 Good afternoon. It's 101 Eastern. That means it's time for vision, a show about the trends, ideas, and disruptions changing the face of our democracy. Press freedom and freedom of expression and the face of government interference are bedrock principles of American democracy, yet they are liberties that are tested over and over again. Historically, many of the challenges to freedom of the press and freedom of speech emerge from state concerns over domestic and national security and those sorts of challenges and frictions are unlikely to abate. Yet as we've been discussing recently on vision, threats to liberty come from new sources in a time of intense technological and social change. Some of these threats stem from the complexities and ambiguities associated with information that is sometimes digitally collected and distributed. And some stem from the ambiguities around our own views about what constitutes journalistic objectivity and integrity, or what constitutes openness and civility in an era in which all of these qualities are being criticized as potential masks for exclusion, oppression, and discrimination. That is, we find ourselves in a moment which we are questioning the limits of the Empire of Liberty and the possibility of friction with other ideas we hold about what constitutes a just society. Sitting at the intersection of these challenges is Nabiha Syed. She's the president of the markup, a nonprofit, data driven investigative journalism publication, illuminating how powerful institutions use technology to reshape society. She was also previously vice president and general counsel of Buzzfeed and is a highly regarded First Amendment lawyer. So please join me in welcoming to the show Nabiha. Hello, how are you? Good, good. I'm so excited to have this conversation with you today. Thank you. Thanks for coming. We really appreciate it. I want to start with your experience as an attorney and a legal thinker in the context of journalism. Because I sort of think about, you know, our touchstone for thinking about freedom of the press is, you know, we saw the post and so we were sort of imagining, you know, Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, and their kind of high minded mid 20th century views of what a newspaper is supposed to do. And you really cut your teeth as a First Amendment lawyer working at Buzzfeed, which sort of epitomizes, you know, the polar opposite of that. It's run by tech oriented startup oriented thinkers. It from the beginning was blending different kinds of content, some of which was traditionally journalistic, some of which, you know, famously is lists sort of the iconic form of internet of internet writing and content. And so just tell us like help help us understand when what how press freedom issues in particular are just different today. Then then in then in the moments that a lot of us used to as a frame of reference. Oh, totally they're so different right in a different two ways. In the in the post era in the 1970s versus now they're different because of cash and they're different because of course right so the cash situation for media organizations in the 1970s looked real different than the like precipice of media extinction events that we're seeing now. And the cash thing matters in two ways, right it matters, because if you have a Russian oligarch sue you now as we did at Buzzfeed series of them. In the 1970s you might have just tons of lawyers tons of resources to go fight that fight for us at Buzzfeed we did fight that fight but it was a consider it was a hard choice right to be like do you have to defend one of those big litigations is not straightforward and it is not cheap. Not for us at Buzzfeed and not for us at the market but overall in the industry we're also seeing that like, there's not necessarily enough cash to to report on everything that needs to be reported on, including those hard hitting stories that could lead to you know people being mad and doing so the cash thing matters. I use the plural because it's both the court of law and the court of public opinion right in the post time in the 1970s. If you did something risky like they didn't publishing the Pentagon papers you might be able to bank on the court doing the right thing and saying you know justice is served. There goes my hair pod. You also might be able to trust that the court of public opinion would be behind you like believe that you're acting in the public interest. And today, we can't make either of those bet. Right, we don't know that the court's actually going to endorse what reporters are doing it's very politicized and that reflects itself in the court of public opinion as well and so we're just navigating a much more fractured terrain than we were 50 years ago. I can sort of push you on a couple of those. I mean, so on the on the cash side. I mean, how should that make us feel about the future of press freedom right because you know me if you're telling me that needs are increasing it strikes me that means are diminishing. I mean, even, even in a buzzfeed model, there's a different kind of financial pressure than there might have been on a on a Washington Post. I mean, we're in terms of where where cash is going within the business so are we where does where on the cash dimension are you an optimist or a pessimist about our ability to defend an idea of a free press. I'm an optimist but that's because optimism is my biggest flaw. I think that there are a number of very smart people trying to work on at least the defending journalism. We have now a network of media clinics across the country mean a couple of fellow law students started one of the first ones just over a decade ago. And you have very smart lawyers volunteering their time and their wits to say how do we defend against these threats right so on the just defense portion I think we're going to find creative solutions to do that so long as there are lawyers and like I mean, there's always lawyers on the actually generating those kinds of stories that lead to maybe those tensions or things that you know, poke at the powerful enough to precipitate some sort of court response. That's where I worry. Right. Like, do we have enough reporters do we are we giving them the resources, not to just be stenographers of what's happening, you know, like president the president tweeted X. I saw this, but really like the deep investigative work I can tell you like now, you know, being the president of the market for the past few months. It's slow, it's painstaking and it's expensive work to do deep investigative journalism and that's the piece where I think there's a lot of urgency and figuring out the business model. On the on the political side, you know, I guess it strikes me as in any area of jurisprudence where there's a sort of social resonance. Sometimes courts are ahead, you know, where people are and sometimes courts are right in line and sometimes courts are behind, you know, where where society is it is it necessarily true today that that you can't is there something different about either the way the public thinks about press freedom today or the kinds of issues that are being reported on that gives you less optimism that that that the that the courts can rely on will be affirmed by or institutions journalism institutions will be affirmed by the court of public opinion ultimately and just going back to the post era right you're at this time where there's something in the water of the idea of the journalist acting on behalf of the public right this idea of the clear public interest we are the ones the reporters are the ones were chasing down corruption they're the ones who are like uncovering every stone to tell you what's going on the next like the nexus between the journalist and the public and like that sort of fiduciary obligation of the trust given in the reporter to act on their behalf gives you a lot of leeway right a lot of support that the courts are also responsive to and maybe endorse now I just don't think we can assume that because you know a lot of the public in the United States doesn't necessarily see the press acting on their behalf and even for the folks who do they think that for some angle of the press but not necessarily someone across the aisle it's not the press as a whole it is much pressure and this right is a really because we'll talk a bit about just sort of freedom of expression generally mean this feels to me like a really critical distinction between press freedom and freedom of speech press freedom is a socially mediated freedom you know it's a you have to I think you make a great point you're if you trust the institution to do its job, then the thing that's being defended is the ability for the institution to do his job, and you can you can internally can individuals can resort to that and say I didn't like the story, but this is why a newspaper exists. And if you don't, if you're sort of questioning why the institution exists or even you know we're going to be putting out some polling soon that we've done with gap where you know, like one in 10 Republicans say the media is out to ruin the country, you know if you if you think this institution is trying to ruin the country of the contrary view right that you want to rain in rain in that institution. How do what do we do about that I mean what did what how did you did you talk about this actively at Buzzfeed the sort of social support dimension to the popularity dimension the trust dimension to what you were doing and the boundaries you were pushing. Yeah, I think most newsrooms I know of our having some version of this conversation right and it pops up when when you talk about audience engagement. It for us at the mark of now it pops up a lot when we talk about how we bring people into the work that we do. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what reporters do and you see someone like the president reflecting this all the time. Oh they just make it up. Oh they just call two sources and they just say something. And there is some fair critique of journalism there where you do have these like three makes a trend anecdotal stories that reflect a very particular sliver of society and aren't more comprehensive and that's one reason why at the markup we're like okay we're going to do this data driven reporting and recognize that even in that in any analysis of any time or any exercise of editorial discretion. There may be either bias or a particular perspective that's reflected and that's okay we can accept that we disclose everything that we do we we call it show your work. We are like here's links to all the cases that we looked at here's what it is and you can take a look and if you choose to disagree that's alright we're going to equip you to challenge what we're doing and also bring you in into just how intensive the analysis was and I think that's part of helping rehabilitate the image of the reporter of like this isn't just like yeah I found it found a tweet somewhere wrote it down it's it's much more than that. But do I mean so I just to push on that though because because I think I think those are great performative gestures. On the other hand again right the reason the institution is trusted if it's trusted is like I don't have to do the work like I believe in the I believe there is a method you know behind the work that separates information from knowledge you know and that that's the work that this institution is doing and and it strikes me and sort of it seems to be there's sort of a consistent theme in polling right which is that people on both sides sort of all ideological views see the media is a bit more of a participant in the ideological wars than an observer than a reporter. And I think media organizations. Effective ones ones that have resources are definitely doing what you're saying they're sort of showing their work more they're explaining how they got the story they're explaining why the story is important. But it's sort of like the solution and the vector of distrust don't exactly line up like is there a way out of this spiral we're in where people people just assume that you know that the markup will have a side or the Washington post of the New York Times will have a side and no matter what that's going to be animating how they report a story. I think there is a way for I want to say two things about that the first is that that trust building is slow right so yes it's true that the organizations are doing this now and it's not going to bear fruit in one year or maybe even a decade this is a much longer project. And we have a far way to go. I also think that there's a really interesting shift that's happening where we used to think of these big institutions at we trusted them to be our gatekeepers right we trust them to be these big gatekeepers like they would climb to the top of the mountain survey everything come back and tell you what it was and you just trusted them for it. And I think what we're seeing in part because of social media and what it allows and its affordances and also maybe a function of the fracture of this moment is that we're switching to the idea of journalists as guides right like you trust a particular person. These are individuals who you trust you actually know their viewpoints they share it with you and you can moderate the information you're receiving through that lens. And that familiarity I think does over time build trust what it used to look like is that like you kind of knew the local reporters in your town because they showed up at the school board meetings and maybe you saw them at the grocery store and there was an interpersonal dimension to this trust that fed into the institutional trust. We've seen that hollow out so we're seeing it develop on social like I know this person. Now that's not to say the guide model is without laws right your guide could be Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones, but it could also be Nicole Hannah Jones they could also be Soledad O'Brien and so the guy you know who the guides are matters, but I think that that's one pathway to building trust and like and building it and then rolling it up into institutions, which again will take time. Yeah, I mean I and I think I mean I think that the that it's an interesting paradigm shift I mean I strikes me this, you know, a couple additional challenges I would throw into the mix I mean one would be that you I think it's absolutely right that neutrality and trust are not an effectively linked diet and there are a lot of that that disclosure and commitment and loyalty also goes with trust and and transparency so I agree with that I do think in a climate of extreme polarization. You know that that that trust will just not be available to everybody. So and that and that maybe that's a bit more ephemeral. Although 10 years 10 years to this level of polarization. I'm not sure. I guess the other concern though, I mean just thinking about the two examples that you gave is that, you know, not all not everyone is allowed to be a guide, you know, in that world. Now, not just based on method but on affiliation right if what we're counterposing is Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones to Hannah Nicole just egg is a great. That's totally fair. We are so we are saying that there's there are there if not ideological moral criteria for being a guide to and that's just feels like new terrain to me. Yeah, I think we are in new terrain in all kinds of ways in our speech environment right that's what's so fascinating to me about looking at the old paradigms of like the marketplace of ideas. And the point where like the marketplace is actually the marketplace the marketplace 101 years ago was a marketplace where like a couple of people could look like sellers and they didn't look like me, right. And there was a presumption of civility that came when there were just a few members who knew each other and like had a lot of commonalities. There were very clear forms in which debate would happen it would be on the pages and op ed page or maybe in a public debate like, you know, like the Buckley Baldwin debates or something. And now the marketplace has a whole lot more people in it, but a lot of people can sell in the marketplace and they sell some bad stuff and we sell some good stuff and I think that this is a moment in which a lot of the agita around is also confronting the theory that we thought we had is actually much more expansive and accommodating and doesn't provide for us a lot of guardrails within it right we're like we're all in the marketplace now what do we do about this. And that's, that is a shift and we're still trying to understand just what the marketplace is, you don't yet really know how Facebook works or how Twitter works we have ideas but it's also dynamic and changing. And I think that's kind of the task for the future is figuring out exactly what the marketplace means. As it was a First Amendment attorney and scholar I mean do you what what are what are the, you know, without forcing you to give sort of your grand unified theory of of the marketplace in the 21st century. So what are, how do you do the work of separating out the elements of the of the marketplace of today that really are kind of expanding the domain, the province of liberty, and the pathologies. Some of them are, you know, feel clearer to me than others, you know, outright false information versus true information, but other ones as we know, you know, use of anonymity use of invective. Everyone's scrambling for that ground, whether it's more democratizing and empowering versus whether it's shutting down how do you what what, what are some of your thoughts about how to separate out. As you say the affordances of technology to expand that marketplace versus versus the affordances of technology that hinder that that hinder that market that pollute that marketplace. Yeah, I think the first is to identify the marketplace is like this is a theory of the First Amendment, it is about 100 years old there's people alive today in the world who are older than this theory is introduction into our like speech universe and that's an important context to have. And the other is that, you know, we are slowly learning about the intersections of psychology and behavioral science with this with this structure. So for example, we are learning that when someone when there's a mass shooting or when they're death by that certain types of framing of it can create copycat actions right, that's really new learning, like, it's only in the past, I would say, five to six years that media organizations have taken that insight and been like, Hmm, maybe we'll change our behavior, or with something like mug shots that like Gannett I think just decided that they weren't going to post mug shots anymore. What is that a realization of it's a realization of like, Oh, in posting this and injecting it into the marketplace, we are shaping social realities and a subtle way over time. And that's maybe not what we want to do even if we have the right to do it. And so I think we're in this moment in the marketplace where we're understanding how people actually work within it, because we have a real time. And this is the affordance of technology way to experiment with that in a way that just simply wasn't visible before the internet you you had some some ways and like you know microcosms in which you could have these kinds of experiments but now we have a super structure that shows us a lot of ways that things go sideways. And this is a real opportunity for diagnostic approach right and this is actually what I separate from my like life as a First Amendment lawyer my life is like a curious person who enjoys other smart people in my life at the markup where people are like you know let's let's take a look under the hood through scraping or data gathering or however our news gathering goals to understand what these platforms actually look like and how do they encourage things like amplification that have real consequences for what persuades and what doesn't Howard House behavior networked in ways that we can study what does that mean for the structure of how this is created and perhaps insights to build another structure. I think we're in this moment where we're learning very fast but still not learning enough about what this architecture is and that's kind of the next phase that we need to be in before we design the new theory like we need to diagnose first and we're just not done doing that yet. So you know one of the arguments that's sometimes implicit some lately sometimes explicit that that comes out about this is there's I think there's there's there's certainly a view that I take out of what you just said which is the the internet usually digital technology network technology in particular is amazing feedback loop there were there are realities of interrelationships asymmetries of power voice out there are narrow information news ecosystem could easily exclude them sometimes maliciously often as a function of the structure and now we can see them we have a feedback loop in real time that tells us wow here's our myopia and it's being exploded by the internet. And I think especially over the last couple weeks you have a set of people saying it's not a feedback loop. It's basically created by the internet and it's you know that sort of it's a it's people exploiting an affordance of the internet to shut other people down or to hijack for a similarly narrow view the kind of power of a network how do what do you what do you think about that I mean I'm reducing it quite a lot obviously but sort of how do you come in in that in that discussion. Sure. I mean here's what I will say about I have so many things about cancel culture. It's one of my favorite topics which you know I think for a lot of folks who are approaching the cancel culture situation they are confronting actually an important function of the free speech environment called counter speech right and counter speech isn't necessarily neat. It's not again like a structure debate or like a dueling set of op ed. It's messy. It's noisy. It's it can be harsh at times and that is OK. There's nothing that says that counter speech has to be some sort of civilized exchange of ideas. It can and is an often will be messy as is the entire project of democracy. Right. Now I have some sympathy for folks who say oh I live in fear that one thing I might have said once might be surfaced and it'll ruin my whole life and I have sympathy for that because I think for generations people of color in newsrooms or in a variety of workplaces people with minor minority views and workplaces generally have also felt the oh no if I but just utter one thing I might be canceled so my sympathy comes from a place of recognition. I guess I would say that it shouldn't be a surprise that we have a punitive and harsh speech culture because we have a punitive and harsh society. Right. We are in a society where people go to jail because they're too poor to pay bail. Right. We have a society in which people are executed for mistakes they have made sometimes atrocious mistakes but mistakes. And so it's not shocking that the speech culture we have reflects a larger cultural dimension of violence and a punitive one. And so I guess for the folks who are kind of new to the cancel culture and very vocal about how terrible it is I would say that if you're now going to join us in a journey of like understanding what a forgiving society looks like or what restorative justice might look like in a society then I would welcome your allyship but if you're just mad because you're getting consequences for the first time in your life and I would question the sincerity of the engagement. But I do think that there the cancel culture sort of microcosm explosion of the past few weeks carries within it all of these larger social forces that we need to start unpicking and understanding to. Yeah, and I think I would agree and you know I think me and Marianne Frank said I talked a little bit about this to like is retribution the right justice model versus versus restoration and by the way sometimes retribution is the right justice model for super deviant ideas, but I doesn't mean they can't say them it just that that to your point the counter speech is going to be is going to be vocal and aggressive. I, you know, also I think, you know what I think one of the one of the limitations of the kind of polarization that we have is that it everything is at stake in every debate all the time and I there to me there's sort of two complimentary challenges associated with that one is it makes it oh it hyperbolizes issues for which not everything is at stake and we should just have some good debate, but it also flattens places where people really are it really are putting themselves at risk in an existential way and I think, and so it doesn't surprise me that that that that some of those who have been in power and are experiencing what they think of as cancel culture are saying, I don't like this, but they're couching it in these existential terms and people for whom as you point out have spent a history in which the risks are constantly existential are saying like, you know, World Smallest Violent, like this is just not the moment that I'm going to stand up for you. But that's not that's a hard that's a hard to your point about psychology behavior that's that may be morally reasonable but it's sort of an unsustainable situation so somehow we're going to have to figure, figure out how to elevate a lot of new voices and sort of relax a lot of people who are you know appropriately losing some of their some of their stranglehold on power. Yeah, absolutely and I think this is it's really interesting to think about like what what are the institutions that can play that mediating role like one of the most heartening and fascinating things I have seen and other media organizations who are using events as part of their business model right is the act of convening people around ideas is actually a really special power and responsibility so obviously everything is strange now because we convene over screens for the time being but is there a future in which media organizations through their event strategies might say hey like we're going to actually get people together in the same room to have these nuanced facilitated discussions about tough things which you know in an earlier time might have been done on an op-ed op-ed page just opposing viewpoints of things and that's a great problem to do it but can you leap into the physical space to start having those conversations and that might be a really interesting place for for media organizations the convener of ideas and supplier of facts and context most critically right for those ideas. And what I love about working in media is that you provide context to these debates you're like that's not really what happened or maybe you should look at this and here are some resources for you to consider as you navigate like the panoply of messy ideas and broken problems that need fixing. And so I think there's a really interesting way forward for media words there and who knows maybe that'll be the business model that gets us out of the cash problem. We'll see only if you could do programmatic advertising but but so one of the good one of the really interesting threads in the comments that we're getting is along these lines so I think a number of our listeners are saying OK like I get it like there needs to be some kind of thing that makes this institution authoritative and trustworthy. It's not an idea of objectivity that is effectively failing the test of time in history and present but what are what are some of the what are some of like the contours of the ethics that should guide institutions so I mean you started hitting on some there's clearly something about transparency something about how you engage your audience or in context do you have some ideas about at least the elements of a kind of a new positive ethics for for journalism and information gathering and reporting. Yeah I mean I think I don't have the unified vision yet although I'm working on it next time next time I'm on your next week. Tomorrow. But I do think that transparency in a like a real lived in deep way is important right so it's not just like hey I'm putting up for you how we show we showed our work. This is how we did it you download it like figure out yourself that's a good first step but then there is an element of outreach and reaching out to communities to say does this does this make sense to you what else would you have wanted to know can I listen to you right like cultivating this ethos of listening I think is a really important bedrock part of trust building a lot when you hear a lot of the like sort of I hate the media the media doesn't listen to me they ignore me I don't exist I don't see myself reflected in it and for a wide cross section of the population that is accurate like that is true and media should just own that but then the thing is affirmatively what do you do right. And how you do that and how institutions in the time of like you know tight wallets can actually do that is tricky is tricky but I think it's going to be an important part of the way forward because it you just the idea of trust afforded to you by reputation and gatekeeping quality seems not around the corner that existed before it was convenient it doesn't seem like it's going to exist in the future so it's a how do you build trust in institutions is a much larger question our society is facing and I think you have to start in these much smaller interactions. There's a big insight there too I think which is that you know like these institutions are that are now dying are effectively you know they're the conceptually and and actually are the legacy of the enlightenment and it is true that the argument makes an intrinsic argument for why you should what what constitutes reason but also makes an instrumental argument right like this delivers a better society it delivers more dignity to you and I that's a great point if if an audience is telling you I don't this is not a dignified experience for me that's their truth you know you can't you can't just hide behind to your point the institutional trying to say that that point of disconnection I think is really under attended in these in these debates. Yeah. So one one thing I don't want to leave without talking a bit about is so we've you know if we've now we're sort of been talking about the high minded principle level issues, some of the mechanics of doing this kind of news gathering are different and I know the markup is really at the forefront of mechanically what press freedom looks like again you know let's counterpose it with, you know, you know, we did that we did the post spotlight you know that I think a lot of people think news gathering is like can I get behind this wall, you know, can I interview this person can I see the secret records, and understanding how some of these digitally mediated systems are shaping society and behavior requires a very different set of techniques and raises different kinds of legal issues so can you just tell us a bit about about those issues like mechanically what do you need to be able to do to report and how are those press freedom challenges legally different than some of the ones we faced in the past. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the importance of the news gathering that you just described is that you know if the press has entrusted with telling the truth about society then they should be able to gather the news to do that too right and so we've had a jurisprudence that says you can walk into a grocery store and you can say well the grocery store is selling some real rotten meat, or you know you can report on these things and there are of course limitations and boundaries of how we balance, you know, public and private and property rights and all of that we should have struck that balance in the physical realm, but given that the realm of the Internet controls so much of what happens in the physical realm or at least the idea of creating that stark division no longer makes sense, especially these days. There is a set you know how do you go on a place like Amazon and say is the marketplace selling what it should be. When they say we don't sell banned items. How do you check that now one way you could is that you could just click for every single thing the Amazon sells but of course at a place of that scale because when we talk about understanding the Internet we are talking about understanding the scale of huge actors right huge conveners huge marketplaces that sort of you know, click by click approach is going is not going to work right it's going to be like 20 years until you get the story. So, the ways of automating that observation, the observation of what's public is done by methods like data scraping, for example, right. And so a method like data scraping which basically is an automated collection automated observation in a very fast speed it's like 10,000 people looking at a website at a moment rather than one by one. That is something that can just, for example, a terms of service of a website to be like no scraping not allowed. What that means in practice is that's like grocery store saying no journalists allowed if you're going to say mean stuff about us right the way it plays out is actually restriction on news gathering. And that's why just last week we filed an amicus brief and the Supreme Court in a computer fraud and abuse act case because the computer fraud and abuse act. One flawed interpretation of it is that it seeds quite a lot of power under the terms of service of a website to say, pretty much anything you want. And if you violate the terms of service under the flawed theory, you can go to jail, or, you know, be subject to hefty fines, we're like, that's kind of a problem. So what we're trying to do to wrap it up is that is the affordance is given to news gathering into the physical realm, ensuring that they are carried forward onto the digital realm and not overshadowed by data privacy laws that are important in one dimension but weren't ever meant to to reflect on news gathering and aren't you know hindered by trade secrets laws or a variety of other commercial interests, which powerful actors can deploy to their liking. It should not that should not snuff out investigative journalism and so we're sort of carrying the torch to be like no no no these methods matter, we're glad you know they matter. Now you have to protect them. So it's, it's a fun road, it's a fun legal road. Do you, I mean to what extent should this be part of a part of a regulatory agenda I mean I for sort of for two reasons I mean one. One is, you know, look the beginning of progressivism is giving the government the ability to look at what's going on in the meatpacking industry now that's to understand where contaminated meat is but it's to your point like it's basically information gathering it's that we need information in order to make in order to make decisions, but then also like, you know just strikes me like most of the terms of service reflect that we just don't have an affirmative view about what our relationship to these services is like I'm pretty sure, you know, I cannot use itunes to build a nuclear biological or chemical weapon, like the fact that that's in the terms of service suggests, like we don't even really have a basic understanding of like what this relationship is. And so, yeah, this is the music I listen to when I build that. So, so what do you, I mean, you guys are going to fight this in court but do we do does this is this is in a moment where we're thinking about what our affirmative regulatory apparatus should be around these companies. Does this the kind of thing that should be included in your view. Yeah, absolutely, we don't yet have a compact with these powerful actors and here's the thing like in in our old conception of democratic politics we're like well the state is the largest actor. And there is, you know, sort of the morality of consent when it comes to our interaction with the government as a powerful actor that shapes our life and so we created, especially the rise of the administrative state, a variety of ways that we're like well you're really big and you control our life so I can file a Freedom of Information Act request and learn more about you. I have, I have sort of the nature of representative politics that gives me inroads into this institution. There's not no parallel structure when it comes to these big technology companies who exert as much if not more power over our lives in the state can right in certain realms. And so because there is no parallel infrastructure there of transparency and even just the compact of obligation, aside from, okay, don't use it if you don't want some sort of been capitalist logic to it. We need something more robust and I think that is the most exciting thing that's on the horizon in the years to come I think it's happening, or watching it happen, and it's, it's a really exciting project. Well good, we should end on excitement, given what we've been talking about. Given what we've talked about today. For, for anyone interested in, in hearing more from Nabiya you can follow her on Twitter at Nabiya Sied. You can read about what she's working on in her letter from the president at the markup.org. As always, we'll send all of this to you after the show to be a thank you so much for joining us. Thank you this was so much fun. Before we go, I want to tell you more about what's coming up on vision. Next week on July 23 will be joined by Eugene Volek, he's a First Amendment law professor at UCLA and I think it's safe to say we'll give a somewhat different view than than we've been hearing in recent years. On July 30 will be hosting Alondra Nelson who's the president of the social science research council and a really important scholar thinking about issues of sort of race society and technology. And then on August 6 we're going to be hosting Lulu Garcia Navarro who's the weekend host of the Sunday host excuse me a weekend edition on NPR extraordinarily excited about those episodes. A reminder, this episode will be available on the website. You can see this episode in any episode on demand at kf.org slash vision. Email us at vision at kf.org or visit us on Instagram at vision.kf. Please take the survey. That's only two questions on your screen right now. And as always, we will end the show to the sounds of Miami songwriter Nick County. You can check out his music on Spotify until next week everyone. Thanks and stay safe.