Speaker 1: False news is an ever growing virus that threatens to
Speaker 1: corrode the very spirit of democracy. Facebook is front and center.
Speaker 1: There's more than one problem going on here, right, I
Speaker 1: mean the election problem, the media problem. That's one class,
Speaker 1: thinks the data privacy is another class. If we are
Speaker 1: not serious about facts and what's true and what's not,
Speaker 1: if we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then
Speaker 1: we have problems. It is our mission to try to
Speaker 1: help connect everyone around the world and to bring the
Speaker 1: world closer together. Facebook says that they're bringing us together.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Calling Bullshit, the podcast about purpose washing, the
Speaker 1: gap between what companies say they stand for and what
Speaker 1: they actually do, and what they would need to change
Speaker 1: to practice what they preach. I'm your host, Time Ontogue,
Speaker 1: and I've spent over a decade helping companies define what
Speaker 1: they stand for, their purpose and then help them to
Speaker 1: use that purpose to drive transformation throughout their business. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: at a lot of organizations today, there's still a pretty
Speaker 1: wide gap between word. Indeed, that gap has a name.
Speaker 1: We call it bullshit. But, and this is important, we
Speaker 1: know that bullshit is a treatable disease. Because we felt
Speaker 1: countless companies close that gap. So when the bullshit detector
Speaker 1: lights up, we're going to explore things that a company
Speaker 1: should do to fix it. We're devoting two episodes to
Speaker 1: take a hard look at Facebook. Like you, I've been
Speaker 1: thinking a lot about the company since January six one,
Speaker 1: when we will never give up, We will never concede.
Speaker 1: An angry, armed mob stormed the United States Capitol. President
Speaker 1: Trump and others had fed them the big lie that
Speaker 1: the election had been stolen. All of us here today
Speaker 1: do not want to see our election victory stolen by
Speaker 1: a bald and radical left Democrats, and it spread like
Speaker 1: wildfire on social media, including Facebook, ultimately leading to a
Speaker 1: frenzied mob out for blood. Glued to the news, watching
Speaker 1: this chaos unfold, I couldn't stop thinking, how in the
Speaker 1: hell did we get here? Watching the Capitol riots that day,
Speaker 1: I could clearly see how much damage the gap between
Speaker 1: ard indeed can actually do. So I decided I had
Speaker 1: to take a harder look at as many of these
Speaker 1: so called purpose led organizations as I could to try
Speaker 1: to understand how many of them are just purpose washing.
Speaker 1: What I discovered led to the creation of this show.
Speaker 1: Each week we feature an organization and invite experts to
Speaker 1: help investigate the potential gaps between what they say they
Speaker 1: stand for and the actions they're actually taking. Will explore
Speaker 1: why these gaps exist and more importantly, what the organization
Speaker 1: needs to do to close them. So let's dig into Facebook,
Speaker 1: starting with a quick rewind back to when Facebook was
Speaker 1: just an online network for college kids. Born in Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg's dorm room at Harvard, Facebook took off fast. In
Speaker 1: those early days. The company motto was move fast and
Speaker 1: break things. People are just like too careful. I think
Speaker 1: it's more useful to make things happen and then like
Speaker 1: apologize later than it is to make sure that you
Speaker 1: dot all your eyes now and then like just not
Speaker 1: get stuffed on soon. Facebook was for everyone. It was
Speaker 1: where we all reconnected with old friends and shared pictures
Speaker 1: of our dogs and by if you use Facebook this
Speaker 1: past Monday, you were in good company. You went about
Speaker 1: a billion other people. That means one in seven people
Speaker 1: on Earth. As it grew, some thing's definitely got broken
Speaker 1: and the company came under increased scrutiny, which really reached
Speaker 1: a boil around the presidential election. We're learning more about
Speaker 1: how groups believed to be linked to Russia, used Facebook
Speaker 1: to meddle in the election. Facebook's newest scandal revolves around
Speaker 1: a data analysis firm called Cambridge Analytica. It raises some
Speaker 1: troubling questions, including Facebook's role and targeting voters during so
Speaker 1: in ten, with Americans more polarized than ever before, Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg announced a new, kinder, gentler mission. The thing that
Speaker 1: I think we all need to do right now is
Speaker 1: work to bring people closer together. And I think that
Speaker 1: this is actually so important that we're going to change
Speaker 1: Facebook's whole mission as a company in order to focus
Speaker 1: on this. Give people the power to build community and
Speaker 1: bring the world closer together, Which brings us to the
Speaker 1: key question of this episode is that all just a
Speaker 1: bunch of bullshit? So get out your BS detector and
Speaker 1: join me on a quest to find out. To get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of this, I talked to two experts
Speaker 1: who spent a lot of time thinking and writing about Facebook.
Speaker 1: First up, sent On a Roll, director of the m
Speaker 1: I T Initiative on the Digital Economy, founding partner of
Speaker 1: Manifest Capital, and author of The Hype Machine. How social
Speaker 1: media disrupts our election, our economy, and our health and
Speaker 1: how we must adapt sit on. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us, Thanks for having me. I got a
Speaker 1: strong sense from the book that you believe that there
Speaker 1: is both great good that has flowed from the creation
Speaker 1: of social platforms like Facebook, as well as great harm.
Speaker 1: Can you first talk about some of the positive aspects
Speaker 1: that you see. We've got to transcend this debate about
Speaker 1: whether social media is good or evil, because the answer
Speaker 1: is yes. I mean, I call this the promise and
Speaker 1: the peril. So we went through a decade of techno utopianism,
Speaker 1: which was related to this mantra Facebook was going to
Speaker 1: connect the world and provide life saving health information and
Speaker 1: so on, and access to jobs and meaningful human connection.
Speaker 1: Then we went through a decade of no dystopianism, where
Speaker 1: Facebook was destroying democracy and polarizing society and spreading this
Speaker 1: information and so on. The question that we need to
Speaker 1: be asking is how do we achieve the promise and
Speaker 1: avoid the peril? What is the promise? Well, when Nepaul
Speaker 1: had its greatest earthquake in a hundred years, Facebook spun
Speaker 1: up a donate now button and raised more money than
Speaker 1: Europe and the United States combined for relief efforts. Sinnon
Speaker 1: also reminded me that Facebook is crucial to the success
Speaker 1: of important community efforts like the ice Bucket Challenge, which
Speaker 1: raised a quarter of a billion dollars for ALS research,
Speaker 1: and the Black Lives Matter movement, which relies on social
Speaker 1: media to spread awareness and information. Imagine that globally and
Speaker 1: in some countries, Facebook is the entire Internet, like in
Speaker 1: the Philippines and parts of Africa. Imagine the value that's
Speaker 1: being created worldwide. But I'm also realistic about all of
Speaker 1: the peril false news, election integrity, eurose and a privacy.
Speaker 1: Our real challenge now is how do we achieve the
Speaker 1: promise and avoid the peril? Right, you do a great
Speaker 1: job of unpacking the promise. Could you spend another minute
Speaker 1: just unpacking the peril a little bit? Think back to
Speaker 1: the two thousand sixteen US presidential election. Russia sent manipulative
Speaker 1: messages to a hundred and twenty six million people on Facebook,
Speaker 1: twenty million people on Instagram, ten million tweets from accounts
Speaker 1: with six million followers on Twitter. Erosions of privacy, our
Speaker 1: lack of control over our own social networks, live streaming
Speaker 1: of mass murders like the christ Church New Zealand, mass murder,
Speaker 1: lots of bullying and hate speech, potential effects on depression
Speaker 1: and loneliness and isolation, which we're still sorting out scientifically.
Speaker 1: Certainly all of these effects are very important and the
Speaker 1: polarization of society. Does the algorithm polarize us into political
Speaker 1: factions that hate each other? Yeah, in the book you
Speaker 1: use a term filter bubbles. Could you go into what
Speaker 1: you mean by that term. There's two main algorithms that
Speaker 1: run social media. One is the people you May know
Speaker 1: or friend recommendation algorithm that really guides the structure of
Speaker 1: the human social network online and the other the feed
Speaker 1: algorithms that control the flow of information over this network.
Speaker 1: And as these algorithms a connect us to people who
Speaker 1: are like ourselves, who believe what we believe, and be
Speaker 1: feed us information that is more likely to be what
Speaker 1: we already believe in what we want to see. The
Speaker 1: more we get trapped into our own way of thinking
Speaker 1: and the less we have access to diversity. And this
Speaker 1: has been shown in large scale experimental research to polarize
Speaker 1: society and to create affective polarization, which is hatred of
Speaker 1: the other side, that is a cent What I mean
Speaker 1: by filter bubbles being trapped in an information environment where
Speaker 1: you're only seeing things that comport with what you already believe,
Speaker 1: and the algorithms are designed to do this, while the
Speaker 1: algorithms are actually designed to maximize engagement primarily, which means
Speaker 1: to keep you engaged with the platform, because that's what
Speaker 1: the business model runs on. This is how Facebook works.
Speaker 1: It's an attention economy. It needs attention to sell it
Speaker 1: to advertisers and to persuade their users, whether it's to
Speaker 1: support a political campaign, a good cause, or to convince
Speaker 1: you to buy new shoes. Attention is essential to their
Speaker 1: business model. So how do you keep the attention by
Speaker 1: giving people things that either rile them up, that are
Speaker 1: emotionally charged, or that uh comport with what they already believe.
Speaker 1: And so though the algorithms are not necessarily designed to
Speaker 1: separate us by by being designed to maximize our our
Speaker 1: interaction with them, essentially they pull us apart kind of
Speaker 1: as a result of that. Exactly, so, when it comes
Speaker 1: to polarization, we know through experimental evidence that the large
Speaker 1: scale experiments show that the algorithms pull us apart. Now
Speaker 1: is that the soul cause of polarization in America holding
Speaker 1: constant news media like CNN versus Fox holding constant politicians,
Speaker 1: which are themselves polarizing. It's very difficult to know what
Speaker 1: is primarily or solely responsible for polarization, but we do
Speaker 1: know that the algorithms have an important role in that.
Speaker 1: Sinnan says that even though most of us say we
Speaker 1: want truth, what really makes us click is a strong
Speaker 1: emotional reaction. And it's here that my bullshit detector is
Speaker 1: going off because Facebook knowingly manipulates the user's emotional reaction
Speaker 1: by optimizing the algorithm to reward the inflammatory and the ridiculous.
Speaker 1: You point out that one of the you know, primary
Speaker 1: drivers of of attention is novelty. I think you said
Speaker 1: novelty is the short game and authenticity is the long game,
Speaker 1: And I just wonder if you would talk more about
Speaker 1: that those two ideas. Yeah, absolutely so. We conducted a
Speaker 1: study which was at the time it was published, the
Speaker 1: largest longitudinal study of the spread of true and false
Speaker 1: news online on the cover of Science magazine in eighteen
Speaker 1: and it was a ten year study of the spread
Speaker 1: of verify true and false news stories spreading on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And what we found in that study was false news
Speaker 1: traveled farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth
Speaker 1: in every category of information. And when we looked into
Speaker 1: why novelty was the primary explanation, people were shocked and
Speaker 1: awed by things that were surprising to them, and false
Speaker 1: news was much more novel, shocking and surprising to them
Speaker 1: than true news. And so in a sense, novelty and
Speaker 1: surprise and shock and awe are engaging in the short term,
Speaker 1: and they are also what we found in that study
Speaker 1: was they're also emotionally charged, their blood boiling, their anger inducing.
Speaker 1: They are um, you know, emotional, and that gets your attention.
Speaker 1: The only problem with that is that I don't want
Speaker 1: to see that all the time. When I think about
Speaker 1: what I want out of the information that I consume online,
Speaker 1: the types of people that I'm drawn to in terms
Speaker 1: of influencers and so on are people who are authentic,
Speaker 1: are people who are real, and people who are relatable.
Speaker 1: And so what I mean by that is that the
Speaker 1: short term shock and awe, anger inducing, blood boiling, surprising,
Speaker 1: shocking information might be short term engagement spiking, but it's
Speaker 1: not sustainable. And so the true leaders of the new
Speaker 1: social Age are going to be the ones that realize
Speaker 1: that long term shareholder value of their companies really should
Speaker 1: align with society's values, not just the shock and awe
Speaker 1: of the short term spikes and attention. Preach love that.
Speaker 1: So do you think that there's a world in which
Speaker 1: the algorithms could actually be redesigned to do a better
Speaker 1: job of bringing us together? Absolutely? I think that that's
Speaker 1: really part of the promise. Now, two things that are
Speaker 1: essential to achieving that are algorithmic transparency and choice. We
Speaker 1: need to know how these algorithms work. We need to
Speaker 1: give consume humors choices between different algorithms and be upfront
Speaker 1: about which algorithm is going to deliver what type of result.
Speaker 1: So sit on on the Bullshit podcast. We are always
Speaker 1: trying to discover how wide the delta is between word
Speaker 1: and deed in a company. Fundamentally, Facebook says that they
Speaker 1: are bringing us together. So bottom line, how why do
Speaker 1: you think Facebook's delta is? Uh? Currently, their delta is
Speaker 1: very wide. They have espoused a tremendous amount of the
Speaker 1: promise and they haven't paid enough attention to the peril.
Speaker 1: So I do believe that they would prefer to be
Speaker 1: achieving the promise and avoiding the peril but it takes
Speaker 1: effort and it sometimes costs to do that, and I
Speaker 1: think that they haven't invested enough in addressing the problems
Speaker 1: that are being created in society. They're realizing that their
Speaker 1: current path is not sustainable. The question is what is
Speaker 1: the path to closing the delta? Right now, we're at
Speaker 1: a crossroads. We're at a crossroads between truth and falsity.
Speaker 1: We're at a crossroads between meaningful human connection and polarization,
Speaker 1: where at a crossroads between democracy and authoritarianism. And the
Speaker 1: next eighteen to twenty four months are absolutely critical because
Speaker 1: right now the world's attention is on these platforms. We
Speaker 1: have to lean in, we have to make the right decisions,
Speaker 1: and we have to have science under the hood of
Speaker 1: all of these conversations. We need those transparent discussions to
Speaker 1: take place, and we need them to take place now.
Speaker 1: Sitan believes in the promise of Facebook, but because they
Speaker 1: haven't to efficiently addressed the peril, we as a society
Speaker 1: are at a crossroads. How Facebook responds in the next
Speaker 1: eighteen to twenty four months will be crucial for closing
Speaker 1: that gap. And because of this prognosis, I wanted to
Speaker 1: get a second opinion. My next guest, Lucy Green is
Speaker 1: a futurist, strategist and author of the book Silicon States,
Speaker 1: The Power and Politics of Big Tech and What it
Speaker 1: Means for our Future. I first asked her why she
Speaker 1: thought Facebook changed its mission to focus on bringing people
Speaker 1: together in the first place. I think it's partly to
Speaker 1: do with the scale of these companies and how quickly
Speaker 1: they grew. They epitomized, let's say, in the post bubble era,
Speaker 1: this very glamorous idea of startups and hacking and all
Speaker 1: of that stuff. And like a certain point, with the
Speaker 1: scale that Facebook had reached, it becomes disingenuous. You see
Speaker 1: the rise of this idea of purpose branding generally becoming
Speaker 1: a bigger thing. So Facebook is not in a vacuum.
Speaker 1: Here you have Google removing the whole like Adobe evil,
Speaker 1: but sort of also making big claims to solve disease
Speaker 1: and solve aging, and air BMB being about belonging. And
Speaker 1: this was led by big tech in a major way.
Speaker 1: The lexicon of brand messaging really shifted during this moment
Speaker 1: to something that there was bigger. In the bigger context,
Speaker 1: you have Facebook that can no longer claim to be
Speaker 1: a plucky startup moving into international markets like India, like Africa,
Speaker 1: like South America, and having a sort of reckless image
Speaker 1: is not the way that you do that, right, That
Speaker 1: makes sense. What I did notice in the timeline is
Speaker 1: that right after he made this announcement, or very soon
Speaker 1: after he made this announcement, the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's a coincidence or do you think
Speaker 1: those might be connected. I think it's interesting in Facebook's trajectory,
Speaker 1: they are quite responsive to these major well, depending on
Speaker 1: how they perceived major scandals to be. Like. So for example,
Speaker 1: the previous major big change that you saw in Facebook's
Speaker 1: messaging maybe after move Fast and Break Ship, is after
Speaker 1: that Aaron Sorkin movie comes out, which is hugely unflattering.
Speaker 1: That's right, the social network, Right, so the social network
Speaker 1: comes out and suddenly Mark Zuckerberg presents himself as a
Speaker 1: major philanthropist, Right, so he was sort of using major
Speaker 1: philanthropy as a bomb to negative imagery about him being
Speaker 1: sort of an immature brat who created a sort of
Speaker 1: women face comparison website. So you do see that as
Speaker 1: a sort of pattern, And I wonder also the degree
Speaker 1: to which Lenin might have been to some degree strategic
Speaker 1: about lack of diversity at Facebook. After the Cambridge Analystic scandal,
Speaker 1: I listened to the shareholder call with Facebook, and the
Speaker 1: shareholders were saying, even if this was incompetence or lack
Speaker 1: of foresight, you should be investing more in looking at
Speaker 1: potential fallout from policies like this because they could have
Speaker 1: a real knock on effect on the share value of
Speaker 1: this company. Well, they were extremely dismissive of that, but
Speaker 1: it became very clear that Facebook's notion of foresight, be
Speaker 1: its strategic or ethical or whatever. To me, it should
Speaker 1: be all of those things. It's sort of woefully under
Speaker 1: invested in. And I also think structurally is not empowered.
Speaker 1: I speak to people from Facebook often, I have friends
Speaker 1: that work for Facebook, and it's very much the sort
Speaker 1: of yes culture. People don't like it. If you disagree
Speaker 1: or question or debate anything, what would you say their
Speaker 1: real mission is? What are they really trying to do?
Speaker 1: I think they're trying to own more and more aspects
Speaker 1: or like the total communication experience in terms of dialogue
Speaker 1: and expression, but also the way not just individuals but
Speaker 1: business communications. So they're ramping up their B two B
Speaker 1: communication hugely integrating without much I haven't seen much about
Speaker 1: the privacy of B two B messaging and so on.
Speaker 1: Just trying to own more share of human and business
Speaker 1: communication to monetize that through targeted advertising. So just following
Speaker 1: the threat of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, for just a
Speaker 1: second after it broke, there was a consumer backlash hashtag
Speaker 1: delete Facebook. I had a bunch of friends who deleted
Speaker 1: their Facebook accounts at the time, but it didn't seem
Speaker 1: to have much effect. I think there's a real cognitive
Speaker 1: dissonance between what is becoming more discussed in the public
Speaker 1: sphere and what is totally embedded in people's consumer behaviors.
Speaker 1: I think people are becoming more and more aware of
Speaker 1: the way Amazon treats its employees, but they're still using Amazon.
Speaker 1: We've seen that from clear data points, more and more
Speaker 1: aware of the gig economy and how predatory it is,
Speaker 1: and yet we're all still catching ubers and ordering from
Speaker 1: caviare and so on. And I think it's been very
Speaker 1: easy for people to leave Facebook itself. That's where your
Speaker 1: mom hangs out right. It's become more extreme, it's become
Speaker 1: more light wing, but they're requiring much more in every
Speaker 1: acquisition they're acquiring, or for now, you know, they might
Speaker 1: be broken up we saw this week. But like you know,
Speaker 1: it's very easy to leave Facebook, it's very difficult to
Speaker 1: leave WhatsApp. I think by diversifying in the way that
Speaker 1: they have, they've managed to make sure, at least to
Speaker 1: some degree, that they're capturing some part of your life
Speaker 1: in a way that is sort of been escapable. Right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you can leave Facebook, but you can't ever really
Speaker 1: leave Facebook is sort of the idea, right, They've got
Speaker 1: you surrounded. Yes, losing a few eyeballs during delete Facebook
Speaker 1: didn't seem to slow them down. But I actually thought
Speaker 1: more recently in the wake of the George Floyd murder
Speaker 1: in Minnesota, when a new outcry arose from organizations like
Speaker 1: Stop Hate for Profit asking advertisers to boycott Facebook because
Speaker 1: the platform has continued to essentially condone and spread hate speech.
Speaker 1: And a lot of advertisers responded and signed up Big Ones,
Speaker 1: Coca Cola, north Face, ri I, Unilever, like giant Global corporations.
Speaker 1: But even that seems to have petered out. At that point.
Speaker 1: I thought maybe they would listen because ad dollars ultimately
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, or the thing that
Speaker 1: they care about, but that didn't even seem to have
Speaker 1: an effect. I think it speaks to how much they
Speaker 1: own the consumer experience, right, right, So even advertisers can't
Speaker 1: avoid it. I think advertisers have literally no power in
Speaker 1: this scenario. So if you are an advertiser, there isn't
Speaker 1: really much alternative And if you're a CMO an accountable
Speaker 1: for that stuff, I think you just ultimately have to
Speaker 1: vote with your KPI s right, Okay, Lucy, we are
Speaker 1: always trying to discover how wide the delta is between
Speaker 1: word and deed in a company. Facebook says that they're
Speaker 1: bringing us together. How wide do you think Facebook's delta is?
Speaker 1: I mean, it could not be more polar, right, There's
Speaker 1: just this huge, huge gap. Just to put a fine
Speaker 1: point on it, Lucy, is Facebook a bullshitter? Yes? Thank you, folks.
Speaker 1: It is time to make the call. Is Facebook really
Speaker 1: giving people the power to build community and bringing the
Speaker 1: world closer together? Based on what I've heard so far,
Speaker 1: I'm calling bullshit? But remember bullshit is a treatable disease.
Speaker 1: So after the diagnosis, we always discussed the cure. So
Speaker 1: I've invited three authorities on the topic to join us
Speaker 1: for a roundtable discussion of the positive actions Facebook should
Speaker 1: take to sort themselves out. This conversation and Facebook's official
Speaker 1: BS score right after a quick break, welcome back. Since
Speaker 1: we've concluded that there is a pretty big gap between
Speaker 1: what Facebook says it stands for and what it's actually doing,
Speaker 1: what should Mark Zuckerberg and his leadership team do to
Speaker 1: solve it? In this podcast, we don't just curse the darkness.
Speaker 1: We also like to light a few candles, So I've
Speaker 1: assembled a panel of experts and asked them to propose
Speaker 1: some concrete things that Facebook should do to get back
Speaker 1: on track. Joining us, we have sit on it Roll,
Speaker 1: who you have already met and who graciously agreed to
Speaker 1: join us for the group discussion here as well. Thank
Speaker 1: you for that sit On and welcome Thanks for having me,
Speaker 1: and we are joined by two new guests. Cameron Nascar,
Speaker 1: Founder and CEO of Cross Media. Founded in two thousand,
Speaker 1: Cross Media is a forward thinking, transparent, highly analytical, totally
Speaker 1: integrated creative media agency with over a hundred and sixty employees.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being here today, Cameron, You're very welcome. Last,
Speaker 1: but certainly not at least, we have Rosemary Ryan, founder
Speaker 1: and co CEO of co Collective and also my business partner.
Speaker 1: Rosemary is a renowned leader, brand builder, and rabble rouser
Speaker 1: in the marketing industry. Thank you for being here, Rose here.
Speaker 1: All right, so let's get right into it. So on,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna ask you to go first. What are some
Speaker 1: things that Facebook could do differently to truly live its
Speaker 1: mission to empower people, to build community and bring us
Speaker 1: all closer together. Well, I think it's a good mission
Speaker 1: if we can live up to it, and I think
Speaker 1: there are three things that Facebook could do. Two more
Speaker 1: closely aligned with their mission, and that is moved from
Speaker 1: UH perspective of short term thinking, two more long term thinking. Second,
Speaker 1: to listen to their employees, and third to truly embrace transparency.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you what I mean. So right now,
Speaker 1: Facebook's business model UH is based on attention and engagement,
Speaker 1: and what they've focused on so far is very short
Speaker 1: term understandings of attention by trying to maximize engagement. But
Speaker 1: I think the true leaders of the new Social Age
Speaker 1: will be the ones that realize that long term shareholder
Speaker 1: value is maximized by aligning the company's profit incentive with
Speaker 1: society's values. Because when you have the short term engagement
Speaker 1: model that creates fake news, that creates bullying, that creates
Speaker 1: hate speech, and that creates crowd action like we saw
Speaker 1: in the Capital riot, as well as stock market actions
Speaker 1: like we saw with game Stop, that that might be
Speaker 1: short term advertising profit maximizing, but that it risks a
Speaker 1: regulatory and public opinion backlash that is uh, not good
Speaker 1: for Facebook's bottom line in the long term. They should
Speaker 1: give consumers choice between algorithms one through ten while describing
Speaker 1: how all of them work, and have a drop down
Speaker 1: menu on my feed that says, I want the more
Speaker 1: diversity algorithm, or I want the more such and such algorithm,
Speaker 1: which with much more background on how all of them work.
Speaker 1: And they need to have much more comprehensive, transparent and precise,
Speaker 1: detailed content moderation policies they currently don't have that. The
Speaker 1: one last thing I'll say is they're going to have
Speaker 1: to thread what I call the transparency paradox, which is
Speaker 1: that we have been asking them to be simultaneously more transparent,
Speaker 1: oh and by the way, more secure at the same time,
Speaker 1: and the way they do that is with technical and
Speaker 1: policy oriented approaches like differential privacy, which allows you to
Speaker 1: reveal data without revealing individuals private information, so that you
Speaker 1: can be more transparent and more secure at the same time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Sonan Rosemary. What are your thoughts on ways
Speaker 1: that Facebook might better do their story? So, I guess
Speaker 1: the first thing I always say is that I think
Speaker 1: they have an excellent story and excellent purpose, one that
Speaker 1: is not just critical for them to fulfill, but I
Speaker 1: think one that we as a world a community needs
Speaker 1: to kind of get behind. I think they now need
Speaker 1: to step back, slow down, and fix things because it
Speaker 1: can no longer be about growth for growth sake, but
Speaker 1: really growth in service of community, and so that I
Speaker 1: think involves not just doing the odd thing in service
Speaker 1: of this, but really taking stop, focusing and investing their
Speaker 1: time their considerable talent. They have some of the best
Speaker 1: talent in the world. For me, there are two key
Speaker 1: issues that I think that they need to tackle. The
Speaker 1: first is the issue of polarization, and the second is
Speaker 1: the issue of misinformation. They talk a lot about empowering people,
Speaker 1: giving people the power. They use people's data as a
Speaker 1: way to kind of sell advertising, but they don't actually
Speaker 1: share it with the people that they're taking it from.
Speaker 1: So we are able to give people the tools to
Speaker 1: see what they're engaging with. It might actually help them
Speaker 1: be more mindful and behave slightly differently. So you know,
Speaker 1: one thought is that they could share a used report
Speaker 1: at the end of each week that shows your exposure
Speaker 1: to different types of content. So think about the kind
Speaker 1: of Apple model raising your awareness of what you're seeing,
Speaker 1: how much time you're spending with it, with conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: with poppy content, with fake news, with family news, you
Speaker 1: name it. Maybe show how much of that content is
Speaker 1: labeled fake or untrue when we can talk about how
Speaker 1: we actually get to that, how much is negative in
Speaker 1: tone versus positive. There are lots of different ways to
Speaker 1: kind of break down your data they have all of it.
Speaker 1: Once they have that, they can then maybe tie that
Speaker 1: to some kind of accountability to help you maybe watch
Speaker 1: less hate content, lower your usage on things that are
Speaker 1: more conspiracy driven, give people actual tips on how to
Speaker 1: kind of navigate the content they're using. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of different apps right now that use nudges
Speaker 1: as a way to encourage more healthy behavior, So how
Speaker 1: can they use more kind of nudges on the platform,
Speaker 1: and then maybe taking it one step further and rather
Speaker 1: than just as you should report that you get every week,
Speaker 1: actually building it into the platform and your usage in
Speaker 1: real time, and I think last, but not least, all
Speaker 1: of that data, then they should be sharing it with
Speaker 1: the world. Make it global, show everybody what's actually really happening. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I love it. Okay, Cameron, bring us on. Let's hear
Speaker 1: a few thoughts from you and then we can get
Speaker 1: into the discussion. Well, I'm in the camp probably that
Speaker 1: it maybe it's too late for Facebook to change, and
Speaker 1: if they were to change, then really I think a
Speaker 1: rewrite of the mission entirely is in order. And I
Speaker 1: think trying to bring the world together as bold and
Speaker 1: its ambitious, but to bit nay even what's led to
Speaker 1: some of the issues that they have today, and I
Speaker 1: would bring it down to a much simpler version. I
Speaker 1: felt compelled to sort of rewrite it, and it goes
Speaker 1: something like this. It's more of a purpose statement. Our
Speaker 1: purpose is to make it easy for people to connect.
Speaker 1: Our duty is to protect your privacy. You have a
Speaker 1: choice to join our community. The platform is free for
Speaker 1: you to use. If you join, you are allowing Facebook
Speaker 1: and your friends to see whatever you share about yourself.
Speaker 1: You can control who sees your information, and you should
Speaker 1: manage your settings the way you might manage anything extremely
Speaker 1: important to you, like your finances, your car, or your house.
Speaker 1: We strive to do the right thing. As a technology company,
Speaker 1: we are always in beta, and as a result, we
Speaker 1: sometimes get things wrong when we make a mistake. We
Speaker 1: vowed to be open, transparent, and communicative to you about
Speaker 1: exactly what is happening and the potential impact to you.
Speaker 1: And I think if you turn the mission statement a
Speaker 1: little bit on its head and create more purpose behind
Speaker 1: what you're actually aiming to do, connect and at the
Speaker 1: same time protect the privacy of its users. But I
Speaker 1: think a rewrite of the mission is in complete order. Alright,
Speaker 1: some great ideas, So, non, I loved several of the
Speaker 1: things that you talked about their you know, in particular
Speaker 1: the move from short term thinking to long term thinking.
Speaker 1: It sounds like I believe it's sort of a fantasy
Speaker 1: that they are currently maximizing shareholder value, because what they're
Speaker 1: doing today is threatening shareholder value by thinking short term
Speaker 1: and not taking into consideration stakeholders. How do we convince
Speaker 1: them of that, you know, because in a way you
Speaker 1: have to convince a publicly traded company to forego some
Speaker 1: short term income in in service of thinking longer term.
Speaker 1: That's a hard thing. Yeah, I have some thoughts on that.
Speaker 1: So in my book, I describe four levers that we
Speaker 1: have to sort of fix the social media crisis that
Speaker 1: we find ourselves in. And those lovers are money, code, norms,
Speaker 1: and laws. Money is the business models of the platforms
Speaker 1: that govern the incentives for how the advertisers and the
Speaker 1: consumers behave on the platforms. Code is the way that
Speaker 1: the platforms and the algorithms are designed. Norms is how
Speaker 1: we adopt and use and espouse a zeitgeist about what
Speaker 1: we think about social media in society. And laws of
Speaker 1: course a regulation. So money and code is under the
Speaker 1: purview of the platforms in a sense. And so in
Speaker 1: terms of norms, things like the Delete Facebook movement and
Speaker 1: the stop Hate for Profit movement express a public sentiment
Speaker 1: about the unhappiness that people have about the direction that
Speaker 1: Facebook has taken. The employees whistleblowing and leaving in droves
Speaker 1: express an opinion from the inside about how happy employees
Speaker 1: are with the direction that Facebook has taken, that pressure
Speaker 1: needs to continue and be stepped up. Secondly, I think
Speaker 1: we can make some meaningful inroads from the perspective of regulation.
Speaker 1: So the reason that Facebook doesn't have any sentive to
Speaker 1: change is because it doesn't have competition, and so it
Speaker 1: can continue doing what it's doing, and it's short term
Speaker 1: view of profits is profit maximizing. People can't leave Facebook
Speaker 1: easily because they're technically locked in because their network effects
Speaker 1: and so on. We need to look at regulation. When
Speaker 1: I say that, people immediately think, oh, you mean breakup Facebook,
Speaker 1: But that's not what I mean. The social media economy
Speaker 1: runs on network effects, which means that the value of
Speaker 1: a platform is a function of how big it is.
Speaker 1: And in markets that run on network effects, they tend
Speaker 1: toward market concentration, they tend towards monopoly. So if you
Speaker 1: break up Facebook, it's just going to tip the next
Speaker 1: Facebook like company into market dominance. What we need is
Speaker 1: structural reforms of the social media economy itself. We need
Speaker 1: to be able to connect across platforms that will preserve
Speaker 1: the value created in the network effects and allow me
Speaker 1: to switch from one platform to another and will keep
Speaker 1: my social network. That will enable us to vote with
Speaker 1: our feet when we don't like the policies or privacy
Speaker 1: policies of a given platform, and that kind of switching
Speaker 1: is what's going to really enable competition. I was just
Speaker 1: going to jump in and say that I think people
Speaker 1: already are voting with their feet. Facebook is becoming an
Speaker 1: increasingly toxic environment, and the audience that they have there
Speaker 1: is not actually the most desirable audience for short term
Speaker 1: growth in terms of attracting advertisers. Younger generations have already
Speaker 1: decided that that is not a place that they want
Speaker 1: to spend their time, and new platforms like TikTok, etcetera
Speaker 1: starting to kind of fill that space. So I think
Speaker 1: long term growth, I think there's some meat short term
Speaker 1: growth issues that they're probably starting to feel that will
Speaker 1: only increase if they don't start to address some of
Speaker 1: the issues. And Cameron, I see you nodding there. I'd
Speaker 1: love to hear your perspective, because I mean, you're at
Speaker 1: that cold face with clients, like having them decide whether
Speaker 1: or not to invest in Facebook or not. What kind
Speaker 1: of conversations are you having with them? Yeah, it runs
Speaker 1: the gamut. Most clients understand the value Facebook can bring,
Speaker 1: but they're very, very wary, like all of us are.
Speaker 1: And I think the idea competition is starting to emerge,
Speaker 1: and I think some of the things you're seeing with
Speaker 1: Apple iOS fourteen and the limiting of data access are
Speaker 1: really going to start to chip away at Facebook's power
Speaker 1: and make it probably less of a tool for advertisers
Speaker 1: to extract certain kinds of data and more of a
Speaker 1: general advertising platform to do what advertising is intended to do,
Speaker 1: which is helped move minds and behaviors and not manipulate.
Speaker 1: On the idea of regulation that I'd like to go
Speaker 1: back to that for one second, because I completely agree
Speaker 1: there needs to be some sort of regulatory body, and frankly,
Speaker 1: i'd like to see the founders and the owners of
Speaker 1: these platforms step up and create a council of self
Speaker 1: regulation amongst themselves and decide that they're going to put
Speaker 1: some standards and practices in place. You know, not unlike
Speaker 1: the alcohol industry, where you have market messaging around drinking responsibly,
Speaker 1: bringing full transparency and how they operate. But right now,
Speaker 1: because of Facebook and other social platforms are technologies or platforms,
Speaker 1: and they're not media companies and they're not consumer brands.
Speaker 1: They've completely skirted all regulation that is typically applied to
Speaker 1: other industry. You know, you would never send you know,
Speaker 1: food into a market that was spoiled. The FDA would
Speaker 1: never allow that, the same way you would never put
Speaker 1: a toy in a kid's hand that could explode in
Speaker 1: their face. And essentially, Facebook and social platforms have been
Speaker 1: allowed to take data and use that in an unintended
Speaker 1: harmful way. I would like to see some self regulation
Speaker 1: occur first before the government would step in. And if
Speaker 1: they can't, then I really do feel the government needs
Speaker 1: to decide once and for all that for social platforms, right,
Speaker 1: there is a way to operate and behave that is
Speaker 1: mandated by law. Yeah, they are media platforms. They are.
Speaker 1: They've been arguing that that they're not for yet, but
Speaker 1: that's exactly what they are. Yeah. I wish that Facebook
Speaker 1: would come out and just say they are a media platform.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately they don't have writers, they don't have editors,
Speaker 1: and so they don't have that kind of code of
Speaker 1: ethics that most media abide by, at least good trusted
Speaker 1: media bye bye. Right, so users can say and do
Speaker 1: whatever they want, and Facebook has completely washed their hands
Speaker 1: of any any kind of obligation around editing what is
Speaker 1: on the platform, or what kind of code of ethics
Speaker 1: should be used on the platform. And it would be
Speaker 1: great if they consider themselves a media brand, but a
Speaker 1: media company. Sorry, but they simply don't. Rosemary, you talked
Speaker 1: about this idea of a daily report that just reflects
Speaker 1: back to you your usage, what you've been exposed to,
Speaker 1: and why why would Facebook not do that today? Why
Speaker 1: does that not exist? I think it would cost the
Speaker 1: money and they would have to expose people to just
Speaker 1: how much of the data they probably have on them.
Speaker 1: To your point about not being a media company, Cameron,
Speaker 1: I don't think they want to kind of feel like
Speaker 1: they're stepping in between people and how they're communicating on
Speaker 1: the platform. Although I think it's it's a moral obligation
Speaker 1: for them to help people understand this is a new tool.
Speaker 1: People would argue that people's brains are being rewired. I
Speaker 1: think it is on them to help as they are
Speaker 1: now understand what kind of consequences that they are that
Speaker 1: people themselves get to see it. And I think also
Speaker 1: if you make it more personal so that I personally
Speaker 1: understand what I'm engaging with, I become much more intentful
Speaker 1: about what I do moving forward, So I don't know,
Speaker 1: perhaps they think you will slow down that engagement, yeah,
Speaker 1: or expose things that they don't want exposed to know.
Speaker 1: And you had a similar idea, The idea of a
Speaker 1: drop down that allows me to choose the algorithms that
Speaker 1: I want to maximize for diversity of thought or whatever
Speaker 1: else that I actually want to be exposed to. I
Speaker 1: think is awesome, Like why would they not do that?
Speaker 1: If you combine Rosemary's idea with this idea of choice
Speaker 1: and algorithmic transparency, if you gave users feedback about the
Speaker 1: choices that they've been making, and then gave them those
Speaker 1: choices as well as transparency around those choices, you might
Speaker 1: see them making healthy choices rather than unhealthy choices. Basically,
Speaker 1: you'd have a drop down menu of algorithm one, two,
Speaker 1: and three, and then there would be sort of published
Speaker 1: papers written by non Facebook employees, scientists, researchers, academics, experts
Speaker 1: who were given access and reported back about what they
Speaker 1: found from an objective standpoint about how each of these
Speaker 1: algorithms behave. And this is part of the also the
Speaker 1: movement around healthy eating, where you sort of you put
Speaker 1: up a digital mirror in front of people that reflects
Speaker 1: back their choices and behaviors to them, and then they
Speaker 1: actually that is a quote unquote nudge as as Rosemary
Speaker 1: was talking about to behave in more healthy ways to
Speaker 1: create a more healthy communications ecosystem, I could envision a
Speaker 1: hundred percent opt in model where maybe you don't even
Speaker 1: need to see the algorithm, but just inform you know,
Speaker 1: Facebook and advertisers what you're interested in and when you're
Speaker 1: interested in it, and then have brands actually pay customers
Speaker 1: for their data. Now that will cause Facebook money, but
Speaker 1: the idea of control and incentive aligned with transparency I
Speaker 1: think could be a game changer for Facebook, any platform,
Speaker 1: and digital advertising as a whole. So I want to
Speaker 1: um shift gears for a second and talk about what
Speaker 1: happens if Facebook decides not to do any of this
Speaker 1: and to continue need to proceed whistling past the graveyard
Speaker 1: and pretending everything is fine. So if they refuse to
Speaker 1: change the way they're operating today, what would we say
Speaker 1: would be a better way of describing what Facebook is
Speaker 1: truly up to today? So, Rosemary, if you were going
Speaker 1: to rewrite Facebook's mission to align with the way that
Speaker 1: they actually behave. Right now, what would you say? I mean?
Speaker 1: I think I would just abbreviate it, so I said,
Speaker 1: it's give people the power to build community and support
Speaker 1: their own world view and damn everybody else. Right, that's
Speaker 1: the mission that currently on. To capture and hold the
Speaker 1: attention of the world in service of advertisers everywhere. Would
Speaker 1: be another way to explain what they're doing, and maybe
Speaker 1: a meaner way to put it would be to capture
Speaker 1: and hold your attention to extract the maximum amount of
Speaker 1: your personal data in service of any company, organization, or
Speaker 1: individual who is able to pay us for it. It's
Speaker 1: pretty accurate. Part of the reason why they came up
Speaker 1: with this mission statement, I imagine it's because they realized
Speaker 1: the unintended consequences of some of what they had they've built,
Speaker 1: and decided they had to take a step back and
Speaker 1: really think through what their responsibility was and what their
Speaker 1: real intention was. So I think they did the work
Speaker 1: of getting to this, they don't seem to have done
Speaker 1: the work of actually making it real. Going back to
Speaker 1: story doing excellent story one that we all want to
Speaker 1: get behind. I think one of their employees, to Sin's point,
Speaker 1: not to get behind. I think most of the users
Speaker 1: on their platform want to get behind. Certainly, I think
Speaker 1: the advertisers would like to get behind, but they have
Speaker 1: not put in the energy and the effort to really
Speaker 1: make it a reality. I think Mark Zupperberg, when he
Speaker 1: sets his mind to something, can do pretty much anything.
Speaker 1: He's got brilliant people surrounded by actually some lovely people
Speaker 1: that work for him. So what is stopping them actually
Speaker 1: taking this very powerful and compelling mission and putting it
Speaker 1: to work. That's the question. I don't I'm kind of confused,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's just economy. They've got a
Speaker 1: ton of money. I think this notion of connecting the
Speaker 1: world is aspirational, and I agree they are just not
Speaker 1: aspiring hard enough to get there. I also don't really
Speaker 1: understand what prevents them, because I think that they could
Speaker 1: be enormously financially successful and still truly aspire to achieve
Speaker 1: that mission. I've heard you talk about this, and non
Speaker 1: they're so focused on the likes and the shares that
Speaker 1: then obviously are what they monetize, both in the social
Speaker 1: sense and in the advertising sense, that everything in the
Speaker 1: organization points not to the mission but to those metrics.
Speaker 1: And so the mission doesn't stand higher than the metrics.
Speaker 1: But if they really took a hard look at the
Speaker 1: business and said we could diversify and offer pretty unique
Speaker 1: features and products to certain segments, then I think they
Speaker 1: could start to think about themselves a bit differently than
Speaker 1: just focusing on those two metric extent drive advertising. I
Speaker 1: think that's a really really good point. It brings up
Speaker 1: a pet peeve of mine. I gotta say, which is
Speaker 1: just the metaphorical concept of the like button? Okay, the
Speaker 1: like button? What is the like button? It says what
Speaker 1: we prioritize most is popularity. The more people like something,
Speaker 1: the more valuable it is on our platform. And I've
Speaker 1: always thought about that like button because it's so arbitrary, arbitrary.
Speaker 1: So let me give you a different hypothetical reality. What
Speaker 1: if there was a a knowledge button, or a truth button,
Speaker 1: or a this taught me something button, or a wellness button.
Speaker 1: So right now, we're all incentivized to be as popular
Speaker 1: as we possibly can to get the most likes. What
Speaker 1: if we got the most truths or the most he
Speaker 1: taught me some things? Would we then be incentivized to
Speaker 1: teach people things and to bring truth to the discussion
Speaker 1: and to encourage wellness. And if that was the case,
Speaker 1: then could we make the mission and the metrics match
Speaker 1: by designing the platforms to have metrics that match the mission.
Speaker 1: I love that and I think that would really help
Speaker 1: with true community buildings, really bringing people together. That's awesome.
Speaker 1: The number one thing that I wrote down in terms
Speaker 1: of what Facebook could do to change their behavior entirely
Speaker 1: and people's behavior has removed the like button, but I
Speaker 1: didn't have an answer for what would replace the like button.
Speaker 1: And I think a series of diagnostics based on truth
Speaker 1: and real opinion would open it up into a whole
Speaker 1: new stratosphere in terms of understanding what people really feel
Speaker 1: and think. That's actually a useful tool. Okay, folks solved it.
Speaker 1: Does that mean you're not going to find any time
Speaker 1: you get to keep your job to rose, which you
Speaker 1: know was unexpected outcome, but I'll go with it. Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 1: I'd like to end the show today by giving Facebook
Speaker 1: an official BS score. On this show, BS exists on
Speaker 1: a scale from zero to one hundred, zero being the
Speaker 1: best zero bullshit and a hundred being the worst total BS.
Speaker 1: It's pretty obvious that Facebook isn't living up to their
Speaker 1: mission of giving people the power to build community and
Speaker 1: bringing the world closer together. So I'm giving them a
Speaker 1: BS score of seventy two. That's pretty high. If you disagree,
Speaker 1: visit our website Calling Bullshit Podcast dot com to weigh
Speaker 1: in with your own score. We'll also track their behavior
Speaker 1: over time to see if they can bring that score down.
Speaker 1: You'll also be able to see where Facebook ranks on
Speaker 1: BS compared to other companies we feature on this show.
Speaker 1: And if you're running a purpose led business or you're
Speaker 1: thinking of beginning the journey of transformation to become one,
Speaker 1: here are three things you should take away from this episode. One,
Speaker 1: Because young consumers are demanding it, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: pressure today on business leaders to declare the positive purpose
Speaker 1: that they're pursuing. But your purpose isn't something you use
Speaker 1: for a press release and then stick it in a drawer.
Speaker 1: In Facebook's case, bringing the world closer together is a
Speaker 1: great purpose. March just needs to prove that he really
Speaker 1: means it, which brings us to take away number two.
Speaker 1: Once you've aligned on your purpose, it's all about action.
Speaker 1: You've talked today about a number of actions Facebook could take,
Speaker 1: actions like giving people a daily report on what content
Speaker 1: they've been exposed to by the algorithm and why, or
Speaker 1: giving people choice drop down menu that allows you to
Speaker 1: choose the kind of content you want to see so
Speaker 1: you can tune the platform to your interests. The actions
Speaker 1: for your company will undoubtedly be different. The point is
Speaker 1: action is a vital part of being purpose led, and three,
Speaker 1: transparency is key. No company is perfect, that's okay. A
Speaker 1: good purpose should articulate a vision that the company has
Speaker 1: to work toward over time. As a leader, you need
Speaker 1: to be honest about where you're succeeding and where you're failing.
Speaker 1: That builds trust. In Facebook's case, their leadership needs to
Speaker 1: do a much better job of letting us know what
Speaker 1: they're really committed to doing to change the platform. Speaking
Speaker 1: of which, Mark Zuckerberg, if you ever want to come
Speaker 1: on our show to discuss any of these ideas or
Speaker 1: any other aspects of today's episode, you have an open invitation. Okay,
Speaker 1: So that was our original ending back in August, but Facebook,
Speaker 1: true to form, kept right on moving fast and breaking things,
Speaker 1: which put them right back in the news. Facebook whistle blow.
Speaker 1: I don't know the thing. I saw Facebook over and
Speaker 1: over again was there were conflicts of interest between what
Speaker 1: was good for the public and what was good for
Speaker 1: face Ablations from a former Facebook executive about Facebook has
Speaker 1: known for years that Instagram is toxling. Way we can
Speaker 1: move forward and healed, Facebook, as we first sept in
Speaker 1: the social media giant, knew it's absolutely the way we'll
Speaker 1: have reconciliation and we can move forward is by first
Speaker 1: being honest and declaring world bankruptcy, whistleblower allegations, lawsuits, Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal revelations, and right in the middle of all
Speaker 1: of that the name changed to Meta. The bs definitely
Speaker 1: got deeper, and we decided we had to keep digging.
Speaker 1: So please join me for episode two, where I speak
Speaker 1: with Ramas Screeny Vasan, an engineer working in the place
Speaker 1: where technology and humanity intersect. We'll give Facebook a new
Speaker 1: score and as ever, try to find a few more
Speaker 1: candles to light. I'm sure there's a candle in here somewhere.
Speaker 1: Thanks to our guest today, Sinana Roll, Lucy Green, Cameron Nascar,
Speaker 1: and Rosemary Ryan. You can find all of them ironically
Speaker 1: on social media. We've got all their handles on our website,
Speaker 1: Calling Bullshit podcast dot com. If you have ideas for
Speaker 1: companies or organizations we should consider for future episodes. You
Speaker 1: can submit them on the site too, and check out
Speaker 1: San's book The Hype Machine, How social media disrupts our elections,
Speaker 1: our economy, and our health and how we must adapt,
Speaker 1: and Lucy's book Silicon States, the power and politics of
Speaker 1: big Tech and what it means for our future. If
Speaker 1: this discussion hit the made Me Think button for you,
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Calling Bullshit podcast on the I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Thanks to our production team Susie Armitage, Hannah Beal, Amanda Ginsburg,
Speaker 1: Andy Kim, d s Moss, Mikaela Reid, Lena Beck, Cilisen,
Speaker 1: Jess Benton, and Basil Soaper. Calling Bullshit was created by
Speaker 1: co Collective and is hosted by Me Time Onto You.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening,