All right. Welcome, everybody, both in the room and on Zoom. Thanks for joining us for today's RSM Speaker Series event. Social media regulation is very much back in the news with the TikTok divester Ban Bill. So we're really lucky to be joined today by an amazing duo who will be discussing some private law approaches to social media governance, which has received considerably less attention in public discourse. Claude Mills is a doctoral student here at Harvard Law School. His research explores the relationship between social media platforms, their users, and the public as a whole. It aims to outline a new private law fairness doctrine that requires social media platforms to duly weigh individual and public interests in the course of their business. Some of his work is forthcoming in the Yale Law and Policy Review, which we're really excited to hear about today. And in conversation with Claude is Professor Martha Minow, who needs no introduction. Professor Minow is the 300th anniversary of my university professor and former dean of Harvard Law School. She's an expert in human rights and advocacy for members of racial and religious minorities and for women, children, and persons with disabilities. She also writes extensively and teaches about digital communications, democracy, privatization, military justice, and ethnic and religious conflict. And we're really lucky to have her joining us today. So I hope you'll join me in welcoming today's guests. And with that, I'll pass it over to Goliad. We'll be presenting a few slides. Thank you so much for the introduction. And thank you, Professor Minow, for joining me in this discussion and for the support throughout this project. And I want to thank the Berkman Klein Center for the opportunity to present this work here. As you all know, the Berkman Klein Center deals with a variety of issues concerning digital technology, AI, social media, and their intersection with law and society more generally. So preparing for this event, I decided to take a short look at previous events here at the Berkman Klein Center. And I tried to classify the discussions by whether they offer a public law perspective or approach to take governance, whether they are more neutral in that respect or have a private law perspective on the issues. So this is by no means a rigorous analysis. It's just me trying to give some indication as to how the discourse looks like. And I think it tells something true. So 16 events were about public law, 13 were neutral. That is more descriptive about the technology in the industry. And three were trying to have a private law aspect to them. And I think I might be a little generous here, because two of them were about a panel with multiple participants that I believe some private law issues were discussed there. And the one remains this stock. So even though it's not a lot of the news, I hope to prove to you today that private law actually has a lot to contribute to these discussions. And especially can be used as a complementary tool to public law approaches when they may be insufficient. Before we start, just a quick so we can be on the same page about what do I mean when I say public law versus a private law approach to governance. So when I say public law, I mean proposals that are using bodies of law such as constitutional, administrative, international human rights law, et cetera, they focus on the vertical relationships between the state and the individual and talk a lot about the limitations of state action in the context of these relationships. They are basically premised on public action. That is, they require a governmental agency or the legislature to step in and do something to regulate the market. And famous examples that many of you are probably familiar with, like you say, the GDPR, et cetera. When I say private law, I refer to ideas focusing on contract law, tort law, property law, et cetera, dealing with horizontal relationship and the interpersonal norms within these relationships. And they are premised on private action. That is, individuals taking their claims to courts and litigating them in order to vindicate their rights. And an example could be a court finding ex liable for a breach of contract after failing to take down terrorist content. So when we're looking at social media governance, the current literature typically takes the following structure. It starts from imagining platforms as state-like entities. That is, it could be legislatures or administrative agencies or the administrative states. Many offer that platforms actually act in the capacity of judges when they adjudicate disputes between parties. And based on these analogies, certain obligations can be derived, obligations that are rooted in public law thought and terminology. For example, they've drawn human rights law. They've drawn digital constitutionalism, the rule of law, et cetera, all sorts of public ideas. And I think a common thread between all these proposals is that they focus on trying to protect users' expectations vis-a-vis digital social media platforms, which might abuse their superior power. But I argue that this discourse, to an extent, is trapped in a certain day column. To regulate or not to regulate, a lot of the discussion is whether self-governance is superior to direct regulation. And they are trying to find solutions to these problems. And I think private law has something to offer us. So instead of imagining platforms as state-like entities, I offer imagining them as private corporations performing contractual obligations under the rules of contract law, where our goal would also be to protect users' expectations in this relationship. I argue that holding platforms liable for failing to uphold contractual commitments could actually yield the very purpose public solutions that we're trying to come up with, which is promoting accountability, while also avoiding direct regulation or strict reliance on self-governance. While contractual approach, I think this can offer us several advantages compared to public law approaches. First, it can avoid certain constitutional barriers since the First Amendment bars state action in trying to regulate speech, whereas it allows parties in a contract to self-impose restrictions on speech, and courts can enforce that. It can avoid political deadlock. That is, we are not dependent anymore on political action. Rather, we are empowering individuals to bring their claims to courts and adjudicates, trying to vindicate their rights. It proposes dynamism and contextuality, because exposed adjudication can tailor specific solutions to questions that come up. And the last thing I think is also important. It has a very distinct moral underpinning, while speech regulation might be around whether speech is good or bad, contract law regulation would be around whether platforms actually uphold their promises or lied to us. And this moral disneying is easier to be translated into legal response for several reasons, which we can talk about later. The point is that a private law approach or contract law approach can complement public law solutions or even substitute them when they are either inappropriate, insufficient, or simply unattainable. Now, when we're talking about social media contracting, and this is a second layer, this project proposes, we need to start by understanding what this contractual arrangement looks like. And for this, we need to dispel a few misperceptions that I think had some actual bearing in real world case law and have affected, I think, some of the scholarship in the field. The first thing is to start by saying that the terms of service are not the contract as a whole. Rather, the contract absorbs norms and expectations through various devices that platforms are using in order to convey their intentions, such as community guidelines, privacy policies which regulate the use of data, internal policy guidelines, which actually affect what the service looks like. That is what rights the users have when they are using the platforms. News releases, public announcements, these expectations or these norms and obligations are embedded within the code. That is, the code dictates what the service is. And sometimes they are even posted by CEOs of such platforms. Another misconception is about the contract's elements, which I think is a very important thing to put on the table when we're trying to analyze this relationship. The elements of the contracts which I show in this project are focused on the service, the standard of liability, and the consideration. Starting from the service, if you've listened to the last hearing in the Supreme Court about the nitroase cases, you could see that the judges are struggling to define what social media actually is. I'm trying to do some work in that area, even though there is some literature around that already. For example, Gillespie offered that moderation is the essence of the platforms. It is the commodity they actually offer. Whether it's true or completely accurate or just almost accurate, it's practically irrelevant for our legal analysis because common moderation is certainly very central in the product or the service, which means that expectations created around or representations around common moderation are part of the material attributes of the service provided to users. And therefore, when platforms fail to uphold these commitments, they are actually committing a breach of contract to an extent. Why to an extent? Because platforms don't actually commit to providing a certain result to their cons moderation. They practically can't do that. They can't promise us that there will be no hate speech on the platform. Rather, they promise to make their best efforts in actually enforcing their policies. Why? Because this is inherently based on discretionary performance. Platforms must use their discretion when they are moderating. And the mistakes are practically inevitable because of the scope and the pace of moderation decision making. No one expects platforms to be 100% safe. And platforms never commit to doing that. The final element is the consideration, which is also very important because it has a unique structure when you're looking at consumer transactions because it is based on data and attention rather than monetary remuneration. And I think this is a very important aspect. It is not a service provided for free, a mistake that I think courts have made in the past, which led to certain, I think, inaccurate results in terms of legal doctrine. What is important is to understand this arrangement as a unified whole. That is, we can't disentangle the elements from each other. We can't understand what the service is without understanding the standard of liability. That is what is a breach. And we can't understand it without understanding its relationship to the consideration in this context, which is kind of a cycle. Data and attention are feeding the service as it goes. We can't disentangle that. And I think some of the scholars in the field have tried to disentangle and brought some solutions that are problematic. Another thing that we can understand by putting these together is that this is actually an ongoing barter in which data and attention are traded for the service. Both are not fungible. They are uniquely tailored to the specific consumer and are very much in divergence from traditional consumer contracts. And this divergence, I argue, warrants a similar divergence in the way the law is applied in this context. But do we need to develop new tools in order to actually address these divergence, or does contract law actually have already such tools? And let me keep you in suspense. The answer is that I think that such tools already exist in relational contract theory, needing some adaptation, certainly, but they exist. They are there. Actually, relational contract theory developed precisely to address this type of divergence. When it started to develop in the second half of the 20th century, it focused on the divergence between what was the paradigmatic contract on which contract law was established, which was the discrete contract. This is a contract that is isolated. It has no past or future relationship between the parties, like going to a market and purchasing a tomato, let's say, or a pig, that pig. However, most contracts, or not most, many contracts do not share similar attributes. And they are relational. That is, the relationship between the parties actually creates a lot of norms and expectations that creep into the contractual arrangements and actually move what is going on between the parties. Famous examples are producer-distributor relationship, writer-publisher relationship, et cetera, in which the relationship is ongoing, it is dynamic and adaptive, it is often very complex, and it is often premised on trust between the parties. These relational contracts have a certain structure to them that we can see as a typical structure. They are incomplete contracts designed to support a long-term relationship. They require dynamic adaptations. They are manifesting interdependence in producing joint surplus, that is, a strict division of labor between the parties, and they offer complex contract governance, that is, all the procedures and rules for administering the contract itself. For these, stand certain norms and expectations that are typical of relational contract, such as a norm of cooperation and the norm of attempts to preserve the relationship rather than trying to profit immediately and the relationship when such profit is made. They are premised, like I said, on trust and solidarity, on fair balancing of interests, and they often include values such as human dignity, distributional justice, equity, equality, sorry, and procedural fairness, and I want to say that if all this sounds familiar, there's a reason, because I argue that all of this are actually appearing in social media contracting. These are incomplete contracts. They are designed to support long-term interaction where users actually build their virtual profile and start creating content. They require, necessarily, dynamic adaptations. We see platforms trying constantly to induce users' trust and they are trying to say that they are acting in solidarity and they actually care about the public interests and users' interests. This is not by coincidence. This is because this is the way the contract is structured. It's inevitable. And indeed, David Hoffman found already a few years ago qualitative empirical evidence. He went and did some interviews with social media personnel and lawyers and learned from them that when they drafted the contract, this is exactly what they were trying to achieve. He called this a relational contract of adhesion. I don't think this term is necessary, but it's not very important. What is important is that these findings were actually inevitable. This is how the contract is structured. Okay, so now, when we go to a contractual approach to social media governance and we're trying to say, well, file a lawsuit and try to vindicate your right, we have platform immunity, right? So what do we do about that? So first, we have statutory immunity, shielding platforms from liability. And what I argue in this respect is that Section 230 does not foreclose contractual claims. Rather, it is designed to foreclose tort-based claims. As the court in Ziren said, this is a seminal case articulating the interpretation of Section 230 that leaves until this day. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based liability or lawsuits would pose the freedom of speech. And the court argued that this would be simply another form of intrusive government regulation on speech. But as you can see, this is tort liability, not contract. Because contract liability has different characteristics to it. It's the first of the four moves, respectful of the voluntarily adopted speech norms that the parties committed themselves to. And this is like I said, does not trigger the same constitutional concerns like imposing tort liability based on some idea of reasonableness. Furthermore, the question of incentives, as the court mentioned correctly in Ziren, tort liability would create a one-sided incentive to take down content that might harm people. However, contract liability would not create such a one-sided incentive. But rather, would aim at protecting both contractual rights of speakers and contractual rights of listeners, and that is why the incentive would be towards upholding your contractual commitments, rather than just taking down content as much as you can. And I think the basic point here is that Section 230 was never legislated in order to give social media platforms a right to mislead their users about what they are actually doing and make a lot of profits based on that. Another barrier could be contractual immunity that is limitations on liability clauses, but I also offer solutions to that to invalidate these clauses based on unconscionability, good faith, and public policy. We can talk about this more in the discussion for you, would like. So now, after all this, coming to some direct implications. So we talked about relational contract theory and there's a challenge moving from theory to doctrine and I'm trying to address this challenge in the paper. And the first step is to define the legal duty. What does a relational contract in this case mean? And the way to go about this is to focus on platform's best efforts commitments. Contract law has very specific doctrine to address this type of commitment and it says that people who commit themselves to making the best efforts in performance actually mean fairness and diligence. Fairness here is utmost good faith or more stringent good faith or something of this sort. Some can call it limited loyalty. A duty of loyalty means that a party is completely loyal to the other. That is, he has only the other's interest in mind, but for platforms, such a duty would be problematic because we accept that platforms have their own interest in the steel, but what we expect them to do is to equitably balance interests. Which interests? Their own interest in profit, users' interests, such as safety, reputation, et cetera, and the public interest as a whole. That is public safety, protecting the speech environment, protecting the democratic residents, et cetera. All this is most likely sounding very familiar to you because this is what platforms actually say they are doing. Repeatedly, they are protecting the public safety. They are protecting users from harassment, et cetera. They are protecting their own interest in profit. And I brought an example. This is Elon Musk, we can, not too long ago, explaining what X actually does. Above everything including profit, X works to protect the public's right to free speech. Okay? He is implying we are balancing our interests in profit against the interests of the public to a right to free speech. And this juxtaposed with other statements made by Twitter regarding its work. We can see that this is also balanced against other interests. So our team continues its diligent work to keep the platform safe from hateful conduct, abusive behavior, and any violation of Twitter's rules. When they're committing to acting diligently, I take that as a promise. They're telling me that they are working properly, but what does it mean? So the next thing would be to start deriving from these very general duties of diligence and fairness some specific obligations that we can start prescribing. The first thing I think which is quite an easy derivative to make is that to say that they have an affirmative duty to consider, that is they have to consider users' interests, they have to consider the public interest. And so for example, they can't act arbitrarily, just take down my content because they like to. Okay? For example, they can't, they can't inflict disproportionate harm neither on the public or on specific users when pursuing their profit. Furthermore, we can start thinking about procedural mandates. Professor Van Loon here wrote a lot about procedural mandates and I'm offering a way for courts to actually impose such mandates through the platform's duty of diligence and fairness to which they commit themselves. Furthermore, we can start thinking of systemic consideration, how this entire system is structured. Is this going to uphold their commitment of fairness and diligence? This is a question that courts can start looking into and examining what they are actually doing. And I think another suggestion here is that it actually provides a legal hook for enforcing human rights commitments that platforms make. And I think this is also important because some scholars have been struggling to show why platforms actually have to do this, why we can impose this duty on them. And I bring an option, I think, that so far hasn't been used. Finally, some cautionary remarks. Of course, this is not a perfect solution. No solution is perfect. But specifically, we need to think about institutional limitations of courts. For example, they're dealing with a specific case. They are reactive rather than proactive. So it's hard for them to consider the public interests or collective interests. These are open texture standards that might create some uncertainty in the market, what platforms actually have to do. And this might bring about judicial encroachment on platforms decision-making, which is also very concerning. And for this, I offer a few solutions. We have for dealing with collective interests, we can think about class sections. But beyond that, we can start thinking about what should be the standard of review. That is, we need a differential standard of review. We need platforms to have the breathing space they need to actually do what they believe is enforcement of their own policies without intervention, unless in extreme situations. And for that, I offer a platform judgment rule, which takes from the business judgment rule to an extent. We can talk about it this more later. And I offer a specific remedial approach that prioritizes equitable remedies that is mostly injunctions that are focused on maintaining their relationship and just correcting mistakes rather than compensating specific users for or collective user groups for damages they incur. Because we understand that damages are inevitable in this situation because mistakes will happen, but we want mistakes to be corrected. Unless, if the plaintiff can produce evidence that show that platform is acted in bad faith or in gross negligence, I think damages might be appropriate to cover for the deterrence gap. And to finish, I think the paper offers several novel contributions. It examines private laws role in social media governance, provides a comprehensive contractual analysis that I think was missing from the literature. It provides a novel approach for employing relational contract theory in this context. Revisits platform immunity from contractual claims, offers pictorial solutions, such as imposing fairness in diligence at a financial standard review and a distinct remedial approach. And with that, we'll pass to the discussion. Thank you very much. So an important contribution, I want to start by asking about the moral argument. You said the moral argument is better than talking about good and bad. So why and explain more? And this is only about promises. Is there something else going on? I think let's talk about K. Klanick's famous New Governors' Beasts. Where is she? Where she held interviews with the social media personnel and found what is actually moving their behavior. She found that social media personnel is very American in his first amendment approach. She found that they are moved by social responsibility ideals. And she found that they are interested in reputation. Good reputation. What is missing here is that they should be moved, I believe, by trying but the moral command to uphold their promises. And the fact that they are not, I think, has to do with the fact that we are not thinking about whether they are actually misleading us when they are operating the systems. And I think putting this on the table could be very influential into the ways they are actually working. And furthermore, I think it's easier to translate that into legal action or legal response because we don't want to impose ideas of social responsibility or goods preventing obscenity from being in the market of ideas. But rather, we are fine with imposing just a requirement to uphold your promises. So this is why I think this is kind of an important aspect to both. It's both more operational and in many ways it actually takes the companies at their word. They say this is what they want to be and then as you pointed out reputation matters to them a great deal. If I just can add something, I think that they are actually very much using this idea that this is the promise we make. We saw that in their pleadings in Gonzalez, for example. They started out by saying, what do you mean we support terrorism with our algorithms? We have strict policies and we regularly enforce them to take down terrorist content. Okay, so we failed here or there, but the fact that they commit themselves to it kind of shows the world who they are. And now let's say, okay, if you're saying that to a court of law, right? You should uphold that, that will be judicial stop-off or something like that, right? We want them to keep their promise. One thing that I really admire in your effort is that you really dig down into what is this mean doctrineally. So for a moment, let us talk doctrineally to define the duty in terms of best efforts and to translate best efforts in turn into fairness and diligence. Is there anything that's actually specific with regard to amount of effort, time, or comparative in a sector in an industry? What's the reasonable standard of investment? Yeah, so I think first of all, from the case law on best efforts, it's not, I haven't seen a lot of that in consumer contracts context. Nonetheless, it has to do clearly with industry norms that needs to be understood. And I think that through the process of litigation that could be exposed by parties bringing evidence about how this typically works and what technologies are there out there to help us in our efforts and whether they're implemented or not. For example, if Elon Musk says we are not using algorithms to moderate, that could be a reason to suspect that they're not performing their duty diligently. Or they're not being honest, right? Either way. There are issues about whether it's only big platforms then that can comply as opposed to new or startup but we can handle that maybe. But another doctrinal question is what do you really mean by platform judgment rule? Okay, so here I borrowed a concept from corporate law about a business judgment rule that what he does is basically insulating platforms decision making from, insulating platforms good faith decision making from judicial intervention and basically provides them immunity unless the plaintiff can bring some evidence suggesting that this presumption of good faith can be rebutted. So it is similar in corporate law when you want to protect the director from liability. And actually I think it has similar rationals. You don't want to replay, courts don't have expertise in content moderation. We acknowledge that some risk is necessary and we acknowledge that users accept a risk here that content moderation won't be perfect just like shareholders accept that some risks would be inevitable. And actually protecting directors would allow the market to succeed just like protecting platforms decision making would allow social media like the debate to be handled more freely. So I think there are a lot of comparisons to make here. I would say that there is some literature suggesting that this should be kept strictly to fiduciary relationship. This raises several questions specifically we know for example we have Balkans and Zetrain's idea of information fiduciaries seeing platforms as fiduciary. I think that this is not actually a peer requirement and since the rationals are completely aligned here and since we have the same expectation I think this should be employed here and insulate platforms from judicial intervention as well we can in the future this is just an initial proposal in the future we can think of something like anti-slab procedures et cetera to make this even more supportive of platforms free decision making. So developing the right balance between responsibility and avoiding interference with what does the ongoing operations raises really an ongoing issue which is individuals versus entities and the power relationships between individual users and then the platform companies. You mentioned class actions as one possible way to deal with that power balance but I wonder if you can talk more about the degree to which the private law approach assumes equal bargaining power partners which may be lacking here. Okay so first of all I want to say that relational contract theory does not assume that. Some people think it is but it does not. There may be some very substantial power differences between parties to relational contracts and especially power shifts throughout the relationship so we can think about it's not, it doesn't bar the analysis I think it's not really a problem. I think that private law, a contract law let's say has ways to deal with the collective interests not only through class actions but we can start looking I think also professor Vanu wrote something about this that users' interests are not limited to their identity as individuals. They also include their identity as members of groups or users on the network or as members of the public as a whole which I think are particularly acute when you have a very large platform that can actually induce a lot of harm, create a lot of inflict a lot of harm to the public as a whole. So I think contract law can definitely weigh in on these considerations and this way kind of balance scales to an extent. It's interesting even to think about the user as speaking for the network of users and that that's an interest quite separate from them as individuals. Yes, I agree, I agree. And I think to understand it's also like that in corporate law when you have derivative actions where one shareholder can speak on behalf of the corporation or the company as a whole and representing the interests of all shareholders. This I think professor Elkin Coran with a couple of partners wrote a piece about contractual networks and how this manifests into the discussion about social media where actually one node in the network has the interest of preserving the network as a whole and this interest should be represented. Right, maybe coming up in the proposals to limit TikTok because is there a property interest or some other network interest for people that have access to TikTok is already an issue that's being raised. You know, you made reference to at least one of the current U.S. Supreme Court cases and I'm wondering whether if you were given the chance to speak to the court, what would you advise them as they wade into the social media world? Well, specifically in the NetJoyce cases, my say initial reaction, the NetJoyce cases are about common carriage legislation that Texas and Florida have adopted to prevent platforms from discriminating speech based on opinion or based viewpoint or to take down politicians' speech. I would say that my initial reaction is that I don't want these legislations. This is a contractual issue. If the platform agrees to take certain content, it should do it and if it fails to do so, it should be held liable and correct its ways. We do not want the state to start deciding whether this or that discriminated editorial decision-making, let's say, is correct or wrong. And the less direct governmental intervention to hear, I think the better, unless, well, maybe that also depends on context and can be nuanced. There are some things that governments can do like transparency mandates, like procedural mandates, for example. There is something that we do want the government to intervene and I think, you know, even when we see enactments like the DSA, for example, which is very robust, you see that eventually they too try to give platform space by saying we want to make sure that you're actually performing the contract that you're suggesting. In many ways, you are focused on some dichotomies, public and private. You're also talking about individual and group. You're also talking about network versus individual. And at the same time, you and I have talked about it's complementary, these are not either ors and I wonder if you wanna reflect about that and specifically, you're not saying that private law should replace public law? You think that they can work together? Yeah, I kinda, I wanna say that private law deserves like a seat at the table and to be considered more expansively or because it has different features to it. It can help us in different context and it has different moral underpinnings and there's absolutely no reason not to put it on the table. I have this concern that this has to do with sociology behind the academic environment or that people who were very much into freedom of speech and governmental work were those inclined into the social media questions. I don't wanna say that too decisively but I think there's certainly more room to explore the options of private law. I'm gonna open it in a minute. I have one more question for you, although I could keep going for many hours here. One more question I have for you is in your discussion of the cautions or concerns at the end, you note that there is a kind of institutional limitation from the private law approach in that it puts the burden on a private actor to initiate and I'm wondering if in the spirit of your comment a minute ago about the complementarity possibilities of public and private, if we could think about something even like whether it's self-regulation of the Facebook Oversight Board or it's some role of an administrative agency that is more proactive but still respectful of these private solutions? Well, that's a hard question. I think first talking of the Facebook Oversight Board I think that is a good direction. I don't think it's enough and I think we need to incentivize that better. The platform judgment rule that I suggested actually tries to incentivize exactly that saying that platforms can gain immunity if they defer to an independent body that makes a decision. But the way the Facebook Oversight Board is currently structured, it's very limited in its powers. So I don't think that's enough but we want to make that move forward. So yes, I think that some more public, let's say public intervention is not a bad thing like necessarily it just depends on what exactly you are doing and what are the limits of that power. And I'm generally pretty much concerned about things that we're seeing in Europe just because I think once you put on, just I'm thinking like a lawyer they say that lawyers as a lawyer you always have to think about what would happen if this goes wrong, right? What would happen if a liberal government becomes a fascist government then you have a lot of power there to deal with. So in that sense, I think Professor Chandler wrote a piece about like the DSA would be just what a pudding would like to have or something of that sort and if that's the same, so it's a problem. So I'm very hesitant about that but again, I'm trying to offer a different path. I'm trying to give a private law intervention that might be helpful. Well, one other version of a kind of hybrid would be a public standard that has safe offers for private actors that do certain things. So there might be nudges from the public sector that activate. Yeah, I think to an extent this is what Section 230 tried to do or the congressman Conversky, the legislator tried to do but the court immediately interpreted it very broadly. So yes, that could be a good nudge. And again, we should see how the process of common law litigation, it should have the space to correct itself but this is like centuries of law and common law. Common law starts and then the legislature corrects and you go on. Very good, so I'd like to open it up for comments or questions. And if you would just identify yourself when you ask your comment and I think we have a couple here. Wait for the mic that's coming. Thank you, my name is Lisa Austin. I'm a visitor here from the University of Toronto where I'm law prof. So I really like your approach to looking at the tools of private law. I teach private law at U of T and so I do think we neglect the set of resources that are there. But I wanna push you on a few things here and it's coming from my other hat being as a privacy law scholar, so thinking about technology very much through a different kind of lens. And so a lot of what you were saying and I know partly it's because you're condensing our complicated set of arguments in a very quick general sort of discussion here. But keep talking about the common law and contract law and then opposing it to legislation and I guess in the spirit of this kind of what are these hybrid approaches potentially? There's a lot in private law that's statutory intellectual property is created by statute. Corporations are created by statute. Property law has loads of statutes in it. So it's not that private law is just common law and judge made law and then or we have public law in the imposed legislation. It's a much more complicated terrain than that and why do I think it's important? Because a number of the things that you're pointing to here like the response to Professor Minow's comments about collective interests where we could have user interests and bringing forward their interests as members of groups or whatever. There's standing questions there that have played privacy law actions and so that could be solved through legislation more easily than through test case litigation. You have novel proposals around damages.  We do a lot of stuff with corporations through statutes. So it seems to me that you could still set up a very contractual like approach to social media governance but through legislation that would target some of the potential weaknesses of what you wanna propose here. And then the other one that I wanted to kind of throw on the table is that a lot of things that you're talking about here presuppose that the individuals bringing those actions are gonna have a lot of information and that's what we don't have. We don't just have power asymmetries. We have information asymmetries and I think one of the interesting things coming out of some of the proposals like the DSM, whatever you think of anything else is proposals to provide access to data and other people have been proposing whistleblower or let's just say federal whistleblower legislation. People need information. So you have to solve the transparency problem and it's not clear that you can do that just through litigation but maybe there could be some kind of other hybrid.  It can be enhancing the private side. Thank you very much. I think these are wonderful comments. For the first comment about the relationship between common law and legislation, I agree completely. I think since, I don't know, for hundreds of years, this is how the law has been developing including corporate law. Corporate law has started from courts of equity in England and then the legislature came in and started addressing these, or the norms that were coming out from the courts and correcting them. I think to understand this is also what happened with section 230. It started from bad common law and the Congress intervened to make it better to correct the incentive structure that was created. So I think this is necessary but I think there is a specific problem here which is the First Amendment that prevents a direct intervention by the government in many respects, not all of them but to go into the second comment, I think, yes, the DSM like transparency requirements, all of these operations, that is great. I agree with, I support that and I think these are again tools that are complementary. They're not, I don't think they're substitutionary unless, again, there's a specific constraint that doesn't allow public law to intervene or if we really don't want it to intervene for other reasons. As you know, I think this is a terrific project. Say who you are, Henry. Rory Van Loo, Boston University and you're actually right that the public emphasis is missing from the platform governance conversations but it's counterintuitive that you need to make the move that you do in this paper which is a contribution. In the sense that the early platform governance scholarship was very anti-regulation if you will, almost libertarian based on this belief that this decentralized mass of users and platforms would figure it out through private ordering and contracts, right? Then a wave of more public founded, if you will, public oriented scholarship appeared almost in response to that early private ordering scholarship, if you will and the pendulum swung the other direction but your scholarship, both in this paper and as I understand it where it's going really kind of unearths, if you will, some of the public duties that one can find in private law and that's one of the rich elements of it. And so I would just be interested in hearing you speak a little bit more whether based on your own scholarly arc or the broader conversations, whether there's this, like how do you situate this one within that arc? Thank you very much. Okay, so I think that this approach, I have a friend who read the paper and he said, well, of course I don't agree with it because this is kind of conservative because it appeals to courts and that is the conservative move. I don't think it's a conservative move. I think offering to impose duties private corporations to respect the public interest, that's what some radical move. And I think in this specific context, it's particularly correct. And to address your comment, I think private law since always had private public considerations embedded in it. I think something went wrong to an extent. I think contract law needs to adapt. Like it has always been doing. And I think the reality creates pressure on judges to start moving in that direction. And I think we're seeing that right now. We're seeing courts struggling. What do we do with section 230? How do we intervene in what's going on here? And they can't find the right way to do it. And I'm trying to an extent, this paper is, its audience are judges and litigators. I want them to start moving this forward and use the resources, the infinite resources of common law or private law in this direction. Again, like I replied, I think this is, it has always been like a question of harmonizing private and public action, right? Private and public law. And I think this is a minor contribution in that direction that I think we should all aspire to generate. I'm gonna just jump in here and say that I think that your resistance to a sharp dichotomy is really an asset here. Because the way in which we artificially describe private law and public law prevents people from seeing an iterative process of developing norms that actually bridges those two. And you are unabashedly and always eager to talk about big values. And the values are there. The values are reinforced then by government enforcement. So even a private contract reflects public enforcement. Thank you for saying this better than me. But... My name is Matilda. I'm a marketing scholar. I work in the business school. And many of these aspects here have been very heavily investigated in marketing discipline from the relational norms to how do we protect consumers, et cetera. So my question to you and Marta, if you can comment. How is this, this is more like an explanation to me. How is this different than consumer protection laws? And we know that they haven't been very successful in really protecting consumers. And as a European, of course, my second question to you is what about laws of protecting against harm? I'm not a lawyer. So this is more trying to understand how these different laws actually fit together because we do have many different aspects in common from the trust to consumer protection to privacy protection, et cetera. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. I think first of all, I don't think the final word has been said about product liability claims that are dedicated, as we speak, in the United States. For example, there is a big lawsuit kind of dedicated right now about children's safety. That could have contributions. Tort law and contract law have different assumptions, but the line is not very distinct, very often, right? When platforms provide a service, we can say this is a fraudulent misrepresentation that deserves some consumer law kind of tort law redress. Or we can say this is a breach of contract. Litigators talking both voices constantly. The question is what is, again, not in either or, it's both. The question is what are the limitations of each method, right? So I think contract law gives us more respect to voluntarily assumed obligations, which is crucial, I think, in the context of speech. Product liability, again, could be very efficient when you're talking about children's safety creating an addictive product, for example, which irrespective of what content is there on the platform, but it just creates addiction that creates harm that needs to be redressed. I think product liability lawsuits could prevail on that, but also, I think, a contractual liability based on a concept of fairness, based on a concept that platforms actually need to consider children's interests when they're operating, right? Once we say that, we can, you come from marketing, right? So platforms, they have to give these representations. They have to create this reputation, otherwise people wouldn't be on the platform, right? So I think this is an important reservation. I think Professor Balkin had it about the contractual approach to social media governance. He said, well, platforms can simply change the contract, right? So I don't think they simply can, because there are market concerns, and especially if you step away from the idea that this is just the terms and conditions, and you start exposing all the norms and expectations that flow into this contract, you see that they have to consider. Children's and users generally interests as well. So one of the most powerful parts of your analysis, and you just touched on it, is to expose that the relationship established by contract is not simply what's reduced to a term of service.  It's a good one. The consumer protection law has not been entirely, not been very successful at all. And yet, if we understand that the consumer relationship is not just the thin contract of the entire set of relationships that are established, especially where it's ongoing as it is with social media, it can be a much thicker body of duties than we have when you buy a toaster. Now, when you buy the toaster though, there is tort law that is also possible. So I think understanding that there are multiple tools is helpful. Nonetheless, I come back to you about the power imbalance and resource imbalance. I think it came up before. If there is a body of norms, but there aren't the resources to actually enforce them. Should there be an obligation on the platform companies to contribute to a trust fund that can subsidize the development of private law enforcement? I don't think you could find such a duty through a private law approach. This is public law imposition, which as an initial response, I don't have reservation against. I think actually tend to support it. And I think, yes, I think we can think a lot about how do we bridge this power asymmetry? How do we create easier processes to address harm? This could be an online court. It could be mandates, procedural mandates. It could be many things. Then again, this is kind of a first step in what should start happening now. Courts starting to intervene and kind of weighing in on what platforms they're actually doing, but in a very cautious manner so as not to replace their judgment. You know, you refer to the origins of corporate law in the courts of equity, which of course, even previously prior to that time really are about royal power, royal prerogative. And I think that we would do ourselves some service by recognizing that there is a privilege being given to companies to be able to access the market. And if it doesn't have to be this royal edict, it is in a democracy, it is a privilege that the people give. But there are reciprocal obligations that come from that privilege. I tend to agree. Okay. Well, I think we're coming to the end of our time. Thank you all for participating. We'll start with a big round of applause.


From the SAP Center at San Jose, home of the San Jose Sharks. Extracting the signal from the noise. It's theCUBE, covering HGST, sports data, Silicon Valley. Brought to you by HGST. Now your hosts, John Furrier and Jeff Frick. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are here live in San Jose at the Shark Tank. This is theCUBE Silicon Angles flagship program. We go out to the events, extract the signal from the noise. I'm John Furrier, the founder of Silicon Angles. I'm joined by my co-host Jeff Frick, the general manager of theCUBE. Special presentation here at the Shark Tank. Our next guest is David Tang, SVP and general manager of HGST Cloud. Infrastructure business, welcome to theCUBE. Special presentation. Thanks. It's great to be here. Always great to be back on theCUBE, and especially here at SAP Center. Home of the Shark. Live audience, everybody's excited. So I said on my Facebook broadcast, theCUBE, HGST and your customers, it's a hat trick of innovation. It really is. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. The sports, we love sports because sports now really emphasizes the future of IT and the cloud, managing your employees, managing your fans, customers, and also the experience of that. All that together now is now the holy grail for all businesses. Right, absolutely. Sports is like, it's a microcosm of the whole big data movement, an IoT movement, right? You've got customers or fans and their experience, their engagement can be improved all based on data. And from the perspective of the team, the players, they can make a better product, they can ensure performance at its maximum, and even prevent injuries to their key players. So it's a fantastic opportunity and fantastic way to really emphasize the value of data. You know, data's a competitive advantage, and that's one thing that now has hit mainstream, was kind of in the early adopter, the Silicon Valley, Echo Chamber, and all the elite and the vendors who are out there doing it now, with big data analysts and cloud, and having data available, not just stored, but real-time, we mentioned earlier, real-time communications, mobile devices, but now you have new fan experiences, Oculus Rift, Virtual Reality, those are data-driven devices. So will there be a slowdown in storage and cloud? I'm rhetorical, obviously yes. What's your take on that? I mean, it's never ending. It is never ending. I mean, the amount of data that's being created is growing at an astronomical rate, and the amount of data that's valuable enough to analyze in real-time and store and re-analyze for historical purposes is also growing. So, you know, this whole notion of a data-centric world really equates to a storage-centric data center. So it's fantastic, it's a great time to be in storage. And really the expectations on access to information, speed of that access, richness of that access, you know, we always talk about kind of before Google and after Google, which really change the perception of what people expect to be able to get out of their little mobile phone. And now we've seen that obviously trickle into the enterprise, influence the enterprise. You know, they've got to make that data available to their customers, their employees, customers, partners quickly. It's got to be there. And really expectations on the performance of the applications which are all driven by the data has changed dramatically over the last few years. Yeah, right. The demands on data are just skyrocketing. So it's not just having data available to you as in pieces of information, but it has to be actionable. It has to be to help you make decisions. So driving not only to web-related response times, but driving to real-time analytics, real-time information, real-time decision-making, that's the key. The other piece that keeps coming up over and over we do a lot of big data shows, right? Is it used to be you just couldn't afford to store everything. You just couldn't, the exhaust, right? Talk about the data exhaust, you just let it ride, maybe grab a sampling. But now people don't want to do sampling anymore. They want to be able to get all the data. They want to be able to cut it, slice it, dice it, however they want. So now that's just driving more demand for more data because I don't want to sample, I don't want to throw away. I don't know if I'm going to need this today or tomorrow or down the road. Yeah, absolutely. So the notion of sampling has gone away. Companies, organizations want to store all the data. And not only that, they want to store it in raw form. There used to be, you tried to save space in storage systems by compressing the data, but now you don't know what kind of algorithms are going to come up in the future that can be used to analyze the data and extract more value from the data. So the last thing you want to do is compress something and lose future value. So it's not just more data, it's the fact that that data needs to be stored in its raw state. David, take a step back and talk about any updates in your organization because now obviously the world has moved into this post-client server world. We're seeing things. We saw the big acquisitions are happening, Dell buying EMC, big consolidations, but there's so much new stuff happening. A new era is upon us, cloud, mobile, social, big data. What's new with you guys and some of the things that you guys are doing to take advantage of this next huge wave? Right. So a lot of analysts refer to this new wave as the third platform of computing where client server, as you mentioned, is the second platform of computing. And the key characteristic of the third platform of computing is this massive scale ability to take on the growth in data as well as the ability to stretch computing capabilities when you need to, this elasticity of computing capability. So this all relies on more of a software centric, software-defined infrastructure. So you've heard the term software-defined networking, software-defined storage, software-defined data centers. And the reason for that is that's what enables you to scale at massive levels, petabyte scales, exabyte scales. Prior to that, everything was built in silos where they could only grow so far. So when we're talking about the amount of data doubling every two years or less, we really need environments and architectures that are going to manage that growth and do it in a very, very affordable way as well. Talk about the dynamic as you mentioned silos, right? So data silos don't work well on this new data hoarding and kind of putting the data, putting it out in the far hinterlands of the company. It's got to be real time. So that's one thing. Talk about the openness of data, why is it open? And then talk about this new analytics software market where data analytics and software, the interplay between that software development market and then this open data. And what does that do for customers? Right, so they're very interrelated, those questions. So the openness is important because back in the world of client server and especially in mainframe, the silos were made up of the application as well as the data. And the data that was created was only accessed by that one application. Now we're in a world where you have many, many applications wanting to access the same data. I mean, we see that every day with our own cell phones or smartphones that we have several applications that want to access contacts or calendars. The same thing goes with big data and IoT. You want that data to be accessible for multiple applications. Therefore, you need an openness, open APIs on how to access that data. And in terms of the analytic nature of that structure is you really need two different general categories of analytics to be able to access the data. One is real time, the real time analysis of what's going on to be able to make decisions in real time. And the other one is that you want to store all the data that's gathered from its point of inception and you want the ability to analyze that over longer periods of time or access it over longer periods of time. For example, with video content in sports, being able to access any random play and similar plays, that takes a very open and very scalable architecture. So I wonder if you could follow up on that as content like video has become more pervasive and a more kind of general purpose communication vehicle than it used to be. And what are you seeing from some of your clients in terms of their demands for storage based on simply shifting a greater focus of their communications effort, their documentation, their training, whether that be external or internal HR, welcome to the company. Two things like video in these rich formats. So video as a content of course is gaining in popularity. It's very easy to consume and it's becoming very easy or easier to create. But it's more than just the content. It's the ability to find the content and understand the context in which that content was captured. So actually in addition to just the video streams that are being created, content needs to be indexed as well. So the ability to identify in the sporting realm, identify the players, identify the conditions of play, the opponent, all the things that you would want to search on at a later time to be able to call up past clips or to try to predict what might happen next. That's all important as well. So it's not just a matter of the content or the data in itself. It's really about the data about the data that's becoming you more important, which is causing even stronger demands for storage and computing. So we have some questions on the crowd chat from DPAC. Any plans to leverage IoT to monitor concussions in real time? And then in addition to using next-gen replay, monitoring impacts, this kind of equipment. So have you seen some of your customers doing things like that in the sports world and or giving general comments around IoT in general? Because it brings up a safety issue which is a societal benefit. IoT has that. So tie that together. Yeah, so I certainly think that that's a possibility. I mean, we see a lot of innovation in helmets that can determine what the force of an impact is. Don't necessarily see that coming into professional sports yet, but I think with a lot of what we're seeing in the NFL, as well as in the hockey world, that is probably gonna, it's just a matter of time before that becomes commonplace. And it's not just the obvious impacts. There are wearables that can determine how much strain an athlete is under. Are they over-exerting themselves? Are they becoming more prone to injury? So I think even on a preventative basis, IoT and wearables can help to play into. What about the IoT trend in general? I mean, obviously this being hyped up big time now. How much of that on your radar is all in? How big will it be in your mind? Do you see that as a massive tsunami or is it just over-hyped right now? Oh, I think it's a massive tsunami, not just in terms of the wearable devices that I think are getting a lot of the play, but also other sensors that can detect other characteristics of people, of situations, environment, I mean, fixed cameras and arenas are an example, but we were talking to a company that's developing next generation image sensors, so they can actually do very rich 3D imaging. They can tell the difference between a grimace on a professional athlete that's caused by pain or a grimace that's caused by maybe disappointment of the outcome of the play. Mr. Fieldville, lost again. So those are all important to feeding into that, but we just see a massive explosion for IoT across all industries. So Dave, I wonder if we can talk tech a little bit. We love Moore's Law, we love going to Intel, and Moore's Law is impacting all the sensors, it's impacting the compute capacity, it's impacting networking. What are some of the things that you can share that you're seeing just great technological innovation that's enabling the storage, it's got a whole lot of stuff to keep ahead and to stay current with all these other innovation across the compute cycle? Right, so I think there are a couple dimensions to that. One is the underlying technologies that enable storage devices to store more and operate at higher performance. But I think there are other aspects of innovation as well, and that's really something that HEST is focusing on is the ability to innovate in multiple dimensions. So we not only have the ability to develop hard disk rise, for example, that can store more data because they're helium filled because we're using advanced head and disk technologies, but what we're doing is we're looking at the entire system as a point of innovation. So taking devices and optimizing those devices for custom design hardware, designing software to take full advantage of that underlying hardware, really co-optimizing all of those areas within an architecture to drive the capabilities even further. So with our systems, we're delivering more value than the sum of the parts than what you'd get otherwise without that co-optimization. So we're really trying to take innovation to another level and something that we refer to as vertical innovation because we're covering so much of the vertical stack of the system now. And how much of that is driven by cloud? Because like you said, cloud is so big now. And really the promise of cloud is capacity on demand. That's compute capacity, store capacity, network capacity, that's just there. And the expected performance and behavior is thanks to Amazon, I swipe my card, it's there for me now. How has that really impacted your guys' kind of system approach to looking at storage as part of that whole thing as opposed to just kind of hanging off the side? Well, so the shift from traditional enterprise data center architectures, second platform architectures over to the cloud or third platform architectures is a key enabler to the innovation that we're bringing to market. Because those environments just demand more scalability and elasticity and flexibility, as you mentioned. So we see that as a great opportunity for our efforts in cloud infrastructure. We are David Tang, the SVP General Manager of HGST, Cloud Infrastructure Business Unit. Thanks so much for coming on theCUBE here for, and thanks for putting on this special presentation. Give me the final word. Talk about the fun aspect of, so the shark, Zamboni there, the petabiter, it's a little tricked out, it's got a little fin on it. You guys are humanizing it. You're into sports, you've got the CrossFit thing. Is that part of the strategy? You're humanizing it? Talk a little bit quickly about all that exciting stuff. Well, so a lot of aspects there. So our partnership with CrossFit is fantastic. HGST was recognized as one of the fittest companies in the country, and it's not just the sense of getting exercise and being fit. It's the camaraderie that it creates in the workplace. So even though you may think of CrossFit as a competitive sport, it actually builds camaraderie because you're really competing with yourself, with your last workout when it comes to CrossFit. So you have a full people encouraging you to take your workout to the next level. So that's a great cultural aspect within the company. It also allows people, individuals from different functions to get to know each other, and that results in better, more effective teams. I think in terms of just what we're trying to accomplish with data and being able to enable organizations to extract more value from that data is we're trying to personalize a broad set of experiences. A lot of people think that information technology goes to dilute that. We think that it actually can enhance that because think about it. If a particular workout course benefits maybe 80% of the people, well that's great. But what if I'm in that 20%? Well if I could have big data helping to prescribe a very specific workout arrangement for myself, I can benefit from that. That's a lot more personalized and humanized and prescriptive, so that's really- And that's a big trend, it's not going away. That's right. The eye watches, all kinds of sensors, humanization is personal now. That's right. It's wearables, all that good stuff. David, thanks so much for the Cube. We'll be back with more live coverage of the special Cube presentation. We'll be right back after this short break.


In the face of gripping unemployment and economic hardship, Nigerian youths are set to get inspired and get a sense of direction in the world of entrepreneurship. This hint was given at a press conference to announce this year's edition of Tinkation 2024, being put together by the Ubon King Foundation. The host, Dr. Uyime Ivi King, said the event that switched it on was born to inspire and give young persons business ideas to be great entrepreneurs. Planked by her team members, the convener also said the foundation is bringing successful businessmen and women as resource persons who will add value to the participants. Tinkation is the annual flagship event of the Ubon King Foundation, and it was conceived by our founder, Ubon King, seven years ago. It's made an edition held in 2018 here in Lagos. This event was born out of the founder's burning pain point, having known and tested failure, rejection and ridicule, but he writes from all of that, he rose from the ashes of defeat to success and impactful living. His life experiences birth a strong passion to raise young entrepreneurs, and we demand it to impact their world through creative thinking. It's not just the networking alone. It will be knowledge passed out, there will be a leadership certificate given to participants and many other opportunities that will come with that. And then for the future of Tinkation, we are hoping that eventually we will be able to move Tinkation to different locations, it will be just Lagos. We may have Tinkation even outside of Nigeria by the grace of God, and we are expecting that more people will partner with us to achieve our vision because our vision is loaded. While explaining the benefit of the conference to Nigeria, Dr. Unyume said it would help reduce unemployment by making more Nigerians to think out of the box and be business owners. Tinkation is a creative merger of thinking, education and the organizers believe it is the missing component in young minds and businesses today. We believe in Nigeria. We believe that Nigeria has everything it takes to take her place as a leader among the committee of nations. So this conference is to encourage participants to not just come and listen, to switch on that thing that is on the inside that is yearning for expression. Everybody has something on the inside to offer and will not be among those who sit back and complain, it's not working, government is not doing this, government is not doing that. We are our own governments. So this is our message for this edition. Switch on that gift on the inside. And of course you know when your business turns around, if you're previously like an employer of one, when it blows you can't do it all alone, you need to get more hands in. It becomes a ripple effect and it affects the larger society and cascades for that into the economy. But it just starts from the little seed that Tinkation shows. So there's always an economic impact in various ways. The film switched it on because it's intentional, you have to take that action. Because it took actions, they now have their own businesses. They've employed other persons, they now register the businesses with the government. So it's generating funds for the government through CAC and also giving them the ability to sustain themselves without depending on anybody. So I think the ripple effect, we cannot overemphasize because the stories are out there.


Russia began to concentrate its army in the south of Ukraine. The Russian forces continued to transform military equipment and manpower toward captured Berdiansk in southern Ukraine. That's according to Patriot Andriyoschenko, the advisor to the Maripole mayor, who reported the news on Telegram, posting the relevant photos and videos from the streets of Maripole, Ukraine-informed reports. Intensified military movement toward Berdiansk continues. Every day on average, up to 10 tracked vehicles are transported in the direction of Berdiansk. Also intensified movement of trucks carrying soldiers alive so far. Now, it's mostly troops from Russia, the ones openly mobilized, Andriyoschenko wrote. According to the official, Russian commanders tell their subordinates to buy SIM cards for their cell phones with a local mobile operator, Phoenix, operating in the opcupied areas and to switch off Russian SIM cards. In addition, the mayor's advisor noted that the invaders began to build a fortification line in the area of the village of Rozhivka in Zeforyshia region at the administrative border with Donetsk region. Russian invaders have been gradually turning the temporary occupied Maripole into a military base. Minister of Defense Olesky Reznikov told the Ukrainian forces will continue to defend their land, destroying enemy equipment and ammunition with all means available. We have shot down our shooting down and will still shoot down Russian drones, missiles, planes and helicopters in our skies. We will use everything from old man pads to the modern patriot systems. We protect our own land.


Hello everybody, E here. Welcome back to another episode of 31 Days of Halloween. We made it another year. I am notoriously bad at keeping promises on this channel, a finishing series, and I appreciate all of you who stuck by me when there was like four, five, six months with absolutely no content on the channel before I started my live streaming. But I knew I couldn't miss 31 Days of Halloween and I finally made it. Super proud of myself. So give me some love down there in the doobly-doo. I'm just as surprised as everyone else that I made it two years in a row. But happy Halloween. Today I struggled with what to post today because I was reading a book that I was looking forward to even though I only gave the first book three stars. I'm not going to name it here. If you've been on my live streams you've heard me talk about it. But I pretty much hated it and I didn't want to go out on the final day of the month on Halloween with a negative review. So if you heard me talk about what I was going to be reviewing today and this is not it, I apologize. But today we're talking about Hocus Pocus 2 and how happy I am that this exists. I'm a huge, massive mega fan of the original one. I love the witches. I love binks, jinx. I can't remember the cat's name, but I love the cat. I love the undead dude. I love all of it. Going into this one I was worried about maybe just cash grab like most people. And I was like, I don't think that Bette Midler, Kathy Najemi, and Sarah Jessica Parker would come back just for the money. I think they're, I had faith that they would come back for something if they believed that it was worth the time and effort to do so and think, fuck, I was correct. Sorry for the language. But anyways, this is an amazing movie. It's just as good as the first one. I took a long time. I watched this at the beginning of October and I've been thinking about it nearly daily on how much I love this movie. It is a perfect sequel. If you love the original, more than likely you are going to absolutely love this one. And one of the main reasons for that I feel is because of the ending.  I don't know about you. I don't care what you think about me. I was crying my eyes out as was my oldest. Shell is not a movie crier, but she was touched also. This is the perfect ending. And we don't need any more hocus pocus movies. We didn't need this one really. We wanted it, but we didn't need it. It's kind of like the Nightmare Before Christmas. As you can see, I'm a bit of a fan of Nightmare Before Christmas. We don't need a sequel to that. It would be nice to see one if they did it right and they put the same passion and effort into it as they did back then. And I believe that's what they did this time. So a little bit about the story. The Witch is back. Witches. Multiple. The witches are back. The movie opens up with going back in the day to when they were little girls and how they got their power. Well, how they became witches. That kind of thing. I like seeing that. The movie's hilarious. I thought it was hilarious. I thought it was funny throughout the whole thing until the end. And then it got really sad. But I don't think it could have ended any other way. And it really hit hard. Another thing that I will say is that the witches, Bette Midler, Kathy and Jimmy and Sarah Jessica Parker, they absolutely killed it again. But one of my favorite parts is the musical scene in this one. You know, remember I put a spell on you from the first one? Well, there's a new one in this one. I'm not going to spoil it for you. But if you watch it, if you don't want to pay attention the first time, I suggest watching it all the way through and then go back and watching it again.  Because once again, they get everybody dancing. I'm going to talk about rehashed material here in a second. So bear with me. And if I don't, remind me. Anyways. So there's a lot of Easter eggs in there for other Disney. Just some aren't Disney. There's a lot of cool things to point out with all the people who are dressed up. I like that kind of nostalgia porn, where it doesn't feel like something like Ernest Cline, where the entire story needs to have pop culture references for you to get it, that kind of thing. And that's all that it has. In this one, it's not like that. Now, let's talk about some rehashed scenes, like the dance party. Certain other scenes are kind of rehashed, but they put a new spin on it. You can tell I'm excited. I loved every single bit of it, even the stuff that they did that was fan service. I thought the fan service was done respectfully. It was a perfect tribute to the original movie while extending the story at the same time. The acting is fantastic. The new kids, the trio of girls, teenage girls. I loved everybody in this, although Kelly, I believe, is her name. The one that's not there through like most of it. There's the one that looks like, what, America Ferrera. And I should have looked up their names. And then the main girl, they were more the central cast. And then they had a friend off to the side, which I was wondering about that because they were I think they were trying to mirror the witches being three, the sisters, and then these three friends, so it needed to be three more witches. I'm not sure, but anyways, I didn't mind that the other one was off camera for almost the entirety of the movie. She was maybe in it for maybe five, 15 minutes at most because she's in quite a bit of the ending. But I don't have any complaints. As a huge fan of the original one, this one hit all the same notes, but it also did something new and fun. I love the guy who works at the shop, the witch shop in Salem. Fantastic, fantastic cast, fantastic acting, fantastic story. I'm a huge fan of this movie. And from now on, we will be watching every single spooky season. We'll be watching one and two back to back. But that's enough from this fanboy. If you've seen Hocus Pocus 2, I would love to hear from you down there in the doobly-doo. But until next time, I have been E, you have been U. This has been the last episode of 31 Days of Halloween 2022. I'll talk to you guys later. Bye. I made it. I did. Anyways, bye.


You're about to get munched What's going on everybody? Welcome to today's video. I'm sitting here in a chair in the fill of my room My table is gone. I came back from my cast discovered that my little table That came with the house. It's disappeared. Oh, she's been wheeling and dealing on this this Facebook thing I don't know you just sell stuff usually when I come home Something's been added or deleted from the treehouse and currently I need a table for this place And you guys know that I've had a little woodworking obsession lately kind of getting into it I enjoy it and I got a call from old Lunkers TV Last week saying that he is located some some old wood from our buddy's Ryan's Land and build our own table and maybe build some other stuff depending on how much is out there So let's go check it out and then let's get created Just made it out to Ryan's lane where we're gonna go explore some old old spots You taking a whiz right now. Oh, okay, Ryan just got a new bow. He's getting ready for the fall season I got the Hoyt Rx1 Carbon turbo have you shot it yet? Yeah shot it a couple times. Cinnamon Creek. There's my plug Cinnamon Creek, they hooked me up too. Yeah, that's who hooked me up. What rest did you go with QAD QAD? QAD Spot hog got some 3d targets as well. What's that called? Cuyoo. Cuyoo. Cuyoo. Is that like a new camo brand or something? Cheaper Sitka, but it's like just The Jeepers Got lunkers here, he's about to go trap and swing some metal detector things call it swinging. So what you call it now? Swing I love it. Hey, I found something. Is it you'd be proud of me? It's not that beer can back there I found that What do you got on that? I don't know. I mean, I'm not a daintique guy, but it's pretty cool Look at he's got a wagon wheel in there a legit one I got to see the wagon wheel you want so no I got the one I found the other day was a tractor wheel full blown this tall Like you got it. It's over there. It's right inside that garage. I mean, I don't know how old that is, but it looks pretty old I just Oh, there's some wood. Oh, I always have wood ready Actual wagon wheel from who knows when That's a creepy picture for Whoa, dude, that is a ghostly old frame Look at that. This is a real this is for sure.  It's Texas stuff That looks like it is the barometer old barometer legit. Oh, it's not that old It's from 1995 Here we are yeah, I'm gonna knock it out. I'm not gonna touch this Okay, you got a bad You got a bad juju about I'm not I'm not touching it Yeah, I'll leave it up to you not because I don't want to help you work There's a little bit of a ghost story behind this thing. Let's enter all right Look at these old beans Majestic Majestic, it looks like there's a little bit of a bird do-do issue. Yeah, but all that can be all that can be taken down Whoo, can I come in here? Just going to this room Ryan how old is this over a hundred years? Yeah, absolutely for sure This would when you look at it You can see Where they've taken a saw to saw it Push it pushing a saw chisels all that kind of stuff Lots of character gotta be careful not step through the floor. Yeah So imagine being on the North Texas planes over a hundred years ago Maybe 200 years ago people riding around on horses just in boots It's just down the road a lot of history and this is one of the old barns that was on these planes where they raise cattle and Farmed and you know just did Texas things back in the day man So Ryan has told me that I can take some of this wood to go do some wood projects with at the house OSG is super pumped doing these wood projects is really cool do stuff with new wood But if you have old wood with history behind it It just adds so much more to it adds a story adds value. So I'm really excited I want to know more about the history, which I don't really know yet about this particular building But I want to find out more we're gonna load this wood up and then we're gonna go figure out some projects I need a table. I need a desk And just some other stuff we can do at the tree house with all this wood theme You know the outdoor theme that we're doing. This is incredible. So let's load this stuff up. I Think that's actually like woodpeckers See all the knots. Yeah, I know what this is. It's like an old speaker or something Had to make a pit stop at a little pond. It's on the property This is where Rob's got his blue-gill traps at as you can see it's been a little toasty in Texas in the waters A little far down. That's also why my my door at the tree house isn't closing properly Texas is taking all the water out of the ground But we're gonna capture a few fish down here And then I got a load up and take all this wood back to OSG and show her but I think she's gonna be very excited Everyone I make a fly fishing video Did you say fly fishing video? Yeah I'm down. These fish are trying to eat the dragonflies. It's like a tattoo. I saw on somebody at eye cast Hooked, hooked, hooked. All right, buddy. I've got a I gotta get some water for this fish. Oh Yeah, oh There is some mud that guy has been on Jenny Craig his whole life That's why they're literally trying to jump out of water and eat these dragonflies God do you that's that is like This is why they need to be moved. Yeah, they absolutely need to be moved baitfish in this place Ryan just caught that fish I'm one of our slim shakes. This is one of the baits that I showed at the tank At eye cast just got some news in Literally today things have just been rocking and rolling tackle warehouse They they ordered a bunch of the baits and they were available for pre-order there And they actually sold out of the pre-orders. So Guggen baits Is just like a wildfire right now We're gonna go get some more fish for for the pondry type stuff and then I got to go on lint some wood Here goes the cooler Anyway, I did sniff a few stuff on rock channel if you want to check it out everything good back there Bastille in there All right, the wood has been loaded Woods loaded from this really old building I'm not sure how old it is, but it's time to take it to a new home and here we go We just made it back to the crib To the treehouse and thanks again to Ryan for letting us come out there explore a little bit I did find out that is from a We think an old slave house an old slave house building that was on the property, but we're gonna take that We're gonna turn it into something beautiful And I can't wait to look at these markings and learn a little bit more about the history of the wood You should taste test this. I heard the I heard things dangling on stairs It called me in I like to pick my steak in coconut oil It just gives it a nice juicy flavor Do that pose again do that pose That's the pose Well, my back hurts nowadays good bowl. Good bowl. We got some quinoa for protein spinach We got some sweet potatoes steak. I made a little vinaigrette Perfect the spirit I need to create wood things. What do you think about that wood? A lot of iron. What what do you think about the wood the wood that you got? Yeah, are you gonna do something with it tonight? I'm gonna think about it.  I love the beans Yeah So back to this awesome wood that we found today I've been looking at it and I've done a little research and there's some markings on the ends of the wood And I think I've found out that some of that actually means The type of wood like an SPC Could mean spruce possibly. I'm not sure what MK means And I'm not sure what that MK 87 or 86 whatever that number is. I don't know what that means So if there's any of you out there that know about this stuff, please leave it in the comments down below It'd be cool to know some other facts about some of this really old wood where it came from and check this out They used to put these and these old big pieces of lumber right here and this helps an old big piece of wood from splitting So it's kind of an S pattern piece of metal and they stamp that in there And it holds the piece of wood together prevent it from separating later on in time So I can use these to make legs for the table. I'd have to split them I definitely need some help with that. I have to call them on my my buddy Lance with all of his this tools where he can Make some legs out of these these boards can be used for tabletop Got some really cool character to him here on this beam You can see all the grooves makes it a really cool beam And if we walk into the garage all these boards can be connected together To be used as a tabletop as well So they have little grooves and notches in them and that stuff's kind of hard to find I mean, it's not perfect, but I love all the imperfections. I think that's what makes it really unique and cool So not only do we have the walls to finish, but I also need to get that table going so I can have a cool desk to do live streams and intros of videos and Just other videos with you guys, you know, I've never built a table out of wood I'm definitely gonna call upon my buddy Lance so I don't screw up on such historical wood We're gonna make it cool for you guys and I'll video the process so you get to see it now in other news There's a gosh-dang critter that keeps coming around in my yard. It's either an armadillo or a skunk I got SD cards in my hands. We got to go change our SD cards out on our cameras our Trail cameras to see what the heck is digging around in my yard. You guys want to see it I'll show you what crap's going on. Look at the rooting or rooting mega loads of rooting I mean, it looks like some miniature hogs came through here OSG just got back from a walk She is feeling frosty right now Give her some encouragement in the comments go over to the lake life channel where you can follow her Stuff throughout the day. She's she's trucking here in the last few months and maybe we'll be here soon Speaking of motivation speaking of just awesome attitudes. I got to say Getting back from my cast. This is my first video getting back from there. I was overwhelmed I was blown away everyone that came up to me and there were so many just the positivity I got very little fishing questions. I got mostly. How's your head? How's the baby coming? How's OSG? Man, you've been through a lot this year. Man. I support you I just want to thank each and every one of you that are probably watching right now making me so Humble there at that show and just continuing on there I just I have to thank you for that Makes me want to get up out of bed every day and make more videos and just be open I feel like this last year has been a roller coaster and we're coming up on one year from having tumors so I've just I just kind of open myself up to you guys and It was kind of a vulnerable thing, but because of your massive support. I am just I feel so blessed So thank you so much. So that's all I got for you today. I wish you got rid of my table This is where I started my video today And I will have a new table soon because I found this awesome wood to go build one And I think I'm also gonna do some shelves for the wall with some of that wood So I'm gonna put it to good use guys Thanks for being here for all the adventures if you have questions comments leave them down below if you know about that If you've got some knowledge on that leave your comments down below don't forget to hit the like button and Subscribe right here if you want more videos hit the ding tongs for notifications So you get all of them. I love you guys. Thanks for being here. I'll see y'all on the next one


This Mexican toddler is going viral on TikTok for crying about how she wants to be Chinese. Will she achieve her goal? Let's run the clip. This toddler attends a fully immersed trilingual school where Mandarin is one of the languages spoken, along with English and Spanish. With all the recent celebrations of Chinese New Year, she came home feeling a little left out. Oh man, this is a cute clip. I mean, this is Jose Reyes' daughter. She goes to a trilingual school. I believe in Arizona. They teach in English, Spanish and Mandarin. And she's probably just expressing something about he. He's saying that she felt left out possibly out of the CNY, LNY celebration. Well guys, we're going to talk about it. Maybe this clip will inspire some self-hating Chinese to not hate themselves anymore. Or what does it all mean? Are more and more kids going to feel this way? Or maybe this is just not a big deal at all. Anyways, guys, please hit that like button. Check out other episodes of the hot pot boys. I would say this. It's rare to see somebody in America who's not Chinese cry about how they want to be Chinese. I was smiling and asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I would always say Chinese. Like that's not even a joke. I really wanted to grow up and be like a real Chinese man. And my parents supported me. Even a toddler, right? David, I know a lot of Chinese people that don't want to be Chinese. Yeah, and they're probably like crying, honestly, wishing they were white. Or Korean maybe. Yeah, but I'm saying that you would say if we were to look into like ethnic books or common second-generation immigrant upbringings that people would want to fit into the majority, right? Right, right. But I guess because the majority in this particular instance, due to this new fangled movement of bilingual or trilingual schools, the dominant culture happened to be Chinese for this toddler. Yeah. I mean, maybe she's just like, I just started dragging. I want to be a dragon. I want to be a Chinese dragon. I want to like that. It was so cute. It was just funny. Right. I mean, I guess we just get into the comment section. There was a lot of discussions about this going here, there, extrapolating it to a crazy level. But check out Small Eye Sauce at SmallEyeSauce.com. Make sure you like, subscribe, turn on your notifications. Somebody said, you know, my toddler just cried because she wanted her dad to be Michael Jordan. So other people saying, you know, tomorrow you can be Chinese. Mine cried because they wanted to be Australian. My kid told everybody at school that his name was Chad when his real name is Jeremy. We don't even know a single person named Chad. So basically, this is like saying when a toddler, it's kind of like a grown person, but way more simplified. You're not like adults Andrew. They might be like, man, I never really felt like a Jeremy. Chad is like a cooler name.  But I'm saying that the toddlers, they more like lean into that very humanistic feeling that adults might be like, yeah, but I'm Jeremy. I'm being childish. So David, are you writing this off just like it's a toddler screaming? Or maybe do you think Chinese are becoming cooler to the point where some non-Chinese actually want to be Chinese? No, that that is a interesting discussion that let's be honest. Andrew, once the TikTok comments got a little deeper, it did go there, right? Because somebody was saying, oh, this is so weird and this is so random. And someone was like, no, it's not really weird or random because she's like feel going with the thing that she she feels like she's not a part of it, but she wants to be a part of it. Right. I mean, maybe in her particular class, the more social kids are Chinese kids, like it's possible that at that age that there are some like that maybe the popular kid at school is Chinese. Well, because just the fact that they even have Mandarin at the school makes me think that there's probably a decent amount of Chinese kids there. But I will say this, I knew a lot of Asian kids who grew up in the LA area around a lot of Mexicans and Latinos. And I felt like I don't know if they said it explicitly, but they were to hang out only with Latinos and stuff, you know what I mean? So essentially, you're talking about if they had Dickies in Cortez. Yeah, maybe in their heart, they felt like, yo, man, I feel just feel kind of Mexican. Right. I mean, is it just human to adapt to just the dominant society? Right. But it just is interesting because I'm saying in 2024 and dominant society in American doesn't just immediately mean just like Anglo white society. Yeah, it doesn't mean white or even black because I feel like a lot of kids growing up do think, you know, the things that black people do are cool. So a lot of kids, I had a friend named Matt Nielsen growing up who always told his daddy wanted to be black because he wanted to be in the NBA.  She's always wondering why we aren't Korean. And I always tell her the reason why we're not Korean is because her dad and I are Vietnamese. And then people just said, yeah, everybody just loves like the thing, the kids, they don't know they're not caught up in like the pride or like rep in this thing. They're just like, I love K-pop. My group doesn't have K-pop. I'm Vietnamese. I wish we were K-pop. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, it can be that simple, but it's a real feeling. I mean, just because the toddlers have that feeling, it doesn't mean it's like not real. You mean if you're saying it's not that adults don't have that feeling, but they just deal with it differently. Yeah, for sure. You just don't take it that far. You don't say that because you know what it means. And we actually have a second cousin who sort of looks Korean, but is not Korean and goes to Korea and like takes all the photos with the Hanboks. And you know what I'm talking about? Watches K-dramas way more than she watches like C-dramas. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's that's how it is. That works away. And I guess a lot of people are discussing about like, oh, should she have being more pride in being Mexican or like being pride and being American?  Huh? You going to assimilate with the enemy? You know, of course that you didn't say she wanted to be part of the Chinese government. She just said she wanted to be Chinese. Um, I just think it's like it is true that different cultures have different things though.  He's like, because I love tacos and I love burritos.  That's funny, man. I mean, it's almost like that kid that in that clip that you're talking about is being super like complimentary, but also stereotypical at the same time. I mean, I'll just say this, man. Here's my takeaways from this video. First of all, it's an interesting video because you never seen this happen before in America. Yeah. Not as a joke. A Todd alert speaking English. Because you know how there was like, I'm turning Japanese, I'm turning or I want to be ninja. But those are kind of like half mocking, half appreciative. No, this girl like felt it in her soul for that moment. Like she's going to remember this point because this point in her life is now videotaped and all over the internet. But like she's going to look back on this in a few years and be like, dang, I was really emotional about that. Right. Like I really wanted to be Chinese in that moment. I don't think she knows what it means to be Chinese, but she really wanted it. I got to see how nerdy she is in a couple of years. If she became a team, she became Chinese. If she goes and learns Mandarin at even a conversational level, does she get the pass? Yeah. You know what it is? It's just at different points like, dude, when I'm at parties, I wish I would be rather be Mexican than Chinese at a party. You know what I mean? And maybe she's in a school environment. Yeah, for sure. Like Chinese are really in the school.  You know, so I guess it's just like, man, different people, they want to be the hot thing in that moment or in that momentary fishbowl, right? And it's just hard for us, a lot of older people to understand how being Chinese is an advantage right now. But this toddler girl sees it from a totally different viewpoint. And I think in a way it does add some perspective. Look at this Mexican girl in Arizona, Mexican American girl in Arizona who's like, wants to be Chinese so bad. Does she actually want to be Chinese? Probably not. But she wants She wanted to fit in at the CNY party. She wanted to fit in with a group of Chinese people for some reason very badly. And that to me was so adorable, but also so endearing. You know what I mean? It was so like sincere. Right.  And I always tell people this man, I always think cultures, they are different. And you can mix and match, especially in 2024, I think cultures are going to be so fluid back and forth. Study culture, study things from this culture, that culture, maybe you want to express yourself more Latino, more oxytocin, more expression. You don't want to be more hugging, more kissing. But then maybe you just you like some things about the ancient Chinese culture, you can mix and match like a sweet factory.  Well, you know, in a few years, if she still wants to be Chinese, I hope that she can learn Chinese. Well, she's out to school. Yeah. Well, I hope she's actually we have some people in our family that went to an immersion school. Yeah. Well, shout out to her, man. This was like when she said she show she show is wash your hands. How can this not put a smile on your face of your Chinese man? That's so funny. Because our whole lives, we've been thinking that people are like, even our own Chinese don't want to know even right now. Obviously, there's a lot of people who probably want to stray away from what the Chinese identity is. Obviously, there's a lot of anti Chinese media. She's not tapped into any of that.  She's young. She doesn't know anything else. And she's like, I want to be Chinese. Nihao Kailan, Dora the Explorer goes to China. Yeah, that's true. Anyways, what if she said I want to be like Constance, whoa, I love to say live. Hey, that is being really Chinese in a way, though. I wanted to anyway, guys, let us know what you think of the comments section below. It's a very fascinating video. Until next time, we're going to hop on boys. We out. Peace.