Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridgett and this is
Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm here with
Speaker 1: my producer, Mike. Mike, I am so excited to run
Speaker 1: down the news with you because we have so many
Speaker 1: good updates in this episode.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's been a busy week, so let's get into
Speaker 2: a bridget.
Speaker 1: And here's what you might have missed this week on
Speaker 1: the Internet.
Speaker 3: But first, if.
Speaker 1: You feel like our audio is a little bit off,
Speaker 1: it is not because one of us has made an
Speaker 1: error that we will bring up until the day we die.
Speaker 1: It's because I'm traveling and I am not recording in
Speaker 1: my normal studio, So hopefully it's not too bad. So
Speaker 1: back in June, when the Supreme Court ruled on affirmative action,
Speaker 1: we told you about the conservative activist named Edward Blum
Speaker 1: and the group group might be a little bit of
Speaker 1: a misnomer because it's literally just him. It is a
Speaker 1: group of one called the Erican Alliance for Equal Rights,
Speaker 1: which really curtails progress in the United States by filing lawsuits.
Speaker 1: Dude is not even a lawyer. I think I described
Speaker 1: him as a professional hater in the last episode that
Speaker 1: we did about affirmative action. So Blum was behind the
Speaker 1: legal challenge to affirmative action, both the one led by
Speaker 1: that white woman who did not get into the University
Speaker 1: of Texas and the most recent challenge on behalf of
Speaker 1: both white and Asian students that led to the consideration
Speaker 1: of race in college admissions being struck down as unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: His legal challenges also led to the gutting of the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act. Well high on those big wins, my
Speaker 1: man Edward Blum is back after gutting affirmative action. His
Speaker 1: next move is suing a black venture capital firm called
Speaker 1: Fearless Fund, because he alleges the Fearless Fund is practicing
Speaker 1: unlawful racial discrimination. His claim states at the firm is
Speaker 1: violating Section nineteen eighty one of the Civil Rights Acts
Speaker 1: of eighteen sixty six, a US law barring racial bias
Speaker 1: in private contracts, by making only black women eligible in
Speaker 1: a grant competition. So basically, Fearless Fund was launched in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen by three prominent black women, actress Keisha Knight Pullman. Yes,
Speaker 1: that Keisha Knight Pullman, who you might recall as Rudy
Speaker 1: Huxtable from The Cosby Show, entrepreneur arian Simone, and corporate
Speaker 1: executive Aana Parsons. Now Fearless Fund has a pretty impressive
Speaker 1: list of investors like Bank of America, Costco, General Mills, MasterCard, JP,
Speaker 1: Morgan Chase, and more. The lawsuit centers on Fearless Funds
Speaker 1: Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, which awards Black women who own
Speaker 1: small businesses twenty thousand dollars in grants, digital tools to
Speaker 1: help them grow their businesses and mentorship opportunities provided in
Speaker 1: conjunction with MasterCard. Now Blum hater that he is says
Speaker 1: that because this is a program that is specifically designed
Speaker 1: to uplift black women business owners, that that means that
Speaker 1: it is discriminatory against white people and Asian Americans because
Speaker 1: they're not eligible to be part of this grant program. Now,
Speaker 1: I have to say, it is so clear to me
Speaker 1: what Blum is doing. I think that he is high
Speaker 1: off of the success that he had in gutting our
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act and also gutting affirmative action and really
Speaker 1: shaping the considerations around race that colleges are giving to
Speaker 1: people trying to apply. It's not as if black women
Speaker 1: business owners are out here being overrepresented. As a black
Speaker 1: women business owner myself, I can certainly tell you that
Speaker 1: black entrepreneurs typically receive less than two percent of all
Speaker 1: VC dollars each year, while companies led by black women
Speaker 1: receive even less than that. They received even less than
Speaker 1: one percent, according to data from Crunchbase. So that means
Speaker 1: that Edward Blum basically saw that ninety nine percent of
Speaker 1: VC funding and support is going to white people, white men. Really,
Speaker 1: I was like, you know what, I'm coming for that
Speaker 1: last one percent too, that should be ours two.
Speaker 2: What a jerk, you know, Like, why why? Why is
Speaker 2: he doing this?
Speaker 1: I just think there are people out there who really
Speaker 1: have it in their head that they that we need
Speaker 1: to go back to the way quote the way things were,
Speaker 1: make America great again. It's a great example of what
Speaker 1: I mean. And I think it's not just in sort
Speaker 1: of like these bigger ideas around political issues, but also
Speaker 1: in just in like who gets support around owning a business,
Speaker 1: who gets support in terms of venture capital. I think
Speaker 1: that that people like Blum have been watching the progress
Speaker 1: that we have made, progress that I would actually argue
Speaker 1: has not been particularly fast, Like I would say like
Speaker 1: incremental slow progress that marginalized people have made in this country,
Speaker 1: and they're like, no, we need to go back to
Speaker 1: a time when this was not happening. And the way
Speaker 1: that they are doing it is through the courts. It
Speaker 1: is horrifying to me to hear people talk about this
Speaker 1: and legitimize this as if it is an illegal challenge
Speaker 1: genuinely based in you know, just leveling the racial playing field,
Speaker 1: because it's not. It's obviously not.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like an argument happening in a vacuum that
Speaker 2: is separate from the America that we all live in,
Speaker 2: where racism and sexism and a history of both of
Speaker 2: those things very much influence what's happening today, and like
Speaker 2: who has what resources? The idea that any attempt to
Speaker 2: balance the playing field is itself racist is get It
Speaker 2: is just maddening, you know, like the like words fail,
Speaker 2: it's just maddening and like incorrect and and it'sself racist, right,
Speaker 2: Like these are these are racist things that he is doing.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, And I think using the Affirmative Action and the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act as templates, I think I really see
Speaker 1: the kind of path that he's trying to argue against,
Speaker 1: which is that you know, any kind of process or
Speaker 1: program that is not race neutral is inherently racist. But
Speaker 1: what that does, like you, if you look at affirmative action,
Speaker 1: affirmative action, that case did not strike down legacy admissions
Speaker 1: to colleges, although there are colleges who are now looking
Speaker 1: at that thankfully and asking whether or not that is
Speaker 1: something they want to keep on the books. But you know,
Speaker 1: programs that have either explicitly or implicitly given a leg
Speaker 1: up to non black people and people who are not
Speaker 1: people of color are marginalized. Those have existed, those continue
Speaker 1: to exist. And I think that the very clear through
Speaker 1: line that I see him making is this idea that
Speaker 1: if anything is for black women specifically, inherently it is racist.
Speaker 1: And it really argued, it really uses this incorrect attitude
Speaker 1: that we are all on an equal play in field now,
Speaker 1: which all you have to do is look at the
Speaker 1: numbers around who is getting funding in the BC space
Speaker 1: to see that that's not true.
Speaker 2: Right exactly. It's a complete fiction. It's based the whole
Speaker 2: enterprises based on the fiction that race doesn't matter, and
Speaker 2: the only way that race matters in America today is
Speaker 2: affirmative action. Programs that somehow bias things towards black people,
Speaker 2: which is just so separate from reality. Like you said,
Speaker 2: you just look at those numbers, look at any any
Speaker 2: numbers related to median income or mortality, or who starts
Speaker 2: businesses or who owns stock like anything. You can see
Speaker 2: this is not a level playing field.
Speaker 1: And I think that we're in this place right now
Speaker 1: where what you just said just basic reality. We are
Speaker 1: all supposed to go back to a time where we
Speaker 1: don't talk about it, where the basic inequities that are
Speaker 1: built into the experience of being a person of color
Speaker 1: or a marginalized person in the United States, we are
Speaker 1: supposed to act like we're all on an equal playing field,
Speaker 1: that things like racism, sexism, transphobia, all of that as
Speaker 1: the thing of the past. We're all equal today, even
Speaker 1: though it's clearly not true. And so I'm I'm just
Speaker 1: so tired of this guy. And honestly, if this challenge
Speaker 1: had come a couple of years earlier, I would be like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's gonna get lapped out at the court. But truly,
Speaker 1: I don't know, right like, he has had some wins
Speaker 1: at successfully single handedly rolling back progress in our country,
Speaker 1: and so I do worry because, like, I don't see
Speaker 1: this specific story getting the kind of attention that I
Speaker 1: might expect coming after his big win with gutting affirmative Action.
Speaker 1: And I think that's because even though affirmative action was
Speaker 1: kind of branded as only helping black people, it actually
Speaker 1: statistically helped white people as well white women. And I'm
Speaker 1: worried that because this move has Blum actually going after
Speaker 1: something that specifically helps black women, this mentorship and financial
Speaker 1: grant for black women entrepreneurs, it's not going to get
Speaker 1: as much attention. And you know, this little thing that
Speaker 1: we have to support us as black women entrepreneurs is
Speaker 1: going to be quietly swept away without much fanfare. As
Speaker 1: a black woman business owner, a black woman entrepreneur, I
Speaker 1: can tell you there is not much out there for us.
Speaker 1: We'll have our little programs. I'm not going to say
Speaker 1: that I'm not like thankful for what it's out there,
Speaker 1: because I've definitely been part of entrepreneurship programs and I'm
Speaker 1: thankful for those opportunities. I don't want to make it
Speaker 1: seem like I'm not thankful for them, but there's just
Speaker 1: not a lot out there for us, and that's why
Speaker 1: you have to have these kinds of programs, and so yeah,
Speaker 1: I wish I could say that, oh, this is going
Speaker 1: to be laughed out of court, but we'll keep an
Speaker 1: eye on that. We'll keep updating you with how this goes.
Speaker 1: And yeah, Edward Blum not a good guy. Not not what's
Speaker 1: what's the opposite of a friend of the show? Enemy
Speaker 1: of the show?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he is not a good guy. And you know, Bridge,
Speaker 2: I feel like you're selling it a little short, even
Speaker 2: in that like damning condemnation. But like, you know, having
Speaker 2: worked with you for a few years now, I've seen
Speaker 2: you talking with people about deals, you know, getting and
Speaker 2: just getting what often seems like a more raw deal
Speaker 2: then someone else might get in that position. You know,
Speaker 2: like there's there is real discrimination out there in the
Speaker 2: world of business, and anybody who says otherwise is like
Speaker 2: has their head in the sand at best. And yeah,
Speaker 2: this guy two to try to pretend like, you know,
Speaker 2: he doesn't see color. It doesn't exist, race doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: It's it is so tiresome and it is also scary,
Speaker 2: especially because, like you said, it seems to be working
Speaker 2: enemy of the show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that you're so. First of all, thank
Speaker 1: you for that it's I could talk all day, it
Speaker 1: would not be a very interesting podcast. But any business
Speaker 1: owner entrepreneur out there knows how hard it is. And
Speaker 1: you go to these meetings and like you you sometimes
Speaker 1: you're very aware that you're being treated differently and you
Speaker 1: just have to smile through it. It's like there's no
Speaker 1: there's no alternative other than just smile through it, keep going.
Speaker 1: It's not my favorite thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And one more thing I want to say for
Speaker 2: our listeners that you won't say, Bridget, but I want
Speaker 2: to say it. You and I have talked about how
Speaker 2: one of your superpowers is smiling through it and like
Speaker 2: being willing to just like take it and keep going.
Speaker 2: Which yeah, I it is maddening.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is like the kind of stuff that
Speaker 1: nobody likes to listen to on a podcast. But it's
Speaker 1: it's you're not wrong, and it's just one of those
Speaker 1: things that like, if you want to build something, like
Speaker 1: if you want to like really build a legacy and
Speaker 1: really start a thing, ask anybody who has done it.
Speaker 1: You have to really eat shit, like I like, you
Speaker 1: really have to like learn to eat shit, like learn
Speaker 1: to take stuff on the chin that doesn't feel very good.
Speaker 1: I have a whole support system, Mike. You are a
Speaker 1: part of that support system where when things when I
Speaker 1: feel like I'm experiencing these kinds of setbacks, where I
Speaker 1: know how to pump myself back up and like get
Speaker 1: myself emotionally and mentally where I need to be to
Speaker 1: keep going. But I'm not going to sit here and
Speaker 1: tell you that it's easy and to have people like
Speaker 1: Blum that the small amount of things that we do
Speaker 1: have that are meant to support us. And I could
Speaker 1: talk all day about entrepreneurship programs, half of them are
Speaker 1: like like the fact that this one has real money,
Speaker 1: a twenty thousand dollars financial grant involved. Oftentimes it is like, oh,
Speaker 1: what do you get for this? Just mentorship? You don't
Speaker 1: get any money, And I'm like, oh, well, that's great.
Speaker 1: But sometimes what marginalized entrepreneurs need is like a check.
Speaker 1: Sometimes sometimes like we're good on mentorship. We have our circle,
Speaker 1: we have our people, like I have the people that
Speaker 1: I consider my mentors. I have my circle. Sometimes what
Speaker 1: we need is money. So the fact that he's going
Speaker 1: after a program that gives actual money when there are
Speaker 1: so many more that don't give money just mentorship is
Speaker 1: really upsetting to me. And I think that, like what
Speaker 1: he is actually saying is these things should be race neutral.
Speaker 1: Things that we know aren't race neutral. Like it's really
Speaker 1: like playing in our face about something that we all know.
Speaker 1: We all know that race and gender and identity all
Speaker 1: of that plays so much into who gets opportunities and
Speaker 1: who gets to succeed and who gets ahead. And he's
Speaker 1: playing in our face and saying, no, let's not consider
Speaker 1: that at all. And what that is actually saying is,
Speaker 1: let's ensure that it is only white men who get
Speaker 1: to get ahead. Let's make sure that when colleges are
Speaker 1: doing admissions, it is not race they're getting consideration to.
Speaker 1: It is gender, it is legacy, It is whether or
Speaker 1: not your father donated a gymnasium, right, And so it
Speaker 1: is just so clear to me what he is saying.
Speaker 1: And yeah, it's just it's it's not like we're it's
Speaker 1: not like we have so much Like I feel like
Speaker 1: people like Blum would probably see the progress that movements
Speaker 1: like Black Lives Matter and Me Too have made in
Speaker 1: the last five or ten years and said, oh, when,
Speaker 1: like I mean, I do I have to say, like
Speaker 1: I do think there is a certain popular segment of
Speaker 1: the population who believes that like, marginalize people get everything
Speaker 1: in this country, and that like we get into college
Speaker 1: for free, we don't we just getting lots of government programs,
Speaker 1: we get free houses. That is a common that is
Speaker 1: a common misconception, and I think that what he is
Speaker 1: doing is playing to that idea that for too long
Speaker 1: it has been marginalized people who are the powerholders in
Speaker 1: this country because of the very small gains that we
Speaker 1: have made in this country. And so yeah, it just
Speaker 1: it is upsetting. If I sound like I'm taking this
Speaker 1: a little bit personally, it's because I am. This feels
Speaker 1: very personal to me. And yeah, Blum, you are not,
Speaker 1: I think, first ever explicitly named enemy of the show.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's start keeping a list. You know, he can
Speaker 2: be at the top.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Crooked Media has friends of the Pod. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be the first, the first podcast out there that has
Speaker 1: enemies of the Pod a whole written out list. Number one,
Speaker 1: Edward Blum.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can keep going. But like, maybe we just
Speaker 2: jumped into this episode. Maybe there's something a little lighter
Speaker 2: we could talk about, maybe like pornography.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess it depends on the kind of
Speaker 1: pornography that you watch.
Speaker 3: But sure, let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1: So we do have an update for all you online
Speaker 1: porn enthusiasts out there. We told you about the age
Speaker 1: verification laws rolling out in states like Virginia, Louisiana, Utah,
Speaker 1: and Arkansas, and here's an update. In Utah, the new
Speaker 1: law requiring adult websites to verify the age of their
Speaker 1: users will remain in effect after a federal judge dismissed
Speaker 1: a lawsuit from digital privacy advocates and the Free Speech Coalition,
Speaker 1: who were trying to challenge the law's constitutionality. Importantly, the judge,
Speaker 1: Judge Ted Stewart, did not address the group's argument that
Speaker 1: the law unfairly discriminates against certain kinds of speech, violates
Speaker 1: the First Amendment rights of porn providers, and intrudes on
Speaker 1: the privacy of individuals who want to view sexually explicit materials.
Speaker 1: But he did say that these digital rights groups could
Speaker 1: not sue Utah officials because of how the law is written.
Speaker 1: The law specifically does not direct the state to pursue
Speaker 1: or prosecute adult websites. Instead, the law gives Utah residents
Speaker 1: the power to sue adult websites and collect damages if
Speaker 1: those websites do not take precautions to verify users ages.
Speaker 1: So basically it's the difference between oh, porn websites get
Speaker 1: this kind of punishment. What the law actually says is
Speaker 1: that if porn websites do not actually take steps to
Speaker 1: verify users' ages, people can sue them and that's how
Speaker 1: they'll get damages. So the last time that we talked
Speaker 1: about this, we also told you about sites like mind geek,
Speaker 1: but is the parent company of very popular pornography tube
Speaker 1: sites like red tube and porn Hub. I don't have
Speaker 1: any day on where most Americans are getting their pornography,
Speaker 1: but I would be willing to bet that mine geek
Speaker 1: represents a very big lie in share of where people
Speaker 1: who are viewing online pornography are doing the viewing. So
Speaker 1: mine geek is pulling their sites from states enforcing age
Speaker 1: verification laws altogether rather than actually trying to go through
Speaker 1: the process of enforcing these age verifications. They actually did
Speaker 1: try to start enforcing age verification in Louisiana earlier this year,
Speaker 1: but the company said that traffic dropped by eighty percent,
Speaker 1: So instead of rolling out age verification systems. Mine Geek
Speaker 1: says they're going to be blocking access entirely to their
Speaker 1: websites like Pornhub and red Tube, calling on users to
Speaker 1: contact their state representatives to oppose these laws, and that
Speaker 1: actually happened in Arkansas this week. Pornhubs operator mind geek
Speaker 1: has blocked all Arkansas users from the site and also
Speaker 1: red Tube after the state's new age verification law went
Speaker 1: into effect this Tuesday. All of that is to say,
Speaker 1: if you're planning on looking at pornography online in Arkansas,
Speaker 1: you might need to make other plans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it seems like if that's what you're
Speaker 2: planning to do, it would be smart to make other
Speaker 2: plans because the site is blocked. But also if your
Speaker 2: big plan for the weekend is to go to Arkansas
Speaker 2: and look at pornography, maybe you should think about making
Speaker 2: some other plans, just like anyway, I don't.
Speaker 1: Know, that doesn't sound so bad, Like somebody out there
Speaker 1: has probably had a big weekend of like watching online
Speaker 1: pornography in Arkansas. I don't I don't know. There are
Speaker 1: worse plans, I.
Speaker 2: Guess, so, yeah, yeah, it's fair, you know, if that's
Speaker 2: what people want to do, they should have the right
Speaker 2: to do that. And I guess that's really the core
Speaker 2: of this issue, right, Like maybe I have my opinions
Speaker 2: about the merits of traveling to Arkansas to want to
Speaker 2: look at porn, but like people should have the right
Speaker 2: to do it if that's what they want, and some
Speaker 2: people live there.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you saw a lineup for my weekend plans,
Speaker 1: you would not be judging it is. It is nothing
Speaker 1: quite as glamorous as watching online porn in Arkansas, I
Speaker 1: can tell you that. Okay, So, speaking of things being
Speaker 1: blocked online, we have another update for you, and that
Speaker 1: is that Meta has officially began blocking news content from
Speaker 1: its platforms in Canada. Y'all might remember that we talked
Speaker 1: about this a few newscasts Togo also major shout outs
Speaker 1: to listener Sarah Jay from Canada, who I've kind of
Speaker 1: been calling my Canadian correspondent because she's been really helping
Speaker 1: me understand this story and all stories happening in Canada. Basically,
Speaker 1: this block is in response to a new Canadian law
Speaker 1: called the Online News Act that requires tech platforms like
Speaker 1: Facebook and Google to negotiate with and pay news organizations
Speaker 1: to distribute their content. A few months ago, Facebook was
Speaker 1: going on and on and back and forth kind of
Speaker 1: threatening to pull news content in Canada if the Online
Speaker 1: News Act was passed. Y'all might recall they did the
Speaker 1: same thing in Australia and news content was actually temporary
Speaker 1: blocked in Australia. And Facebook is actually threatening to do
Speaker 1: the very same thing here in the United States because
Speaker 1: of a California bill that would require tech companies to
Speaker 1: pay media outlets for posting news content. But that California
Speaker 1: bill has been put on hold until next year. But
Speaker 1: back in Canada, Facebook really did make good on their
Speaker 1: threats and start blocking news content. They wrote in a
Speaker 1: blog post this week, in order to comply with the
Speaker 1: Online News Act, we have begun the process of ending
Speaker 1: news availability in Canada. These changes start today and will
Speaker 1: be implemented for all people accessing Facebook and Instagram and
Speaker 1: Canada over the next few weeks. So what does this
Speaker 1: actually mean. Well, Facebook said that it means that news
Speaker 1: links and content posted by news publishers and broadcasters in
Speaker 1: Canada will no longer be viewable by users in Canada,
Speaker 1: and this also might be the case for news content
Speaker 1: on Google in Canada as well. Because Google is also
Speaker 1: threatening to pull out up news content altogether in the
Speaker 1: country if this was past and Mike, what I thought
Speaker 1: was really wild was this was happening at a time
Speaker 1: where there was actually a ton of big news in Canada.
Speaker 1: Right as is all was happening, Canadian Prime Minister Justin
Speaker 1: Trudeau made a major overhaul to his cabinet and replaced
Speaker 1: seven ministers ahead of the country's next election, and also
Speaker 1: announced a separation of his longtime wife, Sophie after eighteen
Speaker 1: years of marriage. So that means that as all this
Speaker 1: news was happening, you had to be like finding other
Speaker 1: ways other than Facebook or Instagram to get this news.
Speaker 1: It actually sounds a little bit silly, but it was
Speaker 1: a very accurate tweet that I saw from user elmin
Speaker 1: eighty eight, who really summed it up. When Popcrave, a
Speaker 1: Twitter account is really known more for tweeting about like
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift and Doja cat Drama, tweeted about Trudeau's separation,
Speaker 1: l Main eighty eight tweeted, imagine hearing about this from
Speaker 1: popcrave first, because Canadian news sites can't be displayed on Instagram,
Speaker 1: and that user is one hundred percent right. That is
Speaker 1: exactly what's going on. I saw people in Canada replying
Speaker 1: to that tweet being like, yeah, wow, this pop crave
Speaker 1: tweet is the first I've heard of Trudeau's separation.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is a weird sitch.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we talked quite a bit about this in the
Speaker 1: last episode that we did about when when Facebook was
Speaker 1: first threatening to pull this news content. I don't know, Like,
Speaker 1: I this is like a little like above my pay grade.
Speaker 1: I don't like the vibe where Facebook and big tech companies.
Speaker 1: But really, Facebook get to have this level of control
Speaker 1: over entire industries. I worked in news media and we
Speaker 1: really did like when Facebook said it's video, we pivoted
Speaker 1: to video. When Facebook said, oh, it's links that keep
Speaker 1: you on Facebook, we pivoted to that. And so I
Speaker 1: don't like this idea that Facebook or any big tech
Speaker 1: company has such a hold over an entire industry and
Speaker 1: can play such a big part over, you know, shaping
Speaker 1: that industry.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember news aggregator sites were like a big
Speaker 2: concern a while ago, right, Like, what.
Speaker 1: Happened with that?
Speaker 2: Do they just go away?
Speaker 1: Did they?
Speaker 2: Did Facebook just become like the news aggregator site?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good question. But I think it speaks
Speaker 1: to how the our news landscape just changes so quickly,
Speaker 1: and it's like it's like, wait, whatever happened to this
Speaker 1: or that? And something that my Canadian correspondent in My
Speaker 1: Head points out is that one of her personal fears
Speaker 1: is that the Canadian media landscape is right now so
Speaker 1: overrun with American media that it can be perhaps confusing
Speaker 1: for Canadians who who do need access to like thoughtful, accurate,
Speaker 1: nuanced news sources based in Canada. And I can only
Speaker 1: imagine that this move from Facebook it's going to make
Speaker 1: the Canadian media landscape that much more complicated.
Speaker 2: It both feels like a pretty huge thing and also
Speaker 2: it's like hard to know what to say on it,
Speaker 2: because you know, on one hand, people not being able
Speaker 2: to get their news from Facebook, part of that actually
Speaker 2: sounds kind of appealing, like people looking elsewhere for their news,
Speaker 2: But also it does seem dangerous because people are gonna
Speaker 2: be that much less informed. Like a lot of people
Speaker 2: do get their news from Facebook, and if they stop
Speaker 2: getting it there there, I guess there's gonna be that
Speaker 2: much less informed or that space in their cognitive attention
Speaker 2: that would have been taken up by reading news about
Speaker 2: what's going on with government or climate or whatever. News
Speaker 2: is instead going to be taken up by reading things
Speaker 2: on Facebook that are not news, right, And I guess
Speaker 2: that kind of makes me hear like, what what isn't
Speaker 2: news on Facebook? Is it just Aunt Mary's posts about
Speaker 2: what's going on in her garden, which, like I am
Speaker 2: interested in what's going on in her gardens, but like, uh,
Speaker 2: like what isn't news? You know, how do they how
Speaker 2: do how do they decide what is news and what isn't.
Speaker 1: Well, we do have a little bit of a template
Speaker 1: for how this might look and how this might go
Speaker 1: down with what happened in Australia. We did a whole
Speaker 1: episode with my friend Tabitha who works with human and
Speaker 1: digital rights activists in Australia, and when Facebook temporarily blocked
Speaker 1: news content they're one of the biggest concerns was how
Speaker 1: marginalized people, how it was going to impact their organizing efforts,
Speaker 1: and so she saw right away a pretty big impact
Speaker 1: in how campaigns like human rights campaigners and organizers were
Speaker 1: or were not able to get their messages out to
Speaker 1: spread their causes when this was blocked. We'll throw the
Speaker 1: episode in the show notes, but it could provide a
Speaker 1: template for what it might look like now. But as
Speaker 1: always with these big shifts, my my thinking always goes
Speaker 1: to marginalize people, like, how will this impact people who
Speaker 1: have been using online platforms like Instagram and Facebook to
Speaker 1: create change for their communities.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's a great point. Well's yeah, let's stay checked
Speaker 2: in with that. What else have you got for us?
Speaker 2: Bridget So let's move.
Speaker 1: On to a story that I am really excited about.
Speaker 1: I have been like reading about it all week. Basically,
Speaker 1: if you've read the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lax,
Speaker 1: who probably know where I'm going because more than seventy
Speaker 1: years ago, doctors at John Hopkins Hospital took Henrietta Lex's
Speaker 1: cervical cells without her knowledge or consent before she died
Speaker 1: of cervical cancer. Those cells became the first human cells
Speaker 1: to continuously grow and reproduce in lab dishes. Hala cells,
Speaker 1: as they were called, went on to be a cornerstone
Speaker 1: of modern medicine, enabling countless scientific and medical innovations, including
Speaker 1: the development of the polio vaccine, genetic mapping, and even
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen vaccines that many of us got just recently,
Speaker 1: but because Henrietta A. Lax is a black woman, she
Speaker 1: nor her family or her her descendants were ever compensated.
Speaker 1: That is until now. That is because a lawyer for
Speaker 1: her family said that they have finally reached a settlement
Speaker 1: with the biotechnology company that they say reaped billions of
Speaker 1: dollars in profit from the racist medical system that essentially
Speaker 1: stole Henrietta Laxi's cells without her consent. Henrietta cells were
Speaker 1: harvested back in nineteen fifty one, and sadly, it was
Speaker 1: not illegal to take someone's sells without their permission or consent,
Speaker 1: but lawyers for her family say that the biotechnology company
Speaker 1: Thermo Fisher Scientific Ink of Waltham, Massachusetts, still continued to
Speaker 1: commercialize these results long after the origins of her cell
Speaker 1: line became well known. So basically, they discontinued to profit
Speaker 1: off of Henrietta LAX's cells while giving her family nothing. Now,
Speaker 1: John Hopkins says that they have never sold or profited
Speaker 1: from the cell lines, but many companies have patented ways
Speaker 1: of using them and made lots and lots of money
Speaker 1: from it. Now, while her family was not financially compensated
Speaker 1: until week, they did reach an agreement with the National
Speaker 1: Institutes of Health back in twenty thirteen that gave them
Speaker 1: some control of how the DNA code from those cells
Speaker 1: were used. Something that really just feels palpably emotional, I
Speaker 1: guess I'll say, is that all of this happened on
Speaker 1: what would have been Henrietta Laxe's one hundred and third birthday,
Speaker 1: and her only surviving child, Lawrence Lack Senior, at age
Speaker 1: eighty six, finally got to see justice done and finally
Speaker 1: got to see his family get some compensation for the
Speaker 1: immeasurable debt that the medical industry owes him and his family.
Speaker 1: There couldn't have been a more fitting day for her
Speaker 1: to have justice, for her family to have relief.
Speaker 3: He said.
Speaker 1: It was a long fight over seventy years, and Henrietta
Speaker 1: Lax gets her day. This is sort of a bitter
Speaker 1: sweet thing for me because I obviously this family deserves
Speaker 1: some kind of compensation of justice. It doesn't say how
Speaker 1: much money they got, but I hope it was a lot,
Speaker 1: because they deserve it. But it's one of those things
Speaker 1: that the impact of the of the of the money
Speaker 1: made off of this unethical harvesting of their ancestors cells
Speaker 1: without her consent or knowledge. It's there's no amount of
Speaker 1: money that could that could make that right. There's no
Speaker 1: amount of money. There's no dollar amount that could write
Speaker 1: that deep and immeasurable wound that I think this family suffered.
Speaker 1: You know, if you read the book, you know that
Speaker 1: while biotechnology companies were making billions of dollars, the Lacks
Speaker 1: family sometimes went without health care or health insurance because
Speaker 1: they didn't have money. And all of this time, people
Speaker 1: were making so much money off of these cells. I
Speaker 1: would argue unethically and inappropriately while their family just got nothing.
Speaker 1: I think this case really highlights the reality of medical
Speaker 1: racism in the United States.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I would like to hear Edward Blooms
Speaker 2: take on this, you know, like.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sure, I'm sure it's very nuanced. I'm sure
Speaker 1: it really deals with grapples with our country's complex legacy
Speaker 1: with race.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the story like the stories like this where you know,
Speaker 2: this woman's cells were harvested without her consent. They were
Speaker 2: just like taken and used by the medical industry for decades. Uh,
Speaker 2: that doesn't happen to white people, right, Like racism is real,
Speaker 2: It's like a real thing. This story is a great
Speaker 2: reminder to the people who apparently need to be reminded.
Speaker 1: I could probably think of somebody who might need a
Speaker 1: little reminder, and that's Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: Really, what's Elon done now?
Speaker 1: Well, that's a little a little what's Elon done now? Quickie? Twitter?
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm refusing to call it X, you'll
Speaker 1: probably I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it. Stop
Speaker 1: trying to make that happen. It's not gonna take with me.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's taking with people. I saw an
Speaker 1: Elon Musk tweet that he was like, one day you'll
Speaker 1: be saying to your friends like, oh, I already paid
Speaker 1: you the money I loaned you on X or oh
Speaker 1: I talked to my girlfriend on X and I was like, like, hell,
Speaker 1: we will. That's not gonna happen. I'm not doing it.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody should do it anyway. I'm not
Speaker 1: calling it X. But here's what's happening over at Twitter.
Speaker 1: Twitter just rolled out a pretty telling new feature, and
Speaker 1: that is allowing Twitter Blue subscribers to manually hide their
Speaker 1: blue check marks. Gee, I can't imagine why I thought
Speaker 1: that Twitter Blue. Is this like really cool thing? That
Speaker 1: everybody was gonna be really excited to have. Why would
Speaker 1: you need to have the option to hide the blue
Speaker 1: check mark that at one point was this like I
Speaker 1: was told, was this like big online status symbol? Why
Speaker 1: would you want to be able to hide the check mark?
Speaker 1: Could it be that maybe paying eight dollars to Elon
Speaker 1: Musk is so uncool that Twitter has decided that the
Speaker 1: only way to make it possibly something that somebody would
Speaker 1: want to opt into is the option to hide it.
Speaker 2: They've come so far, so fast.
Speaker 1: So that's what Elon Musk is doing now.
Speaker 2: More.
Speaker 3: After a quick.
Speaker 1: Break, let's get right back into it. Okay, Mike, I
Speaker 1: have a question for you. Okay, sometimes when we're talking,
Speaker 1: I will make a reference or like use that phrase
Speaker 1: and you will say, I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 1: what you're saying, Like what are you saying? This is
Speaker 1: the this is the it happens frequently. It is it
Speaker 1: is the It's what happens when you make a tech
Speaker 1: podcast where one person is chronically online and the other
Speaker 1: is chronically offline, but like a deep tech person where
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, you know, blah blah blah, and You're like,
Speaker 1: I don't know what these words are. What are you saying?
Speaker 1: Have you heard the phrase milkshake duck? Does this mean
Speaker 1: anything to you? Milkshake duck.
Speaker 2: I wish I could say I have, but I have
Speaker 2: to admit that the word, the phrase milkshake duck, means
Speaker 2: nothing to me. But I am intrigued. I want to know.
Speaker 1: So a milkshake duck, I think it comes from a comic.
Speaker 1: Milkshake duck is when somebody, somebody or something is like
Speaker 1: a positive phenomenon in the news and then everybody's like, oh,
Speaker 1: we love this. So the comic is like a duck
Speaker 1: that drinks milkshakes and everybody's like, Oh, that's so cute.
Speaker 1: This duck drinks milkshakes, and then screen flips and it's
Speaker 1: I regret to report milkshake duck is racist. It's basically
Speaker 1: this idea that when people get popular in culture and
Speaker 1: everybody's like, oh, that's delightful, usually it's not too long
Speaker 1: until like something unseemly comes out and you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's less delightful. I wish I didn't know that, so
Speaker 1: new milkshake duck just dropped. I take no pleasure in
Speaker 1: reporting this, and really it's just kind of a PSA
Speaker 1: for all my TikTok earlies out there. So if you
Speaker 1: spend any time scrolling TikTok, you've probably seen the attention
Speaker 1: Pickpocket Lady. She's this woman in Italy who goes to
Speaker 1: like crowded tourists outdoor locations and vocally warns people about pickpocket.
Speaker 1: She says at big pocket, thief, thief. She kind of
Speaker 1: became an icon. I like definitely saw those videos and
Speaker 1: was like, oh, look at this haha. The New York
Speaker 1: Times today they're glowing profile of this woman. Her name
Speaker 1: is Monica Poli. She's fifty seven. I read the New
Speaker 1: York Times profile because I did, like, I saw the
Speaker 1: pickpocket chant on TikTok at that time. Do you remember
Speaker 1: that time where the where my cat was trying to
Speaker 1: eat food off of my plate when we were eating dinner,
Speaker 1: and I was like a thief, thief, pickpocket, Like it
Speaker 1: became a thing in my life.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you were really into this lady. I remember that,
Speaker 2: and I watched the videos she Yeah, I was into her.
Speaker 2: You know, everybody hates a thief. I hate a thief,
Speaker 2: You hate a thief, and yeah, she was really taking
Speaker 2: a stand against them.
Speaker 1: Well, I am so sorry to report that the New
Speaker 1: York Times profile of this woman that was very glowing
Speaker 1: failed to point out her affiliation with the far right group,
Speaker 1: the Lega Party of Venice. This is from Eurews quote.
Speaker 1: The Lega Party, formerly known as the Lega Nord Northern League,
Speaker 1: is one of Italy's most far right political parties. The
Speaker 1: foundation of the party is largely based on policies that
Speaker 1: are anti immigrant, anti Southern Italian, and anti LGBTQ. One
Speaker 1: of the most outspoken Lega politicians was Jean Carlo Gentalini,
Speaker 1: the two time mayor of Trevisio in the northern Vinto region.
Speaker 1: Gentlini was famous for saying that he wanted to perpetrate
Speaker 1: a quote ethnic cleansing of butt lovers referring to gay people,
Speaker 1: as well as advocating to dress up migrants as rabbits
Speaker 1: in order to hunt them down and shoot them. And honestly,
Speaker 1: this is like a weird situation where like with this
Speaker 1: new clarity, I look back on those videos and I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: of course they were racists, Like you know what I mean, Like,
Speaker 1: you know, her loud accusations of people being pickpockets just
Speaker 1: comes into such Sharper Focus. In the New York Times profile,
Speaker 1: she says that she like they ask her like, how
Speaker 1: do you tell who's a pickpocket? And she's like, oh,
Speaker 1: I can just tell. I have a sixth sense with
Speaker 1: these people. And as Twitter user Civo Mengro put it,
Speaker 1: just so we're all clear, this has always always been
Speaker 1: a campaign of racist harassment against Roma. Her I just know,
Speaker 1: is just racism. You have to understand that pickpocket is
Speaker 1: the number one stereotype of Roma in Europe, and this
Speaker 1: is about removing Roma from public spaces. And honestly, like,
Speaker 1: looking back at this, I'm like, oh my god, how
Speaker 1: did I not see this? And it really makes you
Speaker 1: see how social media makes this kind of thing like
Speaker 1: digestible or even charming, because when you go back and
Speaker 1: look at her videos, you see actual pickpockets, right, Like
Speaker 1: you don't see actual evidence of people you're like, oh
Speaker 1: that's a pickpocket. You just see her. You just hear
Speaker 1: her screaming and see people running away, right, And so
Speaker 1: it is really wild how this behavior when you look
Speaker 1: at it with fresh eyes, you're like, oh wait, obviously
Speaker 1: this was always about you know, harassing and targeting minoritize people.
Speaker 2: Is such an interesting story because exactly like you said,
Speaker 2: in hindsight, obviously it's racist, but we all wanted to
Speaker 2: believe it was true, and so we did.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I when I saw this, I was like, damn,
Speaker 1: we can't have anything. We can't have nothing like this
Speaker 1: gave me a tiny bit of joy. And now I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: now I feel complicit in this woman. This like far right.
Speaker 1: This far right woman's active racism. Cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's like the new the new thing for spotting disinformation.
Speaker 2: Right used to be like if it makes you feel
Speaker 2: like a really strong, visceral emotional reaction, uh, just stop
Speaker 2: before you share it because maybe it's disinformation. But like
Speaker 2: now it's just like if you feel anything.
Speaker 1: I've been waiting to feel something for years, Mike. No,
Speaker 1: I know. And something that you said I think really
Speaker 1: is important to highlight is that everybody hates a thief.
Speaker 1: I have been pickpocket I have been near pickpocketed in Europe.
Speaker 1: I was able to stop the pickpocketing in progress, and
Speaker 1: like that's a whole other story, but nobody likes a thief,
Speaker 1: and I think.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, we need to tell that story. We need Okay, Bridget,
Speaker 2: how did you stop the pickpocket who attempted to pickpocket
Speaker 2: you in Europe, the real pickpocket.
Speaker 1: So first of all, I was like pretty drunk, so
Speaker 1: I was already made. I was already making some like
Speaker 1: Paris mistakes. I was drunk. I had my phone just
Speaker 1: in my back pocket as opposed to like someplace where
Speaker 1: someone can't easily take it, and a group of very
Speaker 1: young people surrounded me, and one of them just like
Speaker 1: I obviously just like felt I'm taking out of my
Speaker 1: pocket and what I did. I don't recommend this, like
Speaker 1: this just happened to work out for me. I am
Speaker 1: not suggesting this is what somebody should do, but like,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna let somebody take my fucking phone. So
Speaker 1: I just grabbed the smallest one, who was like a
Speaker 1: child right like he was like very small. I just
Speaker 1: grabbed the smallest one and just started screaming at him.
Speaker 1: I was like, if I can just like make it
Speaker 1: clear that I am a huge nuisance, I'm not going away.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to like cry or like like I'm
Speaker 1: I'm going to like make this a big annoying pain,
Speaker 1: and I'm not gonna let go of your tiniest member here.
Speaker 1: I just grabbed him just started screaming and eventually they
Speaker 1: literally just like were like here, fine, okay, and like
Speaker 1: gave me the phone and could not get away from
Speaker 1: me fast enough. Like they were like sorry that They
Speaker 1: were like we we we regret this transaction. Let's leave.
Speaker 2: They tried to steal the phone from the wrong drunk girl.
Speaker 1: Honestly, this is something I mean, again, I'm not saying that,
Speaker 1: like I'm not endorsing this as a as a strategy,
Speaker 1: but something that my mom always told me about saying
Speaker 1: say is like make yourself seem not worth the trouble, Like, oh,
Speaker 1: this person is really loud and behaving really crazy, and
Speaker 1: you know what, I would actually like to get away
Speaker 1: from her. Now that was in my drunk mind. That
Speaker 1: was what I did, and it actually worked out, worked
Speaker 1: out effectively. But that's the thing though, It's like we've
Speaker 1: all probably had instances where we've been scammed or pickpocketed
Speaker 1: or stolen from and nobody likes that, and so I
Speaker 1: think it's such an It really highlights what an effective
Speaker 1: strategy this is. Tapping into that collective disdain being stolen
Speaker 1: from and using that totally understandable emotional like trigger to
Speaker 1: connect to demonizing and harassing a minoritize people in Europe
Speaker 1: right like that. It's it's so it's so insidious but
Speaker 1: also so effective. Because I'm somebody who works on this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff for a living, I like make a
Speaker 1: habit of trying to train myself to, you know, watching
Speaker 1: out for these tensions and these triggers. But this one
Speaker 1: got me, right. It's it's just such a relatable sentiment
Speaker 1: of like, yeah, I don't like thieves. But what she's
Speaker 1: what it actually sounds like she's saying, is like I
Speaker 1: don't like roma people. I'm going to scream at them
Speaker 1: and harass them. And also I'm going to be part
Speaker 1: of this far right party that makes the lives of
Speaker 1: marginalized people in Europe.
Speaker 2: Hell, yeah, that's the story here. The story isn't her.
Speaker 2: The story is us that we were all so ready
Speaker 2: and willing to you just take her at face value,
Speaker 2: that she was calling out pickpockets, that she had some
Speaker 2: sort of like magical ability to identify them and was
Speaker 2: just gonna like yell about them and blow up their
Speaker 2: spot so that they couldn't pick the pockets. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: on us.
Speaker 1: I mean even the New York Times, like the New
Speaker 1: York Times profile notably did not mention her affiliation with
Speaker 1: this group, right, and so like pretty glaring omission to
Speaker 1: be like, oh, what a what a charming profile of
Speaker 1: this like folk hero. Like I think I used the
Speaker 1: phrase when I was telling you about her. I think
Speaker 1: I used the phrase Italian folk hero. And it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is actually like relevant information to this folk hero,
Speaker 1: just like you know person we're all elevating is that
Speaker 1: she's associated with this like far right hate campaign.
Speaker 2: You know, I think she had things going in her favor,
Speaker 2: that she's she's like an older woman kind of seems
Speaker 2: like a grandma, but still like full of energy.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: And being Italian for at least for us here in America,
Speaker 2: you know, it's a little bit exotic, and so there's
Speaker 2: like some otherness there, and so maybe we were just
Speaker 2: like not as on guard as we might be for
Speaker 2: like a white lady who was screaming at like the
Speaker 2: Giant downtown here in BC. Uh and Giant being a
Speaker 2: mid Atlantic grocery store, not like a literal giant.
Speaker 1: Fer you might know it as if depending on where
Speaker 1: you're listening, you might know it as Martin they're listening
Speaker 1: down south.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, so, yeah, another sad story and this news
Speaker 2: round up.
Speaker 1: I know, I mean I I I wanted to include this.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a little bit of a different story
Speaker 1: for us. I wanted to include it because, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: just think like it was a reminder to me to
Speaker 1: stay vigilant that we often talk about intense negative emotions
Speaker 1: being that the trigger point or the emotional flashpoint that
Speaker 1: gets us to share racialized disinformation or content that is
Speaker 1: that is really rooted in ugly stereotypes about marginalized people.
Speaker 1: But I think like this is really tapping into something else,
Speaker 1: like it's it's it's it's like comedy and Catharsis, you know,
Speaker 1: mixed it's. It's really like a really interesting case study
Speaker 1: in what moves people. Because these videos went super viral
Speaker 1: and got millions of eyeballs, And I wonder if all
Speaker 1: those millions of eyeballs, how many of them knew they
Speaker 1: were engaging with content from a far right, anti immigrant,
Speaker 1: anti lgbtqu person. I didn't, so it's got to be
Speaker 1: got to be more people out there that didn't. So
Speaker 1: that's why I wanted to include it. Okay, I have
Speaker 1: one more story, just really quickly, so I just found
Speaker 1: this really funny, not like in a haha way so
Speaker 1: much as in like a like wow, wealthy CEOs just
Speaker 1: have no idea way. So we all know that ride
Speaker 1: shares like Uber and Live have gotten ridiculously expensive, Like
Speaker 1: gone are the days where you can get from point
Speaker 1: A to point B for like five dollars. Those were
Speaker 1: the heydays. Those days are over. So if you are
Speaker 1: somebody who takes ride shares, you probably know this. Wired's
Speaker 1: editor at large, Stephen Levy, was doing an in person
Speaker 1: interview with the CEO of Uber, Dara Kushrashi, and Stephen
Speaker 1: Levy took a two point nine to five mile Uber
Speaker 1: ride from downtown New York City to the West Side
Speaker 1: to meet him. So honestly, it sounds like Steven Levy
Speaker 1: must have been salty about the price of that ride,
Speaker 1: like it must have chopped his ass, because in the
Speaker 1: interview he asked Uber CEO kush Rashi to guess how
Speaker 1: much it costs, and the Uber CEO was like, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, like twenty dollars, classic like arrested development,
Speaker 1: Like it's one Uber ride, Michael, how much could it cost?
Speaker 1: Twenty dollars? So Stephen Levy was like, no, it was
Speaker 1: actually fifty one dollars and sixty nine cents including a
Speaker 1: tip for the driver. So uber ceo his response is
Speaker 1: like says, oh my god, wow, but it gets worse.
Speaker 1: It's that's not the worst of it. Levy says that
Speaker 1: at first he tried to book an Uber to get
Speaker 1: to the interview and the price was twenty dollars higher.
Speaker 1: Kosh Rashi tried to say that it was like surge pricing,
Speaker 1: like maybe something else was going on, but Levy just
Speaker 1: like straight up was not having it. He was not
Speaker 1: letting him get away with this, which I love because
Speaker 1: he said it's ten am on a sunny weekday and
Speaker 1: it's not like the presidents in town, which I love
Speaker 1: that response, like this cost this must have chopped his
Speaker 1: ass how much this ride costs? So if you use
Speaker 1: ride share, you know the prices have been outrageous lately.
Speaker 1: Uber has promised that by September their prices are going
Speaker 1: to go back down. I don't know. Uber says a
Speaker 1: lot of things. Tech companies say a lot of things.
Speaker 1: We'll let you know. Recouton Intelligence, which is part of Nielsen,
Speaker 1: found that the cost of ride shares actually increased by
Speaker 1: ninety two percent from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: Uber CEO then tried to say, like, oh, well, it's
Speaker 1: just inflation and that most of the money that you're
Speaker 1: charged actually goes to the driver, which would be great
Speaker 1: if that were actually true, because the UCLA Labor Center
Speaker 1: found that from February twenty nineteen to April twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: the median passenger fare for Uber and Lyft in New
Speaker 1: York City increased by fifty percent, while median driver pay
Speaker 1: increased by only thirty one percent. So likely story Uber,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I love this story because one I
Speaker 1: think that Stephen Levy was pissed about how expensive that
Speaker 1: ride was, and I can definitely relate. I don't take
Speaker 1: Uber and Lyft. I try not to take Uber and
Speaker 1: Lyft too much unless I have to. But we've all
Speaker 1: had that experience where you're like, oh, I'll just take
Speaker 1: an Uber and then you look and you're like, well,
Speaker 1: I'm already late and I need to get in this.
Speaker 1: I need to get where I'm going, so like, I
Speaker 1: guess I'll spend fifty dollars. I have had that experience.
Speaker 1: It sounds like Steven was not happy about that experience,
Speaker 1: And despite being like a pretty small story, I think
Speaker 1: it's worth paying attention to because I I just think
Speaker 1: that CEOs just have no idea what life is like
Speaker 1: for the rest of us. I think that like people
Speaker 1: who are wealthy billionaires, people who make a ton of money,
Speaker 1: people who own these companies that we all use that
Speaker 1: impact our lives so much, I just think they have
Speaker 1: no idea. I don't think that he had any sense
Speaker 1: of how much it would cost to just go less
Speaker 1: than three miles. I was watching this really interesting episode
Speaker 1: of the Betches podcast with Alana Glazer from broad City,
Speaker 1: and they were talking about the SAG and WGA strikes.
Speaker 4: These billionaires do not move their bodies among people. They
Speaker 4: do not travel next to people, they do not sweat
Speaker 4: near other people. They literally don't understand what's happening. And
Speaker 4: I'm pissed, I'm angry, but I'm like, actually, they're they're
Speaker 4: weak minded. They truly thought that they could write off actors.
Speaker 4: You thought you could write off Meryl Street, bitch. You
Speaker 4: thought you could write off Jason Bourne. He left his
Speaker 4: press dog. And these billionaires want to go to space.
Speaker 1: Go Yeah, And I think that the CEO of Uber
Speaker 1: really having no idea how much it costs to drive
Speaker 1: three miles on the platform that he is the CEO
Speaker 1: of is a really good example of exactly what she's
Speaker 1: talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just googled his salary. Why don't you take
Speaker 2: a guess what it is?
Speaker 1: Oh my god, his yearly salary. Yeah, I couldn't even guess. Wait,
Speaker 1: let me let me let me think about this.
Speaker 2: Okay, you can think about it. We'll just keep the
Speaker 2: listeners on the line while you think about it.
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm going to say something that is
Speaker 1: so like. That's the thing. The reason why it's hard
Speaker 1: is because like I can't even conceptualize it. Like I
Speaker 1: feel like I'm going to say something that is like
Speaker 1: so wrong.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Five, Well, it's just five billion dollars a year.
Speaker 2: To empathize a little bit. That's exactly the process that
Speaker 2: he's going through. And he tries to think what the
Speaker 2: price of like a three mile ride across Manhattan is
Speaker 2: going to be.
Speaker 1: It's one ceo salary, Michael, what can it cost ten
Speaker 1: million dollars? Is it ten million dollars a year? That's
Speaker 1: my guess.
Speaker 2: Twenty four million dollars are you kidding.
Speaker 1: I mean, doesn't that really? Doesn't that really say at all?
Speaker 1: Me trying to guess his salary is the same as
Speaker 1: him trying to guess how much it costs to drive
Speaker 1: less than three miles in New York City. What else
Speaker 1: is there to say?
Speaker 2: Neither do you have any idea?
Speaker 3: That's what I guess.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying. Is that like him trying to
Speaker 1: hit at the head of Uber or Netflix or Disney,
Speaker 1: trying to get into the head and really imagine what
Speaker 1: it will be like for the rest of us to live,
Speaker 1: and what the rest of US's priorities are, and what
Speaker 1: the rest of our lives look like. It's it's it's
Speaker 1: just impossible. And I guess I guess it goes the
Speaker 1: other way too. I couldn't even imagine what it would
Speaker 1: be like to have that salary, but a fraction of
Speaker 1: that salary I couldn't imagine.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess it's uh, you know, it's pretty equal.
Speaker 2: You're both confused.
Speaker 1: I feel like this episode has been a lot of
Speaker 1: me complaining about money, which I hope is not I mean,
Speaker 1: it is what it is. I don't really have a lot.
Speaker 2: Of you know, it's not like Edward Bloom was suing
Speaker 2: uh because he felt like he wasn't receiving the mentorship
Speaker 2: that he was owed yet, right, Like money's the thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I like he should sue the programs that only
Speaker 1: offer mentorship with no financial compensation. I would actually be
Speaker 1: fine with that. Go ahead and sue them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like he demands equal access to show up to
Speaker 2: a couple of Zoom meetings and like write some essays
Speaker 2: and receive mentorship.
Speaker 1: If he can, go ahead and have it. Mike, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for running down these stories with me.
Speaker 2: As always, thanks for having me here. It was a
Speaker 2: fun one, even though kind of a downer. I hope
Speaker 2: people stuck with us because it got kind of funny
Speaker 2: towards the end.
Speaker 1: Well, if for folks that did stick it out, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for listening. To support the show and
Speaker 1: for more ad free bonus content, check out our Patreon
Speaker 1: at patreon dot com slash Tangody. There you can also
Speaker 1: leave me questions for my live ask me anything that
Speaker 1: I am planning. We are checking the emails. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for listening. We will see you soon. If
Speaker 1: you're looking for ways to support the show, check out
Speaker 1: our merch store at tangoti dot com, slash Store. Got
Speaker 1: a story about an interesting thing in tech, or just
Speaker 1: want to say hi, You can reach us at Hello
Speaker 1: at tenggody dot com. You can also find transcripts for
Speaker 1: today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No Girls
Speaker 1: on the Internet was created by me Bridget Tod. It's
Speaker 1: a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative edited by Joey
Speaker 1: pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is
Speaker 1: our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amado is our contributing producer.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help
Speaker 1: us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts.