Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from my Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with our Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech and I had to
Speaker 1: rush through that intro. Ladies, gentlemen, everybody. I have to
Speaker 1: talk to my good friend Bridget, host of There Are
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet, who has joined the show
Speaker 1: today to talk about a very serious topic. But before
Speaker 1: we get into that, Bridget, it is so nice to
Speaker 1: have you on the show. It's so nice to be here.
Speaker 1: I'm so excited. You know, we connect every week just
Speaker 1: via phone, and it's nice to be connecting in people's
Speaker 1: ear buzz in podcast land. Yeah. So, Bridget has been
Speaker 1: hosting an incredible show, There Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: If you haven't heard it already, you absolutely need to
Speaker 1: seek it out. And specifically, I wanted to bring her
Speaker 1: on the show to talk about a season two theme
Speaker 1: that you've really done a lot of hard work on, Disinformed,
Speaker 1: because we're going to be talking about misinformation, disinformation and
Speaker 1: the promotion of that through algorithms. But Bridge on one,
Speaker 1: in your own words, why don't you talk a bit
Speaker 1: about there are no girls on the Internet in general
Speaker 1: and disinformed particular. Yeah, so There Are No Girls on
Speaker 1: the Internet was really born from this idea that we
Speaker 1: know that marginalized people, underrepresented people, women, communities of color,
Speaker 1: other folks from underrepresented backgrounds have had such a huge
Speaker 1: impact on technology and honestly, just what makes the Internet
Speaker 1: a fun, great place? Like how many times is there
Speaker 1: hilarious hashtag or a hilarious vine or a hilarious video
Speaker 1: on TikTok that goes viral that you're seeing everywhere and
Speaker 1: the person behind it is a woman or a person
Speaker 1: of color. And so I really wanted to carve out
Speaker 1: a space where we could really highlight and sell brain
Speaker 1: and amplify all the amazing impacts that people from underrepresented
Speaker 1: backgrounds have had on the Internet. And so that's why
Speaker 1: I started There Are No Girls on the Internet. It's
Speaker 1: been a really fun journey to really talk about some
Speaker 1: of the ways that underrepresenting folks either show up or
Speaker 1: don't show up online. And from making that show, one
Speaker 1: of the things that came up for me again and
Speaker 1: again was the role that disinformation and distorted media stories,
Speaker 1: fake news that you know, um things like online harassment radicalization.
Speaker 1: How these same underrepresenting people who are showing up, making up,
Speaker 1: making great content online, making the Internet such a fun place,
Speaker 1: those same people are really at the forefront of a
Speaker 1: lot of this stuff, right, You know, when it comes
Speaker 1: to disinformation, communities of color are the most impacted, women
Speaker 1: are the most impacted. But we are the same ones
Speaker 1: who are doing a lot of the research and a
Speaker 1: lot of the work to fight back. And I was
Speaker 1: really fascinated by that. I was fascinated by the human
Speaker 1: center of of disinformation. I think with a lot of tech,
Speaker 1: it can be hard to remember that it's really about people.
Speaker 1: You know, that people looked up at the other end
Speaker 1: of screens or the other end of phones, and disinformation
Speaker 1: was a situation where it really was important to meet
Speaker 1: a center those people and to make sure that their
Speaker 1: stories were at the forefront. You bring up a point
Speaker 1: that I think is good for us to lay out
Speaker 1: right at the very beginning, because while we're going to
Speaker 1: be talking about social media platforms, specifically platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter,
Speaker 1: those sort of things, and to another extent, some of
Speaker 1: the more uh extreme social networks that are out there
Speaker 1: that are heavily promoting things like radicalization within the confines
Speaker 1: of those own communities. While we're going to talk about that,
Speaker 1: we have to remember that's one piece of a very big,
Speaker 1: very complicated puzzle. UH. The the pathway to extremism or
Speaker 1: radicalization is not a one lane highway where everybody goes
Speaker 1: the exact same way. There's usually a lot of different
Speaker 1: factors at play, and if we're being completely honest, we
Speaker 1: still don't really have a full understanding of what weighted
Speaker 1: UH factors are the most important, right like obviously being
Speaker 1: in person with groups that are UH proselytizing extremist views
Speaker 1: and are reinforcing when new people come into the community
Speaker 1: that those extremist views are legitimate and and reinforcing. Whenever
Speaker 1: someone expresses an extremist view, that's clearly very important, and
Speaker 1: when it happens in a real space meet space, UH,
Speaker 1: it can have a huge impact. But we also know
Speaker 1: that online interactions also can play a big part, especially
Speaker 1: as we have embraced them more wholeheartedly in the last decade,
Speaker 1: and clearly in a situation like we are in now
Speaker 1: where all of a lot of us are at home
Speaker 1: and the only interactions were mostly having with other people
Speaker 1: are online we're seeing that online radicalization is in fact
Speaker 1: a factor as well, but to what extent it is
Speaker 1: as effective or ineffective as others. That's something that's under
Speaker 1: academic debate. So we're gonna have this discussion, but we
Speaker 1: do want to make it clear that there are no
Speaker 1: absolutes that we know of yet. These are all things
Speaker 1: that are under study and consideration. It's more that we're
Speaker 1: trying to kind of take stock of what's going on
Speaker 1: and what elements could be playing a part in the
Speaker 1: in the process of someone encountering extremist views and the
Speaker 1: possibility of getting wrapped up in that um. So with
Speaker 1: that in mind, let's talk about social media. One thing
Speaker 1: I noticed I decided to do a quick search bridget
Speaker 1: before we jumped on this call, and I found a
Speaker 1: Pew Research survey from a couple of years ago that
Speaker 1: was looking at, uh, what percentage of people were getting
Speaker 1: some or most of their news through social networking sites,
Speaker 1: primarily Facebook, And at this point it's around adults get
Speaker 1: either some of their news through social media or practically
Speaker 1: all of their news through social media. So obviously a
Speaker 1: social platform plays a big part in the way we
Speaker 1: access information that we then tried to incorporate into our lives. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think so. I know that study. I'm glad that
Speaker 1: you grounded it in our conversation in that study. You know,
Speaker 1: as someone who tracks and and talks and thinks a
Speaker 1: lot about the way that platforms operate in the role
Speaker 1: they have in our society. For a long time, platforms
Speaker 1: like Facebook would say that they were just neutral plat forms,
Speaker 1: you know, they did not need to take any kind
Speaker 1: of editorial strategy because they're just neutral platforms. And I
Speaker 1: think that Pew study that adults get some some aspect
Speaker 1: of their news from from these platforms really shows how
Speaker 1: that's not always the case. You know, you have to
Speaker 1: I think that tech leaders should be thinking about their
Speaker 1: platform policies based on the role they actually play in
Speaker 1: their users lives. And if most users are saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I use your platforms to get my news, then maybe
Speaker 1: you do need to have a little bit of editorial strategy, right,
Speaker 1: Maybe you do need to have policies in place to
Speaker 1: make sure that it's that it's being used in safe
Speaker 1: and responsible ways. I'm glad that we have moved away
Speaker 1: from that thinking that's like, oh, it is not my
Speaker 1: fire on a platform. It is not my responsibility to
Speaker 1: have any kind of policing or policies around what is
Speaker 1: on that platform, which I think was the conversation for
Speaker 1: so long. Yeah, I think the interesting thing to me
Speaker 1: is that, um, you will hear a lot of debate
Speaker 1: in in the in America about Section to thirty, which
Speaker 1: is a specific piece of legislation that provides online platforms
Speaker 1: some legal immunity from the sort of stuff that their
Speaker 1: users might post to those platforms, saying that they are
Speaker 1: not responsible for the things that their users share. And
Speaker 1: the hope of the people who actually drafted that legislation
Speaker 1: was that it was going to be a two pronged thing.
Speaker 1: It would allow platforms to establish themselves, because otherwise they
Speaker 1: would constantly be under legal threat and nothing would ever
Speaker 1: gain any traction, because this legislation was proposed in the
Speaker 1: nineties when the Worldwide Web was very young, And the
Speaker 1: second part was that they were really hoping it was
Speaker 1: going to lead to uh to moderation practices on these platforms,
Speaker 1: that the platforms would moderate the material that was being
Speaker 1: posted to them without fear of legal action against them
Speaker 1: for doing so, that they would be given that freedom.
Speaker 1: And the problem or one of the problems is that
Speaker 1: a lot of these platforms embraced the first part where
Speaker 1: they're not held responsible for the stuff that people post
Speaker 1: to them, but they didn't go so hard on the
Speaker 1: second part, where they actually moderate the material. And we've
Speaker 1: seen that time and again because we've seen it on Facebook,
Speaker 1: we've seen it a lot on YouTube. I mean, the
Speaker 1: the whole uh controversy a couple of years ago about
Speaker 1: the the various bizarre and sometimes very disturbing videos that
Speaker 1: were showing up on YouTube's children oriented service shows that, Uh,
Speaker 1: they weren't really looking at it from that perspective for
Speaker 1: multiple reasons. And we'll get into some of those a
Speaker 1: little bit later, because it does tie into the algorithm
Speaker 1: side too. Uh. The other part Pew study that I
Speaker 1: saw that was interesting and disheartening is a separate study
Speaker 1: found that people who gained most of their news from
Speaker 1: social media of sites were in general less engaged and
Speaker 1: less knowledgeable about the subject matter than those who were
Speaker 1: consuming it from multiple sources. So if you were someone who, yeah,
Speaker 1: you've got some of your news from social platforms, but
Speaker 1: you also got some of your news from journals or
Speaker 1: newspapers or television, or radio or whatever. You generally had
Speaker 1: a better understanding of subject matter. And this to me
Speaker 1: almost sounds like the problem of people reading a headline,
Speaker 1: never clicking through to read and digest the content, and
Speaker 1: basing their entire response on the headline and maybe comments
Speaker 1: that are placed underneath an article that's been posted to Facebook,
Speaker 1: let's say, which is really upsetting as someone who has
Speaker 1: an English background, I mean especially and for us, like
Speaker 1: we've worked in media, we know there's a special skill
Speaker 1: in creating headlines that doesn't necessarily relate back to the
Speaker 1: content of the piece that it's attached to, or it's
Speaker 1: it's some minor element that's elevated in order to gain attention.
Speaker 1: So this, to me is another issue. And this is
Speaker 1: before we even get into purposeful misinformation. This can just
Speaker 1: be a misunderstanding because you didn't take the time to
Speaker 1: read the full material. Oh absolutely, I can. I'm I
Speaker 1: can say so much about this. Um So, I got
Speaker 1: my One of the places that I've worked in my
Speaker 1: life was MSNBC. I was on their digital team and
Speaker 1: so our job was essentially framing stories on social media
Speaker 1: in ways that we're going to get them clicks, and
Speaker 1: you know, attention online, and so we also had access
Speaker 1: to metrics, so we could actually see how people were
Speaker 1: engaging with this content. And the amount of times that
Speaker 1: people share stories on Facebook that we can see on
Speaker 1: the back end that they have not actually clicked in
Speaker 1: to read would frighten you. But it was our job
Speaker 1: to kind of explore that, and so we learned that,
Speaker 1: you know, oh, people like to share articles where it
Speaker 1: seems like they're trying to indicate something about themselves, like
Speaker 1: this article makes them look thoughtful or um interesting or
Speaker 1: unique or well read but really informed, um, and so
Speaker 1: they want to project that to the best of their followers,
Speaker 1: so they share it. But those same stories are the
Speaker 1: ones that people aren't clicking in to read. And so
Speaker 1: it really is not surprising to me that people who
Speaker 1: get their media and news from social media primarily are
Speaker 1: less informed and less engaged, because I think these media
Speaker 1: ecosystems really prioritize that. I think that they built a
Speaker 1: media landscape that prioritizes sharing without reading thoughtfully right, like
Speaker 1: everything happened so quickly on the Internet, I feel like
Speaker 1: that is what's really the priority. And I also think
Speaker 1: just our our media landscape has really changed I grew
Speaker 1: up in a household where we got the newspaper. We've
Speaker 1: got multiple newspapers in my home and we have to,
Speaker 1: you know, note the ways that are Our journalism industry
Speaker 1: has really been you know, um decimated. And so it's
Speaker 1: not surprising to me that as small local papers that
Speaker 1: are putting out local, relevant, timely information right on your doorstep,
Speaker 1: as those begin to shut their doors, more and more
Speaker 1: people are turning to social media, which is in turn
Speaker 1: and making them less informed. That this is not a
Speaker 1: surprise to me. Right, I have a great example to
Speaker 1: give you a bridget It's a very recent one and
Speaker 1: I think it's one you'll appreciate, which is that, uh,
Speaker 1: as I record this, I think we're like a day
Speaker 1: out from when a trailer for a new Mortal Kombat
Speaker 1: movie came out and over on Jezebel, a writer wrote
Speaker 1: an article with the title, why isn't chun Lee in
Speaker 1: the Mortal Kombat movie? And for those who aren't schooled
Speaker 1: in Mortal Kombat, chun Ley is not a character from
Speaker 1: Mortal Kombat. She's a character from Street Fighter, different different franchise, Right,
Speaker 1: But that was the headline. If you at the article,
Speaker 1: there were hints in the article that this was a joke,
Speaker 1: that there's a point where she they say, if in
Speaker 1: the ultimate street Fight, chun Lee needs to be there,
Speaker 1: indicating yes, the author knows that chun Lee doesn't live
Speaker 1: in Mortal Kombat world, that chun Ley lives in street
Speaker 1: Fighter world. But it was almost like a like a
Speaker 1: social experiment, and of course Twitter went nuts and everybody
Speaker 1: started slamming this article, saying, look, how stupid this person is.
Speaker 1: They don't even know that chun Ley is not in
Speaker 1: Mortal Kombat. Which made me say, all this is telling
Speaker 1: me is which of you guys failed to read the article,
Speaker 1: Because if you had read the article, you would have
Speaker 1: seen it was a joke, you would have recognized it
Speaker 1: as satire, and you would know that that this was
Speaker 1: a wind up the whole time. You're really just falling
Speaker 1: into the trap that the writer set at this point.
Speaker 1: And it's just the perfect microcosm of this this tendency.
Speaker 1: And I think that po listing links to two news
Speaker 1: articles has almost become a shortcut for a comment. It's
Speaker 1: almost like a comment or a gift or an emoji. Right,
Speaker 1: It's a way for someone to say, here is my thought,
Speaker 1: on that, uh in headline form, even though you may
Speaker 1: not have clicked through to read the actual article underneath,
Speaker 1: or you're just you're looking for something that supports whatever
Speaker 1: position you're taking on any particular topic, whether it's something
Speaker 1: lighthearted in pop culture or it's something really serious and
Speaker 1: it has to do with like politics or health. And
Speaker 1: I see that a lot too, where people are clearly
Speaker 1: grabbing articles. They're just doing the down in dirty Google
Speaker 1: search to find something that looks like it supports their
Speaker 1: position and uses that in place. So again, this is
Speaker 1: all before you even get too purposeful misinformation or disinformation.
Speaker 1: It may be that the sources that you pull from
Speaker 1: our misinformation, but it may be that they're totally yet
Speaker 1: you just don't know the context for it. So you're
Speaker 1: just you're just throwing things at the wall to see
Speaker 1: what sticks. And uh So we're doing a lot of
Speaker 1: the work ourselves is part of it, Like we have
Speaker 1: created a a kind of culture that supports the sharing
Speaker 1: of misinformation. But the flip side of that coin is
Speaker 1: these platforms are optimized for the sharing of misinformation and
Speaker 1: the elevation of misinformation. And that's really the part that
Speaker 1: we can look at more critically and say in what
Speaker 1: ways is this happening? And uh and and how culpable
Speaker 1: are these platforms for that process? Uh? Keeping in mind
Speaker 1: that in most cases, I think we would argue that
Speaker 1: ultimately there are other people not connected to the platforms
Speaker 1: who are generating the content that's getting elevated there, but
Speaker 1: the platforms are benefiting from that. Um. So let's talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about that and and what is going
Speaker 1: on with these platforms and why we want to even
Speaker 1: talk about algorithms. Uh So, just so you guys out there, no,
Speaker 1: and algorithm is essentially just a list of instructions. It's
Speaker 1: a you can think of it like a program. Doesn't
Speaker 1: have to be a program, but it's essentially a list
Speaker 1: of instructions that guides some sort of process. And in
Speaker 1: the case of social networks, essentially what we talk about
Speaker 1: when we say algorithm is it's the bit of that
Speaker 1: platform that decides what content you see in what order
Speaker 1: you see it. So for YouTube, it could be the
Speaker 1: recommendation engine where you're watching one video and then you've
Speaker 1: got a whole bunch of other videos recommended along the side.
Speaker 1: So for me, it's all, uh, cute animal videos. I
Speaker 1: wish I could lie and say it wasn't. I'm a
Speaker 1: punk rock kind of guy. But it's all kitten and
Speaker 1: puppy videos sometimes a sloth um and Facebook. It's it's
Speaker 1: which posts you see in which order. You know, everyone
Speaker 1: gets frustrated that they're not seeing it in a reverse
Speaker 1: chronological order. Well, that's by design, and if as users
Speaker 1: we think of it as it's the algorithm that shows
Speaker 1: us what is potentially next on our docket. For the platforms,
Speaker 1: algorithms exist solely because the platform wants to keep people
Speaker 1: on it for as long as possible, because that's how
Speaker 1: the platforms make money. It's through advertising, Uh, it's through
Speaker 1: the the commoditization of people's personal information that they generate
Speaker 1: while they're on that platform. And the longer you're on it,
Speaker 1: the more the platform makes So the algorithms are are
Speaker 1: I would argue a moral they don't really care what
Speaker 1: is they're serving up as long as it keeps you there,
Speaker 1: and that I think is the core of the problem.
Speaker 1: Absolutely a thousand percent correct. I think that tech platforms
Speaker 1: need to be held accountable for the ways that their
Speaker 1: algorithms have really just take an advantage of a lot
Speaker 1: of human nature is not so great tendencies, right humans. Listen,
Speaker 1: we all know humans are terrible, right. We are lazy.
Speaker 1: We make rash, snap decisions, myself very much included. We
Speaker 1: will smash that share button, smash that like button, smash
Speaker 1: that comment button on an article that frankly, we have
Speaker 1: not read, and we're just putting our uninformed opinion out there.
Speaker 1: I am guilty of all of this. Right, Platforms Essentially,
Speaker 1: algorithms have rewarded that kind of behavior, that kind of
Speaker 1: quick behavior, snap decision making, and created this this media
Speaker 1: landscape where the citizenry is less informed, less engaged, and
Speaker 1: more prime for bad actors to disinform and misinform them.
Speaker 1: And I think the way that you put it it
Speaker 1: is completely correct. And I think you know I I
Speaker 1: say this all the time on my own podcast. I
Speaker 1: want to one of the reasons why I'm very interested
Speaker 1: in disinformation is because I think it's a good example
Speaker 1: of the way that algorithmic thinking has really failed us.
Speaker 1: You know, I want to build an internet that prioritizes
Speaker 1: and privileges things like thoughtfulness or you know, discourse, or
Speaker 1: really engaging with opinions that are different from your own.
Speaker 1: And I feel like algorithms and platforms have given us
Speaker 1: the opposite. It's a media landscape that rewards quick decision
Speaker 1: making and being less engaged and less thoughtful and engaging
Speaker 1: less and thus leaving people really able to be exploited
Speaker 1: by people who do want to push misinformation and disinformation.
Speaker 1: And I think when platforms like Facebook get rich off
Speaker 1: of it, we really have to ask some questions. You know,
Speaker 1: Facebook's own internal report says that six or four percent
Speaker 1: at a time, when somebody joins an extremist Facebook group,
Speaker 1: it's because Facebook itself recommended it, right, They should not
Speaker 1: then be getting more money based on something that they
Speaker 1: admit has such a corrosive impact on our society. Hey, guys,
Speaker 1: Jonathan from the future here is coming in to say,
Speaker 1: we're going to take a quick break with our conversation
Speaker 1: with bridget Todd of there are no girls on the Internet,
Speaker 1: and we will be back right after this break. You
Speaker 1: can't play both sides of the issue saying, uh, we
Speaker 1: don't have any responsibility, We're we're neutral, We're just a
Speaker 1: platform that people post to, and then also reaping the
Speaker 1: billions of dollars generated through the process of radicalization. If
Speaker 1: you are directly profiting from that process. You are at
Speaker 1: least in some way culpable for it. You can't like
Speaker 1: the idea of being able to wash your hands and
Speaker 1: walk away is uh alien to me. I can't imagine
Speaker 1: being able to shed that kind of responsibility. And you know,
Speaker 1: we talk about Facebook revenue in the billions of dollars
Speaker 1: every single quarter. It's not not billions of dollars per year.
Speaker 1: Every quarter of that company is making billions and a
Speaker 1: lot of this is because of these algorithms that you know,
Speaker 1: Facebook's their value proposition is that they can put very
Speaker 1: specific groups of people in front of very specific content.
Speaker 1: And it's it's because the the the Facebook engine learns
Speaker 1: so much about us and what how we interact that
Speaker 1: it can start predicting the things that we're going to
Speaker 1: react to next and thus serve up that stuff in
Speaker 1: front of us, and sure enough, we're bound to act
Speaker 1: on it. And in if this were a world where
Speaker 1: radicalization wasn't a thing, that would mostly mean we would
Speaker 1: all be buying more crap and that would be the
Speaker 1: worst of it. But we're seeing in the same thing
Speaker 1: is true of YouTube, right that YouTube Google when you
Speaker 1: log into YouTube, not if you're just browsing it, like,
Speaker 1: without being logged in. But if you're logged into YouTube,
Speaker 1: it is constantly tweaking your profile of the sort of
Speaker 1: things that you interact with, both on and off the site,
Speaker 1: and building on that and determining what you want to
Speaker 1: see next. In fact, there were there was a study
Speaker 1: self published, not even pure reviewed. I hesitate to even
Speaker 1: bring it up, but there was one report that was
Speaker 1: published a couple of years ago where a pair of
Speaker 1: researchers and I used the term lightly, argued that YouTube
Speaker 1: wasn't contributing to radicalization. And they had this whole thing
Speaker 1: where they talked about watching different styles of videos and
Speaker 1: seeing what got recommended next. Except for one tiny little thing.
Speaker 1: They didn't log into YouTube. They were they were watching
Speaker 1: it without logging in, And it's the log in process
Speaker 1: where Google starts to build that profile, figuring out, oh, well,
Speaker 1: they're inter acting with a lot of content that's in
Speaker 1: say the video game space. That's another one that I
Speaker 1: watch a lot of. So now I get puppies and
Speaker 1: kittens and video games, not all in the same video
Speaker 1: there separate, but I get a good mix. Um. But
Speaker 1: if I were if I were to start watching videos
Speaker 1: that were let's say a little to the far right
Speaker 1: or the far left of the spectrum. Uh, then the
Speaker 1: those algorithms start working and start determining what other sort
Speaker 1: of videos might I respond well to, and based upon
Speaker 1: my activities on the site, it tweaks those waitings, right,
Speaker 1: It says, it's like machine learning. It says, all right, well,
Speaker 1: we saw that they that this person spent an hour
Speaker 1: when we shared this kind of video, so let's push
Speaker 1: even harder on that and see if we can get
Speaker 1: that engagement up even more. And from the platform side,
Speaker 1: they're just thinking, how can we maximize this person's time
Speaker 1: on our platform and make the most money. But it's
Speaker 1: it's the same general approach as trying to radicalize someone,
Speaker 1: where you're trying to continually serve them up information from
Speaker 1: a very specific ideology and to reinforce that over and over.
Speaker 1: It just so happens that these two things are in
Speaker 1: aligned with one another. And so from that algorithmic standpoint,
Speaker 1: we see the process of radicalization somewhat automated, and that
Speaker 1: is where the real concerns are, and we know that
Speaker 1: this is still a thing. There was a report just
Speaker 1: earlier this month about how researchers were still finding that
Speaker 1: extremist videos would get pop up in the recommendation uh
Speaker 1: sidebar if you were to to watch them, whereas YouTube
Speaker 1: has been working pretty hard to to to call that,
Speaker 1: but it's still happening. So this is I can't see
Speaker 1: how if you run so shual media platform that has
Speaker 1: an algorithm to determine what order you see stuff in,
Speaker 1: how you can step back and say you're not responsible
Speaker 1: for at least playing a role in leading people toward extremism.
Speaker 1: I mean, I wish I had that ability to wash
Speaker 1: my hands of responsibility of things that I don't want
Speaker 1: you be responsible for. But it's difficult to see how people,
Speaker 1: how tech leaders cannot see their culpability in this. Just
Speaker 1: as you described, it's it's very difficult to make the
Speaker 1: argument that they don't have a responsibility when these kinds
Speaker 1: of things, by their own metrics, are happening on their platform.
Speaker 1: It's very clear study after study after study, particularly on YouTube,
Speaker 1: which frankly, you know, in all of the conversations we've
Speaker 1: been happening about having about you know, platform accountability, I've
Speaker 1: been surprised the way that YouTube has really been able
Speaker 1: to kind of skirt a lot of that heat. Like
Speaker 1: we talk a lot about Facebook, we talk about Twitter,
Speaker 1: but YouTube. I don't know how they've done it, but
Speaker 1: they've been a this sort of sidestep that conversation, which
Speaker 1: I think is really not good considering the role they
Speaker 1: do play in radicalization. You know, I think that we
Speaker 1: really I'm very curious how they've been able to avoid
Speaker 1: that kind of responsibility for so long. Your point about platforms,
Speaker 1: I think it is such a good one, and that
Speaker 1: if they're if if we didn't, if you lived in
Speaker 1: a wrote that did not have radical views or extremist views,
Speaker 1: even then I would I would want to ask questions
Speaker 1: about whether or not these platforms are actually doing good
Speaker 1: or doing harm. I remember this time. This is kind
Speaker 1: of a weird story, but I was going through a
Speaker 1: breakup and I was still following my ex on Facebook.
Speaker 1: And it was one of those breakups where I was like,
Speaker 1: you know, like it was really getting me down, and
Speaker 1: I realized Facebook must have sensed that my relationship with
Speaker 1: this other account was something was going on there. So
Speaker 1: every little update that I got about my ex, Facebook
Speaker 1: was like shoving it in my face. And I realized
Speaker 1: a platform can make you feel bad about yourself. A
Speaker 1: platform can make you if it has the power to
Speaker 1: shape you to extremist ideality, to your extremist thinking or
Speaker 1: political content. It has that power to really shape how
Speaker 1: we feel in our day to day. I wish it
Speaker 1: wasn't true, but it is. And so I think even
Speaker 1: from that perspective, it is completely fair to step back
Speaker 1: and ask, well, how are these platforms contributing to harm?
Speaker 1: Whether it's extremist content or just how someone feels on
Speaker 1: their day to day, like if they feel like they're
Speaker 1: able to step away from platforms, if platforms have prioritized
Speaker 1: amount of time on screen or amount of time on
Speaker 1: a page, or what have you. Is that kind of
Speaker 1: thinking doing harm in society? I think it's completely fair
Speaker 1: to ask these questions. And I think, you know, I
Speaker 1: would like platforms. I would like tech leaders and the
Speaker 1: people that you know use these these technologies to have
Speaker 1: that conversation. But I feel like getting to a point
Speaker 1: where we're all on the same page it has been
Speaker 1: so tough. Yeah, And I would say that the the
Speaker 1: efforts we have seen kind of illustrate the point you're making,
Speaker 1: Bridget in that we see these tech companies occasionally spawned
Speaker 1: when things come to a point where there's no other option,
Speaker 1: they have to respond right there, called before Congress. Perhaps
Speaker 1: that's happened multiple times now, or they're under pressure because
Speaker 1: of advertisers that don't want to be associated with things
Speaker 1: that are spiraling out of control. Uh, we see that
Speaker 1: those cases when I have things get to the extreme,
Speaker 1: But often the responses are very uh, surface level. So
Speaker 1: things like we now have a part of our app
Speaker 1: where it will alert you if you've spent X amount
Speaker 1: of time on the app, So it's a little screen
Speaker 1: alert time. And you're thinking, well, I see how you're
Speaker 1: trying to address the issue kind of, but you're not
Speaker 1: getting at the underlying problem. You're just looking at a symptom.
Speaker 1: It's like treating someone who is very, very sick, but
Speaker 1: all you can do is alleviate the terms but not
Speaker 1: cure the sickness. The same sort of issue. And uh,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about platforms that have the capacity to
Speaker 1: make massive changes in people's behavior over time, that's not
Speaker 1: really good enough, right, That's it. We are We are
Speaker 1: having countless people go down dark pathways where it's very
Speaker 1: hard to turn back, and there's they're going into communities
Speaker 1: where there's all this reinforcement that's again supplemented by the
Speaker 1: wave platforms work in the first place. Now, one of
Speaker 1: the other things I wanted to mention is that and
Speaker 1: I we talked about at the very beginning about how
Speaker 1: we don't know really the full scope of the effect
Speaker 1: of this. We know what's happening, we know that it's
Speaker 1: a problem. The interesting thing is seeing some disagreements among
Speaker 1: researchers who have really looked into this as to the extent.
Speaker 1: So one of the articles I referenced with you, Bridget
Speaker 1: was one that an opinion piece and wired by Emma Bryant.
Speaker 1: She was writing about the Oxford Institute. They had released
Speaker 1: a study that was showing an increase in UH companies
Speaker 1: participating in influenced. Influenced campaigns is the way they word it.
Speaker 1: I hate these I hate these words that we use
Speaker 1: where we take the staying out of what's happening. It's
Speaker 1: an influence campaing. Although it does also bring give you
Speaker 1: a new appreciation of what it means to be an influencer.
Speaker 1: It makes it much more sinister, realistic, but sinister. Yeah,
Speaker 1: campaign sounds like what a Instagram influencer does to get
Speaker 1: you to buy coffee or something. Yeah. And now, granted
Speaker 1: you could argue that the same same ideas that are
Speaker 1: used by influencers to try and get their followers to
Speaker 1: go and buy whatever brand is supporting them are it's
Speaker 1: somewhat aligned with some of these other ideas. But I
Speaker 1: think we could agree that there's a spectrum of harm
Speaker 1: here from from oh man, this drink that I bought
Speaker 1: is real nasty. I wish I hadn't bought it too.
Speaker 1: Oh man, I found myself on the steps of the
Speaker 1: Capitol on January six that boy, well, am I sorry
Speaker 1: that I've done that? Um, that's a that's a spectrum
Speaker 1: right there, That's what we call that. But what am
Speaker 1: I Brant was writing about was that so Oxford Institut
Speaker 1: who comes out and says that that there's been an
Speaker 1: increase year over year of this form of of misinformation
Speaker 1: campaigns and the role of the Internet, and uh, Bryant's
Speaker 1: point was that we don't even understand the full scope
Speaker 1: of this, and it's more like we're paying more attention,
Speaker 1: so we're seeing more of this, but it doesn't tell
Speaker 1: us that there's actually been an increase year over year.
Speaker 1: What it tells us is that we're finally paying attention
Speaker 1: to a very real problem that's been around for a while.
Speaker 1: If I can make an analogy, it's kind of like
Speaker 1: when people started to see, uh, what appeared to be
Speaker 1: autism rates rise, but in reality it looked like it
Speaker 1: was more that the definition and the way of diagnosing
Speaker 1: autism had expanded to a point where we were just
Speaker 1: realizing the number of cases that actually exist, as opposed
Speaker 1: to it's increasing. It was more that, oh, no, it
Speaker 1: was here, we just didn't recognize a lot of this
Speaker 1: as autism. It was sort of the same argument that
Speaker 1: Emma Brian is making in that if you if you
Speaker 1: come back and you say, well, I looked at the ocean,
Speaker 1: and we took a bucket out and we filled it
Speaker 1: up five times, so we know there's at least five
Speaker 1: buckets of water in the ocean. And you say, well, yes,
Speaker 1: but there's a lot else that's there that we don't
Speaker 1: know about yet, and we we haven't measured and we
Speaker 1: haven't quantified. And to me, that is it's interesting. It
Speaker 1: shows an opportunity for actual, real research and analysis and
Speaker 1: study into what's actually there as opposed to what's being reported,
Speaker 1: and it's frightening. It's so scary because we don't even
Speaker 1: like like she says, you know, they looked at a
Speaker 1: list of a couple of dozen different um UH platforms
Speaker 1: that were actively pushing out misinformation back in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: I think it was, And she said, listen in Cambridge,
Speaker 1: Analytica was active in six different countries by itself, that
Speaker 1: was just one and says I've I've just started and
Speaker 1: I've made a list of more than six hundred companies
Speaker 1: that are actively push pushing out influencer operations. So that's
Speaker 1: why I wanted to set that ground early on. Is
Speaker 1: it's not to say that what we're talking about UH
Speaker 1: isn't relevant, but rather we can't speak in any any
Speaker 1: definitive scope because we just don't know what that scope is.
Speaker 1: And to that means that we've gotta be on the lookout. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and I'm sorry to say this, but that Oxford
Speaker 1: study that that she references in that piece is incredibly influential, right,
Speaker 1: and so it is it's upsetting to see, I mean,
Speaker 1: the name like Oxford, you expect a level of rigor,
Speaker 1: you know, in in the kind of research they're putting
Speaker 1: out right, I'm not a researcher, so I I can't
Speaker 1: really say. But the name Oxford, You're like, Okay, that's
Speaker 1: going to be a very reputable you know, it's a
Speaker 1: reputable place. But it's got some it's got some research
Speaker 1: street cred. Yeah. Absolutely. Um. And it's upsetting that that
Speaker 1: study was so influential in the disinformation space when a
Speaker 1: lot of the points that it makes are really flawed.
Speaker 1: And she also, I have to say, she points out
Speaker 1: that there the study itself had a lot of typos
Speaker 1: and like spelling errors, which I would be so embarrassed
Speaker 1: if I put out an influential study and someone was like,
Speaker 1: actually it was really sloppy, I would be like mortified.
Speaker 1: Her point is that the work is largely without meaning
Speaker 1: because it's creating a sense that we have metrics for
Speaker 1: something where uh, you know, really it's it's it's such
Speaker 1: a small subsection of the overall problem that her point
Speaker 1: is that it doesn't really tell us anything, right, It
Speaker 1: just it tells us of the reported incidents, But that,
Speaker 1: unfortunately is not really meaningful if you're looking at a
Speaker 1: holistic approach to misinformation, and in fact, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: and in fact, she was also pointing out that the
Speaker 1: study looked at countries where the reporting mechanism might not
Speaker 1: be as vigorous as in others, like countries that don't
Speaker 1: have the same sort of perspective on things like the
Speaker 1: freedom of the press, maybe state controlled press. You have
Speaker 1: places like China and Russia where the state has a
Speaker 1: large amount of influence on the media that goes out
Speaker 1: in those countries. Uh, It's it does show that that
Speaker 1: it's dangerous to take any stance where you're making absolute
Speaker 1: claims because we just don't have the study to really
Speaker 1: do that justifiably. We we don't have the evidence to
Speaker 1: back that up. You're exactly right, We don't know the
Speaker 1: real scope of the problem and the sort of lay
Speaker 1: of the land. I also think something that she points
Speaker 1: out that's really important to keep in mind is that
Speaker 1: a lot of folks from a media perspective just weren't
Speaker 1: really talking about disinformation in a serious way prior to
Speaker 1: like right, and so I think that an issue that
Speaker 1: we do have is people kind of getting up to
Speaker 1: speed with how we think about this issue in a
Speaker 1: holistic way, because I think, you know, after and after
Speaker 1: you know, the insurrection, I feel almost overnight, this was
Speaker 1: an issue that was getting more buzz and more pressed
Speaker 1: and people were talking about it more. But with that
Speaker 1: really does come and need to take a take a
Speaker 1: beat and would have analyzed how we've got to the
Speaker 1: space and and what, you know, try to put some
Speaker 1: more research around, you know, understanding what is actually going on.
Speaker 1: And I agree that we haven't really gotten there yet. Um,
Speaker 1: and I am happy that there are more people who
Speaker 1: are interested in this issue, but I don't want it
Speaker 1: to become an issue where people are claiming to have
Speaker 1: more knowledge than they do, or people are claiming that
Speaker 1: we know more than we do. Because this this is
Speaker 1: very much still developing problem that we're still sort of
Speaker 1: trying to get a hold on. I would say, yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't want there to be misinformation about how much
Speaker 1: misinformation there is. Yeah, hey, guys, Jonathan from the future. Again,
Speaker 1: we're going to take a quick break, but we'll be
Speaker 1: right back with more about social media platforms, algorithms and radicalization.
Speaker 1: So this issue is getting to a point where the
Speaker 1: concern is great, and yet you also look at the
Speaker 1: tactics that are being used. You realize that the tactics
Speaker 1: that are used are very old. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the the approaches to extremism, to propaganda, to misinformation, that stuff.
Speaker 1: We we've got a handle on that. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you can see numerous documentaries from everything from people who
Speaker 1: were experts in creating the propaganda during World War Two,
Speaker 1: both on both sides of the conflict, up to you know,
Speaker 1: the ad executives. I mean, that's what Madman was all about,
Speaker 1: was the idea of framing. You know, how do you
Speaker 1: frame information in a way to get people to do
Speaker 1: what you want them to do. Um. You know, there's
Speaker 1: the whole discussion about the advertising about cigarettes, was all
Speaker 1: about that. So, like this is all old stuff. What's
Speaker 1: new is this this method of compartmentalizing communities and reinforcing
Speaker 1: the delivery system of that material. So it's the identifying
Speaker 1: of a potential candidate, the introduction of material to that
Speaker 1: candidate that will set them potentially down this pathway, and
Speaker 1: then the methods of reinforcing that and indoctrinating that person
Speaker 1: into more radical views. Interestingly, probably not surprisingly, some of
Speaker 1: the studies I was looking at suggested that this is
Speaker 1: most effective for people who kind of have the lone
Speaker 1: wolf kind of approach to radicalism, that in cases where
Speaker 1: you're looking at groups of extremists, typically the meat space
Speaker 1: is where that kind of radicalization still happens primarily. So,
Speaker 1: but I would also argue that the insurrection on January six,
Speaker 1: that that was in large part a lot of different
Speaker 1: individuals who all just sort of kind of converged on
Speaker 1: the same point. That it wasn't as much let's all
Speaker 1: join these online groups and then we start to plan
Speaker 1: from there. It was that it was a bunch of
Speaker 1: individuals who started slowly gravitating toward one another through methods
Speaker 1: like this. And of course there are other communities I
Speaker 1: mentioned before, communities like parlor or parley if you prefer, uh, which, hey,
Speaker 1: they're back, that's great, um that where you know, there's
Speaker 1: not so much the algorithm there. It's it's that it's
Speaker 1: a community that is actively reinforcing beliefs. So in that case,
Speaker 1: it's it's almost more like the traditional method of radicalization
Speaker 1: in the sense that you have this this self um
Speaker 1: selected community that is following this process. So it we
Speaker 1: have we have the whole spectrum here. We still have
Speaker 1: the meat space stuff. We have the online communities that
Speaker 1: are specifically geared uh if not specifically geared overtly at
Speaker 1: least effectively, they're geared towards radicalization. And then you've got
Speaker 1: the stuff that everybody's using that can lead you to
Speaker 1: that pathway. So, um, how you feeling, bridget I mean,
Speaker 1: as you were describing the the issue, I almost felt
Speaker 1: this this paying in the pit of my stomach because
Speaker 1: we're up like, we are up against so much. There
Speaker 1: are so many you know, we have we have the
Speaker 1: in real life meat space organizing radicalizing people. We have
Speaker 1: these platforms that are engineered to radicalized folks. That scope
Speaker 1: of the problem is quite large. And I often wonder like,
Speaker 1: and I'm actually will be curious to know your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Do you think will ever tackle this? I do you
Speaker 1: think that we will ever get to a place where
Speaker 1: it is not just the norm for folks to be
Speaker 1: having these kinds of experiences being rad clies online. I
Speaker 1: think without without forcing the platforms through legislation, regulations, whatever
Speaker 1: it may be, to take a truly active role and
Speaker 1: to and also to be incredibly transparent with how their
Speaker 1: algorithms work, we won't get there. And companies are going
Speaker 1: to be extremely resistant to that, obviously, because the algorithm
Speaker 1: is that's the secret sauce for making the money, so
Speaker 1: you don't. The companies are very resistant to make that
Speaker 1: a transparent process because, for one thing, it could give
Speaker 1: a competitor the opportunity to beat them at their own game,
Speaker 1: make a better algorithm that does essentially the same thing
Speaker 1: but in a slightly different way, and then they're no
Speaker 1: longer king of the hill. Uh. I think it's gonna
Speaker 1: be really tricky. I think the moves we're seeing in
Speaker 1: the US government where there's the potential of breaking up
Speaker 1: some of these companies, I don't think that that's necessarily
Speaker 1: going to solve this problem. There's going to be there.
Speaker 1: There will need to be additional measures put in place
Speaker 1: for that too to be effective. Otherwise, all you're doing
Speaker 1: is taking one big piece and you're making a bunch
Speaker 1: of smaller pieces. But if they're all working the same
Speaker 1: way as the big piece was, we haven't really solved
Speaker 1: any issues. Um. I think everyone recognizes the amount of
Speaker 1: power these companies have there that's undeniable. The question is
Speaker 1: how do we deal with that. My answer from my
Speaker 1: my from a personal standpoint is not satisfying, because I
Speaker 1: just disengaged. I quit Facebook, But that that's one person,
Speaker 1: and I would never tell anyone else like, you've got
Speaker 1: to quit Facebook. I might believe it really hard, but
Speaker 1: I can't tell them that because that's the way a
Speaker 1: lot of people stay in touch with their friends and family.
Speaker 1: It's a way a lot of people rely on Facebook
Speaker 1: for their own businesses. I am in a luxurious position
Speaker 1: where I can disengage and uh, I got a dog.
Speaker 1: I'm okay. I might not talked about friends anymore, but
Speaker 1: I got a dog. Um, and I still got all
Speaker 1: those dog videos on YouTube too, So really I'm living
Speaker 1: it up. But but yeah, I mean, like that's the
Speaker 1: that's the thing is that this is a huge problem,
Speaker 1: and like a lot of huge problems, there may not
Speaker 1: be a simple solution. There may not be one that
Speaker 1: is uh completely satisfying, and it may be really messy
Speaker 1: to implement solutions that themselves could have unintended consequences that
Speaker 1: will have to deal with later. Um. The important thing
Speaker 1: is really acknowledging that problem, putting more effort into understanding
Speaker 1: the scope and impact of that problem, and making sure
Speaker 1: that our our energy for solutions is directed in the
Speaker 1: right place. Because without really understanding the scope and the
Speaker 1: nature of the issue, the best we can do is
Speaker 1: try random solutions and hope they work. But with a
Speaker 1: deeper understanding, you can craft a pathway that is at
Speaker 1: least has a better chance of making a positive impact.
Speaker 1: That's kind of it's the lame way of saying it,
Speaker 1: But the more I looked into this, the more I thought,
Speaker 1: we just don't have a deep enough understanding, and it's
Speaker 1: largely because we didn't take it seriously, like you were saying,
Speaker 1: bridget I mean, before Brexit, people were aware that there
Speaker 1: are lies posted on the internet because people lie. You know,
Speaker 1: wherever people are, we're gonna find falsehoods. But when Brexit happened,
Speaker 1: and after all the fallout about accusations that the support
Speaker 1: for Brexit was largely based off of unsupportable claims, that's
Speaker 1: where it kind of started, the snowball effect of Wow,
Speaker 1: we've really let this get to a place where we
Speaker 1: don't have a handle on it um and we honestly
Speaker 1: don't even know how bad it is, and we still
Speaker 1: don't five years later. So yeah, I mean I feel
Speaker 1: very similarly, but I am hopeful that we are finally
Speaker 1: taking it seriously. I wish we had gotten here three
Speaker 1: years ago, five years ago, ten years ago about understanding
Speaker 1: the impact that this has. But I'm glad that we're
Speaker 1: here now, and I think what we need to do
Speaker 1: now is have these honest conversations, put money behind the
Speaker 1: research to actually understand what's going on, because I think
Speaker 1: we're tackling it late. You know, I wish we had
Speaker 1: gotten there earlier. But I'm glad we're here now. And
Speaker 1: you know, you talked about how you deleted Facebook. I
Speaker 1: still have Facebook. I need it for work. Um, But
Speaker 1: I always say, you know, a lot of these issues
Speaker 1: are big systemic. You know, we're talking about your Mark Zuckerberg,
Speaker 1: so we're talking about policy level things that it's very
Speaker 1: difficult to feel as an individual like you have any
Speaker 1: impact over that. But and that's true, but I think
Speaker 1: we can all take small steps in our individual lives
Speaker 1: to assess and be critical of the role that platforms
Speaker 1: play in our own to get diets and how we
Speaker 1: use those platforms. And so you know, I would also
Speaker 1: never tell anybody to delete Facebook, especially in a pandemic
Speaker 1: where you might not have the ability to see your
Speaker 1: friends every day but you want to feel connected. But
Speaker 1: maybe you can delete Facebook from your phone so you're
Speaker 1: not carrying around a physical reminder of its presence on
Speaker 1: your person at all times. Right, maybe you only go
Speaker 1: on the browser, and you and and on your laptop
Speaker 1: or whatever, and you're deciding when you're gonna engage with Facebook. Right,
Speaker 1: maybe you're like, I have a new rule in my house,
Speaker 1: no phones and no phones in the bedroom. Right. You
Speaker 1: can we can all find ways of having an impact
Speaker 1: on the way that Facebook plays out in our personal
Speaker 1: media diets and how we use it in our personal lives.
Speaker 1: And so while we may not be able to have
Speaker 1: a huge impact on the grip that platforms have on
Speaker 1: our democracy and our discourse, those are small things that
Speaker 1: we can all do. You know, if you're gonna share
Speaker 1: something on Facebook, read it first. You know, before you
Speaker 1: comment on something, make sure that you read it. You know,
Speaker 1: just little things, little steps. Agreed, Agreed. I think also
Speaker 1: we should point out the fact that you and I
Speaker 1: also host shows where we get the opportunity to reach
Speaker 1: out to our listeners and to suggest to them that
Speaker 1: they incorporate qualities like critical thinking. I always partner critical
Speaker 1: thinking with compassion. I think if you have one without
Speaker 1: the other, things don't go so well. But when you
Speaker 1: got both you don't go too wrong. You can't you
Speaker 1: can't go wrong. Yeah, you really just got to employ
Speaker 1: both of those things. And I am so thankful that
Speaker 1: you joined me for this discussion, and I hope that
Speaker 1: our listeners really get an understanding. Like, the reason we
Speaker 1: talk about this is because the stakes are very high,
Speaker 1: and clearly, if you recognize there are elements of friends
Speaker 1: or family of yours who appear to be maybe going
Speaker 1: down a path, you should seek out resources to help
Speaker 1: you and perhaps help them. It's a very delicate thing.
Speaker 1: I certainly am not an expert to all you how
Speaker 1: to handle a situation in every situation is different, but
Speaker 1: that I'm seeing this real impact on people. I know.
Speaker 1: There was a person that I worked with years ago
Speaker 1: in a theatrical production, and several years ago I saw
Speaker 1: him making some statements that kind of had him going
Speaker 1: down the men's rights pathway, and uh it, that was
Speaker 1: a big warning sign at the beginning, but it has
Speaker 1: since gotten worse, and I just wish that I had
Speaker 1: recognized things earlier and perhaps been a a positive influence
Speaker 1: on his life too, and not have him go down
Speaker 1: that pathway quite so wholeheartedly. Um, people are their own people.
Speaker 1: They'll make their own decisions, but we can always be
Speaker 1: supportive and helpful in certain situations. And one way you
Speaker 1: can be supportive and helpful for yourself and for others
Speaker 1: is to subscribe to There Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: Because it's an incredible show. I don't just say that
Speaker 1: because I am the executive producer of that show. I
Speaker 1: say it because it's I say it because if I
Speaker 1: had no involvement whatsoever, it's still an amazing show. In fact,
Speaker 1: I should I should point out I have a very
Speaker 1: light touch on that show. That show is amazing because
Speaker 1: of Bridget, because of Tari, and because of the incredible
Speaker 1: amount of work you you put into it. And uh,
Speaker 1: definitely go and check out Bridget show. There Are No
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet. Um, see what all the all
Speaker 1: the all the accolades are about. Because this is a
Speaker 1: show that's received quite a few of them. Oh, I mean,
Speaker 1: I couldn't. I couldn't do it without you, John at
Speaker 1: that Entari. This means so much coming from you, you know,
Speaker 1: the tech podcast Guru. I got a poster of myself
Speaker 1: in the background. It's that's how important I am. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you notice that Bridget but that's that's
Speaker 1: me back there. That's if you ever wondered who's the
Speaker 1: kind of guy who hangs a poster of himself up,
Speaker 1: well it's it's me and apparently Donald Trump. I guess
Speaker 1: that's I'm not in good I'm not in good company,
Speaker 1: but I can't deny it. It's on the door. Uh,
Speaker 1: thank you guys for listening. Make sure you again subscribe
Speaker 1: to There Are No Girls on the Internet. Go check
Speaker 1: that out. Look at the list of shows, because there
Speaker 1: have been some really incredible episodes. You've had some amazing
Speaker 1: guests on that show, and uh, it just makes me
Speaker 1: want to become a better interviewer. So I thank you
Speaker 1: for that too, because that's been very inspirational to me.
Speaker 1: And if you guys have any suggestions for future topics
Speaker 1: of tech stuff, you can reach out to me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Yes I'm I'm still active there and the handle to
Speaker 1: use this text stuff h s W and I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you again really soon. Text Stuff is an I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from My Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.