they have lost some shares on our platform and other companies are gaining. so it is not all bad news. we have more people playing games on facebook platform now that we have in the past. 235 million people play games monthly. so that israel. the thing i'm spending most of my time now is -- so that is real. the thing i missed in the most of my time now is -- facebook should be about people building apps inside our environment. people being able to bring contacts from aps back to facebook. you're starting to see a lot of interesting stuff. spotify is kiiling it. air bnb is doing interesting

stuff. a lot of interesting things that are going on. that is one of the areas i am personally excited about. all developers want more distribution. one of the reason things we did on the margin between platform and ads -- this new way of thinking. we lost a product recently -- we luanched a products recently -- we launched a product recently that allows you as a developer to put in a different market segments and say how much you're willing to pay for it. and you embed the facebook sek into your app. we give social context. it has great roi. we have done a bunch of private

testing and is working really well. almost every mobile developer can get behind this. >> last question. i used to having fun? >> yea. for me, i it is -- it is not really about fun. it is about mission three people last -- we go to these waves. there are times everyone think what we're doing is caused -- is awesome. usually they are too optimistic. then there are times when people at steeper pessimistic -- super pessimistic. i would rather be in this cycle where people underestimate us. it gives as good latitude to go

out and take some big bets and do something that really excited and amaze people. >> are people underestimate facebook? >> akaka to people are. -- i think a bunch of people are. there are all these long-term product i can i get into now. we are halfway through that cycle. that keeps me going. i just want to build good stuff. the legacy of the company should be the biya, -- connected everyone in the world and everyone can share all the stuff they want. that is a lot. that is a lot to get excited about three sundays are hard, some days kick ass but i think everyone is amped. >> on behalf of all of us, thank you for your time. >> thank you. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in less than three weeks, the first of the presidential debates live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span dot org. want to engage. next, author and internet entrepreneur andrew keen on the state of social media. after that, a look at some of the 9/11 memorials held this week including ceremonies in new york city and at the pentagon. >> a started by saying let's be cautiously optimistic. i title the book "the awakening

." it is about the arab mind. yes, it is possible to change the country. this is something that is a legacy, a shift, which is very promising for the future. >> tariq ramadan on the causes of the arab spring at 3:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. >> they bring us at the news in an unfiltered manner. i watched the news, whatever national events are going on. i do not have to worry about some experts telling me what i should think about of. it gives you the ability to make your own opinion about what is going on. they claim they're trying to be

down the middle, but it is hard. if there is no one talking, you know it is there and you can make your own opinion about what is happening. >> watching c-span on comcast. c-span -- created by america's cable companies in 1979. brought to you as a public service. andrew keen is the author of "digital vertigo." he recently sat down at a forum. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you. i am delighted to be here. i work with cnet and am now have

-- happily living in silicon valley. the other half of your entertainment isandrew keen, basically a professional -- is andrew keen, basically a professional iconoclast. you can always count on him to explain why everyone else is wrong. east -- his specially disdains the 1960's counter culture and is convinced it has taken up residence in silicon valley latest trends. he is saying that he just wants to sell books. he has two books out.

i recommend "digital vertigo. one of the quotes is that our privacy is a sacrifice to a toll to it -- totalitarian network. now, this generation is in their teens and 20s. they just want to share. what is wrong with that. are they not responding to what customers want. >> consumers just want to share. at the majority of consumers on the internet have no idea what they are doing in terms of sharing. i have a 14-year-old and he does not understand the way his data is being used and perhaps exploited. one of the challenges we have in silicon valley, i am more of an insider. every show on techcrunch and live in northern california. one of the challenges we have

as being more transparent and accountable in the way in which the data on the internet is being used and perhaps in some ways exploited. silicon valley reaches the orthodox of openness and transparency to everyone except themselves. the companies that most articulate the orthodoxy of transparency are the two companies were most responsible for misusing data emplane this and this cat and mouse game with consumers over how the data is being used and in some ways exploited. these are real issues. is very troubling to dismiss them by assuming teenagers on the internet or people who just got on line are very much aware in the way in which their data is being used. one of the challenges we have is encouraging or forcing many of the social never to be more

explicit and more clear about how they use and did i use the data. terms of service, for example, need to be simplified. yet to be a lawyer to understand it. most will do not understand what is, their data on the internet. it is a mass of tissue. >> i did not mean to pay you as an outsider. -- paint you as an outsider. maybe you're better positions than most to critique this. let's move on to web 2.0. you compared it to communism. you have taken aim at a thought leader in this movement. it is "inherently dangerous to coulter and the arts." we have some lobbyists from the recording industry and hollywood in the audience.

would you agree with them that we need new copyright laws to stop online privacy -- the on- line controversy act. >> i wrote a book that argued the free economy was very problematic in terms of supporting a professional class of writers, musicians, filmmakers on the internet. i showed in the book that as we have the expansion of the internet, obvious in this crisis of the music industry, the closing of newspapers and in pending crisis in publishing. i wrote that in 2007. it was heavily criticized by people who argued i was a reactionary, that i was wrong. in the five years since the book has come out, my position is much stronger than people

like chris anderson. i think what this happened over the last five years as it is harder and harder to sell one's products online. there is no doubt that piracy is to amass a problem. maybe not quite a big problem now as it was a few years ago. the biggest challenge we had on the internet becomes the dominant platform for the distribution of data content entertainment. the biggest challenge we have is explaining to consumers that they need to pay for the content. whether it is through subscription on spotify or pandora or pay for their music, rather than stealing it. this is the fundamental challenge otherwise we will not have a professional creed of

class. amateurs for the most part are not very smart in terms of producing viable content. it is easy to see that. just go to wikipedia. it is a good example in a way in which the amateur economy is not able to produce reliable over -- reliable information. it is very problematic. it is not supporting professionals. the issue raised perhaps more relevant today. i know a lot of young musicians, filmmakers, writers, and they are all struggling. austerlitz to make a living. the does that mean we owe them anything. they did not have a right to an income. but we have not figured out the internet economy when it comes to paying the freight of class. we collectively as policy- makers and entrepreneurs and investors have a responsibility to do that. otherwise our newspapers will go away, we will not have

professional writers. everyone will be an amateur. everyone will have to wait tables in the day and write their books are make their movies in the evening. >> to be puncture some conventional wisdom in washingtonwisdomd.c. politicians brad about not understand technology than voting on laws that regulate technology. you have the former federal trade commissioner sang a few minutes ago that government agencies sue companies sometimes for the wrong reasons. what happens when washington, d.c does something stupid? should we be more worried? >> i think we should be worried about them for opposite reasons. the smartest people in america go to silicon valley. the most brilliant people lived

in -- people with intimate america are are the people driving this revolution. the elite now go to the internet. that is with the smart kids go. the mark zuckerbergs, the sheryl sandbergs. as much as people did not go into politics. -- the smartest people do not go into politics. i think our challenge in america is figuring out how to get the mark zuckerberg's to not worry about becoming millionaires and worry about becoming politicians and teachers? or politicians who are as pandemic -- who are dynamic entrepreneurs flocking to silicon valley.

is the outbreak is? >> i do not think it is outrageous but you are wrong. there is a distinction. i wanted to pose a few more questions before we open it up to the audits and have an argument among ourselves. we heard google's general counsel talking about embracing you made snide comments during his speech? >> me? is he here? i cannot be too rude, then. i think there is a problem -- with there are a lot of cults in silicon valley. one of the most interesting is the cult of failure. the idea that people have to

continually fail to succeed. one of the promises that he introduced in his speech was the importance of failure. at the keys right. -- i think he is right. but there is a new elite in america where failing is a badge of honor. it was the best thing i did. it enabled me to get a job in my corbett. the challenge we have a in america as figuring out culturally how to encourage the disadvantaged. people who've lived somewhere between san francisco and new york. biya to explain to them how to fail. and why failure is so important. we have in america at the moment is increasing dichotomize asian -- dichotimization of people who are deeply entrepreneurial and use the idea

of failure to become incredibly successful. the rest of the country that has no grasp of what it means to fail and wife to the duracell fortenberry i'm not saying failure is not important. but i am saying is -- i am not saying this year is not important but i am saying there is a parochialism start discussion about philly. -- about failure. most of the world is not listening. most of the world does not understand why failure is important. i guess that's what we need to teach what it means to be an entrepreneur. what it means to be an entrepreneur is taking risks. opening oneself up. that requires a degree of confidence, good education. it comes to some of the core problems facing america. what most worries me is the disappearance of the middle. the internet is a cause and a consequence of this. silicon valley is a cause and a

consequence of the disappearance of the middle- class. people who always existed between the elite and the working class. now that middle is evaporating and all we have is as narrow elite driving our technology centric economy which is globalized and everybody else. very little in between. >> would you have the same feelings if you are a member of that elite? how bad silicon valley or how fragmented it is? >> i do not think silicon valley is that. -- silicon valley elites are bad. amid the point.

the smartest people in america are alike zuckerberg. but i think they are diluted. -- deluded. they want to have -- they want to be good and rich. you can either be one of the other. [laughter] when you listen to mark zuckerberg, the young men or not so young anymore at google, when you listen to these silicon valley crowd, it is assumed that we can share, we can improve poverty that africa. it is always the idea that all this technology benefits everyone. that is -- a chris progress -- it creates progress. i do not think that is true. this new elite is no different from any other elite. big data. the big data economy is no different from big farmer. -- big pharma.

this is the new elite. they are the new land owners, they are controlling power. they will schiff washington, d.c. i do not think are bad but they're not good. they are not improving the world. google has not benefited the world. facebook has not benefited the world. generally i am very suspicious of the idiot that you can do good and be very rich at the same time. or successful. >> let me read some more things from your book. even about the narcissism in -- and exoduses and -- and exhibitionism of facebook. we do have one -- we do have some facebook representative in the audience. >> can you reveal yourself, please? -- we do have some

representatives in the audience. >> can you reveal yourself, please? all your data. everything about you. can we have a time line? [laughter] >> there is a bit of hypocrisy on your part. you listed on your blog where you're going to be every day, almost every hour. put your twitter screenname on the cover of your book. you're writing by your trips to london and your experiences there. isn't this exhibitionist? >> i grew up a in england. the stereotypes about americans as they do not have a sense of irony. i wrote the book against social networking.

particularly against facebook. i gave google the benefit of the doubt in this book. what we did at the publishers, we thought let's have some fun. an anti-facebook book but let's put my twitter handle on the front because it would annoy guys like you. my book, it is not against technology. it is not saying we should not be on this network. in the first chapter, i struggle with the issue many of us a struggle with. i have to be on twitter. it built lybrand, it provided to events like this. -- it builds my brand, it provides me to eventslike -- events like this. deals, my column on cnn. let me explain. then you can decide whether or not it is hypocrisy. i make the point that this is the reality of our new economy.

we are all brands. you're all building our brands on twitter and facebook. that, for better or worse, is the reality. in the first chapter, i struggle with it. i say i'm kind of uncomfortable with it. i do not want to tell the world where i am. but at the same time, i need to tell the world where i am. more and more people who use facebook and twitter have this problem. on the one hand, they know they need to be on these networks. on the other hand, they're very uncomfortable with it. they need to teach the kids about it. my book is nothing less trash our iphone, give up our twitter our facebook account. it acknowledges this paradox. he was to be strong individuals in the 21st century, we need to maintain our privacy. we need to maintain our economy. -- our autonomy. we need to maintain our secrecy. the problem is it is harder and

harder to do. that is where you -- if that is what you call hypocrisy, i am a hypocrite. but i am no more of a hypocrite than anybody else here. nobody here, i would guess, wants to live completely publicly. no one wants to turn themselves inside out to the everyone knows where they are all the time. >> i cannot argue with that one. you are not clear the hypocrite. maybe a hypocrite. this is still to be proven. let's move onto buzz words. >> i think you can accuse people of being all sorts of things but the one thing that is supposedly a kiss of death is hypocrisy. we are all hypocrites. i would challenge in the one here to stand up and say they're not hypocritical in some way. >> let's move onto buzz words. we were talking about it during the conversation.

we have robust, big data disrupted social solutions. in d.c. maybe you could throw in "pivot." you have more plastic folder process. -- multistate colder processes. >> what does that mean? >> can anyone explain what that means? >> i said that a lot today. what that means what mark >> i am a little lost. which is worse? >> silicon valley. i think they're different sides of the same coin. the problem is the kind of balance. the problem with a silicon valley is that it lacks any kind of regulation. >> that is not true. every major company debt of this audit has been subject to a -- in this audience has been

subject to lawsuit in the investigation and fcc probe. attorney general action. class action lawsuits. there's a lot of stuff out there. >> ok but there is not in some way. in exempla facebook. the cowboy mentality of working outside the law has turned into another thing. it is assumed that is a good thing. that explains the behavior of facebook, particularly around the ipo. the problem we see is it is wallowing, suffocating in legislation. and the obsession with legislating everything. the idea of what is worse. what is worse is a country tied down with red tape. i did a piece on innovation in greece for cnn interviewed in number of entrepreneurs there

and they're all complaining about the same thing -- the state ther is deeply cost of renovation. if you are bankrupt in greece, you end up in jail. your question seems to suggest what is worse. it does not take silicon valley off the hook because washington, d.c. is mired in problems. >> let's open this up to the audience. we already know there are folks from facebook and google. maybe they can discuss whether or by your hypocrite. -- whether or not you are a hypocrite. i see a hand up. >> i am not on facebook. i made a conscious effort. i was a sermon predetermined not to fall into that trap with this book. yvette facebook.

-- i am a facebook the center. i gave up facebook. and it dramatically improved my life. i never read about people who irritated me who i did not like. the reality of facebook is the only ever read about people we do not like. will france and the post of facebook. -- real friends do not post on facebook. [laughter] >> your definition of who decreed a class this might be a bit wrong for silicon valley. -- who the creative across -- whose creative class is. my view would be there is no silicon left in silicon valley and that the real crisis. you're not manufacturing things there because it is a hostile place to make things. if you look at where the creed of class is, they get their capital in silicon valley but have to go elsewhere to develop it. i am wondering when you think about that. >> my idea of accretive class is narrower than that.

>> my idea of accretive class is narrower than that. i'm talking bowriders, filmmakers, musicians. -- i am talking about writers, film makers, musicians. that is a broader question of globalization. i am not sure of what to make of your. are you saying people should make more stuff in ameerica? i do not think it is a problem.

whether or not they are designed in silicon valley is neither here nor there. i a sympathetic to most elements of globalization. >> u.s. manufacturing output keeps going up. the number of people working goes down because of higher productivity. >> chris anderson is coming out with a book in the fall called makers. it argues we are on the verge of a new manufacturing revolution with new technologies like 3d printers. suddenly manufacturing, he argues, will be democratized. i think that is the next wave. it is really interesting. whatot sure i agree with the argues, that this issue of the next democratized wave of industrial revolution i think will change the way many products get many factors.

more entrepreneurs can use these products to manufacture. there has been more stories about how many back string now -- manufacturing now are much more attractive to investors than software startups. i think we might be on the cusp of a new kind of renaissance when it comes to manufacturing and the way the factory has been democratized. it will also lead to all the same problems. that the internet has created. the same crisis that car manufacturers, the manufacturing elite which dominated the american and global debt to economies in the 19th and 20th centuries is about to be hit by the same tsunami that hit the media industry in the 1990's and

it will be more dramatic and more interesting. >> let's take a question from the audience. please identify yourself. >> thank you. i work in washington, d.c. i enjoyed your talk immensely. i would be interested how you see the future trending, specifically the contrasting cultures of the high end district. the two most highly valued real estate are these two circumscribed area as. i am interested, how do you see these things trending so that one can predict in five or 10 years the likely direction of the obsession with regulation and the relevance in washington, and what you would so firmly, clearly described as chalkboard drawings?

>> the political system in america is archaic. it is archaic for many reasons. it is archaic for the industrial system. for the static, hierarchical relationships between voters and politicians and the way it attempts to manipulate media, in the way ideas are presented. silicon valley will not change. it may remain as an idea. it will be the main force in the american economy for certainly as long as i live. but i think washington, d.c. will not to change. i think the change will, perhaps through the parties, perhaps through the democratization of the political process come up through the rise perhaps of

individuals who can mobilize and create a system outside the transitional process. for some people, that is a great thing. and for some, it is. but on the other hand, the way i feel is the way in which leaders can privilege the -- leverage the internet to create movements. the movement of the left and of the rights, the consequence of the economic collapse are pretty much financed and driven off the internet. and america in the same kind of deep economic crisis but if -- crisis was happening in europe or greece or spain -- i would fear the mob leaders.

on the internet, the way people get picked on, you have this mob mentality, particularly on networks, i think, like twitter. i do not know if we should be more fearful about the political future. perhaps depending on the economic future. but what i would say it is washington, d.c. has to change. it is so archaic. it is so out of touch -- not just with the rest of america, but the rest of the world. that must change. >> and you are? >> i am harold's phelps with public knowledge. >> nt is a troublemaker. >> i do my very best. >> harold, you quite regret that, don't you? harold, you are the example -- if there were more like you in washington, d.c., we would not be worrying so much.

how do we get more guys like you to d.c.? >> that is exactly what i want to ask you about. one of the problems that leads to the mob mentality that you were talking about, we have spent a good 30 or so years systemically undermining the legitimacy of every non-mob violence way of resolving our differences. >> what do you mean by that? >> what i mean by that is, you know, we used to pride ourselves on being a country that had the rule of law, that had institutions that you by and large trusted to have the interest of the public at heart, whether they were always successful or not. you have an idea that, yes, the purpose of government and the

politics was to find a way to resolve differences between auto manufacturers and those to purchase cars so the cars did not blow up unexpectedly, that we had mechanisms to address environmental problems. and we have courts that we trusted to resolve important questions. people were not always happy with the results, but at least there was a sense that we have a good alternative as opposed to getting everybody together on facebook and trying to intimidate them. >> our in-house libertarian. >> congress -- all politics is

intrinsically a waste of time. the politicians to appointed judges, we do not trust what they have to say. the one we apparently trust is what we can get 100,000 people on facebook, we can get verizon to change the way they handle my bill. so, my concern is, how do we rebuild trust in our central institutions so the people who are smart and talented would actually have an interest in wanting to serve in the first place? >> you are sounding a lot like me? >> a lot of people have said that today. i think it is the altitude. >> no, your point is the really important one. one of the things that i try to bring out in my work is the centrality of the internet as a political or cultural force in our age. a lot of people think that the internet was delivered in the

middle of the not. we all woke up and it was there and it was a great thing where we could express ourselves. but the internet was a consequence. it is a great thing we're talking about keeping the decline in trust. the failure of the political elite to maintain intimacy. the crisis of the two-party the political system. add much of this is justified through banking, through pharmaceuticals, the crises of the wars and all the rest of it. i think people say, "0, the internet is great because it allows us to have a voice. and allows us to challenge the government. and allows us to get into the media." what they misunderstand is the internet was created by the very people who resisted the old establishment, the people who did not go to d say they went to communes in northern california and they enter events -- they invented the internet. i think it is much more

structural and it deals with the core problems in american history, which is the lack of legitimacy for politics and the political process. until people can be proud to enter politics, guys like zuckerberg and sandburg are going to go to silicon valley and not to d.c. it is a political problem. i think it is also an educational problem. >> we have time for one more. let's get a response. >> how quick? >> about 50 seconds. >> it better be a good question. >> hello. in an undergraduate at the university and my question is -- >> what is funny about that? >> my question is -- we have a word in our arms. we call it crunch day. the problem of educating people

between silicon valley and new york, they think that silicon valley and in tech crunch. people who would be great political people in d.c. now want to move to silicon valley. >> right. you are blaming the messenger. you are saying people read the new york times or tech crunch, and they are seduced into being entrepreneurs. again, tech crunch is a reflection of our deeper culture. the new rock stars of our age -- in 1960's, people wanted to be paul mccartney or john lennon or mick jagger.

this is good in some ways. and guys like zuckerberg deserve to be rock stars. they are very charismatic. they're very brilliant. our job is to make them more accountable. steve jobs is the metaphor of our age in the best and worst ways. he managed to invent and reinvent himself and become the most voluble company in the world. no respect for any democracy, any kind of democracy. never gave money to a political interest. we have to understand the entrepreneur is the central, cultural figure. not just an economic figure. it is a cultural figure. and programs like tech crunch are reflecting that reality. we did not create zuckerberg. until we begin to understand accountability and the responsibility of these new relationships, these child entrepreneurs and billionaires' are going to be much poorer for it.

>> and that will be the last word. thank you. thank you to the technology policy institute for organizing this. and andrew, thank you for being a good sport. >> thank you for being so right. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we have been asking me how much trust internet companies with their personal affirmation. join the conversation on our facebook page. and read responses from viewers. that is at facebook.com/cspan. >> the first of the presidential debates and to less than three weeks. live on c-span, seize their radio and c-span.org.

next, some of the 9/11 memorials held this week including ceremonies at new york city, the pentagon, and the capital. tomorrow on washington journal, the national education association president offers his reaction to the chicago teachers strike. former education secretary bill bennett discusses the 2012 presidential campaign. eric and the washington institute has the latest on the anti-american protests in the middle east. boston journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. -- washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think people like to see how politicians views have shifted over the years. whether mitt romney in 1994 was campaigning for wlefare --

welfare reform, i guess. people really like to see how these politicians have a vault -- have evolved. that isan element incredibly interesting. >> i have tried to think why is he a change so often. why he finds it so difficult to come down on one side of the issue and instead floats between both issues. >> someone running for state office for the state of the first time, those of help there is someone in la blagojevich. >> he is a trailblazer and a hero of mine. >> it is the viral part of the internet. >> more on sunday night at 8:00 on q&a.

tuesday -- >> tuesday marked the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on america. in new york city were the world trade center's 2 towers once stood, victims' families and friends gathered to honor their loved ones killed in the attack. janet napolitano, andrew cuomo, new york city mayor michael bloomberg, the new jersey gov. chris christie, and former new york city mayor rudy guiliani were in attendance but did not have direct speaking roles. here is a portion of the memorial.

[bagpipes playing]

>> [reading names] [both reading names]

[both reading names]

we would like to extend our thanks to those who try to save them on that horrible day. god bless america. [applause] >> and my son paul. paul, you are a shining star. you remain in our thoughts and heart. we love you very much. we will never forget you. thank you. >> [both reading names]

and my father james amato. i love you, dad. i miss you every day. >> and my dad. >> [both reading names]

>> and my uncle, who my brother and i missed meeting by 10 days. even though i did not get to meet him, i feel like i know him because my mom talks about camelot. -- talks about him a lot.

he was up proud, happy american. i think about him every time i hear about 9/11. >> and my uncle and my aunt. [both reading names]

>> and my father. >> and my brother james. i would like to dedicate this to all our loved ones, especially my brother. jimmy, you did not know that morning that god was going to pull your name. it broke our hearts to lose you.

part of us was lost the day god called to home. the we cannot see you, you are always by our side. our family chain is broken and nothing is the same. but i have faith that one by one, the chain will think again. i love you. [both reading names] [both reading names]