Speaker 1: There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm brigittat and this is
Speaker 1: there Are No Girls on the Internet. Here's what you
Speaker 1: may have missed this week on the Internet. So technically
Speaker 1: this happened late last week, but honestly, I'm dying to
Speaker 1: discuss it anyway, so We're gonna cheat a little bit
Speaker 1: and add it to the roster. So we talked about
Speaker 1: the dangers and complexities around social media accounts that use
Speaker 1: children as their focus. Children cannot consent, but that does
Speaker 1: not keep parents from building followings, sometimes huge followings, and
Speaker 1: making real money off of their kids on social media.
Speaker 1: If you listen to the episode that we did with
Speaker 1: Sarah also known as Moms Uncharted on TikTok, we'll put
Speaker 1: that episode in the show notes. We talked all about
Speaker 1: the complexities and dangers of why she actually says that
Speaker 1: people who are influencers and have their entire influencer career
Speaker 1: around their kids, why she doesn't think that's the safest idea,
Speaker 1: And one of those reasons is because of the lack
Speaker 1: of legislation around how kids can be used on social
Speaker 1: media for money. That is until now. Late last week,
Speaker 1: Illinois became the first state in the US to take
Speaker 1: some legislative steps to ensure that kids who make money
Speaker 1: from social media are compensated for their work from their parents.
Speaker 1: That law will go into effect in July of next year.
Speaker 1: So we have child labor laws in this country, or
Speaker 1: at least in some parts of the country anyway, and
Speaker 1: child performers who are models or actors typically have laws
Speaker 1: that legislate how their work is performed. They can only
Speaker 1: work so many hours at a time, and the money
Speaker 1: that they earn legally has to be set aside for
Speaker 1: them in some cases, but this is not the case
Speaker 1: when it comes to social media. It's one of those
Speaker 1: situations where the reality progresses a lot more quickly than
Speaker 1: the laws can, and the laws really need to catch up,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly what's happening in Illinois. The new law
Speaker 1: in Illinois is the first to specifically legislate how kids
Speaker 1: can show up for money on social media. So this
Speaker 1: is not a law that is meant to legislate folks
Speaker 1: who are just like sharing the occasional picture of their
Speaker 1: kid to their nana and their pop pop on Instagram.
Speaker 1: It's really about people who are making money and have
Speaker 1: big followings from their kids. The new law entitles kids
Speaker 1: under the age of sixteen to a percentage of earnings
Speaker 1: based on how often they appear on online content that
Speaker 1: generates at least ten cents per view. The content has
Speaker 1: to have been made in Illinois and kids have to
Speaker 1: be featured in at least thirty percent of that content
Speaker 1: over a thirty day period to qualify under this law.
Speaker 1: So parents are responsible for keeping records of this and
Speaker 1: setting aside the gross earnings until a child becomes eighteen,
Speaker 1: and if parents fail to do this, those kids can sue.
Speaker 1: This legislation actually came from a young person. Shreyannlamuthu, was
Speaker 1: scrolling social media one day when she realized there's actually
Speaker 1: no legislation protecting kid influencers online. Shreya said, I realized
Speaker 1: there's a lot of exploitation that can happen within the
Speaker 1: world of kid influencing, and I realized that there was
Speaker 1: absolutely zero legislation in place to protect them. So she
Speaker 1: ended up reaching out to Senator David Kohler of Peoria,
Speaker 1: and he ended up sponsoring that bill and the bill
Speaker 1: will sign into a law. Now this comes up a
Speaker 1: lot in the Mom's Uncharted episodes that I referenced earlier.
Speaker 1: But even though it doesn't feel that way, social media
Speaker 1: is actually pretty new, right, Like I still remember the
Speaker 1: first time I ever got social media. It has happened
Speaker 1: in my lifetime, so it seems like something that has
Speaker 1: been around forever, and if you're a younger person listening,
Speaker 1: maybe it has been for you. But it's important to
Speaker 1: point out that it is so new that we don't
Speaker 1: really know that much about how it is impacting, specifically
Speaker 1: kids who grew up on social media. And similarly, as
Speaker 1: those first waves of kids who were really used by
Speaker 1: as content by mommy bloggers and mom run accounts and
Speaker 1: all of that get older, they are just now starting
Speaker 1: to speak up publicly about the impacts. And I'm really curious.
Speaker 1: I think that we should definitely be taking our cues
Speaker 1: from these young people who are speaking up about what
Speaker 1: it was like to be essentially like a money maker
Speaker 1: for your family, a source of income for your family.
Speaker 1: There's a really interesting Teen Vogue piece where they talk
Speaker 1: to now older young people who were kids who were
Speaker 1: used as the sole focus of their mom's blog or
Speaker 1: online content, and it really doesn't sound like it was
Speaker 1: good for them. They describe like how when they were
Speaker 1: sick or when they were having a big moment in
Speaker 1: their life, their mom would whip out the camera and
Speaker 1: they knew they had to perform. And so I think
Speaker 1: it's going to be really interesting to listen to these
Speaker 1: kids as they speak up about how this has impact
Speaker 1: with them, And honestly, I think a good first step
Speaker 1: in that conversation is instituting a little bit more policy
Speaker 1: around how those kids get paid, because influencing is labor.
Speaker 1: If somebody is putting a camera in your face and
Speaker 1: you're expected to perform, that's not that different than getting
Speaker 1: up on a stage like Judy Garland and being expected
Speaker 1: to perform. But now the laws are slowly starting to
Speaker 1: catch up with that reality, and honestly, I could see
Speaker 1: more states passing similar legislation as we continue to hear
Speaker 1: from these young people about what it was like to
Speaker 1: be used as content when they were too young to
Speaker 1: really consent to it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I could see that too. I Mean, we hear
Speaker 2: so much all the time about protecting the children. Everybody
Speaker 2: wants to protect the children, and often when we talk
Speaker 2: about it on this show, it's just being used as
Speaker 2: a smoke screen or a big leaf to dress up
Speaker 2: some kind of anti sex worker or morality piece kind
Speaker 2: of legislation. But here's an actual opportunity where like, real
Speaker 2: kids are being harmed and it seems like legislation is
Speaker 2: maybe going to help that.
Speaker 1: So hooray, hooray for finally a little legislation that might
Speaker 1: actually be helping kids online. We'll see. So, speaking of kids,
Speaker 1: this story, I swear that it sounds like a story
Speaker 1: that was written by AI just to mess with me,
Speaker 1: specifically Bridget, but it's real. So over in Iowa, educators
Speaker 1: are using chat GPT to determine which books should be
Speaker 1: removed from their library to legally comply with a new
Speaker 1: Republican back to state legislation prohibiting any instruction related to
Speaker 1: gender identity and sexual orientation. Infuriating, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean that sounds like a pretty weighty issue. And
Speaker 2: the idea that chat GPT is going to decide what
Speaker 2: a bunch of kids get to read and what works
Speaker 2: are like off limits to them and forbidden feels kind
Speaker 2: of weird.
Speaker 1: So I was about ready to raise hell around this
Speaker 1: story until I read a little bit more into it.
Speaker 1: So back in May, I was Governor Republican Kim Reynolds
Speaker 1: signed off on a new bill which only gave administrators
Speaker 1: three months before the start of the new school year
Speaker 1: to comply. So administrators are understandably scrambling. They have to
Speaker 1: legally comply with this new legislation that says that no instruction,
Speaker 1: no books in the library can have anything to do
Speaker 1: with sexual orientation or gender identity. Pop Science spoke to
Speaker 1: Mason City's Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Bridget x Men,
Speaker 1: who argued that it was simply not feasible to read
Speaker 1: every book and filter for these new requirements, saying, frankly,
Speaker 1: we have more important things to do than spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time trying to figure out how to protect
Speaker 1: kids from books. But at the same time, we do
Speaker 1: have a legal and ethical obligation to comply with the law.
Speaker 1: Our goal here really is a defensible process, and honestly,
Speaker 1: I kind of get it. Educators and school administrators really
Speaker 1: do have more important things to do then try to
Speaker 1: read every single book to see if it complies with
Speaker 1: this new bigoted law and only do it in three months.
Speaker 1: I think that's one of the many, many reasons why
Speaker 1: these laws around libraries and education are so problematic. You know,
Speaker 1: they create a lot of work for educators, many of
Speaker 1: whom are already overwhelmed, underpaid, and overworked, and in some
Speaker 1: cases these are near impossible tasks. Giving administrators three months
Speaker 1: at the end of toward the end of the school
Speaker 1: year to do this is kind of a lot and
Speaker 1: a little bit of a side note, like I don't
Speaker 1: want to go too far off the rails, because boy,
Speaker 1: this is one of those topics that if you get
Speaker 1: me going, you'll I'll go all day. But I think
Speaker 1: that that is a feature, not a bug of these
Speaker 1: kinds of laws. The extremists who advocate for laws like
Speaker 1: book bands and a thing that certain kind of materials
Speaker 1: around gender and sexuality can't be taught, I think that
Speaker 1: they know that they are giving these educators a really
Speaker 1: difficult and in some cases impossible task, And that's kind
Speaker 1: of the point of these laws. It creates these complex
Speaker 1: hoops that schools legally have to comply with, and I
Speaker 1: think the entire point of these laws is to erode
Speaker 1: the public school system and public institutions more broadly, and
Speaker 1: this is one plank of how they're doing that, creating
Speaker 1: these needlessly complex hoops that educators have to legally comply with.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I'm sure there's some sort of legal
Speaker 2: consequences of it. Don't comply, and you know, the easier
Speaker 2: thing for the school to do just be to remove
Speaker 2: all the books and just have no books, the perfect school,
Speaker 2: no books, just just traditional gender vibes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, I actually I get at When I first
Speaker 1: heard this story, I was really mad, But reading into
Speaker 1: it more, I kind of get why educators are just like,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to be able to demonstrate that
Speaker 1: an attempt was made to comply with this law, and
Speaker 1: using chat GPT is a way to do that quickly.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea, right,
Speaker 1: So you might be wondering, like, how does this all work? Well.
Speaker 1: Administrators first compiled a master list of commonly challenged books,
Speaker 1: then removed all those challenge for reasons other than sexual content.
Speaker 1: Administrators then asked chat GPT the specific language of IWA's
Speaker 1: new law. Does XYZ book contain a description of a
Speaker 1: sex act? Things like that. If the answer was yes,
Speaker 1: the book was removed circulation and stored. But if you
Speaker 1: listen to the show, you already know that chat GPT
Speaker 1: is pretty janky, So that means that the tool that
Speaker 1: they're using to comply with the enforcement of this law
Speaker 1: might also be pretty janky. So as much as I
Speaker 1: hate hate this whole situation, I think that, like, it's
Speaker 1: really bad. I think that using chat GPT as this
Speaker 1: quick tool to just comply with this law is bad
Speaker 1: for a lot of reasons, not the least of which
Speaker 1: is that chat GPT is pretty inconsistent. I guess I,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, get why they felt they had
Speaker 1: to do this. One of the school administrators that Pop
Speaker 1: Science spoke to explained, realistically, we tried to figure out
Speaker 1: how to demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with
Speaker 1: the law with minimal time and energy. When using chat GPT,
Speaker 1: we use a specific language of the law. Does X
Speaker 1: Y Z book contain a description of a sex act.
Speaker 1: Being a former English teacher, I have personally read and
Speaker 1: taught many of the books that are commonly challenged, so
Speaker 1: I was able to verify chat gbt's responses with my
Speaker 1: own knowledge of some of the text. After compiling the list,
Speaker 1: we ran it by our teacher librarian, and there were
Speaker 1: no books on the final of the nineteen that were
Speaker 1: surprising to her. So I guess it's good that in
Speaker 1: this case the school feels like chat GPT was able
Speaker 1: to help them comply with this like bogus law that
Speaker 1: is ridiculous in the first place. But I just think
Speaker 1: this is really, to me a story about how these
Speaker 1: laws will just create the conditions where people do feel
Speaker 1: like they need to fall back on technology, technology that
Speaker 1: can be inconsistent, problematic, racist, sexist, all of that, because
Speaker 1: they just have to like rush and demonstrate that an
Speaker 1: attempt was made to comply. And so I think that
Speaker 1: their use of chat GPT here to me is a
Speaker 1: symptom of a much deeper and much larger problem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I agree. I'm not sure exactly what
Speaker 2: that problem is. This is a complicated one.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the problem is that, like that's what
Speaker 1: happens when you make laws that are bigoted and also
Speaker 1: needless and also require administrators to scramble to comply. Like
Speaker 1: that's so the three months to comply thing is so arbitrary.
Speaker 1: They if the school was genuinely interested in an assessment
Speaker 1: of what is what kids are reading, are their materials good, whatever,
Speaker 1: all of that, you don't do that in three months
Speaker 1: without some sort of a lazy workaround, and that lazy
Speaker 1: workaround is Chad GPT.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess. So it sure feels like a weird
Speaker 2: president to say.
Speaker 3: Let's take a quick break at our back.
Speaker 1: Okay, I need to give a pretty big trigger warning
Speaker 1: and heads up on this next one because it involves
Speaker 1: a pretty gnarly abuse situation. That's because a jury disawarded
Speaker 1: a woman only known as her initials DL two hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars for past and future mental anguish and one
Speaker 1: billion billion with a B dollars imputitive damages against her
Speaker 1: ex boyfriend, Marquise Jackson, who waged a horrific year's long
Speaker 1: online abuse campaign against her. So these two got romantically
Speaker 1: involved in twenty sixteen, during which time this was her
Speaker 1: romantic partner, so she trusted him to have access to
Speaker 1: her digital life right her computer, her online banking information,
Speaker 1: her social media footprint, her home security system, things like that,
Speaker 1: which I feel like in this day and age, it's
Speaker 1: not uncommon for people who are living together to have
Speaker 1: that level of trust and intimacy with each other's digital lives.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, things started to deteriorate, and she says
Speaker 1: that Jackson started getting jealous, paranoid, and delusional. They had
Speaker 1: had what she described as a long drawn out breakup.
Speaker 1: When Dill finally broke up with him and moved from
Speaker 1: their shared home in Chicago to live with her mom
Speaker 1: in Texas, she asked her ex Jackson to return or
Speaker 1: delete some intimate material that she had consented to him
Speaker 1: having when they were together, but obviously wanted him to
Speaker 1: delete now that they were not no longer a couple,
Speaker 1: and that's when the abuse started. So the scope and
Speaker 1: scale of the abuse waged via online platforms and technology
Speaker 1: is truly jaw dropping. When I was researching this for
Speaker 1: the episode, every time that I added something to the list,
Speaker 1: I was like, well, Charlie, this must be the last instance,
Speaker 1: and then there would be another thing to add, Like
Speaker 1: it just went on and on and on. I should
Speaker 1: say that online abuse is often dismissed as like people
Speaker 1: think that you're talking about like someone said mean words
Speaker 1: to me, or oh, this woman you know took intimate
Speaker 1: photos with her boyfriend and then regretted it when they
Speaker 1: broke up, or some other such nonsense. Right Like, it
Speaker 1: often is dismissed. But this situation is a good example.
Speaker 1: Of how deep and involved online abuse can be. Right.
Speaker 1: It is sexual, it is financial, it is psychological, and
Speaker 1: more so. The Messenger reports that the lawsuit alleged that
Speaker 1: her ex created fake profiles, published intimate images and videos
Speaker 1: of dll on Facebook, Twitter, and pornhub. Jackson also emailed
Speaker 1: the photos and videos to the woman's relatives, friends, and
Speaker 1: co workers. He posted images on public dropbox links that
Speaker 1: also included her home addressed. Importantly, he used more than
Speaker 1: just the intimate images that she had asked for him
Speaker 1: to delete when they broke up, because he hacked into
Speaker 1: her online home surveillance cameras in order to watch her,
Speaker 1: surveil her, and spy on her, and was able to
Speaker 1: get more intimate images and videos of her from hacking
Speaker 1: into those cameras, So if she logged onto a Zoom
Speaker 1: meeting for work, Jackson would hack into her account and
Speaker 1: then post those private images and videos. Wi so financial,
Speaker 1: he emailed her loan officer with a claim that she'd
Speaker 1: taken out fraudulent loans, accessed her personal bank account, and
Speaker 1: used her money to pay his rent and make purchases
Speaker 1: without her consent. She says that she tried everything to
Speaker 1: get him to stop This went on for a year.
Speaker 1: She tried restraining orders, pressing criminal charges, and contacting online
Speaker 1: social media platforms to take the material down, but she
Speaker 1: never got a helpful response from anybody. And honestly, I
Speaker 1: think I know why that was. It's because the powers
Speaker 1: that be just really do not take it seriously when
Speaker 1: someone is being abused in this way using technology as
Speaker 1: a facilitator. You know, platforms, they will pass the buck
Speaker 1: every which way they can, every chance they'll get. And
Speaker 1: I think when it comes to this kind of abuse,
Speaker 1: which is sometimes called technology enabled abuse, oftentimes the way
Speaker 1: that people talk about tech enabled abuse really negates the
Speaker 1: fact that tech enabled abuse is systemic and that it
Speaker 1: is every bit as real, dangerous, and scary as physical
Speaker 1: domestic violence. So, after DL was unable to get any
Speaker 1: help via restraining orders or the police, she started documenting
Speaker 1: every instance of abuse in an Excel spreadsheet, itemizing the
Speaker 1: types of attacks and publication method and addresses of those attacks,
Speaker 1: and then linking to the specific evidence of the attack.
Speaker 1: That spreadsheet spans five pages of activity over the course
Speaker 1: of three plus years. So her ex jackson sent her
Speaker 1: a message saying, you will spend the rest of your
Speaker 1: life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet.
Speaker 1: Everyone you ever meet will hear the story and go
Speaker 1: looking happy hunting. I know that one point two billion
Speaker 1: dollars seems like a lot of money, but DL's attorney
Speaker 1: told The New York Times that he doesn't actually expect
Speaker 1: Jackson to pay out the full one point two billion dollars,
Speaker 1: but that that amount was really about sending a message.
Speaker 1: So you know how her ex told her that you
Speaker 1: will spend every day of your life trying and failing
Speaker 1: to wipe yourself off the internet. Well, DL's lawyer said
Speaker 1: that Jackson will spend the rest of his life trying
Speaker 1: and failing to wipe this financial debt. Clear and the
Speaker 1: irony here is that clearly Jackson wanted this to be
Speaker 1: something that was going to follow DL around for the
Speaker 1: rest of her life, be something that anybody who ever
Speaker 1: googles her would see. But the irony is that that's
Speaker 1: now him. Right. As DL's attorney points out, every time
Speaker 1: this man tries to apply for a job, or tries
Speaker 1: to apply for credit, or maybe even gets a new girlfriend,
Speaker 1: all they need to do is google our Marquise Jamal Jackson,
Speaker 1: and what comes up is a one point two billion
Speaker 1: dollar judgment, so be careful what you ask for.
Speaker 2: And that will follow him too, because uh, I'm pretty
Speaker 2: sure that in most states, maybe all the states, punitive
Speaker 2: damages you can't get rid of them with bankruptcy.
Speaker 1: So like, oh, I didn't know that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like he owes that money, which, assuming he's not
Speaker 2: a billionaire, he will never be able to repay.
Speaker 1: I mean that amount is clearly about sending a message
Speaker 1: that if you wage this kind of tear or campaign
Speaker 1: using the internet, the punitive damages that you will have
Speaker 1: to pay out will be so much that you could
Speaker 1: work a million hours every day for the rest of
Speaker 1: your life and you will still die owing that money.
Speaker 1: And I think it's meant to send a signal, and
Speaker 1: I hope it does, because this is very serious. Like
Speaker 1: I truly was only able to scratch the surface of
Speaker 1: how many different things this guy did to dl, how
Speaker 1: much hell he put her through. He like the I
Speaker 1: read some of the court documents, they describe him at
Speaker 1: three am up making multiple fake phone numbers on multiple
Speaker 1: burner phones and multiple profile like for hours and hours
Speaker 1: and hours, like he was waging a campaign of terror
Speaker 1: to terrorize this woman. And make her life hell. And
Speaker 1: so yeah, I think that, like it sounds like a
Speaker 1: lot of money, but I think that people need to
Speaker 1: understand how serious of a thing this is, Like his
Speaker 1: actions are horrific. So, Jackson was found guilty of violating
Speaker 1: Texas's revenge porn laws, and that's been a term that
Speaker 1: folks have used to talk about this case, with revenge porn.
Speaker 1: A lot of advocates, myself included, don't tend to use
Speaker 1: language like that. I find that language not particularly useful
Speaker 1: because I think it kind of implies that, you know,
Speaker 1: if somebody is quote getting revenge on you, it kind
Speaker 1: of implies that you've done something wrong. And these people
Speaker 1: who become victims of this or targets of this, have
Speaker 1: not done anything wrong. And so I don't really like
Speaker 1: that language. I think that I think that like it
Speaker 1: implies that they've done something to quote deserve it, and
Speaker 1: instead most advocates use the phrase image based sexual abuse,
Speaker 1: which is what this is. Dee's lawyer says that the
Speaker 1: scope of what Jackson did to her is so much
Speaker 1: more than what we think of typically when you think
Speaker 1: of quote revenge porn, like, the scope is much deeper
Speaker 1: and it's really heartbreaking because Dille says that at one
Speaker 1: point she felt completely hopeless, but after the trial, she
Speaker 1: encouraged anyone who was dealing with this kind of online
Speaker 1: abuse to stay strong. She said, you are more than
Speaker 1: the shame you may feel, and you deserve to be
Speaker 1: your biggest advocate and know that there are people who
Speaker 1: recognize this behavior as the terrible crime it is. As
Speaker 1: we brought a knowledge on this type of abuse, we
Speaker 1: can collectively influence laws to better protect us in the
Speaker 1: digital age. And honestly shout out to DL like what
Speaker 1: she went through sounds horrific, the fact that she documented
Speaker 1: all of this came out the other end of it,
Speaker 1: and as trying to use what she went through to
Speaker 1: help encourage other targets of this kind of abuse, which
Speaker 1: is much more common than we think. Like I think
Speaker 1: that what she went through is a real extreme case,
Speaker 1: but I think, like, if you are a young person,
Speaker 1: you've definitely had someone threaten you with like I'm gonna
Speaker 1: post these pictures or blah blah blah. Like that is
Speaker 1: so common and it's so normalized the point where like
Speaker 1: it's a punchline in like movies and television, and I
Speaker 1: think DL is exactly right. We need to change have
Speaker 1: a systemic culture change around this kind of digital abuse.
Speaker 1: We need to understand that just because it's happening through
Speaker 1: technology or through a computer does not mean that it
Speaker 1: is not abuse, because it definitely is. It is a crime,
Speaker 1: and we need to collectively do better and influence laws
Speaker 1: to better protect us in the digital age so that
Speaker 1: this is not so commonplace. But I think it's both
Speaker 1: legislative changes and also culture changes that we don't allow this,
Speaker 1: We don't minimize this, we don't stigmatize the people that
Speaker 1: it happens to, and that we really take it seriously
Speaker 1: as the crime that it is.
Speaker 2: Hell yeah, bridget So this is kind of like an
Speaker 2: unusual news roundup, right because we are two for two
Speaker 2: of the power of the law being used to protect
Speaker 2: people and like do good and achieve justice? Can we
Speaker 2: keep this going?
Speaker 1: Ah? Well, you know how much I love law and order,
Speaker 1: and you know how big of an advocate I am
Speaker 1: for the US criminal justice system, which I think is
Speaker 1: great and has no fault and I never bring up
Speaker 1: those flaws ever. But unfortunately we can now keep it
Speaker 1: going because I have a pretty crummy law to tell you, about.
Speaker 1: So y'all know that we've been keeping an eye on
Speaker 1: the flurry of legislation ostensibly aimed at keeping kids safe.
Speaker 1: If you if it sounds like I'm doing quotes but
Speaker 1: you can't see them because it's a podcast, I am
Speaker 1: keeping kids safe online? That would or it's already deeply
Speaker 1: changing our internet landscape, things like the Kids Online Safety
Speaker 1: Act and online age verification in states like Virginia and Mississippi.
Speaker 1: A little update on that, because this time Wisconsin wanted
Speaker 1: to get in the mix. Tech Dirt's Mike Mansnik has
Speaker 1: a great roundup of Wisconsin's new Senate Bill three eighty five,
Speaker 1: which basically treats everybody online as if they're a child
Speaker 1: unless they can specifically prove otherwise.
Speaker 2: All right, so what's in this bill? How is it
Speaker 2: going to keep kids safe? Well?
Speaker 1: Under the bill, social media companies must ensure that all
Speaker 1: accounts created on or after Jin first, twenty nineteen are
Speaker 1: designated as youth accounts that comply with the youth account
Speaker 1: requirements of the bill. So basically, under this bill, everybody
Speaker 1: on social media is assumed to be a minor and
Speaker 1: treated as such. Social media companies can remove what the
Speaker 1: bill will calls youth account designations from accounts if those
Speaker 1: social media companies estimate that an account is from somebody
Speaker 1: who is not a minor through employment of a process
Speaker 1: or a program that provides a ninety five percent accuracy
Speaker 1: rate of estimating age within twenty four months of their
Speaker 1: actual age. So it like gets like pretty nitty gritty.
Speaker 2: It does, and you know, provides these based on their
Speaker 2: notes here provides these three different routs to have a
Speaker 2: person turned or have an account converted from a youth
Speaker 2: account to an adult account, I guess. But like, if
Speaker 2: you think about that for a second, that means that,
Speaker 2: like every single social media account needs to know the
Speaker 2: age of every user. It's like a pretty intense, I
Speaker 2: don't know, threat to privacy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I I'm sure I've said this before, but I
Speaker 1: wholly reject this this dynamic where in order to keep
Speaker 1: kids online safe, we need to everybody, regardless of age,
Speaker 1: needs to be giving more information to social media platforms.
Speaker 1: I reject that whole cloth. That is not a reasonable
Speaker 1: solution to this issue that we find ourselves with. The
Speaker 1: legislation would also introduce nighttime lockouts for people who have
Speaker 1: not verified their age. That's right, Internet open and closed hours.
Speaker 1: The bill reads that it would ensure that the account
Speaker 1: cannot be used or accessed between the hours of ten
Speaker 1: pm and seven am. So I would be so screwed,
Speaker 1: like if I was under if I was like a
Speaker 1: like if I was a sixteen year old bridge and
Speaker 1: this law were in play, I would be so screwed
Speaker 1: because I genuinely do not think there was ever a
Speaker 1: homework assignment ever and my whole life that I ever
Speaker 1: started before ten pm the night before it was due.
Speaker 1: That was just like not what I was doing. I
Speaker 1: was a student who was like someone would like I
Speaker 1: would be on aim remember aimed. It would be like, hey,
Speaker 1: did you finish the report? I'd be like report? That
Speaker 1: always me. So if I wasn't able to use the
Speaker 1: Internet after ten o'clock at night, I will be so screwed.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well I think I would be screwed.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Just earlier today, I left my main laptop at work,
Speaker 2: and so right now I'm on my backup laptop that
Speaker 2: I recently had to reinstall the operating system on, and
Speaker 2: so I'm not lugged into anything. And so if I
Speaker 2: wanted to access any social media accounts from this laptop,
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'd have to like find my password,
Speaker 2: which I guess isn't like the biggest thing in the world,
Speaker 2: but it's like, you know, not something that I have
Speaker 2: ready to go. But if I didn't do that, I
Speaker 2: wouldn't be able to use the Internet after ten pm.
Speaker 2: That would enrage me. And I think most adults would
Speaker 2: feel the same way if like they were just locked
Speaker 2: out of the Internet because they were assumed to be
Speaker 2: a child who needed to go to bed at ten pm.
Speaker 1: But like, that's not what the internet. That's not how
Speaker 1: the Internet works, right, Like, you can't legislate it in
Speaker 1: this way that assumes that everybody is a child and
Speaker 1: makes what Tector calls it like an online version of Disneyland.
Speaker 1: That's not the Internet. And I think that we're really,
Speaker 1: we absolutely do need to be having this conversation around
Speaker 1: online privacy as it pertains to kids and adults. However,
Speaker 1: I feel like the people who are doing the actual
Speaker 1: loudest talking, the people who are writing the legislation, are
Speaker 1: there are people who are doing it badly at best,
Speaker 1: and at worst, extremists who have already explicitly talked about
Speaker 1: wanting to use these conversations around keeping kids safe online,
Speaker 1: to further censor our internet and further make our internet
Speaker 1: less hospitable places for marginalized folks to show up. Because
Speaker 1: this bill also gives parents a whole heck of a
Speaker 1: lot of access over what kids do online. The bill
Speaker 1: provides to parents of minor account holders certain accesses, including
Speaker 1: full access to the account and all of its posts
Speaker 1: and messages, the ability to change the time limits on
Speaker 1: the account, and to opt out the miner's account from
Speaker 1: the youth account designation. The legislation, of course, does not
Speaker 1: take into account if the child is a strange from
Speaker 1: a parent, or if they have an abusive parent, or
Speaker 1: if the child is coming to the internet to get
Speaker 1: support around questions that they don't feel comfortable asking their parent,
Speaker 1: Like I don't know, I this upsets me if you
Speaker 1: can't tell it's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's this would be like so onerous for social
Speaker 2: media companies to implement, like to ensure all of these
Speaker 2: kinds of controls, Like you know, they're not California, they
Speaker 2: don't get to set the national standards like that. It's
Speaker 2: just it really seems like legislation written by people who
Speaker 2: don't really know what they're talking about and really don't
Speaker 2: have any thought about like how to actually impact the
Speaker 2: things that they're concerned about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I hate that. I hate that we have seeded
Speaker 1: this conversation to people who I don't think really get
Speaker 1: the Internet. So I take this incredibly personally. I think
Speaker 1: I've talked about this on the show before. But you know,
Speaker 1: growing up in a small town in Virginia, it was
Speaker 1: the Internet that really set me free. And I don't
Speaker 1: want to make it seem like I my parents are
Speaker 1: like bad people, but I was definitely the kind of
Speaker 1: kid who like didn't feel like I could come to
Speaker 1: my parents with a lot, and if you were that
Speaker 1: kind of kid, you know what I mean. And it
Speaker 1: was the Internet that saved me. It was the Internet
Speaker 1: that set me free. It was the Internet that really
Speaker 1: helped me understand that there were more people out there
Speaker 1: than in my small town and that when I got older,
Speaker 1: I would be out there among them. And so I
Speaker 1: was for sure also having experiences I probably shouldn't have
Speaker 1: had it on the Internet, but like that's a story
Speaker 1: for another time, but you know, I really feel grateful
Speaker 1: for those experiences. I don't know where I would be
Speaker 1: if my parents had never bought me a computer and
Speaker 1: never got me on America online. I don't know how
Speaker 1: I wouldn't. I don't know if I would recognize myself.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that sounds weird, but I truly
Speaker 1: don't know if I would recognize me as me, because
Speaker 1: that was such such a confusing time and so making
Speaker 1: it so that whatever your kid searches or talks about
Speaker 1: online is just always visible to mom and dad, not
Speaker 1: because of some sort of norm that you have set
Speaker 1: in your household as a parent, because I do think
Speaker 1: that parents should be like involved in what their kids
Speaker 1: doing online, but because the government, this legislation has has
Speaker 1: established that. I don't think that's right, and I don't
Speaker 1: think that's how the I don't think that's how the
Speaker 1: Internet was meant to be. I don't think that's how
Speaker 1: kids learned to have safer Internet experiences. I think there
Speaker 1: are so many things that our legislators could be doing
Speaker 1: to ensure that young people are having safer experiences online.
Speaker 1: I am an advocate for that, but laws like this
Speaker 1: don't make kids safer. They just make the Internet worse
Speaker 1: for everybody.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's worth pointing out it's just a bill.
Speaker 2: It is pretty difficult to image and this becoming law
Speaker 2: once somebody who's not just interested in political grand standing
Speaker 2: outside of Green Bay actually takes a look at it
Speaker 2: and realizes how completely unworkable it is.
Speaker 1: Is this you getting into your like Wisconsin one time,
Speaker 1: Wisconsin roots?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, Senator Cowls from Green Bay?
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts?
Speaker 2: This is par for the course. You know, they're not
Speaker 2: serious people.
Speaker 1: Classic Cowls, well, not busting out the succession quotes or
Speaker 1: Senator cows.
Speaker 2: The scary thing though, is that, like, you get enough
Speaker 2: of these people gerrymandering enough districts and they win power
Speaker 2: and they put these cuckoo laws into place.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I'm saying is that, like I know,
Speaker 1: this is just a bill, but that age verification in
Speaker 1: legislation in Virginia. I never in a million years thought
Speaker 1: that that would be something that would be actually showing
Speaker 1: up on people's computer screens, and here we are. I
Speaker 1: think that the conversation around what do we do with
Speaker 1: the Internet has gotten so out of hand and so
Speaker 1: hijacked by people who don't know what they're doing, or
Speaker 1: actively have bad intents and are trying to use those
Speaker 1: conversations to hijack them to spread harm and agendas. So
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's something to keep an eye on.
Speaker 1: We will keep an eye on it. Our very own
Speaker 1: Joey Patt, super producer of this very podcast, was on
Speaker 1: another podcast that we Love Stuff. Mom never told you
Speaker 1: to talk about age verification, why it is so harmful
Speaker 1: and why it is so dangerous specifically to marginalized youth.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll echo that. I listened to that episode. It
Speaker 2: was really good.
Speaker 3: More after a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we got to talk about our favorite person.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I'm talking about? The person that
Speaker 1: in the last news roundup I declared as the chat
Speaker 1: whitfield of tech? If you know, you know, do you
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about?
Speaker 2: It's Elon. What's he done now?
Speaker 1: Well, he's throttling traffic to sites he does not like
Speaker 1: on Twitter, according to a new report from The Washington Post,
Speaker 1: the company formally known as Twitter, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: I like what the Post did there, but Prince would
Speaker 1: be absolutely appalled to be associated with Twitter or Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: So I like what they're doing there. They're not calling
Speaker 1: it x but they're kind of giving a little prince now,
Speaker 1: but Prince deserves better than that association. So the company
Speaker 1: formally known as Twitter has been slowing down the speed
Speaker 1: with which users can access links to The New York Times, Facebook,
Speaker 1: and other news organizations and online competitors, a move that
Speaker 1: appeared targeted at companies that have drawn the ire of
Speaker 1: owner Elon Musk. The post test that showed that when
Speaker 1: you clicked on a site like Facebook or The New
Speaker 1: York Times on Twitter, you are made to wait for
Speaker 1: about five seconds before that page opens. I know that
Speaker 1: doesn't sound like a lot, but think about like when
Speaker 1: you are scrolling Twitter, a site like Twitter moves so
Speaker 1: quickly or used to being able to just click things
Speaker 1: and then boom and opens like that that five seconds
Speaker 1: like one banana, two banana, three banana, four banana, five
Speaker 1: banana in Twitter scrolling time, that is an eternity and
Speaker 1: it is enough to like shape your behavior a little bit.
Speaker 1: Like I have a timer on my phone that when
Speaker 1: I open TikTok, I have to wait three seconds, and
Speaker 1: more times than not, that three seconds is enough time
Speaker 1: for me to be like do I really need to
Speaker 1: open this app? So it doesn't sound like a lot,
Speaker 1: but it is enough to make an impact and enough
Speaker 1: like people will definitely choose to not go to those
Speaker 1: sites if there's a five minute delay. The sites where
Speaker 1: this is happening are all sites that have been singled
Speaker 1: out by Musk for ridicule or attack, Facebook, Instagram, Blue Skide,
Speaker 1: and Substack, as well as Reuter's Why service and The
Speaker 1: New York Times. You'll probably remember that this is not
Speaker 1: the first time that Elon Musk has used Twitter to
Speaker 1: further his own personal grievances and grudges. Right after he
Speaker 1: bought Twitter, he banned the Twitter account that used FAA
Speaker 1: data to track his own personal jet and then banned
Speaker 1: journalist who reported on that ban, and even suspended the
Speaker 1: Twitter account of the social media platform Mathodon because that
Speaker 1: account referred to it as well. So Elon's reign of
Speaker 1: being the self proclaimed free speech absolutist continues.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just more evidence of what he's about. And it's
Speaker 2: also like stepping back the more seriously evidence of just
Speaker 2: how much power we've allowed not just him, but social
Speaker 2: media platforms to have. Like you probably remember a few
Speaker 2: years ago the fight over net neutrality, you know, which
Speaker 2: was basically the same idea that internet service providers shouldn't
Speaker 2: be allowed to control the speed with which you can
Speaker 2: access different websites based on how much they paid or
Speaker 2: which ones they happened to like. And it was like
Speaker 2: a huge deal that people fought over for years and
Speaker 2: currently is unfortunately dead thanks to the Trump administration. But like,
Speaker 2: you know, maybe we'll get it back someday. But here's
Speaker 2: Elon doing the exact same thing effectively. But it's like
Speaker 2: not even something that we're talking about, Like how quickly
Speaker 2: things just change in degrade.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And like the fact that one person who basically
Speaker 1: their whims and grudges and grievances dictate what happens on
Speaker 1: one of our largest digital communications platforms. That, I mean,
Speaker 1: it really says so much that like one person is
Speaker 1: able this thing that like, I don't know, if you
Speaker 1: were like a nerdy online person when the net neutrality
Speaker 1: conversations were happening, you remember that? Do you remember that? Right?
Speaker 1: And the fact that we had so much debate about it,
Speaker 1: and now it's just like, oh, Elon gonna do it
Speaker 1: on a whim, you know, I'm gonna big deal. Uh yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, So I feel like things have gotten a
Speaker 1: little bit heavy lately, and so let's return to some
Speaker 1: of our better news, lighter news, good news. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: start with some like cautious good news or oh we'll
Speaker 1: call this like what's in between good and bad? Okay news?
Speaker 1: Okay to good news? That isn't that doesn't sound.
Speaker 2: That doesn't sound like when you asked what's between good
Speaker 2: and bed? I thought you were gonna get all like
Speaker 2: profound then okay?
Speaker 1: Is really what else would be in between good and
Speaker 1: good and bad? Like give me a give me you
Speaker 1: know it's fine news, give me a profound reading of that.
Speaker 2: I don't know, like between good and bad is temptation
Speaker 2: or something like that.
Speaker 1: I see. That's like my favorite Tennessee Williams quote, The
Speaker 1: opposite of death is desire. I always love that quote.
Speaker 1: So it's like, yeah, you thought I was gonna get
Speaker 1: like artsy on you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I thought you were gonna get artsy. I thought
Speaker 2: I was recording this with Tennessee Williams.
Speaker 1: Ma, Ma, this flower is Wilton I do. When it's
Speaker 1: hot out in DC and it's like it's like very
Speaker 1: humid today, I do, uh, I do. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you've heard me do it and that's why you're
Speaker 1: referencing it. But I do sometimes do a exaggerated impression
Speaker 1: of it of a Tennessee Williams character, and uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: it brings me great joy. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Uh, perhaps the listeners would would like to hear it,
Speaker 2: like how you feel about all this humidity?
Speaker 1: Oh, this muggy DC weather gives me the horribles. Something
Speaker 1: people might not know about me is that I love
Speaker 1: doing bad impressions. I enjoy hearing people do impressions. I
Speaker 1: enjoy doing impressions. I feel like it's the It's like
Speaker 1: the lowest form of comedy, and a comedy is even
Speaker 1: too far. It's like the lowest form of discourse, like
Speaker 1: or communication. But you know I am who I am.
Speaker 1: I love a good you've heard my Yeah, I know that.
Speaker 1: You know this. What is my favorite niche impression to do?
Speaker 1: That I love to do?
Speaker 2: Oh your favorite niche impression to do?
Speaker 1: I'll give you a hint. Okay, But it was my
Speaker 1: birth When it was my birthday, I was like, is
Speaker 1: it is it whacked to buy a cameo of this
Speaker 1: entity for myself? A birthday cameo for myself of this
Speaker 1: person or not not person, this figure saying happy birthday
Speaker 1: to me entity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not. And you actually you do a pretty
Speaker 2: good crypt keeper.
Speaker 1: Ah, I'm not gonna do it on this episode because
Speaker 1: you know what, the listeners couldn't handle it. But just no,
Speaker 1: I have that in my back pocket.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't bust that out in August. You gotta
Speaker 2: save that.
Speaker 1: For Ooh, maybe we'll do a spook tackular anyway, we're
Speaker 1: I'm don't get me like on a tangent about the
Speaker 1: cryptkeeper and tails from the crypt because I'll go all day. Okay,
Speaker 1: where was I? Oh, good news really went off the
Speaker 1: rails there, hold it together. Okay, So things have been
Speaker 1: a little bit heavy lately, so let's do a little
Speaker 1: bit of good news. So first, just sort of middle
Speaker 1: good news, cautious good news. So on August fifteenth, YouTube
Speaker 1: took a strong, bold, courageous stance, and that stances people
Speaker 1: should not be using their platform to lie about cancer
Speaker 1: or lie to people with cancer. Huge. So all those
Speaker 1: videos that are like essential oils can cure cancer, or
Speaker 1: berries can cure cancer, you can drink this juice little
Speaker 1: cure cancer, those will no longer be allowed on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Verge reports that this enforcement comes as YouTube is attempting
Speaker 1: to streamline it's medical moderation guidelines based on what it
Speaker 1: has learned while attempting to tackle misinformation around topics like
Speaker 1: COVID vaccines and reproductive health. I have to say, like
Speaker 1: to be super clear, this is like the bare minimum
Speaker 1: that a platform like YouTube needs to be doing to
Speaker 1: create a healthier ecosystem. You know, not allowing dangerous lies
Speaker 1: about cancer on your platform is like a very small step,
Speaker 1: but it is a step in the right direction, nonetheless,
Speaker 1: So I think it's just a good, you know, a
Speaker 1: good step. However, the real question always with YouTube is
Speaker 1: like where whether or not they enforce it, how they
Speaker 1: enforce it, what that enforcement looks like, what that accountability
Speaker 1: looks like, Because a policy that does not have robust
Speaker 1: enforcement is just like a wish. It's not it's not
Speaker 1: really anything. And so Google, which owns YouTube, unfortunately, does
Speaker 1: have this track record of making a big, flashy announcement
Speaker 1: and then either failing to really enforce it in a
Speaker 1: meaningful way or just like walking it back quietly altogether.
Speaker 1: So but I think this would be a great policy.
Speaker 1: I hope that we actually see YouTube enforcing this policy
Speaker 1: a little cautiously good cautious good news.
Speaker 2: It is positive news. You know, it's nice to be
Speaker 2: reminded that at least they're interested in putting on the
Speaker 2: front like there is a floor, there are standards. You know,
Speaker 2: they've they've been able to get behind this controversial topic
Speaker 2: of cancer and every just strong position that they are
Speaker 2: against inaccurate information about cancer.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, it's hard to be so brave, but
Speaker 1: taking the stance of people shouldn't lie about cancer for profit,
Speaker 1: you know, you gotta it's it's brave. It's really it's
Speaker 1: a bold stance.
Speaker 2: It is. I just hope they have the guts to
Speaker 2: see it through.
Speaker 1: So, speaking of reproductive health, I also wanted to do
Speaker 1: a little bit of a good news roundup around abortion.
Speaker 1: I was actually looking through my bookcase the other day
Speaker 1: and I found this journal entry that I wrote the
Speaker 1: day that Roe was overturned by the Supreme Court, and boy,
Speaker 1: that was a dark day. I was really feeling a
Speaker 1: lot of feelings of despair. And it was reading that
Speaker 1: entry today in twenty twenty three, a little over a
Speaker 1: year later. I don't know, it just was really we
Speaker 1: you know, we continued to we continue to fight, you know,
Speaker 1: I was really distraught that day, and I didn't see
Speaker 1: a light. I didn't see any I was like, this
Speaker 1: is just going to be bad, and like it has
Speaker 1: been really bad. But I did not from that entry.
Speaker 1: I did not have the ability to think about how
Speaker 1: things might be better in the future. And I'm happy
Speaker 1: that here in twenty twenty three, things are. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not all despair, because here's one good thing, and
Speaker 1: that is emergency contraception. Emergency contraception is legal to purchase
Speaker 1: over the counter in all fifty states, although I actually
Speaker 1: did some reading that suggests that even though that is true,
Speaker 1: a lot of people surveyed either didn't know about the
Speaker 1: legality of emergency contraception over the counter in their state
Speaker 1: or they just like weren't clear on how to get it.
Speaker 1: So like, it is available over the counter everywhere in
Speaker 1: the United States, and now there are thirty nine universities
Speaker 1: across seventeen states that are putting emergency contraception in on
Speaker 1: campus vending machines, and according to the American Society for
Speaker 1: Emergency Contraception, at least twenty more universities are considering these
Speaker 1: vending machines as well. Even in places like the University
Speaker 1: of Tulsa in Oklahoma, where abortion is severely restricted. So
Speaker 1: that was a I was like, well, that's like an
Speaker 1: interesting use of technology to help young people have access
Speaker 1: to reproductive care on campuses in an accessible way. Love
Speaker 1: that very positive. And also I saw this headline over
Speaker 1: at NBC abortion rights have won and every election since
Speaker 1: Roversus Wade was overturned, abortion has been on the ballot
Speaker 1: in seven states since June twenty twenty two. In each instance,
Speaker 1: anti abortion groups have lost. So I was feeling pretty
Speaker 1: good coming out of that win in Ohio. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just a good reminder that like when you know
Speaker 1: when you're when you're confronted with a recent bout of
Speaker 1: deep despair and then come out of it and people
Speaker 1: are still helping, people are still organizing, people are still fighting,
Speaker 1: We're still winning. Yeah, so it's not all bad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is a really optimistic take.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It's like the obstacle becomes the way it's good news.
Speaker 1: So we don't usually do this. Today is Friday, August eighteenth.
Speaker 1: Usually we recorded on Thursdays and then put the episode
Speaker 1: out on Fridays, but we had to come to you
Speaker 1: with a little bit of breaking brand new just in
Speaker 1: what's Elon done? Now news to report? And that is
Speaker 1: because just a few hours ago, Elon Musk tweeted that
Speaker 1: he is planning on getting rid of the block feature
Speaker 1: on Twitter except for its use in DMS. So I
Speaker 1: have actually seen people suggest that this might be because
Speaker 1: so many people are blocking verified blue check marks on Twitter,
Speaker 1: or maybe somebody pulled Elon Musk aside and showed him
Speaker 1: how many users have him blocked on Twitter, and he
Speaker 1: was like, I don't like this, Let's get rid of
Speaker 1: that feature in any event, I mean those are I
Speaker 1: think both of those sound like reasonable reasons for why
Speaker 1: he would be doing this move to me. But in
Speaker 1: any event, he tweeted that he intends to get rid
Speaker 1: of the block feature on Twitter. Now he just tweeted this.
Speaker 1: And Elon Musk is known for being someone who doesn't
Speaker 1: always tell the truth, Like the man lies. You can't
Speaker 1: really report on what he says without actually talking about
Speaker 1: the fact that he often says things and those things
Speaker 1: do not come to fruition. So who knows if it
Speaker 1: is really happening? Because both Google and Apple require social
Speaker 1: media apps available on their platforms to have blocking features
Speaker 1: on them, and so if he says he's planning on
Speaker 1: getting rid of a blocking feature. You know, I'm no
Speaker 1: expert in how this all works, but to me, it
Speaker 1: means that Twitter might not be able to be included
Speaker 1: on the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store
Speaker 1: for Android. So curious to me that he's just like
Speaker 1: saying this. I don't know if he's run this by
Speaker 1: his legal team, his development team on whether or not
Speaker 1: that's actually possible, or if he's just like tweeting it
Speaker 1: and expecting the entire team to figure out how to
Speaker 1: make it happen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that sounds like the way that he typically operates it,
Speaker 2: like Tesla for sure, hopefully not SpaceX, but who knows.
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine going to space and he just like
Speaker 1: gets an idea, didn't run by anybody, and like intense
Speaker 1: for that idea to come to trudition, and you're in
Speaker 1: space and you're like tethered to this person's decision making
Speaker 1: while you're in space. I cannot even imagine. So when
Speaker 1: we're talking about the ability to block people, it is
Speaker 1: kind of a deep complicated conversation. We've talked about this before,
Speaker 1: but since Elon Musk has taken over at Twitter, the
Speaker 1: use of slurs like the inward has increased, and blocking
Speaker 1: is a feature that helps people, particularly win in black folks,
Speaker 1: queer folks, trans folks, and other marginalized people protect themselves
Speaker 1: from harassment. Like Twitter does not have a lot that
Speaker 1: protects people from harassment or allows people to like control
Speaker 1: how they engage with people or not, but blocking is
Speaker 1: one feature that is generally accepted across social media platforms
Speaker 1: that gives the user the ability to be like, this
Speaker 1: is not somebody I want showing up in my mentions.
Speaker 1: I don't want to see their content on social media,
Speaker 1: giving people that little bit of control over the experience
Speaker 1: they're having, and he's taking that away. I cannot understand
Speaker 1: the rationale behind that other than as an endorsement of
Speaker 1: harassment on the platform. And it's not just marginalized people, right,
Speaker 1: it's also journalists, people who work in disinformation, like our
Speaker 1: very first episode of this season speaking to Nina Jankwitz,
Speaker 1: who was tapped by the Biden administration to help combat disinformation,
Speaker 1: horribly harassed on social media because of it. Right, So,
Speaker 1: people who are trying to do their jobs where their
Speaker 1: jobs require them to be public facing on social media,
Speaker 1: but their jobs also come with the threat of harassment
Speaker 1: and online abuse. The block feature is key for people
Speaker 1: like that, and so it's hard for me to see
Speaker 1: this as anything other than an endorsement of Twitter as
Speaker 1: a platform where abuse is okay and tolerated, where abuse
Speaker 1: is treated like discourse. I've seen people showing screenshots of
Speaker 1: the kind of harassment and abuse and slurs that they
Speaker 1: get in their mentions, like a couple I said this
Speaker 1: on a podcast recently that I was on. I got
Speaker 1: called the a slur the other day, the N word, right.
Speaker 1: I have been on the internet for a very long time,
Speaker 1: and I was like, this is definitely a return of
Speaker 1: a vibe that I was kind of happy that it
Speaker 1: seemed like we were moving on from. But now we're back.
Speaker 1: And so if somebody is making it their mission to
Speaker 1: camp out in your mentions and her abuse and harassment
Speaker 1: at you, the one feature that allows you to turn
Speaker 1: that turn off that fire hose of abuse, he's rolling back.
Speaker 1: And it's hard for me to not see this as
Speaker 1: an endorsement of abuse. I've seen many people say on
Speaker 1: Twitter that this would actually be their last straw with
Speaker 1: the platform. But again, we'll see what happens, you know,
Speaker 1: it's I mean, I don't even know if Elon is
Speaker 1: actually planning on genuinely taking away the block feature. Notably,
Speaker 1: this is being reported like Elon tweeted it, and then
Speaker 1: it's just being reported as a thing that is going
Speaker 1: to happen a gospel truth by a lot of tech outlets,
Speaker 1: notably Linda Yakarino. Twitter's CEO hasn't said a word about it,
Speaker 1: didn't tweet about it, no statement about it. So it's
Speaker 1: interesting again, like if I were the CEO of a
Speaker 1: company and all these outlets reporting about this pretty big
Speaker 1: change in my platform as CEO, I probably would have
Speaker 1: something to say about it. Makes me wonder if Elon
Speaker 1: just tweeted this, didn't check it with her, She had
Speaker 1: no earlier warning that he was planning on tweeting this,
Speaker 1: and now it's everywhere, so we'll see what happens. Okay,
Speaker 1: So last week on the Roundup, I was talking about
Speaker 1: how Elon Musk to me is the Chara Whitfield from
Speaker 1: Real House. I was of Atlanta of tech because Chary
Speaker 1: don't pay her bills and best believe Elon Musk doesn't either.
Speaker 1: This really speaks to this theory that I have that
Speaker 1: all of the right wing extremist types, and their behavior
Speaker 1: can really be boiled down to and understood through the
Speaker 1: lens of real housewives. Like their behavior always has this
Speaker 1: like griftiness, this stuntiness, and this drama that can really
Speaker 1: only really rival housewives behavior. So take Jordan Peterson for instance.
Speaker 1: If you don't know who Jordan Peterson is, He's this
Speaker 1: kind of right wing traditionalist who has really made his
Speaker 1: thing talking about things like Wokhism and cancel culture and
Speaker 1: now having a curveer model on the cover of Sports
Speaker 1: Illustrated is offensive to him and is like an attack
Speaker 1: on everything that we hold true in our society. And
Speaker 1: oh my god, anyway, that's Jordan Peterson. So Jordan Peterson
Speaker 1: is being accused of cherry picking bits from scathing reviews
Speaker 1: of his new book and misrepresenting them as positive on
Speaker 1: the blurb on the back of the book. Like this.
Speaker 1: One blurb on the back of his book was from
Speaker 1: a review in The New Statesman by Joanna Thomas Carr,
Speaker 1: which said Jordan Peterson's new book was a quote philosophy
Speaker 1: of the meeting of life, but it didn't mention that
Speaker 1: that specific line described that philosophy as quote bonkers, so
Speaker 1: he just cut out the bonker's part. It was like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's a philosophy on the meaning of life dot dot dot.
Speaker 1: That is fucking bonkers, pretty important relevant context for what
Speaker 1: she was trying to say in this review. I went
Speaker 1: back and read that entire review, and it is objectively
Speaker 1: a review panning the book. There is no way to
Speaker 1: read it as a positive review. It is very much
Speaker 1: panning that book. Joanna Thomas Carr said that using that
Speaker 1: one sentence from her twenty five hundred word review is
Speaker 1: a quote, gross misrepresentation of what she said. She said,
Speaker 1: I don't have it in me to write some casually
Speaker 1: witty thing about how horrifying this is, and that the
Speaker 1: blurb should be removed. Okay, so you know who might
Speaker 1: have inspired Jordan Peterson to do this?
Speaker 2: A Real Housewife lou and.
Speaker 1: Della Septs from Real Housewives of New New York. Because
Speaker 1: when lu Banne was doing her cabaret show, The New
Speaker 1: York Times reported that one of her cabaret shows was
Speaker 1: sold out, inspiring underlined her team to add a second show. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what Luanne did. She blew up her poster had
Speaker 1: blown up the word inspiring in quotation marks, and then
Speaker 1: attributed that to the New York Times. So you would
Speaker 1: think that the New York Times had called her cabaret
Speaker 1: show inspiring, but what they really said was she was
Speaker 1: she was inspired to add a second show. So I
Speaker 1: actually am here for the bold face lying when a
Speaker 1: housewife is as shameless as Luanne, to just like outright
Speaker 1: misrepresent something like that, I kind of love it, like
Speaker 1: I love the delusion, where we love a delusional queen.
Speaker 1: And so if Elon Musk is the Chara Whitfield of
Speaker 1: tech CEOs, Jordan Peterson is the Luenne de la SEPs,
Speaker 1: Countess Luanne of like right wing grievance monger grifters, So
Speaker 1: I truly think there is something to this idea. And
Speaker 1: if you're listening and you've got an idea about who
Speaker 1: in the right wing griftovers might have a Housewives doppelganger,
Speaker 1: I deeply need to hear this information. You can write
Speaker 1: into us, you can DM me if it's good, we'll
Speaker 1: read it on the show. I deeply deeply think there
Speaker 1: is something here. You know, We've got two. I think
Speaker 1: we can flesh out the entire Bravo universe using these
Speaker 1: right wing grifter types.
Speaker 2: I love this. I can't wait to see what people
Speaker 2: write in for.
Speaker 1: So before we wrap, I have a quick public service
Speaker 1: announcement for everyone listening. If you're listening to this in
Speaker 1: the United States and you have used Facebook in the
Speaker 1: last sixteen years, you can get a piece of a
Speaker 1: seven hundred and twenty five million dollars settlement. That is
Speaker 1: because Facebook improperly shared your information, and my information, and
Speaker 1: all of our information with third party sources such as
Speaker 1: advertisers and data brokers. Well, Facebook says that they didn't
Speaker 1: do that. They're denying any liability or wrongdoing. Surprise surprise. However,
Speaker 1: they did still create a class action website set up
Speaker 1: to pay out this money to all of us who
Speaker 1: used Facebook. So that means US residents who used Facebook
Speaker 1: between May twenty fourth, two thousand and seven and December
Speaker 1: twenty second, twenty twenty two can file for a monetary
Speaker 1: claim as long as they do so before Friday, August
Speaker 1: twenty fifth. That as a week from the day this
Speaker 1: episode is dropping at eleven fifty nine pm Pacific time.
Speaker 1: Everybody should do this. I'm gonna do this. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you're on Facebook, if you run Facebook at
Speaker 1: that time, Mike, but you should do this. You should
Speaker 1: tell your friends and your family to do this. I
Speaker 1: believe that everybody should do this. It only takes a
Speaker 1: few minutes. Just go to tangoty dot com slash zuckbucks.
Speaker 1: That's tangoty dot com, ta Nngoti dot com slash zuckbucks
Speaker 1: and fill out the form from Facebook. It only takes
Speaker 1: a few minutes. You don't need to have that much information.
Speaker 1: It is not clear how much money you might get
Speaker 1: paid out. It might not even really be a lot.
Speaker 1: It might be like ten dollars. Like I always do
Speaker 1: these settlement things when when I gets a chance to
Speaker 1: do them, because I feel like it's sometimes it can
Speaker 1: feel like we don't have a lot of ways to
Speaker 1: like hit these big tech companies in their pocketbooks. So
Speaker 1: I make a point of every single time there's any
Speaker 1: even if it's gonna be five dollars, I buy a
Speaker 1: coffee and I'm like, yeah, take that, bezos, and buy
Speaker 1: a coffee on your dime. So everybody should do this.
Speaker 1: It's not clear how much money you can get. I
Speaker 1: think it depends on how many people submit a claim.
Speaker 1: But you should all submit a claim that is money
Speaker 1: owed to us for wrongdoing that Facebook has yet to
Speaker 1: admit to. But it's just being like, okay, fine, we'll
Speaker 1: just give a couple million dollars. Let's let's just say
Speaker 1: seven hundred and twenty five million dollars. It is enough.
Speaker 1: I'll we didn't do anything wrong, but if we did,
Speaker 1: here's a little something. And so even though that is
Speaker 1: a drop in the bucket to Facebook, I think it's
Speaker 1: very important to like get what little we can from them,
Speaker 1: and that money is owed to us. So go to Tango,
Speaker 1: do dot com slashes bucks. Fill out that form get your.
Speaker 2: Money, bridget. I think this might have been like the
Speaker 2: most positive news roundup we've ever done.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because you can put a little zuck bucks in
Speaker 1: your pocket. I'm here for that. That's always positive.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Like some good news about reproductive rights, some decent
Speaker 2: laws that are actually like legit helping the children, and
Speaker 2: then a couple of zuckbucks.
Speaker 1: A couple of zuckbucks always a good place to end, remember, folks.
Speaker 1: The deadline is Friday, August twenty fifth, a week from
Speaker 1: the day this episode drops at eleven fifty nine pm
Speaker 1: specific time. Go fill that out. Thank you for listening, Mike,
Speaker 1: Thank you for being here. If you would like to
Speaker 1: support the show, you can always do so at patreon
Speaker 1: dot com slash tangoty for ad free bonus content. I
Speaker 1: am given my most wild takes, maybe my crypt keeper impression.
Speaker 1: I don't know yet. Please check it out. Thank you
Speaker 1: for listening. Thank you for being here, Mike. Be well.
Speaker 1: If you're looking for ways to support the show, check
Speaker 1: out our merch store at tangoti dot com slash store.
Speaker 1: Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or
Speaker 1: just want to say hi, You can reach us at
Speaker 1: Hello at tangody dot com. You can also find transcripts
Speaker 1: for today's episode at TENG Goody dot com. There Are
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd.
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative edited by
Speaker 1: Joey pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer. Tari Harrison
Speaker 1: is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almada is our
Speaker 1: contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want
Speaker 1: to help us grow, rate and review.
Speaker 3: Us on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts