Mark Zuckerberg: Meta, Facebook, Instagram, and the Metaverse | Lex Fridman Podcast #267

- Let's talk about free speech and censorship. - You don't build a company like this, unless you believe that people expressing themselves. is a good thing. - Let me ask you as a father, does the weight heavy on you. that people get bullied on social networks. - I care a lot about how people feel. when they use our products. And I don't want to build products that make people angry. - Why do you think so many people dislike you, some even hate you? And how do you regain their trust and support?

The following is a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg. CEO of Facebook now called Meta. Please allow me to say a few words. about this conversation with Mark Zuckerberg. about social media, and about what troubles me. in the world today, and what gives me hope. If this is not interesting to you, I understand please skip. I believe that at its best. social media puts a mirror to humanity, and reveals the full complexity of our world.

Shining a light on the dark aspects of human nature, and giving us hope a way out through compassionate. but tense, chaos of conversation that eventually can turn. into understanding friendship and even love. But this is not simple. Our world is not simple. It is full of human suffering. I think about the hundreds of millions of people. who are starving and who live in extreme poverty, the 1 million people who take their own life every year,

the 20 million people that attempt it, and the many many more millions who suffer quietly. in ways that numbers can never know. I'm troubled by the cruelty and pain of war. Today, my heart goes out to the people of Ukraine. My grandfather spilled his blood on this land, held the line as a machine gunner against the Nazi invasion, surviving impossible odds. I am nothing without him.

His blood runs in my blood. My words are useless here. I send my love, it's all I have. I hope to travel to Russia and Ukraine soon. I will speak to citizens and leaders, including Vladimir Putin. As I've said in the past, I don't care about access fame, money or power. and I'm afraid of nothing, but I am who I am. And my goal in conversation is to understand the human being.

before me, no matter who they are, no matter their position. And I do believe the line between good and evil. runs through the heart of every man. So this is it. This is our world. It is full of hate, violence and construction, but it is also full of love, beauty, and the insatiable desire to help each other. The people who run the social networks.

that show this world that show us to ourselves, have the greatest of responsibilities. In a time of war, pandemic, atrocity, we turn to social networks to share real human insights. and experiences, to organize protests and celebrations. to learn, and to our understanding of the world. of our history and of our future, and above all to be reminded of our common humanity. When the social networks fail,

they have the power to cause immense suffering. And when they succeed. they have the power to lessen that suffering. This is hard. It's a responsibility, perhaps almost. unlike any other in history. This podcast conversation attempts to understand the man. and the company who take this responsibility on, where they fail or where they hope to succeed. Mark Zuckerberg's feet are often held to the fire. as they should be. And this actually gives me hope.

The power of innovation and engineering, coupled with the freedom of speech. in the form of its highest ideal. I believe can solve any problem in the world. But that's just it both are necessary, the engineer and the critic. I believe that criticism is essential, but cynicism is not. And I worry that in our public discourse. cynicism too easily masquerades as wisdom, as truth becomes viral and takes over and worse.

suffocates the dreams of young minds. who want to build solutions to the problems of the world. We need to inspire those young minds. At least for of me, they give me hope. And one small way I'm trying to contribute. is to have honest conversations like these. that don't just ride the viral wave of cynicism, but seek to understand the failures. and successes of the past, the problems before us, and the possible solutions. in this very complicated world of ours.

I'm sure I will fail often. And I count on the critic to point it out when I do. But I ask for one thing, and that is to fuel the fire optimism. especially in those who dream to build solutions. Because without that, we don't have a chance. on this too fragile, tiny planet of ours. This is a Lex Friedman Podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors.

in the description. And now dear friends, here is Mark Zuckerberg. Can you circle all the traffic lights, please? You actually did it. That is very impressive performance. Okay now we can initiate the interview procedure.

Is it possible that this conversation is happening. inside the metaverse created by you. by Meta many years from now, and we're doing a memory replay experience? - I don't know the answer to that. Then I'd be some computer construct. and not the person who created that Meta company, but that would truly be Meta. - Right, so this could be somebody else. using the Mark Zuckerberg avatar. who can do the Mark and the Lex conversation replay. from four decades ago when meta for it was versed sort of.

- I mean, it's not gonna be four decades. before we have photo realistic avatars like this. So I think we're much closer to that. - Well, that's something you talk about. is the how passionate you are about the idea. of the avatar representing who you are in the metaverse. So I do these podcasts in person. You know, I'm a stickler for that. because there's a magic to the in-person conversation. How long do you think it'll be before. you can have the same same kind of magic in the metaverse,

the same kind of intimacy and the chemistry, whatever the heck is there when we're talking a person, how difficult is it, how long before we have it in the metaverse? - Well, I think this is like the key question, right? Because the thing that's different about virtual. and hopefully augmented reality. compared to all or forms of of digital platforms before, is this feeling of presence, right? The feeling that you're right there in an experience, and that you're there with other people or in another place. And that's just different.

from all of the other screens that we have today, right? Phones, TVs, all the stuff that's, they're trying to, in some cases. deliver experiences that feel high fidelity, but at no point, do you actually feel. like you're in it, right? At some level your content is trying to sort of convince you. that this is a realistic thing that's happening, but all of the kind of subtle signals are telling you, no, you're looking at a screen. So the question about how you. develop these systems is like,

what are all of the things. that make the physical world, all the different cues? So I think on visual. presence and spatial audio, we're making reasonable progress. Spatial audio makes a huge deal. I don't know if you've. tried this experience, work rooms that we launch. where you have meetings. And I basically made a rule for all of. the top management folks at the company. that they need to be. doing standing meetings. in work rooms already, right?

I feel like we gotta dog-food this, it's, this is how people are. gonna work in the future, so we have to adopt this now. And there are already a lot of things. that I think feel significantly better. than like typical Zoom meetings, even though the avatars. are a lot lower fidelity, the idea that you have spatial audio, you're around a table in VR with people. If someone's talking from over there, it sounds like it's talking. from over there, you can see, the arm gestures and. stuff feel more natural.

You can have side conversations, which is something that you. can't really do in Zoom. I mean, I guess you can text someone. over or like out of band, but, and if you're actually. around a table with people. you can lean over and whisper. to the person next to you. and like have a conversation. that you can't really do. with, in just video communication. So I think it's interesting in what ways. some of these things. already feel more real. than a lot of the technology that we have,

even when the visual. fidelity isn't quite there. But I think it'll get there. over the next few years. Now, I mean, you were. asking about comparing that. to the true physical world, not. Zoom or something like that. And there, I mean, I think you have feelings. of like temperature. olfactory, obviously tough, right? We're working on haptic gloves, the sense that you wanna be. able to put your hands down. and feel some pressure from the table. All these things I think. are gonna be really critical.

to be able to keep up this. illusion that you are in. a world and that you're. fully present in this world. But I don't know. I think we're gonna have a. lot of these building blocks. within the next 10 years or so. And even before that, I think it's amazing how. much you're just gonna. be able to build with software. that sort of masks some of these things. I realize I'm going long, but I was told we have a few hours here. So it's--. - We're here. for five to six hours. - Yeah, so I mean, it's look, I mean, that's on the shorter end of. the congressional testimonies.

I've done, but it's, but one of the things. that we found with hand presence, right? So the earliest VR, you. just had the headset. and then, and that was cool. You could look around, you. feel like you're in a place, but you don't feel like you're really able. to interact with it until you have hands. And then there was this big question. where once you got hands, what's the right way to represent them? And initially all of our. assumptions was, okay, when I look down and see my. hands in the physical world,

I see an arm and it's gonna be super weird. if you see just your. hand, but it turned out. to not be the case,. because there's this issue. with your arms, which is. like, what's your elbow angle? And if the elbow angle that. we're kind of interpolating. based on where your hand is. and where your headset is,. actually isn't accurate, it creates this very uncomfortable. feeling, where it's like, oh, like my arm is actually out like this, but it's like showing it in here. And that actually broke the. feeling of presence a lot more. Whereas it turns out that. if you just show the hands.

and you don't show the arms,. it actually is fine for people. So I think that there's was. bunch of these interesting. psychological cues, where it'll be more. about getting the right details right, and I think a lot of that. will be possible even over. a few year period or a five year period. And we won't need like every. single thing to be solved, to deliver this like. full sense of presence. - Yeah, it's a fascinating. psychology question of. what is the essence that makes.

in-person conversation special? It's like, emojis are able to. convey emotion really well, even though they're. obviously not photorealistic. And so in that same way,. Jessica, you're saying, just showing the hands, is able to create. a comfortable expression with your hands. So I wonder what that is. People in the World Wars used. to write letters and you can fall in love. with just writing letters. You don't need to see. each other in person, you can convey emotion, you can get depth of. experience with just words.

So that's a, I think a fascinating place. to explore psychology of like, how do you find that intimacy? - Yeah, and the way that I. come to all of this stuff is. I basically studied psychology. and computer science. So all of the work that I do is sort of. at the intersection of those things. I think most of the. other big tech companies. are building technology. for you to interact with, what I care about is building technology. to help people interact with each other. So it's, I think it's a. somewhat different approach. than most of the other tech entrepreneurs.

and big companies come at this from. And, a lot of the lessons in terms of. how I think about design products come. from some just basic. elements of psychology. In terms of our brains, you can compare to the. brains of other animals, we're very wired to specific. things, facial expressions. I mean, we're very visual. So compared to other animals,. I mean, that's clearly.

the main sense that most people have, but there's a whole part of your brain. that's just kind of focused. on reading facial cues. So, when we're designing. the next version of Quest. or the VR headset, a big focus for us. is face tracking, and. basically eye tracking, so you can make eye contact, which again, isn't really something. that you can do over a video conference. It's sort of amazing how much, how far video conferencing has gotten. without the ability to make eye contact. It's sort of a bizarre. thing if you think about it,

you're like looking at. someone's face sometimes. for an hour when you're in a meeting. and like you looking at their eyes, to them, doesn't look like you're. looking at their eyes. So it's a--. - You're always looking. past each other, I guess. I guess you're right. You're not sending that signal. - Well, you're trying to. - You're trying to.. - Like a lot of times, I mean, or at least I find myself, I'm trying to look into. the other person's eyes. - [Lex] But they don't feel like. you're looking into their eyes. - So then the question is, am I supposed to look at the camera, so that way you can have a sensation. that I'm looking at you? I think that that's an. interesting question.

And then with VR today,. even without eye tracking. and knowing what your eyes. are actually looking at, you can fake it reasonably well. So you can look at like. where the head poses, and if it looks like I'm kind of looking. in your general direction,. then you can sort of assume. that maybe there's some. eye contact intended, and you can do it in a way where. it's like, okay, maybe not. It's like a, maybe it's. not a fixated stare, but it's somewhat natural. But once you have actual eye tracking, you can do it for real.

And I think that that's. really important stuff. So when I think about Meta's. contribution to this field, I have to say, it's not me. that any of the other. companies that are focused on. the Metaverse, or on virtual. and augmented reality, are gonna prioritize putting. these features in the hardware, because like everything,. they're trade-offs. I mean, they, it adds. some weight to the device, maybe it adds some thickness. You could totally see. another company taking. the approach of let's. just make the lightest. and thinnest thing possible. But, I want us to design the. most human thing possible.

that creates the richest. sense of presence. And 'cause so much of human emotion. and expression comes from. these like micro-movements. If I like move my eyebrow a. millimeter, you will notice, and it, that like means something. So the fact that we're. losing these signals. and a lot of communication. I think is a loss. And it's, so it's not like, okay, there's one feature and you add this, then it all of a sudden is gonna feel like. we have real presence. You can sort of look at. how the human brain works, and how we express and. kind of read emotions.

And you can just build a roadmap of that, of just what are the most. important things to try to unlock. over five to 10 year. period, and just try to make. the experience more and. more human and social. - When do you think would be a moment. like a singularity. moment for the Metaverse, where there's a lot of. ways to ask this question, but people will have many. or most of their meaningful experiences. in the Metaverse versus the real world.

And actually it's. interesting to think about. the fact that a lot of people are having. the most important moments. of their life happen. in the digital sphere,. especially now during COVID, like even falling in. love or meeting friends, or getting excited about. stuff, that is happening. on a 2D digital plane. When do you think the. Metaverse will provide. those experiences for a large number? Like a--. - Yeah, I think it's a really good question. There was someone, I read this piece that framed this.

as a lot of people think. that the Metaverse is about a place, but one definition of. this is it's about a time. when basically immersive digital worlds. become the primary way. that we live our lives. and spend our time. I think that's a reasonable construct. And from that perspective, I. think you also just wanna look. at this as a continuation. because it's not like, okay, we are building digital worlds, but we don't have that today. I think you and I probably already live.

a very large part of our. life in digital worlds. They're just not 3D. immersive virtual reality, but I do a lot of meetings over video, or I spend a lot of time writing things. over email or WhatsApp, or whatever. So what is it gonna take. to get there for kind of. the immersive presence version of this, which I think is what you're asking, and for that, I think that there's just. a bunch of different use cases. That, and I think when. you're building technology,

I think you're, a lot of it is just, you're managing this duality. where on the one hand. you want to build these. elegant things that can scale, and have billions of people use them. and get value from them. And then on the other hand, you're fighting this kind of ground game. where it's just, there are just. a lot of different use cases. and people do different things, and like you want to be to unlock them. So the first ones that we. basically went after were gaming. with Quest and social. experiences, and this is,

it goes back to when we started. working on virtual reality. My theory at the time was basically, people thought about it as gaming. But if you look at all computing platforms. up to that point, gaming is a huge part. It was a huge part of PCs. It was a huge part of mobile, but it was also very decentralized, right, there wasn't, for the most part. one or two gaming companies, there were a lot of gaming companies, and gaming is somewhat hits-based. I mean, we're getting some games that are,

that have more longevity,. but it, but in general, there were a lot of. different gaming out there, but on PC and on mobile,. the companies that focused. on communication and social interaction, there tended to be a. smaller number of those. And that ended up being. just as important of a thing. as all of the games that you did combined. I think productivity is another area. That's obviously something. that we've historically. been less focused on, but I think is gonna be really important. - Workroom, or do you mean productivity. in the collaborative aspect?

- Yeah, I think that there's. a Workrooms aspect of this, like a meeting aspect. And then I think that. there's like a Word, Excel, productivity you're like. you're working or coding. or what knowledge work, as opposed to, just to just meetings. So you can kind of go through. all these different use cases, gaming, I think we're. well in our way, social, I think we're just a, the kind of preeminent. company that focuses on this. And I think that that's. already on Quest becoming the,

if you look at the list. of what are the top apps, social apps are already. number one, two, three, so that's kind of. becoming a critical thing, but I don't know, I would. imagine for someone like you, it'll be until we get a lot. of the work things dialed in. When this is just like much more adopted. and clearly better than Zoom for VC, when, if you're doing your. coding or your writing, or whatever it is, in VR,. which it's not that far off.

to imagine that, because. pretty soon you're just gonna. be able to have a screen. that's bigger than, it'll be your ideal setup,. and you can bring it with you, and put it on anywhere and have. your kind of ideal workstation. So I think that there are a. few things to work out on that, but I don't think that that's. more than five years off. And then you'll get a. bunch of other things. that like aren't even possible, or you don't even think about using. a phone or PC for today, like fitness. So, I mean, I know you are, we were talking before about. how you're into running. and like I'm really into.

a lot of things around fitness as well. Different things in different places. I got really into. hydrofoiling recently and--. - Nice, I saw video. - Yeah, and surfing, and I. used to fence competitively. I like run. - And you were saying. that you were thinking. about trying different martial arts, and I tried to trick you and convince you. to doing Brazilians jujitsu, or you actually mentioned that that was. one you're curious about,. and that I definitely--. - Is that a trick? - I don't know, we're. in the Metaverse now. - I mean, I took that seriously. I thought that that was a real suggestion.

- That would be an amazing. chance if we ever step. on the mat together and. just like roll around, I'll show you some moves. - Well, gimme a year to train. And then we can do it. - This is like Rocky,. you've seen Rocky IV, where the Russian faces off the American, I'm the Russian in this picture. And then you're the Rocky, the underdog. that gets to win in the end. - The idea of me as Rocky. and like fighting is--. - If he dies, he dies. (laughs).

Anyway, yeah. - But I mean a lot of aspects of fitness, I don't know if you've tried. supernatural on Quest or--. - So first of all, can I. just comment on the fact, every time I played around. with Quest 2, I just, I get giddy every time I. step into virtual reality. So you mentioned productivity. on those kinds of things. That's definitely something. I'm excited about, but really, I just love the possibilities. of stepping into that world. It's, maybe it's the introvert in me,

but it's just feels like. the most convenient way. to travel into worlds, into worlds that are. similar to the real world. or totally different. It's like Alice in Wonderland,. just try out crazy stuff. The possibilities are endless. And I just, I personally am just love, get excited for stepping. those virtual worlds. So I'm a huge fan. In terms of the productivity as a program, I spend most to my day programming.

That's really interesting also, but then you have to. develop the right IDs. You have to develop. Like the, there has to be a threshold. where a large amount of. the programing community. moves there, but the collaborative aspects. that are possible in terms of meetings, in terms of the, when two. coders are working together, I mean that the possibilities. there are super, super exciting. - I think that in building this,. we sort of need to balance, there are gonna be some new. things that you just couldn't do. before, and those are gonna. be the amazing experiences.

So teleporting to any place. Whether it's a real place or. something that people made. And I mean, some of the experience is. around how we can build stuff in new ways, where a lot of the stuff. that when I'm coding stuff, it's like, all right, you code it, and then you build it, and. then you see it afterwards. But increasingly, it's. gonna be possible to, you're in a world and you are building. the world as you are in it. and kind of manipulating it. One of the things that we. showed at our Inside the Lab. for recent and artificial. intelligence progress.

is this builder bot. program where now you are, you can just talk to. it and say, hey, okay, I'm in this world. Like put some trees over. there and it'll do that. And like, all right, put. some bottles of water. on our picnic blanket and it'll do that. And you're in the world and it's, I think there are gonna be. new paradigms for coding. So yeah, there are gonna be some things. that I think are just pretty amazing, especially the first few. times that you do them, that you're like, whoa, like I've never had an. experience like this,

but most of your life I would. imagine is not doing things. that are amazing for the first time. A lot of this in terms of, I mean, just answering your. question from before around, what is it gonna take. before you're spending. most of your time in this? Well, first of all, lemme. just say this on a aside, the goal isn't to have people spend. a lot more time in computing--. - I'm asking for myself, when will I spend all of my time in? - It's to make, yeah, it's to make computing more natural, but I think it'll, you will spend more,

most of your computing time in this, when it does the things. that you use computing. for somewhat better. So, maybe having your. perfect workstation is. a 5% improvement on your. coding productivity. It, maybe it's not like. a completely new thing. But I mean, look, if I could increase. the productivity of every. engineer at Meta by 5%, we'd buy those devices for everyone. And I imagine a lot of. other companies would too.

And that's how you start. getting to the scale. that I think, makes this rival some of. the bigger computing. platforms that exist today. - Let me ask you about identity. We talked about the avatar. How do you see identity in the Metaverse, should the avatar be. tied to your identity? Or can it be, can I be anything. in the Metaverse, like, can I be whatever the heck I want? Can I even be a troll? So there's a exciting. freeing possibilities. and there's the darker possibilities too.

- I mean, I think that. there's gonna be a range. So we're working on, for expression. and avatars, on one end of the spectrum. are kind of expressive. and cartoonish avatars. And then on the other end of the spectrum. are photorealistic avatars. And I just think the reality. is that there are gonna. be different use cases. for different things. And I guess there's another access. So if you're going from. photorealistic to expressive, there's also like. representing you directly.

versus like some fantasy identity. And I think that there are gonna be things. on all ends of that spectrum too. So you'll want photo, in some experience, you might wanna be like. a photorealistic dragon. Or, if I'm playing Onward. or just this military simulator game, it's, I think getting to. be more photorealistic. as a soldier in that could. enhance the experience. There are times when. I'm hanging out friends. where I want them to, know it's me.

So a kind of cartoon-ish. or expressive version of me is good, but there are also experiences like, VR chat does this well today where. a lot of the experience. is kind of dressing up. and wearing a fantastical avatar. that's almost like a meme or is humorous. You come into an experience and it's. almost like you have like. a built-in icebreaker. because like you see people. and you're just like, all right, I, like, I'm cracking up. at what you're wearing.

because that's funny. And it's just like, where'd you get that? Or, oh, you made that. that's, it's awesome. Whereas, okay, if you're. going into a work meeting, maybe a photorealistic. version of your real self. is gonna be the most. appropriate thing for that. So I think the reality is,. there aren't going to be, there is, it's not just. gonna be one thing. My own sense of kind of how you want. to express identity online. has sort of evolved over time. And that, early days. in Facebook, I thought, okay, people were gonna have one identity.

And now I think that's. clearly not gonna be the case. I think you're gonna have. all these different things. and there's utility in being. able to do different things. So some of the technical challenges. that I'm really interested. in around it are. how do you build the. software to allow people. to seamlessly go between them? So say, so you could view them. as just completely discreet. points on a spectrum, but let's talk about the. Metaverse economy for a second. Let's say I buy a digital shirt.

for my photorealistic. avatar, which by the way, I think at the time where we're spending. a lot of time in the Metaverse, doing. a lot of our work meetings in. the Metaverse and et cetera, I would imagine that the. economy around virtual clothing. as an example, is going. to be quite as big. Why wouldn't I spend almost. as much money in investing. in my appearance or expression. for my photorealistic avatar. for meetings as I would for the, whatever I'm gonna wear in my video chat? But the question is, okay, so you let's say you buy some shirt. for your photorealistic avatar, wouldn't it be cool if. there was a way to basically.

translate that into a. more expressive thing. for your kind of cartoonish. or expressive avatar? And there are multiple ways to do that. You can view them as two. discreet points and, okay, maybe if a designer sells one thing, then it actually comes in. a pack and there's two, and you can use either one on that. But, I actually think this. stuff might exist more. as a spectrum in the future. And that's what I do think the direction. on some of the AI advances.

that it's happening to be able to, and especially stuff. around like style-transfer, being able to take a piece of art. or express something. and say, okay, paint me, this photo in the style of. Gauguin or whoever it is. that you're interested in, take this shirt. and put it in the style. of what I've designed. for my expressive avatar. I think that's gonna be pretty compelling. - And the, so the fashion, you might be buying like a generator,

like a closet that generates a style. And then like with the Gauguins, you'll be able to. infinitely generate outfits, thereby making it. So the reason I wear the. same thing all the time is. that don't like choice,. you're talking about, you've talked about the same thing, but now you don't even. have to choose your closet. generates your outfit for you every time. And so you have to live. with the outfit generates. - I mean, you could do that, although no, I think that's, I think some. people will, but I think like, I think that there's. going to be a huge aspect.

of just people doing. creative commerce here. So I think that there is going. to be a big market around people. designing digital clothing. But the question is, if you're. designing digital clothing, do you need to design? If you're the designer,. do you need to make it. for each kind of specific discreet point. along a spectrum, or you design, are you just designing it for kind of. a photorealistic case. or an expressive case? Or can you design one. and have it translate across these things? If I buy a style from a. designer who I care about,

and now I'm a dragon, is. there a way to morph that, so it like goes on the dragon. in a way that makes sense? And that I think is an. interesting AI problem. because you're probably not gonna make it. so that it like, that designers. have to go designed for all those things. But the more useful the. digital content is that you buy. in a lot of uses, in a lot of use cases, the more that economy will just explode. And that's a lot of what, all of the, we were joking about NFTs before, but I think a lot of the promise here is.

that if the digital goods that you buy. are not just tied to one platform. or one use case, they end. up being more valuable, which means that people are more willing. and more likely to invest in them. And that just spurs the whole economy. - But the question is, that's a fascinating, positive aspect, but the potential negative aspect is. that you can have people. concealing their identity, to troll or even not people, bots. So how do you know, in the. Metaverse, that you're talking. to a real human or an AI,. or a well-intentioned human,

is that something you think about, something you're concerned about? - Well, let's break that down. into a few different cases. I mean, 'cause knowing that you're talking. to someone who has good. intentions is something. that I think is not even. solved in pretty much anywhere. But I mean, if you're talking to someone. who's a dragon, think it's pretty clear. that they're not representing. themselves as a person. I think probably the most. pernicious thing that you want. to solve for, is, I think probably one of.

the scariest ones is how do you make sure. that someone isn't impersonating you? So you like, okay, you're. in a future version. of this conversation. And we have photorealistic avatars, and we're doing this in. Workrooms or whatever, the future version of that is. And someone walks in. who like, looks like me. How do you know that that's me? And one of the things that. we're thinking about is, it's this, it's still. a pretty big AI project. to be able to generate. photorealistic avatars. that basically can like they work.

like these Kodaks of you. So you kind of have a. map from your headset. and whatever sensors of what your body's. actually doing, and it takes the model. and it kind of displays it in VR. But there's a question which is, should there be some sort. of biometric security, so that like when I put on my. VR headset or I'm going to, go use that avatar, I need to. first prove that I am that. And I think you probably are. gonna want something like that. So that's, as we're. developing these technologies,

we're also thinking about the. security for things like that. because people aren't gonna. wanna be impersonated. That's a huge security issue. Then you just get the. question of people hiding. behind fake accounts. to do malicious things, which is not gonna be. unique to the Metaverse. Although, certainly in a. environment where you're, where it's more immersive. and you have of more of. a sense of presence, it. could be more painful,

but this is obviously something. that we've just dealt with for years. in social media and the. internet more broadly. And there, I think there. have been a bunch of tactics. that I think we've just evolved to, we've built up these different. AI systems to basically get. a sense of, is this. account behaving in the way. that a person would? And it turns out, so in all of the work. that we've done around, we. call it community integrity,

and it's basically like. policing harmful content, and trying to figure out. where to draw the line. And there are all these like really hard. and philosophical questions around, like where do you draw the. line on some of this stuff? And the thing that I've kind of found. the most effective is as. much as possible trying. to figure out who are. the inauthentic accounts, or where are the accounts. that are behaving. in an overall harmful. way at the account level, rather than trying to. get into like policing.

what they're saying. Which I think the Metaverse. is gonna be even harder, because that the Metaverse, I think. will have more properties of, it's almost more like a phone call. Or like, or your, it's not like. a post, a piece of content, and is that piece of content good or bad? So I think more of the. stuff will have to be done. at the level of the account,. but this is the area where, between the kind of. counterintelligence teams. that we built up inside the company, and like years of building. just different AI systems,

to basically detect what is a. real account and what isn't. I'm not saying we're perfect, but like, this is an area where I just think we are. like years ahead of basically anyone else. in the industry in terms of. having built those capabilities. And I think that that just is. gonna be incredibly important. for this next wave of things. - And like you said, on a technical level, on a philosophical level, it's an incredibly. difficult problem to solve. By the way, I would probably. like to open-source my avatar.

So that could be like millions of Lexes. walking around, just like an army. - Like Agent Smith. - Agent Smith, yeah, exactly. So the unity ML folks built a copy of me. and they sent it to me. So there's a person running around. and I've just been doing. reinforcement learning on it. I was gonna release it because, just to have sort of like. thousands of Lexes doing reinforcement.

So they fall over naturally. They have to learn how. to walk around and stuff. So I love that idea, this tension between biometric security, you want to have one identity,. but then certain avatars, you might have to have many. I don't know, which is better security. sort of flooding the world with Lexes, and thereby achieving security, or really being protective. of your identity. I have to ask a security. question actually. - How does flooding the. world with Lexes help me know. in our conversation that. I'm talking to the real Lex? - I completely destroy the trust.

in all my relationships then. If I flood, 'cause then it's yeah, that. - I think that one's not. gonna work that well for you. - It's not gonna work. that for the original--. - Well, it probably fits some things like. if you are a public figure. and you're trying to have, a bunch of, if you're trying to show up. in a bunch of different places. in the future, you'll be able. to do that in the Metaverse. So that kind of replication,. I think will be useful. But I do think that you're. gonna want a notion of like, I am talking to the real one.

- Yeah, yeah. Especially if the fake ones. start outperforming you. and all your private relationships, and then you're left behind, I mean, that's a serious concern. I have with clones. Again, the things I think about. So I recently got, I. used QNAP NAS storage, such as storage for video and stuff. And I recently got hacked,. this is the first time. for me, with the, with ransomware. It's not me personally,. it's all QNAP devices. So the question that people have.

about, is about security in general, because I was doing a. lot of the right things. in terms of security and. nevertheless, ransomware, basically disabled my device. Is that something you think about, what are the different. steps you could take. to protect people's data. on the security front? - I think that there's. different solutions for, in strategies where it makes. sense to have stuff kind of. put behind a fortress. So that centralized model,. versus decentralizing.

Then, I think both have. strengths and weaknesses. So I think anyone who says, okay, just decentralize everything,. that'll make it more secure. I think that that's tough because, I mean, the advantage of something. like, encryption, is that, we run the largest encrypted service. in the world with WhatsApp. and, one of the first. to roll out a multi-platform. encrypt service, and that's something that I think was. a big advance for the industry. And one of the promises. that we can basically make. because of that, our company doesn't see.

when you're sending an encrypted message, and an encrypted message,. what the content is. of what you're sharing. So that way, if someone. hacks Meta's servers, they're not gonna be able to access, the WhatsApp message that. you're sending to your friend. And that I think matters a lot. to people because obviously. if someone is able to. compromise a company of servers. and that company has hundreds of millions. or billions of people, then that's, that ends up being a very big deal. The flip side of that is, okay, all the content is on your phone,

are you following security. best practices on your phone? If you lose your phone,. all your content is gone. So that's an issue, maybe. you go back up your content. from WhatsApp or some other service. in an iCloud or something, but then you're just. at Apple's whims about, are they gonna go turn. over the government, the data to, some government. or are they gonna get hacked? So a lot of the time it. is useful to have data. in a centralized place too, because then you can train systems that,

that can just do much. better personalization. I think that, in a lot of cases, centralized systems can offer, especially if you're a serious company, you're running the state-of-the-art stuff. and you have red teams. attacking your own stuff. And, you're putting out bounty programs. and trying to attract. some of the best hackers. in the world to go break. into your stuff all the time. So any system is gonna. have security issues,

but I think the best way. forward is to basically try. to be as aggressive and. open about hardening. the systems as possible. Not trying to kind of hide and pretend. that there aren't gonna be issues, which I think is over time, why a lot of open source. systems have gotten relatively. more secure, is because. there are open, and, it's not rather than pretending. that there aren't gonna be issues, just people surface them quicker. So I think you wanna adopt. that approach as a company. and just constantly be hardening yourself. - Trying to stay one step. ahead of the attackers.

- It's an inherently adversarial space. - I think it's an interesting,. security is interesting, because of the different kind of threats. that we've managed over. the last five years, there are ones where. basically the adversaries keep. on getting better and better. So trying to kind of interfere with, security is certainly one area of this. If you have like nation. states that are trying to, interfere in elections or. something, like they're kind. of evolving the or tactics. Whereas on the other hand, I don't know.

I don't wanna be too simplistic about it, but like, if someone is. saying something hateful, people usually aren't. getting smarter and smarter. about how they say hateful things. So maybe there's some element of that, but it's a very small dynamic compared to, how advanced attackers and some of these. other places get over time. - I believe most people are good. So they actually get better over time. and not being less hateful. 'Cause I realize it's. not fun being hateful.

It's at least the belief I. have, but first bathroom break. - Sure. - So we'll come back to AI, but let me ask some. difficult questions now. "Social Dilemma" is a popular documentary. that raised concerns about the effects. of social media and society. You responded with a point-by. point-rebuttal titled, "What the Social Dilemma Gets Wrong.". People should read that. I would say the key point they make is. because social media is funded by ads. Algorithms want to maximize. attention and engagement.

and an effective way to do. so, is to get people angry. at each other, increase. division, and so on. Can you Steel Man their criticisms. and arguments that they. make in the documentary. as a way to understand the concern, and as a way to respond to it? - Well, yeah, I think that that's. a good conversation to have. I don't happen to agree. with the conclusions.

And I think that they. make a few assumptions. that are just very big. jumps that I don't think. are reasonable to make,. but I understand, overall, why people would be concerned. that our business model. and ads in general, we do make more money. as people use the service more in general. So as a kind of basic assumption. Okay, do we have an incentive for people. to build a service that people use more?

Yes, on a lot of levels. I mean, we think what we're doing is good. So, we think that if people. are finding it useful, they'll use it more. Or if you just look at it as this sort of, if the only thing we cared about is money, which I, is not for anyone. who knows me, but okay, We're a company. So let's say you just. kind of simplified it down. to that, then would we want. people to use the services more? Yes. But then, and then you get. to the second question, which is, does kind of. getting people agitated.

make them more likely to. use the services more? And I think from looking at. other media in the world, especially TV, and there's. the old news adage, "If it bleeds, it leads.". Like, I think that this is, there are, I think that there are a bunch of reasons. why someone might think that that kind. of provocative content. would be the most engaging.

Now, what I've always. found is, is two things. One is that, what grabs. someone's attention. in the near term is not. necessarily something. that they're going to. appreciate having seen, or going to be the best. over the long term. So I think what a lot. of people get wrong is. that we're not, now, I'm. not building this company. to like, make the most money or get people. to spend the most time on. this in the next quarter. or the next year. I mean, I've been doing this. for 17 years at this point, and I'm still relatively. young, and you have a lot more.

that I wanna do over the coming decades. So like, I think that it's. too simplistic to say, hey, this might increase time in the near term, therefore it's, what's, you're gonna do, Because I actually think a deeper look. at kind of what my incentives are, the incentives of a. company that are focused. on the long term is to basically do. what people are gonna. find valuable over time, not what is gonna draw. people's attention today. The other thing that. I'd say is that I think. a lot of times people look at this.

from the perspective of media, or kind of information or civic discourse, but one other way of looking. at this is just that, okay, I'm a product designer. Our company, we build products, and a big part of building. a product is not just. the function and utility. of what you're delivering, but the feeling of how it feels. We spend a lot of time talking about. virtual reality and how. the kind of key aspect. of that experience is. the feeling of presence,

which it's a visceral thing. It's not just about the. utility that you're delivering, it's about like the sensation. And similarly, I care a lot about. how people feel when. they use our products, and I don't want to build. products that make people angry. I mean, that's like not, I think what we're here. on this earth to do, is to build something that people spend. a bunch of time doing, and it just kind of. makes them angrier to other people. I mean, I think that's not good. That's not what I think. would be sort of a good use.

of our time or a good. contribution to the world. So, okay. It's like people, they tell. us on a per-content basis, does this thing, do I like it? Do I love it? Does it make me angry? Does it make me sad? And, based on that, I, we. choose to basically show content. that makes people angry. less, because, of course, if you're designing a. product and you want people. to be able to connect and feel good. over a long period of time, then that's naturally. what you're gonna do.

So I don't know. I think overall, I. understand at a high level, if you're not thinking. too deeply about it, why that argument might be appealing, but I just think if you actually look. at what our real incentives. are, not just like, if we were trying to. optimized for the next week, but like, as people working on. this, like, why are we here?

And I think it's pretty clear. that that's not actually. how you would want. to design the system. I guess one other thing. that I'd say is that, while we're focused on. the ads business model, I do think it's important to note that. a lot of these issues are. not unique to ads, I mean, so take like a subscription. news business model, for example, I think that has, just as many potential pitfalls. maybe if someone's paying. for a subscription, you don't get paid per piece. of content that they look at. But, say for example, I think like.

a bunch of the partisanship. that we see could potentially. be made worse by, you have these kind of. partisan news organizations. that basically sell subscriptions. And they're only gonna get people. on one side to basically. subscribe to them. So their incentive is not to print content. or produce content that's kind of centrist. or down the line either. I bet that what a lot of them find is. that if they produce stuff.

that's kind of more. polarizing or more partisan, then that is what gets. the more subscribers. So I think that this stuff is all, there's no perfect business model. Everything has pitfalls. The thing that I think is. great about advertising is. it makes it's the. consumer service is free, which if you believe that. everyone should have a voice. and everyone should be able to connect, and that's a great thing, as opposed to building a luxury service. that not everyone can afford, but look, I mean, every business. model, you have to be careful.

about how you're implementing. what you're doing. - You responded to a few things there, you spoke to the fact that, there is a narrative of malevolence, like, you're leaning into them,. making people angry, just because it makes more. money in the short term, that kind of thing. So you responded to that, but there's also kind of. reality of human nature. Just like you spoke about, there's fights, arguments we get in, and we. don't like ourselves afterwards, but we got into them anyway.

So our longterm growth is, I believe. for most of us, has to do with learning, challenging yourself, improving,. being kind to each other, finding a community of. people that you connect with. on a real human level,. all that kind of stuff. But it does seem when. you look at social media. that a lot of fights break out, a lot of arguments break out. A lot of viral content. ends up being sort of.

outrage in one direction or the other. And so it's easy from that. to infer the narrative. that social media companies. are letting this outrage become viral. And so they're increasing. the division in the world. I mean, perhaps you can. comment on that, or further, how can you be, how can you. push back on this narrative? How can you be transparent. about this battle? Because I think it's not just. motivation or financials.

It's a technical problem too, which is, how do you improve longterm. wellbeing of human beings? - I think that going through. some of the design decisions. would be a good conversation,. but first I actually think, I think you acknowledged that narrative. is somewhat anecdotal,. and I think it's worth. grounding this conversation. in the actual research.

that has been done on this,. which by and large, finds. that social media is not a. large driver of polarization. And, I mean, there's been. a number of economists. and social scientists, and. folks who have studied this, a lot of polarization, it. varies around the world. Social media is basically. in every country, Facebook's. in pretty much every. country, except for China. and maybe North Korea. And you see different trends. in different places where,

in a lot of countries,. polarization is declining, in some it's flat, in the. U.S. it's risen sharply. So the question is what. are the unique phenomenon. in the different places? And I think for the people. who are trying to say, hey, social media is the. thing that's doing this. I think that clearly doesn't hold up. because social media is a phenomenon. that is pretty much equivalent. in all of these different countries. And you have researchers like. this economists at Stanford,

Matthew Gentzkow, who's just. written, at length, about this. And, it's a bunch of books. by political scientists. as recline and folks, why we're polarized, basically goes through. this decades-long analysis. in the U.S. before I was born, basically talking about some of the forces. in kind of partisan politics and Fox News, and different things. that predate the internet. in a lot of ways, that I think. are likely larger contributors.

So to the contrary on this, not only. is it pretty clear that social media. is not a major contributor, but most of the academic. studies that I've seen. actually show that social media use. is correlated with lower polarization. Gentzkow, the same person who just did. the study that I cited about. longitudinal polarization. across different. countries, also did a study. that basically showed that if you looked. after the 2016 Election in the U.S.,

the voters who were the. most polarized were actually. the ones who were not on the internet. So, and there have been. recent other studies, I think, in Europe and around the world, basically showing that as. people stop using social media, they tend to get more polarized. Then there's a deeper. analysis around, okay, well, what, polarization. actually isn't even one thing, 'cause having different opinions. on something isn't, I don't think. that that's by itself bad. What people who study this. say is most problematic is.

what they call affective polarization, which is basically, are you, do you have negative. feelings towards people. of another group? And the way that a lot. of scholars study this. is they basically ask a group, would you let your kids. marry someone of group X, whatever the groups are, that you're worried that someone. might have negative feelings towards. And in general, use of. social media has corresponded. to decreases in that kind. of affective polarization.

So I just wanna, I think we should talk. through the design. decisions and how we handle. the kind of specific pieces of content. But overall, I think. it's just worth grounding. that discussion in the. research that's existed, that I think overwhelmingly shows. that the mainstream narrative around this. is just not right. - But the narrative does take hold. and it's compelling to a lot of people. There's another question. I'd like to ask you on this.

I was looking at various. polls and saw that you're. one of the most disliked. tech leaders today, 54% unfavorable rating. Elon Musk is 23%. Is basically everybody has a. very high unfavorable rating. that are tech leaders. Maybe you can help me understand that. Why do you think so. many people dislike you? Some even hate you, and how. do you regain their trust. and support, given. everything you've just said?

Why are you losing the battle. in explaining to people. what actual impact social. media has on society? - Well, I'm curious if that's. a U.S. survey or world? - It is U.S. - So I think that there's a few dynamics. One is that our brand has been. somewhat uniquely challenged. in the U.S. compared to other places. It's not that there are,. I mean, other countries,

we have issues too, but. I think in the U.S., there was this dynamic. where if you look at like. the next sentiment of kind of coverage. or attitude towards us, before 2016, I think that there were. probably very few months, if any, where it was negative. And since 2016, I think. that there probably. been very few months, if. any, than it's been positive. - Politics. - So, but I think it's a specific thing, and this is very different. from other places. So I think in a lot of other. countries in the world, the sentiment towards. Meta and our services.

is extremely positive. In the U.S., we have more challenges. And I think compared to other companies, you can look at certain industries. I think if you look at it from. like a partisan perspective, not from like a political perspective, but just kind of culturally, if like there are people. who are probably more left. of center and there are people. in more right of center, and there's, kind of blue. America and red America, there's certain industries. that I think maybe one half of. the country has a more positive. view towards than another.

And I think we are in a, one. of the positions that we're in, that I think is really challenging, is that because of a lot. of the content decisions. that we're, that we've. basically had to arbitrate. And because we are not a. partisan company, right? We're not a Democrat company. or a Republican company. We're trying to make the. best decisions we can. to help people connect,. and help people have. as much voice as they can. while having some rules.

because it, we're running a community. The net effect of that is. that we are kind of. constantly making decisions. that piss off people in both camps. And the effect that I've sort of seen is. that when we make a decision, that is, that's a kind controversial. one, that's gonna upset. say about half the country, those decisions are all negative-some.

from a brand perspective, because it's not. like if we make that decision in one way. and say half the country is happy. about that particular decision. that we make, they tend to not say, oh, sweet, Meta got that one right. They're just like, ah, you. didn't mess that one up. But their opinion doesn't. tend to go up by that much. Whereas the people who kind. of are on the other side of it. are like, God, how could you mess that up? Like, how could you. possibly think that, like, that piece of content is. okay and should be up, and should not be censored?

Or, and so I think the, whereas if okay, if you leave it up and it's,. or if you take it down, the people who thought it. should be taken down, or, it's like, all right, fine, great, you didn't mess that one up. So our internal assessment. of and kind of analytics. on our brand are basically anytime one. of these big controversial. things comes up in society, our brand goes down with. half of the country. And then like, if you,. and then if you just. kind of extrapolate that out, it's just been very challenging for us.

to try to navigate, what. is a polarizing country. in a principled way,. where we're not trying. to kind of heel to one side or the other, we're trying to do what we think are the, is the right thing. But then that's what I. think is the right thing. for us to do though. So, I mean, that's what. we'll try to keep doing just. - As a human being, how. does it feel though, when you're giving so much. of your day-to-day life. to try to heal division, to. try to do good in the world, as we've talked about, that so many people in the. U.S., the place you call home,

have a negative view of you as a leader, as a human being, and. the company you love? - Well, I mean, it's not. great, but I mean, look, if I wanted people to think. positively about me as a person, I don't know. I'm not sure if you go build a company. I mean, it's like. - Or a social media company,

it seems exceptionally difficult. to do with a social media company. - Yeah, so, I mean, I don't know, there is a dynamic where a lot of. the other people running these companies, internet companies, have. sort of stepped back. and they just do things that are sort of, I don't know, less controversial. And some of it may be that. they just get tired over time, but, it's, so I don't know. I think that running a company is hard, building something that scale is hard. You only really do it. for a long period of time.

if you really care. about what you're doing. And yeah, so, I mean,. it's not great, but like, but look, I think that at some level, whether 25% of people dislike you. or 75% of people dislike you, your experience as a public. figure is gonna be that. there's a lot of people who dislike you. So I actually am not. sure how different it is, certainly, we've, the. country's gotten more polarized.

and we, in particular, have. gotten more controversial. over the last five or years or so, but I don't know, I kind of think like as a public figure. and leader of one of these enterprises. - [Lex] Comes with the job. - Part, yeah. Part of what you do is like, and look, you can't just, the answer. can't just be ignore it, right? Because like a huge. part of the job is like, you need to be getting feedback. and internalizing feedback. on how you can do better.

But I think increasing what you need to do. is be able to figure out, who are. the kind of good faith critics. who are criticizing you? Because they're trying to help you do. a better job, rather than tear down. And those are the people. who I just think you have. to cherish and like,. and listen very closely. to the things that they're saying, because, I think it's just as dangerous. to tune out everyone who. says anything negative. and just listen to the people. who are kind of positive and support you,

as it would be psychologically. you to pay attention, trying to make people who. are never gonna like you, like you. So I, that's just kind of a. dance that people have to do. But, I mean, I, you. kind of develop more of. a feel for like, who actually is trying. to accomplish the same types. of things in the world, and who has different. ideas about how to do that, and how can I learn from those people? And like, yeah, we get stuff wrong. And when the people whose opinions. I respect call me out. on getting stuff wrong, that hurts and makes me wanna do better.

But I think at this point. I'm pretty tuned to just, all right, if someone,. if I know they're kind of. like operating in bad faith. and they're not really trying to help, then, I don't know. It's not, it doesn't, I think over time it just. doesn't bother you that much. - But you are surrounded by people. that believe in the. mission, that love you. Are there friends or colleagues. in your inner circle, you trust that call you. out on your bullshit, whenever you're thinking may be misguided, as it is for leaders at times?

- I think we have a famously. open company culture. where we sort of encourage that. kind of dissent internally, which is why there's so. much material internally. that can leak out with. people sort of disagreeing, is because that's sort of the culture. Our management team, I. think it's a lot of people, there's some newer folks who come in, there's some folks who have. who've kind of been there for a while, but there's a very high level of trust. And I would say it is. a relatively confrontational. group of people.

And my friends and family, I. think will push me on this, but look, but I think it's not just, but I think you need. some diversity, right? It can't just be people who. are your friends and family. It's also, I mean, there are journalists. or analysts, or peer. executives at other companies, or other people who sort of are insightful. about thinking about the. world, certain politicians,

or people kind of in that sphere, who I just think have like. very insightful perspectives, who even if they would,. they come at the world. from a different. perspective, which is sort of. what makes the perspective so valuable. But, I think fundamentally you're trying. to get to the same place, in terms of. helping people connect more, helping the whole world function better, not just one place or another. And I don't know. I mean, those are the people. whose opinions really matter to me.

And I just, it's, that's how. I learn on a day-to-day basis. People are constantly. sending me comments on stuff. or links to things they found interesting. And I don't know, it's kind. of constantly evolving, this model of the world, and kind of. what we should be aspiring to be. - You've talked about, you. have a famously open culture, which comes with the criticism. and the painful experiences. So let me ask you another. difficult question.

Francis Hagan, the Facebook whistleblower, leaked the internal Instagram research. into teenagers and wellbeing. Her claim is that Instagram. is choosing profit. over wellbeing of teenage girls. So Instagram is quote "toxic for them.". Your response titled, "What. our research really says. "about teen wellbeing?". And Instagram says, no. Instagram research shows that. 11 of 12 wellbeing issues, teenage girls, who said they struggle.

with those difficult issues. Also said that Instagram made. them better rather than worse. Again, can you Steel Man. and defend the point? And Francis Hagan's. characterization of the study, and then help me understand the positive. and negative effects of Instagram, and Facebook on young people. - So, there are certainly questions. around teen mental health. that are really important. It's hard to, as a parent,. it's like hard to imagine. any set of questions that. are sort of more important.

I mean, I guess may to be other aspects. of physical health or wellbeing, or probably come to that level, but like, these are really important questions, which is why we dedicate. teams to studying them. I don't think the internet. or social media are unique. in having these questions. I mean, I think people, and there have been sort of magazines. with promoting certain body. types for women and kids. for decades, but we really. care about this stuff.

So we wanted to study it. And of course, we didn't. expect that everything. was gonna be positive all the time. So I mean, the reason why. you study this stuff is. to try to improve and get better. So, I mean, look, the. place where I disagree. with the characterization,. first, I thought some of. the reporting and coverage of it just took. the whole thing out of proportion, and that it focused on, as you said, I think there were like. 20 metrics in there, and on 18 or 19, the. effect of using Instagram. was neutral or positive. on the teen's wellbeing.

And there was one area. where I think it showed. that we needed to improve. And we took some steps to try. to do that after doing the research. But I think having the. coverage just focused. on that one without focusing on the, I think an accurate. characterization would've been. that kids using Instagram. or not kids, teens, is generally positive. for their mental health. But of course that was the. narrative that came out. So I think it's hard to, that's not a kinda logical. thing to Straw Man, but I sort of disagree, or Steel Man,

but I sort of disagree with. that overall characterization. I think anyone sort of looking. at this objectively, would, but then, I mean the, there is. this sort of intent critique. that I think you were getting at before, which says it would assume. some sort of malevolence. It's like, which it's really hard for me. to really wrap my head around this. because as far as I know, it's not clear that any of. the other tech companies.

are doing this kind of research. So why the narrative should. form that we did research. because we were studying. an issue, 'cause we wanted. to understand it, to improve,. and took steps after that. to try to improve it, that your interpretation of that would be. that we did the research, and tried. to sweep it under the rug. It just, it's sort of. is like, I don't know, it's beyond credibility to me that like, that's the accurate. description of the actions. that we've taken compared to. the others in the industry.

So I don't know, that's kind of, that's my view on it. These are really important issues. And there's a lot of stuff. that I think we're gonna. be working on related to teen. mental health for a long time, including trying to. understand this better. And I would encourage everyone else. in the industry to do this too. - Yeah, I would love there. to be open conversations. and a lot of great research. being released internally, and then also externally. It doesn't make me feel good.

to see press obviously get way more clicks. when they say negative. things about social media. Listen, objectively speaking, I can just tell that there's. hunger to say negative things. about social media, and. I don't under understand. how that's supposed to lead. to an open conversation. about the positives and the negatives, the concerns about social media, especially when you're doing those kind, that kind of research. I mean, I don't know what to do with that,

but let me ask you, as a father, does it weigh heavy on you. that people get bullied. on social networks? So people get bullied. in their private life. But now because so much of our. life is in the digital world, the bullying moves from the physical world. to the digital world. So you're now creating a platform. on which bullying happens. and some of that bullying can lead. to damage to mental health.

And some that bullying can lead. to depression, even suicide. Does it weigh heavily on you that people. have committed suicide. or will commit suicide. based on the bullying that. happens on social media? - Yeah, I mean, this is, there's a set of harms. that we basically track. and build systems to fight against, and bullying and self-harm are, I mean,

and these are some of the biggest things. that we are most focused on. For bullying, like you say, it's gonna be, while this predates the internet, then it's probably impossible. to get rid of all of it. You want to give people tools to fight it. and you wanna fight it yourself. And you also wanna make. sure that people have. the tools to get help when they need it.

So I think it, this. isn't like a question of, can you get rid of all bullying? I mean, it's like, all right. I mean, I have two. daughters and they fight, and push each other around, and stuff too. And the question is just, how. do you handle that situation? And there's a handful. of things that I think. you can do, we talked a little bit before. around some of the AI. tools that you can build. to identify when something. harmful is happening.

It's actually, it's very hard in bullying. 'Cause a lot of bullying. is very context-specific. It's not like you're trying. to fit a formula of like, if like looking at the different harms, someone promoting a terrorist. group is like probably one of. the simpler things to generally find, because things promoting. that group are gonna. look a certain way, or feel a certain way. Bullying could just be. someone making some subtle comment. about someone's appearance,. that's idiosyncratic to them. - And it could look at just like humor. So humor to one person. could be destructive.

to another human being. - So with bullying, I think. there are certain things. that you can find through AI systems, but I think it is increasingly important. to just give people. more agency themselves. So we've done things like making it. so people can turn off. comments, or take a break. from hearing from a specific person. without having to signal at all that. they're gonna stop following them. or kind of make some stand that, okay, I'm not friends with you anymore. I'm not following you.

I just like, I just don't. want to hear about this, but I also don't wanna. signal at all publicly that, or to them, that there's been an issue. And then you get to some. of the more extreme cases. like you're talking about,. where someone is thinking. about self-harm or suicide. And in there, we found that. that is a place where AI. can identify a lot, as well. as people flagging things. If people are expressing. something that is potentially,

they're thinking of hurting themselves. Those are cues that you can build systems. in hundreds of languages around the world. to be able to identify that. And one of the things that. I'm a actually quite proud of. is we've built the systems that. I think are clearly leading, at this point, that. not only identify that, but then connect with. local first-responders. and have been able to save. I think at this point,. it's in thousands of cases,

be able to get first-responders to people. through these systems,. who really need them. because of specific. plumbing that we've done. between the AI work and. being able to communicate. with local first-responder organizations. And we're rolling that out in. more places around the world. And I think the team that worked on that. just did awesome stuff. So I think that that's a long. way of saying, yeah, I mean, this is a heavy topic and there's, you want to attack it in. a bunch of different ways.

And also kind of understand. that some of nature is. for people to do this to each other, which is unfortunate, but. you can give people tools. and build things that help. - It's still one hell of a burden though, a platform that allows. people to fall in love. with each other is also by nature, going to be a platform that allows people. to hurt each other. And when you're managing such. a platform, it's difficult. And I think you spoke to it,. but the psychology of that, of being a leader in that. space, of creating technology,

that's playing in the space, like you mentioned, psychology,. is really damned difficult. And I mean, the burden. of that is just great. I just wanted to hear. you speak to that point. I have to ask about the thing. you've brought up a few times, which is making controversial decisions. Let's talk about free. speech and censorship. So there are two groups of people.

pressuring Meta on this, one. group is upset that Facebook, the social network, allows misinformation. in quotes to be spread on the platform. The other group are concerned. that Facebook censors speech. by calling it misinformation. So you're getting it from both sides. You, in 2019, October,. at Georgetown University, eloquently defended the. importance of free speech, but then COVID came, and. the 2020 Election came.

Do you worry that outside. pressures from advertisers, politicians, the public have forced Meta. to damage the ideal of free. speech that you spoke highly of? - Just to say some. obvious things up front. I don't think pressure from advertisers. or politicians directly in any way. affects how we think about this. I think these are just hard topics. So let me just take you. through our evolution. from kind of the beginning of the company, to where we are now.

You don't build a company like this, unless you believe that. people expressing themselves. is a good thing. So that's sort of the foundational thing. You can kind of think about our company. as a formula, where we. think giving people voice. and helping people connect,. creates opportunity, right? So it's, those are the two things. that we're always focused on, are sort of helping people connect. We talked about that a lot, but also giving people voice. and ability to express themselves. Then by the way, most of the time. when people express themselves, that's not like politically. controversial content.

It's like expressing. something about their identity. that's more related to. the avatar conversation. we had earlier, in terms. of expressing some facet, but that's what's important to. people on a day-to-day basis. And sometimes when people. feel strongly enough. about something, it kind of. becomes a political topic. That's sort of always been a. thing that we've focused on. There's always been the. question of safety in this, which if you're building a community, I think you have to focus on safety. We've had these community. standards from early on, and there are about 20. different kinds of harm.

that we track and try to fight actively. And we've talked about. some of them already. So it includes things like. bullying and harassment. It includes things like terrorism. or promoting terrorism, inciting violence, intellectual property. theft, and in general, I think call it about. 18 outta 20 of those, there's not really. a particularly polarized. definition of that. I don't, I think you're. not really gonna find.

many people in the country or in the world. who are trying to say we should be. fighting terrorist content less. I think that the content. where there are a couple of areas. where I think that this has. gotten more controversial. recently, which I'll talk about. And you're right, that misinformation is. basically is up there. And I think sometimes the. definition of hate speech. is up there too. But I think in general,. most of the content. that I think we're working on. for safety is not actually,

people don't kind of have these questions. So it's sort of this subset. But if you go back to the. beginning of the company, this was sort of pre deep learning days. And therefore, and know I was,. it was me and my roommate, Dustin, joined me. And like, if someone posted something bad, it was the AI technology did not exist yet. to be able to go basically. look at all the content.

And we were a small enough. outfit that no one would expect. that we could review it all. Even if like someone reported it to us, we basically did our best. It's like someone would report it. and we'd try to look at. stuff and deal with stuff. And for, call it the first, I don't know, seven or eight years of the company, we weren't that big of a company. For a lot of that period, we weren't even really profitable. The AI didn't really. exist to be able to do.

the kind of moderation that we do today. And then at some point. in kind of the middle. of the last decade, that started to flip, and we became, it got to the point. where we were sort of a larger. and more profitable company. And the AI was starting. to come online to be able. to proactively detect some. of the simpler forms of this. So things like pornography, you could train an image classifier. to identify what a nipple was, or you can fight against. terrorist content.

You still--. - There's actually. papers on this, this is great. - Oh, of course there.. - Technical papers. - Of course there are, those. are relatively easier things. to train AI to do, than for example, understand the nuances of. what is inciting violence. in 100 languages around the world. And not have the false. positives of like, okay, are you posting about. this thing that might. be inciting violence because. you're actually trying. to denounce it? In which case we probably. shouldn't take that down. If you're trying to denounce something. that's inciting violence,. in some kind of dialect.

in a corner of India, as opposed to, okay, actually you're posting this thing. because you're trying to. inside violence, okay. Building an AI that can basically get. to that level of nuance. and all the languages that. we serve, is something. that I think is only really. becoming possible now, not towards the middle of the last decade, but there's been this evolution. And I think what happened, people sort of woke up after 2016,

and a lot of people are like, okay, this, the country's a lot more polarized. and there's a lot more. stuff here than we realized. Why weren't these internet. companies on top of this? And I think at that point, it was reasonable feedback. that some of this technology. had started becoming possible. And at that point, I really. did feel like we needed. to make a substantially larger investment. We'd already worked on. this stuff a lot, on AI,

and on these integrity problems, but that we should basically invest, have a thousand or more. engineers basically work. on building these AI. systems to be able to go. and proactively identify this stuff. across all these different areas. Okay, so we went and did that. Now we've built the tools. to be able to do that. And now I think it's actually. a much more complicated. set of philosophical, rather. than technical questions, which is the exact. policies, which are, okay, now we, the way that we basically. hold ourselves accountable.

is we issue these transparency. reports every quarter. And the metric that we track is. for each of those 20. types of harmful content. How much of that content. are we taking down. before someone even. has to report it to us? So how effective is our AI at doing this? But that basically. creates this big question, which is, okay, now we. need to really be careful. about how proactive we set the AI. and where the exact policy lines are. around what we're taking down.

It's certainly at a point now where, I felt like at the beginning. of that journey of building. those AI systems, there was a lot of push, there's, think like, hey,. you've gotta do more. There's clearly a lot more bad content. that people aren't reporting. or that you're not getting to, and you need to get. more effective at that. And I was pretty sympathetic to that. But then I think at some. point along the way, there started to be almost. equal issues on both sides of, okay, actually you're kind of. taking down too much stuff.

Or some of the stuff is borderline. And it wasn't really bothering anyone. and they didn't report it. So is that really an issue. that you need to take down? Whereas we still have the. critique on the other side too, where a lot of people think. we're not doing enough. So, it's become, as we built. the technical capacity, I think it becomes more. philosophically interesting. almost, where you want to be on the line. And I just think like. you don't want one person.

making those decisions. So we've also tried to innovate. in terms of building out. this independent oversight board, which has people who are. dedicated to free expression, but from around the world, who. people can appeal cases to. So a lot of the most. controversial cases basically go. to them and they make the. final binding decision. on how we should handle that. And then of course their. decisions, we then try to, figure out what the. principles are behind those. and encode them into the algorithms. - And how are those people chosen, which, you're outsourcing a difficult decision.

- The initial people, we. chose a handful of chairs. for the group. And we basically chose the. people for a commitment. to free expression, and. like a broad understanding. of human rights, and the trade. offs around free expression. So they're fundamentally people. who are gonna lean. towards free expression. - Towards freedom of speech. So there's also this idea of fact checker. So jumping around to the. misinformation questions,

especially during COVID, which is an exceptionally,. speaking of pluralization. - Yes, so I've gotten, can. I speak to the COVID thing? I mean, I think one of the hardest set. of questions around free expression, 'cause you asked about Georgetown, has my stance fundamentally changed? And the answer to that is no,. my stance has not changed. It is fundamentally the. same as when we were, when I was talking to Georgetown, from a philosophical perspective. The challenge with free. speech is that everyone agrees.

that there is a line,. where if you're actually. about to do physical harm to people, that there should be restrictions. So, I mean, there's. the famous Supreme Court. historical example of like, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. The thing that everyone. agrees, disagrees on is. what is the definition of real harm? Where I think some people think, okay, this should only be a very literal, I mean, take it back to. the bullying conversation. we were just having, where is it just harm.

if the person is about to hurt themselves. because they've been bullied. so hard, or is it actually harm. be like, as they're being bullied? And kind of at what point. in the spectrum is that, and that's the part that. there's not agreement on. But I think what people. agree on pretty broadly is. that when there is an acute threat, that it does make sense. from a societal perspective. to tolerate less speech, that. could be potentially harmful. in that acute situation. So I think where COVID. got very difficult is,

I don't think anyone expected. this to be going on for years. But if in, if you'd kind of asked know, a priority would a global pandemic. where a lot of people are. dying and catching this, is that an emergency. that where you'd kind of. consider it that, it's problematic. to basically yell fire. in a crowded theater. I think that that. probably passes that test. So I think that that's, it's. a very tricky situation,

but I think the fundamental commitment. to free expression is there,. and that's what I believe. And again, I don't think. you start this company. unless you care about people being able. to express themselves as much as possible. But, I think that that's the question, is like, how do you. define what the harm is. and how acute that is? - And what are the institutions. that define that harm? A lot of the criticism. is that the CDC, the WHO, the institutions we've come to trust.

as a civilization, to. give the line of what is. and isn't harm in terms of health policy, have failed in many ways, in. small ways and in a big ways, depending on who you ask. And then the perspective. of Meta and Facebook. is like, well, where the hell do I get. the information of what. isn't misinformation? So it's a really difficult place to be in, but it's great to hear that you're leaning. towards freedom of speech on this aspect.

And again, I think this actually calls. to the fact that we need. to reform institutions. that help keep an open mind of what is. and isn't misinformation. And misinformation has been. used to bully on the internet. I mean, I just have, I'm. friends with Joe Rogan. and he is called as a, I. remember hanging out with him. in Vegas and somebody yelled, "Stop spreading misinformation!". I mean, and there's a lot of people. that follow him that believe. he's not spreading misinformation. Like you can't just not. acknowledge the fact.

that there's a large number of people. that have a different. definition of misinformation. And that's such a tough place to be, like, who do you listen to? Do you listen to quote unquote "experts,". who gets as a person who has a PhD, I gotta say, I mean, I'm not sure I know. what defines an expert,. especially in a new, in a totally new pandemic. or a new catastrophic event, especially when politics is involved.

And like, and especially when the news are. the media involved that. can propagate sort of. outrageous narratives and. thereby make a lot of money. Like what the hell? Who, where is the source of truth? And then everybody turns to Facebook. It's like, please tell me. what the source of truth is? - [Mark] Well, I mean, well,. how would you handle this. if you were in my position? - It's very, very, very, very difficult. I would say, I would more speak about how. difficult the choices are.

and be transparent about like, what the hell do you do with this? Like here, you got, exactly,. ask the exact question. you just asked me, but. to the broader public, like, okay, yeah, you. guys tell me what to do. So like crowdsource it. And then the other. aspect is when you spoke. really eloquently about. the fact that this, there's this going back and forth, and now there's a feeling. like you're censoring. a little bit too much. And so I would lean, I would try to be ahead of that feeling.

I would now lean towards. freedom of speech and say, we are not the ones that are. going to define misinformation, let it be a public debate. Let the idea stand. And I actually place,. this idea, misinformation, I place the responsibility on. the poor communication skills. of scientists. They should be in the. battlefield of ideas, and everybody who is spreading information. against the vaccine, they. should not be censored.

They should be talked with,. and you should show the data. You should have open. discussion, as opposed. to rolling your eyes and. saying, I'm the expert. I know what I'm talking about. No, you need to convince people. It's a battle of ideas. So that's the whole point. of freedom of speech. It's the way to defeat. ideas is with good ideas, with speech. So like the responsibility here falls. on the poor communication. skills of scientists. Thanks to social media,. scientists are not communicators.

They have the power to communicate. Some of the best stuff. I've seen about COVID. from doctors is on social media. It's a way to learn, to. respond really quickly, to go faster than the peer review process. And so they just need to get way better. at that communication. And also by better, I. don't mean just convincing. I also mean speak with humility. Don't talk down to people,. all those kinds of things. And as a platform, I would. say, I would step back. a little bit, not all the way of course,

because there's a lot of. stuff that can cause real harm. as we talked about, but you lean more towards freedom speech, because then people from. a brand perspective, wouldn't be blaming you for. the other ills of society. Which there are many, the. institutions have flaws. The political divide, obviously. politicians have flaws, that's news. The media has flaws that. they're all trying to work with. And because of the central. place of Facebook in the world,

all of those flaws somehow. kind of propagate to Facebook, and you're sitting there the,. as Plato the philosopher, have to answer to some of the. most difficult questions asking, being asked of human civilization. So I don't know, maybe this. is an American answer though, to lean towards freedom of speech. I don't know if that applies globally. So yeah, I don't know, but. transparency and saying, I think as a technologist, one of the things I sense about Facebook. and Meta when people. talk about this company,

is they don't necessarily understand fully. how difficult the problem is. You talked about AI has to. catch a bunch of harmful stuff. really quickly, just the sea. of data you have to deal with. It's a really difficult problem. So like any of the critics, if you just hand them the helm for a week, let's see how well you can do. Like that to me, that's. definitely something. that would wake people up to. how difficult this problem is.

If there's more transparency. of saying how difficult. this problem is. Let me ask you about on the AI front, just 'cause you mentioned. language and my in-eloquence. And translation, is something. I wanted to ask you about. And first, just to give a. shout out to the supercomputer, you've recently announced the. AI Research SuperCluster RSC. Obviously, I'm somebody. who loves the GPUs. It currently has 6,000. GPUs and VDA DGX A100s is.

the systems that have in total 6,000 GPUs. And it will eventually, maybe this year, maybe soon we'll have 16,000 GPUs. So it can do a bunch of different kinds. of machine learning, applications. There's a cool thing on the. distributed storage aspect. and all that kind of stuff. So one of the applications. that I think is super exciting. is translation, real time translation. I mentioned to you that,. having a conversation, I speak Russian fluently.

I speak English somewhat fluently. And I'm having a conversation. with Vladimir Putin say, as you use case, me as a user,. coming to you as a use case. We both speak each other's language. I speak Russian, he speaks English. How can we have that communication go well. with the help of AI? I think it's such a beautiful. and a powerful application. of AI to connect the. world, that bridge the gap, not necessarily between me and Putin, but people that don't. have that shared language.

Can you just speak about. your vision with translation? 'Cause I think that's a. really exciting application. - If you're trying to help people connect. all around the world, a. lot of content is produced. in one language, and people. in all these other places. are interested in it. So being able to translate that, just unlocks a lot of value. on a day-to-day basis. And so the kind of AI around translation. is interesting because it's gone through. a bunch of iterations, but. the basic state-of-the-art is.

that you don't want to. go through different kind. of intermediate symbolic representations. of language, or something like that. It's, you basically want to be able. to map the concepts, and. basically go directly. from one language to another, and you just. can train bigger and bigger models. in order to be able to do that. And that's where the Research. SuperCluster comes in. is basically a lot of the. trend in machine learning.

is just, you're building. bigger and bigger models. and you just need a lot of. computation to train them. So it's not that like. the translation would run. on the supercomputer, the. training of the model, which could have billions. or trillions of examples of, just basically that your training models. on this SuperCluster in days or weeks, that might take a much. longer period of time. on a smaller cluster. So it just wouldn't be. practical for most teams to do,

but the translation work,. we're basically getting from, being able to go between. about 100 languages. seamlessly, today, to being able to go to. about 300 languages in the near term. - So from any language. to any other language, and then that's it. - And part of the issue. when you get closer. to more languages is some. of these get to be pretty, not very popular languages, right?

Where there isn't that. much content in them. So, you end up having less data. and you need to kind of use a model. that you've built up. around other examples. And this is one of the. big questions around AI, is like how generalizable can things be? And that's that I think. is one of the things. that's just kind of exciting here. from a technical perspective. - But capturing, we talked. about this with the Metaverse, capturing the magic of. human-to-human interaction. So me and Putin. Okay. I'm again, this is. - I mean, it's a tough example.

'cause you actually both. speak Russian and English. - But that's--. - But in the future. - I see it as a touring test of a kind, because we would both like. to have an AI that improves. 'Cause I don't speak Russian that well, he doesn't speak English that well. It would be nice to. outperform our abilities. and that's, it sets a really nice bar, because I think AI can. really help in translation. for people that don't. speak the language at all, but to actually capture. the magic of the chemistry,

the translation, which would make. the Metaverse super immersive. I mean, that's exciting. You remove the barrier. of language, period. - So when people think about translation, I think a lot of that is they're thinking. about text-to-text, but speech-to-speech. I think is a whole nother thing. And I mean, one of the. big lessons on that, which I was referring to. before, is I think early models, it's like, all right, they take speech, they translate it to text, translate the text to another language. And then kind of output that. as speech in that language. And you don't wanna do that.

You just wanna be able to. go directly from speech. in one language to speech. in another language. and build up the models to do that. And I mean, I think one. of the, there have been, when you look at the. progress in machine learning, there have been big. advances in the techniques. Some of the advances in. self-supervised learning, which I know you talked to Jan about, and he's like one of the. leading thinkers in this area. I just think that that. stuff is really exciting. But then you couple that with the ability. to just throw larger and. larger amounts of compute.

at training these models,. and you can just do. a lot of things that. we're harder to do before. But we're asking more of our systems too. So, if you think about the applications. that we're gonna need for the Metaverse. or think about it, okay. So let's talk about AR here for a second. You're gonna have these. glasses, they're gonna look, hopefully like a normal-ish. looking pair of glasses, but they're gonna be able to. put holograms in the world,

and intermix virtual and. physical objects in your scene. And one of the things. that's gonna be unique. about this compared to. every other computing device. that you've had before,. is that this is gonna be. the first computing device. that has all the same signals. about what's going on. around you, that you have. So you're for phone, you can, I mean, you can have it take a photo or a video, but I mean, these glasses are gonna, whenever you activate them, they're gonna be able to see what you see. from your perspective.

They're gonna be able. to hear what you hear, because they're the. microphones and all that. are gonna be right around. where your ears are. So you're gonna want an AI assistant. That's a new kind of AI assistant. that can basically help. you process the world. from this first-person perspective, or from the perspective that you have. And the utility of that is gonna be huge. But the kinds of AI models. that we're gonna need. are going to be just, I don't know, there's a lot that we're gonna need.

to basically make advances in. But I mean, but that's. why I think these concepts. of the Metaverse and the advances in AI. are so fundamentally interlinked. That, I mean, they're kind. of enabling each other. - Like the world builder. is a really cool idea. Like, you can be like a Bob Ross. I'm gonna put a little tree right here. I mean, a little tree,. it's missing a little tree. And then, but at scale, like enriching your experience. in all kinds of ways. You mentioned the assistant too. That's really interesting,. how you can have AI assistance.

helping you out on different levels. of sort of intimacy of communication. It could be just like scheduling. or it could be like almost like therapy. Clearly, I need some, so let me ask you, you're one of the most. successful people ever, you've built an incredible. company that has a lot of impact. What advice do you have. for young people today? How to live a life they can be proud of? how to build something. that can have a big, positive impact on the world?

- Well, let's break that down. 'Cause I think you, proud of,. have a big positive impact. - [Lex] Wow, you're actually listening. - And how to live your life. are actually three different. things that I think, I mean, they could line up, but, and also like what age. of people are you talking to? 'Cause I mean, I can like--. - High school and college, so you don't really. know what you're doing, but you dream big, and. you really have a chance. to do something unprecedented.

- [Mark] So, I guess just to--. - For people my age. - Okay, so let's maybe start with the kind. of most philosophical and. abstract version of this. Every night when I put. my daughters to bed, we go through this thing and like, they call it "the goodnight things.". 'Cause we're basically what. we talk about at night. And I just, I go through them. - [Lex] Sounds like a good show.

- Yeah, the goodnight things. Yeah, Priscilla's always. asking, she's like, can I get goodnight things? Like, I don't know, you go. to bed too early, but it's... But I basically go through. with Max and Augie, what are the things that. are most important in life? That I just it's like, what. do I want them to remember? And just have like. really ingrained in them. as they grow up? And it's health, making sure. that you take care of yourself. and keep yourself in good shape.

Loving friends and family. Because, having the relationships, the family and making. time for friends I think. is perhaps one of the. most important things. And then the third is maybe. a little more amorphous, but it is something that you are excited. about for the future. And when I'm talking to. a four-year-old, often, I'll ask her what she's. excited about for tomorrow. or the week ahead. But I think for most. people, it's really hard. I mean, the world is a heavy place.

And I think like the way. that we navigate it is. that we have things that. we're looking forward to. So whether it is building. AR glasses for the future, or being able to celebrate my. 10-year wedding anniversary. with my wife, that's coming up. It's like, I think people, you have things that. you're looking forward to. Or for the girls, it's often I. wanna see mom in the morning. It's like, just, but it's like. that's a really critical thing. And then the last thing. is I ask them every day,

what did you do today to help someone? Because I just think that's. a really critical thing, is like it's easy to kind of get caught. up yourself and kind. of stuff that's really. far down the road, but. like, did you do something. just concrete today to help someone? And, it can just be as simple as, okay, yeah, I helped set the table for lunch. Or, this other kid in. our school was having. a hard time with something. and I like helped explain it. to him, but bring the, those are,

that's sort of like if you were to boil. down my overall life philosophy into. what I try to impart to my kids, those are the things that I. think are really important. So, okay. So let's say college. So if you're graduating college, probably more practical advice. So I'm always very focused on people. And I think the most important decision. you're probably gonna. make, if you're in college, is who you surround yourself with, who,

because you become like. the people you surround yourself with. And I sort of have this. hiring puristic at Meta, which is that I will only. hire someone to work for me. if I could see myself working for them, not necessarily that I want. them to run the company, 'cause I like my job. But like, but in an alternate universe, if it was their company and I was looking. to go work somewhere, would. I be happy to work for them? And I think that that's a helpful. heuristic to help balance.

When you're building something like this, there's a lot of pressure to, you wanna build out your. teams 'cause there's. a lot of stuff that you need to get done. And then everyone always says, don't compromise on quality,. but there's this question of, okay, how do you know that. someone is good enough? And I think my answer. is I would want someone. to be on my team if I would work for them. But I think that's actually a. pretty similar answer to like, if you were gonna go, if. you were choosing friends, or a partner, or something like that.

So when you're kind of in. college trying to figure out. what your circle's gonna. be, trying to figure out, you're evaluating different. job opportunities, who are the people, even. if they're gonna be peers. in what you're doing, who are the people. who in an alternate university, you would wanna work for them, because you think you're. gonna learn a lot from them, because they know, because. they are kind of values. align on the things that you care about. and they're gonna like,. and they're gonna push you. But also they know different things. and have different. experiences that are kind of.

more of what you want to. become like over time. So I don't know. I think probably people. are too in general, objective-focused, and. maybe not focused enough. on the connections and the people. who they're basically. building relationships with. - I don't know what it says about me, but my place in Austin now. has seven-legged robots. So I'm surrounding myself by robots, which is probably something. I should look into. What kind of world would you. like to see your daughters grow.

up in, even after you're gone? - Well, I think one of the. promises of all the stuff. that is getting built now,. is that it can be a world. where more people have, can. just live out their imagination. It's like, I mean, one of. my favorite quotes it's, I think it was attributed to Picasso, it's said, "All children are. artists and the challenge is, "how do you remain one when you grow up?". And I mean, it's like,. if you have kids, you,

this is pretty clear. I mean, they're just like. have wonderful imaginations, and part of what I think is gonna be great. about the creator economy. and the Metaverse, and all this stuff, is. like this notion around. that a lot more people in the. future are gonna get to work. doing creative stuff,. than what I think today. we would just consider. traditional labor or service. And I think that that's awesome. And like, and that's like what. a lot of what people are here to do,

is like collaborate. together, work together, think of things that you. wanna build, and go do it. And I don't know, one of the things. that I just think is striking. So I like, I teach my daughters, like some basic coding with scratch. I mean, they're still. obviously really young, but I think of coding as building. It's like, I, when I'm coding, I'm like building something. that I want to exist. But, and my youngest daughter, she's very musical and pretty artistic. And she thinks about coding as art.

She calls it code art, not the code, but the output of what she's making. It's like, she's just. very interesting visually. and what she can kind of output, and how it can move around. And do we need to fix that, are we good? - What happened? Do we have to clap? Alexa? - Yeah, so I was just talking about, Augie and her code art, but I mean, to me, this is like a beautiful thing. That the notion that like for me, coding was this functional. thing and I enjoyed it.

and it like helped build. something utilitarian. but that for the next. generation of people, it will be even more an expression. of their kind of imagination. and artistic sense. for what they want to exist. So I don't know, if that happens, if we can help bring. about this world where, a lot more people can that. that's like their existence. going forward, is being. able to basically create. and live out all these. different kinds of art.

I just think that that's like a beautiful. and wonderful thing,. and will be very freeing. for humanity to spend more of our time. on the things that matter to us. - Yeah, allow more and more. people to express their art. and the full meaning of that word. That's a beautiful vision. We mentioned that you are mortal. Are you afraid of death? Do you think about your mortality? And are you afraid of it?

You didn't sign up for. this on a podcast, did you? - No, I mean, that's a, it's. an interesting question. I mean, I'm definitely aware of it. I do a fair amount of like. extreme-sport type stuff. So like, so I'm definitely aware of it. And I--. - [Lex] And you're flirting with it a bit. - I, well, the extreme, I train hard. I mean, so it's like, if I'm gonna go out. in like a 15-foot wave. - [Lex] Go out big.. - Then, well then.

it's like, all right, I'll make sure we have the. right safety gear and like, make sure that I'm. like, used to that spot, and all that stuff. But like, but I mean, you. - The risk is still there. - It takes some head blows along the way. But definitely aware of it, definitely would like to stay safe. I have a lot of stuff that. I wanna build, and wanna--. - Does it freak you out. that it's finite though, that there's a deadline. when it's all over,

and there'll be a time when your daughters. are around and you're gone? - I don't know, no, that. doesn't freak me out. I think constraints are helpful. - Yeah, the finiteness makes. ice cream taste more delicious. somehow, the fact that it's gonna be over. There's something about. that with the Metaverse too. You want, we talked about. this identity earlier, like having just one, with like NFTs.

There's something powerful. about the constraint. of finiteness or uniqueness, that this moment is singular in history. - But I mean, a lot of, as you go through different. waves of technology, I think a lot of what is. interesting is what becomes. in practice infinite, or kind of, there can be many, many of a thing, and then what ends up. still being constrained? So the Metaverse should hopefully allow.

a very large number or maybe, in practice, hopefully close to an infinite amount. of expression and worlds. And, but we'll still only. have a finite amount of time. I think, living longer I think is good. And obviously all of my,. our philanthropic work is, it's not focused on longevity, but it is focused on trying to achieve. what I think is a possible. goal in this century, which is to be able to cure, prevent,

or manage all diseases. So I certainly think. people kind of getting sick. and dying is a bad thing because, and I'm dedicating almost all. of my capital towards advancing research. in that area, to push on. that, which, and we can do. a whole nother one of. these podcasts about that. Because that's--. - So what people should know. - A fascinating topic. - I mean, this is what, with. your wife, Priscilla Chan, you formed the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, gave away 99%, or pledged to give away 99%. of Facebook, now Meta, shares. I mean, like you said,. we could talk forever.

about all the exciting things. you're working on there, including the sort of moonshot. of eradicating disease. by the mid-century mark, or--. - I don't actually know if. you're gonna ever eradicate it, but I think you can get. to a point where you can. either cure things that happened, so people get diseases,. but you can cure them. Prevent is probably. closest to eradication, or just be able to manage is sort of like. ongoing things that are. not gonna ruin your life.

And I think that that's possible. I think saying that there's. gonna be no disease at all, probably is not possible within. the next several decades. - Basic thing is increase. the quality of life. And maybe keep the finiteness. because it tastes, it makes. everything taste more delicious. Maybe that's just being a. romantic 20th Century human. - Maybe, but I mean, but it was an intentional. decision to not focus on. our philanthropy, on like,

explicitly on longevity or living forever. - If at the moment of your. death, and by the way, I like that the lights went out. when we start talking about death, you get to meet death--. - It does make it a lot more dramatic. - It does. As you get closer to the mic,. at the moment of your death, you get to meet God, and. you get to ask one question, what question would you like to ask? Or maybe a whole conversation.

I don't know, it's up to you. It's more dramatic when. it's just one question. - Well, if it's only. one question and I died. I would just want to know. that Priscilla and my family, like if they were gonna be okay. That might depend on the. circumstances of my death, but I think that in most. circumstances that I can think of, that's probably the main. thing that I would care about.

- I think God would hear. that question be like, all right, fine, you get in, that's the right question to ask. - [Mark] Is it, is it? - Humility and selfishness,. it's, all right, you're in. - [Mark] I mean, but, well maybe. - They're gonna be fine,. don't worry, you're in. - But I mean, one of the. things that I think you, I struggle with at least,. is on the one hand, that's probably the most, the thing that's closest to me and maybe. the most common human. experience, but I don't know.

One of the things that. I just struggle with. in terms of running this. large enterprise is like, should the thing that I care more. about be that responsibility? And I think it's shifted over time. I mean, like before I really had a family. that was like the only. thing I cared about. And I, at this point it's, I mean, I'm, I mean, I care deeply. about it, but like, yeah.

I think that that's not. as obvious of a question. - We, humans are weird. You get this ability to. impact millions of lives. and is definitely something,. billions of lives, is something you care about. But the weird humans. that are closest to us, those are the ones that mean the most. And I suppose that's the. dream of the Metaverse is. to connect, form small groups like that, where you can have those. intimate relationships.

Let me ask you the big ridiculous--. - One, to be able to be close, not just based on who. you happen to be next to. I think that's what the. internet is already doing. is allowing you to spend more of your time. not physically proximate. I mean, I always think. when you think about. the Metaverse people, ask this question. about the real world, it's like, dude, the virtual. world versus the real world. It's like, no, the real world is. a combination of the virtual world. and the physical world.

But I think over time as. we get more technology, the physical world is becoming less of. a percent of the real world. And I think that that opens. up a lot of opportunities. for people, 'cause you can. work in different places. You can stay more close to, stay closer. to people were in different places. I think that's good. - Removing barriers of geography. and then barriers of language. That's a beautiful vision. Big ridiculous question. What do you think is the meaning of life?

- I think that well, so there are probably a. couple of different ways. that I would go at this, but I think it gets back. to this last question. that we talked about,. about the duality between, you have the people around you, who you care the most about.

And then there's like this bigger thing. that maybe you're building. And I think that in my own life, I mean, I sort of think about this. tension, but when it's look, I mean, I started this whole company. and my life's work is. around human connection. So I think it's intellectually, probably the thing that. I go to first is just. that human connection is the meaning. And I mean, I think that it's a thing.

that our society probably. systematically undervalues. I mean, I just remember. when I was growing up. and in school, it's like do your homework. and then go play with your friends after. And it's like, no, well, what if playing with your. friends is the point? - It sounds like an argument. your daughters would make. - Well, I mean, I don't know. I just think it's interesting. - Almost doesn't even matter, man. - Well, I think it's. interesting because it's, and people, I think people tend to think.

about that stuff as wasting time. Or that's like what you do in. the free time that you have. But like what if that's. actually the point? So that's one, but here's a, here's maybe a different. way of coming at this, which is maybe a more. like religious in nature. I mean, I always like, there's. a rabbi who I've studied with. who kind of gave me this. We were talking through. Genesis and the Bible,

and the Torah, and they're. basically walking through. It's like, okay, you get through. the seven days of creation. and it's basically, it's like, why does the Bible start there? It's like, it could have started anywhere. In terms of like how to live. But basically it starts with talking about. how God created people in his/her image.

But the Bible starts by talking. about how God created everything. So I actually think that there's like, a compelling argument. that I think I've always. just found meaningful and inspiring, that a lot of the point. of what sort of religion. has been telling us that we should do. is to create and build things.

So these things are not. necessarily at odds. I mean, I think like, I mean that's, and I think probably to some degree, you'd expect me to say something like this. because I've dedicated my. life to creating things. that help people connect. So, I mean, that's sort of the fusion of, I mean, getting back to what we talked. about earlier, it's, I mean, what I studied in school are psychology. and computer science, so it's, I mean, these. are like the two themes. that I care about, but. I don't know, for me, that's what, that's kind. of what I think about. That's what matters. - To create and to love,

which is the ultimate form of connection. I think this is one hell of. an amazing replay experience. in the Metaverse. So whoever is using our. avatars years from now, I hope you had fun. And thank you for talking today. - Thank you. - Thanks for listening. to this conversation. with Mark Zuckerberg. To support this podcast, please check out our. sponsors in the description. And now let me leave you. with the end of a poem, "If" by Rudyard Kipling. If you can talk with crowds.

and keep your virtue or walk with kings. nor lose the common touch, if neither foes nor loving. friends can hurt you. If all men count with. you, but none too much. If you can feel the unforgiving minute. with 60 seconds worth of distance run, yours is the earth and. everything that's in it. And which is more,. you'll be a man, my son. Thank you for listening. I hope to see you next time.