WEBVTT - Tech News: Google's Matter of Anti-Trust

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey therein

0:00:12.480 --> 0:00:16.079
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm

0:00:16.120 --> 0:00:19.040
<v Speaker 1>an executive producer with iHeartRadio and how the tech are you?

0:00:19.360 --> 0:00:23.120
<v Speaker 1>It's time for the tech news for Tuesday, September twelfth,

0:00:23.160 --> 0:00:27.280
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty three. So here in the United States, the

0:00:27.360 --> 0:00:30.960
<v Speaker 1>White House has proposed commitments on how to go about

0:00:31.160 --> 0:00:37.199
<v Speaker 1>developing and then deploying various artificial intelligence products. These are

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:41.480
<v Speaker 1>voluntary commitments, so there's no law or anything here. It's

0:00:41.520 --> 0:00:44.800
<v Speaker 1>nothing holding anyone to these things. It's more like a

0:00:44.840 --> 0:00:48.200
<v Speaker 1>pledge that AI companies will promise to do their very

0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:52.200
<v Speaker 1>best not to release AI products that actively make life worse.

0:00:52.560 --> 0:00:55.520
<v Speaker 1>That kind of thing anyway. Several companies have already signed

0:00:55.520 --> 0:01:01.000
<v Speaker 1>this pledge, and some joined the group this week. The

0:01:01.040 --> 0:01:05.480
<v Speaker 1>new ones that joined include IBM and Adobe and Nvidia.

0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:10.080
<v Speaker 1>This follows other really big companies like Google and Microsoft,

0:01:10.080 --> 0:01:15.720
<v Speaker 1>along with open Ai, who signed to obey these commitments

0:01:16.319 --> 0:01:20.440
<v Speaker 1>back in July. Another one that signed this week, perhaps

0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:24.800
<v Speaker 1>a bit surprisingly, was a Palenteer. And what is it

0:01:24.840 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 1>with scary tech companies taking their names from JRR Tolkien works?

0:01:28.920 --> 0:01:31.760
<v Speaker 1>Because Pallenteer comes from Lord of the Rings, and that's

0:01:31.800 --> 0:01:35.840
<v Speaker 1>a software company that has associations with stuff like predictive policing,

0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:40.759
<v Speaker 1>think like Minority Report, but without the psychics. They also

0:01:40.800 --> 0:01:45.479
<v Speaker 1>do deep analytics to look at things like crime statistics

0:01:45.480 --> 0:01:48.720
<v Speaker 1>and potential terrorism and things like that. Then you've got

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:52.720
<v Speaker 1>another Tolkien based defense company. This is not one that

0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:56.600
<v Speaker 1>signed the AI agreement. But there's Anderil, which is Palmer

0:01:56.720 --> 0:02:00.640
<v Speaker 1>Lucky's defense company. That one's working on military drum. Anyway,

0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:04.480
<v Speaker 1>considering Pallunteer's history, I'm a little bit skeptical regarding how

0:02:04.560 --> 0:02:09.160
<v Speaker 1>sincere their commitment to the responsible development of AI might be.

0:02:10.120 --> 0:02:13.960
<v Speaker 1>Maybe that's not fair, but again, I don't think predictive

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.040
<v Speaker 1>policing is fair either. So we're all in the wrong here.

0:02:17.440 --> 0:02:21.359
<v Speaker 1>But let's get back to these commitments. Generally speaking, they

0:02:21.360 --> 0:02:26.440
<v Speaker 1>are some fairly broad promises to essentially not create malicious

0:02:26.600 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 1>or dangerous AI, at least not on purpose. It's largely

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:33.280
<v Speaker 1>being looked at as sort of a placeholder while the

0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:36.400
<v Speaker 1>US Congress debates on any actual laws that would govern

0:02:36.480 --> 0:02:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the development and deployment of AI, because you know, the

0:02:40.040 --> 0:02:43.800
<v Speaker 1>president can't just make laws. That's the that's the job

0:02:43.800 --> 0:02:47.520
<v Speaker 1>of the legislative branch. The president will then you know,

0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:51.959
<v Speaker 1>sign a bill into law. But the president cannot make

0:02:52.040 --> 0:02:57.320
<v Speaker 1>laws on their own. So that's why this is, you know,

0:02:57.400 --> 0:03:02.520
<v Speaker 1>sort of these these wishy washy voluntary commitments. Still, I

0:03:02.520 --> 0:03:05.560
<v Speaker 1>guess it's better than nothing. Time will tell. I suppose

0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:10.120
<v Speaker 1>a big tech court case begins today in the United States.

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.480
<v Speaker 1>So in this conna, we got the US Department of

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:17.960
<v Speaker 1>Justice and their opponent from pot's unknown, well not unknown,

0:03:18.000 --> 0:03:21.920
<v Speaker 1>it was a garage in California. It's Google. So the

0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:25.639
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit in this case is a really big anti trust lawsuit.

0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:28.040
<v Speaker 1>So this has to do with monopolies, you know, not

0:03:28.120 --> 0:03:29.880
<v Speaker 1>the kind where if you rolled doubles you get to

0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:33.200
<v Speaker 1>go again. The last time the US government went after

0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.920
<v Speaker 1>a tech company like this was way back in nineteen

0:03:36.000 --> 0:03:42.160
<v Speaker 1>ninety eight. That's when initially US courts found Microsoft guilty

0:03:42.200 --> 0:03:46.400
<v Speaker 1>of violating the Sherman Anti Trust Act, and ultimately the

0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:49.200
<v Speaker 1>judgment was that the company would need to break up

0:03:49.280 --> 0:03:53.160
<v Speaker 1>into two different companies, one that focused on the operating

0:03:53.160 --> 0:03:56.600
<v Speaker 1>system and one that focused on software. But an appeals

0:03:56.600 --> 0:04:00.680
<v Speaker 1>court later took the teeth out of that. Microsoft was

0:04:00.720 --> 0:04:05.280
<v Speaker 1>allowed to remain a cohesive whole and continue to grow

0:04:05.360 --> 0:04:10.400
<v Speaker 1>and consolidate and such. Now Google is in the government's crosshairs.

0:04:10.880 --> 0:04:13.480
<v Speaker 1>The argument is that Google has used its dominant position

0:04:13.560 --> 0:04:17.200
<v Speaker 1>to maintain a stranglehold on the web search business. Now,

0:04:17.320 --> 0:04:22.279
<v Speaker 1>keep in mind, Google's real business is mostly about displaying ads.

0:04:22.920 --> 0:04:27.400
<v Speaker 1>It's just that web search results are the vehicle through

0:04:27.400 --> 0:04:31.600
<v Speaker 1>which Google serves ads, So the search part is kind

0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:36.119
<v Speaker 1>of like, it's sort of beside the point. The whole

0:04:36.160 --> 0:04:41.080
<v Speaker 1>business for Google is the ad business. But most analyzes

0:04:42.040 --> 0:04:46.920
<v Speaker 1>are suggesting that Google commands more than ninety percent of

0:04:46.960 --> 0:04:51.040
<v Speaker 1>the market share for web searches, So it definitely seems

0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:56.520
<v Speaker 1>like we're talking monopoly territory here. I mean, if more

0:04:56.560 --> 0:05:00.520
<v Speaker 1>than nine out of ten web searches are using your product,

0:05:01.480 --> 0:05:03.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't know how you can argue you don't hold

0:05:03.400 --> 0:05:07.320
<v Speaker 1>a monopoly. Google's lawyers argue that the company actually has

0:05:07.360 --> 0:05:10.200
<v Speaker 1>plenty of competition. I mean, you know, first of all,

0:05:10.240 --> 0:05:14.880
<v Speaker 1>you got bing. Everybody knows bing, right, But beyond that,

0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:19.440
<v Speaker 1>they argue that there are other services that serve a

0:05:19.480 --> 0:05:24.039
<v Speaker 1>similar purpose as web searches. It's just they're not obviously

0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:27.800
<v Speaker 1>web searches. So maybe it's a service like Yelp, where

0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:29.720
<v Speaker 1>you're using Yelp to figure out where you're going to

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:33.040
<v Speaker 1>go eat out at night, or maybe it's a service

0:05:33.120 --> 0:05:36.560
<v Speaker 1>like Amazon where you're searching for a specific product to purchase.

0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:40.600
<v Speaker 1>And so Google's argument is like, that's our competition, right,

0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:43.480
<v Speaker 1>so therefore we're not a monopoly. There's all these other

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:47.719
<v Speaker 1>services that are doing similar things. I don't think those

0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:52.200
<v Speaker 1>arguments are terribly convincing personally, but then I'm not a judge,

0:05:52.480 --> 0:05:56.039
<v Speaker 1>so maybe I would be persuaded if I were. Anyway,

0:05:56.120 --> 0:05:58.800
<v Speaker 1>this case is really just a determine if Google has

0:05:58.880 --> 0:06:03.640
<v Speaker 1>done anything that could be considered illegal, like if they

0:06:03.640 --> 0:06:07.160
<v Speaker 1>have broken the Sherman Antitrust Act or something like that.

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:12.920
<v Speaker 1>If the trial determines that Google has done that, then

0:06:12.960 --> 0:06:15.560
<v Speaker 1>there will have to be another trial to figure out

0:06:15.600 --> 0:06:18.320
<v Speaker 1>what to do about Google. Also, I've said that name

0:06:18.360 --> 0:06:20.640
<v Speaker 1>so many times that my smart speaker is now listening

0:06:20.680 --> 0:06:22.400
<v Speaker 1>to me because I heard it chime a second ago.

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:27.120
<v Speaker 1>So if you heard that, it's just a hazard of

0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:31.560
<v Speaker 1>the business. Now. Google is not the only big tech

0:06:31.560 --> 0:06:36.440
<v Speaker 1>company facing some legal scrutiny recently. Ashley Giovic, whose name

0:06:36.520 --> 0:06:39.400
<v Speaker 1>I know I'm butchering and I will continue to do so.

0:06:40.200 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>She was once an employee of Apple, and she has

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:47.719
<v Speaker 1>brought several civil cases against Apple over the last couple

0:06:47.760 --> 0:06:51.640
<v Speaker 1>of years. So, in twenty twenty one, Apple fired her

0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:55.000
<v Speaker 1>and said that she had violated the company's intellectual property

0:06:55.000 --> 0:07:00.159
<v Speaker 1>policies and the company accused her of leaking proprietary information

0:07:00.240 --> 0:07:05.360
<v Speaker 1>to the public. However, before she was fired, she had

0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:08.760
<v Speaker 1>come forward as a whistleblower and she had complaints about

0:07:08.839 --> 0:07:12.320
<v Speaker 1>Apple's effects on the environment, saying that their environmental policy

0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:16.040
<v Speaker 1>was not reflective of what the company was actually doing.

0:07:17.160 --> 0:07:20.560
<v Speaker 1>She also argued that the company had severe problems of

0:07:21.520 --> 0:07:27.000
<v Speaker 1>harassment and discrimination within corporate culture. And so she says

0:07:27.480 --> 0:07:31.880
<v Speaker 1>that she was fired not because of supposedly leaking proprietary information,

0:07:32.520 --> 0:07:36.600
<v Speaker 1>but rather this was a retaliatory strike against her to

0:07:36.720 --> 0:07:40.680
<v Speaker 1>silence her after she came forward with these whistleblower complaints. Now,

0:07:40.720 --> 0:07:43.880
<v Speaker 1>retaliatory action is a pretty big no no for companies.

0:07:44.520 --> 0:07:47.200
<v Speaker 1>She then brought some civil cases against Apple. They have

0:07:47.240 --> 0:07:49.520
<v Speaker 1>slowly made their way through the system. She actually won

0:07:50.120 --> 0:07:52.960
<v Speaker 1>one of those cases and got a preliminary win in

0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:57.760
<v Speaker 1>another one. However, the state has been very slow, or

0:07:57.800 --> 0:07:59.640
<v Speaker 1>the courts, I should say, not just the state. The

0:07:59.680 --> 0:08:02.480
<v Speaker 1>court systems have been very slow, and there is a

0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:07.800
<v Speaker 1>statute of limitations on these civil cases, so that means

0:08:07.800 --> 0:08:10.200
<v Speaker 1>that her cases are actually going to expire, they will

0:08:10.240 --> 0:08:13.920
<v Speaker 1>no longer be viable. And it's not her fault because

0:08:14.080 --> 0:08:17.640
<v Speaker 1>she can't just make the investigations pick up the pace.

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:22.400
<v Speaker 1>So she has now filed a civil lawsuit against Apple

0:08:22.640 --> 0:08:25.440
<v Speaker 1>to keep her efforts alive as she awaits the results

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:29.520
<v Speaker 1>of various investigations looking into the claims of retaliation. The

0:08:29.640 --> 0:08:33.320
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit she has filed is a RICO lawsuit. RICO stands

0:08:33.320 --> 0:08:39.000
<v Speaker 1>for Racketeering, Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, So there are

0:08:39.000 --> 0:08:42.120
<v Speaker 1>federal RICO laws and there are state RICO laws here

0:08:42.160 --> 0:08:45.280
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. RICO laws add in some pretty

0:08:45.320 --> 0:08:49.960
<v Speaker 1>hefty penalties, but they only cover charges that are part

0:08:50.080 --> 0:08:55.320
<v Speaker 1>of the operations of a criminal organization. So it's for

0:08:55.440 --> 0:08:59.280
<v Speaker 1>very specific circumstances. You can't just use racketeering charges for anything.

0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:02.240
<v Speaker 1>It has to be this case within the realm of

0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:05.360
<v Speaker 1>operations of a criminal organization. And usually we see RICO

0:09:05.640 --> 0:09:10.040
<v Speaker 1>apply to stuff like gang's an organized crime. Famously, here

0:09:10.080 --> 0:09:14.000
<v Speaker 1>in Georgia we are seeing RICO charges applied to the

0:09:14.040 --> 0:09:17.160
<v Speaker 1>alleged conspiracy to overturn the results of the twenty twenty

0:09:17.200 --> 0:09:21.640
<v Speaker 1>election here in my home state. So her lawsuit against

0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 1>Apple is essentially saying Apple is effectively operating like a

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:29.040
<v Speaker 1>criminal organization. She posted a lengthy blog entry on this,

0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:32.480
<v Speaker 1>and I will quote the relevant RICO passage here. It's

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:34.680
<v Speaker 1>a long quote, but it's a very long piece. So

0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:38.720
<v Speaker 1>here we go. Quote. If an employer terminates an employee

0:09:38.760 --> 0:09:42.280
<v Speaker 1>in a way that constitutes an indictable criminal act that

0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:46.160
<v Speaker 1>is on the enumerated list of predicate acts for RICO,

0:09:46.800 --> 0:09:50.920
<v Speaker 1>it can then establish a RICO case with additional related

0:09:51.240 --> 0:09:55.560
<v Speaker 1>predicate acts. Apple fired me in an egregious violation of

0:09:55.679 --> 0:10:00.160
<v Speaker 1>eighteen USC. Section fifteen twelve and fifteen thirteen, with me

0:10:00.160 --> 0:10:04.040
<v Speaker 1>me even complaining of witness intimidation. As they did the

0:10:04.160 --> 0:10:07.560
<v Speaker 1>deed with that predicate act, I was able to weave

0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:11.319
<v Speaker 1>in their additional violations of fifteen twelve and fifteen thirteen,

0:10:11.880 --> 0:10:16.280
<v Speaker 1>their wire fraud and mail fraud, my complaints about securities fraud,

0:10:16.640 --> 0:10:21.000
<v Speaker 1>and my complaints about state criminal bribery and extortion. This

0:10:21.120 --> 0:10:23.880
<v Speaker 1>also opened the door to include predicate acts of Tom

0:10:23.920 --> 0:10:29.320
<v Speaker 1>Moyer's criminal bribery charge, Nancy Heinen's securities fraud charges, and

0:10:29.440 --> 0:10:33.840
<v Speaker 1>gene Levoff's securities fraud convictions. I also found a surprising

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:37.960
<v Speaker 1>doorway into integrating my toxic torte claims at Apple's many

0:10:38.080 --> 0:10:42.160
<v Speaker 1>environmental law violations, which I will write about in detail later.

0:10:42.520 --> 0:10:44.920
<v Speaker 1>End quote. And again, like I said, that's a very

0:10:44.920 --> 0:10:47.520
<v Speaker 1>long quote, but it's part of a much much longer

0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:51.040
<v Speaker 1>piece where she explains her process. No word yet on

0:10:51.120 --> 0:10:55.000
<v Speaker 1>how Apple will respond to this lawsuit, but yeah, this

0:10:55.080 --> 0:10:58.920
<v Speaker 1>is a This is a pretty hefty piece of lawsuit

0:10:58.960 --> 0:11:01.560
<v Speaker 1>to be brought up against Apple. Whether it goes anywhere,

0:11:01.600 --> 0:11:05.240
<v Speaker 1>who's to say, But we will see. Okay, I've got

0:11:05.280 --> 0:11:07.320
<v Speaker 1>a lot more news to cover before we get to that.

0:11:07.400 --> 0:11:19.760
<v Speaker 1>Let's take a quick break. This week, TikTok has rolled

0:11:19.760 --> 0:11:24.160
<v Speaker 1>out e commerce features on its platform in the United States,

0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:27.240
<v Speaker 1>so users in the US will now see a shop tab,

0:11:27.640 --> 0:11:29.560
<v Speaker 1>and it's so inclined they can use that to view

0:11:29.600 --> 0:11:32.640
<v Speaker 1>and purchase items, and it gives brands more incentives to

0:11:32.720 --> 0:11:36.040
<v Speaker 1>work with TikTok and to seek out influencers in the

0:11:36.120 --> 0:11:39.880
<v Speaker 1>space and to form strategic partnerships. And for folks who

0:11:39.880 --> 0:11:42.679
<v Speaker 1>are using TikTok, it means they can shop, shop, shop

0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:46.200
<v Speaker 1>till they tick TikTok or something. This is nothing new

0:11:46.280 --> 0:11:48.760
<v Speaker 1>in other parts of the world. TikTok has had similar

0:11:48.800 --> 0:11:53.840
<v Speaker 1>e commerce features live in places like the UK, Singapore, Malaysia,

0:11:54.040 --> 0:11:57.520
<v Speaker 1>the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam for a while now. So

0:11:57.920 --> 0:12:01.120
<v Speaker 1>it's interesting to me because business is clearly going on

0:12:01.400 --> 0:12:04.520
<v Speaker 1>for TikTok here in the US, even as we still

0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:10.080
<v Speaker 1>occasionally see various US government officials make efforts to shut

0:12:10.200 --> 0:12:14.679
<v Speaker 1>TikTok down or force it to be divested from its

0:12:14.720 --> 0:12:18.880
<v Speaker 1>parent company, byte Edance. So yeah, interesting stuff if you're

0:12:18.920 --> 0:12:23.600
<v Speaker 1>a TikTok user, now, y'all. I'm headed off to Vegas

0:12:23.720 --> 0:12:25.520
<v Speaker 1>in a little bit more than a week for a

0:12:25.559 --> 0:12:29.160
<v Speaker 1>work trip. Actually it's technically for two work trips, but

0:12:29.240 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 1>those work trips are back to back, so I just

0:12:30.920 --> 0:12:32.920
<v Speaker 1>made it one big one. So for one week, I'm

0:12:32.960 --> 0:12:36.240
<v Speaker 1>going to be recording in a hotel room in Las Vegas.

0:12:36.240 --> 0:12:39.640
<v Speaker 1>It's really living the lush life anyway. I'm going to

0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:42.720
<v Speaker 1>be staying at a place that is owned by MGM Resorts,

0:12:42.880 --> 0:12:45.200
<v Speaker 1>and that has me a little bit concerned because this

0:12:45.320 --> 0:12:49.600
<v Speaker 1>week the company experienced some sort of undefined quote unquote

0:12:49.720 --> 0:12:54.520
<v Speaker 1>cybersecurity issue. The issue has already been a pretty serious one.

0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:58.000
<v Speaker 1>The company had to replace its homepage with a message

0:12:58.040 --> 0:13:02.320
<v Speaker 1>explaining that its websites were now offline, and instead gave

0:13:02.360 --> 0:13:05.320
<v Speaker 1>people various phone numbers if they needed to talk with

0:13:05.520 --> 0:13:07.880
<v Speaker 1>someone at one of the MGM resorts to do things like,

0:13:07.920 --> 0:13:11.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, make a reservation or whatever. And while I'm

0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:14.960
<v Speaker 1>familiar with the Vegas properties under MGM, it turns out

0:13:15.080 --> 0:13:19.800
<v Speaker 1>this cybersecurity issue was organizationwide. It's not just the MGM

0:13:19.840 --> 0:13:23.000
<v Speaker 1>properties in Vegas. Also the ones in Atlantic City and

0:13:23.080 --> 0:13:27.040
<v Speaker 1>Detroit have had at least some effect with this too.

0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:30.520
<v Speaker 1>So according to a couple sites I was reading, some

0:13:30.640 --> 0:13:36.280
<v Speaker 1>digital keys stopped working. The resorts rewards program went offline.

0:13:36.360 --> 0:13:38.600
<v Speaker 1>That's a pretty big deal for lots of gamblers who

0:13:38.920 --> 0:13:42.200
<v Speaker 1>you know, they use those rewards programs to kind of

0:13:42.240 --> 0:13:45.920
<v Speaker 1>eke out every single potential benefit you can get from

0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:50.040
<v Speaker 1>gambling and shopping at a particular resort. And at least

0:13:50.040 --> 0:13:53.920
<v Speaker 1>some MGM operated casinos were having issues with their slot machines.

0:13:54.280 --> 0:13:57.120
<v Speaker 1>So these days, you know, most slot machines use digital

0:13:57.240 --> 0:13:59.680
<v Speaker 1>video rather than physical spools. There are some that still

0:13:59.760 --> 0:14:03.360
<v Speaker 1>use spools, but they're all commanded by a micro cheb.

0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:07.560
<v Speaker 1>But some pictures shared on X formerly known as Twitter,

0:14:07.920 --> 0:14:11.160
<v Speaker 1>showed slot machines that were offline. They had error messages

0:14:11.200 --> 0:14:15.280
<v Speaker 1>on their screens. Beyond that, apparently some ATMs were also offline,

0:14:15.320 --> 0:14:17.640
<v Speaker 1>and according to at least one X user, the cashier

0:14:17.679 --> 0:14:20.080
<v Speaker 1>window in an MGM resort had shut down as well,

0:14:21.040 --> 0:14:24.120
<v Speaker 1>which is a big ol' ouch. The rumor mill has

0:14:24.160 --> 0:14:27.120
<v Speaker 1>circulated that the issue might stem from a ransomware attack,

0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:31.800
<v Speaker 1>but no such confirmation has been made by MGM resorts itself.

0:14:32.320 --> 0:14:35.000
<v Speaker 1>Now let's pop on over to X slash Twitter for

0:14:35.040 --> 0:14:38.320
<v Speaker 1>a second. According to an analysis firm called news Whip,

0:14:38.800 --> 0:14:41.600
<v Speaker 1>it looks like X has been purposefully limiting the reach

0:14:41.680 --> 0:14:45.320
<v Speaker 1>of posts containing links to articles on the New York Times.

0:14:46.040 --> 0:14:49.640
<v Speaker 1>NewsWhip saw that starting in July, there was this precipitous

0:14:49.760 --> 0:14:52.520
<v Speaker 1>drop and how frequently New York Times articles were being

0:14:52.600 --> 0:14:57.680
<v Speaker 1>shared across X, and the engagement that New York Times

0:14:57.680 --> 0:15:02.240
<v Speaker 1>had on other social media platforms remained stable. So it

0:15:02.280 --> 0:15:05.240
<v Speaker 1>was just on X where this dip was happening. So

0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:08.800
<v Speaker 1>unless the population of X slash Twitter just started to

0:15:08.840 --> 0:15:12.360
<v Speaker 1>behave out of line with people everywhere else, it is

0:15:12.760 --> 0:15:15.920
<v Speaker 1>a somewhat understandable conclusion to assume that X has done

0:15:16.000 --> 0:15:18.760
<v Speaker 1>something behind the scenes to limit the spread of New

0:15:18.840 --> 0:15:23.720
<v Speaker 1>York Times material across the platform. If we assume that

0:15:24.080 --> 0:15:27.480
<v Speaker 1>X is intentionally limiting the reach of New York Times articles,

0:15:27.840 --> 0:15:31.640
<v Speaker 1>it does once again seem to go against Elon Musk's

0:15:31.720 --> 0:15:35.160
<v Speaker 1>claimed commitment to free speech. Now, I know I say

0:15:35.160 --> 0:15:37.120
<v Speaker 1>this a lot, but I'm going to say it again anyway.

0:15:37.640 --> 0:15:40.800
<v Speaker 1>To me, it seems that Musk's idea of free speech

0:15:41.200 --> 0:15:44.680
<v Speaker 1>is only applicable to speech that he agrees with, and

0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:47.640
<v Speaker 1>everything else is fair game. Anyway. As far as I

0:15:47.640 --> 0:15:50.200
<v Speaker 1>can tell, The Times has yet to receive an explanation

0:15:50.280 --> 0:15:52.880
<v Speaker 1>as to why there's been this big change in engagement

0:15:52.920 --> 0:15:56.240
<v Speaker 1>and traffic on X and that it quote would be

0:15:56.320 --> 0:16:00.360
<v Speaker 1>concerned by targeted pressure applied to any news organization for

0:16:00.480 --> 0:16:04.760
<v Speaker 1>unclear reasons end quote over at a different Musk company,

0:16:05.120 --> 0:16:07.960
<v Speaker 1>that being Tesla. It appears that there was a bit

0:16:08.000 --> 0:16:10.600
<v Speaker 1>of a mutiny going on in the last few years,

0:16:10.720 --> 0:16:13.360
<v Speaker 1>kind of low key mutiny in the grand scheme of things.

0:16:13.720 --> 0:16:18.640
<v Speaker 1>Auto Blog reported on this, citing biographer Walter Isaacson, who

0:16:19.080 --> 0:16:24.880
<v Speaker 1>is releasing a biography about Musk this week. Apparently, Franz

0:16:24.960 --> 0:16:29.360
<v Speaker 1>von Holtzhausen, who serves as design chief at Tesla told

0:16:29.440 --> 0:16:33.160
<v Speaker 1>Isaacson that some engineers within Tesla really hated the design

0:16:33.200 --> 0:16:36.240
<v Speaker 1>of the cyber truck. I'll remind you the cyber truck

0:16:36.280 --> 0:16:39.640
<v Speaker 1>was announced in twenty nineteen kind of to hilarious results,

0:16:40.080 --> 0:16:44.800
<v Speaker 1>and yet has not reached a single customer, although theoretically

0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:47.800
<v Speaker 1>they could be coming out any day now. We actually

0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:50.800
<v Speaker 1>don't really have that much real information about specs and

0:16:50.880 --> 0:16:54.560
<v Speaker 1>capability of this vehicle, which is odd considering how close

0:16:54.600 --> 0:16:57.520
<v Speaker 1>it supposedly is to being delivered. You know, last we

0:16:57.600 --> 0:16:59.800
<v Speaker 1>heard it was going to be shipped by the end

0:16:59.800 --> 0:17:02.440
<v Speaker 1>of the month. Anyway, back to the story, So apparently

0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:05.520
<v Speaker 1>these designers took issue with the proposed cyber truck back

0:17:05.520 --> 0:17:07.840
<v Speaker 1>in the design phase and decided that they would not

0:17:07.880 --> 0:17:11.159
<v Speaker 1>be a part of it. Instead, they secretly began designing

0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:15.040
<v Speaker 1>their own electric pickup truck. Now, whatever happened to those designs,

0:17:15.160 --> 0:17:17.600
<v Speaker 1>or even whatever happened to the people who made them,

0:17:17.720 --> 0:17:20.640
<v Speaker 1>I can't say. I can't say. The cyber truck continues

0:17:20.680 --> 0:17:23.760
<v Speaker 1>to be a divisive topic in general. Some folks kind

0:17:23.800 --> 0:17:27.159
<v Speaker 1>of dig the weird angular body, others absolutely hate it.

0:17:27.480 --> 0:17:30.840
<v Speaker 1>I'm kind of indifferent with it. I'm more interested in

0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:34.040
<v Speaker 1>a company's ability to hold itself to deadlines and schedules,

0:17:34.480 --> 0:17:36.560
<v Speaker 1>which I imagine is a lot easier when the person

0:17:36.600 --> 0:17:39.919
<v Speaker 1>in charge isn't as mercurial as Musk appears to be.

0:17:42.160 --> 0:17:44.760
<v Speaker 1>The state of California has passed a bill that effectively

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:50.199
<v Speaker 1>will ban autonomous heavy duty vehicles that operate on public

0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:53.399
<v Speaker 1>roads if those vehicles don't have a human being ready

0:17:53.440 --> 0:17:56.920
<v Speaker 1>to take over in an instant. So essentially, this bill,

0:17:57.040 --> 0:18:00.920
<v Speaker 1>if passed into law, will ban autonomous trucking at least

0:18:01.320 --> 0:18:04.359
<v Speaker 1>any autonomous trucking that doesn't also have a human driver

0:18:04.680 --> 0:18:08.359
<v Speaker 1>in addition to the autonomous systems. It passed the state

0:18:08.520 --> 0:18:11.960
<v Speaker 1>Senate thirty six to two. Now it goes to California

0:18:12.000 --> 0:18:16.400
<v Speaker 1>Governor Gavin Newsom's desks. If he signs the bill, then

0:18:16.440 --> 0:18:19.760
<v Speaker 1>it will become law. However, Newsom has a history of

0:18:19.800 --> 0:18:23.399
<v Speaker 1>siding with tech companies. He's very tech company friendly, so

0:18:23.720 --> 0:18:27.359
<v Speaker 1>it's possible he'll choose to veto the measure. In fact,

0:18:27.400 --> 0:18:30.560
<v Speaker 1>all indications seem to suggest that's what he will do.

0:18:31.200 --> 0:18:33.640
<v Speaker 1>The bill is kind of at the center of an ongoing,

0:18:33.800 --> 0:18:38.440
<v Speaker 1>heated debate within California, So you've got people who represent

0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:41.400
<v Speaker 1>the interest of truckers, you know, like Teamster Unions who

0:18:41.600 --> 0:18:45.120
<v Speaker 1>argue that companies that are in the autonomous vehicle space,

0:18:45.119 --> 0:18:48.919
<v Speaker 1>who have been pushing for autonomous trucking are doing so

0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:54.840
<v Speaker 1>without having a proven safety record, and that it's largely

0:18:55.119 --> 0:18:59.359
<v Speaker 1>an attempt to appeal to shareholders, to appeal to investors

0:18:59.400 --> 0:19:03.000
<v Speaker 1>to say, hey, look, we're getting ready to jump into

0:19:03.480 --> 0:19:08.080
<v Speaker 1>full deployment now because it's been such a slow process

0:19:08.359 --> 0:19:12.000
<v Speaker 1>of having the technology evolve over time that this has

0:19:12.040 --> 0:19:15.320
<v Speaker 1>taken longer than these companies anticipated, and in order to

0:19:15.800 --> 0:19:18.240
<v Speaker 1>give their investors something to hold on to, they're saying,

0:19:18.240 --> 0:19:21.240
<v Speaker 1>all right, we're going to jump into operations. And so

0:19:21.359 --> 0:19:25.480
<v Speaker 1>that's why Teamster Unions say that they are behind the

0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:28.240
<v Speaker 1>bill that would ban this. They also, of course point

0:19:28.240 --> 0:19:31.639
<v Speaker 1>out that it could have a huge negative impact on

0:19:31.800 --> 0:19:34.879
<v Speaker 1>the trucking industry as far as the truckers themselves are concerned,

0:19:34.920 --> 0:19:40.040
<v Speaker 1>it could take away their livelihoods. So the bill calls

0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:44.399
<v Speaker 1>for more extensive studies on vehicle performance and safety, and

0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:46.760
<v Speaker 1>the California Department of Motor Vehicles would have to make

0:19:46.800 --> 0:19:49.240
<v Speaker 1>a determination as to how safe or unsafe the tech

0:19:49.359 --> 0:19:53.360
<v Speaker 1>was by January first, twenty twenty nine, or after five

0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:56.320
<v Speaker 1>years of testing, whichever comes first. The DMV is not

0:19:56.359 --> 0:19:58.600
<v Speaker 1>thrilled with that measure. They have argued that it would

0:19:58.760 --> 0:20:02.600
<v Speaker 1>have a chilling effect innovation. If Newsom does veto the

0:20:02.600 --> 0:20:05.840
<v Speaker 1>bill as expected, it would require a two thirds majority

0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:09.639
<v Speaker 1>in both the California Senate and the state Assembly to

0:20:09.720 --> 0:20:12.560
<v Speaker 1>override the veto and pass it into law. That hasn't

0:20:12.600 --> 0:20:15.919
<v Speaker 1>happened since nineteen seventy nine. But based on what I'm seeing,

0:20:16.480 --> 0:20:19.679
<v Speaker 1>the California Assembly voted in favor initially sixty nine to

0:20:19.720 --> 0:20:22.919
<v Speaker 1>four when they first passed this bill, and the Senate

0:20:22.960 --> 0:20:26.200
<v Speaker 1>approved it thirty six to two. So really the support

0:20:26.280 --> 0:20:29.320
<v Speaker 1>is there if they wanted to try and override a veto.

0:20:29.520 --> 0:20:32.280
<v Speaker 1>I just don't know if they would want to do that. Okay,

0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:36.320
<v Speaker 1>that's it for the news for Tuesday, September twelfth, twenty

0:20:36.440 --> 0:20:38.920
<v Speaker 1>twenty three. I hope you're all well, and I'll talk

0:20:38.920 --> 0:20:49.640
<v Speaker 1>to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production.

0:20:49.960 --> 0:20:55.000
<v Speaker 1>For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

0:20:55.119 --> 0:21:00.080
<v Speaker 1>or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. He