I am very worried about the future because I feel like there are the concentration of power over algorithms and artificial intelligence is worrisome. The Google Apple Facebook Amazon these major firms have so much data. They're so influential in how it develops and I feel like as the algorithms are moving beyond internet context, business context to things that affect how we're treating it to the hospital, how law enforcement works, how the military works. In each of those fields there's not enough discussion, there are not enough ethical experts trying to control what data is being used, how it's being parsed, who it affects and how you could appeal, how you could sort of complain if you feel you've been unfairly affected. So there is a natural transition from algorithmic determinations of say credit scores, health scores, whether you're a risk, whether you're a person is potentially criminal, etc. and artificial intelligence and say robots that would have these algorithmic systems as their brains and then would be able to act immediately in the world. The stakes are raised enormously as we move from algorithms online to robots. That's very, very important. And so I think that what we need to do is we need to have institutions that guarantee algorithmic accountability in Facebook, in Google, in credit scoring and health and finance scores first, before we allow artificial intelligence to take over education, health care, other areas, or to have much influence in those areas. And I think that the key is rather than asking the question, is technology on balance good or bad? The question is, are we implementing it in a way that's inclusive and that allows everyone to be included in the restructuring of society? Or are we implementing it in a way so that there are a few elites and plutocrats at the very top that control how technology is implemented? And the rest of us are just the subjects of technology. That to me is the real question. We have such an enormous amount of content online that we could see on Facebook, that we could see on Google and these other large intermediaries. And that is very important content and it's great that these firms are developing algorithms that are allowing us to sort it and filter it. But the problem becomes when these algorithms, for example, can prioritize really troubling content, racist content, extremist content, terrorist content. When any of these things get prioritized, that helps corrode the public sphere. It helps undermine the sort of basic commitments that we all have to forms of democracy, social justice, tolerance, diversity. And when that happens, that's really troubling. There is a lot of concern about Facebook and Google not being responsible enough here. I think that they are trying to now take some first steps toward responsibility. For example, Google has paired up with fact checkers. That's a positive step. Facebook has also tried to put notices underneath fake news that tell people when an article is obviously fake or when it's been disputed. I would go a little bit further though, if I were them on the level of substance, and I would actually either change the headline or make the warning larger. Because right now, for example, when Google returns results, it might say, hope, Francis and Doris Donald Trump. That's a lie. The result probably should say hope, Francis, to not endorse Donald Trump. That should be the first result there. So that's one thing that they actually are doing with medical results. So to give an example of a positive thing that Google did in the past, it used to be that when you'd search, say, I have a stomach ache on Google, you would get all these random sites that would just be whatever happened to be the most popular thing about a stomach ache. Some of which had bad information about stomach aches. What Google did eventually is they partnered with a male clinic. And they said, let's make sure that the first few thing people see are very reliable, vetted material that doctors have looked at. I think they need more partnerships like that with journalists. Just as doctors are a professional, journalists are a profession. They're not going to solve this with just machine learning and software. So to the extent they do that, that would be a positive step. If they fail to, then I think you've got to consider having regulators come in, media authorities, other authorities, who could say, this is where you need to step it up. This is where you need to do less. And that could involve things like peter, extremist speech. It could also involve fake news. But there are many examples where I think the cooperation between government and civil society would be very positive here. I would say that with respect to these larger and media areas, we are in a desperate situation. We're really in a red alert situation because if we let them be unregulated for much longer, we're failing to gather the information we need to do sensible regulation. That's the first step, right? Because the title of my book is the Black Box Society. And I call it a Black Box because so often what's going on inside these companies is not transparent to anyone on the outside. In fact, it's not even transparent to anyone but the top say 10 or 100 people in the company. And so this is a problem for regulation. So at the very least, what we have to do is set up institutions that can inspect what's going on. Like what we do with banks, like what we do with other very large and important firms. And I think a very good example is with the whole Volkswagen scandal, we saw that even in an example where a company was doing something that was relatively concrete, they could have software hiding what was going on. And that danger is 10 times greater in the example of a Google or a Facebook, because the software is 10 times more complicated if not more. So I think that's the first step is monitoring. The second step is that just establishing some sort of civil society, corporate partnerships in terms of how to deal with big problems like anti-Semitic content, racist content, extremist content. That's very going to be a very important first step towards saying that the online sphere is something that we own in common. It's not something that just can be dominated and controlled by a few major American companies. It's something that all countries in the world can be involved with, can regulate, etc. And if we don't do that, the problem is it's not the distinction is not between regulation or no regulation. The distinction is between letting these large companies continue to regulate unaccountably or having the people's voice influence what's going on. The key is going to be are you going to get initiatives on the European level that are going to bring in fact finding, bring in people who have complaints about these intermediaries and listen to them, that's going to be a first step and have an ongoing consultative process that will lead to some laws that will be more positive. I will say that the really good example of a first step in this direction is the right to be forgotten. I know it's controversial in the media somewhat to have a right to be forgotten, this Dr. Obley, you know, that is seen as a way of censorship, but it's really not censorship because ultimately the data is still there at the source in the media. What it's really responsive to is when people are searching on each other by name, what are the first results that come up? And as we've seen, Google rather rapidly adapted to set up a process to allow people to object to certain results showing up on their name search results. That was a positive first step and allowing the company to sort of govern that process but to have an appeals process to a governmental body that could develop a jurisprudence about it, that's how these problems could be solved. And I could see the same institutional model behind the right to be forgotten, being applied in cases of discrimination, of extremist content, of hate content, of other content like that. It's multi-prong, there's a lot of responsibility for the company, but there's always some juridical or administrative body in the background that can handle the sputes over it and gradually develop a jurisprudence in the area. So I feel very positive about it. I don't think law is automatically going to be behind. It's just a matter of, do we set up the institutions that can keep it abreast of technological development or do we try to use older forms of regulation that maybe aren't fit for purpose in the modern era? I had some consultations with Taiwan earlier this year and I met with some folks in Taipei. I think that in Taiwan they are very forward thinking and they have a very robust community that involves people at the governmental level about algorithmic accountability and about keeping platforms accountable. The problem is that Taiwan is such a small country that doesn't have much leverage. The European Union is large enough that it has leverage and it can actually set conditions on these big tech companies. Canada surprisingly also has a fair amount of leverage. I think it actually is doing some very good things as well. In Japan, unfortunately Mike, such my impression of Japan, was that there is a certain romance of artificial intelligence, even at the level of the very highest governmental levels, where it is seen as the future of the economy. And so I'm afraid that there's a bit too much of a trust in the machine at some of the highest levels of the Japanese government. But perhaps that's an artifact of the current political party and power there. It's not the future. I think in China, unfortunately, there is often an embrace of algorithmic systems as forms of social control. So China has actually released something called a plan for a social credit scoring system. The idea behind that is that algorithmic monitoring of individuals will lead to scores of them that will say, even include not just their creditworthiness or their criminal history, but whether they've produced political dissent. And if someone politically dissents, there's a possibility that not only would their social credit score be lowered, but that of all of their friend networks, their Facebook friend network or whatever the equivalent of Facebook like WaiBoa, or Tencent, or WeChat, that all the people that are connected with on those Chinese social networks, their score would go low too. So immediately, if you were dissented, all of your friends would know that and they'd know that it would hurt them in the social credit scoring system. That to me is one of the most perfect tools for authoritarian rule ever devised. And to me, that shows how high the stakes are because we can either say that as civil society and as individuals, we work with government to regulate algorithmic systems, or we will see partnerships between government and those running algorithmic systems to regulate and control us. So the power has to go in one direction or another. I think that's the big problem. And we have to really be able to either assert power as governing entities against these systems, or they'll take power over us.