Speaker 1: Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to text Uff. I'm your host
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: and how the tech are you. It's time for the
Speaker 1: tech news for Thursday, September twenty two. The other day,
Speaker 1: I mentioned that Twitter shareholders were voting on whether or
Speaker 1: not to approve Elon Musk's offer to acquire Twitter, an
Speaker 1: offer that Musk has famelessly reconsidered since that happened all
Speaker 1: earlier this year. The shareholders voted in favor, which was
Speaker 1: not a surprise. Musk's offer was to buy Twitter at
Speaker 1: fifty four dollars twenty cents per share, which is higher
Speaker 1: than where it's trading right now. It was at eight
Speaker 1: cents a share as of the writing of this episode.
Speaker 1: Musk is currently in of in a lawsuit with Twitter.
Speaker 1: The company is attempting to force Musk to go through
Speaker 1: the deal, while Musk is trying to extricate himself from it.
Speaker 1: One of Musk's arguments is that Twitter knowingly withheld information
Speaker 1: from him, then from agencies like the SEC that would
Speaker 1: have otherwise impacted the company's value, and thus that would
Speaker 1: negate the terms of the deal, and while I was
Speaker 1: skeptical about those claims at first, our next news item
Speaker 1: definitely muddies the waters a bit, and that is because
Speaker 1: of a former head of security at Twitter who has
Speaker 1: testified in front of Congress that Twitter has had truly
Speaker 1: terrible security practices in place, including going so far as
Speaker 1: to accuse Twitter of having employed foreign government agents in
Speaker 1: positions where they could potentially access a huge amount of
Speaker 1: company data, including user data. Obviously, that poses as a
Speaker 1: massive security risk, not just for corporate security or even
Speaker 1: for personal security, but potentially national security. The former head
Speaker 1: of security, Peter Mudge Zako, was fired from his position
Speaker 1: earlier this year. Twitter reps claim that zach Co's accounts
Speaker 1: are misleading and filled with misinformation. Zacho argues that Twitter
Speaker 1: has knowingly practiced poor security despite numerous warnings. The whole
Speaker 1: thing is ugly and definitely of massive concern. If zach
Speaker 1: COO's allegations have even a little bit of truth to them,
Speaker 1: and for the record, I have no reason to disbelieve
Speaker 1: za Co, but then I don't have any insider knowledge
Speaker 1: one way or the other. If Zak's accusations are true,
Speaker 1: could this information be what Musk needs to get out
Speaker 1: of his acquisition deal. That is possible. A court will
Speaker 1: have to determine if the revelations were likely to have
Speaker 1: an impact on Twitter's valuation, which is kind of crazy
Speaker 1: to say, but from my understanding, that's what this boils
Speaker 1: down to. It's not so much about legality or responsibility
Speaker 1: or anything like that. It's about whether or not Twitter's
Speaker 1: actions would have had a negative impact on Twitter's value,
Speaker 1: because if Twitter misrepresented its value, you could then argue
Speaker 1: that Musk's offer was based on a lie and that
Speaker 1: this would be grounds to allow him to back out
Speaker 1: of the deal, though not without paying a billion dollar
Speaker 1: fee to do so. This massive chaotic mess with the
Speaker 1: Twitter acquisition might have been avoided with a different kind
Speaker 1: of deal in place, but Musk essentially waive the right
Speaker 1: to do diligence as part of the deal. Honestly, this
Speaker 1: whole story has become so complicated and controversial that I
Speaker 1: imagine I will have to do a really thorough episode
Speaker 1: about the whole thing once it concludes one way or
Speaker 1: the other. As for odds on whether the deal goes through,
Speaker 1: I just don't know. It's still down to the courts
Speaker 1: to decide if any of this matters or if it doesn't,
Speaker 1: or whether the deal conditions remain unaffected. Up until the
Speaker 1: whistleblower story broke, the general sense I got from analysts
Speaker 1: was that Musk's legal team was failing to put up
Speaker 1: a solid argument for being able to back out of
Speaker 1: the deal. However, that might have changed. I haven't seen
Speaker 1: a whole lot of analysis about this yet, and I
Speaker 1: am by no means an expert on the subject. So
Speaker 1: we'll just have to keep our eyes on this and
Speaker 1: we'll follow up as more develops. The United States Senate
Speaker 1: put social media, including Twitter, in the spotlight yesterday with
Speaker 1: a congressional hearing investigating how social media can escalate harmful narratives,
Speaker 1: how it can spread misinformation, and how it can present
Speaker 1: a risk to national security. Representatives from YouTube, Meta, Twitter,
Speaker 1: and TikTok were present and had to answer questions from
Speaker 1: various senators that ran the gambit from a allowing misinformation
Speaker 1: to propagate across communities to the very tired accusations claiming
Speaker 1: that platforms have an anti conservative bias, which has been
Speaker 1: thoroughly disproven numerous times, but it's a favorite talking point
Speaker 1: at these sort of hearings and other questions would probe
Speaker 1: things like TikTok's relationship with its Chinese parent company, Byte Dance.
Speaker 1: That's something that has also been a frequent topic of
Speaker 1: conversation for the past few years, and the tone in
Speaker 1: the hearings was reportedly pretty tense and antagonistic. Both sides
Speaker 1: of the political spectrum have access to grind with these
Speaker 1: tech companies, though the points of view can be pretty different,
Speaker 1: and there has been an increase in pressure on the
Speaker 1: tech industry from US regulators to pull back in some areas.
Speaker 1: That's pretty tough to do when for years these companies
Speaker 1: were given a ton of freedom to expand without many
Speaker 1: checks and balances. You know, it's always harder to correct
Speaker 1: after the fact and prevent it in the first place.
Speaker 1: But here we are anyway. The cynical folks out there
Speaker 1: will likely say that the hearings, well uncomfortable for the reps,
Speaker 1: are unlikely to lead to meaningful change. The more optimistic
Speaker 1: might say that this is another step on a journey
Speaker 1: for the United States that will see the country take
Speaker 1: a firmer stance against the increased influence of tech companies
Speaker 1: and how that influence can lead to dangerous situations. I
Speaker 1: honestly don't know where I fall on this. I would
Speaker 1: like to think that we'll see some real change in
Speaker 1: an effort to better protect citizens. But you know, fool
Speaker 1: me once. Shame on you, fully three twenty nine congressional hearings,
Speaker 1: and something's actually gonna get done about this, and shame
Speaker 1: on me. One place in the United States that does
Speaker 1: tend to take a pretty tough stance against overreach in
Speaker 1: the tech industry is California. Considering that's where a ton
Speaker 1: of tech companies make their headquarters. That's impressive. Now. I
Speaker 1: say that because we have to acknowledge that the influence
Speaker 1: of tech companies extends beyond their influence in the market,
Speaker 1: and it then rolls over into political influence through things
Speaker 1: like lobbyists and other means. Anyway, the state of California
Speaker 1: has brought a lawsuit against Amazon, accusing the company of
Speaker 1: practicing anti competitive behavior. Specifically, California's Attorney General accuses Amazon
Speaker 1: of burying or even preventing listings that are from other
Speaker 1: companies like Target, if those listings are for products that
Speaker 1: are priced at a level that's below Amazon's own products,
Speaker 1: if it's too competitive against Amazon. Then that, according to
Speaker 1: the allegations, means the Amazon will bury it far down
Speaker 1: in the listing so that likely no one's going to
Speaker 1: see it, or just outright prevents it from being listed
Speaker 1: in the first place, and thus presents the the cuss
Speaker 1: summer with the idea that Amazon's version is the most
Speaker 1: uh you know, cost effective and the best for the
Speaker 1: whatever the product is. So they're saying anything that doesn't
Speaker 1: uh beat Amazon's price, that's fine, but anything that does
Speaker 1: gets treated like this. That's that's the accusation. It also
Speaker 1: says that Amazon has reportedly collaborated with third party sellers
Speaker 1: to fix pricing on various products, so, in other words,
Speaker 1: essentially forcing smaller businesses to adjust their prices so that
Speaker 1: they do not go below the kind of stuff that
Speaker 1: Amazon offers. Now, price fixing is illegal, it is anti competitive.
Speaker 1: It hurts the consumer. If all parties that are selling
Speaker 1: widgets agree upon a price for widgets, then there's no
Speaker 1: competition there. Right, there's no fair market. No one is
Speaker 1: going to offer a budget widget for less because of
Speaker 1: this agreed upon price fixing. Now, Amazon reps say that
Speaker 1: this lawsuit is baseless. They actually point to a similar
Speaker 1: court case that was brought against the company in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. The court in that instance dismissed that earlier case,
Speaker 1: and so the reps are saying that's evidence that this
Speaker 1: California lawsuit is without merit because these same issues were
Speaker 1: brought up in d C and the court dismissed the case.
Speaker 1: That's true, But it's also true that the Attorney General
Speaker 1: in d C has appealed that court decision, so it
Speaker 1: could turn out that this matter heads back to court
Speaker 1: in d C as well, So it might not be
Speaker 1: the best long term defense for Amazon. Over in South Korea,
Speaker 1: the Personal Information Protection Commission or p i p C
Speaker 1: has issued a fine to Google and to Meta for
Speaker 1: the way that those companies have collected personal information for
Speaker 1: the purposes of advertising, which appears to violate the laws
Speaker 1: of South Korea. The finest for one hundred billion one
Speaker 1: that's equivalent to about seventy two million dollars. Most of that,
Speaker 1: in fact, nearly se of that is going to Google
Speaker 1: and Meta has to cover the rest of it, and
Speaker 1: it's the most that the agency has ever find companies
Speaker 1: for allegedly violating laws pertaining to personal information in South Korea.
Speaker 1: That's impressive though, you know, with companies like Google and Meta,
Speaker 1: it's not that much money when the grand scheme of things,
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously, no executive ever wants to have to
Speaker 1: pay a fine, no matter how small or large it
Speaker 1: might be. No word yet on whether Google or Meta
Speaker 1: will appeal this decision. Okay, we've got a few more
Speaker 1: news stories to cover before we get to that, Let's
Speaker 1: take a quick break. Research company news Guard issued a
Speaker 1: report yesterday that says nearly d percent of TikTok videos
Speaker 1: that popped up in search results for specific topics would
Speaker 1: contain misinformation, and those topics are ones that you can
Speaker 1: probably guess for yourself. It's stuff ranging from COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: and vaccines to Russia's invasion of Ukraine to US politics,
Speaker 1: including very polarizing things like the January six insurrection. TikTok
Speaker 1: has a policy to remove videos that spread misinformation, but
Speaker 1: even so, the researchers claimed that a casual search frequently
Speaker 1: pulls up videos that push misleading or outright false statements,
Speaker 1: and that these videos are spreading harmful lies, such as
Speaker 1: ones that claim vaccines against COVID can cause quote unquote
Speaker 1: permanent damage in children's Organs. Steve Brill, the founder of NewsGuard,
Speaker 1: didn't mince words. He said that TikTok's practices show either
Speaker 1: the company is incompetent when it comes to dealing with
Speaker 1: misinform nation or quote it's something worse end quote. Now,
Speaker 1: to me, that implies that the spread of misinformation might
Speaker 1: not be a bug, it's a feature. And when you
Speaker 1: keep in mind the fact that TikTok does have a
Speaker 1: Chinese parent company, and China has long had a reputation
Speaker 1: for using tech to spread misinformation and otherwise disrupt business
Speaker 1: and life in countries like the United States, that accusation
Speaker 1: can get real ugly, real quick now. TikTok has long
Speaker 1: maintained that it doesn't have that kind of relationship with
Speaker 1: its parent company, Byte Dance, but that hasn't gone very
Speaker 1: far to quell fears that the opposite might be true.
Speaker 1: TikTok has pointed out that it has removed more than
Speaker 1: a hundred million videos that were posted in the first
Speaker 1: quarter of this year alone, But according to news outlets
Speaker 1: like ABC, TikTok removed many of those videos for other reasons.
Speaker 1: It wasn't because they misinformation, it was because they violated
Speaker 1: some other policy of TikTok, and that the ones that
Speaker 1: were removed from because they reportedly contained misinformation represent only
Speaker 1: a small percentage of the overall group that TikTok purged. Further,
Speaker 1: the researchers at news Guards said that when they were
Speaker 1: searching for terms like COVID vaccine, TikTok's own search tool
Speaker 1: started to suggest autocomplete options like COVID vaccine injury. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, the researchers are saying that TikTok's own
Speaker 1: search tool is helping push misinformation campaigns out to users,
Speaker 1: and considering that a large number of TikTok users are
Speaker 1: young people, the real fear is that kids who use
Speaker 1: TikTok extensively are going to be depending heavily on TikTok
Speaker 1: has a source of information, and if that information isn't valid,
Speaker 1: if it's misinformation, if it's purposefully misleading people, that's a
Speaker 1: huge problem. One really interesting bit of news this week
Speaker 1: is that cryptocurrency Ethereum has made the transition from a
Speaker 1: proof of work coin to proof of steak. So what
Speaker 1: does that actually mean. Well, a proof of work cryptocurrency
Speaker 1: like Bitcoin relies on computers that are connected to the
Speaker 1: crypto network to compete against one another in order to
Speaker 1: validate the most recent block of transactions. This is what
Speaker 1: mining really is. The validation process is meant to take
Speaker 1: a specific amount of time. In the case of bitcoin,
Speaker 1: it's about ten minutes. It's much shorter, or it was
Speaker 1: much shorter for ethereum. But how do you guarantee that
Speaker 1: it's going to take ten minutes to complete a computer
Speaker 1: problem when you cannot predict how powerful the computer systems
Speaker 1: connected to your network are going to be. Well, you
Speaker 1: do it by tweaking the difficulty of the computer problem.
Speaker 1: So if you notice that computers are starting to solve
Speaker 1: problems more quickly, you make that problem harder to solve.
Speaker 1: Has more powerful machines under the network, the task continues
Speaker 1: to get harder and harder, which prompts people to add
Speaker 1: even more powerful machines to the network, and this escalates
Speaker 1: until you get to a point where it wouldn't make
Speaker 1: sense to add a more powerful machine because the cost
Speaker 1: of operating the machine is greater than the profit you
Speaker 1: would get from mining the crypto in the first place.
Speaker 1: So while this is happening, it means that the miners
Speaker 1: are using up more and more electricity as they're dedicating
Speaker 1: increasingly powerful processing networks in order to be the first
Speaker 1: to mind the next block of transactions and thus read
Speaker 1: the rewards. Because this is how new cryptocurrency gets minted.
Speaker 1: It is minted and then awarded to whichever system managed
Speaker 1: to validate the transaction that last block of transactions, and
Speaker 1: until Ethereum transition to proof of stake this week, that's
Speaker 1: how all things worked on ethereum. Uh. You know, if
Speaker 1: the the ether value was not anywhere close to bitcoin,
Speaker 1: so it was much less valuable than Bitcoin was. So
Speaker 1: your typical Ethereum mining system did not run on the
Speaker 1: same sort of mega powerful rigs that are used for Bitcoin,
Speaker 1: but still really chunky machines, and they use things like
Speaker 1: graphics processing cards to power the actual operations. Bitcoin had
Speaker 1: graduated beyond graphics processing cards. It is into custom built
Speaker 1: rigs that are way more expensive to buy and operate,
Speaker 1: and thus, you know, again, it would make no sense
Speaker 1: to use that kind of machine for ethere Um because
Speaker 1: you'd be spending more money on the machine than you
Speaker 1: would make in the mining process. Anyway, the proof of
Speaker 1: stake approach is different. It requires Ethereum holders who want
Speaker 1: to participate in the mining process to put up a
Speaker 1: stake a percentage of their Ether holdings in order to participate,
Speaker 1: and essentially, parties that have the most ether put up
Speaker 1: at steak end up being the ones that even stand
Speaker 1: a chance at mining the next block of transactions successfully.
Speaker 1: So while proof of steak means Ethereum is going to
Speaker 1: put a much smaller demand on electricity, which is a
Speaker 1: good thing, don't get me wrong, that's important, it does, however,
Speaker 1: mean that the parties most likely to earn newly minted
Speaker 1: ether are the ones that are already swimming in the stuff,
Speaker 1: so the rich get richer. You could actually argue that
Speaker 1: this approach centralizes what is supposed to be a decentralized
Speaker 1: form of currency. It centralizes it into a cabal of
Speaker 1: ether's biggest holders, but that is a matter for a
Speaker 1: different episode. In fact, I've actually recorded an episode like
Speaker 1: that in the past, so if you want to learn more,
Speaker 1: you can go through the back catalog and find my
Speaker 1: discussion about proof of work versus proof of steak. The
Speaker 1: Register reports that John Deer, the company known for making
Speaker 1: farm machinery, expects software fees to make up to ten
Speaker 1: percent of the company's revenue by the end of the
Speaker 1: twenty twenties. That's kind of wild, right, that a company
Speaker 1: that makes farm machinery expects ten percent of its revenue
Speaker 1: to come from software fees. You know, if you're a
Speaker 1: company that makes tractors, you probably you aren't thought of
Speaker 1: as being a software company. That seems counterintuitive, but it's
Speaker 1: true that new farm machinery is surprisingly sophisticated, or at
Speaker 1: least it's surprising if you aren't familiar with farm equipment.
Speaker 1: If you're a farmer and you've worked with the stuff,
Speaker 1: you know it already. But for you know, hay seeds
Speaker 1: like myself, it can come as a bit of a shock.
Speaker 1: But yeah, farm machines can be InCred doably complex, and
Speaker 1: they can include features like an autopilot setting that heavily
Speaker 1: automates operations. That's something that's really important to farmers in
Speaker 1: a market where there might be labor shortages. Now there
Speaker 1: is another edge to this here plow as it happens,
Speaker 1: and that's the fact that companies like John Deer are
Speaker 1: frequently criticized as resisting the right to repair movement. That
Speaker 1: that a part of John Deere's strategy is to make
Speaker 1: it difficult or impossible for farmers to maintain and repair
Speaker 1: their own equipment or to take that equipment to a
Speaker 1: shop of their choice. Instead, they are locked into John
Speaker 1: Deere's ecosystem, which means they can only bring their equipment
Speaker 1: to officially licensed parties, parties that the company has granted
Speaker 1: a license to in order to work on these machines.
Speaker 1: And software plays a really big part in that strategy,
Speaker 1: and farmers have argued that John Deer has purposefully withheld
Speaker 1: tools and software that are needed in order to make
Speaker 1: necessary repairs. So the story illustrates both the incredible innovation
Speaker 1: that is powering agriculture as well as the ongoing struggle
Speaker 1: between customers and companies when it comes to the right
Speaker 1: to repair devices and machines. Okay, we've got a couple
Speaker 1: more stories that we want to cover. Before we get
Speaker 1: to that, Let's take another quick break. E A, the
Speaker 1: company that once um actually twice upon a time, was
Speaker 1: voted as the worst company in America. That was in
Speaker 1: The Consumerist several years ago, I think twelve and maybe anyway.
Speaker 1: E A is rolling out a new anti cheat tool
Speaker 1: that has some security and privacy experts concerned. Now just
Speaker 1: to be clear e A is not the first video
Speaker 1: game company to do this kind of thing, but e
Speaker 1: A is a big deal in the video game industry
Speaker 1: because it's a gargantuan company and it publishes some of
Speaker 1: the most popular game titles in the world, like FIFA. Anyway,
Speaker 1: this tool will install a driver that gets kernel level
Speaker 1: access to a player's computer. But if you're not a
Speaker 1: computer person, you might wonder, well, what the heck does
Speaker 1: that matter? What is kernel level access? What does that
Speaker 1: even mean? You can think of a computer's kernel as
Speaker 1: the core of its operating system, like this is the
Speaker 1: nexus at the center of the operating system, which I
Speaker 1: realize is both redundant and repetitive, but forgive me. The
Speaker 1: kernel ultimately has complete control over everything happening within the
Speaker 1: computer system. So it's like being in the room where
Speaker 1: it happens. As Aaron Burr would say, Well, say, I'm
Speaker 1: getting off track again. Kernel level access is a big deal.
Speaker 1: You're at the very heart of the operating system. Potentially
Speaker 1: that can lead to big, be big t bad things.
Speaker 1: So why is e A seeking kernel access in the
Speaker 1: first place. Why is a company that previously has been
Speaker 1: called the worst in America saying hey, trust us, let
Speaker 1: us into the heart of your operating system on your machine. Well,
Speaker 1: company reps say this is really the only way to
Speaker 1: detect and prevent specific types of cheating software that are
Speaker 1: meant to give players an advantage in online multiplayer games.
Speaker 1: That there are cheap programs that get all the way
Speaker 1: down to the kernel level, and these programs use methods
Speaker 1: to mask their presence, so it's very hard for anti
Speaker 1: cheat software to detect and prevent them. And then you
Speaker 1: get these events online where legitimate players are beside themselves
Speaker 1: because they can't get a fair match in whatever game
Speaker 1: they're playing. The people they're playing against are using these
Speaker 1: sophisticated cheat programs and are just wiping the floor with them.
Speaker 1: And you know, that's an issue when we're talking about
Speaker 1: competitive multiplayer online games. If you've ever had that experience
Speaker 1: where you've played in an online game and you were
Speaker 1: absolutely certain that the person you were playing against cheated
Speaker 1: in order to beat you, or you watch content creators
Speaker 1: who you know they play games for a living they
Speaker 1: frequently encounter cheaters, is very upsetting, you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: anytime you encounter a cheater who uses unfair advantage against you,
Speaker 1: it's upsetting. And while e A promises that the company
Speaker 1: takes privacy and security very seriously and that kernel level
Speaker 1: access is necessary in order to detect and prevent this
Speaker 1: kind of cheating, critics still worry that giving more programs
Speaker 1: kernel level access in reduces potential weak points that others
Speaker 1: might exploit. For example, a hacker might design a tool
Speaker 1: that uses this sort of anti cheap process as an
Speaker 1: entry point to target systems and get kernel level access
Speaker 1: to other machines. Now, whether that could actually happen or not,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know how this particular tool
Speaker 1: has been created. I don't know if there are any vulnerabilities,
Speaker 1: but the potential for it is something to be concerned about.
Speaker 1: I don't feel super comfortable with the idea of granting
Speaker 1: kernel access to an anti cheap program, or really, to know,
Speaker 1: any program really if I can avoid it. At the
Speaker 1: same time, it's hard to come up with a strong
Speaker 1: cheat prevention model when the cheaters have no resistance to
Speaker 1: installing kernel level cheat software, like they're not holding back.
Speaker 1: But by the way, I also think that that is
Speaker 1: a terrible idea. It does open up your computer to
Speaker 1: potential exploitation. UM like, out of all the companies that
Speaker 1: make software, I would trust the ones that are making
Speaker 1: or not just companies, but programs that are making software,
Speaker 1: I would trust the ones that are making cheat software
Speaker 1: the least, like pirated material is slightly above cheat software. Finally,
Speaker 1: in China, there's a text to image tool called ernie
Speaker 1: v I l G which does something similar to other
Speaker 1: AI powered image generators like doll E two or mid
Speaker 1: Journey UH. These tools allow a user to create a
Speaker 1: text prompt, and then the text prompt sends that information
Speaker 1: to the image generation tool, which will then create an
Speaker 1: image based off that prompt. Sometimes the AI generated image
Speaker 1: is incredible, Sometimes it's really upsetting, sometimes it's hilarious. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it's a combination of the three or more. But the
Speaker 1: Chinese tool has another feature. It is heavily censored. There
Speaker 1: are some prompts that the tool will filter out immediately.
Speaker 1: For example, you can't really generate any image relating to politics.
Speaker 1: That includes if you put in a political leader's name
Speaker 1: in the prompt that will trigger this, or if you
Speaker 1: try to create an image that incorporates the Chinese flag,
Speaker 1: or if you mentioned Tianamen Square, which is really a
Speaker 1: a taboo subject in China. To put it lightly, but
Speaker 1: if you put anything like that in the prompt of
Speaker 1: this tool, you get an alert that says that the
Speaker 1: request violates the rules of the tool and that you
Speaker 1: have to reword it. And while most AI text too
Speaker 1: image tools do contain filters that prevent users from making
Speaker 1: outright objectionable material, in those cases it's self imposed. It's
Speaker 1: it's an effort to create a healthy, stable, non contentious community,
Speaker 1: but it's not something that is dictated to the companies
Speaker 1: from some other outside source. In China, it's pretty much
Speaker 1: mandated by the state, or rather by the Chinese Communist Party,
Speaker 1: which many people equate with the state because in many
Speaker 1: contexts that's fair. So yeah, political censorship in the Chinese
Speaker 1: image to our text to Image tool not a big surprise,
Speaker 1: but an interesting story that I thought I would throw
Speaker 1: in here. That's it for this episode. If you have
Speaker 1: suggestions for topics I should cover in future episodes of
Speaker 1: tech Stuff, please reach out to me. One way to
Speaker 1: do that is to download the I Heart radio app.
Speaker 1: It's free to download and use. You can navigate over
Speaker 1: to tech Stuff. There's a little microphone icon click on
Speaker 1: that you can leave a message up to thirty seconds
Speaker 1: in length let me know what you would like to
Speaker 1: hear about, or you can reach out on Twitter handle
Speaker 1: for the show is Text Stuff HSW and I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you again really soon. YEA. Text Stuff is an
Speaker 1: I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever
Speaker 1: you listen to your favorite shows.