Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Tad and this
Speaker 1: is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Hi, and
Speaker 1: welcome to There Are No Girls on the Internet. So
Speaker 1: we are starting a brand new thing on the podcast
Speaker 1: where we are going to be rounding up news and
Speaker 1: analysis about tech, the Internet and media that you might
Speaker 1: have missed. I will do this every other week, but
Speaker 1: if you want to get it weekly, be sure to
Speaker 1: subscribe to our patreon at patreon dot com slash Tangody.
Speaker 1: So let's get into it. I'm here with my producer, Mike. Mike,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: I'm super excited to be here for this inaugural news
Speaker 3: around us.
Speaker 1: So we're starting out hot with a story that I
Speaker 1: followed obsessively. I have watched multiple documentaries about it. I
Speaker 1: have read books about it, I have watched Hulu series
Speaker 1: about it. And that is my girl, Elizabeth Holmes. Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Holmes has officially girl bossed a little bit too close
Speaker 1: to the Sun and must report to prison on May thirtieth.
Speaker 1: Y'all probably remember Elizabeth Holmes. She used to run a
Speaker 1: blood testing startup called Pharaohose that said that using a
Speaker 1: drop of blood they could screen for diseases and health information,
Speaker 1: but actually it never did any of that. Elizabeth Holmes
Speaker 1: like she wore a lot of black turtlenecks and sort
Speaker 1: of always had this messy hair, and she kind of
Speaker 1: talked like this all that's part of this like tech
Speaker 1: CEO persona that was also kind of a fraud. Holmes
Speaker 1: was convicted on charges of defrauding her investors in her
Speaker 1: failed blood testing startup. She's appealing those charges, but the
Speaker 1: court rejected her request to remain out on bail while
Speaker 1: she appeals her case. She's sort of been able to
Speaker 1: drag her feet on reporting to prison, but it seems
Speaker 1: like maybe her time has finally run out now. Back
Speaker 1: in November, she was sentenced to eleven years and three
Speaker 1: months in prison for conspiracy and fraud against investors. Now,
Speaker 1: she was supposed to report to prison back in April,
Speaker 1: but her prison time was delayed while the court considered
Speaker 1: her appeal. This comes after kind of a very glowing,
Speaker 1: fawning New York Times like Redemption Arc profile that really
Speaker 1: painted her in a sympathetic light. But let's not forget
Speaker 1: that Elizabeth Holmes's scam hurt real people. There was a
Speaker 1: mother with a history of miscarriages who was wrongly told
Speaker 1: that she would never be able to have a baby.
Speaker 1: There was someone who was given a false HIV diagnosis
Speaker 1: and had to wait for months until they could afford
Speaker 1: another test. And someone was even given a false cancer diagnosis.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what's so egregious about her story. You know,
Speaker 3: as somebody who works in health tech, it was like,
Speaker 3: really just egregious that she would just be lying about
Speaker 3: what this technology can do. But it says a lot
Speaker 3: about our legal frameworks for policing or regulating health tech
Speaker 3: that none of her jail sentences related to harming those
Speaker 3: people or the thousands of more people who you know,
Speaker 3: received an accurate medical information. It was all just about
Speaker 3: the investors. And you know, it's I'm like kind of
Speaker 3: torn about this because it's good to see some justice happening,
Speaker 3: but it's it's not happening because people were harmed. It's
Speaker 3: just because investors were harmed, and it's a real shortcoming.
Speaker 1: No, I firmly believe had Elizabeth Holmes not harmed and
Speaker 1: defrauded wealthy investors, rich people, she would not be going
Speaker 1: to jail. I think that if it was if she
Speaker 1: had only harmed regular ordinary people, which she did harm,
Speaker 1: I don't think that she'd be facing jail time like
Speaker 1: she is. And I also don't think that she would
Speaker 1: be hated like she is. It is kind of a
Speaker 1: sad thing that the reason why she's facing consequences is
Speaker 1: probably because she defrauded investors, because people don't care when
Speaker 1: you harm. I think that we've just kind of been
Speaker 1: conditioned that you can be a tech company that harms
Speaker 1: everyday people and that's totally fine. Harm wealthy people and investors,
Speaker 1: then you're going to jail.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: And so you know, as we think of talk about
Speaker 3: on the show, like what are what is the look
Speaker 3: like that does a better job of protecting people? I
Speaker 3: think this is a real area whereas health technology becomes
Speaker 3: a bigger part of the health landscape overall, we're really
Speaker 3: going to need regulatory frameworks to address it, and right
Speaker 3: now we just like don't have them to the extent
Speaker 3: that we do in FDA. They're just very inadequate for
Speaker 3: what's coming. And we haven't even talked about AI.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of regulation, let's talk about those AI. Senate
Speaker 1: hearings that also happened this week. There were Senate hearings
Speaker 1: on AI this week. The hearings started with Senator Richard
Speaker 1: Blumenthal playing testimony in air quotes from a deep fake
Speaker 1: audio recording of his own voice that was written by
Speaker 1: chat GPT and vocalized by an audio application trained on
Speaker 1: his Senate floor speeches. You got to hear it. I
Speaker 1: know that doesn't make sense, but you'll understand what I'm
Speaker 1: saying when you hear it. You gotta hear it.
Speaker 4: Here we go too often. We have seen what happens
Speaker 4: when technology outpaces regularly, the unbridled exploitation of personal data,
Speaker 4: the proliferation of disinformation, and the deepening of societal inequalities.
Speaker 4: We have seen how algorithmic biases can perpetuate discrimination and prejudice,
Speaker 4: and how the lack of transparency can undermine public trust.
Speaker 4: This is not the future we want.
Speaker 1: So that is pretty eerie to hear, right like that
Speaker 1: sounds just like him. He makes a good point that
Speaker 1: you know, it happened to be saying things that he
Speaker 1: actually agreed with, but they could This is easily be
Speaker 1: saying something that he would never say and doesn't agree with.
Speaker 1: And you can sort of get an idea of the
Speaker 1: implications of that kind of technology.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was eerie, and it's it's such a good
Speaker 3: little stunt, Like I kind of love it when senators
Speaker 3: get up there and do little stunts like this. This
Speaker 3: one is particularly good because it's not just an attention stunt,
Speaker 3: but it really highlights how it's not just these individual
Speaker 3: technologies that are at risk, but really the combination of
Speaker 3: them that create some really like terrifying possibilities for the
Speaker 3: future holds.
Speaker 1: So these hearings really seemed like very chummy. CNN reported
Speaker 1: that before the hearings, Sam Altman, who you may know
Speaker 1: is the CEO of Open AI who has basically kind
Speaker 1: of become the face of AI, met with more than
Speaker 1: sixty House lawmakers over a dinner. It was a bipartisan
Speaker 1: gathering featuring an even split of Republicans and Democrats, and
Speaker 1: Altman demonstrated like various uses of chat GPT to quote
Speaker 1: much amusement, according to a person in the room who
Speaker 1: described the lawmakers as riveted by the display. Yeah, something
Speaker 1: about that. There's something about that. I don't like that.
Speaker 1: This was such a chummy meeting of lawmakers and AI technologists.
Speaker 1: I would like, I guess I'll just I'll just stop
Speaker 1: it there. There's something about the chumminess that I find
Speaker 1: a little sus What do you think.
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely, it is a little sus right, Like, usually
Speaker 3: regulation is an adversarial thing, and in those occasions when
Speaker 3: the industry is like leading the charge on the regulation,
Speaker 3: it's usually weird.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: There's usually some kind of like perverse incentive or like
Speaker 3: agency capture or something going on, and it feels weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're not the only one that feels that way.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And if you were just kind of casually following the
Speaker 1: story via headlines that you didn't click into, you probably
Speaker 1: saw that Sam Altman actually pleaded for Senate to regulate AI.
Speaker 1: He said, we think that regulatory intervention by governments will
Speaker 1: be critical to mitigate the risk of increasingly powerful models.
Speaker 1: And so here's my take. This whole thing just feels
Speaker 1: very suss to me. And Scott Galloway actually put it
Speaker 1: really well on Twitter. He tweeted this very long list
Speaker 1: of all the different times that tech CEOs made a
Speaker 1: big show in public asking for their technology to be regulated.
Speaker 1: And so I think that what so like Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: saying please regulate us, or Jack Dorsey saying please regulate Twitter.
Speaker 1: And I think that what Allman is actually saying is, yes,
Speaker 1: we totally agree we need regulation, and we would also
Speaker 1: be very happy to write that regulation for you. I
Speaker 1: think he's advocating for AI companies making the rules themselves.
Speaker 1: I don't think that he's actually like genuinely asking for
Speaker 1: lawmakers to regulate AI.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I think that's probably right. And you could forgive him
Speaker 3: for thinking that Congress may do nothing, right, Like, they
Speaker 3: have a long track record of doing nothing, And so
Speaker 3: it also feels like a good way to just avoid
Speaker 3: responsibility for having some sort of like ethical safeguards in
Speaker 3: place on their own, which we can't expect them to
Speaker 3: because they're companies.
Speaker 2: They wouldn't do that.
Speaker 3: But yeah, like calling for regulation, it feels like a
Speaker 3: good way to pass the buck and be like, oh it, Congress,
Speaker 3: why don't you regulate us.
Speaker 5: Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1: While speaking of passing the buck and posting while really
Speaker 1: doing nothing, Let's talk about Montana. So this week, Montana
Speaker 1: became the first date to ban the social media platform TikTok,
Speaker 1: which is a pretty big step in the backlash against
Speaker 1: this Chinese owned platform over concerns about things like data privacy.
Speaker 1: Montana's governor signed the measure on Wednesday. He said that
Speaker 1: he did so to quote protect Montana's personal and private
Speaker 1: data from the Chinese Communist Party. The band takes effect
Speaker 1: in January of twenty twenty four, but people can actually
Speaker 1: still use TikTok after that, like, this law does not
Speaker 1: punish them if they use TikTok, But what it actually
Speaker 1: does is target the availability of the app by threatening
Speaker 1: entities such as TikTok, Google and Apple with a ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars fine for each day that the platform remains
Speaker 1: accessible in app stores for users in Montana. So from
Speaker 1: the user end, you don't actually have to do anything
Speaker 1: once this band, once this law goes into effect. But
Speaker 1: eventually when you need to update TikTok for it to
Speaker 1: run properly, that's when it will probably become an issue.
Speaker 1: So it's kind of a way of like phasing TikTok
Speaker 1: out because people won't be able to access the app
Speaker 1: in the app store to like get the the updates
Speaker 1: that you would need for it to run properly on
Speaker 1: your device. According to the Washington Post, app stores are
Speaker 1: divided by country or global region, and that they don't
Speaker 1: change or discriminate based on what state a user is in.
Speaker 1: Changing that system would require not just carving the stores
Speaker 1: into state specific chunks, but also closer monitoring of people's
Speaker 1: locations and a buy the minute system to define what
Speaker 1: happens when, for instance, a user drives over state lines,
Speaker 1: and keep it in mind that like people can always
Speaker 1: just sort of get around this by using a VPN.
Speaker 1: So it seems like this law will be very difficult
Speaker 1: to enforce, to the point where you almost kind of
Speaker 1: have to wonder what the point of this law would be.
Speaker 1: The law would be nullified if TikTok is no longer
Speaker 1: headquartered in quote any country designated as a foreign adversary
Speaker 1: by the US government. The law will probably face a
Speaker 1: significant legal challenge. Free speech groups like the acl YOU
Speaker 1: have already been vocally criticizing this law, and five TikTok
Speaker 1: creators filed a lawsuit saying that this ban infringes on
Speaker 1: their First Amendment rights. In the suit, they say the
Speaker 1: state of Montana quote can no more ban its residents
Speaker 1: from viewing or posting to TikTok than it could ban
Speaker 1: the wall street journal because of who owns it or
Speaker 1: the ideas it publishes. So y'all probably know that we
Speaker 1: did an entire episode with misinformation specialist and TikTok creator
Speaker 1: Abby Richards about why she feels like banning TikTok just
Speaker 1: is not a good idea. We'll link to the episode
Speaker 1: in the show notes. Definitely worth listening to. But ultimately,
Speaker 1: my take is that there is so much wrong with
Speaker 1: our current data privacy laws and landscape in the US
Speaker 1: that if lawmakers truly wanted to protect our data and
Speaker 1: our privacy, banning TikTok would not really accomplish that. So
Speaker 1: I think that laws like this one, especially given that
Speaker 1: they're so difficult to actually enforce, are just sort of
Speaker 1: meant to signal to us the American public, that lawmakers
Speaker 1: are like cracking down on and sort of getting tough
Speaker 1: with big tech while actually doing nothing. And I firmly
Speaker 1: believe that what we need is meaningful policies to protect
Speaker 1: our privacy and data, not just grandstanding and postering.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I agree.
Speaker 3: On the one hand, it's nice to see politicians taking
Speaker 3: some action. On the other hand, this law seems like
Speaker 3: bad in half of different ways, and like you said unenforceable.
Speaker 3: I'm not very sympathetic to Google crying that they wouldn't
Speaker 3: know how to do this, right, Like, you can geo
Speaker 3: fence Google ads down to like a city block if
Speaker 3: you want to. So the idea that they are going
Speaker 3: to be completely unable to handle state boundaries is just dishonest, right,
Speaker 3: Like they could technically figure it out if they wanted to,
Speaker 3: but they don't want to. Not that this law is
Speaker 3: a good idea because like you said, people can get
Speaker 3: around it a bunch of different ways. It's probably unconstitutional,
Speaker 3: but yeah, wouldn't it be nice if we saw more
Speaker 3: thoughtful legislation that instead of just banning one app for
Speaker 3: reasons that feel awfully sinophobic, what if they prohibited categories
Speaker 3: of data use or prohibited categories of data collection so
Speaker 3: that social media platforms could not harvest the personal data
Speaker 3: of Montanin's without their explicit consent. You know, that feels
Speaker 3: like it would be a much better approach to actually
Speaker 3: protect people's privacy.
Speaker 1: There are a million different better approaches that are out there.
Speaker 1: I firmly think that lawmakers want the credit for appearing
Speaker 1: to do something while actually doing nothing. That is my
Speaker 1: big problem. With all of this talk of banning TikTok.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and a big of what they're trying to do
Speaker 3: with the TikTok band is feed anti China sentiment, which
Speaker 3: I think there's a lot of good reasons to be
Speaker 3: concerned about China's relationship with the United States and spying
Speaker 3: on Americans.
Speaker 2: But we could definitely do without the racist rhetoric right.
Speaker 1: Pretty much always. You know who needs to hear that,
Speaker 1: Elon Musk. I know that I said that I wasn't
Speaker 1: going to talk about Elon Musk anymore like her my
Speaker 1: own personal mental health, and I was going to stop
Speaker 1: talking about Elon Musk, but I have to talk about
Speaker 1: this interview that he did. So last week, Elon Musk
Speaker 1: did this interview with CNBC. During the interview, who was
Speaker 1: asked about his tweets about the mass shooting in Allen, Texas,
Speaker 1: which was a total tragedy on May eighth that left
Speaker 1: eight people dead and seven people wounded. Now, let's just
Speaker 1: be super super clear. The Texas Department of Public Safety
Speaker 1: has said that the shooter showed indications of holding neo
Speaker 1: Nazi ideology, with an official saying that he had patches
Speaker 1: he had tattoos, and multiple news outlets, including The New
Speaker 1: York Times, confirm this too. But Elon Musk basically just
Speaker 1: said a bunch of inaccurate stuff about the shooting. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk said quote ascribing it to white supremacy was bullshit.
Speaker 1: There's no proof that he is a white supremacist. We
Speaker 1: should not be ascribing things to white supremacy if it's false.
Speaker 1: When he doubled down on this claim on Twitter, people
Speaker 1: actually use Twitter's community notes feature to correct him, adding
Speaker 1: a footnote to the post that said Texas police have
Speaker 1: confirmed that Alan the mall shooter had neo Nazi tattoos
Speaker 1: and beliefs, and he wore a pad signifying right wing
Speaker 1: deav squad. The community note was deleted. We do not
Speaker 1: know if Elon Musk had editing to do with that
Speaker 1: that community note being deleted, but does something he would do,
Speaker 1: we have to admit. So this is my take. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the things that Elon Musk says are not true and
Speaker 1: also horrible, right, So like, that's not what I'm giving
Speaker 1: a perspective on here. My take is that we absolutely
Speaker 1: need to talk about the fact that Elon Musk has
Speaker 1: been amplifying and engaging with extremist right wing talking points,
Speaker 1: and he's been doing it for a really long time
Speaker 1: out in public. I think that for a while, like
Speaker 1: it was kind of easy or maybe tempting for tech journalists,
Speaker 1: even tech journalists that I really personally like and respect,
Speaker 1: like Kara Swisher. I'm obsessed with Kara Swisher. She is
Speaker 1: one of my idols. However, I do think that some
Speaker 1: of the tech press really kind of let him off
Speaker 1: the hook from what is what he is obviously doing
Speaker 1: in plain sight like it, I think that people gave
Speaker 1: him the benefit of the doubt. They assumed that maybe
Speaker 1: something else was going on, like maybe Elon Musk was
Speaker 1: just trolling or kind of just trying to be edgy
Speaker 1: use edgy humor, or he doesn't actually believe the things
Speaker 1: that he's talking about, or that maybe he's somehow just
Speaker 1: trying to like hear out both sides, as if someone
Speaker 1: like Elon Musk is far too smart to fall for
Speaker 1: like a right wing extremist echo chamber. But this has
Speaker 1: been going on in plain sight for kind of a
Speaker 1: long time. Like remember when Nancy Pelosi's husband Paul Pelosi
Speaker 1: was attacked by a man with a hammer Elon Musk
Speaker 1: tweeted a piece from the fringe website called the Santa
Speaker 1: Monica Observer, which has previously reported things like that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton died at nine to eleven and replaced by a
Speaker 1: body double. This piece falsely claimed that Paul Pelosi knew
Speaker 1: his attacker and that they had had some kind of
Speaker 1: a relationship. This is obviously not true, completely baseless. Pelosi's
Speaker 1: attacker admitted that he broke into their home specifically to
Speaker 1: attack Speaker Pelosi, but after Musk tweeted this, other extremists
Speaker 1: amplified this baseless claim on Twitter, including Marjorie Taylor Green,
Speaker 1: who defended Musk with a tweet that repeated the lie
Speaker 1: that quote Paul Pelosi's friend attacked him with the hammer.
Speaker 1: So Elon Musk, we just have to call it what
Speaker 1: it is. He traffics in well worn conspiracy theories that
Speaker 1: are oftentimes anti Semitic, right, so he has trafficked in
Speaker 1: a well worn anti Semitic trope and talking about the
Speaker 1: influential philanthropist George Soros, he tweeted, George Soros reminds me
Speaker 1: of Magneto, which is obviously comparing Soros to the Marvel supervillain,
Speaker 1: presumably because they're both Jewish Holocaust survivors. Just in case
Speaker 1: you were confused about what he was trying to say,
Speaker 1: he followed up with another tweet saying that George Soros
Speaker 1: hates human Listen, Soros is an incredibly influential, connected philanthropist,
Speaker 1: Like I think he's the biggest donor to the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely fine to criticize someone like George Soros's,
Speaker 1: you know, agenda, perspective, whatever. However, there is absolutely a
Speaker 1: way to do that that does not traffic in well
Speaker 1: worn anti Semitic tropes, like you don't have to compare
Speaker 1: him to a comic book supervillain. You don't have to
Speaker 1: say that he hates humanity. You don't have to traffic
Speaker 1: and all of these very well worn anti Semitic tropes
Speaker 1: and stereotypes in order to criticize George Soros. And I
Speaker 1: think the fact that Elon Musk continues to do so
Speaker 1: is him telling us who he is. It's him showing
Speaker 1: us who he is, where he stands, and what he believes,
Speaker 1: and we got to take him for his word.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you're you're right, And you know, a
Speaker 3: notable difference about his defense of the shooter is that
Speaker 3: there is nothing like funny or jokey that in what
Speaker 3: he was saying, right like the idea that oh, he's
Speaker 3: just like kidding or trolling or you know, playing to
Speaker 3: the to the trolls for funsies or whatever people might
Speaker 3: say to let him off the hook. He was just
Speaker 3: straight up defending a Nazi, right, Like, there's photos of
Speaker 3: this guy's tattoos, and it's like he's got a swastika,
Speaker 3: he's got the ss lighting bolls, Like dude was a
Speaker 3: Nazi and Elon Musk is out there saying that he
Speaker 3: wasn't just pure disinformation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's And I also think like when the Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi thing happened, I don't remember who, I want to say,
Speaker 1: it was like a major funder for MySpace going you know,
Speaker 1: a bit of a throwback. But you know, he pointed
Speaker 1: out that it's almost like Elon Musk doesn't understand or
Speaker 1: misrejecting the responsibility that comes with being the CEO of
Speaker 1: a platform, but that he thinks he's any other user,
Speaker 1: he should be able to disci like tweet whatever he wants.
Speaker 1: And that's you know, a complete fiction that like owning
Speaker 1: this platform comes with a responsibility, and if you're not
Speaker 1: able to responsibly and ethically handle that responsibilit then you
Speaker 1: have no business leading a platform, and full stop. Jonathan Greenblatz,
Speaker 1: the CEO of the Anti Defamation League, the civil rights
Speaker 1: group that combat antisemitism, said that the way that Elon
Speaker 1: Musk talks about George sorows will embolden extremists, and I
Speaker 1: absolutely agree with him. Greenblat says Soro's often is held
Speaker 1: up by the far right using anti Semitic tropes as
Speaker 1: the source of the world's problems. To see Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: regardless of his intent, feed this segment comparing him to
Speaker 1: a Jewish supervillain, claiming that Soros hates Humanity's not just distressing,
Speaker 1: it's dangerous. It will embolden extremists who already contrive anti
Speaker 1: Jewish conspiracies and have tried to attack Soros and the
Speaker 1: Jewish community as a result. I absolutely agree, and in
Speaker 1: my opinion, it is really time to see Elon Musk
Speaker 1: for who he is. If in May of twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: you are still giving this person the benefit of the doubt,
Speaker 1: you are still saying that maybe he's joking, Maybe this
Speaker 1: is some sort of like genius move that we're too
Speaker 1: stupid to understand. It's time to let that go. Elon
Speaker 1: Musk is telling us who he is. He has told
Speaker 1: us who is time and time again. It is time
Speaker 1: for us to believe him. You know, I think it
Speaker 1: was Maya Angelou who said, when someone shows you who
Speaker 1: they are, believe them. Elon Musk is showing us who
Speaker 1: he is. It's time for all of us to believe him.
Speaker 1: That this is you know, he's not just engaging with
Speaker 1: this extremist garbage by a mistake. This is what he believes.
Speaker 1: This is who he is. And the sooner that we
Speaker 1: accept that, the better.
Speaker 2: Totally agree.
Speaker 6: Yeah more, after a quick break, let's get right back
Speaker 6: into it.
Speaker 1: Okay, So one last kind of fun thing. Did you
Speaker 1: see that weird? I mean, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: follow Essence Magazine on Facebook, Mike, probably not, But did
Speaker 1: you see this weird Facebook post that Essence Magazine put
Speaker 1: out about Viola Davis.
Speaker 3: You sent it to me and I saw it, and
Speaker 3: I was like, Wow, people are just like writing in
Speaker 3: bizarre ways that I can't even understand anymore. I guess
Speaker 3: I am out of touch with what the kids are doing.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 1: So basically it's this picture of Viola Davis at con.
Speaker 1: She looks fantastic. She's wearing this like beautiful white gown,
Speaker 1: just like, oh, it looks amazing. Ten or ten. So
Speaker 1: Essence On Facebook, they wrote, I'm gonna read this verbatim.
Speaker 1: We give credit when credit is due, and Villa Davis
Speaker 1: is looking like eight point fifty. Everyone at con can
Speaker 1: now pack your bags and return home. This is a eat,
Speaker 1: This is an eight. This is supper. God damn, the
Speaker 1: damn is broken and the flood of goodness has overflowed.
Speaker 1: Ten out of ten. Okay, so this is clearly like
Speaker 1: Essence magazine is a magazine that has a black woman readership, right,
Speaker 1: and so this is obviously a post that is trying
Speaker 1: to use like black woman slang like oh she ate
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. I get that. However, I believe and
Speaker 1: no one I have no proof, but no one will
Speaker 1: be able to convince me otherwise. This is written by
Speaker 1: AI somebody. Somebody has tried to train an AI model
Speaker 1: to speak like a black woman and do black woman slang.
Speaker 1: And I believe this, like, no one will ever be
Speaker 1: able to convince me that that's not what this is.
Speaker 1: I should say that this post has since been edited
Speaker 1: and it's it reads much clearer. They definitely like have
Speaker 1: polished it up. They've They've spelled Viola Davis's name correctly
Speaker 1: in the edited version. But you know, maybe we don't
Speaker 1: need to worry about AI taking all of our jobs
Speaker 1: because this is what it looks like when AI tries
Speaker 1: to do aave black slang.
Speaker 3: It trips them up every time. Right, we gotta you
Speaker 3: should call it Shippika Hudson, your slip is showing back
Speaker 3: in here.
Speaker 1: Yes, obviously racist word salad is what she called it. Okay,
Speaker 1: So I'm gonna end on a little segment that I'm
Speaker 1: hoping to return to, which is called is this happening
Speaker 1: for everyone or happening just to me?
Speaker 5: So?
Speaker 1: Has anyone else on TikTok noticed segments of movies taking
Speaker 1: over your for you page? It'll be just like a
Speaker 1: juicy or climactic clip from a movie. So I can't
Speaker 1: explain why, but I find these clips so deeply satisfying
Speaker 1: to watch, even if they're movies that I haven't seen,
Speaker 1: or even more when they're movies that I've seen one
Speaker 1: hundred times. The last clip that came up for me
Speaker 1: was that clip from the movie Selena, a movie that
Speaker 1: I've seen no less than a dozen times, and it's
Speaker 1: I know the movie by heart, where Selena is shopping
Speaker 1: in the mall and the salesgirl is like rude to
Speaker 1: her and her sister when she's shopping and she has
Speaker 1: her like pretty woman moment. You know, we we don't
Speaker 1: need the dress. So that segment came up on TikTok
Speaker 1: and I watched the hell out of it, and I
Speaker 1: was like, well, and I've seen this movie a million times,
Speaker 1: I know exactly what's gonna happen, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: There's just something deeply satisfying about these movie clips. I like,
Speaker 1: there are a couple of movies that I have been
Speaker 1: watching in like two minute segments on TikTok, So I
Speaker 1: want to know is this just me? Is this happening
Speaker 1: on your for you page? If you are on TikTok,
Speaker 1: and if it is happening, do you find it as
Speaker 1: satisfying as I do? Like? Why is it so satisfying?
Speaker 1: What's going on? What's the brain chemistry behind why this
Speaker 1: is so satisfying to watch?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great question.
Speaker 3: You know, I don't spend a whole lot of time
Speaker 3: on TikTok, but I know a lot of our listeners do. So,
Speaker 3: you know, send an email at hello at tangoty dot com.
Speaker 2: How else can people share their their experiences?
Speaker 1: Well, you can send us an email, you can find
Speaker 1: me on social, or you can subscribe to our patreon
Speaker 1: at patreon dot com, slash tangody. That's t A N
Speaker 1: G O T I, y'all. I promise this will not
Speaker 1: be one of those podcasts where like every time you
Speaker 1: listen it's like, subscribe to our patreon, subscribe to our patreon.
Speaker 1: But it's new. I'm excited about it. We just got
Speaker 1: our very first subscriber. Thank you, Karen Jay for you
Speaker 1: for your support. But yeah, and if you want more
Speaker 1: news analysis media, subscribe to the patreon and let us
Speaker 1: know what you want to hear. Like, I want it
Speaker 1: to be a resource that is helpful.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So I can't wait to hang out.
Speaker 5: With y'all there.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for ways to support the show, check
Speaker 1: out our March store at tegoty 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 tangody 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 Tod.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative edited by
Speaker 1: Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison
Speaker 1: is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almado 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 podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.