Amazon warehouse workers issue lawsuit, Alexis Ohanian steps down from Reddit board and a deeper debate on Section 230

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.

Attention all small biz owners.

At the UPS store, you can count on us to handle your packages with care.

With our certified packing experts, your packages are properly packed and protected.

And with our pack and ship guarantee, when we pack it and ship it, we guarantee it.

Because your items arrive safe or you'll be reimbursed.

Visit the ups store.com slash guarantee for full details most locations are independently owned product services pricing and hours of operation may vary see center for details the ups store be unstoppable come into your local store today

hi everyone this is pivot from the vox media podcast network i'm kara swisher and i'm scott galloway so happy reopening new york city kara i've decided i've decided for me does that mean i have to let my kids back in the house no you have to let your kids back they better not be camping in your florida compound in the backyard nice tent

you have a compound i've been watching filthy rich on netflix about uh um james patterson of all people did a documentary called filthy rich about jeff it's actually very good james patterson's in it a lot but he apparently was his neighbor uh and didn't like his neighbor so much but uh it's quite good and he had a compound in florida do you have one Define what compound means.

Well, it's just a compound.

It's just weird to see it from above because it looks like

they're all jammed together, all these people on the intercoastal waterways uh and all these rich people in these incredibly expensive houses all jammed together but they have these big pools everyone has a big pool and a and in epstein's case the creepy rapey area that he abused all these young girls actually that's that's um there's actually that's the nice there's palm beach and then there's creepy rapey uh hamlet which has seen home prices substantially decline oh well in any case it was really

rapey

okay well i just watch watch it i got to tell you I never thought James Patterson make a good documentary, but James Patterson has made a great documentary.

Did you see the Epstein documentary?

This is the one on Netflix that just came out.

I watched the first couple episodes.

It was just too uncomfortable.

Oh, this one's just the interviews they got were just really devastating, but so

effective in terms of really making the case.

I really, I liked seeing the people you read about that kind of sort of got maligned by people like Alan Dershowitz and others actually speak for themselves.

And it was like, fuck you, Alan Dershowitz, after you read it.

You know what I mean?

After you heard them.

So anyway, but I say that quite a bit anyway about him.

So

what's going on?

What else is going on?

My son graduated from high school this weekend.

That's very exciting.

It was very exciting.

It is a little bit

sad.

No, it wasn't.

It is.

It wasn't sad.

Here's why.

What they did is, okay, they had their graduation outfits.

His was in green.

And we met all his friends before.

You know, we all got in the cars because it was a drive-through graduation.

And so we could only fit the, I couldn't bring Amanda, but we have, as you know, a mixed, blended family.

But we put in my ex, my other son, and my son, Louie.

And he popped his head out of the top of the car.

There's a sunroof.

And he sat on the top of the car.

And we drove around the circle of the school.

Okay.

And it was lined with teachers, all socially distant and masks and everything else, just cheering the kids.

And they drove through, and

it was slow going, which was great.

It was like a parade.

And then they stopped and they got a senior gift and they got woo and they they went they screamed and yelled and then they got their diploma and it was really you know for a shitty situation it was pretty good it was and it was very moving the teachers were incredible they they were yelling and screaming for these kids for three hours the only thing is the kids couldn't really be together with each other screaming for each other but it was nice i have to say my son was very moved and uh he actually He thought it was pretty good.

They might have another graduation with all the kids together later in the year, but it was really, it turned out okay.

Turned out okay.

We made the best of a bad, they made the best of a bad situation and did a nice job.

I've been to a bunch of those.

We're doing them, you know, for third grade and sixth grade graduation.

And I find them in those things,

as you said, just incredibly inspiring.

Yep.

And then I have trouble not getting emotional at them because I think about,

I wonder if we are of my generation

as a function of our selfishness, our

globalization of the economy, our defunding government, our, you know, just ignoring the externalities of every arbitrage so we could get, you know, more and more wealthy.

If at the end of the day, we've just kind of shortchanged our kids' future, that our kids just live kind of this non-prom,

non-childhood that we had because we're just so fucking greedy.

And then we were very upset.

I don't know if we could have anticipated.

Very down.

I know that is.

I don't know if we could have anticipated COVID, but

plagues are hard to predict.

But in this day, I don't know.

Pandemics are much more predictable than a bull economy.

Let me explain to you.

You and I do not matter, Scott.

It's the kids.

And you and I don't matter.

It's the kids.

And I got to tell you, my son had such a great attitude about a really shitty situation for him.

And I am so proud of him.

I can't even tell you.

He's just, he handled it better than I did.

And he's, and if he doesn't mind, then I don't mind.

And he's headed to college.

Well, they don't mind because they know what they're missing.

Well, I don't know.

I don't know.

Don't be a downer.

He was great.

And let me tell you, he's headed to NYU where I will have a security detail surrounding him at all times so that you don't get near him.

I'll be there with you.

No, you do not get near him.

They're going to have your little picture on a card.

And if you get near my son, they're going to take some action.

They're going to take some Bilbar action on you if you get near my son.

William Barr?

I don't even know what that means.

You know, like Lafayette Park.

I had nothing to do with it, even though protesters got gassed.

The argument he was making about gassing was insane.

It was tear gaslighting.

That's what it was.

Tear gaslighting.

So anyway, whatever.

You're not getting near my son.

That's really pretty much the message I want to leave with you.

So anyhow.

See, I know you're joking.

That hurts my feelings.

I'm tearing that.

You can hang with him.

You can hang with him.

Anyways.

I'm a delicate little flower to you.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

We got to get to the big stories.

There's lots of them.

What are the big stories?

There's lots of them.

Well, Amazon is having issues and legal backlash from employees over sick leave leave during COVID-19.

I don't know if you saw, there's some workers on Staten Island that filed a lawsuit saying the company failed to use proper CDC guidelines in contact tracing COVID-19 among workers, essentially didn't tell them.

They also argue, or when they told Amazon, they didn't.

tell everybody else.

They also argue Amazon moved too slowly in providing protective equipment, temperature checks, and other tools to keep employees safe.

Employees aren't seeking financial settlement.

They're asking the court for an injunction that would require Amazon to follow public health standards.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg is reporting because Amazon's HR program is so heavily automated, which it is, I've had many people tell me this, employees say it hadn't been able to keep up with sick leave requests and so left some workers faced with termination for not showing up to work.

Obviously, this stuff gets sorted out, but it's still upsetting for people who have COVID.

And, you know, it's very hard to reach a customer service representative at Amazon HR.

So this dynamic between this powerful company's workforce continues to be an interesting focus, even as Jeff Fez's promise to spend all this money to proactively

help its workers and reinvest profits back in the supply chain.

So what do you think?

I mean, obviously, this is, everyone was caught unawares, and that's the fairness we'll give them.

But what do you think?

What do you make of this?

This is, it's just pulling back.

COVID-19, in addition to being an accelerant, it's sort of the mother of all curtain pulling backs.

And that is, it's revealing just how...

It's a little bit of a verb.

I like that.

Go ahead.

Right.

It's revealing that essential workers are this bullshit around

all this sandburging.

And I think of sandburging as a verb for when you pretend to care about something and you're just doing it as a means of putting more money in your own pocket.

Couldn't that be Zuckerberging?

But anyway, go ahead.

Oh, no,

that's when you're a sociopath who will.

So Zuckerberg has become a new verb for an oligarch.

If you think about what oligarch means, it means you use corruption and proximity to power to become a billionaire.

And that's what Zuckerberg is now.

He's the global oligarch.

His proximity to

the president, he's entered into an holy relationship.

He's no longer competing.

He is using his proximity and his total lack of any sense of morality or concern for the Commonwealth and his proximity to the president to enter into what is the mother of all unholy alliances.

Sandberging is when you pretend to give a flying fuck about something as a means of delaying and obfuscating that you're doing exactly what you care about such that you can get richer.

So I think there's a lot of, I think there's a lot of sandberging going on when Susan.

Isn't it Bezosian?

Why don't you call it Bezosian?

Bezosian.

It has something more to do with a midlife crisis.

I haven't come up with that yet.

All right.

Okay.

So, but

this is a company's promise to fix this situation.

Right.

But what we're saying is that I hate the term essential workers because

when they say essential, what they really mean is people that through a mix of income inequality and a lack of minimum wage, a lack of standards, and the fact that we don't hold these companies the same standards we've held other companies, that we're essentially going to call them heroes such that we can continue to pay them shitty wages and put them in harm's way.

And to Amazon's credit, they raised the minimum wage across their entire employee set to 15 bucks an hour, which I think is something.

I think they deserve credit for that.

But it's hard to know to the extent to which they have

implemented distancing and the investments they've made and employee compensation, because I do think there is something to

voluntarily putting yourself in harm's way as our men and women in uniform do, oil rig, whatever it might be.

Firemen is actually

a fairly dangerous job.

As long as you're cognizant of the risk and you're being compensated for it and you're being protected from,

you're being protected should something really bad happen.

You know, deep sea divers have like a life expectancy.

They don't live past 50 or 55, but they make two or 300 300 grand a year and they have massive life insurance policies paid for by their petroleum, you know, parents.

Oh, by the way, I have errors and omissions I need to get to.

When do we do that in the show?

Can we do that now?

I have some, I made some errors.

All right, quickly.

In the last show.

Okay, sorry.

Quickly, this isn't linear fucking television.

Let's do it every day.

I'm just talking and me listening, but go ahead.

It's called Scott's Therapy.

It's supposed to be the other way.

It's supposed to be the other way around, right?

I'm supposed to be the one listening right now.

Yes, yes.

Anyways,

I had said said that the firebombing of Dresden killed more people than the nuclear detonations in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and several people weighed in and corrected me.

The 200,000 number that was put on the death toll in the Dresden firebombing was something that was propaganda from the Communist Party, who controlled obviously the eastern part of Germany.

It was actually closer to 20,000 and somewhere between 50 and 100,000 people died in each of the nuclear detonations.

So that was not an accident.

That's a math miss.

Right.

And then, although

there was one evening where the Allies had a bombing raid against Tokyo that supposedly took 100,000 lives.

So arguably the greatest disaster or toll on human life during the World War II was this midnight bombing raid of Tokyo.

But anyways, I just wanted to correct that

I got that wrong.

Anyways, I'm sorry.

Back to our regular schedule.

All right.

All right.

All right.

So let me interject, if you don't mind, for a second.

Yes.

Between you admitting you make math errors all the time.

But I do think that there's an opportunity here for Amazon to do that.

I was thinking, why don't all, if I was him, I would have all the executives at Amazon work on the lines until it was fixed, put themselves, speaking of putting themselves in harm's way, is work, like order all your executives down there and say a vice president and above, I guess.

There's hundreds of vice presidents and say, you're going to go down there until it's fixed.

Like, and I don't know.

Well, but when you say fixed, what is fixed?

Well, I think just at least being under CDC guidelines, and I know they're pushing back, Amazon's pushing back that they are and they're following these guidelines.

But if you're going to brag about spending $4 billion to vaccination, you know, vaccinate the supply chain, then vaccinate the, don't brag about it before you've done it.

And so I think I would put my executives down there and say, oh, it's, you know, it's like sort of eating the dog food.

It's like, there was, I saw a movie called Deepwater or something like that.

It was with Mark Ruffalo where he gained weight and he played a lawyer.

And they were like, would you drink this?

Like it was from this stream in this area that DuPont had

sullied.

And the guy said, it's like drinking a tire.

Of course, I wouldn't.

Like, you know, there's been so many scenes like that.

Yeah.

So it's, I think they have, they have, I would like them to be much more, I would, it would be really something for Jeff Bezos, who does tend to speak out.

He just spoke out.

He read a letter from someone who wrote him sort of a

rant about Black Lives Matter saying, I don't want you as a customer anyway.

He does this kind of stunty kind of stuff all the time, although I appreciated that stunt.

And he should do something like that.

Like if he says he's going to do this, he should like put some arrow behind that wood.

No, wood behind that arrow, wood behind that arrow.

And

show that being very transparent about how many people died, how many people got sick, how many, like radical transparency on this.

And it could be really fascinating, you know, if they, if, if they, if we believe them, that's the thing is there's not a lot of belief in these tech companies as much and more trust.

But in this case, if he like put out the numbers, I think that would be, you know, he did it around his, you know, his sex photos.

So why not?

And I think that would be really something to talk about the difficulty of it, talk about what the challenges are.

And it's not PR to say, here's what we're facing.

Here's the six things that are hard.

Here's what we didn't do right.

Here's what we did do right.

Here's what we need to do better.

And I just think there's a real opportunity for any company, not Amazon.

But since they were committing all these billions, to do that, to do that in a way that everybody could see and then copy those practices or don't copy them if they're bad practices.

All right, I'm done with my ring.

So you said a lot there, but generally speaking, most great retail companies have a formal process.

And I remember Howard Lesser, the founder and CEO of William Sonoma, this just lion of business.

He implemented a process where every executive, I don't know if it was once a year, went and spent time in the call center.

And I think they may even spent time in the fulfillment center such that

And it wasn't, quite frankly, probably an effort such that you would develop empathy for people in other income earning classes, but such that you would just understand the consumer better.

But I think that's generally just a good practice for executives to spend time across their entire supply chain.

I am more sympathetic, I think, to Walmart and Amazon factory workers because

I was asked by this

hedge fund to identify what I thought were the biggest kind of meta or big systemic risks on there.

And

I think the biggest risk facing the world right now is that somewhere between 16 to eight weeks before the election, the polls come back for Trump Trump that he's going to lose and we have a wag the dog scenario.

I think he's fucking crazy enough to get into a shooting match with the Chinese in the South China Sea or something just to try and beef up his popularity.

We now have two of three of things.

We have a pandemic.

I feel like people want, oh, now war?

I don't think that'll help him in any way.

Well,

yeah, you're speaking rationally.

Anyways, and then I think the other big risk that I was nervous about, and I think that risk is mostly passed now that we're starting to open up again, but it could come back, is I don't think people realize how vulnerable we were.

We thought we think of ourselves as having this unbelievably robust supply chain, but when you recognize that our nation could no longer produce cotton swabs and get them to hospitals, you recognize how vulnerable our supply chain was.

I don't think people realize how vulnerable and at-risk our food supply chain was for a while there.

And if Amazon and Walmart had something really bad happen where they needed to interrupt their supply chain and start closing their distribution centers or their warehouses or

I think you could have seen chaos.

I think people would have started picking up their Glocks and heading to the publics to get food.

And so, I think the supply chain, and this is the problem, and it's a discussion we should have coming out of this pandemic, and that is have Walmart and Amazon become too big to fail?

Yeah.

And so, I think it's important, and I think it's worth some risk.

And that's not to say that people shouldn't be compensated.

They shouldn't, no one should have to show up to work because they're so poor, they feel they put themselves in harm's way.

But I do think Walmart and Amazon's food supply chain right now plays

almost sort of like a national defense kind of critical like role.

So, but transparency, absolutely, the data, how many people are contracting it?

I'm sorry, go ahead.

They just, they needn't have, they're going to have lawsuits.

Every company in the world is going to have lawsuits, but here's a company that could very hard to establish attribution and liability around these types of lawsuits.

Yeah, I know, I know, but I think it's really important that they maybe be a leader here in this area, and they certainly could take advantage of it.

They just made a big deal about doing it.

I'd like to actually see it in action.

That's what I would do.

But anyway, we have to take a quick break.

We'll be back to talk about Reddit's co-founder stepping down from the company and a friend of Pivot.

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 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, Ryder, 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.

Welcome back, Scott.

On Friday, Reddit's one of its founders, Alex O'Hanian, stepped down from the company's board of directors and asked the company to fill the space with a black leader.

In response, Reddit's current CEO, Steve Huffman, wrote that the company would honor O'Hanian's request.

Reddit has long allowed threads that fuel and amplify white supremacist rhetoric, and the company has not taken down.

I have interviewed Steve and Alex a lot about this issue.

They've had some good answers and some not so good answers.

But Reddit's former interim CEO, Ellen Powell, wrote on Twitter, I am obligated to call you out.

You should have shut down the Donald, a pro-Trump message board, which that is, instead of amplifying it in its hate, racism, and violence.

So much of what is happening now lies at your feet.

You don't get to say BLM when Reddit nurtures and monetizes white supremacy and hate all day long.

That was quite a strong thing from Ellen, who has a lot of strong opinions.

And I think I tend to agree with her.

I've had these arguments with them.

They had placed the Donald on a ban.

They have all these different rules at Reddit.

I don't remember the last thing they did, but they gave him some sort of warning.

I know Alexis well.

He's obviously married famously to Serena Williams.

I think him just saying this is a great thing to say this, but he's right.

He's got the way they created Reddit has, even though I think Reddit more than many places, has tried to at least admit and start to clean up, you know, the way they structured Reddit Reddit has led to a lot of these sort of dank areas of that service.

Yeah, it's

so first off, the board of directors, I think is where a lot of, it kind of all starts there.

And because people are tribal and people are more comfortable establishing relationships.

with people who look, smell, and feel like them.

It's just instinctive.

And we're more evolved and we can self-correct and modulate for that, but that will be oftentimes your go-to.

And so if you think about corporate America, where it all starts, where hiring decisions start and capital allocation starts in terms of people's economic opportunities, is at the board, because the board picks the CEO.

And when your board is all white dudes, you have a tendency to just come up with reasons for why the next CEO should be, you guessed it, a white dude.

And then

he has a tendency to find and establish relationships with other white dudes.

So it kind of, and then it trickles down to this waterfall, which leads to continued, you know, for lack of a better term, systemic racism.

So board, if you wanted to have a really long-lasting impact, and we've talked about this a lot on this show, boards get a fraction of the scrutiny relative to the power they have for change.

The board decides if and when a company gets sold and who the CEO is, who sets the tone for the company for the next five to seven years on a lot of levels.

So

there's just no guarantee.

If you wanted long-term real structural change in corporate America, you really have to start at a board level.

And what is the- Yeah, although I think you get at the idea these boards are not powerful in Silicon Valley, I can tell you that.

I mean, they just don't know what they're doing.

Well, because they're two-class shareholders.

It doesn't matter who, you know, they could put anybody on the board of Facebook.

It doesn't matter

if you're powerful.

And that's why

Ken Chennault and others are.

I think it's somewhere between 10 and 20% of companies are dual-class shareholder.

I think what would have been interesting is to take for someone, and I would do this if I had more discipline, but to take all of those kind of performative black square serif statements around how we stand with George Floyd and we're appalled by this on behalf of the company and then just have a picture of all of their board of directors.

Yep.

Well, how funny you should say that, Scott, because I did that story 10, seven, eight years ago.

I was asked by the guy who was the head of

years ago, I wrote the men and no women of Facebook, and i all i did was put up the pictures of the management team it was all men and this is i think pre-cheryl and then i i i was focused on women's issues on in these stories and the other one was the men and no uh women of of internet boards and i because the head of uh

um group on at the time who's a lovely guy had asked me if i knew any qualified women and i i nearly like choked him from through the phone line and so i wrote a story about it and i said here's all the pictures this is here's all like there are binders and binders of women.

It shouldn't be so hard to find women or people of color.

And then I had another argument with

the head of Twitter at the time, who was Dick Costelow, about that issue, where I think I wrote the single best lead of my lifetime

about

incredibly high bar.

That's no, it is.

Let me tell it to you.

All right.

This was, it was about that they had 10 white men on the board.

And I said,

on the board of Twitter, which has three Peters and a dick there is no diversity something like that but it was three Peters and a dick because they actually had three people named Peter and one guy named Dick and so I think that was one of my best things but they don't have any sense this is where things can actually change if these boards do have power and they certainly don't have power and so this is very lovely for Alexis to say this but they should have done it a long time ago they should have made the board larger they should give these and it shouldn't just be one person because they run around you know saying, we have standards, we have standards, when they didn't have standards in the first place, by the way, when it was all white men, they run around and try to sort of like find people of color, find women, find different voices without like having it just like as a matter of course.

I'm not sure how to correct that.

But isn't that where you start?

I mean, we'd all like to think it happens.

It's been 20 years.

It's got to start somewhere, Kara.

It's got to start 20 years.

You're hoping we're just better people and we'll figure it out organically.

A decent place to start is to say, okay, we're going to put a black person on our board.

Yeah, but you know what?

I can't even believe someone has to say that in this day.

I don't believe they didn't do it before.

Why it takes these, these, I just, I find it just, I like Alexis.

I'm outraged.

I'm just like, stop it.

Stop it.

And I really like Alexis.

I do.

And I agree with Ellen that they've allowed this site to become accessible.

Now, again, they have tried to do it.

I never thought of Reddit.

Oh, my God.

Oh, no, don't.

Scott, Scott.

Oh, Scott.

They had so, they had a you're not giving me a credit.

I cry a drive by graduation.

Let me just tell you, I can't even repeat the name of one of them that took them forever to get off.

It was, it was offensive.

Oh, I can't even believe it.

They're just, and they have, let me just say, compared to Facebook, they're incredibly responsive, but that doesn't mean Reddit is incredibly responsive.

Compared to Facebook, and that is the lowest bar.

I mean, I don't know how low you can get for a bar, but in any case, they've always been open to discussing it and have tried to do bans and everything else and have gone out of their way and said, we are going to edit it.

But, and of course, they're not as big as a Facebook or anything else.

Anyway, I'm not going to rant about it.

I think, great, they should have done it five years ago.

I don't know.

I'm not going to give the claps for this.

And

I tend to agree with Alan.

I'm not giving them claps for something they should have done a long time ago.

That's what I'm speaking.

But anyway, we got to go because we've got to talk to our friend of Pivot who's on the line.

We have Mike Maznick, who I've had many an argument with.

He's the founder.

There he is.

He is the founder and editor of TechDirt and one of the many experts on Section 230, which I think we need to talk about because this is about what

these sites can do to do anything about it.

Section 230 has been back in the news in large part because Twitter's move to flag the president's tweets for inciting violence and spreading misinformation that bothered him.

In turn, the president began to promote the idea of revoking Section 230, which has been around from a lot of the candidates.

Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden talked about it, and he signed this kooky executive order to clarify the scope of Section 230.

I'm not going to go into it in detail because it's not going anywhere, but Mike can explain it for us.

Mike, can you explain what the president did and then actually briefly explain Section 230 and whether you think it should be revoked or reformed or what?

Which order do you want that in?

Let's start with what it is.

Explain it.

Sure.

Because people get this wrong

a lot.

A lot.

Yes.

Constantly.

Section 230 really tries to do two different things that work together to sort of help promote good content on the internet.

In some sense, it is designed to try and promote the most good content and the least bad content.

And people seem to get those two efforts that balance each other confused all the time.

So it does two things, one of which is it says that if you are a platform that hosts content from third parties, you do not get

blamed or you're not liable for anything that a third party does.

It says that

you you put the liability on the actual content creator.

So if someone violates the law, if someone posts something that is defamatory, it is the person who wrote the defamatory thing that gets the blame and the liability for it and not the platform that is hosting it.

That's part one, and that's the part that a lot of people pay attention to.

And then the second part of it basically says that to encourage sites to moderate the content on their platform and to create things like family-friendly areas of the internet that is, you know without spam and hate and porn and all of that kind of stuff if you do moderate the content on your platform you are not liable for those moderation choices and that includes for content that you leave up right so it seems pretty clear that what twitter did was fine then under the law

yes yes what twitter did was clearly fine under the law and also not just under 230.

um there's the there's this concept some people have said of like violating 230.

there's nothing you can violate there's nothing in 230

it's a it's it's protection isn't it isn't a prophylactic isn't it you're it's saying whether or not you're liable and the thing that is important and i think a lot of people miss in the debate is that the first amendment backs up all of this right so um you know the content that twitter put in terms of like the fact check on the president which created all of this you know recent mess and concern in the executive order, you know, the content that they wrote themselves has nothing to do with 230 because it's content that Twitter itself wrote.

So that's not third-party content and it's not moderation.

So what they wrote, that one little line, like get the facts about,

that has nothing to do with 230.

It's not protected by 230, but it is protected by the First Amendment because it's Twitter speech and it's perfectly clear and protected speech.

There's nothing illegal about what they said.

And so I think that gets confused all of the time,

which brings into

the follow-up question of like, well, what should be done about 230 and what does the executive order do or purport to do or what should it do?

And,

you know, the executive order does nothing.

It basically just creates a lot of heat

and asks for different, you know, basically studies to be done on 230.

It asks the Attorney General to create a reference law to sort of try and...

mess up 230 though it's not clear what what can actually be done there and it asked the FCC to come up with an interpretation of 230, which

it doesn't directly ask them because the president can't ask the FCC to do anything.

It asks the Commerce Department to ask the FCC and it sort of suggests an interpretation of 230 that is completely at odds with what the law actually says and also

what case law for 20 plus years has said.

So it's kind of a joke, but it could create a lot of distraction for a long time.

Isn't that the point?

Or it seems to to me that the president in 230 is just an enormous distraction and an unproductive conversation.

Isn't it really about

a

law 23 years ago

that was supposed to protect nascent technologies?

Isn't that the term they use, nascent technologies or platform,

platforms, which by virtue of that means it's incredibly outdated?

So I'm going to disagree with that.

I think that that is some of the sense.

And certainly at the time, I mean, mean, it was 1996, you know, when this discussion was happening.

And so, you know, certainly the internet was nascent and the platforms were nascent.

But, you know, whether or not that means that the law is outdated is a separate question.

And I would argue that it's not outdated and that the law to this day is incredibly important.

And without it, we would have actually more of the problems that

the two of you are often concerned about and that you're aware of that.

Because

they'll censor it more.

But get into the idea that what so what scott's asking about is should it just be reformed versus gotten rid of that scott unless scott you think it should be gotten rid of

i would ask the question um a different way and that is why are these platforms subject to less scrutiny than any other media platform liability especially that and i think that's wrong right i mean so section 230 protects all internet websites and all it also protects users so if you retweet something or so you are not liable for that.

It is designed to encourage widespread speech.

And also

the creation of better moderation tools and allows for different kinds of experimentation, different kinds of approaches.

And whether or not you agree with all of the approaches, that's one thing, but it allows for that experimentation.

Without it, you have a few different problems that come about.

And most of the reform proposals that are out there lead to these same problems.

One of which is, you know, if you do become liable for the content on your site, you have what's called the moderator's dilemma, which is,

you know, either you're encouraged not to look at anything

because you don't want to get that liability of having, you know, the way it works, if you don't have 230, is there you would have some sort of like distributor liability, which is the concept.

And that depends on knowledge and how much knowledge you have.

So one way to avoid that is not to look at anything, right?

So then you get.

That's what I call hell break loose.

Right.

You're sort of encouraging more fortunes

rather than the opposite.

Then the other is to, you know, is to think that, well, okay,

if I'm going to be liable, I have to now check over everything very, very carefully.

And then you get a very, very different world in which everything has to be limited.

You don't get the sort of open platforms that allow people to speak.

You don't get the sort of emergent innovation around like the conversations that happen on Twitter or things like podcasting.

It becomes a risk.

Whoever's hosting the podcast, if they're liable for everything that is said on it, becomes a problem.

Do they need to do that?

You sort of back into a world that is very much the traditional broadcast media and you shut out all of these other voices.

And as we've seen,

what's happening in the world today, a lot of this is coming about because people are able to speak out.

And people who in the past were not able to be heard and voices that were silenced or not listened to are suddenly being heard and people are able to speak out and say and speak their mind is because the internet allows that and without 230 or with most of the reform proposals that we've seen that would be greatly greatly limited so would you argue hold on would you argue the state of play is acceptable would you argue i think the the vibe i'm getting from you is that yeah there's some issues with this but it's it's it's it's the least bad thing we could have are you comfortable with the state of where we are in terms of facebook and twitter and social media in terms of this rage machine do you think that's something we have to live with?

Well, I think the idea that the state of things today is a constant is not quite correct, right?

I mean, I think these things are constantly changing and there is all sorts of pressure from all sorts of different places, including you guys and Kara.

Kara has a long history of actually creating change through speaking.

So let me just disavow you that we're going to fix this.

And is the trend headed in the right way, this notion that it'll eventually self-police and self-correct?

Do you see that happening?

Yeah,

I do think it will.

And I think that this is just sort of the nature of these kinds of technological revolutions.

And you've seen it in the past.

You know, when you allow more people to speak out, then at the beginning, there is kind of chaos and people are trying to figure out.

And some of it is that society itself has to adapt and change and catch up to it.

And I think that organization is a very good thing.

We have a couple hundred years of chaos and then people figure it out.

That's sort of a problem.

Well, also, also, but Mike, one of the things you and I talk about is it's different than other chaos because

it's so massive in the amount of data, the amount of noise, the amount of badness, that it does become amplified in ways that are

a little different than previous technologies.

So should there be any liability at all?

Because this is an industry that has nearly has zero liability for.

Well, and I would push back on that too.

Like the idea that there's zero liability is not true either.

You know, you have a few different things.

One is that there is liability for the content that the platforms themselves create.

And we've seen that in cases like the roommates case, where they were effectively creating content that was violating fair housing laws.

And so when the platforms themselves do it, there are a couple of cases, I'm not sure I agree with them, but we've seen certain cases like the Internet Brands case, where if a platform is seen as negligent, and it reaches a standard of negligence, then they can get blame also.

We've seen other cases, and again, like I'm not necessarily comfortable with these cases, but we've seen them play out with things like Airbnb and Amazon, where they can also be held liable and responsible.

You know,

the idea that it's like a complete, you know, freedom.

Also, you know, 230 has nothing to do with intellectual property.

So any intellectual property things, there's still liability there.

And criminal law, federal criminal law is exempt from 232.

So there are all of these things that like the idea that 230 is this big, like giant get out of jail free card is not true.

And then the last part is like the whole setup of it is designed to that, you know, if people are

liable and

responsible, like the liability goes to them.

It doesn't wipe out liability.

And if the issue is that

I think you're raising is that you want these platforms to do more,

taking away 230 doesn't fix that.

230 allows them to experiment and allows them to make these changes.

What do you imagine is going to happen?

And then, Scott, you can ask the last question.

What do you mean?

Because there's all, you have Joe Biden saying, get rid of it.

You have heard Nancy Pelosi sort of dance around it.

You've heard Josh Hawley with his stuff.

It's Elizabeth Warren.

This is a group of people that literally couldn't have dinner in a restaurant together.

Maybe the first, maybe Elizabeth, Nancy Pelosi.

But I think it's a great question.

What is going to happen?

What is going to actually happen from your perspective?

I have no idea.

I mean, part of the the problem is that everybody misunderstands 230.

So you have all those people that you just named who are very, very, you know, diametrically opposed on lots of other things who all hate 230, but they hate 230 for different reasons.

Some of them hate 230 because it's allowing for moderation.

Some of them hate 230 because it's not leading to enough moderation.

And so I don't think they actually agree on why they hate 230.

They hate 230 just because everybody right now hates 230.

So based on that, there's a good chance that something is going to happen with 230.

Whether or not it gets revoked entirely, I find to be very unlikely.

But I think that there will be reforms that will be pushed through.

And I don't think that they will solve the problems that they're designed to solve.

And I don't think they're going to help the situations that you guys are talking about.

I don't think it's going to encourage Facebook to do any better.

And in fact, you know, we just went through this where there was a reform for 230, which is now referred to as FOSTA.

It was also in the past referred to as SESTA.

And it was supposedly targeting sex trafficking.

Right.

And what happened there was you had a lot of people protesting how it would create problems.

The one big tech company that went to the other side was Facebook.

And Facebook said, hey, this is great.

We support it.

We think this is good.

And then what happened was it didn't do any of the things it said it was going to do.

It hasn't been used to shut down any sex trafficking platforms.

What it has done is it led to a bunch of smaller dating sites shut down because they were afraid they were going to be liable for it.

And what happens a few months after that, Facebook launches its own dating platform.

Yeah, but

didn't Backpage go away didn't the adult listing adult services on craigslist go away

craigslist shut down its dating pages right uh craigslist shut down uh you know its

uh uh erotic section whatever it was called i think it was called that uh years ago almost a decade ago that had nothing to do with it backpage the the entire point of of sesta and foster what we we were told over and over again directly was to go after backpage backpage first of all the founders of backpage were arrested many months before all of that debate And then the DOJ went in and shut down Backpage the week before FOSTA passed.

So the idea that it was necessary to

shut down Backpage is wrong.

And it was blatantly wrong.

They shut it down.

It was that the DOJ didn't do anything for many, many years.

Using existing laws.

Using existing laws.

And then, you know,

they knew that FOSA was passing.

If they really wanted FOSTA, they could have waited a week.

you know, one more week.

They didn't do anything for a decade.

They could have waited one more week.

So the idea that FOSTA was necessary or that it's helped.

And instead, what we've seen is all sorts of evidence that it's done tremendous harm for

sex workers and places where sex workers communicate with each other that help keep them safe.

So it's actually put women in danger

when all of this was passed with the idea that it would help protect women.

All right.

So last question.

What is your prediction?

Is it just going to be a lot of yelling by Josh Hall and Elizabeth Warren?

And then Trump is going to weigh in every time.

I think there's absolutely nothing Trump can do about this unless they put something false.

If they wrote something false and libelous about him, other than read here about mail and bailouts.

Bailouts, ballots doesn't seem to be that libelous, or

this is possibly misleading, or this could promote, the language is very careful.

We're just going to have to rely on them to make these decisions, correct?

Is that really?

And Mark doesn't want to make any.

And

kind of does, and Google kind of does.

And they end up doing it anyway, because they also edit all the time all over the service.

So where do you imagine it going a year from now?

I mean, I think there will be attempts to eat away at 2.30.

And there are a few other attempts right now.

And people have talked about other ways to sort of use the FOSTA playbook on 230.

I think it's very, very likely that we'll see attempts to eat away at 2.30.

Whether or not they'll be successful,

that's completely outside of my crystal wall.

And what do you want?

What do you think should happen?

I think 230 should be left alone.

I think that it is all of the complaints that people are making about 230 are misdirected at 230 and that there are other better ways to approach those issues.

There are other better ways to encourage better moderation.

There are other better ways to encourage a better setup of the internet that is not so problematic.

And I think part of that is encouraging more experimentation on these platforms, encouraging more competition between the different platforms and allowing much better behavior to come about through that.

The law is not going to do it, especially not 230.

Just shame.

You want just me to keep yelling at them.

Yeah, you're the best at it, you know, and you're very effective.

That's scary.

But not, you know, obviously not just you.

I mean, I honestly think, you know, and if you look at how these platforms have changed in their moderation, you can complain about them today, but if you look at how much they've changed in the last, you know, five years

because of public pressure,

and, you know, 230 allows them to change, right?

It doesn't lock them into a set of

this is the exact guidelines.

It allows them to change and experiment when they realize every time that they mess up and you tell them that they mess up or I tell them that they mess up.

So you're confident that that's effective.

You're confident that

we're safer, that there's a lower probability of the weaponization of elections at the hand of bad actors on Facebook this election.

You think things are headed in the right direction?

I mean,

you're bringing up a whole other area around like election manipulation.

Well, I guess what I'm I'm going is I would like to believe that the market and shaming and Kara Swisher are going to save us here.

And I just don't see any evidence of that.

Yeah, you need that.

Well, I disagree.

I mean, it's broader than that.

And I'm a little bit snarky in just saying it's Kara, obviously.

But the fact is, like, people speak out about these things.

Right.

Captain Marvel, right here.

And again, you're very effective.

But like, it, it, you know, I think that if you

have not paid attention to how much these companies have changed, and if you have not spoken to the people at the companies about how seriously they do take this, and if you talk to the people who are on the trust and safety teams about how they think about these things and how deeply concerned they are about all of this stuff, this is, you know, they are not taking it flippantly.

And like, there is this assumption out there that they don't care.

And that may be true of like...

certain top executives at some of these firms.

But if you talk to the people who are actually responsible for making these decisions, like they care and they put a lot of thought into it and they recognize that every one of the decisions that they're making has tremendous trade-offs.

And it is not as easy as it seems like for all of us sitting in our homes, you know,

talking over Zoom or whatever, thinking that the answers are easy.

They're not.

Every single one of these has a trade-off.

And the people who are thinking through them are taking it seriously.

100%.

But that's why they get paid the big bucks, Mike, and not us.

Anyway, I really appreciate it.

I always think you're such a smart dick.

You always change my mind on things, and I do appreciate all

over time.

He like whacked me one, and I think he was right to do so.

Anyway, Mike Masnick, you can keep trying, but not on everything.

The founder and editor of Tector and an excellent thinker on Section 230.

Please read him.

He's terrific.

Mike, thank you.

Thank you, Mike.

Nice to meet you.

Thanks for having me.

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 BotoxchronicMigraine.com, or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn ads.

Sometimes the best B2B marketing doesn't fail because of your message.

It fails because it never reaches the right people.

You can have the sharpest creative, the most persuasive offer, and a campaign you're proud of.

But if it lands in the wrong inbox or shows up in the wrong feed, it's wasted.

So, if you want to reach the right professionals, you should check out LinkedIn ads.

LinkedIn has grown into a network of over 1 billion professionals and 130 million decision makers worldwide.

And that's exactly what sets it apart from other ad buys.

It's not just about reach, it's about reaching the right people in the right context.

And LinkedIn is where business actually gets done.

You can target your buyers by job title, industry, company, role seniority skills, and company revenue.

So you can stop wasting budget on the wrong audience.

It's why LinkedIn Ads generates the highest B2B ROAs of all online ad networks.

Seriously, all of them.

You can spend $250 on your first campaign on LinkedIn Ads and get a free $250 credit for the next one.

No strings attached.

Just go to linkedin.com Scott.

That's linkedin.com/slash Scott.

Terms and conditions apply.

Okay, Scott, we're back.

That guy's smart, isn't he?

Oh, yeah.

What is he doing?

Tector.

He writes.

It's a site that's really good.

I've been following him for many years on lots of stuff.

We've gone a lot of rounds, but I have a huge respect for him, and he's always so reasonable.

I had a podcast with him and two others, one of whom I disagreed with him, one of whom whom was an academic in the middle.

Yep.

And it was just great.

It was a really, it was, you got to really think hard.

That's my whole point about this.

Donald Trump doing an executive order is the most slapdash, ridiculous, reductive thing to do here.

We have to really think hard.

And that's, even if you disagree with me, we have to come together in some way that works for everybody rather than have knee-jerk reactions.

Anyway, so Scott, wins and fails.

What do you let me hear?

What do you got?

I have two wins.

They're both brand-based.

Wins you don't have a fail?

Okay.

No, and I have a fail.

It's more of a question for you.

It's my fail.

So I thought great brand moves are bold and timely and they involve a certain amount of risk and occasionally on the wrong side of that risk and occasionally on the right side of the risk.

But I thought Mayor Bowser,

am I pronouncing her name right?

Mayor Bowser?

Yeah, I thought the emblem or the mural of Black Lives Matter across the avenue leading up to the White House is going to go down as one of the great kind of brand moves in terms of capturing the moment.

And we're a visual species.

I just thought it was just so incredibly creative and innovative.

And it was interesting.

Interestingly, my son, who has been getting very politicized recently, my 14, 15-year-old, he was like, fine, it's just PR.

Why did she keep funding the police even more?

Like he was, he was already past that.

So it was interesting that he wasn't buying it.

I thought I said it was great.

And then we have this discussion about allies that we like,

we may not like one thing and we can like another.

And he goes, I don't care if she paints anything.

I care about if she's doing, not doing police reform.

And it was really, it was interesting.

I was like, oh, interesting.

So you didn't like this.

And no, I don't care.

It doesn't matter.

So

interesting.

The other win, because

I said it was a loss, Nike's kind of along the lines of everyone else, I thought that they sort of.

overproduce messaging, brand building things on TV were

that that era had come to an end.

It was more about actions.

And just as I put out a blog saying that Nike, you know, just stop it.

It's time to have you, you know, the music match, the words or actions are really an indicator of your character, not your words.

Later that afternoon, they announced that they were going to, they pledged $100 million in concert with Michael Jordan to fight.

systemic, you know, it strikes me that Nike continues to sort of capture the moment.

And I think, and they'll fall under a lot of criticism for this, but I do think they take risks and they're not afraid to take action.

I think $100 million is real cabbage, even for a company like Nike.

So I think it's a win.

And

I don't know, I just have a lot of respect for their,

you know, there's so many companies in that space and they always seem to sort of take, I don't know, take the action.

We have the CEO on.

How about that?

We bring him on, we talk about it.

He's the old eBay guy, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

John Dunn.

Yeah.

Very easy.

Yeah.

And then, so who are your wins?

And then I'll do my loss of a question for you.

I think the wins are for the protesters.

I thought they, the peaceable, the peace across the country.

It seems like it's gotten more, I don't know what the term is, more productive, more peaceful.

Well, of course it has to be.

That murder was so appalling and so.

Well, I know, but the protest could have gone one or the other way.

Yeah, but it just, you know, I just was like, they were just all weekend long here in D.C., I had some dummy like tweet me like, oh, it's anarchy there.

And I took pictures.

I'm like, this isn't anarchy.

If this is anarchy, get the hell out of this country.

This is beautiful.

You know what I mean?

Like, I was just really moved by the protesters of all ages and and i just was and i actually i like that my kids got political too it was really a win i was just like they just picked their friggin heads up out of there and started looking around my kids are good that way but they got better and i really you know that's just a my life and and my very privileged uh tall white children um but it was really um It was really something to see.

I just think, and I think there's going to be a lot of leadership from this.

And you've seen a lot of leadership from all over the place.

I think my fail is Roger Goodell, once again.

Every time he opens his mouth, I want to.

What we really meant to say was: what we really meant to say is Colin Kaepernick is fine.

Did you notice he didn't use his name?

He didn't even use his name.

Whatever.

It's too little, too late, Roger.

You were on the wrong side of history before, and now you're you look like a panderer to the right side of history.

And I know we're supposed to bring in allies, like I just said, but I know, no, that one, no, no, no.

Colin Kaepernick was always a hero for doing what he did.

And

for you to late acknowledge this after ruining his career, you can, I'm not going to curse right now, but you know what I want to say, which is fine.

Right, exactly.

So my last is a question to you.

And obviously the question is pregnant with a comment because otherwise I wouldn't be asking you the question, but do you think the firing

of

James Bennett and the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, do you think it was good or bad?

Or I don't mean to bifurcate it.

What are your thoughts on it?

Look, I don't know the ins and outs of the firing.

I think he had to go.

I think he had to go.

I think the other guy also had to go.

I don't know the

details of what happened.

I have some because I'm not an actual employee of the New York Times.

So I am not in.

I wasn't in any of those meetings.

I just read about them on Twitter.

I'm not allowed.

Can you imagine allowing me into a New York Times meeting?

But I, so I trust me, it's overrated.

It's over.

Okay.

I don't go.

I didn't go.

I've heard they were very heartfelt.

I heard they were great discussions.

I heard they were very emotional.

This is just people there have reported to me.

I think that one, I looked at A.G.

Salzberger's remarks, and I think it wasn't, I think they made, first of all, I would never have put Tom Cotton in.

I just don't know why they have feel they have to like entertain, you know, I know they're trying to do diverse, whatever, but honestly, you can make choices.

And the Wall Street Journal doesn't, or Fox News doesn't worry about having diverse voices and stuff.

And I get that the New York Times is better and this and that, but they've gone to, I thought James's thing, and I like James Bennett very much, is, and I've had, he's, he's been, he hired me there.

So so I know him very well.

I think there was a number of things that had happened over time that I think this was the

and with the choice of Tom Cotton, I thought, was a bad one.

I think that he didn't read it was not great, and he had to take responsibility.

And that the editing errors are so massive.

I'm actually running a column this week.

Just the idea that they allowed Tom Cotton to whitewash himself in the page of the New York Times, I think, was just astonishing because he had done such a famous tweet about shooting people, like no quarter, trying to hide it by using the word no quarter, which everyone understands what it means.

And that wasn't in the piece.

And so it allowed him to have a Twitter, a really malignant Twitter personality, and then a more measured personality.

And the Times, I thought that was a mistake.

And you have to like, look, James did what he needed to do.

He couldn't lead going on and he stepped down.

And I think that was, he did the right thing.

And the New York Times said the right thing.

And I know people are all mad and they're making it about just this mob thing.

It's ridiculous.

There was, there were other things over the past year that also,

you know, like it's not just one thing.

And I don't think, I think to allow Tom Cotton and President Trump to turn it into this woke thing is ridiculous.

It's just, it's not what's not the truth.

And I think James

liked the way he is, he knew he made a mistake and he took responsibility for it.

And that's what happened.

And that's that, that, that's, and especially around the editing and the editing oversight of this thing and allowing such a badly edited piece to go in the Times.

You can't, you know, the Times has standards and they just shouldn't have let it in.

So I don't think that's a very particularly controversial thing.

Again, I don't have any knowledge.

I will be writing about it.

So maybe you can tell me what you think of it once I do.

But I just think in this day and age,

it's so easy to get into reductive conversations about not letting people speak out.

And I think it's so, it's such a canard.

That's such a canard.

Everybody gets to speak out.

You don't get to speak out everywhere and you don't necessarily get to speak out.

I'm not sure that when, and maybe there's a reason for this, that we're in such an emotional raw time that everyone feels comfortable speaking out.

I think there's a danger that if you don't, or a feeling that if you don't sign up to a certain orthodoxy, that anything you say, even if it's meant to be a productive part of a dialogue, puts you at huge risk in this cancel culture.

And I worry that without

embracing something outside of your own orthodoxy, that we don't end up in a dialogue that results in enduring change.

All right, but why Tom Cotton?

We know what he liked, but why not show the full Tom Cotton?

Not the not the not the he's in a nice white.

The question is,

I think that was a mistake, and I think the byline on the Philadelphia story, the you know, Buildings Lives Matters too, was just ridiculous.

The question is, should that timing, too?

What a terrible, what a terrible like use of a phrase at this moment.

And they're big boys and they make a lot of money and they're paid to make those content.

Being an editor is about judgment.

You make a bad judgment, you lose your job.

But at the same time, I get that, but

do we end up sending a signal to editors that they just have to be so milquetoast and not make, not take any risks and not we're just talking about that with Mike, right?

Yeah.

You know, no, it doesn't make milquetoast.

It's just, I just feel like, look,

if I was running that section, which I never will in a million years, like, what's wrong with having your point of view and like deciding that's the thing?

This idea that I think both of them are.

Everybody must be listened to.

Yeah.

I don't think why.

And by the way, there's lots of other voices that didn't get listened to.

Like, why Com Cotton?

why not blank you know i just it it's i'm not i'm not arguing whether the tom i don't think the tom cotton they shouldn't give an have given any oxygen to that or if they had a format they should have had somebody push back like an interviewer going yeah but aren't you being really hypocritical here senator cotton so i agree with you it was a bad decision i i guess my question is does it if you look at the movie that that was these persons careers to me it plays out that it's a movie that strikes and i don't know them that well but the guy at the philadelphia inquirer in four years had doubled the percentage of reporters who are

people of color.

He'd won Pulitzers and then you kind of step in it during a raw time and you're out.

Well, you know what?

It's it's tough up there.

I don't, that one, I don't know the whole history,

but I think that headline was a poll.

I was like, yeah, it was terrible.

Like, literally, I think Margaret Sullivan said it best, who writes for the, she's been an ombudsman and stuff like that.

There's something called, hey, boss, look at this.

This looks problematic.

Like, where, all of these things, like, where is that one, that headline?

I'm like, who did that?

I want to like be in the room to go, what the fuck.

And I have been in those rooms

where they just like, oh, whatever.

And then you're like, what?

Like, what?

Like, I have been the person who said what.

And I have had that said to me.

And I say, thank God for those people, you know?

And if you don't, I'm sorry, if you do, if you have a room of the same kind of people, whether it's income or education, literally, you never get someone saying, what?

What the hell is that?

And every time, every person who said, what the hell is that to me, I thank them.

And every time I've said, what the hell is that to people,

I would,

I think I've done a nice job.

So I don't know.

It's the way it goes.

And I, again, I like James and I like writing for the New York Times.

I write about tech.

I do not,

I don't write about these, these, these much more important issues, but I will be writing about it this week because I think they let his internet persona, they never let his internet persona and his New York Times persona meet.

And that was,

you know, that was a mistake.

There's lots of mistakes here.

So, but, you know, I like work memorization.

I like working theorization.

I think they have all,

I think they try, think about these things really hard.

And when they think that they've been sloppy to their own standards, they do something about it.

So,

but it's certainly not mob, honestly.

What a ridiculous, ridiculous configuration of what happened there.

Anyway, that's it.

What do you got on tap for the week, Kara?

What's on tap?

So much.

I have so many good people interviewing.

I'm interviewing Jon Stewart,

stuff like that.

I'm interviewing like lots of people.

Yes, I have a Mina Toast.

So I've got, so I've got

Simone Sanders, who is

who is who worked for the Sanders campaign and has now worked for the Biden campaign.

I've got, let me look, honestly, I've got such a good lineup this week.

So a lot of stuff, a lot of stuff.

I got my kid.

I'm going up to Vermont eventually.

And

I'm interviewing Spike Lee, which I'm excited about.

I just interviewed Jill Lapore.

And I got a lot of stuff coming up.

I'm trying to think who else I got.

I got lots of people.

And I'm excited for that.

And then, of course, Rico Decode is ending July 1st.

Rico Decode is ending.

Wow, that's an end of an era.

End of an era, Kara.

I will be at the New York Times where I'll be not interviewing Senator Cotton unless I can really give a good one, right?

Well, this week on Prof G, I'm interviewing interviewing the largest owner of the seventh largest Chevrolet dealership in Delroy Beach.

So, what?

Why?

I was mocking you on that.

No, I'm kidding.

What do you have on Prof G and all your various things that you have?

I go wonky.

I go other academics.

I'm trying to be more about education.

I can't play the famous names.

No, I liked your academic.

What are you talking about?

Who did you give me the academic that you will love to talk about?

I think you had him on the show, right?

Oh, well, I had Dean Henry, who's fantastic.

That was great that looked fantastic i'm gonna have uh anastasia crosswhite who uh thinks a lot about education we're talking about education reform and i forget who else uh andy slavit who i know you've had on

um so yeah you know small ball i like your university

i like no no no no no I think I like your thinkiness.

So when you turn into Professor Galloway, I think that's great.

My thinkiness.

That said, stay away from me.

It's hard again with my Labrador watching PBS.

If you go see Lucy Discharge, there's got to be a third person in the room.

That's all I got to say.

So you don't mess with his brain.

He's so smart.

If you manipulate his brain, I don't know what I'll do.

Anyway, all right, Scott.

We have a lot.

We're going to talk about Thursday.

There's so much news happening.

We will have lots to do.

So don't forget, if you have a story in the news and you're curious about and want to hear our opinion on, even really unusual ones, because we like to talk about unusual things too, not just the major stories of the day.

Email us at pivot at boxmedia.com to be featured on the show.

Scott, please read us out.

Today's episode was produced by Rebecca Sinanas.

Our sound engineer is Fernando Fanete.

Our executive producer is Eric Anderson.

And special thanks to Drew Burrows.

If you like what you heard, please download or subscribe.

Have a great rest of the week and we'll see you on Friday.