Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] James Keys: In this episode, we take a look at the Meta settlement involving Facebook and Instagram.
Consider how this came from the courts and not legislation as far as putting these restrictions in social media. And also discuss whether or not this is something that can make a meaningful difference in how young people engage with social media.
Hello, welcome to the Call I Can See it podcast. I'm James Keeks. Joining me today is a man who may be popular enough to be known by just his first name, Tunde. Oh. Oh. I only have to say the rest.
Tunde, are you ready to show them why your takes are actually the sweetest taboo?
[00:00:52] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah, man, I'm honored. I have always admired Cher. So now I can be like her, huh? Or Madonna or Pele. You know, let me start thinking about.
[00:01:05] James Keys: Or even shouting.
[00:01:07] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah, there you go. One, one name wonders. So that will be me. Maybe I'll create a band with my wife and we could be like Sonny and Cher.
Now, before we get started, that'll be a different show. So go to the show that we had scheduled.
[00:01:23] James Keys: But before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe and like the show on YouTube or your podcast app, doing so really helps the show out. We're recording on Sept.
2026, and last week, Meta agreed to settle a lawsuit that was brought by several states in the US and the lawsuit was over whether or not the Meta platforms, Facebook and Instagram have features and. Or have intentions to harm young people, young users as they're using them. And Meta ends up settling this lawsuit, and you settle a lawsuit, it's considered a compromise. So they compromise.
And then this compromise, they're paying up to $18 billion.
And they agreed to make certain restrictions, pretty significant restrictions as far as how much time teens can use the platforms, Infinite scroll, whether or not that can be there, and so forth, Many, many things we'll have in the show notes the materials that discuss the changes that are made. But this seemingly would be a big deal. This is the kind of landmark thing that we see from time to time where an industry agrees to rein itself in after having previously been able to kind of do whatever it wants to do, you know, and we think back to maybe the tobacco settlement, but there's been others where, you know, through litigation and oftentimes through settling like this, there. There have been meaningful or significant changes in how people operate, introduced. So, Tunde, what is your reaction? Or what was your reaction or, you know, as you've looked into it further, your reaction to seeing the Meta settlement and the things that they're not agreeing or they're agreeing to not do. And then also the amount of money that they've agreed to pay over, you know, I think it's over a ten year time.
[00:03:06] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah. So, you know, that's a good kind of setup because it's two different answers. I would say finally, on the actual kind of overarching idea that the law finally, finally caught up with these companies for like. And I think it's a well said comparing this to tobacco settlements and certain other large settlements historically where a corporation was found to be causing harm to the society in a way that really, like, I would say a butterfly effect. There's a lot of other negative cascading realities that come out of what that corporation is doing to a section of society. So I think the cancer and the healthcare side effects of tobacco was a good example of comparing the tobacco industry to what's going on with Meta now. And I'd say, and that tobacco settlement,
[00:03:57] James Keys: it was also relatively recent, you know, for many people, at least I'd say 40 and up. Maybe something you remember, you know, in the 1990s, you know, for younger people, they may not remember it. They grew up in a world where the tobacco settlement had happened. There's all this advertising against tobacco. That advertising is paid for essentially by the tobacco companies and so forth. And it, it changed society in meaningful ways. You know, the amount of smoking that happens around society is much less than it was in 1995, for example.
[00:04:27] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah. And we'll address how this, this case also may provide that type of change going forward. But, but the reason I bring up this tobacco stuff is really just the idea that it's not just the harm that's caused. I think the bigger thing to point out is the fact that the companies knew they were causing this type of harm. So it was found that the tobacco industry knew from early on that they were causing cancer, second, had smoke, had effects, all that stuff. And I think we know that today that Meta itself has done internal studies and they know that they've done things like cause depression in young people, especially young women and teenagers and the suicide rates are higher and things like that. So for that one answer, it's like, yeah, I'm glad that that's happened. And then the second answer is the fine I think is a joke, honestly. And I get it that they settled and this and that. But you know, $17 billion for them is the cost of doing business. Right. They make 60 billion in revenue per quarter, which annualizes $240 billion a year. And so my point is, is that if, if that, if that fine had another zero, you know, if it was 170 billion, 500 billion, I'd be more, I would take that more serious because I would think that the industry would be, you know, incentivized to not behave this way. I think that a $17 billion slap in the wrist is exactly that for the size of these companies. So. But it's a step in the right direction is, you know, my final thought.
[00:06:00] James Keys: Yeah, yeah, well, it's something a lot of times is better than nothing, you know.
And so I would say that you have to understand, when you look at something like this, you have to understand the role, like the system that we've set up, businesses, companies, industry generally is incentivized to maximize profit without regard for the social consequences. So, you know, and people like a cute way to say it is you internalize profits, you externalize costs. And so that would be, hey, if we can save money by dumping our garbage on the street or putting toxic waste into this lake, then we'll do it.
That's what the industry's incentive is. They're, they're not calculating for social consequences. That's what the role of government and regulation is. And so all these people to say, oh, we need no regulation, it's a, it's a really, really, really narrow view, a short sighted view of the incentives and how they work. So business and industry won't, won't be incentivized to not screw everything up around us if the government doesn't in some way shape or form introduce regulation. Now to me, it's interesting that, that right now, and many times in the past, that kind of regulation, those kind of rules are introduced by the judicial branch or through the judicial branch, not the legislative branch. And I'll touch on that a little bit later. But nonetheless, when I look at this, it's saying, okay, Facebook, Instagram, before now only public pressure was the only thing that would have them say how far were they willing to go to make people addicted, to, to make people sick, to make people unhappy in order to maximize attention. You know, they, they, they pull back a little bit when a whistleblower or some kind of leak came out and said how, how, how greasy it really was. But then they go right back to it, you know, so they were trying to maximize people's attention on time spent on platform and engagement at all costs up until right now, basically.
And that came not because they had some, you know, epiphany like, hey, we're, we're part of the society, maybe we shouldn't try to at all costs destroy everything. They're like, no, it came from a settlement. They felt like when, when you settle a case, each side gives a little generally. And so all of the things that they're willing to do here, they felt like their exposure was much more than that. And so like, hey, this, this is by, by agreeing here, we take, we can control what we give up as opposed to this going to some jury and they deciding that, hey, we got to give up everything or we got to break up, or we got to like, it could have been anything, you know, like for, for what, once it goes to a jury, you know, so their risk was. Or they considered their. This to be a much lesser harm for them to voluntarily agree to this. And so I'm happy that this happened. This I would view more as a first step of when something new happens, some new industry comes along, society doesn't know how to deal with it right away. That's understandable. That's fine. But at a certain point, we had to say, okay, now, you know, okay, Standard Oil, we see that you guys are doing this crazy stuff with oil, so we're going to limit, you know, certain things. Or, hey, you know, like another example again, like, hey, we're seeing, putting lead in gasoline is really bad for people, so we're going to make a rule that you can't do that. So ultimately, these types of things come about as the industry matures a little bit. And so I think this is kind of the first flicker of the social media industry starting, is going to start maturing a little bit. And the people in this case represented through the judicial system will have a say and say, how, how much are you allowed to slap us over the head in the pursuit of your profit? How much are you allowed to destroy our life in pursuit of your profit? And that's what we're going to, you know, that's why, that's why there's billions of dollars going into elections these days. Because that's the discussion we're going to have now.
[00:09:49] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah, I mean, I think you make a great point that the fact that they settled for 17 billion means they felt that they were potentially exposed for a lot more.
And, you know, and that's kind of the thing. I mean, in the end, this is about money and power, right? And this is kind of, you know, the kind of politics of it.
You know, one of the things that I think of is, like you say, the courts as you're talking, it makes me Feel like the courts and the executive branch have kind of been running the United States for the last generation.
And Congress has just basically abdicated its responsibility of being a co. Equal branch to the other two in terms of really doing things in the interest of the American people.
Less so the American corporation, which is
[00:10:38] James Keys: ironic, remember, because Congress is supposed to be the branch that's closest to the people. Yeah.
[00:10:43] Tunde Ogunlana: And it's the House of Representatives. It represents the districts, which is the people. We vote for congresspeople to go represent us.
The unfortunate part, and I think not to be a broken record here on some of our recent conversations. Right. But you know, the idea of Citizens United and money in politics has changed that dynamic where their primary constituents now are their donors.
And so there's again, another example of a conflict here when we look at the political donations Unlimited by the tech class, the tech industry. We had the richest man in the world in 2024 who owns one of the largest social media platforms that is right in the center of this type of stuff. Right. These lawsuits and how these things affects people's brains and emotions. And he paid in front of us all $300 million publicly to fund the winning side. And he did things that I would have assumed were against federal election laws, like holding a lottery in public in swing states like Pennsylvania and giving people big checks with a million dollar checks like they won the sweepstakes or something. You know, like when we were kids in the 80s looking at that stuff
[00:11:56] James Keys: and for the record, did find that to be a violation of. You don't have to, you don't have to throw that allegedly, or I believe that that was found as illegal as violating.
[00:12:05] Tunde Ogunlana: Okay, so, but that's a good point. Right. Again, the courts stepped up, but you know, there's laws that could be made by Congress and all that. So my point is just saying that, yes, the system has engineered itself over the last generation, that Congress represents corporate America. And that's why when we hear these things for the last decade that, you know, Facebook is hurting kids and all this social media and all this. And again, we, you know, me, I, you know, bring up things like what we had to suffer for years, Moms for Liberty and all these, this rhetoric in our culture about protecting kids. And you know, we can't have drag queens reading in the bedtime stories and all this stuff. But then I'm looking at like in the last five, six years, the number one killer of people under 18 in the United States is firearms.
[00:12:54] James Keys: Yeah.
[00:12:55] Tunde Ogunlana: When I'm looking at all the facts about Social media and how it causes depression and how suicides have gone up in the last 50 years. Targeted kids, correct?
[00:13:05] James Keys: Specifically targeted kids. You know, so.
[00:13:07] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah, exactly. But, but so I gotta look at Congress legislating things, whether it be the US Congress or our state. You know, I was thinking about it, James. Our state legislated the state of Florida. It legislated books like about Martin Luther King and Frederick Douglass out of school libraries. They took their time to do that.
[00:13:26] James Keys: Kids, right? To protect the kids.
Yeah.
[00:13:28] Tunde Ogunlana: But you know, they don't take as much time to deal with these kind of things. And I guess it's just because they're not cultural war issues. They don't get everybody or certain people fired up enough.
[00:13:40] James Keys: So that's.
[00:13:40] Tunde Ogunlana: To me, my concern with all this is that this is also the evidence that one of the three co. Equal branches of government has just been asleep at the wheel for 15, 16 years.
[00:13:50] James Keys: Yeah, yeah.
[00:13:50] Tunde Ogunlana: Maybe longer.
[00:13:51] James Keys: But definitely, I definitely want to touch on that. There was something I wanted to hit though, before we got there, and that was you had mentioned something about the money, which I agree in terms of creating a deterrent that does nothing, you know, So I don't know if it's really as much punitive.
I think what can be done with the money though, actually, if it's done right, could be very significant because the, the changes, you know, like, okay, hey, you know, kids can't be from, from 12 midnight to 6pm or 6am or something like that. That's all well and good.
Demand drives behavior though, really a lot, you know. And so one thing, one thing that I can never get out of my mind, I never will get out of my mind is how prevalent and how almost to say cool smoking was in, you know, 70s, 80s, 90s. I grew up in the 80s and 90s. And you know, first Jurassic park, you know, I watched that with my kids and they smoking cigarettes and everything like that. It's like, oh, yeah, that was just the way. That was just the get down, you know, no big deal. In the first Jurassic Park. You don't see that kind of stuff in the, in the current ones. And they're like, well, what happened? Well, I think it really is. It wasn't tied to some kind of ban. It wasn't that the government banned tobacco. What they did was this. A lot of the money that was paid in the tobacco settlement was gone. Went to fund nonprofits and efforts to make smoking seem less appealing to people.
And so they advertised against this negative advertiser. Hey, you don't want to do this. This thing isn't cool. This thing is nasty. Yada, yada, yada. And I mean, it was blanketed, you know, it was blanketed. I was in college, you know, around that time, and it was blanketed. It was like, you know, everywhere. And I wonder if every, if people hang it up now and say, hey, you know, we won, you know, and. Because I think now actually the work begins, you know, like, they've made some concessions and now would be the time. If there is a way, and I'm not a marketing person, so I don't know, but, but if there's a way to make to, to lessen people's desire to overuse social media, to, to, to rely on it for, you know, hey, I'm, I'm going to be sitting here for one minute. I better pull out my phone and busy myself for this one minute because I would hate to just sit here with my thoughts, you know, like, can we, can we, can there be some intervention there with this money, you know, in terms of, to, to market to people that, hey, maybe you don't need social media all day every day, you know, type of thing like that, I think can be much more impactful. Now, whether this is the dollar figure or they need 10 times this amount, I don't know. Again, I'm not a marketing person, but I just, I hope that this is the beginning of how we're going to try to get a handle on this and not the end. And so, I mean, that's interesting. I know you had already jumped on this, but, like, I want to get your comment, I guess. Give me the comment from the other angle, because the next thing I wanted to ask you was whether you're encouraged that while the legislative branch is asleep at the switch or busy doing other things that aren't in the interest of helping the people at large. But we have the judicial branch, and the judicial branch is able to. Actually, this is a meaningful thing that happens.
Is that something that you're encouraged by or does your focus from seeing this happen here? Not. Oh, good thing for the judicial branch. It's still more of a. Oh, man. You know, like, man, we. We only have two government branches working out of the three now. You know, the legislative branches. Yeah.
[00:17:23] Tunde Ogunlana: I'm concerned that without effective enforcement by Congress through legislation. Right. Because there's. Will they make.
As far as. Yeah, will they.
[00:17:33] James Keys: And also this only applies to, To Facebook and Instagram. This doesn't apply to YouTube or TikTok or any of you.
[00:17:40] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah, I mean, without getting into the nuances of that. Right. Because that is a. Something that would be important.
[00:17:46] James Keys: But more so that, that's a reason why legislation would be helpful here.
[00:17:50] Tunde Ogunlana: That's in my instance is, is, is that, you know, this lawsuit obviously is targeted because it's a lawsuit. It can, it's not blanket. And, and look, laws are laws, right? So if, if, if Congress were to legislate that it's illegal to prey on kids and messing them up psychologically and all that and doing all these things. Right. Then they would be breaking the law. If they continue to do that and then people could go to jail in the corporation or the corporate whatever. Right. So the point I'm just making is that yes, this is a good step, but then there doesn't seem to be a long term enforcement mechanism if this is not made illegal. And so I, because Mike, here's my concern. Number one is we know that big companies will, without the proper guardrails, will, because they have the means, especially these big tech companies, to create new realities. So who knows, they could probably create. So I wouldn't put it past them that they are already working on some sort of technology that could go undetected by whoever is supposed to be regulating this and all that.
[00:18:52] James Keys: You know, I thought you were going to go a different direction with that. I thought you were going to say they're already probably working with their congress people to get a law that overrides it, makes it so we can't have any regulation on social media.
[00:19:05] Tunde Ogunlana: Unfortunately. I wouldn't be surprised. And again, this is what a democracy looks like. What are the American people going to do? They're going to, are they going to keep electing the same people into office because they get misdirected about Somalis and about Haitians eating their pets? I mean, that's not my point.
The population is so distracted and doesn't seem to take this stuff serious. They take other stuff serious, but not this. So I don't know. And so, but I do think this is very difficult because I think what we're dealing with is addiction, the, the
[00:19:36] James Keys: intentional addiction at that. You know, hey, let's get them.
[00:19:39] Tunde Ogunlana: It's. Yeah, it's like the British when they, when they, when they, when they bomb China to force them to take opium into their ports.
[00:19:48] James Keys: But it's like.
[00:19:49] Tunde Ogunlana: Well, say it's like domestically though,
[00:19:53] James Keys: you know, during the colonial time they tried to close the, close off the ability for entities to import heroin or, you know, opium into their ports. And then, yeah, the British responded by Bombing them to.
[00:20:06] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah, so this is almost like in domestically, internally, as if, if the British did this to their own population. You see what I'm saying? And so, and so that's what I'm saying.
[00:20:16] James Keys: Like we hope that, that it wouldn't get off the ground, that there'd be some effort legislatively to give them more free reign. But I mean that, that is a concern. Like it doesn't see it seems like Congress and you brought up one of the reasons Citizens United, the, the fundraising piece. You know, like I think that, that I do look actually I'm happy that the courts are there. This is one of the benefits of three branches of government that we're not totally dependent on one branch to, to do stuff, you know, because it's much, it becomes much more complicated and it's much harder for one person or one group of people to take over the whole thing. And so money has taken over Congress. You know, like it's just money's completely taking it over. The, the, the, the, the fundraising makes them money focused. They're constantly trying to raise more money. And it also changes the kind of people that are getting into office. You know, from that standpoint. These are people that are driven, you know, you know, in, in ways that, that were fundraising doesn't offend them. The constant fundraising, the constant asking people for more money, the constant kind of trading off, hey, favors for money and stuff. People that don't want to trade favors for money probably shouldn't run for Congress because that's what they do in Congress, you know. So it changes the character of the body because it changes the character of the people. Another thing that changes has changed Congress is the continual dive into gerrymandering. The continual dry like so you the kind of person who gets into office now with the, the type of gerrymandering where when districts are made more and more, so to speak, red or blue, then what you end up having is more narrow minded people running less people that are more intellectually flexible that can see different sides of arguments. Those people aren't going to get elected now because people just want to get, they want to get red meat of you know, whatever it is that they, they, they emotionally care about. And so somebody who is a partisan, a heavy partisan who only could see things, very narrow minded one way. That's the kind of person now that goes to Congress. So we bring a bunch of those people together now and some people only see things one way. They can't imagine a world that everybody doesn't think like them in this way, and other people only think this other way and can't imagine a world where everybody doesn't think like them in that way, and then they don't get anything done because neither one of them can imagine a world where somebody, everybody doesn't think like them. So some of this stuff with, with the Congress is structural, and I think it's intentional as well. I mean, like, this is. Makes them easier to manipulate. These are people that have a harder time thinking for themselves, you know, not, not everyone, but it's a critical mass. You know, it's a critical mass and so forth. So I think that the judicial branch. I'm happy we still have it, you know, basically in that sense.
Now, obviously, in the same way that Congress was taken over, you better believe that the efforts are working to take over the judicial branch, too, because if you go look, historically there were a lot of people that were unhappy that the judicial branch stepped in with things like Brown v.
Board of Education and felt like, hey, we don't need activist judges saying that segregation should be illegal or is going to be illegal. And so there are efforts that have been ongoing to try to change the nature of the courts so that the courts become reliable partisans or dependent on money and favors from wealthy or other interests. So, I mean, I think it's more instructive seeing how Congress has become a captured body that, hey, the judicial hasn't yet. So, hey, maybe we should pay a little more attention and try to make sure that we don't allow it to become captured by moneyed or special interests.
[00:23:45] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah. It's interesting how the people who point fingers about activist judges don't seem to be offended when certain judges bring their religious views to talk about things like abortion and things like, look, there are
[00:24:01] James Keys: people, remember the people that just want athletes to stick to some sports, you know, then when the athlete says something they like, though, they're like, no, no, tell me more.
So, yeah, like hypocrisy, then they don't have.
[00:24:10] Tunde Ogunlana: Then they don't have to shut up and dribble.
[00:24:11] James Keys: Yeah, yeah, the hypocrisy is not hard to find, you know, so. But the last question I wanted to ask you, though, do you think, I mean, so looking at the, the types of differences or the, the types of things that are now been agreed to not do, you know, as it relates to teens particularly, do you think this can make a significant difference in how people interact with social media?
You know, and like I said, I talked about how the tobacco settlement did. Or do you think this may Be we may be looking more at a one step forward, two steps back kind of thing, or we're too early really.
We need to stack a couple of these possibly in order for me.
[00:24:48] Tunde Ogunlana: No, I think that if, look, this is new enough, right? These things are all kind of about 15 to 20 years old, these social media and it's all this stuff. So we know that we have the data, right? Human beings and teenagers, especially younger people, behaved a certain way in our society up until about 2010, 2012. And then you saw the spike of suicides and depression and all that. So there's a, and there's a. I mean, obviously I don't have enough time to discuss all the research, but there's enough research to show that it's definitely correlated.
And it's. And it's, and there's causation and correlation. Right, like that. It's all of it. So I do think that yes, if these changes are genuinely done by the companies and they're able to be set in, and like you said, it's maybe not just two of them so that people can go to leak out to another one, but it's across the platform of social media and kind of the, these type of Internet type of things, then yes, I think it could. Because one thing that I found very interesting that I just want to share was I feel like the tech industry has hacked our evolutionary senses, like mentally, emotionally.
So a couple things real quick and just stay with me because I got to read a bit. Variable ratio, schedules and reinforcement. The slot machine effect, I guess that's the technical term from it says rooted in behavioral psychology, a reward delivered at unpredictable intervals produces the strongest, most compulsive habit formation.
The next is dopamine. Prediction error. Dopamine is not simply a pleasure molecule. It is a molecule of anticipation and seeking.
Basically it reinforces the urge to repeat in action because, you know, like notifications and getting some, some quick reward. And then there's the social validation loops, which goes back to sometimes you're mentioning about humans being tribal and being social creatures. Humans evolved as tribal creatures whose survival depended on social belonging and status. Tech platforms quantify social approval through likes, comments and shares, converting abstract human connection into measurable, highly addict dopamine hits. So my point is just reading that got made me realize, man, these guys have been in a lab with all these scientists and psychologists, guys like Zuckerberg, you know, since 2010, 2012, and they've been pushing our buttons literally, like, literally like, hey, let's dial this up, let's let's, let's see if this argument foments how many likes and this and that. And they're probably laughing at society, watching it and manipulating us. And it's sad.
[00:27:19] James Keys: And so like I said earlier, they're doing that with the sole priority of maximizing their, their attention, people's attention and their money. They're not, they're social.
Well being is not part of their consideration on that. You know, so it's. Yeah, it's a pretty, pretty dangerous stew.
[00:27:36] Tunde Ogunlana: Yeah. And I just, I don't know because if this is allowed to continue, we also as a human society lack the imagination of where this can go. I mean, you talk about dystopian futures, totalitarianism and all that. The ability for a few of these large mega tech companies to literally be pushing people's buttons to the point where people can control their own behavior around these things, that to me is, isn't interesting. We're going in a whole new area. And so hopefully this, the kind of legislation, I mean, hopefully this is the start to some of that regulation and regulatory environment that we can make sure these companies aren't playing these games with our minds and our emotions.
So I hope, you know, lol. Track record is not that great, but.
[00:28:18] James Keys: Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Madison Avenue's been playing with your emotions ever since there was a Madison.
[00:28:24] Tunde Ogunlana: I know. And it's, and it's, and it's Citizens United. You know, the corporations run America, not, not, not the people. So yeah, you know, well, that's life.
[00:28:31] James Keys: That I think this will make a difference meaningful is doing a lot of work though, because I don't know that it'll make as meaningful of a difference as many people want or maybe expect. And the reason why is that I. My guess is that if this is the stuff they're willing to give up, this is probably the stuff from like 2010 to 2015 that they learned or maybe, you know, 20. This, this is the old stuff. These are the old tricks that they have from all their research on how the brain reacts to this and brain reacts that they probably got the new stuff that they either have rolled out or ready to roll out once this stuff goes in order to keep people hooked anyway, you know, so they'll move the ball. And so like, to me, if we're going to get a handle on this, we may need regulation and regulators in the same way. Like where you have like the SEC and they can go in and look at books sometimes and say, hey, are you doing what you're supposed to be doing? Are you cooking the books here with these, with your, your corporate stuff or other, you know, financial industries that financial regulators that can go in and see internal stuff and say, hey, you know, what's going on here? I don't think we can really address, meaningfully address this until we have people that can go in and say, okay, well, what are you doing here with this algorithm? What are you doing here with the autoplay of these videos? What are you doing with, as far as how are you, how you're curating the stuff, how you're presenting stuff?
Not what we can observe here, but what do you know that this does to people that you're then taking advantage of? And then we decide, okay, is that good? Is that, is that a little too over the line or is that you're allowed to take advantage of people in that way? Because I don't think the question is whether they should be allowed to take advantage of people at all. The question is just how much and to what degree and how much, how much immersion can you take advantage of people. So I think that's going to be what we need ultimately. I mean, and you're a financial guy, so you, I mean, you, you see this like, where the regulation, though, has, will have to come from people who have access to what they're doing currently and why in order to figure out that. So, so, yeah, I don't think it'll be meaningful, but I think it's something. It's better than nothing and it's a good first step.
So, so, so, yeah. But we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time. I'm James Keys.
[00:30:44] Tunde Ogunlana: I'm Tunde Romano.
[00:30:45] James Keys: All right, we'll.
