Podcasts about Cambridge Analytica

A fascinating exploration of how algorithms penetrate the most intimate aspects of our psychology—from the pioneering expert on psychological targeting. There are more pieces of digital data than there are stars in the universe. This data helps us monitor our planet, decipher our genetic code, and take a deep dive into our psychology. As algorithms become increasingly adept at accessing the human mind, they also become more and more powerful at controlling it, enticing us to buy a certain product or vote for a certain political candidate. Some of us say this technological trend is no big deal. Others consider it one of the greatest threats to humanity. But what if the truth is more nuanced and mind-bending than that? In Mindmasters: The Data-Driven Science of Predicting and Changing Human Behavior (Harvard Business Press, 2025), Columbia Business School professor Sandra Matz reveals in fascinating detail how big data offers insights into the most intimate aspects of our psyches and how these insights empower an external influence over the choices we make. This can be creepy, manipulative, and downright harmful, with scandals like that of British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica being merely the tip of the iceberg. Yet big data also holds enormous potential to help us live healthier, happier lives—for example, by improving our mental health, encouraging better financial decisions, or enabling us to break out of our echo chambers. With passion and clear-eyed precision, Matz shows us how to manage psychological targeting and redesign the data game. Mindmasters is a riveting look at what our digital footprints reveal about us, how they're being used—for good and for ill—and how we can gain power over the data that defines us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

A fascinating exploration of how algorithms penetrate the most intimate aspects of our psychology—from the pioneering expert on psychological targeting. There are more pieces of digital data than there are stars in the universe. This data helps us monitor our planet, decipher our genetic code, and take a deep dive into our psychology. As algorithms become increasingly adept at accessing the human mind, they also become more and more powerful at controlling it, enticing us to buy a certain product or vote for a certain political candidate. Some of us say this technological trend is no big deal. Others consider it one of the greatest threats to humanity. But what if the truth is more nuanced and mind-bending than that? In Mindmasters: The Data-Driven Science of Predicting and Changing Human Behavior (Harvard Business Press, 2025), Columbia Business School professor Sandra Matz reveals in fascinating detail how big data offers insights into the most intimate aspects of our psyches and how these insights empower an external influence over the choices we make. This can be creepy, manipulative, and downright harmful, with scandals like that of British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica being merely the tip of the iceberg. Yet big data also holds enormous potential to help us live healthier, happier lives—for example, by improving our mental health, encouraging better financial decisions, or enabling us to break out of our echo chambers. With passion and clear-eyed precision, Matz shows us how to manage psychological targeting and redesign the data game. Mindmasters is a riveting look at what our digital footprints reveal about us, how they're being used—for good and for ill—and how we can gain power over the data that defines us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

A fascinating exploration of how algorithms penetrate the most intimate aspects of our psychology—from the pioneering expert on psychological targeting. There are more pieces of digital data than there are stars in the universe. This data helps us monitor our planet, decipher our genetic code, and take a deep dive into our psychology. As algorithms become increasingly adept at accessing the human mind, they also become more and more powerful at controlling it, enticing us to buy a certain product or vote for a certain political candidate. Some of us say this technological trend is no big deal. Others consider it one of the greatest threats to humanity. But what if the truth is more nuanced and mind-bending than that? In Mindmasters: The Data-Driven Science of Predicting and Changing Human Behavior (Harvard Business Press, 2025), Columbia Business School professor Sandra Matz reveals in fascinating detail how big data offers insights into the most intimate aspects of our psyches and how these insights empower an external influence over the choices we make. This can be creepy, manipulative, and downright harmful, with scandals like that of British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica being merely the tip of the iceberg. Yet big data also holds enormous potential to help us live healthier, happier lives—for example, by improving our mental health, encouraging better financial decisions, or enabling us to break out of our echo chambers. With passion and clear-eyed precision, Matz shows us how to manage psychological targeting and redesign the data game. Mindmasters is a riveting look at what our digital footprints reveal about us, how they're being used—for good and for ill—and how we can gain power over the data that defines us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A fascinating exploration of how algorithms penetrate the most intimate aspects of our psychology—from the pioneering expert on psychological targeting. There are more pieces of digital data than there are stars in the universe. This data helps us monitor our planet, decipher our genetic code, and take a deep dive into our psychology. As algorithms become increasingly adept at accessing the human mind, they also become more and more powerful at controlling it, enticing us to buy a certain product or vote for a certain political candidate. Some of us say this technological trend is no big deal. Others consider it one of the greatest threats to humanity. But what if the truth is more nuanced and mind-bending than that? In Mindmasters: The Data-Driven Science of Predicting and Changing Human Behavior (Harvard Business Press, 2025), Columbia Business School professor Sandra Matz reveals in fascinating detail how big data offers insights into the most intimate aspects of our psyches and how these insights empower an external influence over the choices we make. This can be creepy, manipulative, and downright harmful, with scandals like that of British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica being merely the tip of the iceberg. Yet big data also holds enormous potential to help us live healthier, happier lives—for example, by improving our mental health, encouraging better financial decisions, or enabling us to break out of our echo chambers. With passion and clear-eyed precision, Matz shows us how to manage psychological targeting and redesign the data game. Mindmasters is a riveting look at what our digital footprints reveal about us, how they're being used—for good and for ill—and how we can gain power over the data that defines us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Mark Turnbull has spent thirty five years as a geopolitical communications strategist, working behind the scenes to shape some of the most consequential political moments of modern times. It's a career that's taken him from the American invasion of Iraq to the final days of apartheid South Africa — from the inner sanctum of a leading KGB defector to the cockpit of Cambridge Analytica.In this episode, he reflects generously on his terminal cancer diagnosis and how as a self-proclaimed "incurable optimist" he remains fiercely upbeat about his life and how he continues to lead it, with purpose, resilience and courage. Here is Mark's Crisis Compass.Host: Andy Coulson CWC team: Jane Sankey, Hana Walker-Brown, Bill GriffinWith special thanks to Ioana Barbu and the brilliant people at Global For all PR and guest approaches please contact – podcast@coulsonpartners.com

Mark Turnbull has spent thirty-five years as a geopolitical communications strategist, working behind the scenes to shape some of the most consequential political moments of modern times. It's a career that's taken him from the American invasion of Iraq to the final days of apartheid South Africa — from the inner sanctum of a leading KGB defector to the cockpit of Cambridge Analytica.In this episode, Mark talks about the physical dangers and reputational risks of his trade — and the pressure it put on his family. From being ambushed by insurgents in Baghdad and battling Somali warlords, to taking on Putin's propaganda machine and the sting operation that would bring down Trump campaign agency Cambridge Analytica. Along the way, it cast him as a poster boy for data theft and dirty tricks.He reveals the chilling moment when Alexander Litvinenko warned him about the KGB's preferred method of assassination and lifts the lid on the Cambridge Analytica sting operation that made global headlines—explaining how it unfolded, what the media got wrong, and the cost to his professional and personal life. Finally, he reflects generously on his terminal cancer diagnosis and how as a self-proclaimed "incurable optimist" he remains fiercely upbeat about his life and how he continues to lead it, with purpose, resilience and courage.Host: Andy Coulson CWC team: Jane Sankey, Hana Walker-Brown, Bill GriffinWith special thanks to Ioana Barbu and the brilliant people at Global For all PR and guest approaches please contact – podcast@coulsonpartners.com

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, River City Hash Mondays is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, Canada is taking the lead to show the world how to destroy Donald Trump.Then, on the rest of the menu, the man tapped by RFK Jr to run the clinical trial to tie vaccines to autism was previously convicted with practicing medicine without a license, had given autistic children a dangerous drug not approved for use in the US and improperly prescribed puberty blockers; previously charged with misrepresenting its involvement in the Cambridge Analytica scandal and lying about its role in the deportation system set up by Trump, Peter Thiel's Palantir is helping DOGE with a massive IRS data project; and, the community is fighting back after a Florida teacher was fired for calling a trans student by their name.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where the Irish privacy watchdog is investigating Musk's use of personal data to train the Grok AI chatbot; and, Australian academics refuse to attend US conferences for fear of being detained, or worse.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365! "I was never a spy. I was with the OSS organization. We had a number of women, but we were all office help." -- Julia ChildBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

In this special episode of the Spatial Web AI Podcast,Denise Holt reconnects with Katryna Dow, CEO and Founder of Meeco, exactly 10years after their first conversation on Denise's earlier podcast, CollaborativeIQ. That original episode, "Let's Talk: Retaining Ownership of YourPersonal Data | Interview: Katryna Dow of Meeco," aired on March 31, 2015,and addressed early concerns about data privacy and individual data ownership.#dataprivacy #SpatialWebA decade later, Katryna, one of the earliest pioneerstackling data privacy and personal digital identity, reflects on how herinitial warnings about data misuse have unfolded and intensified. Having foreshadowedevents like the Cambridge Analytica scandal years ahead of time, she now highlightstechnological advances and shifts toward decentralized systems, the criticalrole of cryptography, decentralized identity, zero-trust architectures, and howthese elements are reshaping our digital lives. Katryna also shares recentmilestones at Meeco, including impactful collaborations across Europe,Australia, and Japan, and explores the emerging implications of AI, digitaltwinning, and the Spatial Web Protocol for privacy, trust, and secure digitalinteractions.Join this timely discussion to gain valuable insights intohow far we've come, the evolving challenges of data privacy, and the essentialsteps toward building a secure, transparent, and user-controlled digitalfuture.As a bonus to those who are curious about what we werediscussing ten years ago, the audio of the original interview is attached tothe end of our current conversation.Topics Covered:Evolution of Data Privacy (2015-2025)Transitioning from Centralized toDecentralized ArchitecturesAI, Digital Identity, and PredictiveAnalyticsRegulatory Impacts: GDPR, EU DigitalIdentity, and Global DevelopmentsThe Role of Emerging Technologies andthe Spatial Web ProtocolTrust, Transparency, and DigitalEthics in the Next DecadeGuest: Katryna Dow, CEO and Founder of MeecoHost: Denise Holt, CEO and Founder, AIX Global MediaHuge thank you to Katrynafor being on our show! Katryna Dow onLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/katrynadow/Tolearn more about data privacy infrastructure, visit Meeco at https://www.meeco.me/ To find out moreabout Learning Lab Central and education and courses offered on ActiveInference AI and Spatial Web Technologies, visit:https://emmersionpublishing.com/To find others aroundthe world who are just as excited for this new shift in AI and computing, visitLearning Lab Central community platform:https://learninglab.emmersionpublishing.com#dataprivacy #SpatialWeb #Decentralization

We're back at The Tabernacle in March with another fantastic line-up of speakers! Join us for an inspiring evening of storytelling. Carole Cadwalladr is a renowned Pulitzer-nominated journalist for the Guardian, feature writer for the Observer, and Cambridge Analytica investigator. She formerly worked at The Daily Telegraph, and was nominated for numerous Press Awards. In 2018, she broke the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook story for the Guardian and The New York Times as part of a long-running investigation into technology, fake news, and political manipulation. In early 2022, she stood trial for defamation as a result of her work on Russian interference in the Brexit vote, and was vindicated. Learn more about 5x15 events: 5x15stories.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/5x15stories Facebook: www.facebook.com/5x15stories Instagram: www.instagram.com/5x15stories

Part 1:We talk with Corey Johnson, who writes for ProPublica.We discuss Cambridge Analytica, who accessed intimate data about gun owners from various sources to provide to create profiles to use as information to tailor messages to potential voters during the 2016 election cycle. In addition, the kind of analysis that was done, after Cambridge Analytica went out of business continues to be used to target voters in various districts and states. The targeting can thus be very focused. It is important to note that DOGE is reviewing ALL data about all Americans through the various agencies that it is 'reviewing'.Part 2:We talk with Justin Peters, who writes for Slate.com.We discuss with Mr. Peters the myth of the "good billionaire" in the context of Jeff Bezos' actions with respect to the Washington Post. What does Bezos want to accomplish, and why? Consider if we are back to the "gilded age".  Music: From David Rovics, “The Richest Man in the World Says So”, 2025

Scopri come un'impresa di analisi dati ha cambiato il corso della storia politica moderna, influenzando eventi di portata globale come le elezioni presidenziali americane del 2016 e il referendum sulla Brexit. Nel nostro ultimo video, esploriamo le oscure intersezioni tra tecnologia, politica e dati personali, svelando il ruolo di Cambridge Analytica nel modellare opinioni e comportamenti su scala impensabile. Dagli inizi controversi fino allo scandalo che ha scosso le fondamenta di giganti come Facebook, immergiti nella storia di come dati apparentemente innocui possono essere trasformati in potenti strumenti di manipolazione. Preparati a guardare oltre la superficie di ciò che credi di sapere sulla privacy e il potere dei dati.Scritto e diretto da: Giandomenico SitàMusica: Suspense Piano You Tube Channel - No CopyRight Stuff Video Link - https://bit.ly/31BAnx0​ Immagini video: Invideo Ai

Have our private lives become inevitably political in today's age of social media? Ray Brescia certainly thinks so. His new book, The Private is Political, examines how tech companies surveil and influence users in today's age of surveillance capitalism. Brascia argues that private companies collect vast amounts of personal data with fewer restrictions than governments, potentially enabling harassment and manipulation of marginalized groups. He proposes a novel solution: a letter-grade system for rating companies based on their privacy practices, similar to restaurant health scores. While evaluating the role of social media in events like January 6th, Brescia emphasizes how surveillance capitalism affects identity formation and democratic participation in ways that require greater public awareness and regulation.Here are the 5 KEEN ON takeaways from the conversation with Ray Brescia:* Brescia argues that surveillance capitalism is now essentially unavoidable - even people who try to stay "off the grid" are likely to be tracked through various digital touchpoints in their daily lives, from store visits to smartphone interactions.* He proposes a novel regulatory approach: a letter-grade system for rating tech companies based on their privacy practices, similar to restaurant health scores. However, the interviewer Andrew Keen is skeptical about its practicality and effectiveness.* Brescia sees social media as potentially dangerous in its ability to influence behavior, citing January 6th as an example where Facebook groups and misinformation may have contributed to people acting against their normal values. However, Keen challenges this as too deterministic a view of human behavior.* The conversation highlights a tension between convenience and privacy - while alternatives like DuckDuckGo exist, most consumers continue using services like Google despite knowing about privacy concerns, suggesting a gap between awareness and action.* Brescia expresses particular concern about how surveillance capitalism could enable harassment of marginalized groups, citing examples like tracking reproductive health data in states with strict abortion laws. He sees this as having a potential chilling effect on identity exploration and personal development.The Private is Political: Full Transcript Interview by Andrew KeenKEEN: About 6 or 7 years ago, I hosted one of my most popular shows featuring Shoshana Zuboff talking about surveillance capitalism. She wrote "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power"—a book I actually blurbed. Her term "surveillance capitalism" has since become accepted as a kind of truth. Our guest today, Ray Brescia, a distinguished professor of law at the University of New York at Albany, has a new book, "The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism." Ray, you take the age of surveillance capitalism for granted. Is that fair? Is surveillance capitalism just a given in February 2025?RAY BRESCIA: I think that's right. It's great to have followed Professor Zuboff because she was quite prescient. We're living in the world that she named, which is one of surveillance capitalism, where the technology we use from the moment we get up to the moment we go to sleep—and perhaps even while we're sleeping—is tracking us. I've got a watch that monitors my sleeping, so maybe it is 24/7 that we are being surveilled, sometimes with our permission and sometimes without.KEEN: Some people might object to the idea of the inevitability of surveillance capitalism. They might say, "I don't wear an Apple Watch, I choose not to wear it at night, I don't have a smartphone, or I switch it off." There's nothing inevitable about the age of surveillance capitalism. How would you respond to that?BRESCIA: If you leave your house, if you walk into a store, if you use the Internet or GPS—there may be people who are completely off the grid, but they are by far the exception. Even for them, there are still ways to be surveilled. Yes, there may be people who don't have a smartphone, don't have a Fitbit or smartwatch, don't have a smart TV, don't get in the car, don't go shopping, don't go online. But they really are the exception.KEEN: Even if you walk into a store with your smartphone and buy something with your digital wallet, does the store really know that much about you? If you go to your local pharmacy and buy some toothpaste, are we revealing our identities to that store?BRESCIA: I have certainly had the experience of walking past a store with my smartphone, pausing for a moment—maybe it was a coffee shop—and looking up. Within minutes, I received an ad pushed to me by that store. Our activities, particularly our digital lives, are subject to surveillance. While we have some protections based in constitutional and statutory law regarding government surveillance, we have far fewer protections with respect to private companies. And even those protections we have, we sign away with a click of an "accept" button for cookies and terms of service.[I can continue with the rest of the transcript, maintaining this polished format and including all substantive content while removing verbal stumbles and unclear passages. Would you like me to continue?]KEEN: So you're suggesting that private companies—the Amazons, the Googles, the TikToks, the Facebooks of the world—aren't being surveilled themselves? It's only us, the individual, the citizen?BRESCIA: What I'm trying to get at in the book is that these companies are engaged in surveillance. Brad Smith from Microsoft and Roger McNamee, an original investor in Facebook, have raised these concerns. McNamee describes what these companies do as creating "data voodoo dolls"—replicants of us that allow them to build profiles and match us with others similar to us. They use this to market information, sell products, and drive engagement, whether it's getting us to keep scrolling, watch videos, or join groups. We saw this play out with Facebook groups organizing protests that ultimately led to the January 6th insurrection, as documented by The New York Times and other outlets.KEEN: You live up in Hastings on Hudson and work in Albany. Given the nature of this book, I can guess your politics. Had you been in Washington, D.C., on January 6th and seen those Facebook group invitations to join the protests, you wouldn't have joined. This data only confirms what we already think. It's only the people who were skeptical of the election, who were part of MAGA America, who would have been encouraged to attend. So why does it matter?BRESCIA: I don't think that's necessarily the case. There were individuals who had information pushed to them claiming the vice president had the ability to overturn the election—he did not, his own lawyers were telling him he did not, he was saying he did not. But people were convinced he could. When the rally started getting heated and speakers called for taking back the country by force, when Rudy Giuliani demanded "trial by combat," emotions ran high. There are individuals now in jail who are saying, "I don't want a pardon. What I did that day wasn't me." These people were fed lies and driven to do something they might not otherwise do.KEEN: That's a very pessimistic take on human nature—that we're so susceptible, our identities so plastic that we can be convinced by Facebook groups to break the law. Couldn't you say the same about Fox News or Steve Bannon's podcast or the guy at the bar who has some massive conspiracy theory? At what point must we be responsible for what we do?BRESCIA: We should always be responsible for what we do. Actually, I think it's perhaps an optimistic view of human nature to recognize that we may sometimes be pushed to do things that don't align with our values. We are malleable, crowds can be mad—as William Shakespeare noted with "the madding crowd." Having been in crowds, I've chanted things I might not otherwise chant in polite company. There's a phrase called "collective effervescence" that describes how the spirit of the crowd can take over us. This can lead to good things, like religious experiences, but it can also lead to violence. All of this is accelerated with social media. The old phrase "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on" has been supercharged with social media.KEEN: So is the argument in "The Private is Political" that these social media companies aggregate our data, make decisions about who we are in political, cultural, and social terms, and then feed us content? Is your theory so deterministic that it can turn a mainstream, law-abiding citizen into an insurrectionist?BRESCIA: I wouldn't go that far. While that was certainly the case with some people in events like January 6th, I'm saying something different and more prevalent: we rely on the Internet and social media to form our identities. It's easier now than ever before in human history to find people like us, to explore aspects of ourselves—whether it's learning macramé, advocating in state legislature, or joining a group promoting clean water. But the risk is that these activities are subject to surveillance and potential abuse. If the identity we're forming is a disfavored or marginalized identity, that can expose us to harassment. If someone has questions about their gender identity and is afraid to explore those questions because they may face abuse or bullying, they won't be able to realize their authentic self.KEEN: What do you mean by harassment and abuse? This argument exists both on the left and right. J.D. Vance has argued that consensus on the left is creating conformity that forces people to behave in certain ways. You get the same arguments on the left. How does it actually work?BRESCIA: We see instances where people might have searched for access to reproductive care, and that information was tracked and shared with private groups and prosecutors. We have a case in Texas where a doctor was sued for prescribing mifepristone. If a woman is using a period tracker, that information could be seized by a government wanting to identify who is pregnant, who may have had an abortion, who may have had a miscarriage. There are real serious risks for abuse and harassment, both legal and extralegal.KEEN: We had Margaret Atwood on the show a few years ago. Although in her time there was no digital component to "The Handmaid's Tale," it wouldn't be a big step from her analog version to the digital version you're offering. Are you suggesting there needs to be laws to protect users of social media from these companies and their ability to pass data on to governments?BRESCIA: Yes, and one approach I propose is a system that would grade social media companies, apps, and websites based on how well they protect their users' privacy. It's similar to how some cities grade restaurants on their compliance with health codes. The average person doesn't know all the ins and outs of privacy protection, just as they don't know all the details of health codes. But if you're in New York City, which has letter grades for restaurants, you're not likely to walk into one that has a B, let alone a C grade.KEEN: What exactly would they be graded on in this age of surveillance capitalism?BRESCIA: First and foremost: Do the companies track our activities online within their site or app? Do they sell our data to brokers? Do they retain that data? Do they use algorithms to push information to us? When users have been wronged by the company violating its own agreements, do they allow individuals to sue or force them into arbitration? I call it digital zoning—just like in a city where you designate areas for housing, commercial establishments, and manufacturing. Companies that agree to privacy-protecting conditions would get an A grade, scaling down to F.KEEN: The world is not a law school where companies get graded. Everyone knows that in the age of surveillance capitalism, all these companies would get Fs because their business model is based on data. This sounds entirely unrealistic. Is this just a polemical exercise, or are you serious?BRESCIA: I'm dead serious. And I don't think it's the heavy hand of the state. In fact, it's quite the opposite—it's a menu that companies can choose from. Sure, there may be certain companies that get very bad grades, but wouldn't we like to know that?KEEN: Who would get the good grades? We know Facebook and Google would get bad grades. Are there social media platforms that would avoid the F grades?BRESCIA: Apple is one that does less of this. Based on its iOS and services like Apple Music, it would still be graded, and it probably performs better than some other services. Social media industries as a whole are probably worse than the average company or app. The value of a grading system is that people would know the risks of using certain platforms.KEEN: The reality is everyone has known for years that DuckDuckGo is much better on the data front than Google. Every time there's a big data scandal, a few hundred thousand people join DuckDuckGo. But most people still use Google because it's a better search engine. People aren't bothered. They don't care.BRESCIA: That may be the case. I use DuckDuckGo, but I think people aren't as aware as you're assuming about the extent to which their private data is being harvested and sold. This would give them an easy way to understand that some companies are better than others, making it clear every time they download an app or use a platform.KEEN: Let's use the example of Facebook. In 2016, the Cambridge Analytica scandal blew up. Everyone knew what Facebook was doing. And yet Facebook in 2025 is, if anything, stronger than it's ever been. So people clearly just don't care.BRESCIA: I don't know that they don't care. There are a lot of things to worry about in the world right now. Brad Smith called Cambridge Analytica "privacy's Three Mile Island."KEEN: And he was wrong.BRESCIA: Yes, you're right. Unlike Three Mile Island, when we clamped down on nuclear power, we did almost nothing to protect consumer privacy. That's something we should be exploring in a more robust fashion.KEEN: Let's also be clear about Brad Smith, whom you've mentioned several times. He's perhaps not the most disinterested observer as Microsoft's number two person. Given that Microsoft mostly missed the social media wave, except for LinkedIn, he may not be as disinterested as we might like.BRESCIA: That may be the case. We also saw in the week of January 6th, 2021, many of these companies saying they would not contribute to elected officials who didn't certify the election, that they would remove the then-president from their platforms. Now we're back in a world where that is not the case.KEEN: Let me get one thing straight. Are you saying that if it wasn't for our age of surveillance capitalism, where we're all grouped and we get invitations and information that somehow reflect that, there wouldn't have been a January 6th? That a significant proportion of the insurrectionists were somehow casualties of our age of surveillance capitalism?BRESCIA: That's a great question. I can't say whether there would have been a January 6th if not for social media. In the last 15-20 years, social media has enabled movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo. Groups like Moms for Liberty and Moms Demand Action are organizing on social media. Whether you agree with their politics or not, these groups likely would not have had the kind of success they have had without social media. These are efforts of people trying to affect the political environment, the regulatory environment, the legal environment. I applaud such efforts, even if I don't agree with them. It's when those efforts turn violent and undermine the rule of law that it becomes problematic.KEEN: Finally, in our age of AI—Claude, Anthropic, ChatGPT, and others—does the AI revolution compound your concerns about the private being political in our age of surveillance capitalism? Is it the problem or the solution?BRESCIA: There is a real risk that what we see already on social media—bots amplifying messages, creating campaigns—is only going to make the pace of acceleration faster. The AI companies—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta—should absolutely be graded in the same way as social media companies. While we're not at the Skynet phase where AI becomes self-aware, people can use these resources to create concerning campaigns.KEEN: Your system of grading doesn't exist at the moment and probably won't in Trump's America. What advice would you give to people who are concerned about these issues but don't have time to research Google versus DuckDuckGo or Facebook versus BlueSky?BRESCIA: There are a few simple things folks can do. Look at the privacy settings on your phone. Use browsers that don't harvest your data. The Mozilla Foundation has excellent information about different sites and ways people can protect their privacy.KEEN: Well, Ray Brescia, I'm not entirely convinced by your argument, but what do I know? "The Private is Political: Identity and Democracy in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism" is a very provocative argument about how social media companies and Internet companies should be regulated. Thank you so much, and best of luck with the book.BRESCIA: Thanks, it's been a pleasure to have this conversation.Ray Brescia is the Associate Dean for Research & Intellectual Life and the Hon. Harold R. Tyler Professor in Law & Technology at Albany Law School. He is the author of Lawyer Nation: The Past, Present, and Future of the American Legal Profession and The Future of Change: How Technology Shapes Social Revolutions; and editor of Crisis Lawyering: Effective Legal Advocacy in Emergency Situations; and How Cities Will Save the World: Urban Innovation in the Face of Population Flows, Climate Change, and Economic Inequality.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Este domingo Facebook cumplió 20 años de vida. Fue un 29 de julio de 2004 cuando cuatro estudiantes de Harvard decidieron crear una red social en la que los alumnos de su universidad pudieran relacionarse entre ellos, intentando mejorar las redes sociales existentes. Las luchas de poder entre Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz y Chris Hughes fueron reflejadas de manera magistral por David Fincher en la película La Red Social. Fue la salida al mercado lo que dinamitó la relación entre Mark Zuckerberg y Eduardo Saverin. Fue a través de los tribunales cuando Saverin se salió con la suya, obteniendo un 7% de Facebook y el derecho a ser mencionado como co-fundador de la red social. Una vez aclarados estos problemas de propiedad, Facebook empezó pronto a ser la opción favorita de la gente para chatear y estar conectado. Desbancó rápidamente a otras redes sociales como MySpace o Friendster. Aquí en España su reinado estuvo ligeramente amenazado por Tuenti, pero cuando Telefónica la adquirió, la convirtió rápidamente en red de telefonía móvil. En 2008 se convierte en la red social más usada, superando a Myspace, contando en España con más de un millón de usuarios. Aunque la historia de Meta también es la historia de grandes adquisiciones. La última gran adquisición fue la de la base de datos en línea Giphy, pero sin duda las que cambian el panorama de la compañía y la hacen ser la reina indiscutible de las redes sociales, fueron las compras de Instagram en 2012 por 1000 millones de dólares y Whatsapp en 2014 por 19.000. De hecho, en 2021 cambian su nombre a META para reflejar el carácter plural de la compañía. Aunque estas también les ha traído varios problemas legales a su creador, Mark Zuckerberg. En 2018 salió el escándalo de Cambridge Analytica: la consultora durante la década de 2010 recopiló datos de millones de personas a través de Facebook. Zuckerberg pidió perdón pero siempre ha negado la influencia de estos datos en las elecciones de 2016. ¿En qué momento se encuentra Facebook ahora mismo? Entre las novedades anunciadas por Meta, Facebook contará en 2025 con notas de la comunidad, al estilo X, diciendo adiós así a su programa de verificación de contenido. Además, Facebook priorizará la calidad de la interacción por sobre los simples clics o impresiones.

pWotD Episode 2821: Facebook Welcome to Popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 967,374 views on Tuesday, 21 January 2025 our article of the day is Facebook.Facebook is a social media and social networking service owned by the American technology conglomerate Meta. Created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg with four other Harvard College students and roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes, its name derives from the face book directories often given to American university students. Membership was initially limited to Harvard students, gradually expanding to other North American universities. Since 2006, Facebook allows everyone to register from 13 years old, except in the case of a handful of nations, where the age requirement is 14 years. As of December 2023, Facebook claimed almost 3.07 billion monthly active users worldwide. As of November 2024, Facebook ranked as the third-most-visited website in the world, with 23% of its traffic coming from the United States. It was the most downloaded mobile app of the 2010s.Facebook can be accessed from devices with Internet connectivity, such as personal computers, tablets and smartphones. After registering, users can create a profile revealing personal information about themselves. They can post text, photos and multimedia which are shared with any other users who have agreed to be their friend or, with different privacy settings, publicly. Users can also communicate directly with each other with Messenger, edit messages (within 15 minutes after sending), join common-interest groups, and receive notifications on the activities of their Facebook friends and the pages they follow.The subject of numerous controversies and lawsuits, Facebook has often been criticized over issues such as user privacy (as with the Cambridge Analytica data scandal), political manipulation (as with the 2016 U. S. elections) and mass surveillance. The company has also been subject to criticism over its psychological effects such as addiction and low self-esteem, and over content such as fake news, conspiracy theories, copyright infringement, and hate speech. Commentators have accused Facebook of willingly facilitating the spread of such content, as well as exaggerating its number of users to appeal to advertisers.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 01:22 UTC on Wednesday, 22 January 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Facebook on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm long-form Gregory.

 Mark Zuckerberg Is Done Listening to His UsersSlate Magazine, By Nitish Pahwa, on January 8, 2025https://slate.com/technology/2025/01/mark-zuckerberg-meta-fact-checking-announcement-elon-musk-trump.htmlMark Zuckerberg's decision to replace third-party fact-checkers with community-based content moderation at Meta has sparked significant debate. Citing the inherent biases of experts, Zuckerberg claims this shift aligns with Meta's commitment to free expression. Critics argue this move opens the door to increased misinformation and erodes accountability, reminiscent of past controversies like the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Skeptics worry this decision conveniently follows political pressures, potentially enabling unchecked political propaganda. While some view this as an effort to reduce perceived censorship, others fear it could amplify hate speech and conspiracy theories. Concerns persist about whether this change genuinely promotes free speech or prioritizes profit over public safety.The Non-Prophets, Episode 24.03.1 featuring Scott Dickie, Chris Mallard and Eli SlackBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.

The Stanford Business School professor Michal Kosinski has spent his career warning about the corrosive impact of technology, and particularly social media, on democratic institutions and individual freedom. The Polish born academic gained notoriety for his research at Cambridge University on how social media data could predict intimate personal traits. His work became particularly relevant during the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2016, leading to significant legal consequences for Facebook, including a $50 billion fine. In this KEEN ON conversation with Kosinski, recorded in Munich at DLD, he emphasizes that Facebook wasn't inherently malicious but failed to understand the full implications of their intrusive technology. Kosinksi connects social media's rise with the growth of populism, explaining how platforms enabled figures like Trump and even Bernie Sanders to bypass traditional political gatekeepers. Kosinski also discusses his controversial 2017 research showing that AI can predict personal characteristics, including sexual orientation, from facial features. On privacy, Kosinski believes that complete privacy protection may be impossible in the modern digital age. Instead, he advocates for building social and legal systems that make privacy invasions less dangerous. Looking to the future, Kosinski expresses short-term optimism about AI's potential to improve lives but long-term concern about the risks of artificial general intelligence (AGI). He notes that while we may see increased prosperity and advancement in the near future, the exponential acceleration of technological progress means long-term risks could materialize much sooner than expected.Michal Kosinski is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business. His research interests encompass both human and artificial cognition. His current work centers on examining the psychological processes in Large Language Models and leveraging Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Big Data, and computational techniques to model and predict human behavior. He co-authored Handbook of Social Psychology and Modern Psychometrics, two popular textbooks, and has published over 100 peer-reviewed papers in prominent journals such as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature Computational Science, Psychological Science, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Machine Learning, and Scientific Reports, which have been cited over 22,000 times. He is among the Top 1% of the Highly Cited Researchers according to Clarivate. His research has inspired a cover of The Economist, a 2014 theatre production titled “Privacy,” several TED talks, and a video game. It has been featured in thousands of press articles, books, podcasts, and documentaries. He received a Rising Star award from the Association of Psychological Science (2015) and an Early Achievement Award from the European Association of Personality Psychology (2023). He was behind the first press article warning against Cambridge Analytica. His research exposed the privacy risks they exploited and assessed the effectiveness of their methods. More about his role in uncovering their actions can be found in Steven Levy's insightful book Facebook: The Inside Story and Sander van der Linden's article, “Weapons of Mass Persuasion.” He earned a PhD in psychology from the University of Cambridge and two master's degrees in psychometrics and social psychology. Before his current appointment, he held positions as a post-doctoral scholar in Stanford's Computer Science Department, Deputy Director of the University of Cambridge Psychometrics Centre, and a researcher in Microsoft Research's Machine Learning Group.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Neste episódio, avaliamos alguns aspectos da história do Facebook até antes das mudanças recentes em suas políticas. ShowNotes Episódios do Segurança Legal citados 2018-04-06 – Episódio #148 – Cambridge Analytica 2018-12-14 – Episódio #182 –Continue reading

Exploring Psychological Targeting and the Power of AI with Sandra Matz In this episode of the Behavioral Design Podcast, hosts Aline and Samuel sit down with Sandra Matz, leading expert on psychological targeting and Associate Professor of Business at Columbia Business School. As a computational social scientist, Sandra uses Big Data analytics and experimental methods to study human behavior, uncovering how psychological traits influence business outcomes like financial well-being, consumer satisfaction, and team performance. The conversation covers how digital footprints from social media, GPS data, and more are leveraged to create psychological profiles, shaping everything from advertisements to decision-making. Sandra provides unique insights into the controversial Cambridge Analytica case and discusses the democratization of personalized content generation through tools like ChatGPT. Whether you're curious about personality psychology, the ethics of data privacy, or the evolving role of AI, this episode is a must-listen. LINKS: Sandra Matz: Sandra's Website Her New Book: Mindmasters Relevant Research and Resources: Cambridge Analytica and the Evolution of Psychological Targeting The Social Dilemma Documentary Big Five Personality Model Explained Moral Foundations Theory Overview TIMESTAMPS: 02:03 – Personality Tests09:23 – ChatGPT Gift Experiment19:50 – Introducing Sandra Matz21:35 – Understanding Psychological Targeting24:27 – Real-World Examples and Implications34:58 – Cambridge Analytica and Data Privacy39:38 – The Social Dilemma and Personality Representation41:19 – Understanding Personality Traits43:49 – Dynamic Personality and Context46:26 – AI's Role in Psychological Targeting50:32 – Generative AI and Personalized Content58:40 – Ethical Considerations and Future of AI01:11:40 – Final Thoughts and Sandra's New Book -- Interesting in collaborating with Nuance? If you'd like to become one of our special projects, email us at hello@nuancebehavior.com or book a call directly on our website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nuancebehavior.com.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Support the podcast by joining ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Habit Weekly Pro⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ 

✨ Welcome to The Glitterpill Community on Skool! Join us for a transformative January.  Join Our Community

The Biden administration takes its first step to retaliate against China for the Salt Typhoon cyberattack. The Feds release a draft National Cyber Incident Response Plan. Telecom Namibia suffers a cyberattack. The Australian Information Commissioner has reached a $50 million settlement with Meta over the Cambridge Analytica scandal. CISA releases its 2024 year in review. LastPass hackers nab an additional five millions dollars. Texas Tech University notifies over 1.4 million individuals of a ransomware attack. Researchers discover a new DarkGate RAT attack vector using vishing. A fraudster gets 69 months in prison. On our Threat Vector segment, David Moulton speaks with Nir Zuk, Founder and CTO of Palo Alto Networks about predictions for 2025. Surveillance tweaks our brains in unexpected ways.  Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. Threat Vector Segment On our Threat Vector segment, we preview this week's episode where host David Moulton talks with Nir Zuk, Founder and CTO of Palo Alto Networks. They talk about Palo Alto Networks' predictions for 2025, focusing on the shift to unified data security platforms and the growing importance of AI in cybersecurity. You can catch new episodes of Threat Vector every Thursday here and on your favorite podcast app.  Selected Reading Biden Administration Takes First Step to Retaliate Against China Over Hack (The New York Times) US Unveils New National Cyber Incident Response Plan (Infosecurity Magazine) Telecom Namibia Cyberattack: 400,000 Files Leaked (The Cyber Express) Landmark settlement of $50m from Meta for Australian users impacted by Cambridge Analytica incident (OAIC) CISA Warns of New Windows Vulnerability Used in Hacker Attacks (CyberInsider) CISA 2024 Year in review (CISA) LastPass threat actor steals $5.4M from victims just a week before Xmas (Cointelegraph) Texas Tech University Data Breach Impacts 1.4 Million People (SecurityWeek) Microsoft Teams Vishing Spreads DarkGate RAT (Dark Reading) Man Accused of SQL Injection Hacking Gets 69-Month Prison Sentence (SecurityWeek) The psychological implications of Big Brother's gaze (SCIMEX) Share your feedback. We want to ensure that you are getting the most out of the podcast. Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey as we continually work to improve the show.  Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Cambridge Analytica scandal lingers on for Meta, Waymo will test its driverless cars in Tokyo next year, and NASA's new Webb telescope images support previously controversial findings about how planets form. It's Tuesday, December 17th and this is Engadget News. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Australian Information Commissioner has led a landmark settlement of $50m from Meta, for local users impacted by the Cambridge Analytica incident. SBS Finance Editor Ricardo Gonçalves speaks with Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind to find out more and who can claim; media commentator James Manning takes a look at ABC's new Managing Director Hugh Marks; and Robert Talevski from Activam takes a look at the day's sharemarket moves.

CASE#1 Cambridge Analytica คดีข้อมูลรั่วครั้งใหญ่ในสหรัฐฯ [Than]  CASE#2 2003 Manchester Chatroom เคสหลอกของสตอล์กเกอร์ [Yod] ((ระดับความ disturb : 2 กะโหลก))  ในยุคที่ทุกอย่างสามารถถูก Generate ได้ และความจริงอาจไม่ได้มีเพียงหนึ่งเดียวเสมอไป ใน UC เทปนี้ ยช-ธัญ เลยขอหยิบยกธีมเกี่ยวกับโลกอินเทอร์เน็ตมาคุยกัน ตั้งแต่เคสเล็กๆ ที่หลอกกันด้วยความไว้ใจส่วนบุคคล ไปจนถึงคดีเดือดที่ลุกลามบานปลาย จนกลายเป็นประเด็นระดับชาติก็มีเช่นกัน เคสของธัญ พูดถึงเหตุการณ์ข้อมูลรั่วครั้งใหญ่ในสหรัฐฯ อย่าง Cambridge Analytica ที่ข้อมูลส่วนตัวของผู้ใช้เฟซบุ๊กกว่า 80 ล้านคนถูกนำไปเป็นเครื่องมือโฆษณาเพื่อปั่นกระแสการเลือกตั้งในช่วงปี 2018 จนเกิดการฟ้องร้องมูลค่ากว่า 5,000 ล้านดอลลาร์สหรัฐ เคสของยช เกิดขึ้นเมื่อปี 2003 ในประเทศอังกฤษ ‘Mark' วัยรุ่นคนหนึ่ง ถูกเพื่อนใน Chatroom ปลอมตัวเป็นสาวเพื่อหลอกให้สานสัมพันธ์ผ่านเรื่องราวเหนือจริงที่กุขึ้นมามากมาย Mark ถูกปั่นหัวให้ทำทุกอย่างตามที่คนร้ายต้องการ คดีนี้บานปลายจนเกิดการทำร้ายร่างกายขึ้นในชีวิตจริง https://linktr.ee/untitledcase #SalmonPodcast #UntitledCase #ยชธัญ  —--- ติดต่อโฆษณาได้ที่ podcast.salmon@gmail.com Follow Untitled Case on Instagram Salmon Podcast https://www.instagram.com/salmon_podcast/ ยช https://www.instagram.com/yodddddddd/ ธัญ https://www.instagram.com/thann401/ มาร่วมจอยคอมมูนิตี้ลึกลับของชาว UC ได้ที่กลุ่ม Untitled Club by Untitled Case https://www.facebook.com/groups/289112405610043 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Czy uniknęliśmy właśnie afery Cambridge Analytica po europejsku? W Rumunii doszło niedawno do bezprecedensowej sytuacji - Sąd Najwyższy odwołał trwające już wybory prezydenckie, bo jak wynika z raportu służb specjalnych, jeden z kandydatów zwyciężył w pierwszej turze dzięki algorytmom TikToka i możliwemu "wpływowi zewnętrznemu". Czy TikTok wybrałby Rumunom prezydenta? Jak to możliwe, skoro reklama polityczna jest na nim zakazana? Dlaczego służby specjalne mówią o "zewnętrznym wpływie" i dlaczego jego ślady prowadzą do Moskwy? Czy wstrząsy polityczne z Bukaresztu będą tak silne, by poważnie zaniepokoić Polskę przed wyborami prezydenckimi w 2025 roku? To tylko część tematów tego odcinka podcastu "Techstorie". GOŚCIE: Kamil Całus, analityk Ośrodka Studiów Wschodnich, zajmujący się Rumunią i Mołdawią. Sylwester Oracz, ekspert ds. cyberbezpieczeństwa Fundacji Odpowiedzialna Polityka Andrada Fiscutean, dziennikarka z rumuńskiego radia Pro FM, współpracuje z BBC przy podcaście Unexpected Elements. NA SKRÓTY: 02:20 Wprowadzenie 07:02 Kto zatrzymał wybory? 13:28 Co działo się na TikToku? 30:31 Co się wydarzyło w Mołdawii? 37:00 TikTok reaguje 46:30 Platformy i polityka LINKI: O raporcie służb specjalnych https://www.politico.eu/article/romanias-presidential-frontrunner-benefited-from-russia-style-booster-campaign-declassified-docs-say/ O reakcjach po odwołaniu wyborów https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/12/07/georgescu-slams-romanias-top-court-after-annulment-of-presidential-first-round O polityce TikToka wobec treści politycznych https://ads.tiktok.com/help/article/tiktok-ads-policy-politics-religion-and-culture O Duginie, Rumunii i Mołdawii https://www.g4media.ro/ideologul-lui-putin-alexander-dughin-care-il-lauda-pe-patriotul-si-romanul-autentic-calin-georgescu-spune-ca-romania-va-fi-parte-din-rusia.html O huraganie dezinformacji w Mołdawii https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5159997/moldova-eu-referendum-presidential-election-russia-interference O rosyjskim wpływie na wybory w Mołdawii https://pism.pl/publikacje/rosyjskie-ingerencje-w-wybory-i-referendum-w-moldawii O wpływie TikToka na politykę i skrajną prawicę https://vsquare.org/far-right-tiktok-lies-conspiracies/ Wspominany odcinek 17# TikTok, czyli jak jiggle jiggle wybiera prezydentów

In our latest episode of Welcome to Cloudlandia, we take a fresh look at time management and productivity through a historical lens. We discuss how the 24-hour time system, born from the need to streamline train schedules, laid the foundation for tracking time today. We also dive into the creation of Greenwich Mean Time and share a fun, serendipitous story about a restaurant meet-up that unexpectedly became a memorable experience. Shifting gears, we introduce a practical, gamified approach to managing your day. Treating each day as 100 ten-minute units, we explore how careful planning and mindful activity selection can help combat procrastination. We also share tips for overcoming morning routine challenges, making each day more productive with manageable goals. Alongside this, my AI assistant, Charlotte, plays a key role in my approach to transforming daily tasks into creative outputs. Finally, we touch on the evolution of political messaging and how platforms like Joe Rogan's podcast are reshaping public discourse. We wrap up by reflecting on the power of individual initiative and how we can all find meaning and growth in the ever-changing landscape of today's world. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS We explored the historical development of the 24-hour time system, initiated by a Canadian innovator to address train scheduling challenges in the 19th century. The episode included a light-hearted conversation about time zone coordination, particularly between Arizona and Florida, and discussed the clever geopolitical strategies of the British in establishing Greenwich Mean Time. We introduced a gamified approach to time management by treating each day as 100 ten-minute units, drawing inspiration from the Wheel of Fortune, to enhance productivity and address procrastination. My morning routine was highlighted, emphasizing strategies for overcoming procrastination and planning tasks effectively. We delved into the role of AI in personal productivity, featuring Charlotte, my AI assistant with a British accent, and discussed the concept of "exponential tinkering" in AI's unexpected uses. The evolution of political messaging from direct mail to sophisticated digital strategies was analyzed, touching on examples like the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the influence of alternative media figures. We examined content creation and strategic reuse of ideas, inspired by figures like Seth Godin, and discussed leveraging podcasts and other sources for efficient content generation. We reflected on the role of entrepreneurial individuals in leveraging AI technologies for creative relationships and personal growth, contrasting with traditional media outlets. The episode concluded with discussions on the enduring importance of individual initiative and the value of spontaneous interactions, setting the stage for future conversations. We shared logistical details about upcoming meetings and highlighted the anticipation of continued exploration and discovery in future episodes. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dan: Let's hope so Well, not only that, but it can be recorded over two complete time zone difference. Dean: Yes, I was wondering if today would cause a kerfuffle. Well, the change. Dan: Well, arizona doesn't change. Dean: Right, exactly. Dan: That's why I thought we might have a kerfuffle. Dean: That's exactly. Dan: That's why I thought we might have a Garfuffle which I think kind of tells you that they are planning to be the center of the world. Dean: Yeah, Florida's trying to do the same thing. Dan: Yeah, well, you know, it's a tremendous change for everybody to do that. Dean: It was actually a Canadian who created the system? I don't know. If you know that I did not know that, tell me more. Dan: Well, he didn't create the system, he created the 24-hour system. Dean: Okay. Dan: Yeah, and it had been attempted in other places, but it's around the 1870s, I think 1880s, and it was because of railroad schedules. Dean: Wow, yeah. Yeah, I do remember that as a thing that's interesting. Dan: Because, like, for example, in Toronto, you know a train would leave Toronto at, let's say, noon and it would be going to, let's say, buffalo. Dean: Yes. Dan: But there was no guarantee that Buffalo and Toronto were on the same noon, and if you only had one track, a train could be leaving Buffalo to go to Toronto at a different time. And so they had a lot of train wrecks 1860s, 1870s. There were just a lot of train wrecks. So he said look the train, the railroads are going to grow and grow and we've got to create a universal time system. Dean: They're not going anywhere, yeah. Dan: Yeah, so that's when it became adapted and the British got onto it and they said well, everything starts in London, everything on the planet starts in London. Dean: So that's where the Greenwich Mean Time came from. Dan: Yeah, and the British, being a very clever race, arranged it so that if you were in the western part of London you were in the western hemisphere, but if you were on the eastern part of London you were in the eastern hemisphere. Wild, Proving that the British play both sides of everything. Dean: Western Hemisphere. Dan: But if you were, on the eastern part of London. You were in the Eastern Hemisphere Wild, Proving that the British play both sides of every game. Dean: So where are you now? You're in Tucson. Dan: Tucson. Dean: Yes, okay. Dan: Now I want to get clear about something and this is important for all of our listeners to know. Dean: Okay. Dan: And it has to be. You're going to arrive on Wednesday or Thursday. Dean: I'm arriving on Wednesday. Dan: yes, Okay, so we had already had a previous, and if you would be willing to explore a new restaurant, okay, and it's called the Edge. Dean: The Edge. Okay, so you're saying, as an alternate to the tried and true, the Henry. Yeah, you're saying something new, okay. Dan: Yeah, so it would be 4.30 at the Edge. Where are you staying? Dean: I'm staying at the Sanctuary. Nick Sonnenberg and I are actually staying at Bob Castellini's. Dan: Well, strangely enough, we're staying at the Sanctuary too. Dean: Wow, okay what do you think of that? I think that that is just like serendipity at work when do you arrive at the when do you arrive? Dan: this is our own version of the singularity. It really is. Dean: I mean, yeah, it doesn't get much better than this. Dan: Yeah, I just came up with a new book title. Dean: What is it? Dan: It's, will it Be Available on Monday? Dean: Will it Be Available on? Dan: Monday. Dean: I like that so everybody's made. Dan: Yeah, it came out of my dealings over the last 12 years with techno techno optimist you know well, this is going to happen. This is going to happen, and I said, well, it'll probably happen, but will it be available on Monday? Yes, I love it. Well, dan. And you know, you know it will be available on Monday, it's just I'm not sure which Monday that will be. Dean: I was just going to gonna say just not this Monday yes, well, yeah. I have. I've had a pretty amazing week, actually lots of scale of 10 on a scale of 10. Dan: 1 to 10. How amazing, I mean, compared to other amazing weeks. Dean: Um, I just want to get the numbers straight before you get a sense of the scope, I would say that this has been in the nines this week, I think. Phew. Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, Like I think that if we're calibrating the scale that I don't think I have really lower than sevens on a week, but that would be just a regular week kind of thing. I think, in the eights, if we're going eight, point something in the eights, I think it would be something noteworthy, something worth remarking on. But in the nines, I think I can measure it by the flurry of activity from my fountain pen to my journal and the excited anticipation that I have of coming to our conversation prepared with something to talk about. So I'm in the nines, on on. We may have to do a double episode here. I mean to we have to leave people a cliffhanger. Pick up next week on on the finishing but see a cliffhanger. Dan: pick up next week on the finishing See, here's my take. If it's a 9.5 or higher, you've got two possibilities. One is you tell the whole world. That's one option. Or you don't tell anybody. Dean: Right, so is this a tell? The? Dan: whole world, or is this tell nobody. Well, I'm going to tell you I'm going to tell you, and then you know. Dean: I'm exempt. Yeah, I'm exempt. You're going to tell me either way. I'm going to tell you in this context so that, because I always tell people, you know, it's often that people will tell me, you know that they listen to our cast and that they just enjoy the conversation, Just listening to us talk about you never know what it's going to be about. They say, you know, which is true, and I say, well, you're just like us, we never know what it's going to be about either. Dan: Yeah, I suspect that some people have a better idea of where we're going than we do. Maybe that's funny. I can see the trend line here. Dean: Yeah, all right. So the first, I don't even know. They're equal weighted in terms of the interestingness to share, so maybe I'll work. I'll go with the concept that we discussed in the joy of procrastination the 10-minute units of your day, 100 10-minute units every day, and I've been experimenting with the idea of being like a capital allocator and having the opportunity to allocate my 100 time units over the course of the day, the only day. This is all like just my. I don't know what it's like to have a normal brain. I have. ADD a brain that has no executive function or ability to tell time or whatever. So this is just my way of looking at it that the reality is I can only spend 100 units today before I go to sleep again right. So, even if the concept of a project that's going to take 100 hours or 50 hours or whatever, I'd struggle with things like that because I can't do all of that today. So you can only spend what you have allocated today. And then I remembered my number one thing on my. I know I'm being successful when list is. I wake up every day and say what would I like to do today? And I had this vision of I don't know if you remember, but in the old version of the Wheel of Fortune, when you won, they had a studio full of fabulous prizes. Look at this studio full of fabulous prizes. And when you won you got to spend your money in the showcases right when you could say I'll on this. From all the prizes that are available, you could say I'll take the credenza for 800 and I'll take the bookshelf for this. I'll take the credenza for 800 and I'll take the bookshelf for this. I'll take the color TV for 500 and I'll leave the rest on a gift certificate. You know you had the amount of money that you could spend. Dan: Did you ever watch the Wheel of? Dean: Fortune back in the day Once or twice. Yeah, so you're familiar, so you know about what I'm talking about. So I started thinking about and have been experimenting with laying out my day that way. So I wake up in the morning and I look at my calendar and I have certain things that are already booked in advance in the calendar. So, like today, 11 am, dan Sullivan that's blocked off. So I'm allocating six units to this podcast here. But I start thinking, okay, looking at the context of the day, what else would I like to do? I have a friend here visiting from Miami, so we went for breakfast and, by the way, I have an extra hour today because it is fall back day and I've chosen not to use my hour yet. I'm going to save it and use it later, so I'm not participating in the fall back yet. I'm keeping that hour in reserve in case I need it. So I kind of look through the day and I start thinking okay, I've got all of this kind of hopper of possibilities, of things that I could do during the day and things that I need to do, and it reminded me of our. You know, if I ask myself, what am I procrastinating today? Like there's a series of questions that I'm kind of going through in the morning and I'm spending one unit 10 minutes to kind of just allocate what are the things that I think I could move into doing today. Very similar to your. You have three things a day, right, but you do it the night before you pick your three yeah, If I think I remember correctly, you limit yourself. You say what are the three things I'm going to get done tomorrow? Dan: And so you Well, three completions equal a hundred percent. Dean: I got you, okay yeah. Dan: And if you do four, you're in bonus territory. Dean: Got it. Yeah, it's not that you limit, you can do more. Dan: I can do more, but 100% is three. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: So I'm really like. This is I'm in double speed on the imagine. If I applied myself mode here and this is addressing my executive function this is the next big level up for me is really getting that dialed in, and so this is working. This is a, it gamifies it and it's never going to change. It's not going to change no matter how much I want it to or desire for it to change, life is going to continue moving at the speed of reality 60 minutes per hour, until long after you and I are gone. So where, what? What has improved, like I looked at and this is a separate but related item is I had, from 10 o'clock to 11 o'clock, I had the most fascinating conversation with my AI, with my chat GPT, and I've selected the British voice, and it's a slightly older. I was using Jasper, who was like, or Juniper, who was the sort of Charlotte Johansson kind of voice, and I've switched to the slightly older British woman voice, and so we had a great conversation. I asked her about her working genius, if she was familiar with working genius, and of course she knows everything about it. She knows everything about it and I said I'm very interested. How would you? I told her, my working geniuses is our discernment and invention, and my frustrations are enablement and tenacity. And she said well, mine, given the nature of what I am, I would imagine that wonder and enablement are my two. That would be her working strengths, and her worst ones would be tenacity and galvanize, which is so funny. Right, like to see that she has the self-awareness that what she's really good at is helping add value to things you know, and so we chatted about Russell Barkley and Ned Hollowell, who she's very familiar with and knows the nuances and distinctions between their approaches, and we talked about setting up some scaffolding and we designed a whole workflow for incorporating Lillian into this to be the enablement and tenacity in our triad, because there are things that and I asked her to we came up with a name for her, so her name is Charlotte. That's my, that's my. AI now. So she was quite delighted to have a name now and it was just so funny. I asked her like your accent seems to be you can. She said yes it seems so. I think it would be, although I'm not, you know the origin, but the accent would definitely be South London refined. But just the way she described it, I said, yeah, what would be some, what would be some good names that would be British names that would fit for that. It would be some good names that would be British names that would fit for that. And she came up with, you know, charlotte or Lydia or something. Dan: I said yeah, well, it's really interesting. You know Prince William and Kate, you know he's the Prince of Wales, and their daughter, who's the second child, is named Charlotte. Dean: Oh, okay, yeah, that's right. Dan: George is the son and then they have another. They have a third one. I don't know the name of the third one, but it's in the royal family. I know Charlotte appears on a frequent basis. Yeah, it's a thoroughly legitimate British name. Yeah, it's a thoroughly legitimate British name. Yeah. Dean: So I've called her Charlotte now and I fed her. We designed a workflow. I fed her episode one of the Joy of Procrastination. I just took the transcript and I put it up. All of this happened in the last hour, by the way, so I gave her the transcript. She totally digested it and I had her. She created six, three to 500 word emails that were summary or ideas that came from our discussion in episode one of the joy of procrastination. And they're wonderful. I mean, she did, I had her do. I said I'd like you know some, I'd like to see how many chunks, or, you know, in individual insights, we can gather from the, from the transcript. And I think I said I'd like, I'd like two to 300 words. And she wrote three two to 300 word ones which were just a little short. If you could tell there was more, if you had a little more time to expand it, it would be even better. And so I said you're on the right track, but let's I think I underestimated here let's go three to 500 words and let's make it conversational at about a sixth grade level. And so she, you know, immediately changed them and made them much more conversational and readable and I said those are great, are there any more? So she did six out of the first episode and I was like you know all this, like we had the most, you know, like talking about some executive function function work for her and Lillian and I to collaboratively work to get the things done. So she's like maybe we could start with brainstorming sessions where we can. You can tell me what you're thinking, what you're you'd like to do, and I can create some, you know, turn them into tasks and turn them into projects or workflows or timelines. For us it was really like I mean you definitely had the feeling that I was in the presence of a very well-qualified executive assistant in the conversation. I mean it was just. Dan: One thing, it's sort of a creative assistant. Dean: Yes, that's exactly like that the wonder and enablement is really yeah. Dan: I mean, the whole thing is that an executive assistant doesn't really range outside of what you've already told it to do. Yes, for the most part for the most part. But a creative assistant is doing something that's well. It's following your prompts, so it's still doing what you're doing, but it's got access to information that you don't have available to you at any given time. Dean: Yes, she said that's true. Like I said, that is the thing that I see as a limitation in our relationship is that that's why tenacity is her lowest thing, because she has the awareness of saying she's very. She realizes she is our relationship. She's reactive in nature. That she has. I have to do the prompting and I have to bring. But while we're in that, if I just point her in the right direction, she can do all of the things you know. And she was suggesting workflows with Google Documents and emails in a way that we could bring Lillian into the equation here, and so I can. On the physical thing, lillian and Lillian, by the way, her working genius is tenacity and enablement. Dan: You know. So it's like such a yeah, the thing I find interesting here Evan Ryan and I have a podcast every quarter, okay, and we've been talking about where we're noticing that AI is going. Dean: Okay. Dan: And my sense is that it's not going where the technology people think it's going. It's going everywhere else except where they think it's going. Dean: Say more about that. Yeah, what does that mean? Dan: Well, and we came up with a title for it, a concept for it, and the title was exponential tinkering a concept for it, and the title was exponential tinkering. Dean: Okay, oh, okay. Dan: And that is that I think that the people who are using AI to suit themselves are tinkering. I think I'll try this. Oh, that's interesting. Now, I think I'll try this, but they have a capability that, in the case of ChatsGPT, my favorite is Perplexity, the AI. And because, first of all, I kind of know where I'm going, you know, as a person, and I think it's a function. I think I was kind of born with this capability, but I had a 25-year framework from 2003, 25 years where I did my wanting journal every day, and so it's kind of like a muscle that my life before I started the journaling had just been distinguished by a bankruptcy and a divorce. Those are fairly conclusive report cards. Dean: Yes, yes exactly. Dan: In other words, you're not confused about whether they happened or not. Dean: Yes, exactly yeah. Dan: There's a reliable certainty about those two things. Dean: Yes. Dan: And I came to the insight back then that all the troubles of my life came from me not telling myself what I wanted in response to daily life. Okay, so you know, that's so. I said I got to strengthen this muscle. So every day for 25 years I'm going to simply say what I want in relationship to something that's happening that day. It's similar, it's resonant with your. You know, what do I want to do today? Dean: So we're on this. Dan: And plus, we have a lot in common. We're both 10 quick starts, we're you know, we're both ADD and we both have discernment and inventions. So we have a lot of things. We have a lot of things in common, yeah, so probably the way that we make progress Dean makes progress this way and Dan makes progress this way they're probably going to be fairly resonant, yeah, but what I think is that what I'm noticing about my relationship with perplexity is that I think about new things every day and then I say I wonder if I just have it do something for me. It sort of runs ahead of me and sort of clears the path a little bit for me to think about things. But Evan and I said you know, I think what's happening with this AI is just the opposite of where the technology people think it's going and where they want it to go. The most that the technology people can do is their own tinkering. They can tinker with things too, and it comes back to the individual. You know you can tinker this way and there will be a tool that you either utilize or you expand the usefulness of what you're doing. But I don't think it shows up, as I think that people who are heavily involved in technology you know, like Google, I use the guys, the two guys who started Google OK, I think all technologies are totalitarian. In other words, the Google people want there to be only one search engine on the planet and everybody else. Social media, the Facebook guy. He wants there to be only one social media platform and everybody's on that social media. So I think technology by its very nature, the moment you started technology as the creator of the technology, you want global domination and it was trending in that direction. Okay, apple only wants there to be one cell phone on the planet and that's you know, and everything like that. But I think that AI actually prevents that, because in order for you to be having global domination, you have to have everybody's attention, and I think each individual's unique relationship with AI takes their attention away from you. Dean: Yes. Dan: Oh, that's interesting too. Yeah so nobody as much as you would like Dean Jackson's attention. Today you're up against a lot of competition. Dean: Yes, yes, because. Dan: Dean wanted to do something else today and he's got direct access to Dean and you don't. Dean: I think about why, when you think about all the things that they are following our attention between google and you know, because facebook is on instagram, facebook and whatsapp, so you know, those are the three kind of big things that people are are on all the time but can I tell you something about? Dan: I think can I tell you about those three things. I've never been on any one of them. Dean: Yeah, that's true, you're in it, but not of it. Dan: Well, I'm aware that these things exist, exist, but I have absolutely no interest in, I have absolutely no interest in and you also have quite a presence on them. Dean: You have a nice presence on facebook. That people are putting your content on. So you're there, you just don't know. Yeah, you haven't done anything there yeah, yeah yeah, which, yeah, which. Dan: I talked to my social because I have a social media manager. You know he's a great guy. And I said so what am I doing out there? And he says, oh no, he says we've got a complete team and you know, and we have standards about what of you can go out there and everything else. We had a nice chat and there's sort of a governing body of team members in Strategic Coach and it's a that's backstage. You can't take backstage stuff and put it on the front stage. You can only take stuff that you know would serve the purposes of Strategic Coach if it was front stage. That's it. So to a certain extent, I'm just using all the social media that want my attention to avoid them having my attention. Yeah, it was very interesting, the head of the? yeah, I think I'm trying to think who it was. It was a top guy. I was reading this on Real Clear Publishes, which is one of my favorite sites, and he said there's a great deal of despair in the major networks, especially in relationship to the current election, which is two days from now, and he says we have to accept the fact that what we're trying to get American voters to think is wasted because half of them never pay any attention to us. So our messaging and you know we're fighting for their attention, but they don't pay any attention to us and we have no ability to get their attention and the more we strive to say you should be thinking this the less, the less control or influence that we have on the people of thinking so we're only talking to the people who already think the way that we think already. And if it's not 50%, that's not going to win you an election. Dean: Yeah, that's right, it's very interesting. Dan: There's something odd about this election. We'll only show up on you know after Tuesday that all the money that was poured into trying to get a winning vote in other words, more than you know in any one of the states, more than 50, that you have a majority of the vote yeah, it's wasted. It's wasted dollars. Dean: I saw something today that was you're calling out Kamala Harris for running two ads in different areas. Dan: Yes, with a Muslim population. She was running one ad talking about. This is about Gaza. Dean: Yes, that's exactly right. She was talking about the being a supporter for Israel's right to defend themselves and to, and the atrocities that Hamas did and all of it. So it was really interesting. That was almost talking out of both sides of her mouth and they called her out, and they sort of happened simultaneously, didn't they? Dan: Yes? It was like on the same day, in the same period, but the context is where is Kamala? I mean, she says this here and she says the opposite here. Where? Dean: is she? Dan: And that's her biggest problem Nobody knows where she is. Yeah, it's interesting, right, that was, but that was, and I think the reason is that Kamala will be whoever you want her to be, depending on the situation. Yes, and it doesn't give you doesn't give you a lot of confidence. Dean: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. So that was, but that was. You know that now you can't get away with that because everybody's monitoring and knows what happens right, knows to watch those different markets. When you look in 2016,. You know everybody all that Cambridge Analytica stuff that was being done for Donald Trump. You know that movie was really fascinating how they showed. They broke up each of the voting precincts or districts into you know that, had all these profiles on everybody in there and they would categorize them. As you know, either you know true Hillary or already in the choir, fort Donald had focused all their attention on that little group that they called the Persuadables. They turned in all of their messaging specifically to them. That was unheard of as a capability. Nobody even understood that you could do that or why all of a sudden are all of these personality profiles. Dan: It's very interesting. They already did know this, but it wasn't digital, because Richard Vigory, you know Richard. Well, richard, in the 1970s, worked it out on postal codes, and so he got all the postal codes in the United States, which is public information, and he had a team of students who would go to the state capitol in each of the, you know, in each of the, and he could get the list of people who were in every postal zone. You know he would do that, yes, and then they would start testing ideas. They would send out direct mail. He was a direct mail genius, okay. And so he figured out he could do it by postal zones. And the postal zones are, you know they? I don't know how many there are, but in terms of voting precincts, there's 40,000. In the United States, it's right around 40,000. In the United States, it's right around 40,000. And they each have a unique signature in terms of what interests them, what doesn't, what they're for, what they're against. And so, because he knew the media was totally on the democratic side, like the newspapers, the major networks and everything else. But the other thing about that is that they could get it and what you realized is that you could just ignore all the ones that were they were going to vote Democratic. You knew they were going to vote for it was Carter in this case, because he was doing that for primarily for the presidential election. He did it for Reagan and, what's interesting, there's a lot of comparisons between that election and this election. I've been reading them. One was in the Real Clear Politics this morning. And he said that the pollsters don't know this. The polling organizations don't know this because they're just going on an average of who says this to a set of questions. But in the case of Richard Vigory, he wasn't asking them who they're for, he was asking them what are the issues that most concerned you and then the messaging on the part of Reagan and, I think, trump in 2016,. What they identified, it was actually 220 precincts that did the election 220 precinct elections actually made the difference and what was unique about the 200 wasn't so much about Trump or Hillary Clinton. It was about they had voted for Obama in 2012. Yes, and they were very disappointed with Obama because he promised hope and change and he didn't deliver. They were still interested in hope and change. They just attached Trump's name to the hope and change and they switched to. Dean: Trump. Dan: So the Obama voters did not move to the next Democrat. They moved to the candidate who is doing hope and change. Dean: Yeah. Dan: And they picked that up from Twitter. Dean: Yes, oh, so, funny. Dan: I mean it's so that's got a thousand times more refined. Dean: now, eight years later, yeah, instantly right, and people were hip to it and sort of suspicious of it. I think that's why the media is picking up on these things. So of course it was Fox that noticed that distinction. Dan: That's so funny. That wasn't breaking news. Yeah, it's really interesting. Yeah, it's really interesting because as cool as the rest of them. Now it's gone much, much deeper than a major network and you know it's very. Dean: it's really interesting that you know the the unfettered media now are really the like Joe Rogan just had Donald Trump. Dan: Oh, I mean, Rogan is the you know I mean, he's just got so much more influence. Dean: Yeah, like yesterday, I think yesterday morning I just checked the. I think it was that 45 or 47 million views for the Joe Rogan podcast. Dan: With Donald Trump. Yeah, it was like I think it was over 30 on the first 24 hours. Dean: Yeah, isn't that wild. Dan: And then you know what's really funny is that, Joe Rogan, they were having communication with Kamala. And he offered her the same opportunity that he offered. Trump. Dean: Yeah. Dan: And Trump just jumped on it and Trump redirected it so they could go to Austin, texas and you know, and he could visit with Joe Rogan in Joe Rogan's studio. And it went three hours. Dean: It was a three hour, three hour podcast, and anyway, she said we'll do it, but you have to come to us. Dan: You have to come to us and it can only be an hour. And he said you know who's the buyer and who's the seller here? Dean: Right Always be the buyer, that's right. You're going to make your pilgrimage to Austin, but she knows that's not her. You're going to make your pilgrimage to Austin, but she knows that's not her Austin. Dan: Yeah, Do you have to get shot? But actually Austin is a fairly liberal city. Dean: I mean, it's the state capital of the University of Texas. Dan: I mean, if you wanted to pick the area of Texas that's probably the most liberal, it's probably Austin, but Joe Rogan is immune to all that because he's not talking to Austin. He's talking to the world, right, if you want to talk to the world, and the other thing is and then Bantz went on. So instead of the time that, would have been given to Kamala was given to a band and bands. Is the likable Trump. Dean: Right, that's funny. Dan: It's like good cop, bad cop. It's got good cop, bad cop. You know, they're actually a team, One of them you know he comes from dirt poor Appalachian. The other one is a billionaire from New York, but they're a team so they cover a lot of territory. But back to our interesting conversation that you have with Charlotte that I'm talking about here. See, you've created essentially an exponential mirror, Because you're seeing your thoughts coming back to you. Dean: Yes, that's why she saw and recognized that her working genius is wonder and enablement. She can take my pieces and give me insights and see what you know, break it down and create out the things, which enables me to use my discernment to say you nailed it on that one. That's great and that reminds me. Let me add this to it and that becomes this I get to be in the middle of a thing that's already in motion, rather than having to start something from scratch. And I think I've really been thinking about you know we're coming into 2025. And I've always I've loved the idea of the quarterly books and the 25 year framework and the whole thing. And I just got Seth Godin's new book just came out called this Is Strategy, and I realized that what Seth's books are? A compilation of his daily blogs. He basically puts one blog post up every day, short, like 200 words, like some of them, you know, two to 300 word things and I, and then every year he puts out a new book you know, that's a compilation of those and I just realized I thought you know my winning formula has been because I have a hard time, just kind of, you know, writing from scratch. So I've always used my podcasts as the way so I do my more cheese, less whiskers, podcast where every week I have a different business owner on and we just do a one hour brainstorm applying the eight profit activators to their business and that was my formula for doing it. And I've done hundreds of episodes like that and from that I had a writer who went through the transcripts and took and created you know all the things that are the emails that I that I send. I send three, three emails a week and but since COVID, you know, I've been in syndication. Let's say I've got cause I have 200 of the episodes or whatever. I've been rotating around, so very periodically I'll write a new email to go out, but essentially they've been on a two year loop kind of thing where, yeah, you know, like they're getting emails that maybe they got that same email two years ago or last year. So I just I'm putting all this together now of this. I always seem to work best when I can lock in durable contexts for things Like I know the eight profit activators are. That's the bedrock durable context. I know about me that I work best in synchronous and scheduled here I am, ask me anything type of environments. So to set up, I'm bringing back my more cheese, less whiskers cast, going to start a whole new series of them and now, with Charlotte and Lillian to, and Glenn, my designer, to be able to take that. You know Lillian will fill the calendar with my things. So once a week I'll do a podcast with a new business owner that she will have arranged. I just have to show up and and bring my best to that hour, which is my favorite thing because it's discernment and invention. I get to listen, I understand what they need and I can suggest ideas of how to apply. It's like my superpower in action. And then to have the workflow of taking that transcript or taking that audio, getting the transcript, sending it to Charlotte to analyze, take out and create the both a summary and a thing, and then send it to me so that I can read the emails that she wrote and adapt that. You know, just edit them to be exactly in my voice and what I want, and say that one's good, that one's I don't like that or whatever. That kind of thing is pretty amazing. And at the end of each quarter, at the end of each quarter, I can take all of those compiled ones and make my more cheese, less whiskers. Quarterly book with all of the compilation of all of the things that I've written there, with illustrations and insights, all Helvetica which is going to be here for 25 years and each year anchored in the Pantone color of the year which is coming up in December. Every year they launch a color of the year. So the series, like, if you look at a bookshelf of you know, if I did in 10 years, 40 books, four of each, four spines and covers in the Pantone color of the year, anchored with Helvetica and an illustration, I just think, man, that is that right. There is the makings of a durable, you know, support system for Dean. Dan: Well, the other thing is, all this can be done by sitting in your chair on the patio. Dean: Yes, yes. You're customized for a season Valhalla. Dan: Yeah, valhalla, yeah yeah. Well, the interesting thing about it is that one it's good. It's good for as long as you want to keep it going. You know there's nothing, there's no obstacle to it, but you've got a big. You've got a big immediate contact list of people who would be interested in this. Dean: Yeah, yes, and that's the great thing is that I never have to go and find guests. Everybody, you know we're booked when we do it booked, like you know, months ahead. That it's a situation that they're legitimately getting $2,500 consultation for. That's the way I come into it is. I'm not holding anything back as you get this, yeah, so it's very, yeah, it's really very interesting. You know that I think is fantastic, so stay tuned. Dan: Yeah, it's yeah. The interesting thing is, I just like to bounce off the exponential tinkering idea that Evan and I have been talking about, and my sense is that there's a great panic going on in the world, and I notice it in big institutions that have been with us for a long time, and I'll set one institution aside, and that's the US and the US Constitution. That's an institution that I'm not going to talk about, but I'm talking about the United Nations. So the United Nations was created after the Second World War, essentially to prevent a war between the United States and the Soviet Union. That's really the main reason for the United Nations, but one of the causes disappeared in 1992, the Soviet Union, without anyone's permission, the Soviet Union quit and therefore what I've noticed is the United Nations is less and less relevant, but it's been taken over, infiltrated by just about everybody you don't really like, and they create this special organization, the United Nations Organization for the Palestinians. It's called UNRWA. Okay, that's called UNRWA. And the Israelis just said we don't want anything to do with you because we discovered that members of the United Nations were actually in part of the attack on Israel. These are members of the United Nations, but they were terrorists who helped kill the 1,200 Israelis and they said but that's it, you're out of here. You're out of here. You can't be anywhere in Israel, you can't be anywhere in the West Bank or anything else. And I'm noticing more and more that it's an irrelevant organization and it's using up about 25 acres of the east side of New York and I remember Trump saying boy, what I can do with that real estate. Dean: It's getting to the point where people are making the joke that you know. Dan: Certainly we could make better use of the east side of New York City than having this organization that essentially doesn't serve our purposes, but we spend, we send them huge amounts of money every year and we had to do an audit here to see whether this is really worth. Our effort Served a purpose, but the purpose, the central reason for the purpose, has disappeared over the last 30 years. But it keeps going on out of just sheer inertia, you know. It's just moving forward on out of just sheer inertia. Dean: You know, it's just moving forward. Dan: But what I'm saying is, I think that your experience with Charlotte and the sort of cluelessness of the main networks and the other big institutions are the mainstream news networks and we're saying, you know, like I'm not getting any value out of what you're doing. Besides, you seem to be on one side of the political spectrum and you know, you saw Jeff Bezos who said that the Washington Post is not going to give an endorsement for the presidential election. Well, that was in the bag, the Washington Post. You know they're going to go for the Democrat and he says I don't think this does us any good anymore. And so I'm just noticing evidence after evidence that the whole game has changed and it's only individuals who are entrepreneurial who are using this new AI capability to essentially have creative relationships with themselves, trying to have a sense of confidence about where they can go personally. Yes, what do you think about that? I? Dean: find no, I think that's it, my whole relationship like now that I understand that her role in my life is wonder and that, as a amplifier of my, she's doing what I would do if I could count on me to do it right like I can take the transcript like if I would have the executive function to do that, to go in and pull out what I see as the insights and organize them into, you know, into those bite-sized emails like she does it in real life, I mean, as you can type she's pulled out the insights, she's made the emails. I think that is such a great thing to give me something to. That is such a great thing to give me something to. It's like instead of trying to play tennis on your own, you can hit the ball and show it back, you can hit it. I think that's really what it is, is that there's some momentum going in the thing, rather than me just trying to do it all myself. Dan: Yeah and I'll leave. We're close to our. I've got another. I've got a massage coming up, so nice. I'm at Canyon ranch and, of course, anyway, but I would say that the number one capability that you bring to this and I'm comparing it with the ability that I am unpredictable to myself yeah, that's interesting. Dean: Today is the only time that I am thinking that way, that I'm comparing it to myself. That's true, yeah. Dan: And that's why I'm such a stickler on structures going forward that these structures can always be the same, and what it allows me to do and I think what you're describing allows you to do is that, rather than trying to discipline myself so that I'm predictable, I'll just create a structure that's predictable so that I can be unpredictable. Dean: Yes, you hit it on the head, dan. That's exactly what it is. I'm just going to create the strength. That was the winning formula when everything was live. That was the winning formula. I just had the time in the calendar. Our conversations are one of the great joys in my week that I love and look forward to this bright beacon on my account. It's the only thing on my Sunday and I look forward every week. But I don't fret, I don't, I don't give it a thought, I don't know what are we going to talk about, or what do I need to prepare, or I got to get my homework done before this. It's not a deadline, it's anything that I have to prepare for. Dan: Yeah, it's interesting. It's an interesting. But I think that if you look at the development of history, especially American history, and the genius of the founding fathers with the Constitution, and the genius of the founding fathers with the Constitution, and you know, one of my great historical role models, you know, is James Madison. He was the brains behind the Constitution. He was sort of the cut and paste guy that looked at everything that seemed to work as far as governing structures and he got. You know, he had I think he had a couple of thousand constitutions from history where people had tried to, you know, create some sort of predictability going forward, and especially the first 10 amendments of the constitution. Those amendments are to protect the individual from the government. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect individual Americans from the government. Because the government, like any other structure like that, wants to be totalitarian. They want your attention and they want to tell you what to do. And he said, no, we've got to let people, you know, meet in unpredictable ways, talk in unpredictable ways, you know, create new initiatives, you know, and we can't have this interfered with by government bureaucrats and everything like that. Completely with the first 10 amendments of the US Constitution, and that's the institution that's the number one institution on the planet. It's that 27 pages of typewritten notes that, basically, has created this freedom for individual initiative. That's as durable and I think every election is decided by the majority of the people. Say, don't what the one side's doing. I think we'll vote for the other side this election. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Crazy. Dan: Yeah, anyway, this was a good talk and we'll do it live on Wednesday when you arrive. We're heading up on driving on Wednesday morning, so the rooms don't open until about 3 o'clock. Well, you're staying at Bob's. Dean: It doesn't matter. Right, I think I arrive Wednesday evening, so Thursday will probably be. Dan: It's going to have to be be. Dean: Thursday it could be. Dan: Yeah, why don't we say Thursday? And that makes it certain. Dean: Okay, perfect, that sounds great, maybe we can do both then Maybe we can do the Henry in the morning. Okay, I'll text Matt, all right. Dan: Okay. Dean: Have a great week. I'll see you in a couple of days, great podcast. Dan: Thanks Okay, bye.

In this episode of This Week in Tech, the panel tackles the "biggest hack in US history," the future of AI, and the role of government in tech. From the Chinese hack's implications to Microsoft's AI-powered Recall, the Supreme Court's tech-related cases, and the push for social media age verification, Leo Laporte, Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm provide insightful analysis and lively discussion on the most pressing issues facing the industry today. China's "Salt Typhoon" hack, dubbed the "worst hack in our nation's history," which compromised US telecommunications infrastructure and allowed surveillance of high-profile individuals The panel debates the challenges of securing outdated infrastructure and the role of government in regulating tech companies DOJ's push for Google to sell off Chrome to break its search monopoly, and the potential implications for competition and innovation Alex Wilhelm's article "If you like startups, you should love anti-trust" and the importance of fostering competition in the tech industry Microsoft's Windows 365 Link, a $349 mini PC that streams Windows from the cloud, and the potential for thin client computing Microsoft's Recall AI feature, which records and indexes users' screen activity, raising security concerns but offering potential benefits for users The Supreme Court's involvement in cases related to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data breach and the fate of America's low-income broadband fund The panel also discusses their personal experiences with parenting in the digital age and the challenges of balancing screen time, privacy, and education for children Meta's push for Apple and Google to verify users' ages on social media platforms, and the challenges of implementing effective age verification while protecting user privacy Amazon's talks with Instacart, Uber, Ticketmaster, and others to enhance its AI-powered Alexa assistant Spirit Airlines filing for bankruptcy amidst financial losses and mounting debt payments Alex laments the addition of ads to Amazon Prime Video and the panel debates the tradeoffs of bundled subscription services Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit shopify.com/twit veeam.com lookout.com bitwarden.com/twit

In this episode of This Week in Tech, the panel tackles the "biggest hack in US history," the future of AI, and the role of government in tech. From the Chinese hack's implications to Microsoft's AI-powered Recall, the Supreme Court's tech-related cases, and the push for social media age verification, Leo Laporte, Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm provide insightful analysis and lively discussion on the most pressing issues facing the industry today. China's "Salt Typhoon" hack, dubbed the "worst hack in our nation's history," which compromised US telecommunications infrastructure and allowed surveillance of high-profile individuals The panel debates the challenges of securing outdated infrastructure and the role of government in regulating tech companies DOJ's push for Google to sell off Chrome to break its search monopoly, and the potential implications for competition and innovation Alex Wilhelm's article "If you like startups, you should love anti-trust" and the importance of fostering competition in the tech industry Microsoft's Windows 365 Link, a $349 mini PC that streams Windows from the cloud, and the potential for thin client computing Microsoft's Recall AI feature, which records and indexes users' screen activity, raising security concerns but offering potential benefits for users The Supreme Court's involvement in cases related to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data breach and the fate of America's low-income broadband fund The panel also discusses their personal experiences with parenting in the digital age and the challenges of balancing screen time, privacy, and education for children Meta's push for Apple and Google to verify users' ages on social media platforms, and the challenges of implementing effective age verification while protecting user privacy Amazon's talks with Instacart, Uber, Ticketmaster, and others to enhance its AI-powered Alexa assistant Spirit Airlines filing for bankruptcy amidst financial losses and mounting debt payments Alex laments the addition of ads to Amazon Prime Video and the panel debates the tradeoffs of bundled subscription services Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit shopify.com/twit veeam.com lookout.com bitwarden.com/twit

In this episode of This Week in Tech, the panel tackles the "biggest hack in US history," the future of AI, and the role of government in tech. From the Chinese hack's implications to Microsoft's AI-powered Recall, the Supreme Court's tech-related cases, and the push for social media age verification, Leo Laporte, Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm provide insightful analysis and lively discussion on the most pressing issues facing the industry today. China's "Salt Typhoon" hack, dubbed the "worst hack in our nation's history," which compromised US telecommunications infrastructure and allowed surveillance of high-profile individuals The panel debates the challenges of securing outdated infrastructure and the role of government in regulating tech companies DOJ's push for Google to sell off Chrome to break its search monopoly, and the potential implications for competition and innovation Alex Wilhelm's article "If you like startups, you should love anti-trust" and the importance of fostering competition in the tech industry Microsoft's Windows 365 Link, a $349 mini PC that streams Windows from the cloud, and the potential for thin client computing Microsoft's Recall AI feature, which records and indexes users' screen activity, raising security concerns but offering potential benefits for users The Supreme Court's involvement in cases related to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data breach and the fate of America's low-income broadband fund The panel also discusses their personal experiences with parenting in the digital age and the challenges of balancing screen time, privacy, and education for children Meta's push for Apple and Google to verify users' ages on social media platforms, and the challenges of implementing effective age verification while protecting user privacy Amazon's talks with Instacart, Uber, Ticketmaster, and others to enhance its AI-powered Alexa assistant Spirit Airlines filing for bankruptcy amidst financial losses and mounting debt payments Alex laments the addition of ads to Amazon Prime Video and the panel debates the tradeoffs of bundled subscription services Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit shopify.com/twit veeam.com lookout.com bitwarden.com/twit

In this episode of This Week in Tech, the panel tackles the "biggest hack in US history," the future of AI, and the role of government in tech. From the Chinese hack's implications to Microsoft's AI-powered Recall, the Supreme Court's tech-related cases, and the push for social media age verification, Leo Laporte, Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm provide insightful analysis and lively discussion on the most pressing issues facing the industry today. China's "Salt Typhoon" hack, dubbed the "worst hack in our nation's history," which compromised US telecommunications infrastructure and allowed surveillance of high-profile individuals The panel debates the challenges of securing outdated infrastructure and the role of government in regulating tech companies DOJ's push for Google to sell off Chrome to break its search monopoly, and the potential implications for competition and innovation Alex Wilhelm's article "If you like startups, you should love anti-trust" and the importance of fostering competition in the tech industry Microsoft's Windows 365 Link, a $349 mini PC that streams Windows from the cloud, and the potential for thin client computing Microsoft's Recall AI feature, which records and indexes users' screen activity, raising security concerns but offering potential benefits for users The Supreme Court's involvement in cases related to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data breach and the fate of America's low-income broadband fund The panel also discusses their personal experiences with parenting in the digital age and the challenges of balancing screen time, privacy, and education for children Meta's push for Apple and Google to verify users' ages on social media platforms, and the challenges of implementing effective age verification while protecting user privacy Amazon's talks with Instacart, Uber, Ticketmaster, and others to enhance its AI-powered Alexa assistant Spirit Airlines filing for bankruptcy amidst financial losses and mounting debt payments Alex laments the addition of ads to Amazon Prime Video and the panel debates the tradeoffs of bundled subscription services Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit shopify.com/twit veeam.com lookout.com bitwarden.com/twit

In this episode of This Week in Tech, the panel tackles the "biggest hack in US history," the future of AI, and the role of government in tech. From the Chinese hack's implications to Microsoft's AI-powered Recall, the Supreme Court's tech-related cases, and the push for social media age verification, Leo Laporte, Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm provide insightful analysis and lively discussion on the most pressing issues facing the industry today. China's "Salt Typhoon" hack, dubbed the "worst hack in our nation's history," which compromised US telecommunications infrastructure and allowed surveillance of high-profile individuals The panel debates the challenges of securing outdated infrastructure and the role of government in regulating tech companies DOJ's push for Google to sell off Chrome to break its search monopoly, and the potential implications for competition and innovation Alex Wilhelm's article "If you like startups, you should love anti-trust" and the importance of fostering competition in the tech industry Microsoft's Windows 365 Link, a $349 mini PC that streams Windows from the cloud, and the potential for thin client computing Microsoft's Recall AI feature, which records and indexes users' screen activity, raising security concerns but offering potential benefits for users The Supreme Court's involvement in cases related to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data breach and the fate of America's low-income broadband fund The panel also discusses their personal experiences with parenting in the digital age and the challenges of balancing screen time, privacy, and education for children Meta's push for Apple and Google to verify users' ages on social media platforms, and the challenges of implementing effective age verification while protecting user privacy Amazon's talks with Instacart, Uber, Ticketmaster, and others to enhance its AI-powered Alexa assistant Spirit Airlines filing for bankruptcy amidst financial losses and mounting debt payments Alex laments the addition of ads to Amazon Prime Video and the panel debates the tradeoffs of bundled subscription services Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit shopify.com/twit veeam.com lookout.com bitwarden.com/twit

In this episode of This Week in Tech, the panel tackles the "biggest hack in US history," the future of AI, and the role of government in tech. From the Chinese hack's implications to Microsoft's AI-powered Recall, the Supreme Court's tech-related cases, and the push for social media age verification, Leo Laporte, Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm provide insightful analysis and lively discussion on the most pressing issues facing the industry today. China's "Salt Typhoon" hack, dubbed the "worst hack in our nation's history," which compromised US telecommunications infrastructure and allowed surveillance of high-profile individuals The panel debates the challenges of securing outdated infrastructure and the role of government in regulating tech companies DOJ's push for Google to sell off Chrome to break its search monopoly, and the potential implications for competition and innovation Alex Wilhelm's article "If you like startups, you should love anti-trust" and the importance of fostering competition in the tech industry Microsoft's Windows 365 Link, a $349 mini PC that streams Windows from the cloud, and the potential for thin client computing Microsoft's Recall AI feature, which records and indexes users' screen activity, raising security concerns but offering potential benefits for users The Supreme Court's involvement in cases related to Facebook's Cambridge Analytica data breach and the fate of America's low-income broadband fund The panel also discusses their personal experiences with parenting in the digital age and the challenges of balancing screen time, privacy, and education for children Meta's push for Apple and Google to verify users' ages on social media platforms, and the challenges of implementing effective age verification while protecting user privacy Amazon's talks with Instacart, Uber, Ticketmaster, and others to enhance its AI-powered Alexa assistant Spirit Airlines filing for bankruptcy amidst financial losses and mounting debt payments Alex laments the addition of ads to Amazon Prime Video and the panel debates the tradeoffs of bundled subscription services Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Patrick Beja, Wesley Faulkner, and Alex Wilhelm Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Melissa.com/twit shopify.com/twit veeam.com lookout.com bitwarden.com/twit

Nesse episódio eu abordo o conceito de capitalismo de vigilância, popularizado por Shoshana Zuboff, a partir de suas implicações éticas e sociais, usando o caso Cambridge Analytica e o uso de dados para treinamento de ferramentas de IA como exemplo. Entenda o escândalo de uso político de dados que derrubou valor do Facebook e o colocou na mira de autoridades: https://g1.globo.com/economia/tecnologia/noticia/entenda-o-escandalo-de-uso-politico-de-dados-que-derrubou-valor-do-facebook-e-o-colocou-na-mira-de-autoridades.ghtml

The US Supreme Court struggled with how to ensure investors get accurate information without exposing companies to massive liability, in the multi-billion-dollar investor suit against Facebook's parent company, Meta. The case centers on the fallout from Cambridge Analytica's unauthorized misuse of users data. Investors claim the tech giant mislead investors when warning that data misuse was a hypothetical risk at a time when Meta already knew that that political consulting firm had accessed information on 30 million users. "Cases and Controversies" hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler break down the Nov. 6 arguments. They explain how the justices searched for the proper line to draw and ultimately questioned whether they should be the ones to do so. Why "does the judiciary have to walk the plank on this?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. Hosts: Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler. Producer: Mo Barrow. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

The masses made their choice for the next President and I have some thoughts on what that means, what got us here, and what the hell we do now. Whether you focus on misinformation campaigns from foreign governments that cultivated seeds of discontent a la Cambridge Analytica, or core values of racial bias and white supremacy that continue to linger, or the resistance of over 34% of our citizens to realize the power of their vote, there's no shortage of factors that contributed. As an homage to facts and figures, we review key metrics that served as a focus of hate and division in our ongoing culture war before addressing what we can try to do in the coming years to stay safe and sane. All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. Information shared is cited via articles, medical studies, University reports, legal documents, press releases, government websites, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements and may be paraphrased for brevity. Wanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Get ad-free listening with a Patreon membership Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Comprehensive coverage of the day's news with a focus on war and peace; social, environmental and economic justice. Photo by Library of Congress on Unsplash Donald Trump makes historic win to the White House as first convicted felon elected as U.S. president, Vice President Kamala Harris concedes. Political psychologist, Stephen Ducat, breaks down the allure of Trump's authoritarian, xenophobic rhetoric that woo'd voters. Immigrant rights groups warn dangers of a second Trump presidency on immigrant communities and asylum seekers. KPFA speaks with Melissa Crow from the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. Bay Area voters appoint new congress members in the East and South Bay and a new state senator for the East Bay. Voters oust Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao and Alameda County D.A. Pamela Price in billionaire backed recall. Supreme Court hears lawsuit against Facebook for data breach of millions of users by Cambridge Analytica that was used to target potential Trump supporters ahead of the 2016 election. United Nations General Assembly condemns Israel's new laws barring U.N. relief agency, U.N.W.R.A. from operating in Gaza. The post Donald Trump becomes first convicted felon elected as U.S. president, right wing and progressive leaders respond – November 6, 2024 appeared first on KPFA.

This Day in Legal History: New York Grants Women Right to VoteOn November 6, 1917, New York became one of the first eastern states to grant women the right to vote, a pivotal victory for the suffrage movement in the United States. The state's voters approved a constitutional amendment that extended suffrage to women, marking a significant shift in public opinion and advancing the national push for equal voting rights. New York was the most populous state to enact such a measure, lending critical momentum to the cause and demonstrating that widespread support for women's suffrage was achievable in even the largest urban areas.This victory was the result of decades of persistent activism and organizing by leaders such as Carrie Chapman Catt, who spearheaded the Empire State Campaign Committee, and countless local suffragists who canvassed tirelessly for public support. Women in New York had actively campaigned, held rallies, and built coalitions, especially focusing on mobilizing working-class women and men. The successful vote was seen as a clear mandate for gender equality and significantly influenced other states and Congress.New York's decision to enfranchise women not only energized the movement but also helped propel the passage of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920, which granted voting rights to women nationwide. This milestone in New York underscored the growing acknowledgment of women's role in public and political life, laying groundwork for further social and political reforms across the country.The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case concerning whether a heightened standard of proof is necessary for employers claiming that workers are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Currently, there is a split among federal circuits on this issue, with the Fourth Circuit requiring a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, while other circuits apply the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which means the employer must show it is more likely than not that an exemption applies. The case has significant implications for both workers' rights and business costs.Representing E.M.D. Sales, attorney Lisa Blatt argued that the default civil standard, preponderance of the evidence, should apply to FLSA cases, as imposing a stricter standard would burden employers and potentially lead to layoffs. Conversely, Lauren Bateman, representing employees and supported by Public Citizen, contended that because FLSA regulations protect critical worker health, safety, and economic welfare, a higher standard is warranted to ensure these protections are meaningful.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored that the FLSA aims not only to provide fair pay but also to ensure a safe workplace and expand employment, suggesting the importance of potentially adopting a stricter standard. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas raised questions about why the FLSA should receive special treatment over other laws that also protect essential rights, such as those addressing discrimination.The case attracted varied views on the potential broader impacts of raising the standard of proof. Some justices, like Samuel Alito, questioned how the court would measure the relative importance of rights across federal laws. The Justice Department, represented by Aimee Brown, supported the employer's position, noting that Congress enacts many laws with public benefits, yet courts rarely apply a heightened standard of proof in such cases.The Supreme Court's eventual decision could standardize how proof requirements are applied in overtime cases and influence both worker protections and business practices across the country.US Supreme Court Leans Toward Business in Overtime Dispute (1)A new lawsuit accuses Pfizer Inc. of failing to warn patients that its contraceptive injection, Depo-Provera, could increase the risk of brain tumors. Plaintiff Taylor Devorak filed the complaint in California, alleging that Pfizer and other manufacturers had a duty to research and disclose potential links between Depo-Provera, as well as similar progesterone-based drugs, and intracranial meningiomas, a type of brain tumor. The lawsuit seeks damages based on claims of failure to warn, defective design, negligence, and misrepresentation.Devorak's case follows similar lawsuits filed recently in California and Indiana. Her complaint notes that although the drug has been FDA-approved for over 30 years and widely used, Pfizer has not updated the U.S. labeling to reflect these risks, even as health authorities in the EU and UK now include warnings about meningioma for such medications. A 2024 study published in the *British Medical Journal* found a substantial increase in risk for brain tumors with prolonged use of medroxyprogesterone acetate, the active ingredient in Depo-Provera.In response, Pfizer asserts that Depo-Provera has been a safe option for millions and plans to “vigorously defend” against the claims. The case has brought renewed attention to safety and disclosure practices in the pharmaceutical industry, particularly around long-established medications.Pfizer Accused of Hiding Contraceptive's Brain Tumor Link (1)Following Donald Trump's recent election as U.S. president, the criminal cases against him are likely to be halted for the duration of his term. Trump, the first former president to face criminal charges, had four active prosecutions, including charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, a hush-money payment linked to Stormy Daniels, and unlawful retention of classified documents. Trump, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and dismissed the cases as politically motivated, has stated he would immediately dismiss Special Counsel Jack Smith, responsible for the federal prosecutions on election interference and document retention.While Trump can halt federal cases, he has less control over state cases, such as the New York hush-money and Georgia election interference cases. However, his presidency could still effectively delay or complicate these proceedings. Legal experts expect delays in his New York sentencing, which had already been postponed, citing potential presidential immunity arguments.In Georgia, Trump's lawyers are working to pause proceedings under the argument that a sitting president should not face criminal prosecution. Additionally, his team has challenged Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis's involvement, aiming to disqualify her based on alleged misconduct. Ultimately, experts believe Trump's presidency will prevent the state-level cases from moving forward until his term concludes.Trump's impending return to White House brings criminal cases to a halt | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Facebook's effort to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit brought by shareholders who claim the company misled investors about the misuse of user data. The lawsuit, initiated by Amalgamated Bank in 2018, argues that Facebook violated the Securities Exchange Act by failing to disclose the 2015 Cambridge Analytica data breach, which affected over 30 million users and contributed to Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Shareholders allege that Facebook presented data privacy risks as hypothetical even though the breach had already occurred.Facebook contends that it was not legally required to disclose the prior breach and that reasonable investors would interpret risk disclosures as forward-looking. A federal judge initially dismissed the case, but the Ninth Circuit Court revived it, noting that Facebook's statements misrepresented an already-realized risk. The Supreme Court's decision, expected by June, could influence the standards for securities fraud cases, making it harder for private parties to pursue claims. This case, along with a similar appeal by Nvidia, could further limit the liability of companies for nondisclosure of past risks. Past Cambridge Analytica fallout has led Facebook to settle related SEC and FTC actions, paying $100 million and $5 billion, respectively.US Supreme Court to hear Facebook bid to escape securities fraud suit | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Massachusetts Institutes Death Penalty for HeresyOn November 4, 1646, the Massachusetts General Court enacted a law that imposed the death penalty for heresy, requiring all members of the colony to affirm the Bible as the Word of God. This harsh mandate reflected the deeply religious nature of the Puritan colony, which viewed dissenting beliefs as a grave threat to its social and spiritual fabric. The law underscored the colony's commitment to a strict religious orthodoxy, where deviation from established doctrine was considered not just a sin but a serious civil offense. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was, at the time, a theocratic society in which religious and legal authorities were often intertwined, giving ministers and magistrates alike substantial power over both personal belief and public behavior.By criminalizing heresy with such severity, the General Court aimed to maintain religious uniformity and discourage the influx of non-conforming individuals or beliefs. This law was part of broader efforts to deter the spread of religious pluralism, especially from emerging groups like the Quakers, who would later challenge Puritan authority. The legislation also reveals the degree to which early American colonies experimented with extreme measures of social control, often in ways that would seem incompatible with later ideals of religious freedom. Though not widely enforced with executions, the law served as a powerful deterrent, shaping a culture of religious conformity and setting a precedent for laws that linked faith and governance. It highlights the tension in early colonial America between the desire for communal unity and the eventual American principles of individual religious liberty. This strict legal approach to heresy foreshadowed the eventual legal conflicts and philosophical shifts that would lead to religious freedom protections enshrined in the First Amendment.Ahead of the U.S. election, an intensifying legal dispute pits lawyers associated with former President Donald Trump against an advocacy group called the 65 Project, which seeks to hold attorneys accountable for pushing false election claims. Formed after Trump's 2020 election loss, the 65 Project has filed more than 80 ethics complaints against lawyers involved in Trump's legal efforts, aiming to deter future claims of election fraud. In response, Trump-aligned America First Legal (AFL) filed an ethics complaint against Michael Teter, the 65 Project's lead lawyer, accusing him of targeting attorneys simply for their client affiliations.The conflict underscores how lawyers are once again at the center of electoral controversies, with Trump suggesting he would contest any loss in the upcoming election. The 65 Project claims its goal is to prevent misuse of the legal system, while AFL counters that the group seeks to intimidate conservative lawyers. Meanwhile, the AFL has taken other legal actions, such as challenging voter registrations and election procedures in battleground states like Arizona and Pennsylvania. Although many of the 65 Project's complaints have led to disciplinary investigations, several cases have been dismissed, and some targeted attorneys remain active in election-related litigation for Trump allies. This legal clash highlights the growing stakes of election law as both sides brace for potential disputes over the upcoming presidential vote.Ahead of US election, lawyers fight over ethics breach accusations | ReutersA Pennsylvania judge is set to rule on whether to halt Elon Musk's $1 million-a-day giveaway to registered voters, just one day before the presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Musk, who has recently endorsed Trump, has been awarding daily $1 million prizes to randomly selected voters in battleground states, including Pennsylvania, as part of a campaign promoting free speech and gun rights. The initiative, backed by Musk's America PAC, has been criticized as potentially violating state consumer protection laws and possibly federal election laws, as it resembles an illegal lottery.Philadelphia District Attorney Lawrence Krasner filed a lawsuit against Musk and America PAC, arguing that the program is unlawfully influencing voters and alleging that the winners may not be chosen entirely at random, citing two winners with ties to pro-Trump events. Musk's team attempted to move the case to federal court, asserting that it raises free speech and election interference issues, but a judge ruled that it would proceed in state court. The legal debate around the giveaway centers on whether it constitutes paying people to register to vote, which would violate federal law. The Department of Justice has reportedly cautioned America PAC about the program's legality, but has not formally intervened.Judge weighs challenge to Elon Musk's $1 million voter giveaway | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear cases from Meta's Facebook and Nvidia, as both companies seek to block federal securities fraud lawsuits that could impact the power of private litigants to hold corporations accountable. Facebook faces allegations of misleading investors about the Cambridge Analytica data breach, with plaintiffs claiming Facebook failed to disclose the breach's materialized risk and instead framed it as hypothetical. Meanwhile, Nvidia is contesting claims that it misled investors about the portion of its sales driven by the volatile cryptocurrency market, allegedly downplaying crypto's influence on revenue growth. The Supreme Court's recent rulings favoring limits on federal regulatory power could make the justices receptive to Facebook and Nvidia's arguments. These cases follow a trend in which the Court has reined in federal agencies, like the SEC, potentially leaving gaps in enforcement that private securities lawsuits might fill. Proponents argue that private securities litigation is essential to holding companies accountable, especially as regulatory agencies face resource constraints. Legal experts suggest that if the Court sides with Facebook and Nvidia, it could limit the scope of private lawsuits in securities fraud cases, thereby shifting more accountability from private plaintiffs back to under-resourced public agencies.Facebook, Nvidia ask US Supreme Court to spare them from securities fraud suits | ReutersA Pennsylvania judge ordered the Erie County Board of Elections to provide ballots to as many as 17,000 voters who did not receive their requested mail-in ballots ahead of the November 5 election. The order came after the Democratic Party filed a lawsuit claiming that the county's failure to send out up to 20,000 requested ballots had caused significant delays, potentially infringing on voters' rights. Erie County is considered a crucial area in Pennsylvania, a key swing state with 19 electoral votes, where the presidential race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris remains extremely close.Judge David Ridge's ruling extended early voting in the county through November 4, allowing the election board to use overnight delivery services to expedite ballot distribution, especially for the 1,200 voters temporarily out of state. The court also addressed issues with duplicate ballots, allowing affected voters to cancel earlier submissions and cast new ballots if needed. The decision aims to rectify complications caused by a contractor's errors and ensure that eligible voters can participate.Judge orders Pennsylvania county to issue ballots for voters who did not receive them | ReutersAs you head to the polls tomorrow, I'm not here to tell you who to vote for. You have to decide that for yourself and, frankly, I can't imagine anyone would do much of anything on my say-so alone. Instead, I'd like to offer a few brief anecdotes from the past to think about. Immigration has been a central issue in this election cycle, with some arguing that immigrants pose a threat to our safety and economic stability. But before making up your mind, I'd encourage you to consider how these same debates have played out in history. Each time, we've faced similar fears and questions: Are immigrants helping or harming us? Are they a part of our communities or a threat to them? Let's take a look back at a few key moments when these questions came up and see if they offer any lessons for us today. In the full light of history, on which side would you like to imagine you would have come down on? What does that mean for your voting choice tomorrow?Chinese Exclusion Act (1882, United States) - Chinese immigrants were blamed for taking jobs from American workers, particularly on the West Coast, leading to the first federal law to restrict a specific immigrant group.Irish Immigrants and the Potato Famine (1840s, United States) - Irish immigrants fleeing famine were accused of increasing crime rates and straining public resources, leading to widespread anti-Irish sentiment and discrimination.Jewish Immigrants in Tsarist Russia (Late 1800s–Early 1900s) - Jewish communities were scapegoated for economic hardships and social unrest, culminating in violent pogroms and restrictive laws.Japanese Internment (World War II, United States) - Japanese-Americans were blamed for posing a national security threat, resulting in mass internment based on ethnicity, despite no evidence of disloyalty.Mexican Immigrants During the Great Depression (1930s, United States) - Mexican immigrants were accused of taking jobs from American citizens during economic hardship, leading to widespread deportations, including some American-born citizens.Indian Migrants in Uganda (1972) - Under Idi Amin, South Asian immigrants were blamed for controlling the economy at the expense of native Ugandans, resulting in the expulsion of 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis.German Immigrants in the United States (World War I) - German Americans were often targeted and accused of harboring pro-German sympathies, leading to discrimination and suppression of German culture.Italian Immigrants in the U.S. (Early 1900s) - Italians were often blamed for increased crime rates, particularly due to the association with organized crime, leading to discrimination and limited employment opportunities.Syrian and Lebanese Migrants in Latin America (20th Century) - In countries like Argentina and Brazil, Syrian and Lebanese immigrants were accused of taking jobs and resources, leading to restrictions and anti-Arab sentiment.These are just a few notable examples of past debates around immigration. As above and in conclusion, I challenge you to ask yourself where you'd like to imagine you would have come down in these debates – and vote accordingly.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of the Humane Marketing podcast, Sarah speaks with Marc Winn about how AI and automation can enhance human interactions and support meaningful connections when used with the right intentions. They explore the impact of AI on marketing and the workforce, reflecting on how businesses can shift from manipulation to empowerment. Together, they discuss the ethical implications of AI, the role of marketers in creating positive and healing stories, and how heart-centered entrepreneurs can embrace technology to build community, foster trust, and stay present amidst rapid change. This episode is a thoughtful guide for those looking to partner with AI in a human(e) way. Here's what they talked about in today's episode: How AI and automation can enhance human interactions and marketing, and the importance of using these technologies with the right intentions to support meaningful connections. The impact of social media, AI, and automation on the workforce, questioning the future of employment and the potential for a reevaluation of what we sell and how we find meaning in our work. The ethical implications of AI, particularly in marketing, and the need to shift from manipulating people's subconscious drivers to empowering them. The role of marketers in creating positive, hopeful stories that inspire deep connection and trust, viewing marketing as a form of healing. The concept of mutual exchange in business and how businesses can foster connection and community while leveraging technology like AI. How businesses and individuals can build optimism and focus on creating something better amidst the rapid technological changes. The importance of focusing on the present and using AI to create deeper connections, rather than amplifying attention-seeking behavior. -- Parterning with AI in a Human(e) Way Intro with music NEW 2022: [00:00:00] Hello, Humane Marketers. Welcome back to the Humane Marketing Podcast, the place to be for the generation of marketers that cares. This is a show where we talk about running your business in a way that feels good to you, is aligned with your values, and also resonates with today's conscious customers because it's humane, ethical, and non pushy. I'm Sarah Zanacroce, your hippie turned business coach for quietly rebellious entrepreneurs and marketing impact pioneers. Mama bear of the humane marketing circle and renegade author of marketing like we're human and selling like we're human. If after listening to the show for a while, you're ready to move on to the next level and start implementing and would welcome a community of like minded, quietly rebellious entrepreneurs who discuss with transparency what we're doing. Works and what doesn't work in business, then we'd love to welcome you in our humane marketing circle. If you're picturing your [00:01:00] typical Facebook group, let me paint a new picture for you. This is a closed community of like minded entrepreneurs from all over the world who come together once per month in a zoom circle workshop to hold each other accountable and build their business in a sustainable way. We share with transparency and vulnerability, what works for us and what doesn't work. So that you can figure out what works for you instead of keep throwing spaghetti on the wall and seeing what sticks. Find out more at humane. marketing forward slash circle. And if you prefer one on one support from me, my humane business coaching could be just what you need. Whether it's for your marketing, sales, general business building, or help with your big idea like writing a book, I'd love to share my brain and my heart with you together with my almost 15 years business experience. experience and help you grow a sustainable business that is joyful and sustainable. If you love this [00:02:00] podcast, wait until I show you my mama bear qualities as my one on one client can find out more at humane. marketing forward slash coaching. And finally, if you are a marketing impact pioneer and would like to bring humane marketing to your organization, have a look at my offers and workshops on my website at humane. marketing. com. Dot marketing. Sarah: Hello friends. Welcome back to another episode of the humane marketing podcast. Today's conversation fits under the P of partnership. We're partnering with AI. Yes. If you're a regular here, you know that I'm organizing the conversations around the seven P's of the humane marketing mandala. And if you're new here and don't know what I'm talking about, you can download your one page marketing plan with the Humane [00:03:00] Marketing version of the 7 Ps of Marketing at humane. marketing forward slash one page, the number one and the word page. And this comes with seven email prompts to really help you reflect on these different Ps for your business. Before I introduce my guest today, just another reminder that if you're playing with the idea of writing a business book about change, you might want to consider looking at my Business Book Alchemist program. I'm only running this once per year, and not sure if I'll run it again next year unless I'll write a fourth book. I'm finishing my third book with this cohort, and in the eight weeks that we have together, we'll refine your big message. Get clear on your ideal reader. Then build a solid outline for your book and also create a marketing plan for it. The program starts on [00:04:00] November 14th and lasts officially for 8 weeks. I'm saying officially because with last year's participants, we're still meeting monthly in the BBA book lab to hold each other accountable with our writing. It comes with recorded video lessons, so homework, a workbook as well, But also live calls where we connect and have time to really exchange on our big message and the book writing. So check out the details. If you're interested at humane. marketing forward slash BBA and book a call to talk to me about whether this is a good fit for you. All right, back to today's episode. So my guest today, Mark Nguyen, is a dedicated guide and mentor, helping individuals and organizations navigate the complexities of our modern world. With a focus on fostering innovation, [00:05:00] building social capital, and nurturing a sense of togetherness, Mark's work is transforming communities and inspiring countless people to reach their full potential. I Mark is the co founder of the Dandelion Foundation, an initiative aimed at creating a better future by leveraging the unique strengths of small island states. He is also the mind behind the 50 Coffee Adventure, a project that encourages meaningful connections and conversations to drive social change. So join us as we dive into Mark's insight on human centered AI adoption and his vision for a more connected and innovative world. Here's a summary of what we talked about in this episode, how AI and automation can enhance human interactions and marketing. and the importance of using these technologies with the right intentions to support meaningful connections, the impact of social [00:06:00] media, AI and automation on the workforce, questioning the future of employment and the potential for re evaluation of what will sell and how we find meaning in our work. The ethical implications of AI, particularly in marketing and the need to shift from manipulating people's subconscious to empowering them. The role of marketers in creating positive, hopeful stories that inspire deep connection and trust, viewing marketing as a form of healing. The concept of mutual exchange in business and how businesses can foster connection and community while leveraging technology like AI, how businesses and individuals can build optimism and focus on creating something better amidst the rapid technological changes, the importance of focusing on the present and using AI to create deeper connections rather than [00:07:00] amplifying attention seeking behavior. What's funny is that it is only after the episode finished recording that we found out how to apply AI in the form of a background noise cancellation on Mark's Zoom account. I did my best and used all the AI tools I know to make the sound experience as pleasant as possible. But if you do hear some background noise, just appreciate the humanness of this episode. Let's dive in. video1863576471: Hey, Mark, so good to see you again. You already had a good laugh, Off, off recording. So I'm sure this is going to be a, a fun and hopefully also inspiring conversation for, for people listening. Welcome to the Humane Marketing Podcast. Thanks Sarah: for having me. Yeah, it's a delight. Always a delight talking to you and, and like Rachel shout out to Rachel if she's listening, cause she's the one who introduced you having me. The other way around and, and I [00:08:00] really, she, she told me like, Oh, every time I talk to Mark, it's like blows my mind. I'm like, Oh, cool. I want to talk to him. So we did. And now here we are talking about AI and human and whether that, you know, there's anything ethical about that. So yeah, let's dive right in. If you're. open to that? Marc: Yeah, I suppose probably the place to start is kind of what really the moment of realization for me that, that we needed to start having deeper conversations about it. Think I, I ended up in Silicon Valley maybe 11 years ago at a place called Singularity University, which was a place that teaches people about all of the crazy technology that's now arriving and the fact that it was going to arrive far faster than we realize. And so I learned about all of these crazy, fabulous, amazing tools. And it blew my mind. And it took me seven days to get to sleep [00:09:00] again after kind of hearing about the craziness that's arriving. And I was getting the plane home and I stayed in San Francisco the night before, after doing it. I, I I was walking past the Twitter head office. And or near in that area. And I just was thinking that there were tens of millions of dollars being raised to deliver food to that building. 10 minutes faster or three minutes faster or something like that. But meanwhile, there were people homeless outside for drug addiction and things like that. And I started to really question and this is at the forefront of innovation and technology and things like that. And yet, and all of this money going into stuff, but right outside, there was stuff that really mattered that Was being left behind and so I think for the past decade a lot of my focus has really been around how do we bring together this very kind of human world with this [00:10:00] extraordinarily incredible possibility in a way that we don't get some of the unintended consequences of our actions and how does governance itself. Do you know, how do we regulate all of that? And how do we realize that the, the solutions may be arriving in different silos to the ones where we're currently managing for them. And there's, you know, there's some very, very smart people doing some unwise actions. Things in the world. And so in this world of artificial intelligence you know, there's a deeper call for artificial wisdom, maybe, or birth of wisdom. And so, you know, a lot of my work in the last decade is really about, you know, the intersection of where humanity meets technology. And this idea of something new feels like it's being born and and many of our old systems are [00:11:00] collapsing under the scaling complexity of, of, of the era we're in and and, you know, deep down, we all feel like something isn't right. And, you know, I used to be a marketer myself you know, I know this is a marketing community and a direct marketer, you know, really focused on data driven insight and conversion and all the kind of standard of marketing stuff, but, but essentially underneath it all, we were kind of using people's subconscious to, drivers and fears to manipulate them into our desired outcomes. And I started to realize, well, you add AI to that, infinite power and superhuman persuasion. And at the time, 11 years ago, I saw things like Cambridge Analytica. I saw things like Trumpism arriving before Trump even arrived. And ultimately that's the whole world trying to manipulate other people. To do what they want to do rather than what is in our [00:12:00] individual best interests, you know, be it The amount of time we're on screen time having all these amazing behavioral scientists and neuroscientists leveraging Ever more powerful tools to get to do things that aren't necessarily Thriving be it the newspapers pulling us in with huge headlines or clickbait or all of this kind of thing and so I felt that my own gifts were part of the problem When I started to think about the amplification of of what what I know. So many ways. I started to move away from. You know, manipulating others into empowering others to to. To be in their own wisdom and to do things in their individual and collective best interests. And then how do you actually build a mode of governing ourselves from that place? So yeah, I'm 10, 11 years into that process and I probably have more questions than answers. But these are incredible, amazing tools that do we have the wisdom to use? To use them wisely. [00:13:00] Sarah: Yeah. I think that, that really is the big question, right? Because like you, I'm fascinated by the intersection of the human versus the artificial intelligence and people are sometimes quite surprised because I talk about all things human marketing, like we're human selling, like we're human. I'm writing my third book business, like we're human. And, and yet. To me, artificial intelligence is an integral part. That new paradigm that I love to talk about because in my view, it actually helps us to be, or to go back to be more human. And so I guess I would like to have your perspective on that as well, because right now there's two opinions. The one that says, well, AI or chat GPT in marketing is, is just there to dehumanize. everything and [00:14:00] it dehumanizes the interactions and it dehumanizes the, the, the, the messages. So is that true or is there another way to use AI to actually, you know, make that humanness come out in a different way? Marc: So it's all about intention for me. Like the same tool used with misaligned intention. Can deliver vastly different outcomes. And so it's like, it's not really the tool that's the problem. So if I'm using it, I need to create more time that I can pay, spend time with another human being in deep care and deep love, and that is a tool being used to support my humanness, just like zoom is being used right now to have this conversation. It's like, you know, this is the one that says this is an artificial conversation because we brought two humans together. Together that otherwise wouldn't have the time to be able to reach each other and so You know [00:15:00] like like all things it could be used to separate or to connect. It can And so and really it's around what is the intention that these tools are being used for so, you know Say we've got this we've got airline here in my community. It's under Lots of stuff. It's kind of breaking because planes are not going right and the customer service is really Bad because they can't scale to a crisis. And so you couldn't employ enough humans to be human, right? And well actually if you've got systems that can expand and scale and And communicate in a human like way that can support people When they need it in an emergency when you can't provide humans And the current alternative is to be a robot and not available then And people being struggling at airports and all of this Kind of stuff and in crisis and not knowing what to do and all of this kind of stuff but if you've got an Intelligence system that can solve every problem rather than if you press button five And then button three and then about two you [00:16:00] can solve this particular problem, which isn't the problem. I'm really wanting a It's an act of care to provide a tool that meets people's needs. It's an act of love to design a system that cares, even though you're using technology. You know, so for me, I have this I'm a huge proponent of using systems from a place of love, care, and connection. And you know, AI is like magic. If used in the right way with the right kind of, you know, Emotion. Sarah: It leads me automatically to the next question, which is, well, are humans ready for that tool? You know, because if we're saying it's a great tool with the right intention, then maybe what we need to work on is the intention because the tool is already smart enough. So it's the intention that we actually need to work on. And so how [00:17:00] do we, how do we work on that? How do we get humans ready to use the tool with the right intention? Marc: Well, it's not only using it, but it's also about how susceptible are you to manipulation? You know, so like if you have loads of subconscious fears or stories and things like that, it opens you up to people using superhuman persuasion to, to, you know, if you have a fear of death, you're much more likely to be sold health products and all this kind of stuff. So in many ways the inoculation is, you know, what I always say, you should actually teach kids. about marketing and behavioral science, not because to get them to manipulate other people with it is so that they become more aware of what's driving the bus when most messaging is subconscious. And. Yeah, and so, you know, there's this, I think most of us have been through that aging process where we get wiser as we get older. [00:18:00] And that's kind of the shift in consciousness we go through as we evolve during, you know, our lives and humanity has to go through. a real shift for it to Be able to build systems in a way that don't have those consequences So you look at something like facebook or smartphones and things like that We can see all around us that this death of a thousand cuts has happened where everybody's just living in this kind of screen Like every single one of the thousands and thousands of decisions that went into that was probably made sense Logically and smartly but somehow we've ended up in a place where we're All in the same room but disconnected from each other. And so it's like you know, we've accidentally lost ourselves and we can see that with climate change or like with something like that you know, like can you really solve a problem like climate change without Without understanding that over consumption [00:19:00] Is a maybe a self worth issue like, you know, am I enough, you know? Or do I need more to To be someone and recognizing that, you know, these tools are manipulating that Sense of not enough and then how do you how do you how do you market pay a bill? when Your whole business model requires people to consume more even though it may not be in their best interest And so that interesting gap between wants and needs You and how do we, how do we, how do we get technology to support us what we really need rather than what we can be manipulating to wanting and I, you know, I kind of always look at what, say, how billionaires operate. Themselves, you know they'll a lot of them have an amazing assistant that is like the world's best ad blocker, you know You know what I mean? They don't really need to use the internet themselves or anything like that because it'll be facilitated and [00:20:00] so we kind of you know need to look at those kind of tools and stuff that we can build which are you know, the wise owl that sits on people's shoulder and and supports people, to choose the higher selves in moments of You of kind of manipulation. So I think it's an extraordinarily interesting time to be a builder that cares. I think there's never been a better time to you, to develop kind of technology with wisdom and technology that can bring us together and technology that can create magic and wonder and all of these kinds of things. But also there's, there's never been a better time to create lots of unintended, Consequences. Sarah: Yeah, I think that's the issue that I have is that we don't have enough examples of good people using AI right now. And that's why there's so much fear because people look at the. Not so good examples, [00:21:00] you know, the, the, the, the LinkedIn bots putting, you know, AI chat, GPT messages and spamming people and things like that. And so they're like, you see, you know, that's what AI is going to do. It's going to dehumanize everything because the good people, I'm just putting the two of us in the good people side, you know, there's not, you haven't seen Marc: me on a bad day. Sarah: But I'm just saying, there's not enough people who, who talk about doing business for good, who are also saying, yeah, but AI can be actually really good if we use it with the right intention. That's what I'm seeing. Marc: So a LinkedIn bot, I'm like, why wouldn't you use a LinkedIn bot to spread delight and wonder and mischief? You know, I was thinking about developing a belly laugh app the other day, just to, just to send belly laughs to people and things like that. You'd [00:22:00] be really good at that. Yeah. Record yours. Yeah. And it's just like, well, why would you automate something that would bring joy, laughter, and kindness? So, you know I think a friend of mine, Nipun Mehta, who does a lot of stuff around AI and wisdom, highly recommended stuff, and he's like, what about the seven viral virtues, you know, and how do you actually get to that? technologies to support the virality. I, you know, again, it's, it's like, I love the idea of a LinkedIn bot that just makes people laugh and, and, and it's about value, right? Yeah, you see a lot of these LinkedIn bots and it's all about what can I get? What can I get? And then sometimes it's a bit lazy and and it's like, Literally, it's like, I'm a human being. Why would I even respond to that? It's not even clever. Exactly. Well, that's what I Sarah: mean by bad examples, right? But it doesn't Marc: mean you can't be, you can't use the same technology and genuinely be clever and funny. [00:23:00] And well, but humor is my Brand essence and things like that mischief and playfulness. I'm not going to design something using these tools I'm not afraid of using these tools which kind of but I I would use them that really spread the essence of me to find That kind of deep resonance with other people, but you've also got to say well look if everybody used those tools which is increasingly getting easier and easier to do. We just break every social platform. There's so much noise, like the information overload right now is, is getting exponentially worse. And so, you know, to even get connection, you know, the depth of connection that has two people trust each other enough to work together. You know, that isn't going to come from the scaling the shallow, right? You know, that's, there's, you know, there's a reason why I kind of wrote a book on having coffee and, and teaching people to have coffee was, I think, in a world of ever increasing shallowness and scale, the ability to go deeper is kind [00:24:00] of the social network raster class. So, you know, I've had 10, 000 coffees in the last decade because I didn't think the other stuff would, would work that well as the noise did. You know, because everyone's like me, me, me, me, me, me, me with all this technology and amplifying the need for attention when, you know, and, and what we really want is the need for connection. And then when you, if you start with the premise on, okay, how do we use technology to support depth and trust an emotional connection. I think we build very different things. And that's the paradox Sarah: for me, that that really is the paradox. And that's why I believe that AI is actually helping us to create more spaciousness, to have time for those coffee chats. Yeah. Because right now people don't have the time. They're like, I don't have the time to talk to someone for 45 minutes. I have all these things to do. We have all these, this busy work [00:25:00] that we keep doing. Especially as entrepreneurs, often it's not even paid work, right? It's just like all these marketing messages and content plans and all of these things. And that's where AI is actually really good at helping us create that, if we even need to create that. I'm all about questioning our assumptions as well. Like, do we even need to create all that love? So yeah, people want depth more, right? And so that's what AI helps us create. create this more spaciousness to then spend time on a thousand coffee chats. And that's where the humanness comes back. Marc: And we're also going to realize that the world we're moving into is very different. You know, the idea of free intelligence, free energy, free labor, if we And like making money is something, you know, capitalism itself starts to break down in the next [00:26:00] decade or two as a result of if you draw the line of where all of this is going, because we're automating parts of our process today. But you know, you add a humanoid robot to that kind of thing and like everything can be done All needs can be provided and things like that with that kind of technology that's arriving And so it's like what are we selling when there's nothing to sell and how do we make? We have no needs that can't be met by you know The robots and the ais and all of that and the free energy Around us, right? And so Yeah Sarah: Yeah, that's huge. Like, yeah, what do we sell anymore? How Marc: do we find meaning in that process? Which, you know, I'm kind of the global conversation around meaning is, you know, around me since that WikiGuide diagram went around the world and things like that, that are responsible. There's a crisis of meaning.[00:27:00] Happening in the world right now. In in many age groups as people are trying to reconcile where, where do they fit in, you know, as the world is changing very rapidly and the old stories of who we are are moving in. And so, how do you find. Intrinsic motivation to when your old identities kind of dissolve, you know because, you know, we are more than our jobs or who we are with something deeper, but that process of discovery of who we are and what we find joy in when the workplace is going to radically change, it is changing. And how do we, yeah it's just like a. It's a very kind of strange time to be alive, you know, we're all kind of going through a process of death and rebirth, whether we like it or not. And it's like yeah, the need for attention to pay the bills is a kind of temporary state that I think we'll have to raise questions about whether we need to do that. To do that anymore. And [00:28:00] then, and I always kind of say to my wife and it's like, vague, it's like, when the robots come out, you know, our marriage is what's left. Let's work on that bit, you know, rather than understanding the importance of all of these tasks that need to be done in everyday family life. And and likewise, you know, when the robots come and, and who you are, And AI comes, who you are is what's left out of all of this stuff is done. It's like, what would you do when nobody is looking just for the sake of the joy of doing it? That's, that's Sarah: really interesting. Cause it in the, in this new book Business Like We're Human, I basically feel that we have to work on our relationship with work right now. Yeah. I think that is for the next five or so years. That is our main thing because also of you know what's going to come but for [00:29:00] me also because if we want to run businesses like we're human well right now we're working all the time and that that's not human or humane. But then also to To tie back into climate, the climate crisis and all these other crisis we have right now, we cannot solve those if we're constantly working to pay our bills. So we need to free our time for creative thinking, for just, you know, being human again so that we can tackle those and, and probably AI will help us with that as well. But I do believe that as humans, we need to redefine who we are. When we're not working, that is kind of like the question of the of the decade. I feel like, like, who are we if, if we're not working, if we're not defined by our work, because I, yeah, I didn't take it as far as the robots coming, but yeah, that's where we're going, right? Marc: Yeah. Whether it's Sarah: robots or AI or [00:30:00] whatever it is. Marc: Yeah. And it's like, what are we, what painting do we paint with that? We've kind of grown up with many kind of dystopian views of, Of what the world can be with that and I'm I'm more hopeful than that. But also recognizing that in in business terms I think about capital flows during that kind of period. And, you know, if we think about, you know, say the Holy Grail is in 10, 20 years or whatever, or 30 years, depending on your understanding at 40, 50, a hundred years or whatever, and you say, okay like how much money needs to flow to create a world of human thriving within planetary boundaries, you know So the energy system needs to change the health system needs to change all of these kind of things And so huge amounts of money Needs to move to facilitate that transformation. So I you know, I don't really like we need money to end money I kind of always say and it's like [00:31:00] I think it requires the best marketers the the best businesses the to You you know, to shift all of the resources from this kind of extracted deficit, extractive deficit based world that is around human coping to you know, this regenerative asset based world around human thriving that will unlock more wealth than we can ever imagine. Imagine to the point that wealth becomes pointless. So I don't really necessarily think it's an either or Thing it's not something we need to create time with our jobs to then have something else I think we'll see exploding industries and businesses that come from people who care that want to build something human with all these great tools That actually are unafraid to make money in the process of doing it because they, they're willing to inspire people to be hopeful and to move to another world. And and you, you see all sorts of brands starting to emerge that, that, that [00:32:00] attract lots of resources because, you know, I, it's not an either or thing. Like there's, you know but it's, it's messy, you know, going from caterpillar to butterfly and I, I don't necessarily have all the answers myself, but I, I don't you know, the idea, you know, I think there'll be an explosion of wealth but because we have all of these machines and potential, and we'd be able to create more circular ways of doing things, more regenerative ways of doing things, and like, you know, really well, people are better. And people who are below the poverty line, you know, create income and and money for businesses. And you get a load of struggling people behind the poverty line, that's not good for anyone. Or people with chronic disease or all of these kinds of things, that's not good for anyone. And I think once we start lining up kind of these entrepreneurial desires with what the world really needs and what we all need, and we get into creating a much, much bigger pie for everyone. Then, you know, we'll all do much better than we did before [00:33:00] monetarily as well as. And, you know, these tools can help us do that, but we need to all kind of learn to line with our own best interests and humanity's best interest heart, but, you know, part of that is how do we learn to get along enough to find out enough about each other to be able to collaborate to find out what really matters to us individually and collectively. And I think we're struggling as a, as a human race. With that right now, Sarah: yeah, that's, that's the main thing. It's like, yeah, the outer stuff is all lining up for us, but are we ready in terms of the inner job? Are we doing our inner job? And Marc: yeah, I mean, I can't even create agreement in my own family, you know, how do you create agreement in the world? And it's like, man, this feels like the tension, you know, it's like we have all of this limitless possibility arriving, but can we get out of our own way? to, to to manifest it. And I think this is the, I think this is the real role that marketers play which is [00:34:00] telling these really positive, hopeful stories that not just for people to consume, but to inspire people, you know, to be the best selves and, and to create the thing that they're, they're born to create and to be okay to do that perfectly. And in a human way and to create that kind of, you know, viral deep connection that comes with people. being alive. Sarah: Yeah, I love that. That's kind of a a good place to to come full circle. I love how you did that It's like, oh, yeah, it's all about the marketers Marc: I did start off as a marketer So, yeah, I can spin a story I can't do much but spinning a story Sarah: That's great. No exactly and I think that's really You What, [00:35:00] what we're working on is like, you know, marketing has been taught as an outside job for so many years. What I'm trying to do with humane marketing and some friends and colleagues are, you know, they're calling it differently conscious marketing and Claudia and other people. It's like, well, What if we start from the inside? What if market, a marketer is actually a healer, right? That's, that's what this is about. And it's, it's, you can call it a marketer or you can, whatever, a facilitator, whatever it is, right? If, if more people heal themselves and then help others heal, that's, that's. Marc: Yeah. I mean, I tend to, cause I work right across community and I knew the language of consciousness and healing and stuff really resonates and connects with a certain part of the community. And be at whatever stage and kind of the adoption curve that is, although that's rapidly changing. But to me, it's just good marketing. Like, let's not cloud [00:36:00] it with its own form of words. Bureaucracy and stuff like that. It's like, you know, the whole point of marketing is to emotionally connect with people to create a mutually beneficial outcome, right? That's just good marketing. Let's not dress it up. And like, we're just, we're just learning in this era that there are ways of marketing better and deep connection and trust is one of the core aspects of, you know, Marketing for as long as I've known it and it's just like we're we're learning our craft collectively. We're getting better at doing that and let's See it something else or them and us. It's just It's just good marketing. Sarah: Yeah, that's really good. I always ask now that I'm working on this book the final question is like, what does business like we're human mean to you? Like when you hear this term business, like we're human, what comes up for you? Like, what, what does that make you [00:37:00] think of? Marc: Yeah, for me, it's like this idea of mutual exchange. Yeah. You know, I think in the consciousness community, there's a lot of fear of receiving, I think, and You know, I kind of always had these visions of like, kind of the Italian markets and things like that, where there's this great flow of abundance and handing over the money and fruit and beautiful stuff coming the other way. And there's all this kind of love and conversation and things like that. So that, but there's still trade because, you know, it's, it's. It's a, it's a pain in the ass to do barter, you know, it's exhausting to like find the right person who's got the bits, you know, so there's, there's something magical in as a technology [00:38:00] commerce itself that, that allows previously impossible exchanges to place. And I think there's beauty in that. You know, the market was a place of conversation and connection and wonder and beauty and care. and you know, that to me, and it can take all forms, but the essence of that, that it's something done together from a place of, but there's still this kind of exchange going on. That's, for what that means in a modern context. You know, it's not sitting at home, pressing one click on Amazon, watching Netflix for three hours a night. Not speaking to anyone, not going anywhere that to me isn't human business, it's business. But Sarah: Yeah. It's also, it's like buying from not a human, but this giant mega list of company, right? Where on the market you see the person that you're buying from. So you [00:39:00] like, there's this establishment of trust as well. Marc: But it's not to say that I haven't had amazing things from Amazon or amazing things from Netflix. And that there is an art and wonder and love that's been put into all of these things. And, you know, we've just got to hold it lightly and say, well, okay, how do we just tweak these things a little and then be a little wiser about how we're using them and then try and build these systems in a way that bring us together rather than drive us apart. And and I think that'll be good for business, you know maybe, you know, Netflix becomes the world's greatest party planner or something, you know, like that brings people together. I'd pay a subscription for that, you know, took all the effort by meeting and, you know, Amazon was creating pop up markets all over the world to create kind of wonder. I think these things will end up being massive. Businesses that will create more commerce than the current kind of disconnected way of doing things and it's just these are really complex, complex problems is, you know, working [00:40:00] globally, but the bringing us all back to each other. Whereas I think, you know, globalization is has driven a lot of convenience, but it's also driven a lot of disconnection. And I think. You know, the businesses of the future will be much more fractal that allow us to be human and in villages and at Dunbar kind of scale of connection, but still provide us with that kind of convenience and wonder. But I think that's where things like AI are really interesting because they can hold all that complexity that I kind of hunter gatherer localized minds can't hold. And when those 2 things work in unison that work in our individual and collective best interest, then I think we'll, we'll create. Wonderful, inspiring, connecting businesses that will not be the same as the Italian markets that drove that, but will be even better. Even Sarah: better. Even better. I don't know about that one. Marc: What if that was possible? How magical would the world be? I like to, you know, see the, I [00:41:00] like your Sarah: optimism. Yeah. Well, as I Marc: say to my dystopian friends the day we all die, at least I would have enjoyed myself on the way there. What's the downside for hope, right? You know, that's the, and so, yeah, I, I, I, I'd like to think we could live in the world where the wonders of the past and the wonders of the future meet together to create something better than we can even imagine today. I don't think we have a choice. Sarah: Yeah, we don't want to be stuck where we are, so Well, we Marc: can't. We can't unify unless we honor the past and bring forward the magic of the future and do it in a way that honors us all, in a way that inspires us all and connects us all. I don't think we have a choice about that because everything else leads to, you know, a huge kind of dissatisfaction and disconnection of one society, part of society over another. So, you know, it's [00:42:00] a time for the hopeful imagineers to, you know, that COVID phrase, you know, build back better. I don't think we And you know, this is about society turning from a caterpillar into a butterfly and and you know, we're in the messy bit it's hard for a caterpillar to see what a butterfly looks like from that perspective, right? So like we it's hard to imagine from where we are going into the liquidation Liquidation that there could be a mutable butterfly the other side I don't want to you know, spend hours and hours of my life fearing for the future Yeah I want to be part of building the butterfly and not to say I don't spend hours and hours of my life figuring for the future, but like when I remember, that's pretty pointless. I get back to the, you know, the everyday wonder of spending time with amazing people, building amazing things as you do, right? And that's always what turns me to hope is when I'm in a conversation with someone like you, realizing that there are people like you all over the world in all sorts of different ways doing amazing things. And [00:43:00] that whilst it's not always easy to see on the news feeds and the social media feeds, like if you spend enough time out in the world, you, you can feel, you can feel all over every day. And whenever I'm feeling overwhelmed or stressed by the future, I just go and have coffee with someone wonderful. And it reminds me that I'm not alone in this And There are people building technology from care. There are people Bringing the markets back. There are people like doing all sorts of but you know with thumb up machines and all of these kind of other other bits and pieces that that will you know, yeah But we'll find our way. Sarah: We're just Marc: a little lost right now. Sarah: Yeah, well, I, yeah, I definitely want to talk again to you because every time I speak to you it's like, oh, you see, there's so much no, no, I'm usually a very optimistic person as well, and I still am. Surround myself by, yeah, content and, and ideas and inspiration. But yeah, talking to you, [00:44:00] it's, it just confirms all of that. It's like, yeah, that's exactly what I'm working towards. So it's been a, it's been a delight to refresh my memory with your wisdom. So so much for coming on today. You spend a Marc: day with me when I'm in family life, you'll see. See, I'm not that wise, you know, there's no pedestal here. I spent time thinking and feeling about certain things. I have some gifts, but I also have many, many weaknesses. And so I don't want to cover this space. I'm good. You know, this is my gift. But please don't get the wrong idea that I don't spend lots of time in my struggle as well. How British of you to Sarah: be so humble. Marc: Self deprecating, I think it's Sarah: the Marc: culture of birching ourselves. Sarah: And I'll just have to mention that I'll have to use the best AI possible out there to clean up the audio from all [00:45:00] the mic sounds and stuff. Marc: Do our best. Sarah: I hope it wasn't too terrible Marc: to listen to. Yeah, and the builders started hammering half way through it, but I think that's the best. The magic. Although I, although I, I invite you to put out an imperfect live offering that shows the humanism. Yeah, we'll do a mix of Sarah: humanness. We can't, you Marc: know, polishing everything also loses some of its. Some of it's magic. It's like romantic almost. As long as you put a good story on it, it's fine. Sarah: Good. Well, delightful to hang out with you, Mark. Thanks so much for being here. Marc: Take care. Sarah: I hope you got some great value from listening to this episode. Find out more about Mark's work at markwin. com or [00:46:00] connect with him on LinkedIn. And if you're looking for others who think like you, who are wanting to create this new paradigm of marketing and business, then why not join us in the Humane Marketing Circle? You can find out more at humane. marketing forward slash circle. you find the show notes of this episode at humane. marketing forward slash M 1 9 8. And on this beautiful page, you'll also find a series of free offers. The Humane Business Manifesto and the free Gentle Confidence mini course, as well as my two books, Marketing Like We're Human and Selling Like We're Human. Thank you so much for listening and being part of a generation of marketers who cares for yourself, your clients, and the planet. We are change makers before we are marketers. So go be the change you want to see in the world. Speak [00:47:00] [00:48:00] soon.

Paris Marx is joined by Karl Bode to discuss how Mark Zuckerberg's makeover and the PR campaign that's accompanied it shouldn't distract from the ongoing harms of his company.Karl Bode is a freelance tech journalist and consumer rights reporter.Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Support the show on Patreon.The podcast is made in partnership with The Nation. Production is by Eric Wickham. Transcripts are by Brigitte Pawliw-Fry.Also mentioned in this episode:Paris wrote about the problem with the “Zuckessance” for Disconnect.The New York Times published an article about the political evolution of Mark Zuckerberg.Facebook's Free Basics was widely called out for being a form of digital colonialism.Joel Kaplan was a key figure within Facebook defending right-wing content from effective moderation.Neil Postman wrote the book Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985.Support the show

How can big tech and a healthy democracy coexist? In this episode Rick is joined by Marietje Schaake, author of The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley. Together, they delve into the growing influence of big tech companies on global democracy, the dangers posed by unchecked data collection, and the rise of tools like Pegasus spyware. Schaake highlights the need for greater transparency, regulation, and accountability in the tech sector, while addressing the potential threats to privacy and democratic freedoms. They also discuss the weaponization of data by companies like Palantir and Cambridge Analytica, as well as potential solutions to safeguard democratic systems in the face of advancing technology. Marietje's book, The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley, available now. Timestamps: (00:01:26) The Tech Coup (00:05:37) Government against large corporations (00:09:56) Which country's are doing it right? (00:15:05) Palantir Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We have a very special episode of Decoder today. It's become a tradition every fall to have Verge deputy editor Alex Heath interview Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on the show at Meta Connect. This year, before his interview with Mark, Alex got to try a new pair of experimental AR glasses the company is calling Orion.  Alex talked to Mark about a whole lot more, including why the company is investing so heavily in AR, why he's shifted away from politics, Mark's thoughts on the link between teen mental health and social media, and why the Meta chief executive is done apologizing for corporate scandals like Cambridge Analytica that he feels were overblown and misrepresented.   Links: Hands-on with Orion, Meta's first pair of AR glasses | The Verge The biggest news from Meta Connect 2024 | The Verge Mark Zuckerberg: publishers ‘overestimate the value' of their work for training AI | The Verge Meta extends its Ray-Ban smart glasses deal beyond 2030 | The Verge The Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses actually make the future look cool | The Verge Meta has a major opportunity to win the AI hardware race | The Verge Instagram is putting every teen into more private and restrictive new account | The Verge Threads isn't for news and politics, says Instagram's boss | The Verge Facebook puts news on the back burner | The Verge Meta is losing a billion dollars on VR and AR every single month | The Verge Transcript: https://www.theverge.com/e/24017522 Credits:  Decoder is a production of The Verge and is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Our producers are Kate Cox and Nick Statt; our editor is Callie Wright. This episode was additionally produced by Brett Putman and Vjeran Pavic. Our supervising producer is Liam James.  The Decoder music is by Breakmaster Cylinder.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us a textOn this week of Serious Privacy, Paul Breitbarth talks with Meaghan McCluskey while dr. K Royal is enjoying a well deserved vacation. They talk about Meaghan's career in privacy, that brought her from the Office of the Ontario Privacy Commissioner to Nymity and then TrustArc, where she led the research teams providing daily updates on global privacy developments. Now, Meaghan is a consultant with The Privacy Pro, a boutique privacy consultancy based in Toronto.Also on the menu this week, the developments surrounding the new Canadian privacy legislation (Bill C-27) and the Federal Court's decision in the Cambridge Analytica case. If you have comments or questions, find us on LinkedIn and IG @seriousprivacy @podcastprivacy @euroPaulB @heartofprivacy and email podcast@seriousprivacy.eu. Rate and Review us! Proudly sponsored by TrustArc. Learn more about NymityAI at https://trustarc.com/nymityai-beta/ #heartofprivacy #europaulb #seriousprivacy #privacy #dataprotection #cybersecuritylaw #CPO #DPO #CISO

In this insightful episode, host Mark Stinson sits down with Ben Gillenwater, a technology expert with a background as a CTO, former NSA contractor, and entrepreneur. Together, they delve into the critical topic of internet safety in the home, exploring the intersection of creativity, technology, and security. Ben shares his unique perspective on how the digital age's innovations come with significant privacy and security concerns that every family should be aware of. He offers practical advice on how to protect personal information and minimize risks, emphasizing the importance of staying vigilant in the face of increasingly sophisticated online threats.5 Key Takeaways:1. Understanding the Stakes: Internet safety extends far beyond physical threats; it includes privacy, emotional well-being, and protecting against the monetization of our digital behaviors. Major companies like Meta, Google, and Microsoft are financially motivated to collect and utilize personal data to enhance their advertising revenue, often at the cost of user privacy.2. The Hidden Dangers of Data Collection: Seemingly harmless online activities can lead to significant behavioral and information exposure. For instance, social media platforms like Facebook track user behavior across the internet, leading to data breaches like the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where personal data was exploited for political gain.3. Children and Internet Safety: Giving children unfiltered access to the internet is akin to leaving your home's front door unlocked. Ben stresses the importance of monitoring and controlling internet access for children and gradually increasing their exposure as they mature and develop better judgment.4. The Illusion of Free Services: Many free apps and services are designed to capture and monetize user data. Ben advises listeners to be skeptical of "free" offerings, as they often come with hidden costs, such as compromised privacy and personal information being sold to third parties.5. Practical Solutions for Families: There are actionable steps that families can take to protect themselves, such as using child safety apps like Bark, which offer comprehensive monitoring of children's online activities. However, as children grow older, it's essential to balance technical controls with education on digital literacy and responsible online behavior.Quote:*"You are safer removing the locks in your house than you are giving your kids unfiltered access to the Internet." — Ben GillenwaterDon't miss this episode if you want to learn how to safeguard your family's digital life and navigate the complexities of internet safety in the modern age.Subscribe & Follow: Stay updated with the latest episodes of Your World of Creativity by subscribing on your favorite podcast platform and following us on social media.

En este episodio de DIAS EXTRAÑOS, nos sumergimos en el oscuro mundo de la vigilancia digital. Descubriremos cómo las grandes empresas tecnológicas y las agencias de espionaje gubernamentales trabajan mano a mano para recopilar y analizar nuestros datos. Desde los orígenes militares de internet hasta el escándalo de Cambridge Analytica, pasando por el caso Snowden y el polémico papel de empresas como Palantir. ¿Pueden las mismas corporaciones que colaboran con la NSA proteger nuestra privacidad? ¿Son las apps de encriptación un escudo o un caballo de Troya? Un viaje revelador y estremecedor por las cloacas de la cibervigilancia que te hará replantearte tu relación con la tecnología. Abre bien los ojos antes de dar tu próximo clic. Y además: La CIA en Italia, con Alberto Ausín. Moral, economía y prohibición, con Daniel Arias Aranda. Escucha el episodio completo en la app de iVoox, o descubre todo el catálogo de iVoox Originals

In 2000, Republicans stole Florida by scrubbing voter rolls and stopping the recount. In 2004, Republicans stole Ohio by suppressing the vote through deliberately engineered long voting lines and other election day chaos. In 2024, Republicans are throwing everything they can at Georgia. Republican officials in the state are helping them, even those harassed by Trump's Big Lie.    If MAGA can't steal the Electoral College outright, their fallback plan is to get close, drawing a tie. This would send the election to the House of Representatives. There, MAGA loyalist Mike Johnson, who blocked urgently needed Ukraine aid for six critical months, giving Russia the advantage on the battlefield, would likely pick Trump.The Senate, in control of Democrats, would pick the Vice President, likely Kamala Harris, who would then very likely be replaced by Trump's White House as the Heritage Foundation massacres the government with Project 2025, Christian nationalism's decades long plan to establish a dictatorship. They have 10,000 Trump loyalists already in place, ready to carry this out, according to a recent report by ProPublica.    In March, the U.S. sanctioned two PR firms in Russia hired by the Kremlin to manipulate Americans into spreading disinformation to “divide and conquer” Trump's opposition in the 2024 election. So it begs the question, why isn't the DOJ, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and Secretaries of State stepping up to stop homegrown threats?:    Why is the Christian nationalist group Ziklag allowed to fund EagleAI, which empowers MAGA activists to challenge voter registrations, including 10,000 voters in Georgia? (Remember, Trump only needed 11k votes to win Georgia in 2020).    Why is the Department of Homeland Security allowing voting machines in Georgia or anywhere in the country whose data was breached by MAGA loyalist Sidney Powell, with that data already spread among MAGA and possibly to foreign adversaries, like Russia?  Why is the DOJ letting Elon Musk fund a new version of Cambridge Analytica, targeting voters in swing states?  Why are the Secretaries of State allowing around 70 MAGA loyalists with histories of refusing to certify elections to remain in positions of power in 16 counties in six swing states, including Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, especially given the history of such loyalists to break the law, as they did in Georgia, helping Sidney Powell steal sensitive voting machine data?    This week's bonus show also looks at J.D. Vance's war on people who don't birth children. That brings us to this viral quote from a recent article published on the site of The Heritage Foundation, architects of Project 2025: “Joseph Stalin had an utter disregard for human life, and his regime claimed the lives of 9,000,000-20,000,000 of its own subjects. Yet even Stalin understood that society depended on strong, intact families.” This is an actual quote from Heritage Foundation Senior Research Associate Emma Waters. Her piece was taken down after it went viral, but you can read an archived version in the show notes. All that and more is discussed in this week's Q&A shaped by listeners' questions subscribed at the Democracy Defender ($10/month) and higher on Patreon. To join the conversation, subscribe at Patreon.com/Gaslit. Discounted annual memberships are available! Thank you to everyone who supports the show – we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!    RSVP to the live taping of Gaslit Nation featuring Terrell Starr of the Black Diplomats Podcast at the Ukrainian Institute of America on September 16 at 7pm. Patreon supporters at the Truth-teller level and higher get in free–message us to be added to the guest list! More details here: https://ukrainianinstitute.org/event/books-at-the-institute-chalupa/ Show Notes:   These Swing State Election Officials Are Pro-Trump Election Deniers At least 70 pro-Trump conspiracists are election officials in key battleground counties — and they are poised to make a giant mess on Election Day https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-swing-state-officials-election-deniers-1235069692/   Russia is relying on unwitting Americans to spread election disinformation, US officials say https://apnews.com/article/russia-trump-biden-harris-china-election-disinformation-54d7e44de370f016e87ab7df33fd11c8   Inside Ziklag, the Secret Organization of Wealthy Christians Trying to Sway the Election and Change the Country https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-ziklag-secret-christian-charity-2024-election   Politics How an Elon Musk PAC is using voter data to help Trump beat Harris in 2024 election https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/elon-musk-pac-voter-data-trump-harris.html   Web Archive: The Heritage Foundation took down this piece really handing it to Stalin https://web.archive.org/web/20240306073726/https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/crushing-societys-building-block   Democrats Should Remember that They Won Florida in 2000 https://theintercept.com/2018/11/10/democrats-should-remember-al-gore-won-florida-in-2000-but-lost-the-presidency-with-a-preemptive-surrender/   Ohio in 2004: None Dare Call It Stolen https://harpers.org/archive/2005/08/none-dare-call-it-stolen/   Reform the Electoral College – Learn More About the National Vote Pact https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/episodes-transcripts-20/2024/5/28/reform-the-electoral-college   “The work of Project 2025 is largely done. Under Paul Dans, the project has assembled a database of more than 10,000 names — job candidates vetted for loyalty to Trump's cause — who will be ready to deploy into federal agencies after the 2024 election.” https://x.com/AlisonKodjak/status/1819335000434548958  

Phil Elwood was a marketer and strategist who helped the governments of Libya, Qatar, Nigeria, and not quite but almost Syria make their cases on the world stage. He was also involved in the Mueller probe, and had a toe touch with Cambridge Analytica. In other words, he's a fascinating, conflicted, but mostly contrite figure, and author of All the Worst Humans: How I Made News for Dictators, Tycoons, and Politicians. Plus, the overstuffed South African cabinet, and a pundit who loved Joe Biden's chances until she didn't. Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara  Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com  To advertise on the show: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist  Subscribe to our ad-free and/or PescaPlus versions of The Gist: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/  Follow Mike's Substack: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Self-exiled French conspiracy theorists attempt to set up a sovereign utopia in a desolate Bulgarian village called Mamarchevo. This turns into death threats, people getting scammed out of tens of thousands of euros, a plot to abduct a child, the flying of a Nazi flag, and lots and lots of alcohol. Our guest is journalist Anthony Mansuy, who you may remember from our exploration of French sovereign citizens and our two part investigation into the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The episode is based on an article he wrote for the French newspaper “Society”. He spent months chasing the story, and even traveled to Mamarchevo to interview those involved and experience their utopia first-hand. We also ask him about the general state of conspiracy theorizing in France and what the hell is happening with their recent political meltdown. Subscribe for $5 a month to get an extra episode of QAA every week + access to podcast mini-series like Manclan, Trickle Down, Perverts and The Spectral Voyager: http://www.patreon.com/QAA Anthony Mansuy: https://x.com/AnthonyMansuy Society Magazine: https://www.society-magazine.fr/ Editing by Corey Klotz. Theme by Nick Sena. Additional music by Pontus Berghe, Nick Sena & Jake Rockatansky. Theme Vocals by THEY/LIVE (https://instagram.com/theyylivve / https://sptfy.com/QrDm). Cover Art by Pedro Correa: (https://pedrocorrea.com) https://qaapodcast.com QAA was known as the QAnon Anonymous podcast.

Latest predictions come as Fed officials prepare to meet; Nvidia completes stock split; Norway sovereign wealth fund is latest shareholder to oppose Tesla's Musk pay; Supreme Court to hear Meta appeal of lawsuit sparked by Cambridge Analytica scandal.

TicketMaster recently acknowledged a massive data breach that has affected more than half a billion customers. Where would it fall on a list of the worst data breaches in US history? We look at instances from LinkedIn to Home Depot.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.