Suzette Brooks Masters

So I do think there are ways of doing this.

I don't know if I'm still answering your initial question.

That's good enough.

But of using tech to surface areas that we want the government to focus on, honestly, we haven't reached the point where the public, without the aid of government, can just make change on its own, right?

So all these theoretical models that don't actually factor in government, I think they're flawed because right now, unless you can use technology

these efforts to shape how government functions, you're putting all the burden on the public to raise the resources to do the work.

And I think that that's just going to be really, really challenging to do.

So that's why I really believe we need to reshape governance models so that the government answers to the will of the people and then makes those things happen and is judged on whether they're able to do that or not.

Sure.

Amanda, can I just agree and disagree with John?

Yes, it'll be quick.

I mean, I totally agree with John about reengagement and reengagement.

being vigilant and being active and reactivating people's sense of agency, that they can affect things instead of kind of throwing up their hands and giving up.

But what I don't necessarily agree with is that the answer is in the middle, is in some kind of moderation.

Because I think if you eliminate...

ideological buzzwords, and you just talk about the issues themselves, the outcomes that you want, the visions of the future that you want, I think there's a potential for a view of policy to enable flourishing and thriving that is way more radical than any

you know, labels that we would give them now.

So I don't think it's actually about the center and moving away from the extremes.

I think it's about moving away from the coded way that people view each other's ideas.

And if you strip out the jargon and you talk in plain language,