40 Burst results for "Zuckerberg"

Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Mark Levin

Mark Levin

01:15 min | 7 hrs ago

Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Mark Levin

"So check it out. I'm telling you, you'll be glad you did. I'll pound 2 50 say Mark Levin that's bound to 50. Mark Levin. This guy Mark Zuckerberg is very, very dangerous man. And John Solomon and just the news. Zucca bring money used to pay election judges grow voting Democrat stronghold memos revealed documents produced by the city of film, which is utterly corrupt. Under a federal court order shall millions of dollars in non profit grant money donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Is being used to quadruple the number of voting places and massively grow the number of ballots cast in the Democratic stronghold of Philadelphia on Election Day. The memos were turned over in a federal lawsuit. Five other conservative Thomas more society, and they detail how city election officials Filed a grant request in August to the Zuckerberg funded Center for Tech and Civic Life by promising to open 800 polling places and grow voting Tuas, many as 800,000 ballots cast in the general election. Of these billionaires who are diabolical. Setting up these front groups are using these front groups for political purposes. The number of promised polling places is more than four times the 190 polling places open during the city's pandemic affected primary earlier this year, and the promise turnout is estimated to be as many as 120,000 voters, Larger The 2016 presidential election, which grew about 680,000 voters, and most of these are Democrats. About 80% of the vote went to the Democrats in the city of Philadelphia in 2016. Zuckerberg announced several weeks ago. He has donated $250 million $250 million to the center for a tech and civic life to help local governments across the country hold elections this fall in the midst of the pandemic. He has since augmented the amount with another 100 million. And so they're basically targeted in these Democrat areas. These heavily populated Democrat areas to open more precincts. To print format ballots, and they'll elect more leftists and the tip. Purple states, the blue and red states. The purple In addition to Hiss censorship campaign over there at Facebook. No. Something does need to be done about this. I don't believe there's a free market conservative out there who believes they should leave this alone. We're not anarchists. Are conservatives. What's happening here is they're using the tax laws now. To affect elections using front groups to affect elections. It's amazing. You know, the Democrats always talk about all the dark money and politics all the wealthy and politics. We got to get the rich. We've got to get But for the dark money, but for the front groups, But for the billionaires, the Democrat Party wouldn't have much to run on. Ladies and gentlemen, terms of finances. That's just the damn truth. It's just the truth. And you might say when I wait. Didn't you say under the Biden planned? Some people be paying 60 or 62%? Yes, But why do you think these billionaires because.

Mark Zuckerberg Mark Levin Facebook Democrat Philadelphia Democrat Party John Solomon Biden Founder
Intel to sell NAND business to SKorean rival for $9 billion

Daily Tech Headlines

00:21 sec | 17 hrs ago

Intel to sell NAND business to SKorean rival for $9 billion

"The US Senate Judiciary Committee postponed plan vote on subpoenas to compel twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and facebook. CEO. Mark Zuckerberg to testify regarding allegations of political bias on the platforms in a statement the committee said it would continue to negotiate with the companies for voluntary testimony on the subject but Senate vote on subpoenas could still be held if an agreement cannot be reached.

Us Senate Judiciary Committee CEO Jack Dorsey Senate Facebook Twitter Mark Zuckerberg
Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Tom Sullivan

Tom Sullivan

01:36 min | 10 hrs ago

Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Tom Sullivan

"So ah, a little bit of an update. So he's Judiciary Committee. We're just getting word that the Senate Commerce Committee has voted, so they're all they're all they all want the camera time. Okay, let's go. Let's have it in our committee because I they're postponing the vote Commerce Committee in the Senate voted to authorize subpoenas. For Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey from Twitter and Sundar PCE from Google. They? Ah! Once again will be facing silly questions from members of Congress. They really do a bad job in this area. The subpoenas will only be issued if they refused to come voluntarily. The commerce panel Has reached out to them to try to get some scheduled so that they get thes people before them. Well, are they trying to do this before Election Day? Is there something that they can get out of it before then because it's equal. Democrats and Republicans don't like tech. I do. And the idea there's a huge lawsuit. That was issued by the Department of Justice today about Google. And I know that they're being accused. Of abusing their market power. This is one of the biggest Antitrust lawsuits, Monopoly lawsuits, ah, and decades. This is huge. The problem is Google controls about 90% of the online search market. This reminds me of when Microsoft was the big deal. They were the big gun. And so they had deals with the computer manufacturers. This is back in the Late eighties early nineties. Where? When you bought a computer already loaded on your computer was Their search engine Microsoft search engine Internet Explorer in those days And so all the competition soon said You can't do that. You can't do that. What I used to do was I would open up Internet Explorer and I would download I think of the time it was Netscape. You could go anywhere. You want to download your own. I never understood that it if anything Microsoft doing better now than they were then So they're going after Google. I'm sure it's They're saying they're a monopoly. All right. So if they're ruled monopoly, are you going to switch search engines? Have you got another one in mind? Bang is there What do you use Bing? There's nobody does. It seems like you.

Google Senate Commerce Committee Judiciary Committee Microsoft Commerce Committee Jack Dorsey Bing Mark Zuckerberg Department Of Justice Twitter Senate Congress
Jack Dorsey faces Senate subpoena after blocking NY Post articles

Business Beware

00:46 sec | 4 d ago

Jack Dorsey faces Senate subpoena after blocking NY Post articles

"Dot com Senate Republicans say the Judiciary Committee will issue a subpoena Tuesday to Twitter chief Jack Dorsey. After the social media company blocked in New York Post article relating to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, Democratic Senator from Delaware, Chris Coons sees nothing wrong with what Twitter did. Facebook and Twitter have policies to not spread things that are utterly unreliable that have been debunked and where their origin is. Untrustworthy. South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham sees a double standard, Nobody on Twitter and social media shut down anything about Trump in Russia. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg also included in that

Twitter Facebook Senator Lindsey Graham Hunter Biden Joe Biden Jack Dorsey Judiciary Committee Senator Chris Coons New York Post Mark Zuckerberg South Carolina Delaware Donald Trump CEO Russia
Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Michael Savage

Michael Savage

00:36 min | 11 hrs ago

Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Michael Savage

"Down here, Danno, sitting in for Dr Savage 855 407 to 8 to now. You know, one of the benefits for me and doing his show is I may or may not have seen this. But it links to something going on right day that today that I did see Google Big time federal lawsuit a year in the making landed today It has nothing to do with the recent stuff with Twitter and Facebook going in the tank on the hunter, Biden and stuff. And basically, it says that Twitter is a monopoly using monopolistic tactics to break others. And I think we know that we see these masters of the universe. Big tech But plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit have filed a motion seeking a restraining order to block the use of private funds from billionaire Mark Zuckerberg for use in local election management. Statuary responsibility of state officials, including the Pennsylvania Legislature. Now what they did is here in Philadelphia. They got a $10 million grant. But I didn't know it was from this group called the Center for Technology and Civic Life. Okay? And this grant was more money than they had in the budget for the infrastructure of this presidential election. We're thinking who in the world gave him $10 million. What were they supposed to do with this? Well with the $10 million they have set up around Philadelphia. All of these satellite election offices now I'm not sure if they got the money to do this in Montgomery County and other counties in Pennsylvania yet So what are these places? You go. You can get a male invalid or drop a mail in ballot off. And they've ruled that we can have poll watchers there so we don't know what's going on. They've ruled. It's not a public place. It's an office. So, Zuckerberg, allegedly based upon this lawsuit gave them a grant of $10 million. The lawsuit says it requires the city of Philadelphia Open. No fewer than 800 new polling places failing to do same may require the city to forfeit the grant money. Taste for judges oversee ballot counts the outcome of disputes that arise regarding the eligibility of ballots in the election. And as I said, It opens up this idea that Zuckerberg is behind this in order to aid and abet in a place like Philadelphia, Joe Biden. In addition, these early voting places now some of you are in early voting states. Pennsylvania has not been that And you have poll watchers there. You know if it's 30 days out, whatever the number is in various states like Texas We didn't have that. So now we have these offices, though, in which you can drop off your mail in ballot or get one there and fill it out and do it there, and we can't know what's going on. And the money that funded these Came from the Chicago group that apparently Is backed by Zuckerberg. Now the claim is well. He's doing this to encourage more voting. And anything that you say that says, What about the rules? We need rules. Otherwise we have corruption. We don't know who's voting. We don't have voter. I d. We don't know what's going on. No, You can't say that. That is just suppressing the vote. Why don't Republicans want people to vote? We don't want them to vote if they choose and you have to follow the rules, so this is accurate, and we know who is voting. We don't have valid harvesting. We don'thave Taoist runaway that our military bouts We don't have all these things. No one is suppressing the vote. What's going on is they're trying to drive the vote.

Mark Zuckerberg Philadelphia Center For Technology And Civi Joe Biden Twitter Pennsylvania Dr Savage Pennsylvania Legislature Google Danno Montgomery County Facebook Chicago Texas
Twitter will ban Holocaust denial posts, following Facebook

Slate's If Then

10:26 min | 4 d ago

Twitter will ban Holocaust denial posts, following Facebook

"If you're American, you probably think of free speech as the default. Just the way things are. And I. Don't know where it enters the stuff. I don't know if it's in the water or if it's in the kindergarten curriculum Evelyn. Is Not American, but it's only something that I have encountered faith in years is just like first amendment fundamentalism she's an Australian who lives in Massachusetts and she's one of most dynamic and nuanced thinkers. Online speech. She lectures at Harvard Law School. You came here to study kind of First Amendment Law to look at this stuff. As an outsider, what was your impression of the US fundamental adherence to free speech? I feel a little bit like gas lit as a foreigner when you come to America. As I did for years ago to Study Comparative Constitutional, Law, and free speech One of the most striking things about American free speech doctrine is this like this example of there were Nazis that wanted to march in skokie. I know jumping straight to Nazis his kind of leaping into the free speech depend. But Evelyn's describing one of the most famous first amendment cases when that really tests American values, the story goes like this. In one, thousand, nine, hundred, a group of neo-nazis wanted to march in the Chicago suburb of skokie Illinois largely because a lot of Holocaust survivors lived there seven thousand concentration camp survivors living in the predominantly Jewish Chicago suburb of skokie not surprisingly, there was a huge legal fight cokie officials a block Nazi demonstrations with court injunctions when the Nazis appealed to the State Supreme Court a judge has refused to hear the case. But what might surprise you if you don't know the story is that the American Civil Liberties Union indeed a lawyer with the ACLU defended the Nazis right to March under the First Amendment saying the right to free expression with integral to who we are as a country. It's just such an iconic story of the literal Nazis were going to be allowed to marching the street and as a foreigner you come here, new learn that and normally deland that it's it's not like these inconvenient embarrassment about Assessment Amendment Law. It's this like really proud one of the truly great victories for the First Amendment was that it will protect the speech that we hate because it is you know Betta to have it out in the urban it's better to meet it with county speech and we just can't trust the government to suppress as an Australian very striking. I don't even have a right to free speech. We don't have a bill of rights and our Constitution it's it's like a completely foreign idea this fight over unfettered free speech and in fact, where it collides with Anti Semitism and Holocaust denial broke into the news cycle again, this week, there's a split screen like the Supreme Court confirmation hearings going on on one side, and then on the other side facebook releases a blog post the company which has always said it values free expression above everything else announced that it would ban any content that denies or distorts the Holocaust. Two days later, twitter did the same thing. It might seem like banning Holocaust denial is a pretty easy call, but it was only a few years ago that facebook said, it wouldn't prohibit Holocaust to nihilism on its platform. which is part of why and says, this is a really big deal I. think this is like a really iconic moment in the history of the company and its thinking and its evolution around its rules. There is no more emblematic rule that facebook had about. To First Amendment Principles. Today on the show. Decision to finally habit Holocaust, Mus Information and what it means for free speech debates, the Internet and the potential for change. I'm Lizzie O'Leary and you're listening to what next TVD A show about technology power, how the future will be determined stay with us. Voting this year is a little. Than usual, what you don't want to do is be the one sprinting to the mailbox trying to send in a last minute vote or get to the front of the line at the polls only to realize you're not registered. That's why facebook has created the voting information centre with you want to know how to register how to vote by mail or to vote safely in person the voting information center can help you find the answers to your questions and make sure your vote is counted because of vote counted is a voice heard for official information from election authorities visit facebook, dot com slash voting Info Centre. Countless emails, endless video meetings, lost documents sometimes, it feels like technology is working overtime against us. Well, MONDAY DOT COM is getting it back on your side by bringing everything together to streamline your workflows and keep your teams can sink in one easy to use platform. Finally your team can work confidently and manage all core business activities in one place creating a workplace environment where everything's transparent everyone's accountable and real work gets done without anything holding you back. Whether you work in a team of five or five thousand Monday. Dot Com is the easiest way to keep everyone connected and on the right track try it out for yourself to get your free two week trial. Good Monday dot com today. I, WanNa talk about how seismic shift this is if we think back to just two years ago. Mark Zuckerberg gave a very now well known interview to Cara Swisher. And said, she didn't believe that posts that deny the Holocaust should be taken down. I believe that our platform should take down because I think that there are things different people get wrong. either. I don't think that they're intentionally getting a wrong but I think that they. They might be but go home. It's hard to pune intent. Boy. It is a big journey from. People get things wrong even though I might find it personally offensive. To. My own thinking has evolved. The big thing that they always have hung onto was we don't WanNa be arbiters of truth, and we will not take content down purely on the basis that it's false. We might take it on the down on the basis that its nudity or that it's hate speech or that it has other sort of effects but we weren't take content down just because it's wrong and that's sort of what's reflected in that quote from Makoto Takhar Swisher is you know some people get things wrong sometimes and the the pandemic literally changed that decision overnight in the context of a global public health emergency they abandoned that they said we will take down. False information about the pandemic because it poses a public health risk, and now we're playing ball like now companies are taking content down on the basis that it's false and we're now seeing it in other areas. We saw it in the context of the wildfires in West my country was on file for months. In December and January, and there were lots of false rumors about the cause of the fires and facebook didn't take anything down and then Oregon was on fire A. Couple of months ago, and suddenly they were taking down misinformation about the cause of their as far as think a stock contrast as you can draw. It's still interesting to hear you peg this to the pandemic because I think about all the data points that came before that this is. After the two thousand, sixteen election, it is after the Charlottesville unite the right rally, which took place in two thousand seventeen. Do you think the coronavirus pandemic is it sort of launching us into a new I guess area of thinking about content and speech on its own or or easy it kind of a I guess a catalyst for something that was going to happen anyway. Yeah. You're absolutely right that it's only sort of it's part of the broader trend. It was a particularly visible and sort of obvious example of the trend in the same way that the pandemic has made many sort of fundamental. Assumptions structures in society more visible, and we've sort of seen progressively moving more and more along that line of sort of okay. We copies all speech all the time. Let's balancing trysts and draw the line and I think that the pandemic was just sort of another step along that road. If you think about it that way these announcements from facebook and twitter about banning Holocaust denial or in line with other content moderation decisions we've seen this year like the outright ban on Cunanan content. But in other ways several and says the decision. Holocaust. Denial marks a deeper and more fundamental shift in how speeches police online Holocaust denial is one of these iconic things about the first amendment and I believe that one of the reasons why facebook sort of stuck to that principle for so long of allowing on services was because it's still considered itself a fundamentally American company attached to these first. Amendment ideals is robust marketplace of ideas. Which is bizarre when you think about it these these are clearly global companies now and most of they US bases outside all over America but there was still something that it couldn't let go of and so I think it's really when Audience First Amendment land anymore like vc's we are now in this unknown landscape of trying to work out what norms we can attach ourselves to.

Facebook United States Skokie Makoto Takhar Swisher Twitter America Harvard Law School American Civil Liberties Union Massachusetts Supreme Court Chicago Evelyn Mark Zuckerberg Lizzie O'leary Skokie Illinois State Supreme Court Info Centre Charlottesville
Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on  John Tabacco's Liquid Lunch

John Tabacco's Liquid Lunch

00:36 sec | 16 hrs ago

Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on John Tabacco's Liquid Lunch

"The Republican led Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday postpone plans to vote on subpoenas to compel the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook to testify on allegations of anti conservative bias after some panel Republicans Expressed reservations about the maneuver. Republicans on the committee said they do still want to hear testimony from both Dorsey and Zuckerberg, President Trump spending his Monday in the battleground state of Arizona. The president won Arizona in 2016, but is currently trailing former vice President Joe Biden in the state by about 3% points. As Faras. If President Trump will hold on to Arizona and carry it again in 2020, these voters telling Fox News I.

President Trump Senate Judiciary Committee Arizona Vice President Joe Biden Twitter Facebook Dorsey FOX Zuckerberg
Senate Republicans call on Twitter, Facebook bosses to testify amid censorship claims, say subpoena in works

Bloomberg Daybreak: Asia

00:12 sec | 5 d ago

Senate Republicans call on Twitter, Facebook bosses to testify amid censorship claims, say subpoena in works

"Who they say they will vote to subpoena Twitter head Jack Dorsey and possibly Mark Zuckerberg is well from Facebook next week to respond to taking down the New York Post ad regarding Biden and charisma. In San

Jack Dorsey New York Post Twitter Facebook Biden Mark Zuckerberg SAN
Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Charlie Parker

Charlie Parker

00:46 min | 19 hrs ago

Fresh update on "zuckerberg" discussed on Charlie Parker

"This follows a spat between the two after found she wanted to be removed from the Trump campaign ad, where the doctor appears to endorse the president's handling of the pandemic. The U. S Senate Judiciary Committee says it's still wants answers from Twitter and Facebook on why they wouldn't allow users to repose New York Post stories about Hunter Biden and is over. These business dealings in Ukraine in China, Texas U. S Senator Ted Cruz as the tech companies are a threat to free speech. It is one thing and it is wrong and profoundly dangerous for social media to be censoring individual citizens, and that's a huge problem. This next escalation that Silicon Valley billionaires are asserting they can muzzle the press. The committee could vote Thursday on whether to subpoena Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg to testify but is hoping both will agree to give testimony voluntarily. 69 year old Rush Limbaugh provided his listeners a somber update on his stage four lung cancer diagnosis on Monday. I'm I'm in the third A wave of treatment now. There have been many cycles. But this is the third wave and this current wave I have to tell you is kicking. My Russia's recent scan showed some progression of cancer, indicating a turn in the wrong direction. He said his doctor's tweaked his treatment plan to curb any additional progress for as long as possible. W away I news time 7 37 traffic and weather together in a minute, But first to check of your money and the world of business..

U. S Senate Judiciary Committe Facebook Twitter Limbaugh Hunter Biden Senator Ted Cruz New York Post Jack Dorsey President Trump Mark Zuckerberg Russia Texas Ukraine China U. S
Facebook Bans Holocaust Denial Content

People of the Pod

07:33 min | 5 d ago

Facebook Bans Holocaust Denial Content

"On Monday in a major departure from the company's previous position facebook announced that it would ban Holocaust denial content from the platform E. J.. C. is proud of our sustained advocacy to help facebook or at this decision. Joining us now to discuss the new policy is join ANA cutler facebook head of policy for Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. Jordan, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me here now in two thousand eighteen facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg famously said that he hates Holocaust denial but that he doesn't believe it is facebook's place to censor the free exchange of ideas. This week facebook reversed course and announced that Holocaust denial would no longer be permitted on the platform what changed between then and now. I think I'll start just bipolar mark because I could say a lot of things but I think the most important thing is what he says himself I think what's really interesting mark doesn't post about every policy change and every step of the company takes, but he felt it was important that he posted he set himself. I struggled with the tension between standing for freedom of expression and the harm caused by minimizing or denying the her the Holocaust. My thinking has evolved as I've seen data showing an increase in. Antisemitic violence as our water policies have also changed on hate speech drawing the right lines between what is and isn't acceptable speech in straightforward but with the current state of the world I believe this is the right balance and I just I felt it was important just to read all of his words. I'm I'm sure many of you saw it on facebook and then read one hundred other news articles but to go back into what mark said his thinking of all for two reasons, one data in the real world. And I'm really actually excited to get the data from the new AJC survey coming up not to give you a plug. No one asked me to do that. By all means, plug away that day that is important to us. We we look at it and we see it as a connection between what we see online and offline world that's important to us, and second is the discussions that we've had with people around the world. That's also important Tyson. You guys have been a part of that. So again, these processes evolve and I think it's important to note all of our processes and all of our policies evolve. So mark you know having. A policy change isn't that unusual? This one obviously is something that we've been all very focused on so it stands out to us. facebook famously has more than a billion, maybe even two billion monthly active users, something like that. Right the the numbers. That I'm not counting. The number is is way up there and certainly makes you number one among social media platforms. So I would imagine with so many people. So frequently using facebook, the sheer number of posts, individual posts in facebook's history must be well well into the billions does this decision apply retroactively? So if someone five years ago, posted some piece of Holocaust denial content in among these many billions of posts is facebook using some kind of system to find that and remove it. Great question because we actually find remove. Two ways the first is our AI systems that look and find for this stuff and the second is user reports and hoping many the listeners here when they see content that they think violates our policies, not just our speech policy but any of our policies that they report it because every piece of content whether it's a comment page post, all of those pieces of content are things that you can report and have checked by were, and those reviewers are people that are. Based all around the world that are operating twenty, four, seven, and operating in every language on our platform to find those violations it's important to say that no matter what changes we've made as soon as content is violating our platform, we will remove it because hate speech what it was two years ago isn't necessarily hate speech today, and that's not just because we've changed our policies the words that we used as slurs change over time and so speech changes as time. Evolves. We also take a look at those changes and reevaluate our policies. So of course, if we find content because it's reported to us or because we find it no matter when it was posted, we will remove that from our platform. Now, it will take time when it comes to this new policy to get it up to speed and to try to get as much of this content off. One of the things about ai is that it takes time for us to. Learn and to be able to use automated technology to find things and remove them. does take a learning process especially considering how many languages we have. So I just encourage everybody listening if you see Holocaust denial or distortion content to report it, but I would like to flag that we might make mistakes especially in the beginning, you'll have an opportunity to appeal that mistake, and if we continue to make mistakes I can promise you that will continue to work on improving. One thing I've seen kind of these things will go viral when when mistakes are made sometimes. On on twitter of course, not not facebook but you'll see that someone you know intended or someone. Did you know share their great grandmother's story of being in the Holocaust something in there there's a line about how you know someone once told her that her story was made up or something and enough words are used in just the right pattern that the AI picks it up and flags it as something like that. So I guess those are the kinds of mistakes that that can happen is they're? Going to be some kind of a notice I, go on my facebook and I like post my usual daily Holocaust denial post and ten of my friends like it and two more calm and whatever, and then someone says like what the hell are you doing like this is terrible and they report me and facebook becomes aware of it and they take it down as well. They should what happens then well, it's going to be the same as any other content on our platform and I think it's important. To notice the policy that we came out with to remove how Austin I own distortion content is a subsection of an existing hate speech policy that already provided a lot of protections against hate speech or antisemitic content against Jews, and so for us it's I wouldn't say reinventing the wheel here. What we're doing is adding onto a policy that we already started in August I kind of look at that as the moment where these changes really took shape where we added a line into the hate speech. Policy that said, we will remove harmful stereotypes against Jewish people that claims that they are controlling the world arts, major institutions, and so this is going to be a line under that. If you go in and anyone can go door community standards and see there's a new bullet point under there that says Holocaust denial distortion anyone who reports content for violating hate speech policy we'll be treated the same anyone who reporting any content is treated the same. We're not doing something separate for this policy so just in. General. When you report content I think it's important to know that often anonymous reports so people should feel safe to report the person on the other side. If that content isn't violating, they're not going to even know that that content was reported. But if the content is violating, then they will get a message from US telling them that the content was removed and we'll tell them for what policy it was removed. We won't be specific as to what word was violating. We will tell them what policy. That's been a huge undertaking from our engineering teams. We usually just in the past would say this is violating our community standards and we understood that that wasn't enough information for people. So now we explain what policy was violating. It's important to note that people report content for many different reasons. But when we see that report will look at it under all of our policies. So you might report something for being hate speech, but we actually removed it because it was nudity we will evaluate all that content. And then let the person know as to why we also explained to them that if you continue to violate our policies, we will block you from using our services or eventually remove you from our services

Facebook AI Mark Zuckerberg Ana Cutler Israel Jordan Jewish Diaspora Founder United States Tyson Austin
7 Business Lessons From Instagram Launching 'Reels'

Marketing School

04:29 min | 5 d ago

7 Business Lessons From Instagram Launching 'Reels'

"Super committed to your success online. We've worked with them to a special offer just remarking school listeners all you have to do is go to dream host dot com slash marking school to learn more and get your website online today. Welcome to another episode of Marketing School. I'm Eric Su and I'm Neil Patel and today we're GonNa talk about seven business lessons from instagram launching. Real's. So instagram as this recording there still a, there's this battle against Tiktok the even the US is battling Tiktok while trying to get in the cell and so facebook sees tiktok as a existential threat. So they launched their tiktok competitor called reels and we just WanNa talk about a couple of business lessons that we learned watching Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, which owns instagram over the year. So I'll start with number one number one is you know don't be afraid to coffee I mean you know they copied stories from snapchat and other copying reels. Actually not illegal to do. So people actually think maybe it's in bad taste but some people will talk trash to meals. People talk trash to me saying Oh. You know we're copping copying copying but. Even. The biggest companies in the world they iterating on things that happened to be working well, and then they move on. Yeah number two is don't expect every launch a success sometimes facebook does launches and they do well and sometimes they don't do well. But the one thing that's for sure is persistent and they keep trying new things. So whenever you launch something new and it doesn't go well, don't get discouraged just keep at it keep tweaking, keep experimenting, keep testing and keep launching because some things will be a massive hit and some things will. Number three is around if you're going to launch something, you launch it with fanfare, and so they launched it with fanfare and they announced it across channels. But also what happens is, for example, when live launched or when stories launched, they favored the stories even even an instagram right now, our facebook when you go live, they still favor you because it's engaging people on the platform. You know if you're going to launch something, make sure that you are marketing correctly you're promoting where you can and you're making the most of the distribution that you have and face because ton of distribution across its channels. So that is number three. Number Four. When you're doing a launch, you need to end up creating buzz around it before you launch, and after if you just release something and you launch it and it's a soft launch, it doesn't do well when facebook does launches, they tried to create as much noise as possible. Another player to look at when it comes to launches including noise is apple. So falling either of them is tragic to create that buzz. When you create that buzz is much more likely to go off as a hidden, and then it's going to cause more sales, conversions usage whatever the metric you're optimize for. Number five if you think about it reels launched and there's this tiktok battle going on but keep in mind to mark Zuckerberg is a really good businessman he he's not look he he helped code facebook but at the end of the day, a lot of people respect for how good he is at at business and what he did was he went to Washington I talked about how Tiktok is national security threat. Who knows if it is it isn't but the fact that matters got the crossers on Tiktok. Now there's a lot more scrutiny and boom they come out with this deal's launch. And if you can't build it crushes, that would be number six. So technically, I would say if you can't build the crush it or buy it. So if Mark Zuckerberg see something that's blowing up talk facebook is an atrocity notre by if they can't buy, they try to copy it everywhere if they can't copy it, they tried to crush just like that stop hey tiktok should end up being banned it's a really smart strategy. The other thing that you'll notice that they end up doing too is if they're going against competitor just copy. The featured on Instagram, the copy that feature on Instagram facebook what's up the everywhere? So you're much more likely to use their ecosystem versus someone else and is a very clever approach to keep people there versus going to the competition. Yeah. Number seven similar to what Neil said a little earlier. But you know if you've got a if you create something, you not only have to kill your babies if they don't work but you have to kill them pretty quickly and so face because launch a lot of different things previously that didn't work out. And they were like, they would come out and then you would see him just disappeared really quickly. Right. So you have to be willing to be unemotional just because you put in a lot of engineering resource a low costs around it and it you did all this marketing fanfare it it doesn't mean that it should stay around because you put know no sunk cost, right that's fallacy, and so you

Facebook Instagram Mark Zuckerberg Tiktok Neil Patel Marketing School Apple Eric Su United States Snapchat Washington
Facebook bans Holocaust denial content

10 10 WINS 24 Hour News

00:39 sec | Last week

Facebook bans Holocaust denial content

"That deny or distort the Holocaust. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a new policy the latest attempt by the company to take action against conspiracy theories and misinformation ahead of the presidential election. The move also follows activism by Holocaust survivors around the world over the summer, who lent their voices to a campaign targeting Zuckerberg urging him to take action to remove Holocaust denial post. From the social media site it a block post Monday, Zuckerberg said he believes the new policy strikes the right balance and drawing the lines between what is and isn't acceptable speech. I'm surely antler wins these time for

Mark Zuckerberg Facebook CEO
Microsoft is letting more employees work from home permanently

Morning News with Manda Factor and Gregg Hersholt

00:55 sec | Last week

Microsoft is letting more employees work from home permanently

"Companies have been telling their employees that can work from home now through the end of the year because of the pandemic, But one major employer here is taking it to the next level as we hear from comas. Brian Calvert check blogged The verge says it's seen an internal memo that outlines a new hybrid model from employees of Microsoft effective now. Microsoft employees could work up to 50% of their weak from home. No questions asked. Furthermore, managers have the option to now allows select workers to stay home permanently well beyond the original work from home and date of January. The Redman software giant will also pay expenses to create working spaces of home for those employees. Who never want to return to the office. The verge reports. Facebook is doing something very similar, allowing its workers to choose the stay at home option permanently. CEO Mark Zuckerberg told them up to half of the company's workers would stay home within 5 to 10 years. Brian Calvert camo news.

Brian Calvert Microsoft Ceo Mark Zuckerberg Facebook
Senate Commerce votes to issue subpoenas to CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter

Dana Loesch

00:22 sec | 2 weeks ago

Senate Commerce votes to issue subpoenas to CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter

"Committee is going to subpoena Facebook and Twitter there see, and Google CEO is not just those two, but all three CEOs to testify. Eso Sundar Ah Chi Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg. The Senate Commerce Committee voted unanimously this week to approve a plan to subpoena them and it's going to focus obviously on section 2 30.

Eso Sundar Ah Chi Jack Dorsey Senate Commerce Committee Facebook Twitter CEO Mark Zuckerberg Google
Tech reckoning in Washington

KYW 24 Hour News

00:14 sec | 2 weeks ago

Tech reckoning in Washington

"In Washington. The Senate committee has voted unanimously to subpoena Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of Twitter and alphabets Google. They want testimony on a legal shield that protects the businesses from lawsuits over what users post. And you might

Facebook Mark Zuckerberg Twitter Senate CEO Washington Google
Why some dems dislike Reid Hoffman

Reset

05:58 min | 3 weeks ago

Why some dems dislike Reid Hoffman

"Might, be here at recode centers on tech billionaires who they are, what drives them, and what exactly they spend their fortunes on. And these days one answer to that last question is politics. So I, try and chart the gusher of billionaire money flowing. Into American. Elections. Often in secret. Joining me on the show today here is my editor at recode, Sam, open hey sam hey teddy. So last week, we published a story from you about one of these billionaires read men, the founder of Lincoln Board member of Microsoft, a major democratic political donor. So I think this conversation is a chance for us to talk about why out of the many people in Silicon Valley could be covering why did we focus on hosman? He's not really a household name the way that Mark Zuckerberg are Jeff Bezos are let's talk about what makes him an interesting character in Silicon Valley. Yeah I mean he someone who? Has. A ton of. Money. But more. So is one of these people who sees himself as a quote unquote thought? Leader Right. He sort of coins terms that are used in startup land. He has a podcast which has tons of listeners and he's basically sort of cultivated this image as one of the good guys of silicon. Valley. And in the last four years, he's taken his billions of dollars net worth and decided that he wants to become the tip of the spear of Silicon, Valley's to oust trump and he's doing exactly that Nacho spending his own money but sort of serving as a port of call for all Silicon Valley so that's why we thought focused on Reid Hoffman. As a way to talk about the bigger story, which is the politicization and the new partisan ethos that has taken over tech over the last four years. One of the things that we talk about early in the story as we talk about his donor table and I think that gets at this idea that. He's Gathering his fellow billionaires to take action as well. So can you tell us a little bit more about the donor table and how it works and this big money machine? He's created for Democrat politics in. Silicon. Valley sure. So Hoffman is not just putting his own considerable net worth into this. A lot of the secret sauce of political fundraising that happens you know oftentimes in the dark at private meetings is the art of getting other rich people to do the same thing. As you to create leverage. This is someone who started linked in all about creating social networks to drive professional change and stuff like that. So Hoffman has basically created this donor table, which is a fancy way of saying a bunch of his rich friends getting together to fund the same stuff. So Hoffman has some political help and there are people who are other billionaires who maybe don't have fulltime political help who turned Hoffman they say, Hey, read what are you funding? Can I? Get Out essentially and read in turn will frequently challenge other Billionaires Ju to do the same thing. So sort of what this creates is this network of rich people were funding. The same nonprofits are the same super pacs or the same candidates behind the scenes and what the ends up creating is some organization really well funded others don't and no one really knows this donor table exists, but it's sort of is how big money politics works, which is you know without full Disclosure and accountability and transparency. But read is sort of the node of this new political network something I'd like us to talk a little bit more about is you know there are billionaires all over the country on both sides of the political aisle pouring money into the twenty twenty election and you know I think it's important to cover silicon valley in the billionaires here. Can you explain a little bit more why Silicon Valley is of particular note why are we focusing on? Tech Billionaires. People Reid. Hoffman when we cover politics and money in two thousand twenty. So at the core of read bins takeover of the Silicon Valley money machine is this tension that re dispensing millions of dollars to house trump and yet lots of Democrats hate him and the reason is Hoffman doesn't just want to fund the Democratic Party in the traditional ways he wants to fund Democratic Party in a very silicon valley way funding start-ups that might compete with the democratic establishment. Of State Democratic parties which are the backbone of the National Democratic infrastructure. Hoffman has basically declared a war on the Democratic Party establishment and that sort of has obviously made a lot of Democrats. uncomfortable. He's willing to fund things that push the envelope that some people have ethical concerns over. It's not as easy as well. Re Hoffman spending his fortune to hours trump. There's a lot of uneasiness about him and that makes them a fascinating character the fact that how? Democrats. Both accept his money with open arms and celebrate him. As you know a bore against what he sees a fascist threat at the same time, he's being very critical people who've made their entire careers about being a professional democratic political operative and a lot of ways. Obviously, this gets at a broader criticism of Silicon Valley, which is the respect expertise. They think they know everything I think a lot of Democrats feel that way about Silicon Valley in. But SORT MINNESOTA symbolize this bigger debate about whether any of these silicon valley people know what they're talking about when they enter a field that is not business.

Silicon Valley Reid Hoffman Democratic Party Democratic Party Establishment Microsoft Mark Zuckerberg Jeff Bezos Editor SAM Founder Nacho Minnesota Lincoln Board Democrats.
Why Section 230 is under attack

Reset

05:47 min | 3 weeks ago

Why Section 230 is under attack

"The Internet as we know, it depends on a couple of sentences. It's section two thirty subsection. C of the communications decency. act, of Nineteen ninety-six. And Tech companies and Internet freedom activists say without the rights prescribed in those sentences, the platforms will use every day facebook twitter youtube read it. They wouldn't have existed. That may sound extreme but defenders of the law have had to make a strong argument for keeping it the way it is. That's because over the last few years section two thirty has come under attack from both sides of the aisle section to thirty should be revoked the me should be revolt number one for Zuckerberg and other plants that's pretty foundational. Love the the modern. Race Internet exactly right and it should be revoked. was made new village just remove or totally changed to thirty. What I think we can say is we're going to regulate let's say provision within a regulated. Most recently, Attorney General William. Bar sent his own proposal to Congress about how to change the law and ceremony report here Rico is here talking about it Hey Sarah hate entity. To quickly go over what exactly section to thirty is, what was it meant to do? So section two thirty is the law that gives you know, Internet, platforms like facebook twitter reddit immunity from lawsuits about what their users post on them. So I mean if you post something on facebook that's libellous defamatory about somebody oh, that person can sue you for libel like they could sue anybody else right but then they can't sue facebook just because it hosted that content. So, basically, this dates back to the early days. The Internet you know the mid ninety s when Congress is trying to figure out. How to legislate speech on it, there was a core case where a judge ruled that an Internet service that had moderated its forums was there for liable for something liable lists that a user posted on it and that if they had it moderated it at all then they wouldn't have been responsible so that decision you can imagine. The effect at this, if it remains today would have had on your those services that either not allow any third party content at all in which case like facebook and twitter doesn't really exist. Or they would just not moderate anything. Section thirty was sort of this happy medium. Now, Senator Ron, Wyden co-authored it, and it basically said that Internet service could moderate the content its users posted on. and Be Immune from any. Civil lawsuits resulting from what those users posted and so what? Senator Ron Wyden said often is that it's like a sword and a shield, the shield being from lawsuits, and then the sword being being allowed to sort of moderate content. Guess what happened here you know both Democrats and Republicans seem to have objections with section two thirty. Why did this falso firmly out of favor? I mean a lot of people still do like I think especially the platforms that are protected by it but a lot of the arguments against it pretty much boils down to things. The first big reason is that there are websites that sort of abuse their immunity protections to host. Content that is objectively bad and harmful, and one example of this would be websites that had child sex trafficking ads on them which because of section two thirty, their victims had like no legal recourse. So a law called. The foster which was passed in two thousand eighteen removed immunity protections from websites or platforms that hosted. Child Sex trafficking ads basically. and. Then the second argument that we see a lot which is more conservatives make is that because of the huge part that these websites sort of play and how information spreads this companies gets a basically determined the speech that has allowed on those platforms and a lot of conservatives feel that they make decisions that sensor them and their ideas and their speech wall leading lot of progressive. Speech pass and they don't think that's fair. So they want to change the law in a way that means that those platforms have to moderate in a way that they believe is sort of politically neutral gotcha. So now there's this announcement from the department, of Justice Right Trump's department of justice for changing to thirty. What does that say is that sort of the conservative argument you'd expect Yeah I mean Attorney General Bar has really doesn't like section to thirty and kind of made it emission of his sort of all along to to make it do what he thinks it should, and so the latest thing here is a proposal for what legislation that Congress will pass should look like to to make section to thirty. More applicable to what the Internet. Is today he thinks. There's two parts of this and the first one this pretty like along the lines of system foster, which just adds a couple more types of content that are excluded from. The immunity protections that's like child-sex-abuse terrorism and cyber stalking. So it would remove section to thirty protections from an additional types of content, and then the second thing would force platforms sort of spell out their rules for Speier, allowed to say or not say apply them equally. Not Make Arbitrary Decisions de Conservatives believed that they make that's unfairly sensors them.

Facebook Congress Senator Ron Wyden Attorney General William Twitter Senator Ron Zuckerberg Stalking BAR Speier Rico Donald Trump Attorney General Bar
Facebook oversight board to start operating in October

America's First News

00:37 sec | 3 weeks ago

Facebook oversight board to start operating in October

"Well, Facebook's long awaited oversight board that will act as a referee on whether specific contents allowed on the platform is set to launch in October. CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcing two years ago, he was setting up the quasi independent board. Following criticism. The company wasn't moving fast enough to remove misinformation, hate speech and A line influence campaigns two years later, it's launching the board is intended to rule on thorny content issues, such as when Facebook or Instagram post constitute hate speech. The board said it's testing newly deployed technical systems and if those tests go to planet would start accepting and reviewing appeals from users and middle late October

Facebook Ceo Mark Zuckerberg Instagram
Selena Gomez issues plea to Facebook to stop platform sharing “hate, misinformation, racism, and bigotry”

10 10 WINS 24 Hour News

00:32 sec | Last month

Selena Gomez issues plea to Facebook to stop platform sharing “hate, misinformation, racism, and bigotry”

"Selena Gomez is pleading with Facebook to better police misinformation and hate speech. Yesterday on Instagram, the singer called out Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and CEO Cheryl Sandburg for the lack of accountability, she said the platform is being used to spread hate, misinformation, racism and bigotry. The influential Gomez has 193 million followers on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook and tops. 77 million on Facebook itself,

Facebook Selena Gomez Cheryl Sandburg Mark Zuckerberg CEO Founder
TikTok and WeChat: US to ban app downloads in 48 hours

Techmeme Ride Home

03:18 min | Last month

TikTok and WeChat: US to ban app downloads in 48 hours

"This morning the Commerce Department announced that it will ban US downloads of and business transactions with Tik Tok and we chat on Sunday. So are these stories don now probably not even close quoting CNBC, the announcement comes ahead of an expected statement Friday by President Donald Trump on whether or not the government will approve a deal for Oracle to take minority stake and TIKTOK and become a trusted technology partner for the company in the US. It's unclear if the Commerce Department's announcement means there's no possibility of a deal going through. Before this Sunday deadline, it could be an aggressive move from the trump administration to push for its original intention to force Tiktok to become fully owned by a US company. The Commerce statement said that starting Sunday US companies will be banned from distributing we chat tiktok meaning the two major mobile APP stores run by apple and Google will have to remove the APPS from their libraries. The statement also blocks US companies from providing services through we chat quote for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the US and quote. But. The announcement also lays out a separate timeframe specific to tiktok giving it until November twelfth to resolve the US national security concerns the rules that start November twelfth include provisions that block US companies from providing Internet hosting and services. For TIKTOK, this could be directed at the deal being negotiated between TIKTOK and Oracle which would provide cloud services for TIC TAC if trump approves and could give Tiktok and Oracle more time to hammer out a deal that will. Satisfy the president in an interview with Fox business on Friday Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said, the bands will affect Tiktok and we chat differently at first. He said Tiktok will still function, but users will not be able to upgrade the APP. It's still unclear what kind of functionality we chat will have in the US after Sunday but it's unclear whether or not TIKTOK will still be allowed in mobile APP stores but not allowed to provide updates to users and quote. Not The date of that extended tiktok deadline November twelfth certainly that gives all sides more time to negotiate a deal. But as Peter Kafka pointed out on twitter, we chat enormously popular with Chinese Americans owned by a Chinese company will be crippled by the US on Sunday night TIKTOK enormously popular with Americans including some trump voters owned by a Chinese company trying to do a deal with trump's supporters it will be okay through election day and quote. More headlines and rumors have been bouncing around over the last twelve to twenty-four hours bite dances apparently planning on a US IPO for whatever new business is carved out if it's allowed to be carved out. An agreement has been hammered out between dance and Oracle that includes the creation of an oversight board approved by the US government and a continuous third party audit, and finally most juicy sources are telling the New York Times that instagram founder Kevin System, has had preliminary talks about becoming tick tock new CEO if tech talk is allowed to continue as Josh. Bernstein. tweeted INSTAGRAM's Kevin System. Becoming Tick CEO and crushing reels would be the ultimate revenge for Zuckerberg stripping his autonomy. So Spicy and quote.

United States Tiktok Donald Trump Oracle Commerce Department Us Government President Trump Tik Tok Cnbc Wilbur Ross Partner CEO Kevin System Instagram Apple New York Times Twitter Google
WeChat Officially Banned On Sunday. TikTok Only Kinda Banned.

Techmeme Ride Home

03:18 min | Last month

WeChat Officially Banned On Sunday. TikTok Only Kinda Banned.

"This morning the Commerce Department announced that it will ban US downloads of and business transactions with Tik Tok and we chat on Sunday. So are these stories don now probably not even close quoting CNBC, the announcement comes ahead of an expected statement Friday by President Donald Trump on whether or not the government will approve a deal for Oracle to take minority stake and TIKTOK and become a trusted technology partner for the company in the US. It's unclear if the Commerce Department's announcement means there's no possibility of a deal going through. Before this Sunday deadline, it could be an aggressive move from the trump administration to push for its original intention to force Tiktok to become fully owned by a US company. The Commerce statement said that starting Sunday US companies will be banned from distributing we chat tiktok meaning the two major mobile APP stores run by apple and Google will have to remove the APPS from their libraries. The statement also blocks US companies from providing services through we chat quote for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the US and quote. But. The announcement also lays out a separate timeframe specific to tiktok giving it until November twelfth to resolve the US national security concerns the rules that start November twelfth include provisions that block US companies from providing Internet hosting and services. For TIKTOK, this could be directed at the deal being negotiated between TIKTOK and Oracle which would provide cloud services for TIC TAC if trump approves and could give Tiktok and Oracle more time to hammer out a deal that will. Satisfy the president in an interview with Fox business on Friday Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said, the bands will affect Tiktok and we chat differently at first. He said Tiktok will still function, but users will not be able to upgrade the APP. It's still unclear what kind of functionality we chat will have in the US after Sunday but it's unclear whether or not TIKTOK will still be allowed in mobile APP stores but not allowed to provide updates to users and quote. Not The date of that extended tiktok deadline November twelfth certainly that gives all sides more time to negotiate a deal. But as Peter Kafka pointed out on twitter, we chat enormously popular with Chinese Americans owned by a Chinese company will be crippled by the US on Sunday night TIKTOK enormously popular with Americans including some trump voters owned by a Chinese company trying to do a deal with trump's supporters it will be okay through election day and quote. More headlines and rumors have been bouncing around over the last twelve to twenty-four hours bite dances apparently planning on a US IPO for whatever new business is carved out if it's allowed to be carved out. An agreement has been hammered out between dance and Oracle that includes the creation of an oversight board approved by the US government and a continuous third party audit, and finally most juicy sources are telling the New York Times that instagram founder Kevin System, has had preliminary talks about becoming tick tock new CEO if tech talk is allowed to continue as Josh. Bernstein. tweeted INSTAGRAM's Kevin System. Becoming Tick CEO and crushing reels would be the ultimate revenge for Zuckerberg stripping his autonomy. So Spicy and quote.

United States Tiktok Donald Trump Oracle Commerce Department Us Government President Trump Tik Tok Cnbc Wilbur Ross Partner CEO Kevin System Instagram Apple New York Times Twitter Google
Facebook teaming up with Ray-Ban maker for first smart glasses in 2021

10 10 WINS 24 Hour News

00:21 sec | Last month

Facebook teaming up with Ray-Ban maker for first smart glasses in 2021

"Remember Google Glass Google's experiment a few years ago in augmented reality glasses you consume. Say hello to Facebook's entry in the nascent smart glass market. Mark Zuckerberg is announced today the coming of the glasses, but without details on what they'll cost or be called, or Khun do. We do know that Facebook has worked with the maker of Ray bans on the design.

Facebook Google Khun Mark Zuckerberg RAY
Could a digital 'New Deal' rewrite tech policy?

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

05:36 min | Last month

Could a digital 'New Deal' rewrite tech policy?

"At this point consumers, tech employees, even the CEOS of some big tech companies say there should be more regulation around privacy advertising and even disinformation. But what might that regulation look like the think tank? The German Marshall Fund is for an initiative called the digital new deal. It contains a bunch of policy proposals that would ideally create more transparency into how tech companies operate and questioned the incentives that pushed this information. Can Corn Blue is director of the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the German Marshall Fund. So one of the specific proposals we have on that front is a circuit breaker that they have for high-speed trading on Wall Street where when things get too heated and are spreading too quickly the platforms have to take a pause and take a look and see if it violates our terms of service. They didn't do this with a video that was spreading conspiracy theories about how dangerous masks are who's spreading Cova. called. America's frontline doctors. It was seen by twenty million separate views on facebook before they realized they had to shut it down. That's interesting because you know. So much of this has been built on the idea that Barack. Is Good that something going by real as good and so you're saying that these platforms should start to change their thinking so that when something's going viral They are alarmed. Yeah I. Mean I think we've all taken another look at that word viral lately. Can Be bad and but viral viral can be good for platforms because it means that people are excited and they're staying online, and that means that the platforms can show you ads and that's how they make money. So they're incentives differ from our incentives, which is that we want to critically examined that piece of content that's coming across our desk before we share it with our unwitting grandmother may take action based on it. How what is the reception to the idea of this level of regulation? Obviously, the company's. Clear even from mark, Zuckerberg's interview just this week. that. They don't agree you know he talked about anthrax and that he doesn't want to suppress speech about vaccine skepticism. But if you look at social media messages urging Americans to re reject vaccines, it's tripled just since the pandemic has begun and again he's focused on the content and not enough on the systems. That create the opportunity for conspiracy theorists to play the algorithm or a bunch of groups to promote act anti vaccine, and that's because he doesn't. He doesn't have the incentive you know the car companies, they may have resisted seatbelts or airbags fuel-efficiency. But then once the policies were put in place, they turned on the innovation and they figured out how they could still make money but also keep people safe a lot of the time you know the pushback argument for not regulating social media platforms, for example, as free speech, but it's also based on this idea that like. Disinformation is just as old as time people people. You know that's what people do they argue or they try to convince each other in one direction or the other but it seems like increasingly we're realizing that the platforms themselves not only is there an incentive for them to serve this content? But they exist as an incentive to create it like there's money to be made influencers are selling March? Yeah. I'm so glad you asked that that's absolutely right and a lot of people miss that that if I'm if I have an outlet, one of these, we call them Trojan horse outlets that pretend to be news outlets better just repackaging old rumors and making them look like news or if you're one of these carnival barker pages that that tries to get people's attention on those outlets. if you get enough eyeballs the platforms serve up ads and you get some of that money if you're a youtube channel that spews out a lot of disinformation. So people come to you. You can wind up with revenue sharing from the platform. So absolutely, and then there are a bunch of people that flat out sell fraudulent products as part of this disinformation scheme. So they may say you know here's here's something that works better than a mask to cure Kovic and buy it here. Here's something that will get you rich quickly. So there is an entire financial. Ecosystem that supporting this disinformation. So in a way, it's not like the platforms. Just amplify and themselves profit from disinformation they create an incentive cycle. And of financial encouragement for people to create and spread disinformation. That's absolutely right and the one other thing that I would add to that I mean that's really true and the Federal Trade Commission has started to do work in this, but they could use a lot more expertise a lot more authority and a lot more resources to to go after this kind of activity and the other thing that I would say to add to your question about. Aren't people just going to spread rumors is that one of the things that makes the Internet more effective spreading rumors is this information laundering so that people don't know where the information is coming from. It looks like it's coming from a reputable news organization. It looks like it's coming from a neighbor because people aren't aware and the platforms aren't transparent enough. So. A big part of this could be handled with transparency, which is very free speech. Friendly. That's Karen Corn Blue With the German Marshall Fund think-tank.

German Marshall Fund Digital Innovation And Democra Facebook Anthrax Barack Director America Federal Trade Commission Cova. Kovic Mark Zuckerberg
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

14:04 min | 11 months ago

"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.

hyperloop hyperloop UTAH Mark Mark Zuckerberg Criminal Justice Work Educatio America Brittany NIH Kevin Nepal Ho
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

12:57 min | 11 months ago

"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

"Modern geology amazing literature poetry and so on and And so clearly there was something you know extant in Edinburgh in seventeen eighty. There was not there in Dublin in seventeen eighty And I think it's hard to pin down like what was crash but at the same time you know the the the difficulty in defining it doesn't mean it wasn't there without important I would say this. I'm sitting here with two university. Dropouts that's notable to me. The Bay area area is our modern Vienna. You Know Bravo to the bay area. But we're not working nearly hard enough to build other new Vienna's and other places and I don't really think think it's quite Manhattan anymore. It's a wonderful city. MAZING place to go but it is not a world leader for ideas and the way it was say the nineteen twenty s through the Nineteen Eighty S. So people studied this right. I mean so what I mean. What have been the main things that people have learned so far from studying Vienna or in borough zero well? I don't think there's a rich literature of lessons from those places I've let's see. Lots has been written about them that they're they're great historical accounts. I've I've enjoyed reading them but I mean well it's an intrinsically very very difficult thing to do to figure out as well which things causally mattered. You know the and these thing you know. There's a certain degree to which they might be Kinda them over determined and and so. I think it's very hard to you. Don't have counterfactual. Obviously you can front trials and so I think it is a very difficult question to answer and I think for understandable reasons People starting these questions are reluctant to take definitive. Stances that this is what mattered In in one thousand nine hundred Vienna but but one thing I would say. The Scottish islands people move to Edinburgh Right The N. A.. You Jews coming in from the Pale of settlement the bay area people coming from all over the world indeed read. You're from Ireland so immigration immigration is not a guarantee of things going well but the bringing together of different ideas and cultures and the new who clash of opposing. Perspectives has been correlated with a lot of these the enemies in the the world history. Very true although I'm pretty sure that in one thousand nine hundred Paris more foreigners than Vienna I think he was like two percent Vienna. So I I go from the Scottish violence to Edinburgh seven different. That's a huge difference. It's a bigger difference maybe than Mexico to Los Angeles today. So if if you're thinking about what what kind of work to fund in terms of of studying historical progress. What's your framework for figuring out where to even begin study? 'cause we're talking about here is Is basically studying the economic and scientific Result of immigration which is obviously a massively socially important debate. That's the center of a lot of political debates and has been for a long time so From one perspective it would be very. It's the sort surprising that it wouldn't have been studied in more detail to understand The impact of it But that's very different from the biomedical science. Type stuff that we were talking talking about a second ago Do you have a framework in your head for how you would would think about prioritizing studying in different areas or is is it mostly just about finding really sharp people who have new ideas and funding them to do different kinds of work. or how how do you think about that. Overall people who are curious people people who have people who have what I call stamina. They don't ever stop People who are working in productive small groups that may be through WHATSAPP in fact act or it could be their next door neighbors colleagues at university when those safe for items come together then I think you have possibly. What is a very good funding funding decision? And I would take a lot of chances on those people not worry too much about the micromanaging and let talent rip and let groups forum and see what happens got got it. So it's it's very much like entrepreneurship in that way. You're betting on the person more and also division right. There has to be a vision and there are plenty of successful entrepreneurs who are not curious yes so for intellectual progress to to really put curiosity very highly as part of my philosophy and one one become carefully who were on the one hand not only. Do we acknowledge that an immense amount of very important insightful. Work has already You know being created And you know it's that work that largely has I think inspired you know but both of our viewpoints and In that for example at the paper sort of Tyler mentioned about declining research productivity in in semiconductors crop yields and a couple of other fields. That was done fairly close to here. You know that is work squarely relevant questions. That I think is is really important. We may not be here in the same way without it on the other hand. It is simultaneously. True that major Sways of these questions really are surprisingly investigated and so again just to return to biomedical funding and the NIH. As far as I can tell there are no books. assessing how well is the NIH working king. And I don't have a strong view on on the answer that question but I do the strong view on the importance of knowing and which parts of the NIH are working better worse and inasmuch as ages changed or the last couple of decades was the old h better or the new one like this stuff is so important and so while it's the case that there's a huge amount of I'm good research happening today with fantastic researchers in a sense. There aren't enough of them and a lot of the central questions are still answered. Yeah interesting do you think you were talking to minute ago about the explosion costs and healthcare and and right now I think one of the defining aspects of of the moment that we're in is a lot of the basic costs of living for a lot of people are have just increased a lot right. We're the story that we tell about our society is that you have technology and you you have competition and it drives down prices So you know if you if you bought TV Today if you bought a TV from you know a ten year old TV today it would cost you know a five percent of what it costs ten years ago So clearly the value and and and efficiency is increased. A Lot There but then the things that matter so much like health care education Rent Those things have generally just increased right and and in like the normal dynamics that you'd be hoping would play out. aren't and to some degree for the quality of life. For a lot of people the increases in those costs May even be dwarfing advances. Do you think that is that those things are all related or do you think. Yeah I mean I I I think you use the phrase cost disease right when when When referring to the the cost explosion of things like healthcare and education student debt And Rent Do you think that that's a different type of problem or do you think that is fundamentally related to The rate of progress in in in biomedicine as an example. I think there are common features to these problems that we each one is different. Restrictions on entry is one highly bureaucratized ties institutions sometimes a lot of third party payment which may be required in the case of catastrophic health care but nonetheless has distorting effects areas where people a very strong moral feelings. I think we often make worse decisions about. We're not analytical enough and you put all of those together but I would stress healthcare if you go a Singapore healthcare they are. I think it's about four percent of GDP they have slightly higher life expectancy than we do. Their system is by no means perfect But we can. NC through comparative analysis. There are ways of doing this better. The nimby problem cost of living getting an apartment in Japan. It is mostly solved because building in Japan tends to be regulated at higher levels than the city or the county so more gets built. Living in Japan is cheaper the cost of renting an apartment so often often we kind of know the answers. We shy away from really focusing on a concerted effort to get to doing them in this country. Yeah and the agree with all of that I would just underscore the the entry costs aspect and the entry costs aren't always or are they. I think take different forms in that sort of imperative the entry cost for a new university. are really high. But that's not because you know. There's there's a kind of formal told you have to pay. It's it's it's not. It's not like zoning for the kind of deliberate specific Kind of a legal restrictions that prohibit you from doing so But just as a practical matter you know sociologically. Institutionally accreditation dynamics knows it. It's apparently almost impossibly difficult to create a successful new university today and so I I think we sort of what I think. Answering the cost question is One of the most important of sub components in in in this broader question. Of If you know what is it that enables our progress and Over at an overarching level. It just surprising to me that we don't have sort of more definitive And and And Kia renters. They're Alex Tab rock a colleague of Tyler along I exactly the last summer And you know there are other papers analyzing the ultimate analyzing the question but it's a surprisingly sparse literature You know Alex's list of citations was it's not that long and he had some suggestions as to what the underlying geology might be. Maybe he's right maybe he's wrong but again that's it's it's to your point it's one of the most pressing questions For American Society for Global Society in Twenty Nineteen We really have to know what's happening. And and you know to return to something. Tyler said earlier Part of our hope you know it's not to kind of promote any specific solution any specific A A aspect of it but rather that even though this is not what's kind of folk central in the headlines today it should be and as we think the world is going to look like in fifty years one hundred years it plausibly more than anything else is going to determine the shape of that as an entrepreneur. What is it you find most striking about America's dysfunctional economic sectors because you intersect with them all the time right? Yeah I mean I I would wanna see. The skit studied more but So there were just so many different factors I think part of what is is a little bit confusing. Is that the things that are making making healthcare so expensive they may have some fundamental link to the things that make college tuition so expensive but but on its surface it seems like there there are also more proximate causes that are quite different so You know what I mean so with with college. Tuition the fact that okay. It's really expensive so then and we do more To subsidize the cost of it and then by doing. So we're not providing any pressure on colleges to to make it more efficient and the cost just goes up further is a pretty different dynamic than Than what's going on with health care where We're basically Americans want to know. Do that if someone in their family gets sick they're going to be able to get every treatment possible I in which ends up. You know I mean I'm sure you've seen all the stats. That's on this that you know. Half of the healthcare costs that someone encourage her in the last six months of their life And that's part of what you're saying in American moral oral value which is that We believe that you should do everything you can to to help sue sick whereas in a lot of other countries I don't know what Singapore's situation is but a lot of the ones is that are often cited as more efficient healthcare systems Don't have that approach. They say okay. Okay if if if someone in your family has This form of cancer We'll we'll do these two treatments and then we're done and you know part of that is because they may not be able to incur the level of of debt as a country that the US can So they may just have to make that trade off but it creates all these downstream dynamics where okay now if you as a society are willing to say okay. We're going to have to treatments for I kind of cancer and not do not try all seven things. The now you know France can go for example negotiate with the drug companies and say all right..

Vienna Edinburgh Tyler NIH Nineteen Eighty Japan Dublin cancer Ireland Manhattan Singapore US Mexico NC American Society for Global So
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

11:55 min | 11 months ago

"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..

United States West Virginia America Patrick Collison Tyler Cowen George Mason University Biomedical Research China Ron Atlantic Stripe Which facebook Moran Oracle Brooke California
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

20:11 min | 1 year ago

"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.

GM aws ninety seven percent twenty years one percent
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

12:32 min | 1 year ago

"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..

facebook Noah Feldman Jenny Martinez India Stanford professor US North America America Mark Johnny Booker hundred years seventy five years
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

07:12 min | 1 year ago

"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

US Facebook five years
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

08:12 min | 1 year ago

"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

America US Russ America UN India Europe researcher two three years three percent twenty years ten years two years
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

05:38 min | 1 year ago

"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

"So that's why I focus on that. I don't know. Did you want to move over to some of the issues because I think that that's a or do you want to stick on this topic for this topic is closely connected to a I again because I think that. You know, one of the services that science fiction, and I'm a huge fan of science fiction. But I think it is done. Some some also some some pretty bad things, which is to focus attention on the wrong the wrong scenarios and the wrong dangers that people. Think are a is dangerous because the robots are coming to kill us. And this is extremely unlikely that will will face a robot rebellion and much more frightening about robots always obeying orders than about robot rebuilding against against the humans. I think the two main problems was a, and we can explore this in in greater depth is what I just mentioned I increasing inequality between different parts of the world because you'll have some countries which lead and dominate the new a Connolly, and this is such a huge advantage that it kind of trumps everything else. And we will see I mean if. The industrial revolution, creating this huge gap between the feeling dust, Royal powers and everybody else, and then he took a hundred and fifty years to close the gap and over the last few decades, the gap has been closed or closing as more and more countries which will far behind are catching up. Now the gap now reopened and be much worse than ever before. Because of the rise of a and because I is likely to be dominated by just a small number of countries. So that's one issue an inequality, and the other issue is a I n human agency or even the meaning of human life. What happens when a I is a mature enough, and you have enough data to basically hack human beings. And you have an I that knows me better than I know myself and can. Make decisions for me predict. My choices manipulate my choices and authority increasingly shifts from humans to algorithms. So not only decisions about which movie to see but even decisions like which community join who to befriend whom to marry we increasingly rely on the recommendations of the I and what does he do to human life and human agency? So these I would say the two most important issues of inequality and a and human agency. Yeah. And I think both of them get down to a similar question around values. Right. And who's building this, and what are the values that are encoded? And and how does that an end up playing out? I tend to think that in a lot of the conversations are on AI. We almost personify your your point around killer robots or something like that. But I actually think it's is very connected to the general tech sector. Right. So almost every technology product, and increasingly a lot of not what you call technology products have are made better in some way by so it's not like a as a monolithic thing that you build. It's it powers a lot of product. So it is a lot of economic progress and can get towards some of that the distribution of of opportunity questions that are raising also is fundamentally interconnected with. These really socially important questions around data and privacy. And how we want our data to be used and what are the policies around that? And what are the the global frameworks? And so what are the big questions that I tend to agree with a lot of the the the questions that you're raising which is that a lot of the countries that have the ability to invest in future technology of which I and data and future internet technologies are certainly an important area are doing that. Because it will give, you know, their local company is an advantage in the future right in to be the ones that are exporting services around the world, I tend to think that right now. The United States has a major advantage that a lot of the global technology platforms are made here. And certainly a lot of the the values that are encoded in that are shaped largely by by American values. They're not only I mean, we and I speaking for Facebook, and we served people around the world, and we take that very seriously. But certainly ideas like giving everyone a voice that's something that is probably very shaped by the by the American ideas around free speech and strong adherence to that. So I think culturally and economically there's an advantage for countries to develop to to kind of push forward. The state of the field and. And have the the companies that in the next generation are the strongest companies in that. So certainly you see different countries trying to do that. And this is very tied up and. Not just

Connolly Facebook United States AI fifty years
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

11:41 min | 1 year ago

"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

"My diagnosis at this point. I'm curious to hear your your your view on. This is. I actually think we've spent a lot of the last twenty years with the internet, maybe even longer working on global trade. Global information flow. Making it so that people can connect I actually think the bigger challenge at this point is making it set in addition to that global framework that we have making things work for people locally, right? Because there's this dulas I'm here where you need both. Right. If you if you just if you resort to just kind of local tribalism than you miss the opportunity to work on on the really important global issues, but if you have a global framework, but people feel like it's not working for them at home or some set of people don't feel feel like that's not working, then they're not politically going to support the global collaboration that needs to happen. And I think there's the social version of this which which we talked about a little bit before where people are are now able to find communities that match their interests more. But some people haven't found those communities yet, and and are left behind some of the more physical communities penalty unity is quite nasty. Also shouldn't forget. Yes. So I think they should be. Yes. Although I would argue that people joining kind of extreme communities is largely a result of of of not having healthier communities and not having healthy economic progress for individuals. I think most people when they are feel good about their lives. They don't seek out extreme communities. So there's a lot of work that I think we as an internet platform provided need to do to to to lock that down even further. But I actually think creating prosperity is probably one of the one of the better ways at a macro level to go at, but I guess maybe just still them until people that feel good about themselves have done some of the most terrible things, and you and history. I mean, we shouldn't confuse people feeling good about themselves in about the lives with people being benevolent in kind and and so forth. And also, they wouldn't say that their ideas are. Extreme. And we have, you know, so many examples throughout human history from the Roman empire to slave trade in the modern age and colonialism that people that that they had a very good life. They had a very good family, life and social of nice people. I mean, I guess I don't know most Nazi voters. Also, nice people. If you meet them for four Cup of coffee, and you talk about your kids. They are nice people, and they think good things about themselves, and maybe some of them can have very happy lives. And even the ideas that will look back and say this was terrible. This was extreme they didn't think. So again, if you just just think about colonial but World War Two and that came through a period of intense, economic and social disruption after the industrial revolution. Let's let's put the size of the the the extreme examples just think about European colonialism in the nineteenth century. So people say Britain in the late nineteenth century. They had the best life in the world at the time, and they didn't suffer from an economic crisis. So this integration of society anything like that. And they thought that they going all over the world and conquering and changing societies in India in Africa and Australia. They were bringing lots of goods to the world. And I'm just saying that so that we are. We're more careful about not confusing the good feelings people have about their life. It's not just miserable people suffering poverty economic crisis. Wasn't that? There's a difference between the example that you're using of a of a wealthy Cy society going and in colonizing or doing different things that that had a different negative. Facts. That wasn't the fringe in that society. I guess what I'm what I was more reacting to before was your point about people becoming extremist. I would I would argue that in in those sites that wasn't those people becoming extremists. There's you can have a long debate about any part of history and whether the direction that a society chose to take positive or negative in the ramifications of that. But I think today we have a specific issue, which is that. More people are seeking out solutions at the extremes. And I think a lot of that is because of a feeling of dislocation both economic and social so that now there's a lot of ways that you go out that and and I think part of it as as somebody who's running one of the internet platforms. I think we have a special responsibility to make sure that that that our systems aren't encouraging that, but I think broadly, the more macro. Solution for this is to make sure that people feel like they have that grounding, and that sense of purpose and community and that their lives are in there. They have opportunity, and and I think that, you know, statistically, what we see in sociologically is that when people have those opportunities, they don't on balance as much seek out those kind of groups, and I think that there's there's the social version of this. There's also the economic version I mean, this is the basic story of globalization is on the one hand it's been extremely positive for bring a lot of people into the global economy or people in India and southeast Asia and across Africa who wouldn't have previously had access to a lot of jobs in the global economy. Now, do and there's been probably the greatest at a global level inequality is way down right because. Hundreds of millions of people have have our have come out of poverty, and that's been positive, but the big issue has been that in developed countries. There have been a large number of people who are now competing with with all these other people who are joining the economy and jobs are moving to these other places. So a lot of people have lost jobs for for some of the people having lost jobs. There's not more competition for those jobs for for people internationally, so their wages. That's one of the factors. I would you know shown that that that is that's preventing more wage growth. And there are, you know, five to ten percent of people, according to to a lot of the analyses that I that I've shown who are who actually an absolute terms worse off because of globalization now that doesn't necessarily mean that globalization for the whole world is is negative. I think in general it's been it's been unbalanced positive. But the story we've told about it has probably. Been to optimistic in that. We've only talked about the positives. And how it's good as global movement to to bring people out of poverty and create more opportunities the reality, I think has been that it's been net very positive. But you know, if there five or ten percent of people in the world who are worse off than it was seven billion people in the world, that's many hundreds of millions of people. The majority of whom are are likely in in the most developed countries in the US and across Europe that's going to create a lot of political pressure on on those in those countries. So in order to have a global system that works at feels like you need to work at the global level. But then you also need individuals and each of the the member nations in that system to feel like it's working for them to and that recurs all the way down. So when local cities and communities people need to feel like it's working for them, both economically and socially. So I guess at this point the thing that I worry about and I've rotated a lot of Facebook's energy to to try to focus on. This is our mission used to be connecting the world. Now, it's about helping people build communities and bring people closer together. And a lot of that is because I actually think that the thing that we need to do to to support more global connection at this point is making sure that things work for. People locally that you know, a lot of ways we we've made it. So the internet is that an emerging creator can. But how do you balance welching it's locally for people in the American midwest? And is the same time working better for people in Mexico, South, America, or Africa. I mean and part of the imbalance is that when people in middle America are angry everybody pays attention because they have they have their finger on the button. But if people in Mexico or people in some beer feel angry we can found less because they have follows power in the pain. And I'm not saying the not real the pain is definitely real. But the pain of somebody in Indiana is reverberates around the world far more than the pain of somebody in Honduras, or in the Philippines, simply because of the imbalances of the power in the world. And I. I only what we said about fragmentation. I noticed Facebook faces a lot of criticism about kind of encouraging people some people to to move to these extremist groups. But I that's a big problem. But I don't think it's the main problem. I think also it's something that you can solve if you put enough in enough energy into that. That is something you can solve. And but this is the problem that gets most of the attention now what I worry more and not just about Facebook about the entire direction that the new internet academy. The new tech economies is going towards is increasing inequality between different parts of the world, which is not the result of extremist ideology, but the results of certain economic and political model and second Ling undermining human. Agency, and undermining the basic philosophical ideas of democracy and the free market and individualism. These I will take the my two greatest concerns about the development of -nology like like, a I in in machine learning, and this is this is this is this will continue to be a major problem. Even if we find solutions to the issue of social extremism in in particular groups. Yeah. I certainly agree that that extremism, isn't is. I I would think about it more as a symptom and a big issue that needs to be worked on. But, but, but I think the bigger question is making sure that everyone has a sense of purpose has a role that they feel matters and social connections because the end of the day were social animals, and I think it's easy in our in our theoretical thinking to to abstract that away. But, but that's that's such a fundamental part of who we are. So

Facebook Africa Mexico Ling India US Indiana Britain southeast Asia Europe middle America Australia Honduras Philippines
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

04:12 min | 1 year ago

"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

baseball
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

05:52 min | 1 year ago

"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

Facebook US landscape loca journal The Wall Street Journal publisher New York Times America CNN Washington Post FOX twenty percent
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

10:28 min | 1 year ago

"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

Facebook Washington Post New York Times Vauxhall Qasim Xerox publisher Russia rita Instagram China ten years
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

05:19 min | 1 year ago

"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

Kupchak publisher Frankfurt Europe Axel Springer Berlin Facebook CEO Turkey Slovakia fraud investigative reporter Gatien president partner Eighty four percent eighty five percent
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

01:47 min | 1 year ago

"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.

Facebook Larry inlaws Petr fifteen years
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

05:30 min | 1 year ago

"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.

nude Jason Mark principal Facebook Miller one hand
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

05:50 min | 1 year ago

"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.

Facebook MS Weeden
"zuckerberg" Discussed on Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

Tech & Society with Mark Zuckerberg

09:43 min | 1 year ago

"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

Facebook fiduciary Jack Balkin Yale Mark Zuckerberg Boston Berkman Klein center Hebron Harvard Law School New York Times Cambridge professor Jonathan Hope springs professor America advisor