Okay, flight's on Air Canada. Where'd you want to go? The Azores, Fort Hot Springs, and volcanoes? Speaking of volcanoes, what about Japan?
Mmm, you know I love sushi. Not as much as I love tapas. Maybe, Mallorca. We could hit the beach, then go hiking.
Picking? Or how about a seaside stroll in Sicily? Ooh, I do love canoes. Wait, what do you think of it?
With a world of destinations to choose from? Good luck picking just one. Air Canada. Nice travels.
Welcome aboard Villarreal. Please sit and enjoy. Please sit and sip. Play, post, taste, view, and enjoy.
Villarreal, love the way. I'm sorry. The A.G. bar walks into the Oval Office.
No, no, no, no, no. You're stopping. You're stopping. No, you're stopping.
I have corrected one of the world's great institutions for your own needs. You're stopping. We're moving. There's so many stories.
Let's talk about the EU. And he says, kiss me, you big bear of a man. No, that's done. We're done.
And we're moving on. Thank you for putting that in everyone's brains. If Villar has dresses, there's DNA all over them. Listen.
Oh my God, it's so inappropriate. That's definitely not making the end. You know what? We're doing really well, and people are growing really fast.
But you're going to, at some point, you're going to drive this into a wall. That is really hard. I'm on a train tonight. But I'm just like, I think you actually like being well known, but you don't want people disagreeing with your body.
I had all weekend with the story that Rico wrote that I didn't even edit. Nothing to do with it. I've told you. I'm offensive, yet easily offended, which is like the worst combination in the world.
And I have to sit and take stuff. I read. I didn't even know what was going on there. And I still what?
I mean, okay, so you guys aren't microbiologists. I didn't see the big deal. I didn't see the big deal. I did not either.
And I was trying to point that out. But I do think, as you know, we argue about it. You don't think this is a coronavirus crisis, big deal. And I do, actually, that was the thing.
I actually agree with this guy. Like we don't, we don't have enough around it. And you think we drink plenty and it's overripe. So that's what the irony was.
You're putting words in my mouth. I find that offensive. Anyways, go ahead. Go ahead.
We have tape about it. Anyway, we're going to the news. In any case, I don't invite him on the show. I've not heard from him.
He's talking to other people. That's fine. Whatever. I tried to.
I read that guy's tweets. I read his tweets because I was curious. And I wanted to see you in trouble. I'm not trouble.
And that guy. He's an IQ bully. Like he's clearly smarter than all of us. He's got a lot of followers.
He's got a lot of Bitcoin bros. He's got a lot of Bitcoin bros. Oh, he's a Bitcoin guy? Yeah, he does.
Oh, that helps his credibility in the medical community. Absolutely. That absolutely. Okay, doctor.
Where's crypto headed, doctor? Now, let me open. Where's Ethereum headed? Solve my cancer and where is Ethereum headed?
All right. We're moving along. Thank you for making another weekend. I'm in a good way.
I see that. I see. Where are you? Are you on this lovely present?
Stay weekend. I'm back in New York. I'm in New York. I see that.
I see. Where are you on this lovely present? Stay weekend. I'm back in New York in the city.
I have a nice weekend. Hints of spring, right? Hints of spring in New York. Kara, has anyone heard from spring?
No. Has anyone heard from spring? Hints of spring. We're going to the big story.
There's a lot going on despite the fact that this is a holiday weekend. Listen, EU lawmakers are debating a new policy around artificial intelligence sooner between Mark Zuckerberg and the EU this week as EU lawmakers debate a new digital policy, including first of its kind rules on the ways that artificial intelligence can be used by companies. New policies have to be released by the Office of Margaret Vestiger on Wednesday. Margaret's obviously coming to code, which is going to be great.
So what do you think about this? Europe is once again ahead. What do you think of this situation? Well, Margarita Vestiger, that's how you say it.
Thank you. She's my hero. I told you I stalked her on a train. She was knitting and I went up and I got a selfie with her.
She was so gracious. I think she was so excited that someone recognized her in the United States. And she stopped and she's, anyway, she's a total gangster. I go for her for King of the World or Queen of the World.
Anyways, I thought the most interesting thing about that was your guy. Your dude who you think should run Facebook. What's his name? Brad Grossman?
Brad Grossman? Brad Grossman? Brad Grossman from Microsoft. Where did I get Grossman?
I think it's William Barr. Go ahead. Come here. You kissed me.
You d-o-j-one. Bitch says the president every weekend on Friday. Anyway, I'm sorry. That's classic.
He did a total drop down or whatever you call it on on Facebook. He basically said, look, we have an obligation to have or afford our customers some semblance of privacy. What's interesting is now he's got all Tim Cook on Mark Zuckerberg. He has.
Now Microsoft, the most valuable company in the world is saying it is dangerous. Like literally no one will have lunch with Facebook. We're like, we don't care how rich your dad is. We don't care how cool and likable your sister is.
You can no longer have lunch with us. Yeah. People are set other companies and they usually kind of have the ultimate white guy pack. They're like, no, we will not say bad things about each other.
In a public forum and I'm sure about 800 PR people starched everywhere that he said. He said, look, Facebook, you got to get your act together. You're hurting me. That's very Brad.
That's very Brad. I know him quite well. I think that is really. Of course you do.
I do. I know him for 25 years. He's a great. I like him a great deal.
That's why I want him to be at a Facebook. He wrote a book called Tools and Weapons. I'm going to fill you in. Why wouldn't I know him?
I cover Microsoft for decades. Give me a hard time when I know people actually. I cover Microsoft for two decades. I'm not saying that in your funeral.
I know that. We will not say that. When someone covers White House, you're like, you know Senator Blavity Blavity Blavity Blavity. Yes, I know them.
I cover them in any case. In any case, he's a very thoughtful man. He has lots to say. He wrote a whole book about this issue.
I think they're dying for some sort of guidance from regulators on these issues, especially AI. I think even Facebook wants some sort of direction. What's going to happen now is the EU is going to determine a lot of things just like GDPR. A lot of stuff because of the lack of any action by anybody in our government.
And I'm genuine about this question because I'm cynical. But I think the whole we need guidance and time for regulation as their 90 lobbyists are in DC delaying and obfuscating anything resembling regulation. I find it a disingenuous argument meant to, again, create this faux notion of concern that they're actually open to regulation. No, they're not in with what the lobbyists are doing.
The lobbyists don't walk into the Senator Warren's office and go, you know what? We really do need. They know the regulations coming and they want to shape it. That's that.
You're on the base level. But in general, some companies really don't want this sort of the same thing to happen that's happened with social media. Now, interestingly, Sundar Pichai is because this is the way Sundar Pichai is. While A promises enormous benefits for Europe and the world are real concerns about potential negative consequences.
That's a perfect sentence. Yeah. Yeah. That's awesome.
That's awesome. Yeah. But I didn't take much away from it other than the Zuck Wentz. And I'm pretty sure he had to avoid British air space for fear that a tornado gangster jack gangster fighter plane would show up next was he goes from 66 to ER and escort him down and arrest him and take him into custody.
I'm very serious. I wonder if on the way to Europe his flight plan includes avoiding UK air. I don't know. I will ask him next time I see him if I ever see him.
But it is interesting. We'll see what Margaret puts out. But I think as usual, she's far ahead of everybody else and I think it will be much more stringent. The same thing will happen around facial recognition.
Most of this legislation is not going to be coming from our country, which is interesting. And then they'll have to follow them because when something happens in a market like that, which is relatively large, even though the US market is more, is larger, they're going to have to follow along. They're going to have to do that. And so to me, it's sort of a consequence of the inability of our government to regularly take it anyway, which they keep almost doing.
And there's all these bills that are almost there, but none of them really, and the EU lawmakers are leaving ahead as usual. So that is what I think. I haven't had any legislation in this country in a long time. We're effectively, it really is.
D.C. has just decided, especially with the injection of Freedom Caucus. Freedom Caucus has basically said we're just not going to let anyone do anything. No.
There were hundreds of bills. That's what he said, hundreds, right? Is that right? McConnell said that too.
Someone's like, it's true. There are like 897 bills. He's like, yes, there are all. I thought it literally that everything had just come to a grinding call.
By the way, what is an addiction? An addiction is something you continue to engage in despite the fact that it's damaging to the other parts of your life. And I am addicted. And we're going, oh, script here.
No. I can't help it. I'm going to hold it. We're going to talk about Huawei.
In a minute. Eric Anderson-Ossis, don't talk about that. Yeah, I know. Because our readers would like to talk about tech.
Please. Please, Mommy. Please. Please.
Please. We're going to talk about this later. And then we'll be cancelled about your problem. Oh, stop it.
Was it disqualified? Was it disqualified? Huawei is political. The US charged Huawei with federal racketeering last week.
The Department of Justice accused Huawei. Your friend, Phil Barr, his affiliate is a pattern of racketeering activity. These are the companies that work trade to steal trade secrets from six American firms. Don't information good source code as well as lots of things.
Huawei argues latest charges are ridiculous. The anti-party who I've interviewed says confidently exonerated. Now, this is interesting. Democrats and Republicans are aligned here.
But nobody else agrees. Even tech companies are nervous about the inability to work with Chinese companies. And there was a great story. I think it was the New York Times about that issue.
The difficulty working in the U.K. recently agreed to work with Huawei with a 5G. But the Trump administration is staying on its lack of information sharing policy. And it's been warned.
It's been warning tech companies. US tech companies about this. Talk about a serious question. I have a serious question.
You haven't. I would love to know. I'm running about this. I don't know the actual logistical risk of these devices in that is how easy or difficult are they to weaponize.
If the Chinese start importing cars and the president were to say don't drive these cars because of major privacy. I just don't know how real the threat is of the equipment that they sell can be weaponized and used as a vehicle for espionage for the Chinese government. I think it's that you get in the guts of these networks, especially the 5G networks. And you both control them.
And then you're able to do that. I think what it is. You think the threat is real. You think the threat is real.
I don't. I think it's good to be worried about it. This administration wants to protect national security by restricting the flow of technology to China. It's also the flow of China to China and keep US out of China.
That's the other part of it. And so tech companies want to sell into China. But it's part of this longer running, essentially, war. But firms that specialize.
This is New York Times. firms that specialize in microchips, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, other industries that grow increasingly alarmed by the administration's efforts to restrict the flow of technology to China saying could siphon expertise, research, and revenue away from the United States, ultimately eroding Americans' advantage. So we have to sell to them. So it's part of a two-prong thing.
It's this crackdown on both sides. It's bringing this Chinese technology in here in the form of Huawei and 5G. And then cracking down on American components and technology going overseas. You know, the Trump administration is anti-China in both these cases.
And tech companies have worries on both sides, which is they're getting squeezed, essentially. So I think, and I do think it's intentionally related to this. I think a story that's going to have, so I love the term seminal. I use that word all the time.
And it's something, an event that is ultimately ends up being historic or at the time. It creates ripples that are greater than the initial stone, you know, in the stone center of the water. I think the incarceration of Carlos Gong was a seminal moment. And that is geopolitics have intersected with private commerce.
And that is, I think that I believe he was incarcerated because the Japanese felt they were ashamed around the Nissan Renault deal. And they were very angry and incarcerated him. And then all of a sudden, Japan, I think Japan probably has the best brand in the world if when it comes to kind of integrity or honesty. And that's why the Gulf was talked into this ridiculous construct of vehicle to repatriate five years of oil export wealth called division fund one because they were able to basically, I don't want to say wash it through Japan, but Japan has an incredibly strong brand in terms of honor.
I saw my first company in the Japanese and we go over there and we sit in a room and say nothing for a day and then we go out and get shitty drunk and then we do the same thing for five days. And then the guy would come up to me and say, I can trust you now and we'll do the deal. None of made any sense. It was very strange.
I think Japan very seriously. They just seem very steeped in culture and honor and they seem like an honest people. So when they jail the CEO, Nissan Renault, and then all of a sudden we start jailing or putting out a subpoena for, I believe it's the CFO of Huawei. By the way, the CFO of Huawei should definitely order like a musical band and say she needs a boxer or trumpet and see what they do.
Send a big box for my musical instruments over to my house, would you? In any case. But anyways, the notion that they're going to, I think the tech executives and I think the executives in general are like, globalization is meant loosely speaking that when corporate executives travel abroad, they're usually not worried about being incarcerated for geopolitical reasons. And that is starting to change.
This is also not just the case. She's the daughter of the family, which is really interesting. Yeah, definitely. And you know what you were talking about with Mark, but they all have these indictments.
And so she's arrested and they want to extradite her here and they're kind of weighing of it. So it's really become political just like you were talking about. And then the second part is that then companies in this country, when this is all going on, this is a passage from the New York Times story about doing business with China. Companies long with lawyers and consultants who advise them, say firms increasingly don't have a choice but to locate more research and development outside the United States, to ensure that they have uninterrupted access to China, a fast-growing consumer market and center of the global electronic supply chain.
New investment dollars are being funneled to research hubs near the University of Waterloo and Canada, as well as Israel Britain and other places beyond the reach of the U.S. government. Well, you know, this is- Well, I mean, this is a continued socialist government that is employing tariffs that is taking a trillion dollars, which is greater than the defense budget of the U.S. in Europe combined and transferring it from young people to old people in the form of social security.
Our socialist government, which is putting pressure on companies to locate their headquarters in certain cities. And now our socialist government is deciding, hey, I know the U.S. should buy Ericsson or Nokia and it says, okay, wait, the government is going to get into the business of trying to compete against Chinese companies now? Yeah.
That is a definition of socialism. And it usually doesn't end up that well. Typically governments don't make great private enterprise strategies. Well, I think more to the point is that these rules are just not thought out.
And Wilbur Ross looks asleep. Talk about asleep at the wheel. Yeah, actually. But to me, the letter from IBM, which never does things like this, and a comment letter told the Commerce Department to go back to the drawing board and said the rules will lead to broad disengagement of U.S.
business from global market suppliers, it's reach, breadth and vagueness are unprecedented. I mean, that's like you're stupid. I think that's what you're stupid, right? No, I get it.
And when IBM calls you stupid. When IBM calls you stupid. Yeah, it hurts. This is going to be...
Stephen, IBM, thanks for more on this. This is a very, very, especially in the background of coronavirus coming out of China. This is a... This is...
This is a situation in China is so complex in our relationship with China. I think that's really... To me, Huawei is one of the under some stories of what's going on here. I do think that.
And so we'll see where it goes. Speaking of another tech company, we'll get to politics. We've got to get to it. We have a guest coming soon.
Airbnb isn't making profits. They expect to go public later this year. It was making money in a profit year ago of $200 million. Now it has a loss of $32 million.
They're losing money because they're putting in safety cards and things like that's what people think. What do you think will happen to... We both have been positive about this company, but there were lots of lawsuits. They've been doing more safety things.
You know, they've been actually doing a block and a tackle and compare to other companies that's necessary to create a safe company. This is their attempts, even though they have a lot of critics to that. They're not doing a good enough job. What happens when you change...
You go to a loss like this when you're going into a public offering this year? I would argue, I think they're doing exactly what they should be doing. And then if you look at the majority of the big tech where the problems come in is not only because we live in a capitalist society and we have obviously a factless government oversight, it's very tempting in a capitalist society where the accoutrements of wealth and power are just extraordinary to ignore and turn a blind eye to some of the externalities created with unfettered scale. That's okay.
What happens when you don't apply for a business license? What happens when you ignore journalist stories that your drivers are making less than minimum wage? What happens when you ignore all sorts of evidence or bad actors on your platform? What happens when you ignore child safety?
Because at the end of the day, scale their ability. I mean, these companies have created... Facebook has created more value in 10 years. The entire US auto industry created in a century.
And the ability to do that, the ability to garner the accoutrements, the respect, these people are... For the most part, good people think I can do great things with this wealth and power. So the temptation to ignore anything that gets in the way of this kind of blitz creed-like scale is extraordinary. That is what regulars are supposed to do.
They're supposed to step in and say, no, you're supposed to have a business license and no, if you're paying people $2.50 and turning their car into a payday loan, we're going to stop that. But we haven't done that. They overrun Washington. They weaponize CNBC and the Wall Street Journal to call them innovators and anyone who gets in the way doesn't, quote, unquote, get it and is a lot of it.
And what Airbnb is doing is saying, you know what, before it's too late, we're going to put in place some friction and it's expensive and it'll cost them money at the IPO. But they're saying safety has become an issue. So they are making a massive investment in screening safety and trying to understand they're getting in the way of their scale and they're spending a lot of money trying to make these units more safe. Yeah, this is true.
I think the problem they face, I think, is this, you know, they're building this big legal team, which is important to them because they've got all kinds of issues all over the place. And they are litigious because they're ramping up, you know, they're fighting with localities. Am I naive? Are they not a Snow White?
No, I think the two questions. And again, I like Brian Chesky's coming to code also. The whole team, actually, the whole original team is coming to all the founders. I do think compared to everybody else, but it's sort of like sometimes you're like, it's the least violent person.
Like, you know what I mean? The least violent. And so that doesn't mean they don't, they don't, they don't have. No, no, no.
Like that. Just these people. It's not like total violence everywhere. You know, they've got so many problems because they're an analog company.
Just think, talk about the legal problems they have. They've got, you know, the cameras in people's bedrooms. They've got, you know, when they had bed bugs, there were prostitutes operating. There were, you know, orgies.
There was damage. There's people dying. That's all the Wednesday night in Soho. What are you talking about?
You knew that was coming. You knew that was coming. I knew that was coming. But like, property damage.
This is just, there's so much going on. Then they're fighting with municipalities about his impact. And then, you know, it just goes on and on and on. And then illegal properties being, you know, being gamed.
And then there's these parties. And then like, so this is a very complex company. So I don't, I have to say that anything they can do to assuage that is great. But they're not going to be perfect in this regard.
And so it's going to cost money. But I do like that they're spending money. But they're definitely have to be aggressive from a point of view. Well, the option would be, the option would be to do it a Uber day.
And then it's just, just try and delay and obfuscate and overwhelm the media with stories about other things such as they get public and then kind of all the stuff bubbles up. And I think they said, no, we're going to try and, I mean, there's probably a bigger issue and it's more of a macro issue. And that is what happens when you continue to take housing stock off the market for the purpose of turning it into kind of what is effectively a makeshift short-term rental or a hotel. What happens to young people who, or people who just can't find housing.
This is another thing that's pushing the price of housing out in the kind of key locations where people want to live and want to be closer to work. So there's some, obviously, some big issues. You also have the hotel lobby. Yes.
They were, I would agree. I said, look, we've been paying for the police. We pay, look at your hotel bill. I mean, there are extraordinary taxes on there, right?
Right. They pay taxes. They have to. So Airbnb, do you know if Airbnb though, in every municipality is actually paying the same tax?
I believe they have, I believe they have, I think that's like Amazon. But I think the issue is, look, they're in these lawsuits with, especially with New York. They're in that same and Brian was quite frustrated with their situation. Every now and then you hear people inside there, we're just going to get out of New York.
We're just not going to do it. And then they're like, well, we've got a lot of, it's a very complex situation. And I think it requires, I think going public, it'll be interesting to see these numbers when they go public. You know, this is a $31 billion valuation.
If there, if there's like, maybe this is money they have to spend now the way Amazon did, and then later they can recoup it. You know, they bought hotel tonight. So they're also in the hotel business. They also have to show growth.
So it's going to be a really interesting IPO. I do think it's a great product. And it's not one of these products that is going to go away. And I think it's not speaking.
I think they do it better than anybody else. There's nobody else even close. I agree. They've got monopoly from some of those network effects.
We talk about speaking of New York. You just see the news that Mayor de Blasio endures Bernie Sanders. Yeah, we're going to get politics. Go ahead.
Wait, we have a mayor said everyone in New York. Oh, my God. Talk about, talk about the weakest flex in the world. Oh, maybe that.
I have no, I have no, I have no, you've got to do the impression of Bernie Sanders receiving de Blasio. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Here you go.
Well, I love about the Blasio. We have the oil. Anyhow, people really, I don't even know how to do it. Talk about the weakest flex in the world.
And we're going to do wins and fails after that. When we get back. Amazon presents Jeff versus Tago truck salsa. Whether it's Verde, Roha, or the orange one.
For Jeff, trying any salsa is like playing Russian roulette with a flamethrower. Luckily, Jeff saved with Amazon and stocked up on antacids, ginger tea, and milk. Habeniero, more like Habenier, yes. Save the everyday with Amazon.
This episode is brought to you by Tell Us Online Security. Oh, taxiism is the worst. You mean, hack season? Sorry.
But I've got Tell Us Online Security. It helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud. So I can stress less during tax season or any season. Plan started just $12 a month.
Learn more at tellus.com slash online security. No one can prevent all cyber crime or identity theft. Conditions apply. Okay, we're back.
We have our friend Jim Steyer on the line. Jim is a best-selling author, a Stanford University professor and founder of CEO of Common Sense. It's the world's leading organization folks on helping kids and families thrive in the world of media and technology. This September, he'll be publishing his book, Which Side of History, How Technology is Reshaping Democracy and All Our Lives.
We're both parents. This is about privacy platforms and how to handle it. So it's a perfect intersection, Jim. Welcome to Pivot.
Great to be here. So you don't know his personality, but right before this, you were complimenting each other on your professorialness, although you had a little Stanford and while you faced off. But one of the topics we want to talk about, because Jim talks about this a lot, is how safer platforms like Facebook and YouTube for kids. This is something he has been very early to this, the same complaints you made around addiction around stuff like that.
So talk about that a little bit, Jim, where you are now, because this is something you've been talking about for a while. You're right, Tara. I've been talking about it for a long time. And I would just say that the basic message I was giving to parents on kids using social media platforms like Facebook or Instagram or YouTube is delay, delay, delay.
I mean, they're still the Wild Wild West. They still present enormous challenges for the social, emotional, and cognitive development of kids. And so we still have a huge issue when it comes to the reality of kids online. And they are, there's an arms race for data and arms race for attention.
And kids are oftentimes the big losers period. Go on. Oh my God. I love this guy so much already.
I know. This is your topic. It's not bringing people interest. I said I wouldn't get involved in this interview and I'm 10 seconds in and I got it up.
Okay. What is, can you give us some of the most damaging or some of the data that you find most alarming about kids and privacy in this platform? Well, I mean, basically kids today are the most tracked generation ever. If the stakes for privacy are very high, when we wrote the CCPA in 2018, it went into effect trust this past month.
This is the California Privacy Act. Right. The sort of landmark law in the United States. To be honest with you, we did it, Scott, because we were so concerned about the privacy of kids, but it's basically they're tracked from infancy.
We used to look at this in the context of the photos that parents would post to their babies. But we have this as our friend here, China Zuboff at Harvard, says, you know, it's surveillance economy. And so kids are being tracked. They don't know it.
Their parents don't know it. And then sometimes that data is being used in really inappropriate ways. So we've been looking at this forever. So what are some of those ways?
My data is tracking. It usually adds utility. It helps me get to Chipotle or whatever. Why is it bad?
The father of two daughters, both of whom were always concerned about their weight and their body image. You know, they started getting pro anorexia messages when they were 11 or 12. And they would constantly be dished up stuff because of tracking on social media and on other platforms. Oh, I'm sorry.
Pro anorexia messages. What platform? How did that happen? That happened.
I'm sure because they were tracked, their data was available. And then folks who had weight loss pills or stuff related to weight loss were targeting them with ads. And we've seen this across the board with girls. I mean, I actually think, I don't know if you've not talked about this, but the issue of the impact of platforms like Instagram and Snapchat on boys and girls, but particularly girls body images humongous.
Yeah. Scott, this is Scott. Talk about this all the time. This depression issue.
The constant comparison. And, you know, I think the data is something like 50% of kids on girls on social media photoshopped their images for the sort of that perfect look that's incredibly damaging to their self-esteem. What are you going to ask some question? I always care.
What do we do about this? Like, if you could, if you could be governor, if you were advising, governor Newsom, it sounds like you are. What are the two or three things? The health of the consumer privacy act in 2018, that needs to be strengthened.
I mean, there needs to be much stronger enforcement and greater data minimization. I personally think that for areas in which we need to rewrite COPPA, the privacy law for kids under the age of 13, but I think much more fundamentally we need responsibility out of the large companies. I mean, they have just basically ignored their responsibilities to kids and families and consumers from the get-go. And I just think it's about time that they were much more accountable by the government, but society writ large for the way some of the really major downsides and unintended consequences of their business models.
Well, talk about the UK new legislation, required social networks, gaming apps, and online services used by people under 18 to overhaul how they handle that information, they require platforms like YouTube and Instagram to turn on the highest possible privacy settings or to fall by minors, turn off deaf-fault data mining practices. This is never, we were just talking just earlier about market vestiger and the artificial intelligence stuff they're talking about this week. What is the, why does this never happen in this country? Why do these, why is GDPR and California pretty much the only, and even California is weaker?
You know that. Not that much. I don't care. We wrote the law.
So it's weaker in some ways and stronger in a couple of other ways. But you're correct. And truthfully, we opened a London office for common sense, which is going great guns. And we work with market data on an ongoing basis because Europe is much more vigilant about this.
I mean, California has a functioning democracy, Brussels and the EU have a functioning democracy, and Washington is not a functioning democracy. That's the bottom one. That's why we wrote the privacy law for the United States and California. So what we need is a new president, a Congress that is competent to deal with these issues, and then to take the companies head on just that they're doing in the UK and Europe.
And we are right now lobbying in Europe for the passage of the UK legislation that you referred to care. All right. So, like, this, you just opened up a big door. Someone you know is running for president.
Your brother, is that correct? You can advise him on the policy and privacy, I mean, you just, I haven't heard him talk a lot about this. But let's advise whoever is president, not your extraordinarily wealthy brother. Yes.
Thank you. I do. You were going to throw in that. I support him and he would be a great president.
That's it. I would tell whoever is the next president, hopefully not Donald Trump, God forbid, that we need to number one abolish section 230. We need to just remove the ridiculous section 230 that have given these guys a get out of jail free pass for 15 years. We should have comprehensive federal privacy legislation that's stronger than GDPR.
We should hold industry executives in certain cases personally responsible when they are involved in or complicit in the hacking of our democracy. The list goes on. To some extent, we're running this legislation or pieces of this legislation in California, but the truth is this leadership should start with a president, whether it's my brother or somebody else. Scott, ask him about the personally responsible.
Scott was just talking about that. So, typically in the US, I think the first two are feasible. In California, whenever California does anything, DC, typically, or other states, probably more importantly, as you pointed out, DC's become somewhat flaccid, if you will, around regulation in the last 20 years, but everybody looks at California. The one that I think would probably have the biggest impact is one of these executives shows up in court and there's a chance they're going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit.
I think that is probably what is required because these sorts of such incredible tools have so much capital, have so many lobbyists that until there's a decent level, the rule of law in the US is incredible deterrent. There's a very healthy fear of incarceration and shame that applies to most people in most industries that say, even if I can get away with it, I'm not going to pour mercury into the river out of the back door of my factory. I don't think that fear is there among tech executives and the idea of a corporation is that we give people private power and private companies and executives a barrier such that if they do something stupid within a corporation, their stock goes down to get fired, but they don't go to jail. To me, that is something that has huge benefits in a capitalist society, but also has gotten in the way of this level of deterrence.
What could they potentially do? How could they hold? Is it realistic the notion of holding them personally? I think it's a great question, but I agree with you.
I think that was one of the great mistakes of the Obama administration by analogy when they fail to put some of the banking executives in prison where they belong for chanking our economy. You could compare that to the ways in which some of the largest tech platforms, particularly I think Facebook in particular, have harmed our constitutional and democratic norms, have exposed kids and other users to massive violations of privacy. I think if we held tech executives personally liable, it would have a dramatic impact in terms of accountability. I also feel that the bank executives.
So I agree with you. I'm a former prosecutor. I saw this every day when I was a prosecutor. When people are afraid of being in orange jumpsuits, it's completely changed their behavior.
And I do believe that post the 20 election, we ought to be having these kinds of discussions, not in a punitive way, but because the impact of tech on society, on democracy, on all of our lives is so profound. All right. But both of you, this is never going to happen. They're never going to put Mark Zuckerberg into it.
Well, I made this prediction, Karen. I stand by and I'd like to get Professor Starsio. I predicted two years ago, I'm wrong so far, that a tech executive is detained and arrested, but it happens on foreign soil. It could be, but I think it'll be for something like, something like pornography or live streaming murder.
I mean, one of the things, I'm sure you, I know you because I listened to your podcast that we talk about Section 230. I mean, that's one of the worst laws in the United States. It has literally been this blanket immunity. Senator Ron Wine, Democrat from Oregon.
And Ron Wine wrote it. And part of the reason when I've argued, we never had it overturned, they always say, well, you know, Ron wrote it. I'd like, who cares who wrote it? I'm not like it anymore.
I just saw him the other day. He doesn't. He thinks it's out there. Then if Ron Wine doesn't like it, a good, a good gentleman from Oregon, he ought to stand up and call for its abolition.
I don't believe he thinks that far. But they ought to start from scratch. It's a lousy law. It's irrelevant in the 2020.
All right. Well, that's a big thing. That's a big thing. So you think 230 and then what about, let me just defend it because we have only a little more time.
That's a big thing. And I think you're right about redoing it and figuring it out, and I think it's very difficult to imagine them. Fundamental overhaul. Fundamental overhaul of 230.
All right. Okay. Okay. Two things.
Two things. Final things. General vice for parents who can give us three chips. And second, if your brother wins, can Scott and I stay in the link in bedroom together?
Okay. Number one. Yes, the question. Number two.
Here's what I'm saying. Number one. So yes, it's number two. My brother's going to shoot me for that comment, however.
Okay. All right. Okay. But that's okay.
I talked to him every time. He's my best friend. And he is my younger brother. That's smart phones.
Number two. Have an ongoing dialogue with them about the pros and cons of what they're getting on phones and social media, including addiction, attention, distraction issues. And then third, be a good role model. If you're constantly glued to your own phone or your own, that's what I mean.
You can't. What are they going to learn from you? So true. You're right.
I got so much better. Jim, since you warned me of that. I believe that. I put it down.
I put them down whenever we're at meals and everything else. I do. And that's the, you know, we have that whole device we do. Okay.
But Cara, I know what a doting mom you are. And Scott, I assume you're a debugger. You just got to act it out in your own life. We do.
That is true. 100% Jim, as usual. Thank you so much. Professor Starr, you are an inspiration.
Upgrade to the Bears. The Golden Bears. I love it. Professor Galloway, get out of here to the Bay Area and become a visiting professor at Stanford.
I'm a wanted man there. Are you kidding? I end up. The question is whether they assassinate me.
I don't believe it's like a long distance rifle or a string. Oh my God. All right, Jim. Good talking to you.
Okay. Thanks. All right. See you professor.
I love that guy. I love that guy. Seriously. I was a bit skeptical.
Some guy named Steyer that's not running for president. I was totally skeptical. It was a really good conversation. I was very skeptical.
I was really excited. It was not me. It was for the 18th. I did a horrible job.
I thought it was both. I said who's your mother? I said who's your mother. I'm your mother.
I'm your mother. I'm the teacher. I am the child. I'm not your father.
I'm your mother. I'm a MySQL. Yes, I'm your mother. I'm your mother.
I'm your mother. Is she okay? I'm your mother? I'm your mother.
She says. to get to the White House. We have to get in the White House. I've never been in the White House.
I've never been in the White House. I've never been in the police to cover it for the Washington Post. Well, of course you have. No, I haven't been as a reporter.