Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm Bridget and this is
Speaker 1: there are No Girls on the Internet. Hey Mike, thanks
Speaker 1: for being here. It is finally February. Happy February.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, Bridget, and Happy Black History Months.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Happy Black History Months to you too. You
Speaker 1: know that I've been on my crusade of wishing random
Speaker 1: strangers Happy Black History Month to say maybe that you
Speaker 1: might be like happy Holidays, Merry Christmas. It's been funny
Speaker 1: because universally Black people are like, hey, I be Black
Speaker 1: History Months. Non black people either they will like look
Speaker 1: at me weird and not be sure how to respond,
Speaker 1: which I think is really funny, or they'll instinctively be like, oh,
Speaker 1: happy Black History Month to you too, Like when you say,
Speaker 1: like when you get your ticket taken at the movies
Speaker 1: and they're like, enjoy your movie, and then you're like,
Speaker 1: oh you too. Wait with that the right response. That's
Speaker 1: been my favorite, the instinctual like you too, and then
Speaker 1: like wait a minute, was that appropriate?
Speaker 2: Yeah? You know, we're all doing our best out here.
Speaker 2: Is there any content out there, like like Black History
Speaker 2: Month content that you particularly like.
Speaker 1: I'm really glad that you asked, because this time of year,
Speaker 1: I always share my favorite TikTok about commemorating Black History Month,
Speaker 1: and it's this I think she might be Australian, like
Speaker 1: an influencer who is standing in the middle of the sidewalk.
Speaker 1: She's got sneakers and running shorts and one of those
Speaker 1: fanny packs for runners, and she's showing doing kind of
Speaker 1: an outfit check, like outfit of the day, going running
Speaker 1: and then this black man behind her is like, move
Speaker 1: out of the way, it's Black History Month and just
Speaker 1: keeps going and interrupts her like outfit of the day
Speaker 1: influencer TikTok. Something about that video really commemorates my feelings
Speaker 1: on Black History Month.
Speaker 2: All right forward to checking it out.
Speaker 1: And speaking of TikTok, I have to say, I mean,
Speaker 1: I know that you're not a big user of the platform,
Speaker 1: but have you heard that big changes might be coming
Speaker 1: to TikTok.
Speaker 2: I have, uh, and it seems interesting. I haven't really
Speaker 2: looked too far into it, so I'm hoping that you
Speaker 2: can hit me with some facts here.
Speaker 1: Well, So if you use TikTok, you know that one
Speaker 1: of the big things about it is music, Like people
Speaker 1: upload from very big databases of songs across different record
Speaker 1: labels to sync with their tiktoks, and it's kind of
Speaker 1: a big part of the music ecosystem on TikTok, Like
Speaker 1: songs from artists can really blow up if they're being
Speaker 1: used in tiktoks that go viral. TikTok is clearly part
Speaker 1: of like marketing strategies for new songs. It is a
Speaker 1: big thing, and particularly that TikTok started, Like in the
Speaker 1: earliest early days of TikTok, it was called byte dance
Speaker 1: and it was really much more associated with music and dancing.
Speaker 1: When people say, oh, TikTok is just an app with
Speaker 1: kids dancing, it's never really been that, but that's what
Speaker 1: they're for. And so music has always been a big
Speaker 1: part of what makes TikTok work. But all of that
Speaker 1: might be changing because the music label UMG is threatening
Speaker 1: to pull all of their artists from TikTok permanently because
Speaker 1: they say TikTok has not been paying artists to use
Speaker 1: their music on the platform. They say, TikTok propose paying
Speaker 1: our artists and songwriters at a rate that is a
Speaker 1: fraction of the rate that similarly situated music social platforms
Speaker 1: pay U and G represents some of the biggest and
Speaker 1: most popular artists in the world, both on TikTok and
Speaker 1: across the music scene more generally, people like Taylor Swift, Drake,
Speaker 1: Olivia Rodrigo, The Beatles, U Two, Ariana Grande, Sizza, Billie
Speaker 1: Eilish Adele, Coldplay, and a whole lot more. And it
Speaker 1: really doesn't sound like either party is planning on backing down.
Speaker 1: TikTok is accusing UMG of quote putting their greed above
Speaker 1: the interests of artists and songwriters, So I will say
Speaker 1: it does kind of sound like UMG has a point here.
Speaker 1: NBC reported that UMG says TikTok only accounts for one
Speaker 1: percent of its revenue, despite its artists representing eight out
Speaker 1: of ten of the most popular bands and singers on
Speaker 1: the platform last year, and around sixty percent of TikTok
Speaker 1: videos do include music. UNG published an open letter to
Speaker 1: their artists about why it's time to call out TikTok, saying, ultimately,
Speaker 1: TikTok is trying to build a music based business without
Speaker 1: paying fair value for the music. I absolutely agree with that,
Speaker 1: like music is an integral part of TikTok. There is
Speaker 1: no TikTok as we know it without music, and it
Speaker 1: does seem like they're trying to have their cake and
Speaker 1: eat it too. They're trying to build a music based
Speaker 1: platform full of a library of music and maybe like
Speaker 1: not pay for that music. So some of the things
Speaker 1: that UMG is also concerned about are the growth of
Speaker 1: AI tools, youth and TikTok videos and that effect on
Speaker 1: intellectual property, while also complaining about the amount of content
Speaker 1: that commits copyright infringement, as well as quote a title
Speaker 1: wave of hate speech, bigotry, bullying, and harassment. These are
Speaker 1: all valid concerns that UMG is bringing up, but none
Speaker 1: of these things is wrong. All of these things on
Speaker 1: a rampant on the platform. I don't think TikTok would
Speaker 1: even disbute that. UMG continues saying, as our negotiations continued,
Speaker 1: TikTok attempted to bully us into accepting a deal worth
Speaker 1: less than the previous deal, far less than market value
Speaker 1: and not reflective of their exponential growth. UMG also says
Speaker 1: that TikTok is trying to bully them and threaten them
Speaker 1: by taking music from developing artists off of the platform
Speaker 1: while keeping audience driving global stars. So, as far as
Speaker 1: I know, TikTok is not really given like a good response.
Speaker 1: They've said. The fact is they've chosen to walk away
Speaker 1: from the powerful support of a platform with well over
Speaker 1: a billion users that serves as free promotional and discovery
Speaker 1: vehicle for their talent. That response kind of gives me
Speaker 1: pause because it feels like, oh, well, whenever somebody tells
Speaker 1: me that I'm the reason why I'm not getting pay
Speaker 1: or money is because I'm getting promotion, it just gets
Speaker 1: my It just makes my asstch. I'm like, wait, you're
Speaker 1: telling me that promotion is the same thing as money here,
Speaker 1: and I sort of see what they're getting. But the
Speaker 1: fact that they're trying to use that language of like,
Speaker 1: oh no, no, promotion is actually better kind of gives
Speaker 1: me some some warnings, some warning flags about this whole situation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely, I mean that's it's like a cliche, right
Speaker 2: that people are going to get paid in exposure, like
Speaker 2: you can't you can't eat promotion.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I have tried giving my landlord promotion to pay
Speaker 1: my rent and he doesn't accept it, So I don't
Speaker 1: know I will say something that I think is really
Speaker 1: important here is that you know, UMG in their messaging,
Speaker 1: they sound really like, we are doing this for the artists.
Speaker 1: We want the artists to get paid, we want the
Speaker 1: artists to get with their words. Stop it splitting the artists.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that either. I think that what UMG
Speaker 1: is actually saying is that TikTok needs to be paying
Speaker 1: our label, like our suits, our executives, We need to
Speaker 1: be making more of that money. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a situation where they're planning on like sharing all of
Speaker 1: that money with like independent artists who need it. I
Speaker 1: don't see a record label behaving that way. I think
Speaker 1: the they're trying to get a bigger payout for themselves
Speaker 1: and just sort of using this like support the artists,
Speaker 1: pay the artists language because they know it will be
Speaker 1: sort of a more sympathetic argument. However, I do think
Speaker 1: that TikTok is trying to get around paying artists, and
Speaker 1: I think that it mirrors a lot of the conversations
Speaker 1: that we're seeing in other platforms too, like you know,
Speaker 1: Facebook at a time making money from news content and
Speaker 1: the content that news outlets put out but intending to
Speaker 1: not pay them for that content, right, Like you could
Speaker 1: say like, oh, we're promoting you and people are reading
Speaker 1: your content, but it's like, well, is that really translating
Speaker 1: to off platform downloads or metrics or sales or whatever.
Speaker 1: Probably not right, And so I think this is sort
Speaker 1: of a cut from the same cloth kind of situation.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm almost sort of not excited about this,
Speaker 1: but I'm interested to see how this changes the platform. Already,
Speaker 1: since this was announced, if people have uploaded tiktoks that
Speaker 1: have music of these artists, those tiktoks are completely muted.
Speaker 1: So like if I was doing a video TikTok where
Speaker 1: I was talking at the camera and there was a
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift song playing, the whole thing would be muted,
Speaker 1: not just the music, also what I was saying. And
Speaker 1: so I've already seen that happening on the platform. But
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know. I am curious if this
Speaker 1: will actually lead to smaller or less well known artists
Speaker 1: their having their heyday on the platform, which could be
Speaker 1: kind of cool. Like one of my favorite music TikTokers
Speaker 1: that I follow posted a TikTok with the song one
Speaker 1: of my favorite songs actually Cruel Summer by Banana Rama,
Speaker 1: and the commentary was like, oh, now that Taylor Swift's
Speaker 1: for Taylor Swift's song Cruel Summer is no longer allowed
Speaker 1: on the platform, the superior Cruel Summer, the one by
Speaker 1: Banana Rama, can finally rise.
Speaker 2: That's pretty funny. Boy. It's really interesting the comparison you
Speaker 2: made to Facebook not wanting to pay news outlets, because
Speaker 2: it is very similar. I hadn't thought about that, but
Speaker 2: it kind of It does raise questions about these platforms
Speaker 2: business models that depend on serving up content to their
Speaker 2: users to keep their users engaged, but not wanting to
Speaker 2: pay the creators of that content. Yeah, it seems incorrect.
Speaker 1: That seems to be a square in a circle of
Speaker 1: what it means to be on the Internet these days
Speaker 1: of people like platforms that are big business want to
Speaker 1: be like, oh, well, we're just like it's users generated content,
Speaker 1: or we're just taking content from the Internet, or like
Speaker 1: we're just you know, we're promoting. Essentially, they want to
Speaker 1: build huge lucrative platforms using content and then also somehow
Speaker 1: get around paying for that content. And it's like we
Speaker 1: think of music like that's somebody's labor, that is somebody's
Speaker 1: intellectual property, That is somebody's somebody put a lot of
Speaker 1: time and intention and thought and work into that. You
Speaker 1: don't think you have to pay to use it, of
Speaker 1: course you do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it would be one thing if like an
Speaker 2: artist records a video of them performing their song and
Speaker 2: uploads that, But that's not what we're talking about here.
Speaker 2: We're talking about some you know, just some random user
Speaker 2: choosing a song that a professional artist has recorded and
Speaker 2: using that, Like, obviously they should get paid for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think when it comes to music, I
Speaker 1: do think we are overdue for some conversations about how
Speaker 1: technology has shaped music in twenty twenty four, Like with Spotify,
Speaker 1: maybe the model where virtually any song ever that you
Speaker 1: could ever think of is available on Spotify to be
Speaker 1: listened to unlimited amounts, And maybe the model that we
Speaker 1: have is like, isn't working without somebody getting screwed. And
Speaker 1: I think that somebody is the artists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think you're absolutely right, you know, especially like
Speaker 2: you talked about emerging artists who are not a big
Speaker 2: name trying to make it like your Taylor Swift's, your Youtubes,
Speaker 2: your Drakes, They're going to be fine, but somebody who's
Speaker 2: trying to make it, they're really caught in a bind
Speaker 2: because they really do need that promotion, but they also
Speaker 2: need to make a living. Yeah, I think you're absolutely
Speaker 2: right that it's tough out there for musicians. You know,
Speaker 2: like streaming platforms like Spotify already exponentially reduced the you know,
Speaker 2: the amount they get paid when people listen to their music,
Speaker 2: and now TikTok is trying to cut that you know,
Speaker 2: a fraction of that for action.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but again, I don't want to make it seem
Speaker 1: like the music labels are being so altruistic, like they're
Speaker 1: just like writing for their artists to get a pay out,
Speaker 1: because I don't think that's what's happening either. This musician,
Speaker 1: Chelsea Collins, her brother said, my sister, Chelsea Collins, it's
Speaker 1: only signed to the publishing side of UMG, but they
Speaker 1: took down both her universal own songs from years ago
Speaker 1: and her songs that she released independently on the master side.
Speaker 1: And so I just feel like smaller artists are gonna
Speaker 1: get screwed, whether by this TikTok decision and TikTok trying
Speaker 1: to like, you know, play hard about this or from
Speaker 1: the label. And I already think that TikTok has shaped
Speaker 1: what it means to be a musician in this day
Speaker 1: and age in some ways that I don't think are
Speaker 1: great musicians, especially independent and up and coming musicians, have
Speaker 1: really been candid about the ways that TikTok has forced
Speaker 1: them to sort of be their own marketing arm. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, before social media, before TikTok, if you were
Speaker 1: a musician, you were making music. You were in the studio,
Speaker 1: you were songwriting, you were being creative. You were like
Speaker 1: doing the labor that it takes to make a creative project. Now,
Speaker 1: on top of that, you need to be like essentially
Speaker 1: your own one person documentary filmmaker making content in quotes
Speaker 1: about the music. And it's like, well, how are you
Speaker 1: meant to make the music if you also have to
Speaker 1: be like documenting you making the music to get any traction.
Speaker 1: There's that thing that happens where it'll be like it's
Speaker 1: the cringiest thing, but I understand why they do it.
Speaker 1: It's like somebody will make a musician makes a TikTok
Speaker 1: and they say, did I just make the song of
Speaker 1: the summer? And it has their song playing in the background.
Speaker 1: And there was another one where a woman made a
Speaker 1: songwriter had made us a TikTok where she was like
Speaker 1: kind of complaining about how boring her life is, and
Speaker 1: it's just like, you have to have this very curated,
Speaker 1: specific kind of shtick on TikTok to get any traction.
Speaker 1: And in an earlier era your record label that would
Speaker 1: have been them paying money to do the labor of
Speaker 1: marketing your album. And because of TikTok, they've just like
Speaker 1: put that onto the plate of the musician, squeezing into
Speaker 1: the time that the musician can be actually making the
Speaker 1: music the thing they want to be doing, and like
Speaker 1: it just I don't know that it's been a great
Speaker 1: thing for musicians. One of my favorite musicians Fka Twigs.
Speaker 1: She talked about how she has had to put her
Speaker 1: music on TikTok in ways that make her incredibly uncomfortable,
Speaker 1: that don't feel true or aligned with the vision for
Speaker 1: the song or the vision that she had as an artist.
Speaker 1: Like I'm thinking of her song Cellophane, which is this
Speaker 1: like incredibly beautiful song that it's kind of been turned
Speaker 1: into a little bit of a joke on TikTok, but
Speaker 1: they've sped it up and they've made the audio wonky.
Speaker 1: If you know the song, you know exactly what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. If you've ever heard that song on TikTok
Speaker 1: that has used a lot that's like, let me do
Speaker 1: it for you, but it's all like wonky. It has
Speaker 1: like weird inflections and stuff that's fk. Twigs is a
Speaker 1: song Cellophane, and it's an incredibly beautiful, intimate, vulnerable song.
Speaker 1: So the song's Telophane, from what I understand, is about
Speaker 1: the fracture of Twiggs's relationship with that actor Robert Pattinson.
Speaker 1: So Twigs is black, Patentson is white, and Twigs was
Speaker 1: targeted for like deeply messed up racist online harassment because
Speaker 1: she and Pattinson were together, and Pattinson had been in
Speaker 1: that movie Twilight and had been in a relationship previously
Speaker 1: with his Twilight co star Kristin Stewart. I guess the
Speaker 1: fans like really wanted this like perfect Twilight couple to
Speaker 1: get back together, so they flooded Twiggs's social media with
Speaker 1: horrible racist harassment and online abuse. So the song Cellophane
Speaker 1: is about the role that like this racist hate campaign
Speaker 1: played in this tough breakup of their relationship. But on TikTok,
Speaker 1: somebody did an impression of I guess their version of
Speaker 1: the song as sang by Miss Piggy. It's like them
Speaker 1: doing an impression of Miss Piggy singing that song. And
Speaker 1: so whenever you hear that sound on TikTok, what you're
Speaker 1: actually hearing is somebody doing a Miss Piggy impression of
Speaker 1: an FKA Twig song about the role that racist online
Speaker 1: harassment played in the breakup of her relationship. And it's
Speaker 1: a sound that people use on TikTok to like illustrate jokey,
Speaker 1: silly situations and the way that that song has been
Speaker 1: kind of turned into a joke on TikTok, but also
Speaker 1: it's kind of good for her as an artist because
Speaker 1: the song gets more attraction and more play. It's like
Speaker 1: we're asking artists to do things that are incredibly unusual,
Speaker 1: and like, I don't know, I just think I don't
Speaker 1: know that TikTok has been a net good for artists.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I could imagine that probably doesn't feel great for
Speaker 2: FK Twigs to have this like vulnerable song turned into
Speaker 2: a joke like that, And she sounds like she's like
Speaker 2: not really even getting paid for it either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I think last year another one of my
Speaker 1: favorite artists, Fiona Apple, completely took her music off of
Speaker 1: TikTok and I totally get it. Like, you know, Fiona
Speaker 1: Apple has again incredibly poynant songs about her sexual assault
Speaker 1: as a child. To see those songs take off on
Speaker 1: a platform and become jokes or I'm not even saying
Speaker 1: that that her song would have become a joke, but
Speaker 1: like to be to be used in a way that
Speaker 1: you had not intended and does not feel aligned with
Speaker 1: what you've put out into the world, and then be
Speaker 1: told like, oh no, actually it's good because that means
Speaker 1: people are listening to it and it's being marketed. I
Speaker 1: do think that it's it's art that we should be
Speaker 1: having a serious conversation about what TikTok and social media
Speaker 1: in general has done to the process of making art
Speaker 1: and music in twenty twenty four. I don't necessarily think
Speaker 1: that UMG as a label is actually altruistically trying to
Speaker 1: have that conversation to make sure that artists are getting
Speaker 1: the pay they deserve. That I'm a little skeptical of,
Speaker 1: but I do think it's a conversation we should be having.
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to imagine so many artists are famous
Speaker 2: for being very private. I'm trying to imagine Prince like
Speaker 2: making tiktoks or something, and it's like the image just
Speaker 2: doesn't work right.
Speaker 1: First of all, Prince would never even though Prince was
Speaker 1: a huge techie, Prince would never be on TikTok. But
Speaker 1: that's what I've always said this. If Kurt Cobain was
Speaker 1: still alive, can you imagine how annoying he would be
Speaker 1: on Twitter? Like like some of these musicians like you
Speaker 1: like not every musician is made better by getting a
Speaker 1: lens into their life, into their creative process. And I
Speaker 1: think that we've created this dynamic where if you want
Speaker 1: to succeed and you either a you better be like
Speaker 1: an industry plant or have a huge apparatus behind you
Speaker 1: or something, or you know, have some sort of connection
Speaker 1: or be you better be ready to like be a
Speaker 1: one person content machine shooting them behind the scenes footage
Speaker 1: of how this thing came together. And as somebody who
Speaker 1: makes a creative thing, like the creative process, that's that.
Speaker 1: I'm a musician, but like you know, I make things.
Speaker 1: It's really boring a lot of the times, and it
Speaker 1: has to be it's like trying things, it's like writing,
Speaker 1: it's like journaling. It's like, you know, it's not terribly exciting,
Speaker 1: and so having to like make it seem really cool
Speaker 1: and engaging and like tell a cool story about why
Speaker 1: people should want to check it out on top of it, Well,
Speaker 1: you're already trying to make the thing. It would get
Speaker 1: really hard.
Speaker 3: Let's take a quick break.
Speaker 1: Ed are back, So let's talk about another big story
Speaker 1: this week, which is that CEOs of basically all the
Speaker 1: major social media platforms TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Discord snap all
Speaker 1: way before said it to testify about how their platforms
Speaker 1: have harmed children's safety. Some of them came voluntarily, but others,
Speaker 1: like Twitter CEO Linda Yakarino, were subpoenaed. The hearing lasted
Speaker 1: four hours but really ended with not many clear resolutions.
Speaker 1: But I will say that the tenseness and the vibe
Speaker 1: of that hearing made it clear to me that tech
Speaker 1: CEOs are realizing that this is a problem that is
Speaker 1: not going away, that they're not going to be able
Speaker 1: to just like vibe this one that people are really
Speaker 1: gonna want answers and I also think that that era
Speaker 1: that we've talked about on the show before, in our
Speaker 1: episode that we did with Paris Marx from the podcast
Speaker 1: Tech won't save us. That era of the early aughts,
Speaker 1: the early two thousands of tech CEOs are all geniuses
Speaker 1: and they're all doing really cool things. They're going to
Speaker 1: save the world. We should have endless optimism on what
Speaker 1: they're doing. That era is like firmly coming to an end.
Speaker 1: I think that tech CEOs have enjoyed this benefit of
Speaker 1: the doubt culturally for a really long time. I think
Speaker 1: that this hearing makes it clear that that era is
Speaker 1: over and that people want answers on how they got
Speaker 1: rich from hurting kids. So if you didn't watch the hearing,
Speaker 1: here are the highlights that you should know. So, first
Speaker 1: of all, as I said, it was just like the
Speaker 1: tone was very aggressive. Lawmakers were demanding that like CEOs
Speaker 1: apologized for hurting kids. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said
Speaker 1: that companies had blood on their hands.
Speaker 4: You have blood on your hands, you have a product,
Speaker 4: you have a product that's killing people.
Speaker 1: And we got to talk about Mark Zuckerberg here because
Speaker 1: he actually, as far as I know, for the first
Speaker 1: time ever directly apologized to the families of kids who
Speaker 1: were hurt by Instagram and Facebook in the hearing room,
Speaker 1: the families of young people who died by suicide and
Speaker 1: those deaths were linked to Instagram or Facebook. They were
Speaker 1: there in the hearing holding up framed pictures of their
Speaker 1: lost children. And at one point Josh Holly was like,
Speaker 1: turn around and apologize to those families, and Zuckerberg actually
Speaker 1: did it. Here's what he said.
Speaker 5: There's families of victims here today. Have you apologized to
Speaker 5: the victims? Would you like to do so? Now? Well
Speaker 5: they're here, you're on national television. Would you like now
Speaker 5: to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by
Speaker 5: your product?
Speaker 6: Show them the pictures?
Speaker 5: Would you like to apologize for what you've done to
Speaker 5: these good people?
Speaker 6: Because things that your families have suffered and this is
Speaker 6: why we.
Speaker 1: Invested so much better. So, even though Zuckerberg gave this
Speaker 1: apology to the families in the room, he would not
Speaker 1: agree to set up any kind of compensation fund to
Speaker 1: compensate the families of young people hurt by his products.
Speaker 1: And so, yeah, I'll give you an apology that's kind
Speaker 1: of like harangued out of him by Josh Holly. But
Speaker 1: financial compensation, a compensation fund cannot do but take take
Speaker 1: these apologies, though these words might help.
Speaker 2: It's like one of my favorite Futurama episodes when Hermes's
Speaker 2: son has like broken a window until her Hermes is
Speaker 2: taking him to apologize and his son says like, oh am,
Speaker 2: I gonna have to pay for it, and He's like,
Speaker 2: oh no, no, just cheap cheap words.
Speaker 1: Yeah, cheap cheap words is all Mark Zuckerberg's got for us.
Speaker 1: So I'll throw a link to it in the show notes.
Speaker 1: But there was this great op ed in the Hill
Speaker 1: from Julie Scalfo, who is a journalist and the executive
Speaker 1: director of Get Media Savvy, a nonprofit working to establish
Speaker 1: a healthier media vibe for kids and families, and it
Speaker 1: really gets to the heart of the ghoulishness that was
Speaker 1: on display when tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg treat our
Speaker 1: children like commodities. So the whole piece is worth a read,
Speaker 1: but listen to this quote. As a CEO, Zuckerberg isn't
Speaker 1: willing to spend a cent over two hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: dollars each to keep our kids safe, not even if
Speaker 1: their lives depend on it, and they might just ask
Speaker 1: the parents of Angly Roberts, a fourteen year old from
Speaker 1: Louisiana who took her own life after Instagram's algorithm sent
Speaker 1: her numerous mentally harmful posts, they say, including one modeling
Speaker 1: self strangulation. Or ask the parents of Gavin Guffie, a
Speaker 1: seventeen year old from South Carolina who died by suicide
Speaker 1: after being sex storted. Although Meta has denied put in a
Speaker 1: monetary value on kids, a recently released unredacted version of
Speaker 1: a lawsuit brought by attorneys general from thirty three states
Speaker 1: includes an internal email showing how Meta characterized its youngest
Speaker 1: users in twenty eighteen quote the lifetime value of a
Speaker 1: thirteen year old is roughly two hundred and seventy dollars
Speaker 1: per teen. The email went on to caution Meta employees
Speaker 1: that this number is core to making decisions about your business,
Speaker 1: and accordingly, you do not want to spend more than
Speaker 1: the lifetime value of the user. In other words, our
Speaker 1: kids are profit centers, and it doesn't make business sense
Speaker 1: for Meta to spend more than two hundred and seventy
Speaker 1: dollars to make the platform safe for them. As a corporation.
Speaker 1: Meta's goal is to maximize profits, even apparently if that
Speaker 1: means more kids die. And I feel like that really
Speaker 1: gets at what we're talking about here, that they are
Speaker 1: putting a monetary value on the lives of our children
Speaker 1: and that's core to their business model. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna take a little more than Zuckerbird's cheap,
Speaker 1: cheap words here to make that right and any meaningful capacity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, there's the there's so much more harm too
Speaker 2: than you know, kids who don't die, right, There are
Speaker 2: kids whose self esteem is really hurt. They can end
Speaker 2: up with a lot of trauma that they're they have
Speaker 2: to carry around. And Yeah, and a friend of mine
Speaker 2: is a defense attorney. He's a public defender, and so
Speaker 2: he's often dealing, you know, defending young people who've been
Speaker 2: involved in some kind of dumb crime. And he says that,
Speaker 2: like all of them have some sort of social media component.
Speaker 2: So that's like even another way that social media is
Speaker 2: like can destroy lives.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the harm it makes. It's upsetting that we're talking
Speaker 1: about children who are no longer with us, our babies,
Speaker 1: but the harm is so vast and diverse. It's just
Speaker 1: it's just sickening and the scope is sickening and shocking.
Speaker 2: And in addition to compensating the families who've been affected,
Speaker 2: it's also important to put something in place to stop
Speaker 2: new kids from being exposed to these same harms.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm saying, is that it feels like
Speaker 1: the dynamic that we have when it comes to big
Speaker 1: tech and just harms in general, is that at the
Speaker 1: very the very best they can offer is compensation after
Speaker 1: harm has occurred. And when we're talking about dead kids,
Speaker 1: I don't give a fuck how much money you give
Speaker 1: me if my kid is hurt, if my kid dies
Speaker 1: by suicide, Like, there's not a dollar amount on this
Speaker 1: earth that would satisfy me. I Yeah, So I would
Speaker 1: hope for a dynamic that can be better, that can say,
Speaker 1: like we can prevent harm. We can do more than
Speaker 1: just do something reactive after something bad happens. We know
Speaker 1: it's happening, we know it's going to continue to happen.
Speaker 1: What if we put things in place to prevent it
Speaker 1: from continuing to happen? Like, I just think that it
Speaker 1: sickens me that this is this is apparently like the
Speaker 1: best they can do is like after a harm has occurred,
Speaker 1: maybe we can step in and talk what if we
Speaker 1: had a better system that did not need for people
Speaker 1: to be hurt before somebody did something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it would that would be nice. You know. I
Speaker 2: was talking with a friend yesterday about that hearing, and
Speaker 2: this friend was like, it seems really optimistic about something
Speaker 2: that some sort of meaningful change would come out of this.
Speaker 2: He was talking about all. You know, it seemed like
Speaker 2: there was bipartisan support and both Republicans and Democrats were
Speaker 2: really like giving it to the tech executives. But it's,
Speaker 2: as far as I can tell, it's a lot of
Speaker 2: bipartisan support for grand standing and stunts and you know,
Speaker 2: yelling at CEOs and forcing them to apologize. I would
Speaker 2: really love to see some like actual action, some legislation
Speaker 2: that would do something meaningful here.
Speaker 1: Absolutely same, so of course it would not be a
Speaker 1: Senate hearing where lawmakers talks to TikTok CEO, show z
Speaker 1: echo without getting real racist with it. Here's Tom Cotton.
Speaker 4: So you've said today, as you often say, that you
Speaker 4: live in Singapore of what nation?
Speaker 6: Are you a citizen Singapore?
Speaker 2: Is?
Speaker 6: Are you a citizen of any other nation?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 6: Senator have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship? Senator, I
Speaker 6: serve my nation in Singapore. No, I did not. Do
Speaker 6: you have a Singaporean passport? Yes, and I served my
Speaker 6: military for two and a half years.
Speaker 4: Since you have any other Do you have any other
Speaker 4: passports from any other names?
Speaker 6: No, Senator.
Speaker 4: Your wife is an American citizen. Your children are American citizens,
Speaker 4: that's correct. Have you ever applied for American citizenship?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 6: Not yet. Okay. Have you ever been a member of
Speaker 6: the Chinese Communist Party, Senata, I'm Singaporean.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese
Speaker 4: Communist Party?
Speaker 1: No, Senator again, I'm singapore So yeah, Tom Cotton, what
Speaker 1: is there even really to say?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's bad. I can't believe that wasn't a bigger thing.
Speaker 2: Like that's what I'm saying, And that's all they've got.
Speaker 2: It's like, not only is it grand standing, but it's
Speaker 2: like racist grand standing. Where are the solutions? All they've
Speaker 2: got is the Kids Online Safety Act, which, as we've
Speaker 2: talked about before, is not gonna do It's it's just
Speaker 2: not meaningful legislation that's gonna be workable to protect kids.
Speaker 2: But that's all they've got So.
Speaker 1: That is actually the only tangible thing that came out
Speaker 1: of this this hearing. Like for all of the grand
Speaker 1: standing and all of that, it ended with some leaders
Speaker 1: of platforms agreeing to support the Kids Online Safety Act,
Speaker 1: which you'll probably know if I'm listening to this podcast,
Speaker 1: we are not too thrilled about over here. Separately, Microsoft
Speaker 1: also came out in supported the Kids Online Safety This
Speaker 1: week too. Our producer and guest co host Joey has
Speaker 1: a great episode of the podcast Stuff Mom Ever Told
Speaker 1: You breaking down how the Kids Online Safety Act is
Speaker 1: poised to hurt LGBTQ youth, So legislation that is all
Speaker 1: about protecting youth is actually poised to hurt those same youth.
Speaker 1: We will put the episode in the show notes. Definitely
Speaker 1: worth a listen. Yeah, out of these hearings, Evan Spiegel,
Speaker 1: the CEO of Snap, and Linda Yakarino, who leads Twitter
Speaker 1: both agreed to support the Kids Online Safety Act. And yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just not That's what makes me think that all
Speaker 1: of this is just bloviating and grandstanding, Right, for all
Speaker 1: of this grandstanding, for all of this, like Josh Holly
Speaker 1: making Zuckerberg turn around and apologize to those families. None
Speaker 1: of it really means anything, and it just feels like theater.
Speaker 1: It feels like subitting your wheels, Like despite years of
Speaker 1: railing against big tech, no meaningful legislation has moved through
Speaker 1: Congress to be signed into law. So I again I've
Speaker 1: said this. I think this is just grandstanding to look
Speaker 1: like we're being tough on big tech without actually doing
Speaker 1: anything to be tough on big tech. They want to
Speaker 1: signal to people that they're doing something big and taking
Speaker 1: it seriously. They want to throw a little like anti
Speaker 1: Asian xenophobia in there for good measure and call it
Speaker 1: a day and call it good.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they've got to do better.
Speaker 1: So I have a little update on a story that
Speaker 1: we talked about last week, and that is that AI
Speaker 1: generated Joe Biden deep fake robocall that voters in New
Speaker 1: Hampshire got right before the primary asking them not to vote. Well,
Speaker 1: I guess that was a literal wake up call to
Speaker 1: the powers that be, because the FCC now wants to
Speaker 1: criminalize virtually all AI generated robocalls because of it. This
Speaker 1: proposal would outlaw such robocalls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
Speaker 1: or TCPA, which is a nineteen ninety one law that
Speaker 1: regulates automated political and marketing calls made without the receiver's consent.
Speaker 1: If the TCPA sounds familiar, it is because it's been
Speaker 1: used before a people who make illegal robocalls. A big
Speaker 1: case happened last year, and the FCC imposed a five
Speaker 1: million dollar penalty against conservative activists who arranged for black
Speaker 1: voters to receive calls falsely telling them that voting could
Speaker 1: expose them to deck collectors and police departments in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: So obviously a disinformation tactic really grounded in stoking very real,
Speaker 1: highly racialized fears and traumas like oh, if you vote,
Speaker 1: you know, the police are going to get you, deck
Speaker 1: collectors are going to get you. I've heard of this
Speaker 1: kind of thing happening all the time, like with like
Speaker 1: paper flyers being left at black churches that say like, oh,
Speaker 1: if you go to vote, you know they run your
Speaker 1: name through the outstanding warrant database, which is not true,
Speaker 1: or they run your name through the outstanding child support database,
Speaker 1: which is not true. And obviously those are like racialized,
Speaker 1: racially charged tactics meant to stoke at like very real
Speaker 1: fears and traumas that our communities have. So that's bad enough,
Speaker 1: and it's paper flyers being put on cars, But with
Speaker 1: the power of AI and robo call technology, there is
Speaker 1: no end to how to how damaging this could be
Speaker 1: to democracy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that sounds like a like a good regulation, right,
Speaker 2: like government using its authority to prohibit like a whole
Speaker 2: category of AI generated deception. That seems great.
Speaker 1: So NBC reports that basically this change will particularly empower
Speaker 1: state attorneys general to take legal action against spammers who
Speaker 1: use AI. So, yeah, I think if that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: AI deep fake robo call was any indication we need
Speaker 1: legislation like this to make sure people aren't out there
Speaker 1: running wild with AI.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know they're gonna It's already.
Speaker 1: Clear they're gunna Like. We don't need to again, just
Speaker 1: like what I was saying before, We don't need to
Speaker 1: wait until the harm happens. We can see it like
Speaker 1: they like, it's clear they're going to keep doing it.
Speaker 1: We can make changes now to prevent it people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, prevention, you know that's so much better than trying
Speaker 2: to fix something after it's broken.
Speaker 3: More after a quick break.
Speaker 1: Let's get right back into it. So, speaking of AI,
Speaker 1: let's go to Australia because this is a weird situation
Speaker 1: happening with an Australian lawmaker. Victorious parliament member Georgie Purcell
Speaker 1: saw a picture of herself on local news and was like, wait,
Speaker 1: something is off with this picture. She was originally photographed
Speaker 1: wearing a white sleeveless dress, but in the picture that
Speaker 1: she saw on the local news, her torso or like
Speaker 1: her mid drip, is exposed, and she was like, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, I am heavily tattooed on my torso area.
Speaker 1: The part of my body that is exposed in this
Speaker 1: image doesn't have tattoos that I know I actually have.
Speaker 1: The picture also made her chest look a little bit
Speaker 1: fuller too, and her dress, which initially had been a
Speaker 1: big a one piece, had been turned into like a
Speaker 1: crop pap or. Her middrift was exposed. She says, they'd
Speaker 1: given me chiseled abs and a boob job. I felt really,
Speaker 1: really uncomfortable about it. Well nine News in Australia apologized
Speaker 1: and said it was a quote graphics error and blamed
Speaker 1: photoshops automation tool, saying that in trying to resize the image,
Speaker 1: the automation by photoshop created an image that was not
Speaker 1: consistent with the original. However, the New York Times was like,
Speaker 1: I don't know about that. They talked to Adobe, the
Speaker 1: company that makes Photoshop, and a representative for Adobe said
Speaker 1: that the edits to the image would have required human
Speaker 1: intervention and approval. So this New York Times write up
Speaker 1: is actually very interesting, it says. Some commentators familiar with
Speaker 1: working with Photoshop have suggested that if artificial intelligence is
Speaker 1: at fault, the modifications could have been made using a
Speaker 1: Photoshop tool that fills in space above or below an
Speaker 1: image with an automatically generated continuation of the image. Others,
Speaker 1: like Rob Nichols, a professorial fellow at the University of
Speaker 1: Technology Sydney, said the changes could have been made with
Speaker 1: an automatic enhancement function similar to selfie filters that modify
Speaker 1: someone's facial features. The broadcast of the image seemingly without
Speaker 1: someone checking that it was an accurate depiction of miss
Speaker 1: Purcell shows that using AI without strong editorial controls runs
Speaker 1: the risk of making very significant errors. The incident shows
Speaker 1: that AI can replicate existing biases. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: coincidental that these issues tend to be gendered. This is
Speaker 1: something that we know about AI. If there was one
Speaker 1: thing about AI that I wish people understood, it is
Speaker 1: that it is not like robot computer brains making decisions
Speaker 1: because they're hyper intelligent artificially. It is built by humans.
Speaker 1: It is made by humans. Everything that we're seeing when
Speaker 1: we use AI has been put there by a human.
Speaker 1: So all of the biases and shortcomings that we know
Speaker 1: humans have, AI is simply replicating those exact same biases
Speaker 1: and stereotypes and shortcomings because it was put there by
Speaker 1: a human. And so it's no wonder that people, particularly
Speaker 1: people who are not CIS men, have reported that when
Speaker 1: they use AI image generators of themselves, the images are
Speaker 1: made more conventionally attractive. Their busts get bigger, their waists
Speaker 1: get smaller. When I have used AI technology in the
Speaker 1: few times that I have used it, it makes my
Speaker 1: nose more narrow, my lips more narrow, It makes my
Speaker 1: facial features more eurocentric. As a black woman, it makes
Speaker 1: me feel like they're saying like, oh, well, we want
Speaker 1: you to look pretty, and by pretty, we mean we
Speaker 1: want you to look more white. Sometimes it lightens your skin.
Speaker 1: All of these are biases that AI is replicating because
Speaker 1: the people who built it have those biases, and I
Speaker 1: think Rob Nichols is exactly right that AI is just
Speaker 1: replicating egs. This did deeply gendered biases here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely, well said. You know, it's an algorithm that
Speaker 2: is trying to replicate the data that it's fed and
Speaker 2: trained on, and if the data is sexist and racist, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's what you're going to end up with in the AI.
Speaker 2: But it's not clear to me that this even I mean,
Speaker 2: I guess it it was AI, but I feel like
Speaker 2: the news company is really trying to pull a fast
Speaker 2: one saying that like a human didn't do this, Like
Speaker 2: when you resize an image, it doesn't photoshop doesn't like
Speaker 2: automatically alter it in this way. Like there wasn't there.
Speaker 2: It's not just a case that like the you know,
Speaker 2: the AI is here is replicating biases from the world,
Speaker 2: which it is, but also like there was a human
Speaker 2: sitting at a desk clicking the button to like enhance
Speaker 2: the image or something like.
Speaker 1: That, sitting at a desk clicking a button dead haantsy
Speaker 1: image and then most importantly not double checking the image
Speaker 1: after that human clicks the button. Like that's the that's
Speaker 1: the big thing here. Is like, Okay, using an automated
Speaker 1: tool to fill in blank space, sure, but then you
Speaker 1: have to look afterward. Like That's the thing about these
Speaker 1: AI tools is like, if you're gonna use them, you
Speaker 1: as the human that need to double check that if
Speaker 1: you're showing this person's torso that it is an accurate
Speaker 1: if you've made the if you've made the already weird
Speaker 1: fucking choice to show this person's torso who did not
Speaker 1: show their torso on the original image, at least be like, well,
Speaker 1: is this an accurate representation of this person's torso? The
Speaker 1: whole thing is already weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is weird. It's and it it feels like
Speaker 2: a the like the dog ate my homework kind of excuse,
Speaker 2: or like, you know, I couldn't figure out how to print,
Speaker 2: so I didn't do my assignment.
Speaker 1: For were you? What did you have microphones in conversations
Speaker 1: I had with my parents and teachers in school. That's
Speaker 1: a bridgid excuse if I ever heard one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what this news company is like basically pointing
Speaker 2: to here.
Speaker 1: Listen, as someone who is in my academic career used
Speaker 1: every excuse in the book. Sometimes he's gonna be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I should have done a better job and this is
Speaker 1: on me. So something else that Percell, that Australian lawmaker
Speaker 1: whose image was distorted, says here is that she suspects
Speaker 1: that her identity is the reason why the news would
Speaker 1: feel comfortable using this kind of technology to make her
Speaker 1: look a certain way without her permission at all. She says,
Speaker 1: I'm young, I'm blonde, I'm covered in tattoos, I have
Speaker 1: a past in sex work. So I think that she
Speaker 1: is rightly picking up on something that whoever was in
Speaker 1: charge of making this image just didn't feel like they
Speaker 1: needed to have her consent to distort the way that
Speaker 1: she looks in this way. And I do think there's
Speaker 1: something It kind of gets back to that conversation we
Speaker 1: had about the Taylor Swift deep fakes that there's some
Speaker 1: thing about it that is like your body is public
Speaker 1: property and I actually don't need your permission or consent
Speaker 1: to manipulate it using the technology that I have to
Speaker 1: do that. Like, I think I think that Percell is
Speaker 1: onto something here that there are identity aspects that make
Speaker 1: people feel like they don't need to get permission, they
Speaker 1: don't need to get consent the way that your body
Speaker 1: and physicality manifest is just up to me. I have
Speaker 1: control over that, and I don't need to get your
Speaker 1: permission to do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is like a trend that I've noticed with
Speaker 2: news stories lately that you know, and we all on
Speaker 2: my phone on social media. I have lots of places
Speaker 2: where I'm looking at a feed of news stories, right,
Speaker 2: and they're all trying to get me to click on them.
Speaker 2: And I've noticed this trend where there will be a
Speaker 2: lot of news stories in there that are not important
Speaker 2: news stories, but they're about a woman who is conventionally attractive,
Speaker 2: and you know, it'll be like, oh, this woman from
Speaker 2: county in a different state hasn't paid her taxes. It's like,
Speaker 2: why is this a news story? And I think it's
Speaker 2: just because that's a way for whatever algorithm is serving
Speaker 2: up content to get an attractive woman there and just
Speaker 2: like use, yeah, use her body, use her image as clickbait.
Speaker 2: It feels weird and kind of gross.
Speaker 1: So I would actually argue that that is not a
Speaker 1: bug of our current media landscape. It is very much
Speaker 1: a feature using people, people who happen to all be
Speaker 1: traditionally marginalized to generate engagement and thus clicks, and that's
Speaker 1: money for somebody who is likely to not be traditionally marginalized.
Speaker 1: That is like the system that keeps the whole that
Speaker 1: is that the whole thing is built on. And so
Speaker 1: when we have these situations where it exposes, you know,
Speaker 1: that our internet landscape is deeply misogynistic or transphobic, or
Speaker 1: queer phobic or racist, those are not you know, weird
Speaker 1: instances of something happening. They are reminders that like, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's because that those things are baked into our entire
Speaker 1: internet landscape right now. So we're just gonna keep repeating that,
Speaker 1: because that's the whole thing. That's what the whole thing,
Speaker 1: the whole house of cards that is today's current digital
Speaker 1: landscape is built on all of those things. And so
Speaker 1: is it any wonder that this same system is not
Speaker 1: fairly or accurately or consistently representing women, queer people, trans people,
Speaker 1: black people, people of color, or anything like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not surprising at all. So have you got
Speaker 2: some good news to end to send us out with?
Speaker 1: I sure do. I've been saving this story because I
Speaker 1: it's it's one that is near and dear to me
Speaker 1: because y'all know I love a good justice is Serbs story.
Speaker 1: So basically Sandsbury's, which is a grocery store chain in
Speaker 1: the UK, was supportive of Black Lives Matter, and like,
Speaker 1: I think we're doing some sort of like black History
Speaker 1: Monde thing for their black employees. Barely standard stuff. Well,
Speaker 1: right wing activists Lawrence Fox, who founded the right wing
Speaker 1: populist political party Reclaim and is generally the kind of
Speaker 1: person who makes his whole thing like hating anything related
Speaker 1: to diversity. You know, the type we don't need to like,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. Well, he didn't like this,
Speaker 1: and so he called for a boycott of Sansbury's. So
Speaker 1: he got into it on Twitter with Colin Seymour, who
Speaker 1: does is a drag performer. Colin's drag performer name is Crystal.
Speaker 1: So during this exchange on Twitter, Lawrence called Colin Seymour
Speaker 1: a pedophile, which we know is like a dangerous smear,
Speaker 1: This idea that people who do drag, or that LGBTQ
Speaker 1: people or the people who support them are dangerous sexual
Speaker 1: threats to children. It is absolutely baseless not to mention
Speaker 1: dangerous in a time of QAnon. Well, Colin Seymour was like,
Speaker 1: I don't think so and sued Lawrence for libel and
Speaker 1: this week Q one inter ruling at the High Court
Speaker 1: just as Colin described Fox calling him a pedophile as
Speaker 1: seriously harmful, defamatory and baseless, saying the law affords few
Speaker 1: defenses to decimation of this sort. Mister Fox did not
Speaker 1: attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was
Speaker 1: not able to bring himself on the facts within the
Speaker 1: terms of any other defense recognized in the law. So
Speaker 1: Fox tried to counter sue Colin Seymour for calling him
Speaker 1: a racist, but the court dismissed that counterclaim, saying that
Speaker 1: the tweets were unlikely to cause him serious harm to
Speaker 1: his reputation. So this is a good story because I
Speaker 1: love like justice is served some people. If you listen
Speaker 1: to old, old old stuff, Mom ever told you you
Speaker 1: might remember that in the episode that we did revealing
Speaker 1: our problematic saves, Mike, you might know who mine was.
Speaker 2: Oh that's right, who is your Oh?
Speaker 1: Who is my number one lady who serves up justice
Speaker 1: every every day?
Speaker 2: Oh Judge Judy, of course. Ugh, I thought you meant
Speaker 2: a different problematic fave.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, I have so many we don't have
Speaker 1: to get into it. Maybe that's Patreon content. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't want. I don't want to get like we can
Speaker 1: move on.
Speaker 2: But yeah, so I it's already a long episode. We
Speaker 2: don't have time to go through your long list of
Speaker 2: problematic phases.
Speaker 1: I know, I know, no, but I basically what I'm
Speaker 1: saying is like, I love justice. I love watching somebody
Speaker 1: get what they've got come into them, and so this
Speaker 1: story I like, but I want to be clear that like,
Speaker 1: this shit is dangerous. Seymour did an interview with The Independent,
Speaker 1: which honestly the whole thing is worth reading, but in
Speaker 1: it he was talking about like why he sued Fox
Speaker 1: for defamation and basically talks about how all of this
Speaker 1: anti gay bigotry is a real dangerous problem and that
Speaker 1: calling someone a pedophile baselessly is basically the first line
Speaker 1: of a very dangerous attack. He told The Independent. For
Speaker 1: some anti gay bigotry never died, but they realized that
Speaker 1: it becomes socially unacceptable for them to express it. So
Speaker 1: now they found a new avenue where they feel emboldened
Speaker 1: and think that they're to get away with it. Calling
Speaker 1: somebody pedophile groomer or Nazi is often the first line
Speaker 1: of attack, a new way of framing very old homophobia,
Speaker 1: and it's all bound up in modern transpanic. The Independent
Speaker 1: asked if Fox had given any kind of like remorse
Speaker 1: during this case, and the answer is no, of course not.
Speaker 1: Seymour says, it's always doubling down and digging the hole deeper.
Speaker 1: And I think until he demonstrates some actual willingness to
Speaker 1: examine his own behaviors, I can't feel anything for him
Speaker 1: except contempt. And you know what, he is right because
Speaker 1: rather than just like shutting up, Fox is back at it,
Speaker 1: tweeting about the case. Quote. The lifeblood of progressivism is
Speaker 1: the myth of white privilege and systemic racism. Both lies
Speaker 1: certainly in this wonderful country which is being eaten away
Speaker 1: at from the inside by those who would want to
Speaker 1: replace a meritocracy with a melaninocracy.
Speaker 2: Is that a word that you've seen before? This is
Speaker 2: my first time.
Speaker 1: I have not seen. I have not seen melananocracy. In
Speaker 1: case you don't know, melanin is the thing that makes
Speaker 1: people of color our skin, uh the way that it
Speaker 1: is beautiful brown shades. I have not heard melananocracy before.
Speaker 1: But best believe I'm about to steal it because this
Speaker 1: whole month we are celebrating what we're now calling the Melananocracy.
Speaker 2: So how does that work in a melananocracy? Like do
Speaker 2: the people with the most melanin get to be in charge?
Speaker 2: Is that? Is that what it is here?
Speaker 1: I think that's what he is implying is how it works.
Speaker 1: And you know what, I'm here for it. So we're
Speaker 1: having a one month Melananocracy for February. Spread it around.
Speaker 1: It's going to be the new thing. That's it.
Speaker 2: Yeah all right, well, I mean it's your month, So
Speaker 2: here we go, melanan Ate. I'll hail our new melanin overlords.
Speaker 1: That's right, It's about time. Mike, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being.
Speaker 2: Here, Thanks for having me Bridget, always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: And thanks so much to all of you for listening.
Speaker 1: Happy Black History Months. If you're looking for ways to
Speaker 1: support the show, check out our March store at teangody
Speaker 1: dot com slash store. Got a story about an interesting
Speaker 1: thing in tech, or just want to say hi, You
Speaker 1: can reach us at Hello at tegody dot com. You
Speaker 1: can also find transcripts for today's episode at tenggody dot com.
Speaker 1: There are No Girls on the Internet was created by
Speaker 1: me Bridget Tod. It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative,
Speaker 1: edited by Joey Pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer.
Speaker 1: Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almada
Speaker 1: is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If
Speaker 1: you want to help us grow, rate and review us
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.