 So we're going to go ahead and get started. Thank you all for coming. It's a full room. There's a lot of energy in here, which is really good. I really appreciate the passion in the community about this kind of topics in general. So I want to start off by just acknowledging that it's a full room when there's a lot of energy. And we're here. We're going to invite people to speak. And so we want people to be respectful and to behave in a professional and respectful manner, even though this is something that, again, rightly so, people feel very passionately about. So we structured the title of the event as a roundtable discussion. There's a bunch of roundtables. And we don't even fit around them. So we have extra microphones up here, which I think we invite people to come up and use when they want to speak. As the conveners of the event, we can kind of start and explain David and I can talk a little bit about our perspective on this topic. And the topic broadly is how do we conduct ourselves? How do we react when people who use our software, people who use our technology, we don't agree with their agenda. We don't share their values. And at what point do we try to draw on lines and boundaries around that sort of thing? And it's a complicated question. There's one of the things that, as a contributor to Drupal, personally, had to make kind of my piece with early on was the fact that once you release free software, people will use it. And you don't have control over how it will be used. And that's part of the trade-off that you make when you release something freely. There's lots of benefits to all that, but it's not all beneficial. And when we started our company, Pantheon, we set it up intentionally so that anyone could sign up for it for free. Anyone could take their site live at any point they wanted to. We work with a lot of agency partners that can bring us any customer they want at any time. And we built it around that same ethos of being very widely and publicly available. When we were in the early days of the company, we intentionally structured one restriction around that, which we didn't want to do adult content. And that was kind of just more of a question of what type of business you want to build. Because if you're doing stuff on the internet, you kind of either take a fork in the road if you do or you don't. And we didn't want to build the adult content kind of business, so we didn't. And then beyond that, we really took a broad, gave our users and customers broad license because it's their website, it's their content, it's their code, they own it. Like that is the perspective that we've had. So we honor our legal obligations obviously around copyright and other things like that. And we have taken action in the past when there are things happening on the platform that create in our judgment a direct risk or harm. So people posting personal information, people doing targeted harassment, people saying, hey, let's go get these people at this place where the removal of that content in and of itself could potentially avert something bad from happening directly. Like our perspective is that's a using pantheon to directly harm someone. The website is a harmful thing and it doesn't happen a lot but it has to happen. We'll take action to pull that off. But beyond that, where our perspective is it's the right thing for a big open platform to do to permit an extremely wide array of uses and an extremely wide array of customers. Even when they conflict with our personal beliefs very directly. And so that's how we have built our business and that's how we are conducting ourselves. And reasonable people can disagree about whether that's the right choice or not. I don't expect everyone to share our position on this but I also think that reasonable people in a community can disagree and not feel that they have to become enemies. David, I don't know if you wanna add any thoughts that I'm like sort of like to round out the pantheon perspective. I'm trying to represent all of the founder opinions as best I can. This is a bit more my personal perspective but I grew up in a very conservative community and experienced a lot of censorship wielded as a cudgel against people in my community. And that's, I actually joined the ACLU when I was in high school back in the 90s. And that was largely in response to seeing burgeoning censorship efforts across both public and private spaces used as a way to exclude. And I wouldn't say I made a vow at that point but I became fairly resolved early on to never be a participant in creating that sort of censorship infrastructure in the sense of the tools that could be wielded against people like me again in someone else's hands because even when I can control the levers to some degree in my current position it doesn't mean that I have control over who those levers get handed to. And I'm very reluctant to set up levers that are similar to the ones that have been used against me and my community in the past. Thanks for that. So I would like to open up the conversation I think at this point, it's because it's a big room people can, you don't need to use the mics but I think it would probably be easier for everyone to understand one another if we did try to use the microphones so that folks in the back can hear what's said. David and I are here kind of to stand up and representing Pantheon but I think everyone else in here is representing themselves and to the extent they feel comfortable they can represent their organizations because it's a very complex topic. Plays into where do we draw various lines? How hard do we draw them? Like what levels of association cause you to cross a line or not? And we just wanna hear other people's perspectives and have a conversation about it as a community. So would anybody wanna come up and say anything? We're also happy to answer questions if people have it but we wanna host a conversation. I feel like I'm about to drop a bomb shell since it's new and it's like new moral space for everyone but what are your thoughts on generative AI? Things like taking away jobs or who owns the rights to art? That's an interesting question. I think that there are definitely moral quandaries with people building technology off of other people's work and then using it to replace the need to do that work. It's also a challenge with openness, right? So like you release things out into the public, you don't restrict how they're gonna be used because again, freedom, et cetera, and then people will hoover up all that information and turn it into something that maybe puts you out of a job, like that's a, I don't know if it's a good idea but I think it's a good idea. I don't know that it's actually that stark and dire now but it's certainly an issue. It's a really hard one to figure out how to resolve. You kind of have to think about, I've seen people talk about maybe we shouldn't be using like the GPL or the MIT license. Maybe we do need new licenses that restrict use for AI or people wanna put out licenses that require certain standards for people to use a technology. That's uncharted territory and I think it'd be interesting to see some folks try to do that and see how well it works but I think in the world of the sort of the AI hype cycle we're gonna probably go through a few more ups and downs before we figure out anything that is sustainable. You can use the podium mic or? Yeah, sure. So I know you all have arrived here with the best of intentions, trying to do the right thing but you have arrived here now where a hate group is able to platform on Pantheon and not be deemed in violation of your terms of service. I got a call from your CEO when I raised objections that this is not gonna change. They're gonna stand firm with this policy. Is there any room for discussion, change, reevaluation? Thanks, Paul. So let's talk about that. There's two things I would respond there. I wanna respond directly to the question that you asked and I wanna respond to the idea of platforming because again, you don't have to agree but there's nuance in the concept of platforming that is important and it informs our thinking about this. So I'm gonna answer that first and then I'll get to your question, your direct question. So the word platform is super overloaded, right? People use it to mean a whole lot of different things. Oh, can we get some people to come forward a little bit because if there are people in the hall, there's like a couple seats up here. Yeah, there's somebody take those chairs and if people are comfortable, there's chairs up here if you wanna sit up in the front. You're welcome to them. Would you keep one for someone? Okay, fair enough. The specifics of the sheet of the talking about? So I wanna be clear that the conversation we wanna host is a larger one than this specific issue that Paul's referencing but I'm happy to give you a summary of the catalyst for this conversation, if you will. Can everybody hear me, is that okay? I can try to, I can get more mic'd up. Actually it'll be easier for me if I'm not. So for people who are just joining the conversation now, the specific impetus for hosting this discussion is that Pantheon has our policy of being open and letting people use our platform without any kind of screening or prior filtering, whether that's directly coming onto the platform themselves or being brought to us by an agency. And one of the customers that came to Pantheon, actually about four years ago, brought by a small digital agency that works with nonprofits. Most of their customers are these anodyne, like local, let's make the food in our public schools better type of groups, but they also have one of their customers who knows why, a national right wing legal advocacy organization called Americans Defending Freedom, is that right? I think, Alliance for Defending Freedom. And this is an organization that was founded in 1980s. It comes out of the, no, wasn't it the 80s? It was, I think it was the 90s. No, my Wikipedia might be slipping. And the 80s or the 90s comes from the conservative Christian activist politics. Folks on the family, James Dobbs, and they were involved in the founding of it. It's got some billionaires who keep it pumped full of money, employs lots of lawyers from Ivy League colleges to go out and find cases that they can argue and try to run up to the Supreme Court to build precedent. And also they've gotten into creating legislation to try to push through state legislatures. And their hit list goes back quite a ways, like they were kind of like whatever's the topic du jour in right wing politics tends to be what they focus on. So recently it's been reproductive rights, the right to gender-affirming healthcare, and in the past, and trying to roll back gay marriage. In the past they've also worked a lot on like religious freedom issues, which bleeds into only one religion is really the one that you're allowed to have. So this group was their ADFlegal.org, I think is the domain name was brought to Pantheon about four years ago as a self-service customer. They do have an annual contract with Pantheon now because they wanted to save some money by doing an annual commitment. And this became known. Greg Dunlap posted about this on LinkedIn and people were really surprised and think shocked, felt like, what the heck? How could you be doing this Pantheon? This seems very contrary to the values that you represent. And so I do wanna get back to your question Paul, but I think this is probably good to summarize. And so we, part of the conversation here is, what do we do when the users of our technology, the users of our services, the users of our platform don't do have this strong conflict with the values that we authentically hold? And how do you respond to that? And then people have different ways that they'll respond to that challenge. And so again, we're here to talk about, we can talk more about our point of view, but I wanna hear also if people wanna share other points of view as well. So Paul asked a question about, it feels really out of character and wrong for us to platform this group and would we ever reconsider this decision? So I wanted to respond first to the use of the term platform, which is I think nuanced, right? Platform's a super overloaded word, right? There's platform in the company, there's platform, the technology thing, there's platform in the way that you mean it in the context of speech. And a speech platform is a place where you can create reach and or legitimacy, right? A speech platform is being, this is a speech platform, like I'm an official person standing behind a podium in a room where I was able to draw an audience, like putting someone on your conference schedule is platforming them. Social media sites are speech platforms because they allow you to pay money to buy an audience and the whole purpose of the system is to drive attention to things. The open web in and of itself is not much of a speech platform because it does not provide any legitimacy, anybody can buy a domain name. It does not provide reach. No one's gonna visit your website. If you build it, they don't necessarily come. You have to do all these other things to actually create reach. So our perspective, because I think proprietors of speech platforms do have responsibilities for how they're used, but my perspective is that Pantheon as an underlying piece of infrastructure is not much of a speech platform at all, right? That the actual people build things that you could consider speech platforms on top of us, but our service is more of a raw material. So just wanted to say that. Yep. And I just wanted to add that we also looked into what are the actual implications of this more than just being a distinction. One of the differences is that most extremist activity on the internet is correlated with the reach side of this issue in the sense that the internet before the advent of major social media platforms and other things that would promulgate speech and algorithmically bubble it up whether we're talking about search engines, social media organizations, really even some of the most modern news media, that is what the correlation and even causal effects seem to be related to for the expansion of extremism on the internet. And that's the primary thing that we have to be concerned about in a sense because that's ultimately what we're talking about, right? Like it's not about some philosophical distinction on minutiae, but like what the actual implications of the choices are. Yeah, I think that's right, right? They're related. There's the philosophical distinctions are based on the fact that different things work differently and have different effects. And so Paul's question is, will we revisit this decision? The way we operate when these questions come up, we don't, I mean, it's not like a hugely mature process. We do have a process. So someone will make a complaint and it goes into our abuse inbox. Like most platforms, we run an abuse at provider.io in this case. And of most of the things that go into that we can handle pro forma. Cause it's like, oh, it's a copyright violation claim. Oh, it's this person sending spam. Oh, this site appears to have been compromised and it's sending malware. Like those are things that the team can just verify and take action on immediately. When someone says, oh, this is a hate group. You should take them off your platform. That's not something that the team that handles the routine abuse complaints is prepared to respond to. So they escalate that. We got together founders and our general counsel and eventually engaged the whole executive team in talking this through. And we reviewed the complaint, which included helpful link to the SPLC's website where they kind of went over all this stuff. We researched the organization a little bit. We dug into some of the history of how they got classified, how they did and looked over their website, obviously, to see if there was anything like that had that like, oh my gosh, this page on the website is doing specific damage. And what we found was there wasn't content on the website that we could reasonably say, hey, if we pulled this content off the internet, it would prevent harm from happening. And the group itself, while odious, in my opinion, is doing lawful political activism and trying to use the democratic process to advance their agenda. And the fact that I deeply disagree with their agenda doesn't mean that we are going to kick them off our platform. And so the policy that we exercise to go through all that internally, just for the sake of being able to give some sense of like conclusion and finality and closure, like the policy documents says these decisions are final. And so I don't know that there's a world where we'll revisit this specific decision because it can kind of just go on and on and on forever. The broader position of how we think about our responsibility as an open web provider, like as an open platform in a divided world, it's not the easy route to take. And so I will say that we're conversations about what we should be doing and how we should be doing it are definitely ongoing. And we talk about this stuff not every day, not every week, but like once a month on average, I would say. And I think we want to, so what I would, I don't want to like promise something that we're not going to deliver on, right? I don't think that we're going to reverse course on this specific decision because we're not ready to change our overall stance that we've had for the past 12 years. And that's something that we would need to, there would be a lot more thought. And we'd have to be really confident that we were moving to something that helped us feel good about the decisions we were making and was very consistent and was very transparent and was as objective as possible. And the challenge with moving into inserting kind of a values-based screen for who we serve is then it all comes down to like, well, who's making those judgments and how are they being made? And the further you walk away from really clear lines but that permit an awful lot of things to happen, the more murky that process gets and we've seen people get lost in the sauce with that. And that's something that I don't think helps when you end up, so I'll just speak for myself personally. This is not the pantheon issue, but as someone who has a background in professional progressive politics and really doesn't want this agenda to win, getting kind of swirling around these questions of who's allowed to use what technology when expands an enormous amount of energy that doesn't help defeat these people. And so I personally want to, for myself, try to, I don't actually think of my company as the mechanism I use to advance my political agenda. It's like a very limited vessel for doing that. I'd prefer to actually do things I think are gonna be more likely to have that kind of impact in the world and make the change that we would like to see. So it's a long way around of saying no on this specific thing, but more broadly, like we'd like there to be a better approach to this. We'd like there to be a better internet, but we don't actually know what that is right now, so we can't change to something that has that kind of uncertainty around it. Yeah, do you wanna come up? So to me, I get that there's multiple aspects to platforming, but you are fundamentally a web supporting platform that they are hosting on. And to me, you have the terms of agreement, 1.4 restrictions, except as expressly authorized, pursuant to this agreement, subscriber and each end user may not and may not permit others to blah, blah, blah, blah, and we go down to item M, use the service to post any faults, no that's L, sorry, use the service to post any faults, inaccurate or incomplete material. And then also item N, use the service in any fraudulent, abusive or otherwise illegal way in violation of this agreement. On the current ADF website, they state, in this society, just a second, I'll find the exact line. They state that a marriage is defined as the emotional union of one man and one woman, which is obviously both A, a lie, and B, abusive. And I feel that you have strong reason to terminate them based on those terms of service. Thank you. So first of all, thank you for speaking. And I appreciate that perspective and I understand where you're coming from. Our, we respectfully disagree. Sorry, I was to say, we certainly have the right, again, I wanna be clear, I'm not trying to do a cop out thing, we're like, oh, we can't, we have no other options. We have to do this because the open web, like the terms of service do give us broad latitude to act in these and other circumstances. And there's a different world where we could say, hey, guess what, Josh and David are gonna like review every customer on Pantheon and kick off anything that we think are not great. But we choose not to operate that way. And you can just, I understand that that's a disappointing choice for many of you, but it is a choice that we're making on our side. And so that's why we wanted to be direct and transparent about that, so that we can be accountable for that choice. I was just gonna dig a little more into the question of platform in the sense that there's, I just wanna see a show of hands in this room for how many people in this room believe in net neutrality. Okay, so an overwhelming majority of people here believe in some restriction on some level of provider on the internet being unable to wield restrictive policies around content, the data that's transferred, the information that they are handling and distributing. There's a spectrum from the concept of network and infrastructure organizations all the way up to the organizations that we were talking about in terms of providing reach. And we believe that in reach is where the much of the damage occurs. Like we're not linking anyone to this site. We're not partnering on with them on any promotions. Google's sending them search results or search traffic. We're not advertising for them. We're not algorithmically promoting their content. So we fall somewhere on this spectrum between a network provider and an organization that is actively promoting the content, distributing the content. And I think there's a meaningful distinction there, especially with regard to what harm gets created. We certainly don't police the platform to the degree that every false statement on the platform is getting reviewed. It would be intractable. And in fact, it would be worse than intractable. It would get abused as a process because what's happening today on Reddit and Facebook with their own moderation processes is that they are getting weaponized against marginalized communities. By filing reports against content, it's often trans people who are the victims of this on Facebook, where their content gets reported. It goes to moderation cues as you scale up a moderation process and have more expansive and complex sets of criteria for how to evaluate it, mistakes get made, and over time, as you iterate the process, especially with people who are acting in bad faith, you ultimately find marginalized people and organizations at the receiving end of bans and suspensions and other disruptions to their service. And since we certainly can't have the founders review every single request at scale for sites on the platform, we would necessarily have to hand the content moderation process to a system and infrastructure that would be much more vulnerable to that sort of mechanism. So I work for a nonprofit organization called Facing History in Ourselves. We use lessons of history to challenge teachers and their students to stand up to bigotry and hate. I don't see that we can spend our donor's money hosting with Pantheon, sorry I'm nervous. A lot of people here should have got a bigger room. If you want to counteract what you're doing, give my organization and other organizations like mine that are standing up, free sites. Thank you for speaking, and that's a great suggestion. That's something for us to think about for sure. Like in the world of doing things that will have more impact, like I think that's a great and obvious thing that Pantheon could be doing. Yeah, come on up. You want to use this one or you want to take it? This seems too official, I don't want to preach. Oh, okay. Yeah. I mean, first of all, like Josh said, like we do not agree, like morally with these guys. There's a lot of bad actors. And you know, they're in a tough situation, but I wanted to reiterate a point you made earlier because I was thinking exactly the same thing. That's about energy, right? And if you want to like drive change and improve like our lives, it takes policy, it takes laws, you know, there's like, that's not currently happening in a lot of places. And so we're driving our energy kind of towards like one, you guys, but we're not talking about like, how can we actually improve the world? You know, like, I'm from Florida, I've got like, there's bad, like it's not great out there. And I just, there's not, you know, there is activism in the world, but I also just wanted to point out like, we're all making Drupal. And Drupal's used by a lot worse people than these guys. Like I've stumbled across apparently like terrorist groups using Drupal many years ago. So it's very tricky because we're all contributing to that. You know, we're all contributing patches to this organization's website. So yeah, I mean, that's the thing. Like, I don't think forcing a company here, I mean, first of all, let's go to Acme if we can get the list of all the things sites they don't shouldn't have up. We just don't know what's going on, you know, so it's not just this one group. There's probably another one on your site that we don't know about. But attacking, like, going after them isn't really gonna change it much at all. And I think it's kind of like boycotts. You know, like, we're going outside and shooting our Budweiser cans like after we buy them. But I, like he says, like he, this guy comes from politics, like Drupal came from politics, like progressive politics 2004, took over. And I just think we really should put our energy towards, like, actual policy, actual laws, and not only that, HBH has stronger laws in other countries, right? So if they're really putting something on their website that's encouraging violence and danger, we should absolutely have a mechanism to take that down, right? And I thought of the DCMA, D, whatever. If you put an MP3 on your site that likes some musician owns, you can file a complaint and they'll take it down. They have to take it down, right? So I just, I feel like targeting stuff like that would just, it's gonna help more people than just like kicking these guys off, because guess what? They'll just put the site back up again somewhere else. And they'll have exactly the same breach that they already had. So I mean, I'm not, I feel bad, but I also, of course they suck. This is a very emotional issue and like I'm shaking even talking to you. Because like, yeah, people are really being hurt out there. And it's not because that site is on them. That site will live on no matter what until we change the laws, right? And can point out the problematic content and take it down. And I don't know, that's just what I think. DCMA say it, DCMA for hate speech. Let's do that. Thank you. Thanks, man. Yeah, and again, for everyone who wants to speak, like take a beat, take a breath. It's a very full room and it's a very charged topic. So I appreciate that. And I also, obviously that's more in line with our thinking, but I also really recognize why people want us to do something here, even as a gesture of solidarity with people that are in extreme distress, right? That I recognize the validity of that ask. And as an individual, I wanna demonstrate my solidarity. I just, there's limits to what we can do as a company in that regard. And I also understand that the desire, the frustration with the political process and the democratic process is part of what drives people to really want to do this stuff. So I saw that hand first, but then you? We got about like 15 minutes left. It can't go too far. Okay, right here. So I appreciate that you are placing yourself more in the infrastructure than the content delivered like direct service, actively working with such odious customers. However, there is a difference between throwing up your hands and saying, we can't do anything because it's gonna be a quagmire and taking an active supportive stance of the broader community. And one way that could be done is to just say, okay, we won't take you off our platform. However, any funds that come to us from your payments are going to go right back into the causes that you are actively working against that we do support in our adhering to our policies. So that could be an alternative action that you could take in a positive stance. And I've been really disappointed not hearing anything along those lines and just we can't do anything. There are other options. And I encourage you to shift into supporting those working against these folks. Thanks. Yeah, that's a really good point. So two things I would say, gonna respond directly to the suggestion because it's a good one, but also about like you haven't heard much. I meant to say this at the very beginning in my intro of like, hey, we're all here in this room. It's a full room. There's a lot of energy. I also understand that like people haven't heard much from Pantheon about this. You know, we've had one-on-one conversations with a lot of folks, but we haven't like communicated broadly and publicly about it. And the reason for that is that in the contours of internet discourse, this is just like a really hard conversation to have productively if we're doing it in social media threads and so forth. And so that's why I really appreciate people coming, you know, into the room where I think we can be more human together and have a charged and difficult, but hopefully meaningful conversation as humans. So again, that's just, you know, recognizing that this is tricky for folks. And so that's why we haven't like, oh, Pantheon's gonna do this or oh, let's clarify our stance on that because it's sort of like trying to do that communication in a depersonalized realm of the internet is just tough. We have to do more there and we will in the future because I think we do need to spend, like one of the things, we'll get back to your suggestion, I promise. One of the things that in retrospect, I think we did that was totally a mistake was we didn't talk about this type of challenge in the past. Like there were many opportunities because these kinds of issues flare up across different providers with some regularity. There were many opportunities for us to have a conversation proactively about our perspective and the fact that we do have like customers that we disagree with deeply on our platform and so there wouldn't be the sense of shock and confusion and so forth that would not make things, it would not, I think it would have helped if we had been clearer about our perspective on this earlier so people at least understood where we were coming from. So to your question of like, how can we turn around and do some material good and one of the ways to do that would be to redirect the funds from this organization to good causes, like it's similar to like, let's give free hosting to good causes. Yeah, I think that's something we're talking about a lot internally. We like, there's some issues which is like, again, for anybody who we didn't say this before, this is not a financial decision, right? This was not a decision we made because like, oh gosh, we need this customer. Like again, they came to us on a credit card and they got it then now that I have an annual commit discount, right? They're not a high dollar value customer. So we're like, frankly, if we were gonna try to like really invest in doing some good in the world, we would wanna direct more than just their fees towards that. And I think the question for us as we've talked about that internally, it feels like a good idea. Don't want it to feel like buying a carbon credit sort of thing because that feels a little icky. But the idea of, hey, look, we should put our money where our mouth is. How do we pick organizations to support? How do we do more than just give money? We'd like to like start to organize volunteering and other things that really help engage our company and like the company values and all of the people on Team Pantheon who also share these values to really put effort in and like actually do some good work. So I really appreciate the suggestion. It's good to hear that there's some support for that in the room. And we're not gonna say we have a plan here today because in all honesty, we don't, but I think something like that is a really good idea. And we definitely will try to figure out a way to do some material positive good. I know you raised your hand, but this gentleman over here was also first. Good morning, everybody. I've heard what you've said about the liberty and the way you could use the platform and that resonates, but how do you guys equate that to the decision to the platform or remove every website from Russia when that came along? Because it seems like it's conflicting to your stance now. And in my personal opinion, it seems like I would venture to guess that most people would support that decision. So it's an easy decision, right? The Russian decision is an easy decision, right? It's a stance that was taken by most corporations. It's a stance that was taken by a lot of people. So it was an easy decision. This isn't an easy decision. So it just doesn't seem to me personally that what you're saying applies to that. And so if we did it once, why can't we kind of do it again type of feeling? But I don't know, just my power process. So there are definitely a few distinctions to be made from between the Gazprom sites and the ADF in the sense that, it's actually quite a long list. So if you'll bear with me. One is like Gazprom actually runs a private military that's actively involved in the invasion. So we are talking about a literal force that is directly endangering lives in Ukraine right now. They're actually dropping bombs. They are sending in tanks. They are sending in troops and they are firing weapons at people. That is a very high direct link to the risk of involvement with Gazprom. I'll additionally say, we haven't talked to that publicly about some of these things, but we've seen Russia act as a state actor as targeting the platform with attacks. And that also weighed on the scale in the sense that as part of their own, they've been in the process of deploying basically the equivalent of a great firewall. And we've had contact with service providers in Russia and have noticed that they have been trying to intercept our TLS connections to the platform. And therefore insert a sort of man in the middle attack and be able to censor the actual traffic because we also host activist organizations that are trying to undermine the regime in Russia. And those have also been victims of, or attempted victims of denial of service attacks against their sites on the platform. So we are talking about a state actor directly involved in attacks and military. And it seems like a very clear case in that situation. So I wanna be conscious of time. So we have about five minutes left and there's a lot of people who have their hands. Unfortunately, I have to leave to get to another thing for 10 by 10 o'clock. So we'll try to get, and then you add your hand and then one more and come on up one, two, three. Just everybody come up now and you'll have a chance to speak. Hi, my name is Ho Ling Poon and I am deputy chair for Drupal NYC. I'm one of the founding members of Drupal NYC and I am announcing right now that we just signed a new contract and we're moving our website for Drupal NYC and Drupal NYC away from Pantheon. Sorry, please don't shoot the messenger. We would like to thank Pantheon for sponsoring us in the past. But until the issue where the open web ADF has been resolved, we are no longer taking donations from Pantheon. We're no longer taking sponsorships from Pantheon. And that's what I'm about to say. I'm Matthew Tift. I just wanted to say thank you for hosting this and I appreciate the sincerity. I also just wonder if you had, you've mentioned SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center before. I wondered if you have discussed hosting explicitly saying you will not host sites that are listed on organizations that track hate groups. We talked about that internally and I'll just try to be brief because there's other people wanna talk. We ended up saying we probably don't wanna do that. One, because it feels like outsourcing our judgment to third party, which has a bunch of risks. And two, the SPLC itself is an activist organization and they have made controversial decisions in the past on how they classify people and it feels like if we're gonna own these decisions we need to own them. But good suggestion, thank you. Hello, I'm Matthew. I come from Europe and I was listening to the different discussion here and sometimes I didn't get the topic because in Europe often we turn to the government in order to find solution to laws and legal basis. And here I have the impression that we stay at the company level trying to delegate all those legal basis to the enterprise. And I was wondering if at one point the company should not turn to the government saying our customers have problem with some values that are defined by our other customers. We should have a discussion at the state level in order to solve the issue and have the appropriate legal basis for those kind of activities. Is Pantheon has this kind of discussion to try to end those kind of conflict, conflicting discussion that happened in the Pantheon universe? So I think the, so I think, I don't think there's a company position on that to be honest, but I can see it's just speaking to myself, like I think one, the most important thing is actually just defeating this organization in the public sphere through the democratic process. I think a secondary goal potentially behind it, which is a little bit more tricky, but probably important would be to actually have better laws that would govern what you can and can't do. So like, basically being able to use the rule of law as the tool versus debates about what speech is or isn't permitted that are not grounded in the rule of law, that would be nice. But that's not also what Pantheon's job is to make happen in the world. Like we, our mission is to put the magic of the internet in everyone's hands. We're not a lobbying organization. So, should we? Sure, you can come up. Thank you. I first want to acknowledge the very real risk that is involved when you're putting yourself out there in the context of activism. And thank everybody who is raising their voice today because it is so important to know that there are so many people here who are supporting the community and our values. And I want to know if you've considered your own strategy for handling PR, if or perhaps when the community continues to call you out on social media and continues to lean on you to make better decisions. That's a great question. The short answer is yes, right? This is a conversation that is ongoing internally. Like how do we manage relationships with other community, with our partners, with our customers. And so certainly we are continuing to think about that. And again, like some of the suggestions here for things that the community would like to see that would be received positively are good. And I think that's all, I don't want that to be like a PR strategy, but certainly like communications and optics is a consideration for that. But I don't want to do the right thing for the right reasons, I guess when it comes down to that. But thank you for the question. We are at time. So thank you all for coming. I really appreciate everyone with the courage to speak and everyone being polite and cordial in the room. Hopefully we have a wonderful day today at Drupalcon. And yeah, let's go out there and... Two seconds, I swear to God. Okay, John, if this game down and Silicon Valley company kicked these guys off their platform, their website would be up, it would never go down. And then they would use it because they're between themselves as victims and the guys under attack. So it would be on Fox News saying, oh Bob, kick their group off the internet. And they have a lot of people that go on Fox News to talk about stuff all the time. The ADF in the Colorado Cake Baker decision just, they handed it to you on a platter. You have the right, according to the ADF themselves, to not do business with people you disagree with. They can yell all they want about that. This is what they pushed for themselves. You can use it if you choose to make that decision. Thank you, you are correct.