#148 — Jack Dorsey
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
157.87451
Summary
Jack Dorsey is the CEO of Twitter and Square, the company that provides financial services to millions of people around the world. He's also the co-founder and former CEO of Dorsey Capital, a venture capitalist, and a partner at Square. In this episode of the Making Sense Podcast, I speak with Jack about how he thinks about his company s role in the world, how it s grown, and what it s trying to do about the toxicity on their platform. And, of course, I briefly make my case for banning Trump from the platform, and I talk about Jack s practice of meditation, which I describe as "meditation meditation." I also discuss why I consider this interview a missed opportunity, and why I think Joe Rogan should have pushed Jack harder on certain points. We don t run ads on the podcast, and therefore, therefore, it s made possible entirely through the support of our listeners, I m making possible by becoming a supporter of the podcast. Please consider becoming a patron of Making Sense, and become a supporter by becoming one of our sponsors. . If you enjoy what we re doing here, please consider becoming one! you'll get access to all sorts of great shows, including The New York Times best-selling books, and much more. And you'll be helping us make sense of the world we re living in a world where we re all things we re trying to make sense. Thanks for making sense! Sam Harris - The Making Sense: A podcast that s a podcast about making sense of it all, by Sam Harris, by making sense, by listening to the things we know and talking about it, by thinking about it and writing about things we can make sense, so we can all be a good thing, by being smart, by doing more of it, and by being kinder than we all do that, and we can be kinder, and more of us all do more of that, by helping us all have a better of it by being more like that, not less of that. - Thank you, by good people do better than that, more of what we can do better, by us, by talking about things like that? Thank you for listening to this, by you do better by listening more of this, you re making sense by listening, and you ll be better at it, too, by saying that, you do too, too good of it?
Transcript
00:00:10.880
Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber
00:00:14.680
feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation.
00:00:18.420
In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at
00:00:24.060
There you'll find our private RSS feed to add to your favorite podcatcher, along with
00:00:30.520
We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support
00:00:35.880
So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.
00:00:53.340
We don't spend a lot of time talking about Square.
00:00:58.460
We talk about the role that Twitter plays in journalism now, how it's different from other
00:01:04.760
social media, how Jack and the rest of his team are attempting to reduce the toxicity on
00:01:11.680
We talk about what makes conversation healthy, the logic by which Twitter suspends people,
00:01:18.680
the reality of downranking and, quote, shadow banning.
00:01:21.780
I briefly make my case for banning Trump from the platform.
00:01:30.000
Anyway, I must say, I consider this interview a missed opportunity.
00:01:35.340
We really were the casualty of timing here, more than anything else.
00:01:40.400
Because we recorded this conversation a week before the Covington Catholic High School circus,
00:01:46.560
which, as you know, exemplified more or less everything that's wrong with social media at
00:01:54.240
If you recall, it really seemed in that week that Twitter accomplished something like the
00:02:02.000
So that would have been great to talk about, and our silence on that topic will be ringing
00:02:07.160
So much of what we talked about with respect to Twitter's policy around suspending people
00:02:13.080
and the politics of all that really could have been sharpened up had we had a time machine.
00:02:20.480
We also had this conversation before some other interviews with Jack came out,
00:02:29.200
And also he went on Joe Rogan's podcast in the interim.
00:02:34.980
So, um, I've seen the aftermath of all that, and Joe reaped a whirlwind of criticism for
00:02:45.120
I think he's going to have Jack back on his podcast.
00:02:48.040
I'm actually going to be on Joe's podcast later in the week, and I'm sure we'll talk about
00:02:53.040
But all that notwithstanding, I really enjoyed talking to Jack.
00:02:56.560
One thing I want to make clear, because I saw some of the pain that Joe was getting from
00:03:01.120
his audience, many people were alleging that Joe must have agreed not to push Jack on certain
00:03:09.580
I can't speak for Joe, but I must say Jack had no restrictions at all on this conversation.
00:03:15.940
He was eager to talk about anything I wanted to raise.
00:03:22.320
So, he's totally willing to have a conversation about where Twitter has been and where it's
00:03:32.420
You'll hear that he is quite good at pirouetting around any concern a person raises.
00:03:40.620
You'll certainly witness that in this conversation, and it was there to be seen in Joe's and in
00:03:45.820
all these subsequent interviews that I've seen.
00:03:47.500
And, you know, he really does offer a more or less a full mea culpa on many of these
00:03:53.720
You talk about how toxic Twitter is, and he fully acknowledges it.
00:03:57.780
You talk about how inscrutable the policy is around banning and how it lacks transparency,
00:04:06.340
And so there's really, there's not that much to get from him on those points apart from his
00:04:12.820
stated commitment to fixing all of these problems that he acknowledges.
00:04:18.660
So, you know, I don't know what Joe's going to get out of him on a second pass, but given
00:04:23.640
the time I had this conversation with Jack, I really can't express too much regret, but
00:04:29.420
just in light of what's happened in the last few weeks, I would certainly want to turn down
00:04:34.520
the screws a little bit on a few of these points.
00:04:37.360
That said, I really enjoyed the conversation with Jack, and I hope you do too.
00:04:54.820
This is an interesting conversation for me to approach because I think we're going to
00:04:57.880
talk about some things that I'm a little concerned you don't want to talk about, and I'm just
00:05:05.240
But then I think we'll get into things that, areas of mutual interest that I think we'll
00:05:11.140
So let's start with the weird stuff and just how difficult your job is, or at least how
00:05:21.960
You've got this dual CEO role with Square and Twitter.
00:05:27.160
I mean, perhaps you can introduce how you think of your job there, but we're going to talk about
00:05:33.840
So I just, I guess to start, how do you think of your career at this point, and how are you
00:05:40.240
managing, and I'm sure this is a question you've gotten a lot, but how are you managing
00:05:51.460
All the experiences that I've had at both companies have definitely formulated how I act
00:05:57.280
every day, and it's pushed me to focus first on my health, and a lot of that has to do with
00:06:07.820
mental health, and just how I can be aware and productive and observant throughout the
00:06:19.000
A big part of that for me has been meditation, which I would hope to talk to you about.
00:06:23.420
Yeah, that's what I'm looking forward to talking about.
00:06:26.160
So we'll save that for the end, something I look forward to.
00:06:35.080
But a lot of it has just been doing it, and today I don't really segment the parts of
00:06:44.080
It's one job, this is my life, and I know that the companies will benefit, and the people
00:06:50.940
that we serve will benefit from me focusing on consistent self-improvement, and that starts
00:06:57.180
with how I think about things, and that starts with the mindset I bring to my work, and that's
00:07:05.520
certainly evolved over the past, Twitter will be 13 years in March, thinking about skipping
00:07:11.980
in the 13th year, like they skipped 13 floors and buildings, but it'll be 13 years in March,
00:07:22.340
But a lot of the balance between the two is possible, one, because of the team I've been
00:07:30.640
fortunate enough to assemble, and it took some iterations, but also how similar they are in
00:07:38.980
different mediums, Twitter is obviously focused on communication, and our purpose is serving
00:07:50.760
We think we're very unique in that regard, and there's a lot of dynamics that are quite
00:07:56.300
powerful, and a lot of dynamics that can be taken advantage of, which we'll talk about.
00:08:00.820
Square, on the other hand, is around economic empowerment.
00:08:03.620
And one of the things that we saw early on in 2009 was that people in this country, and
00:08:09.960
certainly this is reflective of the rest of the world, were being left out of the economy
00:08:13.840
because they were being left with access to the slower mediums, like paper cash, while
00:08:30.780
We have this app called the Cash App, which we have significant percentages of the people
00:08:41.120
And it's been a really powerful example of utilizing technology to provide access to people.
00:08:50.340
And it's needed in so many ways in how we organize our financial lives and how people make a living.
00:09:02.360
And, you know, as you've talked about on some of your podcasts, these systems have been under
00:09:09.680
a lot of central control in the past, and a lot of that centralized control has removed access
00:09:16.800
from people or not even created the potential to do so.
00:09:19.560
So one of the things we found in Square in the early days is the only way you could start
00:09:24.160
accepting credit cards was if you had a good credit score.
00:09:27.160
And a lot of entrepreneurs who are just getting started, they don't have a good credit score.
00:09:30.440
I didn't have a good credit score when we started Square.
00:09:32.380
I was massively in debt to credit cards, actually.
00:09:35.320
So by shifting that, using better technology, making it more inclusive, we were able to serve
00:09:40.320
a lot more people that the industry just wasn't able to.
00:09:43.220
So you've got these two massive companies, which at least from the public-facing view,
00:09:48.940
seem diametrically opposed in the level of controversy they bring to the world and to
00:09:56.720
I mean, Square seems like a very straightforward, successful, noble pursuit about which I can't
00:10:06.660
But it must be nothing like what you're dealing with with Twitter.
00:10:11.940
How are you triaging the needs of a big company that is just functioning like a normal big
00:10:19.180
company and Twitter, which is something which on any given day can be just front-page news
00:10:26.800
everywhere, given the sense of either how it's helping the world?
00:10:32.040
I mean, the thing that's amazing about Twitter is that it's enabling revolutions that we might
00:10:42.180
And there's just this one Saudi teenager who was tweeting from a hotel room in the Bangkok
00:10:48.900
airport, that she was worried that her parents would kill her.
00:10:53.180
And I don't think it's too much to say that Twitter may have saved her life in that case.
00:10:58.020
I'm sure there are many other cases like this where she was granted asylum in Canada.
00:11:05.360
And then the antithetical story becomes front-page news.
00:11:07.780
So we know that ISIS recruits terrorists on Twitter, or their fears that misinformation
00:11:13.040
spread there undermines democracy, and we'll get to Trump, but how do you deal with being
00:11:21.260
a normal CEO and being a CEO in this other channel, which is anything but normal?
00:11:27.200
Well, both companies in both spaces that they create in have their own share of controversy.
00:11:35.580
But I find that in the financial realm, it's a lot more private, whereas with communication,
00:11:43.260
And I would prefer them both to be out in the open.
00:11:51.180
I'm fascinated by this idea of being able to work in public, make decisions in public,
00:12:01.880
I was a huge fan of punk rock back in the day, and then that transitioned to hip-hop.
00:12:06.960
And that led me to a lot of open source, where people would just get up on stage and do their
00:12:14.580
And you saw them a month later, and they were a little bit better.
00:12:17.920
And then a month later, they were a little bit better.
00:12:19.580
And we see the same thing with open source, which led me to technology, ultimately.
00:12:24.780
So I approach it with that understanding of that we're not here just to make one single
00:12:33.540
statement that stands the test of time, that our medium at Twitter is conversation, and
00:12:40.740
And ideally, it evolves in a way that we all learn from it.
00:12:45.920
There's not a lot of people in the world today that would walk away from Twitter saying,
00:12:49.900
no, I learned something, but that would be my goal.
00:12:53.020
And we need to figure out what element of the service and what element of the product
00:13:01.400
we need to bolster or increase or change in order to do that.
00:13:06.040
So I guess in my role of CEO of Twitter, it's how do I lead this company in the open, realizing
00:13:16.680
that we're going to take a lot of bruises along the way.
00:13:19.600
But in the long term, what we get out of that, ideally, is earning some trust.
00:13:27.020
And we're not there yet, but that's the intention.
00:13:32.860
Well, on the topic of I learned something, actually, this is one of my, this is actually
00:13:36.900
the only idea that I've ever had for improving Twitter, which is to have a, in addition to
00:13:42.760
a like button, this changed my mind button, or I learned something button, so that you
00:13:48.700
can track, I mean, one, it would just kind of instantiate a new norm where people tweeting
00:14:02.240
You can do what, actually, I had one other recommendation to you, to de-platform the
00:14:05.780
President of the United States, which I noticed you haven't taken me up on.
00:14:08.120
One of the, one of the ideas we had way back in the day, there was instead of a, we had
00:14:14.460
a, the button was actually called favorite before it was called like.
00:14:19.120
We transitioned to like, I think at one of our most reactive phases within the company.
00:14:24.060
We were drafting from a known behavior that you saw on Facebook and Instagram and whatnot.
00:14:29.600
But we were going to, there was a proposal to change it to thanks, which I like a lot.
00:14:38.360
I think it kind of gets at some of the things you're trying to express to the degree to which
00:14:44.660
you're influencing someone's thinking or you're changing someone's mind is another level.
00:14:49.540
But to build a service that people can express gratitude for things they find valuable more
00:14:56.360
directly instead of the emptiness of a light button is something that we are thinking a
00:15:02.240
The incentives are where we are in the conversation.
00:15:05.440
We realize that what we need to do is not going to be done by changing policy.
00:15:12.980
What we need to do is look fundamentally at the mechanics of the service that we haven't
00:15:20.140
The fact that we have one action to follow and it's following accounts and following accounts
00:15:27.220
in the example of Brexit, for example, if you followed a bunch of accounts that were spouting
00:15:37.520
You have no other ability to see another perspective of the conversation unless you did the work to
00:15:42.760
follow the account of someone who was opposed to that view.
00:15:47.420
Whereas we do have the infrastructure in the service right now in the form of search and
00:15:53.960
And if you were to follow the vote leave trend, 95% of the conversation would be reasons to
00:16:00.580
leave, but 5% would be some considerations to make to stay.
00:16:06.020
But we don't make it easy for anyone to do that and therefore no one does it.
00:16:10.020
So these are exactly the things we're looking at in terms of like, is like really the thing
00:16:16.700
that helps contribution back to the global conversation.
00:16:23.920
My own personal view is it's empty and it's a lot more destructive than what we considered
00:16:31.940
it to be by, well, you know, everyone knows how to take this action so we should put it
00:16:37.640
As you were talking, it made me think you could have a kind of dashboard that showed people
00:16:43.020
how siloed they were in terms of partisan information.
00:16:47.160
Like if people may not know that they're getting only one side of a story.
00:16:51.580
Well, we actually saw that in the 2016 elections.
00:16:56.060
We've been spending a lot more time not looking at the content that people are saying, but the
00:17:00.880
behaviors and the connections between accounts and interactions and replies.
00:17:05.220
And one of the things that was very evident during the lead up to the election was just
00:17:12.540
looking at our journalist constituency, which is one of the most important constituencies
00:17:20.360
The amount of journalists on the left who were following folks on the right end of the
00:17:29.140
The amount of journalists on the right end of the spectrum following folks on the left
00:17:38.040
Even just that factoid is worth getting out there.
00:17:40.940
There's a good graphic that an MIT lab called Cortico put out that illustrates this effect.
00:17:47.860
And you can immediately see what happened at least in the media sphere in terms of these
00:17:54.500
these filter bubbles and echo chambers that we tend to create.
00:17:58.820
But that is something that I do take a lot of responsibility around.
00:18:04.900
We have definitely helped to create these isolated chambers of thought.
00:18:09.280
And it's because of the mechanics of how our system works.
00:18:12.720
Just the simplest thing of emphasizing the follower count, only allowing the following of
00:18:19.720
an account versus an interest, a topic, or a conversation.
00:18:23.260
These are the things that don't allow any fluidity and evolution.
00:18:29.900
And you have to do a lot of work to get to some of the fluidity that we know Twitter is,
00:18:36.240
but you have to be an expert to understand that it's even possible.
00:18:41.800
Well, yeah, so you were talking about the different constituencies on it.
00:18:44.380
And that's one thing that makes Twitter unique, that it really seems like the platform where
00:18:49.780
real journalists and real intellectuals and newsmakers, they're relying on it for conversation.
00:18:58.420
I mean, they're relying on both as a kind of a real-time response to things that are happening
00:19:02.860
in the world and as a way of just divulging things that are happening in the world and
00:19:10.880
And in that sense, it seems completely unlike every other social media platform to me.
00:19:17.480
And so I have this love-hate relationship, as many people do with Twitter.
00:19:21.260
I have just a hate-hate relationship with all the other social media platforms.
00:19:27.920
But Twitter, I step away from it, and we can talk about just how you, even how you relate
00:19:35.340
to Twitter psychologically, but the idea of not being on it just seems like a non-starter
00:19:41.420
now because it is, it's almost like a public utility.
00:19:45.160
It really is just the, it is the one place where you can, you're guaranteed to see a response
00:19:51.860
to news events that you have curated, and it can be as good, really, or as informative
00:20:01.300
What do you think accounts for the adoption of Twitter by those groups?
00:20:06.560
And I mean, it's just integrated into, like, even television news has to use Twitter to
00:20:13.380
sort of leverage the conversation about what they're putting out, and they don't do that
00:20:26.820
I think, I don't believe we're a social network.
00:20:30.160
Social things happen on us, but my definition of a social network would be one that is dependent
00:20:36.040
upon the people that you know, you know, the graph of your past or your current career
00:20:41.920
or your future aspirations in terms of who you want to work with or who you want to be
00:20:48.220
And we don't benefit from the address book in your phone.
00:20:51.040
We benefit from more of an interest-based network.
00:20:55.440
We benefit because you're interested in something.
00:20:58.080
And because of that, there's no deliberate join or leave of any one particular community.
00:21:15.860
And that's extremely powerful, but it's also extremely complex for people.
00:21:23.160
And I think one of the reasons why journalists took to it so quickly is because it serves
00:21:32.020
as this, it's certainly a marketplace of ideas.
00:21:35.580
It certainly has, you know, people have similar expectations as they would a public square where
00:21:45.700
So it takes on a lot of characteristics of that because of the dynamic of it,
00:21:50.100
because of the real-time nature, because of the public nature.
00:21:52.060
But I think it serves as this in-between-the-articles function.
00:21:59.640
And, you know, we had journalists write article, broadcast it with Twitter, and then get into
00:22:05.060
conversation to get more perspectives, get different ideas, make corrections, make clarifications.
00:22:10.800
But then we also noticed something really interesting is that it really unlocked the journalists from
00:22:17.260
So I've watched in the nearly 13 years, journalists that I follow go from a smaller blog to a BuzzFeed
00:22:29.240
And it became interesting to just follow them as a person rather than the publication that
00:22:36.980
And I think that felt very freeing to a number of the journalists I've talked to about it.
00:22:43.900
It wasn't about the fact that I'm at the New York Times.
00:22:47.080
It was the fact that I'm doing great investigative journalism, and I have a direct connection with
00:22:52.660
my readers and my sources, and maybe even sources that I didn't know were going to be sources
00:23:01.560
because of the openness, because of the public nature of the service.
00:23:14.720
That was a big wave, I think, because of the rhythmic nature of the constraint.
00:23:20.220
Really big with the hip-hop community for the exact same reasons.
00:23:24.480
We don't see as many poets this day and age, but anyone with a poetic band would have been
00:23:29.940
great for poets, but it also, to the negative, created more of a headline, outrage, fast-take
00:23:45.140
We haven't seen a decrease, or we haven't seen an increase in, when you send an organic
00:23:51.180
tweet out just as a broadcast, people typically don't go over the 140-character original constraint,
00:24:00.640
And that's where the 280 really matters, is because it allows for a little bit more nuance.
00:24:04.980
And those are the sorts of things we're looking at.
00:24:07.120
The journalists, I believe, were using it as a way to exist in between their work, and
00:24:15.480
also to have conversations with their peers about what's interesting.
00:24:20.100
And there's some positives and negatives for that.
00:24:22.600
What's the philosophy around not letting people edit tweets?
00:24:26.400
Now that I have you here, I'm just going to download all my customer service complaints.
00:24:30.300
When I type a typo and discover it six hours later, why can't I correct that typo?
00:24:37.120
Boring answer, but I'm going to give you the context for it.
00:24:45.280
And you could view Twitter as, what if you could text with the world?
00:24:50.460
What if you could have a text conversation with the entire world?
00:25:03.260
We obviously were not limited by that, but we built our system so that when you send
00:25:13.060
So as soon as you send that, a lot of the potential damage is done.
00:25:17.460
So for us to introduce that edit, and these are things that we're looking at.
00:25:22.300
These are things that we're considering and whatnot.
00:25:25.260
But for us to introduce edit for a common use case of, I made a mistake.
00:25:29.060
I need to fix a link because I sent out the wrong one.
00:25:38.380
For a lot of the things that you tweet about, it's probably what you want.
00:25:46.900
There's your Twitter, which you've built by following who you follow.
00:25:51.280
There's politics Twitter, which is a very, very different experience this day and age.
00:25:56.340
There's NBA Twitter, which is super exciting, but very real time.
00:26:01.240
And people use it while they're watching the game, and it becomes the roar of the crowd.
00:26:04.360
So even a 30-second delay in a tweet is meaningful.
00:26:10.920
We need to make another consideration for another use case people want,
00:26:16.240
You want to go back to it a week later and correct something.
00:26:22.360
And it might be a point of view that you've taken on, and they've retweeted that point of view.
00:26:25.480
And then you decide to do something a little bit devious, and you change the point of view.
00:26:29.980
So they have then tweeted something that you've completely changed the message upon.
00:26:34.360
So that requires a changelog or some notification that this tweet has changed substantially,
00:26:39.020
and he might be saying something that you don't agree with anymore.
00:26:45.340
You could have somebody who tweets something very sticky and innocuous,
00:26:49.600
and then they flip it to the next neo-Nazi meme that they want spread.
00:26:56.820
And then the final use case we're looking at is clarifications.
00:27:01.180
And that is this current moment where people are digging up tweets from 10 years ago or 5 years ago
00:27:08.540
and canceling the original Twitter and canceling their career or canceling various aspects of their life.
00:27:18.320
And we don't offer an ability for people to go back and say,
00:27:24.800
And we do believe that's important, and we do believe we can help address it, but it just takes some work.
00:27:33.540
But the reason why it's taken us so long is because the majority of our systems are built in this real-time mindset with a real-time fan-out.
00:27:41.000
And we just want to be very deliberate about how we're solving these use cases and not just stop it, we need an edit button.
00:27:49.160
What are people actually trying to do, and let's solve that problem.
00:27:53.340
Okay, so let's push into some of the areas of controversy here because it seems to me you have an extremely hard job,
00:28:00.540
and so it's hard to imagine how you can actually get it right,
00:28:05.560
and actually do it so well that you won't continuously have this ambient level of criticism about how you're doing it.
00:28:13.440
And the job is to figure out how to get a handle on the toxicity on your platform.
00:28:20.460
And this has so many forms, one could scarcely list them all,
00:28:25.100
but from trolling to harassing to conspiracy theories and misinformation and lies
00:28:32.900
to doxing to what is generally called hate speech,
00:28:38.280
but it is speech that is, in the political context, protected by the First Amendment,
00:28:42.820
at least in the United States, but you have a global platform subject to different laws in different countries.
00:28:53.080
And I mean, feel free to grab any specific strand of that.
00:28:56.200
I'll start by saying that the problem is more amplified in particular parts of Twitter.
00:29:05.400
It is definitely the case that it is rampant in politics, Twitter.
00:29:11.480
And it comes with a lot of patterns which we're now starting to see be more consistent.
00:29:21.040
Excellent. So first and foremost, just to take it up a few notches,
00:29:29.840
What if you could measure the health of conversation?
00:29:35.040
In the same way that you can measure the health of the human body?
00:29:39.300
And we thought that was a very intriguing question
00:29:41.980
because we've all had conversations where we felt it to be just completely toxic.
00:29:47.340
And the result of that is ideally we walk away from it.
00:29:51.040
And we've also had conversations that feel empowering,
00:29:54.020
that we learn something from, and we want to stay in it.
00:29:58.640
We see people walk away from conversations on Twitter.
00:30:01.660
And we see people stay in conversations and persist them on Twitter.
00:30:06.120
And we're to the point where we can actually see it in our numbers and measure it.
00:30:17.800
It's not algorithmic, but then checked by people as well,
00:30:32.300
Like your body has an indicator of health, which is your temperature.
00:30:36.500
And your temperature indicates whether your system more or less is in balance.
00:30:44.480
And we need to figure out what the measurement tools are to figure out what that measurement is,
00:30:50.020
what that metric is, which is, in this case, the thermometer.
00:30:55.480
And as we develop solutions, we can see what effect they have on it.
00:31:01.340
So we've been thinking about this problem in terms of what we're calling conversational health.
00:31:06.780
And we're at the phase right now where we're trying to figure out the right indicators of conversational health.
00:31:18.860
So what percentage of the conversation is attentive to the same thing versus disparate?
00:31:27.260
So this is not determining what facts are facts, but what percentage of the conversation are sharing the same facts.
00:31:37.920
So this is where we measure toxicity and people's desire to walk away from something.
00:31:45.200
And what we want to do is get readings on all of these things and then understanding that we're not going to optimize for one.
00:32:01.020
And by increasing one, it probably has a negative effect on another.
00:32:04.880
So you could increase the variety of perspective, but decrease the shared reality in doing so.
00:32:11.560
So step one is getting a sense of what the current state is through measurement.
00:32:19.700
And a lot of that we intend to do through algorithms, measuring how people talk.
00:32:27.680
And then, of course, humans pairing with that to make decisions around solutions.
00:32:31.900
And, you know, in the same way that, like, you might be sick and I will offer you, you know, this bottle of water and also offer you a glass of wine.
00:32:43.220
Based on all of our experience, if you reach for the water and you drink the water, there's more probability that you limit the amount of time that your system is out of balance and you're not healthy.
00:32:53.960
If you choose the wine, you'll probably increase the time it takes.
00:32:57.500
So how would we think about giving people more options to at least drive towards more conversational health?
00:33:10.920
At a tangible, tactical level, we're looking at being, we're looking at how people interact.