Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from my Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tex Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech, which is more of
Speaker 1: a you know, catchphrase than necessarily a reality. This is
Speaker 1: the Tech News for Thursday, September one. And y'all, I'm
Speaker 1: furious today and I'm going to do my best to
Speaker 1: keep it together. But you should know I am an
Speaker 1: emotional person and this first story has really done a
Speaker 1: number on me. So I will do my best, all right.
Speaker 1: So the BBC and the Wall Street Journal continue to
Speaker 1: pull back the curtain with regard to Facebook and Instagram
Speaker 1: and some of the not so awesome things that have
Speaker 1: been going on with these companies or early I should
Speaker 1: just say companies, since Facebook owns Instagram. You know, I've
Speaker 1: talked about how Facebook conducted internal studies that showed the
Speaker 1: company how their platform was facilitating and amplifying the spread
Speaker 1: of misinformation, and also how they did another internal study
Speaker 1: and showed that Instagram has contributed to mental health problems,
Speaker 1: particularly among teenage girls. Well, this story is also horrifying.
Speaker 1: This is not recent news. It is something I hadn't
Speaker 1: heard about before, But that's on me. It's not because
Speaker 1: you know, people had been reporting on it. I just
Speaker 1: missed it. But there has been an update to it,
Speaker 1: and I'll get to all of this. So the original
Speaker 1: news was that back in two thousand nineteen, the BBC
Speaker 1: investigated Facebook and Instagram, saying that the sites were hosting
Speaker 1: ads that were for essentially slaves. The ads were for
Speaker 1: domestic workers in Arabic markets in which people were literally
Speaker 1: bought and sold. Now that is sickening in of itself.
Speaker 1: One update here is that the Wall Street Journal, as
Speaker 1: part of its series of expose s about Facebook that
Speaker 1: had been coming out over the last week or so,
Speaker 1: found that a two thousand nineteen internal report. It always
Speaker 1: comes back to those internal reports, doesn't it. Anyway, That
Speaker 1: indicated that the company was already aware of this and
Speaker 1: had done some investigation into it before the BBC report
Speaker 1: blew the lid off the problem and alerted the general public.
Speaker 1: Now I should add that they were doing some investigations,
Speaker 1: but they had not taken any action. A Facebook employees
Speaker 1: stated in the report quote throughout two thousand eighteen and
Speaker 1: two thousand nineteen, we conducted the global understanding exercise in
Speaker 1: order to fully understand how domestic servitude manifests on our
Speaker 1: platform across its entire life cycle, recruitment, facilitation, and exploitation
Speaker 1: end quote. But it looks like it was actually the
Speaker 1: BBC expose that prompted Facebook to take action, first banning
Speaker 1: a hashtag that was used in many of those ads,
Speaker 1: and then taking subsequent steps. In June two thousand twenty,
Speaker 1: the Facebook reps stated, quote, following an investigation prompted by
Speaker 1: an inquiry from the BBC, we conducted a proactive review
Speaker 1: of our platform. We removed seven Instagram accounts within twenty
Speaker 1: four hours and simultaneously blocked several violating hashtags. End quote.
Speaker 1: All Right, first, I'm glad that Facebook took those steps. However,
Speaker 1: I want to get real here, folks. Okay, the phrase
Speaker 1: quote following an investigation prompted by an inquiry from the BBC.
Speaker 1: End quote. That means that the phrase they used, which
Speaker 1: was quote, we conducted a proactive review end quote is
Speaker 1: horse bucky. I'm gonna try and control myself here. It
Speaker 1: is not proactive if you are doing something after being
Speaker 1: prompted by an investigation from journalists. That's not what proactive
Speaker 1: means okay, that is reactive. The company reacted to being investigated.
Speaker 1: It was not proactively taking these steps to protect people,
Speaker 1: despite having its own internal investigation that predated the BBC's report. Now,
Speaker 1: they might argue that they were proactively scanning for more
Speaker 1: examples of this, but that's not how it was worded
Speaker 1: in the statement. Right. I can accept that they have
Speaker 1: subsequently put in systems that proactively look for this, and
Speaker 1: that I, you know, I don't have objection to that
Speaker 1: kind of language, but the way this was worded just
Speaker 1: infuriates me. This is also another example of how Facebook
Speaker 1: angers me in general, because it allows stuff to happen, terrible,
Speaker 1: terrible things. It allows horrible things to happen, and then
Speaker 1: we find out that Facebook was fully aware of the problem,
Speaker 1: like it wasn't like Facebook was somehow ignorant that this
Speaker 1: was happening and was just as surprise at the rest
Speaker 1: of us to see it, And and then finding how
Speaker 1: that they didn't take any steps to solve it until
Speaker 1: it becomes a public issue, until pressure is put on
Speaker 1: the company. This is like just a double dose of evil,
Speaker 1: or at least of apathy, which you know, in my
Speaker 1: book amounts to being the same thing anyway. The Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal also revealed, and this is new information, that
Speaker 1: Facebook received pressure from Apple back in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: Two nineteen, the company reportedly threatened to remove Facebook's apps
Speaker 1: from the Apple App Store, an enormous threat, and you
Speaker 1: can bet that is the sort of stuff that Facebook
Speaker 1: actually pays attention to. Again, it's upsetting to me that
Speaker 1: companies allow such terrible thing to proliferate on their platforms
Speaker 1: as long as the company is safely protected against consequences,
Speaker 1: and then they only act to help people if there
Speaker 1: happen to be negative consequences. If the company fails to
Speaker 1: help people, it's just plane gross and other Facebook news.
Speaker 1: A lawsuit from shareholders alleges that the company paid the
Speaker 1: FTC nearly five billion dollars over a settlement agreement in
Speaker 1: order to make certain that some certain kind of problems
Speaker 1: just got away in the wake of the Cambridge Analytical
Speaker 1: Now scandal several years ago. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that
Speaker 1: quote Zuckerberg, Sandberg and other Facebook directors agreed to authorize
Speaker 1: a multibillion settlement with the FTC as an express quid
Speaker 1: pro quo that means this for that to protect Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: from being named the f TCS complaint made subject to
Speaker 1: personal liability or even required to sit for a deposition
Speaker 1: end quote. So in other words, that they paid you know,
Speaker 1: hush money to the FTC so that the FTC wouldn't
Speaker 1: go after Zuckerberg at all. So if that lawsuit actually
Speaker 1: holds merit and Facebook did do this, we have ourselves
Speaker 1: a fun story not just of unethical corporate behavior, but
Speaker 1: also government corruption as well. It's nothing like more confirmation
Speaker 1: that the rules just don't apply if you have enough money. Right,
Speaker 1: we all know that, but this is yet more proof
Speaker 1: of that. So this lawsuit was actually filed last year
Speaker 1: in it only became public information this week due to
Speaker 1: an update that got filed to the lawsuit that then
Speaker 1: made it a public and so it's just being reported
Speaker 1: on now. Okay, let's get away from Facebook for a second,
Speaker 1: or at least directly from Facebook. That still kind of
Speaker 1: involves Facebook. So it was only a matter of time
Speaker 1: before someone challenged the Texas law HB twenty, which makes
Speaker 1: it illegal for social media companies from removing content or
Speaker 1: banning users based on that person's quote unquote viewpoint. Uh
Speaker 1: that time is now because the Computer and Communications Industry Association,
Speaker 1: as well as the organization net Choice have brought a
Speaker 1: lawsuit against Texas challenging that law. A similar law had
Speaker 1: been passed and subsequently blocked in the state of Florida.
Speaker 1: Those two organizations I just mentioned they were also responsible
Speaker 1: for the lawsuit that brought that before a judge in
Speaker 1: Florida who ultimately barred the law from being put into effect.
Speaker 1: This comes in the wake of the various moves by
Speaker 1: social platforms to ban users and delete content that violated
Speaker 1: the platform's policies, and that included some high profile users,
Speaker 1: such as the former President of the United States. The
Speaker 1: laws are kind of ironic because proponents say that the
Speaker 1: laws are there to promote freedom of speech to make
Speaker 1: sure that these entities like Facebook and Twitter aren't able
Speaker 1: to infringe upon the speech of others. But the US
Speaker 1: Guarantee of freedom of speech protects citizens and companies from
Speaker 1: the government intervening and telling you what you can and
Speaker 1: cannot say. It protects you against government censorship. Companies like
Speaker 1: Facebook and Twitter are not the government, and as such,
Speaker 1: they can have content policies, and they can enforce those
Speaker 1: policies and that doesn't mean that they're violating a constitutional guarantee,
Speaker 1: because you know, they're not the government, and the communications
Speaker 1: take place on the virtual property of these companies. However,
Speaker 1: you could argue that telling a company that it cannot
Speaker 1: police the content on its own platform is an example
Speaker 1: of the government violating an entities right to freedom of expression.
Speaker 1: So while under the banner of freedom, this law, you
Speaker 1: could argue is actually violating the very thing it allegedly
Speaker 1: protect X. Of course, that's just one interpretation, and I
Speaker 1: am not a legal expert. It may come down to
Speaker 1: a court fighting in favor of the Texas law. We'll
Speaker 1: have to wait and see. Okay, I think I need
Speaker 1: to take a quick break, and when we come back,
Speaker 1: more stuff what makes me angry? Okay, we're getting back
Speaker 1: to tech and politics. This one doesn't actually make me angry,
Speaker 1: which is good. I think you all need a break
Speaker 1: from Jonathan getting on his high horse. So this time
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about currency. The Federal Reserve is preparing
Speaker 1: to release a paper regarding the agency's study into whether
Speaker 1: or not it's a good idea to create a US
Speaker 1: based digital currency. This would be a type of c
Speaker 1: B d C. Now that stands for central bank digital currency,
Speaker 1: and really you could say this is just a virtual
Speaker 1: form of a government issued currency or fiat currency. So
Speaker 1: in other words, this would just be like a digital
Speaker 1: version of a US dollar. Now it's something that can
Speaker 1: have a lot of benefits, including benefits to the unbanked
Speaker 1: people who don't have bank accounts, because this allows for
Speaker 1: a digital payment, but it doesn't require the person to
Speaker 1: have a bank account. They would have to have some
Speaker 1: sort of digital wallet in order to accept and then
Speaker 1: spend digital dollars, but they wouldn't have to have a
Speaker 1: bank account associated with them. So this is not the
Speaker 1: same thing as cryptocurrency, so it's not like saying that
Speaker 1: the FED is looking to make its own version of bitcoin.
Speaker 1: Bitcoin is also digital, but there are big distinctions between
Speaker 1: c B d c s and your typical cryptocurrencies. Both
Speaker 1: typically depend upon a secure ledger that cannot be changed.
Speaker 1: This is necessary so that you can keep track of
Speaker 1: transactions and you prevent people from being able to spend
Speaker 1: the same digital dollar twice, right, you know, this is
Speaker 1: the protection to make sure that someone can't get a
Speaker 1: digital dollar and then quote unquote counterfeit it by copying
Speaker 1: it a billion times and making themselves a billionaire. You've
Speaker 1: got to have protections in place against that, just as
Speaker 1: you would against you know, counterfeiting, uh, you know, physical currencies.
Speaker 1: And there are a ton of differences between cryptocurrencies and
Speaker 1: c B d cs. So with cryptocurrencies, you typically have
Speaker 1: a shared ledger, so everyone participating in the system is
Speaker 1: is technically able to see this ledger. Thus you can't
Speaker 1: have anyone cheat the ledger because everyone can see it.
Speaker 1: You can't go back and change things in the past
Speaker 1: because it would affect everything that followed, and that would
Speaker 1: be impossible for the all the different parties to ignore.
Speaker 1: You would be caught immediately. With c B dcs, you
Speaker 1: technically you know or you typically don't have a shared ledger.
Speaker 1: You have a centralized ledger, but it's under the authorization
Speaker 1: of that centralized authority. And cryptocurrencies don't depend upon a
Speaker 1: centralized institution. The currency does. There are good and bad
Speaker 1: things connected with that, and I think your opinion about
Speaker 1: which is best largely depends on whether you buy into
Speaker 1: the cryptocurrency. Ethos are not um. I definitely see benefits
Speaker 1: and I see drawbacks to each either way. The study
Speaker 1: that the FED is doing and is soon going to
Speaker 1: report on. It's just an indication that the FED is
Speaker 1: considering the possibility of creating a U S C B
Speaker 1: d C. It's not, you know, a done deal or anything.
Speaker 1: We will have to wait and find out what happens next.
Speaker 1: Today the U s Secretary of Commerce is meeting with
Speaker 1: representatives from big automakers as well as some major tech
Speaker 1: companies like Microsoft and Apple. And the heart of the
Speaker 1: matter is the ongoing semiconductor chip shortage, which is affecting
Speaker 1: multiple industries out there, but it's really having a profound
Speaker 1: negative impact on the automotive industry at that you know,
Speaker 1: right now. Presumably this group of experts will discuss what
Speaker 1: the current problem is and you know, define the parameters
Speaker 1: and maybe talk about some potential ways to perhaps alleviate
Speaker 1: some of the pain points in the supply chain. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that there's going to be a ton of
Speaker 1: solutions to that, because the problem is a truly enormous one.
Speaker 1: It's a global issue, and it includes a lot of
Speaker 1: parties that are not in the United States, and you
Speaker 1: can only churn out stuff so quickly. In a way,
Speaker 1: you could say this shows that the world's supply chain is,
Speaker 1: you know, very much a chain. It is dependent upon
Speaker 1: the weakest links, right. It's only as strong as those
Speaker 1: weakest links because it is interlinked. It's not if you
Speaker 1: break a link in a chain, then you've got to
Speaker 1: you know, segments of chain, you no longer have a
Speaker 1: real full chain. Same thing with supply chains. And this
Speaker 1: is not to say that I'm passing judgment on countries
Speaker 1: like Vietnam or Malaysia that are having massive issues and
Speaker 1: thus are quote unquote the weakest link in the supply chain.
Speaker 1: These are regions that are experiencing rising COVID nineteen infection rates.
Speaker 1: These countries frequently are struggling to get doses of vaccines
Speaker 1: that can then be administered to citizens. There's an amazing
Speaker 1: vaccine shortage in most of the world. Here in the
Speaker 1: United States, it's easy different get that because it is
Speaker 1: readily available, But in other parts of the world that's
Speaker 1: not the case. This is a really big ecosystem and
Speaker 1: humanitarian crisis. We here in the United States, we're fortunate
Speaker 1: and that we mostly see it through the stuff like
Speaker 1: skyrocketing automobile price tags or graphics card shortages, which, don't
Speaker 1: get me wrong, those are problems. But when you look
Speaker 1: at it in the in the context of people in
Speaker 1: other parts of the world who are responsible for delivering
Speaker 1: components that go into those things literally can't get vaccinated
Speaker 1: because there aren't enough doses, it really kind of brings
Speaker 1: everything into perspective. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently sent out
Speaker 1: a memo that complained about how some Apple employee had
Speaker 1: leaked a previous memo, and then, of course this memo
Speaker 1: got leaked, so Apple's got a leaking problem. The earlier memo,
Speaker 1: the one that necessitated Tim Cook's second memo, was about
Speaker 1: how Apple would not require employees to be vaccinated, but
Speaker 1: the company would instead require unvaccinated employees to take COVID
Speaker 1: tests on a frequent basis. Someone leaked that, and then
Speaker 1: Cook sent out a memo essentially saying, hey, don't leak
Speaker 1: stuff to the press or you'll be in trouble. And
Speaker 1: of course here we are with this memo now leaked
Speaker 1: to everyone. This also comes at a time when a
Speaker 1: subset of Apple employees have been calling out the company
Speaker 1: to be held accountable for issues ranging from pay disparity
Speaker 1: to a hostile work environment um the Apple Me Too movement.
Speaker 1: Then there are the employees who had been pushing back
Speaker 1: against Cook's earlier insistence that Apple employees returned to work
Speaker 1: in person for at least three days a week starting
Speaker 1: this fall. That's a requirement that has now been pushed
Speaker 1: off to two. I wouldn't be surprised to see more leaks.
Speaker 1: I think there are enough folks in Apple who are
Speaker 1: upset or concerned, and they're just not willing to stay
Speaker 1: quiet about it. Meanwhile, over at Epic Games, the company
Speaker 1: behind the massively successful Fortnite, Apple has denied that company's
Speaker 1: request to bring Fortnite back into the App Store now.
Speaker 1: According to the CEO of Epic Tim Sweeney, Apple had
Speaker 1: previously indicated it would allow Fortnite back in the App Store,
Speaker 1: but now is determined to keep it banned until the
Speaker 1: company has exhausted every legal appeal it can make to
Speaker 1: the courts, which so far have ruled more in epics
Speaker 1: favor than in Apples. So at the heart of all this,
Speaker 1: in case you're not familiar, year, is that Apple and
Speaker 1: Google both have policies that state if you have an
Speaker 1: app that has in app purchases built into it, then
Speaker 1: the company takes like in this case, Apple takes a
Speaker 1: percentage up tot of that transaction for themselves, and that
Speaker 1: you are not allowed to use any other method to
Speaker 1: sell to people in app for an Apple app so
Speaker 1: or an app that's in the Apple Store. So Fortnite
Speaker 1: has in game items you can purchase, but to do
Speaker 1: so on the Apple version, you were supposed to go
Speaker 1: through Apple's payment system, and instead Fortnite offered players an
Speaker 1: alternative work around where more of the money would go
Speaker 1: to Epic Games and none of it would go to Apple.
Speaker 1: Apple then took the move of banning Fortnite from the
Speaker 1: App Store, and we got into this big legal battle.
Speaker 1: Well recently, the courts have said that Apple's policy is
Speaker 1: anti competitive, not monopolistic, but anti competitive, and that Apple
Speaker 1: needs to allow companies to have apps on the App
Speaker 1: Store to offer up alternative payment processes that are outside
Speaker 1: the Apple one. Apple has not yet done this, and
Speaker 1: in fact Apple is appealing that decision. And Sweeney said, hey,
Speaker 1: we'd be happy to come back and obey your rules
Speaker 1: if you let us back in the App Store, we
Speaker 1: will play by your policies as long as you have
Speaker 1: conformed with the court decision, which Apple refuses to do. So.
Speaker 1: The battle continues. This has been a pretty public one
Speaker 1: and Tim Sweeney has not been shy about taking this
Speaker 1: battle to the public, probably because Fortnite has such an
Speaker 1: enormous following that he knows he can get a lot
Speaker 1: of support in a short amount of time. So we
Speaker 1: will see how this battle plays out, but it's going
Speaker 1: to take a while longer. The e USE European Commission
Speaker 1: has announced that it will soon propose that all smartphones
Speaker 1: sold in the EU will have to comply with the
Speaker 1: u s b C charging Port standard, so that means
Speaker 1: all smart phones sold in the EU will have to
Speaker 1: have a us b C charging port. These are kind
Speaker 1: of shots you know, fired at Apple, which uses a
Speaker 1: proprietary charging connector. It uses the Lightning connector for iPhones. Now,
Speaker 1: this despite the fact that the Apple also moved to
Speaker 1: us b C for its Mac computers, which drives a
Speaker 1: lot of Apple users nuts that you know, the company
Speaker 1: has moved from Lightning to USBC for some of its products,
Speaker 1: but not all of it. This requirement only applies to
Speaker 1: devices that use wired charging, so if you have something
Speaker 1: that charges wirelessly, that's exempt from this rule. And this
Speaker 1: is not a rule that's set in stone yet. It's
Speaker 1: more like a recommendation. So the e C sends this
Speaker 1: recommendation to the European part Elament and then that has
Speaker 1: to vote on the matter before it can become law.
Speaker 1: That being said, the feeling is that most of the
Speaker 1: EU Parliament is in favor on settling on a common charger. Uh.
Speaker 1: The argument is that this benefits consumers because it simplifies
Speaker 1: the equipment you need when you get a new phone.
Speaker 1: Let's say you switch from Android to iPhone. Well, it's
Speaker 1: already standard practice in Europe to ship phones without a charger,
Speaker 1: So the idea is that everyone out there already has chargers,
Speaker 1: and they already have cables, so you don't need to
Speaker 1: include that with your phone. This cuts down on cost,
Speaker 1: it cuts down on waste, cuts down on packaging. Like
Speaker 1: it has a lot of benefits. But if you have
Speaker 1: a phone that has a proprietary connector, then you know
Speaker 1: none of your cables are going to work. You would
Speaker 1: have to go out and buy new ones, and that
Speaker 1: generates more waste. I should also point out that not
Speaker 1: all USBC cables are actually equal. There's a variety of them.
Speaker 1: Some of them can carry a higher voltage than others.
Speaker 1: For example, or provide more data throughput. So while it
Speaker 1: might seem like you're talking about simplifying things, you are,
Speaker 1: but not not fully. So it's still a little complicated.
Speaker 1: Apple representatives responded by expressing disappointment in this recommendation not
Speaker 1: a big surprise. They have argued that, you know, settling
Speaker 1: on a single charging cable discourages innovation. I would say
Speaker 1: that there's a balance to be made here. There is
Speaker 1: a need for standardization which removes confusion in the market
Speaker 1: and benefits a consumer. And of course there's an argument
Speaker 1: to be made that Apple really doesn't, you know, isn't
Speaker 1: calling out about restrictions on innovation. Apple wants proprietary connectors
Speaker 1: because then Apple can make more money selling all those
Speaker 1: different components, the phones, the chargers, the cables, everything. But
Speaker 1: if it's forced to conform to a universal standard, then
Speaker 1: it could lose out on a lot of sales because
Speaker 1: you could just buy those cables from anyone anyway. We'll
Speaker 1: see if the European Parliament takes the recommendation and makes
Speaker 1: it into law on the EU, and then we'll see
Speaker 1: what Apple does about it. Finally, people who spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time looking at patents found one from Valve
Speaker 1: that suggests the company could be working on a way
Speaker 1: that would let you play a game while you are
Speaker 1: downloading it, with a product called Steam Instant Play. This
Speaker 1: is similar to features that you find on some video
Speaker 1: game consoles where you purchase a digital copy of a game,
Speaker 1: and once a sufficient amount of the game has downloaded
Speaker 1: onto your device, you can start playing. Now, you might
Speaker 1: only be able to play in a specific mode, like
Speaker 1: the single player campaign or something, but you can get
Speaker 1: started and meanwhile, the rest of the game continues to
Speaker 1: download in the background. This is a pretty darn handy
Speaker 1: feature to have, particularly as games get increasingly gargantuan with
Speaker 1: regard to how much hard drive space they can take
Speaker 1: up and the limitations of broadband speeds. For folks who
Speaker 1: are fortunate enough to have a gigabit connection or even better,
Speaker 1: it's maybe not that big of a deal. But for
Speaker 1: mere mortals like myself, having a way to play a
Speaker 1: game without having to wait, you know, the hour or
Speaker 1: so to get the full thing installed as a pretty
Speaker 1: big benefit. Anyway. The patent describes the system that would
Speaker 1: potentially allow for that kind of experience on Steam, which
Speaker 1: is of course Valves Online Computer games store. It's like
Speaker 1: it's like a physical game store, except of course they're
Speaker 1: all digital downloads, but they carry games from all different publishers.
Speaker 1: So for those who aren't into PC games, Steam is
Speaker 1: like the leading store for selling online you know, games
Speaker 1: over the Internet, or rather games online over the internet,
Speaker 1: because they're not just they're not all online games. Some
Speaker 1: of them are you know, single player, no internet connectivity
Speaker 1: type games. Steam is so successful the Valve doesn't even
Speaker 1: have to make video games of its own anymore, really,
Speaker 1: much to the despair of those who are waiting for
Speaker 1: another Half Life game. I should also add we don't
Speaker 1: need to hold our breath on this particular instant feature.
Speaker 1: We're talking about a patent. We're not talking about an
Speaker 1: actual product yet. One day Valve could implement instant play,
Speaker 1: or it might never roll it out at all. And
Speaker 1: that's it for the news for Thursday, September one. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go and light like some scented candles and stuff
Speaker 1: and listen to some relaxing music so that I don't
Speaker 1: have as many anger outbursts as I did today, So
Speaker 1: my apologies for that, but these are things I care about.
Speaker 1: If you have suggestions for things I should cover on
Speaker 1: tech stuff. Reach out to me. The handle on Twitter
Speaker 1: is text stuff H s W and I'll talk to
Speaker 1: you again really soon. Text Stuff is an I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio production. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit
Speaker 1: the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: listen to your favorite shows.