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 on the Internet. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the show, where we explore the intersection of identity, social media,
Speaker 1: and technology. This is another installment of our weekly roundup
Speaker 1: of news that you might have missed on the Internet
Speaker 1: this week. Joey, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1: As I was telling you, I am coming to you
Speaker 1: from my hotel room in beautiful Burlington, Vermont. I met
Speaker 1: the Hotel Vermont. Shout out to them. They've been great.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being here, of course. Okay, So we
Speaker 1: were talking about this off Mike and I was like,
Speaker 1: I wonder if they have heard about this? Who the
Speaker 1: f did I marry? Saga on TikTok And you were like, oh,
Speaker 1: what is this? Who the f did I am married?
Speaker 1: So you have not heard about this at all from TikTok?
Speaker 1: Have not, no, So let me explain to you what
Speaker 1: is going on. So this woman on TikTok basically told
Speaker 1: this epic story about essentially how her marriage fell apart.
Speaker 1: It was in fifty parts, so fifty separate ten minute
Speaker 1: tiktoks all together. It was five hundred minutes of viewing time,
Speaker 1: or about eight and a half hours. When I tell
Speaker 1: you that I watched the entire thing. I was watching
Speaker 1: this TikTok as if I was listening to an audiobook
Speaker 1: or like listening to a podcast where I was carrying
Speaker 1: my phone around my apartment being like ooh, and then
Speaker 1: what happened, and then what happened, and that what happened,
Speaker 1: And so essentially her story is one where she was
Speaker 1: engaged to marry this guy, or married this guy she
Speaker 1: thought he she had been telling her like, Oh, I'm
Speaker 1: the VP of a company. I'm really close to my
Speaker 1: family and to my cousins, blah blah blah and it.
Speaker 1: And he was getting up every morning and having these
Speaker 1: like jovial converts with his brother and his cousins and
Speaker 1: his families and his friends. And it turns out that
Speaker 1: he'd been doing this for years, but he was just
Speaker 1: pretending to have these conversations, so there was never anybody
Speaker 1: on the other end of the phone because his family
Speaker 1: has been estranged and no contact from him four years.
Speaker 1: He said that he was a VP at a condiment company.
Speaker 1: Turns out, in reality he was like a forklift operator.
Speaker 1: He basically had invented all of these bank statements from
Speaker 1: Chase from Chase Bank talking about like oh, like this
Speaker 1: is how much money I have in the bank because
Speaker 1: they were going to buy a house together. Like this
Speaker 1: thing went deep. It was fifty separate parts. She got
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty million different people watching this story,
Speaker 1: hanging on her every word. Uh, overnight. Essentially she got
Speaker 1: a million followers through sharing this story. And I will say,
Speaker 1: like people listening might be like, Wow, you dedicated eight
Speaker 1: and a half hours of your life to listening to
Speaker 1: the drama of a stranger people that you'll never meet. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I did, because she is a very good storyteller. I
Speaker 1: was hanging on every word. So I guess my question
Speaker 1: to you to start off is that would you air
Speaker 1: out some truly wild personal story or personal drama if
Speaker 1: you knew that it would equal like overnight social media fame.
Speaker 1: Because right now this woman is she's in talks with
Speaker 1: like big brands and like people are like, oh, Shonda
Speaker 1: Rhime should make her life into a movie, like she
Speaker 1: like she's made it. Would you do that if you
Speaker 1: knew it was going to make you like famous overnight.
Speaker 2: Damn, I want to say no, just because I feel like,
Speaker 2: you know, it's kind of a double edged sword for like,
Speaker 2: I feel like people are gonna turn on you really quick,
Speaker 2: like something's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Uh, Damn, that's crazy though that I feel like that
Speaker 2: level of like a I feel like I wouldn't want
Speaker 2: to admit to the public that I felt that, Like
Speaker 2: I'd feel bad like which, no, no shade to her
Speaker 2: like whatever.
Speaker 3: But I'm kind of like I feel like I'd be like.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't want people to know that I felt for
Speaker 2: that I didn't even google the guy or whatever.
Speaker 4: But yeah, at the same time, that's that's crazy. Can
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I feel like I will never truly know social media
Speaker 1: fame or infamy because I don't. I don't have this.
Speaker 1: I don't have this kind of like I couldn't. There's
Speaker 1: nothing in my life that I could do a fifty
Speaker 1: part TikTok on. I don't have personal drama. There's something
Speaker 1: like wild going on in my life, I guess, thank God,
Speaker 1: But like part of me is like, damn, do you
Speaker 1: really have to like have some wild stuff happening in
Speaker 1: your personal life and be willing to like really air
Speaker 1: out all the details in order to find some kind
Speaker 1: of social media success.
Speaker 2: Okay, so my one point of reference is that I
Speaker 2: had somebody try to do this to a friend of mine, which.
Speaker 4: It wasn't success.
Speaker 2: Also, like ninety percent of it was fain It was
Speaker 2: a weird, Like it was a weird situation.
Speaker 3: But I don't know, I.
Speaker 2: Personally, I feel like I see this a lot on TikTok, like,
Speaker 2: especially when you get into like more niche TikTok communities too,
Speaker 2: Like there's always some sort of personal beef between creators
Speaker 2: that like blows up and like becomes a huge thing.
Speaker 2: And I'm like, I like when you step back, it's
Speaker 2: sort of like who, Like, this is not any of
Speaker 2: my business? Like what is going on?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel the same way. And it's funny. When
Speaker 1: I first started making the podcast, it was very important
Speaker 1: to me that someone listening to the show could never
Speaker 1: be like, oh, it's just a summary of like TikTok
Speaker 1: beefs or Twitter beefs or who's canceling who on Twitter?
Speaker 1: And I see so much of that, but like, and
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sit here and pretend like I'm above
Speaker 1: finding the interpersonal drama and dynamics of strangers interesting because
Speaker 1: lord knows, I'm fascinated. But you know, it's it's out there.
Speaker 1: You should tell you if you're if your friend wants
Speaker 1: social media fame and can like tell the story over
Speaker 1: fifty very compelling tiktoks. Now is the time as a
Speaker 1: hunger for it.
Speaker 2: Dude, there's all That's the thing is, like, you know,
Speaker 2: the last time I was on, we were talking.
Speaker 4: About the like lesbian bar drama.
Speaker 2: And it's funny because I feel like that is the
Speaker 2: version of like where it backfired for like, I think
Speaker 2: she was doing this.
Speaker 4: I think she thought she was like.
Speaker 2: Getting her beef out there and using I don't know,
Speaker 2: but like I think she was intending to use a
Speaker 2: perversonal gain and then it backfired in a way that
Speaker 2: made her look bad.
Speaker 4: And that's why I don't know.
Speaker 2: I feel like there's some there's some sort of like
Speaker 2: detail I missed that everybody would go after me, you know,
Speaker 2: right right.
Speaker 1: Like, oh well, Joey didn't consider this.
Speaker 4: Were telling the story like house are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you live by you live by the already you
Speaker 1: die by thesorty. You gotta be careful air and at
Speaker 1: your beef on social media. It's great advice. Hey, so
Speaker 1: this is future bridget The New York Times has published
Speaker 1: a groundbreaking story today looking at so called insta moms
Speaker 1: who run accounts for their very young minor daughters. The
Speaker 1: piece was published after Joey and I have recorded this episode,
Speaker 1: but I still really wanted to let y'all know about it,
Speaker 1: which is why I'm popping in here justa heads up.
Speaker 1: This is dark. Basically, parents, mostly moms, to be honest,
Speaker 1: are running Instagram accounts for their minor daughters who are
Speaker 1: as young as five years old. Now. Some of these
Speaker 1: accounts are ostensibly about showcasing their daughter's modeling or competitive
Speaker 1: dancing or gymnastics. The accounts show their minor daughters in
Speaker 1: dance or gymnastics apparel, which can be skimpy or revealing,
Speaker 1: and you know, might look one way in a dance
Speaker 1: studio or on a dance stage, but looks very different
Speaker 1: when posed in photos on social media. It's complicated because
Speaker 1: some of these moms may genuinely feel like running these
Speaker 1: kinds of accounts for their daughters could be good for
Speaker 1: a future career as a model or an influencer. Some
Speaker 1: of the moms are getting free or discount and clothing
Speaker 1: and are hopeful about brand deals from these accounts. It's
Speaker 1: gross because at least some of these moms who run
Speaker 1: the pages really do seem like they think this is
Speaker 1: going to be a good thing for their daughters or
Speaker 1: their families financially, but maybe don't seem to be that
Speaker 1: concerned with what it's actually doing to their daughters, Like
Speaker 1: becoming an influencer cannot be worth this because for a
Speaker 1: lot of these accounts, the followers aren't just brands or
Speaker 1: well meeting family members. The followers are grown men, strangers,
Speaker 1: creeps who leave really sexually inappropriate comments on the pictures. Now,
Speaker 1: I should say some of the moms the New York
Speaker 1: Times talk to are actively managing the accounts, deleting creepy
Speaker 1: men followers and their comments, but other moms are encouraging
Speaker 1: these kinds of comments and even arranging for the men
Speaker 1: to have more and more direct contact with their daughters
Speaker 1: for money, like through paying for subscriptions to exclusive content
Speaker 1: on Instagram, allowing the men to buy the daughters used clothing,
Speaker 1: or even arranging private chats. So it's pretty clear what's
Speaker 1: going on don't think that you could be a parent
Speaker 1: who is arranging this kind of thing and be totally
Speaker 1: naive to what's going on. And Instagram is really not
Speaker 1: doing enough compared to other platforms to stamp out this
Speaker 1: kind of behavior. In fact, they're really kind of doing
Speaker 1: nothing in my book. In twenty twenty two, Instagram launched
Speaker 1: paid subscriptions, which allow followers to pay a monthly fee
Speaker 1: for exclusive content and access. Now, accounts for anybody under
Speaker 1: the age of eighteen are not supposed to be able
Speaker 1: to do subscriptions, but mom run account sidestep that restriction.
Speaker 1: The Time has found dozens that charged from ninety nine
Speaker 1: cents to nineteen ninety nine at the highest price, parents
Speaker 1: offered ask Me Anything, chat sessions, and behind the scenes photos.
Speaker 1: Child safety experts warned that subscriptions and other features could
Speaker 1: lead to unhealthy interactions, with men believing they have a
Speaker 1: special connection to the girls and girls believing they must
Speaker 1: meet these men's needs. So Instagram is basically like uniquely
Speaker 1: establishing a pathway that allows for minor girls and adults
Speaker 1: to be connected and get exclusive access to them. And
Speaker 1: what in the world would there be any legitimate reason
Speaker 1: for a grown man to be paying for exclusive access
Speaker 1: to a child like on some level, I cannot imagine
Speaker 1: a world where these moms truly are so naive to
Speaker 1: what is going on, and some of the men who
Speaker 1: follow these kinds of accounts are actual child abusers. Even
Speaker 1: though Instagram is supposed to not allow anybody who is
Speaker 1: on the sex offender registry to use the platform, The
Speaker 1: Times trace the account of some of the followers, and
Speaker 1: one of them, who follows these kinds of accounts was
Speaker 1: convicted of sexually assaulting a child and is listed on
Speaker 1: the New Jersey Sex Offender Registry, and Instagram did not
Speaker 1: remove this account until The Times ask them about it
Speaker 1: for this piece. On Telegram. On alternative social media platform,
Speaker 1: these men connect with each other and trade images for
Speaker 1: abusive means. Men in these groups frequently praise the advent
Speaker 1: of Instagram as the golden age for child exploitation. I'm
Speaker 1: so glad for these new moms pimping their daughters out,
Speaker 1: wrote one of them. And there's an infinite supply of it.
Speaker 1: Literally does refresh your Instagram explore page and there's fresh preteens.
Speaker 1: Some of these men even go further and cultivate business
Speaker 1: or patronage relationships with the moms by sending the mom's
Speaker 1: cash or gifts or other things, and also trying to
Speaker 1: pressure or blackmail the moms into posting more and more
Speaker 1: revealing outfits. One mom described it as her girls becoming
Speaker 1: a kind of currency. Now there again, there are moms who,
Speaker 1: it sounds like, are trying to keep men like this
Speaker 1: off of their accounts, but those moms are basically blocked
Speaker 1: by Instagram itself. Meta failed to act on multiple reports
Speaker 1: made by parents and even restricted parents who tried to
Speaker 1: police their own followers. According to interviews and materials provided
Speaker 1: by these parents, if the parents block too many accounts
Speaker 1: in one day, Meta curtails their ability to block or
Speaker 1: follow others. They said. I remember being told like I've
Speaker 1: reached my limit, said a mother of two dancers in
Speaker 1: Arizona who declined to be named, Like what, I reached
Speaker 1: my limit of pedophiles for today? Okay? Great? And sometimes
Speaker 1: even in the most egregious explicit cases, like a man
Speaker 1: who propositioned to mom offering her sixty five thousand dollars
Speaker 1: for one hour with her minor daughter in a DM,
Speaker 1: Instagram still did nothing when she reported it. Now in response,
Speaker 1: to these reports, Meta said that either those communications did
Speaker 1: not violate Instagram's community guidelines or that staff didn't have
Speaker 1: time to review them. In other cases, Meta told parents
Speaker 1: that it relied on its quote technology to determine the
Speaker 1: content was probably not a violation. So there is just
Speaker 1: no way to spin that. This is Instagram allowing their
Speaker 1: platform to be used for nefarious ways by creeps who
Speaker 1: are endangering children and doing fuck all about it. So
Speaker 1: I really want to talk about what's going on here.
Speaker 1: One Instagram isn't doing enough, and I think that they've
Speaker 1: really been counting on bad press around in Twitter and
Speaker 1: TikTok to not have to answer for the ways that
Speaker 1: they've allowed their platform to become. As one of the
Speaker 1: men who follows these accounts put it quote a candy
Speaker 1: store for abusive child content. And I also think there
Speaker 1: is a lot going on with these moms, Like I
Speaker 1: don't think anyone should have to deal with a creep
Speaker 1: exploiting their kids, and no young person should have to
Speaker 1: go through it either. These girls should be able to
Speaker 1: decide how they want to show up online, but they're
Speaker 1: so young they can't possibly understand and consent to this
Speaker 1: kind of digital presence. Some of the moms the Times
Speaker 1: spoke to said things like, Oh, she's been doing this
Speaker 1: for so long now, her numbers are so big. What
Speaker 1: are we supposed to do? Just stop it and walk away?
Speaker 1: And yes, of course you can just stop this and
Speaker 1: walk away. If you are a parent, it is your
Speaker 1: job to keep your kids safe. And if you know
Speaker 1: that creeps like this are out there and exploiting your kid,
Speaker 1: you should be able to be the adult in the
Speaker 1: room and say we are going to stop this and
Speaker 1: walk away. The promise of insta fame and free stuff
Speaker 1: from brands cannot be worth the well being and health
Speaker 1: of your child. Let's take quickly at our back, so
Speaker 1: we have to sort of switch gears. And I have
Speaker 1: to give a bit of a warning for this story
Speaker 1: because it is deeply heartbreaking and deeply disturbing, and I
Speaker 1: just want to say that right off the top. It
Speaker 1: is a truly heartbreaking story out of Oklahoma, and it's
Speaker 1: still developing, but I can tell you what we know
Speaker 1: as of right now. So next, Benedict, a sixteen year
Speaker 1: old Oklahoma high school sophomore, was beaten by three girl
Speaker 1: classmates in the bathroom of Owasso High School. On Wray Evans.
Speaker 1: The next day, Wuray eighth, Next, who identified with the
Speaker 1: two Spirit transgender and gender non conforming umbrella, was declared
Speaker 1: dead at a hospital. So there is a very detailed
Speaker 1: piece in teen Vogue by non binary journalist Lex McManamon
Speaker 1: who points out that according to Freedom Oklahoma, it is
Speaker 1: not apparently clear what pronouns better it's used, So in
Speaker 1: this conversation, I'm going to refrain from using any pronouns.
Speaker 1: According to this piece, a lot of what we have
Speaker 1: heard about what might have happened comes from an anonymous
Speaker 1: source who says that they are a family friend, and
Speaker 1: this person told a local news outlet that the cause
Speaker 1: of Nex's death was quote complications from brain trauma, and
Speaker 1: that three older girls were beating the victim and her
Speaker 1: daughter in this girl's bathroom at the school. So this
Speaker 1: source said that Next said that Next couldn't walk to
Speaker 1: the nurses station without assistance, and that the school did
Speaker 1: not call an ambulance. This is a little bit murky
Speaker 1: to me because I've seen conflicting sources and conflicting reports.
Speaker 1: The school claims that they were unaware that the fight
Speaker 1: happened until they were informed by a parent. But then
Speaker 1: on February twenty, the school kind of backtracked, acknowledging that
Speaker 1: the students saw the school nurse after the altercation. So
Speaker 1: it's not totally clear to me what actually happened, Like
Speaker 1: the school said one thing, that another. I'm not totally
Speaker 1: sure what's going on there. But here is what Next
Speaker 1: texted after the attack. I got jumped at school three
Speaker 1: on one had to go to the er. They had
Speaker 1: been bullying me and my friends, and I got tired
Speaker 1: of it, so I poured some water on them and
Speaker 1: all three came after me. School did not report to
Speaker 1: the police and is probably getting sued. NeXT's guardian, Sue Benedict,
Speaker 1: told The Independent that she was called to the school
Speaker 1: to find Next had been badly beaten with face bruises.
Speaker 1: Sue Benedict says that her child told her that the
Speaker 1: attack involved NeXT's head hitting the ground, so Benedict says
Speaker 1: that the school told her that Next was going to
Speaker 1: be suspended for two weeks. NeXT's guardian brought Next to
Speaker 1: the hospital right after the fight was discharged. The very
Speaker 1: next day, Next ended up color, saying at home. NeXT's
Speaker 1: guardian called an ambulance who took next to the hospital
Speaker 1: where Next was then pronounced dead. It's very heartbreaking. I
Speaker 1: have to be clear that we don't have all the information.
Speaker 1: A lot of these reports are still coming together and
Speaker 1: still being confirmed. If we get more information, we will
Speaker 1: definitely update you. But this is what I was able
Speaker 1: to confirm myself as of recording on Thursday evening. So.
Speaker 1: According to a piece in The Independent, Next began being
Speaker 1: bullied at the beginning of twenty twenty three, a few
Speaker 1: months after Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed a bill that
Speaker 1: required public school students to use bathrooms that matched the
Speaker 1: sets listed on their birth certificates. As of right now,
Speaker 1: we do not know NeXT's cause of death. The police
Speaker 1: issued a subsequent statement on the twenty fourth of February,
Speaker 1: saying that an autopsy indicated that Next had not died
Speaker 1: as a result of trauma, but that didn't say what
Speaker 1: might have caused NeXT's death. The police said, while the
Speaker 1: investigation continues into the altercation, preliminary information from the Medical
Speaker 1: Examiner's office is that a complete autopsy was performed and
Speaker 1: indicated that the descendent did not die as a result
Speaker 1: of trauma. But the family is also going to do
Speaker 1: their own independent investigation into the death as well. So
Speaker 1: that is what we know in terms of facts about
Speaker 1: what happened. But something else that we know is that
Speaker 1: NeXT's death isn't happening in a vacuum, right, It's happening
Speaker 1: against the backdrop of an entire wave of increasingly violent
Speaker 1: anti LGBTQ climate, and Oklahoma specifically, Oklahoma leads the nation
Speaker 1: in terms of anti LGBTQ laws. Joey, you and I
Speaker 1: talked about this just a couple of weeks ago when
Speaker 1: you were on the show. But in Oklahoma's school district,
Speaker 1: Oklahoma's Republican Superintendent of Public Schools, Ryan Walters, recently appointed
Speaker 1: the far right hate mongering influencer Chaia Rachik, who runs
Speaker 1: the inflammatory libs of TikTok account. So Reichik was appointed
Speaker 1: to be on the Oklahoma Education Department's Library Media Committee,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that, as we said, she's not an
Speaker 1: Oklahoma resident, doesn't have a child in the Oklahoma school system,
Speaker 1: does not have a background in education, she's a realtor.
Speaker 1: It's not clear why she would be someone who would
Speaker 1: be a good person to elevate within Oklahoma public schools
Speaker 1: other than the fact that she has these like very
Speaker 1: public anti LGBTQ anti trans views that she makes very
Speaker 1: clear from her TikTok account. Right cheous anti LGBTQ posts
Speaker 1: have been linked to nearly three dozen threats made towards schools, libraries, hospitals,
Speaker 1: and businesses across sixteen states. This is according to an
Speaker 1: NBC News investigation. And so it's pretty clear to me,
Speaker 1: it's very clear what the kind of statement Oklahoma Public
Speaker 1: Schools is trying to send when they amplify somebody like
Speaker 1: libs of TikTok to a position like this within the
Speaker 1: school system. And I think it's like it's very difficult
Speaker 1: to talk about what happened to Next without also talking
Speaker 1: about this very very hateful climate that's happening in Oklahoma.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely, I saw this story come out right after
Speaker 2: next it died, and.
Speaker 4: Yeah, this is just so heartbreaking and.
Speaker 2: I cannot Yeah, Like it's just it's so heartbreaking, and
Speaker 2: it's so clear that yeah, like there's like that's connected.
Speaker 2: There's definitely a connection there. Hey, this is kind of
Speaker 2: like this is the endgame of a lot of like
Speaker 2: this sort of rhetoric and like the kind of things
Speaker 2: that like lips of TikTok and all that. Like what
Speaker 2: they're trying to do, they're trying to prevent trans people
Speaker 2: from existing, and a lot of times that ends in
Speaker 2: people dying, you know, and that is horrifying. And I yeah,
Speaker 2: this this is truly such just such a like tragic story.
Speaker 1: It really is. And I've I mean, I think that
Speaker 1: you're exactly right that you can't have all of these
Speaker 1: different ways where queer folks and trans folks and gender
Speaker 1: nonconforming folks are being given the message that the people
Speaker 1: in power, the powers that be, don't want them to exist,
Speaker 1: They want to criminalize them, they want to legislate the
Speaker 1: met of existence and then act surprised when this kind
Speaker 1: of thing happens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then I mean, this is also the other
Speaker 2: side of that is that it empowers the other kids
Speaker 2: that killed next, Like they're probably their motivation or they're.
Speaker 4: Kind of the reasons they did.
Speaker 2: What they did was motivated also by this kind of
Speaker 2: rhetoric and the fact that this rhetoric has become like normalized,
Speaker 2: and like the messages they're hearing are probably telling them
Speaker 2: that this was something that was okay and justifiable.
Speaker 1: That's such a good point and I think, you know,
Speaker 1: kids are absorbing these messages. They're here these messages, you know.
Speaker 1: It just doesn't surprise me that kids in this in
Speaker 1: Nexus school saw Next as someone it was okay to
Speaker 1: bully someone, that it was open season on and that
Speaker 1: the adults at the school what were they gonna say,
Speaker 1: because they're doing it too, right, Like, I mean, like
Speaker 1: I've seen a lot of people framing this story as
Speaker 1: like kids bullying kids, like teach your kids to be better,
Speaker 1: But we are talking about grown adults who are passing
Speaker 1: laws that harm kids, right, Like Chaia Rachel from Limbs
Speaker 1: of TikTok is in her thirties, right, She's not a child.
Speaker 1: And if you're curious, like what is she doing on
Speaker 1: Twitter right now, well, right now she is mis gendering
Speaker 1: next even in depth. She's on Twitter tonight mis gendering
Speaker 1: a dead child. So no, it is not kids bullying
Speaker 1: kids when you've got adults who are setting a very
Speaker 1: clear agenda that criminalizes and demonizes lgbtqth right, Like, it's
Speaker 1: just like very clear to me that we're not talking
Speaker 1: about like kids being awful to other kids. The adults
Speaker 1: in the room who are supposed to be setting a
Speaker 1: different example, are making it clear that this is going
Speaker 1: to be tolerated, that this is okay, and participating in
Speaker 1: it themselves. According to The Independent, one of nex's teachers
Speaker 1: was actually featured in a secretly filmed video on libs
Speaker 1: of TikTok. In April of twenty twenty two. This teacher
Speaker 1: was filmed telling students, if your parents don't accept you
Speaker 1: for who you are, fuck them. After a very big backlash,
Speaker 1: this teacher had to resign, and according to nex's guardian,
Speaker 1: Next was really angry about this and to put this
Speaker 1: in a larger context beyond just limbs of TikTok. Last year,
Speaker 1: a court ruled that Oklahoma can enforce its law banning
Speaker 1: and criminalizing gender refirming care for transminers while a suit
Speaker 1: against it is heard. So that law would make providing
Speaker 1: gender refirming care in Oklahoma a felony. And so yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's I it's it's impossible for me to talk
Speaker 1: about what happened to Next without putting it in that
Speaker 1: larger context where adults who really should know better are
Speaker 1: creating the conditions for this kind of violence. And I
Speaker 1: think we need to be really clear about the agenda
Speaker 1: that they're setting, and not let them feign ignorance and
Speaker 1: not let them be like, oh well, I don't want
Speaker 1: anyone to get hurt. That is a very obvious example
Speaker 1: of what is called stochastic terror, right where you don't
Speaker 1: necessarily exblicitly come out and say like I want you
Speaker 1: to harm trans people or I want you to do
Speaker 1: harassing things to trans people, but you're not not saying that.
Speaker 1: It's all very wink wink, not not. And I think
Speaker 1: for too long we have let these people get away
Speaker 1: with exactly that, Like, I don't like that libs of
Speaker 1: TikTok is able to be like they're accusing me of
Speaker 1: killing this young person and all I do is, you know,
Speaker 1: post videos from Nexus School that criminalize transness and queerness,
Speaker 1: and anybody who would support that, it's like, well that
Speaker 1: is kind of what you're doing. You don't really get
Speaker 1: to say that you're not doing it when that's what's
Speaker 1: going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, she stakes violence, like when she does, she
Speaker 2: the purpose of her account is to soake violence, and like,
Speaker 2: you know this is I get like, yeah, this is
Speaker 2: what people have been saying, like this is gonna lead
Speaker 2: to kids dying, and yeah, we're seeing that happen. We're like,
Speaker 2: you know, I just like, yeah, Neck should still be alive.
Speaker 2: This is just such a like terrible story, and it's
Speaker 2: so clear like who's at fault here and what sort
Speaker 2: of narratives are at fault and yeah, it's just horrifying.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Matt bernste can put it really well. Matt says,
Speaker 1: you took away their books, you took away their health care,
Speaker 1: you took away their ability to use the right bathroom.
Speaker 1: You fired the teachers who kept them safe. You demonize
Speaker 1: them on television and on Twitter, all in the name
Speaker 1: of quote protecting children. And I guess I just feel
Speaker 1: like when people talk about protecting children, it's like what
Speaker 1: about children?
Speaker 2: Like next, I feel like all this so much of
Speaker 2: like what's happening right now, it's literally just grown adults
Speaker 2: trying to excuse the fact that they still want to
Speaker 2: bully children, like they still It is like literally like
Speaker 2: not so like psycho analysis or whatever, but like literally
Speaker 2: it feels like these are just people that never got
Speaker 2: over like whatever high school bully phase they went through,
Speaker 2: and they're mad that they can't like like that that Yeah,
Speaker 2: that things are I don't know, it is just it
Speaker 2: is grown adults bullying children and bullying children to the
Speaker 2: point where they're putting them in danger. And that is
Speaker 2: so like disgusting and terrifying about this whole thing.
Speaker 1: Yes, And it's like bullying children under the guys of
Speaker 1: protecting children. If you're a protecting children, Next would still
Speaker 1: be alive. Like, this is not protecting children. This is
Speaker 1: bullying children. This is living out some kind of a
Speaker 1: fucked up high school fantasy against a target that you
Speaker 1: perceive as vulnerable and not unable to protect themselves. And
Speaker 1: that I think that you're exactly right. I think that's
Speaker 1: exactly what it is. And yeah, Next should still be alive.
Speaker 1: I hate that this is a story that we're even
Speaker 1: having to talk about, but it is. It's what's going on.
Speaker 1: It's what's happening in Oklahoma. And I really feel for
Speaker 1: the community there, for NeXT's community who is grieving, and
Speaker 1: it's just cont even in grief, even in death, just
Speaker 1: constantly getting signals that this is okay. Like the superintendent
Speaker 1: of Nex's school didn't even put out a statement, didn't
Speaker 1: even say anything if a young person dies in one
Speaker 1: of your schools. It's just like these people are ghouls
Speaker 1: like I can't even like, I don't even know what
Speaker 1: to say. At a certain point, if you are a
Speaker 1: superintendent of a school and a child dies in the
Speaker 1: school bathroom of a school in which you are meant
Speaker 1: to be kind of in charge of, and you don't
Speaker 1: even say anything because you know that you've spent the
Speaker 1: last few years creating a toxic, violent environment for kids
Speaker 1: like the one that died, it is really bad. It
Speaker 1: is really bad. My heart breaks for next, My heart
Speaker 1: breaks for next as family and community, And if we
Speaker 1: get more information about what's going on in this story,
Speaker 1: will definitely give you an update. Let's take a quick
Speaker 1: break at our back. But this also feeds into how
Speaker 1: LGBTQ youth are treated online, which actually does bring me
Speaker 1: to an update that we have about the Kids Online
Speaker 1: Safety Acts this week, So for folks who don't know,
Speaker 1: the Kids Online Safety Act, otherwise known as KOSA, is
Speaker 1: ostensibly about regulating how social media platforms operate for younger
Speaker 1: users to protect them. If you're hearing scare quotes in
Speaker 1: my voice, they're there, but kind of sounds like a
Speaker 1: way to suppress and criminalize LGBTQ folks on content that's
Speaker 1: not me saying this. I'm saying this because like exublicitly
Speaker 1: that is how people behind it have spoken about it
Speaker 1: and further survey and censor us all, which is why,
Speaker 1: as much as we want a safer Internet for all
Speaker 1: of us, children, adults, all of us, I would say
Speaker 1: like in these parts, we have not been too thrilled
Speaker 1: about this specific legislation. Joey, how would you describe your
Speaker 1: thoughts on it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think, UH, not necessarily thrilled puts it pretty well,
Speaker 2: might be a little bit of an understatement. Uh. KOSA
Speaker 2: is a very concerning piece of legislation that I think
Speaker 2: uh does not do much to achieve the goal that
Speaker 2: it says it is created to do.
Speaker 4: Uh, which I.
Speaker 2: I'm guessing we're gonna get into a lot of what
Speaker 2: it does actually do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's not great. Not excited about this one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not excited about it either. I It's tough
Speaker 1: for me because I've always generally taken the position on
Speaker 1: the podcast of like I will typically shy away from
Speaker 1: advocating for or against specific legislation. However, on this one,
Speaker 1: I feel like I have to be clear about my
Speaker 1: reservations about it. Although I don't want to make it
Speaker 1: seem like it is widely being panned because I went
Speaker 1: to an event not that long ago. Actually, the group
Speaker 1: that put on the event you talked about on your
Speaker 1: very comprehensive Smitty episode. I went to it. It's like
Speaker 1: youth designing better something.
Speaker 4: I oh, design it for us?
Speaker 1: Yes, that was it.
Speaker 4: Yes, okay, design it for us.
Speaker 2: Just for the record, So this is a group that
Speaker 2: claims to be a coalition of young activists and organizations
Speaker 2: fighting for social media and online platforms kN Teina, Young
Speaker 2: and Ultya. Yeah, okay, it is supposed to be led
Speaker 2: by young people. It is about the internet. Why do
Speaker 2: they have less than a thousand Instagram followers? They have
Speaker 2: currently eight hundred and sixty five Instagram followers.
Speaker 4: Like, I'm sorry, I know, like young people use social media.
Speaker 2: This is the target group that should be on Instagram
Speaker 2: to follow you. And also you are claiming to understand
Speaker 2: how the internet works.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know. I went, Producer Mike and myself
Speaker 1: went to their like they had a kickoff event and
Speaker 1: DC and we went it is I mean, I a
Speaker 1: will to say I agree with you, like I think,
Speaker 1: I mean, like this is just my opinion and I
Speaker 1: want to be clear that I I don't think that
Speaker 1: KOSA is good legislation. And there are lots of organizations,
Speaker 1: some of whom I trust and like, and I've worked
Speaker 1: with some of whom I don't really know much about
Speaker 1: and maybe are a little skeptical about if you know, uh,
Speaker 1: who feel differently about it. But I have to say
Speaker 1: how I feel like you're listening to this pod to
Speaker 1: get my take, and I have to be honest about
Speaker 1: that take, which is that I am suspect of the legislation.
Speaker 1: And if you want more information, like a really good
Speaker 1: deep dive, Joey actually did an amazing stuff mom ever
Speaker 1: told You episode breaking down some of the concerns and
Speaker 1: issues and origins of the Kids Online Safety Act and
Speaker 1: the way that it could really change the Internet, not
Speaker 1: just for young people but for everybody. So I definitely
Speaker 1: recommend anybody interested check that out. So I feel like
Speaker 1: I'm kind of here with a COOSA expert a little bit.
Speaker 4: Oh thank you, I try.
Speaker 2: I watched a lot of tiktoks for that episode, so
Speaker 2: some might call me an expert.
Speaker 1: Yes. So here's what's going on. So this week, Senate
Speaker 1: Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced his support for KOSA. The
Speaker 1: bill also secured fifteen new sponsors, including Schumer, for a
Speaker 1: total of sixty two co sponsors in the Senate, which
Speaker 1: would give the bill enough votes to pass in the Senate.
Speaker 1: So we're actually a lot closer to this bill becoming reality. Earlier,
Speaker 1: when this bill was introduced, y'all might remember that LGBTQ
Speaker 1: rights groups had been loudly objecting to COSA because of
Speaker 1: provisions that could be interpreted, specifically at the state level
Speaker 1: by attorneys general as defining what kind of content is
Speaker 1: harmful to children. You know, after talking about what happened
Speaker 1: to next, it doesn't take a fortune teller to assume
Speaker 1: that it would probably include lawmakers and attorneys general being like, oh,
Speaker 1: it is content pertaining to LGBTQ people that is harmful
Speaker 1: and thus needs to be, you know, kept from youth
Speaker 1: on the internet. We don't even really have to like speculate,
Speaker 1: because Marsha Blackburn and the Heritage Foundation very clearly and
Speaker 1: explicitly stated their intentions to use COSA to censor LGBTQ content.
Speaker 1: So this is not me like gleaning or reading tea leaves.
Speaker 1: This is meat is listening to the words that they
Speaker 1: said and very plain, explicit, clear English. So that's why
Speaker 1: LGBTQ groups were not down with COSA initially. But this
Speaker 1: week The Hill reports that several LGBTQ advocacy organized dropped
Speaker 1: their opposition to the Kids Online Safety Act after the
Speaker 1: sponsors updated the text, inching the bill even closer to passing.
Speaker 1: So the groups include Glad Glisten, the Human Rights Campaign,
Speaker 1: p FLAG, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the National
Speaker 1: Center for Transgender Equality, and the Trevor Project. All of
Speaker 1: these groups got together and sent a letter to Blumenthal,
Speaker 1: one of the sponsors of this bill, withdrawing their opposition
Speaker 1: following updates to the legislation. The letter reads, when COSA
Speaker 1: was first introduced, we had serious concerns that the bill
Speaker 1: could open the door to bad actors weaponizing the law
Speaker 1: to suppress affirming content for LGBTQ young people. Some early
Speaker 1: supporters of COSA even touted this is how they intended
Speaker 1: to use the law. The considerable changes that you have
Speaker 1: proposed to COSA in the draft released on February fifteenth
Speaker 1: significantly mitigate the risk of being misused to suppress LGBTQ
Speaker 1: plus resources or stifle young people's access to online communities
Speaker 1: as such, if this draft of the bill moves forward,
Speaker 1: our organizations will not app it's passage. So yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess some of these LGBTQ plus advocacy organizations are like, listen,
Speaker 1: if this moves on and becomes the law of the land,
Speaker 1: we will no longer object.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I'm I'm still I feel like if you are creating
Speaker 2: a law, and the intention of the law that you
Speaker 2: create when you create it is to block kids and teenagers'
Speaker 2: aspects to anything to do with like queerness or any
Speaker 2: like gender nonconformity or anything, in my opinion, it's kind
Speaker 2: of hard to redeem that and to find a way
Speaker 2: to be like, no, actually we fixed it so it's
Speaker 2: not homophobic and transphobic anymore, because like that's the point
Speaker 2: of the bill that you like, you outright said that
Speaker 2: this is why you're making this bill, And I don't like,
Speaker 2: what's the point of I don't know, And but yeah,
Speaker 2: I guess, you know, I guess at least it won't
Speaker 2: be suppressing queer content anymore, or it'll just be suppressing
Speaker 2: every other issue.
Speaker 3: That we have, you know, going on in the world
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, exactly, so one of the LGBTQ advocacy organizations
Speaker 1: is big beef with the previous draft of the bill
Speaker 1: was the bill's duty of Care standard, which was meant
Speaker 1: to mitigate the promotion of harmful content and the use
Speaker 1: of harmful or addictive features for teens and kids online,
Speaker 1: but again could be interpreted to deem anything involving you know,
Speaker 1: LGBTQ content as harmful and thus kept away from kids. Right, So,
Speaker 1: like it just had a pretty broad interpretation of what
Speaker 1: harmful content was and kind of left it up to
Speaker 1: states to decide what is or is not harmful content.
Speaker 1: So in this updated version of the bill, the duty
Speaker 1: of care is clarified to focus on the design, features
Speaker 1: and components of the platform rather than on the content
Speaker 1: hosted on those platforms. There's also a new bit added
Speaker 1: that says that the provisions in the bill cannot be
Speaker 1: the basis of any action brought by a state attorney
Speaker 1: general under a state law. So I can see how
Speaker 1: they're trying to tinker with it so that it's not
Speaker 1: just like left up to you know, specific attorneys generals
Speaker 1: at the state level to decide how to interpret this law.
Speaker 1: So this is tricky, right, like, I do agree that
Speaker 1: some of these changes made make the bill less obviously horrible.
Speaker 1: I will be the first person to acknowledge that. However,
Speaker 1: I am still, like you, Joey, just kind of not
Speaker 1: buying it. And this is my opinion to like take
Speaker 1: that for what it's worth. I think that KOSA is
Speaker 1: still a bill that will lead to all of us
Speaker 1: having to give over more information and more data in
Speaker 1: the name of keeping kids safe. Namely, I'm talking about
Speaker 1: age restrictions. Local governments already sell our private information and
Speaker 1: data today to data brokers, right like we know this,
Speaker 1: So I am to believe that requiring children and also
Speaker 1: everyone else to give over more data to tech companies
Speaker 1: and more like our our government IDs is going to
Speaker 1: keep us safe and keep our our data more private.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I simply do not believe this. Like this
Speaker 1: is not I just like it's not a circle that
Speaker 1: I can square. I simply do not believe it. I
Speaker 1: am completely against age restrictions in this way because I
Speaker 1: don't think it makes sense to hand over more of
Speaker 1: our data to tech companies in order to achieve better
Speaker 1: data privacy. It just like does not make sense to me,
Speaker 1: does not compute if somebody smarter than me out there
Speaker 1: doesn't agree and wants to explain to me how this
Speaker 1: is actually keeping anybody safer, I would love to hear it,
Speaker 1: but from my understanding, I just cannot see how it
Speaker 1: actually will.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think especially like the US is so we
Speaker 2: do not have data privacy laws, and like we are
Speaker 2: so behind on that, like in comparison to like Europe
Speaker 2: or whatever. So it's like it's so it's so especially
Speaker 2: kind of almost like insulting to like have this bill
Speaker 2: be introduced and be like framed as this thing that's
Speaker 2: about safety, Like it's just making the actual safety concerned
Speaker 2: like more dangerous and more likely to happen to you.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 5: Again, I feel like this is and I said, this
Speaker 5: is the episode that I just will spent to you,
Speaker 5: Like imagine having to put your full name and like
Speaker 5: your ID and quote all of that in when you
Speaker 5: just want to use the internet.
Speaker 4: Like, I don't know, that just seems to be not
Speaker 4: a good thing in my opinion.
Speaker 2: But uh yeah, again, I guess that's not universal that
Speaker 2: we all want data privacy.
Speaker 4: I guess I don't know.
Speaker 1: Well, you know what, showy, you and I are not
Speaker 1: the only people who feel this way, and a piece
Speaker 1: called Don't Fall for the latest changes to the Dangerous
Speaker 1: Kids Online Safety Act on the Electronic Frontier Foundation's blog,
Speaker 1: which we'll link to in the show notes, they argue
Speaker 1: exactly that right. They say that this updated version of
Speaker 1: the bill is still a vehicle for online censorship and
Speaker 1: increase surveillance, which we already know deeply impacts marginalized communities.
Speaker 1: So they write, in light of the overall politicization of
Speaker 1: youth education and online activity, we believe the following groups,
Speaker 1: just to name a few, will be endangered. LGBTQ plus
Speaker 1: youth will be at risk of having content, educational material,
Speaker 1: and their own online identities erased. Young people searching for
Speaker 1: sexual health and reproductive rights information will find their search
Speaker 1: results stymied. Teens and children and historically oppressed and marginalized
Speaker 1: groups will be unable to locate information about their history
Speaker 1: and shared experiences. Activist youth on either side of the aisle,
Speaker 1: such as those fighting for changes to climate laws, gun laws,
Speaker 1: or religious rights, will be siloed and unable to advocate
Speaker 1: and connect on platforms. Young people seeking mental health help
Speaker 1: and information will be blocked from finding it because even
Speaker 1: discussions of suicide, depression, anxiety, and eating disorders will be
Speaker 1: hidden from them. Teens hoping to combat the problem of addiction,
Speaker 1: either their own or that of friends and families and neighbors,
Speaker 1: will not have the resources they need to do so.
Speaker 1: Any young person seeking truthful news or information that can
Speaker 1: be considered depressing will find it harder to educate themselves
Speaker 1: and engage in current events and honest discussion. Adults in
Speaker 1: any of these groups who are unwilling to share identities
Speaker 1: will find themselves shunted onto a second class Internet, alongside
Speaker 1: the young people who have been denied access to this information.
Speaker 1: They go on to say we shouldn't kid ourselves that
Speaker 1: the latest version of COSA will stop state officials from
Speaker 1: targeting vulnerable communities, and KOSA leaves all of the bills'
Speaker 1: sensorial powers with the FTC, a five person commission nominated
Speaker 1: by the President. This allows a small group of federal
Speaker 1: officials appointed by the President to decide what content is
Speaker 1: dangerous for young people. Placing this enforcement power with the
Speaker 1: FTC is still a First Amendment problem. No government official,
Speaker 1: state or federal, has the power to dictate by law
Speaker 1: what people can read online, and that blog post really
Speaker 1: confirms my feelings on this legislation, even the updated version.
Speaker 1: Like I understand that these groups that I respect them,
Speaker 1: that I think do good work, are saying that they
Speaker 1: largely no longer take issue with it in the way
Speaker 1: they did before. But I still think it's pretty scary,
Speaker 1: and I just I am doing a bit of few
Speaker 1: sure casting imagining another Trump presidency where President Trump has
Speaker 1: the ability to nominate this five person FTC Commission and
Speaker 1: essentially can decide what people can read and post about online.
Speaker 2: It is pretty scary, it is, and I think even
Speaker 2: beyond just thinking about the future, like we're in the
Speaker 2: middle of a like crack down on information and content
Speaker 2: that's coming out about Palestine, about what's happening in Palestine,
Speaker 2: and a crackdown on protesters. Like in New York where
Speaker 2: I live, there have been multiple incidents of protesters they're
Speaker 2: being attacked by counter protesters and like kind of not
Speaker 2: you know that the police kind of clearly taking aside
Speaker 2: and letting certain actions slide versus others, or instances where
Speaker 2: people were being arrested just for using slogans or for
Speaker 2: putting up stickers, Like this isn't there's an active cracked
Speaker 2: on free speech that is happening under this administration. And
Speaker 2: I think this is why like this, I'm disappointed but
Speaker 2: not surprised. And I think in a lot of these
Speaker 2: like LGBT organizations, because I think there really is which
Speaker 2: is this is a whole other conversation about kind of
Speaker 2: mainstream LGBTQ plus like nonprofits and all of that. But
Speaker 2: I think like what's happening is kind of a lack
Speaker 2: of a refusal to show solidarity with other marginalized groups,
Speaker 2: because it's almost like saying like, oh, okay, we have
Speaker 2: a little bit of reassurance that this isn't gonna affect us.
Speaker 3: But like we're gonna let it happen to other people.
Speaker 2: And although you know, and all these groups intersect too,
Speaker 2: you know, lots of lots of queer.
Speaker 4: People deal with mental health issues.
Speaker 2: A lot of queer people also deal with issues of
Speaker 2: like you know, other like oppression, because there are other
Speaker 2: like part of our other marginalized groups as well. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I something I saw talking about this latest UH update
Speaker 2: brought up something that I hadn't really thought about it
Speaker 2: this way, but it the speaker was talking about how
Speaker 2: like COOSA comes from this place where it's the assumption
Speaker 2: is that social media and the internet is bad for
Speaker 2: children full stop, like there's no benefits from it. And
Speaker 2: they were like encouraging people to share stories about how
Speaker 2: social media or the internet has helped them because like
Speaker 2: it's helped them get out of you know, like a
Speaker 2: difficult situation or find community and all that. And I think, like,
Speaker 2: and we've talked about in the show, like I personally
Speaker 2: have like found a lot of community through the Internet.
Speaker 2: I've also experienced a lot of the bad sides of
Speaker 2: the Internet, but I've seen the good too. It has
Speaker 2: also helped me deal with you know, mental health issue
Speaker 2: like you know, depression and all that in the past.
Speaker 2: That being said, I also, you know can see how
Speaker 2: it's made certain issues worse and particularly like I don't know,
Speaker 2: like I was on Tumblr when like there was a
Speaker 2: lot of glorification of like eating disorders, but also the Internet. Yeah,
Speaker 2: like but it ultimately is just kind of a it's
Speaker 2: like we've created this new like space for people to
Speaker 2: be and it's it's hard to you know, just sort
Speaker 2: of preventing people from talking about things full stop because
Speaker 2: they can lead to harmful.
Speaker 4: Things.
Speaker 2: Happening or complicated discussions or whatever like that doesn't that's
Speaker 2: not effective. And again, like when you especially when you
Speaker 2: list out all of these things that are still going
Speaker 2: to be affected by this legulation, it's so clear to see, like, yeah,
Speaker 2: like you know, the Heritage Foundation might not be super
Speaker 2: happy that it's going to be a little bit harder
Speaker 2: for them to repress queer content, but they also have
Speaker 2: they have stakes in trying to repress content about reproductive
Speaker 2: health and sexual health and about you know, certain activist
Speaker 2: groups or our struggles or whatever. Like there's still kind
Speaker 2: of a political motivation there that I think has really
Speaker 2: scary implications for all of us, and really scary implications
Speaker 2: for just like freedom of speech in general.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm glad that you phrased it that way, And
Speaker 1: I want to be clear, I don't think that any
Speaker 1: president should have the power to like pick the five
Speaker 1: person group who gets to decide like what issues are
Speaker 1: okay and what issues aren't. But I think that there
Speaker 1: might I guess I say that to say that, like,
Speaker 1: I think there might be people I am not one
Speaker 1: of them, but I think there might be people listening
Speaker 1: who are like, well, you know, Biden would be fine.
Speaker 1: If Biden had that power, it would be okay. And
Speaker 1: the answer is no, it wouldn't be okay because, as
Speaker 1: you said, there is currently a crackdown on all kinds
Speaker 1: of speech and all kinds of political and social expressions
Speaker 1: with Biden in the White House. So no, that's not
Speaker 1: the case. But also like no president should have that power,
Speaker 1: full stop. And I think you're exactly right that against
Speaker 1: the backdrop of I don't know, I can only really
Speaker 1: call it like a very chilling era of a crackdown
Speaker 1: on free expression happening before our very eyes, but in
Speaker 1: this like almost gas lighting way where it's like, no,
Speaker 1: it's not be talking about like you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: It's it's like a very weird time.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Bridget, are you saying that with Biden as president?
Speaker 4: We can't just go back to brunch.
Speaker 1: We can just go back to listen, if Biden was
Speaker 1: in the White House, I wouldn't be in the street.
Speaker 1: That would be at brunch, Joey.
Speaker 4: I go to court. Everything's signed, everything's great.
Speaker 1: More after a quick break, let's get right back into it, okay. So,
Speaker 1: speaking of everything being on fire and awful, I regret
Speaker 1: to inform you that new AI generated deep fakes have
Speaker 1: just dropped. I almost didn't include this because lord, am
Speaker 1: I tired of talking about this? Like, I hope the
Speaker 1: day comes that I can shut up about this and
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to be something I'm talking about all
Speaker 1: the time. But unfortunately that day is not today because
Speaker 1: podcaster Bobby Elfoff. Do you know Bobby elf Off? Her
Speaker 1: thing is kind of like she people call her like
Speaker 1: a NEPO baby or an industry plant. Her thing is
Speaker 1: kind of like doing cringey kind of awkward interviews with
Speaker 1: like rappers. Do you know Bobby?
Speaker 2: I don't, but I do get a lot of those
Speaker 2: like tiktoks where it's like a random clip from a
Speaker 2: podcast that seems like it would be this kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you've probably seen Bobby's podcast. So Bobby is
Speaker 1: just the latest target of viral AI non consensual deep
Speaker 1: fake videos, specifically on Twitter. So, as we've talked about
Speaker 1: on the show, this has happened a lot before. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: it happened to Taylor Swift, it happened to Marvel Star,
Speaker 1: Social Gomez. Social Gomes is seventeen, so a minor and
Speaker 1: with all of these viral deep fakes. All of them
Speaker 1: have really gotten a lot of traction, specifically on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and now a new report in The Washington Post is
Speaker 1: shedding life on why Twitter has kind of become the
Speaker 1: platform for deep fix going viral. Now, I have to say,
Speaker 1: none of this is terribly surprising to me. If you
Speaker 1: listen to this podcast, none of this is probably terribly
Speaker 1: surprising to you. It is the kind of thing that like, yes.
Speaker 4: I wonder what the problem is.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sure you could guess. Honestly, I truly
Speaker 1: was going to add in a clip from an earlier
Speaker 1: podcast episode that we did when Elon Musk first took
Speaker 1: over Twitter and started making changes, because literally I was like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this is going to happen, This is going to happen,
Speaker 1: This is going to happen. I thought that would sound
Speaker 1: very obnoxious and probably like too smug, because nobody likes
Speaker 1: somebody who says I told you so. But listeners just
Speaker 1: know I could have added that if I wanted to,
Speaker 1: because it exists. Because you didn't have to be a
Speaker 1: fortune teller or a mind reader to tell the hell
Speaker 1: that the changes that Elon Musk made was going to
Speaker 1: lead to on Twitter.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, I think I think you get to say
Speaker 4: I told you so.
Speaker 1: You know what I'm going to say it, Hey, Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: I told you so so. Just like those Taylor Swift images,
Speaker 1: the images of Bobby although started on message boards so
Speaker 1: not on Twitter. When they first started on message boards,
Speaker 1: they had a relatively small audience. The post report of
Speaker 1: the videos got one hundred and seventy eight thousand views
Speaker 1: over the last six months on message boards like four chan,
Speaker 1: But then someone brought those videos to Twitter, where they
Speaker 1: blew up. This week. It was reposted so many times
Speaker 1: that Althoff's name was trending on the platform. In just
Speaker 1: nine hours, the clip received more than four point five
Speaker 1: million views, twenty five times more than the porn site's viewership,
Speaker 1: according to data from an industry analyst. So one of
Speaker 1: the most popular posts on Twitter directing viewers to the
Speaker 1: video remained online for more than thirty hours. Another post,
Speaker 1: which promised to send the full Bobby Althoff leaks to
Speaker 1: everyone who like and comment, was online for twenty hours.
Speaker 1: Twitter only removed it after The Washington Post reached out
Speaker 1: to them for a comment on the fake videos. By
Speaker 1: the video was removed, it had been viewed more than
Speaker 1: five million times. So this is obviously a problem, and
Speaker 1: Twitter is a unique platform when it comes to how
Speaker 1: and why deep fakes spread so easily. So even though
Speaker 1: Twitter was one of the first platforms to outrite ban
Speaker 1: synthetic AI generated content and deep fakes, this was long
Speaker 1: before Musk took over. Back in twenty twenty, Twitter executive
Speaker 1: said that they recognized the threat of misleading synthetic media
Speaker 1: and they were committed to doing this right. But when
Speaker 1: Elon Musk took over, changes that he made early on
Speaker 1: to Twitter have basically gone on to make Twitter not
Speaker 1: just a place where people post deep fakes, but also
Speaker 1: a place where people can be ensured that their deep
Speaker 1: fakes will get lots of traction and lots of eyeballs. Like, seriously,
Speaker 1: go back and listen to some of our earlier episodes.
Speaker 1: You didn't have to be a genius or a rocket
Speaker 1: scientist to figure this out. So here's how the Post
Speaker 1: reports it. Under owner Elon Musk, x has now become
Speaker 1: one of the most powerful and prominent distribution channels for
Speaker 1: non consensual deep fake pornat not only helps the phony
Speaker 1: photos and videos go viral in a low moderation environment,
Speaker 1: but it can also end up rewarding deep fake spreaders
Speaker 1: who use manipulated porn to make a buck. So the
Speaker 1: way that Elon is running Twitter has basically turned the
Speaker 1: platform into a deep fake marketplace and also advertising machine
Speaker 1: where bad actors can make money by exploiting women through
Speaker 1: these gross fake photos. If there is one thing that
Speaker 1: I hope that people take away from this bit of
Speaker 1: the show is that it is not just creeps posting
Speaker 1: gross fake images of women. It is creeps who are
Speaker 1: making money posting fake images of women, and Twitter is
Speaker 1: enabling them to do so more effectively by giving the
Speaker 1: money for doing it and by essentially allowing them to
Speaker 1: market and advertise their creepy, gross fake images of women. So,
Speaker 1: to be clear, in my book, both Twitter and Elon
Speaker 1: Musk personally are complicit in a criminal money making enterprise.
Speaker 1: Like that is how I see this. I don't see
Speaker 1: it as just disparate creeps posting deep fake images. To me,
Speaker 1: this is a criminal money making enterprise that Elon Musk
Speaker 1: is actively engaged in. So here's how the whole thing works.
Speaker 1: So y'all know that Twitter Blue subscribers that get a
Speaker 1: blue check are paying to in part have their content
Speaker 1: get more visibility on Twitter, and because Twitter offers payouts
Speaker 1: for posts that get like lots of engagements and lots
Speaker 1: of views on the platform, many of the people sharing
Speaker 1: those deep fake videos of Bobby have a blue check mark,
Speaker 1: which also means that they could be making money from
Speaker 1: that video. That is, if Elon Musk actually pays as
Speaker 1: he says he is. We've talked about that quite a bit.
Speaker 1: And you even have people who are trying to boost
Speaker 1: the videos engagement by tweeting that it's the quote real
Speaker 1: leaked Bobby footage, as if to tell people like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's like fake Bobby videos floating around, but I have
Speaker 1: the real Bobby video. You're gonna want to click here
Speaker 1: to see this real content, or saying like we'll DM
Speaker 1: the longer, real video to anybody who shares this, because
Speaker 1: the more people who share and engage, the more money
Speaker 1: they stand to make from Elon Musk's you know, payment program.
Speaker 1: And so these people are really exploiting Twitter's lax rules, moderation,
Speaker 1: and pay to play engagement mechanisms to essentially create trailers
Speaker 1: to put on Twitter to get people to buy longer
Speaker 1: deep fake videos, which is why they're not keeping them
Speaker 1: on four Chan. Right, So, like a lot of these
Speaker 1: videos and a lot of this content, it starts on
Speaker 1: four Chan and then it gets like, you know, kind
Speaker 1: of a niche audience. But the reason why they're putting
Speaker 1: them on Twitter is because they want more people to
Speaker 1: see it, because they have a marketplace. They then will
Speaker 1: like ask people to give them money in order to
Speaker 1: get more deep fake images. So essentially it's like a
Speaker 1: coming attractions for AI generated exploitive deep sakes of women.
Speaker 1: One person was offering to sell a longer fake video
Speaker 1: of Bobby for ten dollars payable via PayPal, according to
Speaker 1: The Washington Post. So this is like a business enterprise,
Speaker 1: complete with advertising platform support and payment processors like PayPal.
Speaker 1: So we already have platforms like four Chan, which are
Speaker 1: you know, message boards known for this kind of harmful
Speaker 1: content that are kind of fringe. But Twitter used to
Speaker 1: be very different from four Chan right before Must took
Speaker 1: over it. It's where journalists and elected officials are posting content.
Speaker 1: So the fact that we're seeing Twitter kind of become
Speaker 1: more like four Chan under Elon Musk is really telling
Speaker 1: to me, right, Like, it really seems like if this
Speaker 1: is going to be the kind of stuff that is
Speaker 1: tolerated on Twitter. It really says a lot about how
Speaker 1: far Twitter has fallen under Elon Musk's leadership. Genevievo, an
Speaker 1: analyst who studies deep fake, says that Twitter is four
Speaker 1: Chan two. It's emboldening future malicious figures to coordinate towards
Speaker 1: demeaning more popular women with synthetic footage and imagery. So
Speaker 1: I should say Twitter technically does ban non consensual nudity,
Speaker 1: but there is basically no enforcement of that because the
Speaker 1: team that handles it Musk basically like fired and laid
Speaker 1: off and got it as soon as he took over.
Speaker 1: And I also just think that like Elon Musk just
Speaker 1: doesn't care, Like he could not signal that more. If
Speaker 1: he says he cares, I think that he is lying
Speaker 1: because he knows that people are upset. But I just
Speaker 1: genuinely don't think he sees this as the big issue
Speaker 1: and the big threat that it is.
Speaker 4: Elon Musk doesn't care about women, what I know. I mean,
Speaker 4: he's surprised.
Speaker 1: He seems like the kind of guy who would have
Speaker 1: a stellar track record when it comes to respecting women.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, that is definitely what I associate him with.
Speaker 1: So after the Taylor Swift Deep things went viral, y'all
Speaker 1: might recall that Musk was like, I'm going to open
Speaker 1: a whole team and Austin dedicated to content moderation for Twitter.
Speaker 1: But the day before these Bobby Outoff videos went viral,
Speaker 1: Musk was just laughing off the need for any kind
Speaker 1: of real content moderations. He shared a post that called
Speaker 1: content moderation a quote digital chastity belt and a steaming
Speaker 1: pile of horsemenre enforced only by digital tyrants, saying let's
Speaker 1: give a big middle finger to content moderation and embrace
Speaker 1: the chaos of the Internet. You know who probably does
Speaker 1: not want to embrace this chaos, Women like Taylor Swift
Speaker 1: and Social Gomez and Bobby Althof and any other woman
Speaker 1: or girl who has been targeted and depicted in these
Speaker 1: non consensual images. It is just such a clown show
Speaker 1: over there. Like the fact that Bobby Althos's name was
Speaker 1: trending on Twitter in relation to this was wild to me,
Speaker 1: Like the trends used to be moderated by humans who
Speaker 1: could like manually delete trends that were harmful or rule breaking.
Speaker 1: But of course Musk fire the people who do that.
Speaker 1: So now a woman's name can be trending for hours
Speaker 1: on the platform, and the reason why it is trending
Speaker 1: is because of deep fake images of her on the platform.
Speaker 1: It's basically free advertising for this rule breaking behavior. And
Speaker 1: you know, something else unique about Twitter is that it's
Speaker 1: the only platform that allows nudity. So with the rise
Speaker 1: of AI deep fakes, I don't know. I just think that, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know that Twitter is going to be able
Speaker 1: to really be responsible for sorting out what is consensual
Speaker 1: real nudity and what isn't. I just don't think they're
Speaker 1: really up for the task.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's it's a conscious choice that they're not
Speaker 2: for the task. I think it's important to remember because again,
Speaker 2: like they this is a problem that could be fixed
Speaker 2: if they, you know, or at least sort of alleviated
Speaker 2: to some extent. I think if they really wanted to,
Speaker 2: and it's clear that they do not care.
Speaker 1: I completely agree. And this is just my opinion, and
Speaker 1: I would be curious to know what folks think. I
Speaker 1: have a sense that whoever is making these deep fakes
Speaker 1: and then releasing them on Twitter specifically is choosing like
Speaker 1: a specific kind of public figure. I think they're choosing
Speaker 1: famous women who are perceived to be like annoying in
Speaker 1: some way, and I think it's I think it's about
Speaker 1: kind of like almost like a test of like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, this woman is annoying or like she's everywhere,
Speaker 1: she's like oversaturated. So if I make a cruel, sexually
Speaker 1: humiliating deep thake of her, maybe people will like like it.
Speaker 1: Like I almost I almost feel like there's something about
Speaker 1: the women that they're targeting that is like, I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm way off base here. I think they're picking
Speaker 1: a specific kind of female public figure because they're not
Speaker 1: expecting the public to loudly decry it when it's someone
Speaker 1: who is perceived as like quote overexposed. So I think
Speaker 1: it's I'm curious to see how this goes. I think
Speaker 1: that nobody deserves this. I think that even if it's
Speaker 1: somebody that you that you think like, oh, this is
Speaker 1: the person is a billionaire, this person's very rich, I
Speaker 1: see them everywhere, blah blah blah, nobody deserves this right,
Speaker 1: Like it's completely fine to not like somebody without making
Speaker 1: sexually humiliating content of them that is meant to take
Speaker 1: them down, humiliate them, objectify them, and remind them and
Speaker 1: the public that they do not have agency over their
Speaker 1: body and their choices. And so I think it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: I think it's even more discussing that Elon Musk is
Speaker 1: essentially laughing this off as his platform becomes a unique
Speaker 1: vector for advertising this this kind of material. And I
Speaker 1: think that Elon Musk at some point needs to be
Speaker 1: held accountable for this, Like he can read this Washington
Speaker 1: Post article as well as I can and see how
Speaker 1: his choices have specifically turned the platform into a marketplace
Speaker 1: for this kind of behavior. And yeah, I guess I'll
Speaker 1: just leave it there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I want to add one word thing which I
Speaker 2: think also it's especially with like you know, talking about
Speaker 2: Kosa earlier in the episode. The problem isn't nudity. The
Speaker 2: problem isn't explicit material. The problem is the fact that
Speaker 2: this is taken without consent. This is material that is
Speaker 2: like literally manufactured without any consent, without any action on
Speaker 2: behalf of the person.
Speaker 4: It's like for it.
Speaker 2: Like like I don't know, I mean this is again
Speaker 2: like this is another discussion, but like I'm of the
Speaker 2: belief that like whatever, like poorn exists on the internet.
Speaker 2: Nudity exists people like should you know, be able to
Speaker 2: access that.
Speaker 4: I think that is like a fair thing to say,
Speaker 4: But like.
Speaker 2: The part of this that is disgusting and messed up
Speaker 2: is the fact that it is non consensual and the
Speaker 2: fact that these are again oftentimes the same people that
Speaker 2: are you know, supporting or like participating in efforts to
Speaker 2: crack down on sex workers. That you know, if you
Speaker 2: really just wanted to have like more porn in the world,
Speaker 2: you would think you would just support sex workers and
Speaker 2: people that do that stuff professionally.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it's not like the problem here, is it.
Speaker 2: And I think this is important to clarify again too,
Speaker 2: with especially talking about the Kosa story, because I think
Speaker 2: that isn't like I can easily see how this sort
Speaker 2: of story would be twisted to be like, see, we
Speaker 2: just need to get rid of all. No, the problem
Speaker 2: is like, this is an issue with deep fakes. This
Speaker 2: is an issue with a lack of respect for boundaries
Speaker 2: and consent. And you know, this is about sexual violence.
Speaker 2: This is not a condemnation of the fact that you know,
Speaker 2: people are being portrayed a certain way or that nudity
Speaker 2: is like making its way onto these platforms, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And we actually talked about this last week, how
Speaker 1: like creeps are also using AI to like make reverse
Speaker 1: deep fakes that are also not okay, where they women
Speaker 1: who consentraally want to be in various stages of undress
Speaker 1: on the Internet, they use AI to cover them up.
Speaker 1: It's not about sexuality, and it's not about you know, nudity.
Speaker 1: It is about taking away someone's agency without their consent.
Speaker 1: Is about telling them that their choices for their own
Speaker 1: body don't matter because we have the technology to strip
Speaker 1: you from that choice. And like you said, Joey, if
Speaker 1: you want to see nudity on the internet, God love them.
Speaker 1: There are no less than a million people out there
Speaker 1: who are in various stages of undress on the Internet.
Speaker 1: But it's not really about that, right, It is about
Speaker 1: I want this person who has not given me consent.
Speaker 1: I want them to know that I can depict them
Speaker 1: nude on the Internet against their will, without their consent.
Speaker 1: It is about power. It is about humiliation. It is
Speaker 1: about stripping women of their agency, not about like exppressions
Speaker 1: of sexuality or nudity, like full stop. So I do
Speaker 1: have a little bit of good Twitter news for folks.
Speaker 1: So back when Elon musk first bought Twitter and laid
Speaker 1: off a bunch of staffers, he was particularly cruel to
Speaker 1: the staff in Ghana, Africa. The Twitter office in Ghana
Speaker 1: had just been set up, so many of these staffers
Speaker 1: had moved from other countries to take jobs at Twitter,
Speaker 1: only to be let go with no notice a few
Speaker 1: months in after Elon took over. They were promised a
Speaker 1: month of wages under their contract and under Ghanaan employment law,
Speaker 1: staff have to be paid out if they are laid
Speaker 1: off for redundancy, which these staffers were. But as y'all know,
Speaker 1: Elon musk Aka sharrees, she don't pay. He doesn't pay,
Speaker 1: he doesn't pay his bills. He rap owes money all
Speaker 1: over town. Who doesn't pay, So these staffers threatened to
Speaker 1: sue to get their money. Twitter missed deadline after deadline
Speaker 1: and essentially ghosted them, probably thinking that these you know,
Speaker 1: Ghanaian Twitter staffers would just shut up and go away.
Speaker 1: But they didn't shut up and go away, so after
Speaker 1: a year they finally have gotten their payout. One of
Speaker 1: the staffers says, it is difficult when the world's richest
Speaker 1: man is owing you money and closure. I have a
Speaker 1: say like shout out to the staffers for staying on it.
Speaker 1: I'm happy they got their money. But I also have
Speaker 1: to say, like watching Elon Musk do rich guys shit
Speaker 1: like oh I'm going to Mars, Oh I'm gonna do this,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do that while he is at her owing
Speaker 1: you money. That would shat my ass. But I guess
Speaker 1: it's like easy to do a bunch of rich guy
Speaker 1: shit when you don't pay your bills. When you can
Speaker 1: rack up a bunch of bills and not.
Speaker 2: Pay Yeah, how uh do you expect him to get
Speaker 2: so rich if he has to pay for things like
Speaker 2: bills and labor? And I don't know, that's just too
Speaker 2: much for one guy.
Speaker 1: I mean I can like go to a restaurant and
Speaker 1: like pop bottles and you know, get a private jet
Speaker 1: if I don't pay for anybody can. If that's if
Speaker 1: that's the secret to living a wealthy lifestyle, Like anybody
Speaker 1: can do that, Just go rack up a bunch of
Speaker 1: bills and just not pay.
Speaker 4: Just something.
Speaker 1: And I have to give a major shout out to
Speaker 1: CNN's Larry and Medoo for really staying on this story.
Speaker 1: He first reported it back when Elon must took over
Speaker 1: Twitter and stayed on this beat. So thank you for
Speaker 1: helping to get this accountability. Larry, and I have one
Speaker 1: other quick piece of good news kind of her me specifically,
Speaker 1: which is that I feel like, you know, I've been
Speaker 1: trying to use alternatives to Twitter, like Blue Sky and
Speaker 1: threads more, and I feel like I have gotten my
Speaker 1: first truly good bit of Blue Sky low stakes drama.
Speaker 1: That Joey, if you will, re opened this episode with
Speaker 1: me explaining some drama to you. I would love to
Speaker 1: close with explaining a little bit of low stakes drama
Speaker 1: to you, if that's okay.
Speaker 4: Cours always here for the drama.
Speaker 1: So someone on Blue Sky there they unfortunately had a
Speaker 1: death in their family and they posted a picture of
Speaker 1: a woman who was wearing like a big hat and
Speaker 1: sunglasses who came to the funeral. And this person was like,
Speaker 1: this person crashed my family member's funeral and they ate
Speaker 1: a bunch of free food. And it wasn't until my
Speaker 1: family went up to them and was like, hey, who
Speaker 1: do you know here? Like how did you know the
Speaker 1: deceased that we realized they were a funeral crasher. I'm
Speaker 1: so angry, and rather than people being like, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: really messed up for someone to do this, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people were like, well, what if they
Speaker 1: just wanted a meal? What if they were just lowely?
Speaker 1: You're so rude not letting this person crash the funeral.
Speaker 6: Oh no, wait, no, this is just I uh, it's
Speaker 6: the Twitter thing where if you're not oh my god.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: So this is how I feel like, I know that
Speaker 1: Blue Sky might actually be popping because you've gotten our
Speaker 1: first like truly deranged group response to somebody's like very
Speaker 1: legitimate complaint, like what kind of asshole doesn't want a
Speaker 1: stranger at a family funeral? Like so I think, I think,
Speaker 1: I don't know. It lifted my spirits to see this.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, yeah, nature is healing. We're having
Speaker 1: this kind of discourse again, and so yeah, maybe blue
Speaker 1: Sky really will be popping now that it is a
Speaker 1: place to have truly deranged discourse in one place.
Speaker 4: You know what, it is a.
Speaker 2: Pillar of our society, and I'm I'm glad that's continuing.
Speaker 2: I'm glad I'm getting to hear everyone these unsolicited takes.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, yes, give me your bad takes. I
Speaker 1: want them to wash over me. Joey one person whose
Speaker 1: takes I always think are good? Are yours? Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being here and helping us break down
Speaker 1: these stories.
Speaker 2: Of course, Bridget happy to be here as always.
Speaker 1: Where can folks keep up with what your up to?
Speaker 2: You can find me on social media and you know
Speaker 2: on on Instagram and Twitter for the moment, did not
Speaker 2: yet make a blue sky but I should be doing
Speaker 2: that tune but yeah. You can find me at Patna Pratt.
Speaker 2: That's p A T T n O T p r
Speaker 2: A T t uh. You can also check out Afterlives
Speaker 2: the Leley and Polanco story as a series that I
Speaker 2: just worked on that wrapped up about a month ago. Uh,
Speaker 2: check out that spiny episode that's gonna be in the
Speaker 2: notes but end.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm everywhere.
Speaker 1: So check out Shoeby's work and thanks to all of
Speaker 1: you for listening. I will see you on the internet.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for ways to support the show, check
Speaker 1: out our merch store at tegoty 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 teangody 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 Todd.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss 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 Toad. 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.