August 1, 2023 • 30 mins
Elon Musk's X company installed an enormous, illuminated "X" sign at the company HQ, and then took it down a couple of days later. Meta is preparing to launch some AI chatbots, including an AI Abe Lincoln. And a court in Europe is forcing Meta to reveal the identity of an anonymous user. Plus lots 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.
I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech
are you? It is time for the tech news for Tuesday,
August first, twenty twenty three. So let's start out with
(00:28):
the news that kind of happened and then unhappened. Since
the last time I did one of these episodes, and
that means starting with X you know, the service formerly
known as Twitter. I had mentioned that the San Francisco
Police had paid a little visit to x HQ when
a construction crew blocked off a couple of lanes of
(00:49):
traffic on a city street in San Francisco while removing
letters from the Twitter sign that hung on the headquarters building. Ultimately,
the cop did not charge anyone with a crime, but
it did mean that the removal process was interrupted and
for a while the er stayed up there. They had
removed the twit, but the er was still up. And
(01:12):
since a lot of us typically now we'll look at
the former Twitter and say er, I think it was
appropriate that the er was still there. But anyway, after
all that Musk's financial sinkhole of a company erected a
big ol X sign, an illuminated X sign on the
(01:32):
top of their HQ, so it lit up a lot,
and it was bright enough and lighting up and like
strobe effects and stuff that it prompted several people in
the neighborhood to lodge complaints, saying that it was garish
and disruptive and making it real difficult to get any
sleep if the X was flashing lights through bedroom windows
(01:56):
and stuff. This prompted the city to send a bill
inspector around to make sure that the news sign was
up to code, but the inspector says that they were
denied roof access multiple times, so the city took issue
with this as well as with musk erecting an quote
unquote illuminated structure without first securing a permit to do it.
(02:20):
There were also concerns that the sign itself was not
properly secured to the roof, which could be a truly
dangerous situation in the event of something like high winds
for example. Now the company is likely to face some
fines from the city. I haven't seen how much those
fines might be, But then if San Francisco wants to
(02:42):
get money out of x it's gonna probably have to
get in line behind the various landlords, vendors, and former
employees who are also awaiting payment. So I suppose one
of the big secrets to being rich is that you know,
you just don't pay your bills, then you get to
keep your money. It's genius. According to Casey Newton's Excellent
(03:07):
Tech newsletter, today marks a big day inside X SO.
Back when Musk bought Twitter, he famously did so at
fifty four dollars twenty cents per share. That's why I
ended up being more than forty billion dollars overall. And
a lot of Twitter employees had guaranteed stock grants, meaning
(03:28):
that they had vested shares with the company or shares
that were in the process of vesting, and that they
would then receive a payout for those shares that's part
of their compensation. They would get fifty four dollars twenty
cents per share vested with the company. According to Newton,
today marks the day when the remaining employees who were
(03:50):
still receiving stock grants will then be paid out. And
if that happens, it might mean we could see another
wave of resignations out of the company, because it's possible
that some folks at X stayed on really just so
that they could reach this moment to get that final payout,
and then potentially they could go skip off to find
(04:13):
greener or at least less chaotic pastures, though there is
still a concern that a lot of people would not
be able to find a job that pays, you know,
at the same level as what they're getting over at X.
And as we've already said, Musk has racked up a
pretty big history of refusing to pay bills, including to
former employees, So there is a fear that those who
(04:37):
should be receiving this compensation may be left waiting around
indefinitely and that worst case scenario, the payout might not
ever come. So maybe by the end of the day
we'll have more news about that, but that's how it
stands as I record the episode. In other awful news,
the Center for Countering Digital Hate or CCDA, which is
(05:01):
now in Elon Musk's crosshairs for daring to you know,
chronicle the rise of hate speech on X now. Musk
has claimed that hate speech impressions are actually on the
decline on X, but the CCdh argue that the opposite
is true, that there's been an increase across the board
(05:21):
in hate speech as well as in disinformation. And if
you've been following the news, you know that Musk has
reinstated the Twitter accounts for people who previously had received
bans for spreading things like hate speech on the platform.
So at least you know, from that perspective, you could say, well,
it seems to be logical that you would find an
(05:44):
increase in hate speech. They are re platforming people who
were banned for spreading hate speech. So anyway, the CCdh
says that they found a two hundred to two percent
increase in messages on the platform that contain slurs. They
also said that Twitter Blue subscribers, which maybe they're called
(06:07):
X blue subscribers. Now the X makes everything really confusing
because you think that it means former as opposed to
subscribed to X. Anyway, people who have subscribed to the
platform and who have subsequently posted messages that violate the
platform's policies seem to suffer no consequences. Their messages don't
(06:29):
appear to be removed or anything like that. The company's
own Trust and Safety Council resigned ages ago, right, the
people who were actually in charge of formulating those policies
and to make sure that the platform was doing well
to adhere to them, they left, and the department as
a whole is reportedly in a bit of the shambles.
(06:52):
And now Musk is sending legal threats and is arguing
that the CCdh has an agenda, that the cs intent
is to hurt X by spreading falsehoods in an attempt
to scare off advertisers. The CCDCH refutes those claims and
points out that the organization is neither government funded, so
(07:14):
it doesn't receive money from the government, nor is it
connected to any other competing social network, so it's not
like it's you know, conspiring with Meta to take down X.
In fact, the CDCH has also reported on issues like
hate speech and disinformation on other platforms besides X. The
CCDCH released a statement indicating that should X and Musk
(07:38):
actually pursue a legal case against the organization, because so
far it's just been threats about doing that, the organization
will fight back. So I'm sure we will have more
on this as it continues. And on a less dramatic
and less important side, of the whole x Twitter story,
one of the few remaining holdovers from the Twitter days
(08:00):
has actually changed. So it used to be that if
you wanted to post something on Twitter, you would hit
a little, you know, button that says tweet on there
after you've written your message, right, you would tweet and
that would post it. And now that icon no longer
says tweet. It now says host. It's changed back and
(08:21):
forth a couple of times over the last two days.
But as I record this, at least in my own
instance on the web based version of Twitter, I checked
and it says post now, not tweet. I guess we
should be thankful it's not X seat or you know,
because it's X is the name of the company. And
Musk said that tweets would now be called x eats
(08:44):
or zeats or skeets if you're pronouncing X like if
it were, you know, an anglicized Chinese word, then it
would mean we'd be using the sound, so it'd be
sheets then. But I'm guessing Musk doesn't like that because
if you're using the X sound as sh then Twitter
would become well, I won't say it. Over in the Netherlands,
(09:09):
a court has ruled that Meta Ireland must reveal the
identity of an anonymous user as part of a defamation lawsuit.
This one gets really ugly, y'all. So the plaintiff in
this case is a man who says he has been
defamed by this anonymous user who has posted in a
couple of different Facebook groups that are dedicated to people
(09:31):
talking about their dating experiences and kind of like horror
stories with dating experiences in general, and that this anonymous
user has said that this man has done stuff like
secretly recorded the women he was dating, which would definitely
be a red flag if that's true. But the man
denies these charges and he wants to sue this anonymous
(09:53):
user for defamation. He says his reputation has been harmed
as a result of these posts. But here's the rub.
You can't sue someone if you don't know who they are.
So the man has brought this lawsuit to the Court
of the Hague in the Netherlands, and the court considered
the case and has now sent an order to Meta
Ireland to cough up the identity of the anonymous poster
(10:15):
who was behind these messages in these Facebook groups, and
Meta Ireland is going to comply because it's a legal
court order. And you might think, huh, that sounds like
a precedent that could potentially set the stage for a
lot of abuse and discourage people from coming forward as
whistleblowers and such. In this case, the argument is that
the posts could be illegal if in fact they are
(10:38):
defamatory and untrue. But the court also went beyond this.
The court said, quote, according to settled case law and
under certain circumstances, Meta has an obligation to provide identifying
data even if the content of the relevant messages is
not unmistakably unlawful. So, in other words, the government in
(11:02):
the EU, in the form of the court system, has
the right to force platforms to strip away anonymity even
if the posts at the center of the matter do
not contain any overtly illegal content within them, which is
a big ol' yikes, right, Like that is stripping away
security and privacy. Now, on the flip side, you could say, yeah,
(11:25):
but if this is a real case of defamation, if
these claims are untrue, and this person has had their
reputation suffer as a result of this, and it's and
through no fault of his own because he didn't do
the things that were claimed against him. There needs to
be recourse. So you can see that this is a
complicated issue. On the flip side, if the claims are
(11:47):
absolutely true, then ripping the anonymity away from the person
who came forward is a real potential threat to their safety.
So it's a very complex situation and I can't pretend
like I have the answer. Okay, we're gonna take a
quick break. When we come back, We've got some more
news stories to talk about. Okay, we're back, and now
(12:19):
let's get into the AI part of this news episode.
So Meta is reportedly preparing to launch its AI powered
chatbots pretty soon, perhaps as early as September, according to
the Financial Times. The chatbots will have different personalities, some
based off famous historical figures, others based off more stereotypes,
(12:42):
kind of like surfer dude. According to the Financial Times,
the pushes in part meant to stem the rise and
then fall of participation on Threads. So when Threads first launched,
it took off like a rocket, right. It hit one
hundred million users in less than a week, But since then,
more than half of those users haven't really been back
(13:05):
on Threads. They dropped off super quickly, and it suggested
that Threads was really more of a flash in the
pan moment and not the Twitter substitute that a lot
of people were kind of hoping for. Apparently, Meta is
going to lean on these chatbots to help drive engagement.
I guess I can see the logic behind that, because
(13:27):
if you're on a social platform and you're posting stuff
but no one ever engages with anything you post, then
really you just end up keeping a journal, and that
might be enough for some folks. There's nothing wrong with that,
but I think a lot of people feel that they
want others to treat the stuff they say as if
it matters, right, The reason you're on social is to
(13:48):
stay in touch with other people and to get some
validation that the stuff you're posting is interesting or funny
or relevant. You know that people care about what you
have to say, and if you're not getting that, you're
not likely to be very satisfied with your experience on
the social platform. Maybe an artificial reaction provided by a
chatbot that's imitating Abraham Lincoln is the answer. Though it
(14:12):
should point out that the official explanation for these chatbots
is that they're going to serve as a way to
answer things like search queries and to give recommendations for stuff,
and not necessarily to stand in as some sort of
surrogate follower or friend. So we'll see. I don't know
if this will actually be a useful tool, or you
(14:33):
can count on Abraham Lincoln to be your plastic pal
who's fun to be with. Shout out if you've got
that reference. Anyway, Meta isn't the only company putting AI
to a new use. According to The Verge, YouTube is
testing AI for the purposes of summarizing video content, so,
(14:54):
in other words, telling you what a video actually is
about before you click in on the video. So the
test only cover a quote limited number of English language
videos and will only be viewable by a limited number
of users end quote. That's according to John Porter of
The Verge. Porter also writes that while the intent is
to create a quick summary that ideally helps users decide
(15:18):
which videos to watch, those summaries are not going to
replace the human written video descriptions. Personally, I'm having a
bit of trouble imagining what this actually looks like in
practice when you're on YouTube. I mean, do the videos
have two separate descriptions one that was written by AI.
But anyway, it shows how companies are looking at this
(15:38):
crazy tool called artificial intelligence, and now they're scrambling to
find quote unquote problems that this tool can quote unquote fix. Obviously,
anything that leads to greater engagement on one of Alphabet's
many platforms is going to be counted as a win.
So I can understand the whole throw noodles at the
wall and see what sticks aproach that they're taking here.
(16:02):
I'm curious to see one of these summaries myself. I
want to see what it looks like. But as far
as I can tell, I haven't come across anything like
that yet. But it is in a limited test run,
so it is far more likely that I am just
not in the pool of folks who are included in
that test. I hold out hope that we'll get at
least a few hilariously weird video summaries out of this
(16:25):
that we're clearly written by a robot. So I'll just
have to wait and see. NewsCorp, the giant media company,
has been using artificial intelligence to generate news articles that
are publishing across seventy five hyper local publications across Australia. So,
according to the Guardian, the AI, which is kind of
(16:46):
like chat gpt, is writing around three thousand pieces a
week and the topics range from stuff like weather reports
to giving updates on fuel prices and specific cities and
that kind of thing. The company says that the articles
are written by AI, but they're overseen by journalists, which
kind of reminds me of what how stuffworks dot Com
(17:07):
said about its recent embrace of artificial intelligence generated articles.
As a reminder, the editorial staff was let go at
how stuffworks dot com and that means that folks that
I used to work with found themselves out of a job.
So I am definitely biased on this topic. I'm saying
that so that you understand that I have a very
particular point of view on this that is pretty darn negative,
(17:30):
but that I completely admit this is my own bias. Anyway,
I think you can make an argument that the types
of pieces the AI is said to be tackling are
ones that human writers actually wouldn't find interesting or rewarding
to write in the first place. They are tedious exercises
at best, and goodness knows, I would occasionally get assignments
(17:51):
at how stuff works. That definitely fell into the tedious category.
You still had to do your best on those articles,
but you questioned the value of writing them in the
first place. You're like, this is a garbage article. Even
if I do my best work on it, it's just
the article itself is not very interesting. There is still
(18:14):
a need for a human person to oversee the work
that the AI is doing, because, as we know, AI
can sometimes get real loosey goosey with reality. And it
makes me wonder how much the companies and staff are
actually saving on time and effort, because if there's a
frequent enough need to do revisions and rewrites, really all
you're doing is just making more work for fewer people.
(18:36):
But it's hard to say, I bet there's a human
writer out there who really wants to essentially rewrite the
same article every day for the rest of their careers,
because if it's something like what are the current fuel
prices in your city, well, that's something you would have
to research and write every single day. That's probably not
a lot of fun to do. So maybe that is
(18:58):
a good use for AI. Right If the AI is
reasonably accurate and reliable, then it could mean that human
writer ideally could get a different assignment that's more interesting
and rewarding to work on. So I can see the
use for AI for specific versions of writing for stuff
(19:21):
that people genuinely need to know but is genuinely tedious
to research and write. The problem is I worry about
companies overstepping that and just saying, oh, wow, AI is
way cheaper than having humans, right, Let's just have them
write everything, and then we get an even bigger decline
in journalistic integrity and quality. California here in the United States,
(19:44):
has a new Department of Privacy regulators who are actually
authorized with power now, and this week they are hearing
their first case. They are looking at how auto manufacturers
are incorporating data gathering technology within the vehicles that they
make and sell, and how those companies then collect, use,
(20:05):
and protect that information because there are really no rules
in place to serve as a parameters for that. So
the agency is looking at the types of information that
are collected, which can include everything from geolocation data to
camera images depending on the vehicle. There's a concern that
data collection has become an important component in cars, but
(20:28):
there's such a lack of regulations and rules. Now companies
can use that information that it could lead to real problems. Now,
ideally manufacturers use this info to keep eyes on things
like vehicle performance and maybe even detect issues before they
become huge problems, and that could lead to a much
more effective method of dealing with stuff like recalls. For example,
(20:49):
maybe a company sees, oh, this isn't a critical problem yet,
but it's going to be if we don't do anything
about it, So let's do the recall earlier and save
ourselves a lot of green from the long run. That's
a legitimate use for that kind of data collection. But
if you go a step outside of the actual vehicle
and you think about what does the data say about
(21:10):
the driver who's inside that vehicle, that's where concerns start
to pop up. I mean that vehicle data could be
used to do a lot of things, like you might
be able to draw conclusions about the actual driver's life.
So imagine that you are having to seek regular medical
treatments for some condition you have, and that the car
(21:31):
is essentially gathering information about the fact that you're going
to a medical facility on a regular basis. That's information
you probably wouldn't just freely share with a car company
for no reason, right, I mean, that's private healthcare information.
And so this is really this regulation agency's first step
(21:53):
to get a full understanding of the scope and depth
of data collection in the auto industry. And I hope
it's an indication of a seed change shift in how
the United States in particular approaches data collection and use,
because for too long it's just been open season for
information out there. Okay, I've got a few more stories
(22:17):
to cover before we get to those. Let's take another
quick break. All right, we're back, and hey, let's head
back down to Australia. I got some bad news. So
(22:38):
Disney announced that after Guardians of the Galaxy Volume three
hits store shelves in DVD and Blu Ray formats this month,
the company is done producing physical media for the Australian market.
So moving forward, fans in Australia will have to use
stuff like streaming services or cable or satellite or whatever
(23:01):
in order to watch future Disney properties. So there will
be no more Marvel, Star Wars, or Disney DVDs or
Blu Rays. So why is that, Well, Disney says it's
because the home media market in Australia has slowed to
a point where it's just no longer profitable to produce
physical copies of stuff. And I get that a lot
(23:21):
of people have moved away from physical media, but personally,
as someone who has recently gotten back into that, I
am bummed by this news. For one thing, we are
now all aware that just because something is currently available
on a streaming service today, it doesn't mean it's going
to still be there tomorrow. We have seen dozens hundreds
(23:43):
of titles disappear off of streaming services, including Disney Plus,
and then become unavailable. A lot of streaming exclusive content
never even makes it to physical home media at all,
so once it goes, it just becomes inaccessible. It still exists,
but there's no way for you to watch it. Well.
With Disney making this move, it means for Australians everything
(24:06):
Disney makes is potentially in that category of stuff that
one day could just disappear. And there's an understandable concern
that other studios are going to follow Disney's lead. In fact,
I'd be shocked if that doesn't happen. But from a
business perspective, it's hard to fault the decision. You don't
get into the business to not make money. From a
(24:26):
fan perspective or from an archives perspective, this is a
huge blow, and I wouldn't be surprised to see similar
stories play out in other regions as more people migrate
away from physical media. Personally, I'm going to be buying
Blu ray and DVD copies of the stuff I love
while I still can, because I've had plenty of experiences
where something I really enjoyed was on a platform and
(24:49):
then an agreement expires and it's gone and there becomes
no legal way for me to access it anymore. And
I'm not the type of person to lean on illegal
MEAs means to get access to content if there are
legal alternatives. But when there are no legal alternatives, that
really I mean, you either do without or you break
(25:09):
the law. Those are really your only options. I guess
the responsible thing is I guess to do without. But
it just to get so frustrating when you think I
want to see this, I am happy to pay for
the ability to see it. There just isn't that option.
Video Game Chronicle reports that Nintendo is preparing to launch
its next console sometime next year, likely in the fall.
(25:31):
In time for the holiday season. Nintendo launched the Switch
back in twenty seventeen, and while titles like Tears of
the Kingdom show that this portable system, or at least
system capable of going into portable mode, can still pack
a surprising amount of punch, it is safe to say
that the hardware is now kind of pushing against its
upper limits. The VGC says that Nintendo has already started
(25:53):
to ship development kits to various partner studios in anticipation
of this launch next year. Details are understandably scarce, but
it sounds like the next console will again be capable
of being used in a portable method, you know, like
a handheld system similar to what Switch can do, and
that the company is choosing to use LCD screens instead
(26:16):
of o LED screens, likely in an effort to keep
manufacturing costs down. Hopefully that will also mean it will
help keep consumer prices down that they won't be too
expensive either. VGC also says that the system will include
a cartridge slot for physical media, so we're not going
all digital with this one. Not a big surprise, then.
(26:37):
Tendo has a long history of supporting physical media and
to kind of kind of drag its feet on things
like connected features for its consoles. But that's all that's
known right now, and here's hoping that this console is
another big success story like the Switch and not another
misfire like the WEU. Speaking of video games, Call of
(27:02):
Duty recently held a culling. The game targeted players who
are found to have been relying on cheats and hacks
in an effort to get advantages over other players. According
to the game's x feed or Twitter again, this is
so confusing x feed just whatever. Anyway, according to the
(27:23):
video game, the publisher has banned more than fourteen thousand
accounts for cheating and hacking within just twenty four hours now. Personally,
I don't play Call of Duty, but there are a
couple of British content creators I watch regularly who do
play it. I hope this means that they will encounter
fewer instances of people using cheats and hacks. It is
(27:43):
frustrating enough just as a viewer to watch someone who
is really good at the game they play, but then
they encounter cheaters and it becomes this unfair exchange, like
when they're up against genuinely skilled players. That's exciting when
they're against cheaters. It's just frustrating, but I imagine it's
way worse to actually experience it firsthand. I have encountered
(28:05):
cheaters in a few games I've played. I remember a
game of PUBG where the person who took me out
it turned out they were using a cheat where they
were just getting headshots, like they weren't even pointing at
people and getting headshots, and it was such an obvious
cheating mechanism. It was really frustrating. It convinced me to
stop playing PUBG. So that's fun. So really, game developers
(28:29):
have an incentive to crack down on this kind of
thing because otherwise they do run the risk of players
becoming frustrated with the title as a whole and just
abandoning it. And finally, a weather satellite called Eolis came
crashing down to Earth this week, but this was planned.
The European Space Agency launched Eolis about five years ago.
(28:50):
It carried a laser doppler tool called a Leyden or
Aladdin if you prefer. It just has one D, so
I called it a Leyden, and the scientist were using
this to help monitor and study wind speed and direction
at various elevations through the atmosphere. So this was part
of a broader study on weather and climate and just
gathering a lot of scientific information. But earlier this year,
(29:13):
the ESA made plans to deorbit the satellite. It was
reaching the end of its mission. It's also reaching the
end of its fuel, and as it turned out, the
satellite did not have enough fuel in it so that
the ESA could do a fully controlled deorbit. Instead, the
ESA used the remaining fuel to carry out what they
called an assist, which is kind of between a controlled
(29:35):
deorbit where you are using thrust to target a specific
location for touchdown or crash down. I guess it is
a better word for it, and an uncontrolled deorbit where
nature just takes its course and you have no idea
where that satellite's going to end up going. The ESA
couldn't guide the satellite the entire time, but it could
(29:56):
ensure that the spacecraft was able to use its fuel
and thrusters to manu itself above the Atlantic Ocean in
an effort to minimize any terrestrial issues, you know, like
having the satellite fall in someone's house or something. Deorbiting
the satellite also means that EOLIS would not become another
piece of space junk serving as a potential hazard in
(30:16):
lower orbit. So rest in pieces. Eolis, you did good
work out there. That's it for today's news. Hope you
are all well and I will talk to you again
really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more
(30:38):
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.
I'm an executive producer with iHeartRadio. And how the tech
are you? It is time for the tech news for Tuesday,
August first, twenty twenty three. So let's start out with
(00:28):
the news that kind of happened and then unhappened. Since
the last time I did one of these episodes, and
that means starting with X you know, the service formerly
known as Twitter. I had mentioned that the San Francisco
Police had paid a little visit to x HQ when
a construction crew blocked off a couple of lanes of
(00:49):
traffic on a city street in San Francisco while removing
letters from the Twitter sign that hung on the headquarters building. Ultimately,
the cop did not charge anyone with a crime, but
it did mean that the removal process was interrupted and
for a while the er stayed up there. They had
removed the twit, but the er was still up. And
(01:12):
since a lot of us typically now we'll look at
the former Twitter and say er, I think it was
appropriate that the er was still there. But anyway, after
all that Musk's financial sinkhole of a company erected a
big ol X sign, an illuminated X sign on the
(01:32):
top of their HQ, so it lit up a lot,
and it was bright enough and lighting up and like
strobe effects and stuff that it prompted several people in
the neighborhood to lodge complaints, saying that it was garish
and disruptive and making it real difficult to get any
sleep if the X was flashing lights through bedroom windows
(01:56):
and stuff. This prompted the city to send a bill
inspector around to make sure that the news sign was
up to code, but the inspector says that they were
denied roof access multiple times, so the city took issue
with this as well as with musk erecting an quote
unquote illuminated structure without first securing a permit to do it.
(02:20):
There were also concerns that the sign itself was not
properly secured to the roof, which could be a truly
dangerous situation in the event of something like high winds
for example. Now the company is likely to face some
fines from the city. I haven't seen how much those
fines might be, But then if San Francisco wants to
(02:42):
get money out of x it's gonna probably have to
get in line behind the various landlords, vendors, and former
employees who are also awaiting payment. So I suppose one
of the big secrets to being rich is that you know,
you just don't pay your bills, then you get to
keep your money. It's genius. According to Casey Newton's Excellent
(03:07):
Tech newsletter, today marks a big day inside X SO.
Back when Musk bought Twitter, he famously did so at
fifty four dollars twenty cents per share. That's why I
ended up being more than forty billion dollars overall. And
a lot of Twitter employees had guaranteed stock grants, meaning
(03:28):
that they had vested shares with the company or shares
that were in the process of vesting, and that they
would then receive a payout for those shares that's part
of their compensation. They would get fifty four dollars twenty
cents per share vested with the company. According to Newton,
today marks the day when the remaining employees who were
(03:50):
still receiving stock grants will then be paid out. And
if that happens, it might mean we could see another
wave of resignations out of the company, because it's possible
that some folks at X stayed on really just so
that they could reach this moment to get that final payout,
and then potentially they could go skip off to find
(04:13):
greener or at least less chaotic pastures, though there is
still a concern that a lot of people would not
be able to find a job that pays, you know,
at the same level as what they're getting over at X.
And as we've already said, Musk has racked up a
pretty big history of refusing to pay bills, including to
former employees, So there is a fear that those who
(04:37):
should be receiving this compensation may be left waiting around
indefinitely and that worst case scenario, the payout might not
ever come. So maybe by the end of the day
we'll have more news about that, but that's how it
stands as I record the episode. In other awful news,
the Center for Countering Digital Hate or CCDA, which is
(05:01):
now in Elon Musk's crosshairs for daring to you know,
chronicle the rise of hate speech on X now. Musk
has claimed that hate speech impressions are actually on the
decline on X, but the CCdh argue that the opposite
is true, that there's been an increase across the board
(05:21):
in hate speech as well as in disinformation. And if
you've been following the news, you know that Musk has
reinstated the Twitter accounts for people who previously had received
bans for spreading things like hate speech on the platform.
So at least you know, from that perspective, you could say, well,
it seems to be logical that you would find an
(05:44):
increase in hate speech. They are re platforming people who
were banned for spreading hate speech. So anyway, the CCdh
says that they found a two hundred to two percent
increase in messages on the platform that contain slurs. They
also said that Twitter Blue subscribers, which maybe they're called
(06:07):
X blue subscribers. Now the X makes everything really confusing
because you think that it means former as opposed to
subscribed to X. Anyway, people who have subscribed to the
platform and who have subsequently posted messages that violate the
platform's policies seem to suffer no consequences. Their messages don't
(06:29):
appear to be removed or anything like that. The company's
own Trust and Safety Council resigned ages ago, right, the
people who were actually in charge of formulating those policies
and to make sure that the platform was doing well
to adhere to them, they left, and the department as
a whole is reportedly in a bit of the shambles.
(06:52):
And now Musk is sending legal threats and is arguing
that the CCdh has an agenda, that the cs intent
is to hurt X by spreading falsehoods in an attempt
to scare off advertisers. The CCDCH refutes those claims and
points out that the organization is neither government funded, so
(07:14):
it doesn't receive money from the government, nor is it
connected to any other competing social network, so it's not
like it's you know, conspiring with Meta to take down X.
In fact, the CDCH has also reported on issues like
hate speech and disinformation on other platforms besides X. The
CCDCH released a statement indicating that should X and Musk
(07:38):
actually pursue a legal case against the organization, because so
far it's just been threats about doing that, the organization
will fight back. So I'm sure we will have more
on this as it continues. And on a less dramatic
and less important side, of the whole x Twitter story,
one of the few remaining holdovers from the Twitter days
(08:00):
has actually changed. So it used to be that if
you wanted to post something on Twitter, you would hit
a little, you know, button that says tweet on there
after you've written your message, right, you would tweet and
that would post it. And now that icon no longer
says tweet. It now says host. It's changed back and
(08:21):
forth a couple of times over the last two days.
But as I record this, at least in my own
instance on the web based version of Twitter, I checked
and it says post now, not tweet. I guess we
should be thankful it's not X seat or you know,
because it's X is the name of the company. And
Musk said that tweets would now be called x eats
(08:44):
or zeats or skeets if you're pronouncing X like if
it were, you know, an anglicized Chinese word, then it
would mean we'd be using the sound, so it'd be
sheets then. But I'm guessing Musk doesn't like that because
if you're using the X sound as sh then Twitter
would become well, I won't say it. Over in the Netherlands,
(09:09):
a court has ruled that Meta Ireland must reveal the
identity of an anonymous user as part of a defamation lawsuit.
This one gets really ugly, y'all. So the plaintiff in
this case is a man who says he has been
defamed by this anonymous user who has posted in a
couple of different Facebook groups that are dedicated to people
(09:31):
talking about their dating experiences and kind of like horror
stories with dating experiences in general, and that this anonymous
user has said that this man has done stuff like
secretly recorded the women he was dating, which would definitely
be a red flag if that's true. But the man
denies these charges and he wants to sue this anonymous
(09:53):
user for defamation. He says his reputation has been harmed
as a result of these posts. But here's the rub.
You can't sue someone if you don't know who they are.
So the man has brought this lawsuit to the Court
of the Hague in the Netherlands, and the court considered
the case and has now sent an order to Meta
Ireland to cough up the identity of the anonymous poster
(10:15):
who was behind these messages in these Facebook groups, and
Meta Ireland is going to comply because it's a legal
court order. And you might think, huh, that sounds like
a precedent that could potentially set the stage for a
lot of abuse and discourage people from coming forward as
whistleblowers and such. In this case, the argument is that
the posts could be illegal if in fact they are
(10:38):
defamatory and untrue. But the court also went beyond this.
The court said, quote, according to settled case law and
under certain circumstances, Meta has an obligation to provide identifying
data even if the content of the relevant messages is
not unmistakably unlawful. So, in other words, the government in
(11:02):
the EU, in the form of the court system, has
the right to force platforms to strip away anonymity even
if the posts at the center of the matter do
not contain any overtly illegal content within them, which is
a big ol' yikes, right, Like that is stripping away
security and privacy. Now, on the flip side, you could say, yeah,
(11:25):
but if this is a real case of defamation, if
these claims are untrue, and this person has had their
reputation suffer as a result of this, and it's and
through no fault of his own because he didn't do
the things that were claimed against him. There needs to
be recourse. So you can see that this is a
complicated issue. On the flip side, if the claims are
(11:47):
absolutely true, then ripping the anonymity away from the person
who came forward is a real potential threat to their safety.
So it's a very complex situation and I can't pretend
like I have the answer. Okay, we're gonna take a
quick break. When we come back, We've got some more
news stories to talk about. Okay, we're back, and now
(12:19):
let's get into the AI part of this news episode.
So Meta is reportedly preparing to launch its AI powered
chatbots pretty soon, perhaps as early as September, according to
the Financial Times. The chatbots will have different personalities, some
based off famous historical figures, others based off more stereotypes,
(12:42):
kind of like surfer dude. According to the Financial Times,
the pushes in part meant to stem the rise and
then fall of participation on Threads. So when Threads first launched,
it took off like a rocket, right. It hit one
hundred million users in less than a week, But since then,
more than half of those users haven't really been back
(13:05):
on Threads. They dropped off super quickly, and it suggested
that Threads was really more of a flash in the
pan moment and not the Twitter substitute that a lot
of people were kind of hoping for. Apparently, Meta is
going to lean on these chatbots to help drive engagement.
I guess I can see the logic behind that, because
(13:27):
if you're on a social platform and you're posting stuff
but no one ever engages with anything you post, then
really you just end up keeping a journal, and that
might be enough for some folks. There's nothing wrong with that,
but I think a lot of people feel that they
want others to treat the stuff they say as if
it matters, right, The reason you're on social is to
(13:48):
stay in touch with other people and to get some
validation that the stuff you're posting is interesting or funny
or relevant. You know that people care about what you
have to say, and if you're not getting that, you're
not likely to be very satisfied with your experience on
the social platform. Maybe an artificial reaction provided by a
chatbot that's imitating Abraham Lincoln is the answer. Though it
(14:12):
should point out that the official explanation for these chatbots
is that they're going to serve as a way to
answer things like search queries and to give recommendations for stuff,
and not necessarily to stand in as some sort of
surrogate follower or friend. So we'll see. I don't know
if this will actually be a useful tool, or you
(14:33):
can count on Abraham Lincoln to be your plastic pal
who's fun to be with. Shout out if you've got
that reference. Anyway, Meta isn't the only company putting AI
to a new use. According to The Verge, YouTube is
testing AI for the purposes of summarizing video content, so,
(14:54):
in other words, telling you what a video actually is
about before you click in on the video. So the
test only cover a quote limited number of English language
videos and will only be viewable by a limited number
of users end quote. That's according to John Porter of
The Verge. Porter also writes that while the intent is
to create a quick summary that ideally helps users decide
(15:18):
which videos to watch, those summaries are not going to
replace the human written video descriptions. Personally, I'm having a
bit of trouble imagining what this actually looks like in
practice when you're on YouTube. I mean, do the videos
have two separate descriptions one that was written by AI.
But anyway, it shows how companies are looking at this
(15:38):
crazy tool called artificial intelligence, and now they're scrambling to
find quote unquote problems that this tool can quote unquote fix. Obviously,
anything that leads to greater engagement on one of Alphabet's
many platforms is going to be counted as a win.
So I can understand the whole throw noodles at the
wall and see what sticks aproach that they're taking here.
(16:02):
I'm curious to see one of these summaries myself. I
want to see what it looks like. But as far
as I can tell, I haven't come across anything like
that yet. But it is in a limited test run,
so it is far more likely that I am just
not in the pool of folks who are included in
that test. I hold out hope that we'll get at
least a few hilariously weird video summaries out of this
(16:25):
that we're clearly written by a robot. So I'll just
have to wait and see. NewsCorp, the giant media company,
has been using artificial intelligence to generate news articles that
are publishing across seventy five hyper local publications across Australia. So,
according to the Guardian, the AI, which is kind of
(16:46):
like chat gpt, is writing around three thousand pieces a
week and the topics range from stuff like weather reports
to giving updates on fuel prices and specific cities and
that kind of thing. The company says that the articles
are written by AI, but they're overseen by journalists, which
kind of reminds me of what how stuffworks dot Com
(17:07):
said about its recent embrace of artificial intelligence generated articles.
As a reminder, the editorial staff was let go at
how stuffworks dot com and that means that folks that
I used to work with found themselves out of a job.
So I am definitely biased on this topic. I'm saying
that so that you understand that I have a very
particular point of view on this that is pretty darn negative,
(17:30):
but that I completely admit this is my own bias. Anyway,
I think you can make an argument that the types
of pieces the AI is said to be tackling are
ones that human writers actually wouldn't find interesting or rewarding
to write in the first place. They are tedious exercises
at best, and goodness knows, I would occasionally get assignments
(17:51):
at how stuff works. That definitely fell into the tedious category.
You still had to do your best on those articles,
but you questioned the value of writing them in the
first place. You're like, this is a garbage article. Even
if I do my best work on it, it's just
the article itself is not very interesting. There is still
(18:14):
a need for a human person to oversee the work
that the AI is doing, because, as we know, AI
can sometimes get real loosey goosey with reality. And it
makes me wonder how much the companies and staff are
actually saving on time and effort, because if there's a
frequent enough need to do revisions and rewrites, really all
you're doing is just making more work for fewer people.
(18:36):
But it's hard to say, I bet there's a human
writer out there who really wants to essentially rewrite the
same article every day for the rest of their careers,
because if it's something like what are the current fuel
prices in your city, well, that's something you would have
to research and write every single day. That's probably not
a lot of fun to do. So maybe that is
(18:58):
a good use for AI. Right If the AI is
reasonably accurate and reliable, then it could mean that human
writer ideally could get a different assignment that's more interesting
and rewarding to work on. So I can see the
use for AI for specific versions of writing for stuff
(19:21):
that people genuinely need to know but is genuinely tedious
to research and write. The problem is I worry about
companies overstepping that and just saying, oh, wow, AI is
way cheaper than having humans, right, Let's just have them
write everything, and then we get an even bigger decline
in journalistic integrity and quality. California here in the United States,
(19:44):
has a new Department of Privacy regulators who are actually
authorized with power now, and this week they are hearing
their first case. They are looking at how auto manufacturers
are incorporating data gathering technology within the vehicles that they
make and sell, and how those companies then collect, use,
(20:05):
and protect that information because there are really no rules
in place to serve as a parameters for that. So
the agency is looking at the types of information that
are collected, which can include everything from geolocation data to
camera images depending on the vehicle. There's a concern that
data collection has become an important component in cars, but
(20:28):
there's such a lack of regulations and rules. Now companies
can use that information that it could lead to real problems. Now,
ideally manufacturers use this info to keep eyes on things
like vehicle performance and maybe even detect issues before they
become huge problems, and that could lead to a much
more effective method of dealing with stuff like recalls. For example,
(20:49):
maybe a company sees, oh, this isn't a critical problem yet,
but it's going to be if we don't do anything
about it, So let's do the recall earlier and save
ourselves a lot of green from the long run. That's
a legitimate use for that kind of data collection. But
if you go a step outside of the actual vehicle
and you think about what does the data say about
(21:10):
the driver who's inside that vehicle, that's where concerns start
to pop up. I mean that vehicle data could be
used to do a lot of things, like you might
be able to draw conclusions about the actual driver's life.
So imagine that you are having to seek regular medical
treatments for some condition you have, and that the car
(21:31):
is essentially gathering information about the fact that you're going
to a medical facility on a regular basis. That's information
you probably wouldn't just freely share with a car company
for no reason, right, I mean, that's private healthcare information.
And so this is really this regulation agency's first step
(21:53):
to get a full understanding of the scope and depth
of data collection in the auto industry. And I hope
it's an indication of a seed change shift in how
the United States in particular approaches data collection and use,
because for too long it's just been open season for
information out there. Okay, I've got a few more stories
(22:17):
to cover before we get to those. Let's take another
quick break. All right, we're back, and hey, let's head
back down to Australia. I got some bad news. So
(22:38):
Disney announced that after Guardians of the Galaxy Volume three
hits store shelves in DVD and Blu Ray formats this month,
the company is done producing physical media for the Australian market.
So moving forward, fans in Australia will have to use
stuff like streaming services or cable or satellite or whatever
(23:01):
in order to watch future Disney properties. So there will
be no more Marvel, Star Wars, or Disney DVDs or
Blu Rays. So why is that, Well, Disney says it's
because the home media market in Australia has slowed to
a point where it's just no longer profitable to produce
physical copies of stuff. And I get that a lot
(23:21):
of people have moved away from physical media, but personally,
as someone who has recently gotten back into that, I
am bummed by this news. For one thing, we are
now all aware that just because something is currently available
on a streaming service today, it doesn't mean it's going
to still be there tomorrow. We have seen dozens hundreds
(23:43):
of titles disappear off of streaming services, including Disney Plus,
and then become unavailable. A lot of streaming exclusive content
never even makes it to physical home media at all,
so once it goes, it just becomes inaccessible. It still exists,
but there's no way for you to watch it. Well.
With Disney making this move, it means for Australians everything
(24:06):
Disney makes is potentially in that category of stuff that
one day could just disappear. And there's an understandable concern
that other studios are going to follow Disney's lead. In fact,
I'd be shocked if that doesn't happen. But from a
business perspective, it's hard to fault the decision. You don't
get into the business to not make money. From a
(24:26):
fan perspective or from an archives perspective, this is a
huge blow, and I wouldn't be surprised to see similar
stories play out in other regions as more people migrate
away from physical media. Personally, I'm going to be buying
Blu ray and DVD copies of the stuff I love
while I still can, because I've had plenty of experiences
where something I really enjoyed was on a platform and
(24:49):
then an agreement expires and it's gone and there becomes
no legal way for me to access it anymore. And
I'm not the type of person to lean on illegal
MEAs means to get access to content if there are
legal alternatives. But when there are no legal alternatives, that
really I mean, you either do without or you break
(25:09):
the law. Those are really your only options. I guess
the responsible thing is I guess to do without. But
it just to get so frustrating when you think I
want to see this, I am happy to pay for
the ability to see it. There just isn't that option.
Video Game Chronicle reports that Nintendo is preparing to launch
its next console sometime next year, likely in the fall.
(25:31):
In time for the holiday season. Nintendo launched the Switch
back in twenty seventeen, and while titles like Tears of
the Kingdom show that this portable system, or at least
system capable of going into portable mode, can still pack
a surprising amount of punch, it is safe to say
that the hardware is now kind of pushing against its
upper limits. The VGC says that Nintendo has already started
(25:53):
to ship development kits to various partner studios in anticipation
of this launch next year. Details are understandably scarce, but
it sounds like the next console will again be capable
of being used in a portable method, you know, like
a handheld system similar to what Switch can do, and
that the company is choosing to use LCD screens instead
(26:16):
of o LED screens, likely in an effort to keep
manufacturing costs down. Hopefully that will also mean it will
help keep consumer prices down that they won't be too
expensive either. VGC also says that the system will include
a cartridge slot for physical media, so we're not going
all digital with this one. Not a big surprise, then.
(26:37):
Tendo has a long history of supporting physical media and
to kind of kind of drag its feet on things
like connected features for its consoles. But that's all that's
known right now, and here's hoping that this console is
another big success story like the Switch and not another
misfire like the WEU. Speaking of video games, Call of
(27:02):
Duty recently held a culling. The game targeted players who
are found to have been relying on cheats and hacks
in an effort to get advantages over other players. According
to the game's x feed or Twitter again, this is
so confusing x feed just whatever. Anyway, according to the
(27:23):
video game, the publisher has banned more than fourteen thousand
accounts for cheating and hacking within just twenty four hours now. Personally,
I don't play Call of Duty, but there are a
couple of British content creators I watch regularly who do
play it. I hope this means that they will encounter
fewer instances of people using cheats and hacks. It is
(27:43):
frustrating enough just as a viewer to watch someone who
is really good at the game they play, but then
they encounter cheaters and it becomes this unfair exchange, like
when they're up against genuinely skilled players. That's exciting when
they're against cheaters. It's just frustrating, but I imagine it's
way worse to actually experience it firsthand. I have encountered
(28:05):
cheaters in a few games I've played. I remember a
game of PUBG where the person who took me out
it turned out they were using a cheat where they
were just getting headshots, like they weren't even pointing at
people and getting headshots, and it was such an obvious
cheating mechanism. It was really frustrating. It convinced me to
stop playing PUBG. So that's fun. So really, game developers
(28:29):
have an incentive to crack down on this kind of
thing because otherwise they do run the risk of players
becoming frustrated with the title as a whole and just
abandoning it. And finally, a weather satellite called Eolis came
crashing down to Earth this week, but this was planned.
The European Space Agency launched Eolis about five years ago.
(28:50):
It carried a laser doppler tool called a Leyden or
Aladdin if you prefer. It just has one D, so
I called it a Leyden, and the scientist were using
this to help monitor and study wind speed and direction
at various elevations through the atmosphere. So this was part
of a broader study on weather and climate and just
gathering a lot of scientific information. But earlier this year,
(29:13):
the ESA made plans to deorbit the satellite. It was
reaching the end of its mission. It's also reaching the
end of its fuel, and as it turned out, the
satellite did not have enough fuel in it so that
the ESA could do a fully controlled deorbit. Instead, the
ESA used the remaining fuel to carry out what they
called an assist, which is kind of between a controlled
(29:35):
deorbit where you are using thrust to target a specific
location for touchdown or crash down. I guess it is
a better word for it, and an uncontrolled deorbit where
nature just takes its course and you have no idea
where that satellite's going to end up going. The ESA
couldn't guide the satellite the entire time, but it could
(29:56):
ensure that the spacecraft was able to use its fuel
and thrusters to manu itself above the Atlantic Ocean in
an effort to minimize any terrestrial issues, you know, like
having the satellite fall in someone's house or something. Deorbiting
the satellite also means that EOLIS would not become another
piece of space junk serving as a potential hazard in
(30:16):
lower orbit. So rest in pieces. Eolis, you did good
work out there. That's it for today's news. Hope you
are all well and I will talk to you again
really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more
(30:38):
podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
TechStuff News
Host
Jonathan Strickland
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.