why were these tragedies continuing to happen? as i continued to ask more and more happened, why were legislators not able to keep families safe? there was silence. there was complicity. i began to understand no one was going to do anything. that's why i'm taking action. what i've noticed over and over again, as that karen handel and other republican legislators refuse to do anything about this unnecessary gun violence. they will not take action. in the end, the only things i'm a hold into in this district are the people that i talked to every single day and my son's legacy. i'm running because i'm a mother on a mission, here in marietta, to represent everyone. >> new congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span. >> next, a discussion on technology, politics, and

society with journalist karen swisher and tech entrepreneurs. this took place at a san francisco lounge the holds a variety of offense focused on civic engagement. going to move chronologically here, and a want you guys, for those in the audience who haven't had conversations with you and haven't met you, talk about the utopia that the early technologists were thinking about when they thought about how technology and the world wide web would interact with politics. what did people think was going to happen with the intersection of tech and politics? >> people to think at all.

when it was commercialized, there was legislation and al gore, that's how i met al gore, he was the principal center behind it. he was integral to that. you imagine that people had great thoughtfulness towards what was going to happen, and they absolutely did not. a lie that is now being born out today is that you think that mark zuckerberg, for example, to name someone who's plunging towards disaster right now, had an idea of what was going to happen. i don't think they had any idea whatsoever, and designed the systems and a way that, if you had an idea what was going to happen, or any kind of anticipation, you might have made other choices in how they were built. >> i don't think people knew what was going to happen because it's unimaginable what happened. 14 years ago, facebook was a website no one took seriously in

mark zuckerberg's dorm room. the first prototype of the iphone idol thing had been made. this beat and the size and the impact that has happened, i think we just lived through one of the three great technological revolutions in recent history, and the rate of change in technology is so much faster than the rate of change in people, certainly in evolution, but how quickly we can update our own thought processes, that i think i agree that people didn't think about what was going to happen, but it was not out of any malice. it was just like, it's hard to live in that. i remember what it was like. it's hard to imagine a got this big. that it went this will. >> you're saying they didn't have malice. that's a pretty low bar. that shouldn't be the bar. thoughtlessness should have the same amount of damage that -- and my issue with a lot of it

is, as it began to develop, they pretended they didn't have the power they were collecting. the thoughtlessness continued and continues today with the people who run. >> certainly what has gone wrong, when it became clear this was going to be as big as it becomes, people didn't stop to say what do we do now? but at the beginning, what people were imagining what the internet was going to be like, i don't think anybody could have predicted this. >> i remember when i first moved here, i went to northbridge and there were these hackers talking about afterwards, we're not going to have governments. tech is going to free everyone and break our chains. wasn't there this undercurrent of folks who thought of technology as a way to break down systems of power? >> well, unusual because it was know, aremen, so, you

the most under seized people on the planet. [laughter] >i'm going to say no for that one. >> that's a hard know from kara fisher. >> it interesting, when i think back, i written a book about aol. >> i remember. >> chat rooms and things like that. i was hired by the wall street journal to cover -- it wasn't even call the internet. it was online services. i was the first reporter to cover the internet. when i got the job, a lot of the media reporters said you're here to cover cb radio. i said no, i'm here to cover the media that's going to decimate all your industries. nice to meet you. >> so you haven't changed one bit? >> no. it's interesting because you had a front row seat. by the way, google didn't even exist for a long time for that when i was here. but it was mark when he was i

think a teenager when i met him, 19 or something like that. early yahoo!, when they were five or six people. bezos i met when there were five people. it was really early, early on. >> let's take a giant leap forward closer to today. part of the reason i wanted to do this conversation with you guys as it relates to civic engagement, we're living and a time where people have a lot of anger, tension, anxiety about the intersection of route technology affected politics, specifically after this 2016 election. do you think people would be feeling this way if hillary clinton had won? >> yeah, but they'd be different people. 50% would be feeling this way, but a different 50%. >> part of it was the feeling that the russians co-opted our technology in order to make it so that donald trump woodwind. there's this feeling -- would

win. there's this feeling that the tool that was supposed to help us was fucking everything up. do you really think there would be this much angst and a zaidi? -- and anxiety? >> i think there were other powerful things helping hillary when. the story would be pulled either way. there would be police -- people on both sides trying to influence. there was only two election cycles ago when candidates were saying, do i have to think about digital at all? i just do tv ads, right? this speed in which technology changed politics, and the degree to which most candidates don't understand that is huge. that a lot of people wish that hadn't happened, that the change hadn't happened so quickly in politics.

but i think, i always believe people when they say they are angry. i think that's always true, but it's hard to articulate the precise reason. you see that in the way people they talk about technology in the 2016 election. something has clearly changed in, what i would say is a bad way, at least a different way. but it's hard to articulate what that is and what we're going to do about it. >> look, donald trump is very good at the internet. and brad parcell, even though he's a loathsome creature, he's the campaign manager for trump, and he's the digital director. he's the one that really didn't understand how to use and target people. some nefarious ways, some very effective voice, appealing to fear and anger. targeting people online and use the services the way you would sell cookies or a movie or something like that. i think the clinton campaign was still operating in an old-style,

a digital style, and so was the democratic party. one of the things really striking -- a couple of cycles ago, howard dean and joe what his name -- trippi. we had him one year. he had done some of the early digital stuff for howard dean, which was effective initially, but not everybody had a cell phone, not everybody was online. then the people we interviewed, one of the things interesting if you think about it, for much of the 20th century, most of the media outlets who were liberal were liberal or left-center, centerleft, center centrist, but certainly not conservative. even though they say we're fair, they weren't. they were liberal, essentially. and the right-wing did not have a place to talk until online. so they got very good at it very early.

because they were the out of power people. so they moved to cable. they have fox news. it's hard to think of now, but cable was an outlying media now. same thing with the internet. the use the internet well and they communicated really well. then they learned how to use it in a more nefarious like. >> do you think we move too fast? you said twice no one could have imagined how much could change in 15 years. do you think things developed to quickly and society isn't catching up and we should've gotten slower? is that even possible? >> what i was going to say is i would love it if that were possible. but in the world we have the fastest moving company tends to win, the company that gets to the most fastest tends to win, and that's mostly good, but it has important negative consequences. we're all now wrestling with what to do about it. but i think it's like, it's very hard to stop progress.

that probably won't work. and i think what we can do, and what i think we need to figure out how to do now, how do we as a society adapt more quickly when the world can change so fast? it's better to get faster at society correcting than trying to slow down technological progress. and we, so far, have been very bad at that. >> it's interesting because the way talk about it is that we don't have control over it. we haven't done this. certain people have done this. and they run these companies. it's really interesting about silicon valley, that i've covered, when there's successes, we celebrate these people like they are geniuses. i always say they tell me they spent all day telling me how smart they are, continually. not you, same, you're lovely. again, lobar. [laughter] -- low bar.

[laughter] >> i'll take it. >> run done valencia. keep going until you get to palo alto. they spent a lot of time telling you how smart they are, and then when things go wrong, they moved into the "we." you notice that with zuckerberg. have you noticed that? he says, well, the community was -- once to work together to fix this problem. and i am, "but you own the community, and you own 60%, and you're the ceo, chairman, and the founder, and you have unprecedented power over this giant organization of which you have no ability to run." and yet, "the people should work together." when do people get power? it's hysterical to watch. >> i have a question for you. do you think mark zuckerberg should be the one to determine who gets to use facebook and who doesn't and who gets to say stuff? who gets to say stuff command who doesn't?

kara: yes, i think he should. he built this. this is his product. this is the lie about silicon valley -- i told you, this is a for-profit company. of which mark zuckerberg is now a $64 billionaire. he took the money. >> in some sense, he's bigger than the government. kara: he's unkillable, unfirable. i think i called him a mix between -- in a "times" column last week, i called him him mix between "wolverine" together and dead cool -- deadpool added a zombie or two. [laughter] >> i don't agree with that, clearly. [laughter] kara: hold this for a second. i'm a little warm. i have to change brands. >> wait a minute! [laughter] >> you don't get a boob shot on tv. did you get it? >> i got it. kara: alright! [laughter] >> some people call it changing hats. you call it changing t-shirts.

you call it changing brands. kara: changing brands. >> it scares me to think that a small handful of people not accountable to us and not us gets a make the existon of who gets to online and who doesn't. so i would welcome for decisions on who gets a megaphone about who can say what, but it's surprising to hear people who are traditionally very far left in the technology industry say they want the companies to make these rules, not that we wanted -- want a government that we get to elect. kara: doing it forever, do you have a problem when the new york times did it? it was like 12 white guys on the upper west side in new york who would decide what was on the front page of "the new york times."

every day for decades. i think the broadcast networks are the same. this is not different. what is different is the unprecedented size and influence and impact and amplification of the situation, but it is not unsimilar to the people who ran cbs and abc and nbc when there were only three networks. >> we had the three heads of those networks deciding what people got to hear. kara: i think that's always been the world. sam: that does not mean we shouldn't shoot for something better. kara: right. this is what always coalesces, power in the hands of a certain small group of people, which were typically the same people, and then the discussion would get turned less right now for example, the discussion is about tribalism. the issue isn't tribalism, the issue is that 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. so, what happens -- i was with someone from twitter, and they suddenly had gotten attacked for something. he had suddenly gotten strafed, and they said, this is really hard, and i said, "welcome to the rest of the world for women, gays, and the rest of us," so

what happens is the diversity at the top is lacking. if there was a more diverse top, you would get a very different outcome. sam: so i'm all for the different outcome, and i'm all for the way more investment to fix the problem of harassment and discrimination online. i think that's a huge problem. for all that tech has done wrong, i do think one thing that 's great is that for those people who have been denied a voice, for all of those things that have gone wrong, and for all of the ways we have not yet figured out how to adapt to this, which are huge. the fact that everyone in the world now has access to a platform and a voice, we've seen incredibly positive change in a short hayward of time best short period of time. >> think about black lives matter. think about the dakota pipeline,

police brutality. it's a catalyzing action. kara: it sort of is. it's owned by the same people. we just did a piece on the men and women of facebook, and i put up their pictures, and it was white guy, white guy, white guy, asian guy, and someone said that was really unfair, and i said, "you hired them. i didn't. i'm just putting up their pictures for people to see." i'm just putting up their pictures for people to see. [laughter] recently we did another one, where they did a rework on facebook. and not just facebook, many tech companies are like this. and i said, there were more people named jim than there are women, something like that. [laughter] and as for people of color, that -- one picture was in black and white. that was the only difference. it was ridiculous. it was insanity that if you look at this, these management structures, black lives matter can talk but they don't run facebook. these different groups can do

things, but they don't own google. >> hypothetical, then. if tonight, something changed and the people that ran these companies represent the public and were given a voice, or do -- what do you think would change in politics? kara: it would be a change in internet, it would be much better. help change policy? >> are you against the need for greater diversity and leadership? it seems to me that the echo chamber, that civic discourse online is dirty, it's difficult, it's ad hominem and it's not particularly productive. my question is how does a more diverse top make -- kara: politics is about power. that's what i think it's about, politics is about power and who has it and who doesn't, and who is allowed to wield it and do things. these jobs have real-world implications. so the people in power -- who was yelling? that's nice. the people in power matter, and

the people that aren't in power matter. that includes ownership of the companies and who is running them. you're making enormous efforts to try to diversify the pool. correct? >> certainly, and diversifying our partnership, i believe it works. i really do. diversifying our partnership is reflected in a more diverse step away. it's not the only way to make the platforms work better. i mean, government regulation -- how we handle discourse and online harassment, and what you are allowed to say or not, i think there is another way to do it. and i personally will always be more comfortable with that run a -- then a small group of people, no matter what they look like, absolute power forever and unfireable. >> we're all friends and both of you independently came to me and said that i'm thinking about running for political office.

can i say? you were considering maybe running. we talked about it. you and i talked about running for governor of california, and you and i talked about running for mayor of san francisco. and i was like, awesome, how can i help? what would you like to talk about? so talk to me a little bit about where you are thinking of running for office and why you chose not to. sam: i was thinking about it, because i think the state is in a bad place, particularly when it comes to cost of living and specifically the cost of housing. if that doesn't get fixed, the state is going to evolve into a very unpleasant place. one thing that i have really come to believe is that you cannot have social justice without economic justice. and economic justice in california feels unattainable. i think it would take someone with no loyalties to very powerful interest groups -- i would not be indebted to the other groups, so maybe i can try

a couple of variable things. kara: so you're like bloomberg, that and the obsession with coca-cola. [laughter] sam: i didn't know he had a reason with coca-cola. kara: hello, big gulps? [laughter] emanuel: this talk brought to you by coca-cola. [laughter] sam: i don't think i have enough experience to do it. maybe i can do a few things. i wouldn't know how to deal with the thousand other things that need to happen. more importantly, i wanted to spend my time trying to make sure we get artificial intelligence built in a good way, which i think is like, to me personally, i think is the most important problem in the world to me. and i was willing to set aside that to run for office. kara: i just want unmitigated power to screw people -- [laughter] emanuel: i love the honesty. kara: true. limousines idling in front of my

house, things like that. [laughter] and then i would want to get thrown out of office in a really dramatic fashion. fuck you! i'm gonna be back! [laughter] emanuel: so why didn't you do it? kara: i don't know. i was complaining too much, and i thought this is ridiculous. it's very simple. after the trump election, i thought if this idiot can get elected, i could get elected. really, it was things -- the brakes were off, something had changed with him. if i can pay him a small complement, the smallest there -- smallest i will give him is that the brakes were off for people. he's unhinged. it's not necessarily a bad thing. he just happens to be a bad thing. emanuel: the people that would have never run before hand, there are millions that are changing the way they think about their interaction politics

because of that election. kara: i think it was similar. now that the fantastic squad of ladies that's run by alexandria ocasio cortez, she's the head of it, it looks like, they have a whole squad, i want to join that squad. if i have to run for congress, i figure they will let the old white lady in, let's have her for humor. i've lived here for a long time, and that it was important instead of just complaining about things, do something about it. now we have a new mayor, so no one thought that the former mayor would die like that. we should give this mayor a chance. i think it's really important. it's important not just to be difficult to run. emanuel: we will ask one or two more questions, then open it up to q&a. are you good? here's what's going to happen.

i'm going to ask you each individual questions, then a final question. your first op-ed in the new york times was entitled "mark zuckerberg and the expensive education." kara: "the expensive education of mark zuckerberg in silicon valley." i meant for the rest of us, not for him. >> has he learned? kara: no, i wouldn't say. he's a nice man. he's personally nice, but he's causing enormous damage. i think one of the things if you listen to that podcast, everyone is focused on the holocaust deniers part, where they don't mean to lie, and i said they do mean to lie, they mean to lie a lot. that was, to me, and insane thing to say, but it got a lot of the attention. that was mark zuckerberg never getting on a stage with me, last time he almost sweated to death, this time he just defended holocaust deniers. [laughter] sam: that's 2-2 right there.

kara: i know, how i get him to say things like that? [laughter] the thing i was most disturbed by, was that when i kept pressing him on the impact of his inventions, that they had made these pretty sloppy rules in these countries and these products were not sought out properly, introduced properly, didn't have the proper people in place to manage it, and people died. and how did he feel about that? how did you feel about this that you made this badly and there were real-life consequences. and instead, what he said was, he goes, "what i'm really interested in is solutions, solutions are what i like to do. we should fix the situation. we again. we should fix it." and i said yes, but you caused the problem. what you caused? -- how dean feel about what you cop -- how do you feel about

what you caused? six times i asked him the same question. i want to know how he thought about it. "if i was in his issues and had billions of people, i have all these things weighing on my shoulders how could he let -- emanuel: he wouldn't be able to make it through the day. kara: because he took the money and he took the job. he's an adult. stop treating him like he's a juvenile. oh my goodness, this poor hoodie-clad boy, it's so hard for him. my kids can take more pressure than he can. nonetheless, i asked him six times, it went on for a while. it got really uncomfortable. and he kept saying, "we have to fix the solution." but i said you caused the problem. how do you feel about that? he finally got exasperated. because i had done it so many times, on purpose, and he goes, what do you want me to say? and i said, how about starting off with, "i'm sorry that i cause people to die because of what i did." that would be in the human reaction. secondly, "i wonder if i was capable of handling this thing,

and if i'm the right person to do this, because it has real-world implications." and then i asked, who should be fired for this? who should be fired? he said, i guess, me, because i am the ceo and founder because i control it, i'm the chairman. and he goes, "well, do you want me to fire myself?" i said that would be fine. i just want them to understand the implications. emanuel: we can actually solve the problem? if mark zuckerberg went to hawaii and was like alright, guys, i'm done, we still have billions. it doesn't matter what he posts about, he has tens of thousands of people attacking each other about brett kavanaugh, palestine, sexual assault, it's this whirlpool of hate -- he's the one that starts it, but if he was replaced by someone else,

wouldn't people still be -- kara: i don't know. i think he needs help with a lot of people who have more global viewpoints that maybe are not living in the bubble of palo alto that have a bigger idea of things, that understand ethical issues. these are ethical, societal, philosophical issues. and these are people, if you know them, are lovely people, but ill-equipped to deal with. i think. sam: i want to make two points for clarity. one, i think it's a real shame that he didn't start with "i'm sorry," which is the obvious human reaction. i got the feeling he felt it. i think there's sometimes such an adversary relationship between people and the people asking them questions, i wish he had done that. and i believe, i want to believe that's what he felt. the second thing, i want to be clear that i believe we need to adapt these platforms and rules

and how we use them much faster. it turns out that when you give everyone a voice, you get great and terrible behavior from that. and it's easy in stories to categorize people. we, as humans, like the stories where people are clearly the hero or the veblen, and unfortunately that's not always the case. there's good and evil in everybody and everything. i think we need to get -- people are dying, and we need to address that much faster with more seriousness than we have been. and i believe we can, but i think it will take work we're not currently doing. but i think it's easy to talk about how people aren't dying. but i think it's important to talk about how people are living. i grew up gay in the midwest in the 1990's and early 2000's. i was not very good. i think, without the internet, i am not sure i would've made it through that. that transformed me personally. and i think it transformed gay people on the world.

i think you can see that for many other groups that had been oppressed with no voice for a long time. and i have no doubt that many people have lived because of facebook, as well. kara: i get that argument, but it's how they are building the structure. nicole wong, a fantastic and smart person, she was a lawyer for them. we did an amazing interview where she talked about the pillars you build these things on. and pillar for google was context, authenticity, and something else. you pick the choices you make to build the structure you're making. what facebook is built on, for example, i'm just using this, because twitter is its own cesspool of a mess, but it is actually fun in a lot of ways, today, it was really fun, for some reason there were all kinds of memes on there -- but you build it on certain things. what facebook is built on is in virality, speed, and engagement. when you build it on those premises, guess what you get?

precisely what you get. you get fake news, hatred, if you built it around community, context, authentic connections, that's a very different business. but guess what, it's not as lucrative a business. >> look, it deeply troubles me, and it should trouble everyone that these companies have teams of people that figure out how to exploit our systems, and you get what you expect to get out of that. i do think, though, that there's more good than bad that comes out of this. if i can push a button and make all the facebook products disappear, i wouldn't -- twitter, maybe. i'm joking about that. i do think that the value that we've gotten, and again, we need to adapt. human society has been able to adapt so far. but i think there's incredible good and it's easy to get lost in the discussion. emanuel: based on your comments, you guys are both leaders,

thinking of the future, talking to people at the core of this. based on those conversations, and your reading of the tea leaves, where do you see this going? are we at the edge of a precipice that is just going to get worse, or are people really waking up to some of the issues and are taking real, serious, concrete steps to solving this? kara: i wish i could say that about a lot of stuff out of facebook right now is, "we are the victims here." i've never seen this insane of a reaction. it's really interesting in contrast of google, they took -- the employees said this is not how we want to run a company. which was interesting. facebook employees are more -- i called them "docile." but they are. soma in theed them bread or something. >> what is that? 1984."ook called " >> kara, we're on television

right now. we're not allowed to read that. >> i should read facebook because i read "1984." >> i'm sorry, "brave new world." you're right. ninth grade. we read them all. sorry.case, i'm what was your point? >> i don't know, i'm embarrassed now. >> i think congress is going to insert itself. and the fact that lindsey graham is going to have any say over this is disturbing. i think it's bad. [laughter] i spent a few years in washington visiting them. there are a few senators, senator warner, senator byrd, senator bennett, a couple are pretty intelligent. senator wyden, i'm trying to think, who else, you know them better than i do -- congressman, anybody?

sam: look, i think we're going to get this resolved. but i think we've actually lost sight of what's really important. i think we're living on an exponential curve of technology, and the rate of change has been increasing every year, every decade. it will keep increasing. what we're in right now, which feels like the most important and important technical issue will ever face, will turn out to be nothing but a warm-up for what we'll be dealing with in the next couple of years. this, which seems like this absolute meltdown, there can be nothing more important, nothing harder, we are going to look back at this with fondness in the way that we look back at previous presidents now, and say , remember when life was so simple? [laughter] but the next round of issues are going to be, like, what does it mean when anyone can edit anyone else's genome? what does it mean when we have artificial intelligence smarter than humans in every way? these, i promise, these will make the issues of today look like trifles, which we wish we

had to deal with again. >> ai, robotics, changes in transportation, things around genes and dna. what is about to come, it is really frightening, in terms of who determines these things and the impact it has on society. for sure. sam: the thing about exponential curves, when you look backwards, they look flat, and when you look forwards it looks vertical. you only sense your only relative pace of progress so it always feels like the most important thing ever. in that sense, it's always true. but if you don't look forward, , reallythese questions get to fundamental questions of, what humanity will look like, what it means to be human, what the world will look like in 30 years, which is an recognizably different. i'm confident we'll adjust the

current issues, i'm not confident we'll be able to address the future ones. kara: surveillance, too. what does a chinese driven internet look like? it's an interesting question. it's hard to think about. he is right, the surveillance stuff coming, the sensors, the stuff you put in our bodies, things like that, the altering of your own body, it's really big stuff. emanuel: you're speaking to a packed house in san francisco, and also the american public on c-span. you're both very involved in these questions. is there anything we can do right now, other than sit and wait for this technology to be developed and hope it doesn't destroy us? what can we actually do? >> not watch "black mirror." [laughter] sam: actually, i think sci-fi is really important to watch. [laughter] kara: not the pig one. not the pig one. i'll never unsee that one.

>> i didn't see the pig one. one -- pige the big one. sam: in terms of what we can't do, people can participate, get involved. kara talks about how tech company leadership is overwhelmingly male, and that's true. the most skewed field i know of right now is machine learning phd's, which i think by graduation rate, are 90%-99% male. and that is the group of people , in my opinion, i may turn out to be wrong, that will have the most effect on the future of the world we live in. what we can do is get involved. we can encourage a much broader, much more diverse group of people to go into the field and into other fields, as well. we can start those conversations now before we're sort of reacting on the other side of it like we are, about how social media gets used. we can start conversations about what decisions to make, what we want society to look like, before we make these changes.

are we sure they're good, are we sure they're bad? which ones should we try to stop? which ones should we do more of? i don't know how to do that. because i think society is good at reacting to yesterday's problems, and bad at investing huge amounts of time, energy, and thought into the problems that will occur in 10 years. >> aren't you the person that's supposed to be thinking? sam: i'm trying to. i'm trying to make it my major focus. that's why i'm not running for governor. [laughter] kara: i'm going to mars with elon musk. emanuel: that doesn't sound very fun. kara: are you kidding? what are you talking about? elon musk looks like so much fun. sam: he's very fun. [laughter] >> we have now veered off topic. i think it's time. we will open it up to audience questions. here's how it's going to work. we have hands already, that's great. we have a wireless mic. i will point to you, then hand it to you.

better to ask a specific question to one or the other, because that way we get more questions. so if you have a specific question for someone, please let them know who it is, then pass the mic back up. ok, we've got one mic. one second. also, please say your name and stand up. first question will be over there. let's pass this mic down there. yeah, you over there. >> hi, i'm doing work helping communities and organizations figure out how to effectively deal with sexual predators when they're identified, with the possibility of applying restorative justice when that's appropriate, particularly for lower-level offenses or miscommunications. i'm curious to hear from both of you how you would like to see us shift how we respond to

accusations in the #metoo era. i think we haven't quite started out yet as far as i can tell. kara: you take that one. [laughter] kara: we're reaching a really interesting point in the #metoo stuff. i don't know if you read the les moonves ones in the new york times today, it was disturbing, although it was just kind of low-level corruption on his part, the way he's trying to cover up in order to get the money he wants. you know, it's a big question because the country got around -- these stories get around the world so quickly, right? everything gets amplified so quickly and then people get exhausted by the amount of discussion. what's really important is the people, especially women, should have voices and be heard. the story should be heard. and i think one of the things we did when we covered the ellen

pao trial, which we were good on, one of the things i did as an editor is decide to cover it like the super bowl. i hate to use this comparison. we had five stories a day on it. we decided to put a lot of attention, then we had two reporters on it. two great reporters. we covered the hell out of it in lots of different aspects. we live blogged it, because we thought it was an important intersection of sexism, power, money, and influence, stuff like that. and so one of the problems is when you have things like twitter, or whatever, it's exhausting to people, that it becomes noisy. and the point is that you can never have a substantive discussion about problems. everybody feels in a crouch position, right?

and doesn't know what to do. so, legitimate stories, everyone just gets -- you know, men get like, i can't say anything, women now want to talk a lot and about it. there are so many different stories. then you've got the cable stations doing different things, then it becomes a circus. it's really hard in this era not to be twitchy in terms of how you behave. the issue is the system, the system is broken against certain people. certain people stay in power, and those people like to stay in power and they are not going to give it up willingly. so how do you change the systems at their very core? it's really a super difficult problem, from my perspective. >> the area where i have the most expertise on this is not sort of about lower income lower status women, but female

founders in the portfolio. i think there's still a huge way to go there. my new belief about how that problem is actually starting to get solved is the lps that give their money to invest. now that they have decided to demand reporting and transparency on this, it's the first time i'm actually seeing the industry take this sufficiently seriously. i have sort of an unusual perspective on this whole thing. because i was both harassed 15 years ago, it's stuck in memory. and i'm friends with a lot of powerful man in washington, d.c. on the other side of this. i feel i see both sides of this. at this point, a very common complaint about the female founders is that male vc's will not engage with them in any way 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.

and how that gets fixed, i hear about it, i understand why people have the risk profile they do. when i say don't be an asshole then you'll be fine 99% of the time. it was a what about the 1%, i will not take that risk. the current state, it's clearly better than women being harassed, but it's deeply unfair to women. i don't know how you turn that around. kara: it's so funny. i have people say that to me. what if someone says anything? don't grab their ass, how about that? don't kiss them, don't ask them out on a date. i'll make a list for you, don't do these things. >> i'm on your side, i just don't know how to make it happen. >> it's such a vast overreaction by men. women don't go around doing this all day. we manage to control ourselves even though we want to grab you guys. [laughter] well, i don't. you do, i don't. opposites. sorry.

you know what i mean. >> i do. >> when i hear that, i want to take the glass and throw it. >> i'm agreeing. it's just become a huge problem. >> that's the first reaction, how does it affect me, versus this is a systematic problem through society, and maybe i'm the cause. my son, who is 13, he's like a champion debater. he's always, he goes, "mom, what about men who get harassed?" i say 1%. he said let's talk about that. and i say why? why don't we worry about the 99%? we end up having these amazing debates. it's really interesting how he goes there, versus the 99%. i don't send him to his room or anything like that. [laughter] but it's interesting. just stop it. stop it. i don't know what else to say. >> we can continue or move to the next question.

to the left, you have the mic. >> this question is for the would-be mayor. [laughter] i'm wondering about the real world -- what i think we don't interrogate enough is the real world impacts of a lot of these tech platforms, not just in the sense of the mass genocides that are caused by unmanned technology platforms, but for example, the demographics of this room would not look the way it does without the employment practices of the companies that we live around. let's be real. i live in san francisco, am i the only black person here? yeah, hey, ok, all right. [laughter] there are a few of us, but not as many as there were probably 15 years ago. in light of things like amazon going to long island city, the sidewalk labs, the google experiment that aims to create a

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

very different. oh, my company is right. the city is totally right. what a coincidence. kara: 100%. aah, i think it goes to thoughtlessness. how did this happen? they act like it just happened. i tell this story a lot. what happening around cities is a lot to do with city planning. you know how segregation happens. it's very clear. in this city, it's about money and who can afford to live here. and who they hire. 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 can connect and why they depict women with misogyny. it was a really interesting thing today on twitter.

claire danes or someone was talking -- >> natalie portman. >> yes, natalie portman. twitter was good today. it was an interesting debate. she was talking about jessica simpson. you should go look at it. i'm getting off the topic. i think the way they hire. years ago, i wrote a story and i like to drop these things down every now and again. it was the board of twitter was 10 white men of the same age. like i didn't know the mall -- of them all a part from each other. i called him and he was a great guy and i said how did you get 10 of the same white men on the board? he said, i don't know, just happened. it couldn't have happened, that's mathematically impossible. i wrote a story and i think this

is after i wrote this lead. i said the board of twitter which has three peters and a dick. it was so good. done. i had a really interesting discussion that he thought it just happened that way. >> really? honestly.eally did, he did it and other people did it. when i went to question him he said we have standards. it's really interesting that you always use the word standards when it comes to adding women or people of color but you never do it when it's 10 white men who are driving your company into a wall. twitter is not doing very well. standards are only applied to people trying to get in and it's i can't tell you about cities, but i do think these decisions are made purposely.

like unconscious bias, it is very conscious as far as i can tell. it is done without thoughtlessness. we need thoughtful politicians. just call it out. you are going to put people of different economic and racial in different places throughout the city, and everyone is going to do it. we have to have leaders to do that. i think that is the problem, that they don't do that. at those companies, you have to have leaders that say i have 70% white guys running this place. i need to change this, and i can't look at it like i am dropping standards. you know what i mean? it can't be looked at like that because 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 and racism? >> i also feel unqualified to opine on that. but the data is clear that

making housing affordable is a hugely beneficial thing to eople who are younger or disenfranchised in any way. >> we have a question to the right. you in the white sweater, would away d coming over here from that crazy loud noise thing? >> hi. i am peggy. i wanted to kind of change the topic to the politization of data and who owns your data? we all subscribe to these social platforms, and who owns our attention and how that might change anti-trust laws or the definition of monopoly. i am interested to harper both your thoughts on that? >> thank you. >> i think you own your data, and people agree on that. he hard part is the internet

giants, their network effects or monopolies or whatever coded word you want to pick. if all your friends are on instagram, you are going to be on instagram. if you stopped liking instagram's rules, you could go somewhere else and have a good experience, but you don't really have an option to do that. that is what the current consumer data laws and the anti-trust laws fail to take like ccount, is that -- people say if you don't like facebook, don't use any of facebook's products. much easier said than done. sure, you can do it, and some people do. does anyone in this room not use at least one facebook product once a week? >> i have tried. i have deleted an app. i have turned my phone to black and white.

i feel like i actually chemically can not do it. > facebook is a bloated and. instagram is a performance people's bloated bull. >> but you you use it don't you? >> no. i am not on instagram. >> ok. >> twitter i like because it is successful. .> there is a data question how do we actually have consumers in a world where monopolies are so big. i think that is what is getting lost in the conversation. it is so hard that nobody talks about it. what is the answer to that? >> i think they are going to be roped up.

here is going to be some anti-trust around all of it. but i think the amount of data that these companies have on you and how they collect it -- >> what does that mean? you use twitter with this half of the room and not this half? >> i don't know. i think they have done it before. i think that is probably where it is going to go. everyone said who can affect microsoft, and bingo, they affected microsoft. there is going to be some sort of regulatory leap because these companies can't resist their board-like tendencies to want to suck up every piece of information. [inaudible question] >> i think if the democrats get in power, they used to be friends of tech. they are not so friendly to tech anymore. i can tell from visiting them. you have a lot of people in the democratic party who are pretty pissed about what happened and had some thoughts on that. >> we have a question all the

way in the back. yes, you. i know you think you are surprised, but all the way in the back. do you want to get up and project? let's do that. say your name and please project. >> i am trying to think about preventing a.i. from ending civilization in general. when we think about that, there seems to be an arms race etween us and china. >> i can't promise when. i can't even make a confident prediction, but we, humanity will at some point build digital intelligence that is your passes human intelligence. people don't think about that much because it is so uncomfortable and so hard to say. that is an event horizon. it is really hard to see what the world looks like on the other side. i think it really matters that it is built in a way where the

benefit of it is distributed widely throughout humanity and decisions of how we build it are distributed widely. not to make this a commercial for open a.i., but i genuinely think that is super important. i think we will be able to learn the collective human value system. i think there will be big arguments about what human values we should keep, what we should let go and how gets to decide that and how we vote on it will be in some sense the hardest problem humanity has ever faced. i know believe in a way -- or at least i used to be not as confident, that the technological problems of how about build a super affirm i. that shares human values and is aligned with the goals of humanity, i think that is technically possible. that is the good news. the bad news is the collective action or collective governance problems is going to be hard.

evolution is slower than technology. i think we are likely to have to react to this at a speed we are not good at, which is why i think it is important that the technology industry now try to get people thinking about this and try to figure out the world that we want to collectively build. >> who has hired most of the a.i. and machine learning? what are the two companies that coast most of it right now? >> i think open a.i., half the most important results in the past year, and we are only 80 people. >> but the two companies that are hiring heavily are google and facebook. >> the number of people. one of the things magical about software, if you have people that are a little bit smarter and a little bit better missioned and better planned, just like start-ups always can, you can beat a company that has tens or hundreds of thousands of people. that is always true about software, and it is like

exponentially true about artificial intelligence. looking at the number of people these companies have is wrong way to think about it. i think looking at maybe the number of transistors you said the control of a company will be the right way to look at it. >> a quick follow up. what specifically do you think is the role of the 500 or 600 elected efficiency that have just been brought into government to do to kind of steer the conversation? if you were just elected to the 2018 congress and this is something that you cared about, what is the role of those people? >> the tricky balance is there are zwo very different ways this is important. one is the changes this is going to have to the economy and jobs in the next few years. that is a huge issues. that is where people are going to feel pain today next year and the year after. then there are questions about how it is going to fundamentally reshape the world in 20 or 30 years. then you have to prioritize and

balance those two things. they are actually totally different. it is very hard. i think our system, especially with congress on a two-year cycle, even the presidency on a four-year cycle is going to do a much better job with the first. i think we are going to figure out how to deal with that. but how we pick this long-term future, i think that is going to take courage and foresight in a politician that is rare. >> there is nobody working on it. >> nobody. >> right now we don't have a chief science officer running the office of science. if we have an ebola situation we are out of luck. we don't have a chief of tech snoling. that whole area has been gutted out. i think one guy, there is one guy in there who is one of the deputy c.t.o.'s. he was in real estate before or something like that. what is his name? >> i don't know. >> his name is michael.

>> whatever. they were like meet him. i am like no. i am not meeting a real estate guy about tech. we need more smart people. >> you have had your hand raise -- raised for a while. yeah, you. yeah. this doesn't work, so you have to stand up. >> i am chris. you mentioned the exponential growth curve. the weinstein brothers make mention of the sense-making pparatus, referring to the economics. what you believe is going to be the upcoming sense-making apparatus dealing with the decreasing potential load as or world moves on.

>> do you want to repeat that question? >> i think the question is how do we deal with all these screens? the incoming? >> how do we take in all the news? >> i literally don't want to take a shower anymore. what happened? did we just like declare war on france? just on twitter for five seconds, and then it is over. i don't know. >> that is a stressful and unhealthy way to live personally. >> really? [laughter] >> i shower. >> very unhygenic. >> i shower, in there with a baggy. >> you have 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 or hobbies

because this was so important. you cano shower because if you were aware from your computer for five minutes, you were going to miss the conversation, and none of you remember what that is. it is ok to miss it. >> yes, it was bad countries, but go ahead. >> it is ok to miss that. >> no, it is not. you need not to miss that one. >> but there is no way to stay informed and stay sane right now. there is just no way to do it. >> i think one of the things that is happening is everyone seems so fatigued and stressed and unhappy, and i wish i could just like -- we could all take a day off and go for a walk in the woods, and 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 moat people's job. >> but here's the thing. do think there is a push towards let's twitchiness.

i just noticed how fast our podcasts are growing. when i started the podcast, everyone is like kara, you can't do it in an hour. people won't listen. you have to do 26 seconds. no, i am going to do an hour. i like a substantive discussion. i am just going to keep talking and give an interview with someone for an hour. you were on there. >> i was. >> and it was an hour discussion. it changes the whole nature of it, and it has only grown. thing hink there is some where the twitchiness people are pushing away from. there is some really wonderful entertainment shows that take commitment and are interesting. i don't necessarily know that we don't push that way. it seems that people are pushing that way in terms of indicators that we are getting from the stuff that people read on our site. >> can i share a quick story is this >> oh, my god, yes, please.

>> i was speaking to a friend of mine. he was coming to me for wife advice. i am trying to figure out what to do. i have spent the last 10 years on the internet. he has one for sure. he says i have a very bad case of internet addiction. they had staged an interdiction before. i realize for 10 years i have been wasting my time on twitter, reading the news on online forums, and my partner left me, none of my jobs have worked out. now i am about to turn 40, and i don't know what to do with my life. it was all true. there was this gut-wrenching moment where i could tell him oh, ok. that really did happen. i think we are going to see this a lot more because there is so much in the world, and so much of it so bad, it is easy to get immobilized by it. if it is not your job to stay on top of everything that is appening, do less of it.

you will still know a lot and still plenty to be outraged about it. if i am looking at a website and mindlessly do it, and hit an open tab and type in the same website again, which i do more than i had like to admit, i close the computer and either go for a walk or read a book. i am not perfect about that. sometimes i keep going, but i am trying to be better than that. it is deep in our biology to react to this, and we haven't had time to build up societal ant bodies yet. >> younger people are changing. my sons are very good at putting it down. it is a very interesting thing. i watch them. but they use it in a different way. it is used for certain things. i watch "gilligan's island" until my head falls off when i was a kid. you do things, and then switch

them into other things. i was on a train in new york, and everybody is looking at their phones. i was grumping away. then i thought before everyone had a newspaper, was looking at a book. nobody was staring out into space on the subway. >> i remember being bored. there was like this abstract thought from a long time ago that i can barely hold on to. i miss that. >> i do too. no offense, but i feel like we ave seen -- [laughter] >> keep going. >> i remember. i remember going home and being great i get to go on the internet now and telling my mom to get off the phone so that i could log on to the internet. it was this thing that you could do for a special 30 minutes, and the rest of the time you had to figure out what to do. and now, and in our lifetime i have seen -- now we are always on internet all the time, and i am always nervous. >> sweetie, i was around when

there were rotary phones. -- so 't williamsporty i don't worry about the age thing. these things are built to be addictive. that is another thing. they hire tons of people to addict you, and 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 did that on purpose. to pretend otherwise and say i don't know why people are addicted when they are handing you liquor. >> it is hard to pick one thing, but the tech companies are the worst because there are so many things. , how to hack human biology when history is written, is what happened? >> to make them into hapless victims of their own success is a mistake. they are purposely doing this

with every choice they make. then when it goes awry, they are like who knew? >> i think we agree, and there is plenty to be critical about, but there are also things to be thankful for. >> it not critical. it is truthful. when you say things like don't be so critical. i am just pointing out that you have made billions of dollars off of other people's privacy, off of other people's attention and taking advantage of other people's stuff. >> i am agreeing. i am pointing out, and i also am glad these companies exist. i know i may be in the minority in the room for that. but i think they have done great good for society too. >> shall we move on to the neck question? a question to the right over there? >> having too much fun up here. >> hi. i am the c.e.o. of an early

stage political activism company and a former policy advisor, so i think about this question. given 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, even life or death situations, 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, when i think about 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? >> yeah. i think their business models are their business models. how would you change them? wall street is wall street, right? how are you going to do this? they won't change it. i will switch it to another thing. he murders of this journalist.

do you know how many companies are funded by the saudis? are you seeing uber handing the money back? he is a murderous thug according to lindsey graham, and lindsey graham is saying it is absolutely true. i guess they are not going to do it. they are not going to do it. there is an expression that someone told me, you are so poor, all you have is money. they don't want to think these business plans. they don't want to change the addictive ones or the data sucking ones. they don't want to change the advertising ones. they don't want to change any of them. they just don't. they like the money. they like the power. they like everything. they just happen to wall allbirds. that is the only difference between them and wall street mowing also. ey are like we are repacious

assholes. i am like all right, i get you. let's have a beer. but i don't think they will do it. do you? >> this is easier for me to say because i don't need more money. but i certainly won't invest in companies that i think will be successful but would be bad for the world. sometimes i invest for the good of the world and go wrong. i think in the long run it does work, and i think it makes you more successful. we certainly tell companies that come to us in many instances you could go build that products, and you would make more revenue, that you would be doing some more important. at open a.i. charter, we talked about scenarios that we wouldn't be willing to do no mat other how much money it made. we made it public so the public could hold us accountable to that. there are different investors

who think differently. one thing i have a lot of sympathy for is people who came from nothing, got a job at a company with an incredible salary, but the company is doing things they don't like. they are not in the situation i am in. they struggle with the right answer. >> with the jewel stuff, there were a lot of people in that. ow did you think about that? >> this is the videotaping thing you must keep away from 16-year-old boys named louie swisher. go ahead. they now have a videotaping thing. i own one myself. >> i haven't looked into that. it seemed problem the maic. what someone told me that pure nicotine is not actually that bad for you. i assume that is right. >> you may not have children right now. >> i haven't studied it. i don't know. i wouldn't invest. >> a lot of people did.

that should have been an obvious one for a lot of people. >> it is almost 8:00. this is the last audience question over here. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is hillary, and i have heard people talk about open crypto networks that present potentially open computing systems where maybe platforms like facebook could be built in ways that shift the power and maybe the revenue model, giving a little bit more power to users. i was wondering what you guys think about that ant prospects there for solving some of these problems we have talked about. >> i so want to see a single crypto project shipped and actually get used. then i will stop sort of dismissing them out of hand. but until that happens, i don't think i can point -- i haven't been working super long, but a decently long chunk of time now. i can't point to any piece of

technology that has had as much -- that has so captured the discussion of the industry with so little actual use. the amount of money that has gone into crypto projects that are somewhere between incompetent and fraud i have never seen in any other industry. >> the early internet. >> that one i didn't see. i could believe that one was worse. >> i was there. there were a lot of them. >> i got it. >> i think i got that language right. >> maybe we can see it is the worst since then. >> it was a lot of scam eri in the early internet. it was crazy at the time. >> let's suppose that in concept to rule out all the scams -- >> what about you just getting paid four privacy? years ago when i was writing a book about a.o.l., steve case got up and said we are making $76 from each user or something. he had some number that he

assigned to it. i said can i have my $35 please? he was like what? why shouldn't you pay me half that money, and maybe i will give you more. they have never come up with that idea, like just being paid. it is not like giving away your liver, but what should you be paid? >> the promise is so seductive, and maybe it is a way to get around this issue that these aren't open protocols. you could leave. maybe if instagram was on some sort of block chain or something, maybe you could leave in some sense or use another version of it. but i think we are learning something fundamental about human coordination and governance, where these decentralized projects are not working well. i hope it happens. the current ecosystem of the crypto block chain world seems today -- this may change. it may be like a burn-out after the dot com, and facebook rises

later. the e it gets there, and promise is tantalizing. >> the final question i have, which is something i have been asking a lot of, is 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 am pretty impressed. >> i didn't quit it. i never used it. i just used it for work to understand it. here's the thing. if you are employees of these companies, you are their base. i hate to use a trump term, but you are their base. listen to the google walk-out organizers podcast we did. i think it was six women and one man. it was astonishing. they were astonishing, articulate, strong, still

loving their jobs but really said enough. they also just didn't want to talk about issues of just sexual harassment. the first thing started because they were paying someone $90 million who had real issues to go, which is astonishing that they did that. but if you are employees of these companies, ask questions of these things. it is not disloyal to say is this the way we are doing it? the premise of silicon valley was that it was changing the world, that it was better. they went on and on about how better they were. demand that they be better. that doesn't mean dropping a dime to me or anybody else. i would like that. and it has help me a lot in that way. you are a part and a power with these people. >> you have a power that you don't under and voices. i think it is really important

for you as employees who are 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 that. you have that. i am not saying everyone is powerful, but you really can, especially in this industry. and these leaders are listening. i think they do and they do get affect the by these things. that is what i would say to do. >> i think that is the most important point. i haven't thought of saying that, but that is what i think is the right answer. employees of the companies that have more power than any other constituencies. that is what these companies -- that is the group that these companies have to keep happy. it's talent is at such a premium in this industry. i do think this industry is better than others at listening to employees and trying to adapt that employees at the large tech companies have much,

much more power than they realize. the other thing i was going to say is i think it is fine to spend most of your time thinking about the problems and the challenges of today. i think that is really good. but if you believe that sort of you are living for the future and all the people that are going to come after you, you have to at least allocate some to the problems of the future, and you've got to spend some of your time, resources and your effort trying to think about not the problems of 2019, but the problems of 2039. it's hard to do that without concerted effort because the problems of today are so big. >> to me it is about making choices. be an adifficult. talk about the juvenilization of man in silicon valley or giving people a pass. act lickliter an adult. what would an adult do and not see that as a negative thing. here it is like everyone is young, or we have to have a young mentality.

about an omething acquired wisdom. i am only saying it is the power to say yes, this is the way we should go. you should be doing both things. you don't want to be doing both things, but you want to say no appropriately and yes appropriately. take responsibility for what you are doing and stop acting like the things you are doing don't have an impact because they do. and get across the country, and not like jerry sandusky -- like mark zuckerberg visiting every cow in every state. don't do that. but realize there are other places. it doesn't mean that you aren't just as justifiable as they are because that is really irritating too, to say oh, the real americans live here. real americans live everywhere. but do start to understand how

other people live paycheck to paycheck. they have a hard time with health care, nutrition and stuff like that. to me that is acting like an adult. >> can i make one closing comment? it will be fast. i think one thing that has gone wrong with the move into the internet is that we have evolved some biological protections for how we act with someone in person. 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. it is so easy to cast people as the other, to cast people as or just out ists of touch or drug addicts or

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

conversation. a really big round of [applause] for kara and sam. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its captioning content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org.] >> sunday on "q & a." >> we are on the floor of the united states senate. this is unprecidented. no one else has ever gotten an opportunity to do this. it is for production of a documentary on the u.s. senate. on the floor an hour before they begin. we are going to ring around the chamber for shots, and then afterwards back down on the floor. >> c-span executive producer mark farkass talks about his work on c-span's original production, the senate, conflict and compromise. >> if mitch mcconnell suggested this, how much control did he have over the content? >> zero. when we ep met with him for the

first time, we had a couple of conditions. one owusu that hey, you've got to grease the skids with the democrats because if we want access to the republicans, we have to get access to the democrats. and two, you don't have any editorial control over this. they said that is fine, but we don't want you to focus on the acrimony. we sort of said well, no, you can't ask us to do that because we are not going to concentrate on it. but again, we can't shy away from it. we have to come out with a product that we feel people on the journalism side and people who watch the senate say they didn't give a big wet kiss to the senate, but you have to watch it and say we didn't do a hatchet job either. >> mark fenway park as, producer on c-span's original production, the senate, conflict and compromise, sunday at 8:00 eastern on "q & a." >> new jersey sends four new

members to the house of representatives for the 116th congress. all of them seats previously held by republicans. mikey sheryl will represent new jersey's 11th district. she discussed her experience in the military and as a federal prosecutor during one of deb bates. in this debate. i b eg my service to this country when i was 18-years old >> i began my service to this d country when i was 18 years ole in the naval academy. i searched as a helicopter plot. after a lifetime of service i decided the best way i could do my service to my country and to new jersey was to run for congress. continue my service to my country and to new jersey was to run for congress. because i'm not just concerned about what's happening now. i'm concerned about the future of new jersey because i have four kids. and so i think we need to work in a bipartisan manner to get good legislation passed in congress. a tax plan that doesn't attack

new jersey. quality and affordable health care for everyone in this country. working hard to bring costs down in our health care system, infrastructure spending so we can grow our economy now and well into the future. i have always put this country first. i have worked with people from >> andy kim will represent new jersey's third district. he served on the security council staff during the obama's administration, he had been an advisor to davide trace and others in afghanistan. polish born tom was elected to the 7th district. he is a veteran of the obama administration. served as secretary of state

for democracy, human rates and labor for most of the second term. new congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span. >> it has been seven days since the government shut-down began. negotiations over border security between congress and the white house reat a stand still as president trump continues to call for $5 billion for border wall funding, which democrats are objecting to. no vote is expected. you can follow the house live on c-span and the senate live on use. >> white house bug director gave an update friday on the state of negotiations to reopen the government while speaking to reporters outside the white house. >> i will just take a few questions. hat is up?

>>