 on the politics of misinformation. And I think we all can agree in the fact that this is a very hot topic at this moment throughout the world. Everybody in the media, in politics, in governments, social, civil society, we are talking about fake news, misinformation, post-truth being the word of last year or a couple of years ago. And I'm just going to make a brief introduction. Then we'll go for questions here. But then I want to engage the audience here at the forum in Sao Paulo. And also, those people who are following us online, they can use the hashtag LA18, which is LA18. I'm David Alandete. I'm the managing editor of El País. I'll be tweeting what we are saying through my Twitter account with the handle Alandete. And then you can address questions there, too. So I can ask them to the audience here. And as I said, my handle is at Alandete, ALA and DET. And then from there, after the initial discussion, we'll be taking questions. Now, I wanted to frame this discussion in the fact that fake news and propaganda is not something new. We've seen it for many years. I always remember when I'm about to talk about misinformation and fake news, about that famous newspaper cover of Dewey defeats Truman in the United States, which was actually fake news. Fake news printed in the front page of a major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, because Dewey was the editor of the Chicago Tribune. And he was so convinced that he was going to win, but he didn't. And I worked in the US Bureau of El País for some years. And at the National Press Club, we had this photo of Truman playing the piano and Lauren Bacaldi, the actress reading the newspaper, Dewey defeats Truman. Something that didn't happen. Many examples come to mind in the international arena. Like, that claim that Al Gore invented the internet, which he never made, or how George Bush dodged the draft in his country. Fake news, too, coming from the Democratic campaign in 2004. But what changed? And what are we facing in Latin America and the rest of the world nowadays? I think we are seeing an industrial machine that feeds fake news throughout democratic processes that has effects. And I'm not claiming that this has effects. I'm claiming that the UK Parliament is investigating if this fake news had an effect in the Brexit referendum, which is something very traumatic in Europe. The Spanish Parliament is investigating if fake news had an effect in the Catalan crisis these past months. And we at El Pais reported on this and found massive activity of fake accounts interfering in this crisis. And the same in the United States with Donald Trump. So with this idea, industrial size and effects on democracy and democratic process, I'm going to introduce the panelists here. We start with Esteban Burriz, who is a senator from Buenos Aires in Argentina and who has served as minister of education in his country. We have Yajin Park, who is the chair of the Infolusion Zero Foundation and founder of the DQ Institute. We have Leandro Machado, who is a Brazilian political scientist and who's a co-founder of COAS, a consultancy firm that advocates for sustainable development and the political movement agora. And we have Maria Cristina Frias, as a member of the board and columnist at the Folha Group. And, well, Folha just turned 97. It's a very well-respected newspaper and a reference for journalists throughout the world. So welcome everybody. So I was talking about democratic process and what politicians can or cannot do regarding fake news and misinformation. So Esteban, from your perspective, you're an elected official. Is this a cause for concern? Like, when you think about running for office again, do you think you're vulnerable to misinformation, to fake news attacks in this industrial level? First, to frame the answer, I would like to add an example to the ones you gave, which is Kevos. He said, lie, lie, lie, something will remain. And I think it shows, I think it strengthens the idea that it's all about leadership. How leaders convey what they want to pursue and how they face power, how they look at power, and how they look at government. I think fake news can have an effect and have an effect. But after decades of populism in my country, we had to face a regime. And at the beginning, our party was not seen or perceived as a party that could beat the old regime, in a way. And in many ways, I think the changes that are happening within the population are what are driving the difference. And they are pushing a change towards truth. And you can see that not in the presidential election that we won two years ago or two and a half years ago, but in the election, the midterm election where there is a lot of misinformation, but a lot of a different way of looking at politics, of involving people. Because social media can be a threat, but it can also be a tool to approach and get closer to people. We have been working very hardly on getting close, on working on explaining very clearly what are we going through. And so we were able to win an election, even though we were in a process of putting the economy on stage after decades of having a deficit and having to bid that, in some cases, to raise taxes. And all of that in an environment where the country was not really still growing, people were voting more on the hope that something had really changed and there were parts of something bigger that was happening in the country. You're mentioning populism and how populism can be linked to misinformation. And it's something that, beyond Argentina, we've seen in the international arena. And this actually gives way to the question that I wanted to address, which is like, with this rise of populism, what happens when a populist and a bully who feeds fake news comes to power? You're an expert in children's education and how children can be protected online from these threats. But just let's imagine you're like 12, 13, and you have access to a social media account and then you see some world leader feeding fake news and accusing everybody of being fake news and feeding false information. What can we do to prevent this as a society in a whole? We just published a recent study of how young children are exposed to the cyber risk. We look at the 29 countries and how 12-years-old children are using online. And surprisingly, we have a very consistent result. More than half of children are involved in at least one cyber risk, cyberbullying, game addictions, online sexual behaviors, or online grooming issue. So it's actually showing that the significance of the cyber risk among the children's. We are not talking about teenagers. We are talking about young children. And actually, it hits really harder for the ITC developing country who are actually experiencing the rapid digital transformation. So there are certainly the dangers for the children and what you just described contribute more to the children, for sure. So what we have to do is a really fast intervention and education side to ensure that children are equipped with the right discernment and critical thinking skills based on the value. You mentioned about the leaders who are talking about bullying others. But real leadership has to be rooted in the moral authority. And then we have to actually teach children how to behave online in an ethical and safe and responsible way. Moral authority, it's a great point because we can agree that politicians or leaders have always had moral authority that it's somehow receding in this international crisis that we're seeing with the rise of populism. And this is a threat to Western democracy. Not only in Europe, also in Latin America, we've seen it more with Hungary, other elections, the Brexit referendum. But we could say that moral authority and due process strengthen democracy, right? And I wanted to actually to jump to Leandro, because you're an expert, you've researched democracy a lot. And with this rise of populism, fake news, misinformation, is democracy really at risk? Is the democratic process really losing ground? And I'm actually thinking about the rise of an illiberal state that has role models outside of the European Union, Latin America, North America sphere of influence. Yeah, David, indeed I believe that democracy is at risk. Because if you think about democracy, democracy is a system that we humans design and to live in society. And if you're talking about humans, I just read MIT article that was published last week stating that it was made by three scholars of MIT stating that humans, not bots, spread false news more quickly. Humans, not bots. So we are talking again about humans. And when it comes to politics in the same study, the amount of false news spread, the politics was the largest number of false news spread in this. They studied over 3 million Twitter users for two years and tried to track all the false news. And they discovered all that. So yes indeed, we are at risk. And the work like Dr. Park is doing, or even the role of free media is in the utmost priority to fight that scenario. Free media. You were talking about how the media is under attack. And I'm glad to have Maria Cristina here. Because we've seen how reporting has turned into a risk activity sometimes. You can publish something, and then you will have a world leader or an elected officer saying, your fake news, you don't have my truth. I'm going to actually bypass you to address my followers directly. That happens not only in North America, also in Europe and many other places. So other people, Maria Cristina, claim that actually this is a golden era for journalism, that our job is more necessary than ever, because fact checking is on the rise. So what do you think? Is it a bad or a good time for the media in this context? Maybe both. Because we already have so many problems, so many issues to deal with. But as you said, David, there is a distinction between fake news and distorsed news. News that maybe sometimes people call fake news. Those news, those information, that are only those that I don't disagree. So for me, this is fake news, like Trump does. But I think people are going to get used to this. It's a learning process. As you said, maybe it's me. Let's see. Sorry. It's a learning process. I think we're OK now. Sorry. The professional media that has a criteria to publish things, it's a source. I think it's on, yeah. OK. So I think professional media that has a criteria to follow before publishing things is a source that people can appeal to. And well, taking from what I said, Leandro, I think there is a risk indeed for democracy. But I also think that electoral courts shouldn't punish or try to protect too much the voters. I don't know about the other countries, but in Brazil, the electoral court tries to be too protective. And I think this is a learning process. Voters have to be under many influences and learn how to deal with it. Yes. And try to decide what is best for him. But what about the public interest? What about that? I'm just going to throw this question out there, and then any of you can answer. But OK, we have to respect the voters' independence, and we don't have to patronize them. Either at the media or at government. But what happens when someone creates a fake group in Facebook calling for a fake demonstration and then creates another fake group calling for a counter demonstration? This has happened in Europe. And this has happened in the United States in the presidential election. Like there's a case here to be made for like, actually, you can manipulate groups of people. So what do you guys think? Is this also something that can be prevented with education? Or what types of actions can we take? There's a certain difference between fake news. It is fake news when it's made on purpose, by a new purpose, or to earn easy money, or to political manipulation. So this is fake news, and this has to be banished. But not the only information is that with those that I don't agree, if you see. Stella. I was going to add a point that I think comes up from what Leandro was saying. That is, I think we are learning that democracy is not only voting every two years. Democracy is getting involved with the government. It's government of the people. But it's not government because you voted who's going to govern you. But it's because you are a participant of what's going on in your society, in your community, in your city, in your state, or in your country. And so I think as a society, we're learning that. And I think populism has helped to do that. And I think fake news is also helping to do that. Because more and more you see people calling out fake news and calling out fake movements of fake information or misinformation. I think the involvement of all society in democracy is, I think, one of the biggest parts. And I've seen that in Argentina. We started a movement to get private sector more involved in politics and has been very successful in getting people to what I think democracy has to be, which is something where you color it through your life. You give some back through government action. And then go back to the private sector. And this involvement really breaks out this idea that used to be used by the political leaders, which was it was kind of a club. The politicians were like a club. And I think several countries still have the club. Actually, you raised a very important topic that I want Leandro to address. It's like, is voting everything that there is to democracy? Because we've seen in Spain recently, in October, a crisis where a part of the capital on people wanted to vote on independence. And this was less than 50%. But they said voting is democracy. And then there were a lot of fake news fitted from some Russian channels and other outlets. And many political scientists and experts were saying voting is not everything to democracy. You cannot put everything to a vote. You cannot put women's rights to a vote or immigrants' rights to a vote. This has to be protected. So what's your opinion on this? Yeah, of course. In that case, we can have the dictatorship of the majority that's awful for any society. And I think that fight, that war against false news or even misinformation, has to have multiple approaches. Education, of course, is one of that approaches. Free media, but also more improvement in studies on behavioral science and so on. Because otherwise, we will have that kind of society of the last century that thought voting every two years or every four years or five years is the only thing that you have to do in a democracy. And people are willing to participate more. Of course, they have all these tools nowadays. You have Twitter. You have Facebook. You can spread your word. You can make a video fighting against some public policy. So they are willing to participate. And if we are stick it with this type of democracy of the last century, it will fail, of course. I think it is also important why this is actually spreading this way. So I think the fake news, this information, whatever information, misinformation, we just called it, let's say, fake news. Why is it really the bad? Because it shapes a people's perception and people's worldview towards their own circumstances. And what the Twitter study shows is that fake news actually spreads much faster and much deeper and much wider than the true news. So they are performing the true news because it's much more the emotional provoking. And it's actually made it much more with the deliberate effort to convince people. So it's how technology is currently is shaping is that it's also creating the filter bubble. So when users click one news, they are hooked with the fake news. And then they're going to get the more and more fake news to be recommended to them. Because that's how technology has been formed up. So the way it has been designed actually gives this unintended negative consequences. Actually, it impacts on children very much. Because there is another study in 2016 in Stanford showing that the children and youth are particularly bad at detecting the fact from fiction. Then they have a hard time distinguishing what is the news and advertisement. And then they're looking at what is the high-ranked news in the Google rather than what is the credible sources. So this is actually what has been done. And then it's impacting on children's news and the voters and everyone's, the world views. So it actually affect the vote later on. But it's actually grooming that way. So we have to be aware of how this disinformation and fake news has been groomed. This is a really good point on the generational gap that we have too. Because we can claim that 10 years ago, we didn't have these devices or telephones. This is like when we wake up, the first thing we do is we go online and then algorithms filter the information that we get. And then there are news that jump to the top. And they can be news from Folia or from El Pais or from the New York Times. But they can also be news from outlets that have an agenda behind them, public outlets, private outlets. And this type of literacy teaching children who are gonna be the deciders of the future, what is news, what is not news, is very important. So Maria Cristina, I wanted, before we open the room for a little debate, is technology making journalism and its main task more difficult nowadays or more, or easier? We've been working much more. As you said, we wake up with the news and we have to cover everything 24 hours. It wasn't like it was before that we were worried about the edition the following day. But we have to deal with a duopoly. And this makes everything more difficult, certainly. All right, let's take questions. I have some questions already lined through Twitter. As I said, we have the hashtag LA18 and we'll get some questions after we take some here from the audience. So please, the gentleman there. I'm a little bit preoccupied of the situation of the media and I wanted to ask Ms. Frias. I used to work in the media some years ago and the financial security of the press is in question now and I wonder if the press is still able to fight with the strengths it needs if it's battling because of the difficulties it is having as a business. And also when you see social media and then you compare it with what the, let's say serious press is publishing, you get the impression that the media is no longer focusing on what is relevant but more on what is popular. And what is being discussed in social media is actually influencing a lot what is ended up in the first page of the papers. So how do you manage to still provide information and opinion based on facts and not on what is just being popular on social media? Yes, thank you for the question. Well, this is always a debate on newsroom, in newsroom because at the same time we have to publish attractive news, sexy news, but I think at some groups like LPEs and Folia, we know that the best way to act is to have credibility. It's our richness, it's credibility. So we are always worried not to put this in danger. And yes, the financial problem is financed is a problem sometimes, but we have to find other recipes and we are trying to do this. We have a good situation at our group, fortunately, but it's always a target. And I will add that we have to do this and we have to be attached to serious news, to our criteria to follow the news and to protect our credibility. Yeah, I think, and actually the rest of the panel to weigh in on this, like how important it is for the democratic system to preserve a press that is free, sustainable, independent. Is this a matter of concern to you, for instance, Esteban, the situation in Argentina? I think there is, we had to unveil a system that was creating fake media, even populist create fake media and so they have their own papers and there was the whole system that you had the traditional papers that are very objective and there is free media in Argentina, but they created these other papers that could compete and flow, they have almost no readership but they get a lot of money so they can use social media and so we had to basically unveil it first and then start to basically break it apart. But I think it's a concern and I think it's something that doesn't have really a solution because this idea of involvement also creates very immediate responses and sometimes the fact-checking makes that some of the traditional media is coming like a little bit behind and so we need to look at the effect of social media and technology and the immediacy that that brings to news, especially to when you're governing and trying to maintain this open and honest system. There was a wave of solidarity with many Argentinian publishers in 2012. There was a very targeted attack against independent media at that time. Jejun, from the point of view of education? Well, I want to take at different angles because in Korea, I think it's unlike most of countries in the States, the portal is becoming a filtering system for the news. So for instance, in Korea, Naver is the number one, the portal in the news, actually the news portal. So I work with Naver to actually filter the fake news and provocative news for about the five years. And one thing that we found is that the way that was filtered, the way that presented in a portal actually linked with the revenue in the media company. So they're inevitably tried to be very fast and try to be reactive, not reactive, proactive in promoting provocative news to get the more clicks. So with this economic ecosystem, the free media and a lot of media's are bound to have or not really the accurate fact-checking system and behind. So I think there's a more whole ecosystem has to be worked together, not just the media. And also the portal and the social media has to feel responsibility in promoting the more correct news. Let me address a point of great concern for journalists and media companies here, which is what the social platforms, Facebook, Twitter, Google also can do in order to improve media literacy and distinguish what is actually news coming from independent media and what's not. And I have a little example before I go to Leandro but during the Catalan crisis that El País covered extensively for the world, we saw how in the top 10 of news, nine spots were occupied by the same type of news coming from a Russian state-owned outlet, RT, which it's an outlet that can report on whatever they want but the bias was clearly against the government in Madrid and its action. So we actually researched a little bit and saw how they were actually bypassing the algorithm in order to create more influence and portray Spain as being like, and I'm sure you all have seen this, Spain being like an authoritarian state, crushing democracy, and this was clearly biased from the center, right? So it's a matter of great concern to us. And I think Leandro, as you were saying before, this is a real threat to democracy and the political process, right? Yeah, and I truly believe that not only free and independent media is one of the pillars of our democracies, but nowadays with all this face and misinformation, false news and misinformation. It's in face with false news. Yeah, yeah, false news and misinformation. We have another responsibility to free and independent media that is fact-checking. If you take a poll that was conducted in Brazil by Idea Big Data, almost half of the people in Brazil check maybe a false news and a major newspaper or a major magazine. So the role of the free and independent media now is increasing, not only being a pillar of democracy, but also being this role of fact-check. The challenge there is that more and more there is some dependence on public money for sustainability. And when you start depending on the government to be alive, then that's it. So what we're looking at, and we don't have an answer, right? But we're looking at is how do you break apart from that sustainability from the government and make it really plural? Because I mean, you might have good leadership, ethical leadership, but the moment that that leadership is not ethical anymore, then all the media depends on the government. If this is, we're always worrying, worried about this, to be independent is the biggest start from the government, otherwise you can't publish with independence. And then if I would, I can add something. You mean financially, financially? Financially, yes, I mean both, both I would say. But if I can add something, I think it's a bit dangerous to give the task of controlling social media to the Duopoly, Facebook and Google because they are not, first of all, it's impossible to control. Secondly, they are not committed to free speech. They are not committed to checking facts. It's not their task, it's not their role. Let me add something here, Maria Cristina, because you addressed something and we've all throughout the world have been talking about Folha's decision of pulling out of Facebook very recently. Everybody was actually surprised that the major news publisher in Brazil, huge market for Facebook. And I know it because at El País Brazil, we feed something to Facebook and immediately skyrockets with a lot of readership. So does this decision of pulling out from Facebook have to do with this idea of the platform not taking responsibility? Yes, we decided to stop putting our news at Facebook in February because as you know, David, there was a change on algorithms. And Facebook is giving a priority not to the news but to direct exchange concepts between people. And this is indirectly promoting more false news. So we decided to put the sources that we were investing in at Facebook in all the sources that could be, give us more readers and have more visibility for us. And it wasn't a bad idea, we lost some visibility there, but we are still, our journalists can put their content on there. All right, so I want to open the room for as many questions as we have and I have some questions here. So I'm just gonna ask for you to be briefing the reply so we can take as many people as possible. So we have that gentleman there. My name is Belisario Contreras from the Organization of American States. Actually, my question is totally related to that panel. Fake news, now it's a boom because the amplifier, which are the social networks, WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, you name it. One it or not, you will need to work with these technology companies. And actually we were discussing that last week how to work with the technology companies on fighting this misinformation and this fake news. But my question, I want to see your opinion, how should be those partnerships with the technology companies. Now we have the vision from Facebook, but actually besides that partnership, how to fight those fake news of the misinformation without threatening freedom of speech and fundamental rights of the citizens. Because of course, we don't want to, we want to make sure that there is no censorship or that media outlet is blocked by a technology company. I mean, we see censorship by algorithms, which is something that amazes me. But we had the example of posting a photo recently of one of these like me from the very old ages, like a Venus, like a little statue and it was like the image was blocked from Facebook and works of art have been blocked from Facebook. So I think maybe the question can be also, like can we teach an algorithm not to censor arbitrarily? So what do you think? I would say that again, I would go to my first statement about leadership. We make it a role, every leader in our party makes it a task to every day have a direct contact with small media outlets, for example. I mean, I speak every day with three small radios from inside the states, not from capital cities, but small towns, not because it's gonna have a big impact, but because it's a way of communicating with everyone. We make it an issue to go every week to meet with people directly in their houses through Facebook. We use Facebook to meet with them and we go to their houses. We have to break that contact. I don't think we need to partner with technological. We need to understand as leaders that there is a citizenship that is our boss and we work for them. And I think it has to do with that ethical view that Eugen was talking before. I mean, it's a moral leadership that has to change. And I think people are waiting for that. You can see that, I mean, I think in Latin America, unfortunately, and I would like to take the time to make a call for that, but we have a good example of what population can get to when it doesn't change with its Venezuela, right? I mean, you see there are fake news. You have a leader that is coming out and, I mean, everyone in the world understands that speaking is nonsense, but still is at the leadership of his country, but it's breaking apart the country. And that's populism taking to the strain where free media has disappeared, they have been kicked out of the country, business have been kicked out of the country. So we have that example. And I think at the end of the day, it's all about the people. I mean, Lincoln said it long ago, way before we talk about fake news, you can fool some people all of them. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. And that's still true. And so I'm very optimistic about how things are gonna turn out because I trust that people know that what's going on. And there can be some intervention, but these interventions, as David was saying, come out eventually. We know the Russian intervention is, so now everyone is aware that something like that can happen. And so they are much more careful. And I think that's the social control that social media gives us, that technology gives us, is I think the most important aspect of this. So what we need to partner more is with the truth. That's the partnership we need to build. Partnership with the truth. Can I add one more thing? Yeah, of course, yeah. I really love your comment, but I think also at the same time, we need to have a partnership with transparency. Because currently the gatekeepers, previously the editors of the big newspapers. Now the gatekeepers are the robots or some other algorithm. But we don't know what this algorithm is about. So there's a lack of transparency from the social media because I worked with some of the companies. So there is certainly their judgment call, whether it should be in or out. And that judgment call is not purely algorithm. It's actually intention of full road algorithm, right? So it is important for the media company and as a technology company work together to make it more transparent, to enable for the leaders like Esteban to have a promoting more truth and more transparency and more accountability is really, really important. That's a great point. We have another question here. In order to become a major political system and a core value of the reward, democracy has faced a lot of problems. Democracy has cost a lot of valuable, brave lives in order to become this major system we have today. And right now the whole world is discussing fake news as a major threat to democracy. My question is, fake news are that kind of threat, that huge kind of threat, or is democracy as a value vulnerable right now in the big part of the world? Tiago, fake news is not a recent phenomenon, right? You have fake news since, I know you are involved in politics for many years and you know that even before the internet or social media, fake news were there, were there in any electoral process, you know the opposition invented lies and all that sort of things. I think that the threat for democracy is that how quickly these fake news are moving and how that they are going. So that is the threat, the threat. But democracy itself is not the perfect model as we all know. So it's one of the threats that we are facing in our modern democracies that there are so many other threats that we are facing. But in this particular case, I think it's not the novelty of fake news because they are not news. But is the, you know, how quickly they move, how that they are. You know if you pay attention to Europe at this time and the campaigns, industrial campaigns of fake news, and you see from the perspective of some actors and some fake news publishers and pushers, you see how Italy is in this array because of migrant crisis. Germany is about to fall down because the far right is on the rise. Spain is like an authoritarian state like crushing democracy in Catalonia. The United Kingdom is going to break up with the rest of the union in order to, so you see like how the Western world, the democratic world is coming to pieces and who benefits from that? Who benefits from that? I mean, just like you can guess perfectly, you know, type of state, illiberal state that actually has leaders and prime ministers and presidents that have been there for ages. And that's the real benefit from this campaign. I want to give the chance to this gentleman, I think. Yeah, he was first actually, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Thank you, Philip Hauser from ANGIE. You said that not everything is up for voting so there are fundamental rights and the question is if truth is not a fundamental right. We know that free speech is a fundamental right but maybe the right to truth. So the question is to what extent is it feasible to prosecute fake news? So to have a legal system that is capable, even if not going after 100%, but that somebody who uses fake news for clearly illegitimate purposes and not related to honest mistakes, which are possible, can be prosecuted? What experience do we have? What are the dangers? And would that not be an important tool for our democracies? Anybody, can we prosecute fake news? There was a saying by Benjamin Franklin that said anyone that is willing to give a little bit of freedom for more security doesn't deserve none of the truth. As a politician, I prefer to have fake news than a limit to expression. I prefer free speech. I prefer freedom of saying whatever you want to say even if it's fake because if you leave the judging of if it's bad, it was a bad intention or not, it was intentionally saying a lie or not, then you're starting to limit the freedom of speech. And I think that's the biggest threat we have today because what they are betting on is fear. And that's the biggest problem. We have leaders that are betting on fear instead of on the potential of the people. And that's what's creating all these movements. So I think we do not have to fall to that idea of limiting freedom of speech. We have 10 minutes, so we're gonna have that question get. I was curious to know what you think would be a viable arbiter of the truth. It's easy to throw out the expression fake news and everything falls under that category. That's the problem. There's always an element of fakeness out there. It's getting to the truth that is really the important thing. And in a democratic system, information flows more freely and therefore you have more opportunity to find the truth. But I think the institutions we've relied on to find that truth have themselves broken down and are no longer capable of doing it as well as they did in the past. And I'm talking about the very large network news organizations who actually talk about the falling apart of Italy. So it isn't like some conspiracy out there that's saying all of a sudden this is happening. It's a catastrophe. It's a lot of people feeding to this fake news. And so we don't have good institutions anymore. And I just wanted to know whether you think the same and whether there are some solutions out there. Institution crisis, for instance, Leandro. Can you just repeat, please? I think what he meant is if we have gatekeepers that were actually in charge of telling you this is truth, like the major network, CNN, NBC. Now there's a situation of crisis there and who can be a good arbiter of the truth? And if this institution crisis is affecting the democratic system as a whole, so. Yeah, I'm kind of with Esteban here. I think, of course, we have a clash of values. And I'm in the position of giving the people the power to define what is good or bad for themselves. Not someone saying this is not what you supposed to be reading right now or you don't have to rely on this. Because if we take those spools that I just mentioned even in Brazil, almost half of the population know where they can go to fact check. So they don't have to rely on a judge to say, no, that's bad, you don't read that. So I'm more pro of freedom of speech, no judgments, but of course some kind of tools to avoid some international influence or even commercial or other endeavors in the sense. I think there's something very interesting in what Maria Cristina said before and that affects your question too. And there are some questions on Twitter about this which is emotional truths, like what you're willing to believe because you're on the right or on the left and you're more prone to believe in this politician or the other one. So I'll introduce a question that we have on Twitter and maybe you guys can jump to it too. How to combat these emotional news? People who are already willing to believe something before it happens. I mean, that's a point that you raised before, Maria Cristina. Again, I think how to deal is having a decent education and let people be under these influences and decide what to believe in. I think about this and that's why I think we have to support and the business community should think about this, to support initiatives that help children, especially children and teenagers to learn how to discern from the news, what is credible and what is not, to see from where, what are the sources? I think Dagen can elaborate on this, right? I want to echo what the audience say. The trust towards the government, media companies are all the more low these days. And what you describe as nowadays is like World Wide Web is like a wild wild west. We are having all kinds of unfiltered and censored information in the internet. And what has been, the algorithm has been designed is for people to see what they want to see rather than what they need to see. So they tend to believe what they feel like to be believed rather than they don't believe what is really need to be believed. So related to education, what you say about the discernment, a lot of people usually thinking about only about the fact checking, whether this is fact or not. But sometimes I think it's more important issue is that we have to actually teach children about the value, what is right. This information is promoting the respect towards the people, to the community. Or is it actually promoting the hatred? So it is, I think we have to go one step further than just fact checking. Is how this whole our ecosystem, information ecosystem is fostering about the truth which is containing the value plus the cognitive skills. So we have to actually evaluate both rather than just putting the weight on the defect. I think that distinction between what's a fact and what's a value and what's of value. And I mean, that is like actually a really good strategy in order to teach children how to distinguish between misinformation and what's not misinformation. Esteban? I would say not only children, also adults, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's, I think it's important to call out these, you know, leaders that are using fear. I mean, we need to trust people more. And I think that's, at the end of the day, that's, I mean, fake news, no fake news. At the end of the day, it's about people trusting and building that trust through the call out of those that use, you know, the idea of the enemy of hatred, of fear, to build walls, come out as messianic leaders that can solve every single problem. I mean, we came out in Argentina that was completely populist and unveiled a lot of problems and said, we're not gonna solve them in four years, no? And we're not gonna solve them alone. We need all of you guys to participate in this change that the country is gonna go through because it's a cultural change. And I think it has to do with that kind of leadership. Honest, truth-rule, transparent, but also very, very concerned about making the more, the most of the potential that people have in changing their own lives. So we need to trust them that they can do it. I wanna take a last question that we have online through Twitter with the hashtag LA18 and it's what happened for journalists and politicians to have the lowest trust in society nowadays? And I think it's, I mean, you see some polls and it's true that the prestige of those two professions have fallen a little bit. I mean, I think it's true because we really didn't do a good job. I mean, if you look at the last years I'm not gonna talk about Argentina because it's the item that I know the best but for the last 100 years we had a country with a lot of resources and we, I mean, leadership basically was not able to deliver and they started hiding the truth behind fake news, behind populism, behind trap media and not free media. I mean, a lot of things that had happened for these 100 years. And I think today, and that's why I'm so optimistic about the changes is it's not because a party change because it's not gonna be our party that's gonna change. A change has occurred in society and I think sometimes we need a huge blow to change and hopefully the blows we are having in the world will help all of the world to change at the stage. I think, I mean, just to wrap up it's good to have people from some different backgrounds and I think we've learned some things today and that's great and I think as a conclusion I just highlighted three ideas that I want to share with you and then we can finish the session. One is like how populism and fake news usually have been coming a long way until reaching this point. How education, not only for children also for adults and news literacy is very important. How algorithms and news platforms have also a responsibility to help news publishers do what they have been doing independently which is actually fact check and add value to what's the fact. So thank you very much. It was a pleasure and let's keep enjoying the forum. Thanks. Thank you.