
How Algorithms, Money, & Bureaucracy Distance us from Democracy
The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart- 309 views
- 3 Oct 2024
With the election just over a month away, Americans are caught between a flood of political promises and the reality that we live in a time of political dysfunction. Joining us this week to explore the root causes are Ezra Klein, opinion columnist at The New York Times, host of "The Ezra Klein Show" podcast, and author of "Why We're Polarized," alongside Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology and co-host of "Your Undivided Attention" podcast. We examine how engagement-driven metrics and algorithms shape public discourse, fueling demagoguery and widening the gap between political rhetoric and public needs.
Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:
> YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast
> Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast
> TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast
> X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod
Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart
Executive Producer – James Dixon
Executive Producer – Chris McShane
Executive Producer – Caity Gray
Lead Producer – Lauren Walker
Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic
Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo
Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce
Researcher/Associate Producer – Gillian Spear
Music by Hansdle Hsu
—
This podcast is brought to you by:
ZipRecruiter
Try it for free at this exclusive web address: ziprecruiter.com/ZipWeekly
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Jon Stewart is back in the host chair at The Daily Show, which means he's also back in our ears on The Daily Show Ears Edition podcast. The Daily Show podcast has everything you need to stay on top of today's news and pop culture. You get hilarious satirical takes on entertainment, politics, sports, and more from Jon and the team of correspondence and contributors. The podcast also has content you can't get anywhere else, like extended interviews and a roundup of the weekly headlines. Listen to The Daily Ears Edition, wherever you get your podcast.
Now streaming on Paramount+.
This is Dr. Frasher Crane. I'm listening. He's back again. Hey, dad, I got a question about punctuation. No, stay on task. And he's more Frasher than ever.How.
Do I look?rich.
Just what I was going for. Oh, my God. They traded your baby for wine. Do you really think we would trade John for white Zinfandel or any wine?
Frazier.
New season now streaming on Paramount+.
Hey, everybody. Welcome once again to an addition of The Weekly Show podcast with me there, Jon Stewart. We are coming to you. This is probably coming to you Thursday, but I'm talking to myself right now on a Wednesday, following a Tuesday night of a debate between your, what do you call it there? Jd Vance, who did a great job, I think, last night of not being JD Vance, and Tim Walsh, who was very Walsh-ish. It was, I thought, certainly a bit more substantive, even though it was quite riddled with what I would consider abject falsehoods. But CBeeza had decided we're not going to interrupt to say that's complete nonsense. We're just going to let this whole thing play out. As long as it's nonsense stated reasonably, well, who's to say? But the one thing I will say is I am really tired of articles this morning saying, Here's what's wrong with the debate. Yes, it was substantive, but boring. You're like, What the fuck? We're in a no-win. Nobody hit anybody. Nobody blanked out. I expect now for these things to be catastrophic for one or the other candidates. Even if it's a vice president debate, I expect action.
Bloodshed. I expect... We shouldn't even do debates. We should just do those slap contests that they do. Let's just reduce them to where you stand on it and you slap it hard and whoever goes down, goes down, and that's the end of it. Maybe that's how we should choose our presidents, for God's sakes. But we do have... Man, do we have a good pod for you today? Lauren Walker, of course, and Brittany Mamedevik are fabulous producers. They'll be joining us at the end. But first, we are going to talk about the nature of the threats to our fine government. I hope everybody enjoyed the debate last night. I hope you've made your choice about who you're going to vote for for vice president. Then later on, maybe you can make your choice about who you'll vote for president. But let's move on. Let's get to our guest today. Folks, Powerhouse program today. Our guests, we're delighted to have them. Esra Klein, you know him. He's the Opinion columnist in New York Times, host of the Esra Klein Show podcast. You've seen it. It charts, baby. And he's the author of Why We're Polarized. Tristan Harris, co founder of Center for Humane Technology, which, boy, Today.
Wouldn't that be nice? He is also the co-host of your Undivided Attention podcast. Guys, thank you both so much for joining us. I wanted to talk to you guys today about this idea. So I don't know if you guys are aware, there is an election. It's got to be like a month in America, our country. And one of the candidates is viewed as an enormous threat to democracy. His name is Donald Aloysius Trump. So we can view him as he's got autocratic tendencies. Maybe he's an authoritarian. Maybe he's just used to running the country like an episode of The Apprentice, where he just has that one dude, George and his daughter, Ivanka, and they just go like, Great job, boss. But I want to look at it from a different perspective today and where your guys' expertise, I think, would be incredibly valuable. Rather than looking at it as an individual who is a threat to a democratic system, what if we look at what are the shortcomings, discomforts of that democratic system that seed the ground for populist movements, demagogs, authoritarians, whether from the left or from the right? And can we view those fragilities within the democratic system as a way to protect ourselves, not from one person, but from these movements that tend to really polarize the country and swing the pendulum so far back and forth?
Esra Klein, we're going to start with you.
Nice, modest, easy question here.
We got an hour.
The question is, what are the fragilities in the system?
Well, it's my experience with... Democracy is an analog system, and we live in a digital world. So it appears even slower in comparison to the way that the world is moving right Now, let's shorten the question. Citizens United, the amount of money that flows into the system. At this point, if you want any say in the system, and studies have shown this, if you've got money, legislation often reflects reflects your desires. If you do not have money, if you are outside the system, legislation mostly does not reflect your need. Isn't that a fragility in our democratic system that opens the door for the authoritarian, anti-democratic type leaders?
Yeah, it sure as hell doesn't help. So solved. Done. Let me do one more twist on the question, which is, what used to keep people like this There's a book called How Democracies Die, written by two professors, Zablot and Levitzky, I think. They make a point that has always stuck with me, which is that we've always had Donald Trump-like figures in American politics. You can think of Father John Coughlan during the New Deal era. You can think of Henry Ford, who was spitting anti-Semitic filth in the Dearborn Independent. Lindberg, right? Huey Long, right? You know Pat Buchana in '88 and then '92, who's, I a really important forerunner to Donald Trump. What kept them out? Because they often were able to get what Donald Trump got in 2016, which is 30% of one of the parties. Two things. One was that parties had gatekeeping power. We used to run this at conventions. Primaries only became a thing in American politics that actually decided who won the nomination after '68.
We have to become more undemocratic to save democracy.
Well, gatekeepers have a role. I'm not saying we're going to go back to it. But if you ask in another era, Donald Trump never wins a Republican Convention. He's going nowhere. But the other piece is media. There was a lot more gatekeeping control in other areas of media. In both of these cases, you could say this also keeps good things out. The party elders, the media bosses, the funders. Donald Trump was not the best funded candidate in 2016, but he did have a lot of small donor donations. He wasn't able to get the institutional money, the big businesses as much. That was going to people like Jeff Bush and Marco Rubio. But he was able to raise money in ways you couldn't have done that effectively 60, 70 years ago. We've made it much easier for new entrants to come in. That gets you somebody like Barack Obama on one level, makes it possible to have Bernie Sanders run a competitive candidacy in 2016, and it also opens a door to figures like Donald Trump. You do have this constant tension in democracy, which is you can read about in the federalist papers between how open you want it to be and what checks you want it to have if some populist demogog rises as they have endlessly, repetitive through all of human history.
It's an interesting... I tell you, I hadn't thought about it that way. It's an uncomfortable conversation because at the heart of it is this idea that democratizing the process has opened us up to demagogs. And Tristan, let's talk to you about that. He's referring to Henry Ford and Lindberg. And this is also, Father Coughlin, the advent of radio. Tristan, is the introduction of new forms of communication and media. Does that disruption also lend itself to demagogs rising up? Now it's social media, and and AI and those kinds of things.
I think you were saying earlier, John, that I was cluing into is the idea of an analog democracy, and now our democracy seems to be running on the digital world. And Mark Andreessen, in many places, I disagree with him, but he The co founder of Netscape said, Software is eating the world. I think that actually is very accurate that software is eating media. It is eating elections. It is eating children's development. What we're seeing with social media is it is eating the life support system.
Oh, my God. I've got it on my phone. Tristan, I've got software on my phone. It's going to eat my children. In what way? Go back and talk about what that means because that's a very interesting description.
Well, I think this is a, how much is tech running society. People know culture is upstream from politics, but now tech is constituting culture. So how much of people's news consumption now is coming from social media? It's the vast majority. On the one hand, you have President Biden saying, We need to ban TikTok because, let's say, it's a threat from the Chinese Communist Party. On the other hand, he just joined TikTok a few weeks after that because you can't win an election today without actually being on TikTok. The same is true for the Republicans who also want to ban TikTok. They have to be on TikTok to win the next election. I think what that speaks to is the entrenchment and lock-in of if you can't win your next election except by joining the platform, it shows how important and significant that platform is at constituting, again, our cultural environment. We obviously wake up and spend most of our time in our lives looking at these devices. What people need to know about that, as we said in the Netflix film, The Social Dilemma, is it's not about technology being neutral. It's that this entire The higher complex that we are immersed in for hours per day is about these design choices that were not aligned with what makes democracy stronger.
They were only aligned with an incentive that what maximizes engagement and attention. We've sent society through 15 years of this washing machine of spinning us out into a more addicted, distracted, polarized, sexualized society where those features are actually rewarded by that business model. We always to Charlie Munger, who said, Warren Buffet's business partner, If you show me the incentive, I will show you the outcome. That's how we saw in 2013, that that's where this social media wave would take us. Not to say that it's all new, as Ezer would say. We've had polarization and distrust in politics and all this for much more preceding social media. But social media is like a jet fuel on that process.
That's interesting.
This is one of my points of optimism, and I'm so rarely optimistic anywhere in the media. But I think it's a good argument that what you have when new waves of media emerge, new platforms emerge, is periods of destabilization before societies just build up a little bit of immunity. So radio had this. It was very immediate. It was very intimate in the way people always talk about podcasting being intimate. And it led to both great things, FDR's fireside chats, and Hitler. The Nazis were geniuses at radio. You could go through this, that when new mediums and ways of communicating arise, for a while, the system, the society, doesn't really know what to do with it. It doesn't know what the tricks are. It doesn't know how to control it. You have first adopters who end up in a weird place. Donald Trump, in 2016, to me, is a golem, grown in some mixture of Twitter and cable news. That's what he is. He's like, Twitter created a golem of itself. Yeah, right. Trained on cable news.
That's what It's a Dr Frankenstein situation here. All right.
I mean, I'd be curious for your perspective on this, John. But compared to 2016, even now, I feel like the media has not a sane, but a saner relationship to what is happening across things like, I guess now we call it X, Facebook, Instagram, even TikTok, that it did before. Things rise. But the sense that everybody's there, Donald Trump can just decide what the conversation is going to be about at any given minute. Things fractured. He's over on true social a lot of the time. It's not a perfect system by any means. But by 2020, you had Joe Biden, right? That was a move back towards people wanting... Normal. So you got the opposite of Donald Trump. If we had somebody who in 2016 dominated media by outrage and be being in a negative way, extremely interesting, Joe Biden ran a consciously boring campaign in 2020. That was strategic.
It was smart. In a pandemic as well.
In a pandemic, too. Then here, it's a bit It's a little more mixed, right? You had the the vibes rise immediately with Kamal Harris and Tim Hals. But things have settled. Again, Donald Trump is himself nuts. You have a lot of nutty things happening in the election. But as somebody who is in the media during all these periods, I just think society has built up a little more immunity than it had then. It doesn't think every viral tweet needs to be reported on as news. It doesn't... Things feel to me like they have not settled because the actual changes he brought to the Republican Party are real and you have to cover them as real. But the derangement and even just how the thing feels viscerally actually has a quite different texture.
Esra, you talked a little bit earlier about the thing that prevented these demagogs in the past, the Lindbergs and Ford and these types of people, were certain guardrails. Tristan, you're talking a little bit, again, about the guardrails and gatekeeping that occurred within the media. And so are we, in some measure, focusing too closely on the media environment and the communication environment, and not enough on the legislative environment for which this occurs? So I could make the argument, for instance, in the 1930s, right? So you see disruption around the world after World War I. You see the rise of Bolshevis, it's socialism, these revolutions that occur. Or Workers of the World Unite. It takes hold in the United States. Anarchists, all kinds of other, the Wablis. There's all kinds of violence and things that are occurring within the United States and destables mobilizing the government. You add radio into that and Father Coughlin and let's get the Irish and Italians and all that. And there's all this mix. But at its heart, it was the Great Depression hit And Roosevelt came up with a program that directly addressed the needs of the people. And without that, I don't think any of those guardrails would have meant anything.
I think this country would have been in a much less stable position based on the government's ability to show the people that we see. Now, admittedly, it's a catastrophe. Depression is a catastrophe, and it shouldn't take that cataclysm to spur direct action. Okay, we'll be right back. Now streaming on Paramount Plus, Sylvester Stallone is back in a new season of Tulsa King. We're building something. We have to think big. You're an outsider. Tulsa is mine. Things don't really belong to people unless they take them.
Buckle up.
Here we go.
From the co-creator of Yellowstone and an executive producer of The Sopranos, If you want to build a future, you got to know what you want.
You have terrible taste in me. Tulsa K, a new season now streaming, exclusively on Paramount+.
Mtv's official Challenge podcast is back for another season. That's right. The Challenge is about to embark on its monumental 40th season, you all, and we are coming along for the ride. That would be me, Devon Simone. And then there's me, Davon Rogers. And we're here to take you behind the scenes of the Challenge 40, Battle of the Eras. Join us as we break down each episode, interview Challenges, and take you behind the scenes of this iconic season. Listen to MTV's official Challenge podcast wherever you get your podcast.
We're back. If you were to look at what people needed in their lives, and I'm talking about the majority of people, and you look at how responsive the government is to those needs after 50 years of supply-side economics and a whole lot of Citizens United and big money, couldn't you make the case that the government is almost at odds with its population?
I want this argument to be true. It is the way I want policy to work. It is the way I want to be able to respond to the threat of populism. Yes. We have a lot of evidence from Europe on right-wing populism because we've seen it rise a lot. I'd say the difference between our systems, to go back to guardrails for a second, is because Europe has a lot of multiparty systems, it's easier for intense groups to rise pretty quickly. In America, if you can't capture one of the two major political parties, you're nowhere. On the one hand, it's pretty hard to capture one of those parties, or traditionally it has been. But if you do, then you have half the system to yourself, basically. But in Europe, it wasn't that way, so we actually have a lot to run the regression analysis on. The state of the economy and how people are doing and what they tell you about their finances and how they're feeling about the world, it doesn't track the way you would think it would. It doesn't mean it's meaningless, and it definitely doesn't mean that immiseration or catastrophe or failure doesn't create a breeding ground for these kinds of strong I believe that Donald Trump is functionally a creation of George W.
Bush's Wars. I mean, I already said he's a Twitter golem, so I have lots of theories for Donald Trump. But I believe he's functionally a creation of George W. Bush destroy the Republican Party's credibility between the wars in the financial crisis. Barack Obama represented a changing and rapidly changing demographic country, in terms of race, immigration was changing in that period. Religion, to some degree, we were secularizing pretty quickly. He's a response to that. But in terms of the, I would call this the policy feedback argument. You can pass good policy, you pass something like Medicare or Medicaid. What do we get after we pass Medicare or Medicaid? We get Nixon, who is a more Trumpian in many ways than a lot of other figures in American history.
Although it would be considered probably a liberal Democrat at this point in terms of policy.
Yes, although I would say not in the way he wrote, but yes, in terms of policy. Yes. The thing that seems to correlate is rapid social change. When people feel power is shifting, and particularly when immigration is going up a lot. And since 1970, the percentage of foreign-born residents of the country has gone from about 4-ish % to around 15 % now. It's a very, very rapid rise historically. We're secularizing becoming a majority-minority. It's not the only thing going on. The economic pieces of this are very real, but it doesn't seem that running an economy well or passing bigger social programs will end the threat of right-wing populism, or you wouldn't have it rising in the way it is in some of these European countries, where they've passed a bunch of the policies we all want, or not we all want, but I think you and I and probably Tristan, want to see passed in America.
But then how do you explain Britain and France? As these social media programs are incentivized to conflict and outrage and fear and anger, doesn't the distance between what the population is experiencing as reality and the analog nature of government begin to grow to the point where these are giant pendulum swings, sometimes to the right, as it was with Maloney and and a lot of the other things. And in Germany, obviously, they're fending off these really right wing parties. But in Britain, we just saw it swing in a huge way back to labor. And in France, I mean, They were in many ways saved from the party of Le Pen by the far left of France. So is that explained more by the way that voters experience the world in social media?
Obviously, there's so many different factors that are driving the political environment, including climate change, migration, economic factors. What I can speak to, the thing I have expertise in, is how is the social media machine driving certain weird distortions in our psychological environment.
That's it. That's what I'm talking about.
Yeah. And what we know from people who use Twitter a lot, for example, is the more you use Twitter, you would think that the more you use use social media, the more informed you should be about what other people believe. It turns out that the opposite is true, that the longer you are on social media, the worse you are at predicting what other people in your society, other tribes, other political tribes, if you're a Democrat, how good are you at predicting what Republicans would say into the statement that racism is still a problem in the US today. The longer you use social media, the worst Democrats are at understanding or predicting what Republicans believe about that and vice versa.
Tristan, can I ask you a question about that? Is there any correlation to the longer you're on social media, the less you know the reality? And I take the transgender sports conflict as this part. So if you're on social media, do you suddenly have the feeling that, Oh, My God, there are no girls' sports left in high school. They are being utterly dominated. And as somebody who has kids in high school, does it also warp not just what you think other people would say, but your own reality of what's happening.
Something that's so obvious, but also so subtle, is the way that these newsfeeds are personalized. So whatever is the boogie man that gets you up at night or freaks you out or makes you angry, it will keep showing you a personalized feed, an infinite evidence of that boogie man taking over society. So if that boogie man is the transgender sports movement, and that's something that you click on a couple of times, how does the algorithm work? It says, Oh, there's these keywords in these tweets that this person keeps clicking on, and it includes the word transgender and sports. It just gives you way more things like that. You end up thinking that this is this massive issue. It's taking over the world. It's the most important thing going on in the world. For every issue, it's doing that for everybody, but into a different Truman show, into a different bespoke reality. It's so obvious, we all know that, but it's so subtle, I think, in the way that that fragments our shared ability to have conversations. Because when I talk to someone who's been living inside of that reality, they'll give me millions of facts or data points or news articles about things that have been happening in that world.
I might say, I've never even heard of that. I don't know what's going on in that world.
Wow. And it really does shape it. But then getting back to you, Esra, if you're living in that reality, then no matter what governments do, that's not going to change. Unless it's directly addressing that, as Tristan said, your personal bogeyman. But, Esra, the thing that when you were talking about it's the way you wish it would work, boy, that puts us in a really difficult position because for someone who still believes government has a role to play in the improvement of people's lives or as just a check against corporate interests or other things that are too large for the individual or the locality to deal with, then it's all just spitting in the ocean because it won't have any real effect in the world on an opinion, if that makes sense. I'm not sure I can go there. I don't know if I can go there.
When you stare into the abyss, it stares back into you here. I don't want it staring back at me.
I want the abyss to go, I'm sorry.
I wouldn't frame it as quite as politically pessimistic or nihilistic as maybe I made it sound. I don't think... Here's one of the ones that breaks my heart a little bit. Joe Biden, my favorite, maybe not my favorite, but one of my three policies as a person who would have a list of that in the Biden administration, was the expanded child tax credit that they did in the American rescue plan following... Yes. There was a post-pandemic bill. They did it for a year. They should have done it for longer. But the reason they did for a year is that this was the clearest, the best tax policy. If you got a kid, you got a check. If you turned on TikTok, a whole new genre arose of people doing dances set to music when they got their child tax credit. People thought, they felt it. The theory was that this would be such a potent policy. Republicans are always setting popular tax credits to expire, and Democrats always blanch at the last minute and extend most of them. No way the Republicans would let anybody get rid of it the next year. They wouldn't want to lose the midterms, but they did get rid of it.
The fact that it had been there didn't seem to help Joe Biden.
Well, I think the midterms, though, you could make the case that the midterms really It turned out surprisingly well for the Democrats, given the conditions.
Yeah, it just doesn't seem to have come from that because we watched the polling. I talked to so many people who studied this policy. Now, look, if you had done that policy for five years, it might have been different. This is where I'd be more optimistic. We watched the vice presidential debate last night. I don't know when this will air, but in my timeline, it was last night. And watching J. D. Vance lying, but lying in this particular way where he's like, Donald Trump heroically created bipartisan action to stabilize and improve the AC. Very few people on Earth have written as many words about the affordable care act as I have. Donald Trump did everything humanly possible to destroy that bill. He supported bill after bill to appeal it. He signed on to a Supreme Court case to try to get it named Unconstitutional. He cut the money for the navigators to actually go out and tell people to sign up. Everything he could have possibly done to destroy, weaken, erode, sabotage the affordable care act he did. Now they're out there saying, You know why you should vote for Donald Trump? Because he worked so hard to make Obam care better.
Over time, this stuff works. Donald Trump is out there saying, Don't touch Medicare and Social Security. The policies themselves can become popular, and they can become useful, but it's over long time periods. Of course, it's hard to get the past in the first place. Because the ACA was a disaster for Democrats in 2010. It took time for it to become something that was politically useful for them. It's not that policy doesn't matter. It needs time, and elections don't always align with that.
When we talk about policy, again, if you really break it down, the ACA is a gift to insurance companies. And what it's done is it's allowed millions more people access into a broken system. And so getting back to, and Tristan, maybe this is something, but this algorithm that creates these incentives, it's customized to your life. So if in your life, your real pressures are much more direct than that. Policy is diffuse. So you might look at it like, my kids are going to college while my parents are now elderly, and I've been working and playing by the rules. And emotionally, my feed is just coming in with all the money that could be used by the government to help me directly is going to Haitian cat recipes so that they can eat more pets. And that's the thing that you're believing, isn't there some way that we can tickle that reptilian brain in reverse? And I don't think government does a great job of this being responsive to that squeeze, elder care, child care, all that, other than maybe the child tax credit and things like that. But is there a way to, I don't want to say reverse engineer because it all sounds so Machiavelian, but how do you unravel that pathway?
How do you rewire the vagus nerve to not feel this thing that's not happening.
Yeah. Well, there's these we call perverse asymmetries. Once someone believes a conspiracy theory, it's the best predictor of whether someone believes in a conspiracy theory is whether they already believe in a conspiracy theory. It's once you To break shared reality, it's much harder to put it back together again. We should be trying to protect the breaking of shared reality rather than the amount of effort and work and labor it would take to sew it back together again. I think there are, though, ways in our work, we think about if you were to change the algorithm, the design, what would you be sorting for? Of course, you run into this free speech versus censorship issue. By the way, the tech platforms, in order to avoid regulation, have tried to frame the issue with everything we're talking about as a free speech issue. When they do that, it It means that you will never get regulated because that debate never converges on what we should actually do. But it's not about free speech. It's about free reach and amplification. Amplification is not the thing that we're all entitled to. And free speech, specifically in a gladiator stadium, which is the way that social media organizes our public debate environment, that's not functional for democracy.
Also, gladiator stadiums did not have blue checks and did not have algorithms where they'd be like, If you're interested in eviscerating slaves, you'll really like this. Okay, we'll be right back. We're back. That's the other thing. Social media is not a town square. No. Incentivizing speech for outrage or conflict or hate or any of those things is the opposite of a town square, which is just a vessel. It's just a box. Yeah.
The current incentives in social media is the better If you are at identifying a new cultural fault line and adding inflammation to that cultural fault line, you will be paid handsomely in likes, rewards, followers, retweets, and visibility. And your content will be routed directly to the people who will be most angered or enraged or activated by that. It's a gladiator stadium. It's a sci-fi AI gladiator stadium where when one guy raises up his sword and slays someone, exactly who would be most activated by that gets to see. He gets this bespoke crowd that is most activated by that. If you want to change this, obviously, you have to fundamentally change the engagement-driven business model of social media. You can't simultaneously have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value in the form of maximizing attention and also end up with a healthy democratic environment. But one thing in our work that we found is, for example, you could change the algorithm to sort for minimizing perception gaps. For example, what are the sources of content that tend to, over time, help people accurately estimate what the other tribes believe? You can measure that because what's hard, you can't measure what's true.
That's very hard to do objectively. What you can do is say, what are the sources of content that help people better estimate how big a deal the Haitian immigrant dogs thing actually is? You can say, what are the content sources that do that over time? And what you're doing is you're sorting for more shared common ground. That's what we really need is systems that are designed to find common ground.
It's a great I did, Tristan, because I would say that free speech suffers also through the hoarding of outrage and anger, because if I'll go on my feed, it doesn't matter what I tweet. The third response is always Why did you change your name, Jew? That, to me, is actually suppression. You don't want to engage when the toxicity is like that. Is there a model, and, Esra, I'll put this to you, that can created to do what Tristan said as a public utility, a process by which you can... It's a gage, a check, a balance, a guardrail on the type of incentivized outrage and all that that we know is coming from companies that are for profit. In the same way that food companies exploit... They've got guys in lab coats trying to create chips that will sneak past the thing in your brain that says, You should stop eating. You're not hungry. That's what I mean by government as a check and being responsive to the needs of the people.
The way I've come to think about this, which is... I know that I like where it takes me, but I'll be honest about where I've ended up. Okay. I think a good capsule history of the media is that we used to sort. I mean, long ago, we sorted by literacy. But in most of American history, we sorted by geography. What media you had access to and the way it differed was primarily geographic. Newspapers were bound by space. You could subscribe to some magazines. Eventually, there's some radio, but at the beginning, there's not that much radio, so everybody's listening to more or less the same things on the radio. Then there's three network television stations, and they play I Love Lucy, but there's also at 6:00 or 8:00 PM, The News. We have a lot of evidence on this period. It creates much more consensus reality. Now, that reality might differ If you were reading a newspaper during the civil rights movement in Alabama, and you're reading one in New York, you were getting very different visions of reality. But that reality was reshaped by geography and local community tendencies. What changes, cable news is the first very big change, but the internet supercharges it, is we now have media and, I guess, reality sorted by interest.
One of the fascinating to me, questions that gets asked in media studies is, we used to think people couldn't know that much because the amount of information they had was bound. There just wasn't that much. When I was growing up, the sum total of political opinion I had access to as a teenager in Southern California was the LA Times opinion page. It just was not that much political opinion. I could maybe there's some conservative talk radio, but I didn't listen to that.
All the information in the world was just one encyclopedia from A to Z.
Now you can have anything. But on average, people didn't get more informed. Why? Well, they did a bunch of studies, and basically what they found, and in pretty cool studies about when cable news roll out to a place and then when the internet roll out to a place, is after it rolls out, you actually do have a big change in who is informed. It's just not the average level. On average, it's not that people are more informed, but what happens is that everybody used to be informed. Now you have the obsessives who are listening to the Jon Stewart podcast or the Ezra Klein Show podcast or the Undivided Detention podcast or Save America or Ben Shapier or whatever it might be. You have the people who just want no fucking part of this. They want sports, they want video games, they want cooking, they want anything but listening to us talk about dynamics of politics and media. Honest to God who is here at this point in this. The problem now with... I love all the public utility for communications ideas, but the problem is people have to choose to use it. What gets people using a of these systems and why most people are on them is not that they're good information.
If you want good information, you can get it. The New York Times is not perfect, but it's pretty good. The LA Times is good. We all know where to go if we want pretty good information.
But it still It's still analog.
But the problem with trying to replace engagement-driven social media with a more virtuous form of social media is people are not there for virtue. They choose it because it is scrappy. Instagram and TikTok and all these things, what makes them powerful is not the person seeking out good information. It's a person who actually doesn't want that much information at all, particularly not political information. They're there for other reasons, and they get some on the side or they start clicking on things about Gaza or the election or vaccinations or whatever. Those are the people on whom elections turn. What you need, if you're thinking about this public utility model, in a world where people are choosing and they have these other options, if you're not going to shut everything else which we're not, is how do you make that public utility grabby such that the mass numbers of people are there who want to... There's a reason YouTube headlines are all very loud.
That's the point. I don't know about grabby, but I take your point. I think That's a really good point. And maybe, Tristan, that's what I mean is I'm saying everyone's on heroine. Is there a good heroine? What's our methadone? What's our public utility that can do that? Now, for me, I think I think it takes tenacity. If, as Maria Ressa says, a lie travels eight times faster than the truth. Well, then the truth has to work fucking 10 times harder than a lie. And to do that, you need the resources. And I think that's where 24 hour media, I think, drops the ball completely, where they've still adopted the circadian rhythms of social media and whatever else is coming without battling it in that tenacious way.
And they're pushed to do that because as social media creates a 24/7 news cycle that's even more hyper real, hyper up to the instant than before, then cable media has to follow. I think that's one of the perverse effects of social media. It's actually pulled the incentives of all other forms of media. So everyone is dancing for the algorithm rhythm, how much of a cable news clip gets its visibility on news channels versus later on when it trickles through social media and it gets a lot of visibility there. That's another point. But one of the things you're making me think of, John, is the work of digital minister Audrey Tang of Taiwan. And she uses a database called Cofax. So she basically says, fact-checking is hard, to your point. There's many more things running through the system than we can possibly fact-check. So they have a crowd-sourced fact-checking system called Cofax. People contribute. Then what happens is, to your point that Maria Ressa made, that a lie spreads eight times faster than the truth, she actually wrote an AI so that when there are trending topics about something that is actually already in the Cofax database, it adds this context in real time.
One of the things we used to say in our work is if you can make it trend, you can make it true. It's the liar's dividend. If you just make something more salient and visible, it lands in people's brain. It's there. They've heard about it before. They don't remember where they heard it or whether it's true. It's just that it's visible. If you want to catch it in real time, one of the ways we could be using AI is actually by adding more context and synthesis of multiple perspectives perspectives that are grounded in fact, and adding that in real time to the information that we're seeing.
An adjunct, a something that runs hand in hand with your social media. So it's almost like a tool, an overlay that you can place on there. I think that's a brilliant idea. In some ways, it's what I think Elon, for whatever else he's doing, I think he was trying to get at with community notes. Now, those things can be weaponized and manipulated in different ways.
They can be. They're imperfect.
But I think that's a really interesting idea. Now, Esri, to your point, because the funny thing is, it starts out as a conversation of how does government become more responsive to the needs of its people with all this money and all this communications and AI and all that? And what we end up with is AI, AI, social media, social media.
I don't think this will make government any more responsive. I have a different answer to that question if we want to do that, that I would love to give you my actual answer there.
Bring it, bring it.
You cut the process that makes government unresponsive. Here's how I think democracy work. People vote for a candidate. The candidate who wins the most votes wins power. The candidate and coalition that wins power, I know this is getting weird already. They do some rough approximation of the thing they said they would do. Then people decide if they liked that, and then they either kick them out or vote them back in the next time. The way we actually do it- Go on.is we vote for a candidate. The candidate that wins the most votes may or may not win power. It's exciting. We see what happens at the Electoral College, including this year. Then when they get in because we have staggered elections and the Senate filibuster, they can either do none of or 10 to 20% of what they promised. Then people pissed off that government isn't working that well and everybody's just fighting all the time. Dissatisfaction builds up and they usually get kicked out or people turn off. Look, my program for making government more responsive is to accept the bad and the good in this because it can go the other way, as can making a social media utility that Donald Trump might one day run or JD might one day run, but is get rid of the filibuster.
In a bunch of different places, you need to actually empower the people we elect to do things. Liberals have a really big problem with this. Liberal proceduralism. We've made the government incredibly easy to sue. We've created huge amounts of process between getting anything done. The regulatory state is unbelievably complicated to go through. People don't get the policies they voted for, and then we wonder why they're pissed off.
Here's where we go. Now we're going to tie it all together. Come on, Esri. Here we go. I love it. Tristan, jump in with me. Here's how we tie it all together. An AI overlay that is also like a moonshot for bureaucratic excess that we create rather than going to the moon, like, Fuck all these other planets that we're going to. We've got this one right here, and it has water and air. And we create a bureaucratic moonshot using these tools. See, right now, these tools are being absolutely dominated by profit, margin, and incentive. There has to be a more robust public utility usage for these kinds of things, creating the thing that Esra is talking about. Government is wildly inefficient with that. Here's the other thing I would do to that, Esra, and you tell me what you think. This permanent campaign turns a mild disagreement into an argument, into a feud, into two sides that don't have anything to do with each other. We're never going to get the money out of it, but let's shorten the electoral system as well.
This 100-day campaign we've been in, I think, has been pretty good from that perspective. Fine.
Let's just leave it at that.
The thing where we did a reset, and then it was a new race, and there's only 100 days in it. Hundred days. We could have had some more debates in my view, but I think this is actually how other countries do it. It was healthier.
Much healthier. That plus Tristan, what do you think of those public utility usages? Maybe they don't replace the social media, but they are tools that we can use to bring forth some of the things even Esra is talking about, about better government regulation that is not so... You can't have a homeless problem and then decide that everything has to be net zero. You can't do everything. It was like Shapiro in Pennsylvania, the highway goes bust and he's like, Oh, That's an emergency. We're going to throw out all the regulations and actually fix it in two weeks. Yeah.
Well, I think the thing that you were pointing to here and throughout this conversation, is the complexity gap that there's more and more issues to respond to than bureaucratic institutions have an ability to respond to. As climate change and climate events go up, that's going to keep going up. As the outrage machine keeps spinning up more things to be upset about and for governments to respond to, that goes up. And you're talking about that people lose faith in their institutions when they're not responding at the speed and clip that the issues and crises are hitting us. In our work, we often reference this just totally fundamental quote by E. O. Wilson, the father of sociobiology, who said, The fundamental problem of humanity is we have Paleolithic brains, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. That is the alignment problem that we have to align. To weave it all through, you were saying earlier, how do we weave our reptile brains, match how they work, the dopamine cycles that Ezer was talking about, we need some engaging media that is keeping our attention at some baseline, but then have it be aligned with not medieval institutions, but 21st century institutions that are maximally using technology, not in some naive techno-optimist technology is going to solve our problems way, but we should be certainly instrumenting our institutions with technology.
Then how do we then take the last part, which is currently we have Godlike technology that is incentivized towards the worst goals. In social media, it's incentivized to the race to the bottom of the brainstem. In AI, it's incentivized to the race to take shortcuts and drive recklessness, concentration of power, huge risks in society.
Stock options.
Stock options. We have to realign that whole equation. That's what we think of in our work as humane technology, Humane technology is realigning our Paleolithic instincts and our reptile brains to the enlightened versions of ourselves, instrumenting our institutions with this... How do we use AI to- To get them to be not medieval.
Bring them to the at least 16th, 17th century.
At least 17th century. Imagine you go back and you say- Age of enlightenment. What if we had AIs that are actually looking at all of the laws that are no longer actually accurate to the present times? We're actually accelerating the process of identifying the loopholes in previous laws laws, the failure modes of previous laws, and actually updating them and having to accelerate the legislative process by doing that, and then actually getting more citizen input and doing that with AI.
With efficacy ratings like you get in a restaurant.
I'm not going along with any of this. No, No, Esra, no. Esra. I'm bringing in some disagreement here. We're not all going to groan in resigned acceptance of this. Esra, this was beautiful. No, Tristan is, of course, right about our old- Utopian?
Too utopian?
No, No, this is not the problem in our policymaking, that we have complexity. The complexity gap is not a function of the world. It is a function of the systems we have built and layered and layered and layered and layered complexity. But the reason we cannot govern effectively, the reason that Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, stands up and promises houses, but California does not build more houses, is not that at some point in human history, houses became too complex to build. It's that when you try to build a house, particularly an affordable home, that uses tax credits for affordability, we have made, and I've written a lot on this. It's partially what my next book is about, we have chosen to make this impossibly complicated.
I think that's what Tristan is saying, though, to be fair. I think what he's saying is, yeah, we need something to streamline that process. Us to show people that we've made it too complex. Exactly.
Yeah, but I'm just saying that inside the system, I think like, liberals, and I'm not pitting this on Tristan, I just... Liberals need to be in ripping parts of the system they built out.
That's what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with that. I'm AI could be used to help rip out the right parts of the system. That's right. Because so much of the system is broken, is to out of date.
Yeah, exactly. But I think where I am disagreeing is that I don't want to frame this as complexity because these are all decisions. Okay, look, Kamala Harris's housing plan. When you look at that, it is a series of tax credits, each one of them microtargeted. So you get a tax credit for building affordable homes for first-time home. Every time you layer one of these things on, you have made it more complex. Or the $25,000 home buyer tax credit, which is not for buying, not for building, but for buying. That tax credit is actually for people who have never owned a home, have had two years of rental payments, and whose parents have never owned a home, and you can keep going down the line like this. We are making the complexity. We might all be on the same boat, but we can't solve that with AI, particularly, liberal, so then not only, but in this case, I think it's the liberals who share these goals, have to decide to do government differently and have to decide to have different values in government, and they don't want to. They keep writing things this way because they don't want to change it.
I honestly think we're all in agreement.
Tristan is right about the world, but I'm just saying the bureaucracy we got- That we've created. We've created. We can't tell ourselves it's too complicated. We made it complicated.
Yes, I don't disagree with that. Tristan, here's what I say. What a wonderful conversation. At the end of it, through all the I don't agree with... I think we've come to a kumbaya.
We might have found some common ground.
If we can train an AI on this conversation. See? And set it loose.
You see how it's really so easy? But it's fabulous, guys. I truly appreciate you enlightening me on all these different things and having the conversation. It was wonderful. Esra Klein, columnist in New York Times, host of The Esra Klein Show podcast, the author of Why We're Polarized, Tristan Harris, co-founder Center for Humane Technology, co-host of your Undivided Attention podcast. Thank you both so much for joining us.Thank.
You.thank you so much, John.
Wow. Fabulous. Those guys were fabulous. Can I tell you something? Here's what impressed me the most. We're here with our Airswell producers, Brittany Mamedevik, Lauren Walker. Hello. Their facility in minutiae, in details, in names, and the father of something biology, and the quote, and it's all in their brains. I like to think in broad sketches. There's very little that's filled in. Those guys are just renaissance painters with the I'm just doing the herring sketches on a subway. But those guys are... I thought it was fabulous. I thought it was the most interesting disagreement, agreement I've ever seen in my life. I thought we were agreeing. I think we did I know that you think you did.
How are you guys?
How are the viewers holding up? What do they got for us? Anything exciting?
Yeah, we got some good questions this week. The first is- About the Mets?
Is it mostly about the Mets?
Yeah. John, I'm going to ask you again. Are you hopeful at all? No.
I'm going to answer that the same way every time you ask it. No, I am not.
I like it. Okay. If Elon Musk came on the podcast, us.
Okay.
What would you ask him/want to talk to him about?
I would do that. I think that'd be fabulous. That's an interesting question because I do know him a little bit. We're not friends, certainly, but I know him a little bit, and we have had conversations. I know that this is liberal heresy. I'm just like, Musk. I do think at his heart, he does some incredible things for the society. Star Lincoln, the neurolinx that can help somebody who is paralyzed. But I would probably agree in the liberal orthodoxy that the middle school edge Lord shit posting has probably gone a bit far. And normally that would be inane, but not when you run the site and your Edge Lord shit posts end up at the top of my For You page for no apparent reason. Whatsoever. But I think, and this is a conversation that we, in fact, have had, a very small one. But it's hard for me to understand how if what you hold above all else is free speech. It's hard for me to understand supporting Donald Trump, who's been pretty explicit about penalizing speech that he disagrees with, whether it's removing a license from ABC or whether it's even, I'm going to jail Mark Zuckerberg, and people could say, Well, that's for election interference.
But it's election interference as defined by Donald Trump, and we all know that he views everything through Trump-colored glasses. So election interference is interference that he thinks might work against him in an election. It's like, What's a fair election? It's an election I won. Oh, that's actually not the real definition of it, but fine. I'm always struck by, and it's this broader point, at the paradox of Trump's support, which is his constituency is, boy, they love him, but they're very draped in patriotic and Americana paraphernalia. They're all, Don't tread on me. We the people with the tri-corner, the whole thing. But I think at his heart, Donald Trump's instincts are not respectful of constitutional checks and balances, whether it be judicial, Congressional, and executive, just by the very nature. I mean, if If you ask the Supreme Court to give you complete and total immunity, well, you've just negated the Revolutionary War. So the paradox at the heart of that movement is the thing I have the hardest time coming to grips with. I mean, for God's sakes, we love the Constitution. Donald Trump literally went in front of a bunch of police organizations and like, Hey, man, I wish I could give you guys just an hour to beat the shit out of everybody who shoplifts.
And you're like, Doesn't the Fourth Amendment... How do you reconcile that with all the we the people shit? That's where I would go.
I thought at the very beginning of that run, you were about to admit that you had a cyber truck.
Have those made it to your neighborhood yet?
Yes.
It was the The first time I saw one, I thought somebody had put wheels on their refrigerator.
Apparently, raccoons are thinking that they're dumpsters and dream-breaking.
The thing that's driven me as I go by, it's all smudges. There's one in our neighborhood that keeps going by. The whole time, you're just like, did someone who went in the fridge to get jelly, then go outside and try and get into the car? It's a series of moving thumbprints. There's something fascinating.
It's so silly-looking.
It's obnoxious.
And dangerous. It just looks like it looks like something that was rendered in Minecraft, and it's not quite...
Like a 13-year-old boy built it in in his mind?
Oh, great. Now he's not coming on, Lauren.
Sorry.
Yeah.
Thanks a lot. You actually touched on something which one of our other listeners commented in on, which is, what do you think of everything happening in Georgia with voting laws and election security rules. Will you be talking about that on the podcast?
Yes, we will be talking about in the podcast, as a matter of fact, and Lauren, boy, what was that? That was a beautiful prompt and a beautiful lead. But I believe we're talking about it next week with, I believe it's Stacey Abrams and Ben Gainsberg. Is that correct? Yes. That's correct. I'll tell you, one of my biggest concerns, and I'll lay this out with them as well, is the security of the individuals who are gracious enough to volunteer for the administration of our elections, who are doing this literally out of a sense of whatever, civic pride, civic duty. They're taking time out of their days, and they are being threatened and doxed. It's awful. It's truly one of the most awful things that I I think is rotting away the foundation of what we're trying to do here democratically. Brutal.
We'll definitely be touching on that next week.
All right. Well done, Lauren. Well, fabulous show today. Brittany, do you have the social media? Yes. What are we supposed to do?
You can follow us on Twitter at Weekly Show Pod, Instagram, threads, and TikTok, We are Weekly Show podcast. And please like and subscribe our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart.
And also we are putting it on a satellite dish and broadcasting it like the SETI out into the universe, hoping to hear back from ETs. Thanks, everybody, so much. Another fabulous program. Lead producer, Lauren Walker, producer, Brittany Mamedevik, video editor and engineer, Rob Vittola. Audio Editor and engineer, Nicole Bois, researcher and associate producer, Gillian Speer, and our executive producers, Chris McShane, Katie gray. Look forward to seeing everybody next week. Thanks, guys. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Bustboy Productions. Paramount Podcasts.