SCOTUS Social Media Ruling, VW Rivian Deal, and Nvidia Stock Roller Coaster
01:01:34 Share

Indeed is a hiring platform that connects businesses with job seekers, with over 350 million global monthly visitors, according to Indeed data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates right away. And it's not just fast. According to Indeed, 93% of employers found the highest quality candidates on Indeed compared to other job sites.

Indeed.com slash VoxBusiness. Need to hire? You need Indeed.

Support for the show comes from ServiceNow, the AI platform for business transformation. You've heard the big hype around AI. The truth is, AI is only as powerful as the platform it's built into. ServiceNow is the platform that puts AI to work for people across your business, removing friction and frustration for your employees.

Supercharging productivity for your developers, providing intelligent tools for your service agents to make customers happier. AI built into a single platform you can use right now. That's why the world works with ServiceNow. Visit servicenow.com slash AI for people to learn more. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher, and I'm in Aspen. What? Oh, you're at the Aspen Ideas Festival. Yes, I am. How is it? I'm here in this ridiculous...

This is an aggressively adorable town. It's a little bit irritating in that regard. I'm interested in where your house is. I want to go see it.

But it's fine. It's great. It's a lot of ideas and a lot of big people. I ran into your friend Richard Reeves in the airport. There's all kinds of really cool people here. And it's fun. I did two events. One was a thing called American Vortex with David Brooks was the moderator and Mike Madrid was on the panel and

Sherilyn Eiffel. That was interesting. And then Brian Chesky interviewed me for my book, which was interesting. And do you think that people go for Aspen or they go for the ideas? Oh, no, the ideas. They're totally into it. And let me just tell you...

We have so many fans. I've been like mobbed by people. Like mobbed. It was crazy. And people wanting pictures, they all ask about you and they all have an opinion about Scott Galloway, which was always enjoyable. But they like you. They have a lot of affection for you. But someone, you know, I always dine with famous people and you say, did they ask about me? And I say, no, you know, I do that. Or you do that all the time, right? Like whenever I'm with you. Emily Ratajkowski is finally coming to her senses.

No, she's not. She's my number three. I'm her number two.

Last night, I got a text from Julie Louise Dreyfuss, who was here, who did an interview, great podcast interview with someone here. I did one a couple weeks ago with her, but she did a wonderful job. And she texted me and she says, you want to have dinner? And we did. We ended up having dinner. And she literally says, tell Scott I really am enjoying listening to him. I would love to meet him. Really? Yes, it's the first time a well-known person has asked me.

I appreciate that. It was great. I was like, yeah. The key for me is not to meet them. I literally define don't meet your heroes. I think people think I'm going to be engaging and interesting, and I'm neither of those things. But Julia Louis-Dreyfus is literally staring at me when I go to sleep at night because your friend, Tammy Haddad—

gave me this Veep pillow. Oh, I have one too. Yes, they're great. And you know me, very few things pass muster to get into the Northern European manic-depressed clean household decor of Scott Galloway.

I don't like anything. You don't? I don't like spare change. I don't like spare change, Lander. Scott's house has nothing on it. I tried to put stuff on the counter. I want something that says, children not welcome, and this guy is very wealthy. Please take off your clothes. That is kind of the message I'm trying to communicate to people. It's true. But kids and guests are not welcome. Visitors, for a little while. For a little while. But please do not stay here as you cannot maintain these standards. Okay.

But that pillow that she gave me is such a cool pillow. And it's on one of my chairs, my Barbara Berry chair, I might add, in my bedroom. Anyways, that's my Julia Louis-Dreyfus story. Yeah, it's a picture of her as Mount Rushmore when she was in Veep. It's her face on it. And then it has Scott, your name on it, right? No, I didn't get the custom pillow. Oh, I got the custom pillow. Okay.

You always got to one-up me. I was asking. No, I'm not claiming my name is on it. Literally. Well, I didn't claim it. I asked you if your name was on it. You can't even let me have a pillow. I was one-upping you. I was wondering if you had the same pillow. You can't even let me have a pillow. No, I didn't even know they didn't not put names on it. What's Julia Louis-Dreyfus like?

She's wonderful. She's lovely. She's smart. She's so thoughtful, just thoughtful. She has a new movie called Tuesday that I recommend everybody see. It's a dramatic role, but she's still very funny in it. But it's about a mother whose daughter is dying and the specter of death arrives at their door in the form of a giant macaw.

Anyway, it's really crazy. It's a crazy movie, but she, but it's wonderful. She's wonderful. It's a, you know, this is a role you wouldn't, she's been in a lot of dramatic roles actually, and quite a wonderful actor. But she's, she's just everything you'd imagine her to be and elegant and classy, paid for dinner. She's like, everything was great. She was like, paid for dinner, classy move.

by JLD. But she likes Scott. She listens and she really said, give Scott my regards. And I was very touched. I was like, you're the first person to say that. The first person that's ever asked about me. But you're going to be spending a lot of time in Aspen because I think I told you I bought a home there and I'm renovating. Yes. Yes. It's nice here. It's lovely here. You know my strategy. I want a series of homes where my kids come visit me and I can just hang out and wait for the ass cancer. And that Aspen is... Yeah.

That's where it's going to happen? Aspen's where it's going to happen. I can see it. There's a real...

There is a wealth divide here that's so apparent. There's so many wealthy people here. It's kind of, it's notice, it's like more than Hamptons. It's not a divide. It's wealth. There's no divide. There's very few. Well, there's like people who serve them and the rich people. That's, there's, you can see it really. Yeah, they live in Basalt or now they have those tourist visas where people come in. But there's, it's actually a really big problem in Pitkin County is that all the workers have been priced out of living there.

Although I do think if you look at actually if you look at the economic data and this is 40 years overdue, but the part of the stack economically that's grown wages finally faster than inflation over the last few years is service workers. And that's because literally COVID was like, let me get this. You're going to pay me nine bucks an hour to tell some fucking idiot to put on their mask and I've got to put myself in harm's way.

And a lot of them just opted out of the labor force. And fortunately, I mean, it's really good. Even if you think about, I'm fascinated by tipping culture. Now you're expected to tip the person, the barista at a coffee place. You know, those pads that they flip around? Yes, they have it. Yeah. And they sit there staring at you like, bro. But-

Rich guy buying an $11 coffee, you're not going to give me 20%. And I think it's kind of, I actually think it's a good thing. I think, I do think, especially in a place like Aspen, I think a lot of those workers are actually making pretty good money right now, which is a wonderful thing. Yeah, I think so. It's just, you can feel it, like the construction going on. It's really...

It's just the money just oozes out of this place. But, and unless it's beautiful. - Oh, it's crazy. - It is crazier than many places. And we go to a lot of different places for these conferences. - I'm sorry, just one more macro thing about Aspen as I'm renovating a house there.

Aspen is a perfect example. I mean, essentially, it's a beautiful mountain town, but there's no reason homes should be going for $50 million there. But what they do is they have weaponized government and they make it impossible to get housing permits or even renovation permits. Thereby, you can't build housing. Thereby, the incumbents who already own a home create what is effectively beachfront real estate, even though it's not on the beach, such that the people who already own homes...

get wealthier and wealthier and people who need homes or need to build apartments for workers or for middle class people, God forbid, who want to live in that area, they cannot afford a home. It's a beautiful mountain, but there are a lot of beautiful mountains in the Rockies. And what a group of rich people have done is they've come together and created a conspiracy to create

out of control income inequality in this little region such that the incumbents get wealthier and wealthier. And to a certain extent, this is what's happening all over the nation is the incumbents just make it very, very difficult for the entrants. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it is beautiful. I mean, it is beautiful. And by the way, Lauren Boebert is not going to be your congressperson anymore when you're an old ass. She won her primary, though. She won her primary in the fourth. She had to leave this district.

which includes Aspen because she was going to lose to that guy who's a businessman here in Aspen, to a Democrat. She nearly lost to a Democrat. But she's going back to Congress.

She's going back to Congress because she won in the fourth. So just to note, we have to move on. We're recording this before tonight's presidential debate. We'll share our thoughts in our next episode. We talked about it in the last episode. We've got a lot to get to do, including the Supreme Court hands the Biden administration and social media companies. A big win, a big story. And Volkswagen gives Rivian a $5 billion shot in the arm or in the car, I guess.

But first, Waymo, speaking of cars, robo-taxi service is now available to everyone in San Francisco. The company says as many as 300,000 people are on the wait list for San Francisco service. Not all smooth sailing. As you know, the U.S. safety probe into Waymo last month found 17 reports of crashes.

and five other possible traffic law violations, but no injuries. There's probably like hundreds of human ones. I just want to make that point. And earlier this month, the company recalled software in all its cars after one crashed into a telephone pole. The service has already been fully available in Phoenix for four years. I ride it all the time. I agree the safety probes should go on and on and on, but they work really well. And I think eventually they are going to sort it out correctly, and they're much safer than

I'm sorry, human drivers, they just are. Would you get in a Waymo? I get in them all the time, but would you? 100%. And whenever I read those stats put out by some...

you know, union or far left group that's just outraged at the destruction of automation. And they've decided to they've decided to infuse everything that's wrong with the tech community, income inequality into to autonomous driving. And I hear these stats. I see the stats in this article saying 11 injuries reported in the last year from autonomous driving. My first thought is, OK, now do 16 and 86 year olds.

Now look at the pool of 16. I mean, do you realize teaching a kid to drive right now? I am just horrified. Oh, you go to the DMV. You go to the DMV. They take a test saying, what's the difference between a double yellow line and a single yellow? And as long as they don't get more than like 20 percent of those questions wrong, they say, God be with you. And you can roll out and start driving as long as there's someone in the car with you.

And I remember on the way home, my kid's like, can I drive? And I'm like, no fucking way. And he's like, well, I got my learner's permit. And I'm like, okay, but this is how we learn.

They'll let anyone, literally. And then you can't take driver's licenses away. That is how you drive. Excuse me. That's how we both, I just drove. Yeah, that's how I did it too. You're right. That's how I remember it. I had a lesson, I guess. I guess I had a lesson. My mom used to come home early or come home from work and I'd drive her Opel Man, a stick shift. I learned how to drive on a stick shift up and down in the garage. But where they really screwed up here was picking the first market to be San Francisco because they made the mistake of thinking, oh, they're technology adopters. Oh, Phoenix.

Well, and I bet, I would bet, and I don't know this, I would bet that they're getting much less pushback in Phoenix than they are in San Francisco. They're getting almost none. Yeah, they're getting almost none. Because they're a group of conservatives that are like, okay, can it get Nana to her physical therapy appointment more easily and less expensive? Boom, I'm in.

Where I think their biggest mistake was one, deciding the test market should be San Francisco, not realizing that, okay, they're not early adopters. There are people who host the tech community who are going to find problems in anything related to technology that they can reverse engineer to some sort of big tech or income inequality. The other thing is this technology perfectly works.

embodies what Bill Gates said about technology. The stuff that's supposed to take three years takes 10 years, and the stuff that's supposed to take 10 years takes three. This was supposed to take three years. It's happening, but it's going to take 10 years. And we're kind of a year seven or eight into it. Yeah, I agree. I think the reason the San Francisco was multifaceted, it wasn't just that. I think it's also a challenging environment that's not in the snow, right? It's harder with snow and weather, heavy weather.

And so I think and they're doing Los Angeles, too. They're also they've been testing in Los Angeles. In Phoenix, they go to the airport, which I think they I think they go to the airport. And so they're doing a little more complex stuff. So I think they pick places that that work for the weather and everything else. And San Francisco is a relatively mild climate in general. It's kept when it rains a lot, but it's that's not as often as it used to be.

So I think that's one. And the challenge of the hills is a different challenge than Venus. That's what they were looking for. But I have to say, I just, I use them. I think everyone will not even think about it years from now. And again, I've had so many experiences

close calls in Ubers with human drivers. I'm sorry. It's just to, it should be under complete, strict safety codes and we should watch it carefully. But let me tell you, when it starts to learn and it won't make the same mistakes that

Nana will make over and over again. My mom keeps wanting to drive again. I'm like, never on this. She does. She's like, I'm getting a car. I saw that. I saw a lucky show up to my house, hunched over in a walker, asking me if I was gay every 30 seconds and then heading off into the wild roads of Florida in her car. I know. I remember seeing her. I walked out to say goodbye. And the most horrifying thing I saw was like, she can't be in the left seat. Jesus Christ, she's behind a steering wheel. Yeah.

And I remember saying to her, she's like, how do I get to Palm Beach? And I'm like, okay, it's easy. You literally come out the driveway, you make a right and you don't stop until

until you see a big sign that says Palm Beach left, or you see the breakers. And she's like, great. And she literally by bombs out, bangs the left. I mean, right there. I'm like, that's it. She's gone. Problem solved for Jeffrey and Kara. She's going to end up in Havana before she gets to Palm Beach.

It was so scary. That was ridiculous. She still wants to drive. That was ridiculous. Anyway, I know, I know. Don't talk to me. Don't speak to me about this. It's a very delicate subject among the Swiss. She asked me where the bathroom was, and she disappeared, and I found her in the family room 15 minutes later. I'm like, oh, yeah, definitely get her on I-95. A little elderly abuse. A little...

Little ages in there. You're definitely going to hear from her. She used to like me. Can I just tell you, she was a terrible driver at 40. I used to be her favorite gay guy, no longer. I know. I know. She was a terrible driver at 40, so it's continued. So Julian Assange is a free man. This is a fascinating case. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act under a plea deal in the U.S. courtroom in the remote island of Saipan. I didn't even know we had a U.S. courtroom in that.

remote island of Saipan. The judge sentenced Assange to 62 months, which he already had served in a London prison. The guilty plea comes over a decade after WikiLeaks published confidential U.S. military records about America's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I mean, this seems like the longest running thing ever. Like, it's a decade. It's like crazy. And he's been in various places trying to seek asylum and kicked out of various places. You know, some people think he's an asset of Russia, I guess. But they finally decided just to let him go. It's going back to Australia, I think. Australia, right? I actually, when I read this, I'm not a fan of Julian Assange. I believe that

I think that a lot of people on the far left just are naive about what's required to keep our shore safe. And I think even if you empathize with someone who believes they're trying to do the right thing, I think when you shove a, you know, a USB up your ass and head to Moscow, you should, you know, I like what Madeleine Albright said, our, you know, our memory is long and our reach is far. But at the end of the day, I was happy to hear this because he's paid a real price. This is a man who's really, for the most part, given up his youth.

And he's been on the run, has been hiding out, I think, in the Ecuadorian embassy. Where was that? Somewhere in Europe. Yeah, he was all over the place. I don't remember. He was moving around.

And also he didn't speak because he's usually so outspoken. You can bet part of this deal is shut the fuck up. Oh, I got it. Well, maybe. Yeah, you're right. Maybe. So I bet I bet they I'm sure they have left an opening that says if you you bet. I bet his lawyer has said, I have one piece of advice to one live your life to shut the fuck up. Three. See, number two.

Because do you really want to open Pandora's box again? Because anyways, but I think this is the right thing. I think what he did was illegal. I think he paid an enormous price for it. And I hope he gets on with his life. I think we've all... I think what happened here did... What's supposed to happen here did happen. Yeah, I think it was the Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, who raised this with President Biden two years ago. You know, the Australian government has...

been trying to get him out of this and was critical to it, which is interesting. But one of the things they're saying, it was, this is from the Wall Street Journal, his immediate priority is eating real food, playing with his children, going to swim in the ocean. The people close to Assange's

Says, yeah, says he will eventually return to the public spotlight fighting for press freedom, defining his legacy and promoting human rights. He doesn't strike me as a shrinking violet, said Andrew Wilkie, an Australian lawmaker who advocated for Assange's release from prison in London. I don't think he's finished writing the Assange story yet. So we'll see. But it's interesting that Australia was the sort of did this quiet diplomacy and made it a priority for him. Yeah.

which is interesting. And he's looking for a pardon now. He's trying to get a pardon. We'll see. Anyway, it's an interesting story, definitely full of all kinds of twists and turns. It's definitely got caught up in this sort of Russia-U.S. misinformation war that goes on almost continually.

And whether it was used and this and that. So anyway, another story that's really interesting, Scott, I noticed Nvidia stock, they were talking about here in Aspen, has been on a roller coaster this week. Shares are headed back up after multiple days of decline, which cost the company its title as the world's most valuable company. The chipmaker now stands as the third most valuable company with a market cap of $3.11 trillion, still enormously high.

NVIDIA shares are still up over 160% since January. What do you think about this? I think a lot of people thought this was coming. You talked about this a lot. Go ahead. Yeah, but since it's rebounded 7%, it's ups and downs aren't that interesting. What's more interesting is that when it loses 13% over the course of three days, it's

It basically loses the value of MasterCard. I mean, if you look at the blast zone or ground zero of essentially $2 trillion in incremental value creation over the last six or 12 months, the knock-on effects are so dramatic. If this company, this company could go down 80% and all of a sudden the NASDAQ and the S&P wouldn't be keeping pace with inflation. One company is now sort of as goes. I mean, it used to be the Magnificent Seven. Now it's the Magnificent One. Right.

So NVIDIA has now become the tail that's wagging the dog of almost everything. And I'm fascinated by this thing because people just can't imagine the kind of value creation here and what it means when it becomes so huge that in this volatile, it is... I mean, the NASDAQ is effectively the tone for the American economy right now is going to be directly and indirectly dictated by the volatility of NVIDIA. Even, for example...

30,000 employees, 3 trillion plus market cap. So you're talking about $100 million per person. I worked my ass off, got so lucky with L2, sold it for $160 million after executing almost what I felt like was perfectly having just an incredibly lucky, just finally I did something and I got all the moons lined up.

160 million dollars, 80 people. So that's two million dollars per employee. They've generated somewhere between 100 and 130 million per employee. And I would bet of those 30,000, 10,000 woke up last week and said, I'm worth between 10 and 50 million dollars.

What does that do to San Francisco real estate prices when all of a sudden, what do you do when you're 29 or 34? It already is affected. You know that. Is that right? We talked about luxury housing is way up. I mean. A lot of the tech companies and especially all the open AI, everybody coming back, et cetera, et cetera. But when you have 10,000 people probably in their 20s, 30s, and 40s that all of a sudden have $10 million in incremental wealth.

You got to think two thirds of them are thinking we're either going to buy a nice home or a better home. I mean, we're either going to buy our first home or upgrade. What does that do to housing stock? I mean, there's just and then what happens if this thing goes down 80 percent? It could NVIDIA could decide to put the presidential election if the market is off.

So is it a buy now, Scott, for people who are like…

You still can't do it. This is literally... It's a game. It's a mean stock in a weird way, in a weird... I don't know. I can pin a scenario where it doubles. I can see it getting cut by 50%, if not 80%. So this is what you do, in my view.

You buy SPY, you buy an index fund. Because if you buy an index fund, every dollar that goes into it- You're buying Nvidia. You're buying 24 cents on the dollar goes to the Magnificent Seven. So if those companies continue to kill it, you participate. But if the other 493 stocks have their day in the sun and those stocks get cut in half, you're still okay. So you take some upside off the table, but you save your mental health. You know you're participating. And the thing about these indexes that's so amazing is

is they are a screening mechanism for the best companies. So who gets kicked out? Kodak gets kicked out, Salesforce gets brought in.

Right. So it's the best companies in the world you're investing in, and they do the job of balancing and diversifying for you. So anyway, if you want to invest in NVIDIA thoughtfully, you don't need to know whether it's going to go up or down. Buy an index fund. Just buy an index fund. Good idea. Anyway, we'll see what happens with it. It'll be interesting. I think a lot of people were feeling as if it had a Cisco vibe to it here, the tech people, and that there will be competitors. I think Apple will be involved. I think lots of people are involved. Anyway, let's get to our first big story.

The Supreme Court has rejected a GOP-led suit that suggested government censored social media. In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court said the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue and upheld the government's ability to talk to platforms about content moderation. Again, with the standing, they never really rule on the thing. They rule on the standing.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri, came after Biden officials called on platforms to remove vaccine misinformation and election fraud claims. A federal judge in Louisiana who initially reviewed the case blocked the White House and several federal agencies from talking to social media companies about removing content. That judge is such a dumbass. I'm sorry. He really is. In general, he's got a history of dumbassery.

This is interesting. The ruling was limited. And I think there's other cases coming up. They're going to keep trying to do this. They're using First Amendment arguments. I think governments should absolutely be talking to social media companies and suggesting, and I don't think they're under pressure to take it down because any administration asks for it. But the conservative judges, some of them aligned with the liberals, which I think there seems to be

A really interesting move of Justice Coney Barrett, who wrote the majority opinion. Justice Alito had, as usual, a cranky dissent, saying high-ranking government officials place unrelenting pressure on Facebook to spread Americans' free speech. Hey, Grandpa, he didn't. You don't know anything about how the Internet—go raise a flag to something, because that is not what happened here. And I don't think he even understands.

online at all. I just find him a cranky old flag-raising man. Anyway, go ahead. This was absolutely the right decision because this entire thing was framed incorrectly. It was framed by the far right that we shouldn't allow government to put pressure on private companies to shape their narrative based on their political objectives or whoever's in power. That is a viable argument, but that's not what was going on here. This was the administration's

alerting private companies that there might be misinformation on their platforms potentially being fueled by foreign adversaries. If PropG Media, if we found that on our site, the comments, if anyone, the government or anyone said we have evidence that there's something nefarious going on,

At your company, we're not even going to tell you what to do. We're just alerting you right on. Thank you. And that's what this was. So if this thing had if they decided against the White House, then the White House would be prohibited from saying, OK, your company is subject to misinformation being fueled by a foreign intelligence arm. They wouldn't even be allowed to alert them to this.

So this was framed incorrectly, and this is exactly, in my view, the right decision. Right, but it's standing. They didn't say – they should have just said the government should be able to talk in cases like this. They don't want to – they've tried not to meddle, I guess, in a way, which probably is right, and they use the standing as the excuse, I suppose. Right.

There was an earlier ruling like that where standing was the question. They didn't actually say the thing, and so it allowed more cases possibly if they take them, by the way. They don't have to take these cases. But it certainly didn't settle the issue, but it certainly slapped. These challenges that these lunatics are making have been slapped down by the Supreme Court several times.

So I don't know if they're going to do anything. I just want to note the ruling came in on that Supreme Court abortion case allowing emergency abortions in Idaho. The court dismissed an appeal brought by Idaho officials. So a lower court ruling remains in effect where they can do emergency abortions. We kind of knew this was coming after the document tied to the ruling was accidentally posted online. Probably Alito was in charge of posting it. That's a joke.

How should the Biden administration use this ruling in their messaging? I mean, the court did protect the ability for doctors because they were flying people out of Idaho who were almost dying. It was just such a ridiculous... These are emergency abortions where people have problems or anything else and doctors were loathe to do anything for fear of getting arrested. It's so...

Fucked up. I'm not going to Idaho. We're not locating to Sun Valley, Scott. I think he looks at it through the other lens, and I think he says, imagine your wife. You're expecting a child. You're in the final trimester, and something unfortunately, and this happens, you know, unfortunately this happens a lot. Something goes terribly wrong.

And you have to rush your wife to the hospital. And they say, we're sorry, but not only is the baby's life in danger or maybe quite frankly has absolutely no viability, but your wife's life's in danger. We're talking about a situation now where

where they're going to let a woman agonize in excruciating pain and potentially die despite the fact they know exactly what to do. That's the world we want. So this needs to be forcefully, in my opinion, I do think this is something that Biden should bring up. This is the situation where

While all your billionaire friends are skiing in Sun Valley down the road where a woman is taken in by her panicked husband and is in agony, the baby's gone. The baby's gone. But we're not going to get to save her life. We're going to have a woman with an in sepsis, nine months pregnant, and we're going to let her die.

I mean, that is what these fucking weirdos represented by this guy, 12 feet to my left, want to make legal. It's an eight foot difference. It's eight feet. Yeah. It's eight feet. Real close. Yeah, it's just eight feet. Go ahead. And the catheters, that's 45 catheters away. It's 45, 47 catheters away. Yeah.

Anyways. I think there's going to be some wrangling, wrassling. There's going to be some wrassling. I went into my, you're all just the other day, because I have it, not to get too graphic, but I had a bit of a drip. And he said, when's the last time you had sex? I'm like, two days ago. And he said, is she close? And I said, yeah. I said, why? He said, you should get back there. I think you're beginning to come. Anyways, moving on. Oh, okay. Eight feet. Eight feet. Does Julia Louis-Dreyfus really want to have dinner with me? She's not coming to Scotland. Does she really want to have dinner? Not now. Not now.

JLD, do not show up. Do not show up. But she can handle you. She has Jerry Seinfeld and that whole gang of dudes who can handle you. Yeah. No problem. Anyway. Where are we? So,

Back to the abortions. So one of the things you said, which I thought was very striking, and I was listening to it again, where you said, you should say, do you have daughters? That line you had, like that should be his last, he should pause and leave an awkward silence. Do you have daughters? You should say, do you have daughters? Do you have wives? You know, do you have...

You know, you know. Do we want to make this scenario? Do we want to live in a country where this will happen? And also many of these state judges, it's all men making these rulings, which is really repulsive in so many. It's all old dudes who don't even want to like, OK, maybe I have to pay her for bus fare to go to another state to get an abortion. I mean, it's just this is these this is this is film that was cut in

on the editing table from The Handmaid's Tale because they thought, even this is too unbelievable. Well, no, it's happening, folks. Yeah, it's true. It's true. By the way, Trump's ahead in the latest polls. He's still ahead. Anyway, we'll see. It's got to get through. This messaging has to get through. You nervous about tonight, by the way? Are we talking about that yet? No, I'm not watching. I'm going to be on a plane. I can't watch it. Me and JLD are not watching. We both are like hands over eyes. I can't watch it. It's too, I don't want, I can't.

Even if Trump fucks up, which is my hope, of course, I just can't. It's like a horror movie. I don't want to see it until it's over. And then I'll watch it in clips and have other people tell me what happened. I don't know why. I don't need the agony or the pain and stuff like that. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. When we come back, we'll talk about Volkswagen's big investment into Rivian and should OpenAI finally be a for-profit company. A listener challenges Scott on that.

Indeed is a hiring platform that connects businesses with job seekers with over 350 million global monthly visitors, according to Indeed data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates right away. And it's not just fast. According to Indeed, 93% of employers found the highest quality candidates on Indeed compared to other job sites.

Indeed.com slash VoxBusiness. Need to hire? You need Indeed.

Whether you're a founder, investor, or an executive in the innovation economy, you need a bank that truly understands your business inside and out. A bank that offers uniquely specialized solutions for your unique needs. A bank like Silicon Valley Bank.

Because SVB is with you through MVPs to Series A, B, and Cs. SVB is with you from seed stage through IPO and beyond. And SVB will continue to be with you as your company grows thanks to the strength and stability of First Citizens Bank behind us. Because at the end of the day, we're still Silicon Valley Bank. Yes, SVB. Learn more at svb.com slash vox. Support for this podcast comes from Huntress.

If you're a small business owner, then the threat of hackers isn't just a threat. It can affect your livelihood. Small businesses are easy targets for hackers. And Huntress wants to give businesses the tools to help. Huntress is where fully managed cybersecurity meets human expertise. They offer a revolutionary approach to managed security that isn't all about tech. It's about real people providing real defense.

When threats arise or issues occur, their team of seasoned cyber experts is ready 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for support. They provide real-time protection for endpoints, identities, and employees, all from a single dashboard. It's because their cutting-edge solutions are backed by experts who monitor, investigate, and respond to threats with unmatched precision.

Now you can bring enterprise-level expertise without needing a massive IT department. Huntress can empower your business, as they have done for over 125,000 other businesses. Let them handle the hackers so you can focus on what you do best. Visit huntress.com to start a free trial or learn more.

Scott, we're back with our second big story. Volkswagen and Rivian are teaming up for a new joint venture. Volkswagen announced earlier this week that it's investing up to $5 billion in Rivian and that the companies will collaborate on software for EVs. Rivian's CEO says the money from Volkswagen will help the company launch midsize SUV that will go for about 45K and also go toward completing a factory in Georgia. Rivian's stock surged 37% after the deal was announced on Wednesday. Well, Volkswagen's failed 2%, not bad. Uh,

I think it's really interesting. A Bloomberg column had the headline, Rivian is embraced by needy German sugar daddies.

That's good. What do you think? Talk about who's getting the most out of partnership and whether Rivian will finally be able to turn a profit with this lifeline. I think it's actually, this is a great car. I have to say, I want one. I've never wanted like a bigger car. And I would buy a midsize SUV from them. No question, hands down. I think it's a beautiful car. I've driven in it. It's a beautiful drive. It's stylish, elegant.

I may replace the Kia with it if they come out with one. And everyone's hoping for lots of competition that are viable and going through that valley of death all these cars go to. Yeah, and the reason, it is a great car. I put a deposit down on one four years ago, and then about 18 months ago, I got that notice saying, it's time to outfit your Rivian. I thought, well, I need to put it off for two years because I plan to take delivery of my foam, I think it's foam green Rivian,

put Leia in the back, put a mountain bike in the back, which I never planned to ride, and just roll around downtown Aspen. And everyone will love me. They'll be like, oh, there's the guy with the Great Dane who's really, who's good, good friends with Julia Louis-Dreyfus. But I love the car. It's beautiful. It looks cool. I've never actually driven one, but here's why it's an amazing car, because you pay $80,000 for it. And

It costs them 120. I mean, here's the bottom line. The automobile business is a shitty low margin business of massive scale to work. And who gets... Okay, so who gets the most here? You could argue it's Rivian because in nine and a half months, they were out of money. And so they needed a lifeline. But this is sort of the, at least conceptually, the idea of a perfect partnership because...

Volkswagen needed some technologies, some software. They needed...

It's a cool brand. And the bottom line is Rivian needs scale. Until they make 5X the number of these and they have sourcing and they can bring costs down. You know, these companies, automobile companies are actually really well-run companies. They have incredibly complex, robust supply chains. Volkswagen, I think it's either the first or second largest car company in the world. This makes all the sense in the world. But oddly enough, what I saw here was a lot of

connection to the Washington Post. And that is, I believe Jeff Bezos, I believe unless, so I believe the Washington Post, Amazon and Rivian, any meeting where any decisions actually get made, I think everyone sort of is waiting for Bezos to speak and then hurrying up to agree with him. I think he basically makes the decisions for those three companies, or at least strategically. And I think- Just so you know, Amazon is Rivian's largest shareholder with a 16% stake. That's right.

So it's not a control stake? Amazon, not Jeff Bezos. Okay. One of these things is like the other. Well, he doesn't have the same control over Amazon that, say, Elon has. At the end of the day, I think what Jeff Bezos says or strongly recommends probably ends up happening.

And I think at this point in his life, Jeff Bezos is such a disciplined operator that I think a lot of people in the Washington Post newsroom assume they'll just keep funding democracy and our amazing journalism. And I don't think that's how Bezos rolls. I think it's like, unless you're making money,

Or you look great in a thong. I want nothing to do with you. I want nothing to do with you. And I think he thought with the post, this is a great brand. I can help. I'll put in some people there and maybe we'll get it to break even, make a little bit of money. It's an important asset.

He was making money for most of his ownership just until last year. Is that right? Yeah. But I don't think he's interested in funding things. I think he's very disciplined. And I think the same decision he's made at Rivian, he's made at The Washington Post. And that is, unless these things have a path to profitability and are economically viable, I'm not going to be the sugar daddy here.

And no matter how much money I have, and I think he's basically signaled that if he had said to the folks at Rivian, I love this. It's going to be a great independent company. We're going to be one of the winners here. Fuck Elon. I don't think they'd be doing this deal. But I think he said to him, folks, find, find, find, find a partner. And here's the thing. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were 100 automobile brands. By 1949, there were effectively three. The big three almost controlled it all.

This is a business of scale. And even a great car, even a great brand, they've executed perfectly like Rivian, can't stay as an independent brand. It's like magazine publishing. The independents just can't be independent. Yeah. So I think this is, you're right, Amazon's important to it. They also own Zoox, by the way. I think they fully own Zoox, which is a taxi robo delivery kind of thing, which is cool. It's actually, it's also operating in San Francisco.

different. It's a different car. It goes backwards and forwards. It's there's, there's, there's seats in it. It's different shape. It's a different experience. I'm sorry, you just described a Yugo. What car doesn't go forward and backwards and have seats in it? No, it, no, it has a, it's like, like a suitcase. It looks like a suitcase. It's not, it doesn't look like a car. It looks like a

I can't explain it. There's no front to it. Have you seen these suitcases that you can ride now? And you see these old people riding their suitcase? That's going to help the obesity epidemic. Oh, I love that. I love it.

I love a riding suitcase. It is so. I've seen kids on, I've seen kids on suitcases. Oh, no, no. I'm seeing old obese people. They're like, I can't walk from gate 72 to 73. I got to ride my to me luggage. Suitcase. It's just so ridiculous with my diabetes medication. It's like, okay. Back to Ravine. Maybe stuff some Ozempic in your carry on. Okay. All right.

So what's interesting about this, you got me off. Anyways, you have to, I'll send you a picture of a Zooks. Anyway, they're very into this. I think it's because of delivery and all kinds of things. You know, there's all kinds of elements here for Amazon around these cars that make sense, that make somewhat sense to have ownership stakes. But it's an interesting idea that Bezos is calling the shots here. But they definitely, Rivian needs to stand on its own. And there is a valley of death here.

Tesla went through and Rivian has had to go through. And some didn't get through. Fiskars out? Yeah, some don't get through. Yeah, Fiskars. We'll see. I think this is a terrific car. And I think the Gaia runs it's really interesting. Year on year in Q1, fantastic.

Sales were only up 2.6%. It's a flat. I mean, this market's no longer growing. Hopefully it'll start growing again. One in five public EV chargers don't work. Yeah, but they're starting. I think this is inevitable, I think. And I think that they, I think this is a great company. I really do. I really loved everything they put out. But we'll see. We'll see. You never know. Come to Aspen.

Come to Aspen. I will drive in the back of your car. I'll be driving your bike, actually. I haven't gotten on a bike in years. Anyway, let's get to a listener mail question.

This question comes from Phil. Let's listen. Hey, Karen, Scott. I'm a huge fan of the show. This is Phil from the great state of Texas. I want to challenge Scott's argument that OpenAI should just be in the business of making money. He argues it's a for-profit company that should only focus on returning profits to shareholders, and it should not be assigned any social or societal goal to make the world a better place.

If that's the case, how should we look at major news companies today? NBC, CNN, Fox News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, all of these are for-profit corporations. But yet we have also assigned them the task of holding powerful people, institutions, and businesses accountable. If we're being honest, that, at times, directly goes against the business interests of the company.

So two-part question, is that conflict the cause of the current media environment? And then are those same dynamics going to play out for the artificial intelligence business? If that's the case, many people may be disappointed. Thanks for taking the question. Again, huge fan of the show.

Okay. I was listening to Sam being interviewed by Lesser Holt, and I talked to him, too. And I don't think it's going to be precisely a fully for-profit company from what I can tell, but I suspect, I think it's going to change the way it thinks about itself, for sure. And that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. It may still have the cap that they have, and I still think they'll have a much more, a very different organization. I think he raised the idea of

more government people. And it's going to be a different kind of profit company because I think they do recognize that they're accountable in ways that

that are not like other companies, just the way I suppose media companies are. But Scott, what do you think? There are certain organizations that play a really important role in society, and media is one of them. And I kind of like what they've done here in the UK. They have the BBC and Every Home Has a Tax, and they do their best to call balls and strikes. And then on top of that, they have for-profit media companies. Now, unfortunately, the profit incentive has essentially they found that

It's not sex that sells, it's rage that sells. And the ultimate way to capture people or capture shareholder value through media and through 24-hour news is to inflame people and enrage them. And also novelty and conspiracy is just much more entertaining than actual news. And that has a social externality.

Whether we should have government-funded news outlets or some sort of technology that, you know, I love Reuters, I love AP because they just kind of give it to you, just the facts, ma'am. There is a market for people hit it right down the middle. The Wall Street Journal is now considered fairly moderate and I think does well because people see them as calling outside of their editorial page.

They're seen as fairly or unfairly. I got to say, they're doing great under this new editor. I mean, I like Matt and Johnny before. This new editor is very interesting, I think, Emma Tucker. The hard part where I push back is the following. I totally get the seduction, the appeal, the...

The vision of taking the most powerful engine in the history of the world, outside of kind of love and sex, maybe, the most powerful engine in the history of the world is the for-profit capitalist organization. And if you could leverage that to make the world a better place on social issues, that's really powerful. But here's the thing. We've been doing it for 40 years. We've been selling dolphin-free tuna. We have been painting iPods red.

And unfortunately, it not only doesn't make much of a dent, and it's a bit of jazz hands as someone who sat on a bunch of public boards and

They'll take a little bit of money to do some hand-waving, and they'll talk about Dove Real Beauty from the same people selling Embrace Your Female Feminine Strength. Oh, by the way, we also sell Axe Spray, and we're telling kids to fuck anything, and we sell Ben & Jerry's so we can give people diabetes. At the end of the day, these organizations are so good at making money, they should be trusted to do nothing else. And unfortunately, some of this...

CSR, DEI, leverage capitalism, hush voices around AI gives people the illusion that we don't need to pass laws, that, oh, that Sheryl Sandberg is such a good person, that if we just defer to her empathy and concern for the world, we don't need to actually pass laws.

So, every company should have good people trying to do the right thing, but that doesn't replace... Yeah, we don't want to put it in their hands, right? ...or obviate the need for regulation. Because here's the thing, if you allow...

General Motors to pour mercury into the river and you don't have laws against it, they put themselves at a cost disadvantage by doing the right thing. So they will ultimately make incremental decisions to do the wrong thing. Because what I have seen across every management team for the most part is

is they will make a series of incremental decisions that do one thing, get them more money. That is the incentive structure. And by the way, it's probably the right incentive structure because that full body contact violence of capitalism creates innovation and shareholder value. We just need to tax it and then have a group of elected people decide what to do with that money.

I agree with you. I agree. We shouldn't rely on the kindness of billionaires to be good to our society. That is 100. I said this actually on stage to Brian. I was like, I really don't want to rely on you or Jeff Bezos or anybody else to do the right thing. And so there should be some level of regulation because there's none. That said, I do think certain companies and certain areas have a little more responsibility, I guess. I guess I don't feel the same responsibility for someone who's making

you know, Ben and Jerry's. And I, I agree. Those are just jazz hands and they are, they're just sort of like a wave to being good. Right. And that's fine. That's marketing as far as I'm concerned. And they can do that. And if they're committed like Patagonia, yeah, that's great. That's their, that's their brand too. It's their marketing. But I do think certain companies do have a little more responsibility to have maybe a broader range of people on their boards that, cause they have a little bit more impact. Um,

I don't mean, I mean, it would be very difficult to have government officials say on the board of the New York Times, for example, but there are certain industries that matter a little bit more. And I think AI probably is going to be one of them and that they should think hard about having more voices involved in the governance of these things.

that stakeholders that are much more, I would say government would be one of them in these, elected officials, and I'm talking about elected people or people that are appointed in some fashion. That I think is a good idea for certain industries and I think AI is absolutely one of them, especially in its early stages.

That said, it's a for-profit. It's going to be a for-profit situation. But I think one of the negatives about the internet is they felt no responsibility to the body politic and to society whatsoever. And in the absence of regulation, which, as Scott says, is the most important thing, you're going to have to have some influence on these companies that is real, that is real. And I would say that's the board level. At the same time, it has to be regulation, as Scott says. Sorry, Phil. Yeah.

But to your point, so OpenAI has put General Nakasone, the head of the NSA, I believe. Right. That was interesting. I think that's great. They should be lauded for it. That does not in any way reduce the need to have legislation that says any AI-elevated or algorithmically elevated content removes 230 protection. I think that law should be passed. I think that is what will actually move the needle here. And we, again...

We always defer to, okay, let's hope they're good people and they're nice people and they do the right thing. And they aren't the culprits. Them telling us we care, Sheryl Sandberg telling us she cares is not the problem. The problem is we believed it.

And when Exxon or Ford or other CEOs say this, we don't believe it. We say that's it. Beyond petroleum. That's it. We're still going to have an EPA. We're still going to have emission standards. We're still going to force you to crash test this car and see what happens to kids in the backseat. But because we've decided that innovators and young people who are billionaires are so smart and because we no longer have...

We no longer have religious figures to idolize. We needed new idols, and we decided that Steve Jobs and now Elon Musk and Sheryl Sandberg and all these people are the closest thing we have to a Jesus Christ.

And the only mistake or the biggest mistake is we believe them. We're at fault for not electing people that hold them to the same standards as everybody else. And I hate, I think a lot of the CSR and DEI is like, I think it's a giant misdirect. I think it's nothing but lobbying. It's an attempt to stave off regulation by saying, see what good people we are? You

You can trust us. We don't need that pesky regulation. We're not. We care. Yeah, I agree. I agree. Yeah. Yeah. That was, in fact, my message to Sam Altman. I said, you're getting regulated. Don't matter what you do. Regulation will be good for you. And I said the same thing to Brian. He asked me that on stage. And I said, look,

Great job. Good job. I really don't care. The fact is though, his company is quite regulated because it's analog. There's a lot of regulations around his company compared to other companies, which is interesting. I think they're better for it in that regard. All the analog digital companies seem to have a better, we don't trust them to regulate themselves in a way, which is probably good. Let's look at Airbnb. There's been a transfer of wealth,

From renters who have found there's a decrease in rental stock, which has pushed rents up to travelers and Airbnb. If you want to go to Bangkok for six weeks, you now have a much broader selection set of opportunities and you don't have to pull into the Best Western at 200 bucks a night. That's a transfer of wealth. It creates an externality. And that is a lot of young people have seen rent skyrocket. And that is hard.

So we should elect a group of thoughtful people to say, you know what? We have taxes. There's hotel taxes. Airbnb should be subject to the same hotel taxes, which they are. And we are in the business of allocating funds, as the government has done in Minneapolis, to incentivize more housing development because we have a huge problem. But expecting Brian Chesky to do anything but get his shares from $150 to $200 is

And the shareholders are going to fire him no matter how nice the guy he is and how good he is and how many whales he saves and how many kids in Africa he feeds. If he doesn't get that stock from 150 to 200 bucks in the next 24 or 36 months, they're going to decide to fire that wonderful guy.

And he knows it. He's doing his job. We're not doing ours. Yep, that's right. That's exactly. They're actually a very good example for that, of that working the way it worked. So a great question, Phil. Thank you so much. And we appreciate it. If you've got a question of your own that you'd like answered, send it our way. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit a question for the show or call 855-51-PIVOT. All right, Scott, one more quick break and we'll be back for your predictions.

Okay, Scott, let's hear a delightful prediction. Yeah, you're going to hate this one. So every year I start to think about, every year I make my, I do my predictions deck and I roam around the world making predictions. Some are right, some are wrong, but it's a ton of fun. And the one that everyone pays attention to is what is the technology of the year? And I said the technology of 2023 was going to be AI and 2022, I think I said it was going to be voice or something. Anyways, 2024, I said the technology of the year was going to be GLP-1 drugs. For 2025,

I'm not committing to this, but I'm just starting to marinate in the data. I think the technology of the year is going to be SpaceX's Starlink. And I am going... Why wouldn't I like it? Well, it's Elon. It's a great company. Anyways, the...

I'm going, I'm self-conscious saying this, I'm going on a boat in Greece next week. And I noticed the first thing I did when I'm looking at the different types of boats is I asked, I didn't ask how nice it was, how big it was. I didn't ask anything. I'm like, does it have Starlink? And I had one of those moments when I was on a plane and I pulled up the wireless networks and said Starlink and I clicked on it.

And my son, immediately I saw my son's face on my phone and it was FaceTime. And you know how occasionally on your descent or ascent, you do get the call, but you click on it and it doesn't connect. I can't do that. I clicked connect and he was crystal clear. Perfect.

Boats, maritime, hotels. The thing literally is a 10x better product at a lower price. They just introduced a smaller one, right? They just introduced a new version, yeah. You want to talk about, we know it's a good idea. We know they've got product market fit. The question is, well, what's sustainable here? I don't care how much money someone throws at this to try and compete with it. It is not easy to get satellites into space.

Can I do a tiny edit to you? Let's give credit where credit is due. This is about Gwynne Shotwell, who is the CEO. She was actually here. I didn't get to see her. But this is a really effective CEO who's been running this company, creating good government relations, trying very hard to mitigate the screamy fits that he has all the time. I don't deny that he was early prescient about this stuff. He talked about it early. He's been involved in early in the space thing.

But this is a company that, again, it just was on the secondary market. I think it's $211 billion value right now on the market because it's a private company. I would give enormous credit to Gwen Shotwell. You've said that repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. And in this case, I do think she...

I don't think she even tolerates. I think she supports him unnecessarily. It's a little embarrassing, the excuses she makes for his behavior. But that's her cross to bear. It's her decision-making. Let me ask you something about Gwen, you know her, I don't. Is it true that- I don't know her. She won't see me. No.

No. Well, yeah, but she's smart. The general rule at any Elon company is there's only one person allowed to get near a mic. I saw an email where she wrote to someone. She goes, I'd love to talk to her or something like that. I would talk to her. No one's allowed to get any attention but Elon. Well, Elon's supposed to talk to her. Like, it was really interesting. I was like, wow, that's weird.

I think she's accomplished. But just a quick question, because you know the company and her better than I. Is it true that on your 10-year anniversary at SpaceX, you don't get a gold watch, you get quintuplets insemination from Elon?

You know, there are troubling stories of his behavior. I think it was... Oh, you think? No, about him. Yeah, they're not just the ones who agree to have his baby. That's... I don't know what to say about that. I just... It's weird. I guess consensual baby having at work, it seems a little far-fetched. Consenting adults, they can do what they want, right? I guess, but it's...

It's not good. It's not a great look. I can tell you that I was on the board of the company. Consensual baby having. Having babies with an employee. I'd be like, okay, is there any way you can inseminate someone who doesn't work here? Yeah, right. Exactly. It's weird. It's weird. But I think she is, I wouldn't like to shine light on her. I'm sorry. It's just a lot of this is her. They innovate in the size. They weigh ahead of people. I don't think people aren't going to catch up.

And there are some other options happening. I do know that. But I think that this is a home run for them at this moment. Other options? You mean like a turkey baster? Oh, wait, no, I'm sorry. No, I'm not talking about that. This is a home run. Here's the thing that is problematic. If Trump does not win, I suspect they're going to look into his national security situation, like whether he deserves the clearance. Right.

Now, that said, he'll still be the owner and he'll get enormous amount of money from this. So he'll be fine either way. But it could get sucked up into his... If he would just shut up and run good companies, it would be probably good for his shareholders eventually and himself. But he won't. But again, I would agree with you on this one. I would agree with you. I think they're way ahead and space is such an important frontier. But in this case, there are national security implications and...

I think he's got, I know at least they're questioning those along with his other probably problems under another Biden administration around Tesla and SEC and all kinds of stuff. So, but I think it obscures her good work for sure. It's about to become...

The ultimate ingredient brand. And that is every plane, every boat, every hotel you stay in, people are going to start asking, do you have Starlink? Yeah. What was the previous one? What was the company that did a lot of that stuff? Intelsat? Yeah. Yeah. The one where they had a picture of someone on Everest calling. And I would always be like, what is he saying? Get me the fuck off of here. This was a mistake. Yeah.

It's cold here. IntelSat sticks in my brain. Yeah. Yes, IntelSat combines the world's largest satellite background with a terrestrial network to enable customers to drive revenue and increase reach. Eight Pakistani Sherpas have died getting me up here, but it was worth it, honey. Take a picture. Right. Yeah, IntelSat. I think it was multinational. Anyway, I think you're right. That's interesting. I wonder if you'll change that prediction over time.

I don't know. Some other thing will come out. I don't know. It'll be interesting. Good choice. I like it. Okay. See, I agree with you. See, you're surprised by that. That's because I had dinner with Julius Dreyfus and she's made me a nicer person. Has she? You know, an astonishingly famous person to be so...

The lack of celebrity and arrogant, polite, nice to people, not genuine is hard to pull off when you're that famous. And I was really somewhat impressed. I was really impressed. You know, I think it's kind of a testament to her character. Anyway, that's the show. We'll be back on Tuesday with more Pivot. Can you read us out? Today's show was produced by Lara Naim and Zoe Marcus and Taylor Griffin.

Ernie Andretat engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows and Neil Saverio. Nishat Kerouan is Vox Media's executive producer of audio. Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. You can subscribe to the magazine at nymag.com slash pod. We'll be back next week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Just a quick media shout out. I would argue the crispest writing of any show in the last decade, Veep.