Technology with Scott Galloway

There's no question that modern technology has helped us connect with each other. But, has our over-connection to technology led to addiction and isolation? How can we enjoy the benefits of technology without these major pitfalls? This week, Eva is joined by NYU professor and author of The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, Scott Galloway, to talk about our relationship with technology and our responsibility in regulating how much influence it has over our lives.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi, everyone, Welcome back to Connections. I'm Eva Longoria and
today we are exploring our connection to technology. And I
find this topic very interesting and also terrifying at the
same time. I think at this moment in time, especially
coming out of COVID, we realize how vital technology is

(00:22):
to us and our societies. You know, during COVID, it
provided us the possibility to work remotely, to be able
to keep up with news, to connect with our families
in different countries. So really technology is really really important
to keep us connected to each other. But at what costs?
And so my husband is a big fan of our guests,

(00:44):
and he turned me onto a book called four and
it was an amazing book New York Times bestseller about
the hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. And
it talked about what role these companies play in our
everyday lives and how it touches our everyday life. So
today I have that amazing author with us. Uh. He's

(01:06):
also a professor of marketing at n y U, author
of several books about our relationship with technology, speaker, podcast
hosts Entrepreneur. He's done so much. He's done so much,
and I can't wait to talk to him about how
technology is shaping our world. So please welcome to the show,
Scott Galloway. Thanks Eva. Can I first start off by saying,
I never expected to hear the words Eva Longoria and

(01:29):
Scott Galloway in the same sentence. So this is this
is already a win for me. I just wasn't expecting this.
Let me tell you, I'm a nerd and now I'm
huge into the web three n f T space, and
I felt like your book really prepared me for our
social behaviors in relation to technology. But what made you

(01:51):
dive into this topic because your backgrounds business Like, when
did you make the connection that I should I should
research technolo ology? Well, I started an e commerce company
called red Envelope. In the nineties, I started a company
called profit of Consultancy that helps big companies with their
in strategy. I always sort of been in and around
the tech space. And then when I joined the faculty

(02:12):
of n y U about twenty years ago, about ten
years later, my dean said, if you want to be
taken seriously an academic, either have to do pure reviewed
research or write a book. I had no desire to
do pure reviewed research, so I wrote a book and
initially the four was started out as a love letter.
I like these companies. I have a lot of affection
for their products and what they can do, but but

(02:33):
really diving in and researching these companies in their impact
on society. By the end of the book, it's sort
of more from a love letter to a cautionary tale.
And I remember my publisher after she read it for
the first time, saying, you really want to say these things.
I'm like, yeah, I think there's something wrong in Mudville.
I think this is going a strange place. And this
is back in like two thousand and sixteen seventeen, where
the only question was who was going to run for

(02:54):
president Bezos or Sandberg, and so uh, it's the more
I've dug into techechnology, like everything else that's been good
for the world. I think on the whole, fossil fuels
have been good for the world. I think on the whole,
pesticides have been good for the world. But there's externalities,
and we have an ep A, we have a mission standards,
but for some reason around technology or actually I think
I understand why we don't hold them to the same standards.

(03:17):
And I felt there was an opportunity to sort of
highlight some of those those externalities. Do you think that
is changing now that we're in two Has that regulation changed?
Do you see hope for that as you see like
in agriculture or in consumer protections in technology? Well, I'm naturally,

(03:37):
I'm naturally a glass half empty kind of guy. Everyone
says I'm glass half oh yeah, oh yeah, Well everybody
says that. It's like people think they're above average rivers.
Everyone says they're an optimist. But anyways, I am a
I am a pessimist, and so what I see as
perceptions have absolutely changed. People realize that these individuals have
developed business models that are um not driven but largely

(04:00):
dependent upon addictive behavior, that they have huge ramifications team depression.
We had an insurrection organized here, we had Russians paying
for ads trying to tear us apart in roubles, and
they decided to ignore that. So I think people have
absolutely woken up to the threat. The problem is that
hasn't really translated to any meaningful regulation. So I'm I'm

(04:22):
hopeful that there'll be some sort of regulation or any
trust but I've been wrong on that. But there's no
denying the perception has changed dramatically around these companies. People
often equate these companies now with cigarette companies. That's how
negative the perception is. But we're still addicted to them.
We still use them. Well, we can't not, don't you think.
Do you remember? I don't know if Thomas Guide was everywhere,

(04:44):
but I remember moving to a later to become an actor,
and I had a Thomas Guide, which was a book,
a map book, triple A maps. They all came folded
in a little like a plastic thing. Yeah, and you
had to literally stop and check it. And now I
just don't even know how to get anywhere without Google Maps.
There's tremendous utility you think about Google, I you know,

(05:06):
I can't imagine writing a book without Google. I can't imagine. Um,
you know, I get that My dad is ninety one,
and I will call him and video chat him and
I can ride on the screen because he's up in
trouble hearing me. Now, I mean, there's there's amazing things.
And I dropped my eleven year old at downtown del
Ray yesterday and he was going to this place called

(05:27):
It's Sugar, So you can imagine, you know, it's not
that great I'm dropping my kid with my credit card
at a place called It's Sugar, that's literally the name
of it. And he gets out of the car and
I made the mistake of dropping him off of Atlantic
Avenue and he looked around and he was just totally befuddled.
I'm like, dude, Atlantic Capney is right there, and so
immediately pulled out his phone to pull up Google Maps
or ways, and I thought he couldn't even get a

(05:48):
block without a map. Couldn't even get a block. We're
producing digital geniuses, but functional idiots. And I kind of
feel the same way. Even if I know where I'm going,
I throw on GPS. Yeah, my son's four, and I
did the whole no screens before too, you know, and
then after two was like, forget about it. I can't
get the phone out of his hand. Well, typically the

(06:09):
people who talk about no screens are people who don't
have kids, because at the end of the day, we want,
we want time to be on our own screens. The
only way we can accomplish that is but our kids
in front of the screen. So it's it's a battle
we're losing. The problem is we can modulate it, like
I'm I'm addicted to Twitter. I don't know what your
addictions are. I think everyone has a certain level of
addiction in their life. Yeah, mine's news. News. But where

(06:32):
do you get your news? Where do you where do
you consume it? Um? Well, many many apps, you know,
Washington Post, my New York Times. But you're not addicted
to any specific social media. You don't go on Instagram, Instagram. Yeah,
I think instagrams when I look at the most yeah, yeah,
And how many times a day would you look at Instagram?
Forget about it. So I coach a lot of young
men and I'm very worried about what I'll call, loosely speaking,

(06:56):
feeling young men. I think relative to other groups, young
men are not doing well. And the first thing I
do is I have them pull up their screen time
and I have a transparent relationship with him, or I
try to. I'm like, all right, we're gonna get rid
of We're gonna find four to eight hours a week.
And it's really easy. Between Twitter, TikTok, Snap, Instagram, corn coin, base, uh,

(07:17):
and Robin Hood. I can no problem find four to
eight hours a week in any young man's phone that
we're going to reallocate and reinvest into other things. Because
when you're young, you have more time than money, and
so that becomes your asset, and the question becomes where
do we spend Where do we invest our time? Because
you become where your attention is as a young person,

(07:40):
So you need to decide what do I want to become?
Where do I want to invest my finite capital, the
only capital I have, which is usually my time. And
I'm addicted to Twitter. I'm desperate for people's affirmation. I'm embarrassed,
but I'm honest about that. I put out a lot
of content. I think of myself as a thought leader,
and I'm put out a lot of I p and
I constantly need to know what people think of it.

(08:02):
And because Twitter is brilliant at figuring out well, if
if we highlight stuff negative things that people say about Scott,
it increases likelihood that people will weigh in foreign against
him and more Nissan adds more shareholder value. And so
that addiction is fomented by algorithms that are tearing us
apart and that have people saying really vile things about

(08:22):
each other, and also a platform that can be weaponized
by bad actors. That recognizes our need for affirmation, but
I can modulate it. Now a team girl can she modulate?
Let me think about you mentioned Instagram. Think about what
a weird place Instagram starts from. Probably the most loyal
user base of Instagram is a teenage girl. And it's

(08:45):
a girl, someone younger than eighteen, and she is sort
of encouraged to put very provocative photos of herself on
Instagram and then be evaluated by her peer group and
strange men all over the world. So I would argue
Instagram starts from a place of perversion in attacking the
self esteem of young people, especially girls, who are at
a point where they are very vulnerable. It's as if

(09:08):
you never get to leave the high school cafeteria. And
because people our age who have influence didn't have that
when we were growing up, we don't realize. I think
the damage of being presented with your full self twenty
four by seven, and I think we're starting now getting
peer review research. My colleague Jonathan Heyde at n I
used on some great research that show this is this

(09:31):
is not only bad, it has directly played a role
in the skyrocking levels of suicide among teens, admissions of
self harm to hospitals, is way up and Instagram plays
a role in that. So there's real upsetting externalities around
these platforms. Yeah, you know, I have a eighteen year
old stepdaughter and so she's only had Instagram, like you know,

(09:54):
for the past ten years. Have grown up with it,
and it definitely leads to you know, that is greener
in comparison, whether it's I want that bag or sure
those abs or whatever, you're right, or yeah at this
photo shopping, like these kids photo shopping and I'm like,
you're fourteen, what do you photo shopping? It's definitely scary,
you know. Jessica Yellen, So we did Jessica, she's amazing. Yeah,

(10:17):
news not noise, Yeah, news not noise. She's a very
similar philosophy about the news cycle. So she was on
my podcast and we did a episode about how to
connect with news, like what is the role of the news,
And when she worked at these places, their goal was
to create anxiety, Like that is their goal, Like you
just said, you know, hey, say something negative, Scott, so
we can get a conversation going. And she was like,

(10:39):
it just feels like the news should be empowering. You
should feel better after watching the news, not worse and
it's not designed that way. It is not designed that
way our news cycle. Well, you said you're a fan
in it so much, so let's talk. Let's do a
brief history of modernay news. It started out thirty minutes
a day Jerry Dunphy from you know, from the Hills

(10:59):
to this Ease, and it was thirty minutes, and it
was subsidized by the network. They did it as a
social service because it was twenty seven minutes of fact
check truth, which is really boring, and then three minutes
of opinion. They'd have Senator John Tunney against John Herstenson,
a Democrat, kind of like Jane you ignorant slut, sort
of this kind of pit two people against each other

(11:22):
and have them go at it. Janu ignorance sleut? Was
that that SNL sketch between Dan and Jane Curtin anyone.
I just want to set some contacts there so we
we have we're a different age group. There you go.
So anyways, what happened was people someone saw profit motive
in twenty four hour news, but in order to keep
people tuned in for longer than twenty seven minutes or

(11:43):
twenty one minutes, they had to make it engaging and
Instagram in Google didn't invent this, so we had things
like a situation room. What happens when there's not a
situation that day, you invent one, and then you got
gas lighting, and then you found Okay, the majority of
the people tune into our network hate people on the
far left, so we're gonna start saying really negative things
about them. The majority of the people on our network

(12:04):
don't like people on the right, so we're gonna start
portraying them in really negative lights and we're going to
create conflicts or this isn't this isn't anything new. But
what Facebook and Instagram and Google have done and Twitter
is they've taken this antagonism and they've scaled it exponentially.
And that is if Fox runs a video, a doctored video,

(12:24):
a deep fake of Nancy Pelosi looking as if she's inebriated,
it immediately gets fact checked. People see it right away,
and someone calls Box and says take it down right away,
where Fox says, oh, it might it looks like these
voting machines were weaponized by the Venezuelan government that that
that company can sue the platform. They consume Newscore and

(12:45):
anchors on Newscore, which they did come out and say
we were wrong. There was no evidence of that. Facebook
doesn't need to fact check anything. They're not subject to
any liability. And by the time people have even watched
that video of Nancy Pelosi on it has circled the
globe on Facebook. So they're not doing anything new, They've
just scaled it. In the four I loved how you

(13:16):
gave roles to Google and Amazon and Apple, and and
how you say Google has got and I was like,
oh my god, that is so true because I google everything,
and then I assume it's a fact. So how do
we get away from that? And what do you think
about the amount of misinformation on Google? Well, so the
most profitable companies in the world typically tap into a

(13:37):
very powerful instinct. Right, So the icons of yesterday economic
I concept yesterday said all right, if you buy this
three dollars or the peanut butter paste, they cost us
thirty cents. If we convince you that you have more
maternal love because choosing moms choose Jeff, we can get
a gross margin. And it's a great business model if
we can say you're more American or more likely to

(13:59):
be if you drink this light beer, or you're tough
like a rock because you buy this mediocre American car.
We have just this amazing business model. Now what Google
has done in terms of tapping into an instinct, as
they've said, all right, as nations become wealthier and more educated,
the reliance on a super being and church attendance goes down,
but our questions still remain really large. So into that

(14:21):
void of needing, an all knowing being is Google. And
you trust Google more than any priest, rabbi, scholar, mentor
or boss. You reveal to Google the most intimate things
in your life. Google knows your fetishes, It knows if
you're about to get divorced, it knows if you're thinking
of getting engaged. It knows your HIV status. Google knows

(14:42):
more than any individual in the world, and you trust
that when you provide this information to Google, it will
come back with advice that is better than any entity.
Because when you think about what is praying, praying is
usually a query sent up into the skies that says,
please process this. There will be some entity that's is
everything and is all knowing, will process my query and

(15:03):
send back an answer. My prayer will be answered. That's
called the Google search bar. Were of people who pray
to our modern day god, Google get an answer back
that they trust. And the reason why this void has
been filled by technology is that we need idols, we
need role models, We need people who can answer the unanswerable.

(15:24):
And it used to be the church, or temples or moss.
And as we become a more modern economy are reliance
and the veracity of these institutions has come crashing down.
So who do we turn to. We turn to the
closest thing to magic or mysticism, and that's technology. I
don't know how my iPhone works. I just know it's amazing.
I'm going to ignore the fact that Steve Jobs under oath,

(15:47):
denied his blood so he could get out of child
support payments when he was worth a court of a
billion dollars. I just know he invented the iPhone. He
must be godlike. And so we give these people and
these companies the mother of all hall passes, the same
way we gave the Catholic Church a lot of hall
passes for things. But these they have stepped into this
void of needing answers, needing something that feels otherworldly and

(16:09):
as a result, Um, I think it's created some really
negative things. I don't think I don't think anyone could
lie like Elon must lies if he was, essay, in
the the iron ore business, or if he built golf courses,
or he was a condo developer. I don't think we
would put up with this stuff and say, well that's
actually that doesn't sound truthful. But technology and its leaders

(16:32):
are held to an entirely different standard. But so the
idea was that all of these questions tapp into a
very basic instincts. So you have Google, which is a
need for a super being the brain. You have Facebook,
which held out the connection of love and connection, and
as mammals we all need that. You have Amazon, which
taps into the need for consumption, and that is essentially,

(16:54):
for a long time, the biggest threat to your well
being with starvation. So we have a natural instinct always
want more than we can consume. But Amazon basically says
you can get more for less here, which is the
ultimate business strategy, because whoever goes into the cave with
more food is more likely to come out at the
end of winter. And then Apple, I think taps into propagation,

(17:14):
and that is I believe that wearing Warbie Parker's that
might highlight my cheekbones, or showing my range Rover basically,
or my Panner I watch, which I haven't wound in
ten years, is at the end of the day saying
to potential mates, if you mate with me, your kids
are more likely to survive then if you mate with
someone wearing us watch watch. And that need to feel
attractive to mate such that you can find a mate

(17:36):
more attractive than you and build a smarter, stronger, faster
offspring is very powerful. And I think Apple immediately says
you're part of the billion most attractive viable mates in
the world called iOS and so we can charge for
five d and fifty dollars of chip sets and sensors
and smart glass. But each of these companies have tapped
into a basic instinct the need for a super bang,

(17:59):
the need for connect and the need for consumption or
the fear of not having enough to consume and the
need to procreate. Yeah, I want to go back to Amazon.
You talked about, you know, consumerism, and I remember the
first time ordering something from Amazon and it was like
it'll be here within four hours, and I was like,
how did how is it. I just was re member

(18:19):
people in the way I feel like blown away. I
was like, this is amazing, and now it's now it's
addicting and I buy everything on Amazon. So what do
you think about how tech has led us to consuming more?
Is that sustainable? Well? I think of it is. Um,
consumerism isn't a function of technology as much as is capitalism.

(18:40):
And then there's capitalism. Think about so I'm about head
to the airport. Um, When I was younger, there was
coach or first class, and now it's coach, premium, economy, economy, comfort,
business class, first class, fractional jets, owning your own jet.
I mean, there's just a consumer economy, and capitalism fills

(19:01):
every niche and does a great job of convincing you.
Like I followed, I'm in the consumption trap. And that
is if someone had told me this is gonna be
your your quote unquote wealth, I would have thought, oh
my gosh, I'm done. I'm economically secure. I'm still very stressed,
and I still want more. Um, I still and I'm not. Unfortunately,
while I want to simplify certain parts of my life,

(19:23):
I still want more money. I don't want more stuff,
but I want nicer stuff, your desire to have more
and more experiences, and and constantly signal to other people
that you're an artisan and you can do better. Our
economy responds with unbelievable offerings. So that is the basis

(19:43):
of capitalism, this upward spiral of desires and production capability.
When you talk about Amazon, you brought up what was
probably one of the most creative moves in business history,
and that is they said, all right, people want their stuff.
If people if we could get people there anything wanted
within forty eight hours and in some cities less than
an hour, would people want that? And shareholders went, oh,

(20:06):
my gosh, we'd love it. And it's gonna be really expensive.
And Amazon said, no problem. We have access to the
cheapest capital in the world because people keep putting up
our stock prices. So we're gonna do what no retailer
has done before, and we're gonna say, if you want
those paper towels, we can get them to do you
within an hour. And what was so genius about that
is no one had really thought of that now. I mean,
people thought, okay, we're gonna place the burden of immediacy

(20:27):
on the consumer, and that is you're gonna have to
get in your car and go to Whole Foods or Kroger.
But what if we brought it to you and all
you had to do was think about it, and with
one click ordering, you don't need have to pay, and
it's going to be there. It's on its way within
potentially an hour. And that was such a visionary and
expensive move and it's paid off. And now Amazon, I think,
is the third of the fourth most valuable company in

(20:48):
the world. Tapping into that basic instinct that we have
a fear if you run out of food, that is
really bad. And the first time we've seen that fear
come to life in a credible way within the pandemic,
when people started hoarding for the first time. All of
a sudden, you're like, oh my god, I really need
purel Like I had never even thought about purele in
my life, and all of a sudden, I thought, I
really need it. Because when something becomes credibly scarce, we

(21:12):
become obsessed with it. That's the basis of luxury. So
Amazon basically says you never need to worry. You'll always
be able to have more than you need because we
offer too fast and a low price and in quantity
and a lot of it. Yeah. So with Amazon being

(21:35):
so powerful, obviously that makes Bezos powerful. Do you think
there's a responsibility of these guys two do better be
Better be examples? Or is it just about that that
capitalism bottom line of like let's keep providing more and
make people want more and more and more and more.
Well sure, so, yeah, the answer is that, yes, there

(21:57):
is a responsibility. And whether it's Mark many op or
into a new A or Brian Chesky, I think some
of these business leaders are can take their responsibility really
seriously and are great role models and care about the
commonwealth and are willing to sacrifice profits. Waiting for the
better angels of Mark Zuckerberg to show up is not
a good strategy. And also trying to shame them doesn't

(22:20):
appear to work. They they just seem what somewhat immune.
When you have enough money, you can surround yourself with
enough people that will tell yeah, it's great that you're
you're you're shifting in the well every night, don't worry
about it. And so it's I I think that's where
regulation is needed. I think we need to hold companies
accountable and say, okay, if you know you're depressing teams,
and there's research that shows us, and you don't release it,

(22:42):
and you continue to engage in these behaviors. At some
point you have to be liable for these damages. And
if if General Motors could pour mercury into the river,
they would, because if they didn't, then CHRISTI would have
a cost advantage by pouring mercury into the river. So
regulation is needed to create an even playing field. And
right especially with online media companies, we've decided that we're

(23:03):
going to make these platforms totally exonerated from any sort
of liability. So yes, I think these business leaders have
a responsibility. No, I don't think we should wait on
that or expect that to solve our problems the government.
You know, the real culpability lies with you and me
in that a sense is we have an obligation to
elect leaders who will think over the long term, prevent

(23:23):
a tragedy the comments and step in and say, Okay,
you can't make claims that this drug will clear up
your cancer and then market it because that's not true.
We have an f d A and for some reason
we haven't been able to elect the leaders that understand
the complexity and nuanced these technologies and hold them accountable
and prevent a tragedy of the comments. So I think

(23:43):
that regulation is really what's needed here. I think waiting
on their better angels is a bad strategy. If you
think about fifteen years ago, you really didn't know CEO's names.
Today you know Elon Must, you know Travis for there,
rock stars, celebrity, especially text eos. But we also suffer
from what I would refer to as we have kind
of the idolatry of the dollar and more specifically the

(24:04):
idolatry the innovator. And that is when we perceive an
individual who's very charismatic and he talks about um community
and the power of we and here's to the power,
you know, here's to raising our awareness, that our our
collective consciousness. You don't think, what are you doing, boss,
You're just running fucking desks. You think, oh no, this
is a vision of a better world. Elon Musk isn't

(24:25):
selling a car. He's basically trying to a trust climate change.
And he knows what he's doing because climate change feels
like a multi trillion dollar opportunity versus a car company,
which trades typically at one time's revenues. Tesla is trading
it think nine to eleven times revenues. It's market capitalization. BMW,
an amazing car company, trades at one. So the last

(24:46):
thing Elon must wants to do is say, oh, we're
a car company. And the last thing that Adam Newman
would do is say we're a shitty real estate company
that's renting things out for a hundred bucks that costs
US two hundred dollars to buying. Man maintained they've got
to talk about things like collective consciousness or climate change.
So a lot of this is sort of the sleight

(25:06):
of hand and what I referred to as yoga babble.
But we have a need we want to Storytelling has
become kind of the core competence of the CEO shichat
he or she can attract cheaper capital, and the line
between kind of vision and fraud is getting narrower and narrower.
I want to talk to about cancel culture, which I
feel I cannot exist without technology. I think technology birthed

(25:29):
this cancel culture, right, don't you don't agree? I love
that it's interesting. I think that algorithms and media love
the opportunity to cancel somebody. At the same time we
have we have some equally dangerous things. I think on
the far ride, I think it all comes back to
the same place, and that is we need to be
more kind to each other. We need to demonstrate more grace.

(25:52):
We need to interpret gestures with the intention they're given
instead of making a cartoon of them so we can
dunk on people. And I think these algorithms that encourage
us to go after each other and fight, and you
get a lot of guardians of gotcha pins on Twitter.
I've been subject to it, and I don't like it
about myself. Someone sticks their chin out, says something stupid,

(26:12):
and whom I way in and get my half a
million followers to disagree as I highlight how stupid it
was for them to say that. And that leads nowhere good.
That just doesn't lead anywhere good because then I create
a group of people who are looking to dunk on me,
and we we become less connected, we become less loving
forgiving of each other. It just leads nowhere good. So

(26:33):
I think this I don't even want to call it
will culture. I'm gonna call it a lack of grace
and forgiveness. Mostly a third of people, a third of
Republicans and a third of Democrats. I think people in
the other party as their mortal enemy. No, we're not.
Our enemy is a virus three hundred width of a
human hair. It's not Republicans or Democrats. Yeah, that's so true.

(26:54):
What do you think our relationship to technology should look like? Well,
I think technology is incredible ute hility. I'd like to
think that it can bring us together. I think some
wonderful things about Facebook. You know, it's the cartoon they
constantly have where parents of children with rare diseases come together.
Technology is fantastic. We're net gainers from technology, but the
problem is with the word net We're net gainers from

(27:15):
a lot of things, but we still regulate them. I
think we're having a productive conversation around the many negative
things that happened from this wonderful thing called technology, and
that the companies should be responsible for them, and also
that we as parents, as citizens need to understand the
benefit of modulation and to realize, okay, we can have
the benefit of these companies that can create a lot

(27:37):
of share older value, but when they start depressing our teams,
when they start aiding and abetting and insurrection when they
radicalize young men and they know what they're doing, and
they deploy incredibly deaf lobbyists and delay an opus skate
and know the public is going to get tired and
move on to something else. We need leadership, and we

(27:57):
need people who will prevent a tragedy that comments and
hold them accountable. They are not Jesus Christ. These companies
are not churches or temples that should be worshiped at.
Their companies their legal entities that should be held to
the same standards. And we as a voting public, you know,
we don't live in a magical, mystical society controlled by
princes and fairies. We get to decide if organizations are

(28:20):
bad for our kids, and if they are bad for
our kids, we need to move in. The thing we're
going to regret most about technology, it's not the insurrection.
It's not competitive or monopoly behavior. We're gonna look back
on this era and we're gonna think, how the fund
did we let that happen to our kids. That's what
our biggest regret is going to be. So I think
technology is amazing. I think it can unlock all sorts

(28:42):
of shareholder value and utility and in connection. At the
same time, it deserves the same level of scrutiny we've
provided to every other industry. What are you reading? What
do you read for fun? You know it's it's terrible.
I I don't read a ton of books. Um. I've
read this wonderful little book, All simple Stories on Stupidity
Professor Carlo Chippola. He has this book on stupidity, which

(29:04):
I thought was fantastic. The book you Will Love based
on what you told me You're interest Stars A Coddling
in the American Mind by Jonathan Hight and it talks
about how news, our society, and technology have changed parenting
and how we're raising a generation of fragile kids. And
it's both entertaining and factual and also very informative as
a parent. Oh good, I'd love to read that. I

(29:25):
really appreciate you talking to me. I'm such a fan,
and I hope we can have coffee one day. You're
so fascinating, um. And I was so intimidated to do
this conversation because I might go, oh yeah, I got
that all the time I was. That is literally the
most unbelievable statement utter today other than must saying you
didn't know there was bots on the platform and Twitter.

(29:46):
That's a close number two. You were intimidated to thank
you for saying that. Thank you. I was my husband's like,
how did you get him? What a thrill? But no,
thank you so much for your t thank erg thank you,
thanks so much, Thank you so much for listening. I'm

(30:08):
happy to be connected with you. Connections with Evil Lagoria
is a production of Unbelievable entertainment in partnership with I
Hearts Michael Bura podcast Network. For more podcasts from my Heart,
visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever
you listen to your favorite shows.