Design Notes · · 24 min read

Coding (and Decoding) Social Spaces: Judith Donath, Founder, MIT Sociable Media Group

Exploring potential futures for life online and the joy of learning (and sharing) something new.

Coding (and Decoding) Social Spaces: Judith Donath, Founder, MIT Sociable Media Group

Liam speaks with Judith Donath, the founder of MIT’s Sociable Media Group, inventor of e-cards, and author of The Social Machine: Designs for Living Online. Donath’s work offers crucial insights into the sociality of digital products and platforms, and the opportunities we have as digital producers to make things that truly meet sociable ends. In the episode, Donath unpacks some of this work, exploring potential futures for life online and the joy of learning (and sharing) something new.

Liam Spradlin: All right, Judith, welcome to Design Notes.

Judith Donath: Hello. Happy to be here.

Liam: So, just by way of introduction, as usual, I want to ask you to tell me a little bit about your work and the journey that's led you there so far.

Judith: Wait. Where do you want me to start?

Liam: The beginning. (laughs)

Judith: Well, where I am right now is I am in the midst of writing a book about technology and deception. But the way I got here was a fairly roundabout way. My undergraduate degree was actually in history. And I was really interested in medieval history and early scientific revolutions. But in looking at how scientific revolutions change society, I got, I, you know, this is in the '80s. And I was thinking, you know, I could take computer classes. There's a whole technological revolution going on now. I could see what it's like on the inside. And I took one class and was completely hooked.

I loved programming. It was taught in APL, which was a language that used mostly just Greek characters to program, and everything is in the form of matrices. And it just seemed like this really fascinating way of thinking where you just are trying to model something, but you're turning everything into a series of matrices. And then, I learned Lisp, and it was turning everything into linked lists, and, you know, got really, really interested in programming. I had also been doing a lot of work in film.

And anyhow, this is how I eventually ended up working as a game designer, and then went to the Media Lab with its first opening. And was, uh, you know, because my background was considerably less technical than most people who are coming in from computer science, especially at that time, I had a background in history and film and art, um, my work, you know, from the very beginning, leaned towards looking at what sort of the humanistic side of computing was, really interested in what was going to happen when people could use computers to communicate, um, things like the, you know, early email, what it would be like to have a whole society connected. And that's the work I continued to do for quite a while.

Eventually, I stayed on at the lab, and I ran a research group called the Social Media Group, where we looked at the question of, you know, what, what is it, what does it mean to be in a social space online? And in particular, how do people get a sense of other's identity? What are the ways you pick up from these, like, very sparse queues? Now, those queues online are sparse, but one of the things you don't really think about is how sparse in many ways the queues are in everyday life.

The example I'd often use with my students was, what can we do to make an experience like sitting in an outdoor cafe, and just watching the world go by? People walk past, and you might be wrong, but you have a very strong impression of a lot of people of what their politics are, what their personality is, and it's based on like a fleeting glimpse of them. How does that work? And what would it mean to transform that in a world that we have so much more control over how it's designed? And so, we did a lot of work with visualization.

One of the things that I drew from my film background was, in film, you kind of break down, uh, you know, one of the ways of categorizing shots is long shots, medium shots and close-ups, where long shot gives you like this whole establishment of a big scene of the world, the whole setting, and environment. And medium shot is really about the relationship among a small group of people. It's, it's how you shoot a conversation. It's about reactions and how people are interacting with each other. And a close-up is really like a portrait where you're really looking at a specific individual.

And a lot of what we were interested in doing was thinking about how we could make online interfaces that both address those three different scales, but also would be able to kind of move smoothly between them. Needless to say, if you've looked at Facebook or Twitter, we're not quite there yet, um, in the actual world with real life living interfaces. But I think those sort of general problems are still a very useful way to think about it. And, in particular, now, with all the hype, I don't know there's excitement, but there's certainly a lot of hype, around the metaverse, um, that question of, of representation, and what is it you want to see of others, and how you structure that space should be at the forefront.

And one of the things that I think is very disappointing about the ways I've seen any of this imagined by the people who claim to be building it is that, they've kind of alighted that problem by basically saying, well, it's gonna kind of look like real life. Here's a picture. It's kind of cartoony, but we're all sitting in this kind of tedious looking meeting room. Like-

Liam: Right.

Judith: There's really no reason why you should wanna make that be your representation for an enormous number of reasons.

Liam: Right. I, I wanted to get into that a little bit, because as you're talking, it strikes me that, you know, you have a background in film, which is kind of representation of reality that's like attempting to capture some, something that it must exist in analog space, right?

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: And then also working with virtual space, which, although it is created digitally, can represent almost anything. And I'm curious how you think about that, like the different ways of representing a type of reality that are available to us?

Judith: Well, one thing about film though is that, I think fairly early on, the practitioners were interested in getting away from that sort of pure reality, if, you know-

Liam: Mm-hmm.

Judith: It was one of the most avant-garde films or filmmakers was Andy Warhol, who just took a camera and turned it on for eight hours. That's a representation of reality. But it's both unwatchable, a very avant-garde, that it, it turned out that a lot of the way of creating a story with film was through doing things that have nothing to do with what we see in real life, all kinds of things about cutting, you know, how you cut films, how you make reaction. It doesn't necessarily have this analog to virtual space, but it was certainly very imaginative in trying to understand how you create something that is a time-based medium and has starts with a recording. But a lot of what makes film is the way it's cut, the, the pieces that are taken out of it.

Now, in terms of thinking about how we look at virtual spaces, you know, I think the, the problem is quite different, because ideally, we're not filming. But what we want to think about is, how do we represent in a visual sense the information about a person. So, I think, you know, a cartoon of someone is not gonna be that interesting, certainly be less interesting than looking at them face to face. But what is interesting is that you have all this history of interactions. And you have, how someone ha- like what someone has said, you have their words, you have, you might have who they follow. You have all these other pieces from which to build a representation from.

And I think that's the really interesting challenge. And it's not really been followed very much. There's, uh, a paper by, uh, Jim Hollan, and Will Stornetta, which is quite old at this point, but they had a line in it that's, uh, for me, has always resonated, which was saying that you, it's called, the paper's called Beyond Being There. And it's a challenge for designing social interfaces to say, we don't want to recreate reality. We want to do something that's beyond it. And it doesn't necessarily mean it has more detail or more pixels or more dimensions to it. Often, it's the removal of those things.

There's reasons why a lot of online forums that are text based are really interesting. It's not that they're missing a huge visual component. It's that you can do all kinds of things when in the interface, when you, you could thread things, you can move stuff around. So, it might be quite minimal, but it's not about representing the look of reality. It's about representing the relationships that you're developing in your virtual reality.

Liam: There is also something you said about film being a time-based medium that really stood out to me.

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: And now I'm thinking about how that applies to the other things that we're talking about, like a forum, for instance. I would suggest maybe less time based in the sense that people say things, and then you can refer back to what they said after a time where, in real life, you might have forgotten about it.

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: And I wonder how that factors in to how you think about creating other virtual spaces.

Judith: Right. Well, yeah, one of the things we explored, it wasn't a dead end, but it was a place where there's lots of exploration still to do, is thinking about, for instance, those forums where stuff has been built up over time, how do you rep- you know, what's an, uh, much more interesting way of representing that sort of agglutinization of how things pile up over time. Or even something like I'm, you know, as I'm writing a book, I spent an enormous amount of time in Google Scholar, which is not something you normally think of as a social interface.

But if you think about the way that papers have citations in them, and those cite other things, and some, some papers become really popular, or they become really controversial, and there's, you know, if you could map that, which you can, you just happen to, but by mapping that, you would have a really interesting space to explore. You could see what's been influential. You could perhaps prevent people from doing the same thing over and over and over, because they're simply unaware of what they're building upon.

And even in forums, there are times you may want to do that, particularly in certain advice forums. I think it's a interesting design problem, both how do you extract the information about what is the interesting material, how do you map it, but also, how do you know when that's a useful thing to do, because sometimes with something like Wikipedia, you want to develop this encyclopedia of knowledge. But sometimes with a forum, the point is for each person to be able to go in and talk to other beginners or people at intermediate levels, or people want to teach. So, by making it all a reference site, you might lose that. So, it's, it's also about being thoughtful about whether where you're looking for the experience of the interaction versus the experience of being able to look up the information.

Liam: I'm really interested in this idea that the representation of you that exists in these spaces can be something like an assemblage of information, and maybe also visuals, but, but-

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: ... also primarily information. I want to dig more into that, like the concept of being embodied, virtually, and how many shapes that can take.

Judith: Mm-hmm. Yeah. So, you know, uh, again, I think this is a, uh, still a research problem and something that for a variety of reasons is not part of our current interfaces. But let's use Twitter as an example, because it's pretty simple. And it, but it's also one of the places I feel need something like this the most, because you're quite likely to encounter people who you have no idea who they are, or if they are a person, or are they, you know, are they a bot? Are they someone who's just come in as a provocateur?

So, if you could see people very easily as a representation that, you know, would still be like a avatar, something you could see at a glance. But instead of being a drawing, it was a visualization that showed you something about their history online. Is this someone who's been posting for years? Or did this account appear a week ago? What are the words and phrases that show up a lot in their history? How has that changed over time? How many followers do they have? And can we have a little representation of what sort of things do those people talk about? And who is it that they follow? Yeah, when a service like you could be like a set of word clouds type of thing, but something like that that would give you, at a glance, a way of starting to get a vivid impression of who they are in a way that's relevant for that space.

Liam: One thing that stands out to me is a connection to a piece of discourse that I think I encounter often about social media, which is that it is perhaps presenting us with too much information or information that is like too disparate, and yet drawn together, that it becomes overwhelming for us to handle.

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: And I wonder how such an embodiment would interact with that, if it is even a valid idea. And the second thing is how we would come to understand our own embodiment in that context, whether or not we could actually modify or manipulated after the fact.

Judith: Mm-hmm. Well, I mean, in terms of sort of quantities of information, again, that's a design issue. So, you could think of it this way. All of these things can exist at, at multiple scales, where there would be something that you would just see at a glance, and it would be sort of like the avatar that sits by this, this side, but instead would at least give you that basic information, like how long has this person been online, you know, a quick visual presentation of, you know, how much do they post, how long would've they been posting, how many followers do they have, how many people do they follow. So, that could be just a very straightforward, simple, almost stick figure scale piece. But then you could have, you know, like a simple slider-like thing that just starts to drill, you know, if you s- are curious, you could just see a more and more detailed version of it as you, you know, if you're like, oh, I want to see more of this.

Liam: Mm-hmm.

Judith: You don't have to have like a huge pile of information. But that's, you know, that's not a complicated design question. The question of what your editing abilities are of that past, that's really, I would say, application specific, and that's part of what makes the different environments that we go to, because there are some, there may be some spaces that are about saying, conversations here are ephemeral, you know. You say some things, they're here for a day, and then they're gone. Other spaces may be about saying, you say this is like the congressional record. It is never gonna go away and it's gonna be here for life, and you can't change it.

And there's others that's, you know, they could say, well, you have this. You can delete things. Maybe you can't add things. Those are all like, you know, in a way of thinking about it is that this platform is a little bit like going to different restaurants, you know. It's not that a fancy French restaurant is better than McDonald's. It is in certain things, but not if you're taking six, six-year-olds out to dinner, you know.

Liam: Right.

Judith: That you really want something with plastic surfaces that you can clean really easily. So, you know, all those questions about history really change the tenor of the social experience. But I think in a more ideal world, we'd have more platforms and more spaces, and an easier ability to choose among those. You know, it would be the sort of thing people could choose, you know, even at the level of their own page or their own, you know, if I post this, I'm gonna start a discussion. Now, I'm the host of the discussion.

And I can change the parameters for it in a way that's clear to the people participating in a richer way. I think things like that would, as people became used to it, would I think help us be able to create the types of conversations we want over different ideas, the same as we now know you can invite someone for coffee is very different than saying, I need to speak to you in my office right now.

Liam: Right. (laughs) Or sending, sending a text that says we need to talk.

Judith: Yeah.

Liam: I'm wondering. Being able to do all of this in a digital or virtual environment makes it perhaps a lot faster or easier compared to actual life where, you know, if you invite someone to coffee, you need to actually probably physically go to the coffee place and agree on where that is, and how to get there-

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: ... and everything. Whereas, maybe you could do more of those things faster on a larger scale, digitally.

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: And I'm curious what that means for how this form of interaction contributes to our personhood or our understanding of ourselves.

Judith: Yeah. I think, well, for one, this is a huge revolution we have lived through in our time. You know, it's actually very quickly that we've kind of forgotten how revolutionary it is. I mean, there's a paper called something like Mass Conversation, and it's from the '80s or early '90s. And, but it's like basically saying, like, hey, you know, we're having conversations with 50 or 100 people. This is just unprecedented. And it became a pretty much something we, we got used to that you would go online and, and just be in some conversation with enormous number of people.

But, so, there's a couple of, there's a number of interesting ramifications about that. One is that these conversations are also very lightweight. There's very little commitment, in particular, the fact that you are not physically present and that in many situations, your identity is either easily obscured or effectively irrelevant. If people don't know who you are, they may get to know your real name. But in general, that may not make a huge difference. So, the lightweightness tends to make it so that people feel that there's very little consequence, and there's cer- certainly a lot less meaning to it.

The, you know what you said about the effort that goes into even just having a coffee, but that effort gives it us, the experience a certain significance that we lose here. We have this bigger scale, so we have a much larger scale of less significant interactions. So, that's one big change. And then, there's the whole question of how are people drawn together. It also means that we've lost the significance of geography in a lot of ways. The fact of, you know, we ha- we're able to do this easily. You're on the West Coast. I'm on the East Coast.

People can talk all over the world. But it may mean that we lose track of what cultural differences may underlie a lot of the conversation which, when you're speaking face to face, whether it's that you, uh, have an easier time noticing that there's all kinds of cultural behaviors that remind you that you may only share a certain number of assumptions with the people around you, all get kind of flattened online. So, what we're dealing with is a world where everything is a little bit cheaper, but there's much more of it. And-

Liam: Mm-hmm.

Judith: You know, I think that goes hand in hand with a lot of other social changes, some of which are separate from the internet. There's at a much larger scale where we are less dependent on other people. If you look at, if you read stories of like, life in 1800, where you might need your neighbors to help you with the harvest, or help you repair your house or raise your house, you need pretty significant committed relationships to live in a world like that. The internet has come, you know, probably not coincidentally, at a time when we were already moving a lot of the things we need other people for to a market.

Like I don't have to rely on family to have babysitters. I can hire someone. You know, I can hire a stranger. There's a, you know, I'm not asking someone to help me harvest my food. In fact, I'm just buying it at the supermarket. So, we have this opportunity to have all these relationships and conversations in this very lightweight way at a time when we are already kind of in the fading days of certain types of very expensive, in terms of time and effort and reliance on relationships.

Liam: What do you think are the most pressing design challenges in the space right now?

Judith: There's some huge pressing issues in the world that are somewhat conversation based. And a lot of that is around misinformation and, um, our inability to deal with diversity, and the, you know, sort of the growing hostility between political camps both in the United States and worldwide. So, those are, are worldwide issues. They're very conversation based. They certainly have representation online. So, I would say in, you know, in terms of pressing this, the question of how to get people to be able to converse and interact in a meaningful and useful way with people they do not agree with is probably the most pressing one. You know, it may not be the most exciting design challenge, but it's probably the most pressing issue we're dealing with.

Liam: I think that also speaks to the way in which the intent of designers, and software engineers too, for that matter, plays out in these conversational spaces or digital products. I'm thinking a lot about, you know, is the answer that as a discipline, we simply have to own up to that and come up with solutions to this problem? Or do we actually need to divest some of the power that we have taken in that in order for that to improve?

Judith: I think the, probably the most pressing problem, on the flip side, is that an enormous number of design decisions are made, not with the goal of how to make the best social space or how to solve these things, but they're made in terms of how do we satisfy advertisers. How do we get people, you know, how do we get people to stay online more? How do we get them to do these things? But they're, these are not social goals. And so, our interfaces are not being designed to make the social experience better. They're designed to make the extractive experience better.

Liam: Right.

Judith: And, and so, I think finding ways to have significant and heavily used sites that are designed for the social purposes. I mean, there's some, I think, pretty well known analyses that say, you know, certain things about how some conversational interfaces are made now or that effectively end up encouraging disputes, because to a simplistic assessment algorithm, it looks like engagement, you know.

Liam: Right.

Judith: You know, it might mean if you want to follow that path, your computational analyses of conversation needs to be more sophisticated, and not mistake argument for engagement. It may be that engagement isn't the right goal. It might be that trying to algorithmically prolong or shorten conversations isn't a really useful thing. Maybe let the actual people who are participating make that decision and don't really try and weigh on it in either direction.

Liam: Right.

Judith: When you spoke earlier about sort of this accumulation of information that we have in these discussions.

Liam: Mm-hmm.

Judith: So, the earliest discussion space, both I was familiar with, and, and then I did a lot of work analyzing was Usenet, which was just threaded topical discussions with sort of no algorithm, but very heavily text based. And it had a pretty rich culture, you know, and information would grow. And then, at some point, people would say, okay, well, we're tired of explaining, you know, how to, let's say it was a group on having like a home aquaria. You know, these are some basic things. We'll put it in a FAQ, and then we'll continue to have that discussion. And they would tell people, read that information, then join in the discussion.

But there was still a interesting, ongoing discussion, and there wasn't any index into it. There are multiple things that went into the demise of Usenet. But I think one of them was, at some point, Google bought up all the, or gathered up the archives of it and indexed it. And what happened then was that, instead of, when I wanted to learn something about a particular field, instead of what people had done, which was get to that news group and start reading it, become familiar with the people in the conversation, and then dive in, you could just make a query, and you would get an answer. And if that didn't answer it, then you just make another question.

But because you could dive into a whole index of the discussion, people stopped seeing it as a social space where they got to know the people and the participants, and then took part in it. They just sort of saw it as a encyclopedia you could query. And it changed the nature of it enough that that was, you know, well, it wasn't the only reason it stopped being a useful space. That was one of them. But that was certainly done with very, with good intention of making it more usable. But it had this fairly unexpected opposite effect.

Liam: Right. Yeah. It feels like it's coming from a place that I think many things in the tech industry come from, which is that data are the ultimate resource for understanding things.

Judith: Well, that and then what's a big theme in the book that I'm working on is that, a lot of technology is really designed to make things more efficient. But it turns out, a lot of things that are costly to do, those costs, and I mean in cost and energy, or time or effort, allow those costs to now to actually be really valuable in some way. You know, in that example, it was the cost of sort of reading through all these conversations. There are other costs that have to do with, you know, the commitment, the effort to make go for the coffee or the dinner.

And when you build technologies that make things more efficient, it's great when the effort that you've now eliminated really was kind of wasted effort. But it turns out like an awful lot of examples of the effort really weren't useless, uh, and particularly often serve some important social purpose, either in showing your commitment to someone or something, or making you more adept at something before you go on and try something else. And when you build tools that eliminate that, you've taken away something really valuable.

Liam: Right. You know, speaking of Usenet, I also want to talk about another case that is very dear to me from earlier in the internet's history that I think could be a really interesting conversation as we talk about, you know, the design challenges of relatively new modes of, of existing online. And that's e-cards.

Judith: Okay. (laughs)

Liam: I feel like the progression of e-cards could be a nice surface to map these ideas onto, especially as I think about, you know, my own history with the subject as starting in a time when email was really exciting.

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: And I think in many ways, the internet, you know, still had a capacity for emulating some of these offline mental models. So, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about that, because you're cited as the inventor of e-cards.

Judith: I am the inventor of e-cards. Well, I was procrastinating writing my thesis. (laughs) Yeah, that's, so, I'll tell you how I ended up doing it. And then I can talk a little bit about my thoughts on this.

Liam: Sure.

Judith: Uh, well, and I was working on my thesis, and so open to any kind of distraction that anyone wanted to present to me. And my office mate was, had gotten very, very excited about the computer language, Perl, and actually, you know, was writing the, one of the early textbooks on Perl and insisted I learn it. Uh, it's a language I still cannot stand. But I had done some consulting for a company. Uh, I, you know, some early internet company was trying to do some online travel thing. And I had suggested to them like, hey, if you're gonna do like travel, why don't you like have, like, postcards people could send from somewhere online? And they looked at me like I had six heads. It's like, yeah, no. Not interested in that idea at all.

So, and my office mate, this idea was floating around in my head when he said, you've got to learn Perl. I thought, well, I need to assign myself a problem. And that's how I will learn it. And I thought, well, why don't I try and do online postcards? How would that work? How would you send a postcard to someone? So, that was the genesis of it. It was not a deep research piece or anything. And so, I had lived, before I went to graduate school, I had lived in the East Village in the '80s, when it was still mostly burned out buildings and everything. And it was, (laughs) the postal workers there were very surly, a couple of times had found all our building's mail in the trash. (laughing)

And, um, so, I've modeled the postcard site, uh, off that sort of model of disgruntled postal worker. So, it's very cranky. And you would, basically, for those who haven't seen this, you would get an email. That's, you know, someone sent you a postcard. You get a email that said, you have a postcard waiting for you. Because one of the issues was the wa- uh, it's, also this is, another piece of this is that the web was very new. And there weren't that, there were almost no, pretty much no social applications on it. And so, for me, like coming from things like Usenet, the web was kind of cool. But it was also a little disappointing, because, you know, especially then it was just pages. There just wasn't a way to interact with others.

And so, trying to figure out how to put some form of interaction into it was part of the postcard challenge. And so, it had to be this kind of kludgy thing where you would get an email that told you to go to a page, and the page would then be rendered with a postcard for you. And I started it, you know, I think it was, I'm thinking 1994. And it came out right before Valentine's Day. And so, like there were a couple days, so, two postcards, sent three, seven, 10. And then, Valentine's Day hit, and that was in the hundreds, then it was in the thousands. And within a couple of months, it had taken down the network to the Media Lab, and I had to have, like, a special line run to my computer so that it wasn't taking down the entire net there, because it was so incredibly popular for about a year.

And so, one of the challenges, my adviser was like, wow, this is really amazing. You've done this really successful thing. You know, you know, this has to be a thesis. I'm like there just isn't a big there, there. It's online postcards. And so, I spent a fair amount of time. Usually, you have to write about this. Like, I'm like, well, what can I say about this? So, the sort of deepest insight I was ever able to extract from this project was that, when you write, you have this technology. People just, you know, this is still when, as you said, email was exciting. But one of the things is, when you write a email, you have to say something. And you often don't really have anything to say. And that's-

Liam: Yeah.

Judith: ... I think what people really liked about the postcards, because it became this way to just, it's a li- a little bit like a little present that you could send to someone. You know, there were all kinds of, I mean, part of it was I spent a lot of time gathering like a huge range of postcards, which I'll talk about in a second. But it was a way to reach out to someone and send them a note without actually having any reason or meaning. Like email is, is really something you, you know, you have to have some message. You can't just say hi and that's it. But you could send a postcard and just say hi.

And I think that's what people really wanted. And in, then, you know, if you think more deeply about it, if you look at things like social psychology, there's the concept of phatic, P-H-A-T-I-C, interaction, where it's the interactions we have, where there's not a lot of content in it. But they're really important for just sort of aligning people. If you look at, you know, if you run into like, uh, an acquaintance in the grocery store, the conversation may be completely empty. And people say, well, small talk, it's so useless.

But it's not. It, you know, how you use it, the fact that you, you know, even eng- you know, even engage in conversation with someone, says, okay, I acknowledge you, you know, if you remember a little bit about them, there's all kinds of social information in that. And what the postcards did was that let you have that type of interaction that email didn't. And I think that was its big social contribution.

Liam: Yeah. You know, I can't help but notice that it kind of created one of these types of, I guess, low resource interactions that we were talking-

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: ... about before that have become so prolific, and also that it was something that came from a social desire to meet social ends, and was hugely influential because of that.

Judith: Mm-hmm. And it also, some part of it was to let you just sort of reach out and touch someone in subtle way. And it was also that it let people say, I have found something new.

Liam: Mm-hmm.

Judith: And then send it to others, which people really liked to do now. Now, that's been so speeded up that it's, you know, a whole different expectation of what is new. But still, you know, I think at that time, there would be a few new things on the net. But this is, you know, this is even before, I think it's bef- you know, it's either the very early days of Google or before Google Search, where simply the problem of finding something new online was significant. How did you find things?

Liam: Yeah. And I also think it's like a very human impulse to want to demonstrate that you have some new knowledge.

Judith: Great. Something new, yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

Liam: Just in itself.

Judith: Mm-hmm.

Liam: I think that's a great thing to wrap us up with, Judith.

Judith: Okay.

Liam: Thank you so much-

Judith: Thank you.

Liam: ... for joining me.

Judith: This was really fun. You have great questions, and this has been really enjoyable.

Read next