Podcast appearances and mentions of Tim Wu

Host Junor Francis and producer Eric Kohler talk with seven former members of the veteran ska-jazz-punk-funk-reggae fusion group, Pocket Lent: Joel Elsten, Mike Long, Justin Sears, Todd Simon, Ian Souter, Tavis Werts, and Tim Wu.

The Gaslit Nation Media Committee, a watchdog against access journalism and regime propaganda, has developed this essential guide. We urge all members of the media to reject complicity in the erosion of democracy.   The American crisis is a global struggle between democracy and fascism—one that threatens the entire world. Each of us has a role in defending freedom. If you work in media, use this guide to safeguard your integrity, your liberty, and the values we cherish—before it's too late. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy.   1. Don't Bury the Lede: Call It an Illegal Tech-Backed Coup To build trust, stick to the facts. When Trump's administration acts illegally, say it—especially in the headline. Call it what it is: a tech-backed coup that exposes Americans' most sensitive data and replaces federal workers with unsecured A.I. to establish a new surveillance state. 2. Make Private Prison Execs Famous Investigate the financial interests behind Trump's immigration system—expose executives, board members, and their connections. Pursue them with cameras; they can't hide behind profits while lives are ruined and civil liberties eroded. 3. Fascism Needs Ignorance From dismantling the Department of Education to the “War on Woke” in universities, Trump continues delegitimizing education. This isn't about competition with other countries—it's about giving everyone the chance to grow as independent thinkers who reject fascism. 4. Follow the Money Investigate Trump's major donors and their role in Musk's illegal purge of government services. Hold them accountable—ask how they view their investments amid the chaos. Track their contracts and regulatory benefits. 5. Expose National Security Threats Trump removed key military officials who prevented unlawful actions. Without them, who will stop him? Trump holds the nuclear football, cozying up to adversaries, sending bombs to Israel, and threatening wars against Canada and Greenland. Focus on how our adversaries are taking advantage. 6. Kleptowatch Focus on how companies exploit customers through greedflation and Amazon's payola for search visibility. While the Biden administration has much to answer for, the media must spotlight the absence of enforcement of investigations brought by Lina Khan and Tim Wu, leaving corporate kleptocrats unchecked. 7. Media Must Thoroughly Cover Media Journalists must cover media attacks, including blocked access to info and censorship (e.g., Ann Telnaes at WaPo). Report on media ecosystem shifts, address bias, and clarify distinctions between reporting, opinion, and lies. Provide context on media ownership. 8. Draw Historical Parallels Trump, Musk, and allies are enacting policies similar to dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. The media must challenge their unfounded assertions. They are attacking the press and critics, reminiscent of regimes like Pol Pot's and Rwanda's genocide. 9. Trump is Trying to Turn America into an Autocracy: Act Like It Columbia Journalism Review shared 10 essential tips for journalists reporting from autocracies. Share these with your teams, including your company's lawyers—killing big stories and obeying in advance is self-destructive. 10. Shine a Light on Private Prisons The private prison industry needs scrutiny, especially with Trump's lack of oversight. Innocent people are caught in reckless immigration raids as the system grows unchecked. Regular coverage of Guantanamo Bay is crucial due to its history of unlawful detention and Trump's plan for a prison camp there for 30,000 people. 11. Gilead is Here The media has abandoned calling out Trump's toxic masculinity regarding reproductive rights and civil rights. Raise awareness of the deadly consequences for women, including trans women, and all nonwhite people. 12. Access Journalism is Betrayal Fascism's history includes journalists from major outlets becoming "masters of euphemism," (to quote Gareth Jones), downplaying atrocities and broken laws to protect access. History will remember you for doing your job or being bought. Doing your job well can save lives and democracy. 13. Family Members Deserve Special Attention Trump's administration is granting lucrative positions to family members of allies and donors, giving them undue influence over policy. These self-dealing networks must be mapped and exposed. 14. Unmask Voter Suppression Election analysis must address gerrymandering, unfair Senate representation favoring "red states," the Electoral College designed to protect elites, and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Don't treat our voter suppression crisis like "horse race" politics. 15. Focus on the 1% Expose extreme wealth inequality—how the 1% dodge taxes and exploit loopholes to preserve their wealth. Put a spotlight on how inequality fuels authoritarianism and is a direct threat to democracy. 16. Cover Protests Highlight actions challenging the White House's destructive crimes. People need to see that citizens care about the laws being broken by Trump's administration and that they're not alone. 17. They're Testing Boundaries: Say It When something is "unprecedented," that means they're testing boundaries, to see what they can get away with. Say it. 18. The Weird Fights Matter Trump renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America may seem "weird," but it's part of the fascist pageantry, like Mussolini's famous eyeliner and Putin's shirtless photos. Look to experts in autocracy to see which stories are being used as a distraction and which stories are important to cover.  An expanded version of the Gaslit Nation Media Guide can be found here: https://www.gaslitnationpod.com/media-guide   For More: Ten Tips for Reporting in an Autocracy American journalists have much to learn from colleagues in countries where democracy has been under siege. https://www.cjr.org/political_press/ten-tips-for-reporting-in-an-autocracy.php   Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!   Music Credit: "Tafi Maradi no voice" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com). Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/  

In part one of our ‘Sentient Brands on Social Media’ series, Jamie speaks with Serenity Discko, the original media writer behind the teenage edgelord Denny’s Tumblr account. But worry not, we go DEEP — Jamie sets the stage by tracing back our history of parasocial relationships with brands all the way back to World War I. Buckle in, the brands are getting angry, the brands are getting horny, and the brands want to be your best friend. Follow Serenity’s work here: Serenity Discko Watch The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis: https://youtu.be/eJ3RzGoQC4s?si=_eHsM0hadnUQA3Cr Read The Attention Merchants by Tim Wu: https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-attention-merchants-the-epic-scramble-to-get-inside-our-heads-tim-wu/8632123See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Lina Khan, the youngest F.T.C. chair in history, reset U.S. antitrust policy by thwarting mega-mergers and other monopolistic behavior. This earned her enemies in some places, and big fans in others — including the Trump administration. Stephen Dubner speaks with Khan about her tactics, her track record, and her future. SOURCES:Lina Khan, former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and professor of law at Columbia Law School. RESOURCES:"Merger Guidelines" (U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, 2023)."The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications," by Jan De Loecker, Jan Eeckhout, and Gabriel Unger (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019)."US Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective," by Laura Phillips Sawyer (Harvard Business School, 2019).The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, by Tim Wu (2018)."Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," by Lina Khan (Yale Law Journal, 2017)."A Tempest In a Coffee Shop," by Tanya Mohn (New York Times, 2004). EXTRAS:"The Economics of Eyeglasses," by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Should You Trust Private Equity to Take Care of Your Dog?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Are Private Equity Firms Plundering the U.S. Economy?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Is the U.S. Really Less Corrupt Than China — and How About Russia? (Update)" by Freakonomics Radio (2022).

Lots of healthy disagreement in this week's THAT WAS THE WEEK tech show with Keith Teare. We debate the impact of AI on coding jobs, with Keith suggesting that while traditional coding skills may become less important, system architecture and AI guidance skills will be crucial to maintaining the value of human labor. We also discuss the rise of early-stage unicorns, military-tech AI start-ups, and disagree strongly on the status of billionaires, with Keith arguing that it's “not hard” to be a billionaire in Silicon Valley today. Here are the five KEEN ON takeaways from today's conversation:* Divergent Market and Valley Sentiment: While the stock market is having its worst performance since Trump's inauguration, Silicon Valley remains optimistic, particularly about AI. Keith argues there's no short-term correlation between Silicon Valley sentiment and market performance.* Evolution of Tech Skills: The rise of AI is changing the nature of technical skills needed in startups. Keith suggests that traditional coding skills are becoming less crucial, while the ability to architect systems and guide AI is becoming more important. He notes that universities are already adapting their computer science programs to include AI.* Rise of Efficient Startups: AI is enabling lean startups to do more with fewer people. Keith uses his own company Signal Rank as an example, noting they've built a complex system with just five people, two of whom are coders, highlighting a shift in how startups can be built efficiently.* Military-Tech Convergence: There's a growing trend of Silicon Valley companies entering the defense sector, exemplified by Saronic raising $600 million for autonomous warships. This represents a broader shift in how military technology is being developed and funded through private companies.* Debate about Wealth Creation: The conversation concludes with a debate about wealth accumulation, sparked by Robert Reich's controversial X post about billionaires. Keith argues that technology's global reach and distribution capabilities have made it easier than ever to build valuable companies, with Andrew strongly disputing the idea that becoming a billionaire is "not that hard."That Was The Week - February 22, 2025With Andrew Keen and Keith TeareAndrew Keen: Hello everybody. It is Saturday, February the 22nd, 2025. The last Saturday in February, the last Saturday we're going to do That Was The Week tech roundup. It's been an odd week. On the one hand, the stocks notched the worst week since Trump's inauguration six weeks ago. It's been a long six weeks. According to the Financial Times, the geopolitical rupture, which of course has been caused by Trump, has sparked a quiet market rebellion. Niall Ferguson had an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal about the demise of the United States because of its massive debt, and Elon Musk has been continuing to make a public fool of himself this week, waving a chainsaw and pretending to be an Argentine politician, which I'm not sure reflects that well on him. However, in spite of all that bad news, Keith Teare's That Was The Week newsletter is actually very optimistic. Unicorns are back, according to Keith, and we have an image, of course, created by AI of these imaginary beasts horses with horns. Keith is joining us, as always, from Palo Alto, the home of optimism. Keith, do you think it's coincidental that suddenly everyone is optimistic again in Silicon Valley whilst the market is sliding to those two things in an odd way, kind of go together?Keith Teare: There's no correlation between Silicon Valley and the markets at all in any day to day sense. There's long term correlation, but not short term. Silicon Valley is having a moment because of AI, and Grok Three was launched this week. Crunchbase launched its new AI driven data platform, and the CEO declared that historical data is dead, meaning only future predictive data is any good anymore.Andrew Keen: And historical data being dead. The future is predictive intelligence. What does that mean?Keith Teare: He means that it's now possible, because of AI, to see patterns and trends and predict them. Just knowing the past is not the point anymore. Obviously it's stretching a point. You still need the history from the past to see the trends. But he's saying the needle has turned from looking backwards to predicting the future because of data. That's true in biology as well. There's a massive arc this week announced a new model that understands DNA and can predict the likelihood of solving diseases.Andrew Keen: Your editorial this week, Keith, is quite personal. You know that as the person in charge of Signal Rank, your startup, AI has been remarkably helpful in it. You refer in the editorial to an interesting piece in the New York Times about how AI is changing Silicon Valley build startups like your own Signal. What does your experience at Signal Rank tell us about the future of startups?Keith Teare: Signal Rank is five people. Two of us have coding skills. We've raised $5 million ever to spend on building Signal. All the other money we raised is to invest in companies. That article is focusing on the fact that it's almost like the Lean Startup story from the early 2000s, except it's true this time, because the most expensive thing in a startup is people. And the one thing you need less of is people. That's a massive shift. Of course, if you're building large language models, the opposite is true, because the most expensive thing is GPUs, which you pay Nvidia for. And that's super expensive. But everything else that's sitting on top of that is getting faster, cheaper and better.Andrew Keen: You also refer to a New York Times piece about how AI is prompting an evolution, not an extinction for coders. Your son's a coder, in a sense, you're a coder. Ultimately, one and I was at this thing with Tim Draper a couple of weeks ago where he was talking about companies, billion dollar companies built and managed by single people won't ultimately make most coders extinct. Maybe not all. But when founders like yourselves simply become coders and you won't have the need for other help.Keith Teare: I make the point in an editorial that I didn't write a single line of code, but I've built a very complex system with lots of AI agents working together and delivering results for users. Learning to code is going to be a low requirement. A very high requirement is learning to architect and guide the AI because the AI can code, but it can't imagine systems to build or know when it got it right or when it got it wrong. The skill base is going to shift to what normally would be the domain of a product manager who has coding skills and can understand what's happening and can understand what it can ask for and what it can't ask for. But coding itself, learning Python, learning JavaScript or Java? Probably less essential.Andrew Keen: So what happens to kids like your son who just graduated and now works in Silicon Valley as a coder?Keith Teare: He'll still be needed for some time. In his company, they're not allowed to use AI yet. It's a little bit like dying skills always protect themselves until they can't. Engineers that are defensive or companies that are defensive about using AI are going to fall behind a little bit. But eventually everyone gets there because it's just a better way of doing things.Andrew Keen: You're an innovator and instinctive in terms of innovation. But are people going to start going to college and doing majors and working with AI rather than learning how to code? Will computer science be really about how to ask the right questions and ask it to do the correct things?Keith Teare: Yes, but to do that you need to understand systems architecture. My youngest son just got an offer from my old university in the UK, Kent, and it's for a course called Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, so they're already evolving the courses to teach the new skills. I think it's going to be imperative if you can talk to a machine and you can imagine what you want it to build. Imagine you could describe to a machine the website you'd really like for Keen on America, and it would build it, and then you'd look at what it built and say, no, I didn't mean that, I meant this. It gives you massive power to produce things.Andrew Keen: And I think it's also true with writers. I'm not a coder. But the thing with AI is it's not designed to replicate human writing. It's designed to answer questions and organize ideas in ways that are instant as opposed to taking hours or days for humans. So it's similar in that sense. Meanwhile, let's go back to your unicorns. It's all coming out of Crunchbase that your wife works for. She writes for it. And what is Crunchbase telling us this week about quote unquote minting early stage startups? Are unicorns back in fashion? We haven't talked about unicorns for about a year. We talk about them every week.Keith Teare: The rates of unicorn production declined massively from 2021 onwards and reached the bottom last year.Andrew Keen: While the market was strong and now it's falling and unicorns are back.Keith Teare: This article is specifically about early stage unicorns. These are unicorns that become unicorns at a series A or a series B round. They're raising very large sums of money. The top six series A raises this week all raised more than $50 million.Andrew Keen: And the average valuation I guess early round has jumped to 3.3 billion. But doesn't the unicorn term become slightly absurd if you're raising hundreds of millions of dollars? It's given that you're going to be a unicorn. But does that really mean anything?Keith Teare: If you try to put it into a rational framework, the amount of money put into a company and the valuation is determined by supply and demand and likely outcomes. Investors who are writing these checks are making a calculation of what this company will be worth in the next five to ten years. They're writing checks appropriate to a gain of at least ten times that money. They're projecting into the future a likely outcome from writing the checks and the competition to invest in these companies is so intense that the checks get bigger earlier. Obviously that creates risk. The risk is that you're making the call too early and you're going to be wrong in your predictions. The upside is that you know you're right and you'll be smiling all the way to the bank. That's just the nature of any technology transfer.Andrew Keen: Is this different from any other hysteria boom? Just the numbers are larger. Is this different from the dot-com boom where huge amounts of money were poured in? Most companies failed. Some succeeded, like Amazon or like web 2.0, or like social media or like crypto.Keith Teare: It's very similar. It's more like the gold rush because there really was gold. There really is gold. Even in the dot-com boom, the asset class of venture capital did very well. Individual investments failed, but the asset class as a whole did very well. When you allocate to a tech boom like AI really is and the AI boom is real, there's real value being produced and real change in human experience that's going to generate lots of money. Placing those bets at the asset class level makes sense. Individual investments is a totally different story.Andrew Keen: You also refer to Hunter Walk, who is a very smart guy. He said, you have to assume every company will have access to the same LLMs and voices. The challenge then is to build a company that thrives despite this reality. Given the commodification of AI and all these platforms from xAI to OpenAI to Anthropic AI to Google Gemini, that are basically now all the same. We're seeing this commodification of LLMs. Doesn't that point to a weakness in this AI hysteria?Keith Teare: You have to distinguish between LLMs, reasoning agents and agents that can do things. This week, Grok Three was launched. It's very good, by the way. But it's only a little bit better than all the others. So it didn't get the attention that say deepfaked.Andrew Keen: And next week someone will come out with something else that will be a little better. And as this race continues, the differences between the products will become less and less.Keith Teare: But for you and me, that's fantastic. You use Anthropic, I use Perplexity, I use Claude, we're basically getting free intelligence to do work.Andrew Keen: I wonder whether in that sense it's rather like the early days of the internet where we got a lot of stuff for free, and then everyone woke up and started charging. I mean, we are paying. I pay my $20 a month to Anthropic. You pay your monthly fees, but it's still pretty small amounts of money.Keith Teare: OpenAI now has 400 million daily active users and is making billions of dollars.Andrew Keen: I hope so because it's raised tens of billions of dollars.Keith Teare: But that is the game. Think of the Andrew Keen world. You wouldn't want to constrain yourself to investing almost nothing and making almost nothing. You want to invest as much as possible as long as you know you can make more than that back.Andrew Keen: On the unicorn front, you've been at this rodeo before many times. You're about as experienced as it gets. Are you taking these arguments about unicorns seriously, or should we be taking them like unicorns themselves with a pinch of salt?Keith Teare: When you build startups, the valuation of the startup is not even in your mind as a variable. You're just building whatever your vision is and it costs money to build it. So you're raising money. You sell shares in your company at the highest price you possibly can. It's good news if you're a unicorn from the point of view of the company you're building. Founders don't really think about valuations as much as they think about how much money they need and what they're going to do with it. Normal people read the headlines and think that Silicon Valley is awash with irrationality. It isn't really true.Andrew Keen: Well, you're providing us with those headlines. One of the other pieces you linked to this week is from the FT about Silicon Valley fighting EU tech rules with backing from Trump. Most of the news this week has been about Trump outside technology. It's Trump changing the rules in terms of big tech and particularly Europe and tariffs completely.Keith Teare: Coinbase announced yesterday that the SEC has withdrawn its lawsuit against Coinbase. That's the latest little indication of the trend. There are rumors that Ripple, which was also subject to an SEC case, will have that case withdrawn. The Trump administration does not want to stand in the way of big tech or little tech for that matter, and it sees Europe, rightly so, as a bit of a backwater. The zeitgeist is changing. Even in Europe, the innovators are fairly pro the Trump message even if they're not pro Trump. The need to innovate and relax constraints.Andrew Keen: The German economy now seems to be in crisis or German culture is in crisis. But they probably left it too late. The horse or the unicorns, so to speak, has left the barn here, hasn't it?Keith Teare: Apple yesterday announced that it's turning off encryption in Europe, in the UK now, not the whole of Europe, because the UK asked for a backdoor. So now UK users of the iPhone have no security on their phones because Apple, rather than comply with a backdoor, would turn the whole security layer off. That's going to be a bit of a trend. The governments trying to control tech, especially if they're snooping on their citizens. Tech is not going to bend over and agree with them anymore. And Trump is going in the opposite direction. He's not trying to get them to do back doors.Andrew Keen: The interview of the week, my interview was with Tim Wu, who was perhaps the most influential critic of monopoly Big Tech in the Biden administration. He has an interesting new piece out on decentralizing capitalism. With the help of Claude, we came away with five points from my conversation with Wu. It's all about decentralizing capitalism, getting away from monopoly capitalism, which I think he sees in companies like Google and Facebook and even OpenAI. I know you're not a big fan of regulation, but do you think Wu has a point? He's in favor of decentralizing capitalism. He's not against the market. He's in favor of innovation.Keith Teare: What does he mean? Because you could frame that as being nation states that are too centralized or you could frame it that big tech is too centralized. How does he frame it?Andrew Keen: He frames it as capitalism lends itself to a winner take all economy. He goes over the argument that America has always been a more innovative and wealthier society when you attack the monopolies, whether it's the oil monopolies, the railroads, pharma. And the same needs to be done now to unleash creativity, to unleash guys like yourself. One of your close friends, Lina Khan, was on MSNBC this week, talking about what she calls an anti-monopoly hunger in America. I'm not sure whether that's an exaggeration, but certainly there is an anti-monopoly feeling, both on both sides of the aisle. It's one of the few things that unite Democrats and Republicans, isn't it?Keith Teare: No, I disagree. The zeitgeist is exactly the opposite. The desire to control, especially big tech is nonexistent. The Democrats live in their own bubble world on MSNBC, and they really don't know how normal people think. Most people think Google's awesome. They think Amazon is awesome. They like using AI. More and more people are using it.Andrew Keen: You can like using AI and not be in favor of monopolies. That's two different subjects.Keith Teare: Normal people don't even use the word monopoly. It's not a word in the normal lexicon. It's a purely political word, used only in the circles of the Democratic Party that have this kind of Stalinist influence. The word state monopoly capitalism came out of Stalin.Andrew Keen: But I think you need to read Wu's piece on decentralizing capitalism, because he's as much a critic of Stalinism and centralization as you. He uses models from postwar East Asia, particularly Taiwan, and of course, the Danish model to talk about reforming the US. So what would you advise guys like Wu to be arguing? Should they just throw in their chips with Donald Trump and say you're right?Keith Teare: Where I would agree with them, and this is the common thread where we can agree, is capitalism has the tendency to create what I think of as greater socialization. You get bigger and bigger units, more interconnected. The interconnected piece is super important. It's not just that they're big, they're interconnected and that tends to be global. There's a globalizing tendency within capitalism. As you globalize and you socialize production, small individual industries tend to go by the wayside. Artisan industries. All of that is true. But you don't fix that by trying to break it up. The real social good is that the human race increasingly becomes interconnected and interdependent. That's a good thing. What's wrong is the private ownership of the wealth that it produces.Andrew Keen: Last week we talked about Alva van Gogh's critique of Vance's Paris speech, although he agreed with it in part. This week, you connect with Albert's humanist vision for AI. The speech at the Paris AI summit he would have given. What is Albert's vision?Keith Teare: It's a little bit 1960s cumbayah-ish. I am one of those, so I agree with him. But it's basically saying that AI is a tool for humanity, not a tool against humanity. And he makes the case for that. He doesn't say there are no safety risks, but he minimizes safety risks and places human good first, which I think does correlate to Tim Vance. It's an opportunity to be taken, not a safety risk. So I think he's kind of on the same page as Vance, to be honest.Andrew Keen: Whenever anyone uses the word humanist, it always makes me slightly skeptical. I'm not entirely sure what it means. I mean, who's anti-humanist except for a few Marxist philosophers in Paris? Meanwhile, lots of other tech news. Microsoft announced what it sees as a breakthrough in quantum. Is that right, Keith?Keith Teare: You and I probably are not clever enough to know, but I think we are safe. The answer is yes. That headline says they've created a new state of matter, and that pertains to something called a topological qubit, which is a qubit that can be programmable. And they're so tiny and there's so many of them that a quantum computer can do calculations at much greater scale, much faster than anything before. And they claim to have reduced this new state of matter down into a chip that can be plugged into a computer, an electrical computer, not a quantum computer, and can run. And the claim is that that will accelerate quantum computing by decades, to the point where there are promising programs that mean something within five years. And so that's a new timeline from Microsoft.Andrew Keen: I think quantum is like we're going to talk about it and talk about it and talk about it, and everyone will be skeptical. Some people will say it's for real, and then suddenly something will come along, the equivalent of OpenAI or ChatGPT and quantum, and it will be real. But that certainly isn't this week. Meanwhile, your startup of the week is exactly what you've been talking about. A unicorn Saronic, which raised this week $600 million to mass produce autonomous warships. It's another example of how Silicon Valley and the Pentagon and the defense industry seem to be becoming one. Tell us about Saronic.Keith Teare: Saronic is part of that trend for Silicon Valley and military spending to converge. The same investors in Saronic are also in Anduril and some of the other companies we talked about from time to time, space as well. So it's symptomatic of two things. The first is militarized investment coming out of Silicon Valley, and the second is the valuations. I should disclose, by the way, that Signal Rank owns shares in Saronic. So this was good news for us this week.Andrew Keen: Or at least your investors own shares. It's interesting that this week Palantir also has done very well for the first few weeks of 2025. But it also crashed. This is a very frothy market, tech military startups isn't it?Keith Teare: I wouldn't say crashed. It's up like 200%. If you're an investor in Palantir and you've been holding, you wouldn't be too upset by this pullback. The world we're living in, and I'm not a fan of this by any means, but military investment by private companies selling to governments is going to be a rising trend because governments can't really innovate the military. They're so stuck with old fashioned views of what conflict might look like. It's interesting that even Musk and DOGE this week and Trump announced they're going to try to reduce the U.S. military budget by 10% annually.Andrew Keen: And they've seen some cuts. And I think when historians look back, the rise of companies like Saronic, the DOGE initiative, and the behavior which I'm like most people, I think rather critical of, of pulling back from Ukraine, they're all going to be part of the same narrative. Something is profoundly changing here on the military industrial, but the military political from the US's involvement in the world and the technological piece of this.Finally, post of the week and it comes back to the conversation you and I were just having about Tim Wu. Robert Reich, a well-known MSNBC type who was in the Clinton administration, posted that there are basically five ways to accumulate $1 billion: profiting from a monopoly, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud and inheritance. And Brad Gerstner, amongst others, was horrified with this. He said it was such a terrible, bitter and sad take on America. I'm assuming you're in the Gerstner camp, Keith.Keith Teare: I am, but that isn't why I posted it. I posted it because I wanted to focus on the absolute chasm between the democratic intellectual elite and the rest of us. Robert Reich almost is saying that you have to be a criminal to get rich. And that isn't how most people think.Andrew Keen: The American dream, right? But I, being a great fan of Reich, think he is the dinosaur of dinosaurs, but he isn't saying that. He's talking about being a billionaire. That's not being rich. So you have to distinguish.Keith Teare: This might be shocking to the listeners and maybe even to you, but it isn't that hard to become a billionaire if you do the right things these days, because 4 billion people on Earth are consuming technology outputs at increasing rates and paying for that. Being a billionaire is like what used to be being a millionaire. And it's only going up.Andrew Keen: I've got my title of this week's show Keith. "Keith Teare says it's not that hard to be a billionaire." How close are you to being a billionaire?Keith Teare: I've been very close twice in my career.Andrew Keen: No you haven't. When?Keith Teare: Absolutely have. Both RealNames and Easynet were valued at well over $1 billion.Andrew Keen: Yeah, but you didn't own the whole thing.Keith Teare: I owned a lot. And by the way, it was early in the life of the companies, and that was in 1994 and 1999. In 2025, those would be small outcomes. Today's outcomes, getting a company to be worth $1 billion happens early. That early stage unicorns point happens early.Andrew Keen: But let's be clear as well. What Reich is talking about is not billionaires. And as I said, I'm not particularly sympathetic to what he's saying either. But he's talking about real billionaires, people with $1 billion in the bank or with investors.Keith Teare: Let's just ask this question. Look back at what Reich says, and let's answer a few questions. Where would the brothers who run Stripe fit on that list? They're worth much more than $1 billion. They're not anywhere on that list. Where is Musk on that list? Where is Bezos on that list? Where are the founders of Google on that list?Andrew Keen: No, I agree with you. I think that he's wrong to say there are basically five ways to accumulate $1 billion: profiting from monopoly, insider trading, political payoffs, fraud and inheritance. You're absolutely right. But my disagreement with you is it's still incredibly hard to be a billionaire. How many billionaires are there in the US?Keith Teare: Of course it's hard.Andrew Keen: But you just said it was not that hard to be a billionaire.Keith Teare: Let me tell you what I mean by that. It's the easiest it's ever been, and it's going to get easier.Andrew Keen: Or it's easiest it's ever been because of inflation.Keith Teare: No, because of the scale of distribution networks and the revenues that come back from them. It used to be super hard. When I did Easynet, we had to put floppy disks on the front of magazines to distribute our software. When I did my most recent startups, you put an app in two app stores, and it's in the whole world the next day. And so the flow of money that comes from the ease of distribution of software to people who can pay for it if they like it, has completely changed the dynamics.Andrew Keen: I take your point. But coming back to this issue, how do you consider wealth? Who is rich? How much do you have to earn?Keith Teare: I think rich is totally subjective from your point of view. I thought I was rich when I didn't have credit card debt back in the day.Andrew Keen: Meaningless term, then. It's just entirely subjective.Keith Teare: Yes, but you can build the pyramid of wealth in terms of a smaller number of people at the top with very large amounts of wealth and go down to the bottom where lots of people have nothing. And that pyramid will change its shape and the scale at different levels through history, usually in a positive direction. That's one of the results of the socialization of production and the coming together of the human race into a single GDP growth. There's never been a period in human history recently where that pie or pyramid hasn't improved in both scale and distribution.Andrew Keen: As a bit frothy Keith, your new middle name is Keith "It's not that hard to be a billionaire" Teare. But coming back to Reich, I do agree with you. I think his approach is absurdly negative and reactionary, and the idea that you can't become a billionaire unless you're basically cheating, unless you're an inside trader or fraudulent or inherit money from someone else. He couldn't be more wrong on that, given, as you say, the Stripe guys, the Google guys, the Amazon people, even Musk. I'm no great fan of his but he didn't cheat to become a billionaire.Keith Teare: And you've got to believe, and this is why I put it in, that what he's saying is received wisdom in the minds of people like Lina Khan and Elizabeth Warren.Andrew Keen: That you're going to pick on your friend Lina Khan and Tim Wu as well. Wu teaches at Columbia. I wonder what Wu would say about that. I wonder whether Wu would argue that in a decentralized capitalism, it would be possible to be a billionaire. I'd have to get him back on the show to talk about that. Would we want a society, Keith? A decentralized capitalism where nobody was a millionaire, where the wealthiest people were worth 50 or $100 million?Keith Teare: No, I think the nightmare scenario for the future is that as production socializes and globalizes, a very small number of people control the wealth. But I think that's the right place to discuss how does the wealth get distributed to everyone? So you uplift human life, not just a few individuals, but I don't think you achieve that by trying to break up monopolies.Andrew Keen: The point is, it's not even breaking up monopolies. Reich's point is that one way to get $1 billion is to profit from monopoly. But the Google people, it's back to Peter Thiel's argument. Any entrepreneur wants to be a monopoly, that's the nature of doing startups. You want to win and winning becomes a monopoly, right? For better or worse. Google didn't start as a monopoly. Maybe it is one now because it's successful.Keith Teare: That's correct. If everyone was a failure, there'd be no monopolies. It's only success that creates market power and monopolies. It's a little bit like the word fascist. It's become a swear word to describe anything big. And fascist has become a swear word to describe anyone you disagree with. The truth is, these words mean things. Monopolies do get built. Google isn't one, in my opinion. And when they do, there's usually benefits that people are enjoying, which is why they're successful. And the key is how do you transition the world from massively concentrated private wealth to widely distributed aggregate wealth?Andrew Keen: And that's not about breaking up companies.Keith Teare: No, it's about distributing wealth, not breaking up companies.Andrew Keen: Also with Reich, there are lots of politically responsible or politically liberal billionaires. Reed Hoffman comes to mind. We talked about him last week. Finally, and this comes back to your point, Gerstner had another interesting post this week. He said the DOGE dividend could be a massive, game-changing legacy for Trump. Just one day of DOGE savings, apparently - this is what they claim, who knows whether they're really saving it - $3.7 billion could fund a private investment account with $1,000 for each child born in America. With just a little added per year, this could grow to $200,000 by age 30. Do you think Trump needs to do something radical on this front because he's not getting a great deal of good press on DOGE? A lot of people are losing their jobs every day. There are heart-rending stories of laid-off people. And it's not the billionaires losing their jobs. They're being fired by the billionaires. It's people working at poorly paid jobs in the first place. So does he need to do something with all the money he's supposed to have saved? Maybe in terms of a sovereign wealth fund or something more innovative?Keith Teare: What Gerstner is talking about there is about the distribution of wealth. It's one example of it. I think it's unlikely that Trump has the DNA to really follow through on anything like that. I don't think Donald Trump has any kind of social awareness at all about uplifting everybody. I do think there are people that do think like that. Sam Altman is one of them, and Reed Hoffman may be another, where the question of if there is abundance, how does everyone benefit from it? That's a real question. Gerstner's idea is not terrible, but I think it's a macro idea. There's a much bigger conversation needed than how to deploy the DOGE savings.Andrew Keen: I agree with you. And I think that I also agree with you on the Reich front that his kind of thinking, which is purely negative, is pointless. And what's missing on the progressive side amongst Democrats are creative, innovative thinking about the redistribution of wealth, rather than just taxing the rich or making it illegal to be a billionaire.Keith Teare: Yes.Andrew Keen: Well, we're in agreement, Keith.Keith Teare: Shocking.Andrew Keen: Shocking agreement. Although we disagree, I think it is still hard to be a billionaire. One thing I can guarantee is I've never been close and I never will be a billionaire. You say you've been close. What are the chances in the next few years, Keith, that you're going to be a billionaire from Signal Rank?Keith Teare: Don't even think about it. I think about what Signal Rank can do for everyone else. And if it does well, I'll do well.Andrew Keen: Go on bro. If it does well, I hope you'll pay me for this show. Keith Teare, publisher of That Was The Week. The man who argues that it's not that hard to be a millionaire. It's still a little hard, Keith, but we will be back next week to talk more billionaires, unicorns, AI, and everything else in the world of tech. Have a great week and we'll be back at this time next week. Thanks, Keith.Keith Teare: Bye. 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

Why is reforming capitalism so essential? In the latest issue of Liberties Quarterly, Tim Wu argues that unregulated capitalism not only leads to economic monopolies, but also drives populist anger and authoritarian politics. In “The Real Road to Serfdom”, Wu advocates for "decentralized capitalism" with distributed economic power, citing examples from Scandinavia and East Asia. Drawing from his experience in the Biden administration's antitrust efforts, he emphasizes the importance of preventing industry concentration. Wu expresses concern about big tech's growing political influence and argues that challenging monopolies is critical for fostering innovation and maintaining economic progress in the United States.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our interview with Tim Wu:* Historical Parallels: Wu sees concerning parallels between our current era and the 1930s, characterized by concentrated economic power, fragile economic conditions, and the rise of populist leaders. He suggests we're in a period where leaders are moving beyond winning elections to attempting to alter constitutional frameworks.* The Monopoly-Autocracy Connection: Wu argues there's a dangerous cycle where monopolies create economic inequality, which generates populist anger, which then enables authoritarian leaders to rise to power. He cites Hugo Chavez as a pioneer of this modern autocratic model that leaders like Trump have followed.* Decentralized Capitalism: Wu advocates for an economic system with multiple centers of distributed economic power, rather than just a few giant companies accumulating wealth. He points to Denmark, Taiwan, and post-WWII East Asia as successful examples of more balanced economic structures.* Antitrust Legacy: Wu believes the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement efforts have created lasting changes in legal standards and public consciousness that won't be easily reversed. He emphasizes that challenging monopolies is crucial for maintaining innovation and preventing industry stagnation.* Big Tech and Power: Wu expresses concern about big tech companies' growing political influence, comparing it to historical examples like AT&T and IBM. He's particularly worried about AI potentially reinforcing existing power structures rather than democratizing opportunities.Complete Transcript: Tim Wu on The Real Road to SerfdomAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We live in very strange times. That's no exaggeration. Yesterday, we had Nick Bryant on the show, the author of The Forever War. He was the BBC's man in Washington, DC for a long time. In our conversation, Nick suggested that we're living in really historic times, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, perhaps even the beginnings of the Second World War.My guest today, like Nick, is a deep thinker. Tim Wu will be very well known to you for many things, including his book, The Attention Merchants. He was involved in the Biden White House, teaches law at Columbia University, and much more. He has a new book coming out later in the year on November 4th, The Age of Extraction. He has a very interesting essay in this issue of Liberties, the quarterly magazine of ideas, called "The Real Road to Serfdom."Tim had a couple of interesting tweets in the last couple of days, one comparing the behavior of President Trump to Germany's 1933 enabling act. And when it comes to Ukraine, Tim wrote, "How does the GOP feel about their president's evident plan to forfeit the Cold War?" Tim Wu is joining us from his home in the village of Manhattan. Tim, welcome. Before we get to your excellent essay in Liberties, how would you historicize what we're living through at the moment?Tim Wu: I think the 1930s are not the wrong way to look at it. Prior to that period, you had this extraordinary concentration of economic power in a very fragile environment. A lot of countries had experienced an enormous crash and you had the rise of populist leaders, with Mussolini being the pioneer of the model. This has been going on for at least 5 or 6 years now. We're in that middle period where it's moving away from people just winning elections to trying to really alter the constitution of their country. So I think the mid-30s is probably about right.Andrew Keen: You were involved in the Biden administration. You were one of the major thinkers when it came to antitrust. Have you been surprised with what's happened since Biden left office? The speed, the radicalness of this Trump administration?Tim Wu: Yes, because I expected something more like the first Trump administration, which was more of a show with a lot of flash but poor execution. This time around, the execution is also poor but more effective. I didn't fully expect that Elon Musk would actually be a government official at this point and that he'd have this sort of vandalism project going on. The fact they won all of the houses of Congress was part of the problem and has made the effort go faster.Andrew Keen: You talk about Musk. We've done many shows on Musk's role in all this and the seeming arrival of Silicon Valley or a certain version of Silicon Valley in Washington, DC. You're familiar with both worlds, the world of big tech and Silicon Valley and Washington. Is that your historical reading that these two worlds are coming together in this second Trump administration?Tim Wu: It's very natural for economic power to start to seek political power. It follows from the basic view of monopoly as a creature that wants to defend itself, and the second observation that the most effective means of self-defense is control of government. If you follow that very simple logic, it stands to reason that the most powerful economic entities would try to gain control of government.I want to talk about the next five years. The tech industry is following the lead of Palantir and Peter Thiel, who were pioneers in thinking that instead of trying to avoid government, they should try to control it. I think that is the obvious move over the next four years.Andrew Keen: I've been reading your excellent essay in Liberties, "The Real Road to Serfdom." When did you write it? It seems particularly pertinent this week, although of course you didn't write it knowing exactly what was going to be happening with Musk and Washington DC and Trump and Ukraine.Tim Wu: I wrote it about two years ago when I got out of the White House. The themes are trying to get at eternal issues about the dangers of economic power and concentrated economic power and its unaccountability. If it made predictions that are starting to come true, I don't know if that's good or bad.Andrew Keen: "The Real Road to Serfdom" is, of course, a reference to the Hayek book "The Road to Serfdom." Did you consciously use that title with reference to Hayek, or was that a Liberties decision?Tim Wu: That was my decision. At that point, and I may still write this, I was thinking of writing a book just called "The Real Road to Serfdom." I am both fascinated and a fan of Hayek in certain ways. I think he nailed certain things exactly right but makes big errors at the same time.To his credit, Hayek was very critical of monopoly and very critical of the role of the state in reinforcing monopoly. But he had an almost naivete about what powerful, unaccountable private economic entities would do with their power. That's essentially my criticism.Andrew Keen: In 2018, you wrote a book, "The Curse of Bigness." And in a way, this is an essay against bigness, but it's written—please correct me if I'm wrong—I read it as a critique of the left, suggesting that there were times in the essay, if you're reading it blind, you could have been reading Hayek in its critique of Marx and centralization and Lenin and Stalin and the Ukrainian famines. Is the message in the book, Tim—is your audience a progressive audience? Are you saying that it's a mistake to rely on bigness, so to speak, the state as a redistributive platform?Tim Wu: Not entirely. I'm very critical of communist planned economies, and that's part of it. But it's mainly a critique of libertarian faith in private economic power or sort of the blindness to the dangers of it.My basic thesis in "The Real Road to Serfdom" is that free market economies will tend to monopolize. Once monopoly power is achieved, it tends to set off a strong desire to extract as much wealth from the rest of the economy as it can, creating something closer to a feudal-type economy with an underclass. That tends to create a huge amount of resentment and populist anger, and democracies have to respond to that anger.The libertarian answer of saying that's fine, this problem will go away, is a terrible answer. History suggests that what happens instead is if democracy doesn't do anything, the state takes over, usually on the back of a populist strongman. It could be a communist, could be fascist, could be just a random authoritarian like in South America.I guess I'd say it's a critique of both the right and the left—the right for being blind to the dangers of concentrated economic power, and the left, especially the communist left, for idolizing the takeover of vital functions by a giant state, which has a track record as bad, if not worse, than purely private power.Andrew Keen: You bring up Hugo Chavez in the essay, the now departed Venezuelan strongman. You're obviously no great fan of his, but you do seem to suggest that Chavez, like so many other authoritarians, built his popularity on the truth of people's suffering. Is that fair?Tim Wu: That is very fair. In the 90s, when Chavez first came to power through popular election, everyone was mystified and thought he was some throwback to the dictators of the 60s and 70s. But he turned out to be a pioneer of our future, of the new form of autocrat, who appealed to the unfairness of the economy post-globalization.Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán, and certainly Donald Trump, are direct descendants of Hugo Chavez in their approach. They follow the same playbook, appealing to the same kind of pain and suffering, promising to act for the people as opposed to the elites, the foreigners, and the immigrants. Chavez is also a cautionary lesson. He started in a way which the population liked—he lowered gas prices, gave away money, nationalized industry. He was very popular. But then like most autocrats, he eventually turned the money to himself and destroyed his own country.Andrew Keen: Why are autocrats like Chavez and perhaps Trump so much better at capturing that anger than Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?Tim Wu: People who are outside the system like Chavez are able to tap into resentment and anger in a way which is less diluted by their direct information environment and their colleagues. Anyone who hangs around Washington, DC for a long time becomes more muted and careful. They lose credibility.That said, the fact that populist strongmen take over countries in distress suggests we need to avoid that level of economic distress in the first place and protect the middle class. Happy, contented middle-class countries don't tend to see the rise of authoritarian dictators. There isn't some Danish version of Hugo Chavez in the running right now.Andrew Keen: You bring up Denmark. Denmark always comes up in these kinds of conversations. What's admirable about your essay is you mostly don't fall into the Denmark trap of simply saying, "Why don't we all become like Denmark?" But at the same time, you acknowledge that the Danish model is attractive, suggesting we've misunderstood it or treated it superficially. What can and can't we learn from the Danish model?Tim Wu: American liberals often misunderstand the lesson of Scandinavia and other countries that have strong, prosperous middle classes like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. In Scandinavia's case, the go-to explanation is that it's just the liberals' favorite set of policies—high taxation, strong social support systems. But I think the structure of those economies is much more important.They have what Jacob Hacker calls very strong "pre-distribution." They've avoided just having a small set of monopolists who make all the money and then hopefully hand it out to other people. It goes back to their land reform in the early 19th century, where they set up a very different kind of economy with a broad distribution of productive assets.If I'm trying to promote a philosophy in this book, it's for people who are fed up with the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and think it leads to autocracy, but who are also no fans of communism or socialism. Just saying "let people pile up money and we'll tax it later" is not going to work. What you need is an economy structured with multiple centers of distributed economic power.Andrew Keen: The term that seems to summarize that in the essay is "architecture of parity." It's a bit clunky, but is that the best way to sum up your thinking?Tim Wu: I'm working on the terminology. Architecture of equality, parity, decentralized capitalism, distribution—these are all terms trying to capture it. It's more of a 19th century form of Christian or Catholic economics. People are grasping for the right word for an economic system that doesn't rely on just a few giant companies taking money from everybody and hopefully redistributing it. That model is broken and has a dangerous tendency to lead to toxicity. We need a better capitalism. An alternative title for this piece could have been "Saving Capitalism from Itself."Andrew Keen: Your name is most associated with tech and your critique of big tech. Does this get beyond big tech? Are there other sectors of the economy you're interested in fixing and reforming?Tim Wu: Absolutely. Silicon Valley is the most obvious and easiest entry point to talk about concentrated economic power. You can see the dependence on a small number of platforms that have earnings and profits far beyond what anyone imagined possible. But we're talking about an economy-wide, almost global set of problems.Some industries are worse. The meat processing industry in the United States is horrendously concentrated—it takes all the money from farmers, charges us too much for meat, and keeps it for itself. There are many industries where people are looking for something to understand or believe in that's different than socialism but different than this libertarian capitalism that ends up bankrupting people. Tech is the easiest way to talk about it, but not the be-all and end-all of my interest.Andrew Keen: Are there other examples where we're beginning to see decentralized capitalism? The essay was very strong on the critique, but I found fewer examples of decentralized capitalism in practice outside maybe Denmark in the 2020s.Tim Wu: East Asia post-World War II is a strong example of success. While no economy is purely small businesses, although Taiwan comes close, if you look at the East Asian story after World War II, one of the big features was an effort to reform land, give land to peasants, and create a landowning class to replace the feudal system. They had huge entrepreneurism, especially in Korea and Taiwan, less in Japan. This built a strong and prosperous middle and upper middle class.Japan has gone through hard times—they let their companies get too big and they stagnated. But Korea and Taiwan have gone from being third world economies to Taiwan now being wealthier per capita than Japan. The United States is another strong example, vacillating between being very big and very small. Even at its biggest, it still has a strong entrepreneurial culture and sectors with many small entities. Germany is another good example. There's no perfect version, but what I'm saying is that the model of monopolized economies and just having a few winners and hoping that anybody else can get tax payments is really a losing proposition.Andrew Keen: You were on Chris Hayes recently talking about antitrust. You're one of America's leading thinkers on antitrust and were brought into the Biden administration on the antitrust front. Is antitrust then the heart of the matter? Is this really the key to decentralizing capitalism?Tim Wu: I think it's a big tool, one of the tools of managing the economy. It works by preventing industries from merging their way into monopoly and keeps a careful eye on structure. In the same way that no one would say interest rates are the be-all and end-all of monetary policy, when we're talking about structural policy, having antitrust law actively preventing overconcentration is important.In the White House itself, we spent a lot of time trying to get other agencies to prevent their sectors, whether healthcare or transportation, from becoming overly monopolized and extractive. You can have many parts of the government involved—the antitrust agencies are key, but they're not the only solution.Andrew Keen: You wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic about Biden's antitrust initiatives. You said the outgoing president's legacy of revived antitrust enforcement won't be easy to undo. Trump is very good at breaking things. Why is it going to be hard to undo? Lina Khan's gone—the woman who seems to unite all of Silicon Valley in their dislike of her. What did Biden do to protect antitrust legislation?Tim Wu: The legal patterns have changed and the cases are ongoing. But I think more important is a change of consciousness and ideology and change in popular support. I don't think there is great support for letting big tech do whatever they want without oversight. There are people who believe in that and some of them have influence in this administration, but there's been a real change in consciousness.I note that the Federal Trade Commission has already announced that it's going to stick with the Biden administration's merger rules, and my strong sense is the Department of Justice will do the same. There are certain things that Trump did that we stuck with in the Biden administration because they were popular—the most obvious being the turn toward China. Going back to the Bush era approach of never bothering any monopolies, I just don't think there's an appetite for it.Andrew Keen: Why is Lina Khan so unpopular in Silicon Valley?Tim Wu: It's interesting. I'm not usually one to attribute things to sexism, but the Justice Department brought more cases against big tech than she did. Jonathan Kanter, who ran antitrust at Justice, won the case against Google. His firm was trying to break up Google. They may still do it, but somehow Lina Khan became the face of it. I think because she's young and a woman—I don't know why Jonathan Kanter didn't become the symbol in the same way.Andrew Keen: You bring up the AT&T and IBM cases in the US tech narrative in the essay, suggesting that we can learn a great deal from them. What can we learn from those cases?Tim Wu: The United States from the 70s through the 2010s was an extraordinarily innovative place and did amazing things in the tech industry. An important part of that was challenging the big IBM and AT&T monopolies. AT&T was broken into eight pieces. IBM was forced to begin selling its software separately and opened up the software markets to what became a new software industry.AT&T earlier had been forced to license the transistor, which opened up the semiconductor industry and to some degree the computing industry, and had to stay out of computing. The government intervened pretty forcefully—a form of industrial policy to weaken its tech monopolies. The lesson is that we need to do the same thing right now.Some people will ask about China, but I think the United States has always done best when it constantly challenges established power and creates room for entrepreneurs to take their shot. I want very much for the new AI companies to challenge the main tech platforms and see what comes of that, as opposed to becoming a stagnant industry. Everyone says nothing can become stagnant, but the aerospace industry was pretty quick-moving in the 60s, and now you have Boeing and Airbus sitting there. It's very easy for a tech industry to stagnate, and attacking monopolists is the best way to prevent that.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Google earlier. You had an interesting op-ed in The New York Times last year about what we should do about Google. My wife is head of litigation at Google, so I'm not entirely disinterested. I also have a career as a critic of Google. If Kent Walker was here, he would acknowledge some of the things he was saying. But he would say Google still innovates—Google hasn't become Boeing. It's innovating in AI, in self-driving cars, it's shifting search. Would he be entirely wrong?Tim Wu: No, he wouldn't be entirely wrong. In the same way that IBM kept going, AT&T kept going. What you want in tech industries is a fair fight. The problem with Google isn't that they're investing in AI or trying to build self-driving cars—that's great. The problem is that they were paying over $20 billion a year to Apple for a promise not to compete in search. Through control of the browsers and many other things, they were trying to make sure they could never be dislodged.My view of the economics is monopolists need to always be a little insecure. They need to be in a position where they can be challenged. That happens—there are companies who, like AT&T in the 70s or 60s, felt they were immune. It took the government to make space. I think it's very important for there to be opportunities to challenge the big guys and try to seize the pie.Andrew Keen: I'm curious where you are on Section 230. Google won their Supreme Court case when it came to Section 230. In this sense, I'm guessing you view Google as being on the side of the good guys.Tim Wu: Section 230 is interesting. In the early days of the Internet, it was an important infant industry protection. It was an insulation that was vital to get those little companies at the time to give them an opportunity to grow and build business models, because if you're being sued by billions of people, you can't really do too much.Section 230 was originally designed to protect people like AOL, who ran user forums and had millions of people discussing—kind of like Reddit. I think as Google and companies like Facebook became active in promoting materials and became more like media companies, the case for an absolutist Section 230 became a lot weaker. The law didn't really change but the companies did.Andrew Keen: You wrote the essay "The Real Road to Serfdom" a couple of years ago. You also talked earlier about AI. There's not a lot of AI in this, but 50% of all the investment in technology over the last year was in AI, and most of that has gone into these huge platforms—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini. Is AI now the central theater, both in the Road to Serfdom and in liberating ourselves from big tech?Tim Wu: Two years ago when I was writing this, I was determined not to say anything that would look stupid about AI later. There's a lot more on what I think about AI in my new book coming in November.I see AI as a classic potential successor technology. It obviously is the most significant successor to the web and the mass Internet of 20 years ago in terms of having potential to displace things like search and change the way people do various forms of productivity. How technology plays out depends a lot on the economic structure. If you think about a technology like the cotton gin, it didn't automatically lead to broad flourishing, but reinforced plantation slavery.What I hope happens with AI is that it sets off more competition and destabilization for some of the tech platforms as opposed to reinforcing their advantage and locking them in forever. I don't know if we know what's going to happen right now. I think it's extremely important that OpenAI stays separate from the existing tech companies, because if this just becomes the same players absorbing technology, that sounds a lot like the darker chapters in US tech history.Andrew Keen: And what about the power of AI to liberate ourselves from our brain power as the next industrial revolution? When I was reading the essay, I thought it would be a very good model, both as a warning and in terms of offering potential for us to create this new architecture of parity. Because the technology in itself, in theory at least, is one of parity—one of democratizing brainpower.Tim Wu: Yes, I agree it has extraordinary potential. Things can go in two directions. The Industrial Revolution is one example where you had more of a top-down centralization of the means of production that was very bad for many people initially, though there were longer-term gains.I would hope AI would be something more like the PC revolution in the 80s and 90s, which did augment individual humanity as opposed to collective enterprise. It allowed people to do things like start their own travel agency or accounting firm with just a computer. I am interested and bullish on the potential of AI to empower smaller units, but I'm concerned it will be used to reinforce existing economic structures. The jury's out—the future will tell us. Just hoping it's going to make humanity better is not going to be the best answer.Andrew Keen: When you were writing this essay, Web3 was still in vogue then—the idea of blockchain and crypto decentralizing the economy. But I didn't see any references to Web3 and the role of technology in democratizing capitalism in terms of the architecture of corporations. Are you skeptical of the Web3 ideology?Tim Wu: The essay had its limits since I was also talking about 18th century Denmark. I have a lot more on blockchain and Web3 in the book. The challenge with crypto and Bitcoin is that it both over-promises and delivers something. I've been very interested in crypto and blockchain for a long time. The challenge it's had is constantly promising to decentralize great systems and failing, then people stealing billions of dollars and ending up in prison.It has a dubious track record, but it does have this core potential for a certain class of people to earn money. I'm always in favor of anything that is an alternative means of earning money. There are people who made money on it. I just think it's failed to execute on its promises. Blockchain in particular has failed to be a real challenge to web technologies.Andrew Keen: As you say, Hayek inspired the book and in some sense this is intellectual. The father of decentralization in ideological terms was E.F. Schumacher. I don't think you reference him, but do you think there has been much thinking since Schumacher on the value of smallness and decentralized architectures? What do people like yourself add to what Schumacher missed in his critique of bigness?Tim Wu: Schumacher is a good example. Rawls is actually under-recognized as being interested in these things. I see myself as writing in the tradition of those figures and trying to pursue a political economy that values a more balanced economy and small production.Hopefully what I add is a level of institutional experience and practicality that was missing. Rawls is slightly unfair because he's a philosopher, but his model doesn't include firms—it's just individuals. So it's all about balancing between poor people and rich people when obviously economic power is also held by corporations.I'm trying to create more flesh on the bones of the "small is beautiful" philosophy and political economy that is less starry-eyed and more realistic. I'm putting forward the point that you're not sacrificing growth and you're taking less political risk with a more balanced economy. There's an adulation of bigness in our time—exciting big companies are glamorous. But long-term prosperity does better when you have more centers, a more balanced system. I'm not an ultra-centralist suggesting we should live in mud huts, but I do think the worship of monopoly is very similar to the worship of autocracy and is dangerous.Andrew Keen: Much to discuss. Tim Wu, thank you so much. The author of "The Real Road to Serfdom," fascinating essay in this month's issue of Liberties. I know "The Age of Extraction" will be coming out on November 10th.Tim Wu: In England and US at the same time.Andrew Keen: We'll get you back on the show. Fascinating conversation, Tim. Thank you so much.Hailed as the “architect” of the Biden administration's competition and antitrust policies, Tim Wu writes and teaches about private power and related topics. First known for coining the term “net neutrality” in 2002, in recent years Wu has been a leader in the revitalization of American antitrust and has taken a particular focus on the growing power of the big tech platforms. In 2021, he was appointed to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. A professor at Columbia Law School since 2006, Wu has also held posts in public service. He was enforcement counsel in the New York Attorney General's Office, worked on competition policy for the National Economic Council during the Barack Obama administration, and worked in antitrust enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, Wu was a Democratic primary candidate for lieutenant governor of New York. In his most recent book, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (2018), he argues that corporate and industrial concentration can lead to the rise of populism, nationalism, and extremist politicians. His previous books include The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads (2016), The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (2010), and Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (2006), which he co-authored with Jack Goldsmith. Wu was a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and also has written for Slate, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. He once explained the concept of net neutrality to late-night host Stephen Colbert while he rode a rollercoaster. He has been named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal; has made Politico's list of 50 most influential figures in American politics (more than once); and has been included in the Scientific American 50 of policy leadership. Wu is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as a law clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.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 America 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

On our 2nd episode of Artist Spotlight, we dive deep into the complexities of heartbreak and the art of coping with Tim Wu (aka ELEPHANTE). We kick things off by sharing personal stories and strategies for mending a broken heart, and discussing the necessity of closure after a breakup. Elephante treats us to an exclusive listen of "Taste Of Your Tongue" from his latest album, COPE—a track that masterfully blends fun, jittery house vibes. Our fan Q&A session covers topics from favorite Gen 1 Pokémon to Elephante's journey into EDM. We spice things up with a "Would You Rather?" segment focused on relationship dilemmas, and wrap up with the heartfelt and melancholic "I Don't Miss You Anymore," another gem from COPE. Join us for an episode filled with music, introspection, and engaging conversations ❤️ Enjoy!!

It's an agonizing wait in Gaza and for Israeli hostage families, as a ceasefire proposal moves closer to reality. Former head of Israeli Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin joins the program from Tel Aviv to discuss. Also on today's show: Tim Wu, law professor, Columbia University; Derek Thompson, staff writer, The Atlantic; Joan Baez (from the archives)  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"We must never forget the joy of doing something slow and something difficult, the satisfaction of not doing what is easiest." - Tim WuTHE SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/sunday/tyranny-convenience.htmlDONATE:www.pcrf.netGET AN OCCASIONAL PERSONAL EMAIL FROM ME: www.makeyourdamnbedpodcast.comTUNE IN ON INSTAGRAM FOR COOL CONTENT: www.instagram.com/mydbpodcastOR BE A REAL GEM + TUNE IN ON PATREON: www.patreon.com/MYDBpodcastOR WATCH ON YOUTUBE: www.youtube.com/juliemerica The opinions expressed by Julie Merica and Make Your Damn Bed Podcast are intended for entertainment purposes only. Make Your Damn Bed podcast is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Get bonus content on PatreonSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/make-your-damn-bed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello Listeners! In this episode, we had the opportunity to have a conversation with Tim Wu a.k.a Elephante Tim Wu Growing up as an Asian-American in Michigan shaped a unique yet challenging background. After graduating from Harvard University, he worked for a prestigious global consulting firm but felt deeply dissatisfied with his life. Ultimately, he decided to pursue his passion for music. Elephante has garnered hundreds of millions of streams for his critically acclaimed album, Heavy Glow (2021), a work that pushes the boundaries of dance music, as well as two EPs: I Am The Elephante (2016), a nine-track exploration of progressive house, synthpop, and trap; and Glass Mansion (2018), which debuted at #1 on the U.S. Dance iTunes chart. In early 2023, Elephante collaborated with electro-pop singer HALIENE on the track "Hollow," followed by collaborations with Indonesian singer-songwriter Stephanie Poetri and Chinese singer Zhang Yanqi on "No Explanations." Elephante will release his latest album, COPE, through his label Hidden Horizon on November 29. The album delves into the emotional spectrum of healing and resilience, exploring how we navigate trauma and adversity. The lead single from the album, "Taste of Your Tongue," featuring babyidontlikeyou, captures a whirlwind of nostalgia and complex romance, highlighting Elephante's talent for weaving emotional storytelling with his signature electronic production. COPE is an album with profound themes, where each song represents a different approach to coping with life's challenges. Listen full episode on Bingkai Suara with Lusi and don't forget to follow our podcast on any podcast platforms, our Instagram Bingkai Karya, and stay updated with our recent news on www.bingkaikarya.com

This week, a federal judge issued a ruling that could shake up how we use the internet. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google has illegally used its dominance to stifle competition and quash innovation. Back in October, we undertook a detailed examination of the case, known as U.S. v. Google, with Tim Wu, an expert on monopolies.

That's the worry. Even the humble eyeglass industry is dominated by a single firm. We look into the global spike in myopia, how the Lemtosh got its name, and what your eye doctor knows that you don't. (Part two of a two-part series.) SOURCES:Maria Liu, professor of clinical optometry at the University of California, Berkeley.Harvey Moscot, C.E.O. of MOSCOT Eyewear and Eyecare.Zachary Moscot, chief design officer of MOSCOT Eyewear and Eyecare.Cédric Rossi, equity research analyst at Bryan Garnier.Tim Wu, professor of law, science and technology at Columbia Law School. RESOURCES:"Meta in Talks to Buy Stake in Eyewear Giant EssilorLuxottica," by Salvador Rodriguez and Lauren Thomas (The Wall Street Journal, 2024)."The Story Behind Soaring Myopia Among Kids," by Manoush Zomorodi, Katie Monteleone, Sanaz Meshkinpour, and Rachel Faulkner White (Body Electric, 2024)."Why So Many People Need Glasses Now," by Christophe Haubursin (Vox, 2023)."Eyes on World Sight: Taking Action to Advance Eye Health in China," by EssilorLuxottica (2022)."Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050," by Brien A. Holden, Timothy R. Fricke, Serge Resnikoff, et al. (Ophthalmology, 2016)."Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004," by Susan Vitale, Robert D. Sperduto, and Frederick L. Ferris (Archives of Ophthalmology, 2009). EXTRAS:"The Economics of Eyeglasses," series by Freakonomics Radio (2024).

A single company, EssilorLuxottica, owns so much of the eyewear industry that it's hard to escape their gravitational pull — or their “obscene” markups. Should regulators do something? Can Warby Parker steal market share? And how did Ray-Bans become a luxury brand? (Part one of a two-part series.) SOURCES:Neil Blumenthal, co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker.Dave Gilboa, co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker.Jessica Glasscock, fashion historian and lecturer at the Parsons School of Design.Neil Handley, curator of the British Optical Association Museum at the College of Optometrists.Ryan McDevitt, professor of economics at Duke University.Cédric Rossi, equity research analyst at Bryan Garnier.Tim Wu, professor of law, science and technology at Columbia Law School. RESOURCES:"Leonardo Del Vecchio Dies at 87; Transformed Eyeglass Industry," by Jonathan Kandell (The New York Times, 2022).Making a Spectacle: A Fashionable History of Glasses, by Jessica Glasscock (2021)."Dave Gilboa and Neil Blumenthal: ‍A Vision for Business," by Lucy Handley (CNBC, 2020)."The Roots of Big Tech Run Disturbingly Deep," by Tim Wu and Stuart A. Thompson (The New York Times, 2019)."The Spectacular Power of Big Lens," by Sam Knight (The Guardian, 2018).The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, by Tim Wu (2018)."Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Concerning the Proposed Acquisition of Luxottica Group S.p.A. by Essilor International (Compagnie Generale d'Optique) S.A.," FTC File No. 171-0060 (2018).Cult Eyewear: The World's Enduring Classics, by Neil Handley (2011).A Far-Sighted Man, by Luca Goldoni (1991). EXTRAS:"Direct-to-Consumer Mattresses," by The Economics of Everyday Things (2024)."Are Two C.E.O.s Better Than One?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023).“Are We in a Mattress-Store Bubble?” by Freakonomics Radio (2016).

The Department of Justice has sued Live Nation, the parent of Ticketmaster. Attorney General Merrick Garland alleged that the company “relies on unlawful, anticompetitive conduct to exercise its monopolistic control over the live events industry in the United States at the cost of fans, artists, smaller promoters, and venue operators.” Tim Wu, former Special Assistant to the President for Technology and Competition Policy, considers the DOJ's potential actions moving forward. In Paris, Andrew Ross Sorkin sat down with French President Emmanuel Macron for an exclusive, extended interview. The discussion spans Federal Reserve and European Central Bank policy, as well as the Israel-Hamas War and funding to rebuild Gaza. Plus, Nvidia's revenue more than tripled in its latest quarter.  President Emmanuel Macron - 13:40Tim Wu - 22:05 In this episode:President Emmanuel Macron, @EmmanuelMacronTim Wu, @superwusterBecky Quick,@BeckyQuickAndrew Ross Sorkin,@andrewrsorkinMichael Santoli, @michaelsantoliKatie Kramer,@Kramer_Katie

We begin with the biggest anti-war protests on American college campuses since Vietnam. Christiane speaks with Afua Hirsch, a journalism professor at the University of Southern California, who questions whether some colleges really understand the concept of free speech.  Also on today's show: Rabbi Sharon Brous, Columbia University professor Tim Wu, former Reagan Republican Robert Kagan  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

When a subsidiary of the giant UnitedHealth Group got hit by a cyberattack recently, a big chunk of the country's doctors, pharmacists, hospitals and therapists just stopped getting paid. It's been a huge disruption, with some providers wondering if they can keep their doors open.But thanks to their huge size and reach, the situation may have had a silver lining — for United.Which seems like a big problem, and got us wondering: What can we maybe do about it?The answer turns out to be: Maybe more than we think, via antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.Strap in for a wild ride — and then maybe check out FTC Chair Lina Khan's talk with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. We include some short excerpts, but the whole thing is worth a watch.Thanks to reporters Brittany Trang (STAT News) and Maureen Tkacik (The American Prospect) for guiding us through their reporting.And to the novelist/journalist/activist Cory Doctorow, who has been writing about antitrust enforcement for years. Here are a couple of his columns about Lina Khan and what she and other antitrust enforcers are up to.If you want a deeper dive on the new antitrust movement: It's summed up in a terrific (and short) book by Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor and former White House adviser: The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. And you may be able to get it for free! If your local library uses a system called Hoopla, you can borrow it as either an audiobook or an ebook.Super-fun tangent: Cory Doctorow and Tim Wu went to elementary school together — and apparently played a lot of Dungeons and Dragons — when they were kids in Toronto. Here's a transcript of this episode. Send your stories and questions. Or call 724 ARM-N-LEG.And of course we'd love for you to support this show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week: Doug Parker, Fmr CEO, American Airlines, outlines serious TSA safety concerns. Ben's AI "New Voice Option" (NVO); Spirit & JetBlue go it alone - Next moves? New proposed rule for handling wheelchairs; Fare fact errors made by Tim Wu on CNBC; Listener Qs on useful life of a commercial aircraft, business model for airport lounges.

Au centre de nombreux débats actuels, la neutralité du net (parfois appelée « neutralité d'internet ») est une notion qui a été popularisée en 2003, par le juriste américain Tim Wu. .. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Au centre de nombreux débats actuels, la neutralité du net (parfois appelée « neutralité d'internet ») est une notion qui a été popularisée en 2003, par le juriste américain Tim Wu. .. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chapter 1 What's The Attention Merchants Book by Tim Wu"The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads" is a book written by Tim Wu. In this book, Wu explores the history and impact of attention-grabbing industries, starting from the advent of newspapers and radio to the modern-day internet and social media platforms. He delves into how these industries have developed strategies to capture and monetize our attention, shaping our behavior, and influencing our thoughts. Wu raises concerns about the potential consequences for individual autonomy, democracy, and the human experience in the age of attention commodification.Chapter 2 Is The Attention Merchants Book A Good Book"The Attention Merchants" by Tim Wu is generally well-regarded and considered a good book. It explores the history and impact of attention-grabbing industries and the monetization of human attention. Wu delves into how advertising, media, and technology have evolved to capture and exploit our attention for profit. The book provides thought-provoking insights into the attention economy and has been praised for its depth and engaging writing style. Whether it is a good book for you ultimately depends on your personal interests and preferences.Chapter 3 The Attention Merchants Book by Tim Wu Summary"The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads" is a book written by Tim Wu. It explores the history and tactics used by advertisers, media companies, and tech giants to capture and control people's attention.Wu begins by tracing the origins of the attention industry back to the late 19th century, when newspapers and magazines first started selling advertising space. He explains how the commodification of attention began with the creation of attention-grabbing content like sensational news stories and catchy advertisements.The book then delves into the rise of radio, television, and the internet, detailing how each medium revolutionized the attention industry. Wu discusses how broadcasters and advertisers realized the value of capturing audiences' attention and how they developed strategies to do so.He also explores the concept of "attention harvesting," where companies extract users' attention and monetize it through targeted advertising and data collection. He describes the techniques used by social media platforms and tech companies to keep users engaged and constantly craving more content.Wu goes on to raise concerns about the implications of this attention economy on society and democracy. He argues that the constant bombardment of information and advertisements can lead to a fragmented attention span, making it difficult for individuals to focus on important issues. He also highlights the risks of manipulative advertising and the erosion of privacy.In the final section of the book, Wu proposes potential solutions to the attention economy problem, such as increased user control over personal data and regulation of online advertising practices. He emphasizes the importance of creating a balance between commercial interests and individual autonomy.Overall, "The Attention Merchants" provides a comprehensive examination of the history, tactics, and impact of the attention industry. Wu warns against the dangers of being constantly bombarded with stimuli and advocates for a more conscious and mindful approach to consuming media. Chapter 4 The Attention Merchants Book AuthorTim Wu is an American author, lawyer, and professor known for his work on media and communication. He published the book "The Attention Merchants: The Epic...

Seth Godin is an author, a marketer and a climate activist but most of all he's a teacher. He's also an incredible podcast guest. In this episode we discuss: A $50billion mistake What the internet has in common with the rail road and oil Open v closed systems Wheeler's Which and the value of the old school Smallest delightable audience (SDA™️) Tesla and crossing the chasam Cows, concrete and carbon footprint Pricing carbon fairly Was Gandhi right? How to write a book Seth Godin For more than thirty years, Seth has been trying to turn on lights, inspire people and teach them how to level up. His blog has been appearing daily for more than a decade. He has spent most of his professional life as a writer, publishing 20 bestselling books that have been translated into nearly 40 languages. These books are a great way to go deep into a concept, and he hopes many of them stand the test of time. Along the way through his career, Seth has found countless detours, interesting projects, designed to inspire and entertain you as you continue to do your work. His latest book is called THE PRACTICE. Like the one before, THIS IS MARKETING, both were bestsellers. The one before that was called Your Turn. It's illustrated and shareable and provocative. In 2015, Seth created the altMBA. It's a life-changing 30-day workshop and it's entirely possible it will change your life. It's now part of Akimbo, which is now an independently owned entity, a B corp, creating new ways to learn. More than 60,000 people have taken his online courses, including The Marketing Seminar and several on Udemy. He's a member of the Guerrilla Marketing Hall of Fame, the Direct Marketing Hall of Fame and, just recently, the plain old no-modifier Marketing Hall of Fame. Which is pretty cool. You can read Seth's free ebooks on the placebo effect and education. And there are five TED talks. He also pioneered ethical online direct marketing, now a $30bn a year industry. Seth is an industry leader and marketing royalty. To use his words: “Go, make a ruckus.”  Book Recommendations Find Seth at seths.blog The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires by Tim Wu. All Seth's books in one place   Other Links Neal McCullough – Hand Drawn Creative, the man behind that beautiful bit of artwork Big Marketing Meet Up – where I first met Seth and has a 2024 date already released... 14 November. Tickets available now. Andi Jarvis If you have any questions or want to talk about anything that was discussed in the show, the best place to get me is on LinkedIn or Instagram. If you want the podcast emailed to you sign up for it on the Eximo Marketing website. Make sure you subscribe to get the podcast pushed to you and if you enjoyed the show, please give it a 5* rating. Andi Jarvis, Eximo Marketing.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) discusses her concerns about cryptocurrency, after big bank CEOs appeared before Congress this week. It turns out, Sen. Warren and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon agree on the dangers of bitcoin. JetBlue and Spirit await the fate of their proposed merger. Columbia Law School Professor and former advisor in the Biden administration Tim Wu explains his perspective on airline consolidation: it isn't great for consumers. In an op-ed in The New York Times, Wu concludes that M&A in the airspace often leads to higher prices for the same experience. The fourth Republican Presidential debate took place in Alabama on Wednesday, but only four of the candidates participated. Plus, Time Magazine has named Taylor Swift its Person of the Year. CNBC's Jon Fortt explains why that decision does and doesn't make sense.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren - 15:34Tim Wu - 34:42 In this episode:Elizabeth Warren, @SenWarrenJon Fortt, @jonforttAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinBecky Quick, @BeckyQuickJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkCameron Costa, @CameronCostaNY

Estrenamos sección en The Book Nook Sí, estáis escuchando bien, a partir de ahora añadimos los "POVs" episodios en los que contaremos con la perspectiva o punto de vista de una editorial y charlaremos sobre temas diversos Y qué mejor forma de inaugurar esta sección que con la editorial Alma Hoy Bernat nos acompaña para hablar sobre Cómo empezar a leer clásicos Y dejadnos decir que MENUDO EPISODIO A continuación os dejamos los libros de los que hemos hablado en el episodio: - Colección Petits Fours - Sanditon, Jane Austen - El Conde de Montecristo, Alejandro Dumas - Ana de Álamos Ventosos, Lucy Maud Montgomery - Emma, Jane Austen - Comerciantes de atención, Tim Wu

President Biden signaled an aggressive new agenda to curb the power of companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta when he appointed Lina Khan, Jonathan Kanter, and Tim Wu – a trio of the toughest antitrust regulators to hold them accountable. Instead, two years in, big tech is bigger and more powerful than ever. This week on Tech Check, we dive into the toothless regulators and their upcoming showdowns that could be make-or-break for them, and for the dominance of big tech.  

Over the next few months, the DOJ and a collection of state attorneys general will make their case to a D.C. District Court judge for why Google has allegedly violated anti-monopoly law through exclusive agreements with mobile phone manufacturers and browser makers to make its search engine the default for consumers. Tim Wu, Columbia University Law School professor and former Biden administration antitrust advisor, discusses the ongoing Google antitrust trial and why he believes the trial will re-write our future. Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, discusses the current state of China-Taiwan tensions and the risk of a potential conflict in the region. Plus,the Republican stalemate over government funding continues and roughly 12,700 UAW workers are currently on strike, but the movement is spreading to more plants. Additional links: Check out Harry Wilson, former senior member of President Obama's auto industry tax force, offering lessons from previous auto strikes, recently on Squawk Box. Tim Wu: 12:50James Stavridis: 22:04In this episode:Joe Kernen, @JoeSquawkBecky Quick, @BeckyQuickKatie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie

Until this year, Tim Wu was Special Assistant to President Biden for competition and tech policy. One of the leading thinkers in progressive approach to antitrust, Tim has since returned to Columbia Law School, where he is the Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology. Since leaving government, Tim has been offering his thoughts on how the government should regulate artificial intelligence.Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, spoke with Tim about his experience in government, whether he's concerned about AI's existential risks, and what his priorities would be for making sure that AI serves society's, and not just the private sector's, interests. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Climate change and sustainability partner Ilona Millar takes us through the new obligations and imperatives facing many businesses to address their environmental impacts -- individually or through industry collaborations. Plus the ACCC solves a cashflow problem in the Prosegur/Armaguard authorisation, the global golf merger gets into the rough, fresh legs on the field of competition and regulation field. All this and more sports references with with co-hosts Moya Dodd AO and Matt Rubinstein NST.     ACCC authorises the Prosegur/Armaguard merger Is that a Goulburn Valley canned deciduous fruit snack? Vox's interview with Tim Wu on the LIV Golf/PGA situation The OAIC's FOI disclosure log Ceremonial Sitting of the Full Federal Court to welcome Chief Justice Mortimer Ilona Millar and the team on the Safeguard Mechanism ACCC response to FOI Request 100067/2022-2023 on documents relating to the proposed changes to Australia's merger laws Meet the Gilbert + Tobin Competition + Regulation team Email us at edge@gtlaw.com.au See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Host Piya Chattopadhyay speaks with President Joe Biden's former tech advisor Tim Wu about the case for banning TikTok, scientist and autism activist Temple Grandin warns education systems are leaving visual thinkers like her behind, economist Jim Stanford takes stock of the labour movement amid strike votes and stubborn inflation, historian Theresa Runstedtler talks about how Black players from the 1970s shaped basketball, and producer Craig Desson shares the story of a Montreal man on a mission to preserve film projectors. Discover more at https://www.cbc.ca/sunday

Our John Wick: Chapter 4 roundtable brings us to the most important question of the year: who would win in a fight? John Wick or Cocaine Bear? Plus how many stunt dogs do we think there are in Hollywood, and do the filmmakers think the French don't pronounce their "r"? This episode features special roundtable guest, and Illium Pictures producer and co-founder, Tim Wu. Find us at ⁠www.werewatchingwhat.com⁠ THEDHK can be found at ⁠instagram.com/thedhk ⁠, ⁠twitter.com/thedhk⁠, and ⁠facebook.com/thedhkmovies⁠ Tim Wu can be found at instagram.com/illiumpictures, and twitter.com/illiumpictures

Reverse censorship. Flooding the public, often through online social networks, with false or misleading information is sometimes called "reverse censorship". American legal scholar Tim Wu has explained that this type of information control, sometimes by state actors, can "distort or drown out disfavored speech through the creation and dissemination of fake news, the payment of fake commentators, and the deployment of propaganda robots." By media. Books Book censorship can be enacted at the national or sub-national level, and can carry legal penalties for their infraction. Books may also be challenged at a local, community level. As a result, books can be removed from schools or libraries, although these bans do not typically extend outside of that area. Films. Aside from the usual justifications of pornography and obscenity, some films are censored due to changing racial attitudes or political correctness in order to avoid ethnic stereotyping and or ethnic offense despite its historical or artistic value. One example is the still withdrawn "Censored Eleven" series of animated cartoons, which may have been innocent then, but are "incorrect" now. Film censorship is carried out by various countries. Film censorship is achieved by censoring the producer or restricting a state citizen. For example, in China the film industry censors LGBT related films. Filmmakers must resort in finding funds within international investors such as the “Ford Foundations” and or produce through an independent film company. Music. Music censorship has been implemented by states, religions, educational systems, families, retailers and lobbying groups – and in most cases they violate international conventions of human rights. Maps. Censorship of maps is often employed for military purposes. For example, the technique was used in former East Germany, especially for the areas near the border to West Germany in order to make attempts of defection more difficult. Censorship of maps is also applied by Google Maps, where certain areas are grayed out or blacked or areas are purposely left outdated with old imagery. Art. Art is loved and feared because of its evocative power. Destroying or oppressing art can potentially justify its meaning even more. British photographer and visual artist Graham Ovenden's photos and paintings were ordered to be destroyed by a London's magistrate court in 2015 for being "indecent" and their copies had been removed from the online Tate gallery. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Tim Wu, a professor of law at Columbia University and a former leading member of President Biden's antitrust committee, joins Scott to discuss the state of antitrust regulation as well as his decision to leave his position at the White House. Follow Tim on Twitter, @superwuster.  Scott opens with his thoughts on the recent lawsuits against popular AI art generators. He then shares his opinion on CO-CEOS. Algebra of Happiness: give yourself license to be down. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In his first extensive interview since he stepped down as the Special Assistant to the President for Technology and Competition Policy on the National Economic Council, Tim Wu shares what he learned in the West Wing. We find out who holds most sway with the President, how Lina Khan undid any perception that there is any antitrust exception for “nice guys,” and get Wu's predictions on lawsuits against Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft. Also: Kara presses him on why Biden — who campaigned on getting rid of Section 230 and hinted at breaking up Big Tech — hasn't been able to make much headway when it comes to regulating Silicon Valley. Before the interview, Kara and Nayeema look at exits, from Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister of New Zealand, to Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings. And among all the exits, they also discuss one possible return: Meta's looming decision regarding Donald Trump's Facebook account. You can find Kara and Nayeema on Twitter at @karaswisher and @nayeema. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In the tradition of Jon Ronson and Tim Wu,  an absorbing and revelatory  journey into the American Way of Defying Death . . .As longevity medicine revolutionizes the lives of many older people,  the quest to take the next step—to live as long as we choose—has spurred a scientific arms race in search of the elixir of life, funded by Big Tech and Silicon Valley.   Once the stuff of Mesopotamian mythology and episodes of Star Trek, the effort to make humans immortal is becoming increasingly credible as the pace of technological progress quickens. It has also empowered a wild-eyed fringe of pseudo-scientists, tech visionaries, scam-artists, and religious fanatics who have given their lives over to the pursuit of immortality. Starting off at the Church of Perpetual Life in Florida and exploring the feuding subcultures around the cryonics industry, Peter Ward immerses himself into an eccentric world of startups, scam artists, scientific institutions, and tech billionaires to deliver this deeply reported, nuanced, and sometimes very funny exploration of the race for immortality — and the potentially devastating consequences should humanity realize its ultimate dream.Get your copy here: https://wellingtonsquarebooks.indiecommerce.com/book/9781612199528

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). 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

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/language

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). 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

One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech, hate speech, disinformation, propaganda campaigns, incitement of violence on the internet, and, in particular, speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2022), Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mark Warner, Newt Minow, Tim Wu, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era. Lee C. Bollinger became Columbia University's 19th president in 2002 and is the longest-serving Ivy League president. He is also Columbia's first Seth Low Professor of the University, and a member of the Law School faculty. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network (Twitter: @caleb_zakarin). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Dan Romero (@dwr) of Farcaster joins Erik on this episode. Takeaways:- Dan says that his first love was information. He loved RSS and the goal with Farcaster is to improve RSS enough so that it can compete with Twitter.- He aims to grow Farcaster large enough so that developers can innovate using their API and data permissionlessly.- Any developer can build whatever they want on Farcaster — features are not limited to what the core team wants to see built.- Eugene Wei's Status as a Service theory is correct in Dan's opinion.- They doubled down on the client and having a polished UX at Farcaster. Dan says that the platform is only as good as the number of people using it. The client helps grow the user base.- Dan believes in first principles thinking when it comes to product decisions. He strongly believes that the average user is not going to spend money to take action on a social network.- According to Tim Wu's The Master Switch, all major communication technologies typically start out decentralized and become more centralized over time because centralization has tended to provide a superior consumer experience.Thanks for listening — if you like what you hear, please review us on your favorite podcast platform.Check us out on the web at www.villageglobal.vc or get in touch with us on Twitter @villageglobal.Want to get updates from us? Subscribe to get a peek inside the Village. We'll send you reading recommendations, exclusive event invites, and commentary on the latest happenings in Silicon Valley. www.villageglobal.vc/signup

On this episode of the Building Local Power Podcast, we share highlights from a recent ILSR event called “The Progressive Fight for Small Business” featuring Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal and White House Advisor Tim Wu. Rep. Jayapal talks about the intersectionality between small business, health care, minimum wage, and racial inequity. Wu discusses how we need to relearn the virtues of a true American economy and how consolidation and the rise of a middleman are two of the biggest problems we face today. Highlights include: How the Paycheck Recovery Act would help small businesses if it is reintroduced. The effects of Biden's Executive Order and how the Competition Council are working towards a more equitable economy. How the economic principles that our nation subscribed to 40 years ago were not interested in maintaining a diverse set of businesses. Why it is critical for small businesses to thrive. “We have a real opportunity to use the bipartisan momentum to prevent dominant companies from maintaining market power and using their extensive resources to stifle independent and small competitors from entering the market and also to think about our communities in a holistic way and I think that is what small businesses do particularly well.” – Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal “Our country has become too centralized, too national, too centered on consumption as opposed to production, and too many of the returns go to too few people. ” – Tim Wu Related Resources Transcript Jess Del Fiacco: Hello, and welcome to Building Local Power, a podcast dedicated to thought-provoking conversations about how we can challenge corporate monopolies and expand the power of people to shape their own future. I'm Jess Del Fiacco, the host of Building Local Power and communications manager here at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. For more than 45 years, ILSR has worked to build thriving, equitable communities where power, wealth and accountability remain in local hands. Jess Del Fiacco: For today's episode, we're bringing you highlights from a recent event that we put on. The event is all about the momentum that is building in Congress within the Biden administration and within many state houses to reign in monopoly power and level the playing field for small, independent businesses. You'll hear from Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, who's the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Tim Wu, who is a special assistant to the president for Technology and Competition Policy. This event was called the Progressive Fight for Small Business, and if you're interested in watching the whole recording, you can find that and related resources archived on archive.ilsr.org. Jess Del Fiacco: With that, I'll let you listen to the show. Stacy Mitchell: I'm Stacy Mitchell. I'm the co-director of ILSR, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. More than a decade ago, I helped launch an initiative here at ILSR focused on independent business. We were, and continue to be, deeply concerned about the sharp decline in small, independent businesses that we've seen across virtually every sector of the economy. Back at that time, there were very few political leaders on either side of the aisle who had much concern about this trend. The widespread assumption at that time was that small business didn't matter much, the bigger corporations were better, more efficient, more productive, and so on. Stacy Mitchell: Today, we know that economic concentration and the losses that we've seen, both for working people and for small businesses, have had devastating effects on communities, that the decline of small business and the growing concentration across our economy is really driving racial and economic inequality, and ultimately undermining our democracy. We know that the primary driver of this trend is concentrated corporate power, whether it's the power that these corporations wield in the market or the political power that they have to rig gover...

Brand culture, as we know it today, owes its existence to World War I propaganda. What if “brand loyalty” is authoritarianism in StoryBrand clothing? Join your host, Rachael Kay Albers, marketing muckraker and brand strategist gone wild, in a deep dive into advertising history and how branding legitimized itself. Before WWI, the advertising industry was on shaky ground, synonymous with snake oil salesmen and outrageous patent medicine claims that promised a product could cure all ails, while ultimately making its customer's problems worse. The war rescued advertising's reputation, proving to business and world leaders just how effective mass media and propaganda could be to shape public opinion. The world has never been the same. The goal of propaganda is to subvert an individual's reason and logic to promote a biased agenda. In the case of wartime propaganda, that agenda is national loyalty above all else. In the case of advertising propaganda, that agenda is brand loyalty above all else. But should it be? Maybe it's time to betray our brands and our audience's expectations of them. Maybe it's time to be disloyal. Research for this episode came from The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads by Tim Wu and The Human Brand: How We Relate to People, Products, and Companies by Chris Malone, Susan T. Fiske. See show notes on the Marketing Muckraking website for the full transcript and list of sources. This episode was originally published as an essay on RachaelKayAlbers.com.

Inflation! It's dominating all economic news. It's the main reason the stock market is going nuts. It's what Fed officials are discussing in today's meeting (they're expected to raise interest rates several times over the next twelve months). But in all of the inflated verbiage over inflation, there's been little or no discussion about the role that large, hugely-profitable corporations are playing. Yet inflation is intimately connected to corporate power (as I discussed on this page last month).Today I turn to the evidence, and then to what I believe should be done about corporate power and inflation. First, to recap: While most of the price increases now affecting the US and global economy have been the result of global supply chain problems limiting the availability of parts needed to make consumer goods, this doesn't explain why big and hugely- profitable corporations are passing these cost increases on to their customers in the form of higher prices. If corporations were competing vigorously against each other, they'd swallow these cost increases in order to keep their prices as low as possible — especially when they're making huge profits. Yet corporations have been raising prices even as they rake in record profits. That's because they face so little competition that they can easily coordinate price increases with the handful of other big companies in their industry. That way, all of them come out ahead — while consumers and workers lose. As to the evidence, it's all around us: 1.  EnergyOnly a few entities have access to the land and pipelines that control the oil and gas still powering most of the world. They took a hit during the pandemic as most people stayed home. But they are more than making up for it now, limiting supply and ratcheting up prices. As Chevron Corp.'s top executive Mike Wirth said in September, “we could afford to invest more” in production but “the equity market is not sending a signal that says they think we ought to be doing that.” Translated: Wall Street says the way to maximize profits is to limit supply and push up prices instead, and we do whatever the Street wants. 2.  Consumer staplesLast April, Procter & Gamble raised prices on consumer staples like diapers and toilet paper, citing increased costs in raw materials and transportation. But P&G has been making huge profits. After some of its price increases went into effect, it reported an almost 25 percent profit margin. Looking to buy your diapers elsewhere? Well, good luck. The market is dominated by P&G and Kimberly-Clark, which—not coincidentally—raised its prices at the same time. Another example: Last spring, PepsiCo raised its prices, blaming higher costs for ingredients, freight, and labor. It then recorded $3 billion in operating profits through September. How did it get away with this without losing customers? Simple. Pepsi has only one major competitor, Coca Cola, which promptly raised its own prices. Coca-Cola recorded $10 billion in revenues in the third quarter of 2021, up 16 percent from the previous year.3.  FoodFood prices are soaring. Half of those price increases are from meat. According to the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, meat prices were up 16 percent in November compared with the same month last year. Why? Because the four giant meat processing corporations that dominate the industry are raising their prices and enjoying fat profits. A recent report from the White House's National Economic Council finds that the largest meat processing companies are “using their market power to extract bigger and bigger profit margins for themselves. Businesses that face meaningful competition can't do that, because they would lose business to a competitor that did not hike its margins.”4. Fast food Fast food giants like McDonald's and Chipotle — incessantly complaining about higher food and labor costs — have increased their prices to consumers to cover these added costs. But they're so profitable they could easily have absorbed these cost increases. (Wall Street analysts expect McDonald's revenues hit a five-year high in 2021 and Chipotle's revenues increased by over a third from two years before.) So why are they passing the cost increases on to their consumers? Because they have so much market power. (A few months ago, Chipotle's chief financial officer admitted “our ultimate goal … is to fully protect our margins.”)5.  Large retailersA handful of giant corporations — Walmart, Amazon, Kroger, Costco, and Target —dominate retail sales in America. On a recent survey, over 60 percent of large retailers say inflation has given them the ability to raise prices beyond what's required to offset higher costs.6.  Corporate concentration overallSince the mid-1980s (when the US government all but abandoned antitrust enforcement) two thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated. This includes banks, broadband, pharmaceutical companies, airlines, meatpackers, big tech, and consumer staples.Corporations in these industries could easily absorb higher costs – including wage increases – without passing them on to consumers in the form of higher prices. But they'd rather maintain or enlarge their record profits by coordinating with other big players in the same industry and raise prices together. As a result, their record profits are lining the pockets of major investors and corporate executives, while shafting consumers and workers (whose wage increases are being eroded by price increases). What to do? Don't slow the economy. Instead, reduce corporate concentration. As I mentioned at the outset, the Fed meets today. It's poised to try to control inflation by raising borrowing costs. This means the Fed will battle inflation the old way — drafting millions of workers into the inflation fight by slowing the economy and causing them to lose their jobs or wages, or both. This is the wrong medicine for the wrong disease. It will hurt millions of people who are among the most vulnerable in the economy. The correct medicine is to reduce corporate market power. Biden has started to try. He has prodded the Agriculture Department to investigate large meatpackers that are raising prices and underpaying farmers — while tripling their profit margins during the pandemic. He has encouraged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate accusations that large oil companies are artificially inflating prices, even after global oil prices began to fall in recent weeks.In late October, the FTC ordered nine large retailers, including Walmart, Amazon and Kroger, to turn over detailed information to help root out the sources of supply chain disruptions that were “harming competition in the U.S. economy.”Biden has urged the Federal Maritime Commission to root out price gouging by large shipping companies at the heart of supply chains. The Commission has investigated the handful of corporate shipping alliances that effectively control the flow of goods across the world's oceans and which have raised prices as much as ninefold during the pandemic, according to data from the freight-tracking firm Freightos. In addition, Biden has tapped antitrust crusaders for key roles, including Lina Khan to be chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission, and Jonathan Kanter (a long-time adversary of Facebook and Google) to lead the antitrust division of the Justice Department. And he has brought Tim Wu (a proponent of breaking up Facebook and other large companies) into the White House as a special adviser on competition issues.All these initiatives are fine. But far more resources need to be aimed at the problem of corporate concentration. The Biden administration must declare economic war on monopolies and oligopolies. Make no mistake. Taking on concentrated industries and corporate market power will be difficult. Corporate America will do whatever it can to keep its record profits and reduce its costs. In addition, antitrust enforcement is extraordinarily complex and time consuming. I directed the policy planning staff at the Federal Trade Commission in the Carter Administration and saw this firsthand.But it's worth the effort. Corporate concentration harms workers and consumers while rewarding CEOs and investors. Unless capitalism is made to work for everyone – unless the concentration of the American economy in the hands of a few giant corporations is reduced – inequalities of income, wealth, and power will continue to widen. And at some point, the system will break. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

What moisturizer should I use for my face? How often should I wash my face? What type of sunscreen should I wear? All guys have questions regarding skin care, and Dr. Tim Wu joins us on this episode to give you all the answers you need. Get your skin care routine down now!

This is the first of several solo episodes, where I choose a topic and spend a bit of time breaking it down and exploring its many angles. I'm choosing topics, mostly books, that I believe will resonate with listeners. My first solo episode focuses on Alice Waters' "We Are What We Eat, A Slow Food Manifesto." Waters is an American chef, author, and restaurateur, well-known for her restaurant Chez Panisse, and its pioneering of the farm-to-table movement.Things mentioned in this episode:Recognizing the values of "fast food culture" in our own actionsRe-evaluating our relationship to convenienceRethinking our approach to the availability of foodLearning to slow downLearning to appreciate beauty over speed and convenienceChoosing what we value over what is easiestThe importance of hard workThe need for challenge in our livesResources:Dry Farm Wines: Use link dryfarmwines.com/bellafigura to receive a bottle for just a penny in your first order!Alice Waters' "We Are What We Eat""The Tyranny of Convenience" by Tim Wu, New York TimesBella Figura websiteDolores on Instagram

In episode 83, host Eric Dickmann interviews Tim Wu. Tim is a growth specialist, podcast host, and Head of Growth Marketing of Hatch, a VC-backed FinTech startup based in San Francisco, California. Hatch is an information technology and services company that aims to provide accessible, transparent, and fair checking and lending products to help people start and grow their businesses. Tim also hosts the Hatch Small Business Spotlight podcast. Together with his co-host, Katie, they feature Hatch Cardholders and their trials, tribulations, and successes of starting and scaling their businesses. The podcast also highlights inspiring stories of entrepreneurs all over America, how they built their business, and the lessons they've learned as they scale.For show notes and a  list of resources mentioned in this episode, please visit: https://fiveechelon.com/how-to-acquire-retain-new-customers-s6e2/A fractional CMO can help build out a comprehensive marketing strategy and execute targeted campaigns designed to increase awareness and generate demand for your business...without the expense of a full-time hire. The Five Echelon Group - Fractional CMO and strategic marketing advisory services designed for SMBs looking to grow. Learn more at: https://fiveechelon.com

Tim Wu joined the Biden administration and that sound you hear is a big collective gulp from Silicon Valley. A tweet undo button has been unearthed. Turntable.fm has resurfaced. New data suggests the death of silicon valley has been exaggerated. And of course, the weekend longreads suggestions.Sponsors:Audible.com/techmeme or text techmeme to 500-500Links:A Leading Critic of Big Tech Will Join the White House (NYTimes)Here's what Twitter's rumored ‘undo send' feature could look like (The Verge)Turntable.fm is back from the dead — and now there are two (The Verge)Survey finds that the reported exodus of tech companies from San Francisco's Bay Area is 'greatly exaggerated' (Insider)Weekend Longreads Suggestions:The problem for Paramount+ (and every other streamer)? Everyone already has Netflix. (Recode)Who Really Writes Twitter's ‘Trending' Summaries (OneZero)Blockchain, QR codes and your phone: the race to build vaccine passports (Protocol)How a tiny startup is reinventing the DVR for the cord-cutter era (Fast Company)China's Tencent Becomes an Investment Powerhouse, Using Deals to Expand Its Empire (WSJ)I have one of the most advanced prosthetic arms in the world — and I hate it (Input)See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.