Speaker 1: Welcome to tex Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: And how in the tech are you. It's time for
Speaker 1: the tech news for Tuesday, July twelve, two thousand twenty two.
Speaker 1: And let's start by talking about Uber. Now, long time
Speaker 1: listeners have likely heard me talk about Uber's history, which
Speaker 1: has included unethical and at least in some cases, potentially
Speaker 1: illegal activities. And there's really been no secret that Uber
Speaker 1: engaged in lots of questionable practices in its history and
Speaker 1: an effort to become the dominant ride hailing company and
Speaker 1: to quote unquote disrupt the hired car industry, taking aim
Speaker 1: at taxis and town cars and such. And sure, Uber
Speaker 1: kind of was marketed as a ride sharing service, but
Speaker 1: in reality it's a ride hailing service. It's taking the
Speaker 1: same place as you know, businesses like taxi companies. There
Speaker 1: were tons of stories about Uber as well as rival
Speaker 1: company Lift, engaging in Shenanigan's against each other in an
Speaker 1: effort to undermined or or sabotage the other company, including
Speaker 1: stories about employees allegedly arranging for rides on the competitor
Speaker 1: service and then canceling those requests later on in an
Speaker 1: effort to tie up drivers and frustrate them and to
Speaker 1: clog up the scheduling systems of the rival company. It
Speaker 1: all got really ugly. And now we're seeing more about
Speaker 1: how ugly it actually got, thanks to a whistleblower who
Speaker 1: handed over more than a hundred twenty thousand internal Uber
Speaker 1: files that were created between twenty seventeen to various media
Speaker 1: outlets like The Guardian. The Guardian, by the way, has
Speaker 1: actually named the whistle blower as a former Uber lobbyists
Speaker 1: who worked in Europe named Mark McGann. McGann said that
Speaker 1: Uber's modus OPERANDAI was to quote essentially break the law,
Speaker 1: show how amazing Uber's service was, and then change the
Speaker 1: law end quote, and that McGann's work was largely to
Speaker 1: smooth things over after Uber had gone and disrupted all
Speaker 1: over the ding dang place, which sounds like a real
Speaker 1: fun gig, right, Like the bully comes in, pushes people around,
Speaker 1: then you come around and say, hey, it's not that bad,
Speaker 1: it's okay. We're gonna we're gonna get through. This guy's
Speaker 1: the internal documents paint a pretty gross picture. One was
Speaker 1: something that actually reminds me of an older story, and
Speaker 1: this was that Uber had a kill switch to prevent
Speaker 1: law enforcement from accessing company data. In other words, if
Speaker 1: the police come knocking, you utilize the kill switch to
Speaker 1: get rid of any incriminating evidence. Now, for one, thing,
Speaker 1: that makes me think of the good old days when
Speaker 1: companies like Enron were accused of ordering employees to go
Speaker 1: on a document shredding spree, Golli the late nineties man.
Speaker 1: For another, this story actually reminds me of Uber itself,
Speaker 1: which you know, developed tools specifically to allow drivers in
Speaker 1: the Portland, Oregon region avoid law enforcement because that was
Speaker 1: a region where Uber was not given permission to operate.
Speaker 1: In fact, it was expressly told it would not be
Speaker 1: allowed to operate there. So Uber said, you know what,
Speaker 1: We're just gonna go ahead and operate there. We'll just
Speaker 1: give our drivers the ability to detect police so that
Speaker 1: they can appear to not be operating there whenever the
Speaker 1: police are around, you know, everything on the up and up.
Speaker 1: Other documents indicated more bad news about Travis Kalanik, the
Speaker 1: former CEO of Uber, who either resigned on his own
Speaker 1: accord or was strongly encouraged by the board of directors
Speaker 1: to do so in the wake of multiple scandals about
Speaker 1: Uber's corporate culture that all broke out in So in
Speaker 1: this case, the documents suggests that kala Nik was aware
Speaker 1: of and subsequently dismissed concerns about driver's safety, including instances
Speaker 1: in which drivers were the victims of violence. Moreover, the
Speaker 1: document show a pattern of strong arm tactics as well
Speaker 1: as a rather unflattering betrayal of various government officials who
Speaker 1: collaborated with Uber under ethically questionable circumstances. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: these documents start to imply or at least tiptoe up
Speaker 1: to a line that would mark illegal activities like bribery
Speaker 1: and coercion, though it may very well be that to
Speaker 1: the letter of the law, Uber was able to avoid
Speaker 1: that distinction, not to mention, it also indicates processes on
Speaker 1: what to do if police were to rate a company
Speaker 1: office you know that kill switch thing that that is
Speaker 1: just straight out illegal, and other questionable activities as well,
Speaker 1: such as paying academics enormous sums like up to a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars in some cases. Two create reports that
Speaker 1: helps steer press coverage to paint Uber in a positive light.
Speaker 1: So essentially, Uber was paying for positive academic studies, and
Speaker 1: that says a lot both about Uber and the academics
Speaker 1: who accepted such payments and massaged facts to fit Uber's narrative.
Speaker 1: You might tell that I'm more than a little upset
Speaker 1: about that. So side note, any academic who does this
Speaker 1: is acting terribly. In my mind, it's the kind of
Speaker 1: crap that brings doubt into any sort of report. Now,
Speaker 1: you should always look at reports with some skepticism, right,
Speaker 1: You should ask questions like who funded the study? Who
Speaker 1: funded the research? That's always going to be important because
Speaker 1: if it turns out that the reports were paid for
Speaker 1: by whatever entities were being reported upon, then it's kind
Speaker 1: of hard to make an argument that the work is unbiased, right, Like,
Speaker 1: if the checks are coming from the subject of the report,
Speaker 1: then how critical will the report be? Not in some
Speaker 1: cases it may still be unbiased, but it does raise
Speaker 1: those sort of questions, And in this case, Uber was
Speaker 1: expressly paying for biased reports that are being presented as unbiased,
Speaker 1: which is pretty gross. Uber, for its part, has said
Speaker 1: that McGann's documents are about the Uber of the past,
Speaker 1: you know, pre twenty eighteen Uber, and that the company
Speaker 1: has since made great strides to clean up its act.
Speaker 1: And there is no doubt that much of Uber's more
Speaker 1: recent history has been about damage control and addressing system
Speaker 1: problems in corporate culture. But the company has also continued
Speaker 1: to resist calls to designate drivers as employees. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's impossible to deny the fact that Uber has acted,
Speaker 1: in extreme cases to try and head off any attempts
Speaker 1: to classify Uber drivers as employees. Uber also somewhat snarkily
Speaker 1: pointed out the McGann had demanded a bonus payout upon
Speaker 1: leaving Uber and seemed reticent to come forward until the
Speaker 1: check cleared, which you know, shots fired. And maybe that's
Speaker 1: the case. Maybe McGann was like, I want to make
Speaker 1: sure I get paid before I start blowing the whistle.
Speaker 1: And that can raise questions about McGann's own motivations, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't change the content of those internal documents, right, Like,
Speaker 1: we can say McGann's actions might be somewhat questionable, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't change that there are really concerning things within
Speaker 1: these documents. If Uber has fundamentally put that stuff behind it,
Speaker 1: that's great. Um, it's the fact that this has come
Speaker 1: to light and Uber has not really reckoned with that
Speaker 1: that I think has raised concerns in a lot of
Speaker 1: people's minds. Let's stick with some more car news now.
Speaker 1: Have you ever sat in your car and thought, gosh,
Speaker 1: if only car companies could sell options on a subscription model,
Speaker 1: sort of like how I subscribed to streaming media or
Speaker 1: two Xbox game pass, wouldn't that be something No? Well,
Speaker 1: BMW clearly has thought about this, because the company is
Speaker 1: now offering up a subscription service in some markets for
Speaker 1: the luxury of drumroll please, heated seats. So to be clear,
Speaker 1: these vehicles have all the technology that's needed to heat
Speaker 1: the seats that's there in the car right off the
Speaker 1: manufacturing law. However, to enable that ability, the driver will
Speaker 1: have to subscribe to a service, paying approximately eighteen dollars
Speaker 1: a month to have it activated. Now, the driver could
Speaker 1: also choose to subscribe for a whole year for a
Speaker 1: hundred eighty bucks per year or three years, which would
Speaker 1: cost three thirty dollars, or to go unloaded access for
Speaker 1: four fift bucks. Now, this is not the first time
Speaker 1: BMW has done this sort of thing. By the way,
Speaker 1: though it's the first I've actually heard of it. There
Speaker 1: are some other high end features in some BMW models,
Speaker 1: like adaptive cruise control, that in some markets are also
Speaker 1: subscription based. Now we don't hear about this much in
Speaker 1: the United States because BMW hasn't really rolled out most
Speaker 1: of those features as subscriptions over here. But seeing car
Speaker 1: manufacturers embrace micro transactions should have folks a little bit concerned,
Speaker 1: simply because we could see similar strategies deployed in all
Speaker 1: sorts of different products. It's a proven revenue generating model,
Speaker 1: and if something works that comes to making money, you
Speaker 1: can bet that that strategy will proliferate across different businesses.
Speaker 1: Now let's get back to BMW. So with some features,
Speaker 1: there is an ongoing cost to BMW. There are back
Speaker 1: end operations necessary to make certain kinds of options work,
Speaker 1: and in those cases, a subscription model could be a
Speaker 1: very valid argument. It could be justifiable. You're thinking, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I have to pay per month to have access to
Speaker 1: this ability in my car, but then BMW has to
Speaker 1: maintain that service in the back end, so that makes sense.
Speaker 1: But for something like heated seats, where the entire system
Speaker 1: is already in the car from the get go. That's
Speaker 1: a harder sell. In that case, what you're doing is
Speaker 1: paying a fee to BMW to remove a restriction that's
Speaker 1: on the vehicle, rather than to provide a new ongoing service. Anyway,
Speaker 1: in the old days, you would just pay extra upfront
Speaker 1: to buy a car model that has additional options, you know,
Speaker 1: like heated seats. BMW appears to want to change that.
Speaker 1: Maybe in the future all models will have all the options.
Speaker 1: You'll just have to pay an ongoing fee to access them.
Speaker 1: Fun times. All right, let's take a quick break. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back after these messages. We're back with more
Speaker 1: car news. So over in the EU, the General Vehicle
Speaker 1: Safety Regulation has taken effect, and part of that regulation
Speaker 1: includes a requirement that's starting in July of four, all
Speaker 1: vehicles sold in the EU must include Intelligent Speed Assistance
Speaker 1: or I s A. And you might be thinking, what
Speaker 1: the heck is I s A. Technically, it's an it's A.
Speaker 1: It's a group of anti speeding technologies, and the specific
Speaker 1: technologies vary from implementation to implementation, because what's really important
Speaker 1: is the intended goal of this technology. You know, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of different ways of making it happen.
Speaker 1: The important thing is that it happens. So the goal
Speaker 1: is to use technology to first detect what the road
Speaker 1: speed limits are on whatever road the vehicle is on
Speaker 1: at the time, and then adjust operations within the vehicle
Speaker 1: so that the car is not exceeding those road speed limits. Now,
Speaker 1: apparently this can go so far as to cut power
Speaker 1: to the engine in the event of someone speeding, which
Speaker 1: sounds to me like that would be a bit of
Speaker 1: a risky move, but less drastically, it's meant to signal
Speaker 1: the driver should they be going a bit too fast.
Speaker 1: I've been in a car that had a feature like that.
Speaker 1: It was a car that was imported from Japan, and
Speaker 1: it would chime at us whenever we would hit the accelerator,
Speaker 1: which was sometimes necessary to do things like past another vehicle,
Speaker 1: and it was incredibly irritating, but you know, effective, it
Speaker 1: convinced us not to drive too fast because we didn't
Speaker 1: want to hear that chime over and over again. And
Speaker 1: the goal here is to cut back on traffic accidents
Speaker 1: and injuries and fatalities, and we see that in results.
Speaker 1: If we see that those numbers are much lower, it
Speaker 1: would be very hard to argue against this kind of
Speaker 1: technology because more people being alive really wins out against
Speaker 1: just wanting to avoid a frustrating driving experience. Earlier this year,
Speaker 1: I covered the company Peloton. Actually might have been the
Speaker 1: end of last year, but that's the company that makes
Speaker 1: exercise equipment, including the famous bikes and the infamous treadmills,
Speaker 1: and really makes its money by having a subscription based
Speaker 1: service to train on those. You have training sessions that
Speaker 1: you can take using this equipment. The brand got very
Speaker 1: popular early on in the pandemic, and the company ramped
Speaker 1: up production, and then demand slacked off rapidly and the
Speaker 1: company found itself overstocked with products. It was stuffed with
Speaker 1: inventory and in a lot of trouble, and there were
Speaker 1: a lot of other problems as well, But I don't
Speaker 1: want to rehash my old Peloton episode. Instead, the news
Speaker 1: today is that Peloton will no longer be manufacturing it's
Speaker 1: own equipment. Instead, it will be partnering with a company
Speaker 1: in Taiwan and outsourcing its production. The current CEO, Barry McCarthy,
Speaker 1: is trying to turn the company around, and that's gonna
Speaker 1: mean cutting way back on expenses. So that explains the
Speaker 1: decision to outsource manufacturing. Peloton has received a lot of abuse,
Speaker 1: some of it I think is justifiable, but I never
Speaker 1: really want to see a company fail, you know, unless
Speaker 1: that company is just pure evil. My hope is that
Speaker 1: Peloton will course correct and will find a business model
Speaker 1: that is sustainable and be able to reset from there.
Speaker 1: And though I don't own any Peloton products, I don't
Speaker 1: have any stake in the company, I just kind of
Speaker 1: hope that the executive team can fix things. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think I know anyone personally who actually owns
Speaker 1: a Peloton bike or treadmill, but I do know that
Speaker 1: the enthusiasts who have them are very passionate about the
Speaker 1: the brand and the training sessions. So I think anything
Speaker 1: that gets people to exercise is you know, that's kind
Speaker 1: of a good thing. I sure, as heck, could use
Speaker 1: more exercise in my life. But yeah, that's why I
Speaker 1: kind of hope that they succeed. Nothing other than that.
Speaker 1: The left leaning media watchdog Media Matters has reported that
Speaker 1: Facebook and Instagram, both of which are owned by Meta,
Speaker 1: played host to a great deal of anti lgbt Q
Speaker 1: misinformation and hate speech over the course of June, which
Speaker 1: of course was Pride Month. The organization accuses Meta of
Speaker 1: trying to cash in on Pride by claiming to support
Speaker 1: the l g B t Q community while simultaneously failing
Speaker 1: to stop the spread of hate speech and misinformation targeting
Speaker 1: that same community. Media Matters says that right wing media
Speaker 1: outlets spread lies about Pride events, including allegations that people
Speaker 1: within the events were specifically attempting to groom children. There's
Speaker 1: that narrative that we see over and over and in
Speaker 1: certain extremist literature and media outlets. The organization said, META
Speaker 1: has failed to enforce its own policy regarding misinformation and
Speaker 1: hate speech while simultaneously trying to position itself as being
Speaker 1: kind of a champion of the community. And that's not
Speaker 1: a good look. The organization pointed out this past Pride
Speaker 1: Month had several events that were targeted by extremist groups,
Speaker 1: and Media Matters argues that the lack of enforcement of
Speaker 1: policies on platforms like Facebook and Instagram can contribute to
Speaker 1: those kinds of real world outcomes. And you know, we've
Speaker 1: talked in the past about how these platforms can reinforce
Speaker 1: beliefs and can promote radicalization and also can serve as
Speaker 1: a platform for people to plan specific UH activities like
Speaker 1: like violence or protests at different events, and considering the
Speaker 1: extent that we've seen some of that via Lens as
Speaker 1: well as kind of a general move in this country,
Speaker 1: that being the United States to really push back against
Speaker 1: the l g B t Q community. It's it's a
Speaker 1: dangerous thing. It's a dangerous thing for a very vulnerable population.
Speaker 1: In other Meta news, a couple of different media outlets
Speaker 1: have reported moves within the company indicating that Meta may
Speaker 1: be headed towards holding mass layoffs. First, The Information reported
Speaker 1: that managers received note to identify people on their teams
Speaker 1: who quote unquote need support and that poor performers should
Speaker 1: be moved to exit just kind of a lame euphemism
Speaker 1: for being terminated or fired anyway. The Washington Post subsequently
Speaker 1: reported that this directive was the first step in managers
Speaker 1: creating performance improvement plans, which could then be used as
Speaker 1: sort of a guide for layoffs. And this is not
Speaker 1: that big of a surprise. Mark Zuckerberg himself has told
Speaker 1: employees that the company will be more aggressive in setting
Speaker 1: employee goals and expectations, and that this might commence some
Speaker 1: folks to leave meta, which is all aces in Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg's book. And I've said this before, but a lot
Speaker 1: of company leaders seem to feel that it's better to
Speaker 1: make a workplace less hospitable and thus push employees to
Speaker 1: quit rather than to hold layoffs, particularly in cases where
Speaker 1: the company might be on the hook to cover a
Speaker 1: severance package. It's way easier to move on if the
Speaker 1: employee has decided to leave the company on their own,
Speaker 1: which is again gross. Okay, that's it for the news
Speaker 1: for today. That's Tuesday, July twelve, two twenty two. If
Speaker 1: you have suggestions, please let me know. Easiest way to
Speaker 1: do that is on Twitter. The handle for the show
Speaker 1: is tech Stuff hs W and I'll talk to you
Speaker 1: again really soon. Text Stuff is an I Heart Radio production.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from I Heart Radio, visit the i
Speaker 1: Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.