Speaker 1: She definitely committed so many offenses that harmed real life people.
Speaker 1: So I think to flatten something like that into this
Speaker 1: like very crivolous, like fun, glossy slog of a TV
Speaker 1: show full stop I Dot dot Dot there are No
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet. As a production of I Heart
Speaker 1: Radio and Unbossed Creative, I'm Bridget Todd, and this is
Speaker 1: there are No Girls on the Internet. We spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time on the show talking about lies and
Speaker 1: the Internet, and I have to say that part of
Speaker 1: the reason why I personally work on disinformation issues is
Speaker 1: because of my intense fascination in things that are not true.
Speaker 1: How do lies function, why do we believe them? Who
Speaker 1: profits off of them? And how do they shape our world?
Speaker 1: So when the story first broke about the fake German
Speaker 1: heiress Annah Delby, I was of were fascinated. Anna real
Speaker 1: name Anna Sirokan had been scamming investors, hotels, even her
Speaker 1: own friends in pursuit of opening an art foundation and
Speaker 1: private club called the Anna Delvy Foundation. The club, like
Speaker 1: the millions of dollars of family money that Anna said
Speaker 1: that she was supposedly worth, never materialized. Anna's former friend,
Speaker 1: Rachel DeLoach Williams first introduced the world to Anna after
Speaker 1: she wrote about their disastrous trip to Marrakesh. Anna initially
Speaker 1: agreed to pay for the trip, but never managed to
Speaker 1: put down a working credit card at the pricey villa
Speaker 1: where they were staying. When hotel staff insisted that somebody
Speaker 1: put down a functioning credit card, Rachel was pressured into
Speaker 1: putting the cost of the entire trip sixty two dollars
Speaker 1: more than a year of her salary, on her work
Speaker 1: and personal credit cards. Now, Anna assured her that she
Speaker 1: would wire her the money to pay her back, but
Speaker 1: she never did. In the end, Rachel helped lead police
Speaker 1: to Anna's are abouts, which led to Anna's arrest and
Speaker 1: conviction for one count of attempt at grand larceny, three
Speaker 1: counts of grand larceny, and four counts of theft of
Speaker 1: services related to her various scams, but she was found
Speaker 1: not guilty of the Rachel was out for the trip.
Speaker 1: Last month, Netflix released Inventing Anna, a fictionalized, very sympathetic
Speaker 1: retelling of her con based on the reporting of Jessica
Speaker 1: Pressler at New York Magazine. Anna's crimes were so flashy
Speaker 1: and outlandish it was hard not to pay attention, and
Speaker 1: that Rachel says is kind of part of the scam.
Speaker 1: In her book, my friend Anna Rachel writes, I have
Speaker 1: come to understand that your attention is an investment. Giving
Speaker 1: someone your attention is the act of being influenced, whether
Speaker 1: or not you're aware of it in the moment, and
Speaker 1: especially in this age of constant simulation, with endless people
Speaker 1: and stories competing for your clicks, likes, follows, and time.
Speaker 1: Your attention as value. It is power, It's worth something.
Speaker 1: It can even put money in someone's pocket. Be careful
Speaker 1: where you spend it and understand the cost. I spoke
Speaker 1: to Rachel about why our current digital media landscape is
Speaker 1: presenting a golden age for scammers and what that means
Speaker 1: for all of us. And this one quick note. We
Speaker 1: were recording on a noisy day in Brooklyn, so the
Speaker 1: audio quality might not be what you're used to from
Speaker 1: this podcast. Why do you think this is? Why do
Speaker 1: you think we're in this era where people cannot get
Speaker 1: enough of people who lie and scam and steel and
Speaker 1: cheat others. Yeah, it's a good question, and I've certainly
Speaker 1: asked myself the same one. But I think I have
Speaker 1: a kind of unique vantage point in that I lived
Speaker 1: through like a conversethand and I know that's sort of
Speaker 1: how it works. It's sort of this larger than life,
Speaker 1: flashy illusion, like a magic trick that is meant to
Speaker 1: grab your attention so that while you're busy sort of
Speaker 1: puzzling over it, you know, whatever sort of business is
Speaker 1: going on behind the scenes can can happen without too
Speaker 1: much focus or or analysis, I suppose. So it's I
Speaker 1: think it um there's a fascination with with you know,
Speaker 1: tricksters and with like it is in many ways like
Speaker 1: like watching a magician at work, and so that people
Speaker 1: want to want to watch as like a voyeur to
Speaker 1: understand where this light of hand occurred, how someone fell
Speaker 1: for it, and and and you know, especially in this
Speaker 1: age where it is kind of hard with the Internet
Speaker 1: and with all of these different media forms coming at
Speaker 1: us to discern between fact and fiction. To get to
Speaker 1: watch something in an arena that seems pretty low stakes
Speaker 1: because it's built as entertainment, I think it's people enjoy
Speaker 1: maybe like they don't think about it that hard, but
Speaker 1: they enjoy getting to see something that that strattles that
Speaker 1: divide on purpose. In talking about the Netflix show inventing
Speaker 1: Anna you talk, you right, really compel only about this
Speaker 1: that one of the reasons why the show is kind
Speaker 1: of dangerous is that it does sort of aim to
Speaker 1: straddle that line. Each episode starts with this is a
Speaker 1: completely true story except for the things that are fictionalized,
Speaker 1: and I think as a viewer you might not really
Speaker 1: know that you're act like it can be used as
Speaker 1: a way to heavily deeply fictionalize something that actually people
Speaker 1: actually experienced, and I think that could the purposeful straddling
Speaker 1: of that line of fact and fiction and kind of
Speaker 1: blending them can be a little bit dangerous because the
Speaker 1: stakes do feel well, it just feels like entertainment exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've said it, and somebody is better than
Speaker 1: I can say it myself. But that's that's exactly right,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of disheartening. I mean, I appreciate that,
Speaker 1: like you're speaking of about this too, and other people
Speaker 1: you know, are certainly paying attention um now. But I
Speaker 1: think part of the reason I chose to continue talking
Speaker 1: about this, which you know, the story which is well
Speaker 1: and truly behind me and I would love to like
Speaker 1: move on from and not be discussing today. But The
Speaker 1: reason I'm speaking up is because I see something happening
Speaker 1: that's that's a precedent that I do think is troubling,
Speaker 1: that I do think is dangerous, and I do think
Speaker 1: it it requires viewers to ask questions, probably more so
Speaker 1: than we can expect a media company who profits from
Speaker 1: it to do. But the Netflix show Inventing Anna does
Speaker 1: do this thing where it like sticks that label up
Speaker 1: as a as a disclaimer, but it blends uh, you know,
Speaker 1: factual information with things that are completely made up, as
Speaker 1: it says it does. But it makes viewers go online,
Speaker 1: look things up, see that some things are true, and
Speaker 1: then that creates this foundation of credibility that allows them
Speaker 1: to think, well that this is true. I believe the
Speaker 1: narrative that they've wove in with you know, this big,
Speaker 1: big budget production and all these like whistles and bells
Speaker 1: and like how compelling is that? Um, you know, storytelling
Speaker 1: is really powerful, and I think that's why it requires
Speaker 1: a level of responsibility. I think people are apt to
Speaker 1: believe things that they watching stories or that they connect
Speaker 1: to in terms of a narrative, more than sometimes dry
Speaker 1: facts that they hear on the news. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: you describe this in your book um and talking about
Speaker 1: the way that um Anna's crimes have been glamorized in
Speaker 1: part of my places like Netflix, that you see it
Speaker 1: as a big picture problem. Is that sort of what
Speaker 1: you were referring to, Like that that's sort of the
Speaker 1: the big picture problem that you're describing. Yeah, that I
Speaker 1: think specifically, I have become very mindful of the ways
Speaker 1: that our attention can be commodified. So when Anna was
Speaker 1: released from prison the first time before she was detained
Speaker 1: by ICE, I was asked to do a bunch of
Speaker 1: media appearances commenting on her release, and I declined because
Speaker 1: I was like, why, you know, why would I do that.
Speaker 1: I've already written the book, it's out, I've moved on.
Speaker 1: I have no interest in sort of coming out and speaking.
Speaker 1: You're hypothesizing about what somebody may or may not do
Speaker 1: after jail like she did, she did her time. Like
Speaker 1: all we can do is like hope that you know,
Speaker 1: a speed like I hope doesn't happen again. But while
Speaker 1: I was declining things, I saw that she was being
Speaker 1: given various media platforms, and that would be fine if
Speaker 1: she had something productive to say, But it felt as
Speaker 1: though these different outlets were just giving your space to
Speaker 1: rationalize her behavior, to continue peddling belief in this, you know,
Speaker 1: and fictional in my mind, like this fictional intention, you know,
Speaker 1: like I was really going to do it. I didn't
Speaker 1: mean to never pay someone back, like all of these
Speaker 1: things that I believed for far too long, and that
Speaker 1: she's now getting to sell to a broader audience. So
Speaker 1: as I was watching that, what I realized is our
Speaker 1: attention to her, Our attention to people like this, our
Speaker 1: attention to things is what gives them influence and power. Um.
Speaker 1: So when they say it's a big picture problem, I
Speaker 1: think what I'm really referring to is is the attention
Speaker 1: economy and the way that we think we're watching something
Speaker 1: just without steaks, but our viewership in itself is actually
Speaker 1: something that it does have a monetary value and also
Speaker 1: a value in terms of our our own behavior, our beliefs,
Speaker 1: um and and how how we moved through the world.
Speaker 1: You write about how Ana will be given these like
Speaker 1: very convivial interviews where it's clear clearly the interviewer was like, wow,
Speaker 1: this Anna, this Anna Delby, like can you can you can?
Speaker 1: You believe it? And they would have these buzzy headlines,
Speaker 1: and I guess part of me is like, like, how
Speaker 1: can you print the words of somebody who lies if
Speaker 1: you're a journalist or a reporter. Like somebody asked like, oh,
Speaker 1: you just how to talk to Anna for this interview?
Speaker 1: And I was like, why would I Why would I
Speaker 1: want to talk to somebody who lives? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I think there's a way to do it. There's actually
Speaker 1: a sixty minutes Australia Interviews I thought it was. I
Speaker 1: mean that it's of course still kind of sensationalized around
Speaker 1: the edges, but at least the viewer how to vary
Speaker 1: firm uh like framing device in which he you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's the same way I think the most successful
Speaker 1: interviews with someone like Donald Trump were conducted where you
Speaker 1: have a baseline foundation of truth fiction, you know, some
Speaker 1: some degree of commonly shared right wrong when it comes
Speaker 1: to like ethics or reality, and you you actually try
Speaker 1: to hold someone to account. That's interesting, And then I
Speaker 1: think it's actually like journalism. Um, but I think what
Speaker 1: I do find puzzling or I understand it, but I
Speaker 1: think I find it, you know, problematic, is the way
Speaker 1: that so much of our media and our news sources
Speaker 1: today are driven by not by quality but traffic, so
Speaker 1: so so places are incentivized to come up with these
Speaker 1: clickbait headlines, with these really sensationalized recaps of you know,
Speaker 1: you know events that in real life we're interesting, but
Speaker 1: you know, are so much more interesting if you embellish
Speaker 1: these details. That And it was troubling for me because
Speaker 1: watching like even during the try, all the white people
Speaker 1: are reporting on what she was wearing or like, you know,
Speaker 1: she's so audacious, can you believe, like, like, yeah, she is,
Speaker 1: That's what you know. That's what drew me into the friendship.
Speaker 1: Friendship to here's this person you can't quite figure out,
Speaker 1: Like she's she's wacky, she's really confident. She's doing these
Speaker 1: these things that kind of break your brain and make
Speaker 1: you sit there and stare and kind of ask questions.
Speaker 1: But that's how it works. Like while we're doing that,
Speaker 1: like no one's asking where's the money coming from? Like
Speaker 1: who's what are the what's the impact of this person's
Speaker 1: behavior and why doesn't matter. According to BBC News, which
Speaker 1: filed a Freedom of Information Act request, Netflix reportedly started
Speaker 1: paying Anna before she had ever't even gone to trial.
Speaker 1: They paid thirty dollars, which went towards paying her lawyer.
Speaker 1: Then Netflix paid for the rights to adapt Anna's story
Speaker 1: into the show Inventing Anna. In total, Netflix reportedly paid
Speaker 1: Anna three hundred and twenty dollars. Now that money was
Speaker 1: initially frozen toe of her victims a chance to sue,
Speaker 1: and even though some of her victims did file claims
Speaker 1: for a portion of those funds, whatever has left over
Speaker 1: that didn't go to paying the lawyers just goes right
Speaker 1: to Anna. And what did Anna spend that money on?
Speaker 1: Designer clothing? You've written about the fact that Netflix paid Anna,
Speaker 1: You know, it's a little bit of one of those
Speaker 1: things where she used the money to pay legal fees. However,
Speaker 1: I would argue that it's not like it's not like
Speaker 1: I mean, they're they're her legal fees, and so if
Speaker 1: somebody gives me money and I'm like, oh, I use
Speaker 1: that money to pay my bills, I feel like it's
Speaker 1: a bit of a stretch to say that I'm not
Speaker 1: benefiting from that. But whatever, Uh, do you feel that
Speaker 1: Netflix is contributing to an ecosystem where lying and scamming
Speaker 1: can be financially rewarding and financially lucrative. Yeah. I mean, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: this is like very cut and gy evidence of that
Speaker 1: because they moved so quickly to tom option the story
Speaker 1: that it they ended up paying Anna before her case
Speaker 1: even went to trial, before she even went to trial,
Speaker 1: and that that's the money that was used initially to
Speaker 1: pay her criminal the criminal defense layer whom she chose
Speaker 1: to pay his his like a initial fees, and then
Speaker 1: beyond that they they started their writer's room. The day
Speaker 1: that the trial began. There were Netflix writers in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: Her lawyer was representing her and her entertainment dealings at
Speaker 1: the same time he was representing her in a criminal trial.
Speaker 1: And I knew that at the time, which is part
Speaker 1: of why I think I went into it feeling I mean,
Speaker 1: of course, I was also so raw, and it was
Speaker 1: also fresh, and I was so emotional way more, you know,
Speaker 1: I wish I had I had had like a little
Speaker 1: more distance from everything, you're a little more composure. But
Speaker 1: I just felt, frankly so gaslighted by the fact that
Speaker 1: I was being accused of using my testimonious content into
Speaker 1: entertainment quote unquote because I was writing a book, um
Speaker 1: while at the same time I knew that everybody there
Speaker 1: was doing that, and I actually wasn't, like, you know,
Speaker 1: I was left sixty dollars in debt, Like I was
Speaker 1: just finding a way to like heal, to understand, to
Speaker 1: move forward. Um so yeah, it was really toxic Tervy.
Speaker 1: And I do think Netflix certainly not only influenced the
Speaker 1: coming to justice proceedings, but also gave this person who
Speaker 1: you know, we can all think what we want to think,
Speaker 1: but looking on paper at her past actions, she is
Speaker 1: a convicted criminal and they have created for her a
Speaker 1: glamorized version of her crimes, given her a platform, given
Speaker 1: her an audience, and set her up with a viewership
Speaker 1: that she can now continue to monopolize. Like she will
Speaker 1: continue to make money on the notoriety that she achieved
Speaker 1: through permitting criminal acts. Let's a quick break utter back.
Speaker 1: Scammers are not a new phenomena. They've always existed, but
Speaker 1: in the age of streaming services and social media, it
Speaker 1: seems like we're living in a golden age for scammers,
Speaker 1: where if your scam is flashy enough and captures our
Speaker 1: attention and just the right kind of way, what might
Speaker 1: have started as a scam can be laundered into a
Speaker 1: more legitimate platform. For instance, Netflix is The Tinder Swindler,
Speaker 1: a documentary that chronicles Simon Leviv, who posed as a
Speaker 1: wealthy jet set playboy by duping women that he met
Speaker 1: on the dating app Tinder out of thousands of dollars.
Speaker 1: Leviv's con involved convincing women to loan him money throughout
Speaker 1: landish lies, and since the documentary, Levev is clearly trying
Speaker 1: to parlay the attention and notoriety from his cohn into
Speaker 1: a pathway of a more legitimate, not to mention, lucrative platform. So,
Speaker 1: as Anna once intimated to a BBC reporter, it's kind
Speaker 1: hard to say that crime doesn't pay, because it seems
Speaker 1: like in our current media landscape it kind of does.
Speaker 1: Do you think that we live at a climate where
Speaker 1: people who scam and live people like like she was,
Speaker 1: as you said, she was convicted of this. So it's
Speaker 1: not like it's some big secrets. It's not like it's
Speaker 1: you say, these are just the facts of what happened.
Speaker 1: I feel like we are allowing pathways to legitimize these people.
Speaker 1: And like, you know, maybe it started as a con,
Speaker 1: and it started as a scam. By the end of it,
Speaker 1: you'll have money and an audience and people who are
Speaker 1: interested to see what happens next, and that you can
Speaker 1: sort of legitimize that. Like, for instance, if you watch
Speaker 1: the Netflix documentary The Tinder Swindler, um the scammer in
Speaker 1: that case, Simone Simon Simon, something like that. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: we got this big bump in social media followers. And
Speaker 1: also is making pretty good money on cameo right now.
Speaker 1: He's starting three hundred dollars for a personal shout out
Speaker 1: and fourteen hundred dollars our business shout out. He has
Speaker 1: a manager, He's talked about wanting to do a podcast.
Speaker 1: You know, are are we creating? Are is the media
Speaker 1: creating pathways for folks to legitimize what started out as
Speaker 1: a scam or a con or a lie. Absolutely, And
Speaker 1: I think, you know, looking back, it's actually a really
Speaker 1: interesting book about this called The Attention Merchants by this
Speaker 1: this man called Tim Woo. With the rise of reality
Speaker 1: television and this model of normal person too to celebrity
Speaker 1: uh as like a model for business. And then it
Speaker 1: evolved into social media where people not you know, they
Speaker 1: could It wasn't like winning the lottery. Everybody too could
Speaker 1: do this if they found a way to brand themselves,
Speaker 1: to market themselves. That was compelling enough to attract attention.
Speaker 1: But as you've just realized, unless you have some kind
Speaker 1: of outlandish loud stick or personality, like, no one is
Speaker 1: really paying attention. And I think this is like now
Speaker 1: evolved into curation, not just through digital media. But here
Speaker 1: are these people, and these people have always existed, mind you,
Speaker 1: but we live in an age where that kind of
Speaker 1: behavior is really rewarded. You know, It's not an age
Speaker 1: where it's about you know, morality or like like which
Speaker 1: which sounds so like pollyannish and hokey, but it's very
Speaker 1: much about this sort of the cult of personality and
Speaker 1: who al chect our attention and like obviously who we
Speaker 1: you know, voted our president is a testament testament to that.
Speaker 1: What you just articulated is one of my biggest issues
Speaker 1: and making the show is the way that we have
Speaker 1: our entire digital ecosystem and media ecosystem is biased toward
Speaker 1: outrageousness and lies and scams. It's been a documented thing
Speaker 1: that on social media, um incorrect information travels much faster
Speaker 1: and much farther than accurate information. There's as saying like
Speaker 1: a lie can travel around the world while the truth
Speaker 1: is still betting on it us or some some variation
Speaker 1: of that. But it's very true, absolutely true. And so
Speaker 1: you know, we talk a lot on this podcast about
Speaker 1: the ways that our landscapes have become this like marketplace
Speaker 1: for extremism, and who's really losing is us the general public.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a problem when the Weather channel is sensationalized,
Speaker 1: like for the Weather Channel to be like whoa like
Speaker 1: you know, and giving these like hokey names to things,
Speaker 1: and like making everything seem like a doomsday event and
Speaker 1: it's like it's like sprinkling outside, like there's no news here.
Speaker 1: They rely on viewership the same way as any other
Speaker 1: channel does. So like for our entire economy to run
Speaker 1: based on like clicks or attention like that is scary.
Speaker 1: There are certain things that I think probably would we
Speaker 1: we all might be a little better off if there
Speaker 1: were other motivators. We all deserve timely thought, all accurate information.
Speaker 1: And so even you know, your example of the Weather Channel,
Speaker 1: I I need to know whether or not to bring
Speaker 1: an umbrella, and I turn on the weather and it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, monsoons and hurricanes and oh my god, and
Speaker 1: it's like, well, I'm being underserved because I don't know
Speaker 1: if I need to bring an umbrella and I'm going
Speaker 1: down the street, you know, And so we all we
Speaker 1: all lose out. We all lose when we don't when
Speaker 1: we have any kind of media ecosystem that is biased
Speaker 1: towards sensationalism or lies or scams or clicks and outrageousness
Speaker 1: rather than thoughtful, accurate, nuanced content, and it pushes us
Speaker 1: to the extremes of either total belief or complete disbelief
Speaker 1: because either you buy into whatever you know, cool age
Speaker 1: you're looking for, like whether that's Fox News or you know,
Speaker 1: some like extreme version of like CNN. Like you know,
Speaker 1: they all have their their biased reporting techniques, right, But
Speaker 1: like I think you either sort of hop on a
Speaker 1: bandwagon or you say none of it's objective. I don't
Speaker 1: believe anything, And then that's not great either, because there
Speaker 1: are still things that should be believed. So I do
Speaker 1: agree that it is a disservice to everybody because it
Speaker 1: creates the system in which it's really hard to tell
Speaker 1: truth from fiction. In my day, JAB I do a
Speaker 1: lot of work combating conspiracy theories and things like that
Speaker 1: and trying to try to understand why people fall prey
Speaker 1: of them, and a big part of it, it's just
Speaker 1: complete lack of complete lack of trust in the media institutions.
Speaker 1: And I think that's a big reason why. It's like,
Speaker 1: I can understand why somebody would just lose all trust
Speaker 1: in media when that is the thing that fuels it. Yeah. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: And there is a lot of similarity obviously. I mean,
Speaker 1: the steaks are just sort of its apples and oranges
Speaker 1: with when it comes to like someone like Anna and
Speaker 1: like masculine conspiracy theories. But there is similarity in the
Speaker 1: way that both um, I guess, like lie structures or
Speaker 1: manipulation techniques rely on framing arguments in a way that
Speaker 1: makes them almost irrefutable because they they they speak to
Speaker 1: these sort of like cryptic abstracts or things that you
Speaker 1: literally just can't disprove even though they are false. It's
Speaker 1: like a flawed a flawed framing device. Uh. And I
Speaker 1: think it's really hard for people, especially if you're isolated,
Speaker 1: um to keep your feet on the ground and understand
Speaker 1: what's happening if you're not familiar with that type of
Speaker 1: behavioral pattern. After the disastrous trip to Marrakech, Rachel was
Speaker 1: left with a six credit card bill that her credit
Speaker 1: card company eventually forgave, but before that, Rachel struggled to
Speaker 1: pay rent and took loans from loved ones to cover
Speaker 1: bills to get by. She eventually published her book about
Speaker 1: what she learned from a relationship with Anna, called My
Speaker 1: Friend Anna, and sold the rights to develop her story
Speaker 1: for television to Lena Dunham an HBO. Rachel takes a
Speaker 1: lot of criticism for quote profiting off of her relationship
Speaker 1: to Anna. So I wanted to go back to something
Speaker 1: that you mentioned, which is that you sometimes take criticism
Speaker 1: for the fact that you you know, published a book
Speaker 1: about your experiences, You've written about your experiences. Um. I
Speaker 1: interviewed AMANDAA the axon are you probably know who she is? Uh?
Speaker 1: And something that she said in that interview that I
Speaker 1: will never forget is that, you know, she's often criticized
Speaker 1: for making money, you know, writing books about what happened
Speaker 1: to her. And you know, however, producers, filmmakers, writers, they
Speaker 1: make a lot of money retelling sometimes like a really harmful,
Speaker 1: deeply fictionalized account of something that like sort of happened
Speaker 1: around her. But like it's always like deeply, deeply fictionalized.
Speaker 1: And something that she said was that it's apparently everyone
Speaker 1: else is allowed to profit off of something that happened
Speaker 1: to me except for me. Everybody who's coming money off
Speaker 1: of my story but me, And I guess, you know,
Speaker 1: why do you think this is? You know? I guess
Speaker 1: I should say a side note, which is that if
Speaker 1: I lost a lot of money, anybody who wanted to
Speaker 1: pay me to tell the story of what happened to
Speaker 1: me to recoup my expenses, I would absolutely say yes.
Speaker 1: And I think that most people would. But I feel
Speaker 1: that we have this expectation where victims are kind of
Speaker 1: expected to be kind of holier than now. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: people who harmed them, it's like they can do whatever
Speaker 1: they can make money, however, And so I think, why
Speaker 1: do you think that I think that comes from? Um?
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, I do completely agree with you.
Speaker 1: It often feels like the victims are on trial more
Speaker 1: so than the criminals. Uh. And also like there's this
Speaker 1: odd thing that I've realized, the word victim is has
Speaker 1: so much packed into the connotations around the word. The
Speaker 1: word It's like people think, as soon as you're no
Speaker 1: longer in debt or as soon as you've been made
Speaker 1: hold no matter how hard you hard, you have to
Speaker 1: work to actually become okay, you're not a victim anymore.
Speaker 1: Like you're now you know, and someone who's exploiting a
Speaker 1: situation if you, you know, keep moving forward or if
Speaker 1: you're seeing to succeed. And it's like, what is a victim?
Speaker 1: Like does a victim? What does the victim look like?
Speaker 1: I've had so many people reach out to me on
Speaker 1: social media to say, you don't look like a victim,
Speaker 1: and I think that is such a loaded odd thing
Speaker 1: to say to somebody, Like saying that you were the
Speaker 1: victim of a crime is not a request for pity.
Speaker 1: It's a request for acknowledgement of a wrong that was committed.
Speaker 1: You know. It is not like I'm still stuck in
Speaker 1: this like stalled state and perpetuity. It's like, this happened
Speaker 1: and that's a fact. Doesn't matter what you do afterwards
Speaker 1: to be okay, you know, to to repair the damage,
Speaker 1: to find a way out of it, Like that is
Speaker 1: really not relevant. Um, But I think there there are
Speaker 1: a lot of things that are distracting, especially when these
Speaker 1: stories get retold through the lens of media or entertainment
Speaker 1: people tend to fixate on the whistles and bells and
Speaker 1: the flashy trips and the money um, and they hold
Speaker 1: that I think the jury did the same thing. They
Speaker 1: sort of hold that lens up and say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: looking at the net gain, you were doing this before Anna,
Speaker 1: and now you're doing this. You came out okay, therefore no,
Speaker 1: the crime didn't happen. It's like, wait, so you're saying
Speaker 1: I was too good at you know, finding like fighting
Speaker 1: too the nail to find a way forward, Like, therefore
Speaker 1: it didn't happen, Like what, why do I think it happens?
Speaker 1: I think it's really easy for people to hold on
Speaker 1: to really simplified recaps of something that was actually very
Speaker 1: complex and nuanced. And of course, looking back, red flags
Speaker 1: look like this, like very tidy pattern. But when you're
Speaker 1: living through something where you're dealing with a master manipulator, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, there's time between these these things that might
Speaker 1: have tipped you off to trouble ahead. There's there's a
Speaker 1: there's an actual relationship between real life people and everything
Speaker 1: is much grayer than it appears in hindsight. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: so funny because I feel like a lot of people
Speaker 1: I've seen and I saw, like I guess this idea
Speaker 1: of you know, well, while that was happening, she definitely
Speaker 1: wanted to go to Morocco, where she definitely wanted So
Speaker 1: it's like who gives a ship like it just it
Speaker 1: just seems so like picking apart. It feels very victim blaming.
Speaker 1: It's very convenient and and I think people want to
Speaker 1: look for a reason to explain why something bad has
Speaker 1: happened to somebody, you know, especially if if it is
Speaker 1: not like yeahly, you know, when it seems like someone's
Speaker 1: come out okay, then it's like, okay, we all have
Speaker 1: like carte blanche to just sit here and talk about
Speaker 1: why you deserved it. And you know, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, like it's a everybody wants to be understood,
Speaker 1: and like it steems to be misunderstood and it seems
Speaker 1: to have things framed in a way that's not true,
Speaker 1: especially when they're so personal and so many people are
Speaker 1: forming opinions about you from so little information and flawed information. Um.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, like everybody looks
Speaker 1: at a story like this, which you know, it's not
Speaker 1: a news story, it's like Taylor as old as time.
Speaker 1: It's just in a in a modern uh iteration of it.
Speaker 1: But you people look at it and they project um
Speaker 1: their understand They come away with an understanding of it
Speaker 1: based on their own life experiences. And if it's important
Speaker 1: for people to think, if it looks too good to
Speaker 1: be true, it probably is, or you know, don't get
Speaker 1: sucked into materialism or like you know, everybody looks at
Speaker 1: it and thinks these things. But I think that's actually
Speaker 1: more telling of their own life experiences than it is
Speaker 1: necessarily of mine. Like have I asked myself those questions?
Speaker 1: Of course I have, Like if I had it, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, it's really important to look at That's why
Speaker 1: I wrote A wrote I guess to start, and I
Speaker 1: wrote what turned into the book, But do so that
Speaker 1: I could frame, you know, piece together. That's like narrative
Speaker 1: of experience that I lived through. Look at it, try
Speaker 1: to like dig into it, understand what happened, what to
Speaker 1: make of it, like why it happened, and how to learn,
Speaker 1: heal and move forward. Something that you said. You said,
Speaker 1: people want an explanation for why this happened to you.
Speaker 1: I think what they're actually looking for is an explanation
Speaker 1: for why this would never happen to that. So I
Speaker 1: think it's about them, right, and I mean absolutely as
Speaker 1: they don't even know me, and and like there even
Speaker 1: if even if someone didn't eat either this experience, this
Speaker 1: is something that happened, was that friendship. I knew her
Speaker 1: for a year, were close friends for about three months,
Speaker 1: three brief months. Like she never bought me clothes, she
Speaker 1: never bought me shoes, she never bought like did I
Speaker 1: work out with her? Yes? Did she pay for some dinners? Yes?
Speaker 1: Did she invite me on this crazy vacation percent But
Speaker 1: to say that anybody understands someone else's entire values like
Speaker 1: value system and personality and character through like a few
Speaker 1: months of what is a you know, thirties some odd
Speaker 1: year life with so many more important like and like
Speaker 1: I don't know telling things and it's just life is weird. Huh,
Speaker 1: it's weird. I kind of say, I love this is
Speaker 1: kind of a side note. I love your perspective on this.
Speaker 1: I feel like if it's happen to me, I guess
Speaker 1: I guess you know you were saying earlier how people
Speaker 1: don't really see the work involved in getting you to
Speaker 1: a place where you're like, well, this is behind me.
Speaker 1: I'm speaking about it now not because I want to
Speaker 1: relitigate what happened like the minutia of our relationship, but
Speaker 1: because I want to ask these like thoughtful questions about
Speaker 1: what it says about our culture and all of that.
Speaker 1: You think as someone who was like you know, I
Speaker 1: know we don't see that work, but where you are today,
Speaker 1: it just seems like you're you. I really appreciate your
Speaker 1: perspective of where you're at right now. I really appreciate
Speaker 1: you like acknowledging or understanding that because it's very hard.
Speaker 1: You know, like even I guess being a photo producer
Speaker 1: is much the same way. It's like if you're doing
Speaker 1: it well, nobody pays attention to how it happened or
Speaker 1: why it's happening in this way. But like it's I mean,
Speaker 1: it's irritating, except that like there's nothing I can do
Speaker 1: people who are I want to be wrong or it's
Speaker 1: gonna be wrong. But like when people are like, oh
Speaker 1: you just want the spotlight or oh you just want attention,
Speaker 1: it's like I've turned down so many more things than
Speaker 1: I have said yes to, Like this is a spot
Speaker 1: late that I did not want. You know, I have
Speaker 1: done the best I could with with something that was
Speaker 1: very negative, and I've done the best I could to
Speaker 1: make it into something positive, not just for myself, but
Speaker 1: ideally for others. Do we have gone through the same
Speaker 1: thing or or to prevent others from going through the
Speaker 1: same thing? Um, but you're you like think you you're
Speaker 1: you're You're completely right? What like my very specific and
Speaker 1: clear objective as to why I'm still talking today? Does
Speaker 1: does it really is about this spotlight that I didn't want?
Speaker 1: And and I thought very hard about whether or not
Speaker 1: to just sort of like lie low not comment to
Speaker 1: the Netflix thing came out like just like not say
Speaker 1: anything at all. But I I recognize the value of attention,
Speaker 1: and I recognize the fact that whether or not I
Speaker 1: choose to engage with it, there would be this attention
Speaker 1: coming my way. And it felt like there are so
Speaker 1: many really important causes in the world that need attention.
Speaker 1: There's so many important issues even relating to this specifically
Speaker 1: that can't get able to pay attention to them. So
Speaker 1: I really wanted to like yield the time towards asking
Speaker 1: questions and then ideally, I mean like finding people like
Speaker 1: you are, are you know, finding a way to sort
Speaker 1: of redirect the spotlight towards towards activation partners who can
Speaker 1: speak to these issues in a thoughtful way and and
Speaker 1: make people think a little harder or or differently about
Speaker 1: something that on the surface just seems so sort of frivolous.
Speaker 1: Our attention has value, and it's also we only have
Speaker 1: so much of it. And so when lies and outrageousness
Speaker 1: are are amplified to get our attention, what's not getting
Speaker 1: our attention? What important are just going overlooked? Because exactly,
Speaker 1: And that's I think, that's that's so right. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, do I watch bad TV? Of course I do.
Speaker 1: Do I eat junk food? Of course I do. Like
Speaker 1: it's not to say don't do it, it's just to
Speaker 1: be mindful that if that's all you do, like that
Speaker 1: really will inform the your life. Like like you know,
Speaker 1: when you are paying attention to these things that are
Speaker 1: designed to suck up your attention, that are designed to
Speaker 1: make you want more of them, they're addicting. You are
Speaker 1: not paying attention to something else. You are not you know,
Speaker 1: necessarily having the autonomy you may think you have over
Speaker 1: the direction of of your purpose. I definitely know what
Speaker 1: you mean more after a quick break. I know firsthand
Speaker 1: that navigating are connected digital lives also comes with navigating
Speaker 1: all kinds of complicated issues, like, for instance, what do
Speaker 1: you do if you were going through a depressive episode
Speaker 1: and completely stop answering emails? What's the etiquette around logging
Speaker 1: back on and replying to them super late? Or is
Speaker 1: it okay to not accept your boss or coworkers friend
Speaker 1: request on social media? Now on there Are No Girls
Speaker 1: on the Inner That's all new newsletter. Not only can
Speaker 1: you get more Internet insights, but we will be weighing
Speaker 1: in answering your Internet questions and conundrums. So subscribe to
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet newsletter at tangoti
Speaker 1: dot com slash newsletter. And if you want to support
Speaker 1: the podcast, thank you so much, check out our online
Speaker 1: store at tangoti dot com slash store. Let's get right
Speaker 1: back into it so you can probably tell that I
Speaker 1: did not really enjoy the Netflix show Inventing Anna, and
Speaker 1: one of my biggest issues with it is the way
Speaker 1: that it frames Anna's crimes with a kind of girl
Speaker 1: boss hustle mentality that she came to this country as
Speaker 1: an immigrant with nothing, and that if she did maybe
Speaker 1: do a little lying and scamming he were there, it
Speaker 1: was only in pursuit of building something that she truly
Speaker 1: believed in. After all, isn't that The American Dream? Over
Speaker 1: on another scammer story, Who Lose the Dropout, which chronicles
Speaker 1: the story of Elizabe Holmes, former CEO of Saranos, a
Speaker 1: blood testing company that turned out to be a total scam,
Speaker 1: actually does a pretty good job of showing how empty,
Speaker 1: not to mention, dangerous, it can be when scamming and
Speaker 1: lying is rebranded as vision or leadership. One of the
Speaker 1: questions I did have for you is that the Inventing
Speaker 1: Anna Show does this, but I've also seen it kind
Speaker 1: of glimmers of it, and other and other scammers and
Speaker 1: just sort of a media in general, this idea of
Speaker 1: like scamming and lying kind of being rebranded as hustling
Speaker 1: or trying to achieve the American Dream or worse, girl bossing.
Speaker 1: You know, I get, I completely, like logistically understand why
Speaker 1: that's how it's framed or why it's how it's reframed,
Speaker 1: but and it's such an easy narrative, but you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's kind of harmful to reframe feeling from
Speaker 1: people and lying from people as hustling and girl bossing
Speaker 1: and leadership. And I guess my question is like, what
Speaker 1: are your thoughts about that? Have you seen this and
Speaker 1: what do you think about it? Yeah, I think it's lazy.
Speaker 1: I just I think it's lazy, and I do think
Speaker 1: it does it does do damage to the reality. You know,
Speaker 1: it's so backwards to to attempt to make something about
Speaker 1: like classism, racism, sexism, and then to frame it in
Speaker 1: a way that is promoting someone who couldn't care less
Speaker 1: about those issues unless they're serving their own agenda Like
Speaker 1: that is such a disservice to people who are actually
Speaker 1: working to read, you know, to to explore and explore
Speaker 1: these issues and create positive change in ways that are
Speaker 1: actually meaningful and substantive, especially in in the past I
Speaker 1: don't even know how many years, I guess like ten
Speaker 1: years or so, maybe less like these these sort of
Speaker 1: catch all buzzwords like like feminism or like um good grief.
Speaker 1: There's a performative activism that that features words that have
Speaker 1: become and be and and and like missions that have
Speaker 1: become trendy, and I think shows like this have kind
Speaker 1: of glommed onto that. I told her I watched the
Speaker 1: finale of the show on piloo to drop that about
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Holmes and the Serranos scam Lady. There was a
Speaker 1: time in feminism were like a woman like a woman
Speaker 1: like making money that was feminism. I do think there's
Speaker 1: a kind of it's sort of a it's a sort
Speaker 1: of like era feminism I'm not proud of where Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you were just a woman who was make like
Speaker 1: out for herself and making money, that was seen as
Speaker 1: like a feminist win, and we didn't really ask a
Speaker 1: lot of questions about are you harming people? Are you
Speaker 1: you know can like like, we didn't really ask a
Speaker 1: lot of questions. And I think that I kind of
Speaker 1: see this era kind of maybe coming to a close,
Speaker 1: I hope, But I think that that era really allowed
Speaker 1: for women to be lauded as feminist icons for doing
Speaker 1: things that actually hurt other people at their own expense.
Speaker 1: I don't think the answer to chauvinism is a form
Speaker 1: of feminism that mirrors the same thing, like that reverses
Speaker 1: that that negative way of being. Like, I do think
Speaker 1: sometimes pendulum swing too far before they kind of find
Speaker 1: their their middle, and it seems like that's what happened.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, you did this for so long, therefore,
Speaker 1: like it's my time to do it, and we should
Speaker 1: celebrate the fact that I'm doing it. Um, it's I
Speaker 1: think it's it's hard sometimes to see that when you're
Speaker 1: in it, and when it's a reaction rather than like
Speaker 1: like it's it's reactive rather than proactive. Right, So it's
Speaker 1: it's it's like finding a way to exist as a
Speaker 1: woman in reaction to what men have done wrong, rather
Speaker 1: than just finding a way to exist as a woman. Um.
Speaker 1: I don't have solutions, but I see the trend as well.
Speaker 1: And I guess one thing related to the who we showed,
Speaker 1: But I think that show actually strikes as I mean,
Speaker 1: obviously what she did does not strike me as something
Speaker 1: that was done well. But the show I thought did
Speaker 1: a a good job actually of dramatizing real life events
Speaker 1: because they framed her in a way that felt very
Speaker 1: true to the actual sequencing of what happened. Like I
Speaker 1: read Bad Blood by junk Are You and it felt like,
Speaker 1: you know, I followed a fact pattern and it framed
Speaker 1: her not as someone that everybody was. I mean, you
Speaker 1: saw how she was celebrated, but that was true to
Speaker 1: the way that it happened in real life. It was
Speaker 1: very true to the to the mixed reactions she received.
Speaker 1: And I thought Amanda Seeping to an amazing job of
Speaker 1: not like gleefully sort of relishing this like the stick
Speaker 1: of the con but just in framing this sort of
Speaker 1: very misguided, probably like psychologically unhealthy person who like just
Speaker 1: kind of lacked a certain like human hip that allowed
Speaker 1: her to understand the importance of her decision making on
Speaker 1: real lives. It just was such a foil for me
Speaker 1: when I watched that versus what I had seen and
Speaker 1: Inventing Anna, which really just looked like something that had
Speaker 1: been made by people who really bought into what Anna
Speaker 1: was selling. Oh my gosh, I so I am happy
Speaker 1: to hear you say this. I felt the exact first
Speaker 1: of all inventing Anna, all all of the issues that
Speaker 1: you brought up with that, Yes, but also just like
Speaker 1: with a slug to watch, like I wanted to watch
Speaker 1: it before I talked to you, And literally my partner
Speaker 1: was like, I feel like you've been watching this show
Speaker 1: for a decade, and I was like, you and me both,
Speaker 1: but just wasn't an inter hitting show. And again having
Speaker 1: that having like I felt the Dropout was different because
Speaker 1: it had empathy for the people who were harmed, right,
Speaker 1: you saw these people who were you know, had cancer
Speaker 1: and were involved in these blood these blood trials. You know.
Speaker 1: It had empathy for the whistleblowers who risked so much
Speaker 1: to their of their selves to come forward. I felt
Speaker 1: like it was a show that managed to demonstrate the
Speaker 1: kind of seductive you know called the personality around a
Speaker 1: scammer without falling prey to it, and inventing Anna was
Speaker 1: exactly the opposite. It was done, Yeah, it was done
Speaker 1: so thoughtfully and had such depth to it because yeah,
Speaker 1: of course there are people who like popped on the
Speaker 1: bandwagon and celebrated her like it was just the full
Speaker 1: range of people who were made to to read like
Speaker 1: real life people. You know. I think Inventing Anna flattened everybody,
Speaker 1: And there's a way that can be done. And like
Speaker 1: a show like Gossip Girl or a show that is
Speaker 1: meant to be and in some ways I guess this
Speaker 1: is but meant to be about materialism and superficiality. But
Speaker 1: to reduce something like this where real real crimes were committed,
Speaker 1: Real people's lives were impacted. It wasn't just these like
Speaker 1: faceless things. There people who lose jobs. There are people
Speaker 1: who obviously are not oviously. If we're obvious, that would
Speaker 1: wouldn't be a problem, But there are people who weren't
Speaker 1: included in the you know, the court case. She definitely
Speaker 1: committed so many offenses that that harmed your life people.
Speaker 1: So I think to flatten something like that into this
Speaker 1: like very trivelous, like fun, glossy slog of a TV
Speaker 1: show full stop, I don't know, dot dot dot. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's there were times where I was like,
Speaker 1: are you meant to be rooting for Anna and the show?
Speaker 1: And then the I think the richest part is at
Speaker 1: the end, where the biggest crime the show seems to
Speaker 1: suggest has been committed is the character that shares your
Speaker 1: same name. She's like like, neth Is like you're a
Speaker 1: bad friend, and it's like, well Anna went to jail,
Speaker 1: Like come on, like I know, I get, I mean,
Speaker 1: and people really believe all that is fact, like you are,
Speaker 1: like she bank rolled youre you for two years and
Speaker 1: like I know better than to feed the trolls on
Speaker 1: the internet. Like it's not my job to to like
Speaker 1: edge keep people about fact, Like what, like the truth
Speaker 1: is out there if anybody wants to look for it.
Speaker 1: But like I didn't even know her that long and
Speaker 1: she didn't that thing like uh, but yeah, so to
Speaker 1: have have it framed as though, like where's the loyalty,
Speaker 1: It's like this is someone you know, we were not
Speaker 1: best friends. I knew her, and also look what she did.
Speaker 1: Look look at the pattern of her behavior. At what point,
Speaker 1: what why are you suggesting people who are in these
Speaker 1: like manipulative relationships, see their friendships or or whatever like that,
Speaker 1: that they are doing something wrong by choosing to leave
Speaker 1: something that is so harmful. Like that's bizarre. That's like,
Speaker 1: that's a very bizarre thing to say. Also, the show
Speaker 1: rearranged it as though I had been reimbursed before the
Speaker 1: chial and that I like kept the secret of my
Speaker 1: involvement with her arrest, like like or kept out a
Speaker 1: secret like didn't happen. I was protected two years after
Speaker 1: Marrakesh after the trial concluded. I didn't keep my involvement
Speaker 1: in the sting some kind of like grand secret. I
Speaker 1: wasn't ashamed of it, but I wasn't that close with
Speaker 1: like Naphra Casey, you know, I like them, I don't.
Speaker 1: I have nothing negative to say. It's like find everybody
Speaker 1: can look back and see things through the lenses and
Speaker 1: that's you know, it is what it is. But we
Speaker 1: weren't in touch. It's not like I owed people explanations.
Speaker 1: I was out more than they made anything. They were
Speaker 1: not left in any kind of like debt or like
Speaker 1: there was no ongoing relationship there. So to suggest that
Speaker 1: by not reaching out to say hello, like this is
Speaker 1: what I have done and like it's like that's just weird.
Speaker 1: Does it doesn't make any sense? Yeah? And I think
Speaker 1: people people understand the way these relationships and acquaintanceships work
Speaker 1: in their own lives and it's like, of course that
Speaker 1: would be that you wouldn't owe these people anything or
Speaker 1: you wouldn't owe like you know, but when it's someone
Speaker 1: else and that that that was that the minutia of
Speaker 1: those relationships are like projected for everyone to pick apart.
Speaker 1: Suddenly it's like, oh, why would she do that? Doesn't
Speaker 1: you have loyalty? And it's like, well, calm down, think
Speaker 1: about how this would actually go down if it was you, Like,
Speaker 1: we all understand it in our own lives, but when
Speaker 1: it's somebody else, I think it's like different. Yeah, evidently,
Speaker 1: And I understand people don't tune INDI shows like this
Speaker 1: to really think very analytically. It's mostly about just getting
Speaker 1: a good laugh at other people's expense, and like you know,
Speaker 1: I do too. It's fine, Like it's I'm not I
Speaker 1: certainly can't like hate on people for being human, Like
Speaker 1: that's how this breaks um. I just I think that
Speaker 1: the frivolity of it does conceal something that is a
Speaker 1: bigger picture problem, as I have said, which is why
Speaker 1: I figure, if I'm stuck in this this it was
Speaker 1: like dumpster fire anyway, I might as well shy and
Speaker 1: like send up a smoke signal about you know, red
Speaker 1: flags that I know a little too well from the
Speaker 1: first hand experience. Yes, speaking of your firsthand experience, one
Speaker 1: of the last questions I have is, like, what has
Speaker 1: it just been like for you, Rachel, the person going
Speaker 1: through this get in the social media's roles, getting people
Speaker 1: who have maybe been misled about what happened from the
Speaker 1: television show. What is it be like to deal with
Speaker 1: that on online? Yeah, I mean it's it's definitely not easy,
Speaker 1: but I'm mindful of the like I'm I'm mindful of
Speaker 1: my my my privilege and my luck just to have
Speaker 1: like such supportive family and friends, to have an awareness
Speaker 1: of exactly what it is that is happening, you know,
Speaker 1: part of it I learned the hard way, just through
Speaker 1: gas lighting with Anna to begin with, and now through
Speaker 1: what I've learned in looking back at what happened looking
Speaker 1: like you know, at at like I guess, I mean,
Speaker 1: reading the book helped me a lot, just in terms
Speaker 1: of sort of looking at the pattern of behavior as
Speaker 1: a pattern rather than like this. When you're in a
Speaker 1: relationship like that, it's really hard to see anything is
Speaker 1: black and white, because it's not. Life is grey, um,
Speaker 1: But looking back things seems so much clearer to me.
Speaker 1: So I'm grateful to have had people who believe me,
Speaker 1: who like like a platform to speak from the opportunity
Speaker 1: to speak, which all that is to say it's hard,
Speaker 1: But part of the reason I'm speaking up about it
Speaker 1: is because I think that the structure of the Netflix show,
Speaker 1: or or this broader pattern that's happening, it does a
Speaker 1: disservice to people who don't have that ability to understand
Speaker 1: what's happening to them who might not get to hear
Speaker 1: stories like this because people are ashamed or they're scared
Speaker 1: of the victim blaming, which is completely fair. It's not
Speaker 1: it's I mean, it's it's wild, um, and it's you know,
Speaker 1: I can have my feet on the ground and my
Speaker 1: head on my shoulders, and if I sit there and
Speaker 1: read that for longer than maybe like ten minutes, like
Speaker 1: it's even if you know that, you know it's it's
Speaker 1: actually not about you. It doesn't feel good to have
Speaker 1: that kind of energy coming in, Like I mean that
Speaker 1: sounds so woo woo, but like that kind of hostility
Speaker 1: coming at you, Like it's like death by paper cuts.
Speaker 1: Like you can be the strongest rock in the water,
Speaker 1: but like if it keeps running, like you're gonna get
Speaker 1: worn down. Um, so it's hard, but I recognize that
Speaker 1: it's harder, so much harder for so many other people,
Speaker 1: and uh yeah, then it can be pretty nasty. We've
Speaker 1: talked a lot about how the dangers that come when
Speaker 1: we give up, when we willingly give our attention a
Speaker 1: way to liars and scammers and people who are outrageous
Speaker 1: and extreme. Um, do you ever see a situation where
Speaker 1: things like nuanced thoughtfulness, UM, honest accurate content will be
Speaker 1: amplified over that kind of extremism and and lies. Do
Speaker 1: you think that we're this is just it forever or
Speaker 1: do you see do you see a change coming? Um?
Speaker 1: I mean, as evidenced by past behavior. I am kind
Speaker 1: of a willful optimist through and through, and that is
Speaker 1: just who I am. So I always hoped for that,
Speaker 1: you know. UM, I do think the damage done by
Speaker 1: what you just said, like the the pattern. What I'm
Speaker 1: trying to say is the truth will out and and
Speaker 1: it's one thing to think the pattern of celebrating these
Speaker 1: individuals does do harm. That is and will be visible
Speaker 1: until there is a movement in the opposite direction. So
Speaker 1: I think we've already seen that, like from like me
Speaker 1: to forward, where people are starting to pay attention to
Speaker 1: things in a different way and actually attempt to hold
Speaker 1: outlets and individuals to account. Um. I just think it's
Speaker 1: in very specific arenas thus far that that seems to
Speaker 1: be happening. And I think people like to to sort
Speaker 1: of pretend that things they do for entertainment don't touch
Speaker 1: on the same subjects or don't have the same impact
Speaker 1: or our seriousness, and that to me is that that's
Speaker 1: the very slow I hope that people recognize these things
Speaker 1: are not separate. They're inextricably linked to the way that
Speaker 1: me as a culture um celebrate people and and uh
Speaker 1: former blieves that's really smart. Got a story about an
Speaker 1: interesting thing in tech, or just want to say hi?
Speaker 1: You can be us at Hello at tangodi dot com.
Speaker 1: You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tangodi
Speaker 1: dot com. There Are No Girls on the Internet was
Speaker 1: created by me Bridget Tod. It's a production of iHeart
Speaker 1: Radio and Unboss creative Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer.
Speaker 1: Ary Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Motto
Speaker 1: is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If
Speaker 1: you want to help us grow, rate and review us
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeart Radio, check
Speaker 1: out the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. And then I have to rum, and
Speaker 1: then I have to ormed.