Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it, presented by Disruption. Now, I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to take a look at the antitrust suit against Facebook that has been filed by the Federal Trade Commission and the attorney generals of 48 states and territories in the US seeking to break up Facebook.
And later, we'll discuss some recent research claiming that constantly seeing oneself as a victim in interpersonal disputes may actually be a stable personality trait, not just bratty behavior.
Joining me today is a man who will twist your wig with fat, radical mathematical type scriptures. Tunde. Ogunlana Tunde. Are you ready to take it from the top, Tippy?
[00:01:00] Speaker B: From the top to the bottom, then back somewhere in between, sir. All right.
[00:01:05] Speaker A: For sure. For sure. All right, now we're recording this on December 14, 2020, and I want to get right to our first topic, the antitrust suit against Facebook.
For some background, Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 for a billion dollars, and they acquired WhatsApp in 2014 for $19 billion. And each of these transactions were approved by the antitrust people in our government at the time.
Now the government is seeking to break off both Instagram and WhatsApp from Facebook, spinning Milton to new ownership, claiming that, and I'm quoting New York Attorney General Letitia James, no company should have this much unchecked power over our personal information and our social interactions.
So, Tunde, what do you make of this move against Facebook, particularly in light of the FTC's previous approval of these acquisitions?
[00:01:54] Speaker B: I think it's another look at how the landscape of commerce and business in general has changed so much due to the information age and this technology kind of stuff. Right. And obviously Facebook is part of that stuff ecosystem, if I can say that with my PhD on the radio here.
But no, it's fascinating because even reading about it further, it's a good.
It was a good reminder that these antitrust laws are very important, number one. But number two, they don't focus on just things like how big a company is or anything like that. I mean, I thought about, like, yeah, Walmart's a big company, but they don't seem to catch the ire of antitrust type of stuff in the same way that, let's say people are worrying about a Facebook. And I think in reading deeper, the fascinating thing in learning, that's why this is a interesting topic we picked, because I didn't know we had a bureau of Competition tucked in within the Federal Trade Commission.
So it's kind of fascinating. And that's what I was reading is more about the antitrust division, I guess, rears its head when there's really seem to be unfair trade practices. And so that, I think, is what stuck out to me more in this case is they were saying that the way that Facebook, I guess, deals with certain things on its platform, specifically WhatsApp and Instagram, stifles the ability of competitors to maybe play in the same space.
And I'm not sure how salient the argument is, because then in reading further, you start seeing TikTok and Snapchat and some of these other platforms. And I think you alluded to this in a kind of offline conversation, that they're doing this now to Facebook after having approved these acquisitions of these companies, meaning specifically WhatsApp and Instagram a few years ago. And I think that's where, you know, we could sit here and beat up the government for that and say, oh, this is another sign of politicians being losers. You know, they let something go and then, you know, a few years later they change their mind. I mean, look, that could be part of it, right? This happened over one or two administrations, I guess. So maybe it's different people in certain leaders, you know, positions in the agencies and all that, that have a different feeling. But I would say, without trying to beat anyone up, I think it's more of a. Again, a reflection of the change, how fast the technology landscape has changed, business and Commerce. Because in 2014, let's say when. I think the year that. When Facebook bought Instagram.
[00:04:25] Speaker A: No, that was 12.
[00:04:26] Speaker B: 12. Sorry. And then was it WhatsApp in 14?
[00:04:28] Speaker A: Yep.
[00:04:29] Speaker B: So, yeah, but just, you know, we're in 2020, so we know how fast all this stuff is moving.
[00:04:34] Speaker A: In the tech world, that's an eternity.
[00:04:36] Speaker B: That's literally a generation. I mean, you know, so that's what I mean is that in being fair now to our, you know, the people that oversee our agencies and the regulators is, you know, just like everything else I think we've talked about as relates to technical technology and our society in the last 10, 15 years. This is another example of, you know, just that the tech industry has moved at a lightning speed and not on Facebook. But I was in a conversation and this came up, which is a fascinating conversation. It was about Amazon and Tesla, and the guy was making an argument that people think Tesla is a car company. It's actually a tech company.
Yeah. And they were saying how people think Amazon's a tech company, but it's its own big hedge fund. Right. Now like think about it. They own Whole Foods, they own, you know, the Pharmacy now they own this, they own that. So I think the idea of technology
[00:05:28] Speaker A: and they make all their money, by the way, or a lot of their money, they make on the web, services that they provide. Yeah, like, so the cloud, you know, business stuff that they do and been, you know, like with the, with the Internet. So a lot of people don't know that about Amazon.
[00:05:39] Speaker B: And that's what I mean. Like, so what are they? Are they a tech company? Are they a grocery chain? Are they this, are they that? You know, so I think that's. Those are things that we probably never like, sorry. Conversations we would have never engaged in just 15 plus years ago.
[00:05:51] Speaker A: Well, you know what's interesting about that? Just, and you've probably heard me say this before, all of those companies, all they are is collection. They're just organized money. That's it. You know, organized capital. You know, like, that's literally what, you know, you have a corporation for. But what I'll say, I think you're on the right track here. Like, the, what stands out to me about this is that, you know what, things change. And it's actually, I don't think it's a detriment to our government that they could not have foreseen that the acquisition of Instagram, the acquisition of WhatsApp, would have allowed Facebook to dominate in so many areas at the time.
There was a time during the development of this space where it seemed like there was a new company popping up all the time and getting bought and then getting sold. And you know, you didn't know that Facebook would so clearly be dominant at this point, at that time, you know, so I think that the fact that our government and the state governments are willing to be more flexible and say, hey, you know, at the time this didn't look like that big of a threat, but now, whoa, this is a really big threat and we need to address it. I like that mental flexibility. A lot of times people get locked into positions and they just can't change. Like, even when the circumstances change.
And because of that, they end up in losing situations and unable to even see why they're in a losing situation. So I mean, ultimately with antitrust, the thing you need to know about antitrust is if you believe in markets, then you believe in antitrust because antitrust is required in order to have a market. In order to have a market, you have to have competition. In order to have competition, you gotta have competitors. So if someone is so successful in A free enterprise system. Now, free enterprise is more about you can go start your own business. You don't need, you know, some special permission to just say, hey, I'm gonna open up a lemonade stand or a hamburger shop. You know, so in, in free enterprise, if, if someone out competes everyone and becomes amazing and, and takes over the whole market, actually we have antitrust there because that becomes a debt that eliminates the market, that gets rid of the market. If we only have one person there, there's no competitors and therefore there's no competition. And if you believe that competition delivers lower prices and better results because you have businesses competing for your, for your business as a consumer, then you have to guard competition. You have to guard the market. And that's what antitrust is doing. So at this time, the determination has been made that the way Facebook is set up and how big it is is bad for the public interest. And so I'm glad that we have people that are sharp enough to recognize that and say, hey, you know what? We thought this was cool six, six years ago, or we thought this was cool eight years ago. How it's played out has revealed to us that it's not cool. So therefore, let's change. We're going to do something about it. So, I mean, I look at it as progress.
[00:08:35] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. No, it's, it's fascinating. And even in reading for our show here, it's funny, I get all warm and fuzzy when I get all into what our country is really about. Seriously, man. Because, you know, it's funny, we have, you know, a lot of us Americans, right, We're blamed by the rest of the world of being bombastic. And we always, we're. And this and that.
And you know, some of, you know, obviously a lot of times that's rhetoric. And a lot of people that say all that stuff don't actually really know. I mean, I know they love the country, but they don't know all the nuances and rules and regs of the, of the kind of country in the government. And I don't either. I'm just saying I know all of them. But I'm going to read something here because I went to the antitrust website from the Federal.
[00:09:19] Speaker A: In true tune day form.
[00:09:20] Speaker B: Yeah, I just said ftc.gov so frankthomascharlie.gov for. Or I should say Federal Trade Commission. FTC. But, but. So here's what they say right on the guide to antitrust laws under that free and open markets are the foundation of a vibrant economy. Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers, both individuals and businesses, the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices and greater innovation. The FTC's competition mission is to enforce the rules of the competitive marketplace to the antitrust laws. And it goes on. But the point is like, it's just a great reminder to read it, what a great system we have in this country when applied properly like this. Because I look at that as, that's like, obviously the Federal Trade Commission is a division of the US Government and that's the government basically saying, look, our job here is to be like a referee in the basketball game or the umpire. And the thing, we're not here to try and win it for a business or a consumer or anything. We're just here to enforce the rules that allow what it just described to take place. Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace, giving consumers, both the business and individuals, the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices and greater innovation. I mean, again, like we've talked about in other shows, when we talk about this stuff, this is the best system I've ever seen. Until someone figures out a better system, I'm not going to say it's perfect. I know that there's flaws in everything. But you know, again, to know that our government is, has a division to make sure that monopolies don't crowd out competition is something that should be embraced. And so again, I think.
[00:10:58] Speaker A: Well, you know what's interesting though, like, with that is that that's one of those things, you say it often, that a lot of the things, a lot of the features of our system, whether it be economic or whether it be the political systems, are guardrails against our human nature. And so, and that's what this is as well, you know, normally, you know, if somebody wins in the market and they just become, if standard oil or AT&T, you know, like, they just become the only one we can grab. You would look with congratulations like, well, they were. They did it that good that they took over everybody.
So a second piece needs to kick in and say, well, hold up, we don't have a market anymore if they're the only one. So you have to actually punish them.
And this can be uncomfortable to see or to, you know, it can make you feel a certain way. You actually have to punish them for being so successful that because the public interest needs competition, needs a market, so we need to punish them for being so successful and rein them back and say, okay, that's too much because we have to we have to defend the market. We have to make sure that we keep our market alive.
[00:12:03] Speaker B: Well, let me, let me address the thing you brought up, which is a great point about the guardrails. And you know how I feel the beauty of the United States Constitution generally as a guardrail against as much as possible, unreasonable kind of emotional things by the masses type of thing. And a lot more than that, but not to make the show about that. And then as we just alluded to the role of, let's say, the Federal Trade Commission in our open economy. Because you're right. I mean, look, I'll be honest. I own a business.
I think we talked about this on a prior show. When I was in my 20s, I thought competition was cool because I didn't have shit. And I guess, you know, I had that attitude of like, yeah, I'm gonna go fight it out.
I'll be 43 in like two months. I'm tired, man.
And my point is, is that I, I'm doing well. And so right now I don't want competition, to be honest with you.
And, and I'm just being an honest human being right now. If somebody said, Tunde, look, your business, we can help you grow your business. You're going to squeeze out this and that competitor, and we can help you do this and that, and you're just going to make it rain and you're going to make a million dollars a month and all this and whatever the numbers are, Right. Well, there's a million, a billion or five dollars, doesn't matter.
[00:13:13] Speaker A: But just if somebody came to you with that, you wouldn't start saying, well, what about the market?
[00:13:18] Speaker B: Yeah, well, what about that little guy over there that's just starting out like I did? I mean, look, there's a part of me that would. That hopes I would think that way, right?
[00:13:26] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:13:27] Speaker B: But again, and being honest, there's probably a part of me that would have situational ethics at that moment and say, yeah, you know what?
Here's why it's okay for me to do it, but no one else, you know, tune day. And I would probably, as you've noted
[00:13:39] Speaker A: before, sometimes people are human beings too.
[00:13:42] Speaker B: I know, sometimes.
[00:13:43] Speaker A: And the part of you that would feel that way would be the human part.
[00:13:46] Speaker B: And I'll throw it out there. Then I would be sad. So then we gotta drink to that one.
So we got it all out on this show.
So for those who don't get the inside joke, you gotta listen to old shows. That's our point.
But, but no, but that's the thing is that, is that like if we're honest about that part of the human nature, and that's what I was gonna joke about and say, yeah, my situational ethics would probably be like, yeah, well I'll just start giving a lot to philanthropy.
Like yeah, I'll give to like homeless shelters and stuff. So the guys that didn't make it, cause I blew them out of the water, you know, at least they can feed their kids some food, you know, I'll give to their education funds so the kids can go to college, you know. But that's my point and I'm joking aside that you know, as much as I think I'm an open minded guy and altruistic and all that, I'm sure if faced with the ability to squash competition at this point and going forward in my life when I'm not as full of piss and vinegar as I once was and I don't feel like, you know, working till midnight every night in the office, like I did my whole 20s, you know, that might welcome that.
And so it's like I recognize that, you know, it's probably better that this FTC is here and doing these kind of things. So I guess bringing it back.
[00:15:00] Speaker A: Well, yeah, because that's to your point. We can't police ourselves on this.
[00:15:03] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:15:03] Speaker A: Like we need to set up a system that accounts for this and then put other people in charge of it and say look, if some, if somebody gets out of line, if somebody's, if the market is at risk, you guys need to come in and be the bad guys. You know, like you guys need to come in and that's what they're doing. And so that's why I said I don't think we should begrudge them for belatedly, or maybe it wasn't belated, but for realizing after the fact that something needed to be done that the market for in this space was, there's a threat to it. And so, and one thing I wanted to, just for completeness sake, I know we're not going to go through the whole thing with this, but you know the, you had mentioned how like the size of the company isn't really the determinant factor. And that's a good point to make because really it is about the market. It is about whether there's still competition because there's rumblings of this in the, in the telecom industry as well. You know, T Mobile just bought Sprint or you know, those two companies combined. And the big question at that time was was our antitrust people going to approve that because they're saying, okay, there's Verizon, there's AT&T, and then there was Sprint and T Mobile. Then you have all the regional and small, lower cost ones. And so the question was, would there still be sufficient competition in that marketplace if we allow those two to merge? And they have decided that's okay, you know, so, but that's right now. So who knows? In 10 years, circumstances may change and they may need to revisit that. If not, then they won't. But it's, it's all, it's a holistic view that you have to look at what's going on. And so, yes, to Facebook's point, Facebook has raised TikTok and said, hey, we're not, there's still a market. Look at TikTok. TikTok, you know, we, we, we bribed Donald Trump to try to get rid of TikTok, whatever it would be. We've been working on trying to get rid of TikTok behind the scenes all year. And so, like, so they would look at that. But apparently, you know, the, the, the FTC and these state attorney generals are looking at the big picture and saying, well, that's not enough that we need more competition in this market. And so it's, again, it's not based on just their sheer size, it's based on what's going on in the market that they serve and specifically citing how much control they have on social interactions. How much. And that, that's a thing. I mean, like their, their algorithms control what you see and what you don't see in your Facebook feed, for example. And so one person, or, you know, conceivably one person, the person who has final say on that algorithm controls what billions of people see every day on Facebook. And so maybe they want to split that up to where it's three different algorithms, you know, one, an Instagram algorithm, a Facebook. And those, they can, the companies can try to distinguish themselves based on their algorithm, how well their algorithm shows people what they want to see, but also balances not doing things that are antisocial and so forth. So to get more ideas into the space, you need different actors. And so needless to say, I mean, clearly, I think it's a good thing that you have the mental flexibility amongst the regulators to do something about this. But I also wanted to ask you, do you think that this approach, what's actually going on here, do you think that will in fact, or can in fact serve the public interest? Or is it too little, too Late or is tech?
[00:18:12] Speaker B: I'm just not sure, man.
[00:18:13] Speaker A: Not going to work with this.
[00:18:14] Speaker B: I don't know, to be honest with you, because I think like we alluded to at the start of this conversation, technology is moving so fast that like we said, 2012 and 2014 was when Facebook bought those two companies. And look at the warp speed in. What's that, six to eight years ago that that has happened. And so I don't know what to expect in six to eight years. I don't know. One of the things, because it's funny you mentioned the word algorithm. It got me thinking, because I do want to discuss before we leave this topic, the Sherman act, which was in 1890.
When he said the word algorithm, I realized, you know, that word didn't exist in 1890 or in 1914 when the federal Trade Commission act was. And you know, when the FTC was enacted, you know, and I guess made an agency. So again, it was just another reminder for my brain that things like algorithms, which didn't exist at a certain point in our history, that then existed at some point. Right. Like when computers and all that. But even, let's say in the 80s, I'm not sure that, you know, techies foresaw the way that algorithms would be used to manipulate the kind of the human thought in a society based on who sees what in that way. Like, it's just so interesting.
[00:19:27] Speaker A: It was done manually. It was the newsroom. You had the editor deciding what was going to run and what wasn't. And you had all these different newsrooms all around the country. And now you got, you know, one
[00:19:37] Speaker B: guy and like you said, you've alluded to in other conversations, up until 87, you had something called the Fairness Doctrine. And there were other guardrails with news.
[00:19:44] Speaker A: Yeah, as.
[00:19:44] Speaker B: Yeah, as relates to information. And sometimes the guardrail was just like time, right, that, that, you know, it took time for information to get to the population. So if something was really crazy or out of whack, you know, there was also a little bit more time for the facts to kind of catch up to it, where now it's literally, you know, you look at your phone and you've got information that then. And because of the algorithms, people are kept in the bubble of information of which they're in, so they don't ever get like a competing view, for better or for worse. But what I was going to say, that's the profit, for better, for worse, for the human mind, like for their own minds. And you're right, the companies are profiting for sure on all this data. And so, and I think we alluded to that when we did the great hack. It was just fascinating for me to learn. I think it was 2018 was the year that data surpassed oil to become the number one commodity valued in the world. It was well over a trillion dollar market. So that just tells you a lot. And what I wanted to get at though was interesting as we're talking here, because I realized I don't know what's going to come out of this, good or bad with Facebook specifically, because I think the idea of the antitrust stuff and all that is very valid like we've been talking about.
But I also feel like, you know, in our kind of, I hate to say dysfunctional politics, I'm sure every human kind of generation in society feels like their political leaders are dysfunctional, but I think, you know, we definitely have a bit more dysfunction in modern American politics than I think we've had in our lifetimes. Let's say it.
[00:21:14] Speaker A: We're probably more aware of the dysfunction in our generation than all the day to day dysfunction that may have been 100 years ago.
[00:21:23] Speaker B: Yeah, we are aware of the big, big things that still waiting for somebody to be somebody else with a cane and then his boy to hold him off with a pistol. You know, everyone else off with a pistol.
Converse. Yeah, so that hasn't happened yet. So we're not, we're not at those breaks.
[00:21:35] Speaker A: That hasn't happened again.
[00:21:36] Speaker B: Again. Yeah, you're right, that's what I meant. It happened a long time ago. But go look that one up. But no, so, so my thought was that why is this happening? And part of it is, I feel like it's the energy of the, of the political stuff is why this is happening. More so than Facebook being a monopoly. I mean, look, honestly, I don't know. Facebook is or is not a monopoly through the way that we might define it, through manipulating the unfair practices. Just because I don't understand algorithms and all that data stuff well enough to understand if someone is being, if another company is being omitted or something like that from that market. What I would say though is I feel like Facebook, we know, has been a target primarily first in the last four years of Democrats feeling that the 160 million Facebook users that were exposed to Russian propaganda and fake news and all that, they feel that that cost their party the election. Let's say that that helped for Hillary Clinton to lose and Trump to win. So for a while it was like the Democratic Party, which was kind of targeting Facebook and was all that then as this election played out in 2020, and I guess certain conservatives felt that they were at threat of losing the election prior to November, you started seeing a lot of energy on the right coming after Facebook, that it was unfair and it was somehow excluding conservative views and all that. So I just feel like, I wonder, is Facebook in the crosshairs by the government now truly for antitrust stuff at this point, or is it just kind of. There's enough political energy now on both sides. I mean, the Democrats had it, but now that the. Now that the Republicans feel slighted, let's say, by social media, kind of like they feel slighted by Fox News this last few weeks. We're here in mid December now recording this 2020, I'm just wondering, is this all politics from both parties? More so than truly, like looking at is this company, you know, monopoly and deserve to be broken up? Well, I don't know the answer to that.
[00:23:38] Speaker A: Well, the fact that it's 48 states and territories, I think it's 46 states and then D.C. and Guam, and the fact that that's not one party, you
[00:23:46] Speaker B: know, but that's what I mean. It's political from both parties because both feel that Facebook is interrupting their political flow. That's what I feel like. That's what I'm asking.
[00:23:56] Speaker A: I don't think that you're like, I don't think you're looking at it the right way from that standpoint. Like, if the Democrats think that the Facebook cost them the 2016 election because of the Russian interference and all the stuff that people were able to do, or if the Republicans think. And by the way, that's not a new thing with the Republicans. They have thought before, just recently, that if Facebook censored conservative voices, that was. That's been a ongoing thing for social media that Republicans and conservatives have claimed. But. And the conservatives are. If the Democrats show up because they say, hey, you, you screwed us in 2016 with the election, and the Republicans here because they say you're censoring our voices, what they're both actually saying is that you exert too much effect in the marketplace, you are too powerful in the marketplace that you're able to throw the. The 2016 election for us, or that when you censor a conservative voice, then that pretty much silences that person.
They're both making the same point now, they've come to that point for different reasons, but their point is still the same, that you're too powerful.
[00:24:56] Speaker B: But I'll still say then Maybe this is in the wrong agency's hand. Because I would think that. Because you make a good point. And what happens is this is where again, this whole information age thing is so new and fast that our regulations haven't yet caught up with it. Because remember AT and T and the communications world, like that phones and all that stuff is regulated.
Television and all those networks and all that are regulated a certain way, like you're saying about the news content and all that. And somehow Facebook slides in the middle and doesn't have to play by those rules. And so that's why I'm just wondering, is it.
[00:25:29] Speaker A: It's interesting to hear you say that as an avowed market man, to hear you say that the market, the free market isn't the answer. Maybe regulation is.
[00:25:37] Speaker B: No, no, I'm just saying that.
I came in saying that the Federal Trade Commission's awesome. I mean, it's there to regulate, you know, certain.
My point, actually, that will get too out of whack.
[00:25:48] Speaker A: Well, no, my point, to say it more clearly, is that the FTC comes in and says, we're going to fix this by restoring the market. The. If you want to get regulators in fcc.
[00:25:57] Speaker B: But what I'm saying is.
Let me say the point.
[00:26:00] Speaker A: Let me say the point.
Let me say that. Let me, let me get the whole point out. Like the FTC is coming out and saying we're going to fix this problem by fixing the market. And so then once we fix the market, then competition will right these wrongs. Whereas if you have like the FCC coming in or other agencies coming in to try to regulate it, then they're saying we will fix the problems through government regulation. And I would think that trying to fix it through the market is a good idea. Now if you can't, then yes, you know, you should look to regulation. But, but I think that it's good that we're starting with trying to fix it with market forces as opposed to. It's easier to make a mistake when you try to do stuff with, with through government regulation. Go ahead. And then I do want to give my thought on this and then we can.
[00:26:40] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. No, I just, you know, it's interesting because I feel like this is so new. This like Facebook, like I said, the space that they occupy has never existed before. So they're not seen as a media company. So they don't have to adhere to certain of the journalistic standards or whatever. They're not seen as a television company. They're not seen as a traditional, you know, radio or like an AT&T, a phone service or one of those. So what the interesting thing is, like, I recognize what you're saying, and I don't have an issue with it. It's just interesting because there's kind of no market yet for Facebook. They are the market. And that's why it's fascinating to me. It's, it's. No, it's true. Like, how do you come in and say, well, you guys are doing it wrong when they are the first ones doing this?
[00:27:23] Speaker A: And so, no, that's why the remedy is that you can't acquire or you can't have WhatsApp. You have to compete with WhatsApp, with your messenger, and you can't have Instagram. You have to compete with Instagram, with your, you know, with your Facebook feed, your Facebook proper. And so. And I think that. I think it's impossible to know actually whether this approach will for sure serve the public interest. I do like that they're trying to do it with a market approach first.
I think with any of these things, it's easy to create unintended consequences. And that's the unknown here. The unknown is if they're even able to successfully to cause Facebook to sell these two off. And that wouldn't happen for a long time anyway. But if they're able to do that, would that actually restore. Would it work? Would it restore competition? And if it did restore competition, would that competition result in our data and the algorithms working more in the public interest? Or would they actually. Would it become a race to the bottom where you end up with whoever makes the algorithms that send people even further into bubbles and where they can't get out or they don't want to get out is the one that wins from the profit standpoint. So it actually makes us more isolated from facts, from reality or whatever. So it could backfire in the sense that at least with Facebook as one big guy doing it, all eyes are on them. But if you break it up into smaller ones, then the marketplace may dictate, because what we can't get around thus far is that the marketplace seems to desire false information that confirms your existing beliefs. Beliefs. And that's because the profit motive is to keep you in front of the screen as long as possible. And you don't keep people in front of the screen as long as possible by saying. Right, by showing them things they don't agree with. You know, so whoever's most efficiently able to show you the most stuff you agree with or send you down rabbit holes that make you never want to leave wins in the market thus far. So that's a whole nother issue, and we don't know if that can be addressed by the breakup or if that would be exacerbated by the breakup. But nonetheless, I think you do have to remain guided by the principle that we do want to preserve markets, because part of the dogma we adhere to, and this isn't free market, you know, markets are regulated to some degree in any, in any scenario. But part of the dogma that we adhere to as far as a market system is that with con, with competition, with informed consumers, you know, not just consumers, but informed consumers to get to know what, what you're buying into or what. What's going on with the places where you're buying, that we will. We will have innovation, we'll have improvements in quality, and we will have lower prices. Prices will be lower and lower as the, the competitors compete with one another. So I, I'm, I'm still willing to adhere to that as long as it's done properly, as long as the market is actually maintained, as long as we're able to be informed as consumers to what's going on, which is a whole nother issue, you know, when you deal with these black box algorithms that we won't get into today. So did you have any final thoughts before you move on?
[00:30:12] Speaker B: Yeah, I guess you just explained why PBS NewsHour and BBC is boring, but that's a whole nother story.
Exactly. You know, the way the news is supposed to be boring. Yeah, no, I just wanted. The last thing I know we want to jump is, you know, in reading up on this, it's fascinating, you know, so Senator John Sherman, obviously He was a US senator. The Sherman act was passed in 1890, which was kind of the. You first had the Interstate Commerce act of 1887, but the Sherman act was the first one with real teeth for antitrust. And it Tunde on me that it was 100 years after kind of the founding of the country, after 1790 and that period. And it's just so. It's such an American thing that we don't like dictators and kings and shit. So he.
He wrote here, says, as Senator John Sherman put it in a quote, now, if we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessities of life.
Then it goes on to say the act prohibits agreements and restraint of trade and abuse of monopoly power. It gives the Justice Department the mandate to go to federal Court for orders to stop illegal behavior or to impose remedies. And I just thought, I love that about our country. Like this just don't tread on me thing. I don't want this central power, this king or this dictator telling me what to do. Again, we're going to put guardrails up in the system to protect us from the more negative sides of human behavior.
Like you say about the company is really organized capital.
If you look at a corporation that way, then obviously the larger the corporation gets, the more the, the larger the, the organized. And then I'll translate to concentrated capital can become. Yeah, and so, and so. And then you're back to. You were, let's say, and more powerful couple hundred years ago in Europe in terms of what, you know, the people that started this country wanted to escape from. Right. You have these massive. Whether you're a king or, or a landlord. John Rockefeller. Yeah, I would say John Rockefeller of Standard Oil.
It's the ability to wield the kind of unfettered power that is really what the American system was designed against. And so it's just. That's what I mean. It's just such an American thing that we have this ftc. And I say it in kind of a beautiful way, you know.
[00:32:34] Speaker A: So anyway, yeah, I mean, it's, it's.
[00:32:36] Speaker B: I'm done kissing our country's ass for the next. Hey, man.
[00:32:38] Speaker A: Yeah, you were laying it on thick. This, this topic.
[00:32:42] Speaker B: She's my girl. I love her.
[00:32:43] Speaker A: Hey, man, I feel you, man. I feel you. It's.
[00:32:46] Speaker B: I'll call her Auntie Sandra since I ain't gonna say it's Uncle Sam.
[00:32:50] Speaker A: There you go. That makes it more palatable for you. Yeah, but, yeah, so we see with that as, you know, one of the big features, you know, not a bug, but the big features with the system as we've pointed out, you know, is that it protects us from human nature in a lot of ways. You know, it identifies some of these places where human nature really become antisocial, you know, because again, it's all about. It's groups of people. We all got to be here. You know, we all have to interact with each other to a reasonable amount of. And so antisocial behavior we're trying to curb, we're trying to make it less profitable or make it less effective. And so one thing that stood out to both of us this week was another type of antisocial behavior, which is victimhood. Everybody's met someone that anytime there's some dispute, anytime there's something going on they have this tendency to see themselves as the one that's harmed. Now, I'd say this is in everyone to some degree, though.
Everybody sees things by definition from their own perspective.
A lot of maturity of just ability to contemplate and reflect.
To be able to see things from other people's perspective. But what we saw, and this is some study or some research that has been published, what they found is that they are identifying what they're identifying. And we're going to discuss to see whether we think this is legit. But they're calling a tendency for interpersonal victimhood. And they're saying that this is actually a consistent and stable personality trait.
Not just somebody throwing a fit or somebody being a brat. And so. But that some people have just a greater tendency, whenever there's interpersonal issues, to see themselves as the victim, no matter what. So what do you make of this research, Tunde? Do you think this is legit? Or do you think this is just like people trying to see order where there's disorder, People seeing constellations when there's just stars?
[00:34:42] Speaker B: I don't know. But if this show sucks, it's your fault.
And it's only because I wanted to do different topics and you wouldn't let me.
[00:34:52] Speaker A: That's an excellent illustration.
[00:34:53] Speaker B: Yeah,
[00:34:56] Speaker A: four examples.
[00:34:59] Speaker B: And my life's not right because it's my wife's fault and my kids did this and that and you know, it's my mom and dad's fault and blah, blah, blah. Now look, it's funny because it's fascinating, like you said, I think, not to beat up on people. Right. I think there's probably a much larger swath of, I would say, spectrums of personality traits that one could identify.
Medium to strong senses of victimhood. And one could say narcissists traditionally tend to always be victims as well as being the center of the earth.
And one could even say to an extent sociopaths and other types of psychologies. Usually when kind of cornered, it's always they're the victim, you know, and makes me realize, as I say that there's not too many personalities that actually take responsibility for themselves. That's interesting.
Seems to now, now you and I got to go down a rabbit hole of reading of how did that affect our evolutionary biology to be victims, you know, why would that survive, you know, all these eons and. And the others are actually less. But no. And so part of me when I read this, I kind of like roll my eyes. Oh, here we go. Another like three letter acronym for some personality Trait of somebody that is going to be. Now they're going to start throwing pills at it and all that.
But I, in reading it, you know, obviously the research shows that there does seem to be a set of people that have this. And I think it says, I'm reading here, it involves four dimensions. Specifically. I mean, they did some, some research to come up to this. Moral elitism, a lack of empathy, the need for recognition. Recognition and rumination.
So I guess if those four are very strongly present, then this person, you know, might show these signs of this TIV trait. Yeah. So I don't know what I found interesting about the article. A couple things. One was in doing the studies, they found that in these people that had those four tendencies, strongest that had this TIV trait, their desire for revenge translated into actual action. So these aren't people. So that was one thing that stuck out. This trait isn't somebody who just feels victimized. They're the types that feel victimized and actually then act out in some revenge capacity. And I think a lot of that, I would assume just from my own experiences of people that might have had some of these traits, a lot of it becomes passive aggressive ways of acting out.
Cause most people don't like confronting other people.
[00:37:20] Speaker A: And then it could also be aggressive though. I mean, like, I know it could be. Part of it is like there's the passive aggressive part, there's the aggressive aggressive part. I think part of the connection is that there's a feeling that you're justified in doing so, which they do mention that in the study, like just that you're justified in seeking retribution because you're the victim of this thing.
[00:37:40] Speaker B: That's the way they defined it.
[00:37:41] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:37:41] Speaker B: More intense negative emotions and a higher entitlement to immoral behavior. That's a fascinating way to put it. And then so, yeah, here the quote from one of the researchers. The more they experienced negative emotions and felt entitled to behave immorally. Yeah. And so, and then the other thing that, you know, because I guess they're still doing the research, they said, you know, one of the things they're going to start looking at next is trying to determine, like leaders in history and world leaders, can they figure out if any of these people had this trade because what would it be for a leader to have not only this feeling of victimhood, but the vindictiveness with it as well. And then, and then the other, which I found very interesting was.
[00:38:22] Speaker A: Well, let me jump in real quick, you know, with some initial thoughts on this. I thought that I'M always skeptical of these types of things because I separate, by and large, I try to separate at least the concept of what you may want to do or what you may think about with your actions. Now, sometimes like that, sometimes one follows the other. But I Tunde. At least I try to think that some of that goes into maturity and some of that goes into learning, you know, at a young age that certain types of behavior is acceptable and certain types of behavior is not. I mean, and that's why I generally boil down a lot of things to antisocial behavior or behavior that is generally acceptable in a social setting. Because I view these things as, you know, like, hey, we're all here together. You know, like whether you're in a household or whether you're in, you know, a village or whether you're in a work environment or whatever. And so if you're doing certain things, if you're very passive aggressive, you know, to the point where it is affecting people's ability to get along or. Or. I mean, I view racism a lot, in a lot of ways in this prison, you know, where it's just like, look, you think what you think about people, but if you start acting out on that, that's just antisocial. That that's you. That has a problem, that you can't control yourself. And so I have a hard time coming to the thought of, okay, you. Because you have this tendency to see yourself as a victim more that that. Then like, I think there's a missing link there where that person may feel that way, but they should have learned that seeking retribution is not necessarily acceptable behavior. And so where my blind spot may be is that these type of feelings may just overwhelm. Like for some people that are hired further, as you pointed out, like, on a spectrum, this may overwhelm their ability to control themselves. But then, I mean, that's why I get back to the whole thing. Well, then that's antisocial. That's antisocial stuff. That's the kind of stuff we need to try to minimize or exclude from civil society.
[00:40:17] Speaker B: Yeah, no, and this is where we're going to get half glass empty Tunde here. So you might have to pour another shot. We might get sad here.
No, because one of the things that they're saying is, as they're continuing to look at the study is.
I'm just going to quote a bit. Victimhood is linked to anxious attachment, an attachment style characterized by feeling insecure in one's relationships, suggesting that the personality trait may be rooted in early Relationships with caregivers.
Again, it's another great reminder that most of what makes us tick by the time we hit probably 10 to 12 years old has already been hardwired into our brain. And so, you know, this, this basically
[00:40:58] Speaker A: and a lot of it's nurture.
[00:40:59] Speaker B: Yeah, and that's what I was going to say. This alludes to the relationship that, you know, someone has with their parents, most likely caregivers in all that. And that could be psychological abuse, could be neglect, which I guess is a form of abuse, but not being yelled and screamed at, or psychologically tormented, but just neglected could come from physical abuse, a lot of things. And so my point is saying why I say glass half empty like that is first of all, look at us, we're here. It took us to this point in our life to be able to start, you know, and I'm not saying we just started reading stuff like this, but I mean, you know, we're in our 40s.
We weren't, we weren't this aware of all of this kind of what makes the mind tick in our 20s. So I've learned that, you know, different stages of life, you, you, you kind of grow and explore different things.
But then the other thing is we, you know, I, I, I don't tend to think you have this personality trait. So I'll assume that you weren't raised by caregivers. Your parents didn't make you feel like a victim all the time.
So my point is, is that I don't know what it would take someone who was raised from something talking about three, four year old kids. I'm sorry, I'm saying when you're that young to have your psychology hardwired in that way, what does that take for that person to really be able to unwind that? And I'm not sure they can because they don't know any different. You know what I mean?
[00:42:21] Speaker A: Well, I mean, that's kind of the study actually. That's an excellent point.
You raised that. You know, when I see these things, my skepticism always comes from the, just that if there's, as you remove accountability to people from their actions, you lose the ability to just have a place where we can all interact with each other.
You get further and further away from that. And so I'm always concerned when you make excuses for bad behavior in advance.
But what you're saying is very true from the standpoint of if something like this comes from neglect in any form when you're a toddler, then that's not that person's fault.
[00:43:05] Speaker B: That's not their fault that they were neglected. Yeah, they're not gonna remember that. That's just a subconscious emotion in their brain that's going back to when they were in the crib and not getting the attention they wanted.
[00:43:14] Speaker A: And you know, hopefully from something from research like this, hopefully they'll be able to figure out how to maybe to reprogram that or to satisfy some of that, that hole that is created there, you know, from, from parenting. I mean, and I agree, honestly being, well, let me say this also and honestly being aware of this stuff, I mean, it's just, it's something else to try to be aware of as a parent. You know, like it's not just, you know, how you, you know, it's not just how you do things.
It's not just what you do, it's what you don't do. You know, it's how you interact on a day to day basis that, that's building a person that, you know, like these are things that you do, certain things and you may end up with a result when you're raising kids. I mean, it's something that's pretty evident that you don't know how it's going to turn out. You know, no matter what, no matter how you could do everything right, you can do everything wrong and it could turn out, you know, there's no, it's not like a one to one type of, you know, connectivity, but you could still, you, generally speaking, a lot of people, most people I would say what would prefer to try to make decisions that would tend to lead to a better result. And so this is the type of thing that could equip you with that to at least be conscious of the types of things that you can be doing that may affect your child's ability to participate in society and have fulfillment in their participation.
[00:44:32] Speaker B: But with that said, it's funny because as you're talking it makes me realize like even my own personal example, you know, I've got a spectrum of children.
Oldest is 27, youngest is 9.
So it's like I'm, like I said earlier, that's, I'm a totally different person.
I was in my 20s, I was a kid, I was fast, I was hot, you know, all that. Now I'm in my 40s with this nine year old. I mean, he's got a maid, I'm Mr. Calm, I don't spank, you know, I talk and I'm this. And my wife has, you know, conditioned me to be a calmer parent and all this stuff and you know, I reach.
[00:45:06] Speaker A: But you also just mellow out as you know.
[00:45:07] Speaker B: I know and. Exactly. And I'm, and I'm a more just, yeah, I'm a mellow guy. I'm more mature. So it's, it's, it's, it's kind of not fair too to put it on all parent because, you know, and that's why I say it's, I don't say it is a negative thing that I glass half empty in that way. It's more of this is just the reality of humanity that. Yeah, it's that it's that kind of entropy and that kind of flow of stuff that is sometimes is messy and there's always going to be a percentage of it that's just messy. You know, an 18 year old kid having a kid, they're not going to be all aware of all this stuff when they're 25 and their kid is 7.
They're still young and they're still in this society, of course, of our, you know, American modern world. They're probably doing stuff around a kid that ain't even right. They're drinking, they might be smoking, they're doing a few things because they're also young and they're participating in being a young person in the society and they're also probably not aware enough to know that maybe I shouldn't do so many things in front of my kid. Whereas people that have their first child at 38, 40, by the time that kid's seven, they're very mature adults.
So it's, you know, it's just a little bit of everything but, well, not right though. Go ahead. I want to make a quick tie back to the Facebook thing because this is where it becomes interesting because at the beginning of the article they talked about, it describes how the social world is satisfied, satiated with interpersonal transgressions that are often unpleasant and seemingly unwarranted, such as being interrupted when speaking. While some people can easily brush off these moments of hurt, others tend to ruminate over them and persistently paint themselves as a victim. So what it reminds me of is like we talked about in the earlier segment of the show, we're dealing with this, literally this experiment in real time called social media.
And so like they just said, someone interrupting you when speaking right now. Think about it. If we're somewhere and someone interrupts me when I'm speaking, you know, I'm not the type that's going to go nuts, but even if I was, maybe, maybe if I'm around six or seven people. I'm not going to just blow up. Right. Like, there's a part of yourself, when you're in a setting with other people that has a little bit of guardrails. And that's what I'm thinking. Like, imagine this type of personality on social media because then they're always the victim.
They're going to.
[00:47:19] Speaker A: There's no shortage of people to say mean things to you.
[00:47:22] Speaker B: Correct. There's no, there's no shortage of interpersonal transgressions that are often unpleasant and seemingly unwarranted. Right. Full of it. And then now you're not. You don't have those guardrails of being in a group of people because you're at home on your phone or on your iPad or your laptop or whatever. And now you can spew out and you can even be somewhat anonymous. I mean, if you don't.
[00:47:40] Speaker A: So you're contributing to the, you know, like. Yeah.
[00:47:43] Speaker B: So. And so again, it's. This helps, you know, the, the, the whole ecosystem of social media and the way the Internet is set up now. I mean, just kind of, you know, misery loves company. Like I've said many times, that's actually
[00:47:56] Speaker A: where I was gonna go. When you said social media, I was gonna say, or I thought you were gonna go to. And I actually had a note here that it seems like that also provides an avenue for people who may like to paint themselves as a victim to commiserate with each other.
[00:48:12] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:48:13] Speaker A: And it's fascinating, a bunch of victims together, like, yeah, everybody hates us.
[00:48:17] Speaker B: But that's why it just reminded me fascinating that as we're talking here about this personality trait and then remembering what they said kind of triggers these people.
It's like, it's like, yeah, if you're sitting at home by yourself, there's a less of a chance of someone to bump into you on, you know, and step on your shoe. It's less of a chance of someone to interrupt you. But a minute you go onto social media, all those negative emotions that could be triggered. Right. That word could come into play. You sitting on your couch when you're supposed to actually be in your relaxed time. And I think, yeah, then we. That leads to more stress, more people taking, you know, to Prozacs and Xanax and drinking and, you know, there's a lot of negative societies.
[00:48:57] Speaker A: It becomes hard to find a safe space if.
[00:49:00] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:49:00] Speaker A: You know, when you're in your safe space that you can bring the conflict to yourself. You know, And I, I think that one of the points that you made before we wrap up that I wanted to touch on was just in terms of when you said as far as like when you know, it's just messy, you know, you got people, lots of people you got, you know, and that's, that's so true. I mean, and I think that we always have to keep that in mind. I think I was skeptical of this also because I think that at different stages of your life, you know, certain you may react different ways to different types of things too. And so now again that's I, I use the word, you know, because they used it but a stable personality trait. I haven't done the research so I can't say whether it's true or not. But you know, it was just more, I was more skeptical because I think it. When you're like, yeah, when you're younger and hotter you may be this way more than when as you get older and mellow out or you know, maybe that's just, maybe it is a wiring thing. But I do think that one thing we have to keep in mind and it's difficult and this is for the person who is more susceptible to the victimhood and the person who is not, you know, that can brush these things aside is just this is what's at. One of the things that's absent is us having grace with one another. You know, like it's just everything.
Even if someone provokes you, it doesn't always require, especially online, you know, it doesn't always require that escalation. And yeah, easy for me to say, you know, as a 40 year old, you know, like, or you know, in my 40s that you know that. But it is something, I mean we're all, we all have to interact, you know, like, and we all are a part of this and it's going to be, there's, it's going to be messy to some degree. It's not going to be, everything's not going to be something that just plays out the way you want all the time. And you know, you have to know yourself and know the kind of situations you can put yourself in or the ones you try to keep yourself out of, you know, in order to try to get the things that you want or try to avoid the things that you don't. And so, you know, from that standpoint, I think that it's good information to at least be aware of whether you buy it 100 or not. It's not as important or that's. That part is not as important as just being aware that there may be some spectrum here. There may be some slider here to be aware of. And if you find yourself constantly feeling yourself as a victim or if you are. You interact with someone who constantly. You think constantly finds themselves as a victim, you know that you may want to take it easy on them a little bit. I guess this is my second week in a row saying that. But to take it easy on people, you know, but. And I got to take my own advice, you know, like. So I guess that's why I come. I come to this because I'm like, yeah, yeah, you just gotta worry.
[00:51:21] Speaker B: Come over and sit on my couch. We'll talk.
Well, he threw me in a. Yeah, yeah, I got something. He threw me an alley oop. Because you talked about stable personalities. Well, you know, I'm not gonna let you talk to my kids because they might differ about me with that definition, but I will say that I'm a stable genius, sir.
[00:51:39] Speaker A: There you go.
[00:51:39] Speaker B: There you go.
[00:51:40] Speaker A: There's a lot of those going around these days.
So now we can wrap it from there, though. But definitely appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call It Like I See It. Subscribe to the podcast, rate us, review us, tell us what you think, and until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:51:57] Speaker B: I'm Tunde in. Lineup.
[00:51:58] Speaker A: All right, talk to you soon.
