内容来源：https://www.wired.com/story/the-big-interview-podcast-kara-swisher/

内容总结：

在近期的一次深度对话中，美国知名科技记者卡拉·斯威舍以标志性的犀利风格，对硅谷权力阶层与人工智能行业现状进行了剖析。这位身兼播客主持人、作家与评论员的多栖媒体人，始终以不畏权贵的采访风格著称，其主持的《On With Kara Swisher》等节目已成为科技与政治领袖接受质询的重要平台。

谈及科技巨头与政治权力的纠缠，斯威舍直指某些企业高管对前总统特朗普的"表演性效忠"是短视行为。她特别批评Meta首席执行官马克·扎克伯格"始终自视为受害者"，而特斯拉CEO埃隆·马斯克则"陷入自我造成的困境"。不过她也指出，马克·库班等少数企业家在多年历练中展现出令人惊喜的成长。

在人工智能领域，斯威舍认为当前行业存在大量"循环交易"泡沫，但其作为通用技术的变革潜力不容忽视。她强调AI与机器人技术的结合将是关键发展方向，同时坦言难以预测最终赢家，"就像当年网景浏览器曾被寄予厚望"。

对于新闻行业的未来，这位资深媒体人透露曾筹划收购《华盛顿邮报》，并主张建立联合运营的地方媒体网络。她建议年轻记者摒弃"获取内部消息"的传统模式，转而通过深度调查建立新型媒体权力结构。

在快问快答环节，斯威舍将社交媒体列为最应消失的技术，主张对人工智能加强安全监管，并呼吁通过政治改革遏制财富寡头对民主制度的侵蚀。作为四个孩子的母亲，她特别提到年轻一代已开始自觉远离"让人情绪低落"的社交平台。

尽管自嘲"年老疲倦"，斯威舍仍将继续其播客事业。她最后强调，科技巨头们"从未将社会利益置于心头"的本质，才是当今时代最令人忧虑的症结。

中文翻译：

卡拉·斯威舍是“斜杠精英”的典范：播客主持人/记者/作家/企业领袖“鞭策者”。她还以独特方式将“爱谁谁”塑造成个人品牌。凭借深厚的消息源和追问尖锐问题的胆识，她从不介意是否讨人喜欢。正如她在近期线下活动中所说：“我可是四个孩子的妈！”

作为Vox媒体旗下每周两更播客《On With Kara Swisher》的主持人，她持续拷问科技与政治领域的领袖人物，引导他们吐露在其他谈话节目中绝无可能披露的内情。在与纽约大学营销学教授斯科特·加洛韦合作的Vox节目《Pivot》中，她虽与搭档保持插科打诨的风格，但犀利锋芒分毫未减。斯威舍始终秉持独立观点，且从不吝于公开表达。

在本周《深度访谈》节目中，斯威舍畅所欲言，深入探讨人工智能、硅谷与特朗普总统的关系，以及哪位科技CEO最令她反感。本次访谈经过篇幅精简与语义润色。

凯蒂·德拉蒙德：卡拉·斯威舍，欢迎来到《深度访谈》。感谢您的到来。
卡拉·斯威舍：谢谢。很遗憾没能亲临你们精美的演播室。
下次再见。
您身后那是？
其实听众看不到——那是爱德华·斯诺登的《连线》杂志封面巨型复刻版。
哦没错。瞧瞧他。
我们一位记者安迪·格林伯格把这玩意儿在家里存放多年，最后他妻子勒令清理，他就问能不能搬来办公室。我说“当然”，现在它就成了我录播客时的背景。
很多年前我采访过他，那次很成功。
他至今还在境外。
是啊。
我们习惯以快问快答开场，相信您对此不陌生。准备好了吗？
就绪。
好。目前最活跃的聊天群是？
天啊，和孩子们的群。
播客与Substack newsletter二选一？
什么意思？问我听哪个吗？
选一个。
播客。
果然。
显而易见。
最不愿和哪位科技高管困在电梯里？
老天，所有家伙。呃，马克·扎克伯格。
更具颠覆性：人工智能还是社交媒体？
社交媒体。
静水还是气泡水？
静水。
硅谷最自欺的谎言是？
声称在乎民众。
传记电影该由谁饰演您？
这问题有意思。我刚开完相关会议。
快详细说说。
会的。您想深入聊，还是继续快问快答？
现在我想听详情。
好吧。我的回忆录《我的刻薄书》版权卖给了明日工作室——可能拍也可能搁置。目前正在接洽编剧，他们似乎觉得能推动成片。拭目以待吧。
他们属意谁演您？
不确定。听说考虑过克里斯汀·斯图尔特。
不错。
得找个可信的女同演员对吧？要带点飒爽气质。我超爱奥布瑞·普拉扎，她很棒但个子太高。问题就在这儿——演员们都太高了，找不到娇小的。
没有矮个子演员吗？
有是有，但需要——我在想谁合适。比如演星期三的那位，叫什么来着？
珍娜·奥尔特加。
珍娜·奥尔特加或许可以。其实身高不重要，演技可以弥补。
确实。
我觉得该用新人。陌生面孔。
这主意妙。哪次访谈对您影响最深？
比尔·盖茨与史蒂夫·乔布斯那场联合访谈。我和沃尔特·莫斯伯格共同采访他们。那是里程碑式的对话，必将经受时间考验，几个世纪后人们仍会观看。真是我职业生涯的高光时刻。

通常这种对谈我会追溯成长背景，但今天不打算如此——要聊的实在太多了。不过我想借此机会，请教您作为女性（更是性少数群体）在男性主导领域的体验。您的报道对象绝大多数是男性。

此前您在《设计重要》播客中提到，想为女性及其他需要指引的人群撰写三部曲：《“不”即是完整回答》《好，我接受》以及《或许回电》。我觉得这构思绝妙。请多分享您在这个领域的性别体验。

说实话，性取向从未阻碍过我，甚至让男性更自在——可能因为我们都喜欢女性？说不清。他们大多是直男，确切说是直男白人群体。所以他们对同志身份接受度良好，我从未因此遭遇抵触，反而觉得总体是加分项。

有次活动上，一群风投对女性评头论足，还问我“卡拉，你觉得那姑娘俏吗？”我回答：“我还是女权主义者，拒绝物化女性。”作为女性，我认为性别未必是障碍。即便他们在招聘中搞男性俱乐部那套（硅谷长期如此），也未能排挤我。直到最近，他们才更青睐男性或谄媚者——但这与能力无关，只关乎奴性。

您的风格常被评价为“不讨喜”，这显然是性别双重标准。我很少听说意志坚定的男性被如此形容。
完全正确。但我不在乎。
这份底气从未动摇过？您是如何学会不在意的？
与生俱来。从小就这样，或许与同志身份有关——我不需要男性认可。有趣的是，我不认为这是“不讨喜”，而是在真诚沟通。采访时我不搞铺垫套路，言行一致才是公平。实际上我完成过大量精彩访谈，他们依然接受我采访。总有人问“你为什么这么刻薄？”——当然不是所有人，但某些敏感分子会这么抱怨。

关于这个话题还有个问题。作为同行，我常收到针对女性的建议：穿着打扮、不化妆等等。每次WIRED账号发布我的视频，至少一人评论“化个妆吧”。我素颜是因为志不在此。您有什么建议？
直接无视。
但对于身处男性主导环境的 ambitious 女性，除了无视呢？
我用带刺的幽默反击。当男性开始贬低把戏，我会说“你瘦了？哦，看来没有”——这是我最爱用的招数。有次录电视节目，我十二三岁的儿子在场（我教育有方）。休息室里有个家伙问他：“你妈妈从不笑吗？”我儿子盯着他：“您刚说什么？”就这一句。
太精彩了。我也常被说“笑一个”，现在直接回“不笑，我天生这副表情”。
我现在根本听不到这种话了。这些言论愚蠢又幼稚，生活里带娃够累了，没必要再多管巨婴。

说到巨婴，得谈谈科技界领导力了。
他们就是巨婴。
您报道采访这群人数十年。回顾往昔，谁始终认真履行对社会的责任？谁堕落得最彻底？
令我意外的是马克·古巴。当年我在《华尔街日报》报道他公司卖给雅虎，那时他是个傲慢小子……
我刚采访他，还提醒他您这评价。
他当时狂妄自大，但我仍喜欢他——是个讨喜的家伙。如今他蜕变成复杂有趣的人，观点难以预测却始终经过深思。我猜是育儿等经历让他成熟。另一个例子是Snapchat的埃文·斯皮格尔。
他曾因不满媒体把气撒我身上，发过一连串恶劣邮件……
我信。
当时他还在上大学，情有可原。
我记得这事。
共进午餐时他冲我吼，我说：“这事我半个字没写，你吼错人了。”他只是对媒体整体愤怒。现在他也成长为体贴深思的人。
爱彼迎CEO布莱恩·切斯基我也很欣赏，他敢于坦诚表达。我们虽非密友，但我认为他在努力自我提升——成为更优秀的人。

多数人并未尝试进步，而扎克伯格堪称反面典型。埃隆·马斯克显然也是，不过他还受其他问题困扰。
确实。
这不是开脱而是解释。他处境复杂，虽说是自作自受，但仍令人唏嘘。
令人叹息。
蒂姆·库克近年也有些……尤其临近退休却表现如此？这就是你想要的退场方式？

我正想探讨科技领袖与政客的亲密关系。晚宴合影、白宫小摆件（库克那个金像）……为何高管们不仅幕后合作，还要公开示忠？
您提到马克·古巴很有趣。我问他时，他说“若需跪舔政权，他们只能照做”，认为这是商业法则。
每届政府都有类似情况，通常只需宴请捐款。但当前这位要求更露骨的表演性忠诚。若这是商业代价，他们大可不必——我认为这并非必要，但他们似乎不以为然。

他们已富可敌国，何必如此？
或许出于对股东的责任？他们首要义务并非对社会，而是对资本。另一方面，有人享受权力游戏。扎克伯格总自认受害者，可能因此热衷此举——他受够被女性指手画脚，现在要戴上MMA手套反击。

任何表演性男子气概都是危险信号。谢尔盖·布林就变得挺特朗普——从他家人（多数感到震惊）和特朗普派女友可见一斑。我在华盛顿偶遇某位（不点名），对方说“卡拉，看来我们赢了”。我回：“没错，但你们仍是混蛋。”他们只能嗤之以鼻。祝好运吧。

考虑到短期收益与长期代价，若未来政权更迭损害公司利益，您认为三年后局势如何？
这是短视行为。总有一天会换执政党。我常开玩笑：若卡玛拉·哈里斯胜选，扎克伯格会立刻改称they/them，大赞康普茶和查莉·XCX。他们主要出于恐惧——怕业务受损，而那位显然乐于硬碰硬。

苹果员工对库克行为深感震惊。我说大概为了股东价值吧，他们反驳“这反而损害长期价值”。短期关税优惠换不来健康商业生态，这是 oligarchy 的逻辑，最终导致创新枯竭。

令我注意的是，不仅高管沉默，公司内部也未见大规模抗议——谷歌、苹果都没动静。
抗议者会被开除。亚马逊刚开除声援巴勒斯坦的员工。说好的言论自由卫士呢？全是表演性扯淡。他们只想听赞美，否则我早该定期专访扎克伯格了。

展望硅谷未来，您是否期待新型领导者涌现？
当然。
这需要代际更迭吗？现有代表是谁？
我儿子在密歇根学科技，并非受我影响——他还是兄弟会成员。
真遗憾。
但他和朋友们关注能源、气候等深刻议题。我在密歇根授课时深受触动：这些学生既不天真也不愚蠢，充满社区意识。我儿子想创造造福大众的产品，同时相信资本主义——但非权力游戏。若他日后变质，我会狠狠敲打他。这种“创造有意义事物”的理想主义很真实。

我为CNN制作关于长寿健康的纪录片时，发现这群人令人动容。不同于早期互联网人的虚假乐观（扎克伯格总说“连接世界”却从未实现），我在《华尔街日报》的首篇报道就揭露硅谷的自欺谎言。年轻一代不再如此。

所以我们仍有希望。
是的。密歇根教学让我确信问题出在老辈，年轻一代不同。我大儿子们已不用社交媒体——这很普遍。问及原因，他说“让我难受”。简单却精准。

他说得对，我也觉得难受。
那您为何还在推特？
我早删号了。不想待在那，没人能逼我。

关于您与社交媒体的关系：常见批评是“卡拉曾长期鼓吹硅谷，如今倒戈却不对过往负责”。您在意吗？
不在意。我是条线记者，始终报道商业真相。这类指责多源于我对埃隆的期待——我曾对他寄予厚望。

我对扎克伯格从无善意，不信去找找我的褒扬文章？
那场经典的冷汗访谈。
我始终质疑他们的隐私侵犯和数据操纵。

我确实欣赏乔布斯，但访谈充满挑战而非奉承。质疑主要围绕埃隆——我厌倦了扎克伯格之流的自私，曾期待有人专注汽车、气候等正经事。当乔布斯离世，我们都在寻找更大愿景。我承认这点，但“我造就了他们”纯属胡扯——他们成为亿万富翁是靠自身成就。若重听访谈，你会发现我始终公正。

当我转变立场指出问题时，某些自由派搞 purity test 很可笑。保守派朋友反感特朗普却被排斥？现实世界需要不完美的盟友。那些搞 purity test 的见鬼去吧。

请谈谈AI。
近期WIRED重点报道人才争夺战——其荒谬程度令人着迷。
我爱看你们的报道。
感谢，这归功于前线记者。
容我插句题外话：您构建叙事的能力太出色了。我们在All Things D时就擅长此道，而你们对DOGE的解读绝了。

若萨姆·奥尔特曼和扎克伯格各出1亿聘您，选谁？
奥尔特曼。
区别在哪？
门槛本来就不高。萨姆偶尔流露正常特质，至少能认知自身问题。扎克伯格从不复盘。

萨姆那场“退出闹剧”堪称典型，我惊讶又不意外——他们总这样。AI领域有趣在……AMD今天又宣布与甲骨文合作？
这类交易每天都在发生。
我和斯科特·加洛韦联想起AOL与PurchasePro的陈年旧事：互相投资、循环交易。当时有公司抗议“卡拉别叫循环交易”，我回：“那叫‘集体自嗨’行吗？”薪酬泡沫同理，最终总会有人输，如同早期互联网泡沫。

但当前更严峻——这些公司支撑着整个股市。每次看到天价薪酬我都觉得疯狂。

在您看来，AI领域哪些是真实价值？哪些是营销炒作？
AI是通用技术，将重塑所有领域。但被忽视的是AI+机器人——埃隆带偏了讨论，总盯着人形机器人。真正的变革来自简单机械+AI的实体机器人。

若全面渗透，某些公司将掌控一切。届时行业个体公司（保险、医疗等）中的胜出者会觉得钱花得值，败者血本无归。

现阶段敢下注谁？
不敢。我总在观察：OpenAI是当年的网景还是谷歌？网景曾如日中天却转瞬陨落。若必须选，我猜OpenAI可能是谷歌——他们持续创新。谷歌自身优势明显，微软某些领域不足，亚马逊欠缺，苹果则惯于搭便车。

Meta前景如何？
他们数据雄厚。
但缺乏愿景。
扎克伯格只会砸钱。广告领域或可称霸——毕竟大家都在转向广告。

现在想聊新闻业。
爱德华·斯诺登正在您肩后，轻点碰他。
轻轻地。他经历够多了。您如何评价科技报道中“获取式新闻”（靠接触高管换友好报道）与“问责式新闻”的平衡？

15年前获取式主导，2010年代中期转变。这种报道方式还有价值吗？
没有。《华尔街日报》《华盛顿邮报》时期我常获接触机会，但总觉得不适——实际收获有限。

在All Things D时，即便规模小也能获得接触，因为他们怕我们。如今泄密渠道太多，我在All Things D练就了“通风管战术”——通过内部备忘录和线人获取信息。当我转向这种模式，权力关系就逆转了：不再需要他们。

你们报道DOGE就是经典案例——根本不需要接触埃隆·马斯克。
绝对不需要。
有短信、Signal后，泄密更容易。早期还得见面或通话。

我不反对深度对话——若你们能专访蒂姆·库克我会很感兴趣。
前提是他肯开口——这又是接触式新闻的痛点：高度可控。
我们在Code大会的某些访谈（如扎克伯格婚礼采访）是他的特殊时刻，他不会再冒险了。后来关于否认大屠杀者的访谈中，我逼他说出真相，自那以后他再不理我——我总有办法让他吐实。可能他紧张吧。其他大佬见状都想：“干嘛理卡拉·斯威舍这讨厌鬼？她从不吹捧我们。”

于是他们自建媒体体系。现在不可能再办Code那样的会了。

作为记者，现在的工作有趣多了。
还不用和他们周旋。
确实。
不是说不核实事实——给公司发求证邮件是必须的。但我发现如今他们常不回复。
是的，他们觉得没必要了。
这趋势很糟糕。

《纽约时报》今年报道您的播客成功时，您说“漫长职业生涯尾声时发现创造了受喜爱的东西很惊喜”。“尾声”是指考虑退休吗？
其实我事业一直顺遂。
成功不易。
我有创业精神。播客是让我自豪的产品，终于做到享受工作的状态。但一方面，老人该给青年让位；另一方面，我设了70岁底线——到时或写历史小说，或养蜂种花。

您和Vox又签了四年合约？
《On》四年，《Pivot》可能再续约。

《纽约时报》提到您可能赚取巨额收益。公开谈收入很少见，为何这样做？
正因为少见。不谈收入会削弱议价能力，也掩盖了收入不公的真相。

上份合约我们赚了2500万美元（两人合计）。
怎么分？
当时每个节目保底50万美元，未达目标则无分成。我不喜欢保底——该按实际收益分成。我们放弃保底换得了更高分成。

工会有人抱怨“给卡拉太多钱”，我回：“这钱是我实打实挣的。”
您的产品确实盈利。
没错，Vox也借此盈利拓展业务。人们该坦诚谈钱，尤其女性。失败也无妨——我们在佛罗里达办的会就亏了，首年难免，停办便是。但我多数项目都盈利。

说到赚钱，您考虑70岁退休。会从贝索斯手里买下《华盛顿邮报》吗？
我有全套计划。
仍在推进？
委托投行接洽过，但对方不积极。今天还有文章说邮报盈利无望——被他搞砸了，可能他根本不在乎。

他富可敌国。我的方案能让其收支平衡（绝非暴利），还包括创作者网络等构想。现在都成泡影了。若他当初与我这类人接洽，而非聘那个日日出丑的CEO……埃里森兄弟买CBS是为要工作室，谁真在乎新闻？我这傻瓜却在乎。我觉得能做好，雇佣优秀人才产出真实报道。

不为赚钱，但可做成体面的小生意。
您会担任什么角色？
让吉姆·班考夫（Vox Media CEO）这类商业专才任CEO。我当董事会主席或内容总监，甚至不需要头衔。关键是组建顶尖编辑团队……我的构想更关注全美新闻业。

看看我穿什么？
《明尼苏达星论坛报》T恤。我刚去过，他们的CEO朋友正带领团队创新——幸好有位善良的亿万富翁老板。
最爱善良亿万富翁。
我朋友雷内·桑切斯在路易斯安那的实践也很棒。这些项目需要联合广告、法务、分发和视频框架。

《纽约时报》自成体系，但仍有整合空间。《邮报》还残存些许公信力。
岌岌可危。埃里森兄弟掌管CBS新闻兼控TikTok算法，贝索斯持有邮报……局面复杂。
但贝索斯对邮报无所作为，埃里森买CBS？请问谁还看CBS晚间新闻？他们买的是问题资产。

新闻业的未来何在？
我不指望广播网络做新闻。因此我邀请您等嘉宾上播客——计划每季度做深度访谈，受够“万物崩溃”的论调。

路径很多：可像WIRED重振老牌尝试新方向（您的订阅增长策略已见效）；或独立媒体（有些专注视频/播客）；若我和斯科

英文来源：

Kara Swisher is the epitome of a multi-hyphenate: a podcast host, journalist, author, and CEO agitator.
Swisher has also, in her way, turned IDGAF into her personal brand. Deeply sourced and happy to ask the hard questions, she doesn’t care about being liked. As she said during a recent live event, “I have four kids!”
As the host of On With Kara Swisher, her twice weekly podcast for Vox Media, she grills leaders in tech and politics, coaxing them to share the things they may not reveal on any other gabfest. For Pivot, her Vox show with New York University marketing professor Scott Galloway, she keeps the banter between herself and her cohost—but still, she doesn’t hold back. Swisher’s opinions are her own, and she doesn’t hesitate to share them.
Swisher brought all of her opinions, and more, to this week’s episode of The Big Interview, going deep on AI, Silicon Valley’s relationship with President Donald Trump, and which tech CEO is her least favorite.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
KATIE DRUMMOND: Kara Swisher, welcome to The Big Interview. Thank you for being here.
KARA SWISHER: Thank you. I'm sorry I can't be in-person at your beautiful studio.
Next time.
Who’s that behind you?
Actually nobody listening to this can see it, but it's a giant version of the WIRED cover with Edward Snowden.
Oh yeah. Look at him.
One of our reporters, Andy Greenberg, had this in his house for years, and then finally was like, “My wife needs me to get this out of the house. Can I bring it to the office?” And I said, “sure.” So now it sits behind me when I record this podcast.
I did a good interview with him many years ago.
He's still out there.
Yeah. He is.
We like to start with some quick-fire questions. I'm sure you're used to this kind of thing. You ready to go?
Ready.
OK. Most active text thread you're on.
God. With my kids.
Podcasts or Substacks?
What do you mean? Do I listen?
Pick one.
Oh, podcasts.
I figured.
Obviously.
The tech exec you would least want to get stuck in an elevator with.
Oh my God. All of them. Um, Mark Zuckerberg.
More disruptive: AI or social media?
Social media.
Still or sparkling?
Still.
What’s the biggest lie Silicon Valley keeps telling itself?
That it cares about people.
Who would play you in a biopic?
Well, that's a good question. I was just having a meeting about that.
Oh, tell us more.
I will. But do you want more, or quick [answers]?
Now I want more.
OK. My Burn Book sold to a production studio, Tomorrow Studios—maybe it’ll get made, maybe it won’t. But I’m actually meeting writers, and I think they feel like they can sell it. So we’ll see.
Who do they feel like would play you?
I don't know. I think they had talked about Kristen Stewart, I think.
That's good.
It should be a believable lesbian, right, who's kind of a sassy person. I love Aubrey Plaza. I think she's great. But she's too tall. They're all too tall is the problem. There's no one sort of tiny.
There are no tiny actors?
Yes, there are, but it's gotta be—I'm just trying to think who it would work well with. I mean, probably the woman who plays Wednesday, what's her name?
Jenna Ortega.
Jenna Ortega might work. It's gotta be someone who—well, they don't have to be … height doesn't matter. I guess they can act their way out of that.
Yeah.
I think an unknown. An unknown.
I like it. What's the interview that changed you the most?
Oh, the Gates-Jobs interview. The one that Walt Mossberg and I did together with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That was a really important interview. I think it's gonna last the test of time. I think people will watch it centuries from now. It was really a highlight of my career.
Usually in these conversations I would sort get into someone's background and ask them about their childhood.
No.
I'm not gonna do that. I feel like we have too much to talk about. But I did want to use this as an opportunity to ask you about being a woman, being a gay woman, no less, in an historically male field. The subjects of your reporting very often are men.
You did a podcast a while ago called Design Matters. You said that you wanted to write a series of three books for women and other people who may need these books, and they would be: No Is a Complete Sentence; Yes, I’ll Take That; and Maybe I’ll Call You Back.
Yeah, I think it’s brilliant.
Tell me more about the experience of being a woman, and gay woman, in the field you’re in.
I think gay has not hurt me, actually, in the field, because I think that men are more comfortable with me for some reason. Because I guess we like ladies, I don't know. I don't know what it is. They're largely straight men, and it's largely straight white men, actually.
So I think they're relatively comfortable with the gay part. I've never really gotten any kind of pushback on that issue. Actually, I do think it's a net positive in general.
Yeah?
I think I've told this story, but I was at an event, and a bunch of VCs were looking at the ladies and they're like, “Oh, she's cute. What do you think, Kara?” And I go, “Still a feminist. I don't talk about women objectively like that.”
As a woman, I don’t think that’s hindered me necessarily, either. Even if they do it in hiring, and they create these manospheres in technology, which they've done for a long time, it hasn't kept me out. They haven't favored men—or men who are slavishly attentive to them—until recently. Then they're willing to do interviews. But that has to do with slavishness not with anything else.
I think there's a lot to your style and your approach that has meant that you are often described as unlikable. I think that that is a function of being a woman. I don’t hear a lot of strong-willed men being described as unlikable.
Yes, exactly. I don’t care.
Did that ever waver? I mean, how did you learn not to care? Or do you just genetically not care?
Genetically not care. I just was like that when I was a kid. You know, again, it may have gone along with being a lesbian. I don't know. Just like, I don't need the favor of men.
It was interesting, because I don't think it is unlikable. It's that I'm being honest with them. Whenever I do interviews, I don't do the wind-up. I don't say I am gonna do one thing and then do another. I think that's relatively fair. I actually have gotten more than my fair share of great interviews, right? They haven't not interviewed with me. Why are you so mean? Like I get that from some of them—not all of them, for sure—but some of them who are really sensitive.
One more question on this topic. I've wanted to ask you this. I'm obviously a woman. I work in journalism. I work in tech. I get a lot of advice as a woman in this job in particular, about the way I dress, about the fact that I don't wear makeup. Every time there's a social clip of me that runs on the WIRED account, at least one person will say, “Makeup, please.” I don't wear makeup. I'm not interested in wearing makeup. What advice do you have?
Just ignore it.
But for women in general who are ambitious, who work in male-centric spaces. Ignore it, sure. But what else?
I tend to meet that kind of stuff with jokes that are insulting, that do the same thing. Sometimes when men start down that negging road, I often go, “Did you lose weight? Oh, no, I guess not.” That's one of my favorites.
I was on a TV show, and one of my sons was with me, who was, I guess, maybe 12 or 13 at the time. I’ve taught them well. I went in and the guy who was sitting in the green room with my son was like, “Doesn't your mother smile?” And my son looked at him and said, “Did you just say that?” And that's all he said.
That's incredible. I get “smile” a lot and have started just saying “No, that's just my face.”
I really don't hear it anymore. I just don't. It's so stupid. They're so fucking juvenile. I have enough toddlers in my life that I don't need more.
Well, speaking of toddlers, we have to talk about leadership in the tech industry.
They are toddlers.
They are toddlers. You've covered them, you've interviewed them for decades. When you look back now, who among this set has continued to take their responsibility to all of us, to society, most seriously, and who has failed the most profoundly?
The surprise to me has been Mark Cuban, actually. I broke the story when he sold his company to Yahoo. I was at The Wall Street Journal at the time. And he was somewhat of an arrogant little prick …
I actually just interviewed him, and I reminded him that you said he was an arrogant prick.
He was so arrogant. But I still liked him. He's a pleasant fellow. But he's really developed into this really interesting, complex person. I never necessarily know what he's gonna say, but I always know he is gonna have thought about it. I suspect through having kids and other things, he's really developed and matured. Another person like that is Evan Spiegel from Snapchat.
He was mad at the press and decided I was the press. There was a whole bad set of emails…
OK. I believe it.
He was in college, like, I'm gonna give him an out.
I remember this.
We were having lunch, and he yelled at me. I was like, “I didn't write word one about this. Honestly, I don’t know why you're yelling at me.” He was mad at the press, in general. He has really developed into a really thoughtful person.
[Airbnb CEO] Brian Chesky is another person I like a lot who I really think is honest about his feelings. We don't, like, cuddle and comb each other's hair. But I really think he tries to be a better person, I guess a better man.
Most of them do not try to be a better man, but in general, Zuckerberg is at the top of the list. Elon Musk obviously, but I think he's plagued by other issues.
Sure.
That's not an excuse, that's just an explanation. I think there's a lot going on there that is really, um, I don't want to say tragic, because he kind of brings it on himself. But it's sad. It's really sad.
It's sad.
You know, Tim Cook these days is a little bit—especially since he's retiring—I'm like, Really? This is how you want to go out?
Well, this is what I'm wondering about. I ask anyone I can about this, because I'm genuinely curious for different interpretations. This cozy dynamic between tech leaders and politicians. Here we all are at dinner together. It's on C-SPAN. Here I am in my tuxedo in the UK, in the palace with the president. I mean, here I am with a tchotchke in the Oval Office. That's a Tim Cook example.
The gold statue. Yeah.
I want your assessment of why these executives—they're not only working with the administration behind the scenes, you have to imagine they're doing that—but there is this overt demonstration of fealty that we are seeing.
It’s interesting you bring up Mark Cuban. I asked him this question, and he said, “If they need to get knee pads that are embroidered with a D on one knee and a T on the other knee, and show up at the White House every day, they don't have much of a choice.” He seemed to think that was just the way business works. That it’s a business imperative.
In any administration, there's versions of that, right? So you have to curry favor. It's usually just dinner and a donation. That kind of thing. Now this guy requires a different kind of fealty, which is a very explicit, performative fealty.
So if this is the cost of doing business, this is the cost of doing business. I feel they don't have to. I don't think it's the cost of doing business. But they seem to think it is. And there certainly are a lot of juicy bits to slice up.
You're rich, so you don't have to do this. But I think they feel a duty to their shareholders. That's their number one. They don't have a duty to society. They don't feel like they have a duty to anything else.
On the other side, there's people who like it. People who like to exercise power. Zuckerberg would be one of those. He really does think this, because he's a particularly victimized person. He always feels like he's a victim. So I think he kind of wants to do it. He's so tired of ladies telling him what to do. He is gonna put on his MMA mitts and go for it.
Any performative maleness should be a sign for you to run for the hills. And some of them have switched, like Sergey Brin has gotten quite Trumpy. I know this from his family, most of whom are horrified. He’s got a girlfriend who's real Trumpy. So there he goes down Trump Avenue, and I kind of think it makes sense.
I ran into one of them, and I'm not gonna say which one, and they're like, “Looks like we won, Kara. We beat you, Kara.” They're in DC where I live, which, I'm like, “Why did you come to my home? I moved all the way across the country to get away from you.”
It was at some event. “Looks like we won, Kara.” And I go, “Hmm, you did. But you're still an asshole.”
Very nice.
They just went “pfffsssttt.” Because they’re still an asshole. Whatever. Good luck.
It’s obviously different for any given executive, right? They're obviously different people. When you think about the short-term gain, long-term pain, how do you see this playing out in three years? Assuming we have a different administration in a way that hurts these companies.
It's shortsighted. I think it's really shortsighted, because at some point someone else will be in charge. I do make the joke over and over: If Kamala Harris won, Mark Zuckerberg would be a they/them. Right? He'd be like, “I love kombucha and Charli XCX, my favorite. Taylor Swift is the best.”
I think a lot of them are in fear. Very much so. Fear of hurting their business. You know, they can see what he's doing. He seems very willing to take it to the mat.
I was with some Apple people who are just horrified by Tim's behavior. I go, “Well, I guess, shareholder value.” And they said, “It isn't good for shareholder value. It's not, because it's not what our company is.” So in the short term, they get a tariff break. But as a rule, it's not about businesses, it’s about oligarchy and therefore you don't compete based on the right things. You also don't let little companies rise. If you control everything, you're gonna atrophy.
What has felt interesting to me is that there's obviously the silence at the executive level, which we didn't see in 2016 to this extent, but there’s also the silence of the workforce inside these companies.
They’re worried.
I mean, you hear it anecdotally, but we're not seeing mass uprisings inside Google, inside Apple. We're not seeing this really spill over.
No. They fire them. They just fired an Amazon person who protested for Palestine. Like when did those free-speech warriors let that happen? That's the whole thing. That was such a performative amount of bullshit that it was like it just suited them to do that.
They don't want people to say what they think, or else I'd be doing regular interviews with Mark Zuckerberg. He wants people to tell him how great he is at MMA.
Well, Mark, you're a big important man. When you look at Silicon Valley, when you look at the industry, when you look at leadership, do you have any hope that we will see a new kind of leader emerge in this industry?
Sure.
Is it a generational shift? What does that require, and are there people out there who are representative of that to you right now?
Well, my own son. My son is a tech person, and he's studying tech at Michigan, and it's not 'cause I trained him or anything. He's also a frat bro, so I didn't stop that.
That’s too bad, I’m sorry to hear that.
He likes it. They're nice kids. All his friends and the people around him talk about much deeper things like energy, about fixing things, about climate.
I just taught a course at Michigan, largely so I could irritate my son for seven weeks. I was so moved by the students. They're not dumb and idealistic, although I don't mind that in a college student, by the way.
They really do have a sense of community. Like my son, he's a mechanical engineer. He wants to make things, and a lot of it has to do with community helping people. At the same time, he's a capitalist, right? But he doesn't see it as a power thing. Maybe someday he will, and then I'll slap him back to last Sunday. But I do think that he has the real idealism of like, I wanna make something that matters, that'll help a lot of people.
Right.
I've been doing this documentary for CNN about longevity and health and all those people I find to be really moving. But it's not like dumb optimism. Like a lot of the early internet people, like Zuckerberg was always like, What I really wanna build is something to bring the world together. And he never did. Like, it was all bullshit. The first story I ever wrote for The Wall Street Journal was about the lies Silicon Valley tells itself. It was all like, We're here for the community. There's no CEO here. They had like 10 of them that when I immediately got there from the East Coast, I was like, that's a bullshit. That's a bullshit. These younger people aren't like that. They're not telling themselves lies.
So we have hope.
I do. I was glad to do that teaching thing at Michigan, because the problem is these guys, right? It's not the younger people. I do think we've left them with a bag of shit.
Both my older sons aren't on social media anymore. I don't think they're unusual. Like my one older son got off a bunch of them, and I said—well, I didn't tell him to do it—so I was like, “Why did you do that?” And he goes, “It makes me feel bad.” A very simple sentence. He's not a tech person. He understands, and all his friends are like that too.
Well, he's right. It makes me feel bad too.
Yeah. Well, why do you stay on Twitter, then?
I don't.
OK, good.
I deleted my account. I don't like it. I don't want to be there. I don't need to be there. No one can force me.
Yeah. No one can.
I am curious about you and social media. In particular, I would say that when I see criticism of Kara Swisher, it's usually on social media, and it's something to the effect of, “Kara Swisher was bullish on the industry for too long. She built these guys up. Now here she is tearing them down …”
Hmm.
“… but she won't answer for her role in X, Y, Z.” Do you pay attention to that?
I don't, because, you know, I was a beat reporter. I was writing about their businesses. I think where it comes from is Elon, and I did have great hopes for Elon. I think that's where most of it comes from.
I was never nice to Zuckerberg. I dare you to go find a nice article I wrote.
The iconic sweaty interview.
I mean, I'm sorry. I was very questioning of all their privacy issues. I was questioning all their sneaky bullshit they did around people's counts.
I really did like Steve Jobs. I did, and I thought those interviews were pretty interesting. I don't think they were slavish, and I thought they were actually fascinating. We challenged him constantly.
But, you know, that's fine. I think it's all around Elon. I would cop to that. I really was so tired of all these very selfish people like Zuckerberg. I had great hopes when someone was working on cars and climate and really cool stuff. There were a bunch of smart people working on stupid things. And here was someone who wasn't, really wasn't.
With a huge vision.
So I guess when Steve died, I and others were looking for that, looking for a bigger idea. So yeah, I would cop to that. The idea that I made any of these people is just utter bullshit. They were made because they're billionaires. They were made because they created significant companies. So I don't think I helped him by any means. If you actually go back and listen to the interviews, they're not as kind as you think they are. I think they're pretty fair.
When I do the heel turn and I'm like, wait a minute, this is a real problem. I'm quite liberal, but that's my issue with a lot of liberals: When people change, the purity tests are exhausting. For a lot of friends of mine who are conservative, who do not like Trump. Well, you can't come in our thing 'cause you were with them. Imperfect allies is life, right? That part I’m like, Oh, for fuck’s sake. You and your purity test can go fuck yourself.
I have to ask you about AI.
All right. OK.
One of the things we've been covering at WIRED a lot recently are the talent wars, which I am obsessed with just because they are so outrageous and outlandish.
I love reading your stuff.
Well, thank you. I mean, much credit to the reporters who go get these scoops.
Can I please make a point? You are so smart in creating narratives, and this is a great one. This, the DOGE one. You did great. You understood. It's something we did at All Things D, we had narratives, whether it was Yahoo or it was Uber. That was a big narrative for us. But this one is really breathtaking.
It is wild. Who would you rather work for: Sam Altman or Mark Zuckerberg, if they were both offering you a hundred million dollars?
Altman.
How do you differentiate between the two?
I mean, it's a low bar, isn't it? I think in the times I've spent with Sam, there are touches of normalness. Like he understands his problem better. Mark has no idea about his problems. He doesn't look backwards for one second.
I thought when Sam did this whole opt-out thing, I thought that was breathtakingly typical of these people. I was surprised by it. I guess I wasn't surprised, 'cause they always do this. This AI thing, it's really interesting because I think, didn't AMD just announce another Oracle deal today?
I mean the deals are—it's on a daily basis.
[Pivot podcast cohost] Scott Galloway and I had said it reminds us of PurchasePro back with AOL. You don't remember this, but AOL did a bunch of deals like this where you give people money and then they'd buy ads on your service. And then you'd invest in them and get warrants and you'd get, then they would invest …
Like circular deals?
It was called round-tripping at the time. And one of these companies came up to me and said, “Well, you shouldn't call it round-tripping Kara, they're real.” I'm like, Well, nothing's being made here. Like, you're just moving $5 back and forth. And I said, “Would you prefer ‘circle jerk’? I'll use that word if you like, 'cause that's what it feels like.”
And salaries are part of that, right? You know, at some point someone's going to be very wealthy from this, and so maybe the bet isn't a bad one. It's just that if everyone's making this bet, especially around talent and investments, someone's going to lose just like they did in the early internet era.
Except the profound effect of it is massive, because these are the companies that are holding up the entire stock market. So it has bigger implications. With the salary stuff it’s like every time I read a story of yours I'm like, That's insane.
It's ridiculous money. My question to you is: From where you sit, what is the there there with AI, what's real in this moment and what is marketing? What is hype? What is fearmongering?
What's really important about AI is it’s a general-purpose technology, right? It crosses everything. It's not like you're going from farming to mechanized farming, that's a single device. So you could see it changing so many different fields. It's going to effect information people. But in combination, which I think is left out of a lot of this, is robotics plus AI. I think robotics gets no attention.
You mean physical robotics?
Yes. That’s because Elon's running the discussion, because it's all about humanoid-looking robots. But I'm talking about real robots. They're not gonna look, by the way, like a humanoid robot. A lot of gears, like very, very simple robots that are gonna do everything. Then they're powered by AI.
So if everything's getting affected, some companies are gonna control quite a lot of everything, right? Then it will take individual companies in those sectors, like insurance or whatever the sector happens to be, medicine—and then they will be the winner of that game. So if you were one of the winners, you'd think the money was well-spent. And if you aren't, then it's just gone. Right?
Anyone you're willing to bet on at this stage?
No. I mean, I'm always sort of sitting there going, Is OpenAI Netscape or Google? Everyone thought Netscape hung the fucking moon, and then it just didn't. Remember that?
Barely, but I do.
Yes. If I had a bet, I suspect OpenAI. I feel like they're Google. I think they are doing just enough and innovating just enough. I suspect Google itself has a lot of advantages. In some areas, Microsoft, not so much Amazon. Apple will sort of ride on everybody's rails.
Where does Meta end up in all of this?
They have a lot of information. They sure do.
There's no vision though.
No. I think [Zuckerberg] is just throwing money at it. Where he could go is advertising. They're all moving into advertising, aren't they? That's an area he certainly can dominate.
Well, now I'm interested in talking about journalism with you.
Edward [Snowden] is now on your shoulder, just so you know. He's right there. Touch him gently.
Very gently. He's been through a lot. I'm interested in your assessment of tech journalism and the balance between quote-unquote “access” journalism. Right? Which is essentially where a company, let's say, invites you in. You meet with all their executives, you write something that is tacitly agreed will be a friendly piece versus accountability journalism.
I remember 15, 20 years ago, access was really much more the name of the game. Then in the mid-2010s, it really shifted.
Yeah.
I'm curious if you think we still need the access part. Is there value in that kind of reporting?
No, no. As someone who had a lot of access, being at The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, I always felt it was kind of icky, you know what I mean? It wasn't good, and you didn't really get that much out of it. It wasn't really a plus.
It was interesting, because we got a lot of access even though we weren't big, 'cause they thought we could hurt them. I think that was really what it was.
I don't think access gives you much of anything, because people are leaky as can be these days. I think I kind of perfected that at All Things D, with Yahoo. The joke that I was in the heating ducts and stuff like that. Like getting stuff not from them—getting memos, getting insiders to say what was happening. When I started really doing that more heavily, as opposed to when I was at The Wall Street Journal, everything changed. The power dynamic was very different 'cause you didn't need those people.
All you needed to do was be a really good reporter and call and call and call. Like what you guys did with DOGE was sort of classic. I don't think you were hanging around with Elon Musk at all.
Absolutely not.
But you didn't need to, because there were enough sources. As communications have changed, people can text or Signal, and that didn't exist in my earliest days. They had to call you or you had to physically see them.
I don't mind having interesting conversations. Like if you guys did a great Big Interview with Tim Cook, I'd be interested in it.
Well, if he would say anything, which again, is the issue with access—it's very controlled. It’s very carefully managed.
I think some of those interviews we did at the Code Conference and All Things D, like Mark's wedding interview was a moment for him. He's not doing this again. Because he really, really messed up. But the more problematic interview was the later one he agreed to do with me about the Holocaust deniers, where I got him to say stuff.
After that, I knew I was never gonna get another interview, because something in me is able to get him to say a thing that's the truth, right? For some reason, in our rapport, he seems nervous or whatever it happens to be. So I think all of them looked around and said, “Why should we talk to fucking Kara Swisher, an unlikable bitch? She's always going to bust our chops and not saying how smart we are.”
So then they just did their own media. They do their conferences. I couldn't do a conference like Code today. No way. They go do their own thing.
Right.
I bet you get them a lot better because you get them the other way, you know?
For sure. I mean, as a journalist, it's much more interesting work to be doing.
And then you don't have to talk to them.
Well, yes.
I mean, not to not check facts, that's different. You have to call the company, you have to get the response. But I've noticed lately, I was reading one of your stories, and they didn't get back to you.
No. They don't. They don't necessarily feel the need to be in touch.
I've noticed that more than anything else, like you call them for a fact and they don't even get back to you now. That's really strange to me. That seems like a really bad development.
Let me ask you this: The New York Times did a story on your podcasting success earlier this year. They had a quote from you that caught my attention. You said, “At the end of this long career, it's like, ‘Oh wow. I made something people really like.’” What caught my attention was the “end of a long career” bit, because it made me think, do you see yourself stopping at any point? Is retirement an appealing option for you? Or maybe you wouldn't characterize it as retirement?
You know what happens, I just keep doing really well.
It's hard to do well.
I think I'm entrepreneurial, right? So far, everything's worked really well, and every time I make more money, it's sort of weird. Like the podcasting thing worked out rather well for me. It's actually a product I really am proud of. Over your career you're like, Oh, I didn't like this part. I've kind of got it to where I like it, right?
I kind of like where I am. At the same time, one, I think older people should get outta the fucking way for young people. Two, I have a number. I think it's 70. I will quit. I will just do whatever I want. I was thinking I'll write historical novels or, you know, sit in my garden. I'll end up doing well 'cause I'm actually quite entrepreneurial. Like, I'll make honey or something.
You'll sell flowers.
Scott and I signed another four-year deal with Vox. And I think On is another four-year deal. I suspect maybe one more after that.
That was the other thing that was interesting about The New York Times story: the enormous amount of money you stand to make. Because of the deal you made with Vox Media, you're very well-positioned to make a lot of money.
I'm less interested in the money itself, although I love that for you, but I'm actually interested in the decision to talk about how much money you make, which I don't think people do enough. I'm just curious about why you did that.
Well, you just answered it: Because people don't.
I think we lose power when we don't say how much money we make. We also lose power when we don't say what people aren't making, 'cause a lot of it is bullshit, right?
So we already made a lot of money from our last deal. People don't realize that.
How much money did you make?
In that one, um, $25 million, both of us together.
Then you split it?
So in that case, I had a guarantee of $500,000 for each show. And then if the guarantee wasn't met, you didn't get any more.
I don't love guarantees, by the way. I think you shouldn't have guarantees. If you make it, you make it. If you don't, you don't. I get why people do them, but we got a better split by not having the guarantee. So the last one we were getting a guarantee of, this is just for Pivot, each of us $500,000.
But the thing is, we made that money, we made that. Vox made it and more. You know, it was so interesting, because a lot of the union people were like, Oh, giving Kara the money. I'm like, I earned every fucking cent of that.
Well, you have a lucrative product.
That's right. It also makes money to help Vox as a business. They made profits on it. They were able to do different and more things. So I just think people should talk about what they make, especially women. If you fuck up, you say, “Oh, that didn't make money.” Like, we did a conference down in Florida. Didn't make money. Didn't make money because it was hard. It's hard in the first year. Then we just didn't do it anymore. But most of the things I've done, all of the things I've done, have made money.
Well, speaking of making money, you're talking about retiring at 70. What I'm wondering is when, if ever, will you buy The Washington Post from Jeff Bezos?
Well, I have a whole plan.
I know you do. Are you still working on this plan?
I have inquired, I have gone back. I have an investment banker who's been talking to his people. They are not engaging, and I don't know. Like just today there was a story about how there's no money to be made there. Like he has run this thing into the fucking wall. I guess he just doesn't care.
He's so rich, he doesn't care. He is richer than ever. I have an idea that will make it break even, like not a really great business, at all, by any means. But I think it's more than that. I have an idea about creator networks and stuff like that, but now it's kind of water under the fucking bridge. If he had actually engaged with me at the time, or people like me. Instead he brings in this terrible CEO, who just soils himself on a daily basis and doesn't want to do anything with it. So it's sort of like, Why are the Ellisons on CBS? Why do the Ellisons want this? They aren't interested in news. They want the studios. This is a cheaper way to get the studios. None of these people care about the news. I happen to care, like an idiot. I think I could do OK and employ people and create really good truthful reporting.
It wouldn't be for the money. I think I can make it a business, a little business, like a pretty good business.
What role do you see yourself playing in that? Are you the CEO of this, of The Washington Post?
I would make [Vox Media CEO] Jim Bankoff the CEO, for example. Someone like that. Someone who has business acumen. I'd probably just be chairman of the board, or maybe editorial director. I don't even need a title. I would get a kick-ass bunch of editors … I have a bunch of people I think would be great at it, but my theory depends more on journalism across the country.
Look what I’m wearing.
The Minnesota Star Tribune.
I was just there. A friend of mine is the CEO now. I was speaking in front of his staff. They're trying to redo themselves. They happen to have a nice billionaire who owns them.
Love a nice billionaire.
Very innovative stuff they're trying there. My friend Rene Sanchez is doing this thing in Louisiana that's amazing. There's all this stuff that needs a joint advertising, legal, distribution, video framework.
The New York Times, they do all their things really well by themselves, but there's room for someone who brings everything together that has journalistic trust. I think The Post still barely has that.
I mean, by a thread. My question for you is, the Ellisons own CBS News now. They have oversight of TikTok and its algorithm. You’ve got Bezos at The Post. It’s a lot.
Except what are they buying? First, Bezos is doing nothing with The Post, so what's the point? Then the Ellisons, like they buy something, like everyone was like, Oh, CBS. I'm like, Show of hands of people who last watched the CBS Evening News. It's like nobody, right?
So what they're buying is curiously problematic.
The question, I guess, is where does journalism go from here?
I wouldn't rely on broadcast networks as journalism. There's a reason I had you on [my podcast] and others. I'm gonna do one of those every quarter, because I'm so sick of seeing “things don't work.” There's many roads to get to places.
So you could do what you're doing, which is taking a storied brand and actually reinvigorating it and trying all manner of different things. What doesn't work, what works? I totally see your strategy—what you've done there and it's worked, right? Subscriptions are up, maybe you'll move into something else. You're trying to be dynamic.
Then there's all the independent outlets, of which there are many, and then there's some that are coalescing. There are some that are video-only. There are some that are podcast-only.
Had Scott and I been younger, and we talked about this, we would’ve formed another podcast company and started to make more podcasts and create a network. I think we would’ve done rather well. We looked at each other, like, We're too old. We would've done that, but we're too fucking old. We really literally said that to each other. We'd make more money at that if we saw it through, we thought. But we would be exhausted.
And it sounds like you're making enough.
That's right.
You're good.
We're good and we're influential. But someone should do that. Not us, but someone should do that. We could do it, but we were too tired and old.
Oh, too tired and old. Speaking of which, we're gonna wrap up.
Sure.
But before we do I'm gonna force you to play a little game. It's called Control, Alt, Delete. This is like Fuck, Mary, Kill but for nerds. So what piece of tech would you love to control? What would you alt, so alter or change? And what would you delete? What would you vanquish from the earth?
I don't think I could, but social media I would delete, I would kill. Alter would be AI.
How would you alter it?
Just add safety guidelines and have more government regulations.
OK. So it's the practical stuff.
But I believe in it. I'm not like one of those doomers, like it's gonna kill us.
What would you control.
Control, I think government, so you could reform it so that it was more democratic. I think our form of government, as problematic as it is, has always been the best one. So I would get money outta politics. I would make the Supreme Court bigger. If I could do whatever I wanted, I'd pull a George fucking Washington is what I do.
I like this.
Not him. I'm not George Washington, but you know what I mean? Guess who invented the internet? The fucking government. I think our government is so critical to so many things that it deserves to have a renaissance.
Unfortunately, it's been captured by oligarchs and a very coin-operated president. He's the least of my worries.
What's the most of your worries?
Oh, the tech guys. The tech guys, I would say everybody should be. Or just wealthy people in general controlling all of our fates.
They do not have our interests at heart, and I worry that they have too much. I think we're gonna get to a point where they're so rich it just will not end well.
I mean, it never ended well in the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age people only had the railroads, which were critical, but not everything. Like they have everything.
They have everything.
That worries me, especially when they have proven themselves to be selfish pricks most of the time.
Parting words.
Except Mark Cuban!
Except Mark Cuban.
How to Listen
You can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how:
If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts and search for “uncanny valley.” We’re on Spotify too.