 We have time for two or three questions, one back here and one over here, yes sir. Hi there, Simon Galperin from the Community Info Co-op. This is a question for Ory and the Knight Foundation. Given the Trump administration's role in diss and misinformation and rhetoric that has led to the death of journalists from Maryland to Turkey, what are we supposed to think about you being here, telling us about how we should be interacting with our communities and ways that protect democracy and uphold our values? And to the Knight Foundation, what are we supposed to think? About this conversation, juxtaposed to the conversation we were just having before about how important diversity, equity, and inclusion is. We used words like love, we talked about Reiki, and now we have an administration up on this stage that is actively working against everybody in this room. So I'd like to ask Ory why you think you should be here and the Knight Foundation why they think Ory should be here and deserves to speak to us. Well, I would say before Ory answers, I will say Ory was invited to provide a view from the White House where he could speak freely on what he could talk about and that that was not going to include regardless of who was in power speaking about certain topics. And so I'm going to let Ory answer that question in his own way. I'm certainly not speaking for him, but I will state on behalf, I think, of the Knight Media Forum and certainly myself who extended the invitation that I welcomed the fact that he was willing to come to what some might have considered was hostile territory. So I am absolutely aligned with your commentary. I understand where it comes from, but not everything can be answered when you represent any political party. So I'm going to ask Ory to answer what he can answer and I thank you very much for the question. So I'm sure you can go back to something you said a couple minutes ago when you were talking about the Philippines. There is a danger to only seeing one side of an issue, to only seeing one perspective and to only being willing to listen to one perspective and in that particular example to only having one source of information. The reason I have confidence in our country and in our democracy and in the American people to find the truth is because there's a multitude of sources of information. There are a lot of examples abroad where really tragic violent incidents have happened because of disinformation in WhatsApp groups, for example, closed networks where other information isn't able to get in there. And so I'm always happy to have conversations with folks who disagree with me. I have a lot of liberal friends and I think, you know, we all have different perspectives if we're not able to talk about those perspectives, we're going to get more and more into our silos, have a harder time understanding people who disagree with us and that's not good for the country. Thank you. We have a question over here. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for being here. My name is Rick Thames and I teach at Queen's University of Charlotte and as I'm hearing you talk today about who can regulate the web and how or should it be done. I'm thinking back to the earliest days of radio and the earliest days of radio weren't regulated until it became necessary and that actually was precipitated by the sinking of the Titanic where the radio operator couldn't get back to shore and so government intervened at that time and said there's a reason here for us to do something. The same thing happened with television. This of course is a different era and it's a different time but I'm curious to know what parallels you think there could be for where we are now and how and why is it not appropriate to become some kind of a balance between the owners of the medium and government to regulate. Daddy, why don't you start? Thank you. That's an excellent question. You know, I was just talking to a sort of a media historian who said that with both radio and television it took about 30 years roughly from the advent of the technology to the sort of settling down of the both business and regulatory framework that became, you know, sort of the commonplace for both of those media and so, you know, I don't know that there's some magic to the idea of 30 years, you know, maybe with the Internet it takes 40 years or 100 years, you know, but I do think that, you know, we are at an early stage of figuring out how this is all going to work. These technologies, they don't feel that new. We've been living with them for a long time but they're relatively new, you know. And I do think there's a parallel. I mean, you know, people talk about censorship and so forth and I think, you know, part of that has to do with the fact that people perceive and rightly so or justifiably so anyway, you know, Facebook to be a platform rather than a publisher and that's a very obviously open debate that I'm sure many in this room have thoughts on. You know, you know, when it comes to TV, you know, no one is guaranteed the right to a half hour daily news show on NBC and no one seems to think that's an injustice. So there are gatekeepers there deciding what kinds of content you have access to and what kinds of content you don't have access to. When it comes to Facebook, people think that is an injustice and I get why these are participatory platforms. You're, you know, checking in with your grandkids and you're, you know, you're talking to your friends and you're posting photos from your birthday party there. I do think that, you know, the word censorship is a bit of a boogeyman. The idea of gatekeeping who's got access to mass media is something that we've all accepted and I think justifiably so. I think some ideas have no business getting a platform and so, you know, that's actually, that history with radio and TV is part of why I am so enthusiastically in support of, you know, a more aggressive regulatory framework when it comes to social media. Please join me in thanking this panel. Thank you so much, Judy, Teddy, Ory.