this week, one of the world's big experts on the supply chain say the situation is about as stable as a whok whack-a-mole game. we'll see how oral orthen is using robots and then we will seek solutions to many problems with dr. waldman. that's this week on "press:here." good morning, everyone, i'm scott mcgrew. if you're having some trouble finding a halloween costume for your little one or perhaps it was for yourself, and you're having trouble, i'm not surprised. the spirit of halloween stores

said they were unable to get about 20% of their stock from china ahead of the holiday, and the bay area artificial christmas tree company balsam hill warns they'll have fewer artificial trees as well. ironically, a lot of that stuff is honestly close by, sitting off our coast in huge container ships waiting to be unloaded. hannah cane is an expert on the supply chain and teaches graduate level classes on the subject as well as serving as ceo of alam technologies. hannah, let's start with the boats who are sitting so close yet so far. what's presenting them from being unloaded? >> we have an infrastructure breakdown. if you look at the long-term -- really what happened they grew 30% over the last two decades and we didn't invest enough in

our structure. so we have an structure crisis and other constraints really making it difficult in the supply chain. and you combine these factors and you have a real disaster. and i call it whack-a-mole supply chain because you just have to fix things all the time, and the next one pops up so you spend your entire day fixing the fix to the fix, and it's really, really very troubling choke points for society. >> all of these different choke points. one of these moles is truck drivers in long beach waiting on boats that haven't unloaded which means in shenzhen, they're still waiting to load a boat that hasn't returned, which means there's a truck driver in china that cannot 4r0ed his load into the boat because the boat is not there. >> that is correct. also some of the ports in china

have a long wait, and that port in china with covid, they have one case, they close down the entire port. so that means getting in and out is extremely difficult. add to that 9 component in each of these borders, also different restrictions getting in and out constrictions and also contradictions and causing problems in the factories. you see when you look at the different components, how serious it really is to get the supply chain going. i always say is takes 205 parts to make a car and one part not

to make a car, and, boy, has that been correct here. >> you spoke about the no tolerance in china and offletting. we complain about maybe not finding a halloween costume or christmas tree but this is particularly hard in the people in that supply chain. there are people sitting on cargo ships that are not allowed off. >> that is correct, and that has been' problem for 18 months. we've had people stuck there for a year or longer than a year. so it's a real problem. the other thing we have been outsourcing to overseas locations, we've had over time people go out and see what actually goes out of the factories, are the people treated respectfully? are they abused? are they even imprisoned labor? and right now we cannot go and see that because we cannot get in and verify what's going on. it's a real problem in the

supply chain. >> when do things get better? there's one scenario, we get covid solved and things get better after that. there's another scenario, we kind of don't get covid solved in the next say two years and we kind of continue on as we are now. is there a point in which the supply chain will catch up one way or another? >> i think things will get better but not as fast as everybody would like. so if we look at covid, yes, if we can get covid under control locally, yes, of course, that's going to eliminate some of the dissuasion, though i think we're all getting a little less optimistic whether there's going to be a define say and it's over. i think covid is going to stay with us and the supply chain. and then we've got the entire infrastructure, that's not an overnight problem to solve. the ports have to be in

expanded. in california, that's a ten-year deal. right now a new infrastructure deal is not even passed. and then, of course, you have all of the different politics, all of the different fights making things much more difficult for everybody. think about all of the upheaval with brexit. a lot of issues that may or may not get better. this is a political issue, it may actually get worse. and then, of course, you have the talent side, not only workers in the supply chain but the talent to make everything flow and that's a problem and also long-term problem. not only an additional 2 million fantastic supply chain experts tomorrow. so it's a long-term problem. i think it will get gradually

better and i think you will see more and more product on the shelves. i think you will see less disruption at the factory level but i think there are disruptions in the short wait. >> we will leave it on that positive, or semi-positive note. hannah cane, ceo of alam and expert on global supply chains. thank you for being here. "press:here" will be right back.

welcome back to "press:here." my dentist is a dear friend of mine, so i know she will not mind when i tell you i hate the dentist. i don't like any part of it, from the waiting room to the chair to the fact that i no longer get a sticker. so when i saw a video of a new procedure that combines robotic technology with human dentists to perform dental implant surgery, i was interested because i like robots but still a little cringy. nonetheless, i made an appointment to speak with an oral surgeon, dr. nima massoomi, about how it is done. you notice i'm doing it from the safety of my home studio. i read the reviews, sir, but even femme who are fairly uncomfortable, they tend to still seem to like you. >> thank you very much. >> let's start with the basic procedure, even without the robot, you're putting a rod in the gums so i new artificial

tooth can be placed there. is that the right procedure? >> yes, it's basically a titanium screw if you want layman's terms. it's the same material that's used in our hip and knee replacements and others. it's supposed to mimic the root of the tooth, and so that's what they refer to as a dental implant. >> makes sense. we've been doing this for years, right? but how does the robot help you do this? >> in the old days, technology has been around, implants themselves have been around 20, 30 years now. the initial method was just free-handed, kind of eyeballing where you think the implant would need to go. now with robotic technology, we're able to precisely place the impact where it needs to go based off a 3d rendering, we call it ct scans or ctcp. we're able to tell the robot this is exactly where i want the

dental implant because a tooth of a crown will want to be applied at this location. so it's more precise. >> so the robot guides you, right? it's not deciding, you're working together. what does that feel like for you and the robot to kind of move together? >> honestly, the fda is never going to approve a fully automated robot and you press a button and the robot goes across the hall and does surgery on you. it's just guiding us. that's true with all robotic devices in medicine, da vinci robot, they're all assisting the surgeon doing it. and so we don't want people to ever think this is a fully automated technology. it's never going to get to that point. it's always assisting us and guiding us in regards to where the surgery should be going. >> see if you can follow me, i don't know if this question is fully formed. but are robots better for younger or less skilled dentists -- or let me say less

experienced dentists? because i assume you with years and years and years of experience as a dentist and oral surgeon, you would know where to put the drill? >> yeah, and that's a very good question. i get that a lot. i teach at university pacific dental school in downtown san francisco. i have been doing that for almost 50 years now. and i wish, honestly, we could teach the dental students how to use this technology at that stage. but whether you have the experience or skill, whether if you're fresh out of school, i think this technology applies to both. myself, i have been out of 15 years of my surgery training and i have seen how it changed how i basically practice my field of surgery. so i think it can benefit both. i'm sorry? >> how does it change what you do? >> honestly, again, in the old days we would be freehanding stuff, where i don't need to do that anymore. yesterday we had a patient that came in and immediately took the teeth out, because of the 3d

rendering, placed the implants at the same time. so it allows patients to get to the finish line quicker. >> that has a lot to do with the strength of the jaw, quality of the bone underneath? >> yes, amount of bone and quality of the bone and also the location of the bone makes a big difference when we're screwing a titanium screw into somebody's jawbone. >> sure. to my question, one of the things they worry about in aviation is young pilots who have gotten to the point where they're just flipping the autopilot on to land the airplane and have lost some of the skill they should have, but you're saying that this is a combination of robotics and skill? >> exactly. and you have to think of it as an adjunct, honestly. we still want -- we still teach our students how to do this type of surgery without robotics, right? you still have to have the basics down. it's just another way to kind of really help you become more precise, right, with the surgery itself. so we're not ever going to just be fully robotics only.

and, again, that's another question we also get too, are the students, or the young dentists that are out there, is this going to lead to their disadvantage? >> but you're saying it's not, it helps improve their skill as well? >> absolutely. one of the biggest things that we see is when you have to redo or take implants out because they were not placed in the right position or direction, i would prefer not to see any of what we call redo procedures where a placing of the implant is placed in the position it's supposed to be. i hope what we call redo procedures, the percentage drops if we're using guided technology to reduce that. >> i would assume that this robot costs some money. are you adding a charge to that? is my insurance going to cover this? >> yes, of course. just like -- even in medicine, it's the same thing they're guiding things as an added

charge, but prior to the robotics, one level up from free-handing is where we use surgical guides. there's already a guide guiding the implant into the right position. there's always going to be, of course, a little added cost but when you go back and take a look at the risk of complications or risk of redoing an implant, it actually makes sense to spend a little bit extra to make sure the implant is placed precisely so we don't have any issues down the road, which is cost justification. >> oral surgeon dr. ossani, thank you for joining us this morning. you can see the receptionist and we will see you back here in six months. "press:here" is right back.

good morning, everyone. i'm scott mcgrew. i post to facebook but it's mostly really kind of bland stuff because i have one of those pages they assign to people ob television, a brand, not a person. very few pictures of my kids and a lot of just newsy sort of things. honestly, it's kind of vanilla pudding. but take a look at what facebook thinks it knows about me. these are accounts facebook's algorithm thinks i would be interested in. i highlighted suggestions in fellow there. a photoshop criticism of the president, a fake travel ad suggesting liberals should love or leave america, and an account

that criticizes the mainstream media. the last i checked, i am the mainstream media, and facebook wants me to follow an account that hates me. now, don't take it from me. as you know, a former facebook employee says this is all true too, facebook feeds you divisive content intentionally. frances haugen also turned over documents showing current facebook employees at facebook, it's harmful. our professor of law and computer science at northeastern university, ari is an expert on social media and the law and testified about both of those things before congress. good morning to you. talk to me about congress. here's a body we may need to regulate tech and facebook in particular, but in the past we've seen senators and members of congress be not that knowledgeable about how facebook works. >> knowledge is -- or lack of knowledge is only one part of it. in addition to not understanding

how the algorithms work or how even the internet works, there's also a dependency that senators and representatives and many of them have on big tech, not just donations. and also this belief in whatever big tech does or whatever technology companies do is innovative and innovation is always good. if innovation is always good and all of these companies are always innovating, how can you say or do anything against that? it's not just a problem of lack of knowledge, they're also in the path that thinks that anything of these companies can do is always good. >> it's fair to say that a lot of people who watch this show work inside tech, so some work at facebook. what do you say to employees about specifically what they're doing? >> one of the big things of what miss haugen is doing or has done in front of congress and what i have found in research for my book, what she is doing in

congress, she's aware, she's blowing the whistle. she's aware how facebook is undermining our privacy and our autonomy. in facebook i was reading so many engineers, programmers, private/public professionals, public-facing employees in this company, and what's remarkable is they don't even realize that in many cases they're blowing the whistle to me and other researchers what they think they're doing is great, but what in fact has happened is once they get inside the organizational structures of these companies, they're co-opted. they don't realize even if they consider themselves privacy add ava kits or advocates for consumers, the work they're being told to do ends up serving the data-extracted goals of their employers. >> that book "industry unbound: inside the privacy of corporate behavior." in it you talk about the privacy

policy tools facebook give us don't necessarily work for us, they work for facebook. >> that's right, and they design them for us. it's hard to imagine a dialogue box or privacy wizard that facebook designs for us is going to do anything but help them, right? so what they do is they don't actually give us control over our privacy or over who gets to see our information. they give us the appearance of control. and as soon as we feel like oh, we have control over it, we can press these buttons, we can toggle these consents or click agree, that makes us feel like oh, we can do something, that's exactly what facebook wants. they want us to feel like the status quo has us in control when, in fact, the status quo is aiding and abetting a gargantuan system of data collection that modifies every aspect of our

existence. >> and it's very hard to understand what's going on in there. the world is full of social media experts, right, but these are people who can get you more hits on instagram or something like that. there aren't a whole lot of research, or the research is very young into the nitty-gritty of what's happening in our ads or to our privacy or in the legal system of how all of these social networks work. >> the reason why that is the case is because these companies hoard the data we need to do that quantitative and robust research. recently facebook shut down access to a group of nyu researchers who were trying to do just that, were trying to approximate or learn what was going on inside the company by gaining access as independent researchers to facebook data. as soon as that research turned into something that facebook didn't like, they shut off access. we want to learn more about how and why these companies take down -- take down content.

they have a disproportionate -- and they do so disproportionately in a way that harms marginalized populations, particularly queer people, people identifying black african-american and other dissident groups. and yet companies like facebook refuse to tell us and refuse to give us access to the log raw data necessary to show what they're doing. this is, again, part of a larger crusade to undermine our ability to hold them accountable. >> let's talk a little bit about section 230. my understanding of 230 is if i post something on facebook or youtube or twitter that says, you know, ari ezra waldman is embezzling northeastern's money to feed his beanie baby addiction, you can sue me, that's libel. i assume you're not embezzling money, right? >> right. >> and that's libel, and not

true. we established that. but you can't sue facebook because facebook can't possibly look at every single post from every single person, judge if something is true or libellous or not, so facebook is protected under that law, right? that's my basic kindergarten level understanding of what 230 is. would there be ways to change 230 in such a way you would prevent some of things you're concerned about? >> sure. first, when we think about what does section 230 mean, there are really two thens we have to understand. one is what it was originally intended to do. two, what federal courts have done to it since. and what it originally was intended to do, it was part of an amendment to a larger bill introduced by senator ron winan, it was to encourage platforms to

encourage people to protection of hate and other bad things, including copyright infringement. but what the federal court has done is expand it to be a block, barrier wall in the face of any lawsuits about any responsibilities platforms have to the bad stuff that happens to us on their platforms. that's not what the drafters originally intended. so our understanding of it is not what the original drafters wanted. what can we do about section 230? admittedly, this is only one part of a larger structure of change we need. but there have been scholars who suggested we can amend section 230 to hinge their immunity on taking reasonable effort to protect their users from harassment, from hate, from harm. and you have to have proof they actually took reasonable efforts. that's a suggestion from my colleague daniel citron, a professor at uba.

there are others who suggest we can reform section 230 to be contingent upon more transparency from these platforms. if we want to learn about content moderation, if we want to learn about how these companies are objecting or undermining our privacy, we need to know what data is being collected. >> i'm going to leave you with this question, and that is do you feel hopeful and optimistic about the future of social media and its effect on society or pessimism? >> so i'm about to turn 41, and people tell me i'm too young to be pessimistic but the way -- the path that i see that we're on, i don't have many causes to be optimistic. we have an enormous, enormous industry that has net -- revenues each year larger than many countries. we have a congress even when you have control -- even when congress and the presidency is controlled by democrats who want to engage in reasonable policy

making and regulation of these companies, we have a system that is beholden to special interests and with tools that conservatives and other people use in place, whether it's the filibuster or whatever, that are preventing us from making real reform. and if you look at the 10 or so proposals for comprehensive privacy legislation that has been introduced in the last four years as well as the near will you 40 proposals in various states for comprehensive privacy legislation, they all roughly look the same. all they are are a series of individual rights to our data, like right to access and so forth, as well as internal compliance requirements, which as i show in mying boo, companies very easily just turn into check box, a check box compliance system that doesn't actually achieve anything. so i'm a little pessimistic. i don't see, other than engaging in wholesale change, breaking up these companies, changing the

way we regulate, changing how our relationship between us and industry, between the government and industry, i don't see how stepping along the current course is going to change anything for us for the better. >> ari ezra waldman, professor of law and computer science at northeastern university. his new book is "industry unbound: the inside story of privacy, data and corporate power." "press:here" will be right back.

that's our show for this week. my thanks to our guests and thank you for making us part of your sunday morning.

to "comunidad del valle." i am damian trujillo, and today, we're honoring our latino veterans on your "comunidad del valle." ♪♪♪ damian: we begin with the monthly visit by the consulate of mexico in san francisco. with me, again on "comunidad del valle" is ambassador remedios gomez arnau, the consul general of mexico in san francisco. consul, welcome back to the show. remedios gomez arnau: thank you. i'm so glad to be with you and your audience. damian: thank you. do you know, a while back, maybe ten years ago, i went to mexico city to this colonia called sante fe, and i saw--the sun microsystems back then had a campus and it was like a small silicon valley in mexico city.