Speaker 1: There are No Girls on the Internet. As a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm Bridge Tad and this
Speaker 1: is there are no girls.
Speaker 2: On the Internet.
Speaker 1: Okay, Mike, I want to start out our banter by
Speaker 1: asking you what I hope will become kind of a
Speaker 1: new episode series, Low level Internet complaints. So what is
Speaker 1: something that has been grinding your gears? Nothing big? Not
Speaker 1: trying to have this be a fleshed out thing, because
Speaker 1: I have these little complaints and I'm like, well, actually,
Speaker 1: did you know it's connected to this larger problem that
Speaker 1: we should actually really talk about. So something kind of petty.
Speaker 1: Can you give me a low level, petty internet gripe
Speaker 1: that's been grinding your gears online or intech or in
Speaker 1: culture lately?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, I can give you a petty little gripe.
Speaker 3: The thing that's been just grinding my gears lately is
Speaker 3: how every time you open an a or a website
Speaker 3: or an application on your desktop computer, there's one hundred
Speaker 3: little pop ups that are pointing out new features or
Speaker 3: directing my attention to some tool to use, or giving
Speaker 3: me a helpful little tip. And often the tips are
Speaker 3: like useful, I guess, but I don't want to hear
Speaker 3: about new features. I just want to do the thing
Speaker 3: that I came here to do. Adobe Acrobat is a
Speaker 3: pretty bad offender in this category. I like, every time
Speaker 3: I open it, there's some little pop up telling me
Speaker 3: about something that I don't care about.
Speaker 4: I just want to look at my BDF.
Speaker 3: So it's gotten out of hand and somebody's got to
Speaker 3: do something about this.
Speaker 1: It's like twenty twenty three's version of Clippy. Remember Clippy?
Speaker 4: I remember Clippy? Yeah? Uh, you know, I kind of
Speaker 4: missed that little guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that in twenty twenty three, the Internet
Speaker 1: experience has gotten so janky, Like there are websites where
Speaker 1: you basically can't use them because of the amount of
Speaker 1: pop ups and things that load and then like an
Speaker 1: AutoPlay video for an ad like I am ashamed to
Speaker 1: admit how much bad celebrity tabloid reporting I read on,
Speaker 1: like really sketchy sites that I have no business on.
Speaker 1: You know, your daily mails of the world, and you
Speaker 1: have to be so intentional and careful where you hover
Speaker 1: your mouth because if you accidentally click off the article
Speaker 1: in any way, you could be looking at a pop
Speaker 1: up like auto playing a video that breaks the entire thing.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how many times I've pulled up
Speaker 1: an article on my phone, so many things start to
Speaker 1: load and break that I'm just like, oh, I guess
Speaker 1: I'll never know. I'd nope right out of that so quick.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've been there where you're like just trying to
Speaker 3: scroll to read an article and all of a sudden,
Speaker 3: as your finger is approaching the screen, a video appears
Speaker 3: out of nowhere, and now you've clicked the video and
Speaker 3: you're going to god knows where in your browser.
Speaker 1: Yeah. My petty internet complaint is, well, the first one
Speaker 1: is not an Internet complaint. It's that I went to
Speaker 1: to a Christmas party last night, a work Christmas party,
Speaker 1: and I'm a little bit hungover. So folks listening, if
Speaker 1: I don't sound like I have the usual pep in
Speaker 1: my step, that might be why.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we're going to do our best, though. I think
Speaker 4: we'll get there.
Speaker 1: I think we'll get there. Well. My other internet, actual
Speaker 1: internet small time complaint is why does everything have to
Speaker 1: be an app these days? Like, not everything needs to
Speaker 1: be an app? I was at McDonald's pretty recently during
Speaker 1: a car trip, and I was thinking to myself, like Wow,
Speaker 1: these prices have really gone up. I was curious later
Speaker 1: when I got to my destination, so I did a
Speaker 1: bit of googling and I found this Reddit thread about
Speaker 1: how the prices at McDonald's maybe seem like they have
Speaker 1: gotten higher, but that if you use their app you
Speaker 1: can actually get really good deals with all these tips
Speaker 1: and tricks on how to combine purchases so that you
Speaker 1: could really save money. And I was thinking, why do
Speaker 1: I have to You know, I understand that they want
Speaker 1: McDonald's wants to incentivize people to download their app, but
Speaker 1: shouldn't the prices just be the prices? Like why do
Speaker 1: I have to engage with an app just to get
Speaker 1: whatever price on my whatever I'm buying at McDonald's. I
Speaker 1: you know, I do a lot of traveling, and sometimes
Speaker 1: when I travel, I'll use wherever I'm at, like their
Speaker 1: version of the bike share program, like DC has Capitol
Speaker 1: bike Share. I probably have four different apps on my
Speaker 1: phone from countries that not only do I not live in,
Speaker 1: I'll probably not be visiting again anytime soon for their
Speaker 1: specific bike share program. It just really adds up. Not
Speaker 1: everything needs to be an app people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, especially you know the idea that you have
Speaker 3: to use the app to get decent prices. It's like
Speaker 3: the twenty twenty three version of coupon clipping, right, like
Speaker 3: stores like bed Bath and Beyond where the prices are
Speaker 3: really high, but you can get crazy deals with coupons.
Speaker 3: It's just like that, and I don't want to do that.
Speaker 3: I don't want to clip coupons.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I actually write this really interesting article about this woman,
Speaker 1: I think some place in the UK, an older woman
Speaker 1: in her seventies who tried to park and she had
Speaker 1: to pay to park using like a machine, but the
Speaker 1: machine was broken, and so she was like, well, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to pay like this machine broken, and she
Speaker 1: got a ticket because the parking authority was like, oh,
Speaker 1: well you should have downloaded our app and paid in
Speaker 1: the app, and she was like, I don't know how
Speaker 1: to download an app. I'm in my seventies. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to download your app. I think she called it, like,
Speaker 1: I will not cowtowt are these bully tactics, And I'm
Speaker 1: one hundred percent on her team, Like you should not
Speaker 1: if a city service requires you to engage with an
Speaker 1: app even if you don't want to, that is not
Speaker 1: an accessible city service. Not everything needs to be an app.
Speaker 1: I hope this woman never pays that. Fine. She is
Speaker 1: a hero in my eyes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we should. We should look into that. Do a
Speaker 3: follow up, because I'm with you. This woman is a hero.
Speaker 3: She's standing firm, standing up for her principles. Does not
Speaker 3: want to download this app.
Speaker 1: Okay, So speaking of heroes, we get to break a
Speaker 1: little bit of news. In this episode, we've been covering
Speaker 1: the decimation case that Georgia election workers turned American heroes
Speaker 1: Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman, filed against Rudy Giuliani after
Speaker 1: he baselessly and repeatedly accused that of tampering with the
Speaker 1: results of the Georgia election in twenty twenty. These lies
Speaker 1: absolutely tore their lives upside down. They had to flee
Speaker 1: for their own safety because an angry mob descended on
Speaker 1: their home to try to make a citizen's arrest. Well,
Speaker 1: the verdict is in and Giuliani has been ordered to
Speaker 1: pay the women almost one hundred and fifty million dollars
Speaker 1: in damages. What's even wilder about this is that during
Speaker 1: the court proceedings, Giuliani's lawyers conceded that there was no
Speaker 1: proof to the lies that he spread about the women
Speaker 1: who were just trying to do their jobs. But then
Speaker 1: Rudy Giuliani went outside the courthouse and told the media
Speaker 1: that he stood by those lies that the two women
Speaker 1: tampered with votes during the election, even as in court
Speaker 1: he and his attorneys conceded that wasn't true. Listen story,
Speaker 1: and it.
Speaker 4: Will be.
Speaker 3: Clear what I said was true and that whatever happened
Speaker 3: to them, which is which unfortunate is for other people overreact.
Speaker 1: Thing I said about them is true.
Speaker 2: Do you regret what you did to Of course I
Speaker 2: don't regret I told the truth. They were engaged in
Speaker 2: changing vote.
Speaker 1: There's no proof of that. Stay tuned like the man
Speaker 1: just cannot help himself. So if you want more information
Speaker 1: about what happened in this case, we'll put the link
Speaker 1: to some of our earlier episodes about Ruby Freeman and
Speaker 1: Shay Moss. In the show notes, these women are heroes.
Speaker 1: They were put through hell just for doing their jobs
Speaker 1: of trying to help folks in their community vote. They
Speaker 1: risked facing even more attacks by bravely testifying about what
Speaker 1: they experienced at the hands of Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani.
Speaker 1: And while I am very glad that they got money
Speaker 1: for what they went through. God knows they deserve it.
Speaker 1: Nothing can make it right, and it should not have
Speaker 1: happened in the first place. We should have a country
Speaker 1: that values the women, and let's be clear, most of
Speaker 1: them are women statistically who do the work at polling
Speaker 1: places and vote counting center that make democracy function. And
Speaker 1: when those folks face attacks, it threatens democracy for all
Speaker 1: of us. Protecting democracy ought to be a value that
Speaker 1: we stick to. Speaking of sticking to their values, as
Speaker 1: we know, Twitter has told their advertisers to go f
Speaker 1: themselves as a value. Let's find out how that's working
Speaker 1: for them. Bit of a warning here, because this is
Speaker 1: going to get a little bit gross. I believe that
Speaker 1: it looks like Twitter has been really scraping the bottom
Speaker 1: of the barrel for advertisers these days, and this has
Speaker 1: got to be a new low. Because I saw this
Speaker 1: ad for some kind of a like semen stealing company.
Speaker 1: I know that sounds weird, but it's like a home
Speaker 1: insimination kit, basically advertising that you can collect semen and
Speaker 1: make yourself pregnant without the man's consent. So not only
Speaker 1: is that like just physically grows and like sticky and yucky,
Speaker 1: but also it is ethically gross. The kit appears to
Speaker 1: be an actual, real product, but it's not clear to
Speaker 1: me if this is like an ad campaign that is
Speaker 1: real or just designed to get people talking about it
Speaker 1: to get viral attention. I mean, we're talking about it.
Speaker 1: Some people have suggested that the ads are promoting a
Speaker 1: legal behavior, but it actually turns out that there are
Speaker 1: not laws against stealing seamen, which I was surprised to find.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, certainly this is Twitter making money
Speaker 1: by promoting illegal activity. Not so. But just because it's
Speaker 1: not illegal does not mean that it is ethical behavior
Speaker 1: even though it's not like technically against the law. I
Speaker 1: know this sounds kind of outlandish, but listeners might remember
Speaker 1: a rumor, and I want to emphasize rumor about a
Speaker 1: certain Canadian rapper Drake, from a few years ago that
Speaker 1: he would allegedly put hot sauce in all of his
Speaker 1: used condoms after sexual encounters to prevent people that he
Speaker 1: was sleeping with from doing exactly what this ad suggests,
Speaker 1: i e. Stealing his sperm to try to get themselves pregnant.
Speaker 1: I have no idea if this is true or not.
Speaker 1: I will say that, like, it does sound like an
Speaker 1: incredible amount of effort to go through to prevent someone
Speaker 1: from rooting through the garbage and then steal your seamen
Speaker 1: to impregnate themselves.
Speaker 3: Yeah, pretty hard to imagine doing that. But the Internet
Speaker 3: couldn't have just made that up.
Speaker 1: You think people would just get on the Internet and
Speaker 1: lie about Drake like that.
Speaker 4: Never, no way.
Speaker 1: Okay, So back to Twitter. I do think this is
Speaker 1: just another example of how bad things have gotten on
Speaker 1: the platform. Bad in terms of user experience, like earlier
Speaker 1: this week, all all non Twitter links were broken, so
Speaker 1: you clicked on any link that wasn't a Twitter link,
Speaker 1: it was like sorry, four or four page doesn't work.
Speaker 1: But also bad in terms of user experience because who
Speaker 1: wants to see ads like this in their feed? It
Speaker 1: also has to be bad in terms of advertising revenue,
Speaker 1: which we know has been declining ever since Elon Musk
Speaker 1: took over, and I just think presumably it must have
Speaker 1: gotten worse since his whole telling advertisers to go at
Speaker 1: themselves moment a couple of weeks ago. You know, ads
Speaker 1: on Twitter, Like, nobody likes looking at ads, but they
Speaker 1: used to be ads for things that you had heard
Speaker 1: of like real products that you're like, oh, sure, this product,
Speaker 1: that product, that brand, But lately I think they have
Speaker 1: really gone off the wall. I saw another set of
Speaker 1: ads on Twitter for one of those really gross newdify
Speaker 1: apps that promises to let users use AI to undress
Speaker 1: anyone without their permission. I actually find myself like blocking
Speaker 1: certain obnoxious ads that just like keep popping up. I
Speaker 1: feel like they're like, at least when they were from
Speaker 1: real companies, they weren't so weird and over the top.
Speaker 1: So I could be wrong, but I imagine this company behind
Speaker 1: the you know, artificially surreptitiously infeminate yourself at home kit.
Speaker 1: It's probably not a particularly large company, so the fact
Speaker 1: that their ads are all over Twitter really suggested to
Speaker 1: me that they got a great deal on these ads,
Speaker 1: which makes sense because Twitter's big advertisers are still fleeing
Speaker 1: the platform, so they probably have a ton of unsold
Speaker 1: ad inventory and they're just like giving great deals to
Speaker 1: whatever sketchy, borderline illegal or like, you know, maybe unechical
Speaker 1: products want that space. Like right now, I've been getting
Speaker 1: so many ads on Twitter for clearly knockoff luxury handbags,
Speaker 1: which really takes me back to that conversation we had
Speaker 1: about TikTok, about how TikTok had to crack down on that, right, Like,
Speaker 1: if somebody is trying to sell you Louis Vuittona handbag
Speaker 1: that they say is legit for like forty dollars, it's
Speaker 1: probably a signal that like something weird, if not illegal,
Speaker 1: is going on. But I say all this to say
Speaker 1: that if you are listening and you have a product
Speaker 1: that you would like to sell, and the brand alignment
Speaker 1: for that product is like Alex Jones denying that Sandy
Speaker 1: hook ever happened and calling murdered children crisis actors and
Speaker 1: ads for stealing semen, Twitter might be the place.
Speaker 4: For you, man. That is not a product that I
Speaker 4: probably want.
Speaker 1: Okay, so palate cleanser needed for that story. I have
Speaker 1: a little bit of good news for y'all. Y'all know
Speaker 1: that I believe deeply in celebrating wins when we get them,
Speaker 1: and this is actually some great news. Discord has explicitly
Speaker 1: banned misgendering and dead naming trans people as part of
Speaker 1: an update to its hate conduct policy.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 1: Discord is a social media messaging platform that is really
Speaker 1: popular with gamers. Discord actually updated this internal hate speech
Speaker 1: policy back in April of twenty twenty two, but only
Speaker 1: recently went public with these changes as part of their
Speaker 1: regular review to improve transparency. So the updated hate speech
Speaker 1: policy now prohibits quote repeatedly using slurs to degrade and
Speaker 1: demean individuals or groups, which includes dead naming or misgendering
Speaker 1: a transgender person. Glad outlined this change, and a report
Speaker 1: will link to the whole thing. Honestly, the whole thing
Speaker 1: is worth a reading. It was very interesting. But something
Speaker 1: that they point out in this report is that transphobia,
Speaker 1: specifically things like misgendering and dead naming, has become a
Speaker 1: really reliable way for right wing grifters to build out
Speaker 1: their platforms online, which you know, I always knew innately,
Speaker 1: but I never really thought about it that much or
Speaker 1: really thought about how much I have seen that in
Speaker 1: action until reading this report. The report reads the trope
Speaker 1: is extremely popular amongst high follower anti LGBTQ accounts, and
Speaker 1: is especially utilized to bully, mock, and harass prominent trans
Speaker 1: public figures. Admiral Rachel Levine, Dylan mulvaney, sixteen year old
Speaker 1: Zaia Wade to name a few. This strategy of targeting
Speaker 1: well known people serves to escalate visibility and engagement on posts,
Speaker 1: while it also functions as a vehicle to express general
Speaker 1: hatred of trans and non binary people and the community
Speaker 1: as a whole. They also make this other really interesting
Speaker 1: point which I never really thought about in these terms before,
Speaker 1: and that is the way that dead naming and misgendering
Speaker 1: famous people, especially as a way to get clicks and
Speaker 1: engagements through celebrity name dropping, is this like tried and
Speaker 1: true engagement tactic, which again I had just like never
Speaker 1: really thought about that before, because you know, your Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro's and you're Jordan Peterson's of the world, Like, these
Speaker 1: are people who certainly don't want to think of themselves
Speaker 1: as like making celebrity content, right, Like they would probably
Speaker 1: object to that, to that characterization of themselves. However, you
Speaker 1: do get attention and traction and engagement when you mention
Speaker 1: a celebrity because people like reading about celebrities, and so
Speaker 1: they're basically using celebrity, like using the meeting trans celebrities
Speaker 1: as a way to capitalize on the attention that comes
Speaker 1: with talking about celebrity. But in a way that kind
Speaker 1: of lets them be like, well, because these people are
Speaker 1: like genuinely obsessed with celebrities like I. It's it's like
Speaker 1: a it's like a weird kind of anti standom where
Speaker 1: we're essentially, you know, the same thing that drives a
Speaker 1: young person to make an obsessive Tumbler account dedicated to
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift and Taylor Swift fandom. It's like not totally dissimilar,
Speaker 1: just in the other direction, Like, these people are genuinely
Speaker 1: obsessed with celebrities and what's going on with them?
Speaker 3: What a gross way to get attention and build a
Speaker 3: platform by like targeting trans people, like give them, give
Speaker 3: them a break?
Speaker 1: And I really hate that it's effective, and these people
Speaker 1: clearly know it's effective. That's why they continue to do it.
Speaker 1: So to put this change that Discord has made in context,
Speaker 1: right now, of the six major social media platforms TikTok, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram,
Speaker 1: and threads right now, only TikTok expressly prohibits targeted misgendering
Speaker 1: and dead naming and its hate and harassment policy full disclosure,
Speaker 1: that was a policy that I personally worked with Glad
Speaker 1: to help develop. Twitter actually used to be on the
Speaker 1: list of places that expressly prohibited dead naming and misgendering. However,
Speaker 1: it was like one of the very one of the first,
Speaker 1: if not the first policy that Elon rolled back once
Speaker 1: he took over Twitter. So now of course dead naming
Speaker 1: and transphobia runs rampant.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like, it's just so messed up dead naming as
Speaker 3: a value, right, Like it's positively asserting his right to
Speaker 3: dead name so hateful.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I will never stop railing about this.
Speaker 1: But that that as a value is a core value
Speaker 1: is what motivated Elon Must to purchase Twitter in the
Speaker 1: first place. And so you know, transphobia, hostility to trans
Speaker 1: people's continues to really shape the way the Internet works
Speaker 1: for everybody. So importantly, the announcement of these changes over
Speaker 1: at Discord also went along with some transparency around how
Speaker 1: it will be enforced, which is so important because a
Speaker 1: policy change without actual enforcement mechanisms is like just a wish,
Speaker 1: It doesn't really do anything. So critics of these kinds
Speaker 1: of policies usually make it seem like like, oh, just
Speaker 1: getting someone's name wrong once means they're gonna be banned,
Speaker 1: and that just like isn't really the case, and it's
Speaker 1: not the case that Discord either. So Discord outlined the
Speaker 1: consequences of violating this new hateful conduct policy by explaining
Speaker 1: their warning system, so when a user is reported for
Speaker 1: breaking in the rules, they will get a direct message
Speaker 1: from Discord letting them know about that violation. Discord's actual
Speaker 1: actions and response to an infraction depend on the severity
Speaker 1: of harm, the type of user content, and that user's
Speaker 1: history of past violations. Discord says that if the violation
Speaker 1: was not particularly severe, that person may lose these features
Speaker 1: for a few hours. If it was a repeated violate
Speaker 1: or a higher severity violation, they may lose some features
Speaker 1: for a few days up to one year. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that really making it clear how this will
Speaker 1: work is key to any policy on social media, Like
Speaker 1: I think there needs to be transparency and also consistent enforcement,
Speaker 1: because that's when those when when policies don't have transparency
Speaker 1: and consistent enforcement, not only does it undermine those policies obviously,
Speaker 1: but it also just gives credence of people who are like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this is just like the PC police that don't let
Speaker 1: you say anything. You really need to have that consistency
Speaker 1: and transparency for these policies not just to have any teeth,
Speaker 1: but also to like help people understand that these policies
Speaker 1: are a good thing to actually allow people to have
Speaker 1: discourse online, and that these kinds of policies are not
Speaker 1: incongruous with you know, fostering Internet spaces to be places
Speaker 1: where people can actually meaningfully have discourse and enjoy the
Speaker 1: free speech that people you know love to talk.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, transparency, it's great, and it also implies that they
Speaker 3: have sufficient staff who will be monitoring, you know, reports
Speaker 3: and taking action. So you know, unlike Twitter where they
Speaker 3: just laid off like almost the entire trust and safety team,
Speaker 3: it seems like Discord is really taking it seriously, which
Speaker 3: is great to see.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I would say, I mean it's happening at
Speaker 1: Twitter for sure, but I do know that that is
Speaker 1: becoming a more common thing right now. You know, cuts
Speaker 1: to trust and safety teams, cuts to the teams that
Speaker 1: handle these kinds of things, and that's something I think, like,
Speaker 1: so it would be great if Discord is doing the opposite.
Speaker 1: They're actually fostering and like supporting and growing out the
Speaker 1: people who do that kind of work within the company.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, and it seems smart for them, right like,
Speaker 3: Unlike Twitter, where advertisers are fleeing, Discord has so many
Speaker 3: partnerships with like big celebrities, gaming celebrities often reaching young
Speaker 3: people explicitly, and you know, I think that's been a
Speaker 3: really valuable thing for them, and so it makes sense
Speaker 3: that they would want to protect it absolutely.
Speaker 2: Let's take a quick break at er back.
Speaker 1: So this week, Congress was supposed to vote on a
Speaker 1: bill to reauthorize part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
Speaker 1: commonly referred to as FAIZA, originally passed by Congress in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy eight to cover technologies like telephones and fax
Speaker 1: machines way back when before the Internet, back when it
Speaker 1: was the Internet was just like a twinkle in Al
Speaker 1: Gore's eye. So FAIZA is the law gives US law
Speaker 1: enforcement broad sweeping authorities to basically monitor the communication of
Speaker 1: anybody who is not a US citizen. But because of
Speaker 1: how broad that law is, many US citizens actually end
Speaker 1: up getting caught in it and surveilled as well, oftentimes
Speaker 1: without even really knowing it. This law has been widely
Speaker 1: criticized by civil rights groups and privacy groups. So the
Speaker 1: bill Congress was supposed to be voting on this week
Speaker 1: would have specifically reformed a part of FIZA called Section
Speaker 1: seven ZH two, which allows the US government to demand
Speaker 1: access to data from communications companies like internet and cell
Speaker 1: phone service providers. So it's a pretty like astonishing and
Speaker 1: frightening level of surveillance because it allows law enforcement to
Speaker 1: not only see who is talking to who, but also
Speaker 1: the content of their communications. It not only allows the
Speaker 1: government to target any foreign nationals communicating from outside the country,
Speaker 1: which is already pretty intense, but also the communications of
Speaker 1: whoever they might be talking to inside the country, including
Speaker 1: US citizens. So it is bad news for anybody who
Speaker 1: values things like privacy, and there is already a pretty
Speaker 1: well documented history of this being abuse already. It is
Speaker 1: one of those rare instances where there is bipartisan consensus
Speaker 1: that this law is too broad and needs to be reformed. However,
Speaker 1: the bill Congress was planning to vote on this week
Speaker 1: would have taken things in another direction and expanded the
Speaker 1: surveillance aspect of FAISA to include not only telecommunication companies
Speaker 1: but also devices like Wi Fi routers. We'll throw a
Speaker 1: link in the show notes to a really good Vice
Speaker 1: article that does a nice job going into further details
Speaker 1: for anybody who's curious. Okay, Hi, this is Friday Bridget.
Speaker 1: We've recorded this on Thursday, and there's actually been some
Speaker 1: new updates on this, So in the two days since
Speaker 1: we originally recorded this, the situation has changed. Although the
Speaker 1: house build that was designed to expand FISA was pulled
Speaker 1: at the last minute on Tuesday for lack of support.
Speaker 1: On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Johnson added a four month extension
Speaker 1: of FISA into the must pass National Defense Bill, which
Speaker 1: Congress then approved. This was a pretty controversial move that's
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans,
Speaker 1: many of whom understandably did not want to extend the
Speaker 1: warrantless surveillance of Americans. So it looks like for now,
Speaker 1: faiza's Section seven h two will continue to be the
Speaker 1: law of the land until April twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 1: hopefully then Congress will finally reform this egregious violation of
Speaker 1: all of our civil liberties. So speaking of telecommunications companies
Speaker 1: and our privacy just being put in the wrong hands,
Speaker 1: this is one of the most outrageous stories I have
Speaker 1: ever read in my entire life. So quick heads up
Speaker 1: that this story does involve stalking and abuse, and just
Speaker 1: like is one of the most horrific things I've ever heard.
Speaker 1: So Verizon, the cell service provider, gave a woman stalker
Speaker 1: her home address and phone records after he pretended pretty
Speaker 1: badly to be from law enforcement. He was then arrested
Speaker 1: near her home while carrying a knife. So Robert Michael
Speaker 1: Glong and his victim met this year online and they
Speaker 1: had an online romantic relationship. When this woman ended the relationship,
Speaker 1: he continued to try to contact her over and over
Speaker 1: and over again. Ours technical reports that he basically tricked
Speaker 1: Verizon into releasing her home address and her phone records
Speaker 1: to him by sending an email with a fake search
Speaker 1: warrant to the email address for Verizon's Security Assistance team,
Speaker 1: which handles those kinds of legal requests. Verizon did not
Speaker 1: realize that this request was fraudulent, even though it came
Speaker 1: from a proton mail email address rather than like a
Speaker 1: police department or some kind of government agency email address.
Speaker 1: So this is like a basically like the same thing
Speaker 1: as a Gmail. It's an incredibly popular and common used
Speaker 1: email domain. So the email address was Stephen nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: six c at Proton dot me and the Honestly, the
Speaker 1: email also sounds like if that's not fishy enough, this
Speaker 1: was the email that he sent that was effective. It's
Speaker 1: super badly written in full of typhos. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to read it as is and you tell me if
Speaker 1: this would have fooled you into thinking this is actually
Speaker 1: from law enforcement. So here is the PDF file for
Speaker 1: search warrant. We are in need if the this cell
Speaker 1: phone data as soon as possible to locate and apprehend
Speaker 1: this suspect. We also need the full name of this
Speaker 1: Verizon subscriber and the new phone number that has been
Speaker 1: assigned to her. Thank you. So that email just does
Speaker 1: not sound right to me. I truly don't know how
Speaker 1: somebody at Verizon read that and was like, oh, checks out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we are all trained by a one thousand scammers
Speaker 3: every day who like spam us in our email, spam
Speaker 3: us via text message, and like everything about that just
Speaker 3: screams fake, right. It's so curious that somebody at Verizon
Speaker 3: would respond to it. I wonder what they have to
Speaker 3: say for themselves.
Speaker 1: So the email also had a fake aff a dayt
Speaker 1: written by Detective Steven Koop of the Carrie, North Carolina,
Speaker 1: Police Department. So that's why the email address is like
Speaker 1: Steven nineteen sixty six. See, because everybody knows that when
Speaker 1: you work for the police, you use your first name
Speaker 1: and I guess the year you were born in your
Speaker 1: email address.
Speaker 4: Yeah, totally checks out.
Speaker 1: So, just in case you were curious, there is no
Speaker 1: person named Stephen Cooper working at the Carry Police Department.
Speaker 1: A quick phone call to them probably would have confirmed
Speaker 1: that if anybody working at Verizon wants a tip there.
Speaker 1: He also forged a real judge's signature on a fake
Speaker 1: search warrant, so once he got her contact information, he
Speaker 1: started contacting her parents. And this is not even the
Speaker 1: first time he has done this kind of thing. He
Speaker 1: was wanted by the San Diego Sheriff's Office on a
Speaker 1: charge of stalking an ex girlfriend. In that case, a
Speaker 1: police report documented that the victim had changed her phone
Speaker 1: number four times in the last four months, but somehow
Speaker 1: he keeps getting her number. I wonder how it sounds
Speaker 1: like this was not the first time that he's done
Speaker 1: this kind of thing.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so it gets a lot worse. Once he had
Speaker 1: her information, he traveled from New Mexico to North Carolina
Speaker 1: and sent her a message reading I'm just going to
Speaker 1: turn around, stop at a Big five and get me
Speaker 1: a fucking rifle and some ammunition. And if I can't
Speaker 1: have you, no one can. You want to treat me
Speaker 1: like this, We'll fuck you. So this woman was understandably
Speaker 1: terrified for her life. She calls nine to one one.
Speaker 1: They put officers to stick out her home. So this
Speaker 1: is from the police report. Glanner stopped directly in front
Speaker 1: of her house before entering the neighbor's yard and standing
Speaker 1: in a darkened area, at which time members of the
Speaker 1: Raleigh Police Department arrested him. He was found with a
Speaker 1: folding razor blade knife on his person two mobile phone devices.
Speaker 1: One of these phones displayed the image of the victim
Speaker 1: as the lock screen. When police searched his car, they
Speaker 1: found a glass meth pipe, eight grams of suspected methmphetamine,
Speaker 1: and two brand new bundles of rope that were still
Speaker 1: in plastic wrap. So he has been arrested in jail
Speaker 1: now with a five hundred and fifty thousand dollars bond.
Speaker 1: So honestly, the fact that this kind of low effort
Speaker 1: attempt to trick Verizon was successful is just genuinely baffling
Speaker 1: to me, not to mention terrifying, like it would be
Speaker 1: like making an email address that's like Stevenpolice at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com and then sending that email and having it
Speaker 1: work like I cannot believe that it worked.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it is scary.
Speaker 3: I mean, you were just talking about Faiza and all
Speaker 3: the abuse of that surveillance law, and I think a
Speaker 3: lot of it looks like this, right, like this or
Speaker 3: maybe not?
Speaker 4: Maybe this is rare.
Speaker 3: I hope this sort of thing is rare, but like,
Speaker 3: how many other people have done this where it was
Speaker 3: never found out about?
Speaker 4: Right? Like we don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And importantly, I just want to say that I
Speaker 1: think the only reason why this guy was caught, and
Speaker 1: it sounds like this is not the first time that
Speaker 1: he has done this. The only reason why this guy
Speaker 1: was caught and probably why this woman is still alive,
Speaker 1: is because he messaged her to tell her what he
Speaker 1: was planning to do. I think had he not done that,
Speaker 1: he probably would have just shown up to her house
Speaker 1: with knife and rope, and God only knows what would
Speaker 1: have happened. I am so glad that she is okay.
Speaker 1: I hope she is safe now. But yeah, It's terrifying
Speaker 1: to think about, and it really makes me wonder like
Speaker 1: how often, Like is you gotta think that maybe Verizon
Speaker 1: is just getting these kind of subpoenas for people's phone records,
Speaker 1: and just like maybe it's the kind of thing that
Speaker 1: happens so often that it is routine that they don't
Speaker 1: even think twice about this, handing people's private data and
Speaker 1: information over to whoever without even being like, wait, is
Speaker 1: this sketchy? Like it makes me think that maybe this
Speaker 1: is something that is happening at such a scale that
Speaker 1: they have been trained to not even think twice about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, right.
Speaker 3: You would hope there would be some kind of checks
Speaker 3: on it, like like you said, maybe they call the
Speaker 3: police department on an official listed number, or I don't know,
Speaker 3: maybe like a database that they can look up the
Speaker 3: supposed warrant in or anything. But it sounds like there
Speaker 3: was just nothing. I really hope that like this is
Speaker 3: that we hear more about this story and like what
Speaker 3: went wrong at Verizon, Like were their protocols that weren't
Speaker 3: followed or is there truly just nothing And anybody who
Speaker 3: knows the magic email address can just send fake emails
Speaker 3: to it and get people's personal information.
Speaker 1: That's such a good point, Like, we should be hearing
Speaker 1: from Verizon on this. This should be a big deal.
Speaker 1: Verizon's negligence almost got a woman murdered. We should be
Speaker 1: hearing from Verizon on how it happened and what their
Speaker 1: plan is to make sure it never happens again. I
Speaker 1: use Verizon right, Like, I'm concerned about how this happened,
Speaker 1: and it is genuinely terrifying that Verizon could basically enable
Speaker 1: a woman's almost murder without doing the basic bare minimum
Speaker 1: of keeping our information from falling on the wrong hands,
Speaker 1: Like do better. Just we should be able to expect better,
Speaker 1: We deserve better. Do better.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I really hope we hear more about this. It's scary.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's talk about how to talk about women
Speaker 1: in tech. So Hugging Face is the name of a
Speaker 1: company that develops tools for building and using AI. It's
Speaker 1: kind of been framed as like a competitor to Open
Speaker 1: AI Sam Altman's company. They have a lot of women
Speaker 1: who work at Hugging Face, and they do a lot
Speaker 1: of public speaking about AI in the media, which is great.
Speaker 1: And I also think it's like important because I think
Speaker 1: it can really change the face of who we see
Speaker 1: speaking about technology like AI with authority, like it should
Speaker 1: look like the people who actually use technology, which is women,
Speaker 1: trans folks, queer folks, black folks, folks of color, and
Speaker 1: so those are the same people that we should get
Speaker 1: used to seeing talking about that technology with authority. It's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why I started this very podcast.
Speaker 1: So the many women who work at Hugging Face have
Speaker 1: been doing this and it's great. However, they did notice
Speaker 1: that when they were doing public speaking about AI with
Speaker 1: the press, they sometimes would get sexist or otherwise just
Speaker 1: kind of messed up questions. So Margaret Mitchell, who is
Speaker 1: Hugging Face as chief ethic Scientist and also just like
Speaker 1: a top ten a Twitter follow, I've learned so much
Speaker 1: just from like following her Twitter. So if you don't
Speaker 1: follow Margaret Mitchell, you definitely should, being the data driven
Speaker 1: person that she is. She framed this as a research question,
Speaker 1: what are the patterns and how journalists talk to and
Speaker 1: about women in AI. She writes, we've discovered that compared
Speaker 1: to our male peers, there is a disproportionate focus from
Speaker 1: press on our ages, our motherhood, our physical appearances, or behaviors,
Speaker 1: our failures, or what AI gossip we can provide rather
Speaker 1: than technical work. After the most recent double whammy in
Speaker 1: which I was described in one news outlets flirtatious and
Speaker 1: also cagey about my age, and Sasha Luconi was described
Speaker 1: as a mother balancing work and life, we decided to
Speaker 1: be put together some good practices. So doctor Sasha Luconi,
Speaker 1: who's an AI researcher and the climate lead at Hugging Face,
Speaker 1: was did this pro There was this profile of her
Speaker 1: in Adweek and the headline read this AI ethics expert
Speaker 1: juggles motherhood and a tech career. People really had to
Speaker 1: raise hell to get them to change it. I will
Speaker 1: say like, I don't know. I would have been like,
Speaker 1: I think that that title is really problematic. I think
Speaker 1: that if you are being interviewed about your technical work
Speaker 1: and your technical expertise, like stuff that you are good at,
Speaker 1: stuff that you went to school for, I don't I don't.
Speaker 1: I do think that it's disrespectful to shoehorn in conversations
Speaker 1: about you being a parent or a mom, or your age.
Speaker 1: And I don't think we would see that if the
Speaker 1: subject was a man. However, I do want to be
Speaker 1: careful because I think that you know, there should be
Speaker 1: I believe that there should be places and spaces where
Speaker 1: you can talk about the challenges that we that you
Speaker 1: have as professionals and also the fact that we are
Speaker 1: humans that have lives, right. I don't think that an
Speaker 1: article and ad week about your technical expertise is the
Speaker 1: place to do it, but I do want there to
Speaker 1: be spaces where people can have those conversations because you know,
Speaker 1: your professional work does intersect with your actual human life.
Speaker 1: So I actually am like very interested in that. But
Speaker 1: I think it should be something that all adults who
Speaker 1: work and also you know, balance personal and professional lives
Speaker 1: as we all do, not just for women. It shouldn't
Speaker 1: just be something that's like, oh, because it's a woman researcher,
Speaker 1: let's ask about her kids, Let's ask about if she's
Speaker 1: a wife or whatever. I think that we could benefit
Speaker 1: as a society from there being spaces where we can
Speaker 1: talk about the reality of balancing our personal and professional lives.
Speaker 1: But that should be the case for everybody of every gender,
Speaker 1: and it certainly doesn't have a place where the framing
Speaker 1: of the article is meant to focus her expertise like
Speaker 1: that is incredibly sexist.
Speaker 4: Yeah, totally.
Speaker 3: I mean you're never going to see a headline this
Speaker 3: AI ethics expert juggles fatherhood in a tech career, right, Like,
Speaker 3: that's just not a headline you're gonna see.
Speaker 1: Oh, nobody ever asks unless it's unless it's a piece
Speaker 1: that is about being a parent. Nobody ever asks men
Speaker 1: about their kids. Nobody ever asked them like whatever, I
Speaker 1: I mean, this is such a side note, but it's
Speaker 1: it's like a little talk about s gripes. When whenever
Speaker 1: there's like a male writer or person who has achieved
Speaker 1: a lot, they're always I like, nobody ever asks them like, oh,
Speaker 1: who watches your kids when you're working? Like, when you're
Speaker 1: traveling for work, who's watching your kids? I I But
Speaker 1: when you are a woman, that is like but like
Speaker 1: they ask about it all the time. It is frustrating
Speaker 1: how we have like just created this association that it
Speaker 1: is only women who should be concerned about who are
Speaker 1: juggling parenthood and profession, when it is everybody who has
Speaker 1: a child. It is not just women. So the women
Speaker 1: of Hugging Face developed a guide for how journalists can
Speaker 1: get it right and be better when they are talking
Speaker 1: to and about women in AI. The guide reads, the
Speaker 1: real achievements of women on our team often get overshadowed
Speaker 1: by a focus on personal and sometimes very intrusive details
Speaker 1: that are not relevant to their work. With all the
Speaker 1: amazing press attention that we get at Hugging Face, we're
Speaker 1: bound to see some journalists rely on outdated tropes. We've
Speaker 1: seen more reporters ignoring the amazing achievements of our shees
Speaker 1: and these and instead focusing on stereotypes about women in tech.
Speaker 1: The guide is actually really helpful. We will throw it
Speaker 1: in the show notes. It includes tips like avoid gendered language.
Speaker 1: At the moment, we see lots of over associating women
Speaker 1: with certain words and concepts such as children and family.
Speaker 1: Proofreader articles to eliminate gendered descriptions that may unintentionally reinforce stereotypes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so I do think there is a time, in
Speaker 1: a place for talking about what it's like to be
Speaker 1: a working parent. But if you're writing a piece that
Speaker 1: is about highlighting someone's technical expertise, that is not the
Speaker 1: place for that. Like, do not like it is so
Speaker 1: deeply gendered. And here's another tip from the guide, don't
Speaker 1: rely on antiquated stereotypes about women in tech. This includes
Speaker 1: describing women as outsiders in the field, which only serves
Speaker 1: to reinforce the idea that women don't belong in tech.
Speaker 1: They give this example of a problematic sentence. Despite being
Speaker 1: a woman in a male dominated field, Brooke Brooksy has
Speaker 1: made a name for herself in the tech industry. Here's
Speaker 1: how they would change it through her brilliant results on
Speaker 1: magic in LM's Brooke Brookie made a name for herself
Speaker 1: in the tech industry, and that really is so key
Speaker 1: because I think that we have this misconception that people
Speaker 1: who are not cis white men are like the rightful
Speaker 1: owners of technology and those adjacent spaces. And so the
Speaker 1: story that we've told of like women and queer folks
Speaker 1: and trans folks trying to like break into this boys
Speaker 1: club that is not correct. We have always been in
Speaker 1: these spaces since the very beginning, and we got to
Speaker 1: normalize the fact that if our presence is not always represented,
Speaker 1: that is because of intentional choices, not because we were
Speaker 1: not always there. And so really it's like a reframe
Speaker 1: of who belongs in these spaces, who these spaces are for.
Speaker 1: And I'm really glad that they're trying to help educate
Speaker 1: journalists to not unintentionally reinforce this attitude that is just
Speaker 1: not correct. So Mitchell explains that they're hoping that this
Speaker 1: guide actually does make the space more hospitable to women.
Speaker 1: She writes, to help lessen the tendency for press to
Speaker 1: perpetuate concepts of women that harmor ability in tech, to inspire, recruit,
Speaker 1: and retain women, to help create a culture and press
Speaker 1: where technical women who speak with journalists don't have to
Speaker 1: undergo feeling alienated, demean regularly, misrepresented, or d She makes
Speaker 1: a really good point about the importance of women disagreeing
Speaker 1: in public. She writes, one thing about hugging face that
Speaker 1: I deeply value after my years in tech is that
Speaker 1: employees are permitted to speak to the press even in
Speaker 1: the face of clear disagreements across different employees. The approach
Speaker 1: is one of value pluralism, nurturing and respecting expertise. This
Speaker 1: has the side effect of magically producing more women to
Speaker 1: speak on different AI questions. By grounding on expertise rather
Speaker 1: than seniority or alignment to a pr COMMS narrative that
Speaker 1: all must share, we've magically been able to have more
Speaker 1: women be more public than is typical in tech, and
Speaker 1: I love that. I think that. I mean, I have
Speaker 1: been in situations where the organization has a party line
Speaker 1: or a stance, and anybody who is speaking publicly has
Speaker 1: to abide by that party line. But what Mitchell is
Speaker 1: saying is that actually, when you get a pluralism of
Speaker 1: opinions and attitudes, all grounded and expertise, you can actually
Speaker 1: be happy having much more dynamic conversations in public, and
Speaker 1: those conversations can really spotlight women and there are accomplishments
Speaker 1: and achievements much better. It just it just it just
Speaker 1: elevates the whole conversation and makes the space better for everyone.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a pretty radical approach, really certainly unusual in
Speaker 3: my experience. You know, I'm I think pretty most organizations
Speaker 3: I've ever been familiar with, with the exception of universities, UH,
Speaker 3: are very much the everybody must be aligned on the
Speaker 3: you know, official comms narrative.
Speaker 1: Same. I mean, I understand why organizations would would feel
Speaker 1: the need to do that, but I just think this
Speaker 1: indicates that they're there is not the only way to
Speaker 1: be and actually you can get some more interesting results
Speaker 1: when you have more people speaking up.
Speaker 4: More.
Speaker 2: After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: Okay, So I have a question for you, Mike. Are
Speaker 1: you starting to sort of feel yourself winding down for
Speaker 1: the year, Like, are you doing that thing that sometimes
Speaker 1: happens around this time of year where you start answering
Speaker 1: emails with Let's circle back on that in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about that next year.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the sorting of like things that will be dealt
Speaker 3: with in January is well under way.
Speaker 1: Oh, everything there is, Like, if it hasn't been raised
Speaker 1: to me by now, it is not getting raised in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. You we can save it for next
Speaker 1: year at this point, So we are not alone in
Speaker 1: that chat gpt might actually be doing the very same thing.
Speaker 1: Ours Technico reported that in late November, some chat gpt
Speaker 1: users started to notice that chat GPT four was becoming
Speaker 1: a little bit lazier or more sluggish. Chat gept was
Speaker 1: reportedly refusing to do some task or returning very simplified results.
Speaker 1: Open Ai, the company that makes Chatgypt, is aware and
Speaker 1: has admitted that this is an issue, but the company
Speaker 1: was not really sure why, and the answer might be
Speaker 1: what some people are calling the winter break hypothesis, which
Speaker 1: is that since the people who train AI train it
Speaker 1: by feeding it our writing, our language, our behavior, and
Speaker 1: so on, is it possible that AI has learned things
Speaker 1: like seasonal effective disorder or like an end of year
Speaker 1: holiday slowdown. That is what people are wondering. This is
Speaker 1: really funny. The day after Thanksgiving, a Reddit user wrote
Speaker 1: that they asked chatchept to fill out a CSV file
Speaker 1: with multiple entries, but Chatgypt was like, nah, you do it.
Speaker 1: Chatgebt gave this answer due to the extensive nature of
Speaker 1: the data, the full extraction of all products would be
Speaker 1: quite lengthy. However, I can provide the file with this
Speaker 1: single entry as a template and you can fill in
Speaker 1: the rest of the data as needed.
Speaker 3: That is so funny that like, yeah, chat gbt is
Speaker 3: just like, nah, you do it.
Speaker 4: I'm busy, busy doing what.
Speaker 1: Busy trying to steal some Hollywood screenwriters script so I
Speaker 1: can qualify for an OSCAR nomination. Listen, I feel for
Speaker 1: chatgept here because I don't want to fill out a
Speaker 1: long ass CSV file either.
Speaker 3: So this does sound like pretty absurd. And when you
Speaker 3: first told me about this, I was like, that has
Speaker 3: to just be like a joke. But then I was
Speaker 3: reading about it and like all the experts seem to
Speaker 3: be like, yeah, it's absurd, but maybe.
Speaker 1: So I know it does sound absurd, but listen to
Speaker 1: this from ours tetanicem because research has shown that large
Speaker 1: language models like GPT four, which powers the paid version
Speaker 1: of chat gybt, do respond to human style encouragement, such
Speaker 1: as telling a bot to take a deep breath before
Speaker 1: doing a math problem. People have also less formally experimented
Speaker 1: with telling a large language model that it will receive
Speaker 1: a tip for doing the work, or if an AI
Speaker 1: model gets lazy, telling the bot that you have no
Speaker 1: fingers does seem to help produce lengthier outputs. So it
Speaker 1: does seem to suggest that it is learning from human
Speaker 1: behavior that that has an impact on what it eventually outputs.
Speaker 1: That doesn't seem so so like, it doesn't seem so
Speaker 1: wild to me to extrapolate that, like maybe it has
Speaker 1: also learned that you can al sort of like take
Speaker 1: it a little bit easy at the end of the year.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess man. I want to know more about
Speaker 3: that experiment where they told the model that it was
Speaker 3: going to receive a tip for doing the work. Did
Speaker 3: they ever give it a tip, like, is it going
Speaker 3: to get mad when they don't tip it?
Speaker 4: What? Then?
Speaker 1: Is this how AI?
Speaker 4: Like?
Speaker 1: Isn't this how the Terminator movies start? Some bot was
Speaker 1: promised tip and then never got that tip and then
Speaker 1: rose up to take us over.
Speaker 4: Yeah, extracting that tip from human blood.
Speaker 1: Listen, if somebody tipped me to podcasts, I think i'd
Speaker 1: be I think i'd produce better podcasts.
Speaker 3: I'm just saying, Bridget, people tip you to podcast all
Speaker 3: the time. All of your patrons.
Speaker 1: Oh, I guess you're right. Well, continue to tip on
Speaker 1: patreon dot com slash tangoti, where I will continue to
Speaker 1: give you the output of podcast. So there are like smart,
Speaker 1: learned AI folks out there who are trying to test
Speaker 1: this theory. We should be clear that right now this
Speaker 1: is just a theory. We don't know that AI is
Speaker 1: taking a winter holiday break. And we'll definitely let y'all
Speaker 1: know if the folks researching this come up with any
Speaker 1: concrete data one way or the other, but it'll have
Speaker 1: to be in twenty twenty four, because yeah, it's almost
Speaker 1: the end of the year and we're not going to
Speaker 1: do all that work. Do it yourself, why don't you
Speaker 1: look into it If you're so interested, round up your
Speaker 1: own tech news. I'm just kidding. Unlike lazy chat ept,
Speaker 1: I actually do really enjoy breaking down the news with
Speaker 1: you all, So thanks so much for listening, and I
Speaker 1: will talk to you soon. If you're looking for ways
Speaker 1: to support the show, check out our merch store at
Speaker 1: tangody dot com slash store. Got a story about an
Speaker 1: interesting thing in tech, or just want to say hi,
Speaker 1: You can reach us at Hello at tangodi dot com.
Speaker 1: You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tengody
Speaker 1: dot com. There Are No Girls on the Internet was
Speaker 1: created by me Bridget Toad. It's a production of iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: and Unboss Creative, edited by Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is
Speaker 1: our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer.
Speaker 1: Michael Almada is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Toad.
Speaker 1: If you want to help us grow, rate and review.
Speaker 2: 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.
Speaker 3: Yeah,