tried DeleteMe myself, and I am shocked by how much personal information of mine is out there, even though I'm very vigilant about it. I've gotten a lot of reports that I use to get info off the internet. It's critically important that you pay a lot of attention in this day and age. You can take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now at a special discount for our listeners. Today, you can get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteeme.com slash

Kara and use the promo code Kara at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to joindeleteeme.com slash Kara and enter the code Kara at checkout. That's joindeleteeme.com slash Kara, code Kara, spelled K-A-R-A. Breaking news happens anywhere, anytime. Police have warned the protesters repeatedly, get back. CBC News brings the story to you, live. Hundreds of wildfires are burning. Be the first to know what's going on and what that means for you and for Canada.

This situation has changed very quickly. Helping make sense of the world when it matters most. Stay in the know. Download the free CBC News app or visit cbcnews.ca. Let's talk about the role of tech companies. We'll get to Musk in a second, but you have a quote from digital theorist Shoshana Zuboff, who I know well. I mean, you said Google invented and perfected surveillance capitalism in much the same way a century ago,

General Motors invented and perfected managerial capitalism. Talk about surveillance capitalism. This is the ability to use surveillance to monetize us, which we were just talking about. Yes, I mean, I think her Zuboff's argument is that Google is really the company that kind of foundationally creates this. Absolutely. The modern commercial internet.

And there's two things going on. The way that I write about them is particular to attention in the sense that they are able to successfully preserve your attention by screening out things that you don't want to focus on and giving you the results you want. So the value proposition of Google, and for people that were not around,

I mean, Google really was like the ultimate better mousetrap in a way that very few products in my life ever have been. I mean, do you remember using Metacrawler and AltaVista? I used to have them, Chris, I used to have them. I know, that's what I'm saying. And it was like, it was hard to find stuff on the internet and then Google just truly built a better mousetrap where it was like, you would want something, you'd search for it and be like, oh, it's what I'm saying. And it was hard to find stuff on the internet, and then Google just truly built a better mousetrap,

where it was like, you would want something, you'd search for it and be like, oh, it's right there. All of a sudden the internet is legible and traversable. And there were two innovations there. One was they built a better mousetrap, better search, but the monetary innovation was twofold. One is they could, once they captured your attention, sell it to advertisers because they were preserving your attention by actually giving you the search information you wanted.

And number two, crucially, by capturing your data and understanding who and capturing enormous amounts of data, they could at scale tailor bespoke advertising. Which came later for people that don't know, it came a lot later when they bought a particular company, but go ahead. Yes, exactly. So first they come up with AdWords, then they buy a particular company

and they basically create the backend for all ad tech that powers the modern commercial internet, which is basically capturing people's data, understanding how that data might model out to what advertisements might work for them, and then informing advertisers and essentially acting as a kind of auctioneer, market maker to sell them ads. Absolutely, and they, though Google had a very different

business model, because they didn't want to keep you on the site. They wanted you to leave, find what you needed and then go. Which they now changed entirely 180 degrees. Absolutely. 100%. Which I find maddening. Well, that was where it naturally, they tried to do a social network. They tried to do a lot of things that didn't work, but they certainly were a utility to start with and then moved into a necessity, I think, is what they did. Talk a little bit about the other companies. Obviously, then there's Apple, which is not really trying to capture your attention.

So they're trying to get you to use the phone mostly. They're putting stuff on it. They're selling the portal. So talk about what each of them, talk about Apple, Facebook, and say TikTok have wanted to do. Yeah, I mean, Apple is the founder of the Attention Age because I think the point at which we enter the Attention

Age is 2007 when Jobs introduces the iPhone as the first smartphone. I agree, yeah. When people say, well, what's different? It's like, well, the smartphone creates a level of ubiquity that never existed before. It's totalizing in a way that no device was before, and that's really when we enter this age.

So they're, in some ways, the most most responsible and because they can sell physical hardware and You know you and I actually interviewed Tim Cook together. He's very proud of the fact that like You know, we sell products. We don't sell attention, you know, which is sort of true and not true. I mean, there's other stuff they do now but They are Fundamentally, they're selling the portal. Yes. They are the og. Yeah, they're selling the portal. Yes, they are the OG. Yeah, they're selling the slot machine. Yeah.

Other people might be programming, but they're selling the slot machine. So Facebook is purely an attention company. They have, you know, their business model is not that different in its essentials as Benjamin Day's business model for the New York Sun when he invented the Penny Press, which was you basically give away the product for free

and then you sell the audience's advertising. Right. And that's what Facebook does. They do it at a scale that would have been unfathomable to Benjamin Day. TikTok is doing the same thing, but I actually think there's an innovation in TikTok that we're now seeing spread across.

X is using it, Reels. The move from, and I'm really curious what you think, the move from using the social graph, which is a map of people's relationships, primarily in real life, to determine content and attention for people, what kind of ways you're trying to get their attention to the algorithm what kind of ways you're trying to get their attention

to the algorithmic model of TikTok is an enormous change. And I think really bad. I would agree. And also what's wild to me is that Facebook's, the sort of model of Facebook, right, which like we have all this data about you and you're the kind of person who like accent will give you that.

What's amazing about the TikTok algorithm is that it can change with you. So like I write about in the book, like the experience of like getting a little stoned on a gummy and scrolling TikTok and realizing 40 minutes in it had literally just been showing me sandwiches. And it's like, it knew I was high.

In that moment, like I don't always wanna look at sandwiches, but the algorithm was sensitive enough to know that, like, in that moment, I wanted to look at sandwiches. Yeah, good to know, Chris. I'll know what to send you when you're high. You call yourself, I think in the New York Times piece, an attention merchant. Talk about that, because Cable did that

with a lot of, like, local news did it. You know, the trick, a friend of mine did marketing for cable, for local news. And I said, what's your trick for getting people to watch? He goes, it could happen to you. Like, I was like, what? And he goes, killer bees. It could happen to you. Trans fat.

It could happen to you. Like, which I was like, Oh my God, that's fucking brilliant. And it is, you have to lean in and watch. So talk a little bit about the role of cable, because tech people always point to cable, especially Rupert Murdoch about damaging our economy and getting people on a propaganda machine. They're always pointing to that. And I'm always pointing to the declining ratings.

So I'm like, it doesn't really matter if they're doing it, they're not doing it effectively. So talk about your role and how you look at what's changing there. Yeah, I mean, look, I guess I would say that there's two ways to think about all these situations. Like there's the broad structure of a particular form of attention market or attention capture,

and then there's individuals operating within it. So like there's people doing literally like fantastic stuff on TikTok. I've learned tons of stuff. I've watched amazing explanations of a point in constitutional law. I've seen someone who works in fire management talk about the California fires and why they're like, so you got to distinguish between like, what's the structure of the market? What are individual people doing? There are all sorts of critiques of the cable news structure that I think are similar to the critiques you could offer of the digital platforms.

It is fundamentally a model that is trying to capture people's attention and sell it. That is going to drive towards certain things. The evening news is another example, right? The cliche that people use about if it bleeds, it leads, negativity bias, the cliche that people use about if it bleeds it leads negativity bias the saying that we have a news Which is we don't cover the plains that land right? Mm-hmm, which is which is true Also the breaking news noise breaking news. I'm like breaking news. I always text whoever hosted is I'm like, that's not breaking news Right and all of those are attempts and I write about actually write about breaking news banner in in the book Yeah, you talk about the banner themselves. I mean, the constant stream of breaking news alerts

were reintroduced after a ratings dip, by the way. Yes, and so personally, I'm trying to do the most ethical, valuable work within this structure. And I think it's possible to do that. I wouldn't keep doing it if I didn't. I'm proud of the work I do. One way to think about it is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has what's called, famously, the dual mandate.

There are two things the Federal Reserve is attempting to do, and those two things are often in tension with each other. They're trying to keep inflation low and maximize employment. Now, it's kind of a sliding scale. Sometimes steps you would take to keep inflation low, like raising interest rates, will reduce employment. And likewise, steps you would take to reduce employment might risk running inflation. In cable news, and in, I would argue,

any journalistic undertaking these days, there's a dual mandate, which is to get people's attention, because if you don't have that, you can't do anything, and to give them the information and tools necessary to engage in democratic self-governance. And sometimes there's really tough choices, in the same way being a central banker's hard. You just face a lot of tough choices

about how to make those calls, and you basically, you try to be guided by ethical commitments you have, you try to be guided by ethical commitments you have, but also understand that there are certain trade-offs that are just trade-offs. So have you ever gone against your judgment and covered stories out of that interest in keeping people watching? Or did this research on your book change how you think about your show at all, and what you should cover, how you should cover, what to do with all the data you get about your viewers. We don't, I don't get that much data.

I really don't. In fact, I haven't looked at ratings in five years. Oh, you shouldn't. I gave it up during COVID because I was just like, this is like, there's bigger fish to fry here in the world. And in terms of when I go and meet my maker and tell St. Peter what I did. Shh, don't look at them.

Don't look at them. I'll look at them for you. Yeah, but go ahead. Well, I also think it's just, it's not good because I think you, first of all, there's a little bit of garbage in, garbage out, but it also starts to make you, it starts to insidiously affect I think your decisions. And part of the problem- I think we had a similar thing when I wouldn't share page views with my staffers and there

was a big- See, that's smart. And there was a big chance to do so. I said, no, you don't need to know. I need to know. No. See, you need, like, that's a great, I think that's exactly the right position. Someone needs to be looking at, like, you need to look at them, right? But the individual writers don't.

I think this world we have now where, look, I love, there are tons of substacks I read and enjoy, and I think people are doing great work. It's similar to what I just said about TikTok. Like, I've, there are tons of substacks I read and enjoy. And I think that people are doing great work. It's similar to what I just said about TikTok. Like I've learned a lot. There are people with like genuine expertise who are doing genuine reporting on these independent platforms and I genuinely like them. And I'm actually really super encouraged

that people have carved out niches. But one thing about that market model is that like, you as the sole proprietor, like your mortgage rises or falls on how many eyeballs you're getting. And you know, that's its own kind of distorting influence. Right. So one of the things that's happened, obviously, is people don't get their news from TV. They get it from social media, according to Pew Research. You know this, about a third of U.S. adults say they regulate their news on two sites in particular, Facebook and YouTube. Half of TikTok users say they regularly get their news from TikTok.

It's probably higher than that. At the same time, companies like this are incredibly irresponsible about how they create their information environment and especially social media as they become the primary source of news. So Mark Zucker recently announced that it would get rid of fact checkers and make drastic changes to its content moderation policies. Obviously it's an attempt to appease President Trump and seem cool, which is something he will never achieve.

But they're also getting rid of a system to spread the disinformation that has been effective. For years he's been telling me different things will work. AI will work, community will work, community notes will work. It doesn't work and he's bad at it, right? He doesn't really want to do it, actually. He doesn't believe in content moderation, nor does he want to pay the cost that it really would cost given the mousetrap he has built. But how dangerous is that?

I mean, everyone talks about this, but from your perspective, how can they succeed without creating products that addict us and suck all our attention and then is quite dangerous to people because of disinformation, conspiracy theories and is basically propaganda? I think it's wildly dangerous. I mean, there's a few things going on. One is that I think the death of the news as a separate and distinct form of, quote unquote, content is really bad. I think increasingly that's how people get, they just get content. It's like, here, get ready with me while I tell you about the time that my husband cheated

on me with my sister and I have makeup. Here's a weightlifting video. Here's a video about how the aliens built the pyramids. Here's a video about how You know Joe Biden Screwed you on student debt. I mean whatever it is like yeah, and that undifferentiated thing I think is is is toxic to the public sphere because Because I think it I mean the aliens did build the pyramids, but go ahead, move along.

Of course. Now I'm teasing him. It makes it impossible to do the work of self governance. Because you're not, the idea of the news as a separate thing means that you're bringing, like I encounter a news story differently than I encounter two people just like talking smack. Shooting shit. You know what I mean?

Like it's like... Or talking Loch Ness, Mardster or whatever. Right, if my friends are talking about something, that's different than if I read a New York Times article. And it's crazy to put those on the same page. And sometimes people talk nonsense or they pass along rumors. That's fine, that's part of being human.

Like we gossip, we talk about rumor, we speculate about stuff we don't know. We talk about things we don't know anything about. We do that all the time, that's fine. That's don't know. We talk about things we don't know anything about. We do that all the time, that's fine. That's a human activity. But it's actually important that there's another thing that's called, you know, the news were like,

that's subjected. Well, you're talking about the polluting of the information economy, the toxicity, the pollution of it. Yes, yes, the pollution. Right, the noise. And I think this is something Steve Bannon talked about. I spent a lot of time paying attention to him because he talked about flooding the zone, right?

That's the whole point of it. That is an actual plan to do it. And that's been a long time propaganda technique. And I also think, you know this better than anyone, but like all this talk about Facebook and content moderation, it's again, these things are not hypotheticals. Like there was an actual genocide in which thousands of people were slaughtered in Myanmar.

Yeah. And part of what- Chris, that was years ago. No, it's all right. That's how they think, just so you know. Part of what facilitated that was that the, you know, the state really, I mean, the sort of military, used Facebook as a platform to spread libelous hate speech

against a disfavored minority in order to facilitate their mass expulsion and slaughter. Right. And that was the thing that kind of prompted a lot of these changes. I just read, I just read Kate Conger and Ryan Mack's really good book about Twitter character limit. And one of the things you keep encountering over and over is that everyone keeps reinventing the wheel. So it's So it's like Twitter was like we're the free speech wing of the free speech party We don't do content moderation and then they had this enormous harassment problem around gamer gate where users are being driven off the platform And it's like oh we have to do something like none of this stuff is abstract It keeps happening over and over and over and over and over again We'll be back in a minute.

Let's circle them back to politics because it has an impact on it. We've talked about Trump's talent for exploiting the attention age. He's a genius at it. He's Olympic level. But in the wake of the election, there's also been plenty of pieces arguing at the left from the Biden administration to Harris' campaign is bad at capturing people's attention.

I would say AOC is good at it. She's, I actually compared her and Trump in that regard, uh, Fetterman is good at it. Uh, Biden didn't sell his work on the economy well enough, Kamala Harris didn't go on Joe Rogan, et cetera. We know all these takes by now. They're all individual, but collectively, what's your analysis of, you know,

we know the Republicans are good at it. And my theory is, and I did this 20 years ago, I had Ralph, it was Ralph Reed into one of my conferences, because I was like, they're very active online and then they were active in radio, which is another way to reach people. And they excelled because they were shoved out of the mainstream media. What's your analysis of the Democratic Party's command of the attention age? And is it bad at understanding it or is it because they tend to focus in on shame and scolding more? Or what is your take on that? Well, I think if you're talking about the political class, like actual politicians, their staff and all that yeah

There's a real clear problem, which is they still choose no attention over the possibility of negative attention I say okay, it's literally that simple like the same thing I said about Trump were like his one simple hack was choose negative attention over no attention PT Barnum as long as you spend my spell My name right ma'am. Yeah, they don't do that. They're like, oh, there might be a gaffe. We might say, like, look at JD Vance. JD Vance had a bunch of really bad interviews. Right, he did. Didn't matter.

He was just like, I'm out here. They have not internalized that. They're so, I mean, I'm sure you have worked with Democratic political PR folks. Oh, I said, keep going. I'm like, keep going. And I actually did talk to Harris people and I said, just let her, they were worried about mistakes.

She was terrified. Let her talk. I had an interview and I was like, let her make a mistake. Well, she can't because she's a woman of color. I'm like, it doesn't matter. Just keep making mistakes. Just make a lot of them. And then one of them won't be a mistake.

So when you think about that, I mean, besides AOC and FedRM, does anyone on the left have that talent? And should that be had? And so are they afraid of negative press because they'll get beat up by their own team where Trump and MAGA candidates don't care, right? Kind of a big hair don't care kind of people. Yeah. I mean, yes, there's a bunch of different reasons for this. I mean, partly, partly too.

There's actually good reasons, which is I think generally liberals care if they say things that are offensive to people They like facts. Well, and also like they don't look part of it is like a genuine Pro-social adaptation which is right. I don't want to say things that hurt people unnecessarily Yeah, particularly groups that have historically been marginalized or disfavored So that care I think is an important thing to preserve. I do think AOC is a great example of someone who cares about that and also DGAF about everything else.

And courts attention and is very effective at it and is willing to go into spaces. She does these Instagram lives where she's just taking questions. And I can imagine her staffers being like, oh God, no, I can't control that. It's like, it's fine, good, you can't control it, good. Right, right.

Or the willingness to throw down. I think that's, they don't like to attack each other the way MAGA does it. I had a MAGA person, I did some really mean insult, and they're like, how dare you be this mean? It was a MAGA person saying it to me. And I said, I'm not that kind of liberal. Sorry, I'm not ashamed at all of saying this about you.

But do politicians have to play by these attention seeking rules at all costs? Let me, you point, I'm gonna give an example from your book of Katie Hobbs who beat her MAGA opponent, former news anchor, Kerry Lake. Although I think she lost cause she's unlikable. But in any case, for the governor race in 2022, flipping the stage, she refused to debate Carrie Lake and seemed to, as you put it, basically shun attention.

That was years ago. In that case, it probably was the better thing to do. It's like, don't get on stage with her because she'll tear my hair out kind of thing. But is that the choice or do you have to play by the Trump-like rules? That's an awesome question that I don't know the answer to. I'm sort of tempted to say two things that are basically in tension with each other. One is yes, you have to understand the current attention economy. And the other is part of the magic of successful politics is innovating in a way that no one

saw coming. And I say this all the time because this was a formative part of my political career. It's like, when Democrats lost in 2004 to George W. Bush, the idea that what they needed was a black constitutional professor from a big city who was an anti-war liberal named Barack Hussein Obama was like an absurd idea. It was like, no, you need a regular guy that you want to have a beer with that middle American. And the idea that Donald Trump was what Republicans needed was an absurd idea.

So part of the way this all works is we have this sort of pendulum of public opinion and backlash builds up. And as Steve Jobs once said famously, and it's a quote I always use, it's not the customer's job to know what they want. And it's not the voter's job to know what they want until they see it. You got to try stuff is the key. And maybe you got to try, you can't reverse engineer transformative politics. Right. You can't out Trump Trump. So don't try, try something else is what you're saying.

Right. You got to innovate your way to it. And I don't, I'm not a genius enough to know what that looks like. If I did, I'd probably get into politics, but I don't. I think it's a mistake copying him. He can't be copied. That's the problem. I agree with that. Although Musk has kind of copied him successfully. No, he's always been like that, right? He's always been like that. It's his natural. I mean you have to be genuine in some fashion I think all these people you're talking about are genuine to themselves. This is the key actually. Yes This is the key or good depending on who they're with Trump and Musk

It's not neither of them is it an act and I think that's really key. You can't I Think I put it this way. You can't fake being a sociopath. Yes, that's true. That's a good way to put it. All right, I'm going to go to a question that's sort of on point about this. It's not from me. For every interview we ask an outside expert to submit a question. Let's hear yours. Hey, Chris, it's your old pal, Rachel Maddow. As scary as your book is, my question is, is your book scary enough? If you had known by the time your pub date arrived that we would have Elon Musk at the White House in an unelected but apparently all powerful job, would that have changed your thesis at all? Would it specifically

have changed your proposed fixes at the end of the book. And I'm thinking here a little bit about his control and influence in social media, but also about his company Neuralink, which makes computer chip brain implants, what the company calls a fully implantable, cosmetically invisible brain computer interface. Does having him in the White House change the way you're thinking about any of these things at all? Love the book, Chris.

Good luck. Great question. Are you scary enough? Go ahead. That's a great question from a brilliant mind. I mean, let me say, let me first agree with Rachel and cop to something, which is that the book closed before Musk really threw himself into the election, before he came out and spent a quarter of a billion dollars before he basically became

co-president. And in some senses, I undercounted him because I think what was driving his attention mania was something deep within his person in the same way as Trump. But I think he's backed into the same insight of Trump, which is that it's the most powerful resource. And now he is using it to command power and fortunes. And so in that respect, I didn't quite predict that even though Musk emerges as a prime figure in the book, I do think there is a genuine dystopian vision ahead of us, I do think there is a genuine dystopian vision ahead of us in which the last boundaries between us and this slot machine world, this constant ubiquitous casino is severed by a brain chip implant that's controlled by Elon Musk. So in that respect, I think that is an even more frightening dystopia than we're approaching. But here's what I will say, and I do genuinely feel in my bones.

The backlash that is brewing to this experience of contemporary life is enormous. It is indeed. It is growing by the second people do not like it and Whoever figures out how to channel that and there's gonna be a million different ways people are gonna drop out There's gonna be a kind of no phones offline movement. There's gonna be people that Try to build a new version of the non-commercial internet the folks who are now trying to do that with a blue sky developed protocol There's there's there's people are gonna opt out, they're gonna try to create niche businesses

that block your phone, they're gonna try new changes to lifestyles, they're gonna try political movements that regulate attention, that take phones out of schools, all this stuff. But the backlash that is coming for this is every second I can feel more force going into it. Every second, I can feel more force going into it. And I can't predict how it will manifest itself.

I talk about a few examples and analogs in the book from- Yeah, I want to talk about those solutions. Yeah, go ahead. But I think that, and I do think the more dystopian, in some ways, to Rachel's point, Musk and Zuckerberg and Bezos aligning with Trump is actually weirdly useful insofar as it's kind of clarifying for things who, it's clarifying things for people who have felt an inchoate, not quite articulated sense of rage at the prison they've been put in. Right, right. Well, it's kind of, it reminds me of, you know, it's interesting.

One, I was right. Two is, oh God, look. You, Kara, you were right. I was, sorry, I was. They're terrible people. I said that, no one thought they were. But one of the things that I think everyone's suddenly going, oh my God, it's Thanos, right?

Oh, wait a minute, they're Thanos. I'm like, yes, they're Thanos. We're Iron Man, they's Thanos, right? Oh, wait a minute. They're Thanos. I'm like, yes, they're Thanos. We're Iron Man. They're Thanos. I think it was hard because of the money and they're interesting and they still have their fans. Thanos has his fans too. But one of the things that is really interesting is you start to feel like, wait a minute, it's actually gamed by them, right? And so I want wanna talk about that. We say we should look to the labor movement and how to regulate technology,

and you make a very radical suggestion, a mandatory legislative hard cap on the number of hours of screen time on our phones, which is never gonna happen, Chris. So I wanna talk about that. Never say never. Okay, it's not gonna happen. On the other hand, people may want to opt out by themselves.

You predict there will be a growth in this attentional farmers markets. And I would like you to talk about a couple of these solutions very briefly, each of the ones I just mentioned. So I think there's layers to how people will act in opposition to this form of attention capitalism, which I think has been profoundly alienating. One is people acting the way that a whole bunch of folks started to in the 60s and 70s

in relation to the industrial food system. There was the dominant system, it was industrial food prediction, and then there were people at the fringes who did things like start the Back to the Land Movement and go and start farms, and started the practice of organic farming and started opening natural food stores and

Started farmers markets the first one in New York City in the early 1970s now at the time these were all just kind of like bohemian hippie fringe weirdos essentially But it turned out they were on to something and like It turned out they were onto something. And like those Bohemian fringe weirdos who were like, we're rejecting the way that the mainstream, produces, purchases food, we're gonna create our own little alternatives to it, ended up absolutely revolutionizing.

For some people, not everybody. Not for everybody, but, which is crucial and I think actually a warning. But genuinely revolutionized the way that food production and food culture works in the United States 40, 50 years later. So that's one part of it. When you think about, I talk about vinyl records, right? The growth of vinyl records, which is now the single most popular form of music purchase after streaming, which I definitely would not have predicted buying CDs in 1993 at HMV. And that's also because of a kind

of mass movement away from, one, the compressed quality of streaming music, which is not as good as what you hear on vinyl, but also the sort of attentional jumpiness you get from a streaming playlist where you can skip ahead, whereas when you put a record on you're gonna listen. These are different versions of people just rebelling against the mainstream in their own small ways. Then there's bigger attempts like Wikipedia is one of the last standing vestiges of the non-commercial internet, but the folks who built Signal. Which is why Musk is attacking it the folks who built signal as a nonprofit messaging

service that is a fully non-commercial form of messaging and We could have non-commercial social networks. We could have all kinds of non-commercial forms of the internet built as alternatives including non-commercial open protocols, which have existed before. Like the RSS protocol, partially developed by my departed friend, Aaron Swartz, is what podcasts rely on. Great guy.

Great guy. And the reason that you hear the term wherever you get your podcasts is because RSS podcasting, publishing is an open protocol. You can get it in a bunch of places. All of the internet used to be like that. Less and less of the internet is like that. Well, it's actually podcasting is not centralized,

interestingly enough. That's what I'm saying. They can't capture it. Yeah, they can't get it. Well, although in one case, let me say farmers markets record collecting are for people who are wealthier. And I'll never forget in speech, I heard Van Jones,

of all people I don't consider particularly digital. I was in San Francisco at a very famous church there and he's talking to young African American kids. And he said, how many of you people have downloaded things from the internet? And the kids were like, who is this old man? Of course we have, and all of them raised their hands and they were, you know, like, what is this guy saying? And then he said, how many people have downloaded things where you have control of it, where it's yours and it's not being taken from you, right, as opposed to you are the product.

And then he said, and I again, never would have said it, he said, you're all digital sharecroppers to these rich people, I'll never forget it. And I thought it was exactly right. Does it have to be a rich person's thing to happen? I have two more questions with that one. One, does it have to be a rich person thing? The second one is, is there an ozempic for this? Because that's what's going on in food, right? And by the way, ozempic addresses addiction too, by the way. I mean, it's possible. Well, first, let me answer that first. We just did a whole

podcast with a brilliant guy named Nick Garvel about the possibility of Ozempic as an addiction drug more broadly. It's possible the Ozempic for it is actually Ozempic. Mm-hmm, yeah. Or general development of GLP-1s for addictive behavior, which may actually have knock-on effects on all sorts of things that we compulsively do. Mm-hmm.

On the first thing, I think it's a really, really great and important point that the transformation of food culture had this incredible class division and that you don't want the same digital movement have the same. And part of the reason I think that like non-commercial internet is important is to create open and free spaces for all kinds of people that can use it. And then that gets to the sort of, these are sort of different business models, civic projects, nonprofits, and then there's regulation and movements to regulate attention. And that's why I talk about the labor movement and I talk about the Lochner decision. The Lochner decision is the Supreme Court says,

you can't create a maximum number of hours worked for bakers in New York, that's a violation of their 14th Amendment rights. That decision creates a line of jurisprudence that basically invalidates much of the New Deal and then is reversed. There was a time where people would say, you'll never be able to limit the amount of hours people can work. It's a free country. They can work as many hours they want. I think that we're going to start regulating this. Part of it is breaking up these companies, which I think are too big gonna start regulating this. And that, you know, part of it is breaking up these companies, which I think are too big. Part of it is discussions about how to regulate it. But I think we should be having a conversation

about if we take seriously how valuable attention is and how relentlessly it's being extracted from us as a collective action problem, then the way that we pursue this is through collective solutions through our own democratic representatives. All right. My last question, I interviewed the CEO of Yonder, which is those pouches, which is a physical way to get us away from those, right? Whether it's a concert or a school, there's a lot of them in schools. Really interesting and very philosophical guy actually as it turned out. I quoted him, you're talking about an idea of sort of taking the mask off of these people, right? Taking the mask off and letting people see exactly what's happening here with someone like Musk and them sitting all together as Zuckerberg, Musk at the inaugural is quite

a visual for people, right? Yes. Like they're kind of, and so one of the things I think is really powerful is the idea of showing them who they, showing people who they are actually, away from all the propaganda and everything else. And I quoted this Cersei's power, it's called Cersei's Power by Louise Gluck, who's a poet who just died, one of my favorite poets. And the first line of the poem, which I used in my book, which I was trying to say, what I'm trying to do here with this book was, I never turned anyone into a pig. Some people are pigs. I make them look like pigs. How do we make them look like pigs, Chris?

Because they are pigs. Well, I think that the, I think, like I said before, I think it is clarifying and useful for the people running these enterprises to more forthrightly announce what their politics and interests are. And I think that there was a kind of, I think both their politics have changed, but also the way they perform their politics has changed.

And I think that, again, there's a backlash coming. I don't know what it's gonna look like, but I know that the more you delay it, like the more you stuff kinetic energy into it, the bigger it's gonna be when it comes out. And I just feel like day by day, you're pushing the spring down further and further and further. And the more you push it down, the more explosively it's

going to spring back up. Chris, this is a great book. Everybody should read it. I really appreciate it. It's a great topic. I really enjoyed this. Thanks so much for having me on. Enjoy this. Thanks so much for having me on. On with Karis Fisher is produced by Christian Castor-Russell, Kateri Yocum, Jolie Meyers, Megan Burney, Megan Cunane, and Kailin Lynch. Nishat Kurwa is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Special thanks to Maura Fox. Our engineers are Rick Kwan and Fernando Arruda, and our theme music is by Trackademics.

If you're already following the show, you are Iron Man. If not, Thanos, go take a walk. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network and us. We'll be back on Monday with more.