Pivot - Washington Post Drama, OpenAI IPO Rumblings, and Guest Scott Wiener

Episode Date: June 18, 2024

Kara and Scott discuss the drama surrounding the Washington Post's new publisher and incoming editor, as well as Amazon's One Medical facing questions about its call centers. Then, Stanford's Internet Observatory, a prominent disinformation research group, is facing an uncertain future amid ongoing political attacks. Plus, OpenAI announces its newest board member, and might be moving closer to becoming a for-profit company. Finally, our Friend of Pivot is California State Senator Scott Wiener. Senator Wiener is working to pass an AI regulation bill, but not everyone in Silicon Valley is happy about it. Follow Scott at @Scott_Wiener 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 Cara Swisher in the south of France. And I'm Scott Galloway in Cannes. In Cannes. We're not together, though. Once again,

we're in the same place, but not together. No, I can probably see your hotel from mine, though. Really? I don't know. Don't look at my hotel. Anyway, I was just walking along the, I was just walking along, what's it called? The Croisette. The Croisette. The Croisette. We have many fans here. A lot of selfies. We do. A lot of selfies. Yeah. Yeah. It's nice.

It's very popular. Do people ask you, where is Scott? Everyone asks me, where is Kara? Yes, all the time. And then they have a word or two for you, either good or bad. Some of them love you. Some of them don't. And it's great, actually.

So I have some thoughts I'll share with you later. Catalyzing a dialogue. Catalyzing a dialogue. No, you know what? That's what they say. They say we're catalyzing dialogues. I interviewed John Legend and Chrissy Teigen this morning. Oh, how's that?

They're the handsomest couple going. They're very good looking. Sharp as tacks. You know, they're real into activism, but it seems lovely coming from them. And she's a pistol, I'll tell you that. She's just like she is on the Twitter. Although she's not on the Twitter anymore. But they're doing a lot of stuff around mass incarceration and women's...

And he's like, he's on concert tour. He's a lovely guy. He's playing tonight at the Spotify thing. Yeah. Yeah, they're supposed to be lovely, and I agree with you. Occasionally I'll see them in New York, and they're both impossibly good-looking and talented and all that good stuff. Very entrepreneurial.

They have a wine thing. They got dog food. They got food. They got... Oh, really? He's got a baseline. He almost have a wine thing. They got dog food. They got food. Oh, really? He's got a baseline. He almost got some for you. A little facial situation. A baseline? Yeah, it's called Loving Zero Wats.

You want to know my skincare routine? What? At least once a week, I splash water on my face. Oh, my God. Do you not have a skincare routine? I would think you would do that. No, I don't.

I really don't. I mean, occasionally, I shoot poison into my face so I look like I'm dead inside. Oh, okay. But it's called Botox. But other than that, I'm aging, not gracefully. I'm leaning into the ugly. You would be surprised. Guess who loves a skincare product, Kara Swisher? I do. You have very nice skin. I do have a beautiful skin because I spend a lot of time with the expensive. I do. Try this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I do. You're right. I have spectacular radiant skin. I do have a beautiful skin because I spend a lot of time with the expensive. I do. Try this. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. I do. You're right. I have spectacular radiant skin. I'm sorry. I'm just channeling white men. Of course I do.

Yeah, yeah. I do actually because I spend a lot of time with all the Barber Sturmer, all that stuff. I do get nice health care. I mean, in the facial area. Yeah.

Guys can get away with bad skin. They can. It doesn't matter. All I need to do is stand on my, in the facial area. Yeah. Guys can get away with bad skin. They can. It doesn't matter. All I need to do is stand on my wallet. Is that wrong? Yeah. Is that wrong? It's wrong. I don't do that. That's the part I don't do. I have beautiful skin care regimen instead. Anyway, here on the South Brents talking about our skin, we have a lot to get today because we have a live pivot tomorrow. We've got parties to go to. There's a lot of parties tonight. One of them that was canceled,

which I'll talk about later, was a Washington Post one at La Colombe door. Oh, yes. He's canceled. They got canceled? Got canceled. Oh, I love that. You know who,

speaking of newspapers, you know who I ran into last night was Meredith Levin. Levin. Levin. Levin. Levin. Meredith Levin.

She's delightful. New York Times. She's having a great time at the New York Times. The Washington Post people don't they seem incredibly well run right now? Yes, they really are. She's having a great time at the New York Times, the Washington Post people. Don't they seem incredibly well run right now? Yes, they really are. She's like hitting it all cylinders.

And man, we'll get to it in a minute because it's been a real, this guy. It reminds me of the writer's strike. A bunch of people who think they're really fucking precious. Wake up to the real world, folks. Washington Post newsroom. I'd love to deal with them right now. Yeah, except this is not the newsroom's fault. This is a management and Jeff Bezos problem.

Oh, what's happening there? It's some British guy? Well, we'll just start with it. We'll start with it because we're going to talk about troubles at Amazon too. But just before we get to it, we're going to do disinformation research groups under attack by the far right. OpenAI hinting some big changes to its governance. They're a for-profit corporation, Scott, apparently. Really?

Really. Really? They're not a nonprofit? Shocking as it may seem. Who would have thunk it? I mean, they might as well admit the obvious, right? Our friend at Pivot is California State Senator Scott Weiner, who used to be my representative in the Castro. He's leading the charge on AI regulation bill. Very smart California legislator in California.

Anyway, there's so much going on. Let's start with this Washington Post situation. So the guy who's the CEO, Will Lewis, got into big trouble for paying, you know, lots, he did a terrible meeting with the staff. He really did. It was a terrible meeting. And then he did this weird third newsroom thing, but he never said what it was. And I'm still unclear what the second newsroom is. I believe he's talking about editorial, which isn't a newsroom. So he confused and upset people. And believe me, they have every right to be upset.

They asked some cogent questions because he ended up hiring one of his pals from Britain and then firing the editor just all of a sudden because she didn't like his third newsroom plan. And so, which nobody likes, FYI, and it's stupid. And so then that was trouble. And then this week, the New York Times sent a pack of reporters to London, and so did the Washington Post, by the way, and so did others, to investigate and found even more crazy shit when he was working for Murdoch, when he was working for the other places he worked,

a lot of payoffs for phone records that were stolen that they used, payoffs. That's old news, though, right? No, this is new. That was different. He was cleaning up the hacking. And then they had a guy that was pretending, trying to get Tony Blair's memoir, and trying to get lists of rich people that bought a Maybach. All this stuff, he wrote a big investigative piece of who was buying the new Maybach because they stole the records.

They tricked the Mercedes guy out of the records. And so this guy. Isn't that a hardcore investor? I just love it when self-hating liberals go after each other and eat their young. No, don't start with the self-hating liberals bullshit. This is, no, I'm not going to allow this. This is big news. This I am not going to allow because I happen to be an actual reporter.

You don't do this. You don't do this. Not, you don't. You don't. So what's the there there? Scott, how would you like it if someone stole your phone? I'm acquiescing to your journalistic domain expertise here. I'm going to ask you a question.

Would you like someone tacking your phone and listening to your phone calls and then you doing a report? No, so I don't allow TikTok on my phone. And by the way, I'm constantly every day trying to lobby against Mena because they do what you're talking about every fucking minute. I get it. But reporters aren't supposed to. Okay. Agreed. Okay. So they, anyway, so he's gotten even more trouble with this investigation by the New York Times. And then the Post followed up with an even worse one about all kinds of lies he told. So he's under a lot of pressure, but I don't think Bezos is going to let him go. It's the newsroom. It's not the newsroom's fault in this case. And I agree with you on slow moving routes. So the newsroom is an open revolt against

him. It looks like it. Yeah. I mean, they just, no one knows what to do because the only person that matters is Jeff Bezos in this thing. Right. And so as long as Jeff, but at some point, Jeff Bezos in this thing. Right. And so as long as Jeff, but at some point, it reminds me a little bit of an academic institution where the faculty just has way too much power and the dean has to get along with the faculty because they can make his life miserable or her life miserable if they don't get along with them. But at the end of the day, if the newsroom is an open revolt, Bezos needs to fire him

and say, it sucks to be a grownup. You've lost the confidence in the newsroom. It's time for you to move along. Right. But in this case, in fact, the newsroom might be right. I know you love to attack the media, but it's not in this case. That's not the case. I like the Washington Post.

I'm rooting for them. Let me just support the Washington Post team. I wrote a whole part about the Post being really slow to all the Internet stuff. In this case, these reporters, and I've talked to a lot of them, and this staff knows they have to change. This is not a whiny, oh, no, the internet is here gang. This is a, we are fucked and we got to move. And so in this case, I think this guy's lost the trust. That said, if Bezos doesn't want to get rid of him because they did this big search after finding the other guy, he's the only shareholder. And so the question is, will he? But having said that, as the only shareholder and And so the questionroom, which is the key, the heartbeat,

the white meat, the epicenter, whatever you want to call it, ground zero for this organization, correctly or incorrectly, that doesn't fucking matter. If he has lost their confidence, Bezos needs to call him and say, sorry, boss, you got to move on.

Otherwise, this turns into a bigger drama than it needs to be. That's correct. That is correct. One person who I was talking to, a media person who was in the running for the CEO and actually dropped out, said to me, like, this is not, they need to be looking like they're forward moving right now. What happened to Patti Stonecipher? I thought she was running that time.

She didn't want to run it. And so they found someone else and she was part of the search and there were several different people. And she's a big supporter of Sally Busby. She gave a party for her last night. And what's Sally's role in this? I can't believe I'm getting drawn into this. She was the editor-in-chief. She was the editor-in-chief. This is like the world's worst off-off-Broadway soap opera. It plays to an audience of seven people. No, no, no, no.

Anyways, who is Sally Busby? Who is Sally Busby? She was the editor. She was the editor. This is an important newspaper ahead of this big election it is. Agreed. I would say the second or third most important newspaper in the country. But I would say

the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post. That's how I would stand correct. Anyway, so we'll see. So in any case, my whole particular moment in this is there was a dinner tonight that Will was throwing at La Colombe d'Or, which I've never been to. I bet you have.

I don't know. A fancy, it's a beautiful, apparently a beautiful place. And I was very excited. I think that's a private school outside of LA. Yeah, right. If you want your kid to speak French and you're like a total douchebag. La Colombe d'Or. So they canceled it.

So he's not here. He's not coming. Little Lisa goes to Colombe d'Or. To Colombe d'Or. Anyway, we'll see what happens. We hired this guy who's pretending she's a rower to get into USC. Oh, never mind. Oh, yeah, yeah.

I have a particular interest in the Post since I started there, and I started in the mailroom. So it matters. Well, you're also sleeping with someone who works there. No, that is not why. You need to disclose that. I did. I say that all the time. She works there.

This isn't good for her, for me to talk about it, by the way, in such a negative way. She's safe. She's good at what she does. She is. She is. She is. But I was at the Washington Post first, let's just say. I was there first. That's right. I's good at what she does. She is. She is. She is. But I was at The Washington Post first, let's just say. I was there first.

So. That's kind of great work there. Yeah. So, well, okay. Now that we've gone down this rabbit hole, what do you think they should do and what happens? There's a lot they could do. You know, I've always, they just, right now, they need to get a CEO. Look, they hired a, he did bring in a temporary editor after Sally decided not to go with him.

Look, they hired a – he did bring in a temporary editor after Sally decided not to go with him, a guy named Matt Murray from the Wall Street Journal, who he did work with, who I think I have great regard for in the newsroom, like. So keep him there and make editor, editor. And then hire a digital person, a really smart, capable digital person to figure out how to create new revenue streams just for now until the election and then have a rethink in December. Who wants to go to the Washington Post and make no money? I get that. But I'm just saying, there are people who would do it. It's a big challenge.

Yeah, I agree. It's an iconic property. Just something to calm it the fuck down after their kind of feckless editor and now this guy who's a hot mess. They went from a feckless guy to a hot mess. And now they need-

All roads lead to the same- I don't even need to know the situation. I know what they should do. All roads lead to the same place. They need to fire this guy. Yeah. And then let us take over. We need to turn the page. We should take over. Yeah, that would work. I know.

Given my journalistic credibility, yes. I'm in. Hello. I'm here with the penis jokes. I'm head of HR. Oh, maybe not. That would set an interesting tone. Yeah, that would. But you know what? We'd be calm in comparison. Anyway, maybe not. That would set an interesting tone. Yeah, that would. But you know what? We'd be calm in comparison.

Anyway, we'll move on. The other thing that's going on, Amazon. Now, Jeff doesn't run Amazon, but One Medical is under fire for how it deals with calls from elderly patients. According to a report from the Washington Post, speaking of which, which is good for them for doing it, the primary care service routes elderly callers to inexperienced contractors with only two weeks of classroom training. Within one month, the post found more than a dozen incidents where staff failed to seek immediate attention for callers with urgent symptoms. The main qualification listed for the job is the ability to use a computer and a phone. Amazon acquired One Medical in February of last year. One Medical's main competitors also use

call centers to field patient inquiries. One Medical used to be a little more solicitous in lots of ways. They used to have pickup service, all this stuff. And Amazon cut some costs in trying to make it more efficient. You know, it was this wonderful startup that everybody loved. I am a One Medical member. You are too, correct? Me too, yeah.

But it's problematic. They're making it too efficient, especially among people that need more care. Or they should at least push people to good care, right? Like, I don't know what I'm talking about. Let's get you to a doctor immediately. That kind of thing. These stories, the larger story here is that, in my opinion, the media, and it's easy to be the editor of the media globally and appoint yourself a global editor, I think they're focused on the wrong things. I think that the drama at The Washington Post is sort of interesting, but what's more interesting is that journalism is slowly but surely being euthanized by a company that is controlled or influenced by the CCP where every day, and we're at this conference and they don't want to admit that the thing that is putting all of these people slowly out of business is that there are 1.7 billion people on a media platform called TikTok. The media ecosystem has gotten very unhealthy. It's turned into sort of a giant spying network that molests your data. And then it's figured out that rage is the most popular way to engage you. And then around One Medical, okay. One Medical is trying to outsource expensive seniors. So, I think this stuff is sort of interesting and gossipy, but it really isn't that important. Gossipy? Come on, people are actually getting sick.

No, I don't think it's one or the other. See, I think you're saying we have to cover this because we're not covering this. Now, people have covered TikTok. Forbes, I'm thinking of that reporter, Forbes is doing a great job on here, Emily Baker White. Lots of people are covering the TikTok situation. I have covered all the issues around social media for years and years and years. At the same time, here's Amazon deciding to get in the medical business

and cutting corners in ways that aren't right. It's a different story, right? But that's, I agree with you. They should fix this and they've brought light to it. But the healthcare industry in general is dramatically in need of organizations like this to come in and take a more cost-driven kind of approach to it. And granted, I'm not an old person with palpitations. I'm a sort of old person that has palpitations. True story. I actually had an arrhythmia when I was younger. I did. Only time I've ever been hospitalized. It was right after the best college basketball player in the nation, a guy named Hank Gathers, went down the floor,

did a monster dunk, and on the way back, collapsed and died. And so anyone with an arrhythmia was stuck in the hospital. Anyways, and I think they primarily stuck me in the hospital because I was overinsured. And they're like, okay, stick him in the hospital because he can pay his bills. But anyways, the healthcare system is so desperate for this type of disruption. And good for journalists for saying, okay, there is a clash between private sector and public sector goods when you have a for-profit company trying to outsource costs around seniors. Anyways, I'm glad they brought it up and I hope they fix it. Your point is that one medical is a good direction. The thing is, if they're going to go in this direction, they still have to do a good job. That's my feeling. And I think pointing

this out, they can't treat it like you're getting a package that didn't get delivered. That's my feeling. And I think pointing this out, they can't, they just can't, they can't treat it like you're getting a package that didn't get delivered. You know, it's a different business. And that's how they deal with, they're so efficient on the stuff that's easy to make efficient. The problem is people are fucking complex, right? It's not like. Well, the reality is, is that old people are expensive and unproductive. And I can't wait to get feedback on that comment. But young people don't even, young people for the most part, unless they're pregnant, don't really need healthcare. They don't get sick. And what most medical companies want to figure out is unless we can get you obese and then get the government to pay for your cholesterol, your knee replacement, your hip

replacement, and turn you over to the diabetes industrial complex, if you're just a senior that needs more care and needs more hand-holding. I get it, yeah. You're more expensive, so we want to outsource it. This is where the public and the for-profit and not-for-profit run into each other. And then insurance companies, if you want to, the company, the best business in the world

has been insurance. I agree, this is an area of reform. Well, we'll see where, it should be innovated, for sure. Both of us agree with that. Anyway, they'll probably get sued. Anyway, one good thing for Jeff Bezos this week, he's got two negatives, but Blue Origin has won a spot in the Pentagon's rocket launch contract sweepstakes for the first time. The winning bid comes as part of contracts awarded under the National Security Space Launch Program, SpaceX and United Launch Alliance, which are the old guys, were also awarded contracts and have already been competing under a previous phase of the program. And now Blue Origin gets to come in. They'll be eligible to compete for contracts through mid-2029. I like that they have more competitors, right? This is a good thing.

Yeah, this is good. Space is exciting. Innovation in space is important. Yeah, and it can't just be SpaceX. It cannot just be SpaceX. Yeah, I agree. It's the other billionaire that kills seniors. No, I'm kidding.

And it's somewhat related to seniors is that 40% of all government spending now goes to services for seniors. It's about to be 50%, which crowds out things including NASA and space exploration and technology and education and all the things that have a bigger ROI. You don't like old people, do you? Because you're going to be one. That's why. NASA and space exploration and technology and education and all the things that have a bigger ROI. You don't like old people, do you? Because you're going to be one, that's why. No, I just find that my generation, I'm going to say my generation, is unlike previous generations, is not paying it forward and continues to evoke old people such that we vote ourselves more money and not invest in the future. And $1.4 trillion goes to social security every year. Previous generations have always made a concerted effort to elect people who will think long-term, invest in technology, invest in young people, invest in education. And now my generation is, no, no, no,

increase my social security and lower my fucking taxes. There is a virus that has infected my generation where we are no longer making forward-looking investments. I don't know if it's because we haven't been invaded. I don't know if because social media makes it so much like get yours or, you know. Yeah, get out. Get your own.

But my generation is not living up to the same American standard of investment. We need to give back. We need to give it. You know what? We could put the elderly on these rockets. I'm going to get letters. I don't think they should be.

I don't think they should be put on. Getting letters. Getting letters. I want to be you for a moment. That's the letters Carol will find again. Yeah, I don't know if you. Yeah, I'm not sure you'd enjoy it. I'm just saying, I'm trying to bring two stories together, and then they can work for the Washington Post.

Anyway, okay, let's get to our first big story. The Stanford Internet Observatory, a prominent disinformation research group, is facing an uncertain future following ongoing political and legal attacks in the far right. We've talked about this and where it was going to lead, and it did. Several key staffers have already departed, including founder Alex Samos. Some contracts have not been renewed, and other employees were told to look for jobs elsewhere, according to Platformer. Stanford has disputed the observatory is going away entirely, saying in a statement the group will continue under new leadership with its critical work on child safety and other online harms. You know, we've heard from Alex and also Rene DiResta, who has a new book out about all

the attacks by the right, and they've been sort of tasered into not doing anything. There's all kinds of things going on. The observatory's work included research on election integrity, which seemed to have attracted the most attention, AI, and child sexual abuse material. Representative Jim Jordan, who led the charge on investigating these research groups, posted this on social media saying, free speech wins again.

Harvard shut down a disinformation research center last year. The main researcher later cited pressure for meta, although that's in dispute. In any case, there's been a real campaign to discredit these researchers. You know, Elon sued one of them and then dropped, lost the lawsuit. He didn't lose it. He'd never move forward. But there were two ongoing lawsuits and two congressional inquiries into the observatory that have cost Stanford millions in legal fees, according to the Washington Post. And former researcher Esther, as I said, Renee DiResta, has a piece in The Atlantic about her experience getting attacked by online conspiracy theorists. She worked in a summer fellow program for the CIA when she was a kid. And so now they've decided she's CIA Renee. They have all these crazy conspiracy theories

that she's the one that's behind all this. It's nutty. This piece is really something. Anyway, what do you think about this? Do you think information research, which is critical disinformation research, is getting shut down? I think it's incredibly disappointing. And I will say, you know, we try to call balls and strikes. There's a lot about Jeff Bezos in terms of tax avoidance and some of the employee practices that I've not been a fan of. But having said that, I genuinely believe that he wants the Washington Post to pursue the truth. And I think there's something very noble and very American about that. And I think a lot of elements of the far right see the media as nothing

but something that helps craft their narrative around their issues. And they will use intimidation and have, you know, weaponized their own media companies. And this is an example of that, that they're like,

it's not that they're, my understanding is it's not that they're mad at them for censoring. It's that they're not censoring, that they're not crafting the not that they're mad at them for censoring. It's that they're not censoring, that they're not crafting the narrative that they want to blanket over the nation. And what's also disappointing,

I understand Stanford's decision that like this is just more headache than it's worth. But at the same time, Stanford has so much money. It's such a, Stanford, and I'm critical of higher ed, but Stanford is just such a gift to California and to technology and to research that I just, it's weird what the faculty and students get riled up about. And they don't get riled up about being intimidated by a bunch of right-wing lawsuits and basically putting this thing out of business. So I think it's disappointing and more

example of the way you, the steps to fascism are you get control of the media, you get control of the economy, then you get control of the military and boom, it's all over. And this feels to me like an attempt. And there's some people on the left to try and do this as well, but not as much. This is a plan. You know, the left does it in a very non-systematic way. This is a systematic way around trans rights, everything. They have a plan around with abortion, you know, and there's this whole effort to try to get rid of New York Times versus Sullivan, the idea around libel. And Trump has talked about this idea about

prosecuting and going after media. Bannon has basically said, we're going to kill them. That's what it feels like, you know, we're going to get them, or get them, get them, get them is their constant refrain. It's part of their plan. And so the question is, is there anything to fight back when they're doing constant lawsuits, right? This is the problem. And so I don't know if there's anything that you can do with it. If you've decided this is a thing you want to kick out, this is a part of democracy you want to kick out so you can get control. The kickers are always in a better situation, those trying to stop the kicking. Yeah, it's disappointing because I don't know Alex as well as you, but he's always struck me as a very thoughtful guy who calls balls and strikes.

He also strikes me as fearless. He just says, I've seen him speak at conferences and I like him because he doesn't sign up to a political narrative. He just says, this is what the data reflects. And he also, at the last conference I saw, said, you know, there's a lot of misinformation coming from the left. And I like guys like that who call balls and strikes, but he's exactly the kind of person you want heading, you know, a laboratory like this. This is exactly the kind of laboratory that should be sponsored and hosted at an academic institution. And Stanford is exactly the place, the region that should be hosting it. It's just, this feels so right on so many levels, and yet they're being kind of bullied by what feels,

at least on the surface, to be right-wing organizations that aren't interested in pursuing the truth. They're interested in crafting a narrative to their own objectives. So, look, this just feels wrong. It just feels bad. And twisting the numbers, right? Yeah. So I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know. It's very dangerous for the 2024 election

and future elections not there to be academic research. Whether or not you agree with it is no difference. It's that if they can do their studies and they can back it up, you have to accept what it's doing. What they do is they take information, like saying that Renee herself got 22 million pieces, you know, censored. When, in fact, she just recommended 2,000 misinformation things and only like 15% of them got taken down. And so they spin it into this idea of this person behind the scenes manipulating.

of this person behind the scenes manipulating, when in fact, speaking of Chrissy Teigen, it was Trump who asked to take down her piss-pussy-ass bitch tweet, not someone else, right? They do it too. They do it too in terms of trying to take stuff down. And so what they do is they weaponize the First Amendment in a way that's just really heinous

because they don't want, because of their own political narratives. Anyway, it's a really, it's a shame. And Stanford should fucking pay for this thing, I think. They're not very, they're not very brave as people. Anyway. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, OpenAI announces its latest board member and hints at some big changes. And we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, California State Senator Scott Wiener, about his AI regulation bill that's causing a ruckus in Silicon Valley.

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. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Procrastination. Putting it off.

Kicking the can down the road. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Carpet in the bathroom. Like, why? In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. 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. Scott, we're back. OpenAI appears to be addressing recent security concerns with a new addition to its board of directors. A company announced last week that retired General Paul Nakasone will be joining the board. He's also sit on a newly formed safety and security committee. Nakasone was director of the NSA, which is causing a lot of like the crazy right to go crazy about this and saying it's a deep state, and led, including Elon, I think, and led the U.S. military cyber command before stepping down earlier this year. He's very well regarded. But again, this is a big appointment. OpenAI said in a statement that this appointment underscores a growing significance of cybersecurity.

Edward Snowden wasn't happy. He posted this on social media saying, do you not ever trust OpenAI or its products? There's only one reason for appointing an NSA director to your board. So, as usual, without proof, Edward. But, you know, okay, sure, spy's spy. So, but it's one of those open-ended questions that never really has an answer or any proof attached to it, but that's okay. They can do that. So it's a thing. What do you think about that? I absolutely love it. Anyone who's an army general and works their way up as someone, you know, General Nakasone, this is a very impressive person. And also this person has

proven themselves a patriot. And for all these weirdos on the far right that think there's a deep state, and for all these weirdos on the far left that are under the assumption that peace is a natural right, that it's not something that requires constant vigilance and sacrifice, we need... The NSA does an amazing job keeping Americans safe. And it's important that we have laws that keep them in check. But at the same time, I worry that America has become so naive to this notion that peace is a right. It is not. It is earned, and it is not the natural order. As soon as people can come for our Netflix and espresso, folks, they will.

And they won't do it by interesting, nice means. They'll be violent about it, just as we need to be violent and smart about protecting our borders. So to have someone like this on the board of OpenAI to occasionally raise his or her hand and say, you know what, that is a threat to America. And I'm not down with this.

I love having this guy on the board of OpenAI. I think it's a wonderful thing. It's interesting because it sort of sets up these deep state, leave us alone, don't tread on me gang. And I mean that in a negative don't tread on me way, the sort of demented don't tread on me. In Edward Snowden's case, I recognize it.

He did uncover some really heinous behavior by our security officials. That said, there's plenty of argument to be made that how he handled it was wrong, but he couldn't have handled it. Look, we can debate Edward Snowden all you want. I interviewed him once. It's a very complex topic. But the fact, assuming every NSA chief has malintent is the way to bring down all institutions. Now, they've been abusive enough that there needs to be strong laws and oversight in place. Absolutely. If a spy is going to spy, that is just the way it goes, right? There's no other way to put it, including the Chinese government. They're going to spy whether you have proof or not. That's what they do. people on the board. Now, I would also put on someone who's more of a, like, sort of an opposite to him could be interesting. So you have all the different outlooks brought there. And I'm not talking, the problem they had was they had people that were so at cross purposes, there was no

agreement. And I think if they bring in someone who's more, not distrustful of government, but then challenges government overreach, I think that's fantastic too, right? That's what you kind of want on a board. But this guy has really a very, very strong reputation. I just, the immediate attacks on him were fascinating to watch in a lot of ways. Speaking of OpenAI, they're further angering all the peer crowd. CEO Sam Altman has told some shareholders that the company is considering changing its governance to a for-profit business that a non-profit board doesn't control,

according to the information. I'm shocked. I'm shocked. What? I'm shocked. They are a profit company. One option for forming a for-profit benefit corporation similar to what Anthropic and XAI have in place. You could explain what a for-profit.

I don't understand it. Altman said the restructuring conversations are fluid and that he and his fellow directors can end up taking a different approach. Oh, come on, Sam. Come on. You can't stand that nonprofit situation. So OpenAI reportedly is on pace, by the way, for a $3.4 billion of annual revenue. Well done. If OpenAI did become a for-profit company, what's your prediction for an IPO? They just hired a very well-regarded

person, Sarah Fryer, who was a former CEO of Nextdoor. And as its chief financial officer, she used to work for Square. She's terrific. She dealt with IPOs at Nextdoor as well as Square, as I've said. What is that called now? I forget the new name for Square. I call it Square still. But what do you think about this? Talk about this a little bit. So all of the stuff about the drama at the board and it going back and forth and Sam being fired and then rehired, it's a bit of noise because now OpenAI, in the last six months, they've doubled their revenue base. They're kind of running away with it. And if you look at their run rate right now relative to their valuation, they're actually the most reasonably valued company in AI, despite the fact that they're the leader. They are clearly, clearly putting on their best dress for an IPO because the individual that you reference is an incredibly street, it's like when Google brought in Ruth Peratt and she wasn't there to take them public, but this is a very street-friendly hire. So they're clearly getting

ready for an IPO. And all of the kind of noise around OpenAI, I saw these numbers on how they're doing. They are running away with it. OpenAI right now has their revenue rate, they're like 20% of all AI revenues. You know what they have, Scott? What's that? They've decided to be Google and not Netscape. That's what it is. Decided to be Google and not Netscape.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Netscape had it and then lost it. Google almost lost it and then had it, right? They really pushed aggressively. It's also expanding into healthcare with a cancer co-pilot. It's working with ColorHealth to develop an AI assistant using OpenAI. They're doing deals all over the frigging map. They're like running circles around the competitors.

But go ahead. No, you're exactly right. We have a tendency to focus on the soap opera end of this. But despite all of this distraction, they are growing their revenues faster. Mistral, this company in France, which I think will do well because I think a lot of European companies and regulators would like an AI company in Europe to emerge. But if you look at just sheer revenue growth and size of revenues, it's really right now. It's NVIDIA and OpenAI. It's OpenAI and the seven doors and AI and then in infrastructure, it's NVIDIA and OpenAI. It's OpenAI and the seven doors and AI. And then in infrastructure, it's NVIDIA and just, okay, you know, who are the rest?

I mean, you could argue that Dell and Oracle have done a good job of positioning themselves in the sunlight here. But when I saw these numbers from OpenAI, I'm like, oh, my gosh, kudos to them for being able to, you know, being able to walk and chew gum at the same time because there's been a lot of distraction there. But the revenue, the next thing that we're going to be talking a lot about that people aren't spending a lot of time talking about is just the sheer amount of energy consumption that's going to come from AI.

Guess who has a hydrogen fusion, whatever, Sam Altman. Is that right? He's into little small nuclear devices, just so you know. He's got an answer for everything. And it takes 10 to 17 times the amount of energy to do a query on ChatGPT versus a general search query.

No, I know. That's going to be the next. But that's what he's working on. That's another Sam Altman investment, is energy. Like a lot of, and to sell it to these companies to do that.

He's way ahead. He's making the pickaxes in the gold rush is what's happening. Anyway. There you go. It's not stupid. Not stupid. Anyway, we've got a lot more to discuss on the AI front. So let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Scott Weiner is a California state senator. He introduced an AI regulation bill earlier this year that aims to establish common sense safety standards for AI companies in California. The bill passed through the state senate last month and is now making its way through the state assembly, but it's facing a lot of pushback from AI companies, venture capitalists, and tech trade associations.

Welcome, Scott. Thanks for having me. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. So, it just came out a little while ago, several amendments are getting proposed or added to this AI bill. Not a surprising thing. That's what happens. Talk a little bit about the bill and explain the potential impact of these changes. Let me just say the original bill includes requiring companies to prevent models from causing critical harm, a little unspecific, ensuring systems can be shut down, which that's the one that really seems to drive them crazy, and reporting on safety tests, which seems reasonable enough. So talk a little bit about that bill and the changes. Great. Yeah, so the bill, which actually got some bipartisan support in the Senate,

got a really strong vote. The basic gist of it is that if you're going to train and release a huge model, we define it as larger than 10 to the 26th flop, costing more than $100 million to train, just do some basic safety evaluation and identify if there are potential catastrophic harms. And then if you identify catastrophic risks, then take basic steps to try to reduce those risks, not eliminate them. It's life. You can't reduce risk to zero, but at least reasonable steps to mitigate the risks. The large labs all say that they're doing this or wanting to do this. They keep committing to doing it in Seoul, in the White House, before Congress. And so we are putting it into a law. It does not require government permission or licensing before you train or release a model. It's not government micromanagement in any way. It's simply saying, let's do a safety evaluation.

The amendments that are being proposed by the Assembly Privacy Committee, which will hear the bill this week, are pretty reasonable. They create more flexibility in terms of the size threshold. create more flexibility in terms of the size threshold. We've gotten a lot of feedback from industry and from experts that having a permanent 10 to the 26 flop threshold is not flexible enough. So we provide some more flexibility over time. We require third-party safety audits starting in 2028. And the whistleblower protections will be strengthened. We've always had whistleblower protections in the bill from the very beginning, but they're going to be refined and strengthened. And then the insuring systems can be shut down. Pretty much every techie is like,

that's not, that's ridiculous. That's a ridiculous, it's not even possible. Yeah, so in the bill, it's always been this way, but we've made it more clear recently that the requirement for a shutdown provision or a shutdown aspect to the model is only if the model is in your possession. Once it leaves your possession, you're no longer responsible for ensuring it can be shut down. Cause that's the feedback that we were getting that once I release it, someone else has it. I can't ensure that. So we,

that was always our intent and we made that we made that clear. We also put an amendment in recently that if someone does significant fine tuning then to the bill, then that becomes their model and not the original developer's model. But the pushback is massive for tech people. They're calling you an idiot, essentially. Scott, you know that. I have been called far worse than that. First of all, we have a big coalition behind this bill, including a lot of AI

technologists. We have folks who have started companies. And so it's not, this isn't just me, like I woke up one morning and dreamt this. So we think it's quite feasible. And in fact, they're all saying that they're doing it or wanting to do it. And that's one of the odd things about this. All we're saying is do what you say you want to do, or what you say you are doing, and just certify that you've done it. And it's doable. And it's not government overreach. I think one of the pushbacks is similar to GDPR is that only the big companies will be able to serve you in what you're doing and then the smaller companies.

I know you have that size limit, the size has to get to a certain size, but that's one of the worries, obviously. Yeah, and this is much, much narrower than what the EU has done. Dramatically narrower. It's a safety evaluation. And it only applies to these huge models that effectively exempts out startups. So there's been a narrative

that this is going to be some sort of regulatory capture. I think that's just completely untrue. Okay, Scott, the other Scott. Nice to meet you, Scott. Hi, other Scott. I realize that I'm going to be preaching to the choir here, but you want to put a car, you want to sell a car to the general public, you have to put it through crash test safety standards. What on earth are the arguments here other than saying, well, Sam Altman knows better than a regulator because he speaks in hushed tones.

What are the arguments for not slowing down or at least having some kind of crash test safety dummies here to make sure we're not putting a Ford Pinto times a billion or, you know, what was it, the Corvair unsafe at any speed? What is the pushback that these people can regulate themselves? What are the best arguments? Play the other side. Be Robert McNamara and empathize with the enemy. What are the best arguments that the other side is putting out? Sure. And I do empathize. These are a lot of people who I know really, really well. I represent San Francisco. I'm part of the area right to the south of the city. And so I am surrounded by the AI world every day. And so that's why I will just be clear that we have been intensively meeting with opposition, with folks who are open to supporting skepticism. We've made a series of amendments in response

to constructive feedback. But the lines of argument are, one is just trust us. We'll do it on our own. You don't need to tell us to do it. And as I've made clear, even if you trust all the CEOs and the C-suite folks today, even if you completely trust everyone,

you don't know who's going to be running these companies tomorrow or in a year and what pressures they're going to be facing. The other is an argument that I just don't think is accurate, respectfully. They will say, well, this is like regulating or requiring a safety evaluation for the printing press. It's not about the printing press. It's about what people use it for, because they'll say regulate the application, not the model. Of course, both are very important.

And, you know, and Carrie, you, I'm not trying to brown those or anything, but in your book, you talked about this, that when you build a ship, there is going to be a risk of catastrophic harm, a crash, et cetera. And yes, that can be because of a malicious actor or negligent operation. It could also be because of an inherent flaw or problem in the design, or it could be that the design makes it too easy for someone to maliciously or negligently crash it.

And so we would never say, as you noted, Scott, just focus on the pilot. Regulate the pilot of the plane. Don't regulate the plane itself. You regulate both, and you make sure that both are safe. And you minimize and you reduce risk. You're not going to eliminate risk. You reduce it. Well, they just don't like regulation at all. They don't like any regulation. They're not used

to it because we never have regulated them. So, in a real, in a substantive way, they would argue they have, they are not allowed to murder people yet. Although I would argue some of them do, in some different ways. But what's the timeline looking for a passage? And are you concerned that this bill becomes law, some AI companies will leave California. That's always their threat. They're always on their way out the door. Silicon Valley is an interrupter. I don't think Silicon Valley is one thing, but their tendency is toward non-regulation in just a second. And even someone who I find relatively reasonable met his chief AI scientist, Jan LeCun, who is reasonable, has posted that regulating basic technology would put an end to innovation, which is rather dramatic from him. So what are you worried about? Because look, AI is now reinvigorating San Francisco, who you represent. It really is. You can see the difference

and the excitement and the companies are locating there. OpenAI is creating concentric circles of companies, et cetera. All the AI people are staying in San Francisco. So are you, and Silicon Valley, how do you look at this, this concern that they're going to leave? They're going to Texas or Florida or wherever. Yeah, and to be clear, first of all, I'm a fan of AI. I think it has so much potential for good. And I love that San Francisco is the beating heart of AI innovation. And I've been a supporter of fostering and having a strong tech presence in San Francisco.

There have been some really melodramatic statements, including from Jan, and I have a lot of respect for him. And I have a lot of respect for him. But I think some of his statements and others that made by some other folks have been really extreme and over the top and sometimes have not even accurately described what the bill does. I do not think that this is going to somehow, there's always this statement that we're going to push people out. Even when Elon Musk said he was moving Tesla out, he didn't really move it out. He was expanding Tesla in California. So I don't think that's going to- He's a different character. He is a drama queen, but go ahead. Yes, he is. But I don't see that happening. In addition to the fact that what triggers this bill is not being headquartered in California. It's doing business here. And so the idea that they're not going to even do business in California is sort of laughable. So I don't think that that is a real risk, to be honest. So I would imagine one of the arguments put forward is that China and Russia aren't going to have this type of regulation.

And as a result, they're going to be able to go faster and their AI weaponized warriors will come for our children. Is that an argument? And how would you respond to that? I mean, there is this argument that we have to have bigger and more powerful and more dangerous and more whatever AI models in order to compete with their deadly models. To me, that's probably not the direction we should be going. And just to be clear, this bill does not ban anything.

They can build these powerful models. They can deploy these powerful models. It does not limit them in any way. It just says, do a basic safety test, the kind of test that you say that you are already doing. And if it identifies a real risk that it might shut down the grid for six months, maybe take some step to at least reduce that risk. I don't think that that is lighthouse. They really don't. I feel like I'd love to know what legislation they would want to make. But actually, you know, it goes to a bigger problem, Scott, is why are you doing this, right? Why is the state of California, not you, what the hell are you doing with your life, Scott, but other Scott.

That's a bigger question. But, you know, why is the federal government moving into this? Like, that's really the issue is I know Biden put out the executive order, which has some of these elements in it, by the way, a lot of them include, you know, but any kind of restriction seems should come from the federal government. So we have a we have a consistently across all 50 states and a decision making that isn't done by California legislators as much as you might be the epicenter of it. Oh, I agree with you a thousand percent. It would be better for the federal government to do this. And let's wait and see if the federal government actually ever does it, especially

since Steve Scalise, House Republican majority leader, said, you know said last week that nothing of significance was going to happen. Let's remember that Congress has never passed a data privacy law after all these years. Congress has done nothing on social media. Well, they're trying to do labeling today. But anyway, go ahead. Well, Congress has never enacted a net neutrality law. I authored California's net neutrality law in 2018, thinking maybe I would be preempted at some point in the next few years. It never happened. So other than banning TikTok, the last major piece,

the last major federal tech law that was passed was in the 90s. And so I don't have a lot of confidence. I hope I'm wrong. And if they pass some comprehensive, fantastic federal regulation and maybe preempt our law, that could be a really good result. But they're not doing that right now. Supposedly, you're going to run for the Pelosi seat when she leaves it. I understand. Is that correct? Well, we have a fantastic member of Congress. Is that correct?

Well, we have a fantastic member of Congress. And yeah, whenever she decides, makes her own decision, then I'll definitely, you know, I love representing San Francisco. I want to bring you, I'm not putting you on the spot, but I just did. So you live there and you represent the city. You were my representative in the Castro, for people that are in the city government. You represent the city as state senator. There's been this negative narrative about San Francisco for a while, and I don't think you've pretended it wasn't the troubles were not happening. It's been called a failed city, a dystopian hellscape.

I have to say it's quite vibrant. AI is part of it, AI companies. And it seems like it's on a comeback loop. There's a very exciting mayor's race. It's very competitive and very different visions of San Francisco. Many of them would be considered conservative. Well, it wouldn't be that conservative. But what is your message now for San Francisco's critics? I think that sort of hellscape narrative is sort of moving to a new place because everything's getting better, and things are getting fixed

slowly. Very difficult to be a city in a post-COVID. But what is your message for San Francisco's critics, who are all back, by the way? Yeah. And, you know, there's a national pastime of predicting San Francisco's demise and writing our obituary, people have been doing it for, I don't know, probably 100 years. And this is a city that burned down in an earthquake. Our mayor was assassinated along with Harvey Milk. We were probably the hardest hit from HIV. And everyone over and over again said San Francisco was over. And then we came back.

said San Francisco was over, and then we came back. And so, yeah, we've been going through some tough times, particularly with our downtown, because of the, you know, lack of full return to work. Our neighborhoods are thriving. The neighborhoods are so vibrant. We have amazing, massive outdoor events. Everyone wants to be outside with their friends, with their community.

We are seeing, not just with AI, but with biotech, with healthcare, with a number of different industries, a real surge. And even in the shopping center that was the store closure heard around the world where Nordstrom closed, there are people who are leasing spaces in that shopping center. We, you know, obviously we got hard hit with homelessness and fentanyl, which is affecting all big cities, especially on the West Coast. And Mayor Breed has been doing some, taking some pretty aggressive strategies. And the street conditions are dramatically better than they were a year ago. There's still more work to do, but it's getting better. And I'm optimistic about the city's future. If you were to be elected to federal office, one, do you think that individuals who leverage the infrastructure, the culture, the amazing universities, the public infrastructure,

the public investments that California taxpayers and specifically San Francisco citizens of San Francisco pay such that they can create these unbelievable companies, people aggregate a ton of wealth, and then have a habit of deciding to spend more time with their father or they just can't handle San Francisco any longer, just about the time they're going to recognize an enormous capital gain and they move to Texas or Florida. Would you be open to sponsoring legislation that's similar to options on equity, recognizes where those individuals actually accreted that wealth and applying those taxes such that you could reinvest in the great infrastructure that was responsible for that wealth? That was a word salad, but I think you know where I'm going with this.

And he's not talking about anyone specifically, but go ahead. Well, there's a lot of them, actually. I'm teasing you, Scott. There's a lot of them. Yeah, there are. Yeah, I think I would certainly be open to that. You know, I think there are a lot of people who have made fortunes in California because of our state, and including with public investments in some situations. And I'm glad that they made a fortune.

You know, that's great. But I also think fair taxation is important. And it does. I'm not a fan of the whole make my money there and then leave. Yeah, they like to do that, though. Anyway, Scott, you're a very great public servant. the whole make my money there and then leave. Yeah. They like to do that, though. Anyway, Scott, you're a very great public servant. I really enjoy talking to you.

You're quite a sensible fellow. People always have this idea of San Francisco legislators. It's very different from reality. How old are you, Scott? 54. So another 50 years, you can run for Pelosi's seat. Jesus Christ. Churn, folks.

We need churn. Bring in this, bring in this incredibly young, reckless 54-year-old for God's sakes. Yeah. Sorry. That was an endorsement in case you didn't recognize it.

Thank you. Thank you. I do have to say, I spend quite a bit of time around Nancy Pelosi and I pray to God that I am half as sharp as she is.

She really is. I got to tell you. I mean, she is. Ladies are not like the old guys. An impressive woman. An impressive woman. She still is. She's an extraordinary person.

She really is, Scott. She's going to now kill you. Let's crown her legacy. Anyways. She's now going to kill you. Just watch out. She's going to take you down. That's not someone who is old in any way. Anyway, but nonetheless, you're right.

Churn, as Scott says. Scott, thank you so much. Other Scott. Thanks, Scott. We appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me. All right, Scott, do you like the other Scott? He's impressive, isn't he? Yeah, I hope. And this goes back to what we were saying about the NSA. I know a lot of people in our security apparatus. This is who these people are. Incredibly well-credentialed, security apparatus, this is who these people are. Incredibly well-credentialed, incredibly hardworking people, people who decide to give up a lot more money to go work in service of their

nation. And the fact that people on the far left are suspicious of them and dismissive of them, and people on the far right think there's some sort of like, I don't know, weird... And these are the people protecting your rights to say these batshit crazy things and have a decent quality of life. And they really do deserve our respect. And I can't stand the extremists on the left and on the right that all unify to shitpost people on our security apparatus. Not just Paul, but just, and Scott too. I mean, I think one of the reasons I want to bring him on is like, he's considered conservative in San Francisco, though he's not, right?

He's just reasonable. And I think one of the things that's important is like, let's take a fucking second and actually meet these people and show what kind of work they're doing instead of making everyone a cartoon character of a city or a country. Including on the right, by the way, saying, I just interviewed Brad Raffensperger, the one who pushed back on Trump, very conservative, but incredible public servant, incredible public servant. And I wouldn't vote for him, but incredible public servant.

Also, I hope the general makes a shit ton of money. I'd like to see him. That's exactly the kind of person that makes General Nakasone. It's the kind of person I'd like to see make a lot of money. Absolutely. Scott, one more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. Okay, Scott, let's hear some wins and fails. Would you like to go first or I can? You go first, Cara. So I was going to talk about the Mississippi nonprofit newsroom facing the free press challenge, which you must read about this. This is the free press challenge, which you must read about this. This is the Mississippi Press. They're doing amazing work, and they are getting pilloried by Republicans who just don't like, they never question the work. They just want to stop them in their tracks by

gumming up the works with all kinds of legal fees. I was going to talk about that. But actually, I want to talk about a story that's in the Wall Street Journal. I think, Scott, this is something that's important to you, too. But this is an, the influencer is a young teenage girl. The audience is 92% adult men. This story is, it's not a surprise. And it's not, it's not something that I was, oh, no, but it was an incredible explanation of how difficult it is, one, for these tech companies to push back against all these men and the people who are doing this stuff online, young people, how it's very hard to protect them. And at the same time, in order to be successful, you have to have a lot of

engagement. And the people that have engagements around young girls are more men. Let me read the first part, and you must read the story. The mom started the Instagram account three years ago as a pandemic-era diversion away for her and her daughter, a pre-teen dancer, to share photos with family, friends, and other young dancers and moms. The two bonded, she said, as they posted photos of the girl dancing, modeling, and living life in a small Midwestern town. The mom, a former marketing manager, oversaw the account and watched as the number of followers grew. Soon, photographers offered to take professional shots for the girl. Brands began sending free apparel for her to model.

We didn't even have a page for a month, and brands were like, can we send her dancewear? The mom said she became popular really fast. The mom also began to notice a disturbing trend in the data that showed up on the account dashboard. Most of the girl's followers were adult men. And then it gets worse from there in terms of their comments and everything else. And she kept blocking them and kept blocking them and all kinds of stuff was happening. And it was, it's a fucking tale as old as time, but boy, is it amplified online. And it's, it's, I don't know what to say. It's just not a surprise and yet it's repulsive.

I just, I don't, you know. You can't use these tools without immediately becoming a sewer in so many ways. So there's a big story today about putting warnings on social media sites, by the way. I've got to read about it, but we'll talk about that maybe on stage this week, tomorrow. So anyway, that was a really disturbing story. On the positive side, Bridgerton this season is so good. Oh, you love it? So good. I binge watched it on the TV. Now look, all the boobs and sex are adult. So you know what I mean? It's for adults. It's sexy. It's like fun. They have a whole thing about a girl that's a wallflower who then becomes the

star of this season. She's amazing, by the way. And she does talk about her terrific boobs, which are, she is correct about that. Anyway, just a really fun, wonderful show. I love that show. And I love it every season. And they focus on a different person. And the woman, I don't know her name, who plays the queen, cracks the shit out of me. She's so funny. And so Shonda Rhimes, you are the OG best person ever. I'm sorry. It's the Shonda Rhimes show on Netflix. And man, is it good. All right, that's it. Just with respect to that article on the influencer in the Wall Street Journal, like this conference we're at, it used to be an advertising conference, but it's the same thing. It's tech. And that is the fact that men and a lot of women

are very drawn towards sex and anything connoting sex. That's a tale as old as time. It's a big part of our economy because propagation is something that's a key to survival of the species. But what we also, generally speaking, have decided as a society is that we're going to limit the exposure, engagement, and threat of these things that can lead dark places to people under the age of 18. And then came Instagram. Instagram begins from a place of perversion, and that is all of the incentives for young people to get on Instagram, especially for young women, are to sexualize themselves such that a group of their peers and strange men, in this instance, 92% of the engagement, are to be evaluated by strange men from around the world evaluating the sexual attractiveness of a minor. We used to decide that's not cool. That is not right. That leads to bad places. And this entire article is nothing but, again, let's move to solutions. We need to age-gate social media. Yes, I would agree with you. I was sickened by this story.

But every incentive is like a path towards put on a bathing suit, show up without a bra in a loose shirt and jump around. And all of a sudden your video is going to get 10 times the number of videos. And you need to age-gate this shit. Don't put kids in a position where they are seduced into sexualizing themselves as minors. And don't create incentives for the parents. Don't create incentives for men to feel like they're not doing anything wrong when they start engaging in content with minors. This is on social media. I couldn't get into R-rated films when I was 16 and 17. There was a reason for that. And one of the things, can I just make out, there's another story today in the post that I thought was good. TikTok lifted this family out of public housing, see their life before and after. So in a lot of ways, this is kind of great business, great entrepreneurship, great this, great that, great opportunities for people, especially in the fun stuff, the dancing, the makeup. I kind of like it in that regard. I don't think it's as stupid as other people do,

but immediately degenerates. And honestly, there's nothing—I feel terrible for these tech companies, too, because there's no way to—there's—just not having it is the—like, someone's like, how do you stop it? I'm like, not having it is the only choice because I don't even know what the solution. Age gating is the only solution, not allowing them on these platforms. But just around the revenue argument, okay, Tracy Lourdes made a shit ton of money for a 16-year-old by being in porn, and that was wrong. And we had age limits, and it almost brought down the porn industry as it should have because people recognized there was no real concerted effort to check her true age. All paths lead to the same place. And I think we'll eventually get there. I was talking to someone and I said, how old are your kids? And they said, six and nine. I'm like, by the time your kids are ready for social media,

we will have, as a society, finally gotten our head out of our ass and realized that anyone under the age of 16 should not be on social media and any platform that is letting 16 and 17 year old people be sexualized should be subjected to should not be protected by 230 and not this is this is just this leads nowhere good and yeah some people won't make as much money okay fine would you what what would you have your 16-year-old girl do for money? This shouldn't be it. And it has to be universal. It has to be collective action because if you try and take everyone and all the people who say, well, just take their phone away, do not have children because if all your kids' friends are on social, they have to be social. Otherwise, they're more depressed because they're ostracized. All roads lead to the same place. We need to get your friend Scott elected. Age gating, for God's sakes. I'm come around, especially with my daughter. I'm like, I felt sick to my stomach reading this.

Anyway, what are your wins and fails? Well, I kind of have what I'll call two wins. But Team England beat Serbia 1-0. Not a huge win, but I think we're just not showing our cards to the competition. I'm, of course, talking about the European Championship here. But Team England, my favorite players, Bukayo Saka from Arsenal, Cole Palmer, who's just this kid wonder who plays for Chelsea. Jude Bellingham won the goal last night, but it's going to be just an amazing tournament. Super excited about it. I would also say, and I'm not going to go into specifics here, but to fans from England who've made the trip to Germany, Premier League football is probably one of England's strongest exports. It's going to build tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. When you're just not a good guest in their country, you're really hurting England. And this is, of all of the industries that are emerging in the UK, something that the UK does really well is the Prem,

Premier League. And just as the NBA and the NFL have been huge economic drivers in the United States, it could be a huge economic driver. Anyways, I'm excited about the European Championship and Team England. My fail, I'm at that age, Cara, and just a quick shout out. All my friends' parents are passing away, and I have a nice story. My best friend is a guy named Lee Lotus, who I met in college. He was the best man at my wedding. His husband is a godparent to my oldest, Alec. His father, Lee Sr., is doing very poorly and will likely pass soon. And there was a couple moments I remember with his father. His father came and visited Lee and me. We were living together in San Francisco, and Lee had a kidney

stone. So, me and Lee, he said, will you do some with my dad? So, of course, me and Lee's father went to see the USS Pomponito, which is that submarine in the Fisherman's Wharf. It's great. But this guy was a man's man. He had a furniture store. He was one of the people that gave me the confidence to start a business. And I remember going visiting him at the furniture store, and he would be so focused on detail. And I think that stuck with him. It's the little things that matter.

Stuck with you. Stuck with you things that matter. Stuck with you. Stuck with you, not him. Stuck with you. Stuck with me. But the one thing I remember the most was this guy looked like Burt Reynolds. Like when you were a young man, you looked at this guy. He was just so handsome. Married the same woman, Carolyn Lotus, for 60 plus years.

But this guy was so good looking. And I remember this exact moment. He walked into Lee's apartment. He shook my hand and he turned to Lee. And you know what they did? They kissed. And I thought, oh my God, I've never, they kissed on the lips like Italian people do sometimes. And it seems so natural and so wholesome. And I remember thinking, and I came from a background where men just did not kiss each other. And I remember thinking that if a guy who looks like Burt Reynolds

can kiss his son, I can kiss mine. And I, I kiss my sons because of Lee. Oh, Scott, you kill me. You're killing me. This is what people love about you, Scott, when you go here.

I'll tell you. Anyway, this guy, this guy man's man, kissed his son. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to kiss you on the lips tomorrow. That's what I'm doing. With that porcelain skin? Yes, with my perfect skin. I'm going to kiss you on the lips live on the French Riviera.

That's a beautiful story, Scott. Yes, that's a beautiful story. I'm so sorry. That sounds like a life well lived. It really is a beautiful story, Scott. Yes, that's a beautiful story. I'm so sorry. That sounds like a life well lived. It really is a wonderful guy. Anyway, I don't know what to say. That's a great story. Let's just end on that.

So we want to hear from you. Send us your questions about business tech. You almost made me cry, Scott, but not quite. Not quite. Or whatever's on your mind. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show

or call 855-51-PIVID okay Scott that's the show we're launching a special series tomorrow on the future of travel a three part series

on where we look at the business and tech trends affecting travel from planes to trains and automobiles tomorrow we kick it off with a look at the future

of high speed rail that was a cool show and why other countries have better trains than we do. They all do. And we started the whole train thing. No, we didn't. But nonetheless, we should have better trains.

Then on Friday, we're bringing you our episode taped live at Cannes. We're very excited. Scott, read us out. Today's show is produced by Larry Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Aaliyah Jackson engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Milsa Vario. Nishat Krua is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show

wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Dads, kiss your sons. Scott, happy Father's Day.

Likewise to you, Tara and Amanda.