Podcast. Given the political times that we are in and given the height and stocks of amazon, google, facebook and others, but you normally have a pretty broad scope of your coverage the job for the Financial Times by mandate was to figure out where the worlds biggest business and economic stories that cover them in opinion form which is a rather large mandate. I saw amazing numbers in terms of how well they took conditions to the Technology Sector since the great financial crisis and one of the numbers that really stuck out was the Global Institute figure looking at how 80 of corporate wealth was held at 10 of firm into those are the firms that were purchased in personal data and intellectual property so if you were holding the majority of the wealth they were the ones i profiled in the book there is some overlap with facebook and google making Digital Advertising they look at apple and mostly shined advertising. Its a great question. What they do have in common is the Network Effect and the Network Effect is something i talk about a lot in my book, the idea because you get paid coming to get bigger. The Business Model of these companies and as many in Silicon Valley. Everybody wants to break things, so you get in and do things and in many cases by sacrificing margins. So a company like amazon but also uber. You undercut the Taxi Services and the entire industry and worry about the profits later. This is something that the businesses havent been able to do at scaled in this way until now. That in and of itself has a lot of ramifications. It cuts the competitors and points to the monopoly power. Host its an optimistic and complicit statement about itself and what it was going to adhere to. What is bad about being big and powerful and successful . It was a mantra they came upp with in the 90s when the internet really was a garage industry. Internet was just being born and you have all of these individual smalltime entrepreneurs coming up with these companies and the reason i decided to focus on google and this idea of not being idea is that it was in their beginning. For the election theres been a lot of that on google, but the election manipulation and bad behavior in general. It looks at what is a Search Engine and how would you run the Search Engine and how woul whatu pay for the Search Engine. At the very end of the appendix section they have a paragraph on advertising and they talk about how targeted advertising which is the Business Model. Thats a business modethe busind eventually bring the users of search and advertisers into conflict. Their interest wouldnt be the same. Large entities like russia or iran or rightwing nationalists or whoever might want to reach you to influence you, so this was amazing. One of the things when i see ceos get up on the hill and say we are so sorry we could never have imagined all these terrible things. Go back to that paper in 1998. It was all there. Host in the statement dont be evil in the 90s, mid to late 90s they were seen as an ascendant evil empire and they tried to own everything. Its odd now that bill gates is now this figure in Technology Getting all this money away and why doesnt every billionaire do what he does and its seen as this kinder gentler ceo they dont come under too much fire or scrutiny like the rest of the group. Guest i didnt really focus on microsoft. And i think if microsoft had their way to ensure that they would be happy to have a successful Search Engine, but that goes to the point and everything that youve are saying homes in on what constitutes the monopoly power and anticompetitive behavior. The microsoft antitrust case which actually sort of allowed a lot of people the space for google to be born and grow, that have been over 2had been over 2t this point. That was the last time the regulators into the public looked at Silicon Valley and take took a hard look and said e have competition problems here. Microsoft spent so much time grappling with those issues that they were able to get their leg up and they were trafficking not in software but in beta and surveillance capitalism. They talk about the power of networks in how the Network Effect of surveillance capitalism would become natural monopolies. Host its complicated because while we talk about them being monopolies and having monopoly power in a lot of cases and often times they are competing with each other. But google isnt a lead i is inf your counting operating systems. Look how much competition there is. You are reminding me of an early conversation i had with google when i started thinking about this book and put forth by idea you ar are natural are natural e have an issue here and she looked very surprised and said we look like we are competing against thats the issue at this point you have a handful of players basically three or four companies that have taken over everything and are moving in to entirely new field so looking at the last few months apple, amazon and healthcare like finance weve seen them go overnight into the grocery business. It is an argument because they benefit and they are all using it and increasingly the model that has been pioneered by these businesses harvesting our personal data for free, imagine if gm got all of its steel for creepy but have doubledigit Profit Margins as well. Harvesting our data for free and selling it. Its how the surveillance is all around us now. Its in our smart home. My husband loves it and keeps it in his office and id insist he turned iturn it off every time n there. I cannot imagine. Particularly at the moment we live i do not want a surveillance device in my home. You mentioned that the surveillance capitalism. Lets talk about exactly what that is. The whole Economic System that doesnt necessarily benefit them, but they are the growth. Guest its a wonderful but everybody should read. Ive done my research. She looked in a very academic way almost through a marxist lens at the history of capitalism and how this new kind of surveillance capitalism is in some ways the ultimate mission of corrupting society or the citizens into a consumer is now turning to consumer, a person into a brawl material. So, as we are followed around online, these digital patterns are developed. We get none of that resource, so my shopping pattern the fact that i have an issue with buying shoes and at the same kind of dresses over and over again, that is my desire, thats my habits and personal information. Its being harvested by google and amazon and used to sell me more things. We havent even gotten into the time of the political. One of the things that happens online is to get more of what you put on. You are getting a lot of those but if you are clicking on rightwing hate speech that is a filter bubble and death benefits to companies because they monetize us by keeping us online longer. If you think about the power of these titans they have the robber baron said the railroad tycoons. Every ceo and every founder and billionaire when they get to be a certain size, they buy politicians and lobbying power but we have a new system in the world of surveillance where the power comes not just from topdown, and w if we can get iw big it is with the largest lobbying group now in washington but it comes from the bottom up because our behavior is manipulated. These algorithms know us in some ways better than we know ourselves. George soros, the financier and political activist and gave a speech a couple of years ago which you may have heard talking about do we even have free will in this world. Are we in danger of losing the kind of ability to really be free citizens in an open society in a world in which we can control to this level of a algorithm. Host it sounds like some of the original questions. In addition to competition. Guest right. You probably read the attention merchants. Im giving like all of this for other peoples books but its the same game. At columbia in antitrust scholar did a book looking at the similarities, but i do think that this world of digital surveillance capitalism is fundamentally different. It is a everywhere all the time, they are like utilities. Can you imagine having searched or economists were your app pulled its like a new world and we are only at the beginning of it because we talked a little bit about the smart speakers for example. Those singles are going up exponentially three digits per year. That kept my big cognitive power when you hear a suggestion given to you by the ways it is even more powerful in terms of info in your behavior then if you type in a search and go where it tells you to. And weve already seen and we are seeing as more actions rollout the power of these companies. We are not the problem, we are part of the solution. We have this idea come of this concept, differential privacy we are building into the products where we are not taking peoples actual identity data out of their device and using that through our ai we are shielding that and taking general insights and keeping ourselves clean from personal data so that we are not trafficking. Is that true . I think it is largely true. Apple certainly has had more of a commitment to privacy to be fair for its own competitive advantage than google or facebook. It isnt in the same way that google or facebook. Those Companies Make their revenue on Digital Advertising. It wants to create the network and ecosystem into so Many Services as possible so it uses the Network Effect i would point out a couple of things. For starters, it has very much pending on what country youre talking about, apple will capitulate on privacy and china in ways that it wouldnt dream of doing in the u. S. So, it certainly is subject to the political pressure, differences in the way Different Countries regulate data and it isnt going to stand up and fight beijing on these things. I would also say that theres a couple of other problems with apple that overlap some of the problems i see with google and facebook. One is in terms of who gets what part of the innovation pie. One of the arguments right now when regulators and the public say these companies are too big we need to make them smaller maybe make them break up. Its about regulation and innovation. I would argue they are foremost among us they are implementors, not innovators of pretty much other peoples technology. And you can see this playing out. There itheres a great story ine headlines in the google battle. They also have a beef to pick. The small innovator came up with this way to make smart speakers came up with a lo love of technology adopted by both google and apple as they started getting bigger and more powerful they started infringing on those patterns. Apple has had major fights with other Big Companies like qualcomm and in some ways its responsible much more so than the chinese chip maker gets a lot of flack for becoming the new go to company and they were on a three continent battle with qualcomm to biggest innovator in the world infringing on the patents at some point but said we dont want to pay what youre asking so these companies are implementing thousands of technologies. They want them to be inexpensive. They are in some cases just legally taking open Source Information and in other cases infringing on and in order to get rid of competitions of again is getting bigger and using the system i think to raise the innovation environment in ways that are a zerosum game because to make one more point, you cant have an economy in which the companies are taking all the wealth. You have to have a bigger Innovation Ecosystem. Host they would have sued amazon, too but they couldnt afford to take both of them on at the same time. Host guest apple has been taken on by spotted by. Host couldnt you argue implementation in a lot of cases . You have the beginnings of apple and the interface. How could you have this just sitting here someone has to bring it out to the world, that is one thing and that is the allegation but could one argue bringing that innovation into life come into the economy and getting to people . A lot of people would argue that. I guess i would say i dont see a Consumer Electronics product that really lets face it hasnt had a Game Changing innovation since the smartphone which was 2007. Everything else had been more iterative and its been about apple being extremely clever at the marketer as a brand creator. Value at this point lives in three places, globally, data and big brands they are able to create the kind of linear and the desirability and then in real estate. Thats kind of where the value lives. I think in the new world that we are moving into, i think that theres going to be an environment of deflation, commoditization of everything you see. You see apple is fighting hard to keep the market share. Look at them losing the battle of the big chinese smartphone maker. Apple success being able to continue packaging expensive products and selling them in giant glass boxes is actually not helping to put more americans to work. Its not helping to create the next big productive bubble say in Green Technologies or things that word bring along the Critical Mass of workers and bring our economy to the next big place. Its about selling more expensive stuff. I would argue a company like qualcomm for example, not that its perfect. Theyve done plenty of things that i wouldnt want. But that is a company that came up with the five g. Chip and this is something that makes the smartphone smart. In the current environment they are having to duke it out just to stay alive in three continental legal battles with other American Companies at the same time that you have china for example rulin ruling out ont one road working seamlessly to institute the chips and technologies into an entirely new ecosystem. I think that is a model we should be looking much more carefully at them the sort of was a fair zerosum game keeps margins as tight as you can, put jobs and products help to the supply chains when you can. We see in the last few weeks and im us the number of corporate scandals that kind of zerosum allens sheet financial thinking has led to and i dont think its leading us to a good place. So, if we think about the different systems for dealing with the challenges of Big Companies, the legacy in the u. S. Is very different from europe and in europe it is more about protecting competition. In the u. S. Its been more about protecting the consumer. It seems like in this digital era that kind of distinction doesnt work in the same way it used to because when we talked about facebook or google, they are often the Companies Want is a look at the consumer, they are paying nothing. So, this is good for the consumer. Other people say that is in the consumer. The customer for them is the advertiser, that is the consumer and they are just seeing more than nothing. As the old model for antitrust and dealing with Big Companies and competition, does that work still in the u. S. . The european model is it any better or does it all needs to change . These are great questions. Two or three points i would make one of the things google likes to say is competition is a click away. Eric schmidt, they say all the time lets be serious to go back to your question about microsoft, if you were doing a Google Search into your computer stopped working for a minute, would you go to being o nor hava cup of coffee and try google in five minutes, i would guess you do the latter. I do use that sometimes. I use google will sometimes. I did shopping on walmart as well as amazon. My data is all over the place. Equal opportunity surveillance. [laughter] the deeper point is the rules of the free market capitalism to stop working. The law of gravity but okay as long as both sides know what the transaction is into the prices are going down, then what is the problem . In this world in which you are paying not in dollars but in your data, neither of these things hold so you dont know what you are giving up for what youre getting. You know you were getting the search but you dont know how much the data is worth what you gave them for the search, so its a very asymmetrical transaction. Also, when you are doing barber and you are not paying in dollars, that isnt a free market. Thats in the way that adam smith would have envisioned the market working. He would have said ps, you need equal access to data, transparency and a moral framework for the markets 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 very technical way into question this 1980s robert bork school of thought that is just Consumer Prices that matter. The fiscal path that allowed walmart to get this big and destroy the squares. Fair enough, w get our cheap stuff, thats fair i guess. There are a lot of negative externalities in math. You get less choice. But in this world of freedom, and i put quotations around because when you download these apps 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 Ecosystem which is the way the europeans do it, they look at they almost look at markets like biological systems like youre looking at a petri dish and theres all these different things, the plants and frogs and fishermen. How do we make sure the system is working for every one . Is a very european way of doing things, its complicated and timeconsuming it is antitrust cases that take years and decades. The outcomes are questionable. Interestingly there is an academic who just did a wonderful book looking at how by many measures they work better and are free in terms of the diversity because theyve been more sensitive to Small Businesses and consumers doing well. The ones that depend on patents versus open software, everybody getting a fair shot. Put that aside for a moment. I think you have to start thinking about political power. And the political economy anyway that we havin away that we havet about in this country for 40 or 50 years. So, one of the things in my book i spent a lot of time thinking and reading of this 19th 19th Century Railroad line. So you go back to the rockefellers and you have these networks of the 19th and 20th century economy being builcentuy the railroad company. At one point they go and not just the railroad with the cars that sat on the railroad and the coal and the commodities that would go in them and they could clearly a preference who was traveling when and where. They would hand out free passes to their fee their future theiro arrivfeet for thepoliticians tor the political rallies. I think you have to look at the firms very much in tha the way t you should not be able to control the network and control the commerce that happens on the network because then you inevitably come into conflict with your own suppliers. I mean, look at amazon for example. A lot of companies will simply not take on antitrust issues at amazon because they can be disappeared from their business. They can just be cut off from all of the consumers if amazon decides they do not want to algorithmically preference their product in a search result. The same goes for google and you now see the antitrust cases come to light around this. But, they are very, very difficult to prove it and and be there is a black box of algorithms that frankly we should dig into that. To clarify. With amazon is about amazon having both the ecommerce site and Logistics Network delivered. And its own brand of products. And allow for third parties to operate at the same time to have its own brand and product competing. In this case it is about having a store where the third parties tended to do business if they are going to have an app on the platform. But at the same time, having its own on that platform for podcasts or music some competitors might argue you have to pay the toll to be on here and you are competing with me in the same place. Thank you for decoding my academic want penis. That is exactly right and fundamentally, there are rules in place already to separate networks and commerce. What you are describing is a company that provides a network competing against third parties in ways that are not very transparent and are unfair. And in the Financial Sector for example, which my last book was about the finance, you have rules. They are not always enforced they say okay, Goldman Sachs and trade of aluminum, but you cannot own all of the aluminum in the world and corner the market for actually was an issue it is a funny little anecdote that i cover in a first book where at one point, to get around the rules for amazon, excuse me, no, Goldman Sachs, other big company, had bought up a bunch of aluminum and they were actually moving it from one warehouse to another to get around the Commerce Network rule. So, there are loopholes that there is a precedent that does exist and that precedent existed in the Railroad Business as well. You had a reformer, Louis Brandeis come in and say we are going to bust open his trusts. He took on the system and 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 really always, they are not perfect. Markets dont always know best and they do need the rules to function properly. Is that we are talking about dont be evil, your book that came out in november i believe. It really puts a spotlight on the likes of google, facebook, apple, amazon, and a few others as well and how their size and some would say success and certainly their treatment of data is having an impact not just on customers, but all of the global society. Specifically in the u. S. I wonder can we regulate Data Information at the same time perhaps even unintentionally regulating speech because people are choosing in a lot of these cases to talk about these, choosing to put information into the Search Engine on the social networks etc. , etc. , pictures womens to graham, giving away little bits of location information, preference information, commerce information, giving it away for free, making the choice what to do with their speech. How can they be stopped . These are great questions, Big Questions at something ive kind of grappled with was this idea of whether or not platforms like facebook or google should be labeled for what happens because im 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 im walking here but what but let me pointe few things as folks think about this argument. These companies have a get out of jail free loophole that was written in the Communications Decency act of 96 and it allowed them as a nascent industry to not be liable in the way you or i as journalists but do. Look at what these companies do, they put content online and sell advertising. Thats what the media does. They want the town square but they want a Business Model that essentially eats the launch of traditional media and has created a post backed world which has led to all other kind of challenges so i think we really have to consider rethinking them. Already you are seeing things carved into it. It. As a highprofile case a couple of years ago around the back page. Com which is a website that was knowingly trafficking minors as prostitutes and this was something both of the righ the d left took on and alpha platforms do have a liability. They do a pretty good job using these algorithms to get them off the website. I think we have to look closely at how much more they can do and we have to think about if they cannot do it, should they be allowed to monetize content at scale in the way that they do. Host turning the entire internet upside down or inside out if you miss too much with section 30 th 30 of the idea beg even the common on the news sites covered under that. I have no idea. I want people to have the conversation but should i be liable for that, i guess arguably a lot of the news organizations have backed away from the comment for similar reasons but you could argue people can argue the User Generated Content is as soon as some road uplifts a bad piece of content they are going to be liable. Its an interesting question. They look over the content and if they are in inappropriate or hateful we get them done quickly. That is the position that the publication has taken. I think these are positions each government is going to have to make individually and you are seeing already countries like germany, france, china, they will make differen different jut calls in terms of how the comment is going to be policed. I think its important that this be a democratically led the conversation and position. I do not want individual private Companies One by one making the decisions because they are going to do what is best for their own Profit Margins. One of the key anecdotes and one of the reasons i wrote this book aside from just being at the share of economic power. My 10yearold had become addicted to an application that uses persuasive technology. They are literally kind of casino game techniques. All of this persuasive stuff takes you down the rabbit hole once you are spending and spending in the minors are being marketed to in ways that may actually have existing rules around children in the media. Ive thought about this as it is like nicotine. It is as addictive and nefario nefarious. We need a government to put limits on things and i think we need a Government Agency of some kind perhaps even sdk of technology to look at what are the whole battery of effects. Our Brain Science is being changed. One of the things i have a chapter in my book which children are being reshaped. The Digital Natives that have come of age. Their Attention Spans are lower and higher levels of anxiety and depression its difficult to prove causality. Host can we get the genie back in the bottle . The goal of advertising has always influenced people, and arguably its content so good with data that the sites were constantly based on little pieces of information tweaking the layout of the site to give people little doses to keep them engaged and as an investor would say thats why this talk is so high. Do we need to have the data on how that works to be able to regulate that . Looking at the last ten years or so of usage and correlating it with things like depression and anxiety, you have a body of research that is developing and i think that needs to be looked at. You have now a diagnostic handbook for physicians and new ailments that relate to digital usage and addiction. They are good at taking credit for the wonderful things they do and theyve given us all this Terrific Technology entertaining productivity enhancing to a certain extent, but they are not so good at taking responsibility for the downside. They are also not so great at admitting they didnt do it all themselves. The technologies were basically built on federally funded r d, think about the internet. These are things that came out of the pentagon actually, taxpayerfunded innovation commercialized and you have very similar is, this kind of privatization of process in so many ways the human cost of automation we havent even gotten into the chapter. We will be doing our jobs. They are already experimenting with algorithmic reporters. Theres going to be disruption. You frame the issue i as these waves in the buck. You write the issue is the periods of great technological change are also categorized into needs to be managed for the sake of the society as a whole otherwise you end up with events like the religious wor order ofe 16th and 17th centuries which adds fergusoasked ferguson has n his book that might not have happened without the advent of new Technology Like the Printing Press which brought with it the age of enlightenment but not before the same way the internet social meet a appended to society today. How do you go back to th that period of time to fix that . Information is good but bad things happen. Is there a way we can even extract that help us figure out what to do now . I think there are. There isnt one Silver Bullet and that is the problem. As you know when you come on to these programs and writ programh my publishers were like we want the solution problem that has taken 20 years to create some are about capitalism in general or how the markets are regulated in this been decades in the making. The first step is creating the proper narrative it has to do with the fact we didnt create a proper narrative about why we have had such disruption from globalization and initializati initialization. We thought okay markets should be able to do whatever they want. Thats fine. We didnt want to talk about the fact that there would be pockets of pain. We need to look now at where the technology is going, where is it taking us. And i have a chapter that juxtaposes the situation in the u. S. And china. If we want to look at what the surveillance state looks like all we have to do is go to china and right now there is no debate obviously the autocratic society. There is no assumption about that. The government can and does track every one and harvest data. Theres a system of social credit, so if you are doing things that are charged to be sort of right thinking by the party we might find it easier to get a job or get healthcare, were we may find ourselves in the gulags. The cover can be yielded by countries or corporations as it is potentially in the u. S. I think there is a third way. You are starting to see bright spots already. I was impressed by people who turned out to hear these kind of complex debates about what should the Digital Economy look like if there is a robust debate people are making different decisions that are happening. In this tourney you look at california which interestingly has been ahead of the legislation. Its the birthplace of the companies but also of the above solutions. So, you have california looking at a digital to delete the dividend tax. If the data is the new oriole, should the companies be able to harvest it for free or share some of the value and put it back into a Digital Software and wealth fund so they can do things with the Public Benefit with money collected in the resources. Lets use data as a resource and help people buffer the problems of labor dislocation to observation. It sounds like a tax. Especially targeted companies that have been to do well with data. Spank the administration is fighting to implement an attack of this. To create a problematic and nationalistic debate about dont regulate big tech or google or amazon or facebook. We are at the National Champions in the battle to china. I think we should have a National Industrial policy and a National Competitiveness strategy, but i dont think that individual companies particularly not ones that operate in the countries they are complaining, planning to go claiming to want to go to dabble with. They are not a National Champion or a forprofit company thats going to do with buddhist what n their best interest. They need to do what is good by the Public Interest we need to have a conversation about that in this country. Its hard when the public is this sort of. When you are in an authoritarian governments like china they can pose rules. He had to create a backdoor in the iphone so when they have good reason they say over that e device and see how everything has been done on it argues a backdoor that china is going to want in, iraq is going to want it, turkey. Is that guest i would look to a couple of examples in taiwan for example. You have a rich and vibrant democracy that is being acknowledged to create the state, you have taiwan using. We do have a democracy is messy. We know that. But i would like to see some of these technologies being used in service to democracy rather than degrading it which is what you have seen in the last few years. Host the idea of individuals getting a cut of their data. This one makes me a little queasy. Some peoples data is worth more. If i had the right demographics, do i get a bigger payment. Then theres the question of my data may not be that much but mine plus viewers and another persons is worth exponentially more than any individual so is it even possible. The idea of the digital soccer and golf fund takes more sense probably a excessive things you are pointing out. One of the things we are moving in the era of ai and more and more automation that can do more and more human labor. We are moving into a postwork world. Its been on vacation for two weeks. We start to get a little cranky. Maybe we need to start thinking of that. You do to ge to get a realistic. The shows this is an enormous industry, the fastestgrowing in the world and i think that its worth thinking about when you have Companies Making doubledigit profit origin harvesting the data for free, lets think about the appropriate tax systems. This really gets to be bigger and more profound. Laughing at their globalization, free markets practice has been exported to many countries. The idea was that good, capital and people should be able to go wherever they wanted to. The problem is k. And jump across more as it puts all those problems of neoliberalism where the companiethe companies can kg above National Problems but labor is down here having to deal with the realities on the ground. The Digital Transaction puts it on steroids because if they can move across company that can move us. Weve got to just look at where this is going in that of when weve got those that have been decimated by globalization, having the very fact. We are going to do that at a broad level if we are not careful. Host weve been talking about your book, dont be evil. It takes a look at. So much work goes in to write Something Like this and so much learning. The first thing i did is to take my sons phone. He wrapped up that bill and did something to force them to get out on the street with a dominate a stand and make back the money. [laughter] several months although in my part of proclaimed on a hot day you can do pretty well. That was one. I dont do smart speakers that i often use encrypted email. Its made me think about the value of my own intellectual property. We are moving to the decentralized world in which really the only value we have is with us in our head. What is in our property we have to keep control of that, so when im negotiating contracts were thinking about. You talk about what you sortt of hopeful have been. What do you hope will happen if you are generally an optimistic person, what do you hope doesnt happen . What is the cost if we dont do anything do you think . I think, and this is going to be the topic of my next book i think we can rewrite fascism because i think particularly in the u. S. , and because i think that we are in its easy to create political manipulation. Theres all of these changes driving change so quickly and dislocating so many people coming and that creates the condition for a very extremely and hateful politics, so that is the risk. I think the upside could be if e get the framework right. Digital technologies to a low power. That is one of the things thats interesting is yes we can be sliced and diced by the Big Tech Companies that each of us have the power of our own data and behavior online. Businesses can b be started or cheaply now in the digital era. This could be a boom for labor if we get the framework right. It can be done much quite easily by small and mediumsized businesses to see back in the 80s where if you wanted to see the company you needed to have size and heft. These are complicated but there is. Labor is in our rubber band to capital in ways that were not possible in the past. That would be an interesting outcome. Guest let m guest let me give you a concrete example. Uber, this is just a piece of software. Why should the Taxi Workers Union nounion not have the same software . They do now. There are applications run by workers themselves. One could imagine this sort of things being done on scale and the Labor Movement itself. The Freelancers Union or the aflcio trying to organize this technical workers say hi page graphic designers on Silicon Valley, you are a freelancer and have the same problems with asymmetry of power as a cleaning lady in the wrong and i think that that is an important point to make. Host many are bringing up the point in 2020. Its a very active here politically as well as technologically. The book is dont be evil. A lot of good thoughts in here and i suppose one of the things that the rest of us can do is at least get smarter and created. Thank you so much. Great conversation. Thank you for having me. I