Speaker 1: Welcome to Tech Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech and it's time for
Speaker 1: the tech news for Tuesday, October one. Also, I wanted
Speaker 1: to mention we will not be having a news episode
Speaker 1: on Thursday, will be bringing an episode of Smart Talks
Speaker 1: on that day. But let's get to some news for today,
Speaker 1: and y'all, I would love to say that today's episode
Speaker 1: has no news about Facebook because I'm tired of talking
Speaker 1: about it, probably about as much as you're tired of
Speaker 1: hearing about it. But that ding dang darn company just
Speaker 1: keeps making headlines. I'm still waiting to find out what
Speaker 1: the new name of the company itself is going to be.
Speaker 1: There is this reported rebranding that's about to happen, and
Speaker 1: by the time you hear this, that news might have broken.
Speaker 1: And of course there are tons of thing pieces out
Speaker 1: there as to why Facebook has decided on this rebrand strategy.
Speaker 1: I pretty much agree with Jake Hancock's take. He wrote
Speaker 1: a piece for Fast Company and he said that the
Speaker 1: move is probably more of a thing that the company
Speaker 1: is doing for investor relations than anything else, and I
Speaker 1: feel like that's pretty on track, but there's some other
Speaker 1: things we need to cover. First, Facebook, since I record this,
Speaker 1: that's still the name of the company, so I'm just
Speaker 1: going to use that as the company name. Has held
Speaker 1: its quarterly earnings call with investors, so CEO and privacy
Speaker 1: is dead. Guru Mark Zuckerberg took some time to address
Speaker 1: the fact that the company has been in the headlines
Speaker 1: for a couple of weeks due to whistle blowers coming
Speaker 1: forth with lots of allegations against the company that range
Speaker 1: from Facebook has done some dumb stuff to Facebook has
Speaker 1: contributed to the downfall of democracy. Zuckerberg tried to downplay
Speaker 1: those reports, claiming that they quote paint a false picture
Speaker 1: of the company end quote. Now I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's really a false picture. I do know that more
Speaker 1: employees and former employees have come forward with additional complaints
Speaker 1: and concerns about the company. However, one thing Facebook keeps
Speaker 1: on doing is making cash by the truckload. So in
Speaker 1: the last quarter, Facebook made twenty nine billion dollars in
Speaker 1: revenue billion with a B that's nearly thirty billion dollars
Speaker 1: in three months or ten billion dollars per month in revenue.
Speaker 1: That is mind boggling. Now, I'm not sure how many
Speaker 1: investors out there are concerned with stuff like ethics or
Speaker 1: investigations if their investment is raking in the big bucks
Speaker 1: on that kind of scale. I mean, from an investment standpoint,
Speaker 1: you could be saying, hey, I don't know, share they're
Speaker 1: doing some shady stuff up, but look at all the
Speaker 1: green they're there bringing me. And granted I was talking
Speaker 1: just now about revenue not profit. Those are two different things.
Speaker 1: So if we stick solely to profit, then over the
Speaker 1: last quarter we're actually talking about a measily nine billion
Speaker 1: dollars in a couple hundred million and change. Hardly enough
Speaker 1: reason to get out of bed in the morning. M
Speaker 1: al right. Anyway, all sarcasm aside, a company making those
Speaker 1: kinds of numbers is not likely to find itself dumped
Speaker 1: by investors. Now. Granted, this could change if governments around
Speaker 1: the world start to force the company to break up
Speaker 1: and spin off various components into independent organizations, essentially making
Speaker 1: Facebook peel away the companies that it has acquired over
Speaker 1: the years, like Instagram and WhatsApp. There's also a possible
Speaker 1: shift in the ad space that could affect Facebook's abilities
Speaker 1: to generate revenue. That would be a huge shake up
Speaker 1: for the company, and we've already seen evidence that the
Speaker 1: company is trying to get ahead of that by counting
Speaker 1: the same person twice if that person interacts with an
Speaker 1: AD on more than one Facebook platform. So for example,
Speaker 1: on Facebook and Instagram, they would count that one person
Speaker 1: two times if they interacted with the same ad. So
Speaker 1: that's a little odd and there's a chance that the
Speaker 1: ad business will change Facebook's earning potential. That would have
Speaker 1: a big effect, and we might see some investors lose
Speaker 1: some confidence, But for now, the company is making some
Speaker 1: serious bank On that same call, Zuckerberg addressed another growing
Speaker 1: concern in the company, namely that younger people don't seem
Speaker 1: to be as hooked into Facebook's products as older generations are.
Speaker 1: Those are some smart younger people. Facebook has seen younger
Speaker 1: people's time on its various platforms go into kind of
Speaker 1: a decline recently, um as people started to favor other platforms.
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg has said that Facebook will quote make serving young
Speaker 1: adults their north star end quote. He said the company
Speaker 1: is looking to cater more features to young adults, which
Speaker 1: from my observation, usually means that Facebook is going to
Speaker 1: take a look at what other popular platforms are doing
Speaker 1: and then either create something similar in other words, copying
Speaker 1: these platforms, or just go out and buy whatever popular
Speaker 1: companies are are doing well. See also Instagram and WhatsApp. Now,
Speaker 1: the gorilla in this scenario would be TikTok, which remains
Speaker 1: really popular with young adults, so expect to see Instagram
Speaker 1: reels become more prominent in the future. But yeah, we
Speaker 1: should add the fact that Facebook's user base is aging
Speaker 1: and young people are not balancing that out. So in
Speaker 1: other words, the people who are using Facebook are getting older.
Speaker 1: Eventually they're going to you know, not be using Facebook
Speaker 1: anymore because you don't do it after you die. And meanwhile,
Speaker 1: younger people aren't coming in to replenish Facebook's user base,
Speaker 1: so that could eventually lead to the company's decline. And
Speaker 1: that's why I think there was such an emphasis on
Speaker 1: Facebook trying to aggressively go after younger users. Next up,
Speaker 1: Ours Technica published an article titled employees pleaded with Facebook
Speaker 1: to stop letting politicians bend rules, and I guess you
Speaker 1: kind of get the gist of it just from the
Speaker 1: headline of the article, but essentially, Facebook was facing criticism
Speaker 1: from conservatives, some of whom were claiming that the platform
Speaker 1: was censoring conservative voices and was thus biased toward liberals.
Speaker 1: So the company's response, according to employees, was to allow
Speaker 1: far right conservatives spread misinformation and otherwise violate Facebook policies
Speaker 1: without facing any kind of reprimand for that, one employee
Speaker 1: said that a director level executive had issued a memo
Speaker 1: indicating that would be really cool if you know, Facebook's
Speaker 1: moderation policies just didn't apply to quote unquote political considerations.
Speaker 1: The employees have said that upper level management, including Zuckerberg himself,
Speaker 1: have frequently moved to block any kind of moderation on
Speaker 1: these kinds of posts, even if those posts contained false
Speaker 1: and or harmful information. A Facebook rep named Joe Osborne
Speaker 1: has said that the claims presented are based on a
Speaker 1: false premise, that that premise being that Facebook is unconcerned
Speaker 1: with user safety, and maybe Osborne is being sincere. I
Speaker 1: fully admit that my own personal perception that Facebook is
Speaker 1: at best concerned about safety only so far as it
Speaker 1: will keep heat off the company. That could be totally wrong.
Speaker 1: That could be a complete misperception on my part. In fact,
Speaker 1: I hope I am wrong about that. That would be great.
Speaker 1: I just feel like my perception might be a little
Speaker 1: closer to the truth based upon how things have played
Speaker 1: out over the last several years. On a slightly more
Speaker 1: oddball note, Facebook has retained the services of lawyer Matthew Rosengart,
Speaker 1: Rose and Gart most recently represented Brittany Spears in her
Speaker 1: quest to free herself from the conservatorship her father had
Speaker 1: instituted on her um. And that was a quest that
Speaker 1: she achieved, actually she was able to to to bring
Speaker 1: that to an end through the court system. Facebook's purpose
Speaker 1: for bringing on Rosengart onto their side is apparently to
Speaker 1: discourage a production company called Anonymous Content. See that company
Speaker 1: is adapting a book that has the title and Ugly Truth,
Speaker 1: and that book is all about Facebook around the year,
Speaker 1: you know, when the company was involved with stuff like
Speaker 1: the Cambridge Analytica scandal and misinformation campaigns. Essentially, the book
Speaker 1: attempts to explain how things got to where they are
Speaker 1: and arguably where they continue to be today. Anonymous Content
Speaker 1: is making a television adaptation of that book, and they
Speaker 1: are titling it doomsday machine. Anyway, rosen Art sent a
Speaker 1: letter to the CEO of Anonymous Content, essentially threatening a
Speaker 1: lawsuit should the series contain any knowingly false statements about Facebook. Further,
Speaker 1: Rosengart claims that several of the passages in an Ugly
Speaker 1: Truth are wrong or misleading, and so by extension, adapting
Speaker 1: those for television would qualify as being a big old
Speaker 1: no no. Now, The Verge reports that, at least to
Speaker 1: their knowledge, Facebook has not pursued any sort of similar
Speaker 1: claim against the publisher or the author of an Ugly Truth,
Speaker 1: and that is somewhat puzzling. I mean, if the statements
Speaker 1: were knowingly false, right, If if the statements in the
Speaker 1: book are knowingly false, why didn't Facebook pursue litigation against
Speaker 1: the book or the publisher? Or is Facebook saying, hey, hey,
Speaker 1: we say that that thing in the book is a lie,
Speaker 1: So if you put it on TV, then you know
Speaker 1: we said it was a lie and then you did
Speaker 1: it anyway, so we'll sue you for you know, having
Speaker 1: known false information in there, which isn't how that should work, right,
Speaker 1: But I don't know for sure. Rosengard did say that
Speaker 1: Facebook was willing to consult on the TV show to
Speaker 1: make sure it's accurate, which you know, sure anyway, no
Speaker 1: word yet on how anonymous content is responding to this message.
Speaker 1: One thing Facebook moderators did recently that was the right
Speaker 1: decision was to remove a video posted by the President
Speaker 1: of Brazil Bilsonaro. He had claimed that COVID nineteen vaccines
Speaker 1: were giving people aids, a claim that originated as a
Speaker 1: rumor that had at no actual evidence to support it
Speaker 1: at all. It cited uh supposed British government officials, but
Speaker 1: there was no such citation. Like it would be like
Speaker 1: you walking up to me and saying your dad says
Speaker 1: I can punch you, and not say I I don't
Speaker 1: think my dad would say that. But you just argue
Speaker 1: that no, no, no, no no, that that statements out there.
Speaker 1: It's not a proof. So despite the fact that it's
Speaker 1: an unsubstantiated rumor, it hasn't stopped, you know, people including
Speaker 1: the President of Brazil, from spreading it. Now moderators have
Speaker 1: removed this video that Balsinaro had posted, but it took
Speaker 1: three days before they did it, And that's a bit
Speaker 1: of a head scratcher because it seems like a pretty
Speaker 1: clear violation of Facebook's policies. But at least we have
Speaker 1: an instance of Facebook taking down a video that did
Speaker 1: violate Facebook's rules, even when that video came from a
Speaker 1: powerful politician, because too many times in the past we've
Speaker 1: seen Facebook turn a blind eye to such things. All Right,
Speaker 1: that's all the Facebook news out of the way, though
Speaker 1: I think I might mention it once more before we're done.
Speaker 1: We're gonna take a quick break and we'll come back
Speaker 1: with the rest of the news. Today, lawmakers in the
Speaker 1: United States are holding a hearing in which they will
Speaker 1: question representatives from tick talk snap that's the company that
Speaker 1: owned Snapchat and YouTube. So the focus of this hearing
Speaker 1: is going to be on how these platforms affect younger users.
Speaker 1: There's been increased scrutiny and how online platforms are influencing people,
Speaker 1: particularly younger people, and there's also a concern that these
Speaker 1: platforms haven't been fully transparent or forthcoming regarding that matter.
Speaker 1: The lawmakers are expected to ask things like how these
Speaker 1: companies protect user privacy, if they do at all, as
Speaker 1: well as how the content on the platforms might include
Speaker 1: stuff that could harm younger people, and how the algorithms
Speaker 1: that services like TikTok and YouTube rely Upon can serve
Speaker 1: up progressively more harmful material over time. Also how these
Speaker 1: platforms monetize user activity on these you know, various platforms.
Speaker 1: I keep using the word platform, but it's social networking
Speaker 1: platforms essentially. Now. YouTube has been in this hot seat before,
Speaker 1: having had a pretty infamous issue with its platform aimed
Speaker 1: at children, and it's subsequently becoming a target for bad
Speaker 1: actors and scam artists, as well as a home to
Speaker 1: some truly bizarre and sometimes disturbing material. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if we're actually going to see anything productive emerge from
Speaker 1: this hearing, though it might serve as motivation for lawmakers
Speaker 1: to draft or support legislation aimed at protecting kids online.
Speaker 1: Of course, when it comes to law and tech, particularly
Speaker 1: in the online world, we frequently see that stuff that's
Speaker 1: meant to be helpful can sometimes be the opposite. So
Speaker 1: it's too early to say whether or not we're at
Speaker 1: a turning point here, or if we are, if it's
Speaker 1: a turning point that's a positive one. The information reports
Speaker 1: that Apple is very likely to be the subject of
Speaker 1: an upcoming Department of Justice investigation, so you might wonder
Speaker 1: what's being investigated. Well, that would be whether or not
Speaker 1: Apple has a monopolistic hold on some aspects of the
Speaker 1: tech space, most notably in the field of apps, particularly
Speaker 1: for the mobile world. Now, this dovetails with the lawsuits
Speaker 1: flying between Apple and Epic Games, which are mostly about
Speaker 1: how Apple institutes an in app purchasing system. It's a
Speaker 1: required system, you cannot use anything else, and it also
Speaker 1: takes a cut of all in app purchases, and again,
Speaker 1: developers are denied the opportunity to offer up any alternative
Speaker 1: to Apple's in app system. That's not the only matter
Speaker 1: that the d o J is interested in. Another is
Speaker 1: the allegation that Apple requires third party apps to abide
Speaker 1: by certain restrictions with regard to location tracking, but Apple's
Speaker 1: own apps are not held to those same restrictions, which
Speaker 1: does sound a bit any competitive. It sounds like you've
Speaker 1: got two different sets of rules. You've got the rules
Speaker 1: that I follow, and then there are the rules that
Speaker 1: you have to follow, and my rules might be a little,
Speaker 1: you know, more loose than yours. That's not fair. The
Speaker 1: d o J first opened up an antitrust probe into
Speaker 1: Apple back in twenty nineteen. According to the information the
Speaker 1: probe re and ly scaled up in activity, potentially indicating
Speaker 1: that an official investigation is to follow. This past weekend,
Speaker 1: Tesla deployed an update to its so called full self
Speaker 1: driving program, which, as I've mentioned in previous episodes, takes
Speaker 1: a really liberal definition of full self driving. But this update,
Speaker 1: version ten point three, ended up causing some pretty scary situations. Apparently,
Speaker 1: the Modes Forward Collision Warning System or f c W,
Speaker 1: would malfunction upon the installation of ten point three, and
Speaker 1: would occasionally detect a collision when there was no such
Speaker 1: danger present. Some users even reported that their cars went
Speaker 1: into fc W mode even when no other cars were
Speaker 1: on the road, and in at least some of these cases,
Speaker 1: the Tesla vehicle would then automatically apply the brakes really hard.
Speaker 1: Often it would do so several times, even on short drives,
Speaker 1: making the cars effectively undrivable. Now, clearly a card that's
Speaker 1: just breaking hard for no reason is itself a danger
Speaker 1: on the road and could potentially lead to actual collisions.
Speaker 1: Tesla recalled the update and rolled users back to version
Speaker 1: ten point two. Elon must tweeted that you know these
Speaker 1: things happen. It's a beta program, so with beta programs
Speaker 1: you expect to find bugs. I mean, honestly, that's the
Speaker 1: purpose of a beta program. You open up testing at
Speaker 1: scale so that you can quickly identify design flaws that
Speaker 1: otherwise might not pop up in a limited internal test.
Speaker 1: But this is where I start to take issue, because
Speaker 1: in this case, you're talking about a technology that can
Speaker 1: freaking kill you if it does not work properly. I'm
Speaker 1: actually surprised that internal testing didn't bring up any incidents
Speaker 1: of phantom warnings, because based upon the reports of the
Speaker 1: people who were in the beta test, it seemed like
Speaker 1: it was a pretty common issue. And I would also
Speaker 1: say the cavalier added HUD is definitely out of place. Anyway.
Speaker 1: Update ten point three point one rolled out yesterday, and
Speaker 1: presumably vehicles will no longer detect ghosts in front of
Speaker 1: them and then slam on the brakes. Now, on other
Speaker 1: Tesla news, the company recently signed a huge deal with
Speaker 1: the rental car company Hurts, which has placed in order
Speaker 1: of one hundred thousand Tesla cars for around four point
Speaker 1: to billion with a B dollars. That's a pretty big deal,
Speaker 1: both in the sense that it's a big business deal
Speaker 1: and that's a big deal to go so hard with
Speaker 1: Tesla in an effort to electrify a fleet of rental cars.
Speaker 1: The announcement of the deal gave a boost to Tesla
Speaker 1: stock price, driving the company to a valuation of more
Speaker 1: than a trillion dollars. I'm curious if Hurts will charge
Speaker 1: customers if they return their rented Tesla's on less than
Speaker 1: a full batteries charge, because one way is that rental
Speaker 1: cars companies make cash is they charge you out the
Speaker 1: wazoo if you don't have a old gas tank when
Speaker 1: you return the vehicle. I do know that Hurts struck
Speaker 1: a deal with Tesla to let renters use the company's
Speaker 1: supercharger stations around the United States and Europe. Pretty interesting
Speaker 1: development for a rental car company that was literally in
Speaker 1: bankruptcy just a year ago. Finally, I mentioned last week
Speaker 1: that some companies, including lockeed Martin, plan to collaborate and
Speaker 1: launch a private space station into low Earth orbit by
Speaker 1: twenty seven. Well, Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon dot Com
Speaker 1: and Blue Origin, announced that his space company also plans
Speaker 1: to build a commercial space station, and it has the
Speaker 1: operating name of Orbital Reef. Like the station I mentioned
Speaker 1: last week, the purpose of this one will include stuff
Speaker 1: like acting as a research lab for various sciences, presumably
Speaker 1: ones that can potentially lead to a profitable application. Because
Speaker 1: this is going to be largely commercial research, not necessarily
Speaker 1: pure science research. It will also serve as a potential
Speaker 1: site where a company could maybe run a hotel for
Speaker 1: space tourism. Apart from these little details, Bezos and Blue
Speaker 1: Origin haven't revealed much more about their plans, such as
Speaker 1: whether or not the station will be modular in design
Speaker 1: like the International Space Station or monolithic like the other
Speaker 1: proposed private space station we talked about last week. Nor
Speaker 1: do we have any concrete information on a timeline about
Speaker 1: this other than the hope is that it will be
Speaker 1: an operation before the end of this decade. So to
Speaker 1: all those Amazon workers out there who are debating unionization,
Speaker 1: let me just say, while you're peeing in a bottle,
Speaker 1: you could be staring at the stars, just not as
Speaker 1: close as Bezos will be. And that wraps up the
Speaker 1: tech news for today, Tuesday, October twenty six one. I
Speaker 1: hope you're all well. Like I said, we will not
Speaker 1: have a news episode on Thursday. We will have an
Speaker 1: episode of Smart Talks also on Thursday, If you haven't
Speaker 1: already started listening, you should check out the podcast Thirteen
Speaker 1: Days of Halloween. It's a three D audio spooky ghost
Speaker 1: story podcast. Uh, And on Thursday, I will be in
Speaker 1: an episode of that series. It's pretty cool. Uh. Episode
Speaker 1: two is probably my favorite so far, and I'm not
Speaker 1: in that one. It's just my honest opinion. I think
Speaker 1: episode two is a really strong episode. But yeah, check
Speaker 1: it out. It's a pretty creepy, fun like camp fire
Speaker 1: spooky story type stuff and I really like it a lot,
Speaker 1: so I hope you do too. If you have any
Speaker 1: suggestions for topics I should cover in future episodes of
Speaker 1: tech Stuff, feel free to reach out to me. The
Speaker 1: best way to do that is on Twitter. The handle
Speaker 1: for the show is text Stuff H s W and
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is
Speaker 1: an I Heart Radio production. For more podcasts from my
Speaker 1: Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. H