This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Last week, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg announced their plans to duke it out in a cage fight. But this potential feud is less important than what it tells us about how Musk is influencing the rules of engagement in Silicon Valley.

First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic:

The tape of Trump discussing classified documents America’s most popular drug has a puzzling side effect. We finally know why. Goodbye, Ozempic. The Roberts Court draws a line.

A Race to the Bottom

Something strange is happening on Mark Zuckerberg’s Instagram.

For years, he posted periodic, classic dad-and-CEO fare: anniversary shots with his wife. Photos of his kids and dog being cute. Meta product announcements.

In recent months, though, Zuckerberg has been posting more about fighting. Not the kind that involves firing back at critics on behalf of his oft-embattled social-media empire, but actual mixed-martial-arts training. Earlier this month, he posted a video of himself tussling with a jiujitsu champion. On Memorial Day, he posted himself in a camouflage flak vest, flushed after an intense army workout. And last week, Zuckerberg and Elon Musk said they were going to have a cage fight. The men apparently have ongoing personal tensions, and Meta is working on building a Twitter competitor. But announcing in public their intent to fight takes things to another level.

If you rolled your eyes at the cage-fight news: fair enough. The idea of two middle-aged executives, each facing an onslaught of business and public-image problems, literally duking it out is a bit on the nose. But the fight itself—and whether or not it happens—is less important than what it tells us about how Musk is reshaping Silicon Valley. Musk is mainstreaming new standards of behavior, and some of his peers are joining him in misguided acts of masculine aggression and populist appeals.

Leaders such as Musk and Zuckerberg (and, to some extent, even their less-bombastic but quite buff peer Jeff Bezos) have lately been striving to embody and project a specific flavor of masculine—and political—strength. As my colleague Ian Bogost wrote last week, “the nerd-CEO’s mighty body has become an apparatus for securing and extending his power.”

The two executives’ cage-fight announcement is “a reflection of a really tight monoculture of Silicon Valley’s most powerful people, most of whom are men,” Margaret O’Mara, a historian at the University of Washington who researches the tech industry, told me. In other words, the would-be participants embody the industry’s bro culture.

Zuckerberg’s recent interest in waging physical battles marks a departure for the CEO, who a few years ago seemed more interested in emulating someone like Bill Gates, an executive who parlayed his entrepreneurial success into philanthropy, O’Mara added. Zuckerberg has been very famous since he was quite young. His early years at the helm of his social-media empire—“I’m CEO, Bitch” business cards and all—were lightly, and sometimes ungenerously, fictionalized in The Social Network by the time he was in his mid-20s. He has consciously curated his image in the years since.

For a long time, Zuckerberg led Facebook as a “product guy,” focusing on the tech while letting Sheryl Sandberg lead the ads business and communications. But overlapping crises—disinformation, Cambridge Analytica, antitrust—after the 2016 election seemingly changed his approach: First, he struck a contrite tone and embarked on a listening tour in 2017.The response was not resoundingly positive. By the following summer, he had hardened his image at the company, announcing that he was gearing up to be a “wartime” leader. He has struck various stances in public over the years, but coming to blows with business rivals has not been among them—yet.

Musk, meanwhile, has a history of such stunts. At the onset of the war in Ukraine, he tweeted that he would like to battle Vladimir Putin in single combat, and he apparently has ongoing back pain linked to a past fight with a sumo wrestler. That Zuckerberg is playing along shows that the rules of engagement have changed.

Musk has incited a race to the bottom for Silicon Valley leaders. As he becomes more powerful, some  other executives are quietly—and not so quietly—following his lead, cracking down on dissent, slashing jobs, and attempting to wrestle back power from employees. Even as Musk has destabilized Twitter and sparked near-constant controversy in his leadership of the platform, some peers have applauded him. He widened the scope of what CEOs could do, giving observers tacit permission to push boundaries. “He’s someone who’s willing to do things in public that are transgressing the rules of the game,” O’Mara said.

During the first few months of Musk’s Twitter reign, few executives were willing to praise him on the record—though Reed Hastings, then a co-CEO of Netflix, did call Musk “the bravest, most creative person on the planet” in November. A few months later, Marc Benioff, the CEO of Salesforce, told Insider that executives around Silicon Valley have been asking, “Do they need to unleash their own Elon within them?” The Washington Post reported this past Saturday that Zuckerberg was undergoing an “Elonization” as he attempts to appeal to Musk’s base, the proposed cage fight being the latest event in his rebrand. (Facebook declined to comment. A request for comment to Twitter’s press email was returned with a poop emoji auto-responder.)

Whether or when the cage match will actually happen is unclear. Musk’s mother, for her part, has lobbied against it. But whether Zuckerberg unleashes his “inner Elon” in a cage or not, both men are seeking to grab attention distinct from their business woes—and succeeding.

The tech industry has long offered wide latitude to bosses, especially male founders. Musk didn’t invent the idea of acting out in public. But he has continued to move the goalposts for all of his peers.

In a video posted on Twitter last week, Dana White, the president of Ultimate Fighting Championship, told TMZ that he had spoken with both men and that they were “absolutely dead serious” about fighting. He added something that I believe gets to the heart of the matter: “Everybody would want to see it.”

Musk responded with two fire emojis.

Related:

The nerds are bullies now. Elon Musk revealed what Twitter always was.

Today’s News

In an audio recording obtained by CNN, former President Donald Trump appears to acknowledge keeping classified national-security documents. Chicago’s air quality momentarily became the worst among major cities in the world after Canadian wildfire smoke blanketed the region. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which took effect today, expands protections for pregnant workers, requiring employers to accommodate pregnancy-related medical conditions.

Dispatches

Up for Debate: Readers weigh in on the public debates they would want to witness.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Wild Horizons / Universal Images Group / Getty

Who’s the Cutest Little Dolphin? Is It You?

By Ed Yong

Across human cultures and languages, adults talk to babies in a very particular way. They raise their pitch and broaden its range, while also shortening and repeating their utterances; the latter features occur even in sign language. Mothers use this exaggerated and musical style of speech (which is sometimes called “motherese”), but so do fathers, older children, and other caregivers. Infants prefer listening to it, which might help them bond with adults and learn language faster.

But to truly understand what baby talk is for, and how it evolved, we need to know which other animals use it, if any.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

How to escape “the worst possible timeline.” The Harry and Meghan podcasts we’ll never get to hear My hometown is getting a $100 billion dose of Bidenomics.

Culture Break

Macall Polay / Columbia Pictures

Read. “The Posting,” a new short story by Sara Freeman, explores the implosion of a marriage. Then, read an interview about her writing process.

Watch. No Hard Feelings, Jennifer Lawrence’s R-rated rom-com, is in theaters now. And thank goodness for it.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

Last week, my Daily colleague Tom Nichols visited us in the New York office (very fun!). We started talking about how delightful and even helpful it can be to write while listening to movie soundtracks. Different songs can complement different writing vibes—during college, for example, I found the frenetic instrumentals of the soundtrack to Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel valuable while writing papers in the library.

So while writing today’s newsletter, I fired up the soundtrack to The Social Network in my AirPods. I recommend you do the same the next time you need to enter deep-focus mode. It was on theme, yes. But it’s also a great album in its own right; the composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross won an Oscar for Best Original Score when the movie came out. Listen to its elegant and moody tracks, then take in the cover of the Radiohead song “Creep,” sung by a girls’ choir, in the movie’s perfect trailer.

— Lora

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

Meta is introducing new parental supervision tools to Facebook and Instagram, as it looks to add privacy and security features for minors just one month after the US surgeon general said social media poses a “profound risk” to teenagers’ mental health.

Read more...

Welcome to Up for Debate. Each week, Conor Friedersdorf rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Last week, I asked readers what subject they would want to see debated and who the participants would be.

Replies have been edited for length and clarity.

J.E. wants a prominent current or former tech executive to face a critic:

I’d have Mark Zuckerberg or Sheryl Sandberg debate U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy about the damaging effects of social media on the mental health and well-being of young people. I find it quite frustrating that Zuckerberg and Sandberg were so eager to engage with the media about the positive impact of Facebook (Bringing the world together!) or their confidence about creating change (Move fast and break things!). Now that it’s apparent that social media has caused serious problems, we don’t hear from them. Do they agree that children have been adversely affected? Can they offer any solutions to the problems their product caused? What is their response to Dr. Murthy’s report?

Chadd’s struggles with addiction inform the debate he wants to see:

As someone who went to drug-rehab centers all over the country, experienced the opioid crisis over a decade, watched a dozen or so of my friends die, and overdosed multiple times myself, I believe that an under-discussed issue is drug-rehab programs—not only drug rehab but the concept of the “disease of addiction” and the entire 12-step rehab regime that has basically had control of the alcohol and drug narrative for 100 years.

Having been to treatment something like 15 to 20 times (anything from seven-day detoxes to 90-day rehab programs), I’ve seen and experienced so many of these places that it’s embarrassing. But I did finally “recover” and have since been drug-free for more than 5 years.

With that in mind, I want people to understand that nearly every single one of these places offered nearly the exact same treatment program. Some were better than others; most were mostly bullshit. Some really did try, and had honest, kind, and compassionate staff that really cared. Some were full-on grifts, run by former (and current) addicts who took advantage of desperate parents and insurance companies to enrich themselves at the expense of these poor folks. Besides all that, the one thing they all had in common was that the absolute main aspect of the “treatment” was exposure to the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Sometimes it was very in-depth, with “therapists” who were essentially 12-step evangelists spreading the good word of AA. Some were credentialed and kind and talented. Almost all preached the 12 steps like it was pretty much the gold standard of treatment. Not only that, most would casually even make snide comments about other methods of treatment, dismissing them as if they were completely absurd and irrelevant. That mindset is highly prevalent in the 12-step ecosystem.

Why am I talking about all this? Because people talk about how difficult the “disease” of addiction is, and the dismal success rates of treatment. In my opinion, there are better, more effective, evidence-based treatments that are underutilized and disregarded, if not outright demonized. I have been attacked on social media for stating my views about the 12 steps by vicious AA evangelists, some of whom I used to consider friends. All because I said that I think the 12 steps don’t work and that we should be trying something else instead of the same thing over and over.

I just so happen to be one of those people for whom the 12 steps did not work. Over and over, I was told I “must not have been totally honest,” or “Maybe you’re just not done yet,” as if there is some magical “bottom” you have to hit before you’re ready to stop destroying yourself. None of that stuff ended up being true. What I was missing the entire time was direction and connection. And also medication-assisted treatment, or MAT.

MAT [incorporates] medications that a drug-dependent person can take to ease withdrawal symptoms and more easily reenter normal life. These drugs are heavily stigmatized and demonized in the 12-step community. When I left NA, one could not be considered “clean” if they were taking medication for this purpose. Because of this stigma and the general idea that MAT is just replacing one drug with another—and for that reason is doomed to fail—therapists, doctors, and families are generally pushed away from these treatments. Not only that, but to access them one typically must pay some cash [since insurance often does not offer full coverage]. This leads many users to go back to drugs like heroin and fentanyl, because it’s almost cheaper to continue to use heroin than to afford the doctor visit, travel expenses, and crazy-high prescription costs. These medications have been shown to be highly effective at stopping withdrawals, curbing craving, and preventing future use.

If I could have any two people debate, I would say Dr. Nora Volkow, the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), versus either Dr. Carl Hart of Columbia University or Dr. Gabor Maté, a Canadian addiction and harm-reduction expert. The topic would be the merits of the entire disease concept, and the effectiveness of 12-step programs versus other, evidence-based modalities. I choose Dr. Hart or Maté because both are highly regarded in their fields and have written incredible books on relevant topics. Hart mainly focuses on neuroscientific aspects of addiction, while Maté mainly focuses on behaviors and things like past trauma. Both have talked about how the idea of addiction as a “disease” is highly questionable, and how many of the assumptions about drug use and addicts are totally wrong.

Volkow has been the head of NIDA for years, is also highly regarded in her field, and has been very vocal about her belief in the “disease of addiction” and access to 12-step programs.

I’d love to see them debate the topic of addiction as a lifelong, incurable disease and the effectiveness of the 12 steps. I believe that we have erred in accepting that heavy, dependent drug use is some kind of incurable disease and that once you have it, you'll never kick it, and you can never be the same again.

I’m living proof that this idea is nonsense.

M.’s suggestions raise a significant logistical challenge:

I would argue that the most important debate has already occurred and very few people noticed: John Maynard Keynes vs. F. A. Hayek. Although this version is a parody, the questions raised by these two individuals are still debated by governments throughout the world today. Another important debate resolution: “Is the U.S. federal administrative state in 2023 constitutional?” I’d nominate Woodrow Wilson to argue the affirmative and Alexander Hamilton to argue the negative. Because both support stronger federal governments, we would take Hayek as the moderator, giving him the moderator’s prerogative to ask questions throughout. For the past 100 years there has been a significant shift in the size and scope of both the federal and state governments, and in the responsibilities they claim. What is unclear today is where the limits are. Having a serious debate by “uninterested” (in this case, dead) parties might be useful in starting that conversation.

Adam believes his debate would turn out differently than I do:

What I think is dividing this country is a lost ability to have back-and-forth, unscripted conversation. What is the quickest way to win an argument these days? Don’t engage in one. The second quickest way? Dismiss the opponent’s position as a radical, fringe thought. Planned speeches with little Q&A are becoming more popular. Even more, any appearance of an adverse opinion is shunned instead of addressed. Our political leaders have adopted these methods, and as a result, the virtue of good-faith debate is fading.

My answer to the Question of the Week will thus focus less on the substantive issue and more on reviving spirited, rigorous, and professional debate. So here is what I would like to see (and why): Arthur Brooks debating Joe Biden on whether a hot dog is a sandwich.

One caveat: No notes or teleprompter allowed. This debate, I believe, would juxtapose a levelheaded, articulate, finely tuned oralist with our president. Hopefully this would remind Americans of how real leaders present themselves. The topic is, of course, silly and meaningless. But if it is plainly shown that our president cannot form coherent thoughts on something so simple, then Americans should be skeptical of how he performs behind closed doors with other world leaders. At bottom, what disheartens me most is that those who garner the most attention are either not sharp enough to engage in spontaneous speech or possibly so insecure in their beliefs that they resort to character attacks, leaving the merits of important issues unaddressed and unresolved.

Were I advising Joe Biden, I’d urge him to accept that debate and expect him to perform reasonably well in it––and I say that as someone with my own concerns about his advancing age, and as a fan of Arthur Brooks, who is a contributing writer here at The Atlantic.

Bob turns our attention to agriculture:

The proposition to debate would be: “Farmers and ranchers should be treated the same as other businesses with regard to the water pollution they generate.” I limited it to just water pollution because including all types of pollution would make the topic too broad for an effective debate. (If you want names of debaters, I suggest Carrie Vollmer-Sanders, sustainability director, U.S. Farmers and Ranchers in Action, versus Anne Schechinger, agricultural economist and Midwest director, Environmental Working Group.)

The debate premise would be: Currently, the damage to the general public that is done by agriculture-related groundwater and surface-water pollution is principally dealt with by education of farmers and ranchers regarding new practices, monetary incentives, and appealing to whatever environmental ethic they may have––in contrast to other businesses (paper mills are one example in my area) that are required by law to clean up their pollution to a certain level prior to discharge into waterways. Because there are readily available ways to reduce agricultural pollution, farmers and ranchers could be similarly required by law to do so. Any increased cost would be passed on to those consumers who choose to buy their product. This seems like a reasonable transition since the vast majority of farmers/ranchers impacted are now “businesses” in every sense of the word.

Russ gets right to his proposition:

Should Joe Biden stack the Supreme Court?

The debate opponents would be Elizabeth Warren (pro) and Mitt Romney (con). I picked them specifically for the following reasons: They are both current sitting senators but not the leaders of their party. They both have run for president, so there would be name recognition, and neither can truthfully claim to represent the majority of their respective parties any longer. They can both articulate a position fairly well. I am going to give credit early that both would equally wish to win the debate and therefore prepare accordingly.

Jaleelah would debate me:

Let’s assume that I could choose the format of the debate, pick a neutral moderator committed to enforcing time limits, and guarantee that the audience is randomly selected from a pool of all Americans. I have reservations about forcing figures I respect to participate in massively viewed debates. Not every smart person is a smart debater, and some people do not appreciate the possibility of being laughed at by millions of people. I would love to see Natalie Wynn debate Jordan Peterson on whether postmodern neo-Marxism is a real threat, but I would not want Wynn to face death threats from Peterson’s more extreme supporters.

I would choose myself as one of the debaters. I am a persuasive speaker, and I know I would be able to deal with the consequences of participating in such an event. I would make you debate me on the following question: “Are the principled pursuit of near-absolute freedom of speech and the practical pursuit of intelligent debate mutually exclusive?” Despite the fact that I sent you a very long email giving away many of my arguments last August, I am completely confident that I could win defending the proposition that the two cannot coexist. I think this debate would be fun, and it would probably force you to defend one over the other in future writing. There would be no good reason to refuse!

Britney Spears and Dolly Parton impersonators say Facebook and Instagram has banned their profiles.

It is the latest attempt by the parent company of Facebook to make its VR business profitable.