Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Brigittad and this is
Speaker 1: there Are No Girls on the Internet. I am here
Speaker 1: at my producer, Mike. Mike, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 2: It's great to have you back, Bridgie. It's good to
Speaker 2: be back. I'm excited to get into all the news
Speaker 2: from the internet that people might have mixed.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's do it. If you have ever bought
Speaker 1: anything from Amazon dot com, you might want to check
Speaker 1: to make sure that you did not accidentally subscribe to
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime, because you might be paying one hundred and
Speaker 1: forty dollars a year to Amazon without even knowing it.
Speaker 1: And that's because, according to a new lawsuit from the FTC,
Speaker 1: Amazon executives were okay with people being secretly signed up
Speaker 1: for Amazon Prime memberships without their knowledge. This has to
Speaker 1: do with a practice called dark patterns, which is when
Speaker 1: websites use kind of like iffy practices to trick us
Speaker 1: into clicking on things that we don't actually want to
Speaker 1: click on, or making it hard for us to click
Speaker 1: on things that they don't want us to click on,
Speaker 1: like us finding that hidden unsubscribed button according to Verge,
Speaker 1: The lawsuit says that Amazon tricked millions of people into
Speaker 1: unwittingly subscribing to Amazon Prime through buttons that were presented
Speaker 1: prominently during checkout. Their complain includes internal messages and the
Speaker 1: names of three specific senior Amazon leaders who allegedly played
Speaker 1: a key role in this scheme. So these three specific
Speaker 1: Amazon higher ups who were named in the complaint were
Speaker 1: warned that Amazon was using these deceptive tactics to create
Speaker 1: an enrollment process for Prime that was easy for customers
Speaker 1: to accidentally trigger. Amazon employees were expressing concerns to company
Speaker 1: leadership about these strategies in twenty sixteen, but those executives
Speaker 1: took no action. For example, Amazon designers once asked Neil Lindsay,
Speaker 1: the senior vice president who oversaw Amazon Prime, about how
Speaker 1: the company was tricking people in the signing up for Prime,
Speaker 1: and Lindsay, according to the lawsuit, said that Amazon was
Speaker 1: okay with this because quote, once customers became Prime members,
Speaker 1: even unknowingly, they will see what a great program it
Speaker 1: is and remain members. The complaint also includes new internal
Speaker 1: messages and emails indicating that Amazon and its leadership was
Speaker 1: aware of their deception. One company newsletter reads quote the
Speaker 1: issue of accidental Prime signups is well documented, while admitting
Speaker 1: that Prime customers sign up accidentally and don't always see
Speaker 1: the auto renewal terms. So this would be bad enough.
Speaker 1: But have you ever actually tried to cancel your Amazon
Speaker 1: Prime subscription? Because I have, and the process is so
Speaker 1: cumbersome and complicated and long that eventually I gave up.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, I don't have time for this,
Speaker 1: I'll just keep Amazon Prime, which I bet is exactly
Speaker 1: what they want. This is by design, according to the FTC,
Speaker 1: once customers were signed up, Amazon created an intentionally complicated
Speaker 1: cancelation process. The process that you have to go through
Speaker 1: to cancel. Amazon Prime even had a pretty telling internal
Speaker 1: code name, the Iliad, preferring to Homer's ancient epic poem.
Speaker 1: So in addition to making it intentionally super easy to
Speaker 1: accidentally subscribe to Prime, they made it intentionally super complicated
Speaker 1: and cumbersome to unsubscribe from Prime. So it really seems
Speaker 1: like they knew what they were doing there.
Speaker 2: I love the use of classical literature to refer to
Speaker 2: this sort of thing. Obviously they know that what they're
Speaker 2: doing is not good and deceptive, but naming it the
Speaker 2: iliad just I don't know, it elevates it a little bit.
Speaker 2: I respect it, you know. I feel like, if you're
Speaker 2: an Amazon engineer trapped in this uncomfortable pattern of tricking
Speaker 2: people into buying shit that they don't want, finding refuge
Speaker 2: in classical literature, it's kind of sweet and I respect
Speaker 2: it and I love it. For them, it's like.
Speaker 1: A highbrow scam, like they're scamming, but they're doing it
Speaker 1: in a literary way. Yeah, So the FTC was recently
Speaker 1: on kind of a tear about this. The FTC even
Speaker 1: floated banning any subscription, whether it was for a shopping
Speaker 1: membership or a gym membership, where the cancelation process is
Speaker 1: much harder than the sign up process. Under the ban
Speaker 1: that they were initially proposing, people would have to be
Speaker 1: able to use the same method for canceling a subscription
Speaker 1: that they use for the sign up. So this includes
Speaker 1: letting people use the same method for both actions. So
Speaker 1: a business could not, for instance, let somebody sign up
Speaker 1: easily and quickly for a service online, but make them
Speaker 1: call a phone number or like go in person to cancel.
Speaker 1: And you know what, I'm gonna name names Washington Sports
Speaker 1: Club on Fourteenth Street in DC. I am talking to you.
Speaker 1: They like you could easily sign up, but then when
Speaker 1: you wanted to cancel, it was like, oh, well you
Speaker 1: have to like send a physical email and like physically
Speaker 1: come to the gym to cancel.
Speaker 2: Uh uh.
Speaker 1: So, when the FTC was floating this ban on like
Speaker 1: making it super cumbersome to cancel subscriptions, big businesses and
Speaker 1: advertisers not happy. I feel like everyone like pretty universally
Speaker 1: hate not being able to easily cancel a subscription. But
Speaker 1: the Association of National Advertiser says, actually, maybe we're wrong,
Speaker 1: and we all like secretly like it. They said, if
Speaker 1: sellers are required to enable cancelation through a single click
Speaker 1: or action by the consumer, accidental cancelations will become much
Speaker 1: more common, as consumers will not reasonably expect to remove
Speaker 1: their recurring goods or services with just one click. So
Speaker 1: they're tricking us, but they're tricking us for our own good.
Speaker 1: It's like better for us the consumer if we allow
Speaker 1: them to trick us, and actually maybe we kind of
Speaker 1: like it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we want it, we need it. And if they
Speaker 2: make it too easy for us dumb dums to actually cancel,
Speaker 2: it will.
Speaker 1: Be sad, like, please let me, don't let me easily
Speaker 1: candle the subscription that I never wanted and I'm not
Speaker 1: even aware that I purchased in the first place.
Speaker 2: It's just hard to imagine that anybody would be said
Speaker 2: about like missing out on a subscription. Like, I subscribed
Speaker 2: to so many things, and I love all of them.
Speaker 2: I am happy to support all of them. But you
Speaker 2: know sometimes like like one time I lost my wallet
Speaker 2: and I had to cancel my credit card and some
Speaker 2: of my subscriptions got canceled. It was the most fine
Speaker 2: thing that has ever happened, Like it could not have
Speaker 2: been less disruptive. It was like, oh, yeah, this thing
Speaker 2: that I signed up for, I guess I need to
Speaker 2: enter a new credit card. This is not a big problem.
Speaker 1: Beyond fine, it's I find it freeing when you got
Speaker 1: to get a new credit card. If you lose your
Speaker 1: you lose your credit card, you have to get a
Speaker 1: new one. And so you realize, like you get those
Speaker 1: emails rolling in that's like, oh, your credit card payment
Speaker 1: didn't go through to this, to that, to this to that.
Speaker 1: You're like, I've actually had a lot of different recurring
Speaker 1: charges on my card and now I can just start
Speaker 1: over and like be free. I actually find it very freeing.
Speaker 1: And also it's like wild to see, I mean, if
Speaker 1: you're if you're me, wild to see how many just
Speaker 1: reoccurring charges you have on your card.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I agree. I wish I were a more responsible
Speaker 2: person who is more on top of all my recurring charges,
Speaker 2: but like declaring recurring bankruptcy once a year and just
Speaker 2: like wiping it all clean and being like the things
Speaker 2: that I was paying for that I don't care about
Speaker 2: will just go away, and the things that I do
Speaker 2: care about, they will let me know that my subscription
Speaker 2: has lapsed, and I will enter a new credit card
Speaker 2: and two minutes later all problems will be resolved.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think this story really speaks to sort
Speaker 1: of a larger trend that we've identified on the show
Speaker 1: before of everything on the internet feeling like it is
Speaker 1: a low key scam. These days, we've just come to
Speaker 1: expect that the experience of navigating the online space is
Speaker 1: going to be a wash in like dark patterns and
Speaker 1: tricks and scams and bots and little design choices that
Speaker 1: are making you click on things that you don't want
Speaker 1: to click. I just don't like that. You know, these
Speaker 1: big platforms that already take so much of our money
Speaker 1: and take so much of our data, take so much
Speaker 1: of our attention, so much of our everything also have
Speaker 1: to be tricking us and scamming us on top of it.
Speaker 1: I don't like it. I think we deserve better.
Speaker 2: It's messed up that we have just accepted that being
Speaker 2: scammed like this is just a normal part of doing
Speaker 2: business on the Internet. That is like super easy for
Speaker 2: us to give our money away to companies who are
Speaker 2: charging money for stuff, but to try to I don't
Speaker 2: get something back is a herculean effort that you have
Speaker 2: to have secret knowledge and scroll deep to the bottom
Speaker 2: of the footer. It's not okay, it's bad.
Speaker 1: It's bad. I believe that we deserve an Internet experience
Speaker 1: that is not so predatory and not so awash in scams.
Speaker 1: And speaking of the Internet not being such a trustworthy place,
Speaker 1: we've talked before about how we can no longer really
Speaker 1: trust that search platforms like Google are going to provide
Speaker 1: us with accurate information about something as important as our
Speaker 1: health and our medical choices. To combat that, abortion advocates
Speaker 1: have released Charlie, a chatbot that was built specifically to
Speaker 1: reach folks and states where abortion has been banned or
Speaker 1: restricted to help connect them with information about abortion. Access Charlie,
Speaker 1: which communicates in both English and Spanish, is accessible through
Speaker 1: the website Chat with Charlie dot org or on the
Speaker 1: websites for Abortion on Our Terms and Abortion Access Front.
Speaker 1: Charlie is a nonprofit platform co created by several reproductive
Speaker 1: rights and justice organizations, including I Need ana dot com,
Speaker 1: Plan C, and the Miscarriage and Abortion Hotline. Cecile Richards,
Speaker 1: the former president of Planned Parenthood and my former boss
Speaker 1: when I work there, is the co founder. So the
Speaker 1: bot was created in part because people just cannot trust
Speaker 1: searching platforms like Google for accurate, not to mention, confidential
Speaker 1: information about abortion. Nicole Cushman, who oversees Charlie's content, told
Speaker 1: Mashable search experience online in particular is really myird in confusion.
Speaker 1: People wind up going on this scavenger hunt trying to
Speaker 1: piece together all the resources that make sense for them
Speaker 1: to get the care that they need. The bot was
Speaker 1: created in part because, as I was saying, people just
Speaker 1: cannot trust searching platforms like Google for accurate and confidential
Speaker 1: information about abortion. Nicole Cushman, who oversees Charlie's content, told
Speaker 1: Mashable the search experience online in particular is really mired
Speaker 1: in confusion. People wind up going on this scavenger hunt
Speaker 1: trying to piece together all the resources that make sense
Speaker 1: for them to get the care that they need. We
Speaker 1: talked about this on a previous newscast, dipping into accountable
Speaker 1: text research that found that Google is not deleting location
Speaker 1: data related to abortion, even though they said that they would.
Speaker 1: And Google also earned ten million dollars promoting fake abortion
Speaker 1: clinics on their platforms. So this is a pretty big
Speaker 1: deal because Google is also the biggest search engine in
Speaker 1: the world. Eighty four percent of online searches happen on Google.
Speaker 1: So if Google is not providing accurate or confidential inform
Speaker 1: about abortion, it is a problem for the entire abortion landscape.
Speaker 1: So I would be concerned about any platform where you're
Speaker 1: entering sensitive medical information. So let's talk a bit about
Speaker 1: Charlie's privacy policies. Nicole Cushman told Mashable that Charlie does
Speaker 1: not request personal identifiable information like name or age. The
Speaker 1: bot and its platforms do not use cookies and do
Speaker 1: not share data with any third party, including the metatool pixel,
Speaker 1: which can send private or sensitive user information to third parties.
Speaker 1: Cushman also noted that every chat is routinely deleted from
Speaker 1: Charlie's system and server, and data is removed upon closing
Speaker 1: the browser. She said that Charlie's deletion policy would mean
Speaker 1: that records would likely no longer exist should law enforcement
Speaker 1: attempt to obtain those records in the future.
Speaker 2: Boy, that's really cool. That's reminiscent of how Signal does
Speaker 2: things right, where they protect privacy by just not keeping
Speaker 2: records of user transactions and content of what users have
Speaker 2: said or done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it makes sense because us, both Signal and
Speaker 1: Chartly are operating as nonprofits and so it's just like
Speaker 1: a vastly different setup than a for profit platform like Google,
Speaker 1: whose entire existence is to get your data and save
Speaker 1: your data and use your data, right, And so it
Speaker 1: makes sense that they're operating that way. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: this is cool. I'll keep folks updated as I hear
Speaker 1: more about it. But again, it's I abortion advocates are
Speaker 1: always out there doing the work to like get people
Speaker 1: the access that they need. That is like one of
Speaker 1: the only things that I put my faith and my
Speaker 1: trust in these days. Is like advocates are going to
Speaker 1: advocate or advocate or either or, And so I really
Speaker 1: applaud them seeing the fact that we just don't have
Speaker 1: the online infrastructure where folks can get connected to the
Speaker 1: information that they need and trust that that information will
Speaker 1: be handled sensitively and privately and confidentially and also just
Speaker 1: be accurate. However, that like like Charlie shouldn't have to exist.
Speaker 1: First of all, people should be able to get the
Speaker 1: healthcare they need full stop, like people should be able
Speaker 1: to get abortions when they need them full stop. However,
Speaker 1: certainly platforms like Google should be in the business of
Speaker 1: providing accurate information to people people that need it like
Speaker 1: like that should be the reason why they exist. And
Speaker 1: so while I applaud the fact that these advocates stepped
Speaker 1: in and saw the need and created Charlie to sort
Speaker 1: of like bridge the gap in services that exist, it
Speaker 1: makes me sad because, like I said, everybody deserves accurate,
Speaker 1: timely information to make choices for their own life and
Speaker 1: their own health. It is absurd to me that that
Speaker 1: Google is not providing that when they are the biggest
Speaker 1: search engine in the world, and that advocates have to
Speaker 1: step in and and and bridge that gap.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you know, I hope we see more examples
Speaker 2: like this where some sort of app exists not to
Speaker 2: harvest our data for the purposes of reselling it, but
Speaker 2: just to provide a service and deletes all of the
Speaker 2: user generated data afterwards because it's no longer useful, because
Speaker 2: every additional service that follows that model is another piece
Speaker 2: of evidence that the advertising driven model is not necessary
Speaker 2: and that it's completely reasonable to have applications that respects
Speaker 2: privacy and confidentiality, especially when.
Speaker 1: It comes to something as sensitive as someone searching for
Speaker 1: abortion information, like I don't want to search for abortion information,
Speaker 1: and then a week later get a targeted advertisement that
Speaker 1: seems to suggest that whatever platform I was doing that
Speaker 1: on knows that I was still knows that I was
Speaker 1: searching for that information. That's not just I think it's
Speaker 1: I mean, this comes up all the time on the show,
Speaker 1: but I think that we need to fundamentally rethink the
Speaker 1: relationship that we have with platforms that says that that
Speaker 1: is the only way that we can have online experiences,
Speaker 1: because there are other models that are better, that are
Speaker 1: safer that just allow for people to get what they
Speaker 1: actually need and that is accurate information.
Speaker 2: Totally.
Speaker 3: Let's take a quick break.
Speaker 4: At our back.
Speaker 1: Do you want to know what one of my favorite
Speaker 1: songs is?
Speaker 2: Yeah, bridge you what's one of your favorite songs?
Speaker 1: The song that goes men facing consequences for their bad behavior.
Speaker 1: So a handful of men behaving badly faced a whisper
Speaker 1: an inkling of consequences for their bad behavior, and the
Speaker 1: Internet is melting down over it. So quick heads up
Speaker 1: that this involves sexual abuse and sexual violence. Last week, comedian,
Speaker 1: YouTuber and podcaster Russell Brand was accused of sexual and
Speaker 1: emotional abuse and rape of women between the years twenty
Speaker 1: six and twenty thirteen. The allegations are really troubling. A
Speaker 1: girl who was just sixteen at a time, which is
Speaker 1: the age of consent in the UK, said that during
Speaker 1: her three month relationship with Brand, he would sign her
Speaker 1: out of school to hang out with him, forced himself
Speaker 1: on her, and once kissed her mother on the lips. Now,
Speaker 1: Brand says that he absolutely refutes all of the allegations.
Speaker 1: So if you don't know who Russell Brand is, he's
Speaker 1: an actor and a comedian. He was a host on
Speaker 1: BBC and here in the US. He was known for
Speaker 1: roles in movies like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him
Speaker 1: to the Greek, which, honestly, when you think about it,
Speaker 1: that cast is like milakutis Jonah Hill, Russell Brand, that
Speaker 1: crew is really down bad in the last few weeks,
Speaker 1: like a lot going on with those three. So Russell
Speaker 1: Brand was sort of known for having this kind of,
Speaker 1: I don't know, like cheeky public persona, like a cheeky,
Speaker 1: mischievous bad boy. He would talk openly about his drug
Speaker 1: use and his sexual history, but it seemed like maybe
Speaker 1: he was curating that persona to mask behavior that was
Speaker 1: actually like sexually abusive and violent. More recently, Brand has
Speaker 1: kind of become a right wing adjacent I guess, like
Speaker 1: alternative content creator. His big things are his podcasts Under
Speaker 1: the Skin with Russell Brand and a YouTube channel that
Speaker 1: has over six point six million subscribers. Now I have
Speaker 1: not listened to his podcast, but I think what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do is sort of like an alternative woo
Speaker 1: woo kind of wellness thing. He has on folks like
Speaker 1: journalist Michael Pollan talking about psychedelics or Deepak Chopra talking
Speaker 1: about meditation, but a lot of that was really taken
Speaker 1: to the extreme on his YouTube channel, which, if I
Speaker 1: had to summarize his YouTube channel is that he often
Speaker 1: gives a contrarian while operating under the premise that they
Speaker 1: are lying because they don't want us to know the truth.
Speaker 1: His videos often have titles like things that are like
Speaker 1: so this is what they don't want us to know
Speaker 1: all caps, or this is why they want us to
Speaker 1: take the COVID vaccine, or this is why they want
Speaker 1: a war in Ukraine. Interestingly, he rarely provides like direct
Speaker 1: proof or like makes any kind of definitive direct statement
Speaker 1: about what he say, Like, he doesn't really make like
Speaker 1: hard claims. Generally he'll just ask a lot of pointed
Speaker 1: leading questions. But the way that he says them, like
Speaker 1: the tone is like all accusatory, right, like like why
Speaker 1: do they want us taking that COVID vaccine? Like, and
Speaker 1: I feel like anything anything sounds suss when you say it,
Speaker 1: when you say it all accusatory. So he's kind of
Speaker 1: like Joe Rogan if Joe Rogan had like long flowing
Speaker 1: hair and wore like an open linen shirt.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you gotta be suspicious of that they you know,
Speaker 2: just the liberal use of they peppered throughout. They want this,
Speaker 2: they want that, like who are they? Please specify?
Speaker 1: Well, so his unstated mostly unstated they is like the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, Like his whole thing is all about how
Speaker 1: the mainstream media isn't telling us the truth the mainstream
Speaker 1: media is feeding us live, and that the mainstream media
Speaker 1: like is against him because he is challenging what the
Speaker 1: mainstream media says. It's it's like a pretty I mean,
Speaker 1: I probably would have found this really compelling when I
Speaker 1: was like nineteen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and like in twenty twenty three, if I ask
Speaker 2: who is they? And Russell Brand says the mainstream media,
Speaker 2: that's not adding much, like it's just moving the question,
Speaker 2: like who is the mainstream media? In twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I'm I'm one hundred percent and that I
Speaker 1: stoned at a party probably said something very similar and
Speaker 1: thought I sounded really smart. It's one of those things
Speaker 1: where to a certain kind of person, making them feel
Speaker 1: like they are like the truth seekers and they're getting
Speaker 1: the real information that they the mainstream media won't tell you.
Speaker 1: That's always going to work on a certain kind of
Speaker 1: person and so I think that he's really courting that audience.
Speaker 1: So since these allegations came out, Brand has been blocked
Speaker 1: from monetization on YouTube. YouTube said in a statement that
Speaker 1: it had suspended monetization on Brand's channel for violating its
Speaker 1: creator responsibility policy. So he's not been kicked off the
Speaker 1: platform or banned from the platform, much like the Fresh
Speaker 1: and Fit podcast, he just can't earn money on those videos.
Speaker 1: YouTube said if a creator's off platform behavior harms our users, employees,
Speaker 1: or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community. Brand
Speaker 1: is also on Rumble, which is kind of like a
Speaker 1: right wing version of YouTube, and apparently members of Parliament
Speaker 1: in the UK want to know if Rumble is going
Speaker 1: to follow YouTube's lead and demonetize Brand's content. But Rumble's
Speaker 1: whole thing is being quote anti cancel culture, so of
Speaker 1: course they're not going to do that. Caroline Dinach, the
Speaker 1: Conservative chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, wrote
Speaker 1: to Rumble's CEO, saying we would like to know whether
Speaker 1: Rumble intends to join YouTube and suspending mister Brand's ability
Speaker 1: to earn money on the platform. The MP also asked
Speaker 1: what Rumble was doing to ensure that content creators, don't
Speaker 1: use their platform to undermine the welfare of victims of
Speaker 1: inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior. Rumble replied on Twitter, calling
Speaker 1: the letter disturbing and said that Parliament's demands were deeply
Speaker 1: inappropriate and dangerous. The platform added that they were devoted
Speaker 1: to an Internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas
Speaker 1: can or cannot be heard or which citizens may or
Speaker 1: may not be entitled to a platform. Which interesting to
Speaker 1: me about this is that even before where are these
Speaker 1: allegations remade? Public Brand was able to weaponize his history
Speaker 1: of stoking conspiracy theories and courting that audience of people
Speaker 1: who really want to believe what he is saying to
Speaker 1: shield himself from accountability from his own actions. In a
Speaker 1: YouTube video, he suggested that the allegations are all a
Speaker 1: campaign by the mainstream media to keep him from speaking
Speaker 1: the truth. Here's what he had to say.
Speaker 5: The relationships I had were absolutely, always consensual. I was
Speaker 5: always transparent about that then almost too transparent, and I'm
Speaker 5: being transparent about it now as well. And to see
Speaker 5: that transparency metastasized into something criminal that I absolutely deny
Speaker 5: makes me question is.
Speaker 1: There another agenda at play?
Speaker 5: Particularly when we've seen coordinated media attacks before with Joe Rogan,
Speaker 5: when he dared to take a medicine that the mainstream
Speaker 5: media didn't approve of, and we saw a spate of
Speaker 5: headlines from media outlets across the world.
Speaker 1: Using the same language.
Speaker 5: I'm aware that you guys have been saying in the
Speaker 5: comments for a while, watch out, Russell, They're coming for you.
Speaker 5: You're getting too close to the truth. Russell Brand did
Speaker 5: not kill himself. I know that a year ago there
Speaker 5: was a spate of articles Russell Brand's a conspiracy theorist,
Speaker 5: Russell Brand's right wing. I'm aware of news media making
Speaker 5: phone calls, sending letters to people I know, for ages
Speaker 5: and ages. It's been clear to me, or at least
Speaker 5: it feels to me like there's a serious and concerted
Speaker 5: agenda to control these kind of spaces and these kind
Speaker 5: of voices, and I mean my voice along with your voice.
Speaker 1: Okay. So Brand put out this video even before the
Speaker 1: article about the allegations was ever published, and all of
Speaker 1: the comments on the video were about how his followers
Speaker 1: and fans saying that he is innocent and that he
Speaker 1: is obviously being framed by the mainstream media, which I
Speaker 1: feel like if you have built up an audience who
Speaker 1: is primed to believe anything that you say, even before
Speaker 1: they know what it is you're being accused of, even
Speaker 1: more if they have any information about that, it does
Speaker 1: kind of suggest that you've curated an audience of people
Speaker 1: who cannot think for themselves, not an audience of independent thinkers.
Speaker 1: Like an independent thinker would be like, I'll wait until
Speaker 1: these allegations are published, i will read the proof that
Speaker 1: they say that they have, and I will make up
Speaker 1: my own mind. An independent, a true independent thinker is
Speaker 1: not just saying whatever you say, Russell Brand, we trust
Speaker 1: you will just take your word for it with no
Speaker 1: other information. And here's the thing, when you actually look
Speaker 1: at what these women are saying, Like they have copies
Speaker 1: of text messages from Brand wherein they discuss his abusive behavior.
Speaker 1: One woman texted him. When a girl says no, it
Speaker 1: means no, and then Brand replies saying very sorry. You know,
Speaker 1: there are records of another woman seeking medical treatment at
Speaker 1: a rape crisis center after a Brand assaulted her. So
Speaker 1: I'm curious, like how Brand is thinking that they fabricated
Speaker 1: these records from like fifteen years ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it raises good questions about who's included in they
Speaker 2: it kind of seems like it maybe it's just like
Speaker 2: the women that he assaulted.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what I was say. It's like, even if
Speaker 1: even if he believes this is some sort of a
Speaker 1: like coordinated campaign to like to like stop this podcaster
Speaker 1: and YouTuber. But even if that, even if that was
Speaker 1: what was going on, if somebody wanted to have a
Speaker 1: coordinated campaign against me, they would not be able to
Speaker 1: produce records that showed that somebody got medical treatment after
Speaker 1: they after I attacked them, because that doesn't exist. They
Speaker 1: would not be able to produce text messages where I
Speaker 1: said very sorry when someone said that I violated their consent,
Speaker 1: because that doesn't that's not out there. And so yeah,
Speaker 1: just publishing accounts of what you did is not a
Speaker 1: coordinated campaign. That's just like reporting about your own actions, Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't have to. It's interesting to me how he's like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is just a campaign against me because I'm getting
Speaker 1: too close to the truth. It's like, well, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: be able to publish this shit if you hadn't done it,
Speaker 1: so you know, in what way? In what way are
Speaker 1: they like he's not saying that these are fabricated.
Speaker 2: Yeah, like what truth? And again, who is they name
Speaker 2: some names?
Speaker 1: Well, you know who has named some names. That is
Speaker 1: some of the folks who are supporting Brand at this time,
Speaker 1: folks like Alex Jones. Alex Jones says, it's the globalists.
Speaker 2: Oh see, I knew they were right around the corner.
Speaker 2: I didn't want to bring it up, but I knew
Speaker 2: the globalists was secretly the they.
Speaker 1: When someone says they like that all accusatory, we all
Speaker 1: know who they're talking about. It's like barely even a
Speaker 1: dog whistle. So Alex Jones said. And now because Brand
Speaker 1: comes out against big Pharma, he comes out against the globalists,
Speaker 1: he comes out against the new world order, and suddenly
Speaker 1: these allegations are happening to him. Also a woman had
Speaker 1: to go to get medical care. I love that this
Speaker 1: is like allegations are happening to him a lot of
Speaker 1: questions about how Alex Jones thinks allegations work, like they
Speaker 1: don't justlike happen to people.
Speaker 2: So Alex Jones, there's just a story about how he
Speaker 2: spent like it was like nine hundred thousand dollars in
Speaker 2: a month of just like living expenses or something. I
Speaker 2: could be wrong about that about but it was some
Speaker 2: like ridiculous number and all the while like he has
Speaker 2: paid zero dollars to the families of the Sandy Hook
Speaker 2: families to whom he owes like billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's definitely who you want on your side when
Speaker 1: you are facing public allegations of wrongdoing. So also in
Speaker 1: Russell Brand's corner Elon Musk. Elon Musk tweeted when Russell
Speaker 1: Brand said that he was being attacked because he promotes
Speaker 1: alternative views. Elon said, of course they all caps don't
Speaker 1: like competition. Also, don't forget Elon Musk himself was accused
Speaker 1: of exposing himself to a flight attendant, So you know,
Speaker 1: birds of a feather, like if you nobody nobody's got
Speaker 1: the back of a sexual abuser, like a man who
Speaker 1: is also a sexual abuser. Also, we've got Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: in the mix, who tweeted criticized the drug companies, question
Speaker 1: the war in Ukraine, and you can be pretty sure
Speaker 1: this is gonna happen. Elon must chimes in, Sure, seems
Speaker 1: that way, and then Andrew Tate chimes in.
Speaker 2: With, yep, what a collection of fuckos.
Speaker 1: Also speaking of Andrew Tate in More Men Facing a
Speaker 1: Whisper of Consequences. News we did an episode a while
Speaker 1: back about Andrew Tate's app, The Real World and how
Speaker 1: it's basically a pyramid scheme. Well, now that app has
Speaker 1: been taken off of the Google Play Store because it's
Speaker 1: a pyramid scheme, one that prays on young men and boys.
Speaker 1: So Andrew tates app used to be called Hustler's University,
Speaker 1: and it's a billed as quote, a global community of
Speaker 1: like minded individuals striving to acquire an abundance of wealth.
Speaker 1: Tell me that that does not sound like every MLM
Speaker 1: pyramid scheme. That a girly from your high school like
Speaker 1: dms you about on Facebook being like hey Gurley, like
Speaker 1: you should have you ever thought about having your own business?
Speaker 1: I think you would really slayh at it girl.
Speaker 2: Yo. You know what else it sounds like it sounds
Speaker 2: like the they that they're always talking about a global
Speaker 2: community of like minded individuals striving to acquire an abundance
Speaker 2: of wealth.
Speaker 1: Oh my god. With Andrew Tate's group, they the whole
Speaker 1: time Russell Brand the call It's coming from inside the house.
Speaker 2: The they is coming from inside the house.
Speaker 1: Okay, so this is from Vice. The app promise is
Speaker 1: to give subscribers expert tuition and business and online entrepreneurship
Speaker 1: with video lessons and mentorship from a supposed multi millionaire
Speaker 1: experts on topics like copywriting, e commerce, crypto, and stocks.
Speaker 1: Targeting young people. In its marketing and design, the platform
Speaker 1: claims that for a monthly some scription fee might guess
Speaker 1: how much the subscription fee is a month? Can you guess?
Speaker 2: I would say nine?
Speaker 1: Oh, my god, it's forty nine dollars and ninety nine
Speaker 1: cent per month. My god.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: So for that price, recruits can earn over ten k
Speaker 1: per month quickly and escape the matrix, which is Andrew
Speaker 1: Tate's disparaging term for mainstream society and avoid an otherwise
Speaker 1: inevitable future of being a brokeye. The system slash Matrix
Speaker 1: wants you to remain poor, week alone, and complacent, says
Speaker 1: one website promoting the real world. Understand that in about
Speaker 1: five to ten years time, you will either be rich
Speaker 1: unlimited money with unlimited options, or you'll be broke slaving
Speaker 1: away for social credits. Do you want to escape or not? Wow?
Speaker 1: I can actually really see how that like over the
Speaker 1: top language could be enticing for especially a young person,
Speaker 1: a young person who spends a lot of their time
Speaker 1: like online playing video games. I can see how that
Speaker 1: would be enticing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess so. I mean they're really trafficking on
Speaker 2: like the Matrix ideology, which is kind of funny because
Speaker 2: The Matrix was written by a pair of trans women.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Lily Wachowski deserves much better than this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm pretty sure they would be in the they
Speaker 2: according to these people, but they've just like wholesale adopted
Speaker 2: their ideology. But also, and more importantly, I just want
Speaker 2: to go back to like their topics which include copywriting,
Speaker 2: e commerce, crypto, and stocks like those are a pretty
Speaker 2: disparate set of activities. Like are they going to earn
Speaker 2: over ten k per month through copywriting? Like what are
Speaker 2: they copywriting for?
Speaker 1: As a former copywriter, I can tell you they probably
Speaker 1: won't be earning ten km through copywriting. We're actually doing
Speaker 1: an episode I think this coming Tuesday with an extremism
Speaker 1: researcher from Media Matters, all about Andrew Tait. And one
Speaker 1: of the questions I had for this researcher is, like,
Speaker 1: when they're offering these pyramid scheme, scammy, you know, classes
Speaker 1: and stuff. There is always such a wide net of offerings.
Speaker 1: It will be like how to pick up chicks, and
Speaker 1: also real estate and also crypto and it's like why
Speaker 1: do they like, like, how are they related to each other?
Speaker 1: How does how is one Cherson going like an expert
Speaker 1: in all of these things, going to teach me about
Speaker 1: all of these things like and basically he said that
Speaker 1: it's all related to this concept of grind mentality where
Speaker 1: they choose all of these buckets or topics that young
Speaker 1: men traditionally might associate with, you know, being on their
Speaker 1: grind and hustling and making money. E commerce and copywriting
Speaker 1: is a new one for me, Like, I don't know
Speaker 1: that I associate that with like the hustle, but crypto stocks,
Speaker 1: real estate, these things that you associate with, like masculinity,
Speaker 1: question mark. I guess those are the things that these
Speaker 1: scammers are always saying that they can like teach you
Speaker 1: to be rich through.
Speaker 2: Using yeah, you know, whatever they got to do to
Speaker 2: be part of that global community of like minded individuals
Speaker 2: striving to acquire an abundance of wealth aka them them
Speaker 2: a more.
Speaker 4: After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: So one of the reasons I find this so deeply,
Speaker 1: deeply messed up, among a lot of reasons why I
Speaker 1: find it so messed up, is that the platform is
Speaker 1: very clearly aimed at children. On the Google Play Store,
Speaker 1: the platform is labeled as being suitable for people age
Speaker 1: four end up, which like, what is a fucking four
Speaker 1: year old take in classes in crypto trading and stocks for?
Speaker 1: But they actually claim that their youngest student is age six.
Speaker 1: So they have this six year old who says that
Speaker 1: he is a student of Hustler's University. He wants to
Speaker 1: be a boxer just like Andrew Tait when he grows up,
Speaker 1: and he takes fitness classes supposedly through the Andrew Tates
Speaker 1: Real World app. And so this is very much geared
Speaker 1: toward very young people, and it's clear in the way
Speaker 1: that it kind of gamifies using the app and mimics
Speaker 1: video gameplay in some of the promotional language about the
Speaker 1: real world. It prompts young men and boys to shock
Speaker 1: their families by leveling up in real life instead of
Speaker 1: just leveling up in video games. So importantly, like most
Speaker 1: MLMs and pyramid schemes, the thing is not just getting
Speaker 1: doopies to pay for whatever the thing is, like leggings or,
Speaker 1: in this case, you know, scammy classes about nothing. The
Speaker 1: thing is a actually convincing other dubies to get duped
Speaker 1: into doing it too. Through the Real World's Affiliate Marketing Program,
Speaker 1: members are required to aggressively promote Tate and his site
Speaker 1: by flooding websites like TikTok, Instagram, reels, and YouTube with
Speaker 1: repurposed Andrew Tate content along with distinctive sign up links attached,
Speaker 1: getting forty eight percent of sales commission for every new
Speaker 1: recruit to the site that joined through their link. Now,
Speaker 1: I think that this probably served double duty for Andrew
Speaker 1: Tate because he's banned from most social media platforms. He
Speaker 1: was banned from Facebook and Twitter and YouTube, and TikTok
Speaker 1: elon Musk, of course brought him back on their besties.
Speaker 1: But this affiliate marketing program, I believe, not only makes
Speaker 1: him more money through getting more dubies to sign up
Speaker 1: for his scam, but also allows him to get around
Speaker 1: being banned from these platforms because he is individually banned,
Speaker 1: but his content is not banned. If people are just
Speaker 1: spamming TikTok with Andrew tait memes and videos and repurpose content.
Speaker 1: I think it's a way for him to get around
Speaker 1: being banned, like his content is all over social media,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that he himself is banned.
Speaker 2: He sucks, He sucks.
Speaker 1: He is so gross.
Speaker 2: So don't under investigation for like being a sex trafficker, Like,
Speaker 2: what's the status of that?
Speaker 1: He sure is? She sure is? He is currently under
Speaker 1: investigation for trafficking. People like Tucker Carlson love to talk
Speaker 1: about trafficking and making that there like cause du jore.
Speaker 1: But then is fine to publicly associate with somebody who
Speaker 1: is under literal investigation for trafficking. Make it make sense?
Speaker 1: The math is not mathing.
Speaker 2: It's like one of the most harmful things in our
Speaker 2: society that these toxic assholes have somehow like claimed the
Speaker 2: mantle of masculinity.
Speaker 1: I almost have a hard time, like I don't even
Speaker 1: it's not even really cathartic to dunk on him, because
Speaker 1: because he's so toxic and harmful, and I think he's
Speaker 1: worse because he targets children, like very young kids six
Speaker 1: years old, seven years old. I saw a video where
Speaker 1: like school children, elementary school children were being asked like, oh,
Speaker 1: what do you look for in a girl? And they
Speaker 1: were like, oh, got to make sure she's not a
Speaker 1: gold digger. And they're little kids, And so I think
Speaker 1: the fact that Andrew TT is really targeting our youth,
Speaker 1: and I think it's you know, I think with Andrew
Speaker 1: T hat what's so upsetting is that I think they
Speaker 1: that he is poisoning an entire generation of very young
Speaker 1: boys before they've even had a chance to be out
Speaker 1: in the world, before they even have been out to
Speaker 1: experience the world, and putting this insidiary garbage in their heads,
Speaker 1: making them really align with this like incredibly harmful worldview.
Speaker 1: And I hope, I deeply hope that these kids can
Speaker 1: grow up to unlearn that that it does not, but
Speaker 1: that it doesn't like set them up for a bad
Speaker 1: course for life before they even have really gotten a
Speaker 1: chance to be out in the world. And the fact
Speaker 1: that he is so brazenly getting rich off of that, like,
Speaker 1: I think it's yeah, I think he is harming kids
Speaker 1: at making millions, harming kids, harming women and making millions
Speaker 1: from it. And the fact that he is lauded as
Speaker 1: some kind of a shrewd businessman for doing so really
Speaker 1: just it's upsetting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it really is.
Speaker 1: So of course Google did not just decide one morning
Speaker 1: to like wake up and do the right thing and
Speaker 1: delete this app from their app store. They were pressured
Speaker 1: by campaigns. Nathan Pope, a thirty four year old Australian,
Speaker 1: launched an online petition in July calling for app stores
Speaker 1: like Google Play and the App Store, as well as
Speaker 1: companies that process online subscription payments to the real world,
Speaker 1: to stop posting the app. So he was successful at
Speaker 1: getting Google's Google Play Store to pull it, but as
Speaker 1: far as I know as of recording this, the app
Speaker 1: is still available on Apple's App Store.
Speaker 2: Really yeah, wow, that's really something. I'm surprised that Google
Speaker 2: would take that action and Apple would not. I generally
Speaker 2: think of Apple as like a trusted entity, and it's
Speaker 2: surprising that they would allow this toxic garbage to continue
Speaker 2: on their platform.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we will keep you posted if any action
Speaker 1: is taken. I think that Andrew Tate should not be
Speaker 1: able to make money to make millions from targeting kids
Speaker 1: in this way.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, speaking of trafficking, we did an episode all
Speaker 1: about the sex trafficking hero fantasy movie Sound of Freedom.
Speaker 1: The film depicts a fictionalized account of this guy named
Speaker 1: Tim Ballard, formerly of Operations Underground Railroad, which is an
Speaker 1: anti trafficking organization that promotes the idea that anti trafficking
Speaker 1: work looks like a hero like going into an underground
Speaker 1: trafficking ring, allah taken and saving the day. Anti trafficking
Speaker 1: experts have been cleared that these depictions promote harmful myths
Speaker 1: about trafficking that could actually make things worse for survivors.
Speaker 1: So right after our episode about Sound of Freedom went live,
Speaker 1: Operation Underground Railroad announced that Tim Ballard was no longer
Speaker 1: part of the organization, and I was sort of like,
Speaker 1: I wonder what the story is there? Like that seems weird,
Speaker 1: and now we know why. According to a Vice investigation,
Speaker 1: tim Ballard invited women to act as his wife on
Speaker 1: undercover overseas missions ostensibly aimed at rescuing victims of sex trafficking.
Speaker 1: He would then allegedly coerce those women into sharing a
Speaker 1: bed with him or showering with him, claiming that it
Speaker 1: was necessary to fool sex traffickers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course, that's the only way that they'll be fooled.
Speaker 1: He is said to have sent at least one woman
Speaker 1: a photo of himself in its underwear with fake tattoos,
Speaker 1: and have asked another how far she was willing to
Speaker 1: go to save children. So the total number of women
Speaker 1: involved in this is believed to be higher than seven,
Speaker 1: as that would only account for employees, not contractors or
Speaker 1: volunteers of the organization. So yeah, he was just setting
Speaker 1: up these overseas stings and then convincing these women to
Speaker 1: go along with these inappropriate actions under the guys that
Speaker 1: they needed to do that to save the kids. It's
Speaker 1: so predatory. Ballard of course denies these charges. So this
Speaker 1: is kind of a callback to a recent episode that
Speaker 1: we did about Ashton Kutcher's support for convicted rapist Danny Masterson.
Speaker 1: Given Ashton's work starting the organization Thorn, which is a
Speaker 1: big anti sex trafficking organization that works with all of
Speaker 1: the major social media platforms. That episode was really focused
Speaker 1: on the technology that Thorn produces, but on the Patreon
Speaker 1: I got into my actual take, which is that people
Speaker 1: are able to use trafficking work to boost their own
Speaker 1: profile at the ex event of marginalized people and actual
Speaker 1: trafficking survivors, I think that Ashton Cutcher used trafficking and
Speaker 1: technology to sort of go from like a stoner sitcom
Speaker 1: actor to being like a serious philanthropist and like tech guy.
Speaker 1: And I think he did that because he knew it
Speaker 1: would not be questioned. Because when somebody says they're working
Speaker 1: to stop trafficking or like trying to curb sex trafficking,
Speaker 1: it just gives them this automatic high ground that people like.
Speaker 1: It's like, if you question that, the obvious response is like, oh,
Speaker 1: what do you like pro sex trafficking? And nobody, everybody
Speaker 1: obviously hates sex trafficking, So when somebody does that work,
Speaker 1: it kind of makes it seem like they're above reproach.
Speaker 1: And I believe that's what's going on with Ashton Cutcher,
Speaker 1: and I believe that's what's going on with Tim Ballord.
Speaker 1: So my anti Ashton Cutcher sentiments have been brewing for
Speaker 1: like over a decade, So please check out the Patreon
Speaker 1: if you want to know more. I deeply think that
Speaker 1: the focus on trafficking means that people will be so
Speaker 1: willing to associate sexual violence with like a stranger, bad
Speaker 1: guy trafficker who's going to grab you in a parking lot,
Speaker 1: that they might not be so willing to see their
Speaker 1: friend who is a sexual abuser as a threat, right,
Speaker 1: Like if you were only if sexual violence begins and
Speaker 1: ends with bad guy traffickers, your friend who is seems
Speaker 1: like a really nice guy to you, you're not going
Speaker 1: to be that willing to see them as the threat
Speaker 1: that they are. And in the case of Tim Ballard,
Speaker 1: I think that doing anti trafficking work was actually a
Speaker 1: way to distract from his own bad behavior. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like sometimes they say an accusation is actually a confession.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think your Patreon episode about that is really
Speaker 2: insightful and it really makes me think about this Tim
Speaker 2: Ballard and how much he was just like engaging in
Speaker 2: this fantasy, this like anti trafficking fantasy that really had
Speaker 2: no connection to actually protecting real people from trafficking, but
Speaker 2: was like cosplay almost.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's exactly what I think was going on. Part
Speaker 1: of Vice's reporting found that the organization was actually relying
Speaker 1: on psychics to set up bumbling and ineffective missions to
Speaker 1: save traffic children that they believe were being held on
Speaker 1: the border of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and so
Speaker 1: all of their information and their intel about where this
Speaker 1: child was being held came from psychics. That is like
Speaker 1: something out of a fantasy movie. I think that this
Speaker 1: is somebody who was cause playing what he imagined like
Speaker 1: a big bad white guy busting into like a foreign
Speaker 1: country to like save kids. I think that he was
Speaker 1: just setting up an entire machination to you go along
Speaker 1: with this fantasy version of himself. And then I bet
Speaker 1: seeing that version of himself depicted in the movie Sound
Speaker 1: of Freedom, depicted by Tim Cavizelli, who previously was Jesus
Speaker 1: Christ in the movie Passion of the Christ, Like, I
Speaker 1: just think that these people do not have a clear
Speaker 1: sense of reality. I think that you're exactly right that
Speaker 1: they are setting up these fantasy versions of this, like
Speaker 1: fantasy world where trafficking works like a movie. But in reality,
Speaker 1: this is not a movie, and actual victims and survivors
Speaker 1: are being hurt. When you publicly lead people to believe
Speaker 1: that this is how trafficking works, that it's like something
Speaker 1: out of a movie, because that's not how it works.
Speaker 1: Nine times out of ten, people are being groomed into
Speaker 1: trafficking by somebody that they know, somebody that they trust.
Speaker 1: It's not somebody snatching them or you know, a psychic
Speaker 1: leading them to the whereabouts of like a child being
Speaker 1: held in a dungeon somewhere, and promoting this idea just
Speaker 1: makes everybody more vulnerable because it it makes us not
Speaker 1: understand the actual threat and the actual dangers totally.
Speaker 2: But you know they're out there. They are out there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think from doing this episode, I feel like
Speaker 1: the real they who is the threat is like Tim
Speaker 1: Ballard Airs, youw Tate Russell Brand, So let's watch out
Speaker 1: with them, shall we?
Speaker 2: Yeah? You're absolutely right. Yeah, the real they is these
Speaker 2: misogynist assholes who are engaging in this like cosplay, whipping
Speaker 2: up a frenzy about fictional harms while they themselves are
Speaker 2: enacting the actual harms.
Speaker 1: Could not agree more. Mike, thanks so much for going
Speaker 1: to these stories with me.
Speaker 2: Bridgett, thanks for having me. It was so good talking
Speaker 2: with you. I'll see you on the internet. I'll see
Speaker 2: you on the Internet.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for ways to support the show, check
Speaker 1: out our merch store at tangoty dot com slash store.
Speaker 1: Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or
Speaker 1: just want to say hi, You can reach us at
Speaker 1: Hello at tangodi dot com. You can also find transcripts
Speaker 1: for today's episode at TENG Goody dot com. There Are
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet was created by me bridget Tood.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative edited by
Speaker 1: Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison
Speaker 1: is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almada is our
Speaker 1: contributing producer. I'm your host, bridget Tood. If you want
Speaker 1: to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.