WEBVTT - Week In Tech: Zuck Takes the Stand

0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:16.520
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production of iHeart Podcasts and Kaleidoscope.

0:00:16.880 --> 0:00:19.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm as Valoshian and today Cara Price and I will

0:00:19.120 --> 0:00:22.960
<v Speaker 1>bring you the headlines this week, including some surprisingly rapid

0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:26.760
<v Speaker 1>changes in the way people are using generative AI. Then

0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>on tech Support, we'll talk to the Washington Posts Naomi

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:33.600
<v Speaker 1>Nix about the first week of the Meta antitrust trial.

0:00:33.960 --> 0:00:35.879
<v Speaker 2>This latest trial is a Now they're a piece of

0:00:35.920 --> 0:00:39.199
<v Speaker 2>evidence that the companies haven't yet, to put it crudely,

0:00:39.200 --> 0:00:40.520
<v Speaker 2>gotten what they've paid for.

0:00:40.880 --> 0:00:48.080
<v Speaker 1>All of that. On the Weekend Tech It's Friday, April eighteenth,

0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:50.640
<v Speaker 1>Hello us, Hello Cara.

0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:52.960
<v Speaker 3>So I was thinking about you this week. I was

0:00:52.960 --> 0:00:58.240
<v Speaker 3>seeing something Oliver Instagram, which is my preferred social media platform.

0:00:58.320 --> 0:01:01.280
<v Speaker 3>Your preferred social media platform has nothing to do with socializing.

0:01:01.360 --> 0:01:02.000
<v Speaker 3>It's called Lincoln.

0:01:02.440 --> 0:01:05.319
<v Speaker 1>Well, maybe you're too old for TikTok and I'm too

0:01:05.319 --> 0:01:09.200
<v Speaker 1>old for Instagram. So yes, LinkedIn is my absolutely.

0:01:08.760 --> 0:01:11.280
<v Speaker 3>Right, at least you're not using Facebook. So on this

0:01:11.560 --> 0:01:15.600
<v Speaker 3>I saw action figures. Yeah, that looked a lot like

0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:17.679
<v Speaker 3>my friends, like my friend who works at Tory Birch.

0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:20.560
<v Speaker 3>There was like there was an action figure of like

0:01:20.600 --> 0:01:23.479
<v Speaker 3>a jewel and an iced coffee and a Tory Birch handbag.

0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:26.440
<v Speaker 3>In a weird way, I've looked at it as a

0:01:26.480 --> 0:01:29.760
<v Speaker 3>sort of LinkedIn's own version of the Jibbli portraits that

0:01:29.760 --> 0:01:31.679
<v Speaker 3>we talked about a few weeks ago. You know, to

0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:34.360
<v Speaker 3>make these, you upload a picture of yourself to chat

0:01:34.400 --> 0:01:37.440
<v Speaker 3>GBT and prompt the model to turn you into a

0:01:37.480 --> 0:01:39.560
<v Speaker 3>picture of a toy action figure.

0:01:39.880 --> 0:01:43.920
<v Speaker 1>Imagine going into a toy store in nineteen eighty four

0:01:44.480 --> 0:01:48.040
<v Speaker 1>and you have plastic packed action figurines like could be

0:01:48.040 --> 0:01:51.280
<v Speaker 1>a Bobbie, could be a Gi Joe with some special

0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:54.560
<v Speaker 1>swag that the character has which reflects on who the

0:01:54.640 --> 0:01:55.200
<v Speaker 1>character is.

0:01:55.320 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and I think in a weird way, it sort

0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:00.880
<v Speaker 3>of acts as this like pictorial resume of like this

0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:03.840
<v Speaker 3>is who I like. I am podcast fundraiser, I have

0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:06.080
<v Speaker 3>jim bag, I have a six sneakers.

0:02:06.080 --> 0:02:06.960
<v Speaker 1>What are you talking about?

0:02:07.160 --> 0:02:10.760
<v Speaker 3>I am here asking for some money. I don't know

0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:11.600
<v Speaker 3>what I'm talking about.

0:02:11.960 --> 0:02:13.480
<v Speaker 1>Do you know what's very interesting? I used to work

0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:15.760
<v Speaker 1>for a branding agency. I know that you know that,

0:02:15.880 --> 0:02:20.919
<v Speaker 1>and our business cards were a pictorial representation of us

0:02:21.000 --> 0:02:24.680
<v Speaker 1>and then a few representations of things that were important

0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>to us. So I had like a British flag and

0:02:27.240 --> 0:02:28.400
<v Speaker 1>like a tennis racking or.

0:02:28.320 --> 0:02:31.200
<v Speaker 3>Whatever one visa on visa.

0:02:31.120 --> 0:02:33.120
<v Speaker 1>Exactly, you know. And there was like kind of a

0:02:33.160 --> 0:02:35.240
<v Speaker 1>talking point at the beginning of the meeting and this

0:02:35.360 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 1>is kind of the LinkedIn meets chatchybt version of that,

0:02:39.160 --> 0:02:40.360
<v Speaker 1>and it's going completely viral.

0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:43.639
<v Speaker 3>It's going completely viral and people love. I don't know

0:02:43.680 --> 0:02:45.880
<v Speaker 3>if it's uncanny. I think it is uncanny Valley, like

0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:49.440
<v Speaker 3>people love to see themselves represented in an animated format

0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:52.760
<v Speaker 3>because it's sort of like the last frontier of like

0:02:53.440 --> 0:02:56.000
<v Speaker 3>reality turned into surreality one hundred percent.

0:02:56.040 --> 0:02:59.120
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure you've seen The Real Housewives as Pixar characters,

0:03:00.160 --> 0:03:01.120
<v Speaker 1>which is so good.

0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:02.800
<v Speaker 3>Which they're starting to look like anyway with all the

0:03:02.800 --> 0:03:05.160
<v Speaker 3>filters that you can use to post them on Instagram.

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:07.920
<v Speaker 1>But you know what this is what is driving something

0:03:07.960 --> 0:03:12.680
<v Speaker 1>extraordinary that happened, which is that CHATGPT excluding games, became

0:03:12.720 --> 0:03:15.560
<v Speaker 1>the most downloaded app in the world last month.

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:18.760
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and actually at last week's TED conference, Sam Altman

0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 3>let slip that the usage of chat gbt had doubled

0:03:22.080 --> 0:03:26.560
<v Speaker 3>in just a few weeks, indicating it now has eight

0:03:26.680 --> 0:03:29.880
<v Speaker 3>hundred million weekly active users.

0:03:30.160 --> 0:03:32.079
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean, it is an extraordinary number, and I

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:36.119
<v Speaker 1>think you use the word indicating advisedly because he said

0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:39.280
<v Speaker 1>it was about ten percent of the world's population. You know,

0:03:39.320 --> 0:03:41.440
<v Speaker 1>at the beginning of this year, we were talking about

0:03:41.440 --> 0:03:44.840
<v Speaker 1>would the business model for these charative ami companies ever work.

0:03:45.200 --> 0:03:48.320
<v Speaker 1>There's a story in Information this week that the revenues

0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:53.400
<v Speaker 1>at OpenAI are picking up dramatically. They've grown thirty percent

0:03:53.520 --> 0:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>so far this year, So that's in one quarter to

0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:59.800
<v Speaker 1>around four hundred and fifteen million dollars per month in revenue.

0:03:59.400 --> 0:04:01.600
<v Speaker 3>Which is very interesting for a company that built itself

0:04:01.600 --> 0:04:04.000
<v Speaker 3>as a non brop no. But in some ways, I'm

0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 3>not surprised because it feels like there's a new use

0:04:06.680 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 3>case for chat GBT every week. I'm more invested in

0:04:09.960 --> 0:04:12.360
<v Speaker 3>it every week, and so I am sort of always

0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 3>interested when I see the data reflected in my own personal.

0:04:16.800 --> 0:04:18.960
<v Speaker 1>Use I mean, you get hooked on, oh my god,

0:04:19.120 --> 0:04:21.800
<v Speaker 1>what would my family photo look like as a Pixar movie?

0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:24.680
<v Speaker 1>And then it's like, huh, you know, I what if

0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:28.280
<v Speaker 1>I put this legal contract through chat GPT and asked

0:04:28.279 --> 0:04:29.880
<v Speaker 1>it to advise me on what were the key points

0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:31.760
<v Speaker 1>I should be paying attention to, which I did for

0:04:31.800 --> 0:04:34.159
<v Speaker 1>the first time last week after I used the image

0:04:34.160 --> 0:04:40.080
<v Speaker 1>generation feature. So I mean, it's a remarkable moment where

0:04:40.120 --> 0:04:45.120
<v Speaker 1>I think a true consumer adoption is creating the business model,

0:04:45.600 --> 0:04:47.599
<v Speaker 1>or could be beginning to create the business model, which

0:04:47.600 --> 0:04:49.599
<v Speaker 1>is a question some people had, would that ever really

0:04:49.600 --> 0:04:52.920
<v Speaker 1>actually happen? But we are not the only people observing

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:56.000
<v Speaker 1>what's happening. There was something actually fascinating I read last

0:04:56.040 --> 0:04:58.520
<v Speaker 1>week in the Harvard Business Review that might shock you.

0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:01.360
<v Speaker 3>So tell me about something fat fascinating that you actually

0:05:01.360 --> 0:05:04.000
<v Speaker 3>were able to find in the Harvard Business Review.

0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:08.200
<v Speaker 1>Well, the article was about AI use cases, and according

0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:11.680
<v Speaker 1>to Harvard Business Review, the most common reason for generative

0:05:11.880 --> 0:05:17.840
<v Speaker 1>AI usage over the last twelve months was therapy and companionship.

0:05:18.320 --> 0:05:20.919
<v Speaker 3>It's actually very funny you say this, and this is

0:05:20.960 --> 0:05:24.039
<v Speaker 3>not a setup. I've actually met a woman the other

0:05:24.160 --> 0:05:27.880
<v Speaker 3>day who told me she'd created her own therapy bot,

0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:30.920
<v Speaker 3>calling it a GPT. And I've been seeing a ton

0:05:30.960 --> 0:05:34.080
<v Speaker 3>of stuff about using AI models for therapy everywhere, and

0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:36.479
<v Speaker 3>I was honestly starting to wonder if all these articles

0:05:36.480 --> 0:05:38.960
<v Speaker 3>on AI relationships were a bit blown out of proportion,

0:05:39.279 --> 0:05:41.120
<v Speaker 3>But it seems to be a very real trend.

0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:45.039
<v Speaker 1>Well, you've taken endorsement after slamming me for being fascinated

0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:47.400
<v Speaker 1>by the Harvard Business Review, You've been swayed by their

0:05:47.800 --> 0:05:49.000
<v Speaker 1>validation of your worldview.

0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 3>Judge where information comes from unless it's the Harvard Business Review.

0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:56.680
<v Speaker 1>So this is a study and the methodology is quite interesting.

0:05:56.880 --> 0:05:58.760
<v Speaker 1>Some might question it, but I thought it was interesting.

0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:03.880
<v Speaker 1>They're basically a tool to scrape online forums like primarily

0:06:03.920 --> 0:06:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Reddit but also kra and a few others that scrape

0:06:07.000 --> 0:06:09.800
<v Speaker 1>for every single mention of how people are using AI,

0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:14.279
<v Speaker 1>categorize them and then counted the number of posts about

0:06:14.360 --> 0:06:16.440
<v Speaker 1>each use case, you know, filtering out the garbage and

0:06:16.480 --> 0:06:18.960
<v Speaker 1>whatever else, to come up with the stat rank of

0:06:19.000 --> 0:06:21.400
<v Speaker 1>the top one hundred use cases that people are talking

0:06:21.400 --> 0:06:22.520
<v Speaker 1>about how they use AI.

0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:27.680
<v Speaker 3>And so Reddit really is the treasure trove of this discovery.

0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:29.400
<v Speaker 1>I think it is, and I think you know there's

0:06:29.440 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 1>a reason why is because people post without using their

0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:35.080
<v Speaker 1>real names in a very unfiltered way on Reddit, and

0:06:35.120 --> 0:06:37.400
<v Speaker 1>so I think as a proxy for how people are

0:06:37.480 --> 0:06:40.320
<v Speaker 1>using technology, you could do a lot worse than Reddit.

0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:42.719
<v Speaker 1>And in fact, I also read in the Harvard Business

0:06:42.720 --> 0:06:46.039
<v Speaker 1>Review that today ten percent of reddits revenues actually come

0:06:46.160 --> 0:06:49.799
<v Speaker 1>from selling its user generated content as training data to llms,

0:06:50.400 --> 0:06:51.839
<v Speaker 1>so you know that there is.

0:06:51.920 --> 0:06:53.679
<v Speaker 3>Just like our friends of the Atlanta though there's.

0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:56.240
<v Speaker 1>Gold in them hills. This is actually the second time

0:06:56.320 --> 0:06:58.920
<v Speaker 1>this study has been published in the Harvard Business Review.

0:06:58.920 --> 0:07:01.120
<v Speaker 1>It's published in twenty twenty five as well. What I

0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:05.239
<v Speaker 1>found really really interesting was what change from twenty twenty

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:08.840
<v Speaker 1>four to twenty twenty five. Thirty eight new use cases

0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:11.600
<v Speaker 1>have been added to the list, and last year's top

0:07:11.720 --> 0:07:15.320
<v Speaker 1>use case was generating ideas, which has now fallen down

0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:18.400
<v Speaker 1>to sixth place. This year, the second and third most

0:07:18.480 --> 0:07:21.760
<v Speaker 1>popular use cases were new entrants to the list. They

0:07:21.800 --> 0:07:24.080
<v Speaker 1>weren't in the top hundred mentions last year and now

0:07:24.080 --> 0:07:28.000
<v Speaker 1>they're in second and third place. They were organizing my life,

0:07:28.400 --> 0:07:30.400
<v Speaker 1>followed by finding purpose.

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:33.040
<v Speaker 3>You know, I think this speaks to something which is

0:07:33.040 --> 0:07:36.280
<v Speaker 3>that people are lonely, and people don't know how to

0:07:36.320 --> 0:07:39.240
<v Speaker 3>talk to other real people about these things. And I think,

0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:42.000
<v Speaker 3>sort of like tinders the game game right that we

0:07:42.080 --> 0:07:46.880
<v Speaker 3>did last week, it's much easier to kind of test

0:07:47.000 --> 0:07:51.320
<v Speaker 3>these very human interactions on computers.

0:07:50.840 --> 0:07:53.320
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely or in a computer no judgment judgment free zone.

0:07:53.440 --> 0:07:55.239
<v Speaker 3>The other thing that I would mention is that regular

0:07:55.280 --> 0:07:57.720
<v Speaker 3>therapy the kind that you have with the human therapist

0:07:58.160 --> 0:08:03.080
<v Speaker 3>will put your bank account into negative numbers, absolutely, And

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:06.800
<v Speaker 3>so you may not want to constantly burden your friends

0:08:06.800 --> 0:08:10.240
<v Speaker 3>with your issues and be the carry Bradshaw in your

0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:12.320
<v Speaker 3>friend group. And so I can see why a person

0:08:12.360 --> 0:08:14.920
<v Speaker 3>would turn to AI to help them through a hard time.

0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:16.840
<v Speaker 3>I actually don't judge it at all.

0:08:17.160 --> 0:08:19.960
<v Speaker 1>No, no, me neither. But on the contrary, I mean,

0:08:20.400 --> 0:08:23.400
<v Speaker 1>I think what the HBr sort of pointed out as

0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>the kind of larger takeaway in the twenty twenty four

0:08:25.720 --> 0:08:29.600
<v Speaker 1>versus twenty twenty five comparison was that in twenty twenty four,

0:08:29.920 --> 0:08:32.680
<v Speaker 1>the most popular use cases were all around quote unquote

0:08:32.720 --> 0:08:36.640
<v Speaker 1>technical assistance and troubleshooting, whereas this year they're in quote

0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:41.000
<v Speaker 1>unquote personal and professional support, which kind of mirrors what

0:08:41.040 --> 0:08:43.000
<v Speaker 1>we were talking about just a few minutes ago, which

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:46.880
<v Speaker 1>is how AI has become more ubiquitous and therefore like

0:08:47.120 --> 0:08:49.560
<v Speaker 1>normal people are using it for more normal reasons.

0:08:49.840 --> 0:08:52.600
<v Speaker 3>I think, more ubiquitous and also like imbued with our

0:08:52.600 --> 0:08:55.240
<v Speaker 3>own humanity as opposed to like a place where we

0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:57.280
<v Speaker 3>find how do I fix this thing?

0:08:57.480 --> 0:08:57.600
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:08:58.040 --> 0:08:59.920
<v Speaker 3>I think it's changed from how do I fix this thing? Too?

0:09:00.160 --> 0:09:04.000
<v Speaker 3>How do I fix myself, which to me is both

0:09:04.080 --> 0:09:06.240
<v Speaker 3>a little bit scary and also a little bit exciting.

0:09:06.559 --> 0:09:10.600
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely, there is one really important exception to what we've

0:09:10.600 --> 0:09:14.200
<v Speaker 1>been talking about just now, which is that two use cases,

0:09:14.679 --> 0:09:20.080
<v Speaker 1>firstly generating code and secondly improving code, both had meteoric rises.

0:09:20.440 --> 0:09:24.040
<v Speaker 1>So generating code was down in lowly forty seventh place

0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:27.080
<v Speaker 1>on last year's list, is now in fifth place. And

0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 1>that brings me to my next headline, which is by Bloomberg.

0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:35.400
<v Speaker 1>Under the headline AI Coding Assistant, Cursor draws a million

0:09:35.480 --> 0:09:38.760
<v Speaker 1>users without even trying. So there's a hot new AI

0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:41.000
<v Speaker 1>start up in town, one that you've probably never heard of,

0:09:41.120 --> 0:09:43.320
<v Speaker 1>because I hadn't heard of it either until now. Its

0:09:43.320 --> 0:09:47.240
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg story. But also they don't advertise or market. Bloomberg

0:09:47.320 --> 0:09:51.160
<v Speaker 1>reports that Cursor hasn't spent a single dollar on paid marketing.

0:09:51.720 --> 0:09:54.800
<v Speaker 1>The startup behind it is any Sphere, Inc. And they

0:09:54.840 --> 0:09:57.199
<v Speaker 1>make this AI powered coding editor called Cursor.

0:09:57.559 --> 0:10:01.200
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, it's this popular tool for both formally trained computer

0:10:01.280 --> 0:10:05.560
<v Speaker 3>programs and this thing that I love, Vibe coders. A

0:10:05.600 --> 0:10:07.840
<v Speaker 3>coding editor, from what I understand, is a program that

0:10:07.880 --> 0:10:10.720
<v Speaker 3>does things like check your code for errors. Think of

0:10:10.720 --> 0:10:13.560
<v Speaker 3>it like spell check for coding, and then on top

0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:17.520
<v Speaker 3>of that, more recent AI coders like Cursor can also

0:10:17.640 --> 0:10:20.360
<v Speaker 3>suggest lines of code for you based on what you've

0:10:20.360 --> 0:10:21.240
<v Speaker 3>previously written.

0:10:21.400 --> 0:10:23.520
<v Speaker 1>So Gen one is like spell check and Gen two

0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:26.400
<v Speaker 1>is shifted response for emails.

0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:28.840
<v Speaker 3>Exactly, And that's what vibe coding actually is. You just

0:10:28.880 --> 0:10:32.600
<v Speaker 3>like accept all of the suggestions versus having to correct

0:10:32.600 --> 0:10:35.439
<v Speaker 3>your code, sort of like writing a whole email and autocomplete,

0:10:35.440 --> 0:10:38.240
<v Speaker 3>which I do when I send an email says thank you, Comma,

0:10:38.640 --> 0:10:41.840
<v Speaker 3>Jennifer exclamation point. That is an email that's written entirely

0:10:41.840 --> 0:10:44.600
<v Speaker 3>by autocomplete. And just to be clear, as of today,

0:10:44.720 --> 0:10:47.560
<v Speaker 3>vibe coding does not generate code at the level of

0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:48.120
<v Speaker 3>real coding.

0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:51.640
<v Speaker 1>Nonetheless, Cursor has quietly become one of the fastest growing

0:10:51.640 --> 0:10:55.559
<v Speaker 1>startups of all time. It's even used by programmers at

0:10:55.600 --> 0:10:59.600
<v Speaker 1>companies like OpenAI, Instacra, and Uber. Although most of the

0:10:59.600 --> 0:11:03.280
<v Speaker 1>revenue you comes from individuals people using it and not

0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:05.960
<v Speaker 1>using it through corporate descriptions. They're getting their own subscription

0:11:06.080 --> 0:11:08.440
<v Speaker 1>to help them with their work. As it turns out,

0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:10.680
<v Speaker 1>coders are wanting to pay cash for a good user

0:11:10.679 --> 0:11:13.959
<v Speaker 1>interface and adaptability. The passion is real for the product

0:11:13.960 --> 0:11:17.000
<v Speaker 1>back In January, any Sphere reached one hundred million in

0:11:17.080 --> 0:11:20.760
<v Speaker 1>annual recurring revenue. By March that number of doubled and

0:11:20.840 --> 0:11:23.640
<v Speaker 1>over a million people are now using Cursor every single day.

0:11:24.000 --> 0:11:26.760
<v Speaker 3>I mean, we've talked about this many, many times that

0:11:26.800 --> 0:11:29.880
<v Speaker 3>there's a lot of anxiety about AI replacing people's jobs.

0:11:30.080 --> 0:11:33.080
<v Speaker 3>Cursor is actually interesting because it's being used to help

0:11:33.120 --> 0:11:36.640
<v Speaker 3>people with their jobs. It's a productivity tool, and it's

0:11:36.720 --> 0:11:39.320
<v Speaker 3>what these AI companies have been parroting all along.

0:11:39.440 --> 0:11:41.760
<v Speaker 1>It's an interesting paradigm thing here where it's not like

0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:43.880
<v Speaker 1>here's a new product to make your redundant. It's like,

0:11:44.040 --> 0:11:46.040
<v Speaker 1>here's a new product that makes you better so much

0:11:46.080 --> 0:11:47.920
<v Speaker 1>so that you pay your own money to use it

0:11:47.960 --> 0:11:49.320
<v Speaker 1>to make you better at your job. I mean that

0:11:49.400 --> 0:11:51.720
<v Speaker 1>is I think, sort of a high watermark for what

0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:54.000
<v Speaker 1>we can hope for from AI use cases.

0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:56.360
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, and it's actually a concept that investors are falling

0:11:56.400 --> 0:11:58.560
<v Speaker 3>in love with. Any Sphere, which is, as we said,

0:11:58.559 --> 0:12:01.560
<v Speaker 3>the parent company has raised one hundred and seventy five

0:12:01.679 --> 0:12:04.400
<v Speaker 3>million dollars in the likes of Andrees and Horowitz as

0:12:04.440 --> 0:12:07.520
<v Speaker 3>well as one of open AI's co founders, among many others.

0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:10.880
<v Speaker 3>Any Spheres and talks to raise more money at evaluation

0:12:10.960 --> 0:12:12.640
<v Speaker 3>of nearly ten billion.

0:12:13.080 --> 0:12:16.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I mean it's very competitive space. Open AI and

0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:20.960
<v Speaker 1>Anthropic both seem to be eyeing the arena for their

0:12:21.040 --> 0:12:25.200
<v Speaker 1>own AI for coding tools, but nothing beats user adoption.

0:12:25.320 --> 0:12:28.800
<v Speaker 1>So we'll see how this story unfolds. The CURSA. We're

0:12:28.840 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 1>going to take a quick break now. When we come back,

0:12:31.480 --> 0:12:44.040
<v Speaker 1>carasches a rather surreal headline. Stay with us.

0:12:47.480 --> 0:12:50.719
<v Speaker 3>So as we're back, and I'm warning you that our

0:12:50.760 --> 0:12:52.760
<v Speaker 3>next story is something that you're really gonna love.

0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Okay, tell me. So.

0:12:54.600 --> 0:12:58.320
<v Speaker 3>Google has a generative video model called VO two, and

0:12:58.360 --> 0:13:00.440
<v Speaker 3>the way it works is you type in a prompt

0:13:00.559 --> 0:13:03.959
<v Speaker 3>or feed it some media like an image, and VO

0:13:03.960 --> 0:13:07.200
<v Speaker 3>two will generate a video based on these materials. So

0:13:07.320 --> 0:13:10.160
<v Speaker 3>late last year, Google announced that they were launching a

0:13:10.200 --> 0:13:13.439
<v Speaker 3>new version of the model, which includes a better grasp

0:13:13.480 --> 0:13:18.520
<v Speaker 3>of physics and more quote nuances of human movement and expression.

0:13:18.720 --> 0:13:22.480
<v Speaker 1>When a tech company tries to capture the nuance of humanity,

0:13:22.520 --> 0:13:24.560
<v Speaker 1>it's always you always know there's going to be some

0:13:24.640 --> 0:13:26.240
<v Speaker 1>excitements in store, yet.

0:13:26.080 --> 0:13:28.120
<v Speaker 3>They still try to do it. The news is that

0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:31.480
<v Speaker 3>Google recently showed off the updated VO two at the

0:13:31.559 --> 0:13:34.560
<v Speaker 3>Google Cloud next conference, which we were not invited.

0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:37.600
<v Speaker 1>Two our invitations must have got lost in the mail.

0:13:37.640 --> 0:13:39.640
<v Speaker 3>And maybe they could have made a bigger splash if

0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:42.199
<v Speaker 3>they invited us. But they did want to make a splash,

0:13:42.240 --> 0:13:46.160
<v Speaker 3>so they decided to appeal to both you and the

0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:47.320
<v Speaker 3>art community.

0:13:46.960 --> 0:13:49.680
<v Speaker 1>High risk bet the art community and not notoriously such

0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:51.400
<v Speaker 1>big fans of the big tech world.

0:13:52.080 --> 0:13:53.360
<v Speaker 3>Are you going to ask me what they show?

0:13:53.520 --> 0:13:54.520
<v Speaker 1>Yes? What did they show?

0:13:54.800 --> 0:13:59.880
<v Speaker 3>So they showed a trailer based on Salvador Dolly's unmade screenplay.

0:13:59.360 --> 0:14:02.679
<v Speaker 1>Salvador Dolly's unmade screenplay? What's that about?

0:14:02.840 --> 0:14:05.920
<v Speaker 3>So let me set the scene. I was not there,

0:14:05.920 --> 0:14:09.800
<v Speaker 3>but it's nineteen thirty seven. You're Salvador Dolly, you're in

0:14:09.840 --> 0:14:13.360
<v Speaker 3>your early thirties, you're my age, and you were hanging

0:14:13.360 --> 0:14:15.880
<v Speaker 3>out with Harpo Marx, one of the Marx brothers, who

0:14:15.920 --> 0:14:16.440
<v Speaker 3>I adore.

0:14:16.520 --> 0:14:18.360
<v Speaker 1>This is a great collection of characters, and it's like,

0:14:18.600 --> 0:14:20.200
<v Speaker 1>you can make it up that these people were hanging

0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:22.000
<v Speaker 1>out together and thinking how do we make a movie?

0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:24.520
<v Speaker 3>And my favorite character, who's of course the naysayer, also

0:14:24.560 --> 0:14:28.479
<v Speaker 3>factors into this. So you, as Dolly, write a fantastical

0:14:28.520 --> 0:14:30.960
<v Speaker 3>screenplay for the Marx brothers to star in. But when

0:14:30.960 --> 0:14:34.800
<v Speaker 3>you bring it to MGM, Louis B. Mayor of MGM

0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:37.840
<v Speaker 3>kills the project and the screenplay is never realized as

0:14:37.840 --> 0:14:38.280
<v Speaker 3>a film.

0:14:38.840 --> 0:14:40.880
<v Speaker 1>Was there a reason for spiking it?

0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:44.800
<v Speaker 3>Well, in a world where now tent pole films are

0:14:44.840 --> 0:14:48.080
<v Speaker 3>very important, and then being able to sell a film

0:14:48.200 --> 0:14:52.160
<v Speaker 3>was very important. Pitching a film called Giraffes on Horseback

0:14:52.320 --> 0:14:55.800
<v Speaker 3>Salad is not exactly something that they think jumps off

0:14:55.840 --> 0:14:56.520
<v Speaker 3>the screen.

0:14:56.240 --> 0:14:58.880
<v Speaker 1>The biting Dali and the Marx brothers hands off for

0:14:58.920 --> 0:14:59.240
<v Speaker 1>this one.

0:14:59.320 --> 0:15:01.960
<v Speaker 3>They weren't umping at the salad fit for I'm sorry,

0:15:01.960 --> 0:15:04.800
<v Speaker 3>I couldn't help myself. But the movie itself was a

0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:08.440
<v Speaker 3>kind of broadly about an aristocratic man who falls in

0:15:08.480 --> 0:15:12.040
<v Speaker 3>love with a woman from a world where dreams are reality,

0:15:12.360 --> 0:15:16.240
<v Speaker 3>and it's so surreal it was likely unfilmable at the time.

0:15:17.080 --> 0:15:19.080
<v Speaker 3>The other important piece I think that kind of made

0:15:19.080 --> 0:15:21.000
<v Speaker 3>me laugh is that some of the Marx brothers like

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:22.280
<v Speaker 3>didn't even think it was funny.

0:15:22.280 --> 0:15:26.440
<v Speaker 1>They were like, eh, so it never got made, no until.

0:15:26.240 --> 0:15:29.400
<v Speaker 3>Now, until now, Google is trying to at least right now,

0:15:29.400 --> 0:15:32.280
<v Speaker 3>it's just a trailer because this is a big feat. Uh,

0:15:32.520 --> 0:15:34.920
<v Speaker 3>it's a trailer that is produced by the Dolli Museum

0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:38.160
<v Speaker 3>and Gooldbee Silverstein and partners. And I'm gonna play you

0:15:38.320 --> 0:15:40.720
<v Speaker 3>just a little sample of the trailer, and then you're

0:15:40.720 --> 0:15:43.400
<v Speaker 3>gonna tell me if you think this is true to

0:15:43.480 --> 0:15:45.120
<v Speaker 3>one of your I don't know if he's one of

0:15:45.120 --> 0:15:48.280
<v Speaker 3>your favorite artists, but you do like him Catalan culture.

0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:49.640
<v Speaker 3>So let's see.

0:15:51.080 --> 0:15:55.280
<v Speaker 1>Let me tell you how the strangest movie never made

0:15:56.440 --> 0:15:59.360
<v Speaker 1>the world wasn't ready for into No.

0:16:00.800 --> 0:16:01.480
<v Speaker 3>I called it.

0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:12.120
<v Speaker 2>Horseback Solid. Prepare yourself because the impossible is coming to life.

0:16:13.560 --> 0:16:14.920
<v Speaker 3>Tell me a little bit about what you saw.

0:16:15.040 --> 0:16:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Well, there's a giraffe on fire. There is obviously Salvador

0:16:19.520 --> 0:16:23.600
<v Speaker 1>Daly's voice recreated. It does have the kind of vibe

0:16:23.840 --> 0:16:28.000
<v Speaker 1>of a movie trailer. However, the esthetic is one that

0:16:28.120 --> 0:16:32.280
<v Speaker 1>I think would make Salvador Dahi personally turn in his grave,

0:16:32.680 --> 0:16:36.200
<v Speaker 1>because it is basically what you might imagine one of

0:16:36.240 --> 0:16:40.680
<v Speaker 1>the camps at Burning Man might reinterpret Salvador Dali through

0:16:40.720 --> 0:16:43.520
<v Speaker 1>the lens of It is so on the nose quote

0:16:43.600 --> 0:16:45.960
<v Speaker 1>unquote surrealist, with people wearing like funny hats.

0:16:46.080 --> 0:16:48.640
<v Speaker 3>It looks like clouds people on fire.

0:16:48.880 --> 0:16:51.560
<v Speaker 1>It's got a very Burning Man vibe.

0:16:51.600 --> 0:16:54.640
<v Speaker 3>It also has a very google commercial vibe, yes, which

0:16:54.680 --> 0:16:57.200
<v Speaker 3>I think isn't the greatest thing ever, But yeah, I

0:16:57.200 --> 0:17:00.520
<v Speaker 3>think fever dream is how I describe it. And actually,

0:17:00.600 --> 0:17:03.640
<v Speaker 3>as you said, the narration is supposed to be Salvador,

0:17:07.119 --> 0:17:08.280
<v Speaker 3>there's enough of his audience.

0:17:08.280 --> 0:17:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Does he actually sound like that? Who knows? Did we

0:17:10.560 --> 0:17:11.640
<v Speaker 1>did in fact shake his voice?

0:17:11.720 --> 0:17:13.480
<v Speaker 3>We did? I did listen to it. Well, I did

0:17:13.520 --> 0:17:17.680
<v Speaker 3>listen to him on radio program a little bit later,

0:17:18.000 --> 0:17:21.080
<v Speaker 3>and he does sound a little bit like you know,

0:17:21.320 --> 0:17:23.000
<v Speaker 3>But I always think about him twirling his.

0:17:23.080 --> 0:17:25.480
<v Speaker 1>Mustache actually character in Rettaitui.

0:17:25.680 --> 0:17:29.240
<v Speaker 3>There's no evidence to me that this is exactly what

0:17:29.280 --> 0:17:32.000
<v Speaker 3>Salvador Dolly sounds like. But I think they definitely tried

0:17:32.000 --> 0:17:33.840
<v Speaker 3>to recreate his voice, which we know by now is

0:17:33.920 --> 0:17:34.919
<v Speaker 3>like what.

0:17:35.200 --> 0:17:36.960
<v Speaker 1>They tried to do it. They probably did do it. Yeah.

0:17:37.320 --> 0:17:40.159
<v Speaker 3>According to Art News, this isn't the first time that

0:17:40.200 --> 0:17:43.280
<v Speaker 3>there's actually been an AI generated Dolly. The same Dolly

0:17:43.320 --> 0:17:46.560
<v Speaker 3>museum who's co producing this movie, actually had an exhibition

0:17:46.680 --> 0:17:50.560
<v Speaker 3>called Ask Dolly that allowed museum goers to talk to him,

0:17:50.920 --> 0:17:54.360
<v Speaker 3>meaning to talk to an AI created based on his voice.

0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:57.560
<v Speaker 3>At the time. The museum COO said that if these

0:17:57.560 --> 0:18:00.720
<v Speaker 3>technologies had been around when Dolly was alive, he would

0:18:00.760 --> 0:18:01.720
<v Speaker 3>have played around with them.

0:18:02.240 --> 0:18:06.880
<v Speaker 1>My take was, it's not horrible, but it's pretty horrible.

0:18:07.160 --> 0:18:10.320
<v Speaker 1>And I don't disagree that Darli would have played around

0:18:10.320 --> 0:18:14.520
<v Speaker 1>with AI tools if he were around today, but I

0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:17.040
<v Speaker 1>don't think he would have used them like this. I mean,

0:18:17.080 --> 0:18:19.480
<v Speaker 1>the whole point of Dahali as a painter was that

0:18:19.560 --> 0:18:22.120
<v Speaker 1>he made the medium new. He basically reinvented the media

0:18:22.119 --> 0:18:26.480
<v Speaker 1>of paintings through his incredibly interesting and unforgettable serialus take.

0:18:26.600 --> 0:18:29.080
<v Speaker 1>So I think if he did use Jennet of AI tools,

0:18:29.280 --> 0:18:33.439
<v Speaker 1>he would come't with the considerably more interesting application than this,

0:18:33.480 --> 0:18:35.959
<v Speaker 1>which ultimately feels a bit druotism. You would imagine if

0:18:36.000 --> 0:18:38.679
<v Speaker 1>an artist like Darli used Jenet AI, he would have

0:18:38.720 --> 0:18:41.160
<v Speaker 1>done so to critique or to push the medium forward,

0:18:41.280 --> 0:18:43.840
<v Speaker 1>or to make us really think, versus to kind of,

0:18:44.600 --> 0:18:45.040
<v Speaker 1>you know.

0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:48.200
<v Speaker 3>Make a gimmick, make a gimmick. Yeah, that's very true.

0:18:48.480 --> 0:18:49.920
<v Speaker 3>Can we run through the rest of the headlines?

0:18:50.000 --> 0:18:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Yes? And can you start yes? So Ours Technica reports

0:18:54.160 --> 0:18:57.399
<v Speaker 1>that Nvidia is producing AI chips for the first time

0:18:57.680 --> 0:19:01.080
<v Speaker 1>outside of Taiwan. Blackwell chip and are now being made

0:19:01.119 --> 0:19:06.560
<v Speaker 1>at TSMC. That's the Taiwan semiconductor manufacturing company at their

0:19:06.560 --> 0:19:10.560
<v Speaker 1>plant in Phoenix, Arizona, and other companies in the state

0:19:10.640 --> 0:19:13.920
<v Speaker 1>will test and package these chips. Nvidia also announced that

0:19:13.960 --> 0:19:18.560
<v Speaker 1>they plan to build complete supercomputers on us soil, and

0:19:18.600 --> 0:19:20.720
<v Speaker 1>their reports of the promise of up to five hundred

0:19:20.800 --> 0:19:24.760
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars of investment in us AI infrastructure having been

0:19:24.760 --> 0:19:28.439
<v Speaker 1>agreed to at a dinner between Jensen Huang and you

0:19:28.560 --> 0:19:33.680
<v Speaker 1>know who recently at Mari Lago. In return, Kwang reportedly

0:19:33.720 --> 0:19:37.760
<v Speaker 1>hoped to avoid yet more stringent export controls on chips

0:19:37.800 --> 0:19:41.360
<v Speaker 1>to China, but seemly that hope has not materialized.

0:19:41.440 --> 0:19:43.040
<v Speaker 3>I do wonder what's going to happen there, so please

0:19:43.119 --> 0:19:45.119
<v Speaker 3>keep me posted. I also do wonder if the food

0:19:45.200 --> 0:19:46.320
<v Speaker 3>is good at mar Laga.

0:19:46.440 --> 0:19:48.119
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I bet it's old school.

0:19:48.560 --> 0:19:53.120
<v Speaker 3>Well, it's food that has to benefit a discussion about semiconductors,

0:19:53.400 --> 0:19:56.359
<v Speaker 3>so it can't stand out too much. So if you

0:19:56.400 --> 0:20:00.000
<v Speaker 3>are a big enough nerd to be covetous of Sam's

0:20:00.000 --> 0:20:04.960
<v Speaker 3>Sung technology, but you're loyal to the Apple ecosystems, it's

0:20:04.960 --> 0:20:08.880
<v Speaker 3>a very it's slender. There may be a phone for you.

0:20:09.240 --> 0:20:11.640
<v Speaker 3>Nine to five Mac reports that there are rumors of

0:20:12.359 --> 0:20:17.280
<v Speaker 3>and this is very mind blowing a foldable iPhone, which

0:20:17.280 --> 0:20:22.560
<v Speaker 3>has been dubbed very surprisingly the iPhone fold be like

0:20:22.600 --> 0:20:27.120
<v Speaker 3>I need the fold pro. I have to say this,

0:20:27.560 --> 0:20:30.000
<v Speaker 3>and I hope it's not too embarrassing. If I do

0:20:30.080 --> 0:20:32.800
<v Speaker 3>get this, I will be walking around saying my iPhone,

0:20:32.800 --> 0:20:34.760
<v Speaker 3>don't jiggle, jiggle it folds.

0:20:35.520 --> 0:20:35.720
<v Speaker 1>But no.

0:20:35.840 --> 0:20:38.800
<v Speaker 3>According to the one report, the rumored phone may look

0:20:38.840 --> 0:20:41.720
<v Speaker 3>like a normal iPhone but expands to roughly the size

0:20:41.760 --> 0:20:45.520
<v Speaker 3>of an iPad Mini when unfolded to its full size.

0:20:45.560 --> 0:20:49.959
<v Speaker 3>It also might feature a touch ID enabled power button.

0:20:50.760 --> 0:20:53.439
<v Speaker 3>The most important thing in the reporting here is that

0:20:53.600 --> 0:20:55.720
<v Speaker 3>I plan to use it as a picnic blanket in

0:20:55.760 --> 0:20:58.359
<v Speaker 3>Central Park if it ever does come to fruition and

0:20:58.440 --> 0:21:01.000
<v Speaker 3>does an overheat. I hate an overheated phone.

0:21:01.160 --> 0:21:02.639
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. You have to wonder what this one is. Is it

0:21:02.680 --> 0:21:04.200
<v Speaker 1>really going to come out or is it gonna be

0:21:04.200 --> 0:21:07.719
<v Speaker 1>another one of these Apple projects. Since Steve Jobs, may

0:21:07.760 --> 0:21:10.159
<v Speaker 1>he rest in peace, past that have never seen the

0:21:10.240 --> 0:21:10.760
<v Speaker 1>light of day.

0:21:10.880 --> 0:21:14.200
<v Speaker 3>And speaking of Dolly rolling over in his grave, this

0:21:14.240 --> 0:21:17.440
<v Speaker 3>is the stone pillow in Steve Jobs's grave.

0:21:17.680 --> 0:21:20.320
<v Speaker 1>I always like to talk about tech stories that inspire

0:21:20.359 --> 0:21:23.440
<v Speaker 1>me and capture my imagination, and there was a report

0:21:23.440 --> 0:21:26.840
<v Speaker 1>in the Washington Post this week about scientists who have

0:21:26.920 --> 0:21:32.080
<v Speaker 1>been using technology to uncover the remains of past civilizations

0:21:32.440 --> 0:21:35.160
<v Speaker 1>in the Amazon. So, this team of archaeologists in South

0:21:35.160 --> 0:21:39.960
<v Speaker 1>America is using lidar or light detection and ranging, which

0:21:40.000 --> 0:21:43.639
<v Speaker 1>is basically a laser sensor that can see through dense

0:21:43.680 --> 0:21:47.560
<v Speaker 1>forests from above, either with planes or drones to find

0:21:47.760 --> 0:21:51.239
<v Speaker 1>hidden structures beneath the canopy. You know, you don't need

0:21:51.280 --> 0:21:53.680
<v Speaker 1>to be Indiana Jones anymore. You can just fly drones.

0:21:54.640 --> 0:21:58.480
<v Speaker 1>The team has found a lost Portuguese colony ceramics made

0:21:58.520 --> 0:22:01.440
<v Speaker 1>by an indigenous society. And what I find particularly cool

0:22:01.440 --> 0:22:04.520
<v Speaker 1>here is that these findings are being used to protect

0:22:04.560 --> 0:22:07.920
<v Speaker 1>the rainforest from clearing and logging. You can't protect the

0:22:08.000 --> 0:22:10.720
<v Speaker 1>rainforest on its own term, sadly, but if it has

0:22:10.920 --> 0:22:14.000
<v Speaker 1>archaeologically significant ruins beneath, it turns out you can.

0:22:14.480 --> 0:22:17.040
<v Speaker 3>Finally, if you live in Silicon Valley, you may have

0:22:17.080 --> 0:22:20.800
<v Speaker 3>heard eerily familiar voices when crossing this I'm obsessed with

0:22:20.840 --> 0:22:23.840
<v Speaker 3>this story. While crossing the street last weekend, Palo Alto

0:22:23.920 --> 0:22:27.960
<v Speaker 3>Online reports that some crosswalk buttons seem to have been hacked,

0:22:28.400 --> 0:22:30.840
<v Speaker 3>which is something I would notice immediately. I just wish

0:22:30.880 --> 0:22:33.399
<v Speaker 3>they were hacked by Almo. Some people cross the street

0:22:33.440 --> 0:22:35.760
<v Speaker 3>to the sound of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who

0:22:35.800 --> 0:22:36.960
<v Speaker 3>I now call Mark x Infandel.

0:22:37.680 --> 0:22:39.800
<v Speaker 1>So you press the button and rather than a walk

0:22:39.840 --> 0:22:40.480
<v Speaker 1>sign is on.

0:22:41.080 --> 0:22:44.720
<v Speaker 3>It's like walk signs on. I don't know who. I

0:22:44.760 --> 0:22:47.000
<v Speaker 3>don't know if that was a Zuckerberg or an Elon Musk.

0:22:47.240 --> 0:22:50.840
<v Speaker 3>I can't really do a Musk impersonation, but some in

0:22:50.920 --> 0:22:54.320
<v Speaker 3>Silicon Valley heard an impression of Elon Musk welcoming them

0:22:54.359 --> 0:22:57.720
<v Speaker 3>to Palo Alto, while others heard fake Mark Zuckerberg say

0:22:58.200 --> 0:23:01.840
<v Speaker 3>it's normal to feel uncomfortable, even violated, as we forcefully

0:23:01.840 --> 0:23:04.879
<v Speaker 3>insert AI into every facet of your conscious experience. And

0:23:04.960 --> 0:23:06.879
<v Speaker 3>I just want to assure you you don't need to

0:23:06.920 --> 0:23:10.000
<v Speaker 3>worry because there's absolutely nothing you can do to stop it.

0:23:10.600 --> 0:23:13.760
<v Speaker 1>I love this gorilla anti tech marketing campaign. I have

0:23:13.800 --> 0:23:19.000
<v Speaker 1>no idea how you hack a crosswalk light, but props

0:23:19.000 --> 0:23:19.560
<v Speaker 1>to these people.

0:23:19.640 --> 0:23:21.920
<v Speaker 3>If there's any place it's going to happen, it's palle Alto.

0:23:22.200 --> 0:23:26.800
<v Speaker 1>I like your Zach impression. Elizabeth Helmes reminds me of

0:23:26.800 --> 0:23:30.119
<v Speaker 1>one of the most iconic ever Zuckerberg moments, when he

0:23:30.200 --> 0:23:33.040
<v Speaker 1>was testifying before the Senate a few years ago and

0:23:33.119 --> 0:23:38.200
<v Speaker 1>was asked how Facebook's business works, to which he responded, well, ads,

0:23:38.280 --> 0:23:42.760
<v Speaker 1>Sir Mark Kackerberg back in the spotlight this week because

0:23:42.920 --> 0:23:46.080
<v Speaker 1>Meta is facing an anti trust trial brought by the Federal

0:23:46.160 --> 0:23:49.399
<v Speaker 1>Trade Commission, and Zackerberg has been on the stand this

0:23:49.480 --> 0:23:52.840
<v Speaker 1>week in Washington. Naomi Nicks of the Washington Post has

0:23:52.880 --> 0:24:12.680
<v Speaker 1>more on the trial when we come back, stay with us, So, Carot,

0:24:12.680 --> 0:24:14.600
<v Speaker 1>it seems like every week that we make this show,

0:24:14.960 --> 0:24:17.440
<v Speaker 1>there are headlines we cover, and then there's a kind

0:24:17.480 --> 0:24:20.399
<v Speaker 1>of the headline that kind of emerges as the biggest

0:24:20.400 --> 0:24:21.040
<v Speaker 1>story of the week.

0:24:21.320 --> 0:24:24.359
<v Speaker 3>Right last week was tiff Mania, which is the gift

0:24:24.400 --> 0:24:25.679
<v Speaker 3>that keeps giving.

0:24:26.600 --> 0:24:30.000
<v Speaker 1>And this week it's Meta's day in court, or rather

0:24:30.320 --> 0:24:33.240
<v Speaker 1>many weeks in court. And the trial's actually been nearly

0:24:33.280 --> 0:24:34.359
<v Speaker 1>five years in the making.

0:24:34.760 --> 0:24:36.560
<v Speaker 3>It's been one of those news stories that's been like

0:24:36.600 --> 0:24:38.280
<v Speaker 3>in the back of my mind, like I will just

0:24:38.320 --> 0:24:40.639
<v Speaker 3>be going about my business and then say, oh wait,

0:24:41.119 --> 0:24:43.040
<v Speaker 3>did the government soon matter? What happened to that?

0:24:43.320 --> 0:24:45.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah? And it's also I mean when you and I

0:24:45.359 --> 0:24:48.280
<v Speaker 1>first started working on kind of tech journalism together in

0:24:48.359 --> 0:24:51.960
<v Speaker 1>twenty eighteen twenty nineteen, the ideas that the government would

0:24:51.960 --> 0:24:57.480
<v Speaker 1>ever effectively regulate technology companies was at best a fantasy

0:24:57.560 --> 0:24:59.920
<v Speaker 1>or a pipe dream, and now it seems to be

0:25:00.240 --> 0:25:04.520
<v Speaker 1>happening in real time, albeit slowly. And this also comes

0:25:04.520 --> 0:25:07.360
<v Speaker 1>at a time when people are questioning whether the judiciary

0:25:07.400 --> 0:25:11.000
<v Speaker 1>will continue to be, you know, a functioning pillar of government.

0:25:11.080 --> 0:25:13.840
<v Speaker 1>But right now, at least in the realm of business,

0:25:13.920 --> 0:25:16.840
<v Speaker 1>it sure is. Back In twenty twenty, the Federal Trade

0:25:16.880 --> 0:25:20.240
<v Speaker 1>Commission sued Meta, as you said, and if you recall,

0:25:20.480 --> 0:25:24.480
<v Speaker 1>Meta had previously purchased Instagram and WhatsApp in the years

0:25:24.560 --> 0:25:27.720
<v Speaker 1>leading up to this. The FTC argued that Meta had

0:25:27.720 --> 0:25:31.920
<v Speaker 1>acquired these companies specifically in order to strangle competition, which

0:25:31.920 --> 0:25:33.480
<v Speaker 1>is illegal under anti trust laws.

0:25:33.680 --> 0:25:36.200
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, the lastuit began on Monday in federal court, and

0:25:36.240 --> 0:25:38.919
<v Speaker 3>over the next many weeks, DC will be filled with

0:25:38.960 --> 0:25:43.760
<v Speaker 3>some star witnesses, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who took

0:25:43.840 --> 0:25:45.040
<v Speaker 3>the stand this week.

0:25:45.160 --> 0:25:47.879
<v Speaker 1>Hit Hops Understand how we got here and what's going

0:25:47.960 --> 0:25:51.440
<v Speaker 1>to come next? Is Naomi Nicks. She's a staff writer

0:25:51.560 --> 0:25:54.280
<v Speaker 1>at The Washington Post, where she covers social media companies,

0:25:54.600 --> 0:25:57.520
<v Speaker 1>particularly Meta. So Naomi, I can imagine this has been

0:25:57.560 --> 0:25:59.800
<v Speaker 1>an absolutely crazy week for you.

0:26:00.119 --> 0:26:03.120
<v Speaker 2>Yes, it's been very busy, but it's been very interesting.

0:26:03.560 --> 0:26:06.359
<v Speaker 1>I can only imagine. But take us back to twenty

0:26:06.440 --> 0:26:10.400
<v Speaker 1>twenty when the FTC sued Meta and how this will begin.

0:26:11.160 --> 0:26:11.520
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:26:11.600 --> 0:26:13.240
<v Speaker 2>So remember at the time, there was a lot of

0:26:13.280 --> 0:26:16.959
<v Speaker 2>conversation among regulators about whether big tech companies had gotten

0:26:17.000 --> 0:26:21.280
<v Speaker 2>too big, right, whether they had stifled competition from upstarts,

0:26:21.320 --> 0:26:26.399
<v Speaker 2>whether they were prefacing their products over potential competitors, and

0:26:26.440 --> 0:26:28.199
<v Speaker 2>so a lot of big tech companies were sort of

0:26:28.240 --> 0:26:31.840
<v Speaker 2>wrapped up in that uproar and Meta was one of them.

0:26:32.040 --> 0:26:35.760
<v Speaker 2>And back then the FTC under the tail end of

0:26:35.880 --> 0:26:42.040
<v Speaker 2>Donald Trump's administration, sued Meta, challenging to break the company

0:26:42.080 --> 0:26:46.800
<v Speaker 2>up apart from Instagram and WhatsApp, and we've been sort

0:26:46.800 --> 0:26:49.359
<v Speaker 2>of locked into this anti trust battle ever since.

0:26:50.080 --> 0:26:52.160
<v Speaker 1>So this is a continuation of that same case.

0:26:52.720 --> 0:26:53.160
<v Speaker 3>It is.

0:26:53.320 --> 0:26:57.840
<v Speaker 2>So what happened was the judge initially put out a

0:26:57.920 --> 0:27:00.000
<v Speaker 2>ruling that said, you know, I don't think the FTC

0:27:00.480 --> 0:27:05.639
<v Speaker 2>has given enough evidence to establish that there's really a

0:27:05.680 --> 0:27:08.840
<v Speaker 2>case here. And so when the Bide administration took over,

0:27:08.960 --> 0:27:12.560
<v Speaker 2>Amena Khan was chair of the FTC, the commission filed

0:27:12.560 --> 0:27:16.000
<v Speaker 2>an amended lawsuit and at that point the courts allowed

0:27:16.000 --> 0:27:18.359
<v Speaker 2>it to proceed, and you know, they said, look, I

0:27:18.359 --> 0:27:21.080
<v Speaker 2>think you now have established enough evidence that there is

0:27:21.320 --> 0:27:24.560
<v Speaker 2>a potential case that Meta has a monopoly and the

0:27:24.600 --> 0:27:26.399
<v Speaker 2>personal social networking market.

0:27:26.920 --> 0:27:29.760
<v Speaker 1>So this is potentially bipartisan enforcement, which I want to

0:27:29.800 --> 0:27:32.040
<v Speaker 1>come back to. But just first off, as somebody who

0:27:32.040 --> 0:27:36.840
<v Speaker 1>hasn't been following this that closely, why were Meta allowed

0:27:36.880 --> 0:27:41.040
<v Speaker 1>to buy Instagram in twenty twelve and WhatsApp in twenty

0:27:41.160 --> 0:27:43.960
<v Speaker 1>fourteen and didn't the regulators in a sense like, isn't

0:27:44.000 --> 0:27:46.560
<v Speaker 1>this a case of building a stable after the horse

0:27:46.600 --> 0:27:49.080
<v Speaker 1>has gone? If they didn't block these transactions at the time.

0:27:49.359 --> 0:27:51.920
<v Speaker 2>That's certainly a case in an argument that Meta has

0:27:51.960 --> 0:27:54.639
<v Speaker 2>been making. They're like, you know, one of the dangers,

0:27:54.640 --> 0:27:57.639
<v Speaker 2>they argue, is that what the message of the FTC

0:27:57.840 --> 0:28:00.720
<v Speaker 2>is sending to the general marketplace is that that no

0:28:00.880 --> 0:28:05.520
<v Speaker 2>merger is final. That after an anti trust regulator deems like, yeah,

0:28:05.560 --> 0:28:08.240
<v Speaker 2>you're allowed to buy that market, that a decade after

0:28:08.280 --> 0:28:10.840
<v Speaker 2>the fact, they can decide to change their minds. And

0:28:10.880 --> 0:28:13.480
<v Speaker 2>in some ways that is what's happening here. But I

0:28:13.520 --> 0:28:17.040
<v Speaker 2>do think the politics around anti trust law and the

0:28:17.119 --> 0:28:21.359
<v Speaker 2>conversation about whether the United States anti trust laws are

0:28:21.560 --> 0:28:25.960
<v Speaker 2>up to date with the current technology industry. Is one

0:28:26.000 --> 0:28:30.399
<v Speaker 2>of the reasons both Republican and Democratic nominated anti trust

0:28:30.400 --> 0:28:33.560
<v Speaker 2>regulators have been willing to take a chance in this case.

0:28:34.240 --> 0:28:37.439
<v Speaker 3>So you've been in the courtroom the past few days.

0:28:38.160 --> 0:28:41.480
<v Speaker 3>What is the FTC's argument against Meta right now?

0:28:41.720 --> 0:28:44.800
<v Speaker 2>They're making a couple of points. One is they're saying, look,

0:28:45.200 --> 0:28:48.880
<v Speaker 2>we actually think that Meta has a monopoly. And what

0:28:49.000 --> 0:28:52.640
<v Speaker 2>the FTC has decided is called a personal social networking

0:28:52.720 --> 0:28:57.800
<v Speaker 2>market that's mostly relying a market of tech pokforms that

0:28:57.880 --> 0:29:02.120
<v Speaker 2>are designed to facilitate person communication among your friends and families.

0:29:02.600 --> 0:29:04.600
<v Speaker 2>And so what the FTC is saying is they actually

0:29:04.600 --> 0:29:09.280
<v Speaker 2>think that Meta's next biggest competitor is Snapchat. They don't

0:29:09.280 --> 0:29:12.160
<v Speaker 2>include TikTok in that, they don't include YouTube, in that

0:29:12.200 --> 0:29:15.600
<v Speaker 2>they don't include x in that they're saying that Meta

0:29:15.680 --> 0:29:18.480
<v Speaker 2>has a monopoly in that market. And they're saying that

0:29:18.520 --> 0:29:23.800
<v Speaker 2>the company acted anti competitively when it bought WhatsApp and Instagram.

0:29:24.120 --> 0:29:26.720
<v Speaker 2>And they rely on a lot of internal emails to

0:29:26.760 --> 0:29:30.000
<v Speaker 2>suggest that the goal that Mark Zuckerberg had at the

0:29:30.040 --> 0:29:36.280
<v Speaker 2>time wasn't necessarily to improve Instagram or to help users

0:29:36.280 --> 0:29:38.680
<v Speaker 2>have more choice in the social media market, but to

0:29:38.760 --> 0:29:42.280
<v Speaker 2>neutralize a potential competitor. And they're saying that all those

0:29:42.320 --> 0:29:45.959
<v Speaker 2>actions have hurt consumers, that if Meta hadn't done these things,

0:29:46.240 --> 0:29:49.280
<v Speaker 2>that we as Internet users would have more vibrant social

0:29:49.320 --> 0:29:51.080
<v Speaker 2>media options at our disposal.

0:29:51.640 --> 0:29:53.920
<v Speaker 3>What is Meta's counter argument here?

0:29:54.440 --> 0:29:57.040
<v Speaker 2>They say that the FTC misses the mark when it

0:29:57.080 --> 0:30:00.600
<v Speaker 2>defines the marketplace, that they're not just competing agains Snapchat,

0:30:00.640 --> 0:30:03.680
<v Speaker 2>that they are competing against TikTok and YouTube and all

0:30:03.760 --> 0:30:09.000
<v Speaker 2>these other Internet platforms, and that that ecosystem is robust

0:30:09.440 --> 0:30:10.640
<v Speaker 2>and vibrant.

0:30:10.480 --> 0:30:12.040
<v Speaker 1>The attention economy, so to speak.

0:30:12.120 --> 0:30:16.360
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. You know, Mark Zuckerberg earlier sort

0:30:16.400 --> 0:30:21.400
<v Speaker 2>of talked to the court about how when TikTok was rising,

0:30:21.480 --> 0:30:24.240
<v Speaker 2>the company really had to double down and introduce its

0:30:24.280 --> 0:30:27.800
<v Speaker 2>own product called Instagram Reels, right, and that that has

0:30:27.840 --> 0:30:32.040
<v Speaker 2>been a competitive space for the company ever since. As

0:30:32.080 --> 0:30:34.680
<v Speaker 2>a piece of evidence to show that like this industry

0:30:34.720 --> 0:30:35.960
<v Speaker 2>is quite thriving.

0:30:36.120 --> 0:30:39.800
<v Speaker 1>Now without getting to inside baseball, I mean, the history

0:30:39.840 --> 0:30:43.800
<v Speaker 1>of antitrust in the last few years before Lee Na

0:30:43.920 --> 0:30:46.760
<v Speaker 1>Khan came in as the FTC chair under President Biden

0:30:47.280 --> 0:30:50.560
<v Speaker 1>was basically all around consumer price like harm was defined

0:30:50.640 --> 0:30:54.720
<v Speaker 1>as consumers having to pay more because of monopoly. However,

0:30:55.160 --> 0:30:57.680
<v Speaker 1>meta services are free. And I think one of the

0:30:57.680 --> 0:31:01.240
<v Speaker 1>interesting things here is the FTC d position visa via

0:31:01.240 --> 0:31:04.240
<v Speaker 1>the tech industry was considered to be a big reason

0:31:04.360 --> 0:31:08.000
<v Speaker 1>why the tech industry broke for Trump so dramatically in

0:31:08.000 --> 0:31:10.640
<v Speaker 1>the most recent election. So there's a kind of irony

0:31:10.680 --> 0:31:13.520
<v Speaker 1>here around the kind of the FTC's theory of the

0:31:13.600 --> 0:31:16.560
<v Speaker 1>case being so consistent with how the lots of administration

0:31:16.760 --> 0:31:19.960
<v Speaker 1>viewed regulating monopolies. Can you speak a little bit about.

0:31:19.720 --> 0:31:22.360
<v Speaker 2>That, Yeah, I mean it's interesting. There's both sort of

0:31:22.360 --> 0:31:25.320
<v Speaker 2>a political element here and a legal element. It is

0:31:25.360 --> 0:31:28.400
<v Speaker 2>true that, like the courts have traditionally relied on price

0:31:28.840 --> 0:31:31.400
<v Speaker 2>as a measure of harm, and what they're doing here

0:31:31.440 --> 0:31:33.680
<v Speaker 2>is kind of novel. They're saying, actually, we think harm

0:31:33.720 --> 0:31:36.200
<v Speaker 2>can be measured in the fact that, you know, meta

0:31:36.280 --> 0:31:39.920
<v Speaker 2>maybe didn't improve users' privacy. You know, what are the

0:31:40.000 --> 0:31:43.440
<v Speaker 2>points they've made in their opening arguments. Was like after

0:31:43.560 --> 0:31:48.280
<v Speaker 2>Cambridge Analytica, consumers were really unhappy with Facebook and yet

0:31:48.320 --> 0:31:51.240
<v Speaker 2>they still used it, which means they didn't have enough options.

0:31:51.600 --> 0:31:53.920
<v Speaker 2>But I think there is a political element here. To

0:31:54.000 --> 0:31:57.440
<v Speaker 2>your point, which is the tech companies and Meta. Mark

0:31:57.480 --> 0:32:01.000
<v Speaker 2>Zuckerberg in particular made a big bet on Trump right

0:32:01.040 --> 0:32:03.600
<v Speaker 2>in the election, and you know we've reported and other

0:32:03.680 --> 0:32:06.080
<v Speaker 2>news outlets have reported that, you know, he went to

0:32:06.080 --> 0:32:09.520
<v Speaker 2>the White House in hopes to encourage the Trump administration

0:32:09.600 --> 0:32:13.640
<v Speaker 2>to encourage the FTC to resolve the lawsuit before a trial,

0:32:13.880 --> 0:32:17.480
<v Speaker 2>but was ultimately unsuccessful. In order to drive this point home,

0:32:17.600 --> 0:32:21.280
<v Speaker 2>remember back to when Trump was first elected in twenty sixteen,

0:32:21.880 --> 0:32:25.520
<v Speaker 2>how the tech industry reacted then, right like we saw

0:32:25.600 --> 0:32:30.280
<v Speaker 2>them come together and form forward the Immigration Reform Organization.

0:32:30.840 --> 0:32:34.880
<v Speaker 2>There was really this sort of groundswell of activity by

0:32:34.880 --> 0:32:39.440
<v Speaker 2>the tech industry both workerwed but also CEO led to

0:32:39.480 --> 0:32:41.640
<v Speaker 2>be willing to kind of stand the ground in the

0:32:41.680 --> 0:32:45.760
<v Speaker 2>face of potential attacks from the Trump administration. And this

0:32:45.880 --> 0:32:48.760
<v Speaker 2>time around we saw much different tone. Right, So, Mark

0:32:48.800 --> 0:32:52.880
<v Speaker 2>Zuckerberg called Trump a badass during the campaign over how

0:32:52.920 --> 0:32:55.600
<v Speaker 2>he handled the shooting attempt on his life. The company

0:32:55.600 --> 0:32:58.200
<v Speaker 2>gave a million dollars to the inauguration committee, he dined

0:32:58.240 --> 0:33:01.920
<v Speaker 2>with Trump, and then I think in January he backed

0:33:02.000 --> 0:33:05.000
<v Speaker 2>up that rhetoric with a lot of policy. They scrapped

0:33:05.040 --> 0:33:09.160
<v Speaker 2>the fact checking program, the NDDI programs. He said in

0:33:09.200 --> 0:33:11.960
<v Speaker 2>a video that they were hoping to partner with the

0:33:11.960 --> 0:33:16.760
<v Speaker 2>Trump administration to go after international regulators who are introducing

0:33:16.920 --> 0:33:20.560
<v Speaker 2>what he terms was like onerous regulations. And so the

0:33:20.600 --> 0:33:25.800
<v Speaker 2>tone has been really, really remarkably positive and has attracted

0:33:25.840 --> 0:33:32.080
<v Speaker 2>some compliments from Trump allies and Trump himself, But the

0:33:32.160 --> 0:33:35.680
<v Speaker 2>compliments only go so far. What the company obviously wants

0:33:35.880 --> 0:33:41.120
<v Speaker 2>is regulations to change, and so that so far hasn't

0:33:41.280 --> 0:33:46.000
<v Speaker 2>been an outcome of this olive branch from Mark Zuckerberg

0:33:46.040 --> 0:33:49.640
<v Speaker 2>and Meta. And I think this latest trial is another

0:33:49.760 --> 0:33:52.920
<v Speaker 2>piece of evidence that the companies haven't yet, to put

0:33:52.920 --> 0:33:54.560
<v Speaker 2>it crudely, gotten what they've paid for.

0:33:55.000 --> 0:33:56.880
<v Speaker 3>So can you tell us a little bit about the

0:33:56.920 --> 0:34:00.360
<v Speaker 3>atmosphere in the courtroom this week? You know, we're taping middanday.

0:34:00.400 --> 0:34:03.360
<v Speaker 3>What have the first few days been like in the courtroom.

0:34:03.040 --> 0:34:04.719
<v Speaker 1>Cara, sorry to jump on you, but also we all

0:34:04.760 --> 0:34:08.080
<v Speaker 1>saw the photo of Mark Zuckerberg arriving in what looked

0:34:08.080 --> 0:34:11.200
<v Speaker 1>like a presidential limousine and was in beast mode wearing

0:34:11.239 --> 0:34:14.480
<v Speaker 1>his own Meta ray bands, looking very much sho.

0:34:14.760 --> 0:34:17.480
<v Speaker 3>I heard the success in theme music as he arrived

0:34:17.480 --> 0:34:19.040
<v Speaker 3>to the courtroom.

0:34:19.560 --> 0:34:23.160
<v Speaker 2>It has been you know, on the point about Mark's look,

0:34:23.520 --> 0:34:26.560
<v Speaker 2>it's been interesting because he's had to look at videos

0:34:26.719 --> 0:34:28.800
<v Speaker 2>like talking about some of these mergers in the past,

0:34:28.840 --> 0:34:31.160
<v Speaker 2>and so you're seeing sort of like a new book,

0:34:31.320 --> 0:34:33.239
<v Speaker 2>you know, looking back in the old version of him.

0:34:33.560 --> 0:34:37.840
<v Speaker 2>But particularly I think on Tuesday, there was a really

0:34:38.920 --> 0:34:44.799
<v Speaker 2>heated exchange I think between the FTC lawyer and Mark Zuckerberg,

0:34:45.000 --> 0:34:48.879
<v Speaker 2>and we saw repeatedly the lawyer really tried to pin

0:34:49.160 --> 0:34:53.360
<v Speaker 2>Mark Zuckerberg down to essentially admit to some of the

0:34:53.400 --> 0:34:56.279
<v Speaker 2>reasonings that he weighed out in his emails at the

0:34:56.320 --> 0:34:58.560
<v Speaker 2>time for wanting to buy Instagram, you know, because the

0:34:58.600 --> 0:35:02.360
<v Speaker 2>reality is he does talk about it in those competitive terms.

0:35:02.400 --> 0:35:04.720
<v Speaker 2>Back then, Met at the time was trying to build

0:35:04.719 --> 0:35:08.960
<v Speaker 2>its own camera app and it wasn't going so well.

0:35:09.160 --> 0:35:12.560
<v Speaker 2>They were disappointed with the results of that program, and

0:35:12.600 --> 0:35:15.160
<v Speaker 2>so at the time, Mark is like, maybe we should

0:35:15.200 --> 0:35:17.359
<v Speaker 2>just like buy Instagram.

0:35:17.560 --> 0:35:19.359
<v Speaker 3>Right, I was going to say, in the scheme of things,

0:35:19.360 --> 0:35:21.640
<v Speaker 3>it's actually much better that they just spent a cool

0:35:21.680 --> 0:35:24.400
<v Speaker 3>billion dollars to have one of the most popular apps

0:35:24.440 --> 0:35:25.240
<v Speaker 3>in the app store.

0:35:25.600 --> 0:35:31.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and it is also rapidly becoming their key to

0:35:31.360 --> 0:35:34.960
<v Speaker 2>retaining a really important audience, which is young people in

0:35:35.000 --> 0:35:36.239
<v Speaker 2>a way that Facebook is not.

0:35:37.239 --> 0:35:39.960
<v Speaker 3>Can you talk a little bit more about some of

0:35:40.040 --> 0:35:43.279
<v Speaker 3>the other high profile cases against big tech that are

0:35:43.280 --> 0:35:45.800
<v Speaker 3>going on right now, Like where do these lawsuits stand?

0:35:46.120 --> 0:35:49.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, I think the biggest example is Google, right,

0:35:49.320 --> 0:35:51.840
<v Speaker 2>you know there Right last year, a federal court century

0:35:51.920 --> 0:35:54.719
<v Speaker 2>ruled that the Justice Department was right to say that

0:35:54.960 --> 0:35:58.080
<v Speaker 2>Google violated in a trust clause because it had created

0:35:58.120 --> 0:36:02.160
<v Speaker 2>these sort of restrictive contracts with Apple and other device

0:36:02.239 --> 0:36:05.799
<v Speaker 2>makers to essentially require them to install Google as the

0:36:05.800 --> 0:36:09.680
<v Speaker 2>default search engine on their smartphones anyone. What the judge

0:36:09.680 --> 0:36:12.680
<v Speaker 2>said is like, you know, this prevented rivals from competing

0:36:13.239 --> 0:36:17.840
<v Speaker 2>on a level playing field. And so Google had argued, look, actually,

0:36:17.840 --> 0:36:20.399
<v Speaker 2>our search engine has lots of competition. People are looking

0:36:20.480 --> 0:36:23.120
<v Speaker 2>for information in lots of different places, whether it's on

0:36:23.160 --> 0:36:26.840
<v Speaker 2>Amazon and TikTok and Reddit other Internet you know search engines.

0:36:27.120 --> 0:36:30.439
<v Speaker 2>But essentially the judge ruled against him, and so where

0:36:30.440 --> 0:36:32.719
<v Speaker 2>we are now is we have to figure out like

0:36:32.800 --> 0:36:37.440
<v Speaker 2>what the remedy is to that anti trust violation. I think,

0:36:37.600 --> 0:36:39.040
<v Speaker 2>you know, one of the things that's a little bit

0:36:39.080 --> 0:36:41.239
<v Speaker 2>easier about that case in this case, which is it

0:36:41.320 --> 0:36:45.160
<v Speaker 2>probably was easier for the Justice Department to establish that

0:36:45.239 --> 0:36:49.840
<v Speaker 2>Google had maintained a monopoly in the search business in

0:36:49.880 --> 0:36:52.360
<v Speaker 2>a way that I think the discussion around what defines

0:36:52.400 --> 0:36:55.319
<v Speaker 2>social media and what defines the social media market for

0:36:55.400 --> 0:36:58.080
<v Speaker 2>meta is a little bit more fraught. But this is

0:36:58.120 --> 0:37:03.200
<v Speaker 2>like one of the biggest wins right for ntrust rigilators

0:37:03.239 --> 0:37:06.160
<v Speaker 2>against a big tech company in two decades since the

0:37:06.200 --> 0:37:11.040
<v Speaker 2>Microsoft case. And whether that will continue, whether the Justice

0:37:11.120 --> 0:37:14.480
<v Speaker 2>firement at FTC and in to circulators around the world

0:37:14.520 --> 0:37:16.600
<v Speaker 2>will be able to continue to rack up as an

0:37:16.640 --> 0:37:17.320
<v Speaker 2>open question.

0:37:18.120 --> 0:37:20.720
<v Speaker 1>What I find is so personally fascinating about this story

0:37:20.800 --> 0:37:24.440
<v Speaker 1>is it has both the drama of the TikTok of

0:37:24.480 --> 0:37:27.840
<v Speaker 1>week by week politics and of courtroom testimony and stuff,

0:37:27.880 --> 0:37:31.320
<v Speaker 1>but it also exists in this kind of grander sweep

0:37:31.440 --> 0:37:33.560
<v Speaker 1>of the history of the twentieth century. I mean, you

0:37:33.600 --> 0:37:37.640
<v Speaker 1>had IBM subject to anti trust action in the sixties,

0:37:37.680 --> 0:37:41.560
<v Speaker 1>which led to them unbundling their hardware and software business,

0:37:42.000 --> 0:37:45.719
<v Speaker 1>which created a software marketplace, which in turn allowed Microsoft

0:37:45.760 --> 0:37:49.320
<v Speaker 1>to rise. Microsoft intern was subject to anti trust legislation

0:37:49.400 --> 0:37:52.080
<v Speaker 1>the late nineties early two thousands, which meant that they

0:37:52.160 --> 0:37:55.440
<v Speaker 1>couldn't force Internet Explorer down consumers throats who were using

0:37:55.480 --> 0:37:59.200
<v Speaker 1>Windows operating system. This in turn allowed Google to emerge,

0:37:59.440 --> 0:38:02.960
<v Speaker 1>and now Google and Meta are facing antitrust action of

0:38:03.000 --> 0:38:04.839
<v Speaker 1>their own. So I was wondering if you can kind

0:38:04.840 --> 0:38:08.000
<v Speaker 1>of reflect on where this sits in the history of

0:38:08.160 --> 0:38:08.960
<v Speaker 1>tech and government.

0:38:09.800 --> 0:38:12.880
<v Speaker 2>I think at a time when the industry is really

0:38:12.960 --> 0:38:19.320
<v Speaker 2>focused on artificial intelligence and generative artificial intelligence, these cases

0:38:19.480 --> 0:38:21.840
<v Speaker 2>that are going on now really have the power to

0:38:21.920 --> 0:38:25.680
<v Speaker 2>kind of reset the competition among who's going to rise

0:38:25.680 --> 0:38:28.360
<v Speaker 2>and fall in this marketplace, Who's going to have the

0:38:28.400 --> 0:38:32.440
<v Speaker 2>ability to make the right deals, make the right mergers

0:38:33.000 --> 0:38:35.839
<v Speaker 2>in order to assume top place in the AI race,

0:38:35.880 --> 0:38:38.279
<v Speaker 2>which they all want to do. And I think it's

0:38:38.320 --> 0:38:43.439
<v Speaker 2>also unclear how a spinoff would affect the company right.

0:38:43.760 --> 0:38:47.040
<v Speaker 2>There was a really poignant moment on Tuesday in which

0:38:47.560 --> 0:38:50.359
<v Speaker 2>Mark Zuckerberg is being asked about an internal message he's

0:38:50.400 --> 0:38:53.440
<v Speaker 2>sent in twenty eighteen where he said, and I'm just

0:38:53.480 --> 0:38:55.600
<v Speaker 2>going to read the quote as calls to break up

0:38:55.640 --> 0:38:58.680
<v Speaker 2>the big tech companies grow, there is a non trivial

0:38:58.840 --> 0:39:01.840
<v Speaker 2>chance that we will be forced to spin out Instagram

0:39:01.880 --> 0:39:04.840
<v Speaker 2>and perhaps WhatsApp in the next five years. And he

0:39:04.960 --> 0:39:08.520
<v Speaker 2>later said, well, most companies resist these kinds of breakups,

0:39:09.200 --> 0:39:13.040
<v Speaker 2>companies actually performed better after they split up. And if

0:39:13.040 --> 0:39:15.840
<v Speaker 2>you think about it, people might have written Microsoft for

0:39:15.960 --> 0:39:19.560
<v Speaker 2>dead right years ago after their ANIHS battle. Is anyone

0:39:19.600 --> 0:39:24.360
<v Speaker 2>really saying that now? No, this is just one part

0:39:24.400 --> 0:39:26.200
<v Speaker 2>of that story.

0:39:26.280 --> 0:39:27.960
<v Speaker 3>This is the first week of what might be a

0:39:27.960 --> 0:39:31.120
<v Speaker 3>two month trial, and we are nowhere near ruling. Just

0:39:31.160 --> 0:39:34.000
<v Speaker 3>in your opinion as somebody who is attending these things,

0:39:34.040 --> 0:39:36.400
<v Speaker 3>like what do we think could happen and what are

0:39:36.440 --> 0:39:38.720
<v Speaker 3>the things that you're looking out for.

0:39:39.040 --> 0:39:40.879
<v Speaker 2>I think one thing I'm going to be really paying

0:39:40.880 --> 0:39:46.400
<v Speaker 2>attention to is how the judge asks questions about market size,

0:39:46.880 --> 0:39:50.680
<v Speaker 2>because I think the definition of the market is one

0:39:50.680 --> 0:39:53.439
<v Speaker 2>of the hardest parts that the FDC has to prove

0:39:53.960 --> 0:39:57.640
<v Speaker 2>that the market that Meta operates is this sort of

0:39:57.680 --> 0:40:01.480
<v Speaker 2>personal social networking market, and I'm not sure that the

0:40:01.520 --> 0:40:04.880
<v Speaker 2>tech industry has understood it that way, and certainly Meta

0:40:04.920 --> 0:40:08.560
<v Speaker 2>hasn't understood it that way. His own lawyer asked him

0:40:08.800 --> 0:40:10.799
<v Speaker 2>if he had even heard of that phrase before the

0:40:10.880 --> 0:40:12.040
<v Speaker 2>FTC's lawsuit.

0:40:12.400 --> 0:40:13.000
<v Speaker 1>She said no.

0:40:13.960 --> 0:40:17.520
<v Speaker 2>And so I think how the judge asks questions about

0:40:18.000 --> 0:40:20.879
<v Speaker 2>how the marketplace is structured and defined is like one

0:40:20.920 --> 0:40:23.160
<v Speaker 2>issue that I'm going to definitely be paying attention to

0:40:23.880 --> 0:40:27.279
<v Speaker 2>another thing is just like Honestly, these top executives that

0:40:27.280 --> 0:40:30.000
<v Speaker 2>were expected to hear from We're expecting to hear from

0:40:30.040 --> 0:40:33.800
<v Speaker 2>Cheryl Samdberg, We're expecting to hear from Instagram head Adam Masseri.

0:40:34.560 --> 0:40:38.600
<v Speaker 2>We might expect to hear from Zakoyo Capital and Google

0:40:38.760 --> 0:40:42.640
<v Speaker 2>and whatnot. And so I am very curious to see

0:40:42.640 --> 0:40:45.080
<v Speaker 2>how they talk about how they were thinking about these

0:40:45.120 --> 0:40:48.799
<v Speaker 2>mergers at the time. If there is some more relenting

0:40:49.280 --> 0:40:54.000
<v Speaker 2>from meta executives about their true motivations for making these purchases,

0:40:54.040 --> 0:40:57.160
<v Speaker 2>I think that'll be interesting to watch and then like

0:40:57.440 --> 0:41:01.760
<v Speaker 2>it's boring, But I think how THEUS talk about harm

0:41:02.080 --> 0:41:05.440
<v Speaker 2>and how users are harmed or not harmed, And it

0:41:05.560 --> 0:41:08.680
<v Speaker 2>feels like this game of like what if, right, what

0:41:08.760 --> 0:41:12.799
<v Speaker 2>if these mergers hadn't happened. What would have happened to Instagram?

0:41:13.480 --> 0:41:15.799
<v Speaker 2>Would it be as popular as like Snapchat is right now?

0:41:15.880 --> 0:41:18.680
<v Speaker 2>Or would it be an even bigger global industry threat.

0:41:19.600 --> 0:41:22.359
<v Speaker 1>What's a fascinating moment, Naomi, thank you for joining us.

0:41:22.360 --> 0:41:23.120
<v Speaker 2>Thanks for having me.

0:41:30.560 --> 0:41:32.640
<v Speaker 1>That's it for this week for tech Stuff. I'm as

0:41:32.719 --> 0:41:34.240
<v Speaker 1>Valoshian and I'm Kara Price.

0:41:34.600 --> 0:41:37.719
<v Speaker 3>This episode was produced by Eliza Dennis and Victoria Domingez.

0:41:38.000 --> 0:41:41.040
<v Speaker 3>It was executive produced by me Oz Valosian and Kate

0:41:41.080 --> 0:41:45.360
<v Speaker 3>Osborne for Kaleidoscope and Katrina Norvel for iHeart Podcasts. The

0:41:45.440 --> 0:41:48.840
<v Speaker 3>Engineer is Bihied Frasier and Kyle Murdoch mixed this episode.

0:41:49.000 --> 0:41:50.160
<v Speaker 3>He also wrote our theme song.

0:41:50.600 --> 0:41:53.879
<v Speaker 1>Join us next Wednesday for tech stuff The Story when

0:41:53.880 --> 0:41:56.920
<v Speaker 1>we'll share an indepth conversation with the former editor of

0:41:56.960 --> 0:42:01.520
<v Speaker 1>The Financial Times, Lionel Barber about his book, Gambling Man.

0:42:01.840 --> 0:42:05.279
<v Speaker 1>It's all about the enigmatic founder of SoftBank mas Son,

0:42:05.840 --> 0:42:08.879
<v Speaker 1>and we'll also talk about Masayshi Son's relationships with Sam

0:42:08.960 --> 0:42:10.760
<v Speaker 1>Altman and the Stargate Project.

0:42:11.040 --> 0:42:13.839
<v Speaker 3>Please rate, review, and reach out to us at tech

0:42:13.880 --> 0:42:16.839
<v Speaker 3>Stuff podcast at gmail dot com. We want to hear

0:42:16.880 --> 0:42:17.200
<v Speaker 3>from you.