Amanpour and Company

WELL, OF COURSE IN THE UNITED STATES MANY. OF THE VARIOUS AND SOMETIMES NEFARIOUS FORCES AT PLAY IN THE UPCOMING ELECTION AND BEYOND ARE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE. KARA SWISHER IS A FEARLESS AND HIGHLY RESPECTED BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY REPORTER WORKING TIRELYLESS TO SHED LIGHT ON THE INNER WORKINGS OF BIG TEST. IN A ZOOM CALL FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., SWISHER TALKED TO OUR WALTER ISAACSON ABOUT TECHNICAL GIANTS AND HOW FACEBOOK IS TRYING TO STEP UP AND STAMP OUT THE SPREAD OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES. >> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE. AND WELCOME TO THE SHOW. YOU'VE JUST DONE A TWO-PART SERIES ON ELECTION SECURITY AND WHETHER FACEBOOK WAS MAKING CHANGES. ARE THEY? >> IT'S INTERESTING. I INTERVIEWED THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER. HE WANTED MORE TRANSPARENCY. THEY'RE LOOKING AT THESE ISSUES AT STANFORD, GRADUATE STUDENT AND DATA GRADUATES. AND THEN I TALKED TO TREVOR POTTER, A WELL-KNOWN REPUBLICAN LAWYER WHO HAS BEEN WORKING WITH A NONPROFIT GROUP HE STARTED THAT -- TRYING TO DO CASES ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE VARIOUS CASES THAT HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN. >> BUT FACEBOOK KEEPS DOING THINGS IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE WHACK A MOLE WHERE THEY SAY DO THIS, DO THAT. >> THEY NEVER ENVISIONED THEY HAD THIS KIND OF ROLE. THEY'RE NOT EDITORIAL BY NATURE, AS YOU KNOW. YOU'VE DEALT WITH THEM FOR MANY YEARS. THEY DON'T THINK OF THEMSELVES AS EDITORIAL WHEN IN FACT THEY HAVE BECOME ONE OF THE LARGEST PUBLISHERS ON THE PLANET. THEY SOMETIMES USE A WEIRD WORD CALLED PLATTIJER, IT'S THAT'S WHY THEY GOT IN TROUBLE LAST WEEK OVER THE NEW YORK POST ARTICLE, WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED OUT BY MANY PEOPLE. >> WHY WAS IT HANDLED BADLY? >> IT'S THIS DUBIOUS SOURCING, BANNON AND RUDY GIULIANI, COULDN'T HAVE TWO MORE DUBIOUS SOURCES. THEY WROTE ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN. IT'S BEEN DISPROVED BY LOTS OF REPUTABLE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THAT THE STORY IS SUSPECT. THEY PUT UP THIS STORY ABOUT THIS HARD DRIVE AND IT HAD A WHACKY STORY ABOUT HOW IT -- I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE DETAIL BECAUSE I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE AND SO DID SOME NEW YORK POST PEOPLE. THEY PUT IT UP AND THEY PUT SOME PERSONAL INFORMATION IN THE STUFF THEY PUT UP. THAT'S A BIG DING AT TWITTER AND I THINK FACEBOOK MIGHT HAVE TAKEN IT DOWN FOR THE SAME REASON. AND ALSO THEY HAD A POLICY THAT WAS VERY UNCLEAR ON HAND MATERIALS, WHICH I THINK IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE USE IT AND CONSERVATIVES AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SEIZED ON IT THAT IT WAS BEING CENSORED WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO BE STRICT FOLLOWING THEIR VERY CONFUSING RULES THAT THEY HAVE HAD IN PLACE. SO THE WHOLE THING BLEW UP. IT TOOK SORT OF A PRETTY SHODDY STORY AND MADE IT IN INTO THIS CAUSE SLEB FOR THE RIGHT WING ABOUT CENSORSHIP AND SOMETHING THEY TALK ABOUT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT PROOF BUT IT LOOKED BAD. >> WHAT ABOUT TAKING DOWN QANON? IS THAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO? >> THAT'S A QUESTION, UNLIKE WHITE SUPREMACISTS OR ISIS, THAT IS VERY EASY FOR TWITTER OR FACEBOOK TO REMOVE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT WHEN IT COMES TO QANON BECAUSE IT'S A VERY NEBULOUS, MENACING GROUP OF PEOPLE NOT NECESSARILY VIOLENT. CAN LEAD TO VIOLENCE AND THEY CAN SHADE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY'RE DOING, WHICH IS SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT MENTIONED, WHICH IS TO PRETEND WHAT THEY'RE REALLY ABOUT IS TRYING TO COMBAT PEDOPHILIA. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS GROUP IS ABOUT. IT'S ONE OF THE MANY CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT THEY TRAFFIC IN. SO HOW DO YOU LINK IT TO VIOLENCE AND CURRENT RULES THAT FACEBOOK HAS. THE SAME THING HAPPENED WITH HOLOCAUST DDENIERS. MARK ZUCKERBERG SAID HOLOCAUST LIARS DON'T MEAN TO LIE AND THEREFORE HE COULDN'T TAKE THEM DOWN AND THEN SUDDENLY THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND ON IT BECAUSE THEY SAW RISING LEVELS OF ANTI- SEMITIC VIOLENCE. I THINK THE LACK OF RULES THAT ARE TRANSPARENT WHERE EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN A MUCH MORE COGENT WAY IS THE PROBLEM AND THAT'S BEEN THE PROBLEM FOR YEARS. >> FACEBOOK'S A PRIVATE COMPANY. WHY WOULD ANYBODY TRY TO FORCE THEM? WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT TRY TO FORCE THEM TO DO ANYTHING? >> THEY SHOULDN'T. THEY AREN'T. THE GOTTEN HAVEN'T BEEN FORCING THEM. THEY'RE MAKING THREATS NOW. NOW THE CONSERVATIVES ARE MAKING THREATS OF SUBPOENAS AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND DO THAT TO SECTION 230, WHICH IS A LAW THAT GIVES THESE PLATFORMS BROAD IMMUNITY. IT'S VERY -- IT NOT JUST THAT BUT IT'S A COMPLEX LAW PASSED DECADES AGO. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY JUST SAY IT AND THEY PULL IT OUT BUT THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. AND SAME THING WITH THE DEMOCRATS. THEY SAY IT AND THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE WANT TO REGULATE TECH AND HOW DIFFERENT IS EACH TECH COMPANY FROM EACH OTHER? AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES IS THAT -- APPLE IS NOT -- FACEBOOK IS NOT, MICROSOFT IS NOT GOOGLE. EACH OF THEM REQUIRES A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION AND THEN THERE'S SOME OVERALL ONES THAT WE HAVE TO DO TOGETHER FOR ALL OF THEM, LIKE PRIVACY BILLS, A NATIONAL PRIVACY BILLS WOULD IMPACT THE ONES AT LEAST THAT ARE HAVE ADVERTISING BUSINESSES. >> YOU MENTIONED SECTION 230, WHICH GIVES A PRETTY QUALIFIED IMMUNITY TO ANY OF THESE PLATFORMS LIKE FACEBOOK SO THEY CAN'T BE SUED FOR WHAT GETS PUT ON THEM. THERE IS GOING TO BE A STRONG PUSH TO PULL BACK SECTION 230. SHOULDN'T FACEBOOK BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT GETS AMPLIFIED? >> IT'S A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. IN SOME PARTS YES. IN SOME PARTS NO. THAT'S WHY IT NEEDS LEGISLATORS WHO ARE ACTUALLY COOPERATING AND TALKING WITH HISTORY AND TALKING WITH CITIZENS AND TALKING WITH CITIZEN GROUPS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. I THINK IT'S 30 YEARS OLD, THIS LAW AND THEY USED TO BE STARTUPS IN GARAGES, LITERALLY GARAGES. SO WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO HELP AN INDUSTRY AND NOW THEY'RE MONSTERS, THEY'RE MONSTER LARGE OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE THEM. SO WE HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A COGENT DISCUSSION INSTEAD OF ELIMINATING IT OR IT WILL HAVE MASSIVE REPERCUSSIONS ON SMALL COMPANIES IF THEY JUST ELIMINATE IT AND PROBABLY ENSCONCE THE LARGE COMPANIES IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT LAWYERS COMING OUT THEIR EYEBALLS. THEY'VE GOT SO MANY LAWYERS. SO THAT'S -- IT'S A COMPLEX ISSUE, WHICH REQUIRE COMPLEX LEGISLATION WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW I THINK. >> YOU SAW THAT CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON ANTI-TRUST, WHICH TURNED ALSO INTO SECTION 230. IT SEEMED MORE LIKE A CLOWN SHOW THAN SERIOUS LEGISLATING. >> THAT'S ACTUALLY A YEAR-LONG INVESTIGATION, WHICH WAS COOPERATIVE UNTIL RECENTLY, UNTIL WE MOVED INTO THIS ELECTION SEASON. AND THAT WAS A REALLY INTERESTING -- ACTUALLY, WHICH ONE? THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH MARK ZUCKERBERG LAST YEAR WAS A CLOWN SHOW. THE ONE RECENTLY WAS ACTUALLY PRETTY INTERESTING WITHOUT THEM THERE WHEN THEY WERE -- SOME OF THEM -- THEY HAD VARIOUS PEOPLE COME AND TESTIFY, INCLUDING SOME OF THE HEADS OF THESE COMPANIES. ACTUALLY, THE REPORT WAS REALLY INTERESTING. IT DEFINITELY SURFACED A LOT OF EMAILS PROBLEMATIC FOR SOME OF THESE COMPANIES. IT DEFINITELY HAD JEFF BEZOS ADMITTING SOME OF THE INFORMATION LEAKED FROM ONE SIDE OF THE MARKETPLACE OVER TO THE PLATFORM. THERE WERE ALL KINDS OF INTERESTING AVENUES FOR EACH OF THESE COMPANIES TO EXPLORE. AND SO THAT'S THE BEGINNING OF IT, AN INVESTIGATION OF THEIR BEHAVIOR. SAME THING IS HAPPENING OVER AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, ALTHOUGH AGAIN TAINTED BY POLITICS BECAUSE BILL BARR WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD QUICKER WITH THE GOOGLE INVESTIGATION. SOME OF THE LAWYERS DO NOT. FACEBOOK IS NO WHERE TO BE SEEN IN ANY OF THESE INVESTIGATIONS BECAUSE IT CLOSE TO THE ADMINISTRATION. SO ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN SO HOPELESSLY POLITICIZED AT EVERY ANGLE. I'M NOT NAIVE. I UNDERSTAND POLITICS BUT AT THE SAME TIME THERE NEEDS TO BE AS THERE ARE FOR OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT WE VALUE IN THIS COUNTRY, COGENT LEGISLATION. WE'LL SEE IF THAT WILL HAPPEN SOMETIME. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NO IDEA IF THAT WILL HAPPEN. >> IT SEEMS THAT THE PROBLEM IS NOT SO MUCH THAT FACEBOOK AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA PUBLISH CERTAIN THINGS BUT THAT THEY AMPLIFY THINGS, THAT THEY HAVE A SYSTEMIC BIAS TOWARDS ENRAGING PEOPLE AND ENGAGING PEOPLE. AND THAT HAS LED US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE FIXED? >> I'M NOT SURE. I ACTUALLY THINK THE ARCHITECTURE IS PROBLEMATIC. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THIS IDEA OF HOW IT'S DONE AND HOW THINGS MOVE WITHIN THE SYSTEM. AND SO, NO, ACTUALLY. THE WAY IT ARCHITECTED IS FOR VIRALITY AND SPEED AND NOT CONTEXT BUT I THINK IT'S VIRALITY, SPEED AND ENGAGEMENT ESSENTIALLY. WHEN IT'S ENGAGEMENT, IT'S ENRAGEMENT. IT JUST LEADS TO IT. IF THEY ARCHITECTED IT FOR SPEED AND CONTEXT AND ACCURACY, THAT WOULD BE GOOGLE, THE SEARCH ENGINE ACTUALLY DOES THAT PRETTY WELL. YOU DON'T EVER GET ON GOOGLE, THE SEARCH ENGINE AND GET ANGRY ABOUT QANON. OVER ON YOUTUBE, THEY HAVE THOSE PROBLEMS AND THEY RECENTLY STARTED TO BAN QANON ON THAT PLATFORM, TOO. IT DEPENDS ON THE PLATFORM. >> YOU SAY THE PLATFORM SAY THEY'RE NEITHER A PURE PLATFORM OR A PURE PUBLISHER LIKE THE "NEW YORK TIMES" THAT CAN DECIDE AND THEN REDECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN DO A TOM COTTON OP-ED PIECE. BUT THAT SEEMS TRUE. SHOULD WE TRY TO CREATE ANOTHER CATEGORY? >> PERHAPS. MAYBE THERE IS. THE ISSUE IS THEY BENEFIT FROM THE CONFUSION AND THEIR BUSINESS BENEFITS FROM IT. SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE COSTS THAT REGULAR MEDIA HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL. REGULAR MEDIA WHEN THEY SCREW UP, AS BOTH YOU AND I KNOW, PAY A HIGH PRICE WHAT THAT HAPPENS. EVEN THOUGH LIBEL IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE IN THIS COUNTRY, THEY GET IN TROUBLE. THEY UNDERSTAND THERE ARE LAWS THERE TO PROTECT PEOPLE. IN THIS CASE NOBODY IS PROTECTED BUT THESE GIANT COMPANIES. THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS THEMSELVES. THAT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE FACEBOOK IS CONTROLLED BY ONE PERSON WHO KEEPS SAYING, INTERESTINGLY, THAT HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE AN ARBITER OF TRUTH. HE BUILT A PLATFORM THAT REQUIRES AN ARBITER OF TRUTH AND, THEREFORE, WHAT DO WE DO? DO WE WANT MARK ZUCKERBERG BEING OUR ARBITER OF TRUTH? WE DON'T WANT HIM TO DO IT, HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT. WHO SHOULD DO IT? HE'S NOT CAPABLE OF DOING THE GOOD JOB AND THE JOB IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. >> ONCE WE HAVE WHEN A COMPANY STARTS SAY SENSORING THINGS WE DON'T LIKE OR AMPLIFYING THINGS WE DON'T LIKE, WE CAN MOVE TO ANOTHER CAN BUT A COMPANY LIKE FACEBOOK IS SO DOMINANT, IT TAKES UP ALL THE OXYGEN OF THAT ECOSYSTEM. YOUR PARTNER, SCOTT GALAWAY, HAS BEEN PUSHING FOR THINGS LIKE FACEBOOK, I THINK, TO BE BROKEN UP OR MORE ANTI-TRUST. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT? >> WELL, I THINK SCOTT HAS TALKED ABOUT THAT, WE BOTH HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT. I THINK THE ISSUE IS EACH COMPANY IS DIFFERENT. THEY'RE THEIR OWN DELICATE FLOWER SO WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THEM IN A DIFFERENT WAY. NONE OF THEM ARE DELICATE. THE GOOGLE IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM A SOCIAL MEDIA POSITION AND VERY DIFFERENT FROM APPLE AND THE APP STORE, AS YOU SEE THEY'VE GOTTEN INTO BIG FIGHTS WITH THE APP STORE DEVELOPERS AND THEN YOU HAVE AMAZON WITH ITS MARKETPLACE AND PLATFORM. WHETHER IT'S ANTI-TRUST, WHETHER IT SUGGESTING FEES THAT THEY PAY OR FINES IS ANOTHER ANSWER. ANOTHER ANSWER IS REGULATION. ANOTHER ANSWER IS LEGISLATION THAT IS REALLY FRESH AND NEW VERSUS REGULATION THAT WE THEN SUDDENLY ENFORCE. SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS IS A VERY -- THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BIG TECH. THERE IS A LOT OF BIG TECH COMPANIES. AND EACH IN THEIR OWN WAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD IN OUR SOCIETY. AND JUST LIKE THE CAR COMPANIES, WHICH ARE MUCH EASIER TO REGULATE BECAUSE THEY DO THE SAME EXACT THING OR THE AIRLINE COMPANIES, SAME THING, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THROUGH TO DEAL WITH THEM BECAUSE ONE RULE IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO WORK FOR ALL OF THEM. >> YOU'VE INTERVIEWED BOTH NANCY PELOSI AND FACEBOOK AND YOUR PODCAST IS ABOUT POWER. WHO HAS MORE POWER THESE DAYS, THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE TECH COMPANIES OR THE PEOPLE WHO RUN CONGRESS? >> THE PEOPLE WHO RUN TECH COMPANIES. BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN STOP THOSE COMPANIES OR TO PULL THEM IN IS GOVERNMENT AND SCOTT HAS TALKED A LOT ABOUT ON PIVOT THE ON PEOPLE WITH THE POWER TO DEAL WITH THESE COMPANIES IS THE GOVERNMENT. AND OUR GOVERNMENT COMPARED TO GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE WORLD AND THEY HAVE TRIED DIFFERENT THINGS BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER TRIED TO REIN IN THESE TECH COMPANIES. AND THAT IS THE ONLY COUNTER VEILING FORCE TO THE POWER THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE. AS IT HAS BEEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY, WHETHER IT'S TRAINS OR PLANES OR AUTOMOBILES OR AT&Ts OR IBMs OR MICROSOFTS AND YOU WERE AROUND FOR THAT. THAT'S THE ONLY FORCE IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH THESE COMPANIES AND HOPEFULLY IN A WAY THAT WILL NOT QUASH INNOVATION AND NOT QUASH WHAT HAS BEEN ONE OF OUR GREATEST INDUSTRIES OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS ESSENTIALLY. >> BUT GOVERNMENT REGULATION IN A SERIOUS WAY WOULD REQUIRE SOME BIPARTISANSHIP AND NONPARTISANSHIP AND IT USED TO BE THAT WAY FROM THE ANTI-TRUST DAYS. BUT NOW SUDDENLY IT SEEMS IN THE PAST YEAR IT'S BECOME WHACKILY PARTISAN. IS THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION? >> NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK CONSERVATIVES TRULY -- I'VE HAD A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS. I'M TRYING TO GET A COUPLE TO COME ON THE SHOW TO TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THEY TEND TO THINK THERE'S CONSERVATIVE BIAS AGAINST CONSERVATIVES ON THESE PLATFORMS WHEN I MAKE THE POINT OF SAYING THEY'RE THE HIGHEST RANKING THINGS ON FACEBOOK. IF YOU LOOK AT FACEBOOK' OWN LIST OF THE MOST POPULAR POSTS, THEY ARE ALMOST ALL CONSERVATIVE, WHICH ARE REALLY INTERESTING. YOU KNOW, THEY CAN PODCAST, THEY CAN GET ON TWITTER, THEY CAN MOUTH ANYTHING THEY WANT ANYWHERE. AND THEY STILL PERSIST IN THE IDEA THAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE BEING QUASHED. SO THAT HEARING ON THE HILL WAS REALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS I HAVE TO SAY WERE CORRECTLY FOCUSED ON POWER. I THINK THIS IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. IT WAS ABOUT THE POWER OF THESE COMPANIES AND THE POWER TO REIN THEM IN. CONSERVATIVES WERE QUITE FOCUSED ON CONSERVATIVE BIAS. AGAIN, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP IS USING IT AS A CUDGEL IN THIS ELECTION. IT'S NOT USING PARTICULARLY WELL BUT HE USES IT. AT THE VERY SAME TIME TWITTER IS THE SAVIOR OF HIM THAT HE'S ALLOWED TO SAY WHATEVER HE WANTS UNTIL RECENTLY WITH WHEN TWITTER DECIDED PERHAPS HE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BREAK THE RULES QUITE AS EXTRA EXTRAVAGANTLY AS HE WAS AND THEN OF COURSE HE STARTED TO SQUEAL. SO HERE HE IS, HE FINALLY HAS TO LIVE THE RULES THE REST OF US LIVE AND HE'S ANGRY ABOUT IT AND CONSIDERS THAT BIAS WHEN IN FACT IT'S JUST YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH, SUCH AS ABOUT COVID, WHICH IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT AND WE'RE GOING TO EITHER COVER YOU UP OR POINT PEOPLE TO CORRECT INFORMATION OR REMOVE YOU ALTOGETHER. SO THAT SETS IN -- THEN IT BECOMES POLITICAL AND THEN IT'S HOPELESS.