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. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech, and it's time for
Speaker 1: the tech News for Thursday, October twenty one, twenty one.
Speaker 1: Recording late today because it was a pretty hectic day.
Speaker 1: I actually can see Tari from where I'm sitting right
Speaker 1: now because once again I'm actually in the office in
Speaker 1: the studio using my own mic. But I'm in the studio,
Speaker 1: and so if it sounds a little different, that's why.
Speaker 1: But let's get to the news. Yesterday's episode was about
Speaker 1: the metaverse and what that means. The idea for that
Speaker 1: episode actually came from the first news item I want
Speaker 1: to cover today, which is that Facebook, the company, plans
Speaker 1: to announce a rebrand for the company itself. Now, this
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that Facebook, the social networking site is going
Speaker 1: to change names. The company that owns Facebook the social
Speaker 1: network site, as well as Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Oculus,
Speaker 1: is going to get a new brand name. The Verge
Speaker 1: reports that we should expect an announcement about the new
Speaker 1: name no later than next week and possibly sooner than that,
Speaker 1: but that the brand name itself remains a secret kept
Speaker 1: only by a few top level executives, which is probably,
Speaker 1: you know, a good idea on Facebook's behalf, considering how
Speaker 1: many leaks that company has sprung. Now, this hasn't stopped
Speaker 1: speculation about what that name might be, something that perhaps
Speaker 1: because Facebook is gearing up to create a metaverse platform,
Speaker 1: that the new name might relate to that. For example,
Speaker 1: Facebook might adopt the company name Horizon, which references a
Speaker 1: sort of proto metaverse that Facebook has in development. But
Speaker 1: you might ask, why is Facebook even making this change
Speaker 1: in the first place. Well, in part it might be
Speaker 1: to indicate that the company is about more than just Facebook,
Speaker 1: the social network. But I think another big part of
Speaker 1: it is that the Facebook brand has more than a
Speaker 1: little tarnish on it right now, with various investigations into
Speaker 1: the company proceeding around the world and employees speaking out
Speaker 1: against the company. I'm sure that by this time next
Speaker 1: week I'll be reporting on whatever the new name is,
Speaker 1: along with you know, whatever else the company has to
Speaker 1: announce around that time. Speaking of tarnish on Facebook, yesterday,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General for Washington, D C. Carl Racing announced
Speaker 1: that he was adding Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to a
Speaker 1: lawsuit that centers on the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Now, in
Speaker 1: case you aren't familiar with what that is, that scandal
Speaker 1: relates to this analytics marketing company called Cambridge Analytica that
Speaker 1: focused on providing support for political campaigns, particularly for for
Speaker 1: right wing political campaigns. Investigative journalists discovered that Cambridge Analytica
Speaker 1: was apparently depending upon a loophole that was in Facebook's
Speaker 1: application programming interface. Once upon a time, UH, the company
Speaker 1: developed a survey tool. Actually, they adapted a survey tool
Speaker 1: that encouraged people to engage in the survey in return
Speaker 1: for you know, like a monetary reward. But this loophole
Speaker 1: in the development part of the a p I allowed
Speaker 1: the app developer to see not only the personal information
Speaker 1: of whomever it was who took the survey, but also
Speaker 1: access the information of all of that person's contacts on Facebook,
Speaker 1: at least so far as those users had shared with
Speaker 1: the survey taker. So let me explain what that means.
Speaker 1: Let's say that I decided to take this survey, so
Speaker 1: I go and I granted the permissions that it was requesting,
Speaker 1: and I go take the survey, and you and I
Speaker 1: happened to be friends. Well, normally Cambridge Analytica wouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to see your information just by default, especially if
Speaker 1: you had anything set to friends only. But because you're
Speaker 1: friends with me, and because the app had these wide,
Speaker 1: widespread permissions that allowed it to access various pieces of information,
Speaker 1: it would mean that Cambridge Analytica would be able to
Speaker 1: see just as much of your information as you allowed
Speaker 1: me to see. Facebook subsequently patched that loophole, but the
Speaker 1: damage was already done. Meanwhile, Cambridge Analytica was also implicated
Speaker 1: in various schemes to spread misinformation and to manipulate voters. Uh,
Speaker 1: there was this whole story about Cambridge Analytica targeting people
Speaker 1: who didn't support Cambridge analyticas clients, in other words, people
Speaker 1: who would have voted against the political candidates that Cambridge
Speaker 1: Analytica was trying to help, and then Cambridge Analytica was
Speaker 1: using methods to try and discourage those people from voting
Speaker 1: at all. Now, all of this happened several years ago,
Speaker 1: actually leading up to the election in the United States.
Speaker 1: The lawsuit itself has its origins in the government charges
Speaker 1: that Facebook violated the terms of the Consumer Protection Procedures
Speaker 1: Act and it should be held accountable with the goal
Speaker 1: of finding Facebook for damages. This, by the way, is
Speaker 1: a civil case, not a criminal case. Facebook tried to
Speaker 1: get this lawsuit dismissed in twenty nineteen, but that effort failed.
Speaker 1: The judge denied the request, and now Zuckerberg has been
Speaker 1: named as a defendant in the case. The company continues
Speaker 1: to deny the charges, so we'll have to wait and
Speaker 1: see where this goes next. Now. I promised that we
Speaker 1: are going to talk about stuff that isn't just Facebook
Speaker 1: in today's episode. However, news about Facebook keeps breaking even
Speaker 1: as I was trying to put this episode together. Today,
Speaker 1: Facebook's oversight panel announced that it is looking into an
Speaker 1: alleged system in which Facebook gives a free pass to
Speaker 1: certain v I p UH Facebook accounts. So the implication
Speaker 1: is that Facebook ignores incidents in which these accounts violate
Speaker 1: various policies. This investigation follows the series of Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal reports that revealed the contents of some of the
Speaker 1: thousands of documents that the newspaper received from whistleblower Francis Hogan.
Speaker 1: The You Know Facebook has a system that they call
Speaker 1: cross check or sometimes x check. It's sometimes written as
Speaker 1: x x check, but I think they refer to it
Speaker 1: as cross check. And according to the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: this system essentially covers for high profile accounts and and
Speaker 1: doesn't count violations of Facebook policy against those accounts. So
Speaker 1: the Oversight bore It has stated that, you know, it
Speaker 1: has the responsibility to review Facebook's moderation policies. Like the
Speaker 1: whole purpose that the Oversight Board was put together was
Speaker 1: to hold Facebook accountable and to say, all right, what
Speaker 1: are your policies, Are they fair and are you actually
Speaker 1: carrying them out equitably across the platform? And they're saying
Speaker 1: Facebook has failed to share all the information needed for
Speaker 1: the Oversight Board to make that assessment, which you know,
Speaker 1: that's a problem. So this seems fairly straight forward. We
Speaker 1: will have to wait and see what Facebook's response is
Speaker 1: to it. However, security company Sofoss reports that scammers using
Speaker 1: social engineering have stolen more than a million dollars from victims,
Speaker 1: using a combination of dating apps and bogus cryptocurrency apps
Speaker 1: to do it, Apple apps, I should add, so first
Speaker 1: let's define what social engineering is. Essentially, this is when
Speaker 1: you try and pull a fast one on someone, you're
Speaker 1: tricking someone into trusting you and then you know, giving
Speaker 1: you access to a system or information. So the classic
Speaker 1: example is someone contacts a person who works for a
Speaker 1: specific company and they pose as I T personnel and
Speaker 1: they say, I need to have access to your computer.
Speaker 1: I need to install, you know, a new program or something.
Speaker 1: But the whole point is just to gain access to
Speaker 1: the system. Well, in this case, the scammers were using
Speaker 1: popular dating apps like Tender and Bumble to set up
Speaker 1: profiles that looked legit and then fish for victims. Once
Speaker 1: someone expressed interest, the scammers would kind of string the
Speaker 1: mark along for a little bit, trying to convince them
Speaker 1: to download a cryptocurrency app that looked legit but was
Speaker 1: actually a scam. Uh. In fact, these were apps that
Speaker 1: made it through Apple's famous restrictive ecosyste for apps. By
Speaker 1: using a loophole, the scammers would convince their marks to
Speaker 1: invest money, even just small amounts of money into the app,
Speaker 1: supposedly buying into cryptocurrency, and as long as the target
Speaker 1: was investing money, everything was cool. But the moment someone
Speaker 1: tried to retrieve their money or otherwise shut down their account.
Speaker 1: The scammers would close off access to the money that
Speaker 1: had been quote unquote invested in the app and just
Speaker 1: steal the money for themselves. Worse, the scammers use something
Speaker 1: called Apple's Enterprise or Corporate Signature designation that's intended to
Speaker 1: let app developers test out apps with a small group
Speaker 1: of test users in the development process. The whole idea
Speaker 1: is it gives developers a way of doing quality assurance
Speaker 1: testing of their apps before they submit the app to
Speaker 1: the Apple App Store for consideration. So these apps never
Speaker 1: went into the Apple App Store, they never had to
Speaker 1: face that scrutiny. They were taking advantage of the fact
Speaker 1: that Apple allows developers to test their work before submitting it. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, you know, they were just using a
Speaker 1: work around and convincing people to download apps not by
Speaker 1: going through the App Store, but downing them directly through
Speaker 1: this enterprise or corporate program, then tricking them into investing
Speaker 1: money into these you know, cryptocurrency schemes um so very
Speaker 1: clever work around one that's not necessarily easy to counteract.
Speaker 1: This particular scheme originated out of Asia, but so FOS
Speaker 1: says that it has detected victims in places like Europe
Speaker 1: and the United States. So if you use dating apps,
Speaker 1: be on the look for any matches who are urging
Speaker 1: you to download cryptocurrency apps and make investments. So FoST
Speaker 1: has also called an Apple to alert users about this
Speaker 1: enterprise program and how a bad actor could potentially use
Speaker 1: that to convince folks to install apps that haven't actually
Speaker 1: gone through Apple's review process. Like the fact that loophole exists,
Speaker 1: I mean it's needed, Like you need to have a
Speaker 1: way to test your your app before you submit it
Speaker 1: so that you can make sure you work out any
Speaker 1: bugs before Apple gets hold of it. But you need
Speaker 1: to also have a way to keep a lid on
Speaker 1: that so that people don't just create bogus apples apps
Speaker 1: and make it look like it's a legit thing and
Speaker 1: then convince people to download it without going through the
Speaker 1: Apple Store. That that is the real issue. We have
Speaker 1: some more stories to cover, but before we get to that,
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. Bloomberg reports that PayPal is
Speaker 1: looking into making a possible acquisition that of the social
Speaker 1: media company Pinterest. Bloomberg reports that PayPal reached out to
Speaker 1: Pinterest to see if the platform would consider a buyout
Speaker 1: with a reported offer of around seventy dollars per share
Speaker 1: of pinterest stock. Now, some quick math tells us that
Speaker 1: this value pinterest at just under forty billion dollars, which
Speaker 1: is a princely sum, And currently pinterest stock is trading
Speaker 1: at just under sixty two dollars a share, so it's
Speaker 1: an offer that is above the market value of a
Speaker 1: share of pinterest. But however, you know, pinterest stock had
Speaker 1: reached as high as almost ninety dollars a share over
Speaker 1: the past year, but more recently it has been trading
Speaker 1: around the sixty dollar range. And you might wonder why PayPal,
Speaker 1: which is most known as being a financial services company,
Speaker 1: would be interested in Pinterest known as a social media
Speaker 1: platform with a bulletin board like interface. But pinterest has
Speaker 1: been incorporating e commerce elements into its platform over the
Speaker 1: last couple of years, creating ways for users to shop
Speaker 1: for items through pinterest itself. And since pinterest is all about,
Speaker 1: you know, creating boards with aesthetically pleasing and thematically relevant images,
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of Like interior design companies can
Speaker 1: use Pinterest to to highlight how various components can go
Speaker 1: together to make a particular aesthetic. Well, you can see
Speaker 1: how a shopping system integrated with a financial company like
Speaker 1: PayPal would be a really powerful tool in order to
Speaker 1: market stuff to folks. Now, so far, neither pinterest nor
Speaker 1: PayPal has responded to journalist requests for common about this
Speaker 1: potential acquisition, So there's no way of knowing if pinterest
Speaker 1: is actually considering the offer. I mean, if you want
Speaker 1: to be really clear about it, there's no confirmation that
Speaker 1: an actual offer even happened. But I have no reason
Speaker 1: to doubt Bloomberg's reporting on this. The Boring Company, as in,
Speaker 1: you know, the company that makes tunnels most often associated
Speaker 1: with hyper loop like projects UH and also associated with
Speaker 1: Elon Musk, has cleared one hurdle between it and the
Speaker 1: goal of building out an underground transportation system in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Speaker 1: The altimate goal is to establish a system that includes
Speaker 1: fifty one separate stations, many of which would connect to
Speaker 1: casinos along the Las Vegas Strip, as well as other
Speaker 1: notable stops like Allegiance Stadium, the Las Vegas Convention Center,
Speaker 1: the Fremont Street Experience, the airport, and more. Now, the
Speaker 1: hurdle was the approval of the Clark County Commissioner's office
Speaker 1: to go ahead with this. The proposed system would span
Speaker 1: the border between Clark County and the city of Las
Speaker 1: Vegas itself. Fun fact, the Las Vegas Strip is mostly
Speaker 1: in Clark County, it's not within the actual city limits
Speaker 1: of Las Vegas proper. The company will need to apply
Speaker 1: for permits before actually beginning construction on the system, and
Speaker 1: according to the boring company, the schedule would be really
Speaker 1: super aggressive. Representatives say that the plan is to have
Speaker 1: up to ten stations completed and connected within the first
Speaker 1: six six months of the project breaking ground, which is
Speaker 1: really aggressive, and that the whole thing should be completed
Speaker 1: within three years. And that seems unbelievably optimistic to me.
Speaker 1: But then what do I know. Well, one thing I
Speaker 1: do know is that the existing tunnel system in Las
Speaker 1: Vegas that was created by the boring company, the Las
Speaker 1: Vegas Convention Center Loop, has fallen well below the projected
Speaker 1: performance the company had claimed at the start of the project.
Speaker 1: So the loop connects the South Hall, the West Hall,
Speaker 1: and the Central Hall of the Las Vegas Convention Center.
Speaker 1: These are three huge buildings that have exhibition spaces inside
Speaker 1: of them. I know it best from my visits to
Speaker 1: c e s over the years, and getting from one
Speaker 1: to another can take a while. Like, if it's empty,
Speaker 1: it might take you fifteen minutes to walk from one
Speaker 1: to the next. If it's full, it might take you
Speaker 1: forty five minutes to walk from one to the next
Speaker 1: because of the crowds. So if things are really busy
Speaker 1: and it's a congested event, an other way of getting
Speaker 1: between the different buildings is useful, especially if you've got
Speaker 1: like meetings back to back that are across the convention
Speaker 1: center from each other. So the idea was to build
Speaker 1: this underground tunnel loop system with two one way paths,
Speaker 1: you know, one going from one side of the convention
Speaker 1: center together and the other one coming back. And the
Speaker 1: boring company originally predicted that this particular system would be
Speaker 1: able to move up to four thousand, four hundred people
Speaker 1: per hour. However, as it's in its current incarnation, it
Speaker 1: can move fewer than six hundred people per hour. That's
Speaker 1: if it's going at full capacity. Uh. And the experience
Speaker 1: that you know, Las Vegas got was much less futuristic
Speaker 1: than what was originally proposed. The idea was that was
Speaker 1: going to be autonomous vehicles taking people from point A
Speaker 1: to point B. Instead, it's people driving Tesla vehicles through
Speaker 1: a tunnel and ferrying you from point A point be
Speaker 1: kind of like a very limited taxicab. Although the convention
Speaker 1: center version of this is operated free of charge for
Speaker 1: for actual writers. The full Las Vegas system, well, if
Speaker 1: it ends up being just a larger version of what
Speaker 1: you're already seeing at the convention Center, it's not necessarily
Speaker 1: going to be a huge boon to Las Vegas. It's
Speaker 1: not really built in such a way to significantly reduced
Speaker 1: traffic in the Las Vegas area. There's actually a really
Speaker 1: good video about this by Daniel Cooper from Engadget called
Speaker 1: Elon Musk's Las Vegas Loop could have been Great. Highly
Speaker 1: recommend you check it out. It's really informative on this subject.
Speaker 1: And I might have to do a full episode about
Speaker 1: this to talk about what was promised, what was delivered,
Speaker 1: how might that evolve into something more useful, and why
Speaker 1: it doesn't really resemble anything when we you know, we're
Speaker 1: talking about the hyper loop years ago, because this is
Speaker 1: not a hyper loop style system. A group of companies
Speaker 1: including Lockeed Martin, Voyager Space, and nano Rax have announced
Speaker 1: their intent to design, build, and deploy a privately run
Speaker 1: space station by the year twenty seven. If you listen
Speaker 1: to my episodes about space stations, you know that the
Speaker 1: International Space Station is getting up there in years. Components
Speaker 1: that were meant to last just ten to fifteen years
Speaker 1: are well past that now. The earliest modules that were
Speaker 1: launched we'll be closing in on thirty years old in
Speaker 1: just a couple of years. So NASA has encouraged the
Speaker 1: private sector to get involved in this space pun intended.
Speaker 1: I guess the proposed station that these companies are are
Speaker 1: going to build has the name star Lab, and it
Speaker 1: would be much much smaller than the I S S.
Speaker 1: It would accommodate only up to four astronauts at a time,
Speaker 1: and like the earliest space stations, this would be a
Speaker 1: monolithic design. Now that means it would be a single
Speaker 1: launch that would carry the full space station up to orbit.
Speaker 1: It would not be modular like the International Space Station is.
Speaker 1: Like the I S S has grown over the years
Speaker 1: because we've added more modules to it over time, kind
Speaker 1: of like a giant tinker toy in space. This version
Speaker 1: star Lab would be a single thing that we launch
Speaker 1: once up into low Earth orbit. Uh, and kind of
Speaker 1: like the BIGELO module that's connected to the I S S.
Speaker 1: The idea is that this space station that the habitable
Speaker 1: part anyway, will be an inflatable structure, which is part
Speaker 1: of the reason why you can launch it in one go.
Speaker 1: If it's inflatable, then you can have it deflated when
Speaker 1: you're on the ground and then wait till you're in
Speaker 1: space to inflate and expand it to its full size.
Speaker 1: As for what the station will be used for, that
Speaker 1: could include everything from scientific research to industrial research, to
Speaker 1: space tourism, so you know, the typical stuff that we
Speaker 1: tend to hear about when we talk about private space exploration.
Speaker 1: The f d A has approved a particular use of
Speaker 1: virtual reality to treat people who have amblyopia. I hope
Speaker 1: I said that correctly. Uh. This refers to the condition
Speaker 1: that most of us know as lazy eye. So with ambliopia,
Speaker 1: the brain begins to rely more on one eye than
Speaker 1: the other, and communication between the brain and the other
Speaker 1: eye breaks down a bit. The traditional way that we've
Speaker 1: treated ambleiopia is to use stuff like an eye patch
Speaker 1: over the good eye, the stronger eye, and this forces
Speaker 1: the brain to re establish connections with the other eye.
Speaker 1: Kind of it's kind of like strength training for your eye,
Speaker 1: and it helps counteract the effects of amblopia. Well, the
Speaker 1: VR approach presents two similar images while you know, you
Speaker 1: watch video, so each eye is getting a slightly different image.
Speaker 1: The stronger eye gets a lower contrast version, so details
Speaker 1: are harder to make out for the stronger eye, and
Speaker 1: so the weaker eye needs to get a little more
Speaker 1: love from the brain for the images to make sense. Also,
Speaker 1: the VR uses some overlays on each image, and the
Speaker 1: overlays block a little bit of the user's view. It's
Speaker 1: only by combining the view from each eye that you
Speaker 1: get a full image in the brain. So the brain
Speaker 1: can do this. We're not even conscious of it when
Speaker 1: it happens. The brain just handles it. But these are
Speaker 1: little elements that can be introduced virtually that ultimately make
Speaker 1: our brains work with a specific eye to have it,
Speaker 1: you know, get up to speed. So it's kind of
Speaker 1: like the eye patch approach in a way. It forces
Speaker 1: the brain to rely more on the affected eye, the
Speaker 1: one with amblopia, but it does so while the user
Speaker 1: also is watching something that they would like to see,
Speaker 1: you know, instead of wearing an eyepatch. They're watching movies,
Speaker 1: and wearing an eyepatch can bring with it a bit
Speaker 1: of a social stigma. However, you know that is actually
Speaker 1: something that we should really address as a society. Anyway,
Speaker 1: this whole issue with able is um but you know,
Speaker 1: you get my meaning. Like it's it's one of those
Speaker 1: ways where you can do this therapy that doesn't require
Speaker 1: you to wear an eye patch or use eye drops,
Speaker 1: or maybe you use it in conjunction with that, but
Speaker 1: it's one way to train up your your strength. I
Speaker 1: think it's cool that the FDA has approved this type
Speaker 1: of therapy and hopefully we'll see it rolled out to
Speaker 1: a broader scale in the near future. Sony has received
Speaker 1: approval from the U S Patent Office for a patent
Speaker 1: that allows for a system in which participants and spectators
Speaker 1: of multiplayer video games could vote to ban players from
Speaker 1: the game. The patent calls for a few different implementations
Speaker 1: of this idea. So, for example, imagine that you're watching
Speaker 1: a competitive multiplayer game and there's one player who is
Speaker 1: consistently performing below the skill level of everybody else in
Speaker 1: the game, and the participants or maybe the spectators might
Speaker 1: vote to inch that person, just removing them from play.
Speaker 1: But there's another implementation that suggests a scenario in which
Speaker 1: spectators could pay to vote someone out of a competitive
Speaker 1: multiplayer game. Sony calls for a system that would require
Speaker 1: at least a sixty percent majority to actually vote to
Speaker 1: remove someone from a game. However, I think you could
Speaker 1: easily imagine a scenario where this would become inherently unfair.
Speaker 1: For example, let's say you've got a favorite streamer who
Speaker 1: plays online in competitive multiplayer games. So maybe you're watching
Speaker 1: them actively play live online and they're doing great, But
Speaker 1: then you also find out that some other really good
Speaker 1: player has joined the game. They're on the opposite team,
Speaker 1: and so you and your fellow fans all banded together
Speaker 1: to pitch in some money and vote the other player off,
Speaker 1: because that way, your favorite has a better chance of
Speaker 1: winning because you've removed their most uh most difficult competition
Speaker 1: in the game. That doesn't sound fair, right, Well, you
Speaker 1: can probably imagine a lot of different ways that this
Speaker 1: particular system could potentially be abused. Now, this is just
Speaker 1: a patent, it is not an actual implementation. Sony has
Speaker 1: not said it's actually going to make this become a reality.
Speaker 1: They might not do anything with the idea. They might
Speaker 1: have patented it just so that way, if anyone else
Speaker 1: tries to make something similar, Sony can say, hey, you
Speaker 1: can't do that unless you pay us first, because we
Speaker 1: patented it, so you have to license that idea from us.
Speaker 1: Or who knows, maybe in a year or so we'll
Speaker 1: see video games like a gladiator sport where the crowd
Speaker 1: votes to get rid of unfavored players. That doesn't sound
Speaker 1: particularly fun to me, and I hope it doesn't happen. Finally,
Speaker 1: a group of museums in Vienna encountered a bit of
Speaker 1: a problem. They were uploading images of works of art
Speaker 1: to social media platforms, but some of these works of
Speaker 1: art had naked people in them. So ancient works, classical works,
Speaker 1: modern works sometimes you know, they depict nude figures and
Speaker 1: it's art, And I'm sure that doesn't come as a
Speaker 1: shock to you. I'm certain you've encountered some of it
Speaker 1: in the past, and yet you live to tell the tale.
Speaker 1: But apparently this shocked various social media platforms, or at
Speaker 1: least it triggered their content moderation systems, and several museums
Speaker 1: found their social accounts banned or temporarily restricted or muted.
Speaker 1: So they did the only sensible thing. They got together
Speaker 1: and they created an only fans account. Yep, only fans,
Speaker 1: the platform perhaps best known as a site that hosts
Speaker 1: creators who make adult content, you know, the sexy kind. Well,
Speaker 1: the Museums formed an account called Vienna laid Bear, saying
Speaker 1: it was an effort to counteract the quote unquote prudishness
Speaker 1: of the modern social network platforms, which frequently clamped down
Speaker 1: on socially risky material in an effort to appease stakeholders
Speaker 1: and the various financial institutions that facilitate payments to these networks.
Speaker 1: And I think this is kind of brilliant. It's a
Speaker 1: great pr move for the Museums. It elevates only fans,
Speaker 1: and it highlights how these social network policies are often
Speaker 1: poorly constructed and executed. And now if someone sees that
Speaker 1: you visit only fans, you can say I only go
Speaker 1: there for the art. While that wraps up this episode
Speaker 1: of tech Stuff. If you have, you know, ideas for
Speaker 1: things I should talk about in future episodes of tech Stuff,
Speaker 1: reach out to me on Twitter. The handle for the
Speaker 1: show is Text Stuff H s W and I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you again really soon. Text Stuff is an I
Speaker 1: 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. Eight