times of not being active on not being active well instead of because that's the thing to do do you think you going to get to a point where you can't be successful unless you are in that. i'm not sure i think there's two responses to that i think that we live increasingly in a freelance economy where media becomes our platform to build our brands now maybe you have a full time job so you don't need to be continually trying to get work but for many people using twitter or facebook unable to get work whether it's in media or many other things. but i also think there's a. it's beginning on the west coast and things always begin on the west coast there's a growing backlash against social media and actually the smartest the most independent the most interesting people particularly young people are actually giving up social media and i think over the next few years we're going to see is the only losers will be left in social media really.

and that's a debatable statement but can you will and retain your ammeter and their thing in the sense that these things always work. and i know i've got kids who are bored with social media and most of their friends are bored with social media certainly facebook's. gone out of fashion then people are on facebook all people parents and grandparents young people wouldn't be caught dead on facebook now the question is maybe they'll go from facebook to instagram or snap chat but at some point i think this generation of so-called digital natives is just going to get bored of all of these things so i think and i've been saying this for years that the real reaction to social media and technology is going to come from the digital natives the people who have grown up with this stuff and are just bored and disgusted when they just going to go back to the basics are they going to hear about something like artificial intelligence and connect their brains to a computer. i think what you're going to see is an interesting new book out called

the revenge of analog you seen in the way in which this young generation is embrace vinyl records you see in the way in which they now buy most skin pads you see in the way that they're starting to write letters again you're seeing it in the way in which the physical books survived against the digital book the digital book did well for a few years and now no one's reading on no one's reading on that can go there all buying books again so i think this new generation will rediscover analog and i think you'll see analog becoming increasingly fashionable in the same way for example is when you have more and more self driving cars you'll find the manual cars will become more and more fashionable young people think for them so they're not stupid and there's always been this idea that somehow young people are all going to just immerse themselves in digital and do nothing else and i think that's a fundamental misreading of how innovative and independent thinking

young people are so let's talk a bit about jobs for instance corporations like google and amazon killing off smaller businesses people losing their jobs to services like where is this because the internet is a bad thing or it's because it's inevitable and it's a natural progression of technology. i wouldn't say either of us things the idea of internet being a bad thing is a reactionary statement the idea that technology is bad is i think an unwise position to take but there's nothing inevitable about it either what's happened with the internet is that you've had the so-called network effect which lends itself to. a very small handful of companies dominating the economy one of the mistakes people made about the internet was that this suppose a democracy is ational people thought would create lots of cars. lots of different

innovators lots of different entrepreneurs successful entrepreneurs reality is you only have one winner in each sector facebook in social media google in. car sharing. amazon in e-commerce so what you have is a very typical really development but exaggerated in economics we had it in the industrial revolution with the emergence of monopolies and the way to respond to that is in the way we've always done historically with. anti trust legislation the idea that. technology is to blame for this i think is a mistake and then take a short break right now when we come back we'll continue and for cain internet entrepreneur and author they dangers of social media and internet in today's world stage.

in the heart of the swiss alps this is a place probably more secretive than the pentagon small mysterious than the cia and better god than for knox customs place all the science is controlled by them and they impose the opening times. to prosecute these films all plus the procedures in place of the strictest in all europe must to pieces by artists like picasso and modigliani can't boards and sold inside this warehouse so that's where the report comes in that it covers up deals which are naturally discreet commercially discreet step but also discreet because they concern fraud. some of

those paintings are linked to dog secrets nobody knows how many of these secrets a kept inside the geneva free pool it's such a position that you'll never obtain an inventory of all the works in the freeport who knows how many there are three hundred three thousand three hundred thousands is it a matter of confidentiality only is it the world's black box of the art business. applied for many flips over the years so i know the game inside god's. football isn't only about what happens on the pitch for the final school it's about the passion from the fans it's the age of the super money kill the narrowness and spend the stupid twenty million. books it's an experience like nothing else not to because i want to share what i think of what i know about the beautiful guy great so what chance for. peace.

los angeles the city of luxury and fame but also an alarming number of people living in the streets. the simple fact in l.a. is there's just not enough shelter even if people on the streets right now decided to come in there's nowhere to come in it's been a struggle. and this man found his own response to the problem and constructed dozens of tiny homes for people in need of shelter when you have nothing and nowhere to go. you know having something like this may as well be a castle but do the authorities accept such solution tiny house on a city parking space is not a solution her someone wanted to ring the site otherwise it will be

a free for all and this is there a better alternative to end the homelessness crisis. now we're back with andrew cain internet answer for an hour you touched out upon

the monopoly in the internet what's wrong with this huge giant if they are not going stale i mean they're developing all the time and monopolies are about there's two positions either peter t.e.o. very well and second value entrepreneur investor thinks monopolies are good things they're a good thing if you're a monopolist and you're the winner they're a bad thing because they don't enable innovation when you had a monopolist like microsoft. they destroyed innovation they destroyed small companies google and amazon while they are innovators in their own way are also against innovation because they're trying to dominate their markets like any company would let's also meaningless in the clearing working on i mean that row and drabness cars aren't the innovators maybe they're doing a are in a way it is about doing it in the context of their business they're doing it to make sure that we use their drugs their driverless because the idea for example

that google. who already essentially owns the big data business own. owns many of the other categories of the digital market should also the control the self driving kopassus is terrified google already knows everything we do through of jordan i think is eighty six percent of all users use the android platform if we all get in our self driving cars and they know where we are all the time they're not evil they're big they're not big brother but what they'll do is continually. so the idea that google should control that entire platform i think is is is not only dangerous but also doesn't enable real innovation because google's interest is benefiting the search engine it's not real innovation so what we need is a new wave of innovators new kinds of operating systems which are more open which enable more entrepreneur and more kinds of innovation you touched upon an interesting topic which is. to go already knows everything controls all the data.

and out of the market twitter actually provide it using the data for surveillance but i'm thinking using government and give up on opportunities like that. let's be clear it's not as if it is not that they are not even that they're snooping their problem is their business model the problem is they give away their search engine for free and their space is smaller than requires them to essentially collect data which they pass on to advertisers so the big debate today is business models i think i much prefer the business model of a company like apple which sells products and doesn't collect data so it's not companies that are bad what's bad a business models and the business model that i think has been a profound mistake in the internet and eventually will be recognized as a mistake is the free model where we get services facebook google instagram for

free and by using them they acquire our data and then sell that data to advertising that's the core of the surveil of this new. what people are calling the surveillance economy and ultimately we're going to wake up to it and we're going to choose to pay for us services once again and protect our privacy. there is the topic of terrorism where she's very actual right now when you see a terrorist tweeting and calling on jihad hume we i don't think anyone here i don't think anyone. or anyone else would say. that that should be i want to say aloud the question is first the whether or not you allow is not much you can do to stop it and it's pretty much allowed there twitting everybody really allowed i'm in a study not allowed to. license has what is less social media is in a world where they can have what is really a social media is but they stumble out to post beheadings. you don't need to be

allowed to post beheadings to recruit fresh people to go and fight for isis but i think to twitter is made every effort to close down. isis or accounts that are supposed to recruit isis terrorists i think again the question is wrong is the the issue is again business models and media take you true for example we know that there's. a lot of dreadful content on you true headings which seems to get through the filter the problem with you true business business model anyone's allowed to post anything and the business model of view true which makes it such a profitable company is not hiring a lot of adults is allowing everyone to post whatever they want and selling advertising around. the traditional media model is to cure rate is to create gatekeepers have editors and professionals like you who will determine what will

appear on it what we need is to convince and perhaps legally require companies like to. or facebook to hire editors to make sure that the content that's published on that network isn't offensive particularly when it comes to when it comes to terrorism in that sense you kill two birds with one stone on the one hand you can guarantee that the content isn't offensive and on the other hand you create a lot of new jobs in india too but aren't you walking a thin line there because i know already that there's legislative steps being taken to destroy this so-called dangerous contents were it content for example for facebook in israel. you don't see a potential abuse here i mean israeli army do my post as dangerous but isn't that just an opinion. but that's always true with free speech i mean this is been an ongoing debate for hundreds of years who's to say what people can say for frey

should you be allowed to insult people should you be allowed to. say things which offend other people it's an ongoing debate so this is a new problem again with social media is that a lot of content which everyone agrees shouldn't be allowed to be broadcast live beheadings for example is slipping through the cracks because of the business model of this media that doesn't have curators now facebook has responded in some ways adamant that this is going to shoot debates about fake news huge debates about . unacceptable content and what zuckerberg eventually did in response was higher six thousand more editors that's the only way you solve this only having human being manually watch a chick you have to look. if i. if i slapped you in this interview or i

started taking off my clothes or if i started chanting jihad these slogans. this wouldn't appear on your network because you would decide that it's inappropriate the only reason this will appear on the network is because it passes through the filters you are decided that i might be an interesting person to interview the problem with the you true business model is anything can be put up by anybody and the more content that goes up the more money you choose makes because the more advertising they sell around the less people they have to hire and have to hire people are you then have to hire editors so what we need is more balance what we need a more human curators who can say look this is terrible there's no way that we're going to allow someone to put a live beheading up there's no way we're going to allow our network to become a recruiting tool for isis. you know iran and it can only be done internally i think creating these heavy top down laws won't work it's got to come from within

these companies exactly as i read in the guardian internal facebook rolls and i realize you ran that i just want to quote for my viewers it actually will allow users to lacerate taps to harm themselves because it doesn't want to censor or punish people in distress or attempting suicide. yet why is that is because it's so creepy because they make money the more outrageous content when people you know where millions of people watch live live suicides at a certain point zuckerberg has always been resistant to calling facebook a media company the reason for that is because when it becomes a media company then he has to hire curators then he has to essentially undermine his remarkable business model of create all this content without any professionals that's why facebook's was so many hundreds of billions of dollars is

because it's reinvented media it creates content without having to pay the curators but ultimately. that doesn't work because you get content which is profoundly offensive or evil or disturbing or corrupting and we have to deal with that and we are dealing with your increasingly seeing more and more of a debate about fake news you're seeing it in the e.u. with more and more legislation directed to punishing companies like facebook the stuff that gets through the filter so this stuff is being reserved because in europe well. into the internet not the answer you not only talking about the editors that they hire and the big companies but you're also saying that government should regulate these things more when that makes things worse though. if the government interfered into regulating now you're sounding like a silicon valley libertarian governments always have to be like it or not governments have always been involved in what you can say or you can. so i'm not

saying that the guy i mean to resume have talked about shutting the internet down that's a catastrophe i'm not in favor of the government heavy handedly stepping into the digital arena and banning facebook or banning twitter or not allowing kids to go online that's absurd that's a reaction a victorian reaction to to a very exciting new technology but i don't think it's unhealthy for governments to be concerned if this media is being used to recruit terrorists or this media is being used to celebrate paedophilia or celebrate live killings or suicides just as. the government needs to respond to those problems if they were happening in the analog media or in the real world it's a perfectly normal way for it's essential for governments to become involved otherwise why have a government if they're not going to be involved in such disturbing issues then

there's no reason to have government in the first place then you start falling into this kind of libertarian utopianism. which tends to be very strong on the west coast of america which says well we can manage ourselves we can police ourselves but clearly facebook and twitter companies themselves that's why we're having this conversation that's why the e.u. is getting involved what's why this debate is becoming increasingly important in the world today and are playing thank you very much for this interview thank you.

so. hello my name's peter and i've been living in russia for about seven years and this is a film about just some of the crazy things i've. done there. has to be i.

still sleeping rough on the streets of paris despite president promised to find a solution before the end of twenty seventeen we hear some of the stories. this man i. mean the story is this the life he's still he would have no.