i don't remember exactly what it said, but to have flickr and thus it said -- web 2.0, how flickr andpace are changing lives. [laughter] emily: you talked about how one of the strengths of flickr was the culture, and how caterina would welcome every single user. today, that doesn't happen on facebook and instagram and in fact, online hate is a huge , huge problem. do you worry about hate on social media? stewart: i do. one of the things we say in my company is that your culture is the worst behavior you're willing to tolerate. not everyone tolerates the worst behavior on twitter, but collectively as a society, as a business, as a culture, we tolerate it in a sense that it hasn't been eradicated. it shifts the boundaries of what's acceptable in a way that kind of encourages more bad behavior, and i think it probably has a negative impact. on the other hand, i think the net impact is usually positive. i think it connects people and a -- in a way that they never would've been connected before. i think twitter, in particular, gets a lot of criticism and has really been outstanding in ampl

emily: so, in the wreckage of the dot com bust, you started flickr by accident. what made you see that it could be something? stewart: desperation. fundamentally, we had developed a bunch of technology for the game that we thought was interesting in its own right, instead of an inventory in the game world, you had a shoebox of photographs. it was really cool from a tech perspective. it demoed really well and people were impressed. i did not know you could do that in a browser. it wasn't really a great product because you had to be online with the other person to share photos with them. emily: but the concept was very new. it sounds obvious today. photo sharing. stewart: 1992, game never-ending, flickr is really this idea of the use of toputing technology facilitate human interaction. in some sense, i'm agnostic about what the purpose of that is. it could be for play or for creative expression, or for work. emily: are you agnostic about the results? it could be for good or for bad. stewart: technology gives us options, it could be good or bad things that people do

i do not remember exactly what it said, but to have flickr and -- web 2.0, how flickr and myspace areging life. [laughter] emily: you talked about how one of the strengths of flickr was the culture and how caterina would welcome every single user. today, that doesn't happen on facebook and instagram and in fact, online hate is a huge problem. the worry about that on social media? stewart: i do. one of the things we say in my company is that your culture is the worst behavior you are willing to tolerate. not everyone tolerates the worst behavior on twitter, but collectively as a society, as a business, as a culture, we tolerate it in a sense that it hasn't been eradicated. it shifts the boundaries to what is acceptable in a way that kind of encourages more bad behavior, and i think it probably has a negative impact. on the other hand, i think the net impact is hugely positive. i think it people in a way that they wouldn't have been connected before. i think twitter, in particular, gets a lot of criticism and has been outstanding in amplifying the voices of people who would otherwise no

i think on the war powers front discussing with senator sasse and senator flickr earlier.ac cyberwar and other frameworks within the cyberattacks and those are three things all technology rooted for someone sitting in the seat 10 years from now are going to be critical issues and i think we all think backward looking, but there will be crisis moments for the supreme court in usually those are unpredictable when justice ginsburg and breyer went through, you wouldn't have predicted september 11th, for example or even thought to ask them questions. >> i'm going to stop you, judge. i'm going to run out of time. >> thank you emissary. >> on to talk about chevron deference just for a second. here's my understanding of chevron. first of all, the statute has got to bee ambiguous. and if it is ambiguous according to our supreme court, we've got to adopt the agency interpretation even if it's not the most reasonable interpretation. it's just got to be halfway reasonable. >> is a reasonable, but your point was that not the most reasonable. >> not the most reasonable. here's what i understand. y