up wednesday morning, look at to government shutdown with reporters. then we'll talk about the 2020 presidential field with the representative from the virginia center for politics and we discuss the senate conflict and compromise with c-span producer mark farkas. be sure to watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. conversation on technology, politics, and society. we hear from cara swisher and by altman, it is hosted san francisco lounge called manny's that convenes civic events. this is one hour, 20 minutes. >> we will move chronologically and i want you guys were those

in the audience who have not been to conversations with you that thet the utopia early technologists were the he about when they thought about how technology and the world wide web would interact with politics. what do people think would happen with the intersection? >> they did not think at all. you think they thought and they know what they were doing but a lot of things get written after people become billionaires or become successful. having been there at the beginning, i worked for the washington post when the internet was born. it was there before the government entity. when it was commercialized for the first time when the released it and that was legislation that covered and al gore was the principal senator, he did in fact invent the internet. he was integral. you imagine that people had

great thoughtfulness toward what would happen or the implications and they did not. lieink that, that is the that is being borne out today markyou think that zuckerberg, for example, to name someone who is plunging toward disaster right now had an idea of what was going to happen. i do not think they had any idea. designed the systems in a way that if you had an idea what was going to happen with any kind of anticipation, you may have made other choices in the way they were built. >> i do not think oh -- people knew what would happen. was ars ago, facebook website no one took seriously in mark zuckerberg's dorm room. the iphone had not been made. of a size, and impact, we lived through one of the three great technological revolutions in history.

the rate of change of technology is so much faster than the rate of change of people, certainly of evolution. that people did not think about what was going to happen. it was not out of any malice. remembert is hard -- i , it was hard to imagine that it got this big, that they went this well. a low bar, is like they were not -- that should not be the bar. thoughtlessness can have the same amount of damage. my issue as it began to development -- develop, they pretended they did not have the power and the money they were collecting. the thoughtlessness continues and continued today with the people -- >> when it became clear it would

be as big, people did not stop and say, what do we do now? at the beginning when people were imagining what the internet was going to be like and what mobile was going to do, i do not think anyone could have predicted this. >> when i first moved here i went to noise bridge and there were these hackers who were talking about how afterwards we will not have governments, tech will free everyone and break our chains and wasn't there this undercurrent of folks who thought of technology as a way to break down systems of power? >> unusual because it was all like -- white men who are the most under siege people on the planet as you know. that -- that is a hard now. .- no i had written a book about aol.

was hirede because i by the wall street journal, it was not called the internet, it was online services and i was the first to cover the internet for them. when i got the job a lot of the media reporters said you're here to cover cb radio and i said i am here to cover the media that will decimate all your industries, nice to meet you. it was interesting because you got a front row seat, i remember , google did not exist for long time. zuckerberg may have been a teenager when i met him. early yahoo! when they were five or six people, jeff bezos had five or six people. it was early on. let's take a giant leap

forward to closer to today. part of the reason i wanted to do this conversation with you guys as a relates to civic engagement is we are living in a time when people have a lot of , tension, anxiety around the intersection of how technology has affected our politics. specifically after this election. one of the first questions or want to ask is do you think people will feel this way if hillary clinton had one. n? wo way.% would feel that >> [indiscernible] to make it that donald trump would there is this feeling that this tool that was a to help us sucking everything up and if on, do yoump had w think there would be this much

anxiety? >> people on the other side would say there are powerful things that would help hillary win. there were a lot of people on both sides trying to use the platforms to influence. twomember it was only election cycles of when candidates were saying they would have to think about digital, the speed at which technology has changed politics and the degree to which must candidate still do not understand that is huge. a lot of people wish that had not happened. sot change had not happened quickly and politics. i think, i always believed people when they said they were angry, i think that is always true but it is hard to articulate the precise reason why. you see that in the way people talk about technology in the 2016 election.

it is a different way. it is hard to precisely articulate what that is and what we want to do about it. donald trump is very good at the internet and even though he is a loathsome creature, his campaign manager was the digital director and he was the one that understood how to use and target fariasand in sumner ways, some effective ways, appeal to fear and anger, use these services that way you sell cookies were a movie and the clinton campaign was still operating in an old-style, a digital style and so was the democratic party. one of the things that was striking -- the original -- it was howard dean and joe

what his name, joe trippy. initially, bute not everyone had a cell phone, not everyone was online and -- 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 done slower? -- gone 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 scale 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? i think 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. what'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, sam, you're lovely. again, lobar. [laughter] -- low bar. [laughter] >> i'll take it. >> run right out the door. right down valencia. keep going until you get to palo alto. they spend 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 wants to work together to fix this problem. and i am, "but you own the community, and you own 60%, and you control it. 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." i was like, well 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: of course he is, and that is terrifying. he's unkillable, unfirable. i think i called him a mix

between -- in the "times" column last week, i called him him mix between "wolverine" together with deadpool and 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've got 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. kara: changing brands. >> it scares me to think that a small handful of people not accountable to us and not elected by us and get to do whatever they want get to make the decision of who gets to exist 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 we want the companies to make these rules, not that 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. >> actually, i think that was bad too. kara: 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. >> to be clear, i feel equally bad about three people -- 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. except what?

this is what always coalesces, power in the hands of a certain small group of people, which are typically the same people, and then the discussion would -- 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 online. they had suddenly gotten strafed, and they said, this is really hard, and i said, "welcome to the rest of the world for women, people of color, 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 way more investment to fix the problem of harassment and discrimination online. i think that's become 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 period of time best short period of time. >> think about black lives matter. think about the dakota pipeline, police brutality. kara: they don't own it. this is the lie. >> 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, indian guy, white 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." [laughter] kara: 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] kara: 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, the real -- 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 much better

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 very 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 has reflected a

more diverse set of founders. i believe it works. i really do. it is somewhat separate -- it is not the only way to make these platforms 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 than a small group of people, no matter what they look like, that are in absolute power forever and unfireable. >> so let's talk about power. we're all friends and both of you independently came to me and said that i'm thinking about running for political office, separate from each other. can i say? you were considering maybe running. we talked about it. 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 tell me a little bit about why 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 very 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 n obsession 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. that would be really good, but i wouldn't know how to deal with the thousand other things that need to happen. more important to me personally, 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: yeah, it's true. i would have limousines idling in front of my house, things like that. [laughter] kara: and then i would want to get thrown out of office in a really dramatic fashion. [bleep] you! i'm gonna be back! [laughter] emanuel: so why didn't you do it? kara: i don't know.

white in "valley of the dolls," i would be like all you [bleep] 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 compliment, the smallest there -- smallest i will give him is that the brakes were off for people. he's unhinged everything, which is not necessarily a bad thing. he just happens to be a bad thing. emanuel: the people that would have never run beforehand, 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 squad of them, 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 thought about that. i've lived here for a long time, and that it was important to instead of just complaining about things, do something about it. 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. 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? so you guys -- 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.

you know what i mean? he's a nice guy. 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, an insane thing to say, but it got a lot of the attention. that essentially was mark zuckerberg never getting on a again in mye ever life, because 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] kara: the thing i was most disturbed by and i have written about it since in "the times," was that when i kept pressing him on the impact of his inventions in myanmar and india,

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 that, that you made this badly and there were real-life consequences? instead of -- 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? six times i asked him the same question. i want to know how he thought about it. >> don't you think -- if i was in his issues and had billions of people, i have all these things weighing on my shoulders how could he let -- 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.

i don't mean to be rude, but 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, he kept -- 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 really sorry that i caused 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'm just saying, i just want them to understand the implications. actuallywith that 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 just like, this whirlpool of sure, he's the one that starts the whirlpool, 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. what anyone would want from a leader in that situation, and i got the feeling he felt it. i think there's sometimes such an adversarial relationship between people under siege and the people asking them , but 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 always categorize people. we, as humans, like the stories where people are clearly the hero or clearly the villain 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, although 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. -- how people are 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. that was sort of not very good. i think, without the internet, i will honestly say i am not sure i would've made it through that. that transformed me personally. i think it has been transformative for the acceptance of 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, who used to work for google, 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. originally, for example, the 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 was really fun, for some reason there were all kinds of memes on there -- but you build it on certain things. so what facebook is built on is 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 i think 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 from 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. it has happened much faster than we think. 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, you are 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 and it is just going to get worse, or are people really waking up to some of the issues with these tools and are

taking real, serious, concrete steps to 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 to the google people and the sexual harassment, they took -- the employees said this is not how we want to run a company. which was interesting. facebook employees are more -- i call them "docile." but they are. they must feed them soma in the bread or something. >> what is that? kara: it is from a book called "1984." [laughter] >> kara, we're on television right now. national television. we're not allowed to read that. kara: i should run facebook because i read "1984." i'm sorry, "brave new world." you're right. you're right.

you're right. it was ninth grade. we read them all. in any case, i'm sorry. they -- what was your point? >> i don't know, i'm embarrassed now. happens.thing 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] kara: 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: maybe less than i think highly of than you. 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 changing and 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 the -- the stuff we'll be dealing with in the next five, next 10 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 be like, remember when life was so simple? [laughter] sam: 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. kara: ai, robotics, changes in transportation, things around genes and dna. these are -- 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 that is always hard 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, if we get totally mired down in the stuff that is happening now and we miss these questions, really 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. that part, i'm confident about. i think that's what -- i'm confident we'll adjust the current issues, i'm not confident we'll be able to address the future ones. kara: censures and 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 have open ai and 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? kara: 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. kara: don't see the pig one. don't see the pig one. sam: in terms of what we can do, people can participate, get involved. kara talked 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 98%-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 societal 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 actually make all 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? but 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.

argue the chair of openai? 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? he's so much fun. what are you talking about? elon musk looks like so much fun. correct? 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 you the wireless mic. 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 and definitively 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 -- sorted that out yet as far as i can tell. kara: you take that one. [laughter]

kara: it's -- we're reaching a really interesting point in the #metoo stuff. there are still these astonishing stories. 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 these stories go around the world so quickly, right? everything gets amplified so quickly and then people get exhausted by the amount of discussion. what really critically 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 on it and then we had

two reporters on it. two great reporters. we covered the hell out of it in lots of different aspects. it.ou live-blogged kara: 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 that when you have things like twitter, or whatever, it's exhausting to people, that it becomes noisy. and the real point is -- 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. then there are so many different stories. and 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 -- what you are doing. it is really hard to know how you substantively make changes. the issue is the system, the system in a way that doesn't allow -- it 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. sam: the area where i have the most expertise on this is not about 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. i think -- my new belief about how that problem is actually starting to get solved is the lp's 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 as a founder, and it's stuck in memory. and i'm friends with a lot of powerful men 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 from 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: part of it -- it's so funny. i've had people say that to me. what if someone says anything? don't grab their ass, how about that? let's start with 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. sam: i'm your side of this, i just don't know how to make it happen. kara: 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] kara: well, i don't. sam: i was going to say. kara: you do, i don't. opposites. sorry. you know what i mean. >> i do. kara: when i hear that, i want to take the glass and throw it. sam: i'm agreeing. i'm just saying, this has just become a huge problem. kara: that's the first reaction, how does it affect me, versus this is a systematic problem through society, and maybe i'm a 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 was like, what? he said, there are men who get harassed. kara: 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. to me, it's really interesting how he goes there, versus the 99%. i don't send him to his room or anything like that. [laughter] kara: but it's interesting. i don't know how you stop it. 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. 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 -- wielding their employment power and their economic power affect 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. thanks. kara: that's a big question. 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%. yeah, i think it goes to a thoughtlessness. how did this happen? they act like it just happened. years ago, and 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. that just -- and then who they hire who can then afford to live here. they don't see the connections between things. connections are very hard for a lot of these people who run these companies to make. they really can't make connections of why this happens here, the way hollywood people can connect and why they depict women affected misogyny. it was a really interesting thing today on twitter. who was it? was it claire danes or someone was talking -- >> natalie portman. kara: yes, natalie portman. >> someone's on twitter here. kara: twitter was good today. it was an interesting debate. jessica simpson. she was just making a comment as a teenage girl. it was really interesting.

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 which was 10 white men of the same age, almost. almost exactly the same. i didn't know them all apart 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 -- i should have quit after i wrote this lead. i said the board of twitter which has three peters and a dick. so good. i should have gone like done. , i had a really interesting discussion that he thought it just happened that way.

and what was fascinating to me -- >> really? kara: he really did, honestly. and what is interesting -- he did it and other people did it. when i went to question him he said, you know, kara, 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. just so you know, twitter is not doing very well. or yahoo! for any of them. standards are only applied to people trying to get in and it's that kind of stuff. so i can't talk about cities, but i do think these decisions and it isurposely very conscious as far as i can tell. thoughtlessly. need thoughtful politicians. just call it out.

we 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. that is really, i think, 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? sam: i also feel unqualified to opine on that. but other than, i think, that data is clear that making housing affordable is a hugely beneficial thing to people who are younger or disenfranchised in any way. i think san francisco has had a catastrophic failure to do that. >> we have a question to the right. you in the white sweater, would you mind coming over here away

from the speaker because it is going to do that crazy loud noise thing? >> hi. i'm 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 how who owns our attention and how that might change anti-trust laws or the definition of monopoly. i am interested to harper both -- here both of your thoughts on that? >> thank you. sam: i think you own your data, and people agree on that. the hard part is the internet giants are just -- their network effects or monopolies or whatever coded word you want to use for the fact you can't pick an alternative. if all your friends are on instagram, you are going to be on instagram. true ownership of data would mean 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. i think that is what the current consumer data protection laws and the anti-trust laws fail to take into account, is that -- like, 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. but it is like a -- does anyone in this room not use at least one facebook product once a week? none? havenestly, sam, i feel i 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. kara: facebook is a bloated app that -- >> you don't use instagram or whatsapp? kara: instagram is a performance

people's bloated bull. >> but you use it, don't you? kara: no. i am not on instagram. 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 we have monopolies that are so big? i think that is what is getting lost in the conversation. because it is so hard, nobody will talk about it. what is the answer to that? kara: i think they are going to be roped up. there is going to be some regulatory -- 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 -- >> so what does that mean? you use twitter with this half of the room and not this half?

kara: i don't know. i think they have done it before. i think that is probably where it is going to go. if i had to guess, it is similar to what everyone said, who can affect microsoft, and bingo, they affected microsoft. i think 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] kara: 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. i think 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 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 -- in terms of domestic between what seems to be an arms race between us and china. to say this extremely clearly -- we well -- i can't promise when. i can't even make a confident prediction, but we, humanity will at some point build digital intelligence that surpasses 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 about 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 that who gets to decide that and how we vote on it will be in some sense the hardest problem humanity has ever faced. i now believe, in a way i didn't used to, or was not as confident, that the technological problems of how super ai,we build a 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 problem is going to be hard. i think this is -- as i we were -- as we were saying earlier, 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.

kara: you know -- who has hired most of the a.i. and machine learning? what are the two companies that control most of it right now? sam: i would say open ai has put out half the most important results in the past year, and we are only 80 people. kara: but the two companies that are hiring heavily are google and facebook. sam: the most 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. i think that is always true about software, and it is like exponentially true about artificial intelligence. so i think looking at the number of people these companies have is the wrong way to look at it. i think looking at maybe the number of transistors you said -- under the control of a company will be the right way to look at it. >> a quick follow up.

what do you think specifically is the role of the 500 or 600 elected efficiency that have -- federal officials 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? sam: the tricky balance is there are two 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 issue. that is what is affecting your constituents today, and 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. how do you as a politician prioritize and balance those two things, which they are both about ai, but other than that, 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 actually think we are going to get that right. 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. kara: there is nobody working on it. sam: there is nobody working on it. kara: right now, we don't have a chief science officer running the office of science. if we have an ebola situation, we are believed -- we are [bleep] 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. he was. what is his name? >> i don't know. >> his name is michael. kara: 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 raised for a while. yeah, you. yeah. yeah, you. yeah. this doesn't work, so you have

to stand up. >> i am chris. you mentioned the resource being depleted and you mentioned the exponential growth curve. the weinstein brothers make mention of the sense-making apparatus, referring to the economics. what do you believe are going to be the upcoming sense-making apparatus dealing with the as --sing potential load >> does someone want to repeat that question? kara: i think the question is how do we deal with all these screens? the incoming? the incoming. >> how do we take in all the news? kara: 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. sam? sam: that is a stressful and unhealthy way to live, personally. [laughter] [applause] kara: i shower. >> very unhygienic. kara: i shower, in there with a baggy. sam: 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 couldn't 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. kara: yes, it was [bleep]hole countries, but go ahead.

sam: it is ok to miss that. kara: 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. sam: 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. i think it is -- like your job is to stay on top of this, so maybe you have to. but it is not most people's job. kara: but here's the thing. i do think there is a push towards less twitchiness. i just noticed how fast our podcasts are growing. when i started the podcast, everyone is like kara, you can't do it an hour. people won't listen. you have to do 26 seconds. no, i am going to do an hour. they are like, you can't do it. i think people like a

substantive discussion. 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. kara: and it was an hour discussion. it changes the whole nature of it, and it has only grown. i do think there is something where the twitchiness people are pushing away from. you can see it in entertainment. there are some really wonderful entertainment shows that take commitment and are interesting. so 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? >> oh, my god, yes, please. sam: 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. i have a -- he has one for sure. he says i have a very bad case of internet addiction. have- he pointed to me --

staged an intervention before. none of them have worked. 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 happening, do less of it. you will still know a lot and there will still be plenty to be outraged about. one rule i have for myself and i'm trying for myself, is 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 would 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. i think it is -- we are talking about these dopamine systems. it is deep in our biology to react to this, and we haven't had time to build up societal anti-bodies yet. kara: younger people are changing. my sons are very good at putting it down. much different. it is a really interesting thing. i watch them, but they use it in a different way. it is used for certain things. they just don't use other things. i watched "gilligan's island" until my head falls off when i was a kid. you used to do things, and then switch them into other things. being upset 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. you know what i mean? nobody was staring out into space on the subway. sam: 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. i feel like -- no offense, but i feel like we have seen -- --our lifetimes [laughter] kara: keep going. >> i remember. 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 ie always on the internet all the time, and i am always nervous. shoe flash i was around when there were rotary phones. on -- theseepends things are built to be addictive. that is another thing, they hire

people to addict you. everybody knows that. they hired 20 phd's to make you push that red button on purpose. , to say, iotherwise do know what people are addicted -- >> that is the one thing that -- it is hard to pick up one thing, but that one thing, the fact that they have figured out how to hack humans and make is unhappy, when history books are written, they will say, how did that happen but the same people are doing the other stuff to make them into hapless victims of their own success is a mistake they are purposely doing it with every choice they make dust when it the goes awry, it is like, who knew i think you and i agree, there's plenty to be critical about the riyadh >> i agree. but it is not critical, it is truthful.

>> when he say bad things, and he said, don't be critical, i am just pointing out, you have made billions of dollars out of other people's privacy, attention, and taking advantage of other people's stuff. >> and i am agreeing, i am just pointing out, and am glad that these companies exist. i know that i maybe the minority in the room for that. but i think they have done good for society, 200. >> we have a question to the right over there. year. too much fun up ceo of the founder and an early stage political activism company and a former policy advisor. so i think about this question quite a bit. given some of the things you were saying about social media platforms being built for addictive behavior, and

consequences that are detrimental to our society as a , do you think silicon valley investors, not just business leaders, but manufacturers, have the responsibility to demand less revenue? when you think about it -- especially me, when i think about my business model, a lot of it is dependent on that kind of behavior. do think we need to change our business models? >> yes. i think their business models are their business models. how would you change of them. wall street is wall street,, right? look at this -- the murder of a journalist, jamaal khashoggi. do you know how many companies are funded by the saudis? are you asking obert to hand their money back? lindsey graham is saying that it is absolutely true, right?

[laughter] they are not going to do it, they are not going to do it. there is an expression -- someone told me -- you are so poor, all you have is money. they don't want to change these as this plans. they don't want to change these addictive ones, the data sucking ones, the advertising ones, they don't want to change any of them. they just don't want to do it. they like the money, they like the power, they like everything. auburn.t happen to wear that is only difference between them and the wall street moguls. and i prefer the wall street moguls. i get them. let us have a beer. but i don't know. i don't think they will do it. i just, i don't know, do you? >> i mean, look, this is easy for me to say. i don't need more money, but i certainly will not invest in

companies that i think will be successful, that would be bad for the world. sometimes i invest in things that would be good, but i don't go into it doing that. i think it makes you more successful. we certainly don't tell companies that come to us in many instances and say, you can build the product, do that service, and you will make that revenue, but you be compromised between something that is important and something that is bad. and be willing to do, and the matter how much money we made, we make the public accountable for that, and i think that is really important. i think different investors think differently. one thing i have a lot of people who came from nothing and got a job at a company where they are getting an incredible summary, but the companies doing something they .on't like there are not in the situation that they can really struggle

with what they should do their. >> with the dual stuff, there are a lot of silicon valley people in that. what did you think about that? >> go ahead. that.aven't looked into it seems really problematic, what someone told me, is that you are nicotine is actually not that bad for you, and that there is science on it. >> you don't have any children ahead.ow, but go >> i haven't studied it, but people did invest. >> it should have been an obvious one for a lot of people. audiencee last question. i know that there are a lot of questions. last audience question. >> hi, my name is hillary. i have heard people talking about an open crypto network

that presents potentially open computing systems where maybe platforms like facebook could be shift theays that power and maybe the revenue model, giving a little bit more power to users. i was wondering what you think about that for solving some of these problems you have talked about. simple want to see a crypto project actually get used. [laughter] [applause] 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, and i cannot point to any piece of technology that is had as much -- but has so captured the discretion of the industry with use.ttle actual the amount of money that has gone into crypto projects that are summer between incompetent and fraud, i have never seen in

the industry. >> the early internet. >> i could believe that was worse. >> i was there. >> i got it. [laughter] >> i think i got the language right [laughter] >> i think we could say that it is worse than it has been. >> there was a lot of scamming in the early internet. it was crazy at the time. -- what about you getting paid for your privacy? years ago when i was reading a book about aol, somebody said they were making $76 from each user. some number that he assigned to it. and i put my hand up and said, can i have my $35, please. q pay me, may be able to view more? they never came up with that idea, just being paid -- it is not like giving away your liver,

but what do you want? >> the problem is that it is so seductive. maybe it is a way of getting around this issue, that these protocols. maybe if instagram was on some sort of block chain or other, you could use another version of we are learning something fundamental about human coordination and governance where these decentralized projects so far just not working. the promise is incredibly seductive, and i hope it happens. the current ecosystem of crypto block chain world, it seems, today -- and this may change -- the system today seems unlikely to produce bad. i really hope it gets there. had, is,nal question i the is one thing that

people 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? >> quit it, i never used it. >> just for work. here is the thing. if your 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. walkout organizers podcast we did. i think it was six women and one man, it was astonishing. astonishing, articulate, strong, still loving their jobs, but really said, enough. toy also did not just want talk about issues of sexual harassment, which started because they were paying someone $90 million, who had real issues, to go, which is astonishing.

if you are employees of these companies, asks questions of these things. it is not this loyal to say, is this the way we are doing it? because of the promise of silicon valley, at least when i got here, was that it was change in the world. it was better. and they went on and on about how better they were. well, demand that they be better. as employees, you have the power to do it. it doesn't mean dropping a dime, to me, but it helped me a lot. but really, you have the part and power with these people. you have power that you don't understand that you can use, and voices. so i think it is important for you as employees to say, no. this will not stand. that, youne who does can affect them. you don't need me to affect them. you don't need powerful people

to do it, you have that. >> not like saying everyone is powerful. >> but you can, especially in this industry, and these leaders are listening, and they get affected by these things. that is what i would say to them. >> i think that is the most important point. that is what i think is the right answer. it is employees of the companies that have more power than any othe of their constituencies. that is what -- that is the group these companies have to keep happy. it is such a premium in this industry. i 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 was, i think it is fine to spend most of your time thinking about the challenges of today. i think that is good. areif you believe that you

preparing for the future and all the people coming after you, you have to at least allocate funds to the problems of the future and spend some of your time, effort.s and trying not just a think about the problems of 2019, but the problems of 2039. and it is hard to do that without concerted effort because the problems of today are so big. >> it is about making choices. i talk about -- pass,le, giving people a act like an adult. what would an adult to? not see that as in -- as a negative thing. you have to have a young mentality, there is something good about acquired wisdom. i am only saying that because i am 412, but -- [laughter] >> it is not just the power to say no, but the power of saying yes, this is where we should go.

you don't want to be a hindrance, but he should say no appropriately, and yes appropriately. that is what a dull people do. take responsibility for what you are doing -- that is what adult people do, take responsibility for what you are doing. i am not saying, get out of your country and visiting every cow, like mark zuckerberg [laughter] don't do that, that is bad. but find out how people actually live their lives, not in a place weather is hot and cold running cha.hich -- running kimbuc say, real americans live here -- real americans live everywhere. let's find out how americans live, who live paycheck to paycheck, have health care or nutrition, to me, that is acting up an adult. >> can i make a quick comment? it will be fast. i think one thing that has gone

wrong with the move to the internet is that we have evolved some biological protections for how we act with some one personp most of the time, we have some compassion that happens when you are with another person physicallyp some level of politeness that always happens. but on the internet, that biological production seems to have gone away. it is so easy to just cast people as of the other, as stupid, or luddites, or racists. just out of touch, or drug addicts, or whatever. and in my experience, i have found that my own preconceptions of people, when i meet them on the internet, or if i get in a fight with someone on twitter, i am always willing to think the

worst. and if i meet them in person come i always find myself thinking the best. i think that is something that has gone deeply wrong about the internet. and if you just get out and meet different people, with even a little bit of an open mind, your biology will take over. >> first of all -- [applause] , i don't know if a good have planned this before, but that was a perfect segue into why we built this space, because of the premise was these conversations, some of them are much more productive to be heard in person. i am honored deeply that both of you would take time out of your busy schedules to join us tonight and be in conversation, especially for flying here for this conversation. a big round of applause for both of the. [laughter] [applause]

>> c-span's washington journal. one every day with news policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, a look at the government shutdown and the 106th think -- the 116th congress. then we will talk about the 2020 with someonefield from the university of virginia center of politics. and we discuss tonight's premiere of c-span's original program "the senate, conflict and compromise" with our c-span producer. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the

supreme court, and public policy -- public policy events around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. an event covered marking the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement in ireland. and the parallel movements happening in the 60's here in the u.s.. you can watch it all by going to six been -- c-span.org. right now we will watch one of the discussions with ireland's ambassador to the u.s. and several northern ireland rights activist. this is about 90 minutes.