September 23, 2021 • 25 mins
We learn more awful stuff about Facebook. Texas's law against social media companies is challenged in court. And the White House is meeting with companies about the semiconductor shortage. Plus more!
Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from my Heart Radio.
Hey there, and welcome to tex Stuff. I'm your host,
Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio,
and I love all things tech, which is more of
a you know, catchphrase than necessarily a reality. This is
(00:28):
the Tech News for Thursday, September one. And y'all, I'm
furious today and I'm going to do my best to
keep it together. But you should know I am an
emotional person and this first story has really done a
number on me. So I will do my best, all right.
(00:50):
So the BBC and the Wall Street Journal continue to
pull back the curtain with regard to Facebook and Instagram
and some of the not so awesome things that have
been going on with these companies or early I should
just say companies, since Facebook owns Instagram. You know, I've
talked about how Facebook conducted internal studies that showed the
(01:13):
company how their platform was facilitating and amplifying the spread
of misinformation, and also how they did another internal study
and showed that Instagram has contributed to mental health problems,
particularly among teenage girls. Well, this story is also horrifying.
This is not recent news. It is something I hadn't
(01:37):
heard about before, But that's on me. It's not because
you know, people had been reporting on it. I just
missed it. But there has been an update to it,
and I'll get to all of this. So the original
news was that back in two thousand nineteen, the BBC
investigated Facebook and Instagram, saying that the sites were hosting
(01:58):
ads that were for essentially slaves. The ads were for
domestic workers in Arabic markets in which people were literally
bought and sold. Now that is sickening in of itself.
One update here is that the Wall Street Journal, as
part of its series of expose s about Facebook that
had been coming out over the last week or so,
(02:19):
found that a two thousand nineteen internal report. It always
comes back to those internal reports, doesn't it. Anyway, That
indicated that the company was already aware of this and
had done some investigation into it before the BBC report
blew the lid off the problem and alerted the general public.
Now I should add that they were doing some investigations,
(02:39):
but they had not taken any action. A Facebook employees
stated in the report quote throughout two thousand eighteen and
two thousand nineteen, we conducted the global understanding exercise in
order to fully understand how domestic servitude manifests on our
platform across its entire life cycle, recruitment, facilitation, and exploitation
(03:01):
end quote. But it looks like it was actually the
BBC expose that prompted Facebook to take action, first banning
a hashtag that was used in many of those ads,
and then taking subsequent steps. In June two thousand twenty,
the Facebook reps stated, quote, following an investigation prompted by
(03:23):
an inquiry from the BBC, we conducted a proactive review
of our platform. We removed seven Instagram accounts within twenty
four hours and simultaneously blocked several violating hashtags. End quote.
All Right, first, I'm glad that Facebook took those steps. However,
I want to get real here, folks. Okay, the phrase
(03:44):
quote following an investigation prompted by an inquiry from the BBC.
End quote. That means that the phrase they used, which
was quote, we conducted a proactive review end quote is
horse bucky. I'm gonna try and control myself here. It
is not proactive if you are doing something after being
(04:06):
prompted by an investigation from journalists. That's not what proactive
means okay, that is reactive. The company reacted to being investigated.
It was not proactively taking these steps to protect people,
despite having its own internal investigation that predated the BBC's report. Now,
(04:28):
they might argue that they were proactively scanning for more
examples of this, but that's not how it was worded
in the statement. Right. I can accept that they have
subsequently put in systems that proactively look for this, and
that I, you know, I don't have objection to that
kind of language, but the way this was worded just
(04:48):
infuriates me. This is also another example of how Facebook
angers me in general, because it allows stuff to happen, terrible,
terrible things. It allows horrible things to happen, and then
we find out that Facebook was fully aware of the problem,
like it wasn't like Facebook was somehow ignorant that this
was happening and was just as surprise at the rest
(05:10):
of us to see it, And and then finding how
that they didn't take any steps to solve it until
it becomes a public issue, until pressure is put on
the company. This is like just a double dose of evil,
or at least of apathy, which you know, in my
book amounts to being the same thing anyway. The Wall
(05:32):
Street Journal also revealed, and this is new information, that
Facebook received pressure from Apple back in two thousand and eight.
Two nineteen, the company reportedly threatened to remove Facebook's apps
from the Apple App Store, an enormous threat, and you
can bet that is the sort of stuff that Facebook
(05:54):
actually pays attention to. Again, it's upsetting to me that
companies allow such terrible thing to proliferate on their platforms
as long as the company is safely protected against consequences,
and then they only act to help people if there
happen to be negative consequences. If the company fails to
help people, it's just plane gross and other Facebook news.
(06:18):
A lawsuit from shareholders alleges that the company paid the
FTC nearly five billion dollars over a settlement agreement in
order to make certain that some certain kind of problems
just got away in the wake of the Cambridge Analytical
Now scandal several years ago. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that
(06:39):
quote Zuckerberg, Sandberg and other Facebook directors agreed to authorize
a multibillion settlement with the FTC as an express quid
pro quo that means this for that to protect Zuckerberg
from being named the f TCS complaint made subject to
personal liability or even required to sit for a deposition
(07:03):
end quote. So in other words, that they paid you know,
hush money to the FTC so that the FTC wouldn't
go after Zuckerberg at all. So if that lawsuit actually
holds merit and Facebook did do this, we have ourselves
a fun story not just of unethical corporate behavior, but
also government corruption as well. It's nothing like more confirmation
(07:25):
that the rules just don't apply if you have enough money. Right,
we all know that, but this is yet more proof
of that. So this lawsuit was actually filed last year
in it only became public information this week due to
an update that got filed to the lawsuit that then
made it a public and so it's just being reported
(07:46):
on now. Okay, let's get away from Facebook for a second,
or at least directly from Facebook. That still kind of
involves Facebook. So it was only a matter of time
before someone challenged the Texas law HB twenty, which makes
it illegal for social media companies from removing content or
(08:07):
banning users based on that person's quote unquote viewpoint. Uh
that time is now because the Computer and Communications Industry Association,
as well as the organization net Choice have brought a
lawsuit against Texas challenging that law. A similar law had
been passed and subsequently blocked in the state of Florida.
(08:27):
Those two organizations I just mentioned they were also responsible
for the lawsuit that brought that before a judge in
Florida who ultimately barred the law from being put into effect.
This comes in the wake of the various moves by
social platforms to ban users and delete content that violated
the platform's policies, and that included some high profile users,
(08:50):
such as the former President of the United States. The
laws are kind of ironic because proponents say that the
laws are there to promote freedom of speech to make
sure that these entities like Facebook and Twitter aren't able
to infringe upon the speech of others. But the US
Guarantee of freedom of speech protects citizens and companies from
(09:13):
the government intervening and telling you what you can and
cannot say. It protects you against government censorship. Companies like
Facebook and Twitter are not the government, and as such,
they can have content policies, and they can enforce those
policies and that doesn't mean that they're violating a constitutional guarantee,
because you know, they're not the government, and the communications
(09:35):
take place on the virtual property of these companies. However,
you could argue that telling a company that it cannot
police the content on its own platform is an example
of the government violating an entities right to freedom of expression.
So while under the banner of freedom, this law, you
(09:56):
could argue is actually violating the very thing it allegedly
protect X. Of course, that's just one interpretation, and I
am not a legal expert. It may come down to
a court fighting in favor of the Texas law. We'll
have to wait and see. Okay, I think I need
to take a quick break, and when we come back,
(10:16):
more stuff what makes me angry? Okay, we're getting back
to tech and politics. This one doesn't actually make me angry,
which is good. I think you all need a break
from Jonathan getting on his high horse. So this time
we're gonna talk about currency. The Federal Reserve is preparing
(10:38):
to release a paper regarding the agency's study into whether
or not it's a good idea to create a US
based digital currency. This would be a type of c
B d C. Now that stands for central bank digital currency,
and really you could say this is just a virtual
form of a government issued currency or fiat currency. So
(11:00):
in other words, this would just be like a digital
version of a US dollar. Now it's something that can
have a lot of benefits, including benefits to the unbanked
people who don't have bank accounts, because this allows for
a digital payment, but it doesn't require the person to
have a bank account. They would have to have some
sort of digital wallet in order to accept and then
(11:22):
spend digital dollars, but they wouldn't have to have a
bank account associated with them. So this is not the
same thing as cryptocurrency, so it's not like saying that
the FED is looking to make its own version of bitcoin.
Bitcoin is also digital, but there are big distinctions between
c B d c s and your typical cryptocurrencies. Both
(11:43):
typically depend upon a secure ledger that cannot be changed.
This is necessary so that you can keep track of
transactions and you prevent people from being able to spend
the same digital dollar twice, right, you know, this is
the protection to make sure that someone can't get a
digital dollar and then quote unquote counterfeit it by copying
(12:06):
it a billion times and making themselves a billionaire. You've
got to have protections in place against that, just as
you would against you know, counterfeiting, uh, you know, physical currencies.
And there are a ton of differences between cryptocurrencies and
c B d cs. So with cryptocurrencies, you typically have
a shared ledger, so everyone participating in the system is
(12:31):
is technically able to see this ledger. Thus you can't
have anyone cheat the ledger because everyone can see it.
You can't go back and change things in the past
because it would affect everything that followed, and that would
be impossible for the all the different parties to ignore.
You would be caught immediately. With c B dcs, you
(12:51):
technically you know or you typically don't have a shared ledger.
You have a centralized ledger, but it's under the authorization
of that centralized authority. And cryptocurrencies don't depend upon a
centralized institution. The currency does. There are good and bad
things connected with that, and I think your opinion about
(13:12):
which is best largely depends on whether you buy into
the cryptocurrency. Ethos are not um. I definitely see benefits
and I see drawbacks to each either way. The study
that the FED is doing and is soon going to
report on. It's just an indication that the FED is
considering the possibility of creating a U S C B
(13:34):
d C. It's not, you know, a done deal or anything.
We will have to wait and find out what happens next.
Today the U s Secretary of Commerce is meeting with
representatives from big automakers as well as some major tech
companies like Microsoft and Apple. And the heart of the
matter is the ongoing semiconductor chip shortage, which is affecting
(13:54):
multiple industries out there, but it's really having a profound
negative impact on the automotive industry at that you know,
right now. Presumably this group of experts will discuss what
the current problem is and you know, define the parameters
and maybe talk about some potential ways to perhaps alleviate
some of the pain points in the supply chain. I'm
(14:16):
not sure that there's going to be a ton of
solutions to that, because the problem is a truly enormous one.
It's a global issue, and it includes a lot of
parties that are not in the United States, and you
can only churn out stuff so quickly. In a way,
you could say this shows that the world's supply chain is,
(14:37):
you know, very much a chain. It is dependent upon
the weakest links, right. It's only as strong as those
weakest links because it is interlinked. It's not if you
break a link in a chain, then you've got to
you know, segments of chain, you no longer have a
real full chain. Same thing with supply chains. And this
(14:58):
is not to say that I'm passing judgment on countries
like Vietnam or Malaysia that are having massive issues and
thus are quote unquote the weakest link in the supply chain.
These are regions that are experiencing rising COVID nineteen infection rates.
These countries frequently are struggling to get doses of vaccines
that can then be administered to citizens. There's an amazing
(15:21):
vaccine shortage in most of the world. Here in the
United States, it's easy different get that because it is
readily available, But in other parts of the world that's
not the case. This is a really big ecosystem and
humanitarian crisis. We here in the United States, we're fortunate
and that we mostly see it through the stuff like
(15:41):
skyrocketing automobile price tags or graphics card shortages, which, don't
get me wrong, those are problems. But when you look
at it in the in the context of people in
other parts of the world who are responsible for delivering
components that go into those things literally can't get vaccinated
because there aren't enough doses, it really kind of brings
(16:04):
everything into perspective. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently sent out
a memo that complained about how some Apple employee had
leaked a previous memo, and then, of course this memo
got leaked, so Apple's got a leaking problem. The earlier memo,
the one that necessitated Tim Cook's second memo, was about
(16:25):
how Apple would not require employees to be vaccinated, but
the company would instead require unvaccinated employees to take COVID
tests on a frequent basis. Someone leaked that, and then
Cook sent out a memo essentially saying, hey, don't leak
stuff to the press or you'll be in trouble. And
of course here we are with this memo now leaked
(16:48):
to everyone. This also comes at a time when a
subset of Apple employees have been calling out the company
to be held accountable for issues ranging from pay disparity
to a hostile work environment um the Apple Me Too movement.
Then there are the employees who had been pushing back
against Cook's earlier insistence that Apple employees returned to work
(17:08):
in person for at least three days a week starting
this fall. That's a requirement that has now been pushed
off to two. I wouldn't be surprised to see more leaks.
I think there are enough folks in Apple who are
upset or concerned, and they're just not willing to stay
quiet about it. Meanwhile, over at Epic Games, the company
(17:29):
behind the massively successful Fortnite, Apple has denied that company's
request to bring Fortnite back into the App Store now.
According to the CEO of Epic Tim Sweeney, Apple had
previously indicated it would allow Fortnite back in the App Store,
but now is determined to keep it banned until the
company has exhausted every legal appeal it can make to
(17:52):
the courts, which so far have ruled more in epics
favor than in Apples. So at the heart of all this,
in case you're not familiar, year, is that Apple and
Google both have policies that state if you have an
app that has in app purchases built into it, then
the company takes like in this case, Apple takes a
(18:15):
percentage up tot of that transaction for themselves, and that
you are not allowed to use any other method to
sell to people in app for an Apple app so
or an app that's in the Apple Store. So Fortnite
has in game items you can purchase, but to do
(18:36):
so on the Apple version, you were supposed to go
through Apple's payment system, and instead Fortnite offered players an
alternative work around where more of the money would go
to Epic Games and none of it would go to Apple.
Apple then took the move of banning Fortnite from the
App Store, and we got into this big legal battle.
(18:59):
Well recently, the courts have said that Apple's policy is
anti competitive, not monopolistic, but anti competitive, and that Apple
needs to allow companies to have apps on the App
Store to offer up alternative payment processes that are outside
the Apple one. Apple has not yet done this, and
(19:22):
in fact Apple is appealing that decision. And Sweeney said, hey,
we'd be happy to come back and obey your rules
if you let us back in the App Store, we
will play by your policies as long as you have
conformed with the court decision, which Apple refuses to do. So.
(19:43):
The battle continues. This has been a pretty public one
and Tim Sweeney has not been shy about taking this
battle to the public, probably because Fortnite has such an
enormous following that he knows he can get a lot
of support in a short amount of time. So we
will see how this battle plays out, but it's going
to take a while longer. The e USE European Commission
(20:04):
has announced that it will soon propose that all smartphones
sold in the EU will have to comply with the
u s b C charging Port standard, so that means
all smart phones sold in the EU will have to
have a us b C charging port. These are kind
of shots you know, fired at Apple, which uses a
proprietary charging connector. It uses the Lightning connector for iPhones. Now,
(20:29):
this despite the fact that the Apple also moved to
us b C for its Mac computers, which drives a
lot of Apple users nuts that you know, the company
has moved from Lightning to USBC for some of its products,
but not all of it. This requirement only applies to
devices that use wired charging, so if you have something
that charges wirelessly, that's exempt from this rule. And this
(20:53):
is not a rule that's set in stone yet. It's
more like a recommendation. So the e C sends this
recommendation to the European part Elament and then that has
to vote on the matter before it can become law.
That being said, the feeling is that most of the
EU Parliament is in favor on settling on a common charger. Uh.
The argument is that this benefits consumers because it simplifies
(21:15):
the equipment you need when you get a new phone.
Let's say you switch from Android to iPhone. Well, it's
already standard practice in Europe to ship phones without a charger,
So the idea is that everyone out there already has chargers,
and they already have cables, so you don't need to
include that with your phone. This cuts down on cost,
it cuts down on waste, cuts down on packaging. Like
(21:36):
it has a lot of benefits. But if you have
a phone that has a proprietary connector, then you know
none of your cables are going to work. You would
have to go out and buy new ones, and that
generates more waste. I should also point out that not
all USBC cables are actually equal. There's a variety of them.
Some of them can carry a higher voltage than others.
For example, or provide more data throughput. So while it
(22:01):
might seem like you're talking about simplifying things, you are,
but not not fully. So it's still a little complicated.
Apple representatives responded by expressing disappointment in this recommendation not
a big surprise. They have argued that, you know, settling
on a single charging cable discourages innovation. I would say
(22:23):
that there's a balance to be made here. There is
a need for standardization which removes confusion in the market
and benefits a consumer. And of course there's an argument
to be made that Apple really doesn't, you know, isn't
calling out about restrictions on innovation. Apple wants proprietary connectors
because then Apple can make more money selling all those
(22:43):
different components, the phones, the chargers, the cables, everything. But
if it's forced to conform to a universal standard, then
it could lose out on a lot of sales because
you could just buy those cables from anyone anyway. We'll
see if the European Parliament takes the recommendation and makes
it into law on the EU, and then we'll see
what Apple does about it. Finally, people who spend a
(23:06):
lot of time looking at patents found one from Valve
that suggests the company could be working on a way
that would let you play a game while you are
downloading it, with a product called Steam Instant Play. This
is similar to features that you find on some video
game consoles where you purchase a digital copy of a game,
and once a sufficient amount of the game has downloaded
(23:27):
onto your device, you can start playing. Now, you might
only be able to play in a specific mode, like
the single player campaign or something, but you can get
started and meanwhile, the rest of the game continues to
download in the background. This is a pretty darn handy
feature to have, particularly as games get increasingly gargantuan with
regard to how much hard drive space they can take
(23:48):
up and the limitations of broadband speeds. For folks who
are fortunate enough to have a gigabit connection or even better,
it's maybe not that big of a deal. But for
mere mortals like myself, having a way to play a
game without having to wait, you know, the hour or
so to get the full thing installed as a pretty
big benefit. Anyway. The patent describes the system that would
(24:11):
potentially allow for that kind of experience on Steam, which
is of course Valves Online Computer games store. It's like
it's like a physical game store, except of course they're
all digital downloads, but they carry games from all different publishers.
So for those who aren't into PC games, Steam is
like the leading store for selling online you know, games
(24:32):
over the Internet, or rather games online over the internet,
because they're not just they're not all online games. Some
of them are you know, single player, no internet connectivity
type games. Steam is so successful the Valve doesn't even
have to make video games of its own anymore, really,
much to the despair of those who are waiting for
another Half Life game. I should also add we don't
(24:53):
need to hold our breath on this particular instant feature.
We're talking about a patent. We're not talking about an
actual product yet. One day Valve could implement instant play,
or it might never roll it out at all. And
that's it for the news for Thursday, September one. I'm
(25:14):
gonna go and light like some scented candles and stuff
and listen to some relaxing music so that I don't
have as many anger outbursts as I did today, So
my apologies for that, but these are things I care about.
If you have suggestions for things I should cover on
tech stuff. Reach out to me. The handle on Twitter
(25:34):
is text stuff H s W and I'll talk to
you again really soon. Text Stuff is an I Heart
Radio production. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit
the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from my Heart Radio.
Hey there, and welcome to tex Stuff. I'm your host,
Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio,
and I love all things tech, which is more of
a you know, catchphrase than necessarily a reality. This is
(00:28):
the Tech News for Thursday, September one. And y'all, I'm
furious today and I'm going to do my best to
keep it together. But you should know I am an
emotional person and this first story has really done a
number on me. So I will do my best, all right.
(00:50):
So the BBC and the Wall Street Journal continue to
pull back the curtain with regard to Facebook and Instagram
and some of the not so awesome things that have
been going on with these companies or early I should
just say companies, since Facebook owns Instagram. You know, I've
talked about how Facebook conducted internal studies that showed the
(01:13):
company how their platform was facilitating and amplifying the spread
of misinformation, and also how they did another internal study
and showed that Instagram has contributed to mental health problems,
particularly among teenage girls. Well, this story is also horrifying.
This is not recent news. It is something I hadn't
(01:37):
heard about before, But that's on me. It's not because
you know, people had been reporting on it. I just
missed it. But there has been an update to it,
and I'll get to all of this. So the original
news was that back in two thousand nineteen, the BBC
investigated Facebook and Instagram, saying that the sites were hosting
(01:58):
ads that were for essentially slaves. The ads were for
domestic workers in Arabic markets in which people were literally
bought and sold. Now that is sickening in of itself.
One update here is that the Wall Street Journal, as
part of its series of expose s about Facebook that
had been coming out over the last week or so,
(02:19):
found that a two thousand nineteen internal report. It always
comes back to those internal reports, doesn't it. Anyway, That
indicated that the company was already aware of this and
had done some investigation into it before the BBC report
blew the lid off the problem and alerted the general public.
Now I should add that they were doing some investigations,
(02:39):
but they had not taken any action. A Facebook employees
stated in the report quote throughout two thousand eighteen and
two thousand nineteen, we conducted the global understanding exercise in
order to fully understand how domestic servitude manifests on our
platform across its entire life cycle, recruitment, facilitation, and exploitation
(03:01):
end quote. But it looks like it was actually the
BBC expose that prompted Facebook to take action, first banning
a hashtag that was used in many of those ads,
and then taking subsequent steps. In June two thousand twenty,
the Facebook reps stated, quote, following an investigation prompted by
(03:23):
an inquiry from the BBC, we conducted a proactive review
of our platform. We removed seven Instagram accounts within twenty
four hours and simultaneously blocked several violating hashtags. End quote.
All Right, first, I'm glad that Facebook took those steps. However,
I want to get real here, folks. Okay, the phrase
(03:44):
quote following an investigation prompted by an inquiry from the BBC.
End quote. That means that the phrase they used, which
was quote, we conducted a proactive review end quote is
horse bucky. I'm gonna try and control myself here. It
is not proactive if you are doing something after being
(04:06):
prompted by an investigation from journalists. That's not what proactive
means okay, that is reactive. The company reacted to being investigated.
It was not proactively taking these steps to protect people,
despite having its own internal investigation that predated the BBC's report. Now,
(04:28):
they might argue that they were proactively scanning for more
examples of this, but that's not how it was worded
in the statement. Right. I can accept that they have
subsequently put in systems that proactively look for this, and
that I, you know, I don't have objection to that
kind of language, but the way this was worded just
(04:48):
infuriates me. This is also another example of how Facebook
angers me in general, because it allows stuff to happen, terrible,
terrible things. It allows horrible things to happen, and then
we find out that Facebook was fully aware of the problem,
like it wasn't like Facebook was somehow ignorant that this
was happening and was just as surprise at the rest
(05:10):
of us to see it, And and then finding how
that they didn't take any steps to solve it until
it becomes a public issue, until pressure is put on
the company. This is like just a double dose of evil,
or at least of apathy, which you know, in my
book amounts to being the same thing anyway. The Wall
(05:32):
Street Journal also revealed, and this is new information, that
Facebook received pressure from Apple back in two thousand and eight.
Two nineteen, the company reportedly threatened to remove Facebook's apps
from the Apple App Store, an enormous threat, and you
can bet that is the sort of stuff that Facebook
(05:54):
actually pays attention to. Again, it's upsetting to me that
companies allow such terrible thing to proliferate on their platforms
as long as the company is safely protected against consequences,
and then they only act to help people if there
happen to be negative consequences. If the company fails to
help people, it's just plane gross and other Facebook news.
(06:18):
A lawsuit from shareholders alleges that the company paid the
FTC nearly five billion dollars over a settlement agreement in
order to make certain that some certain kind of problems
just got away in the wake of the Cambridge Analytical
Now scandal several years ago. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that
(06:39):
quote Zuckerberg, Sandberg and other Facebook directors agreed to authorize
a multibillion settlement with the FTC as an express quid
pro quo that means this for that to protect Zuckerberg
from being named the f TCS complaint made subject to
personal liability or even required to sit for a deposition
(07:03):
end quote. So in other words, that they paid you know,
hush money to the FTC so that the FTC wouldn't
go after Zuckerberg at all. So if that lawsuit actually
holds merit and Facebook did do this, we have ourselves
a fun story not just of unethical corporate behavior, but
also government corruption as well. It's nothing like more confirmation
(07:25):
that the rules just don't apply if you have enough money. Right,
we all know that, but this is yet more proof
of that. So this lawsuit was actually filed last year
in it only became public information this week due to
an update that got filed to the lawsuit that then
made it a public and so it's just being reported
(07:46):
on now. Okay, let's get away from Facebook for a second,
or at least directly from Facebook. That still kind of
involves Facebook. So it was only a matter of time
before someone challenged the Texas law HB twenty, which makes
it illegal for social media companies from removing content or
(08:07):
banning users based on that person's quote unquote viewpoint. Uh
that time is now because the Computer and Communications Industry Association,
as well as the organization net Choice have brought a
lawsuit against Texas challenging that law. A similar law had
been passed and subsequently blocked in the state of Florida.
(08:27):
Those two organizations I just mentioned they were also responsible
for the lawsuit that brought that before a judge in
Florida who ultimately barred the law from being put into effect.
This comes in the wake of the various moves by
social platforms to ban users and delete content that violated
the platform's policies, and that included some high profile users,
(08:50):
such as the former President of the United States. The
laws are kind of ironic because proponents say that the
laws are there to promote freedom of speech to make
sure that these entities like Facebook and Twitter aren't able
to infringe upon the speech of others. But the US
Guarantee of freedom of speech protects citizens and companies from
(09:13):
the government intervening and telling you what you can and
cannot say. It protects you against government censorship. Companies like
Facebook and Twitter are not the government, and as such,
they can have content policies, and they can enforce those
policies and that doesn't mean that they're violating a constitutional guarantee,
because you know, they're not the government, and the communications
(09:35):
take place on the virtual property of these companies. However,
you could argue that telling a company that it cannot
police the content on its own platform is an example
of the government violating an entities right to freedom of expression.
So while under the banner of freedom, this law, you
(09:56):
could argue is actually violating the very thing it allegedly
protect X. Of course, that's just one interpretation, and I
am not a legal expert. It may come down to
a court fighting in favor of the Texas law. We'll
have to wait and see. Okay, I think I need
to take a quick break, and when we come back,
(10:16):
more stuff what makes me angry? Okay, we're getting back
to tech and politics. This one doesn't actually make me angry,
which is good. I think you all need a break
from Jonathan getting on his high horse. So this time
we're gonna talk about currency. The Federal Reserve is preparing
(10:38):
to release a paper regarding the agency's study into whether
or not it's a good idea to create a US
based digital currency. This would be a type of c
B d C. Now that stands for central bank digital currency,
and really you could say this is just a virtual
form of a government issued currency or fiat currency. So
(11:00):
in other words, this would just be like a digital
version of a US dollar. Now it's something that can
have a lot of benefits, including benefits to the unbanked
people who don't have bank accounts, because this allows for
a digital payment, but it doesn't require the person to
have a bank account. They would have to have some
sort of digital wallet in order to accept and then
(11:22):
spend digital dollars, but they wouldn't have to have a
bank account associated with them. So this is not the
same thing as cryptocurrency, so it's not like saying that
the FED is looking to make its own version of bitcoin.
Bitcoin is also digital, but there are big distinctions between
c B d c s and your typical cryptocurrencies. Both
(11:43):
typically depend upon a secure ledger that cannot be changed.
This is necessary so that you can keep track of
transactions and you prevent people from being able to spend
the same digital dollar twice, right, you know, this is
the protection to make sure that someone can't get a
digital dollar and then quote unquote counterfeit it by copying
(12:06):
it a billion times and making themselves a billionaire. You've
got to have protections in place against that, just as
you would against you know, counterfeiting, uh, you know, physical currencies.
And there are a ton of differences between cryptocurrencies and
c B d cs. So with cryptocurrencies, you typically have
a shared ledger, so everyone participating in the system is
(12:31):
is technically able to see this ledger. Thus you can't
have anyone cheat the ledger because everyone can see it.
You can't go back and change things in the past
because it would affect everything that followed, and that would
be impossible for the all the different parties to ignore.
You would be caught immediately. With c B dcs, you
(12:51):
technically you know or you typically don't have a shared ledger.
You have a centralized ledger, but it's under the authorization
of that centralized authority. And cryptocurrencies don't depend upon a
centralized institution. The currency does. There are good and bad
things connected with that, and I think your opinion about
(13:12):
which is best largely depends on whether you buy into
the cryptocurrency. Ethos are not um. I definitely see benefits
and I see drawbacks to each either way. The study
that the FED is doing and is soon going to
report on. It's just an indication that the FED is
considering the possibility of creating a U S C B
(13:34):
d C. It's not, you know, a done deal or anything.
We will have to wait and find out what happens next.
Today the U s Secretary of Commerce is meeting with
representatives from big automakers as well as some major tech
companies like Microsoft and Apple. And the heart of the
matter is the ongoing semiconductor chip shortage, which is affecting
(13:54):
multiple industries out there, but it's really having a profound
negative impact on the automotive industry at that you know,
right now. Presumably this group of experts will discuss what
the current problem is and you know, define the parameters
and maybe talk about some potential ways to perhaps alleviate
some of the pain points in the supply chain. I'm
(14:16):
not sure that there's going to be a ton of
solutions to that, because the problem is a truly enormous one.
It's a global issue, and it includes a lot of
parties that are not in the United States, and you
can only churn out stuff so quickly. In a way,
you could say this shows that the world's supply chain is,
(14:37):
you know, very much a chain. It is dependent upon
the weakest links, right. It's only as strong as those
weakest links because it is interlinked. It's not if you
break a link in a chain, then you've got to
you know, segments of chain, you no longer have a
real full chain. Same thing with supply chains. And this
(14:58):
is not to say that I'm passing judgment on countries
like Vietnam or Malaysia that are having massive issues and
thus are quote unquote the weakest link in the supply chain.
These are regions that are experiencing rising COVID nineteen infection rates.
These countries frequently are struggling to get doses of vaccines
that can then be administered to citizens. There's an amazing
(15:21):
vaccine shortage in most of the world. Here in the
United States, it's easy different get that because it is
readily available, But in other parts of the world that's
not the case. This is a really big ecosystem and
humanitarian crisis. We here in the United States, we're fortunate
and that we mostly see it through the stuff like
(15:41):
skyrocketing automobile price tags or graphics card shortages, which, don't
get me wrong, those are problems. But when you look
at it in the in the context of people in
other parts of the world who are responsible for delivering
components that go into those things literally can't get vaccinated
because there aren't enough doses, it really kind of brings
(16:04):
everything into perspective. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently sent out
a memo that complained about how some Apple employee had
leaked a previous memo, and then, of course this memo
got leaked, so Apple's got a leaking problem. The earlier memo,
the one that necessitated Tim Cook's second memo, was about
(16:25):
how Apple would not require employees to be vaccinated, but
the company would instead require unvaccinated employees to take COVID
tests on a frequent basis. Someone leaked that, and then
Cook sent out a memo essentially saying, hey, don't leak
stuff to the press or you'll be in trouble. And
of course here we are with this memo now leaked
(16:48):
to everyone. This also comes at a time when a
subset of Apple employees have been calling out the company
to be held accountable for issues ranging from pay disparity
to a hostile work environment um the Apple Me Too movement.
Then there are the employees who had been pushing back
against Cook's earlier insistence that Apple employees returned to work
(17:08):
in person for at least three days a week starting
this fall. That's a requirement that has now been pushed
off to two. I wouldn't be surprised to see more leaks.
I think there are enough folks in Apple who are
upset or concerned, and they're just not willing to stay
quiet about it. Meanwhile, over at Epic Games, the company
(17:29):
behind the massively successful Fortnite, Apple has denied that company's
request to bring Fortnite back into the App Store now.
According to the CEO of Epic Tim Sweeney, Apple had
previously indicated it would allow Fortnite back in the App Store,
but now is determined to keep it banned until the
company has exhausted every legal appeal it can make to
(17:52):
the courts, which so far have ruled more in epics
favor than in Apples. So at the heart of all this,
in case you're not familiar, year, is that Apple and
Google both have policies that state if you have an
app that has in app purchases built into it, then
the company takes like in this case, Apple takes a
(18:15):
percentage up tot of that transaction for themselves, and that
you are not allowed to use any other method to
sell to people in app for an Apple app so
or an app that's in the Apple Store. So Fortnite
has in game items you can purchase, but to do
(18:36):
so on the Apple version, you were supposed to go
through Apple's payment system, and instead Fortnite offered players an
alternative work around where more of the money would go
to Epic Games and none of it would go to Apple.
Apple then took the move of banning Fortnite from the
App Store, and we got into this big legal battle.
(18:59):
Well recently, the courts have said that Apple's policy is
anti competitive, not monopolistic, but anti competitive, and that Apple
needs to allow companies to have apps on the App
Store to offer up alternative payment processes that are outside
the Apple one. Apple has not yet done this, and
(19:22):
in fact Apple is appealing that decision. And Sweeney said, hey,
we'd be happy to come back and obey your rules
if you let us back in the App Store, we
will play by your policies as long as you have
conformed with the court decision, which Apple refuses to do. So.
(19:43):
The battle continues. This has been a pretty public one
and Tim Sweeney has not been shy about taking this
battle to the public, probably because Fortnite has such an
enormous following that he knows he can get a lot
of support in a short amount of time. So we
will see how this battle plays out, but it's going
to take a while longer. The e USE European Commission
(20:04):
has announced that it will soon propose that all smartphones
sold in the EU will have to comply with the
u s b C charging Port standard, so that means
all smart phones sold in the EU will have to
have a us b C charging port. These are kind
of shots you know, fired at Apple, which uses a
proprietary charging connector. It uses the Lightning connector for iPhones. Now,
(20:29):
this despite the fact that the Apple also moved to
us b C for its Mac computers, which drives a
lot of Apple users nuts that you know, the company
has moved from Lightning to USBC for some of its products,
but not all of it. This requirement only applies to
devices that use wired charging, so if you have something
that charges wirelessly, that's exempt from this rule. And this
(20:53):
is not a rule that's set in stone yet. It's
more like a recommendation. So the e C sends this
recommendation to the European part Elament and then that has
to vote on the matter before it can become law.
That being said, the feeling is that most of the
EU Parliament is in favor on settling on a common charger. Uh.
The argument is that this benefits consumers because it simplifies
(21:15):
the equipment you need when you get a new phone.
Let's say you switch from Android to iPhone. Well, it's
already standard practice in Europe to ship phones without a charger,
So the idea is that everyone out there already has chargers,
and they already have cables, so you don't need to
include that with your phone. This cuts down on cost,
it cuts down on waste, cuts down on packaging. Like
(21:36):
it has a lot of benefits. But if you have
a phone that has a proprietary connector, then you know
none of your cables are going to work. You would
have to go out and buy new ones, and that
generates more waste. I should also point out that not
all USBC cables are actually equal. There's a variety of them.
Some of them can carry a higher voltage than others.
For example, or provide more data throughput. So while it
(22:01):
might seem like you're talking about simplifying things, you are,
but not not fully. So it's still a little complicated.
Apple representatives responded by expressing disappointment in this recommendation not
a big surprise. They have argued that, you know, settling
on a single charging cable discourages innovation. I would say
(22:23):
that there's a balance to be made here. There is
a need for standardization which removes confusion in the market
and benefits a consumer. And of course there's an argument
to be made that Apple really doesn't, you know, isn't
calling out about restrictions on innovation. Apple wants proprietary connectors
because then Apple can make more money selling all those
(22:43):
different components, the phones, the chargers, the cables, everything. But
if it's forced to conform to a universal standard, then
it could lose out on a lot of sales because
you could just buy those cables from anyone anyway. We'll
see if the European Parliament takes the recommendation and makes
it into law on the EU, and then we'll see
what Apple does about it. Finally, people who spend a
(23:06):
lot of time looking at patents found one from Valve
that suggests the company could be working on a way
that would let you play a game while you are
downloading it, with a product called Steam Instant Play. This
is similar to features that you find on some video
game consoles where you purchase a digital copy of a game,
and once a sufficient amount of the game has downloaded
(23:27):
onto your device, you can start playing. Now, you might
only be able to play in a specific mode, like
the single player campaign or something, but you can get
started and meanwhile, the rest of the game continues to
download in the background. This is a pretty darn handy
feature to have, particularly as games get increasingly gargantuan with
regard to how much hard drive space they can take
(23:48):
up and the limitations of broadband speeds. For folks who
are fortunate enough to have a gigabit connection or even better,
it's maybe not that big of a deal. But for
mere mortals like myself, having a way to play a
game without having to wait, you know, the hour or
so to get the full thing installed as a pretty
big benefit. Anyway. The patent describes the system that would
(24:11):
potentially allow for that kind of experience on Steam, which
is of course Valves Online Computer games store. It's like
it's like a physical game store, except of course they're
all digital downloads, but they carry games from all different publishers.
So for those who aren't into PC games, Steam is
like the leading store for selling online you know, games
(24:32):
over the Internet, or rather games online over the internet,
because they're not just they're not all online games. Some
of them are you know, single player, no internet connectivity
type games. Steam is so successful the Valve doesn't even
have to make video games of its own anymore, really,
much to the despair of those who are waiting for
another Half Life game. I should also add we don't
(24:53):
need to hold our breath on this particular instant feature.
We're talking about a patent. We're not talking about an
actual product yet. One day Valve could implement instant play,
or it might never roll it out at all. And
that's it for the news for Thursday, September one. I'm
(25:14):
gonna go and light like some scented candles and stuff
and listen to some relaxing music so that I don't
have as many anger outbursts as I did today, So
my apologies for that, but these are things I care about.
If you have suggestions for things I should cover on
tech stuff. Reach out to me. The handle on Twitter
(25:34):
is text stuff H s W and I'll talk to
you again really soon. Text Stuff is an I Heart
Radio production. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit
the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
listen to your favorite shows.
TechStuff News
Hosts And Creators
Oz Woloshyn
Karah Preiss
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com