Pivot - Elon's Meet-and-Tweet, Microsoft's Union Deal, and Senator Michael Bennet

Episode Date: June 17, 2022

Netflix plays a Squid Game in real life, but the Fed may have already launched its own. The January 6 Committee gives tech a break, Microsoft reaches a deal with a union, and Elon Musk meets with Twitter staffers to sing WeChat's praises. Also, Senator Michael Bennet drops in to discuss his plan for regulating Big Tech. Send us your Listener Mail questions by calling 855-51-PIVOT, or via Yappa at nymag.com/pivot. 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 data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

And this past week was arguably the worst day of my, or worst week of my life. But the good news is it's only the worst week of my life so far. Why? So far. Why the worst? No, no, no. Because Alex borrowed your belt? Is that your big issue?

Okay, first off, let's talk about that. I literally leave town, and you're like the teenager. First off, let's talk about that. I literally leave town, and you're like the teenager. I come back early from my weekend in Barbados, and the dog is pregnant, and the garage is on fire. No. You're literally— No. It's like leaving a teenager.

No. I see—first off, hold on. You borrow one bell. Hold on. Oh. Hold on. What? Oh, no, no, no, no.

What? Hold on. I see a picture of you and George Hahn making out. No, we weren't making out. And then I, like, look at the back, and I see pictures picture of you and George Hahn making out. No, we weren't making out. And then I like look at the back and I see pictures that I recognize. I'm like, they're making out in my podcast studio in my apartment. No, no. I heard you guys ran into each other.

We did. Literally like accidentally ran into each other in my house. We did. That is exactly what happened. And then I see a picture of you and your son with my elevator door open. I don't understand why the elevator door is open. We were leaving. And then I look at your son and I zoom in and I'm like, I recognize that belt.

I'm like, he's getting dressed in my closet now. Which, by the way, I don't mind. The belt was in the guest bathroom. And he said, I need a belt. And I go, oh, there's one in this closet here. It was in the guest bathroom closet. Anyway, so we were just borrowed your belt. It was there.

I didn't know it was yours. I thought it was a guest's belt. We don't go into your inner sanctum. Trust me. We don't go there. Yeah, I did show them to them, actually. No, but I just want to say Roger McNamee and George Hahn both reached out to me after the last podcast. And they're like, are you okay?

And I'm like, I'm never really okay, but I'm not any less okay than usual. You seem sad. Sad emoji. You had a lot of sad emoji. Well, that's okay.

I know. I agree, but they were concerned. They're your friends. They want to make sure you're okay. It was very nice of them. You know, it's really important

that you understand you have friends and that's what's important. I have a lot of good friends. I'm very blessed that way. Also, Alex climbed up your wall. That was another thing he did. Did you notice? Oh, the climbing wall in the kids' room? That's just for show. That's just a flex around me pretending to care about my kids, and I'm rich at the same time. It's like owning a Tesla.

Well, Alex did it. I sent you the pictures. Didn't I send you the pictures? He sent me pictures of him climbing the wall? Yeah, I did. I'll send them to you again. Anyway, we had a- It would look like someone beating up wallpaper. We had a lovely time, Shea Scott. And I have to say, around the corner, there's an amazing place called Blank, I think it's

called Blank Coffee. And I had honey rose latte and looked at all the interesting people of Soho. And I had a lovely time. I love your neighborhood. It's a wonderful neighborhood, yeah. Your neighborhood's great. My street is the most Instagram street. I love your neighborhood. It's a wonderful neighborhood, yeah. Your neighborhood's great. My street is the most Instagram street in the world, supposedly. It's really quite lovely.

There was a big party at the restaurant up the street for Tribeca Film Festival. That was going on. It is very exciting. Yeah, but it was nice. Anyways, everybody, I'm not fine, but I'm no less not fine than anyone else, and I appreciate you reaching out. I've gotten emails from strangers saying, I'm a little worried about you. And I'm like, well, okay, thank you, but don't worry too much.

They should worry about you. Can I just say, I was stopped on the street so much this week. It's crazy. Joggers stop. Everybody stops to say hello and how's Scott, just so you know. You know what I do when people stop? I ask them and I say, do you want to take a picture? And they always stop and they go, can we?

Can we? I'm like, sure they go, can we? Can we? I'm like, sure. Sure, why not? You're offering up selfies. You're very nice. Anyway, people really like our show. I'm really amazed how much I'm stopped in the street. And people jogging stop, which is interesting.

Someone actually, I was riding one of those line bikes and I was riding back to pick up the golden child at school. And a person drives up next to me and goes, almost hits me and goes, I love you. I was like, okay. Don't hit me. I love you. Yeah. What do you say to that? What do you say to that?

I love you. That's all you can say. When anyone says I love you, you should say I love you back. I don't hand out the I love you's with that much abandon, but maybe I will. Maybe I'll start. Anyway, we have lots to do today,

including Elon Musk's meeting with Twitter employees, Microsoft making a first-of-its-kind deal with the union, and we'll speak with Senator Michael Bennett about his plan to regulate tech. But first, Netflix definitely learned the lessons of Squid Game, and that lesson is more Squid Game, more games. The streaming giant will launch a reality series based

on the hit show. I heard Scott Galloway is going to star. 450. That would be interesting. Who would win, you or me? Me, obviously. Oh, I don't think. You'd be dead right away, right? Yeah, that'd be, that'd be, let me put it this way.

The good news is, the bad news is I would lose. The good news is it would be over quick. Yeah. I'd be like, hey, let's make an alliance. And you'd be like, there's your alliance, bitch. Now where's your belt? That's true. Let's hang him with his belt that we found in the guest

bathroom. That is correct. 456 contestants will compete for a payout of $4.56 million. Netflix says it's the largest lump sum cash prize in TV history. I'm a little worried about this. I hope they're not going to hunt people. You know what I mean? I feel not good about this. I don't know. What do you think? It feels very network. So I'm especially seeing the world right now as the glass half empty. But let me just say, I fucking hate this. And I think Netflix is a case of a company that is, if it's not careful, when you're in the state, it's one thing to be agile and be open to change. I think a basis or a religion for a company should be its brand and some basic elements

of the brand. And Netflix, to a certain extent, you know, you don't touch the product, you consume it, and it really is a sort of a, what I'll call a intangible product because there's so many near substitutes, whether it's Hulu, whether it's Disney Plus. So the brand or the intangible of the brand in streaming is still incredibly important. I think Disney Plus, Disney Plus is now where HBO was for me, and that is I will try almost any new big series on Disney Plus. Oh, interesting. There's a lot on there. Ms. Marvel is the one I'm excited about.

Well, they do a great job. And I think the core, I think Netflix, quote unquote, CMO, brand manager, I don't know who's in charge, is really taking some what I'd call irrational risks. The first is, I think one of the core attributes of Netflix, core value proposition central to its brand promise is no advertising. Okay. And the fact that they're thinking about going to advertising, I just think is, it doesn't make any sense to me. I think it does. But go ahead. Keep going.

And two, the other thing about Netflix is they're willing to spend a lot of money to create a level of aspirational, high-quality program that differentiates itself from, for example, TikTok or even some of the other programming. They do an outstanding job. I think there's probably more creative talent trying to circle around in terms of just gross tonnage. Netflix's ecosystem, because of the $17 billion budget and in the incredible culture they've created, when they go to this fucking Kardashian-like fear factor stuff, to me, it's absolutely contrary to their brand. Really? Because they've been having like Tinder swindler. You don't watch it. There's also some great shows coming out. Oh, that shit's great.

Yeah, I know. Tinder Swindler, the woman from Ozarks, I forget her name, and those production values is a different universe than Bob from Columbus, Ohio, trying to figure out if he can get somebody to make out with him in Central Park for $58 and advancing to the next round. I just find, I hate that shit. I understand, but there's a lot of big shows coming up that are really exciting. Not beyond Stranger Things. There was one the other day, and I'm blanking on what it was, but it was a pretty big, looks like they spent a lot of money.

It looks beautiful. It looks must-see TV kind of thing. I don't know. I think they can experiment around these things. It's fine. By the way, Stranger Things, my kids watch it. I can't watch it. It's too scary.

I'm like, give these poor kids a break. Every season, there's a new scarier monster coming for them and always killing one of their friends and one of their friend's parents. It's a really weird show. Well, you know, I'd tell you, Alex, while he was using your belt, talked about it a great deal. Stranger Things? Yes, he was talking about it. He's trying to tell me something about

myself comparing it to a Stranger Things thing, and I didn't get the reference because I don't watch Stranger Things. So, I just feel like it's fine for them to experiment. I don't think it's a problem. They have a lot of really cool stuff coming. I feel like they have a lot of really cool stuff coming. I

just, I feel like they have a ton of cool stuff coming and that's okay. I think they have to try stuff because if they don't, they're kind of screwed. And if they keep ahead, they're a little more risky than other people. And of course, if it becomes an enormous hit, which I suspect it is, they will be considered geniuses, right? So, and there's a lot coming up. There's a lot coming up, a lot of shows they're working on, some of which are high level and some of which aren't.

So we'll see. I don't know. I think people, I was talking to some Hollywood people. I think people are putting them down too much too quickly. You know, it's gone the other direction. That's my feeling.

Yeah, but that's, I think there's overlap here. And that is, I don't think there's anything wrong with Netflix. It can't be fixed with what's right with it. And that is, it's got fantastic programming. It's ad-free. That filter that goes up, those antennae where I'm like, I don't want to hear someone pitching me on a reverse mortgage or telling me I have opioid-induced constipation or I need to drive a South Korean car or drink light beer.

And I just want uninterrupted storytelling. And that's what Netflix does. I think this is a, I'd like to meet the head of branding there. Or I don't even know, I just don't, I think their strategy is off kilter here. I don't, I think they're panicking.

Well, two things that are coming. For example, right now, the J-Lo documentary, which is called Halftime, is doing, it's the most, the largest thing in the world. It's really, I love Jennifer Lopez, so it was fine.

The other one is Matilda the Musical is coming to Netflix, which has Emma Thompson and that very famous looks fantastic. I'm just saying, they have... There's a lot of creativity. Speaking of Squid Games, how about Zero Some Games of Life or Death? There are more revelations

for the January 6th committee. Newly surfaced surveillance footage appears to show Republican Representative Barry Loudermilk, what name is this, leading visitors on a tour of the Capitol office building just a day before the insurrection after having denied it. In the footage, Loudermilk's guests are seen photographing stairwells, hallways and security checkpoints, hardly big tourist attractions, as the committee has said. tourist attractions, as the committee has said. Ladderback denies any wrongdoing, but one group that's not appearing in the hearings, social media platforms also, by the way,

also denying any wrongdoing. While the committee has subpoenaed tech companies, including Meta, Alphabet, Twitter, and Reddit, none of the hearings so far has focused on the role of social media. I don't think it will. So what do you think of these two things? Of course, people used, failed themselves to tech tools. It looks like they were casing the joint, but who knows?

Yeah, I think it's really, it's, I find it, I found that, I read that story, I found it sort of chilling to think that, you know, I thought this was, I've always thought this was sort of just an angry mob that was motivated by

a corrupt president. And I don't want to say things got out of hand, but I didn't think, I look at the mob and I don't think it was what I'd call well planned out and what we're finding. I mean, what it looks like, and again, we'll find out, but I would give the representative the benefit of the doubt and think someone asked for a tour

and he gave it to him and he didn't know that they were in fact planning. But when people are taking pictures of things like stairwells, it does raise red flags, right? Well, congressmen usually don't take tours. It's usually some intern. Is that right? Yeah. It's so weird. I worked there, and I gave tours, and nobody took pictures of the stairwells many years

ago. They were in weird places. They were not in the places that you would go, like the Statuary Hall or the Crypt or something like that. It was odd. I found it odd, the pictures they were taking. Usually you can sort of get a sense for someone's guilt or lack thereof based on how they respond to accusations. How has Representative Loudermilk responded? This guy, first he said

it didn't happen. Then he said, okay, maybe it happened. And then it went on and on and on. And he's like, nothing to see here is his new thing. Oh yeah, I was there, but nothing to see here. He's like, nothing to see here is his new thing. Oh, yeah, I was there, but nothing to see here. So he keeps changing his story. That's a little problematic. Nonetheless, the guy he was taking is problematic, and it's not clear, established, whether he was in the Capitol at the time of the attack or whether he just likes to scream shitty things about our nation's leaders. I'm not sure. Yeah, so look, we should give everyone involved due process.

It's disturbing, the allegations, and the Department of Justice or the FBI, I should say, should find out what happened and then report their findings. The second thing you talked about, and that is big tech not being part of these hearings, I actually think that's the right move because it creates a sideshow.

And I do think that big tech, you know, another data point in the line that is the unfettered reckless behavior that comes as a function of monopoly power creates bad actors. But in terms of this hearing, I think it makes sense for the committee to keep the viewers and the public focused on what happened on January 6th, that day, what was the president's involvement, what were different members of Congress' involvement, how organized was it? And not only that, just to display, just to articulate and reveal to the American public just how outrageous it is that we had an insurrection that was aided and abetted by the president. So I think stay focused. Yeah, it's a sidelight. Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'd agree with it. Lastly, the Fed announced an interest rate hike of 0.75%, a pretty big one. That's the largest increase since 1994. The hike comes as the Fed tries to tamp down

inflation. Gas prices are up again. Fed survey found that consumers expect inflation to keep rising. That's a problem. Scott, you said that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. Those stores are full of stuff also at the same time, but certain goods they don't have, like gas and baby formula. I can just tell you that looking forward is still really hard. A rate hike should address the money side of this. How do we address the supply of goods? There's lots of things not available.

Yeah, you don't. So on the supply side, first off on the demand side, I still, I just think we're just getting started with these rate hikes and the market. Some people would say the markets have already factored in these additional rate hikes. But if you look at interest rates historically, they're still not high. No, they're not.

And I think they're going to have to go a lot higher to begin to really have an impact or bring down inflation. What I think you're going to see, I mean, we said, I think a month ago, that you're about to see a lot of layoffs. And those are already happening. But to use the war analogy, in war, even the generals get shot. And the Russian army is experiencing that in spades. And you like to think, if you're in an asset class, that somehow you're immune, that it's not going to happen to you, that this downturn in the economy isn't going to impact you. So first, it was the growthy stocks.

And everyone thought, oh, the regular stuff isn't going to be impacted, the big tech guys. And then Amazon gets hit, Tesla gets hit, even Apple's been hit. Crypto, everyone was for a hot minute, was like, oh, well, this is the future. Crypto has, oh my gosh, has that taken a tumble? And I think we're going to see in almost every, I think the next shoe to drop in terms of an asset class is the run-up in real estate has been unprecedented. It is already flattened. In the matter of 30 days, it's gone from going up to flat being flat. Not everywhere. Not everywhere. It is a market by market issue, but with interest or with mortgage rates going from the 30-year, going from 3% to almost, it'll probably blow through 6%. I don't see how there isn't a chill that comes over real estate. And in certain markets and

certain price points, it doesn't start to have a serious decline because the interest rates here could go up substantially from here. Inflation is still well ahead of where interest rates are. The thing that's so shocking, I was at this really wonderful conference called the 0100 Conference, which is all about supply chain and the leaders. I love that you go to a supply chain conference just for fun, but go ahead. So, Cara, if you look at the 70s and 80s, shareholder value and CEOs were largely the domain of finance executives. They were conglomerating and deconglomerating. Then if you look at the 90s and the aughts for a hot minute, people from my class, brand strategy, were in charge.

And the CMO of Intel became the CEO. And now the world and shareholder value is all about supply chain. If you really want to move the needle, it's all about how do I figure out the different components of my supply chain and add value and show innovation throughout the supply chain. Anyways, I was at this supply chain conference, Zero100. And what's interesting is I would have thought that the increase in prices would figure out a way to motivate people to become a lot more agile and figure out a way to find products from different places. And producers would be running 24 hours a day to try and meet the excess demand. And what most people have said is that it's actually gotten

worse. And this one supply chain guy, the chief operating officer of actually SC Johnson, a really thoughtful guy, pointed, we were in Miami offshore, and he said, see those two cargo ships? He said, tomorrow morning, they'll still be there. And he said, a year ago, they would have disappeared and been unloading in the port of Miami. But because of labor, because of all kinds of unanticipated flow of ships, when a ship stops offshore, there's a good chance it's just going to park there for a long time. So everything is kind of rippled back and it's not getting any better. So the Fed, Jerome Powell can focus on the demand side and get people to stop spending as much when their credit card bills go up, when their mortgage rate goes up, when their car payment goes up. But there's not a hell of a lot I think we can do in the short term around the supply side. I don't know about demand.

I'll tell you, one of the things, every company I go, every retailer, they're like, we'd like to do more business. We can't hire people, like a coffee shop, et cetera, et cetera. Every day, we're only open these hours because we can't get workers. And there's demand, there's demand, there's demand. So. I went to the On Running store on Lafayette in New York, just up the road from where your brother steals my clothing. My son. I'm sorry, your son. By the way, he doesn't look like your brother. No. He looks like a different species.

He is. That picture of him standing next to you is hilarious. He looks like there's a good chance if you ask him to do his homework, he might get pissed off and eat you. He just, you guys do look like a different species. Yeah, we do. I think it's just hilarious. I'm a teeny.

And by the way, that's Megan's biological kid, right? That is correct, yes. He looks like Megan. Yeah, he does. He does. Megan's hilarious. And by the way, that's Megan's biological kid, right? That is correct, yes. He looks like Megan. Yeah, he does. He does. Megan's tall. But I'm little. I don't know if you saw my picture with Vice President Kamala Harris, but she is also tall. I did see that. I see you didn't mention it. We won't go into it. I did see that. A lot of pantsuits rolling around that picture. A lot of pantsuits.

I like her very much. Anyway, sorry. But she's tall. Everyone's like, you're still short compared

to her. I said, she was wearing heels and she's not untall. She's not tall tall

like Alex. Is Madam Vice President Harris a tall woman? I'm choosing my words very carefully here.

I don't know. I'm not tall. How's that? I don't know. She's taller than me. Really? Yes. There's a 411. I don't know. I'm not tall. How's that? I don't know. She's taller than me. Really? Yes. There's a 411. There's a headline. She's taller than me. There's a headline. In any case, let's get to our first big story. And again, it is Elon. Twitter employees got some FaceTime with the man who's playing monkey with their company. On Thursday, Elon Musk took questions from Twitter employees at a company All Hands. He was asked about free speech, remote

work, and more in his answers, and he said that people who are, quote, exceptional at their jobs can work remotely, but he stressed a preference for in-person work. He was evasive on the question of layoffs, saying the company needs to, quote, get healthy and pointing out that costs exceed revenue, and that was a problem. Musk also said he wanted to be involved in the product side of the company. He didn't seem too interested in being CEO, but he didn't say. He also said some things about the world and how he wants to make it a better place. He was on lots of sides of the issue around free speech. It was kind of unusual. It did not sound like a guy trying to get out of the deal, though. Scott, what do you think? He was very affable, although a little bit,

as several people described, he ambled. If anyone's who have interviewed him knows that. He ambles around a lot. He was very wordy, a lot of theory stuff, etc. Your thoughts, Scott? You still think he's not buying it? Well, okay. So, to me, this seems very rational. He's in the midst of a negotiation with the Delaware court, which he will stand in front of, or his lawyers will stand in front of, as will Twitter lawyers who will claim, this guy signed a deal, and he's not living up to his side of the deal. And he will say, he will try and come up with exceptional, he will try to come up with material adverse events that exonerate him or give him the ability not to close. And evidence that he was not genuine about living to his side of the deal would be if he didn't play along. And so right now, this is all a fucking facade.

This is all a charade or ruse, disingenuous. Two words here. First word, bull. Second, shit. Okay. I thought it was an okay. He was asked about a lot of things. He did say he wanted Twitter to have a billion users. He talked about payments, which you have talked about. He talked about a wide range of things like that. But he did talk like someone who was wanting to own the company. You just think it's just a farce, right?

first 10 things we're doing. This is the data I've looked at. These are the product ideas. Instead, he just showed up and said, hey, I'm Elon. I'm going to waste your time like I waste everyone else's. And I think this guy's totally full of shit. I think he's in the midst of a negotiation to get out of it. All right. One of the things he said is, I want Twitter to contribute to a better, long-lasting civilization where we better understand the nature of reality. On the other hand, he also said he would like things to be more interesting, and so he'd allow a lot of speech as long as it's entertaining. Boredom seems to be top of mind on what he said. He was nicer, I think, than they expected. He didn't pop off and do anything. He made some observations like he does. I think they were worried about his focus on being entertaining, which is what he is. They asked him about why he was so hostile. It was conducted by Leslie Berland,

who is a top employee there, and she took in questions off Slack. Some thought it was good because he wasn't hostile, I guess. He's gotten them used to being hostile. One of the things he said, if you drink each time he answered a question, you'd be painfully sober at the end of this. He took a long time to do that. He was late and stuff like that.

So I don't know. He did say he expects people to listen to them. I thought the payments thing was interesting. He gave generalized things. So he did say he expects people to listen to them. I thought the payments thing was interesting. He gave generalized things. And again, one billion users or beyond is his, he sounded like Buzz Lightyear, was his goal. But again, you just, you're not buying it. Well, I want to hear your thoughts. But first off, imagine that he was going to have to have every sentence read back in front of a Delaware judge who would say, were you serious about closing on this?

And have you tried? And poor you, you can't because you couldn't get the financing or shocker, Twitter has more bots than you'd originally thought. I mean, I think this was nothing. And not only that, did he sound like someone who's really thought about it? These were all platitudes. And the best thing you could say about the guy is he wasn't hostile. I do think there's a learning here for Twitter and everyone else. When you are in person with someone and you can see that the other person is an actual person, you're less likely to shitpost like a fucking 14-year-old. And so what a shocker. He's not. Well, he wasn't in person. This was online. He

was in a hotel room. The sound was terrible, actually. Yeah, but there's—it's him. It's people on the other end. It's a lot easier to call the general counsel, to shitpost the general counsel over Twitter than it is. I believe if he met me, he wouldn't come up to me and call me an insufferable numbskull. He wouldn't say that to my face. He might, yeah. Come on. People don't behave that way,. He wouldn't say that to my face. Come on.

People don't behave that way or most don't behave that way in person. That's what he does. He was a little more in his charming Elon Musk mode. He was asked, how will your political views, which recently have shifted, affect your leadership of the company? He said he calls himself a moderate and he's largely how the center of the country votes. He said he had voted for

a Democrat in the past and noted that he voted for Mayra Flores, a Republican in Texas. Some interesting points of view. He also, interestingly, react to this. He talked up WeChat a lot and TikTok. He said TikTok is great at surfacing videos that are not boring and it keeps people engaged. He also said that WeChat was used by everyone all the time in China, and that's what he's interested in. He's interested in monetizable user number.

He's interested in subscription revenue and very interested in payments. Non-committal about layoffs? I don't know. I think I don't—he could have been more specific. I know that I think—he could have been more specific, but go ahead. Between the time, I think about four or six weeks ago when the market started crashing and he came to the realization, I fucked up here and I need to get out. Do you think he's done any? Did his comments reflect he has done any work on a post-close Twitter strategy?

Everything he said was platitudes. Unspecific. And by the way, the WeChat thing, we talked about this. We said on our show that a financial services company or PayPal could buy Twitter, and overnight, they've got two of the three legs of a super app. So, everything he said, he's a brilliant guy. He's got a good rap. Everything he said in this meeting reflected two things, in my view. One, he hasn't spent an additional mental calorie focused on what happens post-closing.

All he's focused on now is how to ensure it doesn't close with the lowest exit wound possible. is how to ensure it doesn't close with the lowest exit wound possible. And two, that this thing just isn't going to—he has no intention of closing here. He is posing for a Delaware court judge right now to say, oh, no, I was genuine about closing. I didn't violate my agreement. I just—insert excuse—couldn't get the equity together or found out that they had violated a covenant by not disclosing how many actual bots were on the platform. And I want to get your view because I'm just blathering on here. Was there anything he said that reflect he had given any additional thought to this company and its strategy over the last month?

It was unspecific. It was unspecific. I thought the stuff about a billion, getting to a billion users, that's an interesting thing to say. He didn't say how, but he said through payments and being interesting like TikTok. I don't know how you just do that. Like, I'd like to be, you know, tall like so-and-so, but it's not going to happen. So, you know, I think he was running late. I thought that wasn't great that he was running late. Second, his connection looked like it was on a cell phone from a hotel room. If I were him, I'd have made it good and made sure that I was looking good. It showed sort of a lack. It's typical of him, though. When someone asked him about trust, there was a question about trust. What can employees do to earn his trust and what can Mr. Musk do to earn theirs? He said, if somebody is getting useful things done, that's great. If they aren't getting useful things done, why are they at the company? And that tweeted something about an alien. And I texted him.

He goes, I just didn't even know what he was talking about. He did note that he does very few interviews, which is not true. But when he does a single tweet, there'll be a two-page article about it. But he knows this. This is what he knows. I thought it was trying to be friendly. I'm not otherwise the point of it. And a lot of people were disturbed by his idea that, you know, it was unspecific.

I would say unspecific is a problem. But people still has a reputation as an innovator. So some people there felt heartened by it. Other times, the noncommittal part about being CEO. He said he wasn't a traditional CEO and pointed to his title of Tesla with his techno king, but he runs things. It could have gone off the rails. I guess we expected to go off the rails with this guy, right?

And so if it doesn't go completely off the rails, we're like, oh, phew. Yeah, but I'll re-ask the question, and I'm genuine. I'm asking for an answer, and it's not a question, it's a comment. It's based on a thesis I have. Do you think he said anything that reflects he has made any effort, expended any intellectual calories since a month ago when I believe he decided he wanted out of Dodge to show

that he's serious and expects to own this? Why do it at all? Why do this? Yes, why do this? So he can say, but judge, I was sincere about closing. If a Delaware judge goes, sir, you signed this agreement and you have the money and you decided you just want out, sorry, boss, you owe this company $44 billion. But he's got to say, oh no, I wanted to close. Look at X, Y, and Z. So the breakup fee and the judgment against him when he does not show up with $45 billion should be de minimis,

not $45 billion. Yeah. Okay. One of the things, I agree, some of the things he said at the end, he said also he hoped the service could help, quote, humankind, quote, better understand the nature of the universe as much as it is possible to understand. All that means is he does edibles on the road. The Tao Te Ching. He does edibles. I just want to know what brand edibles he's taken. He took before the call. Okay.

Well, we'll see. He said he'd come back. You know, I think everyone. What's your take here, Cara? I think because he didn't eat them up. It was good for him with the employees. That is the tragedy of Elon is he has so much potential, right? I'm not talking about the yoga babble and you being his mommy. I'm talking about...

I'm not his mommy. Okay. Based on additional... I don't think there was much detail, except the billion thing and except for payments, which he's talked about. It's a lot of what he's talked about before, and it was woefully lacking in specifics. But sometimes you just go to say, hey, kids, how you doing? That kind of thing. Do you think he intends to close on this deal? I think he wants to. I think a lot of people around him don't want him to. Close people around him think it's crazy. I think he still wants to. He still wants to. I do. I don't think

it's... Well, that's a yes. He gets to decide. He's the decider. I do. I don't think it's... Well, that's a yes. He gets to decide. He's the decider. Well, he can be influenced. He goes through moods. I think on his best day, yes. On his worst day, no. I guess I think he goes through things. I think there's a lot of people around him who think this is a waste of money, an enormous waste of money. They don't know why he's doing it. It takes away time, money from his very laudable other things. And so I am one of those people. And the market has shifted dramatically. That's right.

Yeah, yeah. When he was high and high, why not? But at the same time, I think this could be disastrous for him overall. And it's too bad because he's got a lot of other really interesting things. Well, last question. Have you talked to anyone at Twitter?

Did you know how they felt about it? They thought he was unspecific and didn't address their questions. You know, that could be the questions asked. You know, he goes on, let's just say he ambles around. And so, I think they were relieved he didn't say something crazy. I think that's always, you know, it's a position of strength if you come in. Like, I remember we interviewed one time Rupert Murdoch at an All Things D conference or a code conference, and it was right after he bought it, and everyone was expecting Satan, and they got Uncle Satan,

right? You know what I mean? Like, they got a more affable person. And so, I think he wasn't what he is on Twitter, which he isn't what he is on Twitter, right? He isn't in person. So, I think that went, that's a good thing. But you just said something that's a larger conversation, and this is what's terrible about social media. The majority of us aren't who we are on Twitter or on Instagram, and it's created a lot of negative externalities in our society. You would never act this course to people in the real world. He did say harassment will drive people from the service,

although he said freedom of speech and freedom of reach, that kind of stuff. So that was, I don't know how you can have it both ways. But he didn't think if people are harassed and uncomfortable, they should be on Twitter. I think he was saying is, why isn't this more fun? This should be more fun. Like, that's the kind of thing. And then leaving out the parts that make it very hard to make it fun. And so that I think was naive.

I think literally the minute before he got on this call, he was on a call talking about China closing down or China, which is responsible for half his revenue or profits. And then the minute he was off the call, he's like, okay, how do I, I think he's literally like, this has become priority X for him. And I didn't see any, I didn't hear any evidence that this has shifted up one iota. Well, we'll see. One last thing he said, the standard is about how content should be moderated. He said the standard is more than not offending people. The standard should be that they should be entertained, should be more fun. That is, you know, I can see him saying that and thinking that.

So you can shitpost as long as people think it's funny. Anyway, I'm mad. Why am I even going here? Why do I even go here? I said the media was negative about him. You know, all right, whatever. Okay. Anyway, well, hopefully, you know, Twitter can meaningfully improve the strength and longevity of civilization. That's really, I'm hoping for other things to do that. Wouldn't that be nice? Perhaps, as he mused, the aliens could do that.

Wouldn't that be nice? That would be helpful. We'll see. There's also, by the way, Mimo employs at SpaceX. Aren't singing his praises, a letter to executives, a group of SpaceX workers called Muska. Distraction and embarrassment,

the letter calls on SpaceX to swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon's personal brand. Wow. Who was that signed by, though? It was like four people at a Starbucks. Who was it signed by? I don't know.

I don't know. Anyway, there you have it. We'll see where it goes. I think Scott is probably right. I just think he does want to own it. So we have that. We don't know. Anyway, there you have it. We'll see where it goes. I think Scott is probably right. I just think he does want to own it. So we have that. We have that difference. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, Microsoft extends an olive branch to unions and we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Senator Michael Bennett, a favorite of ours. 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. Support for the show comes from Alex Partners. In business, disruption brings not only challenges, but opportunities. As artificial intelligence powers pivotal moments of change, Alex Partners is the consulting firm chief executives can rely on. Alex Partners is dedicated to making sure your company knows what really matters when it comes to AI. As part of their 2024 Tech Sector Report, Alex Partners spoke with nearly 350 tech

executives from across North America and Europe to dig deeper into how tech companies are responding to these changing headwinds. And in their 2024 Digital Disruption Report, Alex Partners found that 88% of executives report seeing potential for growth from digital disruption, with 37% seeing significant or even extremely high positive impact on revenue growth. You can read both reports and learn how to convert digital disruption into revenue growth at www.alexpartners.com slash box. That's www.alixpartners.com slash V-O-X. In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point and deliver results when it really matters. Scott, we're back. Employees at Activision may be on the fast track to unionization,

thanks in part to Microsoft. In an agreement with the Communications Workers of America, Microsoft pledged to stay neutral in regards to union pushes at Activision. The video game publisher had agreed to acquire earlier this year. The deal would let employees vote to unionize without bringing in the National Labor Relations Board. As part of the deal, the CWA has dropped its opposition to Microsoft's purchase of the gaming giant. The union previously opposed the acquisition on antitrust grounds. So they made a deal. Other tech companies like Amazon and Apple have fought against union push.

Microsoft is playing nice, and now the CWA supports the Activision deal. I don't know if the opposition was a real threat, but it's a way to threaten companies. Will this be a model for other tech companies? What do you think? Well, let's be clear, though. It's being kind of positioned as a big victory for unions. All the agreement is, as I understand it, is that Microsoft has said, drop your opposition to this deal because we want to get the deal done and we won't fight you. They're not endorsing it.

I know, but that's a big deal. Yeah, well, look, but I've said this for a long time. I think, unfortunately, I buy into the basic premise of unions, and most people do. Most people agree that frontline work, people need more dignity. If we hit Australia's minimum wage at the same rate as inflation, it would be around 23 or 25 bucks an hour. I think the strongest union in the world needs to be the federal government that restores dignity to work. The American brand is generosity, it's liberty, it's innovation, and it's also work. And the only way it can be central to our brand is if we remain or maintain a certain level of dignity. Unions have been ineffective, and their membership has

consistently gone down across almost every Western nation. Whatever that construct is, whatever that approach is, it's not working. And it ends up being, in my opinion, the best enemy for corporations or management because they're ineffective and ultimately the corporation can wait out the union and eventually they almost always win. And you would think that this would be the perfect storm for good things for union through the pandemic. And this is what's happened. The best thing that's happened to unions is in the last two years, when you think everyone would be very sympathetic to union, frontline workers would want to unionize. They've taken a lot of abuse through the pandemic. And the best unions can do is hold it flat. And you know what

it's going to do? It's going to resume its decline again. Well, I think it's a question of, you know, there's a lot of union stuff around, the media companies, everything else. And I'm sort of on the outside because I'm not in a union. But one of the things that I find is when I talk to people that are in unions is they have kind of a, what have you done for me lately? What am I paying for this for? And it's sort of a chicken and egg because if they don't have enough people, they can't pressure management in any way. And so they have to somehow show union members why they matter, right? What's the benefit from being an active human member? And I think that's hard, as we've discussed with many people.

And then there's opposition from the companies. Not everyone's so welcoming of unions. A complaint from Starbucks employee claims that company told workers that unionizing could jeopardize their gender-affirming healthcare coverage. Starbucks denies making any threat. The Amazon held 25 mandatory anti-union meetings every day in the weeks leading up to the vote in Staten Island. I, you know, depending on how they behave here, they're allowed to resist it. Just a question of how they resist it and how

they make workers feel. You know, they're going to fight these things, obviously. This is, you know. But what I think has happened slowly but surely, fairly or unfairly, and let me catch all of this again, and that is anyone who shows up to work deserves to make a living wage. And that is not the case right now. And I think the federal government needs to step in. What I think has happened with voters, generally speaking, is that in – I'll give you an example. California, which has – it should have a larger tax base than anyone in the world, any state in the union, because it continues to attract innovators. It's the most beautiful. If California were a country, it'd be the most beautiful country in the world. Anyways, I'm a big fan of California. It's hard

not to be. Unions and special interest groups have made it very hard to govern and have also made taxes what a lot of people believe is unnaturally high. And the states that are not union-friendly, to be fair, are seen as better value and better run than states where unions have, in a lot of people's view, have overrun government. So I don't think voters are very sympathetic to unions because they're seen as, over time, creating a lower standard of living

for all citizens in that state because they end up paying higher taxes and having a state that is difficult to govern. And whether that's fair or not, I think that's perception that the 88% of people who are not in unions hold. So, what do they do? We keep talking about this over and over again. What do they do? What about the pushback from the Amazons, the Apples, the Starbucks? Well, it's like saying,

what does broadcast television or the Yellow Pages do? I mean, I don't think the union construct is a construct that is long for this world. And unfortunately, I think it would be better if... I'm just pissed off. I think unions give people the perception that frontline workers have effective representation, and they don't.

And it is outrageous that the NASDAQ has quadrupled, even in the face of this decline, that CEO pay is up 300 percent, and frontline worker wages for minimum wage, the majority of whom don't have a union, has exploded from $7.25 to $7.25. So the solution being government raising the minimum wage. Part of the problem with the unions is it's like these, trying to find leadership in Afghanistan. There's so many warring factions.

The unions aren't coordinated. They don't like each other. And what you need is we need one union called the U.S. government. And it needs to represent people and ensure they have dignity of work. We have OSHA. That's very powerful. We have child labor laws. Those are very powerful and effective. We need nationwide, federal, mandated minimum wage. And some states are doing

this. Washington is doing this. California is doing this. I think they're showing extraordinary leadership. That is much more effective than these battles set up between one union trying to unionize one store at Starbucks. I just don't think long-term that's an effective solution for our frontline workers. Well, that's going to take a long time. That's not going to happen. You know that. You realize that, correct? I mean, it's just not. A minimum wage? No, it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. Increasing minimum wage? Yeah. I don't think so. Oh, I disagree. When? How?

We've increased it before. Why can't we increase it now? Because when was it before? It used to be $3. When I was working, it was $3. I get that. But when was it before is what I'm saying. It's like you have a situation where it doesn't seem to be.

Look, so many people, I've been talking to a lot of people, and there's been a lot of events, and there's a lot of political people, and they just literally don't think anything can pass. It's the way Congress is dysfunctional, that this kind of stuff can't pass. So, I think there are people rethinking what unions are, or how do you organize? I think when they're effective, they're very effective. And what I get sort of bent around the axle about is that it's always in this obstreperous way. Either the man is screwing you or the unions are screwing, you know, or the unions are corrupt. So where is the actual cooperation between workers and management? I don't know. Maybe I'm just being naive, but it seems like that. Well, it's a lot of people would say it's that labor is mostly a function of supply and demand. And I think that works for the middle class and upper income information workers. It doesn't work for workers on the front lines. If you just let things go to their natural level, there are a lot of people who are really desperate. Which is where unions are growing in information workers.

That's the place it's growing. It is. Unions and media were not as powerful as they are now. It's flat. Union membership is flat in the era where they should be killing it. I think Congress is dysfunctional. That's my feeling. Oh, well, that's a different talk show, and it's hard not to agree with you. The presidential system, in my opinion, is not working versus a parliamentary system. I mean, it's a longer conversation. Money in politics, gerrymandering.

We have a dysfunctional non-minority rule, but that's a longer talk show. We were talking about unions. I think unions end up hurting workers because it creates the illusion they have representation, and they don't. They don't have effective representation. On that, we'll be getting a lot of calls, I'm guessing. Anyway, it's time. Speaking of politics, it's time to bring in our friend of Pivot. Senator Michael Bennett represents Colorado in the U.S. Senate.

Last month, he introduced the Digital Platform Commission Act, which would establish a federal body to provide, as it describes, sector-specific regulation for digital platforms. We've got a lot of questions. Welcome, Senator questions. Welcome, Senator Bennett. So, Senator Bennett, thank you for coming and welcome. Let's jump right into this new act that you introduced. Why do we need a new federal regulator? Why not just expand the FTC? Can you talk in detail of what you're thinking here? Yeah, I don't think we have the expertise in the existing agencies to be able to regulate

these digital platforms. We're going to be totally outrun by them. And I think it's completely appropriate for us to form a new agency with the expertise to do it along the lines of, you know, the FCC or the FTC. And then remove that power from the FTC? Because it's sort of one of the things a lot of the tech people say to me is the reason a lot of this hasn't been passed is because this alphabet of different agencies, you know, don't know which one to grab. Who's regulating who kind of thing? It's always right. I think that's always an issue. and I hope I won't be dead before we get it done. There's going to be shared responsibility here with the FTC, with the DOJ, and I think that's good, not bad,

but I don't think that suggests that we shouldn't have an independent agency with the expertise to be able to do this. And is there any controversy? Because the Homeland Security, when they had the Misinformation Bureau course that's been put to the side, people are worried about having a national information agency, I guess. That's how do you push back on that? I do think there's there are people that are worried about that.

I would push back on that by saying, you know, from my seat on the Intelligence Committee, I see almost on a daily basis the way foreign governments are attacking the United States of America through these digital platforms. And we can't just sit here defenseless. I see every single day the effects in my state on teenage kids, especially teenage girls, of the way they're interacting with these platforms. So I think there are probably a lot of reasons why people would worry about a new federal agency. I myself think it would be a good idea to start moving some of these agencies out of Washington, D.C. And we're just going to have to have that discussion. We're going to have to have that argument. But I think failure is not an option here because Congress is never going to be able to regulate this stuff properly.

Senator, good to see you. Good morning. Good to see you. this stuff properly. Senator, good to see you. Good morning. Good to see you. So let's assume that this gets passed and they come to you as somebody who was the kind of the godfather of this agency and say, where do you think we should focus first? We have limited resources. Is it teen depression? Is it antitrust? Is it security, national security? Where would you like to see that? What does success look like? I think there's three categories of things you mentioned are the reasons why I wrote the legislation to begin with. I would say as a parent that the place that I'd like to see us start is mental health. The Surgeon General of the United States is saying we've been running a massive experiment on our kids, and we have.

You know, I was in the Mississippi Delta during my not very well-recognized campaign for president, and I met with moms there who were saying to me, the schools are nowhere near as good as they used to be. The schools have never been very good there. And our kids are spending all of their time addicted to these platforms. And that's happening while people in Silicon Valley are sending their kids to camp so they can read books and get away from digital stuff. So I just saw some statistics this morning that said that 40% of the kids in Colorado say they're depressed, you know, as a result of COVID and as a result of these social media platforms. So that's probably where I would start

as a parent. And I think it's very hard for these digital platforms to say that some regulation around this set of issues is not needed. So one of the things is you just said Congress can't regulate this industry. It grills tech executives frequently. You've been in hearings. I've watched every hearing. And there's no way, no legislation. There's two bills that might pass this year, maybe three. Talk to us why that's the case. Why is it so, why has it been so hard to regulate tech? Europe is doing it.

New Zealand is doing it. Canada is doing it. Well, so that's, first of all, Cara, incredibly important. I think that we should not be the standard taker here. We should be, the United States should be leading in terms of setting standards. And we're not today because Europe is able to do what they're doing and China is able to force their way into all these conversations. And that's another reason why we ought to set an agency up like this. I think it's a reflection of the profound dysfunctionality of our democracy. We are in rough, rough shape.

And you add on to that the role of special interests in Congress and the fact that everybody's 150 years old here and isn't necessarily familiar with how these digital platforms work. That's a tough combination. And a lot of those hearings you're talking about are ones where I think the tech executives have sort of outrun the Congress. I think it'll be harder for them to outrun an agency like this. So profound dysfunctionality. What one or two things do you think would most immediately address that? If you were to say, all right, voters, this is what we need to do to make Congress and our government more functional. I mean, I would say two things. One, create a system of voting in this country that looks

like Colorado's system of voting. We have the second highest voter participation rate in the country. And the reason is that we've got a robust set of mail-in ballots. We've got ballot boxes. Denver's got like 50 ballot boxes. Houston, which is much larger, has one drop box. And so in a system of early voting, it works. Republicans in Colorado would not want this system to get taken away. So that's one thing I would do. But by far, more important thing is we've got to create an economy in this country that when it grows, it actually grows for everybody, not just the top 10 percent. The last 50 years of an economy where 90 percent of the American people

haven't seen wage increases, where we've seen no economic mobility, that is that we will, this democracy will not survive another 50 years like that. And I think it's very fortunate that there's beginning to emerge a consensus, I think, in the United States that says that all the promises that we made about what would happen when Beijing joined the WTO, and the way the country would liberalize as a result, for example, of social media and the internet, all turns out not to be true. And that gives us an opportunity to say, okay, how do we create an economy that's not just about privileging people that want to make stuff as cheaply as possible in China, but is about our supply chains and about our national security, about our kids' mental health and our family's well-being.

So when you're going to create a stand-up, a whole new agency, again, controversial, nonetheless, as I said, the Department of Homeland Security had to kill its disinformation board. One of the things that pulls into it is this free speech idea, which is very noisy, actually. It's a lot of speech about free speech and about censorship. I think one of the things I was talking to some prominent officials, I'm like, stop talking about free speech. Talk about privacy. Talk about data. Talk about well-being. Talk about anything else but that.

How do you remove it from that? Because it's such a good political thing to be screaming that you're censored when you, I'm thinking of Senator Hawley, he never shuts up. when you, I'm thinking of Senator Hawley, he never shuts up. So let me, first of all, agree with everything that you just said about the kinds of things that we should be focused on and we should be talking about. I go back again to the teenage mental health issue. That's not a First Amendment issue. That's an issue of, you know, my kid standing there with the, you know, with the avatars of other teenage kids that are all at a party that she's not at, you know, which is happening to kids all over the country day after day after day. But I also would say I don't, I'm a huge supporter, obviously, of the First Amendment,

and I believe strongly in it. I don't think that the government should be telling people how to do their content moderation, but we should know what they're doing to do content moderation. We should understand what they're doing, just like we should understand, you know, how these algorithms addict children and other people in our society. And the social media companies themselves say that their research shows that majorities of kids are being addicted by the algorithms that they've flung in front of them. Right. And that's one of the bills that's not passing. That's one of the transparency bills.

There's also two antitrust bills. Backers say they have the votes. Are you among them on these bills, these other bills? I think, you know, I'm looking at all of it. And I think it's obviously incredibly important to regulate the antitrust aspects of this. If given my free hand that Scott gave me a few minutes ago, I think it'd be a lot better to set up a commission like this to do this kind of work in concert with DOJ than to pick one thing. And if we pick one thing, we never may get back to anything else. And the other things are really important.

I can tell you we are really exposed as a nation because of the way foreign governments are using these platforms to pursue disinformation campaigns in the U.S. That's a big vulnerability we have. Absolutely. Scott, last question. I assume it's about January 6th, but maybe not. Sure. Absolutely. Scott, last question. I assume it's about January 6th, but maybe not. Sure. So January 6th, do you think these hearings are doing what they were supposed to do? And what are you hoping that we get out of these hearings? I'm glad that the hearings are being held because

I think it's really important to make a historical record of what happened. And it may turn out that people are surprised by what they learn about the number of times Donald Trump was told that the election hadn't been stolen when he was telling the American people it was stolen. People may see the fraud for what it is when he raised, I think it was $250 million on the lie that he was telling the American people. I don't think this is going to break through today with inflation and with energy prices and with everything that people are worrying about on a daily basis. But that's not a reason not to do this. I think the long-term accountability here is going to be important to our country. And this is just one of a number of really profound headwinds that we're facing as a

country. The income inequality that I mentioned earlier, the lack of economic mobility, our broken immigration system, climate change, the inability of us to educate our children. I mean, this is a long, long list of things that we need to address. And the fact that we had a president, I think in part because of that massive income inequality, who was the closest thing we've had to a tyrant in this country. Somebody didn't believe in the rule of law, so he didn't believe in democracy. You know, it's important to get the facts out for that reason so we don't repeat that. All right. Senator Bennett, thank you so much. And we'll be watching for where this legislation goes.

Really appreciate it. Thanks. Thank you, Senator. Thanks for your good work. Thanks, guys. Good to see you. Well, Scott, we're gonna take a quick break. He is a smart guy. He really should be president. He didn't do very well. You were a big backer of his. I agree with you. I hosted fundraisers for him. And I like to be upfront and transparent. I don't think President Biden is going to run again. And I like to be transparent about my support.

I'm going to support Senators Klobuchar and Bennett. And here's the problem. They're both incredibly thoughtful, good people. They'd be great presidents. But the problem is neither of them are very good at Twitter. Well, although, interestingly, Elon said he was going to start a super center, super PAC, super center something. Oh, yay. Yay. We're problem solved. I'm just saying. Problem solved. These are centrists that have a hard time getting heard in this noisy, noisy political environment.

But nonetheless, he's a smarty-ass. Me too. Yeah, he's incredibly smart and I've gotten to know him over the last few years. He's a really good man. He's very focused on, he doesn't pose for the cameras. He's willing to give credit to other people.

All the things that probably means he will never be president. Yes. He also speaks in full sentences. That's a problem. Anyway, he's so thoughtful. I really, I worry about someone

like him leaving politics. That's what I worry about when I was thinking that. At some point he will. That's right. I really, I worry about someone like him leaving politics. That's what I worry about when I was thinking that. At some point, he will. That's right. I mean, this is someone. I've had enough. This is someone who's, you know, every day is offered the opportunity to be chairman of some big private equity firm. And instead, he tries to, you know, fight for the middle class and just common sense legislation.

And it's literally like banging your head against the wall. Yep, agreed. Anyway. All right, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. procrastination, putting it off, kicking the can down the road. In, plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out, carpet in the bathroom. Like, why? In, knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today.

As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month at Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. Okay, Scott, what are your wins and fails? Well, my win is I have friends that even though we're 50-something, you know, males who aren't in touch with our emotions, I had two friends, George Hahn and Roger McNamee, both reach out after our last podcast and say, are you all right? I thought that was really nice. And I said, yeah, I'm fine. But I don't think that just 10, 20 years ago, men our age were inclined to reach out

to each other and say something along the lines of, are you all right? So thank you to Roger and George. And I think it's a good thing that people are in touch with their emotions. And no one ever doesn't feel closer to someone else when they reach out and say, how are you doing? So that's my win is just men actually expressing their emotions. My fail, and I'm curious to get your take on this. And I've been reticent to talk about it because I know I'll get some pushback and some of it might be warranted. So I've done a lot of work with the Estee Lauder Company. And it's a great organization. The Lauder family are really good people. They're civic-minded. They continue to

produce generations of thoughtful leaders. The original matriarch is just this inspiring woman, one of the great entrepreneurs of the 20th century. Fabrizio Freda is one of the great CEOs. John Dempsey, who I don't know well, I've done some work with him, but I don't know him well, basically has been kind of the creative force of the company. And it took MAC Cosmetics from a tiny acquisition and blew it up to a multibillion-dollar brand. He's kind of a first ballot Hall of Fame beauty executive. And he's kind of a first ballot Hall of Fame beauty executive. And he retweeted a really stupid tweet, a cartoon that was offensive. And it was wrong. It was a mistake.

He should have known better. And quite frankly, they unceremoniously fired him. And they made this very bold statement that we have to be sensitive to the community. And I think that was a fail. I think that if you're going to be a civic-minded corporation and be thoughtful and sensitive, that also goes for your employees. And I think you give someone the benefit of the doubt. And you don't look at one frame of the movie. You look at the other 34 millimeters a second. And if you look at all of the frames of John Dempsey's career, he was one of the first executives to put transgender and gay leaders.

The Times story was very interesting because most of the people who supported him were people of color, people he had brought up and brought into programs. It was an interesting story. I would agree. I have to say I agree. Well, when Ricky Martin came out as gay, and people forget, just not that long ago, it was a lot harder. John Dempsey was the first person to kind of wrap corporate arms around him and said, we want you to be our spokesperson. And so to not look at this individual's history around fighting for gay rights, around showing sensitivity to disenfranchised groups,

to not look at the full movie that is his career is, in my opinion, performative. I think it verges on cowardice not to stand by someone who's created so much shareholder value that you can reinvest in the community. So my fail is that you need to take into context people's, you know, if people are hateful, if people have a pattern of this, then, yeah, fire them. But I think this was performative. I think it was posing for the cameras. And I think it was a rare mistake from a great company, Estee Lauder. That's my fail. I don't think they showed a lot of empathy there.

You know what? I have to say, I was going to mention this to you because I figured you knew him or you knew the company. And I thought the Times did a very good piece because it was – you know how I'm like, not everything's canceled, Scott. It's just people act badly. In this case, it felt like there was a bigger story here. And it's interesting. There might be. It sort of contrasts what's going on at the washington post um over the twitter fighting um josh barrow wrote a very

good piece on you know how people behave they're yelling at each other and twit on twitter publicly rather than dealing with it privately and this story really did stick with me uh with john dempsey there and and what was most interesting is, again, most of the people who were surprised by this were people he had helped and moved up. And I sort of am like, how did this happen within the company when you couldn't have given him a time off? Or, you know, there is a level of what happened here with this. And I sort of, I was like, is there something else that we don't know about or what? But it definitely was, it was something, people should read the story. There's one in the New York Times.

There's several. And it's confusing, I would say. It's confusing. He'll do just fine, by the way, FYI. I think he's- I don't agree with that. I think this is not the period he wanted on a very impressive career. It's not what he's known for.

And I think they showed a lack of grace here. Yep. You know, this is why social media can be real. Like, it's a really interesting, people have to be very careful, you know, how they behave. I was talking to a lot of people. In fact, one of the people in the Washington Post thing reached out to me and I said, you know, you can, and this is something Josh Barrow wrote, you can be right and still wrong. You know, you can be correct in what you were going for, but how you're doing it. You know, people are surprised because they're like, oh, you're always saying crazy things online. I'm like, actually, I'm very careful, much more careful than you think, you know, how you do it. You're smart. Yeah, I'm a

professional. Don't like do this at home. But the saying that's always stuck with me, and my colleague Jonathan Haidt has said this, and it really struck with me, and I always tell young people this, you should interpret comments and actions or gestures with the intent that they were given. Don't interpret them and take them to a place and use it as soft tissue to go after them. Go, what were they trying to do? What do you think they actually meant to communicate or do here and interpret it that way, as opposed to saying, oh, I can take it to an ugly place and then jump all over you and get my guardians of gotcha pen. Yep, yep. This is interesting. There's a quote here. Let me just read it. Over the past few years, powerful white executives have lost their jobs because of racist statements they

made to employees and others. John Schachter, the founder of Papa John's, used a racial slur on a conference call. Greg Glassman, the founder and CEO of CrossFit, posted a tweet that made light of the killing of George Floyd and spoke belligerently to CrossFit gym owners about race in a video call. Very different than this situation. I urge you all to look into it because it really is, you know, this is a high-level person who's made a lot of money and there's lots of people who are wronged in this world.

But it's a really, it's a complex thing that we should think really hard about when we're doing these things. I'm not even sure why, because a lot of the people supported him. It was very confusing. Anyway, you should read about it. But I think you're correct. I actually agree with you, Scott Galloway. Incredible. Good enough. Your son can wear my belt. Keep the belt, Kara. Keep the belt. I shall. I shall. I shall. Okay, Scott, that's the show. We'll be back on Friday for more. Can you read us out? I sure can. Today's episode was produced by Lara Naiman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin.

Ernie and Jertad engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Mia Silverio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Cara, have a wonderful weekend.