Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech and it is time
Speaker 1: for the tech news for Thursday August twelve, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: Let's get into it now. You've probably heard me talk
Speaker 1: about VPNs, or virtual private networks before. This is a
Speaker 1: service in which you use a piece of software to
Speaker 1: log into a remote server, and then that server kind
Speaker 1: of acts as a type of proxy to access content
Speaker 1: on the Internet on your behalf. And that means like
Speaker 1: all the sites you're visiting are going through the server
Speaker 1: before coming to you. So anyone who might be, say
Speaker 1: spying on your side of the connection, all they would
Speaker 1: see is that you are in communication with this VPN server,
Speaker 1: with ideally all of that communication encrypted, so that whomever
Speaker 1: is snooping on you has no idea what it is
Speaker 1: you're looking at, right because they can only see that
Speaker 1: it's coming from this VPN server. They cannot see beyond
Speaker 1: that point, so they wouldn't have any clue what was
Speaker 1: going on. And then anyone who was snooping on the
Speaker 1: opposite side of this, All they would see is that
Speaker 1: this server is communicating with other web servers, but not
Speaker 1: knowing you know, whom on the other end is actually
Speaker 1: responsible for that. Like let's say that you were visiting
Speaker 1: your bank, Well, they would be able to see that
Speaker 1: there was communication between this VPN server and the bank server,
Speaker 1: but they wouldn't know who was ultimately trying to access that.
Speaker 1: And also that communication would be encrypted. So there are
Speaker 1: a lot of legit reasons to you that use this,
Speaker 1: just like I was just mentioning, Like if you wanted
Speaker 1: to use extra precautions when accessing certain services like banking
Speaker 1: services while you're on say a public WiFi hot spot,
Speaker 1: so you're at a coffee shop, you might want to
Speaker 1: use a vp N to access various things so that
Speaker 1: someone snooping on that public WiFi hotspot wouldn't know your business.
Speaker 1: But one other popular use of VPNs is to access
Speaker 1: region locked material that is otherwise unavailable to you, and
Speaker 1: recently Netflix has been on the war path to fight
Speaker 1: against that. Netflix has licensing deals with various studios and
Speaker 1: it allows Netflix to stream content certain content to certain
Speaker 1: regions or audiences. For example, there are programs on Netflix
Speaker 1: that are available in the UK on Netflix, but I
Speaker 1: can't watch them because I'm in the United States and
Speaker 1: Netflix does not have a license to stream that specific
Speaker 1: content two people here in the US. But through a VPN,
Speaker 1: I could potentially circumvent those rules and just log into
Speaker 1: a VPN server in the UK and try to get
Speaker 1: around it that way. This isn't exactly legit, but a
Speaker 1: lot of folks use VPNs for this specific reason. Now,
Speaker 1: Netflix is blocking certain IP addresses that the company associates
Speaker 1: with VPN services because some of these services what they're
Speaker 1: doing is they're using IP addresses that look like residential
Speaker 1: IP addresses. So Netflix is starting to block some IP
Speaker 1: addresses that appear to be residential ones, and some of
Speaker 1: them turn out to actually be residential IP addresses. Now,
Speaker 1: the whole goal is to prevent the VPN users from
Speaker 1: relying on this work around, right, But in the process
Speaker 1: that means some innocent folks are getting misidentified as VPN
Speaker 1: services and they find that their access to Netflix ends
Speaker 1: up being limited. So clearly there's some collateral damage going
Speaker 1: on here as the company tries to crack down on
Speaker 1: VPN users attempting to skirt region locking but it is
Speaker 1: impossible to say how common this is, like how frequently
Speaker 1: is Netflix affecting legitimate users? Those getting hit with the
Speaker 1: ban are still able to access Netflix original content, but
Speaker 1: they might not be able to see stuff produced or
Speaker 1: distributed outside of Netflix's own properties. Once again we see
Speaker 1: how a media company's response to people breaking the rules
Speaker 1: can cause further harm. See also digital rights management and
Speaker 1: the various massive lawsuits that media companies leveled against people
Speaker 1: who were identified as being pirates. I do not have
Speaker 1: a solution to this problem, by the way, and I'm
Speaker 1: not saying Netflix is necessarily in the wrong as far
Speaker 1: as it goes trying to uphold its end of these
Speaker 1: licensing deals. My guess is that the licensing agreements mean
Speaker 1: that Netflix is obligated to pursue solutions to this problem
Speaker 1: or else face some pretty tough consequences, such as not
Speaker 1: being able to secure future licensing agreements with you know,
Speaker 1: various TV and movie studios. It's just unfortunate that the
Speaker 1: current solution can have a negative impact on people who
Speaker 1: are not part of the problem. That is really unfortunate.
Speaker 1: It really says that solution is a bad solution. I
Speaker 1: just don't have a better one to offer, so bummer. Now,
Speaker 1: when it comes to picking what the top stories of
Speaker 1: we're here in the United States, there is a lot
Speaker 1: to choose from. I mean, coronavirus is an obvious candidate,
Speaker 1: as was the election and all the trappings around that,
Speaker 1: from misinformation camp ains to the fights around voter suppression
Speaker 1: and more. Uh, there's the big story of the Black
Speaker 1: Lives Matter movement, which I support needs ongoing support. And
Speaker 1: there's a related issue the de fund the police movement.
Speaker 1: Now that last one is extremely controversial and politically a
Speaker 1: lot of leaders don't want to have anything to do
Speaker 1: with it, they don't even want to to address it.
Speaker 1: But then we have a story like this one that
Speaker 1: brings into sharp relief the concerns of those who want
Speaker 1: to see an overhaul in how the United States handles
Speaker 1: law enforcement. So, according to documents obtained by the Legal
Speaker 1: Aid Society and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, the New
Speaker 1: York City Police Department has spent around a hundred sixty
Speaker 1: million dollars on surveillance systems since two thousand seven. And
Speaker 1: here's the big part, without any public oversight. So these
Speaker 1: technologies include systems like X ray, SCAE, inners for police
Speaker 1: fans that could reportedly detect weapons in vehicles, you know,
Speaker 1: hundreds of feet away, to facial recognition technologies, which, as
Speaker 1: I've mentioned several times in the past, frequently proved to
Speaker 1: be unreliable and subject to algorithmic bias that can disproportionately
Speaker 1: harm non white populations, and also the use of sting
Speaker 1: ray devices. A sting ray is a cell phone catcher.
Speaker 1: It's spoofs or imitates a cell phone tower, and nearby
Speaker 1: phones will connect to it as if it were a
Speaker 1: legitimate cell tower, and then the operator of the sting
Speaker 1: ray can pull information down from it, such as device identifications,
Speaker 1: device locations, and other data. The department acquired all these
Speaker 1: things by using a special Expenses fund line item in
Speaker 1: the budget. The NYPD could make use of those funds
Speaker 1: without first seeking approval from any other New York officials.
Speaker 1: So you can think of it kind of like a
Speaker 1: petty cash fund, except the amount of cash in it
Speaker 1: is definitely not petty, nor were the uses of that cash.
Speaker 1: I should also add that after the city passed a
Speaker 1: law called the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act last year,
Speaker 1: the NYPD shut down the special Expenses fund. Now, whatever
Speaker 1: your opinion is about police funding, I think it is
Speaker 1: important to remember that these technologies tend to range from
Speaker 1: they they can be effective if they are used correctly,
Speaker 1: but they are difficult to use correctly, and they go
Speaker 1: all the way to This technology is unproven and in
Speaker 1: fact is known to be inaccurate. So even in a
Speaker 1: best case scenario, this is an example of funds being
Speaker 1: poorly spent, and in a worst case scenario, it's an
Speaker 1: example of an organization of authority that is abusing that
Speaker 1: authority and using technology to enable further abuse of authority.
Speaker 1: This ties back in with something that I said earlier
Speaker 1: this week that we have a tendency to lean on
Speaker 1: technology in order to solve social problems, even if the
Speaker 1: tech is unproven or unsuitable for solving a social problem,
Speaker 1: or we just don't fully understand the technology, and this,
Speaker 1: I should point out, is a bad thing. Now, let
Speaker 1: us return to the issue of Facebook and Australian media companies.
Speaker 1: You might remember that there was a big standoff between
Speaker 1: the Australian government and Facebook a while back, stemming from
Speaker 1: how Facebook offers uh previews of articles and other media
Speaker 1: content without directing people to the sites that originate that content.
Speaker 1: Now this is important because those media companies, you know,
Speaker 1: like news organizations and such, they depend upon advertising revenue,
Speaker 1: which depends upon traffic to that website. If people are
Speaker 1: getting the content without actually visiting the site, then the
Speaker 1: company is not generating any ad revenue from that transaction,
Speaker 1: and ultimately you'll see these media companies and news organizations
Speaker 1: struggle to remain solvent. They won't make enough money to
Speaker 1: stay in business. The Australian government issued a mandate the
Speaker 1: companies like Facebook and Google to work out deals with
Speaker 1: Australian news outlets, which Facebook said it would do after
Speaker 1: some back and forth, including moments in which Facebook implied
Speaker 1: it would just plane shut down in Australia. Well, now
Speaker 1: Facebook is under fire again after three publishers in Australia
Speaker 1: alleged that Facebook included their content on their new news
Speaker 1: service platform in Australia without first negotiating licensing deals for
Speaker 1: that content, which you could argue would be in violation
Speaker 1: of this new law. Now, the companies say that the
Speaker 1: law might protect the larger publishing houses pretty well, but
Speaker 1: for smaller content creators it's a different story. So, according
Speaker 1: to these publishers. They approached Facebook in order to negotiate
Speaker 1: licensing deals for their content to be featured on this
Speaker 1: news platform, and Facebook essentially dismissed them, saying, no, you
Speaker 1: guys are small potatoes. You're not suitable for our news
Speaker 1: platform because you're not notable enough to be included on it,
Speaker 1: So we're not signing a deal with you. But then,
Speaker 1: according to these allegations, content from these publishers showed up
Speaker 1: on that news platform anyway. So as I record this,
Speaker 1: there's not a word as to whether the publishers are
Speaker 1: going to pursue any sort of government intervention in response
Speaker 1: to this problem, but they appear to at least be
Speaker 1: open to the idea. Complicating matters is only one of
Speaker 1: the three publishers, this one called Urban List, is actually
Speaker 1: registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which is
Speaker 1: a prerequisite in order to be covered by this media law.
Speaker 1: The other two have not yet applied for registration with
Speaker 1: that organization. Well, we've got a lot more news to cover,
Speaker 1: but before I get into any of that, let's take
Speaker 1: a quick break. Let's go back over to Facebook. And
Speaker 1: you know, we were just with Facebook and Australia now
Speaker 1: we're gonna go to Facebook and the u K because
Speaker 1: over there, over the pond, the Competition and Markets Authority
Speaker 1: and agency and government agency in the UK has been
Speaker 1: investigating Facebook's acquisition of Giffee or if you prefer Jiffy.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they pronounced a Jiffy. I still maintained that
Speaker 1: the correct pronunciation of you know, gift is gift. This
Speaker 1: is the company that's famous for animated gifts. Actually most
Speaker 1: of those, in fact aren't animated gifts at all. They're
Speaker 1: rather other formats, their short looping video clips that mimic
Speaker 1: an animated gift, but you know, that's beside the point.
Speaker 1: And this this government group says that Facebook's acquisition presents
Speaker 1: competition concerns. At least this is according to CNBC, where
Speaker 1: I read about this, and the complaints states that the
Speaker 1: this acquisition decreases competition in the digital advertising market, which
Speaker 1: is a market that has already dominated by goliaths like
Speaker 1: Facebook and Google. And one of the concerns is that
Speaker 1: Facebook will limit the use of Giffee gifts to Facebook
Speaker 1: platforms like the actual Facebook social network and Instagram, but
Speaker 1: there are lots of other platforms that do use Giffee,
Speaker 1: and the concern is that Facebook could cut that that
Speaker 1: access off and thus that would be an anti competitive move.
Speaker 1: The Government Office warns Facebook that it may require that
Speaker 1: the company has to sell off Giffee, which would reverse
Speaker 1: a four million dollar deal. The Office has yet to
Speaker 1: file its full review, and under further investigation, it is
Speaker 1: possible that all complaints could be dropped. Facebook naturally says
Speaker 1: that the Government offices concerns are completely off base and
Speaker 1: that the acquisition doesn't represent a decrease in competition. Now,
Speaker 1: let's look at the world of anti virus software, because
Speaker 1: that world is about to get a little smaller. Norton
Speaker 1: LifeLock is on track to merge with former competitor a
Speaker 1: Vast in a deal that's valued at eight billion dollars.
Speaker 1: So Norton's experience with antivirus software dates back to nine.
Speaker 1: A Vast was founded even earlier, back in nine and
Speaker 1: the plan is to merge these companies and combine the
Speaker 1: capabilities of the two and offer more robust solutions for cybersecurity,
Speaker 1: including additional ways to detect intrusions and protect privacy and
Speaker 1: disabled malware. And as we see a rise in innovative
Speaker 1: attacks like the supply chain attacks that we saw with
Speaker 1: the solar winds attacks, cybersecurity companies are rushing to keep
Speaker 1: pace with the bad guys, and that's pretty much the
Speaker 1: normal day to day in the world of cybersecurity, because
Speaker 1: each side is constantly struggling to try and get ahead
Speaker 1: of the other. There's still a bunch of other anti
Speaker 1: virus providers out there. There's like a v G and
Speaker 1: McAfee and Kaspersky and lots more. And I recommend that
Speaker 1: you use anti virus, but I also recommend you research
Speaker 1: anti virus software packages before you install one on your machine,
Speaker 1: because some packages contain a lot more bloat than others
Speaker 1: and will put a larger demand on your computer's resources,
Speaker 1: which could mean that you see performance issues elsewhere. Also,
Speaker 1: be sure you don't already have anti virus software on
Speaker 1: your machine, because having more than one is a pretty
Speaker 1: good way to make your computer run so slowly that
Speaker 1: you can't do anything with it. A few news episodes back,
Speaker 1: I reported on how employees at Activision Blizzard brought forth
Speaker 1: allegations of sexual miscon harassment, hostile work environment, and more,
Speaker 1: including a lawsuit against the company, and since then there's
Speaker 1: been an employee walk out that happened on July. There
Speaker 1: have been various calls online for game boycotts UH, and
Speaker 1: also people who have said that unfortunately, those kinds of
Speaker 1: boycotts often cause more harm to lower level employees than
Speaker 1: the leaders who allow these toxic environments to kind of
Speaker 1: take hold. There's also been responses from the company itself
Speaker 1: claiming that the allegations in the lawsuit were UH in
Speaker 1: reference to a company of the past and not reflective
Speaker 1: of how Blizzard operates today. Well, now we've got some
Speaker 1: more updates because three important staff members recently left the
Speaker 1: studio than They include the former director of Diablo four,
Speaker 1: which is not yet released. That would be Luis Barriga.
Speaker 1: Also a designer who worked on Diablo four named Jesse McCree,
Speaker 1: and a World of Warcraft designer named Jonathan Lacraft. The
Speaker 1: company's statement is simply that these three are no longer
Speaker 1: working for the company, so there's no clarification there about
Speaker 1: how their terms of employment came to an end. We
Speaker 1: don't know if they were fired, or if they resigned
Speaker 1: or what. Kotak, who previously published photos of Lacraft and
Speaker 1: McCree in relation to what was called the Cosby Shrine,
Speaker 1: which was a suite connected to a fan event called
Speaker 1: blizz Con back in two thousand thirteen, And obviously it
Speaker 1: was in reference to the comedian Bill Cosby, which, if
Speaker 1: you know anything about you know the story of Bill
Speaker 1: Cosby's legal troubles. That implication is beyond horrifying, because that
Speaker 1: line of logic means the group was at least on
Speaker 1: some level condoning the idea of harassing and abusing women.
Speaker 1: So it may well be that this is Blizzard trying
Speaker 1: to clean house after insisting that its house was already clean.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I have no contacts within Blizzard, and
Speaker 1: so I have no clue if these employees were actually
Speaker 1: terminated or if they left on their own accord and
Speaker 1: chose to resign. Nor do I know what, if any
Speaker 1: part they played in the alleged hostile work environment. But
Speaker 1: it appears that the fallout from that issue is continuing
Speaker 1: back to tech and politics, which honestly I did not
Speaker 1: anticipate being something I would have to cover so frequently
Speaker 1: in this show. But the US Senate has introduced a
Speaker 1: piece of legislation aimed at taking some power away from
Speaker 1: platforms like Google and Apple app stores. This comes out
Speaker 1: of the Antitrust Committee in the Senate, which is a
Speaker 1: body that is dedicated to fighting anti competitive and monopolistic practices,
Speaker 1: and among the provisions in the legislation is a bit
Speaker 1: that says platforms should not be able to force app
Speaker 1: developers to use a platform provided payment system and that
Speaker 1: app developers should be able to use their own systems instead.
Speaker 1: So currently, companies like Apple and Google require apps that
Speaker 1: are available within their respective stores to conform to the
Speaker 1: platform payment systems, and the platforms take a cut, typically
Speaker 1: around thirty for all in app purchases, assuming the purchase
Speaker 1: isn't for some real world item or service. So for example,
Speaker 1: if I were playing a game and I wanted to
Speaker 1: make an in app purchase for game items within that game,
Speaker 1: then because I use Android, Google would take a thirty
Speaker 1: percent cut of that transaction. But if I use an
Speaker 1: app to order a pizza or use a ride hailing
Speaker 1: app like Uber or lift Google Google would not take
Speaker 1: a cut of that. It would be it's under a
Speaker 1: different set of rules. Anyway, This provision would allow pretty
Speaker 1: much everyone to use their own payment systems in lieu
Speaker 1: of you know, the official platform one and Another element
Speaker 1: of the bill would actually be specific to Apple. It
Speaker 1: would force Apple to allow users to sideload apps onto
Speaker 1: their owns, which means they would be able to bypass
Speaker 1: the Apple Store entirely. They could load in apps that
Speaker 1: Apple did not allow in the App store. Now, Apple
Speaker 1: maintains that it's policy of only allowing users to download
Speaker 1: apps from the official Apple App Store protects the users
Speaker 1: because each app has to pass approval before being allowed
Speaker 1: in the store. This, according to Apple, cuts back on
Speaker 1: malware and other issues, although those things still seem to
Speaker 1: creep through on occasion just but I would argue probably
Speaker 1: not nearly to the level that they would if that
Speaker 1: if that system weren't in place. But that's kind of
Speaker 1: Apple's policy. However, it also means that Apple is the
Speaker 1: sole arbiter of which apps iPhone users are allowed to
Speaker 1: load onto their phones, assuming those users haven't gone through
Speaker 1: the trouble of jail breaking their phones, which is a
Speaker 1: whole other thing. And we'll have to see how this progresses,
Speaker 1: because we're still a long way from this legislation actually
Speaker 1: becoming law. This is still in the formation stages. I
Speaker 1: suspect we're going to see a lot of changes to
Speaker 1: the language of that legislation introduced as Google and Apple
Speaker 1: way in through various lobbying efforts. We have a couple
Speaker 1: more stories, but before I get to that, let's take
Speaker 1: another quick break. Before the break, I was talking about Apple.
Speaker 1: It's time to talk about Apple a little bit more.
Speaker 1: The company's image scanning technology has recently come under fire
Speaker 1: from the Electronic Freedom Foundation or e ff SO. This
Speaker 1: technology scans images sent through eye message in an effort
Speaker 1: to detect and thus report on child exploitation and abuse.
Speaker 1: In other words, like this background technology is scanning stuff
Speaker 1: that otherwise is being sent privately between individuals to make
Speaker 1: sure that it's not in violation of this that it
Speaker 1: doesn't depict child abuse or exploitation. The e f F
Speaker 1: maintains that, you know, fighting those things as noble right.
Speaker 1: We want to protect children. However, the method that Apple
Speaker 1: is using is also open for abuse, namely that you know,
Speaker 1: Apple has now created a method to intercept and analyze
Speaker 1: material sent through eye message, and that's meant to be
Speaker 1: an end to end encryption communications channel that should provide
Speaker 1: secure and private communications between two people. That means that
Speaker 1: the whole secure thing there and private thing all that
Speaker 1: gets thrown out the window if you have a system
Speaker 1: that's actually analyzing the material being sent back and forth. Now,
Speaker 1: the e f F points out that governments, including the
Speaker 1: United States government, have frequently sought ways to get around
Speaker 1: encrypted communications channels, up to and including demanding that companies
Speaker 1: include a backdoor access so that they these various government
Speaker 1: agencies can actually see what's being sent back and forth.
Speaker 1: Companies like Apple traditionally have really resisted that, and this
Speaker 1: approach of creating these ways to get around encryption invariably
Speaker 1: creates a surveillance state that can grant more power to
Speaker 1: authoritarian leaders that they can then abuse, and the victims
Speaker 1: then are the citizens and others related to that government.
Speaker 1: This is one of those situations that's actually really really
Speaker 1: hard for me to grapple with because on the one hand,
Speaker 1: I absolutely want there to be more systems in place
Speaker 1: to protect children. I really want that. But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, I don't want that pursuit to then enable
Speaker 1: systems that could harm entire populations through misuse, where the
Speaker 1: cure ends up having its own kind of disease that
Speaker 1: affects society. I won't say it's ears than the disease,
Speaker 1: because it's hard for me to think of things that
Speaker 1: are worse than child abuse, but it could be another
Speaker 1: bad consequence of that solution, and the e f F
Speaker 1: warns that various governments and regimes around the world already
Speaker 1: are standing up to take advantage of Apple's decision and
Speaker 1: find ways to turn it to their own purposes for
Speaker 1: the you know, the aim of surveillance, and the e
Speaker 1: f F is adamant that Apple's choice ultimately weakens security
Speaker 1: and privacy, even if the intention behind the decision was
Speaker 1: a good one. This just points out that the world
Speaker 1: is an incredibly complicated place, and again, while technology can
Speaker 1: provide some tools for us to do things, sometimes the
Speaker 1: consequences of using those tools creates problems that are you know,
Speaker 1: as difficult as the one you were trying to solve
Speaker 1: in the first place. I think this might be the
Speaker 1: case here, and it really pains me to say that,
Speaker 1: because again, I want there to be systems in place
Speaker 1: to protect kids. But yeah, I don't know what the
Speaker 1: right answer is to this one either. I wish I did. Finally,
Speaker 1: and honestly, I apologize for not making this the top
Speaker 1: story for today. Twitter, Hold onto your Butts is rolling
Speaker 1: out a change in the font it uses to display messages. Yes,
Speaker 1: you heard me correctly. Twitter is creating and rolling out
Speaker 1: a new font called chirp into its apps and on
Speaker 1: the web based feeds. Now. The rollout is in stages,
Speaker 1: so you may or may not be able to see
Speaker 1: it right now. According to Twitter's blog, the font quote
Speaker 1: strikes the balance between messy and sharp to amplify the
Speaker 1: fund and irreverence of a tweet, but can also carry
Speaker 1: the weight of seriousness when needed. End quote. Which, you know,
Speaker 1: that's a huge relief to me, because I'm glad that
Speaker 1: my dumb dad joke tweets can joy a boost of
Speaker 1: jocularity from this font, while at the same time, those
Speaker 1: people who are using Twitter to you know, advance real
Speaker 1: world important social movements, or, if you prefer, those who
Speaker 1: are spreading crazy misinformation can lean more heavily on how
Speaker 1: this font also supports the serious side. I mean, who
Speaker 1: knew that fonts were so fundamental to conveying the intent
Speaker 1: of a message. Also, full disclosure, I totally didn't notice
Speaker 1: that this thing changed, that the font changed at all,
Speaker 1: although that could say a lot more about my lack
Speaker 1: of skill in the Observation Department than anything else. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's rolled out to me. Even
Speaker 1: when I was looking at a news article that was
Speaker 1: talking about this and had pictures of examples of the font,
Speaker 1: I thought, huh, I guess that's different. I would need
Speaker 1: to have a side by side and then I would.
Speaker 1: I'm sure I would notice it, but I guess I
Speaker 1: just never really put much stock in the font. So
Speaker 1: this I missed the boat. That's it for the news
Speaker 1: for today, Thursday, August one. If you have suggestions for
Speaker 1: topics I should cover in tech Stuff, please reach out
Speaker 1: to me on Twitter. The handle is text stuff H
Speaker 1: s W and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Speaker 1: Text Stuff is an I Heart Radio production. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.