 Live from Cube Headquarters in Palo Alto, California. It's the Silicon Valley Friday Show with John Furrier. Welcome to our Silicon Valley Friday Show. We're special broadcast here at the Grace Hopper. We're recording, it's not Friday, it's Thursday, tomorrow's Friday, we're not in Palo Alto, we're in Houston, Texas for the Grace Hopper celebration. This is the Silicon Valley Friday Show with John Furrier. And the guests here are the good fellows. The fellowship from the tech truth has really been an amazing opportunity for everybody here at the show, as well as Silicon Angles, as well as the Ground Truth Project. Tori Pooja and Karris, welcome to joining me today. Thanks for joining me. Thanks for having us. Thanks for having us. So you guys are the young next generation, the young guns, I say, the next generation journalism, part of the Tech Truth Fellowship, which is a combination of a project between Silicon Angle Media, my company, and Charlie Sennett's project, Ground Truth Project, which is going into a tech area to take the ground truth principles and bringing it into the technology realm, which is super exciting. And you get to kind of have fun in the cube here and on the ground, so it's been great. So thanks so much for coming on. I got to get your take though, because you guys I look at as the next generation minds that are going to create the future. And Alan Kaye, a famous technologist, once said, if you want best way to predict the future is to invent it. And so you guys are out there going to be inventing the future. I mean, you see the debate last night, we saw it was horrible. A state of the politics is kind of representative of the culture of the country. And we're here at the Grace Hopper, where women in tech, we're talking about culture, about women in tech. Numbers aren't big enough. Diversity, pay, gender, all this stuff. It's an arc, and they got the internet, right? You got a fence, a gamer gate. I mean, we are in a generational shift where I'm going to be dead before hope this gets solved. You guys have to solve the problem. So I mean, this is a huge problem out there. You're chilling? And they got to solve it. It's pretty pessimistic. No, but this is a problem. This is the first generation. There's no rules. So it's a wild, wild West. You're seeing obviously politicians having sex tapes now and debates that look more like a cage match from reality TV that was fiction. It's just ridiculous. But this is a state of the culture, the media culture. Grace has a culture. I think that that could be a direction towards a more sexually liberated culture. And perhaps we could move away from this entire focus we have on people's sexual history, unless of course we're talking about sexual harassment, which is very serious. But we really, this could be a wonderful time for us to be discussing policy. And I feel like there's a lot of really sensationalist coverage. So just get it out on the table. Just be transparent. One thing about the culture too is that we're really surfacing a lot of really ugly stuff, which I don't think has been invented through this election. I think it's being surfaced. I think it already existed in a lot of ways. And so now kind of the other half is learning about. Is it new rules or just like people just now are so sensationalized? I mean, it was, you know, you can talk about other presidents and politics and there's always been kind of affairs and things that went on, but there was kind of the unwritten rules. Don't talk about it. Yeah, Trump is bringing it all out. And I think it's a question of, you know, he'll say things that are very sensationalist and very racially charged and really offensive. And it will bring out other people that agree with him that people hadn't had a platform to speak before. And, you know, if Hillary Clinton is elected, there's going to be a ton of backlash against her just based on her gender. But that isn't something that doesn't already exist. That's just going to be unearthed through her being president. Yeah, she's taken a lot of heat over the years too. I mean, she's kind of has battle scars, if you will, just kind of pioneering the role. I mean, she will probably be elected. I mean, it's pretty much gonna, my opinion, unless some sort of Brexit kind of weird thing happens. Yeah, statistically it seems pretty likely. Certainly after last night, doesn't look like he's got any chance. And again, unless there's some sort of Brexit kind of phenomenon going on in this country that we don't know about, that is a blind spot where, you know, some people come out of the woodwork that have never voted before in droves. Napoleon could be, I mean, that's the only reason I could think of that. But I actually think that Brexit, a lot of people said, that was kind of like, for a lot of Americans, that was their wake-up call because, you know, if there were a lot of people who didn't vote and then you saw a higher turnout amongst older people and people who were more conservative, which kind of swung the vote. And so I think that a lot of maybe younger people who feel more apathetic about voting, saw that and they're like, wow, if I don't put my voice out there, this is what could happen. So I actually think Brexit sort of came at a convenient time. I mean, time will tell, but I think that there's, and I also think, you know, between like this election and, like if Brexit had been a political campaign with like months and months and months of coverage, I don't know if it would have ended up the same way. It was sort of like this one issue vote that sort of really polarized people, but I think here, like Trump has found a way to disenfranchise literally everyone, except for white men, you know, who are rich and also, you know, don't care about like. Well, and also some say he's got the working class, some of the blue collar men as well, because they feel screwed because, you know, they're in the middle class seems to be suffering. At least some say that I'm not a political commentator, but that's my observation. Certainly he lost a women's vote. I mean, he killed a women vote, but. Well, and that's 50% of the country. So I mean, you look at it right there. I mean, it's gone. And so I think that's what's like really important to remember is like these, this is literally half of the country that is being disenfranchised. Well, we're going to talk in our segment called Thinking Out Loud where we're going to riff on this. And we're going to talk about some comments that Virginia Heffernan made with her book Art and Magic, which she said, she's taking a step back and saying, hey, let's look at what's happening as a generational thing, as a movement. And it's art and art and magic at the same time. So magical things are happening. You mentioned this might be a great opportunity. There's some magic potentially in there, but it's artistic. The web is can be angry. And that's art can be angry. So we're going to talk about that because I want to get your generational view because what's offensive, what's not? You know, what's kind of on the underbelly of the internet as it used to been called was these user groups was a lot of hate talk and a lot of people hiding behind avatars. What's really interesting is that we can have this conversation kind of theoretically about what is offensive. Whereas, you know, as a woman, and I'm a white woman. So I'm really not experiencing all of these feelings, but if you are a person of color or a woman or a person who is in a group that's been discriminated against, you feel really affected by these comments because we're talking so much in this election now about sexual assault and we're talking about sexual harassment and we're talking about rape and we're talking about abortion in an extremely graphic way. And I think if you're a woman, well, if you're a woman who's experienced any of those things, it's intensely personal and affects you in a very deep emotional level. And if you're a woman who hasn't experienced any of those things, it still does because you feel like a much more marginalized group and you feel like you are an other and you feel like this is not the fact that we can just open all these things up and repeat them and rip the scabs off over and over again. It's really hurtful. So I think it's one thing for us to sit around and talk about, just talk about these issues as issues but they really personally affect people and I think this election has been really hard for a lot of people who love to follow politics. They can't follow it as much because it hurts so personally. Can I have some thoughts on that? Oh, okay, I know I was gonna say that I've been comparing this election to Gamergate a lot just in the sense of, I mean Trump's comments are offending a lot of people but it's also starting a conversation that as Tori mentioned that these problems have existed for a while. Politics has been sexist, politics has been misogynistic. I think ever since this election started I've been reading so many articles about how women on average get interrupted so much more often. So there are bigger issues and there are smaller issues but they're being brought to the forefront. And I think in a similar way in the technology space that's what Gamergate did where women were being harassed for years in the gaming world. But Gamergate was just so absolutely horrible because women were driven out of their houses. They were getting violent death threats. And I think it took something that bad for people to realize that this was a wake-up call that we can't have an industry that's so popular that exists in this way. And in a similar sense, we can't have politics that exists in this space. Like we can't have- And the medium amplifies it too. Like Gamergate, if you had people in a room in a party there'd be a brawl probably. People might not say some things. They're hiding behind some internet avatar. It's interesting to see that happen because to me, I look at this as interesting as like, you know, we cover innovation at Silicon Angles. One of the things we always look for is innovation opportunities where there's massive disruption that creates value at many levels. And in the 60s, it was a real counterculture that spawned a bunch of new things. Revolution of the Pewter River was really starting in the 60s. And so the 60s movement was an interesting time in the technology industry. So I'm wondering if you guys see this time as a potential counterculture opportunity because everyone's been connected. I mean, you know, we joke on theCUBE that just, you know, my kids are first generation all access porn on the internet. All access to, you know, these, the, all the visible signs of everything. So like, we didn't have that. We didn't have cell phones when I was growing up. So there was all different worlds. So like the conversations, how we worked as groups change was a completely different norms and dynamics. The interaction of tech and politics is really interesting in this election. Particularly if you're familiar with the Never Trump app, there's an app where you can connect to your social networks and say who you're voting for. So if you really love Gary Johnson and you're living in Ohio and you go on the Never Trump app and you look for, because your ultimate goal is to not get Trump elected. And so you go on the app and it will connect you with your social networks. It will connect you with me. I live in Massachusetts or no, you love Gary Johnson. You live in Ohio. I live in, I'm Massachusetts. And so you say, hey, like, if you vote for Gary Johnson, I'll vote for Hillary Clinton. And if we both don't want Trump elected, that's a use of technology. So gamification for driving a viral turnout. Right. Cool. Well, we're going to come in more of this. We're going to continue the next segment. It's kind of like, we're kind of going it right out. It's great. The impact of the next generation, the next generation, we're going to get into more of your assignments, digging into journalism for the next generation. What does that mean? How, what is the future that needs to be invented? Cause it's going to come from you guys and you know, my kids and their generation. You know, surely we can help that. But we're going to get into that in a deep way and find out what the younger generation thinks of all this madness, the art, the magic, the madness. If I was going to add it to her book, it'd be art, magic and madness. I think there's a lot of madness in there. We'll be back with more here on Silicon Valley Fridays, with John Furrier. We're with the Fellows here at Grace Hopper. Since the dawn of big data, the Cube has been there, connecting with executives, practitioners, entrepreneurs, thought leaders. But you're not a thought leader anymore. You're a futurist. That's the new trend. Futurist is the buzzword. No, I'm not. I'm very much living in the past. I don't like the future. I don't think much of the present. John Cleese. There's a lot of people out there who have no idea what they're doing, but they have absolutely no idea that they have no idea what they're doing. And those are the ones with the confidence of stupidity who finish up in power. That's why the planet doesn't work. Knowledgeable, insightful, and a true gentleman. And the guy at the counter recognized me and said, are you listening? Yes, I'm tweeting away. I'm tweeting, I'm tweeting away. He just got rude that way. F***ing keyboard. John Cleese joins the Cube alumni. Welcome, John. You've got a phone call, so you need to answer. Hold on, let me check. The Cube is a comfortable place. You come inside the Cube and we have a conversation. Almost as if it were a chance meeting and we have a discussion about a particular topic. Our philosophy is everybody's expert, it's something. Everybody's passionate about something and has real deep knowledge about that something. Well, we want to focus in on that area and extract that knowledge and share it with our communities. Folks who have never heard of it before come in the Cube and say, well, this is really cool. What you guys are doing, it's unique. It adds value to the community and it adds value by really sharing information. I can't tell you how many people stop me at conferences or on the streets, on our airport. Say, hey, I love your show. People that I've never met before, they say to me, I know you, you don't know me. I watch the Cube, I queue up your videos. I listen to them while I'm on the treadmill. It helps me learn, expands my knowledge, thank you. So it's really an honor to be part of that community. This is Dave Vellante. Thanks for watching the Cube. You're listening to the Silicon Valley Friday Show with John Furrier. Hey, we're back. I'm John Furrier with Silicon Valley Friday special broadcast here on Thursday. Not in Silicon Valley, but in Houston, Texas with the Grace Hopper celebration and computing. I'm with the Fellows from the Tech Truth, the partnership between the ground truth and Silicon Angle Media. Continuing the conversation around the next generation. You guys are distinguished fellows in journalism. What is going on? Is journalism dead? And what is journalism? Are there any jobs out there? All the old guys are getting fired. They're too expensive. I got to get the page views. I need more banner ads. Basically work for nothing. Is there jobs out there? What's going on? Are you asking us to solve the problem of how to monetize the current journalism industry? I mean, what's going on with journalism? If money is not being made, people can't afford, that's why we do the fellowship. But in general, is journalism changing? Honestly, I think, you know, I always kind of look at journalism and reporting. You're out reporting and doing stuff. Trust is a big thing. But like, there's still a need for journalism, especially now more than ever. I think there will always be a need for people to know what's going on in the world and for people to know the truth. And I think that the medium is going to change a lot. I don't know that newspapers made of trees will be around forever, but I think definitely people will want verified, trustworthy information. And I only hope that we can carry our standards of ethics into that. Yeah, one of the things I like about the election this time really kind of innovated this whole fact checking, real time annotations. I thought it was phenomenal. Addition to the publishing side of things. I think that's a really important thing to point out because I don't necessarily know if we're going to have the same time schedule of news as we have in the past, like you're saying it won't be like a morning newspaper or an afternoon edition or something like that. It's that people know that they just, if they want verification has to be in real time. It has to be delivered to them. So I mean NPR's live blog, fact checking, I think is like a very valuable way of doing journalism that's maybe not in the traditional sense. You find a story, you report on it. You put it out for the Sunday edition and then you're over with it. It's that you have to meet people where they are. And the fact of the matter is the audience is online now. The audience is on social media. It's the Netflix, the live stream generation. So it's like people, you need to go where they're watching it and that's happening. That's a great point. The NPR thing is total innovation in my opinion. That is like amazing because it's real time. They're getting content out fast with facts and they're kind of crowdsourcing it too. They're using different sources. So that brings up the next kind of topic which is like, how do you get sources? How do you get it out stuff fast? Because people want stuff fast now. It's real time. There's competition on Twitter. Twitter's like a one big communication backbone of instant access, access to information, but what's real is not. I mean, it's coming back down to verification. Yeah, so that's a real challenge. I mean, I just have to be frank about it. It's like you're Kaiser Journalist, a specialist in my work in digital media so we are constantly fighting against the clock. And there's just times where it breaks down. You know what I mean? But the difference is that people don't care as much anymore. And I don't know if they ever really did and we had these holds in place that made sure that we delivered people fact check news, but nowadays people are just, they just want to see the headline. They just want to know. They just want to be able to see the headline, see the tweet, be able to talk to someone about it like within that second and then kind of forget about it. And so, though I think there's, it's still really important to fact check. I was talking to Jeff, I forget about this, it's like it's almost become this almost, you get bored of some of the content. It used to be like, okay, the trusted source was the New York Times and the magazine, they were on the third, they were watching the people in power and I trusted them because I don't have access. They do, I don't. Everyone has access so. I disagree with you and I agree with you on the two separate things that you said. I think that people really do still want trustworthy news sources and I think that's really important. Like who? Well I think that we're in a time when everything that's published is really not trusted. It's really not trusted and it's probably more trustworthy than it's ever been because it's so easy to fact check. Now it's so much easier to, immediately you can't get away with plagiarism, you can't get away with lying, you're going to get called out. That's the soonest people are watching. And you're going to get just, just so embarrassed publicly for it as well. So I really think we're in a very, like journalism is much more trustworthy than it's been before but people are much less trusting. But I also think what you said about being able to do like a post-mortem and talk about things, we don't do that as much anymore. We don't analyze stuff as much anymore. We don't talk about when there's a story, you're right, it goes out, we see it, we kind of digest it in the moment and then we're done. And we could do, I think we could really use a lot more like analysis of things. But I think is, I mean, but in terms of like people trusting things, literally half the country doesn't trust in New York Times anymore because they believe they have a liberal bent. So it doesn't matter whether people are fact checking it because if they don't believe that the source is someone who believes the same thing they do, then like they're not, they just feel like in general it's going to be false. And so I think that's what's been really interesting is like I've noticed on like my Facebook feed, sometimes they'll just click something like the Melania Trump if she's like trending. And I mean between the liberal and conservative people on my Facebook feed, they're just sharing things that are completely from different sources, completely different because you can pick and choose what you trust nowadays. And so like that. Well I'm in California, so my Facebook feed is littered with New York Times articles. And I don't click on them, you're right because I don't even want to read the New York Times because I already made up my mind about Trump. And I don't need to see another op-ed piece around how fucked up the situation. I just did the f-bomb, first one ever. But the people who don't trust the New York Times for being liberal are the same people that have never trusted the New York Times for always having been liberal. But the New York Times isn't going to publish stuff without fact checking it or without getting verified sources. That's the difference. Is that, you know, yeah, the people there probably do have a liberal plan. Let's talk about the user expectation because this is interesting. So I want to get your take as a younger generation because what I hear are some anecdotal things that I see that, hey, I saw that on that blog. A well, I won't say the name of the blog. It's a really well-respected blog for authority and quote fact checking and whatnot. But to just say it's mediocre at best on this content, in my opinion. They say, hey, I saw that on that blog and they're like, wow, what do you, what do you think of it? Well, I don't really know what it means because I just, it was notifying me because the blog didn't have credibility in the mind of the user, but it was more like a notification like, hey, pay attention so it got their attention. And then the users were starting to go to their social network for interaction. Okay, now what does it mean when it comes to the equation? So the next level of consumption is, hey, I saw that, I need to pay attention to that because I'm interested in that. Now I want to go do some discovery. But you can't just go to Google search and saying, what does that blog post mean? Because Google search was not built for that kind of extraction. You can do a lot of your own fact checking. I think we're kind of a Wikipedia generation where we don't immediately just trust everything but we do take information, we take it with a grand assault. If something's happening in my neighborhood, I'll go on Twitter and I will look for, I'll see, okay, there's a notification of stuff happening on Twitter, but I won't immediately believe it. I'll just see, okay, someone said that it's happening, now I invest in it. So you're going on your own progression of discovery? Right. I think a lot of people do that. You guys agree with that? Is that kind of the norm? Yeah, so I was going to say, we're talking a lot about journalism now and how different it is, but I think journalism has always been changing. Like newspapers didn't used to have a sports section, they didn't used to have a lifestyle section. I think there are different social determinants that change the way we tell news and Twitter has become this phenomena where we can get news really fast and really quick and I think one thing about our generation which I don't know if I can speak for our generation as a whole, but we're, I mean, we're not robots in how we digest the news. Sometimes I think we can acknowledge that we often get stuck in our own political echo chambers because when I look at my news feed, most of the news that I see being shared are views that reflect my own political opinion and I think people are becoming more aware of that and trying to search for more objective news and I think that's where maybe this distrust can go somewhere good where our generation will start searching for news sources that give a more holistic view of what's actually happening. So I feel like that's a really idealistic view of like how people can see the news. I'm trying to be optimistic. And that's good. I just, I really, I feel like this election has made it very clear to me how little people value facts, how like Trump has just been able to like debate, speech, lie, and lie, and lie, and clearly people, NPR can fact check all he wants. It doesn't matter to somebody who's decided to vote. That's a strategy. That's a strategy. Yeah, exactly. But it's so unfathomable because how do you then as a journalist try to break through to those people? How do you convince them that the truth is more important or that an objective way of looking at the situation is more important? It's like, I don't know that. This is the Cold War of this election in my opinion. That's why the press has been, quote, ganging up on Trump because he is so anti-truth. Yeah, that's what's interesting is the idea of ganging up on Trump means actively fact checking really is what it is. But it's working, it is. It's working because the reason that he's doing, not doing well in the polls is because of all the amazing journalism that's been done to fact check him and to call him out. Yeah, I think the calling out is like uncovering those things that he can't, he said and like shouldn't have said. And what bothers people the most is that he doesn't, he's unrelenting, he keeps on coming. Like he doesn't care. That's what kind of pisses off everybody. It's like, come on, man, like get over it. All right, so we're going to the next segment, we're going to take the Junior Fellowship on it. Thank you guys for coming on and appreciate it. And just a final word. What's up with this next generation? How would you encapsulate your generation? It's today. Like, no, I mean, if you could like kind of put a vibe on it. I think they have two, they're playing too many violent video games. Yeah, listening to that terrible rap, that rap music. Do they care more about it? You know, whether it's post-911 like generation, like my kids, is there more interest in doing better? It's more societal impact stuff. Is there more? I think we want to understand each other better. I think we want to spread information around. I think we want to be more empathetic. I think we want to get out of our little bubbles and out of our comfort zones. I think that we are learning more about different types and groups of people and diversifying our experiences. I think the internet is creating a global society. I think it's unerthing, some really ugly stuff that then we can have a conversation about. And I think this generation is going to do really amazing things. Thank you, you agree? Yeah, we're up for it. We're up for it. Yeah, yeah, for sure. All right, thanks for coming on. I appreciate it. Silicon Valley Friday show here, and you sit up next. The Junior Fellows from Palo Alto High School, one of the best journalism programs in the country. They're the only high school represented journalists here. We're excited to have them on. We'll be right back with more for this short break. I remember when I had such a fantastic batting practice, I walked by a couple of sports writers in that era. Paul of Famer, Reggie Jackson. It was like, you can rock at it out there. I kind of hope I didn't leave it out here. When the game started, I got back in that moment. I got back in what was live, what was now. I went and did something with ESPN earlier this year. What's Stephen Curry? They said, Reggie, we want you to come up and watch his practice, his pre-game. You know, it was very similar to your batting practice where people come out and watch, et cetera. And I watched the dribbling exhibition. I watched the going between the legs and the behind the back and the fancy passing, et cetera. And I watched the shots. And the guy asked me what I thought of the show. And I said, well, it's a cool show, but I'm gonna see all that tonight. He does all that. He put it into the game. Yeah, I said, so it's not a show, but that's his game. Mr. October. I think our world now with the instant gratification of sending out a message or tweeting to someone or whatever, certainly in the moment, is about what our youth is and who we are today as a country, as a university. Congratulations, Reggie Jackson. You are CUBE alumni. Hi, I'm Stu Miniman. I've been an analyst with Wikibon and a co-host of CUBE since 2010. It's been an exciting journey working with theCUBE. We get to go out to so many shows, help extract the signal from the noise, interact with such a wide variety of clientele, both practitioners, thought leaders, the big name industry people, and we've helped some people raise their profiles in there, especially love working with those practitioners. We've seen them move their careers forward and move their businesses forward as they take advantage of technologies and practices that they've learned. Talking with us, working with our research people and working with their peers. This is Stu Miniman. Thanks for watching theCUBE. You're listening to the Silicon Valley Friday Show with John Furrier. Okay, we're back here at Silicon Valley Friday Show, special taping live here at Grace Hopper Celebration in Houston, Texas, not Friday. So we're doing our Friday Show here and in this segment, wrapping it up, is the two junior fellows from Palo Alto High School as part of the Tech Truth Fellowship, which is the partnership between SiliconANGLE Media as well as the Ground Truth Project and the Peter Margulis and Alicia Mies. Welcome to the show, appreciate it. You're the editor-in-chief of Campanile, which is the newspaper on campus and the Verde, which is the magazine, well-known, award-winning journalism department, Esther Wojcicki, advisor for us as a disclosure, but great, great pioneer and certainly kicking ass in Palo Alto with journalism. Thanks for coming on. Yeah, we're super grateful for this opportunity while it's just given us. So journalism, you guys, we're just talking about the future of journalism. You are the real future because you're the junior fellows, which is really about, you're going to be going to college. You've just got a lot more to go in the journalism and or whatever curriculum you're going to take. How do you guys look at that? And because the traditional curriculum in journalism has been like old school stuff. I mean, you're in a newspaper that's on, you know, trees. Yeah. But it has to translate. Now we have, you know, I know Esther's involved on a project right now and changing education and journalism. When you look at the landscape as you guys go forward, what are you looking for? Personally, I am attached to print journalism just because I love in design and Photoshop and stuff like that. So it's definitely hard for me as a student journalist to see that possibly in the future, like I'll never work in print journalism. But at the same time, like I recognize that there's always a way to put print journalism on the web. Like we can have platforms like issue where they actually have flippable magazines online. Well, flip board is a great example. Yeah, yeah. But what is the concept of print journalism that you think can be translated to the web? Because, you know, in theory, the web was, you can have unlimited amount of text. So there was no scarce resource in terms of, you know, lineage on the page, but still people do want fast notifications. So in a way, you do have a requirement to keep it short and or right to the point. I think as Alicia said, yeah, print media is definitely antiquated. It's kind of dying out for sure. So we're going to be seeing a lot more online journalism. And I think that sort of online journalism is shorter and snappier. It's not as long form as stuff you'd see in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal. So people are going to change the writing style around a little bit to be more quick and more readable, especially when you're competing with mediums, like video for news. That's kind of, that's the direction that people have to move in in the future. Yeah, that's been the direction that our journalism department has been moving in. Both can be and Verde have been making videos. Recently, a video that Verde made about our cover story reached 5,000 views. So it's way more effective. Was it the one, the Holocaust one? Yeah, it was. That was phenomenal. Yeah, oh, thank you. Yeah, it was about the third. Audio news and work, but that's okay. We can help you guys with that. You can help us with that. No, but I mean, you guys are out doing reporting. You guys are natives. You guys are internet natives. You've seen, it's all out there. I mean, you've probably seen hate. You've seen a lot of the sex talk, all that kind of stuff out there. You're not seeing like a little commentary here and there. It's not on national TVs. I mean, I mean, it certainly can be offensive, but it's not new to this new generation. How do you guys go out there and deal with that? You find it offensive and what do you think should be out there for tooling to make it either manageable or you just kind of blow past it? What's your thoughts on this whole new offensive language out there? I mean, this election is definitely one for the books. There's such intense polarization. And I think, yeah, the internet's exacerbating that, unfortunately. You got all these forums like Reddit where people are expressing these deep, either hard left or hard right. I guess you could call it. People said it's Reddit, it's a bunch of people talking, but it actually could be interesting input to a story. Why are people doing this? And now we have full measurement of everything. On a different, on a kind of slightly different note, like as internet natives, like you said, I've actually become a little desensitized to it, you know, like I don't really, when people say terrible, terrible things about political leaders or whatever, it's like actually really not that I think of a deal for me because I've grown up in age where it's like very, it's very intense. But it's also, it's normal to have strong political views. And I've been kind of like dealing with that lately because I've noticed that I've leaned more to the middle, like as the selection has gone by, just because of the rhetoric on both sides. We're just plugging Virginia Heffernan's book who I love, she's an amazing interviewer. She wrote a book called Art and Magic talking about the internet. I would add to that magic, art, magic and madness because there's some madness going on, but her whole thesis is the internet is art. Art can be angry, art can be great, and there's also some magical things going on connecting people together. So you're living in the generation of, maybe it's the Instagram 1.0, Snapchat 1.0 where you're seeing stuff and you're hearing unfiltered in the moment avatar-based programming. People are hiding behind their online avatar, but yet it's not an avatar anymore, it's their real person. It's their social identity, the digital footprints, whatever you want to call it. Yeah, anonymity on the internet is something that, I don't, you know, I kind of have to try to start with- Yikyak when it's going out of business, you know, Yikyak, you know that site? Yeah, exactly. It's just, I don't know, I don't know if you can really spew hate while under this kind of face of just a gray, gray gravitate kind of thing, right? I actually like recently got into an argument with my foreign policy teacher. He said like, the internet is making everyone dumber and I was like, no it's not, it's just giving a space for people to be dumb on, so I guess that's my opinion on it. Well, there should be a collective intelligence, we're here at the Grace Opera to talk about computer science. If you think about it in theory, it should be a collectively intelligent internet, right? I mean, if you're synthesizing out and using the data, you as a reporter, you'd be like, okay, now you have no access to data, more access to sources. The question is, what is the trustworthy data? That's where the anonymity problem comes in. There's so many users though, that's the issue and you don't know the educational level of each one. You can have some 12 year old kid and some grad student arguing on the same forum, which is great. It's promoting free speech and all, but at the same time. You have no context, if you don't know that as a 12 year old. There's no credibility for the source that you can quote. What's the biggest thing about the current establishment, terms of journalism and just society in general that you think technology and reporting and data could benefit from making some change? What would you think would like, just some comments, just what's your thoughts? What's wrong? There's so much inherent bias in journalism and there's always been. And it's really important to find an unbiased source which is kind of idealistic, it's difficult to do that. But if we can somehow use data in the internet to gear ourselves more towards the center and find that ideal news source, the New York Times is way left, the Wall Street Journal is way right. So I read both to try to compromise a little bit. It's a fun intoxicating situation. Have a little bit of this, hit that and quit that, go there. So that's the goal I think for journalists. I do the same thing with that and also seeing it in Fox. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Switching both channels. Who do you trust? That's the question. So the question is, is data, facts, and NPR, we're talking about the NPR fact-checking thing is a phenomenon of innovation. Real time online, just like here's the facts, annotate it in, that's awesome. If you can crowdsource that. Yeah. All right, so your observations here at Grace Hopper, what's your thoughts so far? Amazing conference, met so many cool people. We're actually writing a story on the daycare center in the Hilton Hotel just to kind of explore working mom and dad culture. Peter, thoughts, coolest thing you've seen, best story? I mean, everyone here is great. It'd be cool to get the camera around and show all these hundreds of booths. Really bright people. We did a little verbatim thing that you guys can check out on Silicon Angle. It's just getting the perspectives of a number of people. We got a student, we got a couple of recruiters and we got I think an engineer or two. Yeah. Awesome, well thanks so much for being part of the fellowship, great to have you on the program. This is Silicon Valley Friday show with John Furrier. Thanks for listening and see you next week.