Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd and this
Speaker 1: is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome to
Speaker 1: There No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the
Speaker 1: intersection of technology, social media, the Internet, and identity. And
Speaker 1: this is another installment of our weekly news Roundup where
Speaker 1: we're rounding out some of the stories that happened online
Speaker 1: that you might have missed this week. Mike, thank you
Speaker 1: for being here.
Speaker 2: Bridget, thanks for having me. Always a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1: I should say I am still in Maza Laan, Mexico,
Speaker 1: where I traveled to see the eclipse. When I recorded
Speaker 1: the News round Up with Joey the previous week, I
Speaker 1: had not yet seen the eclipse. Now I have seen
Speaker 1: the eclipse, I feel that everything has changed. It's like
Speaker 1: jenniber corn Kid where he says when I tried corn
Speaker 1: with butter, everything changed. When I saw the eclipse, in totality,
Speaker 1: everything changed.
Speaker 2: This is like you're putting butter on corn. Amazing. So
Speaker 2: where where were you when you saw it?
Speaker 1: I was out on the beach. You know. I had
Speaker 1: these like very complicated plans to take a ferry to
Speaker 1: a small island and then hike up a little area
Speaker 1: and then I was like, let's just go to the beach,
Speaker 1: and so the whole it felt like the whole city
Speaker 1: of Mazatlan came out to the beach to see it.
Speaker 1: I have never experienced totality, and for a really long time,
Speaker 1: everybody in my life has been telling me like, oh,
Speaker 1: totality is amazing, like it's going to change your life,
Speaker 1: like blah blah blah. Iyes was like, oh, well, I've
Speaker 1: seen it from my office in eclipse classes from like
Speaker 1: downtown Washington, DC. Is that not the same thing? And
Speaker 1: people are like no, And I always felt a little
Speaker 1: bit raw about it, if I'm being honest. My I
Speaker 1: did not know this, but my father is an eclipse chaser,
Speaker 1: and I only learned that when I tried to say
Speaker 1: that I experienced an eclipse in a partial eclipse in DC,
Speaker 1: and he was like, no, you haven't. If you haven't
Speaker 1: been in totality, you haven't experienced shit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, totality really But he was right, He's right. I
Speaker 2: mean he didn't have to say so rudely, but totality
Speaker 2: really is a whole different thing.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Somebody described being in ninety nine percent eclipse as like
Speaker 2: driving ninety nine percent of the way to Disney World,
Speaker 2: And I feel that's like a good description, right, Like
Speaker 2: unless you actually get all the way there, you're not
Speaker 2: experiencing it. Yeah, the eclipse was beautiful. It was sublime.
Speaker 2: Can't wait for the next one.
Speaker 1: Did you see this thing where there was like eclipse backlash.
Speaker 1: I'm not just talking about all the different wacky conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories that people said the eclipse was going to trigger,
Speaker 1: which obviously that's bunk. I mean reasonable people who were like,
Speaker 1: stop being excited about the eclipse, like you don't have
Speaker 1: you I'm not going to be pressured into caring about
Speaker 1: this eclipse. Did you see any of that?
Speaker 2: I did, and I found it super baffling and sort
Speaker 2: of like disappointing about society. Yeah, it was like a
Speaker 2: whole category of content of people expressing anti eclipse sentiment
Speaker 2: like don't be excited about it, it's not that great.
Speaker 2: Who cares? And then even after the eclipse, I've seen
Speaker 2: some content that was like framed that way with like
Speaker 2: clickbaity headlines about what was the headline that I saw
Speaker 2: this morning? Just this morning, somebody was like complaining about
Speaker 2: the eclipse because and then he got into the article
Speaker 2: and they were like it was so beautiful that now
Speaker 2: I don't know what to do with myself. But the
Speaker 2: headline was like clickbaity and anti eclipse, and so it's
Speaker 2: just I don't know, it's like, can't we have anything
Speaker 2: nice where we just feel good about something?
Speaker 1: Well? That's my thing is that post eclipse, I'm actually
Speaker 1: feeling a lot of, for lack of a better phrase,
Speaker 1: childlike wonder. Like I think like being around all these
Speaker 1: people who just wanted to mar at this this celestial
Speaker 1: magic thing that happened in the sky, and I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's just like it felt like a whole day where
Speaker 1: people got to be excited about something that's pure and good,
Speaker 1: and just like I don't know reading about how the
Speaker 1: only reason why we get eclipses this is because like,
Speaker 1: are the sun and the moon happen to be the
Speaker 1: same size? Is that right?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean it is kind of like I want
Speaker 2: to say, magical magic isn't the word, but uh yeah,
Speaker 2: like the the sizes are it seems like quite quite
Speaker 2: a coincidence that the sizes are so aligned the way
Speaker 2: that they are considering how far apart these objects are.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I just think that's nice that it's this
Speaker 1: like coincidental thing that we as humans just get to experience,
Speaker 1: and how lucky for us. And yeah, we should have
Speaker 1: more things that are just purely about Marvel for Marvel's sake,
Speaker 1: and look up at the sky and wonder. We don't
Speaker 1: get a lot of opportunities for childlike wonder collectively. So
Speaker 1: I'm still feeling the warm fuzzies from it, I guess.
Speaker 1: But I should also say that because I'm in Mexico still,
Speaker 1: I am still really close to a beach where there
Speaker 1: are roaming bands, which I learned actually they are called
Speaker 1: bonda bands. And Mazatlan, Mexico is the place where that
Speaker 1: tradition of like playing music on the beach and like
Speaker 1: wandering around. This is the hometown of that tradition. So
Speaker 1: go Mazatlan, Mexico. But you might hear a little bit
Speaker 1: of jubilation in the background, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's pretty cool. I like to like the idea
Speaker 2: of roving bands of musicians traveling up and down the beach,
Speaker 2: going back to that like childlike wonder at the beauty
Speaker 2: of nature in the universe. I think that's sort of
Speaker 2: what that anti eclipse article I read this morning was
Speaker 2: like pushing back against for complaining about because you know,
Speaker 2: they had experienced it during the brief, sublimely beautiful moment
Speaker 2: and then it passed, and the author almost sounded like
Speaker 2: mad that now they had to go back to their normal,
Speaker 2: humdrum life and they struggled to remember what it had
Speaker 2: been like during totality. And you know, I just think
Speaker 2: anger at the eclipse is one path a person could
Speaker 2: take to deal with those feelings. Another path could be
Speaker 2: to try to seek out opportunities to marvel at the
Speaker 2: world more regularly. Right, Like, our lives don't have to
Speaker 2: be soul crushing grinds. We can look up and wonder
Speaker 2: every now and again.
Speaker 1: Sounds like somebody's in the pocket of Big Eclipse.
Speaker 2: Mike, Yeah, I'll admit it. I'm on the dole for
Speaker 2: Big Eclipse.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of soul crushing, not everything is childlike wonder.
Speaker 1: And this is something that I've been experiencing, a childlike
Speaker 1: sense of rage and infuriation. I guess I might.
Speaker 2: Say, Yeah, I guess children really do like whatever they're feeling.
Speaker 2: They just really feel it intensely. Yeah, So what do
Speaker 2: you feel a childlike rage about? Bridge? So?
Speaker 1: Francesca Amaouda Rivers is an actor who was cast as
Speaker 1: Juliet in an upcoming London West End production of Romeo
Speaker 1: and Juliet alongside Tom Holland, who you might know from
Speaker 1: those Spider Man movies or datings, and Daia alongside him
Speaker 1: as Romeo. So the entire production is pretty racially diverse.
Speaker 1: Because Francesca is a dark skinned black woman, that means
Speaker 1: that her being cast as Juliet has led to this
Speaker 1: torrent of racist, sexist online abuse, people saying she's too
Speaker 1: ugly and too black to be a beautiful Juliet figure
Speaker 1: and that her casting is quote woke, and that she
Speaker 1: did not deserve the role. So the Jamie Lloyd Company,
Speaker 1: which is the company behind the production, put out a
Speaker 1: statement saying, following the announce of our Romeo and Juliette cast,
Speaker 1: there has been a barrage of deplorable racial abuse online
Speaker 1: directed toward a member of our company. This must stop.
Speaker 1: We are working with a remarkable group of artists. We
Speaker 1: insist they are free to create work without facing online harassment.
Speaker 1: Jamie Lloyd, the director of The company said that it
Speaker 1: would continue to support and protect everyone at our company
Speaker 1: at all costs. Any abuse will not be tolerated and
Speaker 1: will be reported. Bullying and harassment have no place online,
Speaker 1: in our industry or in our wider communities. I will
Speaker 1: say this statement is good. Like something that I say
Speaker 1: again and again on this show, is that when somebody
Speaker 1: is being targeted in this way, you need to show
Speaker 1: clear and ambiguous support. You need to have a plan
Speaker 1: in place for what you will do, and you need
Speaker 1: to make sure that there is no confusion about where
Speaker 1: you stand and how you are supporting the person targeted.
Speaker 1: So the fact that the Jamie Lloyd Company didn't ignore
Speaker 1: it spoke to what was happening right away in very
Speaker 1: clear terms. This is how I think that organizations and
Speaker 1: industries should be reacting when somebody somebody is targeted in
Speaker 1: this way. Luckily, if there is one thing that black
Speaker 1: women are going to do, it is support each other.
Speaker 1: More than eight hundred predominantly black women and non binary
Speaker 1: actors signed on to an open letter in solidarity with Francesca.
Speaker 1: The letter was organized by and Nola Holmes, actor Susan Wacoma,
Speaker 1: and writer Somalia Nanie seton, and the letter really has
Speaker 1: two kind of important bits, one just generally supporting Francesca,
Speaker 1: and two pointing out that this kind of thing, these
Speaker 1: kind of racist attacks and harassment, happened to black performers
Speaker 1: all the time. The letter reads, when news of Francesca's
Speaker 1: casting and Jamie Lloyd's production of Romeo and Juliet was announced,
Speaker 1: so many people celebrated and welcomed this news. Many of
Speaker 1: us took to social media to shower our babysits with
Speaker 1: love and congratulations. A huge deal for someone so young
Speaker 1: in their career, a huge rising talent. But then what
Speaker 1: followed was a too familiar horror that many of us
Speaker 1: visible black, dark skinned performers have experienced. The racist and
Speaker 1: misogynistic abuse directed at such a sweet soul has been
Speaker 1: too much to bear. For a casting announcement of a
Speaker 1: play to ignite such twisted, ugly abuse is truly embarrassing
Speaker 1: for those so empty and barren in their own lives
Speaker 1: that they must meddle in hateful abuse. Also, that is
Speaker 1: a that is a read like somebody had time when
Speaker 1: they wrote this letter, so they really drill in on
Speaker 1: one of my sticking points that in a lot of
Speaker 1: cases when this kind of thing happens, the people in
Speaker 1: charge just kind of do nothing. They don't put out
Speaker 1: a statement. They maybe hope it'll like blow over. Maybe
Speaker 1: they're privately supporting the person targeted, but like they're not
Speaker 1: communicating that to the public, and that is that doesn't work.
Speaker 1: The letter reads. Too many times theater companies, broadcasters, producers,
Speaker 1: and streamers have failed to offer any help or support
Speaker 1: when they're black artists face racist or misogynistic abuse. Reporting
Speaker 1: is too often left on the shoulders of the abused,
Speaker 1: who are then expected to promote said show, which I
Speaker 1: think is also like a really good point, Like it
Speaker 1: is a racism and sexism issue, to be sure, like
Speaker 1: an identity issue, but it's also just like a work
Speaker 1: place equity issue, right, Like she is meant to promote
Speaker 1: this project on social media that she is a part of,
Speaker 1: which will only lead to more of the abuse that
Speaker 1: she is already shouldering. And so it's not an equitable
Speaker 1: situation if like, yeah, you're going to be in this play,
Speaker 1: you need to promote this play on social media, but
Speaker 1: in order to do that, you just have to individually
Speaker 1: shoulder this kind of unacceptable racist and sexist harassment that
Speaker 1: other people in your production are not having to deal with.
Speaker 1: It's not equitable.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and not just shoulder that. You know, it's not
Speaker 2: just abuse, but it's coordinated abuse, right, like people across
Speaker 2: the internet coordinating to target one particular performer, and like,
Speaker 2: of course that's going to be like too much for
Speaker 2: one person to take on. Of course, people you know,
Speaker 2: facing that sort of vast network of international bigots need
Speaker 2: some institutional support to help hold them up.
Speaker 1: Yes, letter really speaks to that in a beautiful way.
Speaker 1: They write, we want to send a clear message to
Speaker 1: Francesca and all black women performers who face this kind
Speaker 1: of abuse. We see you, We see the art you
Speaker 1: managed to produce with not only the pressures that your
Speaker 1: white colleagues face, but with the added traumatic hurdle of
Speaker 1: massage noire. We are so excited to watch you shine.
Speaker 1: So we should talk about what's going on here. One
Speaker 1: is that I've seen a lot of people say like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not I don't have a problem with her that
Speaker 1: she's black. I have a problem with her is that
Speaker 1: she's not beautiful. Juliette is meant to be beautiful. She's
Speaker 1: meant to be beautiful enough to have, you know, Romeo
Speaker 1: go against his family to be with her. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's a problem because she's a black she's a
Speaker 1: black woman. I'm saying it's a problem because she's not beautiful.
Speaker 1: So I think there's a really specific racially coded thing
Speaker 1: happening here that I can tell you quite a bit about.
Speaker 1: As a black woman with dark skin, you know, people
Speaker 1: saying that, oh, well, it's that she's not attractive and
Speaker 1: Juliette should be attractive, saying that it's not a race issue,
Speaker 1: it's an attractiveness issue. Is can be such a deeply coded,
Speaker 1: like racially coded claim, especially when you're talking about a
Speaker 1: darker skinned black woman with like thick hair, and you know,
Speaker 1: like I just have heard that my whole life, and
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, well, it's not a race thing. It's
Speaker 1: just that you're not pretty because you're a black woman.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, that does sound look like a race
Speaker 1: thing to me?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I mean there are a few things more
Speaker 2: subjective than beauty.
Speaker 1: Yes, And it's like the fact that these people could say, like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm just talking about beauty standards, the fact that they
Speaker 1: could try to conveniently divorce all of that from race,
Speaker 1: from the fact that we live in a white supremacist society,
Speaker 1: you know, eurocentric beauty standards like all of that. It's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's like playing in my face, Like
Speaker 1: it's very clear what's going on, but they don't want
Speaker 1: it to say what's going on, so they're like, oh, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's not about race. I just don't believe that anybody
Speaker 1: would ever find a black woman attractive.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I truly wonder how many of them are,
Speaker 2: you know, talking saying it's about beauty as an tensional
Speaker 2: way to like hide the racism that they know that
Speaker 2: they have within them, versus like how many are just
Speaker 2: so un self critical and unreflective that they don't see
Speaker 2: what's going on in their own head. Like that almost
Speaker 2: is like sadder. I think for somebody to live such
Speaker 2: an uncritical life that they would not realize that, right,
Speaker 2: I don't know. Maybe that's just a dumb point.
Speaker 1: No, I don't think it's a dumb point. So I
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time digging into what people who
Speaker 1: are behind this harassment are saying, and I think that
Speaker 1: you're right. It's clear to me that these are not
Speaker 1: people who are thinking very deeply about the things that
Speaker 1: they're saying, the things that they are claiming to feel
Speaker 1: about this person, and why they're making such a big
Speaker 1: deal of it. I don't think that they're really analyzing
Speaker 1: that too deeply. And so I bet these people do
Speaker 1: think it's not about race, and that like spending a
Speaker 1: lot of inn and time to talk about whether or
Speaker 1: not they think this black woman Juliette is pretty enough
Speaker 1: for a production that they probably would never see, uh,
Speaker 1: is normal behavior. And I don't think that they're looking
Speaker 1: at their behavior in any kind of like critical lens.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because you bring up another good point. Why do
Speaker 2: they care? Right? Like how many of these people are
Speaker 2: going to travel to London's West End to take in
Speaker 2: this Shakespeare production?
Speaker 1: Okay, So I have been racking my brain trying to
Speaker 1: figure this out and figure out like what's going on
Speaker 1: with this? And I think something really particular is happening here.
Speaker 1: So anybody listening who is into theater, particularly Shakespeare, y'all
Speaker 1: know that diverse casting and I'm talking diverse with regard
Speaker 1: to race and gender is pretty common in Shakespeare productions.
Speaker 1: Like you could see every iteration of race and gender
Speaker 1: identity in Shakespeare plays if you wanted, Like, diverse casting
Speaker 1: has been a thing for a while for generations when
Speaker 1: it comes to Shakespeare, right. But I think that because
Speaker 1: people are hearing that Tom Holland is in this particular production,
Speaker 1: they are thinking like, oh, Tom Holland, he is a
Speaker 1: movie star, right, like he was Spider Man in six
Speaker 1: Marvel Cinematic Universe superhero movies. So I think that they
Speaker 1: think this is a movie that is going to be
Speaker 1: on in the theaters, right. I think that they see
Speaker 1: Tom Holland Romeo and Juliet, they are making a Romeo
Speaker 1: and Juliet movie. They do not realize that this is
Speaker 1: a theatrical production, wherein diverse casting is like commonplace and
Speaker 1: has been for a really long time. They think it's
Speaker 1: a film, and so they're like, Oh, it's just a
Speaker 1: woke Romeo and Juliet, you know, just like all the
Speaker 1: other times where these kinds of people are like, oh,
Speaker 1: superhero movies have gotten so woke. They've ruined superhero movies
Speaker 1: with their diverse casting and their women and their people
Speaker 1: of color. Right. So I think that's what they think
Speaker 1: is going on, because that's the only frame of reference
Speaker 1: they have. Let's just cut the shit. These people don't
Speaker 1: know anything about Like that is like very clear to me.
Speaker 1: These are not people who go to the theater. This
Speaker 1: is not people who have any frame of reference for
Speaker 1: what is or is not commonplace in theater. They just
Speaker 1: don't know, right, So they're not only racist and sexist,
Speaker 1: but they're also philistines. Like when I was researching this,
Speaker 1: I saw this very angry post that was like performing
Speaker 1: pretty well in the Jordan Peterson subreddit. The post reads,
Speaker 1: why do we let woke moralists steal our classic stories
Speaker 1: of the Western tradition? We have no way to know
Speaker 1: if this black person was included for a reason besides
Speaker 1: capitulating to the wokes and virtue signaling, which I will
Speaker 1: pause there, because Romeo and Juliet is a play about
Speaker 1: two warring families who have deep divisions. Like, you really
Speaker 1: can't think of another reason why you might cast a
Speaker 1: black person in a role about a production about deep divisions.
Speaker 1: You can't make up any reason why that might make
Speaker 1: narrative sense within the play other than just like virtue
Speaker 1: signaling and being woke in.
Speaker 2: The statement, like, we have no way to know if
Speaker 2: this black person was included for a reason besides capitulating,
Speaker 2: like every casting decision needs to be like super justified.
Speaker 2: Like what what do you mean you have no way
Speaker 2: to know? Like what business is it of yours?
Speaker 1: Well, he closes that comment with this is a story
Speaker 1: which has defined romantic love for generations, and now will
Speaker 1: be just another example of dun, dun, dun, anti white racism,
Speaker 1: Like what are you talking about?
Speaker 2: Yeah, how is an interracial couple falling in love? Anti
Speaker 2: white racism?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 2: It's just it's so stupid, like trying to like logically
Speaker 2: pick apart the internet writings of an imbecile.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I completely agree, And I don't know
Speaker 1: how these people would feel about the fact that in
Speaker 1: Shakespeare's day the characters that are women would probably be
Speaker 1: played by men in drag. I'm curious how how that
Speaker 1: hits them.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, this is like what does he say, like
Speaker 2: the classic story of the Western tradition? Yeah, it was
Speaker 2: like two dudes making out on stage? Is that what
Speaker 2: he loves to see?
Speaker 1: Something tells me he wouldn't appreciate that either. So the
Speaker 1: top comment on that Jordan Peterson reddit threat is wow,
Speaker 1: looks like another box office bust, Like kind of a
Speaker 1: reference to that idea of like go woke, go broke,
Speaker 1: that when Hollywood makes movies that feature diverse cast that
Speaker 1: like they're going woke and that people aren't going to
Speaker 1: support that. Now, never mind that this particular production of
Speaker 1: Romeo and Juliet actually sold out within hours. But again,
Speaker 1: it is not a movie like another box office bust.
Speaker 1: What are you talking about? These people don't even know
Speaker 1: what they're mad about.
Speaker 2: No, they're just what are they mad about? Right? And
Speaker 2: like they clearly they're mad about something. How sad that
Speaker 2: they have to direct it at this like young woman, right, Like,
Speaker 2: can't they find anything more productive to direct that childlike
Speaker 2: rage at?
Speaker 1: I will say this though, like, and I don't want
Speaker 1: to make it sound like I'm speculating on celebrities, because
Speaker 1: That's not what I like to do. But in the
Speaker 1: fact that so many other actors, mostly black women actors
Speaker 1: and non binary black actors, are speaking up for Francesca
Speaker 1: in that open letter, I'm a little bit surprised that
Speaker 1: we have not heard Tom Holland speaking up for her.
Speaker 1: You know, they are co stars. He is the Romeo
Speaker 1: to her Juliet. It's entirely possible that maybe he's supporting
Speaker 1: her privately, which would be nice. But again, I do
Speaker 1: think that loud, clear public support is the only thing
Speaker 1: that works in situations like these, right, And I think,
Speaker 1: especially for somebody like Tom Holland, who is the face
Speaker 1: of this big Marvel Cinematic Universe Spider Man franchise, you know,
Speaker 1: certainly like a battlefield for you know, people who get
Speaker 1: angry about seeing black people or women or people of
Speaker 1: color in their in their movies. I think having somebody
Speaker 1: like Tom Holland be like, no, you know, this kind
Speaker 1: of racist, sexist abuse will not be tolerated. You're not
Speaker 1: going to do this in our name. You're not gonna like,
Speaker 1: we don't want to see this as creatives and as
Speaker 1: storytellers and we don't like it. I think that would
Speaker 1: go a long way toward creating the conditions where this
Speaker 1: kind of thing would not be commonplace. And I guess
Speaker 1: I say that to say that I don't think it
Speaker 1: should just be on the other black actors. Like the
Speaker 1: black actors who organize that letter to support Francesca. I
Speaker 1: think that's great, but it shouldn't just be on them
Speaker 1: to create a working environment free from this kind of abuse.
Speaker 1: Everybody should want a workplace where people can just do
Speaker 1: the jobs that they are hired to do without being
Speaker 1: harassed for it. Right, that benefits everybody, not just people
Speaker 1: of color, not just traditionally marginalized people. I'm sure Tom
Speaker 1: Hall wants a kind of working environment where that kind
Speaker 1: of thing is not commonplace. Who wouldn't. And I just
Speaker 1: think it's just another unfair, unpaid burden that black women
Speaker 1: actors are being made to shoulder to get us there, right, Like,
Speaker 1: this is not a system that we created. This is
Speaker 1: not a system that is benefiting us. However, it is
Speaker 1: like seems to be on us to be doing the
Speaker 1: work to fix that system and to get us to
Speaker 1: a place where that's kind of abuse is not commonplace.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I just I would like it's like when
Speaker 1: you are being targeted or harassed at work that is
Speaker 1: already a so you have to do your job, then
Speaker 1: you have to shoulder this abuse, and then you have
Speaker 1: to like be the one that's also doing all the
Speaker 1: organizing to create the conditions to not have that abuse
Speaker 1: be commonplace. It's too much. And I just think that
Speaker 1: for somebody like Tom Holland, who certainly has a lot
Speaker 1: of privilege as a white male superhero actor. I think
Speaker 1: I think he can spend a little bit of that
Speaker 1: privilege getting us, getting us to a better system, a
Speaker 1: little bit. Not to mention the fact that he is
Speaker 1: in an interracial relationship. He's in a relationship with Zindea,
Speaker 1: somebody who I really like because she is really open
Speaker 1: about the fact that, you know, as a lighter skinned
Speaker 1: black woman with like long hair, the kind of privilege
Speaker 1: that comes along with And so he's in a relationship
Speaker 1: with somebody who intentionally does a lot of public speaking
Speaker 1: about the very things that Francesca is dealing with. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I just think that we I wouldn't mind hearing from him.
Speaker 3: Let's take a quick break utter back.
Speaker 1: So we've talked a lot about how AI is being
Speaker 1: used to exploit women's bodies to basically make men rich,
Speaker 1: and this new four or four media report is exactly
Speaker 1: what I mean. AI generated adult content creators are stealing
Speaker 1: from actual human adult content creators. This is all from
Speaker 1: a deeply reported four to four media piece that we
Speaker 1: will link in the show notes. It is a really
Speaker 1: good read. This is one of those stories that I
Speaker 1: definitely recommend, like reading the whole thing The piece says
Speaker 1: people running Instagram accounts for AI generated influencers and nude
Speaker 1: models are downloading popular Instagram reels of real models and
Speaker 1: sex workers, deep faking the AI models face onto them,
Speaker 1: and then using the altered videos to promote paid subscriptions
Speaker 1: to the AI generated models accounts on only fans or
Speaker 1: other competitor sites. In some cases, these AI generated models
Speaker 1: have amassed hundreds of thousands of Instagram followers using almost
Speaker 1: exclusively stolen content. So it is a pretty messed up situation.
Speaker 1: And it's even more messed up when you think about
Speaker 1: the fact that human sex workers and adult content creators
Speaker 1: are often really harshly moderated on the Internet, and so
Speaker 1: while those human content creators are sort of marginalized and
Speaker 1: pushed to the sides on the Internet, here we have
Speaker 1: these AI generated adult content stealing from those humans and
Speaker 1: showing up online. It is really uncanny, like it will
Speaker 1: be the exact same video but with an AI generated
Speaker 1: fake influencer's head like swapped into that human's body like.
Speaker 1: I actually had to really look to see the difference
Speaker 1: between some of these real humans video and the version
Speaker 1: that puts an AI generated contact crater onto her face.
Speaker 2: This sounds like a fun house mirror situation of what
Speaker 2: we have talked about several times with new toifi apps,
Speaker 2: where you know, in the past, people were using these
Speaker 2: apps to put celebrities and real humans faces onto AI
Speaker 2: generated bodies, and now these scammers and bad actors have
Speaker 2: found a way to do the opposite thing of putting
Speaker 2: AI generated faces on human bodies. There's just like no
Speaker 2: end to the ways that people can use AI to
Speaker 2: steal from women.
Speaker 1: It's all scams and sexual exploitation the whole way down.
Speaker 1: And I think you're exactly right. Like we talk a
Speaker 1: ton about what deep fakes means for celebrities, but they
Speaker 1: just goes to show it is not just celebrities who
Speaker 1: are being targeted here, We're talking about ordinary women whose
Speaker 1: bodies are being used without their consent, Like the labor
Speaker 1: and the content that these women are making is being
Speaker 1: stolen from them to make somebody else money. And more disturbingly,
Speaker 1: fal for Media also found that there are very detailed
Speaker 1: instructions on how to do this on YouTube, where they
Speaker 1: recommend stealing reels on Instagram, specifically from small creators and
Speaker 1: small accounts to avoid detection. In one of these instructional videos.
Speaker 1: They say it's a fact that faceless OnlyFans accounts earned
Speaker 1: three times less than once with a face. This opens
Speaker 1: up a lot of possibilities for people to start earning
Speaker 1: more in different ways imaginable. And now it's up to
Speaker 1: you build your own AI influencer and start monetizing your swaps,
Speaker 1: grow your social media accounts, get an account, start an
Speaker 1: only fan, and make it rain. So I We'll say
Speaker 1: something else is that this is like explicitly a money
Speaker 1: making enterprise wherein men feel like they are like turning
Speaker 1: the tables on women who make adult content. Like there's
Speaker 1: a real disdain that these men feel for women who
Speaker 1: sex workers or women who make adult content. Like that
Speaker 1: is very clear, and I think that comments make very
Speaker 1: clear that like this is a thing where men feel
Speaker 1: like women have been exercising economic agency over their own content,
Speaker 1: over their own bodies, over their sexuality, and they want
Speaker 1: to like turn the tables on them. Like in one
Speaker 1: of those YouTube instructional videos. The comments make clear that
Speaker 1: the viewers of that content think that this is like
Speaker 1: a big development for men on the internet. One comment says,
Speaker 1: can finally take all the simps money while being a
Speaker 1: male so comfy. Another one says, this may just be
Speaker 1: the end of influencers and the constant quest for internet
Speaker 1: and vanity. Love this, so it's like when you when
Speaker 1: you really peel that apart, why are these men so
Speaker 1: mad about influencers, about women showing their bodies on the internet,
Speaker 1: like and making money from that, Like, why are they
Speaker 1: It's like they're they clearly have a lot of disdain
Speaker 1: for the women who are doing this, and it kind
Speaker 1: of conveniently leaves out the fact that, like it is
Speaker 1: men who are consuming that adult content. So it's like,
Speaker 1: if anything, this should be mad at themselves. It's this.
Speaker 1: It's this weird combination of like lust and disgust where
Speaker 1: it's like I want to consume this, but I also
Speaker 1: am disgusted by this, and I want to shame her
Speaker 1: for making me want this. Like it's this, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. It's it. I think it reveals it's
Speaker 1: very weird tension.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's like a twisted logic. I'm like the
Speaker 2: previous story where you know it was just the nonsensical
Speaker 2: logic of an imbecile. Here it's like a twisted logic
Speaker 2: of yees hating women and also being like strangely jealous
Speaker 2: of them. Yeah, it's it does not seem like the
Speaker 2: behavior or the statements of healthy, well adjusted men.
Speaker 1: That's definitely one way to put it. And I do
Speaker 1: think it's like I think that what they hate is
Speaker 1: this idea that women have been able to exercise economic agency,
Speaker 1: and they feel like because the people who are consuming
Speaker 1: this content are largely men, that like, men are being
Speaker 1: fleeced into giving money to like human women who make
Speaker 1: only fans content or whatever, and it's like it's like
Speaker 1: they see that as a kind of economic exploitation. But
Speaker 1: it's like, well, you're the one who's spending the money.
Speaker 1: It's it's like, no one is forcing you to spend
Speaker 1: this money. Yeah, but don't hate the woman who is
Speaker 1: making this content because of that dynamic, do you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying?
Speaker 2: Yeah. And there's also like some more realistic positioning of like,
Speaker 2: we're finally taking this back from the women who have
Speaker 2: been scamming us by making us attracted to them. And
Speaker 2: the way that we're we as men are taking it
Speaker 2: back is to like steal their content so that we
Speaker 2: become the scammers of other men. Like what like it doesn't.
Speaker 2: It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense. That's a good way to put it, except.
Speaker 2: Because I guess like it does because they're making money, right,
Speaker 2: Like that's that's why they're doing this, to make I mean,
Speaker 2: to steal and make money.
Speaker 1: They're scamming. Yeah, like it does make scams always make sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, the layers people do it. Yeah, the layers
Speaker 2: of like moralistic misogyny, which is kind of a weird
Speaker 2: phrase in itself, But like that that's the part that
Speaker 2: doesn't make sense. But the stealing and making money, that
Speaker 2: part makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1: Speaking of adult content online, new anti nude technology is
Speaker 1: to Instagram. So we've talked a lot on the show
Speaker 1: before about sextortion schemes that really blossom on Instagram that
Speaker 1: are mostly targeting young boys, wherein bad actors like lure
Speaker 1: young people into sending them nudes by pretending to be
Speaker 1: interested in them and like doing a long come where
Speaker 1: they pretend that they're in a romantic relationship. And then
Speaker 1: once these bad actors have those images, they then exploit
Speaker 1: and pressure the young people into sending the money or
Speaker 1: they'll release them to their friends and families. It is
Speaker 1: a real problem and to combat that, Instagram announce that
Speaker 1: they are testing out tools to detect when somebody is
Speaker 1: sending a nude image and having that image be blurred
Speaker 1: out in your DMS, where you would have to click
Speaker 1: a button to say like, okay, I want to see
Speaker 1: this image. This feature is going to be automatic for
Speaker 1: Instagram users who are under eighteen, but everybody on Instagram
Speaker 1: is going to be prompted to turn that feature on
Speaker 1: in the coming weeks. So according to Instagram, it will
Speaker 1: use on device machine learning to detect nudes, and it's
Speaker 1: aimed at stopping sextortion schemes that target teenagers. When you
Speaker 1: try to send a nude you'll get a warning that
Speaker 1: says take care when sharing sensitive photos. The photo is
Speaker 1: blurred out because nudity protection is on. Others can screenshot
Speaker 1: or forward your photos without you knowing. You can unsend
Speaker 1: a photo if you change your mind, but there's a
Speaker 1: chance others have already seen it. I don't have much
Speaker 1: to say about this. I mean, I do know that
Speaker 1: Instagram they really have pioneered like nipple detection software, like
Speaker 1: they really are quite good at knowing when there is
Speaker 1: nudity present or even like the suggestion of nudity present
Speaker 1: in images. I kind of one of the reasons I'm
Speaker 1: having trouble with this announcement is that it just seems
Speaker 1: to I just wish that Instagram was offering something better
Speaker 1: than like their nudity detection software. Like I guess it's
Speaker 1: better than nothing, but I've seen Instagram really default to
Speaker 1: like quick fixes to signal that they're doing something, even
Speaker 1: if those quick fixes like really don't solve the problem.
Speaker 1: And I just have been through this a lot with Instagram,
Speaker 1: and I can't help but wonder if they're like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get a ton of good press on this,
Speaker 1: like one small feature, and then we can all move on.
Speaker 1: You know, we talked about that horrifying Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: report about how Instagram is really enabling pedophiles by allowing
Speaker 1: pedophiles to subscribe to the Instagram accounts of children, using
Speaker 1: the loophole that those accounts are like parent run accounts,
Speaker 1: and so you are not, as an adult, allowed to
Speaker 1: use Instagram's subscribe feature where you pay money to get
Speaker 1: exclusive content. You can't subscribe to a child as an adult,
Speaker 1: which makes perfect sense, but the loophole is that if
Speaker 1: that is a parent run account adults can subscribe to
Speaker 1: the accounts of children, and so that whole report was
Speaker 1: kind of a bombshell about how much that is enabling
Speaker 1: pedophiles to get direct access to young people, which is disgusting.
Speaker 1: And so I just think that Instagram here is like
Speaker 1: just counting on everybody reporting this and being like, oh,
Speaker 1: looks like they're really taking it seriously, without actually demonstrating
Speaker 1: that it's going to meaningfully address the problems.
Speaker 2: I agree it is. It seems like a fine good
Speaker 2: feature to have. It's hard to imagine that this is
Speaker 2: really going to put a meaningful curb on the sort
Speaker 2: of sextortion schemes that you talked about earlier, you know,
Speaker 2: when you set up the story, because there's a lot
Speaker 2: of other apps out there that people could easily switch
Speaker 2: over into. And if somebody is running a long con
Speaker 2: on a teenager, you know, talking to them over days,
Speaker 2: maybe weeks, maybe months, it doesn't take a lot of
Speaker 2: imagination to think that they would just suggest let's move
Speaker 2: to a different app, let's go to WhatsApp, let's use
Speaker 2: text message, send me an email, like whatever. Pretty easy workarounds.
Speaker 2: So I think you're right that this is or like
Speaker 2: this protects Instagram and Meta more than I think it's
Speaker 2: going to protect the actual kids. But like, it's not
Speaker 2: a harmful feature. What it really reinforces, though, is how
Speaker 2: sophisticated meta and other tech platforms can be when they
Speaker 2: want to. In terms of identifying harmful content. You know,
Speaker 2: so there's so many other areas, Like you talked about
Speaker 2: the people subscribing to exclusive kids content via the mommy
Speaker 2: blogger accounts. You know, there's racist content really like a
Speaker 2: lot of harmful content out there, setting aside like harmful
Speaker 2: political content, like insurrectionist type content, QAnon stuff. There's so
Speaker 2: much harmful content out there, and this kind of policy here,
Speaker 2: this technology to detect nudes really reveals that all of
Speaker 2: that could be detected and dealt with if the platforms
Speaker 2: like wanted to write. It reinforces the extent to which
Speaker 2: failing to take action on those other types of harmful
Speaker 2: content is a choice, not some sort of technical limitation.
Speaker 1: I completely agree. So, speaking of meta and political content,
Speaker 1: we told you all a while back about Meta deciding
Speaker 1: to deprioritize content related to political and social issues on
Speaker 1: threads and Instagram. I have just anecdotally definitely seen this
Speaker 1: happening and felt the impact on my own feed on Instagram.
Speaker 1: Like I feel like when I scroll Instagram these days,
Speaker 1: which is like less and less and less. I feel like,
Speaker 1: is thirty percent kind of viral videos and stuff like
Speaker 1: that of like people that I don't follow, maybe twenty
Speaker 1: percent people that I actually have chosen to follow, and
Speaker 1: then like the rest of it is like ads and
Speaker 1: just like scammy stuff. It just like doesn't feel good
Speaker 1: and I certainly don't feel like I'm like learning a
Speaker 1: lot from scrolling Instagram. Well now, hundreds of political and
Speaker 1: news content creators, including activists and meme account administrators and journalists,
Speaker 1: signed on to an open letter asking Meta to reverse
Speaker 1: his decision to limit the reach of accounts posting political
Speaker 1: content on threads and Instagram. So Washington Post reports that,
Speaker 1: just as I suspected when this was first announced, it
Speaker 1: is impacting people who make content related to being marginalized
Speaker 1: or like marginalized identity in some way. The piece reads
Speaker 1: the decisions alarmed users who post about social issues including
Speaker 1: LGBTQ rights, women's rights, racial inequality, and disability, and independent
Speaker 1: journalists and content creators say they've struggled to reach their
Speaker 1: audiences in recent weeks since the change was rolled out.
Speaker 1: The limits, they say, have significantly impacted creators who are black, female, disabled,
Speaker 1: and LGBTQ. So none of this surprise of me because
Speaker 1: Facebook just has a whole track record of suppressing content
Speaker 1: related to marginalized people through moderation and inequities and things
Speaker 1: like that. This is stuff that we know about Facebook.
Speaker 1: How it works now is that you have to intentionally
Speaker 1: opt in to get content about political issues. We'll put
Speaker 1: directions on how to do that in the show notes.
Speaker 1: But the folks who signed the letter say that it
Speaker 1: should be the other way around. We should be given
Speaker 1: the option to opt out of political content. The letter reads,
Speaker 1: as users of metas platform, we did not choose to
Speaker 1: automatically opt out of receiving suggested political content on civic
Speaker 1: activism and news updates. Removing political recommendations as a default
Speaker 1: setting and consequently stopping people from seeing suggested political content
Speaker 1: poses a serious threat to political engagement, education, and activism.
Speaker 1: So I should also add that we still don't really
Speaker 1: have clarity on exactly how Facebook is determining, like whose
Speaker 1: experiences are political and whose aren't. I could look at
Speaker 1: Facebook's track record and make some guesses as to how
Speaker 1: they are doing that. All they have really said is
Speaker 1: like things that are pretty vague. They say. Political content
Speaker 1: under the new restrictions includes any content that touches on
Speaker 1: politics or, in Meta's words, topics that affect a group
Speaker 1: of people and or society at large, which like that
Speaker 1: is so vague that it's clear to me that that's
Speaker 1: like purposely vague. These topics include content about LGBTQ and
Speaker 1: women's rights, as well as posts about racial and disability discrimination.
Speaker 1: Many creators also have reported that the filter's restrict content
Speaker 1: on seemingly unrelated topics.
Speaker 2: This really reminds me to the first story that we
Speaker 2: talked about about the actor who is receiving so much
Speaker 2: online hate and Tom Holland not more vocally standing up
Speaker 2: to support her. You know, it seems like Instagram is
Speaker 2: really trying to just create a pleasant, non threatening, non
Speaker 2: controversial experience. Uh. And I think it's easy to, yeah,
Speaker 2: not want to rock the boat. And when people are
Speaker 2: not part of groups that are receiving targeted hate, ah,
Speaker 2: it can be a lot easier to just like look
Speaker 2: the other way and not want to feel and say
Speaker 2: and like, you know, in this case, be like, Oh,
Speaker 2: it's it's political content, We're not going to include that
Speaker 2: on the platform. People talking about their experiences being LGBTQ
Speaker 2: in this you know, current climate of trans hate and
Speaker 2: how But like that's so harmful to just not to
Speaker 2: exclude that any conversation about that. It just feels. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think that that letter is exactly right, that it
Speaker 2: is not just cruel of Instagram to exclude any kind
Speaker 2: of content that discusses people's experiences facing discrimination or whatever
Speaker 2: their experiences are. But it's like reckless to pretend as if,
Speaker 2: you know, we can have a conversation that doesn't include
Speaker 2: those things. Like what a harmful, reckless conversation that would be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I have so much to say about
Speaker 1: that one. I think that Facebook is trying to tell
Speaker 1: us something that I just we know is not true. Right, So,
Speaker 1: for instance, if you're a theater buff and you're really
Speaker 1: interested in theater, this is the story that we led
Speaker 1: with about Francesca's racist sexist harassment. Is that a theater
Speaker 1: story or a political story because it deals with race.
Speaker 1: Facebook is trying to act as if your people's interests
Speaker 1: are so siloed that identity and things like politics and
Speaker 1: social issues don't bleed into that. That's not true. Theater
Speaker 1: is a political issue. That first story illustrates that. It's
Speaker 1: not that Francesca was like making it a political issue.
Speaker 1: Other people were making it a political issue, and therefore
Speaker 1: that story about theater it's also a race issue, is
Speaker 1: also a political issue. Movies, entertainment, sports, technology, those things
Speaker 1: are identity issues. They are political issues, they are social issues,
Speaker 1: and pretending like that's not how we live our lives
Speaker 1: is just it's a farce. I think that anybody who
Speaker 1: is of any kind of like marginalized identity or also
Speaker 1: not from any kind of marginalized identity, is really familiar
Speaker 1: with the ways that there are all these intersections of
Speaker 1: the way we live our lives and our identity in
Speaker 1: all of these other things that might not look so
Speaker 1: identity driven on its face. And so one I think
Speaker 1: that Instagram is like totally trying to pee on our
Speaker 1: leg and tell us it's raining to quote my girl,
Speaker 1: judge Judy two. Facebook has had a huge direct hand
Speaker 1: in polarizing our democracy, polarizing our communities. Right, they've made
Speaker 1: money off of that. I don't even think that Facebook
Speaker 1: would disagree that they've done that. Their internal reporting makes
Speaker 1: that very clear that they have. I've had a huge
Speaker 1: direct hand in that, and I've made money from that.
Speaker 1: To now turn around and be like, oh, well, we
Speaker 1: don't want to do anything. We don't want to show
Speaker 1: people anything that's going to rile them up. Bit, you
Speaker 1: made a bunch of money off of riving people up,
Speaker 1: and so now to tell me that I can't post
Speaker 1: about my experiences after you have made money and contributed
Speaker 1: to a climate where people are polarized, it just doesn't work.
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm just not willing to accept that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like they broke our democracy. And then they were like, oh,
Speaker 2: you know what, this is getting too messy. We're just
Speaker 2: gonna like leave it. Like, no, you broke it. You
Speaker 2: created this huge information ecosystem, uh, and like intentionally shaped
Speaker 2: it and distorted it from what it was. You have
Speaker 2: a responsibility to try to fix it. And like I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that, like it's meta's responsibility to fix democracy.
Speaker 2: But yeah, they, like you said, they had a huge
Speaker 2: direct hand in creating the climate that we now have
Speaker 2: of like polarization and riling people up, and they just
Speaker 2: want to walk away and wash their hands of the
Speaker 2: whole thing. It's at least they're consistent.
Speaker 1: So that is exactly what Nicole Gill, who is a
Speaker 1: co founder at Accountable Tech, which is the organization that
Speaker 1: organized this letter. That's exactly what Nicole Gill had to say.
Speaker 1: And I think she points out something really important here
Speaker 1: is that they're making this decision right before a big
Speaker 1: election year. It's not just a big election year for
Speaker 1: the United States. Multiple countries around the world will have
Speaker 1: elections this year, Nicole Gill said in a statement. Limiting
Speaker 1: the reach of creators without notice or definition of what
Speaker 1: constitutes political content threatens their identities and livelihoods, while leaving
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of users without access to critical news
Speaker 1: content during the biggest global election year in history. Today's
Speaker 1: fragmented media environment that meta helped create has resulted in
Speaker 1: social media platforms having outsize influence over the way information
Speaker 1: is presented and disseminated, and this decision will have negative
Speaker 1: effects both on and off their platforms. And I guess,
Speaker 1: like to your point, like that's what I think, like,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't have to just rely on Mark Zuckerberg and
Speaker 1: Adam Mosseerri to determine whose experience and whose life is
Speaker 1: politics and whose isn't We already know how they use
Speaker 1: that power when they when they have it, they don't
Speaker 1: use it well, they don't use it equitably, right, And
Speaker 1: so I don't think that we should just allow them
Speaker 1: to create and maintain this system that marginalizes people who
Speaker 1: are already marginalized, and they get to make money off
Speaker 1: of it, right, Like going back to that Francesca Romeo
Speaker 1: and Juliet story. I didn't decide that my existence as
Speaker 1: a black woman is political. Other people did, and so
Speaker 1: telling me that I can't then talk about that and
Speaker 1: that if I do, I'm going to be deprioritized, I
Speaker 1: don't accept that. I don't think that we should be
Speaker 1: relying on these wealthy, white, straight ciss tech leaders and
Speaker 1: billionaires to define whose experiences count as politics and who's don't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I some of the I like to just like
Speaker 2: close my eyes and imagine a world, like an alternate,
Speaker 2: parallel universe where I don't know, maybe Mark Zuckerberg got
Speaker 2: like hit on the head, or maybe he took some
Speaker 2: LSD and had a revelation or something and decided to
Speaker 2: like radically change what he's doing and instead of like
Speaker 2: dumping forty six billion dollars into the metaverse, which like
Speaker 2: just earned that money up. What if he had taken
Speaker 2: like a fraction of that and put it towards like
Speaker 2: research and innovating in a way to like increase literacy
Speaker 2: and connection and compassion among their users, right, Like, wouldn't
Speaker 2: that have been nice?
Speaker 1: Knowing him, he'd find a way to muck that up to.
Speaker 2: More.
Speaker 3: After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: So I do have a little bit of news kind
Speaker 1: of on that front, which is that lawmakers unveiled a
Speaker 1: new proposal that would for the first time give consumers
Speaker 1: broad rights to control how tech companies like Meta and
Speaker 1: TikTok and Google use their personal data. I say this
Speaker 1: a lot, but surprisingly here in the United States we
Speaker 1: do not have any real data privacy protections here, which
Speaker 1: again every time I say it blows my mind. But
Speaker 1: if this proposal succeeds, it could establish something again to
Speaker 1: the European Union's landmark privacy law known as the General
Speaker 1: Data Protection Regulation or the GDPR, and kind of attempt
Speaker 1: to curb this like totally unregulated wild wild west that
Speaker 1: we have in the United States where all of our
Speaker 1: personal data is just for sale by the highest bidder
Speaker 1: whoever wants to use it to make money. That's the situation,
Speaker 1: and so this could ring in some of that if passed.
Speaker 2: Thank god, it's wild that it's twenty twenty four and
Speaker 2: we're just getting around to this in this country now.
Speaker 2: It is completely banana pants that we do not have
Speaker 2: any laws protecting our data privacy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I was just reading about how the
Speaker 1: FCC just i think yesterday, passed a law that internet
Speaker 1: service providers have to give the same way that when
Speaker 1: you buy a box of cereal, it has the nutritional
Speaker 1: label that tells you what's in it and all the
Speaker 1: different things that are in it. Internet service providers will
Speaker 1: now be forced by law to clearly include a breakdown
Speaker 1: of the broad band facts that you're paying for, so
Speaker 1: like the monthly price of your internet, you know, the
Speaker 1: additional charges, all of that, and they have to clearly
Speaker 1: label this both online and at physical stores. It looks
Speaker 1: almost exactly like the nutritional label that you would find
Speaker 1: on a box of cereal. And what I was so
Speaker 1: struck by by that story is that, first of all,
Speaker 1: the fact that we did it, that there was nothing
Speaker 1: requiring that kind of clarity to consumers to begin with,
Speaker 1: and the fact that internet service providers like Comcast really
Speaker 1: fought this. They were like, no, we shouldn't have to
Speaker 1: do this, and it just really struck me of like,
Speaker 1: y'all just want to scam. Y'all just want to take
Speaker 1: people for a ride. You just want to bait and switch,
Speaker 1: and you want that the ability to do that to
Speaker 1: be protected and enshrined by law, your ability to scam
Speaker 1: and lie to people. And so I remember when I
Speaker 1: moved into a new apartment signing up for Comcast and
Speaker 1: they were giving me like a deal on Internet and
Speaker 1: being like, okay, so is this deal going to be
Speaker 1: forever or is this a you know, an introductory rate
Speaker 1: and then it's going to go up And they were like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's the deal forever and deal forever, deal forever. I
Speaker 1: was like, are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?
Speaker 1: They were like, oh, yeah, your price will never go up.
Speaker 1: Well that was a lie because my price did go up.
Speaker 1: And then they were like, oh, well it was this
Speaker 1: or that we had to add thief. And it's like
Speaker 1: people deserve clarity, like it should be a given that
Speaker 1: people are knowing what they are being asked to pay
Speaker 1: for like this idea that you should just be able
Speaker 1: to obscure that and it's fine. And not only is
Speaker 1: it fine that like it is your right as a corporation.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I just the fact that we we
Speaker 1: are finally now just getting around and being like, oh wait,
Speaker 1: maybe consumers do deserve some protections. Maybe it shouldn't just
Speaker 1: be like, fuck, you pay me and I can lie
Speaker 1: to your face like maybe that's not a helpful dynamic
Speaker 1: for anybody.
Speaker 2: I love how raw you are about this Comcast bill,
Speaker 2: like a decade ago that yeah, you're still like grinding
Speaker 2: this axe and we're like, we finally have a bill
Speaker 2: to protect privacy. You know what the real like thing is, though.
Speaker 1: Mike, I was in grad school. I had no money
Speaker 1: when that bill increased. I mean I asked, in every
Speaker 1: which way is my bill going to get going to increase?
Speaker 1: And they insured me No. I even had my dad,
Speaker 1: who is so good on the phone dealing with like
Speaker 1: salespeople and like that kind of thing. I called him
Speaker 1: while he was in the room to coach me through
Speaker 1: what to ask to make sure because I was like,
Speaker 1: I really cannot afford if my bill goes up and
Speaker 1: when my bill went up. Yeah, I was heated. I
Speaker 1: was mad. I'm still mad ten years later.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can oh a minute I.
Speaker 1: Comcast.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean if yeah, we're gonna go down this path.
Speaker 2: I remember years ago when I lived in Madison, when
Speaker 2: I was going to grad school there, there were a
Speaker 2: couple internet service providers in town, and I think every
Speaker 2: year I would like switch from one to the other
Speaker 2: so I could get some kind of promotional deal. What
Speaker 2: a stupid way to like manage one's internet right, And
Speaker 2: it just especially given how central the Internet is to
Speaker 2: so many functions of day to day life. Like we
Speaker 2: use it to communicate, we use it to work, we
Speaker 2: use it for entertainment, we use it to get information
Speaker 2: about the world so that we can be civic participants.
Speaker 2: It's so absolutely critical to everything we do. And that
Speaker 2: just makes it even more mind blowing that we still
Speaker 2: have no federal laws protecting our privacy when we are
Speaker 2: on the Internet.
Speaker 1: Yes, such to the Internet, like the UN says, it's
Speaker 1: a human right, but it's like to go through it,
Speaker 1: I have to deal with an Internet service provider that
Speaker 1: is allowed to lie to me and scam me and
Speaker 1: exploit me. I don't think so. So this last thing
Speaker 1: I wanted to talk about, it's not really news, but
Speaker 1: it's something that I find deeply interesting that I just
Speaker 1: wanted to share with all of you. So in our
Speaker 1: Andrew Huberman two part episode, which, by the way, thanks
Speaker 1: to all of y'all for listening. We've gotten such interesting
Speaker 1: feedback from that episode. Thank you for going down that
Speaker 1: rabbit hole with me, because it was certainly a rabbit
Speaker 1: hole as I wanted to go down, so thank you
Speaker 1: for letting me do that. But I ended that episode
Speaker 1: talking about how I really feel like podcasting is this
Speaker 1: tricky space where listeners really trust podcasters and help podcasts,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, kind of automatically convey a certain level
Speaker 1: of authority. I've talked about it on the podcast before,
Speaker 1: but I have noticed these TikTok videos where people look
Speaker 1: like they are recording a podcast in a podcast studio.
Speaker 1: There's a microphone in front of them. They've got like
Speaker 1: the neon sign behind them, but I know I can
Speaker 1: tell that that mic is not turned on, and in
Speaker 1: some cases it's not even plugged into anything. It's just
Speaker 1: like a prop that is in front of them.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: I've seen that where I'm like, fact, this the way
Speaker 1: this setup doesn't make any sense because when I record
Speaker 1: my podcast, it looks like you can just tell that
Speaker 1: there are wires everywhere your microphone is plugged into something
Speaker 1: that is recording. It's not just sitting wirelessly in front
Speaker 1: of you, like like's where where's the audio that you're
Speaker 1: uploading going to? You know, Well, my suspicions have been
Speaker 1: confirmed by this piece in Bloomberg breaking down the cottage
Speaker 1: industry of hired actors who are you know, selling their
Speaker 1: services on websites like fiver, who take money to make
Speaker 1: fake podcasts as user generated content style advertising. They even
Speaker 1: have an upsell where they will make a fake podcast
Speaker 1: in front of one of those glowing neon signs to
Speaker 1: make it look like a real podcast. So in the
Speaker 1: piece they talk to this guy named Wolf who is
Speaker 1: like always in these tiktoks that make it look like
Speaker 1: he is podcasting, wherein he's like talking up a product
Speaker 1: asually mentioning it's benefits and why he loves it. Maybe
Speaker 1: you'll think this podcast feels slightly excessive and it's enthusiasm
Speaker 1: for a particular thing. But TikTok's content onslought doesn't leave
Speaker 1: much time for questioning. The takeaway is here's a passionate
Speaker 1: person speaking authoritatively on a podcast. In reality, these clips
Speaker 1: are not coming from podcasts. In fact, Wolf is being
Speaker 1: paid one hundred and ninety five dollars for each of
Speaker 1: these one minute advertisements designed to look like a podcast.
Speaker 1: On the freelance service website fiver, where he sells his
Speaker 1: service to brands, Wolf claims, I will make a UGC podcast,
Speaker 1: video ad or a user generated content ad using the
Speaker 1: client's own script to talk about the product. The custom
Speaker 1: neon sign is an up charge. So this is just
Speaker 1: fascinating to me. Honestly, it actually kind of sounds like
Speaker 1: a pretty good racket. He says that he makes almost
Speaker 1: twenty thousand dollars a month doing this like France. If
Speaker 1: y'all are listening and you want this, not only do
Speaker 1: I have a podcast, Mike, I actually even know how
Speaker 1: to turn it on. So if you want to give
Speaker 1: me twenty k a month to do this, I will
Speaker 1: gladly do for you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no doubt. We'll even throw a neon sign for free,
Speaker 2: no up charge, part of the basic package.
Speaker 1: So a lot of the services they are hawking, which
Speaker 1: I guess doesn't really surprise me. Are crypto or like
Speaker 1: financial services or like men's health and wellness related friend
Speaker 1: of the show Ryan at one of my favorite newsletters,
Speaker 1: Garbage Day, he called them weird gen z hustlebrow influencers,
Speaker 1: which I love that. I love that name for them.
Speaker 1: So Ryan's theory is that during COVID, the podcast mic
Speaker 1: became a symbol of authority or a visual signal of importance,
Speaker 1: sort of like how during the era of peak ted Talk,
Speaker 1: a bunch of guys would film themselves on stages, add
Speaker 1: some inspirational music, and then post it to Facebook. If
Speaker 1: there's a microphone in front of you, I assume the
Speaker 1: logic goes it means you're important enough to record, which
Speaker 1: I can tell you. Anybody can buy a podcast mic
Speaker 1: like it doesn't mean anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can get with for like sixty bucks, especially
Speaker 2: if you're not gonna plug it. You know, you don't
Speaker 2: even need to. Who cares about quality when it's not
Speaker 2: plugged in.
Speaker 1: It sounds like there was one kind of white whale
Speaker 1: TikTok video that made Ryan like skeptical that these people
Speaker 1: were making actual podcasts. It was this very viral TikTok
Speaker 1: of a woman in front of a podcast Mike talking
Speaker 1: about how she would like sexually please her husband. It
Speaker 1: went super viral on Twitter. But then Ryan was like,
Speaker 1: what the hell podcast is this? Even like there wasn't
Speaker 1: a watermark or any kind of branding with like a
Speaker 1: show name on it and everything. If you were publishing
Speaker 1: a podcast clip, you would probably put the name of
Speaker 1: the podcast that you wanted people to listen to on
Speaker 1: that clip. It didn't have that. And it turns out
Speaker 1: this woman just as a content creator who was making
Speaker 1: this as a way to promote her only fans, which
Speaker 1: I don't have many a problem with, Like good for her.
Speaker 1: But Ryan connects this to a darker trend in kind
Speaker 1: of the overlap of podcasting and marketing where they have
Speaker 1: this thing that I've definitely seen where it will be
Speaker 1: like a pod a real podcast, where part of the
Speaker 1: way that they are marketing their podcas is making these
Speaker 1: short viral clips of them interviewing is too strong, really
Speaker 1: just like humiliating a woman on the podcast, Like the
Speaker 1: podcast whatever is really known for this, and Fresh and
Speaker 1: Fit was really known for this, where they would have
Speaker 1: they would make these very short videos of them like
Speaker 1: humiliating a woman who has gone on the podcast, and
Speaker 1: then that video would go viral. He writes, there's an
Speaker 1: entire universe of post Andrew Tait sexuality and relationship podcasts
Speaker 1: that put young women in front of microphones, ask them
Speaker 1: outrageous questions and turn it into viral clips and then
Speaker 1: let audiences tear them apart. Some of these podcasts even
Speaker 1: have like casting calls on their websites to find new guests.
Speaker 1: I hate this. So maybe making fake podcasts to hawk
Speaker 1: items is one thing, But this dynamic where microphone plus
Speaker 1: misogyny equals authority equals profit, that dynamic is a little
Speaker 1: bit more toxic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot going on there. It was this
Speaker 2: was just kind of like a sort of weird, funny
Speaker 2: story until it took that dark turn at the end.
Speaker 1: I think that the fact that podcasters like Fresh and
Speaker 1: Fit and Andrew Tate that they know that this kind
Speaker 1: of thing does go viral on social media. It just
Speaker 1: really is about the fact that massogyny and massage noir
Speaker 1: and all of that will always find a welcome home
Speaker 1: on the Internet. Like, I think this is not a bug.
Speaker 1: It's a feature of the internet landscape that we have
Speaker 1: where a video where a man in front of a
Speaker 1: microphone is humiliating a woman that will always find an audience,
Speaker 1: and I think it is. I wanted to talk about
Speaker 1: this as sort of like a funny, weird thing, but
Speaker 1: it does. It does connect back to that very real
Speaker 1: dynamic where massage, noir and massogyny will always be profitable online,
Speaker 1: which is why we need to have a better Internet
Speaker 1: landscape that doesn't allow for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if only meta would start excluding that kind of
Speaker 2: content rather than political exactly.
Speaker 1: Well, Mike, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 2: Bridget, thanks for having me. I hope you have a
Speaker 2: safe trip home from Maza Lan and to the.
Speaker 1: Rest of you, thanks for listening. We will see you
Speaker 1: on the Internet. If you're looking for ways to support
Speaker 1: the show, check out our merch store at teangody dot
Speaker 1: com slash store. Got a story about an interesting thing
Speaker 1: in tech, or just want to say hi, You can
Speaker 1: reach us at Hello at tenggody dot com. You can
Speaker 1: also find transcripts for today's episode at teng Goody dot com.
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by
Speaker 1: me Bridget tod It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative,
Speaker 1: edited by Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer.
Speaker 1: Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amado
Speaker 1: is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If
Speaker 1: you want to help us grow, rate and review us.
Speaker 3: On Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts