C (15:03)
So I wrote this book, among other things. It's kind of a personal reckoning with my own experiences in this world. I worked in Silicon Valley myself in the 90s and early thousands, I'd say was bought in the Internet felt, as you said, like it was going to make everyone rich. It was going to give every creative soul a chance to reach their audience. There was a sense that it was the technological instantiation of the human potential movement from the 60s and 70s, all these kind of sort of ideals of breaking from a very restrictive society and being, you know, you could be whoever you wanted online before everyone starts spying on you. But in the original vision there was this like no one knows you're a dog. I don't know if anyone. Does anyone remember that joke on the Internet? No one knows you're a dog? Well, maybe some of you do. You should have a poll about that. So there was this sense, I think that it was the liberation which everyone had been waiting for, insantiated in technology and run by these sort of idealistic people that the Google founders seem kind of like idealists. Jimmy Wales at Wikipedia, Tim Berners Lee, who was the great web inventor and the emotions of that period were. Tim Berners Lee I think said, the web is an act of love. It's like this collaborative sharing experience that we're all going to make a better society together. I kind of bought into it. And one of the reasons I think that we tolerated, you know, when I think about myself and government, why we were so easygoing in the early days is even though these platforms are holding themselves out to the public, we believed, a lot of people believed that they were beneficent kind of charitably minded people and institutions, almost like the Red Cross or something like that. So I think there was not a lot of the, you know, be different if it was an old school train monopoly run by some evil guy in a top hat. But these were like nice California kids, young people trying to make the world a better place. A lot of my good friends went to work particularly for Google, with the sense that this would be the way to make a contribution to the world. So that was how it started. There's a few points where I think that vision really started to change and there may be people who think that vision was always a sales job. What's the phrase? Sediments for suckers, just like a bait and switch. I think they were sincere, particularly the Google people who I knew better. But I think many of those early idealists were sincere, but they had this, I Guess I guess they had a flaw or a tendency which is they really wanted to have it all. This might be the original sin of Silicon Valley and maybe of humanity, is they wanted to spread knowledge, they wanted to create a better world, but they also had to be extremely rich. The founders themselves, it almost felt like embarrassing if they weren't going to become billionaires. So I think there's a couple turning points. But if I can just speak of one, there's a key moment in the early thousands when most of the big US tech platforms became went public in a form that was completely normal for profit corporation with duties to shareholders and kind of an understanding that increased their profits every year, every quarter. I think that was a really big moment. Google knew it was a big moment. The founders of Google wrote a letter to their shareholders, which I went and got for this purpose of this book. And they said, dear potential shareholders, they wrote, we are not a normal company and we do not intend to be one. We're going to undertake risky projects that might lose a lot of money. We first and foremost believe that we should serve humanity instead of shareholders. They started it with our motto is do no evil. So they did that stuff. I think they have now broken every single promise in that letter and I raised it because they may have been well intentioned. I think of this as myself when I look back at it. But over time, structure beats out good intentions. And they set themselves up to be under a constant money pressure to make more and more and more and more money. And you know, it wasn't the first year, it wasn't the second, it wasn't the fifth. But by the 10th year, I think that constant gravity, almost like a waterfall eroding rock, you know, whatever they had thought they needed to deliver for advertisers, create more revenue. And you know, I think that choice of structure was a big moment. And I'll say one thing before we get back to this. You know, some people would say, well, it's inevitable. They're businesses, they have to make money. There was one company or one organization that did go a different path. Wikipedia as of 2002 was about the same with Google in terms of traffic and Facebook. Facebook hadn't been invented yet. It always had traffic in the top 5 of worldwide websites. And in some ways Jimmy Wales, who was older than the rest of them, I've never asked him about this, but I think I want to. He could have in a way. He figuratively had a big button which would have made him a billionaire, you know, so he could have any time from the year 2000, let's say, to 2010. He could have said, listen, I'm still sort of in charge. I'm going to move us to advertising model every year. Of course they do ask for donations, but they make a lot. They make a ton of money from donations. So it shows to me that a different way is possible. It shows to me that those initial stages of setting the structure are very important. And in some ways, while we're very far down the road, it shows that there's still a possibility of taking a different way.