 American Issues Take Two, I'm Jay Fidel, this is Tink Tech, and we're gonna talk about social media today. We're gonna talk about whether it's sufficiently regulated, and if not, what can we do about that? We are joined today by my co-host, Tim Appichella, our special contributor, Stephanie Stoll Dalton, and our special esteemed guest who is wearing a very nice lay this morning. He is going to explain it to us, Jeff Portnoy. Let's start with you, Jeff, why the lay? I was really provided this to me last night. They recognized my 50 years of dedicated service, and I was very pleased and honored. I had no idea. And so I thought, you know, the things with lays are that you get them at night, and then you go home, and what do you do with them? So I said, I'll bring it in this morning. And if you can't see the floor, but the floor is now flower-laden, with flowers falling off the lay. So that's the short answer. The stalkers are greeted with flowers. Yeah, it goes way back. And we did see, you know, more of the lay before the show began. And yes, it's the biggest lay I have ever seen. Oh, it's great. Yeah, there you go. All right. They use it for statutes, but they didn't have the statute ready. Coming soon, that's step two. That's right. So let's talk about social media. You know, I was watching the cable the other day and there's a fellow named John Favreau. Favreau was a survey taker. He used to be a speechwriter for Barack Obama. He's an actor, too. He's really good. And he has maybe a dozen young people at a big table and a camera on them. And he's interviewing them about their political activities, political consciousness. And what you get from this interview is extraordinary. They didn't know what district they lived in, all of them. They weren't sure who was running. They weren't sure if they were going to vote. They weren't sure about any platform position or any issue facing their district or the country. And it was extraordinary because this is a generation that we have all been waiting for. Now, you know, you can't say that one table and one survey is all that meaningful, but it was shocking and it was scary that if we are waiting for this generation, to take the reins and make it right, we can't be too confident, I think. And so how is this generation being trained? They were all in their early 20s, mid 20s. How now is this generation being educated? The schools that came before and of course the social media that comes now. I don't think there's any question that this generation is depending on social media for its information and social media is letting them down and letting us down. On the other hand, there is the First Amendment. There's not too much we can do about it, at least right now, under the way things are operating. And so we have a problem. Houston, we have a problem. Tim, what is the problem? Why are they not being educated about political issues that will determine their future and ours? Well, presumably the assumption is that the more information you have access to, particularly the internet, I mean, who goes to the library anymore? Presumably you get the more access you have, the more you read and the more better educated and aware of issues that you become. And that I think is the opposite is true because I think they probably feel overwhelmed with information and choices for information. And so the interest is contracting, not expanding. And how many social media accounts can you have at one time and how many news articles can you read at one time? And I think the interest wanes. And also you have to look at the lives of Gen Z and look at their lives and how many jobs are they trying to hold down just to make economic progress in their lives? How can they pry themselves away from their Nintendo when they're busy on the couch? I mean, there's a lot of things that would indicate they're not as well informed as maybe the baby boom generation or even Gen X. But in fact, they're not being informed. They're tuning out, not turning in. Yeah, well, and the rubber meets the road when they either vote or don't vote or how they vote. Stephanie, you're an educator and what are your thoughts about this? Where have we failed? And where is social media, you know, filling the void? Well, one thing we have to, or I am appreciating and understand that the transaction that you have with social media is new to the world, right? So the internet allows people to speak, to interact across it. So it's no longer kind of a one way communication. Receptivity, reading and receptivity at the library and all that. But these people are able to then make statements and speak into the world like nobody has ever done before. And there's some dreadful, I mean, there's some of the amazing consequences of having people able to do that and how it is that we get them to do that at a level of consequence for them and for our democracy. So I see it as we've got a two way transaction going on here that both ways need to be developed and nurtured and grown into a higher level and get off the soap opera thing. So anyway, I see that as a challenge as to how to do things with the internet that will encourage the quality of that transaction, both ways. I don't think yet the social media is raw capitalism and the bottom line counts and sometimes the wrong people are. The point, you know, there was an article in the paper a couple of years, a couple of days ago about Vladimir Putin's contribution of some $300 million to political parties over the past two cycles of national elections to the US and elsewhere. And, you know, the question is, where does that 300 million go? What, how do you get the best bang for that buck? Well, I think we could conclude at least in part that it goes to social media because you get really good bang for your buck. If you can reach, you know, young people on that, you can either neutralize them or point them in the wrong direction and it's raw capitalism. Jeff, you for 50 years, you've been representing the media. For 50 years, you've been talking about the First Amendment and protecting the rights of the media to do First Amendment. So I know where you're coming from. I think I know. I always say that to myself and then you surprise me. Where are you coming from, Jeff? What about social media? Is the First Amendment too wide a path? Well, you know, for 40 years, I didn't have to deal with social media. You know, it's still a very recent phenomenon in most of our lives. And it's a very controversial matter legally. Courts are struggling with how much freedom should web posts have versus traditional media in permitting statements to be posted that otherwise would be actionable if in the newspaper or on television. The lack of identity of people who post anonymously and the difficulty in learning their identity from web posts having to go to court many times and then even then maybe not having the judge rule that the host has to give up the identity of the poster. So anonymous postings. Many of us grew up with an encyclopedia in our house and that was it. You looked at the encyclopedia to find out about Greece or President Coolidge. I mean, now there's, I don't know, 10,000 sites on Greece. So I mean, I don't think it's a lack of information. I think it's too much information and too much false information. That's the problem. We didn't get a lot of false information when we were in school or thereafter because there was no place to get it. We read our local newspaper, we maybe watched the television, we went to the encyclopedia, we asked our parents and we went to school and had a history book which wasn't censored every two days by a right-wing school board and teachers weren't scared about teaching the truth and losing their jobs. I mean, we know what's going on in a lot of places in this country. So, I don't know if you can blame a generation. I think they are having access to a lot of bad stuff and that's not gonna stop. And you know, Tim mentioned Nintendo, shows you how old he is. I don't think there is Nintendo anymore. Did I say Nintendo? I meant Game Boy. So I mean, you know, it's a whole other world and I don't think, I mean, I don't know anything about it other than when I have a client who is unhappy with a post and it retains me to try to do something about it. I mean, I don't know what TikTok is. To me, it's what a clock does. But I mean, to people who are five years old to 25, it's where they are six hours a day and even in school. I mean, how do you keep a student from taking that phone out and not even paying attention for six hours and texting literally for six hours? I mean, it's a whole new world, but you know what? I'm just too old to completely understand it and know that somebody like Donald Trump has been able to exploit it and his accolades have been able to exploit it and it's a very dangerous weapon, but it ain't going anywhere. And I don't want to get too technical, but the Communications Decency Act, which I have been predicting since maybe the first year it was enacted, which is a free speech act that allows these websites to exist without any real control is under attack. And it's under attack by the left and the right. And I think it's not too long before it's amended and there will be some restrictions placed upon what you can and can't post. It's gonna happen sooner rather than later and you can see some of the courts beginning to say, hey, this goes too far, you know? And I'm a First Amendment guy, but it does go too far. I think you need to stand behind what you print or what you allow to be posted. And, you know, you're subject to defamation laws, you're subject to privacy laws, you're subject to copyright laws, but right now you've got a lot of immunity. And if you're Google or Facebook or TikTok or some of the dark websites, you can do whatever the heck you want. Is it feasible though, Jeff? You know, is that bill feasible in terms of asking social media companies to monitor everything? No, and they're not gonna be asked to monitor. And, you know, the irony in the bill as it exists now is the discrepancy between doing nothing and having very little liability or being a good citizen and monitoring the site and undertaking liability. That's what the law is right now, by the way. If you do nothing and just let people post, it's considered a bulletin board. But if you wanna make sure that Nazis aren't posting on your site and you have a group like Facebook has now that looks at what's being posted, Facebook is actually giving itself the potential for being sued by being good citizens. It just doesn't make any sense. Well, Tim, you know, you have been talking about the FCC for a long time and you have some strong opinions on that. But, you know, one distinction I would make in asking for your comment on this is there's misinformation. And, you know, there's also, as Jeff says, there's defamation. And two are not necessarily the same. And defamation is not so likely to bring our country down. Misinformation is an electorate that is misinformed on a large scale basis. Cannot be a democracy, that's my view. What's your view about the government's obligation, if you will, the obligation of the FCC and like agencies to take affirmative action? Well, I'm not gonna really diminish what I've already said about 45 times on various shows here with Think Tech Hawaii. And that is we need to make a distinction between those who report quote unquote facts of the news versus opinions of the news. And again, I believe in the creation of a firewall and not reduce the content from anyone. I agree with Jeff, I mean, freedom of speech is actually paramount in the society, but we need to differentiate that from commentary and opinion versus those that are trying to state a fact for public consumption. And I just say, you know, get the news desk either segregate them into two separate news desk and like they used to do in the sixties and say now our opinion commentary from Roger Mudd, you know, versus one person doing both jobs of reporting facts and then giving their filter and opinion of those facts. So I think the FCC still has a role in that and that's what I'd like to see happen is a segregation of commentary and opinion versus just going down the list of news facts. No, but I don't wanna throw any rain on your parade but sometimes very hard, okay, here it goes. But we have no more, we have no more fairness doctrine. Well, that's my point, Jeff. And we basically have no more equal time doctrine. I mean, the FCC is about as toothless as anybody, you know what they care about? Somebody says a four letter word. That's what they care about. Yeah, I understand that. That's all they care about. But Jeff, that's my point. It's time for the FCC to step up and I know they're committed. It's not gonna happen, Tim. Well, that is my wish. I hope spring's eternal, Jeff. So let's go to Stephanie for a minute. Stephanie, you know, sometimes the difference between fact and opinion is very blurred. And you can hardly tell. And furthermore, the American viewership, listenership has had the experience of that blur for a long time. I think if you pose a blurred statement to one of those kids at that table, he would not be able, or she would not be able to tell you whether that's fact or opinion. So who's gonna make the distinction? It's not so easy to make that distinction and neither the viewership nor the government will easily make that distinction. So my suggestion to you, and like your opinion on this, may I say, or your fact on this, if you like. Yeah. Is this something that we can actually do or is it pie of the sky? And are we in a place where we can't come back? Very good question. And we have some actual masters of this out there already who can be our models. And of course, the numero uno one is Donald Trump because he wants to do something with this media. He uses it to have something happen to other people that he can use. And as we've been talking about how we've used our resources before to get information, to seek it out and delve into resources and use them. We use them to build our knowledge and to meet whatever our inquiry is to get more information. But there's this other level that now is becoming obviously the way of the internet and the use of it is that you use it to make something happen that you desire to do and get to an outcome. And learning how to do that is not everybody's forte. I mean, we need to start looking at that level of usage of it because that's where it's camouflaging everything. So when you're doing something with it and trying to influence and change, then this whole thing of what's new, what's old, what's misinformation, you can't sort it out that easily when it's contained within this larger purpose. Well, Tim and I disagree here because I think the worst thing is for the government to get involved in any way in regulating speech. I just think that is the end of democracy. And so I understand people's concerns. I have the same feeling about stifling speech on liberal college campuses, not allowing certain speakers to speak and sorting out fact versus opinion. There is a legal definition in the world of defamation because many people who were sued for defamation, one of their primary defenses is it's my opinion and opinion is not actionable. There's no such thing as a false opinion, but the laws made it clear that the opinion has to be based upon true facts. And if the facts are false, that doesn't protect your opinion. So, you know, and not everybody agrees with me, believe me, probably lots of people don't. And I know that because I've been in debates with people at the university and other places. I just think you have to just let it ride and hope that the listener can sort out truth from falsity. And unfortunately, with all the access that people have and all the falsity, that's much harder than it was when we were growing up. So, Jeff, quick question. How did they do it when we had the fairness doctrine in place? How did they regulate and say you've gone over the line, you're on public airways and you're being, you know, your words are being detrimental to the public consumption. How did they do it back in the day? Well, they did it because, you know, the FCC argued just like you did, that it's a public airway, and that, you know, there was only three television stations. Was that detrimental to the First Amendment? That's a good question. I mean, I think you can argue that both ways. I mean, you know, and for people who don't know, and I know you all guys know, it meant that if you did a program on anti-smoking, you were required to allow the tobacco companies to have time to argue the other side of the issue. And was the country better for that? Yeah, I think so. But again, you know, I just think you have to leave it to broadcasters. Frankly, I think there should be a fairness doctrine, but that doctrine should be in the newsroom. I don't think it should be in Congress. And that's where you and I differ, you know? And yeah, you'll say, well, people aren't gonna do that. Is Sinclair broadcasting gonna promote both sides of an issue? Is Fox gonna promote both sides of an issue? And on the other hand, is CNN gonna promote both sides of an issue? I think we all know the answer, but I still think when you weigh it, I think government needs to stay out. But I can certainly understand your position and say, hey, no one else is doing it. Well, you know, we've had autocrats in the 20th century. We have? And yeah, you heard this here on Think Tech. God, I'm learning something. Is that a fact or is that opinion? Just think. Now wait, but that's a good point. Is that a fact or opinion that someone's an autocrat? Well, given all the books that have been written, it's a fact. No. But you would argue that's a fact. If you can't argue that one on me, Jeff, you're good, but not that good. I would ask you what fact, first of all, who are you talking about and what facts are you relying on for your opinion? But go ahead. Well, you know what I mean. But I mean, my point, my point about the autocrats is they used media. They used media for propaganda. Of course, Hitler and Trump are the two prime examples. Brilliant. Brilliant. Yes. And so really the problem is that, as you say, if you let it get into the hands of government, or you let government take it, you know, which I think is the road that Hitler took and the road that Trump takes, then you have a problem. By the way, not to equate those two. I don't want to get any letters. No. One has a mustache. One has a mustache. One had a mustache. Okay, let's not be confused. So if you had government involved here and then the autocrat appears in the government, you have a problem. On the other hand, if you don't have government involved and it's chaos, you have a misinformed public or in a public like those kids at the table. Either road that we have identified is a road to perdition. I'm sorry. And the question, you know, it's the story of the Christmas Carol. What is the future? What is the future for Christmas here? Let me tell you an anecdote, which is a true anecdote. All right. I have no opinion. No opinion. No, no, and I'll be quick with this, but I want to show you things that remain the same even though they may change because of technology. When I went to Duke, my wife was an elementary school teacher and she taught fourth and fifth grade in the Durham County School District, which was very rural, a lot of blacks, but a lot of poor whites. Okay. And one day she asked me to come in and give the kids a quiz on people, on famous people. And I came in with 25 names and it ranged from the president of the United States to country western singers, to race car drivers. And I went through the list of 25 names and asked the kids who they knew and recognized. Okay. I'll never forget this. The number one answer was a race car driver over the president. Okay. So do things change very much? Maybe not. Maybe not, you know, about how kids know and learn. These are fourth graders. More people knew the race car driver than knew who the president of the United States was. Okay. I mean, I would grant you that this has been happening for a while. And, you know, the media teaches us about race car drivers and we emulate them and so forth. But Stephanie, you know, the ghost of Christmas future in the Christmas Carol back when is enough to scare Ebenezer Scrooge? Is it enough to scare us? How concerned should it be that either road, the road of government control of the press or the road of chaos where everyone can say everything and it's very hard to make a distinction. That's not true. Everybody can't say anything. You can't yell fire in a crowd theater. You can't defame somebody. You can't threaten somebody in a way that looks like they're gonna be an imminent harm. You can't steal copyright. So Jay, there are restrictions. So we just can't say, you can say anything you want about anybody because you can't. If you say something false about somebody and it's, you know, you can be held liable. I mean liable. What about inciting riot? What? What about inciting riot on the public airways? Well, you're right. What about chewing on? What about conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact? Is there accountability for that? Stephanie, so what's the past? What's gonna happen here? Well, I mean, Jeff's point is so good and that there are this body of law. So we all need to know, we already have the guide rails. So we gotta get these guide rails up and get people to know about them. Well, how about enforce it? Musical. How about what? Enforcing the existing guard rails. Well, and enforcing the existing guard rails, of course. And this is education. And those kids in those schools, they need to know about it because they're all, it's only now that anybody's asking a rural kid who the president is. I mean, they never asked them 50 years ago. They probably didn't know what they had. But I mean, I think you were implying that maybe there was a larger percentage of them that would have known that. But anyway, I just think that we need to get that knowledge based up and we need to be able to give them the tools. We've gotta figure out the tools. There's some research that needs to be done. Nobody teaches civics anymore. And we gotta do that. Nowhere, I'm talking about Hawaii. Well, but then also you talk about enforcement under the law, well, who's gonna do that? Eileen Cannon, let's bring, Eileen Cannon, let's bring her on the show and ask her about enforcing the law. I think we're in a place where enforcement under the law for certain people and certain things, you know, is no longer happening. We are not a nation of laws anymore. That some people consider themselves above the law and they are in many ways. Tim, your thoughts about the future. Where is this gonna take us one road or the other? Well, I reminded of Charles Dickens' line in the Christmas Carol, when you invoke the ghost of Christmas future and that was, are these the things that will be or may be? Now, right now Texas and Florida seem to be the hotspot on this very issue. Governor DeSantis is basically saying, I'm gonna put out a bill that prohibits any internet company from restricting one's ability to opine or speak on any of the social media accounts. That's gone to the Fifth Circuit Court. I think they've partially upheld his concept, but the Eleventh District Court has not. So, you know, this is gonna go to the Supreme Court over this very issue. And that may be the ghost of Christmas future that needs to be determined and will be or may be. And confusion in general, Jeff, does not really help our electorate. But then not confusion in general does not help our electorate. And there are people out there, including Vladimir Putin. They're not confused. No, no, he's not confused. No, no, but you're talking about doesn't help our electorate. People aren't confused. They believe what they wanna believe. They're not confused. They have a certain set of beliefs that have been reinforced. This is a critical point in my view. Trump didn't create these issues. He just played into people's fears and beliefs in a very brilliant way. Trump is not the reason why poor whites hate African Americans. That's been the case, you know, and this is a broad overstatement, but Trump plays into it. Trump didn't play into having people dislike immigrants. You know what I mean? So, and it's the same thing. I'm sorry to go back to Hitler. Hitler knew that people were anti-Semitic. And what do we do? We need to find an enemy that people already believe is out there and will help reinforce it, right? So, you know, this gets pretty philosophical. But, you know, and I'm not a psychiatrist, but I think there's been a lot written about it. So, you know, and yeah, social media encourages that. There's no question about that. And should we deny access? I don't know. Now, well, hey, let me offer a drill down point on technology, which is important, if not central for social media. Remember, it came out of the Cambridge Analytica case scenario that Zuckerberg was collecting information on all of us and selling it. That's another whole issue. It's another issue, but there's an echo in that. So, if you can buy my information, then you can address my propensities, my sensibilities. This is the same society that, you know, kids are texting nude photographs of themselves every day, all day. And then people want to argue about the fact that they're selling information about what soap you buy. I mean, you know, the dilemma is out there. Well, it's not soap. It's not soap. If they know my propensity is democratic, they're going to see me in that echo chamber, and they're going to enhance that. And I'm going to get all kinds of social media because somebody has decided that I must be a Democrat. They're going to send me this, and they're going to affect my thinking because I'll get that more than anything else. It's more than soap. It's much more than soap. But can we go back to Trump for a minute? Because I think Jeff brought him up, and that is what Trump does in everything, is that he's like the cat with the mouse. He just keeps working it and working it and suspecting that he might be able to do this and then he finds out whether he can or not. And that's what he's doing. His notions that people are basically racist and that they want this kind of difficulty brought to bear on other people and they want to be vicious and violent and misogynist. And he thinks that and he goes and tries for it. He doesn't come right out straight and ask yes or no, give me a factual answer. He just watches the thing grow, just like he's doing with the legal system. He just keeps putting stuff out there, like they say throwing the spaghetti up on the wall to see what sticks. But just to see if he can get it to be postponed. Hey, you know what it is? My life sucks, and it's because of somebody else. That's what Trump plays on. Your life is not what it should be because of Mexican-Americans or whatever. And you hate the same things I hate and you want the same things. My life would be much better if it wasn't for you. You're the reason that I can't pay my bills or I'm not happy with my marriage or that's just human nature. You're always looking to blame your problems on somebody else. Sure, you know, this is the story of the Inquisition in the 15th century. Sure, that's the change. Isabella and Ferdinand were not necessarily anti-Semitic at all, but they knew the people on the street needed to have someone as a scapegoat. So they adopted anti-Semitism and sure enough, the people on the street loved them for it because it was the way they could enhance their power and make everybody feel that they were on their side. And when you look at Trump doing what Trump does or these 20th century autocrats or the 21st century autocrats, you find they're doing the same thing but much more sophisticated on many more issues and scapegoats. And I guess the question is when we go on this? Should we be looking at congressional hearings and bills? Should we be looking at enhancing the powers of agencies like the FCC? Should we be finding solace in the courts or should we just let it go and be sort of organic about it? Either road could lead us to a bad place, but what direction would you go, Stephanie? Well, I would like to use the guard rails that are there, let's get that up. Bring it up. Let's get everybody familiar with it. Let's start possibly- Use government. Yeah, well, use what we've got. Let's see what the tools are that we have. That's why I said earlier, like we need some research here. Let's get some data. You know, what's gonna help us with this? What works, what makes a difference? How do you- Do we have the time for that, Tim? Do we have the time to make a study of this and to do this? No, you don't need a study. You don't need a study to enact existing laws. I don't know what it is about- Hesitancy to enforce existing laws. Don't make laws if you're not willing to enforce them. My God. You know, the laws are in place, enforce them. It's just that simple, and I don't know if it's a matter of politicians being timid and receiving criticism for enforcing existing laws or not, but whatever it is, knock it off. Well, remember, remember that social media companies have enormous cash. They're doing very well. They're tech companies. And if you recall a couple of years ago that we're congressional hearings. Well, I'm talking about lobbying. I'm talking about spreading your cash around Congress. I'm talking about very powerful lobbying organizations. They can and they do stop efforts in Congress. Well, when you know, you start seeing insurrection of our nation's capital as a direct result of social media and fanning the flames of discontent. And Jeff has well pointed out a grievance laden society, then it's time to step in and say, what you're putting out there? Is that for the betterment of our society or is it for the dissension of our society? And I'm sorry, but someone needs to make a decision and come in and say, we're going to reinstall the fairness doctrine. We're gonna reinstall decency of communications. And I'm sorry, but I know it's a heavy-handed thing to do, but we've got to get to a place where, A, our population agrees on what the facts are rather than just making them up. And B, once the facts are agreed upon, then you're entitled to your opinion. But let's get a slate of common accepted facts first and then let people make their opinions. In a while, Tim is gonna tell us how he really feels. No, I mean, just warming up. His point to enforce the laws that we have on the books. Okay, Jeff, your opportunity for rebuttal. My view is you have 300 television stations. You've got unfortunately only a few newspapers, but they're out there. You have access to all those newspapers if you want. You've got thousands of internet sites. And so there's plenty of places to go if you want to, to get the information that you wanna get. And I'm sorry, but I don't think the government should be telling us what information we need to have. That is, in my view, anti-democratic. But I certainly understand the position. And it's like anything else. There are two sides to every coin. And I'm not criticizing Tim's position on it. I just believe it's a marketplace of ideas. We've never had the expansion of marketplace of ideas that we have today, not even close. When we grew up, we had three television stations, three. So I just think it's viewer's choice. And unfortunately, you watch kids spending six to eight hours a day, cause their parents allow them on their phones. We watch teenagers spending God knows how much time on their phones. I think it's a parental issue. I think it's an education schooling issue. And the last people I would have enforcing it, other than laws, which I don't disagree with you, pass the law, then enforce it or don't pass it. But I'm not a big fan of governmental interference in speech and I know that can be hurtful and harmful. I can also be corrupted. If Trump has his way, he would corrupt all those people. Let me inject one idea. We had hundreds of thousands of Americans die due to immense information about COVID. Yet it was the freedom of speech to present those crazy ideas from Donald Trump and his ilk. And the bottom line is, should we have had hundreds of thousands of Americans die as due to misinformation about a public health crisis? Did the First Amendment, was it in the right place for that particular issue? But, and I don't disagree. There was a lot of misinformation, but Tim, that's an opinion. I never forget that press conference, Trump had he had 12 medical doctors standing in front of the White House, giving the exact opposite to what you think is misinformation. And that's my point exactly. We are not agreeing on the facts. And these were medical facts. I mean, these were scientific facts. They're not facts because people say they're not facts. Right? Well, then we have a flat world. Well, maybe, maybe some people believe that. Yeah. They do. Stephanie, I want to ask one more question before we close. And that is all of this considered, you know, and many, many people would agree with the two sides of the question and one side of the other, or both a combination. What effect is this going to have in November? How are we going to see this play out? Because the, you know, I don't think the Democrats understand as well as Trump how you distract people, how you confuse people, how you take them down a path that takes them away from the facts. What's going to happen in November? Because that's sort of a benchmark for the future of the democracy. Yeah, good point, Jay. I believe that the believing part of it is the big difficulty. So whatever they believe right now is what they're going to do in November. Between now and then, the chances of having any much change are very, very small because people take time that the whole belief system is like tectonic plate movement. It takes a long time to affect any change. And as you've all brought up without having, without, we're not doing anything about helping people understand and know more and how it all works, we've got to figure out how to better do that so we can get these, you know, people to be able to change their beliefs or be subject to a lot of information that then they have the critical power to decide what to take in and make a difference in the way they think. We've never had a handle on it. People don't remember, everybody got burnt at the stake and that didn't change their opinion. They went to get burnt at the stake. So, you know, it's a very powerful thing that what people think once they get it in their heads. And when you have maniacals like our former president there with a big microphone doing these things that presumably we have some body of laws or some guide rails that we could use to help get that cleared up right as it's coming out of his mouth, that would help. So it doesn't get stimuli, it doesn't get set in right away. So- Just remember, my favorite story about the emperor has no clothes. That's exactly what we're talking about, right? Yeah. That's true. People have beliefs, people have beliefs even when they're staring at reality. Right. I mean- Right? Yeah. Well, the question ultimately is, is democracy perfectable or not? And is humanity perfectable or not? And we're out of time. I wish we had another six hours to answer that. I bet you do. Indeed we do. Jeff Portnoy and Tim Appichella, Stephanie Stoltz-Alton. Thank you so much for a really, really good conversation. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.