How Hank Green Makes the Truth Go Viral. Plus, the Escape Fantasies of the Uber Rich.
50:27 Share

You know, it's a great David versus Goliath narrative, but it's ultimately a marketing ploy. Have news influencers, once the scrappy newbies of the internet, become the media's main power brokers? From WNYC in New York, this is On The Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Olinger, also on this week's show, YouTuber Hank Green on what he knows about the internet now that he didn't in the early days.

The biggest thing I didn't know is how easily it could be used for evil, Micah. I really didn't expect that. Plus, why the mega-rich want to escape the reality that they've created for the rest of us. We're just the first stage on the rocket, the disposable stage that they can jettison once they've made it to the next level. And I promise you, they're not going to make it. It's all coming up after this.

On the Media is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart choice. Make another smart choice with AutoQuote Explorer to compare rates for multiple car insurance companies all at once.

Try it at Progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy. WNYC Studios is supported by Mint Mobile. Say bye-bye to your overpriced wireless plans, jaw-dropping monthly bills, and unexpected overages.

For a limited time, get a deal from Mint Mobile when you purchase a three-month plan. That's with unlimited talk, text, and data. To get this new customer offer, go to mintmobile.com slash WNYC. That's mintmobile.com slash WNYC.

$45 upfront payment required, equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply. See Mint Mobile for details. Hey, Lulu here. Whether we are romping through science, music, politics, technology, or feelings, we seek to leave you seeing the world anew. Radiolab adventures right on the edge of what we think we know, wherever you get podcasts.

From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I'm Michael Loewinger. And I'm Brooke Gladstone. They say, stand up to the threat of censorship. Don't obey in advance.

"Seems like some of the media didn't get that memo." "Joe and I went to Mar-a-Lago to meet personally with President-elect Trump. It was the first time we have seen him in seven years." Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Monday. "And it's gonna come as no surprise to anybody who watches this show that we didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so."

What we did agree on was to restart communications. The backdrop of that meeting, an anxious climate at MSNBC and the media more broadly, threats from Donald Trump to revoke licenses for broadcasters, recent legal letters from Trump threatening the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Daily Beast and Random House.

And news this week that Comcast plans to spin off MSNBC and other channels into a new, smaller company. Morning Joe viewership took a nosedive after the Florida visit. CNN has also seen a decline at a time when more and more people are getting their news from social media. Perhaps in part because influencers seem less compromised than the legacy press.

A new Pew Research report this week found that roughly 20% of Americans and 37% of adults under 30 are getting their news from content creators. Most of the accounts with over 100,000 followers are men with no professional journalistic training. They're also slightly more likely to be right-leaning. To understand this new media landscape, we're going to need to update some old ideas about how powerful institutions spread their messages.

And for that, we turn to Renee DiResta, Georgetown University research professor and author of the book Invisible Rulers, The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality. She recently revisited the theory outlined by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their 1988 classic Manufacturing Consent. Renee, welcome back to the show. Thanks for having me.

Let's just start by kind of outlining what Chomsky and Herman proposed to begin with. So they built what they called a propaganda model, a model that tried to explain how propaganda and systemic biases exist within what they were talking about at the time, the sort of corporate mass media.

And the thing that I really like about the book is that it articulates this system of incentives that he calls the five filters. There's an image that you can envision of like kind of coffee dripping through a filter. So filter one is the ownership of the medium. Medium might not be as objective or it might self-censor if it's afraid of creating a conflict with something else that the owner also owns.

Filter two is funding sources. So at the time, largely advertising. Maybe you don't want to write something that's going to piss off your advertiser. He talks a lot about sourcing as kind of filter three, who the paper's sources are and the reporter's potential fear of alienating a source. The fourth filter that they discuss is flack, which refers to complaints that might come in, lawsuits.

public condemnation, people writing angry letters, government people complaining about it. And so at the time, the idea was that flak would reinforce kind of conformity by discouraging dissent or discouraging controversial opinions that might lead to the generation of the flak. The last thing that he really kind of emphasizes is

At the time he was writing, it was anti-communism, the argument that media had to be anti-communist in order to rally people around a shared ideological enemy. Again, this was during the Cold War. But he's kind of expanded it. They wrote a little bit of an update after September 11th, arguing that it was really just fear ideology, the sort of fear of an other, and that media did best when it had somebody to turn into a villain, right?

All in, what he argues in the book is that this creates a very narrow, filtered perspective. And at the time he was writing, there was a much more homogenous and limited media environment. Yes. At the time, a lot of newspapers relied much more on advertising than they did on, say, subscriptions. I mean, just the business models of news were pretty fundamentally different, even from the legacy media now. Yeah.

It's very much a snapshot of a moment in time in the 1980s, but it reflects this concern that media is not telling you everything because it is not incentivized to. Right. It's reflecting some of that distrust. At the same time, he does make the point that this isn't an anti-media argument. It's a argument to be informed. It's an argument to understand that when you consume something, you should understand what might be motivating it.

Naturally, some journalists have quibbled with Chomsky's argument over the years. Absolutely. In the great documentary, also called Manufacturing Consent, about Chomsky and the book from 1992, here's how one New York Times editor responded. If one takes literally the various theories that Professor Chomsky puts out, one would feel that there's a tacit

conspiracy between the establishment press and the government in Washington to focus on certain things and ignore certain things so that if we broke the rules that we would instantly get a reaction, a sharp reaction from the overlords in Washington. We didn't hear a thing.

That did ring true with me that like it's easy to kind of see this as a very deliberate system rather than maybe a series of nudges one after another. When you read these social media posts of people who are distrustful of media, they are effectively saying that they really do believe at this point that there is some sort of collusion between media and government and the press is not telling them the truth. And this too is one of these areas where there had been this great hope, I think, that by creating media

It's

theoretically gatekeeper-free media environment, we would create a flourishing new independent press that would enjoy the confidence and the trust of the public that was not subjected to the same incentives and that we would have this rising trust in a burgeoning new media. And of course, that's not exactly what happens. Yes, and you've argued then that in a world of new media propagandists, political news influencers,

who spread lies for a living, it's worth, I guess, considering that maybe Chomsky's model is out of date because perhaps the press just doesn't have the grip hold on information that we once thought it did.

Social media emerges long after manufacturing consent. And all of a sudden, you have new gatekeepers and new incentives and new structures and new means of sharing information. You have the most empowered public you've ever had as far as the role that individual people can

play in shaping public opinion and amplifying news that they like and sharing content with their friends. So you have a fundamental shift in who can be a content creator, who can tell stories. In this particular case, we're talking about news influencers who have over 100,000 followers. And those followers play a very active role.

in amplifying them. I think a lot of people see influencers as these like, you know, the sort of pied pipers, like leading around the masses, you know, but that's not what's actually happening. The influencer maybe has more followers, but they're often pulling content up from posts that their followers are making as well. A couple weeks ago, I had a piece about Joe Rogan. And at the end, I wrote a little bit about a Twitch streamer named Hassan Piker. Mm-hmm.

And it was interesting to me to then go to his stream and watch him listen to my piece on his stream about him. And it had probably been fed to him by like his subreddit or maybe his Discord server, a place where...

his most devoted community members are almost like acting like a producer would for a radio or TV show, sort of giving him the material to talk about, right? So it's like he's both the mouthpiece of a certain community, but he's also kind of a part of a community. So that's a great example. A lot of the big podcasts actually have subreddits. I find them really interesting. You can see audience members in there both digesting and sometimes attacking and criticizing the podcasters.

One of the interesting phenomenons in the influencer crowd relationship is this phenomenon called audience capture, where you'll occasionally see audiences begin to demand, why aren't you talking about this, right? That dynamic happened quite a lot in the days after October 7th. Why aren't you talking about Israel? Why aren't you talking about Palestine? Where people felt that they should be applying pressure to influencers who have reach for

who can shape the discourse, who can shape political opinion. And the audience feels that the influencer should be using that power in a particular way, right? And it's really interesting to see those moments take shape because you realize this is not just a one-sided relationship.

The influencer is absolutely dependent on the crowd being there. That's how they make their money. That's how they have their influence. That's how they have their reach. And so they don't want to do too much to alienate that crowd. And so sometimes you'll see influencers becoming more and more ideological if their audience grows in a particular direction.

So this is just one incentive that is shaping some influencers to the point that they might become propagandists. What are some other incentives that are shaping this new media environment?

The ecosystem relies a lot on direct patronage. You see sub-stack writers making money directly from subscriptions themselves. That creates particular incentives. In order to appeal to a group of people, to gain your initial following, you're incentivized to appeal to a niche, right? To sort of start somewhere as a person who talks about a particular topic and then to kind of expand out from there, right?

You're incentivized to be entertaining, right? To be sensational, get as many engagements as possible, as many people engaging and reacting and commenting and paying attention to their content. And this is an incredible challenge because you have to capture attention in an extraordinarily noisy, very, very fast paced environment. The question of whether you should be

relatable or authoritative, right? A lot of people want influencers who very casually discuss the news of the day. Sometimes that means that there's going to be a lot that's wrong, unfortunately, or they're speculating, but they don't really have all of the facts yet. But that's what they're incentivized to do. Whereas mainstream media, you know, because of the risk of things like lawsuits is maybe not so incentivized to just publish whatever, you know, whatever the latest rumor of the day is.

You've observed how many online pundits and news influencers often present themselves as kind of like the little guy fighting against the big bad mainstream media. But that framing seems to make less and less sense every day, right? It's marketing. Yeah.

It's marketing. I mean, look, Fox News established itself oppositionally, right? They over there are lying to you. I am telling you the truth. So if you think about it, positioning of niche media or, you know, a random sub stack outlet or whatever as some sort of like

de facto wholesome antithesis to the mainstream machine that's manufacturing consent over there in the corner. You know, it's a great David versus Goliath narrative, but it's ultimately a marketing ploy, particularly because when you look at the amount of money in the influencer ecosystem, it can be absolutely staggering up at the top. You know, I wonder about the cognitive dissonance of simultaneously saying like,

The media sucks and can't be trusted. And also we are the media now. You can't have it all the ways. Which one is it? Choose a lane. Yes. I see it now as two...

distinct but overlapping ecosystems. Suspicion of the way that the old news model can be used for propaganda has been used by a new media environment to build up its influence and audiences while itself being subject to a new set of incentives,

that can also lead to the spread of propaganda, arguably on a larger scale than the legacy media ever could. One thing that I find is as I engage with people who've like read the book or read my essays, they actually didn't really understand how influencers got paid in

In the realm of paid political content, which we haven't even talked about, right, influencers serving as the paid mouthpieces of political campaigns, the disclosures are incredibly opaque. Oftentimes, you'll see a campaign contract with an agency, the agency subcontracts to the influencer. The campaign filing reports the contract with the agency doesn't say anything about the end stage influencer. That question of when they need to disclose

particularly political speech, is a little bit hazy. So in 2022, Wired did this really interesting investigation into affiliate links using a very particular URL shortener that they found to be linked to a agency named Urban Legend. The people who were using this URL shortener, they spanned the political ecosystem, but ultimately that URL shortener was an indicator that the piece that they were posting, the content that they were posting, was tied to a particular paid campaign.

And so you had people like Donald Trump Jr., Diamond and Silk, various Real Housewives, Olympic athletes, just all of these different people across the political spectrum who were participating in amplifying calls to sign petitions, calls to, you know, to engage with political content. And so this influencer agency essentially had these clients who wanted to call attention to their various causes and things and

the agency helped broker these influencers for them, but there was no disclosure that was made in any of the posts. And certainly we can think of just how ripe this is for abuse by governments or other political purposes. You know, On the Media is a media criticism show, and media can mean so many things. For most of the life of this show, it has really meant legacy press. Given that

more influence, more discourse shaping power is coming from a quickly changing influencer news ecosystem. How should on the media approach this new era?

I think that we should be avoiding the reductive narratives that vilify or glamorize individual influencers and instead focus on what they are as an ecosystem. A whole lot of early media focus and criticism of influencers focused on this individual's bad opinion, who that person was platforming, whether that person was a good person. And maybe there's room for that, but I think there's just a lot more

criticism that could happen of this ecosystem at a much more structural, systematic level that recognizes the power that it has and the way that it intersects with the ecosystems of political power in this country, particularly over the next four years. Rene, thanks so much.

Thanks for having me. Renee DiResta is a researcher studying online manipulation, a professor at Georgetown University, and author of the book Invisible Rulers, The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality. Coming up, how to make the truth go viral and when it seems too risky to try. This is On The Media.

On the Media is supported by Mint Mobile. You know when you discover a new binge-worthy show or a song that you keep on repeat and you have to share with your friends so they can validate just how great it is? Well, that's kind of how it feels when you discover that Mint Mobile offers pretty great deals when you buy a three-month plan. Why would you want to keep that to yourself?

You can use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and your phone number along with all your existing contacts. So to get this new customer deal with your three-month premium wireless plan, go to mintmobile.com slash otm. That's mintmobile.com slash otm. It costs $45 up front. That's $15 a month. But the offer is only good for new customers on their first three-month plan.

Speeds above 40 GB on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply. See Mint Mobile for details. WNYC Studios is supported by Lumen, the world's first handheld metabolic coach that measures your metabolism through your breath. And on the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and even stress management.

All you have to do is breathe into your lumen first thing in the morning, and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Then, lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day, based on your measurements. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals, so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time, and lumen will give you tips to keep on top of your health game.

So if you want to stay on track with your health this holiday season, go to lumen.me slash WNYC to get 15% off your Lumen. That is L-U-M-E-N dot M-E slash W-N-Y-C for 15% off your purchase. Hi, I'm Alexis Ohanian. You may know me as one of the co-founders of Reddit, but more recently, a large part of my identity is being a father to my wonderful daughters.

In my podcast, Business Dad, I hope to open the conversation about working parents a bit. You'll get to hear from a wide range of business dads, from Rainn Wilson and Guy Raz to Todd Carmichael and Shane Battier, to find out how they balance being a dad with a successful career. Business Dad is available now, so be sure to listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

This is On The Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Loewinger. Before the break, we heard Renee DiResta discuss the system of incentives that prompt some news influencers to spread propaganda. Now let's turn to one content creator who's figured out how to make the truth go viral. It's Brotherhood 2.0 with Hank and John Green.

This is Hank Green filming himself as he sledded down a hill in 2007, very early days for YouTube. Along with his brother John Green, the famous novelist, the two helped popularize vlogging as a career.

Over the last 17 years, Hank's become a sort of Bill Nye the Science Guy for digital natives. His channels SciShow and Crash Course have 8 and 16 million subscribers, respectively.

He's also got 8 million followers on TikTok, where he debunks bad info and answers the Internet's questions about science and beyond with his characteristic blend of rigor and whimsy. I'm allergic to seafood. Can I still scuba dive? I see we have returned to the eternal question of whether or not the ocean is a soup. And if it is a soup, it is obviously a seafood soup. And if you are allergic to seafood, you should not have a seafood soup.

But you can have ocean if you are allergic to seafood because there's not enough seafood in it to cause any kind of reaction. A person who is allergic to seafood can still have ocean.

Yay! I called up Hank for a sense of what our fast-moving, algorithmically-driven information environment feels like to an influential content creator. And I asked him what he knows about the internet now that he didn't know when he got started on YouTube in 2007. Oh, the biggest thing I didn't know is...

how easily it could be used for evil, Micah. I really didn't expect that. It sure seems like the algorithms that govern platforms, they don't seem to really value truth. How would you program that in? I mean, even if you wanted to. Exactly. They value attention. Yeah. And when it comes to influencers who've really hacked attention,

who really understand virality. Tell me a little bit about their tactics. Like there's this great way to get people to pay attention to an item of news, which is to say, no one's talking about this. Why aren't they talking about this? There are so many stories out there that the media is not covering. I don't know how come nobody is talking about this drought that we're having. Why is no one talking about Akon? He is building a city. I'm not, I'm not joking.

And then you just like show yourself superimposed in a TikTok over a bunch of BBC News headlines. They're like, oh, yeah, they're talking about it. They're talking about it. You know, you also want to have yourself on the screen with something visually interesting that is not you.

Maybe a clip that doesn't really feel like it's related to the thing you're talking about so that the person is confused a little bit. Confusion is a great emotion for an audience to be experiencing if you're trying to increase retention because if their curiosity is satisfied, they leave. Let's look at Dylan Page for a second. He's the self-proclaimed top news influencer on TikTok. He has over 13 million followers.

He calls himself News Daddy. How old is Dylan Page? He looks like he's 18 years old. Here's something no one's talking about. Trees and land absorbed almost to no CO2 last year. And the consequences of that is not just devastating. What's working for him?

And it's like a billion little tricks. And I use some of these tricks, too. But the main thing you have to be as a Dylan Page or as a Hank Green is really kind of obsessed with what makes the numbers go up. I see him in that way as a kindred spirit. His videos can have a sort of anti-institutionalist zing to them.

Rene Duresta has called it the David versus Goliath trope. Yeah. Me versus the mainstream media. It is a great story. And it's funny because I work inside of an institution that is very careful, like Crash Course and SciShow are both this way. They're careful and they do a lot of primary research.

But I also do the other thing where it's just like me redigesting existing reporting and they like and trust it more when it's just coming from me. The videos of just Hank speaking unscripted, they seem to do better. I mean, per unit of work, they do way better.

I feel like it's easier to trust a human. You get to choose the exact person who has the worldview and the outlook and makes the content that vibes with you best and has the face that vibes with you best and the voice that vibes with you best and the jokes that have the most relevance to your life. You're kind of describing the parasocial relationship. Yeah. I think that if it's treated respectfully and if you sort of understand the responsibility that comes along with that,

That's not necessarily a terrible thing. So walk me through how you kind of play the game while still living up to your values. Like, give me a little sense of the thought process. One thing that has worked well for me is actually taking people on the journey. Give me an example of a time where you felt like the process was really genuinely captured. Yeah.

I had this thought while I was picking up my son at school that all the fancy pants parents, their cars looked weird. Instead of looking like regular car colors, they looked like mud.

And so I just sat there on my computer and I was like, why do cars look like putty now? And I recorded my screen and I recorded my video and I went down the path of reading original journalism from people who had interviewed car color specialists. And I went and found out the original color that this started with.

The growing trend of flat gray cars started with Nardo gray by Audi. All right. Should have gone to the second comment. This is three years ago, by the way. Nardo gray, Audi's classic gray color. Nardo. Love that. And that was just like a really authentic, like come with me on a journey as I discover like weird things about the world. And it's very low stakes, right? Because if I get it wrong,

Nobody's going to like take the wrong medicine. The stakes are low. But what I do love about it is intentional or not. And you can tell me you are kind of teaching media literacy. You're like people trust you and you're showing them how you find good information. I was really impressed with your one about the myth that we all eat a credit card's worth of plastic every week. This was a while ago. Because, yeah, this was not just some goofball interviewer.

internet thing. This was reported by a lot of mainstream outlets, right? So there was a bunch of different analyses that looked at different sources where you might get plastics from.

And then if you add up the top range of every one of those sources, it turns out it's a very large number. But then that number got worked into a peer-reviewed article as a background stat. What then happened is the press people at that university looked for the most interesting piece of information in that paper, which, of course, was the fact that we eat a credit card's worth of plastic every week, which is not true.

And they pulled that and they put it in the press release. And then that got put into a bunch of different articles. And it was such a useful thing for getting people to click on things that that quickly spread from like less credible outlets to more credible outlets. Because all you had to do is go and look at the source, which was a peer reviewed article that did contain the stat. And it wasn't some big conspiracy theory. There was no foul play. It's just...

Just sloppiness laundered from source to source. But it does make me ask, does that sound right to you? A week? I feel like our food would be harder to eat. Or our stomachs would be filled with many credit cards worth of plastic. And that's sort of where I started from as I was like, that sounds wrong.

But where your flag gets raised is going to be different for every person. It's going to be based on your worldview. So if you only fact check facts that sound wrong, you're going to be missing all the ones that sound right that are nonetheless wrong. Of course, everyone makes mistakes. One thing that I think you do really well, though, is that you do more than own up to an error. You kind of turn it into an event of sorts. Yeah. Yeah.

People love an I was wrong video. I love views. This is what my entire business is based on. It is important to me. And we were wrong about avocados. You had made a video that included what you later learned was a myth that avocados exist in the form we know them today, thanks to an extinct creature called the giant ground sloth. Yeah. Fruits mostly exist for

for seed dispersal reasons. You eat the fruit and then you poop the seeds out somewhere else and then they get to travel farther away from their home tree.

Well, who the heck was eating an avocado and swallowing that pit? It certainly was not something the size of a human. So the theory, and this was published in a paper, it was just an idea, it was that there was these giant ground sloths. And then like this became a great fact. This is like a dinner table conversation. Yeah. The biggest bias in media is toward a cool story.

We are not lefty righty. It's like, what's interesting? Probably avocados have weirdly big pits because people bred avocados to be big and the pit got big along with the avocado.

Boring. Yeah. So we got to make a video that was like, "We were wrong about avocados!" Here at SciShow, we take accuracy really seriously. Our last video on this subject relied on some sources that, as we described, were a little flimsy for the arguments we made. Because of this, we have unlisted that video. As always, we are here to spread ideas supported by evidence and science, not myths. But we are never, of course, above spreading some avocados on our toast. And it was the most popular video that month.

Making corrections, of course, is a long practice of the legacy media. I get the sense it's not always the practice of content creators. And yet, according to Gallup, Americans continue to register record low trust in legacy media. You really think a lot about maintaining trust with your viewers. Yeah.

I worry about it all the time. It's probably my biggest worry as an individual content creator. I have like bigger worries as a business owner of trying to keep people employed and stuff. Like if people lose trust in SciShow, that impacts the bottom line. But as a person, I got into YouTube because I like to be liked. You know, I desperately don't want to become another story of like somebody I thought was good but turned out to be bad. And sometimes I have no control over that.

You're allowed to like in private hate me. I remember how much my friends hated Dave Matthews band in high school. And that was part of our identities. Dave Matthews did nothing wrong. Dudes love to hate a band. I mean, that's just that's absolutely it's our rights. But if there are reasons that that's happening that are my failings, I do want to know about it. People have so many reasons to lose trust in the world right now. And I don't want to be a part of that.

You've said that you're careful about taking on hot button issues, but aren't the hot button issues the most important issues

for someone like you to weigh in on. Oh, boy. How do you make that calculation, weighing this precious trust that you're trying to protect while also serving your audience? Yeah, I think you are right to put your finger on this. This is a really interesting thing. There are certain things that I feel like literally I do not have the expertise to take on, but there's more to it than that, too. There are issues that I do understand pretty well

that I don't talk that much about, I can be like, well, some of my audience is going to be really big Elon Musk fans, and some of them are going to be really big Elon Musk haters. I know where I am on that, but I'd rather not alienate the Musk fans, and I'd rather not alienate the Musk haters. So like when that freaking spaceship got caught by that tower, that was amazing. And I was, you know, I was a little bit publicly amazed, but

But I can make the choice because I'm trying to preserve that trust and because I'm trying to preserve my sanity. I don't want to be in fights on the Internet all the time. I can make the choice to just not engage with certain topics. And that is not a choice that I feel like you, for example, have.

Yes. And that's what I'm concerned about, because if you as one of our highest integrity content creators feel like there are certain topics that you can't talk about because it would negatively impact your business. What does that mean about a future where more and more content creators are taking the place of what journalism and legacy media used to serve?

I hadn't actually thought about this, but it is another way. And it's not the only way that this transition is not great for actual information environment. I guess what I'm wondering is like if it's possible to maintain the broad trust you have to reach a really large, diverse audience, which I sense you do, while maintaining

charging headfirst into topics that inevitably upset and alienate some viewers? Like, is it an either or proposition? Yeah, I mean, I feel this way even when it comes to like my position on who to vote for in the election. I don't want to alienate Trump voters from science, you know? If you don't feel like you can be comfortable in the space of SciShow, then like where are you going to get your good information?

We go into controversial stuff when it is connected to science. But I don't because I'm like me and I'm like trying to do what's fun and interesting to my audience. I don't know that people get that distinction. And it's really troubling. Like one of the reasons that SciShow has lost a lot of trust with that kind of audience is because we use gender inclusive language. When you say gender inclusive language, like... Instead of saying women who menstruate, you would say people who menstruate, which also is...

for clarity, more inclusive broadly because there are lots of women who don't menstruate. And we've been very open about why we do that and about why we think that is the correct choice.

But people lose focus on what you're saying and they're like, oh my God, this is woke. And I'm like, oh my God, like I don't want to lose those people. But I also like, I don't like, there's no reason to not use gender inclusive language. Your audience, it seems, really wants you to explain everything to them. Because you're good at it and you explain a lot of things. But that's a lot of pressure. It seems that

That's kind of a pressure that's much more easily borne by a news organization than just one guy. Yeah, I would absolutely go insane if I thought I had to explain everything. But what I want to do is I want to help people understand how weird and cruel and interdependent their world is. And what I really want is for people to believe that humans are good.

This line of work has brought to me a real deep appreciation and fascination with humanity.

That I really do want to share because I don't think that we have great systems for meaning making right now. But if we discard the feeling that humans are cool or good, then we got nothing. It's very easy to think about murder and be like man's inhumanity toward man. But very hard to think about like jazz or love, right?

And like, tell me a species that has ever thought about a future generation that isn't human. I can't think of one. If you gave raccoons this much power, they'd get up faster than us. I have. I guarantee you. Hank, thank you so much. Thank you. I love this show. Hank Green hosts the educational YouTube channels Crash Course and SciShow. You can find him on most platforms at Hank Green.

Coming up, some tech titans seem eager to run away from the world they helped create. This is On The Media. On The Media is supported by Mint Mobile. You know when you discover a new binge-worthy show or a song that you keep on repeat and you have to share with your friends so they can validate just how great it is?

Well, that's kind of how it feels when you discover that Mint Mobile offers pretty great deals when you buy a three-month plan. Why would you want to keep that to yourself? You can use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and your phone number along with all your existing contacts.

So to get this new customer deal with your three-month premium wireless plan, go to mintmobile.com slash otm. That's mintmobile.com slash otm. It costs $45 up front. That's $15 a month. But the offer is only good for new customers on their first three-month plan. Speeds above 40 GB on unlimited plan.

Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply. See Mint Mobile for details.

All you have to do is breathe into your lumen first thing in the morning, and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Then, lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day, based on your measurements. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals, so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time, and lumen will give you tips to keep on top of your health game.

So, if you want to stay on track with your health this holiday season, go to lumen.me to get 15% off your Lumen. That is L-U-M-E-N.com.

dot m-e slash w-n-y-c for 15% off your purchase. At Radiolab, we love nothing more than nerding out about science, neuroscience, chemistry. But, but, we do also like to get into other kinds of stories. Stories about policing, or politics, country music, hockey, sex.

Of bugs. Regardless of whether we're looking at science or not science, we bring a rigorous curiosity to get you the answers. And hopefully make you see the world anew. Radiolab, adventures on the edge of what we think we know. Wherever you get your podcasts.

This is On The Media. I'm Michael Loewinger. And I'm Brooke Gladstone. On Tuesday, Elon Musk's SpaceX launched its sixth test of the world's biggest and most powerful rocket, the same rocket he hopes to send to Mars one day to fulfill his longtime goal of building a colony off-world. That's the overarching goal of the company, is extend life sustainably to another planet. Mars is the only option, really.

And to do so, ideally, before World War III or some kind of bad thing. In Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged, the rich and the talented, fed up with government constraints on their free will, abandon America for a utopia and leave the rest of us to perish in our own mediocrity.

Douglas Rushkoff has written many books about the philosophy, culture, and evolution of life online for as long as there's been one. His latest, Survival of the Richest, Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires, opens in a remote desert where he meets five unnamed tech titans who want him to assess their strategies for surviving what they call the event.

Right. That's the lingo. The word they use to describe the apocalypse or climate catastrophe or pandemic that wipes out humanity. And there are actual places, a safe haven project in Princeton, an ultra elite shelter in the Czech Republic.

Well, the worst ones are where they build a fortress and surround it with kerosene-filled lakes that they can light on fire as the masses storm their gates for food, armed with Navy SEALs protecting their organic permaculture farms.

You know, Mark Zuckerberg has a rather impenetrable estate out in Hawaii. Peter Thiel has been building something in New Zealand. One of the guys pulled out these plans he had for these shipping containers and buried them underground and connect them all with tubes. So if you end up with eight or 10 or 15 shipping containers, you can have a big underground apartment. One of them had an indoor pool.

And I asked him, I said, so, you know, my neighbor has always got these trucks in front of his house, you know, bringing replacement parts.

what are you going to do for replacement parts in your heated pool once there's no pool places? He pulls out this little moleskin book and he writes down there, new parts for pool. And what I realized is these guys are thinking just one level into the science fiction fantasy. But then when you push on it just a little bit, they're not thinking about it at all. And as a practical matter, you did debunk their plans because it's impossible to ensure survival in

amid global catastrophe. But you say fundamentally that's not what they really wanted from you. I think what they really wanted was for me to water test their survival strategies. Will this work? Will that work? Should I go to Alaska? Should I go to New Zealand? And while I don't know whether Alaska or New Zealand will survive,

there better. I do know something about what's driving these people. There in the moment, I felt a little bit more like an intellectual dominatrix. They hired me to make fun of what they were doing, to pull the rug out or...

at worst, to make them suffer, make them feel guilty for wanting to move on and leave the rest of us behind. Yeah, in the book, you describe them as kind of self-styled Ubermenschen who believes in scientism, that human beings can be

reduced to their chemical components, and that's it. And only the truly superior understand that. Mark Zuckerberg, he models himself after Augustus Caesar. You know, Elon Musk sees himself as one of the Avengers, as Iron Man. So they see themselves as demigods, living, as Peter Thiel would say, one level above the rest of us, one order of magnitude above humanity.

Which brings us, I guess, to the core idea of your book, what you call the mindset. When I was introduced to the Internet, it was through the California counterculture. And we thought we were going to give people these tools and increase the creativity of the collective human imagination. It was that wonderful psychedelic.

hippie rave. But along came Wired Magazine and investors who decided, oh, no, rather than give people the tools to create a new reality, let's use these technologies on people in order to make them more predictable. So instead of giving people tools, we use tools on people. And for years, I blamed this on capitalism. And it's easy because there's a lot we can blame on it. But

As I met more of these people, I realized it was really intrinsic to their techno-pseudo-scientific mindset. If all we are is information, all we are is DNA, that's all that matters. But

that dovetails perfectly with corporate capitalism because capitalism, it's just the numbers. Ray Kurzweil, one of the technologists at Google, really believes he can upload his consciousness to a computer and move on because it's just data. You know, I was kind of moved by your discussion with Ray Kurzweil. You made an impassioned argument for what you call the squishy stuff and

and its unquantifiable value in human experience. He just called that noise. I know, wasn't that odd? And he said, oh, Rushkoff, you're just saying that because you're human.

As if it was hubris. You know, digital technologists, they understand all the little quantized notches, but anything that's not on that line is noise. That's why the aesthetic of the digital age is auto-tuning. You get that note exactly right. And I understand maybe with a commercial artist like an Ariana Grande, you make a better recording by auto-tuning her.

on that 440 hertz A note. But what if you auto-tune James Brown? You know, when James Brown's reaching up for that note, it's that reaching up that the technologist considers noise because it's not on the note. But you and I understand that reaching. That's the true signal. That's the human being speaking through the music to us.

It's the way we don't conform rather than the way we do. It's the soft, squishy stuff. And that's what they don't understand. That's their fear. And I realized this as I was writing this book, that these escape plans they have, they want to leave behind this weird, squishy, female, natural, in-between, liminal world that took

confusing. It doesn't have numbers. They want to rise above this dirty, fertile matter and experience themselves as pure consciousness, just ones and zeros where everything just makes sense.

You were writing this book back in 2022, but now with Trump's reascension to the White House, do you feel that the tech bros' ideas have gotten a big boost? It's strange. A lot of people with authoritarian ambitions have quoted my work.

The prime minister of Italy was talking about Team Human, this book I wrote, really arguing for the human against this mechanistic understanding of the world. And the far right grabbed onto that slogan. Steve Bannon read out loud five or ten pages of Team Human. So what did he like about it? It was interesting. Bannon and Maloney. Giorgio Maloney, Italy's far right PM. Yeah.

Yes. They see the team human revolt as taking a stand against the technocracy, that kind of Obama-Hillary reduction of our world by the technocrats.

Now we see the right wing embracing the technocrats. Musk and other Silicon Valley demigods flipped in some ways from being part of the left to being part of the right. And that's because they don't have political ideology. They just want to side with whoever's going to support their techno-dominating understanding of the world, their notions of progress, right?

and conquest, because in the end, what we're looking at really is a continuation of the colonial urge by digital means. They've run out of physical territory. So what do you take over? You take over the information space. And they sure have. But speaking purely of technology, you argue that even the philanthropic capitalists or the green technologists, they really have nothing for us.

Even the most well-meaning technologists who are talking about doing humane technology, they're still kind of ass backwards in their perspective. Oh, we can create humane technologies that undo the effects of these bad technologies. So if you're using your smartphone too much and getting anxiety, we'll create a wellness app

to undo the effects of the bad apps. The solution always involves more technology or, oh, we've destroyed the planet with all this. So now we're going to build high tech eco villages run with sensors and AI that maximize the soil efficiency. Then whatever technological invention they've come up with becomes enslaved by the market.

It has to now grow exponentially in order to even stay in business. So all of these technologies are not really in service of humanity. They're still in service of these abstract financial markets.

You wrote that the tech titans, when they move fast and when they break things, they do it so they're not hit by falling debris. That the race to space or wealth or personal sovereignty is less running toward a vision than it is trying to run away from the resentment and the damage they're causing. And you compare them a bit to Wile E. Coyote. Yes.

In the famous cartoon, he's always devising extravagant ways to ensnare his enemy, the roadrunner. And then he becomes the victim of his own invention, ends up out there in midair, looks down and goes down. And you say the tech titans are going down. Well, the reason they're going down and their own fear are sort of two different things.

Their fear has been fueling them from the beginning. They're afraid of women. They're afraid of nature. They're less afraid of death than they are of life and complexity. Now, that's a hell of a harsh assessment. The tech pros are deeply afraid of the very technologies they've made.

They're afraid of AI because they think AI is going to do to them what they've been doing to us. Got any proof for that assertion? They are the ones who are starting the big organizations and companies to prevent AI's domination. They think that there's a 50% chance or 20% chance or 90% chance that AI will lead to the end of the world because AI will decide that human beings are unnecessary.

Some have suggested that's just a ruse so that Congress will hold the experts even closer because we need them so desperately to survive. Right. The most earnest among them actually either believe what they're saying or believe that they need to bring in government and regulation in order to help develop AI. The more cynical way of understanding it is they want regulation so that they can preserve their monopolies.

The minute you bring in regulators, the biggest players at the table win. Another cynical response is that they're just trying to sell a technology that isn't really so special anyway. These are just algorithms. And if you talk about them as, oh, these could end reality itself, then it seems important. But either way, you really think they're going down? Either the tech bros will go down or...

Or we all go down, right? This is not a way to sustain a civilization.

Each time you turn the wheel of accelerationist capitalism, you have to pull that much more out of the planet every week. It goes back to why we can't just replace all of our oil cars with electric cars overnight. Where do you get the molybdenum? Where do you get the cobalt? The amount of mining we would have to do to get the rare earth metals defeats the laws of physics.

You can't keep growing. There is a fixed reality in which we live. And the saddest part is the human project, the natural project, the species on the planet don't need economic growth. Only this operating system needs economic growth. And these tech pros...

Rather than questioning that basic economic operating system, they are addicted to it, stuck in it, and they're willing to do whatever they can to keep growing that thing. So these guys have a doomsday plan, which you think can't work. Do you? I'd argue that the way to prepare for the event or to prevent the event are the very same things.

So mutual aid, localism, meeting your neighbors, not being afraid of them. I mean, the story that I'm telling lately is when I had to hang a picture of my daughter after she graduated high school. I didn't have a drill. And the first thing I thought to do, like any tech bro, is go to Home Depot, get a minimum viable product drill, use it once, stick it

in the garage and probably never use it again. Or if I do, I'm going to take it out in two years. It's not going to recharge and I'm going to throw it out. Or I can walk down the street to Bob's house and say, Bob, can I borrow your drill? How have we, through digital technology, become so de-socialized that we're afraid to ask our neighbor for a favor? Because what's going to happen? I'm going to borrow the drill from Bob and then Bob is going to see me having a barbecue the next weekend and wonder, hey,

Doug should invite me over for that barbecue because I just lent him my drill. Then I invite Bob over and the other neighbors are going to smell the barbecue and think, why aren't we over there? And then before long, we're going to have a party with the whole block. And that's the nightmare. That's what the technologists are building their bunkers for. It's to get away from us and us.

America, humanity, all of our natural resources, we're just the first stage on the rocket, the disposable stage that they can jettison once they've made it to the next level. And I promise you, they're not going to make it. There is no next level. This is it.

Doug, thanks so much. Oh, thank you for having me. Douglas Rushkoff is a professor at the City University of New York of digital economics and media, and his latest book is called Survival of the Richest, Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires.

That's it for this week's show. On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark Callender, Candice Wong, and Katerina Barton. Our technical director is Jennifer Munson. Our engineer is Brendan Dalton. Eloise Blondio is our senior producer, and our executive producer is Katya Rogers. On the Media is a production of WNYC Studios. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Olinger.

WNYC Studios is supported by Mint Mobile. Say bye-bye to your overpriced wireless plans, jaw-dropping monthly bills, and unexpected overages. For a limited time, get a deal from Mint Mobile when you purchase a three-month plan. That's with unlimited talk, text, and data. To get this new customer offer, go to mintmobile.com slash WNYC. That's mintmobile.com slash WNYC.

$45 upfront payment required, equivalent to $15 per month. New customers on first three-month plan only. Speed slower above 40 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees, and restrictions apply. See Mint Mobile for details.