I would say that the way that we can shore up resilience in the face of information threats is about the creation of transparency wherever that's possible. We need lawmakers who work towards creating greater transparency in their decision-making processes with the data that they're using to make decisions and showcasing that so that how you come to this conclusion is evident for anyone who wants to see it. Getting better data and being responsible about being a steward of data so you can become better informed is important. Doing more of that is the key to earning trust in this age. People may disagree with you, but if what they find when they penetrate is that they have good reason to understand that you're making a good-faith effort, it forgives a lot.
Going back to what Mr. Green said about ideological differences, I'm not talking about the BLM movement. We found out that the violence that took place in the summer was statistically and geographically of a different set of parameters than the BLM mobilizations themselves. These were a fringe group of anti-government activists and anti-police activists who were espousing not just anti-police ideas. It's okay to not think that policing is good and needs reform, but these were people who were calling for complete revolution and the murder of officials. It's those people to whom we need to be able to say, “Hey, I agree with you that we need more social justice, and I agree with you that racism is bad, but this part of it I'm not in for”. Being able to make those distinctions is really important, because we don't want to create hostility around the basis of the belief that somebody is more polarized than they really are.
When we drill down into it, it's amazing how much we have in common. That's the hidden truth that comes out beyond the social media and the hype. It's amazing how much consensus there is.