you're watching booktv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here's our prime time lineup, first up cohen former "new york times" tech columnist details the growth of silicon valley and the impact it has on politics and public policy. then at 8:45, rachel discusses the impact technology has had on trust. then on booktv's afterwards at 10 p.m. astronaut scott kelly recalls record setting time in space he's interviewed by former nasa administrator charles boldin and wrap up our time time programs at 11 that provides history of the civil war. that all happens tonight on c-span2's booktv, 72 hours of nonfiction authors and books this holiday weekend. television for serious readers

and now here's cohen on growth and influence of silicon valley. hello. we're going to get started here tonight my name is seth i'm the director of the communications forum and a couple of quick announcements before we start, these are held three times semester six times year if you would like to be informed of future events there's a signup sheet over there -- put your name and e-mail and only send news about our six events a year. we have pretty good ones, we had it earlier this year john last semester. these three we have some great stuff planned for next semester already.

also tonight's forum is being filmed by c-span so° the question part of the tore rum, if you would go to one of the microphones and a also hopefully state your name and your question another reason we ask you to sate your name is because we then do a writeup of all of the forum afterwards, which you will be able to read a couple of days after the event. on our website, which is come forum.edu and the last announcement -- is that this event tonight is cosponsored by radius which is another group here at m.i.t. i'm thrilled to be able to introduce these three. it is a different three than we initially thought would be here. because jeff hao he called me up at a little past five because his daughter was puking and a --

as father of two yng kids, myself, i said please stay home. and so furniturely chris couch who writes a lot about technology works with the forum is a brilliant journalist in her own right agreed to fill in as a moderator. but let me introduce to everyone -- cohen is the author of the new book the know it alls and that will also be a hashtag tonight and i think moving forward -- >> know it all. got to get on that. yep. we worked together a decade and a half ago. i've known him ever since he is a great guy, and a brilliant journalist. he covered the influence on internet for larger culture for "new york times" wrote a link by link column beginning in 2007. his first book the know it all a rise of silicon valley is political power house and social wrecking ball is an intellectual history of silicon valley and

critically examines how culture and ideology belittle sympathy and even democracy. that was published in october 2017, and it is available for purchase right here, and in addition to, to supporting open discussion, we also support both book stores and authors. so please by all means buy the book it's a great book. ..

>> have appeared in the technology review company and in wired magazine and to put the twitter handle on the board and i will turn it over to chris. >> in addition to this but we have a book called whiplash

that is also a great book and obviously the author is here to sign now back to the presentation. >> thank you for all being here we are so excited for this panel addressing the important issues and encourage you to buy books so first of all talking about the central argument of the book and correct me if i'm wrong but the disruption and individualism that has eroded humanity is that fair to say? >> so the premise of how to get together but then the

deeper question everybody has humanity so i approach this of the science aspect thinking of machines as people and people as machine so that denies the humanity if you think of them as so individualistically but google's first design director and he suggested a color and instead of they use the color they wanted they tested all the different shades of blue what they used the most is what they were going to use

and then he resigned and said there was a human vision but then they don't apologize that is the most popular it increases revenue so it is that breakdown. i have seen the data points. they are not apologetic. >> can you speak to what those outcomes are? with those intricacies of silicon valley how does that play out? >> to make it seem more mainstream but whitaker's existing regulation with the idea and you can think of all the different companies to

regulate what children see on video should they declare what they are doing? that is one part of the ideology this taste for regulation and distrust of government that is poisonous to society. but the idea of extreme free speech is another and i wrote a piece in the new yorker on the bulletin board if there is any limits on free speech that was racist or sexist and then try to limit that there was such severe pushback that it was reversed to have limits on free speech is cohesive.

so there is that other dangerous aspect but we are doing this so i wrote this book before the 2016 election but what happened from that fruition is the fact that these big companies like google or facebook or twitter that if our country could try to influence our election or disclosure or if these could be used by anybody to stir up anger and resentment. they don't see themselves as custodians of power for profit or that utopian vision that supersedes other concerns.

clearly in the 2016 election it was a turning point and using gmail and in order to place ads for that in my mom at the time i never mentioned the word cancer in the e-mail because i didn't want radiation treatment so that is similar the custodian of my information it felt like they had a right to commercialize that. >> allied third work deals with criticism but also the culture but from your perspective do you agree with or how do you feel love the

premise to have an impact on humanity? >> absolutely i agree with the overall premise they have started to unpack those implications the way it is built with the assumptions and ideologies that are acted out in the technology itself and looking at those individuals that come up with these designs and their ideologies do matter. but the biggest thing for me is in terms of optimization most silicon valley leaders are designed around optimization whether the design itself getting the information or connecting to

all of the world. those are questions of efficiency and optimizing for profit. those are taken for granted for optimization and trying to unpack those assumptions what if it was not the optimization model? what would that look like or how does that change the experience? what does that change about facebook's role in our life? so the trick is using the terminology of the industry the way they think of problems

that is a way to share language that we have not necessarily agreeing to the terms of optimization but that is a natural way things evolve but those are the terms we agreed to. >> what was well done in the book many of those that we associated with issues of privacy and commercialization that they may not agree to but some are major giants currently google is one that started the east coast that was against all of those.

so how did we get here? >> sure. but that was spot on and i was reading her report and she went after the critics and i could see myself in there that what she talks about is try to get to a better place and i was looking at the history also think of the efficiency argument almost like in the beginning of the book that there was the feel that you give that one pass to harvest you shouldn't go back a second time because of that ecosystem that live off of the cleaning. so what the efficient thing would be like that is what i

do i am a farmer. but again it is like using their language so recently sending me a tweet where mark sucker berg said he cared so much about the selection meddling that the company would spend all this money to hire people they were so prepared to lose money but and that is the efficiencies that were set up but how did we get here? and to feel that that computer science accounts for some of

the extreme ideological ideas and lack of diversity and then credit for those profits so the google case if you go back to leave your mom -- read the original papers like the google search engine everybody agrees they were standing on the shoulders of others but they took this early west that was chaotic and made it coherent. wyatt needed to be advertising free and in the academic world a place for it was transparent now we accept the idea these

are the secret things nobody should know what we are doing that they were arguing it is bad for science and trusting the system so they wrote the paper explaining all of that. so they are serious academics they were getting the phd off of this idea that was so much bandwidth at stanford that how to pay for this. couldn't stanford have said this is great? we pay for the nuclear reactor or for the studying of society and you better figure out a way to do this and connected for and they were not incorporated.

so a person who was a stanford graduate wrote their check for google and said there is not one and then one month later there was one and the rest is history so it was almost like corruption i guess maybe you call it selling out that for facebook as well where they really had some idealism in all of the power of computers not necessarily trying to become billionaires but in the book there are other characters that were bankers and that is what they were trying to do. but the others i feel were led astray. that is my view. >> but talking how the technology world has changed,

how has the media evolved? one of the things i tried to look at is coverage from those silicon valley movements and all that energy that went into covering the amazon era and google and facebook and others and starting from a very business-oriented model the talk about politics and people

and society shifting the narrative and why this is changing our lives and affecting our lives that shift happens at a couple different points. 2007 the iphone comes out that dramatically changes the day today relationship with the computer in our pocket basically but yet still in that gadget excitement space than 2013 that moment where we come to terms with the fact it is good and bad that is a larger discourse specifically journalist and politicians are willing to acknowledge if you are picking up on this also.

but what is interesting right now is when your book came out now there is world without end also the four by scott galloway. and a bit more on the market side but you also have tim with the emergence so that is an interesting moment right now in part because this was written before the crisis hit. the writing has been on the wall publishers seem to acknowledge this thinking there is a market for the book so where is the audience?

>> so that narrative wires a certain moment with this german politician who has all his data and on the front page of the times. so to say that is weird they keep all that data but and to get attention so that was a big deal. >> but also talking about access is if we don't have access to these companies to stay on their good side to integrate. that is true if you are a business tech journalist.

as different walks of life come to terms with technology on society. >> so when you leave that gadget phase is less important that is usually important with that ratification i didn't seek out access there was the incredible sight of the zuckerberg files it is

anything they have ever said. and that they have access with the streaming but i read a lot of that. almost all of it. but then he deleted his tweets but he tweeted 100,000 times so there was more than enough about him. so they all have documentation because when i did try the interviews it wasn't that revealing. so there is the appreciation. >> they have to be supported

to be willing to stick their neck out i think specifically of the amazon workplace environment example that reaction is what are you talking about? just like everybody ran a large piece on the interwork -- interworking spanning from the low level not all the way through the top but a detail to get lots of attention. >> and that response really is a classic libertarian response. i do think he embodies a lot but it was very clear that it

can't teacher because they just wouldn't work here so they are treated right so it does seem logical but there cannot be sexual discrimination because of the arbitrage opportunities. and it can't exist. and with this attachment from reality. with current racism and sexism and to have meritocracy but

then to say this is effective. so the best rise up. so what we have now is fair if you are not represented if you can't make it you can't cut it. so this was such a reeducation because it is a digital world of those legacy problems it doesn't matter. >> to build on that response it is so clearly articulates the complete disregard for the physical world. they are in seattle for them they would have to uproot their families and lives.

>> the question is not if he is a smart person but does he not really understand? >> when we talk about bio feed and technology with the underrepresentation as well as exhibited by the products of the computer vision system or there was an article fairly recently of women getting prosthetics just stemming from a dominant group in power. very much dominated by white men so from your perspective do you see these types of issues changing?

>> overtime? right now. [laughter] >> as we talk about that. there is more media coverage. is that landscape beginning to shift? >> it would require, the book fundamentally says they are against democracy. how do we have wheelchair access? and it isn't true everybody could express their opinion and that is how you represent people. and then a hearing that the senate had about the top lawyers from google and

facebook and twitter and she was explaining to them very patiently it is important to control elections. so to have a democracy. so there was the japanese-american representative the japanese-americans would not have happened. there needs to be a political way to correct these but fundamentally they can argue they can self regulate. those will have a new path. maybe it is self-regulation. >> that is 60%.

from here self-regulation in the technology world. >> i'm sure i wouldn't be quite as fair. but i think it is a little scary that i feel like he is often described as a character but he is expressing the main thought that democracy is bad. and that is not good. and the cofounder of paypal said he believes in regulation but it is, i don't know.

it does get down to our democracy. that is why it is important but to be reflective of technology and the voices of minority riders have been overlooked in a systematic way. so do you see that end of that changing because certainly in the last couple of years it has drastically changed for the better but that also puts pressure on silicon valley to change. at the very least now versus in the future to see the yes

we will work on diversity for hiring and thinking more about users whether or not that is effective that on the writing side not just looking at those who cover technology but those who are contributing to a larger discourse of the role of technology in society that has to do with looking at a whole range of riders. not just like those technology journalist but those writing the op-ed. as a direct response to the current issue so in trying to articulate this a lot of that

has to do with women writing a blog post or critique a technology that doesn't include fitness tracking. those kinds of pieces come from a lot of different directions and not limited to publications with that places you look for coverage from the typical male-dominated -- dominated tech world. >> and no matter how enlightened you are you cannot do that but so looking at the

example of the coverage a lot of women journalists are writing that that is a reason if there are similar pushes going on rich and by women journalists be making a. certainly especially in the last two months i am hopeful but looking at what ellen powell went through with her lawsuit, yes. she was in a company and had a sexual harassment issue that was shoved under the rug basically. but again that was probably two years ago.

and to have support or have people take her seriously. >> it all remember his name at the engineer? here these they are libertarians but safe i -- fire this libertarian guy for his insidious ideas. >> if you don't know the author included a pretty large critique that the women could

be naturally blind and also with guns fire them into yes after that to say it was the autism spectrum. >> i remember on twitter they cannot work work on twitter but i remember thinking that the problems it isn't just doing programming it is bad enough but it is actually affecting our society. but there are so many rules to be played it is a weird way

but that free speech said that i should give this was within the company and they said yes that does not preclude you from so we have a point that google can say that is not their culture or what they don't want it to be like?

so all of these just interventions are not valuable in his mind. >> with the tech culture there is a valid argument as technology increases there is a line on automation but what you might once be able to hold somebody responsible to hire only men that it is the algorithm under visiting. >> so talk about the role of spleen ability. >> there is great interest to say they will let the algorithm do the work then we have to say it is not biased. >> and it isn't a human but then of course it gets back to

my main question. if you build this algorithm, then you already bake in those assumptions about the backgroun background, history , all the things that are systemic in the sense you don't have access over the right background or the white man who does not get along. because there are a lot of people talking about this yes

they would obstruct to the decision-making process but looking at the terms does matter and that is still a hard conversation. >> there was a footnote and i went back to look at one of the chapters of mccarthy professor at mit moving to stanford and the idea of people's machines that the brain is the entity to exist outside of the body but it was an odd request so to be seen in the book with this professor whether a computer could be a judge.

so mccarthy of course was it could be a judge just long as it is programmed correctly. and to be a judge or therapist this was a real disconnect with reality. and she interviewed minority students and they were very encouraging to say we know judges are biased but this is when we really believe and

then ten years later how would that be different with that machine learning argument? so why would they be over society? and then and to solve those problems.

so we know how hard it is as a fundamental problem. >> does that have terms of correcting? >> there was a famous court case and showing systemic bias and not using that and then to have to fix it but on the other hand the data could enlighten the unjust society that does that make sense?

but again the bigger question is you do an amazing job of that ideology. and so what do we do? and what we do to change the one of those things what we can decide or the terms and

for optimization but there are still other parts we could unpack at that libertarian approach is a problem or that mentality that has led to a huge monopoly system so market are the ways that one could change society. i am hesitant to say to be a real possibility. and it is impossible do we

have alternative to facebook? or google but not really at the scale they are operating at. so getting back to the regulation problem. that is not functional. so looking at all that net neutrality is the tatian antitrust is still not really set to address as it doesn't really apply to free services. so looking at antitrust which is competition harm to a

consumer that these don't work. to hold these accountable it has to evolve that is based. >> that norms that they are kicking in. and im weary of the idea of code so that well-intentioned programmer but if you mention in your report there is a big question. and to point out those problems.

and with the smaller and local points that need to be fixed. and to embrace these individuals and the argument. this is the way that people have a right to their data that has gone off the rails that is considered normal it is done in a very transparent way. so imagine me walking into one store.

i make a dossier about you. people point out maybe to take a penny and add a penny. i break a rule? i don't know. with the belief that we as a society make better rules. that your data is yours and the bridge area and is a with google and facebook otherwise the government never would have dreamed of it. so they abuse that that sets us on the long path.

someone said facebook has a better dossier than we could ever do. so we need to try to get back. >> i totally agree with that as a direction but how does that actualize? does that mean we don't let facebook do certain things or features with protections? does that mean a collective action movement or some kind of way to change that? it is one thing to say yes i need access or have ownership

but to voice my interest from the way the newsfeed is filtered. >> like edwards noted or the election i was struck watching this hearing with the senate judiciary hearing the sharpest questioner was the republican from louisiana who asked the best most pointed questions about what is going on. with facebook, could i sell alcohol? and to transcend.

but middle america is hit hardest. so there is a chance is a belief in a political system i do think something could change. >> so if we could have defined to have these examples and cases that yes this is a way that this platform could be used in by the way we don't believe that is inappropriate but it has taken us a long time to understand those understandings and then to begin to establish a threshold of what is appropriate or not.

and that is hidden. >> i did not articulate nearly as well. so there is that sense of a burden to be more concrete. and with optimism like that was incredible our arctic that becomes an incredible thing so that is the next great question. >> now we will open for questions.

so please go to one of these microphones. what role does have with their own startups what consideration should they be thinking of? >> to say how the deck is stacked but i guess and try to create with that project but

because of the monopoly monopolies just want to be acquired. there is a real yearning for it. so what should they be thinking of on that path? what questions do you feel they should be asking the groundbreaking technology? >> you have one intention of technology.

and that is always a hard question to answer or to monetize with the military-industrial complex. and from multiple angles that what is missing how does a user get to tell them how they feel? and all the links. >> but the only way. >> that there are so many assumptions the way these technologies are operating. without data driven approach.

and to get you to spend more time or money and that doesn't get into anything of actual intentions. >> and that there has to be some real basis of a relationship. >> so much of what we are talking about is that leadership role from the men who are in charge filtering into the culture of these companies with that contextual wave that these ideas are played out.

with your engineering goals and efficiency and how was your job? what is your performance review? and how to be cut into the overall culture. >> we will open this up to audience questions please use the microphone we will switch from one to the other. >> thank you so much to bring

this topic out in the open but you said that they don't take people's feelings into account but i believe the use of the emotions is a proxy for tapping into the dopamine circuits that i think is very unethical and what are your feelings about how to bring this to awareness? like whiskey and cigarettes. >> a great question. one is there are already engineers that are recognizing that is a hard to keep

scrolling and auto refreshing? and a former war google person works on the question that is driven that we are engineers and designers but natasha's work has a book called addiction by design it is very relevant to the design of any technological interface. and very clearly articulating these keep you going not necessarily winning and that is an interesting work at

specifically a clear use of addiction that people take that and apply that to the broad consumer interface. >> i was born and raised in the bay area and there is a lot of complexity but one thing that struck me as the inefficiency if you have a large corporation to take over the market our product i see also the flipside eight i could argue when you pay a medical bill with trillions of dollars of waste in the healthcare industry? there is a huge cost that you squeeze out so if the tech company tries to redo

healthcare you might be able to save trillions of dollars but you cannot do that either way there are trade-offs. >> universal healthcare is a much more important goal than either one. and there is a reason why because there was a need for efficiency for cars and shopping. so with the idea that if your goal is to maximize prophet that is not a good goal. that is why you are addicted to maximize your profit. t4

>> highly regulated ecosystems that like so far down the road of like glncht we just aren't looking at the quantified self-community and quantity if id self-devices none of those are are medical devices for a reason, and -- >> yeah. tell -- quantified -- tracker fit bit a lot of companies wanted to start gettings into the what's the -- tricoder like when we scan your face and see if you have -- a like star trek vision --

for like how thick you are, and you know -- to have a checkup that's just like -- check had up in five seconds the reason that that company is kind of you probably haven't heard of it is that they've gotten -- so far back with with pd de approval things like that. fnlings what do you think of the blood transfusion because that's part of that culture again you're talking about -- you think i'm mid-but the idea of to me it was it related to idea of creating artificial intelligence and kind of giving birth to yourself, and not every dying and sort of being again to detach from reality thinking of your brain on clod that lives forever that's u how i view many that kind of context of ideology of that led to computer science how do you see that -- biohacking that kind of -- and that medical or is that -- >> certainly. but then you know, you've got a lot of hacker type tour, you know willing to experiment on

their bodies and they -- there's something about thinking thinking differently about care portal place in the world, and you know whether or not that's a sacred thing or not. you know, but that's getting deep in the weeds but -- >> thank you so much. >> thank you for the engaging discussion my name is muti i'm a graduate student in medical engineering, so i grew up in india, and one thing that really vuk me -- when once i moved here was went to free speech and protection of first amendment that this supreme court has provided many this country. which is in my opinion taken aback when you mention free speech as a visual or conservative value and i wonder what you mean. by abuse of free speech and it is not best place for -- discussion and we know that but how do you think we can really

maintain this spirit of the first amendment? going ahead? >> right, obviously, something people argue about. you can argue immaterial willing amount of people to donate to campaign is a restriction on free speech and we live in a supreme court that they'll give as much money as possible to election and that is their freedom. >> corporation people are people as well, and so, i mean, that either could be a verien lightening -- see why i actually thought that russian meddling in our election was really revealing is because it put lives of that argument a of open free speech if you really believe free speech is just absolute and it's just -- all that these russian outlet or any other meddlers were doing were put words and pictures together. what's the problemsome what's the problem -- anding tag mising people getting people to hate each other. it's just words and pictures. but obviously there's a consensus in our country that that was a bad thing and maybe our president doesn't agree but

almost everyone else grows to have a foreign country try to servant on our people and to try to pick winner of our election is so that be a limit on free speech but a necessary one so i totally i want people to express themselves and you know, that's hard to -- hard to belittle that and i understand you live in a society how harmful that is. but there are real costs, you know, and essence like places like twitter are -- allowing credible it is anger at certain groups but look at is in a historic context that's how i would argue that almost like thinking it was code to they have that this thing called -- ultimate free speech will work with the right thing to do to not recognize actual real -- real effect that's my view of it. >> yeah i would add especially in twitter context i think they've done so much to protect free speech that they do, it hampers them from addressing

very serious thaings behaviors like harassment and you know, how to e text on that behavior had in the system. i think they've -- done a whole lot and tried to do a whole lot so far. but i think there are a lot of people who are really underwheel med how that is in a code and user who is harassed what are your are -- what can you do aside from just blocking all of these, you know -- scaling idea in automated if you're living in a normal society, if you are somewhere really -- picking on someone many a harsh way we would say don't do that. and you say my freedom to yell at this one person make them feel unkivel to run away but that's like, that's fundamental when you ab tract it a level it is any speech rights it becomes, you know,ic -- dangerous but i hear your point i think we disagree.

hi i'm a humanity graduate also a six year moderator piggybacking off of that question you talk about governess and your rely of the last question you mentioned that it is believe that all of these regulatory behaviors should shod administered but fact is that they rely heavily on human moderation commercial on volunteer such as my case u so what do you see as the current place and possibly future potential of human mod be it comernl or volunteer within these online social spaces? >> i fall back to wikipedia they do automated policing but they do a lot of -- human volunteers and i think it is fundamentally has hob human when we talk about bad it is not monopoly for the but not human,

not human scale and i remember there's a book called boy kings -- beautiful how scalable is grow ing fast, and scale meant you koct be human custom service but removing people out of it that is fundamentally wikipedia is quite big but not billions by with using people who are very motivated to do the right thing so yeah i think it is vital that you have to have a human -- community that will respond. i mean i think it is like vital. >> i think it gets become to the norm question as well as to -- you know who is determining how norms are expressed for algorithm or for, you know, automated platform right. that's a pretty hard question. so -- yes. that's where the beer play between technology and humans or, you know, the tilter through the algorithm but then have a human look at it.

and i -- i kind of -- stand on the side of, you know, i think -- we're beginning to be working along side technology and a.i. and whatever else for a long time. and it's not just going to be either or it's going to be both. thank you. hi. so social scientist by training and i guess i look at this conversation and your book actually from the perspective of both the political scientist, and europe i guess right and we have a slightly different starngd, and in a way i cannot help but sort of want to ask you, where are did you see the political system, you know, in all of this? because ultimately i would argue that -- what we see in terms of because you talk a individualistic sort of approach, with approach with just valid and very interesting. but i would argue that ultimately had is about, you know, how much -- influence do we want to give

government and how much influence on our own and like we have the german court case or why we have the european and use about cookies right now. so you could elaborate a little bit. >> in the book i hold up europe as a model that way. again, it is idea of the individual like it is hard to know you're describing as individualalty because government is protecting individuals but i think in america they would be like how dare the government be involved in protecting me. you know so that's the kind of catch 22 in america repram that way. look how it is great we have rules and protect individuals but like get the government off my back. you know get the government off my medicaid you know it is like people really appreciate what is -- being done so i do think that is exactly. i think of -- you know the way we forgot is another we talk about free speech. that's another case where, you know, in europe they -- have this rule that basically says you have right to we've been kind of you seive your done something wrong and serve your time you have a right to not have it be talked about you that way that you know, you did

something 20 years ago should be first they think you see on google but wikipedia i remember discussing this with wikipedia they don't like that. they have encyclopedia if you corrupt a bank robbery somebody else declared bankruptcy that's a pact it is part of your biography should be in there. how dare you say we can't put that in. but i do think that's another reasonable regulation on -- recognize aring how the internet is different than a newspaper or court record like in the old days, we have news thing were very no limits and things were published. but it was hard to go to the court to find out whaptd and who declared bankruptcy if you want that effort. okay find out 20 years what it declared bankruptcy but first thing you said about you you have to sort of -- adapt for that and that's a different definition of free speech. on, with i think, so -- >> so i would take it one step further which is -- i think part is what is at stake

is legitimacy of these companies and individuals to govern and rule us like they're as institutions we've kind of opt od in to living in their world and those are very different world withs from like the -- traditional view of the world and that's particularly interesting especially had had we're talking about like -- zuckerberg be aspirations -- specifically to understand he has built largest beginning to be largest community. i feel like legitimacy is operative here because they like -- did we sign up for this actually? are these the leaders and ideas that we -- believe in? an if to the what do we do about that? and my last point here is that my --

my hope exist on eu and gdpr are it is the general data protection regulation. which is coming out or -- applies in i think may 2018. this is data protection and but the big thing here is that any company that serves these citizens could potentially serve somebody visiting or citizen visiting the united states so like it applies blanket to basically any company especially all of these we're talking about they operate and serve these citizens. that is best hope for any solid regulationing and least in the same way that cars are manufactured to meet highest standards, california -- i think we're going to to see that kind of level of

regulation, obviously, it is a little easier to change user experience based on geography so that's a trickier loophole element of this. but i'm hopeful that's at least pushing the conversation in the right direction. >> but then looking to germany for -- >> in the e.u. yeah. >> hi. hi i have so many thoughts while you're talking because this is my life and all of the -- articles you brought up and people you named. >> give us all of your thoughts. >> i will project manufacture who used to work in bay area. focusing on the social responsibility of my field, which is tech and emergencying and also the tech and government and how to we get policy o people to understand technology but also tech no lodge gist to

impact policy in ways way maybe- folks in silicon valley can respect and care about. so i where down notes because i knew i would lose my train of thought. i had on the first point of -- harassment there are a lot of women with who spoke out and don't get the same kind of coverage as people in the media but kelly ellis ellen powell erika baker suzanne and people who spoke out against justin when he was a vc and many other countless really, really brave women i don't know how to really amplify them even more. and get the same kind of coverage that you see from -- for them to have mediums. >> we were talking about women in general but not brave women in the field but talking about -- you know a lot of the stories about media women journalist writing about. so -- >> yes, and then in addition to that something you said that stood out to me and sarah are

talked about was this idea of both not on the market driving decisions. but also this idea of like ewe pope ya to connect all of these people and world will be like a beautiful place of rainbow and unicorns and -- the second part for me -- because coming here to this area this is my first time in cambridge i've been here three months i hear that aretive if those people stop care about money maybe they'll care about users but on ground a lot of engineers and some of the engineering students in this room probably have this deep like sense of we're here because we're changing world they facebook mission is connecting people and google do cool things that matter is that drives emergencies to go there if you talk to engineers likes what's the average or annual revenue for company and and they even put their ads and marketing people and over on a different campus and engineers is like unlimited pot of money to do whatever you want, and so in the world of people actually are only by money maybe we can figure out whatted to there but

what do we people when people generally believe what they're doing is so good? and that -- we're at google because we're going to make the world a safer place because this is where real security happens or we're at google because there's the power of money here to really connect the world, and teach someone and developing regions how to farm so they can pull themselves out. like these deep mission but then not think about and that for me is a much harder -- thing to put a finger on bsh >> but you can even take and switch it around and say there's something wrong about -- demeaning marketing and advertising people. it's luke they're part of your company. so the idea of like saying these are -- because really you're saying that they're not -- they're not of a pure mission like engineer but also not as hard as we are. so they should be over there and that's another -- so part of it is that seduction that they -- i was very -- i want to rethink of it this but i was struck with the argument of this that computer is a closed world. i use a program so that you are many such control will, and a you can make the rule and it is

so clean, and all makes sense so your mind so that's kind of, you know, maybe it's like unfair but i like talk about how zuckerberg first program was risk game based on julius caesar so he's like doing world conquest now and real life so who cares what he's doing on computer that's fine. but like it's that -- it's that crossing off the screen through reality that is what book is really about and were you drawn to programming because of that closed world where it all made sense and that is what we're talking about when we're talking about rainbow and unicorn to create world that is that way. >> no, i think it is sell interesting to hear you say that but that didn't drew me the field but groups that think of it that way as well. i was drawn in by like the utopia that i can help the world connect with each other and do all of these things and candidly studying computer science bag to what sarah was saying what is it that you're graded in class your

algorithm how imrat and theory classes? what is it that at the company ies they don't touch on ethics or users all of that is separate for that wasn't was u drew me in but with the way we're -- trained and what's the right word the way we're graded or performance and companies that gears towards -- develop a certain way even we have certain interest in mind so i don't know how to fix that. it's what i think about all of the time. is it a question of actual impact if that's what you believe you're doing how do you know that you're doing it. how do you check that you're doing that? and i don't think most companies have a way of falling through on that. and there's not room for that. right, like once you finish one product or o -- feature or whatever. you're on to the next thing. and like how much aside from using it yourself do you really get to understand how it is back

theing users health, users actually use it. what their experiences are. j you brought this up how do you think about the impact of what we with work on. requires different training right social science other skills that are not what people have and it is arrogance of thinking i'm good at program but also good at analyzing my work will effect the city like why, why would you be god at that? it dunts -- one final love to talk about the field for so long, there are definitely roles seen as idols in tech field. mostly men, but people who people look to as like -- people who pave the way and they're usually in hard, quote, real computer science field so leaders in a.i. or leaders who are original writers of the main algorithm l for the research, and when they say stuff people really listen.

they talk about things so perhaps there are ways to inlunes leaders that many people listen to really -- i don't know. >> interesting because each saying how smart other one was but also have everyone was insecure about intelligence because hay go to cora so like of course o he is. anyone could have done that but john mccarthy essential figure in the book is like math math haddic professor at stanford passed over for ten year went to dartmouth and brought back and a full professor and they're like oh computer science couldn't hack a math but no one is sure with a world of constantly everybody has to be smartest so i -- you know. i hear you it's like -- maybe idol would be way to get some change. i have important persons like endorsement stuff. yeah. >> thank you for your imagine

and inside work i'm a student in personal robot group with a quick question around what you mentioned from lauren -- so i really think a lot of issues and now came to be because of good business models so one question and eric had a book about free innovation and so it was like how do we think of value which you're not, you know, aiming for acquiring but actually how do we create and value what we create? and do you really think it is going to become like decentralized block chain everyone owns data or we're going to go back to our tribe that are interconnected? like what are the scenario you're imagining because i'm european as well and it was very interesting i was like summit of

entrepreneurship last week -- and there was like such a big debate of the startup up to scale and people were revolting against that had young people and fewer people everyone was like really do we need to scale? like is that always the model of success is? so yeah there was a lot many there. but -- i'm curious what you think. >> great questions. so i think that again gets to opt myization question so is scale the question and in your account of facebook, it's purely about like well we don't know what the -- business molds is and what it was for a very, very long question but was question was guild and network effects so -- right are. by the way we'll bring in cheryl but that's another story. so yeah, i mean, i think it's

really hard for people to like imagine other formats aside from like okay well -- you know, maybe map it on or maybe -- what's other one how long have we talked about that since -- it first came out and we talked about itsss as like one possible way to disrupt facebook. >> sure. i think it was, you know, distributed locally hosted social network infrastructure to not have any centralized kind of control over information and data. guys were former facebook guys or nyu i don't know i forgot. and then mapped it on similarly i think -- but more for like a twitter model maybe. if that's a rough -- a rough description. yeah, i mean l -- the thing with even thinking

about different models like block chain, block chain in itself ideological is very libertarian. >> and haven't thought about it like even idea of, you know, tribes or that, you know, probably make more sense to say communities belong to are are maybe there okay to share. but it is -- universal of like i'm a individual in the world and we're connecting like that. i would say other thing about business model is that -- you know, not to fall back on regulation but you're supposed to make a penalty for things that are harmful and don't pollute otherwise it would be a great business model to chop trees down and pollute river and make most money so i think it is on us to sort of add a the cost of this so that that will -- work. >> so extract the most value too. right. >> to extract most value from that. from them or what they're doing. that's the alternative. yeah. that -- >> right.

>> i would also add -- i think it might one other is the computer demand side of things even it is hard to imagine a world without facebook and amazon and google and apple -- what does it look leak we start demanding different versions of those things or different -- features or different, you waysf interacting with these companies and i think that's -- really hard for poem to get their heads around. but you know is probably only way that these companies are going to change. so -- >> view is also that companies are so big and powerful that it's very is hard to -- they're going to stop this from happening and that you have pessimistic you think of the power they lobby and such, you know -- , i mean, president is frawn but not wrong that jeff bezos own os washington post it is a -- certainly led to some good things but it's ominous and i think anyone watching ought to be an ominous thing. youyou know i think it is

undeniable so fear they're so entrenched definitely a problem. i come from social logical perspective of having delivered mail for 30 years in california. right, smack in the middle of silicon valley. >> so you have seen the technology -- houses are gone up and work for goggle and work for pouk facebook and whatever come into these neighborhoods buy houses, and the people get pushed out from those houses are the people that are now the contract workers that help support facebook and google and these are not just advertising people that you spoke of but the people that work in the cafeteria the people that drive the dry cleaning cars that bring cleaning to people so they can work 15, 20 hours a day and none of them are apple or facebook employee. >> not their employees everybody

though they spend full time there and more time on the internght getting drawn in to say can you peck up another shift? yet you can't go over 40 hours because then we have to pay you benefit to might have have to pay you so fact that there's a disconnect between like the -- zuckerberg foundation, the chained zuckerberg foundation right now i've read an article about how they're trying to work on this homeless problem. well one of the people i know that is actually homeless is somebody that lost the benefits from a job and couldn't and only has part-time so they only value the corer center of their -- who they are, but they doapght have any value of the people that truly support the company all of the outside workers, i think maybe m.i.t. has adjunct professor but people working in boiler room is an m.i.t. me and gets full benefits, and the lack of benefits is destroying the middle-class, and that is the total lack of humanity i think.

>> that is peculiar at least take care of their own but this is backyard it is really staggering. >> i think the most common argument that they make is like well our core business is not -- the cafeteria and cleaning. like -- that we as these companies are going to do only our core business, and like that's the business brand that you're talking about earlier that the business plan isn't developed my niece worked for startup company number 8 but she had to travel to paris and stay in a room with five other guys where she was sexually assaulted by one with of them but this was before the company had -- a pr department. or an hr department sorry an hr dpght where you learned what rules were so a lot of startups are are very rogue and yet they don't understand how it is to value everyone around them. j but thing about logic of saying it is not part of our core business but food, and like how are you -- the hall being cleaned and in

the book i talk about -- the there's a philosopher who argue libertarianism is antifeminist by definition not a coincidence that it is tech because basically -- where does individual come from. it is based on fiction that you could be a google employee but -- the foods shows up magically or -- libertarianism is argument you show up in life your adult male you don't owe any debt to anyone who raised you. community that raised you but it's like they make sense and at least agree that -- libertarian make sense if you felt it was a fair playing field your ideology and hard work should might make sense but not a fair place so by definition it is faulty but logic that kind of is predicated on devaluing women and role of family and women in getting us here to adult ithood. so your niece what happened to her after did she say --

>> stay with the company and -- really talked with who she was in on interviewing who they hired for hr department, and that person did get fired. but just by a conversation but she was worried about actually losing her job and didn't. so that's a good they think. really good at her job like he maybe wasn't with as much. but it shouldn't have happened but there weren't things set in place but this is one thing that could be a way to bring everybody around is like if all of the amazon drivers that are hired right now for the holidays if like -- december 3rd they all went on strike. [laughter] didn't take a shift. people would be like oh, my gosh what am i concern -- >> in germany on black friday nothing happened. labor year is countereffect hope many that sense it is true.

>> thank you. hi. i'm max, i'm a undergraduate in mechanical engineerings as an engineer who is really interested many user center design and getting into that, and particular how design conversation had to change for different users, i've noticed that a lot of conversations tend to be stuck in either academia or design firm and that's where a lot of these conversations kind of exist. leak even in my capstone class a huge emphasis they put on user experience and design is to wait but then the shift between job that people end up taking and framework of the job eppedz up taking is kind of like very starch to me and wondering like as somebody who is going into engineering field and wanting to be a professional many this or o consumers how do we see that shift in thinking in these larger company as many as -- >> that's a great question. i think -- the best way to get in is to

make that a business case this is going to lead to better experiences and better -- better user like value right? i think that question is how how to speak their language and put a number on it or integrate it into the kind of way that they want to value their -- their process and their development. i don't know, it's a tough question. i think it ises a question of finding those people in the institution themselves and in the companies themselveses who are thinking like what, and have been influenced in those ways. or just working outside of it. right like tristan harris leaves google to kind of advocate on a large scale to influence a bufnlg of designers to be asking these questions in their -- you know, smiewtions. from the bottom up. right?

that's arguably most effective way to kind of have ethic pres from the bottom up. >> thank you. thank you guys for the work you do to bring these very important issues to light. my name is aidan i'm a resident fellow at harvard school so shoutout to humanist chaplain over here there's not a lot of us that come into these room. >> thank you or for coming. i worked on tech policy so i'm a weird hybrid person. works with kathy over there. >> needs hybrid people that's like that is what is missing. >> so my question is related to that. one with thing that i think a lot about is -- during obama administration we bring techies into government because part it is like all right if you want things to change then join us. right so i'm thinking about this norm's question how do we interrogate our own product and it is realistic to talk about -- having teams that are within

the, you know, leadership of some of these companies whose job it is precisely to do that to think about what are effects on humanity what is the justice lens of this stuff. because there's an element of -- if you're not if that's not your job to do it it is a boiling water problem of you just forget that -- how to look at those things or you tell yourself it is easy to kind of -- believe the narrative of weir here and changing world many these or those ways or even if product that sort of aspect to product you're working on is maybe connecting poem to education who wouldn't otherwise have it your job is not to look at a macro level at how the overall company is influencing direction of things and so -- should we -- those of us who are talking about these issues that strikes me that a lot of us should talk about -- joining the company's themselves but i also wonder if that sounds to be empowered in roles and what would it take for mark to say we want a team that does

this and it would mean having humility to admit that like right now they're not doing those things so -- that's -- >> i think they're thinking it be right now. at least from a kind of oversight perspective for a bunch of different reasons. but maybe not quite to the level like having a chief, you know, human experience officer or, you know, some version of that. yeah i think this is why it is important to not look at the individual and zuckerberg but look at the systemic support system around them. what is the institutional -- chart for facebook right like that matters. for tboolg and how does that change matters as these companies scale as they get with better as start touching more things.

but really how -- how do we as public get to look into that? maybe -- the shareholder like k has a little bit of insight into that but probably not much. response to agitation coining the boob was didn't dwell on this but made your absence like lack of a labor movement that that is what -- immediate to be these checks so believe me a long boy be labor union are inefficient but they serve as a very is valuable when you see hole of society you see that you can see labor union being inefficient and giving bad incentive whatever criticism would be but serve as vital role to check enxas and not do it voluntarily and not disappointing to service roles even in reaction to the bad press and the concern about the election. that's leading to some change if there's agitation and lack of diversity that could lead to change and actual labor union that --

could that would wail be able to strike and affect the balance of power that's only things that are going to i think make them change and beyond realm of possibility that would happen but we expect to reflect that it won't have happen voluntarily because they think they're doing the best. that's why if any message of the book if they think they're doing the best job with user experience to say look how successful they are that's how i know i'm doing a great job you're talking about ethics whatever these things are. go back to google designer he was saying i have a vision for google i have a vision and vision for how it should look and a we're going to test . and then people are going to look what we do and that's, i mean, it's like they're not speaking same language it doesn't compute what we're talking about. >> that makes sense it strikes me maybe now at moment to longer say we're a mutual platform and don't it need people whose job it is to think about these things. but again, that maybe naive of

me but seems if there's a moment to push on it this may be -- >> thank you. s i was just add like, you know, there's all any product goes through okay, like the lawyers have to do the check box. like is there before you ship like lawyers are last step, and engineers hate this because it is like oh we built all of this stuff and now lawyers are saying we weangt do it because it is not integrated into the process. that's -- so imagine that, but like not just lawyers integrated into the process. but like experience who are people an how do they get hired this is huge case for human -- >> calculus score. so huge for humans to piengtd jobs in these companies. it's not just the engineers that we need so -- >> and last question you've been waiting so patiently, with thank you. >> hi my name is heather and i'm a lawyer but not one of the

lawyers you were talking about. [laughter] an the thing that has struck me is that what we study in law school largely is how the rules got there. and why we have them, and the internet seems to be a giant eraser of history and why we do things. because i know lots of engineers and the general mindset of engineers is we can figure out anything. and so that means that expertise is not valued. because we can always learn it. we have all of this information out here. but they forgotten the part about -- bad information is not helpful. and so when you have a platform that has no way for you to tell what's good information and what's bad information, you make bad decisions.

and you know, the in my corporations class the first thing we studied was taxi cabs. not actually the über issue really. but more that what they used to do to avoid liability was one car, one corporation, ten cents in the bank. and so -- that's why we have the rule piercing the corporate bail. if you don't capitalize your corporation then guess what, you don't get the benefit. and we're losing all of this on -- because we have a lot of these people who were so much smarter than everybody else they've realized they don't immediate it and really young and they haven't lived and haven't seen that there are reasons for why we do things a particular way, and yes we should re-examine

them periodically. but -- we should recognize that there is a reason. >> you heard of a thing called the gate you know justin talked about idea you walk in had a field and there's a gate there and you're like well it makes no sense in the middle of a field. you know, obviously, i'll tear it down and you think you should at least have the ability to go someone put it there. probably some reason like i don't know that it's the right reason but have some respect for like you're saying history in context he came from a right wing perspective conservative criticizing shaw, and like you can see why it's a fundamental talk about pretty conservative value and reality is libertarians are talking about are highly, highly radical. you know in a sense like -- not what you've seen since the russian revolution or something that lack of respect for institutions and for history and this belief thatting progress was a mysterious things happen

instantaneously so stalks are are very high and not as easy to get confused by what -- what is being pushed forward but it is really a scary, dangerous ideology that's what i was trying to say in the book for sure. >> yeah i think i would just add that you know, to address the kind of allergy to regulations you know that's a perfect example all right. well there's a reason that tax fees are regulate ared or have rules around them. this is the kind of über model right like -- well we're just going to make it efficient that's all we're rying to do. so -- regulations of taxis and local jurisdictions don't matter like -- that was quite literally like the word that cam out of travis's mouth. we know where he's ended up . but all of that to say like it's worth acknowledging that like technology has politics, and like there are, you know, the

libertarian is such that i'm just a political. like this is -- had is efficient. this is, you know, markets driven -- there's no politics involved. i think what we can with really push against is like yes there are politics involved. it's you know -- to call it out and call it a spade a spade. i was telling me editor if you choose to decide you still made a choice and actually it was mastcow who said that so more weighty that way. but that's a myth that they believe that they're not making a decision but , in fact, they are making huge decisions. >> and additionally the way you ask a question has an answer e in it. that's what you learn in legal writing. thank you all so much for coming out and again this is one classroom before we give a big round of applause for it speaker --

a book is up here for -- highly announced to buy it and our mailing list if you're interested in hearing about that that -- [applause] here's a look at some of the best nonfiction books of 2017 according to the los angeles time atlantic national

correspondent franklin reports on the tradeoff between technology and personal privacy in world without mind. in the great quake, "new york times" science reporter henry fountain reports on the largest earthquake ever recorded in north america which happened in 1964 in the alaska. biographer ruth franklin recalls the life and writing of author shirley jackson. pulitzer prize winning journalist glenn tells story behind classic movie hi noon and political climate at the time it was made. and in we were eight years in power, to know that coats exams race relations in america and the legacy of president obama. >> when i came into journalism, one of the big admonishing from well meaning white writers was don't get boxed off as a black writer don't allow them and i understand what they were saying you want your freedom to pursue

or yourself whenever your curiosity to go and i agonized because my curiosity, you know, led me actually back, back to my people an back to my community and it was only when i started doing that report and under, you know, the presidency -- you know under obama president city that i came to understand -- that as i say in the book i was never boxed in. you know everybody else was boxed out because -- african-american history doesn't exist over here. it is the led right through the country itself. so if you -- [applause] they don't get that. different color in rainbow and this is one color in the rainbow. many of these authorses have is appeared on booktv you can watch them online on our website booktv.org.