Solved, cushy, plush, cozy, soft, smooth, buttery, marshmallowy, warm, soft, socks, underwear, tees and more, bump-out, everyday comfort worth obsessing over. Visit bumpus.com.audio and use code audio for 20% off your first purchase. That's B-O-M-B-A-S.com. One purchase equals one donated, always.
U-S voters abroad, have you got your ballot yet? All states are now sending ballots to overseas voters. So if you want to vote this year, you should request your ballot right away. Go to votefromabroad.org and click request my ballot as to receive it by email.
Questions? Ask our support team directly. Don't miss this chance to shape the future. Don't delay.
Votefromabroad.org. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One after accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow, none of them talk to each other. That's where Odu comes in.
And all in one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system.
Try for free today at Odu.com.com. That's O-D-O-O.com.com. Hello and welcome to the Coder. NewLivesShow about big ideas and other problems.
This is next at Senior Producer, and I'm joined by our brand new supervising producer, Greg O. And hi, NewLives, here too. He is the person who hosts the show and his name is also in the show. So they make it.
It's true. We don't insistently say my name in the show enough. We should do it all the time. Like, I should do it.
Welcome to the Coder with NewLives.com. You have your name behind you in the video. We get you a name tag too. Like all sports announcers have a CBS logo on their chest, and their on their breast pocket.
Like, not yet. It branded photos, but actually, you know, even thinking about it for one second. And we never will be is what I would say. Like Nick was saying, this is the, this is Neil I show and we're doing a mailbag episode.
This is where we go through all the feedback, as I'm sure you've listened, because you listen to the end of every episode. We know you do. We do mention that we go through every single email that we get. Nick, you can verify that.
We get a ton of email and we do read through all of it. Is that true? We now get YouTube comments. We get many, many, very comments.
We get Spotify comments and the Spotify comments I read, everyone, because those are specifically pretty pointed. Yeah, they're kind of like uncut gems. Like, because they're trying to build this little community. It's like, I get somebody might read this because it only gets like six comments, as opposed to like 600 for a YouTube video.
We lasted a mailbag episode in April and we said we were going to do more of these. So we're back again. This is September. We've had a few months.
We've had a lot of really big interviews. So yeah, let's just get into it. All right, we're going to kick things off with the software brain video you put out. This was one of the biggest things that people have commented on and it is far away like the most talked about episode in the past six months.
Hundreds of comments on the Verge website, hundreds of comments on YouTube, single to double digit comments on Spotify and lots and lots of emails. One thing we want to talk about though is something a reader brought up about the idea of the Neili Rance. And you, you know, actively pulling out your inner Dennis Miller and really giving us like your take on something. And for this one, like, uh, one list of the people do not yearn for automation.
And all I can say is the people do yearn for more Neili Rance. So we want to know like, what is the origin of this type of Rance and then how much of like the show's DNA, doing is built around this idea of you giving us the Rance and just like the idea of basically you, you've given us your hot take on something really, really well thought out as opposed to like the interviews we usually do. I feel like I should make another riff on the people to not yearn for automation, but as Dennis Miller. I mean, Dennis Miller can deliver software right now.
I'll tell you something based on the last time it was sitting in a water burger, we could just do it. We could just do it. It'd be great. I'm sure we wouldn't get sued for that.
They're just essays. Like I know they're ransing their delivered on YouTube and they're very pointed in particular ways, but that's just what I would have written as a column 10 years ago before we had podcasts this way. It has just been very obvious to everyone that you can't just write a column and expect to have impact. You have to start the camera and do it.
And then we're very good at like publishing that as a column and having a transcript and publishing it and delivering it all the other ways. So that's the origin of it is I, is for all the podcasting I do and as little writing as I do anymore in my heart, I'm still a writer and taking all of the reporting and all of the ideas that we hear and all the conversations we have and synthesizing them into ideas that you can grapple with is the point. Like it is really the point of running a magazine like the version. So that's where that comes from.
Now can I do it as often as I want to do it? I was the can't. The reason I did software brain in that moment is I could see the hype cycle around AI failing to contend with the lack of verifiability in every domain except software. And that's gotten a little blurry now.
But lots of companies are just databases. Software engineering is verifiable. You can run it through the compiler and see if it works. And AI has obviously gotten really good at making software.
And if you believe the world is just software, that means AI has gotten good. It's done. And you can see the labs are talking about how they've achieved AGI or they will very soon. And it is very much connected to the ability of AI to write software.
And I'm just not discounting it. That's important. I'm just saying once you get outside of software, verifiability gets way harder. Right?
And so you can see it. We just see it with Robert Hart in math. There's an amount of verifiability in math. And I'm just wondering, I'm just wondering, what's the best way to learn a lot of tokens?
We don't know how many in solve some of them solve math problems. There's probably verifiability in various other science domains. So it is really interesting. Is there verifiability in generating novel drugs?
No, you got to inject a bunch of people with novel drugs. What are we going to do? That's why I got so many rats and cages. It has to be done.
Right? There's just some other thing that's going to happen in the next 10 domains that is going to be really, really challenging. And so that's where I just, I wanted to put the marker down and say, I have been swimming in this water for a long time with these people. And the power of software is not to be denied.
It has remade our world. But if that's the only framework where you think that is a universal framework, you're going to run into these walls. I think there's lots more of those we can do. But I want them to hit.
I only run right hit singles. And importantly, they're all born of the reporting. And that's always been the dynamic on the verge. It's certainly the dynamic on Dakota is the data that can get to your head.
The episodes where I just talk, sometimes outperform the episodes when they're CEOs. That's not good. That's a bad incentive loop for me because I want everything to come out of the fact that I've talked to all of the people and you can go check my work and you can go see what those conversations are like and you can see that they are genuinely honest and all the things that should be. And that's where then I feel like I not only have the depth and the foundation to write software brain, but I can send it to those people and say this is how I feel about it.
And they come on the show and I talk to you about Google zero or software brain and all that stuff. And that conversation gets really, it gets much bigger than me just writing. So my reaction to that, and you know, I is that you feel like your thesis is kind of born out over the last few months for software brain. We did get feedback from people who kind of I guess disagreed with some of the premise.
It wasn't that they'd say that people aren't unhappy with AI, but they think that we're wrong about why they're unhappy with AI. One reader, Josh Vanderberg, he wrote in to say that he thinks people saw that they hate AI as a technology, but rather that they don't like their current economic situation and they're kind of pushing that on to AI as a thing to project on. He's pretty sure that will eventually embrace natural language as a superior way of doing things on a computer. His response was this.
He said AI modern computer interfaces suck hard. We're forcing our fluid, non-deterministic creative selves into hierarchical menu systems. And no matter how intuitive and discoverable, we constantly fail to find the tools that we need. He uses Canva's CEO as an example of somebody that deeply understands the problem and they realize that AI can provide the user interface we've all been yearning for.
He goes on to say people definitely yearn to just tell Photoshop what they want done in words and forget everything they ever learned about that horrible user interface. We had a few other similar comments like people do not yearn for automation, they yearn for cheap stuff and when AI gives them cheap stuff, they'll be happy. A third person wrote software brain misses three things regular people actually care about, control agency and meaning. We like doing things, the doing is where the meaning comes from.
I'm curious, you know, just from those particular comments and also the other feedback you got from software brain, how you kind of respond to those criticisms. Let's take a turn. This is a very thoughtful comment, Josh. I don't disagree that all modern computer interfaces suck hard.
I use liquid glass. I agree with you. I refuse to upgrade this computer to Tahoe. I'm just not doing it.
There's some confusing thing happening user interface is probably related to how much all of our devices have turned into shopping malls or SaaS products or whatever it is. There's something broken there and I agree that that's bad. I think I disagree that natural language is a perfect substitute for everything or can become a universal interface. I say this as somebody who is writing into a book based on all the inner reason and coder and I've used whisper flow to just get as much out of my head onto the page as I can and that is incredibly powerful.
You can see why people like it. I also have to edit every single word it generates because it insists on formatting my thoughts in ways that I find completely bananas. All these systems are like you think in bullets and I'm like I'm not thinking in bullets right now. I'm just pausing between sentences.
There's something there where you can take the natural language input and what we as people are reasonably going to doing is taking everything else with it, the context of our body language, the tone of our voice and creating other meaning out of it. Computers are really bad at that. Maybe they're going to get better at it but they're currently very, very bad at it. I'm using my whisper flow example.
It's just like one, you can see how it's bad at it. It's not just you're being creative to a computer and talking to a computer and saying you're not special buttons. It's lossy. Lossy in a very important way that using a mouse to click on a button is not lossy at all.
It is very, very directed and it will do exactly the thing that you want it to do. Ordering from Grubhub with your finger on a phone screen is 100% accurate unless you're drunk, which I've been. But talking to an agent to have it go do something is lossy. It is error prone in very specific ways.
I think these things are going to exist together. That to me is the balance that we're going to have to strike that all of the hype around AI assumes that what I want is another person instead of a specific thing to happen. You can talk to lots of designers or professionals who use these tools and they will all complain about these tools. We use this app called Riverside to produce the show several times a week.
Every single person on this team can issue a PhD thesis in all of the problems with Riverside because it's a tool we use and it sucks in very specific ways. It is also still the tool we use every single week to make the show. If anybody uses Photoshop, anybody uses Pro Tools. The books that can be written about people's feelings about Pro Tools, it's a filler library, but they're the tools because they get the job done in specific ways.
Making that lossy or making that non-deterministic is actually going to make people less effective. People democratize access for a lot of people, I think. That is a huge opportunity. I don't think that opportunity outweighs the cost of making things more chaotic in specific ways.
The cheap stuff piece, I think people like cheap stuff. There's a reason TVs are permanent surveillance devices in everyone's home because they cost $500 and they're just watching all the time. I actually think the industry is coming around to my point of view. The products aren't good enough.
I know this because I find Alex Heath just interviewed Sam Altman and he asked him why people don't like AI. Altman's response was that he thinks that the way to win hearts and minds is to deliver value. We actually have a clipping on it. Generally speaking, I think the right way to get people to something is to deliver them value.
Probably if a lot of people use that, which they will over time and understand that it's not actually like. Better Google search than it's at that. Fusing and destroying huge amounts of water or whatever. Then they'll be more excitement.
I watched that. I think I'm actually a good job talking to Sam. My view that is, oh, that's a concession. Sam Altman knows ChashvT is not delivering enough value consumers.
These free versions are not communicating enough what they can do or they're not doing enough or they're hosting too much. That's why consumers dislike them. I continue to believe that talking about how everything can be turned into a database that can then be automated by agents is not going to win any hearts and minds. Maybe that's the technology that creates products people love, but the technology itself is fundamentally uninspiring.
It's the products, it's the experiences you have that change minds and software brain is just inherently alienating in my opinion. And then the last one, software brain, Mississippi, things we care about control agency. Yes, I agree with that. I would think that actually to buttons and cars, we've gone through this horrible period where all of the controls and cars became virtualized onto a screen and there's been furious pushback against it and all the buttons are back.
I think people want deterministic actions, even from computer like things. And this is maybe the single best market driven evidence that you can't just virtualize everything. You can give real experiences to people that do the things that are printed on the label of the button exactly when you push the button. And that is control agency.
Not about meaning in changing an H-rack in a car, but it's not like control agency. And meaning I think comes from having to struggle through doing the work yourself, not just letting you do it for you. So I agree with all these comments in different ways. I just think the industry has gotten completely lost in the sauce on what you can do if you turn everyone into a database, which is what I call software brain.
And they've missed the human connection. A really good example, I'll give you a little preview of an upcoming episode with a C of Cloudflare on. And he just fired a bunch of people at his company because he says, hey, I can do a bunch of those jobs. And he can identify rising talent in the company by having the AI look at all the things they're doing.
And then he thinks that's good because he can make a phone call and say, hey, you're a young superstar. And maybe that is a good thing. In order to accomplish that goal, every single thing that happens to that company needs to happen in a database for an AI to review and then communicate to him. I will not, I will, that's the preview.
We had a whole conversation about that because I think that is one of the more fascinating ideas in all the business right now. Well, I hope that doesn't roll out to the verge. I'll have to get one of those mouse movers or something. You're going to have to have to do one all day.
We are maybe insistently human. We're going to make Riverside. I think that would be good. Yeah, good luck.
So I think it's just making me by surprise just how bipartisan it is. And some of that I think is just it's an questionnaire and people are angry about cameras. So all the politicians are trying to chan, chan, maybe the same way they're trying to hang around data centers. There's action in red states to ban surveillance as well.
And there's action in more public communities to take down the cameras, which I think is fascinating. It's not just limited to brands like Flock. It's the idea of these cameras watching. And I think the piece of the puzzle, the reason that it caught me by surprise is that for better or worse, my formative political experiences were like 9-11 in the Warner rack, right?
That's when I was in college. And what do we do? We're in the Patriot Act. We militarized the police.
We started doing warrantless wiretaps. We ran our way all the way up to the snow and revelations and we did nothing about them, right? And literally none of that stuff caused this amount of panic. So that's just my framework, right?
And so this is a shock to that system. Like it's surprising to me that people care now. And I think it's because the cameras are visible. I think it's because the understanding that there's an AI chatbot that you can talk to that can just go generate an answer and the cops now have it for cameras that are tracking you everywhere.
And you can literally see the cameras and you can connect it to an experience you've had. And there's Flock who we are trying to get on the show and their CEO originally tried to do a bunch of like mega-coded messaging around the stuff and you would call those critics terrorists and that's at work. Like all that is new if you are born of the things that I was born of, right? Like all of these are criticisms of the Patriot Act in 2001.
And we just did it anyway. And so I'm curious for a few of you back from the audience. Like what do you think shifted that made a bunch of stuff that we were happy to do in the past feel like one of the more potent political issues of our time? I just don't like the medic glasses right now with the way those cameras are being received.
Like compared to how Google Glass rolled out and if you talk to the Patriot Act days and your formative years of attack, that's back when cell phone cameras were kind of seen as a joke. It was like, I'm going to take a photo on my phone. Yeah, right now it's like the only thing I would take a photo on is my phone because it's the best camera I will ever have with me. And I find that to be a really interesting evolution, especially tied to the AI of it all.
When it's like, no, no, these cameras now can connect to this network and have all this extra information. It's not just some file living on your thing that you can put somewhere with your discretion. It's like, no, no, it's out of your hands now. And I wonder if part of that's the anxiety around things like the cameras, the Flock cameras and the glasses cameras and all that.
I definitely think there's some amount of anxiety of I'm being recorded without my consent. I think there's a lot of anxiety around the intent of the people pursuing the Metaglasses. There's a reason they're called perfect glasses and some of the biggest influencers in the world have posted videos complaining that they get stocked at the airport and people wearing Metaglasses filming them coming off of planes. This is very bad.
It was Olivia Dunn, I think, who posted it like that. And she specifically called out Metaglasses, which is not a great rep for those products to have, right? And there's something about that. There's something about how intrusive the phones are and the cameras are and the idea that everything is recorded and meant to be shared.
But we've been living in that for a long time. I'm just saying there's something that happened now recently where the very notion of the police having a network of cameras that are all connected to each other and they can do an AI powered search has just flipped over. And we're going to go and cover them up with spray foam, where we're going to tear them down. Or we're, you know, four or four media, which is excellent, has done so many videos finding clips of people at town hall meetings yelling about cameras and being shouted down by their own elected officials.
There's something there that's new. We're obviously going to cover it. I'm not saying it's so surprising we can't engage it. I'm saying from my worldview, like what the dirt that I was raised in, it's just more the thing is the same as it ever was.
And that's why it was surprising to me. We could have had this conversation with the Patriot Act. We could have had this conversation about the existence of the TSA, any number of things. And we did.
We could have had this conversation with the Snowden revelations. Something flipped. And to me, it just it's cause for investigation and also reflections. If you paid for the venue before revenue came in, built a marketing plan at midnight or chased the perfect headliner, you know what it takes to grow an event.
That's why ShowPass created Event Incubator to give selected independent event organizers access to $10 million in growth capital plus technology, expertise and community. Applications are open through November 30, 2026. $10 million is on the table. What will you do with it?
ShowPass Event Incubator, Incubator with a K, or tap the link to apply. I think that's a good time to switch gears to talk about our most popular episode of the year. That was, of course, our sit down with Google CEO Sundar Pichai. This is our fifth year in a row talking to Sundar at Google I.O.
And it always generates a lot of feedback. This year, we had commenters write in to say, there seems to be an underlying answer of, well, we have to do all of this even if it's bad or irresponsible. And that person also said, it's a bit odd talking to him without getting some stronger concessions from Sundar. Another said, this interview is great, but I think Sundar got away with not having to answer the root issue of Google zero, which is in this example how Condi and As for seeing a reduced click through rate because of A.
So I guess the question here for you, Nila, is, do you feel like Google is kind of getting away with not being held responsible for what it's doing to the web with AI? And do you think Sundar has a sense of Google's culpability for the swath of destruction that's being left in the AI era? And the wake of the AI era? And do you think he's ever going to address or acknowledge this?
Or is he still going to disagree with the premise five years from now? That's a lot of questions. I'm going to just issue the caveat. I think that comes up in every single mailbag episode.
Sometimes it feels like the audience is mad that I don't arrest the CEO's undercoat. And maybe one day was in person, but we could have coughed in. Maybe one day I'll be granted this power. We deputized by the internet police to arrest the CEO's.
All I can do is ask the questions. And it has been five years of talking to Sundar. I hope he comes back next year. I think it's remarkable that he's the one who comes and takes the heat.
And we ask them all. And I can't make them show up. They have to decide to want to do it. And he decides he wants to do it.
So I appreciate that he shows up and takes the heat. And that he's willing to do it. The thing that I get, let's use the Condi and As for example, I asked a question before a bunch of publishers started saying to other media outlets that they were going to stop letting Google index their sites. That's the last turn.
When they are so clear that it's not worth it for their content to be stolen by AI because they're getting no search traffic, that they just turn off the Google indexer, the Google crawler entirely. And I think that conversation would have been different if I had that in my back pocket. I'm looking at these reports from various big publishers like USA Today and People Inc. And they're all the way at we're going to stop letting you index our sites because the traffic isn't coming.
I don't know what he would have said. I just think that answer might have been different. Or that the tenor of that moment might have been different. What I have been taking from Sundar these past five years, which I agree with, is the sense that these publishers got addicted to Google and they didn't do anything about it.
His shape of that conversation or his frustration, if you ever sense the flash of frustration that I sometimes sense, is well, the web is really big. I can measure the, Google can measure the web. They have Chrome, they always state about the web. And the web is getting bigger.
And some parts of the web are really, really vibrant. And if you listen to Amy Lanzi, the CEO of Digital Trust when she was on a coder, she's like, we are getting more calls from our clients, more requests to make web pages and landing pages than ever before. So some part of the web is growing. Google has that data.
And I think Sundar is like, and these publishers are constantly complaining that I'm taking their business away. And they had, they did nothing else about it. Which, if you know, there's every time I talk to a publisher, I ask them, why don't you do anything about it? I agree with that.
And I think there's some sense that Google bears the responsibility for making the people who built a business on their platform successful. I think every platform eventually kills every business that's built on it. I think YouTube will eventually kill youtubers. I think Instagram will eventually kill Instagram.
Like, if you're a decoder, you know I think this. I'm always asking creators what platforms and platforms when they're going to kill creators. And the web is just a platform for Google. So do I think that Google's going to be having all the candles?
Sure, a little bit. But the mechanism of accountability is not letting Google index your site. And I'm very curious to see if these handful of publishers who have started making noise that they're going to de-index their sites actually go through with it and actually impose the leverage on Google that I feel like the company's kind of daring them to impose. Again, I don't want to preview the cloud player conversation too much.
There are other mechanisms and there's other ways of doing it. And that was part of that conversation as well. But there's something here where just this straightforward, you were sending us traffic for free and we were giving you content for free. That exchange is gone.
I don't know that you can provide accountability such that Google doesn't just have to still compete with Enthropic and open AI. Like they have to. Hey, speaking of publishers and web traffic and all that, do you need to drop in a very nice little disclaimer about our new company, the PMX, PMC situation? Oh, this is so complicated.
So there's a series of what only can be described as divorces and remarriages. Our box we know has split itself into and the Verge is now part of something called PMX Global, which is a subsidiary of PMC, which is a PNC Media Corporation. PMC is suing Google, I believe, over AI overviews and traffic. PMX in the thing formerly known as Vox Media are all in ad tech antitrust cases against Google.
I'm telling you this because it is disclosure we should make. You can tell how much I know about them. They are happening very far away from this newsroom, but it is true that our companies are involved in active litigation with Google about all this stuff. Pivoting to something different, we had a listener talk about how our AI skepticism or broadly under coder is Western centric.
And it's pointing out how a lot of AI adoption in China is actually different and faster and more welcomed in other ways. This is from Alex Wong. Have you considered Asia and more specifically China whereby outward appearances AI roll out adoption and image seem to be faster, deeper, broader and more well received than in the West? Do you find this to be true?
If so, what is the difference? And if so, why the difference? And if not, what are we not seeing? What are your Asian sources seeing and saying, should you have more Asian sources?
Is it time for the coder in the Verge to expand beyond Silicon Valley? This is a US-based show, Neeliah is based out of New York, the production team is scattered, but we have New York offices where people come and shoot stuff. Do you think there's room for a more non-Western perspective? Can you speak about the differences that are evident between the way China is approaching AI development versus in the United States?
Can we really cover such a massive trans-continental gap like that? It's a lot. Well, first, I do want to point out, as you said, we're in New York. I actually think we need more Silicon Valley perspectives.
I think we can be myopic. New York is all about money. To be successful in New York, you have literally the money. In San Francisco, less so about the money, more about the big ideas, and notably the AI companies are all making money and running into some harsh realities here in New York from time to time.
So there's that. I'm not going to speculate too much on my understanding of Chinese culture. I will just offer two guesses, and they're just pure guesses. Then we can only know what the Chinese state media wants us to know.
There are speech controls in that country. Whether or not there's massive discontent is not something that would ever come to me. That's just a gap, and I'm just calling this another gap. I agree that what we're seeing there is a bit more excitement, we're seeing a bit more investment, and I would connect that to you, and this is my second guess, is there's literally a much stronger social safety net in China.
The idea that this will be a threat, like an existential threat to your job or your career, or your livelihood or your health insurance or whatever it is, is maybe ameliorated by that stronger social cohesion. That is a guess I really hesitate to overthink that. I would love to hear from people with closer perspectives to that, but those are the things that I'm always thinking about. I've said to leaders of big AI labs in this country, I think people would like you more if you would just pay for health insurance.
If you could just find a way to support Medicare for all with your excess profits and your trillion dollar tams, maybe people would shut up, and they've all been interesting. I would just offer that connection because maybe the best thing AI could do for everyone is make it easier to go start a business, to make it easier to have agency over your own life. The number one reason my friends with children don't start businesses is because they need health insurance. That's the connection.
That's a very Western perspective, a very US perspective specifically, but that's why I went directly to social safety net. Maybe you're more excited about this thing that lets you do more things because the risk is limited in some other ways by the very nature of the country. I'm open to feedback on that. I'm responding to the question with my series of guesses and assumptions.
I agree. We do now work for much better company, and hopefully that means I can put some reporters in China or in the region, and we can get some first-hand reporting, but I'm curious for feedback on the audience because those two things, one, it's hard to tell people to actually feel given the speech and trolls to exist in that country. Two, is it just a different sense of possibility because the risks of existing are different? Do you think Sam Altman actually supports universal basic income?
Is OpenAI going to fund UBI? I don't know the answer to that question anymore. I think they've all learned to stop issuing pronouncements about the future of society as loudly as they had been, and spend way more time focused on enterprise adoption and software engineering and like, agent marketing solutions, and potentially, here's how everyone will become rich, not here's how everyone will lose their job. I don't know the answer to that, but UBI is one of those things that it's an idea you have because you think that it'll have a job, and I think they've all needed to stop talking about that.
Yeah, that actually ties very neatly into something we want to end on this particular segment on, which is a pretty prescient email from a reader, Tom's Bernard's Callahan, specifically around tech backlash. He wrote in, the algorithmic fragmentation of content consumption disrupts any organic, large-scale organization. Yes, there are rallies, but no pointed policy pushes, feeds are purposely placing users in any consumer groups, and the news is a hard time permeating across these groups. He says he thinks the irony here is that algorithmic fragmentation will make the backlash worse because when the dam breaks, the masses will be quite angry and it'll be a large cohort of people.
So he wrote us that email in April, and I do want to say it feels like something has definitely happened. It feels like something definitely broke over the last three to four months since we got that email from him. It feels like there's a large bipartisan cohort of angry people, and we see this, of course, like Florida and Texas banning flat cameras, the upcoming Florida governors race being about data centers. What do you make of this, NELI, specifically kind of this moment of tech backlash that we're experiencing and how the verge might cover this from the perspective of algorithmic fragmentation or perspective of this creating a bipartisan coalition that could permeate through your filter bubble or the feeds that your algorithmic feeds?
The thing that really strikes me about the backlash right now is it's a backlash to imposition. Not to speak for all Americans, Americans don't like being told what to do. You have to accept these data centers, even though you're telling your local governments you don't want them, is an imposition that is just easy to be opposed to regardless of your political alignment. These cameras are going to watch everybody all the time, and we have records that cops are watching kids in gymnastic centers is the most incredible imposition of all time.
The nation was founded to rebel against this kind of imposition. It's in the Bill of Rights. Of course, that's going to overcome algorithmic feeds. You can't turn the knobs on TikTok enough to overcome that.
No one can hear a fake AI influencer talking about how much they love flat cameras and believe it's true. It's just not in our national character in a very specific way. That's that is like you telling everybody what's going to happen to them, and it's power being imposed on them or in case of data centers being made more expensive for them. This is like natural that would overcome some algorithmic fragmentation.
The other she is, I don't know, right? It's an election year. I think we see politicians scrambling to still play culture war games. I'll call it Ben Jordan, who's a musician and researcher.
He's done really incredible work on flat cameras. We've interviewed him in the Verge Before. He was just on the Tucker Carlson Show. Their views do not align.
I think Ben even his was like, why? They can't believe I'm here, and they were there to talk about flat cameras and surveillance. That's bananas, like just purely bananas. There's something about that that I would just connect to, at least with other big tech impositions, it felt like market driven in some way.
Like Facebook is going to be big, and you're going to be mad that Mark Zuckerberg is listening to you, but you have a desire to use Instagram. And boy, does it turn out that people's revealed preferences are for Instagram to keep happening, regardless of whether or not you think the ads are listening to you. And there's no market preference that's going to take away that away from you, or there's a network effect so strong that something else will happen and then we'll try to regulate it. The market is still going to speak.
Like people are still going to want to use this thing. That's not true of flock. There's no consumer use for flock. It's diffused.
It's you have to prove the crime went down somewhere else later. But you can see it right now, it's watching right now, and the cost is available. AI has mostly been imposed on consumers. Every time I open Google Meet, it instantly tells me Gemini is here now.
And I'm like, I don't need this to be here in any way, shape, or form. And so that imposition, where we're claiming all the usage of Satcha so high, when in many cases it has just been put in front of us, there's something about that that feels like it can transcend the algorithm. Yeah, there's something to what you were saying a few minutes ago about the Patriot Act of it all of. There's such a lack of legislation on a lot of these important things that people feel like they've had no input on.
And so because they're just rolled out and it's like, well, take it. I feel like that to your point of like these people who you wouldn't expect to go be a part of the U.S. and the Tucker Carlson program, it is the scrambling of an alignment because people don't feel that agency that they can't really, nobody's representing them on their behalf in a lot of ways. I mean, like what it's actually what do you even do with the fact that Donald Trump is running around saying the data centers are money printing factories and you're stupid for causing them.
Like that is just is. They call the Golden Goose. Yeah, that's the Golden Goose. Does everybody want to be poor?
That's what he said. Yeah, I certainly cannot predict elections and how they'll go. But that just seems totally out of step with everybody. And there's something about that I find utterly fascinating.
And to me, it just comes back to Americans don't like me told you. And if you put yourself in that position, boy, boy, do a lot of things sort of like falling place. If you paid for the venue before revenue came in, built a marketing plan at midnight or chased the perfect headliner, you know what it takes to grow an event. That's why show pass created event incubator to give selected independent event organizers access to $10 million in growth capital plus technology, expertise and community.
Applications are open through November 30, 2026. $10 million is on the table. What will you do with it? Search show pass event incubator incubator with a K or tap the link to apply.
If you want a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend or try a bunch of new hobbies. What do you feel free to upgrade and listen, ad-free? Don't worry, we get it.
Every $20 ticket can win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today. Raffle number RAF 1573916. Please play responsibly.
Well, keeping that gads in flag in the air, I've got a transition here to your interview with Kathy Hochl, who was on the show last week as of recording time. One listener wrote, great interview job, very pointed questions. A little surprise that she didn't seem to have thought through the ID verification implications the social media laws will lead to. Some other Hochl feedback was pretty negative, predictably.
A few things she gave could be summarized with its campaign year. This interview was unbearable, politicians don't give answers to questions, they just give self-aggrandizing, some speeches. You said that you are honing your politician interviewing skills, what was your takeaway from this whole experience with her, and how do you inform how to code her interviews, politicians, do you think we should have more of them coming into the midterms of the 2020 election, how do you see this whole politics of it all? We definitely need to have more politicians on this year.
I'm very sorry. But as we have been discussing, the tech policy issues in this election cycle are almost overwhelming. There might not be other issues. There's the Warner Anne, there's data centers, and there's surveillance.
The one there is healthcare. Those are the ones, at least in my opinion. As we talked about with Governor Hochl, a lot of them are connected. Surveillance and AI are deeply, deeply connected.
Age-refication and surveillance are deeply, deeply connected. It's funny some of the feedback we got on this episode was, Facebook knows so much about you, why can't I just tell you, surveillance and AI is just a remix of the same ideas, how much of your computer should someone be monitoring to allow you to do some things? That's the 3D printer debate in the conversation. I suspect we will end up talking to more politicians because the opportunity for realignment is so high.
I honestly hope we get some conservative politicians to talk about data centers and surveillance because I would like to understand realignment from that perspective. That said, I don't think I'm great at interviewing politicians. I think I'm good at interviewing founders. I'm good at interviewing products at EOS.
I'm bad at interviewing McKinsey CEOs. I'm getting better. I'm worse at interviewing politicians. You can just, the amount of media training rises.
That's the thing that I'm describing here. We've always described the show as new live versus media training and I'm always trying to fight to a draw. I think I got to a draw with Governor Hochl. I think we got her to concede that she was out of her depth on some of these issues, particularly around age verification.
I thought the moment where she said, tell Cody we're going to get ahead of him next on 3D guns was very revealing because I don't want it's a great spiky cowboy thing to say. It's the quote you want from an interview with a politician. This is a feedback in the comments on the transcript of that. That's not even the right shape of an answer.
Most people can't actually print a 3-gun part that will withstand firing a bullet. You don't need to do this. I thought that interview went well from my perspective because it just demonstrated it's easy to talk about what tech policy should be and it's very hard to talk about how you would actually implement the details of that policy. I think we did a good job there of even illustrating for the Governor what the gaps were because she conceded it several times.
I understand it's frustrating to listen to and maybe one day I'll just be full cable news anchor and just repeat this in question 10 times in a row. I don't think anybody wants me. But cable news anchors exist and they do a good job of that thing. I'm trying to do something else here.
On the topic of interviewing styles and techniques new, we had an interesting interview last month with Blue Sky CEO Tony Schneider. One aspect of that interview that really touched a nerve is when you asked him what he thought about Blue Sky's reputation as a liberal bubble. This is what he had to say. Yes, we definitely want that to change.
It is already changing. I mean, it certainly wasn't designed to attract one specific group of people. It works for anyone. We're an open network for anyone.
And we don't want to serve just one type of user base. I've seen it already in the last few months, really trending the right direction where we just have more and more people show up and build their own corners of the network and it sort of balances out over time. One listener email, they wrote in to say, the idea that this one was a little bit of a one specific, very active group of people is an imbalance to be straightened out rather than the very reason the platform is what it is. It's the mistake that Blue Sky will come to regret.
What a shame. Some of the feedback on Blue Sky itself was predictably harsher. Somebody said go ahead and attract other people, but the second we start seeing fascist stuff in our feeds that we haven't subscribed to, you're going to lose your base. Somebody says, Tony doesn't even understand Blue Sky's own user base.
Another person says, cool, I'll just delete my Blue Sky like I deleted my Twitter. Looking back at this exchange, it does kind of feel like he artfully dodged it. It's kind of hard to tell what he really thinks about Blue Sky's reputation and the liberal politics of it all. In moments like that, do you think it's better to push people for a follow up to be clearer on what they think?
Is that a case where the backlash became evident after the fact and it was better that you just let him say his piece and you weren't really trying to bait him into any one direction? I wasn't trying to bait him in any one direction and I understand the backlash from the Blue Sky user base. I think maybe I also understand what every social product CEO is struggling with, which is that you have to grow. You can run out of people.
You can run out of people who want to be in that bubble. You can run out of people who only want to talk about one sport seeing. You can run out of people who want to be in whatever bubble X has become. You actually are seeing X run out of people who want to be in that bubble.
The platform is shrinking. If you want to grow and you can describe that as the capitalistic urge to grow, but I think the platform CEO's also just understand that to remain vibrant, they have to constantly attract new people, then you almost have to issue an answer like this, which is where a platform for everyone. I think Tony's riff on it was like, and we'll give you the moderation controls to craft the experience you want to make the big platform feel small. I don't know if they're successful in communicating that to people.
I think that the big disconnect with Blue Sky, in my opinion this whole time, is that it was started by a bunch of ideological technical people who wanted to build that standard call to that protocol to enable interoperable social networking and because of X, they actually got a user base. They've been in conflict that you should pay since, which is fine. It's obviously reflected in these comments. But I think Tony's job is to make the thing a product.
That's why he's the CEO. These answers, they just track every other social product answer we've ever gotten. I don't know if he's okay with the bubble he has drifting away. I know that we can see in the stats that it's getting smaller.
I'm sure there's going to be some revolt when they monetize it in ways that he's describing monetizing it. But if you're a social product and you aren't growing or trending towards growth, then in fact you are dying. There's something about that that will not allow you to persist. That is a pattern that's pretty repeatable and pretty understandable.
Maybe because we've spent so much time talking to social platforms from CEOs, I knew what he was getting at. I've internalized that answer in many different ways. I probably should have made him say it out loud. That's a good note for me, but that's what I was hearing in that moment.
You have to grow and that means you have to appeal to many more people. Speaking of appealing to people, we want to appeal to our audience. They have some more thoughts on the show, the color in and of itself, not just wanting more rants from you. We've got feedback from listeners who want to know about the kinds of relationships that you and we have with the companies that are covered on the show.
This is from Len Art who emailed to say, is there a possibility for you to make an episode about different ways the companies try to pressure the verge into editorial changes? I don't mean you to out all the company names of people making the requests, but just hearing concrete examples of how the requests come in and how they're being dealt with. It'll be a very compelling episode. I think that's what Len thinks.
What do you make of that? Do you worry? There's such a thing as too much transparency as we make a thing like this. How about this?
We are old enough and famously spiky enough that this stuff doesn't happen very often. Yes, there's the idea of too much transparency. My worry about too much transparency is that we should be boring. We would be like Nick and Kate spend hours scheduling.
That's actually the hardest part of making the show for us at this point. It's CEOs, it's their cons people, whatever new cycle they want to be on. It's my schedule, which has bananas. Honestly, I'm telling you and you can believe me or not, that might be the most complicated thing that we're doing.
We only make so many episodes this thing here and a lot of people want to be on the show. We're lucky. I think that's very lucky. There is pressure.
Big tech CEOs do want to be on the show. It's not that we don't ask them. They just are pretty honest sometimes that they think it would be too hostile to the environment. They want to be more in control of that message and you can see where they go instead.
Do I want to play that game? I don't. You can see that we just haven't. We're pretty direct.
I think if you listen to the conversations we have, the CEOs come on because they're all competitive, they're all type A and they like being challenged. They come here for a reason. I think almost more inbound requests to be on the show than we go out and ask. Meaningful, not just like random, cold PR pitches, but like stuff we take.
Like pitches we accept. It's because all of those folks, they hear the show, they hear their peers on the show and they want to beat them. I've asked about this a lot because in the early days, like why does anyone come on the show? I should understand it so that we can craft better and more compelling pitches for other people we want to come talk to us.
A lot of the answers I get were because it is journalistically independent, the conflict is real and that means not only does the audience listen to it, but our own staff will listen to it. If there's some message that some CEO wants to get out, it is more likely that the staff will listen to it. Their employees will listen to it on the coder than in all hands reading. I think that is the funniest thing in the entire world.
I think it's also true. I've heard a version of that many, many times. There's pressure on the verge, but we're old enough and we are famously spiky about things like being on the background and off the record. Sometimes it comes to our younger reporters because they are testing to see if the younger reporters know and then the younger reporters are like, I'll call me a line.
That's my job in this newsroom. I think a lot of that has been offloaded on the creator economy. It is not easy to pressure us, but it's easy to go to some young creator who doesn't even know that they shouldn't be pressured or is excited about accepting conditions on access. I see that left and right all over the place.
I mean, I call it anyone specific. I just think it is we play a role in the ecosystem where we are known for not doing that. I hope, and I talk to young creators who run a company. Then Smith was just on a show and he was noting that they're all getting better at making journalism because the conflict is interesting.
I see that ecosystem developing in parallel, but that's where the pressure is really gone. It has not come to us very directly. It has stopped as we've gotten much older. Thank you, Neelai, for being a guest here on Decoder and thank you all for listening.
More importantly, thank you for sending us your feedback. We'll have another mailbag episode for you very soon. And as we set up the top, we really do read every email. So please keep sending us those at decoder at theverge.com and also please keep commenting on YouTube, on Spotify, on the Verge comment section, Threads, Blue Sky, all of it.
We really do appreciate it and it helps us make the show better so we can keep covering the stories that people and the companies you really care about. Reminder, you can watch full episodes of Decoder on YouTube at At Decoder Pawn. We also have a TikTok and an Instagram, they're at Decoder Pawn too, and they're a lot of fun. If you like Decoder, please share it with your friends and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
Decoder is a production of The Verge and is part of the Vox Media podcast network. The show is produced by K-Cox, myself, Nix Sat, and our new supervising producer Greg Ah. The show is edited by Ursa Wright, our editorial director is Kevin McShane. The Decoder music is by Greg Master's cylinder.
See you next time. Where some see heroes and other see egos. Bloomberg sees the era of billionaire athletes. A fad to some, the future of money to others.
We see crypto's trillion dollar swings. The end of jobs or the end of human struggle. We see the endless funds fueling the AI hype. While others follow the noise, we follow the money.
Learn more at Bloomberg.com. If you win a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? We take a long weekend, every weekend? Or try a bunch of new hobbies?
What do you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket can win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today.
Raffle number RAF1573916. Please play responsibly.