He figures he does think differently. He thinks he has a better product, and as long as he has a level playing field, he doesn't care what you do, which is very he's told me that,
yeah. I mean, I haven't asked the president for anything ever,
and if it comes up, how will you handle it? Well,
you won't be involved. Yeah, I'll recuse myself if it is, if there's a conflict, you won't be involved. I mean, I wouldn't want that, and he won't want it, right? And also,
I'm getting a sort of a daily proctology exam here. You know something? I'll be getting away from something in the dead of night.
It's February the 19th, 2025 we are less than a month into Donald Trump's second presidency. I'm Carole Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist,
and I'm Clare Wardle, a professor of Communication who studies our crazy information environment, and
this is how to survive the broligarchy.
So this is a mad, crazy moment in history. We've got all sorts of things happening in DC. We've got things happening in Saudi Arabia. We've got things happening in Ukraine. Carole help us think through
this? Well, I just, you know, I can't. I think that's the issue, really, and that's the whole reason for starting this podcast, because I'm coming at this as an investigative journalist who's been big tech and Silicon Valley, and the danger that it poses to democracy more than a decade now, and there is this just car crash of everything happening all at once, and how do you make sense of it. So my thought was that we need these really expert voices from really diverse fields, people who are much smarter than me, who can help think it through. And Claire, that's basically when I decided to ring you, because I always like ringing you, and I'm always interested in hearing what your take is on things because of your background in this really deep understanding of disinformation, although that's a dirty word now, which we will no doubt come to so I just wanted to know, what are you thinking about? What are you Yeah, where are you at? What's going on? Tell us where you are and everything. So I'm
based at Cornell University. I'm a professor here in the Department of Communication, but a bit like you, Carole, I've been studying how do we know what's true on the internet since 2007 and my kind of cute, niche research topic 20 years ago has similarly found, you know, a place where I cannot, I cannot believe what we're living through. And this morning, I pull up the BBC and they're telling us that Zelensky is saying Trump is living in a land of disinformation. Well, that's what I study. So my niche, little, cute topic has taken me to being investigated by Congress as being a disinformation researcher in the US. So I think for me, trying to understand this moment when in the US, over the last three years, people like me have been shut down watching in fear, fearing that what we're seeing over the last three weeks will happen, and it's happening. So when you called, I picked up the phone because I was like, I also don't know what's happening. Let's talk about it.
Yeah, and I think so, I think that's where we sort of came up with this idea of this podcast being almost like Fox and Friends, which is that so that when you are Foxy, so there's quite a large group of people who I talk to, and I try to understand things from. And I thought, well, what? Maybe I just need to make some of those conversations public. Because one of the things which strikes me right now is that we're, at the moment, we're understanding this news through the lens of political journalists, this is being reported on as politics, and actually, what we know from the people who've been looking at this and warning about this for a long time is it involves lots of different things. So it involves people like you who study disinformation, but it also involves we need to understand it from a national security perspective. One of the things which I think about is that we really need to understand it from people who've lived in authoritarian countries. We also need to be listening to historians to understand that perspective on it. And so the in the title, you've used the word oligarchy, which is a term that you, I think, coined. So could you maybe explain what you mean by that? I basically, I wrote this piece back in June. I think it was when it became when JD Vance became the pick for vice president. And JD Vance is somebody who whose career he absolutely owes to Peter Thiel, who's one of the most powerful and important people in Silicon Valley. And so it was then it became clear, oh, okay, what we're seeing here, it's just not Maga, it's not just the right wing Americans. They're now joining forces with Silicon Valley. And so you could see what was coming down the line was this merger between state power and between Silicon Valley. And that was something which we've never seen before, because it. This authoritarian impulse, but it's also alongside these technological advances and surveillance tools. And so I was like, oh, it's, it's the tech, it's a tech bro oligarchy. And then I was like, of course, it's the broligarchy, or is it? I'm not sure if it's broligarch or oligarchy. I'm still deciding that. But at the time, it was so obvious that that word should be there, and then subsequently, since the election, it's really gone mainstream. It feels like, I mean, Steve Bannon was using it a couple of weeks ago. So after the election, I wrote this piece about how to survive the broligarchy, which was a sort of combination of both a handbook, because there's really specific things I think we're going to need to do to protect ourselves, but it's also a manifesto, because we have to understand the absolutely new world that we're living in and the threat to everything we hold dear, which now these companies in alliance with these right wing governments now pose to us.
This morning, President Trump sending shock waves throughout Europe when he called Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, a quote dictator parroting Russian talking points. This comes on the heels of President Trump falsely accusing Ukraine of starting the war and invasion of Ukraine and excluding Ukraine from the peace talks held in Saudi Arabia earlier this week between Russia and the United States.
So just to summarize what's happened in the last 48 hours, in a post on truth social Trump called Zelensky a dictator without elections. He falsely accused him of initiating the war with Russia. He lied about the amount of aid that Russia had given to Ukraine, and he said that unless Ukraine negotiated with Russia to end the war, it would be the end of the Ukrainian nation. And just so there's no doubt in Moscow, Dmitry Medvedev, who was the president. He was like a caretaker president for four years. He posted on social media, if you told me just three months ago that these were the words of the US president, I would have laughed out loud. And then he says, Trump is 200% right. So I mean, Claire, I just want to just pause there a moment. And I mean, it's so profound, what has happened in the last 2448 hours? It is the end of the post world order, isn't it? It's
exactly that. Is exactly that. And I think throughout our time with Trump, we often say, Oh, the world's upside down. He's saying black, and it's actually white, but it's around things like Gulf of Mexico versus Gulf of America. But to wake up and hear Trump say Ukraine was at fault. They caused the war. I mean, where do you go? That's not alternative facts. It's completely upside down. And to your point, it's the ramifications. What does this actually mean? And it is. It's an absolute moment in history. It's a complete shift on our axes.
And it's the is the it's the alignment now of the US and of Russia. They're an axis power now. And for us here, for me, I'm in Britain, in Europe, that's really profound. Do we stand with our ally of the last 80 years, America, or do we now have to absolutely split with America and stand with Europe? And I think, I think for people in Britain is going to be really, really hard for us all to think that America is not our friend, is not our ally, and that we have to look at the world differently now, and of
course, I'm in the US, and last night, all I could hear was friends and people on social media just saying, we're the bad guys. We've got to now acknowledge we're the bad guys.
Yeah, oh, it's like that clip the Nazis. Maybe we're the Nazis. You are. I mean, I don't like to break it to you. Oh, my God. So listen, I think that sets the scene, the gravity of what's at stake here, the jeopardy that the world is in. But I think we thought for this first episode, we wanted to think about the way that the media is handling this story, because it's so critical. You
so one of the people who I speak to, I really, I'm always interested in what he's saying about things, is this guy called Roger McNamee. He's a big tech investor. He was a big venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. He's now become a major tech critic. He's the guy who introduced Sheryl Sandberg to Mark Zuckerberg. Anyway, I asked for Rogers thoughts. Just send me a voice note Roger. And he sent me this because I know he's had strong feelings about the failure of the media. Hi,
Carole. I am dismayed by what has happened to the news media in the United States. I think it's understandable what's happened when you think about the history, but let's focus on the problem. Essentially, the United States is a system in which the large institutions so government, business, labor, journalism and religion, historically have had oppositional interests, and they will align for periods of time, but typically that doesn't last that long, and so the result is this tension keeps the democracy working, because nobody builds up too much power, and we got where we are today because first, big religion tied itself to big business, and together, they got rid of labor, and at least got rid of the power of labor, and then journalism decided to align with them also, and there are a bunch of reasons that are going on there, right? Obviously, ownership by billionaires who are part of the problem is simply the last step in that process, but it's a huge issue, because in the United States, the people who vote no longer view themselves as citizens, and part of the reason they don't view themselves as citizens is because media has not treated them that way. Media and big business all treat Americans as consumers. And you know that was fine for hamburgers Have it your way, but once you got into the business of having information your way, which is something that Google and meta and all of the rest of the online world has been doing for more than a decade. Once you got there with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the television networks, democracy never had a chance. And I mean, we're screwed on that.
I find that so fascinating, this idea that we're treated like consumers and not citizens, and essentially this corporatization of the media, which he equates, actually the New York Times and The Washington Post to meta and Google in this and it's saying these are all big corporates. And actually, this is a problem across the board. What do you make of that? Well,
he's absolutely right. I think it's those of us who care about journalism and the news. It makes us feel uncomfortable. But as a British person who lives here, I do find it astonishing the kind of absence of public service media, the sense of a media that exists to inform the public, and instead, everywhere I'm reading, it's about click bait, advertising, keeping my data, right? And so how can you do public interest journalism when you have that as the foundation?
And so I think that was when we thought, Roger's so clear on the problem. Let's talk to somebody also who's kind of has a track record, actually, in trying to seek solutions on this. And that's where we had the idea of bringing your friend, Mark little, yeah, and he's somebody
I worked with 10 years ago. He created a startup called Storyful that was trying to think of new ways of doing journalism. But he's an interesting guy. He used to be a foreign correspondent, then he was a tech entrepreneur, then he went to work for Twitter and Spotify. So I think he's got some really interesting things
to say. Yeah, and what I love about this is that he's really at this intersection between news, the media and technology, and thinking about how actually we need to sort of reinvent something new for to do this new age that we're living in. So anyway, Mark, so great to have you. Thank you. So
like my 17 year old, my 19 year old will laugh at me when I tell them I used to be the guy on the telly that would stand there command attention. And when they look at me, they're asking me, Where are the alternative sources of information? And I think in many ways, we've kind of given up the fight because of the last election, the US that we assume this alternative media universe, Claire, that you know well, the weaponization of their networks to create this political culture that got Donald Trump back in power with a bigger shift among certain groups. I'm not quite sure if it could be a hopeful about it, but it's a different way of thinking about this attention age. Well, that's
what we're trying to do, right? Which is that, as we know, podcasts are dominated by the bros. So my little motto is Gil power v tech bros with reclaiming the space, the podcast space and Mark. You know we're allowing you in, bros for good, they're allowed in. But listen, I think just what the problem is here, let's just talk about that, right? There's so much news. It's so profound. These are like huge, huge tectonic plates, which are shifting. You know, we are watching the collapse of the international order in real time we're watching the authoritarian takeover of the US government. But because there's just so much going on and actually just talking about that of what the mainstream media is actually doing, you know, I've been wagging on for the last two weeks about how that needs to be in big letters on the front of new. Newspapers saying it's a coup. That's been my kind of response, because although there's this amazing reporting which is really detailing that, if you put it on the front page in smaller typeface than the recipe for egg muffins, which is what the New York Times did at the weekend, that's a problem, because people are looking for explanation. They're looking for that leadership in trying to understand things, and I just don't feel it's there. But
I think part of the problem here, right? Is that news comes at younger audiences like a tornado, right? There's this constant we all love to feed ourselves into that intravenous vein that we bring our news into. But for younger people, they're stepping back and not looking at it like a front page that they check in the morning, the radio station during the day, the TV channel at night, they're taking about 10 minutes, let's say, in the day, where they want to make sense of something. And where do they go? Because they go to the front page. And I agree with you, like we should keep reminding everybody this is not normal, but at the same time. And you think about that audience who no longer has TV news. They have their YouTube on their their new TV, and they're checking in, and they're looking for sense making. How do you start reaching an audience that were not brought up the way we were brought up, that weren't they're not looking at news as a torrent. They want this idea of horizontal trust, right? They look to their friends, their family, their network, to tell them when they should pay attention instead of the old vertical trust. I respect the journalist, I respect the front page. That's to me, if we're thinking about a hopeful path forward, it's what's the new kind of Summit stat of this era? Right? Who are the people like, you know, Navalny exposing Putin's corruption by that incredibly viral YouTube video of the big house on the hill, or Tim Mac doing the counter offensive on the ground in Kyiv and the battlefields, or just what you're doing, bringing in a network of people that might work for the different front pages, but are now suddenly this sort of ground up guerrilla opposition. I think that's the spirit that I feel you're generating right here. I love
it. Thank you, Mark. Let's hope the revolution starts here. But Claire, can you bring a thing so you're in America, you're sitting there, you're watching what the earth is going on. How do you feel that the mainstream media is covering this? The thing I'm just really fascinated by, because in Britain, people are understanding the seriousness of what's going on. That's what strikes me. Do you feel in America people are getting it? Absolutely
not, and it's kind of astonishing everywhere you turn, whether it's people I bump into here at work or the person cutting my head like it's as if nothing is happening, which is shocking. But I think when we talk about the role of the press here, there is an absence of visuals, both for the mainstream media, but also the tick tockers Right. The weekend, we had protests outside Tesla offices, and we had 50 protests in 50 states on Monday, and that was the first time that we actually saw something. So we've got a mixture of those kind of high value visuals, but you've also got a ton of people sitting on their sofas suddenly realizing that they've lost their job, they can't pay their mortgage, and then we've seen some of that at the local level, but the absence of the individual stories is kind of unbelievable to me. And whilst I am deeply frustrated by the coverage of the media, I think also they're kind of in paralysis. I think many people in the US, there's this shock. I've seen more in the last week than the first three weeks people were just catatonic. So I think we're also moving out of that phase. But I do think there's going to have to be action on the ground that creates visuals, because to Mark's point, we're in the attention age. If it's like, oh, Elon Musk is doing something secretive behind a big brown door somewhere in DC, it's like the first days of the pandemic. We couldn't get images from the hospital, so nobody believed what was happening. And that, I feel very similar. It's five years on. The absence of images is, I think, making it very difficult for the news to cover
this. It is interesting, because I understand in America there is that shock. The fact is, it's going to be feel so personal so quickly. But here in London, in Europe, you know, it's the end of NATO. It's the end like we don't know we are going into such uncertain times. This really is equivalent to 1938 or whatever. And again, it's like the pre pandemic. I mean, I keep coming back to that there is both ignorance and denial and confusion. And I, you know, to go to it again, which is, it's the lack of trustworthy voices who are standing up and explaining this. I mean, to go to your point mark is Navalny must emerge, and probably will, let's hope so. But Navalny didn't come from politics. He didn't come from the mainstream media. He came from the blogosphere, didn't he? He did,
but my fear is just like the pandemic, right? When we all said we're all in this together, we all have to obey certain draconian rules, and then we'll continue to inform you as this goes on, and when that happened and we stopped, the official version became so inflexible and so unresponsive, and we had the inability of the state institutions of information, the expertise to allow us to follow the developments of what was going on. There was no sense that the information we were. Getting was responsive to the reality on the ground, so we can call emergency right now, but if we don't have, as Claire says, people doing the modern equivalent of a call in show to say, you know, who's been laid off, who wants to share their stories, live or in short form, and have that constant idea of ground up sense making, which I think you know, began to happen as influencers got involved in spreading the messages. But if we just declared this some sort of institutional emergency, and don't build a ground up information system, then we will do exactly what happened with the pandemic. We will create this further erosion of any remaining credibility or trust that people had in what is still institutional media. Is that a bad thing? You know, maybe we're going toward a new direction where the institution of journalism is so far less important than the process of accountability, which may be in data science
and Tiktok is quite good for that. Actually, the only stuff that I've seen has come from where I've seen some videos of people who've been laid off or that first hand testimony. But then the, you know, to actually Claire, you can jump in here. The fact is, is that you you get really great content on social media, but then you get it next to some wild conspiracy theorist, next to a cat video, next to you can't actually make sense of that, and so although I agree you need that Roundup. And you know what we're hoping to do with this? We're going to encourage. We want to hear your voice memos if you're affected by this. We would like to take that in and have this participatory element of it. But Claire, what? Yeah, what do we do? Where is this? Is information chaos. So how do we make sense of information chaos? What is the thing that we need to do here? Well, I think we have
to be okay with information chaos. I mean, going back to Mark's point, you know, I'm teaching a class this semester with 150 students. They know exactly what's going on. They can navigate between the cat videos and the bullshit and the good stuff. So I think we have to recognize that there is value in those spaces. But I think we also have to recognize, like, who owns a ton of media houses in the US. We can cry all we want. There is a reason that the LA Times and Washington Post is not covering this in the way that we would expect, and we're seeing, you know, CBS and others really nervous about getting sued. So unfortunately, in this world of kind of institutional mainstream media who are absolutely under attack, there are very senior people having to make very pragmatic decisions at a time where we need them to be strong. But I also like, how can they tell the news in the in this moment where money is so involved? So I think that's another reason why we're going to have to turn much more to these kind of grassroots spaces and acknowledge what a shit show this is.
And it is interesting, right? Because I joined sub stack, which is the venture capital funded platform. And what we know with these platforms is that they grow and then somebody will buy them, like Elon Musk, and then they destroy them. And sub stack is one of these platforms which, like Twitter, like these other ones, it's got a lot of, you know, Nazis on there. But I mean, I personally, I My view is that I'm ignoring that because that's where there's an audience, and there's a growing audience seeking out independent journalism and independent voices. And yes, there's going to be people with unpalatable views there who I disagree with, but then that's good in a way. I want to be in the same spaces. And you know, I've This is one of the reasons why, in November, I wrote this guide was because so many people are going to be politically persecuted. There are going to be weaponized lawsuits, and it's going to be in conjunction with this online pylons, which we already see Elon Musk doing. So we're in this really, really dangerous information space, which is going to be far worse than anything that Joe McCarthy did so famously in the 50s and but one of the things I think about in that is that the institutions aren't going to be up to it. They are, as we've seen, they're weak. They've got corporate interests. They're bowing down to Trump, and that is where actually having solidarity and support and networks of support for when this comes for people is really, really key. With something
you said earlier on, Carole, that struck me was, you know, we're living in a world where, until about three months ago, make America great again was about the past, and I think was kind of running its course a little bit. And then Elon Musk comes along and has this science fiction view of the future, and for an awful lot of people in the United States, younger people who are ambivalent about Trump by adding on musk and that futuristic vision, suddenly the real energy in American society, this kind of counter cultural surge, has gone behind these people, and it falls to us, I think. And this is why what you're doing right here is exactly the way forward. Is to say there's another future, an alternative future. It's not to run away from YouTube or Twitter or sub stack. I mean, we will rewild the internet and have decentralization. And there is something here that's very special, that is the beginning of the future, and it's not dominated by the musks. I would rather it not dominated by algorithmically powered platform. Forms, and hopefully there will be a fix for that, as we see decentralization. But there are things we gain when people are looking for collaboration and are looking to sources of information as people just like them, but smarter, which has always been the secret of trust. And I think there's some things there we can work with, and what you're doing right now is a perfect example of
that. What can I just say? I've got really excited by that, because basically I was like, oh, okay, yeah, we're like, a true crime podcast here. The crime is that democracy has been murdered, or, I think I know who did it, well, but it's not just who did it, it's how they did it. But also it's a serial killer, all right, it's out there, and it's coming for our democracy next. All right, the idea that sitting here in London, that we're immune to this, and it's all going to be fine, that is absolutely not true. It's like there is a serial killer at large, and it's scary, and it is scary. I think that's the and, you know, we have to hold that fear as well. But also there are things that people can do, and
I think it is awareness raising. I think the future also is pamphlets. I'm seeing people basically like, use Canva to create pamphlets and putting them in people's mailboxes. I mean, I think there are people who do not consume the news, are not aware of what's happening, right? And so there's also like, how do we use offline mechanisms? You know, I think we focus so much on platforms for good reason. But I think we're also going to start to see like and also for surveillance. I know that there are many, many reasons why it makes sense to not be online now, yeah,
well, that's going to, I mean, I think that whole that we're just at the very start of a journey of understanding data weaponization and what that means for you personally, and that is now we're only at the very, very start of a journey in America of people needing to understand and think about that. And it was very interesting. Claire, what you were saying is that you know you do understand that, and that you have because of the can you just talk why that? Elon Musk, getting hold of your social security number is so alarming.
I mean, we don't know the depth of this, but there, there is good reporting, I think, from Wired that have done an astounding job talking about, who is getting this right, that basically they're in there now and in the Department of Treasury, and they can, they've now accessed people's social security numbers and bank details, also because of the IRS the tax system. And so all of a sudden, there's this way that our very personal data has been connected. And so when people go, Well, what do you mean? What's Elon Musk going to do with that? Claire, why are you worried about that? Because we already live in an age, right, where we get these emails saying, oh, sorry, just let you know this service that you signed up for five years ago, we've had a data hack, and you need to change all your passwords. I mean, that's that times 100 right? And I think we have no idea what's going to happen if people you know, if Elon Musk decides to go after somebody and he knows your bank details and your social security number, he can turn things off and on. So I think we're being naive if we don't understand how personalized data here could be weaponized if in the wrong hands. So Claire is within the
disinformation research community. She got targeted by a congressional committee and by, you know, allies of Trump who renamed this, you know this, academics doing research, trying, helping us to try and keep safe on the internet, she's now become a leading light in the censorship industrial complex. And you've already been targeted, haven't you, Claire, and I've got no doubt that you're going to get targeted further, aren't you? Yeah,
and it's, I mean, it's not me. I mean, you know, over 100 researchers from many, many different universities and think tanks and nonprofits and others have been pulled into this dragnet. And for two years, many people got subpoenas and other types of requests, and that was under the Biden White House. The fear is, what will this mean going forward? But I think what we also realize is that this was just very much the tip of the spear, and now those kind of tactics are going to be used in all sorts of ways against all sorts of researchers that study all sorts of things. I'm sitting on a university campus. There are many, many, many, many of my colleagues who study things that now would be deemed inappropriate or flat out illegal. And what that means is terrifying in terms of academic freedom, but also what that means for kind of the research infrastructure for a country that has, you know, for the last, last century, really been the leading light in the world. So, yeah, extraordinary times. So
listen, guys, thank you so much for this. For the our first Fox and Friends. Is it Fox and Friends? Don't know what it is. I love the fact that Mark reckons This is the answer. It's like, but we'll, we'll see. But do you think, can we just go round? I think just, can we just have your like, last thoughts? And basically, I'd like to know, like, what is the most important thing people have to understand about this moment, and what's the one thing that they can do?
I'm, I'm happy to start and just say that it's all about local and I know that we're all talking about that online, but it's true. You know, I had my hair cut yesterday, and there was no conversation with the person cutting my hair until finally, I was like, Hey, let's talk about what's happening, right? Like, I think we can't keep blaming the media, although we should, like, but what does it mean to have conversations with the people that we live next door to? About. What this really means and what this might mean to their lives. So I think everybody can have a conversation, whether you're in upstate New York like me, or if you're in London, everybody should be having these conversations with each other. And
I just would add that we should have some cognitive dissonance. Right on the one hand, it's a moment to say the old order is not coming back. We're screwed however we begin working on a future. And I think one of the things I'm inspired by listening to Jason is this, I Jason is this idea that we think about what this idea of free world looks like when the autocracies are starting to take over huge parts of our planet, that the majority might be living on our planet in autocracies, what does it look like for a future of democracy that's not wedded to past notions of democratic institutions. Now that's a long term problem, but we have to hold to contradictory thoughts in our head, but we have it in ourselves to start imagining what that future looks like and take the future back, make the future great again by taking it back from the science fiction version that Elon Musk is showering us with, like slowly on an Irish field. It's just, just have those abilities to have two totally different things in your mind. Brilliant going. Matt,
thanks, Mark. I'm gonna, I'm gonna finish with mine, and then I'll let you go. Which is, I'm very much with Mark. This is the collapse of the international order. It is, you know, there the curtain of Darkness has fallen across the world. We are exactly that moment in history. However, you know, I was actually really inspired by going on strike a couple of months ago against the with the Guardian journalists, against the sell off of the Sunday observer. And it was a really interesting process, because we to be able to go on to strut on strike is a very legal thing. You have to, like, go through a process to have that collective action. So first you have to come together as a collective with a voice about how you think and feel and be prepared to actually take action, and then you go through a process, which was what we did, to lawfully withdraw our labor. And it's the it was a real learning process for us. We had Billy Bragg come and play guitar on the picket line. If you know who he is, he's got a song called there is power in a union. And he said to us, you know you are standing in a tradition. This goes back, and it goes back to the 19th century, when this is what workers and it's like, the fact is, is that we don't send children down coal mines anymore because workers stood up and, you know, we brought that to an end. And so I think that thing of like these struggles have always been there, and power is not given up voluntarily, but actually that if we come together as a collective, and that's where these networks come in, we find a way of organizing that we there is power. There's actually more power than we think we have.
This has been really scrappy. It's a pilot project. We've done it in 24 hours, but please help us make the help us get better. And we actually carried on with an amazing conversation with a philosopher at Yale, a professor called Jason Stanley, who's an expert in fascism. And this is a little teaser of what's coming in the next episode, the
United States is your enemy. The United States is your enemy, like Russia is your enemy.
Thank you so much for tuning in. You can find me www.broligarchy.substack.com
and if you want to kick big tech in the balls. There's a non profit that I set up called the-citizens.com and if you'd like to send us something, send us feedback or send us voice notes or send us whatever, help us get better email info at the hyphen citizens.com this is how to survive the broligarchy, hosted by me Carole Cadwalladr with Claire Wardle and Mark little. It's produced by Rachel Porter with executive producer Ruth Abrahams. This is a Project Citizen production.
