February 23, 2023 • 32 mins
The US Supreme Court admits it isn't qualified to make a judgment call on Section 230, which provides protection to online platforms regarding user content. Plus Apple's iOS 17 is rumored to allow users to sideload apps for the first time. And Elon Musk continues to shake things up at Twitter. And more!
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 iHeartRadio. Hey there,
and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland, Diamond,
executive producer for iHeartRadio, and how the tech are here.
It's time for the Tech News for Thursday, February twenty third,
twenty twenty three, and we're going to start off by
(00:27):
talking about the United States Supreme Court, which has been
hearing a couple of legal cases that involve Section two thirty. Now,
in case you're not familiar with that, Section two thirty
is part of Title forty seven of the United States Code.
It's part of the Communications Decency Act of nineteen ninety six.
But we're not going to jump all the way into
(00:49):
all that because it really gets in the weeds. What
Section two thirty is about is accountability, specifically when it
comes to stuff that's been posted online, namely that a
platform isn't responsible for the material posted to that platform.
Just as he wouldn't blame a street corner if someone
(01:10):
standing on the street corner were to incite a riot,
It's not the street corner's fault. It's the person who
did the inciting. So two thirty extends a similar protection
to online platforms, and it allows users to post content,
whether it's text or audio or video or whatever. And
it also gives the platforms the authority to moderate content
(01:35):
as they see fit. This is what lets platforms create
content moderation policies and then enforce those and it protects
such platforms from legal attacks for enforcing their policies. There's
also some stuff there about making a reasonable attempt to
remove illegal content, like if a platform fails to do that,
(01:57):
then it doesn't receive full protection because it is seen
as sort of a facilitator. But as long as a
platform demonstrates that it does make a reasonable attempt to
remove such content, it receives this protection. Now, this seemingly
simple idea has been in the background of some extremely
complicated and emotionally charged issues. It has prompted both the
(02:21):
left and the right political forces in the United States
to criticize and question the policy. Now, sometimes it's because
a platform fails to remove content that appears to lead
to harm against people. Sometimes it's that there's this perception
that platforms are purposefully censoring a specific population, namely conservative voices.
(02:44):
That's one of the frequent narratives we hear in this space.
One of the two cases before the Supreme Court deals
with a really terrible situation, one in which a woman
died during an ISIS attack, and are Ely says that
attack happened partly because YouTube allowed videos that incited violence
(03:06):
to stay on its platform. Moreover, that the YouTube algorithm
was serving up these videos, which was then essentially inciting violence.
So that's sort of the approach this is taking as
trying not to say that YouTube is responsible for the content,
but that YouTube is responsible for promoting the content through
(03:29):
this algorithm, and that therefore the platform should be held
responsible when violence actually happened in the real world. Now,
clearly this is an emotionally charged case, but as the
arguments preceded, the justices on the Supreme Court seemed to
come to the conclusion that they just don't know enough
about the Internet to really come to a decision on this,
(03:53):
Like they don't have a full understanding of what the
consequences could be for deciding upon this case, or even
if this is a matter that should be decided by
the judicial arm of the US government at all. This
could perhaps be something that Congress, the legislative branch of
the US government, should tackle instead. Now I have to
(04:14):
applaud the justices who seem to realize that any dismantling
of Section two thirty would fundamentally change how the Internet
works and really cause catastrophic damage, or at least consequences
that they could not anticipate. I imagine most platforms would
be forced to essentially shut down rather than take on
(04:36):
the huge burden of either being strict gatekeepers of content,
meaning they would not allow anything to publish on their
platform until it had been thoroughly reviewed and sanitized and
made sure that it doesn't fall into any categories that
would cause problems, which is not realistic, especially when you're
(04:59):
looking at big platforms like YouTube gets like five hundred
hours worth of content uploaded to it every single minute.
It is impossible for humans to review that much content
and be certain that every single second of every video
that is passed does not cause any issues. Alternatively, the
(05:21):
other approach that the other side has said, not really
in as many words, but effectively is to allow a
fire hose of everything to publish on these platforms, regardless
of whether or not the content was harmful, because that's
the only way you can get around any kind of
accusation of censorship, right, the only way to prove you
(05:43):
are not censoring content is to allow all content on
the platform, and clearly that is not a good approach either.
It's a no win situation because while you do have
general agreement that Section two thirty creates problems, there's a
fun to mental disagreement on why people think it causes problems.
(06:04):
They think it causes two very different problems. Therefore, either
solution would be the opposite of what the other side
wants and it would be a disaster. Also, a lot
of the justices were said to be bored and didn't
really engage with the case, which probably is because they're
not exactly the online generation. Thank goodness, they serve for
their lifetime. Anyway, Section two thirty seems safe for the moment,
(06:28):
at least from the Supreme Court. To quote the band
of troubadours called Stained. It's been a while since we've
talked about Elon Musk and his exploits, but we've got
a few short stories that relate to him today. One
is that Musk continues to fire people over at Twitter,
after having already laid off around two thirds of the
(06:51):
total workforce since he took control of the company. Most recently,
people in engineering and sales departments found themselves let go,
while Musk continues to demand for some massive changes to
Twitter systems. Most recently, he set a very aggressive goal
to overhaul how Twitter serves ads to users. Currently, Twitter
(07:11):
relies on profile data and user behaviors to determine which
ads to serve to specific people. Must wants to change
that to be more like how search engines serve up ads,
and make it more keyword based rather than behavior based.
This has been met with some resistance and criticism, though
mainly from former Twitter employees, because I imagine if you
(07:33):
are a current Twitter employee, you're doing your best to
keep your head down so that you don't become another
layoff statistic once Must goes on another round of firing people.
Whether Twitter can make a keyword based system work better
for ad relevance remains to be seen, but there's no
denying that the company has been in really rough shape
(07:53):
from an ad standpoint, because a lot of the big
advertisers that used to spend a lot of money on
Twitter have kind of bailed on the platform since Musk
took over two days ago. Musk tweeted out that the
Twitter algorithm will be made open source next week end. Quote.
Musk has said repeatedly in the past that he felt
(08:14):
the Twitter recommendation algorithm could be improved drastically if it
were made open source, and that would mean that developers
all around the world would be able to contribute edits
and changes and improvements and detect weaknesses and vulnerabilities as
a community instead of keeping everything behind Twitter's closed doors. Moreover,
adopting an open source approach could take some serious heat
(08:37):
off Twitter, because, like I mentioned earlier, there's this general
perception among the politically conservative here in the United States
that online platforms have an inherent bias against conservative messages
and points of view. That platforms like Twitter penalize such
messages by restricting their promotion so that fewer people will
(08:58):
see those tweets, or in some cases, they could potentially
be prevented from being seen at all. The conservatives, are
you saying they're the target of shadow banning? That's a
policy where a platform allows the user to post as
much as they want, like the user is not told
that they're being prevented from saying anything, but the platform
(09:19):
suppresses the spread of those messages so that fewer people
can see and therefore engage with the material. Going open
source would mean that anyone could look at the recommendation
algorithm and determine what, if any bias is built into it.
So there are a few reasons why Twitter would want
to go this route. One last Musk story. He also
(09:39):
announced this week that Tesla, another one of his companies,
will be opening and Engineering HQ in Palo Alto, California.
The office space will occupy a building that was formerly
used by Hewitt Packard and Elon. Musk has a rather
contentious relationship with the state of California. In twenty it
seems like he was actually going to make Texas the
(10:02):
center of Musk World, because SpaceX is centered out of there.
The giga factory he was building was in Texas. He
moved to Texas, and part of the reason for this
might have been the fact that Musk was really upset
with California's shelter in place mandate during the height of
the COVID nineteen pandemic. He did not appreciate the fact
(10:24):
that he was being told he couldn't force his employees
to go into work. But when Musk did relocate to Texas.
Tesla kept its corporate HQ in California, and now there
will be an engineering HQ there as well. All right,
we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back,
we've got some more news stories to cover. The Seattle
(10:55):
Times reports that Mark Zuckerberg, after indicating that Meta was
not likely to hold off additional layoffs, is now looking
at holding additional layoffs. The news outlet says that HR
and legal teams are drawing up plans for a reorg
that will likely include significant downsizing. I'm sure Meta will
position this as becoming more efficient. That's been the message
(11:18):
for twenty twenty three. This is the year of efficiency,
and thus this is going to be about reducing redundancy
and further cutting back after Zuckerberg himself indicated that the
company employed too many people for the amount of work
that was needed to be done. The Seattle Times also
reported that unnamed sources within Meta believe that some employees
are likely going to quit after having their jobs dramatically change.
(11:43):
And I infer that to mean that Meta purposefully is
making at least some employees unhappy so that they choose
to leave on their own terms. Because if someone quits
on you, you don't necessarily owe them a severance package.
So if you make the environment pleasant enough and you
convince them to leave on their own, you don't have
(12:03):
to lay them off. Now, maybe I'm being too cynical,
but according to the rumors, part of the big change
that's coming up is that some leaders within Meta are
going to find themselves in redefined jobs where they won't
have any direct reports, which means they will no longer
be leaders because there won't be anyone for them to lead.
(12:23):
So maybe this is the group of people that insiders
think are going to be encouraged to quit the company.
And meanwhile, this is going to change the hierarchy where
Zuckerberg will presumably have more direct oversight over company operations.
So we'll see. On the legal front, Meta had a
setback this week when a judge refused to throw out
(12:43):
a jury's decision to hit Meta with one hundred and
seventy five million dollars and damages for patent infringement. This
case was brought by an app developer called Voxer Incorporated,
and it concerns a technology that's used in live streaming services.
The jury previously found that Meta had committed patent infringement
(13:04):
and found in favor of Foxer. Netta then asked the
judge to throw out the verdict, saying the jury was misled,
the evidence was not sufficient to draw that conclusion, and besides,
Voxer was mean to them on the playground. All right,
That last point was a bit of embellishment from yours truly,
But Meta reps did say that Voxer's lawyer made quote
unquote inappropriate comments about the company. I don't know how inappropriate.
(13:28):
The comments were. A lot of people say some really
bad stuff about Meta, and I think a lot of
it is entirely appropriate, but maybe from a legal perspective
it's a very different story. Meta still has the option
to appeal this decision to a higher court, so we'll
see if the company decides to do that or if
it will cough up the money and just pay the damages.
(13:48):
Don't know yet now Quasi related to Meta, The founders
of Instagram, who left Meta years ago, have released their
aipowered news gathering app Artifact to the general public. It
was previously in a beta rollout, and basically this is
an app that gathers news headlines that the app thinks
(14:08):
you would be interested in reading, and the way it
works is you download the app they have it for
iOS and Android, and you start off by selecting a
few topic categories that you personally find interesting. This is
not a comprehensive list. Also, the taxonomy of the categories
is a little bit strange, Like when I signed up,
I saw a climate change which was listed under technology,
(14:31):
but there was another area where it was like global
or international news. I thought it was weird that climate
change was not under there. But the ideas that you
tell the app what subjects you're interested in, and the
app will curate articles across various publications. This, by the way,
also includes any publications you subscribe to. Part of the
(14:51):
process is you indicate which news outlets you might have
a subscription to, like if it's New York Times or something,
and you can then have your log in so that
you're able to read those materials as well. Then, as
you use the app and you read articles that the
app has gathered for you, it gathers more information about
(15:12):
what you gravitate toward and what you are really interested
in based upon what you're actually reading. So theoretically, the
more you use the app, the better the app gets
it figuring out what you are really interested in, so
over time you get a personally curated news feed. I
only just downloaded it, and I haven't really played with
(15:34):
it very much, so I do not know how effective
it is yet, and I've seen some reviews that have
criticized the user interface, but personally I think it's fine.
It's not great, but it's fine. It does seem like
a decent use of AI, though hopefully it will not
be a use that over time filters out all news
that would challenge a person's views, because that would just
(15:55):
create an aipowered echo chamber effect, and we've got enough
of those already. Activision Blizzard, the game company that is
kind of in a limbo space regarding Microsoft's attempts to
acquire it, announced that late last year a hacker got
access to Activisions systems through the old standby tricking an
(16:15):
Activision employee with a classic phishing attack. Now, I've said
over and over people traditionally are the weakest link in
network security. There's not any need for a hacker to
sit down in the dark at a computer terminal, their
face highlighted by the glow of the display and then
try typing in three different password guesses before getting entry
(16:37):
into their targeted system. Instead, you just hit some employees
with phishing schemes, and chances are you're going to get
a bite somewhere that will give you a foot in
the door. Anyway. The surprising thing here is that apparently
Activision's employees were not made aware of the attack before
the announcement to the general public, which is a heck
(16:58):
of a way to find out that someone got unauthorized
access to your company systems, and it also doesn't speak
very well of Activision's process to try and avoid future attacks. Typically,
in the wake of something like this, a company will
put employees on high alert, and often they'll even make
employees take a security course to better familiarize themselves with
(17:20):
phishing attacks and the appropriate response to them. I can
say that here at iHeart, we have a security team
that even puts us to the test occasionally, because they'll
craft a bogus email from a bogus address and then
they'll look to see who, if anyone bites. So it's
all meant to increase awareness and to improve security. So
(17:42):
it's odd that Activision has allegedly taken a more passive
approach and didn't even alert employees to the attack in
the first place until it became public info. The company
has said no sensitive data was accessed or stolen during
this breach, but according to Gizmoto, there's a secure group
called vx Underground that claims the hacker made off with
(18:03):
some internal Activision documents that included sensitive employee data, including
personal information as well as like salary info and stuff.
This is really damaging to Activision as well. It's not
the sort of thing the company wants to see, especially
when you also take into account all the attempts at
Activision for employees to unionize, because one of the big
(18:27):
big things in union organization is often discussions about how
companies try to make it against corporate policy to do
things like talk about compensation, because if you start talking
about compensation within a company, people will know how they
stack up to others, and they can see where disparities are,
and that's something that unions aim to eliminate to level
(18:51):
out that and remove disparity. So yeah, not the sort
of thing that Activision Blizzard wants to see happen ever,
but particularly salary information while they're also trying to dissuade
organization efforts, the EU continues to force Apple's hand, at
least that's what it seems like. Previously, the EU ruled
(19:13):
that all smartphones and similar gadgets must have a USBC
charging port, effectively making USBC the universal charging standard in
the EU, and that's probably going to force these companies
to do the same globally, because otherwise you have to
have two different production chains for products meant for the
(19:34):
EU versus anywhere else. Companies like Apple have long relied
on proprietary hardware for charging, which helps Apple control that supply,
so Apple can either sell its own version directly to
consumers and make a lot of profit that way, or
Apple can require third parties to pay hefty licensing fees
to Apple before they can sell their own version of
(19:57):
the technology. But because of the EU law, future Apple
smartphones will need to have USBC port at least in Europe.
But now the rumor is that iOS seventeen, which is
due to launch next year, will allow something that Apple
has long resisted on iOS devices, which is sideloading. Sideloading
(20:19):
is when a user can choose to download apps from
places other than the official platform app store, Ever since
Apple first launched the iOS app Store, which was, you know,
like almost a year after the iPhone came out, it
has restricted Apple users from downloading apps from anywhere else.
Unless you were to do some alterations to your iPhone,
(20:42):
you could not load apps anywhere except from the iOS
app Store. This is also part of what gives Apple
the power to take a healthy cut out of in
app transactions. This is one of the reasons why the
EU has pressured Apple to allow alternative because if Apple
(21:02):
controls the policy for apps that are found in the
iOS store, and Apple prevents anyone from going outside the
store to get an app, it forces developers to play
by Apple's rules they don't have any alternatives. Apple has
long maintained that restricting apps to the official store means
that each app that goes into the store has actually
(21:23):
gone through a review process, and that this helps Apple
make sure that the app is safe for users, and
that without this step, users will run the risk of
downloading malicious apps. So they have long maintained that the
whole reason this policy is in place is to protect
people from malicious applications, and there's no doubt that there
(21:44):
will be an increased risk for malicious apps with sideloading. However,
I think it's more than fair to say that Apple
is far more concerned that alternatives to the App Store
will reduce Apple's power over developers, and it will reduce
the power over the apps that can appear on iOS devices,
(22:06):
and that there's a chance that revenues could take a
really serious hit, or at least not increase at the
same rate that they had before. And as we all know,
it's not enough to make a lot of money. You
got to make more money than you did last quarter.
That's really the secret sauce. Okay, I've got a couple
more stories to finish up with, but before we get
(22:28):
to that, let's take another quick break. Okay, when we
left off, we talked about the EU and Apple. Well,
the EU is also following the lead of several US
government agencies and that it has asked all staff of
(22:50):
the EU governing body, so government EU staff to uninstalled
TikTok from the corporate owned devices. So anything that's owned
by the EU Executive branch should not have TikTok installed
on it. If you work for the EU and you
have a device that was issued to you by your employer,
(23:11):
you cannot have TikTok on it. If you do, you
should remove it now. Again, just like in the United States,
I think this is a totally reasonable request. If it
is a corporate owned device, you shouldn't be putting TikTok
on it. Unless for some reason, your job in this
corporation relates directly to TikTok, then it makes sense. But
(23:35):
I mean, if it's for personal use, do not allow
that on those official devices. This move, by the way,
does not prevent those employees from having TikTok on their
personal devices. They can still have them on their own
personal phones, just not their work phones. And why Well,
there's this concern that TikTok could be gathering data about
(23:56):
users and their employers and other sensitive information. And since
TikTok is the subsidiary of a Chinese company, there are
national security concerns. But even if we ignore the Chinese part.
You know, TikTok has repeatedly said that that is not
a real concern, that China does not have access to
all this data, that it is a US centric company.
(24:19):
Those are the arguments TikTok has made in the US. Well,
this is the EU, so you're still talking about a
company that's based outside of the EU. And while the
United States isn't antagonistic to the EU, the fact is
the EU has long pushed to protect its citizens data
from being harvested and exploited outside of the European Union,
(24:40):
so it stands the reason it would move to protect
the government data as well. Again, I don't think this
is unreasonable. I don't know how I feel about a
wider ban on TikTok in general, but I certainly think
it's a reasonable expectation for corporate or government owned devices
in the world of crypto. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(25:03):
in the United States has moved to block binance dot
us from acquiring Voyager. That's a crypto lender that filed
for bankruptcy last July. It was one of several high
profile cryptocurrency businesses that failed last year. It happened before
the huge FTX breakdown. So why is the SEC concerned
(25:28):
about binance dot us buying out the assets of a
crypto lender Voyager. Well, one is that the SEC worries
that the acquisition would quote violate laws on the unregistered
offer and sales of securities end quote. This is according
to a report from Reuters. Adding to that complexity is
(25:49):
that the US government has been looking into Binance. Now
that's not Binance dot Us. It is Binance, the largest
cryptocurrency exchange in the world. This was the one that
initially said it was going to bail out FTX and
then backed off on that. Instead, we're talking about Binance
dot Us, which is claimed to be a quote unquote
(26:11):
independent partner of Binance. But it's also really complicated, and
I cannot even begin to unravel the legal and structural
contexts of Binance dot Us in comparison to Binance. I
do not know to what extent the two are dependent
upon one another, and that's by on purpose, like it's
(26:36):
meant to be difficult to tell, because like Binance, the
overall company is an offshore company for the purposes of
mostly avoiding regulation. So that part of it. The fact
that Binance dot Us has some connection to Binance to
(26:57):
some degree, but it's unknown to how to what extent,
says Mains. The SEC says, Look, we don't even know
what this connection is, and therefore we cannot allow this
to go through because it's very possible that the acquisition
would violate multiple laws, and due to the obtuse nature
(27:19):
of finance dot US, it's impossible for us to say,
so we can't allow it to go forward. Now. I
don't know if that's just going to be the end
of it, or if this is just part of the journey,
or how this will be resolved, but I wanted to
talk about it because that ambiguity. I don't think it's
a bug. I think it's a feature. And it may
(27:41):
very well be that this is yet one more step
where we see governments start to chip away at one
of the foundational elements in the crypto world, which is
this idea of these financial systems that are not regulated
and not overseen by government agencies. Turns out that sometimes
(28:05):
that's going to end up rubbing government agencies the wrong way. Also,
when you have incredibly massive failures like with FTX, it
starts to bring into question if these systems themselves are
trustworthy without oversight. And I don't know the answer to that, y'all,
(28:25):
because it's not like every government is squeaky clean either.
It's it just seems like when you start getting a
lot of money grouped together in a place, whomever is
set to be in charge of overseeing that ends up
having lots of conflicts arise. It's almost like it just
(28:48):
kind of naturally happens, and it doesn't matter whether we
call it a government or not. I don't know. I
know that I don't have that problem. I'm not overburdened
with the problem of too much money. I'm willing to
give it a shot and find out if I'm the
exception to the rule though. So yeah, this again goes
out to all the billionaires out there. If you want
to test me, feel free to send me, you know,
(29:09):
a few hundred million. You know you won't even miss it.
I'd be willing to bite the bullet on that one. Finally,
Reuter's also reports that Mercedes Benz is going to begin
to offer a quote supercomputer like performance end quote in
its cars moving forward, complete with advanced self driving capabilities.
Reuters reports that customers will have to pay extra for
(29:31):
those options, and that they will enable level three autonomous
driving operations. Level three is a big step right. The
stuff we've mostly seen here in the United States hovers
in the level two area. Level two means that you
still have to have a human operator who is effectively
considered the driver and that all the other systems are
(29:53):
assisting the driver. Level three is at the lowest level,
where the computer system is there to be the driver
as opposed to the human, though you still need to
have a human in the driver's seat who is able
to take over, and the autonomous features will only work
under specific conditions. Outside of those conditions, it has to
(30:14):
be under human control. However, all that being said, Mercedes
Benz is going to be offering this stuff moving forward.
It sounds like the computer experience is a big part
of the marketing for Mercedes Benz, that that's going to
be kind of the focus of the cool features that
will be included in these vehicles. They also announced a
(30:35):
partnership with Google that will incorporate Google's navigation systems into
their vehicles. That includes things not just as you know,
turn left in one hundred feet, but also things like
real time traffic updates so that you can have your
vehicle reroute if say there's an accident that happened, you know,
(30:57):
ten miles up the highway or something, and can reroute
around those sort of things without having to have human input.
So that's kind of interesting. And that's all the news
stories I have today. Thursday, February twenty twenty twenty three.
I hope you are all well. If you have suggestions
for topics I should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff,
please reach out to me. You can do so by
(31:18):
going to Twitter and tweeting at tech stuff hsw let
me know what you would like to hear, or you
can download the iHeartRadio app. It's free to download, free
to use. You just type tech stuff into the little
search field there, it'll take you to the podcast page.
There you'll see a little microphone icon. If you click
on that, you can leave a voice message up to
thirty seconds in length. Let me know what you would
(31:39):
like to hear, and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Text Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
Welcome to tech Stuff, a production from iHeartRadio. Hey there,
and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host Jonathan Strickland, Diamond,
executive producer for iHeartRadio, and how the tech are here.
It's time for the Tech News for Thursday, February twenty third,
twenty twenty three, and we're going to start off by
(00:27):
talking about the United States Supreme Court, which has been
hearing a couple of legal cases that involve Section two thirty. Now,
in case you're not familiar with that, Section two thirty
is part of Title forty seven of the United States Code.
It's part of the Communications Decency Act of nineteen ninety six.
But we're not going to jump all the way into
(00:49):
all that because it really gets in the weeds. What
Section two thirty is about is accountability, specifically when it
comes to stuff that's been posted online, namely that a
platform isn't responsible for the material posted to that platform.
Just as he wouldn't blame a street corner if someone
(01:10):
standing on the street corner were to incite a riot,
It's not the street corner's fault. It's the person who
did the inciting. So two thirty extends a similar protection
to online platforms, and it allows users to post content,
whether it's text or audio or video or whatever. And
it also gives the platforms the authority to moderate content
(01:35):
as they see fit. This is what lets platforms create
content moderation policies and then enforce those and it protects
such platforms from legal attacks for enforcing their policies. There's
also some stuff there about making a reasonable attempt to
remove illegal content, like if a platform fails to do that,
(01:57):
then it doesn't receive full protection because it is seen
as sort of a facilitator. But as long as a
platform demonstrates that it does make a reasonable attempt to
remove such content, it receives this protection. Now, this seemingly
simple idea has been in the background of some extremely
complicated and emotionally charged issues. It has prompted both the
(02:21):
left and the right political forces in the United States
to criticize and question the policy. Now, sometimes it's because
a platform fails to remove content that appears to lead
to harm against people. Sometimes it's that there's this perception
that platforms are purposefully censoring a specific population, namely conservative voices.
(02:44):
That's one of the frequent narratives we hear in this space.
One of the two cases before the Supreme Court deals
with a really terrible situation, one in which a woman
died during an ISIS attack, and are Ely says that
attack happened partly because YouTube allowed videos that incited violence
(03:06):
to stay on its platform. Moreover, that the YouTube algorithm
was serving up these videos, which was then essentially inciting violence.
So that's sort of the approach this is taking as
trying not to say that YouTube is responsible for the content,
but that YouTube is responsible for promoting the content through
(03:29):
this algorithm, and that therefore the platform should be held
responsible when violence actually happened in the real world. Now,
clearly this is an emotionally charged case, but as the
arguments preceded, the justices on the Supreme Court seemed to
come to the conclusion that they just don't know enough
about the Internet to really come to a decision on this,
(03:53):
Like they don't have a full understanding of what the
consequences could be for deciding upon this case, or even
if this is a matter that should be decided by
the judicial arm of the US government at all. This
could perhaps be something that Congress, the legislative branch of
the US government, should tackle instead. Now I have to
(04:14):
applaud the justices who seem to realize that any dismantling
of Section two thirty would fundamentally change how the Internet
works and really cause catastrophic damage, or at least consequences
that they could not anticipate. I imagine most platforms would
be forced to essentially shut down rather than take on
(04:36):
the huge burden of either being strict gatekeepers of content,
meaning they would not allow anything to publish on their
platform until it had been thoroughly reviewed and sanitized and
made sure that it doesn't fall into any categories that
would cause problems, which is not realistic, especially when you're
(04:59):
looking at big platforms like YouTube gets like five hundred
hours worth of content uploaded to it every single minute.
It is impossible for humans to review that much content
and be certain that every single second of every video
that is passed does not cause any issues. Alternatively, the
(05:21):
other approach that the other side has said, not really
in as many words, but effectively is to allow a
fire hose of everything to publish on these platforms, regardless
of whether or not the content was harmful, because that's
the only way you can get around any kind of
accusation of censorship, right, the only way to prove you
(05:43):
are not censoring content is to allow all content on
the platform, and clearly that is not a good approach either.
It's a no win situation because while you do have
general agreement that Section two thirty creates problems, there's a
fun to mental disagreement on why people think it causes problems.
(06:04):
They think it causes two very different problems. Therefore, either
solution would be the opposite of what the other side
wants and it would be a disaster. Also, a lot
of the justices were said to be bored and didn't
really engage with the case, which probably is because they're
not exactly the online generation. Thank goodness, they serve for
their lifetime. Anyway, Section two thirty seems safe for the moment,
(06:28):
at least from the Supreme Court. To quote the band
of troubadours called Stained. It's been a while since we've
talked about Elon Musk and his exploits, but we've got
a few short stories that relate to him today. One
is that Musk continues to fire people over at Twitter,
after having already laid off around two thirds of the
(06:51):
total workforce since he took control of the company. Most recently,
people in engineering and sales departments found themselves let go,
while Musk continues to demand for some massive changes to
Twitter systems. Most recently, he set a very aggressive goal
to overhaul how Twitter serves ads to users. Currently, Twitter
(07:11):
relies on profile data and user behaviors to determine which
ads to serve to specific people. Must wants to change
that to be more like how search engines serve up ads,
and make it more keyword based rather than behavior based.
This has been met with some resistance and criticism, though
mainly from former Twitter employees, because I imagine if you
(07:33):
are a current Twitter employee, you're doing your best to
keep your head down so that you don't become another
layoff statistic once Must goes on another round of firing people.
Whether Twitter can make a keyword based system work better
for ad relevance remains to be seen, but there's no
denying that the company has been in really rough shape
(07:53):
from an ad standpoint, because a lot of the big
advertisers that used to spend a lot of money on
Twitter have kind of bailed on the platform since Musk
took over two days ago. Musk tweeted out that the
Twitter algorithm will be made open source next week end. Quote.
Musk has said repeatedly in the past that he felt
(08:14):
the Twitter recommendation algorithm could be improved drastically if it
were made open source, and that would mean that developers
all around the world would be able to contribute edits
and changes and improvements and detect weaknesses and vulnerabilities as
a community instead of keeping everything behind Twitter's closed doors. Moreover,
adopting an open source approach could take some serious heat
(08:37):
off Twitter, because, like I mentioned earlier, there's this general
perception among the politically conservative here in the United States
that online platforms have an inherent bias against conservative messages
and points of view. That platforms like Twitter penalize such
messages by restricting their promotion so that fewer people will
(08:58):
see those tweets, or in some cases, they could potentially
be prevented from being seen at all. The conservatives, are
you saying they're the target of shadow banning? That's a
policy where a platform allows the user to post as
much as they want, like the user is not told
that they're being prevented from saying anything, but the platform
(09:19):
suppresses the spread of those messages so that fewer people
can see and therefore engage with the material. Going open
source would mean that anyone could look at the recommendation
algorithm and determine what, if any bias is built into it.
So there are a few reasons why Twitter would want
to go this route. One last Musk story. He also
(09:39):
announced this week that Tesla, another one of his companies,
will be opening and Engineering HQ in Palo Alto, California.
The office space will occupy a building that was formerly
used by Hewitt Packard and Elon. Musk has a rather
contentious relationship with the state of California. In twenty it
seems like he was actually going to make Texas the
(10:02):
center of Musk World, because SpaceX is centered out of there.
The giga factory he was building was in Texas. He
moved to Texas, and part of the reason for this
might have been the fact that Musk was really upset
with California's shelter in place mandate during the height of
the COVID nineteen pandemic. He did not appreciate the fact
(10:24):
that he was being told he couldn't force his employees
to go into work. But when Musk did relocate to Texas.
Tesla kept its corporate HQ in California, and now there
will be an engineering HQ there as well. All right,
we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back,
we've got some more news stories to cover. The Seattle
(10:55):
Times reports that Mark Zuckerberg, after indicating that Meta was
not likely to hold off additional layoffs, is now looking
at holding additional layoffs. The news outlet says that HR
and legal teams are drawing up plans for a reorg
that will likely include significant downsizing. I'm sure Meta will
position this as becoming more efficient. That's been the message
(11:18):
for twenty twenty three. This is the year of efficiency,
and thus this is going to be about reducing redundancy
and further cutting back after Zuckerberg himself indicated that the
company employed too many people for the amount of work
that was needed to be done. The Seattle Times also
reported that unnamed sources within Meta believe that some employees
are likely going to quit after having their jobs dramatically change.
(11:43):
And I infer that to mean that Meta purposefully is
making at least some employees unhappy so that they choose
to leave on their own terms. Because if someone quits
on you, you don't necessarily owe them a severance package.
So if you make the environment pleasant enough and you
convince them to leave on their own, you don't have
(12:03):
to lay them off. Now, maybe I'm being too cynical,
but according to the rumors, part of the big change
that's coming up is that some leaders within Meta are
going to find themselves in redefined jobs where they won't
have any direct reports, which means they will no longer
be leaders because there won't be anyone for them to lead.
(12:23):
So maybe this is the group of people that insiders
think are going to be encouraged to quit the company.
And meanwhile, this is going to change the hierarchy where
Zuckerberg will presumably have more direct oversight over company operations.
So we'll see. On the legal front, Meta had a
setback this week when a judge refused to throw out
(12:43):
a jury's decision to hit Meta with one hundred and
seventy five million dollars and damages for patent infringement. This
case was brought by an app developer called Voxer Incorporated,
and it concerns a technology that's used in live streaming services.
The jury previously found that Meta had committed patent infringement
(13:04):
and found in favor of Foxer. Netta then asked the
judge to throw out the verdict, saying the jury was misled,
the evidence was not sufficient to draw that conclusion, and besides,
Voxer was mean to them on the playground. All right,
That last point was a bit of embellishment from yours truly,
But Meta reps did say that Voxer's lawyer made quote
unquote inappropriate comments about the company. I don't know how inappropriate.
(13:28):
The comments were. A lot of people say some really
bad stuff about Meta, and I think a lot of
it is entirely appropriate, but maybe from a legal perspective
it's a very different story. Meta still has the option
to appeal this decision to a higher court, so we'll
see if the company decides to do that or if
it will cough up the money and just pay the damages.
(13:48):
Don't know yet now Quasi related to Meta, The founders
of Instagram, who left Meta years ago, have released their
aipowered news gathering app Artifact to the general public. It
was previously in a beta rollout, and basically this is
an app that gathers news headlines that the app thinks
(14:08):
you would be interested in reading, and the way it
works is you download the app they have it for
iOS and Android, and you start off by selecting a
few topic categories that you personally find interesting. This is
not a comprehensive list. Also, the taxonomy of the categories
is a little bit strange, Like when I signed up,
I saw a climate change which was listed under technology,
(14:31):
but there was another area where it was like global
or international news. I thought it was weird that climate
change was not under there. But the ideas that you
tell the app what subjects you're interested in, and the
app will curate articles across various publications. This, by the way,
also includes any publications you subscribe to. Part of the
(14:51):
process is you indicate which news outlets you might have
a subscription to, like if it's New York Times or something,
and you can then have your log in so that
you're able to read those materials as well. Then, as
you use the app and you read articles that the
app has gathered for you, it gathers more information about
(15:12):
what you gravitate toward and what you are really interested
in based upon what you're actually reading. So theoretically, the
more you use the app, the better the app gets
it figuring out what you are really interested in, so
over time you get a personally curated news feed. I
only just downloaded it, and I haven't really played with
(15:34):
it very much, so I do not know how effective
it is yet, and I've seen some reviews that have
criticized the user interface, but personally I think it's fine.
It's not great, but it's fine. It does seem like
a decent use of AI, though hopefully it will not
be a use that over time filters out all news
that would challenge a person's views, because that would just
(15:55):
create an aipowered echo chamber effect, and we've got enough
of those already. Activision Blizzard, the game company that is
kind of in a limbo space regarding Microsoft's attempts to
acquire it, announced that late last year a hacker got
access to Activisions systems through the old standby tricking an
(16:15):
Activision employee with a classic phishing attack. Now, I've said
over and over people traditionally are the weakest link in
network security. There's not any need for a hacker to
sit down in the dark at a computer terminal, their
face highlighted by the glow of the display and then
try typing in three different password guesses before getting entry
(16:37):
into their targeted system. Instead, you just hit some employees
with phishing schemes, and chances are you're going to get
a bite somewhere that will give you a foot in
the door. Anyway. The surprising thing here is that apparently
Activision's employees were not made aware of the attack before
the announcement to the general public, which is a heck
(16:58):
of a way to find out that someone got unauthorized
access to your company systems, and it also doesn't speak
very well of Activision's process to try and avoid future attacks. Typically,
in the wake of something like this, a company will
put employees on high alert, and often they'll even make
employees take a security course to better familiarize themselves with
(17:20):
phishing attacks and the appropriate response to them. I can
say that here at iHeart, we have a security team
that even puts us to the test occasionally, because they'll
craft a bogus email from a bogus address and then
they'll look to see who, if anyone bites. So it's
all meant to increase awareness and to improve security. So
(17:42):
it's odd that Activision has allegedly taken a more passive
approach and didn't even alert employees to the attack in
the first place until it became public info. The company
has said no sensitive data was accessed or stolen during
this breach, but according to Gizmoto, there's a secure group
called vx Underground that claims the hacker made off with
(18:03):
some internal Activision documents that included sensitive employee data, including
personal information as well as like salary info and stuff.
This is really damaging to Activision as well. It's not
the sort of thing the company wants to see, especially
when you also take into account all the attempts at
Activision for employees to unionize, because one of the big
(18:27):
big things in union organization is often discussions about how
companies try to make it against corporate policy to do
things like talk about compensation, because if you start talking
about compensation within a company, people will know how they
stack up to others, and they can see where disparities are,
and that's something that unions aim to eliminate to level
(18:51):
out that and remove disparity. So yeah, not the sort
of thing that Activision Blizzard wants to see happen ever,
but particularly salary information while they're also trying to dissuade
organization efforts, the EU continues to force Apple's hand, at
least that's what it seems like. Previously, the EU ruled
(19:13):
that all smartphones and similar gadgets must have a USBC
charging port, effectively making USBC the universal charging standard in
the EU, and that's probably going to force these companies
to do the same globally, because otherwise you have to
have two different production chains for products meant for the
(19:34):
EU versus anywhere else. Companies like Apple have long relied
on proprietary hardware for charging, which helps Apple control that supply,
so Apple can either sell its own version directly to
consumers and make a lot of profit that way, or
Apple can require third parties to pay hefty licensing fees
to Apple before they can sell their own version of
(19:57):
the technology. But because of the EU law, future Apple
smartphones will need to have USBC port at least in Europe.
But now the rumor is that iOS seventeen, which is
due to launch next year, will allow something that Apple
has long resisted on iOS devices, which is sideloading. Sideloading
(20:19):
is when a user can choose to download apps from
places other than the official platform app store, Ever since
Apple first launched the iOS app Store, which was, you know,
like almost a year after the iPhone came out, it
has restricted Apple users from downloading apps from anywhere else.
Unless you were to do some alterations to your iPhone,
(20:42):
you could not load apps anywhere except from the iOS
app Store. This is also part of what gives Apple
the power to take a healthy cut out of in
app transactions. This is one of the reasons why the
EU has pressured Apple to allow alternative because if Apple
(21:02):
controls the policy for apps that are found in the
iOS store, and Apple prevents anyone from going outside the
store to get an app, it forces developers to play
by Apple's rules they don't have any alternatives. Apple has
long maintained that restricting apps to the official store means
that each app that goes into the store has actually
(21:23):
gone through a review process, and that this helps Apple
make sure that the app is safe for users, and
that without this step, users will run the risk of
downloading malicious apps. So they have long maintained that the
whole reason this policy is in place is to protect
people from malicious applications, and there's no doubt that there
(21:44):
will be an increased risk for malicious apps with sideloading. However,
I think it's more than fair to say that Apple
is far more concerned that alternatives to the App Store
will reduce Apple's power over developers, and it will reduce
the power over the apps that can appear on iOS devices,
(22:06):
and that there's a chance that revenues could take a
really serious hit, or at least not increase at the
same rate that they had before. And as we all know,
it's not enough to make a lot of money. You
got to make more money than you did last quarter.
That's really the secret sauce. Okay, I've got a couple
more stories to finish up with, but before we get
(22:28):
to that, let's take another quick break. Okay, when we
left off, we talked about the EU and Apple. Well,
the EU is also following the lead of several US
government agencies and that it has asked all staff of
(22:50):
the EU governing body, so government EU staff to uninstalled
TikTok from the corporate owned devices. So anything that's owned
by the EU Executive branch should not have TikTok installed
on it. If you work for the EU and you
have a device that was issued to you by your employer,
(23:11):
you cannot have TikTok on it. If you do, you
should remove it now. Again, just like in the United States,
I think this is a totally reasonable request. If it
is a corporate owned device, you shouldn't be putting TikTok
on it. Unless for some reason, your job in this
corporation relates directly to TikTok, then it makes sense. But
(23:35):
I mean, if it's for personal use, do not allow
that on those official devices. This move, by the way,
does not prevent those employees from having TikTok on their
personal devices. They can still have them on their own
personal phones, just not their work phones. And why Well,
there's this concern that TikTok could be gathering data about
(23:56):
users and their employers and other sensitive information. And since
TikTok is the subsidiary of a Chinese company, there are
national security concerns. But even if we ignore the Chinese part.
You know, TikTok has repeatedly said that that is not
a real concern, that China does not have access to
all this data, that it is a US centric company.
(24:19):
Those are the arguments TikTok has made in the US. Well,
this is the EU, so you're still talking about a
company that's based outside of the EU. And while the
United States isn't antagonistic to the EU, the fact is
the EU has long pushed to protect its citizens data
from being harvested and exploited outside of the European Union,
(24:40):
so it stands the reason it would move to protect
the government data as well. Again, I don't think this
is unreasonable. I don't know how I feel about a
wider ban on TikTok in general, but I certainly think
it's a reasonable expectation for corporate or government owned devices
in the world of crypto. The Securities and Exchange Commission
(25:03):
in the United States has moved to block binance dot
us from acquiring Voyager. That's a crypto lender that filed
for bankruptcy last July. It was one of several high
profile cryptocurrency businesses that failed last year. It happened before
the huge FTX breakdown. So why is the SEC concerned
(25:28):
about binance dot us buying out the assets of a
crypto lender Voyager. Well, one is that the SEC worries
that the acquisition would quote violate laws on the unregistered
offer and sales of securities end quote. This is according
to a report from Reuters. Adding to that complexity is
(25:49):
that the US government has been looking into Binance. Now
that's not Binance dot Us. It is Binance, the largest
cryptocurrency exchange in the world. This was the one that
initially said it was going to bail out FTX and
then backed off on that. Instead, we're talking about Binance
dot Us, which is claimed to be a quote unquote
(26:11):
independent partner of Binance. But it's also really complicated, and
I cannot even begin to unravel the legal and structural
contexts of Binance dot Us in comparison to Binance. I
do not know to what extent the two are dependent
upon one another, and that's by on purpose, like it's
(26:36):
meant to be difficult to tell, because like Binance, the
overall company is an offshore company for the purposes of
mostly avoiding regulation. So that part of it. The fact
that Binance dot Us has some connection to Binance to
(26:57):
some degree, but it's unknown to how to what extent,
says Mains. The SEC says, Look, we don't even know
what this connection is, and therefore we cannot allow this
to go through because it's very possible that the acquisition
would violate multiple laws, and due to the obtuse nature
(27:19):
of finance dot US, it's impossible for us to say,
so we can't allow it to go forward. Now. I
don't know if that's just going to be the end
of it, or if this is just part of the journey,
or how this will be resolved, but I wanted to
talk about it because that ambiguity. I don't think it's
a bug. I think it's a feature. And it may
(27:41):
very well be that this is yet one more step
where we see governments start to chip away at one
of the foundational elements in the crypto world, which is
this idea of these financial systems that are not regulated
and not overseen by government agencies. Turns out that sometimes
(28:05):
that's going to end up rubbing government agencies the wrong way. Also,
when you have incredibly massive failures like with FTX, it
starts to bring into question if these systems themselves are
trustworthy without oversight. And I don't know the answer to that, y'all,
(28:25):
because it's not like every government is squeaky clean either.
It's it just seems like when you start getting a
lot of money grouped together in a place, whomever is
set to be in charge of overseeing that ends up
having lots of conflicts arise. It's almost like it just
(28:48):
kind of naturally happens, and it doesn't matter whether we
call it a government or not. I don't know. I
know that I don't have that problem. I'm not overburdened
with the problem of too much money. I'm willing to
give it a shot and find out if I'm the
exception to the rule though. So yeah, this again goes
out to all the billionaires out there. If you want
to test me, feel free to send me, you know,
(29:09):
a few hundred million. You know you won't even miss it.
I'd be willing to bite the bullet on that one. Finally,
Reuter's also reports that Mercedes Benz is going to begin
to offer a quote supercomputer like performance end quote in
its cars moving forward, complete with advanced self driving capabilities.
Reuters reports that customers will have to pay extra for
(29:31):
those options, and that they will enable level three autonomous
driving operations. Level three is a big step right. The
stuff we've mostly seen here in the United States hovers
in the level two area. Level two means that you
still have to have a human operator who is effectively
considered the driver and that all the other systems are
(29:53):
assisting the driver. Level three is at the lowest level,
where the computer system is there to be the driver
as opposed to the human, though you still need to
have a human in the driver's seat who is able
to take over, and the autonomous features will only work
under specific conditions. Outside of those conditions, it has to
(30:14):
be under human control. However, all that being said, Mercedes
Benz is going to be offering this stuff moving forward.
It sounds like the computer experience is a big part
of the marketing for Mercedes Benz, that that's going to
be kind of the focus of the cool features that
will be included in these vehicles. They also announced a
(30:35):
partnership with Google that will incorporate Google's navigation systems into
their vehicles. That includes things not just as you know,
turn left in one hundred feet, but also things like
real time traffic updates so that you can have your
vehicle reroute if say there's an accident that happened, you know,
(30:57):
ten miles up the highway or something, and can reroute
around those sort of things without having to have human input.
So that's kind of interesting. And that's all the news
stories I have today. Thursday, February twenty twenty twenty three.
I hope you are all well. If you have suggestions
for topics I should cover in future episodes of tech Stuff,
please reach out to me. You can do so by
(31:18):
going to Twitter and tweeting at tech stuff hsw let
me know what you would like to hear, or you
can download the iHeartRadio app. It's free to download, free
to use. You just type tech stuff into the little
search field there, it'll take you to the podcast page.
There you'll see a little microphone icon. If you click
on that, you can leave a voice message up to
thirty seconds in length. Let me know what you would
(31:39):
like to hear, and I'll talk to you again really soon.
Text Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
TechStuff News
Hosts And Creators
Oz Woloshyn
Karah Preiss
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.