Pivot - California is regulating consumer data privacy, the gig economy revisited, and Tesla’s big stock spike.

Episode Date: January 3, 2020

Kara and Scott are back to talk about a suite of new regulations in California that will give consumers agency over their data and gig workers more protection. They also talk about Tesla's big stock spike. In fails, Sharon Stone was kicked off the Bumble dating app. And Kara brings some optimistic predictions to the show -- she thinks handheld phone devices will be a thing of the past by 2030. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London and beyond, and see for yourself how traveling for business can always be a pleasure. harness the power and potential of AI. For all the talk around its revolutionary potential,

a lot of AI systems feel like they're designed for specific tasks performed by a select few. Well, Claude, by Anthropic, is AI for everyone. The latest model, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, offers groundbreaking intelligence at an everyday price. Claude Sonnet can generate code, help with writing, and reason through hard problems better than any model before. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Cara Swisher. And I'm Scott Galloway. Happy New Year, everyone. This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Scott Galloway. Happy New Year, Kara. Thank you. You sound so mellow. Where are you? Did you have a good New Year? Where are you located at this point? I'm in San Francisco. I'm in Montana, the great state of Montana, where I am here for the first time ever. And what are you doing? What are you doing there?

I'm skiing, or I'm mostly not skiing. We try and put the boys on skis each year, and it's, you know, it's wonderful. I'm not a big cold weather person, but it's very majestic, and it was a nice new year, and it's a great state, and, you know, a place I hadn't been, so, yeah, wonderful new year. How about you? Well, I'm in San Francisco moving children around the city doing things. I'm exhausted, actually. But it's beautiful here. San Francisco actually looks great, and it's cleaner than it's been, and it's beautiful, and the weather's gorgeous. But wait, do you know all the internet moguls go to Montana? Are you aware of that? You are in the ground zero of internet moguls,

essentially. Yeah, so I'm knee-deep in them. Somehow somehow i got into the yellowstone club so i'm where the 99.9 percentile take refuge from the 99.98 it is it is unusual here how did you get into the yellowstone club because they feel sorry for me i'm like kind of the charity act here though it's same as can and like sancho every once in a while they're like invite a professor so i'm kind of i'm kind of an interloper here well you know actually all the internet people It's the same as Cannes and, like, Saint-Tropez every once in a while. They're like, invite a professor. Oh, wow. So, I'm kind of an interloper here. Well, you know, actually, all the internet people I've been hearing from, they're all in New Zealand right now. Waiting for end of days, yeah.

Exactly. I'm like, what is it, the Armageddon vacation? But I keep getting pictures of people sort of at the Hobbit Hole. You know, they go to all this stuff. But a lot of internet people are in New Zealand, because I guess it's warmer. And it's not Hawaii. they move on to other things and the yellowstone club had some financial problems i think i recall um but now it's back and bigger than ever allegedly apparently and stuff like that but it's where all the fancies are very nice scott it's so nice that you have live a life that way when i sit here uh and work my way through the holidays anyway um

speaking of making money off the holidays, which companies do you think profited most from the holiday season? Was it Amazon, Apple? Who do you think? Yeah, I think right out of the gate, just because of its industry and people look so closely at it, Amazon reported, again, record numbers. I would say that through the holiday season,

in terms of momentum, though, Apple finishing the year as the best performing of the FANG stocks. I mean, it really was Apple's year. Apple was, I think, the second best performing stock behind some weird stuff like, I don't know if it was Netflix or maybe that was for the decade. So it was the quarter for Apple, but it was the holiday again just because of of its core business for Amazon, which shows no or continues to show no signs of letting up. We saw e-commerce growth jump something like 19%, which is just insane when you think about the fact this is no longer a small business. So this is, yeah, e-commerce continues to, it's like what, it's finally realizing its

potential. You know, we were so excited about it in the early 2000s, and now it seems to finally be growing into its own shoes. And then brick and mortar is is, again, suffering. What's interesting, I read an idea on the Robin Hood app for year in predictions or year and what they wanted for 2020. Someone suggested that a large franchise, a Chipotle. I actually think Chick-fil-A would be an interesting brand for this, would go all delivery, would just shut all their locations down and go all delivery. And that's an interesting idea, maybe for a market where they don't have any locations. But QSR is about to feel the impact of disruption around technology. Anyways, Apple and Amazon, what would

you say were the big winners? Probably, you know, I'm fascinated by Apple is, I mean, I bought my kids a pair of AirPods, which is promptly misplaced now for, you know, just a few days after the holidays. But I'm not sure, I mean, we have Apple Music. I'm trying to think, you know, we bought, we went and got our new iPhone 11s because we're in that exchange program. So, I mean, we have a real tight relationship, me and my kids, with Apple as a brand. We were in the store several times and we didn't buy that much stuff there, but we bought enough. But we're part of their ecosystem, essentially. I made a point to go to regular retailers this year to buy things.

I did not buy a lot off of Amazon. I use Amazon all year round for convenience, I think, versus gifts. And so I didn't do a whole lot. And there were not quite as many boxes as, in fact, there were none. I didn't do any shopping off of Amazon because I made it a point to go around to the local businesses. But I can tell you on the streetscape here, several stores in my neighborhood just closed down that have been here since i moved here which are which you know there are one was a one was a just a regular they sold t-shirts and nice clothes and stuff like that and and they don't let brands in this particular neighborhood in san francisco so it was really it's really like there were several different

businesses that were here that are not, including restaurants. And so it's kind of a shock to see that happening sort of in real time on streets of cities. Yeah, and it's funny what you're saying about Apple. One of the things I noticed, Chris, this morning after I was first, I need to start drinking earlier. But two, our kids, both, you know, it's the orgy of consumerism and ripping shit open. And then the thing they both ended up on, a nine and 12-year-old boy, were an iPad and the new iPhone, respectively. Apple really has become,

any kind of upper middle-class affluent family, I think the morning is sort of won by Apple. Interesting, it's not true. Your kids aren't old enough. It's won by Sneakers and StockX. Have you heard of StockX? Owned by Dan Gilbert, who we hope gets better. Yep. I've got to say, my kid is obsessed with that and sneakers. He's a sneaker head. And so, to me, that was interesting, the use of those things. And he's quite, you know, he knows all about sneakers. And it's mostly, you know, he knows all about sneakers and it's mostly

through online relationships with people who love sneakers and things like that. So I think it was more sneakers. And I believe the most, the most value, I mean, StockX is amazing, right? StockX is tapping into that resale market. It does real time tracking of prices. If you go onto StockX, or your son goes onto StockX, what's so innovative about it is you can type in any shoe and it gives you pricing trends and patterns, which gives you the confidence to buy. It really is a fantastic platform from a UI standpoint. The other really wonderful thing about StockX is I believe it's one of the only unicorns,

True Tech to unicorns in Detroit, in the great city of Detroit, as they make their comeback. So there's a lot to like about StockX. Yeah, so it's interesting. I'm thinking a lot to like about StockX. Yeah. So it's interesting. I'm thinking of actually having them to code because I was fascinated by how he uses it. And so many of the other kids, his friends and stuff like that.

And it's a really, it is, it's sort of like the real, real for teenage, I guess, not just boys, but boys and girls. And one of the things that's interesting, he was starting to buy sneakers for the baby, which was just disgusting with sneakers she would be wearing over the next 10 years of her life. And I was like, oh my God, I better get another job. This show better get a TV show or something. Anyway, let's get to the big stories of the week. There's a ton in California where I am. A handful of progressive California laws went into effect this week. We're going to talk about them because they're two very big laws

because they're essentially the de facto law of the land effect this week. We're going to talk about them because they're two very big laws because they're essentially the de facto law of the land at this point. The California Consumer Privacy Act, which I wrote about last week in the New York Times or two weeks ago, went into effect on January 1st. It gets enforced in the middle of July because they're sort of getting it into place

but everyone got all these emails about the online things. If you didn't get one, you're not online. Let me just go through it really quickly. It'll give Californians a certain agency over how companies like Facebook and Google use their consumer data. It gives residents the right to learn

what their data companies have collected on them, to ask companies not to sell data, which I did with a lot of companies, actually, and to request data be deleted. And there's some limitations of the law. You can't tell a business you don't want to sell their data, but there's no way to opt out of having that data collected, which is what I'm looking for, was opt in, actually.

The second one is AB5, which is now active in California. It offers gig economy workers a slate of protection, including some benefit, and it requires employers in many industries to classify their workers as employees, both Postmates and Uber complaining about it in federal court and say it's unconstitutional. So those are two big laws, and they're essentially because Congress can't act the law of the land because everyone has to comply with them. So CCPA, I think it's going to inspire or

catalyze better legislation, but the legislation itself kind of rings or is reminiscent of GDPR in the sense that I think it's going to end up taxing or being heavy handed with the wrong people. Because at the end of the day, CCPA is largely motivated or hopefully there to create some redress around one company, and that's Facebook. And technically, I think, and this is the argument Facebook will make, is that Facebook is already in full compliance. Because where I think this misses or comes up short is this media agency called Copley had a pro-life client and was using locational data that they had gathered from a platform, which because the platforms could in fact sell

that data. And they were targeting people with anti-abortion ads based on location, trying to figure out if women were on their way or near a family planning clinic. And you think about it, this is exactly the kind of thing we're trying to stop, right? But if Facebook all of a sudden decided to have a service that essentially Facebook doesn't collect data, if you will. Facebook – or it doesn't sell it, I should say. They collect the data, and then they use it, and they sell that service to advertisers, but they don't sell the data or their core of their business. It's not selling data to advertisers. And because of some of the controversy, they haven't done it.

But at what point does the legislation mean, well, you can't use my data to sell me or access to me? And that's where the site comes up short. And I worry that it's just going to, again, as GDPR is making it more difficult for small media companies, but the larger ones that have the lawyers to kind of navigate around this are just fine. So I'm not hopeful for this one. I'm hopeful it inspires better legislation, but this one, I'm not a big fan of. What are your views? Well, there's a couple. The minor stuff, I think, is great. Anyone under 16, they just can't collect any data. Like, they can't use it or collect it. And it does sort of shoot, you know, put something across the bow, is that there is a Privacy Act in a major state that matters, where these companies are living, where they exist, which is, I think, what's important, that says these are sort of the beginnings, the parameters of what we're doing. And I get it comes up short in a lot of ways. And of course, if they don't have opt-in, I just don't see any point to any of this.

You have to opt-in to the data collection so that you know to any of this. You have to opt into the data collection so that you know what you're doing. And people may just click on it, that's fine, but at least it forces them into that step. I just turned off all my location data on Apple, which of course is still pinging. I'm going to have my kids talk on the Recode Decode show this week. They still collect your location data like crazy. Even Apple is doing that over, we were looking over where I'd been specifically, including with the credit card and everything else.

And so I turned all of it off. And I have to tell you, it's really interesting using a phone without location data. You have to put in where you, like we went out to Muir Woods to go hiking and I didn't want them to locate me. And so you can put in where you, like we went out to Muir Woods to go hiking and I didn't want them to locate me. And so you can put in getting to Muir Woods from my brother's house, but I couldn't track it along the way. So I had to follow it like a map, just like you would follow an old map because they didn't know where I was on the map.

And, you know, there's a thing that says only once, they can track you only once, which I think is very helpful on the Apple on when you're using an Apple. Maybe you can also have it, use it when it's always only when you're using the app, you can do never. But Apple has certainly given you a lot more choices and I use them pretty actively. Now I don't think everyone will, but it's a really,

it's well done for, it's not confusing in any way. Like use it once for, I think a movie, a movie ticket. Yes, you can use it once. But I do think a lot more about location to start with. So they don't know where I am. They know where I've asked to go to, but they don't quite know where I am,

which I feel a lot better about, even though it's somewhat onerous to do it that way. And secondly, the data that's getting pinged back, I'm spending a lot of time being very fully aware of how much data is being dragged into whatever app I'm using or what I'm downloading. I went through all my apps and got rid of a lot of them because they were sucking all kinds of information I never requested off of them and removed them from my phone. So it's, you know, I think I'm radical compared to most people. But I do think the idea that big legislative bodies, including other states, are doing this means that Congress has to act because you're going to have 50 different privacy acts that's going to be really problematic for businesses. So that's a good thing.

The most powerful thing about it is California. Whenever California passes legislation, there's a 50 to 70% chance it's going to become the legislation of the land or a lot of states are going to take advantage of a justice department and a legal infrastructure that is really robust and really large in the state of California. The problem with this is that if you look at consumer behavior, like the behavior you were just describing, it's just straight line strange. Most people don't even have the skills to begin having the conversation that you just had. And the majority of younger consumers have decided with their actions that they're fine with their privacy being violated as long as they get utility in return. And location-based data does provide incredible utility, whether you're on Waze, whether it's recommending a restaurant nearby, direction,

all that good stuff. What we want, I think, is to change the law such that if you abuse my privacy data or my data that's sensitive, that you're subject to lawsuits. I think that's where this needs to head. It's not consumers want their privacy violated as long as there's utility or a coupon at the end of it. What they don't want is to find out that their data was used to help target and suppress voters after the fact. They don't. So it's not even the collection process. It's how these guys are using it. And then there's an interesting question around, and this guy named, I think his name's Benedict Evidence. He's a partner at Andrews and Horowitz. And he disagrees with me all the time on Twitter. And I hate him for it because when he disagrees with me, he's almost always right.

But he had an interesting point. And he said that if you're going to go after these people, at which kind of meta level do you go after them? Is it the technology? Is it the app that sits on the top of the technology? Is it the company that sits on the top of the technology? Is it the company that's coordinated and organized and distilled the data? Is it the firm that has purchased the data? I mean, there's so many players along the road. Where does kind of the legal liability or the fault, where does it lie? But again, if you look at this thing, Facebook, it probably gets off scot-free. Most of this legislation goes after the smaller guys. So what does it have? The question is, what to pass, like what has to specifically pass to affect the biggest violator, which would

be Facebook. And I think that's something that Congress has to think about. And I don't, I'm not sure they have the set to do it, you know. And Chuck Schumer has been a friend of Facebook, I think, you know, rather Facebook positive, although Nancy Pelosi has not been. So it should be, it'd be interesting, depends on what happens, obviously. What would be interesting is if Trump inserts himself here the way he did in the emissions issues with cars in California, where there's lawsuits, you know, flying right now over those issues, because California has stronger emissions and some car makers have backed California. Others have not, have gone with the Trump administration. So it'll be interesting to see if they insert them here and including an AB5, which is this,

the protections for, it was a new law that was fixing, you know, freelance work essentially and give them workplace legal protections. But it's also affected freelancers. Obviously, Vox has been impacted, and others had to lay off some people because of the amount of time you can hire people before they move into employee status. And again, it's important to do this, to be able to start talking about this idea of gig economy workers and the protections they deserve. But definitely, the paperwork's going to be able to start talking about this idea of gig economy workers and the protections they deserve. But definitely the paperwork is going to be enormous.

Small businesses are going to be more affected. And it'll cause more problems. I just think we have to radically rethink how we think of work going forward because everybody's a gig worker at some point. Or it's not going to be the same kind of system that we've had in the past. Yeah, it brings up a host of issues. In 2009, the NASDAQ was at $2,000, and federal minimum wage was at $7.25. And here we sit in 2020, the NASDAQ has breached $9,000, and federal minimum wage is still $7.25. As an economy, if you think of us as a giant company,

and you think of the president and Congress as the CEO and the executive management team, they have these stakeholders. One, loosely speaking, is shareholders. One is capital or property owners. Another is companies. And another is workers. And we have decided collectively through the people that we elect to put workers so far behind in the back of the line in terms of their rights. And I'm not talking about information age workers, but just as people talk about there are two Americas, there are two Ubers. The 20,000 employees who will split the value of Ford at Uber who have educations and went to MIT or are so crazy brilliant they started

coding Python in the 11th grade and got sucked up into the ecosystem as young people without college. Those people have never had it better, but the 5 million driver partners, the other side of Uber, have never had it worse. The supply and demand dynamic that we would like to think creates or works in capitalism ends up in a society where a third of children are living in households that are food insecure. And remember that software that the media was outraged over a few years ago that automatically clocked out workers at fast food restaurants that, okay, there's not enough people in the restaurant. We're automatically clocking you out such that you're no longer making $7.25 an hour. Go have a smoke break go outside but we're not paying you for the next 17 minutes right and there was outrage over that well imagine that times two billion because

effectively everyone now has that software in the form of a phone and when you think about where what uber and doordash and the entire the entire food delivery system is is that the the massive dynamics or underpinnings of shareholder value in big tech have been, one, innovation. Their products are just superior, more power to them. They deserve everything they get. Then, two, it moves to obfuscation. Okay, our incredible products gave us monopoly power, so we're going to avoid any sort of regulation. We're going to avoid any sort of antitrust. And then the really sad part is it then moves to exploitation. And that is, I would argue, Uber doesn't really have that sophisticated a technology. Door that is, I would argue Uber doesn't really have

that sophisticated a technology. DoorDash, Postmates, Uber Eats, in my view, have essentially their primary means of value creation is the exploitation of workers at the hands of this automatic clocking in, clocking out software of the phone and the lack of regulation that says, if you're an independent contractor, we don't have to offer you bathroom breaks. We don't have to ensure you're making $7.25 an hour, and a lot of them aren't. But a long-winded way of coming around again to acknowledge your point, and that is there should be probably a middle ground between independent contractors who have no protection, and then employee status where the company is forced to provide benefits and immediately raise the cost of that employee by 30%. The problem with this law is that it differentiates between workers.

I mean, there's a bunch of carve-outs for white-collar workers, like doctors. Lawyers. But then low-paid workers, like construction, janitorial services, they get legal protections. But then they let in marketers and grant raters, but not journalists. So if you're a freelance, which is, you know, there's so many journalists that do freelance work. And again, as I said, Vox Media, full disclosure, had to cut more than 200 California freelancers. There's transcription services, there's all kinds of people who do that kind of work. And so being an independent contractor is a good thing for a lot

of people because they like it, but then they can't work. Or they work only a short amount of time and then can't make their living, essentially. And so the sophistication of these laws, as you start to get into it, gets rather deep. And of course, it calls for the idea that we should have a national healthcare initiative. You know, this idea that everybody should, health care is really at the center of this, along with other benefits, but having health care benefits is critically important. And the fact that we don't across this country, it just continues to be, you know, we have Obamacare, but it's under attack, is the problem. My nephew lives in Australia, and he was, and my other one lived in Japan for a long time.

We were talking at Christmas, and they were like, we couldn't believe how much Advil costs here. We can't believe how much, you know what I mean? They're sort of like, God, you're all on your own here, compared to the kind of quality care they're getting in the countries they live in. It was an interesting discussion, and they've come to expect, and I think the problem is our people in this country have not come to expect

this kind of ability to have these things. And so I like that California's passed these things. We've got to move on, but we'll see where they go, and they're going to be attacked in court by all these companies going forward, both laws. And so the question is, where does it end up on a federal level? And then eventually the Supreme Court, I'm guessing, like I think this is the kind of thing,

these kind of changes between employment law and privacy are going to have to end up finally being determined at a very high federal level where we all can agree on things. I don't think it's going to, either of these laws are going to, this is the beginning of them. And I'm glad California has done this. However, however problematic they have created problems,

at least we're discussing those problems. Yeah. I think it's super in DoorDash have already devoted or allocated tens of millions of dollars to propose legislation or a ballot initiative that directly counteracts it. Right. Well, ballot initiatives in California is those who don't live here,

they do ballot issues on a wide range of things. And sometimes people aren't really paying attention. Like the other, like I was joking, like we picked the paper clips that San Francisco uses. Like it's a crazy way to legislate. I think most people in California don't like it, although it was meant beginning to be, to give power to people.

Now it becomes like a circus when you're going to vote. But anyway, we'll see where it goes. I think we're on deck this year, maybe, to have privacy legislation in Congress if we can get through this horrible... Well, no, I don't think we're going to get through anything until November, until it's very clear who's president, who's running the Senate, and who's running the House. And that's going to be, so this year politically is going to be insane, I think, so there won't be much being passed. Anyway, we got to take a quick break now, but we'll be right back after this.

Scott, you sound so mellow. I like it. You've got the most thoughtful professor thing. I envision you in like a sweater vest kind of thing, smoking a pipe, looking out at the snow among the rich people. I really think it's a nice mood for you. I like it a lot. That's a good look on me.

No, it's mostly me. It's mostly me in a dark room who's just yelled at his kids not to come into the room under any circumstances. Still recovering from my New Year's Eve hangover. Anyway, when we get back, we're going to do wins and fails and prediction. And everybody, welcome to the new year, 2020.

We'll be back after this. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.

These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem,

we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize?

What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere? And you're making content that no one sees sees and it takes forever to build a campaign?

Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Okay, we're back. Scott wins and fails. It's early in the year. You know, people really missed us. They didn't like us being away for a week. Oh, good. It's my favorite. Back to how awesome we are. That was a topic every week. Let's find a new way to talk about how awesome the jungle cat and the Big Dalg are.

They did. People miss us. We got on a lot of lists and people, best of, this and that. And people really missed us going away. They didn't like us being away, not talking to each other. But we're going to, as everyone knows, we go twice a week. We're sort of fitting in with the formats as we move forward. But we'd love any suggestions from everybody

about what you think of the two, how we should do the second one, and whether it should be different, if we should do wins and fails just once a week, if there's enough wins and fails, things like that. But let's go, since you've been away for so long, I would like some wins and fails. A lot did happen over the holiday.

It was not a quiet holiday season, even though it was two weeks of vacations, essentially, for most people. So, your wins and fails, Scott Galloway? Before we get started, you wrote, and you know how much I don't like reading your material, but occasionally I stumble upon it. And I read your article in the New York Times, and the thing that struck me, you made some predictions, was it was very optimistic. Yes. struck me, you made some predictions, was it was very optimistic that you said a few things that you thought climate change could in fact, that big tech could play a big role in terms of innovators addressing climate change and that the first trillionaire would be someone who addressed that,

that privacy. It struck me that, and I have a few questions on it, it struck me that the article was hopeful and optimistic, which is nice, and I cannot relate to, but two, that you think tech and what I'll call market-driven and capitalism-driven innovation and the rewards and the spoils are going to play a huge role in solving the problems of their own making. That's what struck me. You sounded like you could almost be, I don't want to say a lobbyist, but someone who is very pro-tech thinking a lot of these problems of their own making can be solved by them. Well, you know, it's interesting because the reaction was fascinating. People really liked it when I'm positive.

I like it when I'm negative. And they like it when I'm negative. Well, it's a shocker. They like it when you surprise them. I wasn't being positive so much as let's like, I read all these year-end things and I can't stand them or or looking back at the decade and they're all the same. They're all exactly the same. And they're also short term, right? Like, oh, we're going to have like even bigger AirPods on our helmets, AirPod helmets or whatever. I just find them really small minded. I know it sounds crazy, but I do. And so I thought, why don't I really just say what I would like to happen? Why don't

I just do like visualization as they say here in California? Why don't I really just say what I would like to happen? Why don't I just do visualization, as they say here in California? Why don't I visualize the future I want to have? And so these were some of the issues that I want to sort of set the tone for writing all year about solutions, which is what code's going to be about this year. And it's not to say we're going to ignore all the shitty stuff Facebook does, because I'm sure they're gearing up and resting to do more shitty things all year. But I do want to think about where I want to set the tone of, because I

think in, I don't want to say attacking tech over the past year and a half, but I'm saying chastising tech for their problems, I think has set in motion. I started sort of whacking at them back in 2016 on these issues of responsibility. All right, now that we've done that, it's time to like, what are we going to do about it? And so I think getting people in that mode, including in the tech industry, is a good one.

Because at some point, you have to, it's sort of like Twitter and Trump right now. It's like, that's enough. We're done with, and that's what I ended the piece on. Like, whatever you think, in 10 years, we do not have to listen to Trump on Twitter, probably.

You know what I mean? Like, probably that'll be gone. So that's what I was trying to put in people's brains, is that the internet screaming at you is going to be over at some point and give people a little hope. That was my,

what I was trying to do. I like that. And I didn't realize predictions were what we want the world to make of it, what we want to happen. So my big prediction then for the future is that me, AOC, and Andrew Ross Sorkin, ARS, steal one of those stupid fucking rockets that those little dick billionaires are building. We take off. We hit the substrata.

They look at me because I'm older and I have that face you distrust. And I say, let's rock. Let's light this candle. Let's head into the sun. We fly together, me, AOC, and Andrew Ross Sorkin into the center of the fucking sun. Our DNA fuses. And do we die? No, we create new antimatter.

We emerge. We emerge as a vehicle, as the spiritual animal, the singularity that I warrant, that I do. I emerge from the sun, fused with AOC and Andrew Ross Sorkin, a golden god. And I realize my destiny. Hello, golden god. This is an episode of Star Trek, in case you're interested.

Into the fucking sun. This is not going to happen. I'm sorry, Scott. You're going to burn on, like, getting even slightly close to it, and then you'll all be dead. And by the way, AOC and Andrew Ross would never get in a rocket with you, but that's another issue. That's my posse. She's running for president. Did you see all these stories? She's preparing for presidency in 20 years, I guess.

Well, Julian Castro has dropped out. Julian Castro is no mas in the race. He dropped out. So AOC could fill the role. Let's use that as a segue. I'm going to start with a fail. And it kind of goes to why we need AOC or more people of color in the race. I think the Democratic Party has really failed us. And as we all try to get really excited about these candidates, I would describe the candidates thus far collectively as meh. I don't think the Democrat, I think the Democratic committee has pivoted or the Democratic National Committee has pivoted too far to the other side where we let these total whack jobs who should not be taking any oxygen during an incredibly important process on the debate stage. I think that they should have had debates where they said, okay, we believe, we believe that similar to being a heart surgeon or a, you know, a VCR repair person, that there is a skill set and domain expertise and a certain level of respect to people who have actually governed. And our experiment around business people or people who have no experience in government has been a disaster. And I would have liked to have seen debates with fewer people such that, as I told you,

I'm in the great state of Montana. I don't know a lot about Steve Bullock, the governor here, but I would have liked to have learned more and had a Democratic governor in a red state get more oxygen. And he just couldn't even get out of the box. What is that up to? I mean, it's a reaction to what happened with Hillary Clinton, which the DNC shut everybody down. It was an overcorrection, so to speak. But I think they've screwed up. I think the DNC has an obligation. I think government matters. And I think actually a lot of politicians

do a very good job. It's really interesting. I talked about this time last year, I had a tweet saying we might be inaugurating or welcoming Andrew Yang as Secretary of Commerce and Tom Steyer as Secretary of Energy. It's really interesting. The Yang gang is about as passionate as any group online, with the exception of maybe Tesla and occasionally fanboys from Apple in terms of pushback. They were angry that I suggested he might only be Secretary of Commerce, but let me just inspire a million mean twigs. I think Andrew Yang is a fascinating guy with fascinating ideas, a successful business person. I think he's a good person. I think he has absolutely no fucking reason to be president. I think that would be a disaster. I do think it's important that the guy

or gal shows up with some people who they actually have predetermined relationships, that they understand legislation, that they understand how Senate and the House work together, and people will respond, well, has it worked so far? And I would argue, I think it's worked better than people give it credit for. But the people who cut and run here, the Democratic National Committee should command the space they occupy and should have done a better job giving oxygen and giving us a better look at people who have spent their lives in government. Democratic Party, Scott, but that's okay. Like, I think there's no way they were going to avoid this Thunderdome this year. Even if it's a dull Thunderdome. Because of Hillary? Because of Hillary? Yeah, 100%. There was no way. But couldn't they have had a half a dozen debates, just DNC debates? And quite frankly, they didn't invite Marianne Williamson. I mean, they just don't, they just said, okay, we're not going to invite business people who are

billionaires. We have, we're the going to invite business people who are billionaires we have with us is we're the democratic national committee professional politics i mean trump is blowing that all to hell like look he's not qualified by any stretch remains unqualified shouldn't we learn from this tweet from mar-a-lago the southern white house for forever which is just a grifter palace as far as i can tell um but uh where they're just writing them checks i'm. They'll just bring checks like it's a mafia wedding. But it's... You know, I don't know.

I think this is the process. This is the process we have, especially with the Democrats, and that's the way it's going to go. And then we'll zero out on somebody. And it looks like it's moving into the regulars. It's not like they didn't get there. That's a good point. I think the win, Scott, it's not like they didn't get there. That's a good point. And I think they're better for it.

I think the win, Scott, that's a fail for you. You got to explain the Tesla situation. I think people were coming at you because Tesla's at an all-time high. Yeah. So you think Tesla's a win? I don't know if it's a win. It's a win for shareholders, for sure. So your win is an opportunity to embarrass me?

Is that what you're saying? Yes, exactly. I want you to explain it. I was sitting there like, how is he going to explain this? He's going to avoid it or whatever, but you can't avoid it. So what do you think about this run-up in Tesla stock? That's really what I want to know, what you think about it. So just to be clear, I said—

So the Yang people now hate you. Let's have the Tesla people come after you. You know what? If you're going to have enemies, have powerful enemies. So I said earlier in the year at South by Southwest, one of my big predictions is that this was the year Tesla was going to come undone. Yes, crash. Full crash into a wall. It was trading at $300 a share. The moment we said that, the stock went to $220, not because of us, but just because. And I thought, wow,

I'm actually pretty good at this predictions thing. And now it's at an all-time high. And there's just no getting around it. I was wrong. Tesla has, I thought all the incredible exodus of senior management was going to come back to haunt them. I still believe the greatness is achieved in the agency of others. And I'm kind of, I don't want to say I'm doubling down. I'm almost a little bit tired of fighting people on Tesla and the heat I take. I own a Tesla. I think it's a great car. I think it's a great brand. My viewpoint, though, is that at the end of the day, it's a company that bends steel and will begin at some point trading at a valuation that is the most valuable on any multiple

or any reasonable metric auto company in the world, which puts it somewhere at like 80 to 120 bucks a share. So look, like the company, congratulations to them. I was wrong. Still think the company is wildly overvalued. But why did it go up? Why do you think it went up? That's what I want to understand.

It may be a fake go up. I think that you're 100% right about this valuation is crazy. But why did it go up? What was the intervening factor that it keeps doing this? I mean, I see a lot. Let me tell you, being back here in California for a while, all you see is Teslas everywhere. Like, now I live in San Francisco, but I was all over the Bay Area, and you see all levels of them everywhere being driven by people, which is interesting.

There's just no getting around it. The company is tremendously innovative. It takes enormous risks. I forget the new model that they launched last year, the more affordable model, but that seems to be getting traction. The pickup truck inspired this Tesla-like wondery that people have come to expect. They're not afraid to do things incredibly different, especially their China production is coming online, and now they're producing 1,000 cars a day. They're starting to do something that they've never done before, and that is actually hit targets. They're famous for not hitting them. So look, the company is firing, I would say it's firing on all cylinders if it wasn't an electric car, but it's conducting on all lithium iodine or whatever the appropriate analogy is. The company's executing. Congratulations

to them. I'm glad the bulls won. I don't have a position in the stock, but yeah, I don't. Yeah, but it's interesting. Well, Elon seems a little bit more reinvigorated. I mean, at one point he was tweeting from the China factory and then he was somehow, it's a SpaceX facility. It was like, what, he cloned yourself? Like, what's, you know, it's interesting. He's quite, you know, I think he's probably emboldened by winning the case and sort of getting himself in line. And so, you know, he's got a lot of energy, that guy. I'll tell you that. Well, it's huge vindication for him because, you know, the stock's up above where he said

he was going to take the company private when he committed blatant market manipulation and proved that the SEC still lacks SAC and is not there to protect investors but protect management. Anyway, but there's just no getting around it. Tesla's on fire. I couldn't have been more wrong on that one. All right. but protect management. Anyway, but it is, there's just no getting around it. Tesla's on fire. I was, I couldn't have been more wrong on that one. All right, another thing I wanted to ask you about,

I missed you so much, I want your opinions on everything, was this Bumble blocking Sharon Stone thing, which was kind of a great, it was 2019. But what did she do? What did she do? That's what I want to know. She was on Bumble looking for a date, and they kicked her off because they said she wasn't Sharon Stone

when indeed she was Sharon Stone. And then they, of course, responded and said, oh, Sharon, come back. We're thrilled to have you. Date away. And then there were some very... My friend, Hillary Rosen, was like, forget Bumble. I'd be happy to date you. So, it was very funny. When I heard about Sharon being on Bumble, I decided to update my profile because my dating profile just says one thing. It says super into magic. And that wasn't working for me. So I changed it to I decided I needed to be a little bit more aggressive, a little bit more brute, a little bit more, you know, dog. And I'm like, an alpha male will not take shit from waiters, We'll protect your standing everywhere we go.

We'll impregnate you, leave, then come back and eat the child. Alpha male. Oh, my God. That wasn't working. That wasn't working. I'm on a bit right now. Don't interrupt me. So I went back to the thing to attract the lovelies, and I wrote, super judgmental, re-exotic vacations, but pretty easy going on everything else.

Speaking of exotic, which you're on right now. Oh, my God. Scott, please stay off of Bumble. No one's going to pick you on Bumble. Women have the agency on Bumble, and you will never get selected. Release the hound in 2020. No way. No way.

Please stay off all online dating services. I'm going to warn people. I know all the owners of these businesses. I'm going to have them put a warning label on anything that you do on dating services. I'm going to warn people. I know all the owners of these businesses. I'm going to have them put a warning label on anything that you do on dating services. One in five marriages, and I think like three and four hookups are now online. I think online dating is a wonderful thing. I have a friend who looks like he might be separating. And I'm like, dude, I got so excited when I heard about this, not because of the pain and frustration and tragedy that is separation.

Not that, not that. I made him promise me three months ago that if he ended up getting separated, I would get to write his dating profiles. I'm gonna have so much fun because this guy is like me, but more handsome and more successful. Oh, we're gonna have so much fun.

I'm gonna be such a Cyrano. He's never gonna date again, in other words. All right, listen, we gotta finish up with predictions. You have made several weird predictions. No, no, wins, I have a win. A win, what's your win? What's your win? Okay, in other words. All right, listen, we got to finish up with predictions. You have made several weird predictions. I have a win. A win. What's your win? What's your win?

Okay, so my win, I love this story. My win is Ava Gordon. And Ava just passed away at the age of 105. And she was a secretary. Her husband, Ed, was a stockbroker. They lived very frugally. And nobody had any idea about their wealth. And although she had never attended college, she left $10 million, her $10 million estate,

to community and technical colleges in western Washington state when she died this past June. Renton College put out a release saying, At Renton Technical College, Gordon's gift will be used to confer scholarships and grants upon students with financial and other barriers to attendance. The funds will help pay for tuition and other education-related expenses, as well as for financial emergencies, Renton said in a statement. Her and her husband used to teach classes. He taught on business because he was a stockbroker. She did warm-up exercises for inmates at a correctional institute. And there's just so much, there's so many lessons to be taken from this. I have this cottage industry of coaching young men. And what I find is that they aspire to have a big win and

make just a shit ton of money and then consume. And there's just so much dignity in doing what the Gordons did and living below your means and then investing early. This shows the power of compound interest. One big part of the story was that she would take $30 or $40 of her salary, her secretary's salary, every week and buy stocks and utilities. And then ultimately, she bought stock in Nordstrom, and then she bought stock in Microsoft, that she loved the markets but was always investing from a very early age. And they ended up with $15 million in wealth, which they all left to nonprofits, mostly in education.

But just this sort of philanthropy, this sort of dignity of living below your means, investing in education, which I still believe is the upward lubricant of prosperity in our society. So my win is Ava Gordon, this woman who never achieved anything more than a secretary. So she's doing exactly opposite of what you're doing right now, being in Montana with a building. Pretty much. Pretty much. Excuse me, I have to go out and get a $45 Poke Bowl. I like that you're aspirational to live a life that you're never going to live. I really like that about you.

Karen, do as I say, not as I do. Do as I say. All right, so let's finish up with as I do. Do as I say. All right. So let's finish up with predictions. See, here's the thing, Karen. You've made a couple of insane ones today. Here's the thing. What is your aspiration for the next decade?

What is your aspiration? Mine is I've had a wonderful time with my family. I'm very excited about my family in the next decade. I have wonderful children. And I'm very pleased with the situation around them. And my lovely, I call her my Beyonce. I'm very excited to get married and everything else. So I am excited about family over the next 10 years. What about you? So my parents are Italian and German, which means I'm kind of, I know I'm fucked up,

but too lazy to do anything about it. And that's a joke, Kara. I got it. I got it. I wasn't laughing. We're talking about personal aspirations, like New Year's resolutions? Yeah, whatever, whatever. What's your prediction for the next decade? I want to be a quarter of the man I pretend to be in all media and shows.

I'm sick. I'm just like, I do constant fucking virtue signaling. And I wake up and go like, gee, I wish I was the person I think I am. So I'm trying to connect. I want to connect what I know to be the right ways to be a good person and be a right dad and a right, a good partner. I want to be like, it's like, it's one thing to identify what is the right behavior and to talk about it and to put blog posts up about it.

It's another thing to be that person. So my, my goal is for those two moons to line up at some point. Nice. Okay, now about mountain business. I had predicted at the end of my column this week that you finally read, which was a great moment in our relationship going forward for the next decade, that carrying around a device in our hand and staring at it will be a thing of the past by 2030. I don't think we will be having these phones. I don't think we'll be, I think there'll be another device that'll be around the eyes, I think, probably.

So that was my prediction, that this is, by the end of the day, that we're not going to, this is not going to be our relationship, our primary technical relationship that we have. So that is my prediction. What will it be? How will we be interfacing with our digital world then? Something eyes up in the ear, in the ear, eyes up, that will be talking to it. I take a lot of cues from movies and stuff like that, and I think a lot of the stuff that are in movies, they don't have a lot of holding of things.

They have a lot of things in their ears and eyes and things like that. So, I think we're going to have some sort of device around our head and ear area or embedded in some way that is how we communicate. So, that's what I think. Yeah. So, wearables, I'll be very curious. And you think it goes to some sort of thing like when Apple comes out with some sort of glass thing. Yes. That's where it moves. Yeah. That'll be interesting. Interesting. What about you? We're going to finish up on that, Scott. What's your big prediction for tech and media over the next—what should we be watching out for as we move—pivot into our new decade?

Well, you know, other than on a broader basis, revolution is coming. And then with the Southern Hemisphere realized the fastest way to double their wealth is to take the money of seven families, which ultimately they will figure out a way to do. Other than the impending revolution, Cara. In terms of tech, I think the thing that creates the most shareholder value, if you will, in that first trillionaire you're talking about is, for lack of a better term, distributed healthcare. I think just as retail began taxing people by taking them to these empty parking lots and forcing them to go up escalators and then find a salesperson and then check out and then navigate your way back to the car, escalators and then find a salesperson and then check out and then navigate your way back to the car. I think that the concentration of healthcare in these facilities, which are unfriendly,

very non-consumer welcoming, very inefficient, very time expensive, that we're going to distribute healthcare through these devices. Most people think it's going to be the Apple Watch. I think it's going to be Alexa. And we're going to find that the reason Amazon is becoming HIPAA compliant is they're about to start offering medical services and medical insurance at a lower price. I think it's going to be tremendously innovative. I think it's going to create enormous shareholder value. I think Jeff Bezos is going to be the first trillionaire on the back of Amazon's move into healthcare. Amazon will be the first $2 trillion company once they start announcing basic health insurance and kind of basic medical services. So,

I think this is the decade where we go after the most disruptible industry in the world, which is healthcare. I think this is a year of health tech. Health tech is the way I would summarize it. Right. I like it. I thought climate tech, but I think you're right. I think you're 100% right. I think you're 100% right about Amazon. I think Amazon is going to be bigger than ever, unless the government gets in his way, or Trump does. But I think he's going to roll right over Trump, I think. You know what I mean? In that fight, I'm like, sorry, Trump.

Jeff Bezos is going to take you down on that. That's Conor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather. Bet on the guy with the fast hands who's actually in that sport, Jeff Bezos. That's for the second time the guy with the red hair gets the shit kicked out of him. Yes, indeed. All right, Scott. This has been very exciting. I want you to get back to the slopes and whatever you rich people do on the holidays. I am going to work today.

I'm going to actually work today. Nobody's working, which is a really nice time to work. And I'm going to be doing some podcasts and things like that. But I'm excited to be back in 2020 with you on Tuesday on a regular thing and a bunch of live events and everything else. And as I said at the end of last year, which is that I'm very looking forward to working with you over the next year. I'm in a very good mood. That's very nice. Thank you for saying that, Kara. I know, you don't know what to do. I feel the same about you. Well done. Let's make this a great decade, Kara. This is our decade.

This is ours. And let's be offensive along the way as much as we can. Offensive yet empathetic. I know. Offensive yet empathetic. Yes. No, let's be offensive too. I think people like our offensiveness.

Meanwhile, if you have questions about a story you're hearing in the news for us to answer next week, send us questions at pivot at voxmedia.com. Today's show was produced by Rebecca Sinanis. Eric Anderson is Pivot's executive producer. Thanks also to Rebecca Castro and Drew Burrows. Make sure you subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts. If you're an Android user, check us out on Spotify or frankly, wherever you listen to podcasts. If you like this show, please recommend it to a friend. Thanks for listening to Pivot from Vox Media. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere?

And you're making content that no one sees sees and it takes forever to build a campaign? Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Support for this podcast comes from Klaviyo. You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you. Deliver that feeling to your customers every time.

Klaviyo turns your customer data into real-time connections across AI-powered email, SMS, and more, making every moment count. Over 100,000 brands trust Klaviyo's unified data and marketing platform to build smarter digital relationships with their customers during Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and beyond. Make every moment count with Klaviyo. Learn more at klaviyo.com.