Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Honestly can't get past Kara Swisher's near-constant point-scoring at the expense of allowing any linear conversation to progress past a few talking points. *Fascinating* topics, but not enough the requisite depth to really understand the points of disagreement

Agree, one has an optics and symbolism driven approach (which works to some extent in some cases), other is systems level thinking (which rejects replacing few inputs w seemingly obvious preferred inputs fixes core issues). “If only these nerds had taken a few humanities classes”

Yes, but more complicated. I think @karaswisher's is a systemic approach too - she is very consistent - but it is linear or historical. She has a train on rails & the rails are changing. @sama says train has left rails and is now flying and we have to catch up, no other option.

It doesn't seem consistent to me? Like, right off the bat, I can't tell why she prefers Zuckerberg et al re: drawing the boundaries for speech on the major platforms — she careens between complaining about the power of white men & demanding they use it more decisively

It feels like two not very sophisticated rules of thumb "white men are bad" and "Zuckerberg is letting trolls run amok" colliding and resulting in a shower of not-quite-non-sequiturs

That is actually consistent. That's why I called her approach linear or historical: she applies "normal" corporate categories (cites NYTimes, being "CEO", etc.) Sam says these are new entities and both government and society have to adapt. Truth must be in the collision...

Precisely, her worldview is that these networks are media companies. Everything she says makes sense if you accept that premise.

She says there are corporates which is a paradigm in which there are media and software companies as subsets. In all you need to diversify leadership, hold leader accountable etc. Sam says tech companies are outliers but that he doesn't know what the solution would be - but new.