40 Burst results for "Mark Zuckerberg"
Fresh update on "mark zuckerberg" discussed on News, Traffic and Weather
"Is Leighton Schneider and Mike Dubowski have more on why the cicadas of 2021 aren't done with us Yet. If you were alive in 2000 and four, you might remember a few things. George W. Bush is reelected for a second term. Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg hit publish on a little website, then known as the Facebook and Kelly Clarkson, fresh off her American at a win is topping the Billboard charts. But if you really think back to 2000 and four there's another tune that drowns out all of that. Now it's 2021 more fresh off another election. Facebook boasts more than 2.5 billion users. And although it's been a while since Kelly Clarkson's latest album, Cicadas are taking some of her old hits to heart. After 17 years underground breed 10 cicadas.
Rep. Jim Jordan on the Implications of Big Tech Breakup Bills
"Break up hills, which aren't those at all Like you said. They're just using that to get us on board. My fear is they're going to take that from the private sector and now enshrined that with government regulators who are going to use these big tech break up bills to then use the power of government to make sure private companies out there. Doing things against the shareholder interest. And think about how many pension funds are invested in these companies that are now going to be pressured to basically lose money and screw your pension over under the guise of big tech breakup. Yeah, we've already seen this. This play in action with what we just referred to when you had a major big tech company, the CEO of the head of that company. Communicating via email with the guy who runs a big agency who is the highest paid official in the government with Dr Fauci and Mark Zuckerberg colluding to keep information from the American people last year information that frankly, looks like it turns out to be it was the truth, and they kept the truth from us. So now we're going to say Lina Khan, who just got appointed to to chair the FTC, You know where she just got to point this week. So that's my Federal Trade Commission where all this power is going to go. Guess who she worked for. Before she went there. She worked for Jerry Nadler. David Cicilline E on the House student Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. Do you think she really wants to make sure that that these big tech platforms don't censor Dan Bongino? So that's what this is all all about. I mean, and you're exactly right. The one of the other empty stairs chairs is, um, Democrat is Becca Slaughter, and she has said, we should use anti trust laws to stop systemic racism. What? So you're that's where they want to go with this, And that's what I fear. Let's do this. Let's let's let's change checks in 2 30 so that you take away their liability protection and let's break them up. Let's break him up. Yeah, but you've got to make sure they don't get this liability protection. So not not make not make this union between big government and big tech so they can further harm us. Yeah, a couple of additional points in
Fresh update on "mark zuckerberg" discussed on Saturday Night On The Circle
"What? No, no more not a mass. Zuckerberg features in my new rock and roll show Got him sit. And now I shouldn't tell you, but but but he does. But you think how did this little prick Started off by saying she's pretty will give her a four out of five. She's ugly will give her a one of them. Did he get any power in anything? And yet here he is one of the most powerful idiots in the world right onto Roger Waters for denying use of his song, Of course, Mark Zuckerberg, seeking to use another brick in the wall. Part two for use in an instagram ad campaign is about as ironically, tone death. As Donald Trump playing Creedence Clearwater Revival is fortunate son at one of his rallies. Something that happened by the way. Do you get the irony there, Producer Donnie, I. Yeah. Okay. There we go. Okay. It's quite the choice. So similarly darkly Ironic is Mark Zuckerberg at least desire two years another brick in the wall for utilization in a Facebook. Instagram marketing campaign. Elsewhere in media podcast host Joe Rogan, Jerusalem Herb criticized I should say the presentation and the performance of one CNN host Brian Stelter on his podcast this week, he said. They did, or, uh, Basically, they said that the ratings are incredible or declining precipitously. Um And, uh, I'm sorry. Anyway, this is this is just part of the interaction with Joe Rogan slipping and.
Email Exchange Between Mark Zuckerberg and Dr. Fauci Included Trade Secrets
"Here It is right here. Here's the email from Mark Zuckerberg. To Dr Anthony Fauci. You need to date folks. March 15 2020 12 18 pm That West Coast time doesn't really matter. Probably not. He says calls him Tony. They must be buddies, Tony, not Dr Fauci. Not Anthony. Not Dr Anthony. Tony. A tone like he's gonna go over for dinner, and I'm gonna have Connolly's or something. Hey, Tony. He says. Hey, listen, it's a Zuckerberg again from Facebook doing a series of livestream Q and A's with health experts and, you know, we need some authoritative information. I'd love to have you do one of these Q and A's. He said, could be a video We put out in the harbor different thing we distribute separately. But I think it could be effective as well. Talking about authority of information from reliable sources, was anybody you know, from the Trump administration that had alternate views to Dr Fauci. Given an opportunity by Zuckerberg to I just I'm just asking a question. Again, in case you're under the mistaken miss belief here. That Chuck Todd is interested in hearing both sides are getting to the facts he's interested in protecting Protecting like a praetorian guard. Dr. Anthony Fauci is reputation because, Fauci said, a lot of things that did damage to Donald Trump. That's his only purpose. We have the email right here. And the interesting about this. They think about this email is the redaction. Interesting about this email thing about this email is what's not in this email. Zuckerberg says the Fauci get ready. He says, finally, comma. You're waiting for the rest. Well, you'll wait forever because there isn't the rest. The redactions the whole paragraph. Finally, comma redacted. There it is right
Fresh update on "mark zuckerberg" discussed on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
"Wait, Wait. Don t tell me the NPR news quiz. I'm Bill Kurtis. We're playing this week with Luke Burbank. Dual see Sloan and Faith, Salie. And here again, is your host who shot a man and Rina just because he used the phrase begs that question long, it's Peter Sagal. In just a minute. Bill takes a trip of his own to Romania to solve a crisis there in our listener, Limerick Challenge If you'd like to play, Give us a call at one Triple eight. Wait, wait. That's 18889248924 right now. Panel some more questions for you from this week's news. Dolce a Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg posted a video on Facebook. Saying that he's going to continue to work from home where he is now expanding his skill set by learning to do what be a person know that was completely beyond his capabilities. This is something more within his grasp. Um, can I have one more clue? Yeah, well, he's already got his black belt in dork. So this is the next logical step. A martial art? Yes, he is learning to fight that is. What are you doing? Mr Zuckerberg, who is the physical manifestation of the phrase? It's actually karate, apparently using his downtime between destroying democracies to learn how to fight with ancient weapons. He posted videos of himself shooting arrows at bowling pins. And throwing a spear at a sheet of plywood will inexplicably wearing noise protection. Earmuffs. Hey, you know what's cool? Not that he's finally hit the top level of nerd White dude stuff. Oh, absolutely. No, there's a bunch of swords in his house, and he probably gotten an auction. He's now the big boss in the video game, right? There was nothing else for him to do Also, why is he shooting arrows at bowling pins? One more reason to never go bowling with Mark Zuckerberg. He's like, Oh, do you bring your own board? Do they rent them there? Uh, faith as part of a just released summer collection Luxury brand product is releasing a $1000. What Well, gosh, Is it a piece of exercise equipment? Please don't tell me it's a water bottle to drink up. It's not a water bottle. Okay? Barbells weights. What? We're not even sure if they inflate it first. Ball in exercise ball. It's a ball, it's a volleyball. It is part of proud as the outdoor collection $995 will get you Prada's signature volleyball, the tone demand servants hired to play volleyball with you will set you back another 10 grands. My late mother would call that sinful That is a sinful price and my alive mother would call that hustle. It's true Now. This is part of the new line. Be right. Both are right. Both are inappropriate. And both are con job. This is part of a new collection of outdoor goods for people have always wanted to enjoy outdoor recreation, but we're upset. How inexpensive it is, Luke. We observed an important anniversary this week. 101 years ago, the U. S Postal Service. Announced that you would no longer be able to send what through the US mail. Mm 100. And one years ago. Exactly 101 June 14th 1920 1920. You were no longer allowed to send Germans through the mail. No. That was the only guess I can think of. Can I get a hint? Yeah. You don't need to lick the stamp because their faces are always so sticky anyway. Children, Children. Wow. As of June 14th 1920, you could no longer send Children through the mail. And it happened all the time. In 1913, for example, an eight month old baby in Ohio was mailed to his grandmother for only 15 cents in 1915, a mail carrier arrived on the train in Jackson, Kentucky, with a three year old girl. What a shipping tag sewn to address with an address and 33 cents in stamps. Well, I mean, you know who I blame for this The Bible, the whole Moses thing like you want your kid to grow up and be an entire people throw him in a basket, mail them down the Nile. Pharaoh's daughter invented But you know, this is coming back like they will re legalize this at some point because Amazon will deliver your small child to Yes to their piano recital by way of drone. Yeah, the next business that Amazon will drive out of businesses. Obstetricians will deliver your baby in the next day. That's so good. You want to get pregnant, We can give you next day delivery. You don't even have to just date if I'm telling you if Apple was working on Healthcare. Amazon is working on this. And the midnight Coming.
Facebook Delays Taking a Cut on Paid Events and Fan Subscriptions Till 2023
"Facebook. Ceo mark zuckerberg announced that the company will continue to not charge fees for it's paid online events fan subscriptions and badges through twenty twenty three and will include upcoming news products in that no fee policy as well no word on what the rate will be after twenty twenty three. But if there's any question why. Facebook is doing. This zack. said when we introduce a revenue share. It will be less than the thirty percent that apple and others take zingy. Singapore based flex the world's third-biggest largest chip manufacturer expects chip shortages to continue flexes chief procurement and supply chain officer. Lynn terrell says would such strong demand. The expectation is mid to late. Twenty twenty two. Depending on the commodity. Some are expected in two twenty twenty. Three chipmakers continued to invest in new production capacity but new facilities are not yet complete the california public utilities commission issued a permit to gm's autonomous vehicle subsidiary crews allowing the company to shuttle passengers in its test vehicles without a human safety operator. Cruise is the first company to get the permit in the state and cannot charge affairs for rides in test. A vis nine companies including crews have previously obtained driverless test permits from the california dmv. That's different from the public. Utilities commission although neuro remains the only company to have obtained a commercial deployment permit from the dmv youtube shorts still in beta and previously available in the us and india is now expanding to the u k canada and latin america users will now be able to use music from youtube wider catalog add captions and overlays on shorts color. Correct and sample audio from other shorts. Sounds familiar And google settlement with francis competition authority over charges that had abused its dominant online at position by favouring its own advertising services to the detriment of rivals. The company agreed to pay a two hundred twenty million euro fine and pledged to improve interoperability between its ad manager and third party ad servers. The changes stem between nineteen. Complaint filed by news newscorp and the french newspaper le figaro
Fresh update on "mark zuckerberg" discussed on Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
"To fight. This is the physical manifestation of the phrase. It's actually karachay up his downtime. Between destroying democracies to learn how to fight with ancient weapons he posted videos of himself shooting arrows at bowling pins and throwing a spear at a sheet of plywood while inexplicably wearing noise protection earmuffs. Hey you know what's cool. Not that he's finally. Hit the top level of nerd. White dude stuff. Oh absolutely no. There's a bunch of swords in his house and he probably gotten at auction. He's not the big boss in the video game right. There was nothing else for him to do. Also why is he. Shooting arrows at bowling pins. One more reason to never go. Bowling with mark zuckerberg is like. Oh do you bring your own board. They rent them their faith. As part of a just released summer collection luxury brand prada is releasing a one thousand dollar. What well gosh is it. A piece of exercise equipment. At least don't tell me it's a water bottle to drink got. It's not a water bottle okay. Barbells weights what's happening. Not even sure if they inflate it. I a ball in exercise ball. It's a ball. it's a volleyball. Produce eyesore collection nine hundred and ninety five dollars. We'll get you produce signature volleyball. The tone demand servants hired to play volleyball with. You'll set you back another ten grand. My late mother would call that sinful. That is a sinful price and my alive. Mother would call that a hustle. It's true this is apparently be right. Also right both are inappropriate in both con job. This is part of new. A collection of outdoor goods for people have always wanted to enjoy outdoor recreation but were upset by how inexpensive it is. Look we observed an important anniversary this week. One hundred and one years ago the. Us postal service announced that you would no longer be able to send what through the us. Mail one hundred and one years ago exactly one hundred and one june fourteenth nineteen twenty nineteen twenty. You are no longer allowed to send germans through the mail. No no that was the only guest i can think of. Can i get a hint. Yeah you don't need the lick stamp because their faces are always so sticky. Anyway children children as of june fourteenth nineteen twenty. You could no longer send children through the mail and it happened all the time in nineteen thirteen for example. An eight month. Old baby in ohio was mailed to his grandmother for only fifteen cents in nineteen fifteen. A mail carrier arrived on the train. In jackson kentucky with a three year old girl who had a shipping tag sewn to address with an address and thirty three cents stamps. Blame for this. The bible moses thing like you want your kid to grow up in an entire people throw him in a basket mail him down the nile pharaoh's daughter invented. But you know this is coming back like they will re legalized this at some point. Because amazon will deliver your. Oh yes Yes to their piano recital. By way of drone the next business than amazon will drive out of business is obstetricians. We'll deliver your baby and the next day get so good you want to get pregnant. We can give you next day delivery. You don't even have to just 'em tell you. If apple is working on healthcare amazon is working on this.
Facebook F8 Refresh: Business Messaging Changes Rolled Out
"So facebook's f. eight developer conference kicked off today after taking last year off due to the pandemic of course mark zuckerberg didn't do a real proper keynote. Just a few minute. Long video message saying facebook was going back to its roots. I e focusing on developers quote some of the most important services in the world started when some looked at an existing issue and found a better way to build an. I'm optimistic that some of the next generation of services are going to start right here with you zuckerberg said well that mostly met messaging at least so far today and specifically business messaging facebook said it will open up the messenger. Api for instagram. To all businesses quoting tech crunch the feature is opening i to all developers globally with a phased approach for businesses phase one. We'll see instagram accounts with accounts of over ten thousand and under one hundred thousand connect to the api. It plans to expand that to accounts with followers numbering between one thousand one hundred thousand in july. Which is phase two with remaining accounts coming online by q. Three the feature was first announced as closed beta in october with select businesses thirty developers and seven hundred brands. In all now any brand organization using instagram to interact with customers can use it. The key point with this tool is that this. Integration represents a significant step forward in how companies can leverage the wider facebook platform in the past a brand that wanted to interact with customers. Either needed to do so directly through instagram or via facebook unified business inbox which are limited how they can be used especially by companies that might be handling large volumes of traffic or keen to be able to link up those customers interactions with wider customer service databases the messenger. Api by contrast can be integrated into any third party application that a company or brand might be using to manage communication whether it's a social media management platform like hoot suite or sprinkler or a crm application that can bring in other kinds of customer data for example warranty information or loyalty card numbers. Facebook noted that one of the key takeaways from the closed beta was that brands and companies wanted better ways of managing communications from one place. And another was that many of them are making more investments in software to better manage their communications and workflows. So extending the messenger. Instagram was a feature that was long needed in that
Fresh update on "mark zuckerberg" discussed on Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
"Some help for listeners and tech rage well that whole week plus when i wasn't allowed to talk but i was here of course i'm still executive producer as well as host even if i couldn't be hosting much And doing a lot of sign language. And i don't know sign language and neither does anybody here but we were learning some things whether it was proper or not and one of my staff brought this in but now i can't come up for that. I didn't use it very often. I think maybe three times in the week and it was only because nobody was around. And i had to like sign something and the rest of us learned how bad we are at lea- reading lips. God i just kept pointing people to go back to the control or go to your desk mouth something to me several times and i would just say it's a semi angle. I'll go back to my desk and read. You think it was bad for you. Imagine me. I couldn't say anything except testing one. Two three eight days But it's getting there so thank you all of you for Helping me out and a lot of people. thank you. So much We're posting on facebook and instagram and twitter. And everything all the anti social media that you know i was in their prayers and i very much appreciate it. I mean you know. I've i've said forever. Give me a broken arm or leg and i can. God forbid still make a living but give me laryngitis. Or in his case four months worth of apollo up. And i just couldn't speak properly and i'm in trouble so hopefully you don't mind this week and probably most of next week me speaking like this with just the microphone turned up and then back to normal if all goes well probably by the third week but i'm not Going through puberty again. As i was every time. I open my mouth. Couldn't finish that sentence. So you're what you're talking. You auditioning to replace delilah no no. I don't know what it is. I just sometimes i can tune her in but most of the time i got a tuner out. You know what i'm saying. It adult just not my thing. I guess oh probably like me being in divorce. Say it's like yeah so it is father's day weekend so make sure that you've taken care of your dad hand that you've given him nice tech gifts at least a nice lunch. Yeah maybe breakfast in bed but you don't live with me so i don't expect that and that would be weird like news waking me up to certain who's at my door was the mc delivery mcdonald's the zuber each us into to your house fruits with breakfast and then i'll go you know what was the weirdest thing that i had in insurance company doctors offices all these various people calling me. Now i put on my voicemail on my cellphone and my business phone before. I went in for the vocal cord surgery. That i'm going into vocal cord. Surgery will be unable to speak so please email me. I kept getting so many mess up. Sorry we missed you. Please call me back at your earliest convenience. What part of. I can't speak the and how it was. Frustrating is how well. And i have to kind of share. Because of course you're the tech guy. You know what i thought one of the most interesting odd or funny or we'll say cool because you're at the tech things. Careful i'll give you that and you're using your voice to text microsoft word you typed out several common phrases especially for like when when you're security gate calls you with a visitor about this. You can have the computer speak with. I shouldn't put it on this laptop. So then i could share some of those with you. That's true that was in word text to speech. You know i remember you know walking into the office and you look like probably on your face and i hear computer. Say hello security gate. Yes you can let them in. Please remind them which turn. I had to be come. I had to be somewhat creative. And how about the note pad scratch with your finger on my smartphone thing that you helped me find. I was using that a lot. I mean i was afraid to go to target or something. When i needed something because i can't speak in. The people are going to think. Well how does that. How rude in text to speech app we've found on on your android tablet than Cameron get a hold of and start making it. Talk about hearts and poops. Yes oh my god level and poor cameron he kept bringing his ear close to my mouth like say it again. I said i can't whisper. The doctor actually said whispering is worse. Now those who anything about that. If you've got laryngitis or something you have to just remain quiet. That's the best way to heal. Now if you've got apollo najrah thing like i did you gotta get it. Cut out a off. Whatever it was just we. Your vocal chords aren't very big. To begin with and then to have a big old pop them no wonder i couldn't speak properly for longtime and they finally had it because steroids weren't working in speech. Therapy which. I always funny what you want me to go to speech therapy. I know how to speak talk show host while it's not for that it's breathing and projecting again. I know how to do that. But whatever so thank you i survived. Thanks again for all the kind words and wishes and prayers and all the good stuff and hang in there with me as i sensuously bring you further into tomorrow. We do have some tech news. We do roger waters. Founding member of pink. Floyd slammed mike mark zuckerberg after a shooting down. Facebook's requests to use pink floyd's most well known songs rate story waters was at a pro julian assange event. When he said he received a letter from zuckerberg with a request to use the nineteen seventy-nine song another brick in the wall. Part to for an ad for instagram. He read part of the letter which said we feel that the core sentiment of the song is still so prevalent and so necessary today which speaks to how timeless the work is which right there you know. Second return of butter him up and and apparently offered him a lot of money. Say people were speculating. Like maybe thirty million or something. Yeah waters unsaid arrived this morning with an offer for a huge huge amount of money. And the answer is and i'm going to edit this radio. Fu you f ing way he added. I loved that he said that does occur. Yeah i only mentioned this because this is an insidious movement of them to take over absolutely everything. I will not be a party to this. Bs ten center radio. He then called mark zuckerberg name that. I can't use on the radio and one of the most powerful idiots in the world true and on all aspects. That's good so good on him. I guess you won't hear any pink floyd songs in any facebook or instagram. Are they still around. I guess yeah good for that but there around have true. Very true I thought that was an incredible story. And the fact that he made it so public is like not a chance and then know his response and so he did not hold back. In fact i heard audio of his response or apparently i don't know if he posted the audio on twitter or something or or just reading his response back but i thought it was great. A new petition is looking to make boards and founder. Jeff bezos upcoming suburb spaceflight. A one way trip. Oh the change dot org petition which was launched. Last week in his head several thousand signatures so far is urging the amazon founder be denied reentry into earth's atmosphere following blue origin's first passenger flights set for july twentieth. The petition's organizer wrote quote. Jeff bezos is actually lex luthor disguised as they supposed owner of a super successful online retail store. However he's an evil overlord hell bent on global domination. We've known this for years. Be me into tomorrow with dave grave line and stay there. One individual signed the petition called visas. Elites that is hoarding capital. Well billion starve in struggle. Meanwhile others come into the beeson should take spacex and tesla..
Attorneys General Ask Facebook to Abandon Plans to Build Instagram for Kids
"The national association of general sent a letter to facebook. Ceo mark zuckerberg asking him to abandon plans to launch version of instagram for kids under thirteen. The letter was signed by attorneys general from forty four. Us states and territories saying facebook has historically failed to protect the welfare of children on its platforms. A facebook spokesperson said. The company had just started exploring the product and was committed not to show ads in it
Facebook Urged to Drop Instagram for Kids
"And welcome back to talking tech a few months ago. We heard about face masks plan to create an instagram for kids. However it's not exactly being welcomed with open arms that's right brett. The national association of attorneys general with forty four eight jesus from states and territories including puerto rico sent a letter to facebook ceo mark zuckerberg urging him quote to abandon these plans. Use of social media can be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of children who are not equipped to navigate the challenges of having a social media account in quote. You know. It was two months ago. That mr zuckerberg confirmed plans for an instagram for kids that they were in the very early stages and he talked about that during a congressional hearing on misinformation now currently the instagram which is a photo and video sharing app. If you haven't us which. I doubt that there's anybody listening to this. That hasn't used it has more than two billion users but doesn't allow kids under the age of thirteen to use the platform at this point now the stay. Jeez letter echoes a similar one last month from coalition made up of nearly one hundred global experts and child advocates is led by a group called the campaign for a commercial free childhood which sounds a little hopeful in mind behind. But i don't think even. I let a commercial free childhood. Other groups involved include the center for humane technology comes into media and the center for digital democracy among the concerns the have our concerns about the physical emotional and mental wellbeing of children including things like cyber bullying and privacy of the group also cited research about instagram use among children leading to quote suicidal ideas. Depression and body image concerns in
Clubhouse beta finally arrives on Android
"The national association of attorneys general sent a letter to facebook. Ceo mark zuckerberg asking him to abandon plans to launch a version of instagram for kids under thirteen. The letter was signed by attorneys general from forty four. Us states and territories saying facebook has historically failed to protect the welfare of children on its platforms. A facebook spokesperson says that the company has just started exploring the product and is committed to not show ads in it. In an analyst briefing sony projected that the playstation five will remain in short supply throughout twenty twenty two so he says it has sold seven point eight million. Ps five units as of march thirty first and estimates fourteen point eight million units will have been sold by the end of this current fiscal year monthly active playstation network users and game sales in the first three months of twenty twenty one declined on the year a new note by apple analyst. Ming chico claims that the earliest apple plans to use its own internally developed. Five g modems would be in. Its twenty twenty three iphone models apple senior vice president of hardware technologies. Johnny strategy told an internal apple town hall in december of twenty twenty that the company had begun developing five g modem following apple's acquisition of most of intel's smartphone spark phone modem business back in two thousand nineteen just in time for its declining userbase clubhouse released a beta of its android app in the us rolling out globally in the coming weeks android users outside. The us can preregister for the beta in the google. Play store clubhouse said the platform will remain invite only for now to keep growth manageable airy interesting time in their clubhouse the insurance company acts are say said at the request of the french government it will end cyber insurance policies in france that reimburse victims for ransomware payments of the policies will still cover the cost of recovery. Speaking at a recent paris roundtable french cybercrime prosecutor johanna browse said that in two thousand twenty only. The usa experienced more ransom attacks than
Mark Zuckerberg Discusses the Future of VR and AR
"Since the oculus rift came out five years ago facebook continues to make steady bets on the future of our virtual interactions facebook's quest two has been more successful than previous oculus hardware and facebook's betting on ar glasses down the road. What comes next. Let's have a listen to part one of a two part interview. I conducted with mark zuckerberg to find out. I'm scott stein. Filling in for roger chain and this is your daily charge mark. I had a chance to meet you. A guess who is not quite two years about a year and a half ago at in person at oculus connect and we looked at hand tracking we talked about vr and ar and then months later The the entire world changed it. It wasn't that long after. I wanted to talk to you. Now as as a as we look at vr ar have you in five years since the oculus rift came out. Where do you see the arnuhar for you. Now versus what it was even in two thousand nineteen f- things significantly changed or are there things that you wish were here. But still aren't yeah. I mean. I think it's an incredibly exciting time for this. It's pretty amazing. To see how a lot of the aspects of the original vision in what we hoped would play out here are starting to fall into place. And i'm still a long term journey right in in there still Needs to get down over the next five plus years to to really deliver all the experiences that we want But there are a lot of awesome pieces that are coming into place Excited to to chance to talk about those today at the same time. You're right that with the with the pandemic and more people shifting towards being more remote more of the time. I think that that's just put even more importance on building technologies that give us a sense of
Mark Zuckerberg Discusses the Future of VR and AR, Part 2
"This is part two of a special two part episode conversation. With facebook's mark zuckerberg about vr and ar in the second half of our conversation. We discuss social media and how vr could evolve what facebook becomes as well as where kids fit into the picture with oculus quest and how facebook could the integrating into its remote work plans. I'm scott stein filling in for roger chang and this is your daily charge speak social because i think about that too you. Just launched a revamped version of social avatars. Horizon is kind of seems like facebook's metaverse Is keeps approaching Have you been spending time inside of. I've had two demos in horizon over the past couple of years. But i was curious if you're spending time in there and and what you might be doing in it and whether that might be heading towards a launch. It's this is a big project for us. 'cause there needs to be a social fabric that goes across these different all of the different layers of virtual reality. And that's where we hope to do with horizon. So part of it is building in the environment where we're digital creators can create worlds. And you can hang out with your friends Part of it is. We're building out this avatar system that is going to get increasingly expressive on the one hand and then if you want also realistic although i i think that everyone wants to be exactly realistic over the time so you want to offer both expressive and realistic. They're all these different services of this But basically that's a big part of what we wanna do around or at horizon also spans. You're not just it's not just social use his. it's not just gaming. I think it's also going to be work in collaboration productivity. If that's a big thing that we focused
Tim Apple vs. Mark Facebook
Facebook to Add a Podcast Player and Recording Tool
"Has announced a sensitive new audio features including a podcast player within the facebook app. According to facebook's founder mark zuckerberg has been considerable. Thought put behind the feature. One of the things that we found is that there are one hundred and seventy million people on facebook who are connected to a page. That's four podcast already. So they've expressed that they want to get updates from the podcast. They wanna get that content. We just literally don't have a format today for that page or people wanna share podcast. It put that out to the people who wanna follow that going to build that they're the creator tools for people doing podcasts to share it but then on the consumption side an experience where you can just discover that and feed. Start playing it. Put it in the background. Maybe go to a different apnea. Keep playing or multi task do different kinds of stuff so podcast obviously a big thing already. But but i think just unlocking the ability for people in creators to share long form content. There's going to be pretty valuable. The initials r s weren't mentioned in the release nor in zuckerberg's interview facebook's also announced live audio rooms available for facebook groups and public figures for the live audio creators will be able to turn alive conversation into a podcast for everyone to listen to later says the company he'll be able to charge for access or accent tips. Using facebook's digital currency stars other announcements from facebook include new audio creation tool as part of the with automatic noise reduction music and effects soundbites. We'll be short form creative audio clips. Which will be able to record or clip from shows. All audio will be automatically captioned for accessibility
Facebook To Add a Podcast Player and Recording Tool
"Facebook has announced a sensitive new audio features including a podcast player within the facebook app. According to facebook's founder mark zuckerberg has been considerable. Thought put behind the feature. One of the things that we found is that there are one hundred and seventy million people on facebook who are connected to a page. That's four podcast already. So they've expressed that they want to get updates from the podcast. They wanna get that content. We just literally don't have a format today for that page or people wanna share podcast. It put that out to the people who wanna follow that going to build that they're the creator tools for people doing podcasts to share it but then on the consumption side an experience where you can just discover that and feed. Start playing it. Put it in the background. Maybe go to a different apnea. Keep playing or multi task do different kinds of stuff so podcast obviously a big thing already. But but i think just unlocking the ability for people in creators to share long form content. There's going to be pretty valuable. The initials r s weren't mentioned in the release nor in zuckerberg's interview
Professor Tom Eisman: The Real Reason Why Startups Fail Now
"One of the eternal questions in entrepreneurship is why do so many startups fail here with some answers. Is tom eisman. Who's the howard h stevenson professor of business administration the harvard business school and faculty co chair of the arthur rock center for entrepreneurship thomas. Authored more than one hundred s case studies and his writing has appeared in the wall street journal. Harvard business review in forbes. He's the author of a new book called. Why startups failed tom. Welcome to the show area. Thanks for having me well. How have you been surviving through the pandemic. just great it's A great time to write a book and it turns out. I know i'm ready to yeah plenty of quiet time. So why do startups fail. That's the first question we gotta start with sure Startups fail because they run out of money and they can't raise more Which i guess isn't very helpful. It's like the coroner saying This this person died from loss of blood and so it is because i always say that every business fails because they run out of money and i think that's important because so many entrepreneurs don't value cash flow. They keep looking at sales. So i think it is instructive especially protect startups. Where where there's a tolerance for For losing money under the expectation that if you can big enough you're to make some money but but boy If you get in trouble along the way and you can't raise the next round when you when you're burning through cash you you're on the way failure or you don't listen to customers actually help fund your business in those smaller things that perhaps just a service oriented company exactly so do starts fail also because not. Everyone is meant to be an entrepreneur. I think that over the last. I guess since the internet bubble of the early two thousands. We've kind of romanticized. Starting a business as a get rich. Quick scheme i mean we know we think of mark zuckerberg and elon. Musk is it because sometimes the wrong people start businesses yeah. I don't think there's there's no doubt about that. I think some some sizable fraction of of new businesses fail. Because people aren't cut out for it.
Forbes releases its longest list of wealthiest people in the world
"I don't even know why they make these lists anymore. But i guess we talk about it. So that's the reason. Forbes's annual billionaires includes a record-breaking two thousand seven hundred and fifty five billionaires with amazon founder jeff bezos topping it for the fourth consecutive year. This year's billionaire spike are worth a combined total of thirteen point one trillion dollars. Fun fact they all paid less lower tax rate than we did. And you did. In tesla chief executive elon. Musk jumped into the second spot on the list. Up from thirty first place last year were are no. He is the chief executive of the luxury goods brand. Lvmh louis vuitton Bill gates mark zuckerberg rounded out the top. Five of the world's richest
Twitter's Jack Dorsey trolls US politicians during hearing
"Have pulled you away from a hearing. i'm just gonna read. The name of hearing. Hearing is disinformation nation social media's role in promoting extremism and misinformation. That's the that's the name of a bad netflix documentary. Not a congressional. Hearing documentary has been brought up in like every hearing so far. So i think that's an okay reference to me. They're spice enough to titles here. But it's jack. Dorsey mark zuckerberg sooner pichai in front of the house of representatives. Which which media is it mckenna energy in commerce. I watched part of the. It's still going on. It's like four hours. Hearing i watched part of it earlier. You were watching it. You're gonna go back to watching it and write it up with report at is watching it. It's pretty embarrassing so far. Yeah it's one of those where everyone's airing their own personal grievances with facebook and twitter and google again. There's yelling yes or no questions at the see. Is these three massive companies. The ceo's i would say are having three distinct kinds of reactions so soon are very patient very kind very much not answering the questions. This is his entire by with these Zuckerberg is trying to conduct some sort of like college. Freshmen insured immoderation class. Like his thing and inject. Dorsey is just trolling them by checking his phone during your phone. Sorry apologised eater in jack. Dorsey is just trolling them by tweeting. During the hearing right he had a twitter poll up so it basically had gone around. Everyone's like wow so many. Yes or no questions. It's kind of become a hearing. Lean in our leash little tech fallacy circle on twitter dot com. So now dorsey went on just tweeted a question mark with a pole yes or no in just a couple of minutes ago one representative finally brought it up until them. He's really good at multitasking. Wow
Tech CEOs questioned over how misinformation spreads on social media
"Like the January 6th attack on the U. S Capitol, which was largely planned and documented on platforms including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. So should social media companies be responsible for that? That's essentially what Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Doyle, a Democrat, asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at a hearing today. Yes or no? Do you do bear some responsibility for what happened? Congressman. Our responsibility is to make sure that we build effective system stuff. This is not the answer The question. The heads of Google and Twitter also testified at that hearing. These companies are among NPR's financial supporters and NPR Tech correspondent Shannon
Lawmakers vow stricter on social media to combat misinformation
"Lawmakers have been grilling Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google soon or Peach I on the spreading of misinformation about the election and the pandemic. As well as their roles and inciting violence. This has been an ongoing thing in the past year having these big tech heads testifying about the role social media place, but this is the first time since the January six insurrections of the pressure even higher now, the big question if the company's bear some responsibility for spreading misinformation that resulted in the Capitol, attack Zuckerberg and pitch I wouldn't answer the question. While Dorsey said Yes, that was CBS News reporter Stacy Lynn five.
Google, Facebook and Twitter face off with Washington, DC Again
"Facebook ceo mark zuckerberg google ceo sundar pichai and twitter ceo. Jack dorsey will appear before a house subcommittee meeting later today to discuss the role in fomented misinformation. The what are we actually expect to hear. Roger chang and this is your daily charge with us offer preview the proceedings is google reporter rich. Never welcome rich eight each before we get into today's session. You you just give us a quick review of all the times that big tech has appeared before congress and why they've been called in because it's been a number of times at this point over even the last year they've they've showed up to dc or at least virtually with increased frequency right. Yes so it seems like this is a regular occurrence now. But they've been called in for a bunch of things in the past. The big thing was antitrust. Last time they've also been called for an anti gay bias. That republicans are alleging. It been called for election interference in the two thousand sixteen election as well as twenty twenty election and they've been called for data collection in. So it's a it's a pretty regular occurrence days. Yeah it's it's old hat but for this session which is about this information on. What what are we expecting to hear. And what are some of the central themes about misinformation We're going to be hearing about this. One is is about misinformation and disinformation in particular and congress has a lot to choose from. In terms of nate. They tech here The election misinformation. For this this past election we got the lead up to the storming of the capital in how misinformation and disinformation but to extremism. And we got kobe. Nineteen misinformation about the causes in the vaccine. And you know what that means for for everybody going forward. So there's there's a lot hughes from.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Recode Decode
"What about this and they seemed less oriented that than towards the positivity of what could happen on the platform? was some of the cases we were ready for and some and some. We weren't bullying think. Is something that we've worked on for a while having ongoing good collaborations with law, enforcement and community groups around the world. There's always more to do there, but that's an area where we're I'm generally proud of the work that we've done and yeah. I mean look I. Think in any of these given things. Someone will have thought of it in advance. But I think that we should be judged by when we become aware of an issue quickly. How how do we respond into? We get it right, and is it a repeat? Thing the thing that I in running a company. If you want to be innovative and advance things forward I think you have to be willing to get some things wrong, but I don't think it is acceptable to get things to get the same things wrong over and over again absolutely, but I mean you're coming from a different case when you get things wrong. People die, but if people suffer, people can suffer in a different way than I get something, wrong or other people do I mean the vast amount of responsibility you have is I think. I would just say on the flip side. That if we don't move forward, a lot of good that should happen won't happen either and it's hard to know what the moral equivalents of those things is. Because a lot of the good is diffuse and not things that get in the news, but I can't tell you how many times I walked down the street and some city and people come up and saying that they got married because a facebook, they pointed. This kid because a facebook. People have stories about how the communities that form on facebook or the most meaningful thing in their life got them out of bad situations that they were in and I. Think if you don't move forward, you lose all that stuff, too, so there's i. mean these are hard tradeoffs, and and certainly I don't think that. We were tired. Move Fast and break things many years ago. We didn't think that that was serving. The community as well as as it had originally, but I do think that there is a benefit in virtue to continue making progress, and I think with progress means that you get something's wrong, and I think that what would our responsibility to do is except when we get things wrong and not be in denial about it. Which sometimes we can be too slow on, but in general I think. If, we mess something up. We better damn well. Make sure we don't make that same mistake again. If it's a serious thing so across elections and all this different stuff, it's yeah, we need to make sure that we're on top threat. The move fast break things because a lot of the joke. We broke enough. Things now fix them kind of idea. Do you regret that? I mean I think it is certainly used today as a symbol. It's using the way that isn't what I meant that right, so the notion upfront was that was not about. Social impact is about writing code in the service. In the ideas that. By moving faster which. Serve more people with something that a lot of people really wanted. and. We actually. Chan Zuckerberg initiative. We've kind of adapted that value instead of move fast. We call it. Learn fast. Okay, and that's really the spirit of it. More I think is that. The ideas you can either try to get everything. Right up front, which I think as a as a cost to making progress and serving people, or you can believe that we're not gonna get everything right up front, but by moving forward we will learn more, and that will make it so that the second and third version of what we do is better and I, really believe that that is the right way to run a company I think companies need to be learning organisms More than any specific product strategy that we have our strategy is a company is to learn as quickly as we can to serve our community and I. Think you only do that by being out in the world by talking to people by running experiments and trying out things that you're not sure going to be good to see how how people use them I think that that is. Our responsibility is to learn as quickly as we can is an organization, so it's. The second thing, what do you do with things? What do you mean? Learn fast rather than move fast. What happens to? Move fast was what happens to the break part. Well the point there was I think values are only worth what you're willing to give up for them and. So a lot of a lot of companies have values that are be nice. Okay, well, that fine. Nice. That's good. You should, but. The real question is like what are you willing to to give up? Something you can just tell a company move fast. The question is what are you willing to tolerate and we were willing to tolerate early on was. More bugs in the product or not not having product, do something completely different, but if there were few errors in the in the code and it wasn't fully polished, we generally thought that learning quicker and serving people who wanted the product. was more important than having it. Be completely bugged. Free now what we realized. Was We were getting to a point. That? We were accumulating so many bugs the having to go back and fix all the bugs. Having launch was actually net slowing down, and and making it, so it actually became not an effective way to move forward we we changed the motto to what is now much less sexy version of move fast with stable infrastructure we're the current strategy for moving fast is to convince disproportionately in infrastructure and abstractions that any given engineer could either go work at their at a startup or their own company, or they can come here and I think be much more productive because they're building on top of all this these great systems that have been built, but either way I don't think. Think, you can just say move fast. The question is what are you willing to give up? And in our case now what we're willing to give up is a meaningful portion of our engineering team, working on great infrastructure and abstractions to help everyone else. Move forward when those people could otherwise be working on serving people directly I. Still think that that's the right strategy because I learning fast is the core of what we need to be doing. When listening to my July, two thousand eighteen interview with facebook, CEO Mark Zuckerberg Renna take a.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"I'm only going to support the two at the most cost effective and the other ones out to dry whereas in the American system You don't have that kind of negotiating leverage so it seems like they're very different things But I kind of intuitively. It seems like at their root. There should be some commonalities I would be very interested to to kind of understand that in more detail UTAH. I'm curious why you know from what you're saying about. The literature is sparse on these particular. Yeah why do you think more people aren't studying this. I mean given that this is just such a central thing in the lives of most people. Right it's I mean the cost of living in city is Has Gone up so much. We we have a whole generation of students. I think the total student debt is now Almost two trillion dollars or anything. That was one point seven the last stat that I saw and of course healthcare is is is is just You know the number of people in the country who are within a one issue of being bankrupt just is is just kind of staggering. So what's preventing people from studying this. I wouldn't say anything's preventing them. The incentive is to build a brick and to build a brick that can survive scrutiny Brittany by referees. The incentive is not to build a building in most cases bio-medicine actually often different but in the social sciences. So there's so many bricks out there and so people want to say. Oh we're already studying this. It's correct bricks or they're in the millions but the bricks in the buildings are a different thing. But I have a question for you if I may be allowed go for it. What is it you would most like to see from academics? And I. I don't mean research on social media. I mean America the world. Wh What are you on although I would like more research. uh-huh no look. I think that the these issues on exploding costs and why these systems aren't aren't working the way that they're supposed to people is probably one of the most pressing questions I mean when I think about You know our work over the next decade and it's like what are we going to do. That's going to fundamentally make people's lives better. There's a lot that we can do but it's it but if these problems continue at the rate that they're going at it's actually quite hard for me to imagine how we could do enough good to overcome. The increase in costs costs that people are incurring at things that are so fundamental So no we're we're working on them in in kind of in different ways where I think. Healthcare is difficult because it is so inherently political for the because it touches on moral values. And if you if you want to have difference in approach of how we treat the last six months of people's those lives that's something that's more of a democratic question than a than a technocratic one I think people need to be able to support that So I I don't personally feel like that's an area that I know. I'm going to have a huge impact. A lot of people are focused on that but the area that I do think we can make a big impact is on long-term science research so if you can just make it more efficient to cure to prevent or manage diseases the not over the long term should really be the answer for bringing healthcare costs in line not in the next ten years but maybe In over the next fifty years. I'd like to see a solution before that so I I'd love to see more studying of of the healthcare part of this but on the science side. I'm I'm quite optimistic about that on housing I don't know I mean it's You know there's always the question of of what which forces in technology and being stronger than that which trends end up being stronger longer. So on the one hand you have The giant mismatch of opportunity where people feel compelled to move to cities Because that's kind of where a lot of the jobs are but then there's not enough building of supply of housing so rent just increases and then that means that even though people are going and doing higher value things their our lives actually aren't benefiting as much from that because so much of their costs are just of the value that they're generating is just going to housing rent is getting so high So I mean historically what have people done I mean. We invented cars right and and Freeways that way people could live further out. I mean maybe You know maybe something like the hyperloop hyperloop could extend suburbs like five times as far so that could make it so someone could live quite further away and that that that that would be good if you can increase increase the effective radius of a city. That's one way to alleviate constraints political constraints or or Concerns about people building things so that way you can get more supply. I bring the costs down but I happen to have a more. I happen to think a different thing is probably the right solution In twenty nine hundred. It's a lot easier to move bits around than it is out uh-huh so rather than people moving inventing a new hyperloop or cars I tend to think the set of technologies around whether it's augmented reality or virtual reality or video presence that just let people be where they want to be physically and feel present with other people wherever they. They need to be to to do their job to connect with people they care about That feels to me like the better long-term solution don't make everyone move to cities Make it so people people can choose where they want to be and can get access to all the opportunities they want everyone. So those are kind of it's hard for me to imagine More important problems at least over the next For pressing problems for the next decade. I think over the long term You know potentially climate change is is more of an existential issue but in terms of people's lives today. I think the exploding costs from I'm from these areas is such a profound issue in the trend. So we'll just three three points on that one is I think these questions are often little but the question. I think one of the reasons that it's kind of difficult to study is because you have to take this very macroscopic and potentially this very microscopic view and so say for example in science. It were the case that the administrative burden on scientists had increased by say two thirds Over the last forty years not saying it has nothing that even if it has that is in fact act the cause of any kind of slow down but if it had that might be quite difficult to observe because it could come in the form of well it takes you know twice as long on average for things to be approved in the forms are kind of longer in your interrupted more and so like actually specifically diagnosing the causal pathways. I think can can really. It'd be quite tricky. And I I think that generalizes fields and secondly to your point about technology pinch evolving. The elimination can imperative cities. I I think that could be true. Although you know here we are in person. You know but others Kevin Very But even enough technology solve. I guess my worry would be that the sort of the socio-institutional dynamics that have kind of ruined cities or effective or whatever and probably probably also a generalized and applied to other domains. And so we're going to suffer the cost of those same phenomena elsewhere And what do you WANNA ask mark. Well how I guess what. What have you learned from doing? CPI in that you know how you launched five years ago four years ago. Okay ah how will the next four years be different the first four well so one of the things that we struggle with here is such long term the projects right so we were. We talked a lot about the scientific research In World War Two in a a bunch of work with education to build Tools for teachers to to do more project based learning more personalized learning for for kids but basically make it so that Teachers have tools to do the work that they wanted to mentor students and not just have to have to lecture and have everyone learn at the same pace so this stuff. It's we're making progress in these areas and I think one of the questions running. Ci is at what point to check in and consider evolving the direction I mean. Obviously there's there's minor execution things that you try to improve along the way but But I WANNA make sure that we have an awareness that these these are fundamentally problems that we're GONNA be working on for ten or twenty years And not I think a lot of these things just kind of consistency of approach and A- and building trust is kind of More important than constantly evaluating or potentially thrashing in science. We've had the benefit of of taking on a number of different projects so so the human cell outlets was one of the original ones now One of the next areas that were really excited to work on is imaging There's a lot of advances in microscopy There are a lot of things that we still can't see You know in in as engineers I think one of the things that You you can probably appreciate it is you know. Just we were trying to de bug a system. You really want to like get into the code in C step through and see where the thing is breaking breaking down but you know we don't really have a way today to see a white blood cell eat A virus right. It's like just like in in Vivo. Right like in the body to see proteins folding live and I think that you know there's certain optical levels optical optical thresholds on the physics that you might be able to get beyond but Between that and the advances in a I I do think that it's possible to give scientists new imaging capacity That hasn't been possible before so a lot of what we're trying to do. Is Arts the Human Cell Atlas. We took an approach. Approach is very broad and In in collaborative and In some way chaotic even in a way and I think we were able to learn some of the lessons from from that is we're now thinking about how we organize The the imaging project about okay. Maybe it would be helpful to have more clearly established leadership Around around it Upfront you know. Maybe there are things that The rather than having just one one big project. They're going to be areas areas where we can just build tools that every lab There's one software package called Nepal. Worry you that if that You know a lot of it's like the the the actual technology microscopes is His kind of ahead of scientists ability to process the the data. There's this weird mismatch because kind of makes sense if you're the NIH funding supports people to to Ho Basically have a lab tool building is not really. Oh you know subsidized reported that well. Yeah but if you want to have a team of ongoing software engineers. That's like okay you. You're going to want an effort that's going on for a while on. That's more than a couple of people So that kind of thing. I think there's a real niche that no one is doing that stuff with the scale that it needs to get done so So just pushing on both of them and then there's uniform agreement events on on that particular point from with everybody medical scientists that I speak with like two buildings under supported. Yes so so. I don't know I'm from a Meta point. I'm I'm a little little wary of concluding whether that things have like which things have worked and not worked well yet. I mean. Certainly not everything we're going to do is going to work. That's like four years. It's too early to say yeah but like but But it's certainly interesting and and when I try to push teams to do is make sure that the work that we're doing when are things that clearly would not have happened. Otherwise I think especially in a lot of these fields in philanthropy. I think that there are a lot of potential issues with this where it's easy to to To give money to something and feel like you're doing good because you probably doing some good lack the discipline to to say okay. Am I doing the most good that I can right. And and I think we kind of have a responsibility to to to do that So that's the thing I push our team to do is develop really. Different in theory is I'm quite confident that an education The work that we're doing is just stuff that that if we weren't trying it I it's not clear that like anyone. Anyone else would be doing a in an effort like this scale now. I feel really good about that. I think an imaging Someone like that is going to be similar even in social advocacy We're doing a lot of work in criminal justice reform that's a combination of advocacy and building tools for accountability and working with Reform minded prosecutors. They can be more data driven about who they try to bring charges against because I mean they want to be fair. You know or at least a lot of folks want to be fair. And they don't have the data to either optimize how they run their office or hold the people in their accountable so building. Those kind of tools can be Super Helpful and I'm quite confident that if we weren't pushing I'm not I'm not Feel good that that's like a good theory too to at least try to push on. So that's what we tried to do in in work and the workers say like the Criminal Justice Work Education. Listen biomedical what's the underlying view or inside or experience of yours. That's the common element behind those areas. Like how do we boil down. Mark Mark Zuckerberg philanthropy to a smaller number of dimensions. Well first of all. It's not just me. I do my wife's. Oh I'm sorry. She's an important element to this because she was a teacher Actually she is. She's building a school. I mean she. She spends a lot of time over there. She is a doctor so So if you if you're looking at the education and and health aspects the domain expertise is more hers than Mine and and she is quite compelling and insightful on on on on on some things that need to get done there.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Hey Ron and welcome to the next. Our series of discussions on The the Internet and technology and progress and some of the social social issues that we face We've done a number of these this year focused on topics ranging from regulation to journalism to Biomedical Research and today. We're going to focus on a discussion. On what progresses itself and how we might study it and what what Academic work is already going going on in this space and We might think about look at examples from the past to determine how we can make more progress for humanity going forward so today joining me. He is Tyler Cowen who is in studies economics at George Mason University. He was also the CO author of the popular blog marginal marginal revolution And Patrick Collison. Who's the CO founder and CEO of Stripe Which is a pretty amazing company that does The basically he does payments and economic infrastructure for the Internet. So we've been talking about these topics for for a while. Now I mean this is something that that you guys have both studied And a lot of depth and You recently wrote an OP. Ed Together. I think it was in the Atlantic about How we we might have a new or different approach for studying the nature of progress and In in order to kind of mine historical Oracle examples to figure out how we can we can make more progress in the future so it would probably be interesting just to start off by Hearing how you're thinking about that and and The basic summary Moran what what feedback you've gotten on the piece that you wrote. Sure so I think One of the most important sort of facts In the world the history of civilized civilization days is that the rate of progress has not been constant right If you look at the world they between zero and Seventeen hundred eighteen hundred thereabouts The rate of progress of any major metric In terms of you know average income or average life expectancy or infant mortality Any of these measures It was either sort of constant only very improving at a very slow rate right and then something happened. Something changed rented a seventeen seventeen hundred seventeen fifty the industrial revolution. The enlightenment Some of the the The advent of something approximating modern science and and Once that happened so many things start to get better together right Again incomes improved life expectancy increased. We start to discover really fundamental knowledge about the world world. We started to invent really important new technologies and these things. Have you know over the last couple. Centuries really diffused around the world right so that's very interesting and important and and you know the the the intuition I think the thing that really struck or as a focus of both of ours For the past couple of years is thinking. Yeah well you know. We transitioned from this regime where we weren't making much progress to win for. We have been making much more Is Is this the best we can do right or is there something that looks compared to the task wrote today. You know so much better again that it sort of like status quo before the Industrial Revolution Asian and as you look around the world today at on the one hand we see the tremendous importance of the progress that we are generating right and that you know for example The number of people in extreme poverty line but you know more than a billion people since I was born but on the other hand there's a lot of suggestive evidence that maybe we aren't aren't as effective at generating progress today as as we have been in the past and so for example if you look at the US productivity growth mid-century century. Or say between one thousand nine hundred seventy was maybe about one point nine percent year now. Most economists think it's much lower. You know maybe random point four percent or something like that so we're we're at at least by economic measures generating progress more slowly than it used to be. Now whatever the rate at which. We're kind of making progress or of figuring out ways to do things better today. Whatever we're that absolute level is it'd be much better if we were doing it more effectively If we were able to solve the most important problems that faces today you know In in fifty years one hundred years rather than five hundred years or a thousand years right and so the Meta question that we're really interested in is how how does progress happen. How do we discover a useful knowledge? How is the diffused and heck we do a better to understand? I think this is an invisible crisis. So if you have a growth rate that is one percentage pitch point lower over the course of a bit more than a century You could have been three times richer with the higher growth rate. That would be something like the difference between the United States today a in Mexico so by having lower rate of productivity growth in no giving year does it feel that bad but to three generations later. You're much worse off. It's harder to pay off your debts harder harder to solve climate change harder to address a whole host of problems. Yeah so what even before we we kind of dive into how we could improve this What do you you say to the people who question With all this progresses is positive. I mean certainly as we make progress in one area it creates issues in other areas. I mean that's been a big topic that I focused on in my work at facebook over the last few years And a lot of these challenge discussions but how how does that fit into the overall framework mark of what you're studying and I'm in this discipline here. I don't think economic growth is always a positive but the world in America has serious. Here's problems I would rather address those problems with the more resources rather than fewer whether it is paying off our debts addressing climate change fixing global poverty Freddie and knowledge matters to so there's a recent paper by their do flow and Awaji. And they find if you give foreign aid combined with coaching. The rate of return to that intervention prevention is maybe one hundred to four hundred percent. Now that may or may not be true but what I would like to see as a world where everyone is obsessing over that claim over that debate working very hard to figure out that it's true that should be on the front page. People should be talking about you. Know calling up their siblings. My goodness I just read this. What are we going to do? Do you agree or not. Yeah look while again. I think it's unequivocally the case it's sort of certain kinds of progress in certain places or you know to a certain extent you know can't have harms and externalities and all the rest and you you know really important part of progress and figuring out. How do we mitigate those? How do we solve them? And so on I think. Climate change is the foremost example today. I think it's really important or it is easy for US sitting here in the bay area in California I think to undervalue the prosperity. And the the kind of wealth we've been able to generate over the past couple again a ah one hundred years And so since I was born for example global life expectancy has increased by about six years. Infant mortality has fallen by more than fifty percent bent again. I mentioned the statistics. The number of people who have left extreme poverty. Did this is incredibly important right. And so I think there's a- ah we're not the first people to say but there is a moral imperative to this kind of progress and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact. Yeah I agree I just I think it's important These things are not uniform and I mean you know from running a company that you know when you look at averages anything hides a lot of issues your example on on the rates of poverty going down I think is an interesting one in this because you know what a lot of people don't particularly want to talk about these days is that most of the benefit of of people coming out of poverty as happened in China and a lot of other places around the world. Some in some places. Poverty is actually increased So it's you you know I mean I. I generally agree with the premise of and I think studying this stuff will will generally help us to make more progress in those places. I mean that may be a good example example because perhaps looking at some of the examples of what has done well in China could be applied to other places where where there have been issues But before we dive into the discussion on this I I just wanted to make sure that we didn't Cover this in a way that that comes across as if like every step forward comes without a cost and I'm sure as we talk through the different the different examples. I mean. That'll that'll come up as well. Yeah well and we should emphasize that When we talk about the phenomenon of progress wh Whoa I think? GDP per capita is a sort of Pretty good first approximation. Measure it and it correlates strongly with many things. I think we care about house. But they're definitely not the same thing. I think an important question for anybody kind of interested in this area to think about is well. How should we define progress right And water the better and worse kind of and again in GDP we kind of have a relatively effective metric reuse across countries. But you know th th there already is interesting work on what might better measures and I think that's really important to study. Let's say you want to improve the lot of people in West Virginia. The growth enhancing way of doing that is to make it easier to build say in Washington. DC in the bay area right now to move from West Virginia say to Menlo Park. It's extraordinarily ordinarily expensive. You can't just pick up and show up here and hope to get a job washing dishes. The Way One might have done in America fifty years ago so by having more building more economic onomic growth also more GDP it would increase more opportunity so economic growth opportunity. They do tend to be correlated and sometimes the problem is we don't have enough growth. Not that we have too much and look on other Harry. This point too strongly. But you know you didn't fight the different people who wrote the piece about progress here Most of the time actually talking about that I just I want to make sure that we hit that upfront. So what are you When you're talking about you know there are a lot of people who already are studying in different ways? Historians is a columnists When you're thinking about what the field is when you're talking about Trying to create a new science of studying progress. What more or do you think needs to get done? Or what. What are you envision? I know you have A fund that you've put together emerging ventures venture and then where. You're you're basically finding in Academics who are studying examples of where there's progress in the past to to start this field. I mean what. What is this kind of? Add up how do you what form does this takeover time. One View of mine is that lot. Enough philanthropy is long term oriented in this regard. I've been influenced by your chance and Suck Berg initiative and also in philanthropy. There are too many choke points that can say no. So foundations become their own bureaucracies they become very risk averse. So emerging emerging ventures is a new kind of philanthropy. There's one layer of yes or no people are encouraged to apply if the payoff is thirty. Forty years down the road. The attitude is great. Take a lot of chances. Worry about getting some winters and some risk and not expecting the medium project to be something that necessarily looks good when taken to a board. So that's one way that thinking in terms of progress helps us restructure at the micro level particular decisions. We're making and so you. I strongly agree. That sort of there's a lot of really important Brooke already happening across multiple disciplines that is relevant to these questions and part for like the the. Ah The idea of there being a new signs of progress. That's not quite you know that that was the headline placed on the article. But they're not exactly what we were saying What we're arguing? Is that the work that's already happening. She receiving more attention. And there should be much more fish and just to give us a couple of quick examples so you know there's strongly suggests what evidence that we can teach Teach management practices such that people..
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"He knows about the first shuman GM to I see yeah okay so two dozen to human genome thank you thank you for for correcting on that and our aws bill for example is one of the one of the specific about the next meeting and that's starting to put a chill on on what has been a very powerful set of international relationships so maybe maybe go into a little more you publish a paper you strip having obligation to share your reagents with people the right to you and ask for them like this vitamin or whatever and now China relationship but one of the concerns that I think has come up on the side inside is there's a question ethics and will advances that are being made be applied ethically with the same standards in the different countries around the world so what's the kind of case on the other side or I just think that this is is too far fetched for for why for handsome those issues if not to to try to put friction into collaborations overall yeah so I mean that's that's a legitimate question to worry about because you know sort of ethical bodies are sort of done of the country specifically and there's not a global scientific ethics thing and so there's sort of different standards for sure and you know I systems in place are pretty good so if you're in collaboration that involves human subjects or something like that your university is going to look at what you're doing as part of this cloud ration- so you're part of it is going to be is going to be looked at with with US standards so what are you seeing is the implications of this on and collaboration outside of China so I mean the initiative we we do a number of collaborations I think with folks across Europe I don't know if we do much in China but that those seem to be going well right and those are those are good partnerships value working with some of the top institutes in the world are Europe how how is that going is that being impacted to from your perspective and what you see or or do you think that this is primarily a China thing it's hard for me to totally my senses those are going to be impacted because the regulations that are coming our for all international collaborations but most of the cases are coming up for China related specifically in so they're obviously very complicated high level politics going on around all that yeah all right so maybe moving on from from the the topic of of kind of trade and how that impacts China Science two to this question around just truth and trust and experts right which of course we see affecting a lot of different parts of society I mean it's there's a big crisis and a lot of questions journalism mm-hmm and and high quality journalism obviously facebook in the work that I do most of most of my life is is at the center a lot of these questions around what is the role of social media and combating misinformation version of this for science to which I it kind of can have faith in the work that's being done and and I guess that there's this broader trend of people probably trusting experts a little bit less now than they would have ten or twenty years ago in general so I'm curious what you're seeing on this what responsibility do you think scientists have or people who are leading scientific e institutions like you are or or funders of science which would be our responsibility to we haven't how can we best kind of combat this trend which I think is really important negative one yeah absolutely you know distrust in science is something that's been non at me for some time and it's obviously a very complicated issue I think that there are many things that influence whether you trust something in science or not one of those things is just being scientifically literate being able to understand the information that you're giving and then fundamentally do have access to that information I mean I think it's it's it's pretty obvious that if you don't have the facts or have the information you're not able to make sound judgment or objective decisions about that information itself and so actually just knowing the facts is kind of a big deal and science frankly I think we're headed toward a big reckoning here because where do you get your facts if you have a family member that has cancer you want to know more about that cancer clinical trial or how that drug performed you an access not too what a panel on TV said about it you want to look up the actual facts and research the primary literature and the fact of the matter is today is that much of our scientific record is held by for profit publishing companies as their private poverty in perpetuity behind pay walls even though your tax dollars paid for that aunts and so what we're headed towards now is a reckoning with this issue and that the trend towards publishing things open access that is not behind a paywall all I think he's really going to be critically important for the advancement of scientific literacy literacy and building trust in science and so this is a big deal it's it's been the case for hundreds of years that these publishing companies which served a much more legitimate purpose in the past when it was printing paper and distributed genitals and things like that is very different now in the latronic age and it's hard to justify what they do in their profit margins in today's world yeah we need to change that yeah no I think that's there are a lot of issues around the Senate one of the projects that initiative that we funded as bio archive in the whole pre aren't movement to make it so that even you're talking about one part of the issue which is the closed nature of the publication the other part of courses at slow you go and you publish something and then by the time that it gets it gets reviewed in one of these companies gets around to publishing it you might have burnt in a year of other good scientists time studying similar thing when you already have the result to what they were studying so the reprint not only makes it open but makes it so the turnaround time can be a lot faster integration time matters a lot absolutely one of the ways that I've thought about this issue in entrust in science as you have you have to this may be oversimplified but there are some people who say okay well you should always follow in what the current state of science is saying there are a lot of people who say a scientists get it wrong and it seems to me like the reality is somewhere in the middle the current state of science our best understanding of the world but a lot of it is likely going to be improved upon or proven to be not wholly right in the future yet still your best bet when you're making medical decisions for your family or or kind of decisions and part of your life it doesn't have to be medical research is your best bet is to is to basically go with what the the the the leading research has been at that time even knowing that some of it will end up being proven false in future because other than that you're just kinda going randomly so one of the things that I worry about I'm curious if you if you share this is I do think in those two sides of the debate you know some folks are you should always follow like science as accurate all the time versus a I don't know if we should trust this I wonder if there's a responsibility to on the part of science sometimes not to to make sure that we don't overstate things I know this is something that you've talked about a bit in in our conversations about how he but in your words but initially that you've observed in the field over the last decade or so there's a lot to unpack there I mean it you know I I worry that this loss of trust in experts you know when it comes to science as a loss of trust objectively and in the process of science and and you know it's a different thing so within science you should always be skeptical this fundamental tentative signs to be skeptical mhm mentor used to tell me never trust anybody especially not yourself and you know there's a lot to question and this is this is how science events is by questioning other people the results you question your honor results and that's just an essential part of what the field is and so it's not that you should trust experts it's saying trust the process of Lance and another way that sort of frustrating right now that I think we could communicate better to the general public is around I and Rob Phillips at Caltech Very Nice Way of saying he says science is not a buffet all right don't get to pick and choose which you believe there is truth and you know if you WANNA have jet airplanes it gets you around the world and you WanNa have cell phones and you want to have the Internet oh you've also got to accept vaccines solution and climate change it's all the same edifice and I think that's been lost right now We failed to communicate that to the general public scientists but what are some of the issues where you feel like a result gets overstated or because I think part of what Might Hurt Trust is that there are the advances that led to the internet or to Jet Engines or vaccines were obviously huge advances that when those things figured out it had a many fold improvement over whatever the current state of the art is what I see on a day-to-day basis you know people publish results that might be a small percent improvement over something with not a lot of often it's very hard to reproduce where it's it's it's hard to know if someone was innocent credit the data set that they used and a lot of time it gets picked up and driza summarized even if not by the scientists themselves but by by people covering it as like as if it's some kind of definitive proof of something even if the effect size was small yeah and I I just I wonder how do we push back on that because it seems like you want a separate between the things that are truly transformative and major improvement it's in things that really might be marginal or might be nothing and likelier overstated and I think that that's kind of when people hear about this if someone gets overstated and then it ends up not working out then that's how people lose trust we gotta do a better job in science communication about science literacy science communication and the way that science is communicated to the public now is really important you know my my daughter read something in the popular press daddy he discovered something about this and my first question is someone else reproduce it so another lab or where does it fit in the context of the hunter the papers on that topic this is often where things get out of balance yeah and those are often not communicated in the style of the common media and I think we can do a lot better on how we communicate science to the public in the nuance and in speaking to the truth about reproducibility and the fact that things have to be done over and over again and it is the responsibility of the press as well and you know not trying to socialize the latest paper that came out and overstating and forgetting the context in which it sits you know often a literature of many his he's you were mentioning vaccines and that's where these issues are coming up all the time right now and and all these elements are part of that story so the whole vaccine autism sort of boxes conception debacle yeah this started from one paper published by Wakefield with a very small number of participants it was it was a result that disagreed with hundreds of other papers people to study for decades the effects of the vaccines and that one paper the press jumped on you know didn't put it in context with arrested and popular culture picked it up and it created a situation where now lots of people well aren't gonna be maxine is really detrimental society speaks to this this concert of a concept of sort of expert consensus right knitting ignored the expert consensus is Lewin dousing others have written about this basically if if you're approaching a bridge ninety seven percent of bridge engineer say hey the bridges unsafe should you drive across the edge I mean if there's that one percent that one paper says well maybe the bridge is okay you're not most people most rational people would probably take the consensus results today off across the bridge and there's no room for nuance in the discussion either because you know as I think you were hinting at not all vaccines are equally efficacious right work really really well most of the ones we're supposed to get are really tremendous I'm up to date on measles tetanus typhoid you know in the last year because I've had because they work really well measles and stuff allies can ruin your whole day if the disease not the vaccine the vaccine is terrific and with the uptick the people not doing getting vaccines uptick of measles cases everyone should be looking I got measles as a child and my doctor had my tighter checked I had to start the vaccine as a.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Have run. Thanks for tuning in to this podcast this year. We're doing a series of discussions on the future of the internet and society in some of the big questions around it. And every discussion covers a different topic with different experts and I'm excited to share this discussion with you today. We're here to talk about governance issues around giving people a voice and content and finding the right balance between a free expression and speech. And making sure that safety is respected, and harmful content can can be taken down from the internet as well. And today, I'm here with two folks, Jenny Martinez. The dean of Stanford law, who is a scholar, and international studies and human rights and Noah Feldman, who's a professor at Harvard law, who has studied constitutional law and a focus on free speech and expression and. You know to, to give a background on, on how we're approaching this. I believe that if we were writing the rules for the internet today from scratch. I don't think that we would want private companies to be making so many fundamental decisions by themselves about important things, like what speech is acceptable how to prevent election interference what the privacy rule should be. So one of the things that I've been outspoken on is talking about the need for, for more regulation of these areas in some cases, by governments and through democratic process. And another case through independent industry process. And facebook. We're not waiting until that process goes through. We're trying to take some steps independently to establish things like this independent oversight board that will for content which will give people in our community. The ability to appeal content decisions that we make so that way, if, if Facebook takes a piece of content down, and you think that it shouldn't be taken down, then you'll be able to appeal it, and if and if you still disagree with, with our treatment on appeal, you'll be able to appeal it to this. External independent board and its decision will be binding. So if, if it says that something needs to stay up. It'll stay up no matter what I think or are teams that Facebook thing can. So this is an experiment in independent governance around expression, which we've been working on for for more than a year now. I've talked to a lot of different academics around, this Noah was originally involved in helping to, to think through what would side would be, and we've taken the last year or so, to go run trials around the world, right? So we've had almost thirty trials and a lot of different cities, experimenting with different constructs around how the sport would work and we've just published today a report of all the feedback that we've gotten which outlined some of what we learned from these trials. But also highlights all the tensions between a different ways that we could design this now. The next step going forward is going to be to try to lock down some these decisions make some of these decisions over the next few months, and launch this independent oversight board by the end of the year. So there's a lot that this board could eventually do we goal is going to be to start narrowly. And then eventually over time expanded scope and hopefully include more folks in the. Industry as well. But this is, is, is a big experiment that we hope can compile near a new model for, for governance of speech on, on the internet. So, so thank you for joining me to go through this. I think it might be useful to start off by discussing the historical context that we exist in now because clearly, the internet is not the first time that societies have struggled with these questions around expression, and safety and privacy and decency, and, and the different values that we hold. So I'd be curious just in the, the different scholarship that you've each done. How would you characterize the kind of the moment that we're in the historical tradition in which this kind of struggle in approach to governance fits? Well, I think went interesting thing, Mark that you sort of teed up as you began the conversation was that people have these concerns, because companies like Facebook have really very global power and power that seems a lot, like what governments have in terms of the ability to have an impact on people's lives or to control speech. And with more than two billion users, it's bigger than any country on the planet, and so, to sort of concentration of power, and then, also in a private in a company that isn't accountable in the way that a democratically, elected government would be is something that gives people pause and make some think, well, how should we manage this, especially on an international scale? And one thing that's interesting historically is that the distinction between government, power and private power that we have today is very sharp where there's a clear line between what the government is, and what governments do and what we think of as private forms of power, but if you look back. Even just a couple of hundred years in human history to the sixteen hundreds, the seventeen hundreds, there were previous periods, where very large companies played a rule that also straddled the divide between public and private power. So the British East India company, that duchy's India company, those companies in the sixteen hundreds and seventeen. Hundreds had very wide reached geographically, they also engaged in powers that today we would think of as government powers, so they coined money. They raised armies they entered into treaties things that today we would think is exclusively the province of states at earlier points in history, just that line between what states did, and what other actors did on the international stage was more fluid. And so, I don't think the period today is exactly the same there's huge differences in the world and the economy and the rule of, of the companies, but it does show that the categories of what governments do and what private companies do or not. So neat and clean as they might have seemed for part of the twentieth century. And so it's a governance challenge globally that will, I think change the way that international law itself works over time. Maybe I can pick up the historical story where, where Johnny left it off. So you get into the seventeen hundreds and you get these colonies all over North America. And they're some of them are actually sort of like companies, you know, they get charter from the crown there in business. Some the make it some of them don't but eventually they emerge as quiz, I independent entities. And then they become states with independence, and then they write these state constitutions, and that's really the first time that people start saying maybe free speech needs to be protected by a formal rule until then, you know, they were traditions of freedom of expression in some places, but most governments before then just thought, well, if I don't like what the speeches? I'll shut it down. You can either shut it down before someone talks by having a sensor, who has to review everything before. Could be published or you can punish people after they've spoken if you don't like what they've done, and then over the next couple of hundred years this constitutional practice of defending free speech with a rule slowly developed mostly in America and mostly without being applied in practice. And it wasn't really till the beginning of the twentieth century that even the US supreme court started saying, hey, wait a minute. You know, government, you passed that law that violates the freedom of speech, and then that win global really after World War, Two after World War, Two is what you suddenly get company, seasonally, get countries rather realizing that instead of acting as sensors, they're much better off having a constitutional court. That's quiz, I independent, and it's part of the government, but it's an independent decision maker within the government and then giving that body, the authority to decide about speech issues. So that kind of spinning off separation of powers approach is really a part of the last seventy five years. Yeah, very interesting. So when I first started thinking about this idea. How to get more of the community involved how to build an independent process for. To get involved with more of our content policies because there's a strong feeling that, you know, this is not something that, that a private company should be just defining by by itself. And there's the questions about what people can can say in different contexts. Is it affects people broadly, in is not something that I think we would want anyone set of people deciding in by themselves the original. Idea that I that I was thinking about was more to involve independent folks in, in setting the policies directly than in some of our early conversations. Yeah. You basically proposed in convinced me that it would make more sense to start with more of an appeals type analog rather than a legislative type analog or policy-setting on a log, and I'm curious to hear you talk through an bit more detail about why you think that that's the right approach to go to protect speech, and to engage in the kind of, of independence that the that we want to provide for, for this community. They're really two reasons. One is modesty in the end. Facebook is a company, not a country. And so it doesn't have a democratic base of citizens who could vote for elected representatives in some obvious way, and then pass laws, they would then be enforced by by government apparatus. And so it's hard, therefore to say, let's draft out some new rules for governance using this. But the second reason has to do with the fact that actual. Even among democracies. No democracy thinks that it should use its elected representatives to make the ultimate decisions on the freedom of speech. No government says, let's not have a constitutional court nowadays. Let's just vote on what speech should be allowed or what shouldn't be allowed because the experience, that most countries have had with that is bad one. You know the public can bury happily shut down speech when it seems useful the majority, we'll try to silence the minority. It's just sort of it's good common sense. And so it seemed to me that logically similarly Facebook, it's interested in protecting voice, which seems to me like you have to be that's what we stand for. That's the whole is giving people a voice. Yeah. Novoye snow, no vase Booker people have to be able to express themselves would similarly want to take advantage of an approach that says, let's have an independent decision, making body that will stand for the principle of voice. And when there are circumstances where we have to balance voice against people safety or against people's equality that body can make those judgments and can. Do it in an open way transparently explaining the trade offs and ultimately defensively to the world. And that's where the public legitimacy comes in. If accord explains why it's doing what it's doing if it says, this is why we're doing it this way, if it says, here's the balance, then people can say we agree or we don't agree, and people can engage in their own judgment. Yeah. Well, so you raise this question around legitimacy, which I think is one of the core questions in designing this, this kind of a system for those who have questions, rightfully about, you know why should a private company b making all these decisions. That then begs the question of any system that you set up. That's independent. How does it derives its legitimacy and democratic process? That's the voting, but here like you say this is it wouldn't make sense for a number of reasons to, to kind of have the community vote on, on people who, who were then deciding the speech policies. But I'm curious how you think about how this will can derive? It's, it's legitimacy as an independent..
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Why'd You Push That Button?
"Billionaire like Mark Zuckerberg announces, he's going to give a huge gift.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Is telling is saying. Yeah. I I understand the point that you're making as one of the people who is running a company that develops ranking systems to try to help show people content. That's going to be interested in to them. I there's a dissonance between the way that you're explaining what you think is possible. And what I see as a as a as a practitioner building. I think you can build systems that can get good at at a very specific thing. Right. It helping to understand which of your friends you care the most about you can rank their content higher newsfeed. But the idea that there's some kind of generalized. A that's a monolithic thing that understands all dimensions of of who you are in a way. That's that's deeper than you. Do. I think doesn't exist and is probably quite far off from existing. So they're certainly abusive systems that I think needs to be that that I think is more of a policy in values question, which is you know, on Facebook, you're supposed to be your real identity. So if you have to use your example Russian agents or folks from the government, the IRA who were posing a someone else and saying something, and you see that content. But you think it's coming from someone else, then that's not an algorithm issue. I mean, that's that's someone abusing the system and taking advantage of the fact that you trust that on on this platform, someone is generally going to be who they say they are. So you can trust that the information is coming from someplace and kind of slipping in the back door that way. And that's the thing that we certainly need to go fight. But I don't know as broad as a broad matter. I do think that there's this question of to what degree are the systems this kind of brings it full circle to where we started on on is it fragmentation. Or is. It personalization is is is the content that you see. If it resonates is that because it actually just more matches your interests, or is it because you're being in separated, and convinced of something that you don't actually believe in doesn't is dissonant with your your interests in your beliefs, and certainly all the psychological research that that that that I've seen and the experience that that we've had is that when people see things that don't match. What would they believe just ignore it? Right. So so certainly there's there's a. There can be an evolution that happens where you know, a system shows information that you're going to be interested in and if that's not managed well that can that has the risk of pushing you down a path towards adopting a more extreme position or volving. The what you think about it over time. But, but I think most of the content it resonates with people because it resonates with their lived experience, and the extent that people are abusing that. And either trying to represent that there's someone who they're not or trying to take advantage of a bug in human psychology where we might be more prone to to to an extremist idea. That's our job in either policing the platform working with governments, and and and and I'm different agencies and making sure that we design our systems, and our recommendation systems to to not be promoting things that people might engage within the near term. But over the long term will regret and resent us for for having done that. And I think it's it's in. Our interest to get that. Right. And and for a while. I think we didn't understand the depth of some of the problems and challenges that we face there. And there's certainly still a lot more to do. And when you're up against nation states. I mean, they're very sophisticated. They're going to keep on volving their tactics. But but the thing that I would that I think is really important is that the fundamental design of the systems. I do think in or incentives are aligned with with helping people connect with the people. They want have meaningful interactions not just getting people to to watch a bunch of content that they're gonna resent later that they did that in certainly not making people have have more extreme negative viewpoints. Then then then what they actually believe. So. Maybe I can try and summarize my view in that we have two distinct dangers coming out of the same technological tools. We have the the easier danger to grasp which is of extreme totalitarian regimes of con-. We haven't seen before. And this could happen in in different. Maybe not in the US. But in in other countries that these tools, you say that the the I mean that these are abuses, but in some countries, this could become the norm that you're living from the moment your bone in this system that constantly monitors and surveillance you and constantly kind of manipulates from from a very early age to adopt particular, ideas views habits, so both in a way which was never possible before. And this is like the full fledged totalitarian dystopia which could be so effective that people would not evil resent it because it will be. Completely aligned with with the values or the ideals of the it's not one thousand nine hundred four when you need to coach people all the time. No, if you have agents inside the brain, you don't need the external secret police, so that's that's one danger. It's like the the full fledged with retaliation. Then in places like the US, the more immediate danger or own problem to think about is what is increasingly people refer to as surveillance capitalism that you have the systems that constantly interact with you and come to to know you and it's all supposedly in your best interests to give better accommodations and better advice. So it starts with recommendation for which movie to to watch and and won't. Who won't go on vacation? But as the system becomes better it gives the recommendation on what to study at college were to work, ultimately whom to marry to vote for which religion to join like join a community, you have all these religious communities. This is the best religion for you for your type of personality. Judaism night, it won't work for you. Go is then his it's it's not it's much better fit for your personality. You would think in five years, you would look back, and you say this was an amazing recommendation. Thank you. I saw so much enjoys and Buddhism. And again, people will will feel that this is aligned with their own best interests
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Well, I think that there's the motives matter. And certainly I I don't think that that either of us would consider India to be an authoritarian country that that so so I I would say that I it still say we won't data and meta data on Indian users to be stowed on Indian soil. We don't want it to be stored in on American soil or somewhere else. Yeah. And I can understand the arguments for that. And I think that there's the intent matters, right? And I think countries can come at this with with open values, and in still conclude that something like that could be helpful. But I think one of the things that you need to be very careful about is that if you've set that precedent here making it very easy for other countries that don't have open values that are much more thorough -tarian and and want the data not to not to protect their citizens. But to be able to surveilled them and find dissidents and lock them up that. So I think I agree. But I think that I it it really boils down to the questions that do with Russ America and given the past two three years people in more places around the world. I mean previously say if we were sitting here ten years ago twenty years ago full two years ago, then America declared itself to be the leader of the free world. We can argue a lot. Whether this was the case so north or at least on the on the on the declaratory level. This was how America presented itself to the world. We are the leader of the free world. So trust us we care about freedom. But now we see a different America America, which doesn't want even to be again. It's a question of what they do. But a how America present itself no longer as the leader of the free world. But as as a country, which is interesting above all in itself and in its own interests and just this morning. For instance, I read the US is considered. Being having a veto on the UN resolution against using sexual violence as a weapon of war, and the US is is the one that things veteran vetoing this. And there's somebody who is not a citizen of the US. I ask myself can I still trust America to be the leader of the free world. If. America itself says I don't want this role anymore. Well, I think that that's a somewhat separate question from the the direction that the internet goes. And because I mean GDP are the framework that that I advocating that it would be better. If more countries adopted something like this because I think that that's significantly better than the alternatives. A lot of which are are these more authoritarian models. I mean, you GDP are originated in Europe this it's not an American invention. And I think in general use these values of. Openness in research of of cross-border flow of ideas. And and trade that's not an American idea. I mean, that's that's a global philosophy for how the world should work. And I think that the alternatives to that are at best fragmentation, right which breaks down the global model on this at worst a growth in in authoritarianism for the models of how this gets gets adopted. And that's where I think the the precedence on some of the stuff get really tricky of you can you're doing a good job of playing devil's advocate and the conversation because you're you're you're bringing all of the counter arguments that I think someone with good intent might bring to argue. Hey, maybe maybe a different set of data policies something that we should consider the thing that I just worry about is that we've seen is that once a country puts that in place, that's a precedent. That then a lot of other countries that might be more authoritarian us to to basically be a precedent to argue that they should do the same things, and and then that spreads, and I think that that's bad. Right. And that's that's one of the things that that that is the person running this company. I'm quite committed to making sure that we play our part and pushing back on keeping the internet as as one platform one of the most important decisions that I think I get to make is the person running this company is where are we going to build our data centers and store and store data? And we've made the decision that we're not going to put data centers and countries that we think have weak rule of law that where people's data may be improperly accessed and that could put people in harm's way. And you know, a lot has been a lot of questions around the world around questions of of censorship. And I think that those really serious and impose. I mean, I a lot of the reason why I build what we build is. Because I care giving everyone a voice giving people as much as possible. I don't want people to be to be censored at some level these questions around data and how it's used and whether authoritarian governments get access to it. I think even more sensitive because because if you can say something that you want that is highly problematic of that, violates your your human rights. I think a lot of cases it it it stops progress. But. But if a government can get access to your data, then it can identify who you are. And go lock you up and hurt you hurt your family in 'cause real physical harm in ways that are just really deep. So I I do think that that that people running these companies have an obligation to try to push back on that and fight establishing precedents, which will be harmful. Even if a lot of the initial countries that are that are talking about some of this have good intent this can easily go off the rails. When you when you talk about in the future. On AI and data which are two concepts that are just really tied together. I just think the values that that comes from and whether it's part of a more global system more democratic process more open process, that's one of our best hopes for for having this workout. Well, if it's if it comes from repressive authoritarian countries, then that I just think that it's going to be highly problematic and a lot of ways. That's raises. The question of how do we? How do we build? A I in such a way that it's not inherently an tool of surveillance and manipulation and control. I mean, this goes back to the fear of creating something that knows you better than you know, yourself which is kind of the ultimate surveillance and control to and we are building it now in different places around the world. It's been built and. What are your thoughts about how to build an AI which serves individual people and protects individual people and not an AI which can easily with a flip of a switch becomes kind of the ultimate surveillance too. Well, I think that that is more about the values and the policy framework than than the technological development. I, and it's a lot of the research that's happening in a I are just very fundamental mathematical methods where researcher will will create in advance. And now all the neural networks will be three percent more efficient just kind of throwing this out. And that means that all right newsfeed. We'll be a little bit better for people our systems for detecting things, like hate speech will be a little bit better. But it's our ability to to to find
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"We in the twenty first century in order to address the biggest opportunities and challenges that humanity has right? So I think it's both opportunities spreading prosperity spreading peace scientific progress as well as some of the big challenges. Right. Addressing climate change making sure that on the flip side that diseases don't spread and there are an epidemic and things like that. We really need to be able to come together and have the world. Be more connected. But at the same time that only works if if we as individuals have our economic and social and spiritual needs met, and it's a one way to think about this is in terms of fragmentation. But another way to think about it is in terms of personalization. Right. And I just think about in. When I was growing up in one of the big things that I think that the internet enables is is for people to connect with groups of people who share their real values and interests. And it wasn't always like this right before the internet. You're really tied to your physical location. And I I just think about how when I was growing up. I grew up in a town of about ten thousand people, and you know, there were there were only, you know, so many different clubs or activities that you can do. So I grew up like a lot of the other kids playing little league baseball. And and you know, I kind of think about this in retrospect, it's like, I'm not really into baseball. I'm not really an athlete. So why did I play little league when my real passion was programming computers? And you know, the the reality was that growing up. There was no one else really in my town who was into programming computers. So I didn't have a pure group or a club that I could do that. It wasn't until I went to boarding school. And then later college where I actually was able to meet people who were into the same things as. And now, I think with the internet that's starting to change. Right. And now, you have the ability to not just be tethered to your physical location, but to find people who have more niche interests and different kind of subcultures and communities on the internet, which I think is a really powerful thing. But it also means that you know, me growing up today. I wouldn't have I probably wouldn't played little league. And you can think about me playing little league, as you know, that that that could have been a unifying thing where you know, there weren't that many things in my town. So that was the thing that brought people together. So maybe, you know, if I'm if I was creating or if I was a part of of of community online that might have been more meaningful to me getting to know real people, but are around programming, which is my real interest. You would have said that our community growing up would have been more fragmented, right and people wouldn't have had the same kind of sense of of of of physical community. So when I think. About these problems. I mean, one of the questions that I wonder is maybe fragmentation personalization are finding what you actually care about are two sides of the same coin. But the bigger challenge that I worry about is whether there are a number of people who are just left behind in the transition who were people who would have played little league. But haven't now found their new community, and now just feel dislocated, and, you know, maybe their primary orientation in the world is still there the physical community that they're in, you know, or or they haven't really been able to find a community of people who they're who they're interested in and as the world has progressed, you know, I think a lot of people feel feel lost in that way. And that that probably contributes to some of the the feelings that that would be my my hypothesis at least, I mean, that's the social version of it. There's also the economic version around global. Which I think is as important. But, but, but I'm curious what you what you think about that of all the social issue will on like online communities can be a wonderful thing. But there are still incapable of replacing physical communities because there's so many. You can do with
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Simple and would already be a big step. Yeah. That's definitely something that I think we can we should be thinking about here because the relationship between us and the publishers is different than a surface where where we're showing the content on the basis of of us believing that it's high quality, trustworthy, content rather than just okay, you followed. Some publication. And now you're going to get the stream of things that they published. So I think that that that makes a lot of sense. And there's a lot of details to work out there. But, but it's one of the things that I'm quite optimistic that could make this more sustainable, and you would be perceived as a really helpful player in healthy ecosystem. And I think a healthy ecosystem of independent journalism from various sources Ideo journalism techs journalism on your journalism rich media journalism with which is the presence in the future. I think that is in the very vital interests. Also for platform like Facebook, you need great content in order to remain relevant in order to keep your job. Yeah. And especially within a product like this, unlike a newsfeed, we have this kind of interesting dynamic where people have care a lot about news, right and say, it's critically important. But the main reason why people come to face because to keep in touch with friends. So there's been this kind of interesting dynamic or institutionally at Facebook. I think we understand in really value. High quality journalism for its social impact and the importance that hasn't society the same time. It's we also get feedback from people in the community, which is well, look when I come to Facebook. I want to see what's going on with my friends. There's there's a bunch of news that I wanna see. But, but it's not I don't want my whole news feed to be that. But I think that there are going to be, you know, call it ten fifteen maybe twenty percent of people in our community who really want to go deep and have an experience, which is that they can go to that's all news, which will give us hopefully, the ability to dramatically increase the distribution. And and if the successful the monetization to to high quality participants in that you go system. So that's something that I'm personally really excited about who'd you tell me a little bit. I mean read, of course, you're. Important post about Facebook's strategy. Reshape. Or is it a pivot? I don't know in any case the new role that privacy place. I mean also hear it used to be a kind of discussion. There's something for the old European style. Will get it in America data privacy is not so important. Could you explain a little bit? Why you wrote that why you want this? And I mean, I find it super interesting and exciting, but I just try to understand a little bit better. What led to this kind of surprising move in your strategy? And also how that relates to the things that we discussed about the future of journalistic diversity. I'd love to this. This is a huge topic. I'm so I'd love to spend some time on this actually before we go onto that do you mind taking a couple of minutes to talk through principles local journalism and how it relates. So so that I think that fits the topic that we're on then. And then we can we can spend much time on the privacy focused vision for for the future of social networking. But one of the things that I've been really focused on is local journalism is definitely under a lot of pressure from from the internet. I think we really believe that subscriptions is going to be valuable for that. We've done work with an accelerator in the US. We're now announcing the European program on this for a subscriptions accelerator. It's going to be two million euro program. Just as an initial trial over the first few months working with I think, it's twelve German German publishers. But I'm curious how you think that what's the future here? What more should we be doing? How if you're running a local local papers. How would you think the path to making me nuts? First of all, I think absolutely with pleasure. First of all, I've said that already. I think every paper that wants to stick to paper is going to die sooner than later, and we have to make sure that we redefine journalism, and that we immensely paint the idea of a newspaper from paper. If newspaper journalism is limited to paper, then it's going to die. But I don't see any reason just see reasons by journalism in general can get better in its digital version. You have unlimited access to the intelligence of user, you have more flexibility because there is no deadline. You have unlimited space. If you want to summarize something briefly, you can do it. But if you want to be profound you can have endless lengths so ever. Anything is possible. And then you have rich media, you have access to content contemporaries, you combine it in very creative ways. So there are many reasons why digital journalism is going to be smarter better more relevant for the society. If there is that framework for business model and that is also true for local local journalism. I don't see any reason why local journalism should not be able to benefit from digitization. I think you could even say for a local publisher, it may be even easier because she or he has very very exclusive very specific content. I mean what the New York Times the Washington Post? The Wall Street Journal is reporting is the same that you hear on CNN on FOX and on other TV outlets in another media. Everybody's dealing with the national international use landscape loca journal has it's very specific journalism. So if they also built platforms regional platforms local. Platforms where they also at new service levels for their readers. I would think that this contended is even more irreplaceable by others than national or international
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Laying out up front is. I would hope that in the online ecosystem that new types of journalism can thrive that potentially. Will some of them are not necessarily new local journalism is having a hard time transitioning to the internet in general, and I would hope that we can be one of the ways that we can support and make that more sustainable both from a distribution and monetization perspective. But I also think that there are potentially new models of independent journalists people doing work that's more based around their own analysis, or or interest base things that there isn't that strong of a model around today, but hopefully potentially we can make that happen. Of course, we're totally new generation of journalists and publishers is fortunately arising, the digital world and that ranges from digital native publishers like Vauxhall or a bus feet or vice offering boast to which I think is even more important, a little bloggers, very decentrally, Qasim of super interesting people that have a lot to tell I think that should be all embraced, but to come back to your I think that. That will be a distinguishing factor of such a offering to the offerings that are only based on. Let's legacy media. But the two most important questions, you have mentioned, I think are related you said how about curation can how organiz that? And how do we ensure that high quality journalism is really promoted you, and I have always been very skeptical about the curation by Facebook. I have quite contrary in view here. Because I think the more you start to curate into select in to make choices the more. You oughta medically and even involuntarily transform into a publishing house into media company. Then honestly, you're just too big sooner or later, you will be split up by regulators because they will say there cannot be so much dominance in one company that makes the decisions globally who reads what? So you have to keep a degree of neutrality. So I would strongly recommend not you curate and only say we stick to the legal framework. So if something. Is illegal. You take it out. If you. If you're asked by prosecutors, and I think they should make the decisions you have to help to trace the sources you have to make sure that fake accounts are not such a big problem. I don't know how much fake accounts you think Facebook has. But it seems to be quite a big amount. Some people are saying seven hundred million. I have no clue, but however that has to be dealt with as a very serious problem. But whenever it really comes to this curation decisions. I think it's very delicate ground, and I think Facebook should be more position as kind of neutral technology network that connects people and helps people to get informed. But whether the information is correct or incorrect, a good or bad or from sources that we like you should be as neutral as possible. And that leads me to the next question. How to ensure quality? I think it is very simple. The better the business model is that Facebook provides for publishers the more professional journalists you will attract as soon as sooner is only about reach only about popularity only about audience. The seduction to be a platform for many population is so high because people want to make the business we have to make a business in order to finance investigative journalists and correspondents and big for networks. They cannot afford to do that for free, but manipulators governments from Russia to China other. Sinister sources they can all use it app use it. And then you have an image problem for Facebook. But you also have a structural problem for and so I would really focus on making sure what makes the offering the structure of the offering on Facebook attractive for the thousands and thousands of journalists bloggers digital native publishers negatively, publishers that they are attracted to put their best content on that platform. And I think that's should be the main focus with that. You oughta medically will resolve the quality issue. Yeah. Well, one of the big questions on the curation personalization front is a newsfeed today. Across Facebook and Instagram, basically, all the content that you see is stuff that from sources or friends or pages that you've either followed yourself or something that on the Facebook site, at least that they've shared it. And one of the big questions that I think will need to figure out as we embark on on creating this new surface is should be keep that principle. Should we make it? So that if you follow the New York Times, you can get their content. But if you don't follow the Washington Post than you, they you you're not gonna see that content. Or should we have some kind of understanding of here? The sources that are that are broadly trusted either across the site or in your network specifically and try to build either algorithms or human curation, we're not gonna journalists doing we're not gonna be producing news. Like you say, but do you think that there's an opportunity, and should we be trying to explore this in a way where we can surface more? Quality content, or do you think we should have stay limited to what you as a person using the service of kind of asked for and connected to yourself in the watch tab for video we have gone, a little broader. So we've. Our term inside Facebook is unconnected content. It's if you're not you haven't yet connected to the source who's making the video, but we think it's going to be potentially interesting valuable to you. So we'll show it and that creates a very different dynamic. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be as broad as possible. I think the broader offering is the veteran this you may have some criteria which brands which sources, which institutions you accept and where you say, no that is not in line with our rule of law, and with a very principle constitutional values, but apart from that, you should be open as possible as broad as possible include everybody, it really depends on the question of a business model for the players who are active on their platform. I think that is the thing that really matters and not limited to say, you have to decide whether you are Washington Post or you New York Times or a business, sinus. Scribe? That's not I think that's no criteria for you. You should remain all to you as neutral as possible. So so let's go to the business model then because I think this is such a critical part of this. And I mean, we've worked together a lot on on this on subscriptions. And you were one of the original people who I talked to who really encouraged us to move towards I'm trying to to enable better. Subscriptions. In a lot of people in our community to more actively subscribe to two different different publications, but that's off to a reasonable start. There's a lot more to do there. But but generally optimistic about the direction that's going on instant articles. We do a very favorable revenue share that with the vast majority of the revenue goes to the publishers wouldn't more. Do you think we should be thinking about in a surface like this in terms of making sure that that the this is as sustainable and profitable for journalists and publishers as possible, and we're coming to this from I think a very different perspective than than some of the other players in the space who view news as a way that they want to maximize their revenue that's not necessarily the way that we're thinking about this. I want to make sure that that to the extent that we can were funding as much all journalism as possible. And that's always been the conversation that we've. Had on this. So first of all, I've always been totally convinced that quality journalism in the digital world can only exist if there is also an element of paying rita's. And when I suggested that more than ten years ago for the first time and also said that we need to sort of legal framework for that people were laughing about it and said, this guy does not have the internet and the internet everything has to be for free. And it's only about reach and it's only about data, but not about money. Of course, it turned out that with reach you cannot pay your rent and to also don't get your breakfast. So in the end now, it seems to be a consensus that journalism oxygen? And that is the journalism of today in the journalism of future papers are going to disappear sooner or later. This journalism that we call quality journalism can only exist if there is a paid element if this digital subscription now, we have fortunately achieved after ten years of discussions last week, very important approval in the new parliament about a copyright reform. That will make sure if somebody is using a publisher's content being video of being text for commercial purposes too. So wants to use it in order to drive reach and monetize with advertising there should be license agreement. And I think that would be my first in my very obvious suggestion to think about it. Instead of saying we have here three hundred million budget, and we distributed more or less philanthropic money to publish. This means indirectly don't believe that is going to be decent business model. You need to be subsidised instead of saying that just say, okay, we respect that law. Whoever. The content that we use from publishers from journalists from bloggers needs to be indirectly funded financed by a tiny percentage that is a license fee, and that basically that is the parallel has been so absolutely crucial for the music industry. Over the last decades, the music industry wouldn't exist today, and they these license agreements already since the sixties. It wasn't the music industry. Always an obvious thing because music was fluid. Good. So every day could use it. Every Radi radio station could play a song for a newspaper or magazine. It wasn't relevant because nobody would put it on Xerox machine. So this has changed now. I think that would be a very simple and obvious thing to simply say, okay, if we're using for this new tool, anti pieces of content or summaries of stories, breaking news exclusive stories service journalism than we are going. Pay a license fee? I think that would be very simple
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Hey, everyone this year. I am doing a series of public discussions on the future of the internet and society and today, I've traveled to Berlin to do today's discussion with the CEO of the largest news publisher in Europe Matija stuff ner from exile. Spinner Matisse has has a really fascinating background starting as journalist and a music critic and Frankfurt. Right. And and now, I'm is running this this really large company that publishes a lot of the top newspapers and media outlets across the continent. And you've really dedicated your career to freedom of the press figuring out how to how to trans transition to digital business models and a lot of how to make sure that the journalism is sustainable going forward. So one of the things. And I'm really looking forward to talking about today is the future of the internet and journalism and how those two relate to each other. I don't know if you wanna you wanna start off there. We have a lot of stuff to cover and the the time that we have today, but I'm really grateful to have the chance to sit down and talk to you about this. Thank you so much really before. Great. Yes. Yes. So I don't know where where do you? Where should we just dive in on on the future of journalism in the internet? I mean, I I love to start off just by getting a high level of of where you think about how you're positioning the company, and and where you think things are going. What are the biggest opportunities and challenges that you see with the the internet with just briefly on the company. I mean, the the the companies today only two newspapers and the rest of the portfolios digital digital journalism integer classified so these basically transactions that are important for people if they're looking for the ride home or for the right job that has always been the kind of essential part of a media company of a newspaper, and we have digitized that so that is entirely digital eighty five percent of our prophets. Eighty four percent of all prophets are digital today. Less than ten percent of advertising revenue comes from print only two remaining papers that are transforming into multimedia brands and the the main goal of our strategy is to make sure that digital journalism is going to prospect. I'm super optimistic about journalism and its quality in the digital world. Also about its role in society, if we have the framework of decent business models and also a fair share of value generation that is happening in the new ecosystem. And I think those will be interesting topics to discuss today. Yeah. I mean, so you appreciate more than almost anyone else. The importance of journalism in society. I think you just had with the Slovakian election that just happened. I mean, this must be such a an interesting moment. I guess one of the journalists who worked at Axel Springer undertook this incredibly important investigative journalism into into issues of tax. And fraud in Slovakia, which inspired the woman who ran for president in who I think just one to go and and campaign on a massive anti-corruption campaign. I think that that just symbolizes so deeply the importance of the work that you're that you're doing it's a tragic symbol of the relevance of the work because young Kupchak the investigative reporter all one of the digital news platforms that we run together with a partner he got killed. He feels say got killed as a consequence his critical journalism and industry Gatien into organized crime. And in a way that shows how important it is that we have independent. Organizations publishers and courageous journalists who dare to take big risks in order to. Bring light to the truth. And sometimes it's for some people very valuable to avoid that. And then things like that happened. We had a correspondent of one of our brands for more than a year in prison in Turkey. Then it's usual, he didn't do anything illegal. He just reported independently about some things that the government didn't want to have reflected in the media, and those are examples how relevant independent journalism is and how relevant it is to have a sustainable business model because only if journalism is a business young bloggers young startup entrepreneurs motivated to do things to innovate in that industry and only they we will have that plurality and diversity of sources, which is absolutely relevant. It. I think it is also not in your intention that Facebook is one day transforming into a publisher that is employing thousands of journalists in order to do it all yourself. I hope that you wanna. Be that you want to be a neutral platform that helps that echo system to generate money also fathers and have the plurality because otherwise I think that would be a different society that we live in. Yes, that's the goal and actually love to
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"That is a very different rent's, not necessarily. It's not just the people that you already know. I do think we've really focused on friends and family for the last ten or fifteen years. And I think a big part of what we're going to focus on now is around building communities in different ways. And all the things all the utility that you can build on top of once you have a network like this in place, so everything from how people can do commerce. Petr to things like dating right, which is a lot of dating happens on our services. But we don't we haven't built any tool specifically for that. I do remember the Facebook joint experiment experiments such a terrible word study by which one could predict when to Facebook members are going to declare themselves in a relationship months ahead of the actual declaration. I was thinking some of the answer. Larry inlaws early. Yeah. So you're right. That there's a lot of this is going to be about your tilting that you can build on top of it a lot of these things are fundamentally private, right? So if you if you're thinking about commerce that people have a higher expectation for privacy. And the question is is the right context for that going to be around an app like Facebook, which is broad or not like Instagram. I think part of it is the discovery part of it. I think we'll be very well served there. But then we'll also transition to something that people want to be more private and secure. And we could probably go on for like, many hours on these. But but maybe we should save this for for the for the round two of this that will do in the future. Indeed. So thanks so much for coming out for talking at such length for covering such a kaleidoscopic range of topics and we look forward to the next time. We see you.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"So. As a principal. I think that that would be good. But I don't the way that the systems are designed isn't that you get a score of how inflammatory or sensationalist a piece of content is the way that it basically works is you can you can build classified. Here's that identify specific types of of things. Right. So we're going down the list of like, all right? There's twenty categories of harmful content that you're trying to identify everything from terrorist propaganda on the one hand to self harm issues to hate speech in election interference and basically each of these things. Well, it uses a lot of the same underlying machine. Learning infrastructure, you're doing specific work for each of them. So if you go back to the example on nudity for for a second. What you you're not necessarily scoring everything on the on a scale of not at all nude to nude. You're basically enforcing specific policies. So you're saying, okay. So by the she learning it would just be give me an estimate of the odds by which if human looked at it who was employed to see whether it violates the policy, and you have a sense of. Okay. This is so what are the things that are adjacent to the policy? Right. So you might say, okay. Well, if if the person is completely naked that is something that you can you can definitely build a a classified to be able to identify with relatively high accuracy. But even if they're not. Then the question is you kind of need to build a qualitatively describe what are the things that are Jason to that. So maybe the person is wearing a bathing suit in is in a sexually suggestive position, right? It's it's not like any piece of content. You're going to score from not at all nude to nude. But you kind of have the cases for what you think are Jason to to the issues, and and again ground us and qualitatively people like people might click on it. They might engage with it. But the end they don't necessarily feel good about it. And you wanna get when you're designing these systems. Not just what people do. But also, you want to make sure we factor in to is this is this the the content that people say that they really wanna be seeing institutional law. There's a formal kind of definition that's emerged for the word brilliant. If something appeals to the pregant interest as part of a definition of obscenity, the famous Miller test. Which is not a beer oriented test and part of a pretty interest is basically it excites me. And yet it completely disgusts me. And it sounds like you're actually converging to the supreme court's vision of prince with this maybe and it might be don't worry. I'm not talking down on that. But. It's very interesting that machine learning ch-. You invoked is both really good. I gather it's something like this. It's the kind of thing that's like just have some people tell me with their expertise. Does this come near to violating the policy or not? And I'll just threw a Spidey sense start to tell you whether it would rather than being able to throw out exactly what the factors are. I know the person's fully clothed, but it's still is going to invoke that quality. So all of the benefits of machine learning. And all of of course, the drawbacks where it classifies something and somebody's like, wait a minute. That was me doing a parody of blah, blah, blah. That all comes to the fore yet. And I mean, we asked people what they want to see in addition to looking at what they actually engage with you do get a completely different sense of what people value, and you can build systems that that that approximate that. But. What's your question? I think rather than giving people a score of the friction. Yes, I think you can probably give people feedback of. Hey, this might make people uncomfortable in this way in the specific way in this might affect how much it gets how much shared and this this gets down to a different. There's a different AI ethics question, which I think is really important here, which is designing systems to be understandable. By people read it into some degree. You don't just want it to spit out a score of how offensive or or like where it scores on on any given policy. You want it to be able to map to specific things that might be problematic. And that's the way that we're trying to design the system's overall. Yes, now, we have something parked in the box. We should take out which is the extra no review stuff. But before we do one other just transparency thing maybe to broach. Basically just occurred to me. I imagine it might be possible. To issue me a score of how much I've earned for Facebook this year. It could simply say this is how much we collected on the basis of you in particular being exposed to an ad. An sometimes people I guess might compete to get the numbers up. But I'm just curious would that be a figure I'd kind of be curious to know in part because it might even lay the groundwork of being like, look, Mark. I'll double it. You could double the money, and then don't show me any ads. Can we get a car off that lot today? Okay.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Do. Although that would be encrypted and. Between you and Facebook. No, I think, but it doesn't have the little Alexa function. How many do we'll portal works over messenger? So if we go towards encryption on messenger, then that'll be that'll be fully encrypted, which I think, frankly is probably what people want the other model. Besides the living room is like the town square. Right. And not I think just as different social norms and different policies and. And norms that should be that should be a play around that. But I do think that these things are very different, right? You're not gonna you may end up in a world where the town square is fully decentralized or fully encrypted thing. But it's not clear. What value there is an encrypting something that's public contents anyway, or very very broad. But now you were put to it pretty hard in that. As I understand that there's now a change to how what's up works that there's only five four words permitted. Yes. So this is this is a really interesting point. Right. So when when people talk about how encryption will darken some of the signals that that will be able to use both for potentially providing better services, and for preventing harm, one of the I guess somewhat surprising to me findings of the last couple of years of working on content, governance and enforcement is that it often is much more effective. To identify fake accounts and bad actors upstream of them doing something bad by patterns of activity, rather than looking at the content so called meta data show know what they're saying. But here's who they're calling kind of thing or just like the doesn't this account doesn't seem to really act like a person. Right. And I guess as I gets more advanced, and you build these adversarial networks generalized adversarial networks, you'll you'll get to a place where you have a that can probably more effectively go under cover mimic mimic, actually. I'm you'll be building up contrary on the. On the other side that is better at identifying is that are that are that are doing that. This is certainly been the most effective tactic across a lot of the areas where we've needed to focus on preventing harm. The ability to identify fake accounts, which like a huge amount of of the under any category of issue that you're talking about a lot of the the the issues downstream come from from fake accounts, or or people who are clearly acting in some malicious or not normal way. You can identify a lot of that without without necessarily even looking at the content itself. And if you have to look at a piece of content that in some cases, you're already late because the content exists in the activities or happen. So that's one of the things that makes me feel like encryption for these messaging services is really the right direction to go. Because you're a very pro privacy in pro security move to to give people that that that control and assurance, and I'm relatively confident that even though you are losing some tools to on on the on the finding harmful content side of the ledger. I don't think at the end of the day that those are going to end up being the most important tools for finding the most of the the now connected up too quickly to the five forwards thing. Oh, yeah. Sure. So that gets down to. If you're not operating on a piece of content directly, you need to operate on patterns of behavior in the network, and what we basically found was there weren't that many good uses for people forwarding things more than five times except to basically spam or or or blast stuff out that it was being disproportionately abused. So you end up thinking about different tactics when you're not operating on content. Specifically, you end up thinking about patterns of usage, well, more. We'll spam. I get and that I'm always in favor of things that reduce spam? However, you could also say the second category was just to spread content. You could have the classic. I don't know like lay MS or power veers ride or Arab spring ask in the romanticized vision of it gosh, this is a way for people to do a tree and pass along a message that you can't stop the signal to use it just Weeden reference. You really want to get the word out. This would obviously stop that too. Yeah. And then I think the question is your just weighing whether you want this private communication tool where the vast majority of the use. And the reason why it was designed was the vast majority is one on one there's a large amount of groups that people communicate into, but it's a pretty small edge case of people operating this with like, you have a lot of different groups, and you're trying to organize something and almost hack public content type or public sharing type utility into. Into an encrypted space, and again there I think you start getting into is this the living room is this the town square. And when people start trying to use the tools that are designed for one thing to get around. I think the social norms are for the town square. That's when I think you've probably start to have some issues. This is not we're not done addressing these issues. There's a lot more to to think through on this. But, but that's the general shape of the problem that that at least I perceive from the work that we're doing well without any particular segway. Let's talk about fake news, so concert, your favorite segue here.
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg
"Hebron every year do personal challenge. So something like writing an AI to help control my home or trying to learn Mandarin for the last couple of years, I've focused most of my time on a dressing. Some of the biggest social issues facing Facebook and the internet overall, we met a lot of progress on the is there still a lot more to do. That's going to continue to be a focus for a while this year, though, like challenge is to get out and to heavy series of discussions on the future of technology and the internet and how that's going to affect our society. So I'm big questions around how we can keep on giving people voice where we want to encrypt things and things like where we can decentralise the tools that we give people. There are a lot of important questions to ask here. So today I am in Boston. And I'm heading over to Cambridge to have a discussion with professor Jonathan a train. Here's the head of the Berkman Klein center and a professor at Harvard law, and he's one of the foremost expert. Of the intersection of technology and law, and how these issues relate to society. So I'm looking forward to having this conversation and thank you for tuning in. So thank you Mark for coming to talk to me, and to our students from the tech topa program, and for my internet, and society course, at Harvard Law School, we're really pleased to have a chance to talk about any number of issues. We should just dive right in. So. Privacy, autonomy and information fiduciaries. All right. Love to talk about that render piece in the New York Times, the one with the headline that said, Mark Zuckerberg can fix this mess. Yeah. Although those last year that's true. Are you suggesting it's all fixed? No, no, good. So suggesting that I'm curious whether you think still think that we can fix this mess. A hope. Hope springs. Eternal is my motto. So all right. Let me give a quick characterization of this idea that the coinage and the scaffolding Ford is from my colleague, Jack Balkin Yale and the two of us have been developing out further. There are a standard number of privacy questions with which you might have some familiarity having to do with people conveying information that they know they're conveying or they're not so sure they are. But now stoppings as we used to call them when they run in the rafters of the internet and leave traces, and then the standard way of talking about that is you want to make sure that that stuff doesn't go where you don't want it to go call that informational privacy. We don't want people to know stuff that we want maybe our friends only to know and on the place like Facebook, you're supposed to be able to tweak your settings and say give them to this and not to that. But there's also ways in which stuff that we share with consent could still sort of be used against us. Us, and it feels like well, you consented may not end the discussion and the analogy the my colleague Jack brought to bear was one of a doctor and a patient or a lawyer and a client or sometimes in America, but not always financial advisor and a client that says that those professionals have certain expertise, they get trusted with all sorts of sensitive information from their clients and patients, and so they have an extra duty to act in the interests of those clients, even if their own interests conflict, and so maybe just one quick Hypo to get us started. I wrote a piece in two thousand fourteen maybe you read that was a hypothetical about elections in which it said, just hypothetically imagine that Facebook had of you about which candidate should win and. They reminded people likely to vote for the favored candidate that it was election day and two others. They simply set a cat photo. Would that be wrong? And I find I have no idea if it's a legal. It does seem wrong to me. And it might be that the fiduciary approach captures. What makes it wrong? All right. So I think we could probably spend the whole next hour just about that. You know, I read your ad. I also read Balkans blog post on on information fiduciaries, and I've I've had a conversation with him too. And the. At first blush kind of reading through this my reaction is there. There's a lot here that makes sense, right? I mean, the the idea of of us having a fiduciary relationship with the people who use our services is kind of intuitively. It's how we think about about building. What we're what we're building? Right. So so reading through this. It's like all right. You know, a lot of people. Seem to have this mistaken notion that you know, where when we're putting together news feed and doing ranking that we have a team of people were focused on maximizing the time that people spend. But that's not the goal that we give them we we tell people to on the team produced the service that we think is going to be the highest quality that we try to grounded and kind of getting people to come in and tell us of the content that they that that we could potentially show what is going to be. They tell us what they want to see, and we build models that that kind of that can that can predict I didn't build that service. By was that always the case or was that of through some courses, judgments, through course adjustments. I mean, you start off using simpler signals like like what people are clicking on and feed. But then you pretty quickly. Learn hey that gets to a local optimum right where if you're if you're focusing on what people click on in predicting what people click on. Then you select for click bait. Right. So you pretty quickly you realize real feedback from real people. That's not actually what people want. You're not gonna build the best service by doing that you bring in people to and actually have these panels of we call it getting to ground truth of your show people all the candidates for what what can be shown to them. And you have people say, what's the most meaningful thing that I wish that the system were showing us so all this is kind of a way of saying that our own self image of ourselves in what we're doing is that we're acting as fiduciaries and trying to build the best services for people were I think that this ends up getting interesting is then the question of who gets to decide in the legal sense or the policy sense of what's in people's best interest rates. We come in every day and think, hey, where we're building a service where we're ranking news feed trying to show people the most relevant content with an assumption. That's backed by data that that in general people want us to. Show them the most relevant content. But some level you could ask the question, which is who gets to decide that ranking news feed or or showing relevant ads or any of the other things that we choose to work on are actually in people's interest. And we're doing the best that we can to try to build a service that we think are the best of the end of the day. A lot of this is grounded in people choose to use it, right? Because clearly they're getting some value from it. But then there are all these questions like you say about. You have about where people can can effectively give consent and not. Yes. So there's a lot of interesting questions in this to unpack about how you'd actually implement a model like that. But at a high level, I think one of the things that I think about in terms of we're running this big company. It's important in society that people trust the institutions of society. Clearly, I think we're in a position now where people rightly have a lot of questions about about big internet companies Facebook in particular. And I do think getting to a point where there's like the right regulation and rules in place just provides a kind of societal guardrail framework where people can have confidence that. Okay. These companies are operating within a framework that we've all agreed. That's better than them. Just doing whatever whatever they whatever they want. And I think that that would give people confidence. So figuring out what that framework is. I think is a really important thing. And I'm sure we'll talk about that as it relates to to a lot of the content areas today, but getting to that question of how do you? Who determines what's in people's best interest if not people themselves? Yes is a really interesting question. Yes. So we should surely talk about that. So on our agenda is the who decides our question other agenda items include just as you say the fiduciary framework sounds nice to you. Doctors patients Facebook users, and I hear you saying that's pretty much where you're wanting to end up. Anyway, there are some interesting questions about what people want versus what they want to want. People will say on January first what I want New Year's resolution is a gym membership. And then on January second they don't want to go to the gym. They want to want to go to the gym. But they never quite make it and then, of course, business model of pay for the whole year ahead of time. And they know you'll never turn up develops around that and. I guess a specific area to delve into moment on that might be on the advertising
"mark zuckerberg" Discussed on Recode Decode
"Okay. Here's what's going to happen. I'm going to ask you guys each individual questions and ask kind of the final question. So your first op Ed in the New York Times was entitled Mark Zuckerberg in the expensive expensive education Coburg in Silicon Valley, and I met for the rest of us not for him has he learned no. I wouldn't say really. He's a nice, man. You know what? I mean. Like, he's a very Sam knows. He's a nice guy. He's really like. It's the same thing. He's a personally. Nice. But he's causing enormous damage. I think one of the things if you listen to that podcast, everyone focused on the holocaust deniers part where he said, they're essentially they don't mean to lie, and I was like they do need to lie. They mean to lie a lot. And so that was to me in an insane thing to say, but that got a lot of the attention that essentially what's Marceca, what should never get on the stage with me ever again in his life. Because last time he's sweat almost sweat it to death. And then this time he defended holocaust deniers that was nice. Got to attitude right there to say things like that. Anyway. So what the exchange I was most disturbed by and I've written about it. Since in the times was when we when I kept pressing him on the impact of his inventions on Myanmar India that they had made these pretty sloppy rules in these countries. And these products were not thought out properly, and they weren't introduced properly, and they didn't have the proper people in place to manage it. And it created people died and that how did he feel about that? And so how did you feel about that that you made this badly, and it was real life consequences? And instead of what he said was he goes when I'm really interested in is solutions solutions what I like to do like, I think we should get in fixed the situation we again, we should fix this situation. And I was like, yeah, I got that. But you 'cause the problem, so how do you feel about what you cause? And so it six times I asked him the same. Question six times. And I said, yeah. But I want to know how you think about it. But don't you think that I mean, I mean if I was in his shoes, and I had billions of people all like, I thought all these things weighing on my shoulders. How could he start to let that affect his emotional strength because he wouldn't be able to make it through the day of the why because he took the money and the job I'm sorry. He's an adult. I I don't mean to be room. But like stop treating him like he's a juvenile. And like, oh my goodness. This poor Cody cladding boy is so hard for him. Like, my kids can take more pressure than he can. But nonetheless, nonetheless, he kept I asked him six times it went on for a while. Because it we've got really uncomfortable. And he kept saying we've got to fix the solution. I said give but you were you 'cause the problem how do you feel about it? How do you feel about how you feel about it people die like any finally finally got obssessed Sprague because I'd done it? So many times I did that on purpose. And he goes he was what do you want me to say? I said how about starting off with? I'm really sorry. What I did cause people to die that would be like the human reaction. Right. That's the first. Answer. And then Secondly, I'd wonder if I was capable of handling this thing, you know. And if I'm the right person to do this because it does have real world implications. And then he, and I and then I asked who should be fired for this who should be fired. And he, you know, he hamden hawed, and he goes, I guess me because I'm the CEO and the founder, and I own control it and the chairman, and he goes, well, do you want me to fire myself? And I said that would be fine. Like, it would be like, you know, what I mean? Like, I'm just saying I just want them to. Actually solve the problem. With if Mark Zuckerberg went to Hawaii and was like, okay. Bye guys. I'm done. Like, we still have billions of here's the thing..