 There was an earlier, this is going back maybe a decade, there was a fear of, you know, I started out watching puppy videos and then 15 minutes later I've signed up for ISIS. Right. And most studies that looked into that did not actually bear out the idea that there's a quick or even long-term radicalization algorithm that is being widely applied or used or people are falling into. It's people seek out the stuff they wanna seek out and the algorithm just helps them seek it out more. Yeah, it is fascinating to me the moment that the algorithm kind of became this villain that kind of divorced from the people, mostly end users who are demanding or wanting certain kinds of content. Yeah, and it's math. Algorithms are math. When you're mad at it, you're mad at math and it's silly. Well, then I'm anti-algorithm now. Yeah, I mean I don't like math either. Yeah, I cashed out I think Algebra II in trigonometry like the Reagan era. So you write also that regimes that run age verification through the government would allow prosecutors to make children federal criminals if they lie about their age. Oh, this was fun. So I forgot about this one just because it was only in one bill and that was the Shats bill that protecting kids online. And I do respect Shats a lot. I think he's trying to do the right thing. And I think he's, I don't think he's doing it right but I think he's trying. And a lot of what I've seen that he's saying, I kind of respect more than I do from other elected officials, but it's really bad. I mean, when you run, when you lie to the government, like that can be a federal crime. So I looked into this and it's whether- So if you say I am not a robot and you are a robot when you're checking- I wonder, I wonder if you can prosecute a robot. The robots, you know? Somebody's gotta take care of them, they're a problem. He thought maybe as a better way to protect data that it would be better for the government to handle age verification. But that means if kids lie to that entity, whether it's to run through a government contractor or an agency, you can be a federal criminal because you're lying to the government. And sure, we don't prosecute kids a lot, but like government sometimes starts enforcing stuff that it didn't use to enforce. And you don't wanna add a new law to the books that makes it possible for kids to become federal criminals for trying to log into YouTube. That's not wise policy. Right. At the same time, services should be free to kind of demand whatever they want. Sure, yeah. Yeah, no, I agree with it. I don't like when they want a lot of my information, but if that's what they want, they can suffer the business concept. I was, you know, for people watching this on video, they may have seen I was drinking out of a 7-Eleven cup and I went to 7-Eleven to get coffee this morning and they asked for my phone number. And I was like, no, I don't wanna give you phone number. And I was going to walk away like if they were like, you can't buy coffee unless you give your phone number. And they were like, okay. So yeah, it was, it's interesting though, like what, you know, and I understand why they're doing that. And I also understand the power of getting more personal information, you know, it does allow the internet. I mean, one of the things that sites can do more than regular businesses, it's tailor more stuff directly to you, but you know, that's a negotiation. Totally, yeah. And you have some say there and it's not mandatory. And some companies realize that users don't want that so they try to step away. With age verification systems, and you mentioned Neopets, my younger son, I guess was really big into Club Penguin, which was. Oh, that's fun. Yeah. And it no longer exists. I believe it was, it ultimately was owned by Disney or something like that, but it was kind of a social media, you know, a walled garden, you know, a very walled garden for kids to just to do stuff and interact and have, you know, online adventures. Were there services that did, or do a really good job, you know, that are directed towards kids that protect that? And, you know, are there examples to be learned there from how we might change the way kids interact with the internet? Yeah, I like Neopets a lot. I actually made a few internet friends and my friends were into it. And like, I forget the names of them and they're dead now. They're all dead. I like haven't fed them in so long. They're like, I have, I haven't even dug their grave. You better hope they're dead. Yeah, oh my gosh. They're gonna be really angry. But I liked the way Neopets operated. I always felt pretty safe on there. I'm sure they could have actually done some more nudges like, hey, remember not to give up personal information to strangers or whatever, but overall they did good in Club Penguin was a really good example because I remember the big trend of trying to get banned from Club Penguin, but like they did a good job of banning people being inappropriate and then it became a meme. So it was a bit of a barbarous try sand effect. I know Instagram wanted to do Instagram kids and then everyone flipped out over it. So they couldn't, but I actually think that's a good idea. Some like safer areas where you still warn kids about stuff, but maybe there's a little bit less risk for them. I think that's like- And I guess Amazon has, you know, on Kindle Fires and stuff like they have certain kinds of, you know, again, they're kind of like playgrounds, right? And playgrounds are good because kids are safe in them, but then they also can draw creeps, right? Because hey, there's only kids there. But why is it, what's the role of the companies here? You know, broadly, people who are offering goods and services, have they fallen down on their job to kind of proactively preempt this type of legislation? You know, or what do they need to be doing better? Yeah, I think the big thing is that they should be coordinating to make parental controls easier. Genuinely, I think that's the big lesson here. I'm not sure it would have stopped the legislation even, but I know parents are sometimes overwhelmed by all the choices, but it would be nice if parents had like one set of controls that made it a little bit easier because you can't have device-level filters, platform-level filters, app store filters, but it would be nice to give something to parents that's a little bit easier here just to manage, just to show them how stuff works because just like with any technology, it gets complex. Like I'm online way too much, so I know how all this stuff works, but make it easier for parents. I'm not sure that companies have exactly failed, but they really could be doing better. And part of this is a kind of a public relations war because I know in the, again, going back to the 90s, when cable TV didn't really become a fully national phenomenon until the late 80s and the early 90s, and then under Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, the attorney general went on a jihad against cable TV because it was showing too much sex and violence. And it's like, it obviously wasn't, but out of these sets of concerns came things like the V-chip, which was a technology mandated into every new TV. And then the idea was that we're gonna write TV programs and then parents will set their TVs to certain levels so the kids can't plug it. Nobody used it. And I guess my point is that there's nothing industry could have done. That was a tidal wave coming because, it seems like companies now could do a better job of combating the negativity. But they seem, they're part of the problem, aren't they? Excuse me, both in terms of not seeming to care, maybe, maybe not, but also colluding with the government. I mean, one of the things that is very different now than the 90s is in the wake of revelations about Twitter and Facebook and other companies, really not just relying on the government or rolling over for the government, but asking the government to say, hey, will you moderate our content? Yeah. Oh, it's disgusting. I mean, it's regulatory capture and they know what they're doing violates the First Amendment, but it benefits their business. I do understand on a level like you're a business, like your job isn't always to fight for freedom, but at the very least, you shouldn't be proactively fighting against freedom. I get if government pressures you too much, you might have to roll over a bit, but rolling over is different than what a lot of these companies are doing. I was very grossed out by like how Snapchat and Facebook were just like, oh, please regulate us and put it sort of on other people, not exactly us. And it's just silly. Snapchat, I also personally have never had a lot of respect for. They used to tell politicians to go on Snapchat and that's where the kids are. They knew that's not where you're gonna reach people for politics. That was just not ethical business.