So as our next speaker, we have Audrey Tang.

Audrey Tang has become a well-known global figure after her incredible work in Taiwan by protecting the digital space in Taiwan. She wrote a book with a friend, Glen, about Plurality that has to do with the ways in which technology can actually be good for democracy, good for collaboration, and it can be a source of good.

We will hear from Audrey and then we will have a panel discussion with three other people that will go into this area of technology for freedom and democracy. It is truly an honor to have someone that is breaking ground in this idea of technology for democracy.

Audrey, the floor is yours.

Good evening Berlin. It is such an honor to be in the city that proved to all — when people link arms — even walls can fall.

And Berlin, I think, is a perfect place to talk about the role of AI because here the lesson of ‘89 is very simple: When people co-create, we outperform any master plan.

Now, I wish to share my thoughts on how we move AI from addictive intelligence to assistive intelligence. I ask you to join me in moving from extractive platforms to protocols to foster relational health. And I propose the most important frontier model is not found in a lab somewhere. It is us, our augmented collective intelligence. We the people.

When I was five, a life-threatening heart condition taught me urgency. Doctors told me that I only have a 50% chance to survive until heart surgery. After that, every night felt like a coin flip.

So, I adopted a mantra that I call “publish before I perish.” I record everything that I learned every day and I discover something profound. Publishing on the internet, if it’s perfection, it only invites applause. But imperfection, imperfection invites participation. Our cracks are opening for collaboration. As Leonard Cohen sang, “There’s a crack in everything, and that’s how the light gets in.”

And for democracies, that is key. We must publish our process, not just our final policy. We must publish the how and why — so people can see them — and turn critics into co-creators.

Now, the dominant logic of AI today in our digital age is not that. It is what I call the “Max OS”—not the Apple macOS, Max OS. It maximizes engagement. It maximized watch time, clicks, and it creates a parasitic recommendation engine: engagement through enragement. And the result for the past decade is very high PPM online. And I don’t mean parts per million CO₂, although that’s very important. I mean polarization per minute.

So 10 years of engagement through enragement morphed our social feeds into adrenaline factories. It rewarded extremes. It muted the nuance. And the environment of fractured trust is exactly what authoritarians around the world exploit. And now adding generative AI to the mix, and we’re spinning ever faster with slop: content with zero relational nutrition.

So the question here, in this spinning wheel, is not whether we should accelerate AI or stop AI. It is who should steer that spinning wheel.

Because right now, people talk about “human in the loop.” But human in the loop of AI is like a hamster in a hamster wheel. Maybe feeling great exercising, but there’s no steering at all. We need to move AI into the loop of humanity.

And what does that mean? Concretely, it means that we take control of the steering wheel together. We use AI as assistive intelligence to help to find the overlap that turns conflict, not into explosion like volcanic energy, but magma into geothermal energy. That for powerful co-creation, we can maximize the relational health. And once we accomplish this together, we can free the future — together.

So concretely, this is what we did in Taiwan. In Taiwan, we know about pressure. Pressure makes diamonds. We’re the number one target for polarization attacks worldwide for the past 12 years, according to V-Dem. But we adapted. We learned to replace anti-social media dynamics with pro-social architecture. We understand that quote tweet or dunk is the source of polarization. And so we build systems where it’s not possible to dunk on anyone. But rather, we only make viral the statements that are not the extremes, but bridges between the left and the right. What we call the “uncommon ground.” That’s the heart of the Taiwan model.

So ten years ago, when ride-sharing Uber came to Taiwan, it triggered intense conflict in various segments in our society. But we used Polis, a bridging system, to map where the people actually agreed, like a group selfie. And in just three weeks, we turned the conflict into policy options that everybody could live with. Not the left-wing, not the right-wing, the up-wing consensus. And today that algorithm is already widely used around the world as Community Notes.

And last year, when we faced a new threat from deepfake scams online, many people saw Jensen Huang, the Taiwanese NVIDIA CEO’s face. If you click it, Jensen wants to give you free cryptocurrency or some investment advice. Of course, it’s not Jensen. It’s a deepfake of him running on an NVIDIA GPU.

But, people in Taiwan, if you poll them individually, say the same thing. “The government should stay away from censoring the internet. As Dr. Tsai, our president said, you know, we’re the most free in all of Asia when it comes to internet freedom.” So, what to do?

We sent 200,000 text messages to random numbers around Taiwan asking for a citizen assembly to deliberate the idea. So 447 people randomly selected, representing the same demographic as the Taiwanese population, in rooms of ten, facilitated by an AI. We said to them, those 45 rooms, “You have to come up with an idea that resonates with the other nine people in that video room in order for it to be considered.”

So one room said, “Let’s label all advertisement prominently until it’s digitally signed off by somebody.” Another room said, “If somebody lost 7 million to an investment scam that’s not signed, let’s make them fully liable, like Facebook.” So Facebook has to pay that 7 million dollars damage if it runs unsigned advertisement. Very good idea. Another room said, “TikTok at the time did not have a Taiwan office. If they ignore our rules, every day they ignore our rules, let’s slow down the connection to their video by 1%, but not censoring them.”

So basically, those ideas get woven together by a language model, a small language model, at the end of the day, and everybody voted on it. So those 447 people, more than 85% regardless of demographics, agreed. And the other 15% could live with it, considered it quite legitimate. That was last March, and by May we passed the amendment on the Digital Signature Act. By July, we passed the anti-fraud law. And this year, these deep scams are not there anymore. Advertisement for fraud is down by more than 90%.

So here, Berlin built bridges, and Europe promotes interoperability and portability—also bridges. And the spirit that today already enables you to exit an instant message app with your data, your social graph, just like you keep your phone number when you change your carriers. This is freedom architecture.

So we must safeguard freedom of movement online by resisting digital colonialism, the way that Taiwan resisted the deepfake ads or Uber ten years ago and last year. And policy is catching up fast. Now we understand the platforms online are places too. The EU Data Act gave us data portability, the Digital Markets Act interoperability. So now let us extend that spirit.

We need protocols of freedom for movement, association, deliberation, safety. Think of them as public roads and bridges and parks, not private walled gardens. Because when an exit is real, then the platform must compete on care, not on capture.

In the upcoming panel, we’ll talk about digital resilience for all, but it suffices to say that authoritarian playbooks are global. The spyware, troll farms, transnational repression we just heard about—our response then cannot just be the local takedowns after the harm is done. We have to be pre-bunking. We have to make architecture safe by design.

We need selective disclosure, verifying any part of our credential that is relevant, like “I’m over 18” or “Ich bin ein Berliner” without revealing our full identity. No doxxing.

We need edge AI, smart defenders that run on our devices, safeguarding our community without surveillance, without pinging home.

We need to bring our own policy. Our local safety rules and deliberation norms need to travel with us across the web. And such an approach is critical in rolling back transnational repression. We can use AI to detect harassment, but we must let each community decide the code of conduct to make the final judgment. “Nothing about us, without us” must be the principle of our freedom architecture.

Now, forging stronger democracies is never easy. We need to see the process as working out in a civic gym with a care loop.

In Oxford, I’m developing the “6-Pack of Care” with six basic moves: Listen to people, keep promises. Invest the people in the process, verify the results together. Win-win as possible and as local as possible.

And we can train AI agents this way, beyond maximizing a score or just following some thin rules. This is called relational alignment. We align with the process of care.

Because if we delegate democracy and policy to chatbots for debate, that would be like sending our robots to the gym to lift the weights for us. I’m sure it’s very impressive. They can lift a lot. But our civic muscle will atrophy.

The superintelligence we need is not a machine. It is our capacity to coordinate with care.

We the people are the superintelligence.

And when we see “Internet of Things,” let’s make it an “Internet of Beings.”When we see “machine learning,” let’s make it “collaborative learning.”When we see “virtual reality,” let’s make it “shared reality.” When we see “user experience,” let’s make it about “human experience.”And whenever we hear that “singularity is near,” let’s always remember: The Plurality is here.

Thank you.

I call our next panelists, Damon Wilson, Ahmad, welcome.

So beyond a book, it’s a movement that you’re proposing, Audrey. We have a great panel now, and we just heard about things that can be done within democracy. I mean, you were leading all of these efforts in the strongest democracy in Asia. But we come from the other side of the wall. We come from the autocratic countries. We spent the weekend with 180 delegates from 60 countries. Both of us were there. Damon shared with us, and we face the challenge of how to use technology to confront autocratic regimes from the inside.

So I would like to start with your thoughts on this issue. Audrey?

When people link arms, firewalls can fall, too.

And I think in Taiwan, we have been on the front line on both sides, actually. I was born not into freedom and democracy. When I was born in the eighties, Taiwan was still under martial law, and there was not a lot of communication freedom, not freedom to form new parties or new newspapers, and so on.

But people then in Taiwan learned something: You can actually exercise the civic muscles without doing something overtly political. My mother was the co-founder of the Homemakers Union, still today the largest consumer cooperative in Taiwan. And they started with something… Thank you. Yes, very green.

What I learned when I was a child is that with the homemakers’ buying power to negotiate better environmental practices by farmers and so on, we gradually learned how to assemble, how to coordinate, how to—because it’s a co-op—run elections, and so on, still within an autocratic regime. But when Taiwan democratized in ‘96, when we had our first votes, already many of those charities, many spiritual associations, had more legitimacy than even the newly legitimate democratic government. And therefore, we’ve had a very strong ethos of working in the social sector to prototype small-d democracy, democratic change in the social sector through co-ops, through social entrepreneurship, before it gets translated into the practice of politics.

So when we share, for example, the collaborative fact-checking with Thailand, with many other people, with the help of many of you here, we started checking food and drug and agriculture safety and environment and things like that, but it gradually practiced the civic muscle.

Thank you very much. Ahmad, you are an Iranian-born technologist and human rights activist, and you have been focused on the freedom of the internet. A lot of these technologies require the basic aspect, which is access to the internet. So what are your ideas, your proposals to make internet accessible?

Well, I can speak for hours about the ideas. We are coming from the countries that the governments, recently in the past few decades, where the internet has been supposed to be the square for free speech, right? It has become a tool of control. And they’re shutting down the internet, they’re censoring the internet after or before every election or before every protest or during any protest.

And people, coming from the experience in Iran, have come together to build autonomous infrastructure, building tools to circumvent the censorship. It’s a cat-and-mouse game. Constantly, they are coming up with new tools to censor the internet, building these firewalls. And people are uniting together, building circumvention tools and building internet infrastructure that is independent of government controls.

For instance in Iran, during the Women, Life, Freedom movement, despite all the punishments that are for using these VPN tools and satellite internet, people came up with the resources and the creativity to bring Starlink and crack this wall and chip away this censorship wall, bite by bite, and building an internet infrastructure that is still shutdown-proof.

And we saw the result of that during the past, uh, twelve days. Despite the total shutdown of the internet, the information outflow still existed. So there are many ways, including building circumvention tools and as well as reclaiming internet infrastructure from the government, to build that digital resilience that cannot be defeated by these countries, by the censored countries.

We’ve been more on the defense side. I think we need to be more proactive and on the offensive side, as you mentioned during your closing remarks at the World Liberty Congress. So we have to be on offense. We have to reclaim the internet infrastructure. We have to also put pressure on other countries that are working together, autocracies, to build a Chinese model of sensor and digital surveillance and building this infrastructure and technologies and VPN tools together to tear down that great firewall.

A couple of months ago, we saw that there was an uprising by Gen Z in Nepal, and it was a tech-driven uprising. And something really interesting happened that there was a shutdown of internet, and then there was an alternative using tools like BitChat that doesn’t require access to the internet in order to connect the people that were protesting.

What are some of your thoughts on this? And maybe Damon, if you have some ideas. I know that you’ve been following this. What are your ideas on these new technologies to support these movements?

Sure, thank you so much, Leopoldo. So I’m the least qualified to be up here because I’m not a technologist, but we consider ourselves more investors in freedom entrepreneurs who are technologists. And that’s why I love the work that you’re doing to show that technology can give democracy hope to regenerate. But what Leopoldo and you—you should be on the spot here too—what the two of you are doing, forged in closed societies, you’re showing how technology can help the little guys beat Goliath.

So we watch at the endowment, the National Endowment for Democracy, we have a panoramic view across the world, 2,000 partners in 100 countries. And so we can see when a Chinese-originated technology, a particular aspect of surveillance technology, starts to show up in Serbia or Mauritius, we can connect them back with Chinese or Taiwanese dissidents to help them manage that. We see the development right now of digital control technology in North Korea that I suspect will make its way into Iran and help Iranians prepare for that.

But the exciting part is what you’re talking about, Leopoldo, where we see activists up against big states—centralized, lots of manpower, lots of money—in a very decentralized way experimenting and breaking through. So we have the joy of finding those things and investing in them.

We watch as Tibetan monks who have become technologists, terrified by the monopoly of deepfakes on telling the Tibetan story, develop their own Tibetan-language large language model with the Dalai Lama in a way that can be actually portable on phones to get into Tibet to help a Tibetan-language large language model tell the story of Tibetan cultural history without it being erased.

We watch the Russians that were driven out of Russia after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, disillusioned technologists, develop a VPN generator that can morph and change VPNs by calling them up immediately in a way that enhances the security of hundreds of thousands of Russians that now know they have to have an alternative way to access information.

We’ve seen—we’ve got some amazing Thai activists here, Vote 62—two years ago in an election, using optical AI, being able to have 40,000 volunteers in 400,000 polling stations to document 22 million votes in real-time as an absolute incredible parallel vote count, vote tabulation, something our Venezuelan friends know about, in a way that just puts handcuffs on anybody that would want to distort those outcomes.

And so I think part of what you’re on to—and I should turn this back to you, Leopoldo—we are seeing people forced by tyrants into really bad circumstances understand the power they have through a decentralized set of systems that provide technology that can be empowered for democracy. So for us right now, it’s not about a choice between scary AI versus our democracies coming for us. It’s really the question of how do we leverage AI for democracy and figure out how to do that by watching the experiments that happen and making investments in freedom entrepreneurs, knowing this isn’t going to be driven by DARPA alone. This is going to be determined by people like you that are on the ground trying out new things, and then how we can give that lift and oxygen so it can take root across activists globally.

So Audrey, you were just telling us that you’ve traveled to twenty-seven countries in the past two days.

Oh, the past year.

I know, I know, I know. You live on a plane. I asked where you’re living now.

I live on a plane.

Of all of the countries that you visited, what has been the country that is doing the most interesting work at the grassroots level, what Damon is talking about? What have you seen that is a technology that is really helping people at the grassroots level to either communicate or to send and receive resources or to make their organization more effective?

Yeah, I can point to quite a few, but I would say that Japan has been most active in both the digital democracy work as well as this decentralized, what’s called the web3 systems work. Because for them, there was no backlash after FTX. They’re uniquely not harmed by that particular tech-lash. And so these two worlds, which are usually different in different parts of the tech sector in other countries, in Japan is uniquely the same sector.

That is to say, the same people working on mandatory interoperability so you can move between social networks, between platform providers, between AI providers using web3 protocols are also the same people that formed a new political party, the so-called Future Party, that used those tools to crowdsource their platform. And they got 2.5% of a write-in vote and now became a senator, Takahiro Anno-san.

And I think that isomorphism, that bridge, is something we need to keep in mind. What on this side of the wall works as an anti-surveillance, anti-tampering technology, on this side of the wall works then as a freedom of choice, of a pro-competition, antitrust technology. And they are exactly the same technology. And we need to make that more well-known so that our research here can be applied development here, and the other way around, too.

One of the challenges that you express in your book, Plurality , is the fact that there are big companies that have a monopoly over communication. What are your thoughts on open source?

One, the Ministry of Digital Affairs that I founded—I was the founding minister—is uniquely in the transportation committee in the parliament. Everywhere around the world, the digital ministries are in science or, I don’t know, interior for cybersecurity, but we chose transportation because we understood it is infrastructure.

You cannot build a highway without an off-ramp. A lot of vendor lock-in around the world starts from the simple mistake of a government thinking that you can build the information superhighway and then benefit from the network effect without building that exit, that off-ramp.

But in Taiwan, just as broadband is a human right, so is, through government procurement, through the crowdsourced policies that I just mentioned, all the biggest platforms have to play by the interoperable rules.

But it’s not just in Taiwan. In the U.S. state of Utah, they passed the law, Digital Choices Act, that says starting next July, if you are a Utah citizen, you want to move from, say, X.com to Bluesky or Truth Social—both are open source—you can mandatory forward the old network’s likes, follows, reactions into the new network. So if you switch, you don’t lose your community.

And Nostr, and the Fediverse, and Bluesky, and so on are these kind of off-ramps and on-ramps that exist between the platforms. They’re called protocols. So that whenever people want to move, like you switch from one telecom to another, you get to keep your number, these protocols start working to ensure that you have a seamless experience.

And that the users are the owners of… they are the owners of their followers, they are the owners of the account, and they can switch it from one account.

We set the terms of service, not the platforms.

Leopoldo, can I jump in and turn the tables on you? Because Audrey has talked about how to use this technology to help empower and regenerate our democracies where there is oxygen for democracy. But one of the things I’ve been struck by what you’re working on and what we saw at the World Liberty Congress this weekend is how you’re taking some of these ideas behind the wall and empowering decentralized networks on the ground. Can I turn the tables on to you, Leopoldo, to share some of what WLC is working on?

Yes, we are. So as you say, Damon, we had over the weekend, we had 180 delegates talking at the Berlin City Parliament, and one of the issues that got more engagement was the use of technology. There was so much participation from the delegates from all over. And there is a lot of engagement and a lot of interest.

And the answer is yes, we are looking for different ways to use technology. And I’ll use the example of my home country, Venezuela. I had a conversation with Jack Dorsey two years ago, and he introduced us to Nostr. Nostr, as Audrey says, is a protocol. And I thought it was interesting. It looks like Twitter or X, thought it was interesting, but there was really no use case.

But after the election in 2024 that Maduro stole and there was a new wave of repression, X was banned in Venezuela. WhatsApp was weaponized, meaning that people could go to prison just for having WhatsApp. And X being banned, you needed a VPN. And to have a VPN, it’s quite sophisticated. Not everybody is going to download a VPN.

So we then turned into Nostr. Nostr is basically X on a protocol, but it has something very unique: that you can send and receive Bitcoin with a touch. It has the like button, it has the resend button, and it has a lightning bolt that you can just push and send or receive Bitcoin. And this became a super useful tool to organize people on the ground.

So what we are doing now, not just in Venezuela, we are doing it in five pilot countries—Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America—we are onboarding activists on Nostr in order to have a completely autonomous, anonymous account. No KYC, meaning you don’t need a phone number, you don’t need any identification to register. And once you have that account, you have a Bitcoin wallet. And that becomes not just a way to communicate, but it becomes also a way to send and receive funds.

So this is something that is solving the problems that we are facing to communicate and to send and receive resources. So we are creating something called the Freedom SATs Fund. And the idea is that we know the people that are being onboarded, and those people that are doing the right type of work in terms of their activism, we are capable of just sending them, not just a “like,” but some sats in Bitcoin. And in that way, we are creating the incentives for activists to be very engaged. This is something that we’re calling “decentralized democratic resistance.”

And actually, this Wednesday, we are having a full-day workshop with technologists and activists in order to see how we can improve this, because as we said before, it’s open source. Being open source means that nobody owns it and everybody can contribute to it.

Ahmad, I want to go back to you on this idea of access to the internet, because I know that this is something that you have been working on. When I go to Silicon Valley and talk to the people that are really into technology, they are developing incredible apps, and they are really trying to figure out how to solve problems. However, there is a basic infrastructure issue that needs to be solved: Internet. If you don’t have internet or 4G or 5G, all of those apps that are being developed are useless for many billions of people in the world. So I just want to go back to you to see what ideas, what proposals could we present to democratic governments, to companies, in order to make internet accessible? Because without the access of internet, all of these technological proposals are not capable of being used by the people.

Of course. Besides making your data autonomous so you can carry your data everywhere, of course you need an infrastructure that is also autonomous. And we saw in the previous panels, it was discussed, that topic in the war in Ukraine. The internet infrastructure was highly needed in the front lines, where actually infrastructure didn’t exist. So Starlink played a huge role over there. And the Ukrainians could just stay connected and fight the war.

There is another war in those censored countries, where the iron curtain is brought up. And these satellite technologies—it’s not just Starlink right now, because of the prevalence of Starlink, everybody talks about Starlink. Amazon is developing its Kuiper technology. Europeans, they have OneWeb technology. We have to do advocacy, make a human rights case not to exclude the access to those satellite internet coverages where it’s needed, so the case in Ukraine never happens again, and making it accessible where it’s needed.

And of course, the price is still an issue for those censored countries, the global south, the price of subscription of these technologies. Of course, this could be subsidized by democratic nations, as they did with the internet in the early days, by developing and expanding the technology in subsidized ways. Satellite internet could be subsidized. And believe me, if you make it affordable in those countries, then it’s not only that the people find all the ways to go around all the barriers to adopt those technologies and share it with others, it automatically neutralizes all the investment that those countries are making in building those firewalls, because they know that they cannot control the information by just banning and switching off the internet.

So building and investing in these new technologies, emerging technologies that governments cannot control, is one way. And of course, expanding that using those P2P, peer-to-peer technologies, to build this autonomous infrastructure so people can own their data, express themselves freely, stay anonymous, and also get their voice out and tear down those great firewalls.

Thank you. So Damon, two years ago, we were together in front of the U.S. Senate testifying about democracy. And I don’t know if you remember, the last question they asked us was, “If you had to propose one policy to promote freedom movements, what would that be?” And my answer was, “Without a doubt, promoting free and uncensored access to internet,” because if you have that, you can unlock many other things.

Two years have passed, and not much has happened in our countries in terms of access to internet. Do you see in the U.S. government, in the conversation happening now in the U.S., engagement, interest in opening access to internet beyond borders? And people that come from countries like Venezuela, Iran, we know that this is essential because internet shutdown is real, and it happens in some sectors on a daily basis, and when people take the streets, it happens immediately. So you are in charge of thinking about global democracy. That’s what your organization does, and you’re doing an incredible job by incorporating new technologies. Are you doing something around this issue of access to internet in autocratic countries?

You know, it’s a big issue, and there are quite a few members of Congress, just like members of the European Parliament, who are quite seized on some of these issues and how to be supportive. But one of the things I’ll say, we’ve had a spirited debate in the United States about how to be engaged in the world, what kind of assistance to provide, how to support. One of the things that I see coming out of this is an opportunity to break a little bit of the model and mindset that happens too much in established democracies, whether you’re in North America, in Europe, in the Indo-Pacific, is a sense that if we’re going to support you on the ground, we’re going to come with the idea in Washington or in Brussels or in Tokyo, and we’re going to fund you to implement our idea to do this.

And I think in the disruption that we’re seeing right now in this space, there is an opportunity to understand that’s not actually how we solve all these problems. We’re going up against a centralized control of autocratic states that are using manpower and technology with capital at scale. How can our response not be in a mirror image of that, but play to freedom, where we might not have the exact right answer?

Because the applications designed in Silicon Valley or Washington for the Iranian case may miss the mark. But the Iranian technologists that are working on this, some in exile, some in the country, they’ll figure it out. They’ll find the crack that Audrey’s talked about.

And so the silver lining that I see in our big debate right now is where the energy in European Parliaments and the U.S. Capitol is: not to re-establish what was there so that we have implementers around the world doing our ideas, but if we’re really going to empower freedom, which is good for our countries, we need to invest in the freedom entrepreneurs and understand that means finding those people who take the initiative to solve problems, who understand how this technology applies in their local environments and in their local languages, and take a little bit of risk.

And understand that our prosperity was built by taking risk, built by venture, venture capital, and bring that mindset to what you’re doing so that we can take a risk on the ideas that you come up with, a solution for what this looks like in Nepal versus Madagascar versus Syria. It’s going to be different, and we’re not going to actually figure it out in Brussels or Washington or Berlin. I think that’s what we’re learning in this moment, and you’re showing us through the applications of technologies in ways we never imagined that the open source and the way that it can have accountable principles… just give a little oxygen and see what imaginative, creative people can do when they have a taste of freedom.

Thank you, Damon. Thank you. Before we end, I would like to also invite you to another event that is going to happen next Wednesday. We just heard from Hanna a great presentation on transnational repression. It’s a big issue. Many of us have been victims.

So this Wednesday, at the old Stasi headquarters, there is going to be the coming together of victims of the Stasi of the 20th century with the victims of Pegasus of the 21st century. And they will talk about how things have changed and some things remain the same. At 6 p.m., Hanna will be at that event at the Stasi headquarters. If you’re interested in transnational repression in technology, that’s a great event to participate. If you’re interested in decentralized democratic resistance and the use of technology, that’s another great event that we invite you.

Thank you, Damon. Thank you, Audrey. Thank you, Ahmad. And welcome to the Berlin Freedom Week. Enjoy, and let’s do everything we can to make the world free. Thank you very much.