The EU takes on AI, the US vs. Huawei continues, Airbnb is in the red, and a Friend of Pivot on your children’s data privacy

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 and kara it is impossible for me to do my job with the president's tweets it's impossible i am beyond my limit i am not coordinating with him This is entirely independent and an expression of my leadership and integrity.

It is impossible.

I thought you were not in my tweets.

I thought you were a very strong person.

I'm not referring to me, right?

You cannot, you're referring to me in my tweets.

Is that correct?

So it's pretty obvious what's going on there.

Yeah.

It's pretty obvious.

Yeah.

They're having sex.

Oh, my God.

They are having sex, Kara.

That is

in my head that I did not, did not even occur to me.

I'm sorry.

The AG bar walks into the Oval Office.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

You're stopping.

Mr.

President,

I have corrupted one of the world's great institutions.

We're stopping.

We're moving on.

There's so many stories.

Let's talk about the EU.

And he says, kiss me, you big bear of a man.

No, that's done.

We're done.

And we're moving on.

Thank you for putting that in everyone's brains.

Bill Barr has dresses.

There's DNA all over them.

Listen.

Oh, my God.

That's so inappropriate.

That's definitely not making the end.

You know what?

We're doing really well, and we're growing really fast, but at some point, you're going to drive this into a wall.

That is really

unlike NASCAR.

funny

and then blue.

I was reading your essay about being anonymous and rich versus being well-known and rich.

I think you want to be well-known and rich and have nobody bother you.

I think that is

on a train to neither.

I know, but I'm just saying, I think you actually like being well-known, but you don't want people disagreeing with your body like I had all weekend with a story that Ricode wrote that I didn't even edit.

It had nothing to do with.

I've told you, I'm offensive yet easily offended, which is like the worst combination in the world.

And I have to sit and take stuff.

I read, I didn't even know what was going on there.

And so what?

I mean, okay, so you got, so you guys aren't microbiologists.

I mean, I didn't see the big deal.

I did not either.

And I was trying to point that out.

But I do think, as you know, we argue about it.

You don't think this is

coronavirus crisis is a big deal.

And I do, actually.

That was the thing.

I actually agree with this guy.

I like we don't, we aren't doing enough around it.

And you think we drink plenty and that it's overhyped.

So that's what the irony was.

You're putting words in my mouth.

I find that offensive.

No, I do.

Anyways, go ahead.

Dude, we have tape about it.

Anyway, we're going to the news.

In any case, I dealt with it.

I invited him on the show.

I've not heard from him.

If he's talking to other people, that's fine.

Whatever.

I tried to.

I read that guy's tweets.

Yeah.

I read his tweets because I was curious and I wanted to see you in trouble.

A lot of trouble.

And that guy,

he's an IQ bully.

Like, he's clearly smarter than all of us.

But instead of having any grace about it, he's like, okay,

let me just bully you with how just ridiculously smart are you.

Like, all right, buddy, you win.

You're smarter than all of us.

He's got a lot of, he's in Bitcoin.

He's got a lot of followers.

He's got a lot of Bitcoin bros.

Oh, he's a Bitcoin guy?

Yeah, he does a lot of people.

Oh, well, that ups his credibility in the medical community.

That absolutely.

That absolutely.

Okay, doctor.

Where's crypto headed, doctor?

Now cut me open.

I couldn't take it.

Where's Ethereum headed?

Solve my cancer and where is Ethereum headed?

All right.

We're moving along.

Thank you for making another weekend of being being in Dagon.

But I have in such a good mood.

I'm in a good mood.

I see that.

I see that.

I see what's going on.

Where are you?

Where are you on this lovely President's Day weekend?

I'm back in New York and the city, and I had a nice weekend.

Hints of spring, right?

Hints of spring in New York.

Kara, has anyone heard from spring?

No.

Has anyone heard from spring?

Hints of spring.

Listen, we're going to the big stories.

There's a lot going on, despite the fact this is a holiday weekend.

Listen, EU lawmakers are debating a new policy around artificial intelligence.

Sundar Pachai and Mark Zuckerberg are in the EU this week as EU lawmakers debate a new digital policy, including first-of-its-kind rules on the ways that artificial intelligence can be used by companies.

New policy is set to be released by the Office of Marguerite Vestiger on Wednesday.

Marguerite's obviously coming to code, which is going to be great.

So what do you think about this?

Europe is once again ahead.

What do you think of this situation?

Well, Margarita Vestia, and that's how you say it.

Thank you.

She's my hero.

I told you I stalked her on a train.

She was knitting, and I went up and I got a selfie with her, and she was so gracious.

I think she was so excited that someone recognized her in the United States, and she stopped, and she's anyways, she's a total gangster.

I vote for her for king of the world or queen of the world.

Anyways,

I thought the most interesting thing about that was your guy, your dude who you think should run Facebook.

What's his name?

Brad Grossman?

Brad Gross?

Brad Smith.

Brad Gross?

Brad Smith.

Press Smith from Microsoft.

Where did I get Grossman?

I think it's William Barr, Bill Barr.

Okay, we're moving on from that storyline.

Come along.

Go ahead.

Come here.

You kissed me, you DOJ Wanton bitch, says the president every weekend on a Friday.

Go, go.

Anyways, I'm sorry.

Okay.

So

he did a total dropdown or whatever you call it on drop-in on Facebook.

He basically said, look, we have an obligation

to have or afford our customers some semblance of privacy.

What's interesting is now he's gone all Tim Cook on Mark Zuckerberg.

He has.

He has.

And Microsoft, the most valuable company in the world, is saying it is dangerous.

Literally, no one will have lunch with Facebook.

We're like, we don't care how rich your dad is.

We don't care how cool and likable your sister is.

You can no longer have lunch with us.

And people are other companies, and they usually kind of have the ultimate white guy pact.

They're like, you know, no, we will not say bad things about each other.

So for in a public forum, and you can, and I'm sure about 800 PR people starched every word that he said.

He said, look, we're Facebook.

You got to get your act together.

You're hurting me.

No, that's very Brad.

That's very Brad.

I spent a lot.

I know him quite well.

I think that is really

good.

I do.

I did a podcast with him.

I've known him for 25 years.

Of course, you do.

He's a great, I like him a great deal.

That's why I want him to be out of Facebook.

I think he's got the right sense.

He wrote a book called Tools and Weapons.

I've got to fill you in.

Why wouldn't I know him?

I cover Microsoft for two decades.

That's a good title.

Let me just

give me a hard time when I know people I actually touched on.

Cover Microsoft for two decades.

We will not say that at your federal.

I know that.

We will not say that.

When someone covers, say, the White House, you're like, like, you know, Senator blah blah.

Like, yes, I know them.

I cover them.

In any case, in any case, he's a very intelligent man.

He has lots to say.

He's wrote a whole book about this issue.

And I think they're dying for some sort of guidance from regulators on these issues, especially AI.

You know,

I think even Facebook wants some sort of direction.

And so what's going to happen now is the EU is going to determine a lot of things, just like GDPR, right?

A lot of stuff, because of the lack of any action by anybody in our government.

That's well, so you're you're you're um I am

and I'm genuine about this question because I'm cynical, but I think the whole

we need guidance and it's time for regulation as there are

90 lobbyists are in D.C.

Yeah, delaying and obfuscating anything resembling regulation.

I find it a disingenuous argument meant to, again, create this faux notion of concern, that they're actually open to regulation.

No, they're not.

They're not in look at what the lobbyists are doing.

The lobbyists don't walk into Senator Warren's office office and go, you know what, we really do need to be able to do it.

Well,

they know regulation is coming, so they want to shape it.

That's that, that I think, you're right, you're right, on the base level.

But in general, some companies really don't want this sort of the same thing to happen that's happened with social media.

Now, interestingly, Sundar Pichai, because this is the way Sundar Pichai is, while AA promises enormous benefits for Europe and the world, there are real concerns about potential negative consequences.

That's a perfect sentence.

You know,

thoughts and prayers.

Thoughts and prayers.

Thoughts and prayers.

That's the thoughts of the prisoners.

Yeah, but

I didn't take much away from it other than the Zuck went, and I'm pretty sure he had to avoid British airspace for fear that a tornado, gangster jet, gangster fighter plane would show up next to his Goldstream 650 ER and escort him down and arrest him and take him into custody.

So I'm very serious.

I wonder if on the way to Europe his flight plan includes avoiding UK airspace.

I don't know.

That's what I'd like to do.

I will ask him next time I see him if I ever see him.

But it is interesting.

We'll see what Marguerite puts out.

But I think, as usual, she's far ahead of everybody else.

And I think they'll be much more stringent.

The same thing will happen around facial recognition.

Most of this legislation is not going to be coming from our country, which is interesting.

And then they'll have to follow them because when something happens in a market like that, which is relatively large, even though the U.S.

market

is larger, they're going to have to follow along and they're going to have to

do that.

And so to me, it's sort of a consequence of the inability of our government to regulate tech in any way, which they keep almost doing.

And there's all these bills that are almost there, but none of them really.

And the EU lawmakers are leaping ahead as usual.

So that is what I see.

Well, we haven't had any legislation in this country in a long time.

We're effectively the,

it really is.

DC has just decided, especially with

the injection of the Freedom Caucus.

The Freedom Caucus has basically said, we're just not going to let anyone do anything.

No, deregulate.

Well, I think there were hundreds of people on McConnell.

Hundreds of bills.

That's what he said.

Hundreds, right?

Is that right?

McConnell said that.

And someone's like, is it true?

There are like 897 bills.

He's like, yes, there are all.

Like that.

Okay.

I thought it literally that everything had just like come to a grinding, come to a grinding halt.

By the way, what is an addiction?

An addiction is something you continue to engage in despite the fact that it's damaging to the other parts of your life.

And I am addicted.

And we're going off script here.

No.

Off script.

I've got to talk about politics.

I can't help it.

I've got to hold it.

We're going to talk about Guawei.

I can't.

In a minute.

Erica Anderson always says, don't talk about politics.

I know because our readers would like like to talk about tech, which this is politics.

Please, mommy.

We're going to talk about addiction later because, and then you can be counseled about your problems.

Stop in front of us.

Is it disqualifying?

Is it disqualifying?

Huawei is political.

The U.S.

charged Huawei with federal racketeering last week.

The Department of Justice accused Huawei, your friend, your friend, Phil Barr, and his affiliates of a pattern of racketeering activity.

They said the company has worked to steal trade secrets from six American firms, stolen information, good source code, as well as lots of things.

Huawei argues later's charges are ridiculous.

Andy Purdy, who I've interviewed, says confidently exonerated.

Now, this is interesting.

Democrats and Republicans are aligned here, but nobody else agrees.

Even tech companies are nervous about the inability to work with Chinese companies.

And there was a great story in, I think, the Times, or the, I think it was the New York Times, about that issue, the difficulty of working.

The U.K.

recently agreed to work with Huawei with a 5G, but the Trump administration is staying on its lack of information sharing policy, and

it's been warning tech companies, U.S.

tech companies, about this.

So anyway, I I have a serious question.

I have a serious question.

Do you have any?

I would love to know.

I haven't read anything about this.

I don't know the actual logistical risk of these devices and that is how easy or difficult are they to weaponize?

I'm not - if the Chinese start importing cars and the president were to say, don't drive these cars because they'll invade your privacy, I just don't know how real the threat is of the equipment that they sell can be weaponized and used as a vehicle for espionage for the Chinese people.

Well, I think it's that you get in the guts of these networks, especially the 5G networks, and you both control them and then you're able to do that.

I think what it is, is that we.

So you think the threat is real?

You do think the threat is real.

I don't, you know, I think it's good to be worried about it.

The administration wants to protect national security by restricting the flow of technology to China.

But it's also the flow of technology to China and keep the U.S.

out of China.

That's the other part of it.

And so tech companies want to sell into China, but

it's part of this longer-running

essentially war.

But firms that specialize, this is the New York Times, firms that specialize in microchips, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, other industries have grown increasingly alarmed by the administration's efforts to restrict the flow of technology to China, saying it could siphon expertise, research, and revenue away from the United States, ultimately eroding America's advantage.

So we have to sell to them.

So it's part of a two-pronged thing: this crackdown on both sides is bringing this Chinese technology in here in the form of Huawei and 5G, and then cracking down on American components and technology going overseas.

So

it's, you know,

look, the Trump administration is anti-China in both these cases, and tech companies have worries on both sides, which is they're getting squeezed essentially.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: So I think, and I do think it's tangentially related to this.

I think a story that's going to have so I love the term seminal.

I use that word all the time.

And it's something, an event that ultimately ends up being historic or at the time.

It creates ripples that are greater than the initial stone, you know, the stone's entry into the water.

I think the incarceration of Carlos Ghosn was a seminal moment, and that is geopolitics have intersected with private commerce.

And that is, I think that I believe he was incarcerated because the Japanese felt they were shamed around the

Nissan-Renault deal, and they were very angry.

And they incarcerated him.

And then all of a sudden, Japan, I think Japan probably has the best brand in the world when it comes to kind of integrity or honesty.

And that's why the Gulf was talked into this ridiculous constructor vehicle to repatriate five years of oil export wealth called the Vision Fund One because they were able to basically, I don't want to say wash it through Japan, but Japan has an incredibly strong brand in terms of honor.

I sold my first company to the Japanese.

And we'd go over there and we'd just sit in a room and say nothing for a day.

And then we'd go out and get shitty drunk.

And then we'd do the same thing for five days.

And then the guy would come up to me and say, I can trust you now and we'll do the deal.

None of it made any sense.

It was very strange, but you take Japan very seriously.

They just seem very steeped in culture and honor, and they seem like an honest people.

So when they jail the CEO of Nissan Renault,

and then all of a sudden we start jailing or putting out a subpoena for, I believe it's the CFO of Huawei.

By the way, the CFO of Huawei.

The CFO of Huawei should definitely order like a musical band and say she needs a box for her trumpet and see what they do.

Send a big box for my musical instruments over to my house, would you?

In any case.

But anyways, the notion that they're going to, I think the tech executives and I think executives just in general are like globalization is meant, loosely speaking, that when corporate executives travel abroad,

they're usually not worried about being incarcerated.

Yep.

For geopolitical reasons.

And that is starting.

to change.

She's also not from Canada.

She's the daughter of the daughter founder, which is really interesting.

So yeah, definitely.

And

what you were talking about, joking about with Mark, but they all have these

indictments.

And so she's arrested and

they want to extradite her here.

And

Canada's weighing of it.

So it's really become political, just like you were talking about.

And then the second part is that then companies in this country, when this is all going on, this is a passage from the New York Times story about doing business with China.

Companies, along with lawyers and consultants who advise them, say firms increasingly have no choice but to locate more research and development outside the United States to ensure that they have uninterrupted access to China, a fast-growing consumer market and center of the global electronic supply chain.

New investment dollars are being funneled to research hubs near the University of Waterloo in Canada, as well as Israel, Britain, and other places beyond the reach of the U.S.

government.

Well, you know, this is Well, I mean, this is

a continued

socialist government that is employing tariffs, that is taking a trillion dollars, which is greater than the defense budget of the U.S.

and Europe combined, and transferring it from young people to old people in the form of Social Security.

Our socialist government, which is putting pressure on companies to locate their headquarters in certain cities.

And now our socialist government is deciding, hey, I know the U.S.

should buy Ericsson or Nokia.

And it's just, okay, wait, the government is going to get into the business of trying to compete against Chinese companies now?

That is the definition of socialism.

And

it usually doesn't end up that well.

Typically, governments don't make great private enterprise strategies.

More to the point is that these rules are just not thought out.

And Wilbur Ross looks asleep.

Talk about asleep at the wheel and actually asleep.

But this is to me, the letter from IBM, which never does things like this, in a comment letter told the Commerce Department to go back to the drawing board and said the rules will lead to broad disengagement of U.S.

business from global markets and suppliers.

Its reach, breadth, and vagueness are unprecedented.

I mean, that's like you're stupid.

I think that's a you're stupid, right?

No, I get it.

And when IBM calls you stupid, that is.

When IBM calls you stupid.

Anyway,

this is going to be.

Jesus, even IBM thinks they're morons.

This is a very, very, especially in the backdrop of coronavirus coming out of China.

This is a, this is, this Chinese, the situation in China is so complex and our relationship with China.

I think that's really, to me, Huawei is one of the undersung stories of what's going on here.

I do think that.

And so we'll see where it goes.

Speaking of another tech company, we will get to politics.

We got to get to, we have a guest coming soon.

Airbnb isn't making profits and expects to go public later this year.

It was making money.

It had a profit a year ago of 200 million.

Now it has a loss of 322 million.

They're They're losing money because they're putting in safety cards and things like that.

That's what people think.

What do you think will happen to you?

We both have been positive about this company, but they're embroiled lots of lawsuits.

They've been doing more safety things.

They've been actually doing the block and tackling compared to other companies that's necessary to create a safe.

company.

This is their attempts, even though they have a lot of critics to that.

They're not doing a good enough job.

What happens when you change, you go to a loss like this when you're going into a public offering this year?

I would argue, I think they're they're doing exactly what they should be doing.

And that is if you look at the majority of big tech, where the problems come in is not only do, because we live in a capitalist society and we have obviously

feckless government oversight, it's very tempting in a capitalist society where the accoutrements of wealth and power are just extraordinary to to ignore and turn a blind eye to some of the externalities created with unfettered scale.

And that is, okay, what happens when you don't apply for a business license?

What happens when you ignore journalist stories that your drivers are making less than minimum wage?

What happens when you ignore all sorts of evidence that bad actors are on your platform?

What happens when you ignore, you know, child safety?

Because at the end of the day, scale, their ability, I mean, these companies, these companies have created, Facebook has created more value in 10 years than the entire U.S.

auto industry created in a century.

And the ability to do that, the ability to garner the accoutrements, the respect, you generally, these people are, you know, for the most part, good people think, I can do great things with this wealth and power.

You know, they, so the temptation to ignore anything that gets in the way of this kind of blitzkrieg-like scale is extraordinary.

And that is what regulators are supposed to do.

They're supposed to step in and say, no, you're supposed to have a business license.

And no, if you're paying people $2.50 and turning their car into a payday loan, we're going to stop that.

But we haven't done that.

They overrun Washington.

They weaponize CNBC and and the Wall Street Journal to call them innovators, and anyone who gets in the way doesn't, quote unquote, get it and is a Luddite.

And what Airbnb is doing is saying, you know what,

before it's too late, we're going to put in place some friction and it's expensive and it'll cost some money at the IPO.

But they're saying safety has become an issue.

So they are making a massive investment in screening safety and trying to understand.

They're getting in the way of their scale and they're spending a lot of money trying to make these

units more safe.

Yeah, this is true.

I think the problem they face, I think, is this,

you know, they're building this big legal team, which is

which is important to them because they've got all kinds of issues all over the place.

And they are litigious because they're ramping up, you know, they're fighting with localities.

Am I naive?

Are they not as Snow White as a whole?

I think the two questions, and again, I like Brian Chesky's coming to Coda also.

The whole team, actually, the whole original team is coming to Code, all the founders.

I do think compared to everybody else, but it's sort of like sometimes you're like,

it's the least violent

person.

Like, you know what I mean?

The least violent.

And so that doesn't mean they don't, they haven't been.

Charles Manson's younger brother.

No, no, no, no.

They're not like that.

Just beats people up.

They have just dukes everywhere.

You know, they've got so many problems because they're an analog company.

Just think, talk about the legal problems they have.

They've got, you know, video cameras in people's bedrooms.

They've got, you know, at one point they had bed bugs.

There was

prostitutes operating.

There were, you know, orgies.

There was damage.

There's people dying.

are-that's called a Wednesday night in Soho.

What are you talking about?

Well, it just

wasn't a company.

I knew that was coming, but like property damage, this is just there's so much going on.

And then they're fighting with municipalities about its impact, and then you know, it just goes, it goes on and on and on.

And then, illegal properties being, you know, being gamed, and then there's these parties, and then like, so this is a very complex company.

So, I don't, I, I, I have to say that anything they can do to assuage that is great, but it's they're they're not going to be perfect in this regard, and so it's going to cost money.

But I do like that they're

spending money, but they're definitely have to be aggressive from a people's point of view.

The option would be to do what Uber did.

And then it's just try and delay and obfuscate and overwhelm the media with stories about other things such that they can get public.

And then kind of all this stuff bubbles up.

And I think they've said, no, we're going to try and, I mean, there's probably a bigger issue, and it's more of a macro issue, and that is what happens when you continue to take housing stock off the market for the purpose of turning it into kind of what is effectively a makeshift short-term rental or a hotel.

What happens to young people who, or people who just can't find housing?

Right.

They just can't rent.

This is another thing that's pushing the price of housing up in the kind of key locations where people want to live and want to be closer to work.

So, there's some obviously some big issues.

You also have the hotel lobby that's fairly,

look, I would agree.

We've been paying for the police.

Look at your hotel bill.

I mean, they're extraordinary taxes on there, right?

And they pay taxes.

They pay taxes at Airbnb.

They now do.

So Airbnb, do you know if Airbnb, though, in every municipality is actually paying the same taxes?

I believe they are.

I believe they have fixed that.

It's like Amazon.

They fixed that.

But I think the issue is, look, they're in these lawsuits, especially with New York.

They're in that same.

And Brian was quite

frustrated with their situation.

Every now and then you hear people inside there, we're just going to get out of New York.

We're just not going to do it.

And then they're like, well, we've got a lot of, it's a very complex situation.

And I think it requires, I think, going public, it'll be interesting to see these numbers when they go public.

You know, this is a $31 billion valuation.

If there's like, maybe this is money they have to spend now, the way Amazon did, and then later they can recoup it.

You know, they bought a hotel tonight, so they're also in the hotel business.

They also have to show growth.

So

it's going to be a really interesting IPO.

I do think it's a great product.

And it's not one of these products that is going to go away.

And I think it's not.

I think they do it better than anybody else.

There's nobody else even close.

I I agree.

They've got monopoly of some of those network effects we talk about.

Speaking of New York, did you see the news that Mayor de Blasio endorsed Bernie Sanders in that?

Wait, we have a mayor, said everyone in New York.

Oh, my God.

Talk about the weakest flex in the world.

You've got to do the impression of Bernie Sanders receiving de Blasio.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Well, I love de Blasio, de Blasio, or whatever.

We're in New York.

We're in New York.

People realize.

I don't even know how to do it.

Talk about the weakest.

He's going to blond themselves onto things, doesn't he?

Anyway, we've got to take a quick break because we've got a guest coming.

Actually, someone whose brother is running for president, friend of Pivot, Jim Steyer.

And we're going to do wins and fails after that when we get back.

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, 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 Vox 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 a hundred dollar 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.

Okay, we're back.

We have our friend Jim Steyer on the line.

Jim is a best-selling author, a Stanford University professor, and founder of CEO of Common Sense.

It's the world's leading organization focusing on helping kids and families thrive in the world of media and technology.

This September, he'll be publishing his book, Which Side of History: How Technology is Reshaping Democracy and All Our Lives.

We are both parents.

This is about privacy platforms and how to handle it.

So it's the perfect intersection.

Jim, welcome to Pivot.

Great to be here.

So

you don't know, Professor Galley, but right before this, you were complimenting each other on your professorialness, although you had a little Stanford

NYU face-off.

But one of the topics, Scott, we want to talk about, because Jim talks about this a lot, is how safe are platforms like Facebook and YouTube for kids.

This is something he has been very early to this, the same complaints you made around addiction, around stuff like that.

So talk about that a little bit, Jim, where you are now, because this is something you've been talking about for a while.

You're right, Kara.

I've been talking about it for a long time.

And I would just say that the basic message I was giving to parents on kids using social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram or YouTube is delay, delay, delay.

I mean, they're still the wild, wild west.

They still present enormous challenges for the social, emotional, and cognitive development of kids.

And so we still have a huge issue when it comes to the reality of kids online.

And they are, there's an arms race for data, an arms race for attention, and kids are oftentimes the big losers, period.

Go on.

Oh, my God.

I love this guy so much already.

Go ahead.

Vidalero.

I know.

This is your turn.

Stop it bringing people of interest.

I said I wouldn't get involved in this interview, and I'm 10 seconds in, and I got interrupted.

Okay, what is, can you give us some of the most damaging or some of the data that you find most alarming about kids and privacy in these platforms?

Well, I mean, basically, kids today are the most tracked generation ever.

And the stakes for privacy are very high.

When we wrote the CCPA in 2018, it went into effect just this past month.

This is a California Privacy Act.

Right.

The sort of a landmark law in the United States.

To be honest with you, we did it, Scott and Jara, because we were so concerned about the privacy of kids.

But it's basically they're tracked from infancy.

We used to look at this in the context of the photos that parents would post to their babies.

But we have,

as our friend Shoshana Zuboff at at Harvard says, you know, a surveillance economy.

And so kids are being tracked.

They don't know it.

Their parents don't know it.

And then sometimes that data is being used in really inappropriate ways.

So we've been looking at this forever.

So what what are some of those ways?

Because my data is tracked and it most usually adds utility.

It helps me get to Chipotle or whatever.

Why is it bad?

You know, Scott, as the father of two daughters, both of whom were always concerned about their weight and their body image, you know, they started re

getting pro-anorexia messages when they were 11 or 12, and they would constantly be dished up stuff because of tracking on social media and on

other platforms.

Hold on a second.

Pro-anorexia messages.

What platform?

How did that happen?

That happened, I'm sure, because

they were tracked, their data was available, and then folks who had weight loss pills or stuff related to weight loss were targeting them with ads.

And we've seen this across the board with girls.

I mean, I actually think, Kara, I don't know if you and I have talked about this, but the issue of the impact of platforms like Instagram and Snapchat on boys and girls, but particularly girls' body image, is humongous.

Yeah.

Scott talks about this all the time, this depression issue.

The constant comparison.

And, you know, I think the data is something like 50% of kids on girls on social media Photoshop their images for the sort of that perfect look.

That's incredibly damaging to their self-esteem.

I'm sorry, you're going to have the same question I was, Kara.

What do we do about this?

If you could be governor, if you were advising Governor Newsom, and it sounds like you are, what are the two or three things that will help you?

Well,

we wrote the Consumer Privacy Act in 2018.

That needs to be strengthened.

I mean, there needs to be much stronger enforcement and greater data minimization.

I personally think that for areas in which

we need to rewrite COPPA, the privacy law for kids under the age of 13.

But I think much more fundamentally, we need responsibility out of the large companies.

I mean, they have just basically ignored their responsibilities to kids and families and consumers from the get-go.

And I just think it's about time that they were much held much more accountable by the government, but society writ large for

some of the really major downsides and unintended consequences of their business models.

Well, talk about the UK new legislation It requires social networks, gaming apps, and online services used by people under 18 to overhaul how they handle that information.

They require platforms like YouTube and Instagram to turn on the highest possible privacy settings for default by miners, turn off default data mining practices.

This is never, we were just talking just earlier about Margaret Vestiger and the artificial intelligence stuff they're talking about this week.

Why does this never happen in this country?

Why is GDPR and California pretty much the only and even California is weaker?

You know that.

Not that much weaker.

I mean, Carol, we wrote the law, so it's weaker in some ways and stronger in a couple of other ways, but you're correct.

And truthfully, we opened a London Office for Common Sense, which is going great guns, and we work with Margretta on an ongoing basis because Europe is much more vigilant about this.

I mean, California has a functioning democracy.

Brussels and the EU have a functioning democracy.

And Washington is not a functioning democracy.

That's the bottom line.

That's why we wrote the the privacy law for the United States in California.

So what we need is a new president, a Congress that is competent to deal with these issues, and then to take the companies head on, just as they're doing in the UK and Europe.

And we are right now lobbying in Europe for the passage of the UK legislation that you referred to, Carol.

All right.

So, but like this, you just opened up a big door.

Someone you know is running for president, your brother, is that correct?

Now, do you advise him on the policy on privacy media?

I haven't heard him talk a lot about this, but let's advise whoever is president, not your extraordinarily wealthy brother.

Thank you.

I knew you were going to throw in that act of Fifcara, but I love my brother very much, and I support him, and he would be a great president.

That said, I would tell whoever is the next president, hopefully not Donald Trump, God forbid, that we need to, number one, abolish Section 230.

We need to just remove the ridiculous provisions of Section 230

that have given these guys a get-out-of-jail free pass for 15 years.

We should have comprehensive federal privacy legislation that's stronger than GDPR.

We should hold industry executives, in certain cases, personally responsible when they are involved in or complicit in the hacking of our democracy.

The list goes on.

To some extent, we're running this legislation or pieces of this legislation in California.

But the truth is this leadership should start with the president, whether it's my brother or somebody else.

Scott, ask about the personally responsible.

Scott was just talking about that.

So typically in the U.S., I think the first two are feasible.

And California, whenever California does anything, D.C.

typically, or other states, probably more importantly, as you've pointed out, D.C.

has become somewhat flaccid, if you will, around regulation the last, I don't know, 20 years.

But everybody looks to California.

Right.

But

the one that I think would probably have the biggest impact is one of these executives shows up.

in court and there's a chance they're going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit.

I think that is probably what is required because

these folks have such incredible tools, have so much capital, have so many lobbyists that until there's a decent level,

I mean, the rule of law in the U.S.

is an incredible deterrent.

There's a very healthy fear of incarceration and shame that applies to most people in most industries that say, even if I can get away with it, I'm not going to pour mercury into the river out of the back door of my factory.

I don't think that fear is there among tech executives.

And the idea of a corporation is that we give people private power and private companies and executives a barrier such that if they do something stupid within a corporation, their stock goes down, they get fired, but they don't go to jail.

And to me, that is something that has huge benefits in a capitalist society, but also has gotten in the way of this level of deterrence.

What could they potentially do?

How could they hold, is it realistic the notion of holding them personally?

You know, Scott, I think it's a great question, but I agree with you.

I think that was one of the great mistakes of the the Obama administration by analogy when they failed to put some of the banking executives in prison where they belong for tanking our economy.

And you could compare that to the ways in which some of the largest tech platforms, particularly I think Facebook in particular, have both

have harmed our constitutional and democratic norms, have exposed kids and other users to massive violations of privacy.

I think if we held tech executives personally liable, it would have a dramatic impact in terms of accountability.

I also feel that with bank executives.

So I agree with you.

And I would, I'm a former prosecutor.

I saw this every day when I was a prosecutor.

When people are afraid of being orange drunk suits, it completely changes their behavior.

And I do believe that post-the 20 election, we ought to be having these kinds of discussions, not in a punitive way, but because the impact of tech on society, on democracy, on all of our lives is so profound.

All right, but both of you, this is never going to happen.

They're never going to put Mark Zuckerberg in jail.

I made this prediction, Karen.

I stand by it, and I'd like to get Professor Starr's view.

I predicted two years ago, and I've been wrong so far, that a tech executive is detained and arrested, but it happens on foreign soil.

It could be, but I think it'll be for

something like pornography or live streaming murder.

I mean, one of the things I'm sure you took, I know, because I listened to your podcast that we talk about Section 230.

I mean, that's one of the worst laws in the United States.

It has literally been this blanket immunity.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat from Oregon.

And Ron Wyden wrote it.

And part of the reason when I've argued with Democrats

to have it overturned, they always say, well, you know, Ron wrote it.

I like, who cares who wrote it?

Let's write it.

Ron did not like it anymore.

I just saw him the other day.

He doesn't, he thinks it's out too.

Then if Ron Wyden doesn't like it,

a good gentleman from Oregon, he ought to stand up and call for its abolition.

I don't believe he thinks that far.

But they ought to start from scratch.

It's a lousy law.

It's irrelevant in 2020.

All right.

Well, that's a big deal.

That's a big thing.

So you think 230, and then what about, let me just finish, because we have only a little more time.

That's a big thing.

That is not going to happen, but that's a big thing.

And

I think you're right about redoing it and figuring it out.

But I think it's very difficult to imagine them.

Fundamental overhaul.

Fundamental overhaul of 230.

All right.

Okay.

Okay, two things.

Two things, final things.

General advice for parents who concern, give us three chips.

And second, do Scott, if your brother wins, can Scott and I stay in the Lincoln bedroom together?

We really can't.

Okay, number one, yes to question number two.

Here's what I would say.

Number one.

So yes to number two.

My brother's going to shoot me for that comment, however,

okay, all right, okay.

But that's okay.

I talk to him every day.

He's my best friend, and he is my younger brother, so he has to listen to me some of the time.

No, I think the number one thing is delay, delay, delay in terms of giving your kids smartphones.

Number two, have an ongoing dialogue with them about the pros and cons of what they're getting on phones and social media, including addiction, attention, distraction issues.

And then third, be a good role model.

If you're constantly glued to your own phone or your own

social media account, what are they going to learn from you?

So children.

You're right.

I've gotten so much better, Jim, since you warned me of that.

I believe that, Kara.

I put it down.

I put them down whenever we're at meals and everything else.

I do.

And that's the, you know, we have that whole device-free dinner campaign.

But, Kara, I know what a doting mom you are.

And Scott, I assume you're a debugged parent.

parents.

You've just got to act it out in your own life.

And by the way, we're all healthier if we do.

That is true.

100%.

Good advice.

Jim, as usual, thank you so much.

Professor Starr, you are an inspiration.

Upgrade to the Bears, the Golden Bear.

I love it.

Professor Galloway, get out here to the Bay Area and become a visiting professor at Stanford and College.

You're a wanted man there.

Are you kidding?

I end up.

The question is whether they assassinate me honorably with like a long-distance rifle or they strangle me.

All right, Jim.

Good talking to you.

Okay.

Talk to talk about that guy thanks all right see you professor i love that guy i love that guy too all right seriously

i was a bit skeptical some guy named steyer that's not running for president i was totally skeptical there you have it i sent an email a snark email last night i'm like snooze to the producers and and they freak out because i never complain i'm unlike you i never complain that guy's a gangster say

you should listen to me on my advice to you i do know some people yeah i do listen i do listen

And by the way, just because I made a Lincoln bedroom remark, you literally just talked about the AG having sex with the president, and I just made one single

Lincoln bedroom remark.

That is the worst Cinemax show ever invented.

Because you're on the floor, you'll be sleeping on the floor and talking to the ghost of the president.

But I think

we need to use this relationship, get into the White House.

That's the night.

You and I in the Lincoln bedroom is the night they find out the White House, it was built on an ancient Indian burial ground or whatever it is.

Polter guy shows up.

We have to get to the White House.

We have to get in the White House.

We do have to get there.

I've never been to the White House.

I have.

I've never been there.

I used to cover it for the Washington Post.

Well, of course you have.

How many times have you been there?

I've covered it as a reporter.

I didn't get invited by anybody.

Oh, actually, you know what?

That's not true.

My ex-wife worked at the White House, so I've been in there.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

But not very, they don't let me very far, but I mean, like, really, in the, we should run around the White House.

That's what we need to do upstairs.

That's what we need to do.

Now, the Secret Service is like dialing in right now.

Anyway, I did go,

I did get my hand shook by President Obama when you leave.

All the members of the White House get to have little pictures taken with them.

And he saw me and was horrified because we had done a very testy interview.

Yep.

That's right.

And he's like, how did you get in here?

And I think that's what he said to me.

I believe that's how he said to me.

It was very funny.

In any case, Scott wins and fails now.

Who won?

Wins and fails.

Wins and fails.

So my fail is Senator Tom Cotton

implying that a super virus

has been developed at some covert facility.

I think it's irresponsible.

I think

the brand of Senate and senators is distinct of their partisanship, that they don't make statements like that.

And then when senators say something, we take it seriously.

And that Senator Tom Cotton, when he says, when he manufactures conspiracy theories about super viruses from nations that he may see as our adversary, but they're not our enemy.

And then biologists with any credibility come out and say, this virus does not look like there's no evidence it was engineered in any way.

He not only weakens our position in the world, he diminishes

the credibility and the standing of the United States Senate.

And distinctive how, you know, whether he thinks there's crazies he's trying to throw red meat at, he should command the space he occupies.

He wants to be

Trump.

Senator Cotton 24.

He wants to be Trump.

Yeah, well, Senator Cotton, just stop it.

Just stop it.

That is a definition of an irresponsible statement.

And it's, again, more cloud cover,

more cloud cover provided by by the mother of all irresponsible statements, such that people like Senator Tom Cotton can say these stupid things and people don't even notice.

Anyways, my fail is Senator Tom.

Can I just say

that Maria Bartiroma on that interview, not questioning him?

What was she thinking?

Come on,

come on, long time ago.

Acting as if there was some legitimacy to that.

I just

horrible.

What happened to Maria Bartiroma?

Literally, what happened?

It was depressing.

Where'd she go?

Somewhere else.

I don't know.

I just, that to me was sort of.

That's my fail.

What's your fail?

Are you just, are you, we have fail strategies?

No, no, I want your win now.

I want your win.

So my win, this is sort of strange, but when I was at UCLA,

the O'Bannon brothers, Charles O'Bannon, Ed O'Bannon, Charles O'Bannon played point guard.

Ed O'Bannon was a power forward.

And you had Charles O'Bannon with like this.

buttery ball handling skills.

And Ed O'Bannon was like if Superman was 10 inches taller and stronger.

And these guys were just a joy.

And I'm not into sports, but at UCLA, you go to basketball and we used to go to Polybellian.

These guys were just incredible.

And I don't know exactly, but I think Ed O'Bannon, like most amazing basketball players, got to the NBA, made a little bit of money.

But there's just the top of the pyramid in professional sports is basically the employment rate is like 0.0001% in terms of the number of people who can actually make a living in professional sports.

And what I think you continue to see, and I saw this, the NC2A president, again, a guy who makes $4 million a year, talking about how kids should not be or student athletes should not be paid.

And it's just, to me, it's ridiculous.

And that, again, we have another construct where March Madness, incredible basketball teams, incredibly talented young people are, you know, we place on top of them this construct that transfers wealth, the wealth they create to a bunch of old white dudes sitting in Kansas at the NC2A or at CBS headquarters.

And it's enough already.

These folks deserve some compensation.

A lot of them aren't going to make any more money post-college.

A lot of them give their best years in terms of their ability to create economic value for other institutions.

So enough already.

NC2A, you know, get out of the way.

There needs to be legislation to pay college athletes, and we need to get in the way.

And then you have all these, you know, again, 50 or 60 something-year-old baby boomer white guys who coaches who all make between $4 and $20 million each, saying that it would somehow pollute the game.

When they're literally the mercury, you know, they're the cyanide of this thing, being around young people talking about integrity when they're doing their, you know, Cheetos commercials, but oh no, you can't make any money.

Anyways, my win is Ed O'Bannon.

I don't know where Ed is, but he provided so much joy and so much value to the Bruins.

And I think we probably captured so much economic value and the fact that he didn't get to participate in that in a meaningful way.

Anyways, Ed O'Bannon is my win, and I hope that college athletes start recognizing some of the economic value together.

This is really interesting.

This idea of transfer of wealth to the old and infirm view is a very interesting theme.

Everything we do.

It's a very interesting theme of Scott Gallery these days.

Everything we do.

I think this is your next book, this transfer, this idea of how we're sort of transferring all the money to the wrong places.

Well, you know why Bernie has so much momentum?

When you think about it, it's not that crazy.

People go, oh, well, it's socialism.

It's scary.

Old people, all of us, old people, like, don't they know what socialism is?

Well, I'll tell you what.

They want their student debt eliminated, and that's what Bernie's saying.

Well, it's because I got free education.

Why shouldn't they?

I got free education.

In the 80s and the eras of California, I got free education.

So they're like, I want some of that boss.

And then they see a trillion dollars going to old people, two-thirds of whom do not need it.

And they think, you know what, I'd like my trillion.

I'd like my trillion.

So they immediately go to the same socialist policies that we call capitalism.

We just call it something else.

We call it Social Security.

We call it, I mean, we just have different names for it.

But

we are effectively socialists who've decided the most noble people in the world are also the wealthiest people in the the world and they deserve all our transfer payments.

Anyways, drop the mic.

I'm sorry.

What is your win?

My win is an essay that Hunter Walk wrote, speaking of, who was a tech executive himself.

And he wrote, What's wrong with tech folks who attack the tech media and what's wrong with tech media today?

I thought it was a great piece.

One of them was, not all critics are haters.

Please stop adopting the language.

Our president is deride reporting.

You are not as much of an underdog as you think.

You want to content market yourself and then think follow-up questions and press are not worthy of your response.

Pay for media.

And for reporters, he says, don't red team yourself into a biased corner, over-grant

anonymity, especially in direct quotes.

I think that's a really good blame the media business model editor for your content or headline.

So I thought it was a very thoughtful.

He did it on his blog called Humble Brag.

And I think it's called Humble Bragg or something that

Hunter Walker.

That was a great piece because really tech people are now like, you're every, when I had this argument, half of them were about media hating and nothing.

No one had read the article like that they were so angry about.

And that drove me crazy.

And they just, all they want to do was bash the media.

And it's just, it's crazy.

And at the same time, you know, then the media came on our side, and it was just like, it was just like ridiculous.

No one had actually read the actual thing.

And so I just felt that was the victimization thing is just like exhausting.

I'm a bit confused, though.

He's saying that we're not, that we should be less critical of big tech or that we shouldn't just have a gag reflection.

No, no, no.

He said we shouldn't do sort of,

I think what he's saying is just do your reporting.

He said, a reporter told me his job is to find red team versus tech.

I feel frads him.

It's not a reporter's job to write both sides of the story or to balance their negative coverage with positive stories.

But I fear over time, this type of newsroom culture narrows the perspective, also applies the same level to red teaming outrage, equally to different circumstances.

For example, highlighting a young individual who made a stupid tweet or blog post versus speaking truly to power.

I think that's right.

I think he's right.

I think mostly he was sort of shocked by how much anti-media bias is now coming out of tech.

And Mike Isaac wrote about it towards reporters.

And it's just because they had years of being licked up and down, and now they're not getting that.

They're getting like just a second here.

And I don't think they like that very much.

That's my

generation of tech leaders.

If you look at just the sheer data, the number of corporate PR professionals, which are basically lobbyists who make more money, has tripled, and the number of journalists has been cut in half.

And so all they have experienced as working adults is more momentum and narrative towards them.

And so when that momentum shifts and people start saying, no, you're full of shit, and no number of press releases and appearances, cooked appearances on CNBC are going to save you.

It's shocking to them.

It feels anti-American.

That is.

And they don't realize that when journalists used to show up, shit used to get real.

And journalists

would track stuff down and they had the resources and they had the license and they didn't have the president attacking them.

You know, people just had a lot of money.

I feel like this generation doesn't appreciate that the largest, most effective police force in the history of Western democracy that doesn't carry guns or badges are journalists.

And

there is a lack of appreciation for,

and it's what's interesting is even a guy like Bezos, I think, sees it and says, okay, it's important these institutions are around.

But it's, it's journalist, when you really think about it.

Although his PR guy went on a complainty tech reporter rant the other day.

You know what I mean?

Yeah, he was calling hipsters in Brooklyn.

Like he was Jay Carney.

Yeah.

It's just really,

you know what I mean?

Too bad.

You get paid a lot of money.

And you should, it's just, it's fascinating.

You know, I try, you'd be shocked about how relatively good relationships I have with most PR people at these companies but one of the things I like about it is I've always been a grumpy pain in the ass to them so they're used to it for me that's believable

but it's thank you but it's a really interesting time and I just it's like it's just really it's it's it's emboldened by Trump it's bullying of the press which I think is really dangerous and I listen one of the things is how someone wrote and just tweeted me like how do you like it now you're being criticized I'm I'm like I'm good with it like I'm always getting criticized so it's fine it's just they like to like try to like how do you like it now it's like you know, fuck you, I get it all like all the time.

It's an interesting moment.

Anyway, I like this essay for my fail.

I would say, um, it's still Bill Barr and his dating Donald Trump.

Now, I just think Bill Barr just continues to just make everything dirty over there, just dirty.

And I don't mean it in that way.

You were replying, but it just creates this letter from all the

ex-Justice Department, 1,100 Justice Department.

Yeah, that's incredible.

Say that again.

1,100

people from the DOJ are willing to put their careers on hold and basically said, this guy needs to step down.

That is staggering.

Staggering.

Staggering.

They don't care.

They're brazen.

And so that's, I think that was my, just the Bill Barr continues to be, I think, the most dangerous person in our, except for Mitch McConnell.

I think those are the two.

You know, Trump is one thing, but who facilitates it all.

But these people who

do know better, I think, on some level.

And I'm not abrogating

Trump's responsibility, but on some level, he's got some problems.

But these guys,

I don't understand the trade at all.

I don't understand this trade at all.

I need to bring you out of this functus mood.

Read our letter from Valentino.

Valentino.

We'll end on this letter.

You're right.

I'm not in a funk.

I mean, I'm just like, I just, I had a weekend

assholes.

All right.

This is a letter, Valentino.

This is a letter from Valentino's mother, Camilla, who was writing to us.

And the subject line was questions from Valentino, which, of course, that immediately piques our interest, right?

So first of of all, I am a big fan of yours since L2 Days.

Pivot is brilliant, and I am a loyal listener.

My son,

my son, Valentino, I love her for naming her son Valentino, listens to the show on the way to school and knows your voice.

Scott, you have a five-year-old fan.

Isn't that nice?

Questions from Valentino.

All right, you have to answer them too.

Why is this guy so angry with Amazon that he wants to break it?

It's beyond me to explain why AWS is.

Oh, my God.

This literally, this, this, thank you you for reading this this email made

my night all right i don't know if you noticed no email we've received actually nothing that's happened has changed my behavior more than this young man because i don't know if you've noticed i have not used a single expletive because the notion that a five-year-old is listening has me totally freaking that is true now that's true that you did talk about presidential sex but okay all right next question i love tesla why why is so let me answer let me answer valentino okay answer the first one amazon then we'll get to the rest okay the reason I want to break Amazon, I don't want to break it.

Think of it this way, Valentino.

You know, in your class, there are

twins.

Have you ever met twins?

And that is the people kind of look like each other, but they have their own personality, and it's better than one.

They're more fun to play with because there's two of them.

I want Amazon to be twins.

I want two companies that kind of look like each other, but are even more fun and there's more of a good thing.

So I don't want to break them.

I want to turn Amazon into twins.

Two times.

Okay.

I love two.

I love Tesla.

Why is so angry at Tesla?

Dad drives one.

I drive one too.

They're great cars.

I love Tesla.

And by the way, ask your dad, ask your dad to make the Tesla dance.

Say, dad, make our Tesla dance and force dad to go on YouTube and figure out how to make Tesla dance.

But I like Tesla too.

I think it's a great car.

And

your daddy has great taste in the car.

I'm so angry.

Answer his very pointed question, Scott.

Why so angry at Tesla?

Why so angry at Tesla?

Because, well, okay, so Tesla, I think sometimes people at companies say mean things about other people and they shouldn't.

And some of the people, the guy who's the big boss at Tesla is a genius, but sometimes he says mean things, and I don't like that.

All right, okay.

And you also don't like the stock, too, which we can explain, but that's okay.

Thanks for that.

Thanks for that.

Okay, three, is Donald Trump in jail yet?

What do I do to make it happen given me and my friends can't vote?

So the first thing you need to do is do really well in history.

History is important because it'll help you predict the future.

And then,

Valentino, we need you to go to law school and join the Department of Justice and then run for Senate.

So

history class, college, law school, Senate, Valentino.

Senate.

I will be there.

I will be there.

This kid, you could tell this kid, big things in store for Valentino.

Oh, my God.

I love that you explaining things to a five-year-old is my favorite, Scott Galloway.

That's just looking in the mirror.

All right.

The last part she wrote, The Next Generation is Listening.

Thank you for your time.

Camilla, Camilla, thank you so much.

And obviously, you've brought up

my weekend.

Seriously.

God, elementary school, Scott, is the best Scott.

There you go.

That is how I like you, right?

That I would love to know you at five years old.

What were you like at five years old?

Oh, my God.

I was shy and a nice kid.

What were you like?

I was just the same.

Just the same.

Just the same.

I ran the freaking playground.

I ran the playground.

Listen to me.

I know him.

I know him.

I know the vice principal at the other school.

I know him.

I know him.

I ran that playground and I was a benevolent person.

Stick with me, kid.

I know the lady that runs the cafeteria.

We're getting an extra scoop of potato salad.

Stick with me.

Stick with me.

It's the way it is.

I can't, I don't know what to say.

It's genetics.

Anyway, Scott, please,

you wanted to give a special shout out before we go?

All right.

So before we go, more virtue signaling on my part.

This This incredibly impressive young man, a guy named Dom Phillip is, I think his name is Dom Phillip, is over here from abroad

who's had some struggles with health.

And he's this like incredibly, or he isn't, he's an incredibly impressive 37-year-old, send me a pictured, handsome dude.

And him and his wife are here and in the U.S.

because we have some of the best, we still have distinctive, some of obviously our big problems around healthcare, we still have some of the best healthcare in the world.

And he wrote this very nice email to him.

Anyways, I just wanted to say hello, and that I was thinking about him.

And I'm so glad that he is here in the United States of America.

And, anyways, I'm just going to leave it there, but a quick shout out to Don and his wife.

And more five-year-olds.

Please write in because it makes sense.

There you go.

Person.

And more people, write in.

This is the best side of Scott.

Remember, we love your questions.

If you have a question or you just want to say something like this about a story or in the news or anything, we say email us at pivot at Voxmedia.com to be featured on the show.

Scott, read us out the credits.

Today's episode was produced by Rebecca Sinanis, our executive producers, Erica Anderson, and special thanks to Rebecca Castro and Drew Burroughs.

If you like what you heard, please download and recommend to a friend our episode or our podcast.

Listen to it wherever you listen to podcasts.

And also be sure to tune in next week for a breakdown of all things tech and business.

Professor Steyer 2024.

I like that guy.

I like that guy.

I am basking in the glow of that episode.

I am basking in the glow.

The glow.

Oh, my gosh.

Hello.

Hello.

I feel like that guy.

What was that movie?

Did you see Purple Rain?

A long time ago.

God, 100 years ago.

Yeah, the guy from, I don't know, I popped in my mind, the guy who was a lead singer for the time.

I don't even remember that.

I feel like that guy right now.

Do you?

I feel like that guy.

Well, sing on, Scott Gallery.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

We'll talk Thursday.

See ya.

Bye now.