3576 - The Age of Extraction w/ Tim Wu

Summary

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3576 – "The Age of Extraction" with Tim Wu
Date: February 9, 2026
Guest: Tim Wu, Professor of Law at Columbia University, author of The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered Our Economy and Threatened Our Future Prosperity

---

Episode Overview

Sam Seder hosts Tim Wu for a deep dive into the evolution of tech platforms and their impacts on the economy, democracy, and society at large. The conversation explores the history and present dominance of tech giants, the nature of platforms, monopoly, antitrust policy shortcomings, and actionable solutions to restore balance in the economic system. The tone is informed, critical, and accessible, with anecdotes and historical context grounding complex issues in everyday experience.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Defining “Platforms” and Their Historical Roots

[24:00] Tim Wu:

• Explains platforms’ centrality to civilizations from ancient Greece onward—places where people meet, exchange, and communicate, from the Greek agora to modern tech platforms.
• Today’s difference: platforms no longer serve the public square but have become private, commercial spaces with immense power.

2. The Lost Promise of the Internet

[25:52] Tim Wu:

• Reminisces about the 1990s optimism that the Internet would democratize wealth and access, empower creativity, and expand democracy.
• Marks a shift around 2012–2013: platforms become “extractive,” aggressively monetizing users and entrenching monopolies.

3. Monopoly and the Extractive Turn

[27:09] Tim Wu:

• Pinpoints tech’s extractive era as coinciding with monopoly consolidation—Amazon, Google, and Meta (Facebook) eliminate or buy up competitors and ratchet up their “take” (fees, data, advertising).
• Amazon’s seller fee more than doubled over a decade; Google bought Waze; Meta absorbed Instagram and WhatsApp.
• "That’s when the ‘enshittification’ begins." [29:53 Wu]

4. Where Were the Antitrust Enforcers?

[30:10] Emma Vigeland; [30:19] Tim Wu:

• Obama-era antitrust enforcers were largely asleep at the wheel, infected by neoliberal faith in markets and a special reverence for tech.
• Example: Google’s acquisition of Waze brushed aside, although it was a classic monopoly case.

Wu [31:09]:
“We thought of Google as kind of like a charity and we were really nice to them, but we weren’t thinking straight about the dangers of private power.”

5. Herding, Addiction, and the Power of Convenience

[33:13] Sam Seder & Tim Wu:

• Platforms compete to corral “herds” of loyal, dependent users, maximizing screen time and engagement.
• Design borrows from casino and gambling psychology (addictiveness), taking advantage of users’ time scarcity and tendency towards convenience.

Wu [34:58]:
“If you want my one business lesson from this book—it’s that convenience is the most powerful force in human behavior right now.”

6. Platforms, Economic Squeeze, and Societal Malaise

[37:04] Tim Wu:

• Argues that tech-driven productivity gains have not led to increased leisure or well-being for average Americans—they’ve merely intensified the squeeze on workers.
• Popular delivery apps and services are illustrative—convenience exists because people are overworked and underpaid.

7. Extraction and the Disappearance of Shared Gains

[40:35] Tim Wu:

• “We are living in the age of extraction.”
• Productivity gains accrue to platform owners, not workers, exacerbating inequality and hollowing out the middle class.

8. Democratic Risks and The Real ‘Road to Serfdom’

[42:04] Tim Wu:

• Critiques the persistent faith that market “self-correction” will fix monopoly and extraction—contrary to Hayek’s classical thesis, concentrated economic power undermines democracy, breeds resentment, and encourages authoritarianism.

9. Redistribution Isn’t Enough: The Need for Structural Reforms

[44:48] Tim Wu & Emma Vigeland:

• Automatic “post-facto” redistributive remedies (such as high taxes on wealth) are insufficient—politically fraught and easily undermined by concentrated power.
• “By the time you try to tax, the deck is already stacked.”
• Emphasizes need for pre-distributive policies—restoring competitive markets and breaking up/existing monopoly powers.

10. Algorithms and Social Outcomes

[48:25] Sam Seder; [50:03] Tim Wu:

• Seder floats the radical idea of simply banning individualized suggestion algorithms as an antitrust remedy, akin to past media regulations.
• Wu notes legal, constitutional hurdles (First Amendment claims by platforms), but agrees algorithms foster echo chambers and self-absorption, and that Congress could—and should—act.

Wu [50:28]:
“I feel like [algorithms] are in some fundamental tension with freedom... they kind of stew you in your own juices.”

11. Antitrust as a Democracy Project

[54:26] Sam Seder:

• Argues that antitrust was always intended as a centerpiece of democratic, not just economic, policy.
• The turn to Chicago School economics (Bork, consumer-welfare test) perverted original intent.
• Wu: Most solutions don’t require new laws—only using existing ones as originally intended.

12. Need for Systemic Change & Legal Education

[60:37] Sam Seder & Tim Wu:

• Confidence that the new wave of legal scholars and students—thanks to reinvigorated interest in monopoly and antitrust—will help reorient the field away from neoliberal economic orthodoxy and toward its original purpose: decentralizing power.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [29:53] Tim Wu: “That’s when the enshittification begins.”
• [31:09] Tim Wu: “We thought of Google as kind of like a charity and we were really nice to them, but we weren’t thinking straight about the dangers of private power.”
• [34:58] Tim Wu: “Convenience is the most powerful force in human behavior right now.”
• [40:35] Tim Wu: “We are living in the age of extraction… all of us have the capability that six people had 20 years ago… but where has that surplus gone?”
• [50:28] Tim Wu: “I feel like [algorithms] are in some fundamental tension with freedom… everybody becomes these comic book characters of themselves.”
• [56:44] Sam Seder: “What is the mechanism to inhibit Ronald Reagan part two, coming in and just reinterpreting the laws in such a way that you could fundamentally derail antitrust…?”

---

Important Timestamps

• [24:00] — Defining platforms, their history and significance
• [25:52] — The promise of the internet and when it soured
• [27:09] — The emergence of monopoly power and “extraction”
• [30:10] — The failure of antitrust enforcement (Obama era)
• [33:56] — Herding, addiction, convenience, and user dependence
• [40:35] — Explaining “the age of extraction”
• [42:04] — Societal risks: economic imbalance leads to rising authoritarianism
• [44:48] — Limits of redistribution; need for pre-distribution and competition
• [48:25] — Algorithmic recommendation as a democracy/anti-monopoly policy
• [54:26] — Antitrust as a democracy project and its original intent
• [60:37] — Legal academic change: Antitrust's new generation

---

Tone and Style

• Candid, slightly irreverent, and critical but never cynical—aimed at informing and empowering listeners.
• Complex topics explained with historical anecdotes, contemporary examples, and plain language.
• Frequent humor and pop-cultural asides (e.g., “enshittification”) make dense material accessible.

---

Summary Takeaway

This episode stitches together tech history, legal analysis, and economic critique to argue that the unchecked rise of platform monopolies has derailed the Internet’s original promise, siphoned value from average citizens, and threatens democracy itself. While redistributive measures like taxation remain necessary but insufficient, the core solution lies in reactivating antitrust policy as originally intended—to break up concentrations of private power, ensure competitive markets, and protect political as well as economic freedoms. New legal thinking and political will are the imperative first steps.

---

For additional reading and resources: See Tim Wu, The Age of Extraction: How Tech Platforms Conquered Our Economy and Threatened Our Future Prosperity and referenced case law and antitrust histories.

Transcript

[A]

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this [e-mail] and get an extra hour of content daily.

[B]

The Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Monday, February 8, 2026. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Tim Wu, professor of law at Columbia University, author of the Age of Extraction. How tech platforms conquered our economy and Threatened our future Prosperity. Did I say February 9th? 8th. Well, it's the night. Also on the program on February 9th. Senate returns today facing a DHS shutdown on Friday. Unclear if ICE would go unfunded because they have a huge slush fund. Meanwhile, Ghislaine Maxwell pleads the fifth in a closed door deposition with Congress. New York City nurses make a deal to end its strike at two hospitals in New York City. One is extant. More reports of torturous conditions in ICE concentration camps. Meanwhile, the conservative fifth circuit of appeals rules against due process for detained migrants. That applies only in the Fifth Circuit. Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma. Trump pushing for the next star TEGNA merger. Merger. Dr. Oz urges Americans to get measles vaccine as cases increase, particularly among young kids.

[A]

Huh?

[B]

I didn't authorize that.

[C]

Okay.

[B]

Fauci Netanyahu moves up his meeting with Trump in fear of U. S. Iranian negotiations. U.S. government to fund MAGA aligned think tanks and charities across Europe. Think USAID without the aid. All this and more on today's Majority report. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

[A]

It is fun day Monday.

[B]

Fun day Monday. Lots to get to today. We don't need to discuss sport games or anything like that that take place yesterday. We don't have time for it, so we won't. Your team loses, you turn into an obnoxious sports ball guy. I just think that, like, we don't have time for it.

[A]

Oh, we can talk about the Celtics.

[B]

No, not talking about sports. I mean, of course we will be talking about the, the halftime show, which everybody's talking about. Of course I'm talking about the performance of. Who's the other guy besides Kid Rock who performed?

[C]

I like the cellist in the pirate costume.

[B]

They're all named like Brantley Gilbert and Gilbert Branchy.

[D]

I don't know.

[A]

They're all like men, but somehow name. But the most racist white lady you went to high school with named her first child.

[B]

So it's gonna be fun to see. You know, after a couple of days when Milo figures Out. Milo Yannanopoulos figures out how the TPUSA people faked their viewership. Oh, yeah, keep eyes out on that.

[C]

That was like the Pablo Torre of the. Right.

[A]

I know.

[B]

It does look like, however, that however many people actually watch that thing. Saw Kid Rock get bored with lip syncing, like, halfway through his song, apparently, and decide that I don't need to actually put the microphone to my mouth. I'm doing this telepathically.

[C]

I will dance in jean shirts and.

[A]

My fedora for the kids, for the. For tpusa to reach out to college kids. I mean, kids in the. His name. So this must be what all the children are in.

[C]

His old man.

[B]

Hello, fellow youngsters. Or he's just eye candy. Anyway. All right, well, listen, let's get into this. Last week, I think. I can't remember if it was during the show. It was overnight. Donald Trump had posted a. There's really no other way to describe it other than like an incredibly racist meme of the Obamas on the heads of apes. And, you know, we were talking that this was sort of like a. Another Carl Reiner, excuse me, Rob Reiner moment for Trump where he took away the ability of his supporters to pretend like they're not racist, like this is.

[A]

Or just bad people. I mean, the Reiner thing was, I think, right. You know, they. Genuine. Not that that was racist in the comments that he made. They were just sociopath, psychopathic, horrific and cruel.

[B]

Right. And this, you know, one of the sort of, like, unspoken words or I should say, agreements between really, in many respects, Republican voters, not all Republican voters, but the vast majority and their politicians is we got to speak in enough coded language that we. You're acknowledging that we don't like black and brown people, but not in such a way that it seems obvious or ridiculously obvious that we don't like black and brown people. And so that's why it's so important to have figures like Tim Scott and other, you know, Clarence Thomas and Carson, Ben Carson and the guys behind me who have the shirt called Black for Trump. Where's my black guy? Where's my black guy? That those people function as essentially provide license for white people to be bigoted, because there. If this was a bigoted movement, Tim Scott wouldn't be a Republican. And that's basically it. And Trump sort of broke that agreement in doing this and made it very difficult for people. This is not. You don't do this in public. And here is Trump. We should say there's stories when it first came out Caroline Levitt defended it by saying people being overly sensitive, that it wasn't racist. That was the first story. And then she said it was fake outrage, telling news outlets that it was from an Internet meme video. Video depicting President Trump as a king of jungle and Democrats and characters from the Lion King. Those characters weren't in the Lion King.

[C]

No gorillas. It's just a Lion King joke.

[B]

It's a Lion King joke. You can't make fun of anything. And then they ended up deleting the tweet because they realized, like, oh, wait a second, that guy got mad at us. And just to be clear, Donald Trump obviously tweeted this and they are going to blame a fictional person. Like, there were times on this program, I'm not speaking out of time, where I would blame. What was the name of the person I would blame? Oh, God. It wasn't Brendan, but. Yeah.

[C]

What was the fake name you had for Brendan?

[B]

I can't remember what it is now. It wasn't Brian.

[C]

Dang.

[B]

Yeah, Patrick.

[C]

Patrick.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

Yes. I would blame Patrick when we had something go wrong here or if I had done something that was in, you know, I'd sent an email, I would just. It's Patrick's fault. And Patrick got fired many, many times on this program.

[C]

And now he's in Miami live and.

[A]

Learned Jimmy Dore steal that tactic.

[B]

Exactly. And yeah, I don't know who I.

[C]

Who said that thing about vaccines, but.

[B]

Here is Trump talking about how Patrick, his Patrick really messed up.

[A]

Media post that you took down earlier today. The White House says that a staffer sent it who sent it. And are you going to fire it?

[E]

No, I looked at it. I saw it and I just looked the first part. It was about voter fraud in some place. Georgia, there was a lot of voter for 2020 voter fraud and I didn't see the whole thing. I guess during the end of it, there was some kind of. That people don't like. I wouldn't like it either, but I didn't see it. I just, I looked at the first part and it was really about voter fraud in and the machines, how crooked it is, how disgusting it is. Then I gave it to the people. Generally, they'd look at the whole thing, but I guess somebody didn' and they posted and we took it down and we did it. Yeah, but that was a voter fraud that nobody talks about. They don't like to talk about that post. We took it down as soon as we found out about it.

[D]

Mr. President, a number of Republicans are calling on you to apologize for that post. Is that something you're going to do?

[E]

No, I didn't make a mistake. I mean, I look at a lot of thousands of things and I looked at the beginning of it. It was fine. They had that one post and I guess it was a takeoff by the lot of people covered. If you look at where it came from, a lot of. I guess it was a takeoff on the Lion King. And yeah, certainly it was until he said that.

[C]

I'm like, is he, is he trying to, like, fudge this by saying he's referring to something else? Because there's nothing about.

[B]

Well, let's, let's see how deep you have to go into the post to, to get a sense of whether that thing is a race. Because what he's arguing, it sounds like there was a bunch of voter fraud stuff and then tacked on or deep into the thing. So let's just be fair and let's play it from the beginning and count how many seconds. I'll count while we play this. How many seconds it takes to see that part that he says he never saw because it was at the end of the thing. All right, ready? Begin.

[C]

One Mrs. And I haven't pressed play yet.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Okay, let's try it again. Let's try this again. We get to press play. Ready?

[C]

Go.

[B]

One misses. Yeah. Okay, we did it. That's it.

[A]

Do you remember the White House Correspondents dinner in what, 2014? Or whenever it was when Obama put up the. What he said was his birth video. He had some good comedy writers that year. And that's when Trump was in the audience. This is when the birther conspiracy was really picking up steam. And Trump was at the forefront of that. And Obama said, this is my birth video. And they played the clip from the Lion King. I just wonder how much that is still embedded in his mind and fixated on it. Now he's tweeting out AI slop that's supposedly associated with the Lion King that has explicitly racist images about Obama right at the beginning.

[B]

Well, that wasn't me. It was someone. The people did it.

[A]

Right?

[B]

They gave it to the people. They gave it to the people. But here is an example. I mean, in addition to the fact that you had all these stories about the White House mad at that person, not Scavino, who looks at his tweets, and not Donald Trump, but the other person, let's just call him Patrick because we're never going to name him. And of course, I'm sure that person's been fired. Although no One has been fired, but they're very upset about that person. And the reason is because, again, this is. It just becomes too, too hard for his voters to own it public. Not all the voters, I'm sure the vast majority of them are enjoying it. But this is supposed to be something that you trade privately.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

You know, I sent the group email with everybody or I put this on. That's the group chat. I group this on the group chat. Exactly. Like, without a doubt, if we were to have access to like the TP USA slack, this would be all over it. But we don't. And the problem is you're not supposed to do this in public. And here's an example of why that's a problem for the president and Republicans.

[F]

Oh, my word. I am a registered Republican. My dad was the president of American Pipeliners association. So I came by rather naturally, voted for the president, supported him. But I really want to apologize. I mean, looking at this awful picture of the Obamas, what an embarrassment to our country. All this man does is tell lies. He is not worthy of the presidency. He takes bribes blatantly. And now he's being a racist blatantly. They were supposed to deport the dangerous criminals. They were, are not supposed to go after small children, storm schools, bring terror upon, you know, the little kids and the women and children, not just the immigrants in the school. All the children are scared. This is not a decent man. This is not an honest man. He openly takes bribes. He's pathetic as a president. And I just want to apologize, apologize to everybody in the country for supporting this rotten, rotten man.

[B]

John, did you, did you vote for him in all three elections?

[F]

I did. I was sucked into the stupidity of creating jobs. And there are no more jobs in New Mexico. Things are worse than they were before. You cannot find a primary care position. Our governor just passed some laws to try to help. If you are a young physician, we want you in New Mexico. Come here. There's a great need for you.

[A]

Right.

[B]

You know, look, it would be fascinating to sort of like reverse engineer and find out at what point what of those things he listed pushed him over the edge. In other words, like, we've got Andrew McCarthy from the National Review writing in the first part of a series of the Trump administration or Trump himself, the bribes that have been going on. And he's said like within, like the first month, whatever I, as Andrew McCarthy believed about the Biden administration was times 10 with the Trump administration in this caller, I don't know if he was worried about, like, sort of like it was all the blatant aspect. He said the word blatant over and over again, like out in public. And I think like, it's unclear what, what straw broke the camel's back. But they have a building sort of concern and it's not until they're sort of exposed that they complain about it. But we will talk more about this in the program in a moment. We're going to be talking to Tim Wu, professor of law at Columbia University, author of the Age of Extraction. How Tech Platforms Conquered Our Economy and Threatened Our Future Prosperity, I should say. But first, a couple of words from our sponsors. First, today is something that, you know, people don't generally want to talk about and that is dying.

[A]

Oh gosh.

[B]

But unfortunately it's going to happen to all of us. But you can be prepared. This is the big thing is that you know, you cannot obviously prevent dying, but you can prevent dying without your stuff in order with Trust and Will online estate planning. If you're a parent, if you're a homeowner, if you're a spouse, are you caring for your aging parents? It may be time to think about estate planning. And I can tell you you don't have to have a massive estate. You can have a 2016 Subaru, but the point being that you want it to not have to go through probate and all this other stuff and make it diffic if you're a procrastinator. Well, 43% of Americans who say they haven't gotten around to making a will yet, I could tell you that it was hanging over my head for a long time. Well, what seemed like forever after Milo was born, that's when I started to really get like I got to do something about this and set this stuff up. And just getting it done was a huge relief. And I went through the process with Trust and Will just to see what was going on. It is super straightforward. You can do it in as little as 30 minutes if you don't know where to start. When it comes to estate planning, if you're overwhelmed by questions you might not know the answer to. Well, Trust and Will's online platform provides a step by step guided process, offers optional one on one support from attorneys in your state. It's super easy. It asks you basic questions. You know, are you married, are you divorced, Are you single, how many kids do you have? What are their ages? I mean it's really just walks you through this. Estate planning may sound expensive if you're not sure if you have enough assets to Warrant a Will and Trust Everything has something to leave behind. Trust and Will believes estate planning should be accessible to everyone. So they're committed to making it affordable today and valuable tomorrow. I can tell you the whole process, seamless, straightforward, particularly if you don't have like a super complicated, you know, sets of assets and whatnot. You still want to make it easy for people to get what you want to leave behind when you pass away. But this is really straightforward. Trust and Will products are attorney design. They are state specific. They're customized to your needs. Trust and Will was created by legal experts designed to grow with you so you can easily update your plan at every life stage or transition. Don't wait until it's too late. Protect your loved ones today, tomorrow and beyond with Trust and Will. The most trusted name and online estate planning. Go to trustandwill.com majority to get 20% off. That's trustandwill.com majority to get your 20% off. Trust and will majority also sponsoring the program. Basically what got me through the last week with Saul that is Factor Meals. It's super cold out, don't want to go to the supermarket. I rarely have time to cook and frankly I have noticed over the past six weeks at the beginning of the year that by the time I get home I have to immediately take a nap. I am so overwhelmed. But factor made it super easy for me to make meals for Saul. Make cook meals for Saul. Heat up meals for salt that are delicious and healthy. Want to thank Factor for supporting the Majority report? Go to factor meals.com/majority5off. Use the code majority5OFF to get 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for a year. Factor Meals are full quality functional ingredients including lean proteins, colorful veggies and whole food ingredients and healthy fats. I got this like chicken thigh with like a mashed potatoes that was fantastic. I actually ended up getting these. I got some tortillas and I made Saul and I had like little, I don't know what you call it, but it was super easy to make because again, I've talked about this before. I never understood why people had microwaves and now I get it because you take the food, you heat it up, it takes about two minutes. Factor has 100 rotating weekly meals to keep things fresh and delicious through winter. You can choose high protein calorie smart Mediterranean diet, GLP1 support ready to eat salads. They even have a new muscle pro collection to support strength and recovery. I don't know what I got it from. I think I just got it from like family friendly. I'm not sure. Factor murals are always fresh, never frozen, ready in about two minutes. All this stuff doesn't come frozen. It comes fresh. They pack it really nicely with a lot of recyclable materials. You put it in your fridge and there's your whole week of meals. Head to factor meals.com Majority50OFF use the code majority50OFF to get 50% off and free breakfast for a year. Eat like a pro this month with Factor New subscribers only. Varies by plan. One free breakfast item per box for one year while subscription is active. Going to take a quick break. When we come back, Tim Wu, professor of law at Columbia University and author of Age of Extraction How Tech Platforms Conquered Our Economy and Threaten Our Future Prosperity. We are back. Sam Cedar, Emma Vigland on the Majority Report. Want to welcome back to the program Professor Tim Wu, professor of law at Columbia University, author of Age of Extraction How Tech Platforms Conquered Our Economy and Threatened Our Future Prosperity. Tim, welcome back to the I don't know if it was the last time was like when you ran for lieutenant governor. It may have been.

[D]

It may have been.

[B]

But I feel like we had you on with for your last book, the Curse of Bigness, I think. Yeah. But I can't remember. But this one is a another entry into the and it's a little more specific in terms of antitrust, focusing more on sort of the concept of platforms. And let's start with like the the idea of of platforms. You, you start the book off by going back into history to explain that the concept of platforms have been with us since we were able to really sort of communicate via writing and maybe speaking.

[D]

Yeah, that's right. I mean, one of the reasons I wrote this book is I'm a believer that platforms, it's a word we use all the time, have been at the core of almost every successful civilization, you know, going back to ancient Greece and so forth. But I think platforms, you know, say a lot about what kind of civilization you have. And one of the people reason people thought in Greece was so great is that, you know, you had this kind of place everyone bought and sold and talked and did everything in, in the center of town, very fair, open to citizens. In our time. The platform which is again, this, this technology space intermediary that brings together buyers and sellers, speaker and listeners in our age, it is the tech platforms that have taken over that role and essentially in my view have taken on an extraordinary amount of power in that role. And that's basically what this book is about.

[B]

And we'll get back to that idea of how they have gone from the platform and sort of the act on top of that platform, if you will. But let's also, like, you recount the sort of the hopes and aspirations when the Internet first sort of like got up and running. I am old enough to remember that era and have lived through it. But speak to that idea because I feel like it. We had maybe a good half dozen years of like sort of at that peak of where it was going to where people could sort of realize and also project into the future of it being some form of democratizing force, I guess.

[D]

Yeah. I think one of the questions, maybe the main question this book asks is like, what happened to the dream of the 90s? Sort of short form. You know, we had this idea, particularly around the Internet, although more broadly and across. Across institutions, that the Internet was going to make everybody rich. It was going to make every country on earth a democracy. It was going to give an outlet to sort of every creative force and every kind of potential. Now, some of that has happened in certain ways, but what has happened over the last 12 years, I mean, I think you can kind of have a before and after. There's this turning point in around, I guess, 2012, 2013, just to pin it down, where I think the Internet goes from being enabling to being extractive and all of the major platforms, most of the technologies kind of reach the maturity and begin taking more and more from the economy for themselves. So this, you know, instrument, this technology which was designed to make everybody rich and make everybody heard, really becomes something quite different over the last 12 years. And that's the trend, I think we need to change.

[B]

What was it around at that time that. That, that marks it for you? I mean, like, it almost like in the beginning we had like, we had CompuServe and AOL and they were sort of like the. You were in a fixed world at the very beginning just because I think people didn't understand how to operate this. But then people got more savvy in the, in the late 90s and into the arts and were able to sort of like swim and, you know, areas where there wasn't buoys, you know, sort of like, you know, where there was no lifeguard, essentially for you. But what was it that changed to mark that? Like, why do you mark 2010 and 2012? What, what, what actually happened then?

[D]

You know, I would basically use a single word, monopoly. I think that's the period where the main tech platforms sort of established and entrenched and fortified their monopoly and realized that what they wanted to do was to defend their position and begin turning up the dials of extraction. And, you know, it didn't happen all in one day. You know, it's a little bit like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, but it's that decade that especially that period where you had a lot of the warning signs. I mean, let me go across platforms in 2010, 2012, Amazon was still an amazing place for independent small businesses to make money. At that period, the take from Amazon was like 20%. You know, now you zoom forward here into our era and they've moved it up into the 50s, 60s. Very hard for small business to make any money. Their take is huge. They have an advertising fee which is basically paying for search results. When you look for stuff on Amazon that earned $56 billion in 2024 this year it's over 70 billion. You could fund I don't know how many media outlets or whatever you want with 70 billion of pure and adulterated profit for something that makes the product worse. Google flipping around then started buying its competitors. They bought Waze. That's something I talk about in the book. So we lose competition in this area. They start jacking up the advertising. Facebook buys off its main competitors Instagram and WhatsApp and everything just kind of congeals during that era. And they turn on the extraction algorithm basically. And you know, I don't. My friend Corey uses. Are you allowed to use bad words in the show?

[B]

Yes.

[D]

All right. That's when the insertification begins.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Right.

[D]

I link it very closely to. To establish a monopoly and all about defense. And so this beautiful thing which was supposed to make everybody able to do everything and make a lot of money and so forth turns into the opposite goes. Starts running in the opposite direction.

[A]

Where were the antitrust cops on the beat at this time period? I mean, specifically, I guess I want to point to the Obama administration.

[D]

Yeah, I would say in hibernation. Now I was part of that administration and I saw it firsthand. But like just take the ways Google take over. So you know, googlebot ways. Those were the only two mapping programs that were significant at the time. Anyone who knows anything about monopoly has heard of antitrust, knows about merger. You're not able to buy your most dangerous competitor. Right. Two companies to one. The only two companies. It's like obviously. So one day it was an antitrust party. I asked, I found the staffer and I was like, what was going on with that? Because I didn't work she said, oh, you know, the boss had this idea that Google is where you go when you want to know where you are. Waze is where you go if you want to know where you're going. So they decided they weren't really competitors, they could let the merger go forward. I mean, there was a deep and I think really wrongful, dangerous and belief in two principles during that time. One was kind of this neoliberal idea. The market could always solve things. So, oh, don't worry about it, there'll be someone else. Even though googlebot ways something new will come along. Well, nothing new came along. And the other was this idea, well, tech is always special, so we can never touch them. And look, I was in the Obama administration, we thought of Google as kind of like a charity and we were really nice to them, but we like, we're not thinking straight about the dangers of private power.

[B]

I, you know, it's funny, but you mentioned Google because before we took this show as a podcast, I did a series of short videos and I can't remember exactly what it was, but I know I did one about Google. And this is like 2010 maybe reminding them of their, their slogan, which when they launched people will forget. This is don't be evil. And there was a sense of like, oh, wow, they have a real attitude about going into this industry. And then it just sort of melted away.

[D]

You know, I have a line in my book where I feel like over time, structure beats out good intentions. And the thing with Google is they structured. They were a very well meaning company. I think they were a progressive force, they were important, but they didn't structure anything to protect themselves, to stay that way. You know, unlike Wikipedia, which made itself into a nonprofit, Google just said, okay, we'll be a regular for profit combination, but we're really good guys and we will be different and like we're never going to do anything bad and don't be evil. And you know, after 10 years, everybody and you needing to make money and investors staring you down, you know, the strongest will gets collapsed. No, no one can obey two masters. And they, you know, eventually their good intentions faded.

[B]

All right, well, let's go back. I want to talk about the sort of the notion of hurting, I mean, that you write about. Like this is much of this. I mean, I think like there are elements both on both ends where without structure, you know, water will drop to the lowest point and sort of our tendencies will, we will just, even as citizens or consumers very often not always go to the point of least resistance. In many respects and settle in some ways. But talk about that concept of hurting within the context of platforms.

[D]

Well, I think over the last five years or so, maybe eight years, the story of business on the Internet has become fundamentally one of loyalty verging on dependence and trying to capture as large a herd of humanity as possible to sit on your platform. And the model, just to change metaphors, is a little bit more like a casino where it doesn't really matter what we do when we're there as long as you are there. You know, as long as you're checking stuff out, you know, you can doing this, doing that. You can collect fees, you can collect data, you can advertise. So I think that's become the game. And unfortunately, you know, we're all, look, we're human, we're subject to it. It's very challenging to try to seek out inconvenient options. And if, you know, you want my one business lesson from this book, it's that convenience is the most powerful force in human behavior right now.

[A]

And how does hurting happen then? Right? I mean, you can do them with anti or with monopolistic practices, but there's also, I would imagine, even more like insidious tactics.

[D]

Yeah, I mean, I think it's about some of it and I think this is pretty well documented. Is the effort to make platforms addictive, you know, just like very careful study of, you know, what basically works for the gambling industry. It's crazy that so many of the business models of our major companies are borrowed from like, gambling or other areas. But the other, I think is less, less, you know, negative. Just to rely on essentially the human trait of we're kind of a little bit lazy, you know, or we're busy or like, whatever. We just do what we, what we do. And I think that's been very powerfully built upon, you know, which I think you can judge a civilization by, by its, the emotions it relies upon. And you know, in our time, it's got quite a bit of anger, fear and laziness that we're relying upon. Sorry to be so optimistic about.

[B]

No, I mean, I mean, I think there's also, you know, something to the sort of the synergy, sorry to use that word, between sort of like people having less time, having to work more to provide for sort of basic necessities. And then that same, a different part of that same system providing sort of like convenience in lieu of stuff because people are so exhausted. I mean, like, you know, I think we're seeing this rise of like, ordering in you know, part of it is in the wake of COVID I think things have changed, but part of it is also I think people are expending more because they're having to expend more energy for less in other areas of their life and expending more to sort of like make it easier for them to expend more to get less.

[D]

Yeah, I agree with that. You know, it's. And it's, it's quite an insightful comment. There's something wrong and almost it feels like beyond our power to do something about, about the fact we have not made work better. You know, when you think about like, what do most people do with most much of their lives, it's work. And particularly since, you know, most families to afford living today need both parents working. And look, I'm not trying to say that, but I'm just saying like that that is like an economic necessity for most people. And I agree we've sort of been squeezed. You know, here we are, the wealthiest society in human history, yet people are so squeezed they can't like, you know, cook dinners for their family.

[A]

Yeah, well, it's also the orientation of our economy towards an increasingly small percentage of it. The one that is most responsible for consumer spending. I mean doordash and Ubereats and stuff like that, those are people that have the ability to have that delivered to them and can spend and use that extra money when it gets delivered to them. Right. We have the 10 top 10% responsible for half of consumer spending right now. It feels like all that capital with tech is responsible in many ways for that as well.

[D]

Yes, I agree with that. And if there's a message of this book, it's. The broader goal of this book is to talk about balance in the American economic system. We often talk about separation of powers and we often talk about the need for balance between Congress and the White House and the courts, which I gotta say is not in the best state of affairs either. But our economic balance is really out of whack, you know, and it.

[B]

Yeah, well, I know I want to get, I want to get to that in a moment, but I also want like it does feel, I mean, and I've referenced this in the past. I once found a steamer trunk back in my yard saling days with a. An article of a futurist talking to a ladies club in Florida in the 50s. And they were in. His big thing, among other things, was that we're going to have watches that are going to give us TV from satellites, which was right. Although he Thought it was going to be powered by propane gas. But he did say the biggest challenge for us by the time we get into the 80s or 90s is going to be what are we going to do? Because machines are going to help our productivity so much. What are we going to do with all the extra free time?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

And the promise of technology, it feels like, has always been left unfettered. The promise of technology has always been this is going to help workers or people produce more effort with less effort. And therefore the challenge is going to be what do we do with our leisure time. But in fact what happens is it's like an arms race and that the extra value created by that productivity does not go to the people who are working, but rather to those who have deployed the technology. And it has increased exponentially that delta between what is the extra productivity and how much actually goes to the people who are being productive.

[D]

Yes, I completely agree. This is why the word extraction is in the title of the book. Because I think we are living in the age of extraction and the extraction is of all the productivity that we all have. Exactly as you just said individually, all of us have the capability that six people had 20 years ago in order to, to do stuff. But where has that surplus gone? Has it gone to the average worker, the average American, such that they, you know, have all the time they want and they, they, you know, can live like the aristocracy lived in the 19th century. I mean, the answer is no, although we have as many possessions as people did. But, but, but generally no. I think there's been an enormous extraction and if you look, I mean at monopolized corporate profit taking, it is just a very straightforward story. And the ability, and we gave up on balance somewhere in the 1980s and 90s and trying to refunnel back the gains of our technology to the average person. That's basically the story of the last 50 years.

[B]

You write about before you get to solutions in the book, you write about the dangers in it. That aside from the fact that aside from the sort of just malaise that it creates for the vast majority of us but society wide, you write about the dangers. Talk about that for a moment.

[D]

Yeah, one part of my book I have a section called the Real Road to Serfdom and it's inspired by a book that people may know called the Road to Serfdom which said that, you know, the problem, the reason you get totalitarian government is that you have well meaning social welfare state and it goes on and on and on and becomes, you know, Soviet Russia. But I think that quite the opposite.

[B]

A little bit ironic, by quoting Hayek, we should just tell people. I just want people to understand that.

[D]

Yeah, I think it's the opposite, which is to say, if you don't have government rebalancing and taking a role in making sure the government, that the economy remains balanced, you have a predictable sequence where, you know, you monopolize major industries. They extract from people, people get angry, they demand change. And if the government is unable to do anything about that, if the government cannot rebalance, cannot, you know, fix monopoly problems, cannot prevent people's wealth from being extracted, they get angry and they turn to, you know, a strong man who's really going to solve everything for them. So I think that is the situation familiar all over the world. I mean, I wrote this before our current state of government, but it was, it was basically, I was thinking about Venezuela where the same things happened, and Germany during the 30s and Italy during the 20s. So yeah, there's some real dangers from failing to deal with monopolization, extract from problems.

[B]

Let's just expand on that a little bit. You write about the sort of the persistent dream of, of self correcting economies. Like, and this is obviously like the Hayek neo, you know, neoliberal in the most specific sense, coming from Mont Pelerin and the sort of the, the implication that markets will, will, will provide the solution left on their own. Although there was also an element of like. But we should also, government should function in a more subtle way of, of helping specific industries and players in there. But why does, and I guess maybe to tie this in with the notion of like post facto redistribution is not enough. Yes, I mean we talk about wealth tax on this program. We talk about the, the 90% tax rate for people making over what would be $3 million in today's dollars in the 50s, in the early 60s. But that's after the fact. Which, why is that not enough?

[D]

Yeah, well, so there's two ideas there. The first is maybe a little more technical. Having worked in government multiple times in my career in Obama, Biden, White House and so forth, I feel that.

[F]

The.

[D]

Private sector can be really important in the market, has tendencies to try and solve itself. But the idea that all of our monopoly and extraction problems are going to be solved by the market is really a fantasy we need to get over because monopolies can be very persistent. I guess I'll put it that way. Particularly as they often are when they are very good at getting the assistance of government to stay there. And you know, so I think that, I'll say the other point I think is more of a challenge to some liberals, which is, I think there is a tenor of liberal thought. I think it was pretty big, particularly in the Clinton era, that says, well, it's okay to have monopoly, it's okay to have incredibly profitable corporations because we can always fix it later and we need to grow the pie and we'll just tax it later. Okay? And the main challenge, the main problem with that theory is that the later never comes. And predictably it doesn't come because the more money you give to people, the better they are to resist their own taxation or their own various forms of redistribution. So you're always in the situation. In fact, you'd have to sort of constantly be raising taxes all the time if you wanted to keep up with where the tax rates have gone. So you backed yourself into a corner where you're now trying to much, much, much later to try to pass a wealth tax or, sorry, a wealth tax, something else later. I'm not saying I'm opposed to that and it's a decent effort, but we've set up a situation because the wealthy are good at influencing government. We've given them the means to influence government by saying take your money and then we'll tax you later.

[A]

It's also completely nonsensical, not just from the taxation standpoint, but from the purpose of anti monopoly laws, which is to create and foster competition. Because if you say you're just going to deal with it later, the, the damage is already done. I mean, the tech industry understands this. We're later going to be talking about Waymo. But the Uber understood this by just doing whatever they wanted, smashing and grabbing and then like, okay, the medallion stuff and like taxi laws, we'll deal with that later. But we're trying to race ahead of regulations, not respond to them. Because we know that if we can create this market then we can crowd out the competition and then we will be such a staple that you can't get rid of us.

[D]

Yeah, you know, another great example is where we blew it is in social media where, you know, this model, extremely toxic model of preying on people's worst emotions and building the most angry responses possible than advertising on that in a very individualized way. Having that being like a dominant business model for Facebook and Twitter as well, although it's gotten a lot worse once that becomes the business model and everyone thinks that's fine, you have a race to the bottom instead of the race to the top part of what you need to do in competition policy is try to figure out with guardrails the way is to have races to the top. And that's what I think we failed to do. But you know, maybe we're learning our lesson. We're certainly paying for it right now.

[B]

I wanted to wait on that. But since you're at that point algorithms like I. My contention is is that there must be a way through antitrust law to basically say just you can't have them. Like, you know, like. Like. I mean more like. Like, you know, maybe. Maybe. I'm not even sure I would even keep like Netflix my. Our suggestion for you because as you extend out that sort of like use of algorithm and maybe it's. It can be as distinct of like algorithms, but not for X, Y and Z. Because it seems to me like the. If the theory is that we need to do this before we get to distribution, like we need to pre. We need to structure our. The making of money because. And we're structuring it right now. It's just a question of how we're going to structure. The idea that any government doesn't pick winners and losers in my mind is a fallacy. They always do. We always do by definition. But if you get rid of algorithms, it then inhibits the ability. It's almost like the Fairness doctrine in the context of you are ruining business models as a principle and not allowing for that to accrue. Is there anything in like antitrust law that exists now or could where algorithms. I mean, surely we must have the ability to say like this is just not a fair business practice.

[D]

You know, we have done that before. I mean, you mentioned in other forms of media that we took this. But let me back up on this a little bit. You know, individualized algorithms which are basically trying to guess what you want and feed it to you. I feel like they're in some fundamental tension with freedom. I mean, there's something very different about model where you go to a store or whatever and you look around, you decide what you want and something where people figure out who they are and try to figure out what you want and push it at you. It kind of makes whatever you are. Like, what if you totally want to. Let's say you love craft beer and you decide, I'm going to drink Budweiser today or something. You just want to break from who you are. But we live in a world where you just kind of get bombarded with who you are over and over and over. And everybody becomes these like comic book characters of Themselves. And you know, like, I feel like I know people who just have become like the worst versions of themselves. So there's even a deeper point there with the algorithm is that it kind of stews you in your own juices and like, that's not the best. Could you do it? I don't think anti Rust law as it is, is set up for that. I know states have experimented with this. I'll tell you what the platforms say is they say that's the First Amendment right of ours to decide how we want to feed you stuff. You know, that the algorithm is no different than, let's say, the editor of the New York Times who's deciding what's going to be on the front page. Now, I happen to disagree with that. I think it's one of the many ways that an overly aggressive view of the First Amendment has taken us astray. But I think Congress could do it.

[B]

Could proclaim it's also conceptually not the same thing because the editor can decide, I'm putting this on the front page. But everybody gets that, right. The owner at a supermarket could say, like, we're putting Budweiser on aisle three at the top in a special promotion case. And that might encourage it, but that encourages it for everyone. It is not like down to the individual. And I don't know, like, I mean, conceptually it's not the same thing, it.

[D]

Seems to me, I think it's different too. You got to convince the Supreme Court of that and including some of the.

[B]

Things that have to happen. I think no. And I, time and nature.

[D]

I'm including the liberal judges on that because, you know, Justice Kagan, for example, completely buys the theory that Google's algorithm is the same thing as the New York Times editor choosing stories which, or, or, you know, YouTube's algorithm, which I, I just think it's different and you know, it's example of something being, it's like taking an analogy and going too far. It's also not a human choosing right. I mean, I, I have a little more respect for a human, you know, like, obviously you put some thought into what's going to be in the show. That's human judgment. And I, you know, respect that and think it's essential, frankly. But it's totally different than an automated procedure which is just trying to figure out what, you know, works on your reptilian brain and makes you buy stuff. So, yeah, I, I, I guess we couldn't be in more, more agreement.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I, it's where I'm sort of repeating a point that you're making. But there's a lot of moral panic about, you know, us being so polarized. I mean, I think that there's some validity to it and, but, but it's in part because like you're, as you're saying, just stewing in your own stuff. Everything on social media appears to be nostalgic content at this point. And it's genuinely having, I think like a deleterious effect on people's ability to have, you know, critical examination of the world, let alone what it's doing to kids.

[D]

Yeah, no, I think that's right. It's sort of like, you know, our own, you know, we're a very sort of self absorb society obviously. So what happens if you just let people, you know, live in their own narcissistic, you know, actual literal narcissistic pool where you're, you're sort of, you know, change my marinating in your own like interests and beliefs and prejudices. What happens? Well, I mean it's pretty, it's pretty ugly. I think human beings look a lot better when we're kind of, you know, forced to walk in the street and see a lot of different ideas and thoughts and you know, that that's a much healthier way to be.

[B]

Ultimately what we're really talking about from a, from a, from a democracy standpoint is to inhibit the ability of some people to monopolize not just money, but political power. And, and, and so it's, I think the, the benefit is that we end up becoming more interesting people and have more fulfilling lives. But as a, as a, as a pure like, sort of like from a democracy function, inhibiting people from, from becoming our society, becoming a plutonomy and then to a plutocracy is really the name of the game. And you know, we've interviewed folks about antitrust on this program certainly over the past 10, 15 years almost to a person we hear largely we don't even need a new set of laws. The laws are on the book. We are particularly in the Biden administration coming out of an era where the perspective on antitrust had been perverted in some way by Robert Bork in the Chicago School in this notion of consumer value. And it, it just was a reinterpretation of antitrust away from the fundamental principles of antitrust, which was sort of like a democracy project, both economic democracy and in terms of civil democracy. But in the same way, I'm curious as, in the same way that the, the, you need to sort of structure our commerce and our economy in a way to inhibit people from accruing a concentrated amount of wealth. What is the mechanism to inhibit Ronald Reagan, part two, coming in and just reinterpreting the laws in such a way that you could fundamentally derail antitrust over the course of four or five decades without having to really change the laws.

[D]

That's a good question. First, I'm happy to hear that the antitrust change message back to the original vision has sunk in with you in that way, because I think that has been the project.

[B]

We've got a little hiccup going on right now, but it's.

[D]

Well, but the long term is the most important and these are constitutional level values. I mean, at some level, I don't want to be critical of the US Constitution, but at some level it was a mistake by the founders not to include an anti monopoly provision which they debated having in there. Because at some level the decentralization of power is the goal of the Constitution. No one branch, no one part of government, including federal or state, should have all the power. But what was left out of that was private power. And you know, it's clear in our times that we have private entities that have, you know, as much if not more power than individual states and sometimes can overwhelm the federal government. And we kind of forgot about that. Okay. Things were different in the 18th century. So if you wanted to have a long term project, you'd have to think of the decentralization of economic power, of having a constitutional imperative and you know, adding the Constitution is one thing, or just having it be understood, which sometimes is how things work, that this is a constitutional level imperative and we cannot allow there to be such incredible imbalances and still maintain a democracy. Yeah.

[B]

You know, some time ago we interviewed, it was, I think Fishkin and Forbath who had written the anti oligarchy constitution. And it seems like, you know, like in the parlance of 250 years ago, being against the king was to be against the oligarch and the oligarchy and the concentration of wealth and that is power. We've, we've lost sight of that, I guess. And so the. How does one reintroduce that notion so that if Robert Bork comes back and decides that we're going to reinterpret this antitrust law, that you or some other group has the ability to sue the federal government, say what you're doing is fundamentally unconstitutional or you know, if not, you know, statutorily wrong because you're not applying the antitrust standards in the way that it's written.

[D]

I mean, what's crazy about it is some of it comes down to an embrace of a conservative idea, which is originalism, which is that you have to respect the original. Actually, conservatives love originalism when it comes to the Constitution. They don't like it when it comes to statutes, because the original intent of the antitrust statute, the Sherman act, was to protect workers, farmers, consumers against like monster corporations. That's the original intent, anyone who reads it honestly, and to prevent, you know, a political aggregation of power so that you have a monarchy in the private sector that is like so obviously the intent. And if you read it, it's very hard to deny it. So one answer is just, you know, we anchor ourselves back to reading the antitrust statutes in light of the intent of Congress. And if that is the understood method, you're fine. You know, the way people have run away from that is to say, well, yeah, everything has to be understood in terms of contemporary economics. But my view has been, you know, the antitrust laws are laws. Congress had its reasons for them and they're anchored in some of our constitutional values and that's how they need to be interpreted.

[B]

From your perspective as, as a law professor, is, has it, has it changed in the institution of law schools, the interpretation of antitrust sufficiently that you feel some confidence that going forward as we produce more judges, that that concept has been sort of internalized.

[D]

I think things, look, things, when change happens, it happens. You know, it fits and starts. It's funny you should mention that. I spent the morning working on our casebook. Lena Khan and I are writing a casebook. A few other people's effort teacher Shell Sussman are writing a casebook in our field which like, you know, is meant to make front and center what the original point of these laws were. So I, I think the student, first of all, I mean, the amount of student interest we have in anti monopoly work is incredible. All of our classes are completely full with huge waiting lists and a lot of people just seem to want to devote their lives to these projects. I guess it shows you that there is a hunger to try and do something to fight this. So I think it's sinking in. Look, obviously people are very cynical about the, the Trump administration, but I also think that some of the fundamental principles of our country are less about administrations and more about what's taken for granted. And certainly when I was say, in the Obama White House, it was taken for granted. It was only about like neoliberal economics. And I think that's totally changed. So there's a sign of optimism.

[B]

That's a great place to end. Tim Wu, professor of law at Columbia University, author of Age of Extraction, How Tech Platforms Conquered Our Economy and Threatened Our Future Prosperity. Thanks so much for your time today. We'll put a link obviously to that at Majority FM in our YouTube and podcast description. Thanks again, really appreciate it.

[D]

Yeah, it's been great. Thanks.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

All right, folks, gonna take a quick break, head into the fun half of the program, wherein we will have fun.

[A]

Yes, we will.

[B]

Really cool. Reminds us that Bezos fired 300 journalists from the Washington Post last week. Unclear how many minutes of the Melania film that would have cost to maintain those salaries.

[C]

Derek Thompson rushed to Twitter to say it's like he doesn't care about the media. Thanks for that insight.

[A]

He left. He left.

[C]

It's not an attack on your entire industry. It's negligence.

[A]

They left journalists like stranded on assignment all across the world. Absolutely unconscionable.

[C]

The, the, the Ross Perot thing about the, the drain and this giant sucking sound. Yeah, like that's been happening in media for the entirety of our lives.

[B]

He was talking about the job going overseas.

[D]

Nafta, right?

[B]

Yes.

[C]

But the, the press, the press. You look at the employment and people employed by as journalists. For the past 50 years it's been cratering and the people employed to sell PR or marketing has been rising. This is a long term trend and we're going to see it just collapse now it's over.

[B]

I mean, I can't remember now because we went through a period where we would talk about this all the time. Maybe it was in the aughts, but as recently as 40 years ago, news organizations at networks were basically a lost leader. They didn't make any money. They didn't make any money. And they were simply the way that you sort of like it was part of your responsibility. And newspapers and media outlets have simply become mechanisms in which to sell as opposed to like some notion of civic duty or whatnot.

[A]

It's also, I mean it's the influencer ification also of information on the Internet. Everything is pay to play now. I mean most of the posts that you're seeing on social media, they're being elevated to the top because it's pay to play. I sounds silly, but you see these like the rise, as Matt saying, of public relations even in movie campaigns, like they're this, that was this horrible interpretation. I can tell already it's going to be horrible of Wuthering Heights is coming out and like they're pretending that they were in love just for that couple is the two stars just for two weeks so they can get social media hype. Like, everything is well, that's an old.

[B]

That they used to actually do that.

[A]

I know, but you're seeing it. I mean, I'm not trying to go like that movie that was really funny with Pamela Anderson and Liam Neeson. They also faked being in a relationship for like. I mean, like, it sounds silly, but all of the information that's out there right now is designed to create engagement as opposed to like, proliferating truth. And we're wondering why these legacy outlets aren't fully covering what we're seeing in the Epstein files. There's basically no journalists and the ones that are left are not inclined to dig that deep into this kind of thing. Like, Maggie Haberman was the big reporter at the New York Times during the first Trump administration. You look into her background. Her father was like a PR guy for the Trumps. It's elites in our media that are replicating the same message and not challenging power in anything in any meaningful way.

[B]

With that said, you can support this program by becoming a [e-mail] when you do not only get the free show free of commercials, you also get the fun half. And you can IM us on the fun half. Someone just asked Daredevil on the im. Are you taking calls today? Maybe we don't like that level of planning.

[C]

That's a pressure on us.

[B]

Yeah, exactly. But we might also just Coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code. Majority get 10% off. What? There seems to be like concern brewing.

[C]

In the YouTube bullshit.

[B]

In the tech. In the tech area. Matt, what's happening on the Matt Leckian media universe?

[C]

Yeah, there's new Jacobin before that YouTube issue. I was gonna look up what we did on Friday. Go check out the Tuesday show. 10 o' clock we had. Oh, we had Robin Wandsley on talking about Minnesota and Chip Gibbons talking about the. This new idea that reporting on members of our armed services is doxing them which getting too old for this.

[B]

Tell me about it.

[C]

Patreon.com the leftrecking to get our Sunday show where we talk about the Epstein fouls and including Kimball Musk who. Well, he went on a podcast and people should have to. You have to check out Left Reckoning.

[B]

Getting David and I, that is that Musk's what, brother or father?

[C]

Older brother.

[B]

His cooler older brother. And what does he say? He wears a cowboy guitar he went on to.

[C]

He went on to. It doesn't matter what the podcast was, but he went onto a podcast talk about his. The worst period of his life, which was his divorce, of course, and the.

[B]

Which.

[C]

Which actually kind of led to, like the other time that he needed a triple intervention from people from. Because of how much partying he was doing. And turns out some recent emails may have said some insight into the type of party he was doing. A wine intervention. Are you trying to tell me about three different people?

[A]

Are you trying to tell me that the guy in the cowboy hat who's divorced, who is singing an acoustic guitar song in a very closed setting in an intimate one, is in some way, I don't know, having a midlife crisis?

[C]

I think. I think he's exact type of person. We need to trust the priorities of our economy too. I think these guys are great at allocating capital and I look forward to the future that they're all creating for us.

[B]

Ah, you know what sucks too. Now we're not going to Mars. We're going to the moon. We just needed to hear Kimball so close.

[C]

We just need to let him do a live set by that burning man on his acoustic. And we could be. We could have data centers on the moon. Right?

[B]

He's such a pathological lie. I mean, the light where he's like, mars would have taken 25 years, but we can do the moon in 10. Right? Okay. Yeah, I'm sure.

[A]

Sure, buddy. Give us more investment money any day now.

[B]

Here's an idea for a member feed of you two guys. Like when there's like. Like a problem with YouTube. Because usually, like, I look over and it's just like, everybody's just starting like.

[C]

Swipe left, swipe left.

[B]

And then all of a sudden, not me. It's like, oh, no, oh no, oh no. What's going on? I'm having an emotional breakdown. That's the panic when we have to work.

[D]

The annoyance.

[B]

It's like when you're working, things aren't automated. What's going on?

[C]

That's the thing. It's like when you. It reminds me of like working at McDonald's when we were like 30 minutes from close and a big bus would come through.

[D]

It's like you.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[C]

Making me out to get the. Get my hands dirty again.

[B]

All right, see you in the fun. Half. Left is best. Jamie and I may have a disagreement.

[A]

Yeah, you can't just say whatever you want about people just cause you're rich.

[B]

I have an absolute right to mock them on YouTube. He's up there buggy whipping like he's the boss. I am not your employer. You know, I'm tired of the negativity. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you. You're nervous. You're a little bit upset. You're riled up. Yeah, maybe you should rethink your defense of that. You fucking idiots. We're just going to get rid of you. All right, but dude, dude, dude, dude, dude, dude. You want to smoke this joint?

[D]

Yes.

[B]

Do you feel like you are a dinosaur? Exactly. I'm happy now. It's a win, win. It's a win, win, win.

[A]

Oh, hell yeah.

[B]

Now listen to me. 2, 3, 4, 5 times 8479-065014-57238, 56, 27, 1 half. 5, 8. 3.9 billion.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

He's the ultimate math nerd. Don't you see?

[F]

Why don't you get a real job instead of stealing vitriol and hatred? You left Wayne Lindbaugh.

[B]

Everybody's taking their dumb juice today.

[F]

Come on, Sammy.

[B]

Dance, dance, dance.

[C]

Ooh.

[B]

Grandpa. I had my first post coital scene with a woman. I'm hoping to add more moves to my repertoire. All I have is the dip and the swirl. Fine, we can double dip. Yes. This is a perfect moment.

[F]

No, Wait. What?

[B]

You make under a million dollars a year.

[F]

You're scum. You're nothing.

[B]

Excuse me? Fuck you, you fucking liberal elite. I think you belong in jail.

[F]

Thank you for saying that, Sam. You're a horrible, despicable person.

[B]

All right, gonna take a quick break. I want to take a moment to talk to some of the libertarians out there. Take whatever vehicle you want to drive to the library. What you're talking about is jibber jab.

[A]

Classic. I'm feeling more chill already.

[B]

Good. Donald Trump can kiss all of our asses. Hey, Sam.

[F]

Hey, Andy.

[B]

Are you guys ready to do some evil?

[F]

Hitler was such an idiot.

[D]

You think I might be a Nazi?

[A]

Agree.

[B]

No. Death to America. You. Yes.

[D]

Wow.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

That's weird. No way. Unbelievable. This guy's got a really good hook.

[F]

Wow.

[B]

No worries. I want to just flesh this out a little bit. I mean, look, it's a free speech issue. If you don't like me. Hey, hey, hey, hey.

[F]

Shut up.

[B]

Thank you for calling into the majority report.

[F]

Sam will be with you shortly.