Name: Joe Rogan Experience #1258 - Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde & Tim Pool
Uploaded: 2019-03-06T01:34:01.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1258 - Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde & Tim Pool' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2019-03-06. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1258 - Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde & Tim Pool' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2019-03-06. Transcript available.

Joe Rogan Experience #1258 - Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde & Tim Pool

Five, four, three, dos, uno, come on TriCaster, live?
Yes.
All right, we're live, ladies and gentlemen.
To my left, Tim, Tim Pool, everybody knows and loves him.
Vija, what is it, how do I pronounce your last name?
Vija.
Vija Gaddy.
Vija, not Vija, Vija.
Vija Gaddy.
Gaddy, and your position at Twitter is?
I lead trust and safety, legal, and public policy.
That's a lot.
That's a lot.
And Jack Dorsey, ladies and gentlemen.
First of all, thank you, everybody, for doing this.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
It feels all of a sudden there's tension in the room.
We're all loosey-goosey just a few minutes ago.
There's no tension.
Now everyone's like, oh, this is really happening.
Here we go.
Before we get started, we should say, because there were some things that
people wanted to
have us talk about.
One, that the Cash App is one of the sponsors of the podcast.
It's been a sponsor for a long time.
And also a giant supporter of my good friend Justin Wren's Fight for the Forgotten
Charity,
Building Wells for the Pygmies in the Congo.
This is very important to me.
And I'm very happy that you guys are a part of that.
And you are connected to that.
I don't – that's – I mean, it's easy for someone to say that doesn't have
an influence
on the way we discuss things, but it doesn't.
So if it does, I don't know what to tell you.
I'm going to mention, too, just because I don't want people to come out and
freak out
later.
I actually have like 80 shares in Square, which isn't really that much.
But it's something.
It is.
It is.
So I don't want people to think, you know, whatever.
You're the CEO of Square, I think, right?
Yep.
Yeah, there you go.
There you go.
We're on the Cash App, too.
And the reason why we decided to come together is we had, I thought, a great
conversation
the last time, but there was a lot of people that were upset that there were
some issues
that we didn't discuss or didn't discuss in depth enough or they felt that I
didn't
press you enough.
I talked to Tim because, you know, Tim and I have talked before, and he made a
video about
it, and I felt like his criticism was very valid.
So we got on the phone and we talked about it, and I knew immediately within
the first few
minutes of the conversation that he was far more educated about this than I was.
So I said, would you be willing to do a podcast and perhaps do a podcast with
Jack?
And he said, absolutely.
So we did a podcast together.
It was really well-received.
People felt like we covered a lot of the issues that they felt like I didn't
bring up.
And so then Jack and I discussed it, and we said, well, let's bring Tim on and
then have
Vidya on as well.
I said that right?
Yep.
It's a hard one.
Sorry.
I'll get it right.
I promise.
But so we're here.
We're here.
Today, do you know who Sean?
Sean Baker is.
He's a doctor who's a prominent proponent of the carnivore diet.
His post was, his account was frozen today.
I just sent it to you, Jamie.
It's just a screenshot.
Yeah.
His account was frozen today because of an image that he had, because he's a
proponent
of the carnivore diet.
There's a lot of people that believe that this elimination diet is very healthy
for you,
and it's known to cure a lot of autoimmune issues with certain people.
But some people ideologically oppose it because they think it's bad for the
environment, or
you shouldn't eat meat, or whatever the reasons are.
This is huge in the Bitcoin community.
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, it's for a lot of people that have autoimmune issues, particularly psoriasis
and arthritis,
it is a lifesaver.
It's crazy.
It's essentially, it's an autoimmune issue.
So, because he has a photo of a lion in a header eating a, looks like a wildebeest
or something
like that, his account was locked for violating his rules against graphic
violence or adult content
in profile images.
That seems a little silly, and I wanted to just mention that right away.
Now, whose decision is something like that?
Like, who decides to lock a guy's account out because it has a nature image of,
you know,
natural predatory behavior?
Well, in this particular case, it's probably an algorithm that detected it and
made some
sort of an assessment.
But as a general rule, how we operate as a company is we rely on people to
report information
to us.
So, if you look at any tweet, you can kind of pull down on the carrot on the
right, and
you can say, report the tweet, and then you have a bunch of categories you can
choose
from of what you want to report.
I think this one in particular, though, is probably an algorithm.
So, how does, does he have the option to protest that or to ask someone to
review it?
Absolutely.
And I'm guessing that people are already reviewing it, but there's a choice to
appeal
any action, and that would go to a human to make sure that it is actually a
violation
of the rules.
Or, in this case, if it's not, then it would be removed.
Is that a violation of the rules?
That image?
I don't think so.
I don't think that that would be what we're trying to capture in terms of
graphic images
in an avatar.
It's more about violence towards humans unless it was some sort of cruelty depicting
animals
or something like that.
Right.
But this seems not the intention of the rule.
Does this, this is one of the reasons why I wanted to bring this up immediately.
Does this highlight a flaw in the system in that people can target an
individual?
Because with him, he's a, he, like I said, he's a doctor and a proponent of
this carnivore
diet, but he's also, he ruthless in his condemnation and mocking of vegans.
He does it all the time.
And so then they get upset at him and they can target posts and just report
them in mass.
And when they do that, then this becomes an issue.
I think this does reveal part of, you know, the challenges that we face as a
global platform
at scale.
In this, I don't, I don't know what happened in this case, so it's hard for me
to talk about
it.
But what I would say is that it doesn't really matter if one person reports it
or 10,000
people report it.
Like we're going to review the reports and we're going to make an assessment
and we're
never going to, you know, kick someone off the platform finally and forever
without a person
taking a look and making sure that it's an actual violation.
Right.
Okay.
So.
But the, but the mob reporting behavior does happen.
Yeah, it does.
It happens across the spectrum.
I'd have to assume it's going to be one direction.
I can't imagine he would target vegans, but vegans would target him.
Right.
Well, he might, I mean, he doesn't, but.
Is he the kind of guy who's going to want to report vegans and get them banned
from Twitter?
Or is he going to want to make fun of them?
He's going to make fun of them.
Yeah.
They're going to target him to try and get him removed by exploiting the system
that
you guys have.
It may not be him though.
It could also be his followers.
It's a really complicated world out there.
So you don't want the motivations of why people mob report are different and it's
not
always under someone's control.
It could even be other carnivore diet proponents who are just jerks.
They don't like him because he's getting all the love.
People are weird.
But it's just, the idea though, is that it does kind of highlight a bit of a
flaw in
that it's good that someone can like, cause you might see something awful,
someone doxing
someone or something like that.
And then you can take that and report it and then people can see it and get rid
of it and
minimize the damage that's done.
There's another big problem here in that is the carnivore diet legitimately
healthy?
Is it a threat to your health?
And if it is, is what is Twitter's responsibility in controlling that
information?
Right.
So just to clarify, my, my, my opinion is if he wants to be a proponent for the
carnivore
diet, let him, but you've got people on YouTube who are being deranked for
certain beliefs
about certain health issues that I don't agree with.
And so one of the risks then is, you know, we're coming towards a position
where people
think some ideas are better than others.
Therefore, as a company, we're going to restrict access to certain information.
You mean like anti-vax?
Exactly.
So, so I guess I'm trying to say is at what point would you guys restrict
someone from
sharing info, like false information about vaccines that could get someone hurt?
That is not a violation of Twitter's rules.
No, I, I, I think, I mean, I'd be interested to hear your ideas around this,
but our, our
perspective right now is, um, around this concept of variety perspective.
Like, are we, are we encouraging more echo chambers and filter bubbles, or are
we at least
showing people other information that might be counter to what they see?
And there's, there's a bunch of research that would suggest that further emboldens
our views.
There's also research that would suggest that it at least gives them a
consideration about
what they're, what they currently believe.
So you guys, sorry, given the dynamics of our network being completely public,
we're not
organized around communities.
We're not organized around topics.
Um, we have a little bit more freedom to show more of the spectrum of any one
particular issue.
And I think that's how we would, we would approach it from the start.
That said, we haven't really dealt much with misinformation more broadly across
like these
sorts of topics.
We've, we've focused our efforts on elections and, um, well, mainly elections
right now.
You know, YouTube is a different animal, you know, someone can really convince
you that
the earth is flat.
If you're gullible and you watch a 45 minute YouTube video, you know, it's, it's
kind of
a different thing.
But I want to, I wanted to just kind of, uh, get into that statement you made
about
misinformation and whether or not you'll police it.
So I, I think that the tough part of this is really, and love to have a
discussion about
this is, do you really want corporations to police what's true and not true?
Absolutely not.
That's a really, really tough position.
But you guys do that.
We try not to do that.
We don't want to do that.
But you do in your rules.
But the places that we focus on is where we think that people are going to be
harmed by
this in a direct and tangible way that we feel a responsibility to correct, not
correct ourselves.
When you say in your rules, Tim, what do you mean by that?
Oh, dead naming and misgendering.
Dead naming and misgendering.
Yeah.
That's a specific ideology that's unique to a very small faction of people in
this world
that you guys actually ban people for.
So the way I think of it is it's behavior based.
And I know you think of it as content and we can, we can disagree on this point,
but this
is about why are you doing this to a trans person?
Why are you calling them by this name when they've chosen to go by a different
name?
Or why are you outing them in some way?
Like, what is your intent and purpose behind that?
I don't mean to interrupt, but in the interest of clarity, I want to explain
what dead naming
means.
Right, right.
So why don't you go ahead?
So a transgender individual changes their name when they transition.
A dead name would be their birth name or the name they went by before the
transition.
So my mom's probably going, what?
I'm ready for the text.
What's a dead name?
And I will clarify, too, your role specifically say targeted misgendering and
dead naming.
I believe it's correct, right?
So years ago, we passed a policy that we call our hateful conduct policy, and
that prohibits
targeting or attacking someone based on their belonging in any number of groups,
whether
it's because of their religion or their race or their gender, their sexual
orientation,
their gender identity.
So it was something that's broad-based, is that you can't choose to attack
people because
of these characteristics.
But you do have limits on what characteristics you police, right?
So you're not banning people for targeted transpecieing others, rig