Trillion dollar companies and tax season; how the “Black List” shapes Hollywood’s big business… and is podcasting coming for radio dollars?

So, your AI agents

make the team that uses them more productive, right?

But if they aren't connected to other agents, or your data, or your existing workflows, how productive can they really make your teams?

Any business can add AI agents.

IBM connects your agents across your company to change how you do business.

Let's create Smarter Business, IBM.

Support for this show comes from Robinhood.

Wouldn't it be great to manage your portfolio on one platform?

With Robinhood, not only can you trade individual stocks and ETFs, you can also seamlessly buy and sell crypto at low costs.

Trade all in one place.

Get started now on Robinhood.

Trading crypto involves significant risk.

Crypto trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Crypto LLC.

Robinhood Crypto is licensed to engage in virtual currency business activity by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Crypto held through Robinhood Crypto is not FBI C insured or SIPIC protected.

Investing involves risk, including loss of principal.

Securities trading is offered through an account with Robinhood Financial LLC, member SIPIC, a registered broker dealer.

Hi, everyone.

This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Kara Swisher with a really bad cold.

And I'm Scott Galloway with some news that'll cheer you up, Kara.

The New York Times has decided to endorse me and Angela Lansberry for General Consulate of Australia.

Oh, my God.

We'll get to that.

That is insane.

I'm sorry.

They're endorsing two people.

Does the editorial board only have one testicle each or one?

I don't know what the equivalent is.

I don't.

I mean, literally, they're endorsing two people.

I don't know what to say.

I think

I was sort of surprised.

You worked there.

It's yours.

I did not work there.

I was surprised.

And I would say we're going to talk a lot about lady issues this week because they would never never do that to a man.

I'm sorry.

Like two women.

Oh, these are good ladies.

It's just we had a group of them.

It takes a village, Kara.

It takes a village.

I mean, why don't they just throw in Hillary Clinton?

It's just like, why don't we

just pick one?

Well, I think they're like the entire electorate.

They're like, well, we like Elizabeth Warren, but she can't win.

And then Amy Klobuchar is kind of okay,

but she's the realist versus the radical.

And I'm like,

you know, anyway.

Anyway.

Do you like them doing it through the video thing?

A lot of people thought it was like a reality show.

It felt like a Trump show.

But what do you, I kind of liked it.

I thought that part of it was innovative, and I loved how they

thought the graphics online of the New York Times were fantastic, and they went into the pluses and minuses from their viewpoint.

I thought there was a lot, actually, courage in the article.

I think they came out and said, if I don't know if you read Bernie's right up, but he's 79 years old and he just had a heart attack.

And that's dangerous and we need new blood.

I thought that was surprisingly honest and politically incorrect for the Times.

Well, that's what they say behind the scenes.

Why not?

That's what they say in the case.

I'm going to them for doing that.

I agree with you.

I think if it had been an all-male race, they would have picked one candidate.

What it is an interesting argument for is plurality voting or rank voting, which I think is going to get a lot of steam.

But yeah, it did seem kind of, I don't know.

It just seemed very...

Fox News wouldn't pick two candidates, right?

It's only the politically or no, well, they'll just pick one.

Donald Trump and then Donald Trump.

Yes, it was very odd.

But speaking of a lady, I'm going to get to your Cheryl Samberg Sandberg rant in a minute, but I just want to say people loved our fight last week on privacy.

I think we're going to have another one over Sheryl Sandberg, but people were on my side for the most part, by the way, FYI.

But they were very pleased with you for going out on an idiotic limb, I think.

That's how they felt.

Yeah, I have four of those idiotic limbs.

I know you had a lot this week, but I'm saying they liked it.

What do you think?

I liked our debate.

I was surprised that people reacted in such a way.

They enjoyed the, they thought it was a very civil back and forth on an important issue and that we were respectful to each other.

We were respectful, Kara, you ignorant slut.

But anyways, there's no, there's, look,

I think it's important to argue to learn, not necessarily to argue to be right.

And I think our society has lost a lot of that.

And I think that

if we have respectful,

data-driven, you know, thoughtful debate, we'll craft more thoughtful solutions, or at least that's what the framers initially thought.

And we've lost a lot of that.

Yep, I would agree.

Are we going to talk about our debate?

Is this part two?

Is that what we're doing here?

No, we can talk.

talk this is no i'm just saying i just noticed the new york times giant piece about clear view and facial recognition some asshole decided to do this like i'm just saying if there's no laws in place this is how it's going to go they're going to they're these little companies are going to pop up and then there's going to be someone with no ethics that guy who ran that company with the facial recognition selling it someone's going to do it it's like the cloning guy like i think i'll just do it and so we need we need the government in here to talk about this i'm sorry i think this is i think this is an important part of our society And if it's just, you know, all hell breaks loose, all hell is going to break loose.

Yeah,

I agree with you, but that's different.

There's some nuance here.

There's a difference between technologies that run amok and can violate people's privacy and the need for regulation and laws to prevent people from doing that, such that you can't put on a pair of Ray-Ban glasses and then see everything about somebody, including their phone number, and decide

to abuse that information or stalk people or whatever.

You could see where this technology goes a lot of bad places.

What we were arguing about was whether Apple should create a doomsday fail-safe box that no matter how dangerous that information is to national security or safety, that there's a right for people to have a place, a safe box, if you will, or kind of the ultimate safety deposit box that no one can ever get into regardless of the threat.

I feel like those are two different issues.

I don't know.

I think these guys are selling to the government.

That's who they're selling to.

Anyway,

we shall keep going.

If there's another, we need laws.

We need a long debate like we had about it so that people can really decide and then let our elected officials decide once we give them the instructions or put people in place.

Anyway, it's a very important point.

But just

some observations, because I do learn a lot from the feedback I get.

And I would say the feedback was sort of like two-thirds negative, one-third positive to my position.

What I found is that people have a knee-jerk reaction and they're triggered and they do what Daniel Kahneman calls slow thinking, and that is they immediately make assumptions about their viewpoint because they're unable to separate the ideology from the person.

In this instance, because Attorney General Barr and President Trump had proposed or highlighted a need for a back door into the iPhone, a lot of people were very upset about it and assumed it was the wrong thing to do.

And what I found is that

people don't realize or don't want to recognize, or there hasn't been a lot of discussion, that the U.K.

government, the Australian government, the Indian government have all asked for a back door.

And the Department of Justice under the Obama administration asked for the same thing.

They just did it more elegantly.

Yeah.

And

they've all asked for

the same thing.

Of course, they want it.

If I was a spy, I'd want it too.

Obviously.

It's a thing.

It makes government life easier in terms of as people use these things.

But eventually, these people go to these encrypted other apps.

It just goes on and on in terms of chasing these people.

And if you give a backdoor to Apple, they go to another app, they go to another app, whatever one they're using.

And it just, it never ends and it makes everybody more vulnerable.

So anyway, it goes on.

We're going to move on because Google joined Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft to become the fourth trillion-dollar company in the world.

They're creating enormous value for shareholders.

This is, as you've been talking about, you own these stocks.

We've talked to lots of people about this idea of where they go in the future and how they get bigger than ever.

But it's tax season and Amazon didn't pay any federal taxes.

Speaking of which, trillion-dollar company on $11.2 billion in profits.

I am allowing you to rant right now about this issue.

You like the idea that these are trillion-dollar companies as a shareholder.

No taxes.

Same thing with J.P.

Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Farger, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley posted earnings this week showing they saved $18 billion in 2019, more than the prior year, and thanks to Trump's tax overhaul.

So, I mean, this is like great for a shareholder, not so great for a citizenry.

Yeah, so like every other government policy, it is effectively an elegant transfer from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy or from small and medium-sized businesses to large businesses.

And along the way, we are incrementally gutting the greatest force in mankind, and that's the American middle class combined with capitalism and democracy in a free nation.

And slowly but surely, we're eroding that.

And our tax policy is just more evidence of this.

What big tech is doing to avoid taxes is they're really the ultimate kind of gangster move here around tax avoidance is international arbitrage.

So effectively, Apple can license their IP to an international group in Ireland, and then they tax other high-tax domains a licensing fee to use the Apple brand, thereby suppressing profits in high-tax domains and depressing profits or increasing profits in low-tax domains, thereby decreasing their total tax burden.

And the general argument around the tax cuts from Trump were that it would unleash all this corporate investment going from 35 to 21.

And there was some validity around the notion that we had to stay competitive.

There was a lot of these reverse mergers taking corporate headquarters outside of the U.S.

But effectively, what's happened is big corporations or multinationals are now enabled to use this international arbitrage, and their effective tax rate is around 11 or 12 percent.

And that's kind of the effective tax rate for big tech.

And what you have now is, if you look through history, you have corporations are now, their total tax burden has been reduced by a third.

We thought that was going to result in capex.

It didn't.

It resulted in share buybacks, which, by the way, benefit shareholders.

80% of shares are owned by, I guess, at the top 10%.

And small and.

That would be you, right?

That would be you.

I'm in the 11th percentile.

I just missed it.

So,

and then you have small and medium-sized businesses that get the majority of the revenues domestically, don't have access to this incredible tool of tax avoidance, and that they're big multinational companies.

So, like everything else, everything else, it's a transfer of wealth from people who don't have the backbone to think long-term, and that is our elected officials.

And we have to take

some blame for that for not electing the right ones.

But if you look at lower and middle income taxes, they haven't gone up, they've stayed the same.

Corporate taxes have gone way down, as have taxes on the top 1%, who are now paying a lower tax rate than everybody else.

And effectively, the real result of this, and what it turns this from economic policy to a moral issue, is that our GDP or our taxes

They're not historic.

We're going to do $1 trillion or our deficits, I should say.

Our deficits aren't historic.

We're going to do $1 trillion deficit this year.

It was bigger in 2011 because we were trying to get out of a recession.

As a percentage of GDP, they are now 5% or 6%.

Again, that's not historic.

In 1943, to pay for D-Day and Iwo Jima, they were at 24% of GDP.

Yeah, I thought those were good things.

What is historic about these tax rates is that if you look at the ratio of debt to GDP, that number, and then you look at unemployment, they have literally tracked each other almost perfectly.

And that that is when unemployment's at 10%, it means the economy is bad.

It means we need more social services.

And that deficit to GDP goes up to 5%, 6%, 8%.

And then when unemployment goes low, when unemployment goes to 3%,

typically that deficit to GDP plummets to 1%, sometimes 0%, and during the Clint years, even positive.

What is historic about our approach to the deficit right now is that for the first time in history, we have a deficit to GDP GDP of 5%

in an era of record unemployment.

So basically, we have decided

the deficit is no longer ibuprofen, it's no longer an anti-inflammatory, it's cocaine to keep this party going.

Which it is.

What's immoral about this is that I love this notion or this construct, and I'll wrap up because I know I'm blathering on, but that money is effectively the transfer of work and time.

If I give you money or if you give me money, you're awarding someone time.

With loved ones, you're awarding them the inability not to have to work as much.

And when we have these kind of record deficits that are now the interest on these deficits in this exceptionally low interest rate environment is now greater than what we spend on national defense, if these interest rates double, what we're effectively looking at is we as a nation have decided collectively that we are going to borrow or take time with loved ones from our kids and our grandkids such that we can have more.

So, this has become a moral issue.

We are trading in our kids and our grandkids.

And we're giving it to

these tech companies.

Big corporations that can take advantage of this multinational arbitrage.

Anyways, that's my rant.

I think this has become a moral issue.

Oh, that's a good rant.

That's full of math and everything else.

This is not good.

This is what basically what Scott Gallery is saying.

This is not good, mathematically speaking.

Obviously, we're not at Davos, which is happening right now.

The president is going there.

It's the World Economic Forum.

We have both been there.

I find it a place where rich people lick each other up and down.

And so I tend not to want to attend.

But Donald Trump is there.

Greta Thunberg is there.

Uber boss Derek Kross Rashahi is there.

Mark Benioff told me he was going.

Trump will give a speech on Tuesday, the day his impeachment hearing starts.

So climate change has been one of the discussions happening.

That's why they're having Greta Thunberg speak there.

But

these gatherings seem so

ridiculous at this point.

And maybe it's just me who just has gone to these things and has sort of seen sort of the wheels turning.

in a way that I don't like, that it's so clear exactly what you're talking about, which is that everybody else is paying the price for rich people.

Yeah, and it's it just goes back to Snowden's talk about climate change.

Climate change, income inequality, decaying infrastructure.

We're going to need well-funded governments.

And the idea that we've decided governments don't need to be well-funded is unusual.

In general, I think you're wrong about rich people licking each other.

Generally, I find rich people pay less rich people to lick them.

So that's our one point.

That's our one point.

That's our one point of departure here.

It's just

I generally think, I think Davos

deserves the criticism and the cynicism, but but I generally find that these gatherings are a good thing.

And my experience at Davos is that because people get together and that's

important.

It creates empathy.

You get to know other people.

You understand them.

I ended up hanging out with some guys from the Gulf, and I've always...

I don't want to say, I think I, like a lot of people, I have a tendency to stereotype people.

And I've stayed kind of in loose contact with them, and I think I

understand them a little bit better.

But I think people getting together from different, they're just likely,

they're less likely to declare war on each other when we get together on a regular basis.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: I suppose.

It's just so much money, like Washington.

These parties, those ridiculous parties.

I'll have to say, I agree with you.

I've just been obsessively reading about Muhammad.

The New York Times had a big Zayed at the United Arab Emirates he's running, and he's the richest guy in the world, I think.

He's $1.3 trillion in wealth that is at his disposal.

That's almost more than Putin.

Yeah, exactly.

And he's been, you know, super close to the Trump people.

There have been several really fascinating stories about him and his decision that autocracy is better than Islamism.

And it's been really interesting.

I think he's there.

And I just, I do agree with you.

It's good that these people all go there.

I just don't think everybody gets access.

And when you're talking about this issue of every, the rich getting, getting theirs, and they have these meetings and decide things, it's just, it's part of that elitism.

And there was a real pushback to Davos a couple of years ago.

If you remember the protests, I was there one of the years.

There was a lot of protests.

That sort of died down.

It's sort of died down.

And while they talk about climate change, the idea of doing it, something about it seems far-fetched at this point.

Just even if they have Greta Thunberg there.

I don't know how she got there on a bicycle or whoever she gets there.

But it's really, I find it, I agree.

I just feel so uncomfortable in those salons and those parties, of which, if anyone's been there, the parties are insane and the wine is insane and the food is insanely expensive and beautiful and everything else.

That's not the way I want my representatives to behave, but that's just me.

Yeah,

it's an unusual gathering.

I think on the whole, I think what Professor Schwab has built, I actually think is productive for the world.

I think the world is a net, net gainer from Davos.

But I think the scrutiny they get and when they show up and talk about, you know, when they show up and talk about climate change and then board their Gulf Streams,

it's important that the media highlight the inconsistency there.

But in general, I think it's good that people get in a room with other world leaders and and say, hey, we're having problems with the board.

I just think it's good when people get together.

I guess.

I guess.

I think the fix is in, Scott, just the way they don't pay taxes.

I'm starting to turn into Elizabeth Warren radical, according to the New York Times or something.

But you've been radicalized by YouTube.

YouTube, right, exactly.

But it's just, I think there's a lot.

People have a lot.

Hearing whatever Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders is saying has a lot of resonance for a lot of people.

Much more so than you realize.

Anyway, Anyway, we have to take a quick break.

We'll be right back with 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 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 Langchang, Ryder, and Cursor have all trusted Vanta to build a scalable compliance foundation from the start.

Go to Vanta.com slash box 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 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.

So this week I did an interview with Franklin Leonard Leonard on Rico Decode.

He is the film executive and the founder of the Blacklist.

The Blacklist is a yearly survey of the most liked screenplays that were not greenlit, lots of which were not big blockbuster action films, but more unconventional characters like Juno, Spotlight, and Slump Dog Millionaire.

Because of the blacklist, people notice them and a lot of them go on to be produced.

And last week, the Oscars, after basically

basically not paying attention to this in any way, nominated a bunch of white men.

Again, not to say white men aren't talented, but you know, there are a lot of stories that aren't about World War I and race car drivers.

He wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post and how that did not need to be the case.

So we asked him whether he thinks the streaming wars will have an effect on who will be represented in movies and television in the future.

Let's go to the tape.

I think that, you know, increased competition for talent in the business will require people to look further afield than the traditional places they've looked.

And the sort of insane size of their slates means that those people will be left alone to make the things as they see fit, which I personally believe will make it more likely that the stuff will be high quality.

Not only that, it's good business.

If you're trying to make money by making content, you'd be a fool to not be focused on a strategy that includes a full embrace of the country's diversity.

These companies need to hire women and people of color, both as talent, writers, directors, producers, et cetera, but also in the boardroom.

And separate from hiring them, they need to give them the resources in order to realize their vision and empower them to do so with real autonomy because they know better their audience than likely the people that are hiring them.

All right, Scott, what do you think about this?

I mean, Oscar So White is back, as you know.

And then it was coupled by the Grammys controversy.

They had hired a woman to shake up everything, Deborah Dugan, and then fired her over what sounds like trumped-up charges because of the sort of old boys network at the Grammys.

What do you think?

What do you think about this issue and what Franklin is saying?

Well, I think that's just hard to argue with.

Where I think it starts, though, is

earlier again with education.

And that is, I'm a big believer in affirmative action, which at the end of the day, let's be honest, is discrimination when you pick one kid because of the color of his skin over or the color of her skin over other people.

But I think that education, I think if you have more people of color going to the greatest film school in the world, and that is the UCLA School of Film, and also the distant seconds and thirds, NYU and USC, that's some brewing pride coming through, by the way, Kara, then that you're going to have more people of color collecting gold statues.

I think it's important that the greatest upward lubricant and means of advancement for economic power and to contribute to our society and to make our economy more robust because companies perform better.

We're better when there's more diversity that has economic power and the ability to tell these stories.

But I think where you start is

not with these kind of what I'll call artificial means of different awards or categories, which I just don't think work.

I think it's ensuring that people of color have the same access to opportunities, including grad school, such that they can get on stage.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: They are making the movies.

Look at Netflix and others.

There's much more diversity now in terms of movie making.

And there were plenty of choices in this year's Oscar.

I mean, J-Lo was robbed.

I'm sorry.

If you saw that performance and the fact that she was not even named, Greta Gerwing, another thing.

Do you think it's racist?

There were a couple.

Do you think it's that people...

I think these awards matter from, you know, this is a worldwide television show.

They are making these movies and they're not getting the recognition in comparison.

And whenever there's a black movie or like Black Panther or a woman's movie like Little Women, which both have did amazingly well at the box office, they're seen as an outlier.

Oh, look at this.

I think it's a mentality in Hollywood of this good old boys network that still exists that does this voting, even though they've been trying to get the committee that all the people that vote for the Oscars to be more diverse.

And they've added lots of people overall into the mix.

And they've been trying to do that.

That is 100% right.

It still remains in such areas like the director's area or others.

I mean, the difference between 1917

and little women, I think, is ridiculous.

Like,

which one did you see?

Well, I followed the foreigners.

I mean, I fall into the exact stereotype, and that is, I'm a white dude, and I was dying to see 1917.

I went and saw it this weekend.

And I absolutely would have voted for that for Best Picture Over Everything.

I thought it was incredibly

because who am I?

I'm an old white guy that comes home and watches documentaries on Hitler.

I mean, that's how I relax.

And you're right, unless.

Well, everybody watches documentaries on Hitler, but go ahead.

But you're, I'm case, I'm exhibit one of what you're talking about.

And that is, unless you have more people, not like me, who can appreciate different types of movies, we're going to continue to, 1917 is going to continue to win.

And I think it deserves to win.

I think it's an amazing film, but I'm sure Little Women is an amazing film, too.

So

I agree with you.

What do you do?

Then what do you do?

How do you think the tech industry could benefit?

Like, we did talk in the interview about

the Googles and the Amazons and the Netflixes moving in here, creating more of a diversity.

Although I was like, you know, frankly, you might want to look at the top echelons of these companies,

which is very similar to Hollywood.

But it's the idea

of appealing to lots of audiences.

I also interviewed Numa Perrier, who just did a great movie on cam sex in the 1990s.

She was a cam girl, did online sex online.

It was a great, fascinating story.

And she's backed by Ava Duvernay's array films.

But they're getting noticed, and they're getting funding from some of these other outlying areas.

But you would think with more and more producers in the mix

or content.

people who pay for content like Amazon or Netflix, there would be more of a push for these kind of movies to get ahead.

And you just, you just, it's sort of like tech and

the management.

It just never changes.

It is changing.

I think the glass is half full here.

And even just the notion, I mean, there's two things you can do.

And one is what you're doing, and that is money speaks louder than anything here.

And if

great movies that tell stories about and

buy women and people of color make more money at the box office, more of them are going to get produced.

The studios see an incentive in pimping them for awards because that increases their box office take post them getting awards.

And again, the gentleman that just died, the director that did Boys in the Hood, a fantastic film, James Singleton, was that his name?

Yeah.

I think he was the first black director ever nominated for an Oscar.

He went to USC Film School.

We need more people of color in film school because it starts an upward cycle.

There's been one woman, I think like one or two women as directors, and the one that won, of course, did a dude movie, like essentially.

And I don't know.

I just, it's the same.

It's the same kind of era that when their choices are...

Moved a solution.

What do you think we do?

I'm not sure.

I don't know.

I just, I honestly don't know.

The same thing with tech.

I really, it just continues to be the same way and the you know the amazing grip on power that white men have over certain industries is really quite you know they're not letting it interesting it's certainly actually you said it was the one woman who won was that for zero dark 30 yes yes that was a great movie see there i go white guy

talking about the

the killing of osama bin laden all i can tell you is jennifer lopez was a revelation in hustlers she was amazing and the fact that she did that just drove me nuts all of them greta garude have you seen little women probably not i have not You didn't go?

I have not.

Why?

Because it's called Little Women?

You like big movies?

No, I like movies about war.

And

I mean, this is about war.

They're fighting.

The sisters fight.

Here's what I want you to do.

I want Scott Galloway to go see Little Women.

And then I want you to come.

Okay.

All right.

And I want you to go drag your ass, take your sons to it.

Go all of you.

I couldn't get my sons to go.

It was really irritating.

My kids are 9 and 12.

Are they going to enjoy Little Women?

Yes, of course.

Yes.

It's very beautiful.

Just go see it.

And then I want to know.

i'll love it and or and then you yourself can go see hustlers it's about strippers you'll like it a lot in any case i'm very pissed now we're going to do wins and fails and my fail uh no i'm going to have your your thing we're going to talk about your your continued rant speaking this is all about sexism this week i'm on a thing

your rant on cheryl sandberg explain we're going to play some of it let's go to the tape and then we're going to have it out we effectively have a woman running around the world making billions of dollars telling other women to lean in despite the fact her gross negligence let a platform be weaponized so we could elect an illegitimate president who is putting people on the Supreme Court who are slowly but surely eroding a woman's rights.

Cheryl Sandberg is the worst thing that happened to women in the last 50 years.

Scott, as I have said many times, Zuckerberg avoids responsibility while Sandberg takes the fall.

I'm sorry.

I just don't see it.

I get why you want to focus on her, but he really is where the buck stops.

And in so many ways, within the shareholders, within the power, within everything that went wrong at that company, it's his company.

The amount of ire she gets compared to him seems smaller, except by me, Kara Swisher.

Anyway, explain to me your thinking on that.

I think you're right.

And I think that's a little unfair.

I have publicly on CNBC, CNN,

and I have tapes of producers said that I think Mark Zuckerberg is the most dangerous person in the world.

I've called him a sociopath.

I think you're right.

I think the buck begins with him.

I think he should be fired.

I think he is a 95%

stock decline away from having an orange jumpsit.

So I think you're right.

I think the buck stops with him.

I think he's ultimately responsible.

But that doesn't stop me from also highlighting the inconsistency of someone who uses an important discussion around gender at work to serve as fabric softener for him and her.

I think there's room for both, but I agree with you.

It stops with

me.

What do you want to happen?

What do you want to happen there in that situation?

I want the board to feel pressure to fire both and bring in people who are going to show some regard for teen depression, our Commonwealth, and our elections.

I want there to be so much pressure on these two individuals who have done more damage while making more money than any individuals in the history of business.

I want the board to hold hands and say,

we've got to make a change here.

And you're right.

I think the first change has to be the Zuck.

Well, except that's not going to be the first time.

I think it could happen.

He's going to be able to.

I think it could happen.

How?

You keep saying that someone on the board is going to get a dose of bravery.

It is not going to happen.

It is not.

The shares are going great.

It could be the next trillion-dollar company, by the way.

It's the one that isn't.

Probably will be.

Probably will.

Probably will be.

Probably will be.

Off the back of Instagram Commerce is what I'm saying.

Yeah, there's nothing, like, there's no reason to get rid of a CEO in this spot.

Okay, then

get rid of the content decency 230 or whatever it is and start holding these people liable.

And then start.

Well, Joe Biden mentioned that.

Do you think that was a win or a fail?

I don't think he knows what it is, but But he said in an interview with the New York Times, 230 should be revoked because Facebook is not merely an internet company.

It's propagating falsehoods they know to be false.

No one has said publicly they believe Section 230 should be revoked.

Why do you think Biden has decided to differentiate himself?

I think he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Just me.

I don't think so either, but I'm disappointed.

And I think they've missed an opportunity.

I think a lot of income inequality, tax avoidance,

some of the, you know, the clip you paid, I was actually at the

DCN, the digital content, I forget what they are, but basically the OP Online Publishers Association conference.

And if you look at, I mean, just what's happened over the last 10 years or 20 years, there's been just so many negative externalities that have come from big tech, whether it's the number of journalists been cut in half and the number of corporate PR executives tripling, thereby increasing the ratio of bullshit spin to people, you know, the largest police force in the world that's never carried badges or guns.

And it's, you know, it's not because of big tech, but big tech kind of embodies it, where

they now have corporate PR departments that are larger in numbers than the newsroom at the New York Times.

So there needs to be

a thoughtful conversation around, as we've talked about, removing

the content, you know, CDA.

I thought it was a huge opportunity.

There was a missed opportunity for candidates.

And the only one who's shown the backbone to start talking about it openly and honestly has been Senator Warren.

But I think that the worm has turned.

I think the public is very concerned about these people.

And it's not only the right thing to talk about, but I think it's an opportunity for a candidate who shows up and actually sounds literate on these topics.

Well, so far, though, the tech thing hasn't stuck with candidates because, like Kamala Harris was talking about Twitter, Warren's tech thing has not gone anywhere.

I think people are more concerned about other issues besides beating up.

I might be right.

I think that's, they're going to sail right out of this.

And that to me is a fail, but I think they're going to sail right out of this.

And once whoever's in power, I don't think Trump will do anything.

He's gaining from it.

He benefits from the entire ecosystem the way it is.

And when the Democrats get in place, they want to do it too.

They want to have the ability to manipulate the American public in an egregious way.

So why not use these tools?

I don't know.

I don't feel confident of anybody.

So I think find them all failures, all of them, even though.

So

the win I would say, I'm going to do one win is Bill Simmons.

He's a podcaster and someone I know pretty well.

And he is in talks talks to be bought by Spotify.

Well, I think that's good for Karis Wisher and Scott Galloway.

You think?

Yes, they do.

We'll talk about

quietly later.

But this is interesting.

It's an interesting thing that Spotify is trying to,

they bought Gimlet, obviously.

But this podcast thing looks like it has legs.

I feel good about it.

I feel that's a win.

I feel that's a win.

Well, there's $17 billion, just as

the success of a company oftentimes is more dependent upon how incompetent the incumbents are versus the actual quality of the company.

And that is, you'd rather be a good company disrupting an industry with just terrible, fat, and happy players than a great company trying to disrupt an industry that's already fairly well run.

And so when you have, you've had so much value created by companies going after the media industry because media was opaque, a rip-off.

You didn't know how you were spending your money.

Small businesses couldn't advertise on TV, et cetera.

And then you have the podcast industry where they're going after this $17 billion carcass called radio.

And if you ever listen to radio after listening to satellite TV, just as when you listen to broadcast TV, it's almost unbearable because it is unbearable.

The amount of commercials and just how poorly produced they are.

And basically, the commercials just kind of educate you about what it means to be old and poor.

They're personal injury attorneys,

they're essentially health remedies.

And a lot of it feels borderline fraudulent.

My favorite new ad that's run on everything from CNBC to all over the radio is something called Tidal Lock,

where

they talk about, oh my God, I didn't realize my house could be stolen online by Ukrainian gangs.

And they say, unless you pay us $9.99 a month to protect your title online, you could have your house stolen from you.

And I believe that that is unfairly targeting seniors who don't understand that it's very unlikely someone will steal your house online such they can get $9.99 a month.

I don't think ads like that should be allowed to run.

And the only places they run are on radio and on bad broadcast television.

So, anyways, a $17 billion carcass called radio advertising that podcasts are coming for.

And I think it's a huge, it's a huge, I think it's the only ad-supported medium that's growing at double digits right now.

And one of the reasons is people, as evidenced by our delightful yet snarky readovers, ad readovers, people like ad reads from hosts.

Yes, that is where the money is.

That's where you get more money.

So you and I are in violent agreement on how just fucking awesome we are in the whole podcast.

Awesome.

We got to make some trouble, Scott.

We got to meet quietly off to the side.

Do you think we're making trouble?

You and I are.

We are capital T rubble.

I know.

But I was happy for Bill Simmons.

I love him.

And I think.

Oh, you know him.

He's a nice man.

He's great.

He's great.

I did a podcast with him.

He's really great.

I know you did.

He's a great fella.

Anyway, that's my win.

What is your win?

My win is fails, Gerald Sambur.

Speaking of more white men getting awards, Peter Dinklage won Best Actor for an actor in a drama series for Game of Thrones.

Oh, Game of Thrones.

You're back to that.

That's so cool.

But there's a wonderful, his character is really wonderful in that show.

And I spent a lot of time, and I'm virtue signaling now, but coaching young men.

And a piece of advice I give them is sort of similar to what Theorian Lannister said, and that is once you own your shortcomings, they can no longer be used against you.

And I think it's important for young, especially for young men, to realize to try and turn your bugs into a feature.

And that is to look at the things you're most insecure about about your physical appearance about your shortcomings and to find ways to make light of them and own them and it's really liberating and i just think that is the whole scott galloway jam isn't it yeah you know it sister

you know it i can see that so your entire

base your life on tyrion lannister now i see things now i understand you so much better so your whole jam is tyrian lannister not necessarily the actor

that guy's gangster that guy yeah that guy on the hand advising people.

Dinklich.

That's how I would have not, that's how I would have survived back then.

But anyways, I do think there's real value, especially around young people.

As people mature,

they start making fun of themselves.

And it's very liberating owning it, right?

It's like that first psych class you took in college where you realize, oh my God, that's a thing.

I'm not strange.

Other people suffer from this too.

So I like the notion.

I think the win is Peter Dinklich and this notion of owning your shortcomings as a means to be aware of.

I have a slightly slightly opposite version of that, which is I think women are always constantly looking at their shortcomings.

So I always celebrate how great I am.

And I talk about it a lot because I think women do not celebrate their non-shortcomings, the things that are great about themselves.

And they're trained to sort of say, oh, no, or something like that.

And so I tend to do the opposite.

No, I do.

That is something I really do like about you: you're not afraid to say, I just fucking rock the house.

I think that's nice.

Go if you're lost.

Okay, you'll like my loss.

It's about a white guy.

So the David Brooks wrote an opinion piece.

Oh, that guy.

And

there was actually a couple, there was a very interesting point in the opinion piece.

He was talking about, he basically doesn't buy this notion of, he says that class warfare is dangerous.

And that if you he cited some interesting statistics here and that income inequality is more between companies than it is within the company.

And that is what's driving income inequality is Google is just making so much more than any other company, but everybody up and down the ladder at Google is making a lot of money.

I thought that was an interesting point, and there's some good research from MIT that supports that.

Where he lost the script was, he said, he pointed that in the last few years, as a percentage of their base, low-income wage earners have increased their wages faster than the top wage earners.

And that is just so misleading and so dangerous because effectively the middle class hasn't had a wage increase in over 30 years.

And because it's popped a little bit, there's a kernel of truth in there.

But real income, and this is another piece of advice I give to young people, you never get wealthier financial security, or it's very hard to do off of current income.

You need to take current income and immediately start building equity wealth, stocks, bonds, 401k, property immediately, such that you can create passive income, which is where you create unbelievable wealth.

And of course, we've decided that the income from money is more noble than the income from sweat and is taxed at a lower rate.

And that has resulted in the top 0.1%

capturing 80%

of the income gains over the last 10 years.

So, the notion that there isn't an attack on

the lower earners in our nation, that there hasn't been this all-out nuclear war on them over the last 30 years, is just incredibly intellectually dishonest.

So, my loss

is David Brooks somehow trying to find,

trying to queer data to show that somehow there isn't

effectively a class war taking place, a war on poor people.

Yeah, that's his thing.

People like to hate read him.

I'll tell you that.

That guy,

he often makes people angry.

But I do like your of the people kind of thing, even while you want to go to Davos.

It's kind of a fascinating contrast for me.

I keep waiting for them to invite me back.

I am so ready to go again.

I never get invited.

I've had dinner with Klaus.

He's like, we should have you.

I've heard you're someone in the world.

Let me just tell you, a lot of men who are less prominent than me in tech have been invited.

And

I wouldn't go.

I went several times as the wife of someone.

But it's just an interesting, it's just, ugh, I'm sorry.

I can't believe you like it.

And anyway, all right, Scott, it's always a pleasure.

I'll be back in DC when I talk to you next.

But we will talk later this week.

And remember, if you have questions about a story you're hearing in the news for us to answer, email us at pivot at Voxmedia.com to be featured on the show.

Scott, we've come together again.

People were worried we're going to get a divorce.

Now, read the, we are not, folks.

Mom and dad are together still.

Dax is his foreplay for the dog in the jungle cat.

Read the credits, please.

Okay.

All right.

Today's show was produced by Rebecca Sinanis.

Erica Anderson is Pivot's executive producer.

And thanks also to Rebecca Castro and Drew Burroughs.

Make sure you're subscribed to the show on Apple Podcasts.

Or if you're an Android user, check us out on Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.

If you liked our show, please recommend it to a friend.

Thanks for listening to Pivot from Vox Media.

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