URL
embed-1cb6baa724
<p><strong>Lucy Marshall </strong></p> <p>Good evening everyone, and welcome to Sydney Ideas, our flagship public talk series. Very excited to have you all here this evening. We're gathered here today on the lands of the Gadigal people. I'd like to acknowledge their continuing connection to land, sea, sky and community, and also pay my respects to elders past and present. For tens of thousands of years, this place has been a place of listening and learning, exploring ideas, handing those ideas down through generations, passing wisdom on from one generation to the next. As we begin this conversation tonight, I think it's really important to learn from that legacy in this place. It is an absolute pleasure and a privilege to be here tonight to open this new flagship series known as Conversations For Good within Sydney Ideas. My name is Lucy Marshall, I am both a Professor of Civil Engineering here at the ±¬ÁÏÍõ and also Deputy Vice Chancellor for Community and Leadership. My role was established to lead the university strategic direction in culture, in diversity and inclusion and in leadership. In other words, very much at the heart of my work is community, creating the conditions at which everyone in our community is set up to thrive. Early on in this role, I was very much struck how the impact of the work of everyone at this university, their work in research, their work in education, their work in outreach, in working with communities, depends very much on the quality of the conversations that we have, and not just exploring ideas, not just conversations about what we know, but also how we engage with each other. How we listen, how we challenge respectfully, how open we are to being changed about what we hear from other people about their ideas. Now, this isn't an abstract idea. This is very much a practice, something that we need to continue to practice, and it's a practice that here at this university, within our community, within our society, that we need to continue to strengthen. Conversations For Good is very much at the heart of that. It is a series that is going to explore how we share ideas, how we make a sense of difference, how we learn from each other. Throughout the year, we're going to be hosting lots more public events. We'll be sharing resources to help everyone build on their critical thinking, their skills of learning across lines of difference. I invite everyone here to please join us and stay tuned through Sydney Ideas in this exciting series. The series comes at a time in which we're seeing significant increase in global conflict, overlapping crises, crises that are economic, they're environmental, they're political, they're social. We are seeing institutions like ours thoroughly tested through this. Ideas around knowledge, ideas around truth, being challenged across our entire community, and it's shaping how we engage with each other, how we relate to each other. My colleague, Dr Jo Gray, in the discipline of media and communications, is going to speak to this tonight, regarding the value of public discourse and the role of platforms and technology. We're also seeing growing polarisation, isolation, loneliness, which our speaker, Dr Rebecca Huntley, as one of Australia's foremost social trends and researchers, can offer some insight into what the Australian public are thinking and feeling, to understand what's driving such shifts and how we can address them. I am so excited for the conversation tonight. I'm now going to hand over to Fenella Kernebone, curator and presenter and our host, to lead the discussion with Jo and Rebecca.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Good evening, everybody. Are we all well? It's great to see you. Another round of applause, please for Lucy, thank you so much for introducing tonight's session. So welcome to Sydney Ideas. It is wonderful to be here for this very first conversation as part of this new Sydney Ideas series called Conversations For Good. First one off the bat, tonight, we're doing Across Platforms. We are going to have some time for your questions towards the end, and we're going to be using the radical technology called Slido. So we've got a big conversation tonight all about conversations, how to have conversations, with two leading thinkers. Yes, we have digital platforms and media expert, Dr Joanne Gray from the ±¬ÁÏÍõ, and also a ±¬ÁÏÍõ alum, and also one of Australia's foremost social trends researchers, Rebecca Huntley. Can we please give them a round of applause?</p> <p>Are you ready? Okay, let's do it. So first one off the bat, what I wanted to do was kind of set up a bit of a state of play, like, where are we now? How did we get here? And I thought I might ask something a bit obvious, because we're talking about conversations. So what is a conversation? What is a good conversation? What does a good conversation look like, particularly if everybody's playing by the same rules? Rebecca?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>I think a good conversation requires, or the foundational values of a good conversational elements of character is curiosity, so an ability to kind of hold back before you immediately jump in, to even agreeing with the person across the table here. And the other thing I think that is more important than ever before, is our ability to distinguish what is discomfort, from what is feeling genuinely unsafe, or what is actually a kind of an identifying shouting match. I don't think I've ever had a transformative conversation that didn't require some kind of discomfort, because that other person who's having a conversation with me is potentially challenging my assumptions, potentially even challenging my perspective or my sense of being right. And you can, and I think we've lost the ability to be, to sit in some level of personal and intellectual discomfort. And I think what we can see both particularly in the online environment, but also in a whole range of other environments, is a kind of collective dysregulation. And you know, when people are not not regulated, they're incapable actually having exchange of ideas. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, okay, so that's, that's when it starts to kind of derail pretty quickly. Jo, Jo, what are your thoughts, and also from your perspective as digital expert, what happens when it starts to derail, when everything starts to unravel? What are we seeing? I mean, we all know this. We've all seen it. We've all hopefully not participated in it. But what are we looking at?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>I think the when it derails, it's often when there's a sort of level of competition and division sets in, and you feel that you are trying to, you are trying to convince someone of something, and you're trying to, or you're trying to persuade, or you're trying to dominate. And I think that the digital world is such that, that's kind of the default setting for a lot of the conversations that we have today.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, well, we're going to unpack all of this so much, trust me, there's so much to get through. In fact, I've completely over prepared, so which is always a good always a good sign, right? So Rebecca, tell me a bit about the project that you're doing at the moment on democratic efficacy, because I think that kind of leans into this a bit. What does the research actually show us about who we are as Australians? Are we more divided than before? What are we looking at? </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Fenella, we're right in the middle of the research. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Oh, so don't go too far.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Well, actually, I mean, it's interesting, because one of the, one of the many, many gifts of this work that I've been doing now for 20 years, is that a really the thing that you do with as a researcher on public sentiment is you really suspend judgment until the you know you've actually talked to your fellow researchers at the end of a project about whether, about what people think. So we're right in the middle. So we'll be releasing this work later in the year, and it's a segmentation of the Australian community on how they feel about our democracy. There's a lot of really, really, really good research coming out about, not just in Australia, but globally, about what's happening with public dialogue around democracy. I think what we're seeing, regardless of where people sit on the political spectrum, is a sense of, of really not being heard and not having the everyday lived experience of people and what they want, translated through processes, whether they be public or private, and it's interesting. And of course, what happens when you're not listened to is you become shouty. Well, you either want do one of two things, you either turn away. And there's plenty of people who are kind of defaulting into a kind of fatalism about, which is like, well, you know, this should happen, but it's never going to happen. And defaulting to that kind of fatalism means that the new you kind of turn to Netflix or whatever, I mean, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Just like a complete status. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>You kind of turn.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>We stop. Yeah. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Yeah, that's hugely problematic. I mean, there's always, it's always important to have a good dose of skepticism about power, about power structures. Fatalism or kind of despair, is hugely problematic. And of course, but and then and then and then, there are two way people who don't turn away in that way. There are two avenues open for them. One of them is, very excitingly, can be creative ways to engage. So I don't, and we're seeing examples of that, and we often underestimate those examples. So there's been a lot made of the independence going and the independence movement in politics, which is, of course, is really important and interesting. But an often underestimated aspect of that is that the thousands and thousands of people who are volunteering for independence have never engaged in the political process before. They're new. They're revitalised by an opportunity. And there's lots and lots of examples, more than we realise. But the other way in which people who are feeling like their everyday concern and lived experience aren't being translated through conventional systems of power is bird shit to the ground, which is at the centre of the kind of nihilistic politics of extreme white ring, right wing parties. I said white ring, but that's also Freudian slip, of the kind of One Nation's of the world, which is like, it's all bad, everybody's bad. It's terrible, and.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And that keeps on getting perpetuated again and again. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Yeah, and it doesn't have to be the majority to be damaging. And we know that once political parties like that kind of bake in 15 to 20% in the political system, they're like, they're like, very hard to remove. So that's kind of what I see happening and what's coming through in the work. There's no shortage of good ideas, there's no shortage of bat shit, crazy ideas coming from the public. There's no shortage about it. There's tons of good ideas, extraordinary insights into how our society works and, and, and lots of thoughts about what to do with it. And in some ways also a lot of goodwill for the Australian political system, what and when it especially compared to other political systems elsewhere. The challenges in the translation, and the frustration is, how do we have an effective political community dialogue about this that leads to effective action?</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Jo, your thoughts.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>So I'm a bit of a, I'm a bit impartial to a burn shit to the ground approach in some instances, but the shit is probably, it's definitely not Australia's democratic institutions. It's more the invasion and pollution of America's institutional, corporate way of life and ideas that I think have are doing damage, and have done damage to our democracy in Australia. I think that there's a lot of opportunity as well, and particularly at this point we have Australian politicians, in a sort of bipartisan way, pretty keen to take action, to assert our national interest. But it's so I think we should be capitalising on it. But I'll let you ask another question, because I'd rather talk in more concrete terms, and </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Absolutely. So it's just to kind of wrap that up. I mean, it's been it's really interesting that how do we have an effective political dialogue is kind of part of it. You've talked about the independence too, Rebecca, and we're going to get to digital platforms, definitely in a moment. But I mean, who kind of generally gets left off the conversation. Who's often missing in these conversations that don't often get the opportunity to have their voice heard, or if they do, they get shouted down.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>I mean, so I think obviously we are three white women here, so it's very visible that there are no Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here, and I think that that's pretty common in a lot of these conversations. But in terms of the digital society, where a lot of this discourse happens, it's usually the loudest, most obnoxious voices that shout out others and so, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And then they get more likes, and then they get to the top, </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Then we get to see them. Is that, this is, </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah. So there's a so if you think about the platform that Elon Musk owns, X, he believes in free speech absolutism, so that means anyone can say whatever they want, and they can post it online, and he shouldn't have to take anything down. He has no responsibility, because free speech is what matters more than anything else, and what that means on X or Twitter is that it's full of porn, it's full of sexism, racism, hate, speech, misinformation, and apparently that's fine, because that's used, that's a democracy in Elon Musk's world, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>But it means that women, people of colour, anyone who sort of cares about the world, other people, get shouted out, and they don't feel safe to participate. And so I think that's online. That's a specific online phenomenon, and it's, that's when people get, when that is the state of affairs, that's an extreme example, but people get left out of the conversation when there aren't guardrails on what can and can't be said. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, Rebecca?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Excuse me. I have a slightly different take on this if I think about who's being left out of the conversation. A dynamic democracy requires time, right, requires the ability to have both actual free time, but also headspace, to be able to think and to be able to engage. I mean, Oscar Wilde used to always say didn't like socialism because there were too many meetings. But it is actually important, I think it was socialism.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>I'm going to put that, write that one down. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>I think you can say that about all political activity, you know, and when I, I mean, to give you a very specific example, when we do commit, when we do these big segmentations of how the community feels about any issue, there's always a small but significant group which we often, we often kind of give them a very inadequate name. We often call them the disengaged, and there's,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>With a capital D? </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong> </p> <p>Yes, at times. Or we call them uninterested, or whatever. And over time, because we've done lots of these, we've been looking at the demographic skews of this group. It tends to be women. Tends to be women with a lot of caring responsibilities for children, for people living with disability, often them themselves in caring professions, working part time, and we'll sometimes ask them open ended questions about, how do you feel about climate change or gender equality or whatever? And it's clear that these women, there's a spectrum of views about how they feel about the issue levels of education or engagement, but mostly they're saying, I am so busy just holding my family together, just being able to get from where I work to where I care, I cannot think about this issue. And so for them, it's and why I'm often worried about the fact that we call them these things, is it's not that they care, don't care. It's that they have not, we, they do not live in a society which gives them the luxury of time and space to engage in care. And so I often think, you know, if I really think about who's being missed, it's the people who are cleaning our toilets and picking up their kids and actually do not have time to have this engagement. Now, of course, if you add that, you know, it's not just a time thing. Obviously it's harder if there are issues of disadvantage, discrimination on top of that. But we, you know, we often say, you know, democracy is a, we need to give people time to participate, and those people who are given no time are going to be not, they're not going to be heard, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yep, unless they go on to the digital platforms, which are readily available, potentially, and that's where things can maybe start. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>They can, but then when they go on, they often, I've been far of very, very angry people and, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And then you get, </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>very very opinionated people. And they often, especially if they're especially if they're women, they think, oh, this is not a place where I can engage, because I don't know enough. And they may all be exhausted about conflict at home, conflict if they're working in for example, if they're working in health care, disability or retail, they've already spent a day being yelled at by and abused by people they may not want to go online to be yelled at and abused by people.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone</strong> </p> <p>Which is where your research comes in. And Jo has a book that's coming out later this year, which sounds really fascinating, in fact, I read it last week. It's a great book. And the one I just wanted to start off by it, because I want to talk a bit about what some of the researchers you found in your book as well. And you said you started out being positive about the digital platforms and online speech, but now you're dedicating your research to trying to change it. So where are you sitting right now? Are you on the spectrum, like, like, incandescent rage, or, like, just, I don't know, </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>This is where they burn it</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Dissatisfied. </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Burn it all down. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Burn it all down. Okay, so why? What is, what is going on?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Well, I think we're a long way from where the or where, from the where the internet started, which was a place where we were going to have democratic access to the world's information. We were all going to be able to connect freely and speak across boundaries no longer bound by geography, but somewhere along the way, a couple of, a few men, couple of companies, worked out that if they, if they collected data about people and then analysed it, they could make money. And then, since then, we've had these companies that were in the right place at the right time, had that insight. They've they've did they now determine the internet that we have, and it's one that's full of advertising, and everything we do is is datafied and monetised, and I and that incentive structure that we have now, the datafication. It means that those companies make money when we stay online and we keep engaged, and so therefore they will do and they do anything to keep us engaged, and often that means sending us or showing us the most evocative, alarmist kind of content, so that, yeah, they keep us there with little regard for truth impact beyond the platform.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And by continually keeping us there and reiterating or repeating the content that we've seen before we end up, we've heard about this, obviously, many times we end up in this kind of algorithm jungle or something like that, is that that's basically what happens? </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah. I mean, there's, there's some research to show that the filter bubbles and rabbit holes is is not as as strong a phenomenon as we are led to believe. But one of the things that I see a lot is that the platform engagement metrics and the way that these platforms are designed, they have a they show by they make information seem credible to people when it's not. So if you if you hear something about flat earth or covid vaccines giving you autism, they and it has 10,000 likes and 50 or 500 reposts. Someone says, Wow, that's a lot of people. Maybe it's true. And then they join a group, and then they find out more, and they just get shown more and more information. And there's sort of this bandwagon effect, and it has the stamp of credibility, because 10,000 people said it was said that they liked it, so it must be right. And so that's where we get this misinformation. And the platform design feeds into the problem of, yeah. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And so, and in this instance, this is where this kind of polarisation gets this, this endless kind of circle. Tell me, tell me. Does this play out what we're seeing online? Does it play out in focus groups that you see as well?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong> </p> <p>100%. I mean, one area of my particular focus is on climate change and energy transition. I'll give you two bits of information that re-emphasise, emphasise what you had to say. One of them is quantitative, and one of those qualitative. We constantly ask the question of people not just how they feel about renewable energy or climate science, we ask what they think other people feel. So for example, you know, do you think that wind, onshore wind farms are a good idea? And large percentages of the population have support from onshore wind farms, when you say to people, what do you think your neighbours think, they'll go, oh no, there's massive, you know, they will always massively overstate the opposition to the very thing they support. Now it's not because they've gone door to door for their neighbours and asked them, Do you like onshore wind? It's the perception that there is opposition, and that can come from digital platforms. It can also come from conventional media outlets. So it's this kind of amplification of opposition. Now, what does that do? That doesn't necessarily change people's personal behaviour, but it mutes their level of support. Like, if there are that many people who oppose it, then maybe it's we shouldn't go that fast, or maybe we should go quickly. That perception gap exists continuously. And what I often say to communicate, if you can find a way to close and address that perception gap, we will be so on our way to solving so many problems. You know, in terms of communication, the see and how that plays out in my focus groups is a really good example. In fact, I was in a group just a couple of weeks ago, and we were talking about renewable energy, and a woman was saying, I think it's really good, and we should have more of it. We should be going faster, she said, but I saw this video the other day with this guy, just like he was really he was like, he was in, he was a farmer. She didn't know he was a farmer because he was standing in a field. And I said, why do you think it was a farmer? So I was standing in a field, and he wasn't wearing suit. And and there was a wind turbine behind him, and he was like, really, really angry about this wind turbine. And you know that his neighbours were getting, I was like, going to be bad for the community, and everybody hated it, and I didn't believe what he's saying, but he was really upset about it. So there's got to be something there. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong> </p> <p>So I think that, and amplify that by gazillion, right? If anybody spent any time online to see, and on any issue you can imagine. It can be on, you know, perceptions about domestic violence, it can be about any of the, you know, critical issues that face a society. And this is the effect that's happening, and it is incredibly difficult at a time where established authorities and kind of sources of trust are under siege as well. To be able to say no, no, no, this guy is angry about a wind farm, is even if that person is a real person or not, is you should not let that deter you in your belief.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And you've studied this too, like even, even down to the algorithms on YouTube. So tell me a bit about how that actually plays out, like the in the actual tech world. This is exactly pointing to the question that we started this entire conversation about, like, how is big tech skewing our opinions? This is a perfect example, you know, </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray</strong> </p> <p>Yeah,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>The wind turbine.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah. I think it's an example of using emotional content that, if that person in the video had been sitting in a grey kind of office with a grey, with dull clothes and spoke really dryly about research, that person probably wouldn't have paid much attention to it. But if it's emotionally engaging, then people are likely to stay on the platform, it's going to be amplified, and it just spreads and spreads. But I think it's really interesting in the context of AI as well, and how now,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Was he really standing there? Or was someone else?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Was it AI? And I found, my son is 12, and he's gotten into a bad habit of saying, Oh, you're a boomer, and you can't tell AI. And I'm like, I am not a boomer, and I knew it was AI. Thank you. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>I think.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah, I think yeah, eventually. But I think it's really hard to tell now. And it's, it's, it's not just the design metrics, it's also the content as well, that it's, it is, yeah, it's this big problem. And I yeah, I think there are, we can talk about some positive solutions. There are positive things, but yeah, it is.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>What are some of the positives then,</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Oh, turning everything off, I don't know.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>I mean, that isn't that is a solution. Yes, that is, in fact, something that we can do. And you even raised this before there, as there's a disintegration of trust in the institutions that I grew up with, whether it's the media or other other places as well. Where are people finding our information now? Different generations are finding the information from different places, and that has to be accepted. But how do you, how do you get to the crux of something, or how do you trust the information that you're getting is true? Like, that's the problem that we're facing.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah, and it's I think people, I don't, I don't want to judge people when they don't trust information, because there's a lot of shoddy information out there, and we, like you said, we have to be critical and we have to be discerning. It's just that with the in the current media environment, we're not given, we're not, it doesn't tend towards giving us those sort of critical thinking, analytical metacognition, kind of skills. It it tends towards us using our emotions and reacting in the moment to things. And that's the design problem.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Yeah. It also leans into you've talked about the culture of suspicion as well before, Rebecca that sort of, yeah, this, this, or the authorities are no longer. Well, I mean, it's harder to know what's true, essentially, </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Yeah. And, I mean, often when people talk about, you know, people don't trust authority figures and institutions anymore, I'd say I think that's a problematic platitude. There's plenty of people trusting. People out there it there's there's plenty of people who trust I mean, you'll, I mean, certainly during covid, people would go, oh, you know, I really don't trust the government that we absolutely need to have these vaccines. And I'm like, why do you think that? Oh, there's some dude on Instagram that told me. And I'm like, well, they clearly trust the dude on Instagram. So people aren't putting their trust somewhere. So I absolutely as I was going to I forgot my train of thought about the culture of suspicion. I mean, I think, you know, when you talk about solutions, I think there is, there have to be ways that at every level of society, we acknowledge the, as much of the thread as the opportunity that social media and AI offer, and try and slow down our adoption of it as much as possible so our systems, laws and our social interaction can have some chance of catching up with how quickly it's going. But I would also say the other thing that's critical and congratulations to all of you for leaving your home today and being with human beings and listening to human beings, perhaps after this, having an uncomfortable conversation while drinking some of Sydney ±¬ÁÏÍõ's fine wines. The antidote to this is human face to face communication. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>I think that deserves a clap honestly, because I actually agree with you.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>So I mean, you know, and and this is proven time and time again, which is that we, we are probably a naive to think that we can put the genie back in the bottle. With so much of this, we can slow, shape, do all kinds of things to, to equip and resource us as a society at every level, from how we interact with our children to how we exist at a federal government level. But the antidote is interacting with each other, communicate, </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Can I push back on that quietly? </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Sure, </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Because I I am an introverted, neurodiverse person, and face to face interaction is the most draining thing I can possibly do every day. And so for me, it's less about that as the solution, but more about focusing locally and caring and connecting locally, in whatever format that might be. Because I think the current world makes us think that the national and international problems, every problem in the world, is something that we need to understand and voice our opinion on. And I don't, and we don't.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>That's kind of not what I was saying about connection. I was thinking about something very it can be as simple as having conversation with your neighbour, yeah, or having people over for a meal, or you don't have to. But you know, that can look different. I mean, it's actually it can be quite pedestrian and quite modest, whatever that connection can be.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>What it is, though, which gets to again, your research is not being held into our digital platforms. It's, it's letting go. So whether it's face to face or on your own, walking the dog, climbing a tree, or being in a room like this, to have a conversation about how to have conversations, </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>And it's slowing down, like you said, I think there's, there's essential, there's this manufactured sense of urgency that's created by the platforms that I need to be what is happening with that Trump assassination attempt. I need to refresh my browser. What's the information? And actually, we don't that's manufactured. You actually, I don't need to know about everything that's going on in the world in and every and be updated all the time. You can step outside into the real world, and it's okay not to know and engage and be refreshed. You have this, </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>And actually that urgency to think about you have to make a judgement, make a statement, adds to this kind of collective dysregulation that we have that's making our ability to, you know, think clearly through in the middle of a polycrisis, even harder. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Yeah, for sure. It's funny, like the platforms are all American, right? Or the ones, the big ones, the Big Five that you talk about. And I don't want to shift the conversation a little bit too far from where we were, but how are we in the conversation that we're having today, importing you mentioned Trump before, importing Americans' problems into the Australian context? Are we doing that? There's a lot of people here that think free speech is a thing that we have in Australia as well. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on that, Jo.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah, I think about this all the time because the Free Speech model that operates on, the platforms operate, is the, is the American model, and so that is constitutional individual right. I have a right to say whatever I want, because that's my right as an American. But that's not what we have in Australia. We have, like a general we don't, we don't mention, it's not mentioned in the Constitution. Generally, it's acknowledged as a, you know, we should be able to say what we want politically, but I think as Australians, and this where it gets to Australian values, which is such a funny thing to talk about, but it's a complex but I think as Australians, we are this great example of a nation that doesn't need that individual, right? But we are crude. We swear all the time, we are dry, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>I bloody well don't swear all the time,</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah, like you can say the C word in front of kids in this nation, and most people won't blink an eye. Like it's we are, but we don't have any free speech. But I and so I think we really need to I would love to see people leaning into that what it means to be Australian, and not in terms of identity politics, because that, you know, race, gender, class, those sort of things are actually less. That's America's understanding, that's very an American way of looking at the world. And in Australia, we have a rich history from both sides of politics, of saying, it's none of my business, pull your head in, you know. Like Bob Katter said, let a thousand blossoms bloom, but I don't want to spend any time on it. Like that's, and he's not a bleeding heart liberal, but he's, that's the sort of Australian, this sort of a sense of Australian values I think that's captured in that sentiment that I think we should be proud of and assert more that in response to the platform society that we have.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, for sure, and it's, it's interesting too, because by, if I understand it, by understanding who we are as a people better and as diverse as we are, maybe we're better able to have the difficult conversations or listen to each other more effectively. Rebecca, can I get your perspective?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Well, I mean, we have an implied right to freedom of political communication in the Constitution, even though your average Australian may not necessarily understand or know that it would be a broad value that they would support. I think generally you would say, I mean all this may be under some kind of siege from different parts of from different kind of minority cultures. But I think there's generally this sense of if you can justify the social reason why you might regulate something almost to the point of extinction, such as smoking or poker machines, if you can justify that in terms of the greater good, Australians have a level of acceptance of that, of that restriction on their freedom and right that is, you know, keeps people alive fundamentally and and potentially like and the perfect example is, you know, and this remains uncontroversial, is compulsory voting. I've been researching Australian attitudes to compulsory voting for two decades, and I can tell you that it remains still almost an article of faith. The latter challenge is that we vote, but do we engage and think about it more? And what is the evidence we take to that? But that is extraordinary. It's extraordinary for and not only that we that we accept it, we recognise that it protects us. It may be one of the few guardrails we have at a time in which all liberal democracies are under siege from the very things that Jo has been talking about, as well as economic inequality and so forth. So you know when I think about but I mean, I would also say this for a long time, probably the first 10 years of my career, I looked at all of these things about the Australian character and thought, we're going to be okay, and it won't be. So you know, we'll be protected from some of the things that you were starting to see in other democracies in Europe and the United States. Something shifted in covid. We went from doing, I went from doing focus groups in person to doing focus groups online, and like, Oh my God, what's happening? And part of me was thinking, maybe it's just, we're reaching different people on Zoom than we would normally meet if people bet they're kind of the things that people were saying, the conspiracy theories. And, you know, a range of things have happened since then that are starting to, you know, nibble away at that, you know, as Jo was talking kind of like this is, you know, this Australian-ness that has protected us from some of the worst from other countries and, you know, the one other thing that I would say, and the one thing that kind of drives so much of the kind of community grievance that is the soil for the kind of really problematic, damaging attitudes around you know, you name it, everything from climate change to gender equality. Is this kind of idea that the social compact in Australia is being eroded to the point of not being substantial at all. And so that's our biggest challenge. You know, all of these, these, you know, that's the core challenge of which, you know, the information and sense of people's sense of what is true and what can be done exists around that.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>For sure.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah, I think it's really interesting, and I think that part of the problem is or one of the solutions, perhaps it's when the government governs well, and in our interest they, we tend to trust them more when they do their basic job. So and when they adopt the US kind of view of preferring small governments and deregulated markets rather than intervening and providing that social safety net and keeping people fed and schools and safe, and parks and those things running, that's when trust erodes as well. So I think, yeah, I think part of I think the thought I was having in listening to you is that I think governments should be or politicians or leaders should be more bold about our democratic institutions and supporting those as a response to the trust deficit. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Building dialog in person and online, but also within our democratic institutions as well. I love it. How great is this conversation? It could go forever, but we do have drinks afterwards, and we also have your questions. And so I wanted to say thank you to everybody who sent in their questions earlier, and I've got them on cards. Doesn't that look professional? Thank you. And also to the questions that have come through on Slido. And if you are in the room and you would like to ask a question on a microphone, I'll try and get to one or two of those, as well. So I'm going to start off with a couple of the questions that are on the cards. So should we try and get through them as quickly as possible? </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Sure, let's do it</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Yeah,</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Do it</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Should we smash, smash it out. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>What do they call </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So thank you very </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Lightning round!</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And if you're</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Go!</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>In the room, I'm going to say your name, so put your hand up. Okay, so Maggie Kelly, thank you very much. Feel free to put your hand up if you're here. A question, are we truly living in a democratic society when big tech is consistently manipulating both our perspective and our actions?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>No, but because they are making decisions about our society, and then we haven't voted for them, that's why it's not democratic. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Anything to add there Rebecca?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Agree? Next question. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Thank you. Okay, I actually wanted to talk about regulation, so this, this, I think is a good one. So thank you. Michael Gully from Coral Active. Should the current under 16 social ban be extended to all tech access for under 16? </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray</strong> </p> <p>No, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Okay. It can be longer.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>I think, I don't think we need blanket bans on everything social media is a particularly harmful production. There's good evidence to show that it is particularly harmful for young people.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>But regulation? We've done quite well with regulation.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Keep regulating. We need so many more regulations, but I don't think a blanket ban. We don't need to ban young people from accessing digital technology.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Your thoughts on regulation and improving regulation Rebecca? </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong> </p> <p>Yeah, great. I mean, I think part of it is that adults should spend less time on there. Big part of you know, I don't get very far with my three children when I tell them to get off the internet if I'm on the internet. So we have to. We all have to.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Thank you. There's some really great questions in here, so thank you. I'm going to start off with Eric's one. Part of our discomfort with dialog might be that our social opinions or lack thereof, are increasingly tied to our sense of self. For many of us, we are our politics. How do we balance maintaining our core values and being open minded?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong> </p> <p>I mean, I I'm super interested to know your research informed speaking to people, but I tend to think about it on a personal level that identity politics and that sort of when we talk about who we are in this world and sources of oppression and what makes us who we are, it. That's good for helping to understand diverse perspectives and like finding, like bringing in, making sure that we're not the only person that's considered in the decision making, but it shouldn't define our politics or value. That's not our values. Our values are a bit more universal, and I think that's what we need to do, is to think about, okay, what are our values and what's the common ground, even, but acknowledging that we have distinct lived experiences. Sorry for using that cliche.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Rebecca your thoughts?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>I actually think, and we can almost quantify that, maybe less than 30% of people would think that their political values even broadly defined key to their sense of self. Actually, in all the segmentation we do, lots of people don't even they think about broader values, very broad, like caring for others or safety and security or whatever. But most people, it's and this is, again, the blessing of this work. Most of the time I spend time with people who are not interested in politics at all, and so trying to understand how they identify themselves, see themselves in their worldview, is much harder. Then it's a much harder thing, and often, often politics, or even, not even just talking about politics, but political ideas are not the best way into understanding their sense of self.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, amazing. Thank you. Okay, so. Natalie Swainson, if you're in the room, feel free to say hi.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Hi Nat?</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Hi, Natalie, </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>No, she's not there.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Maybe she's online. Another one for you, Jo. If, but this question is all great. I'm going to, I'm going to try to smash through them. If platform business models are structurally rewarded for attention and outrage, how realistic is it to expect social cohesion without confronting these those incentives directly? What would it take politically and economically to do that? Jo, was that you?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong> </p> <p>I mean, no, I think you we need to understand that these are the way that they're currently operating is not designed for cohesion, it's designed for division. But I think there's a lot that we can do, logging off, regulating. I think that we that we need regulation. It's a systemic problem, an economic problem. It can't be on us as individuals to solve. But so no again. So I was trying to come up with a more diverse answer than yes, no.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Any thoughts there, Rebecca?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong> </p> <p>No.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>That's great. No, another no, that's all good. Thank you very much, Natalie for your question. The, Rebecca, you talked about the busy folk at the start of our conversation tonight, busy people that are busy, who are left out of the democratic conversation. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>They're not just busy. We're all busy. They're like they are slammed.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>They're slammed, and they're left out of the conversation. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>100%.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>So you use the example of carers and a number of others, and the anonymous question person has asked, I imagine they're unlikely in the room tonight, but the audience might know these people. Is there a personal action for us to take away to help build these conversations?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Well, other than trying to building a more humane, humane society, where they're not as busy and not as I mean, I think that. I think that part of it is like, how do you see those people in your world and in your life and offer support and talk to them about the things that matter to them. How do you bring their concerns and their issues into the public sphere, if they themselves are so tied up with doing things? I mean, again, one of the great thing, one of the interesting things about now all of my social research is almost always on Zoom, and there are pluses and minuses about that. But one of the things that has been really beneficial is people that cannot leave their house are suddenly now able to do focus groups. They can't leave their house because they're caring for somebody, or they're a shift worker. They've got they're a single parent, and they've got a ton of views about how the world could be a better place. So I think that we can all think about, how do we how do we find ways, and how do we ourselves create networks and coalitions and resource the people who are really slammed and don't have time? </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So in effect, what you're saying, if I'm not mistaken, is that through doing your focus groups now on zoom as well as in person, it's opened up your ability to have conversation, </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong> </p> <p>I'm hearing those people, from those people more </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Right.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>I mean, once upon a time, the, you know, the mighty union movement would have been the great voice for a lot of these people, and they it's still, they still remains the case, and organisations like ACOs and ICOs, but in terms of that kind of raw. I mean, I'm saying that when I when these, when I when these are the kinds of people in my focus groups to say to them, oh, you go online and do a petition and talk about these issues, they're like, no, that's just, that's a lot of conflict, that's a lot of unhappiness. And I've already got that in my own life, and I'm not interested in getting more of it.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>And I think that we've been let down by the promises of online activism as well. I think maybe a decade ago, we were so excited Greta Thunberg was doing stuff, and everyone was going to change the world with climate change action, and it hasn't really impacted our, it hasn't resulted in action. And so I'm hearing people who work in this area talk about moving locally and just, you know, taking care of our selves locally. And I tend to like that and lines up with what you've been saying tonight. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, I know I've promised to take a question from the floor. If anybody has a question, feel free to raise your hand one at the front. Hello. Thank you. </p> <p><strong>Audience Member </strong></p> <p>My name is Arshay, and I run a debate club, and so really, really resonated with me what you were talking about, the discomfort in discourse. And I wanted to ask you, why do you think that we're not seeing more debates outside of universities, and seeing more debates, would it make us more divided or more united. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Thank you. Who wants to take that one and then you can do the rebuttal, Jo? All right, over to you.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>I mean, the great thing about debates is there are rules of engagement that everybody buys into. And wouldn't that be a terrific and wonderful thing for kind of, you know, to have a kind of architecture for contestation. We don't always have to do it as formally as debate clubs, but I think that we can find ways to do it in our day to day life, with our children. And with our friends. And again, I think that thing that I talked about in the very beginning, about bringing, instead of a dysregulated, you're wrong immediately, like having those conversation, feeling like you have to persuade somebody in the moment, in this kind of, you know, aggressive way, is to bring a spirit of listening, curiosity, and again, understanding the difference between discomfort and actual abuse. That would be and wonderful to teach our children about what that's like, what you know like, I said, not every conversation you have to have needs to be comfortable. Some of them need to some of them real learning comes from discomfort.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yeah, it's okay to be uncomfortable. Yeah, yeah. This is, this is down to the crux of it. Thank you for your question. Going to do some quick fire ones from Alice, who is a current ±¬ÁÏÍõ student. Hello, Alice, do you think the social media ban is good because it promotes real conversations between young people and those around them, or does it limit conversations too much?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>So I tend to think overall it's good, but I work with a psychologist who specialises in this ±¬ÁÏÍõ, and she says that it's one of the biggest things that she's worried about, is that it's going to push those parents are going to assume that it's all sorted, and then they're not going to have the much needed conversations with their children or the teenagers in their lives that you still need to have about what a healthy media diet is, online safety, all those things so good, yes, but no, I don't think it solves that problem. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>And also acknowledging someone's written disconnected conversations due to devices at the dinner table. We've talked about that. Put your phone down if you can. Thank you for that.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Bad for your digestion. Instagram is bad for your digestion. All those beautiful photos. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>I hear Tiktok's great for </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>All those beautiful photos </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>The entree. </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>That aren't really, that are probably AI.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, let's smash through. Is it possible to have good conversations throughout our democracy when the use of certain legitimate critical and protest terms is made illegal to protect the interests and feelings of certain groups at the exclusion of others.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Sorry, say that again?</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>Go, Jo.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Oh, look, I think, I think that there, I think is a tough problem, but like censorship, what we can say, what we can't say, context, all these things. It's a really difficult there's no bright line rule. But I do think that especially online, right, not in the household, not on your street, but online, we need to have much stricter rules about what can and can't be said, because you're not just talking to the people in your community, you've got a global platform, and it can spread. So, yeah, that's my answer, but it's, yeah,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Yeah, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Great. Thank you so many great questions. I don't normally, um, by the way, I like to keep things rolling. I did a lot of radio. We always got to keep talking kind of air that's there, okay, um, I don't want to ask that one just yet, because I think it's a really nice question. Dr Huntley, you mentioned that many people overstate others opposition to issues and that it quietens their own support. What are some ways we can attempt to close that gap in perception? And can universities play a role in that communication?</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Universities can always play a role. I mean, part of it is, is, one of the reasons why people think that opposition is amplified is they just assume that the online opposition, or, you know, outright lies that politicians say, which is like the majority are with us, or whatever. Well, let me just, let me say the that that statistic about people amplifying opposition exists at the same time when we ask people, have you ever talked to friends or family or people at work about this issue? And the vast majority of people say never. Right, so we're not when I think about, particularly about climate, which I'm very passionate, I think, even a conversation in which no one is persuaded, like a conversation I might have with somebody in the schoolyard or, you know, just a social occasion. A conversation where I have about climate change, in which all I do is listen and say a few things and I don't try and persuade that person. That might be the only time they've ever had a conversation about that issue, and they can normalise actually having a conversation about that issue. I'm not there to change their mind or persuade them. So we actually have to start talking to each other about the things that silently we might think about and that we might imagine other people feel a particular way. And to your point. We consistently find in the work that we do that if somebody has a conversation with somebody they know, particularly in their local area, about an issue, it can often offset their perception about or their concern or the perception about opposition. So in the work that we do, particularly in Renewable Energy zones, where we talk about where people are, like, I'm really worried about this stuff. Often, if they actually have a conversation with somebody who either works or in around the issue or is and that often, kind of can almost neutralise the misdisinformation and opposition. So, So normalising those conversations, having them, making sure that they're positive, even if they're not persuasive, is the way, is the way forward. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>For sure. There's, again thank you for your questions. There are so many, and I know that Sydney Ideas will send through some of the questions, I guess, afterwards, and some answers as well. I wish we could have got through to them all. I suppose, just to kind of wrap up, we started off by, what are the makings of a good conversation? I'm not going to ask you that same question again, but maybe there was a point to that. In one of the questions is, what is that we can do? What is it that we can do? We can shut down social media, we can, you know, do all these things. But what is the one thing you would a great takeaway that leaving here tonight we can do to help us have better dialogue, better discourse. Jo?</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>I feel like I should have a prepared answer. I think maybe just building on what you've just said about not trying to persuade people trying to have a conversation with someone that's curious saying, so I had a conversation with my neighbour, very working class, but in construction, he said something negative about the price of gas, and something about Anthony Albanese and something. And yeah. And I was just like, oh, yeah, that's good point. And, but I get, you know, we've got so much sunshine here, and we should just civil. Why don't we all have solar? And then, and then he went, yeah, why don't we have, you should add solar. And then we found common ground. And I think, yeah. I think just, just trying to shift past the,</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>The outrage.</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Yeah, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Okay, find common ground. Rebecca, </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Yeah. Take a take a breath. Take a breather. You know, we are we're not. We're certainly not America. We're nowhere near there. And most Australians don't want us to be like that. Thank God. I mean, this is what happens when you give an emotionally unstable society guns. And you know, it's so we're kind of in a better, better than that. But I think that it comes from modeling it in our own behaviour. Just, you know, think a moment before you slam the you know, the you know, the beep and the horn, before you get annoyed at the person on the other side, you know, who's serving you. You have no idea what that a little bit of awareness, a pause and have some breath, </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Take a beat.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>And model that to people around you and to your children. I know it sounds small, but I really do you know if anybody's read in the past or never read, I would would encourage you to reread Bowling Alone by Professor Putnam from Harvard, and he talks about that we, we, we repair democracy by repairing in small, everyday ways, the interaction we have with the people around us in in the ways that suit us, whether you're neurodiverse or not, and they can be small, and that's how, because, if you if you cannot trust your neighbour, you're not going to trust the High Court, right? We have to build it from the bottom up and from the ground up, about how we trust each other, how we interact with each other, and we can do it in small ways every day. </p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray </strong></p> <p>Can I add in a book? </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Yes</p> <p><strong>Joanne Gray</strong> </p> <p>Rest is resistance.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Oh, that's a fantastic book.</p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>So bowling alone </p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Putnam. And rest is resistance. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong> </p> <p>And Rest is resistance. Write that down. Please thank our speakers, Joanne Gray and Rebecca Huntley, thank you.</p> <p>Very, very quickly before we can all have a drink and some refreshments, I also wanted to say thank you to DVC Lucy Marshall again for opening the event and to the series. The next Conversations For Good is coming up on the 16th of July, pop that in your calendar. Exploring political philosophies, and it will be right back here at the Sibyl Centre. And for all the information about upcoming talks at Sydney Ideas, go to the University website sydney.edu.au, AD, AU, that's Australia, isn't it? You know how to do a website. Look up Sydney Ideas.</p> <p><strong>Rebecca Huntley </strong></p> <p>Okay, you missed the www and you need to put at the end because without it. </p> <p><strong>Fenella Kernebone </strong></p> <p>Http colon forward slash, okay great. Thank you very much all of you for attending. My name is Fenella, and really happy that you were here for the very first of the Conversations For Good series. And thanks to Andy from Sydney Ideas! Thank you very much guys. Appreciate it.</p>
This conversation is about how we got to this point in the state of public discourse today. Is big tech skewing our views and undoing our capacity for tolerance? What actually divides Australians and more importantly, what brings us closer? How do we create – and regulate – spaces for dialogue that encourage open exchange, not outrage; that expand our worldview, not retreat into echo chambers?
Hear from digital platforms researcher Joanne Gray, and one of Australia’s foremost social trends researchers, Rebecca Huntley. Hosted by Fenella Kernebone, cultural curator, speaker and presenter.
This event was held on Wednesday 22 April at the ±¬ÁÏÍõ, presented by Sydney Ideas as part of our Conversations for Good series. You might also be interested in our other event in the series, 'Conversations for Good: Across political philosophies'.
…especially online, right – not in the household, not on your street – but online, we need to have much stricter rules about what can and can't be said. Because you're not just talking to the people in your community. You've got a global platform, and it can spread.
Chair of Discipline, Media and Communications
Joanne is Chair of Discipline, Media and Communications in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the ±¬ÁÏÍõ.  She is an interdisciplinary academic with expertise in Internet and digital technology policy and governance. Her research seeks to understand how corporate digital society actors—such as Google, Meta, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft—exercise private power, and to support public interest policy and governance interventions.
Rebecca is one of Australia's foremost researchers on social trends. She is the author of numerous books including How to Talk About Climate Change in a Way that Makes a Difference (Murdoch books, 2020). She writes regularly for The Monthly, Australian Traveller Magazine, The Guardian and the SMH. She is a Fellow of the Women Leadership Institute of Australia and of The Research Society.Â
Rebecca holds degrees in law and film studies, and a PhD in Gender Studies from the ±¬ÁÏÍõ. She is currently a Senior AssociateÌý²¹³ÙÌýSydney Policy Lab.
 is a cultural curator, speaker and presenter. As Head of Programming for SXSW Sydney, she helmed the largest conference in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region, working with world-class speakers and partners to create unforgettable experiences.
She's previously curated TEDxSydney and Sydney Ideas. An accomplished TV and radio presenter, podcast host, and MC, she has hosted hundreds of events spanning tech, arts, business, design, and culture. She serves on the board of Performance Space.