Elon's Meet-and-Tweet, Microsoft's Union Deal, and Senator Michael Bennet

Support for this show comes from Nike.

What was your biggest win?

Was it in front of a sold-out stadium or the first time you beat your teammate in practice?

Nike knows winning isn't always done in front of cheering crowds.

Sometimes winning happens in your driveway, on a quiet street at the end of your longest run, or on the blacktop of a pickup game.

Nike is here for all of the wins, big or small.

They provide the gear, you bring the mindset.

Visit Nike.com for more information.

And be sure to follow Nike on Instagram, TikTok, and other social platforms for more great basketball moments.

Martha listens to her favorite band all the time.

In the car,

gym,

even sleeping.

So when they finally went on tour, Martha bundled her flight and hotel on Expedia to see them live.

She saved so much, she got a seat close enough to actually see and hear them.

Sort of you were made to scream from the front row we were made to quietly save you more expedia made to travel savings vary and subject to availability flight inclusive packages are at all protected

hi everyone this is pivot from new york magazine and the vox media podcast network i'm kara swisher and yes this past week was arguably the worst day of my or worst week of my life but the good news is it's only the worst week of my life so far why so far why the worst no no no because alex borrowed your belt is that your big issue okay first off let's talk about that i literally leave town and you're like the teenager i come back early from my weekend in barbados and the dog is pregnant and the garage is on fire no you're literally no it's like leaving a teenager now i see first off hold on one belt hold on oh hold on oh no no no no hold on i see a picture of you and george hahn making out No, we weren't making out.

And then I like look at the back and I see pictures that I recognize.

I'm like, they're making out in my podcast studio in my apartment.

No, no.

I heard you guys ran into each other.

Literally like

accidentally ran into each other in my house.

We did.

That is exactly what happened.

And then I see a picture of you.

and your son with my elevator door open.

I don't understand why the elevator door is open for us.

We were leaving.

We were leaving.

And then I look at your son and I zoom in and I'm like, I recognize that belt.

like, he's getting dressed in my closet.

No, the belt is.

Which, by the way, I don't mind.

No, the belt is in the guests' bathroom.

And he said, I need a belt.

And I go, oh, there's one in this closet here.

It was in the guest's bathroom closet.

Anyway,

so we were just borrowed your belt.

It was there.

I didn't know it was yours.

I thought it was a guest's belt.

We don't go into your inner sanctum.

Trust me.

We don't go into that.

Anyways, I did show that to them, actually.

No, but

it's, I just want to say, Roger McNamee and George Hahn both reached out to me after the last podcast.

And they're like are you okay and I'm like I'm never really okay but I'm not any less okay than usual sad sad emoji you had a lot of sad emoji yeah I know

I agree but they were concerned they're your friends they want to make sure you're okay that was very nice of them you know it's really important that that you understand you have friends and that's what's important I have a lot of good friends I'm very blessed that way also Alex climbed up your wall that was another thing you did did you notice oh the the climbing wall in the kids room that's just for show that's just for that's just a flex around me pretending to care about my kids and i'm rich at the same time it's like owning a tesla

well alex did it i sent you the pictures didn't didn't i send you the pictures he sent me pictures of him climbing the wall yeah i did i'll send them to you again anyway it would look like someone beating up wallpaper we had a lovely time shay scott and i have to say around the corner there's an amazing place called blank i think it's called blank coffee and i had honey rose latte and looked at all the interesting people of soho and i had a lovely time i love your neighborhood it's It's a wonderful neighborhood.

Your neighborhood's great.

My street is the most Instagram street in the world.

It's really quite lovely.

There was a big party at the restaurant up the street for Tribeca Film Festival.

That was going on.

It is very exciting.

Yeah, but it was nice.

Anyways, everybody, I'm not fine, but I'm no less not fine than anyone else.

And I appreciate you reaching out.

I've gotten emails from strangers

saying I'm a little worried about you.

And I'm like, well, okay, thank you, but don't worry about that.

They should worry about it.

Can I just say, I was stopped on the street so much this week.

It's crazy.

Joggers stop.

Everybody stops to say hello and how's Scott.

Just so you know.

You know what I do when people stop?

I ask them and I say, Do you want to take a picture?

And they always stop and they go, Can we?

Can we?

And I'm like, Sure.

Sure, why?

You offer enough selfies.

You're very nice.

Anyway, people really like our show.

I'm really amazed how much I'm stopped in the street.

And people jogging stop, which is interesting.

Someone actually, I was riding one of those line bikes and I was riding back to pick up the golden child at school.

And a person drives up next to me and goes, almost hits me and goes, I love you.

I was like, okay.

Don't hit me.

I love you.

Yeah.

What do you say to that?

What do you say to that?

I love you.

That's all I can say.

Anyone says, I love you.

I don't hand out the I love yous with that much abandon, but maybe I will.

Maybe I'll start.

Anyway, we have lots to do today, including Elon Musk meeting with Twitter employees, Microsoft making a first-of-its-kind deal with a union, and we'll speak with Senator Michael Bennett about his plan to regulate tech.

But first, Netflix definitely learned the lessons of squid game, and that lesson is more squid game, more games.

The streaming giant will launch a reality series based on the hit show.

I heard Scott Galloway is going to star.

450.

That would be interesting.

Who would win?

You or me?

Me, obviously.

Oh, I don't think

either way, right?

Yeah, that'd be, that'd be, let me go this way.

The good news is, the bad news is I would lose.

The good news is it would be over quick.

Yeah.

I'd be like, hey, let's make an alliance.

And you'd be like,

there's your alliance, bitch.

Now where's your belt?

That's true.

Let's hang him with his belt that we found in the guest batch.

That is correct.

456 contestants will compete for a payout of $4.56 million.

Netflix says it's the largest lump sum cash prize in TV history.

I'm a little worried about this.

I hope they're not going to hunt people.

You know what I mean?

I feel not good about this.

I don't know.

What do you think?

Feels very network.

So I'm especially seeing the world right now as the glass half empty, but let me just say, I fucking hate this.

And I think Netflix is a case of a company that is, if it's not careful, when you're in a state, it's one thing to be agile and be open to change.

I think a basis or a religion for a company should be its brand and some basic elements of the brand.

And Netflix, to a certain extent, you know, you don't touch the product, you consume it, and it really is a sort of a, what I'll call a intangible product because there's so many near substitutes, whether it's Hulu, whether it's Disney Plus.

So, the brand or the intangible of the brand in streaming is still incredibly important.

I think Disney Plus,

I'm, Disney Plus is now where HBO was for me, and that is I will try almost any new big series on Disney Plus.

Oh, interesting.

There's a lot on there.

Ms.

Marvel is the one I'm excited about.

Well, they do a great job.

And I think the core, I think Netflix, quote-unquote, CMO, brand manager, I don't know who's in charge, is really taking some what I'd call

irrational risks.

The first is, I think one of the core attributes of Netflix, core value proposition central to its brand promise, is no advertising.

Okay.

And the fact that they're thinking about going to advertising, I just think is

smart.

It doesn't make any sense.

I think it does, but go ahead, keep going.

And two, the other thing about Netflix is they're willing to spend a lot of money to create a level of aspirational, high-quality program that differentiates itself from, for example, TikTok or even some of the other programming.

They do an outstanding job.

I think there's probably more more creative talent trying to circle around in terms of just gross tonnage.

Netflix's ecosystem, because of the $17 billion budget and the incredible culture they've created.

When they go to this fucking Kardashian-like

fear factor stuff, to me, it's absolutely contrary to their brand.

Really?

Because they've been having like Tinder Swindler.

You don't watch it.

There's also some great shows coming up.

That shit's great.

Yeah, I know.

Tinder Swindler, the woman from Ozarks, I forget her name.

And those production values is a different universe than Bob from Columbus, Ohio, trying to figure out if he can, if he can get somebody to make out with him in Central Park for $58 and advancing to the next round.

I just find, I hate that shit.

But

there's a lot of big shows coming up that are really exciting.

Not beyond Stranger Things.

There was one the other day and I'm blanking on what it was, but it was a pretty big, looks like they've spent a lot of money.

It looks beautiful.

It looks must-see TV kind of thing.

I don't know.

I think they can experiment around these things.

It's fine.

By the way, Stranger Things.

My kids watch it.

I can't watch it.

It's too scary.

I'm like, give these poor kids a break.

Every season, there's a new scarier monster coming for them and always killing one of their friends and one of their friends' parents.

It's a really weird show.

Well, you know, I tell you, Alex, while he was using your belt, talked about it a great deal.

Stranger Things.

Yes, he was talking about it.

He was trying to tell me something about myself comparing it to a Stranger Things thing.

And I didn't get the reference because I don't watch Stranger Things, so I just feel like that's it's fine for them to experiment.

I don't think it's a problem.

Um, there's they have a lot of really cool stuff coming.

I just, I feel like they have a ton of cool stuff coming, and that's okay.

Um, I think they have to try stuff because if they don't, they're they're kind of screwed, and if they keep ahead, they're a little more risky than other people.

And of course, if it becomes an enormous hit, which I suspect it is, um, they will be considered geniuses, right?

So, and there's a lot coming up.

There's a lot coming up.

A lot of shows they're working on, some of which are high-level and some of which aren't.

So, we'll see.

I don't know.

I think people, I was talking to some Hollywood people.

I think people are putting them down too much too quickly.

You know, it's gone the other direction.

That's my feeling.

Yeah, but that's, that's, I think we're, there's overlap here.

And that is, I don't think there's anything wrong with Netflix.

It can't be fixed with what's right with it.

And that is, it's got fantastic programming.

It's ad-free.

That filter that goes up, those antennae where I'm like, I don't want to to hear someone pitching me on a reverse mortgage or telling me I have opioid induced constipation or I need to drive a South Korean car or drink light beer.

And I just want uninterrupted storytelling.

And that's what Netflix does.

I think this is a, I'd like to meet the head of branding there.

Or I don't even know.

I just don't, I think their strategy is off-kilter here.

I don't, I think they're panicking.

Well, two things that are coming.

For example, right now, the J-Lo documentary, which is called Halftime, is doing it.

It's the most, the largest thing in the world.

It's really, I love Jennifer Lopez, so it was fine.

The other one is Matilda the Musical is coming to Netflix, which has Emma Thompson and that very famous.

It looks fantastic.

I'm just saying they have

there's a lot of creativity.

Great work.

Great creativity there.

Speaking of squid games, how about zero-sum games of life or death?

There are more revelations for the January 6th committee.

Newly surfaced surveillance footage appears to show Republican Representative Barry Lautermilk, what name is this, leading visitors on a tour of the Capitol office buildings just a day before the insurrection after having denied it.

In the footage, Lautermilk's guests are seen photographing stairwells, hallways, and security checkpoints, hardly big tourist attractions, as the committee has said.

Lauterbach denies any wrongdoing, but one group that's not appearing in the hearings, social media platforms, also, by the way, also denying any wrongdoing.

While the committee has subpoenaed tech companies, including Meta Alphabet, Twitter, and Reddit, none of the hearings so far has focused on the role of social media.

I don't think it will.

So, what do you think of these two things?

Of course, people used available themselves to tech tools.

It looks like they were casing the the joint, but who knows?

Yeah, I think it's really,

I find it, I found that, I read that story.

I found it sort of chilling to think that, you know, I thought this was, I've always thought this was sort of just an angry mob that was motivated by a corrupt president.

And I don't want to say things got out of hand, but I didn't think, I look at the mob and I don't think it was what I'd call well planned out.

And what we're finding, I mean, what it looks like, and again, we'll find out.

But I would give the representative the benefit of the doubt and think someone asked for a tour and he gave it it to him and he didn't know that they were in fact planning.

But when people are taking pictures of things like stairwells, it does raise red flags, right?

Congressmen usually don't take tours.

It's usually some like

intern.

Yeah, it's so weird.

I worked there and I gave tours, you know, and nobody took pictures of the stairwells, you know, many years ago.

They were in weird places.

They were not in the places that you would go, like the statuary hall or the crypt or something like that.

It was odd.

I found it odd the pictures they were taking.

Usually, you can sort of get a sense for someone's guilt or lack thereof based on how they respond to accusations.

What is rep, how has Representative Lautermail responded?

This guy, first he said it didn't happen, then he said, okay, maybe it happened, and then it went on and on and on.

And he's he's like, nothing to see here is his new thing.

Oh, yeah, I was there, nothing to see here.

So he keeps changing his story.

That's a little problematic.

Nonetheless,

the guy

he was taking is problematic, and it's not clear clear established whether he was in the Capitol at the time of the attack or whether he just likes to scream shitty things about our nation's leaders.

I'm not sure.

Yeah, so look, we should give everyone involved due process.

It's disturbing, the allegations, and the Department of Justice or the FBI, I should say, should find out what happened and then report their findings.

The second thing you talked about, and that is big tech not being part of these hearings, I actually think that's the right move because it creates a sideshow.

And I do think that big tech,

you know, another data point in the line that is the unfettered reckless behavior that comes as a function of monopoly behavior and them thinking they can just kind of do anything and not have to show any sort of real regard for the Commonwealth.

I think that should be a separate hearing, maybe under the auspices of

how monopoly power creates bad actors.

But in terms of this hearing, we need to, I think it makes sense for the committee to keep the viewers and the public focused on what happened on January 6th that day.

What was the president's involvement?

What were different members of Congress' involvement?

How organized was it?

And not only that, just to display, just to articulate and reveal to the American public just how outrageous it is that we had an insurrection that was aided and abetted by the president.

So I think

it's a sidelight.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

I'd agree with you.

Lastly, the Fed announced an interest rate hike of 0.75%, a pretty big one.

That's the largest increase since 1994.

The hike comes as the the Fed tries to tamp down inflation.

Gas prices are up again.

Found that Fed, sorry, found that consumers expect inflation to keep rising.

That's a problem.

Scott, you said that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods, though stores are full of stuff also at the same time, but certain goods they don't have, like gas and baby.

Formula, I can just tell you that looking for it is really hard, still really hard.

A rate hike should address the money side of this.

How do we address the supply of goods?

There's lots of things not available.

Yeah, you don't.

So

on the supply side, first off, on the demand side,

I just think we're just getting started with these rate hikes.

And the markets, some people would say the markets have already factored in these additional rate hikes.

But if you look at interest rates historically, they're still not high.

No, they're not.

And I think they're going to have to go a lot higher to begin to really have an impact or bring down inflation.

What I think you're going to see, I mean, we said, I think a month ago that you're about to see a lot of layoffs, and those are already happening.

But what would I, to use the war analogy, in war, even the generals get shot and the Russian army

is experiencing that in spades.

And you like to think, if you're in an asset class, that somehow you're immune and that it's not going to happen to you.

That's not this downturn in the economy isn't going to impact you.

So first it was the growthy stocks and everyone thought, oh, the regular stuff isn't going to be impacted, the big tech guys.

And then Amazon gets hit, Tesla gets hit, even Apple's been hit.

Crypto, and everyone was for a hot minute, was like, oh, well, this is the future.

Crypto has, oh my gosh, has that taken a tumble?

And I think we're going to see in almost every, I think the next shoot-a-drop in terms of an asset class is the run-up in real estate has been unprecedented.

It has already flattened.

In the matter of 30 days, it's gone from going up to flat being flat.

Not everywhere.

Not everywhere.

It is a market-by-market issue, but with interest or with mortgage rates going from the 30-year going from 3%

to almost, it'll probably blow through 6%.

I don't see how there isn't a chill that

comes over real estate.

And in certain markets and certain price points, it doesn't start to have

a serious decline because the interest rates here could go up substantially from here.

Inflation is still well ahead of where interest rates are.

The thing that's so shocking, I was at

this really wonderful conference called the 0100 Conference, which is all about supply chain and the leaders.

I love that you go to a supply chain conference just for fun, but go ahead.

So, Kara, if you look at the 70s and 80s,

shareholder value and CEOs were largely the domain of finance executives.

They were conglomerating and deconglomerating.

Then, if you look at the 90s and the odds, for a hot minute, people from my class, brand strategy, were in charge, and the CMO of Intel became the CEO.

And now the world and shareholder value is all about supply chain.

If you really want to move

the needle, it's all about how do I figure out the different components of my supply chain and add value and show innovation throughout the supply chain.

Anyways, I was at this supply chain conference, 0100, and what's interesting is I would have thought that the increase in prices would figure out a way to motivate people to become a lot more agile and figure out a way to find products from different places.

And producers would be running 24 hours a day to try and meet the excess demand.

And what most people have said is that it's actually gotten worse.

And this one supply chain guy, the chief operating officer of actually S.C.

Johnson, a really thoughtful guy, pointed, we were in Miami offshore and he said, see those two cargo ships?

He said, tomorrow morning, they'll still be there.

And he said, a year ago, they would have disappeared and been unloading in the Port of Miami.

But because of labor, because of all kinds of

unanticipated flow of ships, when a ship stops offshore, there's a good chance it's just going to park there for a long time.

So everything is kind of rippled back and it's not getting any better.

So the Fed, Jerome Powell, can focus on the demand side and get people to stop spending as much when their credit card bills go up, when their mortgage rate goes up, when their car payment goes up.

But there's not a hell of a lot I think we can do in the short term around the supply side.

I don't know about demand.

I'll tell you, one of the things every company I go, every retailer, they're like, we'd like to do more business.

We can't hire people, like a coffee shop, et cetera, et cetera.

Every day,

we're only open these hours because we can't get workers.

And there's demand, there's demand, there's demand.

So I went to the on-running store on Lafayette in New York, just up the road from where your brother steals my clothing.

I'm sorry, your son.

By the way, he doesn't look like your brother.

He looks like a different species.

That picture of him standing next to you is hilarious.

He looks like there's a good chance if you ask him to do his homework, he might get pissed off and eat you.

He just,

you guys do look like a different species.

I think it's just hilarious.

And by the way, that's Megan's biological colour.

That is correct.

Yeah.

He looks like Megan.

Yeah, he does.

He does.

Megan's tall.

But I'm little.

I don't know.

I don't know if you saw my picture with Vice President Kamala Harris, but she is also.

I did see that.

I see.

You didn't mention it.

We won't go into it.

A lot of pantsuits rolling around that picture.

Lot of pantsuits.

I like her very much.

Anyway, sorry.

But she's tall.

Everyone's like, you're still short compared to her.

I said, she was wearing heels and she's not untall.

She's not tall, tall like Alex, but not.

Is Vice President, is Madame Vice President Harris a tall woman?

I'm choosing my words very carefully.

I know.

I don't know.

I'm not tall.

How's that?

I don't know.

She's taller than me.

Really?

Yes.

There's a 411.

There's a headline.

Than me.

There's a headline.

In any case, let's get to our first big story.

And again, it is Elon.

Twitter employees got some FaceTime with the man who's playing monkey with their company.

On Thursday, Elon Musk took questions from Twitter employees at a company, All Hands.

He was asked about free speech, remote work, and more in his answers.

And he said that people who are, quote, exceptional at their jobs can work remotely, but he stressed a preference for in-person work.

He was evasive on the question of layoffs, saying the company needs to, quote, get healthy and pointing out that costs exceed revenue, and that was a problem.

Musk also said he wanted to be involved in the product side of the company.

He didn't seem too interested in being CEO, but he didn't say.

He also said some things about the world and how he wants to make it a better place.

He was on lots of sides of the issue around free speech.

It was kind of unusual.

It did not sound like a guy trying to get out of the deal, though.

Scott, what do you think?

He was very affable, although a little bit

as several people described.

He ambled.

If anyone's ever interviewed him, knows that.

He ambles around a lot.

He was very wordy,

a lot of theory stuff, et cetera.

Your thoughts, Scott?

You still think he's not buying it?

Well, okay.

So

to me, this seems very rational.

He's in the midst of a negotiation with the Delaware Accord, which he will stand in front of, or his lawyers will stand in front of, as will Twitter lawyers, who will claim this guy signed a deal and he's not living up to his side of the deal.

And he will say he will try and come up with exceptional, he will try and come up with material adverse events that exonerate him or give him the ability not to close.

And evidence that he was not genuine about living to his side of the deal would be if he didn't play along.

And so right now, this is all a fucking facade.

This is all a charade, a ruse, disingenuous.

Two words here.

First word, bull, second, shit.

Okay.

I thought it was, it was an okay.

He was asked

about a lot of things.

He did say he wanted that.

He wanted Twitter to have a billion users.

He talked about payments, which you've talked about.

He talked about a wide range of things like that.

But he did talk like someone who was wanting to own the company you just think it's just a farce right look i haven't all i've heard of he's a very bright guy i think if he was genuinely planning on closing he would have showed up with a lot of people and said these are the first 10 things we're doing this is the data i've found that i've looked at these are the product ideas instead he just showed up and said hey i'm elon i'm going to waste your time like i waste everyone else's and all right and i just i i think this guy's totally full of shit.

I think he's in the midst of a negotiation to get out of it.

All right.

One of the things he said is: I want Twitter to contribute to a better, long-lasting civilization where we better understand the nature of reality.

On the other hand, he also said he would like things to be more interesting.

And so he'd allow a lot of speech as long as it's entertaining.

Boredom seems to be top of mind on what he said.

He was nicer, I think, than they expected.

He didn't pop off and do anything.

He made some observations like he, uh, like he does.

I think they were worried about his focus on being entertaining, which is what he is.

Um, he, he, he was, they asked him about how, why he was so hostile.

It was conducted by Leslie Berland, who was a top employee there, and she took in questions off Slack.

Um, some thought it was good because he wasn't hostile, I guess.

He's gotten them used to being hostile.

One of the things he said, if you drink each time he answered a question, you'd be painfully sober at the end end of this.

He took a long time to do that.

He was late and stuff like that.

So I don't know.

He did say he expects people to listen to them.

I thought the payments thing was interesting.

He gave generalized things.

And again, 1 billion users or beyond is his, he sounded like Buzz Lightyear

was his goal.

But again, you just are not buying it.

Well,

I want.

I want to hear your thoughts.

But first off, imagine that he was going to have to have every sentence read back in front of a Delaware judge who would say, were you serious about closing on this?

And have you tried?

And poor you, you can't because you couldn't get the financing or

shocker,

Twitter has more bots than you'd originally thought.

I mean, I think this was nothing.

And not only that, did he sound like someone who's really thought about it?

These were all platitudes.

And the best thing you could say about the guy is he wasn't hostile.

And I do think there's a learning here for Twitter and everyone else.

When you are in person with someone and you can see that the other person is an actual person, you're less likely to shit post like a fucking 14 year old.

And so what a shocker.

He's not.

Well, he wasn't in person.

This was online.

He was in a hotel room.

The sound was terrible, actually.

Yeah, but there's, it's him.

It's people on the other end.

It's, it's a lot easier to call the general counsel, to, to shit post the general counsel over Twitter than it is.

I believe if he met me, he wouldn't come up to me and call me an insufferable numbskull.

He wouldn't say that to my face.

He might.

Come on.

People don't behave that way, or most don't behave that way.

That's what he does.

He was a little more in his charming Elon Musk mode.

He was asked, how will your political views, which recently have shifted, affect your leadership of the company?

He said he calls himself a moderate and he's largely how the center of the country votes.

He said he had voted for a Democrat in the past and noted that he voted for Myra Flores, a Republican in Texas, with some interesting points of view.

He also, interestingly, here, react to this.

He talked up WeChat a lot and about and TikTok.

He said TikTok is great at surfacing videos that are not boring and it keeps people engaged.

He also said that WeChat

was used by everyone all the time in China, and that's what

he's interested in.

He's interested in monetizable user number.

He's interested in subscription revenue and very interested in payments.

Non-committal about layoffs.

I don't know.

I think I don't, he could have been more specific.

I know that I think him, but he could have been more specific.

Between the time, I think about four or six weeks ago when the market started crashing and he came to the realization, I fucked up here and I need to get out.

Do you think he's done any, did his comments reflect he has done any work on a post-close Twitter strategy?

Everything he said was platitudes.

Unspecific.

And by the way, the WeChat thing, we talked about this.

We said on our show that a financial services company or or PayPal could buy Twitter and overnight they've got two of the three legs of a super app.

So everything he said,

he's a brilliant guy.

He's got a good rap.

Everything he said in this meeting reflected two things in my view.

One, he's actually,

he hasn't spent an additional mental calorie focused on what happens post-closing.

All he's focused on now is how to ensure it doesn't close with the lowest exit wound possible.

And two, that this thing,

that this thing just isn't going to,

he has no intention of closing here.

He is posing for a Delaware court judge right now to say, oh, no, I was genuine about closing.

I didn't violate my agreement.

I just insert excuse, couldn't get the equity together, or found out that they had violated a covenant by not disclosing how many actual bots were on the platform.

And I'm serious, I want, I want to get your view because I'm just blathering on here.

Was there anything he said that reflect he had given any additional thought to this company and its strategy over the last month?

It was unspecific.

It was unspecific.

I thought the stuff about a billion, getting to a billion users, that's an interesting thing to say.

I don't, he didn't say how, but he said through payments and being interesting like TikTok.

I don't know how you just do that.

Like, I'd like to be, you know, tall like so on so, but it's not going to happen.

So, you know, I think he was running late.

I thought that wasn't great that he was running late.

Second, his, his connection looked like it was on a cell phone from a hotel room.

If I were him, I'd have made it good

and made sure that I was looking good.

It showed a sort of a lack.

It's typical of him, though.

He, when someone asked him about trust,

there was a question about trust.

What can employees do to earn his trust and what can Mr.

Musk do to earn theirs?

He said, if somebody is getting useful things done, that's great.

If they aren't getting useful things done, why are they at the company?

And that's that's not really an answer.

He,

yeah, it was a lot of his platitude.

At the end, he,

Mike Isaac from the Times, said, I think he tweeted something about an alien.

And he, I texted him, he goes, I just don't even know what he was talking about.

He did note that he does very few interviews, which is not true, but when he does a single tweet, there'll be a two-page article about it.

But he knows this.

This is what he knows.

I thought it was trying to be friendly.

I'm not otherwise the point of it.

And a lot of people were disturbed by his idea that, you know,

it was unspecific.

I would say unspecific is a problem, but people still

has a reputation as an innovator.

So some people there felt heartened by it.

Other times, the non-committal part about being CEO,

he said he wasn't a traditional CEO and pointed to his title of Tesla with his techno king, but he runs things.

It could have gone off the rails.

I guess we expect it to go off the rails with this guy, right?

And so if it doesn't go completely off the rails, we're like, oh, phew.

Yeah, but

I'll re-ask the question.

And I'm genuine.

I'm asking for an answer.

And it's not a question.

It's a comment.

It's based on a thesis I have.

Do you think he said anything that reflects he has made any effort, expended any intellectual calories since a month ago when I believe he decided he wanted out of Dodge to show that he's serious and expects to own this?

Why do it at all?

Why do this?

Yes, why do this?

So he can say, but judge, I was sincere about closing if a delaware judge goes sir you signed this agreement and you have the money and you decided you just want out sorry boss you owe us you owe this company 44 billion dollars but he's got to say oh no i wanted to close look at x y and z so the breakup fee and the judgment against him when he does not show up with 45 billion dollars should be de minimis not 45 billion dollars yep okay one of the things i i agree with some of the things he said at the end he said also he he hoped the service could could help, quote, humankind, quote, better understand the nature of the universe as much as it is possible to understand.

All that means is he does edibles on the road.

The Tao Te Chang.

He does edibles.

I just want to know what brand of edibles he's taken.

He took

before the call.

Okay.

Well, we'll see.

He said he'd come back.

You know, I think everyone.

What's your take here, Kara?

I think because he didn't eat them up,

it was good for him with the employees.

That is the tragedy of Elon is he has so much potential, right?

I'm not talking about the yoga babble and you being his mommy.

I'm talking about

based on additional.

I don't think there was much detail, except the billion thing and except for payments, which he's talked about.

It's a lot of what he's talked about before, and it was woefully lacking in specifics.

But sometimes you just go to say, hey, hey, kids, how you doing?

That kind of thing.

Do you think he intends to close on this deal?

I think he wants to.

I think a lot of people around him don't want him to.

Close people around him think it's crazy.

I think he still wants to.

He still wants to.

I do.

I don't think it's.

Well, that's a yes.

He gets to decide.

He's the decider.

Well, he can be influenced.

He goes through moods.

You know, I think on his best day, yes.

On his worst day, no.

I guess I think he goes through things.

I think there's a lot of people around him who don't want, who think this is a waste of money, an enormous waste of money.

They don't know why he's doing it.

It takes away time, money from his very laudable other things.

And so I'm one of the things that's not.

And the market has shifted dramatically.

That's right.

Yep.

Yep.

When he was high and high, why not?

But at the same time,

I think this could be disastrous for him overall.

And it's too bad because he's got a lot of other really interesting things.

Last question.

Have you talked to anyone at Twitter?

Did you know how they felt about it?

They thought he was unspecific and didn't address their questions.

You know, that could be the questions asked.

You know, he goes on.

Let's just say he ambles around.

And so I think they were relieved he was, didn't say something crazy.

I think that's always, you know, he's, it's a position of strength when people, if you come in, like, I remember we interviewed one time Rupert Murdoch at a, at an all things D conference or a code conference, and it was right after he bought it.

And everyone was expecting Satan and they got Uncle Satan, right?

You know what I mean?

Like they got a more affable person.

And so I think he wasn't what he is on Twitter, which he isn't.

what he is on Twitter, right?

He isn't in person.

So I think that

went, that's a a good thing.

But you just said something.

It's a larger conversation.

And this is what's terrible about social media.

The majority of us aren't who we are on Twitter or on Instagram.

And it's created a lot of negative externalities in our society.

You would never act this coarse to people

in the real world.

He did say harassment will drive people from the service, although he said, you know, freedom of speech and freedom of reach, that kind of stuff.

So that was, you know, I don't know how you can have it both ways, but he didn't think if people are harassed and uncomfortable, they should be on Twitter.

I think he was saying is, why isn't this more fun?

This should be more fun.

Like, that's the kind of thing.

And then leaving out the parts that make it very hard to make it fun.

And so that, that, I think, was naive.

I think literally the minute before he got on this call, he was on a call talking about China closing down or China, which is responsible for half his revenue or profits.

He's very interested.

And then the minute he was off the call, he's like, okay, how do I, I think he's literally like,

this has become priority

X for him.

And I don't, I didn't see any, I didn't hear any evidence that this has shifted up one iota.

Well, we'll see.

One last thing he said.

The standard is about how content should be moderated.

He said the standard is more than not offending people.

The standard should be that they should be entertained, should be more fun.

That is, you know, I can see him saying that and thinking that.

So you can shit post as long as people think it's funny.

Anyway, I'm, why am I even going here?

Why do I even go here?

Okay.

Why am I even going here, Kara?

I said the media was negative about him.

You know, all right, whatever.

Okay.

Anyway, well, hopefully, you know, Twitter can meaningfully improve the strength and longevity of civilization.

That's really, I'm hoping for other things to do that.

Wouldn't that be nice?

Perhaps, as he mused, the aliens could do that.

That would be helpful.

We'll see.

There's also, by the way, meme employees at SpaceX aren't singing his praise.

There's a letter to executives, a group of SpaceX workers called Muska.

Distraction and Embarrassment.

The letter calls on SpaceX to swiftly and explicitly separate itself from Elon's personal brand.

Wow.

Who is that signed by, though?

Like four people at a Starbucks?

Who is it signed by?

I don't know.

I don't know.

Anyway, there you have it.

We'll see where it goes.

I think Scott is probably right.

I just think he does want to own it.

So we have that.

We have that difference.

All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break.

When we come back, Microsoft extends an olive branch to unions and we'll speak with a friend of Pivot, Senator Michael Bennett, a favorite of ours.

As a founder, you're moving fast towards product market fit, your next round, or your first big enterprise deal.

But with AI accelerating how quickly startups build and ship, Security expectations are also coming in faster, and those expectations are higher than ever.

Getting security and compliance right can unlock growth or stall it if you wait too long.

Vanta is a trust management platform that helps businesses automate security and compliance across more than 35 frameworks like SOC2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and more.

With deep integrations and automated workflows built for fast-moving teams, Vanta gets you audit ready fast and keeps you secure with continuous monitoring as your models, infrastructure, and customers evolve.

That's why fast-growing startups like Langchain, Writer, and Cursor have all trusted Vanta to build a scalable compliance foundation from the start.

Go to Vanta.com slash Vox to save $1,000 today through the Vanta for Startups program and join over 10,000 ambitious companies already scaling with Vanta.

That's vanta.com slash box to save $1,000 for a limited time.

Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn.

From talking about sports, discussing the latest movies, everyone is looking for a real connection to the people around them.

But it's not just person to person, it's the same connection that's needed in business.

And it can be the hardest part about B2B marketing, finding the right people, making the right connections.

But instead of spending hours and hours scavenging social media feeds, you can just tap LinkedIn ads to reach the right professionals.

According to LinkedIn, they have grown to a network of over 1 billion professionals, making it stand apart from other ad buys.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company role, seniority skills, and company revenue, giving you all the professionals you need to reach in one place.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience and start targeting the right professionals only on LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn will even give you $100 credit on your next campaign so you can try it for yourself.

Just go to linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

That's linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

Terms and conditions apply.

Only on LinkedIn ads.

Scott, we're back.

Employees at Activision may be on the fast track to unionization, thanks in part to Microsoft.

In an agreement with the Communications Workers of America, Microsoft pledged to stay neutral in regards to union pushes at Activision.

The video game publisher had agreed to acquire earlier this year.

The deal would let employees vote to unionize without bringing in the National Labor Relations Board.

As part of the deal, the CWA has dropped its opposition to Microsoft's purchase of the gaming giant.

The union previously opposed the acquisition on antitrust grounds, so they made a deal.

Other tech companies like Amazon and Apple have fought against union push.

Microsoft is playing nice and now the CWA supports the Activision deal.

Well, you know, I don't know if the opposition was a real threat, but it's a way to threaten companies.

Will this be a model for other tech companies?

What do you think?

Well, let's be clear, though.

It's being kind of positioned as a big victory for unions.

All the agreement is, as I understand it, is that Microsoft has said, drop your opposition to this deal because we want to get the deal done and we won't fight you.

They're not endorsing it.

Yeah, I know, but that's a big deal.

Yeah, well, look, but I've said this for a long time.

I think, unfortunately, I buy into the basic premise of unions, and most people do.

Most people agree that frontline work, people need more dignity.

If we had just raised minimum wage at the same rate as inflation, it would be around 23 or 25 bucks an hour.

I think the strongest union in the world needs to be the federal government that restores dignity to work.

The American brand is generosity, it's liberty, it's innovation, and it's also work.

And the only way it can be central to our brand is if we remain or maintain a certain level of dignity.

Unions have been ineffective and their membership has consistently gone down across almost every Western nation.

Whatever that construct is, whatever that approach is, it's not working.

And it ends up being, in my opinion, the best enemy for corporations or management because they're ineffective and ultimately the corporation can wait out the union and eventually they eventually they almost always win.

And you would think that this would be the perfect storm for you for good things for union through the pandemic.

And this is what's happened.

The best thing that's happened to unions is in the last two years when you think everyone would be very sympathetic to union, frontline workers would want to unionize.

They've taken a lot of abuse through the pandemic.

And the best unions can do is hold it flat.

And you know what it's going to do?

It's going to resume its decline again.

Well, I think it's a question of, you know, there's a lot of union stuff around the media companies, everything else.

And I'm sort of on the outside because I'm not in a union.

But one of the things that I find is when I talk to people that are in unions, is they have kind of a, what have you done for me lately?

What am I paying for this for?

And it's sort of a chicken and egg because if they don't have enough enough people, they can't pressure the management in any way.

And so they have to somehow show union members why they matter, right?

Why they're why what's the benefit from being an active union member?

And I think that's hard, as we've discussed with many people.

And then there's opposition from the companies.

Not everyone's so welcoming of unions.

A complaint from Starbucks employee claims that the company told workers that unionizing could jeopardize their gender-affirming healthcare coverage.

Starbuck denies making any threat.

The Amazon held 25 mandatory anti-union meetings every day in the weeks leading up to the vote in Staten Island.

I, you know, depending on how they behave here, they're allowed to resist it.

Just a question of how they resist it and how they make workers feel.

You know, they're going to fight these things, obviously.

This is, you know.

But what I think has happened slowly but surely, fairly or unfairly, and let me couch all of this again, and that is anyone who shows up to work deserves to make a living wage.

And that is not the case right now.

And I think the federal government needs to step in.

What I think has happened with voters, generally speaking, is that in place, I'll give you an example.

California, which

should have a larger tax base than anyone in the world, any state in the union, because it continues to attract innovators.

It's the most beautiful.

If California were a country, it'd be the most beautiful country in the world.

Anyways, I'm a big fan of California.

It's hard not to be.

Unions and special interest groups have made it very hard to govern and have also made taxes what a lot of people believe is unnaturally high.

And And the states that are not union friendly,

to be fair, are seen as better value and better run than states where unions have, and a lot of people's view, have overrun government.

So I don't think voters are very sympathetic to unions because they're seen as over time

creating a lower standard of living for all citizens in that state because they end up paying higher taxes and having a state that is difficult to govern.

And whether that's fair or not, I think that's perception that the 88% of people who are not in unions hold.

So, what do they do?

We keep talking about this over and over again.

What do they do?

What about the pushback from the Amazons, the Apples, the Starbucks?

Well,

here's it's like saying, what does broadcast television or the yellow pages do?

I mean, I just don't, I don't think the union construct is a construct that is long for this world.

And unfortunately, I think it would be better if I'm just pissed off.

I think unions give people the perception that frontline workers have effective representation, and they don't.

And it is outrageous that the NASDAQ has quadrupled even in the face of this decline, that CO pay is up 300%,

and

frontline worker wages for minimum wage, the majority of whom don't have a union, has exploded from $7.25 to $7.25.

So the solution being government raising the minimum wage.

Part of the problem with the unions is it's like

these trying to find leadership in Afghanistan.

There's so many warring factions.

The unions aren't coordinated.

They don't like each other.

And what you need is we need one union called the U.S.

government, and it needs to represent people and ensure they have dignity of work.

We have OSHA, that's very powerful.

We have child labor laws, those are very powerful and effective.

We need nationwide federal mandated minimum wage.

You know, and some states are doing this.

Washington is doing this.

California is doing this.

I think they're showing extraordinary leadership.

That is much more effective than these battles set up between one union trying to unionize one store at Starbucks.

I just don't think long-term that's an effective solution for our frontline workers.

Well, that's going to take a long time.

That's not going to happen.

You know that.

You realize that, correct?

I mean, it's just not.

Minimum wage?

No, it's not going to happen.

It's not going to happen.

Increasing minimum wage?

Yeah.

I don't think so.

Oh, I disagree.

When?

We've increased it before.

Why can't we increase it now?

Because when was the war?

It used to be $3.

When I was working, it was $3.

I get that, but when was it before, is what I'm saying.

It's like you have a situation where it doesn't seem to be.

Look, so many people, I've been talking to a lot of people, and there's been a lot of events, and there's a lot of political people, and they just literally don't think anything can pass.

The way Congress is

dysfunctional, that this kind of stuff can't pass.

So I think

people rethinking what unions are,

how do you organize?

I think when they're effective, they're very effective.

And what I get sort of bent around the Excel about is that it's always in this obstreperous way.

Either the man is screwing you or the unions are screwing, you know, or the unions are corrupt.

So where is the actual cooperation between workers and management?

I don't know.

Maybe I'm just being naive, but it seems like that's the same thing.

Well,

a lot of people would say it's that labor is mostly a function of supply and demand.

And I think that works for the middle class and upper income information workers.

It doesn't work for workers on the front lines.

If you just let things go to their natural level, there are a lot of

where unions are growing, information workers.

That's the place it's growing.

It is.

The unions and media were not as powerful as they are now.

It's flat.

Union membership is flat in the era where they should be killing it.

And

I think Congress is dysfunctional.

That's my feeling.

Oh, well, that's a different talk show, and it's hard not to agree with you.

With a three

the presidential system, in my opinion, is not working versus a parliamentary system.

I mean, it's a longer conversation.

Money and politics, gerrymandering.

We have a dysfunctional non-you know, minority rule, but that's a longer talk show.

We were talking about unions.

I think unions end up hurting workers because it creates the illusion they have representation and they don't.

They don't have effective representation.

On that, we'll be getting a lot of calls, I'm guessing.

Anyway, it's time.

Speaking of politics, it's time to bring in our friend of Pivot.

Senator Michael Bennett represents Colorado in the the U.S.

Senate.

Last month, he introduced the Digital Platform Commission Act, which would establish a federal body to provide, as it describes, sector-specific regulation for digital platforms.

We've got a lot of questions.

Welcome, Senator Bennett.

So, Senator Bennett, thank you for coming and welcome.

Let's talk, go jump right into this new

act that you introduced.

Why do we need a new federal regulator?

Why not just expand the FTC?

Can you talk in detail of what you're thinking here?

Yeah, I don't think we have the expertise in the existing agencies to be able to regulate these digital platforms.

We're going to be totally outrun by them.

And I think it's completely appropriate for us to form a new agency with the expertise to do it along the lines of the FCC or the FTC.

And then remove that power from the FTC.

Because sort of one of the things a lot of the tech people say to me is the reason a lot of this hasn't been passed is because this alphabet of different agencies

don't know which one to grab.

Who's regulating who, kind of thing?

Right.

I think that's always an issue.

And what I expect, if we ever do get this passed, and I hope I won't be dead before we get it done,

there's going to be shared responsibility here with the FTC, with the DOJ.

And I think that's good, not bad.

But I don't think that suggests that we shouldn't have an independent agency with the expertise to be able to do that.

And is there any controversies?

Because the Homeland Security, when they had the Misinformation Bureau, of course, that's been uh put to the side people are worried about having a national information agency I guess that's how do you push back on that I do I do think there's there there are people that are worried about that I would push back on that by saying you know from my seat on the intelligence committee I see almost on a daily basis the way foreign governments are attacking the United States of America through these

through these digital platforms and we can't just sit here defenseless.

I see every single day the effects in my state on teenage kids, especially teenage girls, of the way they're interacting

with these platforms.

So I think there are probably a lot of reasons why people would worry about a new federal agency.

I myself think it would be a good idea to start moving some of these agencies out of Washington, D.C.

And we're just going to have to have that discussion.

We're going to have to have that argument.

But I think failure is not an option here because Congress is never going to be able to regulate this stuff properly.

Senator, good to to see you.

Good morning.

Good to see you.

So let's assume that this gets passed and they come to you as somebody who was the kind of the godfather of this agency and say, where do you think we should focus first?

We have limited resources.

Is it teen depression?

Is it antitrust?

Is it security,

national security?

Where would you like to see that?

What does success look like?

I think those three categories of things you mentioned are the reasons why I wrote the legislation to begin with.

I would say as a parent that the place that I'd like to see us start is mental health.

The Surgeon General of the United States is saying we've been running a massive experiment on our kids and we have.

You know, I was in the Mississippi Delta during my not very well

recognized campaign for president and I met with moms there who were saying to me, the schools are nowhere near as good as they used to be.

The schools have never been very good there.

And our kids are spending all of their time addicted to

these platforms.

And that's happening while people in Silicon Valley are sending their kids to camp so they can read books and get away from digital stuff.

So

I just saw some statistics this morning that said that 40% of the kids in Colorado say they're depressed

as a result of COVID and as a result of these social media platforms.

So that's probably where I would start as a parent.

And I think it's very hard for these digital platforms to say that some regulation around this set of issues is not

needed.

So,

one of the things is you just said Congress

can't regulate this industry.

It grills tech executives frequently.

You've been in hearings.

I've watched every hearing.

And there's no way, no legislation.

There's two bills that might pass this year, maybe three.

Talk to us why that's the case.

Why has it been so hard to regulate tech?

Europe is doing it.

New Zealand is doing it.

Canada is doing it.

Well, so that's first of all, Kara, incredibly important.

I think that we should not be the standard taker here.

The United States should be leading in terms of setting standards, and we're not today because Europe is able to do what they're doing, and China is able to force their way into all these conversations.

And that's another reason why we ought to set an agency up like this.

I think it's a reflection of the profound dysfunctionality of our democracy.

We are in rough, rough shape.

And you add on to that

the role of special interests in Congress and

the fact that everybody's 150 years old here and isn't necessarily familiar with how these digital platforms work, that's a tough combination.

And a lot of those hearings you're talking about are ones where I think the tech executives have sort of outrun the Congress.

I think it'll be harder for them to outrun an agency like this.

Aaron Powell, Jr.: So profound dysfunctionality.

What one or two things do you think would most immediately address that?

If you were to say, all right, voters, this is what we need to do to make Congress and our government more functional?

I mean,

I would say two things.

One, create a system of voting in this country that looks like Colorado's system of voting.

We have the second highest voter participation rate in the country, and the reason is that we've got a robust set of mail-in ballots.

We've got ballot boxes.

Denver's got like 50 ballot boxes.

Houston, which is much larger, has one drop box.

And so, and a system of early voting, it works.

Republicans in Colorado would not want this system to get taken away.

So, that's one thing I would do.

But by far, a more important thing is we've got to create an economy in this country that when it grows, it actually grows for everybody, not just the top 10 percent.

The last 50 years of an economy where 90 percent of the American people haven't seen wage increases, where we've seen no economic mobility.

This democracy will not survive another 50 years like that.

And I think it's very fortunate that there's beginning to emerge a consensus, I think, in the United States that says that all the promises that we made about what would happen when Beijing joined the WTO and

the way the country would liberalize as a result, for example, of

social media.

and the internet all turns out not to be true.

And that gives us an opportunity to say, okay, how do we create an economy that's not just about privileging people that want to make stuff as cheaply as possible in China, but is about our supply chains and about our national security, about our kids' mental health and our families' well-being.

So when you're going to create a stand-up, a whole new agency, again, controversial, nonetheless, as I said, the Department of Homeland Security had to kill its disinformation board.

One of the things that pulls into it is this free speech idea, which is very noisy, actually.

It's a lot of speech about free speech and about censorship.

I think one of the things I was talking to some prominent officials, I'm like, stop talking about free speech.

Talk about privacy.

Talk about data.

Talk about well-being.

Talk about anything else but that.

How do you remove it from that?

Because it's such a good political thing to be screaming that you're censored when you, I'm thinking of Senator Hawley.

He never shuts up.

Right.

So let me, first of all, agree with everything that you just said about the kinds of things that we should be focused on and we should be talking about.

I go back again to the teenage mental health issue.

That's not a First Amendment issue.

That's an issue of, you know, my kid standing there with

the avatars of other teenage kids that are all at a party that she's not at, you know, which is happening to kids all over the country day after day after day.

But I also would say, I don't, I'm a huge supporter, obviously, of the First Amendment, and I believe strongly in it.

I don't think that the government should be telling people how to do their content moderation, but we should know what they're doing to do content moderation.

We should understand what they're doing, just like we should understand

how these algorithms addict children and other people in our society.

And

the social media companies themselves say that their research shows that majorities of kids are being addicted by the algorithms that they've...

flung in front of them.

Right.

And that's one of the bills that's not passing.

That's one of the transparency bill.

There's also two antitrust bills.

Backers say they have the votes.

Are you among them on these bills, these other bills?

I think, you know, I'm looking at all of it, and I think it's obviously incredibly important to regulate the antitrust aspects of this.

If given a free, you know, my free hand that Scott gave me a few minutes ago, I think it'd be a lot better to set up a commission like this to do this kind of work in concert with DOJ than to pick one thing.

And then when we pick one thing, we never may get back to anything else.

And the other things are really important.

I can tell you, we are really exposed as a nation because of the way foreign governments are using these platforms, you know, to pursue disinformation campaigns in the U.S.

That's a big vulnerability we have.

Absolutely.

Scott, last question.

I assume it's about January 6th, but maybe not.

Sure.

So

January 6th,

do you think these hearings are doing what they were supposed to do?

And what are you hoping that we get out of these hearings?

I'm glad that the hearings are being held because I think it's really important to

make a historical record of what happened.

And it may turn out that people are surprised by what they learn about the number of times Donald Trump was told that the election hadn't been stolen

when he was telling the American people it was stolen.

People may

see the fraud for what it is when he raised, I think it was $250 million

on the lie that he was telling the American people.

I don't think this is going to break through today with inflation and with energy prices and with everything that people are worrying about

on a daily basis, but that's not a reason not to do this.

I think the long-term accountability here is going to be important to our country.

And this is just one of a number of really

profound headwinds that we're facing as a country, the income inequality that I mentioned earlier, the lack of economic mobility, our broken immigration system, climate change, the inability of us to educate our children.

I mean, this is a long, long list of things that we need to address.

And the fact that we had a president, I think in part because of that massive income inequality, who was the closest thing we've had to a tyrant in this country.

Somebody who didn't believe in the rule of law, somebody didn't believe in democracy.

You know, it's important to get the facts out for that reason so we don't repeat that.

All right, Senator Bennett, thank you so much, and we'll be watching for where this legislation goes.

Uh, really appreciate it.

Thank you, thank you, Senator.

Thanks for your good work.

Thanks, guys.

Good to see you.

Well, Scott, we're going to take a quick break.

He is a smart guy, he really should be president.

He didn't do very well.

You were a big backer of his.

I agree with you.

I hosted fundraisers for him.

And I like to be upfront and transparent.

I don't think President Biden is going to run again.

And

I like to be transparent about my support.

I'm going to support Senators Klobuchar and Bennett.

And here's the problem.

They're both incredibly thoughtful, good people.

They'd be great presidents.

But the problem is neither of them are very good at Twitter.

Well, although, interestingly, Elon said he was going to start a super center, super PAC, Super Center something.

Yay.

Or he's going to start.

Problem solved.

I'm just saying.

Problem solved.

These are centrists that have a hard time getting heard in this noisy, noisy political environment.

But nonetheless, I see how smart he is.

Me too.

Yeah, he's incredibly smart, and I've gotten to know him over the last few years.

He's a really good man.

He's very focused on, he doesn't pose for the cameras.

He's willing to give credit to other people.

All the things that probably means he will never be president.

Yes.

He also speaks in full sentences.

That's a problem.

Anyway, he's so thoughtful.

I really, I, what a, what a, I, I worry about someone like him leaving politics.

That's what I worry about.

When I saw him, at some point, he will.

That's right.

I've had enough.

This is someone who's, you know, every day is offered the opportunity to be chairman of some big private equity firm.

And instead, he tries to, you know, fight for the middle class and just common sense legislation.

And it's literally like banging your head against it.

Yep, agreed.

Anyway.

All right, Scott, one more quick break.

We'll be back for wins and fails.

Chronic migraine is 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.

Botox, onobotulinum toxin A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they start.

It's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month.

It prevents on average eight to nine headache days a month versus six to seven for placebo.

Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor.

Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms.

Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition.

Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk.

Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck, and injection, side pain, fatigue, and headache.

Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness.

Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection.

Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

Why wait?

Ask your doctor, visit BotoxchronicMigrain.com, or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

Support for the show comes from Sacks Fifth Avenue.

Sacks Fifth Avenue makes it easy to shop for your personal style.

Follow us here, and you can invest in some new arrivals that you'll want to wear again and again, like a relaxed product blazer and Gucci loafers, which can take you from work to the weekend.

Shopping from Saks feels totally customized, from the in-store stylist to a visit to Saks.com, where they can show you things that fit your style and taste.

They'll even let you know when arrivals from your favorite designers are in, or when that Brunello Caccinelli sweater you've been eyeing is back in stock.

So, if you're like me and you need shopping to be personalized and easy, head to Saks 5th Avenue for the best follow arrivals and style inspiration.

Okay, Scott, what are your wins and fails?

Well, my win is: I have friends that even though we're 50-something

males who aren't in touch with our emotions, I had two friends, George Hahn and Roger McNamee, both reach out after our last podcast and say, Are you all right?

I thought that was really nice.

And I said, Yeah, I'm fine.

But I don't think that just 10, 20 years ago, men our age were inclined to reach out to each other and say something along the lines of, are you all right?

So thank you to Roger and George.

And I think that's, I think it's a good thing that people are in touch with their emotions.

And no one ever, no one ever doesn't feel closer to someone else when they reach out and say, how are you doing?

So that's my win is just, is this men actually expressing their emotions?

My fail, and I'm curious to get your take on this.

And I've been, I've been reticent to talk about it because I know I'll get some pushback and some of it might be warranted.

So I've done a lot of work with the Estee Lauder Company, and it's a great organization.

The Lauder family are really good people.

They're civic-minded.

They continue to produce generations of thoughtful leaders.

The original matriarch is just this inspiring woman, one of the great entrepreneurs of the 20th century.

Fabricio Fredo is one of the great CEOs.

John Dempsey, who I don't know well, I've done some work with him, but I don't know him well,

basically

has been kind of

the creative force of the company.

And it took Matt Cosmetics from a tiny acquisition and blew it up to a multi-billion dollar brand.

He's kind of a first ballot hall of fame beauty executive.

And he retweeted a really stupid tweet, a cartoon that was offensive.

And it was wrong.

It was a mistake.

He should have known better.

And quite frankly, they unceremoniously fired him.

And they made this very bold statement that we have to be sensitive to community.

And I think that was a fail.

I think that if you're going to be a civic-minded corporation and be thoughtful and sensitive, that also goes for your employees.

And I think you give someone the benefit of the doubt.

And you don't look at one frame of the movie.

You look at the other 34 millimeters a second.

And if you look at all of the frames of John Dempsey's career, he was one of the first executives to put transgender engagement

leaders.

The Times story was very interesting because most of the people who supported him were people of color, people he had brought up and brought into programs.

It was an interesting story, I would agree.

I have to say when Ricky Martin came out as gay, and people forget just not that long ago, it was a lot harder.

John Dempsey was the first person to kind of wrap corporate arms around him and said, we want you to be our spokesperson.

And so to not look at this individual's history around fighting for gay rights, around showing sensitivity to disenfranchised groups, to not look at the full movie that is his career is, in my opinion, performative.

I think it verges on cowardice not to stand by someone who's created created so much shareholder value that you can reinvest in the community.

So, my fail is that you need to take into context people's, you know, if people are hateful, if people have a pattern of this, then yeah, fire them.

But I think this was performative.

I think it was posing for the cameras.

And I think it was a rare mistake from a great company, Estee Lauder.

That's my fail.

I don't think they showed a lot of empathy.

Yeah, you know, I have to say, I was going to mention this to you because I figured you knew him or you knew the company.

And I thought the Times did a very good piece because it was, it left, you know how I'm like, not everything's canceled, Scott.

It's just people act badly.

In this case, it felt like there was a bigger story here.

And it's interesting.

It sort of contrasts to what's going on at the Washington Post over the Twitter fighting.

Josh Barrow wrote a very good piece on, you know, how people behave there, yelling at each other on Twitter publicly rather than dealing with it privately.

And this story really did stick with me with John Jempsey there.

And what was most interesting is, again, most of the people who were surprised by this were people he had helped and moved up.

And I sort of am like, how did this happen within the company when you couldn't have given him a time off?

Or, you know, there is a level of what happened here with this.

And I sort of, I was like, is there something else that we don't know about or what?

But it definitely was.

It was something people should read the story.

There's one in the New York Times.

There's several.

And it's confusing, I would say.

It's confusing.

He'll do just just fine, by the way, FYI.

I think he's sadly agree with that.

I think this is not the period he wanted on a very impressive career.

It's now what he's known for.

And I think they showed a lack of grace here.

Yep.

He, you know, this is why social media can be real, like it's a really interesting.

People have to be very careful, you know, how they behave.

I was talking to a lot of people.

In fact, one of the people in the Washington Post thing reached out to me and I said, you know, you can, and this is what something Josh Barrow wrote, you can be right and still wrong.

You know, you, you can be correct in what you were going for, but how you're doing it, you know, people are surprised because they're like, oh, you're always saying crazy things online.

I'm like, actually, I'm very careful, much more careful than you think, you know, how you do it.

Smart.

Yeah.

I'd be like, I'm a professional.

Don't like do this at home.

But the saying that's always stuck with me, and my colleague, Jonathan Haidt, has said this, and it really struck with me.

And I always tell young people this, you should interpret comments and actions or gestures with the intent that they were given.

Don't interpret them and take them to a place and use it as soft tissue to go after them.

Go, what were they trying to do?

What do you think they actually meant to communicate or do here?

And interpret it that way, as opposed to saying, oh, I can take it to an ugly place and then jump all over you and get my guardians of gotcha pin.

Yep.

Yep.

This is interesting.

There's a quote here.

Let me just read it.

Over the past few years, powerful white executives have lost their jobs because of racist statements they made to employees and others.

John Schachter, the founder of Papa John's, used a racial slur on a conference call.

Greg Glassman, the founder and and CEO of CrossFit, posted a tweet that made light of the killing of George Floyd and spoke belligerently to CrossFit gym owners about race in a video call.

Very different than this situation.

I urge you all to look into it because it really is,

you know, this is a high-level person who's made a lot of money and there's lots of people who are wronged in this world, but it's a really, it's a complex thing that we should think really hard about when we're, when we're doing these things.

I'm not even sure why,

because a lot of the people supported him.

It was very confusing.

Anyway, you should read about it.

But I think you're correct.

I actually agree with you, Scott Galloway.

Incredible.

Good enough.

Your son can wear my belt.

Keep the belt, Kara.

Keep the belt.

I shall.

I shall.

I shall.

Okay, Scott, that's the show.

We'll be back on Friday for more.

Can you read us out?

I sure can.

Today's episode was produced by Lara Naiman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin.

Ernie Intertod engineered this episode.

Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Miel Silverio.

Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.

Thanks for for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Box Media.

We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business.

Carol, have a wonderful weekend.