Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd and this
Speaker 1: is There Are No Girls.
Speaker 2: On the Internet.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the brand new season of There No Girls
Speaker 1: on the Internet, where we explore the intersection of technology,
Speaker 1: social media, and identity. And this is our first iteration
Speaker 1: of our weekly news roundup of our new season. We're
Speaker 1: bringing you stories you might have missed this week, and
Speaker 1: another big first, we have our first ever guest co
Speaker 1: host for our roundup, the Amazing, the Wonderful that Like Media,
Speaker 1: Maven Kristen Conger of Unladylike Media. Kristin, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being here.
Speaker 3: Oh, thank you so much for having me. I'm honored
Speaker 3: to be the first.
Speaker 1: I think of you as kind of like a like
Speaker 1: a virtuoso. You are the co author of the book Unladylike,
Speaker 1: a Field Guide to Smashing the Patriarchy and Claiming your Space.
Speaker 1: Awesome title, most of two great podcasts, Conspiracy she wrote
Speaker 1: and Unladylike. We're in the middle of a series called
Speaker 1: Gender War Games. What is that? For folks who don't know?
Speaker 3: Yes, so for anyone who has missed it, we right
Speaker 3: now are kind of living in this uncanny valley of
Speaker 3: various forms of gender panic and honestly, gender war games
Speaker 3: is partly like my own excuse to talk to like
Speaker 3: smart feminists about all of these this wild gender and
Speaker 3: anti gender discourse happening right now. So if you're feeling
Speaker 3: kind of spun out, come get some contexts gender war games.
Speaker 4: Come find out why.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of finding out, why, are you ready to
Speaker 1: dive into some news that folks might have missed this week?
Speaker 4: I'm so ready.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we got to start with an update on
Speaker 1: my girl. I have talked about her on the podcast
Speaker 1: few times because I'm fascinated. But we have an Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Holmes update. Are you familiar with Elizabeth Holmes?
Speaker 4: I mean, how could I not be? I should have
Speaker 4: worn a black turtleneck.
Speaker 1: In honor and like spoken in a weird, fake deep
Speaker 1: voice to signal that you're like a serious tech person.
Speaker 1: That's my Elizabeth Holmes voice.
Speaker 4: It's good, it is good.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Holmes, the disgrace CEO of the scam blood testing
Speaker 1: company Faranos, who is now in prison for defrauding investors
Speaker 1: because her blood testing was all a scam. Anyway, So
Speaker 1: Weed just recently found out what her husband is up
Speaker 1: to these days, and that is, you know, securing the
Speaker 1: family business, you know, the scam family. He is securing
Speaker 1: funding for a brand new blood testing startup company that
Speaker 1: he is launching.
Speaker 4: My mouth fell on the floor when I read that.
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean, if there's one thing these people have,
Speaker 1: it's the audacity, you know, really no no bounds. So,
Speaker 1: according to The New York Times, her husband Paul Evans,
Speaker 1: is raising money for a company called Hemanthus, which means
Speaker 1: blood flower in Greek. And apparently it's already accumulated millions
Speaker 1: of dollars in funding. Who would give these like at
Speaker 1: this point, like, if you're giving this person your money,
Speaker 1: you get what you get.
Speaker 3: Like come on, yeah, I think that you you should
Speaker 3: be there should be an extra tax, Like you should
Speaker 3: have to give that money away.
Speaker 1: Totally agreed. So this company says it is the future
Speaker 1: of diagnostics and a radically new approach to health testing
Speaker 1: and will use AI to test blood and other bodily
Speaker 1: fluids like so i'va and urine for diseases. So it
Speaker 1: sounds like just like theorhanose, but instead of just blood,
Speaker 1: it's also other bodily fluids.
Speaker 3: What is this couple just you know, are they just
Speaker 3: really fluids? You know what?
Speaker 4: And I don't want to follow up answer. I'm so
Speaker 4: so sorry, I asked.
Speaker 1: So the cut really called this out, saying that it's
Speaker 1: basically the same company that you've had a photo of
Speaker 1: the new company's prototype, which looks suspiciously like Aaronos's now
Speaker 1: defunct testing machine. They write, anyone else experiencing deja vu
Speaker 1: to the company. Here's what they had to say. They
Speaker 1: were like, we know this looks bad, but trust us
Speaker 1: on X they wrote, quote, we're Hymanthos. Yes, our CEO,
Speaker 1: Billy Evans is Elizabeth Holmes partner. Skepticism is rational. We
Speaker 1: must clear a higher bar, so we will communicate directly
Speaker 1: the unfiltered truth, no intermediaries. We prefer to build first,
Speaker 1: talk later. The science, when ready, will stand on its
Speaker 1: own merits. But we feel compelled to introduce ourselves because
Speaker 1: of the recent media coverage. And yeah, I just really
Speaker 1: I almost almost kind of have to respect it, Like
Speaker 1: I wish I had this confidence to go not just
Speaker 1: into a health testing company, but specifically going into a
Speaker 1: company that tests blood, just like Baronos did. Like you
Speaker 1: almost have to respect it. So I do have a question,
Speaker 1: which is that if they are a mayor couple, is
Speaker 1: it possible that Holmes could one day be profiting from
Speaker 1: this new blood testing company, because you know, it could
Speaker 1: be marital property since he started this company after they
Speaker 1: were already married. I don't know the answer to this,
Speaker 1: but I am very curious, Like I don't necessarily like
Speaker 1: a dynamic where she is revealed to be defrauding investors
Speaker 1: with a blood scam and then gets to make money
Speaker 1: from blood testing later on.
Speaker 3: Well, and also with the added bonus of not having
Speaker 3: to wait until she's home from prison because her husband.
Speaker 4: Is just at home cooking up what's it called hymantheus hamanthea.
Speaker 1: It's also terrible made.
Speaker 4: So maybe we shouldn't be worried.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean, whenever we talk about Holmes, I
Speaker 1: do like to just remind folks that she is responsible
Speaker 1: for like actual harm. Her blood scam told a woman
Speaker 1: who was prone to miscarriage that she would never be
Speaker 1: able to have children. It told somebody that they were
Speaker 1: HIV positive, and this person could not afford to get
Speaker 1: like an action blood test for some time, and so
Speaker 1: like had to just wait while they accumulated enough money
Speaker 1: to like get another blood test that told them like no, no,
Speaker 1: you actually you don't have HIV and also misdiagnosed somebody
Speaker 1: is having cancer. And so Holmes basically says that none
Speaker 1: of this should disqualify her from running similar kinds of
Speaker 1: health test and companies. In fact, to this day, she
Speaker 1: maintains her innocence and says that failure isn't fraud, even
Speaker 1: though like, yeah, she might have defrauded some people, but like,
Speaker 1: come on, it's just business.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: And while Holmes might not be directly involved in her
Speaker 1: partner startup, she does say that her days working in
Speaker 1: health tech are far from over, and in fact, she's
Speaker 1: already working on patents from prison. She says, there is
Speaker 1: not a day that I have not continued to work
Speaker 1: on my research and inventions. I remain completely committed to
Speaker 1: my dream of making affordable healthcare solutions available to everybody,
Speaker 1: which like girls keep them at this point, I don't
Speaker 1: let me need them.
Speaker 4: I just have to say, bravo. That was I mean,
Speaker 4: that was a beautiful you put me. I felt like
Speaker 4: I was in the boardroom with Elizabeth.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, I've been doing that voice for the
Speaker 1: longest step. When the dropout was being released on Hulu,
Speaker 1: I was like watching it, like like I was like
Speaker 1: very into it. I have been mimicking her voice for
Speaker 1: a long time. I feel like I feel like it's
Speaker 1: like in my in my repertourna.
Speaker 4: You drop into it seamlessly.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2: Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we have to talk about this recent news
Speaker 1: with the Federal porn band. Are we at the making
Speaker 1: all pornography a federal crime stage of Project twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Potentially one of the projects stated goals was to permanently
Speaker 1: criminalize all pornography, and now Mike Lee, a Republican Senator
Speaker 1: from Utah, has introduced a bill that would do exactly that.
Speaker 1: Lee recently introduced the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act or IODA,
Speaker 1: which would effectively criminalize all pornography nationwide by legally redefining
Speaker 1: what it means to be obscene in a way that
Speaker 1: virtually includes all visual representations of sex. According to the bill,
Speaker 1: quote a picture, image, graphic image, file, film, videotape, or
Speaker 1: other visual depiction of any media that quote appeals to
Speaker 1: the prurient interest of innudity, sex, or excretion would be
Speaker 1: considered criminal. So, like people are pointing out that, like
Speaker 1: that could mean Game of Thrones episodes, right, Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean also, it's been a long time since I
Speaker 3: took my mass com law class, but I feel like
Speaker 3: we've kind of like constitutionally supreme court wise, we've.
Speaker 4: Been around the block.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So Lee Lee addresses that he says obscenity is
Speaker 1: not protected by the First Amendment, but hazy and unforceable
Speaker 1: legal definition have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society.
Speaker 1: How to reach countless children, Our bill updates the legal
Speaker 1: definition of obscenity for the Internet age, so this content
Speaker 1: can be taken down and it's pedlars prosecuted. So one
Speaker 1: of the things that we talk about on the show
Speaker 1: a lot is like, if when you hear someone using
Speaker 1: language that is like we need to do xyz to
Speaker 1: the Internet to protect children, your Spidey senses should sort
Speaker 1: of tingle, because that is exactly the language that people
Speaker 1: who want to restrict the Internet use before taking some
Speaker 1: like draconian action. Because what happens when the powers that
Speaker 1: be decide that content related to the existence of trans
Speaker 1: folks or queer folks or any other kind of LGBTQ
Speaker 1: person is pornographic and thus needs to be like legislated
Speaker 1: off the Internet, and it's it's peddler's put behind bars,
Speaker 1: you know. Like most rational people, I also want to
Speaker 1: keep explicit content away from kids. But research is super
Speaker 1: clear that when you restrict the Internet through things like
Speaker 1: verification laws that verify your age or like laws where
Speaker 1: you you have to show your government idea to access
Speaker 1: certain content, that is not effective, that does not effectively
Speaker 1: keep kids away from explicit content. So all you are
Speaker 1: really doing then is like setting the stage for extremists
Speaker 1: to have the power to legislate anything they don't like
Speaker 1: off of the Internet.
Speaker 4: Exactly.
Speaker 3: And it's fascinating that it's the same group of people
Speaker 3: who are now pushing for an extreme kind of anti
Speaker 3: porn band while also celebrating social platforms removing censorship.
Speaker 4: It exactly makes sense.
Speaker 1: It makes no sense, and it's one of those things
Speaker 1: that like, if you follow the thread, their argument completely
Speaker 1: falls apart. So speaking of platform moderation and what is
Speaker 1: and is not allowed on platforms, I am so sorry everybody.
Speaker 1: We have to talk about Kanye West, folks who have
Speaker 1: been listening to the show for a while, know that
Speaker 1: I had kind of a like Kanye West like me
Speaker 1: paying attention to him funeral where I was like, I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm leaving him in the past. I'm moving forward.
Speaker 1: But so I am like loave to talk about this man.
Speaker 1: But what's happening with his new song really says more
Speaker 1: about the state of Facebook's moderation than it says about
Speaker 1: Kanye himself. So if you've not checked in with Kanye
Speaker 1: in a while, he's making new music. He is hanging
Speaker 1: out with like the worst of the worst Z list
Speaker 1: extremist internet personalities. They will do these like live streams
Speaker 1: from their hangout sessions and it just looks grim like
Speaker 1: it looks like something out of a David Lynch film
Speaker 1: where there they'll be like in a beautiful waterfront mansion
Speaker 1: and then it's just like all these goons wearing all black,
Speaker 1: like it's just a It just as a very weird
Speaker 1: vibe and the vibes look terrible when there, I guess,
Speaker 1: let's put it that way. So Kanye released a new song.
Speaker 1: The song is called I'm going to call it Smiles Schmidler.
Speaker 1: That is not what the song is called but what
Speaker 1: you're thinking that is the name of the song, right,
Speaker 1: you feel me?
Speaker 4: Gotcha? Gotcha taken up?
Speaker 1: So yeah, I just did. Our producer Mike and I
Speaker 1: had a whole conversation. I was like, I don't even
Speaker 1: really feel comfortable like saying the name of the song
Speaker 1: on Mike. I don't want there to be like audio
Speaker 1: of me saying this. So yeah, well college Schmele Schmitler.
Speaker 1: But you know, you know what it is, and yeah,
Speaker 1: the song it sounds exactly like what you're thinking it is.
Speaker 1: It's all about how the trials and tribulations of Kanye
Speaker 1: West's life have turned him into a Nazi. Now, most
Speaker 1: streaming platforms and social media platforms will not allow a
Speaker 1: song called Schmeile Schmitler where the chorus is schmile Schmitler
Speaker 1: over and over again on their platforms. Right except Instagram,
Speaker 1: as it turns out, because according to a reporting from
Speaker 1: four or four media major shout out to them. They've
Speaker 1: been like, really on this story, the song is all
Speaker 1: over Instagram, they right. While other social media sites and
Speaker 1: streaming services rush to scrub Kanye West's pro nazi song
Speaker 1: from their platforms, the curious or enthused can find memes, remixes,
Speaker 1: and unedited audio of West's new song all over Instagram.
Speaker 1: And I mean it's as if that's not bad enough.
Speaker 1: This is like exublicitly against Instagram's platform policies. In fact,
Speaker 1: Nazism is one of the only specific groups that Meta
Speaker 1: calls out by name in its own rules. In the
Speaker 1: current version of its Community Standards Policy regarding Dangerous Organizations
Speaker 1: and Individuals, the company says it will remove any content
Speaker 1: that promotes Nazis, saying, quote, we remove content that glorify, support,
Speaker 1: or represents ideologies that promote hate, such as Nazism and
Speaker 1: white supremacy. But for four found that there are reels
Speaker 1: that use this song that have over one million views.
Speaker 1: There's one reel that calls it quote the Song of
Speaker 1: the Summer, which, FYI, I'm pretty sure it's not right.
Speaker 1: Do you wait well side question? Do you have any
Speaker 1: like potential candidates for the actual song of the Summer?
Speaker 4: Oh my gosh, no, not off the top of my head,
Speaker 4: what about you?
Speaker 1: I had to look it up, and I will admit that,
Speaker 1: like in the list, I felt very old because I
Speaker 1: was like, oh, half of these songs, I know, I know, I.
Speaker 4: Was like I need to go do my millennial homework.
Speaker 1: I know, trust me, if you like me, there's no
Speaker 1: shame of admitting, Like, we'll put some lists in the
Speaker 1: show notes. Let me, I will be honestly like I was, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know half of these songs. I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: it's Luther by Kendrick Lamar and Sizza or like Charlie
Speaker 1: XCX or something like that. But like, I know one
Speaker 1: thing is for sure, and it's not Smiles Schmidler. That
Speaker 1: is not the song of the summer.
Speaker 3: Absolutely not well, And so you mentioned that this was
Speaker 3: getting traction on Instagram.
Speaker 4: What about Facebook or is it just limited to Instagram
Speaker 4: at this point?
Speaker 1: That is a great question. I my sense is because
Speaker 1: Instagram and this this is my sense. My sense is
Speaker 1: because Instagram is much more like short form video heavy ie.
Speaker 1: I would bet it's showing up there more than Facebook.
Speaker 1: But I need to look into That's actually a very
Speaker 1: good question.
Speaker 3: I just assume if it's if it's something bad, it's
Speaker 3: gotta be on Facebook too.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Don't even get me started. Like if
Speaker 1: Facebook has zero haters, I am dead. I'll just put
Speaker 1: it that way. There are like number one Borce platform
Speaker 1: around here, and so like, if folks are wondering, like
Speaker 1: how is this song showing up on reels, it is
Speaker 1: showing up in like the grossest ways that you can imagine.
Speaker 1: One reel depicts a white dude in khaki pants dancing
Speaker 1: to the song in front of a glowing, spitting swastika,
Speaker 1: and the caption reads white Dad's getting turned to Kanye's
Speaker 1: new song at the summer barbecue flame emoji, which I
Speaker 1: read is like a pretty clear reference to the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: And that one reel has been viewed almost a million times.
Speaker 1: The account that shared it describes itself as a quote
Speaker 1: race realist and meme guy. In the bio, much of
Speaker 1: the content is memed up clips of avowed white supremacist
Speaker 1: Nick Fuentez. So like it's very explicitly and overtly dealing
Speaker 1: with like Nazism, white supremacy. Like they're not taking they're
Speaker 1: not like they're not being like an obscure about that.
Speaker 1: Like that's like very clearer. And if that's not bad enough,
Speaker 1: I think to add insult to injury. Facebook when asked
Speaker 1: about this, they honestly like speak to us like we're
Speaker 1: stupid because four four actually reached out to Facebook and
Speaker 1: like ask like, why is this kind of content allowed
Speaker 1: on your platform even when it's explicitly disallowed by your policy,
Speaker 1: like called out by name, and their response is very frustrating.
Speaker 1: They said, we recognize that users may share content that
Speaker 1: includes references to designated dangerous organizations and individuals in the
Speaker 1: context of social or political discourse. This includes content reporting
Speaker 1: on neutraally discussing or condemning dangerous organizations and individuals or
Speaker 1: their activities. So the kind of reels that four or
Speaker 1: four media found, those are not neutral, They are not
Speaker 1: neutrally discussing, They certainly are not condemning. But the ideology
Speaker 1: being talked about in this song, if anything, like some
Speaker 1: of them are maybe making fun of that, you can
Speaker 1: maybe argue that, but most of them are pretty queerly
Speaker 1: and explicitly celebrating it. And so like, why even make
Speaker 1: a rule that exuplicitly names and bans the glorification of
Speaker 1: Nazism if you're not going to actually abide by it.
Speaker 3: Right, and then come around and call it like try
Speaker 3: to twist what is obviously like a song intended to
Speaker 3: troll and like terrorize and call it like, oh.
Speaker 4: So it's reporting and discourse, like.
Speaker 1: What exactly, And in case anybody's wondering. On Joe Rogan's podcast,
Speaker 1: he talked about the song and he said it's kind
Speaker 1: of catchy. Stop it. Yeah, So like yeah, that's there's
Speaker 1: that okay. So speaking of things that are gross and horrifying,
Speaker 1: let's check in with what's going on on x slash Twitter.
Speaker 1: If you'n't even like me, you're probably like not spending
Speaker 1: a lot of time there. I do not blame you,
Speaker 1: but a little update as to what's going on on
Speaker 1: that platform. According to kalinicule Tie, a research re at Bellingcat,
Speaker 1: users have been using Rock, which is ex's like AI chatbot,
Speaker 1: to undress women in the comment of their posts, and
Speaker 1: Groc is sort of doing it. According to PC mag,
Speaker 1: while the chatbot rejects prompts for completely nude images, it
Speaker 1: does fulfill remove her clothes requests with AI generated images
Speaker 1: of women in bikinis or lingerie. Groc's responses are public
Speaker 1: and appear as replies to the original prompts. Uh, pretty gross.
Speaker 1: So like if I were to post something on X
Speaker 1: or Twitter, somebody could say remove her clothes and Groc
Speaker 1: would serve up an image, an AI generated image of
Speaker 1: whoever in a bikini or lingerie is just like it's
Speaker 1: just really fucked, like there's no other and it's like
Speaker 1: other AI chatbots don't do this, right, like other AI
Speaker 1: chatbots have guardrails against this that Groc does not.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it seems like Groc is uh is he like he?
Speaker 3: Why am I gendering broc oh God?
Speaker 1: But you know, Grock's a guy.
Speaker 4: He's a.
Speaker 3: But it's especially unhinged though, right because I was also
Speaker 3: seeing I've seen headlines as well about like just wild
Speaker 3: kind of like South African, like wild racist kind of
Speaker 3: stuff being baked into Rock.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we were talking about this. Producer Maca and
Speaker 1: I were talking about this before we got online. I
Speaker 1: was like, oh, I'm just speaking about Crock and he
Speaker 1: was like, oh, the South Africa thing. So basically Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: who is South African, was annoyed that GROC was not
Speaker 1: serving up like enough racially inflammatory content about how they're
Speaker 1: bringing South African, like white South Africans to the United States.
Speaker 1: So I guess they overcorrected because now when you ask
Speaker 1: Rock anything, it's like, oh, it's just like the oppression
Speaker 1: of the white South Africans, like you could be acting
Speaker 1: for a recipe and it's like, oh, are you also
Speaker 1: interested in the plight of white South Africans. They really
Speaker 1: the pendulum has swung in the other direction, Mike, Do
Speaker 1: I have I summarized that correctly?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 5: I think that's right. I think they just like turned
Speaker 5: up the white Afrikaanners dial and it's like any question.
Speaker 5: I saw somebody submit a haiku that was like had
Speaker 5: nothing to do with anything, and it was like, oh, yes,
Speaker 5: this is like the blood of the white africaners, like
Speaker 5: my god, GROC like set.
Speaker 1: Her down, settled down rock. Oh so yeah, honestly, like,
Speaker 1: I have never heard anybody say a positive thing about GROC. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going well over there. So about
Speaker 1: the non consensual like undressing of women, you know, When
Speaker 1: pointed to a post about this and asked about the
Speaker 1: guardrails that GROC has against non consensual AI generated explicit content,
Speaker 1: GROC responded with an apology and said, this incident highlights
Speaker 1: a gap in our safeguards which failed to blow like
Speaker 1: a harmful prompt, violating our ethical standards on consent and privacy.
Speaker 1: We recognize the need for stronger protections and are actively
Speaker 1: working to enhance our safety mechanisms, including better prompt filtering
Speaker 1: and reinforcement learning. We are also reviewing our policies to
Speaker 1: ensure clearer consent protocols. So like, at least Groc knows
Speaker 1: what he's doing is wrong. At least I really I
Speaker 1: should not be answer pomorphizing AI, but I do it
Speaker 1: constantly in my head, even though I shouldn't.
Speaker 3: Well, in twenty twenty five, we are all at this
Speaker 3: point programmed to make a public apology, make a make
Speaker 3: a yes, a normal apology, and notes app Yeah.
Speaker 1: Groc knows when called out, Like what the proper thing
Speaker 1: to do is just apologize very quickly via you know,
Speaker 1: an apology that sounds like Verry Wordsmith. So like, I
Speaker 1: something about this story gets me because I feel like
Speaker 1: it is exactly the kind of climate that makes social
Speaker 1: media and technology more generally like a hostile space for women.
Speaker 1: And I think you know, in twenty twenty five, most
Speaker 1: of us are using social media like it is just
Speaker 1: part of showing up in civic and public life is
Speaker 1: being online. And if anybody can use AI to undress you,
Speaker 1: to sexualize you when you do show up online, we
Speaker 1: simply do not have an online landscape that would that
Speaker 1: allows for women to like fully and safely participate in
Speaker 1: civic life. And so I mean I am not showing
Speaker 1: up on x or Twitter as a platform anymore, but
Speaker 1: if I were, and if other women are, I think that,
Speaker 1: like I can see why that would drive women off
Speaker 1: of these platforms. And so these people who say so
Speaker 1: much they care about free speech, they care about like
Speaker 1: you know, having a marketplace of ideas, this is anti
Speaker 1: free speech. Women are going to not show up to
Speaker 1: these platforms and not you know, make their voices heard
Speaker 1: on them if the threat is there them being like
Speaker 1: sexualized and undressed and violated in this way. So it's
Speaker 1: not only like a gross violation, it's also in my book,
Speaker 1: like very anti democratic.
Speaker 3: Absolutely well in the the unsettling layer of it as well,
Speaker 3: that yes, Grock is a problem, but it it's also
Speaker 3: such a problem that there are enough people wanting to
Speaker 3: train Grock to essentially like assault people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I guess like that's my point, Like that's
Speaker 1: like why I don't like to answer fromre size technology
Speaker 1: like this is because like it's learning from us, so
Speaker 1: like it's built by people, it's trained by people that
Speaker 1: learns from people all of the biases and gross things
Speaker 1: that we know that people have, Like it is, it
Speaker 1: is just reflecting that back and like turbo charging it.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, it really does reflect the fact that,
Speaker 1: like this technology is being trained on the worst human
Speaker 1: impulses and that is a problem. And not only is
Speaker 1: that like a tech problem, it's like a like an
Speaker 1: US problem, like a people problem. If we can't figure
Speaker 1: out how to, you know, how to have a more
Speaker 1: equitable landscape, how to not use technology to just reinforce
Speaker 1: and reinforce these like patriarchal attitudes about women and violate women,
Speaker 1: we're never gonna get anywhere. So it's like it's like
Speaker 1: both a tech problem and a like human problem. I
Speaker 1: guess we gotta buy Grock a copy of your book.
Speaker 3: Come on, Grock, get a ladylike Rocks.
Speaker 4: It's a gender neutral term.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: More after a quick break, let's get right back into it,
Speaker 2: all right.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of things that are infuriating me and also
Speaker 1: sort of inspiring me, I guess I need to talk
Speaker 1: about a landro Nelson. Landre Nelson for folks who don't
Speaker 1: know she is incredible. I have been lucky enough to
Speaker 1: like hear her speak, and she is really phenomenal. She
Speaker 1: has a very long and storied career in public service.
Speaker 1: She was the first black person and the first ever
Speaker 1: woman of color to lead the White House Office on
Speaker 1: Science and Technology Policy. She's a very accomplished scientist professor.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty three, she was nominated by the Biden
Speaker 1: administration to the UN High Level Advisory Body on AI.
Speaker 1: Her list of contributions to public interest and science like
Speaker 1: could go on and on and on. I could talk
Speaker 1: about her all day. She's phenomenal. Shout out to her. Well.
Speaker 1: This week she resigned from the National Science Board and
Speaker 1: the Library of Congress Scholars Council, citing creeping authoritarianism. And
Speaker 1: I want to talk a bit about what she said
Speaker 1: drove her to these resignations. One because I think coming
Speaker 1: out publicly the way that she has is really brave
Speaker 1: and it comes with tons of risk, Especially right now.
Speaker 1: I haven't really seen this story talked about in the
Speaker 1: way that I wish it was being talked about, because
Speaker 1: I think absolutely everybody should read what she has to say.
Speaker 1: I'll put the link to the full piece in the
Speaker 1: show notes. But I also think it highlights what we
Speaker 1: all lose when voices like Nelson's are pushed out of
Speaker 1: public service, Like we all benefit from having voices who
Speaker 1: are critical, who ask tough questions. When those voices are
Speaker 1: in in the conversation, all of our lives can improve.
Speaker 1: And when those voices are pushed out and silenced, we
Speaker 1: all lose out. And so yeah, it's it's I think
Speaker 1: that her her coming out publicly with what she saw
Speaker 1: and why she's leaving is really important. So have you
Speaker 1: did you do you know anything about her work or
Speaker 1: had you heard this story?
Speaker 3: I was not familiar with her, but it's it's tragic
Speaker 3: to lose someone like that who also, I mean just
Speaker 3: the amount of knowledge, like institutional knowledge that she possesses,
Speaker 3: Like when that one person just walks out the door
Speaker 3: like that, it's I mean, yeah, it's it's gross how
Speaker 3: many people are being forced to, yeah, just walk away.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I mean I live in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Where a lot of federal workers live, not all, but
Speaker 1: a lot of federal workers live in this area, and
Speaker 1: I have been covering it for another podcast I work
Speaker 1: on called City CASSIDC. It's just we all lose out,
Speaker 1: like it really is. We all lose out for no reason.
Speaker 1: It's not saving any money. We could we could do
Speaker 1: a whole episode on this. But like for all of
Speaker 1: the like puffery that Elon Musk talked about, like fraud
Speaker 1: and waste, we have we the deficit is up. And
Speaker 1: when you fire somebody illegally and you have to pay
Speaker 1: them severance that you didn't think you're gonna have to pay,
Speaker 1: or you have to like fund the lawsuit or something,
Speaker 1: we have not saved any money, right, So like it's
Speaker 1: like we're shooting ourselves in the foot for no reason.
Speaker 1: So first, what is the National Science Board the entity
Speaker 1: that she was one of the entities she was resigning from.
Speaker 1: So the National Science Board of the United States establishes
Speaker 1: policies of the National Science Foundation, which is one of
Speaker 1: the biggest and most important funders of scientific research in
Speaker 1: our country. The National Science Board also serves as an
Speaker 1: independent policy advisory body to the President and Congress on
Speaker 1: science and engineering, research and education issues. Basically, it supports
Speaker 1: all non medical science research in the United States, so
Speaker 1: kind of like an i age, the Nationalist Suit of Health,
Speaker 1: that is the health and medical counterpart of the National
Speaker 1: Science Foundation, And basically like it is why I am
Speaker 1: talking to you about technology and the Internet on a podcast,
Speaker 1: because if it was not for this board, we would
Speaker 1: not have the Internet like it is important. So her
Speaker 1: peace in time explaining her decision to resign isn't just
Speaker 1: maddening because this like accomplished person is being pushed out
Speaker 1: of government, although yes, that it's also maddening because it
Speaker 1: shows how much the Trump administration is attacking and gutting
Speaker 1: these organizations that technology and scientific advancement really rely on.
Speaker 1: I was watching this just like a side frustration. I
Speaker 1: was watching this podcast with Pete Boudajeg and he was
Speaker 1: He's been on these like podcast bro type podcasts recently,
Speaker 1: and there was one where he was basically explaining to
Speaker 1: the World's Stupidest podcast Bro that the Internet would not
Speaker 1: exist and like the iPhone, would not exist without the
Speaker 1: government because it was essentially a project of the government
Speaker 1: in collaboration with researchers and universities. Why we have the
Speaker 1: Internet at all? And it really him having to explain
Speaker 1: that really revealed that, like some people just don't know,
Speaker 1: or don't think about, or have not been taught about
Speaker 1: where research and scientific and technological advances come from. In
Speaker 1: this country, and that if we didn't have research, but
Speaker 1: like funded research, we didn't have universities, and we didn't
Speaker 1: have government, these things that we take for granted, like
Speaker 1: the Internet, would not exist, we would not be like,
Speaker 1: we would be a completely different country, and I would
Speaker 1: argue a worse country if not for these things. For
Speaker 1: so long, the US has led the world in scientific
Speaker 1: discovery and technological innovation and like improved our lives and
Speaker 1: drove economic prosperity. And it is just depressing as hell
Speaker 1: to watch Trump throw all of this away because it's
Speaker 1: woke or whatever, and then watch people who do not
Speaker 1: really get it cheer it on and not realize that
Speaker 1: you were cheering on something that is going to make
Speaker 1: all of our lives so much worse. So I think
Speaker 1: everybody should read her piece in Time explaining her decision
Speaker 1: to resign, But I want to share a couple of
Speaker 1: pieces of it because it really, I thought was so
Speaker 1: perfectly put.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: She says that initially she planned to stay in government,
Speaker 1: but at a certain point that kind of just became impossible.
Speaker 1: She writes, perseverance has its limits. The erosion of these
Speaker 1: institutions integrity, and the growing realization that it is impossible
Speaker 1: to fulfill their missions in good faith has made the
Speaker 1: cost of continuing untenable. That is why I m at
Speaker 1: step away from my work with two federal institutions that
Speaker 1: I care deeply about. In both of these roles, over
Speaker 1: the past few years, I've been asked to serve on
Speaker 1: diverse bodies that offer guidance about how the executive and
Speaker 1: legislative branches can be stewards of knowledge and create structure
Speaker 1: to enable discovery, innovation, and ingenuity. In the case of
Speaker 1: the National Science Board, this ideal has dissolved so gradually
Speaker 1: yet so completely that I barely noticed its absence until
Speaker 1: confronted with the tallow simulacrum. And yeah, that really, I
Speaker 1: feel like that really just packs a punch of how
Speaker 1: difficult it would be. Because when all of this hearted happening,
Speaker 1: I was someone who was like, federal worker should just
Speaker 1: stick it out. We need their voices, like make them
Speaker 1: fire you, blah blah blah. And I still sort of
Speaker 1: feel that way. But I had never really thought about
Speaker 1: what it would be like to continue to have your
Speaker 1: name as the overseer of a board that its mission
Speaker 1: had been so hollowed that it was just like fake,
Speaker 1: Like how difficult that would be?
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, once your job becomes like enacting the kinds
Speaker 3: of draconian policies as well, Like yeah, it's.
Speaker 4: It's enraging, it is.
Speaker 1: And she calls out, like just the general attacks on
Speaker 1: knowledge that this an administration is pushed forth writing this
Speaker 1: hollowing out is not just about governance and the abstract.
Speaker 1: It has material consequences for which research questions get asked,
Speaker 1: which data sets get produced, which knowledge gets produced, and
Speaker 1: which perspectives shape our understanding of pressing societal challenges. It
Speaker 1: has consequences for the integrity of knowledge itself. And I
Speaker 1: think that is so true that you know again, I
Speaker 1: feel like it's easy to take for granted that they
Speaker 1: are smart people asking the questions that are going to
Speaker 1: lead to scientific advancements, right, Like there are people who
Speaker 1: are solving problems and challenges that somebody like me might
Speaker 1: not that have not even been revealed with somebody like me,
Speaker 1: and thank god, somebody is working on it. Like what
Speaker 1: do we get when those people are attacked and pushed
Speaker 1: out of the important work they've been doing.
Speaker 3: Right, and all of their research funding drained? Like it
Speaker 3: also seems like part of this an extension of the
Speaker 3: whole like Trumpian mentality and like conservative mentality of running
Speaker 3: the business, running the government like it's a business, like
Speaker 3: it's a corporation.
Speaker 4: So if something is not immediately turning you a profit,
Speaker 4: then it's out door. Like it's just like no thing
Speaker 4: so doesn't.
Speaker 1: Work that way, And that's just I mean, like that's
Speaker 1: just not how we get innovation. Like so many innovations
Speaker 1: take a long time to reveal themselves or like take
Speaker 1: some collaboration or like yeah, they're slow burns, and like
Speaker 1: thank god somebody stuck it out to see them to
Speaker 1: the end, because it's like, Ben, there was this great
Speaker 1: thing or this great development that helped everybody. Like it's
Speaker 1: just it's it's just not how it's just not how
Speaker 1: any of this works. So, in addition to resigning from
Speaker 1: a position at the National Science Board, she's also resigning
Speaker 1: from her position on the Library of Congress Scholars Council,
Speaker 1: which is like a body of distinguished individuals convened by
Speaker 1: the Librarian of Congress to advise on matters related to
Speaker 1: scholarship at the Library of Congress. So y'all might have
Speaker 1: seen recently that the Librarian of Congress doctor Carla Hayden
Speaker 1: was recently fired. Uh really for no good reason.
Speaker 4: That's okay.
Speaker 3: I had missed that news, and I I mean, I'm
Speaker 3: not shocked because she is a black woman, and it
Speaker 3: seems like three black women in the federal government, you know,
Speaker 3: has a target on her back.
Speaker 1: So exactly that Nelson points out that in the email
Speaker 1: dismissing her, she was so this is someone with a PhD. Right,
Speaker 1: she's doctor Carla Hayden. The email dismissing her was addressed
Speaker 1: to Carla just her first name, not doctor Hayden, which
Speaker 1: is like insult to injury. And importantly, it sounds like
Speaker 1: Trump just like fired this woman on his own. He
Speaker 1: was not acting on behalf of the lawmakers who oversee
Speaker 1: the Library of Congress, and the White House Press Secretary
Speaker 1: said that she was being fired quote for things she
Speaker 1: had done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit
Speaker 1: of DEI and putting in appropriate books in the library
Speaker 1: for children. So I want to play this a quick
Speaker 1: bit of audio of that press conference.
Speaker 2: Question.
Speaker 1: Now, the president fired the Library of Congress, why do.
Speaker 6: You choose to do that?
Speaker 7: We felt she did not fit the means of the
Speaker 7: American people. There were quite concerning things that she had
Speaker 7: done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit of
Speaker 7: DEI and putting inappropriate books in the library for children,
Speaker 7: and we don't believe that she was serving the interests
Speaker 7: of the American tax Pairwell, so she has been removed
Speaker 7: from her position in the president as well within his
Speaker 7: rights to do that.
Speaker 4: Has she visited the Library of Congress, That's what.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, Like, think about this for one second. Does
Speaker 1: she think that the Library of Congress lends out books
Speaker 1: to kids? Like, like genuinely does she think that it
Speaker 1: doesn't lend out books to anyone? Like its job is
Speaker 1: to house all the published books in the United States.
Speaker 1: So like, first of all, the way that I could
Speaker 1: never obviously it's never happened, But like I just cannot
Speaker 1: imagine sitting in a press conference and hearing somebody say
Speaker 1: that and not being like a bullshit or even if
Speaker 1: it's asking a follow up, but I guess, like who
Speaker 1: would be asking the follow up at this point? Like
Speaker 1: one American News They're like, sure, yeah, that's right, she
Speaker 1: was lending out books to kids that were inappropriate. It's
Speaker 1: like sure, And I think you're exactly right. That like,
Speaker 1: and Nelson clock says in her piece, she says that,
Speaker 1: like the reason why they pushed her out is because
Speaker 1: they are just like pushing out black women in public
Speaker 1: service under whatever pretense they invent. And that's that, Like
Speaker 1: they don't even have to have a real answer that
Speaker 1: makes any sense in reality whatsoever. Nelson writes, the ouster
Speaker 1: of Hayden is part of a broader pattern of political
Speaker 1: targeting of women and black public servants across the federal government.
Speaker 1: So exactly what you said, right.
Speaker 3: And I wonder too if part of uh Trump taking
Speaker 3: it like firing her himself, and the way it sounds
Speaker 3: like it went down, it seems like there's also like
Speaker 3: an especial like a real distaste for anyone who was
Speaker 3: the first in their position, to which I believe Carla
Speaker 3: Harden was she sorry.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I completely agree, And it's like it just really
Speaker 1: crystallizes the way that they are being so exuplicit about
Speaker 1: rolling back any progress, right, Like, And I guess that's
Speaker 1: the thing is like it does feel I really work
Speaker 1: hard to not feel defeated in this moment when things
Speaker 1: feel so bad, but like that's what it feels like.
Speaker 1: It feels like what they're trying to do is be
Speaker 1: like any gains that women or you know, historically marginalized
Speaker 1: folks have made, we want to make it. We want
Speaker 1: to like spell it out that those are being erased.
Speaker 1: And I guess not that I'm saying it out loud.
Speaker 1: They can take it off the website, they can fire people.
Speaker 1: I wish they wouldn't, but they can. But we know,
Speaker 1: right like like they can't take away the gains that
Speaker 1: we have made. They can try, they can pull their
Speaker 1: little bullshit in their little scams, but like they can't
Speaker 1: take being the first black anything away from anybody, even
Speaker 1: if they do delete it from the website.
Speaker 3: And I mean, unless I'm mis understanding completely how the
Speaker 3: Library of Congress works, which is possible even if let's say, uh.
Speaker 6: The library former Librarian of Congress did put out some
Speaker 6: books for the children. Even if that did happen, I
Speaker 6: guess that's what those books are still cataloged at the
Speaker 6: Library of Congress. Like those books people that are going anywhere, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Exactly, Like the point of the Library of Congress is
Speaker 1: that it holds all the books. So like, if this
Speaker 1: book was published, you don't have to like it, but
Speaker 1: you can't take it out of the library of Congress, Like,
Speaker 1: that's not how it works. So I feel like Nelson
Speaker 1: really is speaking so powerfully to this moment that we're in,
Speaker 1: she writes. To watch these changes unfold without naming them
Speaker 1: for what they are is to participate in a collective
Speaker 1: amnesia about how knowledge infrastructures shape power relations, like the
Speaker 1: shopkeeper in an authoritarian society described by Vachlovehovel in his
Speaker 1: essay The Power of Powerlessness, who participates in its own
Speaker 1: oppression through small, daily acts of complicity, placing a party
Speaker 1: slogan in his window, not out of conviction, but out
Speaker 1: of habit. To remain on advisory boards that have been
Speaker 1: stripped of meaningful advisory function is to become that shopkeeper,
Speaker 1: to lend legitimacy to a process that has been systematically delegitimized.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I mean I really a pre She ate
Speaker 1: that she is not just leaving quietly, that she is
Speaker 1: leaving with such a resounding, clear warning to all of
Speaker 1: us about what happens when you do become complicit, not
Speaker 1: out of convictions, out of habit, when you do say
Speaker 1: like oh yeah, like they deleted all this stuff from
Speaker 1: the website. I guess it never happened, like when you
Speaker 1: allow for this to become legitimized, And I just it
Speaker 1: would have been so easy and probably like advisable in
Speaker 1: some ways for her to leave quietly. But I'm so
Speaker 1: glad she chose to leave loudly. And I think everybody
Speaker 1: should read her parting words. It is like a warning
Speaker 1: to us.
Speaker 4: All.
Speaker 1: Okay, so real quick last story. I mean it's I
Speaker 1: can do it very quickly actually, because she remember back
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three when HBO became just Max and
Speaker 1: everybody hated it.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, how could I Where were you?
Speaker 4: You know it.
Speaker 1: Is you're joking, but yo, I remember being like why
Speaker 1: would they take away the HBO? Like I was so
Speaker 1: like angry because like HBO was just like what do
Speaker 1: you think of HBO? You think of like Soprano, Sex
Speaker 1: and the City, like these like iconic shows, and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's just be Max, Like what is that?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I was unnecessarily stubborn about it in the way of
Speaker 3: like I'm.
Speaker 4: Not gonna call it x huh. It's very much like
Speaker 4: it's not Max out.
Speaker 1: Well, don't worry because they're going back to HBO. Max
Speaker 1: now that's it. That's the story. They've they've they've they're
Speaker 1: back to it. They have they've heard our complaints.
Speaker 3: I would love to see. I want to see a
Speaker 3: spreadsheet of a breakdown of how much that circular decision costs.
Speaker 1: I'm so I had the same I had the same question, like,
Speaker 1: did how much money did an executive get paid to
Speaker 1: make the initial choice? How much money went to change
Speaker 1: the branding? I have so many questions.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, and you know that there were so
Speaker 3: many like brainstorm sessions and wow, that's incredible.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this. When you hear the like
Speaker 1: HBO like static, like, what's the what is the like
Speaker 1: theme song? This is a question I ask everybody. What
Speaker 1: is the like theme song that you're like, Oh, when
Speaker 1: you hear that HBO intro noise, you know it's gonna
Speaker 1: be this.
Speaker 4: Show either Sex and the City or Soprano.
Speaker 1: That's okay. I think those are the only two acceptable answers. Producer, Mikes,
Speaker 1: you want to chime in and tell us what it
Speaker 1: is if I make fun of you all the time.
Speaker 5: There's a period when I was watching a lot of
Speaker 5: True Blood and I was just powering through one episode
Speaker 5: after another, and yeah, that was really my my I
Speaker 5: didn't grow up with HBO, you know. I came from
Speaker 5: a family where we just had three channels. So this
Speaker 5: was the period when I had access to like an
Speaker 5: unlimited set of all of the shows. And it was
Speaker 5: just like static Sound Show, Static Sound Show. It like
Speaker 5: trained my brain. So yeah, I'm not gonna apologize.
Speaker 4: What a weird answer, very unexpected I have. And now
Speaker 4: you got me wanting to ask.
Speaker 3: I have one friend who is a true Bloodhead, and
Speaker 3: now I want to ask her the same question.
Speaker 1: Did you just make that? Did you make up? Is
Speaker 1: true bloodhead what they call themselves? Is that?
Speaker 4: Like, No, I don't know, Mike, Mike would know.
Speaker 5: As a member of the True Blood fan community, that's
Speaker 5: not a term that we used to identify ourselves.
Speaker 4: It's not it's not canon.
Speaker 1: Well, Kristen, this has been incredible. Where can folks hear
Speaker 1: the podcast? The multiple podcasts? Where can folks keep up
Speaker 1: with you? How can they get the book? Tell us
Speaker 1: all the things?
Speaker 4: Well, thank you so much for having me again. This
Speaker 4: was so fun.
Speaker 3: Folks can listen to unladylike podcasts and the Gender War
Speaker 3: Games mini series all four episodes of that are out now.
Speaker 4: Just search unladylike or if you.
Speaker 8: Want something a little weirder, just like for a conspiracy
Speaker 8: She wrote, I just started a new mini series on
Speaker 8: that today.
Speaker 1: Actually, what is the miniseries exploring?
Speaker 4: Well, the Earth is such a dumpster fire.
Speaker 3: Was just taking a quick break to aliens and Ufoh
Speaker 3: my god.
Speaker 1: So it's that so like I am also in like
Speaker 1: the conspiracy world, but so often they're like Quanon. It's
Speaker 1: like nice to take a little break with, like, oh Aliens.
Speaker 3: Yes, I mean all roads will eventually lead back to
Speaker 3: QAnon and like you know, I mean they all route
Speaker 3: the same place. But and I didn't even think about beforehand,
Speaker 3: like how much like UFOs and aliens are just it's
Speaker 3: all like anti government stuff that takes me right back
Speaker 3: down to Earth, which is where I.
Speaker 4: Wanted to leave. But yeah, it's been it's been.
Speaker 3: A fun kind of mental break, but it's fascinating and
Speaker 3: really like spent a ton of time thinking about UFOs
Speaker 3: and now I think I've spent too much time.
Speaker 4: So come listen to conspiracy, she wrote.
Speaker 1: The truth is out there and you're gonna find it. Kristin,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being here. Thank you for
Speaker 1: being our inaugural guest co host on There Are No
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet. Y'all can follow me on Instagram
Speaker 1: at bridget Marian DC, on TikTok at bridget Marian DC
Speaker 1: on YouTube There are No Girls on the Internet. I
Speaker 1: know that sounds very awkward. I just started doing more
Speaker 1: social media, so don't make fun of me. I'm being
Speaker 1: perceived there and it's fine. Thanks so much for listening.
Speaker 1: I will see you soon. If you're looking for ways
Speaker 1: to support the show, check out our merch store at
Speaker 1: tenggodi dot com slash store. Got a story about an
Speaker 1: interesting thing in tech? I just want to say hi.
Speaker 1: You can reach us at Hello at tegodi dot com.
Speaker 1: You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tengody
Speaker 1: dot com. No Girls on the Internet was created by
Speaker 1: me Bridget Tod. It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed
Speaker 1: Creative edited by Joey Pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer.
Speaker 1: Terry Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almado
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.