WEBVTT - Nancy Mace's Bot Army; Abortion Surveillance Tech; New Tinder Feature; Scumbag Landlord Tech in the Budget Bill – NEWS ROUNDUP w/ Sammy Kanter 0:00:04.160 --> 0:00:05.880 There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production 0:00:05.920 --> 0:00:13.440 of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Toad and this 0:00:13.520 --> 0:00:18.000 is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome back 0:00:18.040 --> 0:00:19.599 to There Are No Girls on the Internet. And this 0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:21.800 is another installment of our weekly round up where we 0:00:21.880 --> 0:00:23.720 dig into the stories that you might have missed on the. 0:00:23.640 --> 0:00:25.240 Internet so you don't have to. 0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:29.360 And I am thrilled to introduce to my guest co host, 0:00:29.560 --> 0:00:32.000 Sammy Canter, founder of Girl and the Gub, one of 0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:34.680 my favorite newsletters. Thank you so much for being here, Sammy. 0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:37.440 Oh gosh, thank you so much for having me. I 0:00:37.479 --> 0:00:41.599 am such a fangirl, so apologies in advance because you've 0:00:41.600 --> 0:00:44.599 seen me fainting over here to be on the show Beyond. 0:00:44.840 --> 0:00:46.440 I'm so excited to get into it all. So thank 0:00:46.479 --> 0:00:46.960 you so much. 0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:49.239 Oh my god, I'm very excited to have you on. 0:00:49.280 --> 0:00:52.800 You're one of my favorite Instagram follows. You do something 0:00:52.840 --> 0:00:55.200 that I think is really tough that I aspire to do, 0:00:55.400 --> 0:00:58.520 where you find a good way of blending all of 0:00:58.560 --> 0:01:02.320 the fun of social media with also the politics and 0:01:02.360 --> 0:01:04.760 government stuff that people need to know about. I often 0:01:04.840 --> 0:01:08.200 feel sort of torn between, well, I want my audience 0:01:08.240 --> 0:01:09.720 to know about this, like they should know about this, 0:01:10.120 --> 0:01:12.240 but I don't want to bore them with some like 0:01:12.280 --> 0:01:14.800 government topic, even though it's very important. I feel that 0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:17.640 you have really threaded the needle on social media of 0:01:17.640 --> 0:01:18.240 how you do. 0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:22.200 That, Honored. First of all, we'll be clipping that and 0:01:22.240 --> 0:01:24.880 sending that to anyone I ever pitched for funding in 0:01:25.120 --> 0:01:27.839 the Mirror and distant future all at the same time. 0:01:28.319 --> 0:01:33.039 But yeah, it's an interesting way of looking at politics 0:01:33.120 --> 0:01:35.240 or trying to really essentially get it in front of 0:01:35.280 --> 0:01:39.319 new eyes. And we've learned anything from the last number 0:01:39.360 --> 0:01:42.920 of years is that the old formula isn't working. And 0:01:43.080 --> 0:01:45.840 what I really try and do, whether it's on and 0:01:45.959 --> 0:01:49.880 star TikTok or YouTube shorts for God's sake, is figure 0:01:49.920 --> 0:01:53.520 out a way that it slips into people's day to day. 0:01:53.560 --> 0:01:57.600 They're radars what they're scrolling through anyways. So if that's 0:01:57.720 --> 0:02:01.440 an esthetic outfit video that also happens to have three 0:02:01.480 --> 0:02:05.040 news stories on it in a way that's explained how 0:02:05.080 --> 0:02:08.160 we actually speak, then by all means I'll keep doing it. 0:02:08.440 --> 0:02:10.320 Okay, Well, the first story I want to talk about 0:02:10.360 --> 0:02:13.160 I think kind of fits in your wheelhouse, and that 0:02:13.320 --> 0:02:17.079 is this story about influencer vibe theft. 0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:18.440 So the question is. 0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:22.880 Sort of, can someone sue you for copying your vibe 0:02:23.040 --> 0:02:24.520 or aesthetic on social media? 0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:26.040 Did you hear about this story? 0:02:26.320 --> 0:02:28.760 I did, and so what was interesting is I heard 0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.400 just sort of the general overview and the People article, 0:02:31.840 --> 0:02:34.640 and I opened my phone maybe an hour before actually 0:02:35.080 --> 0:02:38.520 we hopped on here, and the influencer that was suing 0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:42.560 was giving her feel about like what actually went down 0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:45.320 and how she felt like the People article and also 0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:48.800 any other sources I covered it were like missing the 0:02:48.840 --> 0:02:51.720 beef of it, the real, you know, the real core 0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:55.320 of what the lawsuit was, which I found so interesting 0:02:55.480 --> 0:02:58.120 and does also shows for that angle, like how sometimes 0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:00.840 things can get lost in the social media sauce aka 0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:04.000 Where's Nuance? Miss? Her Nuance is MII. 0:03:04.440 --> 0:03:06.720 So in her TikTok, she says that this is so 0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:10.600 much more than her trying to copyright a beage aesthetic, 0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:12.920 and that the media is sort of failing to tell 0:03:12.960 --> 0:03:16.000 this story accurately because they're focusing on the most ridiculous 0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:18.520 parts of her suit, the beige esthetic part of it, 0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:22.480 and ignoring the more interesting meatia aspects of it. 0:03:22.800 --> 0:03:25.200 I believe her intention was to look so similar to 0:03:25.240 --> 0:03:28.040 me and copy my post so similarly that she could 0:03:28.040 --> 0:03:31.800 profit off my business. A lot of articles are claiming 0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:35.120 I'm suing over a beige aesthetic. I have never claimed 0:03:35.120 --> 0:03:38.160 to own beige, and I'm not suing anyone over a 0:03:38.200 --> 0:03:40.360 color or a trend. The story the media is telling 0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:42.440 is missing so many details, and the way that they're 0:03:42.440 --> 0:03:44.320 spinning it to make it seem like it's all about 0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:48.640 an aesthetic to create drama is misrepresenting the importance of 0:03:48.640 --> 0:03:49.120 this case. 0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:51.560 So the meat of what's happening here is that it's 0:03:51.560 --> 0:03:54.320 a lawsuit where one influencer is not just saying that 0:03:54.360 --> 0:03:57.320 somebody else is mimicking her aesthetic, which is this beige 0:03:57.440 --> 0:04:01.240 neutral vibe, but going so much for to mimic many 0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:04.640 aspects about her business as an influencer that she argues 0:04:04.720 --> 0:04:08.640 is being done intentionally to create brand confusion and siphon 0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:11.240 from her business as an influencer and content creator. So 0:04:11.280 --> 0:04:13.400 while you might have heard of this lawsuit as oh, 0:04:13.480 --> 0:04:16.960 this influencer thinks she owns the color page, and yeah, 0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:19.240 that part of it might be kind of funny, the 0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:21.560 issue is so much deeper than that. It goes to 0:04:21.960 --> 0:04:25.680 can someone essentially steal the entire look and feel of 0:04:25.720 --> 0:04:29.200 someone else's business, even if that business relies on visual 0:04:29.240 --> 0:04:33.039 aspects or visual aesthetics that may not traditionally be able 0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:35.760 to be copyrighted as somebody else's intellectual property. You know, 0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:38.360 the way that somebody wears their hair or a specific 0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:41.640 tattoo or a specific manicure, or a specific pose and photos. 0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:45.080 So I loved both of these influencers up and it 0:04:45.120 --> 0:04:48.800 is uncanny, like it goes so much further than just 0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:52.440 a beige Look, here's what went down. Influencer Sydney Nicole 0:04:52.480 --> 0:04:55.080 Gifford did a joint photo shoot with twenty twenty three 0:04:55.120 --> 0:04:56.880 with another influencer named Alyssa Shiel. 0:04:57.400 --> 0:04:59.400 After this shoot, Gifford's. 0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:02.520 Claims that she'l started copying her sort of minimal page 0:05:02.520 --> 0:05:06.440 aesthetic and specific poses in her content. But it's not 0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:10.599 just about the specific pose, because when she would do that, 0:05:10.720 --> 0:05:13.159 you know well worn influencer pose where you have the 0:05:13.200 --> 0:05:15.200 phone in front of your face in a mirror, like 0:05:15.240 --> 0:05:16.200 obscuring your face. 0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:20.320 The two are essentially identical, like it is very. 0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:23.159 Difficult to tell one influencer from the other. Like she's 0:05:23.240 --> 0:05:26.320 not wrong, it is uncanny and if you're making money 0:05:26.400 --> 0:05:28.960 from your look as an influencer, and somebody else comes 0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:31.320 in and starts doing that exact same thing to maybe 0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:33.840 create a little bit of brand confusion, I get it. 0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:38.360 Then she'll blocked her on Instagram and TikTok. So Gifford 0:05:38.440 --> 0:05:42.160 sent a season desist, and those season desists were ignored. 0:05:42.320 --> 0:05:45.640 So Gifford filed a first of its kind federal lawsuit 0:05:45.640 --> 0:05:49.920 in twenty twenty four a legend copyright infringement, trade dress misappropriation, 0:05:50.240 --> 0:05:55.039 and unfair competition. So, like you, Sammy, I don't think 0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:57.760 of this as like a frivolous lawsuit. Like I was like, oh, 0:05:57.800 --> 0:06:02.720 this is deeply interesting because as we know, influencers and 0:06:02.800 --> 0:06:05.719 content creators are a big part of the lifeblood of 0:06:05.760 --> 0:06:08.680 like e commerce, and so it's like how brands like 0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:12.159 Amazon become very economically successful. So we're not talking about 0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:14.960 just like, oh, she stole my Look. What she's arguing 0:06:15.000 --> 0:06:18.159 about is like a very suppicific kind of copyright and 0:06:18.320 --> 0:06:22.200 IP dispute. And so it raised the question of can 0:06:22.480 --> 0:06:26.800 somebody sue somebody for allegedly like stealing their their intellectual 0:06:26.839 --> 0:06:30.960 property on social media, which again I just find super interesting. 0:06:31.400 --> 0:06:34.400 According to the fashion law site Gifford's, who commands over 0:06:34.480 --> 0:06:37.760 half a million followers across platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Amazon. 0:06:37.760 --> 0:06:42.440 Sorefront allegeds that Shield systematically replicated her content and online 0:06:42.480 --> 0:06:46.560 persona to mislead followers and unfairly compete in the influencer 0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:49.839 marketing space central to gifford suit, where her claims that 0:06:49.880 --> 0:06:53.760 she'll copied her copyright protective images, mimics her appearance down 0:06:53.839 --> 0:06:56.640 to specific physical traits such as a flower tattoo, and 0:06:56.680 --> 0:07:00.880 appropriated the distinctive visual and stylistic elements associated with her brand. 0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:06.039 So something I do find interesting about this is I 0:07:06.120 --> 0:07:08.600 just I mean, I'm no attorney, but visually, when I 0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:12.120 look at both women's content, there is definitely a lot 0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:15.520 of aesthetic overlap happening. One of the women just recently 0:07:15.520 --> 0:07:17.760 had a child, and I'm like, oh, well, luckily that 0:07:17.880 --> 0:07:19.400 is one way to make like I was like, okay, 0:07:19.440 --> 0:07:22.240 well that is a distinction because they're so otherwise, they're 0:07:22.320 --> 0:07:26.360 so similar, And it makes me wonder like, in the 0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:31.280 age of Instagram, is can anybody claim to sort of 0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:35.000 be unique or distinct when so much of what gets 0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:38.360 popular on Instagram because of algorithms is things that seem 0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:40.880 like copies of each other, right, Like all of the 0:07:40.920 --> 0:07:43.720 influencers use this specific pose. They're all they have a 0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:47.080 specific manicure, a specific look. If both of these women 0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:51.200 are sort of chilling for Amazon's Amazon clothing, like, it's 0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:53.560 not surprising that they might have some overlap. 0:07:53.800 --> 0:07:56.120 But the case actually was. 0:07:56.120 --> 0:07:59.480 Essentially dropped with the influencer, the one accused of doing 0:07:59.480 --> 0:08:01.920 the copying having to pay nothing. Is what seems like 0:08:02.320 --> 0:08:05.080 that case might have answered that question of like, can 0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:07.200 you copyright an aesthetic? I'm not an attorney, but it 0:08:07.200 --> 0:08:09.840 seems like from this lawsuit answer is perhaps no. 0:08:10.680 --> 0:08:14.160 Yeah. I think it's super interesting. And what the girl 0:08:14.200 --> 0:08:18.480 that was suing said in her TikTok was that she 0:08:18.560 --> 0:08:21.360 had to drop the case because it was getting incredibly expensive. 0:08:22.040 --> 0:08:24.680 So had she had the funds, like, there may have 0:08:24.800 --> 0:08:29.800 been a continued pursuit at least on some some frame here, 0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:31.960 which I find interesting in and of itself. And I 0:08:32.000 --> 0:08:36.040 do think that in the creator sphere too, money gets 0:08:36.040 --> 0:08:38.000 in the way, Right we think about how many people 0:08:38.040 --> 0:08:41.040 would actually sue if they had the money to do 0:08:41.120 --> 0:08:43.760 so in terms of somebody copying them. We see it 0:08:43.800 --> 0:08:46.880 with small brands all the time with big brands we have. 0:08:47.160 --> 0:08:49.439 I don't know if you saw this, but there is 0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:54.080 in the city this vintage brand called Kissing Cowboys and 0:08:54.120 --> 0:08:56.920 it's run by also like an influencer, one of those 0:08:56.920 --> 0:08:59.080 people that's just like at the cross section of many things. 0:08:59.640 --> 0:09:04.840 And Brandy Melville allegedly copied her logo, which she went 0:09:04.880 --> 0:09:07.559 on to say that is not just like a Canva 0:09:07.960 --> 0:09:11.160 logo or something like that. Her and her sister handmade 0:09:11.160 --> 0:09:14.840 the logo and the brand has copy and pasted the 0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:18.200 exact logo onto a T shirt that they have god 0:09:18.280 --> 0:09:20.439 knows how many skews of that they're selling in their stores. 0:09:20.920 --> 0:09:23.200 And so you have a small creator that has a 0:09:23.240 --> 0:09:27.320 small brand that doesn't have the funds most likely to 0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:31.200 soon pursue this. So I think like that also is 0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:36.800 particularly interesting to me because if creators had more monetary means, 0:09:36.840 --> 0:09:40.240 and same with small brands, where would that really lie, 0:09:40.320 --> 0:09:44.320 Like what would the decision process actually look like? For 0:09:44.440 --> 0:09:48.120 that It just leaves me with more questions. But I 0:09:48.160 --> 0:09:50.760 do think in this particular case, the thing that gave 0:09:50.760 --> 0:09:53.040 me the ooh, that's a little creepy and maybe it's 0:09:53.040 --> 0:09:57.000 almost like a different angle is seeing the matching tattoos, 0:09:57.120 --> 0:10:00.320 the blocking almost the intentionality of it, because you also 0:10:00.360 --> 0:10:02.319 go into that other frame, right, Like, if you are 0:10:02.360 --> 0:10:05.400 an influencer, you expect people to copy you, right, That's 0:10:05.520 --> 0:10:09.160 part of the job is to push people to do 0:10:09.280 --> 0:10:12.000 things that you're doing, or to lead them to an 0:10:12.000 --> 0:10:15.480 idea to consider it. So where does that start and 0:10:15.480 --> 0:10:18.040 where does that end? I think there definitely is some 0:10:18.120 --> 0:10:20.880 gray area when the person is starting to get exactly 0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:23.120 the same as body or and copying things at the 0:10:23.200 --> 0:10:27.440 same timetable. Yes, uh, that's where I'm like, ooh. 0:10:27.679 --> 0:10:29.920 She alleges that she got she has a very distinctive 0:10:29.920 --> 0:10:32.520 flower tattoo on her arm, and she says that this 0:10:32.640 --> 0:10:36.440 influencer who was copying her got the same distinctive tattoo. Like, 0:10:36.800 --> 0:10:39.720 first of all, that is commitment to the bit, that is, 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:42.680 you were really committing to copying this woman. But it 0:10:42.800 --> 0:10:47.160 is uncanny and the fact that they're both specifically Amazon influencers, 0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:51.200 they both do that Amazon storefront you know, hashtag Amazon finds. 0:10:51.480 --> 0:10:54.560 She basically is arguing that she is intentionally trying to 0:10:54.640 --> 0:10:58.120 confuse that what would be their audience market into like 0:10:58.360 --> 0:11:00.280 associating the two, which I think is that's like a 0:11:00.400 --> 0:11:03.960 very good point. So, reflecting on this, professor of law 0:11:03.960 --> 0:11:06.679 and Media Faculey director of the Center for Law, Information 0:11:06.720 --> 0:11:10.400 and Creativity Alexander Roberts wrote, surprising or not deeming any 0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:13.600 of the Gifford's claims plausible for creators posting similar content 0:11:13.679 --> 0:11:16.760 has serious implications thanks to the fact that influencer marketing 0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:19.880 has become increasingly central to commerce and social media. Content 0:11:20.200 --> 0:11:22.760 more broadly is built on trends and served to users 0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:25.520 via algorithms, which are quick to push content related to 0:11:25.559 --> 0:11:27.880 what users click and or linger on in their feeds. 0:11:28.640 --> 0:11:32.160 Roberts asserts that intellectual property law has not traditionally protected 0:11:32.160 --> 0:11:34.640 the way somebody styles their hair, makes up their face, 0:11:34.760 --> 0:11:37.480 or decorates their home, whether or not those choices are 0:11:37.480 --> 0:11:40.400 photographed and shared. And I do think it's sort of 0:11:40.679 --> 0:11:43.920 I mean, had this case had had the influencer who 0:11:43.960 --> 0:11:46.880 was making these these allegations been able to have the 0:11:46.960 --> 0:11:48.959 funds to see this case through, it could have been 0:11:49.080 --> 0:11:51.440 very different. But had it been, you know, had it 0:11:51.480 --> 0:11:54.800 gone differently, this could have potentially like set an entire 0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:57.280 new precedent when it comes to IP online, which I 0:11:57.320 --> 0:11:58.800 just find fascinating. 0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:01.920 Totally, which I do think could be troubling for the 0:12:02.000 --> 0:12:05.240 larger creator industry because sometimes you don't understand that, like 0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:08.920 you used x y Z sound and it came from 0:12:08.960 --> 0:12:11.520 this person and they created a trend off of it, 0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:13.920 Like where's the origins? It's really hard to trace that 0:12:14.000 --> 0:12:17.880 origin of a trend, you know, a concept or whatnot. 0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:21.640 So struggle. 0:12:26.080 --> 0:12:39.640 Let's take a quick break at our back. 0:12:43.040 --> 0:12:45.880 Okay, so I have to talk about this story with 0:12:45.960 --> 0:12:49.360 Real Page really quickly. I will say right off the top, 0:12:49.440 --> 0:12:51.600 it doesn't really fit with the content that we usually do. 0:12:51.720 --> 0:12:55.560 But Real Page is my personal like I think of 0:12:55.600 --> 0:12:58.240 them as my personal enemy. So any time that I 0:12:58.280 --> 0:13:00.400 got an opportunity to talk shit about that, I will 0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:00.760 take it. 0:13:00.800 --> 0:13:02.040 So indulge me. 0:13:02.240 --> 0:13:05.160 So on the episode last week, we were talking about 0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:09.640 this provision buried in Donald Trump's big, beautiful budget bill 0:13:09.920 --> 0:13:13.600 that would ban states from enforcing laws on AI for 0:13:13.800 --> 0:13:14.840 ten years. 0:13:15.440 --> 0:13:16.240 Did you hear about this? 0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:22.199 Oh yeah, yeah, States Rights? Oh yeah, miss exactly again, 0:13:22.520 --> 0:13:24.000 Like okay, exactly. 0:13:24.800 --> 0:13:24.920 So. 0:13:25.520 --> 0:13:28.000 One of the kind of real world examples of how 0:13:28.000 --> 0:13:29.880 this might impact people that I talked about when we 0:13:29.920 --> 0:13:33.560 talked about that bill was how scumbag landlords are able 0:13:33.559 --> 0:13:36.880 to use technology like real Page that allow landlords in 0:13:36.920 --> 0:13:40.480 a whole area to work together, to coordinate to essentially 0:13:40.520 --> 0:13:44.079 algorithmically determine how much they can raise your rents. Right, 0:13:44.080 --> 0:13:46.960 So the government has called this price fixing, which I 0:13:47.040 --> 0:13:50.920 happen to agree. So these are scumbags who make scumbag 0:13:50.960 --> 0:13:54.840 technology for scumbag landlords, and as a lifelong renter, these 0:13:54.840 --> 0:13:56.800 people are my biggest ops. Like, I cannot stand this. 0:13:56.920 --> 0:13:59.480 I think this technology is ruining cities. I hate it. 0:13:59.679 --> 0:14:03.000 Twenty two, a report from Republica linked real Page to 0:14:03.120 --> 0:14:06.000 rising rent prices across the United States, alleging that its 0:14:06.040 --> 0:14:09.240 algorithm allows landlords to coordinate pricing, and the Department of 0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:12.600 Justice in eight states sued real Page last year, claiming 0:14:12.640 --> 0:14:15.640 that it deprives renters like me of the benefits of 0:14:15.679 --> 0:14:20.560 competition on apartment leasing terms. So, cities like Minneapolis, Jersey Cities, 0:14:20.560 --> 0:14:23.920 and Francisco, Philadelphia and others have passed laws that are 0:14:23.920 --> 0:14:26.600 meant to ban the use of this kind of algorithmic 0:14:26.680 --> 0:14:30.240 AI based rent setting software, and other states have legislation 0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:33.680 like this in the works. But if this budget bill passes, 0:14:34.000 --> 0:14:36.760 that means that states can no longer enforce those kinds 0:14:36.760 --> 0:14:39.880 of laws, which would be a reals win for scumbag 0:14:39.960 --> 0:14:43.720 landlords and the company that makes this rent raising technology, 0:14:43.920 --> 0:14:48.120 Real Page. So now senators are basically asking did Real 0:14:48.200 --> 0:14:51.880 Page pay to get that provision buried in the budget bill? 0:14:52.200 --> 0:14:52.560 This week? 0:14:52.640 --> 0:14:55.000 Lawmakers say that they believe Real Page might have spent 0:14:55.080 --> 0:14:57.520 millions of dollars pushing for this provision. In a letter 0:14:57.600 --> 0:15:00.640 that they sent to Real Page a CEO, five Democratic 0:15:00.680 --> 0:15:05.080 Senators Warren, Sanders, klobashar Booker, and Smith are asking for 0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:09.120 more information about Real Page's potential involvement. The letter reads, 0:15:09.360 --> 0:15:11.840 in light of this, we seek information on Real Page's 0:15:11.880 --> 0:15:15.520 lobbying efforts and how the Republican's reconciliation provision would help 0:15:15.600 --> 0:15:18.520 the bottom line of Real Page and other large corporations, 0:15:18.560 --> 0:15:21.520 allowing them to take advantage of consumers. So I just 0:15:21.520 --> 0:15:23.720 have to shout that out. First of all, just the 0:15:23.800 --> 0:15:29.680 feeling of reading senators doing something that I feel like 0:15:29.920 --> 0:15:32.840 does have a real impact on the lives of constituents, 0:15:32.880 --> 0:15:35.480 Like it's just nice to be like, oh yeah, governing, 0:15:35.760 --> 0:15:38.360 like somebody's out there doing it for sure. 0:15:39.000 --> 0:15:42.880 No, literally, especially in these chaotic times. It sort of 0:15:43.040 --> 0:15:46.520 like is anyone doing anything, I think is often how 0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:50.440 people feel. Sometimes there's the feeling versus the reality. You know, 0:15:50.880 --> 0:15:53.480 did somebody actually go and go to gov track and 0:15:53.520 --> 0:15:55.760 see what bills were introduced? Right? There's always sort of 0:15:55.800 --> 0:15:58.480 like that extra of things. But I think, for me, 0:15:58.600 --> 0:16:01.240 when I think about this, to see that they're actually 0:16:01.280 --> 0:16:04.560 looking at a tech piece of something, right, Like I 0:16:04.600 --> 0:16:09.960 think that we understandably look at Congress at large and go, 0:16:10.080 --> 0:16:13.160 oh my gosh, these old dudes that have no idea 0:16:13.160 --> 0:16:16.560 how to even open Instagram unless like some assistant helps them. 0:16:17.000 --> 0:16:20.400 You know, how could they ever understand AI and its 0:16:20.440 --> 0:16:23.720 possible implications and everything else under that soun? So I 0:16:23.760 --> 0:16:26.000 think to even see that they're reacting, I mean, I'm 0:16:26.000 --> 0:16:29.560 not surprised that Elizabeth Warren was reacting given sort of 0:16:29.560 --> 0:16:33.240 her expertise, but elsephies and I hope that it continues 0:16:33.280 --> 0:16:39.000 to expand because AI it honestly, it freaks me the 0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:42.480 fuck out, Like I really, really like, am not a fan. 0:16:43.000 --> 0:16:45.200 I know it's integrated into so many things that we do, 0:16:45.280 --> 0:16:47.640 even the things that we don't even realize, but I 0:16:47.840 --> 0:16:51.000 just don't like it. I don't think it's a thing 0:16:51.040 --> 0:16:53.560 for good. Oftentimes, I really think, especially given the hands 0:16:53.600 --> 0:16:55.000 that it's coming out of, that it's a thing for 0:16:55.080 --> 0:16:58.000 bad and that if we are one habit, that it 0:16:58.080 --> 0:17:01.640 needs bar rails, and the fact that this bill would 0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:06.400 get rid of those guardrails right and make it. I mean, 0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:09.120 if thinking about like how much AI has come into 0:17:09.119 --> 0:17:11.199 our lives, like literally the last year and a half, 0:17:11.480 --> 0:17:14.000 how much it's taken over the conversation. I mean, a 0:17:14.080 --> 0:17:16.439 year and a half ago, I wouldn't even imagine that 0:17:16.480 --> 0:17:18.240 we were talking about AI as much as we are. 0:17:18.720 --> 0:17:21.240 So think about what that looks like on an accelerated 0:17:21.280 --> 0:17:23.160 page for ten years, right? 0:17:23.920 --> 0:17:26.280 And I mean I think it comes down to, like, 0:17:27.080 --> 0:17:30.840 do people want a world where the not just the 0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:33.200 rent in your building, but the rent in your entire 0:17:33.359 --> 0:17:38.400 city goes up so the ceo of real pages scumbag 0:17:38.520 --> 0:17:41.560 ahi price fixing tool can make more money? 0:17:41.920 --> 0:17:44.359 Is that a better world for you? Probably? You and me? 0:17:44.560 --> 0:17:45.159 Probably not. 0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:48.359 Definitely a better world for the CEO of this technology 0:17:48.359 --> 0:17:50.800 company who is making money from it and profiting from it. 0:17:50.960 --> 0:17:54.720 But yeah, I would just argue like I ken't. 0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:57.560 I mean, I could talk all day the fact that 0:17:57.640 --> 0:18:01.760 this provision would so clearly benefit fit the owners of 0:18:01.800 --> 0:18:05.399 this tech company and harm just regular people trying to 0:18:05.400 --> 0:18:07.800 make rent. You and me renters like people who you know, 0:18:08.560 --> 0:18:11.720 just regular folks. I think is pretty clear, and so yeah, 0:18:11.720 --> 0:18:13.879 I'm with you. I think when you think. 0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:17.040 About the values of. 0:18:16.920 --> 0:18:20.040 The people who make technology like this, I tend to 0:18:20.040 --> 0:18:22.800 think it's not going to be technology that makes our 0:18:22.840 --> 0:18:25.920 lives better. I think it's really poised to exploit. 0:18:25.920 --> 0:18:29.520 And certainly this budget bill is not the way to 0:18:29.600 --> 0:18:32.399 solve any of those potential problems. We look at this 0:18:32.440 --> 0:18:34.840 budget bill too, and how it's going to increase the 0:18:34.880 --> 0:18:38.280 deficit astronomically over the next ten years. So you pair 0:18:38.400 --> 0:18:42.320 that with crashing essentially in a long way the economy 0:18:42.400 --> 0:18:47.200 by knocking out the biggest you know, entry level segment 0:18:47.480 --> 0:18:52.400 for white collar jobs. What like, what are we doing? 0:18:52.880 --> 0:18:54.440 Yeah, it's it's not good. 0:18:54.920 --> 0:18:57.960 And I have to say, like another story that I 0:18:58.000 --> 0:18:59.800 was reading this week that kind of speaks to the 0:18:59.800 --> 0:19:03.080 way that advancements of technology like AI really are hurting 0:19:03.160 --> 0:19:06.720 us and particularly the most marginalized among us. This story 0:19:06.760 --> 0:19:09.280 that this came out from Full for Media, Like shout 0:19:09.280 --> 0:19:11.360 out to them for being on this. We use their 0:19:11.600 --> 0:19:13.440 reporting on the show all the time because they are 0:19:13.600 --> 0:19:17.600 experts over there. So the vast network of surveillance that 0:19:17.640 --> 0:19:20.919 we have in this country, like license plate reader surveillance tools, 0:19:20.960 --> 0:19:23.080 well all of that is being used to track people 0:19:23.080 --> 0:19:25.880 who are suspected of getting abortions. This is not shocking, 0:19:25.960 --> 0:19:29.400 like It's what abortion advocates and like tech privacy advocates 0:19:29.400 --> 0:19:31.880 have been warning is going to happen, and it's happening. 0:19:31.960 --> 0:19:35.280 So four h four Media found that authorities in Texas 0:19:35.600 --> 0:19:39.600 performed a nationwide search of over eighty three thousand automatic 0:19:39.640 --> 0:19:42.040 license plate reader cameras while looking for a woman that 0:19:42.080 --> 0:19:45.879 they said had self administered an abortion, including looking at 0:19:45.920 --> 0:19:48.600 cameras in states where abortion is legal, such as Illinois 0:19:48.720 --> 0:19:53.200 and Washington. So this technology, this license plate reader camera 0:19:53.280 --> 0:19:56.399 technology is made by a company called Flock, and it 0:19:56.480 --> 0:19:59.240 is usually marketed as being able to track and stop 0:19:59.280 --> 0:20:02.240 carjackings or like fine missing people, but it can also 0:20:02.240 --> 0:20:05.000 be used to surveil people suspected of getting abortion care 0:20:05.160 --> 0:20:09.960 across state lines. So the Texas sheriff in this case says, oh, 0:20:10.200 --> 0:20:13.120 we were not trying to surveil her for having gotten 0:20:13.119 --> 0:20:15.679 an abortion. On May night, an officer from the Johnson 0:20:15.680 --> 0:20:19.440 County Sheriff's Office in Texas searched flop cameras and gave 0:20:19.520 --> 0:20:22.440 the reason for why he was searching these cameras as. 0:20:22.880 --> 0:20:26.359 Quote had an abortion search for female according to multiple 0:20:26.400 --> 0:20:30.399 sets of data. So whenever officers are searching flop cameras, 0:20:30.440 --> 0:20:32.480 they're required to provide a reason for doing so, and 0:20:32.520 --> 0:20:34.639 so they don't need a court order or a warrant. 0:20:34.640 --> 0:20:36.399 But like, that was the reason that he stated that 0:20:36.680 --> 0:20:40.639 female had an abortion. So he claims that the only 0:20:40.680 --> 0:20:43.560 reason he did this is because, oh, the woman's family 0:20:43.800 --> 0:20:46.280 had contacted us and that they were worried. He says, 0:20:46.400 --> 0:20:48.440 her family was worried that she was going to bleed 0:20:48.480 --> 0:20:49.920 to death, and we were trying to find her to 0:20:49.960 --> 0:20:52.000 get her to a hospital. We weren't trying to block 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:54.240 her from leaving the state or whatever to get an abortion. 0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:57.680 It was absolutely about her safety. So I got my 0:20:57.760 --> 0:20:59.720 start an abortion advocacy. So it's something I know a 0:21:00.160 --> 0:21:01.879 bit about. I have a lot of questions about this 0:21:01.960 --> 0:21:04.719 because when you're talking about like a self managed abortion, 0:21:04.800 --> 0:21:07.040 typically you're talking about a pill based abortion, which is 0:21:07.040 --> 0:21:10.840 incredibly safe. While some bleeding is common, the risk of 0:21:10.840 --> 0:21:15.440 complications and death is very very low, And so I'm 0:21:15.560 --> 0:21:18.159