>>> NEXT, SILICON VALLEY.

HAS BECOME TOO POWERFUL?

OUR NEXT GUEST BELIEVE SO.

IN AN EFFORT TO ADVOCATE FOR MORE RECOGNITION OF TECH COMPANIES, SHE PIVOTED FROM SERVING IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO STANFORD UNIVERSITY'S CYBER POLICY CENTER.

MARIETJE SCHAAKE JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO DISCUSS WHAT THE TECH TITANS GROUP ON WASHINGTON MEANS FOR DEMOCRACY.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US, MARIETJE SCHAAKE.

YOU HAVE A BOOK RECENTLY CALLED" THE TECH COOL: HOW TO SAVE DEMOCRACY FROM SILICON VALLEY."

I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS IF THEY SAW THE IMAGES FROM THE INAUGURATION, JUST BLINKING THE PRESIDENT ON ONE SIDE, SOME OF THE RICHEST HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET ALL FROM THE TECH SECTOR.

WHEN YOU SAW THAT, WHAT CROSSED YOUR MIND?

>> I WAS ACTUALLY VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY WOULD FUND AND SIT ON THE FRONT ROW WITH POLITICAL LEADERSHIP WALL POLICIES ARE SO MUCH RITUAL, AND WHILE THERE IS A LOT OF ILLEGITIMATE POWER NOW IN THE HANDS OF TECH CEOs LIKE ELON MUSK.

IT FEELS VERY OPPORTUNISTIC OF ALL THESE CEOs TO JUST JOIN THAT CROWD, HAVE NO REGARD, YOU KNOW, FOR SEPARATION OF POWERS FROM THE LAW, LACK OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CLEARLY SEEING NOW AND WHAT HAS UNFOLDED SINCE THE INAUGURATION.

>> WHEN YOU CAME UP WITH THE TITLE FOR THE BOOK, PEOPLE PROBABLY ASKED YOU WHETHER THE WORD TO WAS OVER-THE-TOP.

DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT IS JUSTIFIED NOW?

>> I FELT LIKE IT WAS ALREADY JUSTIFIED, BECAUSE THE POWER GRAB BY TECH COMPANIES AND THE EXPENSE OF DEMOCRACY OFTEN HAS ITS LESS VISIBLE WAYS THAN WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW, AND IN MANY WAYS, THE SYNERGY AS THE OVERLAP BETWEEN THE INTEREST OF THE TECH CEOs AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, IT WAS JUST THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS COUP, MAKES A MORE BLATANT, MORE CYNICAL, MORE RADICAL, BUT IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE POWER GRAB THAT TECH COMPANIES HAVE BEEN DOING.

THIS ONE, IN VISIBLE WAYS, FOR A A WHILE NOW.

WHERE WE JUST SEE A LACK OF POWERS, INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT, AND I FEAR THAT THE U.S. IS GOING EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF WHAT WE NEED AGAINST STRENGTHENING THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE, AND PROVIDING BALANCE AGAINST THIS OUTSIDE POWER FOR THE TECH SECTOR.

>> GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, BECAUSE WE ARE BOTH OLD ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE WHEN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ARAB SPRING NOT LONG AGO, AND OTHER DIFFERENT MOVEMENTS AROUND THE WORLD.

WE LOOKED AT THESE THINGS IN OUR HANDS AS THESE AMAZING TOOLS TO TRY TO INCREASE ACCESS TO DEMOCRACY ALL OVER THE GLOBE .

WE NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHARE OUR OPINIONS.

LITERALLY, PEOPLE TOOK TO THE STREETS WITH IT.

SO, HOW DID THAT TURN?

YOU OUTLINED THIS IN THE BOOK.

>> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THERE IS A PROMISE OF THE INTERNET, WORLD WIDE WEB, MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES, SOCIAL MEDIA, WAS ALSO ONE OF DEMOCRATIZATION, THAT IT WOULD LIFT UP UNHEARD VOICES, ALLOW PEOPLE TO DOCUMENT AND SHARE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES.

BUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT CORPORATE INTERESTS, PROFIT INTERESTS, SCALING INTERESTS, INVESTOR GOALS FOR SHAREHOLDERS, HAVE JUST PREVAILED, AND THEN, DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS, IN THE MEANTIME, HAVE NEGLECTED, ADVOCATED THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT GOVERNANCE DECISIONS WERE DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THAT DEMOCRACY WOULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY.

TOO MUCH TRUST WAS PUT IN MARKET FORCES.

NOW, WE SEE THAT TECH COMPANIES KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT US, DEVELOPED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES THAT REALLY CHALLENGE THE RULE OF STATES WITH CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, OR OFFENSIVE CYBER CAPABILITIES.

INTELLIGENCE CAPABILITIES THAT TECH COMPANIES NOW HAVE.

SO, THERE HAS JUST BEEN A THIS BALANCE THAT HAS EMERGED, WHEREAS THE COMPANIES ARE ACTUALLY POWERFUL.

THEY'RE NOT ACTING WITHIN A DEMOCRATIC MANDATE, WITHIN DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT.

IN MANY WAYS, THEY ARE OVERTAKING THE ROLE OF GOVERNANCE.

>> THIS SEEMS, AT LEAST IN AMERICA, TO HAVE HAPPENED UNDER THE WATCH OF MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN.

RIGHT?

WHAT DID WE NOT SEE COMING?

INITIALLY, IN TERMS OF REGULATION, TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATION WITH 1000 FLOWERS BLOOM, ET CETERA, AND AT WHAT POINT COULD WE HAVE, PERHAPS, DRAFTED A DIFFERENT PATH?

>> FOR A LONG TIME, I THINK THERE HAS BEEN OVER ROMANCE IS A SHIN OF WHAT SILICON VALLEY WAS, WHAT IT COULD MEAN.

THE NARRATIVE WAS VERY MUCH ABOUT DISRUPTING POWERFUL INCUMBENTS, YOU KNOW, ABOUT SMALL COMPANIES CHALLENGING THE BIG ACTORS, GUYS WITH THEIR LAPTOPS IN GARAGES, BUT THESE COMPANIES SCALED VERY QUICKLY.

THEY VERY QUICKLY BECAME THE INCUMBENTS, AND THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS SELLING A PRODUCT, BUT THEY ARE ALSO INTEGRATING EVERMORE DATA, EVER MORE FUNCTIONS, EVER MORE INSIGHTS AND DEPENDENCIES IN OUR LIVES, THE LIVES OF OUR GOVERNMENTS AND CITIZENS, IN OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, THEY PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE.

SO, I THINK THE ROMANTICIZED NARRATIVE HAS JUST BEEN BELIEVED FOR TOO LONG, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A RECOGNITION OF WHAT A POWER GRAB BY THESE COMPANIES COULD MEAN.

INDEED, IT HAS BEEN DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LED GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE JUST ALLOWED THESE COMPANIES TO GROW DISPROPORTIONATELY, AND WITHOUT THE SUFFICIENT GUARDRAILS THAT ARE NEEDED TO PROTECT PEOPLE.

>> IT IS INTERESTING, YOU ARE RIGHT.

THAT START UP IN THE GARAGE IS WHAT WE THINK ABOUT OF SILICON VALLEY, BUT WHEN YOU SORT OF SAW THAT CAST NEXT TO THE PRESIDENT, YOU SAW THE SCALE OF HOW HUGE THESE COMPANIES ARE.

IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS MAYBE 1/2 DOZEN OR MORE SUPER PLAYERS THAT ARE INTEGRATED INTO WHAT WE LIKE TO CALL THE TECH STAFF.

>> EXACTLY.

THE DEPENDENCIES ARE ENORMOUS, THE WEALTH IS ENORMOUS, AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE OF POWER IS ENORMOUS.

LOOK AT WHAT ELON MUSK IS DOING THROUGH X NOW THROUGH HIS PERSONAL WEALTH, SUPPORTING FAR RIGHT PARTIES IN EUROPE.

HE IS A SICKLY GOING INTO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WITHOUT A MANDATE, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT THE KIND OF ACCOUNTABILITY THAT BELONGS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE KIND OF ACCESS THAT HE AND HIS SUPPORTERS OR HIS STAFF, WHATEVER THE PROPER TERM IS, NOW, HAVE, BY GOING INTO THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, INTO THE TECH INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TWEAKING THAT, ALL IN THE NAME OF EFFICIENCY.

BUT, OUTSIDE OF WHAT IS TYPICALLY A RULE OF LAW-BASED APPROACH TO GIVING PEOPLE POWER, BUT ALSO MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THEY ARE APPROVED BY CONGRESS, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE.

SO, I THINK, IF THIS WOULD HAPPEN IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAN THE UNITED STATES, PEOPLE WOULD CLEARLY SEE THERE IS CONFIDENT OF INTEREST.

THIS IS BLURRING THE LINES, THIS DOES NOT FIT IN A DEMOCRATIC -- DEMOCRATICALLY- RUN STATE -- BUT NOW THAT IT IS HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES, I THINK PEOPLE ARE PARALYZED AND SHOCKED AT WHAT IS HAPPENING.

BUT THAT PARALYSIS CANNOT LAST TOO LONG.

THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE ANGERING BACK IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS KIND OF ACCESS AND POTENTIAL ABUSE OF POWER, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DOESN'T GO ON AS WE SEE IT HAPPENING TODAY.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN PERIODS IN AMERICA WHERE WE HAVE HAD, A DIFFERENT ERA OF WHAT WE ARE NOW CALLING OLIGARCHS -- BUT WE HAD THE ROBBER BARONS, THE GILDED AGE, THE VANDERBILT, RIGHT?

I WONDER, THAT WAS A TIME WHERE THEY EXERTED THEIR INFLUENCE OVER THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, THE TARIFF REGIMES, PRACTICES, AND SO FORTH.

I WONDER IF YOU CAN HELP OUR AUDIENCE UNDERSTAND THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT EXIST WITH, SAY, ELON MUSK, MARK ZUCKERBERG, JEFF BEZOS, THE KIND OF TIGHT AND THAT WE ARE SEEING HAVE GREATER ACCESS TO THE POWER OF THE WHITE HOUSE?

>> MANY OF THEM ACTUALLY SUPPLY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND MANY GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE WORLD WITH CRITICAL SERVICES LIKE CLOUD COMPUTING, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, WITH SOFTWARE AND CYBERSECURITY PROTECTIONS.

SO, THERE IS A HUGE DEPENDENCY THERE, BUT IT ALSO MEANS THAT THESE COMPANIES KNOW A LOT ABOUT OUR SOCIETIES, BUT THE GOVERNMENT, AND NOW, APPARENTLY, ELON MUSK IS IN THE HEART OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, WITH ACCESS TO ALL KINDS OF SENSITIVE DATA.

AND SO, I THINK THAT DEPENDENCY, THROUGH CONTRACTS, THROUGH POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, USE OF THE SENSITIVE INFORMATION THAT THESE COMPANIES HAVE ACCESS TO, CREATES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THERE ARE REGULATORY BODIES THAT ELON MUSK IS NOW MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAKING SO-CALLED EFFICIENCY STEPS.

ACTUALLY HAVE DIRECT OVERSIGHT OVER HIS COMPANIES.

THE SAME WITH MARK ZUCKERBERG, WHO IS NOW PUSHING DONALD TRUMP TO CONSIDER COMPETITION FINDS -- FINES AS A TRADE BARRIER -- AND THE KINDS OF WHISPERS OR ACTIONS ARE MUCH MORE DIRECT, YOU KNOW, USING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS A LEVER FOR INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS INTERESTS.

I THINK IT IS AS CLEAR AS IT GETS WHEN IT COMES TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID, LAST WEEK, THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR CONCERN ABOUT THIS CONFERENCE OF INTEREST WITH ELON MUSK, IF THERE IS ONE, WE WON'T LET HIM GET NEAR IT.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH, PERHAPS, DONALD TRUMP'S UNDERSTANDING OF IT?

>> I MEAN, WE HAVE HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY MANY THINGS THAT WERE NOT ACCURATE IN THE PAST.

YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE HE SAID THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE.

SO, I THINK THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS THAT ELON MUSK IS GAINING ACCESS TO HIGHLY SENSITIVE GOVERNMENT DATA, AND SYSTEMS, MAKING CONSEQUENTIAL DECISIONS ABOUT JOBS, ABOUT BUDGETS, ABOUT OPERATIONS, WITHOUT A MANDATE THAT IS TYPICALLY GIVEN TO PEOPLE WITH SUCH ACCESS TO THESE SYSTEMS, AND, ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT HE IS BASICALLY OPERATING WITH A PARALLEL POWER STRUCTURE -- DOESN'T HAVE TO RESEND AUTHORITY OVER HIS COMPANIES, FOR EXAMPLE, IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME ETHICS OR ACCOUNTABILITY RULED THAT AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTEE WOULD BE THROUGH OVERSIGHT OF CONGRESS, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT IT IS ALSO JUST VERY RADICAL STEPS WITH REAL CONSEQUENCES FOR PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD.

>> LOOK, THERE IS GOING TO BE PEOPLE THAT LISTEN TO THE CONVERSATION AND SAY, LOOK, WE SEE THOSE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING TO TRY TO PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS, THEIR POLITICAL AND SHAREHOLDER INTERESTS.

REPORTING FROM A RECENT COLUMN, "NEW YORK TIMES," JULIA POINT SOUTH, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, GOOGLE HAS BEEN FIND $8 6 BILLION THE LAST TICKET, APPLE IS LIABLE FOR 13 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS IN TEXTILES AND IRELAND AFTER LOSING A COURT CASE.

META WAS FINED 830 MILLION BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, WITH A LEVEL OF MILLIONS AGAINST X.

DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS TO COZY UP TO WHOEVER IS IN POWER AND SAY, HEY, CAN WE, AS THE UNITED STATES, ASSERT SOME LEVERAGE ON HIS OLD ALLIES OF OURS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT OVERLY REGULATED IN THESE MARKETS?

>> THE FINES YOU MENTION ARE A LOT FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND I, BUT NOT A LOT FOR THESE BILLION- DOLLAR COMPANIES.

EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE IMPRESSIVE FINE S, THEY ARE JUST PART OF THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR MOST, AND WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES WHETHER THAT IS EFFICIENT.

HAVING TRUST, HAVING RULES ABOUT FAIRNESS IN THE ECONOMY, BASED ON CENTURY-OLD LAWS THAT ALSO EXIST IN THE UNITED STATES.THIS IS NOT SIMPLY EUROPEAN PHENOMENON THAT GOES AFTER U.S. COMPANIES, EU-BASED COMPANIES MAY ALSO BE SUBJECT TO COMPETITION AND ANTITRUST CASES AND FINES.

THEY COULD APPEAL, AND ULTIMATELY, THERE IS A VERDICT WITH A POSSIBLE SANCTIONS.AND SO, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE FTC HAS BEEN DOING UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, THE IDEA THAT TOO MUCH POWER CONCENTRATION DOESN'T ONLY HURT THE ECONOMY AND THEY GET STIFLED -- BUT ALSO IMPACTS DEMOCRACY, HAS IMPACT ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH SOMETHING THAT WE SHARE ACROSS THE ATLANTIC.

IT IS JUST WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT THESE TECH CEOs LIKE ELON MUSK, FOR EXAMPLE, SAY, COMPETITION SANCTIONS SHOULD ACTUALLY BE CONSIDERED A TARIFF.

THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE TRADE WAR THAT IS NOW EXPECTED TO BE UNLEASHED BY DONALD TRUMP WITH ALL THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES THAT THAT IS GOING TO HAVE.

SO, THE TECH CEOs ARE VERY OPPORTUNISTIC, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE WAYS TO JUSTIFY IT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

>> YOU ARE A NUMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT.

CAN YOU LAY OUT HOW DIFFERENT THIS PATH HAS BEEN ALTERED MAYBE AND WHAT THE STEPS WE SHOULD TAKE OUR?

>> I THINK IT IS CRUCIAL TO GET MORE TRANSPARENCY INTO HOW THE INNER WORKINGS OF TECH COMPANIES IMPACT OUR SOCIETY.

THINK ABOUT RAMIFICATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL MEDIA, THINK ABOUT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN UNDERSTANDING A.I.

MODELS, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS NOW OFTEN SHIELDED BY A.I.

COMPANIES AS A TRADE SECRET, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, RESEARCH A.I.

MODELS MUCH MORE DEEPLY.

AS ACADEMICS, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT ALSO, I THINK IT IS KEY THAT GOVERNMENTS, WHEN THEY USE TECHNOLOGY TO PERFORM, YOU KNOW, TAX SERVICES, OR INVESTIGATIONS, AT LEAST, THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME KIND OF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE IF THEY WOULD NOT HAVE OUTSOURCED THESE TASKS TO COMPANIES, BUT WE OFTEN SEE IS THERE IS A DIFFERENT TREATMENT, LET'S SAY, WITH PRACTICES ON THE PART OF POLICE WHEN THEY ARE DONE DIRECTLY, BUT AT LEAST, WHEN THEY ARE OUTSOURCED TO TECH COMPANIES.

SO, HAVING THAT KIND OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IS CRITICAL, BUT ALSO, TO BRING IN INDEPENDENT EXPERTISE IN LEGISLATIVE BODIES SO THAT LOBBYISTS SPENDING, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO INFLUENCE OUR LAWMAKERS ARE NOT AS SUCCESSFUL, SO THAT LAWMAKERS HAVE ACCESS TO INDEPENDENT EXPERTISE ON TECHNOLOGY WHEN THEY NEED IT MOST.

>> YOU WERE ON STAGE WITH ERIC SCHMIDT, FORMER CEO OF GOOGLE IN 2019.

SOMETHING YOU SAID.

>> VERY CLEAR TECH COMPANIES CANNOT STAY ON THE FENCE IN TAKING A POSITION IN RELATION TO VALUES AND RIGHTS.

I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT A RULES- BASED ORDER SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALLY COLLECTIVE RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES THAT COMPANIES BENEFIT FROM, BUT THEN, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR ROLE TO PLAY TO ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COMMON INTEREST AND STRENGTHEN THE RESILIENCE OF OUR ECONOMY.

>> THAT WAS 2019.

WE ARE NOT CLOSER OR FURTHER AWAY FROM WHAT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN?

>> MUCH FURTHER AWAY, UNFORTUNATELY.

WE RECENTLY LOST THE UNITED STATES FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE WHEN IT COMES TO LEGISLATION.

WE HAVE LOST THE COMPANIES WHEN IT COMES TO ARTICULATING VALUES LIKE HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, FOR EXAMPLE.

SO, I REALLY THINK THIS IS A TIME FOR THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY ELON MUSK.

AND CEOs IN THE FRONT TO SPEAK OUT.

I THINK IT IS A TIME TO REALLY RECALIBRATE AROUND INSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

IT REALLY IS AROUND THOSE VERY, VERY BASICS IN THE UNITED STATES, NOW THAT THE DEFENSES HAVE TO BE ORGANIZED, AND IT ALSO MEANS THAT THE RIGHT REGULATION OF TECHNOLOGY FROM A DEMOCRATIC POINT OF VIEW IS HAPPENING IN EUROPE.

THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY CASE WHERE A SIGNIFICANT MARKET IS PUTTING DEMOCRATIC GUARDRAILS AROUND HOW A.I.

AND OTHER TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED IN OUR SOCIETY.

SO, THAT IS ALSO GOING TO BE A SPACE TO WATCH, IN TERMS OF HOW SAFE THESE STANDARDS ARE BEING DEVELOPED, HOW COMPANIES CAN MITIGATE THE RISKS THAT THEIR MODELS MAY PRESENT, BOTH IN THE SHORT TERM AND IN THE LONG- TERM.

I THINK THAT IT WILL ALSO BE CRITICAL FOR TRUST IN A.I.

AND TECHNOLOGY ITSELF.

I MEAN, THAT REALLY CUTS BOTH WAYS.

YOU CAN'T JUST LOOK AT REGULATION AS A BURDEN.

IT ALSO HELPED DEVELOP TRUST AND LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD, SO, FAIR TREATMENTS FOR ALL COMPANIES.

I THINK THAT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

EVEN MORE SO THAN IT WAS IN 2019.

>> THE BOOK IS CALLED "THE TECH TO: HOW TO SAVE DEMOCRACY FROM SILICON VALLEY."

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.