 Hello everyone, how are you? Warming up. It's cold out there already. I'm really happy to be here today with all of you and introduce Ethan Katch to you, who's a long-term Berkman friend and contributor to our community. He's currently the director of the National Center for Technology in Dispute Resolution. He's a professor and Meritus at UMass Amherst and, most importantly, which brings us to the topic of today, also the co-author of a great book called Digital Justice Technology and the Internet of Disputes co-authored with Orna Rabinovic. I highly recommend this book. You actually have some flyers on your tables with a discount. I may add. This book is one of the books where you walk away and depending on the mood of the day when you read it, you're leaving more optimistic or sometimes more pessimistic depending on the mood of the day. So be careful when you read it because in one way the book tracks actually and tells the story, the history of the internet as a story of more and more disputes and certainly these days I feel very much we have an abundance of disputes not only looking at the commercial web like the good old eBay problems of disputes between buyers and sellers, but of course when we look at social media when we talk about hate speech and harassment and cyberbullying and disagreements about, you know, ratings and many other things. So it's in a way a history of disputes but on the other hand side on the more optimistic note it's also a book that tells us the story that the same technology can actually be used not only to resolve disputes but also to prevent them and to mitigate them and to me that's particularly timely topic as we are facing as a society, but of course particularly also the provider of platforms face so many design choices and have to consider what's in the repertoire available how we can use digital technology to actually create a more peaceful world and the more harmonious society to borrow a Chinese term. Now there's no one better actually than Ethan to tell this story. Ethan is a true pioneer, a thought leader when it comes to the field of dispute resolution online. He was among the pioneers actually of eBay's famous dispute resolution systems, which he developed to help develop and test. I think in the late 90s that feels very long time ago much has happened since and so it couldn't be more excited to hear the story from you. Where have we arrived and what's ahead? Digital justice, thanks for being here Ethan. I'm looking forward to your talk. That's a extremely extremely kind of viewers, but I think you've summarized the whole book already. We almost actually we struggle with the title and one day we thought we'd call digital injustice. Then we went back to digital justice. I suppose it could have been called either one, but we felt better with the title digital justice than injustice. So I was in I was in Brussels recently giving a talk and afterwards a member of the audience came up to me and asked me this question. Where does justice take place and he didn't give me a chance to answer. Because he said justice takes place here. This is the largest courthouse in the world. And I said well, I think this is the largest courthouse in the world and or this or something in the cloud. But I told him I thought he was making a mistake and thinking that this was just a phone. This is a chameleon. It can be it could be a courthouse. It can be almost anything. All it takes is some imagination. So I put this courthouse inside the phone. Not very professionally, I know. But still I sent this off to him and I haven't heard from him since. This is the essence of the book. Not simply digital justice, but access to justice. And there's no shorter, more succinct statement about access to justice. And Kafka, the law, should be accessible to everyone at all times. The problem with that big courthouse, which turns out not to be the biggest courthouse in the world. The biggest courthouse in the world is in Turkey for some reason. But the problem with that courthouse is that it gets a small percentage of disputes. So we're dealing with we're dealing with a level of conflict that's extraordinarily high. I think when we started writing the book, it was a little less obvious than it is today. I don't think we have to make it's not hard to make a persuasive statement about being worried really about the level of conflict online. But what do we do about this? So there are efforts before we get to that. This is basically the model that most people in the dispute resolution field think figuratively represents what's happening. Very few disputes at the top. Alternate ADR, alternative dispute resolution, mediation, negotiation or arbitration, somewhat more. And then basically most people have to figure out for themselves what to do with their problems. So if you have a problem with your car mechanic that's on you, nobody's going to get inside that huge courthouse in Brussels or any courthouse in this country for less than quite a few thousand dollars unless you go to a mediation center or maybe possibly a small claims court. But I'm having a little trouble with the screen or getting used to the screen. But if I hadn't persuaded you thus far that there are lots of disputes, these are basically disputes that have been resolved and Alibaba has overtaken eBay for a number of years. eBay boasted it handled 60 million disputes a year, obviously without human intervention. Alibaba claims not only a hundred million, but a higher success rate. Yeah, 95% without the online dispute resolution. China imposes pressures, parties to settle more than eBay does. So that counts for that. Resolver is a British company that's been in business only for two years. It's growing rapidly. And Resolver reason for being is to help people make complaints. That may strike you as an odd business model because many of you probably think you know how to complain. But sometimes it's not so easy to find who to complain to. Certainly hard to find. Hard to find telephone numbers or addresses online. And Resolver has a list of 100,000 individuals at British companies who you can complain to and they help you and they automate the process. League of Legends, are there any League of Legends players here? One. One who's willing to admit it. Or two. League of Legends has 67 million users. They realized at some point that they were not going to be able to thrive if people got into conflicts with each other. So they have an online jury system. And then there's Wikipedia, which many of you know about, has a very elaborate system of resolving disputes. American Orbitration Association handled 100,000. Should make clear, all of this online, sometimes with a little human intervention, eBay, some small percentage are handled by humans, but mostly online. And on my screen, half of the screen is red and half is not red. Are you seeing that? No. All black. I have no idea why. But the red on my screen goes down to American Orbitration Association and then becomes black with the domain name disputes and sharing economy and so forth. And that's in black because those entities or processes, in my opinion at least, don't work as well and haven't worked as well. And they're not necessarily as fair as the ones at the top. And then you get down to one at the bottom, which I just stuck here. We'll deal with this later. AT&T has 120 million mobile phone customers and its arbitration system attracted the grand number of 27 out of 120 million. So Orr has mentioned that disputes on the internet are fairly recent phenomenon. If you date the internet back to 1969, you find that really for the first 25 years or so, there were no disputes. If you're interested in dispute resolution, it's an interesting case study of what kind of infrastructure is needed in order for them not to settle disputes, but for there not to be any disputes at all. So when the academics and the military were in charge of things, and the US government prohibited the use of the net for e-commerce, where do you get disputes? There were no students online. Students generated a lot of disputes. There was no customers online, there was no e-commerce. There was a social network of sorts, an informal one. People who could use the net used it to communicate, but nothing, no social network of the kind we see. And there were, of course, in the 80s, some cases that did go to court, mostly copyright cases. Well, this changed rapidly in the last 10 to 20 years, so much so that Mr. Kfor is embarrassed by this statement. But I don't think he really should be embarrassed, because if you're back in 1993, it was fair enough to think this is good. We don't have to do anything to make this good. This is inherently good. And unfortunately, it's not inherently good. The point about disputes is you don't have to really do anything to generate disputes. You have to do a lot to resolve disputes and even more to prevent disputes. But if you want to set up an environment where there are lots of disputes, take a look at the internet. Doesn't require huge strategies. So how can we improve access to what we call justice? We need more tools. Most of all, I think we need the last thing. We need a new focus on preventing disputes. Mediators and arbitrators almost have nothing to do with preventing disputes, because those are private confidential processes. So if you think about trying to find patterns in areas where there are lots of disputes, eBay does that, that takes some effort, but confidentiality is threatened by that. If you're strictly a mediator, again, you're not going to be able to handle huge numbers of cases of the kind we had here. So what happens? Why is there, why do we need these dispute resolution processes? Why would Alibaba bother setting up a system to handle 100 million or eBay 60 million? Or in these areas, which we sort of case studies that we devote a chapter in each two in the book, why are they concerned with disputes? And it's a rather simple answer, and that is if you're going to enter a disputing environment, you're entering an environment that brings some risk. You want to enter a safe environment, and there is this statement by someone at Facebook who was here a few weeks ago. I don't buy into the validity of this statement, but it does represent clearly the rationale for why we need dispute resolution processes. Basically, we want people to feel safe when using Facebook. When I first got involved with eBay, I haven't been involved with them for 10 or more years, but the question with eBay at the start was why would anybody buy anything from somebody they didn't know who was located at a distance? And what could you do to help them feel safer? And the answer was you could promise them that if they resolve disputes, if they have a dispute, you'll resolve them. We're, I'm sorry, somehow this is taken off by itself. I'm blaming the technology. So the access to justice issue, we've seen it before. In the mid-70s and early 80s, people in this building, or not this building, but this university, I've got a very sensitive piece of the device here, discovered the same thing that I mentioned earlier, namely that the courts are overloaded. They can't handle things. Therefore, things should be handled privately and mediation and arbitration were the choices there. Alternative dispute resolution became a model for online dispute resolution some years later. I think those of you who are more interested or interested in our online dispute resolution can look at it carefully as it's branched out from ADR. If you wanna know how eBay resolves disputes, here's a simple example. The eBay system's impressive, but really it's impressive only in terms of numbers. It's not impressive in terms of complexity. So eBay simply uses forms. And the goal of these forms is two-fold. One is to clarify what the dispute is about. More importantly, it's designed to allow the parties to communicate civilly with each other. The vast majority of disputes between buyers and sellers are based on miscommunication or accidents, but almost everyone who makes a purchase on eBay and finds it not to their liking, almost everyone thinks they've been defrauded. So the key goal is to persuade the parties to talk enough so that they realize they haven't been defrauded. These forms enable them to focus in on what kind of solution there might be. And you end up with 60 million. So one current example of an access to hopefully justice, but maybe injustice. This is a case that's potentially going to the Supreme Court. It went to the Supreme Court once, and it was sent down for a technical reason about standing. But Mr. Robin, anybody know Spokia familiar with it? It's a bad place. So if you are represented there, I would get out of there. Unless you can tell me later, you found to find it different. Spokia is what's called a people search engine. You can search for people on Google, but you're not going to find as much about them as you will on Spokia. And Thomas Robbins looked himself up on Spokia, found that there was almost nothing that was accurate about him. His age was wrong, his economic well-being was wrong, his job situation was wrong, he wasn't married, he didn't have children, his expertise was off. And Mr. Spokia sued based on the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So it's one of the few federal statutes we have that help with accuracy, promote accuracy in records. If you're interested later, I can talk about the issue of how to correct records because in healthcare, in e-commerce, almost in every chapter of the book, there is an issue with records not necessarily being stolen, and not records based on problems of privacy, but records based on accuracy. And the records are not accurate, judgments and decisions made on the basis of those records are going to be mistakes. So Mr. Spokia runs the risk of being turned down for a mortgage, for example. So this statement in the Fair Credit Reporting Act required them to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the information that it makes available for use in credit reports. Seems to be a violation of Mr. Spokia, but the district court, federal district court denied him relief. The Court of Appeals reversed that, granted him relief. And then I went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court sent it back down to the Court of Appeals because it said, there's no real concrete proof that he's been injured. How many of you think that he's been injured? If you were in this situation, would you think you'd been injured? I would have guessed more. But so the court says he hasn't been injured. There's this false information about him, but no basic injury. So this case was decided in his favor by the Court of Appeals the second time it went to them. And it's unclear whether Spokia will try to appeal to the US Supreme Court or not. But it seems to me an example in the legal system of trying to secure access to justice. And this is not a trivial case. The number of amicus briefs filed in this case probably are 50, and all of the big players filed amicus briefs on Spokia's behalf. I think most of us would have preferred that they filed briefs supporting Mr. Robbins. But all of them, I think it reveals something about them. All of them are afraid of more lawsuits. And they've all filed a lot of retainers of lawyers. And they've all filed briefs in support of Spokia. So the case was sent back and recently decided in Mr. Spokia's behalf. So just two more slides, and I think I've used up my time. Digital injustice as well as justice. Yes, there's hard to know, as I said, whether to call this book digital injustice or digital justice. The underlying issue, as I think I've said already, is that conflicts, it doesn't take any special action to generate a conflict. If you have a transaction, if you have a relationship, if some entity has a billion members, there inevitably going to be disputes. Whether those entities that have a billion users design systems appropriately is a lot harder. And then of course there are those entities that think that terms of service can cover all of this and that prevent disputes. So here are my two worst examples. First from Partners Health Care. How many of you belong to Partners Health Care? Last general, Brigham and Wegep, women's. So how many of you use their online patient portal? So you've agreed to this. In the event of any problem with patient gateway, that's their portal. Or any of its content, you agree that your sole remedy is to cease using patient gateway. Under no circumstances shall partners or any partners affiliate be liable in any way for your use of patient gateway or of any of its content, including but not limited to any errors or omissions in any content. I find that so egregious that I don't know what to say more about it. But I will say one more thing about it. And that is all of us should take a look at our online medical records. Probably almost all of you have access to your medical records online, either through patient gateway or Beth Israel's, which is called patient site. And the interesting thing about these records online is that when you look at your record, it will probably be the first time in your life that you've seen your medical record. I haven't encountered anyone who had access to their, or who asked for access to their paper, the NILA folder record, even though federal law requires physicians to make them available. But all of our records are online and people are seeing for the first time that there are lots of mistakes. My wife's record said she had diabetes, which fortunately she didn't have. My own records said I had an anxiety attack that caused me to go to the hospital in 2005. I don't know where they got this from. And the problem with medical records, it's almost impossible to correct them. Because you're not allowed to delete anything from a medical record in case litigation ensues. So they might, if your medical record contains an error and you complain enough, they may put it at the end of the record so that anybody interested in your record will have to scroll down 10 screens, but I urge you to take a look, see your record. The other one is one mentioned earlier, AT&T's arbitration system. Well, AT&T is not alone. In terms of service for any wireless carrier and any bank will mandate use of arbitration, which means that it will not allow class action lawsuits if you're injured. In theory, there's nothing wrong with arbitration, but nobody uses it. And then there is something wrong with that. And AT&T is not alone. The agency that was established during the Obama administration of consumer finance protection agency banned the use of these clauses in commercial contracts, consumer contracts, not wireless contracts, credit card contracts, but the Trump administration either has recently or is about to get that off the books. So if you want to complain, you have to ask for arbitration and the problem with that is it's going to go nowhere. So I think my power is up. Thank you very much. Obviously, if anybody has any questions, that's what the rest of the time is for. Thank you. And I feel encouraged and provoked by your presentation to ask the first questionnaire for me. And it goes back essentially to your first slide with the courthouse building in the smartphone. And the question is twofold and centers around the terminology also a little bit, digital justice. First of all, the first question is your presentation has focused strongly on disputes and the question of dispute resolution and also to some extent prevention. And I'm wondering whether you could comment a little bit more about the relationship between disputes and justice and these two concepts. So the first slide. So most people look at justice in two ways, not entirely consistent ways. One, substantively, asking basically whether the outcome was just. And we've done a little of that but that hasn't been our focus. The other way to look at access to justice is to look at access. Does one who feels aggrieved have an opportunity to correct the problem that has caused them, problem that exists for them. That's the Kafkaesque model of access to justice and that's the one we chose to develop more space to than the other one. Which is also a great segue to my next question which is more justice as a process, right? You mentioned there is the output component, there is the access component and this now directly relates to the title digital justice. Would you say that somehow the digital vision that you sketch also in the book, of course in much more detail, reflects back on what justice may mean in the digital age. Is there some sort of technological feedback loop on the very concept of justice? Also looking at the eBay snapshot you provided where it's a form and not necessarily a rhetorical space of arguments that seem to determine justice. Yeah, I think one thing I would say is that we're in early stage of trying to figure out really how do we handle these challenges to justice based on what occurs online. Really all of the activity in this space that we talk about or almost all of the activity is pretty recent. Facebook doesn't get started until 2007. Amazon and eBay get started quickly in 1995 but still it's fairly recent. So we don't have a good array of processes to look at. We have the array that I had on the screen half of which, my opinion, are severely lacking. We could have, for example, a domain name dispute process that actually involved domain name holders and challengers to those domain names to reach a reasonable solution. But instead, as many of you may know, the trademark owner wins 85% of the time. So I think that's an online dispute resolution process. I'd say it's a flawed process. I have, I mean, sometimes this does, I admit, depress me but one thing I'm optimistic about is that we will see some creativity in designing processes. Maybe artificial intelligence may be net next to your post in terms of process, problems and solutions. Yeah, so AI and algorithms are big issues for people designing these systems and the challenge is, as I said, transactions generate disputes. So this is a question we don't answer in the book. How do you deal with algorithm that somehow you think is leading to a result you don't care for? Thank you. Let me open up here. Questions, comments? Hi there, thanks for your great comments. Jessica Field from the CyberLock Clinic here. So we deal with, a lot of our clients are interested in the possibility of online dispute resolution and we've found that the tools that are available seem to deal really well with sort of simple disputes that often have monetary resolutions but don't always deal with other kinds of, both objectives that clients might have, like having a public forum in which to air grievances or merely an opportunity to feel heard or the possibility of some sort of injunctive relief. Are there systems that you're aware of that are either like under development or even currently available that deal a little better with that broader universe of concerns that you're sort of haggling over, like how much do you owe me for not sending the merchandise that I thought I had ordered? Well, first of all, a desire to be heard is really one of the core elements of a valid dispute resolution process. So offline, one of the things mediators struggle with is to make sure the parties have had this ability to be heard. You're right in one respect, the disputes, the many, many millions of disputes, as I said, actually are easy disputes. They involve goods, the sale of goods. There are other disputes, you know, other so-called sharing economy platforms, like TaskRabbit, for example, which generates lots of disputes, but not goods, rather, services. And services, you know, goods are either or. Services are harder to resolve. You may think you've done a good job doing something. Whoever hired you may think you've done a terrible job. I think we haven't had, we've certainly tried to have forums, large forums in which a lot of people can be heard. Many people who are experts at facilitating large groups to resolve a problem have an interest in doing it online and actually have been doing some of it online. There may be people here from the program on negotiation who have something to say about that, so, but I'd say, first of all, you know, if you walk across about 100 feet away, there is the program on negotiation, and those people are experts. And I confess, I've tried for years to get them to be interested in the Berkman Center and haven't found anybody really eager, so maybe you can make that your mission. The other thing is, the Cyber Law Clinic had a big victory last year in a case we talk about in the book, and that is people who have devices implanted in their bodies and don't own the data that's wirely sent off from those devices in their body. And you guys did get an exception so that your clients could actually have access to the data generated by them, which seems, again, something obvious, but the law wasn't on their side, and it's still you won, but I'm not sure everybody would win. You know, those are cases that involve complex issues, and there's no reason you can't handle those online. So I think in terms of our having, being more optimistic that we'll have systems that can handle more complex disputes, absolutely. Anybody else? The question is, you know, the YouTube's in the news about now regarding how they take down the ad revenue. Most news is saying, there isn't anything comparable. The other side is saying because it's an ad revenue, not how the S grow, it's new situation. So the question is, do you see a comparable example company called Case for the current YouTube disputes? Yeah, so I forget. What was, what did YouTube do in the last day or two? Took down all category of? The YouTube Kids category, which was basically lack of wisdom, not quite listed, and there's a lot of stuff getting through the truth in a hotel. So I think one of the challenges in all of this is we've got guarantees of freedom of the press. We innately don't like government interfering with expression, and we may feel even stronger about that given what the administration says about these things. On the other hand, the environment we're dealing with here is different from the environment that existed 20 years ago and forget about 200 years ago. So personally, I have no problem with YouTube taking down serious images that children are looking at. Where do you draw the line? Don't ask me that question. You are gonna ask it. Other situations more like you have a person recording a video of a game, the game company dispute sets, the YouTuber has all of their ad revenue polls for a week. So that's like the whole, that's a whole major dispute resolution thing. I don't know. I'm trying to figure out if there are any good guys out there. When you look at the statistics on the AT&T and the language from partners, that they seem to violate the statute that most states have about unfair or deceptive acts. On its face is the fact that you have an arbitration system with 120 million mobile phones, but only 27 cases. Is there anyone out there trying to make a case that the system itself is either unfair or deceptive? Well, maybe the cyber law clinic wants to take this on, but the problem is you've agreed to this. Okay? You weren't coerced into agreeing to this. You don't have to look at your medical record online. This isn't, I'm not saying something I believe is good. I think the defense is. You agreed to that. They made their site available to you. If I were a physician, I frankly don't know why the physicians aren't angry about this. They don't know about this. I don't, you know, probably no one knows about this. But I don't read all of these terms of service. No human being could read all of them. But if you do pick out the big companies, Airbnb, and others, you'll find that when they get started, what I can tell you is that there's a pattern. When they get started, they take the stance, we're not responsible for anything. We're just sitting on the platform. I think we're just gonna mention that. After a period of time, they find out that they're gonna lose business if they don't handle some of these disputes. So they get more involved in these disputes. They were reluctant at first to get involved because they thought that would make them legally liable for whatever. So that's the pattern. eBay now gets involved in lots and lots of disputes itself. But here, you've agreed to it. Unless somebody thinks you're not agreeing to it. If I may follow up question directly on the incentives of the platforms. You mentioned Uber, right? Something that strikes me, whoever has used Uber before, if you have to cancel a trip because the driver doesn't arrive in time or not the time that it stated, and then you can say, well, but we didn't find each other or the other. So you can easily get a refund even if you had paid your flat fee. So I'm wondering, is that kind of leading us into a world where these platforms are doing something similar that the credit companies did before where it just becomes a cost of business? And if so, to factor in the dispute resolution part, and if so, what does that mean for justice? If it becomes essentially a cost of doing business and is not a real dispute resolution because it's automated and just cost of doing business? Well, I think that's what it becomes. Should have mentioned it. I mean, probably the most widely used online dispute resolution process is the one that the credit card companies have called Chargeback Systems. It doesn't satisfy lots of people, but it does satisfy lots of people because there are lots of disputes. Having recently, just two days ago, been charged $5 by Uber for not showing up when the car arrived. I'm sympathetic to customers. And what we do talk about in the book is this issue of whether drivers are employees or independent contractors. That seems to be on its way to getting settled. And when that gets settled, there will be more, I think more likelihood of an online process. This is, as I said, my machine has its own brain. I hadn't intended to show this, but this is the IRS. This brain is smarter than I am because this is a great screen. That's the predictive analytics part. If you can read it, read it. Why aren't our government agencies handling these disputes? Well, I would like to turn this off because... The gentleman you saw actually lives around here, and he's the gentleman in the case that begins the book. He had various medical problems and he had been to different hospitals. And that's Israel, which was where his main doctors were. Gave him a chance to send all of his data to Google Health. Google Health doesn't exist anymore, but in 2010 Google Health existed and Google Health made it possible for you to have all of your medical records in one place. That's a problem still. Your medical records may be with partners, Beth Israel, whatever, and you have different doctors in different places and maybe the Cyber Law Clinic can figure out a way to solve that, but it's a serious health problem. So Google Health was attractive to this fellow and he decided to push the button on the Beth Israel website to send all of his records to Google Health. And almost immediately on the screen it said, warning, you have all of these diseases and he was a sick person to begin with, so he didn't like seeing that he had cancer of this and high blood pressure and literally a list of things. So what Beth Israel had done, which he quickly figured out, was sent insurance codes to Google rather than clinical diagnoses. So insurance codes don't map particularly well with medical problems. So if you've seen your doctor or somebody in the office trying to figure out what code to put in, there were at that time 7,000 codes, now there are 70,000 codes. It's a complicated mess, frankly. But this was basically, for our purposes, this was an intriguing dispute, so we used it to begin the book. And it also indicates how things go wrong, not when anybody's intending for anything to go wrong. Just to follow on your questioners, a colleague of Ethan and mine at the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution, Colin Rule, who was one of the other architects at eBay, gave a presentation once. And he said that they figured out through their research that customers would rather lose a dispute quickly than win a dispute over a long period of time, over a really protracted period of time. And that one of the key questions for anyone architecting that kind of dispute resolution system is to figure out how to obtain some kind of justice that is expedient, but that doesn't obey those perverse assentives to just deny people quickly or something like that. Ethan, my question for you is, you painted this picture of an early internet that shared so many norms and was such a closely bounded social community that disputes weren't as prevalent. And now we have a much more heterogenous internet, a much more conflictual one where conflict is a growth industry. Which do you think is easier? Building increasingly large, sophisticated and elaborate methods of resolving disputes once they occur or somehow building social norms and technologies that support the social norms that create a common sense of community and behave prophylactically at preventing disputes? Well, I'd say the latter is much harder to do. How many of us belong to systems that we find advantageous to belong to but we don't really like what's going on? Most of you probably belong to Facebook. Facebook wants you to feel safe. I don't know if anybody feels safe using anything online. But I'm old enough to remember, in 1992, a real cut-off when lots of universities let students use the internet for free when the U.S. government allowed commercial activity. And that was a debate back then. The researchers said, you know, we've got the system. Nobody gets hurt by it. We get along well. Of course, only a small percentage of the public even knows it exists. But it serves its function. And if you change the rules, not only will you have pornography, which was an obvious one, but you'll have all kinds of conflict. The other side said, our economy needs to grow. Well, here's a way for our economy to grow. So all of those things happened. So I don't think you can be nostalgic for what went on back then, but I don't think you can be concerned about what's happening now. Anybody else? Just maybe as a last question, building up on that, how do you think about the interfaces and you addressed it in the last chapter of the book where you talk about the remaining role of courts, right? So these technological systems, but then also the human-based systems, how also going back to the social norms point, how do you see the interaction among these systems? Well, first of all, I think there's no reason why courts can't be more engaged in online dispute resolution. I said, you know, courts, people go to courts rarely. If I asked how many people in this room have actually been a party to a case that went to court other than a small claims court, I'd be surprised if 10 people raised their hand. How many of you have had a case in court? Yeah, so maybe less than 10. There's no reason why the processes that work in the private sector can't frequently work in the public sector. And there are examples of this in Michigan. There's somebody at Michigan Law School who runs something called Matterhorn, which has basically runs the courts. And then there's... It's not run by a court, but having received my fair share of parking tickets on Mass Ave, it appeals to me. It's called Do Not Pay. You can look it up. They'll handle your case for you if you want to appeal a parking ticket. But they've designed what they claim are a thousand bots to help people basically navigate the court system. So when judges are more technologically familiar, which is one thing holding things back and maybe budgets are a little better, I think we're going to see a lot of this handled by court. And the thing you might find troublesome is, which I'm surprised no one mentioned, and that is what do you do with when it becomes easier to complain and then you have more cases. So those people who would simply live with whatever problem they had, all of a sudden find, well, with two clicks of my finger, I can fill out a complaint against anybody. We'll work on that. Maybe the cyber law clinic can work on that too. So it seems that the next 10 years will be more interesting than the past 10 years in terms of how this story unfolds, whether the emphasis is on more disputes or on more resolution. Please join me in thanking Ethan for this presentation. Thank you. Thank you.