Pivot - Epic Games Wins Against Google, COP 28, and Guest Naomi Alderman
Episode Date: December 15, 2023Kara and Scott discuss Tesla recalling 2 million vehicles, Netflix revealing viewership statistics, and a couple of….terrifying liquids. Then, nearly 200 countries have approved a global pact that c...alls for transitioning away from fossil fuels at COP28. And Epic Games has beat Google in court, with a jury ruling the company violated antitrust laws. Then we’re joined by Friend of Pivot, Naomi Alderman, on her new book, “The Future.” You can find Naomi Alderman on X at @NaomiAllthenews. Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Transcript
Discussion (0)
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 I'm Scott Galloway.
How's it going, Scott?
It's going really well.
I'm headed to, I'm going out to dinner with friends tonight,
and then tomorrow I head to Florida.
So I'm excited to be back in Delray Beach for the holidays.
You're going to be there because you got your house back, right?
Yeah, and word is in Florida,
they have this round yellow thing in the sky
that emanates heat and light,
and I'm excited to see that again.
Yeah, I'm excited.
I'm going to California on Saturday for two weeks.
Oh, you are?
Yeah.
Hang out with the family?
With the kids.
Yeah, all the kids are flying in.
Louis from Buenos Aires.
Alex is already there with Jeff.
So we have a big family thing.
Dragon mom, the ex-wife, I told you.
Amanda, the kids, everything.
Wow, that's a lot.
You want to come?
Hard no.
That's a hard no.
What is your Christmas tradition?
My Christmas tradition?
Well, this year will be total dysfunction
as I have committed to teaching my 16-year-old how to drive.
So the whole house is going to come crumbling down
under that pressure.
It's easy.
It's not hard.
Yeah, well, we'll see.
Okay, I'll call you if it's not easy.
Okay, it's not that hard. I taught two kids. I didn't. You know what? I let my ex-wife do it. And I actually have videos of me teaching them. I'm like, no, no, no. So I didn't. I'm not a very good driver. But they get good. You feel confident. The big issue, I'll tell you.
Well, you have to be able to see over the wheel to be a really competent driver, right?
Very funny. I don't like to drive, actually, that much.
Just sit on a phone book.
Okay.
Are we done?
You know they have special cars or they raise the pedals now?
Get through them.
Get through them.
Get through them.
Go ahead.
That's good.
I'll tell you the one thing that's really hard.
The Hervé Villachez model.
That's probably a hate crime.
All right.
We're done.
Getting on the highway is the real thing with someone, a new driver.
Oh, no, I'm not allowing them to drive on the highways of Florida.
I know, but that's the real moment.
You're like, hmm.
I remember the Louis one.
I was like, I am now going, this is how it ends for Kara Swisher.
But that's the one that's really hard because like in the local streets, you're kind of like, how much damage could they do?
But a highway is something that's nerve wracking with a teen, I have to say.
Because they're nervous.
Because they're appropriately nervous.
Well, that'll be fun.
I want to know what your resolution is besides that.
I didn't get you anything for the holidays.
I didn't.
I didn't.
I'm getting to a bunch of dad jokes.
You got me a sweater, but I really wanted a moaner or a screamer.
Ring in the holidays.
Ring in the holidays.
Maybe I'll send you a book.
I don't have a resolution.
I don't do that.
I don't buy any of that.
I don't do any of that.
I'm not.
You're not that.
No.
No resolutions.
Neither do I.
Isn't that interesting?
Yeah.
I think it's kind of dumb.
You're supposed to make little ones, not big, bold ones.
Yeah, I don't have any.
I don't do any.
One year, I was at a party, you know,
and everyone, like, they go around the table and everybody says, what is your resolution?
And I said, I hope it rains.
And people were unhappy with my resolution.
But I like rain.
So, I hope it rains.
I got a city that's waiting for you.
Come visit.
Oh, oh, it's London, yeah.
It's raining.
But it's not the good rain.
You know good rain, like, good rain?
No, it's a mist.
It's like God spitting.
It's like an old man peeing. It's just awful. Yeah, I like good rain, like good rain? No, it's a mist. It's like God spitting. It's like an old man peeing.
It's just awful.
Yeah, I like good rain.
We had good rain here in D.C. the other day.
Actually, I'm doing a renovation, and I decided to get a metal roof because I like the sound of rain on a roof.
Really?
Yeah.
I have a story about a metal roof.
Oh, what?
A tin roof.
Yeah?
My Uncle Alan and Aunt Mary basically were in council housing as they digressed into poverty
through severe alcoholism in the outskirts of Glasgow. That's welfare housing, essentially.
And we went over to visit them. Of course, my father and my uncle, thinking they can fix
anything, decide, oh, Mary and Alan are raging alcoholics, so we'll go over there and fix it
in a weekend. So, I went with them. Of course, my father used my miles that I was getting in Morgan Stanley because he's so ridiculously cheap.
Anyways, we go there. They lived in basically what is low-income housing. And it was one of
the grimest settings I had ever been in, even after growing up in a kind of upper-lower-middle-class
household. And when it rained, it sounded as if there was thunder. It sounded as if someone was
pounding on the roof because it was a tin roof.
Anyways, fast forward a couple years later.
She pushed him down the stairs.
He was knocked unconscious.
And she went and grabbed a bottle of Vicodin and vodka, drank it, drank and digested them both, laid down next to him, and they were found five days later.
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas!
What?
What?
Is that the Galloway family?
That is a terrible story. It was terrible.
It was terrible.
Oh, my.
Why did she?
Well, we don't know why she pushed him.
Something smells from the Galloway household.
Hello, kids.
Oh, no.
Well.
Let's go caroling.
Let's go caroling.
My tin roof is on an outdoor porch, which a covered porch.
That's not happening to Amanda Katz and Kara Swisher.
That is not going to happen here.
Oh, I just don't know what to say about that.
Well, okay.
I learned a lot, by the way, about you.
If you push me down the stairs and look like I was checking out,
would you lie down next to me and down a bottle of vodka?
No, I'm going to hit you with a bottle of vodka.
Oh, I saw Ricky Gervais last night.
Oh, how was that?
I think that guy is a genius.
He is funny.
Oh, my God.
And he's fearless.
He is.
I love people who are dancing as if no one is watching them.
I think he's deep down like a good man and very thoughtful
and quite actually has progressive values.
Oh, he likes to tweak the libs, he does.
Oh my God.
He's like.
Yeah, you probably like that.
I think you're moving into Vivek Ramaswamy territory,
but keep going, go ahead.
No, Vivek is a fraud who lacks empathy.
No.
You're moving into the Elon camp, I feel it.
This is what 2024 is going to be.
Don't say that. I'm just saying you're expressing some views that are
problematic. But that's okay.
You go ahead and do that. Problematic
as in common sense?
No, not common sense. As in truly progressive?
That is realizing that
actions are more important than words.
Words aren't violence. Violence is violence.
Dumb stuff like that. Here we are.
I know. Let's cancel all DEI leadership and ethics departments and use the money to expand freshman
seats.
You know why he's being this way, everybody?
Like, there's no white man who's had a pointless job.
No.
Yeah, and I'm sure they have a job where they're overpaid and have no accountability.
Instead, let's fire the person that wrote you and let in more black kids and let in
more trans kids.
No, no, no.
Can I just say there's no white man who's ever gotten to step up before everybody
else just because of their manly whiteness.
And the way to give non-whites and trans and LGBTQ community to step up is when you're
sitting on a $55 billion endowment and only letting in 1,500 kids, fire anything with
ethics or leadership and then let in more kids.
Yes, well, that's a different thing.
The ultimate bigotry is exclusion.
Yes, that is a great idea.
But let me just say, the original people who got a step up for not their talents were a
certain group of dudes.
It's true.
It's true.
It wasn't out of their talents.
I'm not a fan of affirmative action.
It should just be based on income.
You want to spot the most incompetent people at NYU or any university?
Here's a quick tell.
Find the people who are loudest about DEI
because they're creating a weapon of mass distraction
from their mediocre teaching
and their mediocre research
because then no one can go after them
because, oh, they're leaders
talking about microaggressions.
That's so ridiculous.
Literally, the focus on people who get a step up
compared to other people who have long gotten a step up is really, we're done with that. 2024, we're done with that.
And here's the thing, we need more steps.
They got a slight step up. They got a and the rich under the banner of DEI.
We have reshuffled.
The most bigoted thing you can do is exclude people.
And we take so much money with virtue signaling.
This is true, but-
Sustainability departments.
Well, how do you measure that?
For decades and decades and decades.
Listen to me.
There are measurables that you're wrong about this.
Actually, I've gotten dozens of letters how wrong you are about this.
You know why he's acting like this?
This is, oh my, what is going on?
I'll tell you what's going on, people.
Scott and I had a session with Esther Perel, and Scott's feeling vulnerable because he
showed his true side.
Did you enjoy that?
I was very self-conscious.
Yes, you were.
You were very self-conscious.
I did enjoy it.
But I'm just saying, I think you felt a little vulnerable there.
That's what I think.
A little vulnerable.
That's what I think happened here. So, you're showing your tough guy. It's a little more complex than Scott is putting out here, but nonetheless,
we're going to move on. Are you done? Are you done? I'm done. I'm done. Okay. Anyone else you
want to attack? Anybody else? Attack? I'm not attacking anybody. I'm defending, I want more
people in freshman classes. I want true progressive values, not virtue signaling, from people who don't want to actually do their fucking jobs.
All for that goal, you must drag others.
Okay, that's an excellent goal, but you don't have to say all of DEI is pointless.
Well, all of a lot of things is pointless, by the way.
You could do that.
You could walk your way through things.
Anyway, happy 2023.
list, by the way. You could do that. You could walk your way through things. Anyway, happy 2022.
Anyway, today we'll talk about the major climate change deal coming out for the UN's COP28 summit,
what Google's antitrust loss means for the company's future. And we'll talk to a friend of Pivot, author Naomi Alderman, about her new novel, The Future, which is in fact about
issues like this, including tech billionaires. But first, Tesla is recalling 2 million vehicles
to fix autopilot feature. Elon doesn't like the word recall because he's just sending a software
update. Auto safety regulators found the features to be too easy to misuse and abuse, causing a,
quote, increased risk of collision. Tesla's begin rolling out the software update remedy,
including additional controls and alerts that will simplify engagement and disengagement of
auto steer. The update will also make it possible for drivers to get locked out
using auto steer if they do not use it responsibly.
The recall marks the fourth for Tesla in two years.
It looks like they did cooperate with the regulators on this one.
I guess maybe they had them debt to rights or something like that.
But they don't want to call it a recall.
It's a software update.
Improve on safety.
It always cracks me up when people say they're cooperating.
Well, Elon didn't do his typical rant against regulators on this one. His mother did one.
It matters what his mother thinks. Anyways, look, I actually do think this is a bit of a nothing
burger because it's not even a, I mean, it's a recall. What it is, is it's a mandate to fix,
which they can do over the year because quite frankly, and you got to give Tesla its due.
The first time I had a tune-up on my Tesla over the airwaves, I'm like, Jesus Christ, that's remarkable.
So, I don't think it's a very – just to be blunt, I don't think it's a big deal.
The biggest impact –
Yeah, they should care about safety. The biggest impact all this has had, I think, on society is that because since Tesla and since the decriminalization of marijuana, when I pick up a wayward hitchhiker, I can only demand ass as payment.
No.
Get it?
Grass and gas are no longer, you no longer need them.
Oh.
I like that. You don't think that's good? A little holiday cheer? No, you no longer need them. I like that.
You don't think that's good?
A little holiday cheer?
No, I think it's bad.
You're on a real bender today, a little offensive bender.
A little too much nog in his egg?
It's fine.
It's fine.
It's an update.
They should have updated it.
It looks like they cooperated.
I don't think this is a big deal.
The auto driving, and also there's data that shows, and you know how much I hate to defend Musk,
but there's data that shows that people who drive Teslas are actually less prone to crash.
The reason why there's more data on their crashing is because there's more of them
in this regard. And they should be safe. And eventually, they're not going to be as many
Teslas. There'll be other cars, and then it'll be an industry issue, just like seatbelts or
anything else. I think that he's a little faster and looser with how quickly he rolls things out.
That is true.
But he's not going to be able to
because there'll be competitors
who will sell on safety
or whatever the heck else.
So he'll have to be a little sharper
on this kind of stuff.
Same thing with hiring.
There's a lot more people
going to get jobs.
The thing that illuminates,
and we understand it,
but we still don't do anything about it,
is the dissonance between data
and how you feel about safety in the sense that,
in my view, the most obvious place for AI or automation is actually in air travel.
Because if you look at, I'm obsessed with air disasters.
And I go to this, unfortunately, I go to this website that has the tapes of every air disaster.
You're obsessed with air disasters?
Why did I not know this?
But okay.
Anyways, my advice to anyone who has a fear of flying,
which I did for like two years for some reason,
is to not go to this site.
Anyways, but if you look at the data,
the majority of air disasters are first and foremost
owner pilots on weekends with their families.
The dentist who buys the Pilatus PC-12,
arguably one of the best planes ever manufactured out of Switzerland, a wonderful plane,
so I won't use that, a King Air or something else. And they don't have practice. And on landing and
takeoff, it's hands down where like 95% of the air fatalities take place. And it's someone who's
not trained and also not having a second pilot, a second set of, you know, kind of wisdom of crowds.
But it's almost always pilot error.
The FAA was really visionary in that as these planes are so overengineered, imagine your car every two weeks had a mechanic come out, inspect everything, test everything, replace the tires when they had 80% of their tread left.
That's literally the standards we have for aviation equipment.
These things are never, it's never an equipment malfunction.
It's pilot error.
So, really, the, go ahead.
I was saying there was a very big story about air traffic control problems, which is another issue.
Well, that's human error.
Yes, exactly.
But, you know, smoking, drinking, not enough of them, tired, etc. It was really disturbing.
That's an outdated system in human error.
Near misses all over the place.
Yeah, they're overworked. I think that's more, I think that's holdover from Reagan,
where people have a lack of respect for institutions and government.
Okay, let's land this one, so they say. But go ahead.
Really, the most amazing invisible infrastructures are airways. But anyways,
back to air disasters, it would just make a lot of sense.
You would see a dramatic reduction in—you would have almost zero air disasters if you let AI and automated flying take over.
But here's the thing.
No one in the back is going to put up with a computer up front.
Not yet.
They just need to see an older guy with a very deep-sounding old man voice make them feel comfortable.
There are women pilots.
Oh, and they're outstanding.
But a lot of surveys show that people feel safer with a big, tall male pilot with a lot of hair.
My point is exactly that, that we have these preconceived stereotypes that people are safer than machines, and they're not.
Yeah, they're not. They're not. They're not. Anyway, Elon, we're going to give you a Christmas
present. You're right. It's just an update, and good for you for cooperating, I guess, if you did.
Next, Netflix is revealing viewership statistics on nearly all shows and movies. They've been
moving toward this for a while. The streaming service released its first What We Watch report
this week, ranking all shows and movies by amount of hours watched in the last
six months. Season one of The Night
Agent was the streamer's most viewed show. Have you seen that?
I watched the beginning. I didn't like it.
I didn't like it. And
The Mother was the most watched show.
That's J-Lo. 55%
of viewing for the period came from original films
and 45% from licensed titles.
That was interesting. Netflix has a
reputation of not
releasing streaming numbers. It has actually. Ted Sarandos talked about it at Code a couple
of years ago. The issue brought up in the Hollywood Strikes this year, they put out some,
the most popular ones, not just to me, but in general.
I've been watching Squid Games. Have you seen that?
That was a long time ago.
I know, but I'm just getting around to it. I've been watching it with my 13-year-old,
which is probably bad parenting.
No, I don't want to watch Squid Games. It is rough. Really good. I know, I don't want to watch to it. I've been watching it with my 13-year-old, which is probably bad parenting. No, I don't want to watch Squid Game.
It is rough. Really good.
I know, I don't want to watch rough. Anyway, they're going to release more numbers, but they've been very non-transparent with these numbers, honestly. That's one of the big complaints of Hollywood writers, etc. They need to release more because of advertisers, presumably, but they've been playing hide the sausage for a long time. That's my favorite game. Anyways.
Yeah, I know. Speaking of which, I dated a girl from Netflix and it was awesome. After we'd have
sex, she'd recommend other chicks I should bang. I'll be here all week.
Okay. All right. What do you think about this? It's good.
Okay. So, being serious, because I realize I'm here mostly for my jokes, but also for the insight.
There's a lot here.
First off, when it comes to compensation, you know the standard decorum that has been
rained on from senior bosses that you can get fired if you share your compensation with
other employees.
That's because asymmetry of information seeds powerful advantage to the people who have
total symmetry. So, what organizations inevitably engage in is kind of what I'll call not unethical,
but unjust compensation practice. Because the reality is if someone is doing a really good
job but not complaining, oftentimes, oftentimes, not always, but oftentimes, they don't get the
compensation they deserve. And part of the reason they don't complain is they have no idea that Joey
Bag of Donuts next to her is making 40% more because he was hired in at a higher salary,
even though he's a fucking idiot. The asymmetry of information benefits the employer and the
person who holds the information. And Netflix has asymmetry of information. And that is,
person who holds the information. And Netflix has asymmetry of information. And that is,
if a producer or a writer or a star or anyone along the food chain does not know how popular or unpopular their show is relative to other shows, that's one less bit of information with
respect to their ability to negotiate more compensation. So, you will always maintain
an asymmetry of information around compensation.
And they will hold those cards as close to their vest as possible. The other observation I would make is that I think in 2024, you're going to see TikTok come for Netflix for the first time.
You are actually seeing Netflix viewership plateau and level out across both youth and adults.
And I think it's the TikTok effect.
I think TikTok is going to start releasing full feature films and series.
And for the first time in 2024, an analyst is going to say, you know what?
I think TikTok is having an impact on not only Netflix, but Spotify.
And then the third major thing this reveals, and this is the most interesting thing, is just five years ago, two-thirds of contracted media in the film space was English-speaking.
Now it's one-third. Why? Why? Because we hit peak artistic masturbation with Flowers of the Moon or whatever it's called. No one's seen it.
Oh, it's getting on all the lists, just so you know, but go ahead. It'll win everything. It'll win everything. But very few people, it's going to lose a shit ton of money. Because what they're finding and
what Netflix figured out is they can produce Parasite for 20 or 30 million bucks and it can
do $250 million. The ratio of box office revenues to costs of Spanish and South Korean productions is just showing a remarkably better ROI.
So the analogy here, and I realize this is a stretch and this is the question, is Los
Angeles in the 2020s the Detroit of the 80s?
And that is, is it about to be impacted by globalization as capital goes to other markets
where they get a much greater ROI
on creative expenditures.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I think it's interesting because it looks like Quibi was right, but this idea of shorter
films, they're definitely moving that direction, TikTok is.
And what's interesting is many, I don't know if you remember years ago, they tried this
in Hollywood.
It was just an idea before its time.
There was a show called Quarter Life that was all online.
It was by the guy who did Dirty Something.
Oh, I love that show.
There were short, yeah, there were short versions.
Well, it was Quarter Life with just 25-year-olds.
And so it was really interesting.
It just was before its time had come.
It'll be interesting to see how TikTok does it and what kind of attention it attracts.
Because I know Hollywood has always been interested in these shorter films. It just didn't work. Well, Quibi had the right idea. Vine. Remember
Vine? Jesus Christ. I mean, they basically had TikTok. Well, wasn't that Twitter? Anyways,
they had the right idea. They just didn't have enough capital. And if you look at this,
I don't know about you. People constantly ask me, what are your news sources? And I try and
come up with things that make me sound impressive. I say, oh, The Economist or the FT. The reality is, you know what my number one source of news
right now is? TikTok. How pathetic is that? It has figured out I love economists, I love
geopolitical analysts, and it is serving me up just amazing, insightful, thoughtful, smart people.
It's just totally... Anyways, TikTok. TikTok, there you have it. Anyway,
we'll see. Tickety-tock. Anyway, last one. Throw yours a cup away because I have a favorite new
drink for you. Dorito has teamed with Empirical, a spirits company, to create a liquor. Limited
time creation will be nacho cheese flavor. Oh, God. That is literally a heresy. That's literally...
I understand that. That is bitch-pping god um oh my god that is
speaking of that of terrifying liquids panera breads and you know this company charged lemonade
is now responsible for a second death according to a lawsuit the charged lemonade has 390 milligrams
of caffeine and a size large which is more than a red bull and a monster energy drink combined like
it's like three cups of coffee uh people you you know, you can drink as much as you want
if you belong to their sips club.
Amanda put me onto this.
She's like, death lemonade is what she's calling it.
Which one would you drink?
The Doritos nacho cheese flavored liquor
or the charged lemonade?
I mean, this is tough for me
because I was on the board at Panera.
Yes, I know.
And they're good people.
And my guess is they're suitably freaked out by this.
And I don't know enough about it.
Are these deaths a direct result of the massive amount of caffeine in these things?
Is it actually pushing people into some sort of cardiac?
I'm sure we'll find out more.
Yeah.
I think you can't take that much caffeine.
But I would bet every day.
I mean, you're asking me which one.
The reality is alcohol kills more people in the United States than almost any substance.
I mean, it is really – and I joke a lot about alcohol.
And I like to remind people I did not have a drink until I was 19.
And I think people need to do an audit every year of what substance they could do less of and improve their life.
And oftentimes, the top of that list will be alcohol.
See, I give you a funny setup for Dorito-flavored liquor and death lemonade.
Sorry.
Yeah, I didn't take it.
Softball.
Softball.
Softball.
Softball.
Which one would you drink, if you had to pick?
Oh, I would.
The idea of nacho cheese flavored spirit just sounds disgusting to me.
It's a charged lemonade it is.
Death lemonade for Scott.
Yeah, I would do charged lemonade.
I do limoncello after dinner.
Do you?
I'm finally confident enough in my masculinity where I order limoncello.
I used to be very self-conscious about it.
It is kind of ladylike. That's very ladylike of you.
And I order two scoops of vanilla ice cream with chocolate syrup. Like,
I'm literally a nine-year-old girl on her birthday. And a limoncello.
A limoncello. Oh, that's good.
Oh, my God.
I gotta say, that's very ladylike of you.
Do they make that soup for a man?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, let's get to our first big story.
Make that suit for a man?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, let's get to our first big story.
Nearly 200 countries have approved the global pact that calls for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
This pact was reached at COP28, the UN's global climate summit, after much debate.
It's the first deal to explicitly curb fossil fuels in 30 years of these agreements.
Scientists say major cutbacks are needed to keep global temperatures rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. We've missed everything. There was a big argument over the wording. Instead of phasing out, they had to do transitioning from. They did use the
word fossil fuel. It was in Dubai, and it was run by someone who runs the oil company. There was a
lot of oil company people there doing their co-splaying, their virtue signaling.
It includes tripling the amount of renewable energy
like wind and solar installed around the world,
as well as pledges to restrict methane emissions
and halt carbon emissions entirely by mid-century.
Again, this person leading the summit,
Sultan Al-Jabr, runs the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.
They're also working on renewable energy,
obviously. There's nothing legally binding about it or incentives to have these oil producers do
anything. A lot of critics, including former Vice President Al Gorse of the deal, had cavernous
loopholes that allow some countries to get new oil exploration with room for transitional fuels
like natural gas.
You know, we are hurtling towards a real problem here if we don't get together on this. Of course, smaller, less developed countries are saying the people who actually cause all this, which is developed countries, have gotten the pass.
And now they have an energy poverty and can't keep up.
And so they're stuck in their same thing.
So I don't know.
Any thoughts?
Probably the biggest criticism we get, other than my dick jokes, is that we don't talk enough about
the climate crisis. And I don't know about you, I don't speak to it because I feel like I have
no domain expertise in it. Oh, I just interviewed Rajiv Shah, who runs the...
Well, then you're an expert. What's the answer? Well, he's an expert because they're doing a lot of focus on it. They're doing all kinds
of initiatives with IKEA, the foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund and everything else.
You know, I think he's really worried about the implications of these countries being
asked to do things they can't afford, right? That they can't do it.
That's right.
And he calls it energy poverty. And I think one of the things that's difficult is that there's no binding here and the inability.
I think he feels that individual billionaires deciding on these things is a problem, that we've got to get a global initiative.
I think the mistrust in organizations is a problem, according to him.
organizations is a problem, according to him. But that this is, you know, there'll be a mix of tech solutions here, but that's not going to be exclusively that there needs to be a much stronger
ability of government to agree on these things. He did thought it was more bipartisan than I think
it is. Obviously, he was talking a lot about nuclear energy, because renewables, most people agree, is not the way to get there completely. And finding ways to do like what we did in Europe after World War II with these developing countries to get them energy, not poor, right, that they can't develop anything.
things are moving faster and things are cheaper. Another thing he said, I'm just going through a wind of things. All the battery stuff is being used to buy rich people cars, you know, electric
vehicles, which could, you know, the battery is a good solution for a lot of these developing
nations. And of course, there's China, always China, what are they going to do? Because they're
obviously a great producer of this. EVs are growing slower, but inevitably we're going to head to EVs at some point.
But, you know, these climate disasters are not fewer and far between now, as you know.
Let me ask you, if we're not the experts on it, because 2023 is now officially the hottest year on record.
We are hurtling.
Until next year.
Exactly.
Everyone feels they can't do anything.
I want you to talk about it from a marketing point of view. How do you get, you have to have these initiatives that everybody agrees on and not spend a lot of time on, which of course took forever, these words like transitioning away versus just getting rid of fossil fuels, which did finally get said, but it's a lot of posturing versus, and it takes 20 years to do so, to make that
statement. I know it sounds crazy, but how do you get people to be motivated by this? Young people
certainly are. I mean, there's two ways to go. You could try to appeal to people's fear and say that
weather is going to be used as a weapon against us, that these coal-producing nations are trying
to create mass migration. You could try and appeal to their nationalistic instincts. I don't think that's the way to go. You could do what insurance companies do and try
to appeal to people's paternal and maternal instincts. And that is, if you care about your
kids, you get life insurance and you start thinking about climate change. The thing that I don't
think is useful is that we have fallen into this cold comfort
that's a direct adjunct of the idolatry of innovators where we believe that climate change
will be fixed by two yet-to-be-named students at MIT in a dorm who are going to come up
with some algae-eating technology.
And we're not only going to solve climate change, but we're going to get rich.
And here's the bottom line.
Young people and developing nations are angry because through the 20th century, my generation and the generations
before us engaged in what was the most prosperous or most lucrative arbitrage in history, and that
is fossil fuels being turned into hospitals and transportation and everything. And Vaseline
requires petroleum. I mean, it's just, and fossil fuels have been the gift
that has kept on giving.
And we didn't take enough.
We didn't tax basically everything enough
such that we had the funds
to help developing nations
who haven't had a chance to recognize
or engage in that ultimate arbitrage
or to make the requisite investments
in whatever it is, nuclear or wind or
solar. But I think we're just going to have to, and by the way, let me come back to this thing.
Davos is coming up, and people are very critical of Davos. I think it's really important that
people get together and words matter and make statements like this. And for the Gulf nations who
have a vested interest in the continued use of fossil fuels, but also a transition away from
that, I think it's important that they get together, they talk about this, and even these
kind of statements, regardless of how substantive or not substantive they are, I think they're
important. The problem is, is that until you tax something based on its sustainability, whatever it
is, its fair trade, its supply chain, and the carbon it produces at the source
of production, companies will continue to engage in gymnastics where they offshore pollution,
right? And I just don't think there's any getting around it. I think it requires leadership where
you say, if you care about the future, it's going to be expensive.
We have to start taxing carbon emissions.
We have to start taxing these things.
Which is more unlikely.
You know, it is, let's just say, you're right about the words, because it's the first time
they agreed to move away from fossil fuels.
It's the first time they used the word fossil fuels.
It is something, and it's very sweeping.
And I think the problem is a lot of people feel like, well, they make these sweeping states and nothing
happens. That's not always the case. They decided to fix AIDS or, you know, to try to solve AIDS
problems across the world. And for the large part, they really did as they moved together,
right? But it took a minute or two to get it going. I think what scientists are worried about
is obviously the delays. Now, a lot of
countries wanted it to be complete phase out of fossil fuels, and that was obviously a big pushback.
But it's also not just from, say, the Saudi Arabias, but also vast green countries like India.
So it's an accelerate the global shift away, and this is the word they use, in a just, orderly,
and equitable manner.
They did agree to quit adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere entirely by mid-century.
Again, tripling renewable energy, methane emissions, which is a short-term solution,
I think.
You know, I agree with you.
I think there's some, they had shied away from using even the word fossil fuels, which
that fact that they're doing that is that it took 30 years.
You know, there was a good quote from this guy, and his name is Wopke Hoekstra, the European
Commissioner for Climate Action, said, humanity has finally done what is long, long, long
overdue.
30 years, 30 years we spent to arrive at the beginning of the end of fossil fuels.
I'm not an environmentalist.
I've always said that after the last human draws her last breath, the Earth is going
to belch for 50 years and it's going to be as if we were never here.
I don't, I think the Earth is going to be just fine.
It's us that are going to have to deal with mass migration and super fires.
And the problem is, the problem is
we're not electing people who do their job and their job is to think long-term because at the
end of the day, people... Yes. These are political issues. These will turn into political issues and
societal. You know, people are going to, the voters act in their self-interest 364 days a year
in the short term, but one day a year, they typically think long term when they vote.
And unless our elected representatives make these huge, sweeping, massive scale investments that we, the shade of which they will never or we will never sit under, no one's going to do it.
Not a tech innovator, not an individual.
No one's going to do it. Not many politicians, environmentalists, and business leaders
gathered in Dubai hoped it would send a message to investors and policymakers that the shift away
from fossil fuels was unstoppable. This is how a lot of other things, global initiatives have
happened. The problem is time is not on our side, right? It's just not on our side as we're seeing
more and more climate. And a lot of people feel, a lot of scientists, if you're just reading on the stuff around the Arctic, which is just
disturbing what's happening up in the Arctic, and that's just one area of the world, right? It's not
coming back. So that means rising sea levels, coastal cities. I think that's the issue is that
we can finally decide that fossil fuels aren't good, but it's already decided for us.
Those islands that are disappearing.
One of the things that I talked about with Rajiv Shah was fisheries.
The fish that people depend on to eat is dying off really quickly, and that creates all kinds of social problems. You said something that really stuck with me, and that is the biggest danger here, or one of the things that's gotten in the way of progress or a call to action,
is the incrementalism. And that is, you said something that did register with me. You said,
humans are very adaptable. So, if everything had been as it was in 2022, and then in 2023,
and in the last 50 years, we had three superfires in California. And then
in one year, we had 18 superfires and a third of the Arctic shelf broke off. Everyone would be like,
what the fuck? All hands on deck. This is war. Go on a war footing. Double the taxes on gasoline.
Triple the investments in nuclear.
Put out a carbon metric footprint on every individual and publish it on every company.
But because every year it's just gotten a little bit worse, we're the frog that wakes up in boiling water.
And we're adapting. And it's not a good adaptation.
No, it's not.
And then we also, I think the idea, you're talking about technologies, is carbon capture and storage.
It's just not, well, you might want to accelerate that.
It just means we want to burn more fuel so that we can capture it.
And so we have to move to alternatives, not just regular renewables that we know about, solar, wind, etc., but nuclear.
And that's where tech can really step up.
Yeah, but a lot of it, I mean, again, so much of it just comes down to coal in a few markets.
were one, the suburbanization of America, which was basically a lifestyle choice around the car to increase the quality of our life, and two, the industrialization of China, mostly fueled by coal.
So even if you look at the fastest growing populations in the world, they have a lower
per capita carbon emission footprint. It's basically been the lifestyle and economic
choices of the U.S. and China, and also the impending choices
of developing markets that went on in on the same game. Two final things they did, speaking of coal,
they had an earlier draft of the agreement, urged nations to stop issuing permits for new coal
fire plants, according to New York Times. China and India pushed back as they were too overly
strict and the language was removed. The other part, the last part, is a lot of African nations
said that it shouldn't be at the same pace. And then without financial help, they cannot.
Yeah, they want theirs.
They want theirs. They needed to exploit their own gas and oil reserves in order to grow rich
enough to fund clean energy transition. They've got to fund it. Or we have to pay for it for them,
since we are the world's biggest, we're the wealthiest and we're the biggest emitters
of these things.
Anyway.
I'm sorry, if we can pay Iran not to spend,
you know, not to get heavy water or uranium,
we should be able to figure out what to pay these nations
not to build coal fire plants
or at least offer them subsidies to go to.
It's a big issue.
And I think, well, okay,
we talked about New Year's resolutions.
We should probably make a more concerted effort
to have more guests on Pivot
similar to the guests you just had on.
Yes, I have.
I have a lot of climate change people on that one.
Actually, it's a big issue.
Many years ago, because tech had talked about it for so much many years ago, I did a column
where I said the world's first trillionaire is going to be a climate change technologist.
I made it up, but I wanted to get people in that direction.
We will do more in 2024 on climate change, and we'll focus on the technology of it,
because that's an area we can talk about somewhat intelligently. Anyway, let's go on a quick break.
When we come back, we'll discuss the repercussions of Google's antitrust loss
and talk to Naomi Alderman about her new book, The Future. It's a terrific book.
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.
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.
Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home.
Out. Procrastination. Putting it off. Kicking the can down the road.
Out. 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.
Scott, we're back with our second big story. Google was dealt a major blow this week in the Epic Games case with a jury ruling the company violated antitrust laws with its Android app
billing system. The unanimous verdict from a jury, as I said, was reached after three hours of deliberation following a four-week trial in San Francisco federal court.
The judge in the case will decide the remedy next year, but Google says it will appeal the verdict.
Obviously, it's opposite from what happened to Apple, which won a similar case.
It's unusual to have a jury trial, So it was in the hands of actual consumers.
Google might be forced to allow other companies to have competing app stores on Android phones
and tablets. Developers could also potentially charge users without giving a cut to Google.
That could be a remedy. You know, the big app stores are there. I think the time has passed.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney said after the verdict, the dominoes are going to start falling
here at the end of 30% is in sight again, but Apple did prevail over Epic in a similar trial.
It was appealed and upheld this past year, which I think is confusing to some people.
So, Google's also facing other antitrust issues with the Justice Department. In May is when they
have the closing arguments about that, and then there's also another antitrust trial. So what do you think about all these?
So just a disclosure, I'm an investor in Epic, but my editor-in-chief at Prop 2 Media, Jason
Savers, is a lawyer. And he said this was just pure malpractice from a legal standpoint.
By whom?
By Google. To choose a jury trial, he said it was just idiotic.
standpoint that by whom by Google to choose a jury trial, he said was just idiotic. And also that the reason that Google lost and Apple won, because Apple is much more professionally run. And that
is when you conduct discovery against Apple, you don't find them shit posting or speaking casually
about them getting away with shit or saying fuck regulators like that kind of language and that kind of behavior, those kinds of emails at Apple are severely frowned upon. And at Google, it's just sort
of the wild west, like, oh, the, you know, romper room children just having at it on their Slack
channels. Supposedly, the zeitgeist or the culture at Google is just a plaintiff's attorney's dream.
Yeah, it had been. I remember years ago thinking, why are they putting all this stuff in emails?
There was an issue around the destruction of emails, too, of not keeping them.
But anyway.
And Apple is just much more buttoned up and much more professional.
I would imagine that they get, I mean, think about it.
Apple doesn't have leaks.
You know, I'm pretty sure that Apple has this basically orientation, which I would affectionately call a reeducation camp that says, imagine everything you write, do or say here is going to be in court. And just think about it, because the level of discovery on Apple versus Google was just night and day. And also, Apple was decided by a judge on its legal merits,
and the Google trial was decided by a jury.
I actually think this is the most significant
business story of the week
that wasn't really discussed
because this will embolden
and give a lot of confidence to judges
to start ruling against these companies
around antitrust issues as it relates to...
Yeah, because juries. Juries, yeah.
I was surprised it was a jury trial.
I'd be interested to know what would happen if Apple had a jury trial.
And it will have real impact.
I just, I had to bug out for a minute just a couple of minutes ago because my 13-year-old
is home.
And I can tell you with 110% certainty, he is right now within about seven seconds of walking through the door on Epic's Fortnite, I think it's called Chapter 5, and they buy stuff.
And the fact that now 30, 50, 80% of the commission that used to go to Apple or the Google Play Store will now be held by the,
I mean. Well, not yet. There's going to be appeal after. Yeah, but you know the remedy,
the remedy, where the remedy ends up is that that fee is going to go down. Yeah. Whatever the remedy
is, whatever that tax was, whether it's 15% or 30%, you know it's coming down. Yeah. Apple should
act proactively right now. Like they kind of. It's not fully 30%
for everybody or everything, but it's that you don't have a choice, right? Let me be accurate.
It's sometimes 30, sometimes it's 15. Sometimes it's not at all. It's very haphazard. I think
that's been pointed out by lots of app developers. Yeah, but this is the definition of anti-competitive. If Tesla, I'm making up this
analogy, so it might not be the right one. But if Tesla, if you said, all right, my seats are old,
and I'm replacing my seats, but I'm going to replace them with non-Tesla part seats.
And this is, automobile companies make all of their money on repairs and parts. They charge
onerous fees on maintenance and parts.
They make no money selling the car.
And so if Tesla said, okay, we know if you use non-Tesla high margin products for repairs,
and if we find out, if you do this and we find out 100% of the time, we shut off the car.
And that's basically what they've done here.
They said, okay, this person may have paid for the product,
but if you want to give them an alternative platform
to buy additional products within the product,
we're turning off the game
because we have total control over it.
Yeah, yeah.
And I think the bigger point you're making
that there are 11 antitrust claims in this case
that Epic Games had.
And again, they make Fortnite, as Scott just pointed out.
But Google's found fault on all of them by this jury.
So people could say it could preview what's going to happen in the other significant cases and will have a huge impact on Google's business.
That is the worry, I think, in terms of profit making and
everything else. So it definitely is a real shot across the bow for this company, because this is
where, like, whether it's ads where they have a foot up, or it's the app store where they have a
foot up, and that's not even its biggest, but the ad business antitrust trial is coming.
The search one is with the Justice Department.
The ad business is in federal court in Virginia.
These are significant, significant legal cases.
I like that, those numbers.
It's 97 points of margin.
I mean, and let me use a worse analogy.
You use Delta.
Delta is the only airline to get to Europe.
The only airline. And if you go on Delta, if you want to go to Europe, it's the only airline.
You have to use the Delta credit card.
And then you have to use the credit card while you're there.
And they take a 30% surcharge on everything you buy while you're in Europe.
I mean, they literally control.
They literally control, they have total domain over you while you are in on another game or another platform because they're providing the underlying.
And they say they will claim it's safety and, you know, with cybersecurity and all this stuff.
Sure.
And Barry Diller had the right analogy.
It's like a credit card and credit cards take between one and a half and three percent.
Yeah.
Well, we'll see what happens. The one in the one, the search trial with the Justice Department and also dozens of states are involved in that is by a judge in the U.S. District Court, as I said. He has not said,
he said he didn't know how he was going to decide. But if he sides with the government,
he could do a lot of things. Spin-offs, all kinds, there's going to be significant changes. I do not
think they're going to win any of these cases, as I've said. The ad tech case, same thing, same kind of area.
The Justice Department's saying it has to divest itself, another big case. And of course, there's
the European cases. Google's in for a world of hurt. Apple's a little more protected, but Apple
will have its time at the docket at the same time. Apple just hit an all-time high, by the way,
Apple will have its time at the docket at the same time.
Apple just hit an all-time high, by the way, the stock.
Yeah, I know.
Yeah, it did.
Yeah.
Anyway, they're much more protected.
Okay, Scott, let's go to our friend of Pivot.
Naomi Alderman is a best-selling author as well as a video game designer and a creative writing professor.
So she hits all knocks with all we talked about today.
Her newest book is titled The Future. It tells the story of a trio of tech billionaires
preparing for the impending apocalypse.
It's a climate apocalypse.
The Guardian called it a complex novel of ideas,
slightly hidden inside a satirical dystopian tech thriller.
Welcome, Naomi.
So I've already done a book talk with you,
which I really enjoyed.
I think we had a great time
because we're on the same page about tech CEOs, et cetera. But I want you to, Scott, it's not as familiar,
and the things we've been talking about on this show, climate change and apocalypse, essentially,
the power of tech billionaires, including the case against Google and Epic Games,
so something you know about, and the overpower of tech and how they're going to be reined in.
So you've created a world that's similar to ours in this book, but taken it to extremes.
Talk about why you wanted to write about these people.
Well, it occurs to me, actually, one of the reasons that I wanted to write about them
was because I sold my previous book to Amazon for a TV show.
And, you know, that's a great experience. But
at the same time, I... The power. The power. The power. My previous novel was The Power.
It's a TV show on Amazon Prime. And you have to consider what you're becoming implicated in
when you do that sort of thing. And the more that I considered it, the more I thought,
I considered it, the more I thought, oh. So I've worked in technology for many years now. I create a video game called Zombies Run. I've been in a bunch of tech startups. I have seen how
tech people think and operate, mostly great people. And at the start of 2017, I read that
piece in The New Yorker that I think maybe we all read about the tech billionaires and their survival bunkers where they were going to blast out the apocalypse.
And I think if you've worked in tech, you read that and went, oh, yeah, I 100% believe it.
That's not even a question.
That is exactly the thought process.
not even a question. That is exactly the thought process. And having read that and having gone,
I think they're a bit evil. I think this is something that is so profoundly wrong that things have to make me pretty angry, Cara, for me to end up writing a novel about it.
So the premise is they know about this apocalypse coming and
they're preparing for it, even as the rest of the world isn't, and people are trying to stop them.
Talk about what the general premise is. Right. So, yeah. So the novel opens with
three tech billionaires getting a little notification from their predictive software
saying the apocalypse is coming, trying to get into the PJ private jet and to fly off to your bunkers to
escape. Meanwhile, we flashback to find out that some people close to them, a soon-to-be ex-wife,
one of their children, one of their assistants has been watching them doing what they're doing
and have been trying to work out how to stop them. So the novel is a sort of race between can this group of
misfits stop them before the world collapses? So there's the line in the book about the impact
where you wrote, the mental health of humanity continued to be strip-mined. And it's a really,
it's interesting because it has like climate implications of coal and everything else.
Is there a specific person in big tech that exists that you base this on you find particularly fascinating or horrifying?
I mean, you know, the tech journalist Rebecca Eisenberg just did a very lovely review of this book on Goodreads where she goes through and she says, I think this one could be Larry Page or Sergey Brin.
I think this. Now, obviously,
I don't want to get sued by the richest people in the world. They're definitely not based on
specific people. However, I mean, we're all looking at Elon, I think, and going,
oh, we thought 15 years ago that you were actually incredible and you had a brilliant mind and you
were working on some of the big problems. And now you seem to have gone crazy from power toxicity somehow.
So I am interested by how somebody ends up calling some cave rescue people in Thailand
paedophiles.
I am very interested in how that happens, which is a real thing.
I'm sure listeners to this know that.
But I'm also interested in how power affects people and how the more power you get and the more people you have around you telling you that everything that you say is brilliant, the more insane you're actually likely to become.
Sort of tease it up for Scott.
It's nice to meet you, Naomi. So if you agree that this cohort of tech billionaires over-indexes in terms of neuroses or a lack of concern for the Commonwealth or mental illness or whatever you want to call it, I guess the question is, why? their youth? Is it they're surrounded by so much idolatry of innovators that power corrupts them?
Is it that the kind of person who's drawn to technology is more vulnerable? Is it their
use of ketamine? I mean, why? Because there are very powerful people in Washington, D.C.
There are very powerful people in other industries, but there definitely seems to be
There are very powerful people in other industries, but there definitely seems to be a specific type of neuroses or, you know, I don't know what the term would be for it.
Crazy.
It's a brand of crazy.
There's a certain kind of crazy.
What do you think underpins it?
And having worked in tech, because you've seen it, right? As have I and as has Scott.
Oh, I love this question.
Having been around these people and also having, you know,
conducted some like in private interviews in order to research the book.
I think these are great questions.
And I don't think we have to pick any one of those answers. I mean, are you guys familiar with the book, The Power Broker by Robert Caro?
Yes, of course.
Which is about the great builder of New York City.
Right, right.
I think Americans are familiar with this.
Americans who are interested in politics are familiar with it.
And maybe British people are not necessarily.
So obviously, that is a book that charts a guy going from being the kind of
idealistic architect who wants to put baby changing stations in
Central Park to becoming the kind of corrupt power monger who directs a road so that it goes
round his friend's house. So how does this happen? Well, one thing is, if you're in a position where you've done something great to start
off with, and everybody has gone, oh, my God, you're amazing.
So in the case of Robert Moses, he built Jones Beach.
And everyone in New York City went, oh, my God, this guy, he's a visionary, he's bright,
he's energetic, he's young, he's capable.
Why does he have to have term limits?
Why does he have to have budget constraints? Why does he have to have budget
constraints? Just let this public-spirited civil servant free. And at the point that you do away
with all of those term limits, checks and balances, at the point that you say to even
founders of companies, well, there's no way you can be got rid of, then they start to go a bit crazy. A part of that is that a lot of people
are then attracted to them who want them to use that totally inviolable power that they now have
for their benefit. They start getting offered quid pro quos. You know, they come a long way from
the certainties that they used to have morally. I mean, something that I get into in the book as well is, you know, and I think we've seen
this with Sam Bankman Freed and the effect of altruism, that even if you think about the robber
barons of the 18th, 19th century, they had a sort of basic feeling about what it meant to leave a legacy, which is based in a religious
worldview. Now, I'm not saying we should go back to the religious worldview that they had, but we
haven't then replaced that with any values other than the effective altruism thing where you
long-termism make up some imaginary people in the future, make up what they want, and then go and
achieve that for them, which
just seems like pretending you're in a science fiction story.
One of the things that was interesting about this book is you started writing it in 2017.
It was pre-COVID, pre-ChatGPT, pre-Elon, reading levels of crazy, and you anticipated
a lot of it, of where it was going.
Yes, that is correct.
And I will try and use my powers for good in the future.
Right.
But when you think about the answer is, and I think you're right, they don't have,
what you're talking about is principles, right? They don't have basic, and whatever you think of
these robberans, they had religious principles, or they had values, I guess is a better word.
Do you, what are the values that in this book, and also today for these people that they don't
have any, it's just random.
It's random and effective altruism, which I think a lot of people are calling ineffective altruism,
it seems kind of nonsense. It's nonsense. It's nonsense. It's nonsense. It's not even ineffective altruism. It's ineffective solipsism,
because it ends up being a way of saying, you know, there's earn to give. It's like,
no, it's very good for you to try and earn as much money as possible.
So what are they left with?
They're left with, well, I have to deliver shareholder value
and individual choice and liberty is great.
And actually, you know, those are kind of, they're not terrible as, you know,
two of your 40 key guiding principles. But if they're the only
two that you have, that is going to lead you into some deep trouble. So one of the things that I
talk about in the book, so the novel has sections, which are a sort of forum where people discuss
what they think is going to be coming in terms of the apocalypse. And I have a character there who comes from a cult background.
Now, I should say, the reason I did this is because when I talk to people who know the
executive assistants for tech billionaires, one of the things I found out is a lot of those women,
and they are all women, grew up in cult. That's a separate conversation. Anyway,
those women, and they are all women, grew up in cult. That's a separate conversation. Anyway,
so I have my character talking about, yeah, it's interesting, right? At the moment that you know that they grew up in cults, you go, oh, yeah, I see the links between that and a tech startup.
Hmm. So I have her talking about, she's on this forum, and she talks about the golden rule,
which is also,
it's not going to take you all the way, but it's a great place to start, which is to say,
if you don't like it, when someone does something to you, don't do it to anybody else. And this
feels like a rule that is sadly missing from the modern internet. You know sadly missing from both discourse and the wider way in which
these companies are set up just like you read about um uh people who who run social media sites
who won't let their children use them and then you go oh what you've done there is violated the
golden rule and it's actually a very simple nice nice little, you might say, mental heuristic.
Just go, is what I'm doing totally wrong?
If it fails to pass this test, then it's totally wrong.
But I think we've sort of thrown that out somehow.
Scott?
So how would you respond to the thesis that it's our fault?
That if you tell a 30-something-year-old guy, and I would argue now a woman, that they're Jesus
Christ and are inclined to believe you, and that because we as voters and citizens don't put up the
same guardrails for these individuals, if we had the same lack of guardrails or the same idolatry
of any industry, they too would abuse that. And then it's really kind of our fault that we're
absentee parents.
I mean, I have a lot of sympathy with that, which is why obviously I'm writing about it.
Because if it's our fault, then we can change our minds.
And then we can say, actually, we think that these industries and these platforms are so important now to humanity that you should not ever be able to be in the position where you can just buy one,
just like you can't buy all the roads in the United States. Maybe that needs to have at least
public oversight. I mean, this is something that Cara and I talked about when we did that event in
Washington, D.C., is we need some laws now. You know, we've sort of, I feel maybe one of the things that's happened is we've been sidetracked into thinking that we can do activism by like putting a little badge on our Twitter profile or whatever, or, you know, doing a rant on threads. lost its jury case in San Francisco, and you're in the video game industry, and you understand
the app stores, et cetera, et cetera. Do you think that's the movement towards it? This jury
immediately, 11 counts that they're predatory, essentially. I mean, that's exciting, isn't it?
Am I allowed to be a bit excited about that? Without, I should say, having read the judgment,
I haven't read that yet. So, yeah, I feel like, I mean, I'm hopeful that there is a slow but steady movement towards saying,
oh, no, we the people need to be regulating these things much more fiercely.
Because, I mean, for me, the fact of the amount of misinformation about the current terrible war in the Middle East on Twitter, the fact that it's
easier to find lies about it than truth, feels like, okay, at this point, this industry has
shown that it is incapable of self-regulating. You know, they don't have journalistic...
Right. But as an entrepreneur, the business model with 30% cut, for example, creates a bad
situation for creators like you.
Right. It does. It's extremely difficult, actually. Yes. And, you know, you wouldn't,
you wouldn't, that is more of a cut than you pay to anybody else. Even if you're, you know,
writing a novel, there's no, there's no single organization out there that is taking 30%.
And particularly not if you're handing it to them ready to go.
They haven't done anything.
So, yeah, I like it.
I think I think that will make it easier.
Is there if there was one remedy to help us rein in or, I don't know, modulate or whatever you want to call this, what would you like to see happen?
All right.
And I'm afraid I'm going to give you an answer that is a bit more complicated than a magic wand,
but I think it's important.
We are living through what I have called the information crisis.
This is not the first information crisis the human race has ever lived through.
We had one after the Gutenberg printing revolution as well.
We are now able to access every day, all of us, right? We've been
through it before. When we had the Gutenberg revolution, you must know the book, Technopoly
by Neil Postman. He talks about how after the Gutenberg revolution, one of the things that was needed was the invention of universal schooling. Like, it's that serious. And I think the magic wand, if there is such a thing, is to take what we're currently living through extremely seriously in terms of, yes, there are laws that are needed. Yes, we need as a community to take action. We need to change social norms. But actually, I think if I were a
young person today thinking, what can I work in that is going to make a difference? There are two
things. One is working on not destroying our planet and helping to save it. And the second one
is how can we get through this information crisis as quickly and cleanly as possible without burning people at the stake,
which is what happened in Europe for about 350 years after Gutenberg. So we needed schools,
we needed indexes, we needed textbooks, we needed the invention of curriculums,
ways for people to navigate through this sea of information without becoming mentally and
emotionally destroyed. So that's short-term
legislation, yes. Long-term. Last very quick question. If you had to be stuck in a bunker
with a tech billionaire right now, which one would you pick?
With a tech billionaire? Bill Gates.
It's Bill Gates. Why?
Bill Gates. I'm telling you why.
Because he said that he liked my novel.
So that feels like we would get off to a fairly okay start.
All right.
That's not my choice.
Who would you pick, Cara?
Mark Cuban.
Mark Cuban.
He'd be a lot of fun.
Mark Cuban.
Mark Cuban.
How about you, Scott?
How about you, Scott?
Who would he be within a bunker?
Yeah.
I think Larry and Sergey would have the best drugs, but probably Bill Gates.
I think Bill Gates is the most interesting. And I think he's very smart and reasonable and nice.
And I don't know, I've always been a fan of Bill Gates. I don't know. I think you talk your ear off. Anyway, last thing I want to ask you is that someday I would like to have power in my
hands so I can zap Scott. I've thought of it all the time since I read your book and watched the show. So someday, hopefully, women will have zapping power and it would be great.
I can do that for you. It's a very thoughtful book, and not just because the lesbian is one of the heroes. I really appreciate it.
Again, the book is The Future, and the author is Naomi Alderman.
Thanks, Naomi.
Thank you so much.
It's been great.
All right, Scott, one more quick break.
We'll be back for Predictions.
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, let's hear a prediction.
I was trying to decide between two.
I did my predictions event, which you did not ask about.
Yeah, I did ask about, didn't I?
Oh, I asked about it on the Estair thing, didn't I?
Yeah, in our therapy session.
How was your predictions event, Scott?
Yeah, 20,000 people.
Yeah?
How many people?
Well, 20,000 people registered.
I think about 8,000 people showed up.
Anyways.
Wow, okay.
All right, good.
Do they pay you for that?
No, no, I do it because i think
it's interesting and no it's not paid um i don't know interesting eight thousand's a big audience
scott galloway can i ask you one more question how many predictions did you make how many
predictions i think i ended up with like 15 or 16 something like that um so my two relevant to this show or tech that I made.
One, I always make a tech stock pick.
And I got it right last year.
I picked meta.
I just thought meta was so ridiculously undervalued.
When I made the prediction, it was at $80.
Cash volcano.
Anyways.
And had been overpunished because of the metaverse.
And this year, my big tech stock pick is Alphabet. And I just think, I've been looking at Gemini, and my thesis is that the actual LLMs
will be somewhat commoditized, and that the generative AI that wins will be the one with one,
not even the one with the most compute, because that's sort of table stakes. They're all going
to have to have massive compute. But the one that has the greatest fodder or coal to shove into the
furnace specifically writes to crawl information and it just sort of got me thinking about the
proprietary access that Gemini will have and I started thinking about you can turn on access
to your gmail and it will be able to go into your email and go, Scott, we see that you have 11 speaking gigs lined up.
We see where they are.
Here is exactly.
We're going to send you alerts on when you should book the airfare.
And we know that you always eat at Casa Dona in Miami when you're there.
Do you want us to make reservations because we see you're there?
It could look at your YouTube viewing patterns.
It could look at all of the text of your emails. It strikes me it's going to have such an
extraordinary amount of information that it'll be able to proactively... I'm going to Florida. I get
my teeth cleaned when I'm in Florida. It has taken me an hour or an hour and a half to figure it out. And at some point, Dr. Craig Spodak in Delray Beach will be Gemini compatible, and the
AIs will just speak to each other. And the AI will go, Scott, whenever he's in Florida, gets his teeth
cleaned, when is your next available appointment? And it'll look at my calendar and give Dr. Spodak's
AI, Gemini-capable AI, the windows, and they'll do it in a microsecond.
And I'll get an alert saying, before we confirm, we want to confirm your teeth cleaning.
And I'll go.
Yeah.
So, I think they're in a world, if they lose these ads, they're going to have to replace some big businesses.
That's all.
You know what I mean?
Ads and search.
They'll be able to push off the remedies.
They'll do the big tech, thousands of of lawyers delay and obfuscation it'll be years before the remedy
actually takes effect youtube and i've learned this from you and i started looking into it youtube
unlike many of the youtube's actually the fastest if you think of youtube's cable it's the fastest
growing cable company in the world it is indeed i've said this a number and so when i look at when i look at their what still still is the largest cable company in the world. It is indeed. I've said this a number of times. And so when I look at, when I look at their, what still, still is the largest toll booth
in the history of mankind, specifically search, which is not, which is still growing low double
digits. When I look at YouTube being the fastest growing, one of the fastest growing media companies
in the world. And I look at the amount of what I'll call data capital they have or data coal,
they have to feed into Gemini that
other people won't have access to, I think this is the year of Google. Just so you know,
meta platforms went up. It started December 13th, 14th of last year. 2022 is $121. And now it is
$332. That's a good choice. Yeah, it's basically in November when I made the prediction, it's basically tripled since then.
I made three stock picks, Airbnb, Meta, and Chinese internet stocks.
And I got Airbnb and Meta both outperformed the NASDAQ substantially.
Chinese internet stocks substantially underperformed the NASDAQ.
Anyways, and the other one, and I've come...
Alphabet's not up much in a year.
Well, also, part of my prediction, and I didn't mention this, is on a relative valuation basis,
while Alphabet has had a good year, it looks not cheap, but reasonably valued relative
to the rest of big tech right now, because they look flat-footed.
It's up 35% over the past year.
The second prediction is, I think by, and I get the timing wrong, by the end of 24,
the end of 25, Musk is going to lose control of Twitter.
He's either going to sell it or be forced to sell it.
I think there's so many existential risks he's created for himself.
One, and I actually said this on my predictions deck, but I think there's a non-zero probability
now that he's violated the terms of service of the App Store of Apple.
And that would, in my view, probably be, if not the final nail, a pretty big spike in the coffin of Twitter.
It's a big call from Tim Cook.
That's a big call.
Yeah, but this would be, think about this, this would be so quintessentially Tim Cook.
He waits.
He's thoughtful.
Tim Cook. He waits. He's thoughtful. And I really do think that putting Alex Jones back on the platform has really upset a lot of people. I think there's sort of like, is this guy really...
And just into that void, guess who floated the idea of working with him? Kevin McCarthy.
Floated the idea of working with who?
With Elon Musk. He wants to work on AI,
and he meant he was floating the idea of working with Musk. He's looking for money. He's looking
for a job. I get it. But of course, Kevin McCarthy would go for Musk. Of all the many people he has
choices of in California, that's who he would go for. But there's that. There's also an existential
risk of, keep in mind what he's done here around the new X.AI, the structure he's trying to,
basically, it's thievery. He's essentially said, okay,
everyone, they handle the media well. We're going to give 25% to Twitter shareholders.
No, what he's doing is taking 75% of the assets they own for himself. That's what he's doing.
And by the way, some of those investors are like Sequoia and Andrea. I think he's going to have
shareholder lawsuits from investors at Twitter. I think they're going to say, what the fuck are you doing?
You wipe out our equity because you can't control, you have no impulse control.
And now you want to take 75% of the assets here for your own AI purposes.
I think he has lawsuits.
I think he has deplatforming risk.
I think the feds are fed up with this guy.
And also the people who-
Monkeys are dying over at Neuralink.
He's starting a university.
Quite frankly, I'm a fan of that.
I think we need more innovation
and more pressure on universities.
But so anyways, but-
I don't think it'll ever happen.
I do think by the end of the year,
I think he might even just throw up his arms.
And when it starts,
when the virus jumps the lab of Twitter and starts infecting SpaceX,
which is becoming the new or the next golden goose or Tesla, I think he and his, I guess he doesn't have a border ambassador. So, you know what? It's not your adventures in media should
come to a quick end. I think he'll declare victory and leave. Yeah, he lost a Scandinavian Tesla suit,
union suit, just so you know.
He's that.
Of course, there's the dokes around the incel car,
the Cybertruck, see how good it is.
You know, he's got a lot of federal people on his ass.
I just think this is going to be a rough Q1 and Q2.
He's got a lot.
He's got a lot.
He's got a lot.
But then again, can I just push back on one thing?
SpaceX just got valued at $180 billion.
He's as rich as ever, if not richer.
Yeah, and I used to say, people say, well, he won't be able to make interest payments.
No, it won't be a function of interest payments.
Someone told me he's not very liquid.
Well, he's already pledged 60% of his Tesla shares.
I just think at some point, even a guy like that goes, this just isn't worth it.
I think that Twitter is about to become just a constant source.
It's like death by a thousand, not even cuts, but death by a thousand shivs.
I think the next couple of quarters are going to be, what happens when everyone starts leaving
because they realize their equity value and their options are worth nothing?
And maybe, who knows, maybe some people at Twitter who actually have kids of their own go, you know what, I'm just not down for this Alex Jones stuff.
I do think it's going to get worse.
I think he's got, you know, I know everyone was focused on his mother thing.
If his mother's not speaking to him honestly, instead of being this kind of feral cheerleader who's on the
payroll, like everyone who works for him. I just don't think he has anyone. If my son behaved like
this, there would be hell to pay. And then pretending, you know, he wants to save humanity.
It's, he needs some guardrails and he doesn't, he don't got none. He don't got none.
That's the biggest problem.
Anyway, so I think Alphabet is the best big tech performer in 2024.
Revenge or The Empire Strikes Back at the hands of Gemini, YouTube.
And I think that by the end of 24, maybe 25,
Musk is going to decide that juice is just not worth the squeeze here.
That's two years.
You're not getting 25, end of 25. You don't get to say someday he's not going to decide the juice is just not worth the squeeze here. That's two years. You're not getting 25, end of 25.
You don't get to say someday he's not going to be in it.
Just, all right, thanks, Jim.
Someday, yeah.
I guess technically that's not, yeah.
At some point he won't own it.
That's not much of a prediction, yeah.
Yeah, I think it's going to spiral even worse.
There's no guardrails.
But we'll see.
But he's got a lot of money.
So anyway, Scott, I have to say, it's been another fantastic.
We've grown.
We've grown individually and together.
I've shrunk.
I used to be 6'3", now I'm 6'2".
True story.
We've grown in size of the podcast.
We've grown personally, except for your penis jokes,
which continue to be terrible.
I'd like you to improve on those next year.
Make them funnier?
I'm going to hire you a comedy writer, I think.
I'm thinking of it.
Did you know your ears, your nose, and your penis
are the only things that keep growing?
No joke in there.
That's actually a fact.
Okay.
On that note, we want to hear from you,
especially about how you need Scott
to have better penis jokes.
Send us your questions about business, tech,
or whatever's on your mind.
Go to nymag.com slash pivot to
submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVID. I also want to show it out to our fans.
I get stopped. Oh, I got stopped a lot this week for some reason. We love when you come up to us.
It's the nicest feeling for someone saying, hey, it's you. I love your show. It means a lot to us,
and not just because we're narcissistic fucks.
But that too.
But we like it and we love your feedback.
You know, you don't have to agree with us,
but we're trying our best to be as genuine as we are.
And we will correct ourselves when we're wrong,
at least I will.
Anyway, that's the show.
Happy 2023.
Welcome to 2024.
Scott, have a beautiful, beautiful holiday season.
Happy Hanukkah.
Merry Christmas.
Happy Kwanzaa.
Whatever you happen to celebrate.
Read us out.
Today's show was produced by
Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin.
Ernie Andertott engineered this episode.
Thanks also to Drew Burrows,
Neil Saverio, and Gaddy McBain.
Make sure you're subscribed to the show
wherever you listen to podcasts.
Thanks for listening to Pivot
from New York Magazine and Vox Media.
You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod.
We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.
Kara, my New Year's wish is that reincarnation is a thing because that means statistically there's a really good probability I'm coming back with a much bigger penis.
That's good.
That's good. That's good.
Oh, God.
Ah, 2025.
Same old dog.
Wait, 2024.
Where are we?
What year is it?
Fuck.
Happy New Year, everybody.