Pivot - Sam Altman's Return to OpenAI, Meta's Underage Users, and Guest Alan Patricof

Episode Date: November 28, 2023

Kara and Scott discuss Jeff Zucker's return to the news business, and the cost of advertiser backlash in Elon Musk's antisemitism controversy. Then, Sam Altman is back at OpenAI, but who are the winners and losers after all the chaos? Plus, a new complaint reveals what Meta knew about its underage users. Finally, our Friend of Pivot is legendary venture capitalist Alan Patricof. At age 89, Patricof is as active as ever, and he explains why the longevity economy is a smart investment. Follow Alan at @alanjpatricof 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

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. Scott, where are you now? You're late and you're carrying a horn. I am at my favorite hotel in Florida, the Faina, where they have six-star prices and three-star service, but I still love it here. Nice, nice. And had sort of a detox weekend. I mean, literally, Kara, do you know what happens when you don't drink for the entire weekend?

Yes, I do know what happens. That's every weekend for Kara Swisher, but go ahead. You steal my thunder. You're supposed to say, what happens? What happens? I don't know, Kara, because daddy has been dipping into the mini bar. He's alone. Were you? Yeah, alone. He's alone. Oh, that's sad and pathetic, but go ahead. Yeah, and the mini bar is really reasonable here. It's like $72 for a mini bottle of Jack Daniels. It's very reasonable. Good, good.

Very reasonable. And chocolate-covered almonds are a cool $24. Why are you in Miami? I'm here for a speaking gig. I'm with MasterCard, I think, on Wednesday. I'm holed up at the Faina, goring my nails long and peeing in jars. Oh, okay, Howard Hughes. Good.

It must be lovely there. How's the weather? It's been just okay. Today looks nice, but unfortunately, I have to work today. Oh. Well, it's freezing up here on the northeast. It's cold. It's cold.

I had to turn off all my spigots today. That's my job today. Spigots? Well, because they freeze. If you don't close off your hose bibs, they'll freeze and burst. But this is not something you worry about, is it, ever? Nope. Nope. Well, that's what I was doing this morning.

I'm going to rent the moon and fill it with rosé. That's the only thing I'm worried about. How was your Thanksgiving? Was it good? Thanks for asking. It was very nice. It was a bunch of in-laws and families. It's kind of the island of misfit toys. It was like a group of randos. But it was very, I love Thanksgiving. I think it's a wonderful holiday. You did it down in Florida? You did it down there?

Oh, nice. Did it in Florida. We were back in our old house, which is really nice because the renters skipped town, which is another story, but got to be back in the house. So it all worked out great. What do you mean they skipped town? Meaning they just left? Yeah. As in skip town, it was this guy who had a SPAC, and they rented the house for two years.

And then like month 13 came, and we didn't get the rent, and then we read that they were in Australia. Oh, wow. They just skipped town? What? But you know what? I don't even mind because the house is in perfect condition. So, you know, it is what it is. I'm going to go stay down there then. Good.

Excellent. Come on down. I shall. Would you like to ask about my Thanksgiving? No. Okay. I would. I thought, I'm sorry.

How was your Thanksgiving? Good. It was at the Katz's. They have a lot of people. They have dozens and dozens of people. But they have like that, I think Amanda told me they all get along pretty well. They do. They're like incredibly functional. It's a crazy group of people who really like each other as a family. And it was very disturbing to me in so many ways. That is disturbing. But it was good. It was a lot of pies, a lot of things like that. And then

Amanda and I went out to the movies. We went to see Marvel's, the Marvel's. Oh, what'd you think of it? I liked it. I think it's got badly. was very enjoyable it i can it was fine it was very good and brie larson's adorable and everyone in it's adorable and there's some very fun whoever directed it was very clever and i don't know i can see i can see why it didn't do well because there was no one in the theater but us and another couple which was kind of nice um but i liked it i liked it i thought it was I thought it was not it got more attacks than a lot of those like Ant-Man was terrible.

Just a comment on date night. The last time I had a date night the babysitter told me not to rush home and it's been two years. I wonder how she enjoys being a mom. Anyways.

That's a dad joke. Anyway but it was a lovely Thanksgiving and I'm glad to be back home though because traveling with kids on the holiday is not the most fun thing in the world. Anyway, today we'll talk about Sam Altman's return to OpenAI and what's next for him and the company, plus a new complaint revealing what Meta knew about its underage users. And our friend of Pivot is venture capitalist Alan Patricoff, who's going to tell us why he's putting his chips into the longevity economy with tech for seniors. But first, former president of CNN Jeff Zucker is nearing a deal to gain control of British conservative newspaper, The Daily Telegraph.

Zucker's vision for The Telegraph reportedly includes an expansion into the United States, not unlike The Daily Mail, I think, where he believes there is a market for center-right news. The former CNN head does not plan to run day-to-day coverage, but he will, actually, but rather focus on business strategy and overseas presence. The Telegraph went up for auction this year after its owners defaulted on a loan. Zucker's proposal is for about £1.1 billion, supplied by Redbird IMI, the media venture he founded himself, and major Abu Dhabi-based investment fund. What do you think? I mean, the Daily Mail's done rather well. What do you think about this idea?

Look, we said this, that Jeff was the most talented, still a ton of tread on his tires executive. So him doing something big is no surprise. I think the Telegraph is a great brand, but the road is littered with people who try to inject new life into these older news brands. I think it'll be fascinating to see what he does. As is the case, the capital for any deal of this size in a quote-unquote speculative venture is coming out of the Gulf. What I think is, I'm curious what your thoughts are on the potential business side of this. The thing that struck me was that if this deal had been done two or three years ago, there would have been a lot more kerfuffle or concern around capital coming out of the Gulf.

But capital coming out of the Gulf has now been normalized. Whether you think that's good or bad, if the Gulf tried to buy, and that's essentially what they're doing here with Jeff is the front, a Western media, an iconic Western media company, there would have been a lot of hand ringing. And now the world has just said, look, they have capital. We have IP and entrepreneurs. Let's boogie. Yep.

Yep. I would agree. Whether it's in sports or any other area, they're moving into a lot of areas. Sports is their first center thing, but they're going to move into everything. You know, I was talking to people over the weekend, actually, about TikTok. A lot of people are interested. And I was like, we don't let foreign companies own media properties, but here we are with the most important media company in the United States, and it's a Chinese-owned company.

Just FYI. Just like it's now become normalizedowned company. Just FYI. Just like it's now become normalized that people are used to this. And they hadn't thought of it that way. I was like, this is the most important media company right now. It may not continue. You know, he's a very talented guy. I don't think he'd get his hands on a lot of stuff.

He looked everywhere, from what I understood. Like, looked at the information. He looked at everybody. All the small players, like the information. And they're a great brand, but it's small, right? These are all small companies. I'm sure he looked at Puck. I suspect he looked at all of them. And he wants a way to get back in. And he certainly wasn't ever going to get control of CNN. That was clear. That was bandied about by people close to him. But that wasn't going to happen. It's not for sale right now, at least, even though Zasloff is in a world of trouble around the debt and everything. But he's going to make a try for it. And if he's using someone else's money,

other people's money, that's fine. I don't quite know what his plan is. I would think the Daily Mail is the best proxy for this, except they're kind of fun to read, right? They're kind of fun and gossipy. And you can see why people really, that grew really like crazy. I don't quite know if people will change their media habits, something that's sort of like everything else. I don't know. There's a lot out there. The thing why the timing, unless from a cyclical point of view, is that coming into the US elections, I would bet they would have an easier time launching just because of ad dollars. I think we're going to have so many dollars chasing a finite number of media assets. I guess online,

it's technically infinite. It's just a good time. I started an ed tech company the first year of COVID. And I thought, wow, I'm a fucking genius because it ends up everyone was really into sitting at home and trying to make use of their time. So I got this natural sugar high right out of the gates. I would bet that 2024 is going to be an illusory sugar high for traditional media because I just think the amount of money that's going to go into this election is going to be historic. Right. It is. When I heard about it, I was like, okay. Like, that's what I thought. That's exactly what I said to him. I said, oh, sure, why not? Like, why not? Like, it's their, I don't care if he loses their money. He should try. I'd love to see what his innovation is that's different than anything else, but it doesn't sound,

innovation is that's different than anything else, but it doesn't sound, what's it like? How is he going to make it? Again, I don't like to zero him out ever because he's really talented and he's certainly compelling and has a great sense of what people want to watch, for sure. And not everything he's done has been a hit, but okay. I don't know if okay is really what I'd love to hear from me if I were him. But didn't I know how you felt? Like, sure. Why not? Look, there's a couple things here.

There's, and, you know, we always try and relate it back to professional advice. A lot of people I know who are masters of the universe who either get fired or leave their job, they end up, they have exactly the wrong amount of money. What do I mean by that? They have enough money so they don't need to take any job, but they don't have enough money that they never need to work again. And that probably wasn't true of Jeff. He probably had enough money where he never needed to work again. But what you don't want to do when you're on the bench is let perfect be the enemy of good. Because I know a lot of people who, they think that all of these opportunities are going to come their way and their criteria are really, really high. The bar for what they're going to do next is really, really high. And then time goes a lot faster than

you think. And they end up kind of two or three years later without having really gone on to the next thing. And their skills and their brand and their presence in the marketplace begin to atrophy. So there's something to the notion of a guy of that talent and that capital. I mean, he's been out of sand now, I think a year. There's something to the notion of, all right, whatever the next thing is, the key is, is that it's next and I'm doing it and I'm getting on with it and I'm going to find out if it works or it doesn't work. So I like Jeff. I don't know him well, but I like him. I think he's a player. I like that he's bringing capital from other countries into a Western brand that he'll then launch in the US. I think it'll be super interesting to see what he does. So thumbs up.

Yeah, that's what I said. Yeah. Okay. Sure. Yeah. That's all I thought was like, sounds good. We'll see what he does. You're right. But there'll be money. It'll look good for the first part. And we'll see who he attracts. And I don't know. He can't quit. He can't quit. That's really, I think you're 100%. All right. Next story, a big story over the weekend. Elon Musk's engagement in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories may have cost him up to $75 million.

That's how much X could lose by the end of the year due to advertisers pulling the plug over the state of content on the platform. According to internal documents viewed by the New York Times, the documents listed over 200 advertisers who had paused or were at risk of pausing spending on the platform. According to internal documents viewed by the New York Times, the documents listed over 200 advertisers who had paused or were at risk of pausing. Spanning on the platform, including Amazon, Netflix, Coca-Cola, and more, X claims that only $11 million is at risk. Of course, Elon just popped up in Israel because it's about him and not the hostages in a PR move to try to assuage, I assume that's what he's doing, bear-hugging Netanyahu. I think it's inappropriate myself, but sure, whatever. I don't know what to say about it.

Anyway, let's talk about the advertising because that's obviously what he's doing there. But what do you think about that, the number? It's a lot of money. I'm heartened. I'm heartened that NBCUniversal, Apple, IBM, Airbnb, I think they recognize that they play a role. They're iconic companies. They have iconic leaders. And rather than hand-wringing over what it means to be an anti-Semite and whether you can peer into his ketamine-laced heart, they've just decided when you say anti-Semitic things, when you promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, when you spread homophobic conspiracy theory, when you say anti-trans things, we would rather not advertise on your platform. And I think these companies should be commended for that. And my post this week was like, where is the line? My post this week was like, where is the line? And people like to think they have a line. And it's like, okay, in terms of figuring out where your line is, you first have to decide that you have one. Yeah, that is 100. You are correct, sir. the true person here. We're in the business of having certain standards. And this guy has repeatedly and unapologetically violated those standards that we do hold true. And so I find it

very heartening that these firms, and not only that, they're not quietly slithering away and stopping advertising. They're putting out press releases saying, we're just not going to put up with this shit. We're not going to be a party to this. He's got some work to do. I mean, I found, you know, he put out tweets that actions speaks louder than words about him going to Israel. And I'm like, you got in your private plane and flew there and are doing a tour. He wants to be the unelected president of the world. Yeah. And have cameras on him.

Just maybe just clean up your platform. That's, you know, I'm sure people there appreciate it. And a lot of people who I, they're like, oh, he's here. It's like, stop it. Like, you don't, I'm sure people there appreciate it. And a lot of people who I, they're like, oh, he's here. It's like, stop it. Like, you don't, let's focus on the hostages. Let's focus on their experience and what happened to them versus some guy who likes to fly in and make it, make it, call attention to himself. But these ad things, I think a lot of people are just, you know, he can see, again, as we noted, is he can pay for all these losses. So it doesn't really matter. He has the money. So he can continue to fund this sinkhole if he wants to. That's all it is. And I don't think there's any repercussions, correct, Scott? I mean, he has to pay off the debt and he's not making enough. His nut isn't big enough to make

the costs. He'll cut costs more. I don't know. Most companies, and this goes back to this notion we keep talking about, power corrupts. And when an individual can aggregate this much wealth, that they can act this irresponsibly without ramifications, economic or legal, it just, it creates a society. Everybody needs guardrails. Every successful society has put in place a ton of different guardrails. You know, we talk about ESG investing. The most important thing that's happened for ESG investing in protection of consumers is that the DOJ and the SEC are sending Sam Bankman-Fried and most likely the head of Binance to jail. And without guardrails, with individuals who aggregate this kind of wealth, I think it's a real danger to society. And I'd be curious if we've ever seen an unelected individual who has no boards, can't be kicked out of office. I wonder if any individual has aggregated this much power without being subject to an election.

Probably one of those financiers many years ago, you know, back in the day. You think like Milken or something? No, like J.P. Morgan. Oh, or Carnegie or something? Carnegie, maybe J.P. Morgan or one of those people. Yeah, you might be right. You might be right. Yeah, they changed, like they ran the government. They were like, said, we're going to finance this or that. Yeah.

Or Henry Ford, who Hitler had a picture of in his office. Maybe. I think it was more the financiers that really had the big impact on things. I don't know. Yeah, that's a fair point. Anyway, whatever. Let's get to our first big story. Sam Altman is back as the CEO of OpenAI following that whirlwind of chaos last week, which I think we did a very good job covering it.

OpenAI's board is getting a major rehaul with nearly all of its members replaced. Not all of them, though. The initial board includes Brett Taylor as chairman, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, where did he come from, and Adam D'Angelo, the only current board member remaining. I understand he was quite stubborn about that. Sam appears to be ready to head back to work, posting on X with the new board. And with Satya's support, I'm looking forward to returning to OpenAI and building on our strong partnership with Microsoft. It's interesting. That was his first tweet.

Looking back at it, who's the winners, losers, et cetera? I hate to use that reductive term, but it really, there really, a lot was happening here. So give me your overall, just so people know, neither Sam nor Greg Brockman, the former chair on the board, there will still be an internal investigation on what exactly happened with his firing on both sides, by the way. And this board structure obviously has to change. The last thing is, of course, that we have three white guys. It won't stay that way.

So any thoughts on all these different things. I think in the fullness of time, the thing that happened here, or what I've been thinking a lot about, is that if you think about the initial mission of OpenAI, I don't even think it was supposed to be a company. I think they initially saw it as a research institute or a think tank that would help, that would study and analyze and make recommendations around the possibilities and more importantly, the dangers of AI. And then they discovered we're really good at this. And then all of a sudden, it was a company that became worth $90 billion. So if you look at the shareholder side of this and the products and the value, the economic value they create, call that capital. And then you look at the structure and a big component of the structure and a big part of their mission was to think about humanity or AI in the context of humanity.

So at a very reductive analysis, you have capital versus humanity. And I would argue that capital literally smothered humanity in its sleep. Whether you think it was a good decision or a bad decision, but when there was $90 billion in an amazing product and the leader in the most exciting new technology emerged, all that fun, nice stuff, important stuff about humanity and the fears of AI, that shit got smothered in its sleep. That shit got smothered, Scott. I think it got, let's put this over. I get it. I get it. I get it. Let's put this over here on the shelf. That's all fine. That's adorable. Yeah. But we were about to do a share buyback and a secondary, and Sequoia and Andreessen are in here, and Microsoft put $12 billion to work, and they didn't do it because they're worried about AI, and they want to protect humanity from AI.

They put $12 or $13 billion into this thing because they think it's going to make a $3 trillion company worth $5 trillion. That is correct. And it'll just be very interesting to see how this moment ages. And it all comes back to the same thing for me. And that is for-profit companies are so amazing at generating profits, they shouldn't be trusted to anything else. They shouldn't be trusted to anything else. They shouldn't be trusted to do anything else. And these ridiculous corporate, what are they called? Social purpose companies. No, private benefit, social benefit companies.

Something like that, yeah. ESG investing. I think it's the ultimate Sheryl Sandbergian move where we're going to pretend that capitalism and the market can work things out on their own. That when people buy Patagonia or they buy dolphin-friendly tuna or they learn about transparency or some fake organization says that Southwest Airlines is an ESG investment, it dilutes the need for democratic institutions to regulate these organizations. You picked one company who I do think really does walk that dog.

Walks the walk. Patagonia. Patagonia. I agree. They walk the walk. And I think that people who buy there, buy there because of that. And so does Ben and Jerry's. Successful version of that.

Agree. Go ahead. Agree. And I would argue that constitutes less than 0.1% of the market. Yes, I would agree. The majority of research shows around ESG or social-minded companies, they're tiebreakers. The consumers aren't willing to pay for them, but they will, if they're the exact same product at the exact same price, they'll go with the one that's more, that doesn't, you know, that lets dolphins out of its nets or whatever. But this is,

and I think it's time we come to grips with the fact that a lot of this, you know, social benefit organization or ESG, jazz hands, is just that. Ah, thanks, Vivek Ramaswamy. Is that Ramaswamy's? Yeah, he does. It's one of his books. Oh, God. Anyway, it's a version of that. That hurt. I know, I'm sorry, but that's what he wrote a whole book about. But go ahead.

I'm sorry, but that's what he wrote a whole book about. But go ahead. But to that point, there should be an FDA that says when your mom rewrites an opinion on a failed drug and then takes it public with a SPAC and you sell all of your shit to get a billion dollars, maybe there should be more government oversight. I worry that at the end of the day, we need to, democratic institutions need to regulate these companies. And all these Byzantine structures and virtue signaling are nothing but a Sandbergian move to serve as a weapon of mass distraction from the fact that for-profit companies are this amazing part of capitalism. They grow, they innovate, they're full.

So let's get the government in there, in other words. Let's tax them at a fair rate and not let them take their IP offshore so they can avoid taxes. And then let's use those taxes to hire outstanding people who try to prevent a tragedy to the commons and regulate these companies. Yep, I agree. By the way, Vivek's book is called Woke Inc. Inside Corporate America's Social Justice Scam. It's all about ESG. Anyway, let me ask you a different question, though. Is board structure, obviously Microsoft is getting a board seat. Satya Nadella posted about board changes, noting, we believe this is the first essential step, the path to more stable, well-informed, effective governance. He kind of, that was the shot across

the bow for him. And like, we're going to be watching. I think a lot of people were surprised they didn't have a seat at all or have even an observer status. I think that was, he really pulled the iron out of the fire, as they say here, of his investment in terms of getting this back in Sam's hands. But he definitely, if that had not turned out that way, it would have been very bad for Microsoft, as you saw on Friday after he was fired, that they did not have their hands around this in the way they needed to. You know, it'll be interesting to see if they get a board seat. The other women that were floated at one point was Lorraine Powell Jobs, Marissa Mayer, Condoleezza Rice. All these, some of these were rejected because they were too close to Sam.

It'll be interesting to see who they bring to the board. I sent, I put a list up to many, many people. You know, I put Fei- who they bring to the board. I put a list up to many, many people. I put Fei-Fei Li on the board. Why not? She's neither a doomer nor a techno-optimist, someone like that who has sort of a middle ground, sort of like the Supreme Court. You want something that's a little more, I don't know, is anyone you would think should be on the board? Larry Summers, I don't know where he popped out of, but sure. My dad was winning a golf tournament at Corona Del Mar. And I never seen my dad that happy. He was just so cheery. And he said, do you want to go to the beach?

And he said, let's all go to the beach. And we got in his Gran Torino. Oh, my. Is this going to end badly? Go ahead. And he said, do you want to drive? And I'm like, eight years old. I'm like, yeah.

And he's like, well, you can sit on my lap and put your hands on the wheel. Oh, my God. So I'm driving a Gran Torino sitting on my dad's lap. And he's laughing. I was so God. So I'm driving a Grand Trino sitting on my dad's lap. And he's laughing. I was so happy. And I'll bring this back. Okay. Sam Altman is sitting on Sayonara's lap.

But be clear. Sayonara owns the car. Okay. And is in charge here. Microsoft is in charge. And granted, Sam has his hands on the wheel. But Microsoft will, if not control this board, have huge influence over it. And they are going to, you know, this will be a profit-minded

board. They'll add two or three diversity hires that, you know, which they'll need. So who would you bring on the board? Give me some names. I've given you many. I haven't thought about it. There's a lot of talented people. So who would you bring on the board? Give me some names. I've given you many. I haven't thought about it. There's a lot of talented people. I would want to bring, I would absolutely want to bring someone who really understands AI and disinformation. I think those are the biggest threats.

Also, Cara, and you've said this, you said something that's really resonated with me, and that is the people that design these technologies don't put in place the protections because they've never been victims themselves. And again, we're setting up another technology that's being designed by rich white guys who don't understand what it's like to be the subject of revenge porn or to have your family attacked or feel physically threatened. The thing that people, I mean, as I was thinking through, just going back to Microsoft, the concept of all of these employees going to Microsoft was never a viable, tenable solution because this is what would have happened. There were some employees, a lot of employees, because there's a war on talent at OpenAI that were making supposedly senior engineers making $5 million a year.

Because Sam's like, I can raise billions. This is a race. So what happens when they show up on the AI team in Microsoft and there's a senior engineer and she's making half a million? Yeah. And Bob from AI is making $5 million. Yeah. Yeah, it was a problem. Yeah, I think it's interesting.

I think that they, you know, someone that they should have on the board, a media person to under, you know, like Barry Diller is too old, but the lawsuits around copyright, they need a media. They need a media. Barry Diller would be great on the board. Yeah. I'd love to see a, you know, I'd love to see a guy like Jonathan Haidt on the board. I think he just has such a clear blue flame. They need tech people though, too. They need people who understand the technology. has such a clear blue flame. They need tech people, though, too. They need people who understand the technology.

They can't just have, like, I thought Lisa Su, but she's obviously competitor in terms of the chips and stuff like that. But there's a bunch of, I had a list of them. Anyway, they have to be creative here and come up with names we have not heard of. And I would say young and old, too, right? Anyway, one of the things that's very clear is the effective altruism movement,

something that the former OpenAI board members were vocal about. A loser here? They've been attacking me all weekend, all the effective altruists. They're not very nice people, these altruists. Really? What have they been saying? Oh, just like, you don't understand.

I'm like, I am so not a techno. I am so not a techno optimist. It's like, are you literally know who you're talking to? They think, obviously, AI could destroy mankind. They favor safety over speed. Obviously, we favor safety. It doesn't mean you have to be slow, but we favor safety. As I wrote, one of the former board members, Tasha McCauley, was particularly apocalyptic about AI.

I had heard that from many people. By the way, Sam Bankman-Fried was also one of the big believers and backers of effective altruism. Someone wants to call it ineffective altruism. It's really gotten a black eye. A lot of people have written about that. I mean, isn't it, again, it goes back to it's reheated ESG, isn't it? I guess. I don't know. I think it's a little more complex, but it's another one of those things that pops out of Silicon Valley and you're like, oh, just go take psychedelics. Yeah, that we don't need to be regulated, that we have moved to a different era of philosophical grandeur where we can all still get rich and the government shouldn't get in the way. Or am I being too reductive?

Well, I'm not sure. It's that we know what's best. It's a small group of people who knows what's best for the rest of humanity. Whenever I'm with any of them, I'm like, so you're the one that's going to decide this. I feel like I'd rather have the dirty mass do it, right? Like the mass, the mob. I prefer the mob over this group any day of the week, right? And I don't like the mob that much.

Well, okay. Here's who's had the most consequential impact in the last 90 days, who has ring-fenced the war in the Middle East from becoming a regional in a World War III. And it's the most noble organization in the world. And it's us. And us is the U.S. government. And there will always be people who want to build islands offshore or believe that, you know, different movements, that they should co-opt the government after they've made their money or cosplay the government. But I'm going with the most innovative payment platform in history called the U.S. dollar. And I'm going with the organization that gets at least wrong over the long term.

And that's the U.S. government. Yeah, I don't know. One of these things pops up in Silicon Valley all the time. I find, you know, some of the ideas are good, but making it into a movement occult feels really weird. Anyway, we'll see what happens. We'll see. Maybe you'll get on the board of it, or I'll get on the board of it. Unlikely, Kara. That's just unlikely, but thank you.

I would be the GOP candidate. Someone was like, Kara should be on the board. I'm like, I would be the GOP candidate before I would get on the board of OpenAI. I don't know. You check a lot of boxes, Kara. I do. I would do it. I would do it.

You check a lot of boxes. I do. I'd be irritating to them. They don't know what I'm going to do. That's the issue. I'm not controllable. What do you mean to them? Yeah.

That's good. Let's get on a quick break. When we come back, the new filing shedding light on Meta's underage users right up Scott's alley. We'll be speaking with Fred of Pivot, Alan Patricoff, who will explain why he's making a big investment in aging tech. who will explain why he's making a big investment in aging tech. 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. 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. Millions of underage users on Instagram were an open secret at Meta. You're kidding me. According to a newly unsealed legal complaint filed against the company by 33 states, the complaint shows that Meta received more than 1.1 million reports of Instagram users under the age of 13 since early 2019, but disabled only a fraction of those accounts. Meta received more than 1.1 million reports of Instagram users under the age of 13 since early 2019, but disabled only a fraction of those accounts. Meta was also allegedly collecting children's personal information without parental permission, violating federal children's privacy law. This is all part of a multi-state lawsuit we discussed a few weeks back, but this new complaint is unredacted, so we're learning more than ever. The complaint includes portions of internal emails, employee chats, and company presentations.

Meta put out a statement saying the complaint mischaracterizes our work using selective quotes and cherry-picked documents. The statement also notes Instagram's terms of use prohibit users under age of 13 in the U.S. and has measures in place to remove those accounts when we identify them. I'm not sure it's a smoking gun, but it reveals that the profit Meta earned per

13-year-old users internally characterized as lifetime value was quantified in 2018 as roughly $270 per child. There's also an internal company chart showing how Meta tracked the percentage of 11 and 12-year-olds who used Instagram daily. I mean, I'm like, really? You're kidding. They knew? Wow, what a shocker. I think in terms of institutionalizing real harm to children, Metta may have taken the lead from the Catholic Church. Oh, wow. Okay, you're going there. Okay. And, well, okay. And the problem is we've normalized the following. problem is we've normalized the following. Mark Zuckerberg, Shell Sandberg, and the board of Meta knew their product was harming children. There has been research all over the place from different

nations showing that suicidal ideation increases is correlated to usage by teenage girls, specifically on Instagram. They claimed they weren't allowing anyone under the age of 13. That was their policy. And while claiming that policy publicly, they had 1.1 million complaints of people under the age of 13. And every person at Meta knew that they were allowing 10, 11, and 12-year-olds on the platform to the extent that per your comments, they actually took the time to put an economic lifetime value on those children that they claim were not being allowed on the platform. So this is what we have. We have individuals who knowingly harm our children and continue to harm our children while lying

about harming our children. Let me ask you this. Elizabeth Holmes, Sam Bankman Freed, one lied to her investors and lost a billion dollars. There was never a medical test that gave false information. She lied to her investors. One individual lied about commingling funds and allowed funds to go to the investment arm, lost billions. Most of those investors, it looks like, are going to get all of their money back. One is in jail for 10 years. One is probably going to jail for 40 years. Who has done more harm to the world and to our youth? Who has done more harm? Sam Bankman Freed, Elizabeth Holmes, or Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg? Oh, well, what's your answer, Scott? Let me guess. Well, it's a rhetorical question, but I'll just put it out there.

Yeah, I think they knew. They know. Come on. You had to know. It's like cigarette. It reminds me, I'm not going to use the Catholic Church because that was sexual abuse, okay? So, I'm going to move away from that one. I would do it more towards cigarettes. The cigarette, they were promoting cigarette usage by young people by the cartoons, etc., etc. And they knew people were using, young kids were using cigarettes, and they did nothing to stop it, right? young kids were using cigarettes and they did nothing to stop it, right? I think Mark Benioff, when he called them a cigarette company to me, which he got in trouble for when he did that interview, was exactly on point. It's a cigarette company and it's addictive. It's attractive to kids. It's also a place kids should not be without parental permission. I think you and I both agree on this. I try to keep my kids off of these things. They get on them, right? There's a point where I don't think my kids use them. I was luckily, I don't think they use Snapchat a little too early, I think. But I wasn't as worried about

that platform, so I didn't put my foot down. But they certainly, people in their class were on these platforms, and everybody knew it. And by the way, the parents have a role in this, too. I'm not going to abrogate parental responsibility here, but they knew this was the case. I don't think it should come as any shock. The question is if they're going to pay for it. It's not a good look for them. What would you do if you were them? We did it.

We're sorry. If I were Metta? Yeah. I just can't. I would, if the board had any concern, the board's not going to do it. Again, money and capital wins. As you say. But in this case, it matters, right?

It matters a little more. The government, the FCC, the DOJ need to punish this company. And when I say punish it, either a fine that actually gives them pause before they continue to monetize kids who supposedly they're not allowing on the platform. I just think Meta has brought a new term. I think the cigarette companies were less evil, Kara. I don't think cigarette companies were trying to sell cigarettes to 11-year-olds. Well, yes, they were with the ads. Remember those ads? I think that was, do you think they really thought they were going as low as 11?

Yes. I think they knew just who they were aiming at when they did those ads. And they also hid all kinds of studies about the dangers of these things. That's fair. I don't think, I think it's a moot point to talk about what they should do. We always digress. We always keep hoping that the better angels of these board members and these CEOs are going to show up. They don't. The profit motive is so powerful that, again, these companies should

be trusted to do nothing else because they're really good at it. It's a failure of us. It's a failure of us to elect people who are smart enough to say, all right, if you're going to elevate content, if you're going to depress our teens, you have to be legally liable for this. And not only fines, but at the end of the day, and I've said this before, none of this ends until there's a perp walk. None of this ends. Who would you put in jail? I'm not, I don't have the skills or the license or the command, the position to start making statements like that. Well, they will make the excuse that they had measures in place to remove these accounts.

That's what they'll say. Look, we had a system. It's just people got through. People got kids lied. What do we do? Oh, well, that kind of stuff. That's what they're going to do. My kid can't get a driver's license before the age of 16.

And I would argue that there's probably some that do. There's some kids who drink before the age of 21. Didn't you just tell us you drove as an eight-year-old? But go ahead. Keep going. I drove on my dad's lap. But these companies, as inefficient as the government is, as stupid as those government idiots are,

without the use of technology and these geniuses, they figure out a way to age gate driver's licenses and alcohol, but Instagram can't keep an 11-year-old off their platform? Yep, yep. I mean, we're not talking about the realm of the possible, we're talking about the realm of the profitable. And they've decided that we just can't figure 1.1 million complaints.

They knew, they knew, they knew, they knew, they knew, they knew, they knew they didn't do anything about it. They did as little as possible about it. Let's just say. We're going to put a lifetime value on the people that we don't think are getting on the platform. The government needs more to really embarrass them, but they don't seem to be easily embarrassed. Anyway, we'll see. Let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Alan Patricoff is the co-founder and chairperson of Primetime Partners, a VC fund that invests in people and companies focusing on older adults. He's also a longtime investor who's been described as the pioneering venture capitalist by the Wall Street Journal.

I've known him forever. Welcome, Alan. It's great to be here. Yeah, you've had quite a career in venture capital. I'm going to ask you about that in the end, but I want to talk about what you're doing now. You started this fund in 2020 at age 85, calling it your third professional act. Why did you focus on this? Why do you think it's important to invest

in the longevity economy, I guess, and age tech? I don't know what you call it, but talk about what moved you there. Actually, what happened was my wife had had Alzheimer's for probably 10 to 12 years, and I had gone through this whole process. And in the process of doing that, I found what it takes to keep someone alive and also what the challenges are as people are aging. And I started reading and I started reading what was happening at Stanford and what was happening at Harvard. And almost every university was starting to deal with the problem of longevity and the challenges that people had. And I also was shocked to find out that the fastest growing part of the society is really people over 60. By 2030, there are going to be more people over 60 or 65 than there are going to be under 18. So we're really, it's the fast growing part of the economy. Everyone's

focused on millennials and services for millennials. And I happened to find out that Abby Levy, who had been the president of Thrive Global, Arianna Huffington's company, was interested in exactly the same subject. I found out through my son, who had been our classmate. And we got together and we were both thinking exactly the same way and saying, this is a great opportunity. There are lots of investment, there've got to be lots of investment opportunities. The market's growing. Let's start a fund and let's do something that's, you know, in a realistic size, but that has, you know, just explores the different places to put money. And we've been in business now just about three years. And we've seen, honestly, it sounds so overwhelming.

We've seen over 1,500 possible investments, you know, some, and that doesn't include the ones, of course, that you just don't answer the phone or you just throw away. These are serious people. And we've learned that most of them are startups. There aren't very many later stage companies. They've mostly been done by younger people. They've mostly been done by people who have in some way been exposed to the problem of caregiving, that someone in their family had a hearing problem. Someone had a problem breathing,

someone had cancer, someone was bedridden, someone was lonely, someone was in assisted living or at senior facility. And they all, you know- They created companies. Exactly. So talk about some of the products that you,

how much money do you have to put to bear? And then what are some of the things you've invested in? Give me like two or three examples. Sure, we've raised $50 million and we did it to be modest. We weren't trying to, you know. That's small for you, right? Yeah, yeah. But you want to be realistic.

I'm not one who likes to sit with a lot of unused capital. We've now been three years, we've invested, done 32 investments and we invested about 40 million of the money we had. So, you know, we're, you know, three years in and I always say the half-life of the investments, and you remember they're startups because most of them started up the year before we invested or at the time or during our time. So their half-life is probably a year and a half old. And we've made 32 plus investments.

And to give you an idea of some of the companies, one of the early ones we made was a company called Carewell. There are 65 million people taking care of people today, and they don't know the first thing about what do you need, you know, starting with diapers, starting with bedpans, starting with equipment to help them, starting with services. And so we invest in a company called CareWell, which has taken off like a rocket ship, frankly, and has been proactive in trying to help and educate people who need help and caring for people. All of us, and I know, Kara, I think you faced it at some point. Yes, I have right now. I'm in meetings, and every time I say, how many of you are caring for somebody?

And almost all the audience. And if they're not doing it now, they're going to care for it. One of my favorites is a company called Cenergenics, which is basically a personalized hybrid performance health age management solution. That's a long way of saying you go to them to find, to extend your life cycle. It's a longevity chain of clinics. They have 20 around the country and they do all your biomarkers and they take your blood tests and they take your DEXA scan and they do your DNA and they do everything to try to determine what are the things you need, whether it's nutraceuticals or whether it's hormones or whether you need to go, obviously, you know, an exercise program, just thinking about nutrition. And the average age

they have is about 54 years old. And the average length of time people are with them, which is, to me, really is what impressed me, is this is a company I've been around a while before we started. It's the only company we had that had been around a little while before. The average age is probably 58. And people stick with them five or six years. So this is not going in and out. Good to see you, Alan. So if you think demographics are destiny, there's just a tidal wave of people, capital. I mean, this all makes sense. It's not, to be blunt, it's not an original idea. I remember Ken Dykwald's book back in the 90s, and it was called Age Wave.

And I remember meeting with another woman who'd started a fund. There's been quite a few funds with this strategy that you just put up the slides and it just makes a lot of sense. But my sense is these funds haven't offered the same returns as kind of the traditional venture or technology-focused venture capital funds. Why to date has this not been a great investment strategy, despite the fact that demographics are just overwhelmingly on your side here? Well, Scott, let me take exceptionally one case. When we started, we were virtually the first dedicated fund, as far as we knew. There may have been one or two others, one out in the West Coast and one in Chicago, that were focused in this area.

Since we started, there are a whole bunch of other people. Yes, you're right. Every major fund, whether it was NEA, not necessarily Greg Krop, Greg Krop too, had some investment that related to this area. That's true. But we were a dedicated, when we started, we said, we're going to become not only investors in this area, but we're going to become the thought leaders. It's too early. We have not seen the application of AI. It's starting. It's starting.

But this is not a, we have a couple of software companies, but this is an area that is, you know, dedicated to new services. And I would say we haven't yet seen the impact of how well these companies are going to do. I say it's not a new AI fund, although all these services ultimately will benefit from all new technologies. But it's a category that is, I think, an open-ended category with lots of interest. And yet, yes, I don't think it's had an opportunity to prove itself. I mean, I just said our investments are half-life is a year and a half old. I mean, you know that for a startup fund, you can't prove too much overnight. I mean, Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was a fund. So there's, let me ask you,

there's a lot of talk about age these days. And as Scott says, it is a bigger topic than people realize, and yet it hasn't been focused on. I'd love you to talk a little bit about why you think it hasn't been focused on. And also, what do people get wrong about discussions about age in the workplace? In a column for Fortune last year, you wrote about how there'd been efforts to tackle racism, sexism, and LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace, but not ageism. Talk a little bit about both those things. Well, you're asking me all the great questions. I've been a big proponent for, you know, ageism is something we just got to conquer as much as all the other isms. And it's interesting you're talking about the workplace because we've been

working on a deal right now, which is focused on dealing with corporations, not the government specifically, but with corporations who have got to think about what are they doing about their workforce that's aging out? What are they doing to retain them? What are they doing to retain that knowledge? Also, what are they doing to prepare these people for another career? And if you've read my book, no red lights, I can't forgive me for just mentioning the day, but I say I'm going to live to 114. Now, you know me pretty well, but I tell you, there are not many people who don't buy my age expression. If I don't make that 114 come at my funeral and laugh at me, but I really- I will not do that. I live, my mindset is to live that long. That means I'm 89. I'm going to be 90 this year.

You know, I've got 25 years left. And what do people do besides, you know, if they're being put into forced retirement, what are the other things they could do in their second career? And I mean a career, you know, should they become a poet or should they start the same business all over again? Should IBM find a way for retaining the thousands of people who are going to be retiring out in terms of either helping them retire out or finding a way to keep them and transfer that knowledge? So workforce retraining and retraining. I'll tell you an interesting thing. An issue we were working on just on Friday. I think you must be aware of the 529s. 529s are what we all use for our children, our grandchildren to prepare for college.

also for retraining. So we're trying to really determine it would make a hell of a lot of sense to have someone who's set up 529s for all their children who are not using it, by the way, because compounding works if you start something at age one. And why not retrain a lot of older people with some of these 529s? So it's just an interesting idea. But we have to think about what to do besides- With the workplace, because we're not going to have enough workers. Just people understand how active you are. You ran the New York City Marathon last year, and you also attended Burning Man, neither of which I could imagine doing in one year. So you're a very unusual cat, I think. But I'm trying to inspire other people to think that way, including the two of you. Yeah, well, we're trying. Scott is turning 29 next year, Scott.

Next question. So, asking for a friend, what advice, what behaviors as you look over the course of your life and your nutrition and your exercise or your approach to relationships. Give us the hacks here. I'll tell you what I do. First of all, I'm happy to tell you I'm getting married in 10 days. Wow. And to an age-appropriate woman in her 70s who wouldn't hide it. That's the first thing. But I can't recommend that for everybody, but, you know, who knows the opportunity, that opportunity is there. And one of the things that aren't getting married is it's inspired so many of our friends to say, God, you can have a second, you know, or third love in your life. You don't have to say, you know, it's all over for me. But what do I do? I walk every place, every place I can. I walk to work today.

I have an office still at Graycroft. I'm chairman emeritus. I walk there. I walk back to primetime. I walk to doctor's office. I walk to the theater district. I walk home. Walking is fabulous. I walk with my partner, future bride, in the park every morning at 6.30 and put in three or four miles and more on the weekends. So walking is one thing. Secondly, I have an exercise therapist. I do training. I'm fortunate I can afford it two times a week. I also, I do eat relatively normal

except I have learned a very interesting trick I weigh myself twice a day early in the morning and at night and if I gain by more than two pounds I know I'm a little nuts I skip one meal the next day usually breakfast or lunch I also have learned another thing

which is I know people will laugh at it but my my future wife and I, I used to go to dinner with her and she pecked at her plate and never eat anything. And I said, this is crazy. Why am I ordering two dinners for someone who doesn't eat them? And I pay for it. Let's split dinners, because when you go out to dinner, the portions are so enormous these days. And so we have been sharing meals for the last couple of years. And I assure you, none of us, neither of us have lost out by that, but that is a bit, a very helpful discipline of, you know, eating and not overeating. And so if you take those, I take, I do take some vitamins and that's's really, you know, I live a very active life. I'll tell you the most important thing, Scott, and you too have it. I have a very positive attitude towards life. I really believe I'm going to live longer. I really act like someone,

I only know the word yes. Let me ask you a question. As a longtime investor, you mentioned Graycroft, which you ran for many years. You made some good bets and not so good bets. And sorry not to make you not positive, but I'd like to know what you- It's true. It's true. One is what you thought was one of your best bets, one of your least good bets, and how you look at venture. Oh, my, you know, if you ask, it's a tough one. My best bet, I would say, you're now pushing me to, you know, what I always try to avoid. I guess I would say when I went into the cellular communication business in the 1980s, cellular did not exist. who had two-way talk radios in whatever cars they were,

predicted that the market for cellular or for voice would be 2% of the population. And I backed a team of guys to make the first application for a cellular franchise, which turned out to be, obviously, today, I think cellular penetration is probably 80, 90, maybe 100%, because a lot of people have two phones. I'll throw in Audible. When I went into Audible in the 1990s, there was no iPhone. So we had to come up with our own device to transmit books. I remember, I had one. books. Yeah. And now, you know, I'm guessing it's well over a billion dollars a year and there are tens of millions of people who use Audible. To bring it more currently, you know, I've been a big fan of the media my whole career. I did, well, you know, starting with New York Magazine and Huffington Post. And I was one of the people

invested in the original Axios, which we've now sold to Cox Communications. All right, one bad one. Give me one that you're like, oh. Oh, God. I mean, there's so many bad ones. Let's just say the bad ones have been because I make the criteria that management, product development, marketing, and the economics should all be present when you make an investment. And it's a very helpful discipline in doing follow-on investments, even more so than initial investments. And I think that, you know, I make a mistake on the people, how long it takes to get a product into market is a big problem. The size of the market, setback because people don't, when they all get excited about a business, I have found almost consistently, they don't stop and say, well, how do I make money in this business?

And have I realistically made the assumptions of what the gross margin is and what I'm going to have to spend to sell it? I mean, one of our biggest concerns in our area of primetime taking it back to that is what does it cost to to get to attract this market that we're trying to attract and we're very focused on cost of customer acquisition and i think that's the biggest obstacle we face is how to reach them uh you know i had a meeting yesterday with two women who came out of NBC who want to start a streaming service for older people to entertain them. All kinds of ideas that are really good. But I say to them, how are you going to get the audience?

How do you find that audience? You don't just turn on a button. Right. Good point. Good point. Good point. in the Bay Area, and now it is a global institutional asset class. All those hundreds of billions of dollars that have flown in or flowed into the asset class, do you think that's been a good or a bad thing? That's a fair question. I don't know. I think that there are a lot of people who've probably gotten into this business and who've not had the discipline of investing.

And I think that's the biggest problem. And that really shown itself in 20 and 21. I don't know whether it was related to the pandemic or not, but we saw a lot of excesses. I think it goes back. The last time was like that was in 2000, which really, really set me back mentally when every single week there was a company that couldn't meet its payroll. We are not seeing that now.

I have to tell you that companies are well enough funded. I don't think I've had one company that, even in my early startup group, that says, I'm sorry, we're going to close down if we can't meet payroll on Friday. I think that there have been a lot of overvaluations, Scott. And it's not fair for me to criticize my compatriots. And I'm probably guilty of some of it. I tell you, with primetime, we worked so hard to discipline ourselves, but we were facing many cases where you said people getting interested in this area who didn't have the discipline, who were really later stage investors and just wanted to have a piece of the action and were pricing us out of deals or forced us into things that we

just knew weren't right. So we're in pretty good shape. No one's in perfect shape. But I would say to you that there's been too much undisciplined, large amounts of money, you know, whether the hedge funds or the growth funds or funds that have just been able to raise astronomical amounts of money. And if you've got the money, what are you going to do with it? You have to spend it. I don't know of anybody or not very many who say, I'm sending you back your money.

Yeah. Anyway, Alan, I'm hoping to laugh at your 113th birthday, not your funeral. I think that's an incredible goal. I don't know if Scott and I will be around for that, but we would like to be. We really appreciate it. Alan, you're a legendary venture capitalist. It's great to meet you, Alan. We spend a lot of time on the show talking about big issues because we're committed to leaving Alan Patrakoff a better world. Yes, we are. Anyway, thank you so much. We appreciate it. Thank you for having me. Goodbye. Scott, that guy is going to outlive us, isn't he? Oh, my God. I love Alan Patrakoff. He's one of my favorite. Inspiration. He's always had a good attitude. He has a good attitude.

He's curious. He comes to DLD, and I remember him coming up to me and saying, he had a pen out, and he's like, what is your trick for remembering all that data? And I looked at him and I said, drugs. He's like, well, I've done that. What else? Yeah, he's really sharp. I have had ups and downs with venture capitalists. I'm always, and he was very involved in a lot of media investing. And I asked him a lot of questions when I was doing some of my stuff too.

And I always felt like I got a straight answer from him compared to a lot of people. Anyway, pretty cool. He's absolutely right about this. Someone's got to unlock this market and he's right about that in any case. One more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails.

that in any case. One more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. 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. More for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at phys.ca. Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails.

Well, the win, the ceasefire is continuing. It looks like it's going to hold even longer. They're talking about an extension of it. I think that's always, once you start doing that, it's a good thing, right? You've got, once you start stopping, it's a good thing. It doesn't mean it's going to solve everything, but it certainly is a good thing. I just don't know how else you can put it. I think President Biden's done a great job here

and that he's altered with the hostages coming home. It adds to that. It means we're in the more hopeful mood of a terrible, tragic situation. So, that would be my win. My fail, I think this Facebook thing was disappointing to see, not a surprise. I think that would be it. Oh, the fail was these shootings that are happening all over. There's this one shooting up in Vermont at Burlington of these kids. The Palestinian kids.

Yeah, Palestinian kids. Everyone's got to get a hold of themselves. If they can do it in Israel right now, we can do it here. That was just a real disappointment. I don't care what side you're on. You don't, this is just not the American way. It's just not, it's not, it's not. So that would be my fail. Yeah, agreed.

So I'm starting with my fail. So four-year-old hostage, Abigail Edan, was, I won't say freed. You can free, I don't think you can actually free a hostage, was released. And she witnessed the slaughter of her parents before she was taken hostage. And it's just, okay, it's one thing. Obviously, we live in a world where that can even happen as a fail. I'm disappointed that more people in Hollywood who were quick to hold up signs, bring home our girls when there was an awful kidnapping of girls a decade ago. It strikes me that there's a lot of virtue signaling before people finally get to what I think would be the most obvious one. And that is, in my opinion, you just lose all moral authority when you continue to hold on to hostages. And I'm happy that these folks have been released. I'm a little bit more cynical about the ceasefire. I consider myself an amateur

student of war history, and I believe Hamas needs to be destroyed. I think there's only one retirement plan befitting of Hamas. And in war, you find, you fix their target, you follow, and you finish them. And typically, ceasefires are used to reorganize. I think the IDF will pay the price for the ceasefire. I hope that the ceasefire, it calls on people's better angels. I do think that the Egyptians, Qataris, and the Americans, and folks from both sides deserve a lot of credit for, I can't imagine the complexity of trying to negotiate something like this. But the fact that we have just a concept that a four-year-old is released as a hostage is just, I don't know, just seems unthinkable. And I, you know, show me another picture of Salma Hayek or Julia Roberts on the red carpet saying, bring our girls home from 10 years ago. And it strikes me that Hollywood has been uncomfortably quiet, except for a few people who immediately invoked the wrath of Twitter or TikTok.

And I realize there's a lot of emotion on side. 14,000 Palestinians have been killed, including 40% children. But the fact that we live in a society where we have to celebrate this, there's just something. I do believe America needs to be more involved. I think our disengagement from the Middle East has created a vacuum that has been bad for everybody. Well, we're engaged now, so. And my win is, I think that the $4.3 billion plea deal with Binance for money laundering and up to 18 months in prison for their CEO, I think you need an algebra of deterrence. I think when individuals turn a blind eye to trafficking, to financing terrorism, to money laundering. I think the government plays a role here. And I think the incentives are in place. And that is an innovator

who attracts capital, who's a visionary and great with technology, can aggregate so much wealth in America. I think what is missing is the incentives or the disincentives to not engage in harm. See above meta. When you know you're engaging in harm, but when it's raising so much money, you believe that you can weaponize government, that you can co-opt government officials, and that you can get away with criminal activity. And again, the unsung heroes of our democracy, which billionaires want to shitpost all the time, is the good men and women in our security apparatus working for the government, working

for our justice system, who spend night and day building these cases saying, these people are engaging in activity that is bad for the commonwealth. And that when people lose all of their money, or when someone is trafficked, or a terrorist organization has access to funds, when they otherwise wouldn't, if these people were following the law, we are going to fine you, and we're going to put your ass in jail. That is an important part of the system. And that half of the system has not been in full force over the last decade when it comes to tech. So I just want to, my win is our great men and women in government who work tirelessly to build these cases and send a signal to young people that regardless of how smart you are, regardless of how many quarterbacks

or models want to hang out with you or former presidents because of the wealth you're aggregating, if you are breaking the law, and let's be honest, you know you are breaking the law, the government's going to come for you. I think that is an important part of the system. We spend too much time honoring and filleting the incentives and not recognizing the good people who put in place the disincentives. Yep. Excellent. Excellent. We love our civil service. I sound so indignant today. Indignant today. Anyway, you need to get some help from Alan Patricoff because he's- There you go. You need to go run the New York marathon with him. What Alan highlights, and I'm obsessed with these two doctors, Peter Attia and Andrew

Humerman, is that in Alan, it speaks to that everyone's obsessed with longevity. And what they are not obsessed with enough is the quality of your life. And if you look at that guy, it's not about living to 110. It's about being 89 and being that fucking sharp and good looking and mentally astute. Yeah, he is. And also his wife who had Alzheimer's was elegant and wonderful, by the way. They had a wonderful life. As I recall, my mom ran into them in Italy once and they were living it up. That's how it's going to be for us, Scott, you and me. Let's hope so. Anyway, we want to hear from you.

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-PIVOT. Okay, Scott, that's the show. We're counting down to the end of 2023 soon, so we'll have a lot of shows coming up. And here we'll be back on Friday with more. Scott, read us out. Today's show is produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin, and Ernie Andertag engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows, Mia Silverio, and Gaddy McBain. 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 care. Have a great rest of the week.