In the mic . No. Without the mic . Also no. Alexis is the deputy cto of new york city and runs a policy experiment lab, trying to get vendors to compete for who can devise the best programs to improve social welfare of the citizens of new york. An adjunct professor of tech media and communications at Columbia University and spent a couple of decade studying the issues as a doctoral student and then as a member of the staff at the u. N. Mission of the state department, and also just speaking deeply about them which is so clear from the book, which i really admire. So quick round of applause for alexis. [applause] just jump right in. This book is about what you call net states. Maybe you just want to start by taking a minute and telling us what those are and why we needed a new category. Canthank you all for coming. The pest way to straight what net states are is to talk about how i came upon the idea to right this book in the first place. So, back in 2015, there were a number of terrorist attacks across france, and in november of 2015 there was the largest terrorist attack which killed over 130 people, and it was found out after the fact that a lot of these attacks were carried out and organized on social media. So social Media Companies got involved in working with the defense agencies to try to figure out how to stop the proliferation of terrorists on the platforms, keep enthem from organizing attacks like this on our platforms, and it was a kind of rough start in the beginning. One of the people who was responsible for the attacks was captured six months later, despite the fact he had been actively posting on facebook for the entire time. Wasnt a lot of cooperation between governments and Tech Companies at the time. A a few years later, facebook, google, youtube, am on and a few amazon and a few others came together an Global Internet form to find out how to fight terrorism explicitly and this was just organized by the tech industry, and for the tech industry. There wasnt, again, a lot of cooperation with government. Then skip forward a few more mock months. We saw a heres of hurricane. Hurricane maee a hit puerto rico and wiped out their power grid, cellphone coverage and fema did not show up. Who showed up . Tesla. Came forward to bree rid their greening grid. Google showed up with project loon. Balloons providing internet and telecommunication coverage. Thought, okay, what is going on were the tech city . Theyre not just making spread sheets and calendars or apps. Theyre getting involved in areas way outside of their core mission, and areas thatad to be the full responsibility of government. With the diplomacy, counterterrorism, defense, infrastructure building, citizen services, and i thought, there had to be some wet better way to talk about then them than just tech. This had a role to play in geopolitics the term nonstate actor kind of had already evolved to being just gad buy. So i started just bad guy. I study where this happened. Some would think of Mark Zuckerberg as a terrorism. Some people think of Tech Companies as the bad guy. I just did some research and as recently as 2010, the digs incarcerate of social science defined nonstate actors with examples like the u. N. And nato. They were not cord terrorists. And it was 2012201 3 you started seeing the term used with regard to al qaeda and then isis. So nonstate actor was taken with bad guys but the Tech Companies were not nation states, either. So i thought there needs to be another way to talk but them. So introduced the concept of net statesful interNet Companies, Internet Based Companies who were working outside of their Core Technology missions in areas that used to be the domain of nation states, like defense, diplomacy, infrastructure, and citizen services. And i wrote the article actually in 2015. People who read it said, i think this is a little bit of a stretch. And i put on a shelf for two years, and then after Hurricane Maria i thought, actually, i really feel like theres something to this and thats when i put the article out there. Wired publish evidence it and it opportunity turned turned into e book. Whats the difference be net state and other big Tech Companies who might happen philanthropyishing concerns, donating, cisco, or uber or oracle that are major and do stuff. Its a really good question. In the bike dont put twitter in this category, which i do put tesla in this category, which might seem surprising in some ways. The rope is that im looking really at how Tech Companies are expanding outside of he Digital Services and into these domains used to be the territory of governments. You dont see uber getting involved in counterterrorism yet or at the moment. Microsoft is very deeply involved in diplomacy. You dont think of cisco as having a real stake in national treaties. So this sort of the differentiate between the two and some peopled a city. What about other Big International companies. Cocacola that operates glow globally, mcdonalds but theyre not opening a Counterterrorism Department. Facebook has a larger Counterterrorism Department than the state department, and sun seem that straining they that strange they would so i thought its worth paying attention to. The list of companies that qualify as net states, is google, amazon, facebook, apple, and profit and you anticipated me question, tessla. Why tesla. Absoluteliment one thing i look at in the become is not just how Tech Companies are expanding into governmental domain but expanding into what i call in real life, in physical infrastructure and services. And this is something that tesla and elon musk and his many sister companies, tesla, is doing some ways more than anyone else with his solar city operation, theyre pursuing partnership width government to provide electricity. He is now moving into space with star link. Theres a lot of endeavors where theyre no longer just looking at their prime products and Services Like carsbut are really changing the way we think pout public infrastructure. For instance, with the boring company, theyre producing high speed rail in chicago. And a branding maybe inch that elon objects to. Exactly. So, one of the questions is, if we have now private Sector Companies who are in charge of our public infrastructure, what happened when they decide they dont want to make it available for all. And this is one of the reasons that i talked about in the book about teslas work in puerto rico. They stepped in at a time when puerto rico needed someone to step in. When the federal government really did not. But theyre not under any obligation to stay. They dont have the responsibility the government has to, for instance, provide equally and fairly access to services. What do they want . You write in the book net states happen beliefs. What do you mean by that, what are their beliefs. One think i think distinguishes these companies is that a number of people that work there, enough a large enough contingent to make a difference, lets say, are driven in some ways by the belief that technology should be used for good. We see this with google. They, worked with the department of defense on a very small contract called project may ven, looking at how to apply a. I. To their Recognition Technology in drones, and this is a very small contract. A handful of people out of googled empire working on it. When people found out inside google this was happening, people a number of people resigned in protest terrorism was a companywide letter circulating we do not believe that google should be in the defense business, and google backed down, let the contract expire. So its significant portion of the drive, people that work in these organizations, that want to see tech being used to build things to do good. Their beliefs not totally unlike a governments is constitute offed constituent parts. Yeah. Something that i think is one of the interesting features of these particular companies that i call net states. Of course theyre interested in their bottom line, interested in making sure they can be successful businesses, but you do hear about internal employee protests, when the company does something they dont think aligns with these beliefs of their core beliefs, that tech should be used for good, and i think that its one of the alcohol langes challenged with the dynamic is we may si, yay, google forks ahead, protest, do anything you dont think is eight, but we dent have any role as citizens to directly influence that process, which i think is something that makes this a unique phenomenon. Well come back to that in a minute. Based on your experience and a lot of what you talk but any book issue want to ask you about the governments relationship to net states. Let me ask you, by dish if you can start by recounting this episode you have in the book which i had not read about, meeting by the Media Companies and at the Tech Companies with the Justice Department and the fec and the interference before the 2018 election and how that went. There has been attempted by the tech industry, up to about 2018, reverencees in the book to reach out to Law Enforcement to reach out to big federal agencies and try to partner win them, try to work with the to figure off how to meet the challenges that we all face together, and the Government Entities have been a little slow to respond. There was a meeting held in which the key players, google, facebook, and others, invited members from the department of homeland security, and offered a lot of information but their own strategies to deal with terrorism on their plats, the emerging Disinformation Campaigns and they were met with silence. The next time they convened they didnt instant individual anyone from the government to the table. I income 2020 were seeing this shift at but from the defense sector, starting to reach out to Text Companies very aggressively, to get them to work with them, but i think that there is a the chief Security Officer at facebook, now at stanford, said a local Police Department may by really hard working in really strong but we wouldnt ask a local Police Department to defend against an invading army. But thats what is happening in the tech sector. Were look at these Tech Companies to stan up to own counterterrorism units and Defense Mechanisms and not providing the support they need. The disengagement after that episode and maybe above this cycle is sort of a really interesting parable about the risk of government standoffishness. If d. C. Cant get it act together participate the Tech Companies will do whatever they want to do. Which i thought was a valuable point. And the same time presents a bit of a problem because we know that d. C. And especially congress, even more than the executive branch, does not and cannot keep up with tech and we have all these send old lawmaker who made their money in medicine and law but so zero grasp with technology during the suckberg hearings, Lindsey Graham asked if the facebook is the i same as twitter and orrin hatch asked how facebook made money. And we could ask them to be better and higher better staffers about i won differ you have thoughts how he government can be smarter but to the relationship with net state if the people in charge with overseeing the agencies has no idea what to ask for. A really good question. Think theres a couple of different ways we need to think but it. One is we need to make sure were putting peek in congress who do understand the importance of engaging with technology, not just as some ancillary locale but a power player in both domestically and gee row politically. Number one geopolitically. Were seeing an influx of younger and more Diverse People running for elective office. I have to hope within a few years well see the nature of people who are representing us start to reflect societys interest more globally. But i also think the people who are currently in office, its not a surprise that Technology Companies are impacting our daily lives. This is not news in 2020. We had the 2014 elects and this Misinformation Campaign from foreign actors. That was a few years ago and not seen any congressional action, and i think that theres no real excuse for it other than a lack of appetite. Its not a lack of understanding. Think even if the Congress People themselves dont grasp all the details of technology, they certainly have access to resources they can learn or help inform themselves better about what to do. Hard to be passionate if you cant grasp it. Yeah. Apparently Vladimir Putin doesnt want wants to silence the campaign. Yeah, talk but the work of these net states who are staffing up counterterrorism and antibigotry and terrorist groups. What do you think about the imbalance that exists between the work those Tech Companies, the net states can do here and abroad and whether you think theres a certain imbalance in the Playing Field the First Amendment presents. We can we have Legal Precedents and strictures how we can silence speech here compared to the eu which can impose regulations and do more things more easily. What are your thoughts about that. Its interesting if was talking with one from free French Embassy the fact they heat robust hate speed law in france but he said we dont have anything like the First Amendment in a wistful way and i was looking at him in a wistful way, thinking wouldnt it we great if we were able too find the middle ground. Think there needs to be some sort of movement from people who are sort of the extreme ends of these things. Theres no mistaking really serious hate speech, really, for anything other than what it is. Its the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater issue think. So i think that extremely egregious examples of hateful content, if it cant regulate enemy in say we can at least put pressure on the tech company to be more aggressive but labeling them, if not taking them down, this something we have seen with facebook and youtube and google is labeling the content that is problematic, facebook has been doing this with information about the coronavirus that seems problematic, labeling it as being potentially suspect, and this is i think one way to get at making sure consumers are more informed about what theyre seeing without stripping it away from the internet completely. Do you feel like do you have any thoughts about whether that is working, can work . So, i think that its still early days and well need to study its impact. I think that its just start. Better than nothing. I arm few years agoing a eric schmidt, the ceo of google, whether this should be something they took a heavier hand in identitying hateful for problematic content. He said we dont censor anything but we can derank that kind of content so it doesnt come up first. So theyre sort of tipping the put their thumb on the scaled behind the escapes and this come thousands this question of the fact we dont necessarily have visibility into these actions. So, i think one of the things that makes the companies interesting from a citizens perspective is that relative absence of transparenciy. Were not in a position to say, reveal to us your algorithms that show who your derank organize flagging or not women just see the results and hope theyre doing a good job. I have more questions but i want to make sure we cover a lot of ground before we take questions from the audience. Where do you come down only back doors, the idea that Law Enforcement needs a way isecurity features devices to a big fight ten the attorney general and Silicon Valley. Yeah. Its a really difficult question, and its something that i keep columbia parttime, in addition to my job with the . And i have had some people with the fbi talk about this exact issue. I thought heat larry from the expert and theres a palpable sense of frustration from the Law Enforcement sector that they dont have the tools they need to pursue people who are doing engaging in criminal activities in the way they would without this kind of technology. On the other hand, you can see from a company like apples perspective, one of selling opinioned of the phone is its secure and that your information stays on the phone unless you choose to do otherwise. I can understand the tech companys perspective 0 to say why weak an product that has such good security, but has to be some sort of agreement with Law Enforcement, if they have all of the proper approvals in place, to find some sort of solution to access content. I was thinking about the case with the San Bernardino attacks in california there was no question whether or not the persons device was property of someone who committed a terrorist act but the was nothing that Law Enforcement would do because there was no access. I think there are enough smart people working on these issues there could be a middle ground solution we havent yet identified that doesnt involve breaking the phone. Or new piece of legislation. One thing didnt suggest that is it seems at every turn, the Tech Companies would not let ore legislators take up new regulations, meaningful regulations. I think that i feel a little bit more confident about the tech sector stepping forward in our particular climate. One thing i really like about the book is in a type of deep cynicism and pessimism but the roll of check which i am steepened, the dangers of tech. You forced us to confront a lot of the get does alongside the bad and i want to read request quick section here. She writes how tech does so much good for people not to notice event in 2018 in new deli, Police Department had a private project using experimental facial regular nick software. Win four days more than 3,000 mying children were saved. A Remote Control delivered an inflate able rescue pod to swimmer which would have taken six minutes from a swimmer. She talk about an apple watch that detected womans heart rate who went into kidney failure and was able to get to the hospital. Excuse me while i reach the rest of my notes. You dont flip from the bad stuff and i wonder what your disposition is toward the tech pessimists, who say that the net states are fundamentally untrustworthy and have irrevoke my deafblind taken our take on power. Does none use a google or smartphone or publish ideas on their platforms and this is a reality we have to confront. Theres a lot of problems with the Tech Companies they are engaged with daily. Doesnt mean we stop using their productions and services because they give us something. We have all become accustomed to how quickly we can find out information, how quickly they can connect through each with social media, how many articles and interesting things you can find as we follow the bread crumbs online. Just a lot that it does do for us, that even people who are sick of the absence of privacy or control over our data are not going to live in a cabin somewhere. Theyre still using the tools. It would be a more productive conversation if we were frank and said theyre problematic but give us so much and lets not throw out all of that in the attempt to get the dat piece under control. Lets have that conversation. We have this implicit trait which is privacy for convenience and the things these Excellent Services do give us. I think a lot of people didnt realize maybe they were making that trade and by the time they realized the costs of unwinding it was so great theres a lot of complacency. Even i who focus on these things and work in a place that i supplied on by project sayre toss have not just the privacy dials on everything. And i have been thinking whether its possible to fight back and still have the conveniences the net states offerment what is life like if with stay away. Microsoft owns binge. You cant use that. Youve have offbrand services and offbrand phones. Work at Something Like the Washington Post your already on microsoft outlook. Is opting out still possible while being a member of society . I dont think so. I really dont. Think as you said, its when i was talking about the six Major Companies i lifted in book, microsoft and apple and google and all those, they own hundreds and hundreds of other companies who we may by aware of, we know, for instance, amazon owns whole foods and maybe not as aware that microsoft owns linkedin 0 no key nokia. I think in modern society it would be difficult to sidestep the big Tech Companies because theyre integrated into so men other products and services we night not be aware of. We can look at the different practices of the different net states that was refreshing. Ill stop shouting. Look at the different practices and see who is getting the calibration, maybe not perfectly but a little bit better, and i used microsoft as an example in the book because theyve really been quite progressive in trying to establish protections for users. When they had to comply with the gdpr in europe think said if we are going make Data Protection available for users in eu we should make them available for microsoft users worldwide. So they create that option, and very soon over 2 million americans had signed up for those same Data Protections, more than people in the eu had. So i think this is something i found after my conversation with microsoft president brad smith, who is responsible for this move, there is an appetite to do something. Theres a lot of pessimism, as you said, and the sense its like, were just too far gone with giving away or data to do anything but i think when you see Companies Like microsoft actually taking some proactive steps to protect user data, we should celebrate that and point them out as an example. That makes sense. You want to assess and all of to us assess which of the net states and which Tech Companies at large are doing the right things you clock the book with we exhortation to wield the powers over net states and the system in the u. S. Where we hold power accountable through elects and laws and checks and balances. Do we advocate for ourselves where theres nobody to protect bet shareholddedders and beyond beyond praising the good, what are our options . So, its a tough one because youre right. Therapies not an organized movement right now that we can all just sort of sign on to and say, okay, we will use our collective will and actions to move away from one platform and on to another one, for instance. When people get outraged online and get mobilized in some sort of unifying cohesive way, it is possible to hold people to account. If we all, for instance, not in this room necessarily but as a country or even larger, decided we would just protest facebook for two days, guarantee they would notice that because without us, without users the platforms are ghost towns. Dont have content or the energy that fuels them, dont have the data. Theres no well to sell ads to people that arent there and they wouldnt be able to collect our data, which they then sell or share. So, i think that part of this is just a lack of an organizing principle. And i do think that is a matter of kind of convening in some way the frustration that people feel. Im not sure exactly who is going to be the organizer of that, but is there an instance where that has happened on a small scale you think could be i look at moms online that have come about organically but have an organizing framework. Like the metoo movement. Something that came about very naturally. People sharing their stories on twitter with the me to and that was enough to have a that people could get behind and a framework to say with he hash tag ill share this story, and enough people did that and translated to actual change in our world, people lose taken out of positions of power, held to account, and its changed our climate of how people treat people in the work mace. So i think theres examples where we see online movements translate to real world actions. You write, again, what you call privacy nihilism, the complete resignation. Is there anything that you changed but your tech habits as you researched the book. Definitely a period of time where i thought, i should not use any social media sites or google or anything. You cant write a book without technology these days so didnt last very long. Did become more conscience of the kind of things i was posting online and thought, for instance, maybe fun for me to post pictures of my candidate facebook would they appreciate it when they became adults knowing there was all this con at any time about them online . So i stopped doing that which makes facebook a little bit less fun, but i thought it would be more respectful to my childrens rights. Do you have any rules how your children engage with net states. Theres an interesting new practice with the kids arent on facebook because thats not cool. Theyre on instagram, and not knowing its owned by affection but a different story. Somebody is an expert in chat could tell them. Like what teenagers listen to their parents. I dont know how to crack that code. But my one thing ive noticed that people who use instagram, especially teenagers, are starting to use collective accounts. Creating an account that multipeople people log into and its mostly to evade their parents watch. Sortly the case i study, that was the impetus. But it also has this interesting effect of helping evade Data Collection parties and figure out sort on confound their ability to track individual behavior. I dont think that its they cant track it at all in the same way that netflix figures our its very confusing the custom profile. Theyll figure out theres three distinct personalities posting to this cant and track them accordingly i think its interesting to see young people finding their own way around the technology collection. Or Data Collection. I want to make sure we have time for questions if gave quick round of applause for alexis and then well take some questions,. [applause] i dont know if i dont think theres a mic so if anybody wants to raise a question, i can call out people and just jump up and shout as louds a you can. Go ahead. Want to flip this to the international scene. Sure. So we have chinese companies, and recently there was a good world in wired magazine about how huawei is basically taking the 5g technology. So you talk but net states and that could be state nets. Right . Yeah. Because theres the fear that they internet might break into more than one. If you take all the analysis you did for the u. S. Bearingsed multinationals u. S. Based multinationals how does that switch the chinese multinationals which irinternational and are serving the rest of the planet. A great question. One thing i wrestled with was where i was going to draw the line around them, and one of the reason is didnt include the large chinese Tech Companies is its not that clear what their relationship with the State Government is. There seems to be a relationship, quite a strong one in some cases, and i think that changes the dynamic at bit, where youre not seeing these independent Technology Companies fueled by citizens that really believe in it so much as the use of Technology Companies for strategic ends by a national government. And to your point about the sort of fragmentation of multiple internets its something i worry about. I think that were essentially seeing that in china today where theres a lot of Online Activity that occurs just in country. I know russia has experimented with ideas of having their own seclude editor at well, and from secluded internet and the eu looked into the use of creating an eu internet. So, i think that if thats where things go, my theory is there will be two tiers. The nationalities you log on to easily, but i suspect there will always be some sort of Global Worldwide web. Might be even more of a wild west than we have now but i dont think you can put be jeanie back in the geneie back in the bottle after people have Global Access and connect with people all over the world. The the National Reagan late and the international is the dark web. Thats one possibility. Thank you very much for coming today. I think i have a very similar question. When thinking but, like, chinese regulation of internet or other social networks there are any lessons the United States can learn and be helpful in the out. Theres a lot of practices we see occurring in china that other countries would like to adopt but theres a challenge of the fact we have a lot of citizen protections and recourse that china doesnt have to worry about necessarily. I think that its something we do need to think about for other countries context, so, for instance, china has a very sophisticated severallance sim and its working with countries in africa item port the technologies so they can use them on their citizens. I think that we neat to look at not just what china is doing with the own people but how far they have extended into other markets, whose governments see these tools as very handy in terms of citizen kind of control and containment. I dont think theres necessary lay risk of that happening here in the same way because i think theres a lot of things americans dont agree on, especially now in a very polarized place but i think peoples distrust orer in obviousness but government surveillance is a unifying theme for people so i wouldnt be surprised if theres resistance. You think over time in the tech great game universe, Chinese StateNet Companies are going to eat away at market share from the u. S. Net states abroad. I think its unchecked, thats a possibility. But i also dont think that the net states operating out of the United States are relinquishing control over foreign markets with night not necessarily see is from our context and perspective. Theres not a unfying theme like the belt and Road Initiative that makes it part over the countrys Strategic Plan but i think that the growth of Tech Companies into other sectors and the growth of Tech Companies data centers into other countries means theyve got a foothold in other places. Want to bring us back a little bit. What is your definition. Why are some Companies Considered big expects arent . Why is netflix considered a Technology Company and not a production studio . Whoa i jp morgan comfort a bank and not a Technology Company when its ceo says were a Technology Company, not a bank . Its a great question. And i i think for all of these issues its helpful to break it down to the fundamental essence, and just because all these companies are operating now theres a lot of companies that use technology for their products and services but i think theres a difference in the first of all think original intent of the company. If you look at, for instance, amazon, its started off as an online book retailer. Clearly its now moved into a lot of other areas and we could say they have a role to play in Law Enforcement with their surveillance technologies in food with whole foods and the Law Enforcement. And i think because their Core Products and services are online and thats where it came from, thats how we define them still and the same thing but banking. Theres a lot heat happening digitally but they started off as banks and we still see that motivates and drives them. One thing you talked but is the end was about how critical it is for consumers to wield whatever powers they have and one example i think of where that actually did happen was when people were frustated at uber, many peep switched to lyft and that was possible due to comp particulars what role does competition and the possibility to switch platforms play and relating that calls to break up big tech and what role that can have in the net states. I think that this is definitely one of the great challenges in figuring out how to approach them. Theres no other youtube than youtube, for instance. Every time one emerges with instagram or whatever, somebody buys it. Exactly. Exactly. Instagram was a tiny company with a tiny number of employees when facebook bought it for a billion dollars. Very quick to recognize where theres potential competition and gobble them up. Theres i think that this is where regulation could play a role in terms of getting competition a chance to get it feet off get a running start before theres no other choice but to sell to a big tech company. I also think this is where the conversations about treating these kind of Tech Companies as utilities is useful. They dont just provide a product or service. In their way they create a public good. The totality of what you can find on google is not just interesting or useful. Theres a value that is greater than she sum of its parts. The affect provides the able to do research in different areas and gives people who wouldnt otherwise have a means to share their work, way to reach other people. So, i think that regulation is something that needs to be taken seriously but done carefully and im not necessarily confident that just breaking them up into other businesses is really the answer. Its a pickle. Our antitrust law is come include ill suited to deal with this. A lot of candidates who have said break up the Tech Companies, and is the reason you think thats a bad idea is because basically if got doesnt know how too it or government doesnt know how to do it or why not . I had really interesting interview with the head of google jigsaw this, geopolitical think tank, and asked him abouting this issue and he said that the problem with having regulators be responsible for these decisions by themselves is that theyre always going to be behind the curve. Never going to really have the savvy, the nuance that will i think break up the Tech Companies in the way that will stick. One thing i actually heard from a colleague at the French Embassy was in france they were experimenting with coregulation efforts, inviting the Tech Companies to work we legislators to say you have to give up something but lets figure out a way to do this in a intelligent and nuanced way. It is still an experiment. Havent seen what the ultimate regulation would look like. Where is that happening in. France. What company. With facebook was actually its a problem because all these Companies Make that basically nonfalsifiable claim you cant keep up and then its you can call it pretense or rationale to do anything they want. This is where we have a lot to learn from the eu partners and Companies Like france that companies a very interesting freudian slip countries like france who eave an ambassador for digital asquares. Only a handful of countries that have one. Met with the attache for digital economy. I dont know if we have earn working on these issues another that level in the u. S. By elevating anymore government to be in these kind of positions of authority who do understand the technology, we hem debunk the arguments. Do the tech ambassadors from of the nations get more from the net tates than our people do. I would say. I think that what for instance the case of france they took someone from the tech sector and appointed him as bam ambassador so no argue. He didnt understand the technology. Den mark was the first tech ambassador, he was a career dip proud about work will with Silicon Valley and just jot no 0 of approached by microsoft to by the representative to e. Are the working to learn or get better Law Enforcement cooperation. I think the yesterday is for any bam ambassador to establish ties to a new domain and help create some crosscultural understanding. So to help people in our government understand or their home government understand what these communities are about, what drives them, motivates them, and to help the Tech Companies, the tech sector understand how to work with government more effectively. A bridge. I was thinking but very insightful presentation. Thank you very much. I was going to ask a question. Senator moynihan, visionary from a while back and around 2000 wrote a book called secrecy. He was from new york, professor, worked for theunn, for the state department. Then moved into National Politics but other visionary. So anyway. In his book he said that openness was the singular american advantage and we put it in parable by poking along in an era that was now past and contrasted that the soviet union was a closed sew site and failed miserably. We have seen that pushback thats correct openness seems to be coming back to haunt us as you mention the election issues that arose. Just thundershower thoughts on that dynamic. Thank thank you bringing that up. A big fan hover the senators writings. The rest of that quote, he says secrecy is for losers, actually its really putting us in peril to try to keep this closed government closed society in an age where its no longer relevant and that was back in the late 90s before social media. Think that we did get caught by surprise as a people and our government, with how quickly tech evolved, and allowed for thing i like the Disinformation Campaign in 2016 to happen and it really, i think, wasnt anything anybody expected but i dont tech we have an excuse now for why we have not reacted to that. I think theres wees to put in safeguards to ensure at least even if we dont create a crib soreship mechanism we can label, this information came from this country. That would help consumers understand better. I think the source of information, whether it was just regular information or disinformation, we can empower people to know. Any other questions . One more. Ill just ask one more. The reason we have not dealt with is this time for which we have no discuss, would you agree, i partisan political warfare. Yeah. Were in a gridlocked scenario right now and theres not a great appetite with people in congress, i think, to work across the ail to make things happen in a bilateral faction but the people in office some we benefits from the fact theres not been in the regulation. Really interesting to see what happens in the coming year with the new election. On that note, i want to thank you all for coming out on pandemic super tuesday and join alexis. At the very much. [applause] a look at the current bestselling nonfiction books. At the top testify list is author and active gist, glennon doyles memoir, untamed. Followed by eric larsons look at Prime MinisterWinston Churchills leadership during the london blitz. Then in talking to strangers, new yorker staff writer mall phenomenon gladwell examines how much we misread strangers words and actions. After that is rebeccas reflexes on becoming a writer and feminist in recollections of my nonexistence. And wrapping up or look at the best selling nonfiction books, is the memoir hoff growing up in the idaho mounts and her book, educated. Its been then best sellers list for two years. You can watch the authors online at booktv. Org. At politics and prose book story in washington, dc, yale environmentam law professor daniel esty offers suggestions on way to heres a portion of the program. Any own analysis of the 20th century is one of the biggest short comings is that we did not ask where the money would come from to do the things we knew we needed to. Do we assumed if a rule was established, the money would follow. And it turns out, we safe set targets and timetable inside our Climate Change treaty of 1992, and again we assumed people would follow. And guess what . They didnt. I call this the lawyers mistake because usually only lawyers are the ones i apologize because i know several of you are lawyers as i look across the audience but it turns out, lawyers think if you adopt a rule, pass a law, sign a treaty, that behavior will change. And reality is, it doesnt. Or at least in many cases it doesnt. No one in business would be surprised. They would say, well, your Climate Change treaty was like righting a Mission Statement for a company. Where is the business change model . Where is the implement attention plan . And we under attended to that, including critically where the money would come from. We so a new push for green bonds and green banks and a whole set of mechanisms to flow capital to the kind of projected that need to be done, the companies theyre helping deliver a Sustainable Future and that is in fact very promising. To watch the rest of the Program Visit ours website, booktv. Org and search for the book, a better planet, using the becomes at the top of the page. As the coronavirus continues to impact the country, heres a look at what the Publishing Industry is doing to address the ongoing pandemic. The spring book festival season has been canceled. With book fairs in san antonio, maryland, and charlottesville, virginia, opting not to reschedule. The Los Angeles Times festival set to take place in april is holding their 25th annual festival in october and north americas largest Publishing Industry convention, bookes expo, pushing back their scheduled ode davids to july. Book stores reasons the country working to provide Remote Services for customers through online sales, curbside pickupups and local delivers, many are offering virtual author events through the Online Platform crowdcast. The countrys Book Publishers fulfilling the schedule of new publications but may delay release of certain titled. Booktv will bring annual new programs and publishing news and watch all of our archived programs anytime at booktv. Org. Pleased to introduce, Joanne Mcneil is the win ore arts write. Ing forum. She has been a resident at ibm, Nonfiction Program fellow and instructor at the school or poetic computation. He is says and reviewed happen appeared in publications such as the anytime no he dissent, wired, the globe, and plus one, and many others. Shell be joined in conversation this evening with kendra albert, a clinical check tourer and. Their work