Gloves off over privacy, from Apple to Microsoft to Grindr. PLUS Scott's big 2020 bets.

Support for the show comes from Saks Fifth Avenue.

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start?

Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to.

Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is?

With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one.

You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app.

Download today.

Hi, everybody.

This is Pivot from the Vox Media Podcast Network.

I'm Kara Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway.

And where is Kara Swisher right now?

Where is Kara?

I'm in a comfy robe.

You know where I am.

We're on Skype.

I'm in a comfy robe in a ridiculous Los Angeles Beverly Hills hotel after having just showered in my fantastic shower here in my luxury hotel.

I am enjoying myself.

Not very much, actually.

It's not really my scene.

But here I am.

And I'm here to do some podcasts with some really interesting people like Franklin Leonard and the woman who directed and wrote a movie called Jezebel.

So we're going to talk about issues of diversity in Hollywood, especially after the Oscars.

And we're also here to interview the Elwood cast.

It's a very diverse situation going on here.

And then I'm going to be on Bill Maher's show tomorrow night, which will be very exciting.

So let's be honest, me showing up to you in your hotel room and in your rogue, this is the worst version of the Charlie Rose experience.

This is what happens.

This is, at least, I don't even know how to do it.

Let me just tell you,

at least the robe is closed.

That's all I have to say about that situation.

I keep my robe closed when I'm wearing it in front of Scott Galloway.

It's a very comfy robe.

It's got like satin on it, says the viceroy on it.

It's very nice.

Anyway, Scott, let's, how are you doing?

I heard you had a big class that was sold out at NYU, or you were the bomb there, so to speak.

Yeah, I did.

That went really well, and it was nice.

The dean introduced us we did our 2020 predictions event and uh i i'm sorry i just can't get it out of my head you're back on fucking bill maher again yes the third time my third time i'm that he likes me it's a big show it's gonna be nancy pelosi it's gonna be john joe walsh it's gonna be uh john mecham the really great author uh and who writes a lot about history and uh and uh andrew yang my pal andrew yang the yang gang call out to the yang gang yes i'm gonna be on bill maher again i don't know why he keeps calling me back because i kind of insult him but maybe he likes that i I don't know.

Yeah, that's so cool.

And what are you guys doing in LA?

You doing In-N-Out Burger?

Yeah.

Well, yeah, I live in San Francisco, so I do that a lot.

But no, I think we're going to go to we're going to go visit the Beverly Hilton where we're having the code conference.

We've got a lot going on here.

You're going to be out.

You and I are going to be out here.

I'm going to get myself a top-down car of some sort, a convertible, and you and I are going to do the Pacific Coast Highway.

And just, you know, that's going to be that.

We're going to drive off into the sunset together.

I like it.

I think it's.

I say we just get shitty drunk and do a Thelma and Louise and just drive off into the PCH.

We would definitely get a lot.

That's serious clickbait.

Granted, it's not

a long-term show.

We're going to do the show as we go off.

We go off the Pacific Coast Highway in the car and we go, we work still sucks.

All the way down.

How about that?

What do you think?

Let's get to the news.

Speaking of sucks, let's get to the news.

Speaking of sucks, Bill Barr, Bill Bar, once again, meets my already low standards and goes even lower.

The government is ramping up pressure on Apple to unlock iPhones.

Trump uses Twitter to further pressure Tim Cook into doing it.

Earlier this week, Attorney General Bill Barr, and I say that with a lot of irony, said that a recent shooting in Pensacola, Florida was an act of terrorism, which we all know.

He then called on Apple to give law enforcement access to the perpetrators two phones, which was an iPhone 5 and an iPhone 7, to see if he communicated with terrorist groups or any co-conspirators.

He was asking for help, not specifically, because

he knows that they can't help him.

These are encrypted phones.

But he's trying to sort of create trouble.

And then Trump followed up by chiming in on Twitter.

We're helping Apple all the time on trade and so many other issues.

So he thinks it's sort of this weird pay-per-play thing that he's done, that just because he did that, they should do what he wants.

So what do you think about all this, Scott Galloway?

Well, so

you and I agree on most stuff.

I don't think we agree on this.

And the majority of people who usually agree with me and follow me on Twitter are always really disappointed in my viewpoint on this.

And that is, I think the AG has it 100% right.

And that is, I believe that one of the key steps to tyranny is when private power cedes government authority.

And I think Tim Cook has decided that he has more power and authority than judges or the Department of Justice.

And when a terrorist

commits an act of terror and a court issues a search warrant for that individual's phone, I think that there are no questions asked.

There's no posturing.

There's no positioning your brand around privacy in order to deposition Google or Facebook.

I think you open the fucking phone.

And I think if that terrorist had a bunch of people.

Alright,

hold on.

Hold on.

Let me finish.

All right, because you're already incorrect in many ways, but go ahead.

If that terrorist had driven to the base in a Ford Explorer and the FBI wanted to get into the trunk and the CO of Ford said, we respect people's privacy.

We're not going to help you get into the trunk of that Ford Explorer.

That CEO would be fired the next day.

So what happens when a Russian national or Chinese national is in charge of Apple?

Do we trust that person more than the FBI or the DOJ to make decisions around search rates?

First of all,

that is not the.

They have given up all the information that is available to them.

They cannot get in this phone.

It is designed.

This is a false argument by Bill Barr.

Open the phone.

It can't be opened.

It's encrypted.

Apple designed it.

So what he wants, he hasn't asked for anything specific.

And the reason is because what he wants is a new system of the iPhone or whatever phones to be able to have a government back door.

It's fine if there are court orders and Apple has complied with these court orders.

They've given over all kinds of things on iCloud.

They've given over all kinds of information.

They cannot get in this phone and the government is able to crack these phones, by the way.

They've done it before.

They can do it here.

Every cybersecurity expert that I know that's decent cybersecurity expert is saying they can get into these phones without Apple's help.

Apple doesn't give them any particular expertise to open these phones compared to any of these cybersecurity experts.

The government can do this themselves.

What they are doing is creating a false argument about this issue, which is they don't like encryption that doesn't have a backdoor by the government.

And what they're asking for, even though they're not specifically asking for it, is a new government OS, which is what James Comey at least honestly said he wanted before.

In this case, either Bill Barr is either too disingenuous or too stupid.

stupid to understand the difference.

So they're not doing that, Scott.

And it creates fear and loathing on the part of people like you who don't understand.

They can't get in the phone.

Like

it's an insane ask to do what they're doing.

And so I get the idea that we should have a very big debate and legislation in this country to figure this out.

And that's what this is part.

It's part of a longer game.

The Justice Department has tried for years to get this legislation, which would put so many more millions of people at risk, especially once you give our government a key, all the other governments gets keys, and all these phones are constantly under surveillance.

And I'm sorry.

I just, this is like to pretend that this is a policing issue, to pretend that Apple's trying to deny something is just, it's just bullshit on the part of Bill Barr.

And I just, I can't believe you've fallen for his ridiculous, fatuous argument.

But go ahead.

That's a lot of indignance from someone wearing terry cloth robe with a logo on it right now.

Look,

you're right.

It's about the government deciding they don't want organizations.

First off, for national security, they believe that the government should be able to get into any device that is a communication device.

That's a different debate.

Different debate.

It is a different debate.

And you're saying that that's the actual issue here.

That in this specific instance, and I'm trying to acknowledge your point, that the government has gotten all the information, if I understand you correctly, that they actually need as it relates to this specific incident.

But the government wants to set a precedent and say there are no dark corners that we can't get into.

And the privacy people would say: look, there has to be a safe place where people and consumers can trust that nobody or no government entity can get into it.

And I understand the argument.

I still side.

I still fall on the side of the government.

It's not hold on, hold on.

But it's not an argument, Scott.

Of course it's an argument.

What is it?

It's not an absolute argument.

No, because the argument he's making is false.

No, his argument is false.

Apple is not helping us.

That's not true.

Apple is not letting us in the front door.

It can't let them in the front door.

It's like, it's ridiculous.

In this case, it's all built on lies.

If you want to have a debate about this, let's do that and let's have legislation.

They've tried to do that and they're not going to be able to do that.

Let's rumble, sister.

All you're doing is creating a pathway and an excuse for Mark Zuckerberg to encrypt all of his platforms such that he doesn't have to take responsibility for continuing to tear the fabric of America and the rest of the world, to throw up his hands and take responsibility for things.

And I believe I side with the government.

I think ultimately, the U.S.

and our security agencies should have access to

data wherever wherever it is if a judge deems that data is key to people's safety or national security.

I don't think these people give a good goddamn damn damn damn damn damn damn damn I don't think these people give a good goddamn about privacy.

I think they give a good goddamn about coming up with excuses so they can abdicate responsibility or deposition other players.

And it's all fine and good until some serious shit goes down and we can't have access to that data such that Apple can say we're not Google and their share price can go up and such that Mark Zuckerberg can abdicate abdicate all responsibility for everything that happens on his platform because, oh, it's encrypted.

It's not my fault.

It's not not my fault.

Is that let's have that debate and create that legislation if the American people want that legislation.

It's just in this case, he's making a false argument.

They can't get into this.

phone.

This is bullshit.

Did not anyone get into this phone?

But you're being pulled into it.

These are two different things and they're conflating the two.

And when they want to separate the two and have an honest.

They cannot get into this phone any better than the government can get into it.

And at this point, the way it's been designed.

designed they have done it before there's every every single cyber security expert said the government can get into these phones on their own they do not need apple's help this is all a pr play for further legislation which you can pass that's a different story but the what what the argument like at least james comey had the honesty to say what he wanted i want a government os right that's what he said in this case bill barr is lying is lying well so the the the the to to acknowledge and i agree with one of your points points, and that is immediately the President saw it as a quid pro quo, and that is he said, we're doing a lot of good things for Apple, so you should help us out.

And

that's not the relationship between the government and laws and the private sector.

It's not, I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine.

It's we have laws.

I agree with you.

I think the argument on behalf of Attorney General Barr and the President put forward is a terrible argument.

I think the argument is simple.

A judge has asked you to open this phone for us.

You're saying that Apple has complied with that.

A judge has not asked that.

They actually haven't asked for that.

That's what's incredibly disingenuous here.

They've asked for nothing.

They have complied with every subpoena they've gotten.

And by the way, this whole idea about urgency, it took them a month to do this.

If this was such a national security concern, they would have done it immediately.

The other part is, you know, he was saying, oh, it's a real problem if we can't investigate.

Why didn't they investigate these cadets before they got there?

Why didn't they investigate these cadets while they're here when they were posting on social media that was open and available to the government you know and then in during the press conference this guy complimented the saudis like about how what they're doing well they sent over a jihadist cadet why didn't we know that why didn't why wasn't someone monitoring these very important military uh people that are in the military that are coming to our our bases, which are supposed to be locked down.

You know, there's so many systems of failure here that they could have done better

FBI work here, and they're not doing it.

And so they're trying to make another case because they screwed up themselves.

All those are correct questions, but that's a different issue, right?

The core issue here is the one you identified, and that is: should the government have the ability to bypass any encryption put forward by a U.S.

company?

And

some people argue, yes, there needs to be a safe haven.

There needs to be a safe place for their data.

There needs to be one place where any agency, organization, or government, and let's be honest, at some point, governments

can be, I don't know, run by bad actors or whatever the term is.

Or at the end of the day, do you believe that our government, for national security reasons and to protect people's safety, is the lesser of all potential evils?

And that if we don't trust the people making these decisions, then we need to elect the new people as we do in a democratic society.

I think that's the argument.

You're, I think, on the side of the former.

I'm on the side of the latter.

Yes, but that's not what this debate is.

You're on James Comey's side.

James Comey was very honest about what he wanted.

And by the way, other people in that administration, like Ash Carter, were not for it it because they're worried about breaking of encryption.

So I just, it's like you're with the clown car, even though this is a really good argument to have as a society.

It absolutely is.

But every time they've tried to do this, they've lost.

So now they're trying with disingenuous methods to win an argument.

So just anyway, I just, I think we'll, I think we probably agree that there should be a debate about this and then where it comes down is another question.

But at this point, especially with the tweet by Trump, it's all about quid pro quo here.

It's all about

going on.

I agree.

Do you think Mark Zuckerberg should be able to encrypt WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram?

Do you think he should be able to encrypt the backbone around all that content there?

I don't like it, but I think you should be able to do it until there's a law that he can't.

And therefore, we should do a law with our elected officials.

And that's what I believe.

I think that this has to be of public debate with elected officials and not Bill Barr, you know, huffing and puffing his way onto the stage in some disingenuous way.

All right.

Speaking of government and privacy, the National Security Agency, or NSA, warned Microsoft of computing vulnerability in its Windows operating system.

This was a big shift in strategy from the usually very secretive agency.

In the past, the NSA has collected computer vulnerabilities to gain access to digital networks and gather intelligence to use against American adversaries.

So what do you think about this?

The government's asking Apple to create more vulnerabilities in the system, and then it's warning Microsoft to fix vulnerabilities.

And then at the same time, the government's also pushing that Huawei shouldn't be allowed because they might create systems that they can look at us.

So it's kind of a weird approach by this government in terms of they're attacking Huawei, then they're attacking Apple for an opposite thing.

And here they are trying to help Microsoft with vulnerabilities.

Aaron Powell, well, my theory around this is that most likely the NSA or other security agencies have been probably leveraging this flaw in the network until foreign governments probably started exploiting it too, although Microsoft claims that no one has actually

exploited it.

And then they showed up and said, inform Microsoft about the problem such that they could create a patch.

I would argue, and this is, and I'm skipping forward to my win here, this is one of the better brand building events of 2020.

And that is the NSA, for all, Microsoft is the most valuable company in the world, has, I believe, more software engineers than NASA and, you know, like 50% of the federal government or Livermore Labs, an incredible company.

And those, the media likes to foment this narrative that tech people and private sector and people that drive shareholder value are geniuses and the government is largely incompetent.

And the reality is that the software, the tech folks at the NSA discovered the flaw and then had to inform the smartest people in the room, Microsoft, about the flaw.

So I think this is actually one of the better brand building events.

I think it reflects really well, quite frankly, on our government and the NSA that they have to inform Microsoft about their technical deficiencies.

So I thought this was a great move from a branding standpoint on the part of of the NSA.

I like the fact that they're giving heads up to folks.

I think there's a story behind the story here.

I'd be shocked if the NSA hadn't exploited this loophole to their own advantage and

covert efforts until they ran out of steam or they found that other bad actors were using it.

So then they publicly announced it with Microsoft.

But to our previous conversation, this stuff gets very thick, very fast when you start mixing technology, national security, certain governments or certain administrations that some people support and others don't, employees employees that have their own views on the relationship between government and their company and tech.

So, this brings up a host of issues, but I actually thought this was a, I was really happy or proud of the NSA here.

What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are: that's fine.

That's great.

They should talk about these things.

And I think this, what my whole thing is, let it be out in the open and discuss.

And the stuff that you absolutely can't talk, I get that there's things that have to be confidential.

But I like the idea of having a robust debate about this and discussing it among people.

Because this is, you know, this is not China.

I mean, Scott, would you like, for example, at some woman was like, I have nothing to hide.

I was like, okay, let's put a camera in your house 24-7 recording everything.

Now, we may never look at it.

We're going to keep those recordings.

And when you become a criminal, we may use it.

But let's just do a recording of Scott Galloway's house, for example, all the time.

You would immediately go, no, thank you, ma'am.

You know, just because why would you do that, even if you have nothing to hide?

We have cameras following us everywhere, and it's called New York and London.

And people don't complain about it.

In your home, in your home, in your bedroom, staring at your bed or your bathroom or wherever you have to be.

So, you know what I would like?

I would like, so I have Alexa.

I don't, I understand that.

I'm not as, I think it's kind of your DNA.

I was on Yahoo Finance yesterday, and both the anchors there said they don't have Alexa in their house because they were worried about something recording them, which I found just unusual because I have Alexa everywhere.

You know, I would like Alexa to have an app that if they ever pick up the sound of a gunshot, 911 is called immediately.

That involves a certain violation of privacy.

It involves a certain violation of being in my home.

I think that I trust or I want to trust.

And if I don't trust, I want to figure out a way to elect the right people such that we can trust our government to do the right thing.

We trust the government.

The government can issue a search warrant and come into your house.

If your spouse,

if your spouse disappears, the first thing they do is they get a search warrant for your computer and they start looking at your search warrant.

Of course.

If I am suspected.

That's a criminal act.

It's not all the time.

If I'm suspected, of i if i'm even okay if i'm suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol i can be strapped to a gurney and have blood taken from my person against my will because the government has decided it's good for the public safety to be able to violate someone's person and draw fluid from them so again

they're weaving all over

you didn't not because just because you're driving they can't be taking your blood 24 7 while you're driving and just checking it it's it's a very big difference of when you're doing something they have to be they have to have a real suspicion or cost, and they have to.

Yes.

But my fear is that you and everyone else in this fucking strange cult called the idolatry of tech innovators has decided that these guys play by a different set of rules.

Absolutely not.

If there are circumstances where they have to do it, I just don't want them 24 hours in my face.

If you want that, you can have a lot of things.

How are they in our face 24 hours?

Right.

Well, anyways.

Through doing

this ability to get the back door into phones or whatever they want to do, that's what they're doing.

a 24-hour surveillance that is very different than being able to to do normal legal go through legal methods when a criminal activity is taking place there's two you're you're conflating them because you're a smart guy but it's not they can't be conflated there's a very there's very different circumstances here and if there are it is literally like having a camera in your house taping everything 24 hours a day and you being okay with that just because you have nothing to hide and and then them being able to use it the fact is they've taped it and so that's what you got we're not going to agree on this one we're just going to have to break up now.

But anyway, let me just say, last thing, Secretary Pompeo had a really weird tweet.

He was in Silicon Valley, reflecting on productive meetings I had over the last few days in California.

Silicon Valley drives American creativity and innovation, helping us make the strongest economy in the world.

It was an honor to experience firsthand this, quote, valley of hearts delight.

What a strange and weirdly poetic thing.

You know, it was just strange.

It was just strange.

But I liked it.

I don't care.

This administration's one big wacky group of people.

Anyway, it's time for a quick break.

We Scott, Police State, Galloway, and I will be right back.

Camera in that robe, you Terry Cloak.

Cat you.

Fails and predictions.

Bundle and safe with Expedia.

You were made to follow your favorite band and from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability.

Flight inclusive packages are adult protected.

Support for Pivot comes from LinkedIn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just go to linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

That's linkedin.com/slash pivot pod.

Terms and conditions apply.

Only on LinkedIn ads.

All right, Scott, let's hear some.

Oh, my God.

You know why I'm triggered?

You know I'm triggered.

My dad used to disappear on these ridiculously high-end business trips, and we did make a lot of money.

But my dad always seemed to find money to go on these incredible boondoggles as a salesman.

And he came back.

He was often wearing robes.

He came back.

He came back after my parents split up and he didn't want to talk to me about it.

So So, you know what he brought?

He brought me an orange terrycloth robe from Pebble Beach.

So every time I see a terrycloth robe, I'm reminded of, well, mom's not here, but I brought you a terrycloth robe.

Here's the deal: I'm hoping I have time to work through all your personal problems.

This would be that we could have a separate show called Scott's Therapy.

Oh, we're going to need a bigger boat.

We're going to need a bigger boat.

We're going to need a four-hour show every day.

A team.

Four-hour show.

We're going to need a team of doctors and therapists to therapize and medicate you.

Anyway, Scott, this is a tape.

Let's listen to some listener mail.

You've got, you've got.

I can't believe I'm going to be a mailman.

You've got mail.

Sean is a computer science student studying at UPenn.

He says a year ago, the idea of caring about the ethics of big tech would have been foreign to him.

He treated engineering ethics as a blow-off class.

But since then, he's come around to seeing the deep responsibility engineers have in shaping our world and not just in providing value to shareholders.

So he wants to know, do you have any advice on how he can shape a more responsible tech world as a lowly intern, student, or entry-level programmer?

Thanks, Sean.

Wow.

My work is finally being done about this idea of ethics.

Scott, but you're the professor.

Can you start us off?

What should young people be thinking about and how are universities thinking about teaching ethics and accountability?

Since you just went off on a tangent about that to engineers and business students in the age of mega-monopoly.

What would you do, Professor Galloway, to help this young computer students in search of, you know, divinity, really?

So, look, we both have kids.

I think anyone with kids thinks about this a lot, and I don't have a lot of answers.

But I've always thought that ethics courses and leadership courses at business school

for kids who are already kind of 27 or 28 is essentially the cake is already baked to a certain extent.

And then we do leadership and ethics courses such that we can have faculty who are tenured who are mediocre at what they do, have no accountability, because it's very hard to measure the effectiveness of a leadership or an ethics course.

And we also need to, we need the content to stuff a second year so we can charge them $140,000 in tuition instead of $70,000.

I think those courses are total bullshit.

Now, having said that, I think this stuff is important, but I think it has to happen earlier.

And that is, I think when you replace the civics class in the 11th grade with computer science classes, you end up with Mark Zuckerberg.

And so I would almost argue that history and civics are more important.

I think ethics have to happen.

Earlier.

Yeah, I think it has to happen earlier.

And I would argue that

I don't like the word ethics.

I think ethics comes through your church, your parents.

I think schools can teach responsibility and empathy.

But this whole idea, I just think it was just so pretentious in business schools were teaching ethics because a lot of business people end up being, you know, stealing.

I just find that sort of, I just think it's a big, I just think it's a big, a big excuse.

But in terms of advice to to the young man who dialed in, you know, that begins at home.

I've always thought that you're not loyal to organizations.

I think organizations are a construct that are invented by a legal entity to try and promote shareholder value and drive our economy.

You're loyal to people and you treat people ethically.

What is interesting is, to your point, we're starting to see a lot of internal uprisings at Google and other places saying they're not comfortable sharing their voice respectfully.

I think that's an interesting movement.

But I think the cake gets baked earlier.

And it's up to us to not only teach ethics, but history about what happens when we ignore bad actors in our government.

What happens when we have a lack of empathy?

What happens when we have tremendous income inequality?

What happens when we start slowly but surely segregating people from one another

based on their income level?

And I think that creates, if you will, I think the key around all of this

is empathy and having the willingness to redistribute income.

And I realize I'm blathering on here, but last night I was with, I somehow got invited to a dinner, a small dinner.

And of the 10 people there, there were two professors.

They always like to invite a couple of professors to make it feel a little bit more PBS.

But it was

eight of the most successful fund managers in the world.

And one of the guys said, My generation will go down is the worst generation in history.

Climate change, tax,

incredible tax, rigging the game, tax avoidance.

And I said, you're 100% right.

Anyways, what do you think, Gary?

Where do you think ethics comes in around a company and at what point in a person's life in terms of training?

Well, I feel the Middle Ages were pretty bad.

I don't think we're as bad as that.

Or, you know, so many other eras were worse.

But that's, I, I, I do think it's not bad to have these classes there.

And it's a good indication of the school that it thinks it's important.

I agree.

It can be some kind of like, you know, sort of, you know, rocks for jocks kind of class, that kind of thing.

But I do think that

it's important to imbue this throughout the educational process.

I do think there's a, given the falloff of churches and other community groups the school is a place where everybody does go or most people do and so this is a place where we can start to do this.

Obviously there's got to be more civic engagement in some way and I think it's going to be really hard given how many other things have fallen off and how people are sort of as you know addicted to their phones and staring.

Maybe we should put them on phones so people do ethics.

You can't turn.

You can't play your game if you don't do an ethics course.

I don't know.

But we have to get more creative in terms of how do you imbue.

And of course it is better parenting.

You know that.

You get that.

But what's interesting is the Times had an article, another one of their articles.

They write this article every three months or so about how jobs in tech are no longer the hot job and that young people are embarrassed.

It's not like the hottest job and they worry about being idealistic.

I do see a lot of startup founders understanding this and not wanting to have a more diverse board, having a more diverse cap table.

I do see a lot of founders thinking about this more.

So I think that's where it's going to change is when these founders start founding companies that have more of these ethics built into these cultures so that they think of these things more.

And I know it annoys you when the people of Silicon Valley speak up, the employees.

I find it, I think there's nothing wrong with it.

They typically don't get what they want, actually, but I think it's fine if they speak up.

And it's better than just having your head down and doing other things.

And so I'm always for that.

But I do like, I think an ongoing education in ethics is something that has to happen throughout our lives.

I just don't, I don't see any way around it.

But I think we've got it.

It is baked in early.

And some of these courses are just kind of dumb on some levels.

I don't see the pushback.

I mean, I'm curious if you see it among your boys, but I don't see the pushback yet against tech in terms of people voting with their feet.

The largest recruiter out of my class is Amazon.

And the kids still, and maybe it's because my selection set or my sample set is biased because anyone who comes to NYU from business school and pays that kind of money needs to get an economic return on that investment.

But the biggest recruiters, the most aspirational jobs, the jobs everybody wants are

the tech jobs.

And everyone says, well, it's because financial firms, financial crisis have lost some of their reputation.

And it's not that I find that MBA students, for the most part, pretty much go where they can create economic security.

There's a small but vocal cohort that's 10% that is really genuine about...

about taking their human capital and

allocating it against truly improving the world.

The rest do what, to a certain extent, what they're supposed to be doing, and that is they're trying to figure out the fastest blue-line path to create economic security for them and their families.

Um, but I don't, I don't see it.

Yeah, but I think I think they're talking about it, though.

I don't think it's like before tech was sort of golden hung the moon kind of people, and now they're like, I'll do this job, but what a bunch of asses, you know what I mean?

They're not loving

what I think is the difference.

I agree, yeah, their eyes are open.

And I think, you know, like again, my kid said on the thing, it's like, I don't really want to use Instagram now that it says Instagram by Facebook.

I know that sounds dumb, but he doesn't want to be reminded,

right?

Like,

it doesn't have the sheen it does.

I think that's absolutely true um i don't think he'd work there either he actually asked me if i he the other day he goes if i had a job offer from facebook or apple he gave me a list and which one would you rather me work i don't think he has a job offer he's 17 but it was interesting like what would you rather and i said what would you rather and he easily sack ranked them all which was really interesting um he uh he had he had a sense of which ones were better than others uh and i think that's you know i think the same thing happens with business students going to mckinsey or you know a lot of the work mckinsey's doing or one of them is doing is like a little more icky than the other.

But they're all icky on some level.

Everybody's icky, Scott.

There you go.

Anyway, speaking of which, wins and fails this week.

What are your wins and fails?

You go first.

Well, oh, so many, so many fails this week.

Wins, here's a win.

Nancy Pelosi's smartness in terms of releasing these statements.

Everyone was questioning her as per usual.

And she looks like a 3D chess player here, you know, in terms of laying groundwork.

And she's so smart.

And she, you know, this Left Parnus stuff is really,

I don't know how much more shocked we can be because these people are shameless and how much more awful.

Like, it's just one big trying to kill a U.S.

ambassador or even pretending to kill one.

It's just, they're morons.

They're, they're mooks and morons.

And they're, they just leave, leave their

evidence of their criminality everywhere they go.

And so I thought she was very

deft in terms of release.

She's going to be on the Bill Maher show today, which will be interesting to hear her talk about it.

But I do think think she's handled it with the most class.

I mean, I think she's got a lot of dignity.

She hasn't sort of, she's done enough shots that are good shots, but they're not.

She doesn't look like an idiot doing it.

I think she's really quite clever.

So I think she's the win this week.

And then the fail,

this research showing the one of the world's most popular dating acts, Grinder, Tinder, and OKCupid, are selling user information to third-party marketing companies.

Grinder is owned by a Chinese company.

And so this is really dangerous,

all this information about people's sexuality and practices.

It just makes me nervous.

It makes me incredibly nervous.

And these should be, again, calls for legislation of what you can do with people's personal data.

You would, of course, like to hand it over to Bill Barr, but, you know, I don't want that to happen.

And so I just,

you know, I just, I find that the promiscuous use of data, I hate to use the word promiscuous here, but by these companies is really disturbing.

Yeah, but if you buy something out of a William Sonoma catalog this weekend, your data is going to be sold to another catalog company.

I think that what we need is some nuance here, and that is data around

sexuality, religion, political preferences.

That stuff's a lot more sensitive, right?

Yeah, 100%.

Okay, so

my win is, again, the NSA.

I just love that the government employees are schooling, you know, supposedly the engineers are the most valuable company in the world on their technical deficiencies.

I think that's a real testament to our fine women and men that

decide to take a huge cut in pay and do something bigger than themselves and go to work for the government.

And my fail is this.

Did you see the announcement yesterday on the trade deal with Trump?

Yeah.

I mean, it literally looked like the membership committee from Augusta National Country Club or

the control group for some new prostate cancer treatment.

It was literally a bunch of 85-year-old white guys, the entire room.

And

I wonder, and this goes into predictions, he's in the end zone doing a touchdown dance.

I think this will be seen as the equivalent of an individual running towards the end zone and getting so excited that they spike the ball on the three-yard line, it becomes a fumble.

I think we're going to find as analysts and academics dig into this actual trade deal that we are no better off than we were before.

We just traded stuff around so we could optically declare victory and leave.

And at the same time, and this is my fail, we have decided to protect big tech because France decided to implement a top-line tax as they couldn't figure out how to stop these companies from engaging in massive tax avoidance.

And in exchange, Trump, in what is, again, this ham-handed, illogical response, has decided to start a trade war on luxury items.

So the majority of companies in the U.S.

that will be hurt by this are small companies, small alcohol distributors, small specialty food distributors.

So in exchange for continuing to protect big tech's interests, we are punishing small and medium-sized businesses in the U.S.

And it's another Yeah, this deal is ridiculous.

This is just so it's so we're gonna we just got snookered in a lot of ways.

You're right.

He's just you know his his it's incredible.

There's a book by Carol Eoenig and Phil Ruckers coming out and they had pieces of it in the Washington Post and it was like he didn't even know where India was.

He didn't know what happened at Pearl Harbor in this book.

And so this is just part and parcel to the whole thing is this was just a lot of noise and then he pulled back and did nothing of any effect except he didn't do anything.

I don't even say hurt or help or anything else, but you're right.

But get into your prediction then, Scott.

We had a whole talk devoted to your 2020 predictions this week.

What did you reveal to your audience?

Give us a little taste of your 2020 predictions.

Okay, so I was asked for some stock stuff last night with all these masters of the universe.

So

just to recap, and we've talked about this before, Twitter invites an activist or is acquired.

Roku becomes an acquirer.

Spotify is acquired.

FedEx, which by the way, has had a bump and its stock is up and Amazon has now reinstituted them, but I still think that company, FedEx, likely gets acquired.

Hulu is going to go away.

We're going to see a basket of security stocks skyrocket as cyber attacks become more brazen based on the cloud cover of Iran.

And what was

my other one?

You're going to see, oh, Apple goes up 20% to 30% in the next six months on the back of their announcement around a recurring revenue bundle, which they are lining up all the assets to do.

So anyways, those are just a couple of what Big Market stock returns.

Is there a purchase?

Is there any acquisition that you think?

You said Roku would be a buyer.

Was there any that you highlighted?

Roku will either

Roku is a key component in going vertical.

So they will either acquire a content company or be acquired by a content company.

The likely candidate is

Disney.

And we talked about Spotify is the only one.

Spotify is declining at the hands of a monopoly, monopolies, Apple and Amazon, so they'll soon decide to sell.

An interesting tie-up, and we talked about this, would be Netflix and Spotify, because if one company can own music and original scripted television, that'd be pretty much, you know, that'd be a gangster content kind of thing.

I like it.

I like it.

Interesting.

Is there any prediction that you're like, I made it, but I don't really believe it?

So I think we're going to find that

there was

a high-level

the most successful spy of the last 30 years is an Iranian agent who convinced the Bush administration to take out Iraq such that Iran could be the most powerful force in the region, and then 20 years later convinced the government to kill Suleimani in Baghdad such that they could get the U.S.

military out of Iraq.

I think the most successful spy in the history of the Western world is an Iranian agent who is currently at the highest levels of the U.S.

government.

Oh, wow.

That's a crazy one.

I like it.

I like it.

All right, Scott, this is amazing.

Next week, we'll obviously talk the impeachment hearings are starting.

Are you excited for those?

Are you not excited?

You know, I'm trying to figure out.

I'm trying to figure out if this is good or bad for us, Kara.

I'm glad that I thought it was.

Good.

You think it's good?

Yeah.

I hope you're right.

Yes.

I hope you're right.

It's good.

It's always good.

Do you think they'll be?

Our messy democracy is good.

Do you think they'll end up being witnesses?

I don't know.

That's the whole thing.

I think Nancy Pelosi played the hardest card she had.

She's done a nice job playing what she's got.

And we'll see.

She's definitely called attention to it.

You know, the comment by Susan Collins, which was like, I don't like, you know, this evidence is late, even though it's quite compelling.

You know, it's, it's literally like, you know, a photo of Bludio Giuliani with a bloody knife and then having the bloody knife and saying, you know, police, you were too slow in getting this to me.

It's just, you know, they should have witnesses.

And if they want them on both sides, I have them on both sides.

I want to bring Hunter Biden, bring Hunter Biden.

I don't care.

Just like, but they should have John Bolton there.

They should have Mick Mulvaney.

You know, again, if they have nothing to hide, why not talk?

Like, what's, you know, it's just fine.

Like, what are they scared of?

And I think that's fine.

And I like a messy democracy.

Just before we go, do you have any thoughts on the debates?

Did you watch them?

I did.

I had a lovely dinner with some friends.

You know, it was my 2020 predictions event at Stern, so I missed them.

I heard that Klobuchar and Warren were very strong.

What was your take on it?

Yes, the ladies.

I think it was interesting.

I thought they had a good, you know, what Elizabeth Warren did is she just, you know, the...

the big thing in the room is she's unelectable.

So she just said, people say women are unelectable.

You know, she probably could have said me in particular, but it was good.

She handled it well.

But then she got into kind of like a weird little pissing match with

Bernie at the end.

And then Tom Steyer was standing there like a tree trunk, like

pretending he didn't hear it.

But

it wasn't that interesting.

And, you know, everybody sort of was exactly, you know, Pete Buddhajudge was Mr.

Resume, Mr.

Stiff Resume.

I thought Amy Klobuchar did very well.

Very strong.

She had a very, very strong, I thought everybody was, and Biden didn't get touched, and he was fine, except when he started yelling at the end, which is his thing.

And everyone did their thing, right?

And I thought the best lines, obviously, were you just sort of looked at, as you say, looked at the group and say, which one can really go toe-to-toe with Trump in kind of a cage match?

And probably Elizabeth Warren's the one most capable of smacking him around.

I just don't know if she'll win in doing so.

So

it was interesting.

It was

said that the moment of the night was when Senator Warren pointed out that the only two people on the stage who who had never lost an election were the women.

That was definitely the talking point.

And the other observation I had watching some clips on Twitter was that as the stage has gotten smaller, if you will, Tom Styre looks smaller and smaller.

Like, what's he doing?

He just doesn't have the foreign policy shops

to really be on stage.

It's like, okay, you're an incredibly impressive billionaire who's passionate about.

I'm a businessman.

I can do businessman.

Yeah, who's passionate about climate change?

It's like a Tesla comes to life.

Oh, it's expensive and rich, but it's for the environment.

You know, he is literally the physical embodiment.

He is a Tesla animated.

And he's very likely, but I don't think it's.

All I know is he stared at the screen so much so that Bradley Whitford from West Wing, if you remember him, said, Respect the fourth wall.

He was staring into your soul.

That's funny.

It was funny.

Anyway, it was fine.

It was fine.

We'll see.

I am good with all this stuff.

I think it's fine to have all this go on.

I like so much.

You still haven't.

Have you endorsed anybody?

Oh, by the way, I'm an influencer.

Oh, my God.

Chipotle

sent me

a card for a free year, a free year of burrito balls.

What?

That's right.

Yeah, you and Erica, you and Erica selling advertising for 10 or 20 grand to sell more underwear or Trinet HR services.

I get a year of near-Mexican food.

Influencer.

You know what?

Influencer.

Don't say our relationship goes nowhere.

You get a free year of Chipotle.

Chipotle.

I am now an influencer.

If Cialis would step up and

give Scott a lifetime supply of Cialis, I think we should just end this.

I'm going to the next level as an influencer.

I'm going to Coachella and free people, and I'm doing a sex tape.

That's how you become a real influencer.

All right, we're done.

We're done.

I knew this would happen.

I thought I'd get out of here.

You made a comment about my road, but it's fine.

I'm going to actually put on some clothes and try not to be some weird proxy for your father and your weird parental relationships.

Anyway, Scott, always a pleasure.

Okay, Charlie.

Time to go.

See you next week.

And go ahead and read read the credits, please.

Yes, today's episode was produced by Rebecca Sinanis.

Our executive producer is Erica Anderson.

And special thanks to Drew Burroughs and Rebecca Castro.

If you like what you heard, please leave us a review or send us an email.

And obviously, download our podcast wherever you listen to podcasts.

We'll see you next week with more news on all things tech and business.

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify.

They have the tools you need to start and grow your business.

From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need.

There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and Allbirds continue to trust and use them.

With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into

sign up for your $1 per month trial at shopify.com/slash special offer.