Fred Vogelstein on the Problem of Facebook's Power

So when I read the Wired article fifteen months of Fresh Hell Inside Facebook, written by my friend and class act reporter Fred Vogelstein, I knew I'd found the right guide to help us understand the story behind the story at Facebook. So Facebook, the problem of the company's power starts out sounding familiar, but then it becomes totally, incompletely unprecedented. The first thing to understand is simple, we are the product.

Facebook's business model is built on getting us to spend as much time as possible on the platform, sharing as much as possible about our lives. We're essentially paying for Facebook with our attention and our data. This is by no means unique to Facebook. Every website you visit is collecting data of some sort and using it to show you better ads, or to profile you in some other way. Sometimes your data is anonymous, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's secure. Sometimes,

as we have all learned, it's not ug. It's just the way advertising and social networks than the Internet have evolved, and Facebook is the biggest player in this game. I've heard an argument that this isn't any different from the old days of television or radio. They gave us entertainment. We watch their advertising, but it is different because it's

even bigger and more concentrated than you might think. One person, Mark Zuckerberg, controlling sixty percent of voting shares, says at the very top of not just one, but three of the world's major communications platforms Facebook, Instagram, and What'sapp that billions of people use every single day, and then there are the privacy shortcomings. It's like a reverse Spider Man, and with great power comes great irresponsibility. We share far more with Facebook than we ever did with our TV sets.

Time and again, Facebook has purposely ignored privacy and fixated on growth. This worked for them for years, but when data leaks and privacy scandals just keep coming. When the compromised data is being used by political operatives to manipulate human behavior during elections. I think it's fair to say that Facebook's old slogan, move fast and break things, needs

to be retired before Facebook breaks are very democracy. The real problem of Facebook's power is, as Facebook co founder Chris Hughes said when he wrote his Wall Street Journal op ed, It's time to break up Facebook, there is no precedent for the ability to monitor, organize, and even censor the conversations of two billion people. Something of this size has just never happened before. Exponential technology has maybe gotten out of hand. How can Facebook regulate itself? Can

artificial intelligence do it instead of human intelligence? Can the ferment what role do we as humans play in the uglier aspects of how Facebook has evolved? After all, even when it's working normally, it still brings out the more divisive aspects of humanity rather than the kind and loving ones. Some might even argue that Facebook's algorithms engineer rage. Facebook might be good for its shareholders, but his Facebook a

good thing for our society. Fred who I've known since our days at Fortune Magazine together, just did this massive story for Wired based on interviews with sixty five current and former employees at the company. I was so glad he made some time to talk with me, even though

he's fighting a case of laryngitis. In this episode, he walks us through a story about the seismic shifts happening inside Facebook, a company trapped by its own pathologies and one with no precedent, where we are all literally writing the rules as we make or break them. We're going to start at the beginning. You've got this great line in your piece that Facebook's reputation is sinking toward junk

bond status. Why Facebook is sinking toward dunk bond status Because Facebook, when you kind of cut right through, it relies on people trusting it as an organization to do the right thing, because it's asking people to give them all kinds of super personal information that they own. And Facebook has a trust problem, and I think they're working

super hard to try to get it back. But trust is one of those things that is super hard to earn and easy to an easy to lose, and it requires hell of a lot of effort to kind of get back. So when it was a virtuous circle, when Facebook was gaining power and gaining users, it was a virtuous circle. But that virtuous circle has somehow turned vicious. Now, is that a way to think about it? That's absolutely

the way to think about it. I Mean, one of the really fascinating things about what drove Facebook was very much the same thing that drove many of the tech companies that we've come to love or hate. It's a complicated, complicated thing, but Microsoft became the biggest, most powerful company on the planet. First it developed the operating systems that ran all the computers on our desks, and then it developed the office software that ran all the computers on

our desks. And the thing about those software businesses is that they have network effects, and network effects are essentially the more valuable the network becomes the more people are on it. And Facebook essentially rode that as well. People started joining Facebook because everybody else was joining Facebook. And it started to get to the point where you go to cocktail parties and people would say, well, I did this on Facebook or that on Facebook. Didn't you see it?

And if on Facebook, you weren't part of the conversation. Virtual life becoming real life and vice versa, right exactly. So I was also really struck in your story that you have these really powerful people weighing in on face Book in a way that just would have been shocking a couple of years ago. You begin with this great anecdote about George Soros taking Davos to announce that Facebook's

days are numbered. You've got Brian Acton, who is the founder of WhatsApp, which was acquired by Facebook, talking about his delete Facebook hashtag. What do you make of the way things shifted so quickly? It seems one of the things that happens to big companies is they realize that they're big companies, usually a lot later than they should. It's really hard to start a company, and it's really hard to kind of grow a business to the size

that Facebook grew it. And you're constantly thinking of yourself as an underdog, and you're constantly thinking that there's somebody always around the corner that's about to crush you in the marketplace, and that posture doesn't really make you think about your social responsibilities as an enormous firm with billions and billions and billions of users on the planet, and

Facebook was just really slow to recognize that shift. The first sign that it was hitting Facebook hard was when Donald Trump got elected president in twenty sixteen, But I really don't think Facebook itself realized it was in that situation until the middle of two seventeen, when it became clear that the Russians had infiltrated Facebook's platform in all kinds of ways that even they were just starting to figure out that gap between self perception and reality is fascinating,

or between self perception and the rest of our perception. In some ways, it's understandable, because when you're a little company, you have to think one way, and the only way to know where that line is is to really cross it. But the companies that actually survive are the ones that realize when they've crossed it and do something about it quickly once they've crossed it. And I think what we're seeing is that Facebook moved a little too slowly to

tackle its image problems. I also think the image problem that Facebook faced was actually bigger than previous technology companies have run into. Microsoft and Google were super powerful and important but in their very specific niches technologies, computer, software, advertising. All of a sudden, Facebook was not only super influential in those but suddenly it was super influential in politics and international relations, and people in the intelligence community were

starting to wonder, hey, what side are you on? And so, to give Facebook some credit, the issues that Facebook had to deal with when it crossed that line were bigger and more complicated than really I think any company before it has had to deal with. I was actually thinking that when you were talking that if you were to be sympathetic to them, you would say that they're reach into people's lives and their reach around the globe is

just absolutely unprecedented, isn't it. I mean, has there ever been a historical analog that you can think of a company that could have awakened this kind of fear and loathing, if you will, just because of its reach into the deepest parts of our lives. I think Facebook really didn't know what it was unleashing when it was asking us to let them into our lives in the way that it did, and I think they were as surprised by the shocks as many of us were. You're almost saying

there was a naivety about Facebook. They were incredibly naive, but to be fair, we let them be that way. What's going on with Facebook is bigger than Facebook. The impact that technology is having on our lives is bigger than Facebook, and I don't think Facebook really thought that way. I think they thought the same way technology companies before them thought, which is that if we stick to our knitting, everything will be fine. And I think they didn't realize

that the world thinks about technology companies one way. When they're small and just a bunch of crazy entrepreneurs out there in California doing that startup thing in their t shirts, they think about them differently than when they're the top five or six most valuable companies in the planet. I actually want to back up to the people here, because you've been thinking about Facebook for years, and you've covered technology brilliantly for years. Who is Mark Zuckerberg? How would

you sum him up? And have you seen him change over the years that you've been thinking about him and getting to know him and watching him. I think Mark Zuckerberg is a lot savvier than most people give him credit for. I think that Mark doesn't particularly like to be in the public eye. But the times that I've talked to him and interviewed him, you don't get the idea that he's dysfunctional as a leader and public person either.

His background is technology, not sales. You know, Mark is a very sophisticated guy who can learn very quickly about what he needs to do to tackle the problems at hand. One of the problems that Bill Gates had was that he was super uncomfortable in the public eye in a way that he was not really able to control super effectively, Whereas I think that Zuck is quite able to kind of stand up in front of a room full of people and talk about all kinds of fairly human things.

People talk about Zuck is if he's some kind of robot, but my interactions with him have not really been that way. And have you've seen him evolve? Is he capable of evolution? I think one of Mark Zuckerberg's biggest assets is his ability to evolve and adapt. There used to be a saying inside Facebook when the company was younger and fast growing that Facebook is the company that always does the

right thing eventually. I love the pause before the word eventually. Well, but what they're trying what they're trying to say is is that we understand that we screw it up sometimes, but we're also not bad people, and we are capable of seeing the problems that we cause and doing something about them. But it's the very length of that pause that has gotten the company into trouble, right, the eventually, the pause and then the eventually that is that sums

up where we are today in some ways. But you know, to be fair, part of what's happening isn't just a re examination of Facebook. It's a reexamination of the role of technology in our lives and in society that really hasn't happened for twenty years. I go back covering technology to the days that technology was sold in packages in

stores on shelves. There was a time when Microsoft actually did operating systems and did versions of Office and put them in boxes and ship them to stores and sold them for money, and every two years you got a

new version of whatever they were developing. And in the early two thousands, Google changed all that by saying, well, what if we gave our software away for free, paid for it with advertising, and threw it over the wall to you users, half baked in beta, so you guys can mess around with it and tell it what tell

us what was wrong with it. That turned out to be a brilliant idea twenty years ago or fifteen years ago, and that's been the whole approach to thinking about technology since two thousand and two or two thousand and three, the thinking being that this technology is so interesting and useful and important that we're just going to let you guys mess around with it and see where it goes. In those days, the technology didn't have all kinds of

unintended consequences that seemed particularly meaningful or bothersome. What we're discovering now, though, is that the technology that these companies are making has enormous unintended consequences. It's hell, it can turn the world inside out in a moment, and so all of a sudden, the conversation that we're having about these new technologies much more resembles the conversation that we

used to add about nuclear weapons. We can build these weapons, but should we That's a fascinating analogy, and I want to come back to that. Chris Hughes said something in the op ed he wrote, arguing also that Facebook should be broken up that I thought was a really interesting line, and I thought maybe you could help unpack it. And he said, it's his very humanity that makes his unchecked power so problematic. What do you think Chris meant by that?

Is what I said earlier? Mark Zuckerberg doesn't seem like a bad guy. If you really get to know Mark Zuckerberg, he's not the kind of guy that like you would say, oh, he reminds me of Joseph Stalin. He seems like a pretty regular dude. It would be really easy when you met Mark Zuckerberg to say, why are we getting so worked up? He's not such a bad guy. But that's not the problem. The problem with Zuckerberg that Chris Hughes pointed out is that no one should have that kind

of power. It doesn't matter how good anybody is, how well meaning they are, no single person should have the kind of power Mark Zuckerberg has over how we see information and interact with information and interact with each other. That's the point he's making. He's saying, like it doesn't matter who he is, we need to rethink how we allow technologies and technology companies, what rules they operate in society.

I was thinking it's fascinating while you were talking. There's of course famous line, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and maybe in this case the analogy is absolute infiltration infiltrates absolutely in the way in the way at which it just steeps into every aspect of our lives, right. I think part of the problem that we're having with Facebook and all these companies, but Facebook in particular, is that we

still haven't decided what Facebook is. I sometimes think that the easiest solution to how we think about Facebook and the rest of the technology company, or certainly Facebook and Google, is to conclude that they are the new television networks. We've actually seen this movie before, we just don't remember it.

If that's the correct analogy, then that argues for a very different set of regulation and a very different set of responsibilities, because being a TV station came with a fair amount of responsibilities back then, right, and also with limitations on size, and there were lots of TV stations, and all of that was at least for a period

of time, very deliberately thought about exactly. The problem we have is that these new companies, as you'd expect, have tried to explain to us and convince us that they are entirely new and different things that nobody has seen before in humanity. And the reality is that's false. We've

seen this movie completely before. It started one hundred years ago with radio and then television, and you could go back even before that and say it started with the printing press, but and the development and the telephone and the development of recording devices. I mean, Facebook just takes all of that and kind of squishes it into one thing.

But that doesn't mean that it's different. In fact, it's more powerful, and you could argue that it maybe needs more regulation and rules that we had on the television networks and the telephone companies and the cable companies that we put in place back in the fifties, sixties and seventies. I want to go back to another person at Facebook in addition to Zuk, and that's Cheryl Sandberg. What do

you think about her? Who is she? I think that Cheryl is one of the most impressive executives in American business, and everybody I've talked to, even the people who hate say that as well. What I can't figure out, though, is her background is sales, marketing politics. She worked for Larry Summers in Washington. She understands how society turns on things and how laws get passed and regulations get passed. And I'm a little surprised that her expertise has still

left Facebook looking as flat footed as it has. So going back to your nuclear weapons analogy. In the end, a nuclear weapon is only dangerous because it's in the hands of people, right, so it is the ultimate problem all of us. In other words, if Facebook was naive in some ways counting on human nature to be better than it perhaps is are we really the problem? Some of what I think is happening here is that we as people are finally getting over our starry eyed views

of the Internet in general. I think that there were a lot of people when the Internet took hold in the mid nineties. I think that there were a lot of people, and I'll include myself, who believe that the Internet would change the world in only good ways, because how could a technology that allowed people access to information everywhere and anywhere not be a good thing? And we all thought that the world was going to be a better place, and we allowed technology companies to convince us

of that as we moved forward. And guess what, the Internet and Facebook we're realizing are just another tool. They're like the telephone, they're like the wheel, they're like fire. You don't get a free ride humanity when it's all connected, and when you can put information anywhere, we'll figure out a way to mess up the same way it's been doing since Adam and Eve. Humans are just like this. It will be really beautiful and it will be really ugly.

There is this other component. So I accept that some of us, and this nastiness that is part of human nature, is to blame for where we are. But then you layer on top of this. Facebook has always had this just relentless drive for growth. Why is that? Where does that come from? Because I don't get the impression, and you would know better that Mark Zuckerberg's primary goal is being rich. I think it all goes back to the

power of network effects. I think Facebook realized early on that the more people who used Facebook, the more people used Facebook. And so if you think that way, and your business is going to be driven by advertising, which means eyeballs. By definition, getting as many eyeballs as possible becomes your reason for existing, right, It's like oxygen. It becomes something you need for survival, or at least that

you perceive you need for survival exactly. So I think Facebook just went after growth the way you'd expect any engineers to go after growth. They actually looked at the problem, applied all kinds of math and algorithms, and tried to systematize it. And they did a really really, really good job using the tools that they had and the brains on their heads. But I think Zuckerberg never really thought of himself needing to be a zillionaire that he is.

But that's actually kind of true about almost every super successful entrepreneur in Silicon Valley that I've run into. The ones that really see building a company as a get rich quick mechanism are the ones that don't usually do so well. The guys that do really well are the guys that build companies because they're not set up to do anything else. It's like breathing today. And yet it creates a conundrum of sorts, which is where Facebook is now.

I think Zuckerberg writes this essay, this three thousand word essay that's kind of vague. It sounds really nice, but about how the company is going to be a lot more privacy focused going forward, and it's realized that people people need privacy. Yet at the same time, the company makes its money off selling our personal data off advertising. And so one critic responded to the piece. He wrote that the essay is a power grab disguised as an act of contrition. Do you think that's fair? Is that no?

I think it's totally fair. I actually think that one of the things that Zuckerberg has done, very very very well has been to master the art of apologizing. Zuckerberg's gift beyond engineering, and maybe even more than his gift of engineering, is to understand that humans care a lot less about privacy than they say they do, and a lot more about interacting with each other than they say they do. You think that's still true today. I think that that's still true today. I think that that's when

you kind of cut right through it. That's Zuckerberg's incredible brilliance. Basically, when you think about the history of Facebook, this rea Facebook is. It is of Zuck doing all kinds of things to push people to do things that initially they thought seemed awful and preposterous and that they didn't want to do, and Zuck telling them to breathe, and them breathing and realizing that he was giving them something that they really wanted. It's happened again and again and again

and again. It's astonishing when you think about it. Think about Facebook when it started fifteen years ago. The idea that you would put all your personal information on some the server and connect with a bunch of people that you knew and didn't know. It's like nobody would have done that. It was like it seemed preposterous. The idea of Facebook seemed completely preposterous. Interesting, how far he's moved us, Right, He's moved us because he understood us better than we

understand ourselves. But doesn't that create a problem today if there is and maybe based on what you're saying, it's more of an if than an absolute, If there is this pressure for more privacy, for less data sharing, if that is the direction that Facebook is going to go. Whether or not Mark Zuckerberg cares about the money, his shareholders care a lot about the money, and you chart in your story the employee reaction to the stocks up

and downs. The employees care a lot about the stock price because so many of them, that's the majority of their wealth is tied up in that. What element of complexity does that add to Facebook's maneuvering going forward? Doesn't that tie their hands? Well? Actually, what's really interesting about Facebook going forward is that it's going to be a very different company over the course of the next five years.

We're starting to see signs of that already. A lot of people are focusing on Zuckerberg's move to privacy as being driven by his reaction to the world as it is today, and I think that that's true. But I also think that Zuckerberg has a grand plan for taking Facebook to the next level that we're only just starting to get glimpses of. The conversation that we've been having about Facebook right now is that Facebook is going to

be a company driven primarily by advertising. But when you actually stop and think about it the long term future of Facebook, it can't keep growing and being dependent solely on advertising because at some point and in the not too distant future, it'll run out of people to advertise to. Half of all advertising generally is now online. I think it's probably fair to say that, given current growth rates, in the next five years, most of the rest of

it will come online. Facebook has about thirty percent of that market, so you can actually do the math. So when you look at what Zuckerberg is talking about visa VI privacy, it's also a rethinking about how Facebook is gonna make money going forward. I was super interested to note people have been talking about Facebook's plans with crypto for a long time, wondering what that's gonna look like. Well, we're now starting to get a pretty good look of

what's that's gonna look like. Facebook's gonna try to become the transaction system for the third world. When you stop and think about it, Facebook isn't really likely to be able to monetize India, China and the rest of the non European and United States world with advertising. What do those companies really need. They need a better way to

do transactions online. And I was particularly struck by the fact that Facebook has signed up Visa and PayPal and MasterCard in it's soon to be launch efforts in the world of bitcoin and crypto, because the thing that everybody forgets about bitcoin and crypto is that it's not just some speculative game. It's a whole new way of thinking about privacy, identity, security. And if Facebook can do that, it's all of a sudden going to become the biggest

bank on the entire planet. It'll have to be regulated pretty heavily if it's going to do that. On the other hand, getting regulated pretty heavily so that you can get a teeny bit of a transaction volume of two billion people online is a pretty good way to make a lot of debating Facebook. Facebook is shifting and mutating

and becoming something else. Just back to this privacy issue, though, because it is so top of mind for where we are today, that in the middle of August, Facebook prototype this location tracking service inside of Instagram, which is the very thing that Instagram had been fighting against for a long time. Doesn't that prove that everything Zuckerberg is saying about increased privacy a sort of bs. They'll do what

they can get away with. Yes, yes, But I think that one of the things that we discovered in our reporting about Instagram is that Instagram, like WhatsApp, turned out to be an incredible act of forward thinking by Facebook.

There are still zillions of people who talk about how much they hate Facebook and love Instagram without realizing that Facebook owns Instagram, and outside of the United States, the world communicates on WhatsApp, and I don't know how many people think about the fact that it's owned by Facebook as well. You have to hand it to Zuckerberg seeing where the world was heading and getting Facebook involved in all of that, contrasted to some of Microsoft's disastrous acquisitions.

Contrast it to Yahoo's attempts to save itself by acquiring its way out right. I mean, you look at what Zuckerberg was able to pick and pick early, and it's pretty astonishing going back to something else, to news feed and the changes there and the impact on publishers. Can Facebook survive if our world doesn't survive? Or am I giving us too much credit? Well? In other words, if newspapers go away, if print goes away, if content goes away,

can Facebook survive? And do they recognize that they do they need us or have we become just an appendage that can be chopped off? Oh? Wow, you're going to make answer that question, aren't you? Sorry? I think the reason Facebook seems a little schizophrenic about the media business, whether it be newspapers or magazines or television, is that the people who are making decisions inside of Facebook about those things still don't completely agree about what Facebook's role

should be. So the reason it looks like they keep going back and forth and back and forth and how they kind of deal with the media business is because that's actually what's going on inside. They've hired some very very savvy former journalists to help them plan what they're going to do and have started some very very interesting projects that would allow them to be super helpful to

the media business. But there are other forces inside of Facebook, like Mark Zuckerberg himself, who see Facebook as more of a disruptive force rather than as a supportive force. When I interviewed Zuckerberg early on in two thousand and six and seven and two thousand and nine, he would talk about the impact that Facebook would have on the media

business as one of disaggregation. He really thought that Facebook's role would be to keep the New York Times or the Washington Post, or the La Times or the Wall Street Journal of the Financial Times from being the centralized source of people's information. In Zuck's view, the best way for the public to be informed was to be informed

by their friends. And I actually think what's really interesting is that Facebook has actually done a lot of what Zuckerberg talked about super early on, and now some of the conversations that we're having are whether or not that was such a good idea, Because ultimately, if your information is really truly only getting sourced from your friends as opposed to a handful of professional sources of information, essentially what you got is information being distributed by mob rule,

and that has a lot of complexities for the future of the world. Facebook made this really pivotal change to its news feed algorithm to focus on tragedy, crime, and politics. What do you think the impact of that was. Facebook's basic problem is is that they think like engineers, not like media people, and so when they make decisions about stuff,

they think about them like engineers. So Facebook two years ago realized that it had a problem with its news feed algorithm because the news feed algorithm was sending all the least accurate stories and clickbaity stories to the top of everybody's news feed. And so in an effort to fix that problem, they try to categorize information so that the algorithm that couldn't actually do what it needed to do and understand how to reorient the news in people's

news feed. The only problem was is that they weren't smart enough to come up with any other categories besides politics, crime, and tragedy for what constituted news. Well, so if the only news that you have labeled is news that are related to politics, crime, and tragedy, you haven't fixed the problem at all. You've created a whole new set of problems. Right, and you've actually created an outrage machine in some ways. A last question for you, thinking about five years from now,

where do you think we are. Do you think Facebook has been broken up? Do you think their new regulations in place? Or do you think Facebook, per your earlier comments, is just no longer Facebook. It's become something else entirely and has sort of slipped out from under the web of anger that looks to ensnare the current Facebook. I actually don't think that Facebook is going to get broken up because I think that breaking up a company is a really, really, really hard thing to do by force.

I mean, it's happened before, but it takes a super long time, the company fights it in court, and by the time you wind up with some resolution, the solution that you were seeking doesn't matter anymore because ten years has gone by. And that's especially true when you're dealing

with technology companies. But I do think that we're going to have regulations that change the way things are done, and I do think that the technology world will evolve in a way that Facebook is not necessarily the dominant player. In One of the things that it's hard not to

be a believer. I believe in regulation, and I believe in regulation of technology companies, but I'm also keenly aware of the fact that the world that the only way that works as if the regulations get done quickly and get done in very precise and small ways, because it is also true that the technology world moves so fast that sweeping regulations wind up looking completely meaningless if by

the time you're done. One of the things that I'm always looking back to that makes me giggle a little bit inside is twenty one years ago, I was sitting in the Judiciary Committee's room in Washington during a hearing in front of Orne Hatch's Senate Judiciary Committee. Bill Gates was sitting at the witness table. The room was packed, and somebody, maybe it was Hatch, asked Bill Gates whether or not Microsoft was a monopoly and whether or not

the government should do anything about that. And Bill Gates said, without missing a beat, not only that Microsoft was not a monopoly and that the government shouldn't do anything about that, but that he was not only not complacent at that point, but actually super terrified because there was a company right then, probably starting in its garage, that would come up with a new way of thinking about the future of computing

that would render Microsoft relatively obsolete, and he was absolutely right. He didn't know it at the time, but he was talking about Google, which started in nineteen ninety eight. The technology world moves incredibly fast, and Facebook is the most dominant technology company in many ways right now that we've seen. But that doesn't mean it's going to be that way forever,

even though it looks that way right now. What struck me most of my conversation with Fred is that by obsessing about Facebook and privacy, we may all be focusing on the wrong thing. History is replete with regulators who are building weapons to the last war instead of getting ahead of the next war. It's the imaginal line, an overused meme, yes, but an OsO apropos one. By making plans to offer a digital currency, Facebook is morphing in front of our very eyes, or at least it would

be if we had our eyes open. I was also struck by Fred's comments about Mark Zuckerberg, because in the end, stories about business are owis stories about people, and if heads of corporations are more powerful than most heads of states, well, then thirty five year old Mark Zuckerberg is very powerful. Indeed, what he does with that power will help define the next decade for us. All Making a Killing is a co production of Pushkin Industries in Chalk and Blade. It's

produced by Ruth Barnes and Rosie Stoffer. My executive producers are Alison McClean no relation in Making Casey. The executive producer at Pushkin is Mia Loebell. Engineering is by Jason Gambrel. Our music is by Jed Flood. Special thanks to Jacob Weisberg at Pushkin and everyone on the show. I'm Bethany mc lean. Thanks so much for listening. Find me on Twitter at Bethany mac twelve and let me know who you've enjoyed hearing from.