In this week's episode of The Michael Knowles Show, host Michael Kors defends Mark Zuckerberg, and Dan DeSalvo explains why conservatives are so much better at the internet than lefties. Plus, a Supreme Court challenge to government unions.
00:00:00.000Mark Zuckerberg will spend two days on Capitol Hill getting grilled over why he had the audacity
00:00:06.220not to rig social media against conservatives. I will do the impossible, a thing that kills me to
00:00:12.760do. I will defend Mark Zuckerberg. Then we will analyze why conservatives are so much better at
00:00:17.400the internet than lefties. Then Dan DeSalvo joins to talk about the upcoming Supreme Court threat
00:00:23.180to government unions. Hooray! I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
00:00:30.000A lot to talk about today. I can't believe I have to defend Zuckerberg. That is going to
00:00:38.560absolutely kill me. That's why we're going to stack it and talk about how awful public sector
00:00:42.960unions are at the end of the show and how great this upcoming Supreme Court case hopefully will
00:00:47.400turn out to be. Before we do any of that, we've got to keep the lights on here. I want to thank
00:00:51.500everybody for using our sponsors. We have great sponsors on this show and they help keep us
00:00:58.620in a studio. But much more importantly, this particular sponsor, Blue Apron, keeps me fed
00:01:04.780because obviously Ben hasn't paid me in God knows how long. And so at least I get the scraps
00:01:10.800that come in. And these are much more than scraps. This is delicious food delivered right to your door
00:01:17.380and there are new recipes all the time. Blue Apron is the leading meal kit delivery service in the U.S.
00:01:23.220and everybody's heard about it. All the cool people have Blue Apron. All your trendy like cool
00:01:27.540friends have gotten it. You should get it too if you haven't tried it. A lot of people don't know
00:01:31.740though about the types of meals you get when you cook with Blue Apron. So you might think it's some
00:01:35.960boring whatever normal stuff. That is not the case at all. You're not just getting like a cheeseburger.
00:01:42.060You're getting short rib burgers with a hoppy cheddar sauce on a pretzel bun. You're getting seared steaks
00:01:47.820and thyme pan sauce with mashed potatoes, green beans, and crispy shallots all in under 45 minutes
00:01:53.060and without a trip to the grocery store. I love it. I actually don't mind cooking, but I rarely do it.
00:01:58.820With Blue Apron, I've been doing it a lot now. This is basically all I've been eating recently.
00:02:02.840And I'll come home, make myself a little martini, maybe put a little music on, a little Frank Sinatra
00:02:07.460or something like that, and then cook up whatever cool recipe they have. It is really, really good.
00:02:11.940It is the number one fresh ingredient and recipe delivery service in the country. The mission is to make
00:02:16.460incredible home cooking accessible to everyone. It's also really good. I recommend having a sweet
00:02:20.900little Elisa who can cook all of it when you don't want to. It's not included in the delivery
00:02:25.420service, but it's really good. They have the two-person meal plan that serves two people or,
00:02:30.440of course, one gavon. And they have the family meal plan that serves four people and, of course,
00:02:35.420one gavon. And they have the wine plan, six bottles of wine from renowned winemakers delivered
00:02:39.560monthly. That should get you through breakfast. A lot of wonderful upcoming meals here. So
00:02:44.000I can't recommend this service highly enough. Check out this week's menu. The menus are always
00:02:50.100changing. They're always really good and interesting, and you probably haven't tried it before. And don't
00:02:54.260say I never did nothing for you. Get $30 off at blueapron.com slash covfefe. C-O-V-F-E-F-E. Blue
00:03:01.720Apron, by the way, goes really good with a nice glass of chilled covfefe. It really sets it off
00:03:05.740beautifully. Blue Apron, a better way to cook. All right, I have to defend Mark Zuckerberg.
00:03:11.760Look, it's, this is really upsetting. It's happening now. The Zuckerberg hearings are going
00:03:16.640on right now. He's being dragged before Congress today. Well, can we, let's just cut live to Mark
00:03:22.120Zuckerberg's testimony. All right, just stay calm, Frankie. These babies will be in the stores while
00:03:28.120he's still grappling with the pickle matrix. Gavon, gavon. Interesting. Interesting. That's not,
00:03:34.860yeah, not exactly what I expected from the testimony, but we'll hear a lot more. This is going to be going
00:03:39.280on for a while. Zuck's testimony began at 2.15 p.m. Eastern time. The subject is how Facebook
00:03:46.480protects user data in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The Cambridge Analytica scandal.
00:03:53.080Oh my God. No one really knows a lot about this thing. Let me fill you in. In 2014, 2015, 270,000
00:04:01.600Facebook users agreed to give an app some of their information on Facebook, as well as data from
00:04:09.260people on their friends list, about 270,000 people. So what they're saying is that this testimony is
00:04:16.180about that, this awful data breach of 270,000 people, many of whom agreed to give the data anyway.
00:04:22.900And if you're on Facebook, you're already agreeing to give your data over and give me a break. You
00:04:26.440shouldn't put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to read on the New York Times.
00:04:29.640So that's what they say it's about. It's really just about how awful it was that Facebook let
00:04:34.460Republicans win an election. That's all this is. He's being dragged in front of Congress and it's
00:04:39.640all about a mea culpa to get the cat of nine tails and flagellate himself. Miserere me, mea culpa,
00:04:45.780mea maxima culpa. He said in his prepared testimony, we didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility
00:04:52.160and that was a big mistake. It was my mistake and I'm sorry. I started Facebook. I run it. I'm
00:04:57.920responsible for what happens here. The responsibility that he has, the responsibility
00:05:04.780that Congress expects him to have is to help elect Democrats. That's his responsibility. And he
00:05:09.020apparently failed in that responsibility and they're very upset. If Cambridge Analytica, this,
00:05:14.420this awful, terrible, awful group and scandal, if this were associated with George Soros instead of
00:05:21.760Robert Mercer, you would never hear about this. If this were associated with a left-wing donor and
00:05:27.760financier, you would never hear about this. And by the way, here's my proof of that. Barack Obama did
00:05:32.760the exact same thing. He did the exact same thing that Republicans are accused of doing here, except
00:05:38.520way, way worse and on a much larger scale. And guess what? When that happened, nobody reported on this.
00:05:43.240That happened in 2012. The Obama campaign encouraged supporters to download the Obama 2012 Facebook
00:05:50.360app that let the campaign then collect Facebook data, both from the users of the app and from
00:05:56.020their friends. Friends maybe who weren't on the app. Friends maybe who didn't support Barack Obama.
00:06:00.720It let them do that. The MIT Technology Review wrote about this in 2012. That's six years ago.
00:06:06.460The average friend list size at that time was about 190. One million people downloaded the Obama app.
00:06:12.900So that means that upwards of 190 million people had some of their Facebook data scooped up by the
00:06:20.020Obama campaign without their consent. It was just scooped up in this awful way. We're talking about
00:06:25.560270,000 people with Cambridge Analytica. We're talking about upwards of 190 million people with
00:06:30.420regard to the Obama campaign. Where was the congressional testimony in 2012? Where was the wailing and the
00:06:36.220gnashing of teeth in 2013? In 2014? Oh, that didn't happen because it was Obama. But maybe they didn't
00:06:42.080know, right? Maybe people didn't know. Oh, no, they did know because the Obama campaign admitted to
00:06:46.000it. Teddy Goff, the Obama campaign digital director, said, quote, people don't trust campaigns. They
00:06:51.560don't even trust media organizations. Who do they trust? Their friends. Their friends. That's why they
00:06:56.320had to go for their friends. Time magazine credited this strategy with helping Barack Obama win that
00:07:02.140election. The Obama campaign called it a game changer and, quote, the most groundbreaking piece of
00:07:07.920technology developed for the campaign. By the way, just to make this relationship even starker,
00:07:15.660the Trump campaign didn't solicit the data themselves. The Trump campaign used the, you know,
00:07:19.860the various quizzes and things like that. Obama literally solicited this data. He had his
00:07:24.660fingerprints far more on this than the Trump campaign ever did. Also, Trump's campaign didn't
00:07:28.900use the data in the general election campaign. Barack Obama did. He used live data. He used it right up
00:07:34.260until election day. There are two main differences between how Democrats used Facebook data and how
00:07:39.080Republicans used Facebook data. What the Democrats did was much, much more egregious. When the Democrats
00:07:44.940did it, do you remember? They were hailed for winning the race for voter data and they connected
00:07:50.220with young voters. It was the digital campaign. He's the digital candidate. Hooray, hooray, hooray.
00:07:56.440But not when Republicans do it. Not when Republicans do it. The other accusation, that's the Cambridge
00:08:00.980Generalitica thing. The other accusation that Facebook has to fend off and Zuckerberg has to
00:08:05.440fend off in this testimony is that Russia used Facebook to hack the election or to rig the election
00:08:11.360or resist, you know, resist. And this is not a legitimate president. And he stole the election
00:08:16.620and Vladimir Putin and blah, blah, blah. So just, just to jog your memory, I know people have short,
00:08:21.600short memories these days. Here is what Democrats thought about hacking and rigging before the election.
00:08:27.520There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even, you could
00:08:36.180even rig America's elections in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes
00:08:45.320involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances
00:08:51.860in which that will happen this time. And so I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his
00:08:59.780case to get votes. And if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton
00:09:08.440to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that
00:09:15.660the American people benefit from an effective government.
00:09:20.660Okay. You saw that this is Democrats after president Trump got elected. See if you can spot the difference.
00:09:27.660Donald J. Trump is now president of the United States.
00:09:30.660What a great honor to be able to introduce for the first time ever, anywhere, the 45th president of the United States of America, Donald J.
00:09:47.660That is a subtle difference. So I don't know if you could tell before no serious person would ever come on, stop one.
00:09:56.960And they're Donald. And then, no, that that's the difference that happened.
00:10:01.700I have to agree with Obama. I have to defend Mark Zuckerberg and agree with Barack Obama.
00:10:06.100No serious person would ever suggest that this election had been rigged or hacked by the Russians or whomever else.
00:10:14.800It just didn't happen. There's no evidence that it happened. Now, this brings us to Russia.
00:10:20.000Russian agents did, you know, interfere. They did participate in the election. They've been doing this for 100 years.
00:10:25.600They bought some advertising to stir up trouble in the American elections.
00:10:30.720The way people hear that from the mainstream media is that they poured money into Facebook just to help Donald Trump.
00:10:37.560And it was all in the Trump campaign. And it's this massive amount of money. And it swung the election.
00:10:42.160But that didn't happen. The Internet Research Agency was a little Russian shop that wanted to cause some trouble in American politics.
00:10:51.240So they bought some ads on Facebook. By the way, these were not ads for Donald Trump.
00:10:55.920They bought issue ads. They bought issue ads that were specifically on divisive issues.
00:11:00.360So race or gay rights or gun control, things that Americans are really divided on.
00:11:05.280That's what they bought ads for. There wasn't actually a lot of interference compared to the usual propaganda.
00:11:13.620To put this into perspective, Trump and Clinton spent a combined $81 million on Facebook ads during the election.
00:11:22.800The Internet Research Agency spent $100,000.
00:11:27.820That is .05% of the amount of money spent on just Facebook ads by the candidates during the election.
00:11:34.660Negligible. Nothing. Nobody suggests it had any effect at all.
00:11:38.760Especially because there weren't even ads for Donald Trump.
00:11:41.820There were just issue ads to divide Americans.
00:11:43.760Because that's actually what our geopolitical adversaries want to do.
00:11:46.880They just want to divide Americans and cause some trouble.
00:11:49.480I don't think they particularly like Donald Trump, who's expelling their diplomats, slapping them with sanctions, countering them in Syria.
00:11:56.520I don't think they really like that guy that much.
00:11:58.420I don't think they really hope that that guy remains president.
00:12:01.100They just want to cause trouble with their geopolitical adversaries.
00:12:03.660They've been doing this for a long time.
00:12:35.100If you ever go into the Facebook offices, it is like left-wing candy land.
00:12:39.060And, you know, Facebook is always touting all of these lefty things, lots of rainbows and, you know, pro-immigration and pro-amnesty and all this.
00:12:47.600Mark Zuckerberg says he's neither Democrat nor Republican.
00:12:55.200The Facebook PAC, the Political Action Committee, actually donated a little bit more to Republicans than to Democrats in 2012.
00:13:02.040Mark Zuckerberg donates to both parties because he's a businessman.
00:13:05.140He's the fifth richest person in the world, so he's maxed out, for instance, to Sean Eldridge, his friend, Orrin Hatch, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Chuck Schumer, Cory Booker.
00:13:14.660You know, both sides of the aisle, although a particular type of Republican and certainly not a hardline conservative Republican.
00:15:44.140You air it on TV in the middle of nowhere, and it gets this huge viral push.
00:15:49.100Those are just examples from my own life.
00:15:51.460Other Republicans have done way more than my modest efforts.
00:15:56.300The reason that Republicans are so good at the Internet is because we could never get a fair shake in the mainstream media.
00:16:01.580We could never get a fair shake in the mainstream press.
00:16:03.640Both the producers and the consumers, the political operatives and the cultural operatives could never get a fair shake.
00:16:10.700But also conservative viewers who just want, like, a normal thing on their TV and not Jimmy Kimmel crying tears of rage because we're not going to raise taxes or something.
00:16:20.520You know, we just, we can't, even consumers can't get that.
00:16:24.000So there was a lot of talent out there, but there were no outlets.
00:16:27.920So conservatives just exploded when the Internet really took off and became the vehicle for all of our information and our entertainment and our politics.
00:16:36.020I think an analogy of this is sort of like black actors in Hollywood.
00:16:39.400Black actors in Hollywood, just about every black actor you see in a movie is a phenomenal actor, whereas some white actors you see in movies aren't that great or they're fine or whatever.
00:17:45.460That was the same year I was doing the congressional race.
00:17:47.560According to an Axios study done by Newswhip, which measures social media engagement, it is conservatives, not lefties, who even now continue to see huge growth of new high-traffic websites and web pages.
00:17:59.640Even now, even as Facebook is trying to kill us, we're seeing huge growth in these websites.
00:18:43.340According to one survey, lefties are three times more likely to unfriend or block or ban conservatives than conservatives are to do that to lefties.
00:27:35.940Okay, we've got to get to Dan DeSalvo, who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute
00:27:51.320and associate professor of political science in the Colin Powell School at the City College of New York.
00:27:56.680I sat down with Dan to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court decision in Janus versus American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31,
00:28:06.180which could seriously, finally, hopefully weaken government unions in the United States.
00:29:21.820This case portends to have the biggest impact on public sector labor relations in probably two generations.
00:29:29.720I think it's important to stress that this isn't going to change anything in the private sector labor market, which is where four-fifths of workers are.
00:29:39.220But it will have a big impact on state and local government employment.
00:29:43.100You know, no less a labor advocate than Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed public sector unions or government unions.
00:29:50.580He observed famously that it is impossible to bargain collectively with the government because nobody in that negotiation really has anything at stake except for the taxpayer, who obviously is not at the bargaining table.
00:30:03.400How did we even get public sector unions in the first place?
00:30:06.640Well, they took a long time and their trajectory has been totally different than private sector unions.
00:30:12.380Private sector unions were around since the late 19th century and really took off in the 30s under FDR.
00:30:18.080But public sector unions really didn't get going until the 60s and 70s, and that's because they're governed by state rather than federal laws.
00:30:27.160So the legal regime is different and their historical trajectory is completely different.
00:30:33.460Speaking of those states, in 2005, then-Governor Mitch Daniels got rid of public sector unions with the stroke of a pen, and there wasn't much hubbub about all of that.
00:30:43.240Then six years later, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker tried to do it, and he ended up getting recalled because of it.
00:30:50.320He ultimately won that recall election, but he was protested.
00:30:54.240There were crazy demonstrations all over Wisconsin.
00:30:57.000How has public opinion changed over time on this issue?
00:31:00.860And maybe more importantly, how has the legal opinion changed over time?
00:31:05.300What's changed is the public's become aware of this arrangement, which is collective bargaining in the public sector.
00:31:12.380You could say that from their creation in the 60s and 70s, public employee unions were really operating sub-ROSA.
00:31:19.940Unless you were a public employee or had one in your household, you probably weren't really aware of their existence, and they grew up to become powerful political players.
00:31:29.160And it really wasn't until about 2005, or really in the early parts of this century, that people started to take notice of the power that they were wielding in politics, and some people, like Mitch Daniels, started to want to do something about it.
00:31:43.520Then Governor Scott Walker came along with Act 10, which is his signature piece of legislation, and that obviously brought the issue to national and international attention.
00:31:53.420So I think the public is now much better informed than they were 10 years and certainly 20 years ago about what public sector unions are and how they operate.
00:32:04.840That is certainly true, and even talking to people in politics, they don't always understand the distinction.
00:32:09.540They just hear union, and they say, oh, well, I'm in a union, or my father was in a union, or something like that.
00:32:14.180You argued in the New York Daily News that public sector unions are not only bad for the taxpayer, which they doubtlessly are, but they're also bad for the workers as well.
00:32:24.920Well, it's bad for some workers, like Mr. Janus.
00:32:28.400That is, in states like New York and elsewhere, people don't want to be a member of the union.
00:32:33.540Well, they can't be forced to be a member, but they can be forced to pay the union as a condition of employment.
00:32:39.400And it's a curious relationship, because there's not many other sectors of employment where you're forced to pay into a group that's so extensively involved in politics, just in order to take your job, which may or may not have anything to do with politics.
00:32:54.900So that's one thing that's really unique about it.
00:32:58.200And I think that's why, for some workers, it's not a great deal.
00:33:02.280You could also say that certain bargaining strategies that the unions employ, while they're trying to represent all workers equally, that may mean that high-performing workers who might benefit from higher salaries or deserve them, aren't going to earn those higher salaries because the union's strategy works against that.