WEBVTT - Tech News: TikTok in the Crosshairs

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:12.280
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,

0:00:12.280 --> 0:00:16.599
<v Speaker 1>and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland, Diamond,

0:00:16.640 --> 0:00:21.119
<v Speaker 1>executive producer at iHeartRadio. And how the tech are you.

0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:24.800
<v Speaker 1>It is time for the tech News for Tuesday, July eleventh,

0:00:24.880 --> 0:00:28.840
<v Speaker 1>twenty twenty three, and we've got several stories relating to

0:00:29.120 --> 0:00:33.800
<v Speaker 1>TikTok and the ongoing concerns about whether that app poses

0:00:34.080 --> 0:00:39.320
<v Speaker 1>as a national security threat to various countries and up. First,

0:00:39.760 --> 0:00:43.519
<v Speaker 1>US lawmakers are looking to amend a proposed law that

0:00:43.560 --> 0:00:47.559
<v Speaker 1>would give the US president broad powers to ban TikTok

0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:52.320
<v Speaker 1>in the United States as well as other Chinese made apps. Already,

0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:55.800
<v Speaker 1>we've seen bans for various federal and state agencies here

0:00:56.520 --> 0:01:00.840
<v Speaker 1>that you are not supposed to install TikTok on a

0:01:01.880 --> 0:01:05.440
<v Speaker 1>government owned device in a lot of these places. But

0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:08.479
<v Speaker 1>this legislation would give the president the authority to block

0:01:08.520 --> 0:01:11.560
<v Speaker 1>transactions that would allow foreign companies to even build out

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:15.600
<v Speaker 1>information and communications infrastructure here in the United States. And

0:01:15.640 --> 0:01:18.280
<v Speaker 1>in a lot of ways, this actually mirrors how the

0:01:18.400 --> 0:01:23.280
<v Speaker 1>US treated radio way back in the early twentieth century.

0:01:23.760 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 1>As the First World War escalated, US authorities seized radio

0:01:28.640 --> 0:01:33.360
<v Speaker 1>broadcast assets, essentially radio stations that had previously been under

0:01:33.360 --> 0:01:36.560
<v Speaker 1>the ownership of companies that had a foreign parent company,

0:01:37.120 --> 0:01:42.319
<v Speaker 1>namely the British Marconi Company. So after the war, the

0:01:42.440 --> 0:01:46.920
<v Speaker 1>US declined to return those assets to those foreign companies,

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:49.440
<v Speaker 1>concerned that it might not be a good idea to

0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:53.160
<v Speaker 1>allow a company that's native to some other country to

0:01:53.360 --> 0:01:58.880
<v Speaker 1>own and operate telecommunications infrastructure within America. So this legislation

0:01:59.840 --> 0:02:03.040
<v Speaker 1>is taken kind of a similar approach. I think the

0:02:03.120 --> 0:02:06.600
<v Speaker 1>legislation was introduced in early spring, but according to Senator

0:02:06.680 --> 0:02:11.360
<v Speaker 1>Mark Warner, TikTok quote spent one hundred million dollars in

0:02:11.480 --> 0:02:15.160
<v Speaker 1>lobbying and slowed a bit of our momentum end quote.

0:02:15.680 --> 0:02:18.560
<v Speaker 1>But this proposal is still on the table. I think

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:21.400
<v Speaker 1>the main concern among critics is that the law would

0:02:21.400 --> 0:02:24.480
<v Speaker 1>expand the president's powers in ways that could have negative

0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:28.320
<v Speaker 1>consequences down the road, which is a reasonable concern that

0:02:28.440 --> 0:02:31.800
<v Speaker 1>you want to make sure that whatever solution you're proposing

0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:37.040
<v Speaker 1>doesn't end up being worse than whatever the perceived problem is. Meanwhile,

0:02:37.080 --> 0:02:41.680
<v Speaker 1>down Under in Australia, the country's leaders are grilling TikTok

0:02:41.760 --> 0:02:45.399
<v Speaker 1>executives about the company's operations as well as an incident

0:02:45.919 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>that happened last December, and that incident was when Byteedance

0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:54.000
<v Speaker 1>admitted Bye Dance being the parent company to TikTok. It

0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:58.000
<v Speaker 1>admitted that some of its employees had tracked journalists and

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:03.040
<v Speaker 1>these were journalists who were covering TikTok, and apparently this

0:03:03.280 --> 0:03:07.200
<v Speaker 1>was in an attempt to cross reference the journalist's locations

0:03:07.760 --> 0:03:10.760
<v Speaker 1>with byte Dance employees in an effort to track down

0:03:10.800 --> 0:03:15.480
<v Speaker 1>whistleblowers or leaks. The TikTok representatives said that while that

0:03:15.639 --> 0:03:19.040
<v Speaker 1>incident did happen, the employees who did the tracking did

0:03:19.040 --> 0:03:23.119
<v Speaker 1>so without the knowledge or direction of the company itself,

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:27.000
<v Speaker 1>So their explanation is that these employees went rogue. In

0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:30.640
<v Speaker 1>other words, some of the Australian leaders became frustrated with

0:03:30.680 --> 0:03:35.080
<v Speaker 1>the TikTok representatives and accused them of obfuscation. At one point,

0:03:35.160 --> 0:03:37.720
<v Speaker 1>a TikTok rep said she could not say for certain

0:03:38.080 --> 0:03:42.800
<v Speaker 1>where Byte Dance's quote unquote formal headquarters were. That led

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:47.840
<v Speaker 1>Senator James Patterson to say, are you seriously not able

0:03:47.880 --> 0:03:51.040
<v Speaker 1>to say how your parent company, which ultimately owns and

0:03:51.080 --> 0:03:54.600
<v Speaker 1>controls you, is operated? So I think it's safe to

0:03:54.600 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 1>say that TikTok isn't doing any favors for itself in

0:03:57.440 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 1>the attempt to walk a little tightrope here to try

0:04:01.280 --> 0:04:06.320
<v Speaker 1>and answer questions without making themselves seem guilty. But also

0:04:06.360 --> 0:04:08.840
<v Speaker 1>the company reps are in a pretty tough position because

0:04:09.040 --> 0:04:11.320
<v Speaker 1>a lot of places around the world have already worked

0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:15.840
<v Speaker 1>with the presumption that TikTok is guilty, and therefore they're

0:04:16.040 --> 0:04:22.200
<v Speaker 1>looking for any bit of evidence that backs up that assumption. Now,

0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:25.720
<v Speaker 1>back here in the United States, Clemson University announced this

0:04:25.760 --> 0:04:28.200
<v Speaker 1>week that no one will be able to access TikTok

0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:31.600
<v Speaker 1>through the campus network. So if your device connects to

0:04:31.760 --> 0:04:36.080
<v Speaker 1>either Clemson University's wired network or its Wi Fi, you

0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:39.799
<v Speaker 1>would find access to TikTok blocked. Of course, you could

0:04:39.960 --> 0:04:42.920
<v Speaker 1>swap to a cellular network and still access it. I

0:04:42.960 --> 0:04:45.800
<v Speaker 1>assume you could also use a VPN and still access it,

0:04:46.200 --> 0:04:50.400
<v Speaker 1>but campus provided internet would be a non starter. The

0:04:50.520 --> 0:04:53.880
<v Speaker 1>ban began yesterday, and the reason Clemson gave her the

0:04:53.920 --> 0:04:57.720
<v Speaker 1>band was to quote unquote protect the integrity of information

0:04:57.880 --> 0:05:01.960
<v Speaker 1>and resources. So with that wording, my guess is that

0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 1>this concern may relate to worries that TikTok could serve

0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:08.520
<v Speaker 1>as sort of a carrier for other types of code

0:05:08.839 --> 0:05:12.080
<v Speaker 1>that could be used to exploit networks. I can't say

0:05:12.080 --> 0:05:14.320
<v Speaker 1>for sure. I mean, maybe they're just worried that someone's

0:05:14.360 --> 0:05:19.120
<v Speaker 1>gonna do a TikTok dance in front of some sensitive

0:05:19.720 --> 0:05:24.839
<v Speaker 1>records that relate to Clemson University. I don't know. News

0:05:24.880 --> 0:05:29.000
<v Speaker 1>stories like the ones I have just mentioned probably contributed

0:05:29.160 --> 0:05:32.039
<v Speaker 1>to our next story. And that is according to a

0:05:32.120 --> 0:05:37.320
<v Speaker 1>survey that the Few Research Center conducted, about fifty nine

0:05:37.360 --> 0:05:40.919
<v Speaker 1>percent of Americans see TikTok as a threat to national

0:05:40.920 --> 0:05:43.800
<v Speaker 1>security in the United States. Some of them think it

0:05:43.960 --> 0:05:46.760
<v Speaker 1>is a major threat, others feel it's more like a

0:05:46.839 --> 0:05:51.560
<v Speaker 1>minor threat. The survey found that conservatives were more likely

0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:54.359
<v Speaker 1>to see TikTok as being dangerous. There there was something

0:05:54.400 --> 0:05:58.599
<v Speaker 1>like a seventy percent of conservatives said so. And also

0:05:58.640 --> 0:06:02.160
<v Speaker 1>they found that the older the person was, the more

0:06:02.240 --> 0:06:05.479
<v Speaker 1>likely they were to feel TikTok is a risk. I

0:06:05.520 --> 0:06:09.600
<v Speaker 1>am guessing there's probably a correlation between people who have

0:06:09.640 --> 0:06:13.400
<v Speaker 1>had little to no experience using the app and a

0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:16.200
<v Speaker 1>fear that the app could potentially serve as a threat

0:06:16.240 --> 0:06:20.640
<v Speaker 1>to national security, though I don't think the survey directly

0:06:20.839 --> 0:06:24.039
<v Speaker 1>established that. It just again, it feels to me like

0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:28.479
<v Speaker 1>that's probably true. I know that the survey used a

0:06:28.520 --> 0:06:33.159
<v Speaker 1>fairly modest sample size of five one hundred one respondents,

0:06:33.400 --> 0:06:36.200
<v Speaker 1>so the headlines that generalize this to all Americans are

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:39.800
<v Speaker 1>perhaps a little bit over zealous, and any conclusions you

0:06:39.839 --> 0:06:41.880
<v Speaker 1>would draw from this survey would need to have some

0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:44.599
<v Speaker 1>really big qualifiers. You need to keep in mind that

0:06:45.160 --> 0:06:47.920
<v Speaker 1>one what was the size of the sample? And two

0:06:48.040 --> 0:06:50.200
<v Speaker 1>how did they word the questions? And for the record,

0:06:50.760 --> 0:06:53.479
<v Speaker 1>the Pew Research Center actually shares all the information so

0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:57.360
<v Speaker 1>you can see that. But personally, I think the whole

0:06:57.400 --> 0:07:00.600
<v Speaker 1>TikTok issue is one of those things where you can't

0:07:00.640 --> 0:07:04.200
<v Speaker 1>see the forest for the trees kind of problem. I've

0:07:04.240 --> 0:07:06.280
<v Speaker 1>said it a lot of times before, but it does

0:07:06.360 --> 0:07:11.720
<v Speaker 1>bear repeating. Should a country be concerned about TikTok's ties

0:07:11.760 --> 0:07:15.800
<v Speaker 1>to China, Well, probably, I mean that is something to

0:07:15.840 --> 0:07:20.000
<v Speaker 1>be concerned about, but we shouldn't focus solely on that

0:07:20.040 --> 0:07:23.360
<v Speaker 1>connection to the point where we ignore the broader problem

0:07:23.880 --> 0:07:27.520
<v Speaker 1>with data brokers and data collection. As long as there

0:07:27.520 --> 0:07:30.760
<v Speaker 1>are platforms that are gobbling up data and then selling

0:07:30.760 --> 0:07:34.320
<v Speaker 1>it to whomever pays for it, there's a potential threat

0:07:34.320 --> 0:07:38.040
<v Speaker 1>to national security. The connection may not be as blatant

0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:41.520
<v Speaker 1>as a company owned by a Chinese parent company. I mean, yeah,

0:07:41.960 --> 0:07:45.600
<v Speaker 1>that's going to set up red flags immediately, but that's

0:07:45.720 --> 0:07:50.360
<v Speaker 1>just obvious, right. Even without that, the connections are still there.

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:52.920
<v Speaker 1>Even if the United States were to ban TikTok and

0:07:53.160 --> 0:07:58.200
<v Speaker 1>any other Chinese based app, the data floodgates are still

0:07:58.240 --> 0:08:04.600
<v Speaker 1>wide open. It does not us the problem, and that

0:08:03.600 --> 0:08:06.480
<v Speaker 1>is that is something that we have to grapple with.

0:08:06.960 --> 0:08:09.320
<v Speaker 1>And my fear is that TikTok ends up being an

0:08:09.440 --> 0:08:12.800
<v Speaker 1>enormous distraction, that whether TikTok is a danger or not

0:08:13.000 --> 0:08:15.600
<v Speaker 1>is kind of beside the point, because the danger exists

0:08:15.640 --> 0:08:19.480
<v Speaker 1>whether TikTok does or doesn't, and that we can't just

0:08:19.640 --> 0:08:23.240
<v Speaker 1>have it become a conversation about TikTok, because then we

0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:26.360
<v Speaker 1>have the false sense of security that we're all safe

0:08:26.840 --> 0:08:29.840
<v Speaker 1>even if TikTok gets wiped off the face of the planet,

0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:34.120
<v Speaker 1>and that's just an incorrect assumption. On a related note,

0:08:34.200 --> 0:08:37.760
<v Speaker 1>in the state of Massachusetts, legislators are proposing a law

0:08:37.920 --> 0:08:40.920
<v Speaker 1>that would make it illegal for data brokers to buy

0:08:41.000 --> 0:08:45.160
<v Speaker 1>and sell cellular location data. Now, this is in part

0:08:45.200 --> 0:08:48.880
<v Speaker 1>an effort to protect people who seek abortions and it

0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:52.280
<v Speaker 1>would keep their location data private so that some other

0:08:52.480 --> 0:08:56.240
<v Speaker 1>entity can't deduce where those people have gone or what

0:08:56.280 --> 0:08:58.880
<v Speaker 1>they've been up to, and that is really important here

0:08:58.880 --> 0:09:01.719
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. States here in the US are

0:09:01.840 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 1>aggressively criminalizing abortion in the wake of the overturning of

0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:11.480
<v Speaker 1>Roe Versus Way. That includes having laws that would punish

0:09:11.480 --> 0:09:15.040
<v Speaker 1>citizens who travel out of state to seek an abortion.

0:09:15.200 --> 0:09:17.840
<v Speaker 1>So even if an abortion is legal somewhere else, if

0:09:17.880 --> 0:09:19.760
<v Speaker 1>you're a citizen of one of those states, you would

0:09:19.800 --> 0:09:22.400
<v Speaker 1>be breaking the law. So this kind of law that

0:09:22.440 --> 0:09:27.040
<v Speaker 1>Massachusetts is proposing would protect people who were seeking medical

0:09:27.080 --> 0:09:30.680
<v Speaker 1>help outside of their home state. The bill is called

0:09:30.679 --> 0:09:36.480
<v Speaker 1>the Location Shield Act, and it would ban the buying, selling, renting, leasing,

0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:41.520
<v Speaker 1>or trading of location data across the state of Massachusetts. Moreover,

0:09:42.000 --> 0:09:46.520
<v Speaker 1>companies would first have to get consent from citizens before

0:09:46.559 --> 0:09:49.080
<v Speaker 1>they could even collect that kind of data in the

0:09:49.120 --> 0:09:52.000
<v Speaker 1>first place. They would have to have the express consent

0:09:52.200 --> 0:09:56.000
<v Speaker 1>of people in Massachusetts before they do that. Companies that

0:09:56.040 --> 0:09:59.040
<v Speaker 1>failed to comply with this bill, if it does become law,

0:09:59.360 --> 0:10:02.400
<v Speaker 1>would face finds as well as open up the possibility

0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:06.560
<v Speaker 1>of class action lawsuits against the company. Chances are pretty

0:10:06.559 --> 0:10:09.880
<v Speaker 1>good that this legislation is going to be passed into

0:10:10.000 --> 0:10:12.679
<v Speaker 1>law in Massachusetts. It would become a pioneer piece of

0:10:12.800 --> 0:10:16.240
<v Speaker 1>legislation here in the US. Moreover, it would be a

0:10:16.360 --> 0:10:20.680
<v Speaker 1>very tiny step toward oversight and regulation of the data

0:10:20.840 --> 0:10:25.960
<v Speaker 1>brokerage industry, which has gone unchecked in the US for decades,

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:29.679
<v Speaker 1>And in my mind, it is the larger problem compared

0:10:29.720 --> 0:10:32.120
<v Speaker 1>to the TikTok stuff that we talked about just a

0:10:32.160 --> 0:10:34.920
<v Speaker 1>moment ago. I think this is a really good step.

0:10:35.480 --> 0:10:37.959
<v Speaker 1>It's one of many steps that I think need to

0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:42.199
<v Speaker 1>be taken in order to place some restrictions on the

0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:50.199
<v Speaker 1>rampant collection and exploitation of information. That information has real value, obviously,

0:10:50.280 --> 0:10:52.920
<v Speaker 1>because companies are willing to buy it, and other companies

0:10:52.960 --> 0:10:57.760
<v Speaker 1>make billions of dollars by selling it. And meanwhile, we,

0:10:58.040 --> 0:11:01.480
<v Speaker 1>the people who are generating the information, end up being

0:11:01.800 --> 0:11:05.000
<v Speaker 1>exploited by it as opposed to profiting from it or

0:11:05.040 --> 0:11:07.760
<v Speaker 1>having any control of it whatsoever. So I think that

0:11:07.840 --> 0:11:11.839
<v Speaker 1>this is a good step. Okay, we're going to take

0:11:11.840 --> 0:11:14.480
<v Speaker 1>a quick break to thank our sponsors. When we come back,

0:11:14.480 --> 0:11:26.199
<v Speaker 1>we've got some more news to talk about. We're back.

0:11:26.320 --> 0:11:29.320
<v Speaker 1>So the United States and the European Union have come

0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:32.760
<v Speaker 1>to an agreement on data policies that will re establish

0:11:32.920 --> 0:11:37.480
<v Speaker 1>transatlantic data transfers between the US and the EU, at

0:11:37.520 --> 0:11:41.560
<v Speaker 1>least for the time being. So Previously, the European Union

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:45.000
<v Speaker 1>turned off the data valves and cited concerns that US

0:11:45.080 --> 0:11:51.680
<v Speaker 1>intelligence officials could potentially comb through EU citizens data and

0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:54.840
<v Speaker 1>that the data belonging to EU citizens would not be

0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:59.640
<v Speaker 1>safe from surveillance. And that is a perfectly reasonable concern, y'all,

0:12:00.200 --> 0:12:04.280
<v Speaker 1>goodness knows, there are US intelligence agencies that are dedicated

0:12:04.320 --> 0:12:07.880
<v Speaker 1>to specifically doing that kind of thing, even to the

0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:12.520
<v Speaker 1>extent of doing it on American citizens. Anyway, the EU

0:12:12.600 --> 0:12:17.080
<v Speaker 1>demanded assurances that EU citizen data would receive the same

0:12:17.200 --> 0:12:20.440
<v Speaker 1>level of protection over in the US as it does

0:12:20.480 --> 0:12:23.600
<v Speaker 1>in the EU, and that US intelligence agencies will have

0:12:24.320 --> 0:12:27.280
<v Speaker 1>limited access to any kind of data from the EU.

0:12:27.720 --> 0:12:31.200
<v Speaker 1>This agreement, which is called the EU US Data Privacy

0:12:31.200 --> 0:12:35.840
<v Speaker 1>Framework or DPF, is the third attempt to establish new

0:12:35.880 --> 0:12:40.960
<v Speaker 1>safeguards that adequately meet EU concerns over citizen privacy and safety.

0:12:41.559 --> 0:12:44.240
<v Speaker 1>That being said, critics of this new agreement argue that

0:12:44.280 --> 0:12:48.440
<v Speaker 1>it doesn't actually make substantive changes in policy, and that

0:12:48.600 --> 0:12:51.320
<v Speaker 1>inevitably there are going to be legal challenges to this

0:12:51.400 --> 0:12:54.880
<v Speaker 1>new agreement, and in all likelihood it will end up

0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:59.600
<v Speaker 1>getting revoked as the previous two agreements had. So what

0:12:59.760 --> 0:13:02.880
<v Speaker 1>the critics are saying is that this still isn't actually

0:13:03.120 --> 0:13:07.520
<v Speaker 1>enough to meet the needs of the EU and to

0:13:07.679 --> 0:13:11.600
<v Speaker 1>protect EU citizens, So chances are this is a temporary

0:13:11.760 --> 0:13:15.320
<v Speaker 1>fix and we'll be back to the drawing board within

0:13:15.840 --> 0:13:19.120
<v Speaker 1>a year or so. Apple has pushed out some Rapid

0:13:19.160 --> 0:13:23.319
<v Speaker 1>Security Response or RSR updates to address zero day vulnerabilities

0:13:23.679 --> 0:13:27.800
<v Speaker 1>that hackers can use to compromise devices like iPhones, iPads,

0:13:27.880 --> 0:13:31.400
<v Speaker 1>and max. This flaw is within the WebKit browser engine,

0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:33.959
<v Speaker 1>so a hacker can essentially set up a web page

0:13:33.960 --> 0:13:36.560
<v Speaker 1>that contains malicious content, and if you get tricked into

0:13:36.600 --> 0:13:39.439
<v Speaker 1>visiting that web page, then you can end up downloading

0:13:39.440 --> 0:13:42.400
<v Speaker 1>and executing some code that then allows the hacker to

0:13:42.520 --> 0:13:45.800
<v Speaker 1>remotely execute code on your device, so essentially you hand

0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:48.800
<v Speaker 1>over control of your device to the hacker. And once

0:13:48.840 --> 0:13:51.360
<v Speaker 1>again this illustrates how it's important to keep your devices

0:13:51.480 --> 0:13:54.000
<v Speaker 1>up to date with the latest security patches, and that's

0:13:54.080 --> 0:13:56.800
<v Speaker 1>a good idea to allow updates to install as they

0:13:56.840 --> 0:14:00.320
<v Speaker 1>become available, rather than to hold off until later. To

0:14:00.360 --> 0:14:03.560
<v Speaker 1>make sure you don't become one of the victims of

0:14:03.559 --> 0:14:07.960
<v Speaker 1>these kinds of schemes. CNN reports that Meta, while basking

0:14:08.000 --> 0:14:09.920
<v Speaker 1>in the fact that more than one hundred million people

0:14:09.920 --> 0:14:13.720
<v Speaker 1>have signed up for Threads already, has also made drastic

0:14:13.800 --> 0:14:17.640
<v Speaker 1>cuts to its teams that focused on fighting misinformation and

0:14:17.760 --> 0:14:21.840
<v Speaker 1>disinformation across company platforms. Now, this has caused for concern

0:14:21.920 --> 0:14:24.200
<v Speaker 1>for lots of reasons, not the least of which is

0:14:24.200 --> 0:14:26.760
<v Speaker 1>that the United States is heading into an election year

0:14:26.840 --> 0:14:29.320
<v Speaker 1>next year, and Meta is a company with a pretty

0:14:29.400 --> 0:14:34.120
<v Speaker 1>awful reputation for facilitating the spread of election misinformation and worse.

0:14:34.200 --> 0:14:37.640
<v Speaker 1>After all, it was Meta's platform Facebook that took center

0:14:37.720 --> 0:14:42.080
<v Speaker 1>stage during the Cambridge Analytica scandal. CNN has trouble getting

0:14:42.120 --> 0:14:45.680
<v Speaker 1>firm answers to some pretty simple questions such as how

0:14:45.680 --> 0:14:48.680
<v Speaker 1>many cuts to those departments have been made, or what

0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:51.960
<v Speaker 1>was the size of those departments now compared to before,

0:14:52.480 --> 0:14:55.040
<v Speaker 1>or even what tools do they have at their disposal

0:14:55.160 --> 0:14:57.640
<v Speaker 1>to do their jobs? And the fact that there were

0:14:57.720 --> 0:15:01.680
<v Speaker 1>cuts at all isn't totally surprising obviously, you know. Mark Zuckerberg,

0:15:01.840 --> 0:15:05.320
<v Speaker 1>CEO of Meta, famously said that twenty twenty three is

0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:08.560
<v Speaker 1>the year of efficiency for the company and that mostly

0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:11.440
<v Speaker 1>seems to boil down to making massive job cuts and

0:15:11.480 --> 0:15:14.960
<v Speaker 1>trying to do more with fewer people. I imagine it's

0:15:15.000 --> 0:15:19.200
<v Speaker 1>easier from a corporate standpoint to make cuts to departments

0:15:19.240 --> 0:15:23.400
<v Speaker 1>like content moderation and trust in safety teams because they

0:15:23.400 --> 0:15:27.280
<v Speaker 1>don't necessarily contribute directly to the bottom line the way

0:15:27.320 --> 0:15:29.680
<v Speaker 1>some other departments do. But as we have seen in

0:15:29.720 --> 0:15:33.200
<v Speaker 1>past years, a lack of resources and policy can create

0:15:33.480 --> 0:15:37.280
<v Speaker 1>massive negative consequences. So if Zuckerberg would like to avoid

0:15:37.320 --> 0:15:40.560
<v Speaker 1>another future date with US Congress, it might be wise

0:15:40.600 --> 0:15:44.040
<v Speaker 1>to make some investments in those departments rather than cuts.

0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:48.000
<v Speaker 1>I talked a lot about Twitter in yesterday's Tech Stuff episode,

0:15:48.000 --> 0:15:50.400
<v Speaker 1>but one thing I did not cover was how the

0:15:50.400 --> 0:15:54.760
<v Speaker 1>company has changed its API policies. So an API is

0:15:54.800 --> 0:15:58.880
<v Speaker 1>an application programming interface. This is what allows a third

0:15:58.880 --> 0:16:01.600
<v Speaker 1>party developer to a tool that can tap into some

0:16:01.720 --> 0:16:05.360
<v Speaker 1>other platform or software. So for Twitter, this is the

0:16:05.360 --> 0:16:07.960
<v Speaker 1>interface that app developers can use if they want to

0:16:07.960 --> 0:16:11.080
<v Speaker 1>create their own third party Twitter client, for example, or

0:16:11.120 --> 0:16:14.720
<v Speaker 1>any other tool that sends requests or posts to Twitter.

0:16:15.320 --> 0:16:18.360
<v Speaker 1>Not long ago, Twitter changed its API policy to increase

0:16:18.360 --> 0:16:21.120
<v Speaker 1>the amount charged to developers for this privilege, with three

0:16:21.160 --> 0:16:25.120
<v Speaker 1>different tiers. If you're at the enterprise tier, you're talking

0:16:25.120 --> 0:16:29.160
<v Speaker 1>about starting at forty two thousand dollars per month, So

0:16:29.240 --> 0:16:32.240
<v Speaker 1>it really depends upon which tier you're subscribed to and

0:16:32.280 --> 0:16:35.520
<v Speaker 1>what the purpose is. But you are paying a good

0:16:35.520 --> 0:16:38.600
<v Speaker 1>deal of money for access to the API, and yet,

0:16:38.640 --> 0:16:43.360
<v Speaker 1>according to developers, the API has become unreliable and unstable

0:16:43.440 --> 0:16:46.640
<v Speaker 1>this year, meaning that apps are not always functional. Twitter

0:16:46.720 --> 0:16:50.680
<v Speaker 1>will make changes without clearly communicating those changes to app

0:16:50.720 --> 0:16:53.880
<v Speaker 1>developers ahead of time, and it kind of breaks the app,

0:16:54.240 --> 0:16:56.960
<v Speaker 1>and meanwhile the developers have to scramble to fix things.

0:16:57.320 --> 0:16:59.840
<v Speaker 1>So it's not due to flaws in the apps themselves.

0:17:00.000 --> 0:17:03.600
<v Speaker 1>Instead's due to problems with the API or changes to

0:17:03.640 --> 0:17:06.520
<v Speaker 1>the API, and that's something that developers don't have any

0:17:06.560 --> 0:17:10.119
<v Speaker 1>control over. So they're complaining that they're spending more money

0:17:10.119 --> 0:17:12.840
<v Speaker 1>than ever to be able to work with Twitter, and

0:17:12.880 --> 0:17:15.399
<v Speaker 1>that Twitter isn't working as well as it should a

0:17:15.520 --> 0:17:18.600
<v Speaker 1>coin immashable. The problem has led to several developers abandoning

0:17:18.640 --> 0:17:22.119
<v Speaker 1>Twitter altogether, which seems to be quite the trend because

0:17:22.240 --> 0:17:26.240
<v Speaker 1>users and advertisers have been doing that as well. There

0:17:26.280 --> 0:17:29.320
<v Speaker 1>have been countless apps and services designed to let you

0:17:29.359 --> 0:17:32.199
<v Speaker 1>make notes and access them wherever you happen to be.

0:17:32.560 --> 0:17:35.360
<v Speaker 1>One of the most famous is ever note, which traces

0:17:35.400 --> 0:17:38.240
<v Speaker 1>its history way back to two thousand, before the era

0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:41.720
<v Speaker 1>of the consumer smartphone, although you could argue that really

0:17:41.760 --> 0:17:45.920
<v Speaker 1>it was the explosion of the smartphone market that made

0:17:45.920 --> 0:17:49.680
<v Speaker 1>Evernote rise to prominence. But last November, a Milan based

0:17:49.720 --> 0:17:54.360
<v Speaker 1>company called Bending Spoons purchased Evernote, or at least announced

0:17:54.359 --> 0:17:56.200
<v Speaker 1>that it was going to, and then the acquisition was

0:17:56.240 --> 0:17:59.800
<v Speaker 1>complete in early twenty twenty three. Evernote is based out

0:17:59.840 --> 0:18:02.160
<v Speaker 1>of Redwood City in America, or at least it used

0:18:02.160 --> 0:18:05.560
<v Speaker 1>to be, and this week news broke that Bending Spoons

0:18:05.560 --> 0:18:08.560
<v Speaker 1>had laid off nearly all of Evernote's staff and the

0:18:08.560 --> 0:18:11.560
<v Speaker 1>company plans to move all operations to Europe. This has

0:18:11.600 --> 0:18:14.240
<v Speaker 1>prompted Evernote fans to worry about the future of the app.

0:18:14.280 --> 0:18:17.000
<v Speaker 1>It's not the first time that Evernote has faced challenges.

0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:19.720
<v Speaker 1>The company upset a lot of users with an overhaul

0:18:19.760 --> 0:18:22.200
<v Speaker 1>to the app several years ago. A lot of users

0:18:22.240 --> 0:18:26.080
<v Speaker 1>felt that the company failed to deliver upon promised features

0:18:26.119 --> 0:18:28.840
<v Speaker 1>and broke a lot of stuff that they liked about Evernote,

0:18:29.040 --> 0:18:31.639
<v Speaker 1>but it kind of recovered from that, although the company

0:18:31.720 --> 0:18:34.880
<v Speaker 1>also held layoffs in twenty fifteen, twenty eighteen, and even

0:18:34.920 --> 0:18:39.399
<v Speaker 1>as recently as twenty twenty two, and now Evernote faces

0:18:39.440 --> 0:18:42.760
<v Speaker 1>a whole lot more competition in the field, so a

0:18:42.800 --> 0:18:44.480
<v Speaker 1>lot of people worry that this could be the end

0:18:44.520 --> 0:18:47.440
<v Speaker 1>of Evernote. And it may not be. Everynote may still

0:18:47.480 --> 0:18:50.560
<v Speaker 1>be sticking around, but things are certainly looking a little

0:18:50.640 --> 0:18:53.359
<v Speaker 1>dark at the moment. So here's hoping all the staff

0:18:53.359 --> 0:18:56.480
<v Speaker 1>who formerly worked for Evernote are able to land on

0:18:56.520 --> 0:19:00.800
<v Speaker 1>their feet. Finally, protesters in San Francisco who object to

0:19:00.920 --> 0:19:05.160
<v Speaker 1>autonomous vehicles have employed a reportedly effective way to paralyze

0:19:05.200 --> 0:19:08.720
<v Speaker 1>self driving cars, and that's to gently place a traffic

0:19:08.760 --> 0:19:12.719
<v Speaker 1>cone on the hood of the vehicle, which then will

0:19:12.800 --> 0:19:16.320
<v Speaker 1>just make it sit still. The protesters, who belong to

0:19:16.359 --> 0:19:19.719
<v Speaker 1>a group that calls themselves the Safe Streets Rebel, have

0:19:19.840 --> 0:19:24.120
<v Speaker 1>dubbed this the Week of Cone. They object to startups

0:19:24.119 --> 0:19:26.800
<v Speaker 1>that are putting more vehicles on the streets. They argue

0:19:26.840 --> 0:19:30.000
<v Speaker 1>that cities should invest in making streets more pedestrian and

0:19:30.080 --> 0:19:34.600
<v Speaker 1>bike friendly rather than to accommodate more vehicles. They also

0:19:34.680 --> 0:19:38.680
<v Speaker 1>object to vehicles that are covered in various sensors and cameras.

0:19:38.960 --> 0:19:43.200
<v Speaker 1>They have likened autonomous vehicles to being surveillance pods because

0:19:43.560 --> 0:19:45.679
<v Speaker 1>in order to operate, they have to be able to

0:19:45.800 --> 0:19:49.880
<v Speaker 1>survey the entire area around them, but that also poses

0:19:50.000 --> 0:19:54.760
<v Speaker 1>a potential risk to privacy and security for citizens. The

0:19:54.800 --> 0:19:57.879
<v Speaker 1>protests aren't meant to cause physical damage to the vehicles,

0:19:57.920 --> 0:20:01.399
<v Speaker 1>but they can still create a hazard because protesters have

0:20:01.480 --> 0:20:03.679
<v Speaker 1>coned cars that just have come to a stop at

0:20:03.680 --> 0:20:07.080
<v Speaker 1>an intersection, and then the self driving vehicle ends up

0:20:07.080 --> 0:20:10.520
<v Speaker 1>being stuck there and ends up blocking traffic. So it

0:20:10.520 --> 0:20:13.879
<v Speaker 1>does have its consequences. And that's it for the news

0:20:13.920 --> 0:20:18.200
<v Speaker 1>for today, Tuesday, July eleventh, twenty twenty three. I hope

0:20:18.280 --> 0:20:20.840
<v Speaker 1>you are all well, and I'll talk to you again

0:20:21.760 --> 0:20:31.720
<v Speaker 1>really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more

0:20:31.800 --> 0:20:36.520
<v Speaker 1>podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or

0:20:36.560 --> 0:20:42.080
<v Speaker 1>wherever you listen to your favorite shows.