1
00:00:04,200 --> 00:00:05,920
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production

2
00:00:05,960 --> 00:00:13,640
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridgett and this is

3
00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:18,079
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet. I am here

4
00:00:18,079 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 1: with my producer Mike. Mike, thank you so much for

5
00:00:20,239 --> 00:00:20,599
Speaker 1: being here.

6
00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:22,959
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me Bridget and I'm excited to talk

7
00:00:23,079 --> 00:00:24,320
Speaker 2: all about the tech news.

8
00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:26,439
Speaker 1: And here's what you may have missed this week on

9
00:00:26,520 --> 00:00:30,000
Speaker 1: the Internet. So we're gonna be kind of mixing it

10
00:00:30,080 --> 00:00:33,920
Speaker 1: up a little bit today. Honestly, there was so much

11
00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:36,960
Speaker 1: to talk about. A lot of it is related to Twitter.

12
00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:39,239
Speaker 1: So we're gonna start with some news that you might

13
00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:40,920
Speaker 1: have missed and then do a bit of a deep

14
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:42,680
Speaker 1: dive on Twitter. Mike, how does that sound?

15
00:00:43,040 --> 00:00:43,920
Speaker 3: It sounds pretty good.

16
00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:46,440
Speaker 2: I hope people are ready, because there's a lot to

17
00:00:46,479 --> 00:00:47,280
Speaker 2: say about Twitter.

18
00:00:48,800 --> 00:00:51,320
Speaker 1: I know it's like a we do our little segment

19
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:56,120
Speaker 1: what's Elon Musk up to? And this is like an extended,

20
00:00:56,440 --> 00:01:00,080
Speaker 1: supersized version of what Elon Musk is up to. I

21
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:02,760
Speaker 1: hope y'all are ready, But first let's talk about what

22
00:01:02,760 --> 00:01:06,440
Speaker 1: else is going on. So this is a little bit delicate.

23
00:01:06,720 --> 00:01:10,000
Speaker 1: I don't make any kind of judgments about what kind

24
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:17,440
Speaker 1: of extra curricular internet searching activities listeners and folks are

25
00:01:17,520 --> 00:01:21,119
Speaker 1: up to. However, here is some news because if you've

26
00:01:21,160 --> 00:01:24,759
Speaker 1: tried to watch pornography online recently, you might have encountered

27
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:27,760
Speaker 1: some trouble. And that's because a handful of states have

28
00:01:27,880 --> 00:01:31,760
Speaker 1: rolled out age verification policies to access adult sites, where

29
00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:35,440
Speaker 1: folks have to essentially prove that they're over eighteen. So,

30
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:37,600
Speaker 1: if you've ever spent any time at all on adult

31
00:01:37,720 --> 00:01:41,560
Speaker 1: sites more recently, it's been like a little checkbox that

32
00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:43,720
Speaker 1: you have to check to confirm that you are over

33
00:01:43,720 --> 00:01:46,560
Speaker 1: the age of eighteen. It feels pretty loose, like I

34
00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:48,560
Speaker 1: think you could probably just say I am over the

35
00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: age of eighteen, and I don't think it doesn't really

36
00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 1: stop you from lying about that if that's what you

37
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:56,640
Speaker 1: want to do. But that is no longer the case now.

38
00:01:56,680 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 1: When you go to sites like porn hub in these states,

39
00:01:59,280 --> 00:02:02,040
Speaker 1: it redirects you to a government run website to prove

40
00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:04,920
Speaker 1: that you were over eighteen by submitting your government ID,

41
00:02:05,240 --> 00:02:10,920
Speaker 1: driver's license, or passport information. Currently, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, and

42
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:14,519
Speaker 1: Utah all have these policies in place. Virginia's went into

43
00:02:14,520 --> 00:02:17,920
Speaker 1: effect just last week, and according to the Verge, traffic

44
00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 1: dropped by eighty percent for Pornhub after it first began

45
00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:24,919
Speaker 1: enforcing age verification in Louisiana earlier this year, and after that,

46
00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:29,600
Speaker 1: it sounds like Pornhub just decided to start taking its

47
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:34,760
Speaker 1: sites offline instead of enforcing this age verification policy, so

48
00:02:35,320 --> 00:02:39,440
Speaker 1: just sidestepping the issue altogether, kind of in protest. So

49
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:42,440
Speaker 1: that also goes for other porn tube sites that its

50
00:02:42,480 --> 00:02:45,160
Speaker 1: parent company runs, like red Tube. So that means that

51
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:48,080
Speaker 1: thanks to Virginia's new rollout of this law, users in

52
00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:51,720
Speaker 1: Virginia will not be able to access porn tube sites

53
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 1: like red Tube or Pornhub either. Perhaps not surprisingly last week,

54
00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:59,639
Speaker 1: in the days immediately following this policy going into effect,

55
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:03,720
Speaker 1: according to Google Trends, Virginia ranked as the highest state

56
00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:07,000
Speaker 1: when it came to searches for VPNs or virtual private

57
00:03:07,040 --> 00:03:12,160
Speaker 1: networks networks that allow you to circumvent these location specific

58
00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:15,480
Speaker 1: barriers to accessing websites. So I don't know if this

59
00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:20,280
Speaker 1: is tacky to mention, but at one point ExpressVPN as

60
00:03:20,280 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: a sponsor of the show. I don't think they are

61
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:25,560
Speaker 1: anymore as a as a What's Your Producer had on Mike,

62
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:29,360
Speaker 1: is it taky to throw out the promo code for

63
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:31,240
Speaker 1: folks who want to try out ExpressVPN?

64
00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:36,680
Speaker 2: I don't think so. You know, it's a useful service.

65
00:03:36,760 --> 00:03:40,600
Speaker 2: We like ExpressVPN. Maybe they want to sponsor us again,

66
00:03:40,640 --> 00:03:43,760
Speaker 2: we'd love to have them back. But in the meantime, yeah,

67
00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:47,880
Speaker 2: maybe listeners want a three three months off their subscription.

68
00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:49,240
Speaker 2: Where can they go to get that?

69
00:03:49,320 --> 00:03:52,080
Speaker 1: Bridget You can go to ExpressVPN dot com slash no

70
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:54,360
Speaker 1: girls to get an extra three months off with a

71
00:03:54,400 --> 00:03:58,520
Speaker 1: twelve month plan. Yeah, I this is again, this is

72
00:03:58,560 --> 00:04:01,000
Speaker 1: They're not paying me to say this. I'm a big

73
00:04:01,080 --> 00:04:04,400
Speaker 1: fan of VPNs. I think it's just a good thing

74
00:04:04,440 --> 00:04:06,400
Speaker 1: to have, especially when that's like super easy to use,

75
00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:09,040
Speaker 1: hit a button and then you know it's working behind

76
00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 1: the scenes. But I do think that legislation like this,

77
00:04:13,880 --> 00:04:16,000
Speaker 1: I think that we're going to be seeing more and

78
00:04:16,120 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 1: more location specific internet legislation, and so having a VPN

79
00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:23,560
Speaker 1: knowing how to use one wouldn't be the worst idea

80
00:04:23,560 --> 00:04:25,680
Speaker 1: in the world for somebody, even if you were you know,

81
00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: don't think of yourself as a techie who's going to

82
00:04:27,960 --> 00:04:29,640
Speaker 1: need it. Do you remember that time that I was

83
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:31,599
Speaker 1: in South Africa? And you were in the United States

84
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:34,279
Speaker 1: and you wanted to watch Weekend at Bernie's two, and

85
00:04:34,360 --> 00:04:37,000
Speaker 1: it was available in its entirety on YouTube in South

86
00:04:37,040 --> 00:04:40,520
Speaker 1: Africa but not in the United States. So you used

87
00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:43,360
Speaker 1: a VPN to try to access it, and then you couldn't,

88
00:04:43,360 --> 00:04:46,400
Speaker 1: and we ended up doing like a zoom screen share

89
00:04:46,520 --> 00:04:48,960
Speaker 1: so that we can both be watching at the same time.

90
00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:53,679
Speaker 2: It was a very bad cinematic experience, but we did

91
00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:56,039
Speaker 2: technically watch that movie.

92
00:04:55,880 --> 00:05:00,000
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks to VPNs. So I think that age verification

93
00:05:00,120 --> 00:05:03,320
Speaker 1: online is a terrible idea for so many reasons, not

94
00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:06,000
Speaker 1: the least of which is that it just doesn't really work.

95
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: The day that the Virginia law took up that last week,

96
00:05:08,600 --> 00:05:11,080
Speaker 1: people on Reddit were complaining about not being able to

97
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:14,880
Speaker 1: access porn sites despite not living in or near the

98
00:05:14,920 --> 00:05:18,160
Speaker 1: states where it's the law. That's because IP addresses are

99
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:22,040
Speaker 1: notoriously kind of janky at being able to actually locate

100
00:05:22,080 --> 00:05:25,240
Speaker 1: where a user is. For instance, here in DC, it's

101
00:05:25,279 --> 00:05:28,360
Speaker 1: not terribly unusual for a user's IP address to say

102
00:05:28,400 --> 00:05:30,880
Speaker 1: that they're in a nearby state like Virginia or Maryland,

103
00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:33,000
Speaker 1: even if they have never been to one of those states.

104
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:34,480
Speaker 1: Because it's a little bit chanky.

105
00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:36,279
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's true.

106
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:40,200
Speaker 2: So in some of my research, we try to geolocate

107
00:05:40,240 --> 00:05:44,440
Speaker 2: people who use various digital tools that we provide, and

108
00:05:44,480 --> 00:05:47,480
Speaker 2: it's hard to geolocate people.

109
00:05:47,560 --> 00:05:51,640
Speaker 3: IP addresses just very unreliable.

110
00:05:51,120 --> 00:05:53,839
Speaker 1: And personally, I don't think that we should be getting

111
00:05:53,839 --> 00:05:55,960
Speaker 1: in the habit of being comfortable with having to give

112
00:05:56,000 --> 00:05:59,560
Speaker 1: over our real names and government information and IDs in

113
00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:03,240
Speaker 1: order to access the Internet. Our government does not keep

114
00:06:03,279 --> 00:06:06,720
Speaker 1: our private data secure and private right now. In our

115
00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:09,960
Speaker 1: episode about Doc Saying with Shanna Sigelow, the digital security expert,

116
00:06:10,200 --> 00:06:12,600
Speaker 1: we talked all about how if you've ever voted, or

117
00:06:12,680 --> 00:06:16,400
Speaker 1: paid a parking ticket, or had the power or electricity

118
00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:19,800
Speaker 1: turned on in your apartment, your state or local government

119
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:22,400
Speaker 1: could be selling your personal data to whoever wants it

120
00:06:22,440 --> 00:06:25,600
Speaker 1: because that's what they do. And so I think giving

121
00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:29,120
Speaker 1: over more of our information under the guise of like,

122
00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:31,840
Speaker 1: keeping us safer, just does it make sense to me,

123
00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 1: especially when it's under the guise of like, quote protecting

124
00:06:35,279 --> 00:06:38,320
Speaker 1: kids online, because if we really cared about protecting kids online,

125
00:06:38,440 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 1: there's one hundred other things that we would be doing

126
00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:44,840
Speaker 1: to actually protect them from the corporate Internet forces that

127
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:47,400
Speaker 1: we know are exploiting and harming them, and I think

128
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:51,040
Speaker 1: Wired really summarized it well. They right, the Internet isn't

129
00:06:51,080 --> 00:06:54,960
Speaker 1: a child friendly place. However, introducing age verification across the

130
00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:58,279
Speaker 1: web is technical and complex. In twenty nineteen, the UK

131
00:06:58,440 --> 00:07:01,120
Speaker 1: ditched a multi year plan to in introduced age checks

132
00:07:01,120 --> 00:07:04,800
Speaker 1: after encountering myriad problems. The porn we watch is also

133
00:07:04,920 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 1: highly sensitive, kinks are incredibly personal, and leaks of data

134
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:12,640
Speaker 1: online can be devastating. Privacy advocates, porn companies, and some

135
00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:17,560
Speaker 1: regulators say the move to introduce age verification introduces significant problems.

136
00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:20,880
Speaker 1: The concerns about young people accessing adult websites are real

137
00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:24,520
Speaker 1: and widespread. Less widespread is the understanding of the limitations

138
00:07:24,520 --> 00:07:27,640
Speaker 1: of various age verification tools and the new dangers they

139
00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:30,720
Speaker 1: might pose. This is from Arena Resu, director of the

140
00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:34,640
Speaker 1: Internet Ethics Program at Santa Clara University's Marcula Center. Many

141
00:07:34,680 --> 00:07:37,640
Speaker 1: regulators and others seem to think of age verification as

142
00:07:37,640 --> 00:07:42,440
Speaker 1: a solved problem. Technologists and privacy activists, including activists focused

143
00:07:42,440 --> 00:07:45,160
Speaker 1: on protecting children, are trying to explain that that's not

144
00:07:45,240 --> 00:07:49,480
Speaker 1: the case. And I think that's absolutely true. I think

145
00:07:49,520 --> 00:07:53,679
Speaker 1: that you know, when we talk about legislation state specific legislation,

146
00:07:53,720 --> 00:07:57,200
Speaker 1: for instance, around TikTok bands and things like that. I

147
00:07:57,320 --> 00:08:02,920
Speaker 1: think that giving giving states and platforms more access to

148
00:08:02,960 --> 00:08:06,280
Speaker 1: information about us, I find that a really wonky explanation

149
00:08:06,320 --> 00:08:08,680
Speaker 1: for how that's supposed to make us more secure online.

150
00:08:08,760 --> 00:08:11,559
Speaker 1: And we just know how legislation can creep when people

151
00:08:11,560 --> 00:08:14,440
Speaker 1: feel motivated by a desire to protect kids online, like

152
00:08:14,480 --> 00:08:18,120
Speaker 1: in Mississippi. For example, Another piece of new legislation means

153
00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:21,120
Speaker 1: that nobody under the age of eighteen will have access

154
00:08:21,160 --> 00:08:24,800
Speaker 1: to digital materials made available through public and school libraries

155
00:08:24,960 --> 00:08:29,600
Speaker 1: without explicit parent or guardian permission, So no Libby access

156
00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:33,000
Speaker 1: for ebooks for teens, and book Riot reports that even

157
00:08:33,040 --> 00:08:36,200
Speaker 1: if they do get a parent's permission, miners can't access

158
00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:39,560
Speaker 1: digital materials if vendors do not ensure that every single

159
00:08:39,640 --> 00:08:43,720
Speaker 1: item within their offerings meets this new, wide reaching definition

160
00:08:43,840 --> 00:08:47,760
Speaker 1: of quote obscendity. Per the state, This legislation went to

161
00:08:47,800 --> 00:08:51,120
Speaker 1: affect July first, and libraries had to sort of scramble

162
00:08:51,320 --> 00:08:53,160
Speaker 1: to figure out how to comply with it.

163
00:08:53,880 --> 00:08:58,280
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not clear what harm they're trying to solve here.

164
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:00,640
Speaker 2: I guess they're going to I guess the goal here

165
00:09:00,920 --> 00:09:06,560
Speaker 2: is to protect kids from pornography, which, like I said,

166
00:09:06,640 --> 00:09:11,000
Speaker 2: is a reasonable, laudable goal that I think.

167
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:12,160
Speaker 3: Most people could get behind.

168
00:09:12,280 --> 00:09:16,679
Speaker 2: But it seems like the result of this law is

169
00:09:17,800 --> 00:09:22,200
Speaker 2: like huge numbers of adults not being able to access

170
00:09:23,040 --> 00:09:25,800
Speaker 2: something that they should have every right to be able

171
00:09:25,800 --> 00:09:31,240
Speaker 2: to access. And I completely agree that it is scary

172
00:09:31,640 --> 00:09:35,240
Speaker 2: to have to enter your government ID to do something

173
00:09:35,360 --> 00:09:41,280
Speaker 2: that some people in power have decided is not okay, right,

174
00:09:41,320 --> 00:09:43,720
Speaker 2: because you have to imagine that part of the goal

175
00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:48,720
Speaker 2: here is just to like eliminate pornography entirely, which is

176
00:09:48,840 --> 00:09:52,440
Speaker 2: a laughable goal. But you know, these a lot of

177
00:09:52,440 --> 00:09:56,240
Speaker 2: these people who are caught up in this moral panic

178
00:09:56,320 --> 00:09:57,600
Speaker 2: about protecting the kids.

179
00:09:57,920 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 3: It's not like.

180
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:03,760
Speaker 2: They are coming from a place of you know, evidence

181
00:10:03,800 --> 00:10:08,800
Speaker 2: based concern or evidence based solutions to actual problems, right.

182
00:10:08,840 --> 00:10:12,319
Speaker 2: They're like living in a fantasy land where librarians are

183
00:10:12,440 --> 00:10:17,040
Speaker 2: grooming children by reading them stories that feature gay people.

184
00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:20,720
Speaker 2: And these are the same people who you know are

185
00:10:20,720 --> 00:10:26,000
Speaker 2: pushing for these sorts of age restrictions like you said

186
00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:28,800
Speaker 2: in Louisiana, and I guess Virginia now too, where you

187
00:10:28,840 --> 00:10:35,560
Speaker 2: have to put in your government driver's license, which is nuts.

188
00:10:35,679 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 2: You know, I absolutely wouldn't want to give those same

189
00:10:41,360 --> 00:10:46,560
Speaker 2: people who are putting these laws in place access to

190
00:10:47,000 --> 00:10:50,160
Speaker 2: data about what I'm looking at online.

191
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:51,920
Speaker 3: That is like the last thing I want to do.

192
00:10:52,520 --> 00:10:54,960
Speaker 1: And it really I completely agree, And it really comes

193
00:10:55,000 --> 00:10:57,839
Speaker 1: down to something that doctor Olivia Snow said that when

194
00:10:57,880 --> 00:11:00,599
Speaker 1: we talk to her, that when you hear you're a

195
00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:04,480
Speaker 1: lawmaker talking about legislation regulating the Internet in a new

196
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:08,040
Speaker 1: way that is meant to keep kids safe, that that

197
00:11:08,080 --> 00:11:12,400
Speaker 1: should be your big red flag that they are talking

198
00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:18,480
Speaker 1: about cracking down on the behavior online of consensual adults, right,

199
00:11:18,520 --> 00:11:22,880
Speaker 1: And that like how often protecting kids online is used

200
00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:25,880
Speaker 1: as a smoke screen in order to crack down on

201
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:30,200
Speaker 1: what adults are doing online consensually. And like, yeah, I

202
00:11:30,320 --> 00:11:36,480
Speaker 1: just who who out there when they are doing their thing,

203
00:11:36,600 --> 00:11:40,240
Speaker 1: when it's just them in their computer having their private moment.

204
00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:44,080
Speaker 1: Who wants to get their government ID with their first,

205
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:48,200
Speaker 1: last and middle name and whatever like their address on it.

206
00:11:48,440 --> 00:11:53,440
Speaker 1: Who wants to get that involved in that exchange? Nobody? Nobody, nobody,

207
00:11:53,520 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 1: Like who is this servant? Right? And I think it's

208
00:11:55,920 --> 00:11:59,320
Speaker 1: I think it's really interesting that we're allowing lawmakers to

209
00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:03,160
Speaker 1: introduce these new laws into our lives and tell us

210
00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:05,520
Speaker 1: they are for our own good. When I think that

211
00:12:05,600 --> 00:12:09,520
Speaker 1: anybody who's ever looked at online porn knows that, like,

212
00:12:09,840 --> 00:12:13,200
Speaker 1: you can't close those windows out fast enough. When you're

213
00:12:13,240 --> 00:12:15,600
Speaker 1: done doing what you're gonna do, do you want your

214
00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:17,520
Speaker 1: license attached to it? Of course not.

215
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:20,280
Speaker 2: That's a great question. Who is it serving?

216
00:12:20,760 --> 00:12:20,960
Speaker 3: You know?

217
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:25,600
Speaker 2: And relatedly, who would it most harm? You know, it

218
00:12:25,640 --> 00:12:28,920
Speaker 2: doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to picture scenario

219
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 2: where somebody is being taken to you know, they're engaging

220
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:40,160
Speaker 2: like a custody battle or something, and somebody gets access

221
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:44,160
Speaker 2: to somebody else's records and now it's like part of

222
00:12:44,280 --> 00:12:47,040
Speaker 2: the public record that like so and so looked at

223
00:12:47,040 --> 00:12:48,200
Speaker 2: online pornography.

224
00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:50,520
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that's a great point. And it

225
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:53,439
Speaker 1: also just reminds me of how often, and we're talking

226
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:56,200
Speaker 1: about the way the Internet is legislated, how often it

227
00:12:56,240 --> 00:13:00,400
Speaker 1: will start in one place with online pornography, and then

228
00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:04,960
Speaker 1: it'll start someplace completely different. When Yahoo bought Tumblr, they

229
00:13:04,960 --> 00:13:06,880
Speaker 1: were like, oh, we're not going to have there be

230
00:13:07,040 --> 00:13:11,040
Speaker 1: sexual content. You might be thinking that's like nudity, but

231
00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:14,000
Speaker 1: by the end it was a whole host of content

232
00:13:14,120 --> 00:13:17,800
Speaker 1: that wasn't necessarily sexual was content about people learning about

233
00:13:17,800 --> 00:13:20,679
Speaker 1: their sexual or gender identities, right, and so that's not

234
00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:25,080
Speaker 1: necessarily sexually explicit. But how quickly the bucket of what

235
00:13:25,280 --> 00:13:28,440
Speaker 1: they were cracking down on expanded, And I think with

236
00:13:28,559 --> 00:13:31,080
Speaker 1: legislation like this, you have to imagine that like, yeah,

237
00:13:31,080 --> 00:13:34,600
Speaker 1: maybe they're going to say starting with pornography, but who

238
00:13:34,679 --> 00:13:36,920
Speaker 1: knows where that could end up? And that actually is

239
00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:39,520
Speaker 1: a great segue to what's happening in France.

240
00:13:45,120 --> 00:14:03,240
Speaker 4: Let's take a quick break.

241
00:13:57,559 --> 00:14:03,240
Speaker 1: At or back. So, lawmakers in France's National Assembly passed

242
00:14:03,240 --> 00:14:06,959
Speaker 1: a bill that lets police surveil suspects by remotely activating

243
00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:12,360
Speaker 1: their cameras, microphones, and GPS location systems on their phones, laptops,

244
00:14:12,440 --> 00:14:15,840
Speaker 1: cars and connected devices. Now, a judge will have to

245
00:14:15,880 --> 00:14:18,959
Speaker 1: approve the use of these powers, and a recently amended

246
00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:22,680
Speaker 1: bill does forbid the use against journalists, lawyers, and other

247
00:14:22,760 --> 00:14:26,680
Speaker 1: people who work in sensitive professions. Now. Proponents of this

248
00:14:26,760 --> 00:14:28,760
Speaker 1: measure say that it is meant to be limited in

249
00:14:28,800 --> 00:14:32,000
Speaker 1: scope to serious cases, and that the maximum amount of

250
00:14:32,000 --> 00:14:34,760
Speaker 1: time that police can surveil suspects is six months, and

251
00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,080
Speaker 1: geolocation can only be limited to crimes that are punishable

252
00:14:38,240 --> 00:14:42,240
Speaker 1: by at least five years in prison. Now. Unsurprisingly, digital

253
00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:46,720
Speaker 1: privacy experts are, to put it, lightly concerned. According to

254
00:14:46,840 --> 00:14:50,280
Speaker 1: n Gadget, the digital rights group La quadrechur dunet I

255
00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:53,480
Speaker 1: apologize for my bad French previously pointed out the potential

256
00:14:53,520 --> 00:14:56,640
Speaker 1: for abuse because the bill is just not clear in

257
00:14:56,720 --> 00:15:00,160
Speaker 1: terms of what it constitutes as a serious crime. There

258
00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:02,760
Speaker 1: are fears that the French government could use this to

259
00:15:02,880 --> 00:15:06,360
Speaker 1: target environmental activists and others who are not grave threats.

260
00:15:06,400 --> 00:15:08,800
Speaker 1: You'll notice that even though they say that this won't

261
00:15:08,840 --> 00:15:12,680
Speaker 1: be used against folks with sensitive professions, does that include activists? Right?

262
00:15:12,720 --> 00:15:15,520
Speaker 1: Does that include dissidents? They also point out that just

263
00:15:15,560 --> 00:15:18,680
Speaker 1: like in the United States, security policies do have a

264
00:15:18,720 --> 00:15:21,560
Speaker 1: habit of expanding, just like we were talking about with

265
00:15:21,720 --> 00:15:24,360
Speaker 1: that peign legislation, right, that they have a habit of

266
00:15:24,400 --> 00:15:27,760
Speaker 1: expanding to less serious crimes. They give the example of

267
00:15:27,960 --> 00:15:30,720
Speaker 1: genetic registration, which used to only be used for sex

268
00:15:30,720 --> 00:15:34,280
Speaker 1: offenders in France, but La Quadrature says, has now been

269
00:15:34,280 --> 00:15:37,320
Speaker 1: expanded to being used for almost every crime in France.

270
00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:38,480
Speaker 3: Yeah.

271
00:15:38,600 --> 00:15:41,360
Speaker 2: I don't know about France, but here in the US,

272
00:15:42,160 --> 00:15:44,720
Speaker 2: I feel like every time there's been some law that

273
00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:50,680
Speaker 2: expands police surveillance powers one two. Three years later, there's

274
00:15:50,880 --> 00:15:54,760
Speaker 2: a bunch of stories about how that law was abused,

275
00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:58,680
Speaker 2: used in ways it wasn't intended, targeted people that weren't

276
00:15:58,720 --> 00:16:02,520
Speaker 2: supposed to be targeted. You know those newspaper headlines too.

277
00:16:02,640 --> 00:16:05,200
Speaker 2: It's like the most obvious thing in the world.

278
00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:08,160
Speaker 1: This is all happening against the backdrop of protests in

279
00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:11,680
Speaker 1: France sparked by the police shooting and killing teenager not

280
00:16:11,800 --> 00:16:16,120
Speaker 1: Hilim Razzak. Gizmodo reported that French President Macron actually threatened

281
00:16:16,160 --> 00:16:19,160
Speaker 1: to shut down social media platforms as he claimed that

282
00:16:19,200 --> 00:16:23,320
Speaker 1: protesters were filming, posting, and organizing on platforms like TikTok,

283
00:16:23,360 --> 00:16:26,320
Speaker 1: Telegram and snapchat. And I think that it really goes

284
00:16:26,400 --> 00:16:28,320
Speaker 1: back to what we were talking about in the last

285
00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:32,440
Speaker 1: story about how it may seem like something that it's

286
00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:34,600
Speaker 1: easy to think that these are things measures that we

287
00:16:34,600 --> 00:16:37,480
Speaker 1: should be taking to keep us and our communities safe.

288
00:16:37,640 --> 00:16:42,120
Speaker 1: But it's so often that they sort of start out

289
00:16:42,160 --> 00:16:45,000
Speaker 1: as being about one thing and then can sort of

290
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:48,560
Speaker 1: slowly become about another. That is a tale as old

291
00:16:48,560 --> 00:16:52,080
Speaker 1: as time when it comes to surveillance policies like this one.

292
00:16:52,560 --> 00:16:54,440
Speaker 1: And so I think that these digital rights groups in

293
00:16:54,440 --> 00:16:57,040
Speaker 1: France are really right to be pushing back on this

294
00:16:57,080 --> 00:17:02,520
Speaker 1: and saying, hey, giving the police power to turn on remotely,

295
00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:05,159
Speaker 1: turn on the camera or the microphone to your phone,

296
00:17:05,280 --> 00:17:08,400
Speaker 1: to your car, to your laptop, that should be something

297
00:17:08,440 --> 00:17:11,000
Speaker 1: that we're really concerned about and don't just you know,

298
00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:13,520
Speaker 1: become okay with lightly.

299
00:17:14,240 --> 00:17:20,720
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I think privacy is something that we all need

300
00:17:20,760 --> 00:17:24,320
Speaker 2: to take very seriously and protect.

301
00:17:24,520 --> 00:17:26,600
Speaker 3: It is under assault.

302
00:17:26,960 --> 00:17:30,200
Speaker 2: You know, people have been saying that privacy is dead

303
00:17:30,359 --> 00:17:34,000
Speaker 2: for years, and I don't think that's the case. I

304
00:17:34,040 --> 00:17:37,879
Speaker 2: think we still have a lot of privacy in our lives, thankfully,

305
00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:43,160
Speaker 2: and I think it's super important that we all protect

306
00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:48,240
Speaker 2: what privacy we have and resist efforts to make us

307
00:17:48,280 --> 00:17:51,760
Speaker 2: all register with government ID if we want to watch

308
00:17:52,000 --> 00:17:57,280
Speaker 2: corn resist giving the state authority to like turn on

309
00:17:57,600 --> 00:18:02,920
Speaker 2: our phones and record from our cameras without our permission.

310
00:18:04,880 --> 00:18:10,720
Speaker 2: It's yeah, it's a scary world. These technologies really enable

311
00:18:10,840 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 2: a lot of surveillance activity that would have been unthinkable

312
00:18:16,160 --> 00:18:20,080
Speaker 2: years ago, that like despots of the past wish.

313
00:18:19,920 --> 00:18:21,560
Speaker 3: They could have had access to.

314
00:18:22,440 --> 00:18:25,480
Speaker 2: And we've talked a lot on this show about some

315
00:18:25,560 --> 00:18:30,720
Speaker 2: of the paradoxes of the Internet. How at the outset.

316
00:18:30,800 --> 00:18:34,760
Speaker 2: It promised this like bright democratic future where everyone would

317
00:18:34,760 --> 00:18:37,959
Speaker 2: have a voice and everyone would be connected, and like,

318
00:18:38,040 --> 00:18:40,760
Speaker 2: we kind of got that, but we also kind of

319
00:18:41,359 --> 00:18:44,600
Speaker 2: got something very different where no one is anonymous and

320
00:18:44,680 --> 00:18:48,840
Speaker 2: everything you say is traced back to people. And that

321
00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 2: comment from Macron that you just read that he was

322
00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:55,720
Speaker 2: going to shut off social media because people were organizing.

323
00:18:56,720 --> 00:19:02,199
Speaker 2: How many despots throughout history have wanted that power but

324
00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:07,000
Speaker 2: just like didn't have it. But now that we are all,

325
00:19:07,359 --> 00:19:10,760
Speaker 2: you know, communicating on apps that are centralized across you know,

326
00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:14,760
Speaker 2: maybe half a dozen different apps, suddenly that does become possible.

327
00:19:15,000 --> 00:19:17,359
Speaker 2: And what a scary proposition that is.

328
00:19:17,880 --> 00:19:20,520
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don't know, have you seen that episode

329
00:19:20,520 --> 00:19:23,800
Speaker 1: of that first episode of Black Mirror Joan is awful?

330
00:19:24,440 --> 00:19:27,040
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, So something I won't give it away if

331
00:19:27,040 --> 00:19:29,720
Speaker 1: folks haven't seen it, But something that that episode really

332
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:33,960
Speaker 1: makes clear about the current future that we're or there,

333
00:19:33,960 --> 00:19:38,320
Speaker 1: the present that we're all in, is how surveillance is

334
00:19:39,040 --> 00:19:41,760
Speaker 1: sold to us as for our own good or even

335
00:19:41,840 --> 00:19:44,960
Speaker 1: for our own entertainment. We should like being surveiled. We

336
00:19:44,960 --> 00:19:48,239
Speaker 1: should find it funny, We should enjoy the information that

337
00:19:48,280 --> 00:19:51,359
Speaker 1: we that you know, our apps and our platforms have

338
00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:53,919
Speaker 1: collected about us and sold us back, sold back to us,

339
00:19:53,960 --> 00:19:56,480
Speaker 1: and so it's kind of scary, how I mean, I'm

340
00:19:56,600 --> 00:19:58,560
Speaker 1: I'm not immune to it either. I like looking at

341
00:19:58,560 --> 00:20:01,560
Speaker 1: my Spotify end of the Year list just like anybody.

342
00:20:01,600 --> 00:20:04,639
Speaker 1: I'm not a monster, of course, I find that fascinating

343
00:20:04,680 --> 00:20:07,919
Speaker 1: about information about myself. But the way that we've been

344
00:20:07,960 --> 00:20:11,399
Speaker 1: able to be desensitized to it and sort of more

345
00:20:11,480 --> 00:20:13,760
Speaker 1: and more and more and more of our privacy is

346
00:20:13,800 --> 00:20:18,399
Speaker 1: sort of for sale, and we are consistently told that

347
00:20:18,440 --> 00:20:20,080
Speaker 1: it is for our own protection that we should be

348
00:20:20,119 --> 00:20:22,880
Speaker 1: happy that it's happening. And another great example is what's

349
00:20:22,920 --> 00:20:26,119
Speaker 1: happening in Sacramento. So listeners of this show know that

350
00:20:26,119 --> 00:20:29,159
Speaker 1: since the Supreme Court overturned Row last year, we have

351
00:20:29,240 --> 00:20:32,800
Speaker 1: been following the very deep connections between technology, digital surveillance,

352
00:20:32,800 --> 00:20:35,280
Speaker 1: and abortion rights. And here's another update on that front.

353
00:20:35,920 --> 00:20:39,119
Speaker 1: The digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation sent a

354
00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:42,920
Speaker 1: letter to Sacramento Sheriff Jim Cooper, urging the Sheriff's department

355
00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:46,800
Speaker 1: to stop their practice of sharing automated license plate reader

356
00:20:46,880 --> 00:20:49,879
Speaker 1: data with out of state authorities in anti abortion states

357
00:20:49,920 --> 00:20:54,440
Speaker 1: including Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas. Adam Schwartz, he's the EFF's

358
00:20:54,560 --> 00:20:57,600
Speaker 1: senior staff attorney, said that this practice is a threat

359
00:20:57,600 --> 00:21:00,960
Speaker 1: to security and privacy, and that a sheriff in Texas, Idaho,

360
00:21:01,119 --> 00:21:03,040
Speaker 1: or any other state with an abortion ban on the

361
00:21:03,040 --> 00:21:07,240
Speaker 1: books could use that data to track people's movement around California,

362
00:21:07,359 --> 00:21:09,840
Speaker 1: knowing where they live, where they work, and where they

363
00:21:09,840 --> 00:21:13,600
Speaker 1: seek reproductive medical care, including abortions. So back in May,

364
00:21:13,680 --> 00:21:16,920
Speaker 1: the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a report showing that seventy

365
00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:20,719
Speaker 1: one law enforcement agencies in twenty two California counties, including

366
00:21:20,720 --> 00:21:23,960
Speaker 1: Sacramento County, were sharing this kind of data, and that

367
00:21:24,040 --> 00:21:27,360
Speaker 1: this practice was actually in violation of a twenty fifteen

368
00:21:27,440 --> 00:21:31,000
Speaker 1: law that states that a California law enforcement agency shall

369
00:21:31,040 --> 00:21:35,120
Speaker 1: not sell, share, or transfer automatic license plate reader information

370
00:21:35,560 --> 00:21:39,880
Speaker 1: except to another California law enforcement agency. And so they're

371
00:21:40,040 --> 00:21:42,800
Speaker 1: just it sounds like, I'm no lawyer, but it sounds

372
00:21:42,840 --> 00:21:46,000
Speaker 1: like they're just not doing that. They're just not following

373
00:21:46,040 --> 00:21:50,080
Speaker 1: that law. The Sacramento Sheriff's Office had a pretty weird

374
00:21:50,359 --> 00:21:55,159
Speaker 1: response to those allegations, accusing Electronic Frontier Foundation and the

375
00:21:55,160 --> 00:21:58,560
Speaker 1: ACLU of being involved in some sort of like vast

376
00:21:58,720 --> 00:22:03,280
Speaker 1: conspiracy to read lawlessness I don't know. You tell me.

377
00:22:03,680 --> 00:22:06,520
Speaker 1: Here's what they said back in May. Law enforcement agencies

378
00:22:06,600 --> 00:22:10,560
Speaker 1: commonly use information from license plate readers to investigate serious

379
00:22:10,600 --> 00:22:14,520
Speaker 1: crimes such as homicide, child kidnapping, human trafficking, and drug

380
00:22:14,600 --> 00:22:17,800
Speaker 1: trafficking across state borders. So very much like what we

381
00:22:17,800 --> 00:22:19,800
Speaker 1: were just talking about, right that, like, oh, us collecting

382
00:22:19,840 --> 00:22:21,640
Speaker 1: this data is actually good for you because it makes

383
00:22:21,640 --> 00:22:25,640
Speaker 1: you safer. Fine, However, they go on. Some organizations, such

384
00:22:25,640 --> 00:22:30,080
Speaker 1: as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have lied

385
00:22:30,359 --> 00:22:33,680
Speaker 1: that law enforcement sharing this information is an attempt to

386
00:22:33,800 --> 00:22:37,960
Speaker 1: violate people's legal rights. These false claims are intentional and

387
00:22:38,080 --> 00:22:41,520
Speaker 1: part of a broader agenda to promote lawlessness and prevent

388
00:22:41,600 --> 00:22:44,679
Speaker 1: criminals from being held accountable. So like, I don't know

389
00:22:44,720 --> 00:22:48,399
Speaker 1: if the Electronic Frontier Foundation is in on this, like

390
00:22:48,920 --> 00:22:55,400
Speaker 1: vast conspiracy to enable criminals to just be lawless out

391
00:22:55,400 --> 00:22:57,520
Speaker 1: on the streets. I don't know. That seems like a

392
00:22:57,560 --> 00:23:03,199
Speaker 1: pretty big allegation from the Sheriff's office in Sacramento County.

393
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:12,639
Speaker 2: Just chaos agents. Their only interest is spreading chaos disorder. Yeah,

394
00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:14,880
Speaker 2: that's what they're doing. That's where they get the big

395
00:23:14,920 --> 00:23:19,879
Speaker 2: bucks because they're out there just trying to foment chaos

396
00:23:19,960 --> 00:23:20,840
Speaker 2: anywhere they can.

397
00:23:21,480 --> 00:23:25,920
Speaker 1: And honestly, it sounds like Electronic Frontier Foundation was accusing

398
00:23:26,040 --> 00:23:29,960
Speaker 1: the Sheriff's office of not following the law, so then

399
00:23:30,000 --> 00:23:32,200
Speaker 1: for the Sheriff's office to turn around and be like, actually,

400
00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:35,679
Speaker 1: y'all are the ones who are lawless liars. And it's interesting, right,

401
00:23:35,720 --> 00:23:41,080
Speaker 1: It's like their allegations are so specific, and the response

402
00:23:41,200 --> 00:23:44,720
Speaker 1: is like, well, y'all are lawless liars who are just

403
00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:48,679
Speaker 1: trying to help criminals, you know, murder children. One of

404
00:23:48,720 --> 00:23:52,360
Speaker 1: these allegations seems a lot more believable than the other

405
00:23:52,440 --> 00:23:53,639
Speaker 1: to me. I don't know, that's just me.

406
00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:57,320
Speaker 2: It's such a good follow up to those two stories

407
00:23:57,359 --> 00:23:59,960
Speaker 2: we just talked about about the creep of surveillance authority,

408
00:24:00,240 --> 00:24:04,000
Speaker 2: because exactly like you said, it sounds like from this letter,

409
00:24:04,080 --> 00:24:09,760
Speaker 2: the EFF was saying, hey, you guys are currently violating

410
00:24:09,800 --> 00:24:14,000
Speaker 2: the law by sharing this information that you have collected

411
00:24:14,080 --> 00:24:20,679
Speaker 2: through police surveillance apparatus. I don't know what the term is,

412
00:24:20,720 --> 00:24:23,000
Speaker 2: but like, through these license plate readers, thro are reading

413
00:24:23,080 --> 00:24:25,640
Speaker 2: licenses and you're sharing that with people who the law

414
00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:28,439
Speaker 2: forbids you to share it with, and people are going

415
00:24:28,520 --> 00:24:33,160
Speaker 2: to get hurt, and the response was, shut up. We're

416
00:24:33,160 --> 00:24:37,000
Speaker 2: going after criminals, and you're a criminal too, even though

417
00:24:37,480 --> 00:24:40,280
Speaker 2: the police are the ones breaking the law and the

418
00:24:40,280 --> 00:24:45,159
Speaker 2: people pointing that out and pointing out this overreach of

419
00:24:45,200 --> 00:24:48,000
Speaker 2: a law that was intended to have limits and the

420
00:24:48,000 --> 00:24:52,000
Speaker 2: fact that the police are disrespecting those limits that were

421
00:24:52,000 --> 00:24:54,480
Speaker 2: placed around this law to get it passed. But you

422
00:24:54,600 --> 00:24:58,119
Speaker 2: have to assume we're put there by legislators who couldn't

423
00:24:58,119 --> 00:25:01,119
Speaker 2: get the law passed without them, so they were like, Okay, okay,

424
00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:03,679
Speaker 2: we'll put these limits around it. They can't share it

425
00:25:03,680 --> 00:25:06,680
Speaker 2: outside of California to get the law passed, and this

426
00:25:06,960 --> 00:25:10,600
Speaker 2: sheriff is just like uninterested in that right. He's going

427
00:25:10,640 --> 00:25:15,360
Speaker 2: after criminals and lawlessness. And why should any god fearing

428
00:25:15,840 --> 00:25:20,719
Speaker 2: good citizens be concerned that their data is just illegally

429
00:25:20,760 --> 00:25:22,240
Speaker 2: being shared across state lines.

430
00:25:22,760 --> 00:25:26,160
Speaker 1: Okay, So if you liked that response. After the Electronic

431
00:25:26,200 --> 00:25:30,600
Speaker 1: Frontier Foundation sent the Sacramento sheriff their letter asking him

432
00:25:30,640 --> 00:25:33,439
Speaker 1: to stop this practice this week, he replied on Twitter

433
00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:37,040
Speaker 1: that first response I read to you was like Sacramento

434
00:25:37,280 --> 00:25:40,719
Speaker 1: Sheriff's Department like official Twitter this. He took to his

435
00:25:41,720 --> 00:25:45,639
Speaker 1: personal Twitter to give this response. He said quote, the

436
00:25:45,720 --> 00:25:49,040
Speaker 1: bill and this law has absolutely nothing to do with

437
00:25:49,119 --> 00:25:52,679
Speaker 1: reproductive rights. My record on women's and reproductive rights has

438
00:25:52,720 --> 00:25:55,320
Speaker 1: been strong throughout my time in the State Assembly, and

439
00:25:55,400 --> 00:26:00,119
Speaker 1: nothing has changed since becoming sheriff. Electronic Frontier Foundation has

440
00:26:00,160 --> 00:26:04,919
Speaker 1: the track record of protecting child molesters, ventanal traffickers, rapists,

441
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:08,720
Speaker 1: and murderers. Perhaps they should focus more on helping victims

442
00:26:08,840 --> 00:26:12,360
Speaker 1: rather than continuing to shield criminals from prosecution. So if

443
00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:16,000
Speaker 1: you thought the first response back when eff first made

444
00:26:16,040 --> 00:26:20,159
Speaker 1: these allegations was a little much being like, oh no, no,

445
00:26:20,480 --> 00:26:23,520
Speaker 1: you are too busy holding hands with child molesters and

446
00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:27,440
Speaker 1: fentanal traffickers and rapists and murderers. Like it's just it's

447
00:26:27,440 --> 00:26:31,280
Speaker 1: just a very intense response from what is like a

448
00:26:31,440 --> 00:26:34,960
Speaker 1: very measured letter about about how they are following the

449
00:26:35,040 --> 00:26:37,720
Speaker 1: letter of the law. Now, I should say that Adam Schwartz,

450
00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:41,960
Speaker 1: the attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, does say that

451
00:26:42,000 --> 00:26:45,200
Speaker 1: he was not aware of any cases where license plate

452
00:26:45,280 --> 00:26:48,879
Speaker 1: data was used to prosecute someone forgetting an abortion, but

453
00:26:49,119 --> 00:26:51,960
Speaker 1: added quote, we think we shouldn't have to wait until

454
00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:54,720
Speaker 1: the inevitable happened, And honestly, I could not agree more

455
00:26:54,880 --> 00:26:57,479
Speaker 1: and I think that the fact that the sheriff is

456
00:26:57,520 --> 00:27:01,119
Speaker 1: going back and pointing to his record when he was

457
00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:05,280
Speaker 1: in the Assembly on abortion and reproductive care, I just

458
00:27:05,480 --> 00:27:07,479
Speaker 1: I mean, I honestly think this is kind of a

459
00:27:07,640 --> 00:27:11,679
Speaker 1: normal or expected take from somebody who has not really

460
00:27:11,760 --> 00:27:14,960
Speaker 1: thought very seriously about the landscape of abortion rights here

461
00:27:14,960 --> 00:27:16,960
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three. And I think a lot of

462
00:27:16,960 --> 00:27:20,639
Speaker 1: people one did not expect Roe to ever be threatened

463
00:27:20,640 --> 00:27:22,280
Speaker 1: the way that it was, and when it did, Fall

464
00:27:22,760 --> 00:27:26,480
Speaker 1: really had a kind of myopic view on the actual

465
00:27:26,640 --> 00:27:30,680
Speaker 1: threats that folks who are looking for abortions or need abortions,

466
00:27:30,760 --> 00:27:34,080
Speaker 1: are allies to people who need abortions would face. You know,

467
00:27:34,640 --> 00:27:37,360
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why when I was in

468
00:27:37,400 --> 00:27:40,000
Speaker 1: the reproductive justice space, we're not We were like, oh,

469
00:27:40,080 --> 00:27:42,679
Speaker 1: don't use like coat hanger imagery or talk about like

470
00:27:42,760 --> 00:27:46,119
Speaker 1: back alley abortions, because in twenty twenty three, that's not

471
00:27:46,240 --> 00:27:50,320
Speaker 1: the threat. The threat is surveillance and criminalization. Sheriff Cooper

472
00:27:50,400 --> 00:27:53,720
Speaker 1: saying that this kind of data tracking and sharing with

473
00:27:53,800 --> 00:27:56,919
Speaker 1: other states has nothing to do with abortion and reproductive

474
00:27:56,960 --> 00:28:00,240
Speaker 1: rights just goes to show how limited his understanding of

475
00:28:00,280 --> 00:28:02,800
Speaker 1: the reality of our abortion landscape in twenty twenty three

476
00:28:02,920 --> 00:28:05,520
Speaker 1: really is because if he's never thought about how tracking

477
00:28:05,560 --> 00:28:08,600
Speaker 1: somebody's license plate data in California and then sending it

478
00:28:08,640 --> 00:28:10,760
Speaker 1: to a state where abortion is criminalized like Texas or

479
00:28:10,800 --> 00:28:14,480
Speaker 1: Idaho could play a role in someone's ability to access

480
00:28:14,480 --> 00:28:17,480
Speaker 1: abortion care, If he's never thought about that, that really

481
00:28:17,520 --> 00:28:19,120
Speaker 1: tells me all I need to know about how he's

482
00:28:19,160 --> 00:28:22,480
Speaker 1: thinking about this issue. Because even if that license plate

483
00:28:22,520 --> 00:28:26,800
Speaker 1: data is not being used today on Thursday, July sixth,

484
00:28:26,920 --> 00:28:30,440
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, as we've just talked about in this episode,

485
00:28:30,520 --> 00:28:33,000
Speaker 1: that does not mean that they that there will not

486
00:28:33,080 --> 00:28:35,880
Speaker 1: be an expansion of how that data is used. And

487
00:28:36,560 --> 00:28:39,760
Speaker 1: in my opinion, it is not a question of if.

488
00:28:39,840 --> 00:28:42,400
Speaker 1: It's a question of when that data will be used

489
00:28:42,400 --> 00:28:45,120
Speaker 1: to criminalize people who are looking for abortions. And just

490
00:28:45,160 --> 00:28:47,520
Speaker 1: because Sheriff Cooper doesn't see it and it is does

491
00:28:47,600 --> 00:28:50,400
Speaker 1: not have that clear of a view of the landscape

492
00:28:50,400 --> 00:28:52,800
Speaker 1: of abortion rights in twenty twenty three does not mean

493
00:28:52,800 --> 00:28:55,120
Speaker 1: that it's not our risk. And it's really I can't

494
00:28:55,120 --> 00:28:58,040
Speaker 1: believe that he would say like this has nothing to

495
00:28:58,080 --> 00:29:01,440
Speaker 1: do with abortion when I'm sorry, get real in twenty

496
00:29:01,480 --> 00:29:05,280
Speaker 1: twenty three, when you share license plate data from California

497
00:29:05,360 --> 00:29:08,440
Speaker 1: to stateside, Texas, A and Alabama. It has everything to

498
00:29:08,480 --> 00:29:09,920
Speaker 1: do with abortion rights.

499
00:29:10,480 --> 00:29:14,240
Speaker 2: And the important thing is that I think this isn't

500
00:29:14,280 --> 00:29:18,160
Speaker 2: about this one sheriff getting it wrong, and like, isn't

501
00:29:18,200 --> 00:29:20,520
Speaker 2: he a bad guy or isn't he clueless or something?

502
00:29:20,600 --> 00:29:24,280
Speaker 2: I have no idea about him. The concerning thing is

503
00:29:24,320 --> 00:29:27,680
Speaker 2: that he is the one who has the authority to

504
00:29:27,800 --> 00:29:33,360
Speaker 2: decide how this private data that has been surveiled gets shared.

505
00:29:34,560 --> 00:29:39,200
Speaker 2: And like you just said, he either is clueless about

506
00:29:39,200 --> 00:29:43,320
Speaker 2: the landscape of reproductive rights and legal threats to people

507
00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:47,200
Speaker 2: seeking abortions in twenty twenty three, or he's faking it.

508
00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:52,280
Speaker 2: But either way, the data that he is sitting on

509
00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:58,120
Speaker 2: of who has been driving around in Sacramento has real

510
00:29:58,800 --> 00:30:04,719
Speaker 2: consequences for people, and he, by his own admission, is

511
00:30:04,760 --> 00:30:07,640
Speaker 2: making decisions about who could access that data and who

512
00:30:07,680 --> 00:30:14,920
Speaker 2: can't without having apparently any clue about the legal risks

513
00:30:14,960 --> 00:30:20,200
Speaker 2: to the people that he has been entrusted to keep safe.

514
00:30:21,600 --> 00:30:24,080
Speaker 1: I would take I agree, I would take it one

515
00:30:24,120 --> 00:30:27,080
Speaker 1: step further, and I would say, because it is he

516
00:30:27,400 --> 00:30:29,600
Speaker 1: like it is not men. I don't think that he.

517
00:30:30,040 --> 00:30:32,680
Speaker 1: I don't this might be a controversial take. I think

518
00:30:32,720 --> 00:30:36,120
Speaker 1: that for a lot of men, it's difficult to see

519
00:30:36,920 --> 00:30:40,680
Speaker 1: the realities and the concerns of people who are not

520
00:30:40,840 --> 00:30:47,120
Speaker 1: also CIS men. Seriously, I think that he's like, I'm

521
00:30:47,960 --> 00:30:51,520
Speaker 1: pro choice. That's all I need to do is like

522
00:30:52,000 --> 00:30:54,880
Speaker 1: be pro choice, And it's like, no, you need to

523
00:30:54,920 --> 00:31:01,520
Speaker 1: also not buttress a vast network of interstate surveillance if

524
00:31:01,560 --> 00:31:06,920
Speaker 1: you truly want to advocate for reproductive rights in this country.

525
00:31:07,080 --> 00:31:09,240
Speaker 1: That's what it looks like in twenty twenty three. It's

526
00:31:09,280 --> 00:31:13,640
Speaker 1: not nineteen eighty, right. Just being supportive of abortion rights

527
00:31:13,720 --> 00:31:17,040
Speaker 1: and voting along those lines is not enough in twenty

528
00:31:17,080 --> 00:31:20,520
Speaker 1: twenty three. If you are propping up a vast surveillance

529
00:31:20,560 --> 00:31:23,000
Speaker 1: network that is going to get people who need abortions

530
00:31:23,040 --> 00:31:27,760
Speaker 1: criminalized one way or another. And if you're it's really

531
00:31:28,160 --> 00:31:33,240
Speaker 1: something to see people who are casked with supporting and

532
00:31:33,280 --> 00:31:37,160
Speaker 1: advocating for these constituents not get that and so loudly

533
00:31:38,080 --> 00:31:40,520
Speaker 1: proclaim that they don't get that, like I would. He

534
00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:45,200
Speaker 1: should be embarrassed. So I looked up his record and

535
00:31:45,240 --> 00:31:47,840
Speaker 1: it does seem to be a little bit all over

536
00:31:47,880 --> 00:31:50,240
Speaker 1: the place in terms of his record on abortion care.

537
00:31:50,520 --> 00:31:54,360
Speaker 1: But he obviously from his statement, wants to think of

538
00:31:54,440 --> 00:31:57,200
Speaker 1: himself as somebody who is a champion of reproductive care.

539
00:31:57,520 --> 00:31:59,920
Speaker 1: And if that is the case in twenty twenty three,

540
00:32:00,240 --> 00:32:01,880
Speaker 1: you have got to be thinking about this issue a

541
00:32:01,960 --> 00:32:04,880
Speaker 1: little bit more thoughtfully and a little bit more with

542
00:32:04,960 --> 00:32:07,600
Speaker 1: a little bit more foresight about how it's playing out,

543
00:32:07,600 --> 00:32:09,920
Speaker 1: because in twenty twenty three, you cannot be propping up

544
00:32:09,920 --> 00:32:12,120
Speaker 1: a vast digital surveillance network and tell me that you're

545
00:32:12,160 --> 00:32:14,120
Speaker 1: on my side when it comes to abortion rights. And

546
00:32:14,160 --> 00:32:15,120
Speaker 1: I'll leave it there.

547
00:32:19,000 --> 00:32:32,720
Speaker 4: More after a quick break, let's.

548
00:32:32,480 --> 00:32:38,000
Speaker 1: Get right back into it. So it's not all vast

549
00:32:38,040 --> 00:32:41,160
Speaker 1: surveillance networks. Let's talk about the sun. So we have

550
00:32:41,280 --> 00:32:44,800
Speaker 1: talked a bit about Megan Merkle and how the coordinated

551
00:32:44,880 --> 00:32:48,800
Speaker 1: hate campaign that she gets online targets her. But one

552
00:32:48,840 --> 00:32:51,200
Speaker 1: of the weirdest aspects of this story is that it's

553
00:32:51,200 --> 00:32:57,200
Speaker 1: not just random hate mongers on YouTube publishing videos like

554
00:32:57,560 --> 00:33:01,320
Speaker 1: ten of Megan Markle's micro expressions that show that she

555
00:33:01,440 --> 00:33:05,480
Speaker 1: is actually a huge, mean person. I almost said a

556
00:33:05,480 --> 00:33:07,080
Speaker 1: swear word. I'm trying to swear less. I got some

557
00:33:07,120 --> 00:33:09,000
Speaker 1: feedback about my swearing. I was gonna I was gonna

558
00:33:09,000 --> 00:33:11,200
Speaker 1: put a swear word there. But I didn't, So you're

559
00:33:11,240 --> 00:33:15,560
Speaker 1: welcome listeners with children. So it's not just we like

560
00:33:15,800 --> 00:33:20,680
Speaker 1: weird YouTube hate mongers. It's also the press, like big newspapers,

561
00:33:20,720 --> 00:33:24,360
Speaker 1: who are targeting her. Last week, the newspaper The Sun

562
00:33:24,480 --> 00:33:27,280
Speaker 1: had to print a front page apology for an opinion

563
00:33:27,280 --> 00:33:30,640
Speaker 1: piece about Megan Markle written by Grand Tour star Jeremy

564
00:33:30,640 --> 00:33:35,960
Speaker 1: Clarkson the piece, I can only really describe it as

565
00:33:37,160 --> 00:33:40,600
Speaker 1: a lot. Here's a bit from that piece, he writes.

566
00:33:41,080 --> 00:33:44,479
Speaker 1: I hate her, not like I hate Scotland's first Minister,

567
00:33:44,800 --> 00:33:49,400
Speaker 1: Nicola Sturgeon or serial killer Rose West. I hate her

568
00:33:49,640 --> 00:33:54,080
Speaker 1: on a cellular level. Oh no, Megan is definitely worse

569
00:33:54,120 --> 00:33:57,360
Speaker 1: than a serial killer, right obviously, Like what do you

570
00:33:57,360 --> 00:34:00,200
Speaker 1: think of Megan Markle? You think serial killer is her?

571
00:34:00,640 --> 00:34:03,320
Speaker 1: Megan Markle much further on the on the hate spectrum,

572
00:34:03,360 --> 00:34:08,200
Speaker 1: he goes on, quote at night, I'm unable to sleep

573
00:34:08,200 --> 00:34:11,000
Speaker 1: as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of

574
00:34:11,040 --> 00:34:13,040
Speaker 1: the day when she is made to parade naked through

575
00:34:13,040 --> 00:34:15,960
Speaker 1: the streets on every town in Britain while the crowds

576
00:34:16,040 --> 00:34:20,280
Speaker 1: chant shame and throw lumps of excrement at her. Everyone

577
00:34:20,280 --> 00:34:23,400
Speaker 1: who is my age thinks the same way. I don't know, dude,

578
00:34:23,440 --> 00:34:25,440
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's I don't know if that's correct,

579
00:34:25,440 --> 00:34:27,680
Speaker 1: But like everybody, who is your who is your age?

580
00:34:27,719 --> 00:34:30,440
Speaker 1: Is like, yes, I stay awake at night gritting my

581
00:34:30,520 --> 00:34:33,839
Speaker 1: teeth thinking about her. Now, in his defense, he did

582
00:34:33,880 --> 00:34:36,200
Speaker 1: say that he was going for like a Game of

583
00:34:36,320 --> 00:34:39,000
Speaker 1: Thrones reference with that. I don't watch Game of Thrones, So, like,

584
00:34:39,600 --> 00:34:41,680
Speaker 1: I you watched the show, is this? Does that? Does

585
00:34:41,680 --> 00:34:42,279
Speaker 1: that check out?

586
00:34:43,040 --> 00:34:44,040
Speaker 3: Yeah? That does check out.

587
00:34:44,040 --> 00:34:48,279
Speaker 2: That is a reference to a scene from the show,

588
00:34:48,800 --> 00:34:54,000
Speaker 2: But it doesn't diminish it in any way. Like it's

589
00:34:54,840 --> 00:34:58,000
Speaker 2: it's not like she liked being paraded through the streets

590
00:34:58,120 --> 00:35:01,080
Speaker 2: naked and having excrements throw at her, you know, the

591
00:35:01,160 --> 00:35:04,680
Speaker 2: character who was having to who legitimately was like she

592
00:35:04,760 --> 00:35:07,920
Speaker 2: didn't enjoy it. It was like very bad and it

593
00:35:07,960 --> 00:35:14,279
Speaker 2: was just as sexist in the show as it is

594
00:35:14,320 --> 00:35:15,400
Speaker 2: in real life, you know.

595
00:35:16,400 --> 00:35:19,840
Speaker 1: So even if he was going for like a specific reference,

596
00:35:20,200 --> 00:35:22,160
Speaker 1: I just think it's a little much to be printed

597
00:35:22,160 --> 00:35:25,400
Speaker 1: in the newspaper, Like I can't believe that an editor

598
00:35:25,600 --> 00:35:29,279
Speaker 1: read that and was like, Okay, doesn't sound unhinged at all.

599
00:35:29,400 --> 00:35:32,440
Speaker 1: Definitely dis publish it. It's quick published and the way if.

600
00:35:32,360 --> 00:35:37,839
Speaker 2: We go, Yeah, literary illusions aren't like like get out

601
00:35:37,840 --> 00:35:41,000
Speaker 2: of jail free card for writing messed up stuff, right,

602
00:35:41,120 --> 00:35:45,840
Speaker 2: Like they add some context and maybe some meaning or something,

603
00:35:45,880 --> 00:35:48,799
Speaker 2: but they don't just like make it all okay because

604
00:35:48,840 --> 00:35:49,600
Speaker 2: it was a reference.

605
00:35:50,080 --> 00:35:54,120
Speaker 1: Well, the UK newspaper regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organization,

606
00:35:54,280 --> 00:35:57,320
Speaker 1: agrees with you. After this was published, they got twenty

607
00:35:57,360 --> 00:36:00,560
Speaker 1: five thousand complaints about the piece and they ended up

608
00:36:00,600 --> 00:36:03,600
Speaker 1: launching an investigation into whether the piece breached its editor's

609
00:36:03,760 --> 00:36:09,280
Speaker 1: code of practice. Although interestingly, the IPSO chairman Lord Fox

610
00:36:09,400 --> 00:36:12,480
Speaker 1: said that the article was quote humiliating and degrading towards

611
00:36:12,480 --> 00:36:17,400
Speaker 1: the duchess, but according to Deadline, also rejected complaints that

612
00:36:17,480 --> 00:36:21,680
Speaker 1: the article was racist in tone, inaccurate, or sought to

613
00:36:21,719 --> 00:36:24,319
Speaker 1: harass the duchess. The piece was ultimately removed and The

614
00:36:24,400 --> 00:36:26,480
Speaker 1: Sun was forced to print an apology to Megan on

615
00:36:26,520 --> 00:36:30,040
Speaker 1: the front page. It is so interesting to me that

616
00:36:30,120 --> 00:36:33,360
Speaker 1: they specifically go out of their way to say the

617
00:36:33,400 --> 00:36:39,040
Speaker 1: peace was sexist. It was humiliating, but it was not racist,

618
00:36:39,480 --> 00:36:41,920
Speaker 1: and it was not meant to harass her, nor was

619
00:36:41,960 --> 00:36:45,480
Speaker 1: it inaccurate. I find that so interesting because I mean,

620
00:36:45,520 --> 00:36:49,440
Speaker 1: it really goes back to so much of our conversations

621
00:36:49,480 --> 00:36:51,680
Speaker 1: that we've had on there are No Girls on the Internet,

622
00:36:51,680 --> 00:36:55,000
Speaker 1: and also Internet hate Machine about how the responses to

623
00:36:55,040 --> 00:36:59,640
Speaker 1: Megan Markle kind of work and how it's always right

624
00:36:59,680 --> 00:37:03,920
Speaker 1: online line of racist. So it's like they're not going

625
00:37:03,960 --> 00:37:07,360
Speaker 1: to overtly call her a slur. But I just have

626
00:37:07,400 --> 00:37:10,800
Speaker 1: a hard time believing that if not for Megan's race,

627
00:37:11,080 --> 00:37:12,920
Speaker 1: that this would have been somebody would have found this

628
00:37:12,960 --> 00:37:15,840
Speaker 1: acceptable to print in the newspaper, right. And I also

629
00:37:15,920 --> 00:37:19,640
Speaker 1: think that because of the way that identity works, gender

630
00:37:19,880 --> 00:37:25,719
Speaker 1: and race and class and everything else, it's so linked

631
00:37:25,760 --> 00:37:28,799
Speaker 1: that it is the idea that if someone printed this

632
00:37:28,880 --> 00:37:31,799
Speaker 1: about me in the paper as a black woman, I

633
00:37:31,840 --> 00:37:33,640
Speaker 1: would not be able to say, oh, they printed it

634
00:37:33,680 --> 00:37:37,080
Speaker 1: because I'm a woman, not because I'm black. The idea

635
00:37:37,120 --> 00:37:41,320
Speaker 1: that you could parse it and say like definitively not racist, sexist,

636
00:37:41,320 --> 00:37:44,960
Speaker 1: but not racist. It is not how it works because

637
00:37:45,000 --> 00:37:48,239
Speaker 1: of the way that layered identity and the intersections of

638
00:37:48,280 --> 00:37:51,919
Speaker 1: identity work. And so it's fascinating to me to see this,

639
00:37:53,120 --> 00:37:58,520
Speaker 1: you know, Ethics Board be able to say like, Nope,

640
00:37:58,800 --> 00:38:02,400
Speaker 1: not racist, a big red stamp on that, Like, I

641
00:38:02,480 --> 00:38:04,560
Speaker 1: would be curious to know how they determined that.

642
00:38:05,239 --> 00:38:12,200
Speaker 3: Yeah, me too. It's it's like, how do you prove

643
00:38:12,280 --> 00:38:13,640
Speaker 3: that it's racist.

644
00:38:13,360 --> 00:38:18,920
Speaker 2: Right when, like you said, identity is this big web

645
00:38:19,200 --> 00:38:26,359
Speaker 2: of intersecting identities. Uh, and the systems of oppression that

646
00:38:27,560 --> 00:38:34,239
Speaker 2: traffic and benefit from public sexist and racist attacks are

647
00:38:34,320 --> 00:38:36,080
Speaker 2: so good at writing that line.

648
00:38:36,480 --> 00:38:37,400
Speaker 3: It's it's a tough thing.

649
00:38:37,440 --> 00:38:41,000
Speaker 2: It's it's almost it's almost impossible to look at one

650
00:38:41,080 --> 00:38:44,360
Speaker 2: isolated incident like that, or you know, one isolated piece

651
00:38:44,440 --> 00:38:47,120
Speaker 2: of writing, even as terrible as this, And like you said,

652
00:38:47,120 --> 00:38:51,680
Speaker 2: he didn't include a slur, didn't reference the color of

653
00:38:51,680 --> 00:38:55,719
Speaker 2: her skin, so like prove that it's racist. But then

654
00:38:55,760 --> 00:39:00,080
Speaker 2: when you step back and look at the pattern of

655
00:39:00,120 --> 00:39:05,160
Speaker 2: how this piece fits into a whole ecosystem and industry

656
00:39:05,560 --> 00:39:13,240
Speaker 2: around smearing and harassing her, obviously it's racist.

657
00:39:11,560 --> 00:39:15,560
Speaker 3: It's it's a challenge. I guess.

658
00:39:16,400 --> 00:39:18,400
Speaker 2: It's also hard for me to think about the like,

659
00:39:19,600 --> 00:39:22,080
Speaker 2: what is this guy's title.

660
00:39:22,000 --> 00:39:24,240
Speaker 1: The IPSO chairman.

661
00:39:25,200 --> 00:39:27,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like it's also a little challenging to me

662
00:39:27,640 --> 00:39:31,920
Speaker 2: to think about this IPSO chairman, who is, like I

663
00:39:31,960 --> 00:39:36,120
Speaker 2: guess in England, he's like the top person in charge

664
00:39:36,320 --> 00:39:39,680
Speaker 2: of the newspapers. Like what would that even look like

665
00:39:39,719 --> 00:39:41,000
Speaker 2: in the United States.

666
00:39:42,080 --> 00:39:44,080
Speaker 3: I can't even wrap my head around it.

667
00:39:44,320 --> 00:39:46,400
Speaker 1: Well, if you asked me, he should come on as

668
00:39:46,440 --> 00:39:49,120
Speaker 1: a producer and co host of the podcast. Yo, is

669
00:39:49,120 --> 00:39:54,760
Speaker 1: this racist? Because this white man apparently is the arbiter

670
00:39:54,920 --> 00:39:57,719
Speaker 1: of what is and is not definitively racist, And we

671
00:39:57,840 --> 00:40:00,760
Speaker 1: got to get him on that podcast as co host

672
00:40:01,040 --> 00:40:10,120
Speaker 1: asap because his talents are being wasted. More.

673
00:40:10,160 --> 00:40:23,279
Speaker 4: After a quick break, let's get right back.

674
00:40:23,200 --> 00:40:27,839
Speaker 2: Into it, all right, bridget we got all the hard

675
00:40:27,880 --> 00:40:30,520
Speaker 2: news out of the way. What's Elon done now?

676
00:40:31,000 --> 00:40:35,240
Speaker 1: Well, something was definitely up with Twitter over the weekend.

677
00:40:35,360 --> 00:40:38,799
Speaker 1: I have so much to say about it. Let's break

678
00:40:38,840 --> 00:40:42,080
Speaker 1: down what was going on. First, Twitter started limiting who

679
00:40:42,239 --> 00:40:45,239
Speaker 1: could and could not read posts on the platform. They

680
00:40:45,360 --> 00:40:48,080
Speaker 1: limited it to only people with Twitter log in, so

681
00:40:48,080 --> 00:40:49,680
Speaker 1: if you didn't have a Twitter log in, you could

682
00:40:49,719 --> 00:40:51,600
Speaker 1: not see Twitter. If he went to Twitter dot com,

683
00:40:51,640 --> 00:40:54,799
Speaker 1: it would redirect you to a login page. Then yesterday

684
00:40:55,200 --> 00:40:59,000
Speaker 1: they quietly walked that policy back without ever acknowledging it.

685
00:40:59,040 --> 00:41:01,640
Speaker 1: So they rolled it with that acknowledging it, walked it

686
00:41:01,680 --> 00:41:05,520
Speaker 1: back with that acknowledging it weird. Then Elon Musk tweeted

687
00:41:05,520 --> 00:41:07,480
Speaker 1: that they were going to start limiting the amounts of

688
00:41:07,520 --> 00:41:11,360
Speaker 1: tweets that users could see. If you were a Twitter

689
00:41:11,400 --> 00:41:13,799
Speaker 1: Blue subscriber, you could see six thousand tweets a day.

690
00:41:14,239 --> 00:41:16,479
Speaker 1: If you were an unverified account, you could see six

691
00:41:16,560 --> 00:41:18,439
Speaker 1: hundred tweets to day, and if you were a new

692
00:41:18,600 --> 00:41:21,359
Speaker 1: unverified account, you could see three hundred tweets per day.

693
00:41:21,480 --> 00:41:24,239
Speaker 1: Elon Musk tweeted that this was a temporary measure to

694
00:41:24,320 --> 00:41:29,040
Speaker 1: prevent data scraping. There was some concern about like AI

695
00:41:29,560 --> 00:41:35,759
Speaker 1: potentially scraping Twitter data to train its models. Seems a

696
00:41:35,840 --> 00:41:38,480
Speaker 1: little suspicious. I'm not we'll get into that, but I'm

697
00:41:38,520 --> 00:41:40,759
Speaker 1: not totally sure. But that's what he tweeted. So I

698
00:41:40,760 --> 00:41:42,440
Speaker 1: don't know how it was for you all. But by

699
00:41:42,520 --> 00:41:46,560
Speaker 1: this happened on Saturday. By Sunday, I was totally unable

700
00:41:46,600 --> 00:41:49,040
Speaker 1: to see any tweets at all. Right, So like when

701
00:41:49,040 --> 00:41:52,960
Speaker 1: I woke up on Sunday, the obviously, like the clock

702
00:41:53,000 --> 00:41:55,360
Speaker 1: should have restarted in that twenty four hour period, but

703
00:41:55,480 --> 00:41:58,200
Speaker 1: the moment I logged in, I was already getting the

704
00:41:58,640 --> 00:42:00,560
Speaker 1: error that I had seen all the tweets that I

705
00:42:00,560 --> 00:42:02,320
Speaker 1: could see, even though I had not been on the

706
00:42:02,360 --> 00:42:04,960
Speaker 1: platform at all. So by Sunday. The platform was just

707
00:42:05,040 --> 00:42:06,319
Speaker 1: a no go for me. I don't know how it

708
00:42:06,360 --> 00:42:08,400
Speaker 1: was for y'all, but let me know. I'm curious. And

709
00:42:08,480 --> 00:42:11,880
Speaker 1: in case you're wondering, this also applied to official Twitter

710
00:42:11,920 --> 00:42:15,600
Speaker 1: accounts for emergency services like a National Hurricane Center or

711
00:42:15,640 --> 00:42:20,120
Speaker 1: Amber alerts. They also could only you know, see the

712
00:42:20,160 --> 00:42:23,200
Speaker 1: six thousand tweets perdy if they were Twitter Blue subscribers,

713
00:42:23,520 --> 00:42:28,120
Speaker 1: or six hundred if they were unverified, which is pretty concerning,

714
00:42:28,200 --> 00:42:30,920
Speaker 1: like had there been a hurricane or had there been

715
00:42:30,960 --> 00:42:33,680
Speaker 1: an Amber alert, maybe there was. It's probably good to

716
00:42:33,719 --> 00:42:37,120
Speaker 1: have these organizations be able to see more than a

717
00:42:37,120 --> 00:42:40,400
Speaker 1: couple of tweets, you know, particularly if they're paying for

718
00:42:40,520 --> 00:42:43,439
Speaker 1: Twitter Blue. That's something that I fully kind of don't

719
00:42:43,520 --> 00:42:49,879
Speaker 1: understand is how if I'm paying for like a subscriber experience,

720
00:42:50,920 --> 00:42:53,279
Speaker 1: am I how am I getting my tweets capped? It's like,

721
00:42:53,400 --> 00:42:55,000
Speaker 1: what was the point of paying If it's like, oh,

722
00:42:55,120 --> 00:42:57,080
Speaker 1: you get all these features and also can only see

723
00:42:57,080 --> 00:42:58,880
Speaker 1: six thousand tweets The amouth like, what's the point of paying?

724
00:42:59,040 --> 00:43:01,880
Speaker 2: What other cons about not being able to say tweets

725
00:43:01,880 --> 00:43:06,520
Speaker 2: if you're not logged in is that it has caused

726
00:43:06,560 --> 00:43:10,000
Speaker 2: Google to remove all tweets from Google results. So it

727
00:43:10,080 --> 00:43:12,400
Speaker 2: used to be that if you were searching for something

728
00:43:12,400 --> 00:43:17,000
Speaker 2: online and Google thought that a tweet was relevant to

729
00:43:17,000 --> 00:43:19,560
Speaker 2: what you were searching for, it would include that tweet

730
00:43:19,560 --> 00:43:22,080
Speaker 2: in your search results. But that's no longer the case

731
00:43:22,160 --> 00:43:26,240
Speaker 2: because because of this change that only logged in users

732
00:43:26,280 --> 00:43:29,840
Speaker 2: can see it. And that's a pretty big deal because

733
00:43:30,000 --> 00:43:33,600
Speaker 2: Google's responsible for over ninety percent of all searches in

734
00:43:33,640 --> 00:43:36,680
Speaker 2: the US and I don't know how much Twitter traffic

735
00:43:36,840 --> 00:43:40,080
Speaker 2: was coming from Google, but I have to assume some,

736
00:43:41,600 --> 00:43:45,719
Speaker 2: and Twitter being removed from Google seems like one more

737
00:43:45,840 --> 00:43:51,640
Speaker 2: big step towards Twitter becoming less relevant in the overall

738
00:43:51,920 --> 00:43:56,160
Speaker 2: information ecosystem that we all live in and get our

739
00:43:56,160 --> 00:43:57,160
Speaker 2: information from.

740
00:43:57,560 --> 00:44:00,759
Speaker 1: So what the heck is going on here? Well, the

741
00:44:00,800 --> 00:44:03,960
Speaker 1: short answer is we don't totally know. So there was

742
00:44:04,000 --> 00:44:07,160
Speaker 1: some speculation that it was related to Twitter not paying

743
00:44:07,200 --> 00:44:10,600
Speaker 1: their bills. This is from BBC data scientist. An ex

744
00:44:10,680 --> 00:44:14,279
Speaker 1: Twitter employee, doctor Rumin Chadri, told the BBC that it

745
00:44:14,280 --> 00:44:17,919
Speaker 1: was unclear if AI organizations had actually been scraping data

746
00:44:17,960 --> 00:44:21,440
Speaker 1: from Twitter, but suggested that financial issues could be behind

747
00:44:21,440 --> 00:44:24,520
Speaker 1: the changes. Frankly, I think I'm in the majority of

748
00:44:24,560 --> 00:44:26,800
Speaker 1: people who believe that it's due to Elon's lack of

749
00:44:26,840 --> 00:44:29,240
Speaker 1: payment of his bills and that he's attempting to produce

750
00:44:29,239 --> 00:44:32,680
Speaker 1: his cost She said, I have since seen other people

751
00:44:32,800 --> 00:44:34,840
Speaker 1: who kind of claim to be in the know saying

752
00:44:34,880 --> 00:44:38,279
Speaker 1: that it was not related to unpaid bills, So I

753
00:44:38,360 --> 00:44:41,440
Speaker 1: really couldn't say. Former Twitter head of Trust and Safety

754
00:44:41,800 --> 00:44:46,240
Speaker 1: Joel Roth said that Elon Musk's official explanation about trying

755
00:44:46,280 --> 00:44:50,360
Speaker 1: to prevent data scraping doesn't sound totally right, saying it

756
00:44:50,520 --> 00:44:53,640
Speaker 1: just doesn't pass the sniff test. That scraping all of

757
00:44:53,680 --> 00:44:57,480
Speaker 1: a sudden created such a dramatic performance problem that Twitter

758
00:44:57,560 --> 00:45:00,680
Speaker 1: had no choice but to put everything behind a log in.

759
00:45:01,080 --> 00:45:04,200
Speaker 1: So a lot of theories being floated around. I should

760
00:45:04,200 --> 00:45:06,440
Speaker 1: be clear that we don't know which one is the truth.

761
00:45:06,760 --> 00:45:11,120
Speaker 1: Don't don't leave me a weird comment on Instagram Elon

762
00:45:11,239 --> 00:45:17,120
Speaker 1: Musk allah a certain magazine because I'm just speculating and

763
00:45:17,160 --> 00:45:20,600
Speaker 1: summarizing other people's theories. We don't know what's going on.

764
00:45:20,880 --> 00:45:23,440
Speaker 1: But Mike, you actually have a theory we were talking

765
00:45:23,440 --> 00:45:26,080
Speaker 1: about the other day. No, yeah, I mean.

766
00:45:25,960 --> 00:45:29,760
Speaker 2: It's not like my theory. But like you said, nobody

767
00:45:29,840 --> 00:45:35,520
Speaker 2: really knows what was behind all of these like large

768
00:45:35,960 --> 00:45:39,040
Speaker 2: surprise changes, some of which were announced, some of which

769
00:45:39,080 --> 00:45:43,000
Speaker 2: just like quietly happened. Uh, but clearly something was up.

770
00:45:43,200 --> 00:45:45,160
Speaker 2: One thing I saw over the weekend was a post

771
00:45:45,200 --> 00:45:51,440
Speaker 2: from someone speculating that this was due to Twitter unintentionally

772
00:45:51,480 --> 00:45:56,680
Speaker 2: releasing some very bad code in their attempts to restrict

773
00:45:56,719 --> 00:45:59,920
Speaker 2: the site to only authenticated users who were logged in.

774
00:46:01,320 --> 00:46:04,240
Speaker 2: So the idea here is that for whatever reason, Twitter

775
00:46:04,280 --> 00:46:06,640
Speaker 2: wanted to make that change so that people who weren't

776
00:46:06,680 --> 00:46:09,200
Speaker 2: logged in and couldn't see it, and to do that, they

777
00:46:09,200 --> 00:46:11,960
Speaker 2: had to change some of their code about how Twitter works,

778
00:46:12,400 --> 00:46:15,960
Speaker 2: and the code that they released to do that was

779
00:46:16,120 --> 00:46:20,120
Speaker 2: just bad and caused a lot of problems. And the

780
00:46:20,239 --> 00:46:22,319
Speaker 2: evidence that this person had for it was that they

781
00:46:22,800 --> 00:46:27,040
Speaker 2: shared a screenshot of their console from their web browser

782
00:46:27,520 --> 00:46:31,680
Speaker 2: showing that, you know, as they were logged into Twitter,

783
00:46:32,440 --> 00:46:36,760
Speaker 2: their computer was just like hammering away at Twitter servers

784
00:46:36,760 --> 00:46:41,200
Speaker 2: with a bunch of network requests. And so they were

785
00:46:41,239 --> 00:46:45,719
Speaker 2: speculating that perhaps that was what caused Twitter to have

786
00:46:45,760 --> 00:46:50,880
Speaker 2: to put up put in place these limits, because you know,

787
00:46:50,960 --> 00:46:53,960
Speaker 2: first they tried to restrict it to only logged in users,

788
00:46:54,200 --> 00:46:58,000
Speaker 2: but they executed that so poorly that it created this

789
00:46:58,280 --> 00:47:01,600
Speaker 2: enormous drain on their on their resources, and so they

790
00:47:01,600 --> 00:47:04,440
Speaker 2: had to put the limits in place just to be

791
00:47:04,520 --> 00:47:07,920
Speaker 2: able to keep things moving at all. And so for

792
00:47:08,000 --> 00:47:13,000
Speaker 2: a while, the hashtag selfdos was going around for self

793
00:47:13,000 --> 00:47:16,560
Speaker 2: distributed denial of service attack, making fun of Twitter for

794
00:47:16,600 --> 00:47:20,040
Speaker 2: crashing its own servers through its bad code. So that

795
00:47:21,120 --> 00:47:25,719
Speaker 2: seems consistent with the screenshot that he had shared, and

796
00:47:25,760 --> 00:47:31,360
Speaker 2: it seems consistent with the chaotic, scattershot approach to decision

797
00:47:31,400 --> 00:47:34,640
Speaker 2: making that Twitter seems to do under Elon Musk. But

798
00:47:35,239 --> 00:47:36,920
Speaker 2: like I said, it's just speculation.

799
00:47:37,120 --> 00:47:37,840
Speaker 3: Who knows.

800
00:47:38,160 --> 00:47:42,120
Speaker 1: I also love the Dave's on vacation theory, the sort

801
00:47:42,120 --> 00:47:45,000
Speaker 1: of joke that Elon has fired or laid off so

802
00:47:45,120 --> 00:47:48,479
Speaker 1: many engineers that Twitter is now operating with a skeleton crew.

803
00:47:48,800 --> 00:47:53,160
Speaker 1: So people are speculating that this engineer named Dave who

804
00:47:53,200 --> 00:47:56,040
Speaker 1: I guess. It's like a fictional engineer took his family

805
00:47:56,080 --> 00:47:59,120
Speaker 1: to make on vacation and there was nobody there to answer.

806
00:47:59,160 --> 00:48:03,320
Speaker 1: The phonel was out and Twitter imploded. I love the

807
00:48:03,440 --> 00:48:06,040
Speaker 1: daves on vacation theory of like, oh yeah, Dave's up

808
00:48:06,040 --> 00:48:07,960
Speaker 1: with the wife and kids up in the adirondecks for

809
00:48:08,000 --> 00:48:10,439
Speaker 1: the weekend. None of this stuff's gonna work.

810
00:48:11,840 --> 00:48:15,120
Speaker 2: Yeah, I like that one too, And it's of all these,

811
00:48:15,320 --> 00:48:18,040
Speaker 2: it's probably the closest to correct.

812
00:48:18,560 --> 00:48:19,480
Speaker 3: Yeah, none of us know.

813
00:48:19,840 --> 00:48:24,319
Speaker 2: And it really seems like the true answer, which we'll

814
00:48:24,600 --> 00:48:28,440
Speaker 2: probably never know, maybe we will, is some version of

815
00:48:28,760 --> 00:48:32,080
Speaker 2: they try to do something stupid, they screwed it up

816
00:48:32,160 --> 00:48:34,600
Speaker 2: and had to do more stupid things to try to

817
00:48:34,680 --> 00:48:36,760
Speaker 2: like dig themselves out of that hole.

818
00:48:37,440 --> 00:48:38,840
Speaker 3: And I think.

819
00:48:38,640 --> 00:48:41,240
Speaker 2: We're still there. Maybe maybe they're up and running.

820
00:48:41,320 --> 00:48:44,719
Speaker 1: They're up and running now, and whatever the rationale was,

821
00:48:44,760 --> 00:48:46,759
Speaker 1: we may never know the truth. What we do know

822
00:48:47,000 --> 00:48:50,520
Speaker 1: is that the vibes on Twitter are not good right.

823
00:48:50,600 --> 00:48:54,520
Speaker 1: The engagement is down, advertising revenue is way down. It's

824
00:48:54,600 --> 00:48:56,400
Speaker 1: kind of funny to me that we're having this conversation

825
00:48:56,480 --> 00:49:00,359
Speaker 1: after the new Twitter CEO, Linda Yakarno, it was just

826
00:49:00,360 --> 00:49:02,040
Speaker 1: going on and on about how she was going to

827
00:49:02,040 --> 00:49:06,320
Speaker 1: make Twitter brand safe again and bring back advertisements. That

828
00:49:06,520 --> 00:49:08,560
Speaker 1: this is not doing that right. Like, I don't know

829
00:49:08,560 --> 00:49:11,319
Speaker 1: why somebody would want to pay to be advertising on

830
00:49:11,360 --> 00:49:15,480
Speaker 1: a platform that would limit how much tweets people could see.

831
00:49:15,719 --> 00:49:18,960
Speaker 1: Advertisement included. Doesn't make any sense to me. What's also

832
00:49:18,960 --> 00:49:20,759
Speaker 1: funny is that we didn't really hear a ton from

833
00:49:20,800 --> 00:49:22,680
Speaker 1: her when this was going on. She was kind of

834
00:49:23,120 --> 00:49:26,600
Speaker 1: doing some sneak likes of Elon's tweets, but like I

835
00:49:26,600 --> 00:49:29,640
Speaker 1: would expect the CEO to be making a statement about this,

836
00:49:29,840 --> 00:49:32,600
Speaker 1: but she didn't really. I guess she's just like, oh,

837
00:49:32,640 --> 00:49:36,040
Speaker 1: whatever Elon says. I also, I'm gonna like that on Twitter,

838
00:49:36,320 --> 00:49:38,440
Speaker 1: and not to mention the fact that it's just a janky,

839
00:49:38,800 --> 00:49:42,520
Speaker 1: confusing experience for folks who were trying to navigate it

840
00:49:42,560 --> 00:49:44,800
Speaker 1: still right, Like, I was trying to use Twitter to

841
00:49:44,880 --> 00:49:47,759
Speaker 1: navigate stuff happening globally, as I often do, and it

842
00:49:47,840 --> 00:49:52,280
Speaker 1: just was impossible to do that. You know, verified tweets

843
00:49:52,280 --> 00:49:54,640
Speaker 1: were coming up at the top that weren't saying anything

844
00:49:54,640 --> 00:49:58,200
Speaker 1: that was accurate or useful. It just wasn't a good experience,

845
00:49:58,200 --> 00:50:00,839
Speaker 1: and so I think the vibes were not good over there.

846
00:50:00,920 --> 00:50:03,680
Speaker 1: And it just seems like it is not well thought

847
00:50:03,719 --> 00:50:05,719
Speaker 1: out in terms of how they are rolling out these

848
00:50:05,800 --> 00:50:07,839
Speaker 1: changes and then quietly rolling them back.

849
00:50:08,320 --> 00:50:12,480
Speaker 2: Not well thought out really captures it, and it's not

850
00:50:12,560 --> 00:50:15,600
Speaker 2: just their users. There's an article in Matchable this week

851
00:50:15,600 --> 00:50:19,480
Speaker 2: about how developers of third party apps are fleeing Twitter too,

852
00:50:19,600 --> 00:50:25,800
Speaker 2: because they are similarly being jerked around and having functionality

853
00:50:25,880 --> 00:50:30,520
Speaker 2: that they were promised taken away or just break on

854
00:50:30,640 --> 00:50:34,440
Speaker 2: them without notification. I don't know, did you ever use

855
00:50:34,480 --> 00:50:36,279
Speaker 2: the app who unfollowed me?

856
00:50:36,680 --> 00:50:38,839
Speaker 1: No, I'm way too anxious for that kind of thing.

857
00:50:38,880 --> 00:50:41,600
Speaker 1: I don't want to know. Okay, yeah, no one would

858
00:50:41,640 --> 00:50:44,160
Speaker 1: ever unfollow me. In my mind, I.

859
00:50:44,080 --> 00:50:45,719
Speaker 3: Guess I'm yeah.

860
00:50:45,760 --> 00:50:48,359
Speaker 2: So it was like a useful and kind of fun thing,

861
00:50:49,680 --> 00:50:52,920
Speaker 2: but it relied on their API, and now it's just

862
00:50:53,040 --> 00:51:00,840
Speaker 2: gone because the API points first the developer had to

863
00:51:00,880 --> 00:51:05,680
Speaker 2: pay for them, and so they paid however much it

864
00:51:05,840 --> 00:51:11,480
Speaker 2: was a month, but then like Twitter, changed what endpoints

865
00:51:11,480 --> 00:51:14,759
Speaker 2: they were able to actually access after they had.

866
00:51:14,680 --> 00:51:15,239
Speaker 3: Paid for it.

867
00:51:16,040 --> 00:51:18,840
Speaker 2: And so even like big developers who've shelled out up

868
00:51:18,880 --> 00:51:21,640
Speaker 2: to forty two thousand dollars a month for enterprise access,

869
00:51:21,880 --> 00:51:24,920
Speaker 2: have been complaining that the APIs just break all the time.

870
00:51:25,200 --> 00:51:28,600
Speaker 2: Twitter will make changes without telling them, which forces them

871
00:51:28,640 --> 00:51:31,440
Speaker 2: to do like emergency maintenance to try to keep their

872
00:51:31,480 --> 00:51:35,840
Speaker 2: apps working, and according to this article, a lot of

873
00:51:35,880 --> 00:51:40,440
Speaker 2: them have just given up and are done with Twitter,

874
00:51:41,760 --> 00:51:43,600
Speaker 2: you know, And so that's just I think one more

875
00:51:43,719 --> 00:51:47,319
Speaker 2: sign that things are going poorly in Twitter Land for

876
00:51:47,520 --> 00:51:48,600
Speaker 2: everyone involved.

877
00:51:48,920 --> 00:51:51,200
Speaker 1: So speaking of giving up and being done with Twitter,

878
00:51:51,800 --> 00:51:53,799
Speaker 1: I can relate, and it seems like a lot of

879
00:51:53,840 --> 00:51:56,800
Speaker 1: other regular users of Twitter can relate as well, because

880
00:51:56,840 --> 00:51:59,279
Speaker 1: with this big roadblock for the platform, a lot of

881
00:51:59,320 --> 00:52:02,439
Speaker 1: people are looking at alternatives for Twitter in a way

882
00:52:02,440 --> 00:52:05,120
Speaker 1: that I have not seen since Elon Musk first took

883
00:52:05,160 --> 00:52:07,520
Speaker 1: over like seven months ago. So let's talk about a

884
00:52:07,520 --> 00:52:11,359
Speaker 1: couple of the different alternatives to Twitter floating around out there.

885
00:52:11,600 --> 00:52:14,120
Speaker 1: There's a Blue Sky, a platform that I've played with

886
00:52:14,160 --> 00:52:17,960
Speaker 1: a little bit. It was a platform conceptualized by Jack Dorsey,

887
00:52:18,120 --> 00:52:20,640
Speaker 1: the former CEO of Twitter, that is still in beta

888
00:52:20,680 --> 00:52:23,920
Speaker 1: and is invite only. It's very similar to Twitter. We're

889
00:52:23,960 --> 00:52:26,160
Speaker 1: gonna be doing an episode about it more in depth,

890
00:52:26,200 --> 00:52:29,480
Speaker 1: but it's kind of like a Twitter alternative where a

891
00:52:29,520 --> 00:52:32,239
Speaker 1: lot of folks who you might see on Twitter are

892
00:52:32,320 --> 00:52:35,759
Speaker 1: there doing their thing. Another is Spill, which launched on

893
00:52:35,840 --> 00:52:39,520
Speaker 1: July twelfth, that was conceptualized by two former Twitter staffers.

894
00:52:39,880 --> 00:52:42,400
Speaker 1: Hopefully we will hear from the creators of Spill on

895
00:52:42,440 --> 00:52:45,799
Speaker 1: this very podcast very soon. Spill kind of strikes me

896
00:52:45,960 --> 00:52:49,200
Speaker 1: as a spot that is meant to be specifically building

897
00:52:49,200 --> 00:52:52,839
Speaker 1: community around marginalized users, black folks, queer folks. When you

898
00:52:52,880 --> 00:52:56,000
Speaker 1: log into Spill, which is still invite only, you have

899
00:52:56,080 --> 00:52:59,760
Speaker 1: to like it's very clear, like we're not about hate speech,

900
00:52:59,800 --> 00:53:01,960
Speaker 1: We're here for marginalized people to be able to show up.

901
00:53:02,520 --> 00:53:05,160
Speaker 1: I find that kind of interesting. I don't think it's

902
00:53:05,160 --> 00:53:08,719
Speaker 1: like explicitly a space just for marginalized people, but I

903
00:53:08,760 --> 00:53:10,279
Speaker 1: think it's clear that they want it to be a

904
00:53:10,280 --> 00:53:14,040
Speaker 1: space where marginalized folks can show up. And there's a

905
00:53:14,080 --> 00:53:17,359
Speaker 1: heavy like black Twitter contingent to Spill. But again, we'll

906
00:53:17,400 --> 00:53:19,600
Speaker 1: hear more from the creators in their own words, hopefully

907
00:53:19,680 --> 00:53:21,840
Speaker 1: very soon. And the one that I really want to

908
00:53:21,880 --> 00:53:25,120
Speaker 1: talk about today is ig Threads. So I have to

909
00:53:25,160 --> 00:53:27,960
Speaker 1: admit I have not tried ig Threads. It has been

910
00:53:28,000 --> 00:53:30,560
Speaker 1: out for like thirty hours, and in that time I

911
00:53:30,600 --> 00:53:33,560
Speaker 1: have not been able to download it. I'm actually not

912
00:53:33,600 --> 00:53:36,959
Speaker 1: sure if I will question Mark. Maybe I'll decide during

913
00:53:36,960 --> 00:53:40,160
Speaker 1: the course of this episode. But it's being called the

914
00:53:40,239 --> 00:53:43,440
Speaker 1: Twitter Killer, so I've seen some people that I trust

915
00:53:43,520 --> 00:53:48,080
Speaker 1: talk about Threads being good. It just launched yesterday overnight,

916
00:53:48,280 --> 00:53:52,360
Speaker 1: thirty million people joined it. It shot to the I

917
00:53:52,400 --> 00:53:55,319
Speaker 1: think the currently it's the hot most downloaded app on

918
00:53:55,360 --> 00:53:58,480
Speaker 1: the App Store. It's only for iOS right now. I

919
00:53:58,480 --> 00:54:00,799
Speaker 1: think one of the reasons I've seen people that I

920
00:54:00,880 --> 00:54:05,880
Speaker 1: trust kind of be like cautiously optimistic about it is

921
00:54:05,880 --> 00:54:09,160
Speaker 1: that it pulls from your current Instagram following, so you

922
00:54:09,239 --> 00:54:11,319
Speaker 1: don't have to start from zero. And I think, like,

923
00:54:12,000 --> 00:54:14,640
Speaker 1: even if you're somebody who is really good at building

924
00:54:14,640 --> 00:54:18,160
Speaker 1: community online and really good at like, you know, engagement

925
00:54:18,200 --> 00:54:20,560
Speaker 1: and getting followers and all of that, nobody wants to

926
00:54:20,600 --> 00:54:22,520
Speaker 1: start from zero. And so I think that that is

927
00:54:22,680 --> 00:54:26,520
Speaker 1: a reason that I've seen people say that it might

928
00:54:26,560 --> 00:54:28,759
Speaker 1: be good. Let's talk about some of the reasons why

929
00:54:28,800 --> 00:54:31,160
Speaker 1: it might not be good. One big thing to know

930
00:54:31,360 --> 00:54:35,040
Speaker 1: is that if you download Threads, it is a separate app,

931
00:54:35,080 --> 00:54:37,640
Speaker 1: separate from your Instagram. So if you download it and

932
00:54:37,680 --> 00:54:39,680
Speaker 1: then you decide you don't like it, you have to

933
00:54:39,760 --> 00:54:43,839
Speaker 1: delete your entire Instagram count to entirely get rid of

934
00:54:43,840 --> 00:54:47,760
Speaker 1: that app. So, according to the Threads Supplemental Privacy Policy,

935
00:54:48,200 --> 00:54:51,080
Speaker 1: you may deactivate your Threads profile at any time, but

936
00:54:51,160 --> 00:54:54,040
Speaker 1: your Threads profile can only be deleted by deleting your

937
00:54:54,080 --> 00:54:58,880
Speaker 1: Instagram account. Ours Technica also quoted my personal nemesis, the

938
00:54:58,920 --> 00:55:02,520
Speaker 1: head of Instagram Adam who said, you can deactivate your

939
00:55:02,560 --> 00:55:05,880
Speaker 1: Threads account, which hides your Threads profile and content. You

940
00:55:05,920 --> 00:55:08,600
Speaker 1: can set your profile to private. You can delete individual

941
00:55:08,640 --> 00:55:11,920
Speaker 1: Threads posts all without deleting your Instagram account. Threads is

942
00:55:11,960 --> 00:55:14,720
Speaker 1: powered by Instagram, so right now it's just one account.

943
00:55:14,760 --> 00:55:16,319
Speaker 1: But we're looking out a way to delete your Threads

944
00:55:16,360 --> 00:55:19,080
Speaker 1: account separately, So I don't know. I just don't like that.

945
00:55:19,200 --> 00:55:22,720
Speaker 1: I think that if you were one of the thirty

946
00:55:22,719 --> 00:55:25,200
Speaker 1: million people who just wanted to try it out and join,

947
00:55:25,880 --> 00:55:31,080
Speaker 1: you shouldn't have to completely delete your Instagram account if

948
00:55:31,120 --> 00:55:33,319
Speaker 1: you decide it's not for you. Now. Again, as you said,

949
00:55:33,360 --> 00:55:36,240
Speaker 1: you can like private your Threads or hide your Threads,

950
00:55:36,239 --> 00:55:38,480
Speaker 1: but if you want out entirely, I think it's a

951
00:55:38,520 --> 00:55:40,960
Speaker 1: little bit much that you have to completely delete a

952
00:55:41,000 --> 00:55:43,920
Speaker 1: completely separate app to do that. I don't like that.

953
00:55:44,719 --> 00:55:48,240
Speaker 1: Another thing to know is that you cannot only follow

954
00:55:48,320 --> 00:55:50,279
Speaker 1: people that you want to follow. The feed is a

955
00:55:50,280 --> 00:55:52,560
Speaker 1: mix of people that you follow and people that you don't.

956
00:55:52,640 --> 00:55:56,000
Speaker 1: As Ours Technical reported, some users have actually complained that

957
00:55:56,040 --> 00:55:58,440
Speaker 1: their feed is flooded with content from accounts that they

958
00:55:58,480 --> 00:56:03,759
Speaker 1: never followed, outnumbering posts from their friends. But in classic

959
00:56:04,040 --> 00:56:07,680
Speaker 1: tech bro style, that this thing that users are complaining

960
00:56:07,719 --> 00:56:11,440
Speaker 1: about and saying is annoying is actually a really great feature.

961
00:56:11,800 --> 00:56:14,560
Speaker 1: They just don't get it yet because in a blog post,

962
00:56:14,719 --> 00:56:18,719
Speaker 1: meta toouted this default feed as a feature, not an annoyance,

963
00:56:19,000 --> 00:56:22,279
Speaker 1: saying quote your feed on threads includes threads posted by

964
00:56:22,320 --> 00:56:25,600
Speaker 1: people that you follow and recommended content from new creators

965
00:56:25,600 --> 00:56:28,799
Speaker 1: you haven't discovered yet. So you know, an influencer that

966
00:56:28,840 --> 00:56:31,359
Speaker 1: you've never heard of and don't care about spamming your

967
00:56:31,360 --> 00:56:34,080
Speaker 1: threads feed is just a friend you haven't met yet.

968
00:56:34,239 --> 00:56:37,319
Speaker 1: So those are some of the logistical reasons that maybe

969
00:56:37,320 --> 00:56:39,279
Speaker 1: It's threads isn't so great. But let's talk about some

970
00:56:39,320 --> 00:56:42,520
Speaker 1: of the bigger, kind of thornier issues. Number one is

971
00:56:42,560 --> 00:56:46,279
Speaker 1: that it is Facebook. People. Do I really need to

972
00:56:46,320 --> 00:56:49,080
Speaker 1: say anything else? It's Facebook. So the people that brought

973
00:56:49,120 --> 00:56:52,040
Speaker 1: you everything that comes with Facebook, they are also bringing

974
00:56:52,080 --> 00:56:55,160
Speaker 1: you threads that should really be enough. Jason Kent't summed

975
00:56:55,160 --> 00:56:56,680
Speaker 1: it up really well. On The Sweet That I Love.

976
00:56:56,719 --> 00:57:00,600
Speaker 1: He writes misleads about metrics, inflates, video opportunity, covers up

977
00:57:00,680 --> 00:57:05,280
Speaker 1: data breach, empowers foreign interference, aids and genocide, blocks, free

978
00:57:05,320 --> 00:57:11,360
Speaker 1: and plural press, hides damming, harms research, abuses users, privacy copies, competition,

979
00:57:11,719 --> 00:57:15,040
Speaker 1: launches new app? Where can I download? It? Sounds a

980
00:57:15,080 --> 00:57:16,240
Speaker 1: little funky.

981
00:57:15,920 --> 00:57:20,240
Speaker 2: When you put it that way, right, I get it, man,

982
00:57:20,280 --> 00:57:20,760
Speaker 2: I get it.

983
00:57:21,320 --> 00:57:24,160
Speaker 1: So because it's Facebook, that means that they are very

984
00:57:24,200 --> 00:57:28,280
Speaker 1: big privacy concerns with Threads. Threads collects a lot of

985
00:57:28,480 --> 00:57:33,160
Speaker 1: data about you, which can include things like your sexual orientation, race, ethnicity,

986
00:57:33,400 --> 00:57:39,040
Speaker 1: biometric data, trade, union membership, pregnancy status, politics, and religious beliefs.

987
00:57:39,280 --> 00:57:41,840
Speaker 1: Threads can also collect data on users employment, as well

988
00:57:41,880 --> 00:57:44,919
Speaker 1: as health and fitness activity. Beyond that, the app also

989
00:57:45,040 --> 00:57:49,240
Speaker 1: can collect data monitoring your location and other web activity. Now,

990
00:57:49,240 --> 00:57:51,920
Speaker 1: if you're listening to this in the EU, you do

991
00:57:52,000 --> 00:57:54,320
Speaker 1: not have access to Threads, and that's because of the

992
00:57:54,360 --> 00:57:58,440
Speaker 1: European Data Protection Boards finding decision that Meta did not

993
00:57:58,600 --> 00:58:02,160
Speaker 1: have an appropriate basis for processing personal data to serve

994
00:58:02,240 --> 00:58:04,840
Speaker 1: up behavioral ads. It's kind of a whole legal mess,

995
00:58:04,880 --> 00:58:07,640
Speaker 1: but here's how tech Crunch put it. Currently, Meta does

996
00:58:07,680 --> 00:58:10,840
Speaker 1: not even offer users a general upfront choice to deny

997
00:58:11,000 --> 00:58:14,480
Speaker 1: it's tracking and profiling, let alone explicitly ask if it

998
00:58:14,480 --> 00:58:17,520
Speaker 1: can share data on your health conditions so advertisers can

999
00:58:17,560 --> 00:58:20,640
Speaker 1: sell you diet pills or whatever. And with even harder

1000
00:58:20,680 --> 00:58:23,480
Speaker 1: limits on surveillance ads coming down the pipe in the EU,

1001
00:58:23,920 --> 00:58:27,080
Speaker 1: an app that proposes to track everything to maximize its

1002
00:58:27,080 --> 00:58:31,280
Speaker 1: appeal to advertisers will be a tough sell to regional regulators.

1003
00:58:31,560 --> 00:58:34,960
Speaker 1: And so yeah, if you are someone who wants to

1004
00:58:34,960 --> 00:58:38,160
Speaker 1: get on threads, you should just be aware of the

1005
00:58:38,480 --> 00:58:42,960
Speaker 1: amount of data that Meta is collecting from you from Threads,

1006
00:58:43,000 --> 00:58:46,240
Speaker 1: because it's a lot. And I should say, obviously Facebook

1007
00:58:46,280 --> 00:58:49,240
Speaker 1: is not the only platform collecting your data. Twitter also

1008
00:58:49,280 --> 00:58:51,520
Speaker 1: collects your data, albeit I think a little bit less

1009
00:58:51,520 --> 00:58:54,560
Speaker 1: than Facebook does. But it's just generally good to be

1010
00:58:54,640 --> 00:58:58,480
Speaker 1: aware of Facebook's practices and histories around our sensitive data.

1011
00:58:58,960 --> 00:59:01,360
Speaker 3: Yeah, all of it. It's Facebook, They're collecting all of it.

1012
00:59:01,920 --> 00:59:05,160
Speaker 1: And even though Zuckerberg has talked a big game about

1013
00:59:05,160 --> 00:59:08,800
Speaker 1: wanting Threads to be this place for discourse and accurate information,

1014
00:59:09,440 --> 00:59:11,480
Speaker 1: it has been up for less than a day and

1015
00:59:11,680 --> 00:59:15,720
Speaker 1: already this is being called into question because known harassers

1016
00:59:15,720 --> 00:59:19,600
Speaker 1: and misinformers and disinformers like libs of TikTok are already

1017
00:59:19,680 --> 00:59:23,440
Speaker 1: showing up on Threads. When Donald Trump Junior joined Threads,

1018
00:59:23,440 --> 00:59:26,160
Speaker 1: added a warning to his account letting folks know that

1019
00:59:26,200 --> 00:59:29,640
Speaker 1: he is known for spreading misinformation, which he is. When

1020
00:59:29,680 --> 00:59:33,640
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior screenshot at that warning and complained, metas

1021
00:59:33,720 --> 00:59:36,920
Speaker 1: Andy Stone walked it back, saying the warning was just

1022
00:59:36,960 --> 00:59:39,000
Speaker 1: a mistake, they didn't mean to apply it. So it

1023
00:59:39,040 --> 00:59:41,920
Speaker 1: does kind of seem like the same moderation issues and

1024
00:59:41,960 --> 00:59:45,160
Speaker 1: concerns that already show up on Facebook might also be

1025
00:59:45,240 --> 00:59:48,680
Speaker 1: present on threads. I would also just add that, like,

1026
00:59:49,880 --> 00:59:51,800
Speaker 1: I don't really even know how to put this, but

1027
00:59:51,840 --> 00:59:57,160
Speaker 1: there is definitely a cultural vibe of Instagram that makes

1028
00:59:57,160 --> 01:00:01,240
Speaker 1: me wonder if if a product Cannect did to Instagram

1029
01:00:01,360 --> 01:00:05,320
Speaker 1: will ever take off and be an actual replacement for Twitter.

1030
01:00:05,920 --> 01:00:09,640
Speaker 1: You know, it's hard to explain, but if you use Facebook, Instagram,

1031
01:00:09,680 --> 01:00:12,400
Speaker 1: and Twitter, you probably know exactly what I mean. Think

1032
01:00:12,400 --> 01:00:15,840
Speaker 1: about the kind of person who becomes big on Instagram, Now,

1033
01:00:16,120 --> 01:00:18,240
Speaker 1: think about the kind of person who becomes big on Twitter.

1034
01:00:18,920 --> 01:00:23,200
Speaker 1: Those two groups of people find success for completely different

1035
01:00:23,240 --> 01:00:26,880
Speaker 1: behavior and things with completely different audiences. The culture of

1036
01:00:26,920 --> 01:00:31,680
Speaker 1: Twitter is text base, so snarks, jokes, meme, general on

1037
01:00:31,960 --> 01:00:35,960
Speaker 1: we right, those are the things that perform well on Twitter,

1038
01:00:36,280 --> 01:00:40,320
Speaker 1: text based snark, text based insights, things like that. The

1039
01:00:40,320 --> 01:00:43,640
Speaker 1: culture of Instagram is visual, right, so it's looking a

1040
01:00:43,640 --> 01:00:47,320
Speaker 1: certain way, presenting a certain way. I don't necessarily want

1041
01:00:47,360 --> 01:00:51,200
Speaker 1: to read written takes from the kind of people who

1042
01:00:51,480 --> 01:00:54,040
Speaker 1: really perform well on Instagram. I don't mean that as

1043
01:00:54,040 --> 01:00:56,640
Speaker 1: a dig on them. It's just that there are two

1044
01:00:56,680 --> 01:01:01,040
Speaker 1: different mediums. They're very different, and they have very different audiences,

1045
01:01:01,080 --> 01:01:03,880
Speaker 1: and so I feel like the kind of person who

1046
01:01:03,920 --> 01:01:06,880
Speaker 1: would find success on a visual medium and the kind

1047
01:01:06,920 --> 01:01:09,160
Speaker 1: of person who would find success on a on a

1048
01:01:09,280 --> 01:01:14,120
Speaker 1: text based medium are very different. And having Threads be

1049
01:01:14,200 --> 01:01:17,880
Speaker 1: connected to your Instagram account so that, like the people

1050
01:01:17,880 --> 01:01:20,840
Speaker 1: who already have big followings on Instagram, people who are

1051
01:01:20,880 --> 01:01:25,080
Speaker 1: already big influencers on Instagram automatically will have big platforms

1052
01:01:25,120 --> 01:01:28,080
Speaker 1: on Threads as well, just makes me think that as

1053
01:01:28,120 --> 01:01:30,240
Speaker 1: a text base. I mean, you're see your shaking your head.

1054
01:01:30,240 --> 01:01:33,200
Speaker 1: But like, if I have a million Instagram followers and

1055
01:01:33,240 --> 01:01:36,600
Speaker 1: you have five Instagram followers and Threads automatically pulls your

1056
01:01:36,640 --> 01:01:40,439
Speaker 1: followers from Instagram, I will start out on day one

1057
01:01:40,600 --> 01:01:42,920
Speaker 1: with a million followers on Threads. You will start out

1058
01:01:42,960 --> 01:01:45,280
Speaker 1: on day one with five followers on Threads. That's just

1059
01:01:45,280 --> 01:01:46,120
Speaker 1: how it works.

1060
01:01:46,640 --> 01:01:47,240
Speaker 3: It's true.

1061
01:01:47,280 --> 01:01:51,640
Speaker 2: But just because you've got a million followers, if you're

1062
01:01:51,640 --> 01:01:54,800
Speaker 2: not creating the kind of content that they think is

1063
01:01:54,840 --> 01:01:56,840
Speaker 2: going to give them the kind of engagement they want.

1064
01:01:57,520 --> 01:02:02,080
Speaker 2: They will bury you in a day, and you're you know,

1065
01:02:02,120 --> 01:02:04,880
Speaker 2: you might have a million followers, but there's no doubt

1066
01:02:04,880 --> 01:02:08,160
Speaker 2: in my mind that they there. You know, they wouldn't

1067
01:02:08,240 --> 01:02:12,400
Speaker 2: dial you back to like a thousand impressions a day,

1068
01:02:12,440 --> 01:02:16,400
Speaker 2: even if you're posting posting a lot of content, because

1069
01:02:16,440 --> 01:02:20,960
Speaker 2: as you described, it's it's not like a chronological timeline, right,

1070
01:02:20,960 --> 01:02:26,440
Speaker 2: It's that this algorithm that they are using, and that

1071
01:02:26,440 --> 01:02:29,920
Speaker 2: that vibe difference that you described between Twitter and Instagram.

1072
01:02:30,200 --> 01:02:33,400
Speaker 2: I'm sure a lot of people have studied it, and

1073
01:02:33,520 --> 01:02:35,439
Speaker 2: I would be like really interested to hear from them.

1074
01:02:35,480 --> 01:02:39,840
Speaker 2: But I have to believe that the particular vibe that

1075
01:02:39,920 --> 01:02:45,560
Speaker 2: exists on Instagram was very intentionally and deliberately curated by

1076
01:02:46,280 --> 01:02:53,000
Speaker 2: Meta And so yeah, I think, you know, bringing all

1077
01:02:53,040 --> 01:02:57,520
Speaker 2: your followers is gonna you know, it is an advantage

1078
01:02:57,520 --> 01:03:00,720
Speaker 2: to starting on a new network. You know, when I

1079
01:03:00,760 --> 01:03:04,080
Speaker 2: started on masted on a while ago, that was like

1080
01:03:04,160 --> 01:03:06,440
Speaker 2: a major barrier. I was starting at zero, not that

1081
01:03:06,480 --> 01:03:08,680
Speaker 2: I had that many followers, but for me, it was

1082
01:03:08,720 --> 01:03:10,480
Speaker 2: more like the people that I was following I had

1083
01:03:10,480 --> 01:03:11,240
Speaker 2: to go.

1084
01:03:11,120 --> 01:03:12,760
Speaker 3: And like find them and find all new ones.

1085
01:03:13,120 --> 01:03:17,320
Speaker 2: But there's a chronological timeline, and you know with both

1086
01:03:17,360 --> 01:03:20,240
Speaker 2: Instagram and Threads, that's not the case. It's the algorithm.

1087
01:03:20,280 --> 01:03:22,400
Speaker 2: They're showing you what they want you to see.

1088
01:03:22,800 --> 01:03:25,840
Speaker 1: So Edzatrone has a piece that I think really speaks

1089
01:03:25,840 --> 01:03:28,520
Speaker 1: to what you're talking about, and he actually argues that

1090
01:03:28,600 --> 01:03:31,440
Speaker 1: this might be kind of marking the end of a

1091
01:03:31,480 --> 01:03:33,400
Speaker 1: certain era of the Internet as we know it. It's

1092
01:03:33,480 --> 01:03:34,800
Speaker 1: kind of a long quote, but I think it's so

1093
01:03:34,880 --> 01:03:37,720
Speaker 1: worth it. Hear me out. He writes, when Twitter and

1094
01:03:37,760 --> 01:03:40,600
Speaker 1: Instagram launched, people were not primed for what a social

1095
01:03:40,640 --> 01:03:43,440
Speaker 1: network was. Users did not join with the intent of

1096
01:03:43,640 --> 01:03:48,280
Speaker 1: building followings or content creation. Influencer was a term, but

1097
01:03:48,320 --> 01:03:51,000
Speaker 1: it was not a term that people instantly gravitated toward.

1098
01:03:51,080 --> 01:03:54,080
Speaker 1: From day one. Twitter was exciting because it felt raw,

1099
01:03:54,400 --> 01:03:57,880
Speaker 1: almost accidentally honest, and the way that famous or notable

1100
01:03:57,920 --> 01:04:00,600
Speaker 1: people acted didn't feel like they were following a content

1101
01:04:00,640 --> 01:04:03,960
Speaker 1: marketing calendar. Threads is built to attract people who are

1102
01:04:03,960 --> 01:04:07,880
Speaker 1: concerned about influence versus any kind of authentic conversation, and

1103
01:04:07,960 --> 01:04:11,280
Speaker 1: it suffers greatly as a result. Perhaps we're simply approaching

1104
01:04:11,320 --> 01:04:13,800
Speaker 1: the end of the honest Internet, where the magic of

1105
01:04:13,880 --> 01:04:17,560
Speaker 1: happenstance is being squeezed out as financial interests find ways

1106
01:04:17,560 --> 01:04:21,240
Speaker 1: to dominate real human conversation. Threads isn't built for you

1107
01:04:21,280 --> 01:04:24,320
Speaker 1: to talk to other people. It's built to inject intepid

1108
01:04:24,560 --> 01:04:27,560
Speaker 1: content into your life and interfere with as much of

1109
01:04:27,560 --> 01:04:31,200
Speaker 1: the human experience as possible. Perhaps it's because Zuckerberg already

1110
01:04:31,200 --> 01:04:34,520
Speaker 1: saw how unprofitable Twitter is and decided the only way

1111
01:04:34,560 --> 01:04:37,760
Speaker 1: to do this would be to make a significantly worse experience.

1112
01:04:38,280 --> 01:04:41,880
Speaker 1: More fundamentally, Threads isn't a social network. It's a marketing

1113
01:04:41,960 --> 01:04:45,360
Speaker 1: channel for the least interesting people on Earth. It's exactly

1114
01:04:45,400 --> 01:04:48,800
Speaker 1: what you'd expect of a text based Instagram, a mediocre,

1115
01:04:49,160 --> 01:04:53,600
Speaker 1: algorithmic nightmare of content slob that barely resembles entertainment, and

1116
01:04:53,640 --> 01:04:55,880
Speaker 1: I can't wait for it to fail. So a little

1117
01:04:55,920 --> 01:04:58,560
Speaker 1: bit grim That speaks a little bit, I think to

1118
01:04:58,640 --> 01:05:02,080
Speaker 1: what you were talking about about influencers and whether having

1119
01:05:02,080 --> 01:05:07,920
Speaker 1: a big platform on Threads will correlate to engagement and

1120
01:05:08,000 --> 01:05:10,640
Speaker 1: being successful there, I kind of agree with, even though

1121
01:05:10,680 --> 01:05:13,480
Speaker 1: I'm not on Threads, I kind of agree that we're

1122
01:05:13,520 --> 01:05:17,000
Speaker 1: thinking about it completely wrong. We're thinking about it in

1123
01:05:17,080 --> 01:05:21,200
Speaker 1: terms of an authentic engagement platform, and I don't think

1124
01:05:21,200 --> 01:05:22,120
Speaker 1: that's what Threads is.

1125
01:05:23,000 --> 01:05:27,360
Speaker 2: There is zero reason for optimism, right, Like it's meta.

1126
01:05:27,480 --> 01:05:31,880
Speaker 2: They are bad actors. Every single piece of it is

1127
01:05:31,920 --> 01:05:36,240
Speaker 2: going to be bills around selling ads. I think they

1128
01:05:36,760 --> 01:05:41,280
Speaker 2: would readily admit that, right, Like they're they're interested in

1129
01:05:41,320 --> 01:05:45,960
Speaker 2: harvesting data and selling ads. This new platform is a

1130
01:05:46,040 --> 01:05:48,040
Speaker 2: new vector for them to do that.

1131
01:05:49,520 --> 01:05:51,320
Speaker 3: Maybe it'll be interesting. I don't know.

1132
01:05:52,800 --> 01:05:55,520
Speaker 2: You know, television is a vector for selling US ads

1133
01:05:55,560 --> 01:05:56,919
Speaker 2: and there's good shows on there.

1134
01:05:57,480 --> 01:06:00,760
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's funny because because you're not able to

1135
01:06:00,840 --> 01:06:03,800
Speaker 1: control your feed and like what you're seeing, it's a

1136
01:06:03,840 --> 01:06:08,040
Speaker 1: lot of brands and influencers and things like that. Giovanni

1137
01:06:08,280 --> 01:06:11,160
Speaker 1: colon Tiano at Digital Trends put it really well. He said,

1138
01:06:11,240 --> 01:06:13,920
Speaker 1: he posted this screenshot of all of these different brands,

1139
01:06:14,440 --> 01:06:18,080
Speaker 1: you know, packing their little brand specific jokes on Threads.

1140
01:06:18,320 --> 01:06:21,080
Speaker 1: There's Netflix saying Threads, it's kind of like love is

1141
01:06:21,120 --> 01:06:24,120
Speaker 1: blind because everybody is all about that engagement a GA

1142
01:06:24,200 --> 01:06:28,240
Speaker 1: engagement ring emoji and I get it. It's it's like

1143
01:06:28,480 --> 01:06:31,200
Speaker 1: cringe and I ROLLI and all of that. But he writes,

1144
01:06:31,480 --> 01:06:34,240
Speaker 1: it's truly pathetic that this is the endgame of social media,

1145
01:06:34,320 --> 01:06:38,080
Speaker 1: a powerful tool for education and organization, co opted into

1146
01:06:38,120 --> 01:06:41,200
Speaker 1: a dead eyed utopia for brands to post the most

1147
01:06:41,200 --> 01:06:44,240
Speaker 1: Sacharin shit imaginable and have it forced into your feed

1148
01:06:44,680 --> 01:06:48,760
Speaker 1: happy meal as app, and I get the energy that

1149
01:06:48,800 --> 01:06:53,880
Speaker 1: he is responding to right like that. It's there was

1150
01:06:53,920 --> 01:06:57,120
Speaker 1: a time where social media and this this era of

1151
01:06:57,160 --> 01:07:02,040
Speaker 1: the Internet represented endless possibility of connection and power building

1152
01:07:02,040 --> 01:07:05,600
Speaker 1: and organizing and engagement. And I'm we're using it to

1153
01:07:05,640 --> 01:07:10,480
Speaker 1: get you know, Netflix's little brand jokes about love is

1154
01:07:10,520 --> 01:07:13,280
Speaker 1: blind and we're not even choosing to see that. It's

1155
01:07:13,320 --> 01:07:16,840
Speaker 1: just being surfaced to us because that's what Adam MOSERI

1156
01:07:17,080 --> 01:07:20,280
Speaker 1: and Mark Zuckerberg think that we want from the Internet.

1157
01:07:20,520 --> 01:07:22,080
Speaker 1: And it is I mean, I don't want to sound

1158
01:07:22,120 --> 01:07:24,360
Speaker 1: like a downer, but it is a little sad to

1159
01:07:24,440 --> 01:07:28,360
Speaker 1: me that these are the people who are architecting what

1160
01:07:28,360 --> 01:07:30,280
Speaker 1: our digital future looks like. This is what they think

1161
01:07:30,320 --> 01:07:32,920
Speaker 1: that we want or and that we should be happy

1162
01:07:32,920 --> 01:07:34,520
Speaker 1: to get it. If we're like, oh, we don't like that,

1163
01:07:34,640 --> 01:07:36,960
Speaker 1: they're like, oh no, no, no, you're actually wrong, You

1164
01:07:37,040 --> 01:07:40,240
Speaker 1: actually don't You're actually too stupid to know what you like,

1165
01:07:40,360 --> 01:07:43,200
Speaker 1: And don't like. Actually, I know what you like and

1166
01:07:43,240 --> 01:07:45,520
Speaker 1: don't like. I know more what you like than you know,

1167
01:07:45,960 --> 01:07:48,160
Speaker 1: and I just hate that. And I also think that

1168
01:07:48,920 --> 01:07:52,440
Speaker 1: Ed's post that I read earlier. You know, when Twitter

1169
01:07:52,480 --> 01:07:55,680
Speaker 1: first started, it was a platform with a little bit

1170
01:07:55,720 --> 01:07:58,880
Speaker 1: of a reverence and a little bit of zaniness and

1171
01:07:59,080 --> 01:08:03,160
Speaker 1: humor and areness, and it did feel new and exciting

1172
01:08:03,280 --> 01:08:05,040
Speaker 1: back in the day. And it hasn't felt like that

1173
01:08:05,080 --> 01:08:07,800
Speaker 1: for a really long time. Mostly it just feels exhausting.

1174
01:08:08,080 --> 01:08:11,360
Speaker 1: And I think that's one of the reasons why I

1175
01:08:11,480 --> 01:08:19,960
Speaker 1: don't necessarily see a future for a Twitter clone that

1176
01:08:20,200 --> 01:08:25,320
Speaker 1: is connected to like my Instagram Facebook universe. This might

1177
01:08:25,360 --> 01:08:28,519
Speaker 1: be specific to me, but folks can let me know

1178
01:08:28,560 --> 01:08:32,400
Speaker 1: what they think. I just think that my Instagram Facebook

1179
01:08:32,520 --> 01:08:36,040
Speaker 1: universe is too broad of a universe for me to

1180
01:08:36,080 --> 01:08:38,760
Speaker 1: then go put my takes out onto right like my

1181
01:08:38,920 --> 01:08:42,400
Speaker 1: mom follows me on Facebook, my high school English teacher

1182
01:08:42,479 --> 01:08:45,599
Speaker 1: follows me on Facebook, right like my high school friends

1183
01:08:45,680 --> 01:08:49,720
Speaker 1: follow me on Facebook. Twitter is a much more niche platform.

1184
01:08:50,520 --> 01:08:53,120
Speaker 1: Less people use it, and even less people than that

1185
01:08:53,360 --> 01:08:56,080
Speaker 1: actually make content and post there, so it kind of

1186
01:08:56,120 --> 01:08:59,720
Speaker 1: feels a little bit safer to put like whatever bizarre

1187
01:09:00,120 --> 01:09:04,719
Speaker 1: niche take. I want out into the universe on Twitter,

1188
01:09:05,240 --> 01:09:08,320
Speaker 1: the idea of like Emily from my senior year math

1189
01:09:08,360 --> 01:09:13,320
Speaker 1: class reading my deep dive tweets into the Adipole complex

1190
01:09:13,360 --> 01:09:15,719
Speaker 1: in the movie Boa Is Afraid. It's a little much

1191
01:09:15,760 --> 01:09:18,120
Speaker 1: like I think there should be some division in the

1192
01:09:18,120 --> 01:09:19,920
Speaker 1: way that I there is some division for me and

1193
01:09:19,920 --> 01:09:22,000
Speaker 1: how I show up on Twitter versus how I show

1194
01:09:22,080 --> 01:09:25,880
Speaker 1: up on Instagram. I don't necessarily want those universes mesh together,

1195
01:09:26,560 --> 01:09:26,720
Speaker 1: you know.

1196
01:09:26,800 --> 01:09:28,840
Speaker 2: I think I said this last week because I kind

1197
01:09:28,840 --> 01:09:33,400
Speaker 2: of like having different apps for like different audiences and

1198
01:09:33,439 --> 01:09:36,479
Speaker 2: different groups of people that I communicate with and different

1199
01:09:36,520 --> 01:09:39,639
Speaker 2: types of content that I want to look at something

1200
01:09:39,760 --> 01:09:43,120
Speaker 2: you said just before about what a sad end game

1201
01:09:43,200 --> 01:09:47,479
Speaker 2: for social media and you know, thinking about threads being

1202
01:09:48,479 --> 01:09:54,000
Speaker 2: essentially just a clone of Twitter, which I think everyone agrees,

1203
01:09:54,040 --> 01:09:55,040
Speaker 2: like that's exactly.

1204
01:09:54,800 --> 01:09:55,240
Speaker 3: What it is.

1205
01:09:55,439 --> 01:10:00,519
Speaker 2: Twitter, like you said, really came to prominence ago in

1206
01:10:00,600 --> 01:10:04,000
Speaker 2: a different era. Twitter was different, the Internet was different,

1207
01:10:04,120 --> 01:10:11,400
Speaker 2: we were different, and so cloning Twitter now it's just

1208
01:10:11,800 --> 01:10:15,800
Speaker 2: like a radically different thing than what Twitter was, and

1209
01:10:16,320 --> 01:10:22,240
Speaker 2: Twitter arguably hasn't been that for a while. So it's

1210
01:10:22,400 --> 01:10:25,720
Speaker 2: you know, if you clone the technology of a platform

1211
01:10:25,960 --> 01:10:28,920
Speaker 2: that was something that people really liked and valued a

1212
01:10:28,920 --> 01:10:32,960
Speaker 2: few years ago and maybe has fallen off in more

1213
01:10:33,000 --> 01:10:35,720
Speaker 2: recent times. You're probably gonna end up with something that

1214
01:10:36,040 --> 01:10:40,000
Speaker 2: is similarly not what people are looking for. In twenty

1215
01:10:40,040 --> 01:10:42,400
Speaker 2: twenty three, then again, thirty million people downloaded it.

1216
01:10:42,439 --> 01:10:44,120
Speaker 3: What do I know? But I don't know.

1217
01:10:44,160 --> 01:10:48,200
Speaker 2: I remained optimistic that we're gonna do something new, right, Like,

1218
01:10:48,280 --> 01:10:53,040
Speaker 2: We're not just gonna all shift to some new platform

1219
01:10:53,080 --> 01:10:55,120
Speaker 2: that is a clone of the old platform, that like,

1220
01:10:55,240 --> 01:11:01,120
Speaker 2: something genuinely new and different and possibly centralized is going

1221
01:11:01,200 --> 01:11:01,719
Speaker 2: to come along.

1222
01:11:02,560 --> 01:11:06,240
Speaker 1: Maybe it's Spill, you know, maybe it's there are a

1223
01:11:06,280 --> 01:11:09,840
Speaker 1: couple people who are like I think all of the

1224
01:11:09,960 --> 01:11:14,799
Speaker 1: interesting new alternatives to social media platforms are all coming

1225
01:11:14,840 --> 01:11:20,120
Speaker 1: from marginalized creators. There's Somewhere Good, which is an audio based, intimate,

1226
01:11:20,160 --> 01:11:25,360
Speaker 1: audio based social networking platform. They're spill. Yeah. I don't

1227
01:11:25,360 --> 01:11:27,599
Speaker 1: want to make it seem like I'm like Doom and Gloom.

1228
01:11:27,800 --> 01:11:29,920
Speaker 1: I will forever be an optimist. I think that when

1229
01:11:29,920 --> 01:11:33,120
Speaker 1: you get people who care about connection online together, really

1230
01:11:33,160 --> 01:11:37,360
Speaker 1: important stuff can happen, Really groundbreaking stuff can happen. But

1231
01:11:37,439 --> 01:11:40,599
Speaker 1: we actually need to be centering and empowering those voices

1232
01:11:41,040 --> 01:11:43,960
Speaker 1: and having some of these fucking dipshits get out of

1233
01:11:44,000 --> 01:11:47,360
Speaker 1: the way, who are just trying to make everything worse,

1234
01:11:47,800 --> 01:11:51,040
Speaker 1: Like it isn't life hard enough? Do we have to

1235
01:11:51,120 --> 01:11:56,160
Speaker 1: make everything worse? So on Wednesday, Twitter threatened to sue

1236
01:11:56,240 --> 01:11:59,679
Speaker 1: Meta because, as you just said, Mike, it's basically Threads

1237
01:11:59,760 --> 01:12:03,200
Speaker 1: is like basically a Twitter clone. I don't even want

1238
01:12:03,240 --> 01:12:06,000
Speaker 1: to like get too much into this because I really

1239
01:12:06,080 --> 01:12:10,400
Speaker 1: hate this kind of cola wars PEVSI versus COPE framing.

1240
01:12:10,880 --> 01:12:12,840
Speaker 1: I don't I don't like talking about this as a

1241
01:12:12,880 --> 01:12:16,000
Speaker 1: business story because the reality is that we're talking about,

1242
01:12:16,360 --> 01:12:19,080
Speaker 1: as we just demonstrated, we're talking about our ability to

1243
01:12:19,160 --> 01:12:24,479
Speaker 1: like connect with people, access information, and like functionally use

1244
01:12:24,640 --> 01:12:28,439
Speaker 1: our largest communications platforms that are so connected to our

1245
01:12:28,720 --> 01:12:32,639
Speaker 1: ways of life, social engagement, democracy, politics. So that's really

1246
01:12:32,640 --> 01:12:35,679
Speaker 1: what's at risk. So I just mentioned the lawsuit because

1247
01:12:35,720 --> 01:12:38,599
Speaker 1: it's part of a story. I think talking about this

1248
01:12:38,640 --> 01:12:40,920
Speaker 1: from a perspective of like, ooh, what are these two

1249
01:12:41,040 --> 01:12:42,880
Speaker 1: CEOs going to do? Or are they going to cage

1250
01:12:42,920 --> 01:12:46,680
Speaker 1: fight duke it out? I think it really lends credibility

1251
01:12:46,760 --> 01:12:49,439
Speaker 1: into the way that both of these bad actors have

1252
01:12:49,520 --> 01:12:51,960
Speaker 1: been behaving the way that they've been putting all of

1253
01:12:52,040 --> 01:12:56,559
Speaker 1: us at risk, and it kind of adds credence to that.

1254
01:12:56,840 --> 01:12:59,360
Speaker 1: So I don't like that, but I will say that

1255
01:12:59,439 --> 01:13:03,160
Speaker 1: in respond thanks to the threads, roll wout and this lawsuit,

1256
01:13:03,439 --> 01:13:07,040
Speaker 1: Twitter's new CEO, Linda Yakarino tweeted something that I thought

1257
01:13:07,120 --> 01:13:12,519
Speaker 1: was pretty rich. She tweeted, on Twitter, everyone's voice matters.

1258
01:13:12,720 --> 01:13:15,320
Speaker 1: Whether you're here to watch history unfold, which you can't do,

1259
01:13:15,800 --> 01:13:18,600
Speaker 1: discover real time information all over the world which is

1260
01:13:18,640 --> 01:13:22,920
Speaker 1: all inaccurate, share your opinions, or learn about others. At Twitter,

1261
01:13:23,280 --> 01:13:27,400
Speaker 1: you can be real unless your account is being impersonated.

1262
01:13:27,840 --> 01:13:31,800
Speaker 1: You built the Twitter community, prayer, hands emoji, clap emoji,

1263
01:13:32,040 --> 01:13:37,000
Speaker 1: and that's irreplaceable. That is your public square. We're often imitated,

1264
01:13:37,200 --> 01:13:41,080
Speaker 1: but the Twitter community can never be duplicated. Now I

1265
01:13:41,160 --> 01:13:44,280
Speaker 1: agree with her in some parts, right, we the people,

1266
01:13:44,960 --> 01:13:48,880
Speaker 1: we did build Twitter, We did build the community. But

1267
01:13:48,960 --> 01:13:51,000
Speaker 1: here's why I think that sentiment is so rich coming

1268
01:13:51,000 --> 01:13:54,080
Speaker 1: from her. It's like when COVID started and all the

1269
01:13:54,120 --> 01:13:57,759
Speaker 1: airlines were like, we're a family here at American Airlines,

1270
01:13:57,760 --> 01:13:59,439
Speaker 1: and you're like, oh, were we a family when y'all

1271
01:13:59,520 --> 01:14:01,720
Speaker 1: charge me for eighty dollars for my suitcase. Were we

1272
01:14:01,760 --> 01:14:04,479
Speaker 1: a family when you bumped me from my flight? No,

1273
01:14:04,680 --> 01:14:06,680
Speaker 1: we're not a family. So it's pretty rich for her

1274
01:14:06,680 --> 01:14:09,479
Speaker 1: to be talking about community now that they see that

1275
01:14:09,520 --> 01:14:13,200
Speaker 1: there are other games in town, other alternatives for people

1276
01:14:13,240 --> 01:14:17,439
Speaker 1: to get their online engagement. Now it's about community. Since

1277
01:14:17,479 --> 01:14:20,719
Speaker 1: Elon Musk took over, Twitter has not given a single

1278
01:14:21,000 --> 01:14:24,120
Speaker 1: crap about community. Anyone whose job it was to foster

1279
01:14:24,200 --> 01:14:28,679
Speaker 1: community at Twitter, from blackbirds to other identity specific groups,

1280
01:14:28,800 --> 01:14:31,200
Speaker 1: were all let go, and Elon did so while making

1281
01:14:31,240 --> 01:14:33,719
Speaker 1: it crystal clear that as far as he was concerned,

1282
01:14:33,840 --> 01:14:38,040
Speaker 1: the only job or role at Twitter that mattered was engineering,

1283
01:14:38,200 --> 01:14:40,800
Speaker 1: which side note he also sucks at managing him because

1284
01:14:40,800 --> 01:14:44,000
Speaker 1: Twitter was broken all weekend? So was Twitter a community

1285
01:14:44,040 --> 01:14:48,040
Speaker 1: when Elon blew up verifications and put users who actually

1286
01:14:48,080 --> 01:14:50,600
Speaker 1: built the community at risk? Were you looking out for

1287
01:14:50,640 --> 01:14:54,200
Speaker 1: Twitter's community when you let hate mongers, extremists and transoms

1288
01:14:54,360 --> 01:14:57,960
Speaker 1: back on? Maybe, but that is not a community that

1289
01:14:58,000 --> 01:15:00,320
Speaker 1: I would ever want to be part of, And Linda

1290
01:15:00,400 --> 01:15:03,960
Speaker 1: is right. It is the people, especially marginalized people, who

1291
01:15:04,000 --> 01:15:07,000
Speaker 1: make Twitter worth showing up to. That is a community

1292
01:15:07,000 --> 01:15:10,559
Speaker 1: that Elon has attacked and undermined and targeted the people

1293
01:15:10,600 --> 01:15:13,560
Speaker 1: who do that work of building the community on the platform.

1294
01:15:13,600 --> 01:15:15,519
Speaker 1: Those are the people that he has targeted again and

1295
01:15:15,560 --> 01:15:18,599
Speaker 1: again and again and put at risk. So we did

1296
01:15:18,680 --> 01:15:21,920
Speaker 1: build this community on Twitter, and that every turn Elon

1297
01:15:22,080 --> 01:15:25,240
Speaker 1: Musk treats us, the people who built that community like

1298
01:15:25,400 --> 01:15:28,720
Speaker 1: freeloaders who are behind on rent, that we owe him

1299
01:15:29,080 --> 01:15:32,639
Speaker 1: simply for showing up. And so I say, like, very

1300
01:15:32,880 --> 01:15:35,840
Speaker 1: rich to be talking about how much you value community? Now,

1301
01:15:36,120 --> 01:15:38,160
Speaker 1: where is that value when people didn't want to give

1302
01:15:38,160 --> 01:15:39,040
Speaker 1: you eight dollars?

1303
01:15:39,080 --> 01:15:42,080
Speaker 3: Elon damn? Sounds a little personal?

1304
01:15:43,240 --> 01:15:45,719
Speaker 1: Well what is I mean? I just don't like being

1305
01:15:45,800 --> 01:15:50,560
Speaker 1: told that my contribution if I'm not willing to personally

1306
01:15:50,600 --> 01:15:53,680
Speaker 1: shell over eight dollars to Elon Musk, my contribution as

1307
01:15:53,720 --> 01:15:56,400
Speaker 1: a community member of Twitter, but on the platform since

1308
01:15:56,960 --> 01:15:59,880
Speaker 1: the beginning, does it make a difference. But now when

1309
01:16:00,000 --> 01:16:02,800
Speaker 1: they're seeing there are other apps out there that might

1310
01:16:02,840 --> 01:16:05,479
Speaker 1: be able to recreate what they're doing, whether they do

1311
01:16:05,520 --> 01:16:08,479
Speaker 1: it well or not is, you know, remains to be seen.

1312
01:16:08,840 --> 01:16:11,200
Speaker 1: Now they want to talk about community. This is the

1313
01:16:11,200 --> 01:16:14,320
Speaker 1: first time that Elon Musk has ever talked about community.

1314
01:16:14,360 --> 01:16:16,760
Speaker 1: To me, where where is this coming from? Right? And

1315
01:16:16,760 --> 01:16:19,800
Speaker 1: so like, I just don't appreciate the flim flam, and

1316
01:16:19,840 --> 01:16:23,479
Speaker 1: I don't appreciate having him talk. I don't appreciate Twitter

1317
01:16:23,600 --> 01:16:25,599
Speaker 1: high ups talking out of both sides of their mouth

1318
01:16:25,760 --> 01:16:27,600
Speaker 1: and playing at all of our faces. Because if for

1319
01:16:27,680 --> 01:16:30,600
Speaker 1: a community, being a community is not just cashing my

1320
01:16:30,800 --> 01:16:33,840
Speaker 1: checks and treating me like garbage. Being a community means

1321
01:16:33,880 --> 01:16:38,439
Speaker 1: actually representing me and actually advocating and supporting my interest

1322
01:16:38,479 --> 01:16:40,360
Speaker 1: and my well being, which I have not seen from

1323
01:16:40,400 --> 01:16:43,720
Speaker 1: Twitter in the last six months. So yeah, I guess

1324
01:16:43,720 --> 01:16:47,360
Speaker 1: it is personal. Answer your question. Yeah, I'm angry about it,

1325
01:16:48,520 --> 01:16:54,439
Speaker 1: and I guess we'll stop it there enough. Mike, thank

1326
01:16:54,439 --> 01:16:57,600
Speaker 1: you so much for being here as always. Thanks for

1327
01:16:57,680 --> 01:16:58,719
Speaker 1: keeping me grounded.

1328
01:16:59,240 --> 01:17:02,640
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks thanks for having me on. This was a

1329
01:17:02,760 --> 01:17:09,000
Speaker 2: long Twitter app. But maybe next week everything will just

1330
01:17:09,000 --> 01:17:10,160
Speaker 2: be cool on Twitter.

1331
01:17:10,280 --> 01:17:11,559
Speaker 3: We can talk about other stuff.

1332
01:17:11,920 --> 01:17:15,760
Speaker 1: Here's hoping. Thanks so much for listening as always. To

1333
01:17:15,800 --> 01:17:18,280
Speaker 1: get more ad free content and to support the show,

1334
01:17:18,439 --> 01:17:20,800
Speaker 1: just go to patreon dot com slash tangoty and thanks

1335
01:17:20,840 --> 01:17:29,760
Speaker 1: so much for listening. If you're looking for ways to

1336
01:17:29,760 --> 01:17:32,400
Speaker 1: support the show, check out our March store at tangody

1337
01:17:32,439 --> 01:17:36,080
Speaker 1: dot com. Slash store. Got a story about an interesting

1338
01:17:36,080 --> 01:17:38,120
Speaker 1: thing in tech, or just want to say hi. You

1339
01:17:38,120 --> 01:17:40,400
Speaker 1: can reach us at Hello at tangody dot com. You

1340
01:17:40,439 --> 01:17:43,600
Speaker 1: can also find transcripts for today's episode at tengody dot com.

1341
01:17:43,640 --> 01:17:45,320
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by

1342
01:17:45,360 --> 01:17:48,679
Speaker 1: me Bridget Tod. It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative,

1343
01:17:49,200 --> 01:17:52,839
Speaker 1: edited by Joey Pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer,

1344
01:17:53,120 --> 01:17:56,360
Speaker 1: Tari Harrison as our producer, and sound engineer. Michael Almada

1345
01:17:56,439 --> 01:17:59,439
Speaker 1: is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If

1346
01:17:59,439 --> 01:18:01,160
Speaker 1: you want to help us grow, rate and review.

1347
01:18:01,080 --> 01:18:02,080
Speaker 4: Us on Apple Podcasts.

1348
01:18:02,880 --> 01:18:05,719
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,

1349
01:18:05,720 --> 01:18:08,760
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.