providing tens of thousands of people access to affordable quality health care, so i always have to say affordable health care, and that other guy says obamacare sucks. without going into the terminology much further, but obamacare, to me, that is the purpose. my whole purpose was for the children. i went from housewife to house member to house speaker for the children, and my legacy is what we are leaving for the children.

washington journal continues. host: our focus now on big tech in campaign 2024. wired magazine senior editor is our guest.

i want to start with each candidate's relationship with silicon valley. how would you describe her relationship with silicon valley and vice president and her previous role as a senator and attorney general? guest: harris is one of the first vice presidents to be from the bay area. she grew up in oakland and she does have a pretty good relationship with the tech sector. i believe what is important to note with harris is that she hasn't really said too much. even in her role as a senator, she wasn't really in that role during the times in which a lot of tech policy was discussed whether that was privacy or antitrust or other issues like that. she's done a little bit more work as vice president. she leads the ai initiative at the white house for she is

talking with ai leaders, stakeholders, labor groups to create some type of framework for regulating the ad industry that all the kind of get from harris is the sentiment that we want to have regulation, but the same time we want to allow innovation to take place and not really get in the way of all of the great thing that ai could bring to the world. it has been relatively opaque. it really doesn't lend itself to describing policy very well. host: what about donald trump, how did silicon valley view him during his time as president and his time since he has been president, and how did he develop such a close relationship with elon musk that led to that twitter interview this week? guest: donald trump, even prior to end being president and also

running a 2016, he didn't really have the best relationship with silicon valley and through this time it's president nearly fought against companies like twitter, a smoke and other companies like that where he had a platform and posted frequently after january 6 when he was kicked off of those platforms and had a really bad relationship with them. mark zuckerberg became a huge target for him and he ended up creating his own social media platform because of it. in the time that trump has been elected and right now, a lot has changed for him. specifically, thinking about when he was president when it comes to tiktok. he was one of the first people to want to ban tiktok and now he is on it, working with some of the biggest tiktokers out there in order to free people for his campaign.

also now he is really into cryptocurrency, something he famously tweeted that several years ago saying he didn't the understand what it was and what it was a scam. there has been a lot of evolution to trump whereas with harris, we still don't really know exactly what is that she would do. host: what did you think about that interview on x elon musk? guest: going back to last year when robin santos was running and he announced his bid with a popular venture capitalist. they had a lot of the same issues. the audio issues, the glitching and the screeching sound was fixed. but it took them 45 minutes to even get the conversation started and then they spoke for almost two hours about a lot of things they talked about at the top of the assassination attempt and some policy issues, but they didn't really get too deep on those. the call itself, it shows just

how much elon musk is supporting donald trump to give him a platform that large. at the peak of that conversation there were about 1,000,003 hundred thousand people on the call. host: we are talking with a tech and politics senior writer at wired magazine, a tech in campaign 2024. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independent, (202) 748-8002. mckenna kelly, explain what we mean by this term a tech and what the tech's relationship has been when it comes to getting involved in presidential campaigns in recent years. >> they tech qualifies a handful of major tech companies in the united states. that would be meta-which was previously facebook.

google as well, microsoft. i think openai is becoming into this big tech definition as well. over the last couple years, i think predominantly when you look at spending at the top of the decade, a lot of these big tech companies were funding democratic efforts. eric schmitt, who used to be a big leader in google, he is one of the premier democratic fundraisers. he has been involved in a lot of democratic politics. famously supported hillary clinton and now other democratic candidates. they've been for the rapid democratic politics for a long time. but we are seeing now is a switch amongst a small number of the silicon valley venture-capital founders making that switch over to trump and saying out loud and posting about it all the time. host: where does this spending come from?

is there a big group that represents a sector in big pharma, or does big tech, is it more these wealthy individuals? guest: some of the individual companies have their own individual company packs that they will give money to. when you look at those records, it is pretty well divided 50-50 between democrats and republicans. of course a lot of these congresspeople who these companies donate to directly, they are friendly to big tech. they have worked with them before. they've spoken to them at hearings and like that. but there are also others that are more of an industry sector pack area future forward as one of the biggest operating this year. that is receiving a lot of money from venture capitalists like reid hoffman, ron conway absent invalid angel, and folks like lorraine powell jobs. i think it was just recently that as soon as harris got on

the top of the democratic ticket, a lot of those people came back out and said that they were going to commit $150 million to her campaign. host: ryan is in massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: i'm watching a program about big tech and campaigns. what i've come to find is that i'm a registered independent and if you happen to be a trump supporter, you get blocked from sharing anything, sharing any data or anything that criticizes the left or talks about covid mask wearing or anything else. in america, a so-called free country, why are we allowing corporations to restrict our free speech, and why are we allowing employers to go through people's facebook and basically act like a bunch of cyber nazia

and restrict free speech? guest: the question that this caller said, the main question was how can these private companies enforce these free-speech rules infringing on free speech? back in the 90's, a law passed, and there was a little part in their call section 230. it provides companies a land of the shield for a people post on the platform. if i said something that could be considered harassment, defamation, you couldn't sue facebook. you have to sue me. that rule is also provided a bit of a new paul, a lot of lawmakers say, for people posting all kinds of stuff on the internet. the biggest thing i think is also the private companies, when we look at things like citizens

united and things like that, because these two have free speech of their own, when u.s. people who support them in the industry what they will say is that these companies have run free-speech and that qualifies them to control what people are saying on the platform. host: you mentioned in section 230. what does big tech have to gain or lose legislatively when it comes to executive orders in the next administration? what are they big concerns right now? guest: that involves all the time with whatever the important issue of the day is. of course we had conversations that misinformation, disinformation throughout the 2020 process and now section 230 being brought up again and if it allows these platforms to allow

these deepfakes politicians being on the platform and also section 230, they love this law. it allows them to grow to as big as they are today to become these american giants and huge economic powerhouses. but when it comes to what would happen this year it harris were donald trump were to be rely -- reelected, i think the main thing that she did at the time was she went after a lot of -- she became a voice for people who have had sexual photos of them posted online. she's a vocal supporter of that and section 230 could be used. but the section 230 should be

amended or something like that, she has been more opaque about that as well. speech and content moderation to privacy. host: mckenna kelly, her new piece if you go to wired, the who sue of political influencers of today. one or two of the more interesting characters that you profile there. guest: that was a really fun project. it came together in about a week. looking into the dnc is the first time the content creators are being credentialed at the democratic national convention. some of the people on that list are going or went to the rnc a couple weeks ago. some of the most interesting folks on there, and a lot of them are interesting to me. when it comes to the people who have come out in support of

trump recently like logan paul, jay powell, these are famous boxers, wrestlers who started out as bloggers online. they originally got their start on find if you remember that and recently they had trump on the podcast. a huge streamer on a platform called kik is associated with the famous misogynist andrew tate and he just recently streamed of trump as well. i think that shows you a certain base that they are trying to reach through these specific streamers and predominantly nonwhite men. host: samuel in wisconsin, independent. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. i'd like to ask your guest, could you give us an update on sam bankman-fried and the silicon valley bank and what political parties they were affiliated with? guest: sure. i'm not too familiar myself with what exactly the same of the sam bankman-fried trial cases at.

i myself and not too much of a financial reporter. more of a policy person. when we talk at sam bankman-fried, you've course was one of the biggest donors to democratic and republican campaigns. and a lot of that money is gone this year. when we are seeing now is the crypto industry, the entire industry becoming a bit more galvanized and creating their own packs and other things like that to sway candidates into spring cryptocurrency regulation that they find beneficial for themselves. host: gina in kentucky, democrat, good morning. caller: back when computers were

first starting out, they kind of made a deal with tech networks and kind of gave them a free hand on everything. and they were putting rules down on them. i think it is kind of unfair when your televised media and your paper print media and all other media, they are liable for what they say. they have to say i'm sorry. but social media and computer media, google and all of those don't have to. i something needs to be reined in. what do you think about that? thank you. guest: when you look at the differences between c-span or the wall street journal or wired, we are considered publishers.

that also under the media thing they were talking about. facebook and instagram, twitter, they are just considered platforms. there the 11 to speaking into existence. those are the key differences lawmakers are looking at. host: wired.com if you want to see the published pieces there. a lot of focus on x, on some of the viewers on the mosque-trump interview this week. the c-span review watching along this morning writing the fillon-trump interview with just 1.3 million people eavesdropping on two of the country's most influential people, from the pages of usa today. this is the headline. truth social is over. what did the interview this week mean for the former president

social media site truth social? >> he said that trump doesn't really need anymore, twitter anymore. i'm truth social he could say whatever he wants. he returned to twitter to promote the event. posting far more on truth social that he was on x and now he is still postdated truth social primarily. i think he likes the free range that he has on truth but a lot of the people on their are trump supporters, not people who are criticizing them or fact checking him. i think that says a lot about how candid campaigns view x and whether it has that power it had to create new cycles to drive narratives in the news. now it seems like it is not

really that poured in. host: line for democrats, you are next. caller: i really appreciate your perspective on silicon valley. i've worked in silicon valley for my time at hewlett-packard. and even during my time at sun microsystems, it felt like tech was involve a lot more in what is good for the country, good for the government. i did work at microsoft for a little while and it definitely changed a bit. a bit of a disagreement, shall we say. but now it feels very much like what is in it for me?

as opposed to what is in it for the country, what is good for the public good. i'm curious about your perspective on that. >> they tend to have more shareholders asking us to make more money. that is definitely one part of it. something that you can look at now is artificial intelligence and how that can be used for good. we are still having those conversations. sam altman, fulton the white house, these meetings that they had. to do things better for the common good. maybe the hardware, the microsoft, maybe they are chasing money more than good as you are saying, but i think when we are looking for new technology, that optimism, even though it is scary to a lot of

folks, there is still a certain amount of optimism about what ai could be doing. host: jd vance, can you explain his biography? guest: jd vance popped up on the main street in 2016 when he published "hillbilly elegy,"'s memoir about his time growing up in ohio. you've course went to college at yale and peter teal, the same venture capitalist, i don't think he's gotten there yet. he really admired his thinking and through that connection got involved in venture capital, where he worked on different projects for just a handful of years. i think jd vance's connection to tech is sometimes exaggerated

because he didn't spend that much time there. though he has turned into someone in the senate now as someone who is critical of big tech. he oddly supports we nick con any a lot of for efforts were even when you look at people in the tech industry on the democrat side, they will say we like everything about the biden administration. he definitely embraces tech more than anything but i also think we need to drive home that his time in silicon valley as he did exaggerated. host: new york, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i was really surprised. i'm the first time caller longtime listener. i'm really surprised that you didn't get any time. host: anytime to what? caller: anytime to discuss mr. trump's speech yesterday.

all the sudden you come up about military. host: we've got open phones coming up here in about 20 minutes. a half-hour of topic that anybody wants to bring up. we can chat about it then. what question do you have about big tech while we had mechanic kelly for us? i think we lost leonard. tin is in north carolina, independent. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: most people don't understand that it is 213 for the internet where these companies cannot be seen. we've gone back and forth trying to get mostly the republicans. these tech companies can be held liable for giving this information and everything else.

i think most people would know that the democrats are more toward trying to do this information, but both sides are. i don't know if your guest is aware of that. the federal judge just said google was done as a monopoly. holding their feet to the fire to where they need to be held accountable for fraud. about the guy in washington, d.c. for $200 million. i just want to make one other comment. i used to like brian williams but it seems like c-span, even though you guys try to be impartial, it seems like you

kind of lean another way. you need to go back to what this station was 20 or 25 years ago. host: i really like brian lamb as well. thanks for your comments. what do you want to pick up on from there? guest: when you look at issues like section 230 and antitrust, like he said, the doj case that actually resulted in this win with google and deciding that it was operating an illegal search monopoly was launched under the trump administration. but when you look at these issues like section 200 30 and content moderation or antitrust laws for privacy and things like that, the main question is asking how much power to these tech companies have? how do we break them down, how do we make sure that they are working for the common good, etc.?

those are the conversations that legislators are having. of course the answer maybe for some folks is section 230. breaking up the company into smaller pieces because if they have to be more competitive may be able change their policies. it will work the way capitalism does, supply and demand. i think folks are having those conversations right now. those conversations are taking a very long time, but i think a lot of good policy ends up taking a while in the end. host: west palm, north carolina, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. before he said that he tried a narrative, but it's very frustrating. i'm an independent voter, voted for trump in 2016 and biden in 2020. the misinformation that he propagates, i just want to know what your opinion is as far as their moral authority.

just the amount of misinformation is staggering. then you have voters who rely on those platforms in a way to make decisions along with their news programs. it's very alarming, truly alarming. guest: i think a majority of these big tech companies are going after misinformation and disinformation the same way that they did in 2020 with x as an outlier because elon musk took it over for the coming off free-speech crusader on the internet and wanting to ensure everyone had a voice. i think his answer to this is that he has this thing on twitter called community notes, which allows people in the communities to correct things, fact-check things and then essentially people vote on them to see if they are true or not and it comes up underneath the

tweets. that has proven to not work out the best multiple times. and yet, i think people have that sentiment that he isn't wielding his response ability properly. host: we go back to your story about the who's who of political influences. viewers can read it there. coming out a day after president biden welcomed digital creators to the white house for a summit to the president's remarks for yesterday. >> my staff tells me that the greater economy is rallying to $250 billion. i'd like to talk to you about borrowing some money from you all. [laughter] and it is expected to double in the next few years. you're tired of hearing me talk about it, how history is changed

by mostly technology, and changes in drastic ways. but think about it. i do wonder if any of you on the side of the equation thought this was going to have the consequence it has. i really mean it. think about it. changing not only with people listen to, but what they put their faith in. what they are doing, changing the idea that is consequential and where they go and one of the things that i found, at least as i tried to stay current, is that you all understand that you have an obligation. in the patient to report what you think is true. -- an obligation to report what you think is true. we have all been divided into competing camps. i know i look like i'm 40, you

can smile. but i've been around a long time. it's never been this bad before. i mean the press, i mean the way we treat each other in politics. it's incredibly difficult to count the number of lies that people here. they don't know what to believe, they don't know what to count on. but you breakthrough. you breakthrough in ways that i think you're going to change the entire dance of the way we communicate. that's why i went to the white house, i'm looking for a job. host: president biden yesterday at the white house. guest: i think biden making that joke at the end that he wants to give influences is pretty funny. about what he thinks his life post-white house is going to be. he is right. it is a two had a $50 billion industry.

there's advertisers, creators, people who are making their livelihoods on these apps whether it is tiktok, instagram, facebook, and they are having increased power and politics. there was a recent survey conducted by an agency called billion dollar boy that found that in this election alone, about one quarter of all content creators have been approved to make some kind of political content within that is free campaign directly or a nonprofit or another group like that. so the money is out there for these folks. there's 200 of them going to the dnc next week. they are rolling out the blue carpet for these creators to stand on it do interviews with people in the media and think it is important because it is addressing a certain issue we are having an immediate consumption diet right now we've gotten so used to getting political news from platforms like facebook or twitter, instagram, tiktok, and the news industry has gotten increasingly more fragmented as intimately

more news outlets start to collapse. people doing kind of freelance commentary on tiktok reading the news and providing that to people. kind of creating these people that they are certain audiences in the millions. they build these relationships to the audience and deliver the news that way. social media has changed even since 2020. you can type in earthquake. it's not the two men anymore.