Big Technology Podcast - Glenn Greenwald on Substack, Content Moderation, and Joe Rogan

Episode Date: February 3, 2021

In January, I wrote a story for OneZero about the content moderation war in store for smaller social platforms like Clubhouse, Spotify, and Substack. As part of my reporting, I reached out to Glenn Greenwald, a strident voice against moderation who left The Intercept for Substack last year. While I'm not in lockstep with Greenwald ideologically, I wanted to hear his thoughts at length. This week’s Big Technology Podcast features my full conversation with Greenwald, where we discuss his move to Substack, the line between content moderation and censorship, and Joe Rogan. Story: https://onezero.medium.com/the-moderation-war-is-coming-to-spotify-substack-and-clubhouse-9fe00672091b

Hello and welcome to the big technology podcast, a show for cool-headed, nuanced conversation of the tech world and beyond. Glenn Greenwald, our guest today, caused quite a stir when he left the intercept for Substack late last year, leaving behind a publication he founded to build a one-person media operation funded by subscription revenue. In the time since he's left, Greenwald's had many harsh things to say about those advocating for more content moderation on social platforms. And while I'm not in lockstep with him ideologically, I wanted to hear his thoughts.

at length, not in tweets. And so I asked him for a conversation. I asked for the interview as I was working on a story for 1-0 about how the content moderation discussion that once focused on Facebook, Twitter, and Google, was migrating towards smaller platforms like Substack, which we both inhabit, along with Spotify and Clubhouse. I wanted to get Greenwald's take on what was happening, and I wanted to hear at length about why he's largely opposed to moderation. On this week's podcast, I'm going to play the full audio for my conversation with Greenwald. Before we get into the intro, a quick word from our sponsor. The Big Technology podcast is sponsored by MediaOcean. Looking for a job in big tech, you might

want to take a look at MediaOcean. They were just named the number one place to work in advertising technology by adage. Go to MediaOcean.com slash big tech to learn more about the company and check out their careers hub. MediaOcean is building the mission critical platform for Omnachannel advertising. If that sounds cool, hit up MediaOcean. com slash big tech and browse their job listings and big thanks to MediaOcean for supporting the big technology podcast. All right, let's get into it. to know how substack is treating you it's great um i you know when i before i i didn't have much time to investigate how it worked or what it was prior to leaving because i had decided i was going to leave

the intercept i don't know maybe 24 hours or so prior to actually posting my first article on substack about why i left so had a series of very frenetic calls and one of the things i wanted to figure out is what is it that substack actually provides you that you can't provide on your own like why can't you just go and start your own site and charge the same amounts for subscriptions and then instead of giving substack their percentage keeping it yourself and everybody with you my spoke emphasize that the services that they provide not just customer service if things go wrong with the billing or with people signing in but also just the entire platform itself, how user-friendly it is, how well it works, that that alone makes it worthwhile and not

having to deal with all that. And in addition to the fact that something I didn't really discuss but have come to appreciate a lot, which is I think substack is becoming an important symbol of certain values in journalism and political discourse that I value a lot and I'm happy to be a part of. I think that's also helping to give legitimacy to the platform and to those people who are writing on it. So I've been there about a month and overall I'm extremely happy. Yeah, the user-friendly part of substack is definitely, you know, part of what drew me to it also. I just figured I was working on a terrible newsletter content management system. And this one was just better. It made sending emails out easy. So that was nice. Yeah, I mean, I've worked,

obviously with a lot of different systems, including various iterations of the intercepts, with salons, with the guardians. And I have to say the one at substack is not just easiest to use, but also the most advanced and most sophisticated in terms of layout and the options that it gives you. Yeah. Now, I want to just speak to you for a moment about like the set of values that you mentioned that substack sort of puts forth or now represents, given the writers that have gone to it. I've always been of the opinion that, you know, it's just a platform and we shouldn't read too

much into the fact that, like, there are, you know, certain writers that have left their publications and sort of made ideological breaks from them. And there's a whole variety of different writers there. You have, like, people writing about climate change, people writing about women's sports. You have me. I mean, I, you know, I didn't do an ideological break from BuzzFeed. I just wanted to be independent. So, you know, am I looking at it wrong?

Like, is, you know, should we look at Stubstack as having an ideology? You know, it depends. I think you're correct that viewing it through the prism of a few high-profile writers who have gone there after breaking with their news outlets over relatively similar disputes is a mistake in the sense that it's too limiting and narrowing for what substack represents. But I think the way you described it in your question in terms of what it represents for you is an ideology, the idea of independence as a writer and as a journalist to be able to produce content free of corporate structures and the dogma that ends up being

embedded in it. Whether or not there's a repressive atmosphere that emerges at a particular media outlet, writing within a corporate structure is a different way of writing and doing journalism than being on your own and doing it independently, speaking in your own voice for better or for worse. So I think there is an ideology inherent to substack, which isn't necessarily the narrowly define one that often is attributed to it of a place that, you know, refugees from corporate outlets go when woke ideology prevents them from speaking freely. That's obviously true for a few people, but probably not the majority. I think more so it's a place that's designed to enable people to write freely and independently, and that I do see increasingly as an ideology in a journalistic

climate where control and structure and homogeneity are becoming more predominant. Yeah. And for me, I would say it was more of determination to write outside of, you know, the core new cycle and tackle things with a little bit, you know, deeper analysis. But I mean, I do see some of what you're saying in that, you know, with my publication, at least, Like I came out saying I want to write nuanced stories about tech. And yeah, I think part of it is I'm trying to demonstrate the type of coverage that I'd like to see more of. Yeah, just to interject there, like I think that's important what you just said. So, you know, a lot of times if you're at a news outlet that does try not to censor writers and journalists or impose on them some specific partisan or ideological set of orthodoxies.

But nonetheless, has a certain financial model that necessarily fosters imperatives about how you work and the kind of writing you can do, right? So if you're a BuzzFeed, which depends upon a advertiser-based model and deriving revenue from it, it means that journalists have to write about things that are going to generate a lot of clicks. It means that in general, depending on where you are in the organization, you're going to have to. produce a lot of content to satisfy that model, which isn't nefarious. It just can mean that you're not entirely free to choose the things that you want to write about or the pace at which you're writing them or the time that you're taking to dig deep. I mean, I know BuzzFeed has investigative journalists who it gives the luxury of digging deep into a story and not requiring to produce multiple items a week. But in general, depending on what job you have in an organization,

it can impose on you conditions for how you can write. that you can liberate yourself from by being a substock. Yeah, and look, I don't think that we ever wrote for clicks, but I do think there was definitely, you know, a determination to be relevant in the conversation that was going on at the time. So. Yeah, I don't, just I got what by writing for clicks. I mean, I don't mean that in the most, you know, kind of derogatory sense. I know, you know, as a journalist, I've written for clicks in the sense you just described it,

is when you write something, you want a lot of people to read it. It's one of the metrics by which you judge of the success of your journalism. But a lot of times that can translate into a pressure to write about something, not because you're most interested in it, but because it's kind of the easiest path to obtaining that outcome, where it is taking your time, writing deeply, may not give you that immediate sugar high of tons of people going because it's the hot news item of the day. But you can build a big audience over time. It's just that not every news outlet has the luxury of allowing you to do that.

Yeah. I mean, there's definitely been times where I've seen stories that I've written now perform, you know, what by any measure would be poorly, right? But the open rate keeps going up. More people open the newsletter, which means that a bit of a relationship that's building with the reader, which is interesting. I have a couple more questions about your move to Substack. So first of all, I know it wasn't financially motivated, but how's it going on the money side?

have you exceeded your Intercept salary yet? Yeah, I've exceeded my Intercept salary. The concern for me was that in addition to my salary, which I was pretty certain I'd be able to at least equal, the Intercept have been paying a substantial amount of expenses for me, connected to the work I do in Brazil, including lots of lawyers' fees and fighting off the attempt by the Bolsonaro government to imprison me

or to criminally prosecute me, as well as physical security, around the clock physical security that I need because of threats, the intercept to its credit has agreed to continue to assume the cost of my legal representation in connection with anything that has to do with reporting I did for it. But the security cost and things like my assistant and other people who work with me in my journalism is something for which they're obviously no longer paying. And so I was more concerned about that but the launch of the substack page has gone very well and and I've at least equaled those amounts as well so I'm satisfied on that end so yeah so you've hinted that you might want to start your own publication a new publication so I'm I got to ask do you want to break some news

about that or is it still in the works I may be breaking some news I'm unfortunately not prepared to do it on on your podcast or on your subsection page but I've been open about the fact that it is something I'm working on because I think in order to have a real impact on the new cycle, you need to be able to work with the team. But I'm also thinking about how to integrate it with the substack page and with the substack model where people pay for the content that they're interested in that they want and where I assure myself that I have the same level of freedom. So there's a lot of moving pieces to figure out. Interesting. So are you going to, I mean, you can decline to answer, but are you going to just bundle with a handful of different substack writers, maybe some that we've kind of touched on or hinted at?

Yeah, it's definitely, I mean, it's possible, though. That's not the idea. The idea isn't just to bundle substack writers. The idea is more to build a newsroom that is designed to, you know, kind of institutionalize the values that we had been discussing, some of which I thought I had been. in implementing when I co-founded the Intercept and didn't quite work out in the way I had envisioned. But the idea is, you know, you can have an impact as a substack writer, a substack columnist for sure.

You know, I think a lot of my articles already are finding bigger audiences than they found it at the Intercept. But to really present a new model of writing and doing journalism, I think you need to be able to commit to constructing a newsroom based on those values. So that's really, that would be the idea if we're able to do it.

Interesting. All right. I'll keep the lookout for it. So I also want to talk to you about content moderation online and specifically on substack. I'm working on a story about this for 1-0. And it seems like it's been a subject close to your heart. So I mean, why don't we start with this C.J.R. article, Columbia Journalism Review.

They wrote about substack writers. And they put you in a category of writers. I think they said condemn cancelical. and the left. And you had quite a reaction to it. You said, it's only a matter of time before people started demanding substack be censored. Hate nothing more than free expression. So what do you mean by that? Yeah, I mean, I had several objections to that article. The part that was about me, I think just wildly mischaracterized what I do as a journalist. I write very rarely about cancel culture in the sense that it means, you know, firing people or canceling book contracts.

And I very rarely critique the left on that basis either. I do write a lot about free speech and censorship, which to me is something quite different than cancel culture, but I've always written a lot about that. But I think the other two examples that the author of that article cited, which are Andrew Sullivan and Matt Taibi, write about it much more than I do, and I don't really, and she kind of implied strongly that we were all like-minded. A characterization I can accept when it comes to Matt, but something that both Andrew and I, who have been fighting for 15 years, both in public and private, quite vociferously, were very surprised by.

And, you know, so the thing that I objected to most was the idea that while they're just succeeding because they're white men for so many reasons. You know, it's just very flattening of my work and of just my life and my identity and lots of other things. But I think it was really a way of trying to say that substack itself is intrinsically unfair and did start not with me, but with Andrew Sullivan, to start implying. that content that he's producing is the kind of content with which a platform like Substack ought not to be associated or not ought not be platforming because it's white

nationalist or racist or anti-immigrant or designed to incite violence against marginalized people, all the standard phrases that are invoked when it comes time to censoring. And I think one of the things you're seeing is that as Substack becomes more successful and more big names migrate there and start earning as much money as they were making. when they had to kind of endure all the, you know, burdens of being within a new big news organization or even more, established media outlets and the journalists who work for them are going to start turning their guns on substack, in part just out of professional jealousy, but more substantively based on the idea that they believe corporate media outlets are

the only legitimate guardians of our discourse, that they're the ones who have the fact-checking and the journalistic expertise, egregity to make certain they're not disseminating fake news or airing toxic opinions, and that any platform that's too free is a platform they're going to start trying to demonize with the aim of commanding that more controls be exerted over who can and can't write there,

the way they've done to Facebook, the way they did Twitter, the way they've done to Patreon, and now the way that they're going to do to substack. So I say it's inevitable, because Substack is sort of new on people's radar, but it's inevitable that it's going to follow the same pattern as media behavior toward these other platforms that also were allowing free and independent dissemination

of information that ended up competing with the hegemony and monopoly that these corporate media outlets want for themselves when it comes to overseeing discourse. Right. It also seems that Substack is going to be like super reticent to take anybody's newsletter down. I mean, I've been speaking with people about this, and the notion that if substack takes one person's newsletter down, then everyone's just going to move to a new platform

because if you don't feel safe there, then you can't really operate there. So do you have a real fear that, you know, some of the movement, you know, well, I wouldn't even call it a movement yet, but some, like, floating hints, like in that CJR article, to, you know, consider, heavily or more heavily content moderating substack. Do you think that that's an actual fear or do you think that like, did you just see it

important to push back on the idea in, you know, the earliest possible stage? No, it's an actual fear. I agree with you that substack and the people who founded it and are running it are very committed to the idea that this should be a free content content neutral platform that they ought not to play the role of discourse police or speech regulators deciding which ideas are good and bad, which ideas are true and false. But that was the premise of Facebook as well and Twitter and Patreon. They didn't want that responsibility either, largely for self-interested reasons. But when the New York Times and CNN and NBC News starts turning their

very loud and powerful megaphone onto you saying, oh, look, Substack is hosting extremist content. They're allowing racism to flow freely and misogyny to go unchecked. It's become a hotbed of misinformation and disinformation and fake news. Suddenly the pressure from the public is very high for you to do something about it, for you to disassociate your your, your, your platform from what is being decreed to be toxic or racist or anti-Semitic or misogynist or whatever content. And even if you start off very resolved not to do it, that pressure is very high as evidenced by the fact that much bigger platforms thus far have succumbed to it. And I think that you're right that once you start going down that path,

which was, you know, how they induced Facebook and Twitter to do it, which is first you do the easy cases. You kick off Mylanopolis, you kick off Alex Jones. But now suddenly you've assumed the responsibility to exclude people who are toxic and then anyone that you're allowing is almost like an implicit judgment from you that they're within the realm of decency and permissibility. And I think it's very important for Substact not to go down that. road but to do that they're going to have to prepare now about how to resist the onslaught that

absolutely will be coming in their direction yeah and i wonder if there's a difference between like what facebook and twitter have done to you know what might happen on substack like for instance you or andrew sullivan you know would never be kicked off i mean maybe never say never but you know you haven't been kicked off facebook or twitter you're uh you know operating freely there and uh you know It seems like those platforms, I mean, I'd like to talk to you about this a little bit, but it seems like those platforms took action on like, you know, some of the most egregious stuff. People spreading misinformation about COVID that could lead people to get sick and, you know, take it lightly or, you know, foreign election manipulation. I know you have some thoughts on that, election integrity stuff. Like should Facebook and Twitter, well, I guess it's two different questions, but one is like,

should Facebook and Twitter have just let the whole thing, you know, run open and wild? And then two is, you know, do you see the distinction between sort of the stuff that they've taken down and, you know, the threat to writers like, you know, Andrew Sullivan, you know, quote unquote threat, you know, to writers like Andrew Sullivan on substack? Yeah, I mean, I don't really see the threat to myself for a variety of reasons, including the fact that I, as I said earlier, don't write off that that often about cultural issues, which is just. is about race and gender and trans issues, which is a lot of times where these doors open first into demanding people be de-platformed. And when I do write about them, I tend more or less to share the liberal consensus, not entirely, but enough to kind of insulate me. I've never really been the targeted of those kind of de-platforming calls, notwithstanding how polarizing my journalism might be. But someone like Andrew, I think, is in real day.

of that. I mean, he did get essentially fired from New York Magazine for exactly that reason, that even though he was one of the biggest names at the magazine, producing among the most traffic there, making the most impact with a lot of his essays, there was a two-year campaign on the part of younger journalists to demand that he'd be fired on the grounds that what he was writing was so toxic that it was creating an unsafe workplace. They actually went to human resources and the like. But, you know, I think that Andrew is enough of a mainstream name that he certainly wouldn't be the first one for that to happen. But you can see how easy it kind of creeps. So maybe someone just a little bit more extreme than Andrew on questions of race

or immigration or nationalism and the like could be the first test case. And then suddenly you move to Andrew next once it's done. So I think the question, the other question, the part of your question that you're raising is an important one, which is, well, what about like truth and falsity? What about, as you said, the vaccine doesn't work, COVID is a hoax, masks, masks don't work, Trump won the election, there was actual fraud. Do we think that the founders and managers of Substac are competent to judge the truth and falsity of, you know, various opinions sufficient to say what can and can't be heard. When I remember Mark Zuckerberg was asked about that by Kara Swisher, and he said, well,

I'm not a historian who expects me to decide what is historical truth and not. And she said, even when it comes to things like Holocaust denialism, and he said, yeah, even when it comes to that, like, I'm not a Holocaust scholar. And there was all this indignation, but I thought he was right. I don't want Mark Zuckerberg acting as, you know, historical expert. over the kind of things that can and can't be said. I think if people are saying bad things on Facebook, the solution is to refute them, rebut them, and debunk them.

I think the other point is that oftentimes these debates assume that you have the power to banish bad ideas. But if substack starts, you know, removing people's pages for posting stuff about COVID or misinformation about the election, it doesn't mean that stuff goes away. It just means, as you suggested earlier, it goes to a different place. And I just generally find it better for bad ideas to be out in the light rather than hiding in the dark, because then you can discredit them more easily. Yeah.

I mean, the other side of that argument, I'm curious how you, what you think about this one, is that, you know, Facebook, less so substack, but Facebook and Twitter for sure, or editors, you know, and they're choosing what to amplify via their algorithms. So it's sort of like they're handing someone a megaphone and then is it censorship if they take that megaphone away? Right. And that's an important point. So what happens, for example, on Substack, if they start doing that, if they start

not necessarily using algorithms, but what if they just start promoting different sites using various metrics? Like already they're showing the public what articles are the most read, which pages are the most subscribed to, which ones are producing the most revenue? What if they go even a little bit further and start creating categories saying, here's our most popular pages for health policy, and here's our most popular pages for culture. And in those lists, one finds racist or misogynistic or transphobic content. One finds information that is clearly false by a consensus of experts in the field, then aren't they going to fall prey to exactly

the critique you just articulated, which is you may say that you're not editing or choosing which content to be heard and not, but by promoting certain content at the expense of other like YouTube does, like Facebook does, like Twitter's starting to do more of. You essentially are assuming that role. And once you do, you then have the responsibilities that go. with it. And I think that's a good reason why substack ought to be very, very careful not to start doing that. Because I think in order to resist these, what will be these growing calls for them to pull these content, they need to be able to say with credibility, we're a content neutral platform and don't make judgments about which content deserves to be

heard and doesn't. Yeah. And I don't know. I feel like leaderboard or not, they should probably not have the racist stuff in there. But it does also look like they're, they are moving towards that featuring of stories and newsletters in a way that you described. So we'll see what happens with the next feature release, but it'll be an interesting discussion on the horizon for sure. Yeah, for sure. A couple more questions for you if we can. I'll just ask them quickly.

Why do you think this discussion has moved from, it seems like we're talking a lot more about content moderation on platforms like Substack and Spotify and Clubhouse? where we were talking about it on Facebook and Twitter predominantly for the last bunch of years. So why has the discussion moved to these platforms? I think there's still a lot of conversation about the need for more or different content moderation on Facebook and Twitter. But I think that liberal censors have largely won the war over Facebook and Twitter.

Probably the most, you know, kind of the D-Day event was when they both acted. to, in different ways, block access to the New York Post story that could have been damaging to the Biden candidacy in the days before the election, Twitter by just simply saying, we're not going to allow any posting of links to this story, Facebook by using algorithms to suppress the story. Pretty extraordinary act for social media companies that have long said we don't do that to take in the weeks leading up to the election. But I think it demonstrates that media outlets calling for greater censorship, liberals calling for more content regulation have largely succeeded. Most of the most inflammatory right-wing provocateurs have been removed

from Twitter and Facebook, not all but most, much more so than, say, two or three years ago they were doing. So I think they feel as though they've kind of implanted the framework of censorship that they advocated on those social media outlets and are now on the hunt for outlets that are still too permissive from their perspective, and that includes Spotify and Substack, still Patreon. And I think that as a platform increases an importance in terms of the names who go there, the viewership or the readership they're attracting, the more interest there will be in trying to assert this power of content control.

And that's certainly true of Substack, certainly true of Spotify. with Joe Rogan's very high-profile move there. So I think that's why you're seeing increased attention. Yeah, and I'm sure we'll disagree on this one. But for me, the move to censor the or to block the New York Post article just seemed to be sort of a trigger-happy move from these platforms who really didn't want to repeat what happened in 2016. It had been on the alert for, on the alert for like a foreign disinformation campaign.

Obviously, no of the evidence for that materialized. But, yeah, I just think that they were just acting on a hair trigger just to sort of try to avoid a repeat of the rush of thing. No, I agree with that. I agree with that. But I just maybe I agree with that totally everything you said I agree with. But I think maybe we just differ on the significance. I think that the fact that they were so sensitive to that is indicative of the success that. that liberals, by which I just mean establishment or liberals, not, you know, like the leftling

of the Democratic Party, have had in pressuring these companies and in, causing them to internalize both literally internally inside their own companies, but also just the consciousness of these companies about what their responsibilities are. Right. But they were also the victim of a real foreign disinformation campaign that happened during the 2016 campaign. Right. But nobody thought that's nobody there's there's two there's two categories right one is like fake facebook profiles purporting to be something other than what it is or twitter bots which nobody thought this was this clearly was a story from the new york post and oldest newspaper in the country in the fourth largest versus you know reporting that is the byproduct of foreign intervention or

hackers or whatever. As you say, that story, by all accounts, doesn't really have any Russian involvement. It was, we don't know the real origins of it. We know the story, but, you know, even if you're interested in protecting your site from being abused by deceit and bots and fake pages, that doesn't quite justify to me preventing links to the New York Post, very well-established newspaper yeah that i agree with okay last question i know you got to go um on the joe rogan issue uh i know you were on the show i listened um do you and this isn't about your decision to go on but i'm just curious like do you think that guy should have had alex jones on the show after what he did with uh with the um that shooting the newton shooting with the new time with the kids

and like do you think that spotify should leave interviews up with with jones i would I would not interview Alex Jones. I would not put Alex Jones on my platform. That would not be a choice I would make. I think one of the things I talked about is, you know, with Joe was what he said was his sense of growing responsibility not to provide the use of his platform to people who are reckless or irresponsible. There are a lot of alt-right people. He used to routinely interview that he's decided he no longer will in the spirit of that. I think the Alex Jones case was very special or kind of an aberration for, for Rogan, in part because he's been friends with Alex Jones for 20 years. I mean, they're like personal friends. And I think he feels a sense of personal loyalty to Alex Jones not to participate in the deplatforming of or the ostracization of Alex Jones given their friendship. So I think it's kind of a special case. I don't know that that would happen if they weren't friends. And then beyond that, I think that it's very important for Rogan to demonstrate to the people within Spotify who are trying to control his content.

And clearly, there is a movement inside Spotify to do that to brush back against that and to say, not only aren't you going to succeed in limiting by freedom to talk to whoever I want, to demonstrate that to you and to make it clear, I'm going to put. on the person who's probably most horrifying to you just to show you that you have no power to control me so again if you were to say to me would you interview alex jones would you put alex jones on your no i wouldn't but i think in rogan's case those more than a belief that alex jones is a voice that ought to be heard were his reasons yeah that's interesting i didn't know about the personal friendship even still i probably wouldn't have him on either but it's interesting to see where rogan's coming from awesome glen any final thoughts no um you know i i do think it's interesting when you emailed me and said hey i'm not writing

at substack too i want to talk to you for something i want to write at substack i kind of felt this allegiance you know like there's loyalty i hadn't thought about myself as a substack writer before but i do think that is indicative of how substack is becoming a little bit of a brand and a little bit of an identity and a little bit of a cause just that it surprised myself that i reacted that way but i did so um yeah it was good to talk to you Yeah, you too. It's, yeah, it is interesting to see all the people coming over. I've only been on six months, no, seven months now. And obviously we come from different places. I think, you know, from an ideology standpoint. But I just think that more of these conversations are good. And if we shy away from them, we're going to, you know, end up having this world where people just sit in their corners and they don't talk to each other. So I really appreciate your willingness to chat with me and looking forward to writing the story. excellent yeah i couldn't agree more with that last statement and um in that spirit very happy to talk to you too and i look forward to what you're writing and that will do it for us here on the big

technology podcast i want to thank glen greenwald for his time red circle for hosting the show and selling the ads and nick guattany for the edits if this is your first time listening would be great if you could subscribe we come up with a new interview every week on wednesday with either an insider from the tech world or an outside agitator and whether you're new or with us for a long time, I'd love a rating, which go a long way in helping people be able to discover the podcast. And so in order to encourage you to do that, of course, I'd love you to do it out of the kindness of your own heart. But here's a little incentive. I'm going to give a few signed copies away this quarter for those who do. So if you would like

to be eligible for that, just give us a rating and let us know by sending an email to big technology podcast at gmail.com. That's big technology podcast at g-mail.com. That's big technology podcast at gmail.com and of course you can use the same address if you have any feedback for the show i'd love to hear from you there all right it's been a great week uh we look forward to coming back to you next week with another new show until then take care we will see you next time