Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Brigittat and this is
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm here with
Speaker 1: my producer Mike.
Speaker 2: Hello bridget Hey.
Speaker 1: Mike, thanks for being here. And here's what you may
Speaker 1: have missed this week on the Internet. Let's start with
Speaker 1: a little bit of news from my hometown, Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: where Lieutenant Shane Leman, a lieutenant for the Metropolitan Police
Speaker 1: Department's Intelligence Branch, was just indicted after he used his
Speaker 1: position within law enforcement to share confidential information with Enrique Tario.
Speaker 1: You might know that name because Enrique is a former
Speaker 1: leader of the Proud Boys, the far right and extremist group.
Speaker 1: Enrique was just recently found guilty of seditious conspiracy in
Speaker 1: connection with the January sixth capital attack. But the federal
Speaker 1: indictment for the police lieutenant who helped Enrique claim the
Speaker 1: men were in regular contact for July twenty nineteen to
Speaker 1: at least January twenty twenty one, using encrypted messaging apps
Speaker 1: like Telegram. So what were these guys discussing. Well, as
Speaker 1: you might have guessed, the WYHO weren't just discussing the
Speaker 1: vander Pump Rules reunion.
Speaker 2: Oh man, if only they were you know, I know
Speaker 2: they weren't, but I just like to imagine these guys
Speaker 2: just sitting around watching watching some Bravo and getting into it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, probably have big opinions about La La and the
Speaker 1: whole gang. Well, the men actually discussed Proud Boy activities
Speaker 1: in the DC area, and this lieutenant actually ended up
Speaker 1: giving Tario a heads up about investigations into the Proud Boys.
Speaker 1: So a few days before January six, Enrique Tario was
Speaker 1: in Washington, DC, and while he was here in DC,
Speaker 1: he stole a Black Lives Matter banner from the Ashbury
Speaker 1: United Methodist Church, which is a historic black church here
Speaker 1: in DC. He then set it on fire with lighter fluid. Now,
Speaker 1: because Enrique is a brilliant criminal mastermind, he posted a
Speaker 1: picture of himself holding a lighter onto his parlor account
Speaker 1: and admitted days later in an interview with The Washington
Speaker 1: Post that he had joined in burning of this flag.
Speaker 1: Lieutenant Lamond gave Tario a heads up that he was
Speaker 1: about to be arrested for charges from this.
Speaker 3: Burning of the flag.
Speaker 1: And I have to say, like this story has been
Speaker 1: getting a lot of play here in DC. I'm honestly
Speaker 1: not surprised because this kind of confirms what we've already known.
Speaker 1: The FBI has been warning that extremist hate groups are
Speaker 1: active within law enforcement for at least the last ten years.
Speaker 1: A two thousand and six intelligence report from the FBI
Speaker 1: shows that officials have had concerns about the infiltration of
Speaker 1: police departments for years, but kind of like just didn't
Speaker 1: give the public a warning about this. Reports show that
Speaker 1: in some cases, these people wanted to join the military
Speaker 1: or law enforcement specifically because they thought it might give
Speaker 1: them an opportunity to be violent toward people of color,
Speaker 1: or that they planned to join the military or police
Speaker 1: to learn how to wage war against people of color,
Speaker 1: according to ABC News, between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: agents and analysts with the FBI's division in San Antonio
Speaker 1: concluded that white supremacists and other right wing extremists would
Speaker 1: be quote very likely to seek affiliation with military and
Speaker 1: law enforcement entities in the furtherance of their ideologies, according
Speaker 1: to a confidential intelligence assessment issued last month.
Speaker 3: And I also think.
Speaker 1: That there's you know, we have this information from the FBI,
Speaker 1: but I think colloquially like, anybody with eyes who is
Speaker 1: paying attention has probably always seen this kind of cozy
Speaker 1: relationship between law enforcement and extremist groups. When you look
Speaker 1: at reports of how police treated extremist groups in places
Speaker 1: like Kenosha. I think is a good example after Kyle
Speaker 1: Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin and shot and killed two
Speaker 1: men during a protest. Before the shooting, Rittenhouse is like
Speaker 1: lined up holding a rifle as sensibly to quote protect
Speaker 1: he says local businesses. Police were shown on tape thanking
Speaker 1: him and giving him water about fifteen minutes before he
Speaker 1: shot and killed two people, And even after the shooting,
Speaker 1: even though he is leaving the scene of the shooting
Speaker 1: with a gun and there are protesters following him screaming
Speaker 1: at the police, like hey, this person just shot someone,
Speaker 1: the police just let him leave. When asked about this later,
Speaker 1: the police were like, oh, with a chaotic situation, you know,
Speaker 1: who's to say what happened?
Speaker 3: Like we would have given anybody water.
Speaker 1: This is not evidence of a cozy relationship, but it
Speaker 1: also aligns with reports that armed extremist groups were kind
Speaker 1: of deputizing themselves to patrol neighborhoods. In twenty twenty and beyond,
Speaker 1: and that the police were just kind of okay with
Speaker 1: it and not you know, did not seem to think
Speaker 1: it was anything that was rose to the level of
Speaker 1: something they should be concerned about. And I think this
Speaker 1: cozy relationship between extremist groups and police really came to
Speaker 1: a head on January sixth at the Capitol where, according
Speaker 1: to NPR, nearly thirty sworn police officers from a dozen
Speaker 1: different departments attended the rally on January sixth, and several
Speaker 1: of them actually stormed the Capitol building with the insurrectionists.
Speaker 1: So you know, those off duty police officers were there
Speaker 1: to take part in the insurrection, and also you have
Speaker 1: on duty police officers who were there on the scene,
Speaker 1: you know, trying to contain the situation. I truly do
Speaker 1: believe that some of these riders storming the Capitol seemed
Speaker 1: surprised that the on duty police officers kind of protecting
Speaker 1: the capital were not on their side. I bet a
Speaker 1: lot of these guys thought that these police officers were
Speaker 1: going to cheer them on as they entered the Capitol
Speaker 1: precisely because of this cozy relationship. And I think the
Speaker 1: biggest problem to me or the scariest thing is just
Speaker 1: how little scrutiny this has really gotten. It's clear, both
Speaker 1: from the intelligence community and from the actions of police
Speaker 1: that there is this cozy relationship between extremists and armed
Speaker 1: agents of the state who regularly interact with the public.
Speaker 3: So why is this not a bigger deal?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is really disturbing but not surprising to learn
Speaker 2: that members of law enforcement were participating in the interrection.
Speaker 2: You Know, what is really surprising to me three years
Speaker 2: later is how Donald Trump and his allies had been
Speaker 2: able to downplay the significance of the insurrection. You know,
Speaker 2: back on January sixth and twenty twenty, it seemed like
Speaker 2: such a huge deal. And it was a huge deal.
Speaker 2: It was a brazen, violent attack and broad daylight not
Speaker 2: just on the Capitol, but on the peaceful transition of
Speaker 2: power after an election, which is one of the most,
Speaker 2: if not the most fundamental American value, and they nearly
Speaker 2: ended that after over two hundred uninterrupted years. And I'm
Speaker 2: just so The thing that I'm most shocked about is
Speaker 2: how successful they've been convincing large portions of the population
Speaker 2: and the media that it was like, not a big deal,
Speaker 2: just some concerned citizens having a little civic demonstration when
Speaker 2: in fact they were like insurrectionists trying to overthrow the government.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean we were both in DC when that happened.
Speaker 1: I don't care who tries to convince me that it
Speaker 1: wasn't a big deal. I will never forget that day.
Speaker 1: I will never forget it. It was the most eerie
Speaker 1: day of my entire life, and I will never forget it.
Speaker 1: I watched Ashley Babit day a national television I was
Speaker 1: like watching I will never forget it.
Speaker 3: I was.
Speaker 1: I think it was the first time I ever saw
Speaker 1: dead like someone get killed on TV. I knew as
Speaker 1: soon as it happened that she was dead.
Speaker 3: It was.
Speaker 1: It was such a crazy day. I don't care how
Speaker 1: many times these Republicans try to minimize it.
Speaker 3: It was a big deal. I will never forget it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, seriously. And it's such a complicated story because at
Speaker 2: the same time that these there were these police officers
Speaker 2: marching with the insurrectionists and storming the capitol, there were
Speaker 2: other police officers. They're risking their lives, you know, some
Speaker 2: of them sacrifice their lives trying to protect it. And
Speaker 2: you know, we're recording this on Friday evening of Memorial
Speaker 2: Day weekend, and so you know, it's hard not to
Speaker 2: think about those officers who lost their lives on that day.
Speaker 2: And if you know, if it weren't for them, Donald
Speaker 2: Trump would probably be president right now, and he would
Speaker 2: probably stay president for the rest of his life. You know,
Speaker 2: democracy in America would be over. They literally laid down
Speaker 2: their lives to save the republic. You know, it's not hyperbole,
Speaker 2: and so I'm trying to keep that in mind as
Speaker 2: I think through what to make of this story. You know,
Speaker 2: whenever there's any story about police misconduct, whatever officials are
Speaker 2: in charge or usually pretty quick to point to like
Speaker 2: a bad apples theory that everything is fine, there's just
Speaker 2: a couple of bad apples, and you know, we know
Speaker 2: that that's bullshit. There's systemic problems and a culture of
Speaker 2: silence that enable police abuse and state sponsored oppression to
Speaker 2: flourish in the shadows. But I think this, yes, and
Speaker 2: that's you know, that's bullshit. Bad apples is a bullshit theory.
Speaker 2: But this story and the complications is a good reminder
Speaker 2: that you know, some apples really truly are like solidly rotten,
Speaker 2: like really bad. And you know those dozen police departments
Speaker 2: that had a couple of people show up and participate
Speaker 2: in the insurrection and try to overthrow the government. I
Speaker 2: hope they're taking a good hard look at their personnel
Speaker 2: and getting them the hell out of there.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 1: I mean, I had to shorten this research for the
Speaker 1: sake of we're doing a thirty minute podcast. But that's
Speaker 1: not even the half of it. Like, even beyond the
Speaker 1: officers who were there that day, there was another officer
Speaker 1: I think based in Maryland who was put on probation
Speaker 1: recently and kicked off the force because on Facebook after
Speaker 1: the insurrection, a like a YouTuber a fishing YouTube that
Speaker 1: he liked posted on YouTube about having stormed the capitol,
Speaker 1: and he sent him a private message and he was like, listen,
Speaker 1: I agree with your opinions, but they're investigating this and
Speaker 1: they're arresting these guys. Take this down, and that police
Speaker 1: officer was himself charged with that, and so like, how
Speaker 1: many how Like I'm giving you the short version of
Speaker 1: how many police officers were in the mix on January six,
Speaker 1: but how many physically didn't go but sympathized with these people,
Speaker 1: Like there has to be the fact that I think
Speaker 1: that so many of the rioters thought that they were
Speaker 1: on the same side as the police and probably were like, wait,
Speaker 1: why are you trying to stop me? Aren't we on
Speaker 1: the same team. I think that that isn't a coincidence.
Speaker 1: I think that it is pretty clear that there is
Speaker 1: some sort of a cozy relationship between extremist groups and
Speaker 1: law enforcement. And the more that we downplay it, the
Speaker 1: more that we say it's just bad apples, the less
Speaker 1: safe that we are going to be. Like, this is
Speaker 1: a public safety issue. I think the public has a
Speaker 1: right to know if the armed guards of the state
Speaker 1: who are going to be summoned oftentimes in that you
Speaker 1: have involuntary interactions with, are also in a hate group
Speaker 1: or a Nazi group or a white supremacist group.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not an okay situation at all. Damn.
Speaker 3: So, speaking of bad apples, let's talk about Google.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, are you growing?
Speaker 3: Because that was a good transition or you thought it
Speaker 3: was cheesy.
Speaker 2: It was a little bit of both. You know, I
Speaker 2: appreciate the effort.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I'm going to take that a for effort,
Speaker 3: So I'm taking the A. I'm calling it an A.
Speaker 2: It's an a fair enough, it's your show so S.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: That's right, so s folks might know. Almost a year
Speaker 1: after the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade. Soon thereafter,
Speaker 1: Google announced that it would proactively delete its trove of
Speaker 1: location data when people visited what they called quote particularly
Speaker 1: personal places. Now these include things like hospitals, shelters, and
Speaker 1: of course, abortion clinics. Their statement said, today we're announcing
Speaker 1: that if our systems identify that someone has visited one
Speaker 1: of these places, we will delete these entries from location
Speaker 1: history soon after they visit. This change will take effect
Speaker 1: in the coming weeks. Well, guess what they haven't done that.
Speaker 1: The digital rights group accountable Tech put out a report
Speaker 1: where they tested Google's updated policies by visiting abortion clinics
Speaker 1: in different states with newly purchased Android phones. Based on
Speaker 1: their experimentations and research, accountable Tech found that Google is
Speaker 1: still retaining location search queries by default and location history
Speaker 1: for users who have it turned on, including information about
Speaker 1: reproductive care facilities, despite their public promise to begin deleting it.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Disappointing, not surprising Google, They keep showing us who
Speaker 2: they are.
Speaker 1: According to accountable Tech, by retaining both location search query
Speaker 1: and location history data Google jeopardizes the health, safety, and
Speaker 1: legal status of their users who visit reproductive care facilities
Speaker 1: in states where abortion criminalized. If prosecutors in a state
Speaker 1: with a restrictive abortion law receive a tip about someone's
Speaker 1: seeking an abortion, a subpoena would likely force Google to
Speaker 1: hand over sensitive data. So we have a little bit
Speaker 1: of news and movement on this issue. Nearly a dozen
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats wrote to Google this week with questions about
Speaker 1: how it deletes users' location history when they have visited
Speaker 1: sensitive places like abortion clinics, expressing concerns that the company
Speaker 1: may not have been consistently deleting the data as promised.
Speaker 1: The letter came from Senators Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and
Speaker 1: Mazie Heerino, seeking answers from Google about the types of
Speaker 1: location that Google considers to be sensitive and for just
Speaker 1: how long it will take for the company to automatically
Speaker 1: delete visit history.
Speaker 3: That's not all.
Speaker 1: A few days ago, an anonymous complainant filed a lawsuit
Speaker 1: against Google, claiming that it unlawfully collects health data, including
Speaker 1: abortion searches, on third party websites that use Google tech.
Speaker 1: Jane Doe, whose legal representation is looking to get the
Speaker 1: case certified as a class action. Claims that her private
Speaker 1: information was intercepted by Google when she used scheduling pages
Speaker 1: on Planned Parenthood's website in twenty eighteen to search for
Speaker 1: an abortion provide. So something that I have to ask, like,
Speaker 1: is it legal for Google to say one thing about
Speaker 1: their privacy policy and then fully do another. Maybe you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an expert in this,
Speaker 1: but I fully do not understand how Google misleading the
Speaker 1: public about their data privacy practices is legal under the
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission. But I'm no expert on this. What
Speaker 1: I can tell you is that whether or not it's legal,
Speaker 1: it is certainly unethical and it is certainly dangerous. We
Speaker 1: all deserve privacy and it should not be up to
Speaker 1: the whims of the tech billionaires, who are mostly men
Speaker 1: who run Google, to decide whether or not we get
Speaker 1: it totally.
Speaker 2: You know, to disclose, I have an Android phone and
Speaker 2: I really need to get off of it because Google
Speaker 2: just has such a long track record of not respecting privacy.
Speaker 2: In twenty twenty, there are some documents that were made
Speaker 2: public from a lawsuit against Google that have been brought
Speaker 2: by Arizona's Attorney General that ultimately Google ended up settling
Speaker 2: for eighty five million dollars. Some internal documents showed that
Speaker 2: Google was effectively ignoring users' privacy settings, and the privacy
Speaker 2: controls were so obtuse and unnavigable that even Google's own
Speaker 2: engineers weren't able to figure out how to use them.
Speaker 2: And they were, you know, these emails were from the
Speaker 2: Google engineers talking with each other trying to make sense
Speaker 2: of like, how did these privacy controls work? And so
Speaker 2: like if they can't figure out how they work, how
Speaker 2: is an end user supposed to have any hope of
Speaker 2: doing it? And not only did they were they confusing,
Speaker 2: but they they seemed simple. But then they didn't actually
Speaker 2: do what the users could reasonably expect them to do
Speaker 2: in terms of opting out of different privacy settings, you know,
Speaker 2: and that doesn't happen by accident. It was a choice
Speaker 2: that Google made to design their privacy settings that way,
Speaker 2: even if they didn't intentionally set out to deceive their users,
Speaker 2: which is debatable, but even giving them the benefit of
Speaker 2: the doubt, they still clearly demonstrated a lack of respect
Speaker 2: for privacy and it's not surprising, right, They're an advertising
Speaker 2: kind of company. They sell ads, that's their top priority,
Speaker 2: and they collect data to allow them to sell more
Speaker 2: ads to more people. And so of course they're not
Speaker 2: going to allow a little thing like privacy to get
Speaker 2: in the way of that. Lack of concern for privacy
Speaker 2: is a value of theirs. And so just like the
Speaker 2: way those user settings and privacy controls were an illusion
Speaker 2: that did not actually stop people's private data from being
Speaker 2: sent to Google, now we learn that there are public
Speaker 2: statements about protecting abortion data were fabrications. And again I
Speaker 2: don't know if they did that there's an intentional lie
Speaker 2: or just like a cinem omission where they just couldn't
Speaker 2: be bothered to do it. But you've raised a great
Speaker 2: point that you know, people, hey, you should have a
Speaker 2: right to privacy. It just in general period B. They
Speaker 2: should certainly have a right to privacy for health information
Speaker 2: and medical information. And then see, at the very least
Speaker 2: people should be able to expect that when Google says
Speaker 2: they're going to do something, that they will actually do
Speaker 2: it instead of doing nothing, which seems to be what
Speaker 2: they've done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that you really put it well,
Speaker 1: I don't think that you should have to be a
Speaker 1: privacy expert or a lawyer or somebody who is really
Speaker 1: knowledgeable about you know, tech pr speak versus what is
Speaker 1: happening in reality to be able to make decisions for
Speaker 1: your health and for your life. And I think that
Speaker 1: Google has created a situation where, yeah, it's like people
Speaker 1: shouldn't have to be legal experts to just understand what
Speaker 1: is happening with their data when they are accessing information
Speaker 1: that could wind them in prison, right, Like, we should
Speaker 1: be able to expect more from Google.
Speaker 3: We deserve privacy, particularly.
Speaker 1: When it comes to something as sensitive as our health
Speaker 1: information in this climate where abortion is criminalized, and you know,
Speaker 1: being a person who is seeking an abortion right now
Speaker 1: is so scary, and just being someone who is pregnant
Speaker 1: is scary enough.
Speaker 3: So on Layered on.
Speaker 1: Top of that the expectation that like, oh, well, you
Speaker 1: have to be a data privacy expert or a lawyer
Speaker 1: to understand what digital trail you might be leaving when
Speaker 1: you try to access information to make decisions about your health,
Speaker 1: that the burden is too high for regular people, and
Speaker 1: adding the fact of like whether it's a vindictive X
Speaker 1: lover or a nosy neighbor or a vigilante that you
Speaker 1: don't even know, who can turn you in because they
Speaker 1: believe that you have tried to access information about abortion.
Speaker 1: That digital footprint that Google has can be used to
Speaker 1: criminalize you. And so Google right now is like doing
Speaker 1: something that I think is not just an ethical potentially
Speaker 1: a legal question mark, but deeply deeply dangerous in a
Speaker 1: threat to public safety.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the stakes are super high for people. And you know,
Speaker 2: this is another great example of why we need regulation
Speaker 2: to protect privacy in this country. Maybe that looks like
Speaker 2: what they have in Europe. Maybe it looks like what
Speaker 2: California is doing. I don't know exactly what that regulation
Speaker 2: looks like, but it's clear that we can't trust tech
Speaker 2: companies to do the right thing on their own. Maybe
Speaker 2: some of them might every now and then that's great,
Speaker 2: but we can't rely on that. Time and again they
Speaker 2: demonstrate that they just can't be trusted to regulate themselves.
Speaker 2: It's a pattern. We need some regulation to rein in
Speaker 2: the abuses of tech companies and social media platforms.
Speaker 4: Let's take a quick brain at our back.
Speaker 1: Speaking of people who cannot be trusted, we have to
Speaker 1: talk about Ronda Santis. Do we it's a big announcement
Speaker 1: on Twitter. I mean, I don't want to. I want
Speaker 1: to keep this brief because I really don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about it. So let's just get it out of
Speaker 1: the way. Are you are you game? Can you got
Speaker 1: it in you?
Speaker 3: Mike?
Speaker 2: I mean like yeah, yeah, let's let's just try to
Speaker 2: do it quickly.
Speaker 3: Get in, get out, yeah, get in, get out?
Speaker 4: All right.
Speaker 1: Florida Governor Ronda Santis announced that he's running for president,
Speaker 1: and he did it via a Twitter spaces because it
Speaker 1: is an initiative helmed by Elon Musk. The entire thing
Speaker 1: was plagued with problems, screw ups, and glitches. Of course,
Speaker 1: of course, the first twenty minutes was just people talking
Speaker 1: over each other and audio issues. David Sax, who is
Speaker 1: a venture capitalist who is also the host of the
Speaker 1: All In podcast, which side note, it's definitely a more
Speaker 1: popular tech podcast than ours by like a million percent.
Speaker 1: So I don't want people to think this is like
Speaker 1: sour grapes, but they're definitely a more popular tech They're
Speaker 1: like number one every day.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: That's nice for them, you know, I yeah to respect that,
Speaker 2: but we're coming for you.
Speaker 1: Honestly, if Ronda Santis has had any like gump shin
Speaker 1: or courage, he would have had that shit moderated by
Speaker 1: Kara Swisher and he would have like actually had it
Speaker 1: be not just like a very cozy billionaire venture tech
Speaker 1: capitalist talking with Elon Musk in the room on a
Speaker 1: Twitter spaces that is like me being like, I can't
Speaker 1: even think of a comparable thing. That is like me
Speaker 1: be having someone moderate a Twitter spaces and the moderator
Speaker 1: is I can't even there's not even there's not even
Speaker 1: something comparable. I can't even think of anything.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's like like three people that are all
Speaker 2: the same in a room talking about how great they
Speaker 2: all are.
Speaker 1: My God, I was gonna say it would be like
Speaker 1: if my own mother moderated a Twitter spaces with me.
Speaker 1: But I believe my mother would be a tougher interviewer
Speaker 1: than David Sax was at this Twitter spaces rollout. So
Speaker 1: you know, we don't have to get get too into it.
Speaker 1: But one thing I do want to say is that
Speaker 1: so David Zack's venture capitalist host of the All In podcast,
Speaker 1: was the moderator. What's annoying is how quickly they immediately
Speaker 1: went into self aggrandizement mode and lying about it. David
Speaker 1: Zach said that it was quote by far, the biggest
Speaker 1: room ever held on social media. DeSantis said in a
Speaker 1: podcast interview that he thought later in the day that
Speaker 1: quote probably over ten million people watched the event. By
Speaker 1: the way, you don't watch a Twitter space, you listen
Speaker 1: to it. That's neither herr.
Speaker 2: There is he like performing as though he were on
Speaker 2: camera the whole time?
Speaker 1: Oh good question, Oh my god. You know his team
Speaker 1: was probably like, just let him Vigi's on camera, Like,
Speaker 1: there's no camera in here. But if this is what
Speaker 1: he needs, fine, So let's look at the real numbers
Speaker 1: of the event. It had a high listenership of about
Speaker 1: three hundred thousand concurrent listeners, of whom all at the
Speaker 1: same time tuned into DeSantis make his announcement. As of Thursday,
Speaker 1: about three point four million people listen to the space
Speaker 1: or recording to it, according to Twitter's numbers. I really
Speaker 1: don't have a lot to say about this event. It
Speaker 1: sounds like it was a shit show.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 2: Those are not big numbers either, Like, no, three hundred
Speaker 2: thousand concurrent listeners. There are like Twitch streamers who get
Speaker 2: that when they I don't know, like wake up in
Speaker 2: the morning, right like just turn and turn on their accounts.
Speaker 2: That's that is definitely not What did he say that
Speaker 2: the biggest room ever held on social media? Whatever that means,
Speaker 2: that's just a lie.
Speaker 1: He doesn't He just made like that's not it's it's
Speaker 1: so it's just not remotely true. It's not true that
Speaker 1: they that like that's a huge amount. It's certainly not
Speaker 1: true that it's the biggest room ever held on social media.
Speaker 3: What a bullshit claim.
Speaker 1: I can't believe that he was able to just pull
Speaker 1: that out of the air and that nobody was like
Speaker 1: h question like follow up.
Speaker 2: But like what like you said, like who's going to
Speaker 2: call him on it? Elon Musk, Ronda Sandy.
Speaker 3: That's the thing.
Speaker 1: It's like the fact that they are that they that
Speaker 1: this announcement was surrounded by such like sicophants and fanboys.
Speaker 1: It's like a like, obviously there's no they have They
Speaker 1: have purposely like bubble wrapped themselves from anybody who would
Speaker 1: even just bring up reality, like not even like tough questions,
Speaker 1: just like okay, well in reality there were three hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people on you'd have said it was the biggest
Speaker 1: space of all time, So what is the truth? You know, like,
Speaker 1: obviously these are not people who were interested in any
Speaker 1: kind of reality. And again I don't really have a
Speaker 1: ton to say about this. We were talking, uh when
Speaker 1: this event was happening, and you heard me like unleash
Speaker 1: the most like gottural deep down heavy, so like the
Speaker 1: heaviest of heavy size, and you looked over and you
Speaker 1: were like, what's wrong, thinking that like something bad had happened,
Speaker 1: And it just became clear to both of us that
Speaker 1: I am going to need to sort something out as
Speaker 1: we get deeper into election season to not completely like
Speaker 1: lose my mind. Like I like, I don't know why
Speaker 1: the claim about it being the biggest space ever got
Speaker 1: to me. I'm going, but it was clear to me
Speaker 1: that like I'm going to be hearing stuff like this
Speaker 1: for the next few months, and I need to figure
Speaker 1: something out so that I'm not like for my own
Speaker 1: well being.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you and me both. I mean, it's it's funny.
Speaker 2: I'm always so curious the things that like really get
Speaker 2: under your skin and don't like because it's such a stupid, little,
Speaker 2: like insignificant thing, But I get it. I love to
Speaker 2: get hung up on stupid, little, insignificant things, and you're right,
Speaker 2: it's just gonna get worse as we go into this election.
Speaker 2: That's just like the the tip of the stupid iceberg.
Speaker 2: You know, there's so much more stupid under the sea
Speaker 2: coming at the boat that is America.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, you know me so well from us
Speaker 1: working on the show together that I would be curious
Speaker 1: maybe for maybe for some Patreon content.
Speaker 3: We've got to give a list of the.
Speaker 1: Weird things that you might not think and under bridget skin,
Speaker 1: but really get under bridget skin, because that would be
Speaker 1: curious to know your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2: The petty grievance rundown. Uh, we'd have to break it
Speaker 2: up for a couple episodes.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, Actually forget. I don't want to hear this.
Speaker 1: This is not content that I want that I want
Speaker 1: out there, even behind a paywall. Okay, So I do
Speaker 1: have one thing to say about the rollout is that
Speaker 1: I think it reveals that the people who are like
Speaker 1: extremely online it is people like Ronda Santis. I think
Speaker 1: for a long time that the left, progressives, radicals whatever
Speaker 1: have been accused of being too online, extremely online, caring
Speaker 1: too much about what's happening on Twitter, and like social media,
Speaker 1: cloud is.
Speaker 3: Currency, YadA, YadA, YadA. I hope that this.
Speaker 1: Official presidential announcement makes it super abundantly clear that it
Speaker 1: is right wing extremists who are the ones who are
Speaker 1: too online. They are the ones who have been able
Speaker 1: to weaponize the Internet to accommodate their grievances while calling
Speaker 1: the rest about snowflakes. It is clear who the snowflakes are.
Speaker 3: It is them.
Speaker 1: I hope that this announcement makes very clear who is
Speaker 1: the one who is too obsessed with what's happening on Twitter,
Speaker 1: because it's Ronda Santis, not us.
Speaker 2: It's such a good observation. You're so right. And not
Speaker 2: only are they're the ones who are too online, but
Speaker 2: it's clear what their goal of their ideal vision of
Speaker 2: what an ideal online space is, which is a super
Speaker 2: safe space for them, free from trigger warnings of like
Speaker 2: truth or accountability, where they can just go off about
Speaker 2: like how they are having the biggest, greatest Twitter space
Speaker 2: ever that everyone is watching. It's such a good observation. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they they've finally made it, you know, they've finally made
Speaker 2: Twitter their own by purging everyone else so that they
Speaker 2: can just repeat their own nonsense to each other.
Speaker 1: It's so true, and speaking of nonsense, we have to
Speaker 1: talk about this mess at target right now. So folks
Speaker 1: have probably already seen this. If you haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: you've definitely seen it. But it's a summarize right wing
Speaker 1: extreme as social media personalities are leading a coordinated campaign
Speaker 1: against brands for carrying pride merch. Far right podcaster Matt
Speaker 1: Wall said this very explicitly, tweeting, the goal is to
Speaker 1: make pride toxic for brands. If they decide to shove
Speaker 1: this garbage in our face, they should know that they'll
Speaker 1: pay a price. The goal is to make pride toxic
Speaker 1: for brands. If they decide to shove this garbage in
Speaker 1: our face, they should know that they'll pay a price.
Speaker 1: It won't be worth whatever they think they'll gain. We
Speaker 1: can't boycott every woke company. We don't need to pick
Speaker 1: a few strategic targets make them pay dearly. That's enough
Speaker 1: to make wokeness a lot less appealing to the corporate world.
Speaker 1: Stop trying to bring down the whole line of dominoes
Speaker 1: at once. Start with one and then the next. So
Speaker 1: pretty clear like that, it's like clear that that is
Speaker 1: a call for a harassment campaign against Target and Target staff,
Speaker 1: and I am sad to say that this is This
Speaker 1: call to action has turned into right wing extremists going
Speaker 1: into Target stores and recording themselves destroying merchandise and threatening employees.
Speaker 1: Of course, because they're very online, they don't do this
Speaker 1: without the camera running. They film themselves doing it because
Speaker 1: they understand that it also needs to be content, and
Speaker 1: it's incentivized because hey, maybe they can become a big
Speaker 1: star for their video of them trashing a Target display
Speaker 1: and threatening a teenager who works at.
Speaker 3: Target is over the top enough.
Speaker 1: So Target responded by removing some of their items from
Speaker 1: the Pride collection, saying in a statement. Since introducing this
Speaker 1: year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team member's sense
Speaker 1: of safety and well being while at work. Given these
Speaker 1: volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans and
Speaker 1: including removing items that have been at the center of
Speaker 1: the most significant confrontational behavior. So that fucking sucks. I
Speaker 1: hated reading that statement. You know, I really hate defending
Speaker 1: a corporation, and so I feel like I'm in a
Speaker 1: weird position, and I also hate. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: why I actually don't really like Pride that much is
Speaker 1: precisely because of corporate ally ship that I just think
Speaker 1: feels weird. That's an episode another day. But I really
Speaker 1: kind of feel for Target here because I think they're
Speaker 1: in kind of an impossible situation. If you listen to
Speaker 1: our series Internet Hate Machine with cool Zone Media, then
Speaker 1: you know how important it is that brands understand how
Speaker 1: to deal with these kinds of coordinated harassment campaigns. The
Speaker 1: people behind them, these right wing extremists. They are never
Speaker 1: satisfied because it's not about one shirt, one swimsuit, the
Speaker 1: collection or Pride. If Target pulls the collection, rather than
Speaker 1: being satisfied, conceding any ground of these people will only
Speaker 1: empower them. So's I don't think it's a good strategy
Speaker 1: to pull their collection. But that said, I don't think
Speaker 1: that staff at Target should have to put up with
Speaker 1: being harassed or threatened to protect this Pride collection, especially
Speaker 1: younger staff or gender nonconforming or tran staff. Right they
Speaker 1: are not paid enough to put up with that. And
Speaker 1: this was not a position that I had in the
Speaker 1: beginning when I first saw that Target was taking out
Speaker 1: this pride collection. I was like, how can they just like,
Speaker 1: how can they just like cave to these extremists, Like,
Speaker 1: that's not what you should do. I read this this
Speaker 1: tweet thread from a queer trans Target employee. They write, Hi,
Speaker 1: I am a queer trans Target employee, and I would
Speaker 1: personally prefer the company be safe rather than sorry, because
Speaker 1: I don't get paid enough to get threatened, assaulted, or
Speaker 1: possibly gunned down at work over a swimsuit. Also, if
Speaker 1: Target didn't pull the merch and these bigoted turf assholes
Speaker 1: did do something unthinkable and employee employees were injured or killed,
Speaker 1: y'all would say Target kept selling stuff because they valued
Speaker 1: making money over the safety of their employees. It's a
Speaker 1: no win situation, and so I agree with that. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I feel for employees like the tweeter
Speaker 1: that I just read from, who are like, listen, I
Speaker 1: don't make enough money to die defending Target's pride collection.
Speaker 3: That I really really feel that.
Speaker 1: But I also don't think it's right for Target to
Speaker 1: just cow tow to bullies and extremists. You know, I've
Speaker 1: heard people argue that, oh, well, Target could just have
Speaker 1: security guards, like, you know, you know, have armed guards
Speaker 1: or security at their stores, but and they definitely could,
Speaker 1: that's definitely an option. But I would argue that if
Speaker 1: you need an armed guard or security just so Target
Speaker 1: can stock some gay shirts without incident, then we have really.
Speaker 3: Lost a lot.
Speaker 1: And I don't think a world where you need armed
Speaker 1: guards just to have a pride collection is a world
Speaker 1: that I want to live in. And so I just
Speaker 1: can't find a solution that is that is right.
Speaker 3: Like I don't, I don't.
Speaker 1: I want to be clear, like I don't think Target
Speaker 1: should be cowtow and to bullies. I also don't think
Speaker 1: that employees should have to feel unsafe. And it's worth
Speaker 1: noting that when pharmacies were refusing to stock pill abortion pills,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons they gave is that, like, oh,
Speaker 1: we want to make sure that our pharmacists are safe.
Speaker 1: So that's definitely a well worn thing that corporations say
Speaker 1: when when they are defending their choice to not do
Speaker 1: something or to do something. I'm not sure if that's
Speaker 1: what's going on with Target.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 1: Like my sense is I do actually think that the
Speaker 1: videos that people have filmed are concerning enough that it
Speaker 1: doesn't seem safe to me to be honest.
Speaker 2: God, I hate this story. I hate everything about it,
Speaker 2: you know, like I just yeah, it doesn't feel safe.
Speaker 2: I don't want to live in a world where this
Speaker 2: sort of thing happens either, But like here we are.
Speaker 2: I guess this is what they want, you know, Like
Speaker 2: how did we get here where it's okay for media
Speaker 2: personalities with like shows on major networks to incite their
Speaker 2: followers to go and terrorize workers and vandalize stores and
Speaker 2: break stuff and do it on camera, which I would
Speaker 2: assume is a crime to like go into a store
Speaker 2: and break merchandise. You know, it's such a lose lose, yeah,
Speaker 2: for target for allies, and yeah, like who you know,
Speaker 2: consumerist pride merch is not my favorite. Don't like it,
Speaker 2: but yeah, here we are like defending it.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 2: It's it's such a lose lose for everyone except for
Speaker 2: Matt Walsh and the media personalities getting eyeballs, and I
Speaker 2: guess the biggots getting clicks for posting these videos to
Speaker 2: their Facebook accounts.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And like I like a lot of queers don't
Speaker 1: love corporate allyship whatever, but I do. But like I'm
Speaker 1: an adult who and I live in a super queer
Speaker 1: friendly city Washington, d C. I might feel differently if
Speaker 1: I'm a sixteen year old. I was a sixteen year old.
Speaker 1: I think I right, like I might feel differently like
Speaker 1: it is a little bit of a privilege for me
Speaker 1: to say that I don't like targets LGBT like LGBTQ
Speaker 1: Pride collection, because I have so much affirming stuff, affirming
Speaker 1: stuff in my life. I have, Like I live in
Speaker 1: a very I have a very gay affirming life, a
Speaker 1: very queer affirming life.
Speaker 2: It's true. Yeah, But and you know, I would never
Speaker 2: say anything to that sixteen year old trans kid living
Speaker 2: in rural wherever because they've they've you know, been through
Speaker 2: and are going through so much more than I am.
Speaker 2: But you know, that same sense of entitlement that that
Speaker 2: we have from living in a queer friendly city like DC.
Speaker 2: I do worry that there is some sense of entitlement
Speaker 2: among younger queer people and allies and trans people today
Speaker 2: that these sorts of like homophobic, turfy, bigoted attitudes are
Speaker 2: fringe right and like the cow towing to these hateful people.
Speaker 2: It is really worrisome because it's definitely going to embolden them.
Speaker 2: They're definitely not gonna take their shitty attitudes and go
Speaker 2: home into clear victory, right, They're gonna do something else.
Speaker 2: And so it's such a tough spot. Like, yeah, I
Speaker 2: totally sympathize with the workers and Target, and it does
Speaker 2: sound like it was unsafe situation. And so I don't
Speaker 2: blame the executives at Target for making that decision to
Speaker 2: pull some of their merchandise to deal with this like
Speaker 2: acute safety situation in their stores right now. But I
Speaker 2: can't help but feel like that decision also makes us
Speaker 2: all a little bit less safe in the longer term.
Speaker 3: It definitely does.
Speaker 1: I mean this is what when I was doing the
Speaker 1: research for Internet Hate Machine, we saw this time and
Speaker 1: time again that it just in bolded a small but
Speaker 1: vocal sub section of people who had a lot of
Speaker 1: time on their hands. And I want to make something
Speaker 1: really clear, I don't believe like like kind of like,
Speaker 1: hell are we talking about Rhonda Santis He is the
Speaker 1: one who is extremely online. I think your average person,
Speaker 1: even if someone who is a Republican, I don't think
Speaker 1: they spend this much time thinking about pride or thinking
Speaker 1: about trans people, like even if they are people who
Speaker 1: like don't understand LGBTQ identity, don't understand these issues. I
Speaker 1: don't think that they are consumed by it where it's
Speaker 1: like I'm going to film myself going into a target
Speaker 1: doing potentially criminal behavior and having a public tantrum about it.
Speaker 1: I think that even a lot of Republicans are probably
Speaker 1: probably don't spend this much time on it. It is
Speaker 1: the people who are extremely online, who are super super extremist,
Speaker 1: who are trying to make it seem like this is
Speaker 1: a normal, a normal position to have, when in fact
Speaker 1: that it's out of step.
Speaker 3: I would argue, in my opinion, with how.
Speaker 1: Most people feel, I think that most people are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to film myself going into a target
Speaker 1: destroying a Pride collection, even if I don't understand trans people,
Speaker 1: because I have shit to do in my day that
Speaker 1: doesn't include that, Like I have other things to think about,
Speaker 1: there's other shit on my mind.
Speaker 2: I think you're absolutely right right now. But I think
Speaker 2: those same people who are you know, maybe vote Republican
Speaker 2: or you know, consider themselves on the right, even if
Speaker 2: they don't get like as fired up about these culture
Speaker 2: war issues that these people do, they're still seeing that
Speaker 2: content and exactly like you said, I think one of
Speaker 2: the goals of these people doing this is to normalize
Speaker 2: it and make it seem like this is an okay,
Speaker 2: normal attitude to have.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, I completely agree. I think that it is
Speaker 1: about making this position commonplace, and I don't think it
Speaker 1: actually is. I think that that is part of what
Speaker 1: these public campaigns against Target, against bud Light are meant
Speaker 1: to signal that if you want to be a Republican,
Speaker 1: part of being a Republican, maybe you don't have to
Speaker 1: go out and like destroy pride stuff. But when it
Speaker 1: comes to how how legislating trans people you know, goes
Speaker 1: out in your town, you know what side to be
Speaker 1: on where at.
Speaker 3: So I think it's I think it's about like.
Speaker 1: Using the Internet and using these like spectacles to signal
Speaker 1: to people this is what it means to be a
Speaker 1: conservative in twenty twenty three. You gotta be against you know,
Speaker 1: like again like it's it's it is wild to me
Speaker 1: to even say, like, who cares this much about the
Speaker 1: merchandise at Target? I see stuff at Target I don't
Speaker 1: like all the time. I don't film myself destroying it.
Speaker 1: Most people don't like. That is criminal behavior. It is
Speaker 1: it's I mean, it's it's not just like it's it's
Speaker 1: so hard for me. I mean, I mean it's so
Speaker 1: hard for me to even like explain what I mean.
Speaker 1: Is like, so it's like socially, what's the word I'm
Speaker 1: looking for.
Speaker 2: That's the word you're looking for.
Speaker 3: It's like it's like it's like anti social behavior.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh totally, you know, Yeah, we have lost
Speaker 1: the ability to like be like, well, we live in
Speaker 1: a society, and maybe I don't like all this rainbow stuff,
Speaker 1: but like that's that's life.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: Whatever happened to minding one's own business?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 2: Like I thought that was a conservative thing. Uh. You know,
Speaker 2: maybe you don't have to like something, but why do
Speaker 2: you have to like legislate it and you know, affect
Speaker 2: other people. Uh, it's it's scary. So I just went
Speaker 2: back home to to where I grew up in rural
Speaker 2: upstate New York a little bit ago, and I was
Speaker 2: talking with an older guy I know there. He's uh
Speaker 2: in the baby boomer generation. Uh, he's conservative, but he's
Speaker 2: not a bad guy. He's not a hateful guy. You know,
Speaker 2: he has gay friends. One of his kids is dating
Speaker 2: a person of color. He's white and like he had
Speaker 2: to do some work, but he's cool that he's not
Speaker 2: like a bad guy. But he definitely considers himself a conservative.
Speaker 2: And for the first time on this trip home a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks ago, he asked me about like, well,
Speaker 2: what do you think about gender affirming care and like
Speaker 2: should we be giving that to kids? It's like, why
Speaker 2: do you care all of a sudden, like there are
Speaker 2: no trans people in your life, there's certainly no trans kids.
Speaker 2: I can only imagine what you think gender affirming care means.
Speaker 2: And yet this is the topic that you bring up,
Speaker 2: that you want to talk about because it's what you
Speaker 2: see on the internet, and it's really worrisome. It's really worrisome.
Speaker 3: It is worrisome.
Speaker 1: And how effectively they were able to be like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we're just asking questions about bathrooms. Oh, we're just asking
Speaker 1: questions about protecting girls in sports. We're just asking questions
Speaker 1: about whether parents who give their kids access to gender
Speaker 1: affirming care should have their kids taken from by the state.
Speaker 1: Like it's like the way that it's gotten so incrementally
Speaker 1: more damaging in exactly the way that trans activists and
Speaker 1: advocates warned from the very fucking beginning is terrifying, and
Speaker 1: it is wild how much misinformation I have seen about
Speaker 1: this Target Pride collection. And you've probably seen it too,
Speaker 1: you know. There was this viral claims that Target is
Speaker 1: selling tuck friendly swimsuits and chest binders for toddlers. They don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, like, think about that for one second. Why
Speaker 1: would Target be selling a product a chest binder that
Speaker 1: is meant to find someone's breast.
Speaker 3: Toddlers don't have breasts, Just.
Speaker 1: Like it's just like one of those things of like,
Speaker 1: think about it for five seconds and see if it
Speaker 1: makes any sense. There was another claim that Target was
Speaker 1: selling a children's T shirt that said Satan Respects Pronouns
Speaker 1: with a pastel image of Satan on it. First of all,
Speaker 1: I feel like if you're a conservative Christian and a
Speaker 1: shirt says that Satan respects pronouns, wou don't you kind
Speaker 1: of like like that because you don't like Satan and
Speaker 1: Satan and.
Speaker 2: You also don't like pronouns. Yeah, you don't like Satan.
Speaker 2: You don't like pronouns, you know, only like direct nouns,
Speaker 2: no pronouns.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, So like I have some like conceptual questions
Speaker 1: about this piece of misinformation. But in any event, uh,
Speaker 1: Target never sold a shirt for children that said Satan
Speaker 1: respects pronouns. In reality, Target sold three items from the
Speaker 1: UK based designer A Prian. While it's true that this
Speaker 1: designer does make a Satan Respects Pronouns shirt, they don't
Speaker 1: make it for kids, and Target does not sell it,
Speaker 1: and it's never sold it or carried it, let alone
Speaker 1: one for kids. They carry three different items from the
Speaker 1: designer that say things like cure transphobia, not trans people,
Speaker 1: and we belong everywhere. And this is a really good
Speaker 1: example of how this information works. Because the truth that Target,
Speaker 1: like pretty much any other big retailer in the world,
Speaker 1: buys some items from retailers and not others, and stocks
Speaker 1: the things that like align with their branding and their
Speaker 1: values and not other things. That is a complicated and
Speaker 1: a little bit boring explanation, right supply chain, Oh, who's
Speaker 1: got time for it. Meanwhile, the lie, which is that
Speaker 1: Target is perverting kids with satan and transness, that is
Speaker 1: so much more charged, and so it's not surprising to
Speaker 1: me that people, even if it's not true, people really
Speaker 1: flock to the you know, the inflammatory lie over the
Speaker 1: kind of boring, humdrum reality of supply chain and how
Speaker 1: big retailers work.
Speaker 2: Truth, I think it's gonna get us what the law.
Speaker 3: A million points if you get that reference listeners.
Speaker 4: More.
Speaker 5: After a quick break, let's.
Speaker 4: Get right back into it.
Speaker 1: So as dark as all of this is, I should
Speaker 1: say that there's upright side. People have been supporting the
Speaker 1: designer who is trends and flooding his online store with
Speaker 1: so many orders that he could not keep up. He
Speaker 1: wrote on his Etsy store, your support during this extremely
Speaker 1: difficult time means more than I can express. And here's
Speaker 1: the bottom line. This is a harassment and disinformation campaign
Speaker 1: led by extremists like Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk, which
Speaker 1: is honestly what they do.
Speaker 3: Fine, you know, I'm not surprised by it.
Speaker 1: But what is worse is how they have framed this
Speaker 1: in some mainstream media sources who are essentially doing the
Speaker 1: work of extremists for them by legitimizing and kind of
Speaker 1: like laundering this behavior. I've seen a lot of coverage
Speaker 1: that would suggest that this harassment is just like it's
Speaker 1: just sort of happening organically, completely ignoring that specific right
Speaker 1: wing extremist influencers with massive online platforms have explicitly called
Speaker 1: for this kind of behavior at Target. So it's not organic.
Speaker 1: It's not just concerned parents, it's not just you know,
Speaker 1: angry people. It is a targeted, coordinated harassment campaign being
Speaker 1: led by specific people with big platforms. I've seen this
Speaker 1: really lazy coverage that relies on, like, very heavily relies
Speaker 1: on passive voice, making it seem like, you know, like
Speaker 1: they'll say like, oh, you know, amidst this climate again,
Speaker 1: making it seem like this is something other than an intentional,
Speaker 1: coordinated campaign to attack LGBTQ people and the people who
Speaker 1: support them. And it's not just in stores. It is
Speaker 1: in laws that get queer and trans people killed. It
Speaker 1: is in laws that keep queer and trans people from
Speaker 1: accessing healthcare that they need. It is not just about
Speaker 1: these shirts at Target. It is so much bigger than that.
Speaker 1: And I think it is so lazy and sad that
Speaker 1: we don't have a media ecosystem that reports this as
Speaker 1: it is happening. They continue to make it seem like
Speaker 1: it's just some weird thing in the climate, like oh,
Speaker 1: it's warm out today. People are angry about trans shirts
Speaker 1: at Target that is not what's happening, and we do
Speaker 1: not have a media who is telling the truth about
Speaker 1: what is actually happening.
Speaker 2: Wolf bridget, So, was there any good news this week?
Speaker 2: Because I'm feeling pretty bummed out after that rundown.
Speaker 3: I know it's sad, but don't worry. I got you.
Speaker 1: So people are turning to the Internet to answer questions
Speaker 1: about their gender and sexuality. This is according to a
Speaker 1: new analysis from the Cultural Current Institute, a market research
Speaker 1: firm that studies opinion trends. They looked at Google trends
Speaker 1: information from two thousand and four to dismay for questions
Speaker 1: related to sexual orientation and gender identity across all fifty states.
Speaker 1: They found that Google searches by users for phrases questioning
Speaker 1: their own sexuality and gender ida, so things like am
Speaker 1: I gay? Or am I a lesbian have increased by
Speaker 1: one three hundred percent. Here's why I think this is
Speaker 1: good news. People, especially young people, should be able to
Speaker 1: count on the Internet to help them answer questions about
Speaker 1: their identity. We're obviously living in a time where right
Speaker 1: wing forces are trying to eradicate queerness and transness, not
Speaker 1: just from the Internet, but also from public life. But
Speaker 1: the Internet is another battleground for them in this fight.
Speaker 1: For instance, the Heritage Foundation outright stated their intention to
Speaker 1: use legislation like the Child Online Privacy and Protection Act,
Speaker 1: which is legislation that would create an age requirement to
Speaker 1: access the Internet, to use that legislation to fight against quote,
Speaker 1: the woke design of digital spaces, and to guard kids
Speaker 1: against the harms of sexual and transgender content.
Speaker 2: That is a nice palate cleanser. It's a really nice
Speaker 2: reminder that all these right wing fascists and bigots are
Speaker 2: a minority. They're hopefully a dying breed, and that part
Speaker 2: of why they're so angry is because they know that
Speaker 2: the general population and young people in particular, are just
Speaker 2: moving further and further away from them and their reactionary, intolerant,
Speaker 2: invasive ideologies that just want to force people into these
Speaker 2: narrow little boxes that people that they've been trying to
Speaker 2: get people into for generations. And with the Internet, we
Speaker 2: now can all see what a lie those tiny little
Speaker 2: boxes are. No one fits in them. We're all so
Speaker 2: much vaster and more interesting than they would have us believe.
Speaker 2: And they know that, and the Internet allows us to
Speaker 2: see that, and it's a nice reminder that people are
Speaker 2: still finding that and questioning things and exploring who they
Speaker 2: are and how they relate to each other, or because
Speaker 2: I you know, I personally genuinely believe that that is
Speaker 2: a mark of a healthy person. Right who asked the
Speaker 2: question who am I? How do I relate to the world?
Speaker 2: How do we relate to each other? And people are
Speaker 2: asking that, you know, regardless of what answer they get
Speaker 2: when they do a Google search for am I gay?
Speaker 2: They're asking the question and they're learning something about themselves.
Speaker 2: And I think it's that questioning that is so terrifying
Speaker 2: to them.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that you're exactly right. That's a beautiful
Speaker 3: way to put it.
Speaker 1: And I think that it is a reminder that these
Speaker 1: bigots and right wing fascists and extremists are in the minority.
Speaker 1: And we know that because if their positions were actually enticing,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have to lie about them to get people
Speaker 1: to follow them. You wouldn't have to lie about the
Speaker 1: kinds of pride things that target sells to get people
Speaker 1: on your side. So the fact that they're lying in
Speaker 1: a kind of way actually shows that they know that
Speaker 1: their positions aren't popular. Because you wouldn't have to lie
Speaker 1: if they were popular, and so I agree, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that this is good news that people are
Speaker 1: used turning to the Internet to find to answer these questions.
Speaker 1: Because questioning yourself, looking inward, being introspective as figuring out
Speaker 1: these things about who you are and how you fit
Speaker 1: into the world is the mark of a healthy person
Speaker 1: and we should be encouraging that. And so if people
Speaker 1: are still able to turn to the Internet for exploration
Speaker 1: of their identities to ask some of those questions, that's
Speaker 1: a good thing, you know, It's what people should be
Speaker 1: able to turn to the Internet for. I've shared this
Speaker 1: on the podcast many times. When I was growing up,
Speaker 1: the Internet is how I learned about myself and my
Speaker 1: own identity and my own sexuality and gender presentation. And
Speaker 1: if I had not had the Internet, I don't know
Speaker 1: what I would have done. And so I'm very lucky
Speaker 1: that I was coming of age when I did and
Speaker 1: the kind of internet climate that I was, And I
Speaker 1: genuinely worry about the next generation. Well they have an
Speaker 1: Internet landscape that they can turn to for these questions.
Speaker 1: It is nice to get a little bit of information
Speaker 1: that suggests that that Internet, which I think is so
Speaker 1: crucial is still there for them? So I'm calling it
Speaker 1: good news.
Speaker 2: I'll take it. Yeah. Thanks, Bridget can always out on you.
Speaker 1: Thanks Mike for helping me talk through it, and thanks
Speaker 1: to all of you for listening. If you want more
Speaker 1: content like this without any commercials, you can subscribe to
Speaker 1: our Patreon at patreon dot com slash Tangody I'll see
Speaker 1: you there. If you're looking for ways to support the show,
Speaker 1: check out our mark store at tenggodi dot com 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 tenggody dot com. You can also find transcripts
Speaker 1: for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and 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 Almado 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.