Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridgett and this is
Speaker 1: there Are No Girls on the Internet.
Speaker 2: Today.
Speaker 1: I am not joined by my producer Mike. I am
Speaker 1: joined by my producer, Joey pet. You don't always hear
Speaker 1: Joey's voice on the show, but you do hear their
Speaker 1: phenomenal editing and their phenomenal.
Speaker 2: I don't know, internet cultural takes.
Speaker 1: We talked about Joey's appearance on the podcast Stuff Mom
Speaker 1: ever told you really doing a phenomenal and thoughtful job
Speaker 1: breaking down that kids Online Safety Act that we're all
Speaker 1: discussing on the show. Joey, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: being here.
Speaker 3: Hey, thank you bridget for having me on. Super excited.
Speaker 1: I'm excited to so First I would love to just
Speaker 1: sort of let folks get to know you. What is
Speaker 1: your experience like on the internet, What do you care
Speaker 1: about online? What brings you to convert stations on the internet?
Speaker 3: For sure? Yeah, so I again, My name is Jerry.
Speaker 3: I am a producer here at iHeart I work on
Speaker 3: a couple of different shows. I do work. When I
Speaker 3: asked stuff Mom never told you like Britchett said, should
Speaker 3: check out that episode if you can. But yeah, I
Speaker 3: am very much an Internet kind of person, a very
Speaker 3: chronically outlined person. I will call myself sometimes not necessarily
Speaker 3: in a positive way, but I you know, I am
Speaker 3: gen Z. I'm an older gen Z person. So I
Speaker 3: grew up with social media more or less like in
Speaker 3: I don't know. I got on social media on like
Speaker 3: high school. I guess that's more or less growing up
Speaker 3: with social media. Anyways. I was a big like you know,
Speaker 3: I was really into Tumblr back in the day when
Speaker 3: that was a big thing. I personally, you know, if
Speaker 3: you've listened to Smithy, you know this. I'm a big
Speaker 3: like fandom person, so that always was my introduction to
Speaker 3: like social media sites and all of that. I am
Speaker 3: still on Twitter, unfortunately, hanging on. We'll see, although I
Speaker 3: don't know that that might be ending sued. But yeah,
Speaker 3: I do use TikTok a lot. I'm big on TikTok.
Speaker 3: I won't be telling you all my TikTok, but if
Speaker 3: I find it on your own, congratulations. I don't use
Speaker 3: the same ad as I do for my other social media,
Speaker 3: but do love TikTok. Do love sort of you know,
Speaker 3: my view is always I think social media is it's
Speaker 3: a medium, it can be a great tool for activism
Speaker 3: and for you know, one thing I talk about a
Speaker 3: lot is like I grew up queer in the early
Speaker 3: two thousands, early two tens or two thousands early twenty
Speaker 3: tens kind of era. Like I think I was probably
Speaker 3: like twenty fourteen when I first came.
Speaker 2: Out, like.
Speaker 3: But which was still like a time where there wasn't
Speaker 3: a lot of like visibility with queerness. And I really
Speaker 3: credit like the internet and social media for being my
Speaker 3: sort of space, safe space, so that always going to
Speaker 3: have a place in my heart, you know. At the
Speaker 3: same time, I think really appreciate the show for being
Speaker 3: a place to talk about like some of the negatives too.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we have such similar trajectories when it comes
Speaker 1: to how we think about the Internet. Like similarly, the Internet,
Speaker 1: I guess it's a double edged sword, you know. I
Speaker 1: think for marginalized youth, it can be this new this
Speaker 1: place to find community and explore yourself sometimes depending on
Speaker 1: where you grew up and what your upbringing was like
Speaker 1: sometimes for the very first time.
Speaker 2: And it also can.
Speaker 1: Be this place where that very identity, that very thing
Speaker 1: that the Internet is this way to explore, can be
Speaker 1: weaponized against you, can be used to further marginalize you.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's it's all of the promise and all
Speaker 1: of the peril. Like that is what it means to
Speaker 1: be a marginalized person online today, I feel and you
Speaker 1: really bring your fandom lens. I think is really helpful
Speaker 1: to understanding a lot of what happens on the internet.
Speaker 1: We were just talking about, you know, how you could
Speaker 1: say something about activism or radical politics because people are like, okay,
Speaker 1: you talk about a fandom, then you can really upset
Speaker 1: some folks.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was like Richard before we started recording. I
Speaker 3: recently got in some i'm gonna say accidental beef with
Speaker 3: a very prominent TikToker. Uh was not my intention, That's
Speaker 3: why I'm saying accidental. I pointed out that he made
Speaker 3: a comment that was a little bit misogynistic, and you know,
Speaker 3: accusing a male ally of not being a feminist is
Speaker 3: apparently the worst defense to feminism that's been a week. Anyway,
Speaker 3: It's not gonna go super into that, but I yeah,
Speaker 3: it's I existing as a marginalized person on the internet.
Speaker 3: It's always always a fun time. Always get some fun comments,
Speaker 3: you know, always Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of TikTok, that's a great segue into talking
Speaker 1: about news y'all might have missed on the Internet this week.
Speaker 1: So we talked on the show about TikTok, the Chinese
Speaker 1: owned social media platform owned by the parent company fit Dance,
Speaker 1: was potentially going to be banned in the United States,
Speaker 1: and how the platform was working with the US government
Speaker 1: to figure out what it needed to do to avoid
Speaker 1: being banned. Well, now you've gotten our very first look
Speaker 1: about what all that might entail, because Forbes obtained a
Speaker 1: draft of a deal from around this time last year
Speaker 1: between TikTok and the Biden Administration's Committee on Foreign Investment
Speaker 1: in the United States or CFIUS. So one quick sort
Speaker 1: of side note here is that Forbes has a little
Speaker 1: bit of a history with TikTok. Fite Dance did confirm
Speaker 1: to Forbes that they had essentially been spying on Forbes
Speaker 1: journalists through monitoring their physical locations via their IP addresses
Speaker 1: in an attempt to sniff out leaks from inside the company.
Speaker 1: A TikTok executive actually had to resign over this. So
Speaker 1: Forbes has really been on this TikTok Beat, which is
Speaker 1: probably why they were the outlet that got this agreement
Speaker 1: between the government and TikTok in the first place. So
Speaker 1: their reporting sos that if it were to be finalized,
Speaker 1: the agreement would provide the government near unfettered access to
Speaker 1: internal TikTok information and unpreceded control over essential functions that
Speaker 1: it does not have over any other major platform. The
Speaker 1: draft agreement as it's being negotiated or as it was
Speaker 1: being negotiated at the time around this time last summer,
Speaker 1: would give government agencies that the DOJ and the DoD
Speaker 1: the authority to examine TikTok's US facilities, records, equipment, and
Speaker 1: servers with minimal or no notice block changes to the apps,
Speaker 1: US terms of service, moderation policies and privacy policy, veto
Speaker 1: the hiring of any executive involved in leading TikTok's US
Speaker 1: data Security. Org order TikTok and byte Dance to pay
Speaker 1: for and subject themselves to various audits, assessments, and other
Speaker 1: reports on the security of TikTok's US functions, and in
Speaker 1: some circumstances require bytdance to temporarily stop TikTok from functioning
Speaker 1: within the United States. So what's really interesting to me
Speaker 1: here that Forbes points out is that this agreement would
Speaker 1: essentially give the United States government a very similar kind
Speaker 1: of act success and power that lawmakers have worried about
Speaker 1: China having forbus rights. In one revealing comment, Exchange attorneys
Speaker 1: for Byteedance explained to c si US that they have
Speaker 1: addressed language that prevents the government from demanding changes of
Speaker 1: TikTok's recommendation algorithm simply because it recommended content that the
Speaker 1: government does not like. And so that is exactly what
Speaker 1: foes have been like, Oh, China will do that, and
Speaker 1: now this agreement is saying maybe the United States government
Speaker 1: should be able to do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I that is so weird to be about this
Speaker 3: whole debate, which is like, I mean and like obviously
Speaker 3: that and I guess not obviously, but like they've made
Speaker 3: it clear the attention behind it is just that they're bad,
Speaker 3: that they're not the ones that are like Facebook has
Speaker 3: been doing worship for like the law. I don't know,
Speaker 3: it's very strange. I also I don't know. Whenever this
Speaker 3: comes up, I'm always like, what did politicians think people
Speaker 3: are like doing on TikTok like what I don't know
Speaker 3: most for you page is like I get a lot
Speaker 3: of those, like the things with people playing video games
Speaker 3: and there's like climb over it, like I don't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: Anyways, that's it's this whole thing is so silly and
Speaker 3: somehow also terrifying. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And you make a good point that so much
Speaker 1: of what lawmakers in the US have talked about when
Speaker 1: it comes to this threat that they say that TikTok
Speaker 1: poses as from being a Chinese owned company is very hypothetical.
Speaker 1: It's not like they're saying the videos where somebody is
Speaker 1: playing Mario Kart and then there's a sitcom on top
Speaker 1: of it, those are national securities. It's not like they
Speaker 1: have some smoking gun. It's all very hypothetical. And if
Speaker 1: the government and TikTok were to go ahead with this agreement,
Speaker 1: that would mean that TikTok would be subjected to more
Speaker 1: government oversight and scrutiny than any other social media platform
Speaker 1: that's run in the United States, like Facebook or Twitter,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure is making folks like Zuckerberg and Elon
Speaker 1: Musk very very happy. That's sort of one of my
Speaker 1: overall concerns about legislation around TikTok is that I feel
Speaker 1: like the United States their real quibble is that they
Speaker 1: want the US to be the only game in town
Speaker 1: when it comes to big tech, and so they want
Speaker 1: to have this dynamic where American companies basically go unscrutinized
Speaker 1: by the American government, you know, unless they really break
Speaker 1: the law, and even then it's not really that much scrutiny,
Speaker 1: and where TikTok has this completely different operating standard where
Speaker 1: they have complete scrutiny and oversight by the American government.
Speaker 1: And like, it just a weird dynamic that I just
Speaker 1: feel like is not actually rooted in keeping our data
Speaker 1: safe and secure.
Speaker 2: It's rooted in something else.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I mean it's it's again, it's very clearly
Speaker 3: sort of rooted in this weird sort of like anti
Speaker 3: China cetophobia that happens. The thing to me too, is
Speaker 3: it's always like, look, I'm not I don't think any
Speaker 3: country should be getting my data collecting my data. But
Speaker 3: at the same time, it's like, it doesn't the US
Speaker 3: do that to like every other country that uses are like, like,
Speaker 3: it isn't that every country thing? It is the Facebook
Speaker 3: like we also, I don't know, it's the whole Yeah,
Speaker 3: like America wants to control all the big tag I
Speaker 3: just think it's kind of silly. Yeah. I remember also
Speaker 3: like when Facebook China banned like Facebook, and that was
Speaker 3: like a big thing, and they were like, see how
Speaker 3: repressive this government. It's like, this is not the same
Speaker 3: vision of tech. I don't not saying that was a
Speaker 3: good move either, but yes, but.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's the it's like the same things. It's like
Speaker 1: if that was horrible and you know, repressive, what is
Speaker 1: this like? You know, I'm I'm I just have a
Speaker 1: lot of questions. And I also think it puts a
Speaker 1: lot of power in the hands of government. Patrick Toomey,
Speaker 1: deputy director of the ACLU's National Security Project, told Forbes
Speaker 1: if this agreement would give the US government the power
Speaker 1: to dictate what content TikTok can or cannot carry or
Speaker 1: how it makes those decisions, that would raise serious concerns
Speaker 1: about the government's ability to censor or distort what people
Speaker 1: are saying or what it on TikTok. And I completely agree,
Speaker 1: and I think that doing that in service of quote,
Speaker 1: you know, having a more secure data privacy practice doesn't really.
Speaker 1: I mean it's just I just think that we're it's
Speaker 1: such a big grand standing around one app when what
Speaker 1: we actually need is meaningful, comprehensive data privacy laws. Like
Speaker 1: if if this agreement were to be in place, I
Speaker 1: don't think that our data would be made that much
Speaker 1: more safe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I totally agree. I also the point about
Speaker 3: like it's the government is going to be allowed to
Speaker 3: kind of dictate what can and cannot be seen. I
Speaker 3: mean the whole that episode that I did for Spin
Speaker 3: to about the whole problem with like Kosa and all
Speaker 3: these other like internet bills that are going around, is that, yeah,
Speaker 3: they're not really addressing the data privacy issue. They're just
Speaker 3: sort of trying to monitor what is or is not
Speaker 3: going to be on the Internet. And honestly, like I
Speaker 3: said in that episode, or you listen back to it,
Speaker 3: I learned about that issue from TikTok, from a lot
Speaker 3: of like TikTokers that we're doing activism and trying to
Speaker 3: weareness raise awareness about this bell Yeah, I it's just
Speaker 3: so weird. This also makes me thing I remember, like
Speaker 3: because this started with Trump, right, Trump tried to ban TikTok,
Speaker 3: and it was also right after there was that whole
Speaker 3: thing where like he had some huge rally that was
Speaker 3: supposed to happen and then like it ended up being
Speaker 3: like a fraction of like the people that it bought tickets,
Speaker 3: because it was like there was a whole thing on
Speaker 3: TikTok that like kids were like reserving seats and then
Speaker 3: not so yeah yeah, And I was like because I
Speaker 3: remember when that happened, and it was like, oh, this
Speaker 3: is yeah, Trump's clearly trying to ban TikTok because he's
Speaker 3: just mad about that. Like this just seems like it's
Speaker 3: carried over from that, which I don't know. It's all
Speaker 3: very strange to me.
Speaker 1: That is Actually when I got TikTok, I was like
Speaker 1: I was totally one of those people who was like,
Speaker 1: it's just kids dancing, Like I was like a TikTok skeptic.
Speaker 1: And then when Trump was gonna ban it, I remember
Speaker 1: reading a news headline. It was one of those headlines
Speaker 1: where like I didn't click into it, and like, actually,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why I do the newscast. It's
Speaker 1: like headlines that you might see you didn't click into,
Speaker 1: and like here's the here's what you need to know.
Speaker 1: But so like the headline I saw was like, oh,
Speaker 1: you have until X day to download TikTok if you
Speaker 1: want to download it, and I was like, well, I
Speaker 1: don't want the chance. I don't want to like want
Speaker 1: to have it and not have it, so let me
Speaker 1: download it. So like that was the first time that
Speaker 1: I ever got it. And then I was like, oh, there,
Speaker 1: it's actually an app that I enjoy.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I forgot about that, but I remember it now.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that was that was a really funny time to
Speaker 3: be on tik tik. I also, I think it was
Speaker 3: before I was also like using it a lot, like
Speaker 3: I was working on I just like had that app
Speaker 3: because everybody was downloading it. I was like, but yeah,
Speaker 3: that was like again, yeah, it's it's a it's a platform.
Speaker 3: There are problems with the platform. I would be happy
Speaker 3: to go into all the many, many problems that I
Speaker 3: have a TikTok, but also like, it's a platform that
Speaker 3: exists in the world. There's good and bad and yeah,
Speaker 3: I ultimately it's you know, this is just going to
Speaker 3: be used to curb organizing and free speech. None of
Speaker 3: the free speech absolutists are shown up around this issue.
Speaker 3: I wonder why, like, yeah, where are they?
Speaker 4: Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1: Okay, So question for you, Joey. This has never happened
Speaker 1: to me, but I know that it's happened to people.
Speaker 1: Have you ever taken an uber or gotten an Instacart
Speaker 1: order or something like that and then had a worker
Speaker 1: contact you after the fact because they had your information
Speaker 1: because they wanted to date or wanted to ask you out,
Speaker 1: or like some other inappropriate vibes given?
Speaker 2: Has it ever happened to you?
Speaker 3: So that has not happened to me. That's definitely something
Speaker 3: I've been worried about. Like, it's something I feel like,
Speaker 3: especially if you're somebody who like designs female or feminine,
Speaker 3: you're gonna have that kind of anxiety in the back
Speaker 3: of your head. I mean maybe everybody does. I'm making assumptions,
Speaker 3: but yeah, it's definitely I'm definitely like worried about that.
Speaker 3: Haven't had it happen though.
Speaker 1: Same, I've not had it happen, but I it's definitely
Speaker 1: something in the back of my head. And we are
Speaker 1: not alone because, according to a new survey, the rise
Speaker 1: of things like gig work also means a rise in
Speaker 1: this kind of inappropriate behavior. Two thousand British adults were
Speaker 1: surveyed by the Information Commissioner's Office or the ICO, and
Speaker 1: the survey found that seventeen percent of people have had
Speaker 1: their personal information used for a romantic or sexual proposition
Speaker 1: after handing it over to a business. That figure rises
Speaker 1: to thirty three percent in London, where apparently this kind
Speaker 1: of thing is more common. Almost one in three Brits
Speaker 1: between the ages eighteen and thirty four have received unwanted
Speaker 1: contact from delivery drivers or other workers, asking them out
Speaker 1: on dates or propositioning them for sex. It is the
Speaker 1: way that you put it, Joey, is so true, Like
Speaker 1: this has not happened to me before. I've heard of
Speaker 1: it happening. I've seen reports of it happening. It's like
Speaker 1: a thing in the back of your mind. Whenever you
Speaker 1: use a service like this, you know, and I think
Speaker 1: it's one of the reasons why it feels that way
Speaker 1: is by nature, when you are giving your information and
Speaker 1: your contact information over to a company, by default, you're
Speaker 1: like a little bit vulnerable, especially if somebody is coming
Speaker 1: to your house to deliver something or dropping you off
Speaker 1: at home if you're alone. Like I understand the feeling
Speaker 1: of like, oh, no, is this person going to proposition me?
Speaker 1: You know, And I don't have any data on it,
Speaker 1: but I have to assume that this is an issue
Speaker 1: that impacts women or people who present as women disproportionately,
Speaker 1: Like I just have to assume, And I think, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it can feel unsafe. Despite never having had to deal
Speaker 1: with this myself, I can imagine feeling really unsafe. And
Speaker 1: Emily Keiney, a deputy missioner at the ICO, said people
Speaker 1: have the right to order a pizza or give their
Speaker 1: email for a seat, or have shop being delivered without
Speaker 1: being asked for sex, or on a date a little
Speaker 1: while later, And I completely agree. I also think that
Speaker 1: some of this might be like partly cultural. I think
Speaker 1: that we have so many signals in society that suggest
Speaker 1: that this is the kind of quirky or romantic or
Speaker 1: like big grand gesture way to sort of show someone
Speaker 1: that you're taking the initiative to show romantic interest. Like
Speaker 1: how many movies do we have that suggest that, like, oh,
Speaker 1: just just go up and like do some big grand gesture,
Speaker 1: They're gonna love it. And I think that like we
Speaker 1: have been training people that this is a romantic thing
Speaker 1: and that the person on the receiving end of it
Speaker 1: is going to be is going to like it. But
Speaker 1: you know, we're just trying to get take like get
Speaker 1: our delivery food and go back into our apartment, right Like,
Speaker 1: we're not trying to get a date. Everybody should have
Speaker 1: the right to use services and not feel like the
Speaker 1: person is going to be texting them after that because
Speaker 1: they have their number, you know.
Speaker 3: No, that's so true. Though. I feel like I'm not
Speaker 3: a big rom com person. I feel like this is
Speaker 3: what I always say that that I'm of course, whenever
Speaker 3: I watch a rom com that I really like, I'm like,
Speaker 3: this is so cut. But I think that's the issue
Speaker 3: is there's so many where it's like this is a
Speaker 3: little weird, like there's there's something a little off here. Yeah. No,
Speaker 3: I also like I could totally see that being something
Speaker 3: that would be like go viral on like Twitter, where
Speaker 3: it's like, oh my god, this person messaged me after
Speaker 3: dropping off my pizza and now we're marry, Like it's
Speaker 3: it's it's weird and it's weird like the kind of
Speaker 3: stories that we see as normal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I it's something it's something that I really I
Speaker 1: like rom coms, but it's something that I hate in
Speaker 1: rom coms, where it's like it's like in the romantic
Speaker 1: comedy universe boundaries, it's not a thing, like, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't like that. I did once get into a
Speaker 1: long conversation that lasted after the fact with my insta
Speaker 1: cart shopper because I had ordered Tabasco sauce and rather
Speaker 1: than Tabasco sauce, the instacart shopper gave me liquid smoke
Speaker 1: and I was like, it wasn't a big deal, like whatever,
Speaker 1: but I was like, this person should know that, like
Speaker 1: Tabasco sauce and liquid smoke are not synonymous. And so
Speaker 1: I messaged back and I was like, hey, just so
Speaker 1: you know, like for your own cooking, this is not
Speaker 1: a like synonymous thing. And it was a perfectly pleasant interaction,
Speaker 1: but it ended with, boy, you really have a lot
Speaker 1: of opinions about cooking like I should do.
Speaker 2: That's accurate.
Speaker 3: I love that. So that's like a nice interaction. Yeah,
Speaker 3: it was nice interactions. Yes, it was a nice plenty
Speaker 3: of really great conversations with the uber drivers. Yeah, that's
Speaker 3: always some thing too. I feel like, you know, the
Speaker 3: particular typographics that always responds to these sort of things
Speaker 3: with like, oh, so we can't be nice to do
Speaker 3: It's like, no, I've hat like lovely conversations with like
Speaker 3: white uber drivers about like I'm pretty young, I look
Speaker 3: like I'm still in college. So usually it's like, you know,
Speaker 3: parents telling me about their kids are in college that
Speaker 3: kind of stuff. But it's always like it's super nice
Speaker 3: and cute, and I don't know, there's definitely a very
Speaker 3: clear line about what's what is too far and what
Speaker 3: is at least I think there is.
Speaker 2: I think I agree.
Speaker 1: I think if your proposition is for somebody propositioning somebody
Speaker 1: for sex or a date, that's probably on the other
Speaker 1: side of that line. And England is actually cracking down
Speaker 1: on this. The ICO is urging people who have been
Speaker 1: victims of this kind of thing to come forward and
Speaker 1: reminding companies of their data protection responsibilities that they are
Speaker 1: bound to uphold by law. Companies who are violating data
Speaker 1: protection laws can be fined up to seventeen point five
Speaker 1: million pounds that's about twenty two point one million dollars,
Speaker 1: and so yeah, they're just reminding folks that like it
Speaker 1: is doing this getting someone's number because they did a
Speaker 1: service with you is against the law, and contacting them
Speaker 1: after the fact is against the law. And I think
Speaker 1: there needs to be a cultural understanding that somebody who
Speaker 1: is doing service with you, just because you have their
Speaker 1: information that is not give you the green light to
Speaker 1: like text them after the fact for a date.
Speaker 2: So I'm happy to.
Speaker 1: See England cracking down on this. So let's move to
Speaker 1: the AI world, something we talk quite a bit about
Speaker 1: on the show. So this week we spoke to actor
Speaker 1: and producer Francesca Ramsey on the podcast about the Hollywood
Speaker 1: strikes and how writers and actors are demanding guardrails about
Speaker 1: how AI will be used in writers' rooms and on sets.
Speaker 2: Hollywood studios have already put up.
Speaker 1: Job listings for like very lucrative jobs for AI specialists
Speaker 1: amidst the strike, which kind of gives you a lens
Speaker 1: and to how they're thinking about the strike and how
Speaker 1: they're thinking about the culture of how content gets made already,
Speaker 1: and what writers really want to know is like how
Speaker 1: AI is going to impact their presence on set, Like
Speaker 1: are studios going to try to be funny with the
Speaker 1: math and sneak in AI and then use that to
Speaker 1: not pay human and writers?
Speaker 2: You know, they want to know if AI is. The
Speaker 2: example that.
Speaker 1: Francesca Ramsay used in this week's episode was if AI
Speaker 1: generates the first janki version of a script and then
Speaker 1: a human writer punches that script up, who gets credit
Speaker 1: for that script? Who gets paid for that script? Does
Speaker 1: the human writer get paid for it? I bet the
Speaker 1: studios would love it if they were to say, like, oh, no,
Speaker 1: you just get paid on making tweaks, even though you
Speaker 1: know the original script is probably super janky and did
Speaker 1: need a heavy lift from a human hand. And so
Speaker 1: in Hollywood, writers and actors really want some guardrails around
Speaker 1: how studios plan to use AI. But this new ruling
Speaker 1: might throw revenge and studios plans around AI because a
Speaker 1: federal judge just ruled that a piece of art generated
Speaker 1: by AI cannot be copyrighted. The lawsuit was brought by
Speaker 1: plaintiffs Stephen th Taylor, who wanted to list his own
Speaker 1: AI system as the sole creator of an artwork called
Speaker 1: a Recent Entrance to Paradise, and the courts basically said, nah,
Speaker 1: humans only. Copyright is for human work only. The judge
Speaker 1: said humans are an essential part of a valid copyright
Speaker 1: claim and that human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.
Speaker 1: Plaintiff can point to no case in which a court
Speaker 1: has recognized copyright and a work originating with a non
Speaker 1: human This is not a cut and drive ruling, I
Speaker 1: should say. The judge did suggest that cases in the
Speaker 1: future could be more complicated and quote will prompt challenging
Speaker 1: questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify
Speaker 1: the user of an AI system as an author of
Speaker 1: a generated work. So if studios are not able to
Speaker 1: retain copyright of creative work created solely by AI, the
Speaker 1: whole you know, we'll just let AI write scripts instead
Speaker 1: of paying writers. Thing might not shake out in their favor.
Speaker 3: This whole story is so funny. I mean obviously, okay,
Speaker 3: the like everything that has happened to do this let
Speaker 3: up to this with like the fact that you know,
Speaker 3: the writers and the actors have had to go on strike,
Speaker 3: which full solidarity with them of course lost by the
Speaker 3: picket line earlier today, etc. Some errands in Mintown and
Speaker 3: love it love seeing the Yeah it was it was great.
Speaker 3: But anyways, this whole I just.
Speaker 5: This whole situation because especially watching like what the way
Speaker 5: that these big companies and these big production companies have
Speaker 5: used copyright to like screw over.
Speaker 3: People in the past. I like, you know, I'm a
Speaker 3: big Marble fan, but like the way that the company
Speaker 3: runs is totally messed up. Like again, they use copyright
Speaker 3: to screw over a lot of their writers and to
Speaker 3: like kind of not give people credit for shit that
Speaker 3: we were doing in the past. And it's I don't know,
Speaker 3: it's just funny to see this now them being like, oh, nope,
Speaker 3: we can't use copyright for AI.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 3: I also have like the whole idea of like AI
Speaker 3: writing a script like that's not gonna work. It's not
Speaker 3: gonna be good.
Speaker 2: No exactly.
Speaker 1: So that was the question that I had for Francesca
Speaker 1: Ramsey in the episode. It was like, I believe the
Speaker 1: idea that AI would write a good script like a
Speaker 1: like like you know, good enough to be a show.
Speaker 2: Is like a fantasy. And Francisca agrees.
Speaker 1: She's like, right now, there has to be a human
Speaker 1: in the mix somewhere for a script to be good,
Speaker 1: and like we probably all I don't know if you
Speaker 1: ever did those parlor tricks where it's like, oh, we
Speaker 1: trained AI on a bunch of episodes of Seinfeld and
Speaker 1: then here's what they came up with, and the joke
Speaker 1: is that they're always janky and funny and don't make sense,
Speaker 1: Like the reason why we do those is because they're
Speaker 1: bad at it. But Francesca points out that while that
Speaker 1: might be the case now, that might not be the
Speaker 1: case forever. And so like three years down the road,
Speaker 1: you know, is what if AI is can write a
Speaker 1: passable first draft, and so really looking to the future
Speaker 1: and sort of anticipating what's on the horizon, because you know,
Speaker 1: again she it's it's it's an inn. I keep referencing,
Speaker 1: referencing the interview because it was a fascinating conversation. But
Speaker 1: she references how when in twenty twelve there the new
Speaker 1: contracts with the Writers' union talked about like content made
Speaker 1: solely for the Internet, but that was like in twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: there weren't really like shows on the internet like that,
Speaker 1: like maybe you had a web series, but it was
Speaker 1: before streaming, and so people didn't know. People couldn't predict
Speaker 1: like how content made for the Internet would take off
Speaker 1: and like streaming would become a thing, and it kind
Speaker 1: of bit them in the ass, not being future forward,
Speaker 1: and so I think with the AI stuff, the writers
Speaker 1: and actors are trying to think, what's on the horizon,
Speaker 1: How will this be used to exploit my labor? How
Speaker 1: will this be used to like undercut me and underpay me?
Speaker 1: Because that's unfortunately, that's how a lot of these executives think, like,
Speaker 1: how can we use this technology to like scam the
Speaker 1: people who make our jobs possible?
Speaker 3: Exactly. Yeah, it's so there's so many scary things that
Speaker 3: could happen because this I feel like already wasn't there
Speaker 3: some movies they made that they like they like used
Speaker 3: CGI to like make like James Dean to be in it.
Speaker 3: It was some whole thing or like yeah, the most
Speaker 3: recent like Star Wars movie when they had like after
Speaker 3: Carrie Fisher died, they had like a CGI carry Fisher
Speaker 3: Like that was the whole thing where it's like it's
Speaker 3: stealing people's likeness. How does that? That was weird? Like
Speaker 3: we already have that, and that's personally as somebody watching
Speaker 3: like watching those movies, it's kind of creepy, Like I
Speaker 3: don't know, I didn't like that when they did that
Speaker 3: in like Star Wars. I haven't seen any other movies
Speaker 3: where they've done it yet, but it's like it's a
Speaker 3: little weird, but yeah, it's it's it's scary to see
Speaker 3: that that's that's a possibility, and they definitely are like yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: So I've even I've heard of actors and musicians adding
Speaker 1: provisions into their contracts saying that like, don't use my
Speaker 1: likeness in AI, do not use technology to make AI,
Speaker 1: you know, fabricated versions of me. And I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna see more and more of that of creatives really
Speaker 1: getting particular about how their their usage and their likeness
Speaker 1: shows up even in death. Like there's just something very
Speaker 1: all to me personally about like Robin Williams is no
Speaker 1: longer with us. Robin Williams died before AI took off.
Speaker 1: Using that fact that someone died before this technology was
Speaker 1: ubiquitous to be like, oh, we're gonna put them in,
Speaker 1: you know, after their death in a movie that they
Speaker 1: can't they can't agree to do, they can't say whether
Speaker 1: or not they do it.
Speaker 2: That just feels really off to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is. It's it's really strange. It feels very like,
Speaker 3: I don't know, especially if you're an actor, like you're
Speaker 3: putting yourself in that role you are, you are putting
Speaker 3: your image, you're attaching your image to that movie or whatever.
Speaker 3: And it's these people aren't giving they're not giving their
Speaker 3: consent to be, you know, a part of whatever they're
Speaker 3: being put in now after their death. Yeah, it's it's
Speaker 3: so weird. The music thing, too, I think is interesting
Speaker 3: because kind of going back to the tik tok and
Speaker 3: all this thing. One thing that I've been seeing lately
Speaker 3: that has been annoying me. So there's all these like
Speaker 3: videos going around that are like have you ever wondered
Speaker 3: like this pop song but like we did a Frank
Speaker 3: Sinatra ay, and it's really like it's always presented as
Speaker 3: this like oh this is so cool, like mashing job,
Speaker 3: and it's like or you could have like found somebody
Speaker 3: to like do a cover of it in like a
Speaker 3: jazz style or whatever like that. It's it's weird. I think,
Speaker 3: like I get the appeal of it, and I get
Speaker 3: the like especially like I've gotten a couple times where
Speaker 3: I've like seen on a re be like this is
Speaker 3: really cool and then been like huh, like maybe it
Speaker 3: is a little messed up that they're like having an ai
Speaker 3: do this when but yeah, it's it's strange and weird,
Speaker 3: and I think we should just let people be creative
Speaker 3: because that's part of being human and it's I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I gotta take my cues from Prince on that one.
Speaker 1: Prince was notoriously against, like I'm a huge Prince Man
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm like obsessed with. Prince was notoriously
Speaker 1: against things like holograms or a digital likenesses of his image.
Speaker 1: And he has this line that says, that is the
Speaker 1: most demonic thing imaginable. Everything is as it is and
Speaker 1: as it should be. If I was meant to jam
Speaker 1: with Duke Ellington, we would have lived in the same age.
Speaker 1: And that really speaks to me of like some things
Speaker 1: aren't and they weren't meant to be, and like some
Speaker 1: it can be like a cool parlor trick to be like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is what it would sound like if like Biggie
Speaker 1: Small's sang a Olivia Rodrigo song or whatever. Like I
Speaker 1: get it, I get it, I get it, But like
Speaker 1: some things are not because they were not meant to be.
Speaker 2: I think some of those are good examples.
Speaker 3: But yeah, now the question of the hour, bridget I'm
Speaker 3: on your show for the first time. I gotta know
Speaker 3: what's Elan done.
Speaker 1: Now, glad you asked, Well, he's talking about wanting to
Speaker 1: remove all of the headlines, all of the text from
Speaker 1: news articles on Twitter, so that when you see a
Speaker 1: news article, all you would see is an image, no headline,
Speaker 1: no help or text. It's because he wants like journalists,
Speaker 1: this is what he says. He wants journalists to publish
Speaker 1: directly on Twitter, and like see that as a valuable
Speaker 1: thing to do. I think the outcome will be really obvious.
Speaker 1: People already like barely click into the article to read
Speaker 1: what they're about, and I can only imagine that's going
Speaker 1: to happen even less with this move, further eroding the
Speaker 1: platform as a place to get accurate news and undermined
Speaker 1: news publishers as well. They don't have their name on them,
Speaker 1: that will undermine the ability for them to really get
Speaker 1: their name out there. But I also think it's meant
Speaker 1: to sort of further blow up the division between journalists
Speaker 1: from reputable platforms and people who just like make content
Speaker 1: because Elon does not respect journalists or a free press.
Speaker 1: That has been a notable thing about him. It's been
Speaker 1: a clear he has shown us that with his actions
Speaker 1: and behavior time and time again, and so I think
Speaker 1: that he wants internet personalities like you're Brian Cransnstein's and
Speaker 1: you're like, I don't know, right wing grievance s grifters
Speaker 1: who use social media platforms. I think that by removing
Speaker 1: anything but the image, those people are going to be
Speaker 1: seen in the same way as like people from legit
Speaker 1: news platforms like Reuter's or something right, And so I
Speaker 1: think that, like, that's why he's doing it.
Speaker 2: We hate it, hate to see it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is weird. It is like it's a text
Speaker 3: based platform. People are mostly going for the you know.
Speaker 3: And also I guess again it is sort of frustrating
Speaker 3: that people just read the headlines. We'll repost things based
Speaker 3: on the headlines. But I don't know, this doesn't seem
Speaker 3: like the way to assault that this is a really
Speaker 3: weird move, weird to saying it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Oh, and he's maybe making his terrible jokes
Speaker 1: and like tweeting the word concerning with a thinking face emoji,
Speaker 1: which he loves to tweet to nobody because his followers
Speaker 1: might be fake. If that was true, there will be
Speaker 1: it will be very housewives of him to have fake followers,
Speaker 1: just saying going back to my point about how all
Speaker 1: of that our behavior can be understood to glens of housewives.
Speaker 1: Mashable reports that a significant chunk of Elon Musk's more
Speaker 1: than one hundred and fifty three million followers on Twitter
Speaker 1: appear to be fake or at the very least inactive.
Speaker 1: Here's some stats. Forty two percent of Musk's followers have
Speaker 1: zero followers on their own account. Over seventy two percent
Speaker 1: of the users who follow Musk have less than ten
Speaker 1: followers on their accounts. More than sixty two point five
Speaker 1: million of musk followers have zero tweets. More than one
Speaker 1: hundred million of Musk's followers have less than ten tweets.
Speaker 1: And another very interesting detail is the timing of his
Speaker 1: follow when he got followers, so he's currently the most
Speaker 1: followed person on Twitter, surprise surprise. When his followers created
Speaker 1: their accounts is pretty interesting. Musk completed his acquisition of
Speaker 1: Twitter on October twenty seven, twenty twenty two. Out of
Speaker 1: all of Musk's current followers, more than twenty five percent,
Speaker 1: or thirty eight point nine million, were created on or
Speaker 1: after that date. So that's suspicious, like, and I think
Speaker 1: it really, if we're to understand Mosqu's followers as a
Speaker 1: micropasm of Twitter itself and who's showing up there, it
Speaker 1: doesn't paint a very like this is a very damning report,
Speaker 1: and I think it's not just about his followers, but
Speaker 1: also about like who's using the platform, who's showing up
Speaker 1: on the platform in.
Speaker 2: General, Like just very not good.
Speaker 3: That's fun that's funny because I feel like recently, I
Speaker 3: just recently was like getting on Twitter again, mostly because
Speaker 3: I was affording TikTok because I was trying to avoid
Speaker 3: all this drama that was happening recently. But I like
Speaker 3: was on my Twitter again and like posted something for
Speaker 3: the first time in like a couple of months, and
Speaker 3: like the first account that liked it was some random
Speaker 3: like blue check mark account that I was like like
Speaker 3: with no Like, I was like, where did this person
Speaker 3: come from? And then it was like going through it,
Speaker 3: there was just so many like blue check mark accounts
Speaker 3: that I was seeing and I was like, there's no
Speaker 3: way that this many people as many people sent to
Speaker 3: the like eight dollars or whatever. It's yeah, yeah, it
Speaker 3: adds up. It makes sense if that is the case.
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of blue check marks. Apparently, in order to
Speaker 1: get blue check marks, Twitter is testing out a verification
Speaker 1: process for Twitter Blue to have your blue check that
Speaker 1: would involve submitting the front and back of your government
Speaker 1: ID along with the SELTE to verify your identity, to
Speaker 1: verify your account to get a blue check mark. So
Speaker 1: hopefully I don't need to say this, but please don't
Speaker 1: give Elon Musk a copy of your government ID. That
Speaker 1: is a terrible idea. Please don't do it.
Speaker 2: Don't do it. Mistake more.
Speaker 6: After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: Okay, So, speaking of Elon Musk, let's talk a little
Speaker 1: bit more about how unsafe autonomous vehicles can be. We
Speaker 1: talked about the dismal record on autonomous vehicles and crashes
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago. Well, the technology on those vehicles
Speaker 1: does a worse job of identifying people with darker skin
Speaker 1: and children as pedestrians, so pretty concerning. This is according
Speaker 1: to new research from doctor Jizong from the Department of
Speaker 1: Infomatics at King's College, who assessed eight artificial intelligence powered
Speaker 1: pedestrian detection systems used in autonomous vehicle research. Their research
Speaker 1: found that detection accuracy for adults was almost twenty percent
Speaker 1: higher than it was for children, and just over seven
Speaker 1: point five percent more accurate for light skin pedestrians compared
Speaker 1: to their darker skin counterparts. The researchers also found that
Speaker 1: this bias toward darker skin pedestrians increases significantly under scenarios
Speaker 1: of low contrast and low brightness, posing increased issues for
Speaker 1: night time driving. So basically, children and people with darker
Speaker 1: skin are less likely to be recognized as pedestrians by
Speaker 1: autonomous driving vehicles. Pretty scary to me, I think, especially
Speaker 1: the thing about kids is that if you spent any
Speaker 1: time at all around kids, they like, you really can't
Speaker 1: trust a little one to not dart out in an
Speaker 1: unexpected way.
Speaker 2: And so if these vehicles are already less likely.
Speaker 1: To recognize them as pedestrians, and then add on the
Speaker 1: fact that they're squirmy little six year olds or whatever,
Speaker 1: it paints a pretty terrifying picture. And you know, it
Speaker 1: should be said that black women technologists and researchers I'm
Speaker 1: thinking of doctor Sophia Noble and doctor Joe bol Lawini
Speaker 1: have been saying this for a really long time, and
Speaker 1: it actually points back to the reason why I was
Speaker 1: inspired to start this podcast.
Speaker 2: In the first place.
Speaker 1: Side note, there was a much must read Rolling Stone
Speaker 1: profile of how black women like them have been trying
Speaker 1: to sound the alarm about II for years, and it
Speaker 1: is just a really good reminder that inclusion in technology
Speaker 1: is not important because it's like the right thing to
Speaker 1: do or the nice thing to do. It is, but
Speaker 1: that's not the only reason it matters. It is because
Speaker 1: there are real consequences when the spaces that where technology
Speaker 1: is made are not inclusive. Right, When the people who
Speaker 1: make technology like autonomous vehicles are too homogenous or they're
Speaker 1: not thinking enough about being inclusive and different kinds of people,
Speaker 1: they're not then testing them and training them on a
Speaker 1: diverse enough data set, right, And so it's this weird
Speaker 1: thing where the erasure or lack of inclusion means that
Speaker 1: we aren't just not represented in the rooms of the
Speaker 1: technology is being made. In turn, that erasure can actually
Speaker 1: get us killed and have real world light or death consequences.
Speaker 1: As doctor Zong explains, fairness when it comes to AI
Speaker 1: is when an AI system treats privileged and underprivileged groups
Speaker 1: the same, which is not what is happening when it
Speaker 1: comes to autonomous vehicles. Car manufacturers don't release the details
Speaker 1: of the software they use for pedestrian to tech, but
Speaker 1: they are usually built upon the same open source systems
Speaker 1: we used in our research. We can be quite sure
Speaker 1: that they are running into the same issues of bias.
Speaker 1: While the impact of unfair AI systems is already well documented,
Speaker 1: from AI recruitment software favoring male applicants to facial recognition
Speaker 1: software being less accurate for black women than for white men,
Speaker 1: the danger that self driving cars can pose is acute.
Speaker 1: Before minority individuals may have been denied vital services. Now
Speaker 1: they might face severe injury. And I think that is
Speaker 1: exactly right. It is like one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: I will scream from the rooftops that this technology. It's
Speaker 1: so easy to think of technology like AI, like it's
Speaker 1: some kind of robot computer brain that is like acting
Speaker 1: on a different plane than we humans are. But in reality,
Speaker 1: that technology is trained and built and designed by humans,
Speaker 1: and so it's going to be replicating the very same
Speaker 1: biases that we know that humans have. And so if
Speaker 1: that is the case, and these biases come into play
Speaker 1: where the technology is trained to not fully recognized children
Speaker 1: or people of color as human as pedestrians, that autonomous
Speaker 1: vehicles should not hit that is a problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I think it's honestly, like all of this,
Speaker 3: it's not a coincidence that this is happening at the
Speaker 3: same time, Like we're having this conversation about like facial
Speaker 3: recognition and facial because you did that story last week
Speaker 3: about the woman who is like, you know, arrested for
Speaker 3: a crime she didn't commit. Because these facial recognition systems
Speaker 3: they are best of to begin with, I don't think
Speaker 3: we should be having them to begin with. But that's
Speaker 3: another point would be it's like they're they're being designed
Speaker 3: a specific way, They're being designed with a specific type
Speaker 3: of person in mind, and oftentimes it's very exclusionary. And yeah,
Speaker 3: again this is this is another example that was that
Speaker 3: is going to lead to people being killed and that
Speaker 3: that's terrifying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's absolutely terrifying.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I don't know if you've ever been
Speaker 3: in a self driving car, but in a self driving
Speaker 3: tessela specifically, but I have this experience and it is
Speaker 3: not fun. It is very scary. That was my personal experience.
Speaker 3: I'm sure other people, but it is I don't think
Speaker 3: that that technology is anywhere near safe enough for people
Speaker 3: to be using a public.
Speaker 1: But yeah, Joey, I never have, nor would I ever
Speaker 1: like this is it was. I don't need choice, Oh
Speaker 1: my god, I want to know everything, Like I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm sure people listening are like, actually it's safe for them.
Speaker 2: I don't care. It's it is not for me.
Speaker 4: I have.
Speaker 2: It's a personal choice. What was it like?
Speaker 3: This was from my experience. Okay, this is a couple
Speaker 3: of years ago, so it's a little but I just
Speaker 3: remember like it was super rocky. It was like very
Speaker 3: there were a lot of like clothes cop we were
Speaker 3: we weren't like we were in like a pretty empty
Speaker 3: kind of shriek, but it was just like very sharp turns.
Speaker 3: I it's just and again, this was a couple of
Speaker 3: years ago. This is my experience. I'm not saying this
Speaker 3: is I'm sure somebody is gonna be like, actually, it's
Speaker 3: really great. I'm sure whatever. This is not me trying
Speaker 3: to slander Tasla. But I my personal experience from the
Speaker 3: one time that I was in a self driving car,
Speaker 3: from the time that I was in a Tesla and
Speaker 3: the person driving it went, hey, actually do turn on
Speaker 3: this self driving feature, and then did it was really scary,
Speaker 3: and I would not do that again, and I would
Speaker 3: not recommend that you could do that.
Speaker 2: So yeah, yeah that I mean, I it's just not
Speaker 2: for me.
Speaker 1: There are certain things I don't need to see the
Speaker 1: stats on the safety, like self driving cars not for me. Uh,
Speaker 1: small planes not for me. There are just certain things.
Speaker 1: It's like we've we've assessed it, we've made a call.
Speaker 3: Not for us, just being in a car that is
Speaker 3: already so dangerous, like oh my god, Yes, we don't
Speaker 3: really think about that because we use cars for like everything.
Speaker 3: We live in a very car based kind of society.
Speaker 3: But it's it's it is like, it's very dangerous to
Speaker 3: be in a car, and I don't know, I don't
Speaker 3: really want to add another layer to that of another
Speaker 3: reason that I could get killed or somebody else could
Speaker 3: get killed because of a vehicle that I'm in.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's there are plenty of ways to die.
Speaker 1: I don't need to add one to the I don't
Speaker 1: need to add pylon to already a high list.
Speaker 4: More.
Speaker 6: After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this might sound like kind of a niche story,
Speaker 1: but I promise you have a bigger point in why
Speaker 1: I'm mentioning it. Okay, So did you ever do you
Speaker 1: ever read auto Straddle the outlet?
Speaker 3: I do, Yes, that was I think one of the
Speaker 3: first like queer publications I remember learning like hearing about Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, same. So it is an independent LGBTQ media outlet.
Speaker 1: It is very influential publish as some of the most
Speaker 1: thoughtful writing from queer voices and has for the last
Speaker 1: fourteen years. I would put it up there in terms
Speaker 1: of like foundational media outlets. I'd put it up there
Speaker 1: with like Bitch Magazine, The hair Pen, and Jazz Bell
Speaker 1: in terms of being foundational parts of the Internet of
Speaker 1: Internet discourse from marginalized perspectives and voices. The Hairpin and
Speaker 1: Bitch Magazine have sadly closed their doors. Rip jess Bell
Speaker 1: still exists, but like as a shell of its former self. So,
Speaker 1: like many independent media outlets, it had a lot of
Speaker 1: economic ups and downs and struggles. It seemed like Autostraddle
Speaker 1: was either going to fold or be sold or something like.
Speaker 1: They've had a lot of issues and it turns out
Speaker 1: it's the latter.
Speaker 2: Defector.
Speaker 1: Media reports that auto Straddle is being acquired by the
Speaker 1: two year old queer wellness company for them. In an
Speaker 1: all equity deal, auto Straddle would maintain their editorial independence.
Speaker 1: According to a press release from for Them, for Them
Speaker 1: plans to continue to build on Auto Strale's editorial work
Speaker 1: like podcasts and for what it's worth, it sounds like
Speaker 1: the staff at auto Straddle may be kind of cautiously
Speaker 1: optimistic because like, at least this move avoids a shutdown
Speaker 1: on the site, at least they get to still be
Speaker 1: paid to make their content. Totally sounds like it's something
Speaker 1: that they're like cautiously optimistic about. And this is all
Speaker 1: happening at a time when independent media, let alone independent
Speaker 1: queer focus media, is really suffering, and so I think
Speaker 1: it's definitely good to be funding these vital voices and
Speaker 1: perspectives for them. I was not a company that I
Speaker 1: was really familiar with before this story. You know, they
Speaker 1: seem like a cool company. They have all the right branding,
Speaker 1: They use all the right like words and phrases in
Speaker 1: their in their on their website. Their flagship product is
Speaker 1: a chessbinder, but they also offer a subscription and membership.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like for Them's plan was to bundle
Speaker 1: Auto Straddle's existing bonus subscription plan into their membership program,
Speaker 1: which includes access to a gender tracking app, which they
Speaker 1: describe as quote the first gender tracking app for real
Speaker 1: time gender evolution using biometric data. So it sounds like
Speaker 1: this app was meant to be something where it was
Speaker 1: like you would put in in information about how you're
Speaker 1: feeling about your gender so that you can track your
Speaker 1: evolution of like where you're at with your own understanding
Speaker 1: of and relationship to your gender. But the use of
Speaker 1: the word biometric data to describe this process is like
Speaker 1: red flag city to me, and taking a look at
Speaker 1: the app, their privacy policy is like pretty minimal. It's
Speaker 1: like pretty scant. As we discussed in our episode around Betterhelp,
Speaker 1: a lot of these apps that seem great on their face,
Speaker 1: and maybe are great on their face when you actually
Speaker 1: look down into them, what they're actually doing is taking
Speaker 1: pretty intimate information and data about us and selling it.
Speaker 1: To be clear, this is not the kind of information
Speaker 1: that I would suggest anyone to share with an app
Speaker 1: that does not have a clear and robust privacy policy,
Speaker 1: And even then it's not I wouldn't suggest that people
Speaker 1: share this kind of information with an app.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I so I have heard it for them before
Speaker 3: this because I because of the way data works, I'm somebody,
Speaker 3: I'm non binary, I'm transmit esclin. I do buind on occasion.
Speaker 3: I actually was considering buying a binder from them. I
Speaker 3: still might, we'll see, but I've heard good things. Again,
Speaker 3: I've heard good things about their binders. I'm sure that's great.
Speaker 3: But I get targeted ads from them a lot, and
Speaker 3: I get a lot of like these companies that are
Speaker 3: like targeted for queer people, for trans people, for non
Speaker 3: binary people, and yeah, that that really the whole Like
Speaker 3: having an app to track your gender journey that seems
Speaker 3: really nice. But also, like I said this in this
Speaker 3: Spincy episode that I was on, I said this before,
Speaker 3: like we're living at a time when there's like this
Speaker 3: active attack on trans people. Like I think any sort
Speaker 3: of situation where you are, and again, like I'm again,
Speaker 3: I'm somebody who's I'm trans. I talk a lot about
Speaker 3: being transce I talk a lot about being queer. I'm
Speaker 3: very open about that. But like, you don't necessarily want
Speaker 3: people to like be tracking that, Like you don't necessarily
Speaker 3: want these like third party companies to be tracking that
Speaker 3: there's so many ways that could go wrong that to
Speaker 3: sound like I don't know. I feel like when I
Speaker 3: say that, people are like, it's a little conspiracy theorist, but.
Speaker 2: I'm like, no, it's just being paucious.
Speaker 3: If you haven't martialized identity, there's a very good chant Like, yeah, no,
Speaker 3: I kind of want to keep that under apps much
Speaker 3: I can, because like I could be targeted for that. Yeah,
Speaker 3: that is so weird, especially but it's like you can journal.
Speaker 3: I journal, I'm a journaling I'm I draw a lot.
Speaker 3: And again, like I I deal with gender dysphoria and
Speaker 3: and all that, all the things that come up being
Speaker 3: you know, a trans person. There's a lot of outlets
Speaker 3: that are that are not you putting more information into
Speaker 3: some random company. But yeah, I get And this is
Speaker 3: the thing that I think is so frustrating. And there's
Speaker 3: all there's always these kind of things that pop up
Speaker 3: where it's like a you know, company that is for
Speaker 3: queer people by queer people, and it seems good and theory,
Speaker 3: but it's like, what are they gonna do with that data?
Speaker 2: Again?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Like going back to Better Help, it's like a
Speaker 3: similar thing where it seems like a great idea, but
Speaker 3: I yeah, and again I think like having a company
Speaker 3: that those binders that is run by queer people and
Speaker 3: is run by transmask people in particular, Like that's really
Speaker 3: important because there are people who are going to understand
Speaker 3: what's needed and how like how different ways it's gonna
Speaker 3: affect you. But it's like, yeah, that that seems concerning
Speaker 3: any sort of like it's also having like a publication
Speaker 3: attached to some sort of like corporation or capitalist structure
Speaker 3: seems you know, concerning. But that's a whole other conversation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well that's definitely part of it.
Speaker 1: And I think I think that's probably why the one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why the gender tracking app hit me
Speaker 1: wrong is that what you said does not sound.
Speaker 2: Conspiratorial to me.
Speaker 1: It's just unfortunately the reality that like marginalized people are
Speaker 1: under attack in this country and abroad globally as well,
Speaker 1: and so having a company that again it's like like
Speaker 1: this is no shade to them, like they seem like
Speaker 1: a cool company by all accounts. I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: to apply nefarious intent here, but I'm just keeping it real,
Speaker 1: which is that like if you are asking trans people
Speaker 1: and non binary people and clear people to put intimate
Speaker 1: information about their gender and their identity into an app,
Speaker 1: you better you need a really robust privacy policy, And
Speaker 1: if you don't have one, to me, that sounds like
Speaker 1: you're not really attuned to the realities of what people
Speaker 1: what the community is up against right now.
Speaker 2: Because yeah, I just so like that's one two.
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, I don't want to make
Speaker 1: this about for them or auto staddle specifically, because I
Speaker 1: do think it seems like a genuine partnership with possibility.
Speaker 2: But our communities really do deserve.
Speaker 1: Better than to only be able to get thoughtful stories
Speaker 1: that really center our perspectives if also our complex understandings
Speaker 1: and relationships to gender and sexuality and identity are turned
Speaker 1: into a product commodified mind and taken from us to
Speaker 1: make someone else money. Like and that is what that
Speaker 1: gender tracking app sounded like to me when I first
Speaker 1: heard it, Like our experiences are so much more thoughtful
Speaker 1: and complex and complicated and hard and fucked up and
Speaker 1: beautiful and joys. It's like there's so much there, and
Speaker 1: there ares there. They don't belong to some third party
Speaker 1: app or they don't exist, like we're not grappling with them.
Speaker 1: Just to have them taken from us so that someone
Speaker 1: else can profit. And I feel like that relationship, I
Speaker 1: feel like I really take issue with like that being
Speaker 1: presented to us as liberation, as something that is good.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I totally agree. I mean it's I feel
Speaker 3: like we have this conversation every pride about like corporations
Speaker 3: being involved in pride, and it's the whole idea of
Speaker 3: like rainbow capitalism and all of that. It's it's definitely
Speaker 3: that the end kind of end game of all of
Speaker 3: this is making somebody a lot of money. Again, It's
Speaker 3: it's nice to it's nice to have resource. It's nice
Speaker 3: to have you know, resources for talking about gender identity
Speaker 3: and sexuality and all that that are you know, run
Speaker 3: by queer people aimed towards queer people. But yeah, I
Speaker 3: don't want somebody to be like capitalizing off of my
Speaker 3: experience just existing as somebody like who is not cis gender,
Speaker 3: who is not straight like that that it's very weird. Yeah,
Speaker 3: because then yeah, because how much of a how much
Speaker 3: of a obviously not in this situation because they are
Speaker 3: like a queer company, but like other companies that are
Speaker 3: like positioning themselves as like allies. But then if you're
Speaker 3: putting people in danger because you're not protecting their data,
Speaker 3: how much of an ally are you or how much
Speaker 3: of like an activist for your community are you If
Speaker 3: you're actively putting people in danger. This whole situation just
Speaker 3: seems very shady to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, allies, active allyship, this is gonna sound nerdy as hell,
Speaker 1: but it's what I believe. Like, you can't be an
Speaker 1: active allyship is protecting my I have see and protecting
Speaker 1: my data as a marginalized person.
Speaker 2: Right, Active allyship is do not track.
Speaker 1: Active allyship is like when we're talking about tech, like
Speaker 1: it's not just like, yeah, give us your information. We'll
Speaker 1: probably keep it safe. We don't really have a policy
Speaker 1: about it, but we'll do our best. Like that is
Speaker 1: not allyship And that's not That is not like a
Speaker 1: community of safety that I want to be part of.
Speaker 1: And I think that we are both in good company.
Speaker 1: Because after some outcry for them did change the wording
Speaker 1: on their site, Defector Reports for them has removed the
Speaker 1: phrase biometric data from its gender tracking apps ad copy.
Speaker 1: In an Instagram comment addressing the concerns, they characterize the
Speaker 1: app as more of a reflective journal and said biometric
Speaker 1: data is likely the wrong word to be used here,
Speaker 1: and we will course correct to not raise false alarms.
Speaker 1: So I get that, Like, I'm glad that they're backing
Speaker 1: away from that. I feel like the word biometric data
Speaker 1: has such a specific like.
Speaker 2: Journal every morning I do my morning pages, I can't.
Speaker 1: I'm not like writing biometric data like that has such
Speaker 1: a specific definition and connotation that I have to imagine
Speaker 1: that someone somewhere thought that was going to be like
Speaker 1: a buzzy phrase to get to make these like venture
Speaker 1: capital funders happy or.
Speaker 2: Excited, and that's how it got in there.
Speaker 1: But it's why it's wild to me that they could
Speaker 1: be like, oh, we didn't really mean biometric data. We
Speaker 1: really met more like feelings like a journal, because like
Speaker 1: biometric data is like a very specific thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's so weird, especially like gender and sexuality. They're
Speaker 3: such complicated experiences and there's such personal experiences for people
Speaker 3: like I don't know, that's not necessarily something I want
Speaker 3: on like an Allienka, that's the thing I keep in
Speaker 3: my journal. That's for me, don't. I don't want anybody
Speaker 3: like it is a Yeah, that is a weird way
Speaker 3: of putting it. It also is zero I got it,
Speaker 3: especially in the middle of this whole like anti trans backlash,
Speaker 3: so much of which revolves around sort of of these
Speaker 3: weird you know, the thing that keep coming up to
Speaker 3: people being like, oh, it's just biology, is just science,
Speaker 3: and none of these people have actually, you know, studied
Speaker 3: biology and whatever. But that being said, like, it's it's
Speaker 3: such a like it also is almost kind of like
Speaker 3: a buzzword for like the other side too, where it's like,
Speaker 3: why are you focusing so much on like the biologic
Speaker 3: I'm never I'm not waking up and being like, hm,
Speaker 3: thinking about my gender identity right now, Like I'm not
Speaker 3: like how does this work biochemically? Or that's such a
Speaker 3: weird way of like putting it.
Speaker 2: It's very weird.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: So here's one other reason why I think this story
Speaker 1: is important because I think it says something about the
Speaker 1: state of media more generally right now, say, the media
Speaker 1: is like very sad and very scary to me, Like
Speaker 1: I don't know anybody who works in media or journalism
Speaker 1: who is not kind of having a tough time of
Speaker 1: it right now. You know, for a while, I feel
Speaker 1: like we were told that the path forward was venture
Speaker 1: capital funding, you know VC, a rich funder come by
Speaker 1: and pump's a media brand full of cash and then
Speaker 1: profit right. Well, not if you're BuzzFeed News or Vice
Speaker 1: or etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, like any any number of the
Speaker 1: different media outlets that got fat VC funding and then
Speaker 1: shut down. The journalists at Vice who were all laid
Speaker 1: off recently, like Samantha Cole, who's one of my favorite
Speaker 1: journalists who writes about the intersection of sex on the Internet,
Speaker 1: started their own independent media brand called for for Media recently,
Speaker 1: and I know that a lot of folks are pivoting
Speaker 1: to things like that, like like worker and writer owned
Speaker 1: media collaboratives or independent you know, media entities, and they're
Speaker 1: privoting toward things like substack, which I have my issues
Speaker 1: with but I get it, and Patreon myself included. And
Speaker 1: so I think that we're coming to see that if
Speaker 1: you want to be making media and like telling stories
Speaker 1: not just but also about marginalized voices, that center marginalized voices,
Speaker 1: and you want to do it independently, I think that
Speaker 1: the way forward seems to be not attaching yourself to
Speaker 1: an outlet that is going to financially mismanage things or
Speaker 1: like be beholden to VC expectations because they took that
Speaker 1: big VC funding.
Speaker 2: I think that this is like a.
Speaker 1: Larger story about the precarity of independent media right now.
Speaker 1: And I think more and more folks like writers and
Speaker 1: creators and podcasters and journalists that you love are going
Speaker 1: to start doing their own things. And what's funny to
Speaker 1: me about that is like, as I'm kind of taking
Speaker 1: that journey myself, it feels very like precarious and unstable,
Speaker 1: trying to pin your livelihood on Patreon or substack, subscriptions
Speaker 1: or whatever.
Speaker 2: But here's the thing, the.
Speaker 1: Alternative of being at like a big VC backed media
Speaker 1: company right now also feels unstable and uncertain and precarious.
Speaker 1: So like, you may as well if it's going to
Speaker 1: be precarious regardless, you may as well be like fuck it.
Speaker 1: I'll at least be the person who's in charge of
Speaker 1: my precarious feeling destiny and like the sort of my
Speaker 1: own ship. And so I don't know all the auto
Speaker 1: straddle thing, it signals to me that we are really
Speaker 1: experimenting with paths forward of how we have a media
Speaker 1: climate that is sustainable, And I don't know maybe like
Speaker 1: I don't want to be all doom and gloom. Maybe
Speaker 1: this reshapes the space for the better.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, as somebody who's in like the early
Speaker 3: parts of their career is like a media person, it is.
Speaker 3: It is. I mean when I was getting Get Too
Speaker 3: and it was gonna be best, but it's it's scary.
Speaker 3: And I mean I always say, like the things that
Speaker 3: I really was watching when I was in high school
Speaker 3: in college that really like inspired me were things that
Speaker 3: were coming from like Vice and BuzzFeed and teen Vogue
Speaker 3: was a big one. I remember, like with the big
Speaker 3: teen Vogue sort of shift happened. That was like a
Speaker 3: big thing. And it's it's it's so weird to see
Speaker 3: now like a lot of these sites coming down are
Speaker 3: like these kind of yeah, like BuzzFeed and Vice sort
Speaker 3: of falling apart. And also yeah, like a lot of
Speaker 3: my mentors, a lot of my journalism like mentors have
Speaker 3: come from these companies too, and I'm like, I don't know,
Speaker 3: I'm super grateful for like them and everything they sort
Speaker 3: of taught me and everything I've learned from them. But
Speaker 3: it's it's it is sort of like interesting to be
Speaker 3: like seeing people that have gone through that and now
Speaker 3: being somebody who's getting into the media industry. And yeah,
Speaker 3: I sort of straddled the line between like production and
Speaker 3: journalism too, where like again I work at iHeart. I
Speaker 3: am an iHeart employee, so like I do work for
Speaker 3: a big media company. But yeah, it is is definitely
Speaker 3: a strange time for media, when is it not? But
Speaker 3: it's yeah, and yeah, I guess we'll see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's funny that you talk about where your mentors
Speaker 1: were when before you got into the media game, because
Speaker 1: I might be a little bit older than you. My
Speaker 1: mentors all came from an era that, like I was
Speaker 1: like too young to have been in any kind of
Speaker 1: meaningful profession. But the era of like the late nineties
Speaker 1: early aughts were like it seemed like being in media
Speaker 1: was like the fucking best where it was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you get like a dollar per word, and you like
Speaker 1: get to go to all these swinky parties, like the
Speaker 1: like the era.
Speaker 3: Of like City, Yeah, yeah, yeah, who was that?
Speaker 4: Was it?
Speaker 2: G Magazine?
Speaker 1: Who was the Kennedy that had his own like vanity magazine? Okay,
Speaker 1: it was so John F. Kennedy Junior before he died
Speaker 1: had a vanity magazine. Called George, and like it was
Speaker 1: just the time of like glossy magazines and like big
Speaker 1: parties and like all the magazines seemed really cool.
Speaker 2: It was like if you ever watched a movie.
Speaker 1: Like I feel like, Also, it's no coincidence that that
Speaker 1: coincided with the aughts, where the cool career in like
Speaker 1: movies was I'm a journalist, like The Devil Wears Prada
Speaker 1: and How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days. That
Speaker 1: was that was an era that we will probably never
Speaker 1: see again in media where that you know, it just
Speaker 1: was flush with cash and it was like the coolest time,
Speaker 1: and it's a time that like most people, it's like
Speaker 1: a it's like a bygone era, Like what you would
Speaker 1: make for a story then and what you would make
Speaker 1: for a story now is like night and day. Like
Speaker 1: I was watching Almost Famous the other day, and that
Speaker 1: kid is getting a cover like a feature in Rolling
Speaker 1: Stone and they're gonna pay him like seven thousand dollars
Speaker 1: or something, which like today he paid three hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: Like that was supposed to be the seventies, you know.
Speaker 1: So it's it is a very weird field and always
Speaker 1: has been.
Speaker 2: And yeah, it's just.
Speaker 1: I'm I don't know the answer. Maybe it is Patreon
Speaker 1: and substack. Maybe it is starting your own media brands.
Speaker 1: Maybe it is you know, queer binder companies acquiring your brand.
Speaker 1: Like we'll see, it's just everyone's doing what they.
Speaker 3: Can real Oh man, it's so funny because like, yeah,
Speaker 3: I also grew up like watching yea like Devil's Words,
Speaker 3: Prada and a bit Young for Sex in the City.
Speaker 3: I sort of missed that, but like that whole era
Speaker 3: of like yeah, I was always the you know, the
Speaker 3: New York journalist kind of thing, and I just it's
Speaker 3: like it's just such a different world. Like I that
Speaker 3: never like crossed my mind that that would be me,
Speaker 3: like that that would be my life, because yeah, I
Speaker 3: got like what I was starting to get interested in journalism.
Speaker 3: In the media, it was always like yep, you're gonna
Speaker 3: have to freelance, You're gonna have to like you're gonna
Speaker 3: be like starving artists kind of thing from all and
Speaker 3: I don't know, it was it was very bleak. Yeah,
Speaker 3: I guess, I guess we'll see. Oh yeah, almost famous
Speaker 3: is always the one that pisses me off because I'm
Speaker 3: like I that would never happen it's.
Speaker 2: Never none of it like not yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: So one last thing, which is that I am celebrating
Speaker 1: today a little bit. I think slash hope question mark
Speaker 1: maybe that people probably think of me as like a
Speaker 1: pretty thoughtful, measured person and not someone who is really
Speaker 1: headyuh not someone who would revel in the downfall of
Speaker 1: her enemies. Luckily, that means if you think that way,
Speaker 1: I have fooled you into thinking that's the kind of
Speaker 1: person that I am. Because I am celebrating a little
Speaker 1: bit today because enemy of the pod, Walter Weeks and
Speaker 1: Myron Gains of the podcast Fresh in Fit were demonetized
Speaker 1: on YouTube this week. That does not mean that their
Speaker 1: content is going away, don't I wish. It just means
Speaker 1: that they will not be able to earn money from
Speaker 1: it on YouTube. Fresh and Fit is one plank of
Speaker 1: what is sometimes called the manosphere. Basically, just like the
Speaker 1: misogynistic man who should not have podcast brigade, think of
Speaker 1: them that way anytime you've ever thought to yourself, like,
Speaker 1: why does this man have a podcast that is them?
Speaker 2: Like they are in that group.
Speaker 1: When they got the news that their YouTube was going
Speaker 1: to be demonetized, they made a very tearful video about
Speaker 1: how hard it was to be demonetized and how it
Speaker 1: wasn't about the money for them, it was about wanting
Speaker 1: to have a platform to help people. Yeah, if by
Speaker 1: help people you mean stoke their worst instincts for personal gain,
Speaker 1: because that is what the guys at Fresh and Fit
Speaker 1: podcast do. They have said that they believe they were
Speaker 1: demonetized because of their quote controversial takes, but my years
Speaker 1: of platform accountability work urging platforms like YouTube the takedown
Speaker 1: content that breaks community guidelines tells me that that is
Speaker 1: probably not likely. I just do not think that that
Speaker 1: is the reason why they were removed. Joey, it is
Speaker 1: your first time recording with me. I had written out
Speaker 1: a whole thing and that I was showing it to
Speaker 1: producer Mike, and Michael was like, this might be a
Speaker 1: little much for their first recording with you, Like, you
Speaker 1: don't want to make Joey fully think that, like they
Speaker 1: are recording with a crazy person, a petty betty. So
Speaker 1: I have a lot more to say about Fresh and
Speaker 1: Fit if you want to hear my full, full, uncensored
Speaker 1: take on why Fresh and Fit is a boil on
Speaker 1: the ass of the Internet and why I believe they
Speaker 1: were actually demonetized from YouTube and why this is something
Speaker 1: that we should all be celebrating. Please check out the Patriot.
Speaker 1: I have a lot to say. I've written about it
Speaker 1: for the Nation. I will throw the link to my
Speaker 1: Nation piece about fresh and Fit in the in the
Speaker 1: show notes. But yeah, this is personal for me. If
Speaker 1: you can't tell, I haven't there. I try really hard
Speaker 1: to when we cover unsavory characters, I try very hard
Speaker 1: to just make it about like what they say, what
Speaker 1: they do, and not reveal my personal thoughts on them.
Speaker 1: But this is different. I have a real personal distaste
Speaker 1: for these two. So if you want to know more
Speaker 1: about how I feel, check out the Patreon.
Speaker 3: I yeah, no, I am. I'm I will admit that
Speaker 3: I am a very petty yeah there, And I would
Speaker 3: be like, I open our conversation being like, do you
Speaker 3: want to hear my tiktokter on?
Speaker 2: I had to gauge it.
Speaker 1: I was like, I don't know how petty they are, Like,
Speaker 1: let's well have to Like now that I know I can,
Speaker 1: I can like, Okay, this is good to know, but.
Speaker 2: It's good to know. Joey, thank you so much for
Speaker 2: being here. Where can folks, keep up with what you're
Speaker 2: doing for sure.
Speaker 3: You can find me on Twitter for who knows how
Speaker 3: long and Instagram at Pat not Pratt. That is p
Speaker 3: A T T not n O T p r a
Speaker 3: T T Pratt. My last name is Pat and people
Speaker 3: often misspell it as Pratt.
Speaker 2: So that was that was how I did the same mistake.
Speaker 3: Okay, I don't think I've ever had like an employer
Speaker 3: get it right on the PIRG.
Speaker 4: What is it? Like?
Speaker 2: Why did why is it? Why? Why does this happen?
Speaker 3: I don't know. I think it's just because it's such
Speaker 3: a like people are so used to saying Pratt. They're
Speaker 3: like they just look over it. It's okay. There was
Speaker 3: there was a brief period of time where I kept
Speaker 3: getting asked if I was related to Chris Pratt, and
Speaker 3: then once he once it kind of fell out of favor.
Speaker 3: People stopped doing that, which was nice. But who's weird anyways, Yeah,
Speaker 3: you can find me on Twitter and Instagram. I'm also
Speaker 3: occasionally on stuff. Mom never told you of a new
Speaker 3: show that's coming out in a couple of months that
Speaker 3: I don't think I could talk about yet, but I
Speaker 3: probably will at some point.
Speaker 2: Anyways, yeah, and as always, thanks to you for listening.
Speaker 2: Please keep in touch.
Speaker 1: You can check us out on Pagereon, find me on social,
Speaker 1: and please be well. If you're looking for ways to
Speaker 1: support the show, check out our merch store at tangodi
Speaker 1: dot com slash store. Got a story about an interesting
Speaker 1: thing in tech, or just want to say hi, You
Speaker 1: can reach us at Hello at tegody dot com. You
Speaker 1: can also find transcripts for today's episode at tenggody dot com.
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by.
Speaker 6: Me Bridget Tod.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative, edited by
Speaker 1: Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison
Speaker 1: is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almada 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.