Speaker 1: Welcome to the Nonprofits the show where we discuss current
Speaker 1: events from an atheist, SECU humanist perspective.
Speaker 2: In our first story, we look at the.
Speaker 1: House wise and now what's of some policy changes Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg is implementing at Meta? Chris Mallard, what is zuck
Speaker 1: up to?
Speaker 3: Mark Zuckerberg has announced he's going to stop third part
Speaker 3: party fact checkers from checking facts at Meta and move
Speaker 3: to community notes because quote experts, like everyone else, have
Speaker 3: their own biases and perspectives end quote in an attempt
Speaker 3: to return to the commitment of free expression. That's great,
Speaker 3: because what the world really needed was more misinformation and
Speaker 3: less accountability. I mean, who needs fact checkers when you
Speaker 3: have Mark Zuckerberg and other facebooker's gut feelings about what's
Speaker 3: true and what's not. It's not like he's ever been
Speaker 3: wrong before Cameron Analytica in case you were there for that.
Speaker 3: But seriously, folks, who needs to verify information when we
Speaker 3: can just let the community decide what's true and what's not.
Speaker 3: It's not like that's ever led to the spread of
Speaker 3: conspiracy theories or the erosion of trust and institutions. And hey,
Speaker 3: if a few people get hurt or misled along the way. Well,
Speaker 3: that's just the price of progress. And what could possibly
Speaker 3: go wrong with letting a bunch of random people on
Speaker 3: the internet decide what's true and what's not. I mean,
Speaker 3: let's be real. Fact checkers were just so restrictive. I mean,
Speaker 3: who wants to be limited by things like facts and
Speaker 3: evidence when you can just make stuff up and see
Speaker 3: what sticks. It's like Mark Zuckerberg said, or is saying,
Speaker 3: you know what, We've been too careful for too long.
Speaker 3: It's time to let our hair down and just see
Speaker 3: what happens. And the best part, it's obviously just a
Speaker 3: coincidence that Mark Zuckerberg is making this announcement right after
Speaker 3: Trump's team gave him a heads up that they were
Speaker 3: going to do to be cracking down on social media
Speaker 3: companies for saying things the administration doesn't like. So to
Speaker 3: all the fact checkers out there, don't worry. You'll be
Speaker 3: just fine. I'm sure you'll find plenty of other work,
Speaker 3: maybe as a journalist or something. Journalists they still have
Speaker 3: those just kidding, I've heard those of disappearing too. Yeah,
Speaker 3: But in all seriousness, this is a dark day for
Speaker 3: truth and accountability. And to Mark Zuckerberg, I say, congratulations,
Speaker 3: you've managed to make a bad situation even worse. That
Speaker 3: takes skill, dedication. Maybe you can add it to your
Speaker 3: resume expert. It's spreading misinformation and undermining trust and institutions. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that's a real selling point. This story is from Slate
Speaker 3: magazine by Natishpawa on January eighth, twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Well, if you're going to do something, be the best
Speaker 1: at it. That's right, Isn't that the Isn't that the
Speaker 1: goal there? So, Chris, we are hearing cries of doom
Speaker 1: and gloom from the left, and we're hearing more of
Speaker 1: the nothing to see here from the right. How much
Speaker 1: do you think that these changes are going to change
Speaker 1: the face of social media?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, really, to be honest, how much did
Speaker 3: the the fact checkers really do before? I mean, they
Speaker 3: were there and they did to some degree, But I
Speaker 3: don't know. I don't think it's going to help. I
Speaker 3: don't think in the beginning it's going to change a lot.
Speaker 3: But it sounds like it could be front for because,
Speaker 3: like you mentioned, or is mentioned in the reading that
Speaker 3: Donald Trump. This is right after Donald Trump threatens to
Speaker 3: start cracking down on you know, and there seems to
Speaker 3: be a lot of misinformation that comes specifically from that
Speaker 3: area of the political sphere, and so by taking out
Speaker 3: the misinformation checkpoints in Meta, it actually kind of gives
Speaker 3: certain individuals a free ride, if you will, to spread
Speaker 3: whatever lies and nonsense they want.
Speaker 1: So it's almost like an open invitation for mayhem and
Speaker 1: prosolutely Yeah, yes, well let's.
Speaker 2: Jump over to ELI here. ELI.
Speaker 1: Restricting language on the surface seems to go against democratic
Speaker 1: philosophy of free speech. However, on the other hand, protecting
Speaker 1: the vulnerable is also a philosophy that's worthy of our efforts.
Speaker 2: So will this.
Speaker 1: Policy change upset the balance at all between those somewhat
Speaker 1: conflicting goals. Is it going to tip the scales towards
Speaker 1: one way or the other?
Speaker 4: I mean, I do have mixed realized I think it
Speaker 4: is definitely going to like we're going to see a
Speaker 4: lot more hate speech, a lot of that. Like even
Speaker 4: it says that I think it was Mark Zuckerberg that
Speaker 4: was quoted as saying for the article, some bad stuff
Speaker 4: is going to be missed by the sensors, like some
Speaker 4: stuff is going to get through. So some people are
Speaker 4: going to be more exposed and vulnerable to the hate
Speaker 4: speech and then degrading language and things that they shouldn't
Speaker 4: have to deal with. And I think that's definitely something
Speaker 4: that we need to help protect those vulable people who
Speaker 4: are vulnerable to that against. At the same time, I
Speaker 4: don't like censorship, Like it's really really easy to trigger
Speaker 4: the Facebook sensors right now and get like a thirty
Speaker 4: day you know, can't partici group sort of thing. And
Speaker 4: so what I think the other thing that I'm thinking
Speaker 4: as I'm sort of sitting here listening to it, is
Speaker 4: that the people who are getting fact checked or like
Speaker 4: getting something removed because like, hey, this is inaccurate, they
Speaker 4: don't think they're being fact checked. They think they're being
Speaker 4: censored because, you know, it mentioned in the article, you
Speaker 4: know conservatives, it's it was worried about some of the
Speaker 4: fact checkers, you know, removing content based on like political
Speaker 4: bias whatever, because conservatives are being fact checked more than
Speaker 4: you know, liberals or or you know, Republicans more than Democrats.
Speaker 4: But and that just goes to show it's like they
Speaker 4: don't see it as like, oh, what I'm saying is
Speaker 4: not correct, and here's the information they're giving me to
Speaker 4: show me why they're seeing it as like, oh, they're
Speaker 4: just silencing me because you know, I'm not a you know,
Speaker 4: I'm not a lib I'm not you know whatever, and
Speaker 4: they just think that they're being censored. So, you know,
Speaker 4: the fact checkers. I don't think we're doing what they
Speaker 4: were intended to do, at least not to the degree
Speaker 4: in the first What.
Speaker 1: Are you saying it just wasn't it wasn't syncing in?
Speaker 1: Is that like if they said, you know, this is incorrect,
Speaker 1: it was a challenge to their ideology or a challenge
Speaker 1: to their position, right, is that?
Speaker 4: Yeah? I mean yeah, I think I mean probably for
Speaker 4: a lot not everybody, of course, but it's not there's
Speaker 4: no like monoliths really, but I think for a lot
Speaker 4: of people. Yeah, which is more like, oh, like the
Speaker 4: truth is being hidden or like I'm being censored because
Speaker 4: I'm not agreeing with the status quo kind of thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, I suppose if you're getting there, if safeguards are
Speaker 1: put in place and you get called out more often
Speaker 1: than anyone else, blame the system, right, it's it's don't
Speaker 1: look in. We'd never look at your reflection in the mirror,
Speaker 1: you know. Figure out how there must be some kind
Speaker 1: of external problem here. I guess that's kind of that's
Speaker 1: pretty a natural human response too. I mean, humans are
Speaker 1: naturally inclined to take credit for themselves but put blame
Speaker 1: on others, and so that's kind of kind of what's
Speaker 1: happening here.
Speaker 4: Maybe.
Speaker 3: Huh yeah, I guess rarely do we see ourselves as
Speaker 3: the villain, always the hero.
Speaker 1: Right yeah, exactly, We're all the hero of our own stories.
Speaker 1: Right well, Chris, since we're back on you right now.
Speaker 1: The press makes this sound like it's a huge shift
Speaker 1: in direction for meta, But is it?
Speaker 2: Is this a major change?
Speaker 1: You were talking a little bit before about did the
Speaker 1: fact checkers really do anything? Is this just fluff and
Speaker 1: lip service? Or is this a substantive change here?
Speaker 3: You know again, I really don't think it's that much
Speaker 3: of a change yet. I believe it will develop into
Speaker 3: more of a change as certain things unfold over the
Speaker 3: next few years. However, at the moment, I really don't
Speaker 3: think it is when you stop and look at what well,
Speaker 3: like I guess, I guess for people like Eli was saying,
Speaker 3: who get into two forums and comments and they really
Speaker 3: run into the sensors a lot I myself don't tend
Speaker 3: to run into them. I just post my crazy atheist
Speaker 3: hate speech. They don't ever bother me. I don't know why,
Speaker 3: but yeah, but what I have noticed is in influx
Speaker 3: a huge increase in these fake Mark Zuckerbergberg posts. Other
Speaker 3: people posting images of Mark Zuckerbergberg, you know, like kissing
Speaker 3: Donald Trump or somebody else, and talking about how they're
Speaker 3: now coming out of the closet and this is they're
Speaker 3: putting this, as you know, and they're just filling Facebook
Speaker 3: with these misinformation stories and images right about Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 3: I just feel as the Schodenfreud. I mean, I hope
Speaker 3: he gets to enjoy some of it myself.
Speaker 2: True, well, I think he'll enjoy it all the way
Speaker 2: to the bank. I think. I think that's either way.
Speaker 1: There's really, you know, there's a single concern I think
Speaker 1: on his mind. It's not necessarily the flourishing of humanity
Speaker 1: or well, I don't know. I suppose I shouldn't judge
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg, but based off of things I see, that's
Speaker 1: the way certainly.
Speaker 2: The way it seems to me.
Speaker 1: Is that there's more of a focus on profitability and
Speaker 1: on business success and not so much on uh, you know,
Speaker 1: development and promoting goodwill and healthy interactions with people and
Speaker 1: so on.
Speaker 3: Unless I'm mistaken, the definition of fascism is the marriage
Speaker 3: between politics and business, I mean essentially, and that would
Speaker 3: be where we would be going with some of the
Speaker 3: notions anyway. Yeah, one of the things though, in my
Speaker 3: opinion about that fact checkers on, there's some things that
Speaker 3: platform algorithm has been getting wrong. Have you has anybody
Speaker 3: else noticed this? Sure they claim to have fact checkers,
Speaker 3: and yet running up to the election, I'm a left
Speaker 3: wing pardon the expression, liberal nutbag. Everything I do on
Speaker 3: my Facebook is liberal craziness, atheist blah blah blah. And
Speaker 3: yet when you scroll down my Facebook, especially during before
Speaker 3: or during the campaign and whatnot, when you scroll down
Speaker 3: my Facebook, you see these ones that say follow you know, theirs,
Speaker 3: suggestions their friends you see, and then there's they're trying
Speaker 3: to shove on you, and they are all these right
Speaker 3: wing misinformation. It was it was almost made my Facebook
Speaker 3: unusable completely. And where were there checkers there? Yeah, we're
Speaker 3: going to get rid of the fact checkers, right, Well,
Speaker 3: wait a second, you.
Speaker 1: Know, oh darn, now, how will we filter out the misinformation.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, interesting, the call is coming from the house,
Speaker 3: from the house, get out.
Speaker 2: Of the house, exactly right. All right, good one, that's
Speaker 2: a good one. I like that.
Speaker 1: On that note, let's let's hop back over to Eli
Speaker 1: here for a second.
Speaker 2: Eli.
Speaker 1: So we've seen people just leaving Facebook and other meta
Speaker 1: platforms in droves, you know, due to these policy changes.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that will uh people leaving those platforms?
Speaker 1: Do you think that's going to help us to accomplish
Speaker 1: those goals, you know, get away from the things that
Speaker 1: they're that they're leaving.
Speaker 3: Sure, I mean, I.
Speaker 4: Think they're there are probably there are plenty of good
Speaker 4: reasons to leave Facebook or leave you know, any of
Speaker 4: the meta platforms. But I think as far as like
Speaker 4: if if it's in response to to this move, I think, like, yes,
Speaker 4: the absence of fact checks and like and like the
Speaker 4: absence of the fact that we're not removing inaccurate information
Speaker 4: is something to be spoken of. But I kind of
Speaker 4: compared it to like book learning, right. I think if
Speaker 4: we were to have some like apocalyptic event and like
Speaker 4: society collapses that we don't have like, you know, technological
Speaker 4: access to information anymore. We ran a point at like
Speaker 4: we come to a point where people start talking about,
Speaker 4: like should we burn the Bibles, Like let's say the
Speaker 4: rapture happens and there's no more like religion religious people,
Speaker 4: like should we burn the Bibles? I still don't think
Speaker 4: I would want to because I just want to keep
Speaker 4: that for like the historical significance of that information. I
Speaker 4: don't necessarily believe in removing in accurate information. I just
Speaker 4: believe in like learning how to learn what's good information,
Speaker 4: what's a good source, what's not a good source, and
Speaker 4: making sure people are like better. I think given that
Speaker 4: we have like the you know, the AI systems that
Speaker 4: we use to gather information that I'm guilty of it
Speaker 4: to use it all the time, we have these fact checkers,
Speaker 4: people aren't really like worried about fact checking themselves anymore.
Speaker 4: They don't really look for like to make sure what
Speaker 4: they're reading is true. They see it and they're like, oh,
Speaker 4: that must be that way, and then they just kind
Speaker 4: of move on. So I think to leave the platform
Speaker 4: because there's the for for this reason, I think it
Speaker 4: just leaves an echo chamber of like unreason, like on Facebook,
Speaker 4: where if all the reasonable people are gone because you know,
Speaker 4: everybody who disagrees with them isn't being censored anymore. That
Speaker 4: just leaves all the people that have the ideas we
Speaker 4: consider kind of shitty.
Speaker 2: And you know, just.
Speaker 4: Right, So yeah, and it just and and it's sort
Speaker 4: of and it's going to grow. The sentiment is going
Speaker 4: to grow and grow more powerful because there's only people
Speaker 4: there that agree with them.
Speaker 1: Now there's no interesting interesting Okay, well here's a question
Speaker 1: for both of you. And and so I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: a little deep here. So in my opinion, this advent
Speaker 1: of AI and other megavolume mass processing of personal data.
Speaker 1: And that's really all the AI is. It's just mass
Speaker 1: processing of data. It's a major milestone in our ability
Speaker 1: to manipulate others. Right if you know, if you know
Speaker 1: the right buttons to push, you can get somebody to
Speaker 1: do anything you want. Just in my mind popped in
Speaker 1: there was a Darren Brown. I don't know if you've
Speaker 1: ever heard of Darren Brown. He's an illusionist and a mentalist,
Speaker 1: and he did a show once called The Push where
Speaker 1: the theme of the show was that he was going
Speaker 1: to try to convince a human being, to just a
Speaker 1: regular random person off the street. He was going to
Speaker 1: try to convince them to murder another person. And so
Speaker 1: over the course of a day or two, they they
Speaker 1: he staged these different interactions with these people, and the
Speaker 1: idea was that they would each each step kind of
Speaker 1: psychologically nudged the person in a different direction, and so
Speaker 1: eventually things would build up to a climax and then
Speaker 1: we would we would see whether or not at work.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not gonna I won't spoil the ending for you,
Speaker 1: but it really, I think open my eyes as to
Speaker 1: just how much people can be manipulated by somebody who
Speaker 1: knows the right things to say. And so when we're
Speaker 1: looking at this mass processing of our of our personal data,
Speaker 1: we that's what we see.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's what advertising is, right.
Speaker 1: It's basically trying to manipulate you by showing you things
Speaker 1: that you like or showing you things that you don't like,
Speaker 1: et cetera. So that's kind of what we're what we're
Speaker 1: seeing here. And really the only way that we can
Speaker 1: stop this is regulation, right, It's it's has to be
Speaker 1: regulation of the types of data that can be gathered
Speaker 1: and what can you what can you do with this?
Speaker 1: So let's start with Chris on this what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on that, and what, if anything, do recent shifts
Speaker 1: in the political climate signal about the future of our
Speaker 1: data safety and sie security. You know, let's take a
Speaker 1: let's take a leap forward five years into the future.
Speaker 2: Are things going to be different?
Speaker 1: Are we at risk of blowing all chance we have
Speaker 1: of having any kind of meaningful security?
Speaker 3: You know, yes, but not because of the political nature
Speaker 3: or because of the political any of that kind of thing.
Speaker 3: I think that whenever you combine the computing power or
Speaker 3: the raw computing power that we have with Google just
Speaker 3: announced a few days ago that they've developed some kind
Speaker 3: of new CPU that can do more in a flash
Speaker 3: of an instant than all the other supercomputers can do
Speaker 3: in a thousand years or some business like that. A
Speaker 3: computer like they just announced can rip through any kind
Speaker 3: of security or I mean, if we're talking about personal security,
Speaker 3: you know, to that question now, as far as people's
Speaker 3: data and their own personal information and being manipulated by AI, man,
Speaker 3: I use AI too, you know, and I actually use
Speaker 3: I recently made a commercial where I used AI to
Speaker 3: help me change my voice to the voice of Ian
Speaker 3: McKellan so I could read a thing. Yeah, and then
Speaker 3: I made a commercial that's funny. It's hilarious. But that's
Speaker 3: what AI has got so much power, you can do
Speaker 3: so much with it. There needs to be regulation, There
Speaker 3: needs to be some kind of control. I'm just I
Speaker 3: don't feel qualified to be the kind of person to
Speaker 3: make those kinds of guidelines. There needs to be you know,
Speaker 3: it's like you need to go to educated people who
Speaker 3: are educated in that field. You don't hire a lawyer
Speaker 3: to be the head of the Department of agriculture agriculture,
Speaker 3: for example, Go find somebody who's got an education in
Speaker 3: years of experience being in agriculture and so things like that.
Speaker 3: Although I am for regulation, I also see the benefit
Speaker 3: of how these things could take us to the next
Speaker 3: level as a society. But then you've also we've got
Speaker 3: this purity of that knowledge and that power, and like
Speaker 3: you're mentioning with the political environment, the political atmosphere, you
Speaker 3: take and it's like pouring any kind of the wrong
Speaker 3: color into your pure white paint and start it around
Speaker 3: and everything starts getting money, and the more of that
Speaker 3: you taint it with, the worst it becomes. So Yeah,
Speaker 3: in a few years, I think it really could without
Speaker 3: any kount of checks become a horrible, a horrible tool
Speaker 3: for control of people. We just have to, like Eli
Speaker 3: said earlier, people just have to be educated in how
Speaker 3: to defend themselves, right, you know, use their reason to
Speaker 3: to not fall for this stuff. You can't remove all
Speaker 3: the misinformation. You can't. You just can't, no matter how
Speaker 3: much you want to. But by educating people how to
Speaker 3: avoid it, you can extemporaneously take care of that all right, right, right,
Speaker 3: and work out those situations.
Speaker 1: That's that's funny, cool cool, Eli. Let's build on what
Speaker 1: Chris was saying there. Do you think we're coming up
Speaker 1: to some kind of point of no return? You know?
Speaker 2: Is is that is there? Do we have a chance
Speaker 2: to turn things around at this point?
Speaker 1: Or is there some kind of inevitent conclusion that we're
Speaker 1: that we're heading towards?
Speaker 2: Is there? Is there a waterfall ahead of us?
Speaker 4: I think yeah, I think it is. I think there's
Speaker 4: a waterfall ahead of us. And it's basically at the
Speaker 4: point where like, yeah, if somebody would pick up a
Speaker 4: paddle and start paddling the other way, or like if
Speaker 4: enough people would do that, yeah, you could probably get out.
Speaker 4: But I don't think enough people are going to do that.
Speaker 4: I saw something and I'm not sure how I.
Speaker 5: Feel about like whether this is the case about how
Speaker 5: AI is being used, but basically saw this thing that
Speaker 5: suggested that the purpose of AI is to build, you know,
Speaker 5: such a dependence on it that people cannot tell what
Speaker 5: is truth.
Speaker 4: And what is reality without AI and then basically just
Speaker 4: flood the Internet with AI. And so then that leads
Speaker 4: to this speculation that then you can, of course like
Speaker 4: just decide whatever you want to be is the truth.
Speaker 4: And then we have like a North Korea type situation
Speaker 4: going on here, and I think that the possibility that
Speaker 4: is definitely scary and something that we want to watch
Speaker 4: out for. I don't know if I think that that
Speaker 4: is the path that AI is going to take. I
Speaker 4: think I've seen a lot of really really cool things
Speaker 4: that we're doing with AI as well that are like
Speaker 4: helping people and society. So I definitely want to see,
Speaker 4: like I really enjoy kind of playing with it and
Speaker 4: seeing like what I can, like, you know, what types
Speaker 4: of things I can you know, learn from it or
Speaker 4: make it do. But it's yeah, I would there's definitely
Speaker 4: and we've always known there's definitely ways that it can
Speaker 4: be used to manipulate and to take advantage. So it's
Speaker 4: you would hate to see it. It's important to find
Speaker 4: ways to prevent that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know it's so tempting to use too,
Speaker 1: because it's so easy. I mean, human beings are lazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm a math teacher. Nobody knows that human
Speaker 1: beings are lazy more than a math teacher. And so
Speaker 1: people don't want to think about things. People don't want
Speaker 1: to sit down and figure things out. And so we're
Speaker 1: talking about our only defense now is our own sense
Speaker 1: of desire for truth and our own sense of willingness
Speaker 1: to put in the work to make sure that what
Speaker 1: we believe is true. But human beings don't, naturally, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're naturally against that. We want to take the easy
Speaker 1: way out. If we can have the computer do the
Speaker 1: thinking for us, then we'll just do whatever the computer says.
Speaker 2: Chris, did you have any thoughts on that?
Speaker 3: Well, I was gonna go on Eli's analogy there about
Speaker 3: trying to row away from the waterfall if you can
Speaker 3: get enough people to do that. But at the same time,
Speaker 3: you've got people over on the shore selling barrels going
Speaker 3: right over the waterfall, and there's people like me going,
Speaker 3: let's get in the waterfall. Come on, everybody, you know,
Speaker 3: because I'm embracing the AI world, but I also recognize
Speaker 3: that there are dangers.
Speaker 1: Right, you know, But as you can paddle, it depends
Speaker 1: where on the river you are. If you're going down
Speaker 1: the waterfall, you can paddle all the fuck you want,
Speaker 1: and you are not going back. You know, you're not
Speaker 1: turning things around at that point. You are over the edge, right.
Speaker 3: But some people that like a carnival ride, they're ready
Speaker 3: to go. Let's go. Come on, let's go over the
Speaker 3: water a lot. I've been over the waterfall. Let's do
Speaker 3: it again. Come on, everybody, let's go.
Speaker 4: It depends on how much surface area you have on
Speaker 4: your oars and how quickly.
Speaker 1: All right, this is quickly devolving into a physics exercise, right, Okay,
Speaker 1: what's been a great discussion.
Speaker 2: Guys.
Speaker 1: We're almost out of time here, but I want to
Speaker 1: throw one last thing out there, and can we blame
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg for this? I mean, is he the responsible
Speaker 1: person here?
Speaker 2: Is maybe? Is he just being a prudent business person?
Speaker 1: I mean he he does stand to lose a lot
Speaker 1: of money if he goes, If he if he butts
Speaker 1: up against this incoming regime, although on the other hand,
Speaker 1: he might lose a lot of money from people vacating
Speaker 1: Facebook and other platforms. Let's start with Elio, just give
Speaker 1: a just give a quick answer. Do you think who's
Speaker 1: responsible for keeping track of this and and for protecting
Speaker 1: the public.
Speaker 4: I think for protecting the public, Like that's you think
Speaker 4: that's what the government is originally intended to do, is
Speaker 4: not to control so much, but to just protect and
Speaker 4: care for and steward over. I think that.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think it's just business for him. He knows that
Speaker 4: things are going to get a harder for him if
Speaker 4: he doesn't comply, and I think he would lose more
Speaker 4: by not complying than he will by complying.
Speaker 1: And I think I'm sure he's crunching the numbers. Yeah, exactly, Yeah, Chris,
Speaker 1: do you have any thoughts on that to wrap things
Speaker 1: up for us?
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I I kind of feel the same way.
Speaker 3: It's probably just political again, he's got the pressure coming
Speaker 3: from that side that they're fixing to really engage.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: The political force that's coming into power is fixing the
Speaker 3: really butt heads with his moderators and his fact checkers.
Speaker 1: And we can't have that, right, Okay, well so maybe
Speaker 1: politic So so what you're saying is that for some
Speaker 1: getting rid of the fact checkers, you know, changing changing
Speaker 1: his policies is a feature, not a bug necessarily.
Speaker 3: Oh absolutely absolutely all.
Speaker 1: Right, all right, well, if you want to see more
Speaker 1: of the featured nonprofits.
Speaker 2: Way worst segue ever, by the way, if you