3. UK Parliament's Damian Collins

Geek Out with Matt Navarra is sponsored by Pinterest. Inspire your audience and grow your company on Pinterest with a free business account. Learn more at business.pinterest.com. It's time to geek out. Hello and welcome to Geek Out with Matt Navarra, sponsored by Pinterest. I am Matt Navarra.

And I'm Martin SFP Bryant. Now, regulation of social media is a topic we'll no doubt keep coming back to in this podcast. So we thought it'd be worth speaking to one of the heavyweights in that particular game.

Yes, this week we'll be talking to Damian Collins, the British MP who chairs the UK Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee. He's the man Mark Zuckerberg will be hauled in front of if he ever touches down on British soil again.

And it's fair to say Damian's committee has managed to ask the probing questions politicians in other countries haven't. So it's going to be a really interesting chat. He'll be joining us shortly.

And if you want to get in touch with us on Twitter, use the hashtag #GeekOutQuestions and you can find us there, and me particularly, as @MattNavarra on Twitter.

And I'm @MartinSFP. So Matt, what have you been up to this week?

Well, I just got an email actually saying I've been nominated for an award by Social Media Day, Social Media Marketing Awards 2019, as Freelance Social Media Marketer of the Year, which is quite cool. So thank you to them for the shortlisting for that award. Find out later on next month whether I get anywhere with that one. I've been looking at more podcasts. Podcast guests, because we're already getting quite interested in thinking about season 2, and there's quite a queue of people that I'd like to try and get onto the podcast. So I've been working through a nice-to-have and must-have list. And I've also been playing with a new tool for TikTok called Pentos, which is an analytics tool. It's quite basic at the moment, but it seems to be quite new. So I've been playing around with that to see how effective it is. And still trying to decide on whether I am going to upgrade to the iPhone 11. It's a decision that's, you know, critical, of course, but has yet to be decided. I think probably to the Pro, but And that's because I'm a geek. So there we go.

In fact, I was listening to one of the longest running Apple podcasts out there, MacBreak Weekly, the other day, and they were talking about the iPhone 11 and how normally the top of the range one is the one that Apple tries to sell you. And then there's like the slightly not so good cheaper one that they say, oh, you could have this one, which has, you know, plastic rather than glass or whatever, you know, it's not quite as good materials, but it's pretty good. And it's a lower price. They've swapped it around this year. And like the one that they want you to buy is the slightly cheaper one, and then the Pro one is the one for the geeks, uh, unashamedly so, with all the, uh, the high-spec features and stuff. And they know that's more of a luxury item. So it's been interesting to see that switch this time. So, uh, so I don't think there's anything at all, uh, to be, uh, surprised about that geeks would buy the Pro. But, uh, yeah, um, uh, personally I've just been, uh, working on projects. A lot of projects I've been working on for weeks and months even have finally come to fruition. So, uh, I've been basically head down on that, doing very little geeky stuff, unfortunately. But, uh, this, this is a, this I think the show is a good release for that.

Exactly. Exactly. Well, I'm, I'm really looking forward to getting on and chatting to our guest today. So welcome Damian Collins, uh, somebody that I have met luckily once before. We had a fascinating conversation about regulation and Cambridge Analytica and everything that's going on in the social media world and how the government's role and Parliament's role is in that. Uh, and I thought that would be something that'd be worth having a similar conversation a bit more publicly. So welcome Damian. Um, could you just tell everyone a little bit about you and what you do and how it all works?

Yes, it's great to be with you again. I am a Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe in Southeast Kent, and as well as that, I was elected in 2016 to be Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. And just to explain a little bit about the committee and the way the committee system works in Parliament, we are one of the departmental select committees, so we scrutinize the work of the government department of the same name, and that department is the lead department for digital policy and media policy in the UK. And our job is to scrutinize their work and the work of bodies that they fund, but also to initiate our own investigations and inquiries into any related issues as well. So that can mean rather than just scrutinizing what the government's doing or what the regulators are doing already in this space, but actually to ask questions about things they're not doing yet, but maybe they should.

Awesome. Well, we're going to talk in a lot more detail with Damian in a short while, um, and see what's going on on in terms of the regulation space, because it's been even this week lots going on in the US with, uh, antitrust stuff and other Senate hearings involving Mark Zuckerberg and other senior members of the board of Facebook and Twitter and everyone else. But for now, let's, um, chat a quick bit about the news from the last 7 days to do with social media. So Martin, what's been going on this week?

Yeah, so first up, uh, some Facebook news. In fact, a lot of our news today is about Facebook. They really do dominate the conversation. Google Glass is back, baby! Well, kind of. Facebook is working on smart glasses with Ray-Ban according CNBC. They're codenamed Orion. Don't expect them to come anytime soon. They're expected between 2023 and 2025, so up to 7 years from now. And according to the report, they'd be able to take calls, show information to users in a small display, livestream their vantage point to social media friends and followers, and essentially replace smartphones.

So it's Google Glass, but from Facebook, with, but with a longer time span for it to, for it to come to To me, it just sounds like another one of those things that a lot of these tech companies do, and Facebook's renowned for doing, which is throwing out a lot of things to see what sticks, to see what they can make work, to see what drives appetite from consumers and things. And it sounds a little bit like a futuristic kind of product that may never make it to market, as they've kind of suggested it may or may not anyway. I think that the fact that it's more geared around AR rather than the VR side of things is good, because I still think VR, to me, seems far off being a mainstream product for most people. Most people. So the AR element of this is, is interesting. But, uh, Damien, these sorts of things that excite you, or is this something that it says Facebook, you know, Mr. Zuckerberg's involved, and you already got your heckles up and you're not quite sure about ever thinking about using such a thing?

I mean, it is very interesting. I mean, the idea that, um, glasses would replace smartphones, um, but I think the question you've got to have in your mind about that is, well, um, if the companies are making money from advertising on the current mobile format. How will they make it with Glass? Presumably, you would see pop-up ads as you were walking around. The AR experience could be creating virtual billboards and other mechanisms for advertising content to people. Would also users pay a premium not to see the ads, but other people who don't want to pay that premium would? What would you see? I still think, at the end of the day, whatever Facebook does, it's got to make money out of advertising. How would it make money in this new AR glass-wearing world.

Yeah, it's an interesting one to think about. I'm curious to see how many people will adopt anything that involves Facebook in terms of products at the moment. We've seen this with Portal, which we'll probably talk about a bit later. But, um, but yes, I'm hopeful that it does come out because I think it'll be quite a cool thing to play around with as a geek that I am. But, um, but in terms of other things, there's been a slightly more significant development this week with Facebook. What was that all about, Martin?

Yeah, so they have announced more details of their independent oversight board.

So this has been billed as a supreme Supreme Court of Facebook.

Basically, they'd have a bunch of great and good individuals from around the world who would work part-time for Facebook, deciding on things like being the ultimate decider on content moderation. So if there's a really particularly controversial decision that has been made around content moderation, it would eventually make its way to this oversight board who would make a decision on that. And they could also make advice, advisory policy decisions on other things that Facebook does. It could be related to privacy or other things. And Facebook would be bound apparently by the content moderation decisions and could take other recommendations into consideration. So it's an interesting model of governance. And I would say it's perhaps overdue, but it's definitely a job I'd like. I saw this and I thought, I want this job. I would love that as a part-time job. Matt, I assume you too.

Yeah, I definitely like to be involved in some of these things. They do fascinate me. I had a look and saw that I think it's 4 40 part-time positions, um, with I think 11 of them involved from selection from Facebook itself. And they're saying that the content decisions that they'll pass through would be for them to look at and take decisions from are based on ones that they class as significant and difficult decisions. And they've listed in their blog post about this significance being, you know, how severe it is and then the scale of the, of the, of the decision, um, and the public discourse that's being made around this particular decision. And difficulty around how it, how much it's been disputed, how much uncertainty around the correct decision, uh, and other such tensions. Um, but they do say they're a bit more vague about whether they would take a steer on policy decisions or changes to policy from this committee. Um, I, I'd be interested to see how many decisions they pass through, um, and what the turnover rate would be of the board. Um, but overall, clearly it's a good, it's a good thing, uh, and it's a step in the right direction and all those other clichés. But it, for Facebook, with me, I take everything with a pinch of salt. I want to see it and want to see how it works and what the reality of it is. Um, and I suspect, Damon, you're one of the same sort of opinions.

What do you think about all Yes, I mean, you've got to think, what's the credibility of this body particularly? You know, if imagine this particularly controversial issue where, you know, well, let's take the issue that was— it's been in the media this year, the Nancy Pelosi fake film. You know, if the, you know, the Supreme Court of Facebook said, now we uphold the decision of Facebook not to remove the film and we think Facebook did the right thing, are people ever going to believe that's a kind of rigorous, fair, and independent analysis of what went on? Because ultimately this is a body created by Facebook, paid for by Facebook, recruited by Facebook to sit in judgment on Facebook. Will this body ever have the credibility to be taken seriously? I'm not surprised they're vague on policy initiation. I bet this body won't be asked to initiate policy, but just to arbitrate on the existing platform policies. I think it'll be interesting to see what sort of people they pick. Will they pick people who've been previously very critical of Facebook in its decision-making process, or will they pick people from the academic world, academic or media community who largely hold to Facebook's values and are likely to think the way Facebook would think about these problems.

Yeah, I think there's some valid points there. I'm not sure how effective it will be, which is why I'm hesitant to say it's a wholehearted great decision and it's going to be brilliant and everything else. But I guess we will soon find out. I think in the beginning of next year is when we'll start seeing some of the outcomes of this committee.

I, if Facebook think that creating these self-regulatory structures will meet— will head off the calls for more effective regulation of tech companies, I think they've quite badly misjudged that, you know. So I think it will be interesting to see what— not what relevance, but what real role, uh, this body has in the future.

Yeah, interesting stuff. It's certainly one that's going to keep on rolling and rolling, that's for sure. Um, but in certainly in a slightly different tone and tact, if Nextdoor, which is a social media network based around your Neighbourhood, and there's some news there, Martin. What's been going on with them?

Yeah, so they've taken a leaf out of Instagram's book. They are going to be advising you when you're about to post something that is potentially abusive. So let's say you're about to type, "You're an idiot," then it will pop up with a kindness reminder to try and stop neighbours being so mean to each other. And this is something that Instagram has floated before, as, you know, using AI to learn what people say and language patterns and then say, maybe you shouldn't be doing that. And it's a nice idea and it's a positive idea, but I do wonder if it might actually make you more angry. If you're really angry about something your neighbor's done, I can't believe you idiot, you won't cut your hedge and it's spoiling my view. And then this message comes up saying, maybe be nicer to your neighbor. You're like, no, I won't be, I'll be even more nasty. So it'll be interesting to see how it works. But yeah, just trying to make neighbors nicer to each other. Do you think it'll work, Matt?

To me, this just seems like a tick box thing for a lot of these social platforms, particularly with the discussions we're going to have about regulation, where they're almost throwing out lots of examples they can give back as this is what we've done to kind of, you know, protect people, our users. And this is another thing that we're working on and developing to solve a problem. And, and I don't know whether it does solve a problem. I think it's clever use of tech, and I think it's, uh, it's, uh, it's certainly a— you can't argue it's, it's a positive step in some ways, but in terms of real world usage and effectiveness, I'm, I'm dubious. And I saw actually yesterday one, one— I say that then BBC have launched an app yesterday which enables children and younger people to have an app which has a keyboard. And if they're using this app as their main keyboard and they start typing abusive or derogatory messages, or they start sharing their personal details in a message, the keyboard detects that and gives them a nudge to suggest, do you want to be sending that? Is that a good idea? And I think for younger people, there's certainly an element of education. And I do think a lot of the— some of the solutions to the problems we have with social media comes from better education and support to young and vulnerable people using it. I think that's a positive thing. But for this, I think it's, it's an interesting bit of PR, but I'm not as excited as maybe others are. Damien, does this, does this excite you, or do you think this is a bit kind of meh?

I think it's good. I know I, I saw the BBC demonstration of this a year ago actually by the, the Blue Room team in Salford, and I certainly think for younger people, um, as a tool to try and combat cyberbullying and challenge young people about, uh, the language they're using when they're talking to each other, I think it, I think it could be effective. I don't think it'll solve all of these problems. There'll be some people who are sort of determined to use bad language or offensive comments. But I think if it helps moderate it, then that can't be a bad thing. But it's not— I don't think it'll solve the problem by itself.

Yeah, no, I think that, that's again sort of aligns with how I'm seeing it. I think, um, parents will be pleased with some of these, um, features, particularly in the more mainstream big, big social networks. Um, and, uh, I'm sure Facebook and Instagram and others are doing similar things, will, will use that and pump it out in many of their Senate hearings and everything else to sort of give a list of things that they've tried to do. And so it'd be hard to criticize them for doing these things. So I think it's, applaud them for doing something or trying something. As to its effectiveness for the average user who's, you know, maybe not a teenager or a vulnerable person, I'm a little bit skeptical. I think that's it for this week's news for now. Is that right, Martin? Anything else we need to chat about?

Oh, we just needed to have a quick note of another piece of Facebook hardware news.

Oh yes, yesterday's breaking news.

Yes, so Facebook has announced announced a few new Portal devices. They are really keen to have a camera in your living room. The most notable one is the Portal TV, which will connect up to your TV and will allow you to have video chats on your big TV in your house and also watch Facebook video content together with somebody on the other side of the world. Now, to me, this sounds— it's on one level, oh, well, that sounds like a nice experience, but I really don't think anyone is crying out for this. It's very easy to say, oh, it's creepy Facebook. And that's one angle of it, you know, oh, they want to watch us and all of that. Yes, fair enough. But just from a pure product design point of view, I don't think anyone is really calling out for this. Uh, you can create a product that nobody knew they wanted and make a success of it. Uh, you know, you think of, uh, the, uh, Amazon Echo, for example, nobody knew they wanted a smart speaker and they're the biggest gadget around now. Uh, but for this, I don't think anyone really saw last year's initial Portal devices and thought, I really want one of those. There didn't seem to be much demand for them. So it feels like this isn't going to go anywhere. I don't know what you think, Matt.

Well, it's finally launching in Europe now. So this has been something that's been only available in the US up until recently. So that's a good thing for those that do want the product. So that's great. In terms of the numbers, I think it says a lot that Facebook really doesn't want to give us any numbers on sales. I think the estimates I've read in the last 24 hours are between 50,000 and 300,000 units, which only accounts for about 1% of the market that they're playing for. I think that in general, again, yeah, I'm not sure it does anything enough that sets it apart from its rivals who are doing it better and bigger and more elaborately. I think it's one thing that is quite cool is the main piece of tech that's, you know, tracks you as you're moving around so you can have much more natural group conversations when you're busy doing something at home. That technology in there is really good. Um, I think we were discussing before, um, earlier today about the fact that they've got a little red light as part of their privacy features for this, and where if the camera is not on, the red light is on. That to me and to others on Twitter yesterday, that seemed a very peculiar piece of, uh, sort of product setup.

It's the opposite of what you'd expect, and it kind of feels like they're trying to get used to the idea that the camera is always on, the microphone is always on, and being off is an exception. Um, that's what having the light the opposite way around to what you'd expect seems to be saying, what they seem to be conditioning you to.

It is. And Damien, are you gonna have one of these in your house?

No, I don't think so.

Surprise, surprise.

Well, I have got one. We have got Alexa, but the suspicion here is going to be— I think you're going to want to read the terms and conditions pretty carefully before letting Facebook onto your TV, because there will be, because of stuff that's happened in the last couple of years, suspicions that this thing is sort of gathering data about other things you're watching, things that are going on in your house, and what's being done with that data. Now, maybe Facebook could come in and assure us, no, that's not the case, but there will be these suspicions. And I think— I'm not sure, I'm not sure many people will trust Facebook to have them on their TV in their homes.

We'll speak more with Damian shortly, but first, Geek Out with Matt Navarra is sponsored by Pinterest, and each week we share tips to help you make the most of the platform.

Inspiring, useful ideas are at the heart of Pinterest. Yes, relevant and compelling content matters more than anything else. Focus your energy on creating quality content that's visual and tailored to your audience's interests so it stands out in people's feeds and shows up when people search.

A major factor that makes Pinterest different to social media platforms is that content lives for an average of 105 days on Pinterest, as opposed to a few hours. People discover your content as soon as you create it, and also months after. If you're a content creator or a business, you can take advantage of this by making content work harder for you at different rates to other platforms. Follow these tips to make your existing content work harder for you.

First of all, get ahead of seasonal trends. People come to Pinterest to plan. When it comes to celebrations or seasonal moments, people use Pinterest to plan long before before they turn to other platforms. Make the most of this by factoring this earlier timing into your content strategy.

Pick eye-catching images. Use high-quality vertical images that will stand out in people's feeds. Pinterest recommends a 2:3 aspect ratio.

Make your brand the focal point. Don't be afraid to put your product or service front and center. Avoid using abstract images or lifestyle imagery that doesn't showcase your brand.

A text overlay tells a better story. Text overlay is the copy that goes on your pin image. It makes your content stand out, and it adds context and enhances your message. Message. Pinterest recommends keeping text concise so it's easy for people to read on their phones because 80% of Pinterest users are on mobile.

And get pinning. Publishing content consistently is better than a once-a-week flurry of pinning. Having a pinning spree once a week might be okay if you're a regular user, but for creators and businesses, switch to the mindset of little and often where you'll see better results. You can use Pinterest scheduling tools to help spread out the content.

Learn more about the creative best practices and Pinterest content strategy at business.pinterest.com. Com. So Damian, what's Mark Zuckerberg's deal? Is he intentionally breaking rules and, and using underhand tactics to benefit Facebook, or has he created something he can't control? Which is it?

Well, I don't— I think it's, it's a bit of both. Um, I think what they can see is that you can create these tools to connect the world, but you can't necessarily control the way people will use them, um, or the way people will behave on it. And I think what they've— I think what we, we've tried to challenge them on to make them recognize is, is that they have a responsibility responsibility, because if people are using tools they've created and systems they've created to do bad things, then they have a responsibility to act on that basis, particularly if they're the only ones that can really see what people are doing and what they're using, using the tools for. So I think they've been slow to recognize the responsibility they have towards the way people use the systems that they've created. I think that's also gone alongside an ambivalence towards issues like data protection, data privacy. I would question whether Mark Zuckerberg really believes that data privacy should exist and that actually, it's a good thing that Facebook can gather as much data about you as it possibly can to design services for you and sell you stuff. I think that people have pushed back against that idea now because they do believe in data rights. They do believe in the right to withhold information from a company like Facebook and actually, the desire to have ever more perfect advertising. Targeting them is not something they feel as strongly about as he does. And I think looking at the work we've done, looking at some of the documents that we've published as well about Facebook, you can see these internal debates they're having about how to maximize data gathering from other partners and developers, how to monetize more effectively the data that they hold, how to make it less clear to users just how much data they are gathering and where they're getting it from. So to me, this would suggest that Facebook as a company doesn't really have, um, much morals when it comes to thinking about how to monetize their user base.

So how many times now have you actually requested Mark Zuckerberg to answer questions? And do you think you'll give up on that? You know, is he running scared? And what would happen if he even entered the country? Because it's curious to the average person as to how that situation is, is developing, really.

Well, we, we said, um, that we would issue a sort of summons to him if he entered the UK. So we can't issue a summons to someone who's outside of the UK, but if he comes to Britain, then we will issue a summons for him to appear. But he's not just, you know, declined to come to my committee. And, and the reason, the reason we've constantly pushed for him to come is that Facebook have sent other people over the last couple of years, including Mike Schroepfer, the Chief Technology Officer. Uh, every time they come, uh, and, you know, Monica Bickett, who's the Global Policy Lead on Disinformation, but every time these people come, there's always stuff they say they don't know. They always to write back to us. New information comes out that questions some of the things we've been told, and we get told, well, the person that gave evidence wasn't cited on that information when they gave evidence to you. So we think, well, ultimately there's only one person that doesn't have that excuse, the one person who, by his own admission to the US Congress, is responsible for what happens at Facebook and knows what goes on at Facebook, and that's Mark Zuckerberg. And we've asked him to come to the UK Parliament. He's declined to do that. I initiated the establishment of an international grand committee involving people from 9 different countries— I think it's 27 different parliamentarians who came. So we thought, well, if Mark Zuckerberg can't visit every parliament in the world, maybe we'll gather together people from the same relevant committees in other parliaments who are investigating the same issues and ask if Mark Zuckerberg will come and give evidence to that. Again, he declined. At the second of these meetings, which was held in Canada in May, he declined to appear there. There'll be a third of these international meetings in Dublin in November. Again, he's declined to appear there as well. So this is, to me, the pattern, a pattern of behavior. It's not about snubbing one parliament in particular. It's about rejecting the idea of public scrutiny by, you know, parliamentarians that have built up a degree of knowledge on these issues because of the investigations that they've been running. And it's now a pattern of behavior of evasion. And, um, yes, he's appearing in front of Congress, but I think, you know, he's outside of America. He clearly doesn't want to be scrutinized in this way.

And I was just going to come on to that to say, you know, what do you make of the news overnight that Mark Zuckerberg is attending the new Senate hearings in Washington, DC this week? Is that a surprised you? Do you think that's an interesting development, or do you think it's just part and parcel of the process we're going through?

No, I'm not surprised that he's appearing. But what I found interesting— I spoke last year to Senator Warner about this, and I found that what he said to me was that in Congress, they find it just as difficult to engage with Facebook, just as difficult to get answers and information out of them. So if we thought that, well, they're only interested in talking to politicians in Washington because Congress has jurisdiction over them. I think everyone finds it a frustrating process trying to get answers out of Facebook. And I think Facebook are probably, you know, concerned as well about the questions about regulation, competition regulation investigations into them, you know, calls for them within America for them to be broken up. They'll be mindful, of course, of antitrust rulings again in the past against companies like Microsoft. So I would imagine that's why Facebook are concerned to make sure they try and keep the congressman on side.

Now, I just wanted to pick up on the, uh, the point about, uh, the summons to Mark Zuckerberg when he enters the country. What happens then? Does, uh, will the police turn up at the airport or his hotel and, and haul him into Parliament, or is it a more polite invitation?

Um, well, the summons is issued by the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, or someone the sergeant appoints, and is usually delivered in the form of a better. So, and that happened to Rupert Murdoch. I was a member— I wasn't chair of the committee, I was a member of the committee in 2011 when Rupert Murdoch, who's an American citizen, was in London and he was summoned to appear in front of the committee to talk about the phone hacking scandal at the News of the World. And he did appear, he chose to appear. And I think again, it will be the action of someone who takes their responsibility seriously and wants to run a company that's seen to comply with the laws of the countries in which it trades to respect the request from its parliament to come and give evidence. So there are precedents are other international business people doing that. And that's the position Mark Zuckerberg would be put in when, when he's summoned. He'd have to, you know, decide whether he wanted to not appear and risk being held in contempt of Parliament, uh, or whether he would be prepared to come and answer our questions.

Right. And your select committee has been running this inquiry into, uh, social media companies, uh, for quite some time now. Um, could you give us a summary of where it's at and where we can expect it to go in the future?

Yeah, so the main inquiry The inquiry was launched in 2017. We issued two reports, an interim report in the summer of 2018, the final report in March this year. And on the back of that, we've set up a permanent subcommittee of the committee because these are ongoing issues, and particularly looking at the issues we raised around the making social media companies responsible for the content that's run through their platforms, giving them a legal legal duty of care liability towards— to protect the interests of their users and to act against harmful content. On the back of our committee inquiries and our reports and recommendations, the government has produced its own white paper on online harms. And I think the next stage there will be to look at legislation coming out of that white paper. And there was discussion earlier in the year that the government might look to bring forward legislation, you know, probably next year, to create a content regulator for social media platforms and create these legal liabilities for them to act against harmful content. And so that's, that's just been the progression, you know. We're, we continue to look at these issues and take evidence on them, and we'll scrutinize the legislation as it goes through. And we're continuing to work with and discuss these issues with people at other parliaments around the world. I think particularly across Europe, um, you know, other governments are now considering how they could create similar sorts of regimes, similar legal responsibilities for social media companies. So I see this as a, not just important, but a live and ongoing process, you know.

So on, on these investigations investigations and committee hearings, something that I think a lot of people picked up on that in other countries, particularly the example of the early Senate hearings with Mark Zuckerberg, people were quite mocking of some of these senators and the members over there in terms of the questions, the softball questions and the peculiar questions that they were asking. I think there was one example that's famous where someone said, Mr. Zuckerberg, when I'm emailing on WhatsApp, which was a big sign that this person couldn't quite understand the technology. That kind of problem hasn't been made or hasn't been accused of your committee, which is a good thing. I think the views have tended to be that the UK Select Committee has been done right and the questions that have been asked are pertinent and they're direct and they're technical and they are exactly what should be. Was that something that you set out with from the start to do? And would you say that you've scared tech companies like Facebook by your level of kind of preparedness for these sorts of sessions?

So the other couple of important things there, I think there's definitely a benefit to having dedicated committee that in launching an investigation works on that issue together over a sustained period of time. If you look at the Senate hearings, in particular the early ones, what you saw then was you had a session where you had 50 senators asking questions of Mark Zuckerberg with a time limit of 4 minutes each. Now, if you're the witness, it might be grueling because you're doing it for a long time, but it's an easy format because you know that even if the member is asking you questions, he's asking you good technical questions pertinent questions. I mean, Kamala Harris pushed him quite hard on what he knew about Cambridge Analytica and when. You know they've only got 4 minutes. You can play for time, you can pad out your answers, and then it moves on to the next questioner. So being held for sustained questioning is very difficult in that situation. And when you've got so many people doing it, a lot of those people will not be specialists at all or really spent very much time working on that issue. But if you've got a dedicated committee of 11 members who've been working on these issues for a year, been through multiple hearings talking to other technology companies and have got a clear idea of what the issues are they want to ask. That's a much more challenging environment. The second thing I would say is that what we recognized early on in the process was that companies like Facebook will avoid giving you relevant information unless you specifically ask for it. They will— you've got to make sure you're asking for the right things and asking them the right questions because they will avoid answering answering things that— if you've not asked it and expressed it the right way, they can avoid answering the question, they will. Also, when they're discussing their tools or the way their tools work in the sessions, you've got to understand that too so you can push them further on that. Otherwise, you won't get them to disclose information that's relevant. From quite early on, we sought to engage with academics, people from the tech community that could help prepare us for the questions that we should be asking, and also to make sure that after the sessions, we vigorously followed up as well. We were always writing back if— we felt the answers were unclear, information that had been promised hadn't been given. So the process didn't end when the session ended.

So do you think we need international rules to deal with global companies like Facebook and Google? Because it's fair enough having the different investigations in different countries, but as we've seen with tax as well, the idea of Amazon paying very little tax, it's very hard to control these companies when they know how to operate in a way that is above the law of individual countries?

Um, so yes and no, I think, because, um, on one level, yes, I think if you've got global standards, um, uh, then the companies have to adhere to, and those, those are good standards, then you're, you're, you know, you're setting a decent bar for big companies and other competitors coming in there, things they know they've got to do, uh, around the world. And GDPR in Europe on data protection rights, I think, has been a good example of that. It's created a robust system in the European Union. The UK said it'll stay within GDPR after Brexit. Other American states now have started to introduce their own legislation based on GDPR as well. There, what you can see is that people can say, "Well, people in Europe have these rights, why don't I have them too?" I think you can see a leveling up around the world. That can be a good thing. I think in content moderation in Europe, we're starting to see that as well. I think it will happen in a different way in America, but I think those same debates issues we have in America too. But what we shouldn't do is say, well, because these are global companies and having global standards is a good thing, until we've got a global consensus on what those standards should be, we can't do anything at all. I like to think when the tech companies in particular say, well, we need a global response to this, they know full well Europe and China and the United States are never going to agree. And therefore, my suspicion is that they use that as an excuse for doing nothing at all. At the end of the day, international companies have to comply with the laws of the countries in which they trade. Whilst it might be nice to have global standards, we don't need them. We can just do what we think is right for our own people in our own countries. You see this being enforced already around licensing content. What you watch on Netflix in one country is different from another because of the different licensing agreements. People are used to making that in the commercial world about licensing the use of content. There's no way it can't work in the regulatory one as well.

You featured in The Great Hack, the Netflix documentary, which was a big talking point over the summer. Although the reception to it was mixed, we had people who loved it and then people who absolutely couldn't stand it. There was a scathing Economist review of that documentary. Do you think it did a good job of discussing the Cambridge Analytica scandal?

Yeah, I think it did. I think it did a good job of— I think for people that had followed the story in the news, were aware in general terms of what had been going on, I think it did a good job of trying to explain to explain some of the issues that underpinned it and to tell the stories of some of the people that have been involved in that process. I think you could make a whole other documentary diving into the questions about does psychological profiling work. I would say certainly Cambridge Analytica believed it did, and the academics who worked for them believed that it did and wrote papers discussing how they thought that it worked and why it was important and significant. There are, of course, many other issues as well that come from it. I think some of the people who may have criticized the program may have felt that it glossed over some of those issues. But there's a huge amount of detail in The Great Hack. I think some of these issues are so complex that you could make whole documentaries about them on their own.

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on that. And talking about all the stuff to do with Cambridge Analytica and all of these scandals that have hit social media companies, particularly Facebook, one of the things that stands out to me above all of this is that the usage of these platforms and the revenue these companies are making seems not to have been impacted. A bit like Teflon, just keeps chucking things at them and it slides back off of them, and their main business lines don't seem massively impacted. Again, is that a surprise to you? And can you explain why that is the case?

So I think the reason the share value, if you like, of some of the companies has recovered is ultimately not enough consumers are turning them off. Ultimately, if their audience numbers remain robust, then the commercial value of the companies will be sustainable. Although I think clearly, even though they may have recovered their value against where they were at the start of that crisis, I mean, they're probably a long way behind where they would have expected to have been. I think there's probably a lot loss value that will take time to recover if they ever do. There was some evidence last year that certainly in Europe, that Facebook usage was cooling off, cooling down. But I think what hasn't changed is the attitude within— I think the questioning of them as companies, the declining public trust in them. Maybe some people haven't given up using them because they don't feel they can, that effectively, these companies have become like public utilities, and even if they might not like Facebook, they can't get away without using its systems and its tools to engage with the people they want to engage with. I think the attitude amongst policymakers and regulators, you know, hasn't changed at all. And, uh, it's— I think you see growing appetite now, growing calls for more oversight, more regulation, competition investigations as well. Um, and I don't see that change. That's a permanent shift, I think. And I think the, the permanent shift of— I think people in public policy, lawmakers and so on, uh, actually saying we need to understand better what these companies do, uh, the harm that could come about of the systems that they've created. Uh, there's far more, I think, daily scrutiny on that than there was 2 years ago. And I think that that is a permanent change that's come about since the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Do you think we should be concerned about social media platforms or tech hardware owned and operated by Chinese businesses? A bit like what the Americans, uh, lots of people in America and commentators are suggesting we should be scared or fearful of.

Well, so the concern you raise in the UK, particularly about Huawei and its links to the Chinese state. And I looked at the report. There's a report that an oversight board prepares on Huawei every year. It's published by the Cabinet Office, so it's a public document. Anyone can, can read it. And what concerned me when I read that was that the— that board, which is largely comprised of people that worked in the security services in the UK and got detailed knowledge on security and infrastructure, they said, looking at Huawei's existing infrastructure infrastructure, that there were concerns about it, that there was sort of potential for, for security breaches and the network to be compromised, that those issues have been raised with Huawei in the past. And not only had Huawei not corrected those issues, they had no credible plan in place yet to do so. And so for me, if those concerns are there, I would question why we'd want to give more work and more contracts in developing things like the 5G network to companies like that if those security concerns exist, and until they've convinced us that those things have been put right.

Yes, well, and this is stuff that is going to go around again and again because, you know, every week I've seen stories about people's, uh, somewhat— some of it fearmongering, it seems, but another bits of it seem, you know, genuine reasons to, to be looking into them.

But, um, yeah, there was an interesting, um, uh, story, uh, from, uh, one of the US papers over the weekend about TikTok and about how it was— obviously TikTok is a big hit social app at the moment across the Western world, but owned by a Chinese company, and there's no content on there pretty much about the Hong Kong protests. And so it's kind of raising the issue that this is a Chinese company presenting a Chinese worldview to Western Western young people. You can say that's harmless or you can say that's a problem, but either way, it's something to think about that we don't necessarily have to think about. Facebook, there may be issues with them, but they're a Western company and they have a certain worldview that maybe chimes in a lot of ways with other Western countries. If you then have China, which is incredibly different in its worldview, that could create more more friction.

Yeah, I think that's absolutely right. But I think what we're trying to work through here is a middle way, because people have said there are two forms of internet. There is the surveillance capitalism model personified by companies like Facebook, where everything that goes on it is monitored and monetized by companies. There is the surveillance state model, where the Chinese government uses media to gather information about citizens and shape policy around people based on the information that it gathers. I What we want to see is a sort of third way where people have got rights, where people can protect their data, they can be empowered by it and not just be the victim of surveillance.

Let's look at UK politics for a second. It's an interesting situation, UK politics at the moment, and it does seem like there's going to be a general election sometime in the next couple of months or so. Now, you have called for new laws to protect against another Cambridge Analytica scandal. So what do you think is needed in terms of protecting elections from interference?

Sure, I think there are, there are some very specific things I think that we need to see. One is to make sure that, um, the, the electoral law that applies in the offline world applies online as well. So that means if you see an advert, there should be a legal requirement for you to be to know who's paid for that advert and, uh, who that advert is there to promote. And that's a legal requirement on leaflets and posters and things and newspaper adverts in the UK. But it's not a legal requirement on Facebook. So if there to be real transparency over the messages that you're seeing— because one of the concerns we've raised in our work has been these shadowy, shady campaign networks, the campaign groups that exist on Facebook that are running adverts and no one knows really who's funding them, where the money's coming from, and they're promoting issues that may help one candidate or another. So to make sure we've got that real transparency so people can see— when they see a message, they know who's doing it. I think the other thing that should give us concern is money raising, fundraising online as well. I mean, you can effectively bypass all of the campaign finance laws by, you know, really laundering money into political campaigns through online payment systems. And through that, you can effectively get around the rules on receiving money from overseas. You can process one large donation as a series of micro donations to try and get around the declaration rules. And I think, you know, we should be concerned about this. We discussed this with the chair of the Federal Election Commission America when we had our International Grant Committee meeting in Canada earlier in the year. She thought there was, over the last 10 years, there was a billion dollars worth of dark money that had gone into American politics that was virtually impossible to trace, and that blockchain technologies, Bitcoin, all those things will make this much easier in the future. I think we should recognize that technology allows people to bypass all the rules we put in place to try and safeguard democracy and the way it works and the way elections are run. Unless we change those rules to make them relevant for the future, future, then this interference, the role of companies like Cambridge Analytica, you know, will only grow.

What do you think about the use of social media by world leaders such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, particularly on Twitter?

Um, I think it shows that, um, that leaders can now reach people, big audiences of people, directly, and that the days when, you know, if a politician wanted to get heard, they needed to get the TV networks and the newspapers on side to give them a fair hearing. Those things haven't totally gone because mainstream media is still important, but there are other routes. There are direct routes to talk to people now, and you're seeing politicians use those more and more. Now, I don't have a problem with that if it helps people to engage with politics and we're actually using the channels that the public are using to find information out, and you'd want that information to be there. But at the same time, you need challenge and scrutiny as well. The free press and the media plays a very important role in holding politicians to account. We wouldn't want to move into a world where actually politicians could largely just bypass that scrutiny altogether and just talk directly to the voters without challenge.

I was just going to say, I can't criticize too much at this stage. It's early days for Boris Johnson in his role as Prime Minister and his use of Twitter, but certainly we can see from Donald Trump that he has a very particular style, very polarizing. Polarizing, at times controversial, and, you know, very argumentative and inflammatory, I would say. And do you see that as, um, as a, a dangerous thing? It's something that, um, that you think is a useful thing and you understand it? Or how do you, how do you view those sorts of tweets from someone like Donald Trump?

I think you've got to be very careful here because a leader, you know, may say something that is borderline offensive. You know, some people might find offensive, um, they're still, they're still held to account for what they say. So they've got to be, still got to be slightly careful. They're really does push that about as far as it's probably humanly possible to go. But you're also sending a signal and creating a license for other people to pile in as well. And often that's where the real harm can be caused, is inciting people on social media to say even more outrageous things, for followers to do that as well. And that would be my concern, is that what's, I think, starting to happen in politics is there are greater schisms opening between different voices in politics. Politics is becoming more extreme, and I think the design of social media is helping that as well, because when people say things, it feeds the echo chambers of support they've got. I think it encourages people in those chambers to adopt and say yet more extreme things in their own right, and it's pulling people apart at a time when I think, you know, we desperately try to bring people back together.

Yeah, and I think on that point, Martin, we were looking at something this morning before we started recording. It was quite interesting from Barack Obama.

Yeah, I mean, he was just talking about the, um, uh, this kind of polarization and how social media had accelerated it and, uh, it reinforces biased viewpoints and things. You know, not an original viewpoint, it's something that has been said many times before, but you do see politicians taking advantage of it. Um, uh, and I mean, it's fair to say that in the UK you've seen that the Labour Party take advantage of it in some of their campaigning. You've seen, you've seen the Conservative Party take advantage of it as well in terms of this kind of really the, uh, the polarizing messaging that you can use on social media to really fire up your, uh, your supporters. Um, so it works though, that's the problem, doesn't it? So can you really fight that? Can you really fight that when you've got a campaign director who's like, we really need to win this election? You're going to use that, aren't you, if it's going to win?

I, I think that campaigning done by, you know, registered political parties, official parties, is always going to be held to account for what it says because it's, it's it's got the party's logo on. If people challenge or question the information being put out there, the facts we put out there, then ultimately there are people that can be held to account for that. I don't think politicians should not use social media or advertising through social media to reach voters in that way. I think that's where people are, and I think they should do that. If people didn't do that, or say we just banned political advertising from social media, then the upper hand will be gained by the people that operate sort of networks of inauthentic accounts. You know, the people dominate social media through, you know, through these sort of, you know, people sort of imitating the behavior of bot accounts as well. And it would be a herd, it would be people managing these herds of people that would gain the biggest share of voice, and there'd be very little way of actually challenging that. So I think, I think political advertising should play a role, messaging, and I think parties should do that. But I— what I think is important is transparency, so that, you know, it's clearly labeled, it's clearly come from them, you can see archives of what ads are, um, it's— and people are held to account for it. And what I would, you know, my concern is that, um, too much of this critical communication is not coming from the registered legitimate organizations. It's coming from these shady campaign groups pushing messages, and we don't really know who they are or who's behind it.

I just wanted to put into that, um, we had a piece of information this week, um, it was a piece of research commissioned by, um, I think you pronounce it Wellio, um, but they, they did a survey of politicians, 137 MPs were surveyed towards their public attitudes towards politicians and their use of social media. And it's 4 in 5 MPs believe that public attitudes towards politicians have been changed for the worse by social media. And they say that, uh, yeah, 81% of the 137 MPs surveyed and believes that, that, you know, it's had a negative impact, uh, on politics in general. So interesting numbers.

It's also not— I mean, it's not as politicians as well. I mean, we, um, we've had this debate around racist directed at Premier League footballers like Paul Pogba. We had an evidence session in front of the Select Committee on Reality TV recently where we had people from Love Island, and they would say that, you know, for some people, you know, some celebrities, you know, racist abuse is just part of what they expect to receive. It's just, you know, it's just the way the world is and what they expect. And, you know, should we be satisfied with that? Should we say that actually the fact that social media has created this pipe of abuse that can be directed at anyone and is often directed at people from minority communities and women women in particular, it's something we should just, you know, shrug our shoulders against and say there's nothing we can do. And I think this is part of the debate we try to have with the social media companies, that whilst, you know, individuals are choosing to post this content, you know, are the systems coarsening public debate? Are they encouraging people to take more extreme positions, say more appalling things? And how do we stop it?

Got you. And, uh, we're just coming into the end of our interview, so we've got a couple of quick questions to wrap up, which are a bit broad, really. You've obviously got some strong opinions and beliefs around social media companies, tech companies, what they should be doing, maybe what they shouldn't be doing. 5 years from now, I can see social media looking somewhat different in terms of the way it's set up, how people use it, how the companies are regulated or not. I guess it's a two-part question. What would you like to see in terms of social media companies 5 years from now? And what do you think a fair reality is to expect? Expect in terms of, you know, how they will operate and how we will use social media? Do you have any thoughts about that?

Yeah, I, I think we'll, we'll move to a system where, um, social media companies will be required by law to take action against the most harmful forms of content, and that this will no longer be just about their platform policies and the way they administer them, but standards that we expect. And I think they will then come under the I think that the, the, some form of regulation, uh, the regulatory bodies with power similar to those the Information Commissioner has now over data privacy investigations will play a role in holding these companies to account and also having the right to go in and question those companies and have the right to look at data and information about the decisions those companies have made. I think we will move into a world where that sort of oversight is there, and alongside that, a requirement that these companies are more proactive in identifying these problems for themselves. That, that in some ways would be a system not unlike the system of regulation that exists in financial services, where banks are supposed to monitor and look out for suspicious activity or criminal activity, and to report that to the relevant authorities. I think that's the world I think we will move to. I think we will see different countries in Europe, particularly UK, Germany, and France, pushing the boundaries. I think the European Commission will do as well. I think where we will move away from— I think in 5 years' time, we'll no longer— I think be— see the public policy debate around, you know, are they neutral platforms, do they have any responsibilities? I think it will move to saying they do have responsibilities, there is oversight over how they exercise it. The question will be, well, what's in scope, you know, what should we be regulating?

And I just wanted to, to put into that as well a couple of quick bits of information. Um, yeah, in this week, even in during some, uh, sessions in the US with these hearings, I think Facebook's head of global policy, Monica Bickert, said that they've reduced the average time it takes for our AI to find a violation on Facebook Live to 12 seconds, a 90% reduction in our average detection time from a few months ago. So on the face of it, that sounds like a lovely big number, but as we all know, there's a lot more to it than just Facebook Live. Um, but the other thing I just wanted to get in there, because one of the criticisms that I get, or people say to me when we talk about regulation, uh, and the government having a role in, in regulating anything, but particularly something that involves freedom of speech and platforms that they can access and engage with information and, and chat to people on, is that this is just censorship. This is censorship, controlling, um, government monitoring, It's a constant thing you get thrown up. And I'd just be interested to hear what your view on people who say that, and also the fact that people say that the government isn't the best group of people who know enough to be able to do a good job of it. What would be your response to people's complaints there?

Well, I mean, firstly, I would say if what they think is that we should leave things as they are and that the companies are good at doing this, then I think they're very much mistaken. We've got involved in this because we feel the companies are not good at making these decisions. We have regulated media in the UK. Radio stations, television stations are licensed by Ofcom, which is a body with legal powers created by Parliament but is independent of government and enforces its code of conduct against the people it issues licenses to. They have to make decisions all the time based on their judgment on taste, decency, partiality, and so on. So we do already have, in a country which is free media and freedom of expression, We do have rules and standards that are applied based on laws that have been passed by Parliament and independent regulators and bodies that enforce those rules. And there's no reason why social media shouldn't form part of that environment as well. And I think that is what will happen. That's not about— that's not about trying to crack down on and censor people. It's about saying that there are standards in public— in the public world, in the public space that we expect people to adhere to.

Well, thank you so much, Damian, for coming in and chatting to us. I'm certainly conspiratorial. Spend another few hours talking about these things. Uh, and I think in the current climate of politics and tech and regulation and things, uh, having someone who's, you know, at the forefront of making those changes in our own country and potentially impact how it works in other countries has been very useful. So thank you very much for coming in today. Um, where can people find more information about you and what you're doing and what you're up to and all this sort of stuff online? Is there anywhere they should go?

Uh, yes, people can go to my website, which is damiencollins.com. Also, people look up the DCMS Select Committee. The committee has a website as part of the Parliament website, and you can see all of our reports and documents. All the evidence we've taken is all, all there to be viewed for free.

Brilliant stuff. And if those who want more debate and discussion about this sort of stuff and everything else related to social media, join my Facebook group, um, the Social Media Geek Out. It's facebook.com/group/socialmediageekout. Groups forward slash Social Geek Out.

Time now for quick hits. Here's Matt with tweaks, tests, and totally titillating treats he's spotted from social media companies this week.

How long did it take you to write that one? Okay, let's go for it. Um, so there's a couple of things this week from a smattering of social networks. Uh, let's kick off with something from LinkedIn. Uh, LinkedIn have launched a new feature that enables you to search for freelancers or sort of experts in their field, and also you can make recommendations to, um, your network about these people as well. So you'll be able to find it much easier to find somebody that's really good at graphic design, or you'd be able to spot friends that could recommend to you a really good web designer that you've never heard of before from their network. So that's a feature that LinkedIn's starting to roll out globally. Facebook is also up to some more tests this week. So this one's actually courtesy of Jane Wong, and she spotted that Facebook have got a chat post option where you're able to put out a post on Facebook in the normal way you would, like an image or a video or just status update, but you could actually choose a chat post which will enable people to click on the item in the post and take them to a private group chat that you've already got set up and running. So this is something that we've seen in other social networks as well, but now they've extended a test of a similar feature for Facebook as well. Facebook Groups, there's a filter that I've never seen before, but it doesn't mean it's new because these things tend to roll out slowly or are tested in different places at different times. But there's a filter now for you to be able to sort people requesting to join your group who are previously removed members. So this is great if you've got a very big group and you've had to remove several people or you've had issues in the group with certain members and you want to quickly search in the new member request to see if there's anyone in there that has already been in and removed once before. So that's quite a handy little feature for groups that I noticed on my group this week. TikTok, they got an analytics tool, which is a third-party tool. It's not actually a native tool. As I mentioned at the beginning of the show today, it's called Pentos and it really is very basic. It only really allows you to track, you know, the growth in the person's following and the amount of engagement management on some of their public posts and things. So it's quite limited, but it's worth having a little look at. So that's Pentos. Snapchat have also launched a 3D selfies feature, which is only for iOS at this time, but it will extend to other platforms as well— Android, of course. But it effectively is a bit like what we've seen on Facebook's 3D photos, where you can take an image using the front-facing depth sensing camera, and then it gives you that 3D effect, which you can into a Snapchat story now. So that's a new feature this week coming up on Snapchat for iOS. LinkedIn, they have launched a skills assessment feature which has been around on my, uh, account for quite a while, but it's only really limited to very technical subjects to do with Excel and, uh, programming languages and some other kind of, uh, much more techie kind of things really. Um, and you're able to take in a skills assessment, uh, test and then it will give you a score. And if you re— reach a certain threshold, I think it's 70%, you can place that as a kind of an achievement if you if you like, for your skill and prowess in that area on your profile. And they say that they're gonna roll out globally and they say that also there's gonna be a lot more courses and assessments that will come soon enough as well. And finally, Google have launched for photos, Photo Stories. So yet another platform with stories, but this time it's a little bit different rather than looking at the here and now situation, telling people your life in a story for today. This is more focusing on stories of things to do with your photos and videos from times gone by. So it's a bit like a memories, you know, recounting what's gone on in the past kind of feature in a stories format. So Google Photos, it's got that coming soon. So that's all of this week's quick hits.

The skills assessment thing for LinkedIn is a good idea, even if it's just for a limited number of skills, because asking people to endorse you is a little bit awkward. And so the idea of having a test where you can prove categorically you're good at something is perhaps a better idea.

I think so too. And I also think that LinkedIn's site a new feature for making recommendations is, is smart. And I'm surprised they haven't done it sooner, because one of the things that I'm always kind of considering as a freelancer is, you know, I need someone who's really good at video editing or really good at, uh, I know, sound, sound production or whatever it is for a project. Uh, and LinkedIn is kind of often left untapped because I don't know enough about people or, or trust enough in somebody that might be good based on their profile. So to have someone, um, I can ask to people to make recommendations, or I can search for people that are experts in a certain field, which which have got some credibility and achievements in that area is, is quite good. It means I'll be using LinkedIn more than I am right now. So that's great as well. So good stuff.

Next week we will be speaking to Andrew Boz Bosworth, who is Facebook's VP for AR and VR.

Yes, this interview ties in with Oculus Connect, which is taking place very shortly in San Jose, and next week, I believe. And so he will have a lot of interesting news to talk about with what Facebook's going on, um, with VR and AR, obviously. Um, and hopefully we'll sneak in a few other questions around some other pertinent topics. So, uh, tune in for that one next week.

Uh, so Geek Out with Matt Navarra is a Big Revolution production. Find out more at bigrevolution.net. You can find me on Twitter as Martin SFP, and you can find me as @MattNavarra on Twitter as well.

So don't forget to tell people about the podcast, and we'd love to have more people listening and see what they think and maybe leave us a voice message. We keep reminding you we've had a few and maybe we'll compile them all in the final episode.

But someone sang us a song last week, didn't they?

Someone did sing us a song. That might be the ending to one of our final shows. But if you head to anchor.fm/geekoutmattnavarra, you'll find an option to record a message and we'll play some of the best ones in a future show, hopefully. So I think that's about it for us, Martin.

Yeah. Thanks for joining us, Damien.

My pleasure. It's been great to talk to you.

Well, we'll see everybody back here next week to Geek Out. So Goodbye, geeks.