 Good afternoon. Welcome to The Future of Democracy, a show about the trends, ideas, and disruptions changing the face of our democracy. When we started this experiment, we thought we'd be going deep into interesting side paths and rabbit holes about the ways in which our democracy works. But we found that every conversation has really been about the sometimes subtle, sometimes dramatic shifts in the way that we live and how they have the potential to reorient the trajectory of our democratic society. So our new title reflects that experience. And sometimes this future looks very different depending on where you stand. Just a few years ago, the prevailing tone around the country and certainly in Washington about the major and growing technology companies was overwhelmingly optimistic. Companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google were providing beloved services. They were shaking up experiences and interactions in ways that we treated as long overdue and in many cases liberating in their potential. And they were epitomizing a culture of corporate innovation and domination seemingly worthy of universal emulation. But my how things have changed, just yesterday, the top executives of Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook faced intense questioning in Congress. And it all boiled down to one big question, have these companies become too big for our democracy? Few companies have been in the eye of the storm more visibly in recent months than Facebook. Critics have grown increasingly vocal that Facebook actively contributes to corrosive forces in our democracy like polarization, hate, and misinformation and have grown increasingly cynical that the company either does not care or actively profits from these ills. In June, a coalition of major brands and advocates launched the most successful advertiser moratorium of a major technology company to date. The hashtag stop hate for profit campaign challenged businesses to abandon advertising on Facebook for a month and ultimately attracted marquee participants like Unilever and Verizon. Earlier this month in a sign of the campaign's growing strength, Facebook executives met with the organizers to hear their demands. One of those organizers is FreePress, a progressive advocacy organization whose mission is to change the media to transform democracy and realize a just society. Today I'm going to be joined by FreePress co CEO Jessica Gonzalez. She is a longtime civil rights advocate working on issues of media and technology. It's going to be an exciting conversation, both about the future of these platforms and technology, but also about the present and what it's been like to interact with Facebook. So please join me in welcoming Jessica to the show. Hi, Sam. So good to be here with you. Thank you for coming. So just orient us a bit. Stop hate for profit. How did the campaign originate? So, Sam, many of our organizations have been working to stop hate and disinformation over Facebook for many, many years. So FreePress, for instance, helped co-found the change the terms coalition that actually includes over 60 civil rights, racial justice and digital rights groups that have been calling for several years on Facebook and other tech platforms to strengthen their terms of service, strengthen their enforcement of those terms of service, and provide more transparency and due process in how they moderate content. And so we've been tracking very closely what Facebook and other tech platforms are doing to keep people safe, to stop hate, to stop disinformation, voter suppression, and other things that are producing great harms to certain demographic groups, but also to society at large. Other partners in the campaign, including Color of Change, the NAACP, LULAC, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Sleeping Giants, ADL, and others have also been tracking this. Sometimes we've been working together. Other times we've been tracking on our own. And what we consistently noticed is that while Facebook may have some decent policies on paper, they were actually failing to enforce their own policies, and that at the end of the day, one of the driving business models of Facebook is not only engagement, but the way that divisive content like hate and bigotry and racism and disinformation actually increases engagement on Facebook. So that the business model itself is part of the problem. The business is designed to foster hate and disinformation and that Facebook wasn't doing enough to stop it. And that in fact, you know, we heard in a Wall Street Journal piece earlier this year that Facebook's own research that it hid from the public until Wall Street Journal broke the news shows that 64% of people who find far extremist content on Facebook were driven to that content by Facebook's own recommendation system. And of course, we see bigoted ads, particularly bigoted political ads that dehumanize groups of people, dehumanize immigrants, black people, and other people based on their demographic characteristics are still quite pervasive on Facebook. So, frankly, we were fed up. We were fed up because we've been making calls to action. We've been in dialogue with Facebook and we're tired of the talk. We want to see them put their money where their mouth is and make the changes that need to happen to, you know, to protect the health and safety of Facebook users and the health of our democracy. So, you know, there's it seems to me there's sort of two kinds of arguments about the way in which social media, you know, exacerbates some of these challenges or we believe that it does. One is it actually drives profitability, right, that incendiary content, hateful content that the kind of the kind of affinity that this that this channels, the emotions that this channels are the things that make social media appealing and profitable. And then there's kind of a lighter argument that says, like, it may not be sort of the core profitability of the company, but the point is they don't have enough, they don't really have an incentive to stop it. You know, at least the technology makes this easier to do. And so the company just doesn't have enough of an incentive to stop it. Do you what's what's free presses take on what the real challenge is here? I think that's exactly right. They don't have enough of an incentive to stop it. And we heard we heard Nick Clegg say even after the meeting that we had with them that Facebook doesn't profit from hate and it's not good for their business. We heard Mark Zuckerberg say that yesterday in the House Judiciary Antitrust hearing that Facebook doesn't profit for hate or that hate is bad for business. I think in the long term, I really hope that's true. I actually think it's a very risky business and not sustainable in a long-term way as our society diversifies to trade and profit and hate. But I will say today they are directly profiting off of hate. And it is if you're just looking at dollars and cents and not worried about long term risk or advertising, you know, then it has benefited them to leave hate up. And what do you think resonated at this time with companies? Why do you think so many companies were there have been other ad moratoria before YouTube? I think two years ago, there was a there was there a big brand safety concerns. What resonated do you think with the corporate partners? Well, I think it can't be overstated the influence that the movement for Black lives and people protesting in the streets about racism. That impact has been incredible. We see not just individuals, but companies, governments, organizations, you know, scrutinizing what their role has been in oppression, particularly oppression of Black people. But like what roles have our institutions played and have we played in and of ourselves in exacerbating or legitimizing or normalizing oppression? I think that is an important thread that I don't want to leave behind in this debate that like we're having a moment of reckoning because of the tremendous organizing that's happening in the Black Lives Matter movement. But I think in addition to that, we also brought together a collection of organizations that haven't always worked together on this issue. And then the other thing, Sam, is that we've been around the block a few times with Facebook now. We've seen how they play us and we weren't going to let that happen again. We know what their tricks are. They have an appeasement strategy. They talk to all of our groups. They try to pit us against one another. They have talking points that can sound very convincing if you haven't done the research and really peeled back and seen what's actually happening on Facebook. Some of their policies are quite good on their face, but they're very poorly enforced. And so they know how to say all the right things and pull all the right levers to take the heat off of them without actually doing the hard work. And it is hard work that needs to be done to root out hate and disinformation on the site. So we've seen that before. Our allies had seen that before. And frankly, journalists have seen this play out before. And I just think we were a lot more ready. We were coming in with our eyes wide open. And so that's part of it. We were able to really tell the true story of what Facebook has been up to and not be swayed by talking points or other leverage points that they were using. And then I just think the advertisers, they were ready. I think in addition to the movement for Black Lives, we're all figuring out how to keep each other safe during the pandemic. And we've seen how disinformation about coronavirus is deadly. We see that the disproportionate impacts of the coronavirus fall on Black and brown people. I mean, Herman Cain passing like, say what you will about his political positions, it's incredibly sad, actually, that people believe that we don't need to take more precautions. And I think Facebook and other companies and advertisers were all watching the impacts of disinformation and how it's causing real harm. So I don't think I don't want to say it's any one thing. I just feel like we were coming to a tipping point where a lot of folks were doing internal reckoning, but also just watching the truth play out like politicians can tell as many lies as they want, but 150,000 people are dead that probably didn't need to die. And so there's just a lot of contributing factors. And I think part of it was that our organizations came ready. And the advertisers were doing some introspection. Do you think consumer sentiment is shifting? I mean, it's interesting that a lot of people called yesterday's hearing sort of a big tobacco moment for the, I don't know that it really quite delivered on that, but it certainly, I mean, by the moment that everyone was referring to, it's not like anyone thought cigarettes were healthy in the mid 90s. That wasn't what shifted. What shifted was a generation of young people that were not interested in smoking, the same generation that ultimately sustained bands, restaurant bands and other things that would have seemed unthinkable and ended up very quickly becoming the norm. It didn't help that you had Jeffrey Wygan and you had the insider and these things that were popularizing, the whistleblowing, but it seems to me the culture was shifting. And at some point, the industry had failed to anticipate that change. Is that what's happening here? Is it that people have a more personal experience of social media? Is it that in the heels of social media harassment, misinformation, hate speech? Is it that people just don't like the services, you know, the way that they used to? And so their tolerance when they hear credible accusations that these platforms advance certain kinds of harm, that their tolerance to listen to those accusations is more intense. What do you think it is that's sort of shifting the trick? Because this has happened quite quickly. I mean, it was not that long ago that we really held these companies up as just sort of the absolute icons of the future. The beginning of the pandemic. Thank goodness for social media. Everyone got back on Facebook, right? You know, I think the sea change is real. We saw that in a poll that came out last week from Accountable Tech and GQR that actually pulled on people public opinion of American voters on tech platforms and on Facebook in particular. And I was stunned, frankly, that poll found that 55% of people had heard of the Stop Hate for Profit campaign and the Facebook ad boycott. It found that 74% of people, this is across party lines, 74% of people agreed and supported the companies that joined the boycott and that people would be more likely to buy products from companies that took a stand against hate. And it also found that we have about two-thirds of American voters who believe that rooting out hate, disinformation, and conspiracy theorists on Facebook should be a top priority. That is a sea change that's happening. And I'm actually glad you brought up whether this was a big Tex, big tobacco moment. I see a lot of similarities there. And I don't know that we got to all of them yesterday or that getting to them in an antitrust context is even the right way to go. I think there's a lot more lines of inquiry, including civil rights inquiries that need to be focused on some of these platforms. But when I see a number of studies coming out of Facebook, like the one that was revealed in the Wall Street Journal, but other internal studies about behaviors, how Facebook influences people's behaviors, moods, beliefs, we see that they are now going to take up another internal review of whether its algorithms are biased. We've heard from employees earlier this week that such studies already existed and that we didn't hear about it. And so I do think people are aware that companies, 71% of people in this poll said that Facebook will put profit over societal good. So people are becoming aware of that dynamic. And I really want to know what do these companies know that we are not being told. If there's internal research about the impact and particularly harmful impacts to our democracy, to our health, to our safety, and particularly the health and safety of women and people of color, I want to know about it. And I'm actually really concerned that studies that show that the platforms are having negative impacts are being buried. And so that is the big tobacco moment that I'm hungry for, not just for Facebook, but for a number of these tech platforms. What do you know about how you're influencing society and about the harms that you're bringing to bear? Because that was the thing that was so insidious about big tobacco, right? It wasn't just that they were killing people. It's that they knew they were killing people and they hit the ball. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, I guess there are similarities. I mean, I think the idea that the companies are aware of the harm and are seeking to suppress that to avoid public scrutiny and accountability or maybe aware, I certainly see as a similarity. I also think part of the challenge with big tobacco is it became clear that they weren't dealing with us in good faith. And that is to be true of a lot of corporate actors, but I think it's something that, depending on the issue, but it's something that people react to. I guess what I see is the dissimilarities are at the level of one cigarette, you're creating all kinds of externalities in society. And so the thing itself is corrosive to public good, to personal good. The only well-being is really the joy that you get in direct exchange for the health consequence to yourself and the externality for someone. It's a true vice. And I think with social media and also e-commerce, I mean, so you have to bring Amazon into this and Apple into this as well, it strikes me that part of the problem, a lot of the harm comes from the necessity for the network service to be large and to be large at a level at which it can't be managed. Like tobacco executives need you to want to smoke. I get the sense sometimes that the technology executives just kind of wish that these problems would go. It's not that they want polarization in part, they just wish it would go away. They wish this just wouldn't be a part of the platform. I think I agree with you that sort of, you can't really wish for that. The question is, have you created a technology that enables that, that accelerates that, and then therefore you have some social responsibility for it. But those are sort of the dissimilarities that I see. And so to that extent, I do agree with you like figuring out what policy mechanism you use to get at that is going to be pretty critical at the end of the day. So let's get into that. What are some of the demands that you all have levied on the companies and how have they responded to them? That you've now had conversations with the top executives at Facebook, how have they responded to the different things that you've asked them to consider? So you can find our demands at stophateforprofit.org, but I will go through a few of them here. So we did ask for an executive level civil rights expert who can do a full internal, you know, oversee internal civil rights practices at Facebook. We asked for them to audit their current content moderation system for bias. We asked for them to strengthen their content moderation policies. And there we specifically cited the change the terms coalitions model corporate policies to disrupt online hate as a model. And those policies call for a ban on hateful activities. They call for much more robust investment in the enforcement of those policies. They call for greater transparency about what's happening with content moderation because we do need, as the public, we need to have the sunlight to figure out what's working, what's not working as we all balance free expression and safety and privacy and all those important values. And we also, you know, we also called for rights of appeals so that if folks get content taken down, there is a process that can come to a human moderator because sometimes machines make mistakes, right? And we know that algorithms do have bias. That's the Sophia Nobles great piece on algorithms of oppression taught us that many other scholars have looked in into that issue. So the other things we're calling for is our stopping the amplification and recommendation system that continues to recommend and amplify white supremacist conspiracy theorists and people whose sole purpose is to spread disinformation on the site. We're calling for a ban on white supremacist conspiracy theorists and disinformation spreaders that they routinely engage in that sort of behavior. And a number of other calls that you can find at stophateforprofit.org. How did they react? Like, what did you perceive their attitude to be when you actually met with executives? The meeting was so awkward, Sam. We had given them our demands three weeks ahead of time. It's not a long document. It's three pages long. And mind you, many of the demands had been before the company for a really long time, years and years. We've been in dialogue with them about what we needed to see out of the company to uphold civil and human rights. And so we got to the meeting and they seemed very impressed with themselves that Mark Zuckerberg was at the table and that we ought to just be thrilled to have a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg. We had come expecting them to actually have some responses to the request that we made. And instead, they wanted us to walk through what we'd already put out there. So that was really disappointing. We did spend some time talking about the harms of the current system. They talked a lot about how great they're already doing at removing hate and disinformation. I think they had that talking point on 64-point font. But then we laid out, well, here's the instances where it's not working. So you may be catching some things, but there's still a lot of really harmful content out there. And I did personally, I talked about the UN finding that Facebook played a determining role in the genocide in Myanmar and that I really pressed Mark Zuckerberg to take a deep reflection on the role that his platform is playing in legitimizing, facilitating, and normalizing mass atrocities like the one in Myanmar. And reminded him that mass atrocities are not exclusive to Myanmar. They're happening all over the world as close as our home state of California, where we have an atrocity happening on the US-Mexico border, where our kids are being removed from their mother's arms and separated from their families. And we have children in cages. I've heard Mark Zuckerberg talk a lot that he cares about immigration rights and immigration reform, the rights of refugees, and that this is something really harmful that's happening right here. I talked a bit about what happened in El Paso last year. We're coming up on the anniversary of that massacre and the shooter in his manifesto invoked the same language about immigrants and brown people as invaders, as an invasive species, as like subhuman, right? Something we've been battling in the Latinx and immigrants rights community for a long time. And those, that type of language was running in political ads. Thousands and thousands of political advertisements that were running on Facebook at the time and were heavily in heavy rotation in Texas, in particular, led up to this person who went to the Walmart with the specific intent to kill brown people and to kill immigrants. And so I asked him to reflect on that and to really take an honest look at how Facebook is being used to legitimize mass harm. How did he respond to that? You know, that was the moment where I felt like he didn't really have a response. He seemed to be listening. I think it shook him a bit. But again, he didn't respond with policy changes. We still haven't heard significant policy changes. We've heard a few things around the edges. They did agree, for instance, to bring on someone at a vice president level to work on civil rights internally. That was not the executive suite hire that we hope to see. We really wanted someone with the power and the influence to really move things at Facebook. But it is something we saw them last week commit to doing some internal auditing. I think if that auditing is actually released to the public and done in a transparent way, that could lead to meaningful movement. But again, I want to see a yes on our system. We'll stop recommending and amplifying white supremacists in conspiracy theorists. I want to see a yes on yes. We're going to update our policies. We got some commitment that they would beef up enforcement. Mark Zuckerberg made that announcement right after we launched a little over a month ago. But we need to see firm commitments and timelines when this is going to be implemented. And we need to know that the public is going to be able to see what Facebook is doing, that they're not going to do more internal studies behind the scenes that we may or may not learn about or that we have to learn about through leaks. I mean, are you optimistic that there's going to be meaningful reform without being compelled to do so? One. And two, is this a reform problem? Can Facebook actually reform its systems and practices to solve this problem? Or is the problem that a social network based on recency and popularity that has billions of tail users is going to be an accelerant for this kind of harm? Sure it can. Sure it can. If it wants to. It absolutely is in the power of Facebook to do this and to do this in a careful way. That's why we have, I changed the terms, we have those model policies. We think that is the way for Facebook to balance all the competing interests that it needs to balance here. Of course it can. It hasn't shown that it wants to. And we need more than the breadcrumbs and that's what we're asking for. Whether or not they move, I think that's an important question. And look, there are multi-layered problems at big tech platforms, not just at Facebook, that are going to require multi-layered solutions. I'm glad that we're looking at antitrust and whether these companies are behaving in anti-competitive ways. I think we also need privacy legislation. We need to look at our tax system. There's serious labor rights questions that are coming up, particularly with Amazon, but not exclusive to Amazon. I'm very concerned about the state of content moderators at Facebook. Most of that work is outsourced to independent contractors. And we heard last year from a couple of pieces in the verge that a lot of those people are working in some very horrific working conditions. So there's a lot of problems that we have to face. And I think we need multi-layered solutions. But look, the interesting thing that's happened in the past month or so is that we're seeing other companies step up to the plate. We saw Reddit do a wholesale reform of its policies and add some really good language around what it means to be engaged in hateful activities on Reddit. We're seeing Twitter step up to the plate. Listen, I think all the companies have a lot of work to do. But what it shows me is that if they have the will to change, they can. And they can do that and still be a platform that has wide engagement and that we are engaging in ways that advance civic dialogue and engagement. I think it's completely possible for that to happen. We're seeing other companies do that. And Facebook's behind. So a lot of people in the comment section are asking about what's next for the campaign, especially as we get to the end of the month. So what's next? Listen, we had great success. We've had great success. It's not over yet. We've had over 1,100 advertisers join us. Many of those advertisers are telling us that they're going to stick with us, that they're disappointed that Facebook hasn't done more. We're incredibly grateful for that support. We are also going to be launching in the UK soon. There's been incredible international interest in this campaign. In the past couple of weeks, I've talked to people in Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Spain, Germany, like UK. I've talked to folks in many different places that are very interested in this, that are feeling the societal impacts of Facebook in their regions and want to step up. So the pressure will continue. The focus on Facebook and the analysis of Facebook will continue into August. And we appreciate all the companies that came paused for July and that are sticking with us until we see significant change from Facebook. And what's the state of this field? Where are we in the maturity and the mainstreaming of a movement? You and I were talking before the show. I'm trying to figure out, are we in the revolutionary fringe fervor of 1850? Are we in the awareness raising of the 1890s to 1900s? Are we in the institutionalization of 1915 to night? Where do you think we are as a, where are you all as a movement? And then where are we as a society? I think awareness raising never ends. I think it's been tremendous to see the public opinion shift on this issue. I think you know, Sam, but the audience may not know. I've been doing anti-hate work for well over a decade now. The first question I used to get when I would talk about the need for companies to be more responsible about the hate speech that runs over their platforms was what about free expression? And I think what's been remarkable in this period is we're actually having a conversation about the power dynamics behind free expression and how the free expression of white supremacists silences women, silences people of color, and makes it actually more difficult for us to engage in robust debates about the issues that we need to be in robust debate about and how there's actually a very intentional, sophisticated strategy from white supremacists and conspiracy theorists and spread people who spread hoaxers. The very point is to get women, to get people of color, to get gay folks to shut up. They don't want to hear from us. And so we have to consider the power dynamics. We have to consider how those movements work to suppress the voices of people who have been historically oppressed in our society. And that's the conversation we're having now. That's the conversation we need to have, but we haven't had. And so that's really exciting to me. I do think there's real momentum to institutionalize the conversations that we're having, the deepening of understanding of these issues in the American public is incredibly important. I've always thought cultural change and some of our greatest leaders have shown us cultural change helps with policy change and institutional change. And so yes, I do think we're going to see more and better policies, not just from Facebook, but from other tech platforms. And I hope that we're going to see some structural legislative and regulatory change to hold these companies accountable to the people in the years to come. Well, let's talk about that for just a minute before I let you go. Because whether it was, whether it be remembered as the big tobacco moment or not, yesterday was certainly a milestone. It struck me for a few reasons. I mean, I think one, as you know from your years working with it, that's a committee serving notice for sure about what its appetite is on an issue. Two, one of the prevailing sentiments that I noticed in the kind of the reactions today was how far Congress has come as a legislative body. I mean, it was only a couple of years ago that the Senator Orrin Hatch betrayed that he didn't realize that advertisers were the economic engine of social media. And now you had for much more in general, sophisticated questions about the business dealings of these companies. And then three, and this actually something people haven't been talking about is despite a frontal assault on perceived anti competitive behavior by these companies, there was not a spirited defense of the evolution of competition to be more focused on consumer welfare. Republican members in particular seem to be focused on other issues and whether they're being censored. And so, but so you had you had a fairly one sided actually discussion about the future of this part of the economy. So what do you, you know, again, we're in just day one reflection, but are there are there things that you heard yesterday that give you hope about where where you think we will go from a policy perspective? And then what are the things you heard yesterday that help you to understand the work we still have to do, you know, to be able to as a society manage this technology effectively? The main thing that gives me hope is I thought that Democrats were very organized. It was a well run hearing. They asked good questions. They came with their research ready to go. I thought that part was excellent. The thing that gives me the most hope is that those companies were called to testify in the first place. I think we need to make that a regular practice. These these guys are behemoths now. And I do think they need to be accountable to the American people. And one way they do that is by showing up and answering questions before Congress. There's a lot of questions that remain unasked about the civil and human rights implications of these companies that we really ought to examine in in future hearings. I hope that all of those tech CEOs and others start to get called up to Congress on a regular basis. I was I was unimpressed with with their defense. Frankly, what I heard were some new instances of what seems to be anti competitive behavior, which I'd like to hear more about. I think another thing that wasn't you know, wasn't featured prominently was the privacy. You know, it did come up a bit, but the privacy concerns that people have about these companies and the tradeoffs that we're making in that space. I think there's lots of questions about whether these companies are giving back to society at the level that they're extracting from us and whether they're paying sufficient taxes. As you know, one of Free Press's main concerns with big tech platforms is that they are they have taken a lot of the ad revenue that traditionally went to journalism. And so not only are they spreading disinformation at a rapid pace at a pace we've never seen before in society around the globe, but they're also extracting dollars from the industry that we count on to correct misinformation to to report the truth to let us know what's happening in in our communities. And so we've been we've been a big fan of of loving a platform ad tax that would invest in local independent community journalism, journalism that you know is led by people of color and those who are often the targets of the misinformation campaign. So and I think there's so many other great ideas out there that have yet to be fully explored by that committee or by fully vetted, you know, and that we ought to be getting together and talking more about what are the problems we're seeing from our various corners of the world? What are some ideas for solutions? And how do we get there? Because I do think there is, you know, what what yesterday taught me or reinforced is that there is actual hunger for accountability both in Congress, but you know, going back to the polling data that was released last week from the American people, the American people are really fed up with rampant disinformation and hate. They they're fed up with polarization. They're fed up with the divisiveness. And you know, we have we have to be able to talk even when we disagree. And when we're all in our own little bubbles, that becomes a lot more challenging. So I do feel there's an appetite to move the ball in the right direction. So just maybe a last question for you. I mean, if you were if you were, you know, sitting sitting on the dice and as a member of Congress, looking at them on Cisco WebEx or what I think which I think is the software they used, you know, what what's a question that you wish had been asked? What would you have asked if you were there yesterday? Who let me get my let me get my list. Number one question. Oh, yeah, well, I want to know what they know about how their platforms are being used to harm people. I think there's a lot the American people don't know. And I want to know what they know about that. I probably would, you know, had I known this question was coming, I might have had a sharper response. But I guess the one that hits me in the gut, we keep it we're keeping it fresh. Well, you can you can list all your other good questions on your Twitter feed, which for those of you who want to follow Jessica, it's at jgo4justice, you can go to visit free press at freepress.net. We will also send out the link to the to the campaign if you want to learn more about hashtag stop hate for profit. And as always, this will all come to you after the show. But Jessica, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me, Sam. It's good to talk to y'all. Good to talk to you too. And before we go, I want to share some exciting news about what's coming up on the future of democracy. Not only have we changed our name, but we are now available as a podcast, new episodes. So this episode, for example, will drop tomorrow, they will always drop on Fridays. And you can subscribe right now on Spotify or Stitcher. You can also find all previous episodes on Spotify and Stitcher and will soon be on other other platforms as well. So if you prefer to watch the show while walking outside with a mask, or walking inside with a mask, or while cooking, while wearing a mask, just head over to Spotify or Stitcher and subscribe to the show to get new episodes automatically when they drop. We also have some great upcoming shows. Next week, August 6, we will have Lulu Garcia Navarro, the host of Weekend Edition on NPR. On July 13, we'll be hearing from Yvonne Levin, leading conservative commentator. And on August 20, we'll be hearing from Civil Rights icon Wade Henderson, the past president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. As always, you can just email us at vision.kf.org or visit us on Instagram, and please stay for 30 seconds to take a two-question survey. And we will end the show, as always, to the sounds of Miami songwriter Nick County. You can find his music on Spotify. Until next week, thank you for joining us and stay safe.