 Well, what the internet has done is it's made it a lot easier for consumers to consume just a much wider variety of media. In the old world, consumers, especially with newspapers, would tend to read one newspaper, maybe two newspapers, and maybe a few local TV stations. Now with things like aggregators and social media, the search costs have gone way down. And so you might visit an outlet that you've never heard of before, just because its article is ranked high on Google News or Google Search or on Facebook. And so from the perspective of the media industry, now all of the consumers are shared across the different media outlets. This increases the competition in the advertising market, reduces advertising prices, and it also makes media planning much harder for advertisers, because advertisers, if they want to reach lots of consumers, they have to advertise on lots of news outlets, and they're going to hit many consumers multiple times, which makes advertising less efficient. And that in turn can cause some advertisers to reduce their advertising demand. So I think, you know, echo chambers have been talked about for many years, and I first started looking for them maybe six or seven years ago. At the time, Facebook was a much less important source of news, and generally there was less personalization in algorithms that were presenting news to people. So people worried about it before it was really a phenomenon. But I would say in the last year or two, three, we've seen much more valid reason for concern. People are using their mobile devices much more. Facebook is a huge source of news on mobile devices as well as other social media. I think that the role of the news media has really become central in determining the outcome of elections, and so I think we've gotten a lot of recent interest in how technology has changed what people read. So I've been studying this for quite a while, but people are much more interested in it now than they used to be, and they think they've become an appreciation of how much it matters. Now at the same time, the advent of the internet has been a disaster for the news industry. The number of reporters per million people, the number of papers per million people has fallen dramatically. So we're asking, oh wait, news media, you have to keep us safe, you have to give us more information, you have to give us facts, you have to make sure people know what they're voting for, right, because there's a lot of discussion about how in Brexit in particular people didn't understand what they were voting for, and they say, oh, the news media, you didn't do a good enough job, but they're not making any money. And so why do we expect them to do a great job when they're not making any money? They're just trying to get viewers so they can sort of live to see another day. And so I think we're going to, of course, we have great public news in Britain, we have less funding of that in the United States, at least less funding per capita, but we're going to have to think harder about as a society how we fund this journalism, because ultimately if you look at the numbers, if you look at the business models, it's actually very hard to make money doing research and development for something that you are going to post on the internet, and then people can immediately copy. So in that kind of environment, it's actually really hard to get a return on your investment, and my expectation is that we're going to see a consolidation among, at least among companies that use sort of the traditional business models of news media. And we see that consolidation, we're not going to have as many different viewpoints, and so we may see a small number of media companies and then a lot of sort of citizen journalists or less established outlets, and those outlets might not have a lot of incentive for reputation, for accuracy or factualness or quality, they might be much more about getting people's clicks and being shared on Facebook and saying something provocative or shocking, that's what's going to capture attention, and if those are incentives, we're not necessarily going to see the same level of attention to truth or balance or anything like that. Well, I've always loved to lose, so I spent a little more than a month here back in 1998 as a visiting professor, and that was really transformative for my career. At the time, the people here, the research balancing theory and empirical work and bringing them together was really inspirational for me.