1
00:00:04,440 --> 00:00:12,400
Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

2
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:16,280
Speaker 1: and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland.

3
00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:20,479
Speaker 1: I'mond executive producer with iHeartRadio and how the tech are you.

4
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:25,400
Speaker 1: It's time for the tech news for Tuesday, June thirteenth,

5
00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:30,400
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three, and today marks the second day that

6
00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:34,800
Speaker 1: hundreds of subreddits thousands in fact, have gone dark in

7
00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:40,720
Speaker 1: response to Reddit changing its API policy that's application programming interface.

8
00:00:41,360 --> 00:00:45,919
Speaker 1: This has necessitated the shutdown of several popular apps. So

9
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:50,640
Speaker 1: as a refresher, Reddit put in a new fee system,

10
00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:55,520
Speaker 1: and the more an app needs to reference Reddit, so essentially,

11
00:00:56,000 --> 00:01:00,840
Speaker 1: the more frequently the app makes requests from Reddit, the

12
00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:03,840
Speaker 1: more the developer is going to have to pay a

13
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:07,920
Speaker 1: monthly fee, and it depends entirely on how many references

14
00:01:08,400 --> 00:01:13,840
Speaker 1: the app is making collectively to Reddit. Reddit representatives say

15
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:17,440
Speaker 1: that this is necessary because increased activity on the platform

16
00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:21,080
Speaker 1: drives up hosting costs, and the money to pay those

17
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:25,600
Speaker 1: bills has to come from somewhere. Developers say the new

18
00:01:25,680 --> 00:01:30,160
Speaker 1: fee schedule is prohibitively expensive and that it sure does

19
00:01:30,200 --> 00:01:34,199
Speaker 1: seem like Reddit is pricing out competitors, which would leave

20
00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:40,119
Speaker 1: only reddits own app standing in solidarity with these app developers.

21
00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:46,160
Speaker 1: The moderators of tons of popular subredits, including the technology Subreddit,

22
00:01:46,480 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 1: have gone private for a couple of days. Also side note,

23
00:01:50,520 --> 00:01:54,400
Speaker 1: I often use the technology subreddit to keep an eye

24
00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:57,559
Speaker 1: on tech stories for these episodes because it's a very

25
00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:00,720
Speaker 1: good aggregation site for that kind of thing. You see

26
00:02:01,040 --> 00:02:06,200
Speaker 1: lots of people crawling the web and finding cool technology articles.

27
00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:10,320
Speaker 1: It's incredibly helpful if you want to put together a

28
00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:14,720
Speaker 1: news episode. So what I'm saying is that this is

29
00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:17,680
Speaker 1: also making me work harder, which we all know I hate.

30
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:21,320
Speaker 1: But more seriously, whether this is going to prompt Reddit

31
00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:24,720
Speaker 1: to change its policy, I don't know. I would actually

32
00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:27,920
Speaker 1: be really surprised if it did. I think it's going

33
00:02:27,960 --> 00:02:30,640
Speaker 1: to bring a lot more attention to the issue, but

34
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:33,120
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's necessarily going to change things.

35
00:02:33,480 --> 00:02:37,520
Speaker 1: I think the only thing that would change reddits stance

36
00:02:37,960 --> 00:02:40,880
Speaker 1: would be either if a lot of people just left

37
00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:45,120
Speaker 1: the platform entirely, which means there would be fewer people

38
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:48,960
Speaker 1: to sell advertising for and that would be a huge

39
00:02:49,040 --> 00:02:53,160
Speaker 1: drop in revenue, or if there was some sort of

40
00:02:53,160 --> 00:02:57,240
Speaker 1: official investigation into whether or not Reddit is engaging in

41
00:02:57,320 --> 00:03:01,480
Speaker 1: anti competitive practices that could also so force a change,

42
00:03:01,480 --> 00:03:05,560
Speaker 1: But in the lack of either of those things happening,

43
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:09,359
Speaker 1: I just don't I don't imagine it will change, But

44
00:03:09,400 --> 00:03:12,919
Speaker 1: I could be wrong. Maybe there will be enough pressure

45
00:03:13,040 --> 00:03:18,080
Speaker 1: on Reddit to at least have them tweak the policy.

46
00:03:18,200 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: We'll have to wait and see. The various announcements that

47
00:03:21,200 --> 00:03:25,840
Speaker 1: loosely speaking, make up the Summer Games Fest are wrapping

48
00:03:25,960 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 1: up this week. Microsoft held its event over the weekend,

49
00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:32,200
Speaker 1: but one thing the company didn't dive into was the

50
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:35,920
Speaker 1: fate of the Activision Blizzard deal. Now. As I'm sure

51
00:03:35,960 --> 00:03:39,920
Speaker 1: most of you know, Microsoft announced ages ago now that

52
00:03:40,040 --> 00:03:43,120
Speaker 1: it planned to acquire Activision Blizzard, which at the time

53
00:03:43,240 --> 00:03:46,040
Speaker 1: was weathering a pretty big storm with regard to the

54
00:03:46,080 --> 00:03:50,760
Speaker 1: company's reputation for a toxic work environment and general tolerance

55
00:03:50,800 --> 00:03:54,400
Speaker 1: toward harassment and that kind of thing. The plan was

56
00:03:55,000 --> 00:04:00,400
Speaker 1: to have this deal finalized by this summer, been some

57
00:04:00,480 --> 00:04:04,320
Speaker 1: notable hurdles. Regulators in the UK have refused to allow

58
00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:07,280
Speaker 1: the deal to proceed, at least in the UK. They

59
00:04:07,320 --> 00:04:10,480
Speaker 1: say that it would give Microsoft an unfair market advantage

60
00:04:10,480 --> 00:04:17,920
Speaker 1: in the sector, particularly with regard to cloud gaming services. Recently,

61
00:04:18,120 --> 00:04:22,120
Speaker 1: Activision representatives requested that they be able to address this

62
00:04:22,200 --> 00:04:25,560
Speaker 1: issue when it comes up for appeal with those UK

63
00:04:25,720 --> 00:04:29,520
Speaker 1: regulators a little bit later this summer. Microsoft reps have

64
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:32,720
Speaker 1: argued that the UK is holding things up where regulators

65
00:04:32,760 --> 00:04:37,240
Speaker 1: elsewhere have given the green light to the acquisition, like

66
00:04:37,279 --> 00:04:41,919
Speaker 1: the European Union or regulators in Japan. But that argument

67
00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:43,800
Speaker 1: is going to be a lot harder to make because

68
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:47,400
Speaker 1: the US Federal Trade Commission or FTC, is now seeking

69
00:04:47,480 --> 00:04:54,040
Speaker 1: an injunction and a temporary restraining order to block the deal. Okay,

70
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,240
Speaker 1: you might say, well, didn't the FTC already object to this,

71
00:04:57,320 --> 00:05:00,680
Speaker 1: And the answer to that is yes, they actually challenged

72
00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:04,159
Speaker 1: the acquisition late last year, back in December of twenty

73
00:05:04,200 --> 00:05:11,320
Speaker 1: twenty two. But justice moves slowly, like glacially slow, and

74
00:05:11,520 --> 00:05:17,159
Speaker 1: so the FTC is looking for this injunction to temporarily

75
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:20,599
Speaker 1: stop the deal from closing while the challenge to the

76
00:05:20,640 --> 00:05:24,039
Speaker 1: deal inches closer to actually making it into a courtroom.

77
00:05:24,680 --> 00:05:26,839
Speaker 1: And it might seem a bit absurd that a major

78
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:30,039
Speaker 1: US government agency would have to get a restraining order

79
00:05:30,440 --> 00:05:33,480
Speaker 1: to put a temporary block on a deal while the

80
00:05:33,560 --> 00:05:36,120
Speaker 1: actual case to decide if the deal is even legal

81
00:05:36,200 --> 00:05:40,520
Speaker 1: or not meets court schedules. It does sound a little

82
00:05:40,560 --> 00:05:43,640
Speaker 1: bit mad, as they say, but that's how it works.

83
00:05:44,040 --> 00:05:47,560
Speaker 1: On Microsoft's side, the request for an injunction might not

84
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:51,320
Speaker 1: necessarily be a bad thing because if a court denies

85
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:53,960
Speaker 1: that injunction, that could give Microsoft a bit of a

86
00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:57,560
Speaker 1: legal boost, as it were, and company reps both for

87
00:05:57,760 --> 00:06:01,120
Speaker 1: Microsoft and Activision have said they're eager to get this

88
00:06:01,240 --> 00:06:04,080
Speaker 1: matter to the court because in their opinion, it's an

89
00:06:04,080 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 1: open and shutcase that there's no unfair market advantage or

90
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:11,440
Speaker 1: any competitive element to the deal. So maybe we'll see

91
00:06:11,480 --> 00:06:16,360
Speaker 1: the deal go through despite all these hurdles. Twitter's new CEO,

92
00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:21,279
Speaker 1: Linda Yakarino, sent out her first official communication to Twitter's

93
00:06:21,400 --> 00:06:26,040
Speaker 1: staff this week. The memo's title was building Twitter two

94
00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:30,159
Speaker 1: point zero Together. Now you might recall that Twitter's previous CEO,

95
00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:37,080
Speaker 1: a guy named Elon Musk, revealed aspirations of evolving the

96
00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:41,320
Speaker 1: Twitter service into a much more robust app capable of

97
00:06:41,360 --> 00:06:48,679
Speaker 1: doing pretty much any basic app stuff, including handling financial transactions.

98
00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:53,719
Speaker 1: In the memo, she wrote, quote, it has become increasingly

99
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:57,880
Speaker 1: clear that the global town square needs transformation to drive

100
00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:03,400
Speaker 1: civilization forward through the unfiltered exchange of information and open

101
00:07:03,520 --> 00:07:07,159
Speaker 1: dialogue about things that matter most to us end quote.

102
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:11,880
Speaker 1: This seems to echo the message of free speech that

103
00:07:11,960 --> 00:07:18,320
Speaker 1: Elon Musk frequently stated. But that's a message that's actually

104
00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:22,440
Speaker 1: really muddled, because in the Elon era, it seemed like

105
00:07:22,520 --> 00:07:25,160
Speaker 1: free speech mostly just applied to Elon and to the

106
00:07:25,160 --> 00:07:28,960
Speaker 1: people he liked, but not necessarily anybody else. And yes,

107
00:07:29,520 --> 00:07:33,280
Speaker 1: I am editorializing, but what I'm saying is backed up

108
00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:35,160
Speaker 1: by evidence. I mean, you just have to think back

109
00:07:35,400 --> 00:07:38,520
Speaker 1: to the time when Twitter suddenly started to clamp down

110
00:07:38,560 --> 00:07:41,960
Speaker 1: on any tweets that contain links to other platforms like

111
00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:46,520
Speaker 1: Instagram or masted on. Apparently that speech was not allowed

112
00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:51,000
Speaker 1: to be free. So like when I make these snarky comments,

113
00:07:51,040 --> 00:07:56,000
Speaker 1: it's not without reason. Anyway. While I have suspicions as

114
00:07:56,040 --> 00:07:59,800
Speaker 1: to the sincerity of Twitter's mission, I have to say

115
00:07:59,800 --> 00:08:04,520
Speaker 1: that our new CEO's communication style is more uplifting and

116
00:08:04,640 --> 00:08:07,520
Speaker 1: humorous than Elon's typically were. If you read the memo,

117
00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:13,000
Speaker 1: it definitely feels a bit more supportive. On that side,

118
00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:15,119
Speaker 1: it still says you're gonna have to work real hard,

119
00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:20,400
Speaker 1: like it's repeating that little line, but it's more like

120
00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:22,840
Speaker 1: a almost like a pep rally kind of we're all

121
00:08:22,880 --> 00:08:25,640
Speaker 1: in this together and we can do it as opposed

122
00:08:25,680 --> 00:08:28,119
Speaker 1: to you will do it or you will suffer, which,

123
00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:32,120
Speaker 1: granted I'm paraphrasing, but a lot of Elon Musk's messages

124
00:08:32,120 --> 00:08:35,520
Speaker 1: to employees kind of felt like that. But whether any

125
00:08:35,559 --> 00:08:39,719
Speaker 1: of this translates into real improvement at Twitter, I don't know.

126
00:08:40,240 --> 00:08:44,240
Speaker 1: But sticking with Twitter, a user named Alessandro Paluzzi, who

127
00:08:44,280 --> 00:08:48,000
Speaker 1: describes himself as a leaker, a mobile developer, and a

128
00:08:48,120 --> 00:08:52,240
Speaker 1: reverse engineer, posted that he found something interesting. A limit

129
00:08:52,520 --> 00:08:55,840
Speaker 1: to the number of direct messages or DMS you are

130
00:08:55,920 --> 00:08:59,040
Speaker 1: allowed to send. When you hit that limit, you get

131
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:02,360
Speaker 1: a message from Twitter saying you've hit the maximum limit

132
00:09:02,400 --> 00:09:04,760
Speaker 1: for direct messages in a single day. Sign up for

133
00:09:04,800 --> 00:09:09,840
Speaker 1: Twitter Blue to continue messaging. Baluzzi followed that up with quote,

134
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:12,440
Speaker 1: currently the limit is five hundred per day, but I

135
00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:14,720
Speaker 1: bet this limit will be reduced when this will be

136
00:09:14,800 --> 00:09:18,080
Speaker 1: rolled out end quote. Elon Musk, who still heads up

137
00:09:18,080 --> 00:09:21,360
Speaker 1: product and development at Twitter even though he's no longer CEO,

138
00:09:22,000 --> 00:09:25,040
Speaker 1: indicated that the deployment should happen later this week, So

139
00:09:25,120 --> 00:09:27,480
Speaker 1: I guess we'll see what the limit is once we

140
00:09:27,520 --> 00:09:31,040
Speaker 1: get there. Is that going to drive more people to

141
00:09:31,120 --> 00:09:35,120
Speaker 1: actually subscribe to Twitter Blue. Well, in my experience, folks

142
00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:37,800
Speaker 1: get really irritated when they're asked to pay for something

143
00:09:37,840 --> 00:09:40,559
Speaker 1: that previously they were able to access for free. So

144
00:09:40,920 --> 00:09:45,680
Speaker 1: I have my doubts. And now to talk of Twitter past.

145
00:09:46,200 --> 00:09:48,600
Speaker 1: Jack Dorsey, one of the co founders of Twitter and

146
00:09:48,640 --> 00:09:52,760
Speaker 1: the former CEO of the company, alleged that in twenty twenty,

147
00:09:52,840 --> 00:09:56,000
Speaker 1: the government of India threatened to shut Twitter down in

148
00:09:56,080 --> 00:10:00,400
Speaker 1: that country. Why well, according to Dorsey, it's because armers

149
00:10:00,440 --> 00:10:04,080
Speaker 1: who were protesting the government in twenty twenty were using

150
00:10:04,080 --> 00:10:07,120
Speaker 1: Twitter to share their thoughts and complaints and criticisms of

151
00:10:07,120 --> 00:10:10,400
Speaker 1: India's government, and that government officials wanted to shut all

152
00:10:10,440 --> 00:10:15,040
Speaker 1: that down. In addition, Dorsey says the government wanted Twitter

153
00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:19,160
Speaker 1: to censor journalists who supported the protests, who or who

154
00:10:19,280 --> 00:10:24,239
Speaker 1: called into question the government's positions. Government representatives deny these allegations.

155
00:10:24,320 --> 00:10:26,959
Speaker 1: They say there were no arrests, there were no raids,

156
00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:29,920
Speaker 1: there were no shutdowns, but that Twitter had acted in

157
00:10:30,000 --> 00:10:33,319
Speaker 1: violation of Indian law and that the platform was essentially

158
00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:39,160
Speaker 1: ignoring India's sovereignty. The matter is a messy one. Twitter

159
00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:42,600
Speaker 1: initially blocks more than two hundred accounts upon direction of

160
00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:46,680
Speaker 1: India's government, but then reverse that decision after Twitter says

161
00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:50,559
Speaker 1: it determined there was insufficient reasons to block those accounts

162
00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:55,120
Speaker 1: and cited India's own free speech laws. India's government allegedly

163
00:10:55,160 --> 00:10:57,480
Speaker 1: then said failure to block the accounts would result in

164
00:10:57,480 --> 00:11:00,600
Speaker 1: government raids on Twitter offices and a show down, and

165
00:11:00,640 --> 00:11:05,240
Speaker 1: again the government reps in India deny those claims. Okay,

166
00:11:05,480 --> 00:11:08,120
Speaker 1: we've got some more news to cover, but first let's

167
00:11:08,120 --> 00:11:21,199
Speaker 1: take a quick break. We're back. So YouTube is making

168
00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:24,640
Speaker 1: it easier to qualify for the YouTube Partners program. This

169
00:11:24,679 --> 00:11:29,400
Speaker 1: is where you can implement things like tipping and YouTube shopping,

170
00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:32,679
Speaker 1: where you can sell your own merch and channel memberships

171
00:11:32,720 --> 00:11:36,319
Speaker 1: and more. It's really a way of monetizing the videos

172
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:39,800
Speaker 1: that you put up on YouTube. So previously, in order

173
00:11:39,800 --> 00:11:42,040
Speaker 1: to qualify, you need to have at least one thousand

174
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:46,000
Speaker 1: subscribers and either four thousand watch hours within the past

175
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:50,599
Speaker 1: year or ten million views of YouTube shorts within the

176
00:11:50,679 --> 00:11:54,800
Speaker 1: last ninety days. But now the requirements have been reduced

177
00:11:54,840 --> 00:11:59,559
Speaker 1: to five hundred subscribers plus three public uploads over the

178
00:11:59,600 --> 00:12:03,199
Speaker 1: last night days and at least three thousand watch hours

179
00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:06,280
Speaker 1: over the last year or three million short views in

180
00:12:06,320 --> 00:12:10,640
Speaker 1: the last ninety days. This seems to favor people who

181
00:12:10,679 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: work in short form content because they're more likely to

182
00:12:14,559 --> 00:12:17,840
Speaker 1: meet the requirement of having three uploads in ninety days.

183
00:12:18,240 --> 00:12:21,679
Speaker 1: But some of my favorite YouTube channels are producing long

184
00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:25,679
Speaker 1: form content and they publish much less frequently, but their

185
00:12:25,760 --> 00:12:28,920
Speaker 1: videos get tons and tons of views, like more than

186
00:12:28,960 --> 00:12:32,000
Speaker 1: a million views. Their work is incredible. So I'm thinking

187
00:12:32,040 --> 00:12:37,600
Speaker 1: about channels like Folding Ideas or Jenny Nicholson. So a

188
00:12:37,640 --> 00:12:43,640
Speaker 1: startup channel like those might really make great content and

189
00:12:43,800 --> 00:12:45,880
Speaker 1: might get lots and lots of views, but it wouldn't

190
00:12:45,920 --> 00:12:49,400
Speaker 1: necessarily qualify because you wouldn't have the three public uploads

191
00:12:49,400 --> 00:12:53,199
Speaker 1: in ninety days. However, maybe YouTube also has a process

192
00:12:53,240 --> 00:12:57,840
Speaker 1: to consider outliers like that, Like if you are garnering

193
00:12:58,400 --> 00:13:01,280
Speaker 1: more than a million views per video, it's just that

194
00:13:01,320 --> 00:13:03,880
Speaker 1: your videos take a longer time to publish because you're

195
00:13:04,360 --> 00:13:06,360
Speaker 1: making long form content and you're putting a lot of

196
00:13:06,360 --> 00:13:10,000
Speaker 1: work into them. I imagine YouTube would still consider those

197
00:13:10,080 --> 00:13:14,080
Speaker 1: for the program, even if on the base of it

198
00:13:14,080 --> 00:13:16,480
Speaker 1: it doesn't qualify. It just seems like it would be

199
00:13:17,840 --> 00:13:21,880
Speaker 1: short sighted not to. Now there is a disturbance in

200
00:13:21,920 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 1: the force, and by force I mean the crypto community

201
00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 1: and by disturbance, I mean the US Securities Exchange Commission

202
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:35,040
Speaker 1: or SEC is taking aim at more than fifty different cryptocurrencies. Why. Well,

203
00:13:35,200 --> 00:13:38,920
Speaker 1: the SEC argues that a whole bunch of alt coins,

204
00:13:39,200 --> 00:13:43,760
Speaker 1: which essentially refer to smaller cryptocurrencies that aren't Bitcoin or ether,

205
00:13:44,760 --> 00:13:49,160
Speaker 1: don't really count as currencies. There instead securities. But what

206
00:13:49,200 --> 00:13:53,000
Speaker 1: the heck is a security? Well this isn't a finance podcast,

207
00:13:53,040 --> 00:13:56,000
Speaker 1: but it comes up all the time in tech news,

208
00:13:56,040 --> 00:13:57,880
Speaker 1: and frankly, I felt the need to brush up on

209
00:13:57,960 --> 00:14:01,600
Speaker 1: it myself. So I went to Investopedia, which has their

210
00:14:01,640 --> 00:14:05,719
Speaker 1: own definition, and they define it as quote fungible negotiable

211
00:14:05,960 --> 00:14:12,160
Speaker 1: financial instrument that holds some type of monetary value end quote. Thankfully,

212
00:14:12,720 --> 00:14:16,280
Speaker 1: they also give some examples to clarify things. So stock

213
00:14:16,400 --> 00:14:19,160
Speaker 1: in a company is a kind of security. It's fungible,

214
00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:22,800
Speaker 1: it's negotiable, and it holds monetary value as determined by

215
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:26,840
Speaker 1: the market. A bond, likewise, counts as a security, and

216
00:14:26,920 --> 00:14:31,880
Speaker 1: so securities, Investipedia explains, typically fall into one of three categories. Equity,

217
00:14:31,960 --> 00:14:35,680
Speaker 1: which means the security represents some percentage of ownership in

218
00:14:35,800 --> 00:14:40,480
Speaker 1: something like a company. A second type is debt, meaning

219
00:14:40,520 --> 00:14:44,840
Speaker 1: you can actually purchase debt that other people owe, and

220
00:14:44,880 --> 00:14:47,400
Speaker 1: then they have to pay you, so you get the

221
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:52,920
Speaker 1: debt payments plus whatever the interest rate is, so you

222
00:14:53,000 --> 00:14:56,000
Speaker 1: get more than what you purchase the debt for. And

223
00:14:56,040 --> 00:14:59,400
Speaker 1: then the third type is a hybrid between equity and debt.

224
00:15:00,040 --> 00:15:02,840
Speaker 1: And here's the real kicker. The SEC has the authority

225
00:15:02,880 --> 00:15:06,640
Speaker 1: to oversee public sales of securities. It has to be regulated,

226
00:15:07,120 --> 00:15:11,880
Speaker 1: and crypto coins operate largely in crypto exchanges that are

227
00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:16,720
Speaker 1: operating outside the domain of the SEC. So if THEEC

228
00:15:16,840 --> 00:15:22,000
Speaker 1: is successful in saying yes, these are securities, then they

229
00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:26,160
Speaker 1: have the authority to oversee those exchanges. And as a result,

230
00:15:26,720 --> 00:15:30,880
Speaker 1: a lot of crypto exchanges have started to remove the

231
00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:34,960
Speaker 1: alt coins that the SEC has targeted in various lawsuits

232
00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:38,760
Speaker 1: because these exchanges don't want to get dinged for allowing

233
00:15:38,880 --> 00:15:42,800
Speaker 1: unregulated securities deals. This is actually one of the big

234
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:47,200
Speaker 1: things that Binance is currently facing with US regulators, so

235
00:15:47,280 --> 00:15:50,720
Speaker 1: this could have a very large negative impact on crypto coins,

236
00:15:51,000 --> 00:15:54,600
Speaker 1: potentially preventing those specific coins from getting funding within the

237
00:15:54,760 --> 00:15:59,640
Speaker 1: US market calendars. On July eleventh, the Nothing Company will

238
00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:03,640
Speaker 1: release the second generation of the Nothing Phone aka the

239
00:16:03,760 --> 00:16:07,720
Speaker 1: Nothing Phone two. This is the smartphone that can display

240
00:16:07,880 --> 00:16:10,560
Speaker 1: simple images on the back of the phone has some

241
00:16:10,760 --> 00:16:13,280
Speaker 1: LEDs on the backside of the phone, which is a

242
00:16:13,320 --> 00:16:16,840
Speaker 1: clear back like you can see the innards of the

243
00:16:16,880 --> 00:16:20,400
Speaker 1: phone through the back, but the images that the LEDs

244
00:16:20,640 --> 00:16:25,440
Speaker 1: show will create basic designs like a basic pattern, and

245
00:16:25,520 --> 00:16:29,200
Speaker 1: Nothing calls these patterns glyphs, and those glyphs indicate incoming

246
00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:32,800
Speaker 1: notifications and depending upon the style of the glyph, it

247
00:16:32,840 --> 00:16:35,120
Speaker 1: can tell you what sort of notification it is, like

248
00:16:35,160 --> 00:16:38,240
Speaker 1: a text message versus an email, et cetera. Now, the

249
00:16:38,280 --> 00:16:41,920
Speaker 1: original Nothing phone got decent reviews, but it wasn't widely

250
00:16:42,040 --> 00:16:44,960
Speaker 1: available here in the United States. Apparently the phone two

251
00:16:45,400 --> 00:16:48,080
Speaker 1: will have more of a reach here in the US,

252
00:16:48,560 --> 00:16:50,760
Speaker 1: and one of the big selling points of the original

253
00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:54,360
Speaker 1: Nothing phone was a lack of bloatwear, that is, apps

254
00:16:54,360 --> 00:16:56,840
Speaker 1: that are pre installed on a device that can be

255
00:16:56,920 --> 00:17:01,200
Speaker 1: difficult or impossible to remove. Nothing It only included a

256
00:17:01,320 --> 00:17:04,040
Speaker 1: couple of apps on the device that were necessary in

257
00:17:04,160 --> 00:17:08,280
Speaker 1: order to operate things like the phone's camera. The underlying

258
00:17:08,320 --> 00:17:10,720
Speaker 1: operating system of the Nothing phone is a version of

259
00:17:10,760 --> 00:17:15,760
Speaker 1: Android that, according to reviewers, was pretty closed to stock Android.

260
00:17:16,080 --> 00:17:18,280
Speaker 1: But we'll have to wait until July eleventh, to find

261
00:17:18,320 --> 00:17:21,560
Speaker 1: out how the phone too stacks up against its predecessor

262
00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:25,280
Speaker 1: and the competitors that are already on the market. And

263
00:17:25,359 --> 00:17:28,040
Speaker 1: now to wrap up with some recommendations, I've got a

264
00:17:28,040 --> 00:17:31,080
Speaker 1: pair of articles from Wired to recommend. As always, here's

265
00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:34,760
Speaker 1: my disclaimer. I have no relationship with Wired, nor do

266
00:17:34,840 --> 00:17:37,680
Speaker 1: I know the folks who wrote these articles. They may

267
00:17:37,720 --> 00:17:40,000
Speaker 1: also be behind a paywall. I'm not certain I have

268
00:17:40,040 --> 00:17:43,919
Speaker 1: a subscription to Wired. In my opinion, it's worth subscribing to,

269
00:17:44,480 --> 00:17:47,800
Speaker 1: but anyway, First up as an article titled the US

270
00:17:47,920 --> 00:17:51,840
Speaker 1: is openly stockpiling dirt on all its citizens, written by

271
00:17:51,960 --> 00:17:55,240
Speaker 1: Dell Cameron. The article details a report from the Office

272
00:17:55,240 --> 00:17:58,400
Speaker 1: of the Director of National Intelligence that shows how various

273
00:17:58,400 --> 00:18:01,919
Speaker 1: agencies in the US federal govern are buying up enormous

274
00:18:02,000 --> 00:18:06,040
Speaker 1: databasis of personal information that belonged to American citizens. And

275
00:18:06,160 --> 00:18:08,760
Speaker 1: considering that's the same sort of shady stuff that folks

276
00:18:08,800 --> 00:18:11,280
Speaker 1: are worried about with TikTok, I figure it pays to

277
00:18:11,320 --> 00:18:13,760
Speaker 1: be informed about how the US is doing pretty much

278
00:18:13,800 --> 00:18:17,080
Speaker 1: the same darn thing. I wouldn't say it's a happy read,

279
00:18:17,160 --> 00:18:20,600
Speaker 1: but it's an important one. The second Wired article is

280
00:18:20,720 --> 00:18:24,960
Speaker 1: by Matt Laslow, and it's titled UFO Whistleblower, Meet a

281
00:18:25,040 --> 00:18:28,360
Speaker 1: conspiracy loving Congress. Now you might recall from last week

282
00:18:28,400 --> 00:18:31,160
Speaker 1: I reluctantly talked about a piece written in the Debrief

283
00:18:31,720 --> 00:18:35,320
Speaker 1: about a former US intelligence employee who claims to have

284
00:18:35,400 --> 00:18:38,400
Speaker 1: knowledge of the existence of aircraft that was built by

285
00:18:38,400 --> 00:18:42,479
Speaker 1: some sort of non human intelligence. Now this person hasn't

286
00:18:42,480 --> 00:18:47,920
Speaker 1: actually seen any of this alleged non human created stuff.

287
00:18:48,160 --> 00:18:51,439
Speaker 1: They haven't even seen photographs of it. Instead, they have

288
00:18:51,480 --> 00:18:54,760
Speaker 1: to rely on second or third hand reports. Anyway, the

289
00:18:54,760 --> 00:18:57,400
Speaker 1: Wired article talks about how, in our current environment here

290
00:18:57,400 --> 00:19:01,040
Speaker 1: in the US, unsubstantiated claims can end up going a

291
00:19:01,040 --> 00:19:04,520
Speaker 1: whole lot further than they used to. It's well worth

292
00:19:04,520 --> 00:19:07,520
Speaker 1: a read. On a related note, I also recommend the

293
00:19:07,560 --> 00:19:10,840
Speaker 1: episode of the Michael Shermer Show. It's a podcast, it's

294
00:19:10,840 --> 00:19:14,119
Speaker 1: also available on YouTube, and it is called is the

295
00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:18,560
Speaker 1: Government Hiding Aliens? The too long didn't watch version of

296
00:19:18,600 --> 00:19:22,560
Speaker 1: the answer is no, but Shermer goes into detail as

297
00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:26,760
Speaker 1: to why people should be skeptical of these claims. Those

298
00:19:26,920 --> 00:19:31,240
Speaker 1: are my recommendations. I hope you are all well. I'll

299
00:19:31,280 --> 00:19:35,480
Speaker 1: be back again on Thursday with more news, assuming you

300
00:19:35,520 --> 00:19:39,560
Speaker 1: know news happens so I'll talk to you again really soon.

301
00:19:45,320 --> 00:19:49,960
Speaker 1: Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,

302
00:19:50,280 --> 00:19:53,960
Speaker 1: visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen

303
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:58,560
Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.