WEBVTT - Tech News: Facebook Tries to Save Face

0:00:04.400 --> 0:00:07.800
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.

0:00:12.119 --> 0:00:14.680
<v Speaker 1>Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,

0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:17.800
<v Speaker 1>Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio,

0:00:17.800 --> 0:00:20.040
<v Speaker 1>and I love all things tech and it's time for

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:25.040
<v Speaker 1>the tech news for Tuesday, October one. Also, I wanted

0:00:25.040 --> 0:00:27.720
<v Speaker 1>to mention we will not be having a news episode

0:00:27.720 --> 0:00:31.120
<v Speaker 1>on Thursday, will be bringing an episode of Smart Talks

0:00:31.120 --> 0:00:35.720
<v Speaker 1>on that day. But let's get to some news for today,

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:39.360
<v Speaker 1>and y'all, I would love to say that today's episode

0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:42.360
<v Speaker 1>has no news about Facebook because I'm tired of talking

0:00:42.400 --> 0:00:44.239
<v Speaker 1>about it, probably about as much as you're tired of

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:48.280
<v Speaker 1>hearing about it. But that ding dang darn company just

0:00:48.360 --> 0:00:51.199
<v Speaker 1>keeps making headlines. I'm still waiting to find out what

0:00:51.280 --> 0:00:54.200
<v Speaker 1>the new name of the company itself is going to be.

0:00:54.640 --> 0:00:58.680
<v Speaker 1>There is this reported rebranding that's about to happen, and

0:00:58.720 --> 0:01:01.680
<v Speaker 1>by the time you hear this, that news might have broken.

0:01:02.240 --> 0:01:04.520
<v Speaker 1>And of course there are tons of thing pieces out

0:01:04.520 --> 0:01:08.160
<v Speaker 1>there as to why Facebook has decided on this rebrand strategy.

0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:11.600
<v Speaker 1>I pretty much agree with Jake Hancock's take. He wrote

0:01:11.600 --> 0:01:14.679
<v Speaker 1>a piece for Fast Company and he said that the

0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:17.399
<v Speaker 1>move is probably more of a thing that the company

0:01:17.480 --> 0:01:21.200
<v Speaker 1>is doing for investor relations than anything else, and I

0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:23.760
<v Speaker 1>feel like that's pretty on track, but there's some other

0:01:23.880 --> 0:01:28.760
<v Speaker 1>things we need to cover. First, Facebook, since I record this,

0:01:28.880 --> 0:01:30.440
<v Speaker 1>that's still the name of the company, so I'm just

0:01:30.480 --> 0:01:33.600
<v Speaker 1>going to use that as the company name. Has held

0:01:33.640 --> 0:01:38.800
<v Speaker 1>its quarterly earnings call with investors, so CEO and privacy

0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:42.720
<v Speaker 1>is dead. Guru Mark Zuckerberg took some time to address

0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:45.399
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the company has been in the headlines

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:48.760
<v Speaker 1>for a couple of weeks due to whistle blowers coming

0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:53.520
<v Speaker 1>forth with lots of allegations against the company that range

0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:57.520
<v Speaker 1>from Facebook has done some dumb stuff to Facebook has

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:02.800
<v Speaker 1>contributed to the downfall of democracy. Zuckerberg tried to downplay

0:02:02.840 --> 0:02:06.240
<v Speaker 1>those reports, claiming that they quote paint a false picture

0:02:06.240 --> 0:02:09.600
<v Speaker 1>of the company end quote. Now I don't know if

0:02:09.639 --> 0:02:13.360
<v Speaker 1>it's really a false picture. I do know that more

0:02:13.440 --> 0:02:16.959
<v Speaker 1>employees and former employees have come forward with additional complaints

0:02:16.960 --> 0:02:21.600
<v Speaker 1>and concerns about the company. However, one thing Facebook keeps

0:02:21.639 --> 0:02:26.400
<v Speaker 1>on doing is making cash by the truckload. So in

0:02:26.520 --> 0:02:31.760
<v Speaker 1>the last quarter, Facebook made twenty nine billion dollars in

0:02:31.880 --> 0:02:36.920
<v Speaker 1>revenue billion with a B that's nearly thirty billion dollars

0:02:36.919 --> 0:02:41.080
<v Speaker 1>in three months or ten billion dollars per month in revenue.

0:02:42.040 --> 0:02:45.440
<v Speaker 1>That is mind boggling. Now, I'm not sure how many

0:02:45.440 --> 0:02:48.760
<v Speaker 1>investors out there are concerned with stuff like ethics or

0:02:48.800 --> 0:02:52.680
<v Speaker 1>investigations if their investment is raking in the big bucks

0:02:52.720 --> 0:02:56.840
<v Speaker 1>on that kind of scale. I mean, from an investment standpoint,

0:02:56.919 --> 0:02:58.880
<v Speaker 1>you could be saying, hey, I don't know, share they're

0:02:58.919 --> 0:03:00.920
<v Speaker 1>doing some shady stuff up, but look at all the

0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:04.959
<v Speaker 1>green they're there bringing me. And granted I was talking

0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:08.280
<v Speaker 1>just now about revenue not profit. Those are two different things.

0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:12.600
<v Speaker 1>So if we stick solely to profit, then over the

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:15.960
<v Speaker 1>last quarter we're actually talking about a measily nine billion

0:03:16.040 --> 0:03:19.480
<v Speaker 1>dollars in a couple hundred million and change. Hardly enough

0:03:19.480 --> 0:03:21.520
<v Speaker 1>reason to get out of bed in the morning. M

0:03:21.520 --> 0:03:25.720
<v Speaker 1>al right. Anyway, all sarcasm aside, a company making those

0:03:25.800 --> 0:03:28.639
<v Speaker 1>kinds of numbers is not likely to find itself dumped

0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:32.280
<v Speaker 1>by investors. Now. Granted, this could change if governments around

0:03:32.280 --> 0:03:34.720
<v Speaker 1>the world start to force the company to break up

0:03:34.760 --> 0:03:39.600
<v Speaker 1>and spin off various components into independent organizations, essentially making

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:43.200
<v Speaker 1>Facebook peel away the companies that it has acquired over

0:03:43.240 --> 0:03:46.840
<v Speaker 1>the years, like Instagram and WhatsApp. There's also a possible

0:03:46.840 --> 0:03:50.560
<v Speaker 1>shift in the ad space that could affect Facebook's abilities

0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>to generate revenue. That would be a huge shake up

0:03:53.640 --> 0:03:55.960
<v Speaker 1>for the company, and we've already seen evidence that the

0:03:55.960 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 1>company is trying to get ahead of that by counting

0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:01.920
<v Speaker 1>the same person twice if that person interacts with an

0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:05.240
<v Speaker 1>AD on more than one Facebook platform. So for example,

0:04:05.240 --> 0:04:08.440
<v Speaker 1>on Facebook and Instagram, they would count that one person

0:04:08.560 --> 0:04:11.240
<v Speaker 1>two times if they interacted with the same ad. So

0:04:12.360 --> 0:04:15.400
<v Speaker 1>that's a little odd and there's a chance that the

0:04:15.440 --> 0:04:18.039
<v Speaker 1>ad business will change Facebook's earning potential. That would have

0:04:18.040 --> 0:04:21.000
<v Speaker 1>a big effect, and we might see some investors lose

0:04:21.040 --> 0:04:23.400
<v Speaker 1>some confidence, But for now, the company is making some

0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:28.120
<v Speaker 1>serious bank On that same call, Zuckerberg addressed another growing

0:04:28.120 --> 0:04:31.640
<v Speaker 1>concern in the company, namely that younger people don't seem

0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:35.360
<v Speaker 1>to be as hooked into Facebook's products as older generations are.

0:04:36.600 --> 0:04:40.400
<v Speaker 1>Those are some smart younger people. Facebook has seen younger

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:43.760
<v Speaker 1>people's time on its various platforms go into kind of

0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:48.840
<v Speaker 1>a decline recently, um as people started to favor other platforms.

0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:52.960
<v Speaker 1>Zuckerberg has said that Facebook will quote make serving young

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:57.560
<v Speaker 1>adults their north star end quote. He said the company

0:04:57.640 --> 0:05:00.760
<v Speaker 1>is looking to cater more features to young adults, which

0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:03.480
<v Speaker 1>from my observation, usually means that Facebook is going to

0:05:03.560 --> 0:05:05.920
<v Speaker 1>take a look at what other popular platforms are doing

0:05:06.440 --> 0:05:09.800
<v Speaker 1>and then either create something similar in other words, copying

0:05:09.839 --> 0:05:13.760
<v Speaker 1>these platforms, or just go out and buy whatever popular

0:05:13.839 --> 0:05:18.640
<v Speaker 1>companies are are doing well. See also Instagram and WhatsApp. Now,

0:05:19.360 --> 0:05:23.400
<v Speaker 1>the gorilla in this scenario would be TikTok, which remains

0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:27.000
<v Speaker 1>really popular with young adults, so expect to see Instagram

0:05:27.080 --> 0:05:30.640
<v Speaker 1>reels become more prominent in the future. But yeah, we

0:05:30.680 --> 0:05:33.760
<v Speaker 1>should add the fact that Facebook's user base is aging

0:05:34.200 --> 0:05:36.600
<v Speaker 1>and young people are not balancing that out. So in

0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:39.799
<v Speaker 1>other words, the people who are using Facebook are getting older.

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:42.839
<v Speaker 1>Eventually they're going to you know, not be using Facebook

0:05:42.880 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 1>anymore because you don't do it after you die. And meanwhile,

0:05:47.880 --> 0:05:52.719
<v Speaker 1>younger people aren't coming in to replenish Facebook's user base,

0:05:53.160 --> 0:05:56.920
<v Speaker 1>so that could eventually lead to the company's decline. And

0:05:57.360 --> 0:05:59.800
<v Speaker 1>that's why I think there was such an emphasis on

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:04.760
<v Speaker 1>Facebook trying to aggressively go after younger users. Next up,

0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:10.160
<v Speaker 1>Ours Technica published an article titled employees pleaded with Facebook

0:06:10.240 --> 0:06:14.440
<v Speaker 1>to stop letting politicians bend rules, and I guess you

0:06:14.520 --> 0:06:16.240
<v Speaker 1>kind of get the gist of it just from the

0:06:16.240 --> 0:06:20.279
<v Speaker 1>headline of the article, but essentially, Facebook was facing criticism

0:06:20.360 --> 0:06:23.800
<v Speaker 1>from conservatives, some of whom were claiming that the platform

0:06:23.880 --> 0:06:28.560
<v Speaker 1>was censoring conservative voices and was thus biased toward liberals.

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:33.360
<v Speaker 1>So the company's response, according to employees, was to allow

0:06:33.480 --> 0:06:38.520
<v Speaker 1>far right conservatives spread misinformation and otherwise violate Facebook policies

0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:42.440
<v Speaker 1>without facing any kind of reprimand for that, one employee

0:06:42.440 --> 0:06:45.400
<v Speaker 1>said that a director level executive had issued a memo

0:06:45.839 --> 0:06:49.480
<v Speaker 1>indicating that would be really cool if you know, Facebook's

0:06:49.480 --> 0:06:53.760
<v Speaker 1>moderation policies just didn't apply to quote unquote political considerations.

0:06:54.440 --> 0:06:58.560
<v Speaker 1>The employees have said that upper level management, including Zuckerberg himself,

0:06:58.880 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 1>have frequently moved to block any kind of moderation on

0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:06.120
<v Speaker 1>these kinds of posts, even if those posts contained false

0:07:06.279 --> 0:07:11.080
<v Speaker 1>and or harmful information. A Facebook rep named Joe Osborne

0:07:11.320 --> 0:07:14.080
<v Speaker 1>has said that the claims presented are based on a

0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:18.000
<v Speaker 1>false premise, that that premise being that Facebook is unconcerned

0:07:18.040 --> 0:07:22.280
<v Speaker 1>with user safety, and maybe Osborne is being sincere. I

0:07:22.360 --> 0:07:26.760
<v Speaker 1>fully admit that my own personal perception that Facebook is

0:07:26.800 --> 0:07:30.000
<v Speaker 1>at best concerned about safety only so far as it

0:07:30.080 --> 0:07:33.840
<v Speaker 1>will keep heat off the company. That could be totally wrong.

0:07:34.120 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 1>That could be a complete misperception on my part. In fact,

0:07:38.520 --> 0:07:42.040
<v Speaker 1>I hope I am wrong about that. That would be great.

0:07:42.600 --> 0:07:46.320
<v Speaker 1>I just feel like my perception might be a little

0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:49.679
<v Speaker 1>closer to the truth based upon how things have played

0:07:49.680 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 1>out over the last several years. On a slightly more

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:58.600
<v Speaker 1>oddball note, Facebook has retained the services of lawyer Matthew Rosengart,

0:07:59.760 --> 0:08:04.640
<v Speaker 1>Rose and Gart most recently represented Brittany Spears in her

0:08:04.800 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 1>quest to free herself from the conservatorship her father had

0:08:08.320 --> 0:08:13.080
<v Speaker 1>instituted on her um. And that was a quest that

0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:18.080
<v Speaker 1>she achieved, actually she was able to to to bring

0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:21.760
<v Speaker 1>that to an end through the court system. Facebook's purpose

0:08:21.840 --> 0:08:25.200
<v Speaker 1>for bringing on Rosengart onto their side is apparently to

0:08:25.240 --> 0:08:29.400
<v Speaker 1>discourage a production company called Anonymous Content. See that company

0:08:29.480 --> 0:08:33.200
<v Speaker 1>is adapting a book that has the title and Ugly Truth,

0:08:33.760 --> 0:08:36.559
<v Speaker 1>and that book is all about Facebook around the year,

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:40.400
<v Speaker 1>you know, when the company was involved with stuff like

0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:45.480
<v Speaker 1>the Cambridge Analytica scandal and misinformation campaigns. Essentially, the book

0:08:45.520 --> 0:08:47.920
<v Speaker 1>attempts to explain how things got to where they are

0:08:48.400 --> 0:08:52.360
<v Speaker 1>and arguably where they continue to be today. Anonymous Content

0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:55.960
<v Speaker 1>is making a television adaptation of that book, and they

0:08:56.000 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 1>are titling it doomsday machine. Anyway, rosen Art sent a

0:09:00.840 --> 0:09:05.000
<v Speaker 1>letter to the CEO of Anonymous Content, essentially threatening a

0:09:05.080 --> 0:09:11.240
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit should the series contain any knowingly false statements about Facebook. Further,

0:09:11.360 --> 0:09:14.400
<v Speaker 1>Rosengart claims that several of the passages in an Ugly

0:09:14.440 --> 0:09:18.400
<v Speaker 1>Truth are wrong or misleading, and so by extension, adapting

0:09:18.400 --> 0:09:20.840
<v Speaker 1>those for television would qualify as being a big old

0:09:20.840 --> 0:09:23.640
<v Speaker 1>no no. Now, The Verge reports that, at least to

0:09:23.679 --> 0:09:27.160
<v Speaker 1>their knowledge, Facebook has not pursued any sort of similar

0:09:27.280 --> 0:09:32.280
<v Speaker 1>claim against the publisher or the author of an Ugly Truth,

0:09:32.720 --> 0:09:35.679
<v Speaker 1>and that is somewhat puzzling. I mean, if the statements

0:09:35.880 --> 0:09:39.880
<v Speaker 1>were knowingly false, right, If if the statements in the

0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:45.600
<v Speaker 1>book are knowingly false, why didn't Facebook pursue litigation against

0:09:45.600 --> 0:09:49.400
<v Speaker 1>the book or the publisher? Or is Facebook saying, hey, hey,

0:09:49.559 --> 0:09:52.080
<v Speaker 1>we say that that thing in the book is a lie,

0:09:52.440 --> 0:09:54.120
<v Speaker 1>So if you put it on TV, then you know

0:09:54.280 --> 0:09:56.480
<v Speaker 1>we said it was a lie and then you did

0:09:56.480 --> 0:10:00.360
<v Speaker 1>it anyway, so we'll sue you for you know, having

0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:04.880
<v Speaker 1>known false information in there, which isn't how that should work, right,

0:10:04.960 --> 0:10:07.760
<v Speaker 1>But I don't know for sure. Rosengard did say that

0:10:07.840 --> 0:10:10.480
<v Speaker 1>Facebook was willing to consult on the TV show to

0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:14.960
<v Speaker 1>make sure it's accurate, which you know, sure anyway, no

0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:19.120
<v Speaker 1>word yet on how anonymous content is responding to this message.

0:10:19.679 --> 0:10:22.719
<v Speaker 1>One thing Facebook moderators did recently that was the right

0:10:22.760 --> 0:10:25.880
<v Speaker 1>decision was to remove a video posted by the President

0:10:25.880 --> 0:10:30.920
<v Speaker 1>of Brazil Bilsonaro. He had claimed that COVID nineteen vaccines

0:10:30.920 --> 0:10:34.079
<v Speaker 1>were giving people aids, a claim that originated as a

0:10:34.720 --> 0:10:37.160
<v Speaker 1>rumor that had at no actual evidence to support it

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:43.040
<v Speaker 1>at all. It cited uh supposed British government officials, but

0:10:43.360 --> 0:10:46.360
<v Speaker 1>there was no such citation. Like it would be like

0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:49.320
<v Speaker 1>you walking up to me and saying your dad says

0:10:49.360 --> 0:10:52.520
<v Speaker 1>I can punch you, and not say I I don't

0:10:52.559 --> 0:10:56.240
<v Speaker 1>think my dad would say that. But you just argue

0:10:56.280 --> 0:10:59.160
<v Speaker 1>that no, no, no, no no, that that statements out there.

0:10:59.520 --> 0:11:02.360
<v Speaker 1>It's not a proof. So despite the fact that it's

0:11:02.360 --> 0:11:05.960
<v Speaker 1>an unsubstantiated rumor, it hasn't stopped, you know, people including

0:11:06.000 --> 0:11:10.240
<v Speaker 1>the President of Brazil, from spreading it. Now moderators have

0:11:10.320 --> 0:11:14.360
<v Speaker 1>removed this video that Balsinaro had posted, but it took

0:11:14.400 --> 0:11:16.560
<v Speaker 1>three days before they did it, And that's a bit

0:11:16.559 --> 0:11:19.040
<v Speaker 1>of a head scratcher because it seems like a pretty

0:11:19.080 --> 0:11:22.360
<v Speaker 1>clear violation of Facebook's policies. But at least we have

0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:25.200
<v Speaker 1>an instance of Facebook taking down a video that did

0:11:25.360 --> 0:11:28.960
<v Speaker 1>violate Facebook's rules, even when that video came from a

0:11:29.000 --> 0:11:32.800
<v Speaker 1>powerful politician, because too many times in the past we've

0:11:32.800 --> 0:11:36.440
<v Speaker 1>seen Facebook turn a blind eye to such things. All Right,

0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:39.679
<v Speaker 1>that's all the Facebook news out of the way, though

0:11:39.720 --> 0:11:42.280
<v Speaker 1>I think I might mention it once more before we're done.

0:11:42.760 --> 0:11:44.800
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna take a quick break and we'll come back

0:11:44.800 --> 0:11:55.240
<v Speaker 1>with the rest of the news. Today, lawmakers in the

0:11:55.360 --> 0:11:58.000
<v Speaker 1>United States are holding a hearing in which they will

0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:02.560
<v Speaker 1>question representatives from tick talk snap that's the company that

0:12:02.559 --> 0:12:06.680
<v Speaker 1>owned Snapchat and YouTube. So the focus of this hearing

0:12:07.000 --> 0:12:11.040
<v Speaker 1>is going to be on how these platforms affect younger users.

0:12:11.760 --> 0:12:16.000
<v Speaker 1>There's been increased scrutiny and how online platforms are influencing people,

0:12:16.280 --> 0:12:20.120
<v Speaker 1>particularly younger people, and there's also a concern that these

0:12:20.120 --> 0:12:25.319
<v Speaker 1>platforms haven't been fully transparent or forthcoming regarding that matter.

0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:28.600
<v Speaker 1>The lawmakers are expected to ask things like how these

0:12:28.640 --> 0:12:32.640
<v Speaker 1>companies protect user privacy, if they do at all, as

0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:35.400
<v Speaker 1>well as how the content on the platforms might include

0:12:35.400 --> 0:12:38.680
<v Speaker 1>stuff that could harm younger people, and how the algorithms

0:12:38.720 --> 0:12:42.360
<v Speaker 1>that services like TikTok and YouTube rely Upon can serve

0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:46.240
<v Speaker 1>up progressively more harmful material over time. Also how these

0:12:46.280 --> 0:12:52.200
<v Speaker 1>platforms monetize user activity on these you know, various platforms.

0:12:52.200 --> 0:12:54.960
<v Speaker 1>I keep using the word platform, but it's social networking

0:12:54.960 --> 0:12:58.560
<v Speaker 1>platforms essentially. Now. YouTube has been in this hot seat before,

0:12:59.080 --> 0:13:02.040
<v Speaker 1>having had a pretty infamous issue with its platform aimed

0:13:02.080 --> 0:13:06.360
<v Speaker 1>at children, and it's subsequently becoming a target for bad

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:08.760
<v Speaker 1>actors and scam artists, as well as a home to

0:13:08.880 --> 0:13:13.000
<v Speaker 1>some truly bizarre and sometimes disturbing material. I'm not sure

0:13:13.040 --> 0:13:15.480
<v Speaker 1>if we're actually going to see anything productive emerge from

0:13:15.559 --> 0:13:18.880
<v Speaker 1>this hearing, though it might serve as motivation for lawmakers

0:13:18.920 --> 0:13:24.079
<v Speaker 1>to draft or support legislation aimed at protecting kids online.

0:13:24.440 --> 0:13:27.760
<v Speaker 1>Of course, when it comes to law and tech, particularly

0:13:27.800 --> 0:13:31.400
<v Speaker 1>in the online world, we frequently see that stuff that's

0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:35.120
<v Speaker 1>meant to be helpful can sometimes be the opposite. So

0:13:35.160 --> 0:13:37.200
<v Speaker 1>it's too early to say whether or not we're at

0:13:37.240 --> 0:13:39.679
<v Speaker 1>a turning point here, or if we are, if it's

0:13:39.679 --> 0:13:43.640
<v Speaker 1>a turning point that's a positive one. The information reports

0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:46.560
<v Speaker 1>that Apple is very likely to be the subject of

0:13:46.600 --> 0:13:50.160
<v Speaker 1>an upcoming Department of Justice investigation, so you might wonder

0:13:50.200 --> 0:13:52.720
<v Speaker 1>what's being investigated. Well, that would be whether or not

0:13:52.800 --> 0:13:56.400
<v Speaker 1>Apple has a monopolistic hold on some aspects of the

0:13:56.400 --> 0:13:59.960
<v Speaker 1>tech space, most notably in the field of apps, particularly

0:14:00.160 --> 0:14:04.640
<v Speaker 1>for the mobile world. Now, this dovetails with the lawsuits

0:14:04.640 --> 0:14:08.200
<v Speaker 1>flying between Apple and Epic Games, which are mostly about

0:14:08.200 --> 0:14:11.480
<v Speaker 1>how Apple institutes an in app purchasing system. It's a

0:14:11.520 --> 0:14:15.360
<v Speaker 1>required system, you cannot use anything else, and it also

0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:18.679
<v Speaker 1>takes a cut of all in app purchases, and again,

0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:22.160
<v Speaker 1>developers are denied the opportunity to offer up any alternative

0:14:22.560 --> 0:14:26.480
<v Speaker 1>to Apple's in app system. That's not the only matter

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:28.840
<v Speaker 1>that the d o J is interested in. Another is

0:14:28.880 --> 0:14:32.120
<v Speaker 1>the allegation that Apple requires third party apps to abide

0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:36.400
<v Speaker 1>by certain restrictions with regard to location tracking, but Apple's

0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:40.520
<v Speaker 1>own apps are not held to those same restrictions, which

0:14:40.520 --> 0:14:42.520
<v Speaker 1>does sound a bit any competitive. It sounds like you've

0:14:42.560 --> 0:14:44.560
<v Speaker 1>got two different sets of rules. You've got the rules

0:14:44.600 --> 0:14:46.520
<v Speaker 1>that I follow, and then there are the rules that

0:14:46.560 --> 0:14:49.520
<v Speaker 1>you have to follow, and my rules might be a little,

0:14:49.680 --> 0:14:52.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, more loose than yours. That's not fair. The

0:14:53.000 --> 0:14:55.720
<v Speaker 1>d o J first opened up an antitrust probe into

0:14:55.760 --> 0:14:59.280
<v Speaker 1>Apple back in twenty nineteen. According to the information the

0:14:59.320 --> 0:15:02.920
<v Speaker 1>probe re and ly scaled up in activity, potentially indicating

0:15:02.960 --> 0:15:07.000
<v Speaker 1>that an official investigation is to follow. This past weekend,

0:15:07.200 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>Tesla deployed an update to its so called full self

0:15:10.440 --> 0:15:15.080
<v Speaker 1>driving program, which, as I've mentioned in previous episodes, takes

0:15:15.120 --> 0:15:18.960
<v Speaker 1>a really liberal definition of full self driving. But this update,

0:15:19.160 --> 0:15:23.800
<v Speaker 1>version ten point three, ended up causing some pretty scary situations. Apparently,

0:15:24.160 --> 0:15:28.920
<v Speaker 1>the Modes Forward Collision Warning System or f c W,

0:15:28.920 --> 0:15:32.800
<v Speaker 1>would malfunction upon the installation of ten point three, and

0:15:32.800 --> 0:15:35.840
<v Speaker 1>would occasionally detect a collision when there was no such

0:15:36.160 --> 0:15:39.720
<v Speaker 1>danger present. Some users even reported that their cars went

0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:43.520
<v Speaker 1>into fc W mode even when no other cars were

0:15:43.560 --> 0:15:46.160
<v Speaker 1>on the road, and in at least some of these cases,

0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:50.600
<v Speaker 1>the Tesla vehicle would then automatically apply the brakes really hard.

0:15:51.120 --> 0:15:54.120
<v Speaker 1>Often it would do so several times, even on short drives,

0:15:54.120 --> 0:15:58.840
<v Speaker 1>making the cars effectively undrivable. Now, clearly a card that's

0:15:58.920 --> 0:16:02.920
<v Speaker 1>just breaking hard for no reason is itself a danger

0:16:03.080 --> 0:16:06.280
<v Speaker 1>on the road and could potentially lead to actual collisions.

0:16:06.720 --> 0:16:10.760
<v Speaker 1>Tesla recalled the update and rolled users back to version

0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:15.160
<v Speaker 1>ten point two. Elon must tweeted that you know these

0:16:15.160 --> 0:16:19.200
<v Speaker 1>things happen. It's a beta program, so with beta programs

0:16:19.320 --> 0:16:22.800
<v Speaker 1>you expect to find bugs. I mean, honestly, that's the

0:16:22.800 --> 0:16:27.080
<v Speaker 1>purpose of a beta program. You open up testing at

0:16:27.160 --> 0:16:30.280
<v Speaker 1>scale so that you can quickly identify design flaws that

0:16:31.000 --> 0:16:33.920
<v Speaker 1>otherwise might not pop up in a limited internal test.

0:16:34.400 --> 0:16:37.880
<v Speaker 1>But this is where I start to take issue, because

0:16:37.920 --> 0:16:42.760
<v Speaker 1>in this case, you're talking about a technology that can

0:16:42.840 --> 0:16:47.320
<v Speaker 1>freaking kill you if it does not work properly. I'm

0:16:47.360 --> 0:16:51.160
<v Speaker 1>actually surprised that internal testing didn't bring up any incidents

0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:54.360
<v Speaker 1>of phantom warnings, because based upon the reports of the

0:16:54.360 --> 0:16:56.520
<v Speaker 1>people who were in the beta test, it seemed like

0:16:56.520 --> 0:16:58.720
<v Speaker 1>it was a pretty common issue. And I would also

0:16:58.800 --> 0:17:04.000
<v Speaker 1>say the cavalier added HUD is definitely out of place. Anyway.

0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:08.159
<v Speaker 1>Update ten point three point one rolled out yesterday, and

0:17:08.240 --> 0:17:12.040
<v Speaker 1>presumably vehicles will no longer detect ghosts in front of

0:17:12.080 --> 0:17:14.880
<v Speaker 1>them and then slam on the brakes. Now, on other

0:17:14.960 --> 0:17:18.399
<v Speaker 1>Tesla news, the company recently signed a huge deal with

0:17:18.480 --> 0:17:21.880
<v Speaker 1>the rental car company Hurts, which has placed in order

0:17:21.920 --> 0:17:25.600
<v Speaker 1>of one hundred thousand Tesla cars for around four point

0:17:25.720 --> 0:17:30.879
<v Speaker 1>to billion with a B dollars. That's a pretty big deal,

0:17:31.320 --> 0:17:33.560
<v Speaker 1>both in the sense that it's a big business deal

0:17:33.880 --> 0:17:35.439
<v Speaker 1>and that's a big deal to go so hard with

0:17:35.520 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 1>Tesla in an effort to electrify a fleet of rental cars.

0:17:39.680 --> 0:17:42.280
<v Speaker 1>The announcement of the deal gave a boost to Tesla

0:17:42.359 --> 0:17:45.280
<v Speaker 1>stock price, driving the company to a valuation of more

0:17:45.320 --> 0:17:49.280
<v Speaker 1>than a trillion dollars. I'm curious if Hurts will charge

0:17:49.320 --> 0:17:52.880
<v Speaker 1>customers if they return their rented Tesla's on less than

0:17:52.920 --> 0:17:55.879
<v Speaker 1>a full batteries charge, because one way is that rental

0:17:55.920 --> 0:17:58.760
<v Speaker 1>cars companies make cash is they charge you out the

0:17:58.800 --> 0:18:00.840
<v Speaker 1>wazoo if you don't have a old gas tank when

0:18:00.840 --> 0:18:04.240
<v Speaker 1>you return the vehicle. I do know that Hurts struck

0:18:04.240 --> 0:18:07.359
<v Speaker 1>a deal with Tesla to let renters use the company's

0:18:07.440 --> 0:18:11.720
<v Speaker 1>supercharger stations around the United States and Europe. Pretty interesting

0:18:11.720 --> 0:18:14.320
<v Speaker 1>development for a rental car company that was literally in

0:18:14.400 --> 0:18:18.520
<v Speaker 1>bankruptcy just a year ago. Finally, I mentioned last week

0:18:18.520 --> 0:18:22.000
<v Speaker 1>that some companies, including lockeed Martin, plan to collaborate and

0:18:22.080 --> 0:18:25.159
<v Speaker 1>launch a private space station into low Earth orbit by

0:18:25.200 --> 0:18:29.840
<v Speaker 1>twenty seven. Well, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon dot Com

0:18:30.040 --> 0:18:34.200
<v Speaker 1>and Blue Origin, announced that his space company also plans

0:18:34.240 --> 0:18:37.359
<v Speaker 1>to build a commercial space station, and it has the

0:18:37.400 --> 0:18:42.320
<v Speaker 1>operating name of Orbital Reef. Like the station I mentioned

0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:45.240
<v Speaker 1>last week, the purpose of this one will include stuff

0:18:45.240 --> 0:18:49.320
<v Speaker 1>like acting as a research lab for various sciences, presumably

0:18:49.400 --> 0:18:53.920
<v Speaker 1>ones that can potentially lead to a profitable application. Because

0:18:53.920 --> 0:18:57.480
<v Speaker 1>this is going to be largely commercial research, not necessarily

0:18:57.800 --> 0:19:01.200
<v Speaker 1>pure science research. It will also serve as a potential

0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:03.919
<v Speaker 1>site where a company could maybe run a hotel for

0:19:04.000 --> 0:19:08.400
<v Speaker 1>space tourism. Apart from these little details, Bezos and Blue

0:19:08.440 --> 0:19:11.719
<v Speaker 1>Origin haven't revealed much more about their plans, such as

0:19:12.040 --> 0:19:14.760
<v Speaker 1>whether or not the station will be modular in design

0:19:15.000 --> 0:19:18.520
<v Speaker 1>like the International Space Station or monolithic like the other

0:19:18.560 --> 0:19:21.800
<v Speaker 1>proposed private space station we talked about last week. Nor

0:19:21.880 --> 0:19:25.240
<v Speaker 1>do we have any concrete information on a timeline about

0:19:25.280 --> 0:19:27.959
<v Speaker 1>this other than the hope is that it will be

0:19:28.000 --> 0:19:30.520
<v Speaker 1>an operation before the end of this decade. So to

0:19:30.640 --> 0:19:34.920
<v Speaker 1>all those Amazon workers out there who are debating unionization,

0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:37.959
<v Speaker 1>let me just say, while you're peeing in a bottle,

0:19:38.400 --> 0:19:42.320
<v Speaker 1>you could be staring at the stars, just not as

0:19:42.320 --> 0:19:45.639
<v Speaker 1>close as Bezos will be. And that wraps up the

0:19:45.680 --> 0:19:49.879
<v Speaker 1>tech news for today, Tuesday, October twenty six one. I

0:19:49.920 --> 0:19:52.359
<v Speaker 1>hope you're all well. Like I said, we will not

0:19:52.520 --> 0:19:54.800
<v Speaker 1>have a news episode on Thursday. We will have an

0:19:54.840 --> 0:19:58.359
<v Speaker 1>episode of Smart Talks also on Thursday, If you haven't

0:19:58.359 --> 0:20:02.399
<v Speaker 1>already started listening, you should check out the podcast Thirteen

0:20:02.520 --> 0:20:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Days of Halloween. It's a three D audio spooky ghost

0:20:07.240 --> 0:20:12.679
<v Speaker 1>story podcast. Uh, And on Thursday, I will be in

0:20:12.720 --> 0:20:16.720
<v Speaker 1>an episode of that series. It's pretty cool. Uh. Episode

0:20:16.760 --> 0:20:20.639
<v Speaker 1>two is probably my favorite so far, and I'm not

0:20:20.720 --> 0:20:23.640
<v Speaker 1>in that one. It's just my honest opinion. I think

0:20:23.640 --> 0:20:27.040
<v Speaker 1>episode two is a really strong episode. But yeah, check

0:20:27.040 --> 0:20:30.639
<v Speaker 1>it out. It's a pretty creepy, fun like camp fire

0:20:30.680 --> 0:20:33.800
<v Speaker 1>spooky story type stuff and I really like it a lot,

0:20:34.080 --> 0:20:35.920
<v Speaker 1>so I hope you do too. If you have any

0:20:35.920 --> 0:20:38.280
<v Speaker 1>suggestions for topics I should cover in future episodes of

0:20:38.280 --> 0:20:40.159
<v Speaker 1>tech Stuff, feel free to reach out to me. The

0:20:40.200 --> 0:20:42.919
<v Speaker 1>best way to do that is on Twitter. The handle

0:20:42.920 --> 0:20:46.399
<v Speaker 1>for the show is text Stuff H s W and

0:20:46.400 --> 0:20:54.920
<v Speaker 1>I'll talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is

0:20:54.960 --> 0:20:58.080
<v Speaker 1>an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my

0:20:58.200 --> 0:21:01.840
<v Speaker 1>Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

0:21:01.960 --> 0:21:08.520
<v Speaker 1>or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. H