Tells them that someone is in the rim and that is more efficient. If you look at it over uber, this is taking capital that was being underutilized and employing it in a more productive way. Anyway you have capital that is underutilized, anywhere that there is a large labor of whole that is not using capital these are areas that will be disrupted in the next 10 years. The second question, i do not have any signs or evidence for this, but i have toys been very optimistic about the likely impact of future technology. The way i try to think about it, there are two possible outcomes. If you put this in star trek terms, you have the United Federation of planets where everybody cooperates and everyone has the ability to achieve personal enlightenment and personal best or you have the board, where everybody is nobody. It is one giant collective. These are two very different futures that come from the same set of technologies. I have boys imagined it would be like the federation and less like the board. I think you could look at it from the hash but there are many problems that need solving. At a mobile level, it is not connected. There are so many big ticket problems to get solved that over the next few years i think that it is hugely exciting and the progress that is being made already, i think that you mentioned the change in automotive space, there are so many big items like the number of people who get killed on the roads. Things like that. Those are being driven down. The idea that our kids will speak to their children and talk about a time when thousands of people got killed on the roads. There are so many things, these really big tickets, that technology will help. I think i am really optimistic. I look at the way that we toggle between the physical realworld and our digital world. We used to view those as very separate identities, then they started to blend. Today, the mobile phone is that bridge. We are constantly going to the mobile phone. Over time, as Technology Becomes more pervasive and more seamless, it will become less intrusive. It will become a more natural and intuitive experience. Look at the way that we talk with computers. If you go back in time, we used punch cards. It you just looked at it, you didnt understand it. At the computer understood it. And over time, we have moved it over the continuum where there is a natural conversation, similar to what we might have with another person. Last question peer i have a last question. What is the ability to get back get past , we used to laugh at vcrs. And now we have best buy and amazon. I think we have a problem with massmarket and the consumer products, no matter how sophisticated they are, they dont know what to buy and use them. How do we get past an adoption curve, for people buying these new devices. I think we are moving into an environment where we have fragmented innovation. We have focused on the products that are widely owned. Very few products are actually owned by 80 or 90 of households. So, i think that we will start to move into niche markets where the saturation is 4050 , and we will start to identify these the ideas that you start with our welldefined, discrete problems. You offer solutions to that. Then you start to overtime, pull those together to create a much more holistic experience. You look at what is happening with driverless cars, we are getting there by solving these discrete problems. Parallel parking, you get parallel parking assist. You get lane assist. Then you get approaching and vehicle with Cruise Control engage, you have adaptive Cruise Control. All of us on, each one of those starts to look like a very discreet, the town of us experience. But them all together and you get a full driverless car experience. I think that is what happens. We are defining these, these welldefined problems, maybe they are only applicable for 20 of households. I do not think that we would necessarily see a massmarket adoption of connected yield mats, because not everybody does yoga. We have propane tanks of that you can connect to the internet so that you can know how full they are. That is not applicable to everyone. But we start to move into these smaller niche markets. I actually have the opposite response. Because the cost of instrumentation is so low, what you actually see is 1000 experiments, 1000 999 of them are chemical, and the one that gets it right how it went to zero 2 million users in a day, for whatever reason they got it right and now consumers essentially tell each other. It is not just broadcasting marketing, like it used to be. It is social media based. They say, this is the one that works. This is the right smartphone, so the right app. Particularly for electronics. Consumers, as a group they figure out the winner. That winter is a winner take all in many of these markets. It is a, one experiment were couple of experiments that exceed where others fail. It didnt cost that much of the first place, so investors are willing to get keep that going. Thank you. [applause] president obama spoke at a summit today. President obama says he does not use terms like islamic extremism, because it would create a false idea of a war with islam, which would help extremists. He says, we are not a war with islam, we are at war with people who convert islam. And he also said that the use of force will not just defeat terrorism and we must work with local communities. David jackson, usa today. The president s remarks will be shown later today. And former florida governor, jeb bush. Now a conversation of internet policy, regulation and startup technology. Representatives from facebook, google, yahoo , trip advisor and huber uber gather together for a panel. [chattering] welcome back. Welcome to the folks who have joined us. My name is nicco mele. I am on the faculty here. I am teaching my first class of the semester as soon as we wrap this up at 1 00. I thought the title of this part of the program is called your next big start up idea, why your internet policy matters. The goal is to get into a discussion about what it means for newer companies and startups, what internet policy ways it can constrain and encourage newer companies entering the space. Before we do that, at the end of the last session, we had a compelling comment from alex jones. Alex mentioned two things. One was the San FranciscoCourt Judgment during the yelp case. There was another story wanted to mention. They are related. The other one was from china. The leading Financial News organization of china has been charged by the Chinese Government with extorting money from prospective advertisers or clients or businesses in order to prevent or publish certain stories. In other words, the idea is they were extorting money and cooking their reports. That is illegal in china. They were charged with that. This is a great area for gray area for american journalism because it is true news organizations all over the country have long been seeking advertising from people they also cover. But you may not extort. You may not threaten. The issue for the web, it seems to me, is that there are laws that put limits on what news organizations can do in terms of their own reports. Even in the First Amendment environment, there are things you cannot do. The penalty for journalism for publishing something erroneous is libel. Defamation that does damage to people, that is something the courts have said you can make a claim about. As i understand the web attitude about data and all the information they gather and what they put on their sites, there is an argument being made constantly that they have First Amendment rights to do whatever they want. In the case of the yelp data, it was a case of saying we are not going to do this. We are not going to misuse this data. But that is something they reserve the right to say and there is no kind of law that is going to put constraints on that. However, if you are looking at yelp, google, and other entities publishing after a fashion, even though they just call it aggregating, information that could do damage, theyre going to find themselves in the realm of libel if they are going to claim First Amendment protections. I think the question is, where is the control of this vast amount of data going to reside . Is it going to be considered a First Amendment issue or something that comes under a different kind of legal regulation . I think the web world will resist anything that puts constraints on them aside from voluntary ones. I dont know whether that is going to stick. Two questions i would open to the room. One is about the role of the First Amendment in the issues we are talking about around speech and regulation. Many companies and organizations operate in the public sphere and there are speech considerations. The second is, you added at the end, some concern about resistance to regulation in the industry. I dont know if that is the core problem. I am going to interrupt and say the not so enviable task of following the professor and follow the same rules to ask you to keep yourself to one point and introduce yourself at the beginning. I am from the boston globe. It seems to me that you are going about the First Amendment issues, talking about regulation and legal issues. I dont know if the problem gets that far. In media, the classic way of expressing bias is not lying about people or providing distorted information. It is about what you decide to cover and not to cover. You can have a huge impact on businesses, individuals based on whether you show something online or dont show it. One thing i worry about is facebook or google or Online Services could advantage or disadvantage certain groups or Political Parties by simply choosing to show more of that perspective and less of something else. They could advantage a company by showing more data related to that company and less related to somebody else. I dont think you can do anything legally about it. That is the thing that is much more concerning. I would take your point. I think the fact is as the power of these websites is consolidated, as they grow unlike the boston globe, if you dont like the way you are covered, you can go somewhere else. You can go to the new york times, you can simply go online. But if you are a business covered by yelp and you are going to be impacted financially by where you lie in the advertisingdriven yelp rankings and yelp has the right to put you anywhere they want a stun they want based on advertising, that is not the way the boston globe does business. I think that the yelp guys would absolutely claim First Amendment rights. It is true that those lists are clearly capable of doing significant financial damage to someone. There are other responsibilities and considerations that come with First Amendment rights. I would disagree to an extent. If yelp or any other site is not being responsive to the user and they are arbitrarily having the rankings and it is no longer useful, people will no longer use it. There are alternatives. They will go to the sites most useful for the users. They will do other searches. They will look on facebook and asked friends. Every time i am on facebook, someone asks about a good restaurant in boston. That is not an official ranking thing. If any side is not being responsive to users or productive enough in that forum people use alternatives and there are other sites. Libel is geared toward the individual publishes and whether it does damages that can be proven. I just say, if yelp and others are claiming First Amendment protections, that goes with the territory as well. I wonder how that is going to sort itself out. Introduce yourself. Joel kaplan from facebook. Since we were referenced, im going to violate the rule and make two points. I will make them quick. I grew up in boston and love the boston globe. I find it extraordinary the notion that in the internet era where the most Significant Impact has been the small democratization and the ability of individuals to have voice the notion in the times when i grew up in, there was the globe and the herald. If you did not like the globe, it was a good thing that you had the herald. Now on the internet, everyone has a voice. They can have it on facebook yelp, any number of distribution mechanisms. Facebook is trying to provide the information to the individual that is most useful and interesting to them. If we fail, people will stop coming to facebook and will stop using the newsfeed. The second point i want to make that is relevant to the topic of this session of startups is this issue of Liability Protection for Internet Companies that are just showing User Generated Content is probably the single most important protection that led to the proliferation of successful startups and the internet as we know it today. I think it is a great point you brought up to start the conversation. I think you cannot overstate how important the intermediate liability is to the success of the companies around the table and the ones thinking about how they will reach their audience in the first place. If they will be subject to lawsuits for everything there there their millions of users put on the site, those sites will not be created and will not succeed. I want to take that as an opportunity to shift our discussion to the sharing economy. In this session, we are joined by a number of folks, lyft airbnb, uber. I was in germany and took uber home from my restaurant. I woke up Tuesday Morning to take uber to my first meeting and discovered it was not allowed to operate, maybe illegal. Looking at how that has played out in the United States, it seems it is happening on the basis of municipalities. Different municipalities and states taking different approaches from a regulatory perspective. I am wondering about that in the context of, should we have a broader more uniform way of regulating some of the questions arising out of the sharing economy . Or is there some advantage to more of a piecemeal municipal approach at this stage in the game . This is an issue almost every company is facing in some way. Certainly the Public Servants around the table are also dealing with this. Very interested in your thoughts as well. Move the mic closer. Brian worth with uber. The german court ruled uber did not have the proper permits to operate in the country. We are appealing and still operating in germany. Since of the court ruling, signups for uber gone up 590 in germany. The upside to that, people vote with their wallet. I think the german people are showing what they are interested in. They are interested in having Companies Like that operate in their country. We are hoping for a good resolution through the court system. As far as whether one solution or individualized solutions, i think it depends on the country and what the solution is. We have jurisdictions we work well with. We have good relationships with cities. The state of colorado passed peertopeer ridesharing legislation and set up regulations. It is a good regulation. It is something we work under. It is a good thing. There are other states where it is tougher. It is going to depend on the jurisdiction. One catchall solution that does not work is not any better than 50 different ones youre haggling with. My colleagues that run all over dealing with it city by city probably wish there were one solution as opposed to 50. Local government, a lot of times , in our space, this is something local governments have traditionally dealt with as far as the transportation market. Companies like uber, i think we ought to work with those governments to come up with a workable solution. Molly from airbnb. I would like to make an important point when it comes to the sharing economy and regulation. For the most part, the sharing Economy Companies are dealing with regulations that have nothing to do with the internet. Airbnb, all of the regulatory issues we are working on around the world have to do with the laws our hosts have to comply with in their municipality which have nothing to do with the internet. The internet simply enabled the hosts to do it more than ever before. Land use is regulated at the local level. There is no way around that. Landuse laws have good reasons to exist. They protect safety and other things we rely on. Thank goodness airbnb hosts live in safe homes. So, it makes it more complicated to advocate on behalf of our hosts in those cities, but i would echo ubers perspective that we have to work with the cities to figure it out. Hopefully, we can come up with a couple of solutions that might be applicable to thousands of cities around the world. Anybody else want to comment . Chris massey with lyft. I agree wholeheartedly. We have patchwork legislation across the country. We are dealing with laws written before anything like what we operate was contemplated. In some cases, dating back to the 1800s. What we provide to local governments is the opportunity to move into a new generation of innovation. We work collaboratively with cities and states. We work with state legislators and government offices. I imagine congressional members will get involved in the conversation. For the most part, this is a localized issue. We help them understand how to address mobility. What lyft has seen as a desire is a desire to move towards the next level of innovation regulation. We can come to the city of boston and say we want to be able to provide a positive mobility option for citizens. But we can work with you to provide some datasets so you understand how people are moving around the city and become a benefit to the cities as opposed to, you know. Offering some Data Collected for the purpose of Public Policymaking. I think we will have to partner with cities. We are already finding ways to work with these cities. That is just the next step. Very briefly, it is encouraging to hear the sharing Economy Companies talking about collaboration with local governments. I work for the city of boston. We are trying to craft appropriate regulations that address the Public Policy needs w