[Music] - Welcome to the Aaron Harbor Show.

My special guest today, Frank McCourt, the former owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and more importantly, the sponsor of Project Liberty.

Frank, thanks for joining me.

- It's nice to be here with you, Aaron.

- My pleasure.

Well, I love having you.

Okay, as a baseball fan, as a former White Sox bat boy, I have to ask you some sports questions.

So, as an owner, when you were an owner of the Dodgers, what did you learn, and what's your take, and even past that point on, what does it take to become a champion in a sport, a professional sport like baseball, hockey, basketball, football?

- Yeah, there are two things that come to mind quickly.

First of all, I think these big clubs, you don't really own them.

You're a steward.

They're as close to a private asset that's really a civic asset as you get.

These teams mean so much to the communities that they're in, so you're in the privileged position to steward these franchises and these clubs during your tenure.

I think the more you think in terms of stewardship and less in terms of ownership, that's key.

The second thing is culture.

Culture is everything in sports, just like it is in business and in the life of a country, right?

Having a culture where everybody is aligned around and clearly aligned around what are the clear objectives of the project?

What are we doing both on and off the field?

And of course, you know winning is the primary objective, but it has to be more than that, right?

You need to actually have everybody aligned in a certain way in order to win.

So, there's a lot that happens out of the public sight and out of-- the behind the scenes that's critically important.

In sports, there's a lot of turnover, there's a lot of changes, so there's a lot of realignments going on, or misalignments.

If you can get alignment from the owner's suite all the way down through what's happening on the field, and with your coaching staff, and so forth, and the players buy in, then you're on to something.

Lastly, of course, you need the talent, right?

You need the talent to be successful and win champions.

But you really need that strong culture, and embedded in that is kind of a methodology of how are we winning?

What type of team are we creating?

What are the type of players we want on the team, and how do they fit in?

So, I believe that it's always teams that win, not individuals.

So, having a group of individuals that are willing to subordinate their interests to the goals and objectives of the team is critical, and that means you have to have a very, very strong culture to be able to pull that off.

So, I would say those are the two things that immediately come to my mind.

- What are one or two of the things that you learned as an owner that surprised you before you were an owner?

You bought the team in what's roughly 2004, sold the team about eight years later.

What really struck you that was unexpected?

- I think the amount of-- How much these teams matter to the communities that they're in and what a big difference you can make as a steward of a franchise.

It's a-- We were able, in LA, to create some excitement there, really won the first playoff game in 16 years for that club.

Now you look at the Dodgers, they're expected to be in the World Series every year.

That took time to actually get that winning spirit back, and start playing deep in the playoffs, and start to-- having that player development system in place.

We're able to renovate Dodger Stadium, build a whole new training facility.

These are things that are-- - That was in Arizona you're talking about.

- That's correct.

Yeah, the new Camelback Ranch.

The club had formerly played its spring training in Vero Beach, Florida, which made sense when the team was in Brooklyn.

Not so much so when the team was in LA.

My point is that there's a lot that it takes to build it, but ultimately, these clubs are hugely, hugely impactful in communities.

Everything you do can make a big difference.

With the Dodgers, we had something called the Dodger Dream Foundation.

We agreed to build 50-- we announced we're gonna build 50 fields for kids on the 50th anniversary of the Dodgers' arrival into LA.

I'm happy to report now that the 60th field has been built by the current ownership group.

So, they've taken that promise up to another level.

They've committed to build-- to reach 75 on the 75th anniversary.

These clubs are deeply embedded in the community, so what happens on and off the field matters.

They're a source of civic pride, right?

Of course, the winning brings out that pride like nothing else.

The real challenge is winning consistently, is really being a perennial competitor.

You see some teams are flashes in the pan.

Suddenly, wow, what a great year, and then the next five or ten years, not so much.

Being a consistent performer and having a culture that says, "Look, we're gonna compete every year here and do what it takes to compete.

"” That's the other thing, I think, that not so much surprised me, but it was for sure a learning that it takes a game plan to do that.

- And certainly expected in LA.

What about the fans' perspective?

All fans want their team to win and win the championship every year.

It strikes me that it's really difficult to win a championship.

Do fans really appreciate how difficult it is to win?

Not just have a winning team, but win a champion.

- I think the fans that are your core, what we would say are the really, really knowledgeable fans, and there are many of those, they understand it, and they see it, and they pay attention to the directionality, the trajectory of a team.

Are you getting better every year?

Are you are you really putting your all into it?

Yeah, I think they do.

There are other fans that jump on a bandwagon, obviously, and that can be fun, too.

Not everybody has to be-- - As long as you're winning, you're gonna attract new people.

What do you think is the toughest sport to win a championship?

- I think it's European football.

We own a club now, one of the great clubs in Europe.

Olympique de Marseille, which is the top club in France and one of the top in all of Europe.

In Europe, it is very, very competitive.

It's kind of funny, Aaron.

When I went and became the steward of OM, you think Europe, which is a bit more of a socialistic form of capitalism than we have here in the US.

Well, in European football, it's pretty ruthless.

The form of sport in the US, our league structure and our franchise structure is actually more socialistic than in because we have revenue sharing, we have salary caps, you can't get relegated out of the league, etc.

So, it's a little bit more-- We're gonna take the revenues in, we're gonna split them with the clubs, which is a socialistic concept.

You know what I mean?

It's maybe not the right word to describe it, but I think you understand what I'm saying.

In Europe, no.

It is a pretty raw form of capitalism, and it's hard.

It's hard to win.

In Europe, you have somewhere between 750 and 850 professional clubs all competing.

Now it does ladder up, five countries and the 20 teams in those five countries that really drive the ecosystem, between France, and Germany, Italy, Spain, and of course, England.

But then competing to be the champion of the Champions League, which is European wide competition, it's pretty intense.

- Let's talk about data transactions.

I'm really intrigued by your endeavor with Project Liberty.

Tell me about Project Liberty, what it is.

What are you trying to achieve?

- Well, I'm a, again, a steward of a five-generational business.

My great-great-grandfather immigrated to Boston, started a construction company.

So, we're builders at the core, and started as infrastructure builders.

We've been a part of this American project very much in a very literal way, and we've benefited a lot from the American project, and I'd like to see it continue.

I'm a bit worried right now.

I think a large part of what is tearing us apart is the current use of technology.

I'm talking about social media primarily because it's kind of driving us against each other, not uniting us.

I use this example from time to time.

In 1993, when the worldwide web became essentially available for all of us to use 30 years ago, the price of a first-class piece of US mail was $.29.

The stamp cost $.29.

Now, Aaron, imagine in 1993 if somebody from the government said-- an elected official or a bureaucrat said, "I have a great idea.

The government is gonna deliver your mail for free.

By the way, we're gonna put a camera in every room in your house, and in the backyard too.

You don't mind, do you?

And your car, and your office, and in your kids' room, and in this, and that, and so forth, but you're gonna get that mail for free.

By the way, we're gonna open your mail and read it.

Hope you don't mind.

But you are getting it for free.

Another thing.

We're gonna go ahead and whatever we learn about you, and your family, and your friends, and your relationships, if we can monetize that or use it to our advantage, we're gonna we're gonna do that too.

But you are getting your mail for free.

Oh, one last thing.

We're gonna sell the information to the highest bidder as well too.

Hope you don't mind because you are getting that mail for free.

I think that person would have been laughed out of the room.

We would have thought they were not thinking clearly, right?

It would be a preposterous notion.

But here we are 30 years later, and that's what we've done.

For some free access to an app, we are giving up our digital identity, our social graph, all of that information about our relationships, our contacts, what we do, our preferences, where we go.

It's not just where we shop, or this, or that.

It's everything about us, and inferences are being drawn about our makeup, and our personality, and our emotional reaction.

So, it's no wonder we're being triggered by social media because it's in the interest of the business models to do that.

So, I think we need to fix that, and Project Liberty-- That's what Project Liberty is about.

Let's go back to the infrastructure level, what my family has done for 130 years, fix the infrastructure so that the internet works differently and you and I own and control our data.

We decide who gets to see it and on what terms.

Think of a world where-- Just like our phone number.

Our phone number is now ours.

It wasn't always ours, but now it is.

The carriers that carry our phone signal interoperate.

It wasn't always like that.

Now it is.

So, imagine an internet where we own our data.

It's portable, the apps of the future interoperate, and rather than clicking on the terms of use of five big platforms, the thousands of apps that are built in this new world click on our terms of use.

We tell them what's appropriate, how they can use the data, for what purpose, what arrangement.

So, let's give the power and the agency back to individuals because if we want democracy, democracy is built on agency and consent.

Right now, we have no agency and no consent.

This is a permissionless internet.

- So, certainly, when you look at the technology giants, they're going to resist this because, just like you said, the revenues that they generate by selling that data are extraordinary.

The other aspect, which really strikes me as challenging, is that if you were to ask those questions that you posed in '93, in 1993, if you were to ask those today, my sense is people have become inured to giving that data.

I think they don't really under-- not just understand, but feel the impact of what they're giving up.

So, what's your sense of how the Amazons, the Googles, the Facebooks, etc, will respond to this?

They must have already, number one.

I'd be curious if any are aligned or are willing to cooperate.

Also, individuals.

Do individuals care as much as they should?

- Those are two really important questions.

I do think the big platforms will resist Initially.

My hope is that they will adapt because they are in the best position to make the change, aren't they?

And if they don't, a new world will get built without them.

This is how things advance over time.

Either people adapt or they don't.

You're right.

I do think individuals have been a bit resigned about things like this is just how it is.

I think that's changing.

I think it's going to change fairly rapidly, honestly.

And I think one blessing in disguise with all this is all this discussion about generative AI is that what it's doing is bringing to the forefront this set of issues around the data, and how valuable it is, and how powerful it is once it's aggregated.

I think we're now beginning to see more and more people click into this issue and say, "Well, wait a second.

Whoa.

Why do they have the data in the first place?

This is my data.

I created this.

This is my life.

These are my relationships.

These are my contacts.

These are-- This is my digital DNA."

Whether it's digital DNA or biological DNA, we should own our data.

I'll tell you a quick story.

A gentleman who runs Broad Institute, Todd Golub, very bright man, called me up and said he would like to join Project Liberty.

He's focused on Biological DNA, molecular biology.

They were very much involved in the sequencing of the human genome along with MIT and Harvard.

It's located in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

So, what Todd said to me is he said-- When I asked him why, why would he want to be involved?

He said, "Frank, think about it this way.

When the first human genome was sequenced, it was at a cost of three billion dollars.

Now, $100 to sequence a human genome is within our eyesight.

At that point, when it's a hundred dollars to sequence your genome, every child born in the developed world will have their genome sequenced and will theoretically have access to personalized medicine, and so on, and so forth.

"” Good so far, right?

He said, "I have three questions for you.

Who owns that data?

Where is it stored?

And who gets to use it for what purpose?

"” These are the same three questions about information technology.

Who owns the data or who should own the data?

Where is it stored?

And who gets to use it for what purpose?

I think if we're going to reel all this back in, reel technology back in so that we can have-- We can use technology for constructive purposes so that we can actually build things together and not tear things down and tear things apart.

Then, I think we're gonna have to reset how tech works.

Personally, I don't think democracy, for example, has a chance against autocratic technology.

They're incompatible.

Autocracy will work beautifully with autocratic technology, you know, when you know everything about you, surveil and know everything about your subjects.

I don't even think they're citizens then, right?

I want to be a citizen, not a subject.

I want agency over my data.

- So, give me some timeline concepts of what you hope to accomplish and when because with regenerative AI, that's changing the landscape so dramatically where now not only is your data being used to influence what you buy, what you see, etc.

I mean, they're gonna be new versions of you out there impacting you, acting is you, and you know, the potential for destructive technology, the potential for malevolence is going up in order of magnitude.

- Yeah, and I think this is really important.

- Maybe though that can-- If people become informed about that and become concerned about it, that could drive the success of Project Liberty.

- I think that's exactly right.

By the way part of Project Liberty is to drive that awareness, right?

It's not just a tech project.

It's a humanity project.

It's a project about how do we want to live in this digital age?

So, it's much more than the tech.

So, driving that awareness and getting civil society, getting people involved in this and creating a movement is really core to what we're doing.

I do think we're up against the clock here.

I think the point you're making implicit in your question is that we have to move quickly because the harms that generative AI can do could far outweigh the benefits, and the benefits are real.

I don't want to be a doom and gloom.

I'm not a doom and gloom guy.

I'm an optimist.

I'm an entrepreneur.

I'm a big believer in this country and what we can innovate and create, but we've got to do it now because the way the technology is being used at the moment is not helpful.

It's destroying a lot of things we care a lot about, like democracy and like our kids.

Look at what's being done to children and their mental health.

This needs to be fixed and fixed quickly.

Once fixed, boy, can we see a future then that will be wonderful.

Right now, I think if you poll parents or kids and say, "Will your life be better than your parents?

"” They'll probably say no.

You might even get the same result if you say as parents.

That's the end of the American dream.

The American dream is built on we will make the sacrifice during our lifetime so our kids have a better life, isn't it?

- Absolutely.

- Technology is actually destroying that because we're not-- How is it possible that duration of life, you know, life expectancy in the US has gone down?

How is that possible with all the innovations in life sciences, and medicine, and so on, and so forth?

Well, there's a reason for that, right?

We have a huge drug addiction problem.

We have a huge suicide issue, which is unthinkable, and much of it caused by the use of social media.

Now, imagine a world where we own and control our data.

Imagine a world where we have agency, we have a permissioned internet, not a permissionless one, we have a world where we can build and use this technology in a constructive way, and we instill identity.

So, you have to be a real person to be on the internet.

Truthfulness, attestation, verification, provenance, the things that right now generative AI can run roughshod over because you can make deep fake videos, and who knows what's true and what's false?

Imagine a world where that's not possible, and when people try to do it, they'll be called out just like we used to do in the analog world when somebody made something up on their resume and a boss found out.

They got fired, right?

There was a level of integrity and had to be a level of trust, shared facts, etc, in order to have democracy flourish.

Without trust, and shared facts, and truth, you can't have democracy.

You have anarchy, right?

People just do what they want.

We need to fix that.

But once we fix it, the world-- then I know when you ask parents will life be better for their kids or not?

They're gonna say yes, it will.

I know I will.

I wish I could live a lot longer to see that happen, but I know my life my kids' lives, and I have six of them.

- Well, hopefully, you'll be around a lot longer.

- I hope so, but I just think I see that possibility.

I want to be clear that it's not just-- I think we need to get out of recycling around the problem.

I do think we need to create more awareness.

It's not like everybody is focused on this.

But then, we also need to put solutions forward, and that's the American way, to innovate a better way forward once we really understand-- - In terms of that better way, I know we're running out of time, what's the role of government?

And what kind of barriers do you see right now?

What are some of the immediate barriers to the success of Project Liberty?

I'm really also, and not just government barriers, but I'm interested in the role of government and how you see that because if you look at the European Union, certainly when it comes to regulation of platforms, when it comes to regulation of AI, not that what they've done is perfect, but they're way ahead of us.

Here, it's still a do-whatever-you-want type of mentality.

Give me a quick take on all that.

- Yes.

Well, it's interesting you mentioned Europe because in Europe, data is viewed as a human right.

In the US, data is viewed as a property, right?

I would argue that our data is so integrated, our digital identity is so much of who we are.

It's not as if we have a biological identity and makeup a digital one.

Not in this world, where we're totally connected 24-7 digitally.

So, our digital identity is part of who we are now.

So, I believe it's a human right in terms of how one's data gets used.

I don't think any of us would be confused that our biological DNA is ours, right?

I don't think we should be confused that our digital DNA should be ours, too.

So, yes, I think Europe is much more on that on that issue, and I think, you know, we can learn a lot.

But Europe doesn't have any ability to actually-- they don't have the tech to actually implement or make those policy objectives happen.

I would argue that what we want to do is build tech that optimizes for public policy objectives rather than just build tech and then rely on our public policy apparatus to control it, or mitigate damage, or this, or that.

Tech is just a tool, and we should design it to optimize for what we as a society want to optimize it for.

Knowing now what we know the Internet is capable of, let's redesign it and get it right.

- What do you do though when you look at Congress, you look at our leadership from the president on down, you have people who are considering these issues.

When you watch them at hearings, when you hear them ask questions, even questions prepared by their staff, they clearly don't have much knowledge in any of these fields, and to have them legislating these issues strikes me as just all kinds-- It's really a perilous journey.

You've dealt for years with people in government at all different levels.

How do we educate them so they're making the right decision?

- I think, first of all, they're not talking about the issues enough.

I think this issue should be one of the top two or three things on everybody's mind right now because solving this problem unlocks our capacity to solve all the other problems that we want to solve and need to solve, which are also complex, but aren't going to be solved if we just argue with each other.

If we're fighting with each other, and arguing, and polarize, and we allow the loudest voice in the room always to dictate the conversation, we know what that's like.

We've all been at those dinner tables where nothing gets resolved versus a conversation, different viewpoints, but we end up in a place where the better ideas prevail.

The internet, theoretically, should bring forth incredible amounts of perspectives, and ideas, and insight, but that's not the internet we have right now.

That's not the web we have.

It's one which is just a very loud kind of echo chamber, and that needs to be fixed.

So, number one, I think our elected officials should be talking more about this.

I think you're right.

The level of education needs to be greater, but I also think we need to do some exploration.

Why hasn't this become a more important issue?

We've seen in now three presidential elections this issue front and center.

Essentially, nothing has been done about it.

Why?

Does that mean that there's influence being brought to bear by contributions of money or is it also maybe because politicians are using social media to get elected?

Because in this world we live in, that's how they raise money.

That's how they get elected.

The most extreme edges of our society are the ones most active in these conversations because they're the most extreme.

But most of us don't live in the extremes, We live somewhere in the middle, left of center, right of center.

We kind of just want a good life for our kids, right?

We want, obviously, to be proud of our country and everybody to be safe.

We want people to be educated and get a good education.

- My take has always been that goes across partisan lines.

- Absolutely.

- Well, I know we're out of time.

I want to thank you for joining me.

- We could go on and on about this.

Thanks for having me.

I really appreciate it.

- Let's continue this discussion.

- It would be a pleasure - All right, that was Frank McCourt, the founder, the sponsor of Project Liberty and a former owner of the LA Dodgers.

I'm Aaron Harbor.

Thanks for watching.

We'll see you next time.

[Music]