The Vergecast - Netflix is turning into YouTube

Episode Date: July 10, 2026

Netflix makes shows. And movies. And podcasts. And games. And… YouTube videos, apparently. So what even is Netflix anymore? Nilay and David have ideas. After that, they talk about Meta’s ongoing smart glasses mess, and whether Meta or anyone can make these devices work. Finally, it's time for Brendan Carr, RAMageddon, the state of X, and a dumb TV mystery. Further reading: Bloomberg: ⁠Netflix Viewers Are Abandoning Shows After One Season⁠ ⁠Of course viewers are giving up on Netflix shows ⁠ ⁠Netflix is about to host videos from BuzzFeed, Condé Nast, and other publishers⁠ ⁠Netflix Bets on Short Videos to Compete With YouTube - Business Insider⁠ ⁠Netflix's video podcast engagement numbers 'are low,' per insider⁠ ⁠Emmy Nominations List 2026: BEEF, The Diplomat, The Beast in Me, Black Rabbit, and More - Netflix Tudum⁠ ⁠If Microsoft sold off Xbox, who would even buy it?⁠ ⁠Meta is reportedly working on smart glasses that would be recording all the time ⁠ ⁠Meta’s glasses will turn off the camera if you tamper with the privacy light ⁠ ⁠Solos debuts an even lighter version of its camera-less smart glasses ⁠ ⁠Boz describes how Meta’s smart glasses facial recognition feature would work. ⁠ ⁠Another verdict on camera glasses in court: nope! ⁠ ⁠ABC tells the government to get out of its newsrooms⁠ ⁠Meta’s new Muse Image model can pull other Instagram users into AI photos ⁠ ⁠You can (and should) opt out of letting people use your Instagram posts with Meta’s AI.⁠ ⁠Are you ready for what it takes to stop ghost guns?⁠ ⁠Vizio accidentally made the best dumb TV on the market⁠ ⁠PC shipments fell for the first time in over two years thanks to RAMageddon. ⁠ ⁠A tough chart about the RAM crisis. ⁠ ⁠Subscribe to The Verge⁠ for unlimited access to ⁠theverge.com⁠, subscriber-exclusive newsletters, and our ⁠ad-free podcast feed⁠.We love hearing from you! Email your questions and thoughts to ⁠[e-mail]⁠ or call us at 866-VERGE11. (Timestamps are approximate.) 00:01:00 Intro 00:04:00 Netflix Identity Crisis 00:08:00 Creators Versus Netflix 00:15:00 Netflix Buys YouTube Videos 00:18:00 Go90 Scale Check In 00:19:00 Netflix Should Buy Xbox 00:28:00 Smart Glasses Panopticon 00:46:00 Backlash And Offline Tech 00:49:00 Smart Glasses Without Cameras 00:55:00 FCC Chilling Effect 01:03:00 Ramageddon Price Shock 01:07:00 Regulating Ghost Guns 01:14:00 X Product Reality Check 01:20:00 Vizio Dumb TV Mystery 01:25:00 Wrap Up And Plugs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for today's show comes from Atio, the AI CRM for modern teams. Some companies pick a CRM because they have to. Others pick one because it helps them win. That's Atio. Every signal from emails and meetings to product usage sinks into a live picture of every account from day one. Atio's revenue agents instantly prospect and route leads and draft outreach and follow-ups in your voice. others call it an unfair advantage. You just call it your next move.

You can go to atio.com slash vergecast and you'll get 15% off your first year. That's a t-t-t-I-O dot com slash vergecast. Hello and welcome to the verge cast, the flagship podcast of the Vox Media Podcast Network. If you just ignore all the other corporate shenanigans, that remains true. Yep.

And here we are. I'm a friend David Pierce, Neil Eppeshouse here. Hey, buddy. What's up? You're home for once. After a month of extremely fancy hotel rooms, you're back in, you know, your lowly old house. Yeah, I'm back in my attic next to my daughter's room. At any moment, you can hear her singing Taylor Swift.

That's what our summer has been. What does she think about the MSG wedding? She's more excited about her iPod. So I showed her pictures of the wedding. And she's like, great, good for Taylor. But she, you know, she's going to camp like eight-year-olds do in the summer. and she wanted to listen to music on the bus on the way to camp. And some of her

friends on the bus have like little Android music players. There's like kid music players. Some people have phones without SIM cards in them. It's that time in the parenting journey for me. It will come for you, David. And I was like, I'm not doing any of this. We are delaying

phone and phone-like objects as long as we can. And so I dug out one of my old iPods that we actually retrofitted for a YouTube video ages ago with an SSD and a new battery. I've been debating doing this for my own purposes. Yeah, so, I mean, we had it because we just did this for video ages ago.

And I had to remember how to download MP3s. I'm not going to say how or why. I did that. But it was completely legal. It's all you need to know. I was like, I pay for every streaming service. You know? Yeah.

I pay for every streaming service. I would like it on the record, Your Honor. I pay for every streaming service. I've done my economic duty to the artists of America and I do it every month at high rates, ever-increasing rates. Anyhow, so we gave her an iPod and we put a bunch of music on it.

It is the worst selection, outside of Taylor Swift, who I will concede is America's finest living songwriter. Shout out Walt Mossberg, who believes this with every fiber of his being. One of all the better takes. It is. I agree. I think she's right up there.

It's a bunch of Disney's direct-to-stores. streaming musical soundtracks, and I could not be unhappier about this. And so we plugged in the headphones, and now it's over there, but you might hear it coming through the wall at any moment. This is very different from being in the south of France. Is she old enough to have a conversation with me about which of the high school musicals is the best high school musical? Oh, we haven't gotten there yet. We are at zombies and descendants and my friend, the

ill-fated crossover musical experience. Okay, this is, this is big yikes. This is, I'm in the sweet spot of we are at Spidey and his amazing friends and we are appearing to be stuck there for some time and this is terrific news in my household. I have no, we are not pushing past this until we're ready for like, you know, the exorcists.

We're just going to stick with Spidey until then. It's going to be amazing. Good luck because once it comes for you, it's all over and you're like, can we just listen to Taylor Swift again? That's actually a thing I say all the time. I mean, you and you and everybody else, it turns out,

If you have thoughts about the wedding, by the way, I want to hear them. I'm very conflicted on. I need to hear everybody's thoughts. Virgcast at the verge.com. Tell us how you feel. I'm dead serious about this. We have a bunch of stuff we should talk about today. There's a lot of Netflix stuff going on.

There's a lot of meta-smart glasses stuff going on. Brendan remains. Brendan is going on at all times. Some deeply silly Instagram AI shenanigans that we should get into. But let's start with Netflix. I think we've spent a lot of time talking about streaming services on this show. And we have this thing called the Go-90 scale of streaming services, right?

And it is essentially... Doom streaming services. Right, sorry. The Go-90 scale of Doom streaming services. And the idea is, if you are a 90, like the Verizon Streaming Service Go-90, you are dead. If you are a zero, that's the best, most vibrant, most alive you can possibly be. And we have had Netflix at a zero for a very long time. Yeah.

to tick it up on the scale a little bit. Oh, my. In part because there's just been a bunch of news this week that suggests that Netflix is slowly losing its mind and is starting to flail uncontrollably in a lot of a direction. And that is what happens right before things start to get really ugly. Let me just throw a couple at you. So the biggest story of the week in sort of media tech circles

was this Bloomberg report about how Netflix has this huge problem where it will have a hit first season of a show and then lose a vast quantity of the audience on the second season. And there are a bunch of examples of this. I think Beef was the one with the strongest drop-off. Hugely successful first season, big, Zite Geistie Show, won a lot of awards. The second season, by all accounts, very good. I didn't watch it.

And neither did anybody else. But this is a recurring theme at Netflix, apparently, and they're struggling to figure out what to do about it and how to solve this problem. Everybody has theories about this. People are talking about this all week. Then next to that, there's news that Netflix is, A, expanding its podcast operations, including deals with folks at the Vox Media Podcast Network. Shout out to Charlie Harding, friend of the Vergecast, who's Switched on Pop is going to be on Netflix.

Amazing. Sometimes soon. Yeah, big win for Charlie. We love Charlie. Go listen to and watch Switched on Pop. But they're also doing just straight up what I would call YouTube videos. They made a deal with a bunch of publishers, including our potential soon-to-be parent company. It's all very confusing.

I don't understand any of it. You can do the disclosure if you'd like to. I'm going to try. Go ahead. To basically take, in many cases, is existing videos that were made for other social platforms and just put them on Netflix. And the Emmy nominations were this week,

there's been a bunch of new information coming in earnings and such that suggests that even as Netflix continues to grow, people are spending less time on Netflix. There's just, the thing I wrote at the top of this Google Doc is what is Netflix anymore? And I feel like if I am asking this question, maybe we're not at a zero on the go-90 scale of doom streaming services anymore. Yeah, I think that's right.

Netflix is the subscription that you definitely had is no longer a given. I think that's right. Right? That's what kept it at zero on the doom scale for so long was if you were going to have one subscription, it was almost certainly Netflix. I think what you are describing is not what is Netflix anymore. It's, boy, how fast is Netflix going to turn into YouTube? Right. And is that maybe the goal?

Like it sure looks like that is not just a thing that's accidentally happening, but that might be affirmatively the plan. And there are a lot of reasons that's really hard to do. It's really, no one has succeeded in doing that. To be clear, no one has ever succeeded in doing that. You know, I did just come back from Cannes. I listened to so many creators at that event, talk about advertising and talking about reaching audiences.

They all make long YouTube videos. and they've integrated the advertising into the videos very directly. They market products. This is the thing. And the two pieces of the creator economy that are booming are Instagram and YouTube. Like, those are the things.

Those are the formats that people operate in. And TikTok is actually pretty secondary, like in really interesting ways. Is that just because there's no money in it? Like, still, to this day, no one has figured out how to make any money on TikTok. It's a discovery mechanism for other platforms. I mean, that's one argument.

I think, I mean, there are TikTokers to make a lot of money. Like Charlie DeMilio, exactly. Right? Sure. There are TikTokers who do brand deals on that platform in big ways, but the idea that the audiences are growing or that you can reach new audiences or you can experiment in new formats

or you can light up new channel. Like, TikTok is so interest graph-driven and it really does not have any follow graph that the creators sort of flocked back to YouTube in real ways. And that means things like backrooms happen as YouTube phenomenons. And then Netflix gets to participate in that later at more expensive economics. Whereas YouTube gets to grow the talent,

that then becomes the Hollywood talent. And I think if you're Netflix, you're kind of looking at this. You're like, okay, the future of this industry is a bunch of creators who control all of the attention and all the cultural capital today. They're nowhere near our platform. And the only time we will get a hold of them is later when they have the cachet and the influence and the money to make bigger budget things. And then we have to pay really high rates to get those bigger budget things.

And then we're going to charge people for that. and we'll just be late, because those creators are also available for free on Instagram and YouTube and TikTok, and we had better go get a piece of that early. And I think all of this flailing is a response to that. Netflix does not have anything close to what you would call a creator strategy.

No. That's just not the thing that they do. And if you think that's where the action is, if you think creators are where the future of the cultural industries are, you would better do something and you might as well just fire a bunch of stuff at the wall, including paying for YouTube videos.

Why not? The question is whether that's worth the ever-increasing amount of money that Netflix charges customers to be on its platform at all compared to YouTube, which somewhat famously is free. Yeah. Although YouTube premium, I would say, even as it goes through its own unbelievably large series of price increases, remains the best deal in streaming. And it's not particularly close. Oh, yeah, that's the true zero now. Yeah, I honestly think that's right. And so this is the thing, right? I think, you know, you can put a lot of pieces together and figure out how Netflix got here, right? Like you go way back to the idea that Netflix's main competitor was sleep. This company has been obsessed with time spent in the service for a really long time.

And to some extent, I get that. And then they've also made a bunch of other moves that suggest that that is the thing that they're after. They said they weren't into sports and then they got into sports. They said they weren't doing gaming and then they got into gaming and they're increasingly into gaming. And this service is just a place to go to do entertainment, which is fine and good. But like you said, that puts them in a very different competitive space with a bunch of gigantic platforms with impossible resources that are well established in this space that you just can't compete with. Like the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years trying to take down YouTube even in some small way have all been wasted. It just hasn't worked.

And so for Netflix to say, we want to be the shiny entertainment thing made sense to me, right? That it was like the race was how do we become HBO before HBO becomes Netflix? And it actually made sense a while back that the thing to aspire to was to be HBO. And that if you could be HBO and become the factory of great shows, all the rest of your problems solved themselves. So to me, it's like, I look at this and either if you're Netflix, you don't think you can win that game anymore by making the most best shows. which I think in a lot of ways is demonstrably true at this point. The best shows are not on Netflix. And also look at it and say, okay, we need to continue to be the biggest thing in the world to support our unbelievable investment in everything.

We just have to go eat up minutes in people's day, whatever that looks like. And that just runs you directly into YouTube and TikTok. And I think that is a losing game for Netflix in a big, big way. Yeah. I mean, again, the problem for every media business, of every kind, not news websites or whatever, like every literal media business, the thing that makes content,

that's your business. You're up against an army of teenagers who will work for free. It is the problem. You just have to stare at it and say most people on their phones, on their home screens, have Instagram and YouTube.

And the economics of Instagram and YouTube are an army of teenagers who will work for free. And they make infinity content. Okay. Like, what are you going to do about that? Something. It has to be something.

The two things Netflix has always said about itself that you've described. One, our only competition is sleep, and we have to become HBO before HBO comes up, have always been in absolute opposition to each other. Interesting. Our only competition is sleep means they have to just have stuff. Right. A huge array of stuff that commands your attention and keeps you from playing video games and keeps you from opening TikTok. And that means eventually they're going to make video games, which they did. And eventually they're going to have YouTube videos and podcasts, which they do.

And they've picked that one. They did not pick, we will have the best quality content. They just didn't. And Netflix has gotten really numeric about it. The New York Times did a profile of Dan Lynn, who runs the studio now. Here's the quote. Mr. Lynn is a reversion to the norm. He knows what works on the service and how much each movie should cost.

And there's little he's willing to budge on, no matter how big a star is. Wow. I mean, the whole profile is like, he's like, I say no. I say no and I'm like, this is how much you can get and you're going to hold to this budget and like he reorganized how their studio works

and it is it's like quant stuff. You know what I mean? Like it is financial engineering to make the content. And people like working with him because he's honest, which is a rarity in Hollywood.

Sure. It's the other part of the profile. We'll link it. You can read it. It's really good. But I think that's very different than we charge you a lot of money to show you the best stuff.

Right. And it's a fundamentally different creative proposition too, right? It is, it is like ruthless execution on a series of numbers as opposed to actual creative execution. I mean, Ryan Broderick, our friend over at Garbage Day, wrote a good thing about this that is like Netflix, because of that exact approach that you're describing, has become sort of a trailing indicator of what's cool and interesting and not leading any of it, right? Like you can look at something on Netflix and see what was trending 18 months ago when they started production on it. Yeah.

And that everything is sort of a copy of a copy of a copy of something that worked on Netflix. And Netflix's movies, frankly, have been like that for some time. It's why, like, Dwayne The Rock Johnson just does that movie over and over and over again on Netflix. But it shows, at least for a long time, didn't feel like that. And they're not all like that. There's still some good stuff on Netflix. But it does, like, if you are going to run your business that way, you are going to run a very particular kind of business

that is not the, like, big swing creative thing that Netflix seemed to want to be for a really long time. There's just some part of this where the, you know, there's a big drop-off between season one and season two of a Netflix show that runs right into Netflix's best when it's buying the content from networks that are good at this. Yes. It's not like there's a bunch of Hollywood talent

that's all locked up at great jobs right now. And is totally against the idea of making more episodes of television. Yeah, like it feels like you could be like, all right, we're going to set up a studio to do it like NBC did in the 90s, maybe at lower rates, right? We're not going to pay every single cast member of friends a million dollars per episode. Sure. But like, we're going to make 22-minute-long sitcoms and make 60 episodes of that in a season

and do it again the next year and just market that thing so that you have to watch Netflix. But it seems like they have decided. the economics of that don't work, and the economics of buying YouTube videos do. And that seems upside down to me for some reason. Well, the argument for Netflix in this case would be that it is such a good distributor, right? Like, I've done a lot of reporting on recommendation algorithms over the years. And one of the things that is sort of seemingly true about Netflix is that it has done a better job than just about anybody else of putting content into a recommendation machine to put the right thing in front of you at the right time. It is very good at that.

What it has not had is the raw volume of content to do that with that something like YouTube has. And so maybe for Netflix what they're saying is like, well, we know what you want to watch. We just don't have it on the service. Let's go get it all on the service. And then we can put it in front of you. And I think like I can see the spirit of that theory. I just feel like it doesn't hold up the minute you tell me that I came here to watch, you know, beef, which I didn't. And instead you're going to show me a bunch of old BuzzFeed YouTube videos because structurally to you, that's the same thing.

Like, I just don't, I don't think that's right. Right. That's a company that believes what they do is distribute content, not sell you TV and movies. And that is a mistake. Okay. Let me put two ideas next to you. Okay. One, YouTube is going to end up incentivizing its creators to make things that look like TV faster than Netflix will get to having enough stuff that looks like YouTube. I think that's right.

I mean, YouTube is already well down that road. It's making those kinds of shows. It's rebuilt the TV app to look like a television streaming service. Yeah, YouTube will confidently tell you that it's growing faster on TV than any other platform. Yeah. This is the new race. Like before it was, we had to become HBO before they become us, then it was our only competition is sleep. And now, and you and I are saying it very much feels like Netflix is that we have to

overtake YouTube before YouTube overtakes us. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. If you were, if you were to handicap that race, YouTube is well ahead. So where would you put Netflix on the Go-90 scale of Doom streaming services? I mean, it's like it's in the low single digits, right? It's like a two or a three. But I think it is just meaningful to me that it doesn't, I don't know what Netflix is anymore. Like, I don't know what the value prop of Netflix is in my life anymore. But you look at all those shows and some of them are good and I've seen a bunch of them. none of those are like the shows of the year, right? Like even looking at the Emmys, it's like,

Plybis was a show a lot of people talked about. Widows Bay was a huge hit a lot of people talked about. The Pit is probably the show of the year for the second year running, which is pretty impressive. It just,

Netflix is not a thing you sort of have to go to. It's a thing you just sort of have in the background. And boy, is that just already YouTube. Yeah. Here's my second one. Oh, yeah. Hit me.

Here's my hottest take. Okay. Netflix should buy Xbox. Wow, is that not where I thought that was going? Okay. Make the case. Netflix should buy Xbox. Hit me with it.

Well, we'll start from the Xbox side of the house. Xbox is a disaster. And I know this because the people running Xbox keep issuing memos saying it's a disaster. Yes. Right? Asher Sharma just put out the big memo being like, I got to reset this whole thing. thing, we don't make enough money. I think she said something like, for every dollar we put into Xbox, we lose 68 cents.

Seems bad. That is one of the worst businesses I've heard of at massive scale in this industry. Oh, wait, it was 64 cents. Shit. 64, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That extra four cents is really, and the calculus of Microsoft is really going to, you can buy three more GPUs over the course of one year.

That's a bad business. And she is stripping it way down. Yeah. Right? You can see that she's spinning off the big studios. She's firing people at all the other studios that she's keeping. And she's focusing her energy on, like, Minecraft and, like, the big multi-service games that kind of print money. And she wants to be at a billion players a day.

Don't we all? Which is a huge number. I think the Vergecast should be one of the platforms that entertains billions of people a day. A billion players a day is my favorite Fat Joe song, actually. Sorry. That's a good joke. Anyhow, and you can get there. I know there's like Andrew Rupster wrote for us a big piece being like that this number is big.

And like he's like, this whole plan doesn't make any sense. And basically the answer is this number is really big and you can't get there. Even if you count candy crush, right? And all the other sort of big casual games that they have, that's a huge goal that you have to get to. I think the reason that you would say that goal, which is I think impossible for Microsoft to reach with its current economics and commitment to AI over everything else is that you have to pump a lot of money in the system and do a lot of marketing and you have to compete with sleep. You have to say, we're going to win in all of these places over every other kind of entertainment.

Right. Such that you're going to play a game, probably on a phone. Netflix has been desperate to get itself on your phone. True. Yeah. They are desperate to get on your phone. That is why they've done games. It's why they've revamped their mobile app to be more TikToky.

It's probably why they're doing podcasts and stuff now, right? This is inherently mobile content than people are watching their phones. Well, why not just buy the gaming company and capture a bunch of that additional attention? You would have license then as Netflix to continue the sort of spin out of studios, but you are already really good at knowing what content to license and put in front of a bunch of people as a distributor and recommend the right stuff to the right people at the right time. and then you would body up against the phone platforms, which basically killed Microsoft's ambitions to do game streaming

and find ways to turn your phone into an Xbox, and say, look, you want Netflix here, you want Netflix and all your other platforms. We need to put games in the Netflix app in some way that is economically viable for us. And there's a lot of regulators around the world who are going to look more kindly upon Netflix needing to do this than Microsoft. Yes, because it is Netflix's actual business.

Because it's Netflix's actual business, And they're, I think, to Microsoft, they're like, yeah, file lawsuits. Let's see what happens. Yeah. Right. But I think Netflix has a much stronger case to say, look, we need to expand the range of entertainment options, and these platform policies are keeping us from doing it. And you would just get, maybe they don't care about the console hardware.

You would get the ecosystem of creatives that make games to drive whatever IP that you need to drive in all the studios and all the things need to. They are probably the most. logical home for Xbox if you believe the future of entertainment has interactivity in gaming at the center. Which I want to say I do not. Yeah. But many, many, many people do.

Correct. My favorite thing about this is everything you just said makes perfect sense. And I believe with absolute confidence that if that happens, it will go disastrously badly. Yes. Like, you just made such a compelling argument that I suspect is being made in the offices of Netflix. at this moment, and probably, frankly, at a bunch of other companies like this, like if you think David Ellison

is not going to try to roll up Xbox into Paramount, Warner, CNN, whatever it's going to be. Oh, David Ellison talks a lot about gaming. Yeah. Boy, is that guy I love to talk about gaming. Yeah. For all the reasons you just described, and I think it would just,

the cultures of those two things could not be further away from one another in a way that I think anyone who has tried to back their way into becoming a gaming company has found it very hard to do so. Oh, I think Sony managed to get enormous value from owning Sony movie studios

and they put the Spider-Man font on the PS3. They did. That was great. They did. And Sony, a famously spectacular business that everyone should try and emulate it right now. All right, we should switch gears. If you have another idea for who should buy Xbox,

I want to hear it because I think the idea that all of the, this is happening for Xbox to be sold to somebody. Eli, A, I think you were kind of there first, but this is in the ether now, and I want to know who you think should buy Xbox. We should take a break, and then we're going to come back, and I have a bunch of mean things to say about smart classes. We'll be right back.

Support for the show comes from Framer. If your team wants a website that looks and feels handcrafted, but is still fast to ship, Framer is built for that. You design on a visual canvas with responsive layouts, hosting, and a CMS built in, so the work is production ready from day one. Agents work alongside you to draft pages and polish sections, then you review and publish what goes live. Framer is the pro site builder for creators, teams, and businesses that want a professional site and care enough to get every detail right. Agents solve the gap between

AI-generated ideas and production-ready website work. Learn how you can get more out of your site from a Framer specialist, or get started building for free today at framer.com slash verge for 30% off a Framer pro annual plan. That's framer.com slash verge for 30% off. Framer.com slash verge. Rules and restrictions may apply. What is happening? What am I seeing? This is not real. I'm like, what is that? Unexplainable, the show about everything we don't know is coming. to Netflix. Come on.

You're not serious, right? It's real. Oh my gosh. I'm freaking up. We'll still be getting into all the huge questions that can take over your life. Are there different ways that humans might be dead? Do we live inside of an enormous black hole? Why do we cry?

What if I eat it? But now, we're going to be able to show you all sorts of things we never could before. You really have no choice but to just let your mom. Mind go wild. Unexplainable is going to have new video episodes every Monday on Netflix, with new audio episodes still dropping every Monday and Wednesday. Unexplainable.

A podcast from Vox. Now on Netflix. Support for the show comes from Rippling. Retaining your best employees should always be top of mind, especially if they are in high demand. And while it's impossible to predict the future, Rippling AI can help you identify who might be a flight risk. That's because Rippling AI is built on your live global workforce data,

giving you full visibility into your business and the ability to stay ahead of the curve. Say you want to retain top talent, just ask Rippling AI, who are my top performers this year, and instantly receive a workforce report highlighting your top employees with supporting data like recent performance reviews and engagement metrics. But it doesn't stop there. Rippling AI can turn these insights into a proposed retention strategy, including a recommended 10% spot bonus for top performers. All you have to do is tap confirm and a spot bonus is added to next month's pay run.

So don't settle for AI, that's all talk. Head to rippling.aI slash verge and get AI that turns insight into action. That's r-i-p-p-l-n-g.a-i-slash-Vurge. Sign up for exclusive access today. All right, we're back. Nilai, big week for Nilai Patel's smart glasses panopticon. This is the facial recognition nightmare that is coming for us all continues to come for us all. This is really exciting for you.

You know, can I just say this from the beginning? I've been saying for years that the killer app for smart glasses is facial recognition and being able to do faces and names. Like, you're somewhere in the world that tells you faces names. And I personally, if I had the ability to remember people's names, I would be the president. I just know this in my heart. It's the only thing in the way. It's just literally me, like, every day being awkward or someone that I've definitely met before and being like, yeah, let me introduce you to someone else real quick. You know, like, I think that has really thwarted my political ambitions.

Okay. I say this because I've been saying it for years and it has been so removed from actual shipping reality for years that it's been kind of a joke and now it's not a joke. And every now and again, the clips go viral without the context of the fact that I've been saying it for years to illustrate how bad it would be. And I just want to say clearly, I think it would be bad. I think it would be bad to create a worldwide facial recognition panopticon so that I can be the president. Am I going to refuse the opportunity to be the president when presented with such panopticon? I think it's a moral dilemma that each of us we'll have to choose in their own way.

But I know it's bad. And I just want to, I want to say this as clear. I'm going to have to say it every single time. Yeah. Because it is the killer app. And I think there's a reason that we're inching our way towards Panopticon. Yep. But it's bad.

So as a reminder, this is either last week of the week before, we talked about the fact that meta was building a facial recognition feature into its smart glasses. I think it was wired that, that broke the news, that this was a thing that they were building they hadn't turned it on. No, the Wired's news was the code was on the glasses. Right. The code was on the glasses.

Meta's official response from Andy Stone, who likes to run around yelling at people on threads, was that this is disingenuous. We were never going to turn it on, which is just a fully insane response to you wrote the code and put it on the glasses. Like, that's just a thing that happened. So anyway, next to that has been this running story, including some really great reporting, by our friend Joanna Stern about this like budding industry of people who will basically hack and break your meta glasses so that the light doesn't turn on when you're recording. Meta issued an update this week to make it so that if you tamper with the light, it'll just disable the camera entirely. That's a very good thing. It's a mandatory update. Yay, meta. Congratulations. And then immediately, immediately after this, news breaks that meta is working on a new pair of smart glasses that is recording all the time.

The idea is basically to capture snapshots every few seconds of audio and pictures and to basically use all of the input in this. Their big idea, apparently, for privacy's sake, is to not send the data itself, but to send metadata. Because in history, metadata has never been reverse engineered into data and has never been dangerous. But like there is just this thing happening. where meta is running around trying to explain and apologize for all of its disastrous security reaches. Andrew Bosworth, the CTO, did an interview with Nick Thompson at the Atlantic about a lot of this stuff. They had an interesting conversation in which Boz, I would say, very unsuccessfully tried to defend why a feature like this is worth doing.

They both, like you, agreed, it would be awesome. I totally want this. And then Nick was like, but how do you reckon with all of the other stuff? and he used the examples of the blind community and veterans who need features like this. And that is both true and just an unbelievably disingenuous way to try and defend a feature like this.

If you are going to use accessibility as a reason to ham fist a feature into a thing for billions of people, no. But anyway, even as they're running around doing this, they are also just pushing ahead as fast as they possibly can to make this thing more and more

privacy damaging and problematic and run at all of the things that people already hate about where these glasses are going. And I sort of feel like in the same way that, what, 13, 14 years ago now, the glasshole phenomenon ended smart glasses for a period of time. Like, I talked to people years after that who were like, we had a project and we killed it after Google Glass because we just couldn't. It was Google ruined it for everybody. It's at this industry way behind. I feel like meta is in the middle of doing that right now. It is going to, it is going to to establish and ruin the idea of smart glasses before anybody else even gets to try. I saw a video, you know, Livy, Dune, the influencer.

She's like a famous influencer. She posted a video, and we talked about it in our newsroom, and she's like, people sell my travel itineraries. Like, there's a black market for where she's going on planes, and then she's accosted when she lands in the airport. And she specifically was like, this is really weird and dangerous for me that I get out the plane and a bunch of weirdos are there like, take my picture. And then she specifically was like, and they're all wearing mediglasses.

Oh, wow. And it's becoming that thing. Right? Like, that's the association people are making with it. Like, this is a thing for a particular class of weirdos. Yeah. I have friends who are like world travelers and they're always like doing action sports and, you know, their Instagram feeds are all on their mediglasses.

Is they're like surfing and going down? Like, there's some set of uses that are good and benign. Sure. wearing a GoPro on your head while you surf, not a problem. Wearing a GoPro on your head while you like walk through. A cost in stock influencers is bad. Exactly. Probably bad. Like there's just something about that where I was like, this is a very famous influencer.

She literally is influential. And she's like, I feel at danger. And then the product she called out was meta glasses. And there's something there that I've just been stuck on. Like, what is that a signal of? I haven't quite figured it out. I can't quite articulate it. But the product is starting to stand in as a, like a symbol of how we treat each other.

Yes. Do you know what I mean? Like, it means disrespect in some way. This is an enormous problem for meta, whose entire brand is we don't respect you. Right? Like, this is the problem. Like, they made the product that most communicates their values, which is, it belongs to us. Sorry.

We're going to listen to you. Right? Yeah. And for all of the Instagram is listening to you explanations about how they're actually, you know, like, you're on the same Wi-Fi network as you're friend in the same place. So, like, they search for travel. Like, you can do it. You can back into the programmatic ad tech explanation for why Instagram is listening to you. And then the glasses are going to watch you all the time.

And now you're done. And everyone you know. And everyone you know. And, you know, Boz's explanation of how the faces and names feature would work. It's called name tag. He's like, it would just be people that have actually introduced themselves to you that have opted in. it's hashes and it's all stored locally. And you would say, remember that person.

And you're like, this all sounds fine, except that person doesn't consent to be remembered in this way. Right. Right. The person on the other side of the glasses does not consent to me storing a hash of their face and then recalling it later. Like, maybe they would like it if I did that

with my dumb meat sack of a brain, but they would probably have a lot of feelings about my computer doing that. Yes. Yes. And God are there going to be ways to break that system? Even in the perfect version of that system, can I, like, go stand up close to my TV and solve that problem with a video on my television? It's unclear, right? We have not used the thing, but this is their defense of it. It's like, we limit it to, like, a local system. And then he talked about the various laws and various states that are like, make it hard to ship. He's like, in Illinois, you got this dumb law. And it's like, no, the people in Illinois passed a law saying biometric face recognition is illegal. Yep. And I think they're pretty happy about that well.

Right? Like I think on balance there's going to be more of those because people don't want this to happen. They perceive the glasses as an invasion and meta's whole brand is invasion of privacy. Like whether or not they want it to be, that is what people associate with them. Yeah. All of this, I think, is next to the big dream of everybody wants the AR glasses. Right?

Everyone is trying to build their way to AR glasses in some way. And if you're going to have AR glasses, you need a camera that is always on looking at the world next to you, sending that visual information to something, to some computer somewhere, processing it and then putting data over something, whether it's real light and the lenses in front of you and clear lenses or whether it's a Vision Pro headset and it's screens and you're passing through, whatever it is, you need to process the visual information from the world around you. Yeah. And there are lots of benign uses for this. I'm in an art museum. I just want to know more about the painting I'm looking at. There are absolutely not benign uses for this. But no one has contended with the fact that at the end of it,

you have to record everything all the time. Because the technology to do that at scale simply has not existed. And I think this meta attempt to take snapshots and do metadata is the first baby step towards we're going to record everything all the time so we can layer AR information over the world around you. Yeah, ironically, one of the most compelling explanations for Instagram is not recording you using the microphone on your phone has been that it's actually just impractical to do that.

To light up the microphone for a billion Instagram users and then store all of that audio in the cloud and process it is so prohibitively expensive that they actually just couldn't do it even if they wanted to is one of the many compelling reasons that Instagram isn't doing that. There's a bunch of evidence that says that's no longer true. that actually everyone is desperately trying to get all of your data. Meta itself rolled out this program to its employees saying, we're going to track all your keystrokes,

we're going to track how you use your computer, so that we can teach our AI models how to use computers. Like everyone in the AI space will tell you that all they want is more data. All the time, they will take all of it they can get, no matter how, like, wacky or weird it is, let the compute do the work. And so suddenly this goes from being kind of prohibitively difficult, from a technology perspective, to being kind of a huge upside. And you're going to have to rely on the company that is going to do this to treat that data well,

which is just a big, huge giant leap. I mean, do you remember Microsoft recall from whatever that was a couple of years ago now? The first run of that was Microsoft saying it's locally stored, it's encrypted, it's completely private to your device. We understand the privacy risks here. This is meant just for you. And then it turned out they were just storing a huge amount of the data in plain text databases on your computer. so that like if I leave my computer

to coffee shop, you can just look at everything I've ever done on my computer. Like this, there are so many attack surfaces here that it, there is just no shot of getting this right at any point in the near or immediate future.

And I cannot believe that meta in particular continues to try to push at this. And this, this is like the thing I keep trying to sort through in my head is do we have a fundamental smart glasses problem? which is just that we're going to keep running into this same thing over and over again, that you can't do smart glasses without the invasive stuff. It's literally it's a feature, not a bug,

and this is just a problem that is going to follow it forever. Or is it just that meta is the absolute worst possible advocate for this technology at this time. And if some other company, like if Apple were leading this race instead of meta, would we feel differently about it because by and large people trust Apple in a way that they don't trust meta? I can't peel those two things apart in my head. It's definitely both. Sure. Meta's brand when it comes to privacy is garbage.

And I think meta's brand in general is garbage. Yes. It's not, meta is not a beloved company. Just straightforwardly. And even the way Mark Zuckerberg rolled out the word tracking all of our employees to train AI was so fundamentally dehumanizing. He said something like, we could go collect this data from all the people in the world, but we think we've hired all the smartest.

people that met us, we're going to collect the data from you because the way you use computers are smarter than everyone else. And it's like, e-ish. We put the good brains in vats. You know what I mean? Yeah. It's like, we're doing this like this like diet eugenics. Like it was just a weird way of talking about the people that you employ, right? Like, I have to surveil you because you're smart. It's weird. There's just like there's some disconnect from humanity at the center of that company that I cannot stop thinking about because they are desperate to own a platform. They're desperate to break away from their dependence on iOS and Android and the app store economics and Apple being able to turn off tracking and all the stuff that Apple

and meta have thought about for years. Okay. Then you're like, well, people trust Apple. Do you know what people think is listening to them to do the ads? They're iPhones. True. Yeah. You can trust Apple all you want. Be like, Apple's the privacy company. And then 90% of people are like, my phone's listening to me. Yeah, very true. Instagram. is listening to me all the time. And it's like, well, did Apple stop it? I don't know. It's listening to me all the time.

And it kind of just doesn't matter. Like, I think tech companies as a whole do not have some great reputation for actually protecting people from the experiences they're obviously having. Yeah, I think that's right. Does every single person believe that Apple slows down their iPhone after two years, so they have to buy a new one? Like, sure. Like, can you trade on that trust in other ways?

Maybe. But the reality is to make augmenting. reality glasses, you need to put a camera next to your eyes that is continuously recording everything you see and processing that to put information over it. There is not another way around it, and there's certainly not a chip that can fit in the stem of the glasses that is both powerful enough and power miserly enough to do that in real time. You have to send that data to a cloud. You got to do it. There just isn't another choice. Or you can build something the size of a Vision Pro with a battery pack that lives somewhere else.

Like those are the current choices in this world. And it just means like if you want to build the product that everyone thinks is the next thing, you are going to have to invade people's privacy. And maybe you shouldn't. There's an incredible argument for, nope, you shouldn't do that. Nope, the tradeoffs required to make this product are so high at a societal level that we should stop it. I don't know who is positioned to make that argument today. It does not appear to be in our nation's capability to have a fulsome argument about the risks and rewards of technology

and then tell anyone to stop. It might be in the market, right? Like these glasses might get pulled off people's faces and smashed. I think we can see the opposition to data centers happening in like local governments around the country. Like something else will happen. But the thing people want, AR glasses, augmented reality glasses, where you stare at a painting and it tells you who painted that painting and what it was, you are at a party and you just know that person's name. I'm telling you, I'd be the president if I had this case for you. I'm already so charming. I'm just like this one failing, you know. Who knows?

the social cost of that is too high. Yes. And I think we're seeing it now. The cost of AI is too high versus the reward, and there's a big backlash. And I think meta has no ability to make the case that the reward is worth the social cost of interacting with metadata in this way. They do not have an ounce of credibility to say they're going to protect you. Well, and they have now two decades of evidence to suggest that they'll win in the end. that actually all you need to do is wait and people will come around.

And I think, I have believed that for a long time, right? And it is the thing that makes me the most nihilistic about tech is this idea that everyone is going to stand in the way and say, I don't want this, it's going to be bad. And then they'll have a Black Friday sale and everybody gets on board. And like everybody, it is very hard to leave Google in such a way that you can feel however you want about Google. And then you end up using Google products and you become sort of Stockholm syndrome into Google. And I think a lot of these companies are set up on the belief that they will win in the end because people will always trade those things and those feelings for other features and convenience.

And I think, again, for most of my career, I also believed that that was true. And it sort of filled me with sadness when I really sat and thought about it. I don't know that that's true anymore. It feels like something has changed in a way that I am still struggling to put my finger on. But like this data center stuff is such a good example of there has been real like boots on the ground societal backlash to technology at a scale. I don't think we've ever seen. And it feels like it is only growing and not receding. And I think it's why I'm so obsessed with the smart glasses question because I think this is going to be the first big new technology in a very long time that a vast number of people are going to look at and just say no to.

Like we all eventually got smartphones. We just did. You feel however you want about that, about what smartphones did to the world. Everybody has a smartphone now. It just happened. I don't think we're going there with smart glasses. And I think it's going to be really different. And I still don't know how it's going to play out, but it feels like it is headed down a different path.

Yeah. I'll just bring it back to, you know, my daughter's silly iPod. That thing was on a shelf. I pulled it off the shelf. I plugged it into my computer and I put some MP3s on it. I will not say where the MP3s came from, but I put some MP3s on it. And then it worked,

and it worked exactly the same way today as it did 10 years ago when I first bought this iPod. And she's delighted, right? And I own the files. Let's just say I own the files. I own the files. And I own the hardware,

and it didn't require some like DRM handshake with some cloud service, and I didn't worry that social media was on this thing or that, one of the reasons I didn't want to buy her like an old iPod touch was like, I don't, I'd actually don't want a bunch of eight-year-olds running around to the camera right now.

I just don't. No, thank you. That's just a parenting decision. Other people might feel differently. And I see that just like burbling with some of my peers, you know, as we all raise our kids together. I see it with like a lot of younger people. Like, they just don't, they're just like looking at it and they're saying no.

Like, I just want to be offline in this way. And I think the promise of the next inner, face paradigm, the next way of using technology has always been, this will be superior to the phone. So we got to get there first. This is Mark Zaguerre in the Metaverse. You're going to live your life in this helmet because it's more fun than your phone. And like pretty much just rejected. Like straightforwardly, I think the reaction to AI being everywhere and not being very good in most consumer use cases, people are rejecting it politically now. They're like, we don't, you don't need to build this infrastructure. I hate this, actually. This chap.

and my car dealer's website is not providing me with anything. Turn it off. Like, put all those tokens somewhere else. And I do wonder if the smart glasses, you know, my thesis about the meta-glasses has always been people like them because they're a camera on their face, and that's useful. Sure. And then you're like, now a lot of people have cameras in their face.

Now a lot of people are recording without your consent. And, like, you can stop that pretty fast. Yeah, it's that, but that is the feature, not the bug, right? Like, you can't, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a camera on your face without having a camera on your face. It feels like a Zen cone, but sure. Also, I just want to say, I own the files is a t-shirt we're going to make. Sure, I own the files. I mean, in the sense that I have the files.

Listen, let's not delve into copyright law here. I do have one more question on this. So there was a bit of gadget news. In addition to all of the big tech companies trying to make smart glasses, there's just a million startups out there trying to make smart glasses happen. Real is probably the best known one, but there's a lot of them out there. And there's this company Solos that announced a new version of smart glasses called the Ergo A6. Oh, boy. Sure. But one of its key features is that it doesn't have a camera.

It has AI stuff. It has prescription support. It does a bunch of the other things that you would expect, like, headphone style things. It doesn't have a camera. And part of me wonders, like, is this the next thing that's going to happen is we're going to see if we can do smart glasses minus a camera? This just is like, I don't know how to say this. Bone conduction headphones are a really cool technology. They will never be cool.

Do you know what I mean? I mean, sure. But when my bone conduction headphones look like a pair of Rayban Wayfarers, they are cool. I'm sure these are bone conduction. The point I'm making is like everyone's just trying to shove the assistant into a form factor. Yes. Do you know what I mean? Like, what if I could get a microphone and speakers onto your face?

sure, it looks like glasses. Yeah. There was a time when that was a bone conduction, like, had banned. We covered a lot of these in a gadget in like the 2000s. They had a real moment. They had a real moment. And it's like, yeah, they're just AirPods. Like, you just made AirPods that look like glasses.

But the utility of the assistance is not high enough yet to support any of this. Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. I'm sorry for the people who work at Solo. So you did a good job. Their glasses are very light, which I think is very important. So kudos to them for that. All right, we should take one more break, and then it's time for some lightning around stuff.

We'll be right back. Support for the show comes from Decagon. If you've looked into using AI to help with customer support, you've probably noticed most existing solutions don't quite fit your company's needs and take forever to launch. Thankfully, there's Decagon. Decagon helps companies create personalized, concier-style customer experiences with AI agents across chat, email, voice, and SMS.

They're available 24-7, feel natural to talk to, and can resolve customer requests on their own, so businesses can keep up with requests without losing their personal touch. Decagon plugs directly into your existing systems so agents can go live quickly. And because workflows can be updated using natural language, teams can make changes themselves without long engineering cycles. That means less time spending managing workflows, more time focus on customers, and ROI in weeks. Ready to transform your customer support, go to Decagon.a.ai slash verge to get a personalized demo and see what Decagon can do for your team. Check Decagon out at decagon.a.ai slash verge. That's decagon.com.a.ai slash verge.

Support for the show comes from Anthropic. Important questions don't usually have simple answers, and they usually come with a mix of uncertainty, excitement, and reflection before a big breakthrough. So when you're working through something important, it helps to have a sounding board to explore ideas and uncover what's really underneath them. That's where Claude comes in.

Cloud is the AI for minds that don't stop at good enough. It's the collaborator that actually understands your entire workflow and thinks with you. Whether you're debugging code at midnight or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. Plus, Claude's research capabilities

go deeper than basic web search. It can have comprehensive, reliable analysis with proper citations, turning hours of research into minutes. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude today at clod.aI slash verge. That's clod.aI slash verge.

And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all the features mentioned in today's episode. Claude.a.ai slash verge. It all started with Call Me Maybe. Over 10 years ago, we created Switched on Pop to Listen Closer, uncovering the songcraft behind even the glossiest of pop hits. Since then, we've released almost 500 episodes.

We've defined the sounds of our modern soundtrack and interviewed hundreds of musicians and music insiders, including the singer of Call Me Maybe herself, Carly Ray Jepson. I'm musicologist Nate Sloan. And I'm songwriter Charlie Harding. And on July 14th, Switched on Pop is embarking on a new chapter, We're stepping out from behind our microphones and in front of the camera to stream our podcast on Netflix. Now, you'll still be able to listen to the show anywhere you get podcasts, but now you'll be able to watch us each week, breaking down the sounds of the moment, digging into musical minutiae with your favorite artists and offering questionable dad jokes, as always.

We're kicking off our Netflix debut with a four-part series on The Art of the Song, with help from artists, producers, and songwriters like Aaron Destner, Audrey Hobert, Trevor Horn, Cypress Hill, and Taylor Parks. Stream switched on pop on Netflix and anywhere you get podcasts every Tuesday, starting on July 14th. All right, we're back. No hype desk this week. So we are straight into America's favorite podcast with them podcasts. I think my brother, my brother and me stands are still in my email about which is the best one. But I'm claiming victory because you can just say things. It's 2026. Now as much. Brendan Carr is a dummy. It's time.

All right, a little bit of a seizure at the end there. I thought there was going to be a drop. I want to be honest. I thought that I was building to a drop. It was really good. I appreciate it. This is good. We're doing a collaborative enterprise here.

We're sampling and we're building here. That was by Ryan Mueller. Thank you, Ryan. I love the dance remix. Somebody else take it and make the drop. That's what I mean. That was a great build. I think we were all anticipating a pretty intense drop.

And then I think Ryan fell down on the sampler. Listen, we all only have so much time in the day. It's like, putting Brendan. It's like, last shot of the night and it's like, I'm out. I've done it. Thank you, Ryan. I appreciate you. There we go.

What did Brendan do this week? We have evidence this week that Brendan's various traitorous machinations against the First Amendment are starting to bear their poisonous fruit, David. That's why not for you. Okay. Starting to for the first time. Yeah, in like real ways. So as you know, Brendan has been fulminating against our nation's broadcasters about the way in which they use their spectrum, which is nonsense because people are not watching broadcast television.

They're watching the apps on their phone, as we have discussed at length already in this episode. But Brendan has power over broadcast spectrum, so he has issued content regulations against broadcasters like ABC and CBS and Fox and local radio stations. And if you recall from previous episodes, in a big one that he has been focused on is what's called the Eighty-Souths. equal time rule, where if you have a candidate for a public office on the public airwaves, you are supposed to have the opposing candidate and offer them equal time, unless you are a bona fide news program, in which case you have news judgment, you can be off. So the only program that has ever really had to deal with this is Saturday Night Live, which has no argument that it is a news program. And we all agree on this. And Saturday Night Live would have Kamala Harris on, and then NBC would give

time to Donald Trump, which is a real thing that happened in the last election cycle. Yeah, they had Trump at like a NASCAR race or something the next day. They gave him ad space at NASCAR race. Yeah. The flashpoint of this has been ABC's The View, which has long operated under a bona fide news exception. It was actually started by Barbara Walters, who was a news anchor. Right. And they wanted to have some candidates on.

The FCC and car fulminated against them. We all got in some trouble. There's now a review of whether or not the View is a bona fide news program. You'll recall, I think, last week or the way before, ABC's running ads to have people file comments with the FCC to be like, don't screw with the view. Okay, that's all happening. And ABC actually filed its response this week, which we will get into. In the meantime, Brendan has had the effect he wanted. Semaphore did an analysis, and the view has not had any candidates for any competitive

races on the air since all this happened. He has showed the speech of a news program. Which is precisely the goal. That was the goal. So here's the quote from Semiphor. FCC chairman Brennan Carr announced in February. The agency was investigating whether or not the view violated the equal time rule. since then the ABC talk show hasn't featured a single political candidate running a competitive midterm race,

according to the summer for our analysis. Earlier this year, a representative for New York mayors Ron Mandani pitched the view on hosting the mayor and Democratic Socialist candidates. He's supportive for Congress, according to person filming with the conversations. The view said it was interested in having the mayor on but couldn't accommodate the candidates because the staff was proceeding cautiously with political candidate bookings while the FCC equal time inquiry was progressing. So the investigation itself has chilled the speech of the program. And they will not have candidates for office on the air, even if those candidates are interesting, even if people like to see them, because they don't know if they will be punished for their political speech. Even though that speech is for years now been considered to be news programming.

Right. But this is job done by Brendan Carr. This is his move. He's not going to win this fight, but he can win this fight without actually having the fight. Yeah. And this is the specific phrase in first of first. Amendment law is the chilling effect. Yeah.

You haven't actually made the rule that's legal. You haven't actually violated the First Amendment. You haven't said, I will put you in jail if you say these things. You have just made the people stop doing it because they're afraid of a consequence that may or may not be real. And that means they have preemptively stopped saying the things they would have otherwise said. And all over First Amendment law, the specter of the chilling effect is raised. You can't do this because you will have the chilling effect. and that is as bad as actually banning the speech itself.

Court after court, administration after administration, Republican, conservative, progressive, liberal, you name it. The chilling effect is the problem. And so Brendan has accomplished an ice-cold chilling effect, at least on the view, if not the rest of the media ecosystem that operates on the broadcast airways. So we'll see what happens.

ABC did file its response to this inquiry this week. I can just quote you from it. It's pretty fiery for Disney, which, had previously been pretty bendy when it comes to the Trump administration. Yeah. But ABC says, the First Amendment does not permit the government to sit in an editor's chair, yet that is the seat the commission now proposes to take, deciding which broadcast programs qualify as legitimate news,

and for those it finds wanting, compelling them to surrender their airtime to guests they never chose to feature. They go on to say, an exemption that protects editorial independence only when the speaker's politics please those in power protects nothing at all, the shelter against, gives one program today, it will deny another tomorrow when the gavel changes hands as it inevitably will. For ABC Disney, that is pretty fiery stuff. I'm glad they've found some spine here to fight back. I think they realize the public is on their side. And I will just remind everybody listening to this, Brendan is not chasing broadcast regulation because he really believes in broadcast regulation. All of this is a trial balloon to find ways to censor

and control speech on internet platforms, which everyone in the world is aware is actually what people consume. Even the view. People mostly watch the view on YouTube. I was just going to say one way to accomplish that goal is by silencing the view, right? Like, there are a lot of people who watch Jimmy Kimmel

and who watch The View and who watch Stephen Colbert on these other platforms. And if you can just chop them down one at a time, you can get a long way to accomplishing your goal without ever actually having to get out of your skis on it. Yeah. And eventually he will go to Google and he will go to TikTok and he will go to META and say, hey, all those defense contracts you want, all those big rich government contracts you want? Well, actually, we think that you are using the public internet or the public airwaves or your services run on mobile broadband, which run on the public airwaves.

And we don't think they're on the public interest. You had better change your algorithms. I'm telling you, I keep saying it every week, you can see the chilling effect in action right now in real time. on ABC, and you can see that that will just empower Brendan and the rest of the administration to go after internet platforms using whatever laws and powers they can magic up out of fairy dust and bad interpretations of existing statutes,

if not pass an executive order, just claiming the authority, which the Trump administration loves to do. And in fact, which is in Project 2025, the chapter about telecom and speech regulation was written by Brendan Carr. he's not a smart man we know what he's doing

none of this is subtle yeah it's he's a dumb rock of a man who is doing all the things he said he would do in absolutely hand-fisted ways that make it easy for a company like ABC to write fiery responses to because there's only but one right answer

in any case Brandon if you want to come on the show and try to justify any of these actions or talk about the nature of the chilling effect when the FCC chair is punishing broadcasters for the speech I would welcome that conversation on this show on Decoder Mono E mono live streamed on kick

We can do it You say You tell me the time and place It'll happen Yeah Anyhow that's been Brennan Carr's dummy America's favorite podcast

On the podcast Brendan Carr is a dummy Boots and Pants And Pants and Pants and Pants And Pantsy Boots and Pants I really like the idea that we are going to build

like an epic trance remix One track at a time here I'm very excited about this It's very good All right I have a Ramageddon update it for you. I don't know if you're aware of this. Everything is more expensive now. And it just keeps getting worse. And I feel, I feel ridiculous, like, continuing to be annoyed by this, but I'm continuing to be annoyed by this. But in particular, there were two bits of really interesting data this

week that are directly Ram again related that I just, I just want to talk to you about. So the first is IDC, a big research firm that does a lot of, like, analysis of market shares and stuff like that, put out a chart this week that said that after nine straight quarters of growth, worldwide PC shipments dropped by 4.9% year every year. Two uninterrupted years of growth. And I will say the growth actually sort of kicks back to like kind of right after COVID. Like there was this minute at the beginning of the pandemic where everybody bought a computer. Everybody, everyone bought a new computer.

And then it dropped a little because everybody had a new computer. And then it has been, it has been rising pretty steadily for several years now since then. And it is now dropping like a stone because computers are too expensive and people can't buy them. They are harder to find than ever. Everybody's raising prices. Apple just raise prices. Like, it's, it's ugly out there. And there's an increasing sense that it's going to keep getting worse. But the other one that I want to talk to you about is there's this chart from this company Omdia, which I know nothing about. But it's fine. It put out a chart showing the share of the total bill of materials for products that is taken up by memory.

And this is like how much of the total cost of building a gadget comes from buying the memory. And basically, that number has at least doubled in the last couple of years. That before, if you were buying a premium device above $800, in this case, the memory accounted for 11% of the cost of that device. So you're buying a $1,000 device. It's a $100 worth of memory. That is now 26% of the price. That is what the memory costs.

It's even worse in lower-end phones. We've talked about on the show that like the real danger immediately for a lot of these Ramageddon things is that cheap devices just go away. It becomes completely untenable to sell somebody a $200 phone in a world where the memory in that phone costs in this case. It would be $120. Like it's the number is for the mid low range $200 to $400, the memory alone makes up 59% of the cost of the bill of materials up from 32%.

That's crazy. Like the numbers are just insane. And everywhere you look, it's like the costs just are what they are and either you can stomach it or you can't. Nobody has deals. Nobody has access to anything. There's just a bunch of chips out there and it is like full anarchy to get there first and everybody who can pay for it is paying outrageous quantitative.

of money for it and everybody else just gets screwed. And like the increasing sense that I get from people is like, this is going to get worse and it's going to last a while. And it is just, it's scary times out there, man. And now there's this big run on like, you're starting to see YouTubers make content about how to buy used gadgets. Yep. I don't know if you've noticed this,

but this is like how to make your stuff last longer and how to buy used stuff and find the best refurbished open box deals is like a real. a real rising type of content for exactly this reason. Everybody's just priced out of everything now. And so it's like, well, okay, maybe I'll go buy a three-year-old MacBook because it's literally the only thing I can afford. How do I go get it? Again, you know, my prediction is the repairability push

of the past several years is going to bear real fruit now. Yeah, I absolutely think you're right. We're almost a little bit lucky that there was that push. Yeah. There was actually like the FCC, the Trump FTC won a right to repair victory over John Deere this week. I think consumers understand that being able to fix things is important to them, especially as costs go up and things last less long. So we'll see.

Like, I'm hopeful if there's one outcome here, it's that a generation or two becomes fixated on the notion that you should be able to fix things and make them last a long time. Because they were so expensive to begin with. Yeah. We should get like one of the refurb companies, like the back markets of the world. we should talk to that. Like, I'm very curious that their business is booming

the way that you would think it would be booming. Yeah. It's a good question. We'll reach out to them. We'll get them on the show. Backmarket, if you're listening, and I know that you are. Get at us.

Trust me. There are already, the email's already being sent. Yeah, indeed. All right, what's your next lighting round item? Okay, I'm going to do one heavy one, and then I'm going to end up on a phone one. Okay. It's heavy in the sense of the subject is heavy,

but I think it is one of the greatest sort of verge stories, like virgiest verge stories we've done in a while. And it's about the push to regulate ghost guns. So there is a law in New York. There's an upcoming law in California. There's a bunch of other laws around the country that would make it harder to print gun parts on your 3D printer, which sounds great. And actually a flashpoint for all this regulation is Louis G. Mangione, who printed some of the parts of the guns he used to allegedly murder the CEO of United Healthcare. He's in trial. So it's allegedly, I understand people have a lot of feelings when I say this.

We do not support murder on the show. Another thing I feel like I have to say all the time. But this was a flashpoint in this regulatory conversation. And in particular, in New York where I live, Governor Kathy Ockel is all about regulating ghost guns. Because I think it feels like a thing politicians can do. Sure. Right. If you want to run at the Second Amendment with regular guns, you're going to hit a wall.

But the kids shouldn't be able to print guns at home. Yeah. That feels like a winner. It's an awkward pro. take to have. Do you know what I mean? Like to be the one who's like really psyched about ghost guns is just kind of a weird hill to die. Yeah, it just feels like this thing like your kids shouldn't be able to come home from school and print a gun. I passed a law stopping it. Who can two dares argue with me? Not the gun manufacturers because they'd like to sell you the guns they made in their factories.

Like there's some weird political calculus here where this is an acceptable thing to say in the laws have passed. Okay, here's the problem. If you want to stop someone from printing a gun part, you have to identify the fact that they are trying to print a gun part. Oh. Which means you have to know what they are printing. Where are you going to do that? At what point in the download a file

or draw a picture on your computer, send it over USB to a 3D printer, have the printer run around and do it? Where? Where in that chain do you insert the regulatory mechanism that the law demands? No one knows the answer to this question. The laws do not say where.

right? They just have a mandate for blocking technology. They're just like, don't do that. Don't do it. You print your manufacturers, you make it so you can't print guns. And the model is that printer manufacturers have made it so you can't print money. Right? If you try to scan a dollar bill into Photoshop and then print the dollar bill, like a bunch of things will stop you. Right.

But the difference is that dollar bills are known. Right. And like the societal cost of fake money is like, Right? Like, everyone's like, okay, we get it. Like, you can, you can flatly identify currency. It looks one way. And we all understand why Adobe Photoshop should not be able to accept scans of currency and print it. Sure. Because that will ruin everything for everyone. Yeah. Sure. If you would like to destabilize the United States economic regime, we prefer you do it with Bitcoin, not fake dollars. You know, like, that's kind of where we've landed as a society. Okay, well, there's not just one gun. So you can't just identify one gun the way you can identify $1. Our ability to destabilize society with guns has already happened at scale.

That ship has sailed. And it's the parts. It's not the finished product. So if you want to print a thing that looks like a pistol handle, well, now you've got to block all the things that might look like a pistol handle, regardless of what it might be used for in the future. So this story is just excellently written about how hard it is, how the open source 3D printing community is,

railing against it, even if the people themselves support gun regulation, because they understand, like, this is a type of surveillance that can lead to all kinds of other outcomes and block all kinds of other legal things that you might want to print, or, in the worst case, allow the government to ban even more things, because they will have built a system to identify what it is your printing and then tell the manufacturers to stop it. It's making me think about how, like, ACUE weather has successfully lobbied so that no one, the government is not allowed to do weather forecasts and turbotax makes it really hard for you to file your taxes without using turbotax that like you'd have an awful lot of companies trying to make it very hard for people to 3D print one thing or another and like this this slope gets really slippery from ghost guns which I think are like you said a pretty universal we all basically agree that ghost guns are bad but boy does the same principle run into things people do not agree on in the same way. very quickly. Right. Do you want car makers to be

able to say you can't 3D replacement parts of your car? Yeah. And they can, will they concoct nonsense safety reasons for those things? 100%. Yeah. So anyway, this story is, you can go read the comments. By the way, some people do not agree with you about those guns in any way, shape, or form. They're in the comments of our story. But I

just, I just, I've heard to go read this story. It's one of the virgious fridge stories in such a long time because it is it's one of those stories about politicians, and I think a lot of regular people seeing a problem, The kids can print guns. And then assuming that there's a technological solution

that does not carry tradeoffs, and the community is way ahead of everyone on what those tradeoffs are and what they could be and why they're unacceptable. At the same time, it's like, you probably shouldn't be able to print a gun at home? Yeah, no, you read it. You tell us.

This is what I mean. It's a story that it's just going to make you uncomfortable, regardless of where you ultimately land on the issue. Yep. it's it's the best verge stories make you slightly uncomfortable do you have a 3D printer I do not I feel like I should get one now I feel the exact same way like I don't I don't know what I would use one for but then I see everybody like there is no genre of vertical video that I enjoy more than people solving teeny tiny low stakes problems with 3D printers yeah yeah it's everybody who's

just like I didn't have a stand for this thing so I printed one I'm always like hell yeah let's go you did this And then Belkin is going to lobby those things out of existence. This is the future we're headed. They're gone. We were home in the farm. I did the episodes from my wife's farm. And her dad not only just has a huge shop where he repairs the tractor on the farm, but then there's what can only be described as a crafting shed with one of those gigantic tables in the middle to just do projects on.

And I walked in there and I was like, I'm going to get one of these tables. I'm going to buy a 3D printer. And then I had no further thoughts. Like, what will I do with the giant craft table in the 3D printer? Like, I was just like, a goal I have in my life is to have a crafting shed with a huge table and a 3D printer. And then you will have it. You will say, I've done it and you will close the door. I'll never go in that room again.

Ambition over. But it was just one of those moments where I was like, oh, this is where I'm meant to accomplish this in some way. Yeah. And I think it's 3D printing small parts to solve pet peeves. All right, what do you got? I love this for you. All right. I have just a series of very funny posts from Nikita Beer, who,

who's the head of product at X. Who, hit a beer, by the way, fully going through it. Fully going through it and posting through it as the head of product that X absolutely should.

But just is just over and over sort of saying the quiet part loud about how disastrous a platform X is. So the first one of these was a little while ago. Evidently X ran an experiment

with 3% of users and discovered that removing the top 30, I'm quoting directly, removing the top 30, highest paid revenue share accounts from the 4U timeline increased both time spent and daily active users on X. So this is to say the people we pay to post on our platform. If we took them out, everyone liked our platform more. Like, wild thing to admit out loud. Also incredibly

obviously correct if you've ever spent any time on X in the last like three years. If you get rid of all the posts that I see, I will like X more. It's like correct. Absolutely yes. Could not agree more. And then there's another one this week. X's in its ambition to be the Everything app appears to be pushing really hard on video right now. That they really want to be a vertical video platform for all the same reasons everybody wants to be a vertical video platform. Right?

Like it just wants to be that thing. It's where the ads are. It's where the views are, whatever. He put out a post in response to a bunch of people saying, oh, God, X is just turning into TikTok because everything is turning into TikTok. And he goes, no, it's not. and then basically goes on to say yes, it precisely is.

So he says, he says post-containing videos already make up close to half the impressions on X, which is, A, fascinating, and B, a decision that they made, right? Like, it's important to remember. They've incentivized a type of content. Correct. And also boosted it in the algorithm. Like, there's a reason you see Elon Musk every time you log into X,

and it's not because the algorithm thinks you'd like it. It's because X decided to do that to you. It's very important that you remember this. but then this is the one that's my favorite. He says many videos from top accounts are simply stolen from other users, sometimes five years after they originally went viral. The next bullet says, our team believes this recycled content has a negative impact on the user experience and the business.

You think? All the people we pay to post on X are bad and everyone likes it when they're gone. All the videos are old and stolen. Welcome to X. And he turns this into a pitch for we're shipping an editor and recorder into X so that you can make original content. And then he says at the end, if you're a creator that does not recycle other people's content, you have the biggest arbitrage opportunity of your career to build an audience here.

What an unbelievably optimistic end to saying all of the stuff on our platform is trash, and it would be better if it was all gone. There's no other takeaway from all this stuff that X is learning, except we have to just get rid of everyone here and start over, and then maybe it'll be great. The reason I say Nakita Beer is going through it, he's the head of product at X, right? And he is just learning the lessons. Every other head of product and every other social network knew 10 years ago. 10 years ago everyone knew, oh, people are going to game our algorithm with garbage.

Oh, if you just let this run wild, the people who gain the algorithm best will rise to the top and people will hate it and they'll leave. it's a slot factory no matter if you have AI or not. Everyone knows it. Everyone has always known it. And Elon thought he was so much smarter than everyone else that he fired all the people who understood how to run the platform.

And then he was like, just make the algorithm do whatever thing I'm calling free speech today. And now here we are. And all the people who are saw next are just getting their brains cooked left and right. And poor Nakeda beer is like, yeah, but our users are going away. Our money is going away.

I have to fix it. I'll juice video views for original content, which is the last refuge of the scoundrel when it comes to social media. Right? Like, I will lie about your video views to get you to post here more. That is some 2016 Facebook shit.

Yeah. And it works super well for five minutes. And then you get some new thing you're interested in and it all falls apart. Well, because at the end of the day, the reason that you've gotten all the people to post videos is so you can put pre-roll ads around it. And people hate those.

And the advertisers don't want, to be around it on X because of the thing that X is. All the five-year-old stolen videos that you're posting. Yeah. It's rough out there. It's rough. I do feel sort of bad for him because he really, it's just very obvious that he's going through it.

Yes. But I also don't feel bad at all because it's very obvious exactly what that job is. Yep. And it was the minute he took it. He did post on June 30th. Today marks one year at X. I'm proud to report three all-time highs. user engagement, my cortisol levels, my biological age.

That's a good tweet. That's a good tweet. That's a great tweet. Kudos to it, Nikita. That's very good. All right, you get one more. What's your last one? All right.

It's like a happy one and a mystery. Okay. It's all wrapped up in one. I love it. We should have more mysteries on the Burge cast. This is a good mystery. Okay. Okay.

So every time we talk about smart TVs in the show, people like, I wish I could just buy a dumb TV. And historically, the answer is you can't, because the reason TVs are so cheap is they are subsidized by all of the surveillance that is both time TVs. David continues to buy Roku TVs for some mysterious reason, and the reason they cost $10

is because Roku's tracking is every move and foisting advertising around him. The TV on the other side of my computer right now is unplugged and I'm 100% sure it's listening. It's still watching it. It's just playing ads. And the TV market has gotten all the way down to the end of that road

such that you can literally get a free TV with a permanent advertising screen. bolted to the bottom of it. Yep. And a lot of people did it. And I don't know why. So those are the economics of the TV market. The reason they're cheap is because they're counting the revenue from the advertising to subsides price of the panel.

Essentially, this is why you can't buy a dumb TV. And if you want one, you end up buying like a $5,000 digital signage display, which are often the same panels, but then they don't look as good, whatever. Anyhow, John Higgins, our TV reviewer this week, reviewed the new Visio Mini LED Quantum, which is a very cheap quantum.tv. He says it looks pretty good. And he discovered that as you set it up, you can just turn it all off. Whoa. You can just make it a dumb TV. So as you're going through the setup, you can just say, I don't want this. To turn it off, you can disconnect the OS, basically. You can add it obviously an external streaming device, but the H.DMI ports stay active and all of the smarts are literally disabled. You can keep the OS from even being active at all.

You just nope your way through the whole setup process. You just nope your way through the whole setup process, and the OS is not active. So it asks you to, you busy those on by Walmart. It asks you if you want to have a Walmart account, you just say no. And it warns you,

you will not be able to manage payments and subscriptions. And it's like, great. Oh, no. I don't care at all. And then when you decline another warning, it literally pops up the box that says, whoops, declining this step means missing out

on all of your smart TV features, and you just hit okay. And that's it. Then the OS is disabled and you've got a dumb TV with enabled HTML ports and that's it.

And you can obviously keep it off the Wi-Fi which a lot of people do anyway and then you've got it. So here's the mystery. Did Vizio do this on purpose? There's some set of people that are like Vizio

has gotten in trouble for tracking before and they might have done this on purpose. So John is digging into the mystery of the $400 Vizio dumb TV. But right at this second,

You can go buy a $400 minisio mineladie quantum. And have it be a totally dumb hell. So the like Akams Razor explanation here is just that no one in the development process thought to test the flow of what if I just say no to everything. And so they accidentally shipped a thing you can just say no to everything. And you can say no to everything on most TVs. Like when you start up my Sony 895L, you can put it in like basic mode. Sure. But like Android is still there.

Right. This is off, like dumb panel with HGMI inputs. Huh. At least that's what it looks like. So did they do that on purpose because it was like legal issues? Did they just forget? Were they so cheap that they're like, yeah, just don't turn on the OMS? Yeah, they're like, we're just happy you're in Walmart.

You know what I mean? He's digging into it. Interesting. He's digging into it. But that's why it's like a great story because everyone wants a cheap, dumb panel. And now you, at least for the time being, you can go to Walmart. You can buy a $400 mini LAD Quantum. TV, which is like, reasonably good deal.

It's not like an OLED, but like it's pretty good. And it's dumb TV. It's the thing you want. Wow. And it, you know, in an age where everything is getting more expensive, kind of cheap. And then we will solve the mystery of whether or not Vizio knows what they did. Huh. I mean, they do now because the headline's on the site.

So we'll see if we ruined it for everyone. I mean, they even, John even got a quote from from a senior product manager, Mike Wood at Vizio, who said, essentially, he said, obviously we believe there's a lot of to use the VizioOS and our smart features, but the choice is up to the user. Yeah, but it's like, did they say that, and then they realize that, like, we point out that you could turn it off.

Right. And then they're going to issue a software update that turns off the last nope, and then that's it. That is fascinating. Anyway, he's following up on it to see what the case is, but today, $400 dump panel.

Imagine a world in which you had to actually make your product worth using in order for people to use it. What a world that would be. I think everyone is very addicted to how cheap advertising-supported things are. No, it's very true. I think all the way back to the Netflix conversation,

I think you can put that right underneath everything Netflix and every other streaming service is doing right now. You can do an awful lot of stuff. You can just do ads. Yep. You can make as many seasons of Love Island for Peacock as you want, David. Thank goodness. All right, we should get out of here.

It's nice to see you. It's nice to see you at home again. It's good to be home. I'm never leaving again. I really, really, really feel that. Who's on Decoder next week? Decoder next week is really good. It's a Jinju Wu who runs automotive at Nvidia,

and we spent a lot of time just being like, what's up with cars? How do you make them drive themselves? I made him evaluate Tesla full self-driving and whether or not they need LIDAR. You'll not be surprised to hear that Nvidia thinks AI is the solution. What's Nvidia's take on carplay?

I think this might be the only episode where we didn't talk about car play in the context, of course. You've won't job, Patel. It just didn't come on. I mean, I know what he would have said. Nvidia believes in open systems and consumers can do whatever they want as long as they're running our chips. There, that's the whole episode. We did that for one hour.

That's pretty good. No, it's really good. I'll give you a little preview. They are literally running models in the car, like reasoning models to drive the cars. So the models are constantly talking to themselves. Whoa. Like the car is like there's a double parked car. I should go left.

Like it's happening like furiously like talking it out. I think it's great. That's great. Wild and terrifying. It's very good. I like that. Also, if you haven't yet, the episode you did with Peter Kafka about Comcast and NBCU and the whole state of media distribution, also very interesting. And kind of right next to all the stuff we were talking about about Netflix.

That's a good episode. That one has the long disclosure about what's going on other parent companies. So go listen to that one. It's like so long. It's like three minutes long. It'll get shorter in a few weeks. I don't know exactly what it'll be, but we'll figure it out. Yeah.

Version history this weekend is Phillips Hugh, a late ad to this season of Virgin History, but one of the most interesting smart home products and actually, like, maybe the most successful smart home thing we have yet had. Hugh Lights, super interesting, fun story. Gen 2 is on it. She actually interviewed the guy who invented the Hugh Lights and comes with lots of fun stories. It's a great episode. It's good time.

And if you want to get all of those... Is his name Hugh? No. Hugh, Hugh. His H-U-G-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H-H. His name is Phil. Hugh. That'd be amazing.

If that's your name, get at us. I have lots of questions. Or if your name is Hugh Phillips. Hugh Phillips. Also very good. We'd love to hear from you. Like, I'm out on Alexis. I'm in on Hugh Phillips.

If you want to get all of our podcast ad-free, including all of the ones that we've just mentioned, the best thing you can always do is subscribe to the verge. That's how you make Nelai ungovernable. That's how you make it so that he can afford to never leave his house ever again. This is the goal. I truly hate being told what to do. How do we get more wooded?

slats for nilai so that he doesn't have to leave anymore. Subscribe to the verse. Now I travel with wood slacks. Theverge.com slash subscribe. You get all our newsletters. You get all our podcasts ad-free, lots of other stuff. And also, we want to hear from you about everything. Taylor Swift's MSG wedding.

Your favorite shows on Netflix. All of the videos that you hate to see on X, your feelings about the view. All of it. Send it all to us. Vergecast at the burge.com is the email. 866 version 1-1 is the hotline. Send us everything. I think somebody, can someone text this number, actually?

Text whatever you want to 866, Virg11, and tell me if it goes through. Not whatever you want. Well, don't text whatever you want. Instead of calling us with a hotline question, text us with a hotline question. There you go. I think this works, but I need some more testing than just me to see if this works. So text the hotline, say what up. I look forward to hearing from you.

The Vergecast is a Verge production and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. This show is produced by Josh Kajas, Eric Gomez, Brandon Kiefer, Travis Larchuk, and Aaron Lacasio. We will see you next week. Eli, Bruck at all.