X Gets a Brazilian Ax + Founder Mode + Listeners Respond on School Phone Bans
01:08:07 Share

What can you learn from Built for Change? We could actually turn software into buildings and represent it in a virtual space. So we did exactly this. What will the next breakthrough mean for your enterprise? Reducing that level of complexity and you can focus on where your real value is.

How can your business thrive in a world that's constantly evolving? That is the difference. It's about breaking the silos of data, bringing all of this together. Check out Built for Change, a podcast from Accenture, wherever you get your podcasts.

So one thing you guys will love, because this is a tech angle, is in Brazilian Portuguese, there's no words that really end in a hard consonant. So everything kind of ends in a vowel. And as a result, when they adopt English words, they become very, to us English speakers, funny. For example...

Facebook in Brazil is Facebooky. Facebooky. Yes. And before that, there was Orkut. Or as I understand, they called it in Brazil, Orkutchi. Yes, exactly. Orkutchi. And YouTubey. And Tiki Talky.

Tiki-taki? Yeah, but it goes on to so many different words. I mean, pingy-pongy, internet-shy, kingy-kongy, picky-nicky. I mean, it's so good. It's so good, man. Do you think our podcast is called Harjiforkshy? Harjiforkshy! Harjiforky, yeah. It literally is Harjiforky. Yeah. It's literally Harjiforky. Wow. Yeah. Yeah.

Do you want me to give you a call to the Brazilian listeners for, you know... Period. I understood all that and let's just say I endorse it 100%.

I'm Kevin Russo, tech columnist at The New York Times. I'm Casey Newton from Platformer. And this is Hard Fork. This week, X is banned in Brazil. Will it ever come back? Then, we're going founder mode. What a viral essay tells us about how Silicon Valley is thinking about power. And finally, schools are going phone free. We'll hear from teachers and students about how it's going.

Well, Casey, have you ever been to Brazil? I haven't, but I would love to go. Have you been there? I have. Yes, I went about 15 years ago to visit my friend who was living there at the time. And what did you learn about the people of Brazil? I had a delightful time. We went to a very nice beach, and I learned that they have this very good fish stew there called moqueca that I absolutely loved and think about all the time and have not been able to find in the U.S. That's right. But lately, Kevin, the Brazilians have been stewing about something else altogether. Yeah.

What a segue. Yes. So since last weekend, X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, has been blocked in the entire country of Brazil. This came after a long battle between Elon Musk and a Brazilian Supreme Court justice. And this has become a big sort of sprawling story. It's a really big deal. You know, we've had tech platforms that have been banned in certain countries before, but

Brazil is one of the world's largest democracies. It's the largest economy in South America. And it's one of the countries that uses the Internet the most in the world. And so it's a pretty extraordinary step for them to ban an entire social media platform. Yeah, we expect democracies to have stronger protections around the freedom of expression than we would see in a China or a Russia. And so to see an entire social network go dark, as we have over the past week, has really been extraordinary. Yeah.

Totally. So I want to talk about it today because this is not only a story about a standoff between a tech platform and a government. It is also about all these themes that we talk about, free expression, content moderation, Elon Musk's sort of embrace of the far right, and the growing tensions between tech platforms and governments.

And we've got a great guest today to help us sort through this. My colleague Jack Nickus, who's the Brazil Bureau Chief of the New York Times, is going to be joining us to talk about what the ban has actually looked like on the ground in Brazil. But before we bring in Jack, let's just walk through briefly what has happened leading up to this ban, because it's been a pretty complicated story with a lot of different twists and turns. And I think we should just sort of situate ourselves in what's been happening. So,

In 2022, Brazil had an election. In that election, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who was the right wing, they called him like the Donald Trump of Brazil, lost the election and much like happened in the U.S. in 2020, questioned the results of that election, accused it of being rigged. His supporters stormed Brazil's Congress and Supreme Court, their version of January 6th. And in the aftermath, there's been a lot of efforts in Brazil to stamp out online campaigns

which is being seen as sort of responsible for this uprising and these anti-democratic movements that have taken root on the right in Brazil. That's right. And even before that election, the Brazilian government empowered this Supreme Court justice, Alexander de Moraes, to investigate and gave him these broad sweeping powers to look into what he called digital militias. And that involved going onto platforms like X and finding people who might have been quarterbacks

questioning the election or fomenting violence. And Marais was sending out these sealed orders to platforms like Exxon, you have to remove these accounts, get rid of these, or there will be consequences. And while other platforms complied,

X, starting in April, said, you know what? We don't think we're going to do that. Yes. So they refused to comply with the court's order back in April. Elon Musk then sort of went on a rampage against this justice, called him a dictator, sort of accused him of undermining Brazilian law.

There were escalating threats from the Supreme Court justice toward X saying, basically, you need to comply with this order. X then wrote a letter saying that they actually would comply and block these accounts that this justice had ordered them to remove.

But then sort of reversed its course. And last month, there was sort of a standoff where this judge threatened to arrest the local representative that X had designated there in the country. And in response to those threats, Elon Musk said, well, actually, we're going to close our office in Brazil and pull our physical presence out of the country altogether.

Yeah. So this was a huge escalation because the reason that countries want there to be a local representative like this is for the purpose of shaking them down and say, no, you got to go to your boss and you got to get them to remove all of these accounts. But instead of going along with that the way that most platforms do, X said, we are going to take our ball and go home. Yes. So in response to X's decision to pull out of Brazil, Justice Moraes actually ordered the entire service blocked.

As of last Friday, X is banned in Brazil and you cannot go on it if you are using a Brazilian Internet service provider. And actually, the judge went further than that and said that if you are using a VPN to get around the ban, you can be fined for that as well.

which is a really extraordinary step, you know, even not just for a democracy to take, but really any country to take. We don't see these sort of huge fines being threatened. The judge also initially had ordered Apple and Google to remove X from the App Store and wanted them to remove some popular VPN apps that he knew that Brazilians were going to be using to access X. So this was really the full court press to make sure that no one in Brazil truly ever used X ever again.

So since neither of us are experts in Brazilian politics and national affairs, we wanted to bring in someone who is. And that's where my colleague Jack Nickus comes in. Again, Jack is the Brazil bureau chief of The New York Times. He's based in Rio de Janeiro. And he used to be my colleague in San Francisco. He covered tech companies when he was out here, including Apple. So he's really well positioned to speak to the kind of

growing tensions between X and other social media companies and the Brazilian government. So let's bring him in. He also has great recommendations for what to do during Carnival. It's true. He does go to Carnival. And from the looks of his Instagram story, he has a great time. Jack Nickus, welcome to Hard Fork. Thanks for having me. Hello. So Jack, first question, how are you doing without X?

And is X actually pronounced sheesh in Portuguese like I saw someone claim on YouTube? It is absolutely pronounced sheesh. And, um...

If it weren't for the fact that I had to cover this, my life would definitely have a large improvement in quality. I don't think Brazilians know the gift they've been given here, actually. So what actually happens if you go onto your phone or your browser and try to open the X app? What do you see right now?

Well, I just want to make clear to Supreme Court Justice Alessandra Gimura, I said I'm not using a VPN, which would potentially bring a 50,000 reais fine. But basically, if you're not using a VPN on your app, it's just the old app. It's the old tweets that don't refresh the tweets from before times that are sort of frozen in time. And on your desktop, it's just an error message. It doesn't open. Now,

Now, would you like us to print out our For You pages and mail them to you? We could just fill you in on what's been going on. I've been wondering, so that would be really appreciated. Thank you. Okay, well, the first thing I saw today was that someone was questioning whether the Nazis were actually the bad guys in World War II. Yeah, and Elon Musk reposted that. All right, it hasn't changed. That's what you're missing, Jack. You know what's weird, actually, is I signed up for Elon's tweet alerts before...

this whole thing went down or during the moment when he basically said he was closing the X office, I saw this coming. So I set up tweet alerts, but now I'm still getting his tweet alerts. It's weird. So the notifications are working. So I see he's tweeting, but when I click through, I can't get through to anything. Wow. It's almost like there's some sort of technical problem at X that they haven't managed to solve, which is interesting. Hopefully they can take a look at that. So Jack,

I want to get into this story, but first, just give us a sense of like how ordinary Brazilians are reacting to this. Is X like a super popular platform there? Has this been very disruptive to people's experience of the internet? Or like, what is the sort of mood on the ground there?

Brazil is an extremely online nation. Some surveys show that Brazilians spend more time on the internet than perhaps any other nation. And one evidence of that was when the X-Band went down, all of a sudden, all of the stan accounts across Twitter, all the celebrity fan accounts started announcing, we're all run from Brazil, we're shutting down. And a lot of people on Twitter realized a lot of this site content

is fueled by the creativity of Brazilians. And so,

I think that people are searching because there's not really a clear alternative. And so people are kind of now splintering off between blue sky and threads. And we'll see, I think, probably if this goes on, which one of those two wins. Which I think just shows you what a miscalculation this has been for Elon Musk, right? Because as extraordinary as a move as we have seen Brazil make, it also seemed inevitable after...

after they declared that they simply weren't going to comply with the court's order, that there was going to be some kind of pushback, right? There was going to be some kind of consequence. Brazil has banned or blocked apps, at least temporarily, in the past. So I do think this was well within the realm of possibility for what can happen.

And so Elon Musk has been setting up a situation for himself where he's about to have 20 million of his most passionate users with nowhere else to turn but another social network that probably is going to comply with local laws and will be a much more stable platform to operate in the long term. So just from a pure business analysis perspective, I think this was a crazy miscalculation. Yeah, I think that's a really good question. I think the question to me is...

Does Elon Musk care more about the bottom line at X or his moment to present himself as a political fighter? And I think that he's gaining a lot of political capital with the right around the world for this, but he's hurting his business in the process.

Well, it's such an interesting topic because, you know, Elon Musk's obviously motive for buying Twitter and turning it into X. It was all about, you know, preserving free speech. But he also has said that they would basically follow the law in whatever country they were operating with. That was sort of his definition of free speech.

what it meant to be a free speech platform. Oh, I would love to read you a quote about that, by the way. Yes. So last year in India, he's facing a similar situation where the government of India, which is a more right-leaning government, had ordered X to do some things that were, you know, that went against free speech, but

Musk complied. And when the BBC asked him about this last year, he said, quote, the rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict and we can't go beyond the laws of a country. If we have a choice of either our people go to prison or we comply with the laws, we will comply with the laws. Now, in Brazil, this last month, he had the same situation where one of his employees was going to go to prison and instead of complying with the laws, he said, we are just going to walk away from this country. So what, like, what is the...

reasoning there? Why is he complying with, I mean, I'm curious to hear your take on this too, Jack. Like, why do you think Elon Musk is sort of waging war against the Supreme Court justice in Brazil, but also has complied with similar censorship requests from other governments around the world?

I don't think we can, we're not inside of Elon Musk's head, but what we can say is him defying the government in Brazil fits very in line with his increasingly right-wing politics. Because that, Brazil has a left-wing government that he is defying, and these other countries that X is taking down content under orders from are more right-wing, more authoritarian governments. And not, yes, absolutely. And not only that, Elon Musk is,

is worshipped on the right in Brazil. He is being hailed as a savior for a lot of Bolsonaro supporters who felt forgotten and felt under attack from the Supreme Court. And I think he's been tweeted at for months and for years, actually, you know, people been begging him to do something like this. And he spends a lot of time on his site. And that may have something to do with it.

Yeah, I mean, what's clear to me is just like how personally invested he is in this. He's not like dispatching some lawyer to argue with the Brazilian government. He's been just railing on against this judge, Moraes, on X. He called him an outright criminal, an evil dictator. Recently, he posted like a faked image of him, a

being sort of a cross between Voldemort and a Sith Lord. So this is not like a normal legal dispute, the kind that happened all the time between tech platforms and governments around the world. - No, but to that point, Kevin, like that's exactly it. These sorts of disputes do happen all the time.

Almost every government in the world is going to Meta, is going to Google, is going to X, is going to Snap and saying, there's something on your platform that is illegal and needs to be off, or we need information about this user to help us with a law enforcement investigation. And some of those requests are legit and some are bogus. And the way this gets negotiated is it gets fought in court. The key there, though, is

you have to show up in court. And so what Elon Musk has chosen to do instead is instead of just fighting the fight in court, which I do think he maybe could have won, instead he's like, I'm going to litigate this on my social media platform, which it turns out does not have a lot of legal authority in Brazil to make decisions.

One really interesting point on that is, you're right, he's playing this game on his own terms and almost in a performative way. So much so that when the Brazilian government sent official legal notice to him that he had 24 hours to comply with the demand to have a physical presence in the country, they did so intentionally.

in a post on X, tagging the X. And to the Brazilian government, the official receipt of that order was Elon Musk replying with an AI-generated image of toilet paper with the judge's name on it.

Is that, Jack, I don't know a lot about the judicial system in Brazil, but is that a typical way that one might respond to a court order? I think it's probably the first time, probably. I did enjoy writing that in the stories. I think that in a way, though, it says a lot about the way he's fighting this fight. I mean, this is not something that he's having lawyers do because

He cares about the legality about it. He is making a show of this. He wants to make a political point. And one question I've had about this whole incident is it seems like this judge is basically doing to Brazilian social media and Brazilian political actors what conservatives in the U.S. have been scared that tech platforms would do to them. Like he is actually...

you know, demanding the removal of content that he doesn't like without much reasoning behind it. Actually, many of these orders I read in one of your stories have been sort of ordered to remain secret. So it's like we want you to take down all this content that I don't like, but you're not allowed to tell anyone that you're doing it and we don't have to explain our reasoning. Just do it.

And that is constantly something that people on the right in America are scared will happen. And so Brazil sort of offers them a sort of picture of what it would be like if their worst fears about censorship on the internet came to pass. Yes, I think you're completely right. The fact that there's a manifestation of this boogeyman has been a really strong political tool for the right in Brazil to attack. Recently, leaked files published in one of Brazil's biggest newspapers showed that people

The way in which he was picking out people, he was, you know, people, sort of right-wing pundits were criticizing him on X. He was sending that in a WhatsApp message to an investigator who was finding a justification to ban them. And then he was sending a sealed order to social media companies and not giving any reason why this person was banned. So it does show the danger of letting a single person decide about what can be said online.

I mean, this is the part of the story that I find most frustrating because it's the part that makes me defend Elon Musk, a person who I think has been like a singularly maligned force in the world of social networks. And despite all of that, I do think that having one person that can say you can no longer have a social media account anymore.

for a reason I'm not going to tell you, just seems like a really bad thing for democracy and free expression, right? So I do, and that's why I say, I think Elon Musk could have fought this in court, right? He could have said, his lawyers, and he could have said, look at the way that this has been handled, right? Look at how our users' rights to free expression are being trampled. But instead, he took his ball and he went home. Yeah, I mean, I'm curious, Jack, what you think his options were,

given that, you know, it's not, I mean, you say he could have taken this to court, but this is the court. This is a Supreme Court justice in Brazil, sort of doing these unilateral acts of what you might call censorship. So, Jack, what do you think Elon Musk's better options might have been here? That's a really good question. I think another issue with the way the Supreme Court is operated is that there has not been a lot of accountability.

a lot of appeals have been dismissed outright, including, you know, Starlink here. This judge froze Starlink's assets to try to collect on fines against X, which was really potentially questionable legal maneuver. When Starlink appealed, a different Supreme Court justice just dismissed it, you know, within hours. And so there is a concern that the Supreme Court is acting above the law because they don't have their own accountability and it is difficult. But

The reality is the way that this is supposed to be done is to file a legal appeal, try to file a lawsuit and fight it in court. And there is a lot of cases in Brazilian history and many other countries' history of this working. I mean, the Supreme Court does change its mind. And there are people with different viewpoints on the Supreme Court.

I also want to get into the question of like, what could the court do actually? Because again, even if you're sympathetic to the idea that like one person in Brazil shouldn't be able to unilaterally remove people from the internet.

At the same time, Brazil does have some clearly stated rules around you want to have a social media platform in this country. Okay, you have to designate a local representative. We have to be able to contact that person. You have to comply with these certain laws. And Axis just said straight up, we are not going to do that.

And in that world, I don't actually know what is the basis for appeal here, right? Like, I can't see the Brazilian Supreme Court saying we're going to grant an exemption to Elon Musk because we think speech is important and so therefore it doesn't have to follow our laws. So, I mean, Jack, what outs do you see here for X to get back online in Brazil if there are any? This is why I think there's a very good chance that this is

not a temporary ban. I think that X really could be going away in Brazil because I really don't see the Supreme Court, and certainly not this justice, backing down because that would be a capitulation saying that, okay, our laws don't matter. At the same time, it doesn't appear that Elon is prepared politically to back down either. He has really made this a pet issue and appears prepared to take the financial hit that it's going to inflict on his business.

And so this may be the end of X in Brazil. And it may be, you know, Mark Zuckerberg in threads or Blue Sky gets the sort of the bounty of these 20 million very online users. Do you think that's actually the fallout here? If X remains banned in Brazil, is it actually likely that Brazilians will move to other social networks?

Or do you think they'll just all download VPNs and keep using X and there'll be sort of this like, you know, underground of secret Brazilian X posters? There will be. There already is. I mean, people, despite even the fines, people are on X and using it to some degree. But,

But I think that it will just, A, it's kind of a barrier to entry. It's not really a great thing to be downloading VPNs. And I think, especially if this fine stays in place, the kind of people who are going to be doing it on their work computers, you know, there's all sorts of questions about that. And I think it just becomes less interesting. If all the Portuguese speakers are going to other platforms, there's not that many people to talk to anymore.

And so I think we know how social networks work. You know, they're good when a bunch of other people are there. It's just like a party. And I think when people leave the party, you're going to leave too. Yeah, I mean, one other ripple effect here that we haven't really talked about is how other governments around the world may react to what's happening in Brazil by trying to ban X in their country or to take action against certain accounts that they don't like. So I'm curious, Jack, what do you...

feel the sort of international impact of this incident is going to be? Are we going to see a bunch of other countries start banning social platforms because they don't like what's going on there?

I think that we certainly are seeing a more aggressive tact from countries around the world. I mean, you talked about India. Certainly Europe has seen this as a grave threat themselves and they have become far more hands-on. And there's also been good reporting that even, you know, the Biden administration during COVID was weighing in and forcing, urging Facebook to take down COVID misinformation and things like that. So even the U.S. government in some ways, I think, is showing an openness to this depending on the administration.

I think that there is growing comfort on the part of nation states with getting involved in the messy work of basically policing what can be said online, which was really, for the most part, largely left unresolved.

to the tech companies themselves. And that is only going to inflame this debate more. I don't think this debate over the culture wars and what's okay to say and what's not is going away anytime soon as a result. Yeah, I think over the past several years, we have already seen the normalization of this idea that if you want to operate in our country, you have to designate a local representative. And the main reason that

countries pass those laws is so they can have someone they can shake down when they want a piece of content removed or they want a user account removed. They want to be able to say, hey, we're going to throw your person in jail. This has turned out to be extraordinarily effective in getting companies to change course, reverse their decisions. We've seen it in India. We've seen it in Russia. It started out as this very authoritarian country-led idea. Now it is showing up in democracies like Brazil. And I sort of assume it will just eventually be everywhere. And this will be

how business gets done. You know, I want to just take...

take the sort of steel man argument on the other side here to what you just said, which mostly I agree with. But I do think there is also the context here that a lot of these countries around the world have felt a kind of invasion from these American-led social networks, where all of a sudden millions of people in their country are using these platforms that are based in the United States to do their sort of communication, their speech. And

And these companies, for the most part, have not invested a ton in learning about the local context in which they operate, right? We saw this in countries like Myanmar, where Facebook was accused of fomenting a genocide. And one of the things that people pointed to as evidence of that was that they had not

actually opened an office in Myanmar and yet had become the dominant social media platform there. So I think what you're seeing on the part of countries, yes, obviously there's some desire to control speech on these social networks because now governments sort of understand that that's an important place that political speech and disagreements are happening.

But I also think it reflects the underinvestment of these social media companies in learning about and establishing some local context for the many places around the world in which they operate. And countries, I think, understandably are saying, wait a minute, you can't just like parachute a social network in here and expect that that's going to be okay with us because we have different values. We have different priorities.

And in Brazil, where they did just have, you know, an attempted insurrection, a riot after an election where there was a lot of misinformation involved. I think there's some arguments for national sovereignty there and being able to say to a platform like X, wait a minute, you actually can't just play by your own rules. You also have to play by ours if you want to operate in this country.

Right. That's the steel man version of the argument. I think that makes sense, you know, but at the same time, do we think that if there is a country that is oppressing its citizen, they have no right to free expression? Like, should American companies try to provide tools for those people to communicate and post online? Or should they just say, well, no, that goes against the local laws, and so we're going to stay out of it?

I don't know. I mean, I think that is sort of the defining question that faces not only the platforms, but these governments. Jack, do you have thoughts on that? Do you have thoughts on American tech imperialism, Jack? Are you for or against? I'll say I'm just not going to criticize Judge Marais, that's all. But I think as journalists, this is why we love this story so much, because there's really good points on both sides.

I think it's really reasonable for governments to expect a company that has a huge effect on society, a huge effect on democracy in their countries, to want to have a way to hold those companies accountable.

And at the same time, I think it is great, potentially, if some of these companies in situations when there are governments that are overstepping or acting in sort of an autocratic way, have a way to still give people a tool to communicate. So this is messy stuff. Yeah. Well, Jack, thanks for coming on and explaining all this, or as they would say in Brazil, obrigado. Boa. De nada. All right, Jack. Thanks, Jack. All right, thanks, guys. Thanks, guys.

When we come back, fire the person closest to you. We're going founder mode. That's pretty good. This episode is supported by OutShift, Cisco's incubation engine. While Cisco connects and protects the world's tech, OutShift explores and builds transformative emerging technology. Whether that tech is 18 months or five years into the future, OutShift knows the world doesn't just need more ideas. It needs more concrete solutions.

If you're looking to gain a competitive edge in how your organization will handle incoming generative and agentic AI needs, quantum security risks, and more, let OutShift help inspire you. Visit outshift.com to learn more. Whether you're starting or scaling your company's security program, demonstrating top-notch security practices and establishing trust is more important than ever. Vanta automates compliance for SOC 2, ISO 27001, and more.

With Vanta, you can streamline security reviews by automating questionnaires and demonstrating your security posture with a customer-facing trust center. Over 7,000 global companies use Vanta to manage risk and prove security in real time. Get $1,000 off Vanta when you go to vanta.com slash hardfork. That's vanta.com slash hardfork for $1,000 off.

All right, Kevin, are you ready to go founder mode? I sure am. You know what? Founder mode is not just something that's incredibly fun to say and just a word you can use to justify any behavior. It is also the subject that Silicon Valley has been obsessed with as they debate an essay by the venture capitalist Paul Graham called Founder Mode.

Yeah, so periodically in the tech world, there are just kind of these ideas that catch fire and become very central to the tech industry's sort of conception of itself, how founders and CEOs and investors think companies should be run. And we've seen a number of these over the years, but this one, founder mode, has really taken hold over the past week. It's all anyone is talking about on my feed, at least. Yeah, founder.

Yeah.

And he wrote an essay recently that was based on a talk given by Brian Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb. And in that talk, Brian Chesky said that he had come to believe that he'd been given really bad advice about how to run a company.

and that the conventional wisdom on how to run a company is you should hire great people and get out of their way just let them run right i've heard this myself many times over the year this is the way to be a good manager right hire good people get out of their way and brian chesky did that and he felt like it started to have really bad effects for the company all of a sudden he was less aware of what was going on the company's performance started to tank

And so, Kevin, that's when he decided he had to go founder mode. And how would you explain founder mode to someone who has never heard of it? I mean, if I wanted to be glib, I would say it's micromanaging. If I wanted to be less glib, I would say, well, instead of just delegating almost everything to a bunch of trusted lieutenants,

you decide you're really going to keep your hands in all of the details. And one of the ways that Chesky has described it is, I don't want my company to be working on anything more than I personally have focus for, right? So we're not gonna have a million different businesses that I know almost nothing about. We are going to keep it limited to my field of view, and that is what is going to bring us success over the long run.

And PG picked up on that and ran with it. And I think he probably ran further with it than Chesky would have. But he really situated it in this debate that Silicon Valley has been having for the past few years now, which really comes down to how much power should employees have versus how much power CEOs have. This is a discussion that we've had before in the context of how Elon Musk changed Silicon Valley after he bought X.

He came in and he said, "You employees, you've had too many ideas. I'm going to go founder mode." He didn't actually say that, but he acted as if he had. "I'm going to go founder mode and I'm going to be the last word on everything around here." It really galvanized a lot of people.

And I think Paul Graham sort of sees something similar in Brian Chesky. Yeah, I mean, this is something that I've been sort of observing for a few years now. When Elon Musk took over Twitter, I think a lot of people saw that acquisition as a disaster and his management of the company as being an example of how not to run a business. But

I also started hearing from sources in Silicon Valley who were founders and CEOs and investors, people with stakes in large, successful businesses who actually looked at what Elon Musk did at Twitter and said, that actually is appealing to me. So Elon Musk, in a way, became kind of a management hero. Basically, the bosses of Silicon Valley were kind of rooting for what Elon Musk did at Twitter to succeed and wondering if they could do a similar version of that at their own companies. Yeah, and of course, I don't think...

PG's essay would have taken off had he only said CEOs should have more power or they should be more involved in their businesses. In order for it to really take off, he would have to denigrate someone. And that people wound up being the managers that these CEOs hire to delegate some of their work to. And here was his quote.

Hire good people and give them room to do their jobs. Sounds great when it's described that way, doesn't it? Except in practice, judging from the report of founder after founder, what this often turns out to mean is hire professional fakers and let them drive the company into the ground.

So that is the quote, I think, that explains why Silicon Valley got obsessed with this because, of course, there are way more managers than there are founders. And Silicon Valley and Y Combinator in particular are obsessed with the cult of the founder, right? These founders are these almost religious figures who sort of step into the world with a brilliant idea, and they give rise to these ideas.

empires and Y Combinator is always sort of promoting this idea that it is the founder from which all innovation springs. And there were a lot of managers who had something to say about that, which was essentially, PG, you're going a little crazy here. Right. I mean, I think we should just say like why it matters that people in Silicon Valley are talking about founder mode all of a sudden. And to me,

The real stakes here are that the workplace and management trends that start in Silicon Valley often spread throughout the economy, right? I mean, years ago, some HR executives at Google had this idea about bringing your whole self to work, right? That was like a line that was very popular at Google for basically telling people, you know, you're not just a corporate drone. We want you to be yourself. We want to create this sort of safe psychological environment for you at work.

And that rippled out to all these other companies and all these other industries that had nothing to do with tech. And so if your manager at your, you know, shipping company or your restaurant started all of a sudden talking about bringing your whole self to work, that was because of something that had happened at Google years earlier. Yeah, I brought my whole self to work and they asked it to leave. Yeah.

So I think it really matters. You know, this is just one essay. This is just a small number of companies who are sort of talking openly about this idea of going founder mode. But I think it really speaks to a frustration that a lot of executives in a lot of different industries are having. And it

it may signal a kind of shift away from this other mode where you delegate work to people, you hire talented people, and you give them room to run. Absolutely. Now, by this point in the discussion, Kevin, I imagine that a lot of listeners are out there wondering, what mode is my company in right now? And what does that mean for me? And so I thought I could present some sort of business case studies for you in a new game I'm calling Founder or Flounder. Let's do it.

Okay, so in this game, I'm going to present you with the business case study, and then you'll tell me whether this is a case of founder, of a founder in founder mode, or flounder, a flounder maybe stepping a little bit too far away from the reins. I thought flounder mode was when you just decide that you're going to solve an organizational problem by diving to the bottom of a

pool and just kind of laying there for a while. That's a different kind of flounder, but there's also one where you just watch Finding Nemo. But in this one, I want you to tell me when the CEO is maybe not doing the best job. Okay. Ready? Great. Okay.

Case study number one. The year is 1996. Struggling Apple CEO Gil Emilio negotiates a deal to buy Nex Computer, a fledgling company run by one Steve Jobs. Jobs comes back to the company, dramatically reduces the number of products the company makes, and goes on to revive the fortunes of the Mac, invent the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. He helped maintain his focus by denying the paternity of his daughter Lisa for several years, illegally driving without license plates, and berating his engineers.

Founder or flounder? Founder mode, baby. I mean, that is the classic example that is always cited by these people of someone who was sort of the archetypal founder mode CEO. And Steve Jobs, as we know, was not...

you know, a pleasant person to work for all the time. But, you know, it's, he got results. So I think a lot of people have sort of said, well, why don't we learn from him as an example? Very good. All right. That leads us to case study number two. The year is 2007. And a couple guys say, hey, what if we

let people stay in our apartment and we gave them breakfast. The company they called Airbnb. And recently, we have a clip from the CEO, Brian Chesky, talking about what he thought he should do to get his company back on track. Let's play the clip.

So what I used to do is I was very hands-off. I thought my job was like strategy and capital allocation. And here's the weird thing. The less hands-on I was, the more I got sucked into problems. And by the time I got sucked into a problem, it was like 10 times as much work. So then I decided I'm going to do something different. I'm going to do very few things. And I'm going to be involved in every single detail. I would review everything. So I had these things called CEO reviews. And every single project in the company, I had a program management function.

And I would review everything either every week, every two weeks, every four weeks or every quarter. And then we track the progress. And then, you know, then everything would ship on a single deadline. Initially, people hated this. No one wanted to collaborate. People didn't want to have imposed deadlines on them. They were wondering, why are you meddling? Like, why are you reviewing all the work? But eventually it created a culture. And I was trying to teach a sense of quality. I was trying to be like the editor or the orchestra conductor.

And that was Brian Chesky on the This Week in Startups podcast last year. Kevin, the result of this is a company whose stock declined 19% in the last year and is now trading around $115, which is about the cost of the cleaning fee for a two-night stay in an Airbnb. So, Kevin, founder

or flounder. I mean, this is also founder mode, right? This is Brian Chesky talking about how he took Airbnb from a manager mode company to a founder mode company in the process, causing some frustrations for people on his team. But it seems like also resulting in a company that he's much happier

you're with. What do you think of this? Well, you know, he does seem really happy. And look, you know, Brian Chesky, a tremendously likable guy, very well regarded as a CEO, I think for good reasons. And yet at the same time, I think it's important to point out financially, this company is not in great shape. You know, it might be more fun to run, but it's not exactly Apple yet. So I think sometimes these founders get it into their heads that if I just had more control, I could build a juggernaut. And in the case of Airbnb, I just kind of wanted to point out not really a juggernaut quite yet. Yeah. Yeah.

All right, Kevin, I got one more for you. I'm going to paint you a vision. Here's 2003. A brilliant young entrepreneur from Stanford sets out to improve the healthcare industry by focusing on an incredibly common product, the humble blood test. Kevin, why draw an entire vial of blood with a painful needle when you could simply prick someone's finger and run the entire test on a single drop of blood?

This is the question that Elizabeth Holmes set out to answer. And with her partner, Sonny Balwani, the duo would go on to raise more than $700 million for Theranos. And were they beset by doubters and haters on all sides? They were. Did people say, that's not safe? Or your technology doesn't work? Or you defrauded your investors? You bet they did. But while I haven't checked in with Theranos since 2018, you have to admit, it does sound like a pretty cool idea. So Kevin, founder or flounder? Yeah.

I mean, I think this one started with founder intentions, but maybe became more of a flounder as the blood test didn't work.

It really did. And I bring this one up because I just want to say once again, founder mode can go wrong, right? There is a reason why sometimes we want to involve more people in decisions and give more managers visibility into what is going on at every level of the company. And that is that sometimes these people, well, they can get some pretty crazy ideas in their head. Totally. Yeah. I was actually so entertained by the debate around founder mode this week that I was like,

I created a Founder Mode translator. Oh, really? So basically, I said to ChatGPT, I created a custom GPT, and I gave it, you know, I said, you know, read Paul Graham's essay about Founder Mode and then sort of make a translator where when I input something, you sort of spit out what it would sound like if someone who's dedicated to Founder Mode said it instead. So I thought I would just read you a few of these. Please.

So one of the prompts that I gave my Founder Mode translator was, "Hey Sarah, do you know if we're getting more Keurig pods for the coffee machine this week?" Here's what that sounds like in Founder Mode. "Sarah, coffee pods? Keurig pods? We're not here to wait for caffeine to just materialize like magic. We're here to build an empire. If the coffee machine is running low, that's not just a supply chain issue, that's a sign that we're too reliant on traditional systems."

It's pretty good. Hell yeah, brother. Okay. All right. My next prompt was, hey, Rob, any progress on that PowerPoint deck? I really need it to show at the board meeting next week. And this is what it sounds like in founder mode. Hey, Rob, forget the PowerPoint. If the board needs slides to understand the vision, they're the wrong board. We're building a company, not a middle school presentation. Tell them the plan in five sentences, no fluff. If they don't get it, maybe they don't belong on the ride. Yeah.

An important point of founder mode is just constantly threatening to fire everyone. So that really did nail it. And then the last one I gave it was, hey boss, my colleagues and I are unhappy about our pay and working conditions and are considering unionizing. Any thoughts? Oh boy. And my founder mode bot said,

Unionizing? Let me stop you right there. The moment you start thinking about forming a union, you're admitting you're not playing the game at a high level. This company is a rocket ship. And if you're not here for that, you're missing the point. Want more? Earn more. Results speak, not demands.

Wow, the National Labor Relations Board just filed a complaint against that answer, actually. So, obviously, we're having a lot of fun with this, but I do think this is something that is worth keeping tabs on because, on one hand, complaints about bureaucracy and middle managers are some of the oldest complaints in the world, right? Everyone hates bureaucracy. It's a very popular thing to rail against.

And if you're a venture capitalist or someone who runs a big tech company, of course it's in your interest to lionize founders.

But at the end of the day, like, I just can't help but thinking that it's a very paranoid ideology, right? It's saying these people who you have hired to manage your business for you are in fact working against you, right? They're like a secret, you know, deep state within your own company that has to be sort of eliminated or weeded out because only you, the founder, can be trusted to make the strategic decisions that really make the company work.

And look, if you build a company, if you start a company, that's well within your rights to do. But like the argument on the other side is, well, if you look at the companies where the founders have a lot of top down control, their employees are often very unhappy, right? That is not a recipe for people feeling like they are empowered and valued if you have the CEO or the founder constantly looking over your shoulder and second guessing you and micromanaging.

And I would actually love sort of a comparison chart of like the correlation between companies where the founders go founder mode and like employee satisfaction, right? Because that seems like it would be a very interesting data point. Yeah, I think there's a really benign version of this, which is that some founders should rethink the things that they have delegated and the amount they have delegated and maybe reclaim some decisions that they once entrusted to other people. I think that's a totally normal and fine idea. And we'll be having that debate forever.

And then I think if you take this idea to its logical conclusion, it turns into America is a king, which is another idea that circulates in Silicon Valley. And I think it's really toxic and dangerous. It also feels very rooted to me in the economic situation in the country, right? For years, we've

We had an environment where there were many more sort of openings for tech employees than there were people who wanted those jobs, right? Companies needed to be worker-friendly because they were trying to attract talent. And so people, you know, don't want to go work for companies where they're going to be, like, treated as peons. They want to go places where they have agency and control and authority and they can sort of run their own little part of the empire there.

And in that sort of world, it makes a lot of sense to position your company as being very friendly to workers. But now we have a situation where things have turned a little bit. A lot of these companies have done layoffs. They're a lot smaller than they used to be. And so the leverage is just shifting from workers back to bosses. And so I think in that way, it makes a lot of sense that the bosses are starting to say, wait, why do we give our employees all that power again? And should we be taking some of that back? Yeah.

Absolutely. So if we want to have a check on founder mode, we are going to need to bring back zero interest rates. So if the Fed could do anything about that, we'd really appreciate it. Yeah. I could also refinance my house. When we come back, we've been calling out for listeners to tell us how phone bans are going in your schools. When we come back, we'll hear what you said. Time is luxury.

That's why Polestar 3 is thoughtfully designed to make every minute you spend driving it the best time of your day. That means noise-canceling capabilities and 3D surround sound on Bowers & Wilkins speakers, seamlessly integrated technology to keep you connected, and the horsepower and control to make this electric SUV feel like a sports car.

Polestar 3 is a new generation of electric performance. Book a test drive at Polestar.com. What if the limits of your imagination were just the beginning? Claude, Anthropics AI Assistant, invites you to explore the vast landscape of human potential. From mastering new skills to tackling complex problems, Claude expands your mental horizons in ways you never imagined.

Need help writing that novel? Decoding scientific papers? Planning your next adventure? Claude is your sage guide. It's like having a brilliant collaborator ready to amplify your creativity and problem-solving abilities. And with Anthropic's commitment to responsible AI, you can trust Claude with your boldest ideas. If you're ready to push the boundaries of what's possible, start your journey of discovery at anthropic.com slash Claude.

Kevin, would you put away your phone? We're trying to do a podcast here. I don't have my phone out. Actually, I do need to put it in do not disturb mode. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. And you know what? This problem, friends, it is not only happening on podcasts in schools across this country. We are having the debate of what do we do with phones during school time. And, you know, last week, Kevin, on the Hard Fork podcast, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York came on to lay out her plan for getting rid of phones in public schools. Yeah.

And as you might imagine, we heard from listeners about that. In fact, we spent the past couple weeks asking you to send in your thoughts on the subject. And we heard from so many of you who had smart things to say that we said, why don't we actually spend some time playing those on the show? Yeah, and I always love hearing from our listeners, but I was especially interested to hear from them on this topic of smartphone bans in schools because it seems like a thing where a policy is being made or many policies are being made around the country that

And the reality on the ground of what those policies actually look like when you try to ban phones in a school is just a lot more mysterious to me. Like, I don't actually know. It's one thing to say we're going to ban smartphones. But when you actually start a school year and you open school and kids come to school with their cell phones and you tell them they can't use them during class, I was just very curious to see how that is actually playing out.

Absolutely. You know, we talk so often about these policy debates on the show, Kevin, but what's really interesting to me is what is happening on the ground. How does it feel? How do these things get implemented? And how does life change afterwards? So we have a really cool selection of students and teachers describing what it is like at their schools that have banned phones, in some cases, just in the last few weeks. So I know we're going to learn a lot from this, and I think we should get into it. Let's get into it. All right.

So first up, we're going to hear from students. We heard from several students who made a similar argument, which went something like this. Even though the phone ban seems to be helping them focus better in class, it's not clear to them that this outweighs all the friction that has come from enforcing that policy. So to give us a little glimpse into what that looks like, here's Robert Eves. He's a high school student in Virginia.

While I understand the idea behind banded phones, I believe it is a mixed bag. On one hand, it's definitely noticeable that there are fewer distractions in class. However, the execution of this ban has been too strict. We're not allowed to use the phones at all, and this has created some challenges. For example, some students like me will eventually need to use external laptops or devices other than our Chromebooks for specific courses, and this is no longer permitted.

Teachers have told all of my classes that they dislike the ban because they want to enforce a phone ban when they themselves want to, not the school board or administration. They dislike the idea of having to constantly monitor the students. In fact, every high school teacher I've talked to has expressed their distaste for it. Overall, while the intention might be good, the ban's current form doesn't consider the practical needs of students and teachers, at least in my district.

Interesting. Kevin, what do you make of Robert's point here? So this is really interesting to me because I think what we're starting to see as these bans actually kick in in a lot of schools this fall is that it's just pretty messy. Like the actual process of how do you get phones out of school?

students' hands during the classroom day is not particularly straightforward. And there are going to be exceptions. There are going to be places where it does cause friction because, yeah, some students may be using their phones for school-approved activities or even coursework. It's just not going to be a very simple, neat policy to kind of lay down. Yeah, and it

in order for it to work the way we think it should, you do have to get the phones out of everyone's hands, right? If one person has a phone, that's incredibly distracting for the entire class. So, you know, I can understand why teachers who already have so much on their plate are saying, wait, now I also have to play phone cop all day? That doesn't sound very fun.

Let's hear a similar point that was made by Charlotte. She's a high school student in Indiana where a state Senate bill recently went into effect requiring schools to adopt and publish policies limiting cell phone use. I've mixed feelings about this bill. For one, I feel like I'm focusing better in school. I'm not thinking about my phone since it's usually in a phone cubby or in my backpack.

but it is annoying that I can't have my phone during study hall. When I don't have any homework to do, I just kind of sit there. It's also a hassle during my newspaper class. Whenever I'm walking through the building to an interview, recording it, etc., I have to wear a lanyard around my neck that says, with a paragraph that states that I am actually allowed to have my phone. No one's bothered me about it yet, but I always feel like I'm doing something illegal.

Charlotte, I'm here to tell you, you're not doing something illegal. You're doing something incredibly cool. Okay? If I could have walked around my high school with a pass that said press pass using a piece of technology that no one else in the school was allowed to use, I truly never would have felt cooler. Totally. And it does make me think that at least in this one particular school, the newspaper class is about to become the most popular class in the school. Yes.

They're going to start 15 different newspapers at this school because everybody wants to use their phone. Yes. But I will say on a less jokey note, like –

I have some sympathy for students who say, well, I'm used to having my phone to sort of like kill time during study hall after I finished my work and I'm sort of bored without it. But I also feel like, man, that feeling of being bored, of just sitting there with nothing to distract you and having to kind of like sit there with your own thoughts or, you know, doodle or maybe sort of think through some idea like that is actually like amazing.

a classic part of the learning experience. At least it was for me. Yeah, I think that as boring as it is, there is a case to be made for sitting there with your own thoughts. You know, these days, I'm not alone with my thoughts often. I always have my earbuds in, but I do think it was an important part of my development. Do you think doodling is going to make a comeback? I think it should. Yeah. I mean, kids these days, they don't even know how to do the fancy S. All right, now you sound 400 years old.

So something else that we heard in voice memos from students is that each school is implementing their phone ban just a little bit differently and that subtle differences in enforcement can wind up having a really big effect on how students feel about the ban. So here's a student who says he's been able to get permission to use his phone whenever he's really needed it. His school has been using these pouches called yonder pouches. Have you ever

used a yonder pouch? I never have. Have you? You know, I haven't, but they're increasingly common if you go to, like, see a stand-up comedian, for example. They'll sort of take everybody's phones and throw them in their pouches. I imagine yonder is having a great business year with how many schools are passing these bans. But these are these pouches that allow people to keep their phone on them inside a locked pouch that can only be unlocked with a special device. And according to this student who sent in a voice memo, the pouches are working pretty well. So let's hear from

Jackson McClure in Redwood City, California. Right by us, Kevin.

Hey, Hard Fork. I'm a ninth grader at Design Tech High School. And actually, just today, I had to fix my tooth because I chipped it on a mountain biking trip. Yay. And believe it or not, it wasn't actually that hard to just go to the front desk, say, I need to use my phone to call my mom for the appointment. And then they allowed me and then I took photos of my tooth.

and then had a conversation. We logged back up and I went on with my day. It seems like it's not too hard just to get access to it if you really need it. And honestly, not having it really seems like just a benefit anyway.

So this is why I think that students shouldn't be allowed to ride their mountain bikes inside the classroom. It's too dangerous. We're seeing too many of these injuries. No, Jackson, I hope you're feeling better. But, you know, this is an interesting point that he makes, which is essentially, hey, everybody relax. If you have an emergency, go to the front desk. What's the big deal? What do you think, Kevin? Yeah, I totally buy that. I mean, I think that the students will still have many ways to contact their parents or guardians if something does happen to them.

You know, this one resonated with me because I actually did have a tooth chipping incident. When I was in seventh grade, I chipped my tooth while doing a professional wrestling move on one of my friends. What was that move? It was the spear. This was Goldberg, who was a professional wrestler back in the 90s. He had a move called the spear. That's right. Which involves like running headfirst into someone. And I was trying to spear my friend and he moved out of the way. And so instead I speared a locker and my tooth chipped.

But you know what? That locker also took a fair bit of damage. So you should see the other guy, basically. And I'll never forget it because one of the people who was watching as this all happened was my crush. And so she saw me with the chipped tooth sort of bleeding out of my mouth, and I'll never recover from that. So anyway, what I'm trying to say is that I made my way to the nurse's office, and I was able to call my mom and get to the dentist to fix my tooth. And

And this was before cell phones. So what I'm saying is the students of America do actually have resources if they chip their teeth during the school day. And I'm glad that Jackson found that out. But Kevin, don't you wish in retrospect that somebody had a cell phone so they could record you sparing a locker and sort of put that on TikTok in a compilation called Terrible High School Nerd Fails? Yeah.

Actually, now I'm very glad that cell phones with cameras did not exist back then. And look, on a more serious note, like there will obviously be reasons that students need to contact their parents during the school day. And actually, this is one of the big objections that many parents have raised to these cell phone bans is what if something horrible happens and my child needs to get in contact with me during the school day? Yeah.

And, you know, I have some sympathy to that. I do too. As a parent, as someone who, you know, like worries a lot about my child's safety, like I get wanting to be able to contact your kid during the school day on a cell phone.

But I also think that there were ways for students to do that before cell phones. There will continue to be ways. It's not that hard to sort of get to the principal's office, get to the nurse's station. There are going to be avenues for students to contact their parents in an emergency. There's something very funny to me about the words, please open my yonder pouch.

Why is that? I don't know. It kind of sounds like a pickup line. Anyways, so we've heard from students, but Kevin, we should also hear from teachers. You know, as we sort of mentioned earlier, these are often the folks who are charged with implementing these bans, and we were very curious to hear what they've been noticing. So this first clip comes to us from Ryan Bedingfield, who is a high school AV teacher in Atlanta, Georgia, and he told us how his opinion on phone bans has changed a little over the last three weeks.

I teach a tech class. We have MacBooks and all kinds of other things. We record audio on the phones. We shoot photos, videos. We even use a Discord server. And so I've seen a lot of practical use out of phones in my room. I've tried to kind of be forward-thinking and consider all the ways that I could make technology part of the curriculum.

But my administration, the school's doing the no cell phone thing. And so I tried to get on board. And I got to tell you, it has been kind of amazing, actually. The kids are just so much more engaged and alert. And I feel like I'm connecting with them better. It sounds so cheesy, but I can't oversell that. So...

Like I said, I worried about the way this would affect my class, but I think there's just no question that the net benefits outweigh the costs or the inconveniences. And I would hate to go back to unrestricted cell phone use at this point already. I'm fully committed.

Wow. What do you think, Kevin? I mean, this one really struck me because this is not a teacher who sort of came in as someone who was skeptical about technology in the classroom, right? He did sort of try to use cell phones as part of the curriculum in the classes that he was teaching.

And, you know, I think there's I admire that. Like there are a lot of teachers who sort of have been opposed to phones in schools from the beginning. But this was a teacher who actually said, well, if students are going to have these things and we're not going to ban them, like, let's try to find a productive use. But to me, like trying to find a productive educational use of cell phones in the classroom is a little like trying to find a productive educational use for a swarm of bees in the classroom. Like maybe you can do it, but.

But no one's going to be focused on the lesson, right? And so I think it's really helpful to hear from teachers who came in thinking, you know, with some skepticism toward these bands and just say, as Ryan does, that, like, it has totally changed their classroom essentially overnight.

I mean, it makes sense to me. One of my least favorite things that will happen sometimes when I'm sitting there with friends or family is like there's a brief lull in the conversation and the next thing you know, everyone is looking at their phone. And you can just sort of feel that person's life force draining away from you and sort of being funneled into their phone. And, you know, that can be okay from time to time if you're just having dinner with someone. But like, what if I was trying to teach you calculus? Like, all of

It feels like we're having a much worse time. So everything that Ryan said there made a lot of sense to me. So let's hear from another teacher now, Kevin. This comes from Taylor Wynn, and he says that a phone ban in his school has been effective, but only after administrators intervened to get the teachers to stop resisting it.

Hey, Kevin and Casey. I am a high school teacher. I teach AP physics. I've been teaching for about 12 years now in Orange County, California. So I've taught through the 2010s. And basically, the phone problem has always been a thing since I started. But I

When the kids came back from the COVID shutdowns, it was the worst it had ever been. Before the pandemic, yeah, kids would obviously they'd be on their phones all the time. They're texting back and forth. They're checking, you know, their social media, but there would at least be a lot of noise and sound and socialization in my classroom whenever there was any sort of downtime or if the kids were waiting for me to get something ready. But

One of the craziest things was when we first came back from the shutdowns, if there was any sort of downtime, the class would remain absolutely silent. It was the most eerie thing ever because essentially, like if I finished my lessons early and I looked out there, kids would just whip out their phones and they would just all start doom scrolling very silently next to each other, like even if they were like sitting next to all of their best friends.

But recently, I will say that about like last year, our admin team put up a huge effort to buy pretty much every single classroom teacher one of those phone pocket charts. It's like this big thing that hangs on your wall. It looks like those things where people can organize their shoes in them. But it's like specifically for kids to put phones inside of those pockets. And there's one for each kid in the room.

And at first, it was met with a lot of opposition from students. Students didn't want to give up their phones. They were coming up with clever ways to get around it. They would get like burner phones and put the burner phones into the pockets. They would take their phone out of their phone covers and they would put the phone covers into the pockets. So visually, it looks like there's a phone there. But if you look closely, there's no phone inside of like the phone case.

And, and honestly, a lot of teachers oppose it too, because a lot of veteran teachers kind of felt like, you know what? I'd been here, done that. It's always been a big issue. This is just kind of a waste of our efforts. Uh, but honestly, uh, uh,

Our admin team actually did kind of just enforce it over and over and over again, kind of like sort of chastising teachers that weren't getting on board at first. The idea was like if everybody does it, it just becomes part of school culture.

And honestly, we started the school year and everybody, every single staff members on board day one, every teacher was just kind of like, yeah, you know what? You come into the classroom. The first thing you do, you're going to drop your phone into this pocket. It's assigned to you. I'm going to be using it to like double check attendance or whatnot. And it's been going smooth. It's been going great and better yet.

I actually started noticing, you know, that it's healing a little bit. I'm actually noticing more lively discussions. I'm noticing that kids are paying more attention in class and their grades are better. They're doing better. They're more present. So it's honestly been really, really nice.

All right, Kevin. So what's the lesson here? I mean, I think the really interesting thing that is going to come out of this, one of them, is just that we're going to see a really natural experiment here. We're going to be able to measure the educational outcomes of students

students in schools that ban phones and schools that do not ban phones. And we're going to see over a period of years, like what effect these policies actually have. I, you know, I don't want to venture a guess, but my initial impression is that, at least from the teacher's perspective, this is leading to much better engagement with classroom instruction. And

you know, better grades and better participation. And I would not be surprised if students who are in schools with phone bans a couple years from now just have better outcomes. Yeah, and for what it's worth, we did not get a lot of messages saying, ever since we banned phones, everything has been a lot worse. And now the students won't pay attention to us, right? So, you know, that is meaningful, I think.

And the other lesson that I'm taking away from this call, Kevin, is that it just takes time to shift the culture of these schools and that, yeah, at first you are going to see students coming up with all sorts of creative schemes to ensure they can keep looking. But over time, eventually they just give up and they actually throw the phone into the pocket. Yep. Yeah.

Now, one sort of final thing to add about this, Kevin, is that we heard from a few listeners outside the United States. One parent in Melbourne, Australia, told us that phones have been banned in his kids' primary and secondary schools for five years, and his kids haven't complained, which seems very suspicious, frankly. That makes me think that they probably have phones that they're just not telling their dad about. And that there's an English

speaking teacher at a public school in Japan where all cell phones and devices are banned, including during sports and clubs after school. And this teacher told us that Japanese students also really seem to embrace the bans. So do we feel like there is actually kind of maybe a growing consensus around this issue? Yeah, I actually, you know, I generally don't like sort of one size fits all approaches to technology and to smartphones in general. But with this one, it does seem like

man, like it is just going so well at so many schools across not only the United States, but the world. I just don't hear, you know, obviously there are some wrinkles to be ironed out when it comes to the actual implementation, but

This just seems like such a no-brainer to me. Yeah, I mean, and I feel like I'm often on the side of arguing for people having access to technology, and yet I did not have a cell phone in high school, and I truly cannot think of a way that it would have improved my life if I could have had it

in the classroom during class time. Right? I still think that there is a case to be made for maybe some laptop use and digital literacy skills and all of that. But certainly at the elementary school level, I see absolutely no need for these kids to have these phones. And even into high school, it seems like the sort of plurality of people that we have spoken to have said, this is the way to go. I mean, one...

possible effect of this that I'm fascinated to see if it actually materializes or not is that, you know, I don't think students are going to stop using cell phones altogether, like outside the classroom and outside the school building. It may be that they just spend more time on their phones when they're at home with their parents or at soccer practice or whatever. There may actually be kind of a concentrating effect whereby taking phones out of the school during the school day, you end up with kids spending way more time on their phones at night. Wow.

I would also be interested to see how the usage of apps like Snapchat, apps like Instagram, apps like TikTok, if you could sort of graph their usage among younger users, whether they're going to see significant shifts in when people are using those apps during the day. Yeah, I was going to say, I wonder if this is going to be a reason for maybe the stock prices of those companies to decline because they just lost eight hours during the day that they can show ads to teenagers. Yeah.

I mean, we're laughing, but I actually think that is probably something that they are having meetings about at these companies right now is like, oh my God, we're losing some of our most active users for a big chunk of the day. All right. Well, thank you so much to everyone who took the time to send us voice memos and share your perspectives. Like we said, as much as we love talking about the debate at the high level, frankly, it's just a lot more interesting to hear what's going on at your school. So thank you for that. And in the meantime, class dismissed.

you

This podcast is supported by ServiceNow. Here's the truth about AI. AI is only as powerful as the platform it's built into. ServiceNow puts AI to work for people across your business, removing friction and frustration for your employees, supercharging productivity for your developers,

Providing intelligent tools for your service agents to make customers happier. All built into a single platform you can use right now. That's why the world works with ServiceNow. Visit servicenow.com slash AI for people. Elevate your career with University of Denver's AI-focused programs.

University College at the University of Denver now offers cutting-edge AI programs in IT and communications. They're built for busy adults like you with 15 master's degrees and 100 graduate certificates. 100% online and flexible. Their AI programs deliver skills to leverage AI tools operationally, strategically, and ethically. Four start times a year. Apply and enroll now and transform your future at universitycollege.du.edu slash hardfork.

Hard Fork was produced this week by Rachel Cohn, Davis Land, and Whitney Jones. We're edited by Jen Poyant. We're fact-checked by Caitlin Love. Today's show was engineered by Daniel Ramirez. Original music by Marian Lozano, Diane Wong, Rowan Nemus-Doe, and Dan Powell. Our audience editor is Nell Gologly. Video production by Ryan Manning and Chris Schott. You can watch this full episode and all of our episodes on YouTube at youtube.com slash hardfork.

Special thanks to Paula Schumann, Pui Wing Tam, Dalia Haddad, and Jeffrey Miranda. You can email us as always at hardfork at nytimes.com. Or if you've gone founder mode, you can just give us a nasty performance review.