Speaker 1: If you are against misinformation and hate speech, you know
Speaker 1: you gotta be against it on all platforms, and not
Speaker 1: just on TikTok. There are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: As a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm Bridget
Speaker 1: Todd and this is there are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about TikTok, the super popular social media app
Speaker 1: owned by byte Dance, a Chinese based company. Now a
Speaker 1: growing collection of elected officials want TikTok banned in the
Speaker 1: United States because they say it represents a national security risk.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration demanded that TikTok be sold or it
Speaker 1: could face a ban in the US. Congress has also
Speaker 1: rolled out a bipartisan bill allowing a nationwide TikTok band,
Speaker 1: called the Restrict Act, which would allow the Secretary of
Speaker 1: Commerce to ban apps that pose a risk to US
Speaker 1: national security. Last week, members of Congress held a hearing
Speaker 1: where they grilled TikTok CEO show Ze two. Now, y'all know,
Speaker 1: I love TikTok, but I also know that, like any
Speaker 1: other social media app, it is not without its issues.
Speaker 1: TikTok disinformation researcher and friend of the show, Abby Richards
Speaker 1: was one of the first people calling out TikTok for
Speaker 1: the way that myth and disinformation and hate speech spreads
Speaker 1: on the app. But for all of her criticisms of TikTok,
Speaker 1: Abby still says that banning the platform is not the
Speaker 1: right move. In a recent upend for Newsweek that you
Speaker 1: can read in the show notes, Abby explained why she
Speaker 1: thinks banning TikTok will ultimately hurt marginalized communities. I caught
Speaker 1: up with Abby right after we both watch the hearing
Speaker 1: Abby Richards, friend of the show, how are you? I
Speaker 1: am angry, bridget I am an infuriated girl right now,
Speaker 1: as someone who has really built a lot of your
Speaker 1: career not on TikTok, but like calling out TikTok for
Speaker 1: the ways that it can spread misinformation and hate speech?
Speaker 1: What is the big light to watch elected officials talk
Speaker 1: about banning it. It's been infuriating because they're going to
Speaker 1: get all wrong. It's like I have literally built my
Speaker 1: career criticizing TikTok. I will be the first to tell
Speaker 1: you about like the copious amounts of misinformation and hate speech, extremism,
Speaker 1: harassment that happened on that app. But to then try
Speaker 1: and ban it without any evidence that it is a
Speaker 1: national security threat whatsoever, and just using like fearmongering and
Speaker 1: pointing to other pieces of misinformation that I have tried
Speaker 1: to debunk about TikTok like that. And this is like
Speaker 1: the types of misinformation that emerges off the platform. So
Speaker 1: if you were watching the hearing yesterday, you would have
Speaker 1: seen a lot of our congressmen and women pointing to
Speaker 1: TikTok challenges that are causing children tons of harm. And
Speaker 1: I have spent so many, like countless hours debunking these
Speaker 1: exact like moral panics around these challenges, where essentially adults
Speaker 1: try and blame the stupid things that kids do on
Speaker 1: the newest technology. We see it over and over and
Speaker 1: over again. But the fact that you know that's being
Speaker 1: used to justify the banning of this app too is infuriating,
Speaker 1: and I'm deeply concerned about the what the consequences will
Speaker 1: be of banning an app that one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: million Americans use. So you brought up something really interesting.
Speaker 1: I know that these so called like deadly challenges was
Speaker 1: a big part of the hearings, and something that I mean,
Speaker 1: I almost hate to ask this question, but I feel
Speaker 1: like it's an important context of the conversation that is
Speaker 1: like great news for Facebook. They're like, oh, our strategy
Speaker 1: is winning, Like our strategy to turn the public and
Speaker 1: of course elected officials against TikTok and make them think
Speaker 1: that like it's this like place where all these deadly
Speaker 1: challenges emerge, even though some at least some of those
Speaker 1: challenges actually emerged on Facebook. If you really want to
Speaker 1: get into the nitty gritty, did you so did you
Speaker 1: see in the hearings the ways that like fear mongering
Speaker 1: just sort of large about technology was taking center stage
Speaker 1: in these hearings. It's almost like they're placing this fear
Speaker 1: that they have of new and emerging technologies and how
Speaker 1: young people use them and just placing it on one
Speaker 1: singular app. So rather than actually dealing with the consequences
Speaker 1: of this like rapidly changing society because of the expansion
Speaker 1: of technology, like on a monthly basis, we just want
Speaker 1: to like pin all of our anxiety on one app
Speaker 1: and cross our fingers that like if we just ban
Speaker 1: this one app, it'll all go away. And so I
Speaker 1: think we see that a lot with the challenges and
Speaker 1: like though the steam that they pick up among people
Speaker 1: who are not on the platform. In particular, we know
Speaker 1: that it was the Washington Post that reported that there
Speaker 1: was like a consulting group. There was the Washington Post
Speaker 1: that reported that there was a marketing group that was
Speaker 1: working with Meta to place op eds about, you know,
Speaker 1: fearmongering about TikTok. So that's something that we have seen
Speaker 1: happened before, and it certainly seems like this is a
Speaker 1: big win for Meta. If you are on TikTok at all,
Speaker 1: you are probably seeing this widespread popularity of almost conspiratorial
Speaker 1: language about where people are blaming the ban on Meta
Speaker 1: and saying that like Meta is lobbying and Google too
Speaker 1: to some extent blaming it, but yeah, blaming it on Meta,
Speaker 1: on Google for lobbying Congress people and encouraging them to
Speaker 1: ban their biggest competition. I don't know how much truth
Speaker 1: there is to that, because I think that there is
Speaker 1: a lot of geopolitics there too, and it seems like
Speaker 1: the US government is you know, very interested in like
Speaker 1: splitting the Internet as much as possible right now. So
Speaker 1: it's it's hard to say if it's like one cause
Speaker 1: versus another, but this does definitely look like a big
Speaker 1: win for Meta, and they used rhetoric that Meta has
Speaker 1: also pushed before. Yeah, so in terms of a TikTok band,
Speaker 1: So in your piece you write about how you know,
Speaker 1: obviously you are the first one one to admit that
Speaker 1: TikTok has its downfalls and the democratization of like media
Speaker 1: has its downfalls, but you also talk about the ways
Speaker 1: that this could actually harm marginalized communities. How do you
Speaker 1: see that working? So let's okay, well we'll start you
Speaker 1: and you consider a like institutional media, legacy media, So
Speaker 1: New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN. They
Speaker 1: are top down information systems, which means that these newsrooms
Speaker 1: essentially look at all of the news and then decide
Speaker 1: what is newsworthy and then disseminate it to their audience.
Speaker 1: TikTok is much more of a bottom up information system,
Speaker 1: which means that anyone can post basically anything that they want,
Speaker 1: and then the algorithm is working with the users to
Speaker 1: determine what people are watching, and in that way, the
Speaker 1: users decide what is of importance to them. So we
Speaker 1: have two different information systems, and this top down one
Speaker 1: tends to privilege white richer more privileged people. It tends
Speaker 1: to be composed of people who come from more privileged backgrounds.
Speaker 1: It speaks about their problems and things that they are
Speaker 1: interested in thinking about. They in particular like they have
Speaker 1: to sell subscriptions or sell ads, so they have to
Speaker 1: run stories that they know that the wealthy, the audience
Speaker 1: that they pant or two will be interested in the
Speaker 1: first place, because it's really not that profitable to tell
Speaker 1: stories of marginalized people who can't afford to subscribe to
Speaker 1: their newspaper. So TikTok being this much more bottom up
Speaker 1: infrastructure allowed for two major like kind of newish forms
Speaker 1: of massive dissemination of news and information. The first would
Speaker 1: be seeing information from firsthand accounts, So that's like when
Speaker 1: you know this, these started the invasion of Ukraine where
Speaker 1: we saw all of these videos of people leaving the
Speaker 1: country or being a bomb shelter. So you're seeing people
Speaker 1: who are actually experiencing the events posting online and that
Speaker 1: garner's attention without editors needing to push it out. And
Speaker 1: then the second is through trusted messengers, and these are
Speaker 1: people that can speak to specific communities and they have
Speaker 1: had they've had a lot of success on TikTok. They
Speaker 1: have built up these communities where they are trusted sources
Speaker 1: of information and sometimes opinion. People go to them to
Speaker 1: try and feel like they can understand certain problems. And
Speaker 1: you know, this could range from a community of like
Speaker 1: ten thousand people to communities of millions of people. But
Speaker 1: this is particularly advantageous to marginalized groups who probably can't
Speaker 1: afford a subscription to The New York Times, or alternatively,
Speaker 1: they don't want one because they don't trust the New
Speaker 1: York Times. They've never seen themselves represented in the New
Speaker 1: York Times. Like, there are so many reasons why they
Speaker 1: might not turn to legacy media, but they will turn
Speaker 1: to like a trust messenger who looks like them, who
Speaker 1: speaks their language, who they feel understands them in their communities.
Speaker 1: And so if we dismantle that infrastructure like suddenly, like
Speaker 1: flipping off a light switch, you'd be leaving all of
Speaker 1: these communities without their information infrastructure, and that could be
Speaker 1: leaving them in the dark. It could be really really
Speaker 1: damaging for them. And they're very resilient. All of these
Speaker 1: marginalized comunities, whether it's communities of color, queer communities, disabled communities,
Speaker 1: they're they're very resilient, they will rebuild, but keeping them
Speaker 1: in a state of like constantly rebuilding the information infrastructure
Speaker 1: stops them from being able to do things like organized, immobilize,
Speaker 1: and gain power because they're constantly rebuilding their their information infrastructure.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm mad. I mean that's such a good point, Like,
Speaker 1: I oh, where do I even start. I think that
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why we're even having this conversation
Speaker 1: is like a fundamental misunderstanding of the ways that platforms
Speaker 1: like TikTok have worked and what they have been used to,
Speaker 1: like what movements they've been used to build, right, Like
Speaker 1: I still see people being like, oh, like it's a
Speaker 1: kid's dancing app, which like part of my soul dies
Speaker 1: every time I hear that, you know, looking around, Like
Speaker 1: what was happening to women in Iran? I have to say,
Speaker 1: I don't think I would have known what was happening.
Speaker 1: I don't think I would have known what was going
Speaker 1: on if not for TikTok, if not for Iranian women
Speaker 1: saying hey, this is what's going on, here's how you
Speaker 1: can help, here's what we need, I don't think I
Speaker 1: would have been able to be plugged into what was
Speaker 1: happening if not for TikTok, And so I think that
Speaker 1: it's it's like a it's like a the people who
Speaker 1: are legislating this don't necessarily have that visibility into the
Speaker 1: ways that it is functioned for communities who are marginalized.
Speaker 1: And so I if we're going to have any conversation
Speaker 1: about just an outright ban, they're not even including that
Speaker 1: in the conversation. And I feel like it kind of
Speaker 1: like what you said, like, if we're going to do
Speaker 1: something about how these apps and platforms function in our
Speaker 1: lives and in our like media ecosystem, let's not have
Speaker 1: it be done hastily and badly right where people where
Speaker 1: people are going to be have the rug pulled out
Speaker 1: from under them and they're they're very real issues are
Speaker 1: not even being discussed or like you know, brought to
Speaker 1: the table. Oh yeah, there's no nuance in this conversation whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And you would think that if we're going to have
Speaker 1: a conversation about pulling the plug on one of the
Speaker 1: biggest pieces of communications infrastructure in the world, that is
Speaker 1: a conversation that we should be very careful about. Dismantling
Speaker 1: infrastructure that large is not a decision that should be
Speaker 1: taken lightly. And yet it seems like our representatives like
Speaker 1: truly have bought into this idea that TikTok is somehow
Speaker 1: simultaneously just a kid's dancing app and also spywear. Like
Speaker 1: it's really confusing how it can be both, and like
Speaker 1: saying like, oh, well, you could push specific you know,
Speaker 1: you could push specific misinformation campaigns and try and sway
Speaker 1: the American populace, but then also simultaneously ignoring the fact
Speaker 1: that like it is a messaging center for a huge
Speaker 1: portion of the American populace. If you just remove it,
Speaker 1: there will be consequences. And then when I bring this up,
Speaker 1: I see some people like, oh, well, you know, at
Speaker 1: the like you know, national security is more important, or
Speaker 1: it's like everyone will just go to a new app,
Speaker 1: and like, yes, probably they will, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that it won't cause a lot of harm in the process.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that people will you know, there's still
Speaker 1: going to be lots of creators who lose their jobs.
Speaker 1: There's going to people people who have built these large
Speaker 1: audiences who now have nothing, and a lot of people
Speaker 1: whose voices were empowered and suddenly we're coming into a
Speaker 1: position of discursive power. Who will now not have access
Speaker 1: to that? And even if like yes, technically, if you
Speaker 1: look at like a very big picture level, people will
Speaker 1: migrate to new apps, sure, but there's still going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of consequences and we can't really ignore that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, even looking at what's going on with Twitter.
Speaker 1: I there was a time where I was like, Oh,
Speaker 1: everyone's going to be using Mastodon or this or that.
Speaker 1: It hasn't. And I know that our communities, particularly marginalized communities,
Speaker 1: as you said, are really resilient, and we always find
Speaker 1: a way to make We always make a way out
Speaker 1: of no way, right, Like that is what we do.
Speaker 1: But it's watching it watching Twitter become a place where
Speaker 1: people spend less and less of their time. There hasn't
Speaker 1: been like one place where everybody is like setting up shop,
Speaker 1: and so it's takes longer, it's messier, it's it's more
Speaker 1: energy for these communities, many of whom I look at,
Speaker 1: the trans community and the queer community are up against
Speaker 1: quite a bit right now. And so maybe having to
Speaker 1: pick up and rebuild a new communications infrastructure elsewhere it's
Speaker 1: not what they need right now, is maybe it is
Speaker 1: maybe not going to be like great for those communities.
Speaker 1: It will be horrible for them because now, in addition
Speaker 1: to legislation that is threatening their right to exist, they
Speaker 1: also don't have their communities that they can turn to
Speaker 1: for advice, for support, for information, and they don't have
Speaker 1: access to their broader communications network to mobilize right and
Speaker 1: and plan what they will do in response or try
Speaker 1: and like have a place they can turn to to
Speaker 1: raise funds if they need surgery, or if they need
Speaker 1: legal fees, or if they need to get out of
Speaker 1: whichever state they're in. If you remove the communications infrastructure,
Speaker 1: and we're talking about a marginalized community that is undergoing
Speaker 1: a lot of legislative challenges right now, that's putting them
Speaker 1: in a position that just increases their marginalization. Let's take
Speaker 1: a quick break enter back. So let me zoom out
Speaker 1: a little bit and just make sure that I have
Speaker 1: this right. Lawmakers are saying that they want to ban
Speaker 1: TikTok because it's a national security risk. This is a
Speaker 1: little bit above my pay grade. I am no digital
Speaker 1: national security expert, and I want to make sure that
Speaker 1: my understanding of this aligns with your understanding. So it
Speaker 1: is true that TikTok is a Chinese owned company, and
Speaker 1: it is true that potentially that could open the door
Speaker 1: for all kinds of national security risks. But what we
Speaker 1: don't have right now is a smoking gun that this
Speaker 1: is actually a problem. We're very much speaking in hypotheticals
Speaker 1: of what could happen or what potentially might happen. So
Speaker 1: lawmakers right now are trying to legislate TikTok because of
Speaker 1: this hypothetical threat that might be out there, but it's
Speaker 1: not yet revealed itself. Do I have that right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would say you nailed it. Okay. They haven't provided
Speaker 1: any evidence of instances where China use TikTok in any
Speaker 1: sort of antagonistic way towards the US. It's only in
Speaker 1: the hypothetical of like they own it and they maybe could,
Speaker 1: and even if they could, it's kind of unclear how
Speaker 1: they would go about doing that. What we do know
Speaker 1: and like, what feels like it's it's missing from this
Speaker 1: conversation so much, is that even if we were to
Speaker 1: band TikTok, it would not stop the Chinese government or
Speaker 1: any government or any bad actor from just buying your
Speaker 1: data elsewhere. TikTok is roughly collecting about the same same
Speaker 1: amount of data as any of the other major social
Speaker 1: media platforms, and then they profit by selling off selling it. Well,
Speaker 1: it wasn't the hearing that he denied that they sell
Speaker 1: They sold data, So maybe they're not even selling the data.
Speaker 1: But social media platforms in general collect your data and
Speaker 1: sell it, and it is not difficult for anyone with
Speaker 1: any sort of intention to just buy your data so
Speaker 1: that they can target you with specific advertisements and specific messages.
Speaker 1: So if we were actually concerned about the Chinese government
Speaker 1: or any other government manipulating Americans, you would be implementing
Speaker 1: like a comprehensive data privacy legislation rather than going after
Speaker 1: one singular app. Because even if you were to band TikTok,
Speaker 1: and even if TikTok were using its data in that way,
Speaker 1: which we still have no evidence that it does, they
Speaker 1: would still just be able to purchase your data anywhere else.
Speaker 1: So this is like applying a used, gross infected band
Speaker 1: aid to a wound that will really not fix the
Speaker 1: wound at all, but will almost certainly add additional infections.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, I was just about to read your
Speaker 1: quote in the newsweek piece. Back to you, but yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean this is this is what really gets me
Speaker 1: about this conversation is that, like, I guess, we have
Speaker 1: no meaningful data privacy legislation in this country, right, and
Speaker 1: so like that, the fact that we're even having this
Speaker 1: conversation indicates to me a complete failure of leadership, governing
Speaker 1: and legislating, right, And so I feel like banning TikTok
Speaker 1: is this big flashy gesture of like, see we did something,
Speaker 1: See we got it together and governed and made some
Speaker 1: kind of a gesture toward you know, data privacy, but
Speaker 1: it actually does nothing. As you said, like there's nothing
Speaker 1: keeping these companies or really anybody from buying our data,
Speaker 1: Like there are so many other the fact that our
Speaker 1: data is so misused, and like that is the baseline.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't we be talking about that? So even if we
Speaker 1: were to ban TikTok, it would be totally possible for
Speaker 1: the Chinese govern meant to access Americans data and all
Speaker 1: other kinds of ways they maybe may have. And so
Speaker 1: it's like, what does it really do if the real
Speaker 1: problem is our lack of data privacy infrastructure in this country,
Speaker 1: other than being a big flashy gesture, what does banning
Speaker 1: TikTok actually achieve. I mean, to answer your question nothing.
Speaker 1: On a political level, I think that it is a
Speaker 1: distraction that allows for the American public to feel like
Speaker 1: something was done to make them feel safer, while simultaneously
Speaker 1: not passing the legislation that would actually protect the American public,
Speaker 1: And like, we are a superpower and we demand that
Speaker 1: all of the major social media platforms be stemming from us.
Speaker 1: How dare the Chinese also have one? Yeah? I saw
Speaker 1: this great USA Today headline that was like, how like
Speaker 1: how dare China trying to get my data from TikTok?
Speaker 1: Don't they know that? That? For Google and Facebook? Like,
Speaker 1: and I think I get like like we have just
Speaker 1: like lost the plot of doing anything to meaningfully address this.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I think like during the hearing, some of
Speaker 1: the things that came up around like content moderation and stuff,
Speaker 1: those are important conversations to have, but having them having
Speaker 1: TikTok be the face of, you know, a lack of
Speaker 1: content moderation or hate speech and harmful content proliferating on
Speaker 1: a platform. I'm asked, someone who has worked in this
Speaker 1: space for a while, I'm deeply uncomfortable with that because
Speaker 1: I think it creates a scapegoat that lets these other
Speaker 1: I would say, sometimes bad actors off the hook, right, Like,
Speaker 1: we're not We're not having the conversation in a meaningful
Speaker 1: way to actually get results. We're just making an example
Speaker 1: out of this one big bad boogeyman, which is TikTok. Yeah, definitely,
Speaker 1: And I mean the examples that they were pointing to
Speaker 1: aside from these like moral panic challenges, the examples of
Speaker 1: violent content on the app were really wild that they
Speaker 1: were pointing to it in the first place. Because as
Speaker 1: far as removing you know, really violent content, TikTok is
Speaker 1: better than most of the other platforms. I mean, I
Speaker 1: professionally criticized them. It's one of my favorite things to
Speaker 1: do is bullying TikTok. But they will generally be pretty
Speaker 1: good about removing anything that I flagged towards them. And
Speaker 1: they have a lot of like horrible things on their apps,
Speaker 1: like absolutely, but all social media platforms do. And so
Speaker 1: what you really want to be looking at, too, is
Speaker 1: just how much reached are those things getting. So one
Speaker 1: of the videos that they pulled up during the hearing
Speaker 1: was an imagery of a gun, and I think it
Speaker 1: included one of the committee members names, and it was
Speaker 1: and they were they were railing on TikTok because the
Speaker 1: video had been up for I believe forty one days,
Speaker 1: and what they were failing to account for that the
Speaker 1: video had like no likes, It was not a video
Speaker 1: that had been engaged with whatsoever. So arguably it's actually TikTok.
Speaker 1: It's evidence that TikTok was doing a decent job with
Speaker 1: its moderation, but that it had like siphoned this off
Speaker 1: and contained it more than anything else. Like, yes, it
Speaker 1: shouldn't be on the platform at all, but if it's
Speaker 1: not getting any reach, really, then TikTok's moderation to an
Speaker 1: extent is working. That's the whole point. It's like, you
Speaker 1: want these things contained, you want them, you want them
Speaker 1: quarantined so that they don't spread. So being able to
Speaker 1: point towards that was like, it was such a strange choice.
Speaker 1: And then it was additionally strange because we love Dunce
Speaker 1: in this country but apparently have problems with images of them.
Speaker 1: If you watch the hearing, there were actually some pretty
Speaker 1: good questions that came up. Representative Yvette D. Clark asked
Speaker 1: whether or not TikTok suppresses marginalized creators and Representative Lisa
Speaker 1: Blunt Rochester asked about whether accurate information about abortion is
Speaker 1: being suppressed on TikTok, but what was much more abundant. Sadly,
Speaker 1: we're questions that weren't just silly, but also underscored how
Speaker 1: little some elected officials seem to know about the technology
Speaker 1: that they are responsible for legislating. Yeah, I mean that
Speaker 1: example really brings me to something that like it pains me,
Speaker 1: but I can't not talk about it with you. How
Speaker 1: some of the questions and examples that these elected officials
Speaker 1: were raising, we're just embarrassing, Like, you know, Representative Richard
Speaker 1: Hudson from North Carolina like, I'm sure you know what
Speaker 1: I'm going. I'm what I'm getting at the like exchange
Speaker 1: about whether or not TikTok accesses users home WiFi, Like
Speaker 1: do you ever so like, do you ever feel like
Speaker 1: the people that we have elected to represent us and
Speaker 1: to advocate for us and our interests up against a
Speaker 1: big tech just are making it clear that they are
Speaker 1: talking about legislating technology that they seem to not really
Speaker 1: understand or get. No, it was quite clear that no
Speaker 1: one on that committee had ever opened TikTok like they
Speaker 1: had never used it before. They're just making wild statements
Speaker 1: and accusations and guesses about how it works. And if
Speaker 1: you go on TikTok now in response to that committee,
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just being ridiculed because the users can
Speaker 1: tell that these congressmen and women have never really actually
Speaker 1: used the app or know what they're talking about in
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form. And it is mind bogglingly
Speaker 1: infuriating to witness people who don't even understand how Wi
Speaker 1: Fi works, or like couldn't tell you the difference between
Speaker 1: a modem and a rotor trying to legislate major major
Speaker 1: social media policies, like in major data privacy elelicies, like
Speaker 1: they don't understand any of it, So how are we
Speaker 1: expecting them to even nowhere to begin when it comes
Speaker 1: to those bigger legislative problems. It really goes back to
Speaker 1: what you said in the beginning of our conversation of like,
Speaker 1: if we're gonna do it, let's not do it badly.
Speaker 1: Let's not do it in a way that like we
Speaker 1: are talking about a pretty major communications platform. If we're
Speaker 1: going to do it, let's not have the people in
Speaker 1: charge make it clear time and time again that they
Speaker 1: have no idea what they're talking about. Maybe just maybe,
Speaker 1: just maybe that could maybe be a good place to start.
Speaker 1: Is like knowing that you need to use Wi Fi
Speaker 1: to access TikTok. Like, oh my god, I really liked
Speaker 1: the exchange about whether or not TikTok tracked how much
Speaker 1: your pupils dilated in response to certain videos. And it's like, no,
Speaker 1: they look at watch time. They're not like reading your
Speaker 1: pupils to see how big they get in response to
Speaker 1: each video. Don't know what Black Mirror episode do you
Speaker 1: think we are in. We're in a different one. We're
Speaker 1: still in one, but it's different, just a different episode. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think. I don't think that TikTok is like
Speaker 1: like logging your biometrics, dude. Like it just it just
Speaker 1: was some of those questions were concerning. And I also
Speaker 1: think they just like reveal how we just need younger people.
Speaker 1: I think, like, yeah, like younger folks both in the
Speaker 1: both in elected office and also being listened to. I
Speaker 1: think is really really important people who actually have real
Speaker 1: world experience with the technology that they're talking about. Because
Speaker 1: it was, as you said, it was just so clear
Speaker 1: that many of the folks in Congress, I just had
Speaker 1: no idea what they were talking about. Yeah. No, we
Speaker 1: would absolutely need to have younger people or just more
Speaker 1: you know, digitally literate people writing these laws, because if
Speaker 1: you truly don't understand that, like the app needs to
Speaker 1: track where your eyes are so that they can put
Speaker 1: sunglass filters on you like that, that is just something
Speaker 1: that a younger peace person would need to explain and
Speaker 1: need to help them understand. And if all of our
Speaker 1: legislators are you know, I don't want to say dinosaurs,
Speaker 1: but like they're acting like dinosaurs right now, and I
Speaker 1: feel like it's it's called for, then we can't expect
Speaker 1: solid digital legislation from them. Like they don't they don't
Speaker 1: know what they're doing. They don't understand anything beyond email
Speaker 1: at this point. Yeah, that is sad. I mean it's
Speaker 1: really sad. It's really scary because if you want to
Speaker 1: talk about like the American people being vulnerable, our leaders
Speaker 1: not even understanding like the you know, bare minimum that
Speaker 1: they need to understand about how the internet works like
Speaker 1: that leaves us quite vulnerable. That's such a good point.
Speaker 1: That seems like a much bigger threat our leaders failing
Speaker 1: to understand anything about technology feels like a much bigger
Speaker 1: threat than this TikTok boogeyman scare. So what do you
Speaker 1: say to someone listening who was, like, I am concerned
Speaker 1: about the national security threat that TikTok poses. Still, what
Speaker 1: would you say to that person? I would say that
Speaker 1: at this point in time, we have seen more evidence
Speaker 1: of Facebook engaging in schemes to manipulate the American public
Speaker 1: than we have TikTok. I mean, we have evidence of
Speaker 1: Cambridge Analytica, we know that Meta was involved with this,
Speaker 1: we have no evidence of TikTok doing it. So at
Speaker 1: the moment, all of our fears are based around a hypothetical,
Speaker 1: and that they are based around this like boogeyman of China,
Speaker 1: and that that might not be the best place to
Speaker 1: create legislation from, Like that mentality might not lend itself
Speaker 1: to the creation of like really strong digital privacy legislation,
Speaker 1: And that I mean also, if you are personally concerned
Speaker 1: about TikTok, I like, there's no reason why you have
Speaker 1: to have it on your phones. That's a decision that
Speaker 1: you can totally make if you have if you have
Speaker 1: national secrets on your phones, like maybe don't have TikTok
Speaker 1: on it, But then also like maybe don't use any
Speaker 1: other social media platforms because they are all gathering your data.
Speaker 1: More after a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: Other platforms are also gathering your data and behaving badly
Speaker 1: and acting in ways that calls all kinds of harm.
Speaker 1: But this legislation is very much black and white, and
Speaker 1: it seems very much it's based in scaremongering about TikTok
Speaker 1: as this potential boogeyman. And I just don't think that
Speaker 1: fear mongering is a place that will elicit good, meaningful,
Speaker 1: subsidutive legislation. You know, black and white thinking on a
Speaker 1: nuanced issue is bad enough, but black and white legislating,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't like it. I don't like
Speaker 1: it either. I don't trust it's it's not coming from
Speaker 1: a smart place. It's coming from a fearful place. And
Speaker 1: that's not where we get good legislation. And if you
Speaker 1: want to have a much bigger conversation about social media
Speaker 1: and the future of social media and whether it's bad
Speaker 1: for us, whether it's good for us, what harms it does,
Speaker 1: But also, you know what net positives it brings to
Speaker 1: the world. I am here for that conversation. It'll take
Speaker 1: us a few years to get to the bottom of it.
Speaker 1: It is not like a quick and easy conversation to have.
Speaker 1: But I do think that that's one we should be having,
Speaker 1: and I've been trying to push for it. It's like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: there are all these issues with like misinformation and extremism
Speaker 1: on social media, and we know that these platforms benefit
Speaker 1: from the posting and sharing of content that is that
Speaker 1: appeals to our emotions, that is often false, or is
Speaker 1: oversimplifying really complex issues, or it's just like extremist and
Speaker 1: hateful in nature. We know that they benefit from that
Speaker 1: because that's the sort of content that keeps people on
Speaker 1: their platforms, consuming content and therefore consuming ads. And I
Speaker 1: would like us to be working towards the creation of
Speaker 1: like digital communities that are better for our emotional and
Speaker 1: social well beings. I could absolutely see that occurring in
Speaker 1: the future. Is like creating these digital public spaces where
Speaker 1: people can go share information, but that aren't driven exclusively
Speaker 1: by profit and are built with the goal of creating
Speaker 1: a more well informed and empathetic public. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: happen just because you ban one app you don't like.
Speaker 1: Like that is deep, deep infrastructural change that we need
Speaker 1: to make and I think is the only way really
Speaker 1: forward unless we want to drive ourselves insane. But that's
Speaker 1: not a light and easy task. It's certainly not going
Speaker 1: to be be achieved by banning one app. Yeah, if
Speaker 1: you are against misinformation and hate speech, you know you
Speaker 1: gotta be against it on all platforms, and not just
Speaker 1: on TikTok, because Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, they all have it.
Speaker 1: I mean, Twitter right now is also such a mess
Speaker 1: just as a like, it is wild to watch all
Speaker 1: of this, this the giant attack on TikTok. Meanwhile, Twitter
Speaker 1: is just falling apart, crumbling and has disintegrated as like
Speaker 1: this this reasonable public space and the fact that you know,
Speaker 1: we thought we would be losing TikTok and essentially be
Speaker 1: losing Twitter. That would really leave Meta with a lot
Speaker 1: of power. But I also think it's interesting that like
Speaker 1: one rich guy can just buy and ruin Twitter, but
Speaker 1: like god forbid, an app has some Chinese ownership. If you,
Speaker 1: if you had to fay, do you think that TikTok
Speaker 1: is going to be banned? In the United States. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty fifty fifty right now. I don't like it. If
Speaker 1: you would ask me before, I'd be like, probably not
Speaker 1: because I thought that the Dems were smarter than that.
Speaker 1: I don't, I know, I know what I in hindsight,
Speaker 1: what was I thinking? They love losing um. But I
Speaker 1: just I was baffled that the Biden administration pushed for
Speaker 1: the sale versus ban because I thought that they knew
Speaker 1: that if they lost TikTok, they would not be able
Speaker 1: to mobilize voters in twenty twenty four. But apparently they
Speaker 1: don't know that and they just are down for political suicide.
Speaker 1: I really it baffles me. So I continue to be
Speaker 1: wrong and surprised by what they will do in the
Speaker 1: name of like this weird singular bipartisanship over xenophobia. It's
Speaker 1: the one thing that they can relate to the Republicans
Speaker 1: on right now. Also, you know, you made the point
Speaker 1: about mobilizing younger voters. I said this on a panel
Speaker 1: and it got like a laugh and I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: that was actually serious, I think, And it is might
Speaker 1: sound it's gonna sound how it sounds, but I truly
Speaker 1: believe this. I being if TikTok is banned in the
Speaker 1: United States, I see that going very poor for Biden
Speaker 1: and the Democrats. Not to make this like a horse
Speaker 1: race issue, but I think that some of the most interesting,
Speaker 1: meaningful organizing of young folks politically is happening on TikTok.
Speaker 1: If you look at the conversations that younger folks are
Speaker 1: leading on when it comes to things like climate justice,
Speaker 1: those conversations are happening on TikTok, and they are mobilization conversations.
Speaker 1: So I don't I'm not saying that I think that
Speaker 1: young people will be like, oh, we love TikTok and
Speaker 1: we're not going to vote for Joe Biden just because
Speaker 1: he banned it and we love it. I think it's
Speaker 1: much deeper than that. I think that gen z uses
Speaker 1: it as a platform to do political and social mobilization
Speaker 1: and organizing. If you show that you don't not just
Speaker 1: don't understand that, don't see it, don't value it, ignore it,
Speaker 1: that is going to be a problem. And so it's
Speaker 1: not an issue of like, oh, these whiney brats just
Speaker 1: want their dance videos. No, no, no no, no. I think
Speaker 1: it's much deeper than that. And if you show that
Speaker 1: you aren't even able to see that it is going
Speaker 1: to be a problem one hundred percent. And people keep
Speaker 1: playing this off as like, oh, you're going to piss
Speaker 1: off gen Z and it's like that's that's less what
Speaker 1: I'm worried about. I think a lot of gen Z
Speaker 1: would still you know, the ones who are going to
Speaker 1: vote anyways, will still vote for the lesser of two evils,
Speaker 1: Like that's going to continue. But what will you will?
Speaker 1: But what you will lose is all of this mobilization
Speaker 1: infrastructure where people are getting their news, where people are
Speaker 1: having like lots of political discourse. What is helping young
Speaker 1: people to understand the world is the discourse on TikTok
Speaker 1: is the trusted messengers that they turn to on TikTok.
Speaker 1: And if you take that away, like they're just going
Speaker 1: to not be as politically engaged. But because TikTok made
Speaker 1: it really easy for them to get politically engaged and
Speaker 1: get politically informed and deep dive into this discourse. Like
Speaker 1: you know, the people keep saying TikTok is this dancing
Speaker 1: out and it's so so wrong because like, fundamentally, it's
Speaker 1: a discourse app It's it's where people are having conversations
Speaker 1: about the world. That's why like stitching was such a
Speaker 1: groundbreaking feature, because you could take one video and respond
Speaker 1: to it and you get this like built and constructed,
Speaker 1: constant discourse about political and social issues. If you remove that,
Speaker 1: you know, they might still be left leaning and like
Speaker 1: some of them might vote, but they won't be as
Speaker 1: informed on certain issues. They won't necessarily know where to
Speaker 1: or like where to be putting their their energy for
Speaker 1: certain political issues. Like they would just be losing so
Speaker 1: much of their infrastructure and that will have severe costs,
Speaker 1: particularly for the Dems. And it's it's really mind blowing
Speaker 1: to me that they don't recognize that. Yeah, I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm completely shocked. I shouldn't be. I shouldn't be. I'm
Speaker 1: years into this, I shouldn't be. Well, here's I mean
Speaker 1: big question. Where will Abby Richards go if there's no TikTok?
Speaker 1: Like I think of you as the person who is
Speaker 1: like made a platform, like one of the first people
Speaker 1: who really made a platform from calling out and criticizing
Speaker 1: TikTok and advocating for it to be better. Where do
Speaker 1: you personally see yourself showing up if it's banned here's
Speaker 1: the thing is, Like, on one level, I think I
Speaker 1: experienced some panic where it's like, if I lose my
Speaker 1: platform on TikTok, do I lose my power? Like, you know,
Speaker 1: will I still have work to do? Will people still
Speaker 1: see me as valuable? And then I, after you know,
Speaker 1: a little bit of dwelling in that panic, I got
Speaker 1: over it because it's like, no, I'm privileged. I have
Speaker 1: a lot of like institutional power at this point, like
Speaker 1: I can pivot to other platforms if I want. And fundamentally,
Speaker 1: I think that the deeper we go into a tech dystopia,
Speaker 1: the more job security I actually have, which is dark.
Speaker 1: But I think that was some dark abby. That was
Speaker 1: some dark shit. But I mean you're right right, like
Speaker 1: like you call out TikTok, but really you're calling out
Speaker 1: like our media ecosystem the way that it impacts our democracy,
Speaker 1: Like it's so much more than one platform. Your voice
Speaker 1: is about so much more than one platform. I guess
Speaker 1: I'll put it that way. But that but I agree
Speaker 1: with you that, Like you know, when I started this
Speaker 1: tech podcast, I never knew the Like I remember thinking like,
Speaker 1: oh maybe I'll what if I run out of content?
Speaker 1: What if I run out of like things to talk about. No,
Speaker 1: I sure never will, never ever will. I mean my
Speaker 1: goal is to eventually put myself out of a job.
Speaker 1: I would really like if I could work hard enough
Speaker 1: and eradicate all of the misinformation I hate speech online
Speaker 1: and then one day I get to retire and I
Speaker 1: don't need to do this job anymore. I don't see
Speaker 1: that happening. So I think, you know, if TikTok is banned,
Speaker 1: I will go to other platforms. I will build out
Speaker 1: my presence on other platforms too. I'm far more concerned about,
Speaker 1: like the people who don't have the institutional backing and
Speaker 1: who don't have power outside of their TikTok presence, Like
Speaker 1: they will have their lives much more uprooted than I
Speaker 1: think I will. We are in such uncharted waters. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: truly what happens to the creators like because Congress I
Speaker 1: saw I was one one congressman, like went on Politico
Speaker 1: with like, No, they'll be able to switch to a
Speaker 1: different platform, as if they haven't spent last like two
Speaker 1: three four years building a platform, so now they can
Speaker 1: do brand deals or now they can make money from
Speaker 1: the creator fundum and now oh no, they can just
Speaker 1: start over, It'll be fine. Who cares like it's it's
Speaker 1: do you know how long that takes? Like, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: but again, it's it's showing that the people who are
Speaker 1: meant to be legislating this is don't have a real
Speaker 1: realistic understanding of what of like what they're actually talking about,
Speaker 1: and when they make suggestions like that, it's like, have
Speaker 1: you have you taken a step back to ask what
Speaker 1: that actually looks like in practice? Yeah? I don't think
Speaker 1: that they have. I will say, where there are marginalized
Speaker 1: creators on a platform facing some kind of something that
Speaker 1: they don't like, there's always really good pushback, and so
Speaker 1: scrolling the platform after those hearings got to give it
Speaker 1: up to the creators who are using their strengths creating
Speaker 1: good content to educate people on those hearings and sort
Speaker 1: of what they thought about them. I've seen such hilarious
Speaker 1: TikTok's coming out of that. I saw one creator who
Speaker 1: was pretending to be a lawmaker in Congress. It was like,
Speaker 1: I want to know and my wife wants to know why.
Speaker 1: Every time I opened TikTok, all I see is these
Speaker 1: big breasted women that's making fun of like how silly
Speaker 1: some of their questions were. So that's something I'll always
Speaker 1: have faith in is marginalized creators being able to use
Speaker 1: social media platforms to poke fun at legislators and to
Speaker 1: spotlight and educate folks on something that they do not like. Oh,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent, the TikTok's coming out of this have
Speaker 1: been phenomenal. I was like getting a lot of comfort
Speaker 1: last night and just seeing the conversations that were being had.
Speaker 1: Even did you say, see any of the true edits
Speaker 1: the edits of the CEO people were making like spicy
Speaker 1: edits of him, save TikTok. Uh, those were great. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of um I want to see if
Speaker 1: I can pull. I know. I just screenshotted one this
Speaker 1: morning that was giving me life. Oh it was the
Speaker 1: cap cut meme of Pedro Pascal eating a cracker sandwich
Speaker 1: and then it says, knee watching the CEO of TikTok
Speaker 1: defend the American people and our rights from the literal
Speaker 1: US government, all while they mispronounced his name, have no
Speaker 1: knowledge about how Wi fi works, and are saying they
Speaker 1: are doing it for the children. When there was yet
Speaker 1: another school shooting that I didn't see on the news,
Speaker 1: but I and see reported on TikTok. Doesn't that really
Speaker 1: say at all? That does that sums it up? Doesn't It?
Speaker 1: So like TikTok is reading this stuff for shit. But
Speaker 1: like the rest of the internet, I don't know so much.
Speaker 1: Because there was also that study that came out or
Speaker 1: I don't know it was a study, it was a report.
Speaker 1: Well I want to say, no, I don't even remember
Speaker 1: which which day's organization ran it. That was the biggest
Speaker 1: determining factor whether or not you support the TikTok band
Speaker 1: is whether or not you use TikTok. Yeah, so there
Speaker 1: you go. It's like people who don't who like don't
Speaker 1: have direct familiarity with the issue, are the ones who
Speaker 1: are in favor of an outright band. Yeah, they're much
Speaker 1: It's much more. It is much easier to convince people
Speaker 1: who are not even using the app that the app
Speaker 1: is dangerous because there they are not exposed to it.
Speaker 1: They don't understand how it actually works. It's much easier
Speaker 1: to fearmonger about something that you're unfamiliar with. It's much
Speaker 1: easier to hijack people's feelings of fear distrust if they
Speaker 1: don't even know the other group that they're dealing with.
Speaker 1: If if they're completely unfamiliar with the topic, then you
Speaker 1: can just push like fearmongering on them. But the people
Speaker 1: on TikTok who have their own experience was with it,
Speaker 1: you know, can read that as bullshit. Yeah, totally in
Speaker 1: favor of some comprehensive sweeping data privacy legislation that would
Speaker 1: absolutely affect TikTok. Let's do that from a place of
Speaker 1: reason and you know, national security of the American people, Like,
Speaker 1: if we actually cared about that, let's go write that legislation.
Speaker 1: In the end, TikTok and it's part in our larger
Speaker 1: digital media ecosystem is huge. So a potential band would
Speaker 1: have major consequences, not just for the millions of people
Speaker 1: who use it, but for the way that information and
Speaker 1: discourse is spread. Oh, this was cut from my Newsweek article,
Speaker 1: but it was good. It's so like, I'm a member
Speaker 1: of this coalition of TikTok members, or I'm a member
Speaker 1: of this coalition of Tiktoker's TikTok influencers with the coalition
Speaker 1: has over five hundred members and collectively they have over
Speaker 1: five hundred million followers, and to put that in perspective,
Speaker 1: I believe that that is more than the collective monthly
Speaker 1: viewership of like Foxy and n AN MSNBC, which is
Speaker 1: about five million, So not just more, it's like one
Speaker 1: hundred times more than their monthly viewership, and that's just
Speaker 1: like their following count. But I thought that that was
Speaker 1: you know, really, I thought that that was a good
Speaker 1: way to highlight just how vast this infrastructure it is,
Speaker 1: and that we're not talking about cutting off like a
Speaker 1: couple million people or like, you know, a handful of people.
Speaker 1: Like we're talking about dismantling in a communications infrastructure that
Speaker 1: is so vast that it is like literally hundreds of
Speaker 1: times the reach of the biggest news networks that we
Speaker 1: can think of. That is not a decision that we
Speaker 1: should be taking lately. I'm so glad you've added that.
Speaker 1: I do think that for people who don't use TikTok,
Speaker 1: they probably it's probably easy to think of it as
Speaker 1: like it's like that arrested development line, like it's a
Speaker 1: it's a TikTok Michael, how many users? Could there be?
Speaker 1: A hundred? Like they might not necessarily know the gravity
Speaker 1: of the of the way that it functions as a
Speaker 1: communications platform and it's role in our larger ecosystem of
Speaker 1: digital communications, which is vast. It's huge, it's huge, and
Speaker 1: people don't understand that it's it's not a dancing app,
Speaker 1: and that it is in fact an information app that
Speaker 1: is a discourse app, and that there is like so
Speaker 1: much existing infrastructure which has been built over the course
Speaker 1: of the last few years to mobilize people, particularly for
Speaker 1: progressive causes, and if you take that away, we're going
Speaker 1: to have to rebuild it. Rebuilding takes time. Rebuilding is
Speaker 1: a way of keeping people down right, Like, the reason
Speaker 1: why legacy news institutions are so powerful is that they
Speaker 1: don't have to rebuild every four to five years. It's
Speaker 1: like you build power by you know, having stability in
Speaker 1: your institution. And if you take all of these young
Speaker 1: people who have finally found a bit of power, and
Speaker 1: particularly marginalized young people who have finally found a bit
Speaker 1: of power, and then you force them to rebuild again,
Speaker 1: you're removing all of their access to power. And like,
Speaker 1: sure they'll get it back in a few years, but
Speaker 1: a lot can happen in a few years. Yeah, And
Speaker 1: wouldn't it be And I guess it would be to
Speaker 1: have to force these folks to have to rebuild for
Speaker 1: something that didn't even really achieve much right, for something
Speaker 1: that like didn't even really achieve much meaningful action in
Speaker 1: terms of protecting digital national security. That is like to me,
Speaker 1: it's like the real cruelty of it. I guess, yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean for it to be done for such a
Speaker 1: pointless cause, for which there is no evidence of harm
Speaker 1: in the first place, is deeply unsettling to be like,
Speaker 1: you know, really challenging our First Amendment rights in the
Speaker 1: way that they are threatening to with zero evidence. Again,
Speaker 1: we have more evidence against Facebook than we do against TikTok,
Speaker 1: and to ban TikTok. I mean, it's it's such a
Speaker 1: concerning choice for the First Amendment. And like usually I'm
Speaker 1: on the missinfoside of like having to be like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, free speech is not free reach, but like
Speaker 1: right now it's like, yes, no, free speech does matter,
Speaker 1: and like this is a First Amendment issue. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is the government regulating of like how many times have
Speaker 1: you been in the comments actual being like, well, this
Speaker 1: isn't the government regulating something. It's a private platform lating something.
Speaker 1: So it's a little bit different. Maybe don't evoke the
Speaker 1: First Amendment. This is actually the government regulating something. So
Speaker 1: like all those free speech people like like mobilized, like
Speaker 1: let's hear from you. I know, it's like so quiet
Speaker 1: from the free speech ab solutionists right now. Like they
Speaker 1: cared a lot when TikTok was censoring medical misinformation that
Speaker 1: TikTok had every right to be to be removing. But
Speaker 1: if the government is actually coming for a platform where
Speaker 1: one hundred million, one hundred and fifty million people practice
Speaker 1: the utilization of their voices, that seems like a free
Speaker 1: speech issue to me, that seems like a challenge on
Speaker 1: our First Amendment rights. Really scary one too. I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: watching the hearing was quite scary to me. What scared
Speaker 1: you about it? I think that there was this strange
Speaker 1: gentlement of like, okay, I did I when I learned
Speaker 1: about the red Skier in history class, I didn't anticipate
Speaker 1: living through another one that was like weird to watch
Speaker 1: in real time. I was like, oh, I thought that
Speaker 1: was like a historical event. I thought we didn't do
Speaker 1: that again. So it had that element to it where
Speaker 1: they were like asking the CEO of TikTok, who I
Speaker 1: don't know his personal finances, but if he's not a billionaire,
Speaker 1: he is a multimillionaire. Just asking him if he's a
Speaker 1: communist had a wild tone to it, but on a
Speaker 1: much deeper level, the lengths that they will go to
Speaker 1: to take away our free speech in the name of
Speaker 1: just xenophobia, that was really scary to me. I don't
Speaker 1: think that that symbolized like massive steps towards a more
Speaker 1: progressive worlds. That felt like taking steps backwards towards, you know,
Speaker 1: stricter borders and more nationalism and stricter laws, and just
Speaker 1: creating this divide between the West and the East, and
Speaker 1: just trying to reimpose this iron curtain of sorts, this
Speaker 1: digital iron curtain, Like that felt really dark to me.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you put it that way, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: I hadn't picked up on that vibe, but now that
Speaker 1: you say it, it is scary, and I don't think
Speaker 1: it's I don't think I don't think it's discourse that
Speaker 1: leads us to a more just, progressive world. It seems
Speaker 1: like it leads us someplace else. Yeah, it seems like
Speaker 1: it shuts us down and puts us deeper into like
Speaker 1: isolationist thinking, and that's not the type of thinking that
Speaker 1: I want to see our worlds practicing. I would like
Speaker 1: to see. You know, the Internet was always promised as
Speaker 1: this thing that would like bring global citizens together. I
Speaker 1: don't believe that we are in any sort of like
Speaker 1: technological utopia or that the Internet is perfect, but I
Speaker 1: do see the internet's capacity for connection and connection with
Speaker 1: people that you would otherwise never have spoken to or
Speaker 1: heard their stories. So earlier, you were talking about like
Speaker 1: seeing women in Haran protesting and how you feel like
Speaker 1: you wouldn't have been exposed to that without TikTok. And
Speaker 1: I worry that if we continue down this path of
Speaker 1: implementing these strict bands and like insisting that we control
Speaker 1: all of the social media platforms that like, it'll continue
Speaker 1: to cut us off. And that's not what I want
Speaker 1: to see here fucking here, Abby, Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here. This was informative. I'm really glad everyone
Speaker 1: should read your news week piece. We're gonna put it
Speaker 1: in the show notes. But yeah, this was great. I
Speaker 1: feel like I learned a lot. I'm glad that you
Speaker 1: let me come. Rand I wrote the piece and I
Speaker 1: was like, I know who I need to send this. Oh,
Speaker 1: you have an open invite anytime you're like, I'm annoyed
Speaker 1: about this, you've an open invite. Well, you know, I
Speaker 1: love coming on your show. It's always fun. You're like
Speaker 1: the one of the first ever podcasts that I did,
Speaker 1: and you were so nice to me. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: you I remember it very clearly. You were such a pro.
Speaker 1: I had no idea what I was doing. It was
Speaker 1: all I was faking it. Now you've got the mic,
Speaker 1: you've got the pop filter. Look at you. Now I
Speaker 1: know what we're doing. I know that I can. Like
Speaker 1: when I first started, I didn't know that I could
Speaker 1: like restart a sentence when I like the first time
Speaker 1: I ever did podcast, so the pressure was way higher.
Speaker 1: But now I know I can read. I love a restart.
Speaker 1: I restart like I catch myself doing it in casual
Speaker 1: conversation where I'm like, Nope, no one's gonna come in
Speaker 1: and clean this up. But you know, I feel like
Speaker 1: there's no editor right now. Still, sometimes it's good to
Speaker 1: just restart because you're like, you know what, that sentence
Speaker 1: had a false it was a faulty start, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't even matter if from being recorded, it will make
Speaker 1: more sense if you just let me scratch it and
Speaker 1: start over again. If you're looking for ways to support
Speaker 1: the show, check out our merchstore at tangodi dot com
Speaker 1: slash Store. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech,
Speaker 1: or just want to say hi, You can reach us
Speaker 1: at Hello at tangodi dot com. You can also find
Speaker 1: transcripts for today's episode at tangodi dot com. There Are
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridgetad.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative, edited by
Speaker 1: Joey pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer. Tarry Harrison
Speaker 1: is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amato 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.