Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech
Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday
Speaker 1: August thirty, first, twenty twenty three. Where does the time go? Well,
Speaker 1: you might be familiar with the fact that Meta has
Speaker 1: an oversight board, which it established in the wake of
Speaker 1: banning former President Donald Trump from Facebook a few years ago.
Speaker 1: So the board's purpose is to make recommendations and also
Speaker 1: to review Meta's decisions to try and keep the company
Speaker 1: in line with its stated policies. So essentially, it's to
Speaker 1: make sure that Meta is obeying its own rules. But
Speaker 1: the thing is, Meta is not actually under any obligation
Speaker 1: to follow whatever the oversight board recommends. So the board
Speaker 1: can make recommendations and urge Metta to make changes, but
Speaker 1: Metta doesn't actually have to do any of that at all,
Speaker 1: which might make you wonder what purpose does the board
Speaker 1: actually serve apart from optics. I don't have an answer
Speaker 1: to that anyway, The issue has cropped up again this
Speaker 1: week because the oversight board advised Meta to suspend the
Speaker 1: Facebook account belonging to Hun Sen, a politician, a leader
Speaker 1: in Cambodia. Hun Sen has a pretty awful international reputation.
Speaker 1: He's dedicated a lot of effort to squashing independent press
Speaker 1: and critics and activists, as well as the fact that
Speaker 1: despite him being a democratically elected official, he wants to
Speaker 1: pass his position down to his son and make a
Speaker 1: hereditary position, not an elected one anyway. Recently, Hunsen posted
Speaker 1: a video that contained many threatenings statements, including the promise
Speaker 1: to quote arrest a trader with sufficient evidence at midnight
Speaker 1: end quote, according to The Washington Post, and so the
Speaker 1: oversight board recommended to Meta that they suspend his Facebook
Speaker 1: account instead. Meta Leadership has chosen to allow Hunsen to
Speaker 1: keep his Facebook profile, although they did remove the video
Speaker 1: in question after it had been up for half a year.
Speaker 1: As for the justification of allowing Hunsen to keep his profile,
Speaker 1: Meta said it's because that while Hunsen's video contains stuff
Speaker 1: that clearly violates Facebook policies, the video itself wasn't posted
Speaker 1: during a time of civil unrest, and apparently civil unrest
Speaker 1: is a prerequisite for Meta to suspend the accounts that
Speaker 1: belong to public figures. The board states that hun Sen's
Speaker 1: post undermine democracy in Cambodia, and as such, Facebook shares
Speaker 1: responsibility for elevating Hunsen's platform, and therefore, you know, they
Speaker 1: should probably stop doing that because it's undermining the democratic process.
Speaker 1: Perhaps the threat of seeing Facebook access restricted in Cambodia,
Speaker 1: because that's something that Hunsen's administration was threatening, has also
Speaker 1: played a part in the company's decisions to dismiss the
Speaker 1: board's opinion on this particular matter. Also, like I said,
Speaker 1: they left that video up for half a year. They
Speaker 1: only took it down when the Oversight Board started to
Speaker 1: bring their concerns forward to Meta officials, and it was
Speaker 1: clearly violating Facebook's policies, but it stayed up for half
Speaker 1: a year. Human rights advocates continue to criticize Meta for
Speaker 1: failing to show concern for user safety as well as
Speaker 1: the democratic process in general, and those, of course, are
Speaker 1: charges that Meta representatives deny. That being said, Meta has
Speaker 1: reported that the company has removed more than seven seven
Speaker 1: hundred accounts on Facebook that they say have links to
Speaker 1: a Chinese backed misinformation campaign. Further, according to Meta, this
Speaker 1: campaign hits a broad spectrum of social platforms, Beyond just
Speaker 1: the Meta ones like Facebook and Instagram, they include TikTok, Reddit, YouTube,
Speaker 1: and Twitter slash x. According to Meta, the main goal
Speaker 1: for this campaign was to control the narrative regarding China's
Speaker 1: human rights record. Essentially, the campaign looked to redirect attention
Speaker 1: away from some truly horrific human rights violations, which is
Speaker 1: putting it lightly, and instead to proclaim China's actually, you know,
Speaker 1: really valuing human rights. Actually. According to Meta, many of
Speaker 1: the profiles started out posting about stuff that didn't have
Speaker 1: anything to do with human rights or politics, and they
Speaker 1: were posting a lot of the same videos and pictures
Speaker 1: that were focusing on stuff like food and fashion, things
Speaker 1: that were not triggering as far as you know, saying oh,
Speaker 1: this is a misinformation campaign. But gradually the accounts began
Speaker 1: to incorporate China messages and also heap criticism on the
Speaker 1: United States government as well as some other Western governments.
Speaker 1: And Meta has said that the people responsible for running
Speaker 1: the campaign they appear to be spread across China, but
Speaker 1: they're all pulling content from the same source, and that
Speaker 1: it's all likely connected to Chinese law enforcement. This is
Speaker 1: by no means the only coordinated state backed effort to
Speaker 1: leverage social platforms in order to spread misinformation. Meta representatives
Speaker 1: noted that similar campaigns have originated out of places like Russia, Iran,
Speaker 1: and Turkey. The Verge reports that the Allen Institute for
Speaker 1: AI has released a new tool called Satlus. This tool
Speaker 1: can do something to satellite imagery that makes me think
Speaker 1: of the old Hollywood trope of zoom in enhance. Like
Speaker 1: if you've ever seen any of those movies where someone's
Speaker 1: looking at camera footage and they want the operator to
Speaker 1: magically zoom in on one little corner of the footage
Speaker 1: and then enhance it so you can see who it was.
Speaker 1: You know that is mostly bogus as far as it goes,
Speaker 1: because you can't you can digitally punch in on an image.
Speaker 1: That's entirely possible. You know that, because I'm sure you've
Speaker 1: cropped videos and images before. But you can't really enhance
Speaker 1: an image without inserting new information, right. You have to
Speaker 1: add information there. You can't just magically get access to information.
Speaker 1: It's not like the information was sitting there all along
Speaker 1: and you just had to zoom to see it. You
Speaker 1: have to add information to be able to quote unquote
Speaker 1: enhance That kind of is counter to identifying someone because
Speaker 1: you don't know if the information you're adding is accurate
Speaker 1: or not. But that's kind of what satlust is doing.
Speaker 1: It sharpens satellite imagery by using deep learning to best
Speaker 1: fill in details to make those images less blurry and
Speaker 1: higher resolution. As for practical applications, the institute is focusing
Speaker 1: pun intended on getting information about, you know, tree cover
Speaker 1: and renewable energy projects that are going on around the world.
Speaker 1: That data can then be part of a larger picture
Speaker 1: about climate change and conservation and renewable energy. So the
Speaker 1: hope is that by collecting information on a global scale,
Speaker 1: scientists and activists can have a more accurate picture of
Speaker 1: what's actually going on around the world where we could
Speaker 1: perhaps concentrate future efforts to have the biggest impact, and
Speaker 1: also to gain an idea of just how well or
Speaker 1: how poorly policymakers are progressing with various plans to combat
Speaker 1: climate change. Are they actually following through on their promises
Speaker 1: or are the results antithetical to the goal of ending
Speaker 1: climate change? And it's nice to have a new piece
Speaker 1: about AI that's not a totally negative one, Like it's
Speaker 1: nice to have something about AI where you start to see, oh,
Speaker 1: this could be potentially really useful. However, I should point
Speaker 1: out that the researchers who are working on this tool
Speaker 1: have already noted that, just like other generative AI tools,
Speaker 1: is not immune to hallucinations. That's when generative AI ends
Speaker 1: up making stuff up when it determines it doesn't have
Speaker 1: enough information to provide a good answer. So in the
Speaker 1: case of SATLUS, sometimes that manifests as the tool drawing
Speaker 1: building details incorrectly, and that could possibly be due to
Speaker 1: things like the fact that architectural styles are not uniform
Speaker 1: around the world, so it may be drawing from its
Speaker 1: quote unquote knowledge of architecture in one part of the
Speaker 1: world and then just applying those principles to another to
Speaker 1: try and complete a picture, when in fact that just
Speaker 1: ends up making it inaccurate. So it's by far a
Speaker 1: perfect tool, but it is an interesting application of generative
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence. The United States Federal Communications Commission, or FCC,
Speaker 1: has some bad news for Internet service providers that have
Speaker 1: been complaining that it's just too darn hard to list
Speaker 1: out every fee they charge their customers each month. And
Speaker 1: the bad news the FCC has is well tough because
Speaker 1: he gotta. Five trade groups representing some of the biggest
Speaker 1: broadband providers in the United States petitioned the FCC to
Speaker 1: drop this requirement because, according to them, listing out all
Speaker 1: the fees creates quote unquote significant administrative burdens. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure how supplying essentially a bulleted list of various fees
Speaker 1: is an administrative burden, but charging customers those fees isn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously the companies have to know what the
Speaker 1: fees are. Otherwise how could they charge customers, Like, how
Speaker 1: could they do that? So shouldn't the customer know what
Speaker 1: fees they are having to pay? So they've said to
Speaker 1: the FCC, No, no, this would be too hard, don't
Speaker 1: make us do this. But the FCC has not budged
Speaker 1: and said that the rules will go into effect and
Speaker 1: that the broadband companies will not be getting any exceptions
Speaker 1: or exemptions or anything like that. One FCC representative said, quote,
Speaker 1: every consumer needs transparent information when making decisions about what
Speaker 1: internet service offering makes the most sense for their family
Speaker 1: or household. No one wants to be hit with charges
Speaker 1: they didn't ask for or they did not expect end
Speaker 1: quote to which I say, you're doggone right. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure I'm not the only one who is just
Speaker 1: sick of the experience where you think you're going to
Speaker 1: pay one price for a product or a service, but
Speaker 1: then you find out that there were all these other
Speaker 1: extra fees that get added on at the very end
Speaker 1: of the transaction and it inflates the cost significantly. It's
Speaker 1: not just broadband that does this, obviously, I'm looking at you,
Speaker 1: ticket Master, your convenience fees convenient for whom? Okay, who
Speaker 1: to whom? Is that convenient? Anyway? Why would broad band
Speaker 1: companies oppose listing out all these fees, Well, it's not
Speaker 1: because it's an administrative burden. It's likely because that there
Speaker 1: are some charges that the government man dates that these
Speaker 1: companies pay, and one of the things that will have
Speaker 1: to happen by detailing all these different fees is that
Speaker 1: the companies are going to have to show when and
Speaker 1: how they pass those charges on to customers. So instead
Speaker 1: of it being that it's the company's burden to pay
Speaker 1: these fees, it's really the customer's burden to pay the fees,
Speaker 1: because the company just passes the charge straight on to them,
Speaker 1: which might be a little off putting. Also, there are
Speaker 1: other fees that these companies add on that are not
Speaker 1: mandated by the government, and by showing those, the companies
Speaker 1: might be worried that they're going to really upset their customers,
Speaker 1: who are like, yeah, but why does this fee exist?
Speaker 1: And there may not be a good reason other than
Speaker 1: we want your money. So there are lots of reasons
Speaker 1: why companies could be opposing this, but so far, the
Speaker 1: FCC hasn't budged that. Being said, the FCC, while it
Speaker 1: does technically have the authority to do this, the whole
Speaker 1: thing is still under review, so it's entirely possible that
Speaker 1: another department within the government will change things. Anyway, we
Speaker 1: just have to wait and see. Okay, I have a
Speaker 1: few more news stories before we wrap up, but first
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. We're back. So X, formerly
Speaker 1: known as Twitter, has asked a judge to dismiss a
Speaker 1: pending lawsuit against the company that accuses it of disproportionately
Speaker 1: laying off older workers once Elon Musk took over. So
Speaker 1: discriminating employees on the basis of age is absolutely against
Speaker 1: the law, and the lawsuit says that's essentially what happened
Speaker 1: during the massive layoffs at the company. So, according to
Speaker 1: this lawsuit, X laid off sixty percent of workers who
Speaker 1: were fifty years of age or older. If they were
Speaker 1: over the age of sixty, the percentage was closer to
Speaker 1: seventy five percent, and younger employees saw layoff rates at
Speaker 1: around fifty four percent. So essentially, what the lawsuit is
Speaker 1: saying is that if age were not a factor, you
Speaker 1: should see this layoff percentage be pretty even across all
Speaker 1: age groups, but it's not. It's higher for people who
Speaker 1: were older. The judge has not dismissed the case. They
Speaker 1: denied X's request to dismiss it. However, they did instruct
Speaker 1: the plaintiff that the lawsuit needs to be amended and
Speaker 1: have better evidence to support the claim that the company
Speaker 1: intentionally was laying off older workers or targeting over workers
Speaker 1: during the layoffs, because as of yet, the current lawsuit
Speaker 1: does not lay that out clearly enough, according to the judge,
Speaker 1: So we'll have to wait and see if this moves forward. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: X is rolling out some new features. First up, if
Speaker 1: you're a paid user on the X platform, you'll be
Speaker 1: able to hide your likes. That means that other users
Speaker 1: will not be able to pop onto your profile and
Speaker 1: click on the little likes tab and get a look
Speaker 1: at which posts you have liked in the past. They
Speaker 1: will be able to see if you've liked an individual post.
Speaker 1: Right if you've happened to like a post and they
Speaker 1: see that post, they can see that you liked it,
Speaker 1: but they won't have that aggregated tab that they can
Speaker 1: check out to see if you're liking lots of stuff
Speaker 1: that maybe you'd prefer people not see. If you're going
Speaker 1: around liking a lot of folks who have very controversial opinions,
Speaker 1: you might not want folks to know that about you,
Speaker 1: for example. Now, on top of that, Elon Musk posted
Speaker 1: earlier today, In fact, in the wee hours of the morning,
Speaker 1: he posted that quote, video and audio calls coming to
Speaker 1: X works on iOS, Android, Mac, and PC. No phone
Speaker 1: number needed. X is the effective global address book. That
Speaker 1: set of factors is unique. End quote. Now, he did
Speaker 1: not indicate when this feature might actually launch. We also
Speaker 1: don't know if it's going to be platform wide or
Speaker 1: if it's only going to be a to paid subscribers.
Speaker 1: I'd be shocked if it's available to just the general
Speaker 1: populace of X. And I'm also wondering how it's gonna
Speaker 1: work because I'm hoping that this feature won't allow just
Speaker 1: anyone to make video or phone calls to anybody else
Speaker 1: who's on the platform. That seems like that's a terrible idea,
Speaker 1: So I imagine it's going to rely on something like
Speaker 1: both people have to follow one another first before you
Speaker 1: can make a call, Like you couldn't just call someone
Speaker 1: you know, like cold call them or whatever. Otherwise people,
Speaker 1: especially like notable people, would have their phones blowing up
Speaker 1: all the time from phone calls and video call requests,
Speaker 1: and that just seems like it's a great way to
Speaker 1: drive people off your platform. So as much grief as
Speaker 1: I give Elan Musk and the companies he owns or runs,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any way this feature is going
Speaker 1: out without some serious guardrails in place. I'll be shocked
Speaker 1: if he lets it go out without any restrictions at all.
Speaker 1: So we'll see Back In October of twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: Google introduced a new subscription service called pixel Pass, and
Speaker 1: the idea was that you would subscribe to this service
Speaker 1: and you would get certain features, including some discounts on
Speaker 1: other Google services, but you would also get a Pixel phone.
Speaker 1: The type of phone you got would depend upon the
Speaker 1: level at which you subscribed, and then every two years
Speaker 1: you would get an upgrade to your phone as long
Speaker 1: as you were still subscribed to the service, so two
Speaker 1: years later you would get a brand new, state of
Speaker 1: the art Pixel phone. It has been twenty two months
Speaker 1: since Google launched the program, which means were just two
Speaker 1: months out from the early adopters of that program getting
Speaker 1: their first phone upgrade, which they will not get because
Speaker 1: Google has scrapped the program just as those who had
Speaker 1: signed up were about to get their brand new phone.
Speaker 1: Google has decided the program is not working. They're canceling it,
Speaker 1: which is kind of a bummer. They will continue to
Speaker 1: provide service throughout the rest of the term of the subscription,
Speaker 1: They're just not going to ship out any new phones
Speaker 1: to subscribers and they're not renewing any subscriptions. So the
Speaker 1: phone upgrade was a feature of this plan. It wasn't
Speaker 1: the only one, but still it is a big bummer
Speaker 1: to have the rug pulled out for the subscribers who
Speaker 1: were just about to get a brand new phone. So
Speaker 1: Google has altered the deal pray they do not alter
Speaker 1: it further. A US science organization called noir Lab, which
Speaker 1: has the coolest name ever, it actually stands for the
Speaker 1: National Optical Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, has said that hackers
Speaker 1: have been targeting its telescopes and has brought down those
Speaker 1: telescopes as well as the organization's website. The two big
Speaker 1: telescopes that hackers have attacked are in Hawaii and Chile.
Speaker 1: The organization says it's working with cybersecurity experts to return
Speaker 1: the telescopes and the website to operational status as soon
Speaker 1: as possible. That was on August twenty fourth. The most
Speaker 1: recent reporting I could find doesn't have any information on
Speaker 1: who might be behind these attacks or what their motivations
Speaker 1: could be. That's not to say that the cybersecurity experts
Speaker 1: don't have suspicions, or maybe that they you know, they
Speaker 1: may already know who is responsible. They could just be
Speaker 1: playing things close to the vest right now. We just
Speaker 1: don't know. Yikes and now heads up, PlayStation owners, if
Speaker 1: you subscribe to PlayStation Plus, expect your monthly bill to
Speaker 1: go up starting September sixth unless you take action soon.
Speaker 1: Sony is increasing the annual prices on each of the
Speaker 1: three tiers of PlayStation Plus. So the base level was
Speaker 1: sixty dollars per year, now it's going to be eighty
Speaker 1: dollars per year. The Extra Plan went from one hundred bucks,
Speaker 1: it'll go to one hundred thirty five bucks a year,
Speaker 1: and the Premium plan is going from one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty dollars a year to one hundred and sixty dollars
Speaker 1: a year. So, in other words, Tier one is increasing
Speaker 1: by twenty bucks per year, Tier two by thirty five
Speaker 1: five bucks per year, and Tier three forty bucks per year.
Speaker 1: So not only is everything getting more expensive, but the
Speaker 1: higher the tier, the more expensive it's getting. Now these
Speaker 1: are the annual fee versions. If instead you're set up
Speaker 1: to pay monthly or quarterly, there's no word yet on
Speaker 1: whether those prices are going to change, but as it stands,
Speaker 1: if you do pay for a full year, no matter
Speaker 1: what the tier, it's still less expensive than subscribing monthly
Speaker 1: or quarterly. You would be paying more per year if
Speaker 1: you do it that way than if you do annually,
Speaker 1: even with these price hikes. So the thing I would
Speaker 1: alert you to is that you can actually stack years
Speaker 1: onto your subscription. You can pre pay for years, so
Speaker 1: if you go in and pre pay for a year
Speaker 1: or two or three, you can actually extend your current
Speaker 1: subscription at the current prices before those price hikes go
Speaker 1: into effect. So just a little heads up for y'all.
Speaker 1: All right, that's it for the news. I hope you
Speaker 1: are all well, and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Speaker 1: Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.