Speaker 1: Hi everyone, I'm Emily Chang and this is Bloomberg Studio.
Speaker 1: At one point out, as many of you know, I've
Speaker 1: been covering tech from Silicon Valley for over a decade,
Speaker 1: which means I've witnessed the epic rise of so many
Speaker 1: different technology companies, watching them shape our world, both for
Speaker 1: better and for worse. So when I watched Netflix's hit
Speaker 1: film The Social Dilemma, where yours truly even makes a
Speaker 1: small cameo, it really hit home. The film has soared
Speaker 1: to the top of most watch lists in multiple countries,
Speaker 1: waking the wider world up to the alleged perils of technology.
Speaker 1: The indictment is unforgiving that social media is a drug,
Speaker 1: creating an epidemic of addiction and manipulation and generations more anxious, depressed,
Speaker 1: and unhealthy than ever before. He built these things, and
Speaker 1: we have a responsibility to change it. The film profiles
Speaker 1: multiple Silicon Valley veterans, including Tristan Harris, former design ethicist
Speaker 1: at Google now co founder of the Center for Humane Technology,
Speaker 1: Tim Kendall, former head of monetization at Facebook, and for
Speaker 1: We're President of Pinterest now CEO of Moment. They joined
Speaker 1: me for a virtual conversation on this edition of Bloomberg Studio.
Speaker 1: At one point out along with Sophia Noble, an associate
Speaker 1: professor at U c l A and author of a
Speaker 1: best selling book on bias and technology, to talk about
Speaker 1: what the movie got right, what the movie got wrong,
Speaker 1: and chart a path towards the social solution. Each of
Speaker 1: you has been a voice in the conversation around big text,
Speaker 1: unchecked power, and I'm curious when was the lightbulb moment
Speaker 1: for you? What was the moment that sparked your desire
Speaker 1: to speak out? I think the moment for me was
Speaker 1: when I was at Google, and it was about two
Speaker 1: thousand twelve, having studied at this lab at Standford called
Speaker 1: the Persuasive Technology Lab UM, I saw that more and
Speaker 1: more of my friends decisions were about building engagement and
Speaker 1: growth and less and less about a genuine, sincere intent
Speaker 1: for how do we build technology that empowers people and
Speaker 1: does good in society? Uh? And that was really delightful
Speaker 1: moment for me. Now, Tim, you were focused on how
Speaker 1: Facebook makes money for five years and then five more
Speaker 1: years at Pinterest. That's a decade. When did things shift
Speaker 1: for you? They really shifted When I had UM, I
Speaker 1: had my first child, UM, and I realized, I think,
Speaker 1: as I was trying to manage, you know, the job
Speaker 1: of pinterest, trying to be a dad, and then my phone.
Speaker 1: I realized that I just lost control over my phone
Speaker 1: and and and realized that it was controlling me. Maybe
Speaker 1: what we were up to in terms of extracting attention,
Speaker 1: as as Tristan will say, UM might not might not
Speaker 1: have a very happy ending on a lot of different dimensions,
Speaker 1: including you know, our own mental well being, but also
Speaker 1: the impact that ultimately it could have on society. Tim,
Speaker 1: you recently testified before Congress and said that you believe
Speaker 1: social media is driving us to the brink of civil war,
Speaker 1: which is quite dramatic. What do you mean by that, Well,
Speaker 1: I just think that the services are polarizing us really
Speaker 1: on almost every dimension. Um. They're polarizing us politically, They're
Speaker 1: polarizing us in terms of how we view health issues
Speaker 1: like COVID. They're polarizing us racially, I mean, and in
Speaker 1: a sense like I think it's fair to say that
Speaker 1: all of these issues around polarization existed to some degree
Speaker 1: before social media. But I think we can we can
Speaker 1: all agree that that polarization has accelerated. In fact, I'd
Speaker 1: say the acceleration is accelerating, which is which is really scary.
Speaker 1: It seems to get worse every year and every month.
Speaker 1: We seem to be more and more divided. And I
Speaker 1: think that the violence and division that we're seeing, I
Speaker 1: believe these are precursor events to broader civil unrest that
Speaker 1: could ultimately lead to civil war. I mean, that's quite
Speaker 1: that's a huge statement. I mean, Sophia, would you agree
Speaker 1: what we're talking about our histories of violence and oppression
Speaker 1: in our country, that social media exacerbates and weaponizes against
Speaker 1: the most vulnerable, against people who have historically been in
Speaker 1: the crosshairs of violence in this country. It's really about
Speaker 1: the society and the people, and then what the technology
Speaker 1: is contributing to you or not. Now there's a tragic
Speaker 1: irony in that most of the people tasked with talking
Speaker 1: about the problem the social dilemma in the film are
Speaker 1: white men. Tristan and Tim are two of them. Um
Speaker 1: and white men are overrepresented at the companies that are
Speaker 1: building these products and creating UM part of the problem.
Speaker 1: As a woman of color, what would you have added, Well,
Speaker 1: I would have backed up probably twenty year in their research,
Speaker 1: because again I think that women in particular and people
Speaker 1: of color have been doing the research in this area
Speaker 1: for a long time. It's a little bit disheartening for
Speaker 1: some of us to see the makers of the problems
Speaker 1: in terms of people really actually working on product development
Speaker 1: all of a sudden see the light when it starts
Speaker 1: to affect their own communities or their own experiences, or
Speaker 1: maybe their own moral um barometer, and then UM kind
Speaker 1: of really narrow the conversation. I think there's an opportunity
Speaker 1: with this film to in fact open up um the
Speaker 1: landscape for fifty more films and books and graphic novels
Speaker 1: and television shows, for many morning more voices. And I
Speaker 1: think that's really the opportunity with a film like this. It's,
Speaker 1: you know, it's kind of cracked open the can, but
Speaker 1: there's a lot lot more to pour out. How much
Speaker 1: of this is technology and how much of this is
Speaker 1: just human nature that technology and that these social platforms
Speaker 1: simply amplify. There's a point in the film where Tristan
Speaker 1: talks about how, um, it's not so much the technologies
Speaker 1: per se, it's that the technologies really bring out the
Speaker 1: worst in people and amplify the worst tendencies in people.
Speaker 1: Racism is is endemic, and it's been around UM for
Speaker 1: thousands of years, but you know, we've really started to
Speaker 1: see UM hate and violence around these issues just just
Speaker 1: explode by virtue of these tools that that bring out
Speaker 1: sort of the worst tendencies, or at least bring out
Speaker 1: tendencies that are there but are now being brought out
Speaker 1: into the into the light in a in a way
Speaker 1: that's really corrosive. Now, we do have a statement from
Speaker 1: Facebook on the film Um Facebook saying we should have
Speaker 1: conversations about the impact of social media on our lives.
Speaker 1: But the social dilemma buries the substance in sensationalism. Rather
Speaker 1: than offer a nuanced look at technology, it gives a
Speaker 1: distorted view of how social media platforms work to create
Speaker 1: a convenient scapegoat for what are difficult and complex societal problems. Tristan,
Speaker 1: what's your reaction to that, Um, Yeah, we would expect
Speaker 1: Facebook to respond in this way, um the UM. I
Speaker 1: think the claim that Facebook would make in that statement
Speaker 1: is We're holding up a mirror to your society. If
Speaker 1: you don't like what you see in the mirror, we're
Speaker 1: really sorry to tell you that was already there. But
Speaker 1: the mirror they're holding up is a fun house mirror
Speaker 1: that warps society because it amplifies certain characteristics and makes
Speaker 1: some way more visible than others, specifically conflict, outrage, moral righteousness, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Because those things get more clicks. And it's this race
Speaker 1: to the bottom of the brainstem, this race to the
Speaker 1: lizard brain, whether it is racism, inequality, poverty, or climate change.
Speaker 1: If we're all walking around is outraged, narcissistic, and addicted
Speaker 1: people with low mental health and feeling overwhelmed, that's not
Speaker 1: a society that can heal itself. It ample fies whatever
Speaker 1: gets the most attention, which is just like driving down
Speaker 1: the one oh one. And if we sort by what
Speaker 1: gets the most attention, if I look at a car crash,
Speaker 1: Facebook and Google say, oh we you must love car crashes,
Speaker 1: and they give you more and more and more car crashes.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of why our society looks like it's this.
Speaker 1: It's sort of gone crazy because that's not become just
Speaker 1: a virtual reality. We started making choices on that reality.
Speaker 1: And even if you don't use these platforms, you still
Speaker 1: live in a country that is living in that virtual reality.
Speaker 1: And voting based on those decisions, and then making and
Speaker 1: bringing guns to street corners based on those decisions. So
Speaker 1: I think we have to really look at the entire
Speaker 1: consequences here. This is my conversation with Tim Kendall, former
Speaker 1: head of monetization at Facebook and former president of Pinterest
Speaker 1: now CEO of Moment, Sophia Noble, an associate professor at
Speaker 1: u c l A and author of a book on
Speaker 1: bias and technology, and Tristan Harris, former design ethicist at
Speaker 1: Google now co founder of the Center for Humane Technology.
Speaker 1: Up next, can we expect the makers of social media
Speaker 1: to make changes on their own? What will it take?
Speaker 1: Are the creators of these platforms really bad guys? I'm
Speaker 1: Emily Chang. This is Bloomberg Studio one point out. What
Speaker 1: I want people to know is that everything they're doing
Speaker 1: online is being watched, is being tracked. Every single action
Speaker 1: you take is carefully monitored and recorded. A lot of
Speaker 1: people think Google is just a search box and Facebook
Speaker 1: is just a place to see what my friends are doing.
Speaker 1: What they don't realize is there's entire teams of engineers
Speaker 1: whose job is to use your psychology against you. That
Speaker 1: was the co inventor of the Facebook like button was
Speaker 1: the president of interest, Google, Twitter, Instagram. They were meaningful
Speaker 1: changes happening around the world because of these platforms. I
Speaker 1: think we were naive about the flip side of that coin.
Speaker 1: A number of guests in the film are asked, is
Speaker 1: there one bad guy? And they all say no, no, no,
Speaker 1: there's not just one bad guy. And at this point,
Speaker 1: let's take Mark Zuckerberg for example. He can see the
Speaker 1: consequences of what he's built, but he is still building it.
Speaker 1: Does that mean he's a bad guy. I think it
Speaker 1: means he's negligent. His understanding is absolutely not keeping up
Speaker 1: with the impact that his technology is having on the world.
Speaker 1: And I think the best illustration of this is the
Speaker 1: election happens in two thousand and sixteen, Facebook, a number
Speaker 1: of ways, through bad actors and and algorithmic bias, tip
Speaker 1: the election. A month later, he's asked what do you
Speaker 1: think about that? He thinks it's preposterous, And two years
Speaker 1: later he acknowledges the impact, acknowledges that Facebook likely did
Speaker 1: tip the election, and then apologizes in front of Congress.
Speaker 1: But that's two years later. Tristan, what do you think
Speaker 1: about Mark about the Google founders who have recently left
Speaker 1: the company. Are they bad guys? I think I agree
Speaker 1: with him that there's a lot of negligence. Each company
Speaker 1: is different and the personalities that are involved are different. Um.
Speaker 1: I think that even if they were as enlightened as
Speaker 1: they possibly could be, they when they speak, they sound
Speaker 1: like hostages trapped in a hostage video, where nothing that
Speaker 1: a hostage is saying makes any sense until you see
Speaker 1: the person off stage holding a gun to their head,
Speaker 1: which is their business model. I would say Jack Dorsey
Speaker 1: appears to be trying to do the best that he can,
Speaker 1: but in a very very complex and um uh, you know,
Speaker 1: unfortunate circumstance. And so that's why we actually need a
Speaker 1: global cultural movement to address these problems, because the state
Speaker 1: has to bind the market. This film is exciting to
Speaker 1: me because it's the first time that we have a
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety countries and thirty languages, I think, all
Speaker 1: becoming awake to these problems at a at a massive scale. Now, Sophia,
Speaker 1: here in Silicon Valley, we often glorify the founders of
Speaker 1: these companies. As a Silicon Valley outside er, how do
Speaker 1: you think we can hold them accountable. I think that
Speaker 1: we've got to have a big time structural intervention. It's
Speaker 1: going to require regulation, it's going to require repatriation of
Speaker 1: the trillions of dollars they've made off of making these
Speaker 1: problems and putting them back into the systems that can
Speaker 1: actually take care of our society. We can't be so
Speaker 1: dependent upon UM this sector or its leaders. Tim, I'm
Speaker 1: sure you're still friends with a lot of people who
Speaker 1: work at these companies. How have but how how have
Speaker 1: your former colleagues reacted. I don't think fundamentally anyone is
Speaker 1: a bad person who works there. Um. I do believe
Speaker 1: they're negligent. I think they fundamentally believe that that their
Speaker 1: platforms are doing net good in the world, and so
Speaker 1: they look for the data that reinforces that. Now you
Speaker 1: have had your critics, um. Brooke Hammer, Lying, a tech
Speaker 1: communications Vetterman said of a number of the folks interviewed
Speaker 1: in the film, most of them made a great deal
Speaker 1: of money from the companies they're now criticizing. I mean
Speaker 1: they made plane money, guys. She means enough money to
Speaker 1: buy a plane. And while when you have a G
Speaker 1: five at your disposal, it's really easy to sit there
Speaker 1: and criticize. I asked them, why not give a bulk
Speaker 1: of your wealth away to fight this, to undo the
Speaker 1: damage you yourselves help create. Tim, I'm sure you made
Speaker 1: some money in that decade. How do you reconcile that?
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it's really fair criticism. I
Speaker 1: hadn't read Brooks exact statement. Um, I've I've put ten
Speaker 1: million dollars plus into this issue, and we've given away
Speaker 1: millions of dollars to nonprofit organizations that are helping around
Speaker 1: these issues. And our intentions to keep giving away a
Speaker 1: lot of money and a big chunk of the money
Speaker 1: that we made from these platforms. So look, I think
Speaker 1: it's really fair criticism. Let's say Mark Zuckerberg wakes up
Speaker 1: tomorrow and says, I'm done, shuts down Facebook, no more Facebook.
Speaker 1: What happens is the world better or worse off? I
Speaker 1: think it would be perfectly fine for Facebook to shut down.
Speaker 1: I'm on the real Facebook oversight board. You know. I
Speaker 1: think we're really interested in seeing some important interventions happened
Speaker 1: quickly before democracy continues to collapse as we pummeled towards
Speaker 1: the next presidential election in the United States. Um, but
Speaker 1: you know, it's I think it's more complex than just
Speaker 1: saying Facebook should shut down, although I think there are
Speaker 1: many many people who would agree it probably should. But
Speaker 1: if we stay on the current path, where there's no oversight,
Speaker 1: no regulation, no law, no responsibility, we can be guaranteed
Speaker 1: that this is just the tip of the iceberg. So
Speaker 1: what should the laws be? What should the government do?
Speaker 1: If these companies aren't going to change on their own,
Speaker 1: then should they be broken up? Should there be new laws?
Speaker 1: I look at the amount of regulatory reform that we
Speaker 1: need here as being on parallel with the financial crisis,
Speaker 1: in the sense that in the financial crisis, where you
Speaker 1: had thinner and thinner slices of sort of junk bonds
Speaker 1: being sold as if they were you know, high quality bonds,
Speaker 1: leading to a full scale house of cards collapse. I
Speaker 1: think we've been selling fake, thinner and thinner slices of
Speaker 1: junk attention assets, fake attention sold for fake clicks to
Speaker 1: fake users, with fake reporting to advertisers, and we have
Speaker 1: an entire sort of democratic collapse sitting on top of
Speaker 1: the fact that this has been a predatory economy that
Speaker 1: has um based on high you know, high risk activity,
Speaker 1: recommending random things to users you don't know and you
Speaker 1: don't speak the language to leading to a genocide. So
Speaker 1: I think if you think about the scope or reform,
Speaker 1: we're not just saying let's pass this law or that law.
Speaker 1: We're saying, how do you get something more like Dodd
Speaker 1: Frank comprehensive humane technology reform? How do you have um,
Speaker 1: you know, comprehensive reform that enables competition, has more transparency,
Speaker 1: accountability for harms, um, tax justice as Sophia is talking
Speaker 1: about repatriating some of the money back into institutions that
Speaker 1: have fallen apart um and and have that all add
Speaker 1: up to a system of technology that reports to the
Speaker 1: people as reports as opposed to reporting to the board
Speaker 1: of directors and have them work in the service of people.
Speaker 1: You're listening to my conversation with Sophia Noble and Associate
Speaker 1: professor at u c l A and author of a
Speaker 1: best selling book on bias and technology. Tim Kendal, former
Speaker 1: head of monetization at Facebook and former president of Pinterest
Speaker 1: now CEO of moment and Tristan Harris, former design ethosist
Speaker 1: at Google now co founder of the Center for Humane Technology.
Speaker 1: Coming up, we chart the path towards the social solution
Speaker 1: is opting out of social media enough. I'm Emily Chang,
Speaker 1: this is Bloomberg Studio at one point out stay with Us.
Speaker 1: True to its name, the movie talks a lot about
Speaker 1: the social dilemma, but not a lot about the social solutions.
Speaker 1: As the credits start to roll, Tristan, You're you're allowed
Speaker 1: to offer one suggestion about turning off notifications, but really,
Speaker 1: in the short term, like while we wait for these
Speaker 1: big changes that could take years to happen, what do
Speaker 1: we do? Do we delete? Do we get rid of
Speaker 1: our phones? Like? How do we navigate the day to day?
Speaker 1: Even if you decide not to use these platforms and
Speaker 1: you delete your accounts, people who are not on these
Speaker 1: platforms can still experience life or death consequences because other
Speaker 1: people who live in their in their country do. The
Speaker 1: Muslim minority group through a Hinga and Myanmar who were
Speaker 1: murdered um didn't have to be on Facebook to be
Speaker 1: to be the to experience the consequences and persecuted because
Speaker 1: of fake news that was spread about them on Facebook.
Speaker 1: The mob lynchings in India that we're spreading fake news
Speaker 1: about this particular minority group that led to lynchings. They
Speaker 1: didn't have to be on Facebook to experience that. And
Speaker 1: when you think about teenagers who say, hey, I would
Speaker 1: like to opt out of being on Instagram, and I
Speaker 1: don't want to do that anymore. I don't want to
Speaker 1: be on TikTok anymore, they still go to a school
Speaker 1: where all their kids and who's all the kids are
Speaker 1: are ranking each other by who's popular based on how
Speaker 1: how successful they are on TikTok. So the point is
Speaker 1: that this has so entangled itself into our social fabric
Speaker 1: and into our social status pipelines and into the development
Speaker 1: of children that even if you opt out, that's not enough.
Speaker 1: One thing that can change at a fast enough clock
Speaker 1: rate is culture, meaning a common like cultural doctrine for
Speaker 1: a humane way to live in an inhumane technology infrastructure.
Speaker 1: And I think that's kind of something we have to
Speaker 1: co create together. Is a non violent communication protocol or
Speaker 1: a humane protocol for living on in humane platforms. There's many,
Speaker 1: many more recommendations on humane tech dot com. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of ways that we need to intervene.
Speaker 1: I will tell you though, that you know, putting it
Speaker 1: back on the public and saying you know, it's your
Speaker 1: fault you didn't um take the phone out of your
Speaker 1: kid's hand, or you you know, you parent are wrong
Speaker 1: because you, you know, had too much screen time going
Speaker 1: with your kid. I think is really the most powerfully
Speaker 1: disingenuous kind of framing there is. It's like, you know,
Speaker 1: if you if you don't have any healthy food in
Speaker 1: your community and you don't have any grocery stores, and
Speaker 1: all there is is fast food, and then you say,
Speaker 1: shame on you for feeding your kid McDonald's or corporate
Speaker 1: industry food. It's just not fair. You know. It only
Speaker 1: took us small handful of people to really convince Congress
Speaker 1: and state legislatures in local municipalities that smoking was terrible.
Speaker 1: You know, my students can't even remember. They weren't alive
Speaker 1: at the time, but some of us on this call,
Speaker 1: maybe we're you know, I'm sure that my mom probably
Speaker 1: smoked a pack of cigarettes after she gave birth to me.
Speaker 1: It's probable that the doctors and the nurses were smoking
Speaker 1: in the hospital in the seventies when I was born,
Speaker 1: And so we have to ask the question, like, how
Speaker 1: did we go from that to what we have now,
Speaker 1: which is a total paradigm shift, and so I agree
Speaker 1: we need cultural shift, but that was just strategic public
Speaker 1: policy that said, even if you're not a smoker, there's
Speaker 1: still tertiary negative effects that happen from second hand smoke
Speaker 1: or from these systems that right neglect UM the broader
Speaker 1: public concerns. That's the kind of model we need to
Speaker 1: think about. And I think look at as we're looking
Speaker 1: at the larger tech sector, and I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot of promise and opportunity to make change. You've got
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate scrutinizing big tech right now.
Speaker 1: Should these companies be broken up? Yeah, I think I
Speaker 1: think there's a there's a you know, a monopoly conversation
Speaker 1: that needs to happen. I also think that there is
Speaker 1: an interesting page to be taken out of sort of
Speaker 1: um auto manufacturers. And what I mean by that is
Speaker 1: that auto manufacturers were addicted to the fossil fuel industry,
Speaker 1: and they were incentivized to move to electric because it
Speaker 1: was better for the world and it was better for people.
Speaker 1: And so I do wonder if there is a possibility
Speaker 1: and a path that could be co created between these
Speaker 1: tech companies and governments all over the world where incentives
Speaker 1: could be put in place to segue off of an
Speaker 1: attention based business model by e fossil fuels in hopes
Speaker 1: of finding what is the electric and solar and green
Speaker 1: model and how do we work together to get there?
Speaker 1: If technology is advancing exponentially only going to get better
Speaker 1: at manipulating us, can we actually INTERVENE I'm sorry, I
Speaker 1: don't think the companies will change from within. I think
Speaker 1: that when you have a product that creates so much
Speaker 1: consumer and public harm, it's actually unsafe UM products. Until
Speaker 1: those are regulated and contained as unsafe, they will continue.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't they? I mean again, we're talking about billionaires
Speaker 1: adding billions to their coffers right now, so there's no
Speaker 1: incentive for them to stop the model. And they're also
Speaker 1: quite frankly so insulated, um, you know, with their wealth
Speaker 1: from ever even being affected by the harms. So we
Speaker 1: sat they don't even let their own children engage with
Speaker 1: the technologies that they make. So we know that the
Speaker 1: makers are not going to be the source of the intervention.
Speaker 1: It's going to require an informed public, electorates, policymakers, regulators
Speaker 1: around the world. UM, it's going to take those kinds
Speaker 1: of actions and of course the culture shift that we
Speaker 1: need um in order to see the changes that we want. Tim,
Speaker 1: if you could say something to Mark Zuckerberg right now,
Speaker 1: one thing he could do, what would it be, It's
Speaker 1: change your business model. Start having the conversation at Facebook
Speaker 1: about how the business model is corrosive and what could
Speaker 1: be the path to segue off of an attention based
Speaker 1: business model to something else that is aligned with the
Speaker 1: public good, like a subscription model. Possibly a subscription model
Speaker 1: with governments all over the world subsidizing in the same
Speaker 1: way that they subsidize false so fuel shifting to you know,
Speaker 1: more green technologies. I think that is I think that
Speaker 1: may be our only path out of this. Where are
Speaker 1: we in five to ten years do you believe will
Speaker 1: be better off or worse off? I don't know if
Speaker 1: we're going to make it another year. Frankly, if we
Speaker 1: don't change these things immediately, I am deeply concerned. And
Speaker 1: I think that this thing has eroded faster than any
Speaker 1: of us have ever anticipated. I think, as as Tim
Speaker 1: says in the film, the changes that we've seen, in
Speaker 1: the developments we've seen in the last few years, I
Speaker 1: didn't think we'd get to a world where fringe conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories would would make up a third and a a half
Speaker 1: of major political parties were now ten years into this
Speaker 1: mass hypnosis, this mass warping effect on the collective psyche.
Speaker 1: So even if we kind of vote in this election,
Speaker 1: we have to realize that the basis for that vote,
Speaker 1: the basis for how we're all thinking, believing, and and
Speaker 1: seeing reality has been warped for for many decades now
Speaker 1: because of these forces in the business model. I think
Speaker 1: we're better off. You know, I'm ultimately optimistic, Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: give some of the things that we all talked about,
Speaker 1: I believe in in five to ten years, um, you know,
Speaker 1: much like what happened with tobacco, much like what happened
Speaker 1: with seatbelts, which, by the way, we're incredibly controversial, and
Speaker 1: automakers didn't want to put them in, and now we've
Speaker 1: seatbelts in every car, it's not controversial. I hopefully we'll
Speaker 1: get on the other side of this in the same
Speaker 1: way we did with those historic issues. I think of
Speaker 1: abolitionists in my own community. I think of of of
Speaker 1: women struggling for the right to vote. I think of
Speaker 1: so many different movements that have changed paradigms and again,
Speaker 1: it doesn't take millions of people to do that, but
Speaker 1: it does take enough people of conscience, of determination, of
Speaker 1: of love, and of care to organize and stay persistent
Speaker 1: and relentless. And I think we've been there and we're
Speaker 1: going to continue to be there in this in this
Speaker 1: domain too. All right, Well with that, we will leave
Speaker 1: it there. Tristan Harris, Sophia Noble, Tim Kendall, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Yah Bloomberg Studio One point
Speaker 1: oh was produced and edited by Kevin Hines. Our executive
Speaker 1: producer is Candy Chang. This is actually her last episode.
Speaker 1: She's moving on to her next adventure, and I just
Speaker 1: want to say we love you, Candy. Thank you, Candy.
Speaker 1: We'll miss you. We are so grateful for the love
Speaker 1: and hard work you poured into this show, and we'll
Speaker 1: try to do you proud. Our managing editor is Daniel Culbertson,
Speaker 1: with production assistance from mallorye Abelhausen. I'm Emily Chang, your
Speaker 1: host and executive producer. This is Bloomberg