It has only been one year since the president ial election by it seems hard to remember a time when facebook was not synonymous with fake news. People who disseminated fake information on social media range from propagandists to foreign nations. T is sure opinion on the what is your opinion on how it affected the election of 20 . Recs i think the impact of fake news was to allow primarily the trump voters to discount what was going on in the mainstream media. No matter how bad it was for their candidate or how bad it was actually, it allowed them to assume that it was coming from a biased point of view and that therefore they ignored it. And, you know, that has not been difficult of american campaigns in the past. Differenta slightly view on fake news and a sense. I think we focus a lot on the sense that this news might have, you know, changed the result of the elections. I think it is more of a symptom then a cause. A symptom of the polarization in this country. My background is in psychology. A lot of the research to get done is about how people believe what they want to believe. People have access to the news and should know Better Believe what they want to believe. People are going to believe what they want to believe. Certainly social media is kind of like gasoline on a fire. Is thet think fake news problem, it is more of an accelerant on the underlying problem which is the division and this country. Yeah, i largely agree with you. Phenomenon of trump was because people were unhappy. It may have been exacerbated and fake news me plate aroma nap and i question the of the role. I mean, the spend they are talking about on facebook as a joke. I mean, you cannot affect change with that kind of money. Now, it is bothersome to us because it can conceptually affect our election which is very holy to us. It should be. It in terms of consequences, do not think it did much for this election. I mean, it could, it is embarrassing, and there are components that fabric but in actual reality i do not think so very much. Many of the questions about fake news come from the way we are receiving this content of questionable quality and that is because there has been a change in the control of new information. Shifting from Media Companies to Tech Companies who may not have the expertise. Some in Congress Want the government to regulate political ads on sites like facebook similarly to the way they are regulated on television. What are your thoughts on this . Well, i mean, the regulation on television is pretty minimal for the most part it essentially it is the creation of a disclaimer that says who the answer paid for by. So they are paid for by a campaign. This is paid for by bob shrum for governor committee. And, beyond that there is not much regulation. In terms of candidates and their ability to say whatever they want to his aunt television, it is pretty unrestricted. They are mostly immune to libel laws. So i do not think it is asking a lot for our online advertisers to have some commitment to disclosing while the ads are playing, who paid for them. Similar to what we do on television. I think the reality is we did not get where we are in terms of television and disclaimers last week or the week before. It evolved over time. And the other very key element in this is the airwaves, the broadcast airwaves are publicly owned and the federal Communications Commission regulates them and they put together these requirements. Obviously, Online Communications is not federally regulated and i do not think there is any political will to federally regulate them nor should there be. So it is a real question of whether they are going to be selfpolicing in terms of what they do or is Congress Going to step in and we are saying that argument be joined in the last two weeks. I think honestly it would be really tough for the government to regulate. I think technology moves too fast for government to really meaningfully regulate. But i work in the Tech Industry and i talk to people at some of these companies and i have never talked to somebody at one of these companies who does not somewhat acknowledge their responsibility and what to do a better job. These companies are made of people who care, just like you do and were surprised by things and of happened in the political world just like you are and what used to be better. Not necessarily just from one direction or another but better in terms of the kind of things we all care about. So, i can say i think people are working on it. I think there a lot of smart people working on it. Sometimes i liken it to nutrition. Once upon a time you know, we have evolved to be really into sugar. To really want to eat sugar. Eventually we learned that refined sugar is bad for us. We have evolved to sort of not Pay Attention to negative information and compete as groups. Our information diet you now can be very unhealthy for us in a similar way. Not just online, look at the 11 00 news. Things thate 7 might kill you if you dont news. The 11 00 you know, it is sort of ingrained in us that these mediums are aligned toward human nature but just like in nutrition, there are ways for us as a thoughtful species to understand the, you know, the kind of things were seeing are not good for us and for smart people to do good things. To do things about that. So people are working on these of the rhythms. In the absence of regulation, do think things will get better. That was extremely thoughtful and i will not say anything even remotely as thoughtful but i like bills perspective that yes, and makes common sense. There should be some degree of transparency. But when you game that out i do not begin will have any tactical effect because his expenditure as a naive expenditure that could impact how funding gets into that. The point is you are not going to see a facebook ad or any with a disclaimer this ad was purchased by the russian government. It is going through a lot of hands before it gets there. So i think practically speaking, bill, i would differ to you if you feel differently because you would actually place those things and interact with them. I just think it is extremely challenging to figure out who is placed that. The transparency is just not there. I think the impact on particularly independent expenditure ads and disclaimers is grossly generated by most campaign reformers because oftentimes they say paid for for the committee for a better world, and who is against a better world, obviously. But on the other hand it does leave a paper trail you can follow to try to figure out who is behind the money. Now come i think the particular issue that evolved with the russians come i think if somebody comes up to and says they want to hire you to do their polling and pays you in rubles, youre probably going to say this is not a very good idea. Well, they would just pay cash. You are absolutely right. I enjoyed your analogy about the sugar and maybe youve mentioned, diabetes. Right . So maybe when we create something when the technology will create Something Like refined sugar it is exciting but there are consequences like the Public Health problem with diabetes. I feel like our community is like the pace of development is increasing. And so, the opportunity to regulate and to alter behaviors for these consequences, our window is shorter and shorter. So i wanted to ask bill and justin, you know, in your line of work have you noticed an acceleration or is it just par for the course, the Way Technology is changing both of Opinion Research and political messaging in the field you work in . Well, i think the most profound impact of technology on the political process so far has been the huge acceleration of fundraising opportunities from small donors. Literally president obamas campaign was funded primarily by small donors. Particularly and 2008. I think we saw that with Bernie Sanders this time. Bute are talking about ads i think one of the most profound impact has been the fundraising. The change in the fundraising culture. Of digitalrt communications and digital Political Communications as far and finance beyond where advertising is right now in mean the Digital World is still struggling to get 15 or 20 of advertising dollars either commercially or politically so you know, theres questions about where it is going to go and of course all of these things change. I mean, you know, theres going to be other digital breakthroughs and ways to communicate. And i have a firm view that what we do in the Communications World is we do not really get rid of any old media. We just get new media on top of it. We get eight more fragmented and complex communications particularly on the advertising side and were still advertising on television, still advertising on cable, people are still advertising on broadcast radio. Then we have all of these other news mediums including online, satellite, all of these other things coming and i am sure i think we can see podcasts are going to play a significant political role of overtime. Anyou know, theres just enormous fragmentation going on in our communications at universe and people are not only selfselecting about the news as we talked about but they are also selfselecting about where they get their news. We know there are people who are watching exclusively fox television. People watching exclusively msnbc. We will probably see the same phenomenon on podcasts. People who listen to progressive podcasts, people who listen to conservative podcasts exclusively. That is a big change is that people become so ideologically driven about where they get information from. The media mix bill was describing evolves over time. But it has flipped. Because people consume information in the ways they like to consume it. It is usually different ways. Multiple different ways. Visual does not own the world right now because people consume information in a variety of ways an in most markets, tv is incredibly efficient way to spend money if you have the money. Opinionall world of research, figuring out what people think and how to influence their thoughts and behaviors, digital has had a profound impact. If youre talking about a highly informed horserace and theres really only one, the president ial race, then google surveys is fantastic. It is remarkable. It is unbelievable. If you talk about anything other than that, it becomes degraded in efficacy. There are folks who are proselytizing a specific tool or method because they get enamored with that method, just like any other industry. They forget sometimes there is a right widget for every application. Tomy world, there is a move transition from telephone research, which of you perform in the right way, it can still be the most accurate way to integrating Digital Online research, which can be incredibly useful for the right approach. But there are pitfalls with it. I mean, the digital aspect of that particularly comes in and california from the voter file. In recent years, 50 of every new Voter Registration card has a valid email address. It works. Its really good. But if you say arbitrarily i am going to do 50 of this phone, and that includes cell phones, and 50 of it online, you have confined 50 of your sample to new registrants, which composes a fraction of the electorate. So you have gone ahead and youve put an artificial constraint, and there is good reason to look at that and say that methodology is flawed. It may hit the mark from time to time, but it will be wrong much more often than another methodology. On the other hand, if you are researching a small California Coastal town on a ballot measure and theres 10,000 voters in that space, you can slice and dice the methodology and just make sure you are careful about the proportions and get much better, higher rate of response than you would normally. That information cant be regarded as statistically significant because the math just doesnt work that way, but it is directional. The rest of the world works with directional research. When i worked on consumerbased stuff, selling to technology, i cant use Something Like the voter file. I have to use some construct of big data. What people forget because the term big data sounds so cool, is it is just a workaround. It is good. It gets better and better come but it is nowhere near as effective or accurate as the voter rolls we have in this world of Public Policy. Anyway, divergent there. Back to the Media Companies. Companies such as google, facebook, and twitter are making the case that they are not Media Companies and should take a handsoff role in policing content on their platforms. I want to get your takes on whether the benefits of free speech outweigh the consequences of the spread of false information, and how platforms might want to deal with that. Broad question. This is going to be a very complex problem for a long time. I think that theres a difference between what the hearings did on facebook when they were talking about russian collusion, and i totally agree it was not the impact was not that great on this election, but the potential impact in some future election continues to grow rapidly. The foreign interference grows rapidly as it has grown in the last 20 years. It will have an impact. How the industry itself deals with these issues is going to be really difficult. To the extent and industry can have an ideology, theres is more antiregulatory, antigovernment, libertarian in many ways than other industries, even more conservative industries. They are going to resist any kind of regulation. And congress is going to hold, particularly it is amazing how interested Congress Gets into issues about elections. It had to have a little bit of self interest in how elections are conducted. Their aggressiveness on this issue will be pretty extensive. They will want to see some clean up your act kind of dynamic, but i think there will be resistance. We are a long way from figuring this out. A hell of a long way. I think i have already said that well, i think it is almost impossible for government to effectively regulate some of these technologies. I will give you a hopeful thing, which is that and i think this may be useful for engineering students in the audience i think there is a Movement Towards the idea you dont have to measure just clicks for time on site or ad impressions, which is what a lot of these sites are designed to optimize. There are other things you can measure. There are products now out there on some of these Media Companies that try to establish when you are a danger of hurting yourself and try to help you with that, right . There are things that are trying to measure things that are a little bit more human, a little bit closer to those goals. To my mind, some people say if you ever give an ai problem like thep all suffering, easiest ways to kill all human beings. Now theres no more suffering in the world, right . There are interesting ways, you know, to think about how can i measure you know, measuring ,hings like, you know fulfillment, happiness, you but, those are constructs if you can measure whether something is or is not a cat, you can measure some of these other constructs as well. Speaking carefully because some of the companies are clients, there is a challenge within Technology Companies of hubris. Own tend to breathe their exhaust too much and they tend to be some of the worst corporate actors in america. One for example, the way they approach growth was to ignore the law. I am not a law and order person but the reality is we live under a constructs of laws and we have to respond to them and respect them. That particular company, a car company, and every city date rolled out to, they simply ignored it. Nd states even with selfdriving cars. When they broke the law, rather than working with them, they did not. Somebody walks away to degree you happy as well as unhappy, but they did not. If you can imagine an oil company or Tobacco Company behave in the way that many Technology Companies behave, they would be crucified. But so far, that momentum is still there. So i do not think i dont think there is an appetite to selfregulating. The company you were alluding to, including Tech Companies and also traditional Media Companies, you mentioned some , might that might be provide more value to society but i do not know if there is a connection between those metrics and what is Good Business for the companies. , is that asee problem . Many of the Media Companies are more incentivized to maintain attention, maybe even loyalty to that media source which seems like it is not in line necessarily with the value or some of the values that were proposed as alternative benefits of these media. Well i mean, i yeah. That is certainly true at the micro level for some of these companies. The thing it people value and Companies Value converge. Ultimately, for example, some of paid byatforms are advertisers. There are advertisers on the platform. A lot of them are brand advertises. They want to be associated with things that provide value and you know, there is a huge effort right now around brand safety, for example. Where brands are removing their ads from places that are harming or they feel are harming you know, there consumers. And that is in some ways a response to everyday consumers who are tweaking to these brands tweaking who tweeting to these brands, look, your ad is on this really offensive place. The world doesnt get there right away, but eventually things converge towards the thing that people value are the things that businesses will optimize towards. Their will be inefficiencies along the way that will be terrible and that will have terrible consequences. But i think business as a whole will eventually get to a point where they are trying to serve some of these larger goals, even if some of these companies right now, their Business Models are not optimized towards that. Bill i would say there is a comparison here historically between television and online, and it is back to the issue of how you evaluate how many people are watching an ad. Television adopted a universal method that was monopoly by the Nielsen Company that has become a standard measurement in the television industry. I mean, there have been arguments over various rating methodology changes and it has not been all happiness and sweetness but mostly it has been universally accepted as the standard measurement. Online, nobody can figure out who the hell they are talking to. Reality. T the in there was an experiment at procter gamble, which is arguably the Largest Consumer that wasn the world done of the summer where they basically their argument based on a study done by advertising agencies in an United Kingdom was that we really did not know who we are talking to and there were a lot bots out there and other things that were big problems. And, what is and what are we getting towards and whatnot. Procter gamble decides to do an experiment. For one quarter they dropped all of their all nine advertising, online advertising, which had been 20 of their advertising budget, to see what impact it would have on their sales. What they uncovered was it had zero impact on their sales. Absolutely zero. Then cocacola did a study which they wanted to try to figure out, what media most influences people at the point of purchase . They found out just slightly over 50 said television. In the teens were radio and unbelievably enough, print. The high Single Digits was online. We are still in the infancy of this industry as an advertising platform, not as we all experience it every day, getting online and doing all the things we do, communicating with each other, getting information and whatnot. But as an advertising platform we are still in the infancy. We cant quite measure what we are getting for our bucks. On the other hand, we cant stay away from it. There is, as we talked about, situations where california, Everybody Knows theyve got two of the top 10 television markets in the country, los angeles and san francisco. What does that do . That makes it the most expensive place to communicate in the world. We have this political setup where the whole state votes for everybody, so it is very expensive to communicate here. Online gives people an option to than mail people things to talk to them. It makes it very attractive. I think the Political Community once online to succeed. They are just not sure what they are getting for their buck right now, which is a bad thing in a capitalist society. Krishna another thing online allows you to do is do much more precise targeting. The next question is about that. Targeted political ads on social media are unlike tv ad in that campaign opponents might not see and cant respond to information in the ads. How will this change campaign approaches Going Forward . Bill i think that is one of the advantages of targeting. It is also one of the limitations. It limits the number of people you are communicating with, but you can do wonderful things online with targeting. There was a ballot measure last november where we spent a whole hell of a lot of money on texting because we want to to find a way to talk to millennials as we know they dont really watch television that much. People are going to explore all kinds of vehicles in order to talk in a targeted way. Ultimately i think it will become more universal and people will talk to a large number of voters online. Ravi i see lots of people using targeting to really impressive effects. A lot of the companies ive worked at, microtargeting, niche targeting think about entertainment. Entertainment has historically been marketed to younger men, younger women, older men, older women. We all know that our entertainment preferences are not so simple and, you know, being able to market to markets game of thrones seems very of his. Being able to do those kinds of obvious things is very helpful. I guess, you know, the key is some way to make it seem like this could someday be seen as more of like a service and less of an intrusion. Set im, i get on really genuinely happy to see you and i get out im not stop so justin speaking to the targeting thing, it can be very useful. There is a change in that kind spend. Box of digital digital spend used to largely be evaluated like a government program. How much money did you spend on it, as opposed to, who did it go to . Rather than how did you track it . Tracking, they are able to track thats been to the isp and then you have an incredible not only targeting them a graphic, but you actually know who digests the information and in what way they digested it. It is a little creepy, but that is missing the efficacy and it is getting more and more prevalent in different media markets. It is incredibly useful for me because i can do visual lad testing, especially advertising is perfectly outlined with this. It takes a little bit of time but in a time of one and half weeks or so, i can figure it out and test a couple different concepts and get very, very Accurate Information in terms of who it is most effective with. In my little world, it is becoming more and more useful. Krishna typically when there is messaging from one campaign with targeted approaches, there may not be a chance for opponents to respond. Is this something that is likely to be exploited . Do you find this problematic . Justin i dont think anything really occurs in that degree of a vacuum. I think to some effect it is visible. Bill i agree. Once you are out there in the world, people are going to find out about it. If you are saying extraordinarily controversial things to one audience and you know, something entirely different to another audience, if you dont get caught it will be a minor miracle. Krishna final prepared question, 2018 is right around the corner and we dont yet have solid evidence that facebooks efforts to combat fake have been successful. Will they help us make better decisions about who to vote for, or will it be worse . Bill we had an election last week, and it was remarkable, particularly virginia, which was contested. New jersey not so much. People didnt come away and say fake news had some profound impact on the election. They talked about what the two candidates were saying and how they were advertising, how they were organizing. In the postmortem it was who showed up and how they voted and all the things he does to tell huge fake newsd after the fact. Virginia. T least in i think it will get worse for a while. I think, what is changing is we are that much more polarized than we were five years ago if you look at measures of wherecal polarization, getting worse and worse in very alarming ways. Was that a lot of the problems around fake news are a reflection of the partisanship we see, our willingness to believe things. You can look at the race in alabama right now, the kind of things people are saying about what is true and what is not and who your support and what that says about your beliefs and what is true and what is not. Limited to people in alabama. Theres research about how really smart people, the smarter you are, the better you are at justifying the things you want to believe. ,hings are going to get worse but the hope is that there are also people putting on conversations, actually trying not to be polarized, to make things better. Those efforts succeed, then i think that is what will solve this, not technology. The bubble that twitter and Facebook Create and allow people to self identify the circle they want to be around and that language and talk and chatter continues and continues and obviously political circles are highly charged, that has become exacerbated by the algorithms. If you raise her hand and say im interested in that, you are going to get more and more and more. The hamster is getting fed more and more whatever judge is going to eventually kill it. Naturally get more frustrated with that. Tensions rise. I think that is a real problem. I think it panders to Human Behavior that is not our noblest. And ik we will adjust think we had a point earlier about companies having a human nature at some point, they self correct. People do, too. That is why Companies Self correct, is because they are from folks. The intensity will, hopefully, go down. But i think next year will probably take raisi. Actually, this is a reflection of a larger political polarization. This is not creating a larger polarization. Nixon waso back, bashing the media before there was anything any online world or anything else. He was bashing dan rather daily. Has been an element of this in our politics for a long time. It has just high and a little bit and that you can find your own world to talk to and you do not have to talk to the rest of the world. That is somewhat of a new phenomenon. Think i was answering the question about fake news. I think it is a sense of polarization. I do not think the platforms are exasperating exacerbating the fake news. I think the platforms are exacerbating our polarization, in some ways. Think that is a reflection there is a study that human beings are three times more likely to click on things that are negatively framed been positively framed. We have evolved to Pay Attention to negative things. That is what stopped us from getting killed. If you did not Pay Attention to a danger signal, you died. We have evolved to Pay Attention to negative things. Optimized algorithms towards clicks and engagement are optimized towards negative things. That is a problem. It is leading to the polarization that we see. Poet is ais a problem. A lot of the research we do is about how people are social and emotional first and rational second. We have to work on that than the polarization later layer. Alabama. Ntioned that is an interesting case study. Political universe that is extremely conservative and conservative candidates are acts accused of horrendous on the news, were listening to that supportsity judge moore is trying to figure out how to rationalize this in a way they can continue to vote for him. It is painful to listen to. Hey should not vote for him he is a bad person. But they do not want to go there. Lets blame the Washington Post instead of ourselves. Positive dissonance cognitive dissonance is one of the most painful things you can live with. No one wants to think about it. Your son or daughter is accused of murder, your favorite sports , the staronsin quarterback is accused of sexual assault, the person you admire most if it were someone you did not care about, it would not matter. But it is cognitive dissonance, the thing i want and the difference between that and what i want. What if your Favorite Team pitches to the wrong guy and it doesnt turn out well. The onion is peeling on that pretty rapidly. Himc pulled support for here can i do not see that cognitive dissonance thing continuing for much longer. You are right that there is a. Were everyone tries to figure surprisedple have a look on their face when they are dead. It is not really happening. It is happening. Prettymes pretty evident quickly that you have a real problem. And you have to resolve it. , i am ae dissonance conservative in alabama. I want to focus our conservative. Enator this man has been accused of assaulting teenage girls. Something has to give. You cannot sit there with those two statements forever. You have to either believe that it is fake or you have to stop supporting him and you have to resolve it. When people believe something is fake news i have a question about if there will ever be a media source that the majority of the population believes to the extent these people believe tv news i have a question about if there were ever be a media source that a majority of the population believes to the extent that people believed the tv news or to get for its word or took it as truth in the 1960s and 1970s, like with dan rather. Will there ever be a figure like that on National Television again, worthy majority of the population believes them . Bill i think the first answer to that is it is going to be difficult because there is an enormous amount of media fragmentation. The 1950s, 1960s through much of the 1970s and 1980s, you had three networks that were dominant. You had three choices, that was it. Some people like cronkite. Some people like to brinkley. Not a lot of people like abc. But nbc and cbs were dominant. Now you have so many more Media Outlets that people have a lot more choices. And some of them are ideological choices, some of them are stylistic. Ted turner started cnn. People laughed about it, thought it was a crazy idea. People watching in all news station on cable, and it turned out to be the precursor of all that has come since. I think it is tough because of the media fragmentation. Ravi i am going to venture that yes, there will be a time. I worked at this company where people vote on her favorite things. We did an analysis of red states and blue states. It showed that theres actually a lot of agreement. Theres more agreement between red states and blue states than between men and women, between young people and old people, and between americans and people around the world. Largely theres agreement about things that are not part of the partisanship. We all agree that things that are less controversial, krispy k reme make doughnuts that taste good but are not good for me. It is just when they become controversial that they become part of this partisanship that it all breaks down. Think sometimes we overplay the number of things that are part of this partisanship. I think there may come a time when you see this when war happens. People rally around the flag we stop faking about ourselves, red state and blue state. We start thinking about ourselves more holistically, where partisanship is not a thing that news is about. Therefore it will revert to the things that most of us kind of agree upon. Justin the sheer volume of outlets is definitely a problem. You can divide it into prefox and postfox when news became ideologically charged on both sides. People tuned in for that entertainment. Prior to that, you had centrists from nonideological perspectives. Those personalities presented a reasoned analysis of the issues. That might be analysis of both sides of the issues, multiple side, but you werent turning werent tuning in to hear yourself think, which we largely do now. I dont know if we have an appetite to go back. It is entertainment now. It is not really news. We are facing a be what ravi was just saying. The partisanship seems to not be so much on opinions as Party Affiliation has become a very important part of who you are in what your personality is. To you see a role for media to help in undoing this . If you are consulting with facebook and they say theyve gotten into trouble, what initiatives could you suggest to overcome this hyper partisanship . Ravi we are doing some recent some research on participle politics. This something in psychology called extended contact theory. It is the idea that if i watch a Football Game and watch my team get into a fight on the field with members of the other team, now i want to fight with fans of the other team. Watching people of your group fight the people of the other group makes you want to fight the people of the other group as well. That is kind of what our media environment has become. We dont watch theres actually a lot of bipartisan bills, but because of the activity bias, they dont get as much attention as the latest insult that donald trump lobs to random persons on the other side of the aisle. So yeah, the media could easily and i hope to show them if we do this research right, it will show watching people fight all the time makes you want to fight. You can publish stories all you want about people fighting across the aisle, but you should realize the impact you are having on the electorate, and you have the opportunity. And the opposite is true, watching people get along makes you want to get along. Hopefully they will take us up on. Bill think there is one unusual thing to this byron meant i think there is one unusual thing to this whole in byron meant we have very severe polarization with in the parties. We see the nevertrumpers on the republican side that dont seem to beginning over it, and we see the Bernie Sanders supporters on the democratic side that dont seem to be getting over it very fast, and even the hillary people arent getting over the campaign very fast. We now have polarization within both political parties. I think that is pretty unpredictable where that ends up. Krishna we have time for one final question. Right here. We mentioned how certain algorithms are set up so that you click on one ideological message and it starts recognizing and feeding you similar ideological messages on whatever platform you are on. In terms of combating extreme partisanship, with there be an advantage to working in an opposite manner so that when you have people who are on a strict news diet of either side, maybe exposure to ads of the opposing ideological party might help them at least be a little more receptive to those arguments, or maybe open up the line for debate so that that partisanship doesnt necessarily get in the way of good policy or good Public Policy . What advantage would you say there could be in that . Justin i only asked who is the reason why the algorithm works is because it is the same marketing approach and look, i went online looking for a para pants and suddenly i get all these Different Things about pants. It is a very simple algorithm theoretically. I love your idea, but someone has got to pay the bill. Ravi there is a precedent for that kind of algorithm to be built, which is the problem of click bait. It is worked on in part because there is it cant all just be optimized towards clicks because eventually it will drive away users and ultimately these platforms are only useful insofar as they serve users. There is certainly precedent for Companies Giving up some of that attention and giving up some of the engagement in service of something that looks at least a little closer. It is not necessarily the ultimate variable, but it is something that is at least 80 a less at least may be a less bad variable they are optimizing towards. Showing the blog that information, i would just best showing people opposite information, i would tweak that just a little bit. They are affected by human connection, by stories. If i want to affect peoples attitudes on gay marriage, i dont talk to them about marriage law, the history of marriage. I show them gay people who are relatively normal. They know them and they like them, and that affects their attitudes. If you want to affect peoples attitudes, think about that. Use something more emotional or social rather than something more rational. Id like to thank the panel, and i would like to thank krishna for moderating. Were going to do more and more of this as we go into the next semester and go on. Most of all i would like to thank the students here at usc. You have been active, you participated, you asked great questions, and weve had a terrific semester. I hope next semester lives up to it. Thanks everybody, and have a good exam period. [applause] . [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] announcer cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that the white house with bloombergs Stephen Dennis and the hills jordan fabian. And we talk about the United States nuclear arsenal. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal, live at 7 00 a. M. Tuesday morning. Join the discussion. Announcer tuesday, secretary of steny hoyer held a roundtable discussion at the college of Southern Maryland at the on the opioid epidemic. This is one hour and 35 minutes
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.