it's played a critical role in bridging the ecosystem that is silicon valley and it wrote this period of tremendousf tech optimism and we saw that reflected in every aspect of the campus. about riding that wave of optimism and backlash, we now face exactly that dynamic playing out on campus. a lack of trust in the tech companies and the concern among the individuals and the majors about whether they want to be associated with these societal harms. so it puts us in the position of educators on campus where we have to think and dig deep with our students around the questions of how do we amplify the benefits of technology while also mitigating these evidence harms. so the book itself calls for this kind of nuanced adult pragmatic conversation that's not a tech optimism and that's not a tech to pessimism, but recognizes that technology itself isn't neutral and involves trade-offs. it generates benefit alongside of the challenge collectively to think about how to weigh those things. >> but often i would say on this point, while we can focus on stanford and think about its potential role a

it is embedded in the structure of the capitol industry driving the growth of silicon valley and face companies that prioritize the scale before we even understand anything about the impacts of technology in society. it reflects the path paved to market dominance by market in retreat from exercising oversight. so stanford has an important role to a play and there are individuals who may look inside it didn't pay attention to the consequences of the moment of tremendous optimism. the bottom line is there are systemic challenges that need addressed stanford needs to be at the center of addressing those challenges but stanford can't do alone. >> thanks, that makes a lot of sense and i recognize even if i've only been at stanford about two years, the change in the questions people are asking, the awareness after january 6 storming of the u.s.g capitol after disinformation around covid, people really thought problems are not just in other communities, they can truly hit home. the harms are real, not virtual so too say that we see how hard it is for students to find jobs outside of the big

we y hear from corporate leaders are investors in silicon valley that the antiregulation push to do that regulation will slow down innovation and get inw the way of the progress that we need. we want you to understand that anti-regulation pushed as a rejection of democracy. to rejection of the role of our political -- the technology that we selected as a society to help us referee the critical values that exist. you are right to say and our democracyha isn't up to the task not only because of of technical knowledge that you pointed to put because of theno institutiol huge -- features that have made our very difficult and so cheveryone's reasonable expectation about what's like you to come out is crowned -- of congress the best prediction you could make in this current system at the moment. questions about content moderation the communications act but one of the places that we start and this is excerpted in the piece in the atlantic which was published a couple of days ago is can we find a set of areas for legislative action were democracy can do what it's a best at which is achieve conse

you really see the attitude representing a trent in silicon valley. living in a world where it is normal. new technology companies could create harmful effects. so, i want to ask may be a little bit more of a critical question. to what extent has safford university, you have a long history and a lot of experience in working with students, to what extent have they actively and successfully created the very culture where disruption is admired. giving access to the company but also inviting ceos and other tech executives and to teach. i would love to hear a bit of a reflection from each of you on how stanford plays a role in that typical disruptive ecosystem. starting with rob and shooting for this question with jeremy. >> absolutely. a significant responsibility for some of the problems we see a big tech and for that cultural orientation to aspire. looking for ways to code in your pajamas and roll your product out quickly and see what happens throw spaghetti on the wall and figure out any problems downstream. personally, i have seen in teaching generati

and, you know, the programming, the counter cultural attitude of the early age of silicon valley, well, those programming data have now become the goliath and the pandemic has actually reinforced this for me at least, which is we're already aware of the some of the problems of big tech 18 months ago, but now our lives have become even more enmeshed in the decisions made by a very small number of people inside a very small number of tech companies. we're dependent on ways that we first, even 18 months dependent upon a small number of platforms through our work lives. through our private lives, for our educational lives and the power that's vested in a tiny number of people in silicon valley amounts to private governance and that's not serving us as citizens very well at all. >> from a technologist point of view, how we actually think about the systems that get built. they get built with particular metrics that are jaunt quantifiable and part of that that they're easily quantifiable. that doesn't mean they match what we really want. they're proxies for what we really want. and when you g