Pivot - Spotify's Joe Rogan Controversy, Canada's Trucker Protests, and Guest Neal Kaytal

Episode Date: February 1, 2022

Kara and Scott have a lot to say about Spotify, Joe Rogan, and Neil Young.  A "Freedom Convoy" of Canadian truckers are protesting vaccine mandates, and Elon Musk thinks they "rule." Plus, Friend of Pivot, Neal Katyal on Justice Stephen Breyer and SCOTUS. You can find Neal on Twitter at @neal_katyal. Send us your Listener Mail questions, via Yappa, at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher, and I'm just asking some questions. Hi, Scott. And I'm the number one polka dot artist in Wisconsin, and I'm appalling from Spotify. I don't know what that accent was. I don't know what it was. That was like a dead language that twins speak to each other. I feel like you're trying to copy John

Candy, I believe. Is that correct? Did you see that meme? I love that thing. Yes, yes. I love that meme. We will be getting, and we have a lot to say about the Joe Rogan situation at Spotify. We cannot get to it yet, but Scott is going to, we've got a head of steam.

We've got a head of steam coming your way. So get ready for a very intimate inside look and how we make decisions here at Pivot, which is usually panicky and drunk,

but that's you, Scott. No, I'm kidding. Well, one of us is an influencer and the other is a decision maker. That pretty much summarizes it. It's not true. It's not true. But we're going to talk to you about our issues and things that happened this weekend and et cetera, and you're going to hear it, and we want to know what you think.

Anyway, today we'll talk about the trouble at Spotify, a convoy of truckers causing trouble in Canada, and we'll speak with attorney Neil Katyal about his former boss, Justice Stephen Breyer, about what's next for the Supreme Court, specifically looking at media and tech, even though the focus is elsewhere. But first, 5G service is inching closer to airports,

thanks to a new deal between the FAA and wireless carriers. Verizon and AT&T activated their 5G networks earlier this month, but kept clear of airports at the FAA's request. Now the FAA is shrinking that buffer zone based on what it says is more precise data. This feels like starting your phone on the plane thing where you're going to crash it. It was not borne out by data. I don't know. What do you think? I remember being on a plane 20 years ago and, you know, they were taxing and I was texting and the guy next to me, just from moment one, seemed very nervous. Obviously, a lot of people are nervous flyers.

I get nervous flying. And he just screamed, turn off your phone, as if, you know, it was just a foregone conclusion. That you were taking down the plane. Yeah, that was it. We're all going to die if I didn't stop messaging. Yeah, I don't know. I used to carry data with me, and when they said it to me, I said, actually, that's not factually correct. But I will turn it off.

I was very pleasant, but I was like, here's some data for you, and I would hand it to them. If you look at, look, I think you defer, and I'm on the side of big government usually. I think you defer to the FAA because if you look at what, in addition to the fact that the connective tissue are some rules we comply with, even when they're inconvenient. And I think the balance is out of balance out of companies pushing back on regulation. If you look at what the FAA has accomplished, air travel is just extraordinary in terms of safety. It is. And when you think about the fact that we take an aluminum tube, throw it up, you know. I used to call it the tube of death, but go ahead.

Well, it's the tube of survival, though, if you really look at it. It's if you, you know, we skirt it along the atmosphere at 0.8 times the speed of sound and we get people to places more safely than it is to, I think, ride an electric scooter like 30. The most dangerous thing about flying is the ride to the airport. And aviation, which I'm fascinated by, they over-engineer the manufacturer and the inspection of these things to the point where it's like having a car that they spend a million dollars on to over-engineer it. And they demand that registered government employees show up every two weeks. And if there's a little bit of tread taken off your tires, they make you replace all your tires.

And the result is it's the safest form of transportation across all transportation, and it creates tremendous confidence. It creates tremendous mobility of human and financial capital. It's a real, the invisible infrastructure around the world is our airspace. And I think the FAA has done an amazing job. So, go FAA. I'm on board. Go FAA. All right, whatever. I'm on board. Anyway, it's going to be, this rollout of 5G, it's already full of conspiracy theories, by the way, speaking of

the whole controversy around Joe Rogan. But I don't think he has one around that. But in general, it has a lot of conspiracies here. And also, there are, they should pay attention to all kinds of safety concerns when they're rolling this stuff out. A lot of the weird worries about cellular didn't pan out as much as people thought. But it certainly, remember there was like every week there was a different, your brain

will fry if you use a cell phone thing and then AirPods and then this and that. Although the jury's out, I suppose, on all that. Eventually we'll figure that out. Anyway, it's an interesting thing to do, but 5G is critical and and it's critical for our economy, and we have to do it safely. Thank you. This is a message from Vivid. All right. This is an interesting one. T-Mobile reportedly fire corporate employees who don't complete full vaccination by April 2nd. Those who have only received one dose as of February 21st will be placed on unpaid leave. The policy only applies to those who work in their offices,

at least occasionally. Customer service employees who are largely on the phone will have to show proof of their first vaccine by February 21st but won't be impacted by the mandate. They usually deal with you on the phone. They're not talking about people in the stores. So it's a really interesting another one because this Supreme Court thing that we'll talk to Neil about, for example, businesses can do these kind of things.

They just can't be mandated by the government to do so. But businesses are continuing to do it, interestingly enough. Well, this is the guy who wrote Jonathan Greenblatt, I guess, talking about Davos Man, about how CEOs claim they're filling the void around an absence of government leadership. And they sort of are. It's a little bit about First Amendment. around an absence of government leadership. And they sort of are. It's a little bit about First Amendment.

People think that if a company censors or edits or fact checks, that that's First Amendment or censorship. No, it's not. Corporations don't have any fidelity to the First Amendment. It's the government that's not supposed to. You've got to wear pants to work, except for right now. That's right. And if you show up and start. You have pants on, right?

Correct? Well, it depends what you mean by that. If spandex equals pants, then yes. That's right. You work out before. Hello. You have pants on, right? Correct? for the most part, kind of shareholder-driven or somewhat believe in truth. The majority of people running the companies have educations that at least respect some sort of science-based, you know, evidence-based, peer-reviewed, whatever you want to call it. I'm a fan of this, and I don't, I would imagine, and most of the companies that have done this haven't had, they haven't had big walkouts or pushback. Yeah, the United guy was saying that, some others. You know, companies should be able to do what they want in this case, especially around health issues all the time, 100%. The government did try under the Biden administration, but then the Supreme Court wouldn't allow them.

So, the government did try. So, you can't blame the government. In this case, I think the best thing is it gets so dicey when the government starts, in this case right now, but they, of course, mandate other things. So the government should be able to mandate these things, too. But, you know, you're still going to get the pushback of my body. It's so funny. Many of the people who are like, it's my body, I'll do what I want with it, are anti-abortion, which is always an interesting issue. And sort of say that. Anyway, Scott,

I mean, really, we have to get to this, the big story. Spotify's Library and Market Cap were both a little less full this week. Neil Young pulled his albums as the singer protests Spotify's role in spreading COVID misinformation. He cited Joe Rogan's podcast specifically. Other musicians were following his lead. Joni Mitchell pulled her songs and Nils Lofgren of Crazy Horse announced that he'll cut ties with the streaming service. The controversy has taken its toll on Spotify's stock at market close on Friday. We had to look at it today. It was down about 12%. That's $4 billion of value. On Sunday, Spotify published, sort of acquiesced a little bit, published its rules around acceptable content, which it had not done.

It said it will add an advisory to any podcast episode that deals with COVID. Very unclear and milquetoasty a response. But as The Verge reports, an internal review at Spotify found that Rogan's episodes, quote, didn't meet the threshold for removal, unquote. Joe Rogan went them further and actually gave a pretty, put a pretty good comment on Instagram saying that he would accept the rules that would have the advisories and also said that he had to do better. I would like to talk to some people that have differing opinions on those podcasts in the future. He was actually more contrite than Spotify was, although Spotify spent a lot of time pretending it was not a platform

and kept saying words like content. They didn't want to be a content censor when actually they're a media company. It's called editing. So, Scott, I'm going to let you go because we had a big, a mini crisis within our thing of what to do about the situation at Spotify because we're sort of repulsed by their lack of any kind of responsibility. Yeah. So, I called you on Saturday or Sunday and I said, I've thought about this. Saturday. I wasn't answering the phone. And I said, I'm thinking about taking my other podcast, Prop G, off of Spotify.

And you asked a lot of very thoughtful questions. And then we had a lot of conversation, including with our CEO, Jim Bancroft, who I just want to add is like basically incredibly supportive and errs on the side of generosity in almost every contact I've had with him. And I've been just thinking a lot about this. And I think let's start off with where you and I agree. And I think we agree on most of this. We don't think Joe Rogan should be censored. We don't think this is cancel culture. We don't think this is call-out culture. We think the dissenter's voice is really important. For me, this is about capitalism. And the wonderful thing about capitalism is you get to vote with your time, your treasure, and your talent around people and companies that do or do not share your values.

And when I think about Spotify and Joe Rogan, I really don't like the fact that they're trying to fall back on this. Platform. Well, we're a platform just as Apple distributes Steve Bannon, who we find distasteful. We believe that people have a right to be heard. This is like, this is, Joe Rogan is to Spotify what iOS or the iPhone is to Apple. This is their content. They control this. He's an employee. Well, no, he's not, but go ahead. He's not. Well, okay, but he's exclusive to Spotify. They paid him. They own it. They have made a conscious decision to produce this content.

You are saying they're a media company and should act like it instead of hiding behind the platform skirts, essentially. You summarized it perfectly. And I was trying to look for your tweet here. I shall find it while you keep going along. But effectively,

I think what you have is, I think we on the left, and we suffer from this both-side-ism. And I think there's some both-side-ism here that is really dangerous. And that is, it's really important to have a conversation

and listen to dissenters around the lockdown, the severity of the lockdown, the impact it takes on mental health. Masking deserves a lot of interesting discussion. When it comes to vaccinations, I don't – I think the other side here has been proven over and over to have absolutely no merit. And I also don't think it's as innocent as people would like to believe what's going on here. And that is, I have found when I look at Joe Rogan's content, that he has methodically and thoughtfully and meticulously created a false balance. And that is, he has brought on people that have a thin enough veneer. And then he brings on other individuals that, in my view, say things that are just entirely false and creates doubt around something that we have so much evidence are incredibly, incredibly effective.

And the result is, and it's just one small point, but the result is a nation that's at 65 percent vaccination, not 90, that I believe evidence shows is going to result in a lot of unnecessary death, disease and disability disability. And people will say, when I was talking to people, well, isn't this kind of performative, Scott? And I thought, well, okay, granted, I'm sort of building a glass house here because people will find inconsistency and they'll find misinformation on Apple and Amazon and probably Vox. But when you have something of this influence and this reach, and you have what I'd call the sense of false balance and something that is just so important, and you don't have what I'd call a certain level of fact-checking. And I'm evolving around this issue. When I was writing my newsletter and I had 2,500 followers, I would say, oh, Tesla's worth more than the entire auto industry. And now that I have 250,000 followers, I fact check my

shit. And people come back and I have three people looking at every piece of data and go, no, it's worth a top eight auto. You can't say that. And as his influence has grown, I think Spotify has more obligation, is more compelled to fact check something as important as vaccine misinformation. And in addition, we don't have to go to war over this. I did not at Chick-fil-A my entire adult life because I didn't like some of their social commentary. It doesn't mean I hate them. It doesn't mean I think they're bad people. I like the people at Spotify. We're friends with some of them. I hope that if we decide to leave the platform, we decide to go back on it at some point. It doesn't need to be a jihad. It's basically saying,

I'm not comfortable right now cashing their check. And let's be clear, they mean a lot more to us than we mean to them. But the wonderful thing about capitalism, and it's already having some impact, they did put out a statement. I thought it was a bit of a bullshit statement. You summarized it perfectly in my view. But there really doesn't, in my view, it all started with this cancer of creating, bringing the dissenter's voice around Sandy Hook. There's another side that believes this was a hoax. And to give that evidence, that was what I'd call massive severity to it. What he tends to do, let me just interrupt for a second. What they tend to do is sort of nodding at the anti-vaxxers, essentially, and being tougher on the science people, as you should be, by the way. But it is, and I don't like the expression, oh, you're giving this person oxygen, oh, you're doing, you need to do the same exact tough job. If you want to veer that way and sort of lean into these conspiracy theories, you have to do. And again, he says he's not a journalist, et cetera, et cetera.

But he has influence. And I think he that that's why I preferred his statement to anyone else's because he was like, I thought I was just sort of this man on the street guy. And hey, I didn't know how it happened to this. And here I am, pig and shit. Like, well, you're a pig and shit. So you need to do something. You know what I mean? Like, I think that's one of the things. And I do, I do see, you know, how different is he than Larry King, et cetera, who didn't, may have expertise in his area or this

and that or whoever. But I don't think he wants to become Rush Limbaugh. I don't, that's not my sense. And then that was where some of this was headed, which is sort of just false. And, but away from Joe Rogan, I like a lot of his shows, I have to say. They're very fun. Some of them are a million hours long, so I don't listen to them all the way through. And that's the way he likes it. It works for him. That's great. I think the attention should completely be on Spotify.

You know what I mean? Like to be able, just the way New York Times or Vox Media monitors us, right? They monitor us, they do. And it's not censorship, they're editing us. They're a publisher, it's their responsibility to do so. And we can decide what we want to do if they say something to us, right? That's the whole point. I think what I wrote was, it's interesting that the thing once being called editing for facts became a content sensor. Well, not interesting, just word washing by tech folks who want all the power and money and none of the responsibility when things get dicey as they always get. Spotify is an obvious media company bringing all kinds of creators and paying them to make content exclusively for the platform, especially

podcasts, not unlike Amazon becoming a platform and a retailer. And this is from Variety, I quoted, Rogan, whose exclusive multi-year distribution deal with Spotify for his podcast, asked me worth $100 million, hosted the number one most listened to podcast on Spotify in 2021. Spotify and others are platforms when it suits them and media companies when it suits them.

Personally, I would also like to be a money gushing chameleon, but I like my media to try at least be factual. No, we don't always get it try at least be factual. No, we don't always get it right by the way. And, and that costs. And I think they have to like,

stop pretending. They really wanted us to act like they were something else and they're just not. And there's less so than Joe Rogan. It's their responsibility. If they do a deal with Joe Rogan, just the way Fox is tolerating Tucker Carlson and not doing anything about it. And therefore, they get shit for it. And they deserve it. And they can still not do anything about it,

but they deserve to get shit for it, for sure. Thank you. Yeah, I think you summarized it perfectly, that there's an incorrect conflation of censorship with fact-checking, and that the onus of fact-checking goes up as your influence grows and the gravity of the situation increases. If you get the market capitalization of Apple, or even if you get political statements or facts incorrect, that's meaningfully wrong or meaningfully damaged. When you have misinformation that is not fact-checked around vaccinations, that is profoundly wrong. And so the question is, what's the ask? And by the way, capitalism is we get to choose who we rent our financial and human capital to,

who we get to work with, what products we buy or don't buy. And that's wonderful. And the question is, do you want to be subscribing to Spotify? Do you want to have your content posted on Spotify and cash their check? And I'm flexing my capitalist muscles that I believe that Spotify should recognize that this individual reaches hundreds of millions of people. He is, you know, as goes Joe Rogan, as goes Spotify. And there really isn't any topic more serious that warrants more fact-checking than vaccines and any surrounding data around that would cause people to be vaccine hesitant. And so, it just feels like you need to command the space you occupy. Should they censor them? No, that's not censorship. We get fact-checked all the time about stuff. We get stopped and we say, no, you can't – that's not true, Scott.

That data is – and that's the way it should be. And as our – and if we get something wrong about the size of a lake, okay, that slips. That's fine. If we get something wrong about the Supreme Court, they fact-check it. But I think this stuff warrants a new level of fact-checking. And I don't buy this sort of aw shucks, I'm Joe Rogan. I think he has been very calculated at creating what I call this false balance. And I think it's been very methodical.

I think it's been very damaging. And just as people might say, well, Scott, you're full of shit and you've spread misinformation, guess what? You have the right not to listen to me, not to support Vox, not to buy my advertising. CNBC decided they didn't want to work with me any longer. And guess what? That's their right. We live in a capitalist society. So, without sounding, you know, people say, well, it's performative. It's not performative if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. It's the opposite of performative. Yeah, but we're not doing that. So, just like, so one of the things, this is what we discussed over the weekend is what to do about

this. I think they have made concessions here. I think they absolutely, in terms of publishing it. Now, if they continue and it keeps misbehaving, it's sort of, it's not unlike Netflix and Dave Chappelle, right? So, they stuck with them. And people can either get rid of it or not be on Netflix, et cetera, et cetera. It didn't quite blossom the way this did, which was interesting. You know what I mean? Like, it didn't quite blossom the way this did which was interesting you know what i mean like it didn't quite go the same length there was a lot of noise and a lot of what the hell dave

chappelle with uh trans people in this case that was what it was about um uh and it didn't hit them quite as much as this has and it's interesting i did i wrote a column that said i didn't think it was going to have an effect i am am surprised they published these things. Having covered Daniel Ek for so long, I can't believe that they're publishing rules. That is not something he likes, I know. He's been one of the most anything-goes kind of guy. And I have to say, I find his products great. I think he's really inventive. But it's one of the things he's sort of went on and on about over the years. I think this is a significant shift, and I think it's put them on notice, which I, and I think that, I don't think, like, Rogan was just doing an awshucks. He could have done any number of things, including, fuck you, I'm going to say what I want, these people are trying to cancel me. He didn't do any of that, which I find, you know, maybe I don't necessarily sort of trust but verify kind of thing. So, he has not done what I thought he might do, which is be obstreperous.

He was complimentary. He said he got it wrong. It was a great piece. His Instagram post, it was likable, came across as self-aware. But I'll be honest with you, Tara. Well, here's the thing. And again, I'm cynical, glass half empty. I have found if you want to predict people's future behavior, and when I say behavior, I mean their actions as opposed to their words, that you should go three years out and say, what series of actions would lead them to get the absolute most amount of money but not put in jail? but not put in jail. And then reverse engineer, and those are the actions. That's a good default position or prediction. And here's the scary part about all of this, is that I believe

if Joe Rogan were to continue to create false balance around this important topic, and Spotify were forced to kick him off the network. It would likely trigger, based on what I know about this deal, an acceleration of all payment to him. And here's another secret. He was underpaid. Spotify got the deal of the century here. They paid him $100 million. So he says, okay, I continue to bring on the other side. The dissenter's voice is important.

on the other side, the dissenter's voice is important. It continues to reflect a level of misinformation that can be loosely but correlated to vaccine hesitancy, which creates death, disease, and disability. And Spotify says, gosh, we just can't handle this. We got to fire you. And a lot of media companies decide to fire people. I think his deal is so ironclad that it would accelerate the remaining $50, $70 million. And then what happens? Truth Social shows up with a $2.5 billion market capitalization and says, we'll give you a quarter of a billion dollars to be exclusive to Truth Social. I think, I think, being very dollar-driven here, he stands to make a quarter of a billion dollars in the next 12 years by posting increasingly brazen

misinformation. I'd have to say I don't, because I do think he could have done any number of things here and everyone would have cheered him on, all his followers. I think, here's what I do think, if someone's parents die of COVID because of things he said and they can directly sue him, they should sue him. Same thing with Spotify. They're a media company. They deserve liability if they can make the case, right? That, I think, should happen if that is the case. If that is the case and it can be proven. I got a lot of tweets of people saying, you know, a lot of stuff that they heard on Joe Rogan's show made them this, this, and this. I get it. Same thing with Fox News. They're being sued right now, but they're equal to Fox News. They're equal to anyone. By the way, Sarah Palin's doing the New York Times right now.

She's also spreading COVID in restaurants across New York City. But I don't know if you saw those stories. It's kind of like bizarre. Yeah. But she can do that. Kind of marks the age, doesn't it? Right, exactly. Not the restaurant thing, because that's appalling, Sarah Palin.

You're an asshole to do that to servers, et cetera. But she can sue the New York Times. I think she will lose, but she can do it. Like, and so should people be able to here. So I don't think it's with it's, it's consequence free. But Spotify has got to stop pretending and making us think they're not a media company. They're a media company. And they can and should be sued when they make mistakes if it's done malevolently. And in this case, you're putting out a future where that is malevolently, right? Doing it for the money, doing it for this and that. So that's one thing. And then the second thing is that they deserve for these artists. Someone was like, oh, these artists shouldn't do this. They don't have

a great relationship with artists because of these low payouts for most of them. Lots of artists have kept their music off Spotify pre-COVID, Taylor Swift, Prince, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Adele, Coldplay, and done deals with them. I think they didn't have a great relationship with other artists. So many of them piled on here. And of course, there's sort of the golden oldies who did it. And you didn't hear from a Taylor Swift or whatever, and you have Harry and Meghan Markle saying, we're concerned, concerned, concerned. But that's okay. That's okay. And Brene Brown didn't say anything. She just stopped making podcasts and said, I will – she didn't even say, I'll be back.

I'm just taking a pause now. And she was sort of interesting. They can't not have consequences as to what happened here. Now, they have, let's just say, be clear, to give them fairness, they've removed 20,000 COVID-related podcast episodes violating its policies. And so that's fine. And they also deserve the consequences of the market, like you were saying. Apple Music is now using, calling itself the home of Neil Young. He's getting one last dig in at Spotify saying the sound quality is now using, calling itself the home of Neil Young. He's getting one last

dig in at Spotify saying the sound quality is better on Apple and Amazon. The 90s alt-rock band Belly changed their channel art to the banner that reads Delete Spotify. They deservedly should get things like this. And they should get consumer reaction, and people can decide completely. I ended my premium contract. My kids had already left. They thought Spotify sucked compared to Apple Music in terms of sound quality. I'm not paying them money at this moment in time. And I like Spotify. Trust me, I like Spotify. And I like the lists. I like what I have on there. I use it for Clara. But I just don't want to. It's distasteful how they've reacted. I feel better about Joe Rogan than I do about Spotify. All right, you go ahead. But you brought up a couple interesting issues. The first is Sarah Palin is going to have her day in court with New York Times. I don't think she's going to get very far because you have to prove malice. But what's said every day on Twitter and Facebook about Sarah Palin is much more vicious, and you could argue much more defamatory,

but she won't even get a hearing in court because of 230. I don't believe that Spotify is protected by 230 because they have produced this content. And 230 doesn't protect you from the content you produce, it protects you from the content posted on your platform by users. So they are subject, they could and might be subject to lawsuits. The other thing here is that this is how capitalism should work. And that is, I can go to Apple Music, I can go to Amazon Music, I have a choice. So I can have some influence

with my consumer decisions. I don't have any choice with Facebook or Google. What's happening at Spotify is what is supposed to happen. I think it's a group of good people. Let's give Joe Rogan the benefit of the doubt. And I think they will ideally change when they see people say, you know what, I have other options, so I'm not going to eat your chicken

sandwich. The Big Mac works for me very well. And they will rethink these issues. They will rethink these issues. Whereas with these monopolies, no, we'll just continue to radicalize young men and depressed teen girls, because guess what? You don't have any goddamn choice. And so we aren't incented or motivated. So I think this is bringing up a host of good issues. It also, it doesn't have to, our discourse doesn't have to become totally coarse. You know, Bloomberg, and I always come back to me, came back to me and said, we can only work with you if you comply to a certain, certain guidelines. You need to tone it down, Scott.

Put back on your clothes. And I said, I'm not going to. By the way, nice post this week of you in a wig. I don't even understand it. But go ahead. Oh, Elizabeth Holmes, you like that. You like that. Hello, hot.

A lot of mixed emotions. Did you feel, did you feel a little disturbed? Here's what happened. Amanda goes, oh, Scott. And I'm like, what did he do? From across the room. I was making French toast. And she's like, what did he do?

And I go, what did he do? But this doesn't have to be a war. And by the way, we decided to part company in Bloomberg. And I still like them. And I'd like to think they still like me. And guess what? We're going to find other ways to work together. Spotify, I adore your service. Everyone I've met there,

I really like. I expect to work with you again and be your consumer again. Wait, we're not going off of it yet. Consumer. This is a consumer. Yeah. Well, I don't know if you've heard, there's two podcasts, and I control the other one. So explain what you're doing. Well, I'm going to, look, I'm going to take Prof G down on Spotify. I expect and hope to put it back on sometime. But here's the thing, as you get older, one of the ways I'm trying to lead my life, and I realize I'm building a glass house around myself, and a lot of people will do a fantastic job of finding where I'm inconsistent. So bring it. But if you're going to rail against big tech,

you have an obligation to do your homework. And if elected representatives call you or you want to be thoughtful about it, you got to do your homework. If you want to rail against the cartel that is big ed, you have to get involved and try and make things better. And if you're constantly railing, as I do, against anti-vaccine information, you shouldn't cash the check of someone who is creating false balance around vaccine misinformation. But it's not to say we have to hate each other. It's just for the moment, there's not a fit. And I hope it changes because I love the service. I benefit from working with them. And you have a more measured and thoughtful approach. I tend to be more ready, fire, aim. And so what you have suggested in this kind of segue is that

we ask our audience for their viewpoint and do a sort of like, let me pose it out there. No, we're not. Should I sell my Twitter stock? Should I sell $10 billion of my Twitter stock? That's the poll. Here, actually, I have an idea. Let's take a poll and stick it up our ass. Too much? No, but we do want to hear from listeners because we had – I don't think we should pull off and be performative at this moment when they have responded, and so did Rogan. Scott thinks – I don't know.

He thinks he's going to pull Prof G, but is being respectful of my wishes here at Pivot. I get, we get the problem. It's a real conundrum, right? When do you decide to go off of things? Like, I don't use Facebook. I suspect some of our stuff is on there. I don't even know. I don't even know how we use Facebook.

Vox does. Maybe we should ask them not to. I have continually asked them to take Facebook advertising off of our podcasts. Again, we don't have as much. We could, I guess, just walk. I advertise on Facebook. There's some inconsistency for you. Yeah, there you go.

So, I mean, it's an interesting thing. So we would love to hear from you because we were conundrumed all weekend and trying to figure it out. And we're not being performative. But here's the thing. We're not being, like, virtue signaling. We're worried. We're concerned. I want to do more than put a black square on my Instagram feed saying black lives matter.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, good for you. But here's the thing. We're an hour long. See, at times that the average song is three minutes.

If we were to pull our content, it actually, in my opinion, it has more impact on Spotify from a listener and consumption standpoint than Neil Young. We don't have the brand of Neil Young. But yes, yes. I don't know. People don't listen all the way through. Yeah, that's assuming everyone listens all the way through. And look, you're throwing a pebble at a pyramid.

But as my mother said, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Your mother said that. Anyways, I think this is a really – I've learned a lot over the weekend. I appreciate how thoughtful you've the weekend. I appreciate how thoughtful you've been around it and appreciate how supportive Vox has been. But you know, I'm sick of barking at the fucking moon and pissing in the well all day. Kara, need to be more consistent. I'm going to wait and see what they do. I am heartened by that. I am. I'm not easily fooled,

but I think he could have gone, the 12 different ways that guy could have gone, and maybe he still will do it. And by the way, he did this. See, I think he's going to do what he did. He complained about Twitter, went over to Getter, and then talked about Getter like it was Fugazi and insulted it. I think, like you, he's quite emotional, but he could have been very emotional here, and he was not. That was a thoughtful. I thought his video was great. It made me like him more.

It made me be more hopeful. I like a lot of his shows. It's just around this health thing he's gotta clean it up he's gotta clean it up and it's not censoring to say so it's like if you're gonna have on like you know crazy one and crazy two of anti-vaxxers you need to like give them a hard time and and question them and listen by the way it happens on a lot of stuff where people just let things go like get let things go and by the way i let things go in interviews of stuff where people just let things go. And by the way, I let things go in interviews. Every interview I do, they're like, you didn't impress this person on this, and you did this. Elizabeth Warren was a real reveler.

Like, you're too mean to her, you're not mean enough. And I was like, oh, good heavens. You know what I mean? I get it, Joe Hogan. I get the problem. And you aren't a professional. And it's hard enough when you're a professional not to do the exact right thing or ask the tougher questions as many as you can, but you at least have to fact check on critical health issues. You have to. It is incumbent upon

you. You can also, again, have a debate about masks. You can have a debate about lockdowns. You can have a debate about vaccine mandates. You can. That is something, I get it. I get that one. mandates. You can. That is something. I get it. I get that one. But efficacy of vaccines and walking down crazy highway for treatment is very dangerous to the rest of society. And therefore, because you're so powerful, you have a higher responsibility. You just do. And saying, fuck you to the man all the time, you can't do it. You just can't. You just can't. Or else you can be sued. That's what happens to you. It plays into this larger narrative around the fuck you to the man thing, right? When you're the man. Well, we don't have the USSR. We don't have the draft. Young men, average age of his listenership

is 24. And I benefit in playing to some of this myself. Men are violent and like conflict. They're like Tyrannosaurus rexes. They like movement. They're drawn to movement and violence. And so we need a new enemy. And unfortunately, we've decided that the government is the enemy and we've conflated vaccines and the government for some reason. And I think people find that it's macho somehow, especially when they see Aaron Rodgers doing it, that somehow it's masculine to say, I'm young, I'm strong, I don't need a vaccine. I'm not buying into this narrative. No one's going to force me. My body. Really unfortunate.

Yeah. Yeah, it is. this narrative. No one's going to force me. My body. Really unfortunate. Yeah. Yeah, it is. It is. You know what? You can't rail against the man when you actually are the man. And by the way, not all men believe it. My sons listen to it. Listen to Joe Rogan.

One of them called him a douche nozzle. But they like the weed jokes. And they like when he's funny and fear factory and stuff like that. Talented man. Very much so. And also, he's funny and fear factory and stuff like that. Talented man. Very much so. And also, he's not far right. He's centrist on a lot of issues. Some of the other shows, I've seen him in a really unusual way on things that he didn't do.

But he's definitely very dangerous here, even if he doesn't mean it. He can be very dangerous. And again, Spotify should be able to be sued just like a media company is. So, please line up if you think that. Anyway, we'll see what's going to happen. We would love your response. We would love what you think. We will hear and play these responses.

And if you want to call them, you want to send them an email, whatever. We are trying to figure it out ourselves just like everybody else. We're trying to muscle through these issues. Muscle through these issues and not let them go. Do we stay together until the kids are out of the house? Or do we just fold our tent now? No, Scott, you've been very, I really respect your feelings about this. Anyway, let's go on a quick break.

When we come back, Elon Musk throws his weight behind a convoy of truck drivers. Then we'll talk to a friend of Pivot about tech and the Supreme Court. about tech and the Supreme Court. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter. These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world.

These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around

what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time. So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash Zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Support for the show comes from Alex Partners. In business, disruption brings not only challenges, but opportunities.

As artificial intelligence powers pivotal moments of change, Alex Partners is the consulting firm chief executives can rely on. Alex Partners is dedicated to making sure your company knows what really matters when it comes to AI. As part of their 2024 tech sector report, Alex Partners spoke with nearly 350 tech executives from across North America and Europe to dig deeper into how tech companies are responding to these changing headwinds. And in their 2024 Digital Disruption Report, Alex Partners found that 88% of executives report seeing potential for growth from digital disruption, with 37% seeing significant or even extremely high positive impact on revenue growth. You can read both reports and learn how to convert digital disruption into revenue growth at www.alexpartners.com slash box. That's

www.alexpartners.com slash V-O-X. In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point and deliver results when it really matters. Scott, we're back for our second big story. Thousands of protesters gathered outside of Canada's parliament on Saturday to protest vaccine mandates. Here we are again. The protest was originally spurred by a convey of truck drivers who set out from British Columbia. The truckers drew support from some unlikely, maybe likely sources, Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, and Russell Brand. He was really all in a bother. He's got quite a popular podcast, by the way. All made, or video podcast, I don't know what it is, all made their support known through posts and tweets.

Rogan spoke about the convoy with some wildly inflated numbers. Get your facts right, Joe. Many lawmakers weren't even in town for the protest because Parlett wasn't in session on Monday. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tested positive for COVID, if you can believe it. So anyway, so this is, you know, this is going to go on until this COVID thing is over. Canada does have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. It's 80%, and truck tires is 90%.

So this group is a very small group of people who just are out. It's perfect for someone like Elon Musk, who likes to cause all, again, the man causing, telling people to fight against the man, I guess. So, what thinks you of this? Is it just a paper tiger bullshit thing? I know almost nothing about it. And it's like one of these things where I'm like, I don't want to even, I mean, okay. Again, going back to this notion that somehow we've completed masculinity and anti-vax stance, so we pick ice truckers. I mean, what's next? We're going to, you know, get – I mean, at some point, do we just like want to salute – we're going to find out that testosterone is anti-vax? It's just – it all feels so macho and weird.

Yeah. Ice truckers. Especially in Canada. We support the ice truckers. No, I don't know if they're ice truckers. It's just, it all feels so macho and weird. Ice truckers. Especially from Canada. We support the ice truckers. No, I don't know if they're ice truckers. They're just truckers. They call it truckistan, which would be like truckistan. Truckistan, that's good. You know, look, most of Canada, it's the infection from this country that's breaching into Canada. And by the way, you can be against mandates. You're stupid, breaching into Canada. And by the way,

you can be against mandates. You're stupid, but you can be against them. But this kind of like, talk about performative. Talk about performative. That's what this is in terms of the screaming and yelling from specifically Brandon Musk.

Come on, come on. Brandon's funny at least. But in terms of this, and I think Elon was just playing games too, if you read a lot of his tweets. I love Russell Brand. Have you listened to any of his stuff? I have.

I mean, I don't agree with everything, but he's fearless. He's very, he's got an interesting twist on things. He's a really smart guy. But nonetheless, every little topic gets blown out of proportion in a way. These people should be able to protest. It's not a thing. You should be able to look at the numbers. 90% of truckers are vaccinated.

Not a thing. You should be able to look at the numbers. 90% of truckers are vaccinated. Again, this small group of people is going to hold on and be the noisiest people in the room for all of eternity. So, there you go. So, just speaking of trucks, Elon's going to make a cyber truck to replace all of them, I guess. Is he? Yeah, I don't get that.

Elon Musk is looking to put them out of business. Well, it's going to be driven at the beginning. It's delayed until 2023 at the earliest. Production was supposed to take place at the end of last year. If you want to talk about, if I were to predict where autonomous driving is headed, 100% off hours. You know, some people like driving. They express, they get self-expressive benefit. They like their freedom. Guess what? Your eggs and lumber doesn't care who's transporting it. It can be done in the dead of night. The person costing the company money is the person driving the thing. Through hyperloops and tunnels. Who's building hyperloops and tunnels?

Who, who, who? The guy who's supporting you so much, you're going, yay, is going to put you out. Oh, business. Oh, my gosh. I know. It's kind of funny, isn't it? Everything he's doing is to replace people in the supply chain, it seems like. Right?

Mm-hmm. I mean, come on. Like, guys, pay attention. Anyway, that's that. Canadian truckers, good luck. You're going to lose your job eventually from your biggest. Canadian trucker. That's a good route.

I bet they're tough. God. Most Canadians are like that. Don't you get this flannel shirt, a little facial hair? It's like the sexy guy on Schitt's Creek. You think? That guy's a Canadian trucker. Is he?

Canadians. Well, Ryan Reynolds. I don't know if he is. He should be. I binge watched all the Deadpools this weekend because I was cleaning and my son left and I cleaned out his room and stuff. Genius. It was such a good movie. Such a good movie. I love that.

There should be an off switch on my prostate or is that the on switch? There's so many lines. There's just some genius lines in there. There's so many tiny little lines in there. There's some genius lines in there. Anyway, we say, Ryan Reynolds, we support you. That's what we do. We do. Let's bring in our friend of Pivot.

Neil Kutchell is a former acting U.S. Solicitor General and a professor of national security law at Georgetown University. Neil also clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court, which is the subject of his recent op-ed in the Washington Post. Neil is in a Silicon Valley office where it's super noisy, so don't mind the vent going. Welcome, Neil. Thank you so much for being here. Yeah, sorry, I'm at the Bitco headquarters, and it's kind of, there's a little air going on in the background. In your op-ed, you say, let's go right into the Supreme Court, because you and I talk about this a lot. You say Justice Breyer's career demonstrates, quote, that one can hold strong views and yet retain nuance and capacity to listen and learn from one another. So a vanishing quality, correct? Correct. So tell us about that.

Yeah. So, I mean, I actually was Justice Breyer's law clerk back in his third year on the court, and I was like an ideological 26-year-old. I had all sorts of views about what's right and wrong. And Justice Breyer brought a real humility to the task of judging and a task of listening to other people and trying to find a reasonable compromise. And not in the sense of like, you know, both sides-ism or anything like that. He was very strong when it mattered on things like abortion or environmental protection or privacy or voting rights, you know, foundational things. But I also really just understood that one of the roles of being a judge, one of the roles of being a citizen is also just trying to understand the other side, respect the other side,

give them decency. You know, it really was apparent to me because Justice Scalia used to come after him in written opinions and attack Justice Breyer in really personal ways. And we, you know, and I would want him to respond and say, you know, and, you know, give it back to him a little bit, but he never did. He always turned the other cheek. Just a remarkable man. And, you know, as you think about, as we think about Supreme Court appointments, particularly on this court, which is now so out of the mainstream of American society, it's far more conservative than where American society is with six of the nine justices appointed by Republican presidents. That itself is not unusual. That's been like my entire

lifetime. It's basically been something like that, or even seven to two Republican appointments, Republican president appointments. But what's different is the individuals on there are far more conservative than even their Republican nominated predecessors. So as Justice Breyer leaves the court and there's a seat to be filled, replacing it with someone who's just progressive, who's just a liberal or something like that doesn't actually matter. The decisions will be what the decisions are. So what we need is a justice who, like Justice Breyer, can sometimes count for more than one vote because of her style and because of her disposition, her ability to basically talk to others and forge a consensus. How would you, I mean, you're close to it. It's easy to say that the Supreme Court has become more politicized or less collegial. How would you describe as someone who's close to and observes the court? What would you say the major changes in tone or just the way they present themselves to each other? How have things, when you look at it, how have things changed? Yeah, they've changed a

lot. So it's a remarkably brilliant court. I mean, these are nine very smart, very hardworking people. But they are now a court that is more at each other's throats in written opinions. And I think that started with Justice Scalia, who brought a lot of great changes to the court, including just kind of a more aggressive questioning style. But some of the acrimony in the written opinions that he started is now becoming much more commonplace. You know, that's just tonal. That to me is not the real problem. The real problem is you've got a court that fundamentally now doesn't care about stare decisis, the kind of old Anglo-American principle

of law that precedent matters. And so Roe versus Wade has been the law for 50 years, but is now on the verge of being overruled. I think it's inevitable that it gets overruled, if not this year in the Mississippi case directly, certainly next year when the Texas case comes back. Affirmative action has been upheld repeatedly since 1978, including just a couple of years ago in the University of Texas case. Now I think many observers think that affirmative action is on the way up. For the Voting Rights Act, I stood before the Supreme Court in 2009 and argued the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court upheld it eight to one, only to reverse through decision four years later in Shelby County. So you've got a court that is willing to trample on prior precedents in order to advance a very conservative agenda. And so I think we need nominees who can, A, fight back against that, and B, start to peel off

some of the justices who are conservative, but who also don't want the court to go off a cliff. Right. So when you talk about what is the solution then? Is it because they could say, well, those are wrong decisions, and we're just correcting the situation. Because this is our point of view. Yeah, so I think one part of it is, you know, I don't think that progressives or liberals are going to win in the Supreme Court in major cases for a while. The question is, how badly are they going to lose? And there are ways in which you can steer the court into more narrow decisions if you do have their respect, if you have a kind of savvy strategy. And I think certain nominee candidates will be better at that than others. So for example, last year, I had a case from the city of Philadelphia involving LGBT foster parents. And the city of Philadelphia won

this case in the Court of Appeals. They basically said, you know, when we use private agencies to screen prospective foster parents, they can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. There are two Catholic agencies that said, hey, we're not going to screen these people. It's against our beliefs. And the city said, look, these are our dollars. They're city dollars that we're using to have you perform a city task of figuring out which parents are appropriate or not. You can't discriminate. Throughout my lifetime, this case would have been an easy case to win on the U.S. Supreme Court. We took a look at it. We knew we couldn't win once Justice Barrett got on the court. And so the question was, how do you lose?

And so we engineered a strategy to lose in a very narrow way, just on Philadelphia-specific issues, not that one city, not a nationwide holding. So I think, and ultimately, that's what the court did, nine to zero. I think that's what the new justice is going to have to be thinking about is a lot of Americans don't, don't do think the court is motivated by politics. I always thought they were, but, but more and more people think that. Yeah, I mean, there's all sorts of supposedly structural solutions and the like, and some of them may be a good idea. But the problem is, none of them are politically realistic. Because,

yes, the Supreme Court size is not fixed under our Constitution. I mean, we started with five justices. We had six for a while. At one point, we had 10. But since 1868, a law of Congress has said it's nine justices. To change that requires another law of Congress. And when you have Manchin and Sinema in Congress saying that we will not break the filibuster, you need 60 votes to change the size of the Supreme Court, and we're not going to get 60 votes. And if you were to make predictions about, it just seems like there's become such a narrow window around when it's safe to nominate a justice. How do you think the nomination process, if at all, is going to change moving forward? I think after what they did with Justice Barrett

and maybe before that with the Scalia seat, the Republicans have lost all credibility with Supreme Court nominations. They have played so many monkey games. They're totally inconsistent monkey games with one another. With Justice Scalia, when he passed away in February before the 2016 election, they said it should be up to the successor to confirm the president. And then when Justice Ginsburg passed away a month before the presidential election, they said, oh, forget that talk about successor. We're going to just rush her through. At this point, they don't have a leg to stand on.

And so I suspect the White House and the Democrats will move a nominee really quickly and not get talking in that direction, correct? Although there's a whole nother group that's saying you shouldn't pick a woman, a person of color, a woman who's a person of color either, and just say it, even though other presidents have done that, said it explicitly. A hundred percent. I mean, Susan Collins yesterday was talking out of both sides of her mouth, not making any sense, saying, you know, how ridiculous it was that President Biden said African American woman and George Stephanopoulos responded saying, well, that's what Reagan said. And she said, oh, no, that wasn't when he was that when he wasn't, he wasn't a candidate for president, then he was the president, which is a flatly wrong.

And because he said when he was a candidate and be totally irrelevant. So look, you know, we're more than 200 years into this country. We've never had an African American woman justice. Of course, it's time for that to occur. And fortunately, we have, you know, some great, great candidates for this. Yeah. And it looks like several Republicans are going to support it. It looks like it's going to go through relatively easily, correct? Unless something happens. are going to support it. It looks like it's going to go through relatively easily, correct? Unless something happens.

I never know when it comes to the Republicans in the Supreme Court what to expect. But, you know, I'll say like, you know, one of the candidates, Leandra Kruger, she was my principal deputy solicitor general when I was running that office. She's on the California Supreme Court now. She is extraordinary. She is one of maybe the two or three best lawyers I've ever worked with in my life, and that includes Elena Kagan. And, you know, there's not enough good things to say about her. Same thing with Katonji Brown-Jackson, who's the other kind of so-called frontrunner or whatever at this point. She's just stunningly good, smart and savvy. And so I hope that you're right, Cara, and the Republicans do, you know, come to their senses about this and confirm these

folks and confirm them enthusiastically. Can I ask you a question about tech? Because these justices are very young. They're all going to be around for a long time. Most of the focus is obviously on voting rights and abortion and gay and lesbian issues soon, I suspect. But what about tech? What is going to come up and rise to the Supreme Court? This is a much more tech-savvy group of people, presumably. There's antitrust issues. Obviously, you're a national security lawyer, tech companies saying there shouldn't be much regulation. What do you see when you look out across the landscape that will impact Silicon Valley or media? Yeah, no, I probably argued 10 or 12 technology cases before the Supreme Court.

And I think the justices currently have very much a view like, let's not mess this up. So they've generally had a much more hands-off view about adjudicating big tech cases. Every so often, like I have this case about gene patents, the Myriad Genetics case, in which they do take a strong position and invalidate patents on the human genome, which really sparked the genomics revolution. So you get sometimes big results like that. But for the most part, they want to be narrow and have narrow holdings when it comes to tech cases, because they're too worried about messing up what is now the foundational sector of the American economy. I don't think losing Justice

Breyer and these two, or some other supposedly younger nominee is going to change things very much on that. I think their very strong inclination is to do no harm. Really? And what about issues? What do you think the big issues that are going to rise in the Supreme Court are related to tech? Yeah, so I think what will relate it to tech? Yeah, I think, I mean, the antitrust stuff is obviously, you know, coming front and center. And I'm involved in some of that. And, you know, so I think that's probably the first. I think the second is kind of questions around consumer protection, around technology. You've obviously got an administration, which is ramping up enforcement in that area. You've got a court that is generally considered conservative and pro-corporate.

probably not. I think Breyer was solidly a consumer protection person in the dissent, you know, that is, you know, losing cases in the Supreme Court. I don't think that the new nominee will change things much. How do you think the nomination and confirmation process, I mean, there's some ideas about expanding the size of the court. What would you like to see happen? Well, I definitely think at this point in time, given the monkeying with the Supreme Court, that we should be considering, you know, in an ideal world, we would be thinking about expanding the size of the court because that's not realistic. I think one thing we should be thinking about is a bipartisan proposal. It's been around for almost 20 years to change Supreme Court 10-year terms from life to 18-year terms, which is the average amount of

time a Supreme Court justice serves over American history. You know, it's just macabre, the specter that we go through about studying actuarial tables about justices. Some presidents, like President Trump, get really lucky and get three appointments. Some get no appointments. I mean, in the last, I think, 50 years, Republican presidents have nominated 15 justices to the Supreme Court. Democrats have nominated four. So you've got this kind of just imbalance by luck that is contributing to kind of the polarization and the extremism at the Supreme Court. And I think that that kind of a structural solution is one worth considering. That's a great idea. And this last question, when you think about having been in the Supreme Court,

done things, argued before the Supreme Court, I'd love you to actually say something you like about it in the system, because it does feel like it's the center of bad politics, again, as everything else. And by the way, studies suggest that Supreme Court justices get more liberal with age. I think that has happened. I remember the Nixon appointees got kind of loose, looser as they went along. Correct. So I do not mean to be totally negative about the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court at its best can do extraordinary, almost magical things for our democracy and our republic. You know, just to mention two recent examples, I had the privilege of working on the marriage equality cases with a whole bunch of brilliant lawyers who did a lot more than me. But I remember when we walked

into the court thinking maybe we're going to get a decision that day, and there were about 100 people on the steps who were in favor of marriage equality and 100 who were against, and there were respectful protests on both sides as we walked in. When we walked out after the Supreme Court ruled to make marriage equality the law of the nation, tens of thousands of people on the Supreme Court plaza linking arms, singing America the Beautiful. I'll never forget it. That's a decision made by the Supreme Court just a couple of years ago. Yeah, let's hope.

I had the privilege of representing Osama bin Laden's driver before the Supreme Court in a court that was seven Republican appointed justices, two Democrats, and bin Laden's driver sued George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and won. That's something remarkable about this country to have something like that be decided by our highest court in the land. I think it's possible for the Supreme Court to do that again. I don't think that all is lost. But I do think we need a justice like Justice Breyer, who can carry that mission forward of respectfully listening to the other side and injecting

some more reason into the process. All right, Neil. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it. That's Neil Kachal. Thanks, Neil. Nice meeting you. All right, Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out, uncertainty, self-doubt,

stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Word art. Sorry, Live Laugh Lovers. In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month.

Every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. 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.

Time for wins and fails. All right. What are they? We've had a lot of agony here today. So something happy, please. Look, my win is Neil Young. I've never listened to his music. Never appreciated it.

What? I'm not a Neil Young fan. Oh, you're kidding. Probably doesn't. After all this. I am. Anyway to his music, never appreciated it. What? I'm not a Neil Young fan. Oh, you're kidding. Probably doesn't. After all this. I am. Anyway, go ahead. Good for you. Joni Mitchell.

I think Neil. Do you like Joni Mitchell? I think people. Who wrote Chuckie's in Love? Oops, that was Ricky Lee. That was a mistake. Joe Rogan. I could name a Joni Mitchell song.

Oh, my God. Let me guess. I bet you know them. Of course. Come on. Oh, so many things. Is she the one that wrote 17? Oh, no. No, no many things. Is she the one that wrote 17? Oh, no.

No, no. I'm not even going to. Tony Mitchell is one of the greatest living. She just got a Kenny Center honor. Come on. You don't know her song, Blue River? I don't like Led Zeppelin either. I don't.

There's a lot of that. Pave Paradise in front of a parking lot? Come on. Do not judge my musical taste. Oh, my God. Unless it was big in the 80s, I'm not into it. Ask me about English Beat or REM, I can tell you anything you want. She's a poet and a genius.

By the way, she's from Canada, too. Oh, she's Canadian? Yellow taxi, both sides now? River? No? Oh, I can't believe this. I have to break up with you. She's Canadian.

Let me just say that again. Anyway, the best people come from Canada. Okay. Anyways, my can't believe this. I have to break up with you. She's Canadian. Let me just say that again. Anyway, the best people come from Canada. debate, even if, as long as it's a civil debate, I think we're having a civil conversation here, is a service. And he's provoked a very interesting conversation that will result in a certain amount of tension and conflict, but will craft better solutions. So, my win is Neil Young. All right. Fail? My fail is the former, I believe it was Miss USA or Miss Universe that killed herself. Did you read her things she had done? They were so impressive, but go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. And it just goes back to mental illness and loneliness. And we've been so focused on this pandemic. Just so many people are struggling and so many people have such incredibly bright futures and go into a place that they feel like they can't get out of.

So I just read this and it was just one of those things that just kind of punched you in the gut. And you really think about mental illness, we still stigmatize it. We still aren't good at identifying and reaching out to people as much as we can or should. It's definitely the most, what is it, the most preventable, it's now the most preventable form of death. It used to be accidents. So, it's just, it's, we have an epidemic of mental health. Yeah, that was really super- I won't even call it a merging crisis. We have a mental health crisis, even amongst our most, even amongst our youngest and most promising. So, I don't, you know, I don't have a lesson here. I don't have any insight here. I just read that

and thought, gosh, this is just such a tragedy. You know, just impressive young woman, just an impressive young woman in so many ways. Yeah, really awful. The vicissitudes of mental health are really quite strong. I think the win was our discussion this weekend. It brought us closer. I think that was a win. It was awesome.

I agree. I appreciate you saving me from myself. You started asking me a lot of good questions. Also, you know who I also called? I also called Preet Bharara. Yeah, I probably called Preet. I'm doing late night conversations. He's my Sean Hannity.

He tucks me in. I said, Preet, are you up? He's like, I'm always up. I'm always up. The fail is that you don't know Joni Mitchell. And I know where I'm getting you for Christmas now. When I was 17. Oh, my God.

That's Janice Ian. In the prom queen. No, Janice Ian. Who's Janice Ian? Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone. They paved paradise. I don't know who Janice Joplin is. Oh my god. I have to break up with you now. We must

break up. That is the fail today. I tried to be your friend and partner, but we need to break up over Joni Mitchell. Or you need to learn. You need to invest in our relationship and listen to Joni Mitchell. You know a genius who I do know a lot about?

What? You know a genius who, I don't know if he's pulling his music or is upset, is Peter Frampton. Oh, I love him. That guy's a genius. Let's have him on. He's fantastic.

Let's have Peter Frampton. I'd love to have Peter Frampton on. Oh my God. Every woman I wanted to kiss in the eighth grade had a Peter Frampton poster. Yes, he was great. There you go. Scott, that's the show. We'll be back

on Friday for more. Thank you for this frank discussion. We would love your opinions on what we said. We are struggling ourselves, and we like people's opinions, and we'd love to know what you think. Yeah, should we sell our Twitter stock? Yeah. Okay. All right, everybody. When I was 17.

I'm sorry, go ahead. Oh my God, Janice Ian! Today's show is produced by Lara Naiman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Entretat, engineer in this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Miel Silveiro. 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. What a wonderful society. Capitalism gives you the opportunity to vote with your time, your treasure, and your talent. It doesn't have to make discourse more coarse, but you don't have to eat that chicken sandwich.