A weve been looking forward to this those of you on the trigg trigger. I get to moderate this fabulous discussion today, and we are here to launch the book the global struggle to governee the internet. It was Rebecca Mackinnon spoke also a new america book and i was struck when i was reading through the acknowledgments to see in the consent to say few people have had as much influence on online thinking as that book and i thought that is wonderful and you have to have returned that before you knew we were doing this event. We are going to have a discussion and then we will turn it over to you. I want to begin by framing the debate in terms of these two books because i think it says a lot about how to. In 2012, the question is internet freedom. When i was at the state Department Working for secretary ainton, i was very involved in her speech where she talked about the right to connect, and we thought very hard about the importance of being able to connect to the internet as a freedom and that remains important this is 2012. It is the struggle to govern the internet. Obviously freedom is still important as this democracy and we will talk about that in a minute. But its striking to me that the focal point has shifted from freedom to be free from restraint to governance. So, that to me tells us something about how the internet has the gold in ways that none of us might have predicted. We were just talking before larry seems to have predicted a lot of it and rebecca predicted to somthe sum of it as i will tk about. Davids book is speech police, and in the book and often online we encounter these issues as speech issues and in the United States that means you encounter them as First Amendment issues more broadly, and i want to talk about this you talk about human rights issues, freedom of expression issues. But thats just the portal for the real discussion. The real discussion is the protection o of speech, protectn of privacy, the maintenance, preservation, by validation of democracy so the Second Thought i would leave you with us as we move from freedom to governance, and governance is about participation in governance, and what does democracy look like, liberal democracy in a world that is as much online as offline. So just thinking about the evolution and some of the things we will pull these out in conversation and then as i said it will turn to you but before i do that, i want to properly introduce both of our speakers, and i will start with rebecca is thwho is the director of the Digital Rights, ranging Digital Rights is and index it exemplifies what new america strives to be. Rebecca is a big finger in this book. Before that, she was the cofounder of Global Voices which is how i first knew of her in the foreignpolicy. She was the cnn bureau chief from 1998 to 2001 so she was living and working in a country where questions of censorship. Shes a big finger and a lot of us if you go back to consent of the network its striking how much she saw. She strives to connect thoughts to action which is why i say its where new america strives to be to take the big ideas about democracy, about consent and speech but then to turn them into something that is more practical for actually does bring the companies on an annual basis. The one of the work, an and its important both intellectually and practically in the right of opinion and expression, you all are a specialized audience but i am willing to venture that many apople do not know that there is a special from the un on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Its a clinical law professor at uc irvine and he teaches internationaldi human rights law and protects the clinic as you might expect given that hes a clinical professor in international justice. Hes lectured all around the world at the un as the International Criminal court. Hes taught at many of the law schools. He cofounded the International HumanRights Program at ucla and began his career as a lawyer at the u. S. State department practicing international law. One of the things i will be talking about towards the end is how importantan it is both of yu come out of an International Human rights frame, not just a u. S. Legal frame. With that, we will begin our discussions. I want to start by framing the debate. There is a quote that you can see this book is dogeared already. Theres a place wherthere is a e talking to the commission and you are talking about the code of conduct and its interesting because the. Hes talking about the difference between the u. S. Approaches to freedom of speech, which of course we have by far. In other words we protect the least of the most speech of anyone in the world. We limit the speech and he talks about words that lead to violencece and how they understd this much more than americans do. These are general societal politics. Theie bodies have to own up to e view for regulating it then he says, and this is where i want to start. It isnt whats best for the internet, its what is best for society. The book is to govern the internet. Do you think of it as the internet or mobilee lee . Its kind of remarkable thing to people that have shaped major fields if the debate over regulation which is practically nonexistent in many respects withd new changes around competition policy in the United States but debate about the regulation is robust in europe and their approach is the the dmpanies have a massive impact on the public space and whether we get into debates about publishers or whether they have the Public Square they see what they are doing on their access to information and on the rights of how do we protect our society and individuals and public space and institutions and so forth and they are having a robust debate about it. This is the whole point of why we like the internet. We are supposed to be good for people and empower people into democracy in whicin thedemocracd governance because if you dont have governance, its nasty and short for everybody but the biggest and. Its enabling people in communities that used to be cut off and marginalized with no hope of breaking out to do so but at the same time, we need to make sure that as it is being constructed a and governed but e power is heldd accountable when somebody exercises power of what i canct say or do, whether it ia corporate actor or government they are called appropriately accountable and also the rights of everybody on the network. Its happening everywhere else, so in the middle east and asia and so on theres a lot of concern of human rights activists in countries that are not democracies or where leaders are picking up on regulatory debates and misconstruing them. One of the big challenges and david has written about this, i pointed out the Legal Systems are based on the nationstates and borders. The approach to constraining power and the approach to the law and geopolitics thats the purpose when it comes to protecting rights and constraining and holding the power of accountable across the Global Networks and thats one of the major questions david is taking much further. If we think about it as it is and just the Internet Society anInternet Societyand its intee point you refer to companies as custodians of important public spaces, which i thought the idea that this is a mixed reality and the line also between this isnt just one country, this is global so we are not talking global democracy lets talk about than who participates in the governance lets accept that it needs to be a broader conversation than it is now what is the role of the company, theres a part in the book where you describe facebooks legislative process. I was reading it like this is a civics book where we say you go to capitol hill and there is a draft of the law and you describe a number of people through facebook and led by monica who was a student of mi mine, so i hopef i told her civl procedure very well. But there is a member of facebook people from around the world that are very earnestly trying to decide what should be taken down and worship the left up so maybe you want to describe that a little bit more immediately. That has to be part of this as long as the companies are there. Who else needs to be in the rooms or do w where do we disple conversations from those entirely . Our Public Perception generally is that theyre making by then seatofthepants decisions. The truth of the matter is they are incredibly bureaucratized institutions with extensive sets of rules. The contents policy team particularly facebook which might not surprise anybody they are basically making the rules and evaluating the interplay of their goals with the experience so they were performing a kind sof governance. No matter what happens with the companies, that is going to continue to be a part of the way content is evaluated notwithstanding the then moves which is funny like crossing platforms. No matter what happens there they are governing on their own in a major challenge right now i think of it as democratization. How do they open up their space so that more voices are a part of the decisionmaking around with the rules should be and how the rules are enforced. Its one thing to say this group of Extraordinary People make decisions about what happens in the United States but then when you extrapolate over the 2 billion users in their communities around the world, how do they think through applying those rules which i think should be rooted in the human rights law, the norms for how to go o about enforcing thoe if your question is an important one, how do they go about involving the people that are most affected by the rules . Before you take a crack at bat with the ask a question. One clarification is to describ, there is somebody from dublin. So its not just americans in the room at least. Its facebook people from around the world. Thats true. Its dominated by people that are marinated in the firstst amendment culture. To be accountable for its different types of decisions and at the end of the day Mark Zuckerberg how do we think about that and the impact all around theri world . To make that is a terrifying thought it all comes down to Mark Zuckerberg. [laughter] but that you are working hard to achieve those become glass walls that we can see who was there and the decisions they are making. In my book i talk about the and one sovereignty that they are exerting over people to consent or to participate there iss a number of issues there and with the un framework to behavior in policies and practices. We are looking for that commitment and to provide evidence that they are implementing those in a certain way. Looking around human rights risks not just what they are taking down for content or moderation policy for what they are taking down in response to government demand and the human rights Impact Assessment and facebook does ,network initiative to do Impact Assessment. So they provide no evidence no with the content of their terms of service how they enforce their rules so what did take down and what not to take down his downstream and not show about the implications of human rights they are doing human rights assessment and theyre not doing human rights on the targeted Business Model that has a lot to do and how you Police Things and also the grievance mechanism so in order to do the Impact Assessment how will my communities affect anywhere else . With affected stakeholders and communities around the world to understand that. Had to understand we have an Early Warning system who will help us come up with a solution . There needs to be a lot morest transparency whats been taken down and how to be enforced and with that accountability and risks and impact is not just happening in a systematic way right now. Im trying to get a sense but with that human rights assessments they are getting more information for how they make those decisions and then to compel that decisionmaking with the entities that are not Public Squares in the sense uke the capital mall so they can restrict speech far more than the european government. How do they go into the actual decisionmaking process quick. G one answer is government regulation. From the American Perspective talkingsp about speech and information but that is where it becomes problematic and now thinking about ethiopia and one respect with the oppressive regime and there has been a lot of robust states on the platforms the speech and Ethics Division and this is where i think rebecca is right. Again the platforms the platforms always have a First Response the volume is so ridiculous they are always in that position but thats that they should be doing they should be evaluating what is the impact of facebook on the political situation and how do we address that . To give them a playbook for the assessment but also be signed off for youtube and twitter to have that accountability mechanism to say we are evaluating the impact but its a Company Decision and well be held accountable for our decision that is fundamentally the problem. So even if this is even solvable i dont want to go too far quite yet. [laughter] but i do have a question we talk a lot right now in the us in the New York Times oped about breaking up but there is another possibility witches breaking down how do we get it closer to the committee is not just insight and access to the decisionmaking in the rulemaking but how do you do that while preventing government . And thats why its not a onesizefitsall or in democratic europe it might not work it would not work as a model. There isnt an overall global answer. As Mark Zuckerberg used to say facebook is a community. Everybody would roll their eyes at that. It isnt one community. And with abe scale of two. 5 billion users do they have the tools to really manage that kind of process . Those tools to engage people so it looks more democratic for the regime than those that are actually affected. But you do suggest country teams that made me think it is a mini state department. I think that is right and then they actually have a presence in the jurisdiction and then to figure out a way to have a presence its not just language that f only gets you so far its around the social norms and all sorts of memes that develop you need to know a lot more than that but then again if they go to the country there is the riskk to be captured literally and facebook executives could be arrested. It is a very complicated stance in the way so far it has not been making the full effort not just at the National Level but localll leve. But you are actually doing this . It is the way to hold Companies Accountable that is not government regulation. It is benchmark to help inform governments how do you think if you are wildly successful, Companies Pay attention and again both of you are using the Global Human Rights framework not the European Convention framework where do you imagine your Watchdog Group participating inin the larger project quick. If you have the tools it is the data in the framework and the standards that includes advocacy, regulation, all kinds of things. In a way you see sustainability benchmarks on how they are doing with their Carbon Footprint that is quite successful to have a huge impact not only their policies and practices but to help influence regulation for what impact is regulation actually having on practices or going beyond their means. So that is what we modeled on with those benchmarks with labor practices and you see again, again, alone having a benchmark isnt f doing all the work you can see for example with our data this year we could make initial observations on what impact privacy and regulation had and the impact it had and which are going above and beyond with that compliance that they interpret. So it is part of the tool to understand what companies are doing and also a framework around which to have debates because we keep updating the standards we are using about what best practices should look like so we are adding indicators to targeted advertising that we didnt have. It is a lot of consultation and research so the indicators that we have right now we had to build a lot of detail into that talk to technologist and companies andd what represents a general consensus know if they are accountable and osponsible all the way people speech that someone speech could be manipulated or constrained that somebody might know something about the activity through maximum transparency and accountability if that is an indicator but it is based on that it is on the work of others that has been sconsidered to be come to be known as best practice. There used to be a smart set of regulations. Content regulation by government with repression as speech but what they are doing is not only modeling what they should bek doing but the government wants to think about that regulation for a more robust and domestic public debate. I dont have a problem to say this is a requirement for our jurisdiction is to be transparent. Any legislative forum in america is just as important but i will push you further so how do you think about that from your Vantage Point at the un . So you are at the un, 194 countries, facebook is the biggest even by market cap even by population it is way up there than most of the countries so how do you think the un should engage and the many ngos and there are plenty of governments at the un who would like to regulate a way. How do we think of that global legislative process . If i say to you what is the process . Soum with the human rights mechanism in the Un General Assembly it can serve an important function to identify the global norms of freedom of expression and there is a mantra that is all mine so whatever rate you have online then apply to offline bed that should be true in principle but what does that mean how companies and governments should be protecting that space . How do companies and governments encourage the enabling environment quick so there is a lot of room for the un to say look the rules around transparency and i could be meaninglessss so what are the disclosures that might be important so the public and have a genuine debate and also that information is how do we construct rules around that and a the they can say if youre constructing regulation make sure that this incentivizes than they should be allowed on human rights law. So if the companies would revamp their standards the thativ would give them a stronger tool because its inconsistent with the terms of service but to say right now its actually not inconsistent the country doesnt care. But the companies can say we see ourselves protecting individual rights which you yourself or under the universal declaration of human rights are bound to adhere to that it doesnt mean turkey will say you are right. [laughter] but in many instances it will slow the process and couple transparency around that it makes it harder for government. As an International Lawyer this is fascinating to me through companies to the 20th century are the vehicles through which with the extra territory and now you read you think actually these companies are global and they are bringing Global Human Rights into the us which is such a flip with the way that we talk about it we only have a few more minutes but to get more specific and look at this information and its a big news question with propaganda cand lies and all fake news it is not new. And very much not new in many of the countries. So talk about the human to see the misinformation and then the rush to counter that and the implications of that. Since the election there was a collective freak out and in the New York Times that said facebook you have a gazillion engineers you should be able to zap that fake news to save democracy and so that idea traveled far around the world even just a few weeks ago in paris to adopt a new law the protection of online falsehood act which basically criminalizes discrimination of the online falsehoods but also government administers the authority to correct this informationha we label it or take it down so the reality now there are many laws that decriminalize dissemination of fake news. That is terrifying. And one of my fears is that the debate in europe has been incentivizing that. So the point that rebecca made earlier about this particular area the way of regulatory discussions worldwide is not to say that they shouldnt do something because russia may take advantage of it, its not that but there is an entire conversation around the internet and in particular in europe that the internet is bad and it doesnt take much to think about the tradeoffs with the proportionality of restrictions but also a part of what we want to preserve and the last point i would say this is a just a question of the authoritarian regime on the border but one false information to be shut down but also it is theater and think of it gives cover to a liberal news. There is a debate going on for those even in dc working on Digital Rights issues. And was section 230 but also this question that a lot of people reacted to pelosi to say its easy if its fake about yourself you should be able to take ito down but then everybody pointed and that obviously backfired and so to say this tweet recently give me a rule that will deal with and prevent the manipulation but at the same time not result in over censorship and the debate around that was really fascinating. [laughter] and there is not easy answers but this is part of the problem. With that approach to regulation of the internet or anything related or expectations what companies can do with their platforms. Samsung tv had a bug and then you fix it and it is fixed. Right . We will not fix that we will not fix issues off speech and where the line needs to be and the perfect rule whether private or a law or whatever that will satisfy everybody just as in governing a city , to have perfect Law Enforcement that never infringes everybodys right and everybody is happy how they are set up. You never will and normally that Digital Space how it is designed and regulated will be a constant battle or a war how speech and data are governed and where its not possible to have that debate and thats where you are in trouble. So how do we ensure that is the possibility to identify to adjust in those spaces. Its very important to recognize that you just have to be making tradeoffs that if i go back to law school is not even a hypothetical if you draw a line in the cases on either side of they dont make that w sense you have to have a line because there will always be aou tradeoff but if youre up regulate something and says it is fake news then this is like when the us allowed torture. We allowed torture in a limited way but of course that license governments around the world to do far worse than what we were doing i remember human rights activists to say peoples are looking to you if you can do this then we can do this and then in that protecting environment than that looks like censorship and then british libel laws you cannot say what is not true in the us you can you just cant defame. [laughter] what happens in europe doesnt stay in europe. Thats not a question whether egypt or singapore can adopt a rule but also the act how the company is operating at scale ifn, they have misinformation i cannot say for certain but for the company to make am decision we will just import that into terms of service so now its the rules for america to enjoy that platform as americans we dont think we are affected by other peoples rules but this is one area where looking forward in particular are not of a political culture europe will make the decision. That seems like the right moment to reach out. Wait for a microphone and introduce yourself. I write a blog called global for transparency talking about disclosure of rules and a decisions talking about the process of transparent decisionmaking process do you have a little for that in thatth realm and a strategy for getting there quick. Thank you for coming. So the one way to respond to that i talk about having caselaw around the decision so right now we are getting very little out of the companies as to how they make decisions and from the platform perspective that could harm them because the debate around many issues are inconsistent and they seem inconsistent because we dont know about the range of other cases that they have addressed and so from time to time it will put up a hypothetical but rowe should be pushing them to provide more granularity. Provide more granularity. Transparent. In the very back. I wonder if you could say a few things about the multistakeholderr governments approach. T wethat gives voice to people. It doesnt work very well but we havent taken it seriously. For the others that are shot out of a lot of the decisions and would be more legalized framework i just wonder if you dont think that could have potential. I am happy to give a stab att it and there are a number of multistakeholder platforms addressing particular problems. When people think about the multistakeholder governance we think about that kind of model which is very specific around the names and numbers of the internet domain and doesnt deal with a lot of other things then you have a lot of multistakeholders that are not governing anything. The question is i think the best work on where we might take the stakeholder governance is where she talks about rather than trying to have one multistakeholder government body to govern all things and soulful problems its rather more likely to be effective to have different efforts that bring together the people concerned with the expertise on one specific issue like content moderation on facebook and try to come up with a mechanism that brings in stakeholders to figure out a better way forward them to have a big body that governs everything that relates to the internet. We are starting to see some efforts bringing together stakeholders including governments andnd ngos and other press organizations. I would add to that following heon that point, article 19 has been promoting the idea of the social Media Councils of its nongovernmental but definitely dealing with the most difficult content and that might be one of the approaches i dont know if it would work but its promising and the involvement of the communities particularly if you imagine a social Media Councils in different regions or National Jurisdictions again theres the problem of the government capture but that might be a model of bringing Different Actors to be participants in the decisionmaking. I will add that they have an elaborate proposal for the soldiers mostly stakeholder groups rolling into the networks ais somebody that has written osextensively i love the idea wn you see it played out it is complex but we got stuck somewhere. I wanted to turn to the question of content online and how to address it with the gun violence shooting that was lifestream and how to address things like the statement said that she 20 [inaudible] im glad t you raised that. I didnt get to the terrorism. Theres a million different ways we can talk about terrorist content. There is a new or soontobe adopted a content directive in the European Union and one of the problems is on the one hand its a legitimate thing for the government to be doing but they soften adopt rules that are generally vague. They dont provide the kind of precision we would want to thato ensure the platforms are incentivized to leave a robust debate and not take down the debate that is legitimate that might be edgy or problematic for some government, so one part of it is any regulation needs to be really precise as to what it is aiming to prevent online. The other part of it is the more technical side but might have to do with Live Streaming because we have seen after the christchurch massacre resulted d propose on a tuesday and adopt on a thursday a new law on Live Streaming and putting aside the problems with adopting the law but quickly without public input, there might be room to have a debate over light streaming and its impact. I think we need empirical evidence like Real Research of the impact of Live Streaming and video. I think we need to see more in that framework but theyre also might be possibilities for esrtain kinds of tradeoffs around content that gives space for the companies to make decisions that dont require timeliness but they do in a situation so the delays but the tradeoff is the also lik we ale Live Streaming of public protests and police abuse. So its all about tradeoffs when we talk about the technology. Thereve been a number about how the groups try to document war crimes. Videos are disappearing from youtube as it is reacting to pressure from regulators to take down terrorist content and they are getting it wrong and thats the result so that is one specific example of how what happens when governments impose requirements that you are liable and Developer Center in order to avoid the penalty and that is welldocumented and tested so thisrg is why i argue that if companies are not doing enough tuy upstream, before facebook rolled out its lifestream feature did they do any assessment on how it was going to help them commercially . Im pretty sure they didnt. So, requiring more kind of Impact Assessment and consultation and kind of governance further upstream before features are implemented about how youlthat how you wile downsides there just hasnt been enough that into it. [inaudible] you spend a lot of time talking about how to regulate the companies and so on most of the social liberals are putting their efforts there. Meanwhile social liberals on the platforms when they can and they will go elsewhere to the unregulated internet that i grew up on. Extending this, how does the benefit of speech this way it will end up with social liberals and the open internet, social liberals talking in the regulated forms . When you introduced a situation where youre coming from im not sure that i caught all of the question. Theres two things when i think about aht place like egypt right now and actually i think it started out much more on the Government Transparency that sort of relationship to what our company is sharing and even the Global Network initiative got its start in many ways how to deal with government oppression and what should be the response to all of that so thinking about inme of the issues you are mentioning, it seems to me for stuff they do need to have kind of a playbook on how to deal with the situations you are describing, and that means it is upstream deciding in advance so that we are not really the guinea pig of the process, deciding in advance that the situation should look like and providing tools for individuals but providing the mechanisms for other people to enjoy their rights. You may be reprinte referrine kind of f situation where facebk and twitter gets cleaned up but thenen there are nasty people basically doing things without any consequence. This also relates to offline for instant Law Enforcement and these groups and how their online activities are connecting and with the governments are supporting or not supporting and that kind of thing. The other thing some of the companies and thereve been discussions with some ofse the platforms researchers point out that often times what happens is violent extremists will start off and kind a of organized the means and strategy for how they are then going to jump into facebook and go up against the terms of service so they kind of plan and refine the campaigns and then move them over with the Clear Strategy so they dont get taken down. This is why its so important that others tracking extremists of different kinds to be able to alert the platforms to this is what they are planning, dont let it happen. There needs to be more conversation and collaboration. Last question. And if you have any final closing remarks. D im the founder of a Myanmar Organization that was one of the main groups in myanmar that had been battling with facebook about the hate speech and i want to make a comment on i think what we were talking earlier about the i importance of who is in the room and who is participating and i want to make a point about the limitations of that. For various reasons a numbe memf other groups in myanmar at unprecedented levels of access. I personally went to facebook headquarters in 2015 and told them that facebook was going to be regulated in rwanda. We went back with a long list of detailed products and policy recommendations of things they needed to do and that was in 2017 before it later transpired. So i think everybody else knows the rest of the story and i think for us the counterpoint versus germany where for years we could barely find a burmese speaking person, contractor or otherwise. Whereass in germany they have regulation and over a thousand content moderators and hate speech and violence is coming down with a face massive fines. They maybe have Global Platforms but we definitely have multiple peers or global citizens. Rules are a plane t plain folksn germany like the kind of environment a Facebook User in germangermany enjoys is complety different from a user in myanmar. We need to regulate the limits even when you keep Civil Society engagement and quite technical product recommendations like the limitations of that and frankly it is a sobering. It was a great last question and i will add to it you do write about the digital colonialism and i underline it several times the standard set in one place needed with strong engagement being applied to those who dont have the ability to do anything about it. Its a really important question and it makes me think the last hour or so that we have been too easy on the company. You are absolutely right and one of the things i try to write a little bit about in the book is exactly what you are discussing, the difference between these powerful markets because at the end of the day they are seen as markets comes with a powerful market in europe said Something Like the right to be forgotten. You have existing rule of law structure, litigation mechanis mechanisms, the top court in the European Union making a decision and it forced them to make decisions and to adjudicate which is a weird thing that relevance when somebody wants a linkds taken down. That isnt available anywhere. You go to a place like i was recently in ethiopia as an example again its a cautionary tale people have no idea how to even reach out to the company and putting that aside, your point is right if they get access, what is the guarantee that facebook or youtube would do the right thing. That is a big question and its why we should be moving from a do needere we transparency that we also need to talk about the remedy because witwhere the platform facilitats harm it can feed this preparation for that kind of damage and maybe if we support Something Like that and think that part of the discussion we start to at least resolve and force the companies to see that it doesnt really matter if it is coming from germany or myanmar, they need to treat it all the same. I want to say many things, but we are out of time so im going to end on an optimistic note that we have actually come a long way. Ten years ago the policy discourse is get everybody in the internet and they will be set free. They artheyre more sophisticatt on the policy side and kind of everywhere else. While we are very far from solution people are identifying the problems, working on the problems. Ive interacted enough with people to know there are people in the companies who realize that theuo status quo is completely unattainable and some of the question questions like o empowerir and told them kind of move the dial and also we are at ahere atan interesting moment ie United States where the race now kind of u. S. Leadership on what the Global Policy looks like we are now seeing a hold of leadership on that but maybe there is a potential for some leadership in the future and what should look like, so theres some important questions we can work on a. We ha have a long way to go. Its a multigenerational issue but plenty of people are trying. I will close with my own reflection on the companies and what im left with and reading speech believes most recently is thinking about the companies, the commercial entities they think about these as marketsre d yet these are the public spaces. It comes up over and over again what drives their responses when advertisers dont want to be associated with either genocide or ethnic cleansing or terrorist videos were others and i was thinking when i was a law professor and people for the classes i would say as a lawyer you represent your client if you are also serving on the court. You are part of a system of the rule of law and have an obligation to uphold the system, a servant of the court and of course representing somebody and somehow in this process of talking about new legislative processes, people have to be both commercial and public because governments cant do it alone, certainly the companies cant. But we cant just let these be commercial entities that respond to commercial incentives. I think you both a and please join me in a round of applause. [applause] you are watching the tv on cspan to hear in new york city at the annual publishers convention talking with authors who have books coming out and now we want to introduce you to anna i who has a book coming out in january of 2020 called uncanny valley. A memoir. Guest am currently writing fulltime and i make integrating writer for the new yorker website covering silicon valley