WEBVTT - Tech News: May the Fourth be With You 0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.399 Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. He there, 0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:16.079 and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. 0:00:16.120 --> 0:00:19.840 I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech 0:00:19.960 --> 0:00:24.040 are you. It's time for the tech news for Thursday, 0:00:24.880 --> 0:00:29.400 May the fourth be with you. Yeah, big Star Wars 0:00:29.480 --> 0:00:32.800 nerds over here at iHeart as you might imagine, So 0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:37.199 we've got a whole email chain with podcasters you're probably 0:00:37.200 --> 0:00:39.800 familiar with, and a lot of producers that you may 0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:42.200 have heard of, but you know, aren't always on Mike 0:00:42.800 --> 0:00:48.480 sharing hilarious Star Wars related photographs. I wish I could 0:00:48.520 --> 0:00:51.600 share them with you, but instead we're gonna go through 0:00:52.000 --> 0:00:56.320 a whole bunch of tech news now. On Tuesday, I 0:00:56.400 --> 0:01:00.120 talked about how the Writers Guild of America or wg A, 0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:04.160 which represents writers for TV and film here in the 0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:08.240 United States, is now on strike. The negotiations between the 0:01:08.400 --> 0:01:12.960 WGA and various Hollywood studios could not reach a satisfactory agreement. 0:01:13.319 --> 0:01:16.199 So here we are. And I also talked about how 0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:21.200 one of the concerns that the WGA has and one 0:01:21.200 --> 0:01:23.720 of the reasons that I'm covering the story on tech 0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:28.760 stuff at all, has to do with generative AI. Now 0:01:28.840 --> 0:01:31.240 I've got a little bit more information thanks to Vice, 0:01:31.600 --> 0:01:36.920 which has an article titled GPT four can't replace striking 0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:42.000 TV writers, but studios are going to try a sidebar, 0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:46.200 Vice is trying to avoid bankruptcy right now, and that 0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:51.600 company actually has some really great investigative journalism across all 0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:55.240 brackets of news. So those of y'all who don't use 0:01:55.280 --> 0:01:57.800 ad blockers on your browsers might want to head over 0:01:57.840 --> 0:02:01.760 device and scan the articles. I have no connection device whatsoever. 0:02:02.120 --> 0:02:05.600 I just hate to see a company that has really 0:02:05.640 --> 0:02:09.000 pushed for some great journalism. I mean, there's other stuff 0:02:09.000 --> 0:02:11.280 on there too, but there's some really great journalism on there. 0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:13.360 I hate to see him in trouble. Anyway, back to 0:02:13.400 --> 0:02:18.120 the story, so Vice's Chloe Shang explains that one of 0:02:18.160 --> 0:02:22.000 the WGA's demands was for studios to promise that AI 0:02:22.160 --> 0:02:25.520 would not become part of the creative experience for film 0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:29.000 and television, that AI would not be used to do 0:02:29.040 --> 0:02:32.360 stuff like punch up a script or to generate a 0:02:32.480 --> 0:02:36.079 draft of a story, or otherwise perform work that should 0:02:36.080 --> 0:02:40.760 be done by a union represented writer. The WGA's concern 0:02:41.240 --> 0:02:44.240 is that studios would lean on AI to do some 0:02:44.360 --> 0:02:46.960 of the early work. It's not that AI would completely 0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:50.720 replace human writers, but rather that studios might use AI 0:02:50.960 --> 0:02:54.160 to do like a very rough draft or even just 0:02:54.200 --> 0:02:57.960 a treatment, and then would hand that over to a 0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:02.440 human writer to polish it up into something that's actually usable. 0:03:02.840 --> 0:03:04.760 But the human writer would be doing so at a 0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:07.960 lower rate because the writer technically wouldn't be coming up 0:03:08.000 --> 0:03:11.920 with their own ideas. Instead, they're refining an already existing idea. 0:03:12.400 --> 0:03:14.400 So this is kind of like if you've got a 0:03:14.480 --> 0:03:17.000 script and you go out and you get a writer 0:03:17.080 --> 0:03:19.240 to come in and read the script and punch it 0:03:19.320 --> 0:03:21.760 up a little bit, that second writer isn't going to 0:03:21.760 --> 0:03:24.960 be making the same amount as the primary writer did. 0:03:25.600 --> 0:03:27.760 And so what they're saying is you're just trying to 0:03:27.800 --> 0:03:30.959 push more work over to AI, and then we're left 0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:34.720 to pick up these terrible ideas that AI is creating, 0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:37.080 and we're expected to make something of them, and at 0:03:37.080 --> 0:03:40.360 a lower rate of pay. The studios have balked at 0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:43.560 the WGA's demands, saying that this decision should be made 0:03:43.640 --> 0:03:46.760 year by year because they are framing AI as a 0:03:46.800 --> 0:03:50.320 sort of advancement in tech and that the industry shouldn't 0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:55.160 be ignoring advancements like that. The WGA counters with the 0:03:55.200 --> 0:03:59.320 observation that studios have been pushing writers to move toward 0:03:59.760 --> 0:04:03.720 a more gig economy model, so kind of a work 0:04:03.800 --> 0:04:06.920 for a higher situation where writers have to hustle gig 0:04:06.960 --> 0:04:10.320 to gig, with writers' rooms getting smaller in the process, 0:04:10.360 --> 0:04:13.320 which in turn means they are even fewer opportunities for 0:04:13.440 --> 0:04:17.320 writers to find work. And y'all, I'm a gen x feller. 0:04:17.440 --> 0:04:20.640 I grew up before the gig economy was really a 0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:23.719 widespread thing, and I don't think I have seen a 0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:27.520 more destructive environment that you know, doesn't directly tie into 0:04:27.640 --> 0:04:31.680 really terrible stuff like racism and misogyny. The gig economy 0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:35.680 is terrible. It clearly forces tons of people to work 0:04:35.720 --> 0:04:40.680 themselves to exhaustion and constantly they stress about whether the 0:04:40.720 --> 0:04:44.040 money they make this week will pay the rent next week. 0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:48.440 And meanwhile, the companies that are benefiting from those workers 0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:51.120 are always figuring out ways to keep more and more 0:04:51.120 --> 0:04:53.680 of the cash for themselves. Now, you could just say 0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:57.640 same as it ever was, but it's really more blatant 0:04:57.720 --> 0:05:02.159 with the gig economy anyway. This is the reason unions 0:05:02.360 --> 0:05:07.000 exist to provide workers protection in aggregate because a one 0:05:07.040 --> 0:05:11.000 on one basis there is an undeniable power imbalance between 0:05:11.040 --> 0:05:15.880 the employers and the employed. So I'm glad the WGA 0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:20.680 exists to fight these fights and to lay these this groundwork. 0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:22.960 I don't know how that's going to turn out. Obviously, 0:05:23.000 --> 0:05:26.520 the strike is still in progress, no agreement has been reached. 0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:28.800 I don't know if the studios will budge on this, 0:05:29.520 --> 0:05:32.960 but I think it is important to set those rules now, 0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:37.000 because even if you argue that generative AI at the 0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:40.120 moment isn't good enough to even do this, that wouldn't 0:05:40.120 --> 0:05:42.920 stop studios from trying, and it doesn't stop them from 0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:46.200 trying again as the AI gets better. So setting out 0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:52.520 rules to protect unionized workers makes sense. Over in Washington, DC, 0:05:52.680 --> 0:05:55.080 the US government is going to play host to executives 0:05:55.120 --> 0:05:59.760 from companies like Microsoft and Alphabet that's Google's parent company, 0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:04.440 in order to hold a discussion about AI. Theoretically, this 0:06:04.560 --> 0:06:08.239 meeting will explore the possible risks that AI could pose 0:06:08.920 --> 0:06:12.720 and the methods that companies should use to guard against 0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:16.560 those risks. But y'all, I've watched politicians talk to tech 0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:19.480 experts before, and it often feels like the two sides 0:06:19.480 --> 0:06:24.200 are speaking totally different languages. Hopefully the questions that these 0:06:24.400 --> 0:06:26.840 executives are going to get asked are going to be relevant, 0:06:27.279 --> 0:06:32.280 and hopefully the answers they give will be direct, but honestly, 0:06:32.320 --> 0:06:35.400 that's a long shot. The motivation behind the talks, however, 0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:37.960 is a very good one. How can we make best 0:06:38.080 --> 0:06:43.320 use of AI while avoiding as many serious problems as possible. 0:06:43.839 --> 0:06:47.320 Already with generative AI, we're seeing numerous issues ranging from 0:06:47.520 --> 0:06:53.000 copyright concerns, plagiarism, answer accuracy, the tendency for AI to 0:06:53.080 --> 0:06:57.359 quote unquote hallucinate and generate wrong answers, and misinformation. And 0:06:57.400 --> 0:07:01.400 there's a lot more to really consider. And that's generative AI. 0:07:02.000 --> 0:07:04.200 There's lots of other versions of AI we need to 0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:07.960 really consider. There's also the concerns about how it could 0:07:07.960 --> 0:07:11.200 impact the job market, as we see with the WGA strike, 0:07:11.480 --> 0:07:15.040 as well as the CEO of IBM's recent revelation that 0:07:15.120 --> 0:07:17.920 the company may consider AI to fill in as many 0:07:17.960 --> 0:07:20.760 as seven eight hundred empty position over the next few 0:07:20.840 --> 0:07:24.120 years rather than using a human being in that job. 0:07:24.640 --> 0:07:26.280 There is a lot of ground to cover here, and 0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:29.160 I'm sure next week I'll have some sort of update 0:07:29.320 --> 0:07:34.760 to this story. The White House isn't the only US 0:07:34.880 --> 0:07:39.200 government entity looking into potential risks with AI. The Federal 0:07:39.240 --> 0:07:43.760 Trade Commission, or FTC's chief has said that the agency 0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:48.240 is investigating whether AI could create more disparity between companies, 0:07:48.680 --> 0:07:52.400 saying that it could potentially enhance the power of dominant 0:07:52.480 --> 0:07:55.800 firms according to Reuter's so, in other words, it could 0:07:55.800 --> 0:08:03.040 become an anti competitive risk. The FTC chair said that 0:08:03.520 --> 0:08:06.520 the agency is looking into how AI could make some 0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:10.440 problems much worse, such as allowing companies to more effectively 0:08:10.520 --> 0:08:15.240 commit fraud. For example, in the wake of spectacular collapses 0:08:15.320 --> 0:08:20.120 like the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, there's increased pressure to uncover 0:08:20.240 --> 0:08:23.080 and address fraud before it can have a massive impact 0:08:23.160 --> 0:08:26.640 on investors and customers. Con also pointed out that AI 0:08:26.760 --> 0:08:31.440 tools could potentially decrease competition by allowing for price fixing 0:08:31.480 --> 0:08:36.920 strategies across industries, that it's not a far fetched idea. 0:08:36.960 --> 0:08:40.319 We've actually seen something similar to that play out in 0:08:40.400 --> 0:08:45.920 a microcosm, because in Texas there's this ongoing issue where 0:08:46.080 --> 0:08:49.280 landlords have been using a specific company in order to 0:08:49.480 --> 0:08:54.800 set rental prices, and there are class action lawsuits that 0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:58.480 are saying that this amounts to price fixing, that it's 0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:03.840 a collusion offect across landowners who are then setting rental 0:09:03.880 --> 0:09:08.720 prices at exorbitant levels because there's no competition. There's nowhere 0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:12.520 to go where you could pay rent less at somewhere else, 0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:19.160 because this centralized service has removed all competition, and that 0:09:19.320 --> 0:09:23.080 you effectively have price fixing, even if the landlords themselves 0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:27.320 didn't intentionally set out to do that. That's the effect 0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:32.040 that this approach has. Oh Brave New World to have 0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:36.160 such artificial intelligence in it. The Verge reports that Microsoft 0:09:36.200 --> 0:09:40.839 is unveiling some new bells and whistles with the bing chatbot. Now. 0:09:40.840 --> 0:09:44.600 As you may recall, Microsoft is leveraging open ais Chat 0:09:44.640 --> 0:09:50.040 GPT to power the bing chatbot, which, unlike open ais 0:09:50.160 --> 0:09:54.840 Chat GPT, actually has access to real time information. Chat 0:09:54.880 --> 0:09:57.839 GPT's info cuts off at twenty twenty one. It doesn't 0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:02.120 have information more recent than that. Bing is different now. 0:10:02.160 --> 0:10:05.080 Apparently users on Edge will be able to use Bing 0:10:05.200 --> 0:10:08.640 to do stuff like find a restaurant and book a reservation, 0:10:08.800 --> 0:10:11.640 all within bing chat, without having to go back and 0:10:11.679 --> 0:10:16.280 forth between multiple websites like review sites and the restaurant's 0:10:16.320 --> 0:10:19.520 own site, and then maybe something like open table or whatever. 0:10:19.960 --> 0:10:22.600 So you might have a conversation like, where's a good 0:10:22.640 --> 0:10:25.360 place to take my partner for their birthday? They are 0:10:25.440 --> 0:10:27.920 allergic to shellfish? And then the chat bought would make 0:10:27.960 --> 0:10:30.199 a few recommendations, and then you might say, okay, well 0:10:30.200 --> 0:10:33.640 what's the menu for place X? And it gives you 0:10:33.720 --> 0:10:36.439 some examples and then you say, great, make a reservation 0:10:36.520 --> 0:10:39.080 for Friday night at nine pm for two, and it 0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:41.600 takes care of it. It's a lot like what Google 0:10:41.679 --> 0:10:44.760 showed off at a Google ioevan a few years ago 0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:49.439 with its assistant feature. In that demonstration, the company showed 0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:52.120 how the assistant could pose as an actual human being 0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:56.280 and make reservations on your behalf over the phone, which was, 0:10:56.320 --> 0:11:00.160 in my opinion, kind of creepy. Bing's approach is obviously 0:11:00.200 --> 0:11:02.959 a bit different. It's web based, it's not necessarily making 0:11:03.000 --> 0:11:05.840 phone calls on your behalf. The Verge also says that 0:11:05.920 --> 0:11:08.640 another feature lets you use Bing to find content to 0:11:08.679 --> 0:11:11.800 watch without having to search around to see what platform 0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:15.199 has what. So instead of saying, oh, I want to 0:11:15.240 --> 0:11:17.880 watch the latest episode of Barry, but I didn't remember 0:11:18.080 --> 0:11:20.520 that it's on HBO Max. How do I find it? 0:11:20.679 --> 0:11:23.240 Do I just start searching? Do I go to different platforms? 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:25.000 Do I look to see if it's on their pages. 0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:27.800 With this, you would just tell bing and Chat and 0:11:27.840 --> 0:11:29.720 it would send you to the right location. You would 0:11:29.720 --> 0:11:31.160 just say I want to watch the latest episode of 0:11:31.160 --> 0:11:35.400 Barry Boom. It's into HBO Max. So useful in that 0:11:35.480 --> 0:11:38.440 in that regard as well. And if you want to 0:11:38.480 --> 0:11:41.640 learn more about the various features that are being unveiled, 0:11:41.679 --> 0:11:43.640 you can go to the Verge. They have an article 0:11:43.679 --> 0:11:47.520 titled Microsoft's bing Chat Butt gets smarter with restaurant bookings, 0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:51.839 image results and more. Speaking of end more, we'll have 0:11:51.960 --> 0:12:04.760 more after we take this quick break. We're back and 0:12:04.840 --> 0:12:08.880 now we switch from AI to some Meta stories not 0:12:08.960 --> 0:12:13.480 Twitter at this time. Meta, So first up, France's antitrust 0:12:13.559 --> 0:12:17.760 agency has leveled a mandate against Meta. The company has 0:12:17.800 --> 0:12:21.719 to change how it gives access to ad verification partners. 0:12:22.440 --> 0:12:25.560 So essentially, what the agency is arguing is that Meta 0:12:25.640 --> 0:12:28.840 has this dominant position when it comes to online advertising 0:12:29.160 --> 0:12:32.360 and it has used that to dictate terms to partners, 0:12:32.600 --> 0:12:36.000 and moreover, that Meta needs to be more transparent with 0:12:36.480 --> 0:12:41.640 its analytics and to allow more ad verification companies access 0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:44.960 to those analytics. Ad verification companies what they do is 0:12:45.120 --> 0:12:47.520 I mean it's in the name. They're essentially trying to 0:12:47.640 --> 0:12:51.280 verify that an AD campaign is doing what it's supposed 0:12:51.320 --> 0:12:55.480 to do. So an ad verification company monitors analytics to 0:12:55.520 --> 0:12:58.880 make sure that the reach is what you wanted, like 0:12:58.920 --> 0:13:01.640 you're hitting as many people as what your ad campaign 0:13:01.679 --> 0:13:05.080 was supposed to do, and that the results are positive ones, 0:13:05.120 --> 0:13:08.480 that you're getting more traffic and more commerce whatever it 0:13:08.480 --> 0:13:11.720 may be because of those ads. However, to be able 0:13:11.760 --> 0:13:13.880 to do that, you have to have access to the data, 0:13:14.320 --> 0:13:20.480 and according to the French regulators, the problem is that 0:13:20.600 --> 0:13:23.800 Meta would offer that kind of access to major partners, 0:13:23.920 --> 0:13:28.760 so big advertising verification companies could get access to that 0:13:28.840 --> 0:13:32.640 data and actually do this, but smaller ones were denied 0:13:32.679 --> 0:13:36.520 that opportunity, and this ultimately puts those smaller companies at 0:13:36.520 --> 0:13:40.280 a greater disadvantage compared to big players in the space. 0:13:40.360 --> 0:13:44.040 It is anti competitive. This is not just based on 0:13:44.120 --> 0:13:48.600 the agency's opinion. An ad verification company called ad Lukes 0:13:49.160 --> 0:13:52.920 actually sought access to Meta's analytics and received a denial. 0:13:53.200 --> 0:13:57.000 This is a smaller ad verification company located in France. 0:13:57.160 --> 0:14:01.000 So ad Lukes subsequently brought this case to the Antitrust 0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:04.520 Agency and things progress from there. The agency says that 0:14:04.559 --> 0:14:07.760 Meta has two months to change its approach and adjust 0:14:07.760 --> 0:14:11.120 the rules for ad verification access or else face. I 0:14:11.120 --> 0:14:13.880 don't know some sort of repercussions. I imagine I couldn't 0:14:13.920 --> 0:14:17.480 actually find out what the consequences would be for Meta. 0:14:17.559 --> 0:14:20.040 If it failed to do that, it would probably be 0:14:20.240 --> 0:14:25.840 some form of actual legal action against the company. Back 0:14:25.840 --> 0:14:30.760 here in the States, Meta faces more government scrutiny. The FTC, 0:14:31.440 --> 0:14:34.120 you might remember them from earlier in the episode, says 0:14:34.120 --> 0:14:37.720 that Meta broke the rules and violated a policy order 0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:40.880 that was issued in twenty twenty with regard to how 0:14:40.920 --> 0:14:44.920 the company collects and uses personal data, specifically that belonging 0:14:45.000 --> 0:14:50.400 to kids. And so yesterday the FTC proposed barring Meta 0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:54.960 from monetizing data belonging to kids completely. The Meta would 0:14:55.040 --> 0:14:58.240 not be allowed. It would be illegal for Meta to 0:14:58.800 --> 0:15:03.000 exploit the person information that came from kids. You might 0:15:03.040 --> 0:15:05.000 remember that a couple of years ago, Meta was in 0:15:05.040 --> 0:15:08.040 the hot seat when a whistleblower came forward with accusations 0:15:08.040 --> 0:15:11.720 that the company was regularly pursuing business strategies that could 0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:16.720 directly or indirectly harm people, including children. In fact, at 0:15:16.760 --> 0:15:20.320 that time, Meta was actively developing a version of Instagram 0:15:20.680 --> 0:15:24.280 targeting kids. Because currently Meta's platforms are intended for those 0:15:24.320 --> 0:15:27.320 who are at least thirteen years old. The FTC is 0:15:27.400 --> 0:15:30.640 essentially saying that Meta has proven repeatedly to be a 0:15:30.720 --> 0:15:34.400 poor steward of personal information and that there exists a 0:15:34.600 --> 0:15:38.240 need to update the earlier privacy agreements to place further 0:15:38.280 --> 0:15:41.760 restrictions on how Meta collects data and how it can 0:15:41.800 --> 0:15:45.640 then use that information, particularly with regard to children. Plus, 0:15:45.680 --> 0:15:49.080 the FTC says that Meta should not launch any new 0:15:49.120 --> 0:15:54.520 products or make substantive changes to existing ones until there 0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:58.360 is confirmation that those products comply with the terms of 0:15:58.400 --> 0:16:02.440 this agreement. Meta has thirty days to respond, and Meta 0:16:02.480 --> 0:16:07.440 spokesperson Andy Stone made no bones about it. He said 0:16:07.440 --> 0:16:09.640 that this is a political stunt and the company is 0:16:09.680 --> 0:16:13.520 going to push back against updating this agreement, which is 0:16:14.000 --> 0:16:17.280 not a big surprise. And I don't know if I 0:16:17.320 --> 0:16:20.080 agree that it's fully a political stunt. I think it 0:16:20.160 --> 0:16:22.880 partly is, but I also think it's something that is 0:16:23.960 --> 0:16:28.600 genuinely needed, So yes, I think in part this is 0:16:28.640 --> 0:16:32.440 about scoring political points, but I also think that it 0:16:32.560 --> 0:16:36.720 is beyond time for us to consider how to best 0:16:36.800 --> 0:16:41.200 protect private information from being exploited in ways that have, 0:16:42.040 --> 0:16:45.520 you know, truly negative consequences. Further down the line, while 0:16:45.520 --> 0:16:48.240 the FTC is pushing back against meta to back off 0:16:48.280 --> 0:16:51.920 of exploiting the personal data belonging to kids, some senators 0:16:52.200 --> 0:16:56.280 are taking an even tougher stance. For senators, two of 0:16:56.280 --> 0:16:59.240 them Democrats and two of them Republicans, so it's bipartisan 0:16:59.520 --> 0:17:03.359 have in introduce legislation that would ban social media platforms 0:17:03.360 --> 0:17:06.000 from allowing anyone under the age of thirteen to have 0:17:06.040 --> 0:17:09.520 an account, and further, anyone under the age of eighteen 0:17:09.720 --> 0:17:13.400 would need permission from a legal guardian before being allowed 0:17:13.400 --> 0:17:16.560 to make an account. On top of that, for those 0:17:16.640 --> 0:17:19.320 kids who are between the ages of thirteen and eighteen, 0:17:19.800 --> 0:17:23.360 things would have to work differently on those platforms. Namely, 0:17:23.800 --> 0:17:27.639 services like Facebook or TikTok or whatever would not be 0:17:27.720 --> 0:17:32.240 allowed to use algorithms to recommend content to those users. 0:17:32.680 --> 0:17:36.199 That is a huge change. As I'm sure you all know, 0:17:36.320 --> 0:17:40.600 these platforms rely on algorithms to select and serve content 0:17:41.080 --> 0:17:44.439 that the platform determines is most likely to keep that 0:17:44.640 --> 0:17:48.719 specific person engaged and stuck to the site or service 0:17:49.040 --> 0:17:52.200 whatever keeps the eyeballs glued to that screen as long 0:17:52.240 --> 0:17:54.760 as possible so that more ads can be served to them. 0:17:55.200 --> 0:17:57.119 That is the name of the game. And if this 0:17:57.280 --> 0:18:00.600 legislation were to be adopted into law, the social networks 0:18:00.680 --> 0:18:03.760 would not be able to treat kids the same way 0:18:04.000 --> 0:18:08.440 they treat adults. However, there are a lot of steps 0:18:08.480 --> 0:18:12.119 that have to happen before this proposal can turn into 0:18:12.200 --> 0:18:17.280 an actual law, and there are some debates within government 0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:22.760 as to how these restrictions might infringe upon civil civil liberties, like, 0:18:22.840 --> 0:18:26.440 you know, how could they potentially violate the First Amendment, 0:18:26.520 --> 0:18:29.479 for example, And if you can make an argument and 0:18:29.760 --> 0:18:34.439 a valid one, that such a measure would be in 0:18:34.520 --> 0:18:38.399 violation of the Constitution, then that's a that's you know, 0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:41.840 a non starter, right, the legislation is not going to 0:18:41.880 --> 0:18:44.960 be able to go anywhere. Also, we have to keep 0:18:44.960 --> 0:18:47.919 in mind there are obviously tech lobbyists who spend a 0:18:48.000 --> 0:18:50.000 lot of time and a lot of money bending the 0:18:50.040 --> 0:18:54.480 ear of politicians in an effort to minimize regulations and 0:18:54.560 --> 0:18:58.480 to get as favorable a political environment as possible to 0:18:58.520 --> 0:19:01.400 do their business. So I know, means, is this new 0:19:01.480 --> 0:19:06.320 proposal absolutely bound to become law. It might, but there's 0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:10.280 nothing that is guaranteeing it. Then we have the state 0:19:10.560 --> 0:19:14.920 of Montana here in the United States, which figuratively told 0:19:14.960 --> 0:19:17.520 the rest of the world to hold my beer. So 0:19:17.960 --> 0:19:23.120 Montana's governor, Greg Gianforte had previously supported a bill that 0:19:23.200 --> 0:19:27.919 would effectively ban TikTok in the state of Montana. But 0:19:28.000 --> 0:19:31.879 then folks pointed out that this bill, by singling out TikTok, 0:19:32.200 --> 0:19:35.359 was likely to be deemed unconstitutional because here was a 0:19:35.400 --> 0:19:39.439 state government acting out against a specific company. It looks 0:19:39.480 --> 0:19:42.399 like it's a targeted attack, because it kind of is. 0:19:42.800 --> 0:19:47.439 So then gia Forte issued what's called an amendatory veto. 0:19:47.560 --> 0:19:53.159 So essentially, this proposes different language for the bill, and 0:19:53.240 --> 0:19:57.040 if the state legislature adopts that language and changes the 0:19:57.040 --> 0:19:59.360 bill so that it no longer is singling out TikTok, 0:20:00.000 --> 0:20:03.639 the governor agrees to sign the bill into law. Otherwise, 0:20:03.680 --> 0:20:07.400 the governor will veto the legislation since you know, constitutional 0:20:07.440 --> 0:20:10.640 issues would ultimately mean that the law would eventually get 0:20:11.119 --> 0:20:14.920 overturned by a court anyway. But here's the problem. This 0:20:15.040 --> 0:20:18.199 new language, by removing the specific reference to TikTok, but 0:20:18.400 --> 0:20:22.400 keeping some of the other vague passages would technically ban 0:20:22.720 --> 0:20:28.880 all social networks in Montana for everyone, every single social network, 0:20:29.040 --> 0:20:34.879 because the legislation says that it would be illegal for 0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:40.880 any social media application to facilitate quote the personal information 0:20:41.080 --> 0:20:44.439 or data to be provided to a foreign adversary or 0:20:44.440 --> 0:20:48.520 a person or entity located within a country designated as 0:20:48.560 --> 0:20:52.200 a foreign adversary end quote. Okay, Well, that's a big 0:20:52.240 --> 0:20:55.280 problem because even if you're not scraping data, even if 0:20:55.320 --> 0:20:58.320 you're not you know, the recipient of a fire hose 0:20:58.320 --> 0:21:02.119 of information directly from the platform. Because obviously that's the 0:21:02.160 --> 0:21:05.480 fear with TikTok, right. The concern about TikTok, at least 0:21:05.480 --> 0:21:10.399 in the United States, is that TikTok is collecting enormous 0:21:10.400 --> 0:21:14.320 amounts of information and funneling it to a Chinese company, 0:21:14.359 --> 0:21:18.160 which in turn might be sharing that with the Chinese government, 0:21:18.600 --> 0:21:22.000 and that that is potentially a risk to national security. 0:21:22.560 --> 0:21:25.720 That's the concern about TikTok. But the way this language 0:21:25.920 --> 0:21:30.600 is formed, it means that anyone in a country that's 0:21:30.640 --> 0:21:34.159 ay quote unquote foreign adversary, so example, anyone in China, 0:21:34.520 --> 0:21:38.000 if anyone in China could log into, say Facebook, and 0:21:38.040 --> 0:21:41.760 then check out, say my account on Facebook, Well, they 0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:45.640 would see my name, that's my personal information. If I 0:21:45.680 --> 0:21:47.879 hadn't you know, hidden it, they would see things like 0:21:47.920 --> 0:21:51.600 my birth date, that's my personal information. Like that's personal 0:21:51.600 --> 0:21:56.080 info I have on Facebook that anyone in China could 0:21:56.119 --> 0:21:59.359 see if they went to my page. Well, according to 0:21:59.400 --> 0:22:02.359 the the rules set down or the language set down 0:22:02.400 --> 0:22:04.800 in this proposed legislation, that would be against the law 0:22:04.800 --> 0:22:09.320 in Montana, which means that social platforms would have to 0:22:09.359 --> 0:22:13.159 just stop operating in Montana or find some way to 0:22:13.280 --> 0:22:17.280 prevent anyone in a quote unquote you know, a foreign 0:22:17.320 --> 0:22:21.879 adversarial country from being able to access data belonging to 0:22:21.920 --> 0:22:29.160 Montana citizens. It creates a spectrum wide ban. So, yeah, 0:22:29.200 --> 0:22:32.760 this is a real issue. It actually really shows how 0:22:32.800 --> 0:22:37.360 hard it is to create legislation that does not include 0:22:37.480 --> 0:22:42.160 vague language that could have unintended consequences, because I mean, 0:22:42.200 --> 0:22:44.520 how do you defend against that If you've passed a 0:22:44.520 --> 0:22:47.960 bill that has this measure in it and then someone says, well, 0:22:48.320 --> 0:22:51.560 people in China can see my information, so you have 0:22:51.600 --> 0:22:55.439 to block Facebook. You know, what are they going to say, like, no, 0:22:55.520 --> 0:22:57.320 we didn't mean it like that. I mean, it's just 0:22:57.800 --> 0:23:02.040 it's a mess, oh boy. Speaking of TikTok. By the way, 0:23:02.200 --> 0:23:05.399 Eric Hann, who was the head of TikTok's US trust 0:23:05.400 --> 0:23:08.439 and safety operations, is leaving the company. This had been 0:23:08.520 --> 0:23:12.520 rumored for a while, and apparently he has said that 0:23:12.600 --> 0:23:17.400 his role was essentially a poisoned chalice, that he had 0:23:17.400 --> 0:23:21.520 the unenviable job of being the person responsible for leading 0:23:21.560 --> 0:23:24.439 efforts to work with the US government in order to 0:23:24.560 --> 0:23:29.199 avoid a nationwide ban on TikTok, and he felt he 0:23:29.280 --> 0:23:31.639 was essentially set up to fail and to be the 0:23:31.760 --> 0:23:35.080 scapegoat for that failure. It's kind of hard to disagree 0:23:35.119 --> 0:23:38.280 with that, because the US government recently has appeared to 0:23:38.320 --> 0:23:41.520 have kind of a laser focus on banning TikTok. For 0:23:41.560 --> 0:23:45.080 the record, I do think TikTok poses some risks. I 0:23:45.119 --> 0:23:49.439 think that TikTok is potentially a dangerous thing when it 0:23:49.480 --> 0:23:52.760 comes to data collection. But as we just talked about 0:23:52.920 --> 0:23:57.399 with the previous news item, all social networks are risky. 0:23:57.560 --> 0:24:01.240 Like that, It's not just TikTok. I mean, talk presents 0:24:01.440 --> 0:24:05.600 a more clear and present danger, at least as a perception. 0:24:05.840 --> 0:24:08.440 I don't know if that's the reality. I honestly don't 0:24:08.480 --> 0:24:12.520 know if people in China have that direct access to 0:24:12.600 --> 0:24:17.000 TikTok's user data, but even if they don't, without strict 0:24:17.040 --> 0:24:20.919 privacy laws in place within the United States, all of 0:24:21.000 --> 0:24:25.040 our user data is still being gathered and bought and sold. 0:24:25.640 --> 0:24:29.399 So it may mean that there's an extra step involved, 0:24:29.840 --> 0:24:33.440 but it doesn't really matter because the Chinese government could 0:24:33.440 --> 0:24:36.080 get hold of all that kind of information across all 0:24:36.119 --> 0:24:39.680 different platforms just by spending the money. It doesn't have 0:24:39.760 --> 0:24:43.560 to have that implanted app in the US for this 0:24:43.640 --> 0:24:47.359 to happen. So I get Han's position here, and it 0:24:47.400 --> 0:24:49.399 really kind of is unfair when you think of it 0:24:49.440 --> 0:24:53.040 that way. And again, it's not that I think that 0:24:53.320 --> 0:24:57.040 TikTok isn't necessarily dangerous. I think TikTok is. But then 0:24:57.280 --> 0:25:01.280 I also think all social media potentially is. It's that 0:25:01.880 --> 0:25:06.240 we need to address privacy laws in the United States, 0:25:06.640 --> 0:25:10.160 and we've needed to do it for decades, and whether 0:25:10.240 --> 0:25:12.320 it ever happens or not, I don't know. My guess 0:25:12.359 --> 0:25:15.440 is what will happen is it will see some sort 0:25:15.440 --> 0:25:19.000 of massive ban on TikTok, which is not gonna solve 0:25:19.000 --> 0:25:20.880 the problem because there are gonna be all these other 0:25:20.920 --> 0:25:23.960 sources of data that are you know, data siphons that 0:25:24.040 --> 0:25:26.960 are going to continue the issue. The problem will still exist. 0:25:27.480 --> 0:25:30.520