Charlie Kirk Snitch App Data Leak; TikTok Rapture; David Lynch AI Reddit Revolt; Meta Exploits Parents' Photos – NEWS ROUNDUP - There Are No Girls on the Internet

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this
is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome to
There Are No Girls on the Internet, where we explore
the intersection of social media, technology and identity. And this

(00:24):
is another installment of our weekly news bound Up, where
we break down all the stories on the Internet that
you might have missed so you don't have to. This
is a bit weird, but producer Mike we you and
I are still here, still on planet Earth. As far
as I know. We did not get raptured like an
evangelical TikTok thought we might.

Speaker 2 (00:43):
I have so many bills and outstanding debts that I
unexpectedly need to take care of.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
Now.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
Oh, I saw a few tik taks from people who
were like, oh, I'm racking up credit card debt because
I'm not to get raptured, baby, I'm not going to
be paying that back. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (00:56):
I totally thought that I would be kicking it in heaven,
you know, toss them back cocktails with Saint Peter. But
I'm still here on this earthly rock.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
So September twenty third or twenty fourth, depending on who
you ask, was supposed to mark the rapture, the day
that Jesus Christ would return to Earth, gather up all
the true believers, and leave behind everybody else to endure
seven years of God's judgment. As far as I can tell,
and also according to the cut, this prediction traces back

(01:28):
to a South African pastor named Joshua Mikayla. In a
sermon clip shared on a very official sounding YouTube channel,
he said that he received a direct vision from JC himself,
Jesus Christ warning at the end of the world was
going to be taking place on September twenty third, or
possibly the twenty fourth. If you're listening to this, I

(01:51):
guess it is possible the rapture did happen and that
we all did not get raptured and we have not
yet faced judgment. Or maybe we're all in purgatory, so like,
if that's the case, welcome to the world's first purgatory podcast.

Speaker 2 (02:07):
That's possible. Maybe zero humans made the cut. Maybe Jesus
took a look around. It was just like, nah, you all,
y'all just got to stay here. Sorry, I came, I'm leaving.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Good luck. Honestly, I was looking forward to it. I
was ready for this all to be over. I was like,
I'm ready for what's next. Bring it on, you know.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
I was really rooting for all the evangelicals who thought
that they were going to get raptured, to get raptured,
like they give what they want. I feel like we
could adapt without.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
Them down here.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
But we're all still here together. We all still have
to make our way in this earthly plane together.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
Well, so we get into some of the stories that
folks might have missed on the Internet this week.

Speaker 2 (02:58):
I mean, we're still here, Yes, we have no choice.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Also, just FYI, if the rapture comes, there are no
girls on the internet. We published Tuesdays and Fridays. Come
hell or high water, we will have internet takes for you.
The Tangoti team will be putting on episodes regardless. So
if if that day does come, it doesn't sound like
it was it actually happened on the twenty fourth, But
if it does come, you can rest assured we will

(03:23):
have Internet takes for you still. Even if the rapture.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Happens, bet's'll be some really funny takes on Blue Sky
when it happens.

Speaker 1 (03:31):
Oh God, I can't wait for the takes. The rapture takes.
So we told you about the website and app that
sprang up in the aftermath of the death of Charlie
Kirk that was really a place for Charlie Kirk fans
to dot people who they deemed as not being mournful
enough of Kirk's death. Well, according to Straight Arrow News,
that site is now exposing the personal data of the

(03:54):
people making those submissions. So initially the site was called
Charlie's Murderers dot Com and quickly rebranded to Cancel the Hate,
and they launched in the wake of kirks assassination at
September tenth. The website says, Cancel the Hate aims to
quote hold individuals accountable for their public words and calls
on users to express concern by submitting intel on alleged offenders,

(04:17):
including their names, locations, and employers. For some reason, they're
really interested in targeting medical professionals. The system of Straight aerownews.
Cancel the Hate highlights that particular interest in medical professionals
whose conduct could endanger patients, the website says, as well
as public officials, business owners, entertainers, influencers, teachers, and educational administrators.

Speaker 2 (04:41):
That is pretty curious, and I think we can only
speculate why. But we know that these people love to
target doctors who are associated with providing abortions or reproductive care,
or providing gender affirming care. So, you know, one can

(05:01):
only guess why they would have this special interest in
medical professionals. But you know, one hypothesis could be that
this whole enterprise is mainly interested in collecting data that
they can then use to target people that they don't like,
and if so, medical professionals are pretty high on that

(05:22):
list for them, so that could make some sense.

Speaker 1 (05:25):
Oh well, just listen. If you're thinking this whole thing
as some sort of enterprise to collect data and maybe
not be super careful with that data, just listen. So,
according to Straight Arrow News, Cancel the Hate says users
who submit data on others will not have their personal
details made public. However, they later then launched a social
media style app that was launched alongside the website that

(05:48):
appears to have been exposing exactly that. According to Straight
Arrow News, a flaw in the app, discovered by a
security researcher who goes by Bob de Hacker, enabled an
exposure of user information such as email addresses and phone numbers,
So it sounds like just by default, the people turning
in others on this app have their email addresses publicly

(06:08):
listed in their bio, which is pretty unusual, and that
even if they did change their privacy settings to turn
that off, their email addresses were still exposed. So straight
Arrownews set up a test account on the app, and
then this researcher, Bob de Hacker, was able to provide
straight arrownews with a sample of data from one hundred
and forty two users, which included that test account that

(06:29):
they had started, so it does seem to prove that yes,
that data was accessible. Bob de Hacker also demonstrated how
the security flaw allowed them to remove users by deleting
straight arrownews as test account. So straight Arrownews then reached
out to a user who was listed in this leaked data,
and that person confirmed that they had in fact downloaded

(06:51):
this Canceled the Hate Charlie Kirk app. That user, who
did ask to remain anonymous over fears of retribution, expressed
concerns that Canceled Hate might be a quote scam. After
receiving an influx of donation requests, to their email. That
really goes back to what we talked about in our
episodes about the tea app, that these sites or these

(07:14):
apps that pop up very quickly to take advantage of
a certain kind of culture war or social or political climate,
they kind of have to cut quarters in order to
kind of go to market with the quickness to take
advantage of the moment that everybody is talking about. And
because they're cutting those corners, they are putting things like

(07:36):
I don't know the privacy of their users at risk
just so they could take advantage of that cultural moment.
I really feel like this is so similar to exactly
what we saw with the t app.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
I agree, it does sound very similar. I feel bad
for this user that the News network reached out to,
who you know, expressed concern and thought that maybe it
could be a scam. And it's like, honey, if you
think this is a scam, just like expand your scope
a little bit.

Speaker 1 (08:04):
The whole thing is a scam. Yeah, the entire thing
is a scam. And genuinely, in our episode about Charlie Kirk,
I went to this website myself and I kind of
can't believe anybody would put their information into it, but
I do feel like it gives a kind of a
false sense of security because the whole website is like, oh,

(08:28):
you're the one who's reporting others. You are giving, you
are providing the information of others so that they will
be that so that they will have their security put
at risk. I think that something about that dynamic creates
a false sense of security where they're certainly not going
to put my information at risk. I'm the one that's
meant to be putting others information at risk.

Speaker 2 (08:48):
I hate to give these people the benefit of the doubt,
but you know, the people who are doxing others for
being insufficiently mournful, But I do feel bad for them
because this whole enterprise, this website has the trappings of
an organizing endeavor where we're all in this together, run

(09:09):
the same team. Guys, we're trying to punish these libs
who are celebrating Charlie Kirk's death. I guess I think
that was kind of the gist of what they were
going for. That's right, But you know, in in like
a real organizing effort where you were you know, someone
is truly in good faith trying to organize their community,

(09:29):
taking care of people in the community is a big
part of it, and that's just not present here at all,
like pretty clearly, like not only did they not have
their security buttoned up to allow information to be unintentionally
accessed by Bob the hacker, but by the fall people's

(09:51):
email address was exposed. Like that is just not even
taking the first step to protect the people who you
are trying to ostensibly organize and recruit into this collective effort.
And I again I feel bad for the users who
were trying to use this thing in good faith, I guess.

(10:14):
But you know, to someone like myself who views this
whole enterprise as just like a right wing scam to
collect data and like punish the Libs and achieve power,
it is completely not surprising that they would build this
in a way that does not respect or protect their

(10:35):
users at all.

Speaker 1 (10:37):
Oh no, I mean to be super clear, in my opinion,
no one is submitting the names of someone else to
because they were they deemed them as insufficiently mournful in
good faith. So I don't think that anybody going to
this website and submitting the name of somebody else is
doing so in good faith. However, this is just my
blanket warning these websites that spring up to take advantage

(10:59):
of some sort of a hot button social or political
or cultural moment. Nobody should trust enterprises like that. I
think that we should be a lot more careful about
where we put our personal information and who we trust
and what organizations we trust with that information. But a
website that sprang up within twelve hours, certainly that is

(11:19):
going to be a website that is cutting quarters because
they care more about seizing on that hot cultural moment
than they do about caring for the data or the
privacy of their users. Just bottom line, And when you
go to cancel theehete dot com right now the website
is down, it says changes are coming, please check back

(11:39):
soon for the new service provider. And I think that
really says a lot that this happened. They were like, oh,
we got to take this down. I don't think that
websites like this really give a shit about anybody. They
give a shit about money, They give a shit about
harnessing people's data and potentially exploiting that data or misusing
that data. And I mean I at the kind of
person that is trying to submit other people's information because

(12:05):
they deem them being insufficiently mournful of Charlie Kirk. That
is not the kind of person I think is operating
in good faith. However, everybody should be aware and have
just a general awareness of the fact that these kinds
of organizations and these kinds of sites are not anybody's friend.
They're the only person they are looking out for is themselves.
And I don't know, maybe it sounds weird to tell

(12:26):
to give that kind of a warning to the kind
of people who would be gleefully submitting other people to
be docs to a website like this, And maybe it's
it's turnabout is fair play, But I don't think it
makes our internet landscape any better when these kinds of
operations are able to pop up so quickly, and people
are are so caught up in the moment of retribution

(12:49):
to others that they will give their information so willy
nilly too bad actors, Yeah, I agree.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
I think everybody would be well served by everyone across
the political spectrum being more wary and skeptical just in general.

Speaker 3 (13:11):
Let's take a quick break at our back.

Speaker 1 (13:25):
Okay, speaking of bad actors, I have to talk about
this Guardian report because it made me sick. So, according
to The Guardian, Meta used back to school pictures of
schoolgirls to advertise one of its social media platforms to
at least one thirty seven year old grown man. That
man who ended up reporting these posts first noticed these posts,

(13:47):
encouraging him to get threads were being dropped into his
Instagram feed and embedding posts that included images of little
girls as young as thirteen years old with their faces visible,
wearing school uniforms, and in a lot of cases, included
their names. How did Meta get images of these school girls? Well,
well meaning parents posted them as part of those classics

(14:10):
sort of back to school pictures that you probably see
all over social media during this time of year. Do
you know the photos I'm talking about? Sometimes sometimes the
kill will be holding a sign that says where they
go to school and their teacher's name, or it's it's
a picture of like kids lined up on the stoop
of their house ready to go to school in a
school's uniform. You know what I'm talking about?

Speaker 2 (14:29):
Yeah, of course those are classic photos. I have seen
a lot of them in private group chats that I'm
part of, from like family or friends where their kid
is going off to like first day of kindergarten or
first day of third grade or whatever.

Speaker 1 (14:43):
Well, I have seen those photos too, and when I
was putting together my thoughts about this part of the episode,
I was going to say, oh, well, no parent should
be posting those back to school pictures. If you want
to share them with people, they should be shared in
a group chat. I will own that I myself and
my a parent. Yet I do have pretty strong feelings
about you know, how parents should be posting their kids

(15:06):
on social media, which is not at all I think
that when you're posting those kinds of pictures, they should
be for, as you said, private group chats, private groups
of friends and family. When I was putting my thoughts together,
I do feel Look, I just want to say, even
though for safety's sake, I still think that is the case,
particularly when you when you look at the story that

(15:27):
we're talking about right now. However, I do think that
parents should be able to post totally normal pictures of
their kids on social media without worrying those pictures are
going to be used by meta in completely inappropriate ways.
I don't want to. I am very wary of not
wanting to sort of blame the victim because we should

(15:49):
have an Internet landscape where parents can can post totally
commonplace pictures of their kids and it's not going to
be used by anybody, not creeps and certainly not corporations
like Facebook. But unfortunately that is just not the reality
that we live in, especially when you look at what's
going on in this story, because according to the Guardian,

(16:11):
the parents were completely unaware that Meta's settings when they
uploaded these photos permitted Meta to surface these images of
their of their minor children thirteen year olds in schoolgirl
out that's going to school, two grown men in an
attempt to entice these grown men into downloading threads. One
mother said her account was set to private, but the

(16:33):
posts were automatically cross posting to threads where they were visible.
Another said she posted the picture to a public Instagram account.
The posts of their children were highlighted to the stranger
as quote suggested threads Now. Parents understandably felt like these
images were sort of being framed by Meta in a

(16:53):
way that was sort of sexually provocative. The father of
a thirteen year old who'd appeared in one of these
posts said it was a absolutely outrageous because there were
images of schoolgirls in short skirts with bare legs or stockings.
He said. Quote. When I found out an image of
her had been exploited in what felt like a sexualized
way by a massive company like that to market their product,

(17:14):
it left me feeling quite disgusted. So here's what Meta
said happened. It said that it recommended people to visit
threads by showing them publicly shared photos that comply with
its community standards and recommendation guidelines. Meta says that at
systems do not recommend threads shared by teenagers or miners,
but because the images of the miners were actually posted

(17:37):
on their parents' Instagram accounts, according to Meta, that made
them fair game to be used in this way.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
What a disgusting take, like Meta, over and over they
just demonstrate to us how little regard they have for
their users for decency of any kind. Like it's just
a disgusting They are a disgusting company who will use
technicalities to take parents photos of their kids and use

(18:08):
that to market their products towards creeps. What disgusting people.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
A spokesperson for Meta told The Guardian pretty much exactly
what you just described. They didn't say, they didn't even
acknowledge that this was inappropriate or even like there wasn't
even an oh our bed, this was our We had
a blind spot here, they said. Quote the images shared
do not violate our policies and our back to school
photos posted publicly by parents. We have systems in place

(18:36):
to make sure that we don't recommend thread shared by
teens or that go against our recommendation guidelines, and users
can control whether Meta suggests their public posts on Instagram.
So to me, that statement is really blaming the parent.
It's like, well, you posted a back to school picture
of your thirteen year old with bare legs that said
her full name and where she went to school, and

(18:56):
you posted it publicly on our platform, So if you
didn't want it to be shown to a thirty seven
year old stranger, you shouldn't have done that. It's their
statement completely blames the parents and doesn't even give a
nod to the fact that, Okay, yes, perhaps you have
guardrails in place that are not surfacing the accounts of
minors in this way, but you know that parents post

(19:18):
these kinds of back to school pictures like not even
a nod to the fact that maybe this is less
than ideal.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
That's exactly right. It's completely blaming the parents, and most
perversely implicit in this whole argument is the idea that
the parents knew that this would happen, and when they
posted the photos, were consenting to allow this to happen.
So Meta's position here is that these parents wanted the
photos of their children to be served up in this

(19:46):
sexualized way. It's so disingenuous and it so betrays the
complete lack of even basic care and concern that Meta
has for their users.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
Yes, and listen to this, because one parent, who is
clearly not buying what Meta is selling here, really points
out that when you look at how her normal content
performs on her kind of modest Instagram page, and when
you look at how this content of her daughter, her
minor daughters back to the school picture performed, clearly Meta
there's something going on here. So the Guardian reports the

(20:21):
one parent who unwittingly posted the image of her kid
said that the image performed much better than her typical content,
with two hundred and sixty seven followers. Her Instagram account
usually had modest reach, but the post of her child
attracts it nearly seven thousand views, ninety percent from non followers,
half of whom were over the age of forty four,
and ninety percent of whom were men. So she's not

(20:44):
in charge of Instagram's algorithm. She's not in charge of
determining who her images are shown to and surface to
in Instagram's algorithm. The fact that her content generally does
not get seven thousand views, is not shown to ninety
percent people that she doesn't know, strangers, non followers, and
is not generally shown to the majority men who are

(21:08):
over forty four years of age. Clearly Facebook is determining this.
So to your point that Facebook is saying, oh, well,
the parents wanted their images of their thirteen year old
daughter in a school uniform doing back to school to
be shown to these to tell you, a bunch of
forty year old men, Facebook is doing that. The parents

(21:30):
aren't doing that.

Speaker 2 (21:31):
Facebook is doing that one hundred percent. That's exactly. That's
a perfect way to describe it. Facebook is doing that.
The parents aren't doing that. Facebook is doing that. They
can point to whatever policies they have and say like, oh,
this doesn't violate this or that policy, but Facebook is
choosing to do that.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
Another mom who said that a picture of her thirteen
year old was used in promotional posts said quote medaged
all of this on purpose, not informing us as they
want to generate content. It's despicable and who is responsible
for creating threads ads using children's photos to promote the
platform for older men At every opportunity. Meta privileges profit

(22:12):
over safety and company growth over children's right to privacy.
It is the only reason that they could think it
is appropriate to send pictures of schoolgirls to a thirty
seven year old man es bait. Meta is a willfully
careless company. Yes, I totally agree with this mom.

Speaker 2 (22:29):
This story like really has my blood boiling. Like we
talk about how shitty Meta is all the time, and
they are a very bad company that has done very
bad things causing much more severe harm.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
Than this particular story.

Speaker 2 (22:43):
But something about the fact that they are taking these parents'
photos of their children. These parents are like proud of
their children who are going to back to school. It's
like a sweet thing and using it in this twisted
way and then not even acknowledging that there's anything wrong
with that just might windy word for like most disgusting

(23:03):
thing we've covered Meta doing on this show, and there
have been a lot.

Speaker 1 (23:08):
Yeah, and it's interesting to me that it's happening on Threads.
I am on threads because I am I don't really
use X anymore, and Threads is where I sort of
scratch that ex Twitter itch and I have a few
times now encountered these Threads accounts where every post on
this account is a video as a very young girl,

(23:30):
and the girls are fully closed, but they are doing
things like, oh, they're wearing a skirt and doing a cartwheel,
or they're stretching in a kind of way. And as
somebody that's been in a lot of these spaces, to me,
I'm like, oh, this is a child. This is an
account that is trying to skirt a line when it
comes to child exploitation. And so I have whenever I

(23:53):
have personally reported a handful of these accounts many times
and they never get taken down. And I don't know,
maybe I'm seeing something that's not there, or I'm being approved,
but you just you just know when an account is
doing something that they that's that's not cool, that's not good,
like you just you just can tell. And when I

(24:14):
see these accounts, I can tell this is an account
that is not on the level and the fact that
I keep reporting it and that I keep seeing it
it's not it's not being taken down really concerns me.
And I guess I just I think I made this
point before, but the fact that all of this is
happening against a backdroper. We're all being told that as

(24:35):
adults who are trying to navigate the Internet, the Internet
needs to be restricted in xyz very oppressive ways so
that children can be kept safe. Meanwhile, the biggest social
media platforms on the planet can do stuff like this
and get away with it, and even when they're they're
asked about it can blame the parents. Boils my blood.

(24:56):
So I am right there with you, Mike. It is
some just really descipicable stuff that I think really shows
how far we have come to genuinely giving a shit
about keeping kids safe online.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Well, and stay with this account that you talked about
that is keeps posting this material that is like exploitative
of children, but that doesn't violate any explicit policies because
the children are wearing clothes, Thanks fucking god.

Speaker 1 (25:26):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
It's interesting to juxtapose that against COVID misinformation and electoral misinformation,
where there's you know, this debate that has been happening
about whether platforms should restrict it or not, and even
setting aside the merits of that, it at least makes
sense to me that there is a powerful constituency of

(25:50):
right wing people who want that information to exist on
the Internet, and therefore it it does. But when we
think about this of like wink and nod clothes but
provocative child exploitation material, who is the constituency for that.

(26:11):
It's not like there's some powerful representatives or like Senate
committees demanding that Meta keep this on their platform.

Speaker 1 (26:18):
They're doing that for them.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
They're doing that to keep selling their product, to keep
getting engagement, to keep selling ads.

Speaker 1 (26:27):
And it's despicable. It's despicable. I mean, that's what these
parents are calling out. And when you look at the
way that Mark Zuckerberg talks about some of their other products,
like AI chatbots, he has been very explicitly vocal we
got to pump the gas a little bit if you
want to gab people be staying engaged on our on
our platform and stay engaged in our bots. That's why

(26:48):
they ended up having that internal document that said that
it was totally aoka if their bots had sensual role
play with minors.

Speaker 2 (26:57):
Yeah, one does have to wonder how far Meta can
take this thing before there is some sort of accountability,
because it does seem like every other week we're talking
about something that Meta has done where they are using
I want to be careful with my words, but like
material that is in some way exploitative of children to

(27:19):
sell their product that I don't think anybody thinks is okay.
And you know, they get away with it because they
are so powerful. But at some point, I don't know
they are not going to be able to get away
with it.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
I hope.

Speaker 2 (27:34):
I don't know what that point looks like, and I
hope that they pull back weigh the hell ahead of
that point. Well, speaking of accountability really quickly, did you
know that YouTube, owned by Google, back in twenty twenty,
they kicked some people off of their platform for things
like spreading covidness information or twenty twenty elections nihilism, While

(27:55):
Variety reports that a lawyer for Alphabet, the parent company
of YouTube, is essentially starting a program to welcome those
creators back. According to this report, they said that the
Biden administration pressured YouTube into cracking down on content that
was election or COVID misinformation. This is according to a

(28:17):
statement of facts from Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube
and Google, which they said in response to subpoenas from
the House Judiciary Committee, shared by Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio.
The letter reads, YouTube's community.

Speaker 1 (28:31):
Guidelines allow for a wider range of content regarding COVID
nineteen and election integrity, reflecting the company's commitment to free expression.
YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin
the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated
violations of COVID nineteen and elections integrity policies that are
no longer in effect. YouTube values conservative voices on its

(28:54):
platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and
play an important role in civic discourse. The company recognizes
that these creators are among those shaping today's online consumption.
Landing must watch interviews, giving viewers a chance to hear
directly from politicians, celebrities, business leaders, and more so. If
you were kicked off of YouTube for COVID misinformation or

(29:16):
election denihilism in twenty twenty, welcome back. Although guests who
tried to sneak in under that. I was like, Oh,
they're letting people back, guests who tried to sneak their
way back in, and YouTube was like, ah ah not
you can you guess? Oh this is not in the notes.
I'm so excited.

Speaker 2 (29:33):
There's two people I don't know what. Who are the
two people who might have Who are the two people
who tried to sneak back in here?

Speaker 1 (29:41):
Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. YouTube was like, we will listen.
If you are a fucking degenerate scumbag who is profiting
off of harmful, dangerous lies. Welcome aboard, Alex Jones and
Nick Fuentez. Not you not so fast? Good?

Speaker 2 (30:00):
At least they have some standards. Okay, good, keep those
assholes the hell out.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
So they are welcoming back COVID misinformation spreaders and election
deniers back to their platform. But guess what is also
on their platform? You are not going to be able
to guess. Let me just tell you hyper realistic AI
generated videos of women being shot in the head. Oh
my god. So we talked earlier this summer about how

(30:29):
some folks were using Google's new AI video content generation
tool VO three to make very racist AI generated videos
of black women as gorillas that flooded TikTok this summer,
and now there is an entire YouTube channel of just
ai generated videos a women being shot in the head.
The channel named I Gotta Say aptly named woman shot

(30:54):
Ai started on June twentieth of this year. It posted
twenty seven videos and had one thousand subscribers, and it
had more than one hundred and seventy five thousand views
according to the channel's publicly available data. Now major shout
out to four or four media for not only breaking
this story, but also being the ones who had this

(31:14):
channel taken down, because when four o four reached out
to YouTube, YouTube took this channel down. A YouTube spokesperson
told four four that it terminated the channel for violating
its terms of service and specifically for operating a YouTube
channel following a previous termination, meaning that this was not
the first time that YouTube had to remove the person

(31:34):
operating woman shot AI from the platform. This channel is
just gruesome. Four or four reports that all of the
videos posted by this channel all follow the exact same formula.
It is a nearly photo realistic video that shows a
woman begging for her life while a man with a
gun looms over her and then shoots her. Some of

(31:55):
the videos, they say, have different themes, like compilation of
video game characters like lower Croft being shot or quote
Japanese schoolgirls being shot in breast, or sexy housewife shot
in breast, female reporter tragic end and Russian soldiers shooting
women with Ukrainian flags on their chests. They even have

(32:17):
a poll where viewers can ask what kind of women
they want to see be shot next, an Asian woman
or even a black woman who they describe with the
N word. How sharing This is truly when people talk
about AI being the lynchpin of our global economy, this
is the kind of content they're talking about.

Speaker 2 (32:38):
Yeah, they're like poisoning entire cities in Tennessee so that
we can have this content.

Speaker 1 (32:44):
My god, this is horrific. It's horrific. What's also well
to me is that four or four points out whoever
is running this account also goes on YouTube and complains
about the costs. This person said quote the AII use
is paid per count. I have to spend around three
hundred dollars per month, even though one account can only

(33:06):
generate an eight second video three times. The channel's owner
wrote on a public post on YouTube. So imagine how
many times I generate a video once I upload. I
just want to say that every time I upload a
compilation consisting of several eight second clips, it is not
enough for just one account. I have to spend quite
a lot of money just to have fun.

Speaker 2 (33:26):
They said, Oh, this poor guy. Wow, he's just trying
to do this community service of creating this art for
the world to enjoy.

Speaker 1 (33:35):
I almost sort of it's almost comical that it's like, oh,
I am making this despicable AI content and consider the
cost to me. So all of this obviously goes against
Google's policies, but that has not stopped their tool from
being used this way. Four or four are actually reached
out to Google, who said, our gen AI tools are

(33:57):
built to follow the prompts a user provides. We have
policies around their use that we worked to enforced, and
the tools continually get better at reflecting these policies. So
that really says nothing. That doesn't say anything at all.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting that Google is on both
sides of this, because it sounds like Google is kind
of implicitly acknowledging that their AI tools were used to
generate this video.

Speaker 1 (34:23):
Well, the videos have the Google vo three watermark, so
I don't think it's in distribute that that tool is
the tool that it's being used to create these.

Speaker 2 (34:32):
I guess if I had to choose where they were
gonna put their resources to prevent this content, it would
be on the platform, right, Like the fact that their
tool created this and they're saying like, oh, well, our
tool just follows the prompts that people give it. Okay,
I guess, but it feels to me like the responsibility

(34:53):
they have for their platform, YouTube, which then surfaces these
videos to mass numbers of people around the world, is
much greater, right, Like, they have a much bigger responsibility
there on their platforms to prevent this kind of content.
And the fact that four h four had to reach
out to them for them to take it down. At
least they did take it down. They didn't take the

(35:14):
path of meta and be like, this.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
Is fine, this is what people wanted. Women. Actually, if
they don't want to be shot in the head, they
really shouldn't be reporting the news out in public.

Speaker 2 (35:26):
More.

Speaker 1 (35:26):
After a quick break, let's get right back into it, Okay,
So I wanted to quickly talk about this Apple TV
show that was pulled, so the actress Jessica Chastain. Her

(35:51):
new show This Thought about homegrown extremist terrorism in the
United States, was meant to be released today Friday. However,
Apple TV pulled the show only days before it was
due to be released, and Jessica Chastain unsurprisingly is not
Happyestain is also a producer on the show, and she
put out a statement saying, we are not aligned on

(36:13):
the decision to pause the release of The Savant. So
the Apple TV show The Savant that was pulled was
inspired by a true story, as reported by Cosmopolitan, in
which Chestain plays an anti extremism operative who infiltrates white
supremacist forums online to prevent explosive acts of violence. Chestain

(36:33):
was not only an actor in this show, she was
also a producer, and unsurprisingly, she was not happy that
this show was pulled only days before it was meant
to premiere. In a statement, she said, these incidents, though
far from encompassing the full range of violence witness in
the United States, illustrate a broader mindset that crosses the
political spectrum and must be confronted. I've never shied away

(36:56):
from difficult subjects, and while I wish this show wasn't relevant,
unfortunately it is. The Savant is about the heroes who
work every day to stop violence before it happens, and
honoring their courage feels more urgent than ever. So I
was really when I saw this story, I was really
curious what was going on. It's pretty unusual to pull

(37:16):
a show that has already done and like ready to
go the days before it's meant to premiere, and Vulture
reported that Apple might have pulled the plug because they
felt cold feet about the climate that we're in currently,
just realistically, where Trump is suing CBS News successfully and
tried to sue The New York Times for billions of dollars,
and as FCC is pressuring media companies about their hiring

(37:39):
and firing decisions. Vulture writes, it's not a huge leap
to think that Apple TV plus about to release a
show that deals with political flashpoints and fighting white supremacism
might be wary of releasing it, especially if it wants
to stay on Trump's good side. Whenever the President opens
up Trude Social or announced as the next tariff. Apple
TV plus has not commented on the release of the

(38:00):
sabat beyond its confirmation that the show was postponed.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
It is sad and also not hugely surprising that Apple
TV would think twice and be concerned that just airing
this show that addresses the existence of white supremacist violence
might attract the ire of the Trump administration, given how

(38:28):
aggressively the administration has just gone after critics in all areas,
especially in media. Yeah, it's scary, but not surprising. I
don't know, we almost like need a word for that.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
Yeah, I agree, But Jessica Chastain is right. I cannot
imagine a show that is more prescient and of the
moment than a show that is about homegrown extremism. We
talked about this in our last news roundup that according
to the Department which Justice, when it comes to homegrown terror,
right wing homegrown extremism is the biggest bucket. The Department

(39:07):
of Justice did scrub that study from their site, but
that doesn't make it any less true. And I think
Jessica Chastain is right that if I were Apple, I
would want to be telling stories right now that are
about this moment, and whether we like it or not,
this is a story that's about the moment. Yeah, absolutely
it is.

Speaker 2 (39:26):
I mean, I totally agree that there couldn't be anything
more relevant to the moment, and I hope that Apple
publishes this.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
I haven't even seen this show.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
And also I sort of resent that, like here we
are being asked to weigh in about like this show
that we haven't even seen. It could be a bad show,
We don't know. It could be a good show, but
it's just like being dragged into this like us versus
them discourse to the Trump administration is so good at

(39:59):
promoting it does drive me up a wall that they
just are able to with their threats and their lawsuits
bully so many people, including enormous media companies that have
the resources to resist it and really should be resisting it,

(40:24):
but just like bully them into promoting this fictional worldview
that aligns with how they want the world to be
that is just a step away from where we actually are.

Speaker 1 (40:40):
Yes, and you really said it. I obviously have not
seen this series. But what's obnoxious in addition to the
idea that these platforms and big organizations that might be
caving to the Trump administration, if that's what's going on,
it forces you to root for content and people and
stories that you have not even seen. You're You're like, like,

(41:01):
I feel like I have to be like, well, I
need we need the we need this story now more
than ever. I haven't even seen it.

Speaker 3 (41:08):
It.

Speaker 1 (41:08):
People who don't want this kind of content to get
lots of eyeballs. If anything, they should want this content
to be seen so that people can judge it on
its actual merits. When you don't let people see it
and don't let people actually make up their own mind
about it and judge it by their merits, it kind
of martyrs the content unfairly. We were talking about this

(41:32):
with the Jimmy Kimmel thing. I mean, we did a
whole episode about Jimmy Kimmel. I have not I can't tell.
I mean, I don't think I've ever uttered the words.
We have to watch Jimmy Kimmel tonight. But Trump Trump's
FCC taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air. I was like,
and we live, we live in DC. It's they weren't
playing it. Our ur Sinclair local affiliate was not playing it.

(41:54):
When I went to turn on the channel where Jimmy
Kimmel's show was meant to be, it was a very
it happened to be a very flattering news prodcast about Trump,
which no surprise there, Trump and I are watching the
same ABC affiliate. But I don't. I don't want to
watch Jimmy Kimmel's show. The fact that they were making
me defended and making me curious to see what they
have to say, that's really the big travesty here. Yeah,

(42:18):
it's nuts. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (42:19):
I felt the same way as like, it's my patriotic
duty to watch Jimmy Kimmel's monologue. What like I'm He's
been on the air for twenty three years. That shocked
me when I learned that. I don't think I've ever
watched his monologue ever. But I was like, I must
this as an American, it is my duty to like
protect freedom of speech by watching this monologue, even though

(42:42):
Sinclair Broadcasting is trying to prevent me. Specifically because they're
trying to prevent.

Speaker 1 (42:47):
Me, that's exactly the thing. I was like, like, Oh,
gotta go to the VPN, like how like, how are
we gonna watch this? The fact that they were the
fact that some corporate interest was making it hard for
me to watch it, I was like, oh, no, I
have to watch it, even though I have never voluntarily
or willingly watched a Jimmy Kimmel show in my life.

Speaker 2 (43:06):
It's just one more way that everything is upside down
and insane right now. It's like hard to keep one's head.

Speaker 1 (43:15):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (43:15):
I don't know, rooted, grounded. We're all just trying to
get by. I don't even know where I'm going with this,
but I guess I guess I'm watching Jimmy Kimmel now.

Speaker 1 (43:28):
Maybe maybe the rapture did happen and this is purgatory.
I have thought that several times. Maybe we all did die.
Something happened and we're all just that's why things feel
so weird right now, because this is purgatory.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
Oh my god, I think you're right. And Jimmy Kimmel
is on every night. We all have to watch him.
It is our duty. We're required to watch Jimmy Kimmel
because it is purgatory.

Speaker 1 (43:54):
Okay. When I was scrolling the news for not negative
stories to talk about, I found one story courtesy of
Matthew gall at four or four Media. Shout out to them,
because I feel like we would not be able to
do any kind of a podcast if not for four
or four we are subscribers to become a subscriber. We
love them, but they published a story that I feel

(44:15):
was made in a lab for me. We have talked
about stories where I feel like they were made in
a lab specifically to make me mad. This might be
the first story that I feel was made in a
lab specifically to pique my interests. Will you allow me this?

Speaker 2 (44:31):
Oh uh, it's a little unorthodox, but proceed.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
This is me doing my best snl Steffon. This story
has everything reddit drama. Yes please about a David Lynch subreddit?
Yes please?

Speaker 2 (44:44):
That is very sorry, Bridget this is not a gay
enough to the fawn. I'm gonna need you to step
it up a little bit.

Speaker 1 (44:50):
Oh, this is a story about Reddit drama. Yes please
about a David Lynch subreddit. Yes please? That is revolting
because of rules around AI content. Give it to me,
inject it right onto my goddamn danes. So the moderators
at the subreddit for the David Lynch show that originally
aired in the nineties, Twin Peak, started allowing AI content. Mike,

(45:13):
did you watch twin Peaks?

Speaker 2 (45:15):
I did not watch it when it originally aired, but
I have watched it three times from beginning to end
as like a rewatch, and I love it. It was
a great show that second season, you know, halfway through
when they got rid of David Lynch, it kind of
took a turn and like we could do without the
chess playing subplot, but like it is a great show.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
I could go on and on about Twin Peaks. Love it.
It is great. It is great, And so I will say,
people who like David Lynch, like myself.

Speaker 2 (45:50):
We are.

Speaker 1 (45:52):
We are weird bunch. I guess saw this put it
that way, like we're a particular bunch David. People who
like David Lynch, David Lynch fans, we really like David Lynch.
So when the subreddit for the David Lynch show Twin
Peaks started allowing AI content in protest, these like very
very dedicated David Lynch fans started flooding the subreddit with

(46:14):
AI generated Twin Peaks slop. We'll put some of them
in the show notes, but they are I almost like them.
They're so strange. And there are such strange pieces of
AI slop content about a piece of media that was
already strange in its own way that I almost sort

(46:36):
of am Michael. This is art all kind.

Speaker 2 (46:39):
Of okay, well, we're going in a different direction out
but like, yeah, that does sound interesting now I kind
of want to see them.

Speaker 1 (46:45):
We'll put some of them in the show notes. But
so the big question here is did David Lynch fuck
with AI. It's a little bit in dispute. After Lynch
died this year, a few interviews and clips and things
resurface that kind of made it sound like David Lynch
liked AI, and people really ran with this to make

(47:05):
the late David Lynch the mascot for AI art and
pro AI sentiments in art, which to me is creepy.
Because David Lynch has passed away, he is not around
to weigh in or say whether or not he actually
genuinely likes this, whether or not these comments were, you know,
aligned with how he actually feels. Yeah, I do agree

(47:28):
with you there.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
I think it is messed up to use a dead
person in like an activist way to advocate for like
a new technology that doesn't feel right, that does not
feel like honoring a legacy, that feels like expropriating, especially a.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
New technology that so many creatives and artists have been
really clear about the fact exploits their work, steals their
work without credit or compensation. I just don't feel great
about this, and one of the people who has kind
of done this is Natasha Leone, who I love. In
a Vulture piece, they described Natasha Leone, who herself was

(48:05):
working on an AIFILM production company with her partner, filmmaker
and entrepreneur Brian Moser. Folks might recall that Natasha Leone
was sort of called out for this, but then she
said that this project is sort of meant to be
a more ethical AI creative project because they say that
all of their AI is trained on content that creatives
consented to be used in this way. So this Vulture

(48:29):
piece says that not long ago, Natasha Leone had an
opportunity to speak with David Lynch, one of the giants
of a previous generation of filmmakers and an early convert
to digital cameras. Before he died, Lynch had been Natasha
Leone's neighbor. One day last year, Natasha Leone asked David
Lynch for his thoughts on AI. She says that Lynch
picked up a pencil and said, Natasha, this is a pencil.

(48:52):
Everyone has access to a pencil, and likewise, everyone with
a phone will be using AI if they are not already.
It's how you use the pencil, he told her. You see, Yeah, we've.

Speaker 2 (49:04):
Had other guests on the show who've made a similar argument,
you know, making the analogy that AI is like drum
machines or synthesizers, and that it's just a tool for
making art and that real artists will take it and
run with it and use it to create great art.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that, or at least I maybe

(49:25):
was more so in the past. But we've also heard
from people on this show who say that that that
analogy is deceptive because you don't need to rip off
artists to build a drum machine or a synthesizer, and
that actually that analogy is like oversimplifying in a way
that really biases towards AI in a way that is
not great. And so some of those people are you

(49:48):
that AI is an inherently parasitic technology and that there
is no ethical way to use it for art or
anything else. Yeah, it's kind of complicated, and you know,
I could see people coming down on one side or
the other of it. But again, it feels a little
weird to be invoking a dead man on one side

(50:11):
of the argument.

Speaker 1 (50:12):
Yes, you know, I love Natasha Leone, but I'm a cheerleader.
Is like queer cinema cannon. However, if you were asking
for just Bridget's old opinion on this, I do think
Natasha Leone is being a little bit self serving here.
I think that when she got some heat for this

(50:33):
AI production company that she's doing with her partner, I
think that quoting David Lynch conveniently after he was no
longer alive to push back right off for any context,
was a way to add a little bit of indie
street cred to this project that she was otherwise being
criticized for. I do think that's a little bit of

(50:53):
what's going on. And I think the fact that David
Lynch has become kind of this pro AI in art
math caught in Death is concerning for me. Full four
reports that an image in a pro AI art subreddit
depicts Lynch wearing an open AI T shirt and pointing
at us the viewer, saying, you can't be punk and

(51:15):
also be anti AI, AI phobic or an AI denier.
It's impossible.

Speaker 2 (51:21):
Nothing like somebody in an open AI T shirt telling
me what isn't isn't punk?

Speaker 1 (51:26):
Yeah, I don't like it. No, that's kind of gross.
So in any event, the twin Peaks subreddit moderator posted
an announcement this week that opened the doors to AI
in the subreddit. So in a now delated post titled
AI generated Content on our twin Peaks, the moderator outlines

(51:47):
the position that the sub was a place for everyone
to share memes, theories, and anything remotely creative as long
as it has loose strings to the show or in
this case, its themes. AI generated content is included in
all of this. We are aware of how AI art
and AI generated content can hurt real artists. The post said, Unfortunately,
this is just the reality of the world we live

(52:07):
in today, and at this point, I don't think anything
can stop the AI train from coming. It's here the
soul in the beginning. AI content is becoming harder and
harder to identify. They also asked folks in the sub
to be cool. They said, there's gonna be an honor
system where if you if you post AI content, you've
got to label it so you know this moderator said,

(52:29):
you can't stop the AI train from coming. Guests who
could stop the AI train from coming in this David
Lynch subreddit? Uh, can you guess?

Speaker 2 (52:40):
Was it the subredditors themselves?

Speaker 1 (52:42):
It was the subredditors themselves. I know that you love
acts of malicious compliance. I almost think this was a
kind of malicious compliance issue.

Speaker 2 (52:51):
Oh my god, I love Reddit so much. I love
the community on Reddit. Like everybody is so like petty
and shitty and mean, but in like a really creative way.
It's It's like perfect for me. It is where I
want to be on the internet is I know Reddit
has had problems in the past couple of years, and
I could certainly complain about things, but the community on

(53:12):
Reddit is like what the Internet is when it is
at its best in my opinion.

Speaker 1 (53:17):
Oh I agree. And as somebody who has worked on
platform moderation for many years, people often ask me what
are some platforms that are that are doing it right?
I have lost of thoughts about how Reddit is doing
in this iteration when it comes to things like AI
content that notwithstanding, and but five years ago I would
have said Reddit for sure. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (53:37):
So back to this story then, So uh okay that
the moderator posted this note that was like, AI is cool.
Can't stop the freight train? So how did people respond?

Speaker 1 (53:49):
They really showed what it looks like when no one
can stop the AI train from coming by flooding the
subreddit with horrifying AI generated twin Peaks and David Lynch
slop in protest, including horrifying pictures of the series protagonist
Cooper doing an end zone dance on a football field

(54:11):
while Laura Palmer screamed in the sky, and many many
many awful chat GBT generated scripts.

Speaker 2 (54:19):
Oh my god, you use the word horrifying so many
times that I'm like really excited to check this out.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
Yeah, it's I can't. I can't describe it. People need
to see it for themselves. I almost sort of feel,
in the lynchingan way, it kind of it's so bad
it has flipped back around to is this art for me?
I'll just say that. So the moderator of the twin
Peaks I've read it, actually resigned over this. They explained

(54:45):
what happened in an interview with four or four and
said that the post that they made about accepting AI
content was not run by other moderators of the team.
They said it was poorly worded, a bad take on
a bad stance, and it blew up in their face.
It's viral because that was condescending and basically told the community,
we don't care that it's theft, that it's unethical, will
just flare it so you can filter it out. They

(55:07):
missed the point that AI art steals from legit artists
and damages the environment.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
Well, that's a nice statement of contrition. I guess like
it sounds like the moderator who posted that thing realized
that it was out of step with what the community
wanted and expected, and like legitimately tried to acknowledge their
concerns and wrote an apology that this sounds like a

(55:34):
nice story.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
I think it kind of is. It does sound like
that they had been internally debating whether or not to
ban AI content and what to do about AI content,
and that this one moderator just sort of jumped the gun. Obviously,
the subreddit reversed course and put out a new statement
saying that going forward, posts including generative AI art or
catch abt cell content we're going to be disallowed. But

(55:58):
I think it's a good example of when people say, oh,
you can't stop the AI train. I don't think that
that's really a thoughtful statement. And I think the fact
that this this it's it's pretty low stakes, but the
fact that this subreddit rose up and was like, let
us show you what if you're saying that that we
just have to accept that AI art is the future,

(56:18):
let me show you what that future actually looks like,
and you tell me if that's the future that you
actually want for this community.

Speaker 2 (56:24):
Yeah, it's a nice example of organizing in a creative
way for community to democratically enforce the standards that it
wants to exist for itself. And so bravo David Lynch,

(56:45):
community or whatever whatever subredded this was.

Speaker 1 (56:48):
I think David Lynch would be proud. I mean, who
can say, dudes did okay? Before we go, I did
want to just make one quick announcement, which is, do
you know those podcast where they'll do mail bag episodes
where it's it's an episode where we answer your questions.
I want to do one of those. I don't think
we've ever done on We've been on the air since

(57:10):
twenty twenty, that's five years. I don't We've gotten a
slew of new listeners, new listeners, thank you, we love you,
and old listeners, Thanks for rocking with us. We love
you too. But people might have questions. People might want
to know who we are, why we do what we do.
I don't really talk a ton about anything involving my

(57:33):
actual offline life, so people might have questions about who
the hell I am why they should listen to me.
If you are listening and you have questions, whether it's
about me, our team, how the show comes together, why
the show exists, or things about things that are happening online,
things that you want to know my takes on our
big wide Internet and social media landscape and ecosystem. Let

(57:57):
us know. I want to do a mail bag episode,
but I don't. I don't want to do it where
it's just like, oh, we've got on a vacation coming up,
and I got to scram something together. Let me just
go through random emails that we've gotten. I want to
seed actual good questions, and if we don't get good questions,
we don't have to do it. And if people don't
want to do a mail back episode, we don't have
to do that either. What do you think? I think
it's a great idea.

Speaker 2 (58:17):
We do get some great emails from you know, some
really thoughtful uh, listeners who often they're like sharing interesting
stuff with us, and you know someone who respond I
apologize that we aren't able to respond to all of them.
But like people write in with really interesting things to say, uh,
but not atome questions. So I think this is a

(58:39):
good idea, bridget I think let's invite listeners to write
in with whatever questions they have either.

Speaker 1 (58:45):
Oh, and it doesn't have to be a question if
you just if you, because people will send this emails
and unless they exuplicitly say I want this to be
read on the podcast, I won't. I will assume that
people don't want it to be read on the podcast.
But if you do want it to be rid of
a podcast, even if it's a question, it's just something
you want out there, I'll read that. What should we

(59:05):
give people like a deadline? Because I feel like that
motivates me to make things happen.

Speaker 2 (59:10):
I don't have deadlines. I don't see anything.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
Let me pull up the calendar. Yeah, let's pull up
the calendar. Producer over here, Okay, how about Okay, today
is the twenty fifth. We're recording on the twenty fifth.
By the tenth of October. If you've got an email
that you specifically want engaged with on the podcast in
an episode, should us an email that comes late, that's

(59:33):
also fine because I am also not going to deadlines,
but we want to hear from you. So the tenth
would be, that's a soft deadline.

Speaker 2 (59:42):
That's a hard deadline. I'm gonna I'm gonna pull producer
Rank here say it's gonna be a hard deadline. I
think it's a reasonable one. So yeah, right in. By
October tenth, it gives you almost like it's like a
full two weeks.

Speaker 1 (59:55):
Yeah, right in.

Speaker 2 (59:57):
We would love to hear from each and every one
of you. Listeners are the best. Thank you so much
for listening and for allowing us to do this show.
You know, I for me, this is the ability to
do this show is like one of the more gratifying
things I've ever done in my professional life. And it's
so touching that listeners want to listen to it week

(01:00:21):
after week. So thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
Yeah. I know it's cheesy at the end of podcasts
where the host just gushes about the listeners, but it
truly it's the reason I do this. I wouldn't like
it's you all. I am so lucky that people listen
to this show. I am so lucky I get to
make this show. I'm so lucky I get to work
with you, Mike, Joey, Tary, Jonathan, our whole team. I

(01:00:49):
cannot believe I get to do this. I cannot believe
anybody listens to this show, listens to what we have
to say. But I'm so glad that you do. And
we wouldn't be doing any of this without you. And
I'm I don't say that in the sort of way
that people say it on podcasts, but I genuinely mean it.
It really does mean so much, And especially when things
are hard, it's it's hard we're in these hard times,

(01:01:11):
or it's hard to find things to latch onto that
don't make you feel like flinging yourself off of a building.
And for me, it is the listeners and it is
this podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:01:20):
So yeah, yeah, I want to give people a prompt
because I think that might help facilitate some emails, because
I want.

Speaker 1 (01:01:27):
To get a lot of them. What's your okay? Yeah,
this is we're doing this in real time. So I
kind of brung this on you, Mike. So I've impressed
that you had a prompt ready to go.

Speaker 2 (01:01:36):
What is one thing about the Internet that like brings
you joy, gives you hope, makes you feel good?

Speaker 3 (01:01:42):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:01:42):
I love it?

Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
Okay, well hopeful, semi hopeful. Mail bag episode comings and
as well, doesn't have to be hopeful. We'll take whatever.
We'll take whatever you got. Give us your emails, we'll
read them on the show. We'll do a mailbag episode.
Thank you so much for listening, Mike, Thank you for
being here. We will see you on the Internet. Got

(01:02:09):
a story about an interesting thing in tech, or just
want to say hi? You can read us at Hello
at tangody dot com. You can also find transcripts for
today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No Girls
on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd. It's
a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed. Creative Jonathan Strickland is
our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer.
Michael Almato is our contributing producer. Edited by Joey pat

(01:02:32):
I'm your host, bridget Todd. If you want to help
us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For
more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio, app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts.

All Episodes

Charlie Kirk Snitch App Data Leak; TikTok Rapture; David Lynch AI Reddit Revolt; Meta Exploits Parents' Photos – NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Cardiac Cowboys

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Charlie Kirk Snitch App Data Leak; TikTok Rapture; David Lynch AI Reddit Revolt; Meta Exploits Parents' Photos – NEWS ROUNDUP