Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd and this
Speaker 1: is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome to
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, where we explore
Speaker 1: the intersection of social media, technology and identity. And this
Speaker 1: is another installment of our roundup of news that you
Speaker 1: might have missed online this week. Quick heads up, I
Speaker 1: have COVID, Mike has COVID. We all have COVID.
Speaker 2: That's right, Bridget. This episode is brought to listeners by we.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know you've had it a few times.
Speaker 1: This is my sixth time getting it. And when we
Speaker 1: were talking about it, we were like, oh, like, didn't
Speaker 1: you feel like this strain it was more like body
Speaker 1: and less like we were talking about it like we
Speaker 1: were talking about a strain of marijuana, Like, Oh, it's
Speaker 1: more of a body vibe than a head in this
Speaker 1: in this strain.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this this strain, Yeah, it's more a little more
Speaker 2: body than head. But there's a you know, little head
Speaker 2: ache FuG stuff going on. Uh, It's my experience has
Speaker 2: been more mild than previous times. Not to minimize COVID.
Speaker 2: COVID is terrible. Don't get it. It's a pretty big bummer.
Speaker 1: Do you want to know what the strain, the new
Speaker 1: the new strain that just dropped us called that we
Speaker 1: probably have.
Speaker 3: It's got a name flirt Flirt.
Speaker 1: I know it sounds like I'm making that up, but
Speaker 1: I swear to you I'm not. It's like Uppercase f
Speaker 1: l Ert flirt. It's a flirty strain.
Speaker 3: Who is branding these things? What the hell?
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it's out there. Y'all wear your masks,
Speaker 1: do what you gotta do. But if you're wondering why,
Speaker 1: maybe we both sound a little bit loopy. It's COVID.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're bridges right, wear your masks. Don't do stupid
Speaker 2: things like go to a packed concert I don't know,
Speaker 2: or maybe do if that's what you want to do.
Speaker 2: Just be ready to experience a lot of regret if
Speaker 2: you're like somebody that I know.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're being so clandestine. We got COVID together
Speaker 1: going to a rave to see Fat Boy Slim, who
Speaker 1: was amazing, by the way, did not This is how
Speaker 1: I know we are about that life. Fat Boy Slim
Speaker 1: there was two openers. He did not go on until
Speaker 1: two in the morning and he performed until four thirty
Speaker 1: in the morning, and you were like, yeah, I'll go.
Speaker 1: I thought for sure you were because I was on
Speaker 1: the fence. I was like, I don't know, packed packed warehouse,
Speaker 1: rave up till five.
Speaker 2: I don't know, you know, every once every year that
Speaker 2: sort of thing feels appropriate.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I really wanted to see me but
Speaker 3: on a really good show.
Speaker 1: And just so we're clear, I misread the poster or whatever,
Speaker 1: and I thought he started at ten, which I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: a little bit late, but you know, everything want to
Speaker 1: see this show. Ten is when the doors opened. Ten
Speaker 1: was the earliest that you could even get into the facility.
Speaker 1: He didn't go on until two. And you know what,
Speaker 1: we stayed up. We danced, We had a good time.
Speaker 1: We did it. Don't let anybody say otherwise. We did
Speaker 1: get COVID that is that happened, but you know.
Speaker 2: We did it pluses and minuses.
Speaker 3: The big plus cee in Fat Boy Slim. He really delivered.
Speaker 1: So we have a little bit of a rule here
Speaker 1: on the show where we don't talk about Trump unless
Speaker 1: it's something really big, really major, something that we have
Speaker 1: to talk about. But I think since we're both sick.
Speaker 1: Let's have a little Trump as a treat.
Speaker 3: All right, we can have just like a little Trump
Speaker 3: as a treat.
Speaker 1: So to introduce this conversation, let's play a little bit
Speaker 1: of what I think is going to be the song
Speaker 1: of the Summer by Mad Mcferrinucksucks, giftykill the killjkill.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 1: Earlier today, Trump was convicted of all thirty four charges
Speaker 1: three four of falsifying business records in the hush money
Speaker 1: case involving Stephanie Clifford, who performs under the stage name
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels. What are your thoughts?
Speaker 3: Uh, they're complicated.
Speaker 2: It's nice to see some justice and the shun freud. Uh,
Speaker 2: it's certainly nice to see like the rule of law applied. Uh,
Speaker 2: since like he clearly did it and like didn't even
Speaker 2: bother to say that he didn't do it. But it's uh,
Speaker 2: it's it's a small comfort.
Speaker 3: It's just really.
Speaker 2: Uh, like people are still going to vote for and
Speaker 2: people are talking about how he's still getting donations and
Speaker 2: this is going to like cause his donations to go up.
Speaker 3: So it it's mixed. It's mixed.
Speaker 2: I mean, I guess this is better than the alternative
Speaker 2: of him getting off for clearly doing it.
Speaker 1: We had such different takes on this because I was
Speaker 1: like scrolling Blue Sky and threads and being like memes, memes, memes,
Speaker 1: like celebratory dances, celebratory JITs. I was like, you know,
Speaker 1: if anything, I was like, man, I really missed the
Speaker 1: days of Twitter when news like this would have really
Speaker 1: like hit different. You were like, at least the rule
Speaker 1: of law still upheld in this country. I'm like, how
Speaker 1: many nity leaks jeeps can I use?
Speaker 2: Well, I think you're having a healthier reaction. It sounds
Speaker 2: like you're at least getting a little bit of joy
Speaker 2: out of it.
Speaker 1: You know, fine joy where you can, I will say so.
Speaker 1: One of my favorite tweets was by Zach Silberberg, who tweeted,
Speaker 1: so is Trump cooked now? Or is it like air
Speaker 1: blood logic where it's like, there ain't no rule that
Speaker 1: says a man with thirty four criminal convictions can't be president?
Speaker 1: And not only do I like that, because famously, if
Speaker 1: you've seen Airbud, there's no rule in the rule book
Speaker 1: that says a dog can't play basketball. But Zach is
Speaker 1: actually right here. I was like, well, certainly this means
Speaker 1: that he cannot be elected president. That is not correct.
Speaker 1: There is no rule, just like there is no rule
Speaker 1: that says a dog can't play basketball. There is no
Speaker 1: rule that somebody with this many felony convictions cannot be president.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he could run for president like a dog.
Speaker 1: That's something else about Trump is that, like he always
Speaker 1: said things were like a dog, and I always wondering, like,
Speaker 1: what does he think about dogs? It will be like, oh,
Speaker 1: he lost the election like a dog. It's like that
Speaker 1: what dogs are known to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in his vocabulary, being a dog is one of
Speaker 2: the worst things. Like, I don't know why he hates
Speaker 2: dogs so much.
Speaker 1: It's one of the worst things someone can be as
Speaker 1: a dog.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess because they're good and kind and loyal
Speaker 2: and some of them are smart.
Speaker 3: That's why he hates them.
Speaker 1: So I did see this tweet that made me laugh.
Speaker 1: That was a screenshot of the headline that I assumed
Speaker 1: was fake that said if Trump's conviction lands him in prison,
Speaker 1: the service goes too. When I thought, haha, that's so funny,
Speaker 1: looked it up to confirm and it's real. From the
Speaker 1: New York Times. This is true. Side note, everything I've
Speaker 1: read suggests that he probably will not say leave. But
Speaker 1: if he was sentenced to jail time in July during
Speaker 1: his sentencing, the Secret Service has to go.
Speaker 3: Now that's a movie I would watch, Uh, what would
Speaker 3: it be titled.
Speaker 1: Secret Serve in time And on the cover it's like
Speaker 1: Trump in the middle with his hands under his chin
Speaker 1: and the Secret Service agent sort of like back to
Speaker 1: back on either side of him with the sunglasses.
Speaker 3: That's pretty good.
Speaker 2: You came up with that right on the spot, Listeners,
Speaker 2: we did not plan this Atle's pure bridget magic right there.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you. I'll take that.
Speaker 2: For some reason, I'm picturing a sequel where the cover
Speaker 2: looks kind of like the cover of Sister X two somehow,
Speaker 2: like like he gets out and then right as he
Speaker 2: gets out, he gets convicted in the Georgia case or something,
Speaker 2: and then he has to go on the run with
Speaker 2: the Secret Service.
Speaker 1: Well, I applaud you for really remembering the plot of
Speaker 1: Sister RAC too, because that's kind of what happens.
Speaker 3: It was an important movie.
Speaker 4: Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1: So there's no real good transition from Sister RACT two
Speaker 1: to what I want to talk about first. But we
Speaker 1: have to talk about that viral all Eyes on Ratha
Speaker 1: image on Instagram. So, like a lot of people, I
Speaker 1: reposted the all Eyes on Ratha AI generated image on
Speaker 1: my Instagram story and I am not alone. According to
Speaker 1: NBC's Cat ken Barge, the image, calling for people to
Speaker 1: pay attention to Israel's ongoing war on Gaza, has drawn
Speaker 1: more than forty four million shares on Instagram in less
Speaker 1: than forty eight hours, highlighting a renewed social media push
Speaker 1: by supporters of Palestinians following a deadly Israeli airstrike. So
Speaker 1: Rafa is a city split between Egypt and the Gaza
Speaker 1: Strip that serves as the only crossing point between them,
Speaker 1: so it's an important spot for aid and supplies and
Speaker 1: food to go into Gaza. So, if you haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: the image is AI generated and it shows tents in
Speaker 1: a camp arranged to spell out the phrase all Eyes
Speaker 1: on Ratha. Rafa is a city split between Egypt and
Speaker 1: the Gaza Strip and serves as the only crossing point
Speaker 1: between them, so it's an important spot for aid supplies
Speaker 1: and food to go into Gaza. The area is in
Speaker 1: the southern part of Gaza and it's filled with refugee
Speaker 1: tent camps where local officials said that at least forty
Speaker 1: five civilians died after an Israeli strike on Sunday. But
Speaker 1: the image that went viral on Instagram is not a
Speaker 1: real image of Ratha. It is pretty clearly AI generated.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's pretty clearly AI generated.
Speaker 2: It's shows like thousands of tends in a very orderly
Speaker 2: way that does not match any of the actual photos
Speaker 2: that we've seen come out of that part of Gaza.
Speaker 2: But so if it's pretty clearly AI generated, then why
Speaker 2: didn't it get labeled on Instagram?
Speaker 1: Great question? I don't know. My best guess is body moderation.
Speaker 1: But honestly, at this point, your guests is as good
Speaker 1: as mine. Meta has really talked up their efforts to
Speaker 1: label AI generated images, although there are like plenty of
Speaker 1: gaps in those rules. According to the Washington Post, the
Speaker 1: all eyes on Ratha image appears on Instagram without a
Speaker 1: label calling it out as AI generated. The company does
Speaker 1: not appear to have taken any action to remove it,
Speaker 1: and then when the Washington Post asked Meta why they
Speaker 1: didn't label it, Meta did not reply. So we don't know.
Speaker 3: Strange, Okay, So where does the phrase come from?
Speaker 1: Well. According to Mashable, the slogan all Eyes on Ratha
Speaker 1: has been repeated for months. It was initially coined by
Speaker 1: doctor Rick Pepercorn, a World Health Organization director. Pepercorn said
Speaker 1: this back in February, when an Israeli invasion into Ratha
Speaker 1: was still then just a possibility. It hadn't happened yet.
Speaker 1: In a press briefing from RATHA, Peppercorn said that this
Speaker 1: would be a quote unfathomable catastrophe, further of expanding the
Speaker 1: humanitarian disaster beyond all imagination. All eyes are on Ratha,
Speaker 1: declared Pepercorn. We all watch the news and we all
Speaker 1: get the stories about this possible incursion, and military activities
Speaker 1: are getting closer. This should not happen. There's no place
Speaker 1: for people to go. This is a desperate plea. Yes,
Speaker 1: contingency plans are being made, but they would be completely insufficient.
Speaker 1: According to four or four Media, the image originated with
Speaker 1: a photographer in Malaysia's Instagram account. The user's own Instagram
Speaker 1: links to charity fundraising pages for Palestinian Aid and has
Speaker 1: a mix of real images and video and then like
Speaker 1: highly shareable AI generated images kind of similar to that
Speaker 1: All Eyes on Ratha image.
Speaker 2: Why do you suppose it took off on Instagram specifically?
Speaker 1: So, there are a couple of reasons I think this
Speaker 1: happened on Instagram specifically. Instagram has really emerged as an
Speaker 1: important platform for amplifying information about Palestine, which is kind
Speaker 1: of fraught given the way that content about Palestine and
Speaker 1: news content in general is being moderated on the platform.
Speaker 1: For instance, earlier this month, Instagram's oversight board was debating
Speaker 1: whether or not the phrase from the river to the
Speaker 1: sea violates the platform's rules, including their ban on hate speech,
Speaker 1: and like just the other day, Adam MOSERI was trying
Speaker 1: to clarify new rules about how political content would be
Speaker 1: moderated in general on the platform, which I have to
Speaker 1: be honest, I don't fully understand what their plan is,
Speaker 1: what they're trying to say. I don't feel like I
Speaker 1: have a good read on what they consider political content.
Speaker 1: But Instagram has really played an important role in amplifying
Speaker 1: information about what's happening in Palestine right now.
Speaker 2: Just one more example of how bananas it is that
Speaker 2: we live in a world where Instagram and Meta get
Speaker 2: to make these enormous decisions about what kind of content
Speaker 2: we see related to extremely serious events happening around the
Speaker 2: world that like really do have an impact on all
Speaker 2: of us. Like it feels far away, but there are
Speaker 2: a lot of ways that you know, it really.
Speaker 3: Impacts us all.
Speaker 2: So this, uh, you know, there's obviously been a lot
Speaker 2: of content online about what's happening in Palestine.
Speaker 3: Why do you suppose that this particular image went so viral.
Speaker 1: Well, probably one of the biggest reasons is just the
Speaker 1: ease of posting it. It was posted using Instagram's ad
Speaker 1: Yours feature, which, like, without just that one click or
Speaker 1: really I guess two clicks, you can quickly and easily
Speaker 1: add an image to your story without even really thinking
Speaker 1: about it. This is true for me, but like your
Speaker 1: mileage may vary. I also think there's something about the
Speaker 1: fact that people were sharing this mostly on their Instagram
Speaker 1: story as opposed to adding it to their Instagram grid.
Speaker 1: I think that things can really take off on stories
Speaker 1: because of the quickness that you can post them, and
Speaker 1: because they only last for however long, they don't last forever,
Speaker 1: and so I think that people are more prone to
Speaker 1: share things on the story because it's just so quick. Also,
Speaker 1: a lot of critics of the image. Have pointed out
Speaker 1: that like, journalists have died or been hurt to get
Speaker 1: images about what is actually happening in Gaza online, and
Speaker 1: that it's like disrespectful to share an AI generated image
Speaker 1: when those real images exist, or like why not use
Speaker 1: art from an actual human Palestinian artist as opposed to
Speaker 1: AI generated art. But I actually suspect that one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why the image is AI generated is specifically
Speaker 1: to be able to skirt Instagram's moderation policies. Like I
Speaker 1: think had they used a real image of what's happening
Speaker 1: in Rapha, there is no way that that image would
Speaker 1: be shared by millions of people because it would probably
Speaker 1: be moderated off of the platform.
Speaker 3: Wait, that's did you just say that?
Speaker 2: You think it's possible that had this bit real image
Speaker 2: it would have been more heavily moderated, but specifically because
Speaker 2: it was AI generated, it was able to spread more widely.
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. So NBC reports that while
Speaker 1: the all eyes on Ratha image has spread quickly, video
Speaker 1: from Ratha posted by Palestinian journalists has been restricted and
Speaker 1: in some cases removed from social media for depicting the
Speaker 1: graphic aftermath of the Israeli strikes. Two of three Instagram
Speaker 1: posts showing burned and grievously injured and dead bodies after
Speaker 1: the recent strike were removed, and one had a sensitive
Speaker 1: content filter for quote graphic or violent content placed in
Speaker 1: front of it. An Instagram spokesperson said that the company
Speaker 1: removed that content due to its violent and graphic nature,
Speaker 1: which it said violated the platform's policies. So it does
Speaker 1: seem to be that these platforms are saying that in
Speaker 1: some cases, the reality, the actual images and video and
Speaker 1: content and footage coming from Palestine is deemed too graphic
Speaker 1: to be shown on these platforms. So I do think
Speaker 1: that had this been a real image from Ratha, I
Speaker 1: don't think that millions of people would be able to
Speaker 1: post it, just by the nature of what we already
Speaker 1: know around the kinds of content coming out of Palestine
Speaker 1: that Instagram and Facebook and Meta are currently moderating off
Speaker 1: the platform.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Boy, that's a really interesting take, because I think a
Speaker 2: more sanitized version is exactly what it is.
Speaker 3: You know, it looks.
Speaker 2: Cold and hopeless and desperate, but there's no people in
Speaker 2: the image, Like there's no people in the image, which
Speaker 2: is just one of many cues that clearly it's AI. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean it's certainly more sanitized, definitely a more sanitized
Speaker 1: vision of what's actually happening in Ratha, and I do
Speaker 1: think that's part of why it went viral. As Friend
Speaker 1: of the Show Ryan Broderick over at the newsletter garbage
Speaker 1: they put it. If you're desperate for a super concise
Speaker 1: explanation as to how this random Malaysian user ended up
Speaker 1: creating a post of the moment, it's because they basically
Speaker 1: managed to do the impossible. They generated a pro Palestine
Speaker 1: solidarity image vague and abstract enough to bypass both sensors
Speaker 1: and filters on one of the biggest remaining social networks
Speaker 1: that real people still use. So there's been a ton
Speaker 1: of debate about this image, you know, after it went superviral,
Speaker 1: like whether or not people should be reposting it. Full disclosure,
Speaker 1: I reposted it. I remember when I reposted it, I
Speaker 1: my finger hovered over the ad yours button and I thought, like,
Speaker 1: should I repost this? Ultimately I did? I think judging
Speaker 1: from the photographer who first shared this image, I do
Speaker 1: think that image was initially shared with like good intentions.
Speaker 1: The person who shared it. You know, they share on
Speaker 1: their own Instagram. They share a lot of resources and
Speaker 1: information about Palestine. But as for media points out, even
Speaker 1: assuming the best intentions for the original poster, the success
Speaker 1: of that image still led to the creation of hundreds
Speaker 1: of copycat AI generated images made by other accounts basically
Speaker 1: just trying to get to go viral, to the point
Speaker 1: where when you search all Eyes on Ratha on either
Speaker 1: Facebook or Instagram, the majority of what you get is
Speaker 1: like AI generated copycat content. Far for media, they're out,
Speaker 1: we'll put the piece in the show notes. They found
Speaker 1: that already images sort of created in the style of
Speaker 1: that AI generated one have really taken off, And I
Speaker 1: think it illustrates a truism about the way that AI
Speaker 1: generated content strategies on social media, like move now, how
Speaker 1: that kind of content works and moves on social media now,
Speaker 1: Like a lot of the people posting it are just
Speaker 1: trying to see what sticks or what hits. They're not
Speaker 1: posting it because they care about whatever the image purports
Speaker 1: to show or be about. They're just like, oh, this
Speaker 1: image purporting to show Ratha hit it. Well, then I'm
Speaker 1: going to make a million different versions of that and
Speaker 1: see if any of those stick too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's such a different universe with these cheap, accessible
Speaker 2: AI tools now because you can do that, you can
Speaker 2: make literally a million and upload them all and you
Speaker 2: only one to go viral. Right, It's just like spamming
Speaker 2: the entire internet exactly.
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why shrimp Jesus ai generated
Speaker 1: images have gone viral, because one person made the AI
Speaker 1: image of half shrimp, half Jesus, and that went viral
Speaker 1: on Facebook. And now there's just like viral shrimp Jesus
Speaker 1: ai generated content all over social media by copycats who
Speaker 1: were like, oh, well, that one really hit it. Maybe
Speaker 1: half shrimp, half Jesus is the sweet spot. Let's make
Speaker 1: a million more.
Speaker 2: God, it's like every day gets a little bit more
Speaker 2: clear what it means to live in this new world
Speaker 2: where anything that anybody creates can immediately and almost for free,
Speaker 2: be recreated like a million times.
Speaker 1: Yes, So I want to talk about sort of the
Speaker 1: debate and the ethics of this image. So a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of folks smarter than me have been weighing in
Speaker 1: on this image, with some of them criticizing it basically
Speaker 1: saying that it's another version of that black square that
Speaker 1: people posted in twenty twenty that we actually did one
Speaker 1: of our first episodes of the podcast about where people
Speaker 1: just post this thing on social media and then feel
Speaker 1: like they've done what they need to do. It's a
Speaker 1: kind of a self serving thing where they post it,
Speaker 1: they feel good and it's done.
Speaker 3: I can see that. You know.
Speaker 2: It's like it feels like you're doing something by posting
Speaker 2: or reposting. Like you said, is that you don't even
Speaker 2: have to create a post. You just hit the add
Speaker 2: to stories button.
Speaker 1: An Instagram user with the handle islam MC said quote
Speaker 1: it gives a space to lazy activism, to people who
Speaker 1: never actually wanted to talk about the cause or don't
Speaker 1: want to be controversial. It gives in the space to say, here,
Speaker 1: you wanted me to talk about it, here, I posted
Speaker 1: about it, now shut up. Honestly, I get that criticism,
Speaker 1: and I want to speak carefully here because I also
Speaker 1: think that we're in this time where people have maybe
Speaker 1: gotten this message like there is a risk to speaking
Speaker 1: up about this issue. So when people are given away
Speaker 1: to do so in a way that feels like sanitized
Speaker 1: or safer, and everybody else is doing it, maybe that
Speaker 1: makes it feel easier or safer to also add their voice.
Speaker 1: But I think that what some of the people who
Speaker 1: are criticizing this are saying is that you know, this
Speaker 1: image doesn't have any resources. It doesn't have any links
Speaker 1: to more information, it doesn't have a link to donate.
Speaker 1: It's not even really Ratha. It doesn't have any actual
Speaker 1: Palestinian incident. Why are you posting this? How does this
Speaker 1: help anybody?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: What does this do other than makes me feel like
Speaker 1: I'm adding my voice? But then I saw other people saying, well,
Speaker 1: anything that shows that people are against what's happening in
Speaker 1: Palestine is a good thing. Jason Akunde, the author of
Speaker 1: the book Revolutionary Acts, Love and Brotherhood and Black Gay Britain,
Speaker 1: tweeted the AI all eyes on Ratha post might feel
Speaker 1: performative or frustrating, but honestly, Israel Palestine is a war
Speaker 1: of public opinion and consensus. If it has become quote
Speaker 1: trendy to stand against massacre of Palestinians, then that is
Speaker 1: a net good. I don't think it can compared to
Speaker 1: the BLM Black Squares, which were weirdly differential and based
Speaker 1: on this nebulous aim of quote listening and learning the
Speaker 1: premise of this protest against the Onslaught and Rapa is
Speaker 1: that we want the genocide to stop. That is a
Speaker 1: clear achievable demand. Israeli politicians know that the war of
Speaker 1: a consensus is key to victory, which is why they
Speaker 1: have a militarized communication strategy. If a random influencer is
Speaker 1: sharing a post about Rapa after months of mindlessly posting,
Speaker 1: this is an opportunity to seize not to be superior.
Speaker 1: And I do think that that might be part of
Speaker 1: the conversation, right that social media by definition is always
Speaker 1: going to be somewhat performative, and I think that because
Speaker 1: of this feeling that people are watching to see if
Speaker 1: you share the right thing the right way, it maybe
Speaker 1: creates this tension. And because this is all happening in public,
Speaker 1: because it's social media, I do think it risks overshadowing
Speaker 1: the real issue. Like, as much as I have really
Speaker 1: been tuned into some of the media and robust debate
Speaker 1: about this image, I do not want a conversation about
Speaker 1: the ethics of one AI generated post to overshadow conversations
Speaker 1: about what is happening in Palestine. And I guess I
Speaker 1: do think that we're in this space where people really
Speaker 1: maybe don't know what to do and feel powerless and
Speaker 1: feel like we're all witnessing something horrifying, but you're also
Speaker 1: struggling to find agency of like, well, what can I
Speaker 1: do and listen? We can post on social media, we
Speaker 1: can donate money, we can protest. If you're going to protest,
Speaker 1: use our guides on how to do it safely. We'll
Speaker 1: put them on the show notes. But I think that
Speaker 1: that's why you're seeing these online movements that are calling
Speaker 1: for people to, you know, block Kim Kardashian and solidarity
Speaker 1: with Palestine that we talked about after the met ball.
Speaker 1: I think people are looking for ways to feel like
Speaker 1: they have agency. And I can understand not really knowing
Speaker 1: what action to take and just smashing that share button
Speaker 1: on Instagram like I did, even while not knowing if
Speaker 1: it was the right thing to do or not. And
Speaker 1: I say all that to say that if you do
Speaker 1: have extra money and you're thinking like what can I do?
Speaker 1: You could give money to the Palaestindian Children's Relief Fund.
Speaker 1: If you're in DC. One of my favorites, Boss in
Speaker 1: the City Sun Cinema shut Out to SUNS is donating
Speaker 1: all bar money to the Palestinian Children's Relief Fund that
Speaker 1: they take in on Saturday, June first. So I certainly
Speaker 1: wouldn't act like I know the exact right thing to
Speaker 1: be doing here, but I can tell you I can
Speaker 1: share what I am trying to do, which is listening
Speaker 1: to Palestinian voices, folks who are actually on the ground,
Speaker 1: amplifying what they put out, really trying to engage with
Speaker 1: primary sources as much as I can, donating money to
Speaker 1: organizations like the Palaestidian's Children's Relief Fund where I can,
Speaker 1: and doing my best to educate myself and others.
Speaker 4: More.
Speaker 5: After a quick break, let's get right back into.
Speaker 1: It, and speaking of AI generated content on social media,
Speaker 1: new research from Google researchers and several fact checking organizations
Speaker 1: have found that the most image based disinformation online right
Speaker 1: now is now AI generated. However, the way that researchers
Speaker 1: are collecting data might actually be undercounting the problem. Basically,
Speaker 1: AI generated image based disinformation was not really a thing
Speaker 1: until late twenty twenty three when AI image generators became
Speaker 1: widely available and popular, But now they have basically replaced
Speaker 1: all other forms of image based disinformation. So these AI
Speaker 1: generated pictures of Rapa, even while they might might have
Speaker 1: been initially shared for good, it is important to know
Speaker 1: that that's not happening in a vacuum. And if images
Speaker 1: like that go megaviral and encourage other people to copycat
Speaker 1: AI generated images, we will just be a wash in images,
Speaker 1: most of which are not real about a conflict that
Speaker 1: is pretty serious.
Speaker 2: Yeah, gets harder and harder to know what really is,
Speaker 2: like true, you know, even mentioned that the account that
Speaker 2: shared that photo had a mix of real photos that
Speaker 2: were you know, photos that were taken of the world
Speaker 2: and AI generated images, and the blurring of that line
Speaker 2: is scary, right, Like, maybe one of the other things
Speaker 2: that we can do is really try to put forth
Speaker 2: that effort that's needed to use primary sources, like you say,
Speaker 2: and make sure that we do everything we can to
Speaker 2: have an accurate sense of what is actually happening in
Speaker 2: the world and not just the narratives that are being promoted.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, trying to engage as much as I can with
Speaker 1: primary sources has been really fruitful. And you know, you
Speaker 1: can read this, you can read the summary. I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess you're listening to me summarized stuff for you, right,
Speaker 1: now keep doing that, but as much as you can,
Speaker 1: we put the primary sources in the show notes so
Speaker 1: that you can engage with them. You know you should
Speaker 1: do that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh absolutely, you know.
Speaker 2: I'm yeah, and I think listeners have a right to
Speaker 2: expect that. And all those other shows that aren't doing it,
Speaker 2: listeners should stop listening them.
Speaker 3: They should listen to our show.
Speaker 1: Are you starting like a podcast?
Speaker 3: Is there?
Speaker 1: Is there a show in particular that you're thinking of,
Speaker 1: because I'm I'm down for a podcast beef. I've been
Speaker 1: saying it has been too long since I had a
Speaker 1: good old fashioned beef. So if you are throwing down
Speaker 1: the gauntlet and we're gonna kick up a beef with
Speaker 1: another podcast, I'm here for it.
Speaker 2: I didn't have anybody in mind, but you know, yeah,
Speaker 2: maybe they should be unnoticed. Put your sources in your
Speaker 2: show notes.
Speaker 1: We're coming for you. PJ. We didn't forget about what
Speaker 1: happened at reply All.
Speaker 3: Shit, Yeah I went there. Yes, we've got all these
Speaker 3: AI generated es.
Speaker 2: Is that it is that the only dangerous thing that
Speaker 2: AI has made cheaply and easily available that is poisoning
Speaker 2: the minds and lives of a generation is that it.
Speaker 1: That is not the only harm out there on social media. God,
Speaker 1: I wish, because we have to talk about this really
Speaker 1: upsetting report from BBC that is upsetting but maybe not
Speaker 1: totally surprising, that found that criminals are producing and selling
Speaker 1: guides to sextortion on social media. The guides show people
Speaker 1: how to pose as young women online and trick victims
Speaker 1: into sending sexually explicit material over and then they can
Speaker 1: use that material to financially blackmail them.
Speaker 2: My god, this is one of the darkest things I
Speaker 2: think we've talked about on this show in a while.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we've talked about how these kinds of sextortion
Speaker 1: schemes work and how they are mostly being used to
Speaker 1: target young men and boys, mostly being perpetrated by gangs
Speaker 1: based in West Africa. However, what is new here is
Speaker 1: that that criminals have added this extra stream of income
Speaker 1: by creating and selling these guides to help other people
Speaker 1: do this as well. That it's becoming a marketplace where
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, you too can give me money and
Speaker 1: I can show you how to make money by praying
Speaker 1: on youth. So this is pretty serious. Kids are dying
Speaker 1: because of it. In the UK. Two British teenagers are
Speaker 1: known to have died by suicide since October twenty twenty
Speaker 1: two after becoming victims of sextortion schemes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and even that underestimates the real scope of the
Speaker 2: problem because a lot of people who are target in
Speaker 2: these schemes don't die, but are still severely harmed by it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Paul Rafel, an intelligence professional and export on sextortion,
Speaker 1: says that this whole thing is a massive threat to children.
Speaker 1: Paul says internet scammers over these past two years have
Speaker 1: found out that they can get very rich, very quickly
Speaker 1: by scamming an untapped market, and that's teenagers. He also
Speaker 1: says that big tech companies are not doing nearly enough
Speaker 1: to stop extore in surprise surprise, saying this crime has
Speaker 1: really exploded on Instagram and Snapchat over the past two years.
Speaker 1: These platforms need to aggressively go after these criminals. Now.
Speaker 1: Snapchat did tell BBC we've been ramping up our efforts
Speaker 1: to combat it, including a reporting option specifically for threats
Speaker 1: to leak sexual content, and in app education for teens.
Speaker 1: In a statement, Meta, which owns Instagram, said it offered
Speaker 1: quote a dedicated reporting option so people can report anyone
Speaker 1: threatening to share private images. We default teens under eighteen
Speaker 1: in the UK into private Instagram accounts at sign up,
Speaker 1: which hides their follower and following list into stricter default messaging.
Speaker 1: Facebook said, and you know, I guess I agree that
Speaker 1: they're just like not doing enough. We already know from
Speaker 1: like multiple episodes that Instagram really is aware the way
Speaker 1: that their product is being used to harm and target
Speaker 1: use in sexualized ways, and like they really just like
Speaker 1: aren't newing enough. I will agree that they're that like
Speaker 1: not enough it's being done. And I think this is
Speaker 1: really heartbreaking because creeps are preying on the shame and
Speaker 1: silence and secrecy that a young person would feel getting
Speaker 1: mixed up in this. Like if you're a young person
Speaker 1: who has gotten caught up in a sextortion ring, it's
Speaker 1: got to be isolating and tough to talk about with
Speaker 1: the adults in your life. And I think that people
Speaker 1: who are doing this they know this, and they are
Speaker 1: using that dynamic to prey on kids. Meanwhile, platforms aren't
Speaker 1: doing enough to stop them. I do have another kind
Speaker 1: of dark Internet thing to discuss, which is whether or
Speaker 1: not parents whose children die by suicide have a right
Speaker 1: to examine those kids' social media footprints. So over in
Speaker 1: the UK, Ellen Rooum, the mother of a child who
Speaker 1: died by suicide, has gathered more than one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: signatures on a petition calling for social media companies to
Speaker 1: be required to hand over data to parents after a
Speaker 1: child has died. Under the current law, parents have no
Speaker 1: legal right to see whether their child was being bullied
Speaker 1: or threatened, was looking at self harm images or other
Speaker 1: harmful content, or express suicidal feelings online, or searched online
Speaker 1: to help with mental health problems. Room says this is wrong,
Speaker 1: that her son left no indications of his motivation before
Speaker 1: he died. The last time she saw him he seemed
Speaker 1: happy and well adjusted, and that now she just has
Speaker 1: no idea what happened. She says, it's really awful if
Speaker 1: a child died of an illness, you do a post
Speaker 1: mortem and work out what was wrong. It's not going
Speaker 1: to bring my son back, and I'm not going to
Speaker 1: stop grieving, but maybe just to understand what happened in
Speaker 1: those last few hours, she said, because an hour and
Speaker 1: a half before he left the house and there's video
Speaker 1: of him saying goodbye to his friend, he was fine.
Speaker 1: So what changed or what was going through his mind?
Speaker 1: Any social media may give me the answers. Because her
Speaker 1: petition got more than one hundred thousand signatures, there is
Speaker 1: likely to be a debate in Parliament on this issue.
Speaker 1: She was part of a group of parents that met
Speaker 1: with both the government and Offcom, which is the UK's
Speaker 1: communications regulator that regulates social media, radio, TV and other sectors.
Speaker 1: The group included people like a man whose daughter died
Speaker 1: by suicide after viewing harmful content online, and the parents
Speaker 1: of another child who died after possibly taking part in
Speaker 1: a social media challenge. As part of the Online Safety Act,
Speaker 1: which went into effect on April first at this year,
Speaker 1: coroners are now granted new powers that give them access
Speaker 1: to social media and online gaming data when investigating a
Speaker 1: child's potential suicide. However, even under that new Online Safety Act,
Speaker 1: parents are still not entitled to access the data themselves,
Speaker 1: and the ruling only applies to children who died by suicide,
Speaker 1: not those, for example, who were maybe murdered by somebody
Speaker 1: that they met online.
Speaker 3: It's a tough one because.
Speaker 2: Obviously you have to sympathize with these parents who've suffered
Speaker 2: a terrible loss and have a right to want to
Speaker 2: know what happened with the kid's life. But you know,
Speaker 2: it does also open up a whole bunch of cans
Speaker 2: of worms. I think of making kids social media posts available,
Speaker 2: you know, like, where does the line of privacy for
Speaker 2: kids get drawn?
Speaker 3: It's, uh, it's a tough one, but yeah, this is.
Speaker 1: Why I wanted to include it because I really cannot
Speaker 1: imagine the grief of losing a child in this way,
Speaker 1: and I then can't imagine the added grief of not knowing,
Speaker 1: like if something impacted them in their last moments and
Speaker 1: just not having insight into that. But I also don't
Speaker 1: know enough about, yeah, the privacy ramifications of giving parents
Speaker 1: that kind of access, and so it's a it's I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's a conversation that really illustrates
Speaker 1: the complexity of where we're at when it comes to
Speaker 1: social media right now, and kind of like what you
Speaker 1: were saying with the Palestine story, how much platforms are holding,
Speaker 1: how much weight their decisions and their policies have, how
Speaker 1: they impact youth and the mental health of youth, Like
Speaker 1: that is a lot of power that we're giving people
Speaker 1: like Mark Zuckerberg and Ada Mosseri and Elon Musk.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point, you know, and it's.
Speaker 2: These are tough, complicated issues, and historically politicians have just
Speaker 2: not dealt with them at all and left it to
Speaker 2: the Zuckerbergs of the world to figure out how much
Speaker 2: they can get away with before it starts cutting into
Speaker 2: their bottom line. I guess it's good to see it
Speaker 2: being debated in uh, you know, in a regulatory context
Speaker 2: like this bridget We've got COVID retired and it hurts.
Speaker 2: We have covered some pretty difficult stories today, Like I
Speaker 2: don't know if this is just how you deal with
Speaker 2: being sick, or maybe this is it's just been a
Speaker 2: rough week. Do we have anything lighter that we can
Speaker 2: end this episode on?
Speaker 1: Can I offer you some pizza made with glue? Michael? Yes?
Speaker 3: Please? I love pizza, so.
Speaker 1: You and I I should. People might hear some tension
Speaker 1: or we're discussing this because we feel differently about this
Speaker 1: next story, right we do.
Speaker 2: We talked about this ahead of time. Listeners might be
Speaker 2: interested to know that during the week we keep like
Speaker 2: a running list of like a Google doc, where we're
Speaker 2: just adding ideas of stories that we might want to cover.
Speaker 2: I try to add a bunch of stories, and then
Speaker 2: before the we record the episode, Bridget goes through deletes.
Speaker 3: All of my stories, add some new ones.
Speaker 1: That's not true. I would say, like, I think you've
Speaker 1: got like a solid like fifty fifty. And also it's
Speaker 1: because if you were in charge, it would be such
Speaker 1: a fixed stories about hard tech that everybody will be like,
Speaker 1: what are they talking about? But I'm why do they
Speaker 1: still it's like fifty to fifty half stories that you pick,
Speaker 1: half stories that I pick. I don't. I don't delete
Speaker 1: your stories, not unless they're really bad and like stupid
Speaker 1: and I don't want to talk about them. So yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what I do. I do delete your stories sometimes.
Speaker 3: And that's good.
Speaker 2: This is your show, it's and thank goodness it is
Speaker 2: because you're so much better at this than me. I'm
Speaker 2: just I'm pleased some of them make it through the filter.
Speaker 2: That's not the point here. The point is I put
Speaker 2: this story of the list thinking that it was gonna
Speaker 2: go one way, and then I looked through the notes
Speaker 2: that you wrote and I was like, oh, Bridget like
Speaker 2: really likes this, which is surprising to me because I
Speaker 2: had a different reaction.
Speaker 1: Okay, why don't you tell people what we're talking about,
Speaker 1: because they're like, I don't even know the story? What
Speaker 1: else talking about? Maybe they do know the story, but
Speaker 1: why don't you fill us in.
Speaker 2: The pizza glues story? So, uh, you know, people probably
Speaker 2: eat or maybe no. I think it was last week
Speaker 2: Google rolled out their new AI summary feature at the
Speaker 2: top of search. So when you search, instead of well,
Speaker 2: you still get your list of ten links buried behind
Speaker 2: a bunch of sponsored nonsense, but at the very top
Speaker 2: of your results, you're going to get an AI summary
Speaker 2: generated by Google's AI bot, Gemini that attempts to answer
Speaker 2: the question that you Googled for, and then you can
Speaker 2: scroll past it to go look at the links.
Speaker 3: But there. I think we maybe talked.
Speaker 2: About this a little while ago that there's a lot
Speaker 2: of concern that this is going to really just fundamentally
Speaker 2: change search because you type in a question to Google,
Speaker 2: you hit enter and boom, there's an answer right at
Speaker 2: the top of the page. And so why would you
Speaker 2: look beyond that to go to those primary sources that
Speaker 2: we were just talking about a couple of minutes ago,
Speaker 2: And they rolled out this product, and the Internet, or
Speaker 2: at least my little corner of it has just flooded
Speaker 2: with screenshots of Google's AI summary getting it wrong because
Speaker 2: they scraped a lot of Reddit posts to teach the model,
Speaker 2: like what the world is, so it can have information
Speaker 2: to spit back to us. It really highly ranks what
Speaker 2: people wrote on Reddit. But Reddit, a lot of redditors
Speaker 2: use humor and sarcasm. That's the thing that exists on Reddit.
Speaker 2: And so like this one screenshot that was going around
Speaker 2: was about how to make a pizza, and it had
Speaker 2: a line that was something like, you know, if you
Speaker 2: want a thicker sauce, you could add a little bit
Speaker 2: of glue.
Speaker 1: So I gotta stop because a verge collected some of
Speaker 1: the best incorrect answers that Google now provides to questions.
Speaker 1: Google claims that former US President James Madison graduated from
Speaker 1: the University of Wisconsin, not once, but some times. That
Speaker 1: a dog has played in the NBA, NFL, and NHL.
Speaker 1: Shout out to Airbud. There's no Rubbi.
Speaker 2: There's gonna talk about basketball playing dogs in this episode.
Speaker 1: Listen, I have COVID, let me have this. There's no
Speaker 1: rule that says a dog can't play in the NHL. Also,
Speaker 1: my personal favorite that according to geologists that you see Berkeley,
Speaker 1: you should eat at least one small rock per day.
Speaker 3: It's like, we're all chickens. Chickens eat rocks.
Speaker 2: Yeah, chickens eat rock that rocks. That little like gizzard
Speaker 2: thing that hangs down from their throat. They got little
Speaker 2: rocks in there to help grind up their food.
Speaker 1: Oh Lord and case listeners don't know microw up on
Speaker 1: a farm. Is this your type five about growing up
Speaker 1: on a farm.
Speaker 2: No, it's just a joke about eating one small rock
Speaker 2: per day.
Speaker 3: Like if you were a chicken, that might not be enough.
Speaker 1: So even for chickens who are using Google, they're like,
Speaker 1: I don't know if these responses are on the money,
Speaker 1: it should be more than one small rock.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And that just illustrates the perils of trying to
Speaker 2: design a product for everybody.
Speaker 3: You know, you're just not gonna please anybody, humans or chickens.
Speaker 1: Okay, so when you asked Google how to get your
Speaker 1: cheese to stick better to the crust when you're making pizza,
Speaker 1: Google said to add glue. The reason why you put
Speaker 1: it on the agenda to talk about last week, which
Speaker 1: we didn't talk about, was that a tech journalist actually
Speaker 1: tried this recipe business insiders. Katie anopolists said, I knew
Speaker 1: my assignment. I had to make the Google glue pizza.
Speaker 1: Don't try this at home. I risked myself for the
Speaker 1: sake of the story. But you shouldn't. So you put
Speaker 1: this on the agenda. You come to look at the
Speaker 1: outline that I've come up with to make to like
Speaker 1: do the fact check, blah blah blah, You're like, oh,
Speaker 1: I see your position on the glue eating is a
Speaker 1: you're pro. I was like, yeah, she's eating glue, awesome,
Speaker 1: But what were your thoughts?
Speaker 2: My thoughts were like, what a ridiculous little stunt, Like
Speaker 2: it's just silly, Like you're not supposed to eat glue.
Speaker 2: The reason that those screenshots are funny is because it
Speaker 2: says to eat glue, but everybody knows you're not supposed to.
Speaker 1: Well, Mike, if you read the primary source, you would
Speaker 1: know that Katie actually has a history of eating glue.
Speaker 1: She says, yes, since I know you're wondering, I did
Speaker 1: eat paste as a kid. I loved it. So this
Speaker 1: is not This is like not a stunt. This is
Speaker 1: like her returning to form.
Speaker 2: That does nothing for me, though, because it's not like
Speaker 2: she's continuing to eat glue today. She's just like a
Speaker 2: glue eater. Like I did read the story, I clicked
Speaker 2: into her bio. She's a real journalist who writes like real.
Speaker 1: Journalist is and I like her. And if she wants
Speaker 1: to come on the show and talk about the glue,
Speaker 1: I would love to have. You won't be a part
Speaker 1: of that episode, Mike, since you lis such an attitude
Speaker 1: about it. But Katie, if you're listening, I like that
Speaker 1: you ate the glue. I'm not gonna shame you for
Speaker 1: eating the glue. Come on the podcast and talk about it.
Speaker 1: Mike won't be on. I want us talk about the glue.
Speaker 3: But like, really, why did she eat the glue?
Speaker 1: Because Google told her to.
Speaker 2: Google tells us to do so many things that we
Speaker 2: don't have to do them. We're humans, we have agency
Speaker 2: for a little bit.
Speaker 3: Yet she was.
Speaker 1: Proving a point that about search, that search has gotten
Speaker 1: so bad that the examples that they're giving like it
Speaker 1: be it'd be foolish for somebody to do it.
Speaker 3: So she did it, but to what end?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: Like she was the internet was full of memes about
Speaker 2: how bad Google Search was or at least you know
Speaker 2: the AI summary. It wasn't like she was adding on
Speaker 2: or adding to understanding of how this new thing is
Speaker 2: gonna change search.
Speaker 3: She was just trying to get some clicks.
Speaker 1: Listen. I think she took it to the next level.
Speaker 1: And honestly, when she accepts her pulitzer, where are you
Speaker 1: going to be? I'll tell you where you're gonna be.
Speaker 1: Not eating glue and pizza, That's what. Also, she didn't
Speaker 1: just eat glue. She mixed glue into pizza sauce and
Speaker 1: then made a homemade pizza. And I guess because she
Speaker 1: was using like a jarred pizza sauce. She said, for
Speaker 1: anybody who feels compelled to point out that I shouldn't
Speaker 1: have used jarred sauce or pre shrided cheese, please keep
Speaker 1: in mind, I'm eating glue here. How do you not
Speaker 1: love that?
Speaker 2: Yes, it's kind of funny. It's like it's somewhere between
Speaker 2: Jackass and that video of did you ever se the
Speaker 2: video of some local journalists who went down to the
Speaker 2: police station to test out a taser and he was
Speaker 2: gonna like show how tasers work and he had them
Speaker 2: taze him.
Speaker 1: He like falls over it.
Speaker 3: I have to because it looks.
Speaker 2: Like it really hurts, and I have to, like, I
Speaker 2: feel like eating glue for the story is kind of
Speaker 2: like getting tased for the story.
Speaker 1: So I guess you don't want any of this glue
Speaker 1: pizza that I I made.
Speaker 2: No, I don't. I love pizza anything on it, but
Speaker 2: not glue. Glue's not food. Glue is not food, Bridget.
Speaker 1: It's a bold stance, but I guess it's a great
Speaker 1: one to end on. Hey, real quick, before you go,
Speaker 1: this is future Bridget and I have a little bit
Speaker 1: of breaking news glue vindication for you, because the day
Speaker 1: after Mike and I recorded this episode, Google announced they'd
Speaker 1: be taking steps to limit the use of joke replies
Speaker 1: and user generated responses from places like credit in the
Speaker 1: AI overview summaries now appearing in search. Katie Annapolis, who
Speaker 1: ate the glue, had a bit of a victory lap
Speaker 1: about it, and a new piece for Business Insider called
Speaker 1: sometimes to save the Internet.
Speaker 3: You must eat glue.
Speaker 1: Katie writes, there was a whole lot of attention paid
Speaker 1: in the past week about how bad many of these
Speaker 1: AI generated search results were, particularly because they were wacky
Speaker 1: and funny. Was Google's response to tamp down it's big
Speaker 1: AI search ambitions just because of a few jokesters on
Speaker 1: x made silly queries. Maybe did it be because Google
Speaker 1: took the feedback seriously and realized that there were use
Speaker 1: cases they had not expected and they needed to retool
Speaker 1: based on this new information. Maybe could it be a
Speaker 1: combination of those two things that a small minority of
Speaker 1: trolls abusing the system for laughs revealed some serious flaws
Speaker 1: and dangers of putting AI in search results. That it
Speaker 1: wasn't just a pr disaster for a week, but made
Speaker 1: Google seriously rethink the safety of the aioverbuse product and
Speaker 1: what it would actually be used for. Most likely, but
Speaker 1: Katie writes, let's not overlook one crucial factor here. Me
Speaker 1: I actually ate the glue pizza. It did not taste good,
Speaker 1: and please do not do this at home. The fact
Speaker 1: that Google rolled this out with such easily exploitable flaws
Speaker 1: that was bad. But fixing it that's good. And I
Speaker 1: like to convince myself that my eating glue pizza was
Speaker 1: part of the noise that prompted Google to act. Please please,
Speaker 1: I don't need your thanks. I'm just doing my job.
Speaker 1: As they say, not all heroes wear capes, some just
Speaker 1: eat glue. Katie, I agree, you are the hero the
Speaker 1: internet needs. Mike. Thank you for being here. Even though
Speaker 1: your opinion about Katie eating glue is bad, we still
Speaker 1: like to have you around. Thanks so much, and thanks
Speaker 1: to all of you for listening.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, Bridget and I hope you feel
Speaker 2: better soon you too.
Speaker 1: I feel like our COVID miss people are listening. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: That's all I can say.
Speaker 4: This was a silly one, I think.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for ways to support the show, check
Speaker 1: out our March store at tangody dot com.
Speaker 4: Slash Store.
Speaker 1: Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or
Speaker 1: just want to say hi? You can reach us at
Speaker 1: Hello at tangody dot com. You can also find transcripts
Speaker 1: for today's episode at TENG Goody dot com. There Are
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet was created by Me Bridget Hi.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio, an unboss creative edited by
Speaker 1: Joey pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer. Tari Harrison
Speaker 1: is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amada is our
Speaker 1: contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want
Speaker 1: to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple podcasts.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.