Speaker 1: Hey, it's Bridget. So when I'm not making There Are
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet, I'm also the host of
Speaker 1: a podcast called Beef, where we're serving up the juiciest
Speaker 1: historical rivalries that you've never heard of. And I'm so
Speaker 1: pleased to share that Beef is a finalist for three
Speaker 1: Signal Awards. So could you do me a huge favor
Speaker 1: and vote for Beef to win Best Writing, Best Emerging Podcast,
Speaker 1: and Best Host. Just go to Ncpodcasts dot com slash Signal.
Speaker 1: Voting is open until October fifth. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: It really means a lot.
Speaker 2: There Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: As a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm Bridget
Speaker 1: Todd and this is there Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: I am here with my producer, Joey. Joey, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us.
Speaker 3: Welcome back, Hey, Bridget, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: So I think we should just get right into it
Speaker 1: because everybody on Twitter is talking about Linda Yakarino's performance
Speaker 1: at the Big Tech conference Code. Oh my gosh, have
Speaker 1: you seen or heard anything about this? I have not,
Speaker 1: So usually we do a segment about like, oh, what's
Speaker 1: Elon Musk done? Now what's Elon up to? This is
Speaker 1: really what's Linda Yakarino up to? So Linda Yakarino for
Speaker 1: folks who don't know, was named as the new CEO
Speaker 1: of Twitter a while ago.
Speaker 2: I would say, it kind of seems like.
Speaker 1: Linda is not as publicly involved as you might expect
Speaker 1: a CEO to be, Like it seems like Elon Musk
Speaker 1: will say something and she like a B and now
Speaker 1: it's a big change and she won't even like acknowledge
Speaker 1: it or anything like that. So like the vibe has
Speaker 1: been like is she really in charge? Is she really
Speaker 1: the CEO? When she came on board, she definitely was
Speaker 1: getting that treatment where she was talking about how she
Speaker 1: really loves a challenge, like she's the person that you
Speaker 1: call when you want someone who was like really going
Speaker 1: to turn a ship around, And she was using a
Speaker 1: lot of language that I I really quickly recognize as
Speaker 1: setting up a woman to come in and clean up
Speaker 1: the mess of a male CEO, a male leader. Like
Speaker 1: I heard a lot of like this is someone who
Speaker 1: really wants to be seen as someone who was really
Speaker 1: like capable and going to come in and do a
Speaker 1: good job.
Speaker 2: While her performance at a tech conference.
Speaker 1: Code did not go well and is not really doing
Speaker 1: a good job of aligning with what I think is
Speaker 1: her like public myth making around herself. So first, Kara
Speaker 1: Swisher interviewed Joel Roth, former head of trust and Safety
Speaker 1: at Twitter. Roth is someone who I've seen talked about
Speaker 1: in some ways that I would say or not exactly accurate.
Speaker 1: You might remember that Roth was working at Twitter in
Speaker 1: the pre Elon Musk days and then stuck around once
Speaker 1: Elon Musk took over. I've seen him described as a whistleblower,
Speaker 1: but I really pushed back against that framing because when
Speaker 1: Elon Musk took over Twitter, he was fine to go
Speaker 1: along with all the practices that Elon Musk was putting forth.
Speaker 1: There are other folks who left Twitter when Elon Musk
Speaker 1: took over, who I would say, like were actual genuine
Speaker 1: whistleblowers who were blowing the whistle on Twitter's internal practices
Speaker 1: once Elon must took over. I would not put Yoel
Speaker 1: Roth in that camp. You'll might remember that Joel Roth
Speaker 1: was like on board until Musk very publicly turned on him.
Speaker 1: Musk kind of publicly insinuated that Roth, who is openly gay,
Speaker 1: is a sexual threat to children. And after this happened,
Speaker 1: Roth and his family had to flee their home for
Speaker 1: their own safety. So I will say this, had that
Speaker 1: been me, had Elon Musk taken over my company and
Speaker 1: then publicly smeared me as a threat to children, and
Speaker 1: that I had to leave my home and I was
Speaker 1: invited on a big platform to talk about Twitter, I
Speaker 1: can just imagine what I would have said, like it
Speaker 1: would have come up, I probably would have had a
Speaker 1: lot to say. However, Roth really just kept it professional.
Speaker 1: He talked about how there had been a rise and
Speaker 1: hate speech on Twitter since Elon must took over, saying
Speaker 1: by any measure, it is worse except by Twitter's own measure,
Speaker 1: which is basically what we've all been saying all along.
Speaker 1: So even though Roth just stuck to like clear stats
Speaker 1: about Twitter, like talking about the platform, Linda Yakarino seemed
Speaker 1: very rattled by him being there. Linda was interviewed right
Speaker 1: after Roth, and to be honest, just came off really
Speaker 1: unprepared and it didn't do a ton to you know,
Speaker 1: address concerns that like Elon Musk is still running the
Speaker 1: show and like you know, running Twitter off of his
Speaker 1: whims without really consulting her.
Speaker 2: Listen for yourself.
Speaker 4: Elon Musk just announced a new monthly fee for users. Yeap,
Speaker 4: And my question for you is do you want to
Speaker 4: start charging all users of X as he said? And
Speaker 4: how many users do you think.
Speaker 2: You will lose as a result? Could you repeat?
Speaker 4: Elon Musk announced You're moving to an entirely subscription based service. Yeah,
Speaker 4: nothing free.
Speaker 2: I'm about using X.
Speaker 1: Do you say we were moving to it specifically or
Speaker 1: is thinking about it?
Speaker 4: He said, that's plan? Yeah, So did he consult you
Speaker 4: before he announced that?
Speaker 2: We talk about everything?
Speaker 5: Marn I guess she sounds very PR trained. Sounds like
Speaker 5: the like if I were the PR person for Twitter,
Speaker 5: slash X whatever you want to call it right now,
Speaker 5: I would be like, yeah, let's let's you know, do
Speaker 5: you say it or is it just like an idea
Speaker 5: that's out there or thinking about it?
Speaker 3: Like I Yeah, that's so PR speak.
Speaker 1: So Jakarino then tried to give some big, impressive number
Speaker 1: about how advertisers were returning to the platform, but then
Speaker 1: those numbers were refuted by external analysis. Then, when asked
Speaker 1: about the current rise and anti Semitic content on Twitter,
Speaker 1: including from her boss, Elon Musk. According to Business insiders
Speaker 1: ben Bergman, she apparently looked down at her watch and said,
Speaker 1: I need to leave to catch a flight. And that's
Speaker 1: just like I can't imagine a more awkward thing to say, like, uh,
Speaker 1: I think someone's.
Speaker 2: Calling me in the other room. I gotta go.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: No, that's like like, oh, look at my wrist, I
Speaker 5: gotta go.
Speaker 3: That is real.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So of all the things that you could say, I
Speaker 1: feel like that's the most awkward, Like you know that emoji,
Speaker 1: that awkward emoji that has the curly mouth. That's just like, oh,
Speaker 1: that was basically everybody's face in the audience because it
Speaker 1: was so awkward. People have described this as like a
Speaker 1: scene from Arrested Development because that's how awkward it was. Now,
Speaker 1: I think this is really just an instance of like
Speaker 1: you work for a company, you have you have fired
Speaker 1: or let go most, if not all, of your camm staff.
Speaker 1: The person who like is at the very top of
Speaker 1: the company, the owner Elon Musk, is someone who is
Speaker 1: very erratic. I think that like, this is what you
Speaker 1: get when all of those conditions are met. And so
Speaker 1: some folks, some like pretty big name tech folks, accused
Speaker 1: tech journalist Kara Swisher, you know, the organizer of the
Speaker 1: conference of sandbagging Yakarbino by booking Roth as a surprise guest.
Speaker 1: But this is not really what happened. Swisher confirmed that
Speaker 1: Yacharino knew that Roth would be speaking, and was even
Speaker 1: given the option to pick whether she wanted to speak
Speaker 1: before him or after him, and that apparently Twitter like
Speaker 1: decided that they wanted to have the last words. So
Speaker 1: it's not like this was a total surprise. According to
Speaker 1: Kara Swisher, she texted Linda Yakarino personally and she had
Speaker 1: about twelve hours notice that, like, hey, this person's going
Speaker 1: to be speaking too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like how how you were describing Roth before?
Speaker 5: And this isn't like a dig on him, I'm sure whatever,
Speaker 5: but it seems like he's like the most like mild,
Speaker 5: sort of like center of the field person you could
Speaker 5: ask to talk about this, because again it sounds like, yeah,
Speaker 5: he didn't leave. He was sort of like I'm just
Speaker 5: going to keep doing my job and see what happens.
Speaker 5: And yeah, if you have a marginalized identity, you will
Speaker 5: be targeted for that, regardless of how you know much
Speaker 5: of a team player you are, and again, this is
Speaker 5: like a good example of that.
Speaker 3: But yeah, it sounds like he's sort of you don't
Speaker 3: really know what's strict and he could go with this,
Speaker 3: and yeah.
Speaker 2: That's a good way to describe him.
Speaker 1: And honestly, to me, like I said, if Elon Musk
Speaker 1: had targeted me for my identity and put my kids
Speaker 1: at risk, you can believe that when I got on
Speaker 1: a stage, I wouldn't be talking about the platform stats, right, So,
Speaker 1: like part of me is like, well, this is like
Speaker 1: a testament to the fact that Roth is not going personal,
Speaker 1: that he's just like sticking to the SATs. I completely
Speaker 1: agree with your assessment of who he is in this situation.
Speaker 2: And I was pretty.
Speaker 1: Surprised to see a lot of big names in tech media,
Speaker 1: people like Jason Kalakhanis from the All In podcast, which
Speaker 1: is like a like probably the number one tech podcast
Speaker 1: in the world, like every fucking week.
Speaker 2: I have no problem with that, but like, it is
Speaker 2: what it is.
Speaker 1: And a business reporter at Axios they were on Twitter
Speaker 1: saying like, oh, Linda Yacarno got sandbagged by Kara Swisher.
Speaker 1: This is so unprofessional and Kara Swisher is never gonna
Speaker 1: be able to book high profile tech leaders for this conference,
Speaker 1: and like, this conference is really gonna be not as
Speaker 1: big of a deal if this is how they're gonna
Speaker 1: treat their their high profile guests.
Speaker 2: And I really need to like push.
Speaker 1: Back on that framing because you know, I think it
Speaker 1: really it's one of those situations where it's like, wow,
Speaker 1: you all have so little integrity as tech tech leaders
Speaker 1: and journalists people are supposed to be informing the public.
Speaker 1: You could not be making it clearer that what you
Speaker 1: actually care about, what you actually value, is access. This
Speaker 1: is something that Paris Marks, the host of Tech will
Speaker 1: not save us. That podcast speaks to quite a bit,
Speaker 1: which is like, these people could not have made it
Speaker 1: any clearer that they don't care about holding tech leaders accountable.
Speaker 1: They don't care about asking the kinds of questions that
Speaker 1: are actually going to help us the public understand what's
Speaker 1: going on. What they care about is access. And it's
Speaker 1: not a journalist's job to make Linda Yakarino look good.
Speaker 1: It's not a journalist's job to you know, play nice
Speaker 1: with Dyacarino or any other tech leader and like make
Speaker 1: them feel comfortable and make them look good and give
Speaker 1: them like like they're not in pr they're journalists, And
Speaker 1: so I was really surprised how quickly these journalists revealed
Speaker 1: that they don't care about that, that all they care
Speaker 1: about is like, Ooh, is this really gonna like hurt
Speaker 1: Karras Swisher's ability to book big guests h And that
Speaker 1: I found that to be really telling. You know, Linda
Speaker 1: Yacarino is running one of the most important tech platforms
Speaker 1: in the world. It's not any journalist's job to make
Speaker 1: her look good. It's a journalist's job to ask her
Speaker 1: questions that are going to be clarifying for us the public,
Speaker 1: and to hold her accountable for the things that she
Speaker 1: says and the things that she does.
Speaker 5: Right, And even if it wasn't Linda Yakarino herself, like
Speaker 5: she's the CEO of a company that's owned by Elon
Speaker 5: Musk who has used that platform to spewges straight up
Speaker 5: Nazi shit and yeah, apparently target a gay man in
Speaker 5: a way that is very much rooted in homophobia.
Speaker 3: Like it, it totally makes sense.
Speaker 5: It's so weird to see like how accountability is like
Speaker 5: framed because yeah, like you said, this seems like a
Speaker 5: situation where she needs to be held accountable for what's
Speaker 5: happening at her company, for what's happening in the name
Speaker 5: of her company.
Speaker 3: And yeah, like asking the most basic questions is apparently
Speaker 3: too much.
Speaker 5: I don't know, poor Linda Yakarino, her and her you know,
Speaker 5: billion dollar company, so sad they're being bullied by mean journalists.
Speaker 1: I almost see like a little bit of like sexism here,
Speaker 1: Like I think it's I think it's I think it's
Speaker 1: important to like not I try really heard when I'm
Speaker 1: talking about Linda Yacarino to make sure that I'm not
Speaker 1: trafficking in some sort of like internalized misogyny.
Speaker 2: But the way that people are talking.
Speaker 1: About her, it almost swings back around and it's like,
Speaker 1: we're not talking about your best friend giving you a
Speaker 1: heads up that your ex might be at the party
Speaker 1: they're planning. This is somebody who is running one of
Speaker 1: the most powerful thing EO of one of the most
Speaker 1: powerful tech companies in the world. Where's this idea coming
Speaker 1: from that she can't handle it if one of her
Speaker 1: if a former staffer is there presenting his perspective as
Speaker 1: a former staffer, it almost seems like insulting to her.
Speaker 1: This assumption that like she needs more notice than other
Speaker 1: tech CEOs that have gone to this conference that somebody's
Speaker 1: being added to the lineup, and that if Joel Roth
Speaker 1: got up there and spoke his piece about what he
Speaker 1: saw at Twitter, that that's going to somehow rattle her.
Speaker 1: It almost feels like like a weird kind of like
Speaker 1: a weird assumption that I just I don't know where.
Speaker 2: It's coming from.
Speaker 1: And I don't see a lot of other tech leaders
Speaker 1: getting these same kinds of like assumptions that they they
Speaker 1: will fall they will simply fall apart if they are
Speaker 1: asked to speak after somebody who has presented an alternative
Speaker 1: perspective than their own. I thought to her whole thing,
Speaker 1: she's been saying this whole time that Twitter is this
Speaker 1: place where, oh, you need to be able to listen
Speaker 1: when someone's got an opposing view, like you shouldn't. You
Speaker 1: should run away from it when someone's got a different opinion.
Speaker 1: But yet here are all these people saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Linda Yakarino shouldn't have to listen to somebody's opposing opinion,
Speaker 1: and if she does so, it is it is reasonable
Speaker 1: for her to completely fall apart and shit the bed.
Speaker 1: I have a lot of questions about it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, a big part of feminism is being able to
Speaker 5: acknowledge when women mess up too, and women are benefiting
Speaker 5: from like, you know, classism, anti Semitism, general sort of
Speaker 5: fascist tendencies, you know, in this case, and yeah, like
Speaker 5: Linda Yacharino took this job knowing who Elon Musk was
Speaker 5: and knowing what this company had kind.
Speaker 3: Of positioned itself as at that point.
Speaker 5: So it's sort of like, I don't know, it feels
Speaker 5: like we're falling back into the whole like Girl Boss era,
Speaker 5: where it's like it's okay if she does bad stuff
Speaker 5: because she's she's doing it as a woman, and it
Speaker 5: doesn't matter that other women are going to get brutalized
Speaker 5: by the content that is produced by this company or whatever.
Speaker 5: It's weird. It is a very weird thing to be watching.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of this meme I see often that
Speaker 1: I think about all the time. It's not exactly like, well,
Speaker 1: whatever the meme is, I don't support all women. Some
Speaker 1: of you bitches are very dumb. And I always think
Speaker 1: about that of like, yeah, like this is she shot
Speaker 1: the bed out there, and it really matters. It doesn't
Speaker 1: just matter from like a business perspective, it matters for
Speaker 1: all of us, like to put this in context. This
Speaker 1: comes just days after a new study from the European
Speaker 1: Union that said that Twitter is the number one biggest
Speaker 1: source of disinformation when compared to other social media platforms,
Speaker 1: with Spain, Poland, and Slovakia deemed as countries with the
Speaker 1: highest risks.
Speaker 2: The EUS Values.
Speaker 1: And Transparency Commissioner Via Yorova warned Elon Musk, saying, you
Speaker 1: have to comply with the hard law. We'll be watching
Speaker 1: what you're doing. And what did he do in response, Well,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk cut Twitter's election integrity and disinformation team despite
Speaker 1: pledging that he would not do that, and removed the
Speaker 1: election disinformation reporting tool even though we're like, what a
Speaker 1: couple hundred days out of an election here in the
Speaker 1: United States, and so this stuff really matters, like how
Speaker 1: this platform is run really makes really matters to people.
Speaker 1: On Friday, the day that this podcast comes out, Twitter's
Speaker 1: new privacy policy goes into effect, which allows Twitter to
Speaker 1: take a lot more data from us, including our employment information,
Speaker 1: our job information, maybe read our DMS, our biometric data,
Speaker 1: and of course use all of that data that they
Speaker 1: take from us to train their AI, and a whole
Speaker 1: lot more.
Speaker 2: All of this.
Speaker 1: After Twitter's former head of security turned actual whistleblower went
Speaker 1: before the Senate and testified that Twitter is misleading the
Speaker 1: public about the platform's extreme and egregious security deficiencies. So
Speaker 1: all of this is to say that it really matters
Speaker 1: how Twitter is being run, not just because it's this
Speaker 1: big company, but because it really matters for global election
Speaker 1: integrity and for our own personal security. So this is
Speaker 1: not a business story. This is not a story about
Speaker 1: like it's Kara Swisher gonna be able to get big
Speaker 1: important guests on her show, where well, the CODE conference
Speaker 1: continue to be really big and important. It's not a
Speaker 1: story about whether or not this journalist was like nice
Speaker 1: to Linda Yakarino. Our global democracy is at risk and
Speaker 1: these people are just talking about like whether or not
Speaker 1: CODE is going to be able to book guests is
Speaker 1: because the journalist asked her about it. Like the conversation
Speaker 1: is so deeply unserious, and I feel like we are
Speaker 1: watching tech journalists fail us in real time and be
Speaker 1: really public and open about it, Like they don't even
Speaker 1: have the good sense to not publicly go out and
Speaker 1: say like Oh, the most important thing is access, And
Speaker 1: because they asked Linda Yacarino hard questions, they're blowing that
Speaker 1: access the most important thing that matters to me as
Speaker 1: a tech journalist, Like it is so deeply unserious and
Speaker 1: they're putting us all at risk and not even having
Speaker 1: the good sense to like not say that publicly voluntarily.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think coming from within the journalism industry in
Speaker 5: particular and like having that perspective, this is really interesting
Speaker 5: because it kind of reminds me of like, and you
Speaker 5: mentioned the election, which this doesn't directly have to do
Speaker 5: with the election, but you know, again Twitter is going
Speaker 5: to be a big platform for that. This reminds me
Speaker 5: of back in twenty sixteen when Trump was elected and
Speaker 5: there was sort of this like conversation I think within
Speaker 5: the journalism industry and within newsrooms about like what's the
Speaker 5: media's responsibility and you know, what's the difference between holding
Speaker 5: people accountable and like getting both sides or like hearing
Speaker 5: all the sides, And like this this seems like we're
Speaker 5: falling back into that idea of like getting all the
Speaker 5: sides and hearing letting everybody just speak their mind without
Speaker 5: question is more important than like actually holding people accountable
Speaker 5: and actually asking people the hard questions about like their
Speaker 5: actual policies that are going to affect people. Yeah, that's
Speaker 5: concerning to me too. And again, like this doesn't directly
Speaker 5: have to do with the election, but Twitter is going
Speaker 5: to be a big platform when it comes to relection.
Speaker 5: And are we going to see that sort of cycle
Speaker 5: again where people are just like, yeah, we're gonna just
Speaker 5: hear all the sides and not hold anybody accountable because
Speaker 5: that never ends.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, I worry that folks in media have not
Speaker 1: really learned a lot of hard truths, So we will see.
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick break at our back, so we
Speaker 1: have a little update for you. Last week during our newscast,
Speaker 1: we told you that Andrew Tates MLM scam app called
Speaker 1: The Real World formerly called Hustler's University, was taken off
Speaker 1: of Google's play Store for being a predatory pyramid scheme
Speaker 1: that charged subscribers fifty dollars a month and offered them
Speaker 1: the chance to make millions through these like very scammy
Speaker 1: sounding courses on things like copywriting, cryptocurrency, and also prompted
Speaker 1: users to share Andrew Tate's content on social media. At
Speaker 1: the time of publishing our episode, the app was still
Speaker 1: available on Apple's app store well right after our episode
Speaker 1: went live. On Friday of last week, Apple joined Google
Speaker 1: in taking Tit's app down from the app store. Thank you, Apple.
Speaker 1: Tits people say that they are appealing both of these decisions,
Speaker 1: but for now, it is good news that that tit
Speaker 1: is being cut from this income stream that just really
Speaker 1: just takes advantage of young people.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: First of all, adding on to last week's kind of
Speaker 5: discussion of this, to be the third person now on
Speaker 5: this podcast to say, I don't know why copywriting is
Speaker 5: listed in there, because.
Speaker 3: Oh I got experience with that. You do not make
Speaker 3: billions of time.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Listener Sarah said the same thing as I like, what
Speaker 1: is going on with copywriting? People don't make millions and
Speaker 1: millions of dollars from copywriting and him promising people that
Speaker 1: they're going to make that is truly a wild claim
Speaker 1: to be making on his app.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: I think generally media, if a company is telling you that,
Speaker 5: like a media related job is going to make you
Speaker 5: a lot of money, that's probably not true.
Speaker 2: A rule of thumb.
Speaker 5: Yeah, No, I that's good to hear. I feel like
Speaker 5: this whole Entwtate saga. This is this is one of
Speaker 5: those things where it's like this whole thing that's going
Speaker 5: out the Andrew Tait has felt very big and like
Speaker 5: very difficult to address, and it's like there's just so much,
Speaker 5: so much harm he's causing that this is like an
Speaker 5: example of like how any sort of action is good.
Speaker 5: And I think, I don't know, I think it's it's
Speaker 5: easy to get sort of caught up in all of
Speaker 5: the bad stuff that's coming out of this, but it
Speaker 5: is it's good to hear one when good things happened
Speaker 5: because because of you know, people's advocacy and people trying
Speaker 5: to combat this stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I take my w's where I can get them,
Speaker 1: even the small ones. And if folks are interested to
Speaker 1: hear more about Taate and the sort of ecosystem of
Speaker 1: manosphere grifters that have popped up around him, folks like
Speaker 1: just pearly Things and Sneako all of your mixed bag
Speaker 1: of misogynistic right wing extremist online grifters. Check out our
Speaker 1: episode of their No Girls on the Internet that came
Speaker 1: out this week with Justin Horowitz and extremism researcher at
Speaker 1: Media Matters. He breaks down all of it. So if
Speaker 1: folks want to know more about Tate, what he's doing,
Speaker 1: and the impact that it has on all of us,
Speaker 1: definitely check out this week's episode. So over in Texas,
Speaker 1: yelp the review website that is mostly known for I
Speaker 1: guess like reviewing restaurants and coffee shops. While Yelp is
Speaker 1: preemptively suing Texas to ensure that the site can continue
Speaker 1: to tell users that crisis pregnancy centers also known as
Speaker 1: CPCs listed on their site do not provide abortions or
Speaker 1: abortion referrals. So if you're unfamiliar with a crisis pregnancy center,
Speaker 1: according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, always
Speaker 1: have trouble saying, that word CPC is a term used
Speaker 1: to refer to a certain facilities that represent themselves as
Speaker 1: legitimate reproductive healthcare clinics providing care for pregnant people, but
Speaker 1: actually aim to dissuade people from accessing certain types of
Speaker 1: reproductive care, including abortion care and even contraceptives' options. So currently,
Speaker 1: Yelp puts a label on crisis pregnancy centers that reads, quote,
Speaker 1: this is a crisis pregnancy center. Crisis pregnancy centers do
Speaker 1: not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers. This is
Speaker 1: just like fact based information. That is just like a fact.
Speaker 1: I don't think that any CPC would object to that
Speaker 1: that they do not offer abortions or referrals for abortions.
Speaker 1: That its just like a true fact about their services.
Speaker 1: But YELP suspects that Texas is going to sue them
Speaker 1: to prevent them from applying this label, so they are
Speaker 1: preemptively suing Texas first. According to CNN, in a complaint
Speaker 1: filed Wednesday in San Francisco federal court, YELP said it
Speaker 1: as suing the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton preemptively to
Speaker 1: head off a lawsuit it anticipates from his office as
Speaker 1: soon as Friday that may seek to borrow YELP from
Speaker 1: applying its label to crisis pregnancy centers. If the name
Speaker 1: Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas sounds familiar to you,
Speaker 1: that is because he just got finished facing a very
Speaker 1: serious impeachment threat from his own party for corruption.
Speaker 2: Now he wasn't impeached.
Speaker 1: That he won that battle, but he's still facing a
Speaker 1: felony fraud case and an FBI investigation for securities fraud.
Speaker 2: So, Ken Paxton has a lot going on.
Speaker 1: Like, you know, if I were Ken Paxson, I'd probably
Speaker 1: focused on that, but this is what he's doing instead.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's so crazy, Like just from hearing you explain
Speaker 5: that they're not doing anything illegal. In fact, they're just yeah,
Speaker 5: like they're just explaining what the service is, which is
Speaker 5: what you're supposed to do if you're a service and
Speaker 5: you want to get business. But you know, it's almost
Speaker 5: like they don't want us to know that they don't
Speaker 5: have abortions and they actually do other things.
Speaker 3: Crazy.
Speaker 5: I thought false advertising was illegal, apparently not in this case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, So what's interesting about what you just said
Speaker 1: is that back in February, Paxton went after yelp for
Speaker 1: putting a different label on crisis pregnancy centers. Their initial
Speaker 1: label described crisis pregnancy centers as quote typically providing limited
Speaker 1: medical services and may not have licensed medical professionals on site,
Speaker 1: which is also true, but Paxton objected to that back
Speaker 1: in February, and so when yelp changed their label to
Speaker 1: read what I've read before about how crisis pregnancy centers
Speaker 1: do not offer abortions or referral for abortions Paxton himself
Speaker 1: commended that disclosure as quote accurate in a press release
Speaker 1: that reads, YELP has agreed to remove its misleading label
Speaker 1: of crisis pregnancy centers and replace it with an accurate description.
Speaker 1: So just as you said, right that, like Paxton himself said,
Speaker 1: oh well this new label, this label is accurate, but
Speaker 1: now he is still coming after YELP for this label
Speaker 1: that he himself in February said was accurate and was fine.
Speaker 1: So the way that crisis pregnancy centers work is that
Speaker 1: they really, they really take advantage of like scammy SEO
Speaker 1: practices to prey on people, many of whom are in
Speaker 1: desperate situations, to confuse them with inaccurate information. Crisis pregnancy
Speaker 1: centers their whole mission is to basically waste the time
Speaker 1: of somebody who was pregnant, to create an intentional.
Speaker 2: Delay that will delay them in getting.
Speaker 1: An abortion, in an attempt to trigger term restrictions that
Speaker 1: will prevent them from getting abortion care altogether. So yelp's
Speaker 1: lawsuit is asking the court to affirm that it's labeling
Speaker 1: of crisis pregnancy centers was not misleading and that it
Speaker 1: was an exercise of constitutionally protected speech. It is also
Speaker 1: asking the court to block Texas from suing over the
Speaker 1: labels in the future, and I think, yeah, it's just
Speaker 1: another example of the ways that like abortion is a
Speaker 1: tech issue, and that if you are trying to talk
Speaker 1: about technology but you're you're doing so in a way
Speaker 1: that does not talk about abortion care, then you're not
Speaker 1: fully talking about technology because abortion is a tech issue.
Speaker 1: You know, tech company should really be in the business
Speaker 1: of providing accurate information about people's health, and a lot
Speaker 1: of times we know that they don't. So in this case,
Speaker 1: when yelp is actually trying to help people get accurate
Speaker 1: information about you know, crisis pregnancy centers, it's really sad
Speaker 1: that states like Texas are stepping in to prevent them
Speaker 1: from doing that.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and again it's like it's not like Yelp is
Speaker 5: doing anything that's illegal. I use Google Maps all the
Speaker 5: time because like I never know where I am. But
Speaker 5: I mean one thing that like I rely on a
Speaker 5: lot is like the descriptions of places that I'm going
Speaker 5: to matching the place that I'm actually going to, And
Speaker 5: it is really frustrating when they don't. You shouldn't be
Speaker 5: hiding under the guys of medical care if that's not
Speaker 5: what you're doing.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I hate yeah, wow, it's it's scary.
Speaker 5: Everything that's happening in Texas with this is terrifying. And
Speaker 5: again all the support to like abortion activists, reproductive rights
Speaker 5: activists in Texas, you guys are like, I admire the
Speaker 5: work he all are doing so much, so important.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Like, if you've got some spare coin and you're
Speaker 1: looking for a good home for it, donate to an
Speaker 1: abortion fund because Lord knows they're doing important work and
Speaker 1: they could use it. And I think this thing in Texas,
Speaker 1: I really think that Paxton is just trying to do
Speaker 1: a stunt to take away from his corruption investigation. I
Speaker 1: think that, like he is newly back from almost being
Speaker 1: impeached by his own party, and I think that he
Speaker 1: is just like looking for some big, grand standing stunt.
Speaker 1: And he already confirmed that the way that yelp is
Speaker 1: describing CPCs is accurate.
Speaker 2: So it's like we're visiting this now. It just seems
Speaker 2: like a stunt.
Speaker 1: And I think it just goes back to the idea
Speaker 1: that a lot of these extremists, they don't have a
Speaker 1: lot to offer their citizens other than stunts and grandstanding.
Speaker 1: And I think that's exactly what this is.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's almost like the backlash against free productive rights
Speaker 5: and trans people and all of this is just a
Speaker 5: time to get more votes.
Speaker 3: But you know.
Speaker 1: So, folks might be familiar with Wirecutter. The New York
Speaker 1: Times is Vertical, where they rate and review tech gadgets.
Speaker 1: Wirecutter had been giving whyse the security camera system positive
Speaker 1: reviews for six years, but all of that changed this
Speaker 1: week because Wirecutter announced that they were pulling their recommendations
Speaker 1: for whys from all their site's guides. Why Well because
Speaker 1: Wirecutter explains that on September eighth, The Verge reported an
Speaker 1: incident in which WYSE customers were able to access live
Speaker 1: video from other users cameras through the WYSE web portal.
Speaker 1: When Wirecutter reached out to WYS for details, a representative
Speaker 1: characterized the incident as small in scope, saying they believe
Speaker 1: no more than ten users were affected. So that's not great. Like,
Speaker 1: even if it's only ten people strangers being able to
Speaker 1: access your security camera and see what you're doing, it's
Speaker 1: like pretty bad. But here's the kicker. Other than one
Speaker 1: post on its user to user online forum Wise Communities
Speaker 1: and Communications to those that they say were affected. The
Speaker 1: company has not reached out to Wise customers, nor has
Speaker 1: it provided meaningful details about the incident wirecutter rights. We
Speaker 1: believe Wise is acting irresponsibly to its customers. As such,
Speaker 1: we've made the difficult but unavoidable decision to revoke our
Speaker 1: recommendation of all Wise cameras until the company implements meaningful
Speaker 1: changes to its security and privacy procedures. The concern is
Speaker 1: not that Wise had a security incident. Just about every
Speaker 1: company or organization in the world we're probably at the
Speaker 1: deal with some sort of security trip up, as we've
Speaker 1: seen with big banks, the military, Las Vegas, casinos, schools,
Speaker 1: and even Chick fil A. The greater issue is how
Speaker 1: this company responds to a crisis. With this incident and
Speaker 1: others in the past, it is clear that Wise has
Speaker 1: failed to develop the sorts of robust procedures that adequately
Speaker 1: protect its customers the way they deserve.
Speaker 2: Damn.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's scary.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I feel like security cameras, cameras in general, that's
Speaker 5: just such a sensitive issue. It's like any like, if
Speaker 5: there's any break of that privacy, that should be notified
Speaker 5: to people that have the cameras that you sell exactly.
Speaker 2: So I need to make this really clear. This is
Speaker 2: very unusual. Right.
Speaker 1: We talk about a lot of companies who behave in
Speaker 1: ways that are irresponsible, but this is irresponsible even by
Speaker 1: like irresponsible company standards. Wirecutters spoke to other folks in
Speaker 1: the privacy space, including Gen cult Writer, program director at
Speaker 1: Mozilla's Privacy not included, whose work we've talked about on
Speaker 1: a show before. All of the folks they spoke to
Speaker 1: agree that it is completely unusual and unacceptable that Whyse
Speaker 1: did not reach out to their customer base proactively and
Speaker 1: never said anything about how they are planning to prevent
Speaker 1: these issues in the future. And this is not even
Speaker 1: the first time that Wise has had issues like this.
Speaker 1: In March twenty twenty two, a bit Defender study showed
Speaker 1: that WYSE took nearly three years to fully address specific
Speaker 1: vulnerabilities that affected all three models of Wise cameras. Eventually,
Speaker 1: they did alert customers and told them that they're you know,
Speaker 1: their security like that model of security camera was no
Speaker 1: longer safe and that they should not be using them,
Speaker 1: and that they did keep using them, they were doing
Speaker 1: so like at their own risk. So like you were saying, Joey,
Speaker 1: I would pretty much never advocate for someone putting an
Speaker 1: additional camera in their home that they didn't need. But
Speaker 1: when you do, like that is a trust relationship, as
Speaker 1: you were saying, that you're entering into with the company, right,
Speaker 1: you need to know that if that trust is broken,
Speaker 1: that the company is going to handle it in a
Speaker 1: way that is responsible. Like that's the only way that
Speaker 1: having a camera in your house makes any sense at all,
Speaker 1: is that the company is like acting in a way
Speaker 1: that really makes it clear that they understand that that
Speaker 1: that you're putting their your trust in them. As wier
Speaker 1: Cutter points out, the fundamental relationship between smart home companies
Speaker 1: and their customers is founded on trust. No company can
Speaker 1: guarantee safety and security but one hundred percent of the time,
Speaker 1: but customers need to be confident that those who make
Speaker 1: and sell these products, especially security devices, are worthy of
Speaker 1: their trust. Why is its inability to meet these basic
Speaker 1: standards puts its customers and its devices at risk and
Speaker 1: also cast doubt on the smart home industry as a whole.
Speaker 1: So Wirecutter actually listed out some specific steps that Wise
Speaker 1: would need to take in order for them to consider,
Speaker 1: like reconsider looking at their products in the future. It's
Speaker 1: like very basic stuff, honestly, like reaching out to all
Speaker 1: customers proactively if there is a breach and describing the
Speaker 1: issue in detail, including what steps are being taken to
Speaker 1: prevent it from happening. Again, Like to me, it sounds
Speaker 1: like very basic stuff. And I also think that it
Speaker 1: is a pretty big step for an outlet that like
Speaker 1: Wirecutter that most folks probably know for like Gadget Reviews,
Speaker 1: to take this kind of action, And honestly, maybe it
Speaker 1: should be more commonplace, Like even if you're mostly a
Speaker 1: review outlet, it is still sort of service oriented tech
Speaker 1: journalism for regular people to inform their purchasing decision making, right,
Speaker 1: And so I think it's nice to see an outlet
Speaker 1: making that responsibility seriously and using that as as a
Speaker 1: way to advocate for a tech company just being accountable
Speaker 1: to the people who are buying them buying their stuff.
Speaker 5: Yeah, uh rare wind for the New York Times.
Speaker 3: I guess Times Property Bridget. Did you ever watch.
Speaker 5: There was the like Disney Channel movie that I watched
Speaker 5: I was a kid that was called like smart Home.
Speaker 2: Yeah, smart House. You know, I watched Smart House as
Speaker 2: the word smart Home.
Speaker 3: But I was like, I think that's why.
Speaker 5: Now I think I'm realizing now because I've always been
Speaker 5: somebody that, like, even with like computer cameras, have been
Speaker 5: very like anxious about and I know most about it whatever, I.
Speaker 3: In theory it's safe.
Speaker 5: But yeah, I think I think that's how it started.
Speaker 5: I think it was because of that movie, which this
Speaker 5: just goes to prove that Disney Channel was right apparently,
Speaker 5: But yeah.
Speaker 3: No, that's that's so scary though.
Speaker 5: I've never had a security camera like that in a
Speaker 5: place that I've lived, but I know, like I had
Speaker 5: friends growing up that like had that in their houses,
Speaker 5: and that's scary. That is that's really scary what could
Speaker 5: happen with that?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: So first of all, like Disney Channel continue, Disney Channel
Speaker 1: originals continue from like that two thousands continue to be prophetic,
Speaker 1: like it is written. Yeah, maybe that's maybe that's our
Speaker 1: origin story of paranoia around certain technology.
Speaker 3: I think it is.
Speaker 5: I think I'm connecting the dots now. I'm like, that's
Speaker 5: that's how it starts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's funny because like I'm not like like
Speaker 1: for my life having things like a Google Home or
Speaker 1: like a security camera. It doesn't make sense for my
Speaker 1: life personally, But I get that people's security needs might
Speaker 1: be different. Like my parents have I actually don't know
Speaker 1: what they use, but they have cameras in every room
Speaker 1: in their house because my dad is disabled and sometimes
Speaker 1: has like bad falls, and so it's like a way
Speaker 1: to be like, oh, well, if I'm downstairs, I want
Speaker 1: to be able to see if my mom is downstairs,
Speaker 1: she wants to be able to be able to see
Speaker 1: what my dad is doing, and vice versa. Because they're
Speaker 1: older folks who live in a big house, and so
Speaker 1: I'm not you know, if having devices that have cameras
Speaker 1: in them in your life makes sense for your lifestyle,
Speaker 1: like that, do what you gotta do. As wirecutter, I
Speaker 1: think rightly points out, you should be able to do
Speaker 1: that and trust that you are going to get the
Speaker 1: information that you need to be able to be, you know,
Speaker 1: deciding how you what role you want this technology to
Speaker 1: play in your life. And I feel like what wise
Speaker 1: is not being a good actor to allow consumers to
Speaker 1: really do that.
Speaker 5: More.
Speaker 1: After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: So we've talked a little bit before about the threats
Speaker 1: that deep fakes pose digitally re images of people, often
Speaker 1: depicting them in sexual situations or meant to be used
Speaker 1: for political deception. Now, new legislation is trying to combat
Speaker 1: the harm posed by deep fakes. Representative Evet Clark, who
Speaker 1: represents parts of Brooklyn, introduced new legislation in the House
Speaker 1: that is meant to curb the harm of deep fakes, saying,
Speaker 1: this bill is meant to take us into the twenty
Speaker 1: first century and establish a baseline so we can discern
Speaker 1: who is intended to harm us. Clark said that the
Speaker 1: Deep Fakes Accountability Act would provide prosecutors, regulators, and particularly
Speaker 1: victims with resources like detection technology that Clark believes they
Speaker 1: need to stand up against the threat of nefarious deep fakes.
Speaker 1: This bill would require all creators of deep fakes to
Speaker 1: include content credentials, which means the origins and entire history
Speaker 1: of a piece of content, including how it was captured
Speaker 1: and how it's been changed. Under this legislation, online platforms
Speaker 1: that host generative AI content would also be required to
Speaker 1: display the origins of that content. Under this legislation, users
Speaker 1: who failed to label malicious deep thakes would face a
Speaker 1: criminal penalty include in prison time and fines. So this
Speaker 1: category woulden compass deep fakes related to sexual content, criminal content,
Speaker 1: incitement of violence, and foreign interference in elections. Now I've
Speaker 1: looked into this legislation a little bit, it does seem
Speaker 1: like there is some potential concern that the scope might
Speaker 1: be a bit too narrow because it really focuses on
Speaker 1: like people, So like deep fakes that depict images of people,
Speaker 1: but what about malna deep fake does not depict a person,
Speaker 1: Like recently faked AI generated images of the Pentagon on
Speaker 1: fire went viral and caused a disruption where I live
Speaker 1: here in DC, And so I have read that there
Speaker 1: is concern that this legislation is too narrow and that
Speaker 1: it does not account for those kinds of deep fakes
Speaker 1: that are that do not depict a specific person.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 5: That also, it concerns me that they're being very liberal
Speaker 5: with like sexual content because and like, I don't know,
Speaker 5: this might be a little bit more extreme of a take,
Speaker 5: but I feel like if you're making AI content of
Speaker 5: somebody that's like sexual without their permission, that's bad, that
Speaker 5: is wrong. I don't think that should be allowed, like period.
Speaker 5: So I don't know, it feels sort of like concerning
Speaker 5: that they're sort of like you have to label.
Speaker 3: This, but it can still exist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's another I mean, like I just knowing what
Speaker 1: I know about you know, the way that platforms will
Speaker 1: sometimes add like oh this is misinformation or like get
Speaker 1: the realist story. Like if you ever scroll Facebook and
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, this post has been shown to be misleading.
Speaker 1: Those are great, and I like think that platform should
Speaker 1: be doing that, But if I'm being honest, there is
Speaker 1: a lot of research that suggests that people are not
Speaker 1: really like looking at those because social media platforms move
Speaker 1: so quickly that people are not always clicking in to
Speaker 1: be like, oh this is here's.
Speaker 2: Some context for this.
Speaker 1: And so I'm concerned that the way that the Internet
Speaker 1: moves moves, the speed at which the Internet moves, I
Speaker 1: think it's possible that deep fakes could travel in a
Speaker 1: way because people are not necessarily looking at the context
Speaker 1: or looking at the label because of the speed at
Speaker 1: which social media platforms tend to move. And so it
Speaker 1: is concerning, Like I think that something needs to be
Speaker 1: done about the threat of deep fakes, Like I already know.
Speaker 1: I'm sure we've talked about this on the show that
Speaker 1: deep fakes have the potential to really disrupt our democracy,
Speaker 1: and it's definitely going to be people who are traditionally
Speaker 1: marginalized who are disproportionately facing that realities, like you know, women, LGBTQ, folks,
Speaker 1: people of color.
Speaker 2: That's just a reality. And so, like I do think.
Speaker 1: Something needs to be done, it's also kind of hard
Speaker 1: to believe that right now there is no national legislation
Speaker 1: specifically addressing deep fakes or the deceptive uses of generative AI.
Speaker 1: Earlier this month, technology executives did have a closed door
Speaker 1: meeting with senators to discuss potential government regulation, But right
Speaker 1: now there is no national regulation of this. And I
Speaker 1: do want to say that this legislation is being introduced
Speaker 1: by Representative Clark, and Clark is somebody that had actually
Speaker 1: been really.
Speaker 2: Keeping my eye on.
Speaker 1: Y'all might recall that during the TikTok hearings, we talked
Speaker 1: a lot about some of the stuff that came up
Speaker 1: from lawmakers, the questions that they asked. Clark had some
Speaker 1: legitimately very good questions about whether TikTok's moderation policies were
Speaker 1: biased toward black and brown creators, and whether the platform
Speaker 1: was suppressing abortion content. I remember like she was someone whole.
Speaker 1: I was like, Oh, she's like asking very substantive questions
Speaker 1: that clearly reflect her constituents in a way that I
Speaker 1: thought was like very refreshing. She was also working to
Speaker 1: regulate AI before doing so was cool way back when.
Speaker 1: In twenty nineteen, she worked with Senators Wided and Corey
Speaker 1: Booker to introduce the Algorithmic Accountability Act, a bill that
Speaker 1: would require companies to conduct impact and privacy assessments when
Speaker 1: they use automated decision making tools. And so we will
Speaker 1: definitely keep an eye on this legislation, how it moves,
Speaker 1: what happens with it. But yeah, it's sort of hard
Speaker 1: to believe that there is no national legislation addressing the
Speaker 1: threat of deep fakes or deceptive uses of AI. And yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's I will keep an eye on it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it It definitely feels like there should be I
Speaker 5: feel like that should be covered under like libel or
Speaker 5: something too.
Speaker 3: Where it's like and again, I'm I'm not a lawyer.
Speaker 5: I haven't looked at the concrete laws that exists around this,
Speaker 5: but it feels like an image and an image is
Speaker 5: like impact on somebody's reputation that should have the same
Speaker 5: impact as like something that's spoken about somebody.
Speaker 3: But yeah, like it's it's good.
Speaker 5: To hear that somebody is doing something about this, and
Speaker 5: somebody who it seems like has a history of actually
Speaker 5: addressing tech issues and not just you know, selling out
Speaker 5: to the sort of Heritage Foundation version of what the
Speaker 5: Internet should be.
Speaker 3: That's a refreshing take for once. But and again, like, this.
Speaker 5: Is a very narrow legislation, but it's a step in
Speaker 5: the right direction, and I guess that's good to hear.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And to your point that you were making earlier,
Speaker 1: I think this is a situation that really shows that
Speaker 1: sometimes our technology progresses quicker than our laws can keep up.
Speaker 1: And so I'm interested to see if we get to
Speaker 1: a place where our laws actually can be somewhat more
Speaker 1: aligned with the realities of the technology that we're that's
Speaker 1: facing us today. Okay, so important question for you, Joey.
Speaker 1: Did you go for First of all, are you a Swifty?
Speaker 1: Are you into Taylor Swift?
Speaker 3: I love Taylor Swift.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, We've never talked about this, so I
Speaker 2: wasn't sure.
Speaker 5: I did go to the Airs tour. I went to
Speaker 5: the Chicago one of the Chicago shows. She played the Lakes,
Speaker 5: and I wish you would for those of you that are.
Speaker 3: Wondering, the two of you that are wondering.
Speaker 5: But it was a great show. Not being said the
Speaker 5: it's a lot of stress leading up to it. So
Speaker 5: I'm sure you're gonna get into some of that.
Speaker 2: Yes, so I think. I so I'm not as swifty.
Speaker 1: I am an aspiring swifty like I if I'm being honest,
Speaker 1: I probably other than the big hits that everybody knows,
Speaker 1: I probably could not name a.
Speaker 2: Taylor Swift song.
Speaker 1: But I want to be a swifty If there are
Speaker 1: folks like someone send me a playlist, someone tell me
Speaker 1: what to get into. I feel like jealousy. I wish
Speaker 1: I was. I want to be part of the community.
Speaker 5: I'll send you a playlist like Okay, yeah, I respect
Speaker 5: Taylor Swift a lot, and I I want in.
Speaker 2: I just don't know where to start.
Speaker 1: So, as you were saying, like if anybody who tried
Speaker 1: to go to Taylor Swift's eras toward the summer or
Speaker 1: Beyonce's renaissance toward the summer, I didn't make it to
Speaker 1: either of them.
Speaker 2: So like Boomy, I.
Speaker 3: Didn't make it to Renaissance.
Speaker 5: I really didn't want to go to Renaissance and I
Speaker 5: could not get a ticket Soli.
Speaker 3: Yeah, glass half at least I kind of situation.
Speaker 1: My brother went with his wife, and there was a
Speaker 1: time where I was like, well, certainly, like he's gonna
Speaker 1: ask me to go. He's gonna be like, Bridget, you
Speaker 1: should go to Beyonce, take my ticket.
Speaker 2: And I was like waiting by the phone and the
Speaker 2: call never came.
Speaker 3: Fell.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did, heart breaking.
Speaker 1: It was heartbreaking, But I'll get him next time. So
Speaker 1: if anybody went to either of those big summer concert
Speaker 1: tours Taylor Swift, Beyonce, y'all probably know already that the
Speaker 1: ticket buying process was plagued with predatory online ticket sale
Speaker 1: platforms and resellers. It is so hard and expensive to
Speaker 1: get tickets that they actually end up selling out really
Speaker 1: quickly and then wind up on ticket reseller sites for
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars. And now the IRS is getting involved
Speaker 1: because they're putting more scrutiny on ticket resellers.
Speaker 2: So I actually did not know this.
Speaker 1: How it has worked before is that ticket websites had
Speaker 1: to send ten ninety nine forms to anybody who made
Speaker 1: more than twenty thousand dollars through two hundred or more
Speaker 1: ticket sale transactions in a year, and now that law
Speaker 1: has been updated as part of the American Rescue Plan Act,
Speaker 1: which lowers that amount from twenty thousand dollars to six
Speaker 1: hundred dollars regardless of the number of sales, and sellers
Speaker 1: will only need to pay taxes on the profit that
Speaker 1: they make. This is all part of Biden's plan to
Speaker 1: pump the brakes on the out of control antics of
Speaker 1: ticket resellers, to crack down on predatory practices.
Speaker 2: Like tacking on hidden fees at checkout, which everybody hates.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like, you'll buy tickets and then it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: the tickets are fifty dollars and a twenty dollars fuck
Speaker 1: you fee, so now it's seventy dollars. And then oh
Speaker 1: you use the internet. O, now it's one hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: Like it completely adds up. It's so predatory.
Speaker 5: Yeah, the Swifties are powerful. I will say I feel
Speaker 5: like the past couple months of show the Swifties are powerful.
Speaker 1: That is one hundred percent correct. You know, when you
Speaker 1: look at the average prices of some of these big
Speaker 1: concerts this summer, it is clear that like something is wrong.
Speaker 1: The Wall Street Journal reports at the average price for
Speaker 1: a swift Era's tour was one ninety five dollars and
Speaker 1: for Beyonce's Renaissance tour four hundred dollars. Now, stub Hub
Speaker 1: did say that like this might be partly due to COVID,
Speaker 1: because the live event industry is like still bouncing back
Speaker 1: after like COVID shutdowns. I can't confirm or deny the
Speaker 1: truth behind that. That's what they're saying. And as you
Speaker 1: were saying, Joe, we really do have Swifties and they're
Speaker 1: organizing and advocating to thank for this. After the Ara's tour,
Speaker 1: Swifties reported not being able to buy Taylor's swift tickets
Speaker 1: and then the site shut down. When it came back up,
Speaker 1: tickets were sold out, but they were being listed for
Speaker 1: exorbitant prices by ticket resellers. In a federal hearing, Ticketmaster
Speaker 1: blamed bots for this, and then later Ticketmasters shut down
Speaker 1: ticket sales in France for the Aras tour, and so
Speaker 1: I guess Swifties were loud. They advocated that this was
Speaker 1: not okay. They wanted change, they wanted to reform, And
Speaker 1: I guess the moral of the story here is, don't
Speaker 1: mess with the Swifties because, as they have the Biden
Speaker 1: administration's ear, when the Swifties are upset about something, the
Speaker 1: Biden administration takes action.
Speaker 2: Do not mess with the Swifties.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, going back to the COVID point real quick, please,
Speaker 5: that makes me real mad, because Okay, it's twenty twenty
Speaker 5: three now, this tour has been twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3: The COVID pandemic is not over. It hasn't been over.
Speaker 5: That being said, concerts have been open since twenty twenty one.
Speaker 5: Like I remember, I had some gets to go to
Speaker 5: the Green Day Fall Up Boy Weezer show in twenty
Speaker 5: twenty one, and I decided not to go because I
Speaker 5: was worried about COVID.
Speaker 3: But I remember that concert still happened.
Speaker 5: So concerts have been happening for two years now and
Speaker 5: have been happening at.
Speaker 3: These big stadiums with these big artists.
Speaker 5: So I think we're past the point where we can
Speaker 5: use COVID as the excuse for that. But yeah, no,
Speaker 5: I remember living through all of this trying to get
Speaker 5: back to I.
Speaker 2: So I was on.
Speaker 5: All day, like literally spent twenty four hours straight like
Speaker 5: trying to get tickets could not.
Speaker 3: Ended up like somebody I knew was able to get tickets.
Speaker 3: So I was able to go through that, but it
Speaker 3: was insane, and.
Speaker 5: I gotta say even uh, most recently, like I tried
Speaker 5: getting Boy Genius tickets in New York and it wasn't
Speaker 5: as bad as Taylor Swift, but they also slipped out
Speaker 5: right away. It was also a whole weird thing with
Speaker 5: Ticketmaster disclaimer. I am going to the show on Monday.
Speaker 5: I was able to get show. I was able to
Speaker 5: get tickets last minute, but the day of when the
Speaker 5: tickets went on sale, like, it was a nightmare. And yeah,
Speaker 5: they're a big band too, but they're not as big
Speaker 5: as Taylor Swift or Beyonce. So it is just it
Speaker 5: is messed up right now. Ild something is being done.
Speaker 5: The Swifties are very powerful, the Bare Harve is very power.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I actually have a theory that kind of speaks
Speaker 1: to your point. It's not tech related. This is just
Speaker 1: I have no evidence. I have a theory that I
Speaker 1: guess it's a little tech related. My theory is that
Speaker 1: the rise of social media has completely changed what it
Speaker 1: means to go to a concert. And it used to
Speaker 1: be that if you liked a musician or a live act,
Speaker 1: you went to see their concert because it's like I
Speaker 1: gotta I love whoever, I gotta go see them. I
Speaker 1: think that the rise of social media has turned concerts
Speaker 1: from just an experience to like a luxury event right
Speaker 1: where people want to go not even necessarily because they
Speaker 1: like love the band, but because it's like they want
Speaker 1: to flex for the grand that they were there. And
Speaker 1: so I think that like before you were just competing
Speaker 1: with people who were like fans of whoever, now you're
Speaker 1: competing with everybody, because going to a concert is just like,
Speaker 1: you know, a thing to do, and that is making
Speaker 1: it this like luxury experience with these frankly like absurd
Speaker 1: price tags, like the price of concerts has like I
Speaker 1: don't don't ask me to back us up with backs,
Speaker 1: because I cannot.
Speaker 2: I've not looked into it.
Speaker 1: I'm just like somebitting this this theory off the dome.
Speaker 1: But like the I think the price, in my estimation,
Speaker 1: the price has gone up, and I think it's because
Speaker 1: people are seeing it as a luxury item and a
Speaker 1: luxury experience. And whereas it used to be like you
Speaker 1: want you just wanted to go see the show. Now
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, well do you want the backstage or
Speaker 1: like this experience or like that experience?
Speaker 2: And like live.
Speaker 1: Events places, No, they can attack on a bunch of
Speaker 1: fees because people are already seeing this.
Speaker 2: It's like a luxury experience. You know. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: No, I totally agree, And again I don't have any evidence.
Speaker 5: To back it up, just my own experience, but yeah,
Speaker 5: Like I think my comparison here is Boy Genius, which
Speaker 5: is still a very popular band, and especially like now
Speaker 5: histort of blown up with their new they are nowhere
Speaker 5: near like Taylor Swift and the fact that I had
Speaker 5: like just as hard as time, just as hard of
Speaker 5: a time getting tickets for them as I did it
Speaker 5: was Taylor Swift.
Speaker 3: Like it's gotten ridiculous. I love me. I know we've
Speaker 3: talked about this. I love music. I'm a big music person.
Speaker 5: But that being said, like I feel like I don't
Speaker 5: go to a lot of concerts now because it's just
Speaker 5: so hard to get tickets. And I think Cosier was
Speaker 5: like the most recent ones. I remember he was like
Speaker 5: he put out his tickets for his tour, and I
Speaker 5: was like, I'm not even gonna bother, Like there's no
Speaker 5: way I'm getting those tickets, Like I might.
Speaker 3: As well just sleep in that day when.
Speaker 5: They go on sale at eight am, which is early
Speaker 5: for me. But yeah, it's it's concert tickets have gotten ridiculous.
Speaker 3: And it is not fun.
Speaker 1: Hopefully the Swifties can help us out with this and organize.
Speaker 1: I know they are a very powerful unified for us,
Speaker 1: as is Taylor Swift. I don't know if y'all saw
Speaker 1: but Taylor Swift. On Tuesday, she posted a short Instagram
Speaker 1: post to her two hundred and seventy two million followers
Speaker 1: asking them to get registered to vote, and according to
Speaker 1: vote dot org, the nonpartisan voter registration nonprofit, they got
Speaker 1: more than thirty five thousand new registrations And yeah, so
Speaker 1: she she had a They had a twenty three percent
Speaker 1: jump over voter registration Day last year because of the
Speaker 1: power of Taylor Swift. So when Taylor Swift speaks, people listen.
Speaker 1: When the Swifties speaks, Joe Biden listens. We gotta think
Speaker 1: of like what else we want the Swifties to advocate
Speaker 1: for and be like we need universal healthcare swifties.
Speaker 2: Get on it.
Speaker 5: I do think that fandom and is the rallying sort
Speaker 5: of force of the future.
Speaker 3: Apparently.
Speaker 5: Contemporary political situation that I find fascinating is that whole
Speaker 5: thing when all the K pop stands were like managed
Speaker 5: to mess up the Trump speech that it was supposed
Speaker 5: to happen in like twenty twenty. I think or canzing
Speaker 5: young people through the power of fandom being obsessed with.
Speaker 3: A particular celebrity thought.
Speaker 5: It is so powerful and I'm so glad that that
Speaker 5: energy is being used.
Speaker 3: For good right now. And yeah, we'll see what happens
Speaker 3: in the future.
Speaker 2: We love it, Joey, Thank you for being here. A
Speaker 2: pleasure as always, of course, and as.
Speaker 1: Always, listeners, thanks for hanging out with us. If you
Speaker 1: want more and free content, check out our Patreon at
Speaker 1: patreon dot com, slash Tangody and we will.
Speaker 2: See you real soon.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for ways to support the show, check
Speaker 1: out our mark store at tenggody dot com slash Store.
Speaker 1: Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or
Speaker 1: just want to say hi, You can reach us at
Speaker 1: Hello at tegody dot com. You can also find transcripts
Speaker 1: for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative, edited by
Speaker 1: Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison
Speaker 1: is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amado is our
Speaker 1: contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want
Speaker 1: to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.