Matt, Ezra, and Sarah talk about Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement regarding what Facebook will focus on in 2018, and the state of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
It's always better as apparent when you could ask
things you have only like a very superficial understanding of like the giraffes neck as long as it can
it's. The tall leaves I've
hello, welcome to another four. So did the weeds and Fox media podcast network, a Matthew Iglesias here today with Sarah Cliff and as recline timeout hello
we want to. We gonna talk about some chips, staff terms, health insurance. We will
potato variety of not potatoes or had to beat chips over the weekend. They were doesn't send a lot of people than delicious chips.
and we did it. We can break with format a little bit thou because we wanted to talk about some changes that Facebook is making that are you important to the media important, possibly to how politics work out? But this also a good white paper. That's very relevant that discussions are we're gonna
We're gonna blended all together, like like crazy people. It can
very exciting so last week
mark Zuckerberg came out with some pretty seismic changes to the way Facebook is working. He had a facebook post. That's how you nuts pig big moves in the media. Now any wrote this
that recently we ve got an feedback more community, that public content posts from businesses, brands and media is crowding out the personal moments that led us to connect more with each other easier.
Stand how we got here, video another,
the content have exploded on Facebook in the past couple of years, and now there's more public.
And then post me, your friends and family. The balance
What's in the news, feed has shifted away from most important thing. Facebook can do help us connect with each other,
we feel responsibility to make sure our services oranges fun to use, but also good for people's well being
in order to make facebook better for people's well being to make it not just time spent the time well spent us Zuckerberg announced that they would be making changes to the news feed, which is the algorithm more or less controls. What you see, and you can be seeing more things from friends and family life
from the media, from publishers from brands.
an interest in general face
he's gonna be moving away from news away from things a prior to his engagement at all costs and at least in theory, towards friends,
and family and things were you actually dont use
in time, but you do something you can
on something. You write a comment. The overall big pay
sure idea here is that talking with you
it's in your family and doing stuff on face. What makes you feel good, but reading news and just passively consuming articles and video and feeling outrage makes you feel bad and Ellie
In theory, Facebook would like to make you feel good and as such, they're gonna up end so that everything going on they lost twenty five billion dollars roughly market cap when they now to some show that combat quickly, though
The media is freaking out about this, because Facebook over the past five years has been a huge driver. A huge number of investment decisions have been made based on this particular facebook, vis,
Oh, whereas Zuckerberg has this kind of weird passive voice. Video
public cognitive, exploded on Facebook, and let me say here that we not only did they changed the out all kinds of things happen and in algorithms, I'm sure on a different basis, but they like told everybody, hey we're going to start paying more video our facebook. They like they literally made cash payments, Munich Brands to do Facebook optimize video recordings.
It didn't I mean I guess, video delicate surveying question as we get into that. Yes, so I know our facebook
sits algorithm all the time that narrow talking about how it given in our newsroom, we heard like a year or two ago,
that were similar to this what's deflect has. It happened yet look
it's different in twenty eight tee in this respect at all. This is believed to end and will have to see because the changes have been rolled out. But the reason I think it's big enough that we should talk about it here is this is believed to be faced
making and announcing a major shift in its strategic ambition.
they're, not just making a small tweak to the to the algorithm. We. She saw twinkies your mentioning because now a year to back with AIDS,
down waited. What you saw from pages so like a box, is a pay to New York Times is a page but like you're, like Sarris Life's professional page of loss to Sarah Cliffs actual exactly so, they did that in an news organisations, but we haven't seen a decline in Facebook traffic now for some time there is a huge rise in Facebook traffic, if I'm remembering correctly starting in, I think it's twenty eleven or twenty thirteen
it becomes really a central driver to most media organisations. You see a lot of facebook. First, organise organizations arise famously
Worthy, but I mean, if you look like Buzz- feeds video strategy. It's a very facebook, centric video strategy,
a lot of organizations make huge and
Spencer and, in some cases, build their entire construct
and around what face but wants what the
algorithm prizes, and now it seems to be happening. Is Facebook is saying
We made maybe a mistake. Trying
make ourselves these central source for news rate, the central informational platform of the twenty first century, where you learn
at the world where you go to entertain yourself when you go to see what is
happening that was biting off point,
probably more than we could to visit a pretty good piece by travellers, alibis feed and an Charlie Think is really one of the best writers on this kind of thing, and he wrote it's an unpaid.
And ended acknowledgement that facebooks core feature news. Feed has not worked out at all. The weight was intended is abused,
by pillars of it of misinformation. It was used by foreign governments to attempt to interfere in elections, and it made people feel bad. And to me, that's the big picture here, Facebook
seem to want to become the public square of the twenty first century, and in doing that, it really did at the power at two billion people on Facebook, and so it became the central player.
in American and actually international politics. There been a huge
gonna blow back to that and more
Berger and- and others are saying no- this isn't about that this, just about making sure people enjoy their facebook experienced more a moment for this.
Things by the way are separable
certainly seems, are taken a step backwards in you know, maybe we don't want the regulatory scrutiny, the public scrutiny, the backlash the comes from making
the decisions that change luck,
the change to the future of the world. Maybe we
to be a place, it's more about where you see you no pictures of your friends kits.
to me an interesting thing about the statement. Was you know
wars. Over his article says it was an unprecedented acknowledgement in that line you quoted, but actually they have acknowledged, not write. Like marks echo
In that statement he doesn't so much as acknowledge that the reason
video exploded, hunt. Facebook was at Facebook, issued a directive for video to expand
they don't acknowledge in that statement that fake news has expended on Facebook.
And they not only do they not acknowledge that Facebook makes people unhappy, but the misrepresent,
but the research on that sets
and they say that
engaging more with other peoples posts will make you happy, whereas this, like bad news, will make you sad,
maybe they have a study that says up the studies that I've shown indicate that just using Facebook at all makes you unhappy
that people engage in a lot of
curated self presentation on Facebook. They put forward a sort of a best version of themselves. You know in your pictures with your kid that you, post on Facebook, you don't put the like super bleary. I'd parent
or the like spill that ruined your chair or you being up late at night
dressed out about? How are you gonna be able to afford the whatever and you look at other people and their perfect lives? And you feel bad about yourself and
they're just but they're, not acknowledging that there than acknowledging anything any of the problems and
I think that's like a really a corp, deep, fundamental problem, because I have to say when, when I speak to people who work in the Tec Universe,
the face. What people really stand out as being much more high minded and like well meaning than the people who I encounter, who work at Google and Apple and Amazon, but their product is
it's much more damaging to people, they just
stumbled into this disasters own as, if a bunch of people who willingly
save the world found themselves working at a cigarette company, and so they keep
in crusting themselves. In like more layers of nonsense, end and that that to me
with this statement. Is it's like
We acknowledge nothing. We're chain
things, but for no reason right, like we do?
destroy the political system. We just backing away from some things. We may have a hand
I am also in others two things I have read slash list,
until recently that make me skeptical of these changes, working, end
Oh Jesus, it sounds like remember, saying this change correctly, like something like vocs effect.
Outlet, like our page, will just be less emphasised in a facebook feed
something. Why use note the punctuation was not box. We vocs Brown separate, vocs
or a fake news that way that's a destructive or not. We would be
de you, but like size. I share a vocs article, or I article right, sherry, fake news, article from my Facebook page and allow
people command. Our lot of people like it like that would show up a lot because it is showing in
it meant and showing meaningful interaction, and I guess I think people live
to share things that a line with their world view that they like to engage with news, whether real or fake, that is spent
to something they believed to be true. There was
interesting article in the New York Times this weekend about some of the countries where Facebook, so
it's not the same policy, but the policy, at least in its counter sounds pretty
similar where there is an effort,
emphasise, friends and family. The emphasise publishers,
of publishers and Slovakia who have said they found. This is a worse environment for fake news that publish
there being de emphasise people are less
like the shake chair there
recalls, but driving things that are patently false, going very, very
viral on Facebook,
another show. I listened to the podcast reply. All had a really interesting episode. I think a few
weeks ago called the prophet looking at how one of the maxim
in political parties have essentially hired this underground. Army of Twitter
calls to post. They create these fake
controversies when something was going bad for them that they would kind of note.
Something else going on there is this one story about a woman who is sexually assaulted, that they kind of stuff
commenting on and driving off its attention to like helping make it a national news story. It seems like even applied,
see like this. It leaves a lot of space for
things that are not true for things that a lot
would consider destructive to to flourish to continue
to be shared it I dont
fully see how this
and I guess I mean this- is a question given that
mats anger, not really saying what the problem is. If the price
is the dispersion of fake news, and that is bad for politics. I don't necessarily see this as a good solve for that problem, so lets them.
Into the the, because I I think that's you're really good way to look at this and also wool and being a bridge to the to the paper. One talk about so
I do want to say that Facebook has said what problem it is. Our turn us are whether that is true. I think, as it is an open question, but they published research a couple weeks ago, that really precise
what they're doing here- and it was research- it basically showed, but, as I said earlier, that when
who are on Facebook and you are a liking, the photo of a friend or commenting on your ants life update that it makes you feel more connected,
makes you feel happier and that
they do and all the other stuff, like your reading in New York Times article or like you're, watching
video this auto playing and like making you mad about Congress. Like you, you become less happy and so
they are saying that they are trying to move to that that that first bucket, that recent vote
could be consistent with what matter saying, which is its other research. That is overall, it makes you less happy. It may be
you could move and still like the mix will be off, but but that's what they're saying they're trying to solve what? I think I just finished a point. I think that thing there is clearly not talking about, because it just much more difficult to talk about is that
that research and the reason there doing it and the kind of feel around it is its intersect.
with what is pretty big movement now in tackled their bunch of Facebook founders, who have more less disown the platform. At this point, I am shall Parker from Napster like, but
Others was an early investor in it, a lot of people have been,
associated now with his movement that actually, Facebook and bunch other platforms to be fair had become so good. An addicting us like
getting these little like dopamine buttons and using the
design principles that really are built to create habits really built. Her did Qian addiction that they
become like a kind of intentional pollution. In that way, the smoking metaphors, not a bad one, finning
Japan is another way of saying addiction and one thing, but the key onto addict. You is the
our negative emotions on and on my interview, podcast this week, IDA Inner
you're a lawyer who the big tech sort of guy, he was a guy.
Hunton virtual reality is a very, very interesting longtime critic of things like Facebook and his is combined MRS Ewing Gay
people by ruining society. That is the business model like that is what engagement is so that that's one bucket and then this other bucket is the play,
all system rights. On the one hand, people are not happy on Facebook there there feeling bad there go in there, they're getting angry there. Still their cars are addicted, but they're like their dictating an unhappy way,
and so there is now like a movement to try to get away from it. You know, there's been a lot of coverage of the single act. Just on Harris is doing lot us up. There I think, is interesting, and then there is the political side of it where Facebook,
Negatives are getting hauled before Congress to testify, where they're doing
inquiries into how much fake news and how much big advertising there is where the media is constantly angry, because, though Facebook is giving them a ton of traffic but not making much money off of it and they killed are constantly
facebook swim and then also Facebook is pushing the entire thing.
this kind of wild outrage based engagement, and so that, I think, is the bigger long term existential threat to face
that they have another battle action and they actually get heavily regulated or they get
big, but also everybody hates him, and so they eventually get brought in for an anti trust suit. Anyway, Michael
I did in the nineties and they get broken up or they come under heavy, come anti trust regulation. I think your mark.
Berger and you're. Looking at the future of Facebook. That is a huge threat to Facebook is Facebook is
pretty clearly pretty owning instagram to its prey
It has a very heavy concentration in the markets. It is running depending on how you define what its competitive market is and so ice
what's happening here as, on the one hand them trying to.
time well spent issue like explicitly addressed the idea that you know you
should be on mare, without heeding yourself and feeling quite so unhappy when you there but trend it implies
We address the long term regulatory threat by
under the guise of the first thing, beginning to retreat from being quite so important politics, I think
Ben Thomson and his at his trajectory newsletter, as is really interesting interview with that, the vice president at Facebook, or whether the news feed and to me
the thing that was most telling there was that the Facebook guy keeps doing this little dance. That is clear
men among corporate executives.
Can these days who are trying to make something better
sometimes he is saying leg.
Doing the right thing, because we want to do the work that he's giving like a normal human beings answer.
your question about like? Why would you
change what you are doing right and it's like if you went down to my neighborhood coffee shop, in a small
business? I know the owner and you ask him- is like Heaven.
you're, putting like less poison in your water and well because poisoning people is wrong. Morally and we'd, be like that's. That's good idea. Man like thank you, that's probably also why he don't aids to local pda and is involved in the community budget.
executive keeps seeming to realise that he doesn't run a coffee shop right that he's an officer of a public corporation in America and he actually
Has a procedure
legal and perhaps a moral obligation to damage the world
order to make more money for the shareholders, so he'll, like then
It now be like yet true, our stock went down yesterday, but we really think this can be better for the business in the long run right, and so this
This kind of divine coincidence that he is positing where, like the best thing for Facebook to do for the world, is also the best thing to do for Facebook share. Her
theirs, and I don't think he's saying that, because he's like full of shit or something is actually the dynamic in which, like corporate Amerika and the
legal system has trapped itself over the past thirty or forty years. Is that you can't
as an executive, rootless people think you can't just
say like reading.
This would be better right. Where's like Mark Zuckerberg, is all these
As you know, they want to make money. They want to succeed in business but like to give a lot of money to charity leg to cut it.
It, would be so reasonable to say I thought we would just get by with five percent less money and like do something helpful to people. Write like that's like a normal thing for a rich guy like have people want to believe in a good way to get people to believe it would be to actually do it, but the
They are not just Facebook but like all of corporate Amerika is in this like mental political and legal trap. Were you can't say that,
what human rights that actually legal trap. As was perceived, I mean it's it's hard to say it's, not a law, but there's there's some judge made law to support this. We would be at some kind of a risk of a shareholder lawsuit if you,
been said that you were doing send. It was bad for for shareholders and its
its tricky. You know everything outside of the Tec World right just like its clearly true that, like
Selling sugary snacks is like not a great thing to do, for the universe,
but it's a pretty good way to make money, and you know a few
get a company whose, like your business, is you'd distribute like candy bars to people like you really should like
he's out some hard questions about what you're doing with your life like its clearly bear in, and you just say that, while it makes people happy like it does but like it also kills, and that can happen with,
ology too, and like people who, meanwhile in the world, should think hard about
but also like the system.
should allow people to say right. Like we
wanted to have a very successful company.
without damaging the war
So we made some decisions to make the world better and- and they sort o k
to you, and you can see it in their public statements. It's it's a fortune,
far higher than during the time, said, Anne S column, where a kind of draws out this analogy like thinking of Facebook, as this cookie company that has ultra successful it hands out free cookies, who doesn't like
geese. Cookies are Delicious
at some point, they realize cookies, orkan contributing
obesity crisis. They are very, very bad to have free cookie,
that every street corner in they decide to start adding broccoli, there
turkey, but it's very hard to wrap your hat.
Around when you have these freak cookies. Had everyone loves like
Why? Why would you put
broccoli in there and how are you, like long term, going to make the argument that it is good for your cook
company stakeholders that there should be broccoli in the cookies that you're selling
Just to focus on the personal side of this, like aside from the political which I do want here, either as their talk about our white paper in a moment what
the things I read that Charlie where's article- that, as I mentioned earlier in this one mind that jump
the shift, how we think about this for he talked about. I must
just a competitor to Facebook, which is not how I had thought about tat
thing until I saw that lie.
As indeed it is also a way to share information with friends and family. I'm sure like what's happened
lot of us have like group text messages. Are things like that where we keep up to date with people in it
made me think about whether the format of Facebook is
ever going to be like a great place to connect with your friends and family, you in part because,
performative aspect of you to over. Like text message like, I share bad news with people talk about like mine,
commute on our tariff measures system this morning and like I talk about you
like worrying things with people over Facebook like I would not poster
at those sort. If they put together,
two things and instagram on those more performative things that our lot more public
and I kind of wonder if a platform like Facebook is ever
going to deliver like what I like about texting with people in
or if there is something just like flawed about this very public format of it
and this scene a fact that your car,
instantly like accumulating people like thirty five and talk to you would like
since college, as it is a much bigger platform. I want
If this thing they are going for, if it can even exist on the system that they have
So this is why they get bigger. Facebook is like a big suite of things. Cosu Facebook
does have messenger right, they of his eye message, competitor, everyone, you don't want to message. A message is a few others. It is better to but Facebook for
to be used to be the eagerness message: people on facebook- and now you literally just can't every Sunday.
Oh my god force you and I met into messenger because here try.
Kill, I message which they see as a as a genuine threat to the business, but I forgot who
Making this point so whoever it is good point and I'm sorry, I'm not remembering your neighbours when as researching fur for this discussion, but they made a point about.
Spoke MESSENGER and the wages of engagement that I was pretty interesting and their say
But if you look at Facebook MESSENGER, it has
a red receipt, but you can't turn off so if
open something on messenger.
Person who sent you. The message knows you opened it made
You that I'm message, but you can turn it off
two is a nobody knows- are turned on fishing
therefore turn it on or whatever but Facebook,
according to this, have not look too people into my messenger settings, but it either
two on origin is on, and so the point is it: it's got this little behavioral trigger the you can't
respond, because now you look, I can ask what you read the thing you close did and you wandered off, and this is a problem
with a business model built that much on engagement. There is absolutely no doubt that that can increase engagement with the platform, or at least in a kind of short
from way it's going to increase like you know you message, and then they message back, and you know me that it works and by the way I've
good experiences on always what messenger so my early communications with my wife, we met in person, they became Facebook friends and that we were besmirching with each other for a little bit before one on our first date since, like I've had
Careful things happen if he on Facebook messages, but
for the less like there is, if you
model, is to engage
pushes you in a lot of bad directions, mean that I forgot again who said this, but engaged
is just like a nice word. The industry's created for addiction- and it's like, if you just replaced it
every instance of your model is to addict like make
more sense. What's going on,
within this. Like do you get into the big fake news problem and one reason I think people are unhappy on Facebook and feel unhappy on. Facebook is a thing that information is not a good space, so that
there- is some interesting research just came out on Us- and this is bye. Bye
drew Guess Brendan Nigh Han and Jason? Rifle are all political scientist their Princeton indeed
myth and the University of Accidents- and I want
note that they're they're samples, at least somewhat limited here, are actually looking at visits to fake news websites. So they can't see just one
happened on Facebook or just what happened on Twitter. If you didn't leave the pot from a go
to be open net. Their dataset doesn't capture you so much
only to save a promise play will worsen what they're looking at, but they ask
made- and I was pretty surprised by the size of bit that between October seventeen November, Fourteenth twenty sixteen
Similarly, one in four Americans above voting age visited a fake news website, so one in four sixty five, some million, and that those
websites in the people visiting them would is overwhelmingly pro trump in fact fix news,
consumption they said was heavily concentrate among small group. Almost six intend visits to fake news websites.
the ten percent of people with the most conservative online information diets, we also Boniface what was it
vector of exposure to fake news and in fact, checks are fake news. Almost. Never we
its consumers very fine. By the way Facebook is a key factor of exposure. Was he looked it
What website you wrong thirty seconds before and I think about a quarter of people run, face
I, like you, don't see anything like that for Google, you see anything like that. For anything also, Facebook was clearly how
A lot of these people were getting to the fake news website in the first place and also their measure by the way. Maybe you like clicked it open.
looked at a later, so it's probably an under estimate building.
Say about this. Is it what it implies, at least to me, is that the fake news?
one is happening among people who are already pretty convinced in one direction or another are so
It is fake news while bad it does not look to me like it, is primarily hit.
people who are informational susceptible if you're, very poor.
Tramping you're reading lot approach from fake news makes him more
streams its polarization problem, but problem not a huge problem for changing boats. That would be one, I think implication of the paper, but the other
Is that these people
If you then just increase
the salient of what they themselves are posted give her friends and family on Facebook. It is not clear.
you're gonna get less fake news at all. Right, I mean at least
pages, you have a lot of competition from pages that are not full of shit, but if you're
increasing the movement towards for like what your friends and family post can open quest.
Depending on what sort of circles your end, whether not you're gonna, be getting a better or worse information diet. I think it's become, I think, sort of the cool thing to do to become
dismissive of the significance of this fake new stuff, but I don't want to push back on that
a little bed? I mean that if you look at like the number one programme, fake news story of twenty, sixteen was about the Pope endorsing Trump Right, which is like crazy. If you have any information about the actual Pope's
Your view is an I, of course. It is very unlikely that Sweden, voters were like a finger to the wind like what's but franciscan essay, and then it because if you were actually curious about the
of yours, you would seek out in Asia
on this subject and will not be duped by a ridiculous story, though, what that story did
which made since such a paradigm matic vacant story. Isn't this a set of people whose eye
entities are cross pressure right, they are very
strongly republican. Conservatives who, like Donald Trump, and they also, as do many white people
America have strong identities as Christians and some of the people who are white, an American and have strong identities, as Christians have strong at entities as Catholic Christians right and it is if they had the facts, it should be a source of tension in their lives right
that, like the Pope says ABC De Donald
says x Y, see and like there's a there's, a problem there, that
ass to force you to consider your commitment to something right. I think
likely given what we know about how people vote it would not make you go vote for Hillary Clinton, but he would make you think right about light.
About your relationship to Christianity, about your relationship to the Catholic Church, about your relationship to the Republican Party, and it creates the kind of space in which production
Forms of engagement in society can occur in which people acknowledge that life is complicated, that they have multiple
Jeanne, says that leadership and follower ship are complicated phenomena
and people don't like. Right, I mean dissonance is unpleasant, which is one reason why, like flattening kinds of fake news do so
oh, but that's, also really harmful right.
in traditionally the two way
Equally, american democracy, with its like checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, something that works, is it accounts on people being pulled apart across their allegiance, is
and a lot of what fake news serves to do is is flattened those things
sort of convince you that not all
we, as the guy? You want to support like the better candidate, all things considered, but that he's dominant across, like
dimensions that matter to you and that's just not true
the biggest on realistic, if you think about like the two parties and three hundred thirty million people
like everybody- should have like slightly
mixed feelings along some dimension, but nobody wants to have mixed feelings and, like that's, what fake news helps like purges of those
things, and I think it's it's unhealthy guy,
one no way you almost got a lotta complicit with the idea of fake news, is kind of accepting the fact were
we're partisan and like ideas are very hard to change and
like you're, saying that, like the this probably is not like the swing voter reading this article on making
a decision, but I think that is probably
the thing to fall into. I think one of things we saw with the
recent Senate election in Alabama, for example, is that views are sometimes change all that a partisan,
ship is important, but there are sir,
things about candidates, as we saw with Roy more that can make them unacceptable to people who we know previously. You would have expected to support that kind of candidate now
it may not be switching parties, they might just be staying home, but that has an effect
elections and I must speak think about fake news
in the same way, that it is probably not like the median voter who is looking at these articles in deciding, but I don't think
big. It's easy at this point to think of partisanship is very set in stone and that fake news is, you know, going too
that a little bit, but it's not really going to create
It's only its building on something that seems to be quite sat already, and I think it's
it's hard to write it off that way, and I think
things, an iron paper made me
Wonder about that. I don't have a good answer to him. Curious, if you guys have thoughts on this is
What you do now tat you have you have this: like Hyper user group of fake news, readers
checking does not seem like there's some data about fact checking this paper, and that does not seem to change view.
In fact, I think the figure in this was only twenty four percent
trumped supporters that a positive view of fact checkers legal anymore.
Why nobody, they could find, saw a fact check of the particular fake news consumed.
So what are you? Ok, even if your link, if you're
running facebook. You know like what do you do at this point like? How do you deal with this?
I I believe, is very strongly. I do not think
have anything close to an answer for polarization. So I mean
but would say, do just want a notice, it goes to a mouse cross pressure point. This is from
there the interview the VP of news feed gave to depend Thompson, skulduggery and his
argument is actually about this cross pressured issue that there's
where diversity of opinion in a friend content in a noose feeding your page content, which is pride because you pick your friends for a lot of reasons- and you put the pay-
you follow mostly based on your interests, which correlate more their belief system or ideology, can will see how that pays out in practice, but
without the idea. I do not think there is an answer on polarization. I think that,
We are in an era, and I dont see what is gonna change it. Where polarization is developed, the kind of like feedback loop effect on itself and like the more polarize we get them or poor, as would become because
or polarized different players can make us it's easier to run a very hyper partisan, cable network in an era when p
all it illogical and partisan affiliations, align ass pupil
as our ideological, partisan affiliations line, and they do you know
absorbed more of a high per person, cable network, it spreads
inter you, no more parts of their lives, it becomes cultural as it becomes cultural feeds and back there as its own social media, I mean there are merely,
and things that are pushing you all in the same direction and so to me right now, we are, in this era, were polarization skinny
can you get worse and so? Actually the question is not how to stop polarization is I don't think we have a mechanism
questions how to create a political system. The can
sore polarization more readily. So, for instance, if you imagine,
polarization has made it more likely to get a lot of gridlock in Congress. Something that might be a good thing to do is get rid of the debt ceiling. So polarization concur
in international financial crisis
oh good reason, if you believe that polarization made it harder to get an agreement, but you want
be governed. Maybe you don't want to filibuster the that I often think we'd
Could the equation of polarization everything? How can we reduce polarization, whereas there might be more easy gains
we made, and how do you make a political system the can
function better with polarization and that isn't as vulnerable to the possible downsides of polarisation, which is why we true of other political systems around the world. We have a political system that is unusually dedicated to the idea of compromise and crime.
Party coalition and business?
the necessary recent hasta to be built? That way in an era when Cross party coalitions in compromise are harder
harder and harder to come by mean. I think that's right, I'm polarization, but I also think that the people at Facebook should think seriously.
about the specific problem of the use of their platform to spread, deliberate, falsehoods right and, I think that's a serious problem. I think, if you ask them like ten years ago, like what are you gonna do with your life? Do you want to wake up in the morning
working hard to make sure that people can become miserable and ill informed, they would say no Matt. That's not what I want to do so. The answer to that is that, like starting tomorrow, they should make it that you cannot share fake news stories on Facebook.
to get to say our goal is by the end of the week. No fake news will be on Facebook and is like
that between now and Friday, the only way to do that is to take all the news on Facebook, which would be great right,
you went to the editor of all of us,
that covers the d learn Williams like man, I just like. I can't figure out
how to stop it being the case that ten percent of our articles are deliberate falsehoods they billing, but we ve, got a shot at dinner, just run a website like I'm gonna, while working on it right like it would be crazy. Nobody in journalism with remotely acceptable thrilling, allow to be honest. I dont think these fake stories are having that much impact and, in fact,
tags or like a really difficult question, do know how to avoid publishing deliberately fakes like it's, not that hard like that. These are smart guys
with their saying is that they cannot solve this problem inside.
The constraints of their own system right, but like that,
because they ve decided that it's not that import
to them and that they really
Want everybody sharing all these news links in like they don't want to hire team and they don't want to be accused of political bias like they have reasons why they are not stopping this, but like. I just think that it's like my message,
They are underwriting this problem. They should take it more seriously and they should be willing to bear higher costs to get rid of it
Nothing if you said to me like Matt, how do we make it? So there is never a typo on vocs dotcom. I would say the cost of solving that problem is too hot right. It's important to gets about their but like what Facebook is doing. Information away like the non faintness of like it has no value to the world right, like it's,
It's totally useless, which stuff like lead, the legitimate news. I'm legitimate news has no value to the world. Yet now it faced by.
What are you doing the spread of it on Facebook? Why would you know it's not a good source of information, professional facebook, page new poster? I think, as I try to make money in this disturbing in world they mark Zuckerberg in these guys, are created. Like I mean you so easy just sort of serenity view, is it using a new them
but only as value if it is given to an audience has come with the content.
to absorb it? I've seen as a way to go if the rule was just. If you will
to follow the news you have to
in some way other than Facebook to get it. That would be fucking, so the world we lived in like a decade ago.
It was fine. There was no problem. There were many problems with the world in two thousand, but I can't find news articles on my Facebook news feed it's just stuff about what my friends are doing. There was not a problem for the world now face. What for
to be a problem for Facebook and
a series of gyrations like now landed themselves in this situation that they claim
don't want to be, and so they should just like get out of it and if they can think hard
right. It's instead of like moving fast and breaking things like the functioning
of the media and the political system, they could try to open
should again by like moving cautiously and trying to not harm people, which, I think would be a responsible sacrifices now I dont want to make that right. I mean that this become this weird tendency in the tank, rather than just like leap to like, so you want
a government saying when it? No, I don't I don't. I just like. I want mark Zuckerberg to stop like it's.
Bad. I would. I think I would feel bad if, like my life's work, was this giant machine for engineer. We talk America like Donald Trump at this. All these stories about, like in Myanmar on Facebook figures websites, encourage people to massacre there muslim neighbours. Like that's bad, you shouldn't be doing. I think this is a place where the the choice, if to make, is not between, or should it be between like
no news, informational content and use informational content its. I think they
to realize or not at the power
Will they are at? Can it be a neutral platform if they wanted to play in the places they want to play and like that means having a lot of moderators it me I mean Facebook is an extraordinarily profitable company. Like one thing, they
what do you may not get fake news
like literally zero. But if you really-
just did have a huge like staff of people like looking at outlets and like looking,
to see whether or not what they're doing is credible and and it's there
viable and, as you know, on ball, Patriot report and the fan is like that. A good Emma gaps in some people might get pissed off at you, but I think that the vice they ve put themselves in on the new side is, on the one hand, they dont want to make decisions.
other handed on be held accountable for what happens when you don't make decisions, and so they ve come up with these. Like you know, like me,
you attach a little like button to something that has come up as fake news and says I treat this with care. But do you know if there's a reason that
people curate, there's a reason that organizations with a lot of power are held to summit.
Count for what you put out and that's why? I think that the analogy to journalism is more there. What Facebook has not been
thing to do is take the step that the journalism does and say. Ok, like a fair amount of our resources, are gonna go into making sure the stuff we are putting forward is accurate and
so you'll? Never get fooled, it's not to see something will never be wrong, but it
to say that a lot of the organisations, time and energy and in fact its money is going to go into making sure that what we give you is as business truthful as we can possibly figure it out to be.
I like, that is where they have one go, and it's not because it's impossible and it's not because of the money for it. It is because if they do it, they are going to be accused of bias. Why are there
by that I mean there's a question like also how their audience reacts, which is, I think,
huge unknown, aiming at this point? Facebook is incorrect
Thirdly, the egg. It has no competitor
of its size. You see things like Google
wave or whatever, like rise and fall like not be able to set up a successful network. I'd be
crazy. What happens? There are ivory
This is another article Iraqi prepare for this, but reminded me, there is at some point and very early facebook. They you're
get up. There were only on your page of I wanted to know like address, update out of to go over this page and then there's a news feed, and there are all these facebook groups are protesting. That idea that
an invasion of privacy, and this is terrible and we're going to buy boycott Facebook and, like it didn't work it does
all of those people stayed on Facebook. The news viewed as now make a crucial part. They didn't defeated, and am I don't, have a clue
sense of what would happens. What do you do? This kind of moderation? You say these articles.
That were very viral they're, not why
come here, we're not going to allow them on our sight. We're going to you know the rules.
Of creation and having this big massive team that checks, what
publishers are allowed on Facebook, I'm kind of
don't know clear sense in my head of like where what happens now
Is there another facebook for fake news? Does it moved like another platform like to read it become the place you go to do this sort of thing or somewhere else
herb, I don't know where order
it actually likes shut down? Does it make
harder to spread fake news today, like such a gun.
shape large market share that they could make those sort of changes and actually slow the spread of think it's interesting? We bring up rather there in December the even though you bring up twitter because both em back she dealt with us in the past couple of years. Read it went through, but because about a year and a half back and they shut down
when a bunch of forms that they found is really offensive and really racist, and so that there is an effort to create another read it. I've forgotten
of like, like poor,
or racist now tat. He read it is, but it's out there you can go to it, you can go use it and it just
it's. Ok, they D lost. Some people wasn't the people they care that much about losing twitter. Also, it has not done a great job with this by any means, but there have been moments when they, you know Band Milo and ended stuff like that and people
we're going boycott twitter and to like okay, like so people, gonna leave and they tried to set up other things and go to other places in it. I don't think it's
we worked out, but there is like our conservative competitors to twitter on.
That is one of those things where like yes, like, ok, like pick the head, you know like something:
we're, not gonna, take it take there. I think my question is whether that, like other twitter, other read it if they are in,
vibrant as like the like terrible rabbit, unlike races, twitter that existed or not, and the things were so powerfully based built or on network effects. You're on Facebook is our bodies on Facebook and that's. Why, like that's, why such a dominant player? That's? Why they the power to do something like this I mean you know. I do think you see random, indy,
You see every day that what happens with like reg,
where journalism institutions is that
the overwhelming majority of conservatives and a small but non trivial number of left wing people yellow
Although a that you know your effort at neutrality is in fact a like fake news, manufacturing consent kind of dynamic. Am
of course, then outlets will be like while we taken from both sides and then someone else's like well. That doesn't really mean that year, adhering to the truth,
But the point is that, ultimately, you know whether you running vocs or CNN, or the New York Times or Fox news or anything else
the people in charge are answerable to their audience
simple to their own conscience- and they ultimately have to be a-
bull for what they do right. I mean wool
is a wide variety of editorial perspectives out there, but everybody who runs- and
tutorial operation has to admit that, like they made choices and that, if you dont like the choices, you
at least procedurally allowed to be mad at them, and that's what for?
book is trying to evade here. Right is like they want to say
If you don't like it, it somehow not my faults.
Well I get that AIDS is like a bottom up. You know like grass roots process, or he was an algorithm or or something like that, and you can't
I just think that's like that's no way to live your life and you actually see it in the tweaking of the outward right,
like it's smart in the modern age to use our group
to power what people see, but also like the company, they adjust the elderly
that's right, because there's an event away out of respect
ability, like it's a smart way to run a modern company to rely on site
where to assist what you're doing but like at the end
The day it still a human enterprise, I think they are not
acceding and exempting themselves from criticism and should consider taking a more forceful shame, you're the way apple ones, its appstore right, which is like they want porn and then
like viruses on their so actual human beings, look through the Alps and like say who goes in and who goes out and people complain about it. But at the end,
the day like there's no porn on the app store like it. It works fine, let's take a break and then talk about health insurance for children,
yes, come another borne by me: store
at the start of the year. You know we're all making our resolutions and we're thinking about new ways to bet ourselves to learn new things. One great way to do that is listening to the great courses plus. It's just an amazing waiters cover fastening information in virtually any category. The app gives you unlimited access to thousands of topics with great inside from words leading professors and experts. I think I've been checking lately is the turning point of modern history courses. It's a unique perspective of world history. I from discoveries inventions, ideas that this up, the shapes the world, the invention, the printing
press or the rise of social media subjects of our shared today. These are things that alter the whole trajectory of history, and it goes to a whole bunch of them. You really gonna a new, a deeper and broader understanding. To start this Europe right by benefiting from all that the gray courses plus
to offer you given that listeners a fantastic, limited time deal, you get a free trial or you can set up for the annual planning get twenty dollars.
It's a generous offer, extends your unlimited access to warrant anything for the whole year out of great savings, but to take advantage of it you gotta sign up now. Can we offer won't last long just sign up today at the great courses plus dot com, slash weeds, remember, that's degree, courses plus dot com, slash weeds.
Ok, so in not fake, very real news, it has been a hundred and eight days since the children's health insurance programmes budget expired,
and it has received one tiny funding patch, but not nearly enough to keep the program. Funding
and the thing I want to talk about this week is kind of about
that, has been stalling negotiations that-
It suddenly be resolved
really leaves very little excuse for not doing something about this health insurance program that cut
nine million, mostly low and middle income. Kids. So one
The kind of surprising
odd side effects of this tax reform bill that was passed, which revealed the repealed the affordable care
individual mandate this requirement to carry health insurance is that it
cause C B. O the Congressional Budget Office to redo all
estimates on ship, because those two things interact with each other on significant ways and
at the beginning, or about a weakening,
forego. We got a report from Scipio. That said actually
this tax bill. It reduces the cost of extending chip significantly for five years
it reduces it from eight billion dollars to eight hundred million dollars.
so one tenth of the price that it was in support of it?
context around this. The whole fight
on ship. This entire time has been about. How do we pay for it? What do we use reply
Looking in the house of proposing pretty partisan pay for those things are cutting the affordable care act. Democrats of said that's unacceptable
I also want to pay for it, but just aren't going to accept the ones the Republicans have put four
So this seem like a pretty big bang.
through eight hundred million dollars in terms of federal budget
This essentially spare change that
about where we can half ago lesson
we could go. I think last Thursday we get another reports, Frank Cologne de ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter to see Bio saying. Will what happens if we extended for an entire decade
and all of a sudden scipios sends back this very weird report that you were
ever C4 entitlements. It says extent
this programme for a decade and you will save the federal government, six billion
dollars which is like
usually legally. Usually you don't give people health, insurance and save money, so what's going on here, is that if
ship were to expire. You'd have nine million kids who currently get health insurance there. The x
attention is that a good number of them were transferred to the Obama care marketplaces. Most of them are low.
Income enough that they would get subsidies on the Obama care marketplaces, so the federal government is just instead of paying for their chip coverage they're going to have to pay for the subsidies. Those subsidies would be
pretty expensive- and this comes back to the individual mandate repeal one of the thing
they're. Getting rid of this requirement to carry health insurance. Does it raises premiums on the marketplace about tender
one per cent in the ceos view soap
see what sepia was saying here is that the individual mandate repeal is going to make it really expensive to give these kids insurance on the market places. It is a lot
cheaper for the federal government to keep them on the chip programme, to the point that after
six years as the premiums rise
becomes cost saving that the federal anything after six years and extension of chip actually saves the government money. So naturally, since we
previously hung up on how to pay for the chip. Extension now, then returned
costs less than nothing Republicans immediately called a special session to extend it right now
and where and what the wave Fraser questioner surely answer is gonna, be yes really setting and likely because they were, they were worried about the budgetary affair. I know you having your central concern totally eliminated would normally make you change your I dont mad, often as this good faith or of other kinds are just going to tell you what the right thing, what the fuck is happening here they heard this is a fine ten years essays you money and like no, we only want to do it for a couple years. When I venture we can totally do that because we want
opportunities to change it in the future, but we're not saying how so
been a really with its support, came out on first
and all of a sudden, so Democrats quickly start saying will ache. Normally,
so for the past few months,
talking about a five year extension and then it was basically equal, fuck, a five year extension like why not do
the ten year. Why not just make it permanent
if it saves the government money does what it seems like a priest. So you saw you don't run widen the Senate finance ranking Member
blown over in the house, but them start saying like forget that five
Deal Bush. We spend two eight hundred million dollars over five years when we can
that money over the decade republic,
have been much quieter and sick. I have not
there is no special session- there's been some chatter of like there needs to be some kind of short term spending bell passed by the end of this week. I
your stand. What is going on,
honest, I think, one of the characters
I found most surprising another,
negotiations is orange. Hatch was an architect of the chick programme.
but has been one of the people who has been most vocal about saying what we need to find a way to pay for it. The waiter,
This is the main hold up. You can't do. All these things are
in the context of passing a massive tax bill that was not paid for at all.
And I want to say that the consequences of this are very real
The states there are some states that, by the end of this week, could start running out of money for chip. So are not just talking about you know:
some theoretical thing: there are families, a family families, profound LOS Angeles times. That is true.
stockpiled diabetes medication for their tiled because they can't afford it if chip doesn't exist and they have to make preparations for what happens if the chip funding
I. So this has the hallmarks of an issue where people are not playing straight. Sir
initial. You have this debate
word knock and extend ship. We can extend ship because we don't have to pay for it,
we need to find. The paper is another, as happened in the context of a tax bill that not only cost something like in total, like five to six trillion, but is gonna put one point: five trillion of that
the debt so number one, the can't find eight billion dollars to pay for chip is already clearly not of true issue. But ok, that's the
stated reason, and maybe people have odd categorization of Essen and so fine. So then it turns out. You don't need to find the money at all because it pays for itself
we need to find the money and easy ways
and then all of a sudden it.
But may I don't? Maybe I and
what's weird here that this is a problem. The traditionally republicans have not had an issue supporting, so it isn't. One of these programs like food stamps are or others were there. Really
I've been long running republican divides or ten Affright were a public is really not like that programme chip they were in
that's creation. They ve what they ve been involved in its expansion. Omby, usually on the record, say it's a good programme. Something is weak,
here, and I can tell if it's just like chip is become polarized like if Democrats win,
Publicans Louis zero, some political issue or that
relying changes in their public in party just made them so up ideologically opposed funding health in
parents for poor anybody that they don't
chip any more evenly quite bring himself to say it is,
clear to me what is happening, but something
happening and they are not articulating what it truly. I want underscored just one points: you know that as remade that this choice,
has a very, very different history than the affordable care act and other health care programs like it with such
bipartisan bill when a pass its funding is never lapsed like this is uncharted. Territory is one thing
might say is that you no going back to her
caution about polarization, the type of Republicans who are in Congress now, our different than those who supported it, but
look, I come back to someone like or enhance. She was an arc who, as you know, worked with TED Kennedy to create the chip programme.
I believe and ninety ninety seven as one that was launched, I don't know, what's going on there, I don't understand.
I don't know why he is not saying we found this solution. I'm sure map has some I own. I
The key is someone who has been here. This whole time is a chip supporter I can't get inside his head and think through. You know
Why he's not saying? Ok, the money issue is solved. Let's get this offer play, I mean it. You think tat
typically part of the issue here, is that now Republicans who
a willing to vote for a chip extension want to make it a can.
Session to Democrats that is in Villa
larger, see our deal. Where did something
it tends to get toxic in Congress is like when, if you're wrong
became an EU support,
doing, some better legal authorization for Dhaka people or you support a chip. We authorization of budgetary consequences
and you don't just like say that and sign on for the bill that does that its now.
now you're like deal making mode so
breathing becomes contingent on everything else, and everything gets delayed
while times, because we're waiting for an omnibus
The other thing, though, is the way it really has changed back when or an hatch was creating chap, or when you had the Kennedy CAS about health insurance portability bill right, I think
had republicans who were supporting government intervention in the health care system to make a private based system tolerable to the vote.
And the post is yea. I do things,
you all of this to a slippery slope frame,
but, rather than to alike, hold the line frame.
that's better suited to me to be a big change over twenty years
It used to be like ok, we all agree like we can just have poor kids like getting sick and dying. So let's
targeted programme that addresses that, like really
good left wing talking point and not have socialized medicine.
we need. The republican perception is, like Democrats are like on the fast trains socialism, no matter what
So there now not interested in, like fixing concrete problem
those two things like that is, I think through. Like let's say, chip doesn't get funding because you know they can come to a deal or whatever
don't see that comes out well. For a reply,
kids because then you know I'm in here
story about the kid and West Virginia who, as diabetes and cant, afford as insulin anymore and there's going to be, like you think of
right now there's not a stories about families being very worried if chip doesn't get
there are stories about kids, knocking the chemotherapy about not being able to afford health coverage. Like I dont cat,
where like why this is a strong bargaining position for Republicans, who are, I think, going to be blamed for the fact that kid
now as diabetes medicine, because they are the ones who currently controlled Congress. Yes,.
well that's the weeds begging for joining us. I get our producer, Peter Leonard did Matt and Sarah, as always to all of you and we'll be back on Friday.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-12.