And, This Is How Social Media Will Decide the Next Election With David Pakman

Summary

Podcast Summary: This is Gavin Newsom — "And, This Is How Social Media Will Decide the Next Election With David Pakman"

Host: Gavin Newsom
Guest: David Pakman
Date: July 23, 2026
Podcast: This Is Gavin Newsom (iHeartPodcasts)

---

OVERVIEW

Theme & Purpose:
Governor Gavin Newsom hosts political commentator David Pakman for a candid conversation about Pakman’s upcoming book, Pay Attention: How the Algorithms and the Media Wars Are Suppressing Truth and Rewiring Our Brain, and a sweeping look at how social media is reshaping American democracy. The dialogue explores the dangerous power of algorithms, the weaponization of emotion in political messaging, polarization, AI’s growing role, and prescriptive advice for both individuals and the Democratic Party in the algorithmic age.

---

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS & INSIGHTS

1. David Pakman’s Background & Journey into Political Commentary

• Pakman’s show started from zero revenue, growing organically through the 2000s political landscape ([05:53]).
• Early focus was always national politics, emerging during the Iraq War and pre-Obama era ([06:44]).
• The shift of the Republican Party from pre-Tea Party centrism to Trump-MAGA populism and the Democratic Party’s parallel with DSA is made ([07:19]).

2. Main Arguments of the Book: Dangerous Power of Algorithms

• Pakman emphasizes that algorithms, not deliberate human or editorial judgment, now determine what people see, especially on social media ([11:14]).
• “These algorithms are determining elections to a great degree. The elections determine who gets power, who has power determines policy.” — Pakman ([11:14])
• The coming AI flood: synthetic influencers are about to simulate content creators at scale, posing a danger to truth and real connection ([12:25], [13:23]).

3. Emotion and Virality Outweigh Truth

• Algorithmic content is driven by emotional salience, not accuracy.
  • Example: During the pandemic, anti-science or outrage-driven vaccine claims outperformed nuanced, factual messaging ([14:56], [15:00]).
• “What does well on Facebook is what starts to spread quickly. Forget about truth for a second.” — Pakman ([15:00])

4. Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Information Overload

• Social media’s abundance leads not to censorship but to an overwhelming and fragmented information environment ([17:26]).
• Algorithms ensure that even family members may inhabit totally separate realities ([18:45]).
  • “It explains so many things...you’re like, what the hell's happened, Uncle Joe?” — Newsom ([19:04])

5. Podcasting as an Antidote

• Pakman suggests long-form podcasts are less susceptible to algorithmic distortion, offering a healthier media diet ([19:16], [20:00]).

6. Content Creation & the Marketplace of Attention

• Pakman’s “confessional”: Every creator faces a negotiation between creating emotionally engaging content and not crossing into dishonesty for virality ([23:15], [24:07]).
• Even innocuous spaces (e.g., parenting groups) can become radicalized through algorithmic recommendation systems ([21:55]).

7. Performance, Authenticity, and Online Persona

• The attention economy reshapes everyone—politicians, creators, and even ordinary users—making us all performers seeking reaction ([25:41], [27:33]).
• Online negativity vs. in-person civility: “98% of my interactions online with people are very negative. 98% and 100% of my in-person interactions are positive or neutral.” — Pakman ([28:25])

8. Virality Case Studies and Right vs. Left Messaging Strength

• Right-wing arguments often distill fear, blame, and “villains”—simplified for algorithmic amplification ([32:43]).
  • “The right plays on fear, identifies villains more quickly and more effectively than the left.” — Pakman ([32:43])
• Populist rhetoric from both Bernie Sanders and Tucker Carlson identifies similar “elites” as enemy but proposes very different solutions ([35:23]).

9. AI’s Disruptive Role: Deepfakes, Synthetic Voices, and the Loss of Reality

• Pakman describes his hands-on experiments with AI-generated avatars and voices, noting how easily content can now be faked ([44:54]).
• Predicts people may seek out real connection as a reaction to synthetic content ([45:08]).

10. Prescriptions for Resilience: Friction and Literacy

• Deliberate “friction” (resisting algorithmically-driven compulsive use) is recommended as a personal defense ([46:59]).
• Media literacy is critical—children and adults must learn to recognize algorithmic manipulation ([85:00]).

11. Democratic Party (and the Broader Left) Strategic Challenges

• The Democratic Party is being outplayed on emotional, viral messaging; Newsom and Pakman discuss the need for greater digital adaptability ([58:05], [64:12]).
• The dangers (and occasional strengths) of left-wing (e.g., DSA) populism, rigid litmus tests, and the balancing act between incrementalism and radical change ([69:41], [73:20]).
• Policy and communication must blend lived experience with overarching aggregate accomplishments, lest the public feels unheard ([66:04]).

12. Regulation, Individual Agency, and Societal Implications

• Regulation alone can’t save us, says Pakman. Instead, the U.S. must maximize technological good and minimize harm, lean into regulation where plausible, but above all, educate the public about the dynamics at play ([83:00], [85:00]).

13. Polarization, Toxicity, and the Loss of Civil Disagreement

• Politics has invaded every corner of life; we must reclaim the ability to disagree without ending relationships ([87:29]).
• The online world dangerously amplifies division, leading people to conflate politics with personal identity ([88:16]).

---

NOTABLE QUOTES & MEMORABLE MOMENTS (with Timestamps)

• “These algorithms are determining elections to a great degree. The elections determine who gets power, who has power determines policy.” — Pakman ([11:14])
• “By the time it was determined that this image of Trump with the walker isn't real, it kind of didn't matter because it accomplished a bunch of different things for different people.” — Pakman ([14:01])
• “What does well on Facebook is what starts to spread quickly. Forget about truth for a second.” — Pakman ([15:00])
• “There’s a feeling...that governments move too slowly...People are in crisis now. What is available to me?” — Pakman ([55:26])
• “The right plays on fear, identifies villains more quickly and more effectively than the left.” — Pakman ([32:43])
• “Podcasts are not really in this algorithmic space yet...so I still think long-form podcasts are one of the best spots to kind of exit.” — Pakman ([19:16])
• “[Online,] 98%...are very negative. And 100% of my in-person interactions...are positive or neutral.” — Pakman ([28:25])
• “It’s structural… their [right-wing] arguments just work better in these platforms.” — Pakman ([33:16])
• “Identity politics works a hell of a lot better than policy-laden...five point plans.” — Newsom ([66:48])
• “If people don’t feel things are good and you’re telling them they are, of course they’re not going to think you’ll make anything better.” — Pakman ([64:15])
• “I don’t believe the immediate solution is going to come from regulation… what society needs to do is figure out the right type and level of regulation of new technologies and how to maximize the good while limiting the bad.” — Pakman ([83:00])

---

IMPORTANT SEGMENTS & TIMESTAMPS

• [06:44] – Pakman’s show origins, evolution of U.S. political discourse
• [10:36] – On being part of the algorithmic “arms race”
• [14:01] – The viral Trump deepfake: effect trumps fact
• [17:26] – Overload and fragmentation vs. censorship
• [19:16] – Podcasts as healthy media
• [23:08] – The creator’s “negotiation” with algorithmic incentives
• [25:41] – The performer in everyone: online vs. offline self
• [32:43] – Why right-wing arguments win on social media
• [44:54] – AI avatars and Pakman’s experiments: the deepfake future
• [46:59] – Practicing “friction,” or resisting algorithmic impulses
• [64:15] – Lessons for Democrats: feelings over numbers
• [83:00] – Pakman’s three-pronged prescription: education, adaption, regulation
• [87:29] – How politics invaded every aspect of life
• [90:10] – Debates and the illusion of engagement via viral clips

---

CONCLUSION & MAIN TAKEAWAYS

What Listeners Should Pay Attention To

1. Understand Algorithmic Manipulation

   • Social media doesn’t reflect reality or truth—it amplifies what is most emotional and viral.

2. Digital Literacy Is Vital

   • Learn how news and narratives are shaped, and teach this to the next generation.

3. Be Deliberate in Media Consumption

   • Seek out long-form content and podcasts for deeper, less-manipulated discussion.

4. The Left Must Get Better at Messaging

   • Emotional resonance, not just facts, drives engagement in today's media environment.

5. Regulatory Fixes Are Limited, but Necessary

   • Regulation can temper the worst of algorithmic and AI excesses, but education and individual practice are key.

6. Don't Lose Civil Society

   • Reclaim the ability to disagree respectfully; avoid the toxicity of online personalization.

---

FINAL PRESCRIPTIONS FROM DAVID PAKMAN

1. Individual Level:
   Be aware of how platforms influence your perspective and emotional state; teach children media literacy ([86:41]).

2. Political Level:
   The left must learn to wield social media and algorithmic messaging more effectively—don’t cede ground or claim a moral high ground by refusing to play the game ([85:22]).

3. Systemic Level:
   Society must regulate wisely, maximizing tech’s good, limiting the bad. This is a collective challenge, not simply a legislative one ([83:00]).

---

This episode is an exploration—not just of the problems—but of the complex, often paradoxical solutions for our post-truth, social media-shaped era. If you want to understand how your feeds shape your world and what it will take to reclaim agency for individuals and society, this conversation is a must-listen.

Transcript

[Capella University Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[CarMax Advertiser]

Guaranteed Human do you want to find a stress free way to buy your next car? Start at CarMax and shop your way. If you want to browse with confidence, get pre qualified online with no impact on your credit score and shop cars within your budget. From luxury cars to family rides, CarMax has options for almost every price range, including more than 25,000 cars priced under $25,000. So hey, want to get started? Just head to CarMax.com for details and get pre qualified today. Want to drive CarMax?

[HomeServe Advertiser]

A burst pipe? A dead water heater? The AC calling it quits? Who do you call? HomeServ is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com, for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal Price void in Florida Bite into a

[HeroBread Advertiser]

stacked sandwich made with herobread and the only thing you'll think is delicious. You won't think it has up to 19 grams protein, 11 to 32 grams of fiber, or just 0 to 5 grams net carbs.

[Capella University Announcer]

But it does.

[HeroBread Advertiser]

HeroBread. No compromises, just loaves, buns, tortillas, bagels and noodles packed with flavor. Right now, get 10% off at Hiro Co with code IHEART. That's H E R code IHEART. All figures per serving of HeroBred. See Nutrition Facts on Hero Co.

[Tony Ayo]

This is Tony Ayo from the Real Report with Tony Ayo and Uncle Murder. You ever notice how everything keeps going up? Rent streaming, even extra Sosa at your favorite burrito spot? But with Boost Mobile, you don't have to play the Willis Go up Soon game. Boost Mobile offers an unlimited talk, text and data plan at a price that'll never go up. It's the same price you'll pay for life. Switch now for unlimited wireless at a price that'll never go up. Only at boost mobile. After 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan.

[David Pakman]

The right plays on fear, identifies villains more quickly and more effectively than the left. If you go to Bernie and to Tucker Carlson, they will give you a similar diagnosis up front. We need better models of masculinity. And where I think the left has sort of failed is the narrative of toxic masculinity. Is bad as a primary message. I think it pushes people away.

[Gavin Newsom]

This is Gavin Newsome and this is David Packman. We got to just start right there. Mr. Argentina.

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Gavin Newsom]

Born y in Argentina.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, have you recovered? Are you good? Is you all right?

[David Pakman]

You know, second place is pretty good.

[Gavin Newsom]

No, no, it's not.

[David Pakman]

But you always want to be first.

[Gavin Newsom]

Oh, God, you sound like politician.

[David Pakman]

It is completely devastating when they lose them.

[Mint Mobile Announcer]

That's.

[David Pakman]

That's the truth. And honestly, it's been, it's been really tough with. There's been this three week campaign of there's no worse country than Argentina. Now Argentina is the most racist. Argentina is both Nazi and in bed with bb like it's anything that can be thrown at it. And that part is really a bummer because Argentina does not get attention for anything globally usually. And it's like Melee is friends with Trump and Argentinians are horrible people.

[Gavin Newsom]

So you had a horrible week.

[David Pakman]

It was, it was.

[Gavin Newsom]

You had to suffer through all of that.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

And sit there and watch Messi as he's just absorbing and sobbing.

[David Pakman]

At least we didn't lose to England is the takeaway.

[Gavin Newsom]

Is that it?

[David Pakman]

Well, historically, because that's a big matchup in rivalry.

[Gavin Newsom]

But still angry with them putting out those, you know, I mean, just the flags and everything.

[David Pakman]

I, I am not into how politicized it was, and I think it was also a little hypocritical. Like as an example, just to point out one hypocrisy. We're against colonizers and we're against colonizers and we're rooting for Spain against Argentina. The colonizer of Argentina. Like, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[HeroBread Advertiser]

Wow.

[Gavin Newsom]

So you really are, you know, you. This is nature, nurture.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

You're defending your. Your home country back in the day. I respect that, man.

[David Pakman]

But also I defended that the United States would have been much better off winning without Trump's intervention if they could have done it, because it just devalues it.

[Gavin Newsom]

But you thought it was. I mean, you liked seeing Trump there at the celebration. Right. When it nice to see that our president didn't make you proud.

[David Pakman]

I like that. Here's the. What I loved about the Spanish players is they didn't give whatever about Trump being there and they were doing their celebration and they were looking at him like, who's this guy? What's he doing here? And then they cropped them out of the celebration pictures, which is beautiful.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, even FIFA cropped him out, which is. Jeez, I Mean, that was. I mean, in this Spain actually like, literally didn't even crop them out. They literally AI eliminate photo.

[David Pakman]

How could you do that to the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize?

[Gavin Newsom]

You know, I appreciate your sensitivity. So you're always looking in the world from a different set of eyes, which I respect. But so just, you know, by the way, just to rub it in a little bit further, the. My son was sitting there, he's 10 years old. It's the sweetest thing. I can only admit if he felt this way, I can't even imagine how are the Argentine fans felt, but, I mean, he started sobbing after they lost and his sisters were making fun of her. And then everyone realized how serious it was. It was like 20 minutes of just intense, emotional, you know, just release.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

So, you know, it is a big deal.

[Ryan Reynolds]

It's a big thing.

[David Pakman]

And what's interesting about that is my oldest daughter is 4, and she was asking, when can we get back to Paw Patrol? But we watched with some slightly older kids who were crying, and it was. It was tough. It was tough to see that.

[Gavin Newsom]

So when did you know that you could make a career out of, you know, using your voice?

[David Pakman]

It's an interesting question. I mean, the first five years of this show, it made zero. And I don't mean like it didn't make a lot of money. It made. There was just no revenue. And so I think, like, in some sense, getting from $0 to $1 is the spark where it's like, okay, it can make a dollar. Can this be something? And so I think that was. That was a big deal. And then when I hired my first real employee and was able to say, okay, now, now a business, I think that was. That was probably the beginning of thinking there might be something to this. And I was in grad school at the time, doing an mba, and my. My friends were becoming financial advisors and bankers and going into private equity, which seemed very cushy and lucrative in the immediate. But the long term of that just didn't appeal to me. So I said, I'll give myself a year to really see if this can become.

[Gavin Newsom]

And was it always. I mean, was it a political show from the outset?

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Gavin Newsom]

And it was commenting about local city council. It was always planning commission, always national. Interesting. Paint the picture. 21 years ago, what were the big issues you remember?

[David Pakman]

Well, 21 years ago, it was in the immediate pre Obama era. So it was the Iraq war. It was, what is it going to look like when George W. Bush is done with his second term? What is the direction Republicans are going to go. This was pre Tea Party. I mean this is, it's like almost ancient history to people who are now 25 and voted for the first same time.

[Gavin Newsom]

It has a lot of echoes of today.

[Mint Mobile Announcer]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

On the other side, not the Tea Party, but DSA for the Democrats. Democrats in the wilderness. What happens at the second term? Oh boy, we're going right into it.

[David Pakman]

I mean, you know, I did a commentary that's on my show today which is making this exact analogy, which is there was a time before Trump in the Tea Party era where the establishment Republican Party kind of said these people are never going to influence the party, they're never going to guide the direction. And the Tea Party really led to MAGA and to Trumpism.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

And I, you know, I've been critical of the kind of what I call do nothing centrism, which is like let's find a couple of things on the fringes to say we will do and end up doing nothing. I don't think that's good for the Democratic Party.

[Gavin Newsom]

Right.

[David Pakman]

But also what I'm seeing, I was just looking at the DSA platform, which it has moral motivations that I respect, but a lot of completely unrealistic stuff that if it becomes litmus test worthy is going to be a real problem for Democrats. And so I don't know when the right time is to have that conversation. I tend to think it's as soon as you realize something's up, it's a good time to do it without saying, well, if we talk about it now, how will it affect the midterms? I think now is when it has to be talked about. I think social democracy is the path forward, which is a sort of Northern European model.

[Gavin Newsom]

So we can go, I'm going to get back to the dsa. It's interesting and we could talk some about those litmus test issues because I think they're important to illuminate because not everybody is familiar.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

With some of those platform issues as it relates to private prisons. A number of issues that do deserve a little bit more attention beyond the tonality of sort of this anti establishment and this desire to see more aggressive and clear leadership, etc. But let's, let's jump into your book because you've been writing books for some time now. You've been at this and I think it was wanted to paint a picture. You've been also at this art form of sorts for 21 years because so you don't come to this issue that you bring and highlight in the book from a perspective as an outsider. I mean, you've lived and breathed this in a pretty profound bottom up way. You've been at this as well, writing books for some time. You wrote a book in 2025 about the right wing and the echo chambers. You've written a lot of children's books, which is interesting. You mentioned your, your Child's Paw patrol affinity, which I respect. But you've also written a number of children's book, but this one, Pay Attention how the Algorithms and the Media wars are Suppressing Truth and Re Wiring Our Brain is your latest work is available in September. So I love that we've had a chance to talk about the book before it's even out there. And full disclosure, read it, love it. And I really want to dive deep into it because we've talked so much. All of us say we collectively talk about this issue and around this issue. We understand aspects of it, tenants of it, trend lines of it, but not, I think, how pervasive and profound the issue is around algorithms, around what media is all about. And so let's talk a little bit about this book and start with the obvious. And that is you start in the prologue about this arms race and you're the first to acknowledge you're participating in this arms race. Right. And so you, Sir David, are you not the problem?

[David Pakman]

Well, listen, I think everybody is in a sense contributing to this. And also I think the best thing we can do is identify the systems that are at play and then figure out what are our choices. One choice is we just kind of abandon it. If we abandon it, we cede ground to those with terrible ideas to completely dominate. I don't think that's a good idea. The second option is we figure out how to play the game while not kind of losing our soul to deception, lies and misinformation. That's where I kind of tend to land, which is we could ignore these platforms and algorithms, but then the worst people just take them over.

[Gavin Newsom]

Right.

[David Pakman]

And I don't think that that makes sense if we understand that these algorithms are determining elections to a great degree. The elections determine who gets power, who has power determines policy. So when I talk to people who go, yeah, I spend a lot of time on social media, but I'm not into politics, I don't vote. I talk to them about what do you care about? Almost always they will list issues, things affecting them that relate to who is in power. And then we can explain, well, you know, you should be engaged in that because the fact that you don't care about politics, you're just struggling to make a living. That's housing affordability, groceries, energy prices and jobs. All of that stuff is determined by municipal, state and federal elections and who you vote for. And then it sort of starts to click. Once we get there, it's okay, why are you hearing about what you're hearing about and someone else is hearing about something totally different? It's these algorithms, it's these platforms.

[Gavin Newsom]

And so the, the big why, why now? Why this book? I mean, what, I mean, it's, I mean, in some ways what you just stated is, is, is a, a partial response. But why the big call out? I mean, pay attention. You know, it's, it's an expressive frame. Wake up.

[HomeServe Advertiser]

Up.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, maybe another frame.

[David Pakman]

It's two things. It's one, at this point, the elections more than ever being affected by these platforms, and 20, 28, probably more than any before, that is going to be highly determined by the narratives that these algorithms determine are the most emotionally salient and put in front of people. That's number one. And number two, because of the AI aspect of it, the whole last part of the book is about how I will change this. The technology is essentially there to create synthetic influencers. I have to sit in front of a camera, and if I want to do an hour of content, I've got to record an hour of video. With technology, you can dial up a thousand of me. Some might be male, some might be female, different identities, whatever will appeal most directly to people and spin them up with nothing other than compute power and a thousand. What I'm doing, tailored to the algorithms of people. It's 60, 70% of the way there as we're recording this. Very, very dangerous.

[Gavin Newsom]

And you've run your own experience. We'll get to that. You write about it in the book, but you start, the introduction begins with AI in some respects. And it's, you know, that sort of iconic image of Donald Trump with the walker. And you make the point that he did this right after he went after states like California, California being the first state in the country to go after large language model, frontier models and do transparency. Language legislation relates to regulating AI. He didn't like that. David Sacks, his AIs are, didn't like that. They tried to preempt the state of California and stop other states. All the while we saw a viral video of Donald Trump in a walker.

[David Pakman]

That's right. And the point I make in the book is that by the time it was determined that this image of Trump with the walker isn't real. It kind of didn't matter because it accomplished a bunch of different things for different people. Not all positive for. Not all positive or negative for Donald Trump. But the point was, and it kind of returns at the, at the end of the book when we talk about the coming AI flood, what's going to matter is the emotional reaction that this stuff triggers in people. The truth of it is almost irrelevant. And I even talk about talking with creators who have published accidentally, as far as I know, AI stuff. And I've said to them, listen, you know, that, that, that actually wasn't real. Like, I know it was an honest mistake. That wasn't real. And they go, yeah, but it worked. It got clicks, it got views. And whether I agree with the message or not, I think that is dangerous.

[Gavin Newsom]

And that goes to the beginning of the book. I mean, you open a chapter one, it's about attention. I mean, period, full stop.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, there's the idea, I think a lot of people have that the likes and how much time you spend on stuff on these platforms will naturally surface what's true and what's right. And that is not the way these platforms are designed. And sometimes I think when we attribute political bias to, like, people want to talk about what are Mark Zuckerberg's personal politics, for example. Interesting question. That's not really what determines what does well on Facebook. What does well on Facebook is what starts to spread quickly. And you can think about, I mean, forget about truth for a second, just to think about vaccines. The COVID vaccine, for example. There's two competing claims. One is these vaccines are killing millions of people and the government has covered it up. That's claim number one. Claim number two is, hey, these vaccines are really safe. Not as effective at preventing the spread of COVID as we had hoped. Pretty good at keeping you out of the hospital or which one, Forget about what's true. Which one is going to get grandma and a college student and whoever else to like it, comment and share it? Of course it's the emotionally salient one. That's what these platforms are optimized for.

[Gavin Newsom]

So that goes to this, you know, then as the book goes on, in the next chapter you talk about, you know, we used to have editors. We used to be able to actually sort of, we would fix that by making sure we fixed to some North Star of truth so we can build trust now no longer. That's the case.

[David Pakman]

Right. There is. There are a lot of really interesting books I read in writing this, including, for example, about the New York Times investigation into Harvey Weinstein and one of the things that comes up, or Ronan Farrow's book about the same topic. A lot of these investigative journalism books, and they all tell stories of editors and executives and all of these layers that have different incentives to slow down a lot of these investigations. And then you find out there's personal stuff at play and there's financial incentives, all these different things. That's a problem with that legacy system. One of the great things about the digital platforms is you kind of get around that or you eliminate that. The other problem with it is that with no fact checking and with no layers of let's make sure we feel good about this stuff will go ultraviral simply because it's emotionally salient. So I don't tell this. The book is not about bad legacy media. It's. There's pros and cons to these systems. The democratization of the news and politics space has been phenomenal. On the other hand, we also have this problem of truth versus virality to contend with.

[Gavin Newsom]

And you, I mean, it's interesting. You frame and I think it's important we talk about censorship. It's been talked about. Obviously, Trump talked ad nauseam about censorship. But your issue is, and I think you just hit on it, is abundance. This is overwhelming. I mean, just the narratives coming from every single direction. How you suss out that truth from trust.

[David Pakman]

That's right. And not only that, not everybody is given all of the same material from which they can then say, here's the side I come down on. Based on your interests and online behavior, you and I and everybody else can have a completely different sense of what's going on out in the world. A great example is with the Trump medical stuff that was, you know, when he went for his third physical in 13 months, there were two completely competing narratives. There was one side of the space that was saying the disclosures have never been fulsome and complete. There are inconsistencies here. We don't believe the height and weight that's on these documents. There's stuff missing. He talked about an MRI for two months. It turns out it was a CAT scan. That's one side. There are millions of people who vote who were not even exposed to that. It wasn't that they said, oh, I don't believe that, or I don't like that. Their algorithms don't even show them that content. They don't even get the opportunity to say, do I want to examine this critically? How do you fix that? That's a major problem.

[Gavin Newsom]

And you make that point in, in the book that the algorithm then becomes the boss.

[David Pakman]

That's right.

[Gavin Newsom]

And I mean, it's. And I think, I mean, to me there's nothing. It explains so many things in so many ways of our interactions we have and, you know, fill in the blank with, you know, Uncle Joe or something at the Thanksgiving dinner table, and you're like, what the hell's happened, Uncle Joe?

[David Pakman]

Yep.

[Gavin Newsom]

And in many respects it's completely understandable what's happened to him.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

He's sincere about his beliefs because he doesn't see the other side. And by the way, maybe we don't. You don't either.

[David Pakman]

No. I advise my audience, if you want to still be informed and still sort of participate in the space of online news and politics, but you want to kind of take control back a little bit, one of the things you can do is seek out audio podcasts, or they might be video as well, but long form podcasts that you have identified as these are good faith people trying to explore what is really true. Podcasts are not really in this algorithmic space. Yet people mostly find podcasts not because of swiping and how long and where they're looking and that sort of thing. They're finding them through interpersonal recommendations, hearing about them on other podcasts, etc. So I still think long form podcasts are one of the best spots to kind of exit.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, most of the podcasts you find through viral clips, clips of the

[David Pakman]

podcast that are built.

[Gavin Newsom]

It's true. In this very frame that we're talking about.

[David Pakman]

It's absolutely true. The other thing that I think is good is after you've come to identify some of these mechanisms, you can have a sort of self check thing where you say, okay, I'm seeing a lot of content that is telling me X. Is that really all there is to this? So. So being aware of the fact that this is taking place can be a really good kind of inoculation against it. And then you can go and say, hey, let's look at some other ideas about this. There was a point to go back to the COVID vaccine stuff, where your algorithm would basically take you to anti Foushee stuff. He's a criminal. Then it takes you to some long form podcasters who would invite. Sometimes they were medical doctors, Sometimes they had PhDs, but they were sort of presented as if they were experts in medicine. And you would go down this very dark path. At some point you could have said if you had been armed with the knowledge that you're being taken down this garden path, I'm going to now go back and say, let's look at some randomized controlled trials. Let's look at what the people at actual medical institutions are saying. So the point is, knowing that you are pushed, push, pushed further and further is a really good starting point to say, I'm going to go and seek out something else. A lot of times this is really innocent. I tell the story in the book of. For example, it could be people looking for workout content or parenting advice. This. These are like two, you'd think parenting advice, workout content. These are radioactive spaces, mom groups on Facebook where you go and say, hey, I'm looking for some toys that are whatever. And next thing you know, you're being fed stuff about alternative parenting techniques. Do you know what they're teaching your kids in school, by the way? Did you know public schools require vaccinations? It takes you through a dark path. You just want a toy recommendation. Yeah, this is. This can happen within weeks to people.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, it could happen. I mean, I happen. This is the origin story of this podcast in so many respects. I mean, during COVID Son's on his. He wasn't on any devices that I was aware of outside. His advice that came from school, which allowed him to access YouTube. And he's checking on fitness and he's checking on, you know, some of the things that, you know, a lot of these young boys are into. And all of a sudden he's talking to me about Andrew Tate.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

Rogan was a passing phase of sorts. It was more Charlie Kirk and then different conversations, to your point, and within. And it was his entire friend group. I mean, and I don't care. There was an experiment I read the other day where they provided tablets for boys around the globe. And it was, I think, within 22 minutes, they all had formulated the same construct in terms of the algorithms that found them, that sought them out. You're not searching for information. They're seeking you out and targeting you at a level. So that's. I mean, how. And this is the challenge. And you. You write about, you know, you had a confessional chapter in there about the machine, it being inside the machine. So sort of work us through that. What was your own confession in this context? Well, and how do we start to work ourselves out of this?

[David Pakman]

I mean, there's no way. Listen, anybody who makes content is not doing it for it to be seen by as few people as possible.

[Gavin Newsom]

That's the challenge.

[David Pakman]

You're making it for lousy incentives here, incentive structures. And so what I try to be aware of is I'm not going to deliberately choose stuff that will bomb and that nobody's interested in. That mean that seems counterproductive. But the way I kind of see it is I'm going to package the content as best as my brain will. Let me figure out how to maximize eyeballs while being honest, so that then I can also give people the conversation with the PhD nutritionist I had on last week who explains the truth about the Maha stuff and the food dies and gmo. And so I'm sort of using the techniques to buy myself the bandwidth for the audience to then also accept the stuff that's less likely to go giga viral but is valuable. And I think it's important. So it's sort of a. It's a negotiation with yourself in a sense that you're having.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

Right.

[David Pakman]

I could package this stuff in the most boring way possible and never build an audience. Might it feel good? Maybe on some level. But then I've built no capital that I can then spend on important ideas that I want to put in front of my audience, if that makes sense. So I think it's a negotiation. Every creator has. And I talk in the book about some who go too far and they've got titles like Trump Taken out on a Stretcher. And then you watch the video, it's like, Trump was not taken out on a stretcher. That's very far beyond the pale. But editorializing about what I see as Caroline Lovett's failings as a press secretary and making that as engaging as possible, I think that that's. That's. You have to play that game. And again, in the audio podcast, there's none of that stuff. It's 70 minutes of me talking. There's none of this editorialized titles or anything because you don't need it.

[Gavin Newsom]

And you talk about colors as well. It was interesting. Just. I mean, I. I never looked at the shades in the context of how that's able to move the needle as well.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, it's. Intuitively, the specifics change over time. But what we figured out intuitively, and most of these algorithms are black boxes, so you never get hard data about it intuitively. More sort of saturated colors and bright colors. Colors about alarm and attention do better than muted colors. This. It's such a funny thing. Because of Donald Trump's orange.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, the orange you write about.

[David Pakman]

It naturally lends itself to YouTube thumbnails that do. Well, I mean, it's a. It's a crazy thing. There are creators who will dial up the saturation on Trump's orange. I don't do that. It's an interesting technique, though, because it just naturally lends itself to attracting the eye in the.

[Gavin Newsom]

In attracting the eyes sort of begs in the book. You know, you write in another chapter about how it also changes you. We're being watched 24 7. We're all become performers. I mean, particularly these streamers.

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Gavin Newsom]

That are quite literally 24 7. Their entire life is online. But you make the point. Politicians, you know, right now, I mean, we're performing. It's changing us.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

In every way, shape or form. Our physiological changes. Not just what we say, it's how we say it. Yeah. Where we say it.

[David Pakman]

I hear from a lot of congressional and Senate staffers who want to figure out how do I make my principles, content, speeches, et cetera, more interesting for them to get covered. And, you know, there's 100 senators and 435 in the House. They're all competing for attention. They all kind of want to be in that top 5% of who is is brought on shows to comment on stuff. And I don't necessarily have the answers for them. It's not my area of expertise. But they understand that there's more than just what they are saying. It's the packaging, it's the appearance, it's the emotionality and the tone. So this goes way beyond content creators and streamers.

[Gavin Newsom]

And what, I mean, what's your. What do you make of that? I mean, obviously, you know, we can, you know, I get some bunch of Kennedy memorabilia up here. My favorite with his hand on the desk, like exacerbated. But, you know, the modern era of television is where relates to, you know, how debates were won and how people began to perform a little bit. We've seen the performance changes as it relates to even city council meetings.

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Gavin Newsom]

When they're televised and when they're not.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

And how quite literally changes people changes the tone and tenor. It changes how what people say, how they. Again, how they say it and how long they say it, whether or not they look engaged or not engaged. You know, what do you make of that in the context of what this is doing to all of us, to me, to you, to all of us listening.

[David Pakman]

Everybody who is on these platforms is affected by this. Even if you say, I'm not a creator, I'm not a streamer, I'm not an elected official, if you are participating in comment threads, if you're posting vacation pictures, if you're doing the thing at the restaurant where you take pictures of your food and then everybody is sort of staging some version of their life and then gauging the reaction that it gets. So it's affecting everybody. And there are people who aren't professional content creators who just get bummed out when, you know, teenagers who post stuff and their friends don't like it or they get attacked or all, all of this stuff. So everybody's in this space if you're on the platform.

[CarMax Advertiser]

Yeah, but.

[Gavin Newsom]

So what happened? But aren't we all celebrating the authentic? Isn't that what we're all after?

[David Pakman]

So that's a really, that's a really interesting word because you kind of, if you're in this 247 like a lot of people are, you start to lose touch with what is the authentic self.

[Capella University Announcer]

Right?

[David Pakman]

And at this point, you may be evaluating the prior performance and tweaking that. And I don't know what that does to interpersonal relationship. I mean, I think one of the things that is definitely true is 98% of my interactions online with people are very negative. And 198, 98% and 100% of my in person interactions with people are positive or neutral. And so the disinhibiting nature of these interpersonal means, where you see people, you kind of think you know them, you're willing to say. Sometimes I'll get emails from people who say horrible, horrible things to me. And I rarely write back, but sometimes I'll just, as a test, I'll go, do you think you would say this to me if we met in person? And oftentimes it completely deflates the anger and people go after a day. I was really upset with what you said. The truth is, I know you're just saying what you believe. I disagree with it. We'd probably have a good conversation in person, which is a really interesting switch.

[Gavin Newsom]

Looking back, I'm curious, as you said, do you remember the first thing that just blew up first? I mean, something that you said or did or how you said it, how you did it, how you thumbed it, whatever it might have been that we're like, whoa, this thing, like, what do you. What was it?

[David Pakman]

I do. There was a story where a woman did a test, a black woman was not getting job interviews, and she did a test where she started submitting her resume with what you would call a white sounding name instead of what would be considered a black sounding name. Same exact resume. And she suddenly got a ton of callbacks. And I thought it was Interesting. I didn't think that that story would perform well, but I thought that it was fascinating as a social commentary. And so I talked about it and it just went absolutely crazy. And it did a couple things. Number one, it showed me the power of some of these platforms as they grew that in overnight they could generate tens of millions of views, which is crazy. But number two, it also showed me there was something very emotionally salient about that individual's experience. The story of one particular woman rather than a large group of people. That particular woman's story really resonated with people and maybe got them thinking about their own experiences. And it kind of surprised me how well it did.

[Gavin Newsom]

And the flip side of that, things that just don't work. I mean, you talked about the complexity, nuance, seen both sides, storytelling, policy versus emotion. I mean, what, what, what, what, what are the things that continue to just hit your head and just. I do not understand why this is not breaking through.

[David Pakman]

Well, this may be not understand is interesting when I do long form discussions with economists. For example, I'm doing one next week on wealth taxes and we'll talk about the proposal here and then the federal one that you've talked about, what Europe has done, where it's worked, where it hasn't. If we really want to be serious about collecting more money from the wealthiest, this is like the most important conversation that we could be having.

[Gavin Newsom]

Thank you.

[David Pakman]

It's not going to do that well on YouTube. The clips on TikTok are probably not

[Gavin Newsom]

going to do that well. I think I haven't even done it.

[David Pakman]

No, but my, my long form audience will like it. So this is the sort of thing where people will take the time to email me and say that was a really great discussion. Now I understand why wealth taxes will or won't work or how they need to be structured. It doesn't have the, it hits you emotional salience of Donald Trump being cropped out of the World cup picture. Right. It doesn't have that. It's 30, 40 minutes with an economist on dense stuff. I wish that that did better. I wish it did better. It's extraordinarily important.

[Gavin Newsom]

The right wing tends to do better in this medium. You write about Rush Limbaugh. I had my second guest on this podcast when I launched. It was Michael Savage who, you know was competing with Limbaugh back in the day. He was a guy who created the frame, language, borders and culture, was unbelievably effective in that frame and built a huge audience and still has a career that continues to this day, they're more naturally successful in this space. You write that, you write about that. Why?

[David Pakman]

Two parts to it. One, the right plays on fear, identifies villains more quickly and more effectively than the left. That's number one.

[Gavin Newsom]

Why, though?

[David Pakman]

Why? Well, I mean, this, this gets into deeper stuff. There are some studies that show that the sort of brain realities of the right are more reactive to fear and disgust than the left. It gets into deeper stuff, but one thing is they identify scapegoats and villains really quickly. Some of their arguments are just better in these platforms. Like to go to some other examples that I talk about in the book. If I just go, listen, it's your money. Taxes are theft and we need tax relief. That's a really tidy and efficient argument, right? And if I come in as the guy on the left, I don't go, no, taxes are awesome and raise them as high as possible. I have to go, listen, if you want to live in a society with basic infrastructure, the only way to do it is through the collection of taxes by the government. Is it sort of coercive? Well, in a sense, but at the same. Which one of those is going to do better? Of course it's, they're stealing your money, it's yours, you should get to keep it. That's structural to their argument. On abortion, there's a similar analogy. Murdering babies is bad. Abortions murder. That's it. We're not doing it. And we on the left, at least, I've never met anyone who goes, abortion's awesome. Let's look to increase the number of abortions. We say there's a lot of competing factors here and we have to talk about bodily autonomy. And it's not going to translate as. It never translated as well to the rage of AM radio and it doesn't work as well in the algorithms. It's structural. Now. I don't think it's inevitable that the left has to lose on it. We have to rethink the entry point into a lot of these issues. For example, if you work, of course, you should be able to afford a dignified life in the place where you are working, not 70 miles away, where it's cheaper, that has a little more emotional salience. And then we can back in, like, what policies are we talking about, housing and wages, etc. It's for people who are better on the language stuff than me to kind of figure out. But I don't think it's a lost cause. I just don't think we're winning with it right now.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, do you sense that, you know, Bernie Sanders has been effective? I mean, just calling out the villain, I mean, is that, you know, being able to just sort of distill the essence of it's us versus them. It's not left and right. It's, you know, what Torico others are saying. It's, it's the top versus the bottom, people on top. The system's rigged. Does that have the emotional segments that actually can compete in that space?

[David Pakman]

I think it does. What we're kind of getting into now is the populist rhetoric. And the thing I talk about about populist rhetoric is that it' definitive set of policy proposals. And the danger with the populist rhetoric is that if you go to Bernie and to Tucker Carlson, they will give you a similar diagnosis upfront, which is there are these empowered elites that are in it for themselves. Like, you'll get a pretty similar analysis.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

You then go to what are the solutions? And Tucker's solutions are pretty ugly in a lot of ways. Whereas of course, Bernie's are ones that I would agree with more. I think the risk of adopting the populist rhetoric, which Trump has also adopted.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

Is that then the solution may be one that's actually completely antithetical to the policy and values that, that we support. But on the rhetoric, I think Bernie's been, been very good.

[Gavin Newsom]

You know, it's interesting just, you know, the issue of, of, of selling fear and anxiety, you know, and issues like crime and immigration and, and, and then being able to get away with selling common indifference on things like climate change and the erosion of our, our hard earned national rights is, I mean, to me, at the core of this dialectic and the challenges we're having as a party and their ability to shape shift, their ability to control the narrative, their ability to communicate with, taking advantage of so many things you highlight in the book or you know, illuminating the book as it relates to the algorithms, but also just this machine they've built and not just in one platform, across the spectrum of platforms. But you talked about Tucker in the context of these platforms that are out there and people and personalities in these platforms that are asserting themselves with this notion of independence. And you challenge that a little bit.

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Gavin Newsom]

That no one is truly independent in this space.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

There's obvious ways and there's less obvious ways. First of all, a lot of times when people talk about independent, they either mean I don't have advertisers controlling me or I don't have editors controlling me. Okay. Even if you don't have direct advertisers. If you're monetizing your content through YouTube, Facebook, Tik Tok and other built in monetization platforms, you're still influenced to create content that won't violate those monetization rules so that you don't make money. So that's, that's still there. But there's a lot of other ways that people are not truly independent. For example, wanting access to people in power. And this is what I think has been very interesting about Fox News over the last few months, where they are starting. I mean, just two days ago when we learned about more troops tragically killed in the Iran war, Fox News didn't really sugarcoat it. They even played a clip of Trump saying months ago, this is going to be two to three weeks and nobody's going to die. And then they've got this. I don't think it's out of a desire to kind of plant a flag and say we now oppose Trump. But I think it's hedging because they don't know what comes next. They don't know what's going to happen in November. They don't know if this president is going to be the lamest of lame ducks for two years and will see approval ratings in the 20s. So it's about preservation. We also want access and to stay in good graces with the Republican Party and whoever replaces Trump. And so like, is that really independence? I would argue that it's not.

[Bethenny Frankel]

Not.

[Gavin Newsom]

And how do you, how are you able to balance that in your own, I mean, I mean, do you, what's your sort of situational awareness about your own capacity to maintain that independence? I mean, you've, you've got advertisers, you've got an audience. You have the same desire to have access, to get the right guests and to be, you know, how do you, how do you work through all that?

[David Pakman]

The first thing is I try to never do anything that is against my kind of existing framework of values. So if I go and interview someone somewhere, I want to make sure that I'm not interviewing someone in whatever way I would normally do it because of somebody who has said, hey, come to our convention or go to this thing or go, go to that thing. I'm always going to only be upfront with my audience about here's someone who's values and policies I support. Here's someone who I don't, and I'm not going to let any kind of financial relationship come in between that. I don't talk to anybody from any of my advertisers. I never have conversations with them. We've luckily never had an advertiser that got word to me, hey, they didn't really like how you, fortunately it's never happened. But I have no conversations with advertisers. And if they said something like that, I would say, well, that's not, not how we do the show. The platforms are the platforms. There's no doubt that there's content I could do that would get me demonetized or even kicked off of the platforms if it were extreme enough. Those aren't really the sorts of things I believe and do. So the risk of that happening is relatively low.

[Gavin Newsom]

You talk about us being trapped and you know, obviously we talk about the business model around polarization and, and we've highlighted that and we talked about that. You highlight it in much deeper way in one of the chapters in the book. But, but this notion that we're trapped in this feed and you, you picked that apart a little bit in terms of what podcasts may mean that we can this feed a little bit. But.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[Mint Mobile Announcer]

of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent 10 taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 GB means slow when network is busy. See terms a burst pipe, a dead water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServed.com podcast savings compared to renewal price void in Florida.

[HeroBread Advertiser]

Bite into a stacked sandwich made with herobread or a fully loaded bagel and the only thing you'll think is delicious. You won't think it's up to 19 grams of protein, but it is. You wouldn't believe it has 11 to 32 grams of fiber, but it does. Herobread makes loaves, buns, tortillas, bagels and noodles packed with taste, but without all the net carbs, we're talking 0 to 5 grams net carbs per serving. With Herobread, there are no compromises, just flavor. There's none of the stiff baked goods you'd expect from better for you brands. There's just the soft, fluffy bread you crave, plus small batch drops of indulgent favorites like the popular 2 gram net carb Hero croissant and 3 gram net carb carb Hero pain au chocolat. And right now, Herobred is offering 10% off your order. Go to Hero Co and use code iHEART at checkout. That's code iHEARTRO, co. All figures per serving of Herobread. See Nutrition Facts on Hero Co. You've

[Capella University Announcer]

never been one to settle, stand down or stand still. You're a lifelong learner, energized by excellence. There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. You've got competition to outrun, momentum to build on, and your own high standards to meet. Stop now. Not a chance. At Capella University, we help you catch what you're chasing because you've always had the drive. Now go earn the degree. Capella University. What can't you do? Visit Capella Edu to learn more, illuminate us more.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, what, what do you mean by trapped in the feed?

[David Pakman]

Well, to the extent that you want to be a participant in some of these town square conversations that are happening, they're happening on these platforms at this point. We've lost as a country even the idea of at 6pm People gather around and watch 30 minutes of the nightly news.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yes, Cronkite.

[David Pakman]

Right. Ratings are very low there, even with sporting events. I mean, things are so fragmented that the town squares really are happening asynchronously. It's not all at the same time, but it's over these periods of 6, 12, 24, 48 hours, where these stories build and swell online. So instead of like, it's the super bowl kickoffs at 6, 28, it's 48 hours of a building story, like, like a ship, you know, being pushed up by a swell, and then it kind of comes down and we move on to the next thing. If you want to be involved in that and participate in it, it's. It's on these platforms. So I think people are trapped in that sense. And then number two, a lot of the platforms used to have these reverse chronological feeds. Facebook at the beginning. If you were friends with 20 people. And you went on to Facebook. This is a while ago now. You wouldn't see an algorithmic feed of what you're most likely to enjoy. You would just see reverse chronological of my 20 friends, what's the last thing that was posted and the one before that. And you would kind of get to the end. There's no end anymore. You can always scroll and get to the next thing, which is part of why it's very addictive. But a lot of those tools that let you kind of control the ecosystem you're in have been taken away.

[Gavin Newsom]

AI is blowing everything out of the water. And the book, talking a little bit more about AI, you begin with that Walker video. And just around Truth and Trust and Relationship to Artificial Intelligence. But you commented earlier about 60 to 70% of their. In terms of these avatars, people using your voice, you using your own voice, turning it over. And so you ran your own experiment.

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Gavin Newsom]

And it told you what it. It communicated to you. What, that you have another six months and you're one upgrade away from needing a real job. Well, what's. Where are we going?

[David Pakman]

I'll get back to how I think it'll affect me. So we did two tests, one with audio, one with video. The technology is phenomenal. If I feed hours of my voice into these systems, it'll spit out an avatar that I can be sitting on a plane somewhere, type into it a script, it will spit out an audio file that even my team that listens to my voice, every single difference, can't tell the difference. That's there. That's good enough already. It was good enough probably six to 12 months ago. The video is a little uncanny valley still. We tested a couple models where we just upload like an hour of my video and then feed it a script. It's weird. You know, I think if you didn't know me, you might just think this is someone who articulates themselves in a strange way. If you know me. I think it's obvious that. That it's AI, but these things are accelerating so quickly that it's going to be there very soon now in terms of how it'll affect my job. Right now there is such a movement that is skeptical of this sort of thing where people don't want to be getting their commentary from someone that they know is an avatar. Now, could it get so good that they don't realize it? Well, that's a different story. And it probably. It probably will happen at some point, but I think people are very incentivized to seek out real connection. And this is, I think, one of the backlashes to what's happening with these platforms. As social as we think we're being, when we're connected to 1200 friends and DMs and all this different stuff, there's this lack of in person conviviality that isn't able to be replaced when you're participating in Twitter threads. And so I think that there's a movement of people wanting to reconnect in the real world that maybe is going to push up against the technology as it advances.

[Gavin Newsom]

And you talk about pushing up the friction. You talk about friction. Yeah, in. And how you need to lean into friction. And that's how you conclude the book.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

Talk to me about that.

[David Pakman]

Friction in this sense is good, which is if your instinct is when you're in line at the bank to take out your phone and watch 40 seconds of TikTok videos, it's kind of good to resist that. And to be able to resist that for a lot of reasons. Number one, because studies seem. Seem to find that people who do that are actually less happy in general, but also so that you're kind of like working your ability to be bored muscle, which is something that we've kind of lost. And so there's a lot of people, Cal Newport and others who write extensively about this stuff. When you get home, maybe you leave your phone plugged in on the kitchen counter or the foyer instead of it being in your pocket the entire time because it introduces a little bit of friction. Maybe when you go on Twitter. I'm barely on Twitter, but what I do is I have a private list of about 100 people. I only am looking at what they've posted. I'm not looking at my for you Twitter feed. And I'm not looking at. Dear God. I'm not looking at my replies, which is just horrifying. I'm just looking at what are these specific people. That's free. I've put friction between myself and that feed that's out there constantly perpetuating itself. These are the sorts of things people can do.

[Gavin Newsom]

And you have also done it. And what I admire about you, you've been on Rogan a number of times. You've been on a number of these shows. Patrick's show.

[David Pakman]

Patrick bet David.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah. I mean, I sometimes enjoy watching Full Disclosure. Now I might get in trouble.

[David Pakman]

I enjoy it because I think he's very interesting on the show, even if I agree with very little.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, right. No, that's what I think. That's what Makes him different. I mean, Rogan, I think I find vacuous, but that's just me. And that's not just someone, you know, tax me on a weekly basis, won't have me on, but I'm. I find him more the Facebook version of podcasters. But that's, again, a personal expression. You can't say that because you've been on twice and you want to get on.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Well, I don't.

[David Pakman]

This was years ago. I don't think he'll ever have me back on at this point.

[Gavin Newsom]

But what is. So speaking of not getting back on. I mean, this is the challenge or a time. You're on this. You're on this blacklist. Right. For the White House.

[David Pakman]

Oh, the media offenders.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, yeah. Media offenders list. I mean, so let's talk a little bit about this. I mean, all of this then leads to just the obvious. This. Back to the polarization. And again, you highlight that and a lot of the reasons why we're so polarized and increasingly traumatized and just exhausted and how we're just living in our own filter bubble and our own set of facts, and we don't even share the same set of facts. So we've identified all the problems in your desire to get out of it physically, which, again, I admire your willingness to speak to people you disagree with, again, on platforms where people can be more disagreeable and also try to challenge your own algorithms. And I think all of us, that's. That, that's a very healthy thing. But. But you know what, where does all this end? I mean, what's. You know, give me. I mean, we're just. We're in the. This is the early days, the black and white movie days, of what AI can do in terms of weaponizing these grievances. Yeah. And how it becomes almost limitlessly automated. You know, give me your over under.

[David Pakman]

Couple different things, politically, just from the standpoint of we've got to get power back from people who have terrible ideas, we have to engage, and we have to get better at playing the game. So this is like the one side we.

[Gavin Newsom]

It.

[David Pakman]

It would be nice if the algorithms optimize truth over emotionality. They don't. I don't think there's any way to force them to. So it's either you get out or you participate and you get better at it. That's number one.

[Ryan Reynolds]

On.

[David Pakman]

On the other hand, I do think that over time, I'm not an accelerationist by my nature. I'm not like a. It has to get really bad. So then we can Rebuild it. I don't think historically that's worked, but I think inevitably, if things keep going in the direction they're going, which is life is increasingly unaffordable for people. People feel disconnected both from societies and from the people in power, and don't feel that anyone's really looking out for them. And there's. There's a societal breakdown. You know, there's a lot of antisocial stuff going on. Not like the birth rate stuff Elon talks about. As countries get wealthier, their birth rate goes down. But I mean, people dating less people just staying home, etc. If that continues to get worse and worse, some kind of breakdown is likely to happen. I'm not like a futurist gloomer that predicts it will be fires and, you know, like the day after tomorrow. I don't know what it will look like, but there may be some return to the kind of socializing society of old before some of these platforms. It doesn't mean that they'll go away. They may just occupy a different place in society. One example is, for a while, the average number of Facebook friends people had was going up, up, up, where it was like, let me collect all of these people I've met once and acquaintances. The trend now is the opposite. Facebook's worried about it because people are saying, you know, I actually want to be connected only to people I really know know. And those are things that I think are pointing in the right direction. What form all of it is going to take five years out? I don't know.

[Gavin Newsom]

Do you. What do you make of. Of this loneliness epidemic? I mean, exacerbated by the very factors that you highlight in the book.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

That we need to, quote, unquote, pay attention to, but particularly for young men and boys. I mean, is that an area of focus for you?

[David Pakman]

It is, absolutely. And I've talked now for years about how even though these manosphere models are not good models for young men, we on the left also have to acknowledge you have to provide an alternative that's interesting and positive. And I don't know that it has really been done. And we spoke about this last time we talked a little bit. I don't know that that model has really been built in a way that can compete. Now, part of the reason it can't compete is these, you know, extremely interesting characters. I mean, I don't know if you saw the video of Andrew Tate being arrested recently.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah.

[David Pakman]

Physical appearance, it's extremely. It attract the eye, you know, it's unusual, and it's It's.

[Gavin Newsom]

It was wearing red or something. Back to colors and thumbnails.

[David Pakman]

Like capri pants.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, the pants.

[David Pakman]

Tasseled loaf with like a purple shirt. You know, purple.

[Gavin Newsom]

Maybe it was purple. I remember it was very colorful. It's interesting.

[David Pakman]

It's visually interesting.

[Gavin Newsom]

Very visually interesting.

[David Pakman]

And also when you say extreme things, it attracts more attention. So I don't, I don't know what the solution is, but we need better models of masculinity. And where I think the left has sort of failed is the narrative of toxic masculinity is bad as a primary message about people away. I think it pushes people away and it only makes them more susceptible to being pulled in by people like Tate.

[Gavin Newsom]

So what do you. And I. And I appreciate that and I think there's some truth to that, that there was sort of an over indexing in that toxic frame and we lost folks. And, and so what is the positive alternative? And that's the challenge. How do you make. I mean, these guys have one thing in common. I think it's more the boyosphere than the manosphere here from the attention perspective. And I think you look at the audience, in some respects that's the case. But, but. And there is a toxicity which you have to. One has to acknowledge.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

Because they filled the void. So how do we fill the void? Is there. I mean, you say there's. We're not there yet. Do you see any contours of. Are there. There's some examples of people that are competing in that space.

[David Pakman]

I think there are. I mean, listen, I. Since no longer being president, I think President Obama has done a couple of really interesting things in speaking to young, young boys and men. And one of them is really creating this frame where it's masculine to raise people up around you and to make people feel better so that they are their best selves in their community. The alpha beta male stuff and these tropes of masculinity that people like Tate and others, how to. How to insult women so that they like you, this sort of stuff. But let's raise people up. What's more masculine than saying, hey, you know what? I have the confidence that raising others up isn't going to diminish me. And it's not zero sum. You know, I think these are sort of some of the ideas that would much better serve the left and serve young men and boys than the stuff from the manosphere that they're getting on the right.

[Gavin Newsom]

Well said. You speak of serving. I mean, what, what do public servants, what do people in positions of power and influence, those with formal authority. What should we be doing in the context of.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Of.

[Gavin Newsom]

Of addressing the systemic issues in this space? Moving beyond just the issue of the. The manosphere and the challenges with men and boys and the issues again that you highlight in this book. What do we need to pay attention to in terms of a regulatory framework or not? In terms of leaning in socializing, highlighting, creating a different culture construct challenge. I mean, is it fcc, Is it F? I mean what, what, what do we need to be doing in this space?

[David Pakman]

The micro answer is different in so many different areas, but I think the macro of it is that there's a feeling, so I mentioned at the beginning of our conversation, a lot of the people I talked to don't vote because they have not yet understood the connection between voting and their day to day lives. We've got to relink that connection. Once that's done. There's a feeling that governments, state, federal move too slowly to really solve problems for people. And so there's a lot of situations people are in that are urgent. Issues of housing, out of a job, food instability, issues with children, etc.

[Gavin Newsom]

The BS, yes. That is then the easy answer and the scapegoat.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

In the context of the algorithms and

[David Pakman]

the filter bubble, that's a good point in a way to look at it. I think that if people come to believe that there are systems in place that can respond to the specific problems people are having. Because it's great when someone announces we have just secured X amount of funding which will be distributed over Y years to start working on, that's great. But there's people who are like, I'm in a crisis now. What is available to me? Some people do have services available and they don't know about it. So that's about communication. But I think there's this feeling for a lot of people that even if they vote and they change who's in power, the systems move too slowly and they're too clunky to really help them.

[Gavin Newsom]

And so, I mean, so is that a. It's a system delivery issue, is an expectation setting issue. What I mean, it takes time to build a house.

[David Pakman]

That's right.

[Gavin Newsom]

Even if you have the permits, even if you have the land use reforms, it takes time to construct it. We can improve productivity, focus on modular housing, prefab housing. You can eliminate some of that friction. But it still takes time. It does. How much of this is just level setting versus, you know, just exploitation of people's grievances?

[David Pakman]

I think a lot of it is level setting and, and, and communication. One of the things that I kind of have to admit that Donald Trump has picked up on that's useful politically is to make declarations on truth social and to sign executive orders which are effectively memos asking someone to do something, something which make a lot of his followers believe that he is doing the things he promised when he is actually not. I'm not suggesting that elected officials on the left start deliberately lying about the things that they're going to do. But the lesson is communication, especially if it's honest and it's going to be backed up by action, is a lot. And so you know, when you hear about we're considering writing a strongly worded letter my, for my audience that's like, what are you talking about? You've lost me.

[Gavin Newsom]

Or an op ed. Yes, let's get in the New York times. It'll be 100 likes. Right, I, I agree with that. So let's, I mean it all touches on where we are as a party. And you've been, you've called out the Democratic Party, you know, sort of the Sunday show buttoned up party versus, you know, being able to play in this, you know, in the new arena that is self evident that you've been a huge part of over the last 20 plus years. But what, you know, what is the lesson today for the modern Democratic Party? What would you be advising if you were the head of the dnc, that the party itself.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a [e-mail] switch upfront payment

[Mint Mobile Announcer]

of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent to taxes and fees. Extra initial plan term only greater than 50gb. Slow when network is busy.

[HeroBread Advertiser]

See terms bite into a stacked sandwich made with hero bread or a fully loaded bagel and the only thing you'll think is delicious. You won't think it's up to 19 grams of protein, but it is. You wouldn't believe it has 11 to 32 grams of fiber, but it does. Herobread makes loaves, buns, tortillas, bagels and noodles packed with taste but without all the net carbs. We're talking 0 to 5 grams net carbs per serving. With Herobread there are no compromises, just flavor. There's none of the stiff baked goods you'd expect from better for your brands. There's just the soft fluffy bread you crave, plus small batch dress of indulgent favorites like the popular 2 gram net carb Hero croissant and 3 gram net carb Hero pain au chocolat. And right now Herobred is offering 10% off your order. Go to Hero Co and use code iheart at checkout. That's Code iheartra Co. All figures per serving of herobread. See nutrition facts on Hero Co. A

[HomeServe Advertiser]

burst pipe, A dead water heater, the AC calling it quits. Who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe. Right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal price.

[Capella University Announcer]

Boyd in Florida, you've never been one to settle. Stand down or stand still. You're a lifelong learner, energized by excellence. There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. You've got competition to outrun, momentum to build on, and your own high standards to meet. Stop now. Not a chance. At Capella University, we help you catch what you're chasing because you've always had the drive. Now go earn the degree. Capella University. What can't you do? Visit Capella Edu to learn more.

[Gavin Newsom]

If there is a. Or even do you believe in the construct top down or is it really bottom up? And it's about a thousand different points of light, so to speak.

[David Pakman]

I think there's value to structure, but there is a lot of bottom up stuff. I mean, some of the most successful campaigns that just dominate social media are built from the bottom up with people who are really good on social media. I do think that, that being less structured is something I've told a lot of staffers. They want the questions ahead of time, which we never do. They want to. They say, you know, do you still.

[Gavin Newsom]

You really get that? Still?

[David Pakman]

It's. We really get it. We just had a situation. I haven't said.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, I gave you all the questions.

[David Pakman]

That's an exact.

[Gavin Newsom]

This was, this was a special case.

[Tony Ayo]

That was.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, you were the special.

[David Pakman]

We recently had a situation Where a staffer talked to my producer and said, what are we going to talk about? 7, 8 things were kind of mentioned. It was a 15 minute conversation, which I think is also a problem. But how can you talk about eight things in 15 minutes? We got to two and then my producer got a call saying I was disappointed that the focus was only on those two and say, well, hold on a second. Yeah, gave us 15 minutes and this was the range of things that would be discussed. We. I can't force day. I'm not in David's ear saying, move on to the next topic. So that stuff I think makes the find the end product feel extremely stiff. Yeah, doesn't. People don't relate.

[Gavin Newsom]

That goes the authenticity.

[David Pakman]

That goes to the authenticity piece. And I think being less structured, appearing in less structured situations, I think is. Is only good. And you got to hand it to Trump. During the 24 campaign, he spent three hours with the Nelk boys and he's talking to Lex Friedman and he's with Rogan and he's not.

[Gavin Newsom]

You've been on Lex as well, by the way.

[David Pakman]

I spoke.

[Tony Ayo]

Right.

[David Pakman]

As well.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, yeah.

[David Pakman]

I think that that worked. Even if he's telling lies, the fact that he's there and it feels relaxed and unstructured goes a really long way with voters.

[Gavin Newsom]

So. So that's one piece of advice. What else? I mean, so this notion of abundance. We, I mean, I think we, we talked around that. I mean, we haven't used the word abundance. So you didn't use the word abundance. I, I use it often and I certainly embrace the frame. People are just sick and tired of process and the paralysis of process. They want to see. They want to. To physically see the results. Yes, it's proof of concept that I want to see results. Don't tell me you've housed 68,000 people. Knew some. Which by the way, we have through Project Homekeep. Don't tell me that I want to see it physically on the streets. Otherwise I don't believe you. And we've losing trust. And, and obviously that's. That is exploited and obviously is creating a lot of friction and it's politically challenging. So what else do you advise in the context of the political. The Democratic Party in terms of getting back on its feet, getting back into its sort of ascendant position, getting off the map. Matt, obviously there's no, you know, for all the animus that has developed. Increasing animus, not just the Democratic Party and independence, but increasingly in his own base.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

Against Donald Trump. It's Not a nerd. To the benefit of the Democratic Party.

[David Pakman]

I think that the focus really has to be on the economic situation. One of the mistakes that I saw with President Biden's reelection campaign while it was going on and then with the Harris campaign, when it became the Harris campaign, was a lot of pointing to. But don't people see the economic numbers? Things are really good, and they may be really good for a bunch of people and not good for a lot of others. But if people don't feel that things are good and you're telling them they are, of course they're not going to think you'll make anything better. You're saying everything's fine to begin with. And this is why I think Barack Obama's 2012 campaign did this very well, where he said, we've made a lot of progress getting out of the Great Recession, and we still have a long way to go. And here are the three or four things I'm going to focus on. It felt much more like, okay, I can acknowledge this is no longer 2008, and also this is still a climb that we are in the middle of. And then you need to have policies you can actually deliver on. So that's where Donald Trump made a huge mistake, which is gas will be down 50%, everything will be cheaper. It's going to be a new glory. You know, and gas is over 4 bucks a gallon nationally and much more in certain parts of the country. You have to have some possibility of delivering on what you're asking.

[Gavin Newsom]

Well, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, my own confession. You have a confession chapter. But, you know, I was out there stumping for Biden. I was making the same point in face. Inflation's cooling, you know, economy's booming, best jobs market since the 1960s, lowest unemployment for blacks, for women, for those, those with disabilities. We had record job growth. We were reducing the deficit and debt. We had these unbelievable bipartisan deals. 400 bipartisan legislative victories, some of the most iconic being, you know, Ira, the issues around infrastructure, chips and science. And, and it was all about the aggregate.

[David Pakman]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

And people don't live in the aggregate, and they weren't feeling it. And, and you're right, that was, I mean, boy, that landed like a thud.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, that and, and immigration, I think, were two areas that weren't landing well with a lot of, of voters. And the. Here's the progress we've made. But then, like, here's the North Star. There is a kind of transition there that's relatively smooth, which I Think makes people feel a lot more heard. And as unrealistic as Donald Trump's promises were, at least they sounded tangible. Completely unrealistic. And we all were saying this will never happen, but they sounded like specific, tangible promises. Gas is going to be half the price. Of course it's not going to be. But that sounds tangible. I can imagine what that would be like.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, drill baby, drill. But you know, it's interesting. I, you know, I then go back to your book. The flip side of that is you also make the point that identity politics works a hell of a lot better than policy laden, you know, five point plans. So we want to talk about the economy blending an identity frame. Back to my sort of pts on, on immigration, blaming immigrants, blaming Somalis, blaming, you know, just blaming the other. The effectiveness of doing so as an economic message. Your rents are high.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

Because of all of the illegals that Biden has brought over the border. Yeah. How do you square that circle without becoming them?

[David Pakman]

Well, I, my view on identity politics has always been, I never am in favor of the identity politics that's used as a cudgel to silence people. People, which is like, hey, listen, I'm a member of X group. I'm the one who gets to speak, decide and sort of lay down the law. I'm interested in identity insofar as it can be used to bolster an economic message and that people of certain identities may indeed be the best position to tell us about their experience. And I'm speaking with, I'm doing a panel on the Latino vote in a few weeks and one of the messages that I want to bring is, is it's great to think about Latino voters as a group. And also we should consider that their economic interests are the same of any voter and that we need to be thinking about that as let's not necessarily separate them out as it is. It is a group with a particular background and some shared interests, but also their concerns are the concerns of the average everyday American. So you've got to do both.

[Gavin Newsom]

Amen. I mean how many Latino audience I've been in talking about immigration and people like, stop, you're patronizing us. This is not the only issue, of course. So much of the issues around immigration have disproportionately obviously impacted our immigrant communities and by definition mixed status families and obviously Latino community. But that, that point is, is foundational. So the let's back then back up a little bit to the DSA in the context of this sort of emergence of a new narrative, you know, ability to, to call out the victim, the villain a little bit more clearly. Communication that seems a little bit more effective certainly electorally has been some effective. In some cases we can overreach. You know, we tend to color things in a few examples, then become sort of the dominant norm or the meme that suggests something bigger than itself. But where are you just in terms of, you know, you talked about the platform but, but where are you in the context of looking at the dsa in the context of the Democratic Party's future, in terms of the narrative, in terms of sort of being repairs of this party brand.

[David Pakman]

So a couple of things. I am not sure what things will look like 10, 50 or 100 years from now in terms of Donald Trump always says this will never be a socialist or communist country. I don't think it's going to be one in the next five to 10 years. Never is a really long term play. I don't know what's going to happen in the next hundred years. I do think that right now the success in some circles of these DSA candidates should be a red alert for the Democratic Party in that there are many voters who are extraordinarily disaffected with the party. They don't want to vote for Republicans. And there's this other thing that they're finding preferable to the Democratic establishment. Really important message. If, if you ignore that message, if Democrats ignore that message, it's like the Republicans ignoring the tea party in 2010. We saw what happened. So that's extremely interesting and relevant on the specifics. 10 years ago when I would interview DSA people, socialists, etc. They would say to me very soberly, they would go, listen David, I'm a socialist, you're not. But our next stops on this bus are the same. And so, so I see myself as united with you. If and when we get to social democracy and the things we agree on, we get people, health care, etc. Then the social Democrats and the bonafide socialists can have an argument about whether we go further or not. I really respected that. That was a very interesting conversation to have. There wasn't a litmus test that was imposed on me as someone who is not a socialist. That's very different now where I regularly get emails and see comments where people saying, saying you're with us or against us, it doesn't matter if we agree on universal health care and a few other things. We believe housing should be government owned and people are assigned a house and blah, blah, blah. I go, I don't Believe that. Do I think people should be homeless? No. Can I point to things that have been done in St. Louis and in Salt Lake City to just give people housing and how it's actually cheaper than having them on the streets? Yes, for homeless folks, that. Absolutely. But I'm not a take take away private ownerships and then the it. Well, then you're simply not part of the same movement. This is not everybody, but these are some of the conversations I've had. So I feel like the tone of these conversations is very different today than it was eight, 10 years ago.

[Gavin Newsom]

So what's, I mean, so fast forward. I mean, is it so, I mean, do you believe this is a truly robust movement that will continue to gain momentum, or do you feel like it's at peak at the moment on the basis of some of these local elections with national implications and obviously with Mamdani's ascendancy as a bright star in the Democratic movement?

[David Pakman]

Predictions are so tough. I don't think this is the peak. But I don't see a desire right now for this to become widespread in terms of the candidates that the Democratic Party nominates, it's really up to the voters. And so that's where I hesitate to say this will not go further or it will. It'll be up to voters to decide. And part of it also has to do with whether Democrats are putting forward interesting and authentic candidates with good ideas. If the alternative to the DSA actual socialists, which by the way, a lot of them aren't actual socialists, but some of them are, doesn't really matter. A lot of this is labeling. If the alternative is a terrible centrist Democrat, that helps this DSA movement. If there are interesting people that are to the left of the centrist Democrats but not socialists, that's the best thing that they can do in a lot of these districts. The other thing is Michigan and Iowa and Connecticut and New York City are very different places. And this is a huge country with a lot of different people. So I think it's difficult to make any kind of overarching prediction about something like that.

[Gavin Newsom]

What is, what's, I mean the word centrist, it's interesting, is that what is centrist? Centrist in policy, centrists in attitude. Centrist is the establishment. Centrist is an incumbent.

[David Pakman]

I think what is the center?

[Gavin Newsom]

Centrist is a corporate Democrat. What is, what's centric? What is, what is the definition? I'm curious. People use the word centrist.

[David Pakman]

I don't use it as a pejorative. Some people do, some People do use it as a, for me, centrist is you're basically happy with how things are status and you're satisfied with the changes you want to make. Being really on the fringes.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah. You're an incrementalist.

[David Pakman]

Yeah. And incrementalism I'm okay with. I mean Ted Kennedy was an incrementalist and he had a lot of incremental successes that he spearheaded in the Senate. But it's, things are basically fine and I don't want to change much of anything. I think we need more than that. I'm not socialism, right to have and I'm certainly not communism. But I'm also not like things are basically fine.

[Bethenny Frankel]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

Radical centrism.

[David Pakman]

Yeah. I've never met one. Have you met a radical center?

[Gavin Newsom]

I don't know. What was Obama in this and how would we describe him today?

[David Pakman]

Oh boy. Depends who you ask. Yeah, you know, I mean, I mean

[Gavin Newsom]

he defends the incremental side of Obamacare. He didn't get everything, but he makes the point we made progress. Don't make enemy, you know, a perfect enemy. The good framework is that, that, that would that play well today?

[David Pakman]

Today it's playing pretty poorly with the left part of the base. I mean, I, I, I'm, when I, in my first book I talked about the successes of incrementalism and if you look at the three big eras of advancement for the left in the United States, which were the Progressive era In the early 20th century, y, you looked at the New Deal era after World War II and you looked at the civil rights era. Yep. In retrospect it feels like big change and it was hugely significant changes. But at the time it was a lot of hey, we got a Supreme court pick who 10 years from now is going to be part of a really important decision either on women's voting or on civil rights or etc. It's, we've made another tweak to the programs of FDR. So the incrementalism has a pretty strong track record in the United States. It's, it's okay to go seemingly slowly as long as you're going in the right direction and you're not basically done making the changes. I'm okay with incrementalism and I often say to the accelerationists who say we've got to, we've got to take all businesses and make them government controlled housing, etc. Break it all down. I asked them for examples of where that has worked and so far nobody's given me any.

[Gavin Newsom]

What did you Was. Was Biden's biggest challenge communication? Was he an incrementalist? Was he a centrist? He's. You think universally people describe him quote unquote as a centrist. But did his policies suggest that or was it the rhetoric, the style?

[David Pakman]

I think Biden's style made him seem like a status quo guy. Yeah, but he ran on paper to the left of where President Obama ran both in 2008 and 2012. Times had changed.

[Mint Mobile Announcer]

Right.

[David Pakman]

I mean it was 12 years later, eight years later. But I think in policy, President Biden was not really just a status quo centrist. He didn't get as much done as I think he would have liked to. But I don't, I don't. I think he is. He's center left, a step towards left of that I guess I would say.

[Gavin Newsom]

Right. So no, it's just interesting to me because I think about, you know, you know, an industrial policy that's worker centered. Biden delivered on that. I mean, that there's populism to that. I mean one of the most America first, you know, America Buy America, products first. The framework around actually having living wages, union wages. The guy walked picket lines.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

Right.

[Gavin Newsom]

Save pensions. I mean he was a populist in that respect and actually delivered on all those things. Yeah, Sort of interesting to me. I mean, what would you do back to the policies, not to rhetoric, what would you do? You would try to mimic some of those things. You would take the chips and science acts, you try to bring supply chains back home. You would try to focus on the blue collar workers, you try to deliver on low carbon green growth. I mean the green New Deal in so many respects was reflected in his policies in terms of the incentives and the tax structures that he provided. Those seem to be a lot of the things that the left is promoting that he actually delivered. Yeah, situationally, I think that's what I'm trying to sort of figure out is. But, but was he the sellout? I mean, what am I missing on that?

[David Pakman]

No, I think he. President Biden was probably the most pro organized labor president in my lifetime. Probably. But I mean for, for a while only president to walk an active picket line. It's sort of lame and pedantic to say he was limited by the House and Senate and the political environment and what he could get done. But that is a reality to some degree.

[Gavin Newsom]

Right.

[David Pakman]

It's hard. You know, Biden was not from a personality standpoint, the type of person that would get the further left excited even if he delivered on some important.

[Gavin Newsom]

He may have been delivered on.

[David Pakman]

Yeah, I think that's the truth of it.

[Gavin Newsom]

So that gets to just back to style.

[David Pakman]

Yeah.

[Gavin Newsom]

Rhetoric. The ability to communicate. The ability to communicate in this new medium that we need to quote, unquote, pay attention to clips, virality, social media, mom D Ascendancy. So much of that attached to his appeal in that space. So much of AOC's appeal in that space. Obviously the movement that is, you know, was Howard Dean, was, you know, my Barack obama.com self organized communities that is all things Bernie Sanders. So much of that again is self organizing and is driven by these algorithms, driven by these clips virality, driven by these filter bubbles as well. So is that, I mean, what do we learn what, what, what's the takeaway as we start to knit together what you're communicating here that we all need to pay attention to in terms of how our, you know, we've moved from search to suggest and how, how all of a sudden now our behaviors are not only just commoditized, but we're becoming perfect little sheep in some respects to the machine. How do we start to knit together a frame around restoring and repairing our democracy, democratizing our economy so we can save our democracy and knit back a political framework that actually could build a majority and distill a sense of well being at a time when we're so desperate to, you know, just take a deep breath and breathe again.

[HeroBread Advertiser]

Bite into a stacked sandwich made with Hero bread or a fully loaded bagel and the only thing you'll think is delicious. You won't think it's up to 19 grams of protein, but it is. You wouldn't believe it has 11 to 32 grams of fiber, but it does. Herobread makes loaves, buns, tortillas, bagels and noodles packed with taste but without all the net carbs. We're talking 0 to 5 grams net carbs per serving. With Herobread there are no compromises, just flavor. There's none of the stiff baked goods you'd expect from better for you brands. There's just the soft, fluffy bread you crave, plus small batch drops of indulgent favorites like the popular 2 gram net carb Hero croissant and 3 gram net carb Hero pain au chocolat. And right now, Herobred is offering 10% off your order. Go to Hero Co and use code iheart at checkout. That's code iheartro Co. All figures per serving of herobread. See nutrition facts on Hero Co. A

[HomeServe Advertiser]

burst pipe, a dead water heater, the AC calling it quits who do you call? HomeServe is an easy way to handle unexpected home repairs with plans covering stuff basic homeowners insurance usually won't. Instead of scrambling for a contractor, you make one call to get the repair process started. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe right now. Go to HomeServe.com podcast for 50% less your first year. That's HomeServe.com podcast savings compared to renewal price void in Florida.

[Capella University Announcer]

You've never been one to settle, stand down or stand still. You're a lifelong learner, energized by excellence. There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. You've got competition to outrun, momentum to build on, and your own high standards to meet. Stop now. Not a chance. At Capella University, we help you catch what you're chasing because you've always had the drive. Now go earn the degree. Capella University. What can't you do? Visit Capella. Edu to learn more.

[Bethenny Frankel]

This is Bethenny Frankel from Just Be with Bethenny Frankel. Let me be blunt. Most dog food is junk. It just is. And I'm not feeding junk to Biggie and Smalls. That is why they eat junk. Just food for dogs. It's real, 100% human grade food with ingredients I actually recognize, not mystery pellets pretending to be healthy. And once I switched, the difference was obvious. Better digestion, better skin, more energy. Dogs who actually feel good instead of just surviving dinner. Here's the thing. You care about quality. You make an intentional choice to be healthy. So why are you gambling with your dog's health? So let's think about our furry babies. Go to justfoodfordogs.com right now and get 50% off your first box. No code. Just try it. Because once you see the difference, you're not going back.

[David Pakman]

I think at the individual level, people should understand how they're being manipulated by these algorithms. That's, that's something every single person who's on these platforms should do. Democrats, the left, elected officials, candidates need to become better at using these platforms. And I don't think there's any, you know, moral high ground to be gained by saying we're not going to do that. That, and then we'll just lose. I don't think that's good for the average person living in this country. I don't think that's good for anybody. That just cedes power to some of the worst people. The difficult one is the regulation piece. Yeah, there are really varied appetites as to to what degree should there be regulation of AI, large language models and all of this stuff? I don't know that there. I don't believe the immediate solution is going to come from regulation, especially with the people that are in power right now. And so it would be nice to have a regulatory framework that makes sense. You know, Neil Postman, who was a tech technologist, he would write, time spent opposing new technologies is basically worthless. This is my paraphrasing. What society needs to do is figure out the right type and level of regulation of new technologies and how to maximize the good good while limiting the bad. That's essentially my view on these algorithms, these platforms and on AI, I don't think that the idea of stopping them dead in their tracks and eliminating them is even plausible. And no matter what the United States does, other, some other countries aren't going to do that. And it's going to be there, it's going to spread. So I would rather skip to the let's maximize the good, figure out what level of regulation we need to limit the bad and educate people. I mean, a lot of kids don't even get media literacy anymore at all. It's just not taught in school. Educate people so that they understand how these algorithms work. We have a sort of understanding that advertising wants to influence us. When we see advertising messages, when we recognize them, sometimes they're hidden, but when we see advertising, we understand this is an influence campaign to get me to believe something, buy something, a service product. If you're a kid, go and tell mom and dad this is what I want.

[Gavin Newsom]

Want.

[David Pakman]

We need people to understand how the algorithms work and the platforms in the same way so that they realize this is not just naturally surfacing content to my interest. This is stuff that is being ABC tested constantly for emotional salience and attachment and then fed to you. And if people understood that, a lot of these manipulations would be less effective.

[Gavin Newsom]

So this is your prescription as the head of the dnc, that we take advantage of these tools? We don't act taller than thou. We recognize that. We deal with the cards that have been dealt.

[David Pakman]

Absolutely.

[Gavin Newsom]

We're pragmatists.

[David Pakman]

Have to be. And listen, I think that there are campaigns that have figured it out. There are elected officials that have figured it out that have really good digital offices. I mean, I think what your office has done with the reflecting back to Trump, the way he communicates has been interesting. And it's, it's when you see that, right, all caps. Gavin, seen you some, all that stuff.

[Bethenny Frankel]

Stuff.

[David Pakman]

It triggers something where it's like, oh, I recognize this style. Oh, but it's not Trump. At least people are stopping and thinking, and that's something. And, and so I think that being creative about that is important.

[Gavin Newsom]

Yeah, no, Well, I obviously appreciate that. What, you know what. Just as we, you know, what do you hope people will appreciate about this book? What ultimately is. Is it just to illuminate is to change behavior. Is it to sort of begin to act with the kind of friction that you, you try to highlight in here? Is it to step outside, take a deep. I mean, what's the, what's the ultimate action that you hope this inspires? You didn't just write it for the intellectual exercise. I'm. You're. You're a doer, not just a dreamer in that respect. What, what, what, what do you. What's the takeaway?

[David Pakman]

I think three things, depending on the position people are in. One, if you're just an individual on these platforms or you have kids who are on these platforms, you have to understand how they work and how they're trying to influence you in order to take control of them. So that's number one.

[Capella University Announcer]

One.

[David Pakman]

Number two, when it comes to the political system, which I have an interest in, I want good people in power putting in policies that, that I want, that I think are good policies for people. That group needs to also get better at using these platforms. That's number two. And then number three, understanding at a systemic level why the right has been better at this, because if you don't understand that, you can't possibly change it. So those are the three things.

[Gavin Newsom]

Is politics. Don't we also need just, just politics has infected every part of our life, hasn't it?

[David Pakman]

Yes.

[Gavin Newsom]

I mean, we talked about Trump. We were talking about, obviously, the world. I mean, I, I used to loved sports because it wasn't political. It was one place to take a break. Now it's. Everything's political. You can't have a conversation in our lives. I mean, fishing is political. Fill in the blank. Whatever the issue is, it has now. It's become. I mean, I mean, is that also something we need to start to address fundamentally?

[David Pakman]

Yeah, I think we need a detox and say, I think politics has been more political for longer than maybe we want to acknowledge. But what we've lost is the ability to have disagreements that don't need to ruin interpersonal relationships and that. I think, you know, there's a lot of people now who are very uncomfortable with the fact that there's a disagreement. And sometimes I'll Say, say, you know, I know X person in real life. And we disagree.

[Ryan Reynolds]

But.

[David Pakman]

But we're able to get along. How is that possible? Well, because there's multiple dimensions to people and maybe you don't relate to someone as an elected official, but you relate to them as a parent or you relate to them as a Latino person or in. In some other way. And it's become very toxic, accelerated by these platforms where because all you do is argue on Twitter, when you get together and there's a sporting event or an entertainment thing, the assumption is we have to have bad blood and we can't just sit in the same room. We've got to do away with that. And again, the whole. The interactions online are toxic. The interactions in person are very polite and respectful. I think the in person has a lot to do with that.

[Gavin Newsom]

Do you think there's a business model for Point Counterpoint Crossfire today or is it just. I don't want to hear the other side. No, I think honestly as a business proposition, there are a lot of, of shows where we're going back and forth.

[David Pakman]

There's a lot of shows out there that like that right now. I think that they are diminishing a little bit. A year to 18 months ago, I would have said these inflammatory debates and some of them are one on one, some are four on four, some are one on 20. This is what people want. The thing about debates that I've talked about is that they rarely are adjudications of who's right or the best ideas, their adjudications of who's most articulate and most prepared for the debate. And that might line up with what's right and what's true. But the algorithms as we find out, they don't surface what's accurate. They surface what gets an emotional reaction from people. So I don't know that that's the way to figure out what we need to do.

[Gavin Newsom]

It's so true about. I mean, I just think about debates that I've been. I did one with Ron DeSantis and again back into the filter bubble, a few people actually watched the entire thing.

[Tony Ayo]

Thing.

[Gavin Newsom]

What most people said that they watched it, they saw the clips that were shared within their feed which only reinforced and expressed their pre existing bias.

[David Pakman]

That's right.

[Gavin Newsom]

So the point of view is you got crushed or you crushed it. When there's nuance, there's. And we've lost so much of that nuance. But again, nuance doesn't sell.

[David Pakman]

I remember watching the entire thing and there actually was some deeper discussion of policy which I found interesting missing from all of the clips that each side made to kind of reinforce. Yeah, it's. I, I don't know how we move forward on what's best for the country when that's the kind of media environment that we live in.

[Gavin Newsom]

Well, you were supposed to be able to answer that question, but you've just posed yet another question for your next book. But on in September, this book, which technically is your next book already written, pay attention. How the algorithms and media wars are suppressing truth, Truth and rewiring our brain. David, it's been great to have you.

[David Pakman]

My pleasure. Thank you so much. Thanks for being here.

[Tony Ayo]

This is Tony Ayo from the Real Report with Tony Ayo and Uncle Murder. You ever notice how everything keeps going up? Rent streaming, even extra Sosa at your favorite burrito spot? But with Boost Mobile, you don't have to play the Willis Go up soon game. Boost Mobile offers an unlimited talk, text and data plan at a price that'll never go up. It's the same price you'll pay for Life. Switch now for unlimited wireless at a price that'll never, never go up. Only at boost mobile, after 30 gigabytes, customers may experience slower speeds. Customers will pay $25 a month as long as they remain active on the Boost Unlimited plan.

[Capella University Announcer]

There's a fire inside you you can't ignore. Stand still. Not a chance. You're a lifelong learner who's come this far. Now we're here to help you keep going further. Capella University what can't you do? Visit Capella. Edu to learn more.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

Think about it when it comes to your own food, you can walk into a restaurant, see what's being made, and know exactly what you're getting. But with dog food, most brands keep that completely hidden. Just Food for Dogs does the opposite. They've built their entire brand around open kitchens. You can actually walk in and watch them prepare your dog's meals with real human grade ingredients like chicken, beef, carrots and peas cooked right there in front of you. No mystery, no behind the scenes, you're not allowed to see. That kind of transparency is rare in the pet food world. And it's a big reason they've become the number one vet recommended fresh dog food, earning trust from pet parents who want to feel confident in what they're feeding. When a brand is willing to show you exactly how your dog's food is made, it says a lot about the care, quality and standards behind every meal they produce. Nothing to hide. Everything to love. Go to justfoodfordogs.com and get 50% off your first order.

[Mint Mobile Announcer]

Wasn't that delicious?

[Capella University Announcer]

So good.

[Gavin Newsom]

Your bill, ladies.

[David Pakman]

I got it.

[Capella University Announcer]

No, I got it. Seriously.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

I insist.

[Gavin Newsom]

I insist first.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

Oh, don't be silly.

[David Pakman]

You don't be silly.

[HomeServe Advertiser]

People with the Wells Fargo Active Cash

[Gavin Newsom]

credit card prefer to pay because they

[HomeServe Advertiser]

earn unlimited 2% cash rewards on purchases.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

Oh, okay.

[Capella University Announcer]

Rock, paper, scissors for it.

[David Pakman]

Rock, paper, scissors.

[HeroBread Advertiser]

Shoot.

[Just Food for Dogs Advertiser]

No.

[HomeServe Advertiser]

The Wells Fargo Active Cash credit card. Visit Wells Fargo. Com ActiveCash. Terms apply.

[Capella University Announcer]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.