Why this book and why now . Guest i started this but i guess it was 2017 and i had just taken a job as columnist for the Financial Times where my mandate was to figure out the biggest business and economic stories and cover theinthe cover than am which is another mandate. I saw amazing numbers in terms of transitions in the financial sector. The figure looking at how 80 of corporate wealth was being held at 10 and those are the firms that were the richest in personal data and intellectual property. The biggest of those firms facebook, apple, amazon a little bit. Big and Digital Advertising they have mostly shunned advertising with the devices and technology. You mentioned it isnt an ad driven company but on a whole different basis besides the fact we think of them as being tech do they have one thing in common . Guest it is an interesting point you make because right now they are trying to separate each other as regulators what they do have in common is the Network Effect that i talked about a lot in my pockets that as you get big you get bigger. The Business Model of these companies and many in Silicon Valley giant billiondollar firms is to rein in as much as quickly as possible. You do this by sacrificing margins. Amazon and also like uber you undercut the service and take over the entire industry and worry about the profits later. This is something the businesses havent been able to do at scale in this way until now and anyway it has a lot of ramifications. Host the book is called dont be evil which harkens back to that now i guess they have certainly gotten kind of bad. Guest right. Host about being big and powerful and successful. Guest where to start. I wrote 350 pages on it. Its when the internet was a garage industry and if there were a piece of smalltime entrepreneurs coming up with these companies and the reason i decided to focus on google and the idea of not being evil is that google was there in the beginning so when you write a book that looks at economic and political and social issues. Facebook was the company that was in the news. Monopoly power, bad behavior in general. But if you go back and look at its founding was, i read a paper the founders wrote in 1998 and you can find this paper on the internet. It looks at what is a Search Engine and how would you run the Search Engine and pay for the Search Engine and at the end there is a paragraph on advertising and they talk about how the targeted advertising which is the Business Model that is watching what you are doing online following you around seeing what you are searching, building a kind of digital voodoo doll and showing that two advertisers that Business Model would eventually bring the users and advertisers into conflict. Their interests would be the same bday Companies Like russia or iran. So, this was amazing to me. This is one of the things that bugs me when i see the ceos on the hill say we are so sorry we could have never imagined it was kind of old they are in the small print. Host in the statement dont be evil. They were seen as an evil empire that steps on apple with windows storming into the internet to own everything. Why doesnt every billionaire does it need to do what he does and the current ceo of microsoft as seen as this kind of gentler and get effective ceo. They dont come under too much fire or scrutiny. Guest if microsoft have their wahadtheir way they woulda successful Search Engine. Its what constitutes monopoly power and what constitutes anticompetitive behavior. The microsoft antitrust case which actually sort of a loud a lot of people to save the space for google to be born and grow. That happened over 20 years ago at this point. That is the last kind regulators and the public looked at Silicon Valley and looked at the technical sector and said we have problems here. They spent so much time grappling with those issues being drawn into the legal battle that google was able to get this leg up and was trafficking not only Software Beta and surveillance capitali capitalism. But as a whole new world and if you go into some of the books that were written about the data economics like the chief columnist at google, they talk about the power of the network. The companies would. They dont want to go into the business unless they could create a monopoly so that in a way come into conflict with the dont be evil slogan pretty early on. Host its complicated because while we talk about them as being monopoly and having monopoly power in a lot of cases at the same time they are often competing with each other. Amazon is in the lead and microsoft is the challenger into smartphones apple is in the lead. Google is in the lead of your counting operating systems. Look how much competition there is. Theres sthere is so much wronge argument you are reminding me of an earlier conversation i had with google when i started thinking about the book. I put forward the idea of your natural monopolists and she looked very surprised. We look like we are competing against the big guys all the time. There are three or four companies that have taken over and are actually moving into an entirely new field. Looking at the last few months at what is happening on the part of apple, amazon, google and areas like healthcare and finance have seen amazon go overnight into the grocery business. Its hard to think of a business that couldnt be disrupted by the giant firms. That might beg the question of why havent you seen other major industries. They power from the advertising and they are still using it and the model that has been pioneered by the businesses, harvesting our personal data for free imagine if gm got all of it steal for free they would have doubledigit as well. Harvesting the data for free, selling it, collating it across the industries you look at some of the privacy and security and then think about putting a checking accoun account on ontof care data and then smart speakers and how the surveillance is all around us now. Its in our smart homes and cars. My husband loves it and keeps in his office anitin his office ane turn it off when i go over there. I cannot imagine particularly at the moment we live now i do not want to survey. Postcode lets talk about exactly what that is. The idea and then fill in the details by watching people and collecting data you can go the whole Economic System that doesnt necessarily benefit them. They are not necessarily the consumer, but they are the good. Guest just the word consumer, it is a wonderful book she looks in a very academic way almost through a marxist lens at the history of capitalism and help how the new kind of surveie capitalism is in some ways the ultimate fruition of corrupting society where the citizen into the consumer and now turning a consumer person into a raw material. As we are followed around online, these digital patterns are developed we get none of that resource, so my shopping patterpatterns but i have an is. That is my habit and my personal information. Thats my behavior. It is no longer being harvested by google and amazon and used to sell me more things. We havent even gotten into the political. In the purchasing and corporate monopoly power start to put that into the political arena. You get more so if you are on youtube clicking on lebron james videos all the time if you are clicking on the rightwing hate speech are also getting more of that so that is a filter bubble. That benefits the companies because they monetize us by keeping us online longer. This polarizes us politically if you think about these titans, Corporate Giants have always had political power. The railroad titans, every ceo, every founder and billionaire when they get to be a certain size that they have a new system in the surveillance where the power comes not just from top down but we can get into how big tech is by the largest groups now but it comes from the bottom up because our behavior can be manipulated. George soros, financier and political activist gave a speech a couple of years ago which you may have heard talking about do we even have free will, are we in danger of losing jobs in the kind of ability to be free citizens. Guest youve probably read the attention margin. Im getting all of this for other peoples books but we are in the same game here. I do think that this world of digital surveillance capitalism is fundamentally different. It is everywhere all the time. They are like utilities. We are only at the beginning of that really because we talk about the smart speakers for example. That has more of a cognitive power when you have a suggestion given to you by voice it is even more powerful in terms of influencing your behavior to type in a search and its seen as antitrust actions rolling out. The power of these companies can erase you as a product in a person if they want to. Its too much power. Host we have this idea and concept of differential privacy we are building into our products. We are not taking peoples actual data of their device ande and using that to inform our ai. We are shielding that and taking general insight and keeping ourselves clean from personal data. There is more privacy for its own competitive advantage. They are selling Hardware Devices and no now it wants to create a network and ecosystem so in that way it uses the Network Effect that i would poinbut i would pointout a coupr commitment to privacy. Depending on what you are talking about for apple will capitulate on the privacy in china in ways that it wouldnt dream of doing in the u. S. So, it is certainly subject to the political pressure differences in the way that Different Countries regulate data. Ive also sai would also say tha couple of other problems with apple that overlap the problems with facebook and google. One is who gets what part of the innovation pie. One of the big arguments see these companies are too big. This is a battle between regulation and innovation. We have to stay big to innovate. I would argue they are for most among the us implemente implemet innovators. They are pretty much other peoples technology and you can see this playing out. There is a great story in the headlines right now. It is the maker with a small innovator. They are adopted by google and apple as they started getting bigger and powerful they started infringing on those patterns. Theyve now taken them to court over the infringement and couldnt afford to take on both google and apple over the patent infringement, but apple has had major fights with other companies and in some ways bigotry chip company and apple wais on a three continent battle with the biggest five g. Innovator in the world and we dont want to pay what youre asking. So, these companies are implementing thousands in technology and want them to be inexpensive. In some cases they are just legally taking opensource information and in other cases infringing on patents. In some they just buy out Small Companies to get rid of competition. So, again, it is getting bigger and using the system to raise the innovation environment in ways that are zerosum game because to make one more point, you cannot have an economy in which the companies are taking all the wealth. Youve got to have a bigger innovation ecosystem. Host they would have sued that they couldnt take both of them on at the same time. Guest theyve been taken on by spotted by. Through all the names in the same story. Host they had to use the interface. How could you have this just sitting here. That is one thing and that is the allegation and part of what the Company Becomes good that is bringing about innovation into life coming into the economy. Guest a lot of people would argue i dont see a Consumer Electronics product that lets face it hasnt had a Game Changing innovation since the smart phone which was in 2007. Everything else has been more or less iterative. Its been about apple being extremely clever as a marketer, as a grand creator. Value at this point lives in three places, globally, data, big brand is able to create a kind of veneer and a desire to the lady and real estate. The mood to take the world we are moving into theres going to be in environment you see apple fighting hard to keep the market share. Look at apple losing the battle to in the number of emerging markets. Its a productive bubble say in Green Technology into things that would bring along a Critical Mass of workers for the next place it is just about selling more expensive stuff. Now i would argue that if a company like qualcomm for example, now that they are perfect. They have done plenty of things that i wouldnt want. But that is a company that came up with five g. This is something that makes the smart phone smart. They are in the current environment having to duke it out to stay alive in three continental legal battles with other American Companies at the same time that you have china for example rolling out one belt, one road, working seamlessly to institute the chipchipset technology into an entirely new ecosystem. That is a model that we should be looking at them to keep the margins as tight as you can. We see the number of corporate scandals the Balance Sheet and driven financial is thinking has led to. Host if we think about the different systems for dealing with challenges in big companies, the legacy in the u. S. Is very different from europe. In europe it is more about protecting the competition ended in the u. S. Its more about protecting the consumer that kind of distinction doesnt work the same way it used to. They want is a look at the consumer they are paying nothing. So this is good for the consumer. Other people say thats not the consumer. The customer for them is the advertiser and they are paying a lot more than nothing. Those people model for antitrust and dealing with big companies. These are great questions. Two or three points i would make one of the big things competition is a click away. They say about all the time lets be serious to go back to your question about microsoft. If you were doing a search into your computer stopped working for a minute, what you get up, have a cup of coffee or come back in a minute, you would probably do the latter. I do some shopping on walmart and amazon. The Network Effect creates that mode that you are talking about. But the deeper point is the rules of free market capitalism to stop working. Its like the law of gravity. In the world in which you are paying not a golfer but in your data neither of those things hold. You dont know how much the data is worth that you gave amazon for that search, so it is a very asymmetric transaction and that is a problem right away. Also, when you are doing barker and youre not paying in dollars, that is not free market. That is in the way adam smith would have envisioned the market working. To function properly you do not have that in any of these things and you are dealing with a digital giant. It also calls in a technical way into question this 1980s robert bork school of thought that is just Consumer Prices that matter. The fiscal thought that allowed walmart to get this big and destroy the town squares. There is a lot of externalities with that you get a little choice but in this world of free come inside quotation marks because when you download them and do these searches you think its free but you are paying you just dont know how much. That model really doesnt work anymore so i think you have to look at two things. You can look at the innovation will ecosystem and they almost look at them like biological systems. The plants and frogs and fishermen, how do we make sure the system is working for every one . That is a very european way of doing things. Its complicated and timeconsuming. Although interestingly, you know, there is an nyu that did look at the markets in terms of diversity and place in the technical space because they have been more sensitive to our Small Businesses doing well and to those that depend on patents versus open software and everybody getting a fair shot. Put that aside for the moment i think you have to start thinking about political power and the political economy in a way that we havent thought about in this country for 40 or 50 years. And so one of the things i in my book that i spent a lot of times thinking and reading about was the 19th century railroad. Im. You go back to the rockefellers and vanderbilt and have these networks, the networks of the 19th century and 20th the dean built by the Railroad Companies and at one point, the overthetop just the railroad, but they owned the cars that sat on the railroad and the cold hand of the week and commodities and they could clearly preference who was traveling how and when. I think you have to look at the big mode is very much enough way thain the waythat you shouldnto both control the network and control of the commerce that happens on the network. Look at amazon for example. A lot of companies wasnt enough take on antitrust issues with amazon because they can be disappeared from their business. They can be just cut off from all of the consumers if amazon decides that they do not want to algorithmically preface the search result and the same goes for google and the cases that come to light around this. They are very difficult to prove again because there is a black box of algorithms that frankly we should dig into that. Host with amazon it is about both having the ecommerce site and Logistics Networks deliver its own brand of products and allow for third parties to operate within that, so that at the same time as its own products competing its about having a store where third party is kind of have to do business if they are going to have an app on the platform at t at the same time having their own on that platform for podcasts, music competing against the spot if i asked some argue. So you are competing with me in the same place. Guest integer decoding everything so simply. That is exactly right. Fundamentally, there are rules in place already to separate the networks and commerce. What youre describing is a company that describes a Network Computing as third parties in ways that are not very transparent with their. My last book you have rules that are not always enforced but they say you can trade aluminum but you cannot own all of the aluminum in the world in the corner the market which actually was an issue where at one point to get around the rules other companies brought up the ball of aluminum and they were moving it from one warehouse to another to get around the Commerce Network rule. There is a precedent that does exist a. A. They looked at the idea that political power exists. We are not living in this world of everyone making efficient choices all the time and free markets are perfect. If we think about economics certainly since 2008 but always what they are not perfect. Markets do not always know best and they do need rules to function properly. Host and in your book that came out in november i believe, came out of november and really puts a spotlight on others and how the size of some would say success certainly the treatment of data and market places and having an impact not just on customers with all of Global Society specifically in the u. S. I wonder can regulate Data Information without the same time perhaps even unintentionally regulating speech because people are choosing a lot of these cases, choosing to put information in the search and do not Research Networks etc. , etc. , pictures on instead instagram, commerce information giving it away for free making that choice, what to do with their speech, how can it be stopped . Guest these are something that i really grappled with in this idea of whether or not facebook or google should be liable for what happens on those because on the one hand, yes, you dont want facebook monetizing the massacre of people in new zealand, but you also dont necessarily want mark to be the minister of truth, so that is the line we are walking but let me point out a few things as folks think about this argument. These companies have this get out of jail free loophole that was written in the Communications Decency act of 96. It allowed them as a nascent industry cannot be liable the way that we as journalists with working for the major media sources for what we say or do. So if i print something that is inaccurate, we could be sued and i could lose my job. Not true for facebook. Look at what companies do. They put tons of content online and then they advertise against it. That is what the media does. They want to have it both ways. The town square in the Business Model that keeps the lunch of traditional media and has created a postfact world that has led to other kinds of problems in th into liberal dem. So, i think we have to consider rethinking the 230. Already you see things being carved into it. There was a very highprofile case a couple of years ago around back page. Com which was numbingly tragic reminders and, you know, this was something both the right and left took on at about the platforms do have the liability if they are trafficking to minors or other federal high crimes they have a liability for those things. They do a pretty good job using algorithms to get child pornography example of their websites. We have to look closely at how much more they can do and how we have to think about if they cant do it, should they be allowed at scale even the comments on the news sites were covered under that. Should i be reliable for that and arguably a lot of news organizations have backed away from this for obvious reasons. We have numerous human employees that look over the user content and comments and if they are inappropriate or hateful, we get them down. That is a position that it has taken. I think that if these are decisions each government is going to have to make individually and you are seeing already those with germany, france, the eu they make judgment calls in terms of how it is going to be policed. I think it is so important that this be a democratically led conversation and government decision. I do not want individual private Companies One by one making these decisions in part because they are going to do what is best for their own profit margins. One of the richest something one of the key anecdotes and one of the reasons i wrote this book aside from looking at the sheer economic power of the companies was that full disclosure became completely addicted to reopen the credit card bill little charges but im like who could have done this. Who could have been addicted in its Persuasive Technology they are taking the dog salivating all of us persuading it takes you down a rabbit hole and minors are being marketed in ways that may actually fall about from existing rules around the children and the media. But its like nicotine. This is as addictive and in the case of my son in some ways as they think we need the government to put limits on things like that and i think we probably are going to need a government agent of some kind perhaps even an fda of technology to look at what our the whole battery of the effect here. Our Brain Science is being changed here. I have a chapter in the book that goes into the way children are being reshaped. The Digital Natives that have come of age. They read less, their Attention Spans are lower, they have higher levels of anxiety and depression, its difficult to prove causality into the research is pretty new but there are strong sociological research to show that we are being affected in a really serious ways by the technology. Host can we get the genie back in the bottle for . In a sense, the goal of marketing and advertising has been able to influence people and arguably it has gotten so good with beta that the sites are constantly based on little pieces of information seeking the layout of the application into their site and driving the engagement higher to get people little doses of dopamine to keep them engaged. An investor would say thats why the stack is so high. We need to have data on exactly how that works to be able to regulate it . Guest i think we do it you are already seeing social scientists coming out there with a wonderful book on i actually quotequoted it in i cant rememt right now, but looking at the last ten years or so of usage by teens and means of mobile technology and correlating it with things like depression and anxiety and isolation. So you have a body of research and now there is a diagnostic handbook for physicians you have new ailments that relates to the digital usage. These are real things and we need to treat them as such. Ultimately, Silicon Valley has a problem they are good at taking credit for the wonderful things they do and enhancing to a certain extent but they are not so good at taking responsible to the downside and theyre also not so good at admitting if they did do it all themselves. These technologies were basically built on federally funded r d. Think about the internet, touchscreen technology, these were things that came out of the pentagon actually, taxpayerfunded innovations that were commercialized by the valley so you have very similar crisis coming up this kind of privatization of process but the socialization of losses into so many ways the human cost of automation we havent even gotten into that and i have a little chapter on not. You and i will be doing our jobs at some point. Theyve already experimented with algorithmic reporters. Theres going to be disruption higher and higher up the food chain they are not taking responsibility for any of this. You frame the issue this way early in the book. You write the issue is great technological change and great disruption which needs to be managed for the sake of society as a whole otherwise you end up with events like the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century. It might not have happened without the advent of the major new technologies with the Printing Press which eventually brought the age of enlightenment thought before it upsets the orders in the same way that the internet and social media have upended in society today. How did you go back to that of period of time and fix that . Are there other lessons we can extract from looking back that help us figure out what to do with that . I think there are. There isnt one Silver Bullet and that is the problem when you come onto programs and write a book by publishers were like he wants the solutions chapte chapd want brief solutions to a problem that has taken 20 years to create or depending on where you want to put the markers some are about capitalism in general how the markets are regulated in decades. Theres more than three solutions but yes i think the first is creating the proper narrative and this is something i thought a lot about because i think that one of the many reasons we are at such a politically polarized moment has to do with the fact that we didnt create a proper narrative about why we have had such disruption from globalization and financial position and Job Description in countries like the u. S. We thought markets should be able to do whatever they want, thats fine and we didnt talk about the fact they were going to be the big pockets of pain. We need to look now at where the technology is going as do we want to go there and i have a chapter in my book that juxtaposes the situation in the u. S. With the situation of china. If we want to look at what the surveillance tape looks at all we have to do is go to china and right now there is no debate obviously a in the autocratic society there is no assumption about that. The government can and does track everyone and harvest the data there is a system of social credit, so if you and i are doing things that are judged to be white thinking we might find it easier to get the job or get health care but i if we fall we may find ourselves like so many in the gulags so that is where this can go. That power can be wielded by countries or by corporations as it is potentially in the u. S. I think that there is a third way i think you are starting to see some bright spots already in europe. I did a book tour recently and was impressed by people who turned out to hear these debates about what should the economy look like and what should capitalism look like in the da data. People are making different decisions but its happening. In this country coming to look at california which interestingly has been way ahead of the legislation. Its the birthplace of the companies but its also the birthplace of a lot of solutions. You have california looking at the digital dividend tax going back to one of the first points we discuss if it is the new alleles should companies be able to harvest it for free or share that value. Lets use data as a resource and maybe help people along and help them offer the problems of labor dislocation from automation. Its interesting that the administration there there is e we are pushing for the capitals to create a very problematic and nationalistic debate about dont regulate big tech or google or amazon or the National Champions in the battle against china. I dont think there should be National Champions. We should have a industrial policy and competitiveness but i dont think that they are those that operate in the three countries they are complaining to want to go to battle with. They are not national champion. They are a forprofit company that will work in their best interest. They need to be forced to do what is in the Public Interest by the public and we need to have a conversation about that the country. Forced to do what is in the Public Interest is hard when the public is this sort of unruly mob and its a lot easier when you are in authoritarian governments like china. So i wonder is it one or the other. They were trying to create a backdoor so they could have good reason they say open up the device and see everything that has been done. But apple argues if we give you a backdoor then china is going to want it, byron is going to want it. Is that the kind of privacy free world . These are great questions. I would look to a couple examples in taiwan. There is a rich democracy that is being enabled by very decentralized technologies so in the same way china is using the big tech model to create the surveillance state, you have taiwan creating digital identities of people can vote on issues so you can capture the kind of nuance that you are talking about that we have in our society. The democracy is messy. We know that but i would like to see some of these being used in the service to the democracy rather than degrading it which is what youve seen the last few years. Hispanic in the solution that gets mentioned that youve also covered in your book, the idea that individuals getting a cut. You talk about the social dividend which is a little different but some peoples data is worth more than others. So, if im in the right demographic, do i get a bigger payment, and then theres the question of the Network Effects and data in the sense that it might not be worth about much but mine post yours in another person is worth exponentially more so is it even possible to capture the value . I think the idea probably makes more sense because of things you are pointing out. One of the reasons i wanted to present this idea if there are some people saying we are moving in the era of more and more obligation that can do more labor and we are moving into a postwork world. So, it sounds great at first but think about it. Like all of us have been on vacation and we start to get a little cranky and a little bored. A lot of economists are saying wait a minute. Maybe our data is our labor. Maybe they need to start we neeg about that and some impetus of value and so i wanted to point that out and i also wanted to show some of the numbers and its true. Its almost impossible unless you are inside these companies to get a realistic view of how much the value of the data is worth because it varies by individuals at how much your layering, but its just a conservative estimate that shows you this is an enormous industry. The Fastest Growing industry in the world and so i think that is worth thinking about when you have Companies Making a double digit profit margin harvesting the data for free. Lets think about what thats worth into the appropriate tax system for it. This really gets to a bigger and more profound point out the way capitalism and globalization works. So, while xavier globalization and freemarket capitalism practiced in the u. S. Has been exported in many countries. The idea was goods, capital and people should be able to go wherever they want it to. The problem is that capital can jump across the border is much more freely tha than the goods d certainly then people. In this digital world, it puts all of the problems of the neoliberalism where companies can kind of sleight of National Problems but labor down here having to d deal with the realiy on the ground it puts that on steroids. We have got to just look at where this is going in to set up parameters so you dont end up with what we have seen in swing states and those that have just been decimated by globalization having the kind of actions ugly politics that weve had. We are going to get that at a much broader level if we are not careful. Host talking about your book dont be evil where we take a close look at google, apple, as amazon, other companies in data marketplaces and networks that go into writing Something Like this with so much learning i imagine hard to change. Can you do your work, its your personal life different than these companies and networks because of what you discovered while writing this . The first thing i did is to o take my sons phone after that 940. 000000000 to do something analog with a lemonade stand. Several months although on a hot day you can do pretty well. That was one. I will often use encrypted email to bring more private apps. Its made me think about the value of my own intellectual property. I think that we are moving to a very decentralized world in which really the only value we have is what is in our head count of the intellectual propertproperty into data that g iit to take control of that so when im negotiating contracts and thinking about my next project, i make sure that i take control of my own data and my own intellectual property. Host you talk about solutions towards the end of the book as a sort of what you hope will happen. What do you think will happen . Or is there generally is an optimistic person put that on its head what do you hope does not happen, what is the cost if we dont do anything . Guest this is going to be the topic of my next book i think that we could rewrite because in the u. S. , because i think that we are in a posttruth world in which it is so easy to create a debate for political manipulation or so of these economic and technical changes driving change so quickly and dislocating so many people coming and that creates the conditions for a very extreme and hateful politics of that is the risk. I think that the upside could be if we get the framework right, it could be a world in which, and this is a stretch im going to be very optimistic, but the technologies do allow distributed power. There is one of the things thats interesting. Yes we can be sliced and diced by the companies but each of us have the power of our own behavior onlin online and the businesses can be started more cheaply. This could actually be a boon for labor if we get the framework right. The digital trade can be done much more easily than say back in the 80s where if they wanted tit wanted tobe an inter, these are complicated things, but there is potential that the postwork world could be a world in which labor is empowered relative to capital in ways that more possible in the past. Host that would certainly be an interesting outcome. Guest let me give you a concrete example. Uber, this is a piece of software. Why should they not have the same software, they do now. There are applications run by workers themselves in the drivers that share the profits. Its kind of a cooperative model. One could imagine those things being done apps scaled into the Labor Movement being reinvigorated the scene of the Freelancers Union or the nfl cio aflcio say high paid graphic designers you were actually a freelancer and have the same problems with asymmetry of power anin us as a cleaning lady in te prongs and i think that is an important point to make. Host and many people are bringing up those points in 2020. Politically as well as technologically but that is dont be evil. I suppose one of the things the rest of us can do is a at least get smarter and read it so thank you its been a good conversation. Host thank you for having me. Taking time in our day to join us are gathering includes ambassadors and representatives inin