Speaker 1: Next Question with Katie Curic is a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio and Katie Kuric Media. Hi everyone, I'm Katie
Speaker 1: Curic and welcome to Next Question, where we try to
Speaker 1: understand the complicated world we're living in and the crazy
Speaker 1: things that are happening by asking questions and by listening
Speaker 1: to people who really know what they're talking about. At times,
Speaker 1: it may lead to some pretty uncomfortable conversations, but stick
Speaker 1: with me, everyone, let's all learn together. More than two
Speaker 1: point one billion people use Facebook or one of its
Speaker 1: services like Instagram or What's App every single day. That's
Speaker 1: nearly one third of the entire world's population. But recently
Speaker 1: the company has gone from the brilliant brainchild of a
Speaker 1: Harvard dropout named Mark Zuckerberg to one of the most
Speaker 1: controversial companies on the planet. He was recently grilled on
Speaker 1: Capitol hilld by members of Congress concerned about the plat forms,
Speaker 1: increasing footprint, and almost every aspect of our lives. Sure,
Speaker 1: Facebook can bring communities together, help you share photos with
Speaker 1: your family, and even start movements, but it can also
Speaker 1: unfairly impact elections, spread misinformation, create a safe space for
Speaker 1: child pornographers, and white supremacists, invade our privacy, exploit our
Speaker 1: personal information, and increase the deep divisions of our already
Speaker 1: polarized nation. That's quite a laundry list, isn't it, And
Speaker 1: with the election fast approaching, you may be wondering if
Speaker 1: it might be deja vu all over again, and worried that,
Speaker 1: to borrow a phrase from the nineteen sixty six movie
Speaker 1: The Russians Are Coming, The Russians are Coming, not to
Speaker 1: mention China and other foreign powers, and the company's recent
Speaker 1: decision not to fact check political ads lead to a
Speaker 1: heated debate on social media between Zuckerberg and Democratic presidential
Speaker 1: candidate Elizabeth Warren, who set the platform had become a
Speaker 1: quote disinformation for profit machine, and she even placed an
Speaker 1: ad on Facebook sayt Zuckerberg was supporting Trump for president
Speaker 1: to test if it would be removed. It wasn't. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: more than two hundred and fifty of its own employees
Speaker 1: signed an open letter warning that the ad policy is
Speaker 1: quote a threat to what Facebook stands for. So I
Speaker 1: was impressed that the company CEO, Cheryl Sandberg was willing
Speaker 1: to sit down with me recently at the Vanity Fair
Speaker 1: New Establishment conference in Los Angeles. She's been with the
Speaker 1: company since two thousand eleven and has played a pivotal
Speaker 1: role in shaping both its culture and its business strategy,
Speaker 1: leading it to more than twenty two billion dollars in
Speaker 1: profits last year. She's also an advocate for women in
Speaker 1: the workplace with her two thousand thirteen book and organization
Speaker 1: Lean In. And I got to know Cheryl after her husband, Dave,
Speaker 1: died unexpectedly in two thousand fifteen. She reached out because
Speaker 1: I too had lost my husband at an early age.
Speaker 1: Cheryl wrote a book about her experience, called Option B,
Speaker 1: and I interviewed her for that back in two thousand seventeen.
Speaker 1: If you're interested, you can find that interview in my feed.
Speaker 1: Our recent conversation at the Vanity Fair summit got a
Speaker 1: lot of attention, and I thought it made sense to
Speaker 1: share it with all of you on my podcast. So
Speaker 1: my next question for Cheryl Sandberg is Facebook doing enough
Speaker 1: to protect it's more than two billion users and our democracy?
Speaker 1: Or is it time to unfriend Facebook? Cheryl, thank you
Speaker 1: for being here. We have a lot to talk about,
Speaker 1: as you know, so let's get right to it. We're
Speaker 1: just over a year from the election. Three hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy eight days to be exactly who's counting? Yeah, But
Speaker 1: I think the way Facebook addresses and fixes the platform
Speaker 1: that was used in two thousand and sixteen is seen
Speaker 1: is a major, critically important test. I know certain measures
Speaker 1: have in fact been implemented, for example, thirty five thousand
Speaker 1: moderators looking for fake accounts and suspicious patterns. Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: announced news safeguards like labeling media outlets that are state controlled.
Speaker 1: But do you believe that's enough? I mean, do you
Speaker 1: really seriously believe that we won't witness the kind of
Speaker 1: widespread interference we saw in two thousand sixteen. Well, we're
Speaker 1: gonna do everything we can to prevent it. Um. I
Speaker 1: do think we're in a very different place. So if
Speaker 1: you think back to we had protections against state actors,
Speaker 1: but when you thought about state actors going against a
Speaker 1: technology platform, what you thought of was hacking the Sony emails,
Speaker 1: the DNC emails, stealing information. And that's what our defenses
Speaker 1: were really set up to prevent, and so were everyone
Speaker 1: Else's what we totally missed, and it is on us
Speaker 1: from missing it, and everyone missed. This was not stealing information,
Speaker 1: but going in and writing fake stuff was a totally
Speaker 1: diff threat and our systems weren't set up to deal
Speaker 1: with it. So the question is as you're asking, what
Speaker 1: are we doing going forward and how are we going
Speaker 1: into the election? And how did we do in and
Speaker 1: we're in a totally different place. The FBI has a
Speaker 1: task force on this. They didn't have anyone working on it.
Speaker 1: Homeland Security is working on it, all the tech companies
Speaker 1: are working together, because when you try to interfere on
Speaker 1: one platform, you try to interfere on another. In Sten,
Speaker 1: we didn't know what this threat was in We did
Speaker 1: one takedown. In the last year, we did fifty and
Speaker 1: I read a shocking number. You took down more than
Speaker 1: two point two billion fake accounts in a three month.
Speaker 1: That's right. We take down millions every day. So thirty
Speaker 1: moderators is that even enough? Given I mean two point
Speaker 1: two billion is almost the number of people who are
Speaker 1: on the platform. So the moderators are looking for content.
Speaker 1: The fake accounts are being found with engineering. That's the
Speaker 1: only way to find those fake account Most of those
Speaker 1: are found before anyone ever sees them. And fake accounts
Speaker 1: are a really important point here because everything that was
Speaker 1: done by Russia in everything was done under a fake account.
Speaker 1: So if you can find the fake accounts, you often
Speaker 1: find the root of the problem. And so we are
Speaker 1: now taking down millions every day, almost all of which
Speaker 1: no one has seen. You talked about disrupting fifty individual
Speaker 1: campaigns from multiple nation states so far. But what about
Speaker 1: domestic threats. Facebook's own former security chief Alex Stamos has said, quote,
Speaker 1: what I expect is that the Russian playbook is going
Speaker 1: to be executed inside of the US by domestic groups,
Speaker 1: in which case some of it, other than hacking, is
Speaker 1: not illegal. My real fear, he says, is that in
Speaker 1: it's going to be the battle of the billionaires of
Speaker 1: secret groups working for people aligned on both sides who
Speaker 1: are trying to manipulate us at scale online. So what
Speaker 1: is face spook doing to defend the platform against this
Speaker 1: kind of domestic threat. It's a really good question, because
Speaker 1: things are against our policies if they're fraudulent or fake accounts,
Speaker 1: but people can also kind of deceive. Again, if you
Speaker 1: look at where we were and where we are, the
Speaker 1: transparency is dramatically different. So you look on every page
Speaker 1: on Facebook, you can now see the origin of where
Speaker 1: the person is. So if someone is has a page
Speaker 1: that's called I don't know us whatever, but they're from
Speaker 1: the Ukraine, it's clearly marked that. If you look at
Speaker 1: our ad library we didn't have this last time, you
Speaker 1: can see any political ad running actually anywhere in the
Speaker 1: country or in most places of the world, even if
Speaker 1: they're not targeted to you. So before, if they were
Speaker 1: trying to reach you, you could see it, but you
Speaker 1: couldn't see anything else. Now you can see everything. And
Speaker 1: we rolled out on Presidential ad Tracker so that you
Speaker 1: can see the presidential campaigns much more holistically. So with
Speaker 1: the transparency measures we have, people should be able to
Speaker 1: be trying to get rid of the accounts and the
Speaker 1: ones that are legitimate, whether they run domestically or globally.
Speaker 1: Make sure people understand who the people are behind what
Speaker 1: they're seeing. But then why did Facebook announced not to
Speaker 1: fact check political ads last month? I know the Rand
Speaker 1: Corporation actually has a term for this, which is truth decay.
Speaker 1: And Mark himself has defended this decision even as he
Speaker 1: expressed concern about the erosion of truth online. So what
Speaker 1: is the rationale for that? And I know you're gonna
Speaker 1: say we're not a news organization. We're a platform. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to say that, but it's a really important question,
Speaker 1: and I'm really glad to have a chance to take
Speaker 1: a beat and really think about it and talk about it.
Speaker 1: So one of the most controversial things out there right
Speaker 1: now is what adds do we take? What ads do
Speaker 1: others take? And do we fact check political ads? And
Speaker 1: it is a hard conversation and emotions are running very
Speaker 1: high on this. I also sit here realizing it's however
Speaker 1: many days you said before the election. So the ads
Speaker 1: that are controversial now we have not even seen the
Speaker 1: beginning of what we're going to see. There are going
Speaker 1: to be a lot of controversial ads and controversial speech.
Speaker 1: So why are we doing this. It's not for the money.
Speaker 1: Let's start there. This is a very small part of
Speaker 1: our revenue five percent or something. We don't release the numbers,
Speaker 1: but it's very small, very small, and it is very controversial.
Speaker 1: We're not doing this for the money. We take political
Speaker 1: ads because we really believe they are part of political
Speaker 1: discourse and that taking political ads means that people can speak.
Speaker 1: If you look at this over time, the people who
Speaker 1: have most benefited from being able to run ads are
Speaker 1: people who are not covered by the media so they
Speaker 1: can't get their message out otherwise, people who are challenging
Speaker 1: and incumbent so they are a challenger, and people who
Speaker 1: have different points of view. That's that's been true historically.
Speaker 1: And so we also have this issue that if we
Speaker 1: let's say we took political ads off the service, we
Speaker 1: would still have all the issue ads. So I'm running
Speaker 1: an AD on gender equality, I'm running an AD on
Speaker 1: an other political issue. Those ads are much much much
Speaker 1: bigger in terms of scope than the political ads, so
Speaker 1: you would have every voice in the debate except the
Speaker 1: politicians themselves. So instead, what we're doing is as much
Speaker 1: transparency as possible. Every ad has to be marked by
Speaker 1: who paid for it. We're doing verification to make sure
Speaker 1: the people that say they're paid and that adds library
Speaker 1: I started talking about is really important because you can't hide.
Speaker 1: You can't run one ad in one state, one add
Speaker 1: and another, one add to one group, one add to another.
Speaker 1: Anyone can go into that library and see any ad
Speaker 1: that any politician is running anywhere. Well, this is what
Speaker 1: Nita Gupta wrote, the former head of the dj Civil
Speaker 1: Rights Division, and Politico simply put she wrote, while major
Speaker 1: news organizations are strengthening fact checking and accountability, Facebook is saying,
Speaker 1: if you are a politician who wishes to pedal in lies, distortion,
Speaker 1: and not so subtle racial appeals, welcome to our platform.
Speaker 1: You will not be fact check you are automatically newsworthy.
Speaker 1: You're automatically exempt from scrutiny. So I know of Anita,
Speaker 1: and I've had a chance to speak to her since
Speaker 1: she since she posted that, and I think the debate
Speaker 1: is really important. I've had a chance to work with
Speaker 1: her on our civil rights work. We've taken a lot
Speaker 1: of feedback from her and already continue which she was
Speaker 1: writing there was not only about ads, it was really
Speaker 1: about content on the platform. So taking a step back,
Speaker 1: here's what we do. When you write something. We have
Speaker 1: a very strong free expression bent. We think it's very
Speaker 1: important that we judge as little as possible and let
Speaker 1: people express themselves. But we don't allow anything on the platform.
Speaker 1: If something is hate, terrorism, violence, bullying, you know, hate
Speaker 1: against protective classes, it comes down we take it off,
Speaker 1: voter suppression. If something is false, misinformation, fake news, we
Speaker 1: don't take it off. We send it to third party
Speaker 1: fact checkers. If they market as false. We market as false.
Speaker 1: If you go to share it and it's marked as false,
Speaker 1: we warn you with a pop up and we say,
Speaker 1: do you want to share this it's been marked as false?
Speaker 1: We dramatically decrease distribution, so we decrease it to about
Speaker 1: and we show related articles. How can you possibly do
Speaker 1: that with two point seven billion users? How can you
Speaker 1: possibly keep up with all the content that's being produced
Speaker 1: on Facebook and distributed and shared, etcetera. We can't fact
Speaker 1: check everything. We're not trying to fact check everything or
Speaker 1: send everything to third party fact checkers at all. We
Speaker 1: prioritize in terms of what's going most quickly. So when
Speaker 1: something is growing really quickly, it gets referred, it goes
Speaker 1: to the top of the heap sending it to fact checkers.
Speaker 1: And these are really news links. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: a bad example because you're a media journalist, but you know,
Speaker 1: if my sister writes a post about her kids and
Speaker 1: her dogs, which she does all the time, that's not
Speaker 1: getting fact check. That said, the challenges of scale here
Speaker 1: are really important, and in a lot of the areas
Speaker 1: where we are reluctant to weigh in, it's because we
Speaker 1: know we can't do this well at scale, so we
Speaker 1: have to rely on other sources. I think one of
Speaker 1: the most important things we're rolling out in the next
Speaker 1: year is our Content Advisory Board. We understand that there
Speaker 1: are real concerns with the amount of power and control
Speaker 1: we have that right now we are the ultimate arbiters
Speaker 1: of what stays on our service, and so we're setting
Speaker 1: up a content review board. The final charter has just
Speaker 1: been released. We've consulted with over a thousand experts around
Speaker 1: the world and they're going to be forty people appointed
Speaker 1: and by next year they're going to start hearing cases.
Speaker 1: They don't report to me, they don't report to Mark.
Speaker 1: It means that if you disagree and something was pulled
Speaker 1: down and you think it should be up, or if
Speaker 1: you disagree and we are letting something run from someone else,
Speaker 1: that you don't think, you have a place to go
Speaker 1: and we're going to abide by their decisions. Since two
Speaker 1: thirds of people get their news and information now from
Speaker 1: social media, do you have any responsibility in your view
Speaker 1: to at least attempt to make sure that the news
Speaker 1: on your platform is factual? Because oftentimes I've heard, well,
Speaker 1: we're a platform, we're not a publisher, right, and so
Speaker 1: we're basically the pipes. So where do you see your
Speaker 1: responsibility in terms of that? So we do think we
Speaker 1: have a responsibility for fake news and misinformation? Would you
Speaker 1: say you're not a publisher? Still, well, what would you
Speaker 1: call it? So that is a complicated thing and it
Speaker 1: means different things to different people. Here's what we are.
Speaker 1: We are a technology company. A lot of things are
Speaker 1: published on us. But what I think when people ask
Speaker 1: that question, they're wondering if we take responsibility for what's
Speaker 1: on our service. And my answer to you is is yes,
Speaker 1: we're not a publisher in the traditional sense because we
Speaker 1: don't have editors who are fact checking, but we take
Speaker 1: responsibility and what we've done on misinformation has decreased people's interactions.
Speaker 1: Stanford just published a study there down by more than half.
Speaker 1: Since it's not perfect, we're not able to fact check everything.
Speaker 1: But we had no policies against this in the last election,
Speaker 1: and you fast forward to today. I think we are
Speaker 1: in an imperfect but a much stronger position. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about the free speech rationale at Georgetown. Mark used Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King Jr's name and his defense of free speech
Speaker 1: on Facebook, but King's daughter, Bernice tweeted, I'd like to
Speaker 1: help Facebook better understand the challenges that MLK faced from
Speaker 1: disinformation campaigns launched by politicians. These campaigns created an atmosphere
Speaker 1: for his assassination. And then Sherylyn Eiffel, as you know,
Speaker 1: president of the n double a CP Legal Defense Fund,
Speaker 1: called his speech quote a profound misreading of the civil
Speaker 1: rights movement in America and a dangerous misunderstanding of the
Speaker 1: political and digital landscape we now inhabit. It was a
Speaker 1: controversial speech, and I think the civil rights concerns are
Speaker 1: very real. Um. In terms of Bernice King, you know her,
Speaker 1: her father's legacy, I know her. I actually spoke to
Speaker 1: her after that tweet, totally scheduled separately. She's coming to
Speaker 1: Facebook tomorrow and I'm going to be in your chair interviewing,
Speaker 1: and then I'm hoasting her for dinner tomorrow night. And
Speaker 1: what I told her is what I'll say to you,
Speaker 1: which is that I was grateful she published. We would
Speaker 1: have liked her to push on Facebook, not just tweet,
Speaker 1: but we were grateful she spoke out because this is
Speaker 1: the dialogue we want to have. And she actually tweeted
Speaker 1: again this morning that she heard from Mark and is
Speaker 1: looking forward to sitting down and talking with him civil rights.
Speaker 1: She's smooth, isn't she. I mean, these are just facts,
Speaker 1: she tweeted. You can check again to my friend Vernice.
Speaker 1: We'd like you to post on our platform too. But
Speaker 1: this is the dialogue, right, there's a lot of disagreement.
Speaker 1: Civil rights and protecting civil rights are hugely important to Mark,
Speaker 1: hugely important to me. I'm personally leading the civil rights
Speaker 1: work at Facebook and we'll continue to do that. And
Speaker 1: while we don't agree with everything, and there was certainly
Speaker 1: disagreement over some of Mark's speech, there were other things
Speaker 1: that we've done because we've listened and learned to them
Speaker 1: over the last year, that I think they feel really
Speaker 1: good about. We've taken much stronger steps on hate, looked
Speaker 1: at white nationalism and white separatism because they informed us
Speaker 1: of it. We've really come down on a very strong
Speaker 1: policy on voter suppression. We are taking down voter suppression
Speaker 1: as hate. If you publish you know the polls are
Speaker 1: open on Wednesday, not Tuesday. We're taking that down because
Speaker 1: it's as important to us as hate. And that's all
Speaker 1: based on work, And so why is voter suppression more
Speaker 1: important than voter misinformation. It's not. It's not more important.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of how we handle it when
Speaker 1: we have misinformation. What we believe is that unless it's hate,
Speaker 1: are going to lead to real world violence, we need
Speaker 1: to let the debate continue. We dial massively down the
Speaker 1: distribution to As I said, we don't want things to
Speaker 1: go viral. We mark them as false, but then we
Speaker 1: publish related articles. Here's the other side of the story.
Speaker 1: We think that's how people get informed that it's the
Speaker 1: discourse about the discourse. It is market giving a speech
Speaker 1: and Bernice King disagreeing with it publicly, and that dialogue
Speaker 1: that matters. Whereas if it's hate or if someone's really
Speaker 1: going to show up to the polls the wrong day,
Speaker 1: we just want to take it off our service. And
Speaker 1: this is really hard because one person will think something
Speaker 1: is clearly just they really disagree with it, and we
Speaker 1: do too, but they think it's someone else's free expression,
Speaker 1: and so these lines are going to continue to be
Speaker 1: really hard to draw. Do you really think that people
Speaker 1: use Facebook as an opportunity to look at both sides
Speaker 1: and to see something when it's corrected, or don't you
Speaker 1: think that people are getting stuff in their feed that
Speaker 1: is really affirmation that information. And I'm so glad you
Speaker 1: asked this because there's actually really strong data here and
Speaker 1: no one understands this. So when you think about your
Speaker 1: contacts in the world, psychologists, you have what's called um
Speaker 1: your tight circle of contacts and then your broader circle
Speaker 1: of contact. So you basically can keep in touch with
Speaker 1: five to seven people. That's your mom, your daughter's, your husband, John,
Speaker 1: the people who you know where they are. What Facebook
Speaker 1: enables you to do is keep in top with many
Speaker 1: more people. Without Facebook, without social media, without Instagram, Twitter,
Speaker 1: you won't hear from your college friends or the people
Speaker 1: you grew up with that often. So if you compare
Speaker 1: people who do not use social media for people who do,
Speaker 1: the people who use social media see much more broad
Speaker 1: points of view because if you don't use social media,
Speaker 1: you go to maybe one or two news outlets. They
Speaker 1: have one particular point of view. You read one or
Speaker 1: two newspapers, and that's it. On Facebook, you will see,
Speaker 1: on average of the stuff you see a news will
Speaker 1: be from another point of view, which means it's not
Speaker 1: half and half, but it is broadening of your views.
Speaker 1: And that's something that I don't think we've we've been
Speaker 1: able to explain to other people really understand. And the
Speaker 1: reason for that is if you go to your news feed,
Speaker 1: you don't see like half blue and half read. You
Speaker 1: just see about more from the other side than you
Speaker 1: otherwise would. So it is unequivocally true that Facebook usage
Speaker 1: and usage of social media shows you broader points of view,
Speaker 1: not narrower points of view than you would see otherwise.
Speaker 1: And that's something no one understands. When we come back,
Speaker 1: we take a deep dive into the rise of deep fakes,
Speaker 1: Facebook's role in the increasing polarization of our country and
Speaker 1: what the consequences should be if the company doesn't put
Speaker 1: the proper safeguards in place for presidential election. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about the free speech argument, which came under attack earlier
Speaker 1: this year when Facebook decided not to take down that
Speaker 1: doctored video of how speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her speech was
Speaker 1: slowed down, it made her appear to be slurring her words,
Speaker 1: that people thought she was drunk. You defended the decision
Speaker 1: by saying, we think the only way to fight bad
Speaker 1: information is with good information, and you said it had
Speaker 1: been marked as false but at that point, Cheryl, it
Speaker 1: had been viewed two point five million times. So isn't
Speaker 1: the damage already done at that point, like when you
Speaker 1: do a correction in the newspaper two days later in
Speaker 1: tiny on page two. And studies have shown if you
Speaker 1: see the false story enough and the correction fewer times,
Speaker 1: than the false story actually stays in your head. Not
Speaker 1: to mention, another study by m I t that fake
Speaker 1: news spreads seventy times faster than real news on Twitter.
Speaker 1: So I guess, isn't the current standard operating procedure on
Speaker 1: videos like this a case of too little, too late?
Speaker 1: I think what the Plosi video it was, and we
Speaker 1: have said that publicly our fact checkers moved way to
Speaker 1: the process and not the fact checkers. The process for
Speaker 1: getting it to them and getting it back moved way
Speaker 1: too slowly, and we've made a change in how we
Speaker 1: do that to prioritize things that are moving quickly and
Speaker 1: massively cut down the review time. In that case, we
Speaker 1: should have caught it way earlier. We think you're right,
Speaker 1: and we want our systems to work more because now
Speaker 1: the technology allows people to appear that they're doing something
Speaker 1: and are saying something other than what they're actually saying.
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you keep up with all of
Speaker 1: those things? Well, deep fakes is what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: It is a new and emerging and that's when I'm
Speaker 1: met deep. Yeah. And it's a new and emerging area,
Speaker 1: and it is definitely one that we don't believe we
Speaker 1: know everything about because we don't even know what they're
Speaker 1: gonna look like. Here's what we know. We know we're
Speaker 1: gonna need to move way, way, way faster. We know
Speaker 1: we're going to need very sophisticated engineering to detect them
Speaker 1: in the first place. We also know that the policies
Speaker 1: themselves are hard to set right, and so we this
Speaker 1: is an area where we know we moved too slowly
Speaker 1: with the Pelosi video. We are trying to move faster.
Speaker 1: But we're also setting up working groups and AI working
Speaker 1: groups to try to develop the technology that will help
Speaker 1: us identify these in the first place. I wanted to
Speaker 1: ask you about Joe Biden because I know he's cut
Speaker 1: down substantially on his Facebook ad spending because he wasn't
Speaker 1: seeing very good return. Some strategists have speculated that his
Speaker 1: message is to centrists and lacking in the inflammatory red
Speaker 1: meat content that does so well on platforms like Facebook.
Speaker 1: Are you concerned that you are creating an environment where
Speaker 1: the most aggressive, inflammatory, each bribal content is what sells.
Speaker 1: I know you address that briefly in saying that people
Speaker 1: get different points of view, but certainly these people seem
Speaker 1: to gravitate towards that kind of content. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that's true across political discourse. I think it's a
Speaker 1: problem we face. I think you see it in rallies.
Speaker 1: I think you see it in the debates. I think
Speaker 1: the problem of people making more inflammatory statements and people
Speaker 1: rallying to those, particularly as things get more polarized, is
Speaker 1: a real problem. I don't think it's unique to us.
Speaker 1: But do you think you've contributed to the polarization in
Speaker 1: the country. Um, I think everything has contributed. I do
Speaker 1: think Facebook is I think held accountable for that well.
Speaker 1: I think we have a responsibility to help make sure
Speaker 1: people get real information, to help participate in the debate,
Speaker 1: and make sure that people can see other other points
Speaker 1: of view. So I think, but are they getting real information?
Speaker 1: If they're if they are getting the most aggressive inflammatory,
Speaker 1: in other words, sort of more moderate points of view,
Speaker 1: they're not as provocative. They don't stoke out rage as
Speaker 1: much as some of this other content. Look, I think
Speaker 1: that's true. I think you see it in rallies too.
Speaker 1: I think you see it on social media. I think
Speaker 1: you see it in rallies when does the crowd cheer.
Speaker 1: You think you've see it in the debates. But I
Speaker 1: think here's what matters. What matters is that we want
Speaker 1: people to be able to communicate, express themselves. We want
Speaker 1: people to register to vote and stay in the political process.
Speaker 1: What I will most worry about is if people start
Speaker 1: opting out. So one of the things I'm proud of
Speaker 1: that Facebook has done is we registered over two million
Speaker 1: people to vote, and on Facebook, when you turn eighteen,
Speaker 1: we basically say happy birthday, and you should register to vote.
Speaker 1: We have a really easy tool that lets you find
Speaker 1: your local representative. Most people don't know who their local
Speaker 1: representative is. So yes, I worry about all that, but
Speaker 1: we also worry about core engagement to making sure that
Speaker 1: people don't just opt out, but stay engaged, that they vote,
Speaker 1: that they know who their representatives are, they know who
Speaker 1: they're voting, and they participate in the debate. Mark said
Speaker 1: recently in a leaked audio from an internal Facebook meeting
Speaker 1: that if Eliza with Warren becomes president and tries to
Speaker 1: break up the company, it would be an existential threat
Speaker 1: and Facebook would go to the mat. What does that
Speaker 1: mean exactly, go to the mat? We'll have to see.
Speaker 1: But what this is about is whether I mean what
Speaker 1: we'll have to see is what this is. This is
Speaker 1: about whether or not Facebook should be broken up. And
Speaker 1: that's a really important question. I think we're facing it.
Speaker 1: I think all the tech companies are facing it um
Speaker 1: And it's interesting. What do you think about the fear
Speaker 1: about that? Well, I don't know if it's if it's
Speaker 1: the biggest fear. I just think it's it would it
Speaker 1: would you be okay if it was broken up? Well,
Speaker 1: we don't want Facebook to be broken up because we
Speaker 1: think we're able to provide great services across the board.
Speaker 1: We think we're able to invest in security across the board.
Speaker 1: So we invest enough and security across the board, we
Speaker 1: invest a lot. We're investing much much, much more. We
Speaker 1: have hired an extra thirty five thousand people, We've put
Speaker 1: tremendous engineering resources, and we're doing things like red teams,
Speaker 1: asking what do we think the bad guys would do
Speaker 1: and how would we do it. So we're never going
Speaker 1: to fully be ahead of everything. But if you want
Speaker 1: to understand what companies care about, you look at where
Speaker 1: they invest their resources. And if you look back three
Speaker 1: to five years and you look at today, we've totally
Speaker 1: changed when we invest our resources. And my job has
Speaker 1: changed too. If I look at I've been at Facebook
Speaker 1: eleven and a half years. For the first eight or so,
Speaker 1: I spent most of my time growing the company and
Speaker 1: sometime protecting the community. We always did some protection, but
Speaker 1: now that's definitely flipped. My job is a majority building
Speaker 1: the systems that protect and minority grow. And so we're
Speaker 1: definitely changing as a company. We're in a different place
Speaker 1: across the board on all of these things. Do you
Speaker 1: think you're changing enough fast enough? I hope. So we're trying.
Speaker 1: We're definitely trying. I mean, I think it's about not
Speaker 1: just the current threats, but the next threat. The question
Speaker 1: we ask ourselves every day is, Okay, we know what
Speaker 1: happened in and now we're going to work to prevent it.
Speaker 1: What is the next thing someone is going to do?
Speaker 1: And that's going to take a lot of thought and
Speaker 1: a lot of cooperation across the board. Do you see
Speaker 1: breaking up Facebook as the existential threat? Mark Zuckerberg described,
Speaker 1: And how are you feeling about Elizabeth Warren these days?
Speaker 1: So I know Elizabeth Warren, and would you support her?
Speaker 1: She's a Democratic nominee. I mean, I'm a Democrat. I
Speaker 1: have supported Democrat nominees in the past. I imagine I
Speaker 1: will support a Democrat nominee if it's Elizabeth Warren. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not in the primary right now. I think that's
Speaker 1: a good place for us to be, and so I'm
Speaker 1: not going to let you drag me into the primary.
Speaker 1: But I am a very well understood Democrat. I was
Speaker 1: a supporter of Hillary Clinton. I have spoken for many
Speaker 1: years about my desire for my daughter and yours to
Speaker 1: see a woman as president. And so I'd like that
Speaker 1: sounds like a yes, I'd like that. Not just here,
Speaker 1: I'd like that all over the world. I have this
Speaker 1: really funny story from a friend of mine in Germany
Speaker 1: whose son I love. This said to his mother he
Speaker 1: was five, I can't be chance where and she said
Speaker 1: why not? He said, well, I'm not a girl because
Speaker 1: of Angelo Merkel. Because the only person he has ever
Speaker 1: known was Angelo Merkels. That's pretty good. You've said yourself
Speaker 1: that you have to get right. What should be the
Speaker 1: consequences if Facebook doesn't. I mean, I think we have
Speaker 1: to earn back trust. Trust is very easily broken. It
Speaker 1: is hard to earn back. I think we have to
Speaker 1: earn back trust. I think we need deeper cooperation across
Speaker 1: the board. We are arguing for regulation in some of
Speaker 1: these areas, including things that would impact foreign interference, and
Speaker 1: I think the consequences to us will be grave if
Speaker 1: if we don't, what is it? What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Consequences will be I think I think it would further
Speaker 1: a road trust. I think people will have less faith
Speaker 1: in the platform and our services. People are continuing to
Speaker 1: use our services. That's trust. We need to earn back,
Speaker 1: not just with what we say, but what we do.
Speaker 1: And it is about finding those syndicates and taking them down.
Speaker 1: It is showing that we can cooperate across the board,
Speaker 1: on both sides of the AI, in Congress and around
Speaker 1: the world to find the things that threaten our democracy.
Speaker 1: What can other people do to help Facebook solve some
Speaker 1: of these problems? Well, thank you for the question. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of things. So one of
Speaker 1: the things that makes us very different than where we
Speaker 1: were years ago is I think pretty radical transparency. So,
Speaker 1: for example, our community standards are completely public. We go
Speaker 1: public every week or so I think every two weeks
Speaker 1: with here's some of the decisions we're making, and we
Speaker 1: take feedback. We're publishing a transparency report by next year.
Speaker 1: We're gonna do it every quarter, just like earnings, because
Speaker 1: it's just as important to us as earnings, which has
Speaker 1: Here's all the stuff we took down, So here's how
Speaker 1: many billions of accounts that where that number comes from.
Speaker 1: Here's how much terrorism content, Here's how much hate speech,
Speaker 1: and then how much of it did we find before
Speaker 1: it was reported to us? So what that report shows
Speaker 1: is iss n L KADA content of what we take down,
Speaker 1: we find it before it's reported hate speech. We're in
Speaker 1: the mid sixty percentages now that's more than double where
Speaker 1: we were a year and a half ago, but it
Speaker 1: still means that thirty percent of the hate speech we
Speaker 1: take down has to be reported to us, which means
Speaker 1: someone has seen it, and so we are whack a
Speaker 1: mole in a way, though, Cheryl that everything you take down,
Speaker 1: something pops up. In its place. How can you ever
Speaker 1: get really get control over this. Well, it is like whackable,
Speaker 1: right we take something down. I mean, right now, as
Speaker 1: you and I have spoken on this stage, someone many
Speaker 1: people have posted things. Our job is to build technology
Speaker 1: that takes that down as quickly as possible, and have
Speaker 1: enough human staff that they can take down the rest
Speaker 1: really quickly. It is whack a mole, but it is
Speaker 1: the price of free speech. We have a service that
Speaker 1: two points seven billion people are using our services. That
Speaker 1: means that there's going to be, you know, all the
Speaker 1: beauty and all the ugliness of humanity. And our job,
Speaker 1: and it is whack a mole, is to get as
Speaker 1: much of the bad off as quickly as possible and
Speaker 1: let the good continue. And the only way to get
Speaker 1: rid of all of it is to shut down all
Speaker 1: of these services. And I don't think anyone's really for that.
Speaker 1: What about temporarily shutting them down so you can fix
Speaker 1: the problems? Would you ever do anything like that? I
Speaker 1: don't think the temporary shutdown would fix the problems because
Speaker 1: we have to be in the game to see what
Speaker 1: people are doing to build the systems to shut down.
Speaker 1: But the point is people have speech. Now, Like, if
Speaker 1: you think about my childhood, right, I grew up in Miami.
Speaker 1: I went to public school. If I wanted to say
Speaker 1: something to the world, I had no no opportunity to
Speaker 1: do it. Couldn't get on your show. No one was no. Seriously,
Speaker 1: you weren't going to take me as a guest. No,
Speaker 1: I wasn't young enough for me that. But hypothetically I
Speaker 1: couldn't get on the person. Before I could write a
Speaker 1: not ed to the local paper, they weren't going to
Speaker 1: take it. People did not have voice full stop. Now,
Speaker 1: that was a world that people felt actually pretty comfortable,
Speaker 1: and you could fact check everything. You could fast forward
Speaker 1: to today, whatever services get shut down, you can post somewhere,
Speaker 1: which means that everyone has voice, which means that things
Speaker 1: are not fact checked. Now that doesn't mean we don't
Speaker 1: have responsibility. We do, but we are in a fundamentally
Speaker 1: different place where people around the world have voice. And
Speaker 1: as hard as this is and as challenging as it is,
Speaker 1: I so deeply believe in that world, so deeply I am.
Speaker 1: As a friend of mine behind the stage who went
Speaker 1: to my high school, our high school teacher found a
Speaker 1: kidney donor on Facebook because she could publish, and she
Speaker 1: could reach people in a way she never could. We
Speaker 1: just announced that two billion dollars have been raised by
Speaker 1: people on Facebook for their for their for their birthdays,
Speaker 1: and their personal fundraisers. Does that mean everything on Facebook
Speaker 1: is good? Of course not. But you can't shut this
Speaker 1: down without shutting down a lot of good. And I
Speaker 1: don't think that's an unacceptable answer. And so we're going
Speaker 1: to fight to get the bad off and let the
Speaker 1: good keep happening. And I think there is a lot
Speaker 1: of good out there. When we come back a look
Speaker 1: at the alarming psychological effects of social media on our kids,
Speaker 1: whether it's time to take a second look at lean
Speaker 1: in in light of the me too movement, and I'll
Speaker 1: ask Cheryl about her legacy. Let's talk about kids in
Speaker 1: social media. This isn't so good. The addictive nature the
Speaker 1: the the addictive nature of social media is just one concern.
Speaker 1: But as you know, I know you have two kids
Speaker 1: twelve and fourteen. Now, depression is up dramatically among young people,
Speaker 1: and the suicide rate of adolescent girls is up one
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy after two decades of decline. And as
Speaker 1: you know, the leading explanation is the arrival of smartphones
Speaker 1: and social media. So, as a parent and someone who
Speaker 1: has been a powerful voice for women, how do you
Speaker 1: respond to that terrifying statistic and the bigger question, what
Speaker 1: can be done about it? We take this really seriously.
Speaker 1: I take it seriously as a Facebook execut I take
Speaker 1: it seriously as a mom. So it turns out that
Speaker 1: all uses of phones, all uses of social media, are
Speaker 1: not equal. There are some that are actually quite good
Speaker 1: for well being, and there are some that are not
Speaker 1: as good. So when you are actively consuming, when you
Speaker 1: are sharing, when you are messaging, when you are posting, liking,
Speaker 1: you're interacting with people, that's fairly positive. When you are
Speaker 1: more passively consuming, that is more negative. And so we
Speaker 1: made a very big change to the Facebook algorithms in January.
Speaker 1: And what about Instagram as well? Yeah, and Instagram we're
Speaker 1: working on as well. But we dramatically dialed up the
Speaker 1: friends and family sharing and dramatically dialed down on self harm.
Speaker 1: Our policies are very strict. We do not allow any
Speaker 1: glorification of it. We don't allow any We don't allow
Speaker 1: any glorification of self harm. We don't allow any encouragement.
Speaker 1: We do allow people to post about their experiences, and
Speaker 1: that has been very important. We've worked really hard to
Speaker 1: develop automated tools, so if you post something that looks
Speaker 1: like you might be about to self harm, we will
Speaker 1: automatically flag UM phone numbers and helplines. We've had a
Speaker 1: tremendous response from this, and if we think there's imminent danger,
Speaker 1: we refer it to local law enforcement, and many people
Speaker 1: have actually been saved by this. The other thing where well,
Speaker 1: that's sort of not addressing the problem of addiction, of
Speaker 1: you know, comparison being the thief of joy. Let me
Speaker 1: finish some of the other things we're doing, because these
Speaker 1: are all really important, and I'm conscious that this clock
Speaker 1: is beeping at us UM, so they're gonna give me
Speaker 1: a little extra so they are okay, then I can
Speaker 1: slow down. So so one of the other things that
Speaker 1: happens is, you know, social media can considered by some
Speaker 1: to be a place where you know, you're supposed to
Speaker 1: have the perfect the perfect life, the perfect body, a
Speaker 1: real issue for teenage girls. You and I have talked about.
Speaker 1: We're really trying to go against that. We ran a
Speaker 1: campaign that's very popular UM on Instagram with real men
Speaker 1: and women with real body types talking about that. We've
Speaker 1: worked with the National Suicide Awareness Lines on this, We're
Speaker 1: working with the w h O on mental health. We're
Speaker 1: also I think the answer is almost always technology. So
Speaker 1: one of the things I think is great. We have
Speaker 1: a comment warning now that we've been rolling out, where
Speaker 1: our automatic filters detect that you might be posting something
Speaker 1: that's not nice. We will do a pop up and
Speaker 1: say do you really want to post that? And again
Speaker 1: we're seeing a tremendous response. We also have abilities to
Speaker 1: restrict people to prevent bullying, so that you know, if
Speaker 1: someone were bullying you, you can restrict them. They won't
Speaker 1: know you're restricting them, and if they comment on your post,
Speaker 1: no one can see them. And so these issues are
Speaker 1: real and we have to work hard on building the
Speaker 1: technology and that technology and the answers. There's so many
Speaker 1: huge challenges and how difficult is it CHERYLD truly to
Speaker 1: address any of these when solving them in some ways
Speaker 1: works against your business model. You know, one critic said
Speaker 1: Facebook has priced itself out a morality, and I'm just
Speaker 1: curious if implementing some of these changes is bad for business.
Speaker 1: So on this, I'm really pretty proud of our track
Speaker 1: record if you look a number of years ago and
Speaker 1: you listen to our earnings calls. So earnings calls are
Speaker 1: exactly what people are worried about. They're directed at investors.
Speaker 1: It's our quarterly report. If you actually watch us and
Speaker 1: earning calls, we are spending as much time talking about
Speaker 1: the measures we take on safety and security as we
Speaker 1: are about our business growth. Easily. We actually said many
Speaker 1: quarters ago, this is so important to us that we
Speaker 1: are going to make massive investments and change the profitability
Speaker 1: of our company by making real resource investments. And we
Speaker 1: have to the tune of billions and billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: and we will keep doing it. We've taken action after
Speaker 1: action after action that is better for protecting the community
Speaker 1: than it is for our growth, and we're going to
Speaker 1: continue to do that. Mark has said it over and
Speaker 1: over again. I have said it over and over again.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about Mark testifying before the House
Speaker 1: Financial Services committing and a hearing focused on Facebook's plans
Speaker 1: to launch a new digital currency called Libra. Given the
Speaker 1: massive reach and trust the public has experience with Facebook
Speaker 1: selling personal information through third parties, is it realistic to
Speaker 1: expect the world to embrace cryptocurrency an initiative like libra
Speaker 1: given that protecting personal financial data really is next level
Speaker 1: in terms of the need for security. And I understand
Speaker 1: you were supposed to testify, but you had kind of
Speaker 1: a testy exchange with Maxine Waters when you were up
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill or somewhere. Can you tell us what happened.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of respect for Maxine Waters for
Speaker 1: the work we've done, and we worked really closely with
Speaker 1: her committee. It was her choice to have Mark testify,
Speaker 1: and that's obviously something we respect. But what happened between
Speaker 1: you just answer the question, you don't mind on libra Um,
Speaker 1: what we have said is that we are working on
Speaker 1: a digital currency. I think it's really important to think
Speaker 1: about how many people in the world are not financially
Speaker 1: included in the banking system. By the way, not a shock.
Speaker 1: Most of those are women. Women pay huge frommittance fees.
Speaker 1: If you go to work as a domestic worker in
Speaker 1: another home in another country, you're sending back money and
Speaker 1: you're paying larger fees if you're a one. And there
Speaker 1: are people who are unbanked. They work in the fields
Speaker 1: and their money can be stolen by anyone, and women
Speaker 1: are the most vulnerable. So I think there are really
Speaker 1: good reasons for a digital currency to exist, and I
Speaker 1: think they will be good for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: That said, we've been very clear that we're not launching
Speaker 1: this until we have regulatory approval. It's not a Facebook project.
Speaker 1: The currency itself is an international nonprofit set up that
Speaker 1: we are part of. I know that we wanted to
Speaker 1: have a moment to talk about lean In and some
Speaker 1: of the research that you have found about the discomfort
Speaker 1: men feel mentoring and spending time alone with women. This
Speaker 1: is something that greatly concerns you. And what can we
Speaker 1: do about the increasing unwillingness of men to mentor their
Speaker 1: female colleagues and tell us a little more about that research. Well,
Speaker 1: it's really important because look, the METO movement you and
Speaker 1: I have had chance to talk about it is so
Speaker 1: important because women have faced too much harassment for too
Speaker 1: long and I think we're in a better place, but
Speaker 1: we're certainly not protecting everyone we should. That said, we
Speaker 1: have to worry about the unintended consequences. So what our
Speaker 1: research shows, this is lean In and survey Monkey, is
Speaker 1: that six of male managers in the United states are
Speaker 1: not willing right now, are nervous about having a one
Speaker 1: on one interaction with a woman, including a meeting. We
Speaker 1: do a show of hands in the audience. Who's promoted
Speaker 1: someone you've never met with, just in case you can't
Speaker 1: see there are no hands. If you cannot get a meeting,
Speaker 1: you cannot get a promotion. A senior man in the
Speaker 1: world today is nine times more likely to hesitate to
Speaker 1: travel with the junior woman and six times more likely
Speaker 1: to hesitate to travel to have dinner with the junior
Speaker 1: woman and a man. So who's getting the travel the men,
Speaker 1: who's getting the dinners the men? And who's gonna get
Speaker 1: promoted the men? Which is what was happening before, and
Speaker 1: talks a lot about that. It's absolutely the case you
Speaker 1: promote the people you know better now. I think everyone
Speaker 1: should be able to do all of these things with everyone.
Speaker 1: You should be able to have a meeting, keep the
Speaker 1: door up, and if you want to travel does not
Speaker 1: mean a hotel room. Travel means a public airport. Dinner
Speaker 1: does not mean you're flat, dinner means a restaurant. We
Speaker 1: have to be able to do all of this. But
Speaker 1: what we really want men to understand is that if
Speaker 1: you're not going to have dinner with women, don't have
Speaker 1: dinner with men, group lunches for everyone, make access equal,
Speaker 1: because if we don't make access equal, we're never going
Speaker 1: to move these numbers at the top, and women today
Speaker 1: have seven percent seven percent of the CEO jobs Before before,
Speaker 1: we guys want to talk to you because we talked
Speaker 1: about lean in prior to Me Too, and given the
Speaker 1: systemic failures of so many organizations that we've seen that
Speaker 1: have tolerated sexual misconduct and harassment silence women through n
Speaker 1: d as, do you think, in retrospect, given the very
Speaker 1: real revelations that have surfaced as a result of the
Speaker 1: Me Too movement, lean in might have put too much
Speaker 1: of the onus on women to change instead of getting
Speaker 1: a lot of these screwed up companies to change. Well,
Speaker 1: we've always done. One of the problems with the word
Speaker 1: lean in is you can really oversimplify without actually reading
Speaker 1: the book and ourself. But if you read actually what
Speaker 1: we've written and the work my foundation is done. What
Speaker 1: we've always said is that we wanted to be okay
Speaker 1: for women to be ambitious, and we want companies to
Speaker 1: change and fix and it has to be both. It's
Speaker 1: actually pretty interesting if you save the sentence he's ambitious,
Speaker 1: it's pretty neutral or positive. He's going to get the
Speaker 1: job done. She's ambitious. That's a negative. And that is
Speaker 1: still true today. If you look at the use of
Speaker 1: the word bossy. You know, go to the playground anywhere,
Speaker 1: I promise, l A or anywhere this weekend and you
Speaker 1: see a little girl. You won't see a little girl
Speaker 1: get called bossy. And you walk up to her parents
Speaker 1: and you say that little girl's not bossy. Her parents
Speaker 1: probably did it, big smile on your face. That little
Speaker 1: girl has executive leadership skills. No one says that. No
Speaker 1: one says that because we don't expect leadership from girls,
Speaker 1: and so we have to fix that problem. And that
Speaker 1: means companies have to change, culture has to change, and
Speaker 1: women have to feel free. Now they're really well. I
Speaker 1: have one question at I might discussion, but time to wrap.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Graham. Was that that my final question? Getting
Speaker 1: back getting back to all the controversies, I mean Facebook,
Speaker 1: My last question is I'm gonna gaun us, but no,
Speaker 1: I'm curious because I just wanted to end this conversation, Cheryl,
Speaker 1: given all the controversy Facebook is facing clearly in the crosshairs.
Speaker 1: I mean, the company people love to hate. Since you
Speaker 1: are so associated with Facebook, how worried are you about
Speaker 1: your personal legacy as a result of your association with
Speaker 1: this company. I think I have a really big responsibility
Speaker 1: here for a company I love and believe in that.
Speaker 1: I really believe in what I said about people having voice.
Speaker 1: I really know that when I was growing up, I
Speaker 1: had no ability to reach anyone, and most people in
Speaker 1: the world didn't, and social media has changed that. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of problems to fix, and we did
Speaker 1: a great job in this audience talking about a lot
Speaker 1: of them in this interview. They're real and I have
Speaker 1: a real responsibility to do it. But I feel more
Speaker 1: committed and energized than ever because I want to fight
Speaker 1: to preserve the good. Because I met a woman not
Speaker 1: so long ago who for her birthday raised four thousand
Speaker 1: dollars for a domestic violence shelter that she volunteers at,
Speaker 1: and crying, she told me I saved two women from
Speaker 1: domestic abuse. I never could have done that before Facebook,
Speaker 1: and so there are really big issues to fix, but
Speaker 1: I am so committed to giving people voice and giving
Speaker 1: people away to react that I just want to keep
Speaker 1: doing the work and committed. They feel honored to do
Speaker 1: it and committed to fix problem. I want to fix
Speaker 1: them all right, Well, they're definitely gonna kill me if
Speaker 1: I don't stop now. Definite, Lamberg. Thank thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: After we were done, Cheryl and I later exchanged emails.
Speaker 1: She told me this was the toughest interview she had
Speaker 1: ever done, but complimented me on being so well prepared.
Speaker 1: She was incredibly gracious about the whole thing. Meanwhile, about
Speaker 1: a week after our conversation, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced
Speaker 1: it was banning all paid political ads globally. Facebook, though,
Speaker 1: is still sticking with its policy, at least for now.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening everyone. If a weekly podcast
Speaker 1: isn't enough of me, you can follow me yet on
Speaker 1: social media Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. And if you feel
Speaker 1: like you're drowning in a seven sea of news and information,
Speaker 1: sign up for my morning newsletter, wake Up Call at
Speaker 1: Katie Curic dot com because, as they say, the best
Speaker 1: part of waking up is Katie in your inbox. Sorry, folgers,
Speaker 1: that was pretty bad, wasn't it. Everyone, Thanks again for listening. Everyone,
Speaker 1: and I can't wait to be in your ear again
Speaker 1: next week. Next Question with Katie Curic is a production
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio and Katie Curic Media. The executive
Speaker 1: producers are Katie Curic, Lauren Bright Pacheco, Julie Douglas, and
Speaker 1: Tyler Klang. Our show producers are Bethan Macalooso and Courtney Litz.
Speaker 1: The supervising producer is Dylan Fagan. Associate producers are Emily
Speaker 1: Pinto and Derek Clemens. Editing is by Dylan Fagan, Derek Clements,
Speaker 1: and Lowell Brolante. Our researcher is Barbara Keene. For more
Speaker 1: information on today's episode, go to Katie Currek dot com
Speaker 1: and follow us on Twitter and Instagram at Katie currec.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts for My Heart Radio, visit the I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.