My name is John Kincheloe.
I teach English here
at the college.
And I had this idea to come and
talk a little bit about my ideas
around the novel 1984, which is
our [inaudible] for this year.
And it's exciting for
me to talk about it.
It's one of my favorite books.
And it's something I'm really
interested in right now,
especially in the context of
some ideas around new media
and how we participate online.
And how it sort of
parallels some of the ideas
that Orwell was playing
with in his novel.
So the title of this
presentation,
as you probably saw is Hashtag
Noiseful Unpatient Spiders
and you'll figure out what
I mean by that in a second.
So like any good beginning
of a lecture on literature,
I'm going to read a
poem by Walt Whitman.
This is called a
Noiseless Patient Spider.
A noiseless patient
spider, I marked were
on a little promontory,
it stood isolated.
Marked how to explore the
vacant vast surrounding.
It launched forth
filament, filament,
filament, out of itself.
Ever unreeling them, ever
tirelessly speeding them.
And you oh my soul where you
stand surrounded, detached,
in measureless oceans of space,
ceaselessly musing, venturing,
throwing, seeking the
spheres to connect them,
till the bridge you
will need be formed,
till the ductile anchor hold,
till the gossamer thread
you fling catch somewhere.
Oh my soul.
So one of the things that I
thought about when I was trying
to prepare this lecture is
that really where I wanted
to start it is kind of what
do we do as people to sort
of connect with the
world around us.
And that's really, you know,
so I thought about this poem
by Whitman as an
example or a metaphor
for the connections
that we make in life.
And that he saw that
like the spider as sort
of a noiseless patient
process that lasted a lifetime,
where you sought to, to seek
out connections in your reality
and make your life worthwhile,
and sort of defying your
reality at some level.
And so he saw this sort of
launching forth process as a way
of seeking to connect with
the world around us in a way
of defining and seeking
the spheres around us
to connect each other to
the reality that we were in,
and to define and give
value to our souls.
And so I thought this
was a beautiful metaphor
for what I was-- what
I'm about to talk
about which is really the
ways that we use media
to connect with the world.
So like the poem says, we are,
I think, noiseless and patient
at some level, sort
of seeking to connect.
And we're trying to
make those connections
with the world around us.
Right. But those connections are
how we define soul, our souls
and at some level our reality
or at least our social reality.
And so my question really
for this is what
do our connections
that look like today?
What do they look like
when we are seeking
to connect our souls?
And for me, I think it's
really comes down to ideas.
It comes down to the
thoughts that we have
and the way we put
them into the world,
and the way people respond to
them, and how we share them
and proliferate them
throughout our, our reality.
And Orwell was concerned
with this as well.
I mean you can see very
early on in the novel him,
him questioning this
in the form of Winston,
thinking about when I write,
when I question my reality,
when I put down my thoughts in
my diary, where is this going?
What am I trying to do
with this information?
Who will this be for?
And it's really a
predicament, right.
That unfortunately he's not sure
where, where it, when he casts
out his ideas where
they will connect
with the world around him.
And even further, Orwell makes
his own connection to nature
when Winston and Julia are,
are witnessing a bird
singing in, in the forest.
And reaching out and asking of
the bird why, what made it sit
at the edge of the lonely wood
and poor its music
into nothingness.
All right.
What is, what is he seeking,
what is that bird seeking
to connect with in its life?
And ultimately how do
we make that connection
that defines our social reality?
And so really it came down to
a couple of questions for me
in terms of these ideas.
Is that for us, in
the 21st Century,
where do these ideas happen?
Right. What connects our
measureless oceans of space?
And for me, it comes down to
one idea and that's media.
And media, as I'm defining
it is really the means
by which we can construct,
deliver and share information
and ideas that shape our
collective social reality.
And that can be a lot of things.
It can be the speech
I'm doing right now.
It can be people
talking back to me.
It can be the signs
we create to,
to show each other
what we mean to the--
what we believe we have
value in the world.
How we dress, how we
act, things like that.
But really there's
two different types
of media I'd like to focus on.
There's old media which is
sort of the centralized forms
that we're sort of
used to in life.
Things like print media,
newspapers, television, radio,
film, art and literature
where you have sort
of this centralized body
constructing messages
and sending them out
to the world, right.
And that the, the world
that consumes those messages
doesn't necessarily have a say
or ability to connect.
Now new media changes
that a little bit.
And new media is basically
everything from old media,
but it involves this thing
we call the internet.
And the internet gives us
this opportunity that's new
in the sense that it's so
much more participatory.
It's so much more
decentralized and constructed
in a more complicated way
that involves the connections
between old and new media and
the conversations happening
on those new media platforms.
Right. So we can see the
ways that we interact
on social media, how we
use streaming technology,
how we use places like YouTube
to connect with the world.
And so what I really wanted to
ask is that in Orwell's novel,
he talks about control.
He talks about the
dangers of control
of media forms and
of information.
And so what is the control
of media entail is my
big question for this?
And what, why is too much
control of media dangerous?
Because we do see
control of media.
I mean we have owners
of companies
that run new media technologies
like Facebook and Twitter.
And we have large editorial
boards putting out their,
their information on
their various platforms.
But what does this control
entail and why is it dangerous
to have too much control?
And that's really the
questions I think that,
that Orwell was asking in his
novel, and how we can sort
of interpret our own
reality in the context of,
of some of the things
that he talks about.
So I'm going to talk about three
ideas that are sort of phenomena
in our own reality that I think
connect really well with some
of the ideas that Orwell
is explaining in his,
or he's playing with
in his novel.
The first one is
computation propaganda,
then there's data analytics,
and ultimately the greater
polarization of media.
So I'll start with
computational propaganda.
And this has become
kind of a, a larger term
over the past maybe year or
so in our history in terms
of how we've reacted to the
2016, to the Brexit Campaign,
and how people's opinions were
shaped during that process.
So the computational
propaganda comes
down to a couple of things.
And that's really
the, the definitions
of the words bots and trolls.
And so I'll allow a
video to explain those
in a second right now.
&gt;&gt; They hide behind Twitter
hashtags and Facebook ads,
and fake news stories.
They're the work
of bots and troll,
in one of the most skilled
countries that's deploying them
is Russia.
&gt;&gt; [Inaudible] people.
&gt;&gt; Let's define what's what.
A bot is short for robot,
it's an automated social
media account that operates
without human intervention.
&gt;&gt; It's like a plane flying
below the clouds, you can try
and make an individual tweet
[inaudible] really popular
by getting 100,000
bots to reroute it.
&gt;&gt; During the 2016 Presidential
Election suspected Russian
operators created bots on
Twitter to promote hashtags
like War Against Democrats.
A troll is an actual human
being, motivated by passion
or a paycheck, to write social
media posts that push an agenda.
In 2015, [inaudible] worked
undercover for over two months
at a troll factory in Russia
that has gone by many names,
including Gloves and the
Internet Research Agency.
&gt;&gt; [ Foreign Language ]
&gt;&gt; Troll accounts are
usually anonymous or pretend
to be someone else, like
hipsters or car repairmen.
But it can even get stranger.
&gt;&gt; [ Foreign Language ]
&gt;&gt; Trolls can also set up
bots to amplify a message.
&gt;&gt; What you're not
going to find is
that one individual troll is
surrounded by lots of bots
which will then retweet them.
&gt;&gt; Facebook is one common
platform for Russian trolls
and bots, which in
2016 used fake accounts
to influence US elections.
Here's how some experts
think Russian [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Oops.
&gt;&gt; They then allegedly
created a site called DC--
&gt;&gt; Sorry. I wasn't
on the right thing.
So okay, so you know a little
bit about what a bot is
and what a troll is and
how they work specifically
in the 2016 election.
So by definition of computation,
computational propaganda is
pretty simple and by the way,
I'm not going to go
over all these things
that I have on the presentation.
I encourage you to use
that link that I set
up at the beginning to, you
know, peruse this website,
to peruse this presentation and
click on some of these links
to find out more
about how automated
and computational propaganda
are working in our society
to affect our nation, to
affect what I'm talking about,
which is the manipulation
of the flow of information
on new media platforms to
affect political opinion,
drown out issues with what I'm
calling informational noise,
and create social disorder.
And really how this connects
back to the novel is right,
the use of bots and trolls to,
to use, to obfuscate the reality
and importance of issues
through this informational noise
and political opinion,
really connects
to Winston's job in the novel.
Which is that he is-- works
for the ministry of truth
and is meant to define
reality and redefine reality
and constantly obfuscate
that reality
for the greater citizenry
of Oceania.
And he even says, on page
46, what was needed was a,
a piece of pure fantasy.
And that's really
what these bots
and trolls are doing is
proliferating informational
noise and even pure fantasies
to try and keep people
from understanding or focusing
on the critical truths that are,
that are necessary for
productive discussion and the,
and the process and
progress of society.
So this is really how
computational propaganda is
problematic in this sense.
The next one, which
connects specifically
to computational propaganda at
some level is data analytics.
And data analytics has
become a big thing in,
in our sort of collective
consciousness right now
because of Facebook and one
particular company known
as Cambridge Analytica.
And this is a really interesting
aspect of this, because I feel
like it connects really well to
the novel as well in the context
of how, of the surveillance
of, of [inaudible]
and how the construction of the
society is based on the lack
of privacy that people have.
So I'll show a quick video about
how Facebook collects data.
&gt;&gt; Most people know
that Facebook has
information about them.
We submit things like our
names, our home towns, our ages,
our birthdays and our
interests, and we assume
that Facebook is
collecting that data.
But Facebook has much more data
on most people than
they realize.
Facebook can take all the data
that you submit and combine it
with data from other users
and outside information
to construct a profile of you.
Facebook uses nearly 100
different data points
to classify your
interests and activities.
This would include basic stuff,
like your age and gender,
but also more complicated
information,
like whether you
own a motorcycle
or you recently went
on vacation.
Or whether you're a gadget geek.
Researchers have found
that by using signals,
such as your likes
and interactions,
Facebook could tell if
you were in a relationship
or going through a breakup.
Facebook--
&gt;&gt; So they go through a couple,
a bunch of different ways
of how data, of how
Facebook collects data.
And what I should say
is how is, is that--
this particular process of
collecting data was affected
by Cambridge Analytica which is
a third party company that came
into Facebook using
a process that they,
that Facebook deemed
okay for them to do,
which is basically
create a third party app,
have people connect to that
app, and then they were able
to switch, what's called
scrapping data, from,
from Facebook in order to
collect that data and shape
and activate political
opinion using it.
So they would construct
messaging,
they would share that, that
messaging in order to create a,
a particular image of a
candidate or a political opinion
that they wanted people
to have via social media.
And so there has been a
lot of scrutiny over this
in our reality but you
can see it as an example
of how we construct, right,
how the, the relinquishment
of those sort of private,
privacy is an element
of how we can consider the
parallels between our reality
and that of Orwell's novel.
And see that you know
these affect the,
the effect that this
has on us, right.
The way that we can remove the
private life of a citizen is--
can affect our ability to, to
feel like we have a private life
to do that work of
making connections
and to develop those opinions.
If we're not sure where those
opinions are coming from
or how they're being developed
in, you know, as an individual,
we can't, we can't trust
that the space that we're
in is able to, is able
to value that opinion
in some objective way.
And then ultimately that leads
to a power relationship that is
so unequal that companies
like Cambridge Analytica
become this kind of, you know,
larger ink sock relationship
that we have, that they have
with removing the private life
and maintaining this 24 hour
under the eyes and
in the, in the minds
of official propaganda.
So that's data analytics.
I've been going a little
quick because I want to get
to my favorite one which
is polarization of media.
So I'll talk a little
bit about that now.
So polarization of media really
comes down to a couple things.
And I think it's really
interesting to think
about these two concepts
in the, in,
in relationship with
Orwell's novel.
Specifically as it
pertains to what,
what are called echo chambers,
or what I am calling
echo chambers of opinion.
And then the concept
of fake news,
which is probably the
most interesting one.
So what I first want to do is
lay some ground work in terms
of what polarization
of media looks like.
What are polarization of
political opinion looks like.
And I'll just show a
quick video about that.
&gt;&gt; As this past week's battle
over healthcare reminds us,
the great divide and American
politics shows no sign
of closing or even
quieting down.
Our cover story is reported
by Sunday Morning Senior
Contributor, Ted Coppell.
&gt;&gt; Increasingly we Americans
occupy alternate universes.
&gt;&gt; To be honest, I
inherited a mess.
It's a mess.
&gt;&gt; No you inherited a
fortune, we elected a mess.
&gt;&gt; There is very little
common ground left.
Only battling perceptions
of reality.
&gt;&gt; You all, are you all
happy with the last 30 days?
&gt;&gt; Yes.
&gt;&gt; Neither sign seems to
have much use for the other,
and in this age of the internet
and cable TV very
little is out of bounds.
&gt;&gt; Donald Trump, America's
wealthiest hemorrhoid.
&gt;&gt; Democrats want to
dissolve the borders.
Is that what they
want, open borders?
Isn't what the snake Obama did?
&gt;&gt; There are legions
driving the country further
and further apart.
&gt;&gt; President Trump has still
done more for this county
in the last 40 days than Barack
Obama did in eight years.
&gt;&gt; A [inaudible] study finds 81%
of voters say they cannot agree
with the other side on basic
facts, which may owe something
to the President's
campaign against fake news.
&gt;&gt; Of all of the media outlets,
which one was the worst?
&gt;&gt; CNN.
&gt;&gt; Which one?
&gt;&gt; CNN.
&gt;&gt; CNN the most trusted
name in news.
&gt;&gt; Yeah just because the
attack of fake news and,
and attacking our network I,
I just want to ask you sir--
&gt;&gt; I'm changing it
from fake news though.
&gt;&gt; Doesn't that undermine--
&gt;&gt; Very fake news, go ahead.
&gt;&gt; I know, but aren't you--
&gt;&gt; There's no--
&gt;&gt; Okay. So that's a
really interesting report
that Ted Coppell did about
the polarization of media
and I find it's like a great way
to sort of set the ground work
for what I'm talking about.
You can see really represented
in there how he does this kind
of back to, back and forth clips
of the various opinions bases
to see how these echo chambers
are work, are working, right.
People are responding
so positively
to these extremely
opinionated views rather
than seeing some sort
of middle ground.
And that's kind of one
of the most interesting,
one of the more interesting
things about the polarization
of media is the construction
of echo champers.
And how it suppressed
critical thought in a way
that affects the way we can have
process, productive discussions
and ultimately define
our reality
and progress as a society.
And so in Orwell's novel,
I mean there's a couple
of different examples of this
that I hope you might
be thinking of.
And the first one is the two
minute take at the beginning
of the novel we're presented
with this world, with this room
where Winston enters this kind
of like figurative echo chamber,
that's literally a room, but
it's sort of this echoing
of the, the opinions
and emotions
around a particular viewpoint.
And that that sort of rises and,
and flourishes in and of itself
and sort of feeds
back in that same way.
In the same way that we do
on social media where we
like things or we, we
watch the same things,
share the same clips of
opinionated viewpoints
and things like that, and how
we sort of bifurcate the sense
of opinion about one particular
topic and sort of, you know,
move through what
I call like sort
of parallel realities almost.
Where we can, we can have
completely separate viewpoints
on the same subject and never,
never cross paths
in that process.
And then ultimately there is a
literal echo chamber once Julia
and Winston sort of realize
that they've been caught
by the thought police.
There is this moment
where the room
around them echoes their voice.
And to me that's sort of
this metaphor for how the,
the construction of an echo
chamber makes it so hard
to realize the outside
forces that affect it.
And so when I talked about
computational propaganda
and data analytics,
the construction of a,
of an echo chamber makes it
so hard to see that reality,
to see the effect that
it's having on us.
And so when we define things
like this, it's hard to come
to grips with them,
because we've constructed
such intense echo chambers
and sort of silos of opinion.
And so my favorite piece
of this that really kind
of gave me the inspiration
to talk
about this is the
concept of fake news.
And so one thing, the
concept of fake news, right,
as it's defined, is really
this, this construction
of false information
for the purposes
of driving political opinion.
Right. So it's either
the information that's
so politically spun that
it's basically false
and that people are sort of
asked to believe it as sort
of objective reality and then
move forward with that opinion.
And in an effort to kind of
bring this into the forefront
and the consciousness of our
society, and this happened kind
of you know it was a
phenomena that came
out of the 2016 election,
the Brexit Campaign,
other situations when people,
when actors were using things
like computational propaganda
to push false opinions
so that they could spin
belief and push opinion
in one director or the other.
And what ended up happening is
that people like our President
and other individuals in
the media, started to try
to redefine that, or try to
find examples of it in society.
And when they did that they
weren't finding examples,
they were finding
examples that sort
of fit for them at the time.
Right. Perhaps something
they didn't agree with,
perhaps something that
was biased against them.
Things like that,
but that weren't un,
weren't necessarily untrue.
And in that situation,
you have an example
of both the concept
of fake news.
Because saying that
something that is fake news,
saying something is
fake news that isn't it,
is an example of fake news.
Right. Then and you're also
redefining that same concept
in that effort and
therefore participating
in a basic level form of what
Orwell called double think
or black light.
This concept of both believing
and not believing the,
the existence of an,
of an idea, right.
And this, this is so fascinating
to me because reading it
out you see that like, they--
we use fake news or certain
individuals in our, in,
in our society use fake news
as both something that works
for them, and against them.
And in that world we're working
in this element of doublethink
in a way that obfuscates the
reality of fake news in a way
that does not let us work
for it, or work, I'm sorry.
Does not let it work
for us anymore, right.
We can't identify it
in reality as easily.
So I'll give you a
great example of this.
There's a company called
Sinclair Broadcast Group
that is a large corporate
media entity that owns a lot
of local news affiliates
around the country.
They own about 60 to 70 news
affiliates around the country.
They'd like to own more and they
probably will, in which case,
you know, they might
own up to 70%
of the local news
affiliates in our country.
And one of the thing
that they do
in owning these local news
affiliates is send them
information that they'd
like them to present
on their local newscast.
And a lot of this information
is sort of like sort
of not really that important.
Other information is
very politically biased.
And because we're
so used to sort
of local news affiliates
not having a high level
of editorial content, meaning
not having a high level
of opinionated content,
this is somewhat jarring
for the audience.
And the most, the most like
troubling case of this is
when they sent a script that
they wanted all their anchors
to read on their local newscast.
And this script is basically
an example of what I'm talking
about because they were sort
of arguing for the existence
of fake news in content and
news organizations and newscasts
that they didn't agree with.
So I'll play you a quick video
of that and then I'll mention,
I'll talk a little bit about it.
&gt;&gt; Hi I'm Fox and
Antonio's Jessica Headley.
&gt;&gt; And I'm Ryan Wolf.
Our greatest responsibility
is to serve-- .
&gt;&gt; Our greatest responsibility
is
to serve our Treasure
Valley communities,
the [inaudible] communities.
Eastern Iowa communities.
&gt;&gt; Mid-Michigan communities.
&gt;&gt; We are extremely proud of
the quality, balanced journalism
that CBS 4 News produces.
&gt;&gt; But we are concerned
about several programs.
&gt;&gt; About several
programs [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Plaguing out country.
&gt;&gt; Plaguing our country.
&gt;&gt; The sharing of biased
and false news has become all
too common on social media.
More alarming, some media
outlets publish the same fake
stories without checking
facts first.
&gt;&gt; This sharing of biased
and false news has become--
&gt;&gt; Has become--
&gt;&gt; Become all too
common on social media.
&gt;&gt; On social media.
&gt;&gt; More alarming it's--
[ Cross talking ]
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; This is extremely
dangerous to our democracy.
&gt;&gt; So I know that was
probably kind of annoying
at the end there, but I,
I did want to say
something about that, right.
So if you listened to kind
of what they were arguing
in the pieces that they,
you know, in that, they,
they're arguing that there are
a lot of different people say,
you know, using this
fake news construct,
presenting bias information, and
that they're worried about it.
Right. This is Sinclair
Broadcast Group talking
in the voices of all their
local news affiliates.
Now when they do that, right,
they have also been accused
of doing that work, right.
Presenting biased material
that isn't based on facts
and is perhaps some,
something like fake news,
not really fake news
but something like it.
And when you're both
accused of it, right,
when you're both demonstrating
it while also trying
to redefine it, you're,
you're participating
in double think, right.
Where you both agree with
the concept but also would
like to dis, like redefine
it or not believe it, right.
So there's one more example
of this that I really want,
I want to share and they're,
it's, they're called deep fakes.
And so this is a kind of
news idea that's sort of come
out in the last year or so.
Deep fakes are basically
a video technology
where you can take any person
and as long as you have a video
of them speaking, you can make
them say whatever you want.
And so how usually this
is done is you sort
of transpose your voice over
the top of somebody else's mouth
in a way that is
kind of indiscernible
to the, to the naked eye.
Another way you could do it is
you can use audio technology
to construct their actual
voice saying those words,
even though they
never said them.
And this is an example,
I think, of an even more,
even like higher degree of this
element of, of the polarization
or the construction
of a false reality.
Because now not only can we,
we can't trust what people
are saying, but we can't trust
that they're actually
saying them.
And that's what really comes,
what really makes
it most troubling.
So I want to show
you this video.
I do want to apologize, there's
some very strong language in it.
It's meant to be provocative.
And provide sort of a PSA for
the concept of deep fakes.
So I'll just play it now.
&gt;&gt; We're entering an era which
our enemies can make it look
like anyone is saying
anything at any point in time.
Even if they would
never say those things.
So for instance they could
have me say things like,
I don't know, kill
monger was right,
or Ben Carson is
in a sunken place.
Or simply President Trump is
a total and complete dipshit.
Now you see I would never say
these things, at least not
in the public address.
But someone else would,
someone like Jordon Peel.
This is a dangerous time.
Moving forward we need
to be more vigilant
with what we trust
from the internet.
It's a time when we need to
rely on trusted news sources.
It may sound basic, but how
we move forward in the age
of information, is going
to be the difference
between whether we survive,
or whether we become some kid
of fucked up dystopia.
Thank you.
And stay wolf bitches.
&gt;&gt; All right.
So that's President
Obama saying some things
that he's never said before.
Obviously you can see that
that gentleman on the right,
Jordan Peel, whose a, a famed
comedian and, and director,
created that video to sort of
explain and express the sort of,
the troubling aspects of
deep fakes as a technology.
And this technology is becoming
and more prolific
in our society.
And so one of the things, you
know, my own PSA is to watch
out for it in your own watching
of videos and how we share
and how we construct the reality
that we're trying to
move forward with.
And so we can, we can
see this is an example
of not only the argument
being fake
but the person saying it
being fake which is this,
the definition of this sort of
this obfuscation of reality in,
in a very troubling sort
of big brother type manner.
So I've gone through these three
concepts and now I kind of want
to wrap them up into one idea.
Which is to say that
you know, when we look
at this bird singing
it's song out into the,
into the nothingness, you know
what troubles me the most is
whether or not, you know,
we will end up like Julia,
asking or coming to the decision
that this bird was not
singing to anyone, right.
This bird was simply singing.
And in that world,
we're no longer able
to define what our reality is.
So we're no longer
able to decide whether
or not we've made a
connection or not.
And we can think that we have
made a connection but that
that connection has been
obfuscated and shifted
and shaped so many times that we
no longer know whether it's real
or whether it's something
that was given to us
by some larger powerful entity,
or just some person that wanted
to make fun of us right.
So it's really this process
of thinking about that,
that Winston and Julia
both go through, and it,
and it ends in tragedy for them.
But I did want to show
one more video to sort
of help express this concept and
to think about the questions,
what if our connections
and ideas mean nothing?
And what if the control of
media makes real connections too
difficult or impossible?
And really this last
video is so,
I really wanted to get to it.
And I was recently
thinking about this lecture
and watching sort of the latest
season of the show X Files,
the X Files which they
rebooted recently.
And it's been kind of hit
or miss over the course
of me watching it again,
because I loved the original,
the original run of the series.
But they had this episode
that really made me pause.
And it was called The
Lost Art of Forehead Sweat
where they dealt with this
idea, kind of in a funny sort
of tongue and cheek way
about how we define reality
and how fake, things like
fake news and the obfuscation
of reality through the
things I've been talking
about affect our ability
to define the reality
that we live in.
And so you're going to see
two characters on screen.
You're going to see Fox Molder
whose the star of the show,
played by Dave, David Duchovny.
And you're going to see a
character known as Dr. They
who happens to be in
the episode this sort
of shadowy overarching
figure that is sort
of pulling the strings of
reality in, at some level.
And they have this interchange
that I believe you could read
as if Winston was ever
to meet big brother,
this is what their conference,
their exchange might look like.
&gt;&gt; Dr. They I presume?
&gt;&gt; It's today I don't
even know what this means?
Why should they?
I mean when's the last time
someone admitted doing something
they were ashamed of?
I mean they're caught
on tape for doing this.
Did you say, that was
taken out of context.
&gt;&gt; Yes but why are
you shaming me?
&gt;&gt; Someone has spent his life
seeking the truth behind every
great conspiracy and you're
only now finding out about me?
&gt;&gt; Perhaps it just goes
to show how good you are
at hiding in the shadows.
&gt;&gt; Who's hiding?
I'm in the phone book.
But nobody knows what's
a phone book anymore.
&gt;&gt; I have to admit, what
little I know of you I got
from a rather dubious
online video.
&gt;&gt; Oh did you like that?
I made it.
It's my new platform,
phony fake news.
It's a presentation of
real facts but in a way
that assures no one
will believe any of it.
&gt;&gt; To what end?
&gt;&gt; The bitter end.
Which is why when I became aware
that you were finally aware
of me, I felt a professional
courtesy to meet with you
and to tell you this in person.
You're dead.
I can't [inaudible].
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to scare you.
I meant your time, Agent Molder,
your, your time is passed.
&gt;&gt; Okay so what is
or what was my time?
&gt;&gt; Well it's a time when
people of power thought
that they could keep their
secrets secret, and were willing
to do anything to
keep it that way.
Those days are passed, gone.
We're now living
in a post-cover-up,
post-conspiracy age.
And no doubt kids will come up
with catchphrase for it, po-co,
something, they'll say
that oh that's so po-co.
That will make you wish
you really were dead.
&gt;&gt; As long as the
truth gets out.
&gt;&gt; I don't really care
whether the truth gets
out because the public no longer
knows what's meant by the truth.
&gt;&gt; What do you mean?
&gt;&gt; Well I mean no one can
tell the difference anymore
between what's real
and what's fake.
&gt;&gt; There's still an objective
truth, an objective reality.
&gt;&gt; So what?
I mean you take this
Mandela thing.
Well in the old days, I would
never have come out and admitted
to you that yes I can change
people's collective memories,
and that would have mean
that I can control the past.
And if that's true, well
as Orson Wells once said,
he who controls the past
controls the future.
&gt;&gt; That was George
Orwell that said that.
&gt;&gt; Yeah. For now maybe.
Anyway, the point is I can
tell you all of this right
out in the open, because
it doesn't matter who knows
about it, they won't know
whether to believe it or not.
&gt;&gt; To be honest, I'm not
believing any of this.
&gt;&gt; Well believe what
you want to believe,
that's what everybody
does nowadays anyway.
You're only proving my
point you [inaudible].
But full disclosure,
you're right,
I can't control people's
minds, although it turns
out you don't really have to,
all you need is some people
to think it's possible and
then you've sown the seeds
of uncertainty.
All you really need is a laptop.
&gt;&gt; So that's what this
has all been about,
the spread of online
disinformation?
&gt;&gt; Maybe. You know our current
President once said something
truly profound.
He said, nobody knows for sure.
&gt;&gt; What was he referring to?
&gt;&gt; What does it matter?
&gt;&gt; All right.
So there it is.
The true, you know,
ending to all
of this is what does
it really matter right?
And how can we define
our reality in a way
that makes meaning, in a way
that connects our sphere's,
like Whitman wanted us to.
And the way that we send
our filaments out to hoping
to make a connection
to prove our value
and prove our survival.
And so I didn't want to
leave with that point.
I didn't want to leave
with this, you know,
very depressing kind
of [inaudible] type
view of the world.
Instead I wanted you to
realize that you know,
the internet while it
can be a troubling space
that reflects Orwell's
ideas it can also be a space
for productivity and for
change, and for real action.
And so my title is actually in
reference to what I'd like you
to be, rather than what,
you know [inaudible]
and Orwell would think you are,
which is noiseless, patient
and being affected by
everything around you.
And so what I want you to be
is a noiseful, unpatient spider
in the words of new speak.
And how do you be that?
Well you realize that the
internet is a neutral tool.
Okay. The ways that it's
affected by actors and the ways
that it's, that it's constructed
and changed for us are
because it is a neutral space.
A space that's not affected
by, you know that, that,
that can be harnessed by anyone.
And it's just really these part,
these actors who, who know how
to use it that are
utilizing it in the ways
that I've been talking about.
So if you can be in
that powerful space,
you can be collaborative,
you can work together
to define your social reality
in the way that is objective,
and that will progress society
in ways that are productive.
And that you can participate in
really new and exciting ways,
and ways that help you
change how powerful you are
in the space.
And that ultimately this leads
to the sort of development
of collective intelligence.
And while collective
intelligence might be effective,
as long as we maintain a
critical eye on it, we can,
we can have it be powerful
and, and an important space,
and an important
set of intelligence.
And ultimately to take our
power, to harness the power
of this neutral space and use
it for the good of our society.
And so how do you do that?
Well you do things like
hashtag use social media
for social change.
Right. You use, you practice
digital literacy, right.
You look at the information
and, and, and think about it,
and figure out where
it comes from.
You critically engage
with one another
and don't create an echo
chamber, using places
like the outside your
bubble organization
that was, is run by buzz feed.
You use, you hashtag be noisy
by creating activists
moments online
where you define your
own truth and you send it
out into the world and get
people to, to organize around it
and go out into the world and,
and, and creative activism.
And you, then you
hashtag be inpatient.
And you go out and
you vote for people
who will help you define this
reality and construct this space
in the way that we want it.
And beat back some of the actors
that I've been talking about.
And beat back the, the
space that we've created
for ourselves, and, and
created in the way that we want.
And so I'll leave you today
with a quote from the,
the novel as Corry Doctoral
who was very prophetic
about sort of, he was
talking about the nature
of our construction
of the internet,
and how people have perceived it
in the context of novelization.
How people have constructed
it in novels.
You know obviously
Orwell being one of them.
And he, he told us that he
doesn't really feel that,
you know, ultimately we
are at a complete loss
when it comes to this stuff.
So let me see if I
can get into this.
But I think it's
going to be tough.
Because it wasn't
working before.
So I wonder.
Yeah no it's the,
it's this thing.
Okay let's see.
Hold on. 23 B.C.J.5 so
let's try that real quick.
I got a couple of
seconds to play this.
It's very important, I promise.
You'll love it.
Hold on.
Let's see if that works.
Here we go.
There.
&gt;&gt; I think the internet
is the nervous system
of the 21st Century.
It's like a single wire
that delivers free speech,
free press, freedom of assembly,
access to education, to tools,
ideas, communities, every other
accomplishment that we use
to measure whether or not
a society is a good one.
And so instead of being
optimists or pessimists,
like I'm hopeful and hope is a,
is a thing that I think
is familiar to anyone
who has ever plotted a novel,
is the idea that if you can
solve the problem that's
immediately before you,
that from that new vantage
point you will see solutions
to the problems that are passed
the problem that's immediately
before you.
That doing one thing to improve
your situation suggests another
thing to improve your situation.
That's really how a plot works.
You know like the
future is not on rails.
Right. Like we get a different
future depending on what we do.
The only way science fiction
could be predictive is
if the future didn't
change based on what we did.
&gt;&gt; In other words, science
fiction can only reverse
the future.
It's our job to make
it a good one.
&gt;&gt; Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
All right so I'll go to you
know the, the back channel
if people wrote anything.
It looks like, okay here we go.
So I can take these or I
can take like questions
in the old school manner.
Maybe I'll start here.
There was only a
few so people are,
when people are the
products in terms
of how social media
search engines, etcetera,
what defines the morality
of capitalism of that free,
freely given information for
those, for use of those systems?
That's a great question.
I think, you know, people are
the products in, at some level,
because of the, the effects
that it has on, you know,
especially when social media
and things like that, right.
Because we think about the
basic business model of places
like Facebook and Twitter which
is to sell ads based on data.
And the way that
they organize that.
Now I'm not saying that
that's going to go away.
But I think some of this
critical engagements right,
with, with this, with
that particular fact,
with data analytics
and computational propaganda
has sort of driven some
of the internet to
realize, right,
some of the powerful
forces on the internet.
I mean Zuckerberg, in his
testimony, said that, you know,
there will always be one
level of Facebook that's free.
And to me that says, okay
you know they're still living
by that basic business
model that they have
to sell ads to make money.
But at some level he's
being affected, right.
He's not going to, he might
make another level, right.
One of the answers that people
have given to the construction
of the internet is to create a
pay wall, is to create a space
that is exclusive at some level,
and that we can police
a little bit better.
And I know that sounds
weird in the sense
of how I just said there was
like a neutral tool
that anyone can use.
That's true, but you know we
have, there is some element of,
of, of kind of give and
take there that is troubling
and does affect some
of these systems.
But it should be, it should
be sort of help you feel good
that you can participate in
the same way that you know,
these things are being affected.
And that we can find spaces
that aren't affected by that
in different circumstances.
Did I answer that
question at some, whatever,
anybody that asked that?
Okay. Let me see
if I can go down.
Oh this is nice.
Is this a serious question?
No. Okay. So Engsoc,
I'm sorry, Engsoc,
I should have said English
Socialism it's, it's the,
it's the party from
Orwell's novel, 1984.
So it's not Inc Sock,
it's Engsoc, right England
and Socialism being
the second word.
So sorry if that was confusing.
&gt;&gt; [Inaudible] understand it.
&gt;&gt; There you go.
But it was a little
bit more [inaudible]
than what his ideas were.
Do you feel like new media
is the only reason we would
discover fake news?
Can fake news altogether be just
trolls and bot creating noise?
Altogether can fake
news altogether be.
I guess, so yeah, I, I feel
like new media is how fake
news became what it is,
what we think about it as.
Now we used to call fake news
things like yellow journalism
and the construction of
biased content on, you know,
presented as facts right.
Editorial content
presented as fact.
But you know now we have
this whole new realm
where we create false
information
and we proliferate it.
And it's sort of the fake news
phenomena is the new media
phenomena in the way that
it's defined by the people
who study it in the sense
that it's, it's created
and proliferated
for the purposes
of shaping opinion online.
Now I, it, it is, I mean at
some level fake news is just
creating noise.
And that kind of is the
problem, I think as part of, at,
at some level is that
noise makes it harder
to see the truth.
So I hope I answered
that question.
Yeah. At.
[Inaudible]
Right.
[Inaudible]
Yeah. Yeah I mean it's a
great, it's a great thought.
I mean this is a great
debate happening right now,
especially in the context
of things like [inaudible]
and Facebook is that we had,
we have this conversation
that like the medium
itself affects us, right.
Being on Facebook affects
how we think about the world.
And, and using social media
affects how we perceive our
reality and our social reality.
Now what I mean, I guess what
I meant by neutral tools is
that the concept of how it's
affecting our, our perceptions
and our opinions and
things like that,
and how it affects
our ability to kind
of create these emotional
opinionated spaces I guess,
is really, you know
it's not a new idea.
So like we, we had sort
of these negative opinions
about old media constructs that,
you know, like I talked about in
that yellow journalism
already, but then also examples.
Being the negative influence
of television, you know,
and things like that
that sort of we thought
that yeah the medium
was the effect.
But we're seeing that it's not
necessarily the medium that,
that is the main effect of,
of a particular, you know.
Especially when it
comes to new media,
is that it can be
a neutral space.
And then if we view it as
something affecting us,
maybe it will affect how
we participate in it.
But also it will kind of make it
harder for us to sort of see it
as a powerful space and I
want, I want people to see it
as a powerful space
for, for productivity.
Does that make sense?
I don't know.
Sort of.
[Inaudible]
Yeah. Yeah.
[Inaudible]
Well yeah I mean
that's a great question.
I don't know, I'm
not a futurist.
But I, I do, I do think
that the ideas we have
about the internet being a
collaborative neutral space lend
more to your definition,
the first definition,
the western definition
which is that we can create,
you know we can create the
truth we want in a sort
of collective intelligence
manner and that we,
we are sort of seeking to
find the social reality.
And using rhetoric and
leaning on elements of sort
of the nature of truth to
define our reality together.
And that that, that is
the sense of freedom in
and of itself that's,
that's new to the way
that we think about
our democracy.
Now the freedom as, as, you
know, antisocial slavery is,
is a really interesting idea,
because you know China is really
working against an eastern,
particular eastern country is
trying to work against some
of that idea, in that you
know, they define the lack
of social slavery as being
surveilled and you know we have.
They have this new device,
they have this new concept
they call the social credit
score now.
I think China, I'm not sure if
people have heard about this,
but basically what
it is if you sort
of either you transgress via
breaking laws, or you do things
like not enough community
service,
it affects what's called
your social credit score
and that goes down.
And then you're not allowed
certain privileges like flying
on planes or getting
a driver's license
or having basic freedoms
as a citizen.
And now they make the
argument that that is kind
of this element of
like, you know we,
we are creating a space
that is morally good.
You know we're creating a
society that is morally good.
Now you know, we can question,
we can question that but it's,
that's what they're saying
is that the freedom is this,
this escape from social
slavery where we don't have
to worry about, you know people
transgressing against us as much
in a space, in, in our society.
Does that make sense?
I don't know.
There's just, so there's, yeah
there's definitely elements.
Because they use new media
technology to do that.
They use things like they
check your Twitter feed for,
for transgressions against the
government, and you, they check,
you know, large surveillance
arms
of their, of their politics.
They use like computational
AI to, to like surveil people
and watch whether or not they're
like jaywalking and
things like that.
So it's, it's kind of
troubling, but it is an example
of I think what you're
talking about.
And I think, so what do I think?
I think that you know the
freedom is how we're going
to define it.
I mean if we, if we
allow people to sort
of define what is morally good
online for us, and then we sort
of live in that, like that's
going to be the second answer.
But if we, if we sort of
define the space for ourselves
and we use it for what we
want to do, then it's going
to be something different
I think.
Rachel.
[Inaudible]
Yeah.
&gt;&gt; And then on top
of that [inaudible].
And that the [inaudible]
to the people
that are using it [inaudible]
who are paying for them.
So do you [inaudible] reality,
and what's currently
being worked on?
How do you see that [inaudible]?
&gt;&gt; I mean you know the
[inaudible] conversation is an
important one in this context,
because it's, it does purport
to kind of change this
conversation at the basic level.
I mean it's going to affect
how the, the sort of "owners"
of the internet, in the
sense of the owners of the,
the physical spaces that the
internet lives in, will be able
to harness some power of it.
And that's troubling.
And I think that that's, you
know, I don't know, you know,
if we put, we haven't been
in a world like that yet,
so I don't know whether,
how it's going
to affect broad scale, how,
how we're able to participate
in the space in that,
in that way.
I mean how, you know it, it
could be as simple as like,
okay you just need to pay
a couple of extra bucks
to watch a Netflix video.
But it's, it could be some level
of, of shutting down you know,
sort of more open
source voices and places
where the internet really
thrives and where the,
the voices can really be heard.
You know, places where we
find the most, the most value.
But I, I mean, you know, so it
would be like that last point
of trying to fight against
something like that.
Fight against the sort
of structure of the space
as it exists, as it
stays neutral right.
And going back to Ed's point if
we, if we lose that neutrality,
we lose that basic level of,
of, of that neutrality right.
That's what I mean by
net neutrality obviously.
Sir.
&gt;&gt; Yeah I'd like to
say that [inaudible].
And appreciate the feedback.
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; With respect to [inaudible]
standing up there and saying
that the [inaudible] going back
to [inaudible] researching
these [inaudible] demonstrate
that one [inaudible]
and if I can [inaudible]
by the way of [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sure.
&gt;&gt; So we are in [inaudible]
situation
that potentially [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Right.
&gt;&gt; We think that [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Right.
&gt;&gt; The guy who [inaudible]
legitimately won the election
saying that.
So to the extent
that I understand
that neutrality means
these algorithms and built
around those like myself
who have this belief,
I won't be allowed to say that.
&gt;&gt; Sure.
&gt;&gt; In a public forum, that
my ability to, to make noise.
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; [Inaudible] in the very
same way you described this,
but what I've been
doing for decades.
&gt;&gt; Right.
&gt;&gt; Is going to be circumscribed.
&gt;&gt; Right. Right.
&gt;&gt; Or I'll be [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; But without being paranoid
how do you, or pessimistic,
how do you [inaudible], what is
your response to [inaudible]?
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; To achieve that goal?
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; It's a [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Yeah I mean I think
part of it is just being,
you know I think that it
is, yeah I mean I don't,
I don't really necessarily
like I said, have an answer
to that particular like idea.
I think that, you know it's an
example of what I was talking
about as the troubling
aspects of the internet.
And so you know, if we can't
maintain in a neutral space,
then we can't maintain that,
that freedom to sort of speak
against and pre,
present the information
in a way that's more
objective, in a way that sort
of moves this forward.
Now you know, I don't, I, I--
&gt;&gt; Or at least, or
at least [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sure.
&gt;&gt; And that [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sure.
&gt;&gt; And it's [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sure. Yeah.
&gt;&gt; As seeing [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Right.
&gt;&gt; And it goes [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sure.
&gt;&gt; And see how you [inaudible]
that this is [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; I mean, yeah.
There's like a, sorry.
&gt;&gt; And the direction
[inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sorry. Yeah.
I, yeah I do think, you know,
like I said in the presentation
I think that there's elements
of it that are sort of
pushing us that way,
right in how we fight against
it is how we think about kind
of our own power in the space,
and our own, our own privilege
in the space in that sense.
And, and how we sort of create
the space for ourselves.
And I know that you
know it is trending
in that troubling direction, and
that's, that's the unfortunate,
you know, part of all of this is
that we have to see that right.
But honestly seeing
that and being cognizant
of it is part of, right, because
that was one thing that was
so hard for Winston in the novel
was the, that he saw it and
yet wasn't able to
do anything about it.
Right. Wasn't able to
perform in the space that all,
that all of it was for not.
And so for us I think that it
is productive, that we can be,
you know, can be noisy in that
sense, and can be you know,
still maintain that kind of
level of, and it will, it will,
you know, play out over the next
few years as to how we're going
to actually make this
work for ourselves,
and make the space work
for ourselves before you know
more powerful forces might
affect it.
You know I go back, I always
go back to Chuck Closterman
who says that like we should be,
we should practice
self-directed action
and be participants
in the space, right.
And, and not wait to react to
things like this, and wait,
you know, instead go and
learn about the space and,
and participate in it, like
it sounds like you are.
So that's great, you
know, all great stuff.
Any other thoughts, questions?
I'm running up against time
here, but I don't want to,
I know I'm not running
up against time,
I got a bunch of
time to be honest.
But we can be done if you want.
Do I really think we can create
a collective intelligence?
Absolutely.
I mean we already are
in places like Wikipedia
and other forums that, that
where we, where we construct
and debate on reality.
And debate on truth.
And debate on like events of
what's happening in the world.
The way we construct it
via new media is very much.
I mean you look at something
like the Parkland shooting,
which was so tragic, and yet
we found out so much about it
because of this, this active
participatory media creation
that was going on since
we're taking snapchat videos.
And there was a lot
of information coming
from other places.
And it was sort of coalescing
on the internet in a way
that was allowed, it
allowed us to sort
of give us a wider picture
of what happened there
and how we could sort of go
forward with the knowledge
with that and, and think about
how it's affecting you know,
our, our reality in the future.
And, and you know, there's lots
of different examples of that,
and like how we use, how we
participate online to sort
of create and share our
perspectives with the world.
And, and use that,
and, and sort of add
that to the collective
intelligence sort of pile
that we've created and
debate about it and figure it
out together rather than
allow some outside force
to tell us kind of what's
going on and, and just take
that passively and be
reactionary in that sense.
Does that make sense?
Yeah. So, yeah.
How can we work to, yeah
I mean again this power
of participation is so important
in that how can we work
to improve their concept
of reality, their concept
and reality in this sort
of older generations
that don't believe in fake news?
I mean just participating and
encouraging them to participate.
Showing them videos like I
showed and sort of talking
about what that was, you
know, what that means
and having this sort
of productive debate,
productive discussion.
I mean this is so important.
Being critically engaged with
sort of the world around us is
so vital now more than ever.
And having kind of, you know, a
basic set of tool boxes in terms
of critical thinking
and things like that.
Being in this space right now
as a critical thinker
you're on your way.
Question?
&gt;&gt; [Inaudible] How do you
have like how does that change
like the [inaudible] and
in a [inaudible] way?
Because we have some
[inaudible] and that's something
that I've not quite wrapped
is how I can ever have these
conversations with the
majority of [inaudible]
that don't just [inaudible] my
own echo chamber because a lot
of times it's [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Yeah. I mean that's,
that's a great question
and a question we should all
be asking ourselves I think.
She asked about how we're,
you know, how do we engage
in critical discussion when
it's so easy to be locked in,
in an echo chamber or to not,
you know, not appreciate the,
the opinions of, of other
people and how, right.
And it comes back to a
lot of different models.
I mean the calling in
model is one in the sense
of how we engage with people
and we appreciate where,
their perspective and we
value it, and then we,
so the calling in model.
Yeah. So we call into the
space in the sense of you know
when we have conversations
and they can happen online
or in our real life, we call in
to the people who may disagree
with us and ask them to
share their thoughts.
And ask them to, to come to the
table and we value them, and we,
we sort of affirm their
beliefs and we understand,
and we try to restate.
And then we, we reframe using
their language in a sense
that sort of moves the
conversation forward
with both opinions.
You know what I mean?
Things like that
that sort of engage
in critical discussion and,
and sort of the basic models
of critical thought are really
important in how we engage
with sort of you know, agree,
agreement and disagreement.
We think about balancing
arguments.
We think about you know,
approaching discussion.
And it's hard.
I mean it's hard work and
its work that we all have
to do I think as a, as a society
in general to be productive
and to stay away from, you
know, the, the trends of,
of moving into echo chambers and
flame wars and things like that,
that are so easy to
happen on, online.
And--
[Inaudible]
What's BDS?
Sorry.
[Inaudible]
Oh okay sorry about that,
I should have known.
[Inaudible]
Yeah.
&gt;&gt; So I'm not trying
to be cute with you.
&gt;&gt; No not at all.
&gt;&gt; I [inaudible] and growing.
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; And you [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Right. For lack
of a better word.
Absolutely.
I mean it's, yeah there's a lot
of sort of troubling aspects.
He's talking about
the forms of protests
in the Middle East being sort of
criminalized for the in, in, as,
as they are about free speech
in terms of the transgressions
against a particular view point.
And like I said in, in China
that's sort of, and there's an,
there's examples
of that as well.
And so yes there are
[inaudible] of it that we just,
I mean it's important
to be aware of.
And it's important to
sort of combat against as,
as people as we are now
and to critically engage
with as much as possible.
And you know, hopefully we can,
we can start to shift it back.
I mean obviously you
know, I might be up here
when we do '84 again, and you
know I might have ten more
examples of what we're
talking about, but it's,
it's just important to
know things like that.
To know and to recognize
and to critically engage
with ideas like that.
To see it as, right, a
violation of free speech
and to see deep fakes as a,
you know, violation of our,
our definitions of truth
and things like that.
&gt;&gt; Oh yeah and [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; And I go [inaudible] of
what that I think [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sure.
&gt;&gt; And that's a [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Sure.
&gt;&gt; That's the [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; Okay [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; That's the way.
I mean it.
&gt;&gt; I think it's.
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; Yeah.
&gt;&gt; By the way [inaudible].
&gt;&gt; Yeah. Okay.
Any other thoughts, questions?
Oh all right.
I'll be done.
Sure why not.
Thank you guys.
Thank you so much for coming.
I appreciate all the questions.
I hope I answered them.
Feel free to talk to me after,
whatever you want to do.
Thank you so much.
