Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland, Diamond Executive producer with I Heart Radio and
Speaker 1: how the tech are you. It's time for the tech
Speaker 1: news for Tuesday, October four, two thousand twenty two. Now,
Speaker 1: earlier this year, I did an episode about a part
Speaker 1: of the ninety nineties six Communications Decency Act called Section
Speaker 1: to thirty. It's been in the news a lot over
Speaker 1: the last couple of years, particularly in US politics. Now,
Speaker 1: this section says, quote no provider or user of an
Speaker 1: interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
Speaker 1: speaker of any information provided by another information content provider
Speaker 1: end quote. Okay. Essentially, what this section says is that, say,
Speaker 1: a web platform like a social media site cannot be
Speaker 1: treated as if it were the responsible party for the
Speaker 1: stuff that its users post to that platform. So if
Speaker 1: I jumped onto a social media site to docks someone,
Speaker 1: or to spread lies about someone or something, or attempt
Speaker 1: to incite violence, the platform would not be held accountable
Speaker 1: for my actions. My platform. I really just I mean
Speaker 1: lots of stuff, not just social media sites and internet
Speaker 1: service provider could be an example, an I s P.
Speaker 1: I s P s give us the connections that we
Speaker 1: need in order to interact online. If they were to
Speaker 1: be held responsible for the stuff that people do when
Speaker 1: they're online, well then the whole system would come crashing
Speaker 1: down pretty quickly. If you could sue an I s
Speaker 1: P because someone using that I s P posted something
Speaker 1: that was harmful to you, it doesn't take long for
Speaker 1: you to imagine a situation where everybody is suing everyone
Speaker 1: for everything. Section to thirty allows for a couple of
Speaker 1: other things as well, such as protecting platforms for when
Speaker 1: they remove, van or block posts that violate the platform's rules.
Speaker 1: So if I were to post something on Facebook that
Speaker 1: was in violation of Facebook's terms of service, Facebook could
Speaker 1: totally remove my post and Facebook would not be legally
Speaker 1: liable for that. I would have no case if I
Speaker 1: sued the company. I mean, I could sue Facebook, but
Speaker 1: they could cite Section to thirty in a court would
Speaker 1: find that my lawsuit has no merit because Facebook is
Speaker 1: allowed to do that. The reason I say that is
Speaker 1: now the U. S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear
Speaker 1: a case that involves Section to thirty, and it's a
Speaker 1: case that has a tragedy at the heart of it,
Speaker 1: which always makes these issues more difficult to navigate because
Speaker 1: you want to be respectful of the people who are
Speaker 1: affected by said tragedy. So in a U. S citizen
Speaker 1: named No. M. A. Gonzalez was killed in Paris during
Speaker 1: an Islamic State group attack. Her family sued Google. Uh really,
Speaker 1: you know YouTube's arm of Google or YouTube's arm of Alphabet,
Speaker 1: and they were arguing that the company holds partial responsibility
Speaker 1: for Gonzalez's death due to YouTube's recommendation algorithm. The family's
Speaker 1: argument is that YouTube's algorithm promoted videos the aim to
Speaker 1: push people to extremist perspectives and that as such, YouTube
Speaker 1: and by extension, Alphabet should be held accountable for being
Speaker 1: part of what amounts to overall recruitment strategy. The case
Speaker 1: went up to the US Court of Appeals for the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit and they found that Section to thirty provides
Speaker 1: protection to YouTube against the charges. So the family has
Speaker 1: then pushed the matter up to the Supreme Court, which
Speaker 1: did decide to hear the case. You know, Supreme Court
Speaker 1: is not required to hear cases. It gets submissions and
Speaker 1: then decides which ones it will actually listen to. So
Speaker 1: this potentially means that the Supreme Court could determine if
Speaker 1: Section to thirty is constitutional or if it's unconstitutional. So
Speaker 1: potentially the Court could strike down Section to thirty UH,
Speaker 1: and if it does, it's not hard to imagine the
Speaker 1: flurry of court cases that would originate from all sides
Speaker 1: because this is section is one of those policies that
Speaker 1: gets a lot of flak both from Democrats and Republicans,
Speaker 1: though for very different reasons. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: the reasons are valid or not valid, but rather that
Speaker 1: it's it's coming from a different point of view as
Speaker 1: to why Section two thirty UH is dangerous. Both sides
Speaker 1: feel this way, but the people who created Section to
Speaker 1: thirty did so knowing that without it, internet companies would
Speaker 1: have no reason to even innovate or create any presence
Speaker 1: on the Internet because if they could be held liable
Speaker 1: for what someone else posted to that platform, then you know,
Speaker 1: there'd be too much risk because you can't control what
Speaker 1: other people do, right, So it could change everything. In fact,
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure what it would change into. A
Speaker 1: lot of the Internet would just not work with Section
Speaker 1: two thirty removed or at least it would be bogged
Speaker 1: down by lawsuits all over the place. However, I have
Speaker 1: to stress that's just one potential outcome. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: might find that Section to thirty needs to be more
Speaker 1: tightly defined, maybe it needs to have its own limitations.
Speaker 1: Maybe it just finds its section to thirty is perfectly cromulent.
Speaker 1: And ultimately this case gets dismissed and we're back to
Speaker 1: where we are already. We don't know, but I will
Speaker 1: keep following up on it. In a pretty rare move,
Speaker 1: the United States Federal Communications Commission has brought the hammer
Speaker 1: down on some telecommunications companies. Now. This has to do
Speaker 1: with the anti robo call initiative that launched back in
Speaker 1: twenty so. The FCC required all telecommunications companies in the
Speaker 1: US to comply with anti robo call proto calls called
Speaker 1: stir and shaken. The largest telecommunications companies had a tighter
Speaker 1: deadline to comply with these rules. They had to do
Speaker 1: it within a year uh and the smaller regional company
Speaker 1: these were given a little bit more time to get
Speaker 1: up to speed. Well. Now, the FCC has identified seven
Speaker 1: voice service carriers in the US that have failed to
Speaker 1: meet the requirements of this set of protocols, and the
Speaker 1: FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosen Worseel says that those companies will
Speaker 1: have two weeks to fix this or else the f
Speaker 1: c C is going to exclude those voice carriers from
Speaker 1: America's phone networks. Now that means is the the FCC
Speaker 1: is gonna issue a ban that all other sell or
Speaker 1: telecommunications providers are going to have to follow, where they
Speaker 1: will have to block any call originating from within those
Speaker 1: seven networks. So if you are a customer of any
Speaker 1: of those networks and you try to make a call
Speaker 1: to anyone else in the US, your call will not
Speaker 1: go through because it will be blocked, assuming that they're
Speaker 1: not on the same network you're on, in which case
Speaker 1: you know you might be able to have calls within
Speaker 1: your network, but not outside of it. The networks include
Speaker 1: a CABUS that's a k A B I S cloud
Speaker 1: for global you see Horizon Technology Group, Morse Communications, Sharon
Speaker 1: Telephone Company, and Southwest Arkansas Telecommunications and Technology. The clock
Speaker 1: is ticking for these companies to get up to speed,
Speaker 1: and hopefully at the end of all this, Americans will
Speaker 1: experience a significant decrease in robo calls. Another US agency
Speaker 1: that's gearing up to make an impact is the f
Speaker 1: TC or Federal Trade Commission. It announced an upcoming event
Speaker 1: on October nineteenth that will include experts in several fields,
Speaker 1: including marketing, psychology, and child development to determine quote what
Speaker 1: measures should be implemented to protect children from manipulative advertising
Speaker 1: end quote. So this isn't to try and find out
Speaker 1: if advertising is manipulative. It's already taken that as a given,
Speaker 1: which makes sense because it's like we have any lack
Speaker 1: of evidence on this. They're saying no advertising is manipulative.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's kind of its purpose sys to manipulate
Speaker 1: you into buying something, or convincing your parents in the
Speaker 1: case of children, to buy something. So the process they're
Speaker 1: gonna follow could include things like examining advertising that could
Speaker 1: be thought of as crossing the boundary to pass itself
Speaker 1: off as entertainment. So to a child, it might be
Speaker 1: as if they're watching a show, but that show itself
Speaker 1: is really a commercial. Honestly, if you were to ask
Speaker 1: me about my favorite shows as a kid, all of
Speaker 1: them were effectively just commercials for toys. Like all the
Speaker 1: shows I loved as a kid were really the thinnest
Speaker 1: of excuses to show off a bunch of characters and
Speaker 1: vehicles and sets that would ultimately be sold as play
Speaker 1: sets and and action figures and stuff. So I kind
Speaker 1: of I'm on board with this because I've definitely been
Speaker 1: the target of this sort of marketing in my own past,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure all of you out there have to
Speaker 1: at some extent. So the FCC is also involved with
Speaker 1: this particular process. The f c C is giving the
Speaker 1: public the opportunity to comment on issues that are brought
Speaker 1: up during this October nineteenth event. So after the event
Speaker 1: and until November eight, the general public will be allowed
Speaker 1: to make comments on a on the matter on a
Speaker 1: dedicated website. There's been a steadily growing push in the
Speaker 1: United States to establish more defined and firm privacy protections
Speaker 1: for U S citizens, particularly for children, which is nice. Uh,
Speaker 1: they have been so lax for so long that it's
Speaker 1: really an uphill battle at this point, because you know,
Speaker 1: we've kind of we kind of settled into complacency when
Speaker 1: it came to protecting our own privacy, and as a result,
Speaker 1: we have all these different systems in place that really
Speaker 1: prey upon our private information or have convinced us to
Speaker 1: essentially hand over that private information um and so correcting
Speaker 1: that now is is a lot harder than building in
Speaker 1: those protections from the beginning, but still better late than never.
Speaker 1: I guess okay, I've got a bunch more stories to
Speaker 1: go through, But before we get to any of those,
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. We're back. Regular listeners of
Speaker 1: this show likely already know that I am something of
Speaker 1: a metaverse skeptic. I have not kept my opinions about
Speaker 1: the metaverse very you know, private, But in an interview
Speaker 1: with a Dutch publication called Bright Apple, CEO Tim Cook
Speaker 1: also expressed some skepticism and criticism about the whole metaverse craze.
Speaker 1: One of Cooke's arguments is that the metaverse really isn't
Speaker 1: a thing yet, and no one really has a firm
Speaker 1: definition of it. There are a lot of different visions,
Speaker 1: some of which have very little overlap with each other,
Speaker 1: that everyone is calling a metaverse. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: speculation around it, there are a lot of questionable businesses
Speaker 1: popping up around it, and really you've got dozens or
Speaker 1: even hundreds of different concepts about what the metaverse even
Speaker 1: is or will be. Then Tim Cook also argues that
Speaker 1: technologies like VR are not likely to pull us into
Speaker 1: using them extensively as the new way to interact online.
Speaker 1: We might use them on occasion for specific tasks, maybe
Speaker 1: like playing a VR game, or maybe watching some entertainment,
Speaker 1: or perhaps you know, if you're working in architecture, maybe
Speaker 1: you're using VR to you know, move around a virtual
Speaker 1: model or something. But Cook does not anticipate VR replacing
Speaker 1: how we currently interact with the online world, and I'm
Speaker 1: tempted to decide with Cook on this. However, I also
Speaker 1: admit I am getting older and I am more likely
Speaker 1: to resist some ideas as I get older. So it's
Speaker 1: also possible that old folks like myself are just way
Speaker 1: off base that you know, we don't see this as
Speaker 1: the future because we're too mired in the past. That
Speaker 1: is possible. However, right now, I see the metaverse as
Speaker 1: mostly a buzzword that is covering up a flurry of
Speaker 1: activity that's really geared to cash in on any sort
Speaker 1: of excitement about the idea of a metaverse, and I
Speaker 1: include stuff like an f t S and that again
Speaker 1: not to say that n f t S won't have
Speaker 1: a valid place, but they were really treated as speculative
Speaker 1: commodities early on, and that damaged the image of n
Speaker 1: f T s moving forward. Also Web three concepts, I
Speaker 1: find those to be pretty questionable in a lot of cases,
Speaker 1: and obviously there are more examples than just that. And
Speaker 1: I should also acknowledge that I Heart Radio has gotten
Speaker 1: into the metaverse playing ground on platforms like Roadblocks and Fortnite.
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio has created virtual spaces for folks to
Speaker 1: gather at within these games and these platforms where they
Speaker 1: can do stuff like do little virtual activities and even
Speaker 1: attend virtual concerts. Now, I admit I just don't get
Speaker 1: the appeal. I mean, I get the appeal of the
Speaker 1: gaming material, like the stuff that is kind of light,
Speaker 1: almost like it reminds me kind of a mobile games,
Speaker 1: Like it's that kind of level of game engagement. I
Speaker 1: get the appeal of that. I mean, these games exist
Speaker 1: because they tap into something that's very human. But I
Speaker 1: do not get the appeal of going to a virtual concert. Um.
Speaker 1: I did spend some time in the Roadblocks I Art area.
Speaker 1: I played around a bit, but you know, beyond some
Speaker 1: pretty simple game mechanics, it just wasn't my thing. So
Speaker 1: I kind of bounced from it. But again I have
Speaker 1: to admit, you know, I'm I'm descending into grumpy old
Speaker 1: man territory and that may just be the reason why
Speaker 1: I didn't get the appeal. Uh Also, I should add
Speaker 1: that I didn't recognize any of the music acts that
Speaker 1: we had, you know, upcoming concerts, because the stuff I
Speaker 1: listened to comes from a different era. And uh so, yeah,
Speaker 1: I look at the names of the artists who are
Speaker 1: having these virtual concerts and I don't recognize any of them.
Speaker 1: So I'm way out of the loop. And again I
Speaker 1: think that's cause I'm getting old. But yeah, I'm curious
Speaker 1: if any of you out there attending any virtual concerts,
Speaker 1: what did you think was it appealing? Was the experience compelling? Mike?
Speaker 1: What made it different from say, watching a video of
Speaker 1: a band play doesn't compare at all with being in
Speaker 1: a physical venue and watching a band play. I honestly
Speaker 1: don't know, because I have not experienced it yet, and
Speaker 1: if you have, I'm really curious to hear about it.
Speaker 1: Moving on, Google has steadily been winding down its products
Speaker 1: and services in China over the last several years, and
Speaker 1: this week Google shut down its Google Translates service within China,
Speaker 1: citing low usage as the reason behind this decision, which
Speaker 1: you know is pretty much the same reason Google chose
Speaker 1: to shut down the Stadia service in general. Now, in
Speaker 1: other cases with Google's products in China, Google either shut
Speaker 1: down services because of government interference, so you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of censorship issues that just made it untenable
Speaker 1: to continue operating those services in China, or it didn't
Speaker 1: really have a choice. The Chinese government just came in
Speaker 1: and started blocking different Google services like Google Maps and
Speaker 1: things like that. And I feel like the last decade
Speaker 1: or so has been one in which companies have realized
Speaker 1: there's a hefty cost to attempting to access the huge
Speaker 1: market of China. Anyway, Google still has a couple of
Speaker 1: products that are active in China, but it remains to
Speaker 1: be seen if those stick around for very long or
Speaker 1: if China just leans heavily on uh the native companies
Speaker 1: within the country to provide the services that Google would
Speaker 1: otherwise be involved with. Okay, let's talk about YouTube some more.
Speaker 1: We mentioned it previously in the Supreme Court case that
Speaker 1: is coming up, but now it's a totally different story.
Speaker 1: Whenever it comes to ads on YouTube, I actually have
Speaker 1: to read up on articles about it, because, as I
Speaker 1: mentioned in yesterday's episode, I'm actually subscribed to YouTube Premium,
Speaker 1: and has to be clear that's not how I started out.
Speaker 1: I didn't start out subscribe to that. I was actually
Speaker 1: subscribed to a totally different service that ultimately got folded
Speaker 1: into YouTube Premium, and my subscription just kind of rolled
Speaker 1: over and I kept it. Anyway, This means that when
Speaker 1: I go on YouTube, I don't actually experience ads on
Speaker 1: the site. So I didn't notice any ad creep or
Speaker 1: changes in ad placement because I've never seen them, which
Speaker 1: means that when I read about it, it really shocks me.
Speaker 1: So for example, in August, YouTube was reportedly testing out
Speaker 1: a different ad approach and sometimes had as many as
Speaker 1: ten unskippable ads before a video. For a lot of you,
Speaker 1: this probably isn't news. It was totally news to me
Speaker 1: and shocking. I could not believe that they would put
Speaker 1: up to ten unskippable ads before a video plays. That's
Speaker 1: just way too much, particularly as YouTube is starting to
Speaker 1: shift it's preferences once again. So by that, I mean
Speaker 1: for a very long time, YouTube prioritized short form videos.
Speaker 1: In fact, the site had a strict limit on how
Speaker 1: long videos could be. You know, you could only upload
Speaker 1: videos of up to ten minutes in length for the
Speaker 1: longest time, and then gradually YouTube relax that, and then
Speaker 1: YouTube's algorithms started to prioritize longer form content, probably because
Speaker 1: it would keep people on the platform longer, you know,
Speaker 1: they would stick to watch an entire video, so a
Speaker 1: long video was prioritized by the algorithm. But now we're
Speaker 1: starting to see a shift again more back to short
Speaker 1: form as YouTube tries to deal with the eight hundred
Speaker 1: pound gorilla in the room, which is TikTok. TikTok threatens
Speaker 1: all social video platforms out there, so Google, like a
Speaker 1: lot of them, are trying to kind of cater to
Speaker 1: that short form ex experience two maybe tempt some of
Speaker 1: TikTok's audience away to join the platform. Well, now Google
Speaker 1: appears to be testing out a new way to urge
Speaker 1: folks to subscribe to YouTube Premium by restricting four K
Speaker 1: resolution content to YouTube Premium subscribers. Uh caud rate nes
Speaker 1: store and I apologize for the butchering of that name
Speaker 1: from the site. Notebook Check wrote about this, saying that
Speaker 1: YouTube hasn't commented on anything related to this allegation, but
Speaker 1: that some users online in things like Reddit groups have
Speaker 1: claimed to encounter videos that offer a higher resolution version
Speaker 1: of that video, but with the message tap to upgrade,
Speaker 1: meaning you would only get access to that high resolution
Speaker 1: version if you upgraded to a YouTube premium account. This
Speaker 1: or was actually unable to replicate this issue themselves because
Speaker 1: they are in Romania and apparent only it's not being
Speaker 1: tested there. So this does look like if it is
Speaker 1: a thing, it's a limited test, and it's possible that
Speaker 1: it never goes anywhere else. It may be that they
Speaker 1: test it, they decided against it, and we never hear
Speaker 1: about it again. Or it could mean that the higher
Speaker 1: resolution versions of videos are going to be locked behind
Speaker 1: a subscription paywall in the future. Okay, I've got a
Speaker 1: few more stories I want to cover. Before I get
Speaker 1: to those, let's take another quick break for this next story,
Speaker 1: We're going back to China. There's a lot of flip
Speaker 1: flopping around here. It was hard to organize this episode
Speaker 1: because a lot of the stories had kind of a
Speaker 1: common thread to them, But ultimately, you know, you just
Speaker 1: do what you can do. So the U S. White
Speaker 1: House is soon going to release some more restrictions regarding
Speaker 1: what kind of U S tech can be sold in China.
Speaker 1: And this is all about a concern that the Chinese
Speaker 1: could use US produced technologies for Chinese military applications, and
Speaker 1: considering the United States is relationship with China, that stands
Speaker 1: as a potential problem. So the rumored list of restrictions
Speaker 1: includes expanding the type that we're placed on Huawei, which
Speaker 1: is a Chinese telecommunications company. So we're probably going to
Speaker 1: see some similar restrictions that will cover entities like Chinese
Speaker 1: government research laboratories, UM semiconductor companies in China, as well
Speaker 1: as academic institutions in the country. The move might also
Speaker 1: shift China's positions in various tech fields, like it's not
Speaker 1: just to prevent China from incorporating these US created technologies
Speaker 1: into Chinese military applications, but also to shift the balance
Speaker 1: of technological superiority in specific areas of tech like super
Speaker 1: computing or AI. You've probably heard about how AI is
Speaker 1: like the next UH weapons race and that China is
Speaker 1: a leader in the field. So you could also think
Speaker 1: of this as firing shots in the war of establishing
Speaker 1: technological superiority. Fun stuff, not long ago I talked about
Speaker 1: a proposed law in the EU that would require all
Speaker 1: smartphone manufacturers to adopt the USBC standard for charging. The
Speaker 1: same rule applies to devices like cameras and tablets and
Speaker 1: will eventually apply to laptops. So this law passed with
Speaker 1: overwhelming support. More than six representatives voted in favor, only
Speaker 1: thirteen voted against it. It's definitely something that has some
Speaker 1: EGG advantages. So for consumers, this means that their cables
Speaker 1: will fit all these basic devices interchangeably. Right, as long
Speaker 1: as you have USBC cables, you're good to go. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what device you have, it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: manufacturer created it. Your cable is going to fit that device,
Speaker 1: so you don't have to sort through a mass of
Speaker 1: tangled wires trying to find the one that works with
Speaker 1: a specific gadget. This also can cut back on e
Speaker 1: waste because you don't need charging cables for each and
Speaker 1: everything because you're not gonna be charging everything all the
Speaker 1: time at the same time. You can use the same
Speaker 1: cable to charge multiple different devices over time. Uh really,
Speaker 1: you just have to buy a new one if an
Speaker 1: old one wears out or stops working, or if you
Speaker 1: do need to have an extra one because you've got
Speaker 1: a couple of devices that you use frequently enough that
Speaker 1: it would be inconvenient otherwise. But it does cut way
Speaker 1: back on e waste. However, for companies like Apple, it
Speaker 1: becomes a big headache and is having to accommodate the
Speaker 1: USBC standard and considering the form factor of products like
Speaker 1: the iPhone, that pretty much means abandoning the proprietary lightning
Speaker 1: port and switching to USBC, you know, as opposed to
Speaker 1: say supporting both at the same time. A lot of
Speaker 1: people claim that this is just long overdue and that
Speaker 1: this should have been done years ago. Honestly, I would
Speaker 1: like to see something like this pushed in America because
Speaker 1: it gets really frustrating when you try to track down
Speaker 1: a specific cable for a specific device. And while I've
Speaker 1: singled out Apple in this news item, in my own experience,
Speaker 1: the company that did this the most was Sony. Like
Speaker 1: I would get a Sony gadget and it would have
Speaker 1: its own onboard battery that you would charge by plugging
Speaker 1: in a you know, plug into the wall and attached
Speaker 1: the cable to the device. But it was always a
Speaker 1: proprietary cable that you know, you couldn't just get a
Speaker 1: USB cable. Those wouldn't work, It wouldn't fit the part.
Speaker 1: And yeah, Sony was really bad about that. So I
Speaker 1: would love to see this in America. It may not
Speaker 1: matter because companies may just switch worldwide to more of
Speaker 1: a universal support of USBC, because if you have to
Speaker 1: do it in Europe, you might as well do it everywhere, right,
Speaker 1: that's a possibility anyway. Starting in late all smartphones, tablets,
Speaker 1: and cameras sold in the EU must be USBC compatible.
Speaker 1: Laptop manufacturers will have a little more time to comply
Speaker 1: with those rules coming into effect in twenty twenty six.
Speaker 1: There's a super tanker on the seas called the New
Speaker 1: Aiden that is testing out some new old tech, and
Speaker 1: by that I mean sales. But these aren't the big
Speaker 1: canvas sales you would see on tall ships and pirate movies. Uh.
Speaker 1: This super tanker, which is three hundred and thirty three
Speaker 1: meters long or one thousand ninety three ft long and
Speaker 1: can hold around two million barrels of crude oil, is
Speaker 1: using a set of four carbon fiber retractable sales to
Speaker 1: provide some of the energy needed to move this big
Speaker 1: old thing around. New Atlas reports that the sales on
Speaker 1: this ship can reduce fuel consumption by nearly ten per cent,
Speaker 1: So this Mastership is still using fuel. Also, it's being
Speaker 1: used to transport fossil fuels. So it's not like this
Speaker 1: is a huge triumph for the environment or anything like that,
Speaker 1: but it could show that similar technologies on other types
Speaker 1: of ships will follow and collectively help reduce fuel consumption
Speaker 1: and cut down on issues like pollution and contributions to
Speaker 1: climate change. The sales themselves measure forty in height when
Speaker 1: fully deployed, that's about a hundred thirty feet, and they
Speaker 1: connect to masks that can adjust the angle of the
Speaker 1: sales so that they are harnessing the power of the
Speaker 1: wind at maximum efficiency even as the wind shifts around.
Speaker 1: It's pretty neat technology, and my hope is that we're
Speaker 1: going to see more innovation in this space so that
Speaker 1: the shipping industry can reduce carbon emissions significantly over the
Speaker 1: near future. Finally, one story that did a quick one
Speaker 1: a d from the end of last week to the
Speaker 1: beginning of this week is playing out on Ours Technica.
Speaker 1: All right, This really all starts with a story that
Speaker 1: was published in The Telegraph, which said that actor Bruce
Speaker 1: Willis had sold the rights to his likeness to a
Speaker 1: company called deep Cake based out of Georgia, not my
Speaker 1: home state, but rather the Republic over Eurasia. Ours Technica
Speaker 1: had reported on this story last week. They cited the
Speaker 1: Telegraph article, but even when they published the article, they
Speaker 1: noted that some details mentioned in the Telegraph we're unverifiable,
Speaker 1: including one that said that Willis is the first actor
Speaker 1: to officially sell his likeness to a deep fake company.
Speaker 1: But now Bruce Willis's agent has come forward denying that
Speaker 1: the actor ever made such an arrangement with Deep Cake,
Speaker 1: which has been using a digital replica of Bruce Willis
Speaker 1: to market its own products and services to potential customers.
Speaker 1: Deep Cake, for what It's worth, claims that it has
Speaker 1: a formal arrangement with Willis to use his likeness, specifically
Speaker 1: for a commercial that ran in Russia. In one Willis's
Speaker 1: representatives deny that he ever made such an agreement. This
Speaker 1: is both fascinating and terrifying. I mean, one of the
Speaker 1: many concerns folks have about deep fikes is that using
Speaker 1: the right combination of software, you can replicate a person's appearance,
Speaker 1: their voice, their mannerisms to a degree that could I
Speaker 1: have done well enough make that person irrelevant for certain
Speaker 1: types of projects, you know, like movies or commercials or podcasts. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that this is the most important concern
Speaker 1: that folks have regarding deep fakes. There are plenty of
Speaker 1: others that have more broad effects than the impact of
Speaker 1: a specific person's career. Do you know as someone who
Speaker 1: could potentially be affected by this at some point? It
Speaker 1: definitely raises concerns. Now Here's the nice thing. If I
Speaker 1: am ever replaced by a robot version of me, y'all
Speaker 1: will still get the show. You might just get more
Speaker 1: AI related dad jokes and puns. Anyway, I'm interested to
Speaker 1: see how this story plays out. It could serve as
Speaker 1: an early battleground for things like rights to your own
Speaker 1: likeness and voice, and maybe even lead to legislation meant
Speaker 1: to help protect that kind of thing. What you know
Speaker 1: seems wild, but these are interesting times. That wraps it
Speaker 1: up for this news episode. If you have suggestions for
Speaker 1: topics I should cover in future episodes of Tech Stuff,
Speaker 1: reach out to me on Twitter. The handle for the
Speaker 1: show is tech Stuff h s W and I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you again really soon. Y tech Stuff is an
Speaker 1: I heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.