she previously served in the state senate, before that, she held a number of elected and appointed positions, including terms on the harris county commission, and as houston's city controller. finally, voters from the seven districts and attorney lindsay fletcher to the house. this is the first time the seventh has collected a democrat, since it was constituted in 1967 on the west side of houston. the first member to hold the seat was future president george hw bush. new congress, new leaders, watch it all on c-span. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was treated as a public service but america's cable television company. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy event in washington dc, and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.

>> endo, a discussion on technology, politics, and society, with open ai chair, sam altman, and technology journalist, karen swisher. this took place at many, a san francisco lens that hosts civic events. it is just under 90 minutes. >> so we are going to kind of move chronologically a little bit here, and i want you guys, for those in the audience that is not been to conversations with me already, and have not met you, talk a little bit about the utopia that the early technologists were thinking about when they thought about how technology and the worldwide web would interact with politics. what did people think was going to happen with the intersection of tech and politics? >> i'm in, construct, i did not think they thought at all. i think they thought they knew what they were doing, and i think, a lot of things get written after people become billionaires, or after they become successful. but, having

been the very beginning,, living in washington, i worked in the washington post, when the internet was actually born, not when it was born, because it was there before as a government entity, but when it was commercialized for the first time, was when they released it, and there was legislation, which i covered, and actually, al gore, that is how i met al gore, because he was a principal, and he did invent the internet. and, he was integral to that, and so, imagine that people had great thoughtfulness, towards what was going to happen, or the implications, and they absolutely did not. and, i think that, there is a lie, that is now being borne out today, is that, you think that you know, mark zuckerberg, for example, to name someone who is you know, lunging toward disaster right now. had an idea of what was going to happen. i do not think they had any idea whatsoever. and in fact, designed these systems, in a way, that if you have an idea of what was going to happen, of any kind of anticipation, you might've made other choices in the way they were built.

>> i do not think people knew what was going to happen, because it sort of, it is unimaginable what has happened, 14 years ago facebook was a website that nobody took seriously and mark zuckerberg's dorm room. in a, 14 years ago, the first prototype of the iphone i do not even think had been made. the speed, emphasize, and the impact that has happened, i think what we have just lived through like one of the three great technological revolutions in him human history. and, yet, the rate of change of technology, so much faster than the rate of change of people, certainly, of evolution, but whether we can update our own thought processes. i think, i agree, that people did not think, about what was going to happen, but it was not out of any malice. it was just like, it is hard to live in that, i remember what it was like at the beginning of that. it is hard to imagine that it got is big, but it that it went as well. >> did not have malice, that is a pretty low bar, it is like they were not -- that should

not be the bar, it is just that thoughtlessness can have the same amount of damage, and my issue with a lot of it, that as it began to develop, they pretended that they did not have the power that, and the money that they were collecting. and so, the thoughtlessness continued, and continues today, with the people -- >> i certainly think what has gone wrong, is when it became clear this was going to be as big as it has become, people did not stop and say okay, what do we do now? but at the beginning, when people were just sort of imagining what the internet was going to be like, and what mobile was going to do, i do not think anyone could've really protected us. it would be very hard. >> but i remember when i first moved here, i moved to noyes bridge, and there were all of these kind of hackers, that were talking about how you know, afterwards, we are not going have governments, you know, the tech is going to kind of free everyone, and break our chains. and, wasn't it this kind of undercurrent, of folks who thought the technology, was away, as a breakdown of power? >> unusual, because it was all

white men, so you know, who are really the most under siege people on the planet. >> [ laughter ] >> but, no. i am going to say no for that when. i do think -- >> it is a hard note from carrie fisher. >> you know, it is is just interesting, because i came here, and 19, i had written the book about ehlo, which was the first commercialized -- >> i remember, chat rooms. >> tantrums and things like that. at the wall street journal, to cover, it was not even called the internet, it was online services, and i was the first reported to cover the internet for them, and when i told him straight from before, i told them, when i got the job, a lot of the media reporters that you are here to cover cb radio, and i am like no, i'm here to cover the medium that is going to decimate all your industries, nice to meet you. and it was like [ laughter ] >> so you have not changed one bit. >> no, not one bit. but it was really interesting, because you got a front row seat, i mean i remember, i mean

badly, google did not even exist oh, my goodness, did not even exist for a long time, for when it was here, but it was mark, and i think you might've been a teenager when i met him, he was 19. you know, early yahoo, when there were five or six people, i met with had five people, like it was really early, early, early on. >> so, let's take a giant leap forward, to closer to today, part of the reason why i wanted to do this conversation with you guys, and as a specific engagement, is because i think we are living in a time where, people have a lot of anger, tension, anxiety around the intersection of word technology has affected our politics. specifically, after the 2016 election. so one of the first questions i wanted to ask, is do you think people would be feeling this will way if hillary clinton had one? >> yes, but they would be

different people. 50% of the country would be feeling this way but a different 50%. >> even with the whole like, if russia had tried, because part of it was this feeling that the russians co-opted our technology, in order to make it so that donald trump would win. so, there is this feeling, of this tool that was supposed to help us, screwing everything up. and, if donald trump had one, even given that, i'm sir, if hillary clinton had one, even given that, you really think it would be this much angst and anxiety? >> i personally do. i think there are other people on the other side would say, there were these other powerful things that we try to help hillary win, i think the story would try to get told other way, and i think there were a lot of people on both sides, trying to use the platforms to influence. you know, i remember, it was only two election cycles ago, when candidates were sent, will have to wait have to think about digital at all, i just do tv ads, right, so with the speed with which technology has changed politics, the degree to which i think most candidates still do not understand that is huge. and, i think that a lot of people wish that had not happened.

or, that that change had not happened so quickly in politics. but, i think, i always believe people when they say they are angry, i think that is always true, but it is very hard to -- to collate the reason why you are angry, and i think you said that in the way a lot of people talk about technology. something is clearly changed, and what i would say is a badly, at least it is a very different way. but, it is very hard to precisely articulate what that is, and what we are going to do about it.>> donald trump is very good at the internet, and brad personal, even though, he is a loathsome creature, is, he is a campaign manager for john, and he was the digital director, and he was the one that really did understand, how to use, and target people, and really, and some of the various ways, some very effective ways, to build up fear and anger, target people online, and use the services the way that you

would sell cookies, or a movie, or something like that, really did understand it. and i think the clinton campaign was still operating in an old-style, a digital style, and so is the democratic party. and one of the things, but has always been really striking, because the original people, a couple cyclical, it was howard dean, joe, what was his name -- trippi, right. we had him, at one of our -- one year, he had done some of the early digital stuff for howard dean, which was effective initially, but the problem was not over but had a cell phone, but everybody was online, and things like that. them, the people he actually interviewed way back them was ralph reed, because one of the things that is interesting, if you think about it, is, for much of the 20th century, most of the media outlets were liberal, were liberal, or left, center left, center, but certainly not conservative. and so, even though they say, you know, we are fair, they just were not, they were liberal, essentially., the right wing did not have a place to talk, until online.

mental, they got very good at it very early, because they were the out of power people. and so, they moved to cabell, for fox news, it's hard to think of now, but cable was an outlying medium back then. , the same thing with the internet, they used the internet really well, they learned how to use and communicate it really well. and then, they learned how to use it, and a more nefarious way. >> do you think we have moved too fast, and you said twice here, but no one could've imagined how much it would've changed in 15 years. you feel like things will we develop too quickly, and society is just not catching up, and we should've gone slower? >> is that even possible? >> i would like to say i would love it if that were possible, but you know, and like the world we have, the fastest moving company tends to win. the company that gets to the most the fastest, and proves the fastest makes the best products, tends to win and that is mostly good, but has some important negative consequences, and i think we are all now wrestling with what

to do about that. but, i think it is like it is very hard to stop progress. that probably will not work, i think, what we can do, and i think what we need to figure out how to do now, is how do we as a society adapt more quickly, the world can change so fast? i think it is better to try to get faster at society correctly, then trying to slow down technological progress. and, -- at that. >> because the way were talking about a, is a we do not have control, that these people right -- we have not done this. certain people have done this. , they run these companies, and so what is really interesting, about, valley, that i have covered, is that when there are successes, we kind of celibate a lot of these people, like they are geniuses. i always say, they always told me, they spend all day telling

me about how smart they are, like continually, not you sam, you are lovely.>> [ laughter ] >> again, lobar. >> [ laughter ] >> i will still take it. >> take it, ticket, run, run right out the door. >> you take that complement. >> right down there, you keep going. till you get to palo alto. so, a lot of time, they are telling how smart they are, and then when things go wrong, they move into the wee. but if you have noticed that with zuckerberg, have you noticed that? well, i, the community wants to work together to fix this problem, and i was in an interview, it may go well, you own the community, and because yes, but i think the community should all decide, but go you have 65% of the company, and you control, you are the ceo, the chairman, and the founder, and who have unprecedented power over this giant organization which you have no ability to run. and yet, the people should work together, and i was like well when the people get power. it just goes, it is hysterical to watch.

>> i have a question for you. >> sure. >> do you think mark soderbergh is the one who gets to decide who gets to use facebook and who gets to say stuff, you should not>> yes, i think he should, because it is a product. >> it is that future. >> he is not a government, and this is his -- i tell you, this is a for-profit company, which mark zuckerberg is now a 64 billionaire. he took the money. >> yes, in some sense as he is bigger than the government. >> that is terrifying. untenable, undesirable, i think i called him a mix between, in the times column, i called him a mixed between if you mix wolverine at that pull together, and added in, you know, a zombie or two. >> [ laughter ] >> i think -- i do not agree with that, clearly. >> [ laughter ] >> hold on for a second, i am a little warm, i have to change brands, hold up. >> we've got to moment. i'm going to wait for this, i feel like -- >> a shot -- [ laughter ] >> yeah, i got it. >> okay.

>> certainly would like to see different rules for what you are allowed to say and not -- for who gets a platform. what you can say and can't say. it's surprising for me to hear people who were traditionally saying we want the companies to make these rules, not, we want a government we get to elect. making the roles. >> give a problem when the new york times did it? it was like 12 white guys on the upper west side of new york decided what was on the front page of the new york times. >> i think that was bad also. >> broadcast networks are the same. what's difference of the size, unprecedented size and implication.

it is not dissimilar to the person who ran tps, nbc, abc when there were only three networks. >> typically i feel equally bad about three people. when we had the three heads of those networks deciding what people got to hear. >> that has always been the world. >> it doesn't mean we shouldn't shoot for something better. >> this is what coalesces. power in the hands of a certain small group of people who are typically the same people. and then the discussion turns to , say, right now, the discussions around tribalism. the issue is not that. the issue is the system sucks for most people. what happens is, for example, on these platforms, the people building them have never felt unsafe in their life for one second. and so what happens is, i someone from twitter, had suddenly gotten attacked online. for something. they suddenly got it, they said

this is hard. i said welcome to the rest of the world, for women, people of color days, and the rest of us. we get this all the time. and so what happens is, the diversity is lacking at the top. if it was more diverse at top, you would get very different outcomes. >> i am all for a different outcome and way more investment to fix the problem of harassment and discrimination online. for all but tech has done wrong i think one thing that is great is those people who have been denied forces, finally have a voice. we are seeing huge social change come from that. honestly, for all of the hugely negative instead of gone wrong, and for all of the ways we have not figured out how to adapt to this, which are huge, the fact that everyone in the world now has access to a platform invoice, we have seen incredibly positive change. in a short period of time. >> pipelines, police brutality

... suspect they don't have a voice. they don't own it. this is the lie. it is owned by the same people. we just did a piece a couple of years ago, called the men and the women of facebook. i put the pictures. it was like, white guy, white guy, asian guy, indian guy, white guy. that was the whole thing. at the time, mark or someone called and said you hired them, i didn't i'm just putting up their pictures. recently we deed another where we did this, every tech company is like this, not to pick on facebook, we put all the pictures and we said there are more people name to jim here than there are women. something like that. and as for people of color, will kevin's sisters picture is in black and white that is the only difference. that is ridiculous. it was insanity, if you look at this. these management structures.

people can talk but they don't rent facebook. these different groups can do things but they don't own google. >> hypothetical. if tonight something changed and the people who run these companies represented the actual public who are speaking out and being a given a voice, what you think would change? >> it would be a better internet i can tell you that. it would be quantitatively better. >> for greater diversity in leadership, it seems to me, the echo chamber that civic discord online, is dirty, it's difficult, is ad hominem, it is not particularly productive. my question is, how does a more diverse top make the level of discourse better? >> politics is about power. that's what i think it is about. and who hazarded who does not. and who is allowed to wield it and do things. these jobs have very real world implications. the people in power, manner.

the people who are in patter of pet power matter. that includes ownership of companies and who is running them. you are making enormous efforts to try to diversify the pool, correct? >> certainly. and diversifying our partnership has inflected any more diverse product. i believe in this work. i really do. i do think it is somewhat separate, it's not the only way to make these platforms work better. government regulation about how we handle discourse, and online harassment, and what you can say and not say is another way to do it. i will always be more comfortable with that. then a small group of people, no matter what they look like, who are in absolute power forever. and unfavorable. >> let's talk about power for a second. another reason i wanted to bring you two together is, we are all friends. both of you independently came to me and said, i'm thinking

about running for a political office. separate from each other. i think you are considering running. we talked about it. >> [ laughter ] >> about running for governor of california, and you and i talked about rent running for mira san francisco. awesome. how can i help, what would you like to talk about? tell me about why you were thinking about running for office. and why you chose not to. >> i thought about it because i think the state is in a bad place, especially when it comes to the cost of living and the cost of housing. if that does not get fixed, i think the state is going to evolve into a very unpleasant place. one thing i have come to believe is that you cannot have social justice or economic justice, you can't have one without the other. it would take someone with no loyalties to the very powerful interest groups, i would not be

indebted to other groups. maybe i could try a couple of bold things. >> bloomberg, without an obsession with coca-cola? >> i did not know that. the reason i didn't, >> this is not brought to you by coca-cola. >> i don't think i have enough experience to do it. maybe i could do a few things, that would be good, but i would not be able to deal with the other thousands of things that need to happen. more importantly, personally, i wanted to spend my time trying to make sure we get artificial intelligence built in a really good way. which to me is the most important developments in the world. and i was not willing to set that aside to run for office. >> how about you kara? >> i just wanted unmitigated power to screw people.

and have like limousines idling in front of my house. things like that. and then we wanted to get thrown out of office in a really dramatic fashion. screw you! that's what i wanted. >> why didn't you do it? >> i don't know. like in the valley of the dolls. oh all of you talkers. i was complaining too much to myself. after the trump election, i thought, if he can get elected i can. the brakes were offer people. something had changed with him. if i can pay him a small complement, the brakes were offer people. he is unhinged. he has unhinged everything. it's not necessarily a bad thing, he is a bad thing, but that is not necessarily a bad

thing. >> people who never would have run beforehand, millions of people are changing the way they think about their interaction with the body politic. >> i think it was a similar thing. now that the fantastic squad of ladies, that is run by alexandra, she is the head of it, a squad. i want to join that squad. if i run for congress, the old white lady, the letter in. let's have her for humor. i thought about, this is the city, i've lived here a long time. it was important instead of complaining to do something. we have a new mayor. no one thought the former mayor would die like that. we should give this man a chance. it's important to not just be difficult. >> one or two more questions. and when we open left q&a.

this mac and we will open it up to q&a. i'm going to ask you each individual questions and then a final question. your first op-ed in the new york times was entitled mark zuckerberg and the expensive education of mark zuckerberg. >> has a? >> no. he's a nice man. he's a nice guy. he's personally nice. he's causing enormous damage. i think if you look in that podcast, everyone focused on the holocaust deniers. that they don't me to lie. they do mean to lie. they mean to lie a lot. that was an insane thing to say. that got a lot of the attention. he will never get on the stage with me ever again. last time he almost sweated to death.

so, the exchange i was most disturbed by, and i've written about it since, was when i kept pressing him on the impact of his inventions, that they had made these sloppy rules on these countries, myanmar, india and the products were not thought out and introduce properly. they did not have the proper people in place to manage it and it created, people died. how did he feel about that? how do you feel about that? badly. there were real my consequences. what he said was, what i'm really interested in is solutions. solutions are what i like to do. i think we should fix the situation. again, we. we should fix it. i got that. but you cause the problem. how do you feel about what you cost? six times i asked him the same

question. six times. but i want to know how you think about it. >> don't you think, if i was in his shoes, and i had billions of people, all these things wing on my shoulders, how could he start to let that affect his emotional strength? he would not be able to make it through the day. >> because he took the money and the job. i'm sorry. he's an adult. i don't me to be rude. but stop treating him like he is a juvenile. and like oh my goodness, this poor hoodie clad boy, it's so hard for him. my kids can take more pressure but he can. nonetheless, i asked him six times. it went on for a while, he got uncomfortable. he kept think we have to fix it. yeah, that you cause the problem. how do you feel about it? how do you feel about it? people died. finally he got exasperated. i did that on purpose. and he goes, what he want me to say? >> i said how about starting up with i'm really sorry what i did cause people to die. that would be the human

reaction. and secondly, i would wonder if i was capable of handling this thing. if i'm the right person to do this. because it does have real-world implications. and then i asked, who should get fired for this? and he hemmed it hot and says i guess me, because i am the ceo and the founder and i control it. and i'm the chairman. and he goes, do you want me to fire myself? and i said that would be fine. i'm just saying, i just want them to understand the implications. >> would that solve the problem? if mark zuckerberg went to hawaii, by guys, i'm done, we still have, it doesn't matter what he posts about. you're going to have tens of thousands of people attacking each other about the brett kavanaugh, palestine, sexual assault, whatever. this whirlpool of hate that sure he is the one that starts

the whirlpool, but if he was replaced, would it people still be doing that? >> i think he needs help. they need big-time help with a lot of people who have more global viewpoints that maybe are not living in the bubble of power, at palo alto. it understand ethical issues. these are ethical, philosophical issues. these are people, if you know them are lovely people but are not equipped to deal with them. i think. >> i want to make two points for clarity. one is, i think it's a shame that he did not start that with i'm sorry. it is the obvious human reaction. what anyone would want to leave within that situation. i have a feeling he felt it. i think it is sometimes such an adversarial relationship between people under siege and people asking questions, maybe you don't feel like you can express

it. i wish he had done that. i want to believe that is what he felt. the second thing is, i want to be clear, i do think we need to adapt these platforms and rules and how we use that much faster. it turns out, when you give everyone a voice you get great and terrible behavior. it is easy, to categorize people, we as humans like stories where people are very clearly >> unfortunately, there is good and evil and everybody and everything. i do think we need to get, as you said, people are dying. we need to address that much faster with more seriousness than we happen. i believe we can although i believe that is going to take work that we are not currently doing. i think it is easy to talk about how people are dying, i think it is important to talk about how people are living also. i grew up in the midwest, and i was sort of not very good, without the internet, i'm not sure i would've made it through that.

that was transformative for me personally. and for most people in the world. i think you could say that for many other groups that it been oppressed for a long time. i have no doubt that many people have been beat up on facebook as well. >> i get that argument. but it is how they are building the structure. person who used to be a lawyer for google and twitter, we did an amazing interview, she talked about the pillars you build these things on. originally, the pillar for google was context, authenticity, authentic and something else. you pick the choices you make to build the structure. facebook is built on, twitter has its own cesspool of meth, but it is kind of fun in a lot of ways. today was really fun for some reason there was all kinds of weird stuff on there. but, you build it on certain things. facebook is built on virality, speed, and engagement.

you build it on those premises, is what you get? precisely what you get. you get fake news, hatred, if you built it around community, context, authentic connections, that is very different. but it is not as lucrative a business. >> it deeply troubles me, i think it should everyone, these companies have like people who figure out how to exploit our systems. you get what you expect to get. i do think there is more good than bad that comes from this. if i could push a button and make all the face book products disappear, i wouldn't, well maybe. i'm joking about that. i do think the value we received, we need to adapt, it happened much faster than humans have been able to adapt, or so far. i think there is incredible good. it is easy to get lost in the

discussion. >> you are both leaders, you are thinking of the future, talking to people who are at the core of this. based on those conversations, where do you see this going? are we on the edge of a precipice? and it's just going to get worse? or are people really waking up to some of the issues with these tools and are taking real serious concrete steps to solve them? >> i wish i could say that. but much of the stuff out of facebook, we are the victims. i have never seen at this insane, the reaction. in contrast to the google people around sexual harassment, the employee said, wait a second this is not how we want to run the company. and facebook employees are more docile. but they are. they are docile. they must feed them like so much. a book called 1984, read it.

>> it's a book you should've read. >> we weren't allowed to read that. >> i have read 1984 and i understand the implications. >> wait a second. >> braved the world. oh my gosh. you're right. we read them all. in any case, i'm sorry, what was your point? >> i don't know. i'm embarrassed now. >> is there anything happened? >> i think congress is going to insert itself. the fact that lindsey graham is going to have any say over this is disturbing. i think it's bad. these people in congress, i spent a lot of time in washington visiting them. there are a few senators, warner, most of the senators though, there are a couple who

are intelligent. i'm trying to think who else. you know them better than i do. congressman, anybody? i'm just saying ... >> i think we will get this resolved. i think we have lost sight of what is important. i think we are living on an exponential curve of technology. in the rate of change has been increasing every year, every decade it will keep changing. what we are in right now, which feels like the most important and definite difficult issue we will face couple to not to be nothing but a warm-up drill. for the stuff we will deal with in the next five, 10 years. i think this, which seems like, absolute meltdown, there can be nothing more important or harder. we are going to look back at this, in the way that we look back at previous presidents now it's a remember when life was so simple. but the next round of issues are going to be, what does that mean when anyone can edit anyone else's genome. what does it mean when we have

artificial intelligence that is smarter than humans anyway? these, i promise, these are going to make the issues of today look like trifles. that we wish we had to deal with again. >> ai, robotics, changes in transportation, thanks around genes and dna, what's about to come is really frightening. in terms of who determines these things and the impact it has on society. >> the thing about the exponential curve, when you look back where they look flat, and when you look for they look vertical. and you only sent your own pace. it always feels like the most important thing ever. and that since it is always true. but if you don't look forward, if we get totally mired down in the stuff that is happening right now, and we missed these questions, then when we get to really fundamental questions about what is the future of humanity look like? what does it mean to be human? what is the world going to look like? in 30 years?

which is unrecognizable he different. i think that is what, i am confident we will adjust. i am not confident we will be able to adjust the future. >> and surveillance. what is a chinese driven internet look like? those kinds of things. it's an interesting question. >> lordy lordy lordy. >> the surveillance stuff that is coming, the sensors, the stuff you put in our bodies and things like that. the altering of your own body. it is big stuff. >> you are thinking, you have open ai, you're both involved in these questions. is there anything we can do? right now? other than just sit and wait for the technology to be developed and that hope it does not destroy us? what can we actually do? >> not watch black mirror. >> i think sci-fi is important to watch.

>> not the pick one. >> i haven't seen the pick one. >> don't see the pink one. >> in terms of what we can do, people can participate. get involved. kara talks about how tech companies leadership is overwhelmingly male and that is true. but the most skewed field i know of right now is machine running phd's. 99% men. that is the group of people, that will have the most effect on the future of the world we live in. we can do is get involved. we can encourage a much broader cut diverse group of people to go into that field and other fields as well. we can start societal conversations now before we are reacting from the other side.

how social media kits use. we can start conversations now about what decisions we should make and what we want society to look like before we make the changes. what should we stop what should we do more of? i think society is very good at reacting to yesterday's problems. and very bad at investing huge amounts of time and energy and thought into the problems that will occur in 10 years. >> a person who is supposed to be thinking? aren't you that person? >> i'm trying to make that my major focus. that's why i'm not running for governor. >> i'm going to mars with you. >> that does not sound very fun. >> it sounds like so much fun. what are you talking about? elon gets the most fun. >> he's very fun. >> we have now veered off topic. >> i think it is time. we're going to open it up to audience questions. here's how it works. we have hands already.

we have a wireless mic. i am going to point to you and we can do the mic. better to ask a specific question to one of the other so we get more questions in. if you have a specific question please let them know who it is and please pass the mic backup. we have one mic. one second. >> also, please say your name and stand up. first question is over there. let's pass this mic down. >> hi. i'm doing work helping communities and organizations figure out how to effectively deal with sexual predators. the possibility of applying restorative justice when that is appropriate particularly for

lower-level offenses or mystic indications. i'm curious to hear from both of you how you would like to see us shift how we respond to accusations in the me two era. we have not sorted it out yet as far as i can tell. >> >> you take that one. we are reaching an interesting point now in the #metoo stuff. the les moonves stuff, today, it was disturbing. it is just kind of low-level corruption on his part. the way he is trying to cover up in order to get the money that he wants. it's a big question. the stories go around the world so quickly. everything is amplified so quickly. and people get exhausted by the amount of discussion. what is critically important is

that people, especially women, should have voices and be heard. the story should be heard. one of the things we did when we covered the trial, what we did, as editors, i decided to cover it making comparisons to the super bowl. we had five stories per day on it. we decided to put much attention on it. we had two reporters on it, two great reporters. we covered the heck out of it and a lot of aspects. we blogged it. we did everything. because we thought it was important, and intersection of sexism and what everybody knows about and doesn't write about. and power, and money, and it looks. one of the problems is, things like twitter, or whatever, it exhausts people. then it becomes noisy. and the real point, you can't

have a substantive discussion about problems. and everybody is in a crouched position and doesn't know what to do. legitimate stories, men get, i can't say anything, women, what to talk a lot about it, but then there are so many different stories. and then you have the cable stations doing different things. it becomes sort of a circus. it is hard not to be twitchy in terms of what you are doing. it is hard to know how you substantively make changes. my feeling is, again, the issue is systems. the system is broken in a way that does not allow, it is broken against certain people, so certain people stay in power and they like to stay in power and will give it up willingly. how do you change the systems at their course? is a super difficult problem from my perspective. >> the area where i have the most expertise is not about low

income, lower status women, i think there is a huge way to go there. how that problem is starting to get salt, is the lps that give the money to invest, now they have decided to demand our reporting and transparency on this, i think that is the first time i'm actually seeing the industry take this sufficiently seriously. i have an unusual perspective on the whole thing because i was both harassed but it has stuck in memory, and am friends with powerful men in dc who were on the other side of it. i see both sides. at this point a very common complaint from fema founders is that men will not engage with them in anything other than a

conference room, during the day, with the door open with people in there. that is a huge disservice to women in technology. how that gets fixed, i understand why people have the risk profile they do. when i say just don't be an hole 99% of the time people say what about that 1%? i'm not going to take that risk. the current state there, it's clearly better than become respite is deeply unfair to women. >> i've had people say that to me. what is so incessantly? don't grab your start with that. don't kiss them. don't ask them out on dates. i'll make a list for you. don't do these things. >> i'm on your side. >> is such a vast overreaction by men. it's crazy. women don't go around doing this all day. we managed to control ourselves. even though we want to grab you guys.

you know what i mean. when i hear guys, i wanted throw something at them. >> i mcgrane. i'm just saying it's become a huge problem. expect that the first reaction, is how does that affect me? versus while this is a systematic problem throughout society. and maybe i may cause. my son who is 13, is a champion debater. he goes, mom, what about men who get arrests? and i like what and he says there are men who get arrests. let's talk about that. so we end up having these amazing debates about it. but to me it's interesting. how he goes there. that's where he goes. versus the 99%. i don't send him to his room for that. but it's interesting. just stop it. stop it. i don't know what else to say.

>> we can continue or go to the next question. to the left, you have the mic. >> this question is from the would-be mayor. i am wondering about the real world, we don't interrogate enough, is the real word impact of these tech platforms, not just in the sense of these -- that are caused by platforms, the demographics of the room. but employment practices of the companies we live around. i live in san francisco. am i the only black person here? not as many as there were 15 years ago. in light of things like amazon going to long island city, and the google experiments,

creating whole cities. i'm an urban planner. so i'm curious about this. and your take on how these platforms and companies, their economic power, how they are using that, how they are affecting cities. how things can be different. it's very weird that the employment patterns are reflected so heavily in cities. i'm wondering what you think about it. >> that's a big question. i think what you're asking is, how we get more diversity, to create cities that are less pushed apart by money, by race, by all kinds of things, correct? >> i'm wondering how do we

connect this to. in san francisco, [ indiscernible - low volume ]. >> 100%. again, it goes to the thoughtlessness. how did this happen? the act like it just happened. years ago, i tell the story a lot, i wrote a story, i'm not a city planner. what happens in many cities has to do with city planning. you know how segregation happens. it is very clear. in this city is not money, who can afford to live here. and who they hire. they can afford to live here. they don't see the connections between things. connections are very hard for a lot of these people who run these companies to make. they really can't make connections of why this happens here, the way hollywood people could not connect, in the way they depict women. reflected misogyny. it was an interesting thing

today on twitter about who wasn't, claire danes are somewhat talking about, it was interesting. jessica simpson, she was making a comment. i'm getting off topic. i think the way they hire, years ago, i wrote a story called, the [ indiscernible ] of twitter. it was 10 white men of the same age. you could have, i did not know them all from each other. i said, how did you get 10 of the same exact white men on the board? he said i don't know what just happened. it couldn't happen, it's mathematically impossible. so i wrote a story and i

literally think i should've quit after i wrote this lead. i said, the board of twitter, which has three peters and a deck. so good. i should've been, like, done. we had an interesting discussion. he thought it it just happened that way. and what was fascinating to me ... >> really? a excavation point >> really. will you know, we have standards. it's really interesting that you always use the word standards when it comes to adding women or people of color to a board. but you never do it when it is 10 white men who are by the way driving your company into a wall. just so you know, twitter isn't doing well. or yahoo or any of them. standards is only applied to people who are trying to get in. it is that kind of stuff.

i can't talk about cities. but i do think these decisions are made purposefully. and they pretend, unconscious bias, it is very conscious as far as i can tell. it is done in thoughtlessness. we need thoughtful politicians who just say, look, just call it out. we are going to put people of different economic and racial, in different places throughout the city. everyone is going to do it. we have to have leaders who do that. that is the problem. they don't do that. these companies, you have to have leaders who say, i have 70% white guys running this place. i need to change this. i can't look at it like i am dropping standards. no enemy? it can't be looked at like that . that is the way they see it in their brain. that it is a favor. rather than an asset. how do you solve city problems? >> i also feel unqualified to

comment. other than, the data is clear, making housing affordable, is a hugely beneficial thing to people who are younger or disenfranchised in any way. we have had a catastrophic failure to do that. >> we have a question to the right. even the white sweater. >> i wanted to change the topic to the politicization of data and who owns your data. so we all subscribe to these social platforms. and who owns the data and antitrust laws, definitions of monopolies, i would like to hear your thoughts. >> thank you. i think you on your data.

and people agree on that. the hard part is, the internet giants, whatever coded word you want to use for the fact that you can't pick an alternative, if all your friends are in instagram. true ownership of data would mean, if you didn't like instagram zero you could go somewhere else. would you have an option to do that. i think that's what the current consumer data protection laws and antitrust laws and for general protection laws failed to take into account. people say, if you don't like facebook don't just use their products. it's easier said than done. sure, you can do it. and some people do. does anyone in this room do that?

>> honestly, i feel like i have tried multiple times. i have deleted the app. i have turned my phone to black and white, i have tried to get off it and i feel like i actually chemically cannot do it. >> facebook is a bloated app. >> instagram, nothing? >> instagram is for museum people, for formidable ship. >> but you use it don't you? >> no. not instagram. >> [ indiscernible - low volume ] >> i think that's what they want in the conversation.

>> [ indiscernible - too far from mic ] >> i think the amount of data that these companies have and how they collected, >> what does that mean? >> they have done it before. it has happened before. i think probably that is where it will go. if i had a gas, who can affect microsoft? single copy affected microsoft. think there is going to be some sort of regulation because these companies, their tendencies to want to suck up every piece of information. i think it will be democrats, getting into power. it used to be friends of tech, they are not separately anymore. you have a lot of people in the democratic party who now are

about what has happened. >> a question all the way in the back, all the way in the back. do you want to just get up and project? >> i think about preventing ai from invasion in general, [ indiscernible - too far from mic ]. >> i can't promise when, i can't make a confident prediction. we, humanity, will at some point build intelligence that surpasses human intelligence. people don't think about that much because it is so uncomfortable and hard to say. it is just hard to see what the

world looks like on the other side. i think it really matters that it is built in a way that the benefit is distributed widely. decisions about its use are distributed widely. not to make this a commercial for open-air. but i think that is stupid or important. --'s super important. i think there will be big arguments about what we should keep and what are bad we should let go of. and how we vote on it. it will be in some sense ... i now believe how i did not use too. i used to be confident that the technological problems of building ai, that it is aligned with the goals of humanity, i

think that is technically possible. that is the good news. the bad news is i think the collective governance problem, is going to be superhard. i think as we said earlier, society just, i think we are going to have to, we are likely to have to react to this at a speed we are not good at. which is why i think it's important, the technology industry, now, tries to get people thinking about this. and try to figure out the world we want to -- >> who has hired most of the ai and machine learning? were the two companies who control most of it? >> one of the things that is cool about this ... specs where the two companies hiring heavily? >> google and facebook. >> one think that is cool, and his magic about software, if you have people who are a little bit smarter or better, and better planners, you can be a company that has tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

that's always true about software. it's exponentially true about artificial intelligence. looking at a number of people, but these companies have, is the wrong way to think about it. looking at the number of transistors under their control will turn out to be the right way to think about it. >> what do you think specifically is the role of the 500, 600 elected federal officials that it has been brought into government to do, to steer the conversation? because if you were elected to congress, you cared about this, what is the role of those people? >> the tricky balance is, there are two ways this is important. one is the changes it will have the economy and jobs in the next few years. that's huge. that is what is affecting constituents today. that is where people will feel pain today. and the questions about how it is going to fundamentally

reshape the world in 20 years or 30 years. and how you as a politician prioritize and balance those two things. they're both about ai but other than that they are totally different. they are very hard. our system, especially with congress on a two-year cycle, and the presidency on a four- year, is going to do a much better job. we are going to figure out how to deal with that. but how we pick this long-term future, i think that will take courage and foresight and politicians. >> there is nobody working on it. >> nobody. >> right now we don't have a chief science officer. if we have an ebola situation, we are screwed. we don't have a chief technology officer, that whole area has been gutted out. i think there is one guy in there who is a deputy cto, he was in real estate before or something like that. what's his name?

>> whatever. i'm not meeting a real estate guy to talk about that. we need more smart people. >> [ indiscernible - too far from mic ] feinstein brothers make mention of the [ indiscernible ] apparatus. [ indiscernible - too far from mic ] dealing with increasing loads. spect you want to repeat

the question. >> how do we deal with all of the screens? >> the incoming. >> how do we take in the news? >> i don't want to shower anymore because i'm like, what's happened. declare war on france? did we do that? i miss twitter for five seconds and it's over. i don't know. spect that's an unhealthy way to live i think personally. not taking showers. >> i shower. >> i think you need to give yourself permission to not follow every post, not read every news article. the things that cause outrage and that feel like, there was probably something that happened in february of this year, that this entire room was talking about all day long.

and you were putting aside work, time that you could spend with your family, friends, hobbies, because the thing was so important. you couldn't shower because, if you are away from your computer for five minutes, you are going to miss the conversation. and then if you remember what that is. it's okay to miss it. it's okay to miss that. >> no it's not. >> there is no way to stay informed and stay sane right now. there is no way to do it. i think, one of the things that is happening, everyone seems so fatigued and stressed and unhappy. i wish i could, we could all take a day off and go for a walk in the woods. the world is going to keep spinning. there will be plenty of problems when we get back. we can read about them then. like your job is to stay on top of this so maybe you have to. but it is not most peoples. >> here's the thing.

i do think there is a push towards less twitching us. i just noticed how fast podcasts are growing. when i started this, podcasts, everyone is like you can't do it now, people won't like an hour. you need to do 26 seconds. knowing going to do an hour. i like i think people like this. i'm going to keep talking. and did an interview with an hour. and it's now a discussion. it changes the whole nature. it has only grown. i do think there is something left twitchy, people are pushing away from that. you can see it in entertainment, there are some wonderful entertainment shows that take commitment and are interesting. i don't necessarily know if we are all, that we don't push that away. it feels like people are pushing it away. in terms of indicators we are getting.

>> can i share a quick story? >> a guest please. >> i was speaking to a dear friend of mine and he came to me for life advice. he says i'm trying to figure out what i want to do. i have spent the last 10 years on the internet. he does have a bad case of internet addiction. they have staged information from before but i realized that i have been wasting my time on twitter, reading the news, online forums, and my partner left me, and now i'm about to turn 40 and i don't know what to do with my life. that's all true. this gutwrenching moment when i could not tell them, oh it's okay. i think we are going to see this a lot more. there is so much in the world and so much of it is so bad. it is easy to get immobilized

by. if it is not your job to stay on top of everything that is happening, take respite. there will still be plenty to be outraged about. one rule i have for myself, if i am looking at a website, and i open a new tab, i close the computer and i either have to go for a walk or read a physical book. i'm not perfect about that. sometimes i just keep going. but i'm trying to be better. these dopamine systems, it is in our biology to react to this. we have not had time to build up societal antibodies yet. >> my son, my sons are good at putting it down. it's an interesting thing. i watch them. they use it in a different way. for certain things. they just don't, i watch gilligan's island into my head.

when i was a kid. you used to do things and then you switch to other things. being upset on the train, in new york, looking at their phones,. everybody's groping way. before we would've had a newspaper or a book. nobody was staring at ... >> i remember being bored. this abstract thought from a long time ago back in hold onto. >> i feel like we have seen in our lifetimes ... >> [ laughter ] >> i remember going home and being like i get to go on the internet now. asking my mom to get off the phone so i can log on. something you can do for a special 30 minutes and the rest of the time you just have to figure out what to do.

and now, in our lifetime, we are always on the internet all the time. i am always nervous. >> i was around when there were rotary phones. so i don't worry about the age thing. it depends on, these things are built to be addictive. that's another thing. they hired tons of people to addict you pick. everybody knows that. we are sitting around saying they are trying really hard, they hired 20 phd's to make you push that red button. and to pretend otherwise, and indigo i don't know why people are addicted, when they are doing this. >> it is heart to pick one thing tech companies have done the worst. that one thing, that they have figured out how to hack human biology to make us unhappy, i think it's, what history books are written, when the heck did that actually happened? >> to make them into victims of

their own success is a mistake. they are purposefully doing this with every choice they make. and when it goes awry, they are like, who knew? >> i think you and i agree. there's plenty to be critical about. there also things to be thankful for. >> that's not critical it is truthful. there is a difference. when you save things, don't be so critical, i'm just pointing out that you have made billions of dollars off of other people's privacy, other people's attention, and taking advantage of other people's stuff. >> i'm agreeing but pointing out, i also am glad they companies exist. i may be in the minority. but i think they have done great good also. >> let's move onto the next question. pursuant to the right over there. having too much fun out here. >> i think about this question

quite a bit. given some the things you were saying about social media, platforms, being built for addictive behavior and consequences that are detrimental to our society as a whole, do you think that silicon valley investors, not just business leaders, but investors, have a responsibility to demand less revenue, when you think about, especially me, my business model, and how much money we can make in five years, a lot of it is dependent on that kind of behavior. do you think we need to change our business model? >> i think the business models are their business models. how would you change it? wall street is wall street. how are you to do this?

i'll switch it to another thing. the murder of khashoggi. you know how many companies are funded by the saudi's? are you saying uber uber handing the money back? they are not going to do it. someone told me, you are so poor all you have is money. they don't want to change these business plans. they don't want to change the addictive ones, the private data sucking ones, the advertising ones, they don't want to change any of them. they don't want to do it. they like the money. they like the power and the like everything. they just went to where something else.

and wall street is just like we are rapacious tassels. i get you. let's have a beer. i don't think they will do it. do you? >> this is easier for me to say because i don't need more money. i won't invest in companies that i think will ... in the long run that works. i think it makes you more successful. companies come to us, you could go build that product, and you would make more revenue, but you would cover my something more important. you should not do that. we have a charter, where we would not make money, and the things we would not be willing to do no matter how much money they made. and we made it public to be

accountable for that. there are different investors that think differently. one thing i have sympathy for, as people who came from nothing, got a job at it company where they're getting an incredible salary, but the company is doing things they don't like. they are not in a situation, a really struggle with what to do. >> with the two will stop there were a lot of people in that what did you think? >> i have not looked into that. it seems problematic how what someone told me. pure nicotine is not that bad for you. the science on it. i assume that's right. >> you may not have children.

>> it seems problematic. but i would not invest. >> many people did. that should've been an obvious one. >> there are a lot of questions. there will be time afterwards. hillary and i have heard people talk about the network that presents potentially over computing systems where meaty platforms like facebook could be built in ways that shift the power and maybe the revenue model. i'm giving more power to users and i was wondering what you guys think about that and the prospects there? for solving some of these prost problems with talk about.? i still want to see a single crypto project actually get used. [ applause ] then i will stop using them. but until that happens, i don't think i can point, i haven't

been working like super long, but it decently amount of time and i can't point to any piece of technology that has had as much, has so captured the discussion of the industry with so little actual use. the amount of money that is gone into crypto politics that are somewhere between incompetent and fraud, i've never seen any other industry. c the early internet.? i could believe that one was worse. >> juul was there, i was there. i got it. [ laughter ] i think i got that language right traits e so maybe we could say it's the worst since then. >> there was a lot of scamming on the early internet. it was crazy at the time. >> let's suppose that in concept, what about you just getting paid for your privacy? years ago when i was writing a book about aol, there were some

investment comments, and i put my hand up and i said can i have my $35 please? and i said why should you pay me have that money and maybe i'll give you more? and they never come up with that idea. just being paid for your, it's not like you're going to deliver it. >> the promise is so seductive and maybe there is a way to get around this issue of these on open protocols that you are on wet and then network and you can't leave. maybe instagram was on some sort of block you could leave in some sense or use another version of it. but i think we're learning something fundamental about human coordination and governance where these decentralized projects so far, are just not working. so the promises incredibly seductive and i hope it happens. the current ecosystem of crypto lot chain world seems today, this may change, this might be

like facebook later. but the system today seems unlikely to produce that. i really hope it gets there and i really hope it does someday. but the promise has not been delivered. >> so the final question i have is something i've been asking a lot about these, is panelist, what is one thing that the people that are in this physical room right here can actually take away and do to address some of the issues that have been brought up in this conversation? >> you quit facebook, i'm pretty impressed. >> i didn't quit it, i never used it. i did use it for work. here is the thing. if you are employees of these companies, you are their base. ike i hate to use a trump term, but you are their base. listen to the google block out organizers podcast we did. i think it was six women and one man. it was astonishing.

and they were astonishing, articulate, strong, still living there jobs but really that enough. and they also just didn't want to talk about issues and sexual harassment around the first thing which the first one thing because they were paying someone $90 million to go which is astonishing if they did that. but if you are employees of these companies, ask questions. is not disloyal to say, is this the way we are doing it? because the premise of silicon valley at least when i got here, and this was the good part was that it was changing the world, that was better. and they went on and on about how better they were. will now demand that they be better. you know just demand it as employees. you have the power to do it and that doesn't mean dropping a dime to me or anybody else. and it has helped me a lot in that way. but maybe, you have a part in the power with these people.

>> you have power that you don't understand you can use and voices so i think it's really important for you employees or working here to say no. like no, this is not going to stand. and everyone who does that, you can affect them, you don't need me to affect them. you don't need powerful people to do it, you have that. and i'm not saying that everyone is powerful palm, but you can in this industry. and these leaders are listening. i think they do get affected by these things. so that's what i would say to do. >> i think that's the most important point. i haven't thought of saying that, but that's what i think is the right answer. it's employees of the companies that have more power than any other constituencies. that is what these companies, that's the group that these companies have to keep happy. and it's talent is such at a premium in this industry. and i do think this industry is better than others at

listening to employees and trying to adapt. employees at the large tech companies have much, much more power than they realize. the other thing i was going to say is just that, you know i think it's fine to spend most of your time thinking about the problems and the challenges of today. i think that's really good. but if you believe that sort of, you are living for the future and all the people are going to come after you, you've got to at least allocate some to the problems of the future. and you got to spend some of your time and resources and your effort on trying to think about not the problems of 2019, but the problems of 2039. and it's hard to to do that without concerted effort because the problems of today are so big. >> and to me it's about making choices. like, be an adult. so many times, i talk about juvenile's vision of man in silicon valley. letting the people have a pass or whatever. act like an adult, like what would an adult do? not see that as a negative

thing. like whoever is young and you have to have a young mentality. like, there is something good about a higher wisdom. i'm only saying that because i'm 412. but it's true, it's not just the power to say no to these people, it's the power to say yes, this is the way you should go. you should be doing both things. you don't want to be a hindrance but you should say no appropriately and yes appropriately that's what adult people do and take responsibility. that's the other thing take responsibility for what you're doing and stop acting like the things are done don't have an impact, because they absolutely do. and get out across this country, i don't mean like mark zuckerberg and visit every cow in every state, don't do that, that's bad. but get out and talk so that you understand how people actually live their lives. where there is not a place with

is not hot and cold running come butcher. it doesn't mean that you aren't just as justifiable as they are because that's really irritating to, to see all the real americans live here. real americans live everywhere. but do start to understand how people live paycheck to paycheck, they have a hard time with healthcare and nutrition and lots of stuff like that. and to me, that's acting like an adult. >> final point, closing comment. and be fast. >> i think one thing that has gone wrong with the movement to the internet is that we have evolved some biological protections for how we act with someone personally. and most of the time, we have some compassion that sort of just happens when you are with another person physically. some level of politeness that often happens. not always. but on the internet, that biological protection seems to have gone away and it's so easy to just cast people as the other people to cast people as stupid, or luddites or racists,

just out of touch or drug addicts or whatever. and in my experience, i have found that my own preconceptions of people, on when i meet them on the internet or when they're mean to me on the internet or when i get into a fight with someone on twitter i will always want to think the worst. and if i meet them in person i always find myself thinking the best. and i think this is something that has gone deeply wrong about the internet and if you just get out and meet very different people with even a little bit of an open mind, your biology will take over a lot of the rest. >> first of all [ applause ] and i have to say, i don't know, we could have planned this before but that is the perfect segue into why we the space, because you know the premise was that these conversations, some of them are much more productive to be had in person. and so i'm really first of all honored deeply that both of you would take time out of your

busy schedules to join us tonight and be in conversation and especially were flying here for this conversation. so, a really big round of applause for caro and for sam. [ applause ] coming up on c-span 3 a look into president trumps approach to foreign policy. afterward sarah lacey found her panda media talks about women in the workplace and later government officials discussed the trump administration's criticism of the so-called deep state. >> c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's tate cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the