Kara Swisher Would Rather Work for Sam Altman Than Mark Zuckerberg
Kara Swisher, an undisputed titan in tech journalism, a multi-hyphenate force comprising podcast host, journalist, author, and CEO agitator, recently made a candid declaration that resonates deeply within the industry: she would unequivocally choose to work for Sam Altman over Mark Zuckerberg. This preference, articulated during a revealing interview, isn’t merely a casual remark; it encapsulates Swisher’s decades-long, deeply informed critique of Silicon Valley’s leadership, its evolving ethos, and the profound personal and societal implications of its choices. Her choice sheds light on the nuanced, often troubling, landscape of power, responsibility, and self-awareness among the tech elite.
Swisher’s personal brand, famously described as "IDGAF" (I Don’t Give A Fuck), is built on a foundation of deeply sourced reporting, an unyielding commitment to asking hard questions, and a complete disregard for being liked. As she once quipped, "I have four kids!" – a testament to her battle-hardened indifference to external validation. This fearless approach has allowed her to grill the most powerful figures in tech and politics on her twice-weekly Vox Media podcast, On With Kara Swisher, and maintain her incisive banter on Pivot with Scott Galloway, all while never holding back her own fiercely held opinions. It is this very independence and directness that makes her assessment of tech leaders so potent and insightful.
Her stark preference for Altman over Zuckerberg stems from a fundamental difference in how she perceives their self-awareness and capacity for growth. Zuckerberg, she asserts, has "no idea about his problems" and "doesn’t look backwards for one second." Swisher has consistently portrayed Zuckerberg as a particularly "victimized person," one who always feels like he is the aggrieved party, rather than acknowledging the massive societal impact of his platforms. She paints a picture of a leader engaged in "performative maleness," eager to don his MMA mitts and engage in public displays of strength, rather than grapple with the complex ethical dilemmas his company faces. His early pronouncements about "bringing the world together" through Facebook were, in her view, "all bullshit," a disingenuous facade for a deeper pursuit of power and control.
Conversely, Swisher sees "touches of normalness" in Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI. While not without his own problematic actions—she found his "opt-out thing" to be "breathtakingly typical" of the tech elite—Altman appears to understand his problems better. This relative capacity for self-reflection, even if nascent, marks a crucial distinction for Swisher. In a world where humility is often in short supply among tech billionaires, a modicum of self-awareness offers a glimmer of hope for more responsible leadership.
Swisher’s critique extends beyond Zuckerberg to a broader assessment of tech leadership as a collective of "toddlers" wielding immense power. She notes a disturbing trend of "performative fealty" from tech CEOs towards politicians, particularly figures like Donald Trump. While some, like Mark Cuban, might argue this is merely "the cost of doing business" – a necessary evil for corporate survival – Swisher vehemently disagrees. She believes these leaders are not compelled to engage in such explicit displays of allegiance; rather, their primary duty is to their shareholders, not to society. This shortsighted focus on immediate business imperatives, she argues, is detrimental in the long run, as it compromises core company values and leaves them vulnerable to shifts in political power. Her biting observation that "If Kamala Harris won, Mark Zuckerberg would be a they/them" perfectly captures the opportunistic and superficial nature of this political maneuvering.
However, Swisher also identifies a few tech leaders who, in her view, have genuinely matured. Mark Cuban, whom she initially dubbed an "arrogant little prick" when she first reported on him, has developed into a "really interesting, complex person," capable of thoughtful consideration. Evan Spiegel of Snapchat, despite an early contentious interaction, has also evolved into a "really thoughtful person." Brian Chesky of Airbnb is another whom Swisher admires for his honesty and effort to "be a better person." These examples, though few, offer a counter-narrative to the prevailing immaturity she observes. Elon Musk, while initially a source of great hope for Swisher due to his work on cars and climate, has become a figure of profound disappointment, "plagued by other issues" that overshadow his earlier promise. Even Tim Cook, she notes, seems to be tarnishing his legacy with recent behaviors.
The conversation naturally pivoted to AI, a topic currently dominating tech discourse. Swisher identifies AI as a "general-purpose technology" with the potential to transform nearly every sector. However, she cautions against the hype and financial machinations surrounding it, drawing parallels to the "round-tripping" schemes of the early internet era, where money was circularly invested without real value creation. The current "talent wars" and massive investments, while potentially creating new billionaires, also risk significant losses, reminiscent of past bubbles. Swisher emphasizes that the true disruptive power of AI will come in combination with physical robotics, a frequently overlooked aspect. While hesitant to bet on a single winner, she posits OpenAI as potentially the "Google" of this era, with Google itself having significant advantages, and Microsoft also playing a strong role. Meta, she suggests, will likely lean into advertising, leveraging its vast data reserves.
Swisher’s unique position as a woman and a gay woman in a historically male-dominated field has shaped her "unlikable" brand. She dismisses this label, viewing it as a product of honesty rather than genuine malice. Her experience has taught her to genetically "not care" about being liked, a trait she attributes partly to being a lesbian, freeing her from seeking the "favor of men." She advises other ambitious women in male-centric spaces to simply "ignore" superficial criticisms, offering humorous yet cutting retorts to sexist remarks. This resilience has allowed her to thrive where others might be deterred, consistently securing interviews and breaking stories even when her subjects might prefer to avoid her directness.
In her assessment of journalism, Swisher advocates for a clear shift from "access journalism," which she finds "icky" and largely unhelpful, to rigorous accountability reporting. The rise of new communication tools like Signal and text messages, she argues, has empowered reporters to gather information without relying on controlled access. She believes her own success at All Things D demonstrated this power shift, allowing her to challenge powerful figures like Zuckerberg without needing their approval. While acknowledging the importance of fact-checking and company responses, she notes a concerning trend of tech companies simply refusing to engage, a "bad development" for transparent reporting.
Looking towards her own career, Swisher is transparent about her financial success, including making $25 million with Scott Galloway from their previous podcast deal. She deliberately discusses her earnings to empower women and demystify compensation, arguing that withholding such information disempowers individuals. Despite her ongoing success and entrepreneurial spirit (she envisions making honey or selling flowers in retirement), Swisher plans to retire at 70, driven by a belief that "older people should get outta the fucking way for young people." This commitment to making space for the next generation is evident in her hope for younger tech professionals, like her son, who are driven by a genuine desire to "make things that matter" and help people, unlike the "bullshit" idealism of earlier tech leaders.
Swisher’s ultimate ambition, though, lies in journalism. She harbors a detailed plan to acquire The Washington Post from Jeff Bezos, not for personal profit—she believes she could make it "break even" or a "pretty good business"—but to preserve and invigorate truthful reporting. She envisions a model that supports journalism across the country, with a strong editorial vision and a focus on journalistic trust, rather than the profit-driven motives of current media owners. This vision underscores her enduring commitment to the critical role of independent journalism in a healthy democracy.
Concluding with a game of "Control, Alt, Delete," Swisher offers a final, poignant summary of her concerns. She would "delete" social media, "alter" AI with safety guidelines and government regulations, and "control" government to reform it into a more democratic, less money-influenced institution. Her greatest worry, however, is the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of "selfish pricks" in the tech industry. Drawing parallels to the Gilded Age, she fears that unchecked tech oligarchs, with their pervasive control over every aspect of modern life, pose an existential threat to society, far exceeding the concerns of any single politician. Her parting words serve as a stark warning: these tech leaders "do not have our interests at heart," and their unchecked power "will not end well."
