 In 2017 we started working on different causes, so we launched Mapa del Coalimento, which is a platform for victims of and survivors of sexual violence to find therapists and lawyers that want to give them free services. And Beta, our feminist chatbot, she operates on Facebook and gives a large constituency of young women opportunities for campaigning for reproductive rights in Brazil. And last year we did a few solidarity campaigns. I brought two here that have become larger projects. Somos Cria was a massive, they're both crowdfunding campaigns, Somos Cria was a massive crowdfunding campaign to support local schools that prep black women, young black women for university so they can actually take the entrance exams and pass, which is very hard in Brazil for public universities. And we did that campaign after a local congresswoman, Marielle Franco, was assassinated in March last year, about a year ago now. And she had herself been through one of these schools and made it to university thanks to that. So we thought it was a good way of paying tribute to her and to her path. And we just heard last week that 102 black women that went to these prep schools essentially for the year after the campaign actually made it to university just last week, so that's really great. And we also did a huge crowdfunding campaign after Bolsonaro was elected and we re-granted all the money to 10 local organizations that work with victims of hate crime. So that's sort of the kind of work that we do. We became essentially known in Brazil after we did this one campaign, there was a video about it, I'm not sure if the video is going to play, so I will just tell you what it was. We essentially in 2012 launched a campaign to save a local public school in Rio. We had just started our work and we launched this campaign to save a local public school from demolition. It was going to become a parking lot near the Maracanã stadium in the lead up to the World Cup. And the kids and the teachers and the parents, yeah, I know. I say this now but it's kind of ridiculous, isn't it? I just become used to the stories, I don't get surprised anymore, but yeah, it was one of the best public schools in the state of Rio and the local school community really organized and rallied around it and I think our team then helped them organize on a massive scale, get other citizens involved and more notoriously, we planted a webcam in front of the school using the balcony of one of the buildings. There we talked to this really sweet elderly couple that landed at their balcony for a few months and we had a webcam monitoring the school 24-7. People could watch it online and if they saw all those are coming, they could press a button and other people who had previously signed up received text messages and physically came to the school. So that happened three times during the time that we were campaigning and of course the press loved it, it just lent its health to great photo ops. Just a bunch of people sitting outside of this school and keeping the bulldozers out and after a while it became kind of ugly for the governor and he decided to just let it be, so the school was still standing and that's how we essentially got started and that was our very first big campaign in the city of Rio. I've already told you a little bit about the projects but just so you know how we think about them, would you think that some of our projects are more activist oriented, so more resistance oriented in a way and some other projects are more solidarity oriented and I guess the question then going back to what we were speaking about in the beginning is, is this work effective against platform strongmen and in order to answer that question I'm going to introduce you to Brazil's first platform strongman who is not Bolsonaro, a few years prior to Bolsonaro even being considered a viable candidate. This guy became mayor of São Paulo, meet João Doria, this not very handsome man actually, yeah I know. Anyway João Doria was the host of the apprentice Brazil rings a bell right? I know history just repeats itself very quickly now too which is kind of weird. Anyway so he was the host of the apprentice, he was a television personality, he got elected to be mayor of the of São Paulo, the biggest one of the biggest cities in the world, definitely the biggest city in Brazil and he was a very social media driven mayor, he was on Facebook every day all day long essentially doing live streaming from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m. the following day, he made a point of making sure that people knew that he would wake up early, that was a thing, so he would always live stream something at like 5 30 a.m. showing how early he was working, I don't know what that was about but anyway. So this is just a few examples of how he presented himself as a mayor and as a candidate, he would also do that, he would wear the uniforms of different sort of categories of workers in the city of São Paulo and take pictures wearing the different uniforms, it was very Sesame Street like, we don't know what was going on, anyway but that was him. Just a few more pictures just because I love it, look at that the rodeo hatch, isn't it amazing? Oh and this gesture means accelerate São Paulo because, and that's when it becomes interesting, João Doria was elected after a previous mayor, Fernando Adagio from the workers party had implemented a bunch of policies to restrict cars and the velocity of cars in the city of São Paulo, so much of his platform was actually around sort of undoing the policies of his predecessor and saying that his predecessor had de-accelerated or slowed down the city of São Paulo, so he would accelerate it again. Fernando Adagio then went on to run for president and lost to Bolsonaro just a few months ago, but when Doria took power his main campaign promise was to undo everything that his predecessor had done and I am by no means implying that his predecessor had only done good things, Adagio did some pretty bad things too, but the policies that he had implemented around car restrictions were actually quite successful from a scientific point of view. They had improved quality of light, they had improved actual traffic patterns, they had improved the quality of the air and they had contributed to diminishing that in due to car crashes and other traffic related issues. Now when Fernando Adagio was mayor, before Doria was elected, we had run one campaign also around cars as means a Sampa through a local organization in São Paulo for a policy that Adagio was not implementing on his own. So it was around cars, it was around an issue that we knew that he cared about, but it was not something that he wanted to do on his own and the campaign that we had run was around opening streets for pedestrians on Sundays. It was called Paulista Bertha and he focused on Avenida Paulista, which is sort of the most important avenue in São Paulo, but he also included 38 other important avenues that we wanted to ensure that people had access to on Sundays, especially given that São Paulo has very few green spaces, very few sort of spaces for families to take their kids to during the weekends. So it was a very simple thing, but Adagio was not very keen on doing that, mostly because the commercial associations, so the neighborhoods and commercial associations around these streets were very, very powerful and all of them were opposed to precluding cars from using these streets on the weekend. The people who lived around the streets were overwhelmingly in favor of this policy, but the commercial associations were not and Adagio was already essentially fighting with a bunch of people who didn't want to pick up that fight. We ran this campaign, we won the campaign, it was a massive campaign that lasted for over a year, engaged thousands of citizens in São Paulo and we won it and Adagio finally opened a bunch of streets, 38 streets throughout the city for pedestrians. It was the first step of recognizing the cars don't necessarily need to own our cities. When Doria was elected of his whole Accelerate São Paulo business, we were very worried. We said, OK, he's going to throw this policy in the mix and undo that one too. So we ran a campaign on him right after he was elected during that period in between the election and him actually taking office saying, please, don't undo this. We like this. This has been a success. Just let it be. Don't go in your fur of undoing everything that Adagio has done and undo this too. And this is the answer that we got from him, Joan Doria. That's his actual email address. My designer was very nice and essentially blurred the rest of it. I don't know why. I don't think he would all email him now, but he answered the way this campaign was built. It was an email pressure campaign. So essentially we had a web page where people could come in and they just left their sort of basic name, last name email address and we had a pre-populated message that was sent from the citizen's email address directly to the Joan Doria's email address. So he got about 40,000 emails in the first eight hours, which I'm sure he noticed. And then he answered. I'm not sure if he answered all 40,000 of them, but he definitely answered a bunch because we got a bunch of different members of Minha Sampa than emailing us and saying, hey, this is so exciting. And his answer was very short, was Paulista will keep being open on Sundays. It's working well. It was adopted by the population. And then we asked for a meeting with him just to make sure that there wasn't any mixed messages that he actually mentioned what he said on the email. Sometimes politicians will do that to us. They will publicly say that they are agreeing with a campaign, but then go back or there'll be caveats. And what he told us in the meeting was quite interesting. He said this was not an adagy policy. This was not done by my predecessor. This was done in spite of him. This was done because people pressured him and therefore I don't need to undo it. I think this is an important insight for how we deal with platform strongmen. And the inside is this. Even if we have people that we like in power, politicians that we love, politicians that are doing well or implementing good policies. If they're doing these things in a very orthocratic way without any link to the population, it'll be very easy for these platform strongmen once they take power and they will in some of our countries. I don't think there's a lot we can do about that. But it will be very easy for them to undo whatever policies we like. Our best hope for a continuation of public policy is to ensure that these policies are actually backed by the population. Democratic society is not just democratic governments. We need that. Otherwise, as public sentiment swings, as governments change, we will lose the policies that we hold dear. And I think technology has a very strong role to play in terms of fostering that kind of activism that leads to that popular support that will then give us hope for keeping our policies in place. That's the post that we did right after Doria said that he was going to keep the avenue open. Now continuing on, because the story is not finished yet, Doria is now governor of Sao Paulo. He won the last elections, so he's no longer mayor, his governor. Yeah, there he is, celebrating his victory with a Brazilian flag. And again, before Doria took power as governor, we had already launched the platform that I mentioned to you a few minutes ago, Mapado Coalimento, which links survivors of sexual violence with a network of volunteers that provide them with free services. We started with just mental health services because that was something that was lacking in the public health system in Brazil. Would you have some mental health services in the public health system, but not enough? It's not very well organized. And now we expanded it to legal services as well. Now it's almost 3,000 volunteers that have gone through our vetting process. We have a lot more that actually signed up, but we have a pretty strong vetting process for this. And over 2,000 women that got assistance through the platform every week because the therapy sessions are weekly. So now we're handling weekly sessions for over 2,000 women. That was something that we had already implemented about a year before Doria was elected. The week after he took office as governor, he said he actually vetoed an initiative by the local parliament to implement 24-hour police stations for women in the state of São Paulo. So one of the sort of older demands of the movements that are comprised of sexual violence survivors in Brazil is that there are the be specialized police stations that are staffed by women and they're open 24 hours so that women that are victims of violence can go to a safe place where they know they will not be dismissed as so often happens in sort of normal police stations. And this has been an demand that has been building up. Minha Sampa actually did a campaign, our organization in São Paulo did a campaign to open the very first police station of that kind in the city of São Paulo and we won. It's been open for a few years now. But then the local parliament in São Paulo on its own, we didn't have any campaign pressuring them, passed a bill essentially that would essentially ensure that there would be a number of these police stations in different zones in the state of São Paulo available to women 24 hours a day and João Doria vetoed it. Those are the sort of headlines. Doria Veta Project, Doria Veta means veto. Right after that happened we launched a campaign and that campaign what was different about it is that we didn't launch it to our normal sort of base of activists. We actually launched it to the volunteers that were working with us in Mapa do Colimento. People that had been essentially flexing their civic muscle for a while through the solidarity network that we had built. And that solidarity network had kept them connected to this issue even as Brazil was sort of torn apart by what was a very heated election, a very polarizing election. So inside of that community we had people that had voted for different candidates and we certainly most have had people that voted for Doria himself. But we had sort of built that community based on this idea that women need specialized assistance and we were actually providing that assistance to some extent ourselves. But there are certain kinds of assistance that need to come from government. And we launched this campaign to that member base and he said the government just vetoed this. We need this to actually go through and we know that you care about this issue because we've been dedicating hours of your life every week to helping other women. We need you to get engaged in this. And because these were people that were already engaged at a higher level, we didn't necessarily need to ask them to send an email only. We could ask them to do more involved things, higher barrier to entry things, show up in person at his office, send physical letters to his office, all kinds of actions that are a little bit harder to take but they really show a politician that there is popular support for something. It was a very successful campaign. It was very quick and then he went back and said yes I will open the 24-hour police stations. This just happened. This was just a few weeks ago because it just took office as governor. And of course he will then hug a bunch of women and take pretty pictures with them but that's fine. If that's the price we have to pay, it's okay. There you go. There he is with some of the police officers that are going to be staffing these stations and of course he made a video and he also uses that for his own platform and we know that but that's his logic and we sort of have to play with what we have and this is how policy is being decided upon today which is not necessarily a good thing but it is what it is and if we don't do it well, if we don't play this game well enough, we are going to lose. I think we already are losing but there you go. Through this work we've been essentially growing quite rapidly. We're now a bit over 1.3 million people in terms of membership. These are people that are members of our different civic engagement structures in different cities. We have trained over 150 activists in the past few years in 20 cities. More than 3 countries is kind of a weird phrase in 4 countries and raise a lot of money through crowdfunding and we have these permanent networks in 13 different cities in Brazil. We have created in 13 cities. We have 7 that are really active today and 6 that are a bit less active so we don't count them in necessarily when we do multi-city campaigns. What I want to leave you with and what I always tell my team and the volunteers and the members that work with us is that in spite of the very tough times that we're facing as activists, as promoters of the resistance and the solidarity that we need to move forward, we are playing the long game. I don't think we're going to see a lot of victories in the next couple of years, maybe not in the next few years really, with the exception of sort of very specific policy victories that I think we can still have and I've just shown you a few examples of how that can happen. But in spite of that, I am certain, I am convinced that a new generation is rising and that generation is better than us. It's more connected, more open, more queer, more tolerant, less cynical and more honest than what we've seen before. I'm not talking about my daughter's generation that will be too far away in the future. I am not that pessimistic but I'm talking about the 15 and 16 year olds of the world who are surprising as every day of their creativity and their ability to organize and that's our membership in the work that we do is mostly quite young, 16 to 29 is our main age bracket so we deal with people like that every day and we know that they are the real deal. They're doing really interesting work and they will save our democracies if we let them, if we don't make our democracy so impermeable to public participation that they don't even have a chance. As NOSAs and I think as a sector in general, I hope that we can be the generation's first school of democracy. I hope we can beat these new authoritarian movements quickly and effectively and resist but also reinvent, rebuild, regenerate because if we don't challenge ourselves to create institutions that are truly radically different from what we've seen before, platform strongmen will keep on dominating them and doing whatever they want with them and it will be a very hard world to live in in a few years from now but I don't think we're necessarily headed there because there is incredible energy in the sector that we can channel for good and I hope we do it together so thank you. We've got 10 or 15 minute for questions. I guess, Alessandra, do you want to handle the questions yourself or? Perfect. No, no, no, over to you. So I've got a question whilst you're getting ready which is it strikes me the the role for technology is perhaps less important than the personal connections that are formed on the ground and so on so I'd be interested in the kind of the interaction between those two things and then open up to the floor. So the way we see ourselves it is organized, it's not digital activists, right? We organize people and that may be through a campaign, that may be for a solidarity effort, it may be for different things and I think what technology does is that it makes organizing cheaper and more accessible at a scale that is relevant to a city like Sao Paulo, a city of 12, 13 million people. So I think technology is actually quite vital. We wouldn't be able to do the work that we do without good technology simply because we wouldn't have the resources to operate at this scale without technology. However, we don't see it as a lens in itself, we do see it as a means for effective organizing and effective organizing is your right based on building personal connections that last, building identification to a cause and to a community. People will work together in spite of their political differences if they trust each other on some level. So what we found is that making sure that people see the humanity in each other and they have a common cause, a common ground is actually quite powerful if you do it over time in spite of other differences that may arise and I think technology if used badly can actually go in the opposite direction of that. It can actually make people blind to what is common in them and to what unites them because it sort of creates this veil, very easily you could do that, but it can also actually do the opposite thing, help you find your peers, help you find your civic soulmates in this sort of sea of craziness that we're living in. There's a question over there. Hi, Luke from Grassroots. The question particularly, I really like the thank you very much for the framing of beating platform strongmen on their own ground and a very tactical question on that. One of the things that's been reported on quite a bit from the Brazilian election as something very innovative and very aggressive use of technology was the Bolsonaro campaign's use of WhatsApp groups at scale. It's been particularly reported in terms of sort of fake news, but actually it looks like from the outside it was really important in terms of organizing and getting people to act. Can you describe a bit more about sort of in learning from the enemy, how they actually did that in terms of getting people to actually act and what we can learn from what they did there? Yeah, so a few things. We did quite a lot of thinking around this and some research and some espionage as well so I can share what I know, but I think my first thought is we don't know enough. We need more research on this and it's hard to have research on what happens on WhatsApp because it's encrypted because it's not sort of a public timeline like what we see on Facebook. But what we do know is that most of the WhatsApp groups that were activated by the Bolsonaro campaign were actually not created as Bolsonaro campaign WhatsApp groups. They were created as neighborhood groups. They were created during the truck driver strike that happened earlier in the year. They were created for other uses and then sort of Bolsonaro campaign there sort of took over in a way and then they became very active during the campaign. I think that's an important insight and it goes back to what I was saying about personal connection. It's once you've built a group that is already connecting about something that is of common interest to everyone and that group has been effective over time. It is a lot easier for the organizers of that group or the most sort of prominent de facto leaders of the group to then introduce a new mission and the mission may be a little expose on Ado and that be well received by the other members of the group. So that's one one thought. The second thought is that the kind of messaging that Bolsonaro was using just travels well on WhatsApp. And I think that's an unfortunate side effect of the architecture of our social networks is that they do favor sort of very superficial fake information very sensationalist. And I don't think we can necessarily beat them at this game because that would be unethical. But we can we can work on language when we talk about issues so they don't seem so lofty and sort of far away from people. So very basic insight but I think very important. And then I think the third thing which requires a larger conversation with Facebook essentially is that the same things that make what's up amazing for some types of activist work encryption the fact that you can do so much in a private way is also allowing crimes to be committed in a way in electoral crimes included in a way that goes unchecked. And we just don't have an answer a good enough answer for that yet but we do we need one. I don't think the answer is getting rid of these things. We do work with WhatsApp and Rio as well around police violence. We do collaborative reporting of police violence through WhatsApp. And the reason we do it through WhatsApp it's because of encryption and the fact that everyone has WhatsApp. So I don't think we should lose it. I think what's up is actually an amazing technology very valuable to activists in many ways but the impact on the elections was terrible and that's something that we need to look at but not necessarily just a civil society also as the largest sector. I think there was a question over there and one over here. I'll go there and I'll go back to you. I won't forget you. Yes. Hi. Miha Sifri from Civic Hall. Thank you for that wonderful presentation. I have to say coming to this conference now for many years it's really striking to hear a keynote that is so activist or as opposed to neutral in the way that civic tech works. So question joke. Are you sure your last name is in Cortez because you sure remind me of AOC a very interesting new political actor in the United States. And so that gets my question which is number one. Do you think personally that you might enter politics. Do you think being in politics may be the best vehicle for the type of work that you're describing. And then the second question is do you worry about your own safety. Okay. So first question I've already entered politics but not in an actual way. I know what you mean. Do I think about running for office. Yes. Not now. If I say no I think that will be a lie. I love politics and I love policy and I think there is a scale to whatever the state does. That is just amazing. So I would love to be a part of that at some point in my life. But the way that the political system is organized in Brazil right now would make it very hard for someone like me to have any impact. And I think I've been working with this for long enough now to know that it is often an illusion just how much impact you can have from the within. I'm not I'm not disagreeing that big change also needs to happen from within. But I think we oftentimes assign way too much power to whomever is holding the pen. When in reality that person is subject to so many types of pressure from everywhere party pressure constituency pressure funder pressure etc. That I think for now at least for me a more effective way of having that kind of impact is actually organizing a new kind of pressure so that everyone who's already in politics is also subject to citizen pressure. Otherwise they're just responding to interests that are well better organized than we are. And I think we have a potential for having more power than we exert as citizens. It's just a matter of sort of organizing ourselves better. So that's for the first one on safety. Yes I do. We faced some pretty serious threats about a year and a half ago. We face sort of trolls and hate all the time every day. But I don't really count that in. I think that's sort of like a dog that barks but doesn't necessarily bite. But we did face some serious threats about a year and a half ago because of the work that we do on police violence and we realize that that piece of work was actually making we would have to create security protocols around it that would then have to sort of be applied to the entire organization. So we are actually trying to spin that piece of work out precisely because of that because it wasn't just me. I was definitely more in the spotlight but my entire staff was very scared. And we work with a pretty diverse staff. So people that come from different walks of life. Some people that live in favelas and Rio there are subject to sort of all kinds of different political rule. And I think even though the threats that were made to me were more public. I think that the threats that are made to them are much more serious. So I do worry about my safety. I worry about the safety of my team a lot more than I worry about my own because I'm not AOC. I love her but I'm not her. And I come from a at least on my mother's side wealthy background which in a country in a very very unequal country like Brazil gives me some level of protection. I don't kid myself into thinking that that will make me invincible. But it is different from being say a black woman in Islam in Rio and I do have black women who lives in the two that live in slums in Rio and or whose families do in my staff. So that's what I'm mostly worried about now. And that's why when both are not a one the crowdfunding campaign that we ran was to support very small organizations that work directly with victims of hate crime. It wasn't necessarily to support us. But then again yes it's a it's a weird situation in Brazil. So yeah some level of scared I think it's it's prudent. But I say I tell myself this will sound very strange in English. But I'll say it anyways that we will not die until they kill us. So I will not let fear keep me or anyone that I work with from speaking up and actually doing this work because I think that fear is both on our own other platforms. They play very well with the resemblance of the democratic normalcy. So they will say and claim because they were elected that all is well for our democracy. There's nothing wrong. They're not doing anything that should be considered reason for being alarmed. So the flat the sort of the flip side of that is that if we are so fearful that we shut up that won't necessarily be seen as a direct sort of result of their work that would just be seen as us being cowards like there's just no nothing tangible enough that would necessarily make us shut up. With that said I was friends close friends with Maria Lee. So we've had our share of loss and violence in Brazil in the past year. And so we sort of need to keep an eye out. There was a question here that I don't want to forget. And then I think we're going to run out of time. But I'll be around. I'm not going to be around me. I'm going to be around for like a few minutes after this and then I'm going to have to leave. You have my baby a little bit but I'll be back later and then tomorrow. So we want to talk more. I'm here. Yes. Okay thank you Alessandra. This was a very inspiring and useful frame. You know the resist and regenerate. And a great flow from the presentation. Because just before you went into that historical perspective. I wanted immediately to ask you how did all your work since 2011 play into this kind of politics rising. Why did that happen despite so many groups doing this work. So it's fantastic. Like the way you put there. My question is if you can say a bit more about what notion do you think we need to give to solidarity in that context. And you spoke about solidarity at scale. And you know I can see this in a platform about like women that have been through violence. But that solidarity between people that dehumanize other members in the community and the people who are dehumanized black women migrants in Brazil or in other contexts. How do when we don't have the personal connection as in like people working in the neighborhood. And I know that's a very hard question. Just your thinking on like how do we do solidarity at scale. When we have these polarizing situations. And maybe just to put this into context like I co-lead the global strategy program for Amnesty International. And I'd love to talk to everybody about it but we're at some point in the next month like launching this bigger consultation on like how does Amnesty need to transform the way we do solidarity. Being that it's a big organization built on like the concept of international solidarity. But now we're at another moment in time and we're going to use tech to do that etc etc. And it's great if we can start collectively thinking about these questions. Okay. Hard questions to answer quickly but I'll give you just a few thoughts. From a tactical perspective I think that again you don't you you cannot stand in solidarity with someone that you don't see as an equal as a human being. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to know them personally. That doesn't necessarily mean that you need to agree with them on every issue. But it does mean that you have to see the humanity in them. And I think what makes us sensible to the humanity in others is different for everyone. But it's definitely not necessarily the demographic data that most political organizers historically work with. So it's not necessarily age. It's not necessarily social class. Like that's sort of the the traditional categories for targeting political messaging are already blurred. And I think the platform strongmen were actually the first ones to notice that and that's why they moved into working with psychological analysis, targeting their messaging, not necessarily through the traditional demographic categories but ways of thinking. So some people are more easily convinced by numbers. I'm going to give them numbers. Some people are more easily convinced by emotional stories. I'm going to give them that. They're doing that they're doing that too better than we are. But when it comes to solidarity the things that makes us sensible to the humanity in others are different. But there are a few common traits and I think we can if we have a large community of members I'm sure have you could get data on this if you if you applied some data science to it. What we've done with our database is try to identify these traits and it's not we started our biggest solidarity platform with survivors of sexual violence not just because it is a huge issue in Brazil because it was a real need. Those are of course big factors into making that decision but also because we realized that after the very young people our biggest membership was actually amongst 35 to 55 year old women with children so it's essentially young young youngish I guess sorry mums that that we see the most action and we realized that knowing that someone was also struggling to raise their children or were facing some of the same issues that he were as a mother actually made you a lot more sensible to their struggle in spite of differences in class race etc etc. So I think we can find bridges like that of course in an ideal world I'm a humanist I would love for people to just see the humanity in everyone just because they're human beings but that's just not necessarily how people operate and again I think that part of our struggle with platform strongmen and with sort of far right populists in general is that we oftentimes don't want to work with the realities of how people get engaged politically because we will like those realities to be different so we sort of already operate on the assumption that they are but they're not people want to be on whatsapp and saying like they want the gossipy aspect of politics to be served to them and they will stand in solidarity a lot easier if you give them something to identify with and if you do that over time I think that's also key especially for international organizations that often not saying it's the case with MSD I don't know the work well enough but that often sort of come in in moments of crisis and just run one campaign and then go out what we've learned is that in order to build trust in a community the community and the team and the team with the community and the community and and amongst itself you need time milhiu for instance we took a poll after Bolsonaro was elected and we realized that about 20 percent of our members voted for him about 30 percent of them self-identified evangelical Christians and they're not leaving the community even though we took a very strong stance against most of what he was saying but we never said that he was equal to his followers I think that's one thing people vote for candidates in spite of disagreeing with them on some issues we all do that I know it's harder for us to accept that people would do that when the issues are our women inferior to men and like oh you shouldn't you shouldn't vote for someone who thinks that or who says publicly I would rather have a dead son than a gay son but the reality is that people voted for some people voted for him for other reasons in spite of that and just equating his hideousness to meaning that everyone who voted for him is also hideous will not help us ask them to stand in solidarity with people that are being targeted by these policies so we realize that we have enough people in our community that like him to some extent enough to vote for him they still participate in our campaigns because we've been around for seven years now so we've done so many things in Rio that people know that they can trust us that we are on their side in spite of whomever is sitting in power we don't change our stances we're also we're always working for policies that better the lives of people in cities even as governments change and the fact that we have survived these swings also makes it easier for people to be standing in solidarity with us and with each other within the communities that we have created I think this is it thank you so much for having me and I'll talk to you very soon that was an amazing start thank you so much you're just as governments change you're understanding how we need to change and consider our own practice in response to that is just such an important critical message right at this moment in time so refreshment break now just in the back of the room and this room there's going to be evaluating the impacts of voter information campaigns then upstairs to the right across Nishato there'll be two sessions can parliament's harmless collective intelligence and urban outfitting civic tech for this city context all three sessions will start at 1145 just as I mentioned give yourself five minutes to get across to the chateau and don't forget your OECD page which we'll need thank you very much