Episode 15 – Accessibility Game Theory, AI, and the politics of assistive tech

Episode Summary

Mark Miller, Justin Stockton, and guest Pete from Onward Accessibility break down three accessibility articles that each take a very different angle on the same question: who benefits when accessibility is treated as a business, technical, or political problem. They dig into game theory in procurement, the limits of building for AI instead of people, and the ethical tensions around Meta donating smart glasses in Ireland.

This week’s guest: Peter Bruhn

Accessibility Game Theory

Sheri Byrne-Haber

The Web Is Being Made Accessible for AI, Not People

Jonathan Zong & Frank Elavsky

Disability as pawn in Geopolitics

Bianca Prins

Main Topics:

• In this episode, Pete explains Sherry Byron-Haber’s idea of accessibility as a game theory problem, where vendors, buyers, and end users all have different incentives and rewards.
• Mark and Justin highlight the procurement dilemma: the buyer may reward a low-cost vendor for accessibility claims without verifying them, while the end user absorbs the accessibility failures.
• The group connects the article to Akerlof’s “Market for Lemons,” showing how bad information in procurement can push the market toward lower quality and weaker accessibility.
• Justin calls out the free rider problem, where one buyer’s demand for a fix benefits everyone else, which can discourage individual organizations from doing the work first.
• Pete summarizes the remaining failures from the article, including deadlines as commitment devices, repeated games, and litigation as a way to change the game instead of playing by it.
• The conversation turns to “The web is being made accessible for AI, not people,” and the panel pushes back on the idea that AI-driven discoverability is the same as human accessibility.
• Mark draws a sharp distinction between making content usable by AI agents and making websites genuinely accessible to people using assistive technology.
• Justin focuses on the article’s curb cut and infrastructure examples, where accessibility improvements are often justified only when they also serve robots, AI systems, or the general public.
• Pete notes that accessibility work done right from the start already supports AI discoverability, so AI should not become an excuse to sideline human-centered design.
• The final article, “Disability is a Pawn in Geopolitics,” raises questions about Meta’s free smart glasses giveaway in Ireland and whether disability support is being used to influence privacy policy.
• The discussion balances genuine assistive value against privacy, surveillance, and corporate incentives, with Pete emphasizing that transparency does not erase distrust of a mega corporation’s motives.
• Mark closes by emphasizing that accessibility is fundamentally human-centered, and that AI should be treated as a tool, not the reason accessibility exists.

Go to all episodes

Transcript

Mark Miller (00:07)
Hey, welcome to the Accessibility Breakdown. I am Mark, and this is

Justin Stockton (00:11)
Justin?

Mark Miller (00:12)
and Hey

Pete (00:13)
Hey.

Mark Miller (00:14)
Pete. Every week we pay tribute to those who stand out to us as leading by accessibility by picking three topics that strike us in some way. This week we’re going to talk about accessible gain theory. This is an article by Sherry Byron-Haber. It’s very interesting, a real, really interesting kind of angle and take.

We’re gonna talk about the web is being made accessible for IA not people. This is by two people, Jonathan Zong and Frank Alv Go ahead, Justin. You say it.

Justin Stockton (00:49)
Frank Elavsky.

Mark Miller (00:50)
Elavsky. Thank you. I don’t know why you’re so much better than I am. Disability is a Pawn in Geopolitics by Bianca Prince. Prince. and

As you all have noticed, we have a guest with us today. Pete is from Onward Accessibility. Pete and I have known each other for a while now. I think we met two or three years ago at Enabling, which is coming up. And kind of in one way or another, have stayed in touch, hung out at other conferences, CSUN, since then, which has been

Which has been great. You struck me as somebody who kind of got accessibility, at least in in the way I define got accessibility. and we’re super excited to have you with us.

Pete (01:42)
Well thank you. It’s really awesome to be here. Really appreciate you inviting me on and and letting this happen.

Mark Miller (01:49)
Of course. And I have to say, we tried to get you on as our first guest, but scheduling, scheduling, you know how that goes. But Pete was the first person to reach out to us and say that he wants he’s like, Are you ever gonna do guests? I wanna be a guest. So we finally made that happen and I’m excited. With that, why don’t we dive right into it? let’s start with accessible accessibility game theory. This is Sherry’s article.

And I have to say when I first started reading this, it wasn’t I didn’t I guess I didn’t know what to expect. I was kinda like, like, is this gonna be some gamification kind of thing? but it was and it was very different than that. and why don’t we start with you, Pete? Can you tell us a little bit about this article and kind of what you picked the article, so what what struck you with this?

Pete (02:44)
Yeah, so i it’s interesting you you mentioned gamification because I think a lot of times when people hear game theory, that’s what they start thinking about. But if

Mark Miller (02:52)
Yeah.

Pete (02:53)
you’re not familiar with game theory, which to be honest, I wasn’t I mean, I was kind of aware of the concept, but not like the details about it. So I did up do a little research on like kind of game theory as it as a whole before getting into

Mark Miller (03:03)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (03:04)
the article. but essentially like like thinking about game theory is about like you have

Players, right? And your your actions as a player is going to be determined based on kind of what’s your best interest, but also based on what the other players have done in the in the game, right? So that’s a very basic way to think about it. But when we look at Sherry’s article, right, she’s like really framing accessibility as the game, right? Like so building an accessibility program is the game, right? And part of that game is procurement. And so how do the players in that game

act in a way that you know make decisions excuse me that based on the others actions and so ha and then what are the outcomes based on that so it’s a it’s an a fantastic article i mean if you’re f unfamiliar with game theory again i would do a little research on game theory itself before diving into it but once you’re in there you it’s the connections are all there it makes so much sense and it’s a really fascinating perspective on accessibility so yeah

I guess I’ll stop there for a moment ’cause I do want like there’s a lot to talk about here. But yeah, it’s it’s it’s great.

Mark Miller (04:10)
No, I the

Yeah, that was a great summary. You know, I think you broke it down perfectly, and that is that there’s there’s players, each player has their motivations, and that is how the game is set up. So what does the game board look like? What are the rules of the game? And that’s their motivation, and then their actions are dictated by the motivation, but also by the actions of the other players in the game.

And I I think to bury the lead a little bit here, or to not bury the lead, is that that doesn’t always lead to the outcomes we think it’s going to or that it should. And I think that that is where Sherry really shines in this piece of writing, is that she is able to take us by the hand and walk us through how these things go wrong and don’t lead to these the the

I’ll call it intended outcomes, right? That probably is arguable too, but certainly the outcomes that most people probably on the surface think that it sh it should lead to. And I’m gonna stop there because I know Justin, you probably can break down some of the details here. and you look like you’re ready to. So go for

it.

Justin Stockton (05:28)
Well no, it’s not i it wasn’t that. I was but there was w I think there’s one crucial aspect that you missed with like every every player in the game has their own motivations.

Mark Miller (05:36)
Wait, if you’re gonna criticize

me, then let’s go back to Pete.

Justin Stockton (05:41)
If

Pete (05:40)
Yeah.

Justin Stockton (05:44)
it’s not just the motivations, it’s the rewards that every player

Mark Miller (05:42)
sorry, go ahead, go ahead. The reward.

Justin Stockton (05:48)
gets. So everyone, like all of the players in the in this accessibility game are have different motivations for trying to do what they need to do, but they’re also rewarded differently. And

Mark Miller (06:01)
Mm-hmm.

Justin Stockton (06:02)
for most of the people who are the key decision makers in determining whether or not

To purchase or to procure something that is accessible, they the reward for them is not, I get to actually use the system. It’s, hey, I have now procured this thing so that other people can use it. And those people may or may not, like they’re gonna get stuck with whatever was procured. So that to me was the interesting place. And the way that Sherry approaches this as here’s all these different kinds of tenets of game theory.

Here’s how organizational processes fail these types of things. So she’s looking at it from the negative kind of more from the negative aspect, but she does it I actually think she does it in a fairly positive light.

Mark Miller (06:50)
I yeah, well

I think it’s so

Pete (06:52)
Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (06:53)
kind of data driven that the yes, it’s from the why is this not working, you know, if if that’s what

Justin Stockton (06:58)
Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (06:59)
you mean by negative aspect, but it wasn’t it it was actually very interesting and and kind of like for me it was like, how do we adjust? You know, it wasn’t it wasn’t like off putting or anything like that. I thought it was actually really well done. And and and that is a good call out, it is the reward.

And I can tell you, as somebody with a over 3,600-day streak on Duolingo, which is a heavily gamified platform, it like that reward system, it it works way better than we realize it works. My dad does Duolingo when he talks, I don’t care about all that stuff. And I’m like, well, yeah, but have you ever stuck with anything else, Dad? Like you do this ten hours a day.

Pete (07:41)
Okay.

Mark Miller (07:43)
So it w it can kind of work behind the scenes too when we don’t realize that that reward system is drawing the result off into the wrong direction, you know, which I think I don’t think Sherry says that, but that was one of the things that as somebody who knows all this really well, like like you do, Pete, and like Justin does, I was like, like Sherry really highlighted some things that I hadn’t stopped to think about that don’t go right in that process.

Pete (08:13)
Yeah. Yeah. And

Mark Miller (08:15)
You know.

Pete (08:15)
so the other thing to I mean to to get into more game theory stuff is is like there’s this concept of like a payoff matrix, right? Where you can think you have two players, right? Like just basic grid, right? Four quadrants. And so in this case we have vendor and buyer, right? So

Mark Miller (08:30)
Uh-huh.

Pete (08:31)
vendor can make in this case two decisions. One is to build their product with accessibility integrated, like from the start, or their other or their decision is to

Claim accessibility just through internal reporting without actually doing anything, right? And then as a buyer, you have two decisions based on those. One is to validate the vendor’s conformance claims or accessibility claims, right? Or you just accept their claims. And so the outcomes from all of those different, you know, those four different, you know, boxes essentially that you can end up in are very different, right?

Mark Miller (09:07)
Right.

Pete (09:09)
And so

Mark Miller (09:09)
Yeah.

Pete (09:09)
this is where it gets interesting thinking about it from the player’s perspective, right? Because if you’re the player and you’re the vendor, right, like you want things to you want to win your bids, right? Like if there’s RFPs, you want to win, you want to have a competitive, you know, product, you want to have a low price product so that it can be, you know, purchased easily. But from a buyer’s perspective,

Those all things are actually same similar, right? So like you kind of end up in this like worst case scenario for the user of the product. But

Mark Miller (09:41)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (09:41)
when the vendor and the buyer are like, hey, like I want to buy a product that, you know, I I tray listen, I trust them. They’re gonna give me a conformance report. Great. Like they have a VPAT, I’m gonna trust that. therefore the product I’m buying, I can feel like maybe I have some confidence in, but it might not be.

truly be there, but the price point might might be correct right for you. And you know the like the risk is is certainly higher, but you’re in a situation where again like you’re paying for something that’s lower cost. Like you don’t have to you don’t know that there’s actual issue. So you can kind of like say, yeah, I’m just

Mark Miller (10:17)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (10:18)
gonna ignore those. And therefore like you’ve paid less. The vendor, you know, is is it costs less for them to develop the thing because they’re not integrating accessibility from the start.

Mark Miller (10:28)
Right.

Pete (10:28)
And therefore you end this in this spot where like what’s best for both vendor and player is again that that spot where like they just claim accessibility and you just accept that claim. And again, that leaves the user behind because it’s the user that has to take that like lack of accessibility. They’re the ones dealing with it, right? so it’s an it’s a really interesting model, especially from that

Mark Miller (10:51)
It is.

Pete (10:52)
kind of that that first

failure point that she talks about. It’s essenti essentially the procurement dilemma. That’s where this particular one plays into.

Mark Miller (10:59)
Well,

she goes on to and this is

Justin Stockton (11:01)
Mm-mm.

Mark Miller (11:01)
inter this is another rabbit hole to go down at some point, but she references this paper from nineteen seventy by a guy named George Ackerloff, if I’m pronouncing that one right, Justin, called The Market for Lemons and it describes what you’re describing, Pete, where when buyers can’t distinguish qu good quality before a purchase, then the

then essentially the lower cost thing becomes the attractive thing. And the the the vendors who are creating high quality stuff have to lower their quality in order to compete in that market. And it’s kind of a vicious cycle that takes over the market and creates, you know, the market for lemons. Like everybody would rather pay less. And not even that they even r realize it. Like I think that that’s the point is that it’s it’s not even a f phenomenon that you realize that wait, you could be getting something much better

you know, handles risk, but whatever the case is. And and the market for lemons was about cars, by the way, just for those of you

And i so

Justin Stockton (12:06)
Who love lemons?

Mark Miller (12:08)
it’s it’s really fascinating how this occurs. And I have to say, from the perspective, and I think all three of us probably have this perspective, that as a vendor who recognizes, like we say all the time, like, if you’re gonna produce a VPAT yourself, that is going to be regarded differently than if a third-party objective expert like like one of our organizations produces it. And sometimes that

resonates other times it it doesn’t, you know, and and the more those are accepted, then the more all of this doesn’t mean anything. And that end user who needs accessible who needs the product to be accessible isn’t served. You know? and I just think and I think part of it is us as vendors also have a responsibility to lay this out. And us as vendors, you know, you were talking about a project before we heated up

Mike Mike’s Pete, where you all are working on a vendor program, right? So as the consultant doing that, there’s a responsibility that you properly coach your customer to look for that quality, right? So it stays up there so that that VPAT remains meaningful, so that all this stuff and we we have similar projects and and I think we have a similar responsibility. So all the players

need to look at how they’re affecting the game and changing it and making and make sure that they take responsibility for that.

Justin Stockton (13:43)
And that’s funny because I feel like Pete, you kind of touched on failure number one. Mark, you hit failure number two. My interesting one was failure number three, which is the free rider problem. And this idea that if you have 50, 50 people out there buying things, if one of them is the squeaky wheel and gets the vendor to fix their product, then all 49 of the other buyers get that fix. And reading down that list.

Front that Sherry listed, I was like, all of these bullets seem like very solvable problems. Like there’s nothing there that like publishing, getting something out there that says, like, look, this is how you update, here’s here’s boilerplate language you include in your procurement. that says, and if, and if you do this and your competitor does it, and your competitor over there, like if everybody starts doing this, then the people you’re all buying from is gonna push that on that.

And it’s all going to interconnect back so that everyone like so that we’re raising the, you know, all of the boats, so to speak, at the same time.

Mark Miller (14:48)
Rising tide lifts all ships, yeah.

Justin Stockton (14:50)
Yeah. And so but I read like I read that bulleted list and I was like, this seems solvable.

Mark Miller (14:55)
Well, you know, number three is an interesting one, Justin, because I think it also goes back to

kind of the soapbox I think the three of us are always on, and that is to integrate accessibility into your processes, right? Like to

Justin Stockton (15:05)
Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (15:05)
look at accessibility from the beginning, don’t have it be an after, an expensive afterthought. Just make it part of the process of developing something, you know, creating your digital asset. And and then you

you you don’t have one vendor who kind of takes the hit. You don’t have, you know, you don’t have all that stuff occurring. You as the creator of the product are just building it in and satisfying it for for all these folks. The last thing I’ll say and then we need to move on to the next one, is that a c I I just want to give Sherry a sp a shout out here because this article was incredibly well written. I pride myself in

Connecting things. I don’t think I’ve ever made a connection this profound. When I was reading this, I was just like like taking a look inside Sherry’s mind and going, This is incredible that she looked at game theory and applied it to accessibility that way. That’s a that I mean just a fascinating mind and and one we need. So if you’re not following Sherry’s work, please do. She’s very prolific.

content creator in the industry and i it’s like that EF Hutton thing like when she speaks you should listen. so I was impressed with this from I know that ages me. I I know Justin, but I was impressed with this as a structure how well you know structurally the writing was put together and then her her prose and her ability to write in in in simple understandable language is incredible. I found myself wanting to go back and reread sections, not because I

Pete (16:42)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (16:42)
didn’t understand them, but because I wanted to kind of

sit with them a little bit longer because of the profound nature. So anyways, Sherry, love your stuff, love your mind and love the way you write. Please, please keep it up. The next thing we have, what’s what’s

Pete (16:54)
Yeah. Just real quick, Mark. I before we hop to that one though, I just wanna say,

so we we covered like three of the six failures kind of that that Sherry outlines in that in that article.

Mark Miller (17:03)
Yes. Yep.

Pete (17:05)
So there’s some additional things that are really important as it at as it pertains to accessibility and and and as it relates to game theory in this this model. So just make wanna make sure you all get into that article in some more depth because we didn’t have time to color everything.

Mark Miller (17:16)
dig into it, yeah. Do you wanna do you wanna bullet out real quick

for us, Pete, or?

Pete (17:20)
yeah, sure. So the fourth is is what’s called deadlines as commitment devices, right? So this is again using like thinking about Title II deadlines and how that got shifted and how people thought, great, you know, hey, we now have more time, and then they sat back and has still haven’t done you know, and now they’re like gonna be entering that re panic cycle because it’s gonna be coming up again. but so there’s a lot about deadlines and kind of using deadlines as as part of things to push push projects forward.

the second sorry, the fifth one was called Repeated Games. and it’s about really just thinking about like an ongoing basis. How do you do this in a way that continues this work, right? So it’s not just like, give me a VPAT now and then we’re good, right? It’s like moving forward, getting, you know, consistent updates and

Mark Miller (18:02)
Right. You you you finished the

level, now you can go have lunch, right? No, you gotta keep keep going.

Pete (18:09)
Yeah. Right. and

then the final failure that was as talked about is about litigate litigation and the option to change the game instead of playing it, if if that’s an option for you. So again, really interesting stuff. Get in there. I guess final like at the end of the day, right? What

Mark Miller (18:24)
Yeah.

Pete (18:26)
wins here is like sustainable accessibility programs. Like they are always going to win. it’s just a matter of like how do you get there, right? And how do you use procurement

Mark Miller (18:34)
Yeah.

Pete (18:35)
as a part of

Mark Miller (18:37)
Well, I think that the next article needs to be a direct correlation between Donkey Kong and accessibility. We can do it. I know we can do it. That

Pete (18:46)
Can make it happen. Yeah.

Mark Miller (18:47)
we can make it happen. All right, so the next article we wanted to talk about is the web is being made accessible for AI, not people. this is by Jonathan Zong and Frank Alvaski. Did I come close that time, Justin?

Justin Stockton (19:03)
Alavsky, yeah.

Mark Miller (19:04)
This is how we do this, Pete. I pronounced stuff wrong and

Pete (19:06)
No.

Mark Miller (19:06)
Justin corrects me.

Pete (19:07)
I’ve watched, I know.

Mark Miller (19:11)
and I thought that this one was interesting because the the the big flip, and then and then I’ll turn it over. I know if you want to grab this one, Justin, to start, but the big flip for me was that I’ve heard a lot of people say like, you know, with AI, AI n AI uses the web more in the way that people with disabilities do. So we’re starting to see things become more accessible because AI needs it.

And this article goes, yeah, but and it sort of flips that around and says, kind of like, A, we should be building for people with disabilities first, not AI first, and B, it doesn’t quite work that that way that you need to build for people with disabilities. You can’t just be like, we’re doing it for AI, that covers it, that there’s more to be done. And I just I’ve not heard anybody step in with that take.

It was the same with the kind of the SEO in the past. Everybody said, you know, accessibility and SEO tied together and yes, big huge part of that middle part of that Venn diagram, but not, they’re not the same thing. So

Pete (20:15)
Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (20:16)
I don’t know, Justin, what did you what did you think

Justin Stockton (20:16)
Yeah, those circles don’t over fully overlap.

Mark Miller (20:18)
when you dug into this article?

Justin Stockton (20:22)
I mean it wasn’t the for me it wasn’t necessarily like the AI aspect of it that I really got into. This we’ve talked about this bef on previous episodes, about the overlap between AI and accessibility and how some things are getting that are AI related. People are doing things to make improvements for AI, to gather information from content or to make content specifically available to AI.

there’s negatives from that. for me, I the part that I thought was actually kind of interesting was this idea that that the the ramping automation effect and how that like we’re trying to do things like cities and towns and inf governments and everything only want to are now starting to only want to do things for to do curb cuts

in the event that it helps everyone. Like they’re not gonna just make s like call out specifically for to help those that are disabled or that need, you know, additional support. It’s like, it’s it has to help everyone. And if it doesn’t help everyone,

Mark Miller (21:34)
Mm.

Justin Stockton (21:34)
then why are we gonna do it? and so that for me was kind of actually the really interesting article and some of the anecdotes and things that they that they pulled from that.

Pete (21:46)
Yeah. So

Mark Miller (21:46)
What you what’d you think, Pete?

Pete (21:47)
I was thinking of so it’s interesting because one of the examples they use, right, is is creating an LLM’s text file, right, that essentially dis kind of takes your content, distills it into a flat word file so that it’s easy to discover from an LLM perspective, right? And I think that’s very different than when we’re talking about making your website accessible for AI agents.

Right, to be able to

Justin Stockton (22:11)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (22:11)
come and do something, right? To buy a product, to you know, fill out a form, to whatever, right? To actually like do something versus like discover the information that’s on your site. And so like the discoverability, right? I mo a lot of content users want their discoverability there so that when you search for something or you’re doing queries, you know, prompts in in different AI tools, that like your resources show up as kind of as part of that, right? And again, I think that’s very different than when we’re thinking

about

like user interactions and then

Mark Miller (22:43)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (22:43)
how those play out for a you know for like a screen reader versus an AI agent type of situation. And and furthermore, like the article talks about physical accessibility, right? Justin mentioned curb cuts and the whole like they talk a lot about like the these delivery robots and stuff and how you know now municipalities are starting to care about like the accessibility of their infrastructure.

But it’s from the lens of like, we gotta support these robots, right?

Mark Miller (23:12)
Right.

Pete (23:12)
It’s not we’ve got

Justin Stockton (23:13)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (23:13)
to support the people that already live here that that need to you know, access

Mark Miller (23:16)
In in

Pete (23:17)
things.

Mark Miller (23:17)
going back to Justin’s point, we gotta support those robots because those rose robots support everyone. So it’s now we c w now we can do it. Yeah.

Pete (23:22)
Right. Now we can do it, yeah.

Justin Stockton (23:23)
Yeah. Yeah.

Pete (23:26)
Yeah.

Justin Stockton (23:26)
Yeah.

Yeah. It almost this articles almost seemed like two separate articles. Like I kind of went back, like I I was I was like reading along, reading along, and I was like, All right, I’m with you through the LMF, you know, th for the AI part. And then we jumped to like curb cuts, and I was like, Alright, wait. I feel like I missed something, like a transition piece there. But I

Pete (23:46)
Yeah.

Justin Stockton (23:46)
got it. Eventually I like they make the point that like if you start

I think it was I think it was just kind of one of those moments like Mark and I have these all the time where like you’re reading something, it kind of triggers this other thought that this one little thing that you’re reading is actually like a notch in this much bigger picture of we’re going to yeah, yeah, we’ll we’ll totally jump on this bandwagon with Charlie totally do all these things. as long as it benefits everyone.

Yeah, I go we’ll we’ll see the benefit if it if if it benefits anyone. And that’s that was kind of the pushback with SEO. Like like, well SEO is gonna you know make it easier for everyone to find our sites. It’s not sp the fact that we have to make our site more accessible to improve our SEO. Like

Mark Miller (24:36)
You know the thing

I find interesting just

Pete (24:37)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (24:38)
as an aside or one of the things that I was kinda like

Dawning on me as I read this article. And and again, I think, you know, the three of us probably at some point or at several points have said something like, Well, when you when you make a document accessible or you make a website accessible, it’s just the way you should do it. Right? Like with proper semantic structure. Like when I get in and and and write something, you know, H1s, H2s, blah blah blah, you know, like and you just do it by by habit.

And and now you can you can call up the navigation thing and you can, you know, follow through it and it makes sense for everyone and you can collapse sections and people with disabilities can use you know what it become like doing it in a way that’s accessible becomes the right way to do it. And for me, this was almost a bit of like a I felt a little bit of like told you so, right? And I think the curb cutout example is a good one where

It’s like, yeah, these robots can run around and do this stuff for everyone. Because back in 1990, somebody put a law in place that said you needed curb cutouts. And that was done. It’s like you don’t always need to sit there and figure out why these things are good for anybody, quite frankly. You just need to at some point accept like, wait a minute, this should just be the things these the way these things are are made, right?

And I’ll give you a this is a really out there example, but like my son’s a skateboarder. And in the US, when you have like say a bench in a in a park or in front of a building, hmm? Bench. Bench. Bench. Yeah, that you

Justin Stockton (26:15)
Bench. Bench. Okay.

Mark Miller (26:19)
would sit on. They have what are called skate stoppers, which are just pieces of metal that come out, so you can’t you can’t grind, you can’t slide your board easily along that. Well, in a lot of Europe, they consider that if you build something.

that can’t withstand somebody skating on it, you’ve built it wrong.

And they don’t have, you know, they don’t put the skate stoppers around. They just say build it correctly. And if a skateboard can destroy it, we it wasn’t built well enough, you know? And and you know, changes skate culture and and all that kind of stuff. But it’s a little bit like that, like the resistance against it creates something inferior. And then when things come around, now you don’t have it, right? And I think that that’s where we are with the web. Like with all these websites written without proper semantic structure. Well, now AI can’t.

Parse that very well. Right? Maybe you have your SEO in place in a good way for traditional Google SEO, but that’s changing. And you know, as I think Pete, you you outlined in the beginning. And what you’re looking for there is AI gives you an answer, but AI cites those answers and you want to be in those citations. That is the new way to be discovered. Like if you’re a business or whatever and you want people to find your site.

And the businesses who were coding accessibility all along, they don’t need to do anything for AI. And they had done it right to begin with for people with disabilities. So that was the kind of

Pete (27:46)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (27:47)
like I had this like pe people just listen to begin with. We’d be we didn’t even have to have this article, but there it is.

Pete (27:53)
I

I got two two things to say there. So one is interesting you brought up kind of skate blockers. I I grew up skateboarding as as well and like I’m very familiar with those and how

Mark Miller (28:02)
Yeah.

Pete (28:03)
they change skate spots, you know, over time.

Mark Miller (28:05)
Yeah.

Pete (28:06)
And it’s interesting. So there’s a whole concept around like hostile a architecture, right? And things. So that’s that’s concept of like doing things so that, you know, making things with like pointy surfaces so that people who are homeless can’t sit or lay on them, right? That type of thing.

And in some ways, a lot of those places where those skate blockers are installed are places where people typically sit and make the sitting experience worse for those people. Right? Yeah,

Mark Miller (28:29)
W degrades everything. Yeah.

Pete (28:31)
so it’s like it like just stopping one thing but making it worse for kind of most people. It’s a it’s a really interesting thing. but but back to the you know the AI and and accessibility space. What I find pretty frustrating is that you know, there are a couple organizations in our industry.

That have

Mark Miller (28:51)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (28:51)
kind of pivoted their marketing messaging around, you know, yeah, it used to be about all about the people and doing accessibility, right? And now it’s like, hey, guess what? Like our tools will help you make, you know, will will be a benefit to your AI performance. And like, and and also people, right? It’s almost like now they’ve like flipped it and they’re like leading with

Mark Miller (29:11)
That’s now an aside.

Pete (29:12)
the AI versus leading with the human. And I’m like, man, like you you are an accessibility focused company, and to to make that

pivot in a messaging is is just really disappointing. And I I just I I when I yeah.

Mark Miller (29:25)
I think that’s a really

I think it’s a really good point and I think ultimately, Pete, that it’ll be I already see it, that that’s backfiring a little bit. And that organizations which tend to be the smaller boutique style accessibility organizations that have stayed human centric, they’re not now starting to kind of shine because they stayed human focused, you know.

I think it’s a really good boy, and I think that AI is not something to be ignored, but you know, the hard shift over to it I think is some some some folks are kind of having to reel that back a little bit. And there’s there’s no I mean it’s just

Justin Stockton (30:07)
Mm. Chasing dollars.

Pete (30:07)
Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (30:10)
you you can just you just know it, right? You can just feel it that accessibility is a human centric thing, full stop. And anything

Even if it’s a current buzzword like a like AI, that you let get in the way of that is only gonna s only gonna lead you down a a bad path for a period of time. It’s not that you can’t recover from it, but and it’s not that you shouldn’t figure out how a AI fits. It’s that you need to stay focused on human centric. So, anyways, I think that’s a really, really good point,

Pete (30:40)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (30:40)
Pete.

Pete (30:41)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (30:43)
Okay, anything else on the web is being made accessible for AI, not people before we move on.

That was a big article too. I think we I think we c we could go forever, but I think we we got it.

Justin Stockton (30:56)
Yeah, and it was

a good it was a good article. I don’t wanna like my like it seemed like two articles, like that wasn’t judgmental or anything. Like it was a good article. It was just kind of like took me a minute to figure out like how they were kind of approaching like the accessibility side of stuff. So Okay. Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (31:08)
Yeah. No, I don’t think anybody took it that way or I didn’t take it that way. I think that that’s that that that’s a sign of quality writing

Pete (31:11)
Mm. Right.

Mark Miller (31:15)
when you are bringing a couple things together and and it causes people to think about it. Right. That’s what all the writing should do is cause

Justin Stockton (31:20)
Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (31:20)
people to think and it causes you to stop and think. so disability is a pawn in geopolitics by Bianca Prinz. hopefully I’m saying your name right, Bianca. this is this was a really

An interesting one. and again, before the mics heated up, we kind of we kind of started to I just for the listener, I I had to stop these two. Like, stop talking. This is good podcast stuff.

Pete (31:49)
Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (31:50)
but the point that was made here is that Meta gave away, and I’m starting to lose my details because we’ve talked about so many different things here, but Meta gave away a bunch of glasses

15,000 free metaglasses were offered by an Irish disability organization, which is absolutely generous. And on the surface you go, wow, right? And just to frame it for people who are who who may not know, metaglasses actually are a pretty big advancement in assistive technology, particularly for people who are blind.

because the onboard camera can there’s a lot of reasons, right? One of them is because the onboard camera can feed information, including recognizing somebody’s face, telling them who’s there, giving them information about the environment. it’s an incredible add-on to to the environmental knowledge, which I think for a person and I’m not blind, so I don’t have a lived experience, so pardon me if I’m relaying this a little bit off, but you know, my my

My take on it is that a lot of blind people, like their environmental awareness, sort of stopped at the end of at the end of their cane unless they could hear something in the distance. And then something like a metaglasses starts to bring that awareness and you know, f much, much more broad to them, just to give it a a quick way to think about it. But there’s a lot of advantages for people who are blind, and I would imagine other people with

disabilities, cognitive disabilities and stuff like that. So and then the flip side that we’ve talked about before on this is that there’s privacy concerns.

so we’ve heard a lot or we’ve seen a lot of content out there about great assistive technology bumping up against privacy concerns, which this article crosses. But it was really interesting what they actually dove into. And I’m gonna stop there and let I don’t know who wants to take it, but if you want to describe the role point of what this article

Justin Stockton (34:12)
Go ahead, Pete.

Mark Miller (34:14)
It’s hard, right?

Pete (34:15)
Well, it is sorry. I’m but

I I mean so I I think one thing to point out here too is you Mark you mentioned this, but right so this announcement came out and I think a lot of people’s reaction to the announcement that you know these these glasses are being given to free to to you know to blind and visually impaired people is this like awesome thing, right? It’s gonna really help them. And and you know, for the most part that’s

Mark Miller (34:38)
And it is.

Pete (34:39)
that is absolutely true, right?

But it’s like, is Meta playing geopolitical games by essentially using this donation as a way to get, you know, more acceptance on their glasses in places,

Mark Miller (34:53)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (34:53)
particularly in the EU, where privacy laws are much stricter than they are here in the US. and so there’s that the article is really about that kind of that conversation. And it’s a it is, you know, it not to you you mentioned that you’ve covered this before in the podcast, right? But like

The privacy concerns are legitimate, right? I mean, there’s there’s a big difference between someone, you know, having a phone in their hand, like sticking it in your face, and you can be like, I I pretty sure that person’s recording me and I can like at least, you know, have that knowledge and like try to do something about it. Whereas if it’s just, you know, on your face and and side note, they’re like they’re supposed to be technology to like, you know, stop the recording if if the light that that turns on when you’re recording is blocked. But there’s been like a bunch of people who have done tests and

In many cases you can block that light so like the people you’re recording don’t know you’re recording. which again is like it’s creeper status, right? There’s a there’s a lot of really creepy things

Mark Miller (35:48)
Yeah.

Pete (35:50)
that could happen with with that technology. But on the flip side, right, being able if you can’t, if you know, if your vision is is you you don’t have any or it’s so degraded where you can’t, you know, perceive your your environment and you can say, you know, hey word, like what’s in front of me? Right. And then like the tool, like the glasses literally just tell you, like, hey, like

Mark Miller (36:08)
Tell you.

Yeah.

Pete (36:09)
What’s in

front of you? Like, or hey, I’m in a hallway. Like, where’s the bathroom? Or where’s the door to the bathroom? Right. And it like guides you, it tells you where that bathroom door

Mark Miller (36:16)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (36:17)
is. Like that is incredibly helpful technology, right? But so how do you balance that with, you know, the the privacy concerns of everyday, you know, people that are in the videos, right? And that’s not even talking about like facial recognition and getting on into all

Mark Miller (36:32)
Yeah.

Pete (36:32)
of that like personally identifiable stuff. But but back to the article again, it’s more about like,

Is meta using, you know, essentially people who are blind as you know, as a as a pawn, as a as a piece in this in this girl? Exactly.

Mark Miller (36:45)
Is is a is a crowbar. Yeah, to wedge open

Justin Stockton (36:47)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (36:49)
the privacy restrictions that are restricting the purchasing of that product. I think that that’s the yeah.

Pete (36:54)
Right. And potentially what are they doing with all the data, right? They might even be

like using this donation as a way to like really kick start some some significant data

Mark Miller (37:03)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (37:04)
collection initiative that they have internally that we don’t know about.

Mark Miller (37:06)
Yeah. And the

law is always behind the technology, right? So you might think to yourself, like, we we just put laws in place. The laws take a long time. So there’s a significant period of time that’ll pass before a law catches up, whether it’s whether it’s data privacy, you know, restricting what can be done with the data, or whether it’s some of these other, you know, the the sort of what I would call like the locker room privacy concerns where somebody could be videoing videoing you in

areas where you definitely don’t want to be videoed, right? I think that that’s you know, it’s it’s interesting to me because as a again, so as I was reading it, one of the things I thought about is like, haven’t we been here before? Right? This has all happened before, it’ll all

Justin Stockton (37:48)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (37:49)
happen again. Let’s see a reference that you guys can try and figure out if you want. but it’s I think when we you know you made the example of of cell phones.

Pete. And I think that that was one of the things that people when cell phones came out, everybody had a camera and it wasn’t relative to what photography used to be like, it wasn’t as obvious. You know, people could be recording. And quite frankly, like with pinhole cameras, like if you want to sneak a camera in, it’s very, very doable. So it’s kind of interesting that there’s

I in in this is just me not having dug into it, but it’s kind of interesting that there’s not already a precedent established for that kind of thing. And maybe the feeling is, to your point, Pete, is like, hey, could you we’re in a locker room, would you mind just maybe putting your cam your your phone away because we can’t tell if you’re you know, I mean, maybe if somebody’s got a point at the floor, you don’t care, but if they’re holding it up in a different way, you might you might say something, you might have an inkling.

So it’s interesting to me that I mean recording listening devices, cameras, small cameras, all this stuff have been around. So I’m I’m curious, and maybe somebody can help me with this, as to why this isn’t already pretty well covered in in regulation and laws. I don’t know. Maybe one of you guys knows.

Justin Stockton (39:23)
No, I don’t have insight

Mark Miller (39:25)
Yeah.

Justin Stockton (39:25)
into that, but we have we’ve definitely moved

Pete (39:26)
I don’t know, but

Justin Stockton (39:27)
into a surveillance society, so

Mark Miller (39:29)
We have, yeah. I mean I go ahead.

Pete (39:29)
Right. And and I’d ar say I’d I’d

argue that like it’s it’s it’s because it’s really around money and the data, right? It’s like

Mark Miller (39:38)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (39:39)
it’s the the people that have that influence on politics that can say, hey, you know, like one of the things that Bianca covers is around you know, like hypothetically speaking, like is Meta able to kind of put leverage on the EU.

Because they’re saying, hey, we have these really incredible technology that’s helping people with disabilities, but your your e you know, GDPR kind of doesn’t allow this to work. So like maybe

Mark Miller (40:09)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (40:09)
their influence their goal is to influence the EU to loosen restrictions so that these these tools are available, therefore their market is now much larger. Right.

Mark Miller (40:18)
Nar much larger. Yeah.

It’s it’s interesting because I get a every once in a while in one of my social media feeds I get a I’m c sort of feel honored that I get this, but it’s a advertisement for an app that gives you both two it gives you three political angles, like the ultra conservative, the ultra liberal and the one in between. I I don’t do it because they want my money and I don’t want to give it to them. But it

It it kind of like the that’s what I liked about this article is it sort of said like, hey, don’t be completely disillusioned or or illusioned by this charitable, seemingly wonderful thing. Take a look at it from a few different angles and dig into a little bit because the motivation could be completely different. And by the way.

I have no problem. It’s a philosophy of ours. Like we are, we, we, our philosophy as business is value first, which means that when we put marketing and content materials out there, we try to put something out there of value and let that speak for us versus traditional, like, hey, we’re the best, and here’s the five reasons why, you know. So I’m a big fan of something that serves multiple purposes if it’s for the right reasons. So I don’t have a problem.

With meta going, like we’re gonna do something good and it’s gonna give us some marketing too. Like rock and roll. That’s better than marketing without the good thing. Right. but that doesn’t mean that there’s not these real sneaky agendas behind something. And and I don’t think anybody’s saying that’s the case with Meta. I don’t think that the article did maybe you guys got a different peek, d take on it. I think they were saying like, yeah,

Pete (42:05)
No, no, I was just I I don’t think it’s that’s not saying that, but

Mark Miller (42:08)
they’re saying like, think about this a little bit.

And and I think it’s a good good thing to think about.

Justin Stockton (42:17)
Yeah. I mean, it’s meta, so you are you you know that they’re already gonna be collecting tons and tons of data from them.

Mark Miller (42:24)
Mm-hmm.

Justin Stockton (42:25)
and so that’s a given. And you could kind of stop there with it and be like, All right, well, you know, they’re gonna give all these fifteen thousand people glasses. Yes, maybe they’re gonna get some new training data, they’re gonna do some some some stuff there, but it’s gonna get them a lot more, a lot richer data set, particularly

Maybe no one’s buying metaglasses in Ireland and they want to get more information about Ireland,

Mark Miller (42:50)
Ireland, yeah.

Justin Stockton (42:51)
you know, and maybe it’s maybe that’s all all it is. But the fact that like you could give you could give fifteen thousand glasses to just about any country. Like there’s gonna be people that would be well served within an almost any country by fifteen thousand glasses. The fact that it was maybe it was Ireland, maybe it was an EU country, like

all these kind of things start to you you know put your tinfoil hat on like but and get a little conspiratorial but like it it’s there’s probably some reason behind it. and like you know to be said in what you know what was in the article, like there’s maybe a additional motive here other than doing the right thing and getting, you know, gain a little bit of extra data for our models and things.

Up you know, behind behind this decision.

Mark Miller (43:46)
So a question for both of you. What if what if they said we wanna we wanna donate 15,000 metaglasses to Ireland for people with disabilities? And also because we feel that Ireland’s laws around privacy are more restrictive than they should be, and it’s and and we’re hoping this sheds some light and changes our mind. What if they were just like

Full in in again, we’re making an assumption that there was an actual ulterior motive here. I don’t think anybody knows that. We should say that that right out. This is speculative. But what if they just came out and said, like, yeah, w there they are tighter. We do want it to change. And we believe it should change for the following reasons. And we also want to do something good. So here’s our two reasons, have fifteen thousand metaglasses. Would that change the way you guys would feel about that? Or how would that make you feel is actually?

We’ll get into a therapy session. How would that make you feel? Pete, how would

that make you feel?

Justin Stockton (44:49)
Ha ha

Mark Miller (44:49)
You can lay down on a couch if it’s better for you.

Pete (44:49)
Well, my initial thought

with that question to be honest is like, well, w w I don’t really have an opinion because I’m not Irish, right? Like if if the

Mark Miller (44:59)
Right.

Pete (44:59)
if it’s the people of Ireland that have voted that say, hey, listen, we want strict privacy like laws here, and that’s what that’s why there’s privacy laws there, then

Mark Miller (45:09)
Who

Pete (45:09)
they should be respected, right? And to have a corporation come and be like, Yeah, we don’t like these these laws. We want to have all of these people with disabilities get on our side so that they help.

promote our cause,

Mark Miller (45:20)
Yeah.

Pete (45:21)
and therefore maybe the government listens more because we have all of these proponents, you know, behind us. that I don’t know. I so part of me is like, you know, again, like in but

Mark Miller (45:30)
Well what if you what if it was your country? I mean you could put this

anywhere. What if this was happening in your town? Because your town had in Vermont,

Pete (45:36)
So

Mark Miller (45:38)
Vermont’s like, no, we we got all these privacy laws and so they gave fifteen thousand to Vermont. Would that and you’re a part of like b I guess what I’m saying is that if they’re if they’re being transparent about saying we get that you voted this and we get why

But we we want to do this for the good of people with disabilities, but also to maybe show you something different than what you’ve considered around the value of this product and around you know, that might change your mind about the restrictions that you put on it. Not not that you would actually change your mind, but how would you feel if an organization like Meta was was that transparent?

About their motives versus

Pete (46:29)
If I mean

personally, I just wouldn’t trust them. It’s but that’s just like my I think distrust for that type of like mega corporation and their their motives and what they are up to.

Mark Miller (46:40)
Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Pete (46:43)
so personally I probably just wouldn’t I wouldn’t believe them in terms of like this being an altruistic thing and just for the good of of everybody. But I I I don’t want you know, I don’t that’s like my in

Mark Miller (46:57)
Well that’s better that I’m asking for your thoughts. Yeah. Yeah.

Pete (46:58)
Getting kind of close to a conspiracy theory, you know, situation. And I don’t want to go down that path, but at the same time, I just don’t

Mark Miller (47:05)
Yeah.

Pete (47:05)
I I don’t see them having like the like look, right? Business is to the the the goal of business is to make money, and when you’re a private you know, when you’re a public company, the goal is to

Mark Miller (47:14)
Hmm.

Pete (47:15)
make your shareholders the most money possible, right? And so

Mark Miller (47:18)
Yep.

Pete (47:19)
when you have an organization that seems to be doing something from this like altruistic perspective.

in many cases that kind of fights with their their business goal of being more profitable, right? And driving more sharehold shareholder value. So I that’s where I think my distrust for that type of thing comes from. is that it just doesn’t align necessarily. Now, again, like the benefit to the people though might be astronomical, right? The people that get these these glasses, right, I mean they’re expensive. They’re they’re you know they they are

There’s a there’s a cost prohibitive, you know, piece to this. So like

Mark Miller (47:59)
Yeah.

Pete (47:59)
gif having g these glasses gifted some somebody who actually could take, you know, benefit and use them and it and really

Mark Miller (48:04)
Mm-hmm.

Pete (48:05)
change their lives is is, you know, I can’t even fathom how like how much that impact that could have for somebody. Right.

Mark Miller (48:09)
And and they do. I mean, I from the

blind people, you know, I can I can remember Matt Ader actually getting a chance to talk to one of the developers from Eta, and it was like he was like fanboying. He was like, Can I got a list? These work great for me, I’ve got a list. Can you do these changes and for whatever, you know what I mean? Or can you show me how this works or whatever? So just by his enthusiasm towards the way that this had had a profound effect on his

daily life or my perception was that that was happening. I can I can say that you’re absolutely right. But if I’m hearing you right, Pete, is you’re sort of saying the mistrust is there. Being transparent about a piece of it doesn’t change it, you still mistrust. Justin.

Pete (48:51)
Yeah.

Justin Stockton (48:53)
think it does depend on the company. Like if it’s a if it’s a company that you already feel has good will and has already done altruistic things and and not to switch meta. Like they have done other altruist this is not their first dip of the toe in the waters of altruism. I’m gonna see how many times I can say that until we end. but they

Mark Miller (49:15)
Toe in the water of altruism?

Justin Stockton (49:17)
yes but they

There’s there there’s just something that kind of like the timing of it, like it just doesn’t it doesn’t doesn’t pass the sniff test. That said, what I do like what Pete was saying, w I do think that whatever whatever they do, whatever their long term plan is, this is a bet against it. And I think that the payoff of giving fifteen thousand people a set of these metaglasses

the good that’s going to come from that is going to I think that’s going to outshine whatever potentially could come. And there’s so many other roadblocks in between. Hey, we just gave people 15,000 pairs of glasses out to, hey, because of that we were able to get the EU to relax this particular statute in the GDPR and all

Mark Miller (50:11)
Mm-hmm.

Justin Stockton (50:12)
these other things, you know, you know, to we open up this kind of loopholes. So I

Mark Miller (50:15)
Here’s Yeah.

Justin Stockton (50:17)
think that there’s

I think that the good is going to be a higher net.

Mark Miller (50:24)
I think you’re starting to s get to where where where I think I am on this, right? And that’s that first and foremost, giving away fifteen thousand glasses to people with disabilities is good. And then secondly, I think that the the reason why I really like this article is because it kinda says

you know, going back to my other example, like, don’t just take things to the surface. Like, look deeper into this. And I think that if we do that, you get two things become served, right? One, there’s this altruistic and by the way, I think it’s fantastic, right? That they’re giving these to people with disabilities. I don’t want to bury that at all. I think that that that part is fantastic.

Pete (51:14)
Yeah.

Mark Miller (51:14)
And I think that if it challenges people’s how how

The EU’s doing privacy and causes them to re-examine it under a different light, that’s positive too. That if the the in and that if we all take a step back and realize and think about it in the way that the article is telling us to, which is don’t just take that at face value, but look at all these things that it could be sort of pushing against, then we all can go like, yes, absolutely, it’s pushing against privacy. And yes, we will open the folder back up again and re-evaluate it, but.

that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re gonna change our minds. Unless unless there’s something exposed that causes that to be the right thing to do. So I think that

I think that that’s what I would take from this article is it’s like look at everything, people. And if you look at everything, then this can just be a good deed. But if we stay closed and blindfolded and and only look at that the altruistic aspect of it and not consider the other implications that it might have, then you might you might find that something happened that you didn’t really want to happen.

So it’s more of an awareness, advocating for total awareness rather than, and we are all, I mean, social media, the news, everything nowadays doesn’t say here’s what’s going on. It says here’s how you should think about what’s going on. And I think that that’s the caution, is we need to not listen to that part of it and step back and think independently and from several angles. So that’s what I really liked about the article. And

And the fact that it exposed the f I wouldn’t have thought of that. Like full disclosure, I would have gone yay meta. And I’m still going yay meta. But now I’m going yay meta and let’s make sure we keep a critical eye on these other things. So I’m not claiming at all to be immune to it, right? I I I appreciate when people talk about it. So anyways, any other thoughts about this before we wrap it up?

Justin Stockton (53:26)
altruism.

Mark Miller (53:28)
Dipping your toe in the pool in the pool what did you say in the waters?

Justin Stockton (53:34)
In the in the waters of altruism. Mm-hmm. I feel like that’s gotta

Mark Miller (53:35)
In the waters of altruism. That’s gonna be

Justin Stockton (53:38)
be a a river and a fantasy novel somewhere.

Mark Miller (53:41)
The river of a the river of altruism? Yeah. Or the waters Or is it like the fountain of youth?

Justin Stockton (53:42)
The w the river of altruism, like a Terry Pratchett novel.

Mark Miller (53:48)
Would it be like a fountain of altruism? Like if you

Justin Stockton (53:50)
Maybe.

Mark Miller (53:51)
drink the waters you become altruistic?

Justin Stockton (53:53)
Maybe.

Pete (53:54)
Mm.

Mark Miller (53:54)
Mm.

Pete (53:57)
Gotta find that.

Mark Miller (53:57)
fantasy novel. Start writ start writing, Pete.

Justin Stockton (53:58)
Mm-hmm.

Mark Miller (54:00)
It’s time for you to start writing your

Justin Stockton (54:00)
I need a f I need to find that

and I need a squirt gun. I’m

Mark Miller (54:04)
Yeah.

Justin Stockton (54:06)
gonna weaponize the waters of altruism.

Pete (54:09)
A mega

Mark Miller (54:08)
You think you think yeah,

you think metaglasses are are making you think. How about

Pete (54:09)
mega super soaker. Yeah.

Mark Miller (54:13)
my altruism squirt gun? All right. Well, I hope you both find your altruism squirt guns. and I repeat thank you. First of all, thank you for being proactive and reaching out to us. I’m so glad that we finally got this done. great topics and great discussion.

exceeded exceeded my expectations. I should have known with you on that we’d have such a good show. Now that we have broken down accessibility for you, we hope you go forth and keep it accessible.