WEBVTT - TechStuff Update Grab Bag

0:00:04.120 --> 0:00:07.160
<v Speaker 1>Get in touch with technology with tech Stuff from how

0:00:07.200 --> 0:00:13.800
<v Speaker 1>stuff works dot com. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff.

0:00:13.840 --> 0:00:17.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer at

0:00:17.079 --> 0:00:21.760
<v Speaker 1>how Stuff Works, and I love all things tech, and

0:00:21.960 --> 0:00:25.760
<v Speaker 1>one of the greatest things about technology, in my opinion,

0:00:26.000 --> 0:00:30.520
<v Speaker 1>is that it's always evolving. However, that does make covering

0:00:30.600 --> 0:00:37.480
<v Speaker 1>technology somewhat challenging or perhaps frustrating or infuriating, particularly if

0:00:37.520 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 1>you try to do an evergreen style show like tech Stuff. Ideally,

0:00:42.400 --> 0:00:44.480
<v Speaker 1>an episode of tech Stuff goes out and you should

0:00:44.479 --> 0:00:48.159
<v Speaker 1>be able to listen to it today, next week, two

0:00:48.280 --> 0:00:53.080
<v Speaker 1>years from now. But sometimes stories will update, you know,

0:00:53.200 --> 0:00:56.400
<v Speaker 1>they'll they'll continue more things will happen between the time

0:00:56.400 --> 0:00:59.520
<v Speaker 1>I record a show and even when it goes live

0:00:59.720 --> 0:01:03.160
<v Speaker 1>some times. So this episode is all about giving updates

0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:06.440
<v Speaker 1>to various stories I've mentioned in previous episodes of tech Stuff,

0:01:06.800 --> 0:01:09.800
<v Speaker 1>but mostly these are updates that are too short to

0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:13.759
<v Speaker 1>merit a full episode on their own. So let's get started.

0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:18.040
<v Speaker 1>And I've done several episodes on the concept of net neutrality,

0:01:18.560 --> 0:01:22.880
<v Speaker 1>including ones about the FCC reclassifying the Internet service providers

0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:26.840
<v Speaker 1>as common carriers, and the various campaigns for and against

0:01:26.840 --> 0:01:31.160
<v Speaker 1>the whole idea of mandating net neutrality. So if you

0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:35.760
<v Speaker 1>aren't familiar with the concept neutrality, it encompasses several things,

0:01:35.760 --> 0:01:37.720
<v Speaker 1>but one of the things it says is that all

0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:42.119
<v Speaker 1>traffic on the Internet should be treated equally, whether that

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:46.480
<v Speaker 1>is data that belongs originally to the Internet service provider

0:01:46.560 --> 0:01:49.720
<v Speaker 1>let's say that they also own some other services, or

0:01:49.920 --> 0:01:52.840
<v Speaker 1>it's to a competitor. All that data should be able

0:01:52.840 --> 0:01:57.120
<v Speaker 1>to travel across the Internet without any sort of interference

0:01:57.240 --> 0:02:01.280
<v Speaker 1>or preferential treatment or uh negative treatment in the case

0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:04.800
<v Speaker 1>of a competitor's services. It should all just go no

0:02:04.840 --> 0:02:07.720
<v Speaker 1>matter what device you have connected to the Internet, and

0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:09.920
<v Speaker 1>no matter what service you connect to, it should be

0:02:09.960 --> 0:02:13.760
<v Speaker 1>treated equally well. In early June two thousand eighteen, the

0:02:13.880 --> 0:02:18.000
<v Speaker 1>f c C repealed the previously established net neutrality rules,

0:02:18.400 --> 0:02:21.480
<v Speaker 1>and those rules included restrictions on Internet service providers, such

0:02:21.520 --> 0:02:24.320
<v Speaker 1>as being able to give preferential treatment to certain types

0:02:24.360 --> 0:02:27.800
<v Speaker 1>of web traffic over others, or charging more for different

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:30.480
<v Speaker 1>types of content. So, in other words, these rules were

0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 1>meant to keep I s p s from being able

0:02:32.520 --> 0:02:34.880
<v Speaker 1>to serve up their own services on a fast track

0:02:35.000 --> 0:02:38.120
<v Speaker 1>while potentially slowing down or charging more or both for

0:02:38.200 --> 0:02:42.200
<v Speaker 1>competing services. So as an example, imagine you have an

0:02:42.200 --> 0:02:46.440
<v Speaker 1>Internet service provider, let's call it Bombast, and it has

0:02:46.480 --> 0:02:50.000
<v Speaker 1>its own streaming video service, and you can watch certain

0:02:50.040 --> 0:02:53.519
<v Speaker 1>films and certain television shows using that service. The I

0:02:53.720 --> 0:02:57.799
<v Speaker 1>s P might make the service free to anyone who

0:02:58.000 --> 0:03:01.120
<v Speaker 1>is a subscriber to that Internet service providers, so you're

0:03:01.160 --> 0:03:05.600
<v Speaker 1>already a bomb Bast customer. You get those services for free.

0:03:06.040 --> 0:03:08.720
<v Speaker 1>And not only that, but they serve those videos on

0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:11.200
<v Speaker 1>a fast track, right They're using a lot of bandwidth

0:03:11.240 --> 0:03:14.200
<v Speaker 1>to get that stuff to you, and that way, on

0:03:14.240 --> 0:03:16.800
<v Speaker 1>your side, there's no buffering, there's no delays. It's a

0:03:16.880 --> 0:03:21.240
<v Speaker 1>it's a good user experience. However, that same I s

0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:25.440
<v Speaker 1>P then puts the brakes on competing services like Netflix,

0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:29.840
<v Speaker 1>so that you, as a Bombast customer, have a less

0:03:30.000 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 1>user friendly experience. When you try to use Netflix, everything

0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:35.440
<v Speaker 1>takes forever to load. You might even have to pay

0:03:35.520 --> 0:03:38.440
<v Speaker 1>extra just to be able to access the Netflix service.

0:03:38.880 --> 0:03:41.480
<v Speaker 1>Under the previous net neutrality rules, that would be a

0:03:41.520 --> 0:03:45.480
<v Speaker 1>big no no, but now those rules are gone. Several

0:03:45.520 --> 0:03:48.120
<v Speaker 1>states in the United States have introduced bills that are

0:03:48.160 --> 0:03:51.120
<v Speaker 1>intended to act as a type of net neutrality on

0:03:51.160 --> 0:03:54.040
<v Speaker 1>the state level, but that's kind of a haphazard way

0:03:54.080 --> 0:03:56.880
<v Speaker 1>to go about it because not every state is proposing

0:03:56.920 --> 0:03:59.640
<v Speaker 1>such legislation. A little more than half of the states

0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 1>and the u US have some form of legislation either

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:05.120
<v Speaker 1>passed or in the process, and there's no guarantee that

0:04:05.160 --> 0:04:07.240
<v Speaker 1>the bills that have been proposed will be passed in

0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 1>all the states that have taken up the SLACK. Meanwhile,

0:04:10.280 --> 0:04:14.000
<v Speaker 1>the US Senate voted to reverse the f c C repeal,

0:04:14.440 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 1>and it passed in the Senate. However, in the United

0:04:17.120 --> 0:04:18.960
<v Speaker 1>States we have not just the Senate, we also have

0:04:19.040 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 1>the House of Representatives, and in the House, the measure

0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:26.160
<v Speaker 1>did not see the same momentum. They needed two representatives

0:04:26.200 --> 0:04:29.480
<v Speaker 1>to agree to vote on that bill just to just

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.880
<v Speaker 1>to have a vote for it, and every Democrat representative

0:04:33.000 --> 0:04:36.080
<v Speaker 1>signed the petition for this, but it was still more

0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:38.840
<v Speaker 1>than forty signatures short of getting the measure to the

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:41.920
<v Speaker 1>voting floor, at least as of the recording of this podcast.

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:48.719
<v Speaker 1>So net neutrality currently in the United States is a

0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:51.240
<v Speaker 1>a dead concept. At the federal level, the f c

0:04:51.400 --> 0:04:54.359
<v Speaker 1>C is now pushing that over to the Federal Trade

0:04:54.360 --> 0:04:57.280
<v Speaker 1>Commission and saying this belongs to them, not to us.

0:04:57.600 --> 0:05:02.440
<v Speaker 1>They'll make sure that no anti competitive monopolistic behaviors happened

0:05:02.440 --> 0:05:07.479
<v Speaker 1>across the internet. Meanwhile, critics of this say that fat

0:05:07.600 --> 0:05:10.400
<v Speaker 1>chance like that this was our best way of making

0:05:10.480 --> 0:05:13.919
<v Speaker 1>certain that users had a fair shake. So there's a

0:05:13.920 --> 0:05:17.280
<v Speaker 1>lot of rhetoric on both sides of this issue, and

0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:22.080
<v Speaker 1>it continues to be a big issue in the US. Recently,

0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:24.200
<v Speaker 1>I also did some episodes giving an update on what

0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:28.239
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft has been up to since. One of the things

0:05:28.240 --> 0:05:33.159
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned was a dual touchscreen device called Andromeda. Well,

0:05:33.200 --> 0:05:36.039
<v Speaker 1>on July two, two eighteen, I saw an article stating

0:05:36.080 --> 0:05:39.400
<v Speaker 1>that the dual panel mobile device running the Andromeda OS

0:05:39.440 --> 0:05:44.400
<v Speaker 1>has been put on hold. So again, just after I

0:05:44.480 --> 0:05:48.000
<v Speaker 1>published this Microsoft update, they go and do this. But

0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:50.840
<v Speaker 1>what's really going on? Well, one thing I did not

0:05:51.080 --> 0:05:54.839
<v Speaker 1>mention in the update episodes for Microsoft is that back

0:05:54.839 --> 0:05:59.400
<v Speaker 1>in two thousand fifteen, Microsoft was calling Windows ten the

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:03.440
<v Speaker 1>lab version of Windows. Now. That was not to say

0:06:03.480 --> 0:06:06.640
<v Speaker 1>that the company would release Windows ten then brush its

0:06:06.680 --> 0:06:11.000
<v Speaker 1>hands off and walk away whistling merrily. Instead, Windows was

0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:14.600
<v Speaker 1>meant to evolve almost like it's a service on demand,

0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:18.680
<v Speaker 1>so not your your traditional operating system, where you would

0:06:18.880 --> 0:06:21.520
<v Speaker 1>pay for an update, or you would get a regular update.

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:25.160
<v Speaker 1>It's the foundation. Windows ten is a foundation for the

0:06:25.240 --> 0:06:28.159
<v Speaker 1>service of an operating system, and Microsoft would continue to

0:06:28.200 --> 0:06:30.640
<v Speaker 1>support it and update it with new features as time

0:06:30.720 --> 0:06:33.560
<v Speaker 1>goes on, but there would be no Windows eleven. There

0:06:33.600 --> 0:06:35.880
<v Speaker 1>would just be updates to Windows ten that would roll

0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:39.000
<v Speaker 1>on out to users. One of those updates, which is

0:06:39.040 --> 0:06:41.920
<v Speaker 1>scheduled for the fall of two thousand eighteen, is code

0:06:41.960 --> 0:06:46.200
<v Speaker 1>named Redstone five. And what was supposed to happen was

0:06:46.240 --> 0:06:50.200
<v Speaker 1>that the Andromeda operating system, the mobile version of Windows

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:53.520
<v Speaker 1>that was going to run on this upcoming dual touchscreen

0:06:53.720 --> 0:06:58.400
<v Speaker 1>foldable mobile device, it would be included in that update

0:06:58.440 --> 0:07:01.400
<v Speaker 1>to Windows ten. So you would have of this interoperability

0:07:01.520 --> 0:07:05.320
<v Speaker 1>between the full build of Windows for desktops and bcs

0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:08.200
<v Speaker 1>and laptops that kind of thing, and the mobile version

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:12.520
<v Speaker 1>that would exist on the Andromeda device. The Andromeda phone,

0:07:13.200 --> 0:07:15.880
<v Speaker 1>or mobile device I should call it, was rumored to

0:07:15.920 --> 0:07:19.880
<v Speaker 1>have cellular technology built into it, but not necessarily in

0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:22.560
<v Speaker 1>a way that was made to make it a competitor

0:07:22.600 --> 0:07:25.800
<v Speaker 1>with iOS or androids. So in other words, calling it

0:07:25.840 --> 0:07:28.200
<v Speaker 1>a mobile device is more accurate than a phone. It

0:07:28.480 --> 0:07:32.360
<v Speaker 1>might have had cellular technology built into it, but it

0:07:32.440 --> 0:07:35.680
<v Speaker 1>was really meant to increase the devices functionality, allowing you

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:38.400
<v Speaker 1>to connect to the Internet, whether you had WiFi access

0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:41.360
<v Speaker 1>or not, so could you make calls on it. You

0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:43.880
<v Speaker 1>might be able to use a service like Skype, which

0:07:43.880 --> 0:07:47.280
<v Speaker 1>Microsoft owns, and make a call through that, but it

0:07:47.320 --> 0:07:50.840
<v Speaker 1>wasn't necessarily meant to act as a smartphone. It was

0:07:50.920 --> 0:07:53.960
<v Speaker 1>more like a device that could also make calls. But

0:07:54.040 --> 0:07:56.200
<v Speaker 1>as it turns out, it's all a moot point. In

0:07:56.280 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 1>the spring, Microsoft shook up the mobile division with another

0:07:59.360 --> 0:08:03.920
<v Speaker 1>reorganization ation, and the company reevaluated its strategy. The elements

0:08:03.920 --> 0:08:07.000
<v Speaker 1>of Andromeda OS either did not align with this new

0:08:07.040 --> 0:08:10.240
<v Speaker 1>strategy or they weren't ready to go, but either way,

0:08:10.280 --> 0:08:12.080
<v Speaker 1>they are not going to be part of the red

0:08:12.120 --> 0:08:17.000
<v Speaker 1>Stone five update, and the development has been shelved, possibly forever,

0:08:17.520 --> 0:08:20.320
<v Speaker 1>and some folks like zd Nets Mary Joe Folly have

0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:23.520
<v Speaker 1>pointed out this might not be a bad idea. The

0:08:23.560 --> 0:08:27.560
<v Speaker 1>Andromeda was rumored to only be able to run Microsoft

0:08:27.720 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 1>Store apps, which limited its utility considerably. Fully cites sources

0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:36.280
<v Speaker 1>that say Microsoft may still try to develop a multi

0:08:36.320 --> 0:08:39.120
<v Speaker 1>screen device running a build of Windows in the future,

0:08:39.520 --> 0:08:42.920
<v Speaker 1>but then it might more closely resemble a laptop inform

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:47.040
<v Speaker 1>factor rather than a handheld device. Back on May twenty second,

0:08:47.080 --> 0:08:51.040
<v Speaker 1>two thousand eighteen, I published an episode about Project Maven,

0:08:51.160 --> 0:08:54.680
<v Speaker 1>which focused on incorporating elements of artificial intelligence in a

0:08:54.800 --> 0:08:58.240
<v Speaker 1>drone program for the military. Google had been involved in

0:08:58.280 --> 0:09:01.480
<v Speaker 1>that project and faced criticis them both from within and

0:09:01.520 --> 0:09:05.440
<v Speaker 1>from outside the company about its involvement. On June one,

0:09:05.600 --> 0:09:09.800
<v Speaker 1>two thousand eighteen, several headlines reported Google would not renew

0:09:10.000 --> 0:09:13.679
<v Speaker 1>the project, may even contract, according to Google employees. The

0:09:13.720 --> 0:09:17.840
<v Speaker 1>CEO of Google Cloud, Diane Green, addressed the company and

0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:21.200
<v Speaker 1>announced that once the current contract is over, Google will

0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:24.719
<v Speaker 1>not seek a renewal, and as a reminder, Google had

0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:27.880
<v Speaker 1>maintained that its work on the project focused solely on

0:09:28.080 --> 0:09:32.920
<v Speaker 1>non aggressive technologies and open source software, but emails from

0:09:32.960 --> 0:09:36.360
<v Speaker 1>within Google showed that executives were really eager to land

0:09:36.600 --> 0:09:41.040
<v Speaker 1>lucrative contracts with the Pentagon to provide services like machine learning,

0:09:41.280 --> 0:09:45.240
<v Speaker 1>which could then be used to support surveillance efforts. Presumably

0:09:45.559 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 1>that same technology might in the future be used to

0:09:47.960 --> 0:09:52.760
<v Speaker 1>create autonomous or semi autonomous weapons platforms. So while Google

0:09:52.840 --> 0:09:56.440
<v Speaker 1>might have the plausible deniability of saying our work was

0:09:56.520 --> 0:10:02.880
<v Speaker 1>just to help with identifying places and people and activity.

0:10:03.120 --> 0:10:07.079
<v Speaker 1>It wasn't meant to be used in and direct combat applications.

0:10:07.080 --> 0:10:10.760
<v Speaker 1>You could argue, well, with some small adaptation, you could

0:10:10.880 --> 0:10:16.040
<v Speaker 1>make that technology uh more of a weapons platform. So

0:10:16.080 --> 0:10:17.920
<v Speaker 1>it's to me it's one of those kind of weak

0:10:18.320 --> 0:10:21.960
<v Speaker 1>arguments at some moonpoint, though Google has now backed away

0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:26.400
<v Speaker 1>from that contract. The dramatic Bitcoin roller coaster story continues

0:10:26.520 --> 0:10:30.760
<v Speaker 1>today in the cryptocurrency hit an all time high of

0:10:30.920 --> 0:10:35.000
<v Speaker 1>nearly twenty thousand dollars per bitcoin. That was toward the

0:10:35.160 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 1>end of seventeen. Now, remember bitcoin is a digital currency

0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:43.160
<v Speaker 1>that can be divided up into much smaller subunits. After

0:10:43.200 --> 0:10:46.920
<v Speaker 1>reaching those incredible highs, the currency has slumped quite a bit.

0:10:47.280 --> 0:10:49.560
<v Speaker 1>At the end of June two eighteen, the value dipped

0:10:49.640 --> 0:10:52.800
<v Speaker 1>below six thousand dollars per bitcoin, which is still you know,

0:10:52.920 --> 0:10:55.520
<v Speaker 1>pretty pretty high, but it's a huge drop from that

0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:59.160
<v Speaker 1>twenty grand it enjoyed back in December twenty seventeen. And

0:10:59.200 --> 0:11:02.760
<v Speaker 1>as I researched these updates, Bitcoin is in another bit

0:11:02.760 --> 0:11:06.400
<v Speaker 1>of an upswing. It's recovered to above six thousand dollars again,

0:11:06.600 --> 0:11:08.720
<v Speaker 1>like it dropped down to about five thousand, eight hundred.

0:11:09.000 --> 0:11:12.679
<v Speaker 1>Now it's back above six thousand, but cryptocurrencies in general

0:11:12.840 --> 0:11:15.440
<v Speaker 1>have had a really rough time of it. Recently, the

0:11:15.520 --> 0:11:18.640
<v Speaker 1>Japanese government passed some strict laws to try and eliminate

0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:22.400
<v Speaker 1>the use of cryptocurrencies and money laundering exploits, and some

0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:26.320
<v Speaker 1>high profile digital currency exchanges have been hacked recently. These

0:11:26.360 --> 0:11:30.120
<v Speaker 1>sort of events have really hurt cryptocurrencies in general. Just

0:11:30.200 --> 0:11:33.719
<v Speaker 1>like all currencies, their value rests partly on perception. If

0:11:33.760 --> 0:11:37.440
<v Speaker 1>we believe them to have value, they have value. And

0:11:37.480 --> 0:11:39.880
<v Speaker 1>if everyone just woke up one morning and said, wait

0:11:39.920 --> 0:11:43.000
<v Speaker 1>a minute, that's actually worthless, it would in fact be

0:11:43.040 --> 0:11:46.240
<v Speaker 1>worthless because no one would accept the currency for anything.

0:11:46.880 --> 0:11:50.959
<v Speaker 1>So it's only our our belief that it it's worth

0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:53.320
<v Speaker 1>anything that makes it worth anything. Now this is true

0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:57.680
<v Speaker 1>for any currency. It's you have the the assurance of

0:11:57.720 --> 0:12:00.880
<v Speaker 1>most currencies that have a bank or from behind them

0:12:00.920 --> 0:12:04.319
<v Speaker 1>that they are backing the value of that. But ultimately

0:12:04.600 --> 0:12:07.560
<v Speaker 1>it's just that we all agree that it's worth something.

0:12:07.840 --> 0:12:09.720
<v Speaker 1>If we all woke up and said, you know what,

0:12:10.160 --> 0:12:13.360
<v Speaker 1>this paper money really isn't you can't really do anything

0:12:13.400 --> 0:12:16.120
<v Speaker 1>with it. It's not really it doesn't have any real

0:12:16.160 --> 0:12:19.880
<v Speaker 1>worth to it, then the currency could collapse if everybody

0:12:19.880 --> 0:12:22.720
<v Speaker 1>did it. Now, the funny thing is that as I

0:12:22.760 --> 0:12:25.360
<v Speaker 1>researched this, I'm aware that this story could actually be

0:12:25.400 --> 0:12:28.080
<v Speaker 1>totally different by the time the updates go live, which

0:12:28.120 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 1>is how crazy and volatile Bitcoin tans to be. And

0:12:30.960 --> 0:12:32.360
<v Speaker 1>it also means that I may have to do an

0:12:32.400 --> 0:12:35.800
<v Speaker 1>update to my updates episode. The irony is not lost

0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:39.280
<v Speaker 1>upon me. While I wallow in some self pity as

0:12:39.320 --> 0:12:42.200
<v Speaker 1>I think about this, Let's take a quick break to

0:12:42.280 --> 0:12:52.800
<v Speaker 1>thank our sponsor. Back at the beginning of two thousand eighteen,

0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:57.079
<v Speaker 1>I did three episodes about YouTube's history, and that also

0:12:57.200 --> 0:12:59.640
<v Speaker 1>deserves a bit of an update now. Just as I

0:12:59.720 --> 0:13:02.760
<v Speaker 1>was king on the YouTube episodes, the company was getting

0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:06.000
<v Speaker 1>ready to roll out some major changes to its partner platform.

0:13:06.160 --> 0:13:09.360
<v Speaker 1>YouTube partner program is it's the platform that creators can

0:13:09.440 --> 0:13:13.040
<v Speaker 1>use to monetize their videos, and essentially it allows channel

0:13:13.040 --> 0:13:16.560
<v Speaker 1>owners to elect to have ads served against their videos.

0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:20.000
<v Speaker 1>YouTube gets a cut and the video owner gets the rest.

0:13:20.480 --> 0:13:23.320
<v Speaker 1>So if you have a really popular channel with videos

0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:25.040
<v Speaker 1>that get a lot of views, you can stand to

0:13:25.120 --> 0:13:28.400
<v Speaker 1>make some decent money from advertising. But in the spring

0:13:28.520 --> 0:13:34.040
<v Speaker 1>of YouTube was trying to deal with a really controversial

0:13:34.120 --> 0:13:38.840
<v Speaker 1>problem some users had been uploading videos that featured hateful content.

0:13:39.280 --> 0:13:43.200
<v Speaker 1>There could be racist content, misogynists content, other forms of

0:13:43.280 --> 0:13:47.160
<v Speaker 1>hate speech, and some of those users were YouTube partners.

0:13:47.200 --> 0:13:50.400
<v Speaker 1>They had a large following, and they had ads served

0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:54.400
<v Speaker 1>up against their videos, and advertisers were not too keen

0:13:54.559 --> 0:13:57.480
<v Speaker 1>to have their brands associated with someone who was spouting

0:13:57.520 --> 0:14:01.040
<v Speaker 1>off hateful garbage. So youtubes Are sponse was to create

0:14:01.080 --> 0:14:04.320
<v Speaker 1>a new algorithm that attempted to flag videos that might

0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:08.600
<v Speaker 1>have problematic content in them and then demonetize those videos,

0:14:08.679 --> 0:14:11.680
<v Speaker 1>essentially flip the switch off so that ads would no

0:14:11.760 --> 0:14:15.360
<v Speaker 1>longer be served against those videos, and no matter how

0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:18.320
<v Speaker 1>many views such a video would get, it would never

0:14:18.400 --> 0:14:22.000
<v Speaker 1>earn any money for the creator. Now, I personally do

0:14:22.120 --> 0:14:26.000
<v Speaker 1>not have a problem with YouTube demonetizing videos that advocate

0:14:26.040 --> 0:14:30.040
<v Speaker 1>for violence or spout off hateful things. YouTube is a company.

0:14:30.360 --> 0:14:33.440
<v Speaker 1>They have the right to do that, and I don't

0:14:33.520 --> 0:14:37.680
<v Speaker 1>see a problem with cutting off this, especially considering that

0:14:37.720 --> 0:14:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the business side of it is that YouTube has to

0:14:40.000 --> 0:14:42.320
<v Speaker 1>work with the advertisers too, and not a lot of

0:14:42.320 --> 0:14:46.200
<v Speaker 1>advertisers are too eager to have their brand associated with

0:14:46.240 --> 0:14:50.480
<v Speaker 1>that kind of stuff. However, the algorithm affected a much

0:14:50.560 --> 0:14:57.680
<v Speaker 1>broader spectrum of videos, including educational videos, advocacy videos, news

0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:02.320
<v Speaker 1>oriented videos covering topics racism in a newsworthy way. Some

0:15:02.400 --> 0:15:06.280
<v Speaker 1>of these videos were getting tagged as being inappropriate, even

0:15:06.320 --> 0:15:10.160
<v Speaker 1>when there was no real inappropriate content in them. Creators

0:15:10.200 --> 0:15:14.280
<v Speaker 1>began to refer to it as the apocalypse. YouTube had

0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:18.360
<v Speaker 1>swung hard in an effort to keep major advertisers on

0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:20.200
<v Speaker 1>the platform because there were a lot of big ones

0:15:20.200 --> 0:15:23.760
<v Speaker 1>that were threatening to leave. The alternative was losing some

0:15:23.840 --> 0:15:26.680
<v Speaker 1>of those valuable clients, and we're talking big companies like

0:15:26.800 --> 0:15:30.960
<v Speaker 1>auto companies and major retailers. However, in the process of

0:15:31.000 --> 0:15:35.920
<v Speaker 1>trying to mollify these major companies, the creators who are

0:15:35.920 --> 0:15:39.560
<v Speaker 1>actually making the content that ads were getting served up against,

0:15:39.640 --> 0:15:42.800
<v Speaker 1>we're hurting. So YouTube adjusted the algorithm in the fall

0:15:42.840 --> 0:15:45.600
<v Speaker 1>of seventeen to try and correct some of these problems,

0:15:45.680 --> 0:15:48.840
<v Speaker 1>kind of a course correction, and the company noted that

0:15:48.920 --> 0:15:51.080
<v Speaker 1>no fix was ever going to be perfect, and there

0:15:51.080 --> 0:15:53.600
<v Speaker 1>would be some instances that would have to be handled

0:15:53.640 --> 0:15:56.280
<v Speaker 1>on a case by case basis where someone might see

0:15:56.320 --> 0:15:58.800
<v Speaker 1>that a video they've uploaded has suddenly been flagged as

0:15:58.840 --> 0:16:01.880
<v Speaker 1>being demonetized, and you would have to take it up

0:16:01.880 --> 0:16:05.360
<v Speaker 1>to YouTube and say, I really don't think that this

0:16:05.560 --> 0:16:08.280
<v Speaker 1>should count, and here are my reasons why, and could

0:16:08.280 --> 0:16:10.960
<v Speaker 1>you give me an explanation as to why my video

0:16:11.000 --> 0:16:13.400
<v Speaker 1>has been demonetizeding what I can do to fix this.

0:16:13.960 --> 0:16:17.040
<v Speaker 1>Of course, the problem is during this time you're not

0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:20.359
<v Speaker 1>making any money off views. They're coming to that video

0:16:20.640 --> 0:16:23.480
<v Speaker 1>and you might eventually get monetized again. Let's say that

0:16:23.600 --> 0:16:26.120
<v Speaker 1>YouTube says, oh, you're right, that was completely on us.

0:16:26.520 --> 0:16:29.960
<v Speaker 1>The algorithm was over zealous. Let's fix this. It is monetized.

0:16:30.000 --> 0:16:32.680
<v Speaker 1>We flipped the switch. You're good to go. Yeah, you're

0:16:32.680 --> 0:16:35.200
<v Speaker 1>good to go from that point forward. But all views

0:16:35.240 --> 0:16:39.200
<v Speaker 1>that had happened before then don't count because no ads

0:16:39.200 --> 0:16:42.560
<v Speaker 1>were served against your video at that time. And the

0:16:42.600 --> 0:16:45.320
<v Speaker 1>way videos tend to work, I mean, there are long

0:16:45.400 --> 0:16:48.400
<v Speaker 1>tail videos that will get views months and months and

0:16:48.440 --> 0:16:51.400
<v Speaker 1>months after they go live. I had a video go

0:16:51.640 --> 0:16:56.000
<v Speaker 1>viral nine months after it was published on YouTube. So

0:16:56.120 --> 0:16:59.160
<v Speaker 1>there are those cases. But a lot of videos it's

0:16:59.200 --> 0:17:02.520
<v Speaker 1>the first couple of days, maybe the first week, where

0:17:02.520 --> 0:17:04.879
<v Speaker 1>they get the majority of their views. So if it

0:17:04.920 --> 0:17:10.120
<v Speaker 1>takes too long to monetize a video again, that's lost revenue. Anyway.

0:17:10.160 --> 0:17:12.439
<v Speaker 1>Now we're back up to January of two thousand eighteen.

0:17:12.520 --> 0:17:14.720
<v Speaker 1>That was when I was actually publishing the episodes about

0:17:14.720 --> 0:17:18.880
<v Speaker 1>YouTube up to that time. To qualify for the Partner platform,

0:17:19.119 --> 0:17:22.000
<v Speaker 1>your YouTube channel would need to have accrued at least

0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:25.919
<v Speaker 1>ten thousand views across however many videos you had. If

0:17:25.960 --> 0:17:28.520
<v Speaker 1>you had one video that did great and you had

0:17:28.520 --> 0:17:31.200
<v Speaker 1>ten thousand views on it, that counted. If you had

0:17:31.600 --> 0:17:34.320
<v Speaker 1>a thousand videos and each one got ten views, that

0:17:34.480 --> 0:17:37.680
<v Speaker 1>gonna do, although you would still be under review about

0:17:37.680 --> 0:17:40.040
<v Speaker 1>whether or not you joined the partner platform, but the

0:17:40.080 --> 0:17:43.520
<v Speaker 1>overhaul ended up changing all of that. Anyway. Now, to

0:17:43.600 --> 0:17:46.159
<v Speaker 1>be a partner on YouTube, you have to have at

0:17:46.240 --> 0:17:49.240
<v Speaker 1>least one thousand subscribers to your channel, and you have

0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:52.240
<v Speaker 1>to have at least four thousand hours of watch time

0:17:52.440 --> 0:17:56.160
<v Speaker 1>over a twelve month period across all your videos. That's

0:17:56.200 --> 0:17:59.879
<v Speaker 1>somewhat problematic because if you're a creator who specializes in

0:18:00.080 --> 0:18:03.760
<v Speaker 1>short form videos, you might end up having lots of

0:18:03.840 --> 0:18:06.320
<v Speaker 1>views but still end up on the short end of

0:18:06.400 --> 0:18:10.080
<v Speaker 1>total accumulated view time. Because let's say that I make

0:18:10.119 --> 0:18:12.840
<v Speaker 1>a crazy popular video series, but each of those videos

0:18:12.920 --> 0:18:16.360
<v Speaker 1>is about three minutes long, and let's say that I'm

0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:19.080
<v Speaker 1>doing it maybe once a week, I have to go

0:18:19.200 --> 0:18:22.160
<v Speaker 1>for a long time and hope for really really big

0:18:22.200 --> 0:18:25.000
<v Speaker 1>audience reach. To reach that four thousand hours of total

0:18:25.080 --> 0:18:28.280
<v Speaker 1>view time, people have to watch tons of my videos.

0:18:28.280 --> 0:18:31.200
<v Speaker 1>I might have to step up production and start publishing

0:18:31.240 --> 0:18:33.720
<v Speaker 1>much more frequently to get to that four thousand hours

0:18:33.720 --> 0:18:37.200
<v Speaker 1>of total view time within twelve months. So if I

0:18:37.280 --> 0:18:40.320
<v Speaker 1>make really good longer form content, I could hit that

0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:43.399
<v Speaker 1>number with fewer actual viewers. Right. If each of my

0:18:43.560 --> 0:18:47.680
<v Speaker 1>videos is like an hour long and it's really really good,

0:18:48.040 --> 0:18:51.560
<v Speaker 1>people tend to watch for the majority of the video,

0:18:52.040 --> 0:18:56.320
<v Speaker 1>I'll hit that four thousand hour number way faster now.

0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:59.280
<v Speaker 1>YouTube says that if you're uploading videos four or five

0:18:59.359 --> 0:19:01.600
<v Speaker 1>times a week and you have about a thousand subscribers,

0:19:01.640 --> 0:19:03.560
<v Speaker 1>it shouldn't be too hard to hit that four thousand

0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:07.679
<v Speaker 1>hours of you content, but your mileage may vary. For

0:19:07.840 --> 0:19:12.080
<v Speaker 1>those who have actually met those requirements, some of them

0:19:12.119 --> 0:19:14.840
<v Speaker 1>have found the new approval process to take a really

0:19:14.880 --> 0:19:18.040
<v Speaker 1>long time. In April two thousand eighteen, the CEO of

0:19:18.080 --> 0:19:21.439
<v Speaker 1>YouTube said that the company would launch a pilot program

0:19:21.440 --> 0:19:25.160
<v Speaker 1>in which creators could provide more feedback about video content

0:19:25.520 --> 0:19:28.920
<v Speaker 1>in an effort to help YouTube find appropriate advertiser matches

0:19:29.240 --> 0:19:32.800
<v Speaker 1>and potentially sidestep false positive or flip flopping issues where

0:19:32.840 --> 0:19:36.000
<v Speaker 1>an ad gets monetized and then demonetized and back again

0:19:36.119 --> 0:19:38.600
<v Speaker 1>multiple times. So, in other words, let's say that you're

0:19:38.600 --> 0:19:41.840
<v Speaker 1>making a comedy series, and let's say it's a little raunchy,

0:19:42.080 --> 0:19:46.040
<v Speaker 1>not outside of YouTube's rules and regulations. You're you're still

0:19:46.040 --> 0:19:48.919
<v Speaker 1>well within that, but maybe it's a little bit more

0:19:48.960 --> 0:19:52.439
<v Speaker 1>on the rowdy side than your typical video might be.

0:19:53.600 --> 0:19:57.000
<v Speaker 1>That might mean that certain advertisers wouldn't want to be

0:19:57.080 --> 0:20:00.000
<v Speaker 1>associated with you, but other advertisers might be perfectly fine.

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:03.800
<v Speaker 1>And this process would allow you a way to tell YouTube,

0:20:04.359 --> 0:20:06.720
<v Speaker 1>here's what my video series has in it. Here are

0:20:06.760 --> 0:20:12.200
<v Speaker 1>the potentially problematic points. Uh So, can you find advertisers

0:20:12.200 --> 0:20:15.679
<v Speaker 1>that are okay to work with my particular content, and

0:20:15.720 --> 0:20:19.160
<v Speaker 1>then YouTube will match the two up. This benefits everybody.

0:20:19.200 --> 0:20:22.000
<v Speaker 1>It benefits the advertiser, it benefits the creator, and ultimately

0:20:22.000 --> 0:20:25.760
<v Speaker 1>it benefits YouTube. YouTube only is making money when those

0:20:25.800 --> 0:20:29.760
<v Speaker 1>ads are being served against other content. Uh on the

0:20:30.400 --> 0:20:33.400
<v Speaker 1>setting aside subscriber models and all that kind of stuff. So,

0:20:33.480 --> 0:20:35.880
<v Speaker 1>in other words, this is supposed to be the solution

0:20:35.880 --> 0:20:39.200
<v Speaker 1>for everybody. The problem is it hasn't yet been really formulated.

0:20:40.280 --> 0:20:43.080
<v Speaker 1>In June, YouTube rolled out some more features, such as

0:20:43.160 --> 0:20:46.520
<v Speaker 1>channel membership model. Uh. This is where creators who are

0:20:46.520 --> 0:20:49.640
<v Speaker 1>partners can create a membership channel and charge users four

0:20:49.680 --> 0:20:54.240
<v Speaker 1>dollars a month to access special members only content, including

0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:58.680
<v Speaker 1>video streams and emojis. If this sounds familiar, it's because

0:20:58.680 --> 0:21:02.199
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty much what Twitched us with live streaming. With Twitch,

0:21:02.280 --> 0:21:05.520
<v Speaker 1>you can be a subscriber and you can get uh

0:21:05.720 --> 0:21:09.679
<v Speaker 1>special material through your subscription and creators when ten thousand

0:21:09.760 --> 0:21:13.719
<v Speaker 1>subscribers can sell merchandise directly from their channels through a

0:21:13.760 --> 0:21:16.159
<v Speaker 1>company called t Spring. But t Spring also takes a

0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:18.880
<v Speaker 1>pretty healthy cut of all sales, so you only get

0:21:18.880 --> 0:21:21.280
<v Speaker 1>a portion of those sales, which makes sense. I mean,

0:21:21.320 --> 0:21:24.600
<v Speaker 1>it's t Spring that's supplying the actual material. But still,

0:21:25.280 --> 0:21:29.000
<v Speaker 1>um so, some people say that these these moves on

0:21:29.040 --> 0:21:32.200
<v Speaker 1>YouTube's part to try and create new revenue streams for

0:21:32.560 --> 0:21:36.879
<v Speaker 1>content creators is still not really on the right track.

0:21:37.400 --> 0:21:41.360
<v Speaker 1>One last bit about the YouTube updates. YouTube recently posted

0:21:41.400 --> 0:21:44.320
<v Speaker 1>an apology on Twitter to the l g B t

0:21:44.520 --> 0:21:49.119
<v Speaker 1>Q community regarding how it's algorithm unfairly demonetized people in

0:21:49.200 --> 0:21:51.960
<v Speaker 1>that community. You know, creators in the l g B

0:21:52.119 --> 0:21:55.959
<v Speaker 1>t q community who had uploaded videos to their YouTube

0:21:56.040 --> 0:21:59.920
<v Speaker 1>channels start seeing their videos demonetized at a much high

0:22:00.080 --> 0:22:04.400
<v Speaker 1>or rate um even though they were treating the subject

0:22:04.480 --> 0:22:10.720
<v Speaker 1>matter with respect. They were not being racist or misogynistic

0:22:10.840 --> 0:22:13.840
<v Speaker 1>or using hate speech. They were treating real issues, and

0:22:13.840 --> 0:22:16.800
<v Speaker 1>they were seeing their videos get demonetized. And I said, well,

0:22:16.840 --> 0:22:19.000
<v Speaker 1>this is kind of discrimination. And not only that, but

0:22:19.200 --> 0:22:23.240
<v Speaker 1>some of their content got paired with ads that actually

0:22:23.320 --> 0:22:29.119
<v Speaker 1>ran with homophobic language, ads that were viewing that were

0:22:29.160 --> 0:22:34.560
<v Speaker 1>essentially from from organizations that view uh homosexuality as a

0:22:34.600 --> 0:22:38.919
<v Speaker 1>sin or as something that is immoral. And so this

0:22:39.080 --> 0:22:41.520
<v Speaker 1>was like a real slap in the face. Not only

0:22:41.560 --> 0:22:45.040
<v Speaker 1>were a lot of these videos getting demonetized, the ones

0:22:45.080 --> 0:22:48.560
<v Speaker 1>that weren't demonetized were getting paired with ads that outright

0:22:48.640 --> 0:22:53.280
<v Speaker 1>said the person who created the content was bad in

0:22:53.359 --> 0:22:56.600
<v Speaker 1>some way. The tweet said the company had taken action

0:22:56.720 --> 0:22:59.560
<v Speaker 1>on those ads and would tighten enforcement on its policies,

0:23:00.119 --> 0:23:02.679
<v Speaker 1>which I'm sure a lot of people appreciate, but it's still,

0:23:03.280 --> 0:23:05.359
<v Speaker 1>you know, it's it's not a great thing to have

0:23:05.440 --> 0:23:09.280
<v Speaker 1>to apologize for back in two thousand fourteen, So it's

0:23:09.320 --> 0:23:11.560
<v Speaker 1>going back quite a ways. I did a couple of

0:23:11.560 --> 0:23:14.840
<v Speaker 1>episodes about the automotive company Tesla, and a lot has

0:23:14.960 --> 0:23:17.239
<v Speaker 1>happened since two thousand fourteen. I could probably do a

0:23:17.280 --> 0:23:20.600
<v Speaker 1>full update episode, but I want to concentrate on just

0:23:20.640 --> 0:23:23.320
<v Speaker 1>a couple of little things. Uh. In fact, one of

0:23:23.359 --> 0:23:27.040
<v Speaker 1>the things that happened since then was some various incidents

0:23:27.080 --> 0:23:31.000
<v Speaker 1>involving Tesla's driver assist features, which the company referred to

0:23:31.200 --> 0:23:34.879
<v Speaker 1>as autopilot, a term that I really didn't care for,

0:23:35.040 --> 0:23:37.120
<v Speaker 1>but I did a full episode about that. Scott Benjamin

0:23:37.200 --> 0:23:39.159
<v Speaker 1>joined me in two thousand and sixteen to talk about that.

0:23:39.160 --> 0:23:42.040
<v Speaker 1>But so rather focus on those tragic stories, I thought,

0:23:42.040 --> 0:23:43.800
<v Speaker 1>I mentioned that just a few days before I came

0:23:43.840 --> 0:23:46.960
<v Speaker 1>in to record this episode, Tesla hit a milestone it

0:23:47.000 --> 0:23:49.399
<v Speaker 1>had been striving towards, and that was to produce at

0:23:49.480 --> 0:23:53.080
<v Speaker 1>least five thousand Model three Tesla electric cars in a

0:23:53.119 --> 0:23:57.240
<v Speaker 1>week in its manufacturing facilities. The Model three is Tesla's

0:23:57.359 --> 0:24:00.480
<v Speaker 1>sports sedan that's supposed to be in the more affordable range,

0:24:01.600 --> 0:24:04.840
<v Speaker 1>but affordable is means different things to different people. The

0:24:04.880 --> 0:24:08.040
<v Speaker 1>prices on the low end started thirty six thousand dollars.

0:24:08.560 --> 0:24:11.119
<v Speaker 1>The company unveiled the Model three in two thousand sixteen,

0:24:11.440 --> 0:24:14.000
<v Speaker 1>and they were taking pre orders and reservations for the

0:24:14.080 --> 0:24:16.479
<v Speaker 1>vehicle for quite some time. At one point the company

0:24:16.520 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 1>had more than five hundred thousand pre orders five hundred

0:24:19.640 --> 0:24:22.920
<v Speaker 1>eighteen thousand, I believe for the Model three, but over

0:24:22.960 --> 0:24:26.479
<v Speaker 1>time they lost thousands. They were down to four hundred

0:24:26.480 --> 0:24:31.080
<v Speaker 1>twenty thousand reservations. In June two thousand eighteen, Elon Musk

0:24:31.119 --> 0:24:33.760
<v Speaker 1>had claimed the company would hit ten thousand cars produced

0:24:33.800 --> 0:24:36.119
<v Speaker 1>per week at some point in twenty eighteen, which I

0:24:36.119 --> 0:24:38.840
<v Speaker 1>guess could still happen. But they just hit five thousand,

0:24:38.920 --> 0:24:42.240
<v Speaker 1>and it's July eighteen now. But the five thousand vehicle

0:24:42.280 --> 0:24:44.960
<v Speaker 1>per week milestone still is a really big one, even

0:24:45.000 --> 0:24:47.840
<v Speaker 1>though Wall Street wasn't as impressed. Not to be fair,

0:24:48.240 --> 0:24:50.679
<v Speaker 1>the expectation was that by the end of the quarter

0:24:51.080 --> 0:24:54.800
<v Speaker 1>that ended in June eighteen, Tesla would have delivered fifty

0:24:54.880 --> 0:24:58.479
<v Speaker 1>one thousand vehicles across all of its models for that

0:24:58.560 --> 0:25:01.680
<v Speaker 1>fiscal year, but the ACTU number was forty thousand, seven

0:25:01.720 --> 0:25:06.720
<v Speaker 1>hundred forty so more than ten thousand vehicles short. The

0:25:06.760 --> 0:25:10.240
<v Speaker 1>company's share prices fell nearly four percent after the quarterly

0:25:10.280 --> 0:25:13.720
<v Speaker 1>report was posted, and on another note, as of July two,

0:25:13.800 --> 0:25:17.680
<v Speaker 1>two thousand eighteen, Tesla has delivered twenty eight thousand, three

0:25:18.119 --> 0:25:20.640
<v Speaker 1>eighty six Model three cars to customers who had put

0:25:20.680 --> 0:25:24.600
<v Speaker 1>down a reservation, so only about four hundred thousand ago,

0:25:25.680 --> 0:25:28.600
<v Speaker 1>I guess. In February eighteen, I did a couple of

0:25:28.600 --> 0:25:31.119
<v Speaker 1>episodes about Uber, and I've got some updates about that

0:25:31.200 --> 0:25:34.320
<v Speaker 1>company as well. One of those updates is that Uber

0:25:34.400 --> 0:25:36.880
<v Speaker 1>is once again allowed to operate in London. You may

0:25:36.920 --> 0:25:41.080
<v Speaker 1>remember that London had passed a ban on Uber, but

0:25:41.160 --> 0:25:43.479
<v Speaker 1>a judge in the UK overturned the band, but with

0:25:43.520 --> 0:25:47.280
<v Speaker 1>several conditions. Uber now has a fifteen month license to

0:25:47.320 --> 0:25:50.600
<v Speaker 1>operate within the City of London, but the company must

0:25:50.720 --> 0:25:54.399
<v Speaker 1>submit to an independent review looking into policies, procedures and

0:25:54.440 --> 0:25:57.919
<v Speaker 1>safety records every six months, and the company must notify

0:25:58.040 --> 0:26:01.240
<v Speaker 1>UK government officials of any major che changes in processes

0:26:01.320 --> 0:26:04.760
<v Speaker 1>or policies. In New York City, the Taxi and Limousine

0:26:04.760 --> 0:26:08.000
<v Speaker 1>Commission proposed new rules regarding how much Uber drivers get

0:26:08.040 --> 0:26:11.639
<v Speaker 1>to take home. The take home pay that is not

0:26:11.640 --> 0:26:14.080
<v Speaker 1>not passengers. They're not allowed to take any passengers to

0:26:14.160 --> 0:26:17.240
<v Speaker 1>their home. That's that's kind of against the rules now.

0:26:17.280 --> 0:26:20.280
<v Speaker 1>The study commission by this group stated that Uber driver

0:26:20.400 --> 0:26:23.399
<v Speaker 1>salaries have remained low despite what it called the rapid

0:26:23.480 --> 0:26:27.040
<v Speaker 1>growth of the industry, and the rules, if adopted, would

0:26:27.080 --> 0:26:30.240
<v Speaker 1>require Uber to step in and make up shortcomings and

0:26:30.359 --> 0:26:35.560
<v Speaker 1>driver earnings. So the threshold is seventeen dollars twenty two

0:26:35.600 --> 0:26:38.800
<v Speaker 1>cents per hour. If a driver were to average that

0:26:39.800 --> 0:26:41.800
<v Speaker 1>over the course of a week, everything's fine. But if

0:26:41.840 --> 0:26:44.320
<v Speaker 1>that if it were to drop below that average in

0:26:44.320 --> 0:26:46.440
<v Speaker 1>the course of a week, Uber would have to come

0:26:46.480 --> 0:26:49.280
<v Speaker 1>in and pay to make up the shortfall. Of course,

0:26:49.280 --> 0:26:51.920
<v Speaker 1>that only applies to times when someone would actually be

0:26:51.960 --> 0:26:55.159
<v Speaker 1>working on the clock for Uber, it's not just the

0:26:55.200 --> 0:26:57.760
<v Speaker 1>week in general. And the study said that Uber could

0:26:57.840 --> 0:27:01.920
<v Speaker 1>lower the amount they take from passenger fairs. In other words,

0:27:01.960 --> 0:27:04.920
<v Speaker 1>the company could take a smaller percentage to help make

0:27:04.960 --> 0:27:07.560
<v Speaker 1>this possible. And according to the study, the media net

0:27:07.600 --> 0:27:11.920
<v Speaker 1>hourly earnings in New York was fourteen dollars and cents,

0:27:11.920 --> 0:27:15.200
<v Speaker 1>which is nearly three dollars per hour below the amount

0:27:15.280 --> 0:27:18.679
<v Speaker 1>the new rules would call for. Nationwide, the company's drivers

0:27:18.720 --> 0:27:21.320
<v Speaker 1>make an average of eleven dollars and seventy seven cents

0:27:21.359 --> 0:27:24.359
<v Speaker 1>per hour once you deduct Uber's cut and car expenses.

0:27:24.960 --> 0:27:27.520
<v Speaker 1>And by the way, I'm saying Uber, but this actually

0:27:27.520 --> 0:27:30.840
<v Speaker 1>applies to all ride hailing services. It's not just Uber,

0:27:30.880 --> 0:27:34.119
<v Speaker 1>it's also lift in others um In New York City,

0:27:34.280 --> 0:27:37.080
<v Speaker 1>by the way, this Taxi and Limousine Commission can actually

0:27:37.119 --> 0:27:40.720
<v Speaker 1>adopt these rules without any involvement from either the City

0:27:40.760 --> 0:27:43.720
<v Speaker 1>Council or the mayor because it's New York City and

0:27:43.720 --> 0:27:47.200
<v Speaker 1>the Taxi and Limo Commission is a powerful entity there.

0:27:47.760 --> 0:27:51.720
<v Speaker 1>The city is meanwhile considering options to regulate car hailing services.

0:27:51.720 --> 0:27:54.760
<v Speaker 1>In general, traffic has gotten really bad because there are

0:27:54.760 --> 0:27:57.360
<v Speaker 1>a lot more people who have started driving for those services.

0:27:57.359 --> 0:27:59.960
<v Speaker 1>It's actually put more cars on the streets, and there's

0:28:00.000 --> 0:28:03.280
<v Speaker 1>an ongoing concern that driving for the services doesn't really

0:28:03.320 --> 0:28:07.040
<v Speaker 1>amount to a living, livable wage. And because a lot

0:28:07.160 --> 0:28:10.080
<v Speaker 1>of the people who are driving for these services come

0:28:10.119 --> 0:28:13.520
<v Speaker 1>from low income families, it can actually tramp them in

0:28:13.520 --> 0:28:16.239
<v Speaker 1>a terrible situation in which they have car payments and

0:28:16.280 --> 0:28:20.000
<v Speaker 1>car insurance and they're struggling to meet these extra expenses

0:28:20.040 --> 0:28:23.159
<v Speaker 1>they normally wouldn't have because they're not taking home as

0:28:23.200 --> 0:28:27.359
<v Speaker 1>much pay as they were originally not maybe promises the

0:28:27.359 --> 0:28:30.800
<v Speaker 1>wrong word, but lead to believe they could earn, so

0:28:31.200 --> 0:28:33.720
<v Speaker 1>ends up being like working for the company store, right,

0:28:33.880 --> 0:28:36.800
<v Speaker 1>Like everything you earn has to be spent at the

0:28:36.840 --> 0:28:39.040
<v Speaker 1>company store to buy the stuff you need to keep

0:28:39.040 --> 0:28:41.680
<v Speaker 1>a living, and because of the prices in the company store,

0:28:42.240 --> 0:28:44.920
<v Speaker 1>you're never going to earn enough to get free. Same

0:28:44.960 --> 0:28:46.680
<v Speaker 1>sort of thing here, except in this case, it's not

0:28:46.720 --> 0:28:50.720
<v Speaker 1>the company store, it's car payments and insurance. Well, I've

0:28:50.720 --> 0:28:53.040
<v Speaker 1>got some more updates to give you about stuff that's

0:28:53.080 --> 0:28:55.800
<v Speaker 1>happened since I've had episodes go live. But before I

0:28:55.840 --> 0:29:06.880
<v Speaker 1>do that, let's take another quick break to thank our sponsor. Okay,

0:29:07.360 --> 0:29:10.560
<v Speaker 1>I could probably do a full episode with an update

0:29:10.640 --> 0:29:13.240
<v Speaker 1>on what Facebook has been doing since two thousand eleven,

0:29:14.040 --> 0:29:16.360
<v Speaker 1>because that's when Chris Poulette and I originally published the

0:29:16.400 --> 0:29:20.280
<v Speaker 1>Facebook Story, which I think was a one episode thing too,

0:29:20.320 --> 0:29:23.240
<v Speaker 1>so it's it's a pretty high view of what Facebook

0:29:23.280 --> 0:29:26.080
<v Speaker 1>has been doing. But I did do a follow up

0:29:26.080 --> 0:29:28.480
<v Speaker 1>episode about Facebook's I p O in two thousand twelve,

0:29:28.480 --> 0:29:31.280
<v Speaker 1>and I've done numerous episodes where I've talked about Facebook.

0:29:31.560 --> 0:29:33.880
<v Speaker 1>But I'll probably have to do more episodes about the

0:29:33.960 --> 0:29:36.520
<v Speaker 1>whole company in the near future, give it the full

0:29:36.560 --> 0:29:38.760
<v Speaker 1>treatment that I tend to do for companies these days.

0:29:39.280 --> 0:29:41.360
<v Speaker 1>But for the time being, one story I have to

0:29:41.400 --> 0:29:45.480
<v Speaker 1>talk about is Mark Zuckerberg's appearances before the US government.

0:29:46.000 --> 0:29:50.600
<v Speaker 1>So Facebook was already under scrutiny after reports and service

0:29:50.680 --> 0:29:55.080
<v Speaker 1>that Russian individuals or companies have been funding targeted political

0:29:55.160 --> 0:29:59.840
<v Speaker 1>advertising aimed to influence the US presidential election back in sixteen,

0:30:00.400 --> 0:30:03.800
<v Speaker 1>and that Facebook had become a platform on which propaganda

0:30:03.880 --> 0:30:07.719
<v Speaker 1>and fake news was spreading rapidly. It was just becoming

0:30:08.000 --> 0:30:14.440
<v Speaker 1>a tool to radicalize people and to mislead people. And

0:30:14.480 --> 0:30:18.280
<v Speaker 1>then came Cambridge Analytica, and I'll have to do a

0:30:18.280 --> 0:30:21.240
<v Speaker 1>full episode about Cambridge Analytica at some point to really

0:30:21.280 --> 0:30:24.720
<v Speaker 1>go into all the detail about that company. It's become

0:30:24.800 --> 0:30:28.479
<v Speaker 1>such a huge news item in twenty eighteen. But in short,

0:30:29.040 --> 0:30:32.320
<v Speaker 1>it was a British company that specialized in the collection

0:30:32.400 --> 0:30:37.000
<v Speaker 1>and mining of data, specifically for political consulting gigs. It,

0:30:37.320 --> 0:30:40.360
<v Speaker 1>by the way, has filed for insolvency, which is why

0:30:40.480 --> 0:30:43.240
<v Speaker 1>I now use the past tense to refer to it.

0:30:43.760 --> 0:30:45.840
<v Speaker 1>Though the guy who was the director of the company

0:30:45.960 --> 0:30:48.320
<v Speaker 1>is also the head of eight or so other companies

0:30:48.360 --> 0:30:51.360
<v Speaker 1>that all are registered to the same physical address. So

0:30:52.600 --> 0:30:57.200
<v Speaker 1>just because the name Cambridge Analytica is technically quote unquote gone,

0:30:57.560 --> 0:31:01.720
<v Speaker 1>doesn't mean the game is over anyway. During the election season,

0:31:02.040 --> 0:31:06.440
<v Speaker 1>the Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytica as a consulting firm

0:31:06.520 --> 0:31:10.000
<v Speaker 1>for their campaign. The firm managed to get hold of

0:31:10.040 --> 0:31:13.920
<v Speaker 1>the private information of more than eighty million Facebook users.

0:31:14.440 --> 0:31:18.200
<v Speaker 1>The firm claimed it could use this data to identify

0:31:18.520 --> 0:31:22.640
<v Speaker 1>user political preferences and then target those users to influence voting,

0:31:23.160 --> 0:31:26.680
<v Speaker 1>right to to kind of guide people. The firm worked

0:31:26.680 --> 0:31:29.560
<v Speaker 1>with a professor at Cambridge University to develop an app

0:31:29.760 --> 0:31:33.440
<v Speaker 1>that Facebook users were encouraged to download, and that app,

0:31:33.560 --> 0:31:37.640
<v Speaker 1>or really to just install on Facebook, not even fully download,

0:31:37.880 --> 0:31:41.040
<v Speaker 1>but that app would scrape user Facebook profiles for information

0:31:41.080 --> 0:31:44.560
<v Speaker 1>about them and all of their friends. And the US

0:31:44.640 --> 0:31:47.520
<v Speaker 1>Congress ended up calling Zuckerberg in to explain themselves and

0:31:47.560 --> 0:31:49.400
<v Speaker 1>the company in an effort to find out just what

0:31:49.520 --> 0:31:53.160
<v Speaker 1>sort of information was used and what Facebook's policies were

0:31:53.240 --> 0:31:58.440
<v Speaker 1>regarding user privacy and security. So Zuckerberg was under questioning

0:31:58.480 --> 0:32:02.360
<v Speaker 1>for five hours over in Congress, and he didn't shy

0:32:02.400 --> 0:32:05.680
<v Speaker 1>away from taking responsibility. At one point he said, quote,

0:32:06.240 --> 0:32:09.560
<v Speaker 1>we didn't take a broad enough view of our responsibility

0:32:09.640 --> 0:32:12.480
<v Speaker 1>and that was a big mistake and it was my mistake,

0:32:12.680 --> 0:32:15.800
<v Speaker 1>and I'm sorry. I started Facebook, I run it, and

0:32:15.840 --> 0:32:18.920
<v Speaker 1>I'm responsible for what happens here. End quote. He said

0:32:18.960 --> 0:32:22.800
<v Speaker 1>the company failed to handle the Cambridge Analytica problem correctly.

0:32:23.200 --> 0:32:26.320
<v Speaker 1>He said Facebook was told that Cambridge Analytica had deleted

0:32:26.360 --> 0:32:29.560
<v Speaker 1>the data it had collected, and that Facebook failed to

0:32:29.640 --> 0:32:32.120
<v Speaker 1>follow up to make certain that that was actually the case,

0:32:32.640 --> 0:32:34.680
<v Speaker 1>and that was a big mistake. He also said the

0:32:34.680 --> 0:32:38.240
<v Speaker 1>company was hiring a special counsel to investigate all apps

0:32:38.280 --> 0:32:41.440
<v Speaker 1>that have access to large amounts of user data to

0:32:41.520 --> 0:32:45.400
<v Speaker 1>make certain that those two were not violating Facebook's policies. So,

0:32:45.440 --> 0:32:47.520
<v Speaker 1>in other words, he was saying the company would now

0:32:47.600 --> 0:32:50.800
<v Speaker 1>actually enforce the rules they had created. They had created

0:32:50.840 --> 0:32:53.880
<v Speaker 1>these rules, which sounded good, the idea being that if

0:32:53.880 --> 0:32:56.440
<v Speaker 1>you create an app for Facebook, you're only supposed to

0:32:56.480 --> 0:32:59.160
<v Speaker 1>ask for the information you actually need in order for

0:32:59.240 --> 0:33:01.920
<v Speaker 1>your app to work, and you're not supposed to do

0:33:01.960 --> 0:33:05.840
<v Speaker 1>anything nefarious with that data. Anything you do plan to

0:33:05.920 --> 0:33:09.040
<v Speaker 1>use with that data you're supposed to communicate to the

0:33:09.200 --> 0:33:12.040
<v Speaker 1>end user. So at least in theory, the end user

0:33:12.120 --> 0:33:14.560
<v Speaker 1>has the opportunity to say I'm not really cool with

0:33:14.600 --> 0:33:18.680
<v Speaker 1>that and and back out. Although very few of us

0:33:18.720 --> 0:33:21.520
<v Speaker 1>tend to read all of that stuff, and that's that's

0:33:21.600 --> 0:33:26.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of on us. Anyway. Facebook wasn't really enforcing those

0:33:26.120 --> 0:33:29.200
<v Speaker 1>rules to any great extent. They were just kind of

0:33:30.640 --> 0:33:33.920
<v Speaker 1>codifying the rules so that Facebook could say, well, you know,

0:33:34.040 --> 0:33:38.480
<v Speaker 1>that's our rules. Say this, but unless you actually enforce rules,

0:33:38.520 --> 0:33:41.840
<v Speaker 1>they don't really mean much anyway. At one point, Senator

0:33:41.880 --> 0:33:46.200
<v Speaker 1>Dick Durbin actually asked Zuckerberg if Zuckerberg would be willing

0:33:46.240 --> 0:33:48.360
<v Speaker 1>to share the name of the hotel he stayed at

0:33:48.400 --> 0:33:52.000
<v Speaker 1>the night before or who he had messaged earlier that week,

0:33:52.400 --> 0:33:54.960
<v Speaker 1>and Zuckerberg said he would rather not do that publicly,

0:33:55.200 --> 0:33:59.160
<v Speaker 1>and Senator Dick Durbin said, quote, I think that maybe

0:33:59.200 --> 0:34:02.120
<v Speaker 1>what this is all about your right to privacy, the

0:34:02.240 --> 0:34:05.239
<v Speaker 1>limits of your right to privacy, and how much you

0:34:05.280 --> 0:34:08.320
<v Speaker 1>give away in modern America in the name of connecting

0:34:08.360 --> 0:34:12.320
<v Speaker 1>people around the world end quote. So, in other words, stating,

0:34:13.520 --> 0:34:16.040
<v Speaker 1>if you're not willing to give up this basic information,

0:34:17.080 --> 0:34:20.680
<v Speaker 1>and you realize the value of that information, and you

0:34:20.719 --> 0:34:23.520
<v Speaker 1>realize the impact that information could have if it got

0:34:23.520 --> 0:34:27.600
<v Speaker 1>out to other people, why are you allowing your platform

0:34:27.640 --> 0:34:31.120
<v Speaker 1>to do this on a broad scale to billions of people,

0:34:31.520 --> 0:34:34.160
<v Speaker 1>or at least a billion people, since that's how many

0:34:34.160 --> 0:34:37.759
<v Speaker 1>people Facebook has these days, well, the story continues to

0:34:37.840 --> 0:34:40.759
<v Speaker 1>unfold as of the time I'm researching the show. The

0:34:40.800 --> 0:34:43.960
<v Speaker 1>Washington Post recently said that five people familiar with the

0:34:44.000 --> 0:34:48.200
<v Speaker 1>matter told journalists that the Department of Justice, the FBI,

0:34:48.520 --> 0:34:51.600
<v Speaker 1>the U S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal

0:34:51.680 --> 0:34:55.400
<v Speaker 1>Trade Commission we're all investigating the Cambridge analytic a matter

0:34:55.760 --> 0:34:59.480
<v Speaker 1>and Facebook's actions and statements over the last several years.

0:35:00.000 --> 0:35:02.480
<v Speaker 1>The agencies are trying to figure out how much Facebook

0:35:02.520 --> 0:35:05.200
<v Speaker 1>employees knew about what was going on, and how truthful

0:35:05.239 --> 0:35:08.040
<v Speaker 1>the communication from Facebook to the authorities has been up

0:35:08.040 --> 0:35:11.719
<v Speaker 1>to this point, and if things have not all been

0:35:11.760 --> 0:35:13.759
<v Speaker 1>on the up and up, I expect we're gonna see

0:35:13.760 --> 0:35:17.719
<v Speaker 1>some massive fines. In fact, Facebook could face billions of

0:35:17.760 --> 0:35:21.520
<v Speaker 1>dollars in fines if these agencies find that the company

0:35:21.600 --> 0:35:25.040
<v Speaker 1>was culpable in any way to what went on with

0:35:25.080 --> 0:35:29.040
<v Speaker 1>Cambridge Analytica. Now unrelated to all of that mess, but

0:35:29.160 --> 0:35:32.120
<v Speaker 1>still a Facebook story. Is when I wanted to touch on,

0:35:32.440 --> 0:35:36.880
<v Speaker 1>Facebook had been pursuing a project called the Aquila Program.

0:35:36.920 --> 0:35:39.280
<v Speaker 1>The goal of that program was to use solar powered,

0:35:39.400 --> 0:35:42.000
<v Speaker 1>high altitude drones that would act as a backbone for

0:35:42.040 --> 0:35:45.440
<v Speaker 1>wireless internet connectivity in places that have limited or no

0:35:45.640 --> 0:35:48.160
<v Speaker 1>access to the Internet. So I think of things like

0:35:48.480 --> 0:35:52.680
<v Speaker 1>the continent of Africa and imagine these drones flying way, way,

0:35:52.680 --> 0:35:56.080
<v Speaker 1>way up in the atmosphere, and they're powered by the sun.

0:35:56.160 --> 0:35:58.279
<v Speaker 1>They have batteries so that they can continue to fly

0:35:58.360 --> 0:36:01.759
<v Speaker 1>at night, they recharged during the day, and they are

0:36:01.800 --> 0:36:06.520
<v Speaker 1>able to broadcast uh WiFi signals across to each other

0:36:06.640 --> 0:36:09.920
<v Speaker 1>using mostly stuff like lasers actually, and then beam that

0:36:09.960 --> 0:36:14.080
<v Speaker 1>information down to ground stations, giving people on the ground

0:36:14.280 --> 0:36:17.719
<v Speaker 1>Internet access. It's a pretty cool idea, but it is

0:36:17.760 --> 0:36:21.439
<v Speaker 1>no more. The Facebook had only managed to do two

0:36:21.440 --> 0:36:24.680
<v Speaker 1>test flights of its drone technology. The first one ended

0:36:24.719 --> 0:36:28.120
<v Speaker 1>in a crash, so not a successful test. The second

0:36:28.120 --> 0:36:32.040
<v Speaker 1>one had a modest success, but still performed below expectations,

0:36:32.400 --> 0:36:35.319
<v Speaker 1>so Facebook decided to shelve it. Google actually had a

0:36:35.360 --> 0:36:38.239
<v Speaker 1>similar drone program it was working on. It also has

0:36:38.239 --> 0:36:42.640
<v Speaker 1>shuttered that effort, but Project Loon, which uses high altitude

0:36:42.640 --> 0:36:46.200
<v Speaker 1>balloons rather than drones, is still in development over at Google.

0:36:46.800 --> 0:36:50.240
<v Speaker 1>Well that's just a quick series of updates about various

0:36:50.239 --> 0:36:53.879
<v Speaker 1>stories in the tech world. There are clearly tons more

0:36:54.000 --> 0:36:56.520
<v Speaker 1>I could have touched on, but I can only do

0:36:57.239 --> 0:37:00.279
<v Speaker 1>so many per episode, so I'll probably do more of

0:37:00.280 --> 0:37:02.440
<v Speaker 1>these in the future, where I will do like a

0:37:02.480 --> 0:37:06.000
<v Speaker 1>grab bag of updates about various things going on in

0:37:06.040 --> 0:37:09.800
<v Speaker 1>the tech world that maybe again don't marrit a full episode.

0:37:10.239 --> 0:37:12.959
<v Speaker 1>Cambridge Analytica will definitely get a full episode, a full

0:37:13.000 --> 0:37:16.959
<v Speaker 1>treatment from the entire story, probably a little bit later

0:37:17.040 --> 0:37:21.200
<v Speaker 1>once more of these investigations have been wrapped up, so

0:37:21.239 --> 0:37:23.680
<v Speaker 1>I can have kind of a beginning, middle and into that.

0:37:24.040 --> 0:37:26.360
<v Speaker 1>But expect that in the future. And if you guys

0:37:26.360 --> 0:37:29.480
<v Speaker 1>have any suggestions for other topics I should cover on

0:37:29.560 --> 0:37:33.600
<v Speaker 1>tech stuff, whether it's a company, a technology, an issue

0:37:33.760 --> 0:37:36.240
<v Speaker 1>in tech. Maybe there's someone you want me to interview

0:37:36.320 --> 0:37:39.000
<v Speaker 1>or have on as a guest, make certain to let

0:37:39.000 --> 0:37:41.560
<v Speaker 1>me know. Send me a message the email addresses tech

0:37:41.640 --> 0:37:44.640
<v Speaker 1>stuff at how stuff works dot com, or drop me

0:37:44.680 --> 0:37:46.759
<v Speaker 1>a line on Facebook or Twitter. They handle with both

0:37:46.760 --> 0:37:49.800
<v Speaker 1>of those. Is tech stuff H s W. Don't forget

0:37:49.840 --> 0:37:52.319
<v Speaker 1>to follow us on Instagram and I'll talk to you

0:37:52.360 --> 0:38:01.239
<v Speaker 1>again really soon from more on this and thousands of

0:38:01.239 --> 0:38:13.040
<v Speaker 1>other topics. Is that how stuff Works dot com. M