All language subtitles for S01E02 Whats Next

Well, when I was running Microsoft...

Ladies and gentlemen,
please welcome Bill Gates.

...you know,
we were incredibly successful,

but I understood then
that there'd be a range of opinions.

Log on to the Internet

and you'll soon find
what some people think of Bill Gates.

You can punch him.

You can even put a pie in his eye.

It was later, you know,
when I'm full time doing philanthropy,

it really started getting crazy.

Is it true
if you dropped a 10,000 dollar bill,

it wasn't worth your time
to bend down to pick it up again?

No.

You know, extreme wealth

certainly triggers questions
about your motives,

but, you know,
this is on a whole new level.

Uh, let's go with number one.
Let's see.

"Bill Gates and the liberal world order
are orchestrating a scheme

to force people to eat bugs." Hmm.

"Their agenda is
to weaken the lower classes

with protein-poor insect diets."

Uh, I'd feel bad if I was doing that.

Okay. Next.

Oh, this is even better.
"Bill Gates is a shapeshifting lizard,

part of the reptilian race
that includes Tom Hanks and Lady Gaga."

"These lizard people
are secretly exerting global control."

Someone mentioned this one to me.

I didn't know
we had Tom Hanks in on it, though.

I mean, that's great.

Next.

Hmm. "Bill Gates is pursuing immortality
by consuming babies' blood."

"Bill Gates' massive farmland holdings

are secretly supplying potatoes
to McDonald's

to embed their french fries with vaccines
one Happy Meal at a time."

I eat McDonald's.

Okay, one last one.

"After a fatal car crash...

...Bill Gates and ex-wife Melinda
have been replaced by clones."

"A team of scientists
created replacements

to keep his control
over the world never-ending."

Have you heard that before?

No, Melinda, I think,
is still a real person.

And you?

I'm... I do my best.

So, I wanted
to ask you about truth.

Uh, you strike me as somebody
who's driven by data and numbers.

Do you think there's a difference
between data and truth?

Not really. I mean, data...

is the

set of facts

about, you know,
how much stuff is being sold,

how many people are there,

uh, what activities do they engage in?

You know,
it's kind of how we make decisions.

Except sometimes people
don't make decisions based on facts.

They make it
based on emotions or narrative

or, you know, something
that people feel they believe to be true.

"How do I think
about a concept like truth?"

You wanted to come in
with a sort of, like, softball there.

Well, I think
there are things called facts.

If I put my hand in that fire,
it is going to hurt.

But people have different ways
of reasoning, rationalizing,

their claims to know something.

I've started to think
much more intentionally

about how we create truth.

Truth to whom?

And so,
truth becomes something negotiable,

and it becomes something
more akin to opinion

or even worse, like belief.

Well, the world
is far, far too complicated

to have a complete fact-based way
of understanding behavior

and weather and economics
and all these things,

so we use shortcuts like,
"I trust this person."

CBS Television presents

the distinguished reporter
and news analyst Edward R. Murrow.

For the first time,

man's been able to sit at home
and look at two oceans at the same time.

We're impressed
with the importance of this medium.

We shall hope to learn to use it
and not to abuse it.

That was a brief period where
we thought of ourselves as rational beings

who had beliefs that were based on
sort of verifiable facts,

but that's not how we exist.

It just would take too long if
you didn't believe what people told you.

Experts say,
"Don't believe it

just because it's posted."

Q-Anon has spread
like wildfire in recent months.

The Internet
kind of enables this fantasy

that we are actually
figuring these things out all alone,

but trust is a single dial.

You can't dial down trust
in one area of society

and dial it up in the other.

You can either go up or down.

And if you decide to go down,

you've really destabilized
a lot of things.

Anything you hear,
you sit there, and you're like, "Uh..."

No one knows what to trust
and what not to trust.

Peoples' trust in their neighbors,
in their leaders...

People, wake up!

...and institutions of knowledge...

You're CNN. You're fake news.

...and that will come back and turn on you.

Don't you understand
I'm trying to protect you?

- Why is there...
- Freedom!

There's always been
conspiracy theories out there.

We underestimate
how creative Americans are,

and I think I oftentimes
go out into the field

with an idea, a question, and perhaps
a rational argument around that question.

I headed to Trump rallies
in the crucial swing states

of Ohio and Wisconsin

to discover what his supporters know
that the rest of us don't.

- Barack Obama had big part of 9/11.
- Which part?

Not being around,
always on vacation, never in the office.

Why do you think Barack Obama
wasn't in the Oval Office on 9/11?

That I don't know.

Really starting in that Trump era,

we were getting stories and theories
that were outside of the norm.

That went beyond just

"I disagree with your point of view.
I hold the conservative point of view,"

to "I've concocted a new reality,"

and also stuff
I just hadn't heard about. Bonkers shit.

So, at that point, you're like, "I want
to know more about where this gestates."

Uh, if you're into conspiracies
and/or computers,

you may have heard of Bill Gates.
I hope I'm saying that correctly.

Whether it's from population control
to vaccine microchips,

the theories are vast,
and the real world consequences are real.

So to help me dig into that, I have
Kathryn Joyce and Ike Sriskandarajah.

You guys are gonna help me unpack

how these conspiracies get attached
to someone like that,

what the veracity
in some of these theories are,

and which ones I should believe

because I'm always looking for
a good conspiracy to sink my teeth into

and/or give my money to.
So hopefully you can help me with that.

Let's go back a little bit in time.
All right?

Let's go back to 2010.

When our foundation first started up,
it was focused on reproductive health

because population growth
in poor countries

is the biggest problem they face.

You've got to help mothers
who want to limit family size

have the tools and education to do that.

So, the Gates Foundation,

they were looking at
this rural community in Ghana,

and they were looking at ways
to expand access to contraceptive safety

for women who wanted to be able
to regulate their fertility

or plan their births.

This turned into
this really complicated conspiracy theory

that claimed the Gates Foundation

was funding
a population control experiment

to limit the African population.

Where does this distrust come from?

In... This is tapping into
a lot of really potent old stuff.

Um, you know,
there have been human rights abuses.

In the 1960s,

a third of all Puerto Rican women
ended up being sterilized.

You know, there is the Tuskegee Study.

There's lots of stuff.

We, as a society, have done this.

- We have forcibly sterilized people.
- To... To be clear, I have not done that.

I can tell you there were some years
in my college time

that I'm a little hazy about what I did,
but I can assure you, it was not that.

- That's good.
- Thank you.

But how does it go so quickly
from zero to population control,

specifically with Bill Gates here?

Well, it involves anti-abortion activists...

...and very cynically co-opting
these legitimate concerns.

And then in 2012

when the Gates Foundation gets really
involved in this new large campaign,

all of this just sort of
clicks into place.

These wealthy Western organizations,

not only were they telling us
to control our population,

they came with their own drugs.

This is a tragedy!

It's genocidal.

Part of the reason these
conspiracy theories become so electric

is because there is
this little kernel of truth

that health care is not
and has not been equitable.

I spend a lot of time
telling people Bill is not Darth Vader.

"How do you know?"

"I know him. He's not doing it.
He's busy doing these things."

You know, I literally met him 109 times.

Well, how do you look at the landscape
at this moment,

especially in the Internet space?

We'll look back at this
as one of the great periods of invention.

I think a lot of people
that started the Internet

saw it as a way to bring us together,
to expand knowledge,

and a lot of the early stuff
was like that.

What happened?

Well, it took a turn, right?

You've got mail.

It was a business decision
very early on to create a platform,

create a sandbox, create a playground,

and invite everyone in.

When we first launched,
we were hoping for maybe 400, 500 people.

Now we're at 100,000 people,
so who knows where we're going next. Um...

Because without all of us
around the world

constantly filling up these spaces
with our self-expression,

you know, whatever form that takes,

these would be essentially empty vessels,

so it became a business model
of "We'll sort it out later."

This law is
truly revolutionary legislation

that will bring the future
to our doorstep.

In the early days, if you were responsible
for everything on your platform,

you could get sued out of existence
before you were even out of the crib.

And so they tried
to create some protection

for these companies to grow.

The Internet changes too fast.
Its content changes too fast.

If the government takes the view

that it can control it,
define it, and regulate it

while it's still in embryonic form,

it's bound to fail.

So, this particular piece
of legislation, called Section 230,

decided that
rather than platforms be responsible

for things that flowed over their wires,

they in fact were indemnified
from responsibility for that material.

This bill protects consumers
against monopolies.

It guarantees the diversity of voices
our democracy depends upon.

Perhaps most of all,
it enhances the common good.

But at the time
Section 230 came into being,

we were talking about a company
that had a wall of modems

and a T1 connection to the Internet,

so it made sense to consider
these companies to be nothing more

than this neutral conduit for information
that Section 230 envisioned.

And now
this law protects the richest

and most powerful companies
in the history of the world.

I think what
they didn't anticipate

was what a good medium it is for hiding

and for being anonymous
in a malevolent way.

You know, TV and broadcast,
broadcast even has limits.

Newspapers have limits.
Physical things have limits.

But then you introduce this thing
that's addictive and fun

and full of crazy stuff.

It's so pretty. It's so shiny.

It's so interesting,
and your life is boring.

It's to have you lean forward, right?

And if it keeps you there,
and then it starts spinning things

that continue
to drag you down a rabbit hole,

then you'd never come back.

- Hi.
- Hi, Bill.

Our backgrounds are pretty different.

I'm not an artist,
and you're not a programmer.

Okay, but to say you're not an artist,
I feel like is not really entirely fair.

- Well, that's being nice.
- I'm definitely not a programmer, though.

You know, given all the things that have
happened to us with misinformation,

do you feel like it's more intense
the last four years?

I think we've both seen in different ways

the way that misinformation
can destroy people's lives.

Absolutely.

There's a way
that we experience information now

that has a lot to do with entertainment

and information
being a lot closer together

than they ever have been before.

Yeah, the idea
that if it's kind of outrageous and funny,

it's almost like,

"Well, okay, maybe it's not true,
but it made me laugh,"

or, you know,
"I kind of wish it was true."

Yeah, the entertaining story is, you know,

that "Bill Gates hates what people say
about him in relation to vaccines,"

or "Lady Gaga is, you know,
mortified at these rumors."

But for me,

I've been used to lies being printed
about me since I was 20 years old,

so I'm a performer.
I think it's kind of funny.

People obviously think
you're not being who you are

because you are wearing
a lot of makeup and...

This is what I'm really like.

This is exactly what I'm really like.

This... This is the cup
I drink out of every day.

This is the diamond
I put in my coffee when I get nervous.

It's not a real diamond. It's fake.

I feel like I know firsthand how much
the public really hates being manipulated.

Entertainment as a form of manipulation
is a big part of my career.

When I went to the MTV Awards
with discharged soldiers

during "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,"

I wore the meat dress,

and there were fans I had that loved it
'cause they thought it was smart.

They said, "Oh, she's using entertainment
to further her political agenda,"

but it really bothered people

that didn't wanna talk about LGBTQ+ rights
at the time.

Stop the Lady Gaga concert!

So, by doing something disruptive,
I guess what I'm trying to say is

I know firsthand as a performer
how much the public hates that.

You know, in my case,
a lot of it's all vaccine-related,

which I am connected to vaccines.

That part is true,

but if there was only one or two of them,
and it wasn't a broad phenomenon,

I would attempt to say,

"Hey, wait a minute.
Pick on something else."

"Don't pick on vaccines."

You might not
personally feel offended by it,

but it could affect a decade's worth

of people's relationship with vaccines
and their trust.

And if the public loses their trust,
there's no way to stop it.

Yeah.

Now, Ike, I want to bring you
into the conversation here too.

I feel there's something
in the America character,

this need for embellishment.

At every step, you regurgitate an idea
and then embellish one extra fact.

It's the game
of telephone on steroids.

That's where we get
the microchip vaccine conspiracy theory.

Do we have a good name for it yet?

Is it the COVID conspiracy?
Is it the microchip conspiracy?

I think I would call it
the microchip vaccine conspiracy theory.

- Okay. Yeah.
- Do you have a better...?

No. I mean, it's wordy,
but, uh, it has all the searchable terms,

which is helpful on a Reddit board.

- It's search engine optimized.
- What is that? Give me the broad strokes.

Okay, so I was listening to
The Breakfast Club...

Morning, everybody.
It's The Breakfast Club.

Now if you just joined us,
we were talking about Donald Trump.

It came out yesterday
that him and his wife have coronavirus,

so, do you think it's real?
Do you think it's a hoax?

Do you think
he really has the coronavirus?

So, he's riffing in the morning

and then takes the conversation
in a direction I did not expect.

This is Charlamagne Tha God,
Lenard McKelvey talking.

I don't believe it.

And I think this could all be a stunt
to make one of those

value-menu vaccines
they're rushing out look safe.

He'll take it on national TV,
all of a sudden be well,

and give the illusion to the public
that the vaccine is safe.

He'll look like a hero
because he's one of the first to try it.

Millions of people
will line up to get it and boom!

Microchip implants for all y'all.

And I was like, "Whoa. He's... I mean,
everybody knows he's joking, right?"

I remember that during COVID too.

COVID's a time of everybody's
going a little bit stir-crazy,

and this idea
of whether we should trust this vaccine,

that was a point of conversation.

Yes, but he said it four times.

Microchip. Microchip implant!
Microchips. In your ***.

I was like, "Whoa."

"I'm worried people are gonna hear this
and not think that he's joking,"

and I had this reporting question.

"Do people believe this?"

"How many people believe this?"

"And what effect could this have
on our fight against COVID?"

I'm actually surprised that at that point,

you still had hope
that messaging could be clear.

Yeah.

My memory of it at that point,
our minds were all messed up,

thinking about Tiger King
and sourdough recipes.

So I was wondering if you could apply
the methodology of contact tracing

to tracing a lie to its origin.

And the beginning of this particular
microchip vaccine conspiracy theory starts

with a Reddit AMA that Bill Gates hosted.

And he predicts
that the future will involve us

all having some kind of digital passport.

Not a microchip,
not something implanted into your body,

but, like, that's where it starts.

And so, to pick up then,
what happens after people see this AMA?

- It travels across the Internet...
- Mm-hmm.

...to Sweden.

Where some biohackers...

Those are the people who like
to inject technology into their bodies,

so they can turn into Iron Man?

Well, these guys are advocates.

They're shooting lead into their veins,

and they're advocating for the idea
of man becoming robot?

They're strong proponents
of implantable technology.

- I'm not here on behalf of biohacking.
- Come on.

This is why people can't trust the media.
All right? Give it to me straight.

- Okay, these guys are a little unhinged.
- Thank you.

You see that's two by twelve millimeters.

It's the size
of a luxurious grain of rice.

These biohackers are looking
for opportunities

to advance the issue
of human-implantable microchips.

I do single sign-on on my laptop,

unlocking your phone,
getting into my house.

Cypher, the biohacker
who's paying attention to this,

posts a headline,
a little provocative, a little misleading.

It goes, "Bill Gates
will use microchip implants

to fight coronavirus."

He posts a headline.

What does that mean?
Does he own a newspaper?

This is the problem right here.

You could post a headline
like it's a fact.

So, he takes a leap of faith, and he says,

"This is gonna be something
that will be injected into your body."

Yeah. You know how the Internet works.

Mm-hmm. It destroys humanity
faster than we ever could have expected?

You know...

We should talk to the guy
who really was at the beginning

of this whole computer movement.
What's his name?

Uh, Bill. Bill Gates.

Hello, this is Adam with Law of Liberty.
I want to share an article with you today.

Look at this.

So, this article lands on the desk
of a Jacksonville pastor,

so he makes a YouTube video.

The article reads,

"Bill Gates will launch
human-implantable capsules

that have 'digital certificates'

which can show
who has been tested for the coronavirus."

Now, this is quite a concern
for any Bible-believing Christians

knowing what the Bible says
about the end times.

Knowing that the Bible says
there will be an Antichrist,

a man that proclaims to be God
that gives glory to the Dragon,

which is the Devil.

He titles his video "Bill Gates Microchip
Vaccine Implants to fight Coronavirus."

So, he adds the word "vaccine."

I've read articles about putting
a little chip in with the vaccine.

When is Bill Gates' serpent tongue
gonna come out of his mouth,

and... and when will his horns
and tail appear?

So, when the... the cameras,
the 5G comes out, what?

They're gonna scan everybody?
We gotta get scanned?

Yeah, I remember I was
at an anti-vaxx rally in Orange County,

and people were talking a lot
about Bill Gates.

They were talking about him
almost like he was Thanos.

Like he wanted a sixth of the population
to just disappear.

Well, I guess it's important to say
that even before the pandemic,

there is a group of people
who were anti-vaccine.

There's some that you'd think of
as more on the left,

some more on the right,

and with both there's the sense of freedom

and does the government know
what they're doing?

How it turned into,
"There's a chip in the vaccine,"

which, how does it get through the needle?
I don't know.

And what's the power source?

That's the first time I experienced
a complete conspiracy theory

that say I had something to do
with the creation of the pandemic.

That's one of the more extreme ones,

so that was a very new thing
and... and very surprising.

Well, during the pandemic,
we would talk on a regular basis.

A lot of it was "Okay, wow.
The world's gotten a bit crazy."

"Are you doing okay?"

And, "Do you see this the same way I do?"
And "Did you hear the latest?"

Our constant communication over that
was very psychologically, uh, therapeutic.

Because I'd say

at least I know somebody understands
what I'm going through.

Kill Bill Gates!
Kill Bill Gates! Kill...

At the beginning of the pandemic,
people accused me of making money

and went as far as to say
that intentionally I get vaccines out

that literally have caused
millions of deaths.

- Right.
- It's kind of inverting the truth.

Instead of spending billions
to save millions,

I kill millions to make billions.

Yeah, and when you talk to people

who come up with something
that's outlandishly untrue,

and you say, "That's just not true.
How did you come to that conclusion?"

I gotta tell you, more often than not
it's, "Somebody showed me a tweet."

- Yeah.
- So, you can take an untruth,

tweet it, and retweet it 100,000 times,
and then it becomes a fact.

I remember we had these rules

that there was a certain time of night
you weren't supposed to get your phone,

and so sometimes Mom would go to bed,
and I was supposed to enforce the rules,

but then you ended up having
a second phone or something.

But do you find yourself,
even at this age, using your phone

and staying on social media
more than you want to?

Oh my gosh, yeah.

TikTok is so addictive.
I'm on it, like, all the time.

And have you ever run into
crazy misinformation about me?

Crazy misinformation about you?
All the time.

I've even had friends cut me off
because of these vaccine rumors.

But I'm a public health student
at Stanford,

and I think that
there's just so much nuance

on how do you communicate, like,
accurate public health information

or scientific data.

I don't know. I... I need to learn more, um,
because I naively still believe that

digital communication can be
a force to bring us together,

to have reasonable debate.

I think one thing, like, you don't really
understand about online is, like,

it's not really, like, logic and fact
that win out.

Like, people want an escape.

They want to, like, laugh.
They want an engaging video.

They want to, you know,
be taken away from boring reality.

And so, like, the most popular video
of you online

is you literally trying to do the dab.

Uh, Bill,
can you do the dab real quick?

Damn, Bill!

Or you jumping over the chair.

Is it true that you can leap over a chair
from a standing position?

It depends on the size of the chair.

Uh, I'll cheat a little bit.

Yes!

Those were the most popular
'cause people want to escape from things,

so I don't think fact and reason
always win out online.

But the thing about, you know,
I make lots of money from vaccines,

it's hard for me to figure out
where that comes from.

It's not like a political organization.
It's just madness, and who promotes that?

I think it's fear. Everyone was stuck
at home during a pandemic.

We're all scared for our lives.

No one really knows
what to trust or what to believe,

so that's what our society does.

Yeah, the pandemic was definitely, uh,
social media at its worst.

Uh, oversimplifying things.

You know, it's so scary to me that

I think of democracy
as a debate over a set of issues

as opposed to
this complete separation of us and them,

and what if we have a pandemic
that's ten times worse...

Don't say that. They're gonna think
you're gonna cause it then.

- That's right. I'm working on it.
- Don't you say that. Cut that.

You can't go telling people
something's gonna happen,

and then when it happens,
they're like, "Oh!"

This is not funny?

This is bad short-form content

that'll go everywhere,
millions of views, if you say it.

Okay.

So, I work in medieval legal history,
and I look at how the histories are made.

So the official histories,
how do they get constructed?

What pieces go into them?

It's always
a sort of combination of factors,

but a conspiracy theory
always has kind of the same story.

Once upon a time,
we were happy, and everything was good.

We were in charge, and we were safe.

And then the monsters took hold,
but no one knew that they had.

Everything seemed fine

because the monsters made sure
this was all kept secret.

They could change shapes and sizes,
and they could look like anything.

But the thing about these monsters
is that they're in control of the media.

They're in control of their own image,

and so only a very few people
can actually see these monsters.

And if... if you're special enough,

you could spot the monsters
no matter what they looked like.

Only the heroes of the story
knew the truth,

and then they arrived to save the world.

Of course this is a compelling story.

Like, I'm a dragon slayer?
Yeah, sign me up!

And then came
a magical device called the Internet.

It's a fairy tale
about who you are,

and it's a sort of hero's journey
about yourself,

and that's the core of a conspiracy theory
is the way that it helps you see yourself.

This was a battle of good versus evil,
and that's how they saw the world.

- The end.
- The end.

That's a weird book.

- Should we read it again?
- No!

Okay, okay.

We didn't start
structurally tracking misinformation

until really the beginning
of the pandemic.

- Hello.
- Hey, Bill.

- Hi.
- Hi, Bill.

I think Bill's biggest concern

is misinformation about the topics
and the issues he works on.

So whether that's climate change,
pandemic preparedness,

whether that's global health more broadly,

you know, we just have to be equipped
with what's happening in that sector.

So, we're gonna take you through
something you haven't seen yet.

We're gonna show you
some of the things that are hot right now,

and I also have to apologize.
Some of this stuff is dark.

So, if there was an arc
of what happened in misinformation,

it used to be à la carte issues.

What has happened, though,
is people have done really good

at conflating things
into these massive conspiracy theories

that include microchips, farmland,

vaccine technology,
about puppeteering world affairs,

so this is a real-time dashboard
of all the misinformation about you.

So, what you're seeing right now,

these are all the posts and issues
contributing to all that volume.

But I wonder if some things
like the microchipping thing,

has that dropped to zero,
or is that still there?

No, that's, like, a quarter
of so many of those sections.

This is a pretty interesting one.

This blue line
is really just about climate.

A lot of this is
about puppeteering the food supply.

Let me take you down a little bit here.

So, one of the emerging rumors
and conspiracy theories is

you've engineered ticks
that when they bite people,

they make people allergic
to traditional meat,

and that this is a theory in order
to drive demand for synthetic meats.

So, apparently, um, 450,000 Americans
have been bitten by these ticks,

and they are gonna now
switch over to meat substitutes,

and that's part of a profiteering plan
around synthetic meats.

Obviously, the bizarre nature of this,

I think this is being shared
a little bit more broadly

because it's just so incredible

that actual normal people are like,
"This is wack,"

and it gets counted
as either a neutral or a positive one.

Glad you're laughing. Uh, I found this
to be particularly depressing.

It's interesting to know
how to fight back, though, you know,

'cause a lot of ways to fight back
could even make it worse.

Right. We noticed
that, like, if you do fact checking,

often that's actually just highlighting
the story to more people.

Yeah.

I love that word cluster. It's fantastic.

- Yeah.
- That's my to-do list.

When it comes to misinformation,
Bill's pretty tough-skinned.

Some of this stuff is so wild.

You know, so wild
that it almost makes him laugh.

But when you talk to Bill,

I think misinformation
is incredibly perplexing to him

because it's still not clear
how we address the issue

in some way
that's systemic and foundational.

You know, in the pandemic,

when we'd watch those videos
of people in the hospital saying,

"Now I want the vaccine,"

and you see it explained to them
that it's just too late.

You can ascribe millions of deaths

as a result
of some of this misinformation.

It's just sort of hard to get your head
and your heart wrapped around that.

So, when I was in my early twenties,
there was a rumor that I was a man,

and I went all over the world.

I mean, I traveled for tours,
for promoting my records,

and almost every interview I sat in,
they said, "You know, we..."

Well, there was this image on the Internet
that had been doctored.

Oh wow.

And they were like, you know,
"There's this rumor that you're a man."

"What do you have to say about that?"

Do you ever go on the Internet, Lady Gaga?

- I try to stay away.
- Yeah. 'Cause it's filled with mad rumors.

- Really?
- Oh yeah.

- Would you like to hear a couple?
- I'm sure I don't have a choice.

Someone said that Lady Gaga is actually
a very well-endowed young man.

What about the crazy rumors
about you being a hermaphrodite?

How do you feel about that
when you read that?

A lot of artists
would've put out a statement saying,

"This is absolutely not true."
You have fun with it.

Why the hell am I gonna waste my time

and give a press release
about whether or not I have a penis?

My fans don't care and neither do I.

The reason I didn't answer the question
was because

I didn't feel like a victim with that lie,

but I thought about, like, what about
a kid that's being accused of that

that would think
a public figure like me would feel shame?

It's like... Sometimes... I guess
what I'm saying is I've been in situations

where fixing a rumor was not
in the best interest of...

I thought of, like,
the well-being of other people.

- Huh.
- So, in that case,

I try to be thought-provoking
and disruptive in another way.

I tried to use the misinformation
to create another disruptive point.

People, I think, assume that
someone like me that performs,

that my performance is what's not real,

but to me that's the most real thing
that you'll see about me.

That is so much more real than, um,

all of the rumors that are designed
to orbit me to gain more clicks.

Yeah.

Do you think we have tactics
for reducing this?

That is a very sensitive issue
because we wanna make sure

that there is this very strong element
of freedom of speech.

Mm-hmm.

Except freedom of speech does not allow
you to cry, "Fire" in a movie theater,

then you have to reconsider
what can you do about that?

A new study
suggests that TikTok

may be pushing harmful content
to its young users.

You basically
have to make a choice.

Do you err on the side
of free speech and voice,

or do you err on the side
of wanting to remove harmful content?

It seems to me that there's
a severe violation of the First Amendment

in terms of how much control
the government had over old Twitter,

and, uh, it no longer does,

so, you know, there's a reason
for the First Amendment.

I don't need a lecture on free speech
from Elon Musk. I don't.

He just decides when he's gonna do
free speech on his platform that he owns.

Free speech was not conceived
on such a scale,

and therefore it gives enormous power
to malevolent players.

I often come back
to this court case called Packer v. Utah.

Utah had outlawed
putting tobacco ads in its state,

and Packer,
which was a tobacco company, said,

"Ah, we have free speech rights.
We can put up an ad."

The case worked its way up
to the Supreme Court,

and the ruling is written
by Justice Brandeis,

and he basically argues that,

actually, the act of putting it
in a billboard in a community space

was creating the conditions
that people had to look away.

They had to avert their eyes.

You have given too much privilege
to the speech act

and not enough to the listener.

Social media is not a question
of... of speech or speech acts.

It's a question of amplification.

If I choose to subscribe
to your information, fine.

But what does it mean to be forced to see?

Those are different things.

Your right to be a jerk,
your right to be hateful.

You can do that,
and the content can continue to exist.

It can be on the platform.

People who want
to go looking for it can find it.

But the platform's not
under any obligation

to push it out into an algorithmic feed.

So, this question of who draws the lines

between your right to free expression
and real world harm

is actually, I think,
the question for our time.

Everything that is built today
is built in the era of polarization.

Which is something that,
as social scientists have pointed out,

- predates the Internet.
- Yeah.

We talk about disinformation,
rumors, misinformation,

and it becomes personal for individuals.

Mr. Gates, did you see this happening?

Was this on your radar at all,

or was this a... was this
a completely surprising phenomenon?

I didn't realize the digital realm
would let people sort of cluster

and revel in often things
that are not real,

so I'm actually quite concerned
about that.

Is this something
that's only getting worse,

or is there some kind of turning point
where... where maybe things improve a bit?

So, I think there's technological problems
and there's social problems,

and, of course, there's this intersection.

And since social media brought everybody
into the same spaces,

put them on the same infrastructure,
you have this interesting dynamic

where some recommendation
and curation decisions,

just some really bad design decisions
that were made very unintentionally.

The way most platforms
keep people online

is they give you a sense of community.

I've used the metaphor
of flocks of starlings.

There's these murmurations.

They careen around,

and it happens because each bird
can see the seven birds nearest it.

So one bird kinda changes direction,

and then it has this cascading effect
where things move very quickly.

But it has no idea
what the rest of the flock is doing.

You see something.
It comes across your feed,

and you hit the like button,

and you don't necessarily think
that has an impact,

but once you engage, you're feeding it
more information about your interests.

If you're in an anti-vaccine group,
you're probably gonna like chemtrails.

If you like chemtrails,
here's some flat earth,

and so it is constantly
pushing you recommendations

because it's competing for your attention
against the other platforms

that are doing the same thing.

I think the mistake I made was
thinking when people were sitting there,

they were mostly just trying
to gather facts

and there would be less misinformation,

but as we connect to things
over the Internet,

even myself,

if an article has a headline that says,

"People You Disagree With Politically
Are Even Stupider Than You Thought,"

you know, I might click on that and think,
"Hey, yeah! They really are. Yeah."

As a result of that, as a result
of the polarization in the United States,

this conversation has become
a very partisan fight

when it's actually happening globally.

In 2010,
activist groups began to realize

that the Internet actually is
a powerful tool for organizing.

Nowhere is this more visible
than in the Arab Spring.

This wakes up governments.

They no longer think about this
as some people talking on the Internet.

Now it's toppling regimes.

So, what you start to see
is governments incorporating the Internet

into their propaganda apparatus.

The Islamic State,

they're producing propaganda pieces
every single day.

What ISIS does very overtly,
Russia goes and does very covertly,

and all of a sudden, you have
this kind of war of all against all

where different factions are fighting
for attention and clout

and then real power in the real world.

We've seen influence operations
originated by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India,

Pakistan, Jordan, gosh, the United States.

- United States.
- Right?

There's nobody
that isn't doing it

to try to manipulate
the information space of their enemy.

And again, this ties back to
very old concepts of war and dominance

where if you can activate
a small group of people within one country

to fight against a group of people
in another country,

you can destabilize your enemy

purely using real existing tensions
that exist within the world.

This issue of disinformation
has really gone on steroids

because we are overwhelmed
and inundated with information.

We barely have time or space to reflect,
let alone process something deeply,

so, as a result, we're just gonna accept
what is coming at us.

And I think people
are suspicious and skeptical

of the world
that's being presented to them,

but we have no other choice.

Well, in the end,
this is a societal problem,

and there will have to be
laws and regulations

that drive the solution to this.

Obviously, different countries
will deal with this in different ways,

but in the US, it's immensely complicated.

I've heard you talk about
the reforms you've made,

but I don't think
you're gonna solve the problem.

I think Congress
is gonna have to help you.

We can no longer trust Meta and, frankly,
any of the other social media

to provide the kind of safeguards
that children and parents deserve.

Mr. Zuckerberg, why should
your company not be sued for this?

Shouldn't you be held accountable?

Senator, I... I think
I've already answered this. This is...

Well, try us again.
Will you take personal responsibility?

There's families of victims here today.

Would you like now

to apologize to the victims
who've been harmed by your posts?

Show him the pictures.

You can't expect them to take
responsibility to regulate themselves.

We have to restructure
the entire apparatus

within which
these technology corporations operate

to ensure that the people
are actually protected,

especially those most vulnerable
in our society.

I am a believer in a more decentralized
content moderation sphere

where users have more, uh, control

rather than Mark Zuckerberg
or others having to decide

these are the policies,

and they will then apply
to two billion people.

The Internet
was paid for by taxpayers.

So they took a thing we paid for,

and then they make the decisions
that affect society,

that actually cause impact,

whether it's addiction
or insurrection or radicalization,

but then have no responsibility for that.

We've done nothing about it.
Nothing. Nothing. Zero.

I think disinformation
is perpetuated by all of us.

Absolutely.

I think it's not something
that we can just blame social media

for not making sure
that they have better practices.

I think that we also
have to hold ourselves to a standard

of what we are willing to perpetuate
on our own platforms.

Well, we've made it so easy

to just post anything.

You know, so somebody who,

you know, on the playground
would have been rude and nasty,

okay, a few dozen kids hear that,
that's not great, you know,

but hopefully they'll grow up.

But you're sitting in your own home,

and if somebody is questioning
your traditional values,

it's just, you know,
you just sit there and type,

and then the system takes that
and it's not just the playground,

it's millions of people.

So, blaming the individuals is hard

because it's kind of human nature
but just blasted out.

When I hear you talk
about the playground,

what I think right away is,

if enough people were on the playground
shouting at each other at the same time,

I feel like someone might calm it down.

No, you're right.

On that playground, if, you know,
things go too out of control,

there was some adult who would show up.

And even when you attack somebody
on the playground,

you can see their face, you know.

And maybe they'll cry,
or maybe they'll, you know, run away,

and you're like, "Was that my intention?"

"I did make that person feel bad."

Whereas when you're sitting there typing,
and you're feeling like you're so clever,

you don't see that human reaction
that makes you think twice about it.

Say you wanted to understand people
with different viewpoints,

is there any way
to get exposed to that broader?

Yeah, I'd say that you have to
definitely intentionally seek it out.

If you wanna get the other side,
you have to literally search that out,

especially because
the algorithm tailors towards your views

or the content
you're engaging with the most.

We're just gonna have to be
even more aware

of what's true and what's not true.

Yeah, you know, I'd love a little bit
that every once in a while

if there's really
a well-reasoned kind of right wing,

why do they see it differently, you know,
understand our perspective.

- I'd love to get that into your theme.
- Same. Same.

Because I'm big
about moving people to the middle.

That's why tweaking the algorithm
would be so important.

If I could say to it, "Hey, today
I wanna see content from both sides."

"Don't just label me as left."

I wish I could tweak the algorithm to say,

"I don't wanna see this today.
I wanna see this."

If I could really play around with it,
that would be really fun.

So, right now
the problem with social media is

that we are actually destabilizing trust
more broadly within the society.

And once you sort of break trust,
you have to replace it with something.

You can't just continue being skeptical

because skepticism
doesn't produce knowledge.

If your only sort of premise is
what you think you know, you don't know,

you can't actually go anywhere from there.
That doesn't lead you in any directions.

It's no longer a conspiracy
when you do your own homework.

You're trying to get us
'cause you're obviously not,

so you're trying to make us seem bad,
but you're the bad guy.

I can't hear you 'cause you have
a stupid mask on your face.

Right now, you see
that kind of conspiracy without the theory

almost replacing
the actual conspiracy theories.

They are against us.

The theory of why they don't want
you to know is completely absent.

The reason why "they" are doing this
is not even discussed.

I think we're getting
to some tipping points here

where a lot of us are recognizing

that this current system as it stands
is overwhelming us.

It's... It's isolating us.
It's fragmenting us.

It's driving us all a little crazy.

Bill Gates thinks of himself as God,
in control of the solar system,

and that's why Bill Gates is now backing
something called sun-dimming technology.

Thank you, Bill Gates,

for trying to fuckin' trick us
that this is real snow.

Snow fuckin' melts.

What can you do?

You know, I can't let it bother me

that some people have
even the most negative view of my work,

but I need a certain level of acceptance

to be able to partner with governments
and other philanthropists

and recruit the best scientists.

So anything that starts to undermine
understanding of what we're about,

what we've achieved, that's problematic.

Do you think
that we're entering an era now

where putting humanity back into things
is gonna be possible?

I do, but partly
it's not that I have a specific plan.

Come on, Bill.

No, I sometimes...
My ultimate cop out is I say,

"Hey, my generation did a lot of things,

but we gifted to the next generation
a... a bit of a mess."

We have a digital polarization thing

that outweighs
the access to information thing,

and, you know, hey, young people,
make some new rules.

Right.

Or have competition in excellence,
not competition in insanity.

But I feel bad that I...
I don't have the... the solution.

So, for the students here,
as, uh, mostly Gen Zers,

do you think there's a generation gap here
on disinformation?

I would not say that younger people
are necessarily doing it better.

I actually think younger generations now
have almost a social incentive

to share a stance,

so while I think older generations
might see something and be outraged,

and maybe they'll share it,

I think people who are younger
are incentivized to share that

and pretend to be an expert.

So I think that can be
almost more dangerous.

Yes, I'm skeptical of what's on my feed.

I know that I can't be manipulated,

so with that confidence you kind of
just go into these algorithms saying,

"Yeah, give me more.
Tell me more about, like..."

I'll keep scrolling
'cause I won't be manipulated.

My youngest sister
is almost nine years younger than me.

She's 20, so she's very much Gen Z,

and I see a huge difference
even between us.

I get out of date,
you know, pretty quickly.

Like, you know, Facebook,
I guess that's not like a big thing.

- Do you do any?
- No, I don't do any Facebook.

And how many IDs
do you typically have on a system?

How many what?

Do you have multiple personas
on the same system?

Oh, you mean accounts?
Uh, yeah, yeah, I do.

Usually you have, like,
your big public account,

and then you'll have a spam one
that's, like, for your closer friends

that's just, like, funny stuff
that you put up.

Yeah, I hear you,
but, you know, I'm a serious person.

So how do I keep that serious persona
and not be a... a boring guy?

I think people want to see that person

that they don't understand
living their day-to-day life.

Like, I understand a lot of times
when people come to my page,

they're coming to my page
because of my last name

or interest in our family.

And then I can sow in there
between, like, you know,

a lot of times it's photos of my face
or when I show skin, I get more likes,

but I can sow...

No, but I can sow in there
stuff about reproductive health and stuff

and then people are learning
that content as well,

and because I'm doing a lot of this work

spreading information
about reproductive justice

or women making decisions
about their own bodies.

I've even seen the amount
of, like, abuse I get online go up

since I've gotten more followers.

You're choosing to use social media
to educate and to activate.

Yeah, so it's a fine line
between being personable

but also then weaving in your real agenda.

Okay. Here's the numbers.
Here's the science. Here's the facts.

Just literally, like, a livestream video
of you talking through your day

I think would be, like, really cool.

All right.

And text me. Don't email me.

What's wrong with email?

No one uses email
for personal communications.

- Forty years ago, we did that a lot.
- Forty years ago, I'm sure that they did.

Not this year
and never, ever, ever in the future.

- Are you good?
- Yeah.

We got it. Thank you.

So, what do you want me to do?
Get up and walk?

- Thank you.
- No, thank you.

Our human desire to be able to coexist
and think about the country or the world

instead of us versus them
within the country, it's a challenge.

I mean, climate change is just one example

of something
we have to work together to solve.

Yet now with misinformation,
that progress is at risk,

but I'm really hoping that we'll minimize
the damage from misinformation

and continue to improve
the human condition.

I will say there's a few things you can do
to be a bit less of an asshole

with that person you disagree with.

One, read a book.

Sit in your thoughts for a while
and somebody else's head for a while.

Two, travel. Anywhere.

Just have a different experience,
even if it's down the block.

And three, concede something.

You wanna know
what I'd like about somebody?

When they think I'm right,

and when they can admit
a vulnerability they could be wrong.

And I think we never have conversations
where there's any concessions.

If we can create
healthy enough human beings who can say,

"I think
I might've been wrong about this..."

...little crack of light.