The Tariff Week From Hell. Plus, the Bluesky CEO Reimagines Social Media.
50:05 Share

Today is Liberation Day and the start of a new golden age of American wealth and exceptionalism. The right-wing spin machine went into overdrive this week, explaining away the economic turmoil caused by Trump's tariffs. From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Michael Loewinger. Also on this week's show, the CEO of Blue Sky shares her ideas of how to billionaire-proof the internet. Well, Zuckerberg has built a digital empire, and it's one man at the top of it. And I want people to realize that we can build our own digital spaces. We can take that back.

Plus, why the mega rich want to escape the reality 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. There is no next level. This is it. It's all coming up after this.

On the Media is supported by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart choice. Make another smart choice with AutoQuote Explorer to compare rates from 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 on how you buy.

Hey podcast listeners, this is Micah. I'm just popping in here before the show starts to share an urgent request.

As I'm sure you know, public media is under threat like never before. We've been covering the nature of these attacks here on the show, and we saw them on full display a couple weeks ago at the House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, when the heads of NPR and PBS defended public broadcasting against accusations by Republican lawmakers of political bias.

This is serious. At a time when public media has never been more valuable, it's also never been more vulnerable. On the Media is a listener-supported podcast, and donations help us bring you the show every week, but a significant chunk of our funding does come indirectly from Congress. We will feel the hurt if Republicans cut it off. So please help us weather these uncertain times by becoming a sustaining member.

Giving monthly at the level that's right for you will help us build a strong, lasting foundation to keep this show on air. If you've never chipped in or you want to up your donation, now is the time. To give, go to onthemedia.org slash donate. That's onthemedia.org slash donate. Thank you so much and enjoy the show.

From WNYC in New York, this is On The Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Ellinger. The week began with a bit of foreshadowing, a bogus story that briefly juiced an anxiety-riddled Wall Street.

It all started with this Monday morning Fox interview with Kevin Hassett, Trump's director of the National Economic Council. Will you do a 90-day pause? Would you consider that? Yeah. You know, I think that the president is going to decide what the president's going to decide. To me, that sounded like Hassett was saying no.

or at least just trying to dodge the question. But one popular user on X interpreted it differently. His little yep or yeah or yeah, depending on how you heard it, was apparently enough for a social media user who goes by the name Walter Bloomberg, no relation to the billionaire or the business news outlet, just someone who amplifies a lot of Bloomberg content. The Walter Bloomberg account posted that according to Hassett, Trump was considering the 90-day pause on all countries except China.

Two minutes later, a CNBC host, live on air, picked it up. I think we can go with this headline. Apparently, Hassett's been saying that Trump will consider a 90-day pause in tariffs for all countries except for China. For Reuters, that exchange on CNBC was enough to run its own story. And within minutes, Wall Street was riding the hype train.

The Dow swinging 2,600 points, the most in one day ever. The S&P 500 at one point gaining back $2.4 trillion in market value. But just as quickly, the hype train went off the rails. A couple of minutes later, the Dow Industrials had shot up 1,000 points only to collapse again at 1039 when the White House quick response team put up this three-word post, wrong fake news.

By Tuesday, the cruel reality had set in. The tariffs were here to stay. Stocks tumbled into the red with the Dow falling for the fourth straight day down roughly 300 points. The rage that you see on Wall Street, what they are trying to do here is they are shorting the president's agenda. MAGA pundit Batia Angar Sargon and others on Fox said,

tried their darndest to put a patriotic shine on the mess. There has been a crisis in masculinity because we shipped jobs that gave men who work with their hands for a living off to other countries to build up their middle class. When you sit behind a screen all day, it makes you a woman. Studies have shown this. Studies have shown this. And if you are around other guys, you're not around HR ladies and lawyers that gives you estrogen. What do you do?

The dubious economic theory at the heart of Trump's tariffs, and I guess Jesse Watters' gender panic, is that making imports from other countries more expensive will force American companies to rethink global supply chains and bring all those manufacturing jobs back to the states.

Never mind the fact that because of advances in technology, modern factories employ fewer workers than those of the 1950s, and that creating a recession probably won't incentivize businesses to invest in new American plants.

and that jacking up the prices on stuff we can't make here, or at least not for a while, hurts everyone, especially working people. But hey, talking points like evening the playing field and reciprocal tariffs have served the White House just fine up until now. What the president is saying here is he's not wanting to start a trade war. He's simply wanting to even the playing field. Reciprocal tariffs isn't just about the tariffs, but it's also access to our economy. I say that.

They're not reciprocal, because in most cases, Trump has been threatening much larger tariffs on imports from other countries than they are on U.S. exports. Like Trump's 46% tax on goods from Vietnam versus Vietnam's roughly 5% tax on imports from America.

A 41% difference that punishes American consumers because remember, Americans pay Trump's tariffs. And anyway, how did the administration even come up with that 46% number? So let's take Vietnam, which is obviously a huge exporter to the United States because

U.S. people buy Vietnamese goods. Correspondent Phil Mattingly on CNN explaining the administration's formula, which was made public last week on so-called Liberation Day. Vietnam exports $136.6 billion in goods to the U.S. The U.S. exports $13.1 billion in goods to Vietnam. Now, how did they get to the 46%?

What they did is they subtracted the Vietnamese goods bought by the US, 136.6 billion, total US goods bought by Vietnam, and ended up with 123.5 billion.

That's the trade deficit with Vietnam, by the way, $123.5 billion. The fact that we buy so much more from them than they do from us is the basis of Trump's claim that we're being ripped off and that we need to rewire the global economy. Now, the way they actually got 46% is they did 123.5 divided by 136.7.

That's the trade deficit divided by the amount we import from Vietnam. Which equals 0.90 or 90 percent. And then half of that. And then because of the benevolence of President Trump, as he kind of laid it out, then they cut that in half. If you had trouble following that math, don't worry, you're not alone. Economists of all sides, all ideologies, Republican and Democrat, staring at the methodology and saying, that's not how this is supposed to work.

This is what they came up with? Jeez, come on, have some gumption, have some math.

That's CNBC Mad Money host Jim Cramer. The same pundit who told viewers that a second Trump presidency would be good for the stock market now says he was swindled. Over and over again, the president said, listen, it's going to be reciprocal. So you do it, we do it. And that was going to be so good. And I really believed in it. And I feel like a sucker tonight. By midweek, other would-be Trump supporters were taking their grievances public, including Senator Rand Paul. The whole debate is so fundamentally backed

If these tariffs...

result in massively higher prices, result in driving up costs for U.S. companies, result in job losses, and put us into a recession. Senator Ted Cruz. If we go into a recession, 2026 in all likelihood politically would be a bloodbath. It is a tax on American consumers. The idea that this is inherently good, it makes the American economy strong, is wrongheaded. It is

It is untrue. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro. The idea that it is going to result in massive reshoring of manufacturing is also untrue. Add to that, billionaire hedge fund manager and Donald Trump supporter Bill Ackman is now somewhat leaving Wall Street's backlash to the tariffs, calling Trump's tariff plan a, quote, self-induced economic nuclear winter. Also saying this is not what we voted for. Trump has put his tariffs all over the place.

I've been trying to understand them. I don't. Dave Portnoy, head honcho at Barstool Sports. Seven million. I'm down seven million bucks in stocks and crypto. Meanwhile, the mag of faithful stayed the course. Losing money costs you nothing. This is just the reality of life. Everyone loses money. It costs you nothing. In fact, it builds quite a bit of character. In fact, you learn a lot of lessons, actually, by losing money.

All this brings us to Wednesday.

And you probably know what happens next. President Trump making big news this afternoon. He's just announced a 90-day pause on tariffs for many countries around the world. Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt framed the retrenchment as a success at the White House later that day. We have had more than 75 countries from around the world reach out to President Trump and his team here at the White House to negotiate better trade deals for the American worker.

When NBC asked for a list of said countries, the White House said, uh, no. At least at first, Wall Street didn't seem to care much for the details. Within minutes, Dow stocks soared more than 2,000 points, closing up nearly 3,000. NASDAQ up nearly 1,900 points. The second best day ever. The S&P seeing one of its biggest gains since World War II.

This is the push notification I got from the New York Times on Wednesday. Quote, Okay, for one, they're not reciprocal.

Two, Trump didn't back down. He actually increased tariffs on Chinese imports and kept in place 10% universal tariffs that took effect on April 5th, which will still have a massive effect on the global economy. Three, the best day since October 2008? That's a reference to a brief market surge in the middle of the Great Recession, what's sometimes called a dead cat bounce.

But The Times wasn't alone in regurgitating White House verbiage. We're hearing that President Trump has announced that there will be a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs. President Trump now says he will implement a 90-day pause on tariffs on imports from more than 75 countries. President Trump says the 90-day pause on his reciprocal tariffs

means more time for his administration to negotiate deals with trade partners. We start tonight with stocks surging as President Trump announces a 90-day pause on some tariffs. And how were those critics from just days earlier handling the latest news? Ted Cruz. Trump has an opportunity to win a huge victory for American workers. And I think today's announcement is an indication of his going down the path of lowering tariffs all over the world, but making sure...

Whiz bang. What a move. Incredible. Jim Cramer on mad money. NASDAQ shooting into orbit up 12.16%. Second best day on record. Today, we saw investor and big time Trump supporter Bill Ackman tweet, this was brilliantly executed by Trump textbook art

The Art of the Deal, Trump's 1987 book ghostwritten by journalist Tony Schwartz, who's since called it the...

The most notable deals that Trump made this week, according to congressional Democrats like Adam Schiff, were ones he may have brokered for friends and family. Insider trading within the White House, within the administration. See, just like Wall Street's fake news sugar high from Monday, the surge on Wednesday was a momentary blip. Except this time, Trump world was poised to profit.

Hours before he made his announcement about the tariffs, Trump posted this to Truth Social. He said now is a great time to buy. And that has some questioning if that was a tip off to investors. The question is, who knew what the president was going to do? And did people around the president know?

knowing the incredible gyration the market was about to go through. Trump in the Oval Office on Wednesday with some visiting billionaires. He made $2.5 billion today.

Some people made off like bandits just before the market resumed tumbling when, on Thursday, Trump upped tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%. Even as his supporters and spokespeople attempted to cast the events of the week as a brilliant master plan of a financial genius, Donald Trump himself said he just changed his mind after people got yippy.

But there's a deeper story here about how Trump has attempted to circumvent Congress. President Trump declared a national emergency and by doing so, he created the ability for himself and only himself to regulate and impose tariffs across the board on lots of different countries.

Trump declared a state of emergency on the influx of fentanyl from Canada and at the border with Mexico, invoking the Enemy Aliens Act to deport some migrants without due process. He said there was an energy emergency when he forced California to open its dams after the wildfires. He said there's a lumber emergency in order to skirt environmental safeguards for logging.

In short, we have a leader who declares a national emergency any time he wants to sidestep checks and balances, creating crises that further entrench presidential power. That may prove to be the greatest national emergency of them all. Coming up, the CEO of Blue Sky on making her website billionaire-resistant. This is On The Media.

WNYC Studios is supported by Ground News. Ground News is a platform that makes it easy to compare news organizations and break free from algorithms. With Ground News, you get details about the source of your information, empowering you to compare how different news sources from around the world covered the same story. With over 9,500 five-star reviews of their app and website,

Ground News is a top platform that allows you to discover how any news story is being covered, giving every perspective all in one place. Expand your view of the news. Sign up for your Ground News account today and get access to the mobile app, website, browser extension, and exclusive newsletters so you can have a well-rounded view of the world, think critically about what you read, and find common ground between perspectives.

Go to groundnews.com slash WNYC today to get 40% off the Ground News Vantage plan and get access to all of their news analysis features. That's groundnews.com slash WNYC for 40% off the Ground News Vantage plan for a limited time only.

This is Tanya Mosley, co-host of Fresh Air. You'll see your favorite actors, directors, and comedians on late-night TV shows or YouTube. But what you get with Fresh Air is a deep dive. Spend some quality time with people like Billie Eilish, Questlove, Ariana Grande, Stephen Colbert, and so many more. We ask questions you won't hear asked anywhere else. Listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY.

This is On The Media, I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Olinger. Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter in October 2022, disaffected tweeters have been leaving the platform in fits, bursts, and droves. So, announcement, I am about to delete my Twitter. We'll call it the exodus from X. Some news outlets have decided to quit Twitter.

formerly known as Twitter. The day after the election, X lost more users than any day since Elon Musk bought it in 2022. Some went to Threads, some went to Mastodon, and others went to... Blue Sky, welcoming $2.5 million

users in the last week. Blue Sky was originally created by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in 2019. It's been around for a while, but it was recently opened to everyone. Blue Sky's 30 odd million users are just a fraction of the hundreds of millions of active users on X and Meta's threads. But it's taken off with certain groups, like journalists who were early to Twitter. And it does kind of feel like early Twitter.

But under the hood, there's an important difference. So the idea was to really try and move the control and power away from the center to the edges of the network. Mike Masnick is a longtime tech journalist and the founder and editor of TechDirt,

Back in 2014, he was observing how Twitter and Reddit were struggling with their own respective content moderation challenges. And I was thinking about the earlier internet and earlier forms of the internet where there wasn't so much centralized power. You know, there wasn't some billionaire sitting in Menlo Park deciding who could say what and do what.

At the same time, I recognized that you didn't want a free-for-all because there were horrible people who would do horrible things and that would scare away other people. So I started to try and think through, like, is there a different approach? His idea? What if social media ran on a protocol? Similar to the HTTP that the internet runs on, letting users access any website from any browser.

He used the example of the protocol that email runs on. If you don't like what Google is doing with Gmail, you can switch to ProtonMail or YahooMail or Outlook, and you can still email the people at the other places. You don't lose all of your contacts. You can also put in place all different kinds of spam filters or other tools where the power is in the hands of the actual user, and they can determine what it is that they want to do and how they want to experience email.

Which is fundamentally different from how most social media platforms work. If you leave Facebook and all your family uses Facebook, you can't really communicate with them in the same way. There's no alternative to Facebook that allows you to continue to communicate with the people that you wanted to communicate with on Facebook. At the time, the idea of getting a critical mass of users to switch over to a new social media site seemed unlikely to Masnick.

His best bet, he thought, was to convince the existing social media companies to adopt this protocol-based approach. He brought the idea to higher-ups at Snapchat and Facebook. I don't think the person at Snapchat even understood what I was talking about. But the person at Facebook was like, there's no way. Facebook will never do anything like this. This is like a crazy idea, and it's a stupid idea. So he put these crazy ideas together in a paper called Procrastination.

Protocols Not Platforms, published in 2019. And so I sort of assume that I'm going to write this and I'm going to be that weird crank who has this, you know, philosophical approach to the way the world would be better and nobody listens to me and occasionally I'll yell from my shack in the woods about how the world could be better if only people listen to me. But

But that's not what happened. Someone had sent Jack Dorsey my paper, and he wanted to have a call with me and said, at Twitter, we've been having all these big existential discussions about what should Twitter be and how should it work. And he said when he read my paper, it sort of clicked that this was the answer to the debate that they'd been having internally. And they built it. Actually seeing something that I wrote turn into this is wild. Never in my wildest dreams did I actually think,

something like that would actually happen. Mike Masnick is on our board now. Jay Graber was hired by Jack Dorsey to lead the project and is now the CEO of Blue Sky. When I spoke to Jay this week, I started our conversation by asking her about her given name, Lantian, which happens to mean blue sky in Mandarin.

Yeah. Coincidence. So you did not name the site after yourself? No. Twitter named the site, and then I saw that they had this project called Blue Sky that was decentralized social. And I was like, oh, this is something I must work on because I'm already working on a decentralized social network. So you're now CEO of this hot new social media company. What have you learned about the internet that you didn't know before your product really caught on?

There's been a lot of lessons as we've scaled up because we've grown by 10x multiple times. And that's a lot of growth in just a bit over a year. We opened up to the public last February.

users don't like a lot of complexity. You have to make it really easy for them. And so that's why when you get into the Blue Sky app, it looks and works just like old Twitter did. But then under the hood, you actually have all this choice. And so over time, we've been showing people how to use these customization options and explaining it to them. But it's not something that's intuitive immediately because people are used to centralized sites that don't give you any choice or control. Yeah, let's talk about a little bit of that customization.

One thing you can change is how your feed is moderated, how posts are filtered or emphasized to you. You've called it a stackable approach to content moderation. Give me some examples about specific ways that people can tailor their experience.

So an example of this would be somebody's built an AI art labeler because some artists want to know if the art they're looking at is made by a human artist or is AI generated. Now, this isn't something that we have a foundational moderation policy on, but if you report a post to the AI art labeler, it will tag it as AI art. And then...

If you subscribe to that labeler, you can say, I want to see this. I want to have it labeled. So I just get the warning label on it. Or maybe I'll turn it off for now. People have built labelers for screenshots from other sites, for political content. And then you can use these filters to cut down what you see so that you're in a space that you want to be in.

Last year, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg wore a shirt that said, quote, either Zuck or nothing in Latin at a developer conference. It was a play on the phrase Caesar or nothing, positioning himself, Mark Zuckerberg, as Caesar.

This year at South by Southwest, you wore a shirt that said, a world without Caesars, also in Latin. What specifically about Zuckerberg and Facebook did you see as something worth making this public statement about? Well, Zuckerberg has built a digital empire, and it's one man at the top of it. And we've helped him build that with our data and our time. And I want people to realize that

We can take that back. We can build our own digital spaces on an open protocol where anyone can get involved. And so we want to live in a world without Caesars. We want to live in a democracy and we want our online social spaces to reflect that. You've said that Blue Sky is billionaire proof. This has become a kind of marketing term for the site. What do you mean by that? How is it billionaire proof?

What this means is that if a billionaire acquired the Blue Sky company or did something to take over, the foundation that Blue Sky is built upon lets users freely migrate. And so if something happened down the road where Blue Sky changed hands, like we've seen with other social companies, users could move over to another app and importantly, keep all of their relationships and their followers and their same username.

This reduces the incentive, actually, for billionaires to come and make a big change with Blue Sky or for me to drastically change business direction because we would lose users. Okay, but of course the elephant in the room is that

Blue Sky, like every other social media site, needs to make money. You've said that Blue Sky won't sell ads or profit off of user data. And it's important to note that these are two major things that have denigrated the user experience on other social media sites. I know you're familiar with the term in-s***ification from Cory Doctorow. He's referring to this experience by which

pushes to profit off of big platforms makes them worse. I mean, X and Facebook feeds are now filled with annoying ads. We know that they're violating our privacy with surveillance in certain ways, but this is how they make money. Blue Sky was founded with a grant from Twitter. It's since received venture capital funding, but you're still a long way from making money.

So doesn't that leave the company sort of vulnerable to a hostile takeover, like what we saw from Elon Musk? If you build up something big, what's stopping a billionaire from coming and trying to squeeze it for all it's worth? Yeah, I think the important thing here is to understand that we're open source all the way up. And what this means is that the power of exit, so the right for users to leave, is built into the system. So if Blue Sky, the company, were to ens*****,

For example, if Blue Sky starts sticking ads in between every single post on the main algorithm that we provide as a default when you sign up, there's actually thousands of other algorithms you can switch to. And you can just move your timeline over and uninstall the one that's the default, and then you wouldn't be on our own feed, even within the Blue Sky app. So that means we want to keep that feed good. We don't want to shove so many ads in that you get sick of it. Are ads on the way for Blue Sky? Yeah.

So the first thing actually is subscriptions. That's on the way soon. We're not exploring ads right now. There's people in the ecosystem doing sponsored posts in their feeds, and we're kind of seeing how it plays out because one thing we've said is that in an attention economy at some point, ads work their way in. But I think that the way it's going to emerge in the blue sky ecosystem is a bit more like the web outside of social companies where, you know, in Google search, sometimes you get ads, but it's not shoved between every search result. Mm-hmm.

So right now, the way that you think that Blue Sky can become financially sustainable is first and foremost through a subscription service.

It's one of the first steps. We think one of the most exciting things long term is actually marketplace models where we're creating connections between creators and their audiences, users and these other developer-driven experiences and sites, and then taking a cut when people do transactions or exchange value. So people are already paying each other for feeds, for stuff that other people have created, and we would eventually like to build out a marketplace that supports all of these things.

One way that Blue Sky has set itself apart from, say, X slash Twitter is that your site doesn't downrank links. And I can tell you as somebody in the media business...

We journalists like when people click on our links, even if that means that, hey, they leave your social network for a little while to read our article or listen to our podcast. Media companies in the past have been really burned by like Facebook and Twitter. These were companies that courted news publishers. Facebook even went as far as to pay newsrooms to post more on their site. But then they kind of did this about face. They changed their strategy. They deprioritized news and links. And a lot of companies just didn't recover. Right.

Today, big and small news outlets alike from the Boston Globe to The Guardian to The New York Times have reported seeing considerably higher traffic from their links on Blue Sky than on competitors like X and Threads, despite Blue Sky having a much smaller user base right now. What role do you see Blue Sky playing in our kind of news industry crisis moment?

Other sites let you grow your audience up until you want to convert them and take them off through a link to subscribe or to read your article. And then they downrank that because they want to keep you scrolling on their timeline because that's where they're showing you ads.

And so by not pursuing this single timeline ad-driven model, what we're doing is being a neutral gateway. And so we're just passing users directly through to show them the stuff that they're following. It's a simple concept, but it means that people get a direct connection with their followers and they get way more traffic and subscriptions as a result. We're not trying to stall users on our site to capture that ad traffic.

One of the features you've added for the benefit of news companies is link tracking. And this is a kind of ethical fuzzy area that I kind of want to unpack with you. This is useful for publishers like on the media because we want to see where audiences are finding out about our show and clicking on our stuff. But it also means that you at Blue Sky are tracking what users click on, which is a kind of surveillance.

And in the era of a Trump presidency, is it fair to see this as potentially dangerous? For instance, couldn't the government in theory like subpoena Blue Sky for information about, say, who clicked on a petition or protest sign up form? If you have that data, is it ripe for the picking by the wrong people?

Our goal here is to help sites understand that their traffic is coming from Blue Sky. And so this works like a website that just lets users see when they link between them, right? And on the web, this refer information is usually sent by the user's browser. So we're just providing parity to that behavior. There's not a back channel or cookie tracking that follows you elsewhere or anything like that.

It's just the basic facilities of a web browser. And so that helps sites understand where their traffic is coming from. Now, down the road, I think we would like to give people the option to opt out of this if it's something that they're really concerned about.

You've staked yourself out as an anti-tech billionaire tech CEO, but we live in a time where we've seen so many idealistic people in Silicon Valley abuse our trust. I know that you're building a protocol that exists outside of you, but how can we trust you, Jay? Well, first of all, my intention is to build an open system that...

So basically the idea is that we don't need to trust you.

That's the goal. I think we should have an online world where if a website or an app abuses your trust, you have options to leave. You know, if a news site where you were reading news started to abuse your trust and tell you lies and jam ads in everywhere, you would just use a different news site.

It's funny because even while so many people in the sort of tech governance world are supporting what you're doing, there are already plans to kind of protect Blue Sky from eventual or potential corruption. I'm sure you're familiar with the Free Our Feeds initiative, which is a nonprofit foundation that's raising funds to...

protect Blue Skies Protocol from tampering. In effect, they're trying to protect your creation from you. How do you feel about that project?

I think that's healthy. This means that there will be a diversity of experiences out there. Blue Sky will be one app in the broader atmosphere, which is what we call the broader app protocol ecosystem. You could choose between two different microblogging apps, or you could choose between the Blue Sky microblogging app and the Skylight Social, which is a video app, or the Flashes app, which is a

Instagram-style photo app. Those are all run by different people. Those are run by developers outside the Blue Sky Company who will be operating according to their own principles. You said something really interesting recently that I want to ask you to expand upon. You said, societies start to reflect the structure of its dominant form of communication. How has centralization of social media produced this political moment?

I think centralization means that you really have one point of pressure. One sort of nerdy analogy I use is it's like the one ring of power that means that you can control the speech of billions if you own a major social platform. And then everyone wants that control. Billionaires will try to purchase it.

governments will also go after that point of control. And I think that having more diversity of companies that are operating this ecosystem means that you will have different CEOs who make different choices. So what's at stake if we don't

redefine how we communicate online? I think the future of democracy is at stake because democracy depends upon pluralism, people being able to have different viewpoints, find compromises. And right now, social media, I think, has accelerated some of that breakdown in our belief in democratic norms.

I don't think a single app is the solution. I think having an ecosystem where new solutions can be built is the path forward. So you want a way where people with ideas on how do we improve the state of discourse? How do we address misinformation? They don't have to wait for a single CEO to make a decision to address this. They can start building a solution themselves off to the side and say, hey, try this out. Or they can integrate it into the application because it's an open platform.

Those are the ways I think we will more quickly find a path forward that allows democracy to survive and thrive. Jay, thank you very much. Thank you. Jay Graber is the CEO of Blue Sky. Coming up, the tech titans, some of them anyway, seem eager to run away from the world they helped create. This is On The Media.

WNYC Studios is supported by Ground News. Ground News is a platform that makes it easy to compare news organizations and break free from algorithms. With Ground News, you get details about the source of your information, empowering you to compare how different news sources from around the world cover the same story. With over 9,500 five-star reviews of their app and website,

Ground News is a top platform that allows you to discover how any news story is being covered, giving every perspective all in one place. Expand your view of the news. Sign up for your Ground News account today and get access to the mobile app, website, browser extension, and exclusive newsletters so you can have a well-rounded view of the world, think critically about what you read, and find common ground between perspectives.

Go to groundnews.com slash WNYC today to get 40% off the Ground News Vantage plan and get access to all of their news analysis features. That's groundnews.com slash WNYC for 40% off the Ground News Vantage plan for a limited time only.

This is Tanya Mosley, co-host of Fresh Air. You'll see your favorite actors, directors, and comedians on late-night TV shows or YouTube. But what you get with Fresh Air is a deep dive. Spend some quality time with people like Billie Eilish, Questlove, Ariana Grande, Stephen Colbert, and so many more. We ask questions you won't hear asked anywhere else. Listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY.

This is On the Media. I'm Michael Loewinger. And I'm Brooke Gladstone. This month, Forbes published its annual list of billionaires. Turns out that not only are there more of them than ever, 3,028 and counting, but that they have accumulated more wealth than ever. The rich are getting richer. Collectively, the billionaires made almost $2 trillion more.

more than they did last year, and last year was record-breaking. And they're more influential now, with a large cluster of them in the federal government. People like Howard Lutnick, Steven Feinberg, spouses of billionaires, Linda McMahon, Kelly Loeffler. And that's not even mentioning Elon Musk, who of course is number one on the list with over $300 billion.

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.

Elon Musk had his eyes on Mars, where he hopes to send a rocket one day to fulfill his lifelong 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. Ideally before World War III or some kind of bad thing. Douglas Rushkoff has written about the philosophy, culture, and evolution of life online for as long as there's been one.

I spoke to Doug in the fall about his book, Survival of the Richest, Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires, which opens in a remote desert where Rushkoff meets five unnamed tech titans who want him to assess their strategies for survival after what they call the event. Right.

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 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,

fair 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.

humans. 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 practice.

techno-pseudo-scientific mindset. If all we are is information, all we are is DNA, that's all that matters. It 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 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. Yeah.

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.

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 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 and Candace Wong. On the Media is a production of WNYC Studios. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Ellinger.

This is Ira Flato, host of Science Friday. For over 30 years, the Science Friday team has been reporting high-quality science and technology news, making science fun for curious people by covering everything from the outer reaches of space to the rapidly changing world of AI to the tiniest microbes in our bodies.

Audiences trust our show because they know we're driven by a mission to inform and serve listeners first and foremost. With important news, they won't get anywhere else. And our sponsors benefit from that halo effect. For more information on becoming a sponsor, visit sponsorship.wnyc.org.