October 7, 2025 • 45 mins
Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook is all about free speech, just not when it comes to abortion.
New reports from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reveal how Facebook and Instagram censor abortion content, even when it’s medically accurate and completely legal. Bridget joins Samantha and Anney and Stuff Mom Never Told You to unpack how Meta’s abortion content moderation really works, why posts about reproductive health keep disappearing, and what that means for free speech and reproductive rights online.
Learn more: EFF’s Stop Censoring Abortion campaign
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):
There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a production
of iHeartRadio and unbost Creative, I'm Bridget Todd, and this
is there are No Girls on the Internet. Tech girls
like Mark Zuckerberg love talking about how much they care
about protecting free speech on their platforms. That is until
(00:25):
the speech in question is about abortion, because then suddenly
all that free speech gets deleted, even when it's perfectly legal,
medically accurate information. The truth is big tech and social
media platforms have always been hostile to people sharing resources
about abortion and reproductive health, and now, thanks to a
(00:46):
new series of reports from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, we're
getting a much clearer picture of just how deep this
problem goes and the real world impact it's had. I
got into all of this with my friend Samantha and
Anny over at the podcast Stuff Mom Never Told You.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Hey, this is Annie and Samantha.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I'm welcome Stuff I've Never Told You production of iHeartRadio,
and today we are once again thrilled to be joined
by the fabulous, the fantastic Bridget Todd.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Welcome, Bridget, thank you for having me back. I'm so
excited to be here.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
We're so excited to have you always but yes, we
were discussing beforehand. There's a lot for us that we
would like your expertise on. So always we appreciate you
coming on. There's so much going on right now. That
being said, how are you bridget you know.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
This week was I don't know if you all feel it.
I feel like the last few weeks has been pretty rough.
It feels like things are different. It just feels like
a shift in the air, which can be hard to
exist in alone, make content in that doesn't make people
fearful and want to check out, which I think maybe
we're all kind of navigating. Yeah, is that something that
(02:10):
resonates with youtwo?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Yes, ah, yes, uh, it's we make a lot of
contents and we do try to mix things up, but
we also don't want to ignore things.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
But I mean, for instance.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Yesterday I just had a lot of trouble concentrating on
my work because I was thinking about all this other
stuff and like, what what's going on in the world?
What can I do? Which I've always maintained that if
you want to get more productivity out of people, then
they're going about it the completely wrong. But that's just
a very small personal gripe of mine. Uh, but yeah, yeah,
(02:45):
it's it's been it's been difficult.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
You know, what I've discovered is these tiny little coloring
books that are really like easy coloring. So it's not
detailed because I've discovered as much as I'd like to
do those things, I cannot stay within the lines. And
when they get really like fancy, the adult color book versions,
like they get fancy and you have to do the shading,
and like, what what is this? Why do I have
(03:10):
so many things to color? So I discovered these tiny
ones that's just like cutesy large pictures of like a milkshake.
It has been really nice that I could just check out,
stay inside the lines and color with a marker like
those little like you know, paint like markers that isn't
really satisfying nice to like zone.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Out, Sam, you are speaking my language, because good I
have a I've spent so much money on this, but
alcohol markers on Like, there's nothing quite like a good marker.
When a new set of markers, you're like, this is
going to change everything. My future starts today. I've got
this new set of markers. Yes, and the one of
(03:50):
the ones that that write really well are so satisfying.
I know I sound like a crazy person, but genuinely,
the appeal of finding the right set of markers can
change everything.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Oh no, I am obsessed with pins and well written
fine point pins, like it has to be fine points,
like the Chinese and Japanese have a market because they
have some of the best, like nicely flowing pins. Even
though my my handwriting is really really bad, but I
love the feel of like a nice smooth rite. But
with these, like the alcohol markers as you're talking about,
(04:25):
the only problem I have is the color that reports
that they say they represent on the cap doesn't actually
like translate in the marking.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
So I'm like, oh, this is a yellow and it
turns orange.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I'm like, wait, this is this is not but it
is very smooth and it is very satisfying because it
fills all the lines, and you're like, yes, I'm a
professional colorer.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Of course. This is how. This is how much I
tell seriously, I take this. When I get a new
set of markers, the first thing I do is a
little colors watch to be the oh they say orange,
what their orange looks like? Yeah? I know, no surprises,
you know what? That's good to you?
Speaker 2 (04:59):
That is great advice as a newly marker purchasing person.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
So thank you.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I'm gonna have to have to get some like scrap
paper just so I can do that.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
This is we can do a whole episode on this.
Let's just look pens markers, my fam. It gives me
a head tingles even just talking about it. I love
it so much.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
So since I did the like pre show, everything's the
worst I have to bring in. This is a solution,
and it's coloring large small coloring books that with wonderful markers.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yes, yeah, that can be the antidote to our troubling times.
Have you considered just diving headfirst into the world of
markers and penmanship and calligraphy and journaling and coloring.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
It is quite nice. It is quite nice.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Annie.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I will leave some for you. I know you're about
to house it for me, so I will leave some
for you to try out yourself.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
You know I have.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I have two main thoughts from this. One is that
I hate when this happens where your birthday is coming up, Samantha,
and I will wish I had known this earlier. Oh no,
that would have been a great gift. But then I think,
Bridget you should come on one time and let us
talk about something that's not so stressful. Let let's give
(06:12):
you let's give ourselves a little break. We could talk
about markers. I know you mentioned like reality TV. We
could have a whole thing where it's not something so
do all the.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Dark stuff we should make.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Let you come in with the joys that you have,
because previous we just talked about the Adirondacks and everything.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Yeah, I feel like people who listen to my content
might not know that I experienced joy I have.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
I have.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
The only things I talk about are not the crushing
weight of fascism. Enjoy reality television. I think this would
be fun. I think we should look at it all right,
I like it.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Oh, but unfortunately before today, we're not doing that today.
This is also the timing is interesting because we're Samantha
and I are working on an update on CPCs crisis
Pregnancy Centers.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I know them very well.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Yes, and we in our research ran into a lot
of stuff about how tech companies were basically paying for
them to advertise or accepting their money and being misleading
about things. So this is very much related. What are
we talking about today, bridget.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Well, that is such a good transition because it's all related.
But tech companies really have put their thumbs on the
scale when it comes to being able to get accurate
content about abortion on social media. Your point about crisis
pregnancy centers and the way that Google essentially is like
paying an advertising network for them to exist is a
(07:47):
great example. But today I really wanted to talk about
how social media is heavily moderating and even in some
cases like suppressing and tensoring content about abortion. I think
that we all talk this back in January, But do
y'all remember when Mark Zuckerberg had that moment that people
sort of talked about as his mask off moment back
(08:07):
in January when Trump came back into office. I think
that we were talking about how he really started dressing
like a divorced nightclub promoter and was saying things like, oh,
we're taking the tampons out of the washrooms at the
restaurant in here at Facebook. HQ just really was sort
of having a moment where he was saying a lot
of things.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Do you remember this, Oh yes, oh yes, he was
like he leaned in hard.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
He was hard.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
He's been waiting for those moments.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
Yes, Oh my gosh, you can tell. I mean I
also I almost quibbled when people were like, oh, it's
his mask off moment, because I don't think that Mark
Zuckerberg has any kind of like I don't. I wouldn't
call it a mask off moment because I think that
he is the definition of a hollow, empty person, and
so I think he is the mask. He will say anything.
(08:56):
I think that he has no he's I'm honestly fascinated
by him as a tech leader because I think that
he has no value, scruples, morals, there's just nothing. He
will say anything, he will do anything. However the wind blows,
that's how he will blow. And I don't think it's
fair to call that a mask moment when truly, like
what the mask is not is not hiding anything. This
(09:17):
is just genuinely like who you are, who you always
have been, just a soulless person who was waiting to
see who they should kiss up to and will do
that if it means holding onto power.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Right, he was just waiting in the background, like his
personality was just waiting in the shadows, and then we're.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Like, oh, oh, this is my moment.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
And so when that all was going on, he also
announced that Meta was going to be scrapping their community
notes feature and scrapping all third party fact checking on
the platform, because, as he said, it was time for
the company to get back to their roots when it
comes to free expression. I will play a little bit
of a video that he put out talking about this.
Speaker 5 (09:56):
Hey, everyone, I want to talk about something important today
because it's time to get back to our roots around
free expression on Facebook and Instagram. I started building social
media to give people a voice. I gave a speech
at Georgetown five years ago about the importance of protecting
free expression and I still believe this today. But a
lot has happened over the last several years. There's been
(10:17):
widespread debate about potential harms from online content. Governments and
legacy media have pushed to censor more and more. A
lot of this is clearly political, but there's also a
lot of legitimately bad stuff out there. Drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.
These are things that we take very seriously, and I
want to make sure that we handle responsibly.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
So I have a lot to say about that. First
of all, very convenient rewriting of the history that frankly
wasn't that long ago, and that if you're listening in
your my age, you probably remember because we all know
it is not a secret that Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg created
Facebook as a college student to rank the looks of
the women in his on his college campus. Somehow we
(11:02):
sort of let him get away with being like, I
created Facebook to protect free expression. Okay, sure, I don't know.
I always have to like quibble at that because he
I guessaw a video where he said I created Facebook
because I wanted people to be able to have debates
about the Iraq War, And it's like, no, you did it.
First of all, I was an organizer in the anti
(11:22):
war movement. Nobody was communicating on Facebook when we like,
Facebook wasn't for that. So that's just not true. I
really have a thing where people lie to your face
about recent history that you remember that you were therefore
that you were part of. So that's bullshit. But even
more than that, he's talking about how the content that
(11:44):
he really wants to focus on in terms of moderating
the platform is a legal content right, child safety, harms,
drug trade, organized criminal activity, all of that. So this
is when he was really talking about how it was
to protect free expression on social media platforms. You'll might
recall that around this time, he was in the headlines
(12:06):
for saying that he felt the Biden administration had been
trying to pressure Facebook into removing COVID misinformation. The White
House had a different take, saying, quote, when confronted with
the deadly pandemic, this administration encouraged responsible actions to protect
public health and safety. Our position has been very clear
and consistent. We believe tech companies and other private actors
should take into account the effects their actions have on
(12:27):
the American people while making independent choices about the information
they present. So, you know, Zuckerberg in this moment was like,
we are not going to be moderating political content the
way that we have been. We are going to lift
restrictions on topics that are part of mainstream discourse and
really just focus on the enforcement of a legal and
like high severity violation. So yay for free speech right.
(12:51):
That all sounds great, Well, all of that, It's only
the case if that part of the mainstream discourse is
not abortion, which Facebook continues to suppress and moderate quite
heavily with zero transparency and zero consistency. So it seems
like if you're spreading COVID misinformation. Well, that is protected
speech that needs to be left up for freedom. If
(13:14):
you are sharing accurate information about abortion that isn't even
against metas policies, they will take it down.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Yeah, and like you said, without warning or transpancy or
nothing just is gone. And you might not know why
or well, you could probably figure it out. But one
of the things that's really frustrating about all of this
is that, you know, like you said, they're kind of
lying to our faces, right, like they're saying one thing
and doing something completely different.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Yeah, that's what really makes me angry about this. You know,
I cover a lot of tech companies. The thing that
gets me is when they lie, when they say one
thing publicly, when they publish something in their rules and
regulations and policies. You know, no one's putting a gun
to their head and making them put these things in
their rules, put them in their rules, and then they
do a completely different thing, and then when advocates or
(14:04):
organizers call them out on it, there's just no they're
just like, oops, what are they gonna do that? For
some reason, that just really gets me because they are
allowed to enjoy all of this positive press of putting
this thing in their policy and then continue doing the
shady work of going against that policy. It never comes
(14:25):
back at them like they're able to just do whatever
they want while saying one thing can doing another. And
I just don't feel like they really get held accountable.
And so a Meta spokesperson said that taking down abortion
content goes against Meta's own intentions. A spokesperson told The
New York Times, we want our platforms to be a
place where people can access reliable information about health services,
(14:46):
advertisers can promote health services, and everyone can discuss and
debate public policies in this space. That is why we
allow posts and ads discussing and debating abortion. But they're
not doing that at all. Because the big thing to
know here is that Meta says one thing in their
policies and then does a completely different thing when it
comes to how they are actually moderating abortion content. Yeah,
(15:09):
and it's.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
So difficult right now to get that good information, and
there's so much misinformation and disinformation out there, and to
remove it is just really piling onto a problem that
really doesn't need any more piling onto. It is already
really bad, and people are already very confused this is
(15:34):
not helping.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
No, that's a really good context to set that. You know,
we're in a time where the Supreme Court struck down Row.
It is so much harder to access accurate information about
help so that people can make health decisions for themselves.
And when social media platforms like Facebook put their thumb
(15:57):
on the scales and make these kinds of moderation decisions
with no transparency that go against their own stated policy,
it just makes that climate so much harder. It makes
it harder for the people who are trying to do
this work, abortion providers and abortion advocates. It makes it
harder for people who need to make decisions about their
health and the people that support them. It makes it
(16:17):
so that people cannot access information to figure out what
they want to do with their own bodies and lives.
And these companies do that while saying, oh, we promote
the ability to use our platforms to get this kind
of information. I would prefer that they say we don't
like abortion, we don't want people using our platform to
(16:38):
talk about abortion, so we take that content off. At
least that would be honest. But what they are doing
is lying to people about what they're actually doing while
doing it. It's so it's it's really adding insult to injury.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Right, I mean, the true, honest answer probably is that
they are taking money or they know that they are
just buying time until the en tirty of our rights
and reproductive rights may be completely dismantled in every way.
And that way they can already say, hey, leaders of
this fascist regime, we have done everything for you, so
(17:13):
can you keep supporting our platform and give us more money?
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Ugh, I mean the way that you've got the fox
Watch in the Henhouse here, the way that platforms are
able to cozy up to really, I mean, it's not
even really the Trump administration, just whoever is in power.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
And then though that administration is also the administration that
is meant to be overseeing and regulating them. It's horrible
and so we really it's I'm glad that you brought
that up, because I think that helps us peel back
the layers of what exactly is going on here and
why it's so unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And in understanding that that the whole confusion part is
probably the point.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
I think that's true. I mean, in looking at some
of the ways that Facebook says one thing and does
another when it comes to moderating abortion content. I think
that's exactly the point. It's like, you know, if we
and we'll get into this a little bit in a moment,
but if we create a confusing, inconsistent, not transparent climate,
people will just stop posting this information on our platforms.
And so we don't have to crack down on all
(18:13):
of it. We don't have to have a policy that
does not allow for abortion content to be on our platform.
It'll there'll be a chilling effect and people will do
it on their own. They'll just stop posting on their own.
And I think, in my opinion, that's the why of
why this is happening. So Meta says that they really
(18:37):
want to focus on moderating posts that deal with illegal content.
Side note, they don't always do such a great job
of that either, but that's for another episode. So Meta's
Dangerous Organizations and Individuals ORDI policy was supposed to really
be like a narrow policy focusing on preventing the platform
from being used by terrorist groups or organized crime like
(18:59):
VIA or criminal activity. But according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
over the years, we've really seen those rules be applied
in far broader and troubling ways with little transparency and
significant impact on marginalized voices, and this has essentially allowed
META to suppress factual content about abortion that does not
actually break any of the platform's rules. So the reason
(19:22):
why we know this is because the Electronic Frontier Foundation
or EFF have really given us a snapshot into what's
happening and provided some very clear receipts with their stock
censoring abortion campaign effs as they collected stories from individuals,
healthcare clinics, advocacy groups, and more, and together they've revealed
nearly one hundred examples of posts and resources being taken down,
(19:43):
ranging from guidance on medication abortion to links of resources
supporting individuals in states with abortion bands. What is important
to note is that the posts that they found that
weren't taken down or that resulted in sometimes a ban,
did not break any of metas rules. IFF said, we
analyze these takedowns, deletions, and bands comparing the content to
(20:05):
what platform policies allow, particularly those of META, and found
that almost none of the submissions we received violated any
of the platform stated policies. Most of the censored posts
simply provided factual educational information, so it really is a
system where you don't know, I mean, I guess you
(20:25):
could guess why this content is being taken down. There's
no consistency, there's no transparency, and Facebook just gets to
be like oopsie when it happens. Here's a great example
of a post that was removed from a healthcare policy
strategist named Lauren Carer discussing abortion pills availability by mail.
Her post reads, FYI, abortion pills are great to have around,
whether you anticipate needing them or not. Plan C Pills
(20:48):
is an amazing resource to help you find reliable sources
for abortion pills by mail, no matter where you live.
Once received, the pills should be kept in a cool,
dry place. The shelf life of maybe pristone is about
five years. The shelf life of missoprystal is about two years.
There's a missiprystal only regiment that is extremely safe, effective,
and very common globally. So that post is just here
(21:10):
is some factual information about these pills. However, Facebook removed
that post, and the explanation they gave Lauren was that
they don't allow people to buy, sell, or exchange drugs
that require a prescription from a doctor or a pharmacist.
But as you can tell, that post isn't about selling
or buying or trading medication. It is just fact based
(21:32):
information about that medication.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Yeah, it's one of those things where you read it
and you're like, I don't see the I don see
the thing, the thing that you're saying is there. It's
just it's just information. Uh oh it makes you bad.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Yeah, and Eff points out that this post does not
break any of Meta's rules and should not be removed.
But you don't have to take their word for it
or my word for it, because Meta said the exact
same thing. Eff points out that Meta publicly insists that
posts like these should not be censored, and if February
twenty twenty four letter to Amnesty International, metas Human Rights
(22:12):
policy director wrote, organic content i e. Non Paid content
educating users about medication abortion is allowed and does not
violate our community standards. Additionally, providing guidance on legal access
to pharmaceuticals is allowed. So what the hell he suck? Like,
why if it's allowed, why are you taking it down?
Speaker 3 (22:33):
I'm so curious about because if the moderators are essentially
kind of removed, then is this just a they have
Like a keyword, like how is this happening? Is there
a person or.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
That is a great question. If I had to guess,
I would say, just knowing what I know about content moderation,
I would say this is probably over use of AI
moderation and then not caring enough to correct that. If
I had to say, I would say, because honestly, content
moderation is a job for a not just a human,
(23:06):
but a culturally competent human. When you don't have culturally
competent humans making moderation decisions, it's a problem, and it's
a problem that leads to the content of marginalized people
being suppressed much more on these platforms. Right, So, if
I had to guess, I would say, this is somebody
using an AI content moderation and then not caring enough
to correct that. It is consistently taking down content that
(23:29):
does not break any of the platform's rules. That's my guess. Well,
and that kind of.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Relates to another thing I know you're going to talk about,
which is something Smith and I have also talked about
on some of our episodes.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Is shadow banding. That's right, I mean, shadow banding is
one of those issues that I find very interesting because
who among us has not posted something on social media,
had that post not perform as well as you were expecting,
and wonder am I shadow band? I have definitely thought
this myself. If you've ever thought that, you are not alone.
But it does really happened. So shadow banning is when
(24:01):
a social media platform limits the visibility of someone's content
without telling them. And this is happening to people and
organizations that make content about sexual and reproductive health. And
it's a real problem because as we were talking about
before the Internet in twenty twenty five, but that is
really where people are going to find information about their health,
is especially in a landscape where that information is more
(24:24):
difficult to come by, where it's criminalized and cracked down on.
So people need the Internet as a resource, and so
if the people and advocates and organizations who provide that
information online are shadow band it becomes that much harder
to access what is often life saving information to help
people make health decisions. Earlier this year, the Center for
(24:46):
Intimacy Justice shared a report called the Digital Gag Suppression
of Sexual and Reproductive Health on Meta TikTok, Amazon, and Google,
and they found that of the one hundred and fifty
nine nonprofits, content creators, sex educators, and businesses that they surveyed,
three had content removed on Meta, fifty five percent had
content removed on TikTok. And this suppression is happening at
(25:07):
the same time as platforms continue to allow and elevate
videos of violence and gore and extremist and hateful content.
And this pattern is troubling because it only becomes more
prevalent as folks turn more and more to social media
to find the information that they need to make decisions
about their health. And so I like that context because
we really do have a social media landscape that allows
(25:29):
for violent content, gory content, extremist or hateful content to
stay up while taking down accurate content about reproductive health
that they agreed does not violate any of their policies.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
It's pretty telling to you. You have some examples here,
and one of them is from a place near us
that I was like, oh dear, oh dear, emery. Yeah, yep,
But I mean it's also as we're doing this research
(26:05):
on the CPC episode, I consider myself pretty you know,
pretty informed about abortion and all of it, but I
had to look up some stuff about like I'm not
sure is that legal there. I don't know, Like I
was feeling like, I know, I don't know if I
can trust this information. And then you try to go
to a place where you're like, Okay, I know this place,
(26:27):
and then you find out it's taken down, it doesn't
have anything about it. Yeah, it's not a good climate.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Yeah. And then you have Google allowing CPCs to stay,
you know, high ranked in their search. And then when
you go to CPCs they tell you all kinds of
misinformation about pregnancy and abortion. They are allowed to just
essentially lie to people, people who are in vulnerable situations.
And so it's already a climate where it's hard to
(26:55):
find trustworthy, accurate information, and then the clearly not trustworthy,
clearly not accurate information is allowed to not just allowed
to exist, but they put their thumb on the scales
in terms of making it more accessible than information that
is factual.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
So let us get into some of these examples, including
the one.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Eras, so, let's talk about what happened at Emory University.
So rise at Emor University, the Center for Reproductive Health
and Research in the Southeast, they published a post saying,
let's talk about Miffy pristone and its uses and the
importance of access. So they post this online. Two months later,
their account was suddenly suspended, flagged under the policy against
(27:41):
selling illegal drugs, which they were not selling or offering
illegal drugs. They were just giving fact based health information.
They tried to appeal, but that appeal was denied, leading
to their account being permanently deleted. Sarah Read, the director
of research and translation at Rise, told Eff, as a team,
this was a hit to our morale. We pour countless
(28:02):
hours of person power, creativity, and passion into creating the
content we have on our page and having it vanished
virtually overnight took a toll on our team. And you know,
I really think, like think about how critical that information
is these days, and how critical social media is these days.
They are already doing sensitive work in an area where
(28:24):
that work is threatened, and so losing your social media
that you've put so much time into is like losing
a lifeline, both for the staff and for the community
that you're trying to do that work in, as Eff
puts it, For many organizational users like Rise, their social
media accounts are repository for resources and metrics that may
not be stored elsewhere. We spent a significant amount of
(28:46):
already constrained team capacity attempting to recover all of the
content we created for Instagram that was potentially going to
be permanently lost. We also spend a significant amount of
time and energy trying to understand what options we might
have available from Meta to a peace our case and
recover our account. Their support options are not easily accessible,
and the time it took to navigate this issue distracted
(29:07):
from our existing work. So I totally feel what they
are saying that when you are doing work that is
that critical, you know, time sensitive, having to stop that
work to figure out, well, how are we going to
appeal this decision to Meta? Is all of are all
of our years and years of work on Instagram just
lost forever? That is a real problem. And again, they
(29:29):
weren't doing anything wrong, They're they're nothing that they posted
on their account was against metas policies. It's just arbitrary,
and so luckily they were able to eventually get their
account back, but only because they knew someone who knew
somebody who worked at Facebook personally, which is really the
only way to appeal when this kind of thing happens
if you if you if your account is taken down
(29:50):
for no real reason by Facebook. I am sorry to say,
unless you have a friend who knows somebody who works
at Facebook, you're probably not going to be able to
appeal again. Because a lot of these decisions are AI right.
It can be very very hard to escalate to a
human and the only real way to do it is
to just know somebody there. And again, I just feel
that in these situations where Meta agrees these posts are
(30:11):
not in violation of their rules and that they admit
they made a mistake, it should not come down to
knowing somebody at Facebook to have these decisions be reversed
when Meta agrees their mistakes on their part.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
Now I'm trying to think if I know someone on
Facebook I used to, I don't know if we're still there.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Well.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
Another issue with this is, as you said, if people
are worried that their content might be deleted or shadow banned,
or just they've seen this happen to other organizations or
something like that, then they might not post it anymore.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Or yeah, and I have to assume that is the point.
Eff rights At the end of the day, clinics are
clinics are left afraid to post basic information, patients are
left confused or misinformed, and researchers lose access to these audiences.
But unless your issue catches the attention of a journalist
or you know, someone at Meta, you might never regain
(31:20):
access to your account. And so I really think that
that is the sort of so what here that Meta
is doing this to sort of not explicitly discourage organizations
and advocates and people from posting this kind of information
on their platform, while saying the opposite, because it is
(31:41):
going to have a silencing effect. You know, nobody wants
to risk losing their entire platform, years and years and
years of content and research and resources they've collected. Yeah,
no one's going to want to take that risk, right.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
It's interesting that their policy with like the things that
we're going to actually moderate as well, terrorism and gain
and child endangerment, which is kind of a dog whistle
for what the Republican platform has been to for jump
to all of this morality level of issues, and that
(32:15):
the fact that Zuckerberg is like, you know what, yeah,
we're going to adopt this too, but it's purely to
protect the people's We're just protecting the people's and again
it does seem like see, see we're doing like you,
we got your back. We also agree with this this
is the only way or this is the best way
to control what information is being out there.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Yes, and if you actually I mean, this is a
whole other topic. But when you look at the way,
so they say, Okay, we're only gonna be cracking down
on content that creates harm for kids, this dog whistle
that they love to pull up. And then when you
look at the kind of harm for kids that they
either allow or advocate, part of me is like, what
(32:57):
what content are you actually taking down with? I don't
know if you all saw the recent reporting. There was
a very interesting report I think from the Wall Street
Journal where they had gotten their hands on an internal
policy document. So this is something that somebody at Facebook said,
this is our policy, totally fine to have in writing,
no problem. That said that Meta's chatbots were allowed to
(33:21):
engage in sensual play with minors, so kids, it was
okay with Meta if they're chatbots engaged in like sensual
I won't say sexual, but I would say I've seen
some of the content and it is sort of spicy
that it's okay if they're if they're bot to do
(33:42):
that with children. And part of me is like, I
cannot believe you will put this in writing. I cannot
believe that someone at Facebook said, yeah, this is this
is a document, I'll attach my name to this. Well
and behold. When the Wall Street Journal asked about it,
they were like, oh, no, we have since walked that
policy back. That's no longer our official on the record.
Our official on the record policy is no longer that
it's okay for our bots to engage in sexy role
(34:05):
play with kids. We walked that back, Like, I bet
you did walk.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
That back today as you asked question.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
I'm so happened right after the Wall Street Journal called
them and asked them about it. I'm so sure that
it was like an hour later we walked at that.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
We got this. No, we would never right.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Well, yeah, and I mean you were here, Bridget. I
guess it was years ago and you were talking about
another kind of whistle brower account of Facebook knowing it
was harming young girls.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Yeah, Francis hogen Is is the whistleblower. Why we know that?
Speaker 3 (34:42):
Yeah, So it's it is very galling for them to
be like we want to protect the children, and then
you have these things.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
That again directly show that clearly you don't not really
and to be clear, that is knowingly harming kids. So
I just think it's very interesting that Facebook gets to say, well,
we're too busy focusing on content that harms kids to
take down to really care that much about what's going
on with our abortion content, and that's the content we're
(35:12):
really working on. But really we're not doing that either,
you know what I mean, Like they get they really
It just infuriates me, it really does. And I think
the issue really is to understand is in twenty twenty five,
when you have a question, when I have a question,
the first place I go is the internet, right we all?
That's I think that is the reality for most of us,
(35:32):
and the internet and social media really has become this
lifeline for folks trying to get information about the world
around us, including our sexual and reproductive health. And if
folks are not able to find what they need in
their own communities, which I'm sorry to say is becoming
more and more of the reality these days, they are
going to go online to turn to social media to
(35:54):
fill those gaps that access really matters most for folks
whose care is being cut off, abortion seekers or trans
or queer youth living in states where healthcare is under attack.
And so if you have these social media platforms kind
of adding to a landscape where that information is difficult
to access, even if that information is not against their rules,
(36:16):
it's just making it that much more difficult. And these
decisions really do matter. I mean they some of them
are life or death, and they really have real world
impact on people's lives.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Absolutely, And unfortunately this is not this is part of
kind of a larger issue, kind of a larger attack,
gendered attack. Correct.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Yes, so this is something I find so interesting and
I actually should come back and do another episode on it.
In the middle of some research on it right now.
But the Center for Intimacy Justice, who's report I mentioned earlier,
they have another report that really shows how platforms routinely
suppress sexual health content for women and trans folks, while
leaving content aimed at supporting the sexual health of CIS
(37:00):
men largely untouched. Right. So, I know lots of people
who run businesses that are focused on like the sexual
health of people who are not CIS men. Right, So,
if you have pelvic pain, if you need sex toys,
like all these different things that are aimed at people
who are not cisgender men. I have lots of friends
(37:20):
who run businesses like that. They are essentially not able
to do any kind of advertising on Facebook because Facebook
does not allow it. However, Facebook certainly allows information about
the sexual wellness of cisgender men. So we really have
a climate where, let's face it, mostly men who run
(37:41):
these platforms are able to determine whose sexual health is
important and who is not. Whose healthcare is healthcare, and
whose is like something perverted that needs to be suppressed
and isn't allowed on their platform.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Yeah, and now thinking about it, as I've been looking
at Instagram, the amount of gale ads that I've been getting,
which is interesting because I thought that was medication that
you had to get through a doctor, is overwhelming. But
also on the vice versa of that is meles you know,
health sex health bs. Those are the two ads that
(38:17):
I get. Definitely nothing about women in birth control rarely,
there's a few that, but it's very as of late,
I think zero, But the amount of GLP one ads,
I'm like, WHOA, what is happening Instagram?
Speaker 4 (38:29):
I thought we were allowing this.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Yes, I mean the amount of ads I get, specifically
for the a rectil dysfunction medication blue Cheo, and the
ads are do have you ever seen these ads online?
The ads are clearly targeted at women, So it's a
cute woman being like, ladies, get your man to get
blue chee. Blue shoe is gonna rock your world. Get
(38:53):
your man on blue shoe. And that's a medication, that is,
that is an erectail dysfunction prescription medication. But these platforms
have just decided, oh no, that's okay. That's that. You
can you can show that all day long, no problem,
you can boost it, you can put money behind it.
Totally fine.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
But again that this is the rampant amount of as
like every two like scrolls on Instagram that pops up,
and on Facebook too, which is I'm like, I don't
even go to Facebook. I just need to know people's birthdays.
That's all I need, That's all I really want. But again,
this seems to be like I thought once, if that
was your policy from Jump, then how are these as
(39:33):
paying you, I know, paying you millions?
Speaker 4 (39:35):
How are these okay?
Speaker 1 (39:37):
Yeah, their policy is totally inconsistent seemingly arbitrary and seemingly
biased against any kind of marginal identity. Like that's just
what's going on. They don't have any transparency. They say
one thing and do another. Uh, and that just is
the is the norm for them, and it's I really
do think that we should be talking about how you know, again,
(39:59):
let's be honest, we're talking about mostly men, and mostly
not just men, like a specific kind of man, white moneyed,
coastal all of that. How we have given them so
much power to define what knowledge is acceptable, whose voices
are amplified, whose bodies are are left at risk, and
when platforms decide what can and can't be shared. They
(40:21):
are making public health decisions with global consequences in ways
that are often contrary to public health, and then also
reinforce systemic inequalities. And so I just think, you know,
this is not just we're not just talking about like
vague policy language. I know that I have spent a
lot of time talking about that because it annoys me.
But it's really about them deciding who gets to speak,
(40:42):
who gets seen, who gets access to the information that
they need to make decisions about their own health and bodies.
When meta and these platforms silence accurate, essential sexual and
reproductive health information for not just enforcing inconsistent body rules.
I mean they are, but they're not just doing that.
They are also shaping people's lives and really deciding whose
(41:03):
health matters and whose doesn't. And in a world where
we know the Internet has really become this lifeline that
is not just annoying, although I am annoyed, it is
dangerous because free speech shouldn't come with a disclaimer that
your body's safety is just optional and up to the
whims of Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
No, I don't want to live in that world.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
No, No, I mean I think about this all the time,
the ways that these individuals, like a handful of individual
mostly white guys, get to define what our worlds look
like in these very concrete ways. And I've never met
Mark Zuckerberg. Although I have met Cheryl Sandberg, but I've
(41:43):
never met Mark Zuckerberg. I don't want Mark Zuckerberg in
charge of deciding anything for my life. I don't think
Mark Zuckerberg and I have any common idea about what
it means to have a good, fulfilled life. I don't
want him designing what my future looks like.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
I think that's very wise.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
I mean that one movie made him look really pretty
much a dick.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
So, oh my god, you mean The Social Network, one
of my favorite movies. Oh my god. I don't want
to I don't want to spoil it, but the ending
of that movie is my version of Citizen Kane. Have
you both have seen it? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (42:19):
I've not seen it. I've seen clips because I'm like,
I don't want even want to know, but he seems
like a dick.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Go home and watch it tonight. I know your birthday
is coming up birthday? Is it a fun birthday watch?
I mean, I'm such a nerd. I say it's a
fun watch. But if you're looking for a movie to
watch on your birthday, that might be that might be
the one.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
It's a good it's a solid like, oh yeah, you're
just a sad man ending.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Yes, you know what I'm talking about. You kiss Citizen Kane.
The sled moment at the end of that movie. It
haunts me, and I think if you haven't, I think
if you've seen it, it gives context for some of the
stuff we've talked about when it comes to for birth today.
Speaker 4 (42:59):
All right, And without even seeing it, I was like alright.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
I also love it as such a dark soundtrack. Who
is it yet? Nobody does a haunting the soundtrack like
Trent Resnor Gone Girl soundtrack soundtrack to Challenger is also
Trent Resnor, And that's the soundtrack I put on when
I'm writing. If you need to focus and just like
put on some headphones and be like we are writing.
(43:27):
That is your soundtrack. Trent Rednor can write a dark
movie soundtrack like nobody's business.
Speaker 3 (43:34):
And I love that it was in this movie about
this college kid trying to get a girl to like
oh lord, yes, okay, well we'll revisit that later. We'll
do uh maybe you know we had a fun time
trash talking some Hugh Heffner that one time we'll come
(43:54):
back with a fun thing for you, Bridget, and you
can side because yours bring us every topic. Yes of
your choosing. But before then, thank you so much for
being here. Where can the good listeners find you?
Speaker 1 (44:09):
You can find me on my podcast. There are no
girls on the internet. You can find me on Instagram.
I know it's owned by Max Zuckerberg. I don't like
it either. At Bridget Bryan DC TikTok at Bridget Bryan
DC and on YouTube and there are no girls on
the internet.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Yes, go check all of that out if you have
it already, listeners. If you would like to contact us,
you can. You can email us at Hello, stuff I
Never told You. You can find us on Blue Scott
most of a podcast, or Instagram and TikTok at stuff
one Never told You.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
We're also on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
We have new merchandise at Cotton Bureau, and we have
a book you can get wherever you get your books.
Thanks always hear A suproduce Christina Executive producing my under
contributor Joey.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
Thank you and thanks to you for.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
Listening Stuff Never Told Yous fiction by Heart Radio. For
more podcasts from my heart Radio, you can check out
the heart Radio app, a podcast, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
We're not known over he
There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a production
of iHeartRadio and unbost Creative, I'm Bridget Todd, and this
is there are No Girls on the Internet. Tech girls
like Mark Zuckerberg love talking about how much they care
about protecting free speech on their platforms. That is until
(00:25):
the speech in question is about abortion, because then suddenly
all that free speech gets deleted, even when it's perfectly legal,
medically accurate information. The truth is big tech and social
media platforms have always been hostile to people sharing resources
about abortion and reproductive health, and now, thanks to a
(00:46):
new series of reports from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, we're
getting a much clearer picture of just how deep this
problem goes and the real world impact it's had. I
got into all of this with my friend Samantha and
Anny over at the podcast Stuff Mom Never Told You.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Hey, this is Annie and Samantha.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
I'm welcome Stuff I've Never Told You production of iHeartRadio,
and today we are once again thrilled to be joined
by the fabulous, the fantastic Bridget Todd.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Welcome, Bridget, thank you for having me back. I'm so
excited to be here.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
We're so excited to have you always but yes, we
were discussing beforehand. There's a lot for us that we
would like your expertise on. So always we appreciate you
coming on. There's so much going on right now. That
being said, how are you bridget you know.
Speaker 1 (01:47):
This week was I don't know if you all feel it.
I feel like the last few weeks has been pretty rough.
It feels like things are different. It just feels like
a shift in the air, which can be hard to
exist in alone, make content in that doesn't make people
fearful and want to check out, which I think maybe
we're all kind of navigating. Yeah, is that something that
(02:10):
resonates with youtwo?
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Yes, ah, yes, uh, it's we make a lot of
contents and we do try to mix things up, but
we also don't want to ignore things.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
But I mean, for instance.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
Yesterday I just had a lot of trouble concentrating on
my work because I was thinking about all this other
stuff and like, what what's going on in the world?
What can I do? Which I've always maintained that if
you want to get more productivity out of people, then
they're going about it the completely wrong. But that's just
a very small personal gripe of mine. Uh, but yeah, yeah,
(02:45):
it's it's been it's been difficult.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
You know, what I've discovered is these tiny little coloring
books that are really like easy coloring. So it's not
detailed because I've discovered as much as I'd like to
do those things, I cannot stay within the lines. And
when they get really like fancy, the adult color book versions,
like they get fancy and you have to do the shading,
and like, what what is this? Why do I have
(03:10):
so many things to color? So I discovered these tiny
ones that's just like cutesy large pictures of like a milkshake.
It has been really nice that I could just check out,
stay inside the lines and color with a marker like
those little like you know, paint like markers that isn't
really satisfying nice to like zone.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Out, Sam, you are speaking my language, because good I
have a I've spent so much money on this, but
alcohol markers on Like, there's nothing quite like a good marker.
When a new set of markers, you're like, this is
going to change everything. My future starts today. I've got
this new set of markers. Yes, and the one of
(03:50):
the ones that that write really well are so satisfying.
I know I sound like a crazy person, but genuinely,
the appeal of finding the right set of markers can
change everything.
Speaker 2 (04:03):
Oh no, I am obsessed with pins and well written
fine point pins, like it has to be fine points,
like the Chinese and Japanese have a market because they
have some of the best, like nicely flowing pins. Even
though my my handwriting is really really bad, but I
love the feel of like a nice smooth rite. But
with these, like the alcohol markers as you're talking about,
(04:25):
the only problem I have is the color that reports
that they say they represent on the cap doesn't actually
like translate in the marking.
Speaker 4 (04:33):
So I'm like, oh, this is a yellow and it
turns orange.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
I'm like, wait, this is this is not but it
is very smooth and it is very satisfying because it
fills all the lines, and you're like, yes, I'm a
professional colorer.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Of course. This is how. This is how much I
tell seriously, I take this. When I get a new
set of markers, the first thing I do is a
little colors watch to be the oh they say orange,
what their orange looks like? Yeah? I know, no surprises,
you know what? That's good to you?
Speaker 2 (04:59):
That is great advice as a newly marker purchasing person.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
So thank you.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I'm gonna have to have to get some like scrap
paper just so I can do that.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
This is we can do a whole episode on this.
Let's just look pens markers, my fam. It gives me
a head tingles even just talking about it. I love
it so much.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
So since I did the like pre show, everything's the
worst I have to bring in. This is a solution,
and it's coloring large small coloring books that with wonderful markers.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yes, yeah, that can be the antidote to our troubling times.
Have you considered just diving headfirst into the world of
markers and penmanship and calligraphy and journaling and coloring.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
It is quite nice. It is quite nice.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
Annie.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I will leave some for you. I know you're about
to house it for me, so I will leave some
for you to try out yourself.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
You know I have.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I have two main thoughts from this. One is that
I hate when this happens where your birthday is coming up, Samantha,
and I will wish I had known this earlier. Oh no,
that would have been a great gift. But then I think,
Bridget you should come on one time and let us
talk about something that's not so stressful. Let let's give
(06:12):
you let's give ourselves a little break. We could talk
about markers. I know you mentioned like reality TV. We
could have a whole thing where it's not something so
do all the.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
Dark stuff we should make.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Let you come in with the joys that you have,
because previous we just talked about the Adirondacks and everything.
Speaker 1 (06:31):
Yeah, I feel like people who listen to my content
might not know that I experienced joy I have.
Speaker 3 (06:38):
I have.
Speaker 1 (06:39):
The only things I talk about are not the crushing
weight of fascism. Enjoy reality television. I think this would
be fun. I think we should look at it all right,
I like it.
Speaker 3 (06:53):
Oh, but unfortunately before today, we're not doing that today.
This is also the timing is interesting because we're Samantha
and I are working on an update on CPCs crisis
Pregnancy Centers.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I know them very well.
Speaker 3 (07:08):
Yes, and we in our research ran into a lot
of stuff about how tech companies were basically paying for
them to advertise or accepting their money and being misleading
about things. So this is very much related. What are
we talking about today, bridget.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Well, that is such a good transition because it's all related.
But tech companies really have put their thumbs on the
scale when it comes to being able to get accurate
content about abortion on social media. Your point about crisis
pregnancy centers and the way that Google essentially is like
paying an advertising network for them to exist is a
(07:47):
great example. But today I really wanted to talk about
how social media is heavily moderating and even in some
cases like suppressing and tensoring content about abortion. I think
that we all talk this back in January, But do
y'all remember when Mark Zuckerberg had that moment that people
sort of talked about as his mask off moment back
(08:07):
in January when Trump came back into office. I think
that we were talking about how he really started dressing
like a divorced nightclub promoter and was saying things like, oh,
we're taking the tampons out of the washrooms at the
restaurant in here at Facebook. HQ just really was sort
of having a moment where he was saying a lot
of things.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Do you remember this, Oh yes, oh yes, he was
like he leaned in hard.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
He was hard.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
He's been waiting for those moments.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
Yes, Oh my gosh, you can tell. I mean I
also I almost quibbled when people were like, oh, it's
his mask off moment, because I don't think that Mark
Zuckerberg has any kind of like I don't. I wouldn't
call it a mask off moment because I think that
he is the definition of a hollow, empty person, and
so I think he is the mask. He will say anything.
(08:56):
I think that he has no he's I'm honestly fascinated
by him as a tech leader because I think that
he has no value, scruples, morals, there's just nothing. He
will say anything, he will do anything. However the wind blows,
that's how he will blow. And I don't think it's
fair to call that a mask moment when truly, like
what the mask is not is not hiding anything. This
(09:17):
is just genuinely like who you are, who you always
have been, just a soulless person who was waiting to
see who they should kiss up to and will do
that if it means holding onto power.
Speaker 2 (09:27):
Right, he was just waiting in the background, like his
personality was just waiting in the shadows, and then we're.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Like, oh, oh, this is my moment.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
And so when that all was going on, he also
announced that Meta was going to be scrapping their community
notes feature and scrapping all third party fact checking on
the platform, because, as he said, it was time for
the company to get back to their roots when it
comes to free expression. I will play a little bit
of a video that he put out talking about this.
Speaker 5 (09:56):
Hey, everyone, I want to talk about something important today
because it's time to get back to our roots around
free expression on Facebook and Instagram. I started building social
media to give people a voice. I gave a speech
at Georgetown five years ago about the importance of protecting
free expression and I still believe this today. But a
lot has happened over the last several years. There's been
(10:17):
widespread debate about potential harms from online content. Governments and
legacy media have pushed to censor more and more. A
lot of this is clearly political, but there's also a
lot of legitimately bad stuff out there. Drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.
These are things that we take very seriously, and I
want to make sure that we handle responsibly.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
So I have a lot to say about that. First
of all, very convenient rewriting of the history that frankly
wasn't that long ago, and that if you're listening in
your my age, you probably remember because we all know
it is not a secret that Facebook. Mark Zuckerberg created
Facebook as a college student to rank the looks of
the women in his on his college campus. Somehow we
(11:02):
sort of let him get away with being like, I
created Facebook to protect free expression. Okay, sure, I don't know.
I always have to like quibble at that because he
I guessaw a video where he said I created Facebook
because I wanted people to be able to have debates
about the Iraq War, And it's like, no, you did it.
First of all, I was an organizer in the anti
(11:22):
war movement. Nobody was communicating on Facebook when we like,
Facebook wasn't for that. So that's just not true. I
really have a thing where people lie to your face
about recent history that you remember that you were therefore
that you were part of. So that's bullshit. But even
more than that, he's talking about how the content that
(11:44):
he really wants to focus on in terms of moderating
the platform is a legal content right, child safety, harms,
drug trade, organized criminal activity, all of that. So this
is when he was really talking about how it was
to protect free expression on social media platforms. You'll might
recall that around this time, he was in the headlines
(12:06):
for saying that he felt the Biden administration had been
trying to pressure Facebook into removing COVID misinformation. The White
House had a different take, saying, quote, when confronted with
the deadly pandemic, this administration encouraged responsible actions to protect
public health and safety. Our position has been very clear
and consistent. We believe tech companies and other private actors
should take into account the effects their actions have on
(12:27):
the American people while making independent choices about the information
they present. So, you know, Zuckerberg in this moment was like,
we are not going to be moderating political content the
way that we have been. We are going to lift
restrictions on topics that are part of mainstream discourse and
really just focus on the enforcement of a legal and
like high severity violation. So yay for free speech right.
(12:51):
That all sounds great, Well, all of that, It's only
the case if that part of the mainstream discourse is
not abortion, which Facebook continues to suppress and moderate quite
heavily with zero transparency and zero consistency. So it seems
like if you're spreading COVID misinformation. Well, that is protected
speech that needs to be left up for freedom. If
(13:14):
you are sharing accurate information about abortion that isn't even
against metas policies, they will take it down.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Yeah, and like you said, without warning or transpancy or
nothing just is gone. And you might not know why
or well, you could probably figure it out. But one
of the things that's really frustrating about all of this
is that, you know, like you said, they're kind of
lying to our faces, right, like they're saying one thing
and doing something completely different.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Yeah, that's what really makes me angry about this. You know,
I cover a lot of tech companies. The thing that
gets me is when they lie, when they say one
thing publicly, when they publish something in their rules and
regulations and policies. You know, no one's putting a gun
to their head and making them put these things in
their rules, put them in their rules, and then they
do a completely different thing, and then when advocates or
(14:04):
organizers call them out on it, there's just no they're
just like, oops, what are they gonna do that? For
some reason, that just really gets me because they are
allowed to enjoy all of this positive press of putting
this thing in their policy and then continue doing the
shady work of going against that policy. It never comes
(14:25):
back at them like they're able to just do whatever
they want while saying one thing can doing another. And
I just don't feel like they really get held accountable.
And so a Meta spokesperson said that taking down abortion
content goes against Meta's own intentions. A spokesperson told The
New York Times, we want our platforms to be a
place where people can access reliable information about health services,
(14:46):
advertisers can promote health services, and everyone can discuss and
debate public policies in this space. That is why we
allow posts and ads discussing and debating abortion. But they're
not doing that at all. Because the big thing to
know here is that Meta says one thing in their
policies and then does a completely different thing when it
comes to how they are actually moderating abortion content. Yeah,
(15:09):
and it's.
Speaker 3 (15:12):
So difficult right now to get that good information, and
there's so much misinformation and disinformation out there, and to
remove it is just really piling onto a problem that
really doesn't need any more piling onto. It is already
really bad, and people are already very confused this is
(15:34):
not helping.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
No, that's a really good context to set that. You know,
we're in a time where the Supreme Court struck down Row.
It is so much harder to access accurate information about
help so that people can make health decisions for themselves.
And when social media platforms like Facebook put their thumb
(15:57):
on the scales and make these kinds of moderation decisions
with no transparency that go against their own stated policy,
it just makes that climate so much harder. It makes
it harder for the people who are trying to do
this work, abortion providers and abortion advocates. It makes it
harder for people who need to make decisions about their
health and the people that support them. It makes it
(16:17):
so that people cannot access information to figure out what
they want to do with their own bodies and lives.
And these companies do that while saying, oh, we promote
the ability to use our platforms to get this kind
of information. I would prefer that they say we don't
like abortion, we don't want people using our platform to
(16:38):
talk about abortion, so we take that content off. At
least that would be honest. But what they are doing
is lying to people about what they're actually doing while
doing it. It's so it's it's really adding insult to injury.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Right, I mean, the true, honest answer probably is that
they are taking money or they know that they are
just buying time until the en tirty of our rights
and reproductive rights may be completely dismantled in every way.
And that way they can already say, hey, leaders of
this fascist regime, we have done everything for you, so
(17:13):
can you keep supporting our platform and give us more money?
Speaker 1 (17:17):
Ugh, I mean the way that you've got the fox
Watch in the Henhouse here, the way that platforms are
able to cozy up to really, I mean, it's not
even really the Trump administration, just whoever is in power.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (17:30):
And then though that administration is also the administration that
is meant to be overseeing and regulating them. It's horrible
and so we really it's I'm glad that you brought
that up, because I think that helps us peel back
the layers of what exactly is going on here and
why it's so unacceptable.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And in understanding that that the whole confusion part is
probably the point.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
I think that's true. I mean, in looking at some
of the ways that Facebook says one thing and does
another when it comes to moderating abortion content. I think
that's exactly the point. It's like, you know, if we
and we'll get into this a little bit in a moment,
but if we create a confusing, inconsistent, not transparent climate,
people will just stop posting this information on our platforms.
And so we don't have to crack down on all
(18:13):
of it. We don't have to have a policy that
does not allow for abortion content to be on our platform.
It'll there'll be a chilling effect and people will do
it on their own. They'll just stop posting on their own.
And I think, in my opinion, that's the why of
why this is happening. So Meta says that they really
(18:37):
want to focus on moderating posts that deal with illegal content.
Side note, they don't always do such a great job
of that either, but that's for another episode. So Meta's
Dangerous Organizations and Individuals ORDI policy was supposed to really
be like a narrow policy focusing on preventing the platform
from being used by terrorist groups or organized crime like
(18:59):
VIA or criminal activity. But according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
over the years, we've really seen those rules be applied
in far broader and troubling ways with little transparency and
significant impact on marginalized voices, and this has essentially allowed
META to suppress factual content about abortion that does not
actually break any of the platform's rules. So the reason
(19:22):
why we know this is because the Electronic Frontier Foundation
or EFF have really given us a snapshot into what's
happening and provided some very clear receipts with their stock
censoring abortion campaign effs as they collected stories from individuals,
healthcare clinics, advocacy groups, and more, and together they've revealed
nearly one hundred examples of posts and resources being taken down,
(19:43):
ranging from guidance on medication abortion to links of resources
supporting individuals in states with abortion bands. What is important
to note is that the posts that they found that
weren't taken down or that resulted in sometimes a ban,
did not break any of metas rules. IFF said, we
analyze these takedowns, deletions, and bands comparing the content to
(20:05):
what platform policies allow, particularly those of META, and found
that almost none of the submissions we received violated any
of the platform stated policies. Most of the censored posts
simply provided factual educational information, so it really is a
system where you don't know, I mean, I guess you
(20:25):
could guess why this content is being taken down. There's
no consistency, there's no transparency, and Facebook just gets to
be like oopsie when it happens. Here's a great example
of a post that was removed from a healthcare policy
strategist named Lauren Carer discussing abortion pills availability by mail.
Her post reads, FYI, abortion pills are great to have around,
whether you anticipate needing them or not. Plan C Pills
(20:48):
is an amazing resource to help you find reliable sources
for abortion pills by mail, no matter where you live.
Once received, the pills should be kept in a cool,
dry place. The shelf life of maybe pristone is about
five years. The shelf life of missoprystal is about two years.
There's a missiprystal only regiment that is extremely safe, effective,
and very common globally. So that post is just here
(21:10):
is some factual information about these pills. However, Facebook removed
that post, and the explanation they gave Lauren was that
they don't allow people to buy, sell, or exchange drugs
that require a prescription from a doctor or a pharmacist.
But as you can tell, that post isn't about selling
or buying or trading medication. It is just fact based
(21:32):
information about that medication.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Yeah, it's one of those things where you read it
and you're like, I don't see the I don see
the thing, the thing that you're saying is there. It's
just it's just information. Uh oh it makes you bad.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
Yeah, and Eff points out that this post does not
break any of Meta's rules and should not be removed.
But you don't have to take their word for it
or my word for it, because Meta said the exact
same thing. Eff points out that Meta publicly insists that
posts like these should not be censored, and if February
twenty twenty four letter to Amnesty International, metas Human Rights
(22:12):
policy director wrote, organic content i e. Non Paid content
educating users about medication abortion is allowed and does not
violate our community standards. Additionally, providing guidance on legal access
to pharmaceuticals is allowed. So what the hell he suck? Like,
why if it's allowed, why are you taking it down?
Speaker 3 (22:33):
I'm so curious about because if the moderators are essentially
kind of removed, then is this just a they have
Like a keyword, like how is this happening? Is there
a person or.
Speaker 1 (22:46):
That is a great question. If I had to guess,
I would say, just knowing what I know about content moderation,
I would say this is probably over use of AI
moderation and then not caring enough to correct that. If
I had to say, I would say, because honestly, content
moderation is a job for a not just a human,
(23:06):
but a culturally competent human. When you don't have culturally
competent humans making moderation decisions, it's a problem, and it's
a problem that leads to the content of marginalized people
being suppressed much more on these platforms. Right, So, if
I had to guess, I would say, this is somebody
using an AI content moderation and then not caring enough
to correct that. It is consistently taking down content that
(23:29):
does not break any of the platform's rules. That's my guess. Well,
and that kind of.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
Relates to another thing I know you're going to talk about,
which is something Smith and I have also talked about
on some of our episodes.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
Is shadow banding. That's right, I mean, shadow banding is
one of those issues that I find very interesting because
who among us has not posted something on social media,
had that post not perform as well as you were expecting,
and wonder am I shadow band? I have definitely thought
this myself. If you've ever thought that, you are not alone.
But it does really happened. So shadow banning is when
(24:01):
a social media platform limits the visibility of someone's content
without telling them. And this is happening to people and
organizations that make content about sexual and reproductive health. And
it's a real problem because as we were talking about
before the Internet in twenty twenty five, but that is
really where people are going to find information about their health,
is especially in a landscape where that information is more
(24:24):
difficult to come by, where it's criminalized and cracked down on.
So people need the Internet as a resource, and so
if the people and advocates and organizations who provide that
information online are shadow band it becomes that much harder
to access what is often life saving information to help
people make health decisions. Earlier this year, the Center for
(24:46):
Intimacy Justice shared a report called the Digital Gag Suppression
of Sexual and Reproductive Health on Meta TikTok, Amazon, and Google,
and they found that of the one hundred and fifty
nine nonprofits, content creators, sex educators, and businesses that they surveyed,
three had content removed on Meta, fifty five percent had
content removed on TikTok. And this suppression is happening at
(25:07):
the same time as platforms continue to allow and elevate
videos of violence and gore and extremist and hateful content.
And this pattern is troubling because it only becomes more
prevalent as folks turn more and more to social media
to find the information that they need to make decisions
about their health. And so I like that context because
we really do have a social media landscape that allows
(25:29):
for violent content, gory content, extremist or hateful content to
stay up while taking down accurate content about reproductive health
that they agreed does not violate any of their policies.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
It's pretty telling to you. You have some examples here,
and one of them is from a place near us
that I was like, oh dear, oh dear, emery. Yeah, yep,
But I mean it's also as we're doing this research
(26:05):
on the CPC episode, I consider myself pretty you know,
pretty informed about abortion and all of it, but I
had to look up some stuff about like I'm not
sure is that legal there. I don't know, Like I
was feeling like, I know, I don't know if I
can trust this information. And then you try to go
to a place where you're like, Okay, I know this place,
(26:27):
and then you find out it's taken down, it doesn't
have anything about it. Yeah, it's not a good climate.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Yeah. And then you have Google allowing CPCs to stay,
you know, high ranked in their search. And then when
you go to CPCs they tell you all kinds of
misinformation about pregnancy and abortion. They are allowed to just
essentially lie to people, people who are in vulnerable situations.
And so it's already a climate where it's hard to
(26:55):
find trustworthy, accurate information, and then the clearly not trustworthy,
clearly not accurate information is allowed to not just allowed
to exist, but they put their thumb on the scales
in terms of making it more accessible than information that
is factual.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
Yep.
Speaker 3 (27:17):
So let us get into some of these examples, including
the one.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Eras, so, let's talk about what happened at Emory University.
So rise at Emor University, the Center for Reproductive Health
and Research in the Southeast, they published a post saying,
let's talk about Miffy pristone and its uses and the
importance of access. So they post this online. Two months later,
their account was suddenly suspended, flagged under the policy against
(27:41):
selling illegal drugs, which they were not selling or offering
illegal drugs. They were just giving fact based health information.
They tried to appeal, but that appeal was denied, leading
to their account being permanently deleted. Sarah Read, the director
of research and translation at Rise, told Eff, as a team,
this was a hit to our morale. We pour countless
(28:02):
hours of person power, creativity, and passion into creating the
content we have on our page and having it vanished
virtually overnight took a toll on our team. And you know,
I really think, like think about how critical that information
is these days, and how critical social media is these days.
They are already doing sensitive work in an area where
(28:24):
that work is threatened, and so losing your social media
that you've put so much time into is like losing
a lifeline, both for the staff and for the community
that you're trying to do that work in, as Eff
puts it, For many organizational users like Rise, their social
media accounts are repository for resources and metrics that may
not be stored elsewhere. We spent a significant amount of
(28:46):
already constrained team capacity attempting to recover all of the
content we created for Instagram that was potentially going to
be permanently lost. We also spend a significant amount of
time and energy trying to understand what options we might
have available from Meta to a peace our case and
recover our account. Their support options are not easily accessible,
and the time it took to navigate this issue distracted
(29:07):
from our existing work. So I totally feel what they
are saying that when you are doing work that is
that critical, you know, time sensitive, having to stop that
work to figure out, well, how are we going to
appeal this decision to Meta? Is all of are all
of our years and years of work on Instagram just
lost forever? That is a real problem. And again, they
(29:29):
weren't doing anything wrong, They're they're nothing that they posted
on their account was against metas policies. It's just arbitrary,
and so luckily they were able to eventually get their
account back, but only because they knew someone who knew
somebody who worked at Facebook personally, which is really the
only way to appeal when this kind of thing happens
if you if you if your account is taken down
(29:50):
for no real reason by Facebook. I am sorry to say,
unless you have a friend who knows somebody who works
at Facebook, you're probably not going to be able to
appeal again. Because a lot of these decisions are AI right.
It can be very very hard to escalate to a
human and the only real way to do it is
to just know somebody there. And again, I just feel
that in these situations where Meta agrees these posts are
(30:11):
not in violation of their rules and that they admit
they made a mistake, it should not come down to
knowing somebody at Facebook to have these decisions be reversed
when Meta agrees their mistakes on their part.
Speaker 3 (30:25):
Now I'm trying to think if I know someone on
Facebook I used to, I don't know if we're still there.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
Well.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
Another issue with this is, as you said, if people
are worried that their content might be deleted or shadow banned,
or just they've seen this happen to other organizations or
something like that, then they might not post it anymore.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
Or yeah, and I have to assume that is the point.
Eff rights At the end of the day, clinics are
clinics are left afraid to post basic information, patients are
left confused or misinformed, and researchers lose access to these audiences.
But unless your issue catches the attention of a journalist
or you know, someone at Meta, you might never regain
(31:20):
access to your account. And so I really think that
that is the sort of so what here that Meta
is doing this to sort of not explicitly discourage organizations
and advocates and people from posting this kind of information
on their platform, while saying the opposite, because it is
(31:41):
going to have a silencing effect. You know, nobody wants
to risk losing their entire platform, years and years and
years of content and research and resources they've collected. Yeah,
no one's going to want to take that risk, right.
Speaker 2 (31:53):
It's interesting that their policy with like the things that
we're going to actually moderate as well, terrorism and gain
and child endangerment, which is kind of a dog whistle
for what the Republican platform has been to for jump
to all of this morality level of issues, and that
(32:15):
the fact that Zuckerberg is like, you know what, yeah,
we're going to adopt this too, but it's purely to
protect the people's We're just protecting the people's and again
it does seem like see, see we're doing like you,
we got your back. We also agree with this this
is the only way or this is the best way
to control what information is being out there.
Speaker 1 (32:37):
Yes, and if you actually I mean, this is a
whole other topic. But when you look at the way,
so they say, Okay, we're only gonna be cracking down
on content that creates harm for kids, this dog whistle
that they love to pull up. And then when you
look at the kind of harm for kids that they
either allow or advocate, part of me is like, what
(32:57):
what content are you actually taking down with? I don't
know if you all saw the recent reporting. There was
a very interesting report I think from the Wall Street
Journal where they had gotten their hands on an internal
policy document. So this is something that somebody at Facebook said,
this is our policy, totally fine to have in writing,
no problem. That said that Meta's chatbots were allowed to
(33:21):
engage in sensual play with minors, so kids, it was
okay with Meta if they're chatbots engaged in like sensual
I won't say sexual, but I would say I've seen
some of the content and it is sort of spicy
that it's okay if they're if they're bot to do
(33:42):
that with children. And part of me is like, I
cannot believe you will put this in writing. I cannot
believe that someone at Facebook said, yeah, this is this
is a document, I'll attach my name to this. Well
and behold. When the Wall Street Journal asked about it,
they were like, oh, no, we have since walked that
policy back. That's no longer our official on the record.
Our official on the record policy is no longer that
it's okay for our bots to engage in sexy role
(34:05):
play with kids. We walked that back, Like, I bet
you did walk.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
That back today as you asked question.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
I'm so happened right after the Wall Street Journal called
them and asked them about it. I'm so sure that
it was like an hour later we walked at that.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
We got this. No, we would never right.
Speaker 3 (34:25):
Well, yeah, and I mean you were here, Bridget. I
guess it was years ago and you were talking about
another kind of whistle brower account of Facebook knowing it
was harming young girls.
Speaker 1 (34:38):
Yeah, Francis hogen Is is the whistleblower. Why we know that?
Speaker 3 (34:42):
Yeah, So it's it is very galling for them to
be like we want to protect the children, and then
you have these things.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
That again directly show that clearly you don't not really
and to be clear, that is knowingly harming kids. So
I just think it's very interesting that Facebook gets to say, well,
we're too busy focusing on content that harms kids to
take down to really care that much about what's going
on with our abortion content, and that's the content we're
(35:12):
really working on. But really we're not doing that either,
you know what I mean, Like they get they really
It just infuriates me, it really does. And I think
the issue really is to understand is in twenty twenty five,
when you have a question, when I have a question,
the first place I go is the internet, right we all?
That's I think that is the reality for most of us,
(35:32):
and the internet and social media really has become this
lifeline for folks trying to get information about the world
around us, including our sexual and reproductive health. And if
folks are not able to find what they need in
their own communities, which I'm sorry to say is becoming
more and more of the reality these days, they are
going to go online to turn to social media to
(35:54):
fill those gaps that access really matters most for folks
whose care is being cut off, abortion seekers or trans
or queer youth living in states where healthcare is under attack.
And so if you have these social media platforms kind
of adding to a landscape where that information is difficult
to access, even if that information is not against their rules,
(36:16):
it's just making it that much more difficult. And these
decisions really do matter. I mean they some of them
are life or death, and they really have real world
impact on people's lives.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
Absolutely, And unfortunately this is not this is part of
kind of a larger issue, kind of a larger attack,
gendered attack. Correct.
Speaker 1 (36:38):
Yes, so this is something I find so interesting and
I actually should come back and do another episode on it.
In the middle of some research on it right now.
But the Center for Intimacy Justice, who's report I mentioned earlier,
they have another report that really shows how platforms routinely
suppress sexual health content for women and trans folks, while
leaving content aimed at supporting the sexual health of CIS
(37:00):
men largely untouched. Right. So, I know lots of people
who run businesses that are focused on like the sexual
health of people who are not CIS men. Right, So,
if you have pelvic pain, if you need sex toys,
like all these different things that are aimed at people
who are not cisgender men. I have lots of friends
(37:20):
who run businesses like that. They are essentially not able
to do any kind of advertising on Facebook because Facebook
does not allow it. However, Facebook certainly allows information about
the sexual wellness of cisgender men. So we really have
a climate where, let's face it, mostly men who run
(37:41):
these platforms are able to determine whose sexual health is
important and who is not. Whose healthcare is healthcare, and
whose is like something perverted that needs to be suppressed
and isn't allowed on their platform.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Yeah, and now thinking about it, as I've been looking
at Instagram, the amount of gale ads that I've been getting,
which is interesting because I thought that was medication that
you had to get through a doctor, is overwhelming. But
also on the vice versa of that is meles you know,
health sex health bs. Those are the two ads that
(38:17):
I get. Definitely nothing about women in birth control rarely,
there's a few that, but it's very as of late,
I think zero, But the amount of GLP one ads,
I'm like, WHOA, what is happening Instagram?
Speaker 4 (38:29):
I thought we were allowing this.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
Yes, I mean the amount of ads I get, specifically
for the a rectil dysfunction medication blue Cheo, and the
ads are do have you ever seen these ads online?
The ads are clearly targeted at women, So it's a
cute woman being like, ladies, get your man to get
blue chee. Blue shoe is gonna rock your world. Get
(38:53):
your man on blue shoe. And that's a medication, that is,
that is an erectail dysfunction prescription medication. But these platforms
have just decided, oh no, that's okay. That's that. You
can you can show that all day long, no problem,
you can boost it, you can put money behind it.
Totally fine.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
But again that this is the rampant amount of as
like every two like scrolls on Instagram that pops up,
and on Facebook too, which is I'm like, I don't
even go to Facebook. I just need to know people's birthdays.
That's all I need, That's all I really want. But again,
this seems to be like I thought once, if that
was your policy from Jump, then how are these as
(39:33):
paying you, I know, paying you millions?
Speaker 4 (39:35):
How are these okay?
Speaker 1 (39:37):
Yeah, their policy is totally inconsistent seemingly arbitrary and seemingly
biased against any kind of marginal identity. Like that's just
what's going on. They don't have any transparency. They say
one thing and do another. Uh, and that just is
the is the norm for them, and it's I really
do think that we should be talking about how you know, again,
(39:59):
let's be honest, we're talking about mostly men, and mostly
not just men, like a specific kind of man, white moneyed,
coastal all of that. How we have given them so
much power to define what knowledge is acceptable, whose voices
are amplified, whose bodies are are left at risk, and
when platforms decide what can and can't be shared. They
(40:21):
are making public health decisions with global consequences in ways
that are often contrary to public health, and then also
reinforce systemic inequalities. And so I just think, you know,
this is not just we're not just talking about like
vague policy language. I know that I have spent a
lot of time talking about that because it annoys me.
But it's really about them deciding who gets to speak,
(40:42):
who gets seen, who gets access to the information that
they need to make decisions about their own health and bodies.
When meta and these platforms silence accurate, essential sexual and
reproductive health information for not just enforcing inconsistent body rules.
I mean they are, but they're not just doing that.
They are also shaping people's lives and really deciding whose
(41:03):
health matters and whose doesn't. And in a world where
we know the Internet has really become this lifeline that
is not just annoying, although I am annoyed, it is
dangerous because free speech shouldn't come with a disclaimer that
your body's safety is just optional and up to the
whims of Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 3 (41:20):
No, I don't want to live in that world.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
No, No, I mean I think about this all the time,
the ways that these individuals, like a handful of individual
mostly white guys, get to define what our worlds look
like in these very concrete ways. And I've never met
Mark Zuckerberg. Although I have met Cheryl Sandberg, but I've
(41:43):
never met Mark Zuckerberg. I don't want Mark Zuckerberg in
charge of deciding anything for my life. I don't think
Mark Zuckerberg and I have any common idea about what
it means to have a good, fulfilled life. I don't
want him designing what my future looks like.
Speaker 3 (42:00):
I think that's very wise.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
I mean that one movie made him look really pretty
much a dick.
Speaker 1 (42:05):
So, oh my god, you mean The Social Network, one
of my favorite movies. Oh my god. I don't want
to I don't want to spoil it, but the ending
of that movie is my version of Citizen Kane. Have
you both have seen it? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (42:19):
I've not seen it. I've seen clips because I'm like,
I don't want even want to know, but he seems
like a dick.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Go home and watch it tonight. I know your birthday
is coming up birthday? Is it a fun birthday watch?
I mean, I'm such a nerd. I say it's a
fun watch. But if you're looking for a movie to
watch on your birthday, that might be that might be
the one.
Speaker 3 (42:38):
It's a good it's a solid like, oh yeah, you're
just a sad man ending.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Yes, you know what I'm talking about. You kiss Citizen Kane.
The sled moment at the end of that movie. It
haunts me, and I think if you haven't, I think
if you've seen it, it gives context for some of the
stuff we've talked about when it comes to for birth today.
Speaker 4 (42:59):
All right, And without even seeing it, I was like alright.
Speaker 1 (43:04):
I also love it as such a dark soundtrack. Who
is it yet? Nobody does a haunting the soundtrack like
Trent Resnor Gone Girl soundtrack soundtrack to Challenger is also
Trent Resnor, And that's the soundtrack I put on when
I'm writing. If you need to focus and just like
put on some headphones and be like we are writing.
(43:27):
That is your soundtrack. Trent Rednor can write a dark
movie soundtrack like nobody's business.
Speaker 3 (43:34):
And I love that it was in this movie about
this college kid trying to get a girl to like
oh lord, yes, okay, well we'll revisit that later. We'll
do uh maybe you know we had a fun time
trash talking some Hugh Heffner that one time we'll come
(43:54):
back with a fun thing for you, Bridget, and you
can side because yours bring us every topic. Yes of
your choosing. But before then, thank you so much for
being here. Where can the good listeners find you?
Speaker 1 (44:09):
You can find me on my podcast. There are no
girls on the internet. You can find me on Instagram.
I know it's owned by Max Zuckerberg. I don't like
it either. At Bridget Bryan DC TikTok at Bridget Bryan
DC and on YouTube and there are no girls on
the internet.
Speaker 3 (44:24):
Yes, go check all of that out if you have
it already, listeners. If you would like to contact us,
you can. You can email us at Hello, stuff I
Never told You. You can find us on Blue Scott
most of a podcast, or Instagram and TikTok at stuff
one Never told You.
Speaker 1 (44:37):
We're also on YouTube.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
We have new merchandise at Cotton Bureau, and we have
a book you can get wherever you get your books.
Thanks always hear A suproduce Christina Executive producing my under
contributor Joey.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
Thank you and thanks to you for.
Speaker 3 (44:48):
Listening Stuff Never Told Yous fiction by Heart Radio. For
more podcasts from my heart Radio, you can check out
the heart Radio app, a podcast, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
Speaker 1 (45:00):
We're not known over he
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com