Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. He there,
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland.
Speaker 1: I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech
Speaker 1: are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday,
Speaker 1: May the fourth be with you. Yeah, big Star Wars
Speaker 1: nerds over here at iHeart as you might imagine, So
Speaker 1: we've got a whole email chain with podcasters you're probably
Speaker 1: familiar with, and a lot of producers that you may
Speaker 1: have heard of, but you know, aren't always on Mike
Speaker 1: sharing hilarious Star Wars related photographs. I wish I could
Speaker 1: share them with you, but instead we're gonna go through
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of tech news now. On Tuesday, I
Speaker 1: talked about how the Writers Guild of America or wg A,
Speaker 1: which represents writers for TV and film here in the
Speaker 1: United States, is now on strike. The negotiations between the
Speaker 1: WGA and various Hollywood studios could not reach a satisfactory agreement.
Speaker 1: So here we are. And I also talked about how
Speaker 1: one of the concerns that the WGA has and one
Speaker 1: of the reasons that I'm covering the story on tech
Speaker 1: stuff at all, has to do with generative AI. Now
Speaker 1: I've got a little bit more information thanks to Vice,
Speaker 1: which has an article titled GPT four can't replace striking
Speaker 1: TV writers, but studios are going to try a sidebar,
Speaker 1: Vice is trying to avoid bankruptcy right now, and that
Speaker 1: company actually has some really great investigative journalism across all
Speaker 1: brackets of news. So those of y'all who don't use
Speaker 1: ad blockers on your browsers might want to head over
Speaker 1: device and scan the articles. I have no connection device whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I just hate to see a company that has really
Speaker 1: pushed for some great journalism. I mean, there's other stuff
Speaker 1: on there too, but there's some really great journalism on there.
Speaker 1: I hate to see him in trouble. Anyway, back to
Speaker 1: the story, so Vice's Chloe Shang explains that one of
Speaker 1: the WGA's demands was for studios to promise that AI
Speaker 1: would not become part of the creative experience for film
Speaker 1: and television, that AI would not be used to do
Speaker 1: stuff like punch up a script or to generate a
Speaker 1: draft of a story, or otherwise perform work that should
Speaker 1: be done by a union represented writer. The WGA's concern
Speaker 1: is that studios would lean on AI to do some
Speaker 1: of the early work. It's not that AI would completely
Speaker 1: replace human writers, but rather that studios might use AI
Speaker 1: to do like a very rough draft or even just
Speaker 1: a treatment, and then would hand that over to a
Speaker 1: human writer to polish it up into something that's actually usable.
Speaker 1: But the human writer would be doing so at a
Speaker 1: lower rate because the writer technically wouldn't be coming up
Speaker 1: with their own ideas. Instead, they're refining an already existing idea.
Speaker 1: So this is kind of like if you've got a
Speaker 1: script and you go out and you get a writer
Speaker 1: to come in and read the script and punch it
Speaker 1: up a little bit, that second writer isn't going to
Speaker 1: be making the same amount as the primary writer did.
Speaker 1: And so what they're saying is you're just trying to
Speaker 1: push more work over to AI, and then we're left
Speaker 1: to pick up these terrible ideas that AI is creating,
Speaker 1: and we're expected to make something of them, and at
Speaker 1: a lower rate of pay. The studios have balked at
Speaker 1: the WGA's demands, saying that this decision should be made
Speaker 1: year by year because they are framing AI as a
Speaker 1: sort of advancement in tech and that the industry shouldn't
Speaker 1: be ignoring advancements like that. The WGA counters with the
Speaker 1: observation that studios have been pushing writers to move toward
Speaker 1: a more gig economy model, so kind of a work
Speaker 1: for a higher situation where writers have to hustle gig
Speaker 1: to gig, with writers' rooms getting smaller in the process,
Speaker 1: which in turn means they are even fewer opportunities for
Speaker 1: writers to find work. And y'all, I'm a gen x feller.
Speaker 1: I grew up before the gig economy was really a
Speaker 1: widespread thing, and I don't think I have seen a
Speaker 1: more destructive environment that you know, doesn't directly tie into
Speaker 1: really terrible stuff like racism and misogyny. The gig economy
Speaker 1: is terrible. It clearly forces tons of people to work
Speaker 1: themselves to exhaustion and constantly they stress about whether the
Speaker 1: money they make this week will pay the rent next week.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, the companies that are benefiting from those workers
Speaker 1: are always figuring out ways to keep more and more
Speaker 1: of the cash for themselves. Now, you could just say
Speaker 1: same as it ever was, but it's really more blatant
Speaker 1: with the gig economy anyway. This is the reason unions
Speaker 1: exist to provide workers protection in aggregate because a one
Speaker 1: on one basis there is an undeniable power imbalance between
Speaker 1: the employers and the employed. So I'm glad the WGA
Speaker 1: exists to fight these fights and to lay these this groundwork.
Speaker 1: I don't know how that's going to turn out. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the strike is still in progress, no agreement has been reached.
Speaker 1: I don't know if the studios will budge on this,
Speaker 1: but I think it is important to set those rules now,
Speaker 1: because even if you argue that generative AI at the
Speaker 1: moment isn't good enough to even do this, that wouldn't
Speaker 1: stop studios from trying, and it doesn't stop them from
Speaker 1: trying again as the AI gets better. So setting out
Speaker 1: rules to protect unionized workers makes sense. Over in Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: the US government is going to play host to executives
Speaker 1: from companies like Microsoft and Alphabet that's Google's parent company,
Speaker 1: in order to hold a discussion about AI. Theoretically, this
Speaker 1: meeting will explore the possible risks that AI could pose
Speaker 1: and the methods that companies should use to guard against
Speaker 1: those risks. But y'all, I've watched politicians talk to tech
Speaker 1: experts before, and it often feels like the two sides
Speaker 1: are speaking totally different languages. Hopefully the questions that these
Speaker 1: executives are going to get asked are going to be relevant,
Speaker 1: and hopefully the answers they give will be direct, but honestly,
Speaker 1: that's a long shot. The motivation behind the talks, however,
Speaker 1: is a very good one. How can we make best
Speaker 1: use of AI while avoiding as many serious problems as possible.
Speaker 1: Already with generative AI, we're seeing numerous issues ranging from
Speaker 1: copyright concerns, plagiarism, answer accuracy, the tendency for AI to
Speaker 1: quote unquote hallucinate and generate wrong answers, and misinformation. And
Speaker 1: there's a lot more to really consider. And that's generative AI.
Speaker 1: There's lots of other versions of AI we need to
Speaker 1: really consider. There's also the concerns about how it could
Speaker 1: impact the job market, as we see with the WGA strike,
Speaker 1: as well as the CEO of IBM's recent revelation that
Speaker 1: the company may consider AI to fill in as many
Speaker 1: as seven eight hundred empty position over the next few
Speaker 1: years rather than using a human being in that job.
Speaker 1: There is a lot of ground to cover here, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure next week I'll have some sort of update
Speaker 1: to this story. The White House isn't the only US
Speaker 1: government entity looking into potential risks with AI. The Federal
Speaker 1: Trade Commission, or FTC's chief has said that the agency
Speaker 1: is investigating whether AI could create more disparity between companies,
Speaker 1: saying that it could potentially enhance the power of dominant
Speaker 1: firms according to Reuter's so, in other words, it could
Speaker 1: become an anti competitive risk. The FTC chair said that
Speaker 1: the agency is looking into how AI could make some
Speaker 1: problems much worse, such as allowing companies to more effectively
Speaker 1: commit fraud. For example, in the wake of spectacular collapses
Speaker 1: like the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, there's increased pressure to uncover
Speaker 1: and address fraud before it can have a massive impact
Speaker 1: on investors and customers. Con also pointed out that AI
Speaker 1: tools could potentially decrease competition by allowing for price fixing
Speaker 1: strategies across industries, that it's not a far fetched idea.
Speaker 1: We've actually seen something similar to that play out in
Speaker 1: a microcosm, because in Texas there's this ongoing issue where
Speaker 1: landlords have been using a specific company in order to
Speaker 1: set rental prices, and there are class action lawsuits that
Speaker 1: are saying that this amounts to price fixing, that it's
Speaker 1: a collusion offect across landowners who are then setting rental
Speaker 1: prices at exorbitant levels because there's no competition. There's nowhere
Speaker 1: to go where you could pay rent less at somewhere else,
Speaker 1: because this centralized service has removed all competition, and that
Speaker 1: you effectively have price fixing, even if the landlords themselves
Speaker 1: didn't intentionally set out to do that. That's the effect
Speaker 1: that this approach has. Oh Brave New World to have
Speaker 1: such artificial intelligence in it. The Verge reports that Microsoft
Speaker 1: is unveiling some new bells and whistles with the bing chatbot. Now.
Speaker 1: As you may recall, Microsoft is leveraging open ais Chat
Speaker 1: GPT to power the bing chatbot, which, unlike open ais
Speaker 1: Chat GPT, actually has access to real time information. Chat
Speaker 1: GPT's info cuts off at twenty twenty one. It doesn't
Speaker 1: have information more recent than that. Bing is different now.
Speaker 1: Apparently users on Edge will be able to use Bing
Speaker 1: to do stuff like find a restaurant and book a reservation,
Speaker 1: all within bing chat, without having to go back and
Speaker 1: forth between multiple websites like review sites and the restaurant's
Speaker 1: own site, and then maybe something like open table or whatever.
Speaker 1: So you might have a conversation like, where's a good
Speaker 1: place to take my partner for their birthday? They are
Speaker 1: allergic to shellfish? And then the chat bought would make
Speaker 1: a few recommendations, and then you might say, okay, well
Speaker 1: what's the menu for place X? And it gives you
Speaker 1: some examples and then you say, great, make a reservation
Speaker 1: for Friday night at nine pm for two, and it
Speaker 1: takes care of it. It's a lot like what Google
Speaker 1: showed off at a Google ioevan a few years ago
Speaker 1: with its assistant feature. In that demonstration, the company showed
Speaker 1: how the assistant could pose as an actual human being
Speaker 1: and make reservations on your behalf over the phone, which was,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, kind of creepy. Bing's approach is obviously
Speaker 1: a bit different. It's web based, it's not necessarily making
Speaker 1: phone calls on your behalf. The Verge also says that
Speaker 1: another feature lets you use Bing to find content to
Speaker 1: watch without having to search around to see what platform
Speaker 1: has what. So instead of saying, oh, I want to
Speaker 1: watch the latest episode of Barry, but I didn't remember
Speaker 1: that it's on HBO Max. How do I find it?
Speaker 1: Do I just start searching? Do I go to different platforms?
Speaker 1: Do I look to see if it's on their pages.
Speaker 1: With this, you would just tell bing and Chat and
Speaker 1: it would send you to the right location. You would
Speaker 1: just say I want to watch the latest episode of
Speaker 1: Barry Boom. It's into HBO Max. So useful in that
Speaker 1: in that regard as well. And if you want to
Speaker 1: learn more about the various features that are being unveiled,
Speaker 1: you can go to the Verge. They have an article
Speaker 1: titled Microsoft's bing Chat Butt gets smarter with restaurant bookings,
Speaker 1: image results and more. Speaking of end more, we'll have
Speaker 1: more after we take this quick break. We're back and
Speaker 1: now we switch from AI to some Meta stories not
Speaker 1: Twitter at this time. Meta, So first up, France's antitrust
Speaker 1: agency has leveled a mandate against Meta. The company has
Speaker 1: to change how it gives access to ad verification partners.
Speaker 1: So essentially, what the agency is arguing is that Meta
Speaker 1: has this dominant position when it comes to online advertising
Speaker 1: and it has used that to dictate terms to partners,
Speaker 1: and moreover, that Meta needs to be more transparent with
Speaker 1: its analytics and to allow more ad verification companies access
Speaker 1: to those analytics. Ad verification companies what they do is
Speaker 1: I mean it's in the name. They're essentially trying to
Speaker 1: verify that an AD campaign is doing what it's supposed
Speaker 1: to do. So an ad verification company monitors analytics to
Speaker 1: make sure that the reach is what you wanted, like
Speaker 1: you're hitting as many people as what your ad campaign
Speaker 1: was supposed to do, and that the results are positive ones,
Speaker 1: that you're getting more traffic and more commerce whatever it
Speaker 1: may be because of those ads. However, to be able
Speaker 1: to do that, you have to have access to the data,
Speaker 1: and according to the French regulators, the problem is that
Speaker 1: Meta would offer that kind of access to major partners,
Speaker 1: so big advertising verification companies could get access to that
Speaker 1: data and actually do this, but smaller ones were denied
Speaker 1: that opportunity, and this ultimately puts those smaller companies at
Speaker 1: a greater disadvantage compared to big players in the space.
Speaker 1: It is anti competitive. This is not just based on
Speaker 1: the agency's opinion. An ad verification company called ad Lukes
Speaker 1: actually sought access to Meta's analytics and received a denial.
Speaker 1: This is a smaller ad verification company located in France.
Speaker 1: So ad Lukes subsequently brought this case to the Antitrust
Speaker 1: Agency and things progress from there. The agency says that
Speaker 1: Meta has two months to change its approach and adjust
Speaker 1: the rules for ad verification access or else face. I
Speaker 1: don't know some sort of repercussions. I imagine I couldn't
Speaker 1: actually find out what the consequences would be for Meta.
Speaker 1: If it failed to do that, it would probably be
Speaker 1: some form of actual legal action against the company. Back
Speaker 1: here in the States, Meta faces more government scrutiny. The FTC,
Speaker 1: you might remember them from earlier in the episode, says
Speaker 1: that Meta broke the rules and violated a policy order
Speaker 1: that was issued in twenty twenty with regard to how
Speaker 1: the company collects and uses personal data, specifically that belonging
Speaker 1: to kids. And so yesterday the FTC proposed barring Meta
Speaker 1: from monetizing data belonging to kids completely. The Meta would
Speaker 1: not be allowed. It would be illegal for Meta to
Speaker 1: exploit the person information that came from kids. You might
Speaker 1: remember that a couple of years ago, Meta was in
Speaker 1: the hot seat when a whistleblower came forward with accusations
Speaker 1: that the company was regularly pursuing business strategies that could
Speaker 1: directly or indirectly harm people, including children. In fact, at
Speaker 1: that time, Meta was actively developing a version of Instagram
Speaker 1: targeting kids. Because currently Meta's platforms are intended for those
Speaker 1: who are at least thirteen years old. The FTC is
Speaker 1: essentially saying that Meta has proven repeatedly to be a
Speaker 1: poor steward of personal information and that there exists a
Speaker 1: need to update the earlier privacy agreements to place further
Speaker 1: restrictions on how Meta collects data and how it can
Speaker 1: then use that information, particularly with regard to children. Plus,
Speaker 1: the FTC says that Meta should not launch any new
Speaker 1: products or make substantive changes to existing ones until there
Speaker 1: is confirmation that those products comply with the terms of
Speaker 1: this agreement. Meta has thirty days to respond, and Meta
Speaker 1: spokesperson Andy Stone made no bones about it. He said
Speaker 1: that this is a political stunt and the company is
Speaker 1: going to push back against updating this agreement, which is
Speaker 1: not a big surprise. And I don't know if I
Speaker 1: agree that it's fully a political stunt. I think it
Speaker 1: partly is, but I also think it's something that is
Speaker 1: genuinely needed, So yes, I think in part this is
Speaker 1: about scoring political points, but I also think that it
Speaker 1: is beyond time for us to consider how to best
Speaker 1: protect private information from being exploited in ways that have,
Speaker 1: you know, truly negative consequences. Further down the line, while
Speaker 1: the FTC is pushing back against meta to back off
Speaker 1: of exploiting the personal data belonging to kids, some senators
Speaker 1: are taking an even tougher stance. For senators, two of
Speaker 1: them Democrats and two of them Republicans, so it's bipartisan
Speaker 1: have in introduce legislation that would ban social media platforms
Speaker 1: from allowing anyone under the age of thirteen to have
Speaker 1: an account, and further, anyone under the age of eighteen
Speaker 1: would need permission from a legal guardian before being allowed
Speaker 1: to make an account. On top of that, for those
Speaker 1: kids who are between the ages of thirteen and eighteen,
Speaker 1: things would have to work differently on those platforms. Namely,
Speaker 1: services like Facebook or TikTok or whatever would not be
Speaker 1: allowed to use algorithms to recommend content to those users.
Speaker 1: That is a huge change. As I'm sure you all know,
Speaker 1: these platforms rely on algorithms to select and serve content
Speaker 1: that the platform determines is most likely to keep that
Speaker 1: specific person engaged and stuck to the site or service
Speaker 1: whatever keeps the eyeballs glued to that screen as long
Speaker 1: as possible so that more ads can be served to them.
Speaker 1: That is the name of the game. And if this
Speaker 1: legislation were to be adopted into law, the social networks
Speaker 1: would not be able to treat kids the same way
Speaker 1: they treat adults. However, there are a lot of steps
Speaker 1: that have to happen before this proposal can turn into
Speaker 1: an actual law, and there are some debates within government
Speaker 1: as to how these restrictions might infringe upon civil civil liberties, like,
Speaker 1: you know, how could they potentially violate the First Amendment,
Speaker 1: for example, And if you can make an argument and
Speaker 1: a valid one, that such a measure would be in
Speaker 1: violation of the Constitution, then that's a that's you know,
Speaker 1: a non starter, right, the legislation is not going to
Speaker 1: be able to go anywhere. Also, we have to keep
Speaker 1: in mind there are obviously tech lobbyists who spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time and a lot of money bending the
Speaker 1: ear of politicians in an effort to minimize regulations and
Speaker 1: to get as favorable a political environment as possible to
Speaker 1: do their business. So I know, means, is this new
Speaker 1: proposal absolutely bound to become law. It might, but there's
Speaker 1: nothing that is guaranteeing it. Then we have the state
Speaker 1: of Montana here in the United States, which figuratively told
Speaker 1: the rest of the world to hold my beer. So
Speaker 1: Montana's governor, Greg Gianforte had previously supported a bill that
Speaker 1: would effectively ban TikTok in the state of Montana. But
Speaker 1: then folks pointed out that this bill, by singling out TikTok,
Speaker 1: was likely to be deemed unconstitutional because here was a
Speaker 1: state government acting out against a specific company. It looks
Speaker 1: like it's a targeted attack, because it kind of is.
Speaker 1: So then gia Forte issued what's called an amendatory veto.
Speaker 1: So essentially, this proposes different language for the bill, and
Speaker 1: if the state legislature adopts that language and changes the
Speaker 1: bill so that it no longer is singling out TikTok,
Speaker 1: the governor agrees to sign the bill into law. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: the governor will veto the legislation since you know, constitutional
Speaker 1: issues would ultimately mean that the law would eventually get
Speaker 1: overturned by a court anyway. But here's the problem. This
Speaker 1: new language, by removing the specific reference to TikTok, but
Speaker 1: keeping some of the other vague passages would technically ban
Speaker 1: all social networks in Montana for everyone, every single social network,
Speaker 1: because the legislation says that it would be illegal for
Speaker 1: any social media application to facilitate quote the personal information
Speaker 1: or data to be provided to a foreign adversary or
Speaker 1: a person or entity located within a country designated as
Speaker 1: a foreign adversary end quote. Okay, Well, that's a big
Speaker 1: problem because even if you're not scraping data, even if
Speaker 1: you're not you know, the recipient of a fire hose
Speaker 1: of information directly from the platform. Because obviously that's the
Speaker 1: fear with TikTok, right. The concern about TikTok, at least
Speaker 1: in the United States, is that TikTok is collecting enormous
Speaker 1: amounts of information and funneling it to a Chinese company,
Speaker 1: which in turn might be sharing that with the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: and that that is potentially a risk to national security.
Speaker 1: That's the concern about TikTok. But the way this language
Speaker 1: is formed, it means that anyone in a country that's
Speaker 1: ay quote unquote foreign adversary, so example, anyone in China,
Speaker 1: if anyone in China could log into, say Facebook, and
Speaker 1: then check out, say my account on Facebook, Well, they
Speaker 1: would see my name, that's my personal information. If I
Speaker 1: hadn't you know, hidden it, they would see things like
Speaker 1: my birth date, that's my personal information. Like that's personal
Speaker 1: info I have on Facebook that anyone in China could
Speaker 1: see if they went to my page. Well, according to
Speaker 1: the the rules set down or the language set down
Speaker 1: in this proposed legislation, that would be against the law
Speaker 1: in Montana, which means that social platforms would have to
Speaker 1: just stop operating in Montana or find some way to
Speaker 1: prevent anyone in a quote unquote you know, a foreign
Speaker 1: adversarial country from being able to access data belonging to
Speaker 1: Montana citizens. It creates a spectrum wide ban. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a real issue. It actually really shows how
Speaker 1: hard it is to create legislation that does not include
Speaker 1: vague language that could have unintended consequences, because I mean,
Speaker 1: how do you defend against that If you've passed a
Speaker 1: bill that has this measure in it and then someone says, well,
Speaker 1: people in China can see my information, so you have
Speaker 1: to block Facebook. You know, what are they going to say, like, no,
Speaker 1: we didn't mean it like that. I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: it's a mess, oh boy. Speaking of TikTok. By the way,
Speaker 1: Eric Hann, who was the head of TikTok's US trust
Speaker 1: and safety operations, is leaving the company. This had been
Speaker 1: rumored for a while, and apparently he has said that
Speaker 1: his role was essentially a poisoned chalice, that he had
Speaker 1: the unenviable job of being the person responsible for leading
Speaker 1: efforts to work with the US government in order to
Speaker 1: avoid a nationwide ban on TikTok, and he felt he
Speaker 1: was essentially set up to fail and to be the
Speaker 1: scapegoat for that failure. It's kind of hard to disagree
Speaker 1: with that, because the US government recently has appeared to
Speaker 1: have kind of a laser focus on banning TikTok. For
Speaker 1: the record, I do think TikTok poses some risks. I
Speaker 1: think that TikTok is potentially a dangerous thing when it
Speaker 1: comes to data collection. But as we just talked about
Speaker 1: with the previous news item, all social networks are risky.
Speaker 1: Like that, It's not just TikTok. I mean, talk presents
Speaker 1: a more clear and present danger, at least as a perception.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's the reality. I honestly don't
Speaker 1: know if people in China have that direct access to
Speaker 1: TikTok's user data, but even if they don't, without strict
Speaker 1: privacy laws in place within the United States, all of
Speaker 1: our user data is still being gathered and bought and sold.
Speaker 1: So it may mean that there's an extra step involved,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't really matter because the Chinese government could
Speaker 1: get hold of all that kind of information across all
Speaker 1: different platforms just by spending the money. It doesn't have
Speaker 1: to have that implanted app in the US for this
Speaker 1: to happen. So I get Han's position here, and it
Speaker 1: really kind of is unfair when you think of it
Speaker 1: that way. And again, it's not that I think that
Speaker 1: TikTok isn't necessarily dangerous. I think TikTok is. But then
Speaker 1: I also think all social media potentially is. It's that
Speaker 1: we need to address privacy laws in the United States,
Speaker 1: and we've needed to do it for decades, and whether
Speaker 1: it ever happens or not, I don't know. My guess
Speaker 1: is what will happen is it will see some sort
Speaker 1: of massive ban on TikTok, which is not gonna solve
Speaker 1: the problem because there are gonna be all these other
Speaker 1: sources of data that are you know, data siphons that
Speaker 1: are going to continue the issue. The problem will still exist.
Speaker 1: Younger people will be very upset because TikTok was destroyed,
Speaker 1: and uh, the United States will continue to do nothing
Speaker 1: about protecting online privacy. So yeah, big old mess there.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm done ranting about that. I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna drink some chemimal tea and we'll be back after
Speaker 1: this quick break. Okay, we're back and now to talk
Speaker 1: about Microsoft again. So Microsoft continues to make some decisions
Speaker 1: that I think are unwise. I think ultimately some of
Speaker 1: the company's strategies are going to result in regulatory agencies
Speaker 1: around the world giving the company a serious rap on
Speaker 1: the knuckles with a ruler. I mean, we're already seeing
Speaker 1: that unfold in Europe with certain Microsoft policies. Well they
Speaker 1: that company seems to be doubling down. Like I just
Speaker 1: I don't understand the logic behind the decisions. So The
Speaker 1: Verge reported on this issue and cited Reddit users who
Speaker 1: are saying that Microsoft is pushing out a change to
Speaker 1: IT admins in various organizations that are Microsoft customers and
Speaker 1: Microsoft is saying that it's going to make at least
Speaker 1: certain links that are posted in stuff like Outlook, which
Speaker 1: is email if you're not familiar, and Microsoft Teams, which
Speaker 1: is Microsoft video conferencing tool similar to something like Zoom. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the company says it's going to make it so that
Speaker 1: links that are shared in these services will then push
Speaker 1: users to go to Microsoft Edge if they click on
Speaker 1: the link. So, in other words, it won't matter what
Speaker 1: browser you have set as your default browser for your
Speaker 1: operating system. Instead, if you click on the link in
Speaker 1: Teams or an Outlook, it's going to open up an
Speaker 1: Edge browser window and go to that web page. Now, y'all,
Speaker 1: I don't feel I need to point out that this
Speaker 1: is falling right in line with the sort of anti
Speaker 1: competitive accusations regulators have been leveling at Microsoft recently, saying
Speaker 1: that by tying your various products together so tightly and
Speaker 1: ignoring things like someone's setting of a default browser, it
Speaker 1: is inherently anti competitive. Also, while I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: the scope is on these situations, like I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's going to affect every single link that shared
Speaker 1: or if it's just certain ones, I do know there
Speaker 1: are tools that I rely upon in my job that
Speaker 1: are optimized for a different browser than Edge. So if
Speaker 1: you want to use that tool and you want to
Speaker 1: go smoothly, you have to use a specific browser to
Speaker 1: do it. I'm sure you've all encountered this. Back in
Speaker 1: the old days, it used to be that web pages
Speaker 1: would be optimized for one browser versus another, and if
Speaker 1: you were to go to that web page using a
Speaker 1: different browser, it looked terrible. But we've largely moved away
Speaker 1: from that part. But we still have certain web based
Speaker 1: tools that are designed to work seamlessly with specific browsers
Speaker 1: and maybe not so well with others. So opening a
Speaker 1: link that would send me to an EDGE based browser
Speaker 1: that's gonna send me over the edge. Of course, worst
Speaker 1: case scenario, I could just copy the link in my
Speaker 1: email and then go into my preferred browser and then
Speaker 1: paste the link into the URL bar. But that's madness.
Speaker 1: I should just click the link and then be able
Speaker 1: to go straight to the default browser and see what
Speaker 1: I want. So, as you might imagine it, admins are
Speaker 1: not super thrilled about this change. So not only is
Speaker 1: it something that's frustrating to the admins themselves, but also
Speaker 1: you got to remember, these are the folks who have
Speaker 1: to communicate those changes throughout their various organizations, and then
Speaker 1: they are the ones who get blamed for it, even
Speaker 1: though they're not the ones who made the policy change,
Speaker 1: like they're just communicating it. But my gosh, I have
Speaker 1: seen cases where the person in charge of it becomes
Speaker 1: the recipient of so much abuse because something stops working
Speaker 1: the way it's supposed to. But it's all of the
Speaker 1: IT admin's hands because it's ultimately coming from the provider,
Speaker 1: in this case Microsoft, so it's not really their fault.
Speaker 1: If the IT admin does happen to be an organization
Speaker 1: that is a Microsoft three sixty five enterprise customer, because
Speaker 1: they're different levels of business customer for Microsoft three sixty five.
Speaker 1: If they're at the enterprise level, well, good news, they
Speaker 1: can actually change that policy. They don't have to use
Speaker 1: the edge version. They can turn that off and allow
Speaker 1: people to continue to open up links in their default browsers.
Speaker 1: But if they're working at a company that has a
Speaker 1: Microsoft three sixty five for Business account instead of the
Speaker 1: Microsoft three sixty five Enterprise account, well the business customers
Speaker 1: are going to be subjected to this change. So I
Speaker 1: guess I'm saying good luck in those courtrooms Microsoft over
Speaker 1: At Google, some employees have expressed, let's say a little
Speaker 1: bit of consternation regarding the company's extensive cutbacks. While Sundhar Pachai,
Speaker 1: the company's CEO, took home a cool two hundred twenty
Speaker 1: six million dollars in compensation last year, As you might imagine,
Speaker 1: internal communication tools played host to numerous memes that aligned
Speaker 1: on a few basic messages. You know that Google morale
Speaker 1: is dropping. The company has laid off thousands of employees,
Speaker 1: the company has reduced perks and benefits across the organization,
Speaker 1: and then the CEO is one of the highest paid
Speaker 1: in the United States. The disparity is hard to just
Speaker 1: ignore here, and it definitely makes it more challenging for
Speaker 1: Google leadership to create messaging around things like sacrifice and
Speaker 1: cutbacks in the face of a tough economy, when the
Speaker 1: head honcho could pull a Scrooge McDuck if he wanted,
Speaker 1: and go swimming around in a big old vault of money. Finally,
Speaker 1: the Independent reports that the Climate Action Against Disinformation or
Speaker 1: CAAD Commission has found multiple instances of Google running advertisements
Speaker 1: against YouTube videos that contain misinformation about the climate crisis.
Speaker 1: So back in twenty twenty one, Google up the dated
Speaker 1: its policy and said Google would no longer serve ads
Speaker 1: against content that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change.
Speaker 1: And so what the commission found was that they have
Speaker 1: failed to enforce their own policy and in fact, the
Speaker 1: company has profited off of videos that actively spread climate misinformation,
Speaker 1: and of course the channel's pushing the misinformation, they benefit
Speaker 1: because their channels are monetized, so they're getting money as well,
Speaker 1: and that means there's a financial incentive to continue creating
Speaker 1: misleading content on YouTube, because if you can monetize it
Speaker 1: and you can get popular, then you're gonna make money.
Speaker 1: Google reps say that while their policy does state that
Speaker 1: such videos should not have ads served against them, which
Speaker 1: is probably something that advertisers want as well, brands are
Speaker 1: typically not super keen on being associated with messages of
Speaker 1: climate change denial. The reps say, well, are systems not perfect,
Speaker 1: some stuff will slip through. And Google took the list
Speaker 1: that the Commission submitted. It had like a hundred different
Speaker 1: videos that were in violation of the policy that were
Speaker 1: still monetized. Google then subsequently demonetized those videos, but I
Speaker 1: think we can draw a couple of conclusions based on
Speaker 1: this incident. One, it is genuinely hard to enforce policies
Speaker 1: on a platform that receives such a huge amount of
Speaker 1: content every single minute. It's actually at a point where
Speaker 1: it's literally impossible for humans to review everything, so it
Speaker 1: is difficult to catch it all and some stuff might
Speaker 1: slip through, So that part you can kind of see
Speaker 1: Google's point of view. However, Two, if no one calls
Speaker 1: the company to be held accountable, and if there's money
Speaker 1: to be made, we should not be surprised when we
Speaker 1: find videos that violate its policies. So eternal vigilance is
Speaker 1: what is called for. Because, as the commission found by
Speaker 1: bringing this to Google's attention, Google then did go and
Speaker 1: demonetize those videos. But if they hadn't done that, it
Speaker 1: probably would have stayed up monetized for who knows how long.
Speaker 1: So yeah, we have to hold these companies accountable to
Speaker 1: their own frickin' policies. This isn't even about holding a
Speaker 1: company accountable to the law. It's holding a company accountable
Speaker 1: to the things it says it will do. All right,
Speaker 1: and that's it for the tech news for today. I'm
Speaker 1: sad I didn't have any fun Star Wars news. It
Speaker 1: was kind of hard to talk about Star Wars tech
Speaker 1: because either I'm talking about special effects technology or I'm
Speaker 1: talking about fictional technology that we only wish existed but
Speaker 1: doesn't actually exist. Maybe next year we can hope. I
Speaker 1: hope you are all well, and I'll talk to you again,
Speaker 1: really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more
Speaker 1: podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows.