This week we learned that police officers helped the insurrectionists, and that Google never stopped collecting data on visits to abortion centers like they said they would. Target pulled Pride merch to protect its employees from violent exhibitionists, and Ron DeSantis congratulated himself on Twitter (in between server crashes).
For more content like this, check out our Patreon: Patreon.com/TANGOTI
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 Unbossed Creative. I'm Brigittat and this is
There Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm here with
my producer Mike.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Hello bridget Hey.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Mike, thanks for being here. And here's what you may
have missed this week on the Internet. Let's start with
a little bit of news from my hometown, Washington, DC,
where Lieutenant Shane Leman, a lieutenant for the Metropolitan Police
Department's Intelligence Branch, was just indicted after he used his
position within law enforcement to share confidential information with Enrique Tario.
(00:41):
You might know that name because Enrique is a former
leader of the Proud Boys, the far right and extremist group.
Enrique was just recently found guilty of seditious conspiracy in
connection with the January sixth capital attack. But the federal
indictment for the police lieutenant who helped Enrique claim the
men were in regular contact for July twenty nineteen to
at least January twenty twenty one, using encrypted messaging apps
(01:04):
like Telegram. So what were these guys discussing. Well, as
you might have guessed, the WYHO weren't just discussing the
vander Pump Rules reunion.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Oh man, if only they were you know, I know
they weren't, but I just like to imagine these guys
just sitting around watching watching some Bravo and getting into it.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Yeah, probably have big opinions about La La and the
whole gang. Well, the men actually discussed Proud Boy activities
in the DC area, and this lieutenant actually ended up
giving Tario a heads up about investigations into the Proud Boys.
So a few days before January six, Enrique Tario was
in Washington, DC, and while he was here in DC,
he stole a Black Lives Matter banner from the Ashbury
(01:45):
United Methodist Church, which is a historic black church here
in DC. He then set it on fire with lighter fluid. Now,
because Enrique is a brilliant criminal mastermind, he posted a
picture of himself holding a lighter onto his parlor account
and admitted days later in an interview with The Washington
Post that he had joined in burning of this flag.
(02:06):
Lieutenant Lamond gave Tario a heads up that he was
about to be arrested for charges from this.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Burning of the flag.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
And I have to say, like this story has been
getting a lot of play here in DC. I'm honestly
not surprised because this kind of confirms what we've already known.
The FBI has been warning that extremist hate groups are
active within law enforcement for at least the last ten years.
A two thousand and six intelligence report from the FBI
shows that officials have had concerns about the infiltration of
(02:34):
police departments for years, but kind of like just didn't
give the public a warning about this. Reports show that
in some cases, these people wanted to join the military
or law enforcement specifically because they thought it might give
them an opportunity to be violent toward people of color,
or that they planned to join the military or police
to learn how to wage war against people of color,
(02:55):
according to ABC News, between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty,
agents and analysts with the FBI's division in San Antonio
concluded that white supremacists and other right wing extremists would
be quote very likely to seek affiliation with military and
law enforcement entities in the furtherance of their ideologies, according
to a confidential intelligence assessment issued last month.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
And I also think.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
That there's you know, we have this information from the FBI,
but I think colloquially like, anybody with eyes who is
paying attention has probably always seen this kind of cozy
relationship between law enforcement and extremist groups. When you look
at reports of how police treated extremist groups in places
like Kenosha. I think is a good example after Kyle
Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin and shot and killed two
(03:38):
men during a protest. Before the shooting, Rittenhouse is like
lined up holding a rifle as sensibly to quote protect
he says local businesses. Police were shown on tape thanking
him and giving him water about fifteen minutes before he
shot and killed two people, And even after the shooting,
even though he is leaving the scene of the shooting
(04:00):
with a gun and there are protesters following him screaming
at the police, like hey, this person just shot someone,
the police just let him leave. When asked about this later,
the police were like, oh, with a chaotic situation, you know,
who's to say what happened?
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Like we would have given anybody water.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
This is not evidence of a cozy relationship, but it
also aligns with reports that armed extremist groups were kind
of deputizing themselves to patrol neighborhoods. In twenty twenty and beyond,
and that the police were just kind of okay with
it and not you know, did not seem to think
it was anything that was rose to the level of
something they should be concerned about. And I think this
(04:37):
cozy relationship between extremist groups and police really came to
a head on January sixth at the Capitol where, according
to NPR, nearly thirty sworn police officers from a dozen
different departments attended the rally on January sixth, and several
of them actually stormed the Capitol building with the insurrectionists.
So you know, those off duty police officers were there
(04:59):
to take part in the insurrection, and also you have
on duty police officers who were there on the scene,
you know, trying to contain the situation. I truly do
believe that some of these riders storming the Capitol seemed
surprised that the on duty police officers kind of protecting
the capital were not on their side. I bet a
(05:20):
lot of these guys thought that these police officers were
going to cheer them on as they entered the Capitol
precisely because of this cozy relationship. And I think the
biggest problem to me or the scariest thing is just
how little scrutiny this has really gotten. It's clear, both
from the intelligence community and from the actions of police
that there is this cozy relationship between extremists and armed
(05:43):
agents of the state who regularly interact with the public.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
So why is this not a bigger deal?
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, it is really disturbing but not surprising to learn
that members of law enforcement were participating in the interrection.
You Know, what is really surprising to me three years
later is how Donald Trump and his allies had been
able to downplay the significance of the insurrection. You know,
(06:10):
back on January sixth and twenty twenty, it seemed like
such a huge deal. And it was a huge deal.
It was a brazen, violent attack and broad daylight not
just on the Capitol, but on the peaceful transition of
power after an election, which is one of the most,
if not the most fundamental American value, and they nearly
(06:31):
ended that after over two hundred uninterrupted years. And I'm
just so The thing that I'm most shocked about is
how successful they've been convincing large portions of the population
and the media that it was like, not a big deal,
just some concerned citizens having a little civic demonstration when
(06:57):
in fact they were like insurrectionists trying to overthrow the government.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I mean we were both in DC when that happened.
I don't care who tries to convince me that it
wasn't a big deal. I will never forget that day.
I will never forget it. It was the most eerie
day of my entire life, and I will never forget it.
I watched Ashley Babit day a national television I was
like watching I will never forget it.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
I was.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
I think it was the first time I ever saw
dead like someone get killed on TV. I knew as
soon as it happened that she was dead.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
It was.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
It was such a crazy day. I don't care how
many times these Republicans try to minimize it.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
It was a big deal. I will never forget it.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah, seriously. And it's such a complicated story because at
the same time that these there were these police officers
marching with the insurrectionists and storming the capitol, there were
other police officers. They're risking their lives, you know, some
of them sacrifice their lives trying to protect it. And
you know, we're recording this on Friday evening of Memorial
(08:05):
Day weekend, and so you know, it's hard not to
think about those officers who lost their lives on that day.
And if you know, if it weren't for them, Donald
Trump would probably be president right now, and he would
probably stay president for the rest of his life. You know,
democracy in America would be over. They literally laid down
their lives to save the republic. You know, it's not hyperbole,
(08:27):
and so I'm trying to keep that in mind as
I think through what to make of this story. You know,
whenever there's any story about police misconduct, whatever officials are
in charge or usually pretty quick to point to like
a bad apples theory that everything is fine, there's just
a couple of bad apples, and you know, we know
that that's bullshit. There's systemic problems and a culture of
(08:50):
silence that enable police abuse and state sponsored oppression to
flourish in the shadows. But I think this, yes, and
that's you know, that's bullshit. Bad apples is a bullshit theory.
But this story and the complications is a good reminder
that you know, some apples really truly are like solidly rotten,
(09:14):
like really bad. And you know those dozen police departments
that had a couple of people show up and participate
in the insurrection and try to overthrow the government. I
hope they're taking a good hard look at their personnel
and getting them the hell out of there.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I mean, I had to shorten this research for the
sake of we're doing a thirty minute podcast. But that's
not even the half of it. Like, even beyond the
officers who were there that day, there was another officer
I think based in Maryland who was put on probation
recently and kicked off the force because on Facebook after
(09:54):
the insurrection, a like a YouTuber a fishing YouTube that
he liked posted on YouTube about having stormed the capitol,
and he sent him a private message and he was like, listen,
I agree with your opinions, but they're investigating this and
they're arresting these guys. Take this down, and that police
officer was himself charged with that, and so like, how
(10:17):
many how Like I'm giving you the short version of
how many police officers were in the mix on January six,
but how many physically didn't go but sympathized with these people,
Like there has to be the fact that I think
that so many of the rioters thought that they were
on the same side as the police and probably were like, wait,
(10:38):
why are you trying to stop me? Aren't we on
the same team. I think that that isn't a coincidence.
I think that it is pretty clear that there is
some sort of a cozy relationship between extremist groups and
law enforcement. And the more that we downplay it, the
more that we say it's just bad apples, the less
safe that we are going to be. Like, this is
a public safety issue. I think the public has a
right to know if the armed guards of the state
(11:01):
who are going to be summoned oftentimes in that you
have involuntary interactions with, are also in a hate group
or a Nazi group or a white supremacist group.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Yeah, it's not an okay situation at all. Damn.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
So, speaking of bad apples, let's talk about Google.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Oh wait, are you growing?
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Because that was a good transition or you thought it
was cheesy.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
It was a little bit of both. You know, I
appreciate the effort.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Well, you know, I'm going to take that a for effort,
So I'm taking the A. I'm calling it an A.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
It's an a fair enough, it's your show so S.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
That's right, so s folks might know. Almost a year
after the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade. Soon thereafter,
Google announced that it would proactively delete its trove of
location data when people visited what they called quote particularly
personal places. Now these include things like hospitals, shelters, and
of course, abortion clinics. Their statement said, today we're announcing
(12:05):
that if our systems identify that someone has visited one
of these places, we will delete these entries from location
history soon after they visit. This change will take effect
in the coming weeks. Well, guess what they haven't done that.
The digital rights group accountable Tech put out a report
where they tested Google's updated policies by visiting abortion clinics
in different states with newly purchased Android phones. Based on
(12:26):
their experimentations and research, accountable Tech found that Google is
still retaining location search queries by default and location history
for users who have it turned on, including information about
reproductive care facilities, despite their public promise to begin deleting it.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Yeah. Disappointing, not surprising Google, They keep showing us who
they are.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
According to accountable Tech, by retaining both location search query
and location history data Google jeopardizes the health, safety, and
legal status of their users who visit reproductive care facilities
in states where abortion criminalized. If prosecutors in a state
with a restrictive abortion law receive a tip about someone's
seeking an abortion, a subpoena would likely force Google to
hand over sensitive data. So we have a little bit
(13:10):
of news and movement on this issue. Nearly a dozen
Senate Democrats wrote to Google this week with questions about
how it deletes users' location history when they have visited
sensitive places like abortion clinics, expressing concerns that the company
may not have been consistently deleting the data as promised.
The letter came from Senators Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and
Mazie Heerino, seeking answers from Google about the types of
(13:30):
location that Google considers to be sensitive and for just
how long it will take for the company to automatically
delete visit history.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
That's not all.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
A few days ago, an anonymous complainant filed a lawsuit
against Google, claiming that it unlawfully collects health data, including
abortion searches, on third party websites that use Google tech.
Jane Doe, whose legal representation is looking to get the
case certified as a class action. Claims that her private
information was intercepted by Google when she used scheduling pages
on Planned Parenthood's website in twenty eighteen to search for
(13:59):
an abortion provide. So something that I have to ask, like,
is it legal for Google to say one thing about
their privacy policy and then fully do another. Maybe you know,
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an expert in this,
but I fully do not understand how Google misleading the
public about their data privacy practices is legal under the
Federal Trade Commission. But I'm no expert on this. What
(14:21):
I can tell you is that whether or not it's legal,
it is certainly unethical and it is certainly dangerous. We
all deserve privacy and it should not be up to
the whims of the tech billionaires, who are mostly men
who run Google, to decide whether or not we get
it totally.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
You know, to disclose, I have an Android phone and
I really need to get off of it because Google
just has such a long track record of not respecting privacy.
In twenty twenty, there are some documents that were made
public from a lawsuit against Google that have been brought
by Arizona's Attorney General that ultimately Google ended up settling
(14:58):
for eighty five million dollars. Some internal documents showed that
Google was effectively ignoring users' privacy settings, and the privacy
controls were so obtuse and unnavigable that even Google's own
engineers weren't able to figure out how to use them.
And they were, you know, these emails were from the
Google engineers talking with each other trying to make sense
(15:20):
of like, how did these privacy controls work? And so
like if they can't figure out how they work, how
is an end user supposed to have any hope of
doing it? And not only did they were they confusing,
but they they seemed simple. But then they didn't actually
do what the users could reasonably expect them to do
in terms of opting out of different privacy settings, you know,
(15:44):
and that doesn't happen by accident. It was a choice
that Google made to design their privacy settings that way,
even if they didn't intentionally set out to deceive their users,
which is debatable, but even giving them the benefit of
the doubt, they still clearly demonstrated a lack of respect
for privacy and it's not surprising, right, They're an advertising
(16:07):
kind of company. They sell ads, that's their top priority,
and they collect data to allow them to sell more
ads to more people. And so of course they're not
going to allow a little thing like privacy to get
in the way of that. Lack of concern for privacy
is a value of theirs. And so just like the
way those user settings and privacy controls were an illusion
(16:28):
that did not actually stop people's private data from being
sent to Google, now we learn that there are public
statements about protecting abortion data were fabrications. And again I
don't know if they did that there's an intentional lie
or just like a cinem omission where they just couldn't
be bothered to do it. But you've raised a great
(16:49):
point that you know, people, hey, you should have a
right to privacy. It just in general period B. They
should certainly have a right to privacy for health information
and medical information. And then see, at the very least
people should be able to expect that when Google says
they're going to do something, that they will actually do
(17:10):
it instead of doing nothing, which seems to be what
they've done.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Yeah, and I think that you really put it well,
I don't think that you should have to be a
privacy expert or a lawyer or somebody who is really
knowledgeable about you know, tech pr speak versus what is
happening in reality to be able to make decisions for
your health and for your life. And I think that
(17:34):
Google has created a situation where, yeah, it's like people
shouldn't have to be legal experts to just understand what
is happening with their data when they are accessing information
that could wind them in prison, right, Like, we should
be able to expect more from Google.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
We deserve privacy, particularly.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
When it comes to something as sensitive as our health
information in this climate where abortion is criminalized, and you know,
being a person who is seeking an abortion right now
is so scary, and just being someone who is pregnant
is scary enough.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
So on Layered on.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Top of that the expectation that like, oh, well, you
have to be a data privacy expert or a lawyer
to understand what digital trail you might be leaving when
you try to access information to make decisions about your health,
that the burden is too high for regular people, and
adding the fact of like whether it's a vindictive X
lover or a nosy neighbor or a vigilante that you
(18:30):
don't even know, who can turn you in because they
believe that you have tried to access information about abortion.
That digital footprint that Google has can be used to
criminalize you. And so Google right now is like doing
something that I think is not just an ethical potentially
a legal question mark, but deeply deeply dangerous in a
(18:50):
threat to public safety.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
Yeah, the stakes are super high for people. And you know,
this is another great example of why we need regulation
to protect privacy in this country. Maybe that looks like
what they have in Europe. Maybe it looks like what
California is doing. I don't know exactly what that regulation
looks like, but it's clear that we can't trust tech
(19:14):
companies to do the right thing on their own. Maybe
some of them might every now and then that's great,
but we can't rely on that. Time and again they
demonstrate that they just can't be trusted to regulate themselves.
It's a pattern. We need some regulation to rein in
the abuses of tech companies and social media platforms.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Let's take a quick brain at our back.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Speaking of people who cannot be trusted, we have to
talk about Ronda Santis. Do we it's a big announcement
on Twitter. I mean, I don't want to. I want
to keep this brief because I really don't want to
talk about it. So let's just get it out of
the way. Are you are you game? Can you got
it in you?
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Mike?
Speaker 2 (20:13):
I mean like yeah, yeah, let's let's just try to
do it quickly.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Get in, get out, yeah, get in, get out?
Speaker 4 (20:19):
All right.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Florida Governor Ronda Santis announced that he's running for president,
and he did it via a Twitter spaces because it
is an initiative helmed by Elon Musk. The entire thing
was plagued with problems, screw ups, and glitches. Of course,
of course, the first twenty minutes was just people talking
over each other and audio issues. David Sax, who is
a venture capitalist who is also the host of the
(20:40):
All In podcast, which side note, it's definitely a more
popular tech podcast than ours by like a million percent.
So I don't want people to think this is like
sour grapes, but they're definitely a more popular tech They're
like number one every day.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
That's nice for them, you know, I yeah to respect that,
but we're coming for you.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Honestly, if Ronda Santis has had any like gump shin
or courage, he would have had that shit moderated by
Kara Swisher and he would have like actually had it
be not just like a very cozy billionaire venture tech
capitalist talking with Elon Musk in the room on a
Twitter spaces that is like me being like, I can't
even think of a comparable thing. That is like me
(21:27):
be having someone moderate a Twitter spaces and the moderator
is I can't even there's not even there's not even
something comparable. I can't even think of anything.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Yeah, it's it's like like three people that are all
the same in a room talking about how great they
all are.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
My God, I was gonna say it would be like
if my own mother moderated a Twitter spaces with me.
But I believe my mother would be a tougher interviewer
than David Sax was at this Twitter spaces rollout. So
you know, we don't have to get get too into it.
But one thing I do want to say is that
so David Zack's venture capitalist host of the All In podcast,
was the moderator. What's annoying is how quickly they immediately
(22:10):
went into self aggrandizement mode and lying about it. David
Zach said that it was quote by far, the biggest
room ever held on social media. DeSantis said in a
podcast interview that he thought later in the day that
quote probably over ten million people watched the event. By
the way, you don't watch a Twitter space, you listen
to it. That's neither herr.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
There is he like performing as though he were on
camera the whole time?
Speaker 1 (22:31):
Oh good question, Oh my god. You know his team
was probably like, just let him Vigi's on camera, Like,
there's no camera in here. But if this is what
he needs, fine, So let's look at the real numbers
of the event. It had a high listenership of about
three hundred thousand concurrent listeners, of whom all at the
same time tuned into DeSantis make his announcement. As of Thursday,
(22:52):
about three point four million people listen to the space
or recording to it, according to Twitter's numbers. I really
don't have a lot to say about this event. It
sounds like it was a shit show.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Those are not big numbers either, Like, no, three hundred
thousand concurrent listeners. There are like Twitch streamers who get
that when they I don't know, like wake up in
the morning, right like just turn and turn on their accounts.
That's that is definitely not What did he say that
the biggest room ever held on social media? Whatever that means,
(23:26):
that's just a lie.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
He doesn't He just made like that's not it's it's
so it's just not remotely true. It's not true that
they that like that's a huge amount. It's certainly not
true that it's the biggest room ever held on social media.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
What a bullshit claim.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I can't believe that he was able to just pull
that out of the air and that nobody was like
h question like follow up.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
But like what like you said, like who's going to
call him on it? Elon Musk, Ronda Sandy.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
That's the thing.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
It's like the fact that they are that they that
this announcement was surrounded by such like sicophants and fanboys.
It's like a like, obviously there's no they have They
have purposely like bubble wrapped themselves from anybody who would
even just bring up reality, like not even like tough questions,
(24:15):
just like okay, well in reality there were three hundred
thousand people on you'd have said it was the biggest
space of all time, So what is the truth? You know, like,
obviously these are not people who were interested in any
kind of reality. And again I don't really have a
ton to say about this. We were talking, uh when
this event was happening, and you heard me like unleash
the most like gottural deep down heavy, so like the
(24:37):
heaviest of heavy size, and you looked over and you
were like, what's wrong, thinking that like something bad had happened,
And it just became clear to both of us that
I am going to need to sort something out as
we get deeper into election season to not completely like
lose my mind. Like I like, I don't know why
the claim about it being the biggest space ever got
(24:59):
to me. I'm going, but it was clear to me
that like I'm going to be hearing stuff like this
for the next few months, and I need to figure
something out so that I'm not like for my own
well being.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Yeah, you and me both. I mean, it's it's funny.
I'm always so curious the things that like really get
under your skin and don't like because it's such a stupid, little,
like insignificant thing, But I get it. I love to
get hung up on stupid, little, insignificant things, and you're right,
it's just gonna get worse as we go into this election.
That's just like the the tip of the stupid iceberg.
(25:33):
You know, there's so much more stupid under the sea
coming at the boat that is America.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Oh my god, you know me so well from us
working on the show together that I would be curious
maybe for maybe for some Patreon content.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
We've got to give a list of the.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Weird things that you might not think and under bridget skin,
but really get under bridget skin, because that would be
curious to know your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
The petty grievance rundown. Uh, we'd have to break it
up for a couple episodes.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Oh my god, Actually forget. I don't want to hear this.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
This is not content that I want that I want
out there, even behind a paywall. Okay, So I do
have one thing to say about the rollout is that
I think it reveals that the people who are like
extremely online it is people like Ronda Santis. I think
for a long time that the left, progressives, radicals whatever
have been accused of being too online, extremely online, caring
(26:27):
too much about what's happening on Twitter, and like social media,
cloud is.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Currency, YadA, YadA, YadA. I hope that this.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Official presidential announcement makes it super abundantly clear that it
is right wing extremists who are the ones who are
too online. They are the ones who have been able
to weaponize the Internet to accommodate their grievances while calling
the rest about snowflakes. It is clear who the snowflakes are.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
It is them.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
I hope that this announcement makes very clear who is
the one who is too obsessed with what's happening on Twitter,
because it's Ronda Santis, not us.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
It's such a good observation. You're so right. And not
only are they're the ones who are too online, but
it's clear what their goal of their ideal vision of
what an ideal online space is, which is a super
safe space for them, free from trigger warnings of like
(27:20):
truth or accountability, where they can just go off about
like how they are having the biggest, greatest Twitter space
ever that everyone is watching. It's such a good observation. Yeah,
they they've finally made it, you know, they've finally made
Twitter their own by purging everyone else so that they
(27:44):
can just repeat their own nonsense to each other.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
It's so true, and speaking of nonsense, we have to
talk about this mess at target right now. So folks
have probably already seen this. If you haven't seen it,
you've definitely seen it. But it's a summarize right wing
extreme as social media personalities are leading a coordinated campaign
against brands for carrying pride merch. Far right podcaster Matt
Wall said this very explicitly, tweeting, the goal is to
(28:10):
make pride toxic for brands. If they decide to shove
this garbage in our face, they should know that they'll
pay a price. The goal is to make pride toxic
for brands. If they decide to shove this garbage in
our face, they should know that they'll pay a price.
It won't be worth whatever they think they'll gain. We
can't boycott every woke company. We don't need to pick
a few strategic targets make them pay dearly. That's enough
(28:31):
to make wokeness a lot less appealing to the corporate world.
Stop trying to bring down the whole line of dominoes
at once. Start with one and then the next. So
pretty clear like that, it's like clear that that is
a call for a harassment campaign against Target and Target staff,
and I am sad to say that this is This
(28:53):
call to action has turned into right wing extremists going
into Target stores and recording themselves destroying merchandise and threatening employees.
Of course, because they're very online, they don't do this
without the camera running. They film themselves doing it because
they understand that it also needs to be content, and
it's incentivized because hey, maybe they can become a big
star for their video of them trashing a Target display
(29:16):
and threatening a teenager who works at.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Target is over the top enough.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
So Target responded by removing some of their items from
the Pride collection, saying in a statement. Since introducing this
year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team member's sense
of safety and well being while at work. Given these
volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans and
including removing items that have been at the center of
the most significant confrontational behavior. So that fucking sucks. I
(29:41):
hated reading that statement. You know, I really hate defending
a corporation, and so I feel like I'm in a
weird position, and I also hate. One of the reasons
why I actually don't really like Pride that much is
precisely because of corporate ally ship that I just think
feels weird. That's an episode another day. But I really
(30:02):
kind of feel for Target here because I think they're
in kind of an impossible situation. If you listen to
our series Internet Hate Machine with cool Zone Media, then
you know how important it is that brands understand how
to deal with these kinds of coordinated harassment campaigns. The
people behind them, these right wing extremists. They are never
satisfied because it's not about one shirt, one swimsuit, the
(30:23):
collection or Pride. If Target pulls the collection, rather than
being satisfied, conceding any ground of these people will only
empower them. So's I don't think it's a good strategy
to pull their collection. But that said, I don't think
that staff at Target should have to put up with
being harassed or threatened to protect this Pride collection, especially
(30:45):
younger staff or gender nonconforming or tran staff. Right they
are not paid enough to put up with that. And
this was not a position that I had in the
beginning when I first saw that Target was taking out
this pride collection. I was like, how can they just like,
how can they just like cave to these extremists, Like,
(31:05):
that's not what you should do. I read this this
tweet thread from a queer trans Target employee. They write, Hi,
I am a queer trans Target employee, and I would
personally prefer the company be safe rather than sorry, because
I don't get paid enough to get threatened, assaulted, or
possibly gunned down at work over a swimsuit. Also, if
Target didn't pull the merch and these bigoted turf assholes
(31:27):
did do something unthinkable and employee employees were injured or killed,
y'all would say Target kept selling stuff because they valued
making money over the safety of their employees. It's a
no win situation, and so I agree with that. Like,
I don't know, I feel for employees like the tweeter
(31:48):
that I just read from, who are like, listen, I
don't make enough money to die defending Target's pride collection.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
That I really really feel that.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
But I also don't think it's right for Target to
just cow tow to bullies and extremists. You know, I've
heard people argue that, oh, well, Target could just have
security guards, like, you know, you know, have armed guards
or security at their stores, but and they definitely could,
that's definitely an option. But I would argue that if
you need an armed guard or security just so Target
(32:21):
can stock some gay shirts without incident, then we have really.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Lost a lot.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
And I don't think a world where you need armed
guards just to have a pride collection is a world
that I want to live in. And so I just
can't find a solution that is that is right.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Like I don't, I don't.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
I want to be clear, like I don't think Target
should be cowtow and to bullies. I also don't think
that employees should have to feel unsafe. And it's worth
noting that when pharmacies were refusing to stock pill abortion pills,
one of the reasons they gave is that, like, oh,
we want to make sure that our pharmacists are safe.
(33:02):
So that's definitely a well worn thing that corporations say
when when they are defending their choice to not do
something or to do something. I'm not sure if that's
what's going on with Target.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
I do.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
Like my sense is I do actually think that the
videos that people have filmed are concerning enough that it
doesn't seem safe to me to be honest.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
God, I hate this story. I hate everything about it,
you know, like I just yeah, it doesn't feel safe.
I don't want to live in a world where this
sort of thing happens either, But like here we are.
I guess this is what they want, you know, Like
how did we get here where it's okay for media
(33:46):
personalities with like shows on major networks to incite their
followers to go and terrorize workers and vandalize stores and
break stuff and do it on camera, which I would
assume is a crime to like go into a store
and break merchandise. You know, it's such a lose lose, yeah,
for target for allies, and yeah, like who you know,
(34:12):
consumerist pride merch is not my favorite. Don't like it,
but yeah, here we are like defending it.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
You know.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
It's it's such a lose lose for everyone except for
Matt Walsh and the media personalities getting eyeballs, and I
guess the biggots getting clicks for posting these videos to
their Facebook accounts.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Absolutely, And like I like a lot of queers don't
love corporate allyship whatever, but I do. But like I'm
an adult who and I live in a super queer
friendly city Washington, d C. I might feel differently if
I'm a sixteen year old. I was a sixteen year old.
I think I right, like I might feel differently like
it is a little bit of a privilege for me
(35:04):
to say that I don't like targets LGBT like LGBTQ
Pride collection, because I have so much affirming stuff, affirming
stuff in my life. I have, Like I live in
a very I have a very gay affirming life, a
very queer affirming life.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
It's true. Yeah, But and you know, I would never
say anything to that sixteen year old trans kid living
in rural wherever because they've they've you know, been through
and are going through so much more than I am.
But you know, that same sense of entitlement that that
(35:42):
we have from living in a queer friendly city like DC.
I do worry that there is some sense of entitlement
among younger queer people and allies and trans people today
that these sorts of like homophobic, turfy, bigoted attitudes are
(36:05):
fringe right and like the cow towing to these hateful people.
It is really worrisome because it's definitely going to embolden them.
They're definitely not gonna take their shitty attitudes and go
home into clear victory, right, They're gonna do something else.
And so it's such a tough spot. Like, yeah, I
(36:27):
totally sympathize with the workers and Target, and it does
sound like it was unsafe situation. And so I don't
blame the executives at Target for making that decision to
pull some of their merchandise to deal with this like
acute safety situation in their stores right now. But I
can't help but feel like that decision also makes us
(36:49):
all a little bit less safe in the longer term.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
It definitely does.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
I mean this is what when I was doing the
research for Internet Hate Machine, we saw this time and
time again that it just in bolded a small but
vocal sub section of people who had a lot of
time on their hands. And I want to make something
really clear, I don't believe like like kind of like,
hell are we talking about Rhonda Santis He is the
(37:14):
one who is extremely online. I think your average person,
even if someone who is a Republican, I don't think
they spend this much time thinking about pride or thinking
about trans people, like even if they are people who
like don't understand LGBTQ identity, don't understand these issues. I
don't think that they are consumed by it where it's
(37:35):
like I'm going to film myself going into a target
doing potentially criminal behavior and having a public tantrum about it.
I think that even a lot of Republicans are probably
probably don't spend this much time on it. It is
the people who are extremely online, who are super super extremist,
who are trying to make it seem like this is
(37:58):
a normal, a normal position to have, when in fact
that it's out of step.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
I would argue, in my opinion, with how.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Most people feel, I think that most people are like, yeah,
I'm not going to film myself going into a target
destroying a Pride collection, even if I don't understand trans people,
because I have shit to do in my day that
doesn't include that, Like I have other things to think about,
there's other shit on my mind.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
I think you're absolutely right right now. But I think
those same people who are you know, maybe vote Republican
or you know, consider themselves on the right, even if
they don't get like as fired up about these culture
war issues that these people do, they're still seeing that
(38:41):
content and exactly like you said, I think one of
the goals of these people doing this is to normalize
it and make it seem like this is an okay,
normal attitude to have.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
Absolutely, yeah, I completely agree. I think that it is
about making this position commonplace, and I don't think it
actually is. I think that that is part of what
these public campaigns against Target, against bud Light are meant
to signal that if you want to be a Republican,
part of being a Republican, maybe you don't have to
(39:16):
go out and like destroy pride stuff. But when it
comes to how how legislating trans people you know, goes
out in your town, you know what side to be
on where at.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
So I think it's I think it's about like.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Using the Internet and using these like spectacles to signal
to people this is what it means to be a
conservative in twenty twenty three. You gotta be against you know,
like again like it's it's it is wild to me
to even say, like, who cares this much about the
merchandise at Target? I see stuff at Target I don't
like all the time. I don't film myself destroying it.
(39:52):
Most people don't like. That is criminal behavior. It is
it's I mean, it's it's not just like it's it's
so hard for me. I mean, I mean it's so
hard for me to even like explain what I mean.
Is like, so it's like socially, what's the word I'm
looking for.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
That's the word you're looking for.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
It's like it's like it's like anti social behavior.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
It's like, oh totally, you know, Yeah, we have lost
the ability to like be like, well, we live in
a society, and maybe I don't like all this rainbow stuff,
but like that's that's life.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
You know.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
Whatever happened to minding one's own business?
Speaker 5 (40:32):
Right?
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Like I thought that was a conservative thing. Uh. You know,
maybe you don't have to like something, but why do
you have to like legislate it and you know, affect
other people. Uh, it's it's scary. So I just went
back home to to where I grew up in rural
upstate New York a little bit ago, and I was
(40:52):
talking with an older guy I know there. He's uh
in the baby boomer generation. Uh, he's conservative, but he's
not a bad guy. He's not a hateful guy. You know,
he has gay friends. One of his kids is dating
a person of color. He's white and like he had
to do some work, but he's cool that he's not
(41:14):
like a bad guy. But he definitely considers himself a conservative.
And for the first time on this trip home a
couple of weeks ago, he asked me about like, well,
what do you think about gender affirming care and like
should we be giving that to kids? It's like, why
do you care all of a sudden, like there are
(41:38):
no trans people in your life, there's certainly no trans kids.
I can only imagine what you think gender affirming care means.
And yet this is the topic that you bring up,
that you want to talk about because it's what you
see on the internet, and it's really worrisome. It's really worrisome.
Speaker 3 (42:02):
It is worrisome.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
And how effectively they were able to be like, oh, well,
we're just asking questions about bathrooms. Oh, we're just asking
questions about protecting girls in sports. We're just asking questions
about whether parents who give their kids access to gender
affirming care should have their kids taken from by the state.
Like it's like the way that it's gotten so incrementally
(42:25):
more damaging in exactly the way that trans activists and
advocates warned from the very fucking beginning is terrifying, and
it is wild how much misinformation I have seen about
this Target Pride collection. And you've probably seen it too,
you know. There was this viral claims that Target is
selling tuck friendly swimsuits and chest binders for toddlers. They don't.
(42:49):
I mean, like, think about that for one second. Why
would Target be selling a product a chest binder that
is meant to find someone's breast.
Speaker 3 (42:58):
Toddlers don't have breasts, Just.
Speaker 1 (43:00):
Like it's just like one of those things of like,
think about it for five seconds and see if it
makes any sense. There was another claim that Target was
selling a children's T shirt that said Satan Respects Pronouns
with a pastel image of Satan on it. First of all,
I feel like if you're a conservative Christian and a
shirt says that Satan respects pronouns, wou don't you kind
(43:21):
of like like that because you don't like Satan and
Satan and.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
You also don't like pronouns. Yeah, you don't like Satan.
You don't like pronouns, you know, only like direct nouns,
no pronouns.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
Right, Yeah, So like I have some like conceptual questions
about this piece of misinformation. But in any event, uh,
Target never sold a shirt for children that said Satan
respects pronouns. In reality, Target sold three items from the
UK based designer A Prian. While it's true that this
designer does make a Satan Respects Pronouns shirt, they don't
(43:55):
make it for kids, and Target does not sell it,
and it's never sold it or carried it, let alone
one for kids. They carry three different items from the
designer that say things like cure transphobia, not trans people,
and we belong everywhere. And this is a really good
example of how this information works. Because the truth that Target,
like pretty much any other big retailer in the world,
(44:17):
buys some items from retailers and not others, and stocks
the things that like align with their branding and their
values and not other things. That is a complicated and
a little bit boring explanation, right supply chain, Oh, who's
got time for it. Meanwhile, the lie, which is that
Target is perverting kids with satan and transness, that is
(44:38):
so much more charged, and so it's not surprising to
me that people, even if it's not true, people really
flock to the you know, the inflammatory lie over the
kind of boring, humdrum reality of supply chain and how
big retailers work.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
Truth, I think it's gonna get us what the law.
Speaker 3 (45:03):
A million points if you get that reference listeners.
Speaker 4 (45:09):
More.
Speaker 5 (45:10):
After a quick break, let's.
Speaker 4 (45:21):
Get right back into it.
Speaker 1 (45:26):
So as dark as all of this is, I should
say that there's upright side. People have been supporting the
designer who is trends and flooding his online store with
so many orders that he could not keep up. He
wrote on his Etsy store, your support during this extremely
difficult time means more than I can express. And here's
the bottom line. This is a harassment and disinformation campaign
led by extremists like Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk, which
(45:48):
is honestly what they do.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
Fine, you know, I'm not surprised by it.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
But what is worse is how they have framed this
in some mainstream media sources who are essentially doing the
work of extremists for them by legitimizing and kind of
like laundering this behavior. I've seen a lot of coverage
that would suggest that this harassment is just like it's
just sort of happening organically, completely ignoring that specific right
wing extremist influencers with massive online platforms have explicitly called
(46:16):
for this kind of behavior at Target. So it's not organic.
It's not just concerned parents, it's not just you know,
angry people. It is a targeted, coordinated harassment campaign being
led by specific people with big platforms. I've seen this
really lazy coverage that relies on, like, very heavily relies
on passive voice, making it seem like, you know, like
(46:37):
they'll say like, oh, you know, amidst this climate again,
making it seem like this is something other than an intentional,
coordinated campaign to attack LGBTQ people and the people who
support them. And it's not just in stores. It is
in laws that get queer and trans people killed. It
is in laws that keep queer and trans people from
accessing healthcare that they need. It is not just about
(46:58):
these shirts at Target. It is so much bigger than that.
And I think it is so lazy and sad that
we don't have a media ecosystem that reports this as
it is happening. They continue to make it seem like
it's just some weird thing in the climate, like oh,
it's warm out today. People are angry about trans shirts
at Target that is not what's happening, and we do
(47:19):
not have a media who is telling the truth about
what is actually happening.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
Wolf bridget, So, was there any good news this week?
Because I'm feeling pretty bummed out after that rundown.
Speaker 3 (47:33):
I know it's sad, but don't worry. I got you.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
So people are turning to the Internet to answer questions
about their gender and sexuality. This is according to a
new analysis from the Cultural Current Institute, a market research
firm that studies opinion trends. They looked at Google trends
information from two thousand and four to dismay for questions
related to sexual orientation and gender identity across all fifty states.
They found that Google searches by users for phrases questioning
(47:58):
their own sexuality and gender ida, so things like am
I gay? Or am I a lesbian have increased by
one three hundred percent. Here's why I think this is
good news. People, especially young people, should be able to
count on the Internet to help them answer questions about
their identity. We're obviously living in a time where right
wing forces are trying to eradicate queerness and transness, not
(48:20):
just from the Internet, but also from public life. But
the Internet is another battleground for them in this fight.
For instance, the Heritage Foundation outright stated their intention to
use legislation like the Child Online Privacy and Protection Act,
which is legislation that would create an age requirement to
access the Internet, to use that legislation to fight against quote,
the woke design of digital spaces, and to guard kids
(48:43):
against the harms of sexual and transgender content.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
That is a nice palate cleanser. It's a really nice
reminder that all these right wing fascists and bigots are
a minority. They're hopefully a dying breed, and that part
of why they're so angry is because they know that
the general population and young people in particular, are just
(49:09):
moving further and further away from them and their reactionary, intolerant,
invasive ideologies that just want to force people into these
narrow little boxes that people that they've been trying to
get people into for generations. And with the Internet, we
(49:31):
now can all see what a lie those tiny little
boxes are. No one fits in them. We're all so
much vaster and more interesting than they would have us believe.
And they know that, and the Internet allows us to
see that, and it's a nice reminder that people are
(49:53):
still finding that and questioning things and exploring who they
are and how they relate to each other, or because
I you know, I personally genuinely believe that that is
a mark of a healthy person. Right who asked the
question who am I? How do I relate to the world?
How do we relate to each other? And people are
(50:14):
asking that, you know, regardless of what answer they get
when they do a Google search for am I gay?
They're asking the question and they're learning something about themselves.
And I think it's that questioning that is so terrifying
to them.
Speaker 3 (50:31):
Well, I think that you're exactly right. That's a beautiful
way to put it.
Speaker 1 (50:34):
And I think that it is a reminder that these
bigots and right wing fascists and extremists are in the minority.
And we know that because if their positions were actually enticing,
they wouldn't have to lie about them to get people
to follow them. You wouldn't have to lie about the
kinds of pride things that target sells to get people
(50:56):
on your side. So the fact that they're lying in
a kind of way actually shows that they know that
their positions aren't popular. Because you wouldn't have to lie
if they were popular, and so I agree, you know,
I think that this is good news that people are
used turning to the Internet to find to answer these questions.
Because questioning yourself, looking inward, being introspective as figuring out
(51:16):
these things about who you are and how you fit
into the world is the mark of a healthy person
and we should be encouraging that. And so if people
are still able to turn to the Internet for exploration
of their identities to ask some of those questions, that's
a good thing, you know, It's what people should be
able to turn to the Internet for. I've shared this
on the podcast many times. When I was growing up,
(51:37):
the Internet is how I learned about myself and my
own identity and my own sexuality and gender presentation. And
if I had not had the Internet, I don't know
what I would have done. And so I'm very lucky
that I was coming of age when I did and
the kind of internet climate that I was, And I
genuinely worry about the next generation. Well they have an
(51:58):
Internet landscape that they can turn to for these questions.
It is nice to get a little bit of information
that suggests that that Internet, which I think is so
crucial is still there for them? So I'm calling it
good news.
Speaker 2 (52:12):
I'll take it. Yeah. Thanks, Bridget can always out on you.
Speaker 1 (52:16):
Thanks Mike for helping me talk through it, and thanks
to all of you for listening. If you want more
content like this without any commercials, you can subscribe to
our Patreon at patreon dot com slash Tangody I'll see
you there. If you're looking for ways to support the show,
check out our mark store at tenggodi dot com slash store.
(52:39):
Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or
just want to say hi, you can reach us at
Hello at tenggody dot com. You can also find transcripts
for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd.
It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative, edited by
Joey pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer. Tari Harrison
is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almado is our
(53:01):
contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want
to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio, app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production
of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Brigittat and this is
There Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm here with
my producer Mike.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Hello bridget Hey.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
Mike, thanks for being here. And here's what you may
have missed this week on the Internet. Let's start with
a little bit of news from my hometown, Washington, DC,
where Lieutenant Shane Leman, a lieutenant for the Metropolitan Police
Department's Intelligence Branch, was just indicted after he used his
position within law enforcement to share confidential information with Enrique Tario.
(00:41):
You might know that name because Enrique is a former
leader of the Proud Boys, the far right and extremist group.
Enrique was just recently found guilty of seditious conspiracy in
connection with the January sixth capital attack. But the federal
indictment for the police lieutenant who helped Enrique claim the
men were in regular contact for July twenty nineteen to
at least January twenty twenty one, using encrypted messaging apps
(01:04):
like Telegram. So what were these guys discussing. Well, as
you might have guessed, the WYHO weren't just discussing the
vander Pump Rules reunion.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
Oh man, if only they were you know, I know
they weren't, but I just like to imagine these guys
just sitting around watching watching some Bravo and getting into it.
Speaker 1 (01:23):
Yeah, probably have big opinions about La La and the
whole gang. Well, the men actually discussed Proud Boy activities
in the DC area, and this lieutenant actually ended up
giving Tario a heads up about investigations into the Proud Boys.
So a few days before January six, Enrique Tario was
in Washington, DC, and while he was here in DC,
he stole a Black Lives Matter banner from the Ashbury
(01:45):
United Methodist Church, which is a historic black church here
in DC. He then set it on fire with lighter fluid. Now,
because Enrique is a brilliant criminal mastermind, he posted a
picture of himself holding a lighter onto his parlor account
and admitted days later in an interview with The Washington
Post that he had joined in burning of this flag.
(02:06):
Lieutenant Lamond gave Tario a heads up that he was
about to be arrested for charges from this.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Burning of the flag.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
And I have to say, like this story has been
getting a lot of play here in DC. I'm honestly
not surprised because this kind of confirms what we've already known.
The FBI has been warning that extremist hate groups are
active within law enforcement for at least the last ten years.
A two thousand and six intelligence report from the FBI
shows that officials have had concerns about the infiltration of
(02:34):
police departments for years, but kind of like just didn't
give the public a warning about this. Reports show that
in some cases, these people wanted to join the military
or law enforcement specifically because they thought it might give
them an opportunity to be violent toward people of color,
or that they planned to join the military or police
to learn how to wage war against people of color,
(02:55):
according to ABC News, between twenty sixteen and twenty twenty,
agents and analysts with the FBI's division in San Antonio
concluded that white supremacists and other right wing extremists would
be quote very likely to seek affiliation with military and
law enforcement entities in the furtherance of their ideologies, according
to a confidential intelligence assessment issued last month.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
And I also think.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
That there's you know, we have this information from the FBI,
but I think colloquially like, anybody with eyes who is
paying attention has probably always seen this kind of cozy
relationship between law enforcement and extremist groups. When you look
at reports of how police treated extremist groups in places
like Kenosha. I think is a good example after Kyle
Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin and shot and killed two
(03:38):
men during a protest. Before the shooting, Rittenhouse is like
lined up holding a rifle as sensibly to quote protect
he says local businesses. Police were shown on tape thanking
him and giving him water about fifteen minutes before he
shot and killed two people, And even after the shooting,
even though he is leaving the scene of the shooting
(04:00):
with a gun and there are protesters following him screaming
at the police, like hey, this person just shot someone,
the police just let him leave. When asked about this later,
the police were like, oh, with a chaotic situation, you know,
who's to say what happened?
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Like we would have given anybody water.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
This is not evidence of a cozy relationship, but it
also aligns with reports that armed extremist groups were kind
of deputizing themselves to patrol neighborhoods. In twenty twenty and beyond,
and that the police were just kind of okay with
it and not you know, did not seem to think
it was anything that was rose to the level of
something they should be concerned about. And I think this
(04:37):
cozy relationship between extremist groups and police really came to
a head on January sixth at the Capitol where, according
to NPR, nearly thirty sworn police officers from a dozen
different departments attended the rally on January sixth, and several
of them actually stormed the Capitol building with the insurrectionists.
So you know, those off duty police officers were there
(04:59):
to take part in the insurrection, and also you have
on duty police officers who were there on the scene,
you know, trying to contain the situation. I truly do
believe that some of these riders storming the Capitol seemed
surprised that the on duty police officers kind of protecting
the capital were not on their side. I bet a
(05:20):
lot of these guys thought that these police officers were
going to cheer them on as they entered the Capitol
precisely because of this cozy relationship. And I think the
biggest problem to me or the scariest thing is just
how little scrutiny this has really gotten. It's clear, both
from the intelligence community and from the actions of police
that there is this cozy relationship between extremists and armed
(05:43):
agents of the state who regularly interact with the public.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
So why is this not a bigger deal?
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Yeah, it is really disturbing but not surprising to learn
that members of law enforcement were participating in the interrection.
You Know, what is really surprising to me three years
later is how Donald Trump and his allies had been
able to downplay the significance of the insurrection. You know,
(06:10):
back on January sixth and twenty twenty, it seemed like
such a huge deal. And it was a huge deal.
It was a brazen, violent attack and broad daylight not
just on the Capitol, but on the peaceful transition of
power after an election, which is one of the most,
if not the most fundamental American value, and they nearly
(06:31):
ended that after over two hundred uninterrupted years. And I'm
just so The thing that I'm most shocked about is
how successful they've been convincing large portions of the population
and the media that it was like, not a big deal,
just some concerned citizens having a little civic demonstration when
(06:57):
in fact they were like insurrectionists trying to overthrow the government.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
I mean we were both in DC when that happened.
I don't care who tries to convince me that it
wasn't a big deal. I will never forget that day.
I will never forget it. It was the most eerie
day of my entire life, and I will never forget it.
I watched Ashley Babit day a national television I was
like watching I will never forget it.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
I was.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
I think it was the first time I ever saw
dead like someone get killed on TV. I knew as
soon as it happened that she was dead.
Speaker 3 (07:30):
It was.
Speaker 1 (07:30):
It was such a crazy day. I don't care how
many times these Republicans try to minimize it.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
It was a big deal. I will never forget it.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah, seriously. And it's such a complicated story because at
the same time that these there were these police officers
marching with the insurrectionists and storming the capitol, there were
other police officers. They're risking their lives, you know, some
of them sacrifice their lives trying to protect it. And
you know, we're recording this on Friday evening of Memorial
(08:05):
Day weekend, and so you know, it's hard not to
think about those officers who lost their lives on that day.
And if you know, if it weren't for them, Donald
Trump would probably be president right now, and he would
probably stay president for the rest of his life. You know,
democracy in America would be over. They literally laid down
their lives to save the republic. You know, it's not hyperbole,
(08:27):
and so I'm trying to keep that in mind as
I think through what to make of this story. You know,
whenever there's any story about police misconduct, whatever officials are
in charge or usually pretty quick to point to like
a bad apples theory that everything is fine, there's just
a couple of bad apples, and you know, we know
that that's bullshit. There's systemic problems and a culture of
(08:50):
silence that enable police abuse and state sponsored oppression to
flourish in the shadows. But I think this, yes, and
that's you know, that's bullshit. Bad apples is a bullshit theory.
But this story and the complications is a good reminder
that you know, some apples really truly are like solidly rotten,
(09:14):
like really bad. And you know those dozen police departments
that had a couple of people show up and participate
in the insurrection and try to overthrow the government. I
hope they're taking a good hard look at their personnel
and getting them the hell out of there.
Speaker 3 (09:31):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
I mean, I had to shorten this research for the
sake of we're doing a thirty minute podcast. But that's
not even the half of it. Like, even beyond the
officers who were there that day, there was another officer
I think based in Maryland who was put on probation
recently and kicked off the force because on Facebook after
(09:54):
the insurrection, a like a YouTuber a fishing YouTube that
he liked posted on YouTube about having stormed the capitol,
and he sent him a private message and he was like, listen,
I agree with your opinions, but they're investigating this and
they're arresting these guys. Take this down, and that police
officer was himself charged with that, and so like, how
(10:17):
many how Like I'm giving you the short version of
how many police officers were in the mix on January six,
but how many physically didn't go but sympathized with these people,
Like there has to be the fact that I think
that so many of the rioters thought that they were
on the same side as the police and probably were like, wait,
(10:38):
why are you trying to stop me? Aren't we on
the same team. I think that that isn't a coincidence.
I think that it is pretty clear that there is
some sort of a cozy relationship between extremist groups and
law enforcement. And the more that we downplay it, the
more that we say it's just bad apples, the less
safe that we are going to be. Like, this is
a public safety issue. I think the public has a
right to know if the armed guards of the state
(11:01):
who are going to be summoned oftentimes in that you
have involuntary interactions with, are also in a hate group
or a Nazi group or a white supremacist group.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Yeah, it's not an okay situation at all. Damn.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
So, speaking of bad apples, let's talk about Google.
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Oh wait, are you growing?
Speaker 3 (11:27):
Because that was a good transition or you thought it
was cheesy.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
It was a little bit of both. You know, I
appreciate the effort.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
Well, you know, I'm going to take that a for effort,
So I'm taking the A. I'm calling it an A.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
It's an a fair enough, it's your show so S.
Speaker 3 (11:44):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
That's right, so s folks might know. Almost a year
after the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade. Soon thereafter,
Google announced that it would proactively delete its trove of
location data when people visited what they called quote particularly
personal places. Now these include things like hospitals, shelters, and
of course, abortion clinics. Their statement said, today we're announcing
(12:05):
that if our systems identify that someone has visited one
of these places, we will delete these entries from location
history soon after they visit. This change will take effect
in the coming weeks. Well, guess what they haven't done that.
The digital rights group accountable Tech put out a report
where they tested Google's updated policies by visiting abortion clinics
in different states with newly purchased Android phones. Based on
(12:26):
their experimentations and research, accountable Tech found that Google is
still retaining location search queries by default and location history
for users who have it turned on, including information about
reproductive care facilities, despite their public promise to begin deleting it.
Speaker 2 (12:42):
Yeah. Disappointing, not surprising Google, They keep showing us who
they are.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
According to accountable Tech, by retaining both location search query
and location history data Google jeopardizes the health, safety, and
legal status of their users who visit reproductive care facilities
in states where abortion criminalized. If prosecutors in a state
with a restrictive abortion law receive a tip about someone's
seeking an abortion, a subpoena would likely force Google to
hand over sensitive data. So we have a little bit
(13:10):
of news and movement on this issue. Nearly a dozen
Senate Democrats wrote to Google this week with questions about
how it deletes users' location history when they have visited
sensitive places like abortion clinics, expressing concerns that the company
may not have been consistently deleting the data as promised.
The letter came from Senators Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, and
Mazie Heerino, seeking answers from Google about the types of
(13:30):
location that Google considers to be sensitive and for just
how long it will take for the company to automatically
delete visit history.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
That's not all.
Speaker 1 (13:38):
A few days ago, an anonymous complainant filed a lawsuit
against Google, claiming that it unlawfully collects health data, including
abortion searches, on third party websites that use Google tech.
Jane Doe, whose legal representation is looking to get the
case certified as a class action. Claims that her private
information was intercepted by Google when she used scheduling pages
on Planned Parenthood's website in twenty eighteen to search for
(13:59):
an abortion provide. So something that I have to ask, like,
is it legal for Google to say one thing about
their privacy policy and then fully do another. Maybe you know,
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an expert in this,
but I fully do not understand how Google misleading the
public about their data privacy practices is legal under the
Federal Trade Commission. But I'm no expert on this. What
(14:21):
I can tell you is that whether or not it's legal,
it is certainly unethical and it is certainly dangerous. We
all deserve privacy and it should not be up to
the whims of the tech billionaires, who are mostly men
who run Google, to decide whether or not we get
it totally.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
You know, to disclose, I have an Android phone and
I really need to get off of it because Google
just has such a long track record of not respecting privacy.
In twenty twenty, there are some documents that were made
public from a lawsuit against Google that have been brought
by Arizona's Attorney General that ultimately Google ended up settling
(14:58):
for eighty five million dollars. Some internal documents showed that
Google was effectively ignoring users' privacy settings, and the privacy
controls were so obtuse and unnavigable that even Google's own
engineers weren't able to figure out how to use them.
And they were, you know, these emails were from the
Google engineers talking with each other trying to make sense
(15:20):
of like, how did these privacy controls work? And so
like if they can't figure out how they work, how
is an end user supposed to have any hope of
doing it? And not only did they were they confusing,
but they they seemed simple. But then they didn't actually
do what the users could reasonably expect them to do
in terms of opting out of different privacy settings, you know,
(15:44):
and that doesn't happen by accident. It was a choice
that Google made to design their privacy settings that way,
even if they didn't intentionally set out to deceive their users,
which is debatable, but even giving them the benefit of
the doubt, they still clearly demonstrated a lack of respect
for privacy and it's not surprising, right, They're an advertising
(16:07):
kind of company. They sell ads, that's their top priority,
and they collect data to allow them to sell more
ads to more people. And so of course they're not
going to allow a little thing like privacy to get
in the way of that. Lack of concern for privacy
is a value of theirs. And so just like the
way those user settings and privacy controls were an illusion
(16:28):
that did not actually stop people's private data from being
sent to Google, now we learn that there are public
statements about protecting abortion data were fabrications. And again I
don't know if they did that there's an intentional lie
or just like a cinem omission where they just couldn't
be bothered to do it. But you've raised a great
(16:49):
point that you know, people, hey, you should have a
right to privacy. It just in general period B. They
should certainly have a right to privacy for health information
and medical information. And then see, at the very least
people should be able to expect that when Google says
they're going to do something, that they will actually do
(17:10):
it instead of doing nothing, which seems to be what
they've done.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Yeah, and I think that you really put it well,
I don't think that you should have to be a
privacy expert or a lawyer or somebody who is really
knowledgeable about you know, tech pr speak versus what is
happening in reality to be able to make decisions for
your health and for your life. And I think that
(17:34):
Google has created a situation where, yeah, it's like people
shouldn't have to be legal experts to just understand what
is happening with their data when they are accessing information
that could wind them in prison, right, Like, we should
be able to expect more from Google.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
We deserve privacy, particularly.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
When it comes to something as sensitive as our health
information in this climate where abortion is criminalized, and you know,
being a person who is seeking an abortion right now
is so scary, and just being someone who is pregnant
is scary enough.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
So on Layered on.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Top of that the expectation that like, oh, well, you
have to be a data privacy expert or a lawyer
to understand what digital trail you might be leaving when
you try to access information to make decisions about your health,
that the burden is too high for regular people, and
adding the fact of like whether it's a vindictive X
lover or a nosy neighbor or a vigilante that you
(18:30):
don't even know, who can turn you in because they
believe that you have tried to access information about abortion.
That digital footprint that Google has can be used to
criminalize you. And so Google right now is like doing
something that I think is not just an ethical potentially
a legal question mark, but deeply deeply dangerous in a
(18:50):
threat to public safety.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
Yeah, the stakes are super high for people. And you know,
this is another great example of why we need regulation
to protect privacy in this country. Maybe that looks like
what they have in Europe. Maybe it looks like what
California is doing. I don't know exactly what that regulation
looks like, but it's clear that we can't trust tech
(19:14):
companies to do the right thing on their own. Maybe
some of them might every now and then that's great,
but we can't rely on that. Time and again they
demonstrate that they just can't be trusted to regulate themselves.
It's a pattern. We need some regulation to rein in
the abuses of tech companies and social media platforms.
Speaker 4 (19:42):
Let's take a quick brain at our back.
Speaker 1 (19:57):
Speaking of people who cannot be trusted, we have to
talk about Ronda Santis. Do we it's a big announcement
on Twitter. I mean, I don't want to. I want
to keep this brief because I really don't want to
talk about it. So let's just get it out of
the way. Are you are you game? Can you got
it in you?
Speaker 3 (20:12):
Mike?
Speaker 2 (20:13):
I mean like yeah, yeah, let's let's just try to
do it quickly.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Get in, get out, yeah, get in, get out?
Speaker 4 (20:19):
All right.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
Florida Governor Ronda Santis announced that he's running for president,
and he did it via a Twitter spaces because it
is an initiative helmed by Elon Musk. The entire thing
was plagued with problems, screw ups, and glitches. Of course,
of course, the first twenty minutes was just people talking
over each other and audio issues. David Sax, who is
a venture capitalist who is also the host of the
(20:40):
All In podcast, which side note, it's definitely a more
popular tech podcast than ours by like a million percent.
So I don't want people to think this is like
sour grapes, but they're definitely a more popular tech They're
like number one every day.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
You know.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
That's nice for them, you know, I yeah to respect that,
but we're coming for you.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Honestly, if Ronda Santis has had any like gump shin
or courage, he would have had that shit moderated by
Kara Swisher and he would have like actually had it
be not just like a very cozy billionaire venture tech
capitalist talking with Elon Musk in the room on a
Twitter spaces that is like me being like, I can't
even think of a comparable thing. That is like me
(21:27):
be having someone moderate a Twitter spaces and the moderator
is I can't even there's not even there's not even
something comparable. I can't even think of anything.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Yeah, it's it's like like three people that are all
the same in a room talking about how great they
all are.
Speaker 1 (21:46):
My God, I was gonna say it would be like
if my own mother moderated a Twitter spaces with me.
But I believe my mother would be a tougher interviewer
than David Sax was at this Twitter spaces rollout. So
you know, we don't have to get get too into it.
But one thing I do want to say is that
so David Zack's venture capitalist host of the All In podcast,
was the moderator. What's annoying is how quickly they immediately
(22:10):
went into self aggrandizement mode and lying about it. David
Zach said that it was quote by far, the biggest
room ever held on social media. DeSantis said in a
podcast interview that he thought later in the day that
quote probably over ten million people watched the event. By
the way, you don't watch a Twitter space, you listen
to it. That's neither herr.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
There is he like performing as though he were on
camera the whole time?
Speaker 1 (22:31):
Oh good question, Oh my god. You know his team
was probably like, just let him Vigi's on camera, Like,
there's no camera in here. But if this is what
he needs, fine, So let's look at the real numbers
of the event. It had a high listenership of about
three hundred thousand concurrent listeners, of whom all at the
same time tuned into DeSantis make his announcement. As of Thursday,
(22:52):
about three point four million people listen to the space
or recording to it, according to Twitter's numbers. I really
don't have a lot to say about this event. It
sounds like it was a shit show.
Speaker 3 (23:04):
I don't.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
Those are not big numbers either, Like, no, three hundred
thousand concurrent listeners. There are like Twitch streamers who get
that when they I don't know, like wake up in
the morning, right like just turn and turn on their accounts.
That's that is definitely not What did he say that
the biggest room ever held on social media? Whatever that means,
(23:26):
that's just a lie.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
He doesn't He just made like that's not it's it's
so it's just not remotely true. It's not true that
they that like that's a huge amount. It's certainly not
true that it's the biggest room ever held on social media.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
What a bullshit claim.
Speaker 1 (23:41):
I can't believe that he was able to just pull
that out of the air and that nobody was like
h question like follow up.
Speaker 2 (23:47):
But like what like you said, like who's going to
call him on it? Elon Musk, Ronda Sandy.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
That's the thing.
Speaker 1 (23:53):
It's like the fact that they are that they that
this announcement was surrounded by such like sicophants and fanboys.
It's like a like, obviously there's no they have They
have purposely like bubble wrapped themselves from anybody who would
even just bring up reality, like not even like tough questions,
(24:15):
just like okay, well in reality there were three hundred
thousand people on you'd have said it was the biggest
space of all time, So what is the truth? You know, like,
obviously these are not people who were interested in any
kind of reality. And again I don't really have a
ton to say about this. We were talking, uh when
this event was happening, and you heard me like unleash
the most like gottural deep down heavy, so like the
(24:37):
heaviest of heavy size, and you looked over and you
were like, what's wrong, thinking that like something bad had happened,
And it just became clear to both of us that
I am going to need to sort something out as
we get deeper into election season to not completely like
lose my mind. Like I like, I don't know why
the claim about it being the biggest space ever got
(24:59):
to me. I'm going, but it was clear to me
that like I'm going to be hearing stuff like this
for the next few months, and I need to figure
something out so that I'm not like for my own
well being.
Speaker 2 (25:11):
Yeah, you and me both. I mean, it's it's funny.
I'm always so curious the things that like really get
under your skin and don't like because it's such a stupid, little,
like insignificant thing, But I get it. I love to
get hung up on stupid, little, insignificant things, and you're right,
it's just gonna get worse as we go into this election.
That's just like the the tip of the stupid iceberg.
(25:33):
You know, there's so much more stupid under the sea
coming at the boat that is America.
Speaker 1 (25:40):
Oh my god, you know me so well from us
working on the show together that I would be curious
maybe for maybe for some Patreon content.
Speaker 3 (25:48):
We've got to give a list of the.
Speaker 1 (25:50):
Weird things that you might not think and under bridget skin,
but really get under bridget skin, because that would be
curious to know your thoughts on that.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
The petty grievance rundown. Uh, we'd have to break it
up for a couple episodes.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Oh my god, Actually forget. I don't want to hear this.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
This is not content that I want that I want
out there, even behind a paywall. Okay, So I do
have one thing to say about the rollout is that
I think it reveals that the people who are like
extremely online it is people like Ronda Santis. I think
for a long time that the left, progressives, radicals whatever
have been accused of being too online, extremely online, caring
(26:27):
too much about what's happening on Twitter, and like social media,
cloud is.
Speaker 3 (26:31):
Currency, YadA, YadA, YadA. I hope that this.
Speaker 1 (26:33):
Official presidential announcement makes it super abundantly clear that it
is right wing extremists who are the ones who are
too online. They are the ones who have been able
to weaponize the Internet to accommodate their grievances while calling
the rest about snowflakes. It is clear who the snowflakes are.
Speaker 3 (26:50):
It is them.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
I hope that this announcement makes very clear who is
the one who is too obsessed with what's happening on Twitter,
because it's Ronda Santis, not us.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
It's such a good observation. You're so right. And not
only are they're the ones who are too online, but
it's clear what their goal of their ideal vision of
what an ideal online space is, which is a super
safe space for them, free from trigger warnings of like
(27:20):
truth or accountability, where they can just go off about
like how they are having the biggest, greatest Twitter space
ever that everyone is watching. It's such a good observation. Yeah,
they they've finally made it, you know, they've finally made
Twitter their own by purging everyone else so that they
(27:44):
can just repeat their own nonsense to each other.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
It's so true, and speaking of nonsense, we have to
talk about this mess at target right now. So folks
have probably already seen this. If you haven't seen it,
you've definitely seen it. But it's a summarize right wing
extreme as social media personalities are leading a coordinated campaign
against brands for carrying pride merch. Far right podcaster Matt
Wall said this very explicitly, tweeting, the goal is to
(28:10):
make pride toxic for brands. If they decide to shove
this garbage in our face, they should know that they'll
pay a price. The goal is to make pride toxic
for brands. If they decide to shove this garbage in
our face, they should know that they'll pay a price.
It won't be worth whatever they think they'll gain. We
can't boycott every woke company. We don't need to pick
a few strategic targets make them pay dearly. That's enough
(28:31):
to make wokeness a lot less appealing to the corporate world.
Stop trying to bring down the whole line of dominoes
at once. Start with one and then the next. So
pretty clear like that, it's like clear that that is
a call for a harassment campaign against Target and Target staff,
and I am sad to say that this is This
(28:53):
call to action has turned into right wing extremists going
into Target stores and recording themselves destroying merchandise and threatening employees.
Of course, because they're very online, they don't do this
without the camera running. They film themselves doing it because
they understand that it also needs to be content, and
it's incentivized because hey, maybe they can become a big
star for their video of them trashing a Target display
(29:16):
and threatening a teenager who works at.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Target is over the top enough.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
So Target responded by removing some of their items from
the Pride collection, saying in a statement. Since introducing this
year's collection, we've experienced threats impacting our team member's sense
of safety and well being while at work. Given these
volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans and
including removing items that have been at the center of
the most significant confrontational behavior. So that fucking sucks. I
(29:41):
hated reading that statement. You know, I really hate defending
a corporation, and so I feel like I'm in a
weird position, and I also hate. One of the reasons
why I actually don't really like Pride that much is
precisely because of corporate ally ship that I just think
feels weird. That's an episode another day. But I really
(30:02):
kind of feel for Target here because I think they're
in kind of an impossible situation. If you listen to
our series Internet Hate Machine with cool Zone Media, then
you know how important it is that brands understand how
to deal with these kinds of coordinated harassment campaigns. The
people behind them, these right wing extremists. They are never
satisfied because it's not about one shirt, one swimsuit, the
(30:23):
collection or Pride. If Target pulls the collection, rather than
being satisfied, conceding any ground of these people will only
empower them. So's I don't think it's a good strategy
to pull their collection. But that said, I don't think
that staff at Target should have to put up with
being harassed or threatened to protect this Pride collection, especially
(30:45):
younger staff or gender nonconforming or tran staff. Right they
are not paid enough to put up with that. And
this was not a position that I had in the
beginning when I first saw that Target was taking out
this pride collection. I was like, how can they just like,
how can they just like cave to these extremists, Like,
(31:05):
that's not what you should do. I read this this
tweet thread from a queer trans Target employee. They write, Hi,
I am a queer trans Target employee, and I would
personally prefer the company be safe rather than sorry, because
I don't get paid enough to get threatened, assaulted, or
possibly gunned down at work over a swimsuit. Also, if
Target didn't pull the merch and these bigoted turf assholes
(31:27):
did do something unthinkable and employee employees were injured or killed,
y'all would say Target kept selling stuff because they valued
making money over the safety of their employees. It's a
no win situation, and so I agree with that. Like,
I don't know, I feel for employees like the tweeter
(31:48):
that I just read from, who are like, listen, I
don't make enough money to die defending Target's pride collection.
Speaker 3 (31:55):
That I really really feel that.
Speaker 1 (31:58):
But I also don't think it's right for Target to
just cow tow to bullies and extremists. You know, I've
heard people argue that, oh, well, Target could just have
security guards, like, you know, you know, have armed guards
or security at their stores, but and they definitely could,
that's definitely an option. But I would argue that if
you need an armed guard or security just so Target
(32:21):
can stock some gay shirts without incident, then we have really.
Speaker 3 (32:25):
Lost a lot.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
And I don't think a world where you need armed
guards just to have a pride collection is a world
that I want to live in. And so I just
can't find a solution that is that is right.
Speaker 3 (32:39):
Like I don't, I don't.
Speaker 1 (32:40):
I want to be clear, like I don't think Target
should be cowtow and to bullies. I also don't think
that employees should have to feel unsafe. And it's worth
noting that when pharmacies were refusing to stock pill abortion pills,
one of the reasons they gave is that, like, oh,
we want to make sure that our pharmacists are safe.
(33:02):
So that's definitely a well worn thing that corporations say
when when they are defending their choice to not do
something or to do something. I'm not sure if that's
what's going on with Target.
Speaker 3 (33:14):
I do.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
Like my sense is I do actually think that the
videos that people have filmed are concerning enough that it
doesn't seem safe to me to be honest.
Speaker 2 (33:26):
God, I hate this story. I hate everything about it,
you know, like I just yeah, it doesn't feel safe.
I don't want to live in a world where this
sort of thing happens either, But like here we are.
I guess this is what they want, you know, Like
how did we get here where it's okay for media
(33:46):
personalities with like shows on major networks to incite their
followers to go and terrorize workers and vandalize stores and
break stuff and do it on camera, which I would
assume is a crime to like go into a store
and break merchandise. You know, it's such a lose lose, yeah,
for target for allies, and yeah, like who you know,
(34:12):
consumerist pride merch is not my favorite. Don't like it,
but yeah, here we are like defending it.
Speaker 5 (34:25):
You know.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
It's it's such a lose lose for everyone except for
Matt Walsh and the media personalities getting eyeballs, and I
guess the biggots getting clicks for posting these videos to
their Facebook accounts.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
Absolutely, And like I like a lot of queers don't
love corporate allyship whatever, but I do. But like I'm
an adult who and I live in a super queer
friendly city Washington, d C. I might feel differently if
I'm a sixteen year old. I was a sixteen year old.
I think I right, like I might feel differently like
it is a little bit of a privilege for me
(35:04):
to say that I don't like targets LGBT like LGBTQ
Pride collection, because I have so much affirming stuff, affirming
stuff in my life. I have, Like I live in
a very I have a very gay affirming life, a
very queer affirming life.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
It's true. Yeah, But and you know, I would never
say anything to that sixteen year old trans kid living
in rural wherever because they've they've you know, been through
and are going through so much more than I am.
But you know, that same sense of entitlement that that
(35:42):
we have from living in a queer friendly city like DC.
I do worry that there is some sense of entitlement
among younger queer people and allies and trans people today
that these sorts of like homophobic, turfy, bigoted attitudes are
(36:05):
fringe right and like the cow towing to these hateful people.
It is really worrisome because it's definitely going to embolden them.
They're definitely not gonna take their shitty attitudes and go
home into clear victory, right, They're gonna do something else.
And so it's such a tough spot. Like, yeah, I
(36:27):
totally sympathize with the workers and Target, and it does
sound like it was unsafe situation. And so I don't
blame the executives at Target for making that decision to
pull some of their merchandise to deal with this like
acute safety situation in their stores right now. But I
can't help but feel like that decision also makes us
(36:49):
all a little bit less safe in the longer term.
Speaker 3 (36:53):
It definitely does.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
I mean this is what when I was doing the
research for Internet Hate Machine, we saw this time and
time again that it just in bolded a small but
vocal sub section of people who had a lot of
time on their hands. And I want to make something
really clear, I don't believe like like kind of like,
hell are we talking about Rhonda Santis He is the
(37:14):
one who is extremely online. I think your average person,
even if someone who is a Republican, I don't think
they spend this much time thinking about pride or thinking
about trans people, like even if they are people who
like don't understand LGBTQ identity, don't understand these issues. I
don't think that they are consumed by it where it's
(37:35):
like I'm going to film myself going into a target
doing potentially criminal behavior and having a public tantrum about it.
I think that even a lot of Republicans are probably
probably don't spend this much time on it. It is
the people who are extremely online, who are super super extremist,
who are trying to make it seem like this is
(37:58):
a normal, a normal position to have, when in fact
that it's out of step.
Speaker 3 (38:03):
I would argue, in my opinion, with how.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
Most people feel, I think that most people are like, yeah,
I'm not going to film myself going into a target
destroying a Pride collection, even if I don't understand trans people,
because I have shit to do in my day that
doesn't include that, Like I have other things to think about,
there's other shit on my mind.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
I think you're absolutely right right now. But I think
those same people who are you know, maybe vote Republican
or you know, consider themselves on the right, even if
they don't get like as fired up about these culture
war issues that these people do, they're still seeing that
(38:41):
content and exactly like you said, I think one of
the goals of these people doing this is to normalize
it and make it seem like this is an okay,
normal attitude to have.
Speaker 1 (38:54):
Absolutely, yeah, I completely agree. I think that it is
about making this position commonplace, and I don't think it
actually is. I think that that is part of what
these public campaigns against Target, against bud Light are meant
to signal that if you want to be a Republican,
part of being a Republican, maybe you don't have to
(39:16):
go out and like destroy pride stuff. But when it
comes to how how legislating trans people you know, goes
out in your town, you know what side to be
on where at.
Speaker 3 (39:30):
So I think it's I think it's about like.
Speaker 1 (39:32):
Using the Internet and using these like spectacles to signal
to people this is what it means to be a
conservative in twenty twenty three. You gotta be against you know,
like again like it's it's it is wild to me
to even say, like, who cares this much about the
merchandise at Target? I see stuff at Target I don't
like all the time. I don't film myself destroying it.
(39:52):
Most people don't like. That is criminal behavior. It is
it's I mean, it's it's not just like it's it's
so hard for me. I mean, I mean it's so
hard for me to even like explain what I mean.
Is like, so it's like socially, what's the word I'm
looking for.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
That's the word you're looking for.
Speaker 3 (40:15):
It's like it's like it's like anti social behavior.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
It's like, oh totally, you know, Yeah, we have lost
the ability to like be like, well, we live in
a society, and maybe I don't like all this rainbow stuff,
but like that's that's life.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
You know.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
Whatever happened to minding one's own business?
Speaker 5 (40:32):
Right?
Speaker 2 (40:32):
Like I thought that was a conservative thing. Uh. You know,
maybe you don't have to like something, but why do
you have to like legislate it and you know, affect
other people. Uh, it's it's scary. So I just went
back home to to where I grew up in rural
upstate New York a little bit ago, and I was
(40:52):
talking with an older guy I know there. He's uh
in the baby boomer generation. Uh, he's conservative, but he's
not a bad guy. He's not a hateful guy. You know,
he has gay friends. One of his kids is dating
a person of color. He's white and like he had
to do some work, but he's cool that he's not
(41:14):
like a bad guy. But he definitely considers himself a conservative.
And for the first time on this trip home a
couple of weeks ago, he asked me about like, well,
what do you think about gender affirming care and like
should we be giving that to kids? It's like, why
do you care all of a sudden, like there are
(41:38):
no trans people in your life, there's certainly no trans kids.
I can only imagine what you think gender affirming care means.
And yet this is the topic that you bring up,
that you want to talk about because it's what you
see on the internet, and it's really worrisome. It's really worrisome.
Speaker 3 (42:02):
It is worrisome.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
And how effectively they were able to be like, oh, well,
we're just asking questions about bathrooms. Oh, we're just asking
questions about protecting girls in sports. We're just asking questions
about whether parents who give their kids access to gender
affirming care should have their kids taken from by the state.
Like it's like the way that it's gotten so incrementally
(42:25):
more damaging in exactly the way that trans activists and
advocates warned from the very fucking beginning is terrifying, and
it is wild how much misinformation I have seen about
this Target Pride collection. And you've probably seen it too,
you know. There was this viral claims that Target is
selling tuck friendly swimsuits and chest binders for toddlers. They don't.
(42:49):
I mean, like, think about that for one second. Why
would Target be selling a product a chest binder that
is meant to find someone's breast.
Speaker 3 (42:58):
Toddlers don't have breasts, Just.
Speaker 1 (43:00):
Like it's just like one of those things of like,
think about it for five seconds and see if it
makes any sense. There was another claim that Target was
selling a children's T shirt that said Satan Respects Pronouns
with a pastel image of Satan on it. First of all,
I feel like if you're a conservative Christian and a
shirt says that Satan respects pronouns, wou don't you kind
(43:21):
of like like that because you don't like Satan and
Satan and.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
You also don't like pronouns. Yeah, you don't like Satan.
You don't like pronouns, you know, only like direct nouns,
no pronouns.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
Right, Yeah, So like I have some like conceptual questions
about this piece of misinformation. But in any event, uh,
Target never sold a shirt for children that said Satan
respects pronouns. In reality, Target sold three items from the
UK based designer A Prian. While it's true that this
designer does make a Satan Respects Pronouns shirt, they don't
(43:55):
make it for kids, and Target does not sell it,
and it's never sold it or carried it, let alone
one for kids. They carry three different items from the
designer that say things like cure transphobia, not trans people,
and we belong everywhere. And this is a really good
example of how this information works. Because the truth that Target,
like pretty much any other big retailer in the world,
(44:17):
buys some items from retailers and not others, and stocks
the things that like align with their branding and their
values and not other things. That is a complicated and
a little bit boring explanation, right supply chain, Oh, who's
got time for it. Meanwhile, the lie, which is that
Target is perverting kids with satan and transness, that is
(44:38):
so much more charged, and so it's not surprising to
me that people, even if it's not true, people really
flock to the you know, the inflammatory lie over the
kind of boring, humdrum reality of supply chain and how
big retailers work.
Speaker 2 (44:55):
Truth, I think it's gonna get us what the law.
Speaker 3 (45:03):
A million points if you get that reference listeners.
Speaker 4 (45:09):
More.
Speaker 5 (45:10):
After a quick break, let's.
Speaker 4 (45:21):
Get right back into it.
Speaker 1 (45:26):
So as dark as all of this is, I should
say that there's upright side. People have been supporting the
designer who is trends and flooding his online store with
so many orders that he could not keep up. He
wrote on his Etsy store, your support during this extremely
difficult time means more than I can express. And here's
the bottom line. This is a harassment and disinformation campaign
led by extremists like Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk, which
(45:48):
is honestly what they do.
Speaker 3 (45:50):
Fine, you know, I'm not surprised by it.
Speaker 1 (45:52):
But what is worse is how they have framed this
in some mainstream media sources who are essentially doing the
work of extremists for them by legitimizing and kind of
like laundering this behavior. I've seen a lot of coverage
that would suggest that this harassment is just like it's
just sort of happening organically, completely ignoring that specific right
wing extremist influencers with massive online platforms have explicitly called
(46:16):
for this kind of behavior at Target. So it's not organic.
It's not just concerned parents, it's not just you know,
angry people. It is a targeted, coordinated harassment campaign being
led by specific people with big platforms. I've seen this
really lazy coverage that relies on, like, very heavily relies
on passive voice, making it seem like, you know, like
(46:37):
they'll say like, oh, you know, amidst this climate again,
making it seem like this is something other than an intentional,
coordinated campaign to attack LGBTQ people and the people who
support them. And it's not just in stores. It is
in laws that get queer and trans people killed. It
is in laws that keep queer and trans people from
accessing healthcare that they need. It is not just about
(46:58):
these shirts at Target. It is so much bigger than that.
And I think it is so lazy and sad that
we don't have a media ecosystem that reports this as
it is happening. They continue to make it seem like
it's just some weird thing in the climate, like oh,
it's warm out today. People are angry about trans shirts
at Target that is not what's happening, and we do
(47:19):
not have a media who is telling the truth about
what is actually happening.
Speaker 2 (47:24):
Wolf bridget, So, was there any good news this week?
Because I'm feeling pretty bummed out after that rundown.
Speaker 3 (47:33):
I know it's sad, but don't worry. I got you.
Speaker 1 (47:37):
So people are turning to the Internet to answer questions
about their gender and sexuality. This is according to a
new analysis from the Cultural Current Institute, a market research
firm that studies opinion trends. They looked at Google trends
information from two thousand and four to dismay for questions
related to sexual orientation and gender identity across all fifty states.
They found that Google searches by users for phrases questioning
(47:58):
their own sexuality and gender ida, so things like am
I gay? Or am I a lesbian have increased by
one three hundred percent. Here's why I think this is
good news. People, especially young people, should be able to
count on the Internet to help them answer questions about
their identity. We're obviously living in a time where right
wing forces are trying to eradicate queerness and transness, not
(48:20):
just from the Internet, but also from public life. But
the Internet is another battleground for them in this fight.
For instance, the Heritage Foundation outright stated their intention to
use legislation like the Child Online Privacy and Protection Act,
which is legislation that would create an age requirement to
access the Internet, to use that legislation to fight against quote,
the woke design of digital spaces, and to guard kids
(48:43):
against the harms of sexual and transgender content.
Speaker 2 (48:46):
That is a nice palate cleanser. It's a really nice
reminder that all these right wing fascists and bigots are
a minority. They're hopefully a dying breed, and that part
of why they're so angry is because they know that
the general population and young people in particular, are just
(49:09):
moving further and further away from them and their reactionary, intolerant,
invasive ideologies that just want to force people into these
narrow little boxes that people that they've been trying to
get people into for generations. And with the Internet, we
(49:31):
now can all see what a lie those tiny little
boxes are. No one fits in them. We're all so
much vaster and more interesting than they would have us believe.
And they know that, and the Internet allows us to
see that, and it's a nice reminder that people are
(49:53):
still finding that and questioning things and exploring who they
are and how they relate to each other, or because
I you know, I personally genuinely believe that that is
a mark of a healthy person. Right who asked the
question who am I? How do I relate to the world?
How do we relate to each other? And people are
(50:14):
asking that, you know, regardless of what answer they get
when they do a Google search for am I gay?
They're asking the question and they're learning something about themselves.
And I think it's that questioning that is so terrifying
to them.
Speaker 3 (50:31):
Well, I think that you're exactly right. That's a beautiful
way to put it.
Speaker 1 (50:34):
And I think that it is a reminder that these
bigots and right wing fascists and extremists are in the minority.
And we know that because if their positions were actually enticing,
they wouldn't have to lie about them to get people
to follow them. You wouldn't have to lie about the
kinds of pride things that target sells to get people
(50:56):
on your side. So the fact that they're lying in
a kind of way actually shows that they know that
their positions aren't popular. Because you wouldn't have to lie
if they were popular, and so I agree, you know,
I think that this is good news that people are
used turning to the Internet to find to answer these questions.
Because questioning yourself, looking inward, being introspective as figuring out
(51:16):
these things about who you are and how you fit
into the world is the mark of a healthy person
and we should be encouraging that. And so if people
are still able to turn to the Internet for exploration
of their identities to ask some of those questions, that's
a good thing, you know, It's what people should be
able to turn to the Internet for. I've shared this
on the podcast many times. When I was growing up,
(51:37):
the Internet is how I learned about myself and my
own identity and my own sexuality and gender presentation. And
if I had not had the Internet, I don't know
what I would have done. And so I'm very lucky
that I was coming of age when I did and
the kind of internet climate that I was, And I
genuinely worry about the next generation. Well they have an
(51:58):
Internet landscape that they can turn to for these questions.
It is nice to get a little bit of information
that suggests that that Internet, which I think is so
crucial is still there for them? So I'm calling it
good news.
Speaker 2 (52:12):
I'll take it. Yeah. Thanks, Bridget can always out on you.
Speaker 1 (52:16):
Thanks Mike for helping me talk through it, and thanks
to all of you for listening. If you want more
content like this without any commercials, you can subscribe to
our Patreon at patreon dot com slash Tangody I'll see
you there. If you're looking for ways to support the show,
check out our mark store at tenggodi dot com slash store.
(52:39):
Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or
just want to say hi, you can reach us at
Hello at tenggody dot com. You can also find transcripts
for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No
Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Todd.
It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative, edited by
Joey pat Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer. Tari Harrison
is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almado is our
(53:01):
contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want
to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts.
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio, app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.