♪ -next, a "kqed newsroom" special, ting some of our favorite conversations with authors... -each step along the way, they compromised the safety of the people using the product. -...frof an insider's account acebook's privacy scandals to the most documented undocumented immigrant. -i thought i wanted to exist. i didn't want to just be invisie. -most people you know... -plus, a journalist exposes of wealthy philanthropists out to change the world... -thosesame people are monopolizing progress in america. -...while n behind "the onion" uses satire to poke fun at tech billionaires. welcome to a special edition of "kqed newsroom" featuring authors whose writings iove sparked debate, discu and, at times, controversy. one local company that's no stranger

to controversy is facebook. more than 2 billion people around the world log on to facebook to do everything from sharing vacation photos s to scrolling through neds and streaming live events, but its explosive growth has come at a pric-- data breaches affecting tens of millions of users, misinformation campaigns to influence national elections have prompted hearings on capitol hill and a public backlash against the tech giant and its ceo, mark ckerberg. now a book by an early facebook investor suggests regulation may be the oy to preserve privacy and protect the personal data om that is key to the cpany's growth and profits. joining me now is the author of "zuck," venture capitalist roger mcnamee. nice to have you here. -thuy, it's a pleasure. -you were an early advisor to mark zuckerberg and also, lateit an investor, and you about how in 2006, because you thought the company could achieve its mission ch better by staying independent. what did you feel facebook was back then? -i thought mark had found the holy grail

for creating a large network of people who want to interact with each otr. he was the first social network to come along that required authenticated identity. myspace and friendster and the predecessors hadn't done that and had quickly been overrun by trolls, but th authenticated identit i was convinced mark would build a company as large as google was at that time, and it woulde... -you thought it could be a force for good. -oh, totally a for good. -and what about now? what do you think of facebook now? -well, what basically happened was they discovered it was possible to build a network thatonnected the whole world and i think that was mark's goal at the beginning, as well, but along the way, they discovered that if they got rid of authenticated identity as a requirement, if they relaxed all the privacy settings that they had in the early days, they would grow a lot faster, and they -- at each step along the way, theyomised the safety of the people using the product in order to get the bigger and bigger growth and more and more profit, and in the end, the real miracle

is that they got to 2 billion people on the network before we d to see the problems. i mean, it's a real tribute to how smart and clever they were. -but witproblems they're facing now, right, with data privacy, how they handle user data, the example of facebook, as the technology has evolved, it doesn't seem that mark zuckerberg seems willing to let go of the assumption that everyone will use and view facebook the way he does. -yeah. -so is it possible for him to solve tch problems if he can'ge his thinking -thuy, this is exactly the issue, and it's not just mark. it's not just facebook. the thing overed -- i began -- because i was so close to facebook i thought originally it was just an issue being done to facebook. what it really is is something that affects all internet platforms that are bated on advertising anntion, so google and instagram and youtube and twitter and snapchat are all affected,

and after a while, you think you know all the answers her people don't. the mistakes that were made here, in my opinion, are forgivable. what i'm having trouble with is the resistance to change in the face of incontrovertible evidence. we know for certain that there are issues with public healt there are issues with democracy. there are issues with privacy. and there are issues with competition and innovation. and to google and instagram and the rest, it's harmful to society and it's harmful to everybody. -so if these companies continue to be resistant, as you say, what is the solution here? do you think they should be reguled, and if so, what should that regulation look like? -one of the questions we need to is, there are business practices that take place in our society that we have accepted without thought -- one is that companies that collect our data are allowed to sell it to anybodyhey want or trade it to others as facebook would do. for example, why itoit reasonable for peoplollect

our credit-card transaction data and sell it to somebody else? i think we need to have a debate on that. same thing for geolocation data from cellphones. why is thalegitimate? why should it ever be legitimate to gather data on minors, people under 18? this is a debate we need to have. we also need to have antitrust regulation to create space for an alternative vision to come to market. these guys, they'r,behaving like monopolis and they're blocking all competitors from coming in. -so you support regulation? -i do. and what i really want to see, though, thuy, nsis i want to see regulat thatx as the european global data protection regulation, but rather going after the specific problem suchins the selling and shof data that is so private that it shouldn't happen. right now, all of these guys hi of consent, but it's like "me too" consent. it's people in power against people without power, so it's not would characterize as a fair trade. -well, you were an investor early on, as i mentioned earlier, and you've made millions

how much responsibility do you bear for some of what has happened, and what should have been your role in demandi more social responsibility inside the company? -so, thuy, that is a completely legitimate question. i continue to own my shares of facebook stock. i'd some along the way, but i still own it. i was involved there from 2006 to 2009. the business model that created the problems didn't actually begin until ma and i'm really angry at myself that it took me eel the way to 2016 tohe problems, and so it is from that self-criticism isthat i have taken up antle. i'm no longer an investor. i'm a fu-time activist trying to essentially take my biography, my experience, and the platform i have tory to both raise awarene and help direct us to a good solution. -and this is an indust-wide problem... -absolutely. -...as you've poind out, but really, a lot of people -- a lot of the criticism has been leveled at mark zuckerberg because of the sheer power and reach of facebook, right?

but what about the role of sheryl sandberg? because you were also instrumental in her hiring at facebook. she had been offered a top executive position at theington post. you said, "no, no, no, no. why don't you consider facebook instead?" she took the fsaebook position, and yothat, really, when it comes to the company's operations, mark leaves the business side to her. much responsibility does she bear for what has happened? -well, to be clear, they're the leaders of theompany, so they bear a lot of responsibility, but the thing i want to make clear is that the managements of all of these companie began with an idealistic vision, right? in google's case, toinollect all the world'rmation. in the case of facebook, to connect everybody. and that was not the problem. the issue was the business model creates all kinds of side effects that currently these companies don't pay the co for, so it's a little bit like a digital chemical spill, right? and right now, they're getting away without paying that cost, which they have to.

i don't think changing management, whether you get rid of mark and sheryl at facebook, whether you get rid of larry and sergey at ogle, i do not think that's the answer. i think the answer is you have to change the business model, and it would be better if the existing founders did th because they're the ones with the moral authority to make those changes. -all right. pleasure to talk to you. roger mcnamee, author of "zucked." thanks for being here. -my pleasure. -we turn our attention now to a personal take on immigration. in 2011, jose antonio vargas, whose journalism career included a stint at the washington post, revealed in a new york times magazine essay that he was living in the us illegally. since then, he has become perhaps the nation's most well-known undocumented iigrant. he's done two documentaries and appeared in numerous interviews to advocate for immigrants. and vargas has written a memoir, "dear america: notes of an undocumented citizen." s and jose antonio var joinw to talk about his new book. welcome. -it's been seven years since you announced that you were undocumented

in a new york times magazine essay, and since then, you've produced documentaries. you've appeared in numerous interviews. why did you decide to write a memoir now? -i actually didn originally, i wanted to write a book about global migration. according to the un, there's 258 million migrants in the world, and i wanted to understand, what is the human right of people to move? what does that look like? and then the election of donald trump happened, and i was livingwntown la, and the building manager -- i was living there for like two years at that point -- texted me a few days after the election and said, "we're not sure we cld protect you if ice showed up in the apartment. you may want to move out." so then that's when i had to kind of face the reality that i've been here 25 years. i can get detained and deported at any point. it's -- a -that must have been ugh message to absorb. -and then i -- yes, it was, but it kind of forced me to do something that i never want to do, which i think people don't want to do, which is, like, mental health, right?

like, how do you actually feel wh this is? i've been so busy running away from it, think, and juggling so many things... -and hiding. -...so i don't have to deal with it. so that's -- you know, the book, as you know, is structured lying, passing, and hiding, right? and so the book is really about l what the psychological t of being in this country as an "illegal alien" according to president trump. -and for those who don't know your story, your mom put you on a plane from the philippines heading to the us to live with your grandparents when you were 12. you didn't know you oure undocumented untilere 16 and tried to get a driver's license. in your book, you write just really candidly metimes heartbreakingly about your deep alienation from your grandparents, and you write, "the america they dreamed for me not the america i was creating for myself." to -i had to really try nderstand why they did what they did, and when i was a kid, when i was 16, i didn't understand any of it. they smuggled me here. they paid somebody $4,500.

they had all the fake papers. my grandfather -- i grew up in mountain view, as you know, and so my grandfather thought, i come here, i work at the flea market on berryessa road as a janitor, and that i would marry a woman who's a us citizen but their thinking was i would work an under-the-table job. i would live kind of this under-the-table life. i thdn't want it because ght i wanted to exist. i didn't want to just be invisible, right? ani think for me that was,ke,. the moment i found out i was here illegally, i didn't want to surrender to what thatas. -and so you existed for a long time as a journalist. you won awards along the way, but there are some undocumented immigrants who are resentful of the america that you have d for yourself. you write about activists. you write about it in your book, about actists who want to know, "where were you, jose, when we were on the frontlines all these years fighting for immigrant rights? where were you?"

-i was too busy lying, passing, and hiding. i was too busy trying to create the successful version of what i was supposed to be, because i think since i found out i was here illegally when i was 16, i had internalized and i was very honest in the book about that. ow, even when an activist said to me, you know, "you can't represent us. you're not even mexican." right? because this sue has been so married to latinos and specifically mexican. but, you know, look. like, i -- this book for me was a way of really exploring what all these isse s are and where all rt is. you're very critical. you blame the media, too, for some of the hurt and some of the misperceptions. you're very critical about how mainstream media has covereimmigration. where do you think the media has failed? because journalism is sacred to me, right? ke, it was the first thieve. -you worked for the washington post. -i worked chronicle just a few blocks that way, right? and so journalism is very important to me.

what we do is very important to me, and i think the fact that we, in general -- there are some eeptions -- have failed to really connect the dots between the 11 million undocumented immigrants like me in this country and how that is connected to tpu 43 million immigrant tion in america, so you can't separate the undocumented from the documented. this is actually not about immigration reform. it's abo changing america, right? -and with president trump in office and with more reporting on issues like the border wall do you see some improvements in the coverage? -absolutely, and it's kind of embarrassing frankly that it took trump for most of our colleagues in the media what trump has done and is doing is a culmination of all the policies that democrats and republicans have been a part of. this has been a bipartisan mess. it's not justrump. -and why do you think they haven't deported you? -i have no idea. i actually -- you know, en i first --

-you're not hard to find. -i'm at starbucks usuarey, so they'll find me t you know, after i came out seven years ago, few months later, when i haven't heard anything from the government, i actually called the government melf. i write that in the book. i called ice myself. i said, "hi. i'm jose antonio vargas. i haven't heard from you." right? "what do you plan to do with me?" and the woman on the line was like, "no comment." -really? d,he knew who i was, she s but she was wondering, "why are you calling us?" "well, i haven'td from " you know, as a journalist, i'm like, we have to follow up the story. and so i come out. obama at the time was deporting 400,000 immigrants, and why wasn't i one of them? -how has your concept of being a citizen chang since you came out as an undocunted person? -so, i am not a citizen because i way,not born in this counhe accident of birth, and i'm not a citizen because lelly i am not. i would argue that there's a different kind of citizenship that undocumented immigrants subscribe to, and it's citizenship of parcipation. i actually think it's miraculous

that undocumented immigrants get up every day, go to work, send the kids to school, and provide for their families even under this administration. i think that's -- -they need to pay taxes. -pay taxes. parts of their communities. i think that's miraculous, and i think that's a different kind of citizenship and, i argue, a deeper kind of citizenship. -okay. jose antonio vargas. your new book is "dear america: notes of an undocumented citizen." thank you so much for being here. -thank you for having me. -now a not-so-benevolent view of philanthropy. in an in-depth look, one journalist makes the argument thhen today's corporate titans and political leaders try to change the world, they actually preserve the societal problems they say they want to solve. author anand giridharadas contends the rich and powerful are willing to fight for justice and equality but only if it doesn't threaten their positions at the tope social order. his latest book is "winners take all: the elite charad" of changing the worl and anand giridharadas joins us now in the studio. pleasure to have you. -great to be here. -well, in your book, you tackle the world of philanthropists

who want to do good and do well at the same time. we hear all theswords now, a world full of terms like "win-win," "make a difference," "thoug leaders," yet you say that instead of making the world better, they're actually enabling inequality. how so? -it's an amazing thing that we do live in this age whenonaires are giving money away. in this city right now, you know, 184 people signing thgiving pledge, and every time you go to the mall, there's red iphone cases that are going to change the world an bags that are going to change the world, and yet this has been, for all of that elite generosity, an age of elarding. this is the most unequal time in america in 100 years. last year, the top one percent's salaries thgrew four times faster the bottom 90 percent. last year, 82 percent of all new wealth created went to the global top one percent, who talk here in silonon valley about disrup and starting companies that are going to save the world, those very same people

are monopolizing progress in america. -so on the one hand, they're arguing for fixes, but fixes within the current broken system get interested a -who and involved in social change, they change change. they're rarely content to just write a check pport an organization that they think is doing good work. they get involved. they get on the board. they shape it. they shape the narrative. they write books about their theories of change, and e of who they are, that becomes influential. so silicon valley disruption becomes change. athigher taxes, mmm, not change. -because that doesn't benefit them. -oh, it hurtthem. u know, a charter school that they can get involved with, put their name on, mentor a few black kids and say -- they boast that they got them into stanford. that's the kind of change they like. equally funded public schools for all, which would mean that marin and palo alto actually don't get better schools than everybody else? that, they're not interested in. -is it a matter of cognitive dissonance, then, or is there an actual moral lapse or evil intent?

-it's a mix. there are -- i mean, i found this wonderful e-mail from 2007 leong the goldman sachs ership that was unearthed through an investigation, in which they talk about a bad new york times ory coming at them that's about their role in the mortgage debacle, and they say in the e-il, "hey, we got to try to pitch this reporter th on our gs gives philpy," so they understood that a little bit of giving lubricates the engine of continued taking. but i think here in silicon valley, it's a different story. i think there's a t of people, from mark zuckerberg to elon musk to others, who are earnest in their desire to make the world a better place and who have an almost messianic faith in their own power to make it better and who therefore are totally blind to those situations in which what is good for em actually diverges from what is good for the world. fa ibook is one of the moalistic companies in american history. it's also the first company in american history to perhaps compromise and tip a federal election, a presidential eleion. there's no accident, as far as i see it, and talk about making the world better have been so instrumental

in building a winner-take-all economy that works for very few people -- them. -so it's clear, what you're saying is that you don't believe market-based philanthropy works. so what are you arguing for? are you arguing for more government intervention, more government spending, and, as an extension, then, higher taxes? -yes, among other things, and we should stope eing so ashamed of things. taxes is the price of civilization. i think rich people in this country probably need to pay nglot more than they're pato ge with most of the other rich countries. apee has $285 billion offsh while we have 7,499 homeless people here in the city of san francisco. if tre city of san francisco country -- the five-county area around san francisco were a country -- it'd have the ninth-highest population of billionaires among countries, and yet it's hard to wae without encountering homeless people.

when the winners of our age have built a winners-take-all economy an economy that predictably, reliably punishes most americans and deprives them of the american dream, and then, having built that economy, reinvent themselves as the only people who can fix it, the ople who are disrupters, who are change agents who are going to make things better. -you're also very heavily critical of well-meaning liberals. u think that they actually paved the road for the election of donald trump. can you explain that? -they paved the road for donald trump in two ways. a lot of rich liberals have pushed the idea thy can save us -- the billionaires, rich people who caused the very problems that we had can save us, and they pushed a lot of fake change that didn't actually change real problems in america. social mobility was declining. peopleangry about trade, angry about globalization. and by not fixing they created space for donald trump to win. but condly, they gave donald. the "i alone can fix it" businessman is especially capable of fixing it.

that came from these philanthro-capitalists. the idea that the people who broke things are the best able to solve them, that alone, the from donald trump. and finally, the idea that the people who -- that people can fight for the least among us, a leader like donald trump, can fight for the least among us while enriching hielf -- win-win. that idea did not start with trump. that idea started with billionaires who have been promising phonily to save us for years. ight. anand giridharadas. thank you so much for joining us. your new book is "winners take all: the elite charade of changing the world." pleasure to have you. nk you so much for having me. -turning now to something lighter, scott dikkers is the founder and longest-serving editor-in-chief of the popular online satirical news outlet the onion. omit's never shied away taking. now dikkers is aiming hisarcastic wit at elon musk in his book, "welcome to the future which isine." musk is well-known for being the outspoken and often flamboyant ceo of the companies tea and spacex. and right now, the onion'sscott dikkers

-it's great to be here, thuy. thanks for having me. -well, you know, there are lots of techiants you could have chosen to skewer in your book. ?y did you choose elon mu -he's the funniest. he's the weirdest. and he's thehat has the most kind of public image. seyou know, a lot of tuys hide in their billion-dollar lairs or whatever, wherever they live. -but musk loves to tweet. -he's kind of -- yeah, he's out there. he's tweeting. he's doing stuff. so i figure, you know, if you're in the public sphere, you're going to get mocked a little bit. -well, in your book, you include a number of what you call inspirational quotes from elon musk, and one them is, "the key to success is to ask yourself, 'what's the most ludicrous, most asinine, most futilthing i could possibly do,' then make it happen." you don't like any of his ideas? -oh, no. i f ink his ideas are kindol. like, i think on some level you have to admire someone that you satirize, but you also havind them pretty ridiculous, because if it's too mean-spirited, then it's not fu or interes.

-and you also poke fun at mark zuckerberg, as well. he's not spared. your book includes a so-called foreword from him where he says, "if you partake in this book, you must first, give meorll of your personal ition." it's kind of a funny line until you think about, you know, the data breach they just had recently affecting 50 million users. -yeah. you know, there's so many times you'll wri something, and you'll think it's absurd and ridiculous or whatever, it's like, "oh, i guess it wasn't that absurd after all." -we live itically turbulent times right now. since you seem to have no shortage of targets nowadays? -satire isasy always because there's always terrible people. there's always awful things going onn the world, and the point of satire is to point those things out with humor. pretty awful to each other, so there's going to be plenty to satirize and, you know, what's worse is when things are so absurd that the satire you write just comes true all the time.

you think you're writing something crazy and absurd, and thli it comes true in rea, so i don't know. it's kind of the gold standard for me when that happens. 've also written that, "good satire afflicts the comfortable and comforts thected." can you expand on that? how do you decide who or what to tget? -yeah, so, if you go after an oppressed group or somebody who's down and out, like, it's just not funny. nobody wantso see that. but if you go after authority figures or billionaires or whatever, everyoudy wants to see them t down a peg, so, yeah, it's pretty simple. and a lot of times, stuff i've done, especially sor the onion, has been perceived as very edgy an wmaybe inappropriate tever, and that's when, you know, you might get perilously close to seeming lik you're making fun of the wrong target or whatever, but the subtext is always going after the right target hopefully, like, if you do it right. -what's fference between humor and satire? -humor is just funny, like, "try not to laugh" videos,

you know, aunt myrtle slipping and falling in the backyard. everybody loves that. or, like, you know, a funny piece by dave barry about how, you know, "i can't believe i'm 50," or, "i hate taking out the trash. don't you hate taking out the trash?" that's humor. ndbut satire is when you omething wrong with humanity or with the world, like you said, some kind of injustice, and you point it out through humor, so t, like, a secret nugget. nobody wants to be preached to. nobody wants to be told what's wrong with them, but they all wans, so the jokes are like the honey on the spoon, anththe satire, you knowsubtext is like the crumpled-up medicine that they're getting with the honey. nd is your goal to create something that's more enriching, more lasting, eybe even when the injust is , something ths? maybe potentially he -yeah, because that's the other thing about humor coping mechanism in times of tragedy. it's a thing that kind of reminds us that we're human. because when there's a tragedy, we kind of revert

to lizard brain or whatever, so, yeah, i think it's super valuable. is send people to mars. is that something you would -- -the moon is for chumps. let's make that clear. we're going to mars. mars is cooler. all right? -i was going to ask, would you ever want to go? i think i know the answer. -absolutely not. no. earth is pretty nice. fowe have trees and water.now. -all right. scott dikkers. foun the satirical news outlet the onion. and also your new book called "welcome to the future," poking fun at elon musk. thanks so much for being here. -you're welcome. gr be here. -that will do it for us, but before we go, we'd like to share with you some news. kqed is renovating our current building in san francisco, so for the next two years, og we'll be taping our m out of a new studio, but we will still bring you the same in-depth discussions and analysis of important issues, and you will still be able to find all of our coverage online at t/n same place -- kqed.osroom.

i'm thuy vu. than and we look forward to seeing you next week from our new studio. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

i'm robert costa, welcome to "washington week." a rough and tumble week in politics as the president and speaker of the house clash. president trump: crazy nancy. i tell you wha i have been watching her for a long period of time. she's not the same person. she's lost it. the president of the united states. i wish his family or administration or staff would have an intervention for the gof the country. robert: as mr. tmp heads to tokyo where issues on trade and north korea hover. next announcer: this is "washington week." funding is provided by --