Romeo & Juliet theatre star suffers ‘barrage’ of online racial abuse: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/05/romeo-juliet-theatre-star-suffers-barrage-of-online-racial-abuse
Tom Holland Urged to Speak Out After Nearly 900 Black Actors Condemn Racial Abuse of Romeo & Juliet Star Francesca Amewudah-Rivers: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/tom-holland-racial-abuse-romeo-and-juliet-francesca-amewudah-rivers
‘AI Instagram Influencers’ Are Deepfaking Their Faces Onto Real Women’s Bodies: https://www.404media.co/ai-influencers-are-deepfaking-their-faces-onto-real-womens-bodies/
Instagram to Blur Out Nude Images Sent to Teens in DMs: https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/instagram-nudes-teens-dms-1235967659/
Content creators ask Meta to reverse politics limits on Instagram, Threads: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/10/politics-instagram-threads-limits/
How to opt into political content on IG (from Verge): https://www.theverge.com/24117988/threads-instagram-politics-how-to
Actors Are Making Thousands of Dollars Through Fake Video Podcast Ads: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-11/actors-are-making-thousands-of-dollars-through-fake-video-podcast-ads?embedded-checkout=true
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 Bridget Todd and this
is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome to
There No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the
intersection of technology, social media, the Internet, and identity. And
(00:24):
this is another installment of our weekly news Roundup where
we're rounding out some of the stories that happened online
that you might have missed this week. Mike, thank you
for being here.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Bridget, thanks for having me. Always a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I should say I am still in Maza Laan, Mexico,
where I traveled to see the eclipse. When I recorded
the News round Up with Joey the previous week, I
had not yet seen the eclipse. Now I have seen
the eclipse, I feel that everything has changed. It's like
jenniber corn Kid where he says when I tried corn
(00:58):
with butter, everything changed. When I saw the eclipse, in totality,
everything changed.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
This is like you're putting butter on corn. Amazing. So
where where were you when you saw it?
Speaker 1 (01:09):
I was out on the beach. You know. I had
these like very complicated plans to take a ferry to
a small island and then hike up a little area
and then I was like, let's just go to the beach,
and so the whole it felt like the whole city
of Mazatlan came out to the beach to see it.
I have never experienced totality, and for a really long time,
(01:32):
everybody in my life has been telling me like, oh,
totality is amazing, like it's going to change your life,
like blah blah blah. Iyes was like, oh, well, I've
seen it from my office in eclipse classes from like
downtown Washington, DC. Is that not the same thing? And
people are like no, And I always felt a little
bit raw about it, if I'm being honest. My I
did not know this, but my father is an eclipse chaser,
(01:52):
and I only learned that when I tried to say
that I experienced an eclipse in a partial eclipse in DC,
and he was like, no, you haven't. If you haven't
been in totality, you haven't experienced shit.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Yeah, totality really But he was right, He's right. I
mean he didn't have to say so rudely, but totality
really is a whole different thing.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
You know.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Somebody described being in ninety nine percent eclipse as like
driving ninety nine percent of the way to Disney World,
And I feel that's like a good description, right, Like
unless you actually get all the way there, you're not
experiencing it. Yeah, the eclipse was beautiful. It was sublime.
(02:31):
Can't wait for the next one.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Did you see this thing where there was like eclipse backlash.
I'm not just talking about all the different wacky conspiracy
theories that people said the eclipse was going to trigger,
which obviously that's bunk. I mean reasonable people who were like,
stop being excited about the eclipse, like you don't have
you I'm not going to be pressured into caring about
this eclipse. Did you see any of that?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I did, and I found it super baffling and sort
of like disappointing about society. Yeah, it was like a
whole category of content of people expressing anti eclipse sentiment
like don't be excited about it, it's not that great.
Who cares? And then even after the eclipse, I've seen
some content that was like framed that way with like
(03:17):
clickbaity headlines about what was the headline that I saw
this morning? Just this morning, somebody was like complaining about
the eclipse because and then he got into the article
and they were like it was so beautiful that now
I don't know what to do with myself. But the
headline was like clickbaity and anti eclipse, and so it's
(03:40):
just I don't know, it's like, can't we have anything
nice where we just feel good about something?
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Well? That's my thing is that post eclipse, I'm actually
feeling a lot of, for lack of a better phrase,
childlike wonder. Like I think like being around all these
people who just wanted to mar at this this celestial
magic thing that happened in the sky, and I don't know,
it's just like it felt like a whole day where
(04:07):
people got to be excited about something that's pure and good,
and just like I don't know reading about how the
only reason why we get eclipses this is because like,
are the sun and the moon happen to be the
same size? Is that right?
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Yeah, I mean it is kind of like I want
to say, magical magic isn't the word, but uh yeah,
like the the sizes are it seems like quite quite
a coincidence that the sizes are so aligned the way
that they are considering how far apart these objects are.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Yeah, and I just think that's nice that it's this
like coincidental thing that we as humans just get to experience,
and how lucky for us. And yeah, we should have
more things that are just purely about Marvel for Marvel's sake,
and look up at the sky and wonder. We don't
get a lot of opportunities for childlike wonder collectively. So
(05:06):
I'm still feeling the warm fuzzies from it, I guess.
But I should also say that because I'm in Mexico still,
I am still really close to a beach where there
are roaming bands, which I learned actually they are called
bonda bands. And Mazatlan, Mexico is the place where that
tradition of like playing music on the beach and like
wandering around. This is the hometown of that tradition. So
(05:30):
go Mazatlan, Mexico. But you might hear a little bit
of jubilation in the background, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Oh, that's pretty cool. I like to like the idea
of roving bands of musicians traveling up and down the beach,
going back to that like childlike wonder at the beauty
of nature in the universe. I think that's sort of
what that anti eclipse article I read this morning was
like pushing back against for complaining about because you know,
(05:58):
they had experienced it during the brief, sublimely beautiful moment
and then it passed, and the author almost sounded like
mad that now they had to go back to their normal,
humdrum life and they struggled to remember what it had
been like during totality. And you know, I just think
(06:23):
anger at the eclipse is one path a person could
take to deal with those feelings. Another path could be
to try to seek out opportunities to marvel at the
world more regularly. Right, Like, our lives don't have to
(06:43):
be soul crushing grinds. We can look up and wonder
every now and again.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Sounds like somebody's in the pocket of Big Eclipse.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Mike, Yeah, I'll admit it. I'm on the dole for
Big Eclipse.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Well, speaking of soul crushing, not everything is childlike wonder.
And this is something that I've been experiencing, a childlike
sense of rage and infuriation. I guess I might.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Say, Yeah, I guess children really do like whatever they're feeling.
They just really feel it intensely. Yeah, So what do
you feel a childlike rage about? Bridge? So?
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Francesca Amaouda Rivers is an actor who was cast as
Juliet in an upcoming London West End production of Romeo
and Juliet alongside Tom Holland, who you might know from
those Spider Man movies or datings, and Daia alongside him
as Romeo. So the entire production is pretty racially diverse.
Because Francesca is a dark skinned black woman, that means
(07:38):
that her being cast as Juliet has led to this
torrent of racist, sexist online abuse, people saying she's too
ugly and too black to be a beautiful Juliet figure
and that her casting is quote woke, and that she
did not deserve the role. So the Jamie Lloyd Company,
which is the company behind the production, put out a
statement saying, following the announce of our Romeo and Juliette cast,
(08:01):
there has been a barrage of deplorable racial abuse online
directed toward a member of our company. This must stop.
We are working with a remarkable group of artists. We
insist they are free to create work without facing online harassment.
Jamie Lloyd, the director of The company said that it
would continue to support and protect everyone at our company
at all costs. Any abuse will not be tolerated and
(08:21):
will be reported. Bullying and harassment have no place online,
in our industry or in our wider communities. I will
say this statement is good. Like something that I say
again and again on this show, is that when somebody
is being targeted in this way, you need to show
clear and ambiguous support. You need to have a plan
in place for what you will do, and you need
(08:41):
to make sure that there is no confusion about where
you stand and how you are supporting the person targeted.
So the fact that the Jamie Lloyd Company didn't ignore
it spoke to what was happening right away in very
clear terms. This is how I think that organizations and
industries should be reacting when somebody somebody is targeted in
this way. Luckily, if there is one thing that black
(09:04):
women are going to do, it is support each other.
More than eight hundred predominantly black women and non binary
actors signed on to an open letter in solidarity with Francesca.
The letter was organized by and Nola Holmes, actor Susan Wacoma,
and writer Somalia Nanie seton, and the letter really has
two kind of important bits, one just generally supporting Francesca,
(09:25):
and two pointing out that this kind of thing, these
kind of racist attacks and harassment, happened to black performers
all the time. The letter reads, when news of Francesca's
casting and Jamie Lloyd's production of Romeo and Juliet was announced,
so many people celebrated and welcomed this news. Many of
us took to social media to shower our babysits with
love and congratulations. A huge deal for someone so young
(09:47):
in their career, a huge rising talent. But then what
followed was a too familiar horror that many of us
visible black, dark skinned performers have experienced. The racist and
misogynistic abuse directed at such a sweet soul has been
too much to bear. For a casting announcement of a
play to ignite such twisted, ugly abuse is truly embarrassing
for those so empty and barren in their own lives
(10:10):
that they must meddle in hateful abuse. Also, that is
a that is a read like somebody had time when
they wrote this letter, so they really drill in on
one of my sticking points that in a lot of
cases when this kind of thing happens, the people in
charge just kind of do nothing. They don't put out
a statement. They maybe hope it'll like blow over. Maybe
they're privately supporting the person targeted, but like they're not
(10:31):
communicating that to the public, and that is that doesn't work.
The letter reads. Too many times theater companies, broadcasters, producers,
and streamers have failed to offer any help or support
when they're black artists face racist or misogynistic abuse. Reporting
is too often left on the shoulders of the abused,
who are then expected to promote said show, which I
(10:52):
think is also like a really good point, Like it
is a racism and sexism issue, to be sure, like
an identity issue, but it's also just like a work
place equity issue, right, Like she is meant to promote
this project on social media that she is a part of,
which will only lead to more of the abuse that
she is already shouldering. And so it's not an equitable
situation if like, yeah, you're going to be in this play,
(11:13):
you need to promote this play on social media, but
in order to do that, you just have to individually
shoulder this kind of unacceptable racist and sexist harassment that
other people in your production are not having to deal with.
It's not equitable.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah, and not just shoulder that. You know, it's not
just abuse, but it's coordinated abuse, right, like people across
the internet coordinating to target one particular performer, and like,
of course that's going to be like too much for
one person to take on. Of course, people you know,
(11:49):
facing that sort of vast network of international bigots need
some institutional support to help hold them up.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Yes, letter really speaks to that in a beautiful way.
They write, we want to send a clear message to
Francesca and all black women performers who face this kind
of abuse. We see you, We see the art you
managed to produce with not only the pressures that your
white colleagues face, but with the added traumatic hurdle of
massage noire. We are so excited to watch you shine.
(12:19):
So we should talk about what's going on here. One
is that I've seen a lot of people say like, oh, well,
I'm not I don't have a problem with her that
she's black. I have a problem with her is that
she's not beautiful. Juliette is meant to be beautiful. She's
meant to be beautiful enough to have, you know, Romeo
go against his family to be with her. I'm not
saying it's a problem because she's a black she's a
(12:40):
black woman. I'm saying it's a problem because she's not beautiful.
So I think there's a really specific racially coded thing
happening here that I can tell you quite a bit about.
As a black woman with dark skin, you know, people
saying that, oh, well, it's that she's not attractive and
Juliette should be attractive, saying that it's not a race issue,
it's an attractiveness issue. Is can be such a deeply coded,
(13:03):
like racially coded claim, especially when you're talking about a
darker skinned black woman with like thick hair, and you know,
like I just have heard that my whole life, and
it's like, oh, well, it's not a race thing. It's
just that you're not pretty because you're a black woman.
It's like, well, that does sound look like a race
thing to me?
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Yeah, And I mean there are a few things more
subjective than beauty.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Yes, And it's like the fact that these people could say, like, oh,
I'm just talking about beauty standards, the fact that they
could try to conveniently divorce all of that from race,
from the fact that we live in a white supremacist society,
you know, eurocentric beauty standards like all of that. It's like,
I don't know, it's like playing in my face, Like
it's very clear what's going on, but they don't want
(13:45):
it to say what's going on, so they're like, oh, no, no, no,
it's not about race. I just don't believe that anybody
would ever find a black woman attractive.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Yeah, And I truly wonder how many of them are,
you know, talking saying it's about beauty as an tensional
way to like hide the racism that they know that
they have within them, versus like how many are just
so un self critical and unreflective that they don't see
(14:13):
what's going on in their own head. Like that almost
is like sadder. I think for somebody to live such
an uncritical life that they would not realize that, right,
I don't know. Maybe that's just a dumb point.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
No, I don't think it's a dumb point. So I
spent a lot of time digging into what people who
are behind this harassment are saying, and I think that
you're right. It's clear to me that these are not
people who are thinking very deeply about the things that
they're saying, the things that they are claiming to feel
about this person, and why they're making such a big
(14:50):
deal of it. I don't think that they're really analyzing
that too deeply. And so I bet these people do
think it's not about race, and that like spending a
lot of inn and time to talk about whether or
not they think this black woman Juliette is pretty enough
for a production that they probably would never see, uh,
is normal behavior. And I don't think that they're looking
(15:11):
at their behavior in any kind of like critical lens.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Yeah, because you bring up another good point. Why do
they care? Right? Like how many of these people are
going to travel to London's West End to take in
this Shakespeare production?
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Okay, So I have been racking my brain trying to
figure this out and figure out like what's going on
with this? And I think something really particular is happening here.
So anybody listening who is into theater, particularly Shakespeare, y'all
know that diverse casting and I'm talking diverse with regard
to race and gender is pretty common in Shakespeare productions.
(15:50):
Like you could see every iteration of race and gender
identity in Shakespeare plays if you wanted, Like, diverse casting
has been a thing for a while for generations when
it comes to Shakespeare, right. But I think that because
people are hearing that Tom Holland is in this particular production,
they are thinking like, oh, Tom Holland, he is a
(16:11):
movie star, right, like he was Spider Man in six
Marvel Cinematic Universe superhero movies. So I think that they
think this is a movie that is going to be
on in the theaters, right. I think that they see
Tom Holland Romeo and Juliet, they are making a Romeo
and Juliet movie. They do not realize that this is
a theatrical production, wherein diverse casting is like commonplace and
(16:33):
has been for a really long time. They think it's
a film, and so they're like, Oh, it's just a
woke Romeo and Juliet, you know, just like all the
other times where these kinds of people are like, oh,
superhero movies have gotten so woke. They've ruined superhero movies
with their diverse casting and their women and their people
of color. Right. So I think that's what they think
is going on, because that's the only frame of reference
(16:56):
they have. Let's just cut the shit. These people don't
know anything about Like that is like very clear to me.
These are not people who go to the theater. This
is not people who have any frame of reference for
what is or is not commonplace in theater. They just
don't know, right, So they're not only racist and sexist,
but they're also philistines. Like when I was researching this,
I saw this very angry post that was like performing
(17:19):
pretty well in the Jordan Peterson subreddit. The post reads,
why do we let woke moralists steal our classic stories
of the Western tradition? We have no way to know
if this black person was included for a reason besides
capitulating to the wokes and virtue signaling, which I will
pause there, because Romeo and Juliet is a play about
(17:42):
two warring families who have deep divisions. Like, you really
can't think of another reason why you might cast a
black person in a role about a production about deep divisions.
You can't make up any reason why that might make
narrative sense within the play other than just like virtue
signaling and being woke in.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
The statement, like, we have no way to know if
this black person was included for a reason besides capitulating,
like every casting decision needs to be like super justified.
Like what what do you mean you have no way
to know? Like what business is it of yours?
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Well, he closes that comment with this is a story
which has defined romantic love for generations, and now will
be just another example of dun, dun, dun, anti white racism,
Like what are you talking about?
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Yeah, how is an interracial couple falling in love? Anti
white racism?
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Now?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
It's just it's so stupid, like trying to like logically
pick apart the internet writings of an imbecile.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Yeah, I mean, I completely agree, And I don't know
how these people would feel about the fact that in
Shakespeare's day the characters that are women would probably be
played by men in drag. I'm curious how how that
hits them.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Yeah right, this is like what does he say, like
the classic story of the Western tradition? Yeah, it was
like two dudes making out on stage? Is that what
he loves to see?
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Something tells me he wouldn't appreciate that either. So the
top comment on that Jordan Peterson reddit threat is wow,
looks like another box office bust, Like kind of a
reference to that idea of like go woke, go broke,
that when Hollywood makes movies that feature diverse cast that
like they're going woke and that people aren't going to
support that. Now, never mind that this particular production of
(19:43):
Romeo and Juliet actually sold out within hours. But again,
it is not a movie like another box office bust.
What are you talking about? These people don't even know
what they're mad about.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
No, they're just what are they mad about? Right? And
like they clearly they're mad about something. How sad that
they have to direct it at this like young woman, right, Like,
can't they find anything more productive to direct that childlike
rage at?
Speaker 1 (20:13):
I will say this though, like, and I don't want
to make it sound like I'm speculating on celebrities, because
That's not what I like to do. But in the
fact that so many other actors, mostly black women actors
and non binary black actors, are speaking up for Francesca
in that open letter, I'm a little bit surprised that
(20:34):
we have not heard Tom Holland speaking up for her.
You know, they are co stars. He is the Romeo
to her Juliet. It's entirely possible that maybe he's supporting
her privately, which would be nice. But again, I do
think that loud, clear public support is the only thing
that works in situations like these, right, And I think,
(20:56):
especially for somebody like Tom Holland, who is the face
of this big Marvel Cinematic Universe Spider Man franchise, you know,
certainly like a battlefield for you know, people who get
angry about seeing black people or women or people of
color in their in their movies. I think having somebody
like Tom Holland be like, no, you know, this kind
(21:19):
of racist, sexist abuse will not be tolerated. You're not
going to do this in our name. You're not gonna like,
we don't want to see this as creatives and as
storytellers and we don't like it. I think that would
go a long way toward creating the conditions where this
kind of thing would not be commonplace. And I guess
I say that to say that I don't think it
should just be on the other black actors. Like the
(21:39):
black actors who organize that letter to support Francesca. I
think that's great, but it shouldn't just be on them
to create a working environment free from this kind of abuse.
Everybody should want a workplace where people can just do
the jobs that they are hired to do without being
harassed for it. Right, that benefits everybody, not just people
of color, not just traditionally marginalized people. I'm sure Tom
(21:59):
Hall wants a kind of working environment where that kind
of thing is not commonplace. Who wouldn't. And I just
think it's just another unfair, unpaid burden that black women
actors are being made to shoulder to get us there, right, Like,
this is not a system that we created. This is
not a system that is benefiting us. However, it is
like seems to be on us to be doing the
(22:20):
work to fix that system and to get us to
a place where that's kind of abuse is not commonplace.
And yeah, I just I would like it's like when
you are being targeted or harassed at work that is
already a so you have to do your job, then
you have to shoulder this abuse, and then you have
to like be the one that's also doing all the
organizing to create the conditions to not have that abuse
(22:42):
be commonplace. It's too much. And I just think that
for somebody like Tom Holland, who certainly has a lot
of privilege as a white male superhero actor. I think
I think he can spend a little bit of that
privilege getting us, getting us to a better system, a
little bit. Not to mention the fact that he is
in an interracial relationship. He's in a relationship with Zindea,
(23:05):
somebody who I really like because she is really open
about the fact that, you know, as a lighter skinned
black woman with like long hair, the kind of privilege
that comes along with And so he's in a relationship
with somebody who intentionally does a lot of public speaking
about the very things that Francesca is dealing with. And yeah,
I just think that we I wouldn't mind hearing from him.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Let's take a quick break utter back.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
So we've talked a lot about how AI is being
used to exploit women's bodies to basically make men rich,
and this new four or four media report is exactly
what I mean. AI generated adult content creators are stealing
from actual human adult content creators. This is all from
a deeply reported four to four media piece that we
will link in the show notes. It is a really
(24:07):
good read. This is one of those stories that I
definitely recommend, like reading the whole thing The piece says
people running Instagram accounts for AI generated influencers and nude
models are downloading popular Instagram reels of real models and
sex workers, deep faking the AI models face onto them,
and then using the altered videos to promote paid subscriptions
to the AI generated models accounts on only fans or
(24:30):
other competitor sites. In some cases, these AI generated models
have amassed hundreds of thousands of Instagram followers using almost
exclusively stolen content. So it is a pretty messed up situation.
And it's even more messed up when you think about
the fact that human sex workers and adult content creators
are often really harshly moderated on the Internet, and so
(24:51):
while those human content creators are sort of marginalized and
pushed to the sides on the Internet, here we have
these AI generated adult content stealing from those humans and
showing up online. It is really uncanny, like it will
be the exact same video but with an AI generated
fake influencer's head like swapped into that human's body like.
(25:13):
I actually had to really look to see the difference
between some of these real humans video and the version
that puts an AI generated contact crater onto her face.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
This sounds like a fun house mirror situation of what
we have talked about several times with new toifi apps,
where you know, in the past, people were using these
apps to put celebrities and real humans faces onto AI
generated bodies, and now these scammers and bad actors have
(25:46):
found a way to do the opposite thing of putting
AI generated faces on human bodies. There's just like no
end to the ways that people can use AI to
steal from women.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
It's all scams and sexual exploitation the whole way down.
And I think you're exactly right. Like we talk a
ton about what deep fakes means for celebrities, but they
just goes to show it is not just celebrities who
are being targeted here, We're talking about ordinary women whose
bodies are being used without their consent, Like the labor
(26:21):
and the content that these women are making is being
stolen from them to make somebody else money. And more disturbingly,
fal for Media also found that there are very detailed
instructions on how to do this on YouTube, where they
recommend stealing reels on Instagram, specifically from small creators and
small accounts to avoid detection. In one of these instructional videos.
(26:43):
They say it's a fact that faceless OnlyFans accounts earned
three times less than once with a face. This opens
up a lot of possibilities for people to start earning
more in different ways imaginable. And now it's up to
you build your own AI influencer and start monetizing your swaps,
grow your social media accounts, get an account, start an
only fan, and make it rain. So I We'll say
(27:05):
something else is that this is like explicitly a money
making enterprise wherein men feel like they are like turning
the tables on women who make adult content. Like there's
a real disdain that these men feel for women who
sex workers or women who make adult content. Like that
is very clear, and I think that comments make very
(27:26):
clear that like this is a thing where men feel
like women have been exercising economic agency over their own content,
over their own bodies, over their sexuality, and they want
to like turn the tables on them. Like in one
of those YouTube instructional videos. The comments make clear that
the viewers of that content think that this is like
(27:46):
a big development for men on the internet. One comment says,
can finally take all the simps money while being a
male so comfy. Another one says, this may just be
the end of influencers and the constant quest for internet
and vanity. Love this, so it's like when you when
you really peel that apart, why are these men so
(28:06):
mad about influencers, about women showing their bodies on the internet,
like and making money from that, Like, why are they
It's like they're they clearly have a lot of disdain
for the women who are doing this, and it kind
of conveniently leaves out the fact that, like it is
men who are consuming that adult content. So it's like,
if anything, this should be mad at themselves. It's this.
It's this weird combination of like lust and disgust where
(28:30):
it's like I want to consume this, but I also
am disgusted by this, and I want to shame her
for making me want this. Like it's this, you know
what I'm saying. It's it. I think it reveals it's
very weird tension.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Yeah, it's it's like a twisted logic. I'm like the
previous story where you know it was just the nonsensical
logic of an imbecile. Here it's like a twisted logic
of yees hating women and also being like strangely jealous
of them. Yeah, it's it does not seem like the
(29:07):
behavior or the statements of healthy, well adjusted men.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
That's definitely one way to put it. And I do
think it's like I think that what they hate is
this idea that women have been able to exercise economic agency,
and they feel like because the people who are consuming
this content are largely men, that like, men are being
fleeced into giving money to like human women who make
(29:34):
only fans content or whatever, and it's like it's like
they see that as a kind of economic exploitation. But
it's like, well, you're the one who's spending the money.
It's it's like, no one is forcing you to spend
this money. Yeah, but don't hate the woman who is
making this content because of that dynamic, do you know
what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Yeah. And there's also like some more realistic positioning of like,
we're finally taking this back from the women who have
been scamming us by making us attracted to them. And
the way that we're we as men are taking it
back is to like steal their content so that we
(30:16):
become the scammers of other men. Like what like it doesn't.
It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
It doesn't make sense. That's a good way to put it, except.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Because I guess like it does because they're making money, right,
Like that's that's why they're doing this, to make I mean,
to steal and make money.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
They're scamming. Yeah, like it does make scams always make sense.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Yeah, yeah, the layers people do it. Yeah, the layers
of like moralistic misogyny, which is kind of a weird
phrase in itself, But like that that's the part that
doesn't make sense. But the stealing and making money, that
part makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Speaking of adult content online, new anti nude technology is
to Instagram. So we've talked a lot on the show
before about sextortion schemes that really blossom on Instagram that
are mostly targeting young boys, wherein bad actors like lure
young people into sending them nudes by pretending to be
(31:15):
interested in them and like doing a long come where
they pretend that they're in a romantic relationship. And then
once these bad actors have those images, they then exploit
and pressure the young people into sending the money or
they'll release them to their friends and families. It is
a real problem and to combat that, Instagram announce that
they are testing out tools to detect when somebody is
(31:35):
sending a nude image and having that image be blurred
out in your DMS, where you would have to click
a button to say like, okay, I want to see
this image. This feature is going to be automatic for
Instagram users who are under eighteen, but everybody on Instagram
is going to be prompted to turn that feature on
in the coming weeks. So according to Instagram, it will
use on device machine learning to detect nudes, and it's
(31:58):
aimed at stopping sextortion schemes that target teenagers. When you
try to send a nude you'll get a warning that
says take care when sharing sensitive photos. The photo is
blurred out because nudity protection is on. Others can screenshot
or forward your photos without you knowing. You can unsend
a photo if you change your mind, but there's a
chance others have already seen it. I don't have much
(32:18):
to say about this. I mean, I do know that
Instagram they really have pioneered like nipple detection software, like
they really are quite good at knowing when there is
nudity present or even like the suggestion of nudity present
in images. I kind of one of the reasons I'm
having trouble with this announcement is that it just seems
(32:41):
to I just wish that Instagram was offering something better
than like their nudity detection software. Like I guess it's
better than nothing, but I've seen Instagram really default to
like quick fixes to signal that they're doing something, even
if those quick fixes like really don't solve the problem.
And I just have been through this a lot with Instagram,
(33:02):
and I can't help but wonder if they're like, oh, yeah,
we're gonna get a ton of good press on this,
like one small feature, and then we can all move on.
You know, we talked about that horrifying Wall Street Journal
report about how Instagram is really enabling pedophiles by allowing
pedophiles to subscribe to the Instagram accounts of children, using
(33:27):
the loophole that those accounts are like parent run accounts,
and so you are not, as an adult, allowed to
use Instagram's subscribe feature where you pay money to get
exclusive content. You can't subscribe to a child as an adult,
which makes perfect sense, but the loophole is that if
that is a parent run account adults can subscribe to
the accounts of children, and so that whole report was
(33:47):
kind of a bombshell about how much that is enabling
pedophiles to get direct access to young people, which is disgusting.
And so I just think that Instagram here is like
just counting on everybody reporting this and being like, oh,
looks like they're really taking it seriously, without actually demonstrating
that it's going to meaningfully address the problems.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
I agree it is. It seems like a fine good
feature to have. It's hard to imagine that this is
really going to put a meaningful curb on the sort
of sextortion schemes that you talked about earlier, you know,
when you set up the story, because there's a lot
(34:30):
of other apps out there that people could easily switch
over into. And if somebody is running a long con
on a teenager, you know, talking to them over days,
maybe weeks, maybe months, it doesn't take a lot of
imagination to think that they would just suggest let's move
to a different app, let's go to WhatsApp, let's use
(34:53):
text message, send me an email, like whatever. Pretty easy workarounds.
So I think you're right that this is or like
this protects Instagram and Meta more than I think it's
going to protect the actual kids. But like, it's not
a harmful feature. What it really reinforces, though, is how
(35:16):
sophisticated meta and other tech platforms can be when they
want to. In terms of identifying harmful content. You know,
so there's so many other areas, Like you talked about
the people subscribing to exclusive kids content via the mommy
(35:36):
blogger accounts. You know, there's racist content really like a
lot of harmful content out there, setting aside like harmful
political content, like insurrectionist type content, QAnon stuff. There's so
much harmful content out there, and this kind of policy here,
(36:03):
this technology to detect nudes really reveals that all of
that could be detected and dealt with if the platforms
like wanted to write. It reinforces the extent to which
failing to take action on those other types of harmful
content is a choice, not some sort of technical limitation.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I completely agree. So, speaking of meta and political content,
we told you all a while back about Meta deciding
to deprioritize content related to political and social issues on
threads and Instagram. I have just anecdotally definitely seen this
happening and felt the impact on my own feed on Instagram.
(36:46):
Like I feel like when I scroll Instagram these days,
which is like less and less and less. I feel like,
is thirty percent kind of viral videos and stuff like
that of like people that I don't follow, maybe twenty
percent people that I actually have chosen to follow, and
then like the rest of it is like ads and
just like scammy stuff. It just like doesn't feel good
(37:08):
and I certainly don't feel like I'm like learning a
lot from scrolling Instagram. Well now, hundreds of political and
news content creators, including activists and meme account administrators and journalists,
signed on to an open letter asking Meta to reverse
his decision to limit the reach of accounts posting political
content on threads and Instagram. So Washington Post reports that,
(37:29):
just as I suspected when this was first announced, it
is impacting people who make content related to being marginalized
or like marginalized identity in some way. The piece reads
the decisions alarmed users who post about social issues including
LGBTQ rights, women's rights, racial inequality, and disability, and independent
journalists and content creators say they've struggled to reach their
audiences in recent weeks since the change was rolled out.
(37:52):
The limits, they say, have significantly impacted creators who are black, female, disabled,
and LGBTQ. So none of this surprise of me because
Facebook just has a whole track record of suppressing content
related to marginalized people through moderation and inequities and things
like that. This is stuff that we know about Facebook.
How it works now is that you have to intentionally
(38:13):
opt in to get content about political issues. We'll put
directions on how to do that in the show notes.
But the folks who signed the letter say that it
should be the other way around. We should be given
the option to opt out of political content. The letter reads,
as users of metas platform, we did not choose to
automatically opt out of receiving suggested political content on civic
activism and news updates. Removing political recommendations as a default
(38:35):
setting and consequently stopping people from seeing suggested political content
poses a serious threat to political engagement, education, and activism.
So I should also add that we still don't really
have clarity on exactly how Facebook is determining, like whose
experiences are political and whose aren't. I could look at
(38:56):
Facebook's track record and make some guesses as to how
they are doing that. All they have really said is
like things that are pretty vague. They say. Political content
under the new restrictions includes any content that touches on
politics or, in Meta's words, topics that affect a group
of people and or society at large, which like that
is so vague that it's clear to me that that's
(39:18):
like purposely vague. These topics include content about LGBTQ and
women's rights, as well as posts about racial and disability discrimination.
Many creators also have reported that the filter's restrict content
on seemingly unrelated topics.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
This really reminds me to the first story that we
talked about about the actor who is receiving so much
online hate and Tom Holland not more vocally standing up
to support her. You know, it seems like Instagram is
(39:54):
really trying to just create a pleasant, non threatening, non
controversial experience. Uh. And I think it's easy to, yeah,
not want to rock the boat. And when people are
(40:16):
not part of groups that are receiving targeted hate, ah,
it can be a lot easier to just like look
the other way and not want to feel and say
and like, you know, in this case, be like, Oh,
it's it's political content, We're not going to include that
on the platform. People talking about their experiences being LGBTQ
(40:38):
in this you know, current climate of trans hate and
how But like that's so harmful to just not to
exclude that any conversation about that. It just feels. Yeah,
I think that that letter is exactly right, that it
(40:58):
is not just cruel of Instagram to exclude any kind
of content that discusses people's experiences facing discrimination or whatever
their experiences are. But it's like reckless to pretend as if,
you know, we can have a conversation that doesn't include
(41:20):
those things. Like what a harmful, reckless conversation that would be.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Yeah, I mean I have so much to say about
that one. I think that Facebook is trying to tell
us something that I just we know is not true. Right, So,
for instance, if you're a theater buff and you're really
interested in theater, this is the story that we led
with about Francesca's racist sexist harassment. Is that a theater
story or a political story because it deals with race.
Facebook is trying to act as if your people's interests
(41:47):
are so siloed that identity and things like politics and
social issues don't bleed into that. That's not true. Theater
is a political issue. That first story illustrates that. It's
not that Francesca was like making it a political issue.
Other people were making it a political issue, and therefore
that story about theater it's also a race issue, is
also a political issue. Movies, entertainment, sports, technology, those things
(42:11):
are identity issues. They are political issues, they are social issues,
and pretending like that's not how we live our lives
is just it's a farce. I think that anybody who
is of any kind of like marginalized identity or also
not from any kind of marginalized identity, is really familiar
with the ways that there are all these intersections of
the way we live our lives and our identity in
(42:32):
all of these other things that might not look so
identity driven on its face. And so one I think
that Instagram is like totally trying to pee on our
leg and tell us it's raining to quote my girl,
judge Judy two. Facebook has had a huge direct hand
in polarizing our democracy, polarizing our communities. Right, they've made
(42:53):
money off of that. I don't even think that Facebook
would disagree that they've done that. Their internal reporting makes
that very clear that they have. I've had a huge
direct hand in that, and I've made money from that.
To now turn around and be like, oh, well, we
don't want to do anything. We don't want to show
people anything that's going to rile them up. Bit, you
made a bunch of money off of riving people up,
and so now to tell me that I can't post
(43:13):
about my experiences after you have made money and contributed
to a climate where people are polarized, it just doesn't work.
I'm not I'm just not willing to accept that.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
Yeah, Like they broke our democracy. And then they were like, oh,
you know what, this is getting too messy. We're just
gonna like leave it. Like, no, you broke it. You
created this huge information ecosystem, uh, and like intentionally shaped
it and distorted it from what it was. You have
(43:43):
a responsibility to try to fix it. And like I'm
not saying that, like it's meta's responsibility to fix democracy.
But yeah, they, like you said, they had a huge
direct hand in creating the climate that we now have
of like polarization and riling people up, and they just
(44:08):
want to walk away and wash their hands of the
whole thing. It's at least they're consistent.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
So that is exactly what Nicole Gill, who is a
co founder at Accountable Tech, which is the organization that
organized this letter. That's exactly what Nicole Gill had to say.
And I think she points out something really important here
is that they're making this decision right before a big
election year. It's not just a big election year for
the United States. Multiple countries around the world will have
elections this year, Nicole Gill said in a statement. Limiting
(44:37):
the reach of creators without notice or definition of what
constitutes political content threatens their identities and livelihoods, while leaving
hundreds of millions of users without access to critical news
content during the biggest global election year in history. Today's
fragmented media environment that meta helped create has resulted in
social media platforms having outsize influence over the way information
(44:58):
is presented and disseminated, and this decision will have negative
effects both on and off their platforms. And I guess,
like to your point, like that's what I think, like,
we shouldn't have to just rely on Mark Zuckerberg and
Adam Mosseerri to determine whose experience and whose life is
politics and whose isn't We already know how they use
(45:20):
that power when they when they have it, they don't
use it well, they don't use it equitably, right, And
so I don't think that we should just allow them
to create and maintain this system that marginalizes people who
are already marginalized, and they get to make money off
of it, right, Like going back to that Francesca Romeo
and Juliet story. I didn't decide that my existence as
a black woman is political. Other people did, and so
telling me that I can't then talk about that and
(45:42):
that if I do, I'm going to be deprioritized, I
don't accept that. I don't think that we should be
relying on these wealthy, white, straight ciss tech leaders and
billionaires to define whose experiences count as politics and who's don't.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Yeah, I some of the I like to just like
close my eyes and imagine a world, like an alternate,
parallel universe where I don't know, maybe Mark Zuckerberg got
like hit on the head, or maybe he took some
LSD and had a revelation or something and decided to
like radically change what he's doing and instead of like
(46:19):
dumping forty six billion dollars into the metaverse, which like
just earned that money up. What if he had taken
like a fraction of that and put it towards like
research and innovating in a way to like increase literacy
and connection and compassion among their users, right, Like, wouldn't
(46:40):
that have been nice?
Speaker 1 (46:41):
Knowing him, he'd find a way to muck that up to.
Speaker 2 (46:49):
More.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
So I do have a little bit of news kind
of on that front, which is that lawmakers unveiled a
new proposal that would for the first time give consumers
broad rights to control how tech companies like Meta and
TikTok and Google use their personal data. I say this
a lot, but surprisingly here in the United States we
do not have any real data privacy protections here, which
again every time I say it blows my mind. But
(47:25):
if this proposal succeeds, it could establish something again to
the European Union's landmark privacy law known as the General
Data Protection Regulation or the GDPR, and kind of attempt
to curb this like totally unregulated wild wild west that
we have in the United States where all of our
personal data is just for sale by the highest bidder
whoever wants to use it to make money. That's the situation,
(47:48):
and so this could ring in some of that if passed.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Thank god, it's wild that it's twenty twenty four and
we're just getting around to this in this country now.
It is completely banana pants that we do not have
any laws protecting our data privacy.
Speaker 1 (48:10):
Yeah, I mean, I was just reading about how the
FCC just i think yesterday, passed a law that internet
service providers have to give the same way that when
you buy a box of cereal, it has the nutritional
label that tells you what's in it and all the
different things that are in it. Internet service providers will
now be forced by law to clearly include a breakdown
(48:34):
of the broad band facts that you're paying for, so
like the monthly price of your internet, you know, the
additional charges, all of that, and they have to clearly
label this both online and at physical stores. It looks
almost exactly like the nutritional label that you would find
on a box of cereal. And what I was so
struck by by that story is that, first of all,
the fact that we did it, that there was nothing
(48:55):
requiring that kind of clarity to consumers to begin with,
and the fact that internet service providers like Comcast really
fought this. They were like, no, we shouldn't have to
do this, and it just really struck me of like,
y'all just want to scam. Y'all just want to take
people for a ride. You just want to bait and switch,
and you want that the ability to do that to
be protected and enshrined by law, your ability to scam
(49:17):
and lie to people. And so I remember when I
moved into a new apartment signing up for Comcast and
they were giving me like a deal on Internet and
being like, okay, so is this deal going to be
forever or is this a you know, an introductory rate
and then it's going to go up And they were like, oh,
it's the deal forever and deal forever, deal forever. I
was like, are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?
They were like, oh, yeah, your price will never go up.
(49:37):
Well that was a lie because my price did go up.
And then they were like, oh, well it was this
or that we had to add thief. And it's like
people deserve clarity, like it should be a given that
people are knowing what they are being asked to pay
for like this idea that you should just be able
to obscure that and it's fine. And not only is
it fine that like it is your right as a corporation.
(49:58):
I don't know. I just the fact that we we
are finally now just getting around and being like, oh wait,
maybe consumers do deserve some protections. Maybe it shouldn't just
be like, fuck, you pay me and I can lie
to your face like maybe that's not a helpful dynamic
for anybody.
Speaker 2 (50:13):
I love how raw you are about this Comcast bill,
like a decade ago that yeah, you're still like grinding
this axe and we're like, we finally have a bill
to protect privacy. You know what the real like thing is, though.
Speaker 1 (50:30):
Mike, I was in grad school. I had no money
when that bill increased. I mean I asked, in every
which way is my bill going to get going to increase?
And they insured me No. I even had my dad,
who is so good on the phone dealing with like
salespeople and like that kind of thing. I called him
while he was in the room to coach me through
(50:50):
what to ask to make sure because I was like,
I really cannot afford if my bill goes up and
when my bill went up. Yeah, I was heated. I
was mad. I'm still mad ten years later.
Speaker 2 (50:58):
Yeah, I can oh a minute I.
Speaker 1 (51:01):
Comcast.
Speaker 2 (51:03):
Yeah, I mean if yeah, we're gonna go down this path.
I remember years ago when I lived in Madison, when
I was going to grad school there, there were a
couple internet service providers in town, and I think every
year I would like switch from one to the other
so I could get some kind of promotional deal. What
a stupid way to like manage one's internet right, And
(51:24):
it just especially given how central the Internet is to
so many functions of day to day life. Like we
use it to communicate, we use it to work, we
use it for entertainment, we use it to get information
about the world so that we can be civic participants.
It's so absolutely critical to everything we do. And that
(51:48):
just makes it even more mind blowing that we still
have no federal laws protecting our privacy when we are
on the Internet.
Speaker 1 (51:59):
Yes, such to the Internet, like the UN says, it's
a human right, but it's like to go through it,
I have to deal with an Internet service provider that
is allowed to lie to me and scam me and
exploit me. I don't think so. So this last thing
I wanted to talk about, it's not really news, but
it's something that I find deeply interesting that I just
wanted to share with all of you. So in our
Andrew Huberman two part episode, which, by the way, thanks
(52:20):
to all of y'all for listening. We've gotten such interesting
feedback from that episode. Thank you for going down that
rabbit hole with me, because it was certainly a rabbit
hole as I wanted to go down, so thank you
for letting me do that. But I ended that episode
talking about how I really feel like podcasting is this
tricky space where listeners really trust podcasters and help podcasts,
for whatever reason, kind of automatically convey a certain level
(52:43):
of authority. I've talked about it on the podcast before,
but I have noticed these TikTok videos where people look
like they are recording a podcast in a podcast studio.
There's a microphone in front of them. They've got like
the neon sign behind them, but I know I can
tell that that mic is not turned on, and in
some cases it's not even plugged into anything. It's just
(53:04):
like a prop that is in front of them.
Speaker 3 (53:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (53:06):
I've seen that where I'm like, fact, this the way
this setup doesn't make any sense because when I record
my podcast, it looks like you can just tell that
there are wires everywhere your microphone is plugged into something
that is recording. It's not just sitting wirelessly in front
of you, like like's where where's the audio that you're
uploading going to? You know, Well, my suspicions have been
(53:27):
confirmed by this piece in Bloomberg breaking down the cottage
industry of hired actors who are you know, selling their
services on websites like fiver, who take money to make
fake podcasts as user generated content style advertising. They even
have an upsell where they will make a fake podcast
in front of one of those glowing neon signs to
(53:49):
make it look like a real podcast. So in the
piece they talk to this guy named Wolf who is
like always in these tiktoks that make it look like
he is podcasting, wherein he's like talking up a product
asually mentioning it's benefits and why he loves it. Maybe
you'll think this podcast feels slightly excessive and it's enthusiasm
for a particular thing. But TikTok's content onslought doesn't leave
(54:10):
much time for questioning. The takeaway is here's a passionate
person speaking authoritatively on a podcast. In reality, these clips
are not coming from podcasts. In fact, Wolf is being
paid one hundred and ninety five dollars for each of
these one minute advertisements designed to look like a podcast.
On the freelance service website fiver, where he sells his
service to brands, Wolf claims, I will make a UGC podcast,
(54:34):
video ad or a user generated content ad using the
client's own script to talk about the product. The custom
neon sign is an up charge. So this is just
fascinating to me. Honestly, it actually kind of sounds like
a pretty good racket. He says that he makes almost
twenty thousand dollars a month doing this like France. If
y'all are listening and you want this, not only do
(54:54):
I have a podcast, Mike, I actually even know how
to turn it on. So if you want to give
me twenty k a month to do this, I will
gladly do for you.
Speaker 2 (55:01):
Yeah, no doubt. We'll even throw a neon sign for free,
no up charge, part of the basic package.
Speaker 1 (55:10):
So a lot of the services they are hawking, which
I guess doesn't really surprise me. Are crypto or like
financial services or like men's health and wellness related friend
of the show Ryan at one of my favorite newsletters,
Garbage Day, he called them weird gen z hustlebrow influencers,
which I love that. I love that name for them.
So Ryan's theory is that during COVID, the podcast mic
(55:34):
became a symbol of authority or a visual signal of importance,
sort of like how during the era of peak ted Talk,
a bunch of guys would film themselves on stages, add
some inspirational music, and then post it to Facebook. If
there's a microphone in front of you, I assume the
logic goes it means you're important enough to record, which
I can tell you. Anybody can buy a podcast mic
like it doesn't mean anything.
Speaker 2 (55:56):
Yeah, you can get with for like sixty bucks, especially
if you're not gonna plug it. You know, you don't
even need to. Who cares about quality when it's not
plugged in.
Speaker 1 (56:04):
It sounds like there was one kind of white whale
TikTok video that made Ryan like skeptical that these people
were making actual podcasts. It was this very viral TikTok
of a woman in front of a podcast Mike talking
about how she would like sexually please her husband. It
went super viral on Twitter. But then Ryan was like,
what the hell podcast is this? Even like there wasn't
(56:25):
a watermark or any kind of branding with like a
show name on it and everything. If you were publishing
a podcast clip, you would probably put the name of
the podcast that you wanted people to listen to on
that clip. It didn't have that. And it turns out
this woman just as a content creator who was making
this as a way to promote her only fans, which
I don't have many a problem with, Like good for her.
But Ryan connects this to a darker trend in kind
(56:48):
of the overlap of podcasting and marketing where they have
this thing that I've definitely seen where it will be
like a pod a real podcast, where part of the
way that they are marketing their podcas is making these
short viral clips of them interviewing is too strong, really
just like humiliating a woman on the podcast, Like the
(57:09):
podcast whatever is really known for this, and Fresh and
Fit was really known for this, where they would have
they would make these very short videos of them like
humiliating a woman who has gone on the podcast, and
then that video would go viral. He writes, there's an
entire universe of post Andrew Tait sexuality and relationship podcasts
that put young women in front of microphones, ask them
(57:30):
outrageous questions and turn it into viral clips and then
let audiences tear them apart. Some of these podcasts even
have like casting calls on their websites to find new guests.
I hate this. So maybe making fake podcasts to hawk
items is one thing, But this dynamic where microphone plus
(57:52):
misogyny equals authority equals profit, that dynamic is a little
bit more toxic.
Speaker 2 (58:00):
Yeah, there's a lot going on there. It was this
was just kind of like a sort of weird, funny
story until it took that dark turn at the end.
Speaker 1 (58:09):
I think that the fact that podcasters like Fresh and
Fit and Andrew Tate that they know that this kind
of thing does go viral on social media. It just
really is about the fact that massogyny and massage noir
and all of that will always find a welcome home
on the Internet. Like, I think this is not a bug.
It's a feature of the internet landscape that we have
where a video where a man in front of a
(58:32):
microphone is humiliating a woman that will always find an audience,
and I think it is. I wanted to talk about
this as sort of like a funny, weird thing, but
it does. It does connect back to that very real
dynamic where massage, noir and massogyny will always be profitable online,
which is why we need to have a better Internet
(58:52):
landscape that doesn't allow for that.
Speaker 2 (58:54):
Yeah, if only meta would start excluding that kind of
content rather than political exactly.
Speaker 1 (59:02):
Well, Mike, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 2 (59:05):
Bridget, thanks for having me. I hope you have a
safe trip home from Maza Lan and to the.
Speaker 1 (59:09):
Rest of you, thanks for listening. We will see you
on the Internet. If you're looking for ways to support
the show, check out our merch store at teangody dot
com slash store. 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 teng Goody dot com.
(59:31):
There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by
me Bridget tod It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative,
edited by Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer.
Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amado
is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If
you want to help us grow, rate and review us.
Speaker 3 (59:49):
On Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1 (59:50):
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 Bridget Todd and this
is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome to
There No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the
intersection of technology, social media, the Internet, and identity. And
(00:24):
this is another installment of our weekly news Roundup where
we're rounding out some of the stories that happened online
that you might have missed this week. Mike, thank you
for being here.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Bridget, thanks for having me. Always a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I should say I am still in Maza Laan, Mexico,
where I traveled to see the eclipse. When I recorded
the News round Up with Joey the previous week, I
had not yet seen the eclipse. Now I have seen
the eclipse, I feel that everything has changed. It's like
jenniber corn Kid where he says when I tried corn
(00:58):
with butter, everything changed. When I saw the eclipse, in totality,
everything changed.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
This is like you're putting butter on corn. Amazing. So
where where were you when you saw it?
Speaker 1 (01:09):
I was out on the beach. You know. I had
these like very complicated plans to take a ferry to
a small island and then hike up a little area
and then I was like, let's just go to the beach,
and so the whole it felt like the whole city
of Mazatlan came out to the beach to see it.
I have never experienced totality, and for a really long time,
(01:32):
everybody in my life has been telling me like, oh,
totality is amazing, like it's going to change your life,
like blah blah blah. Iyes was like, oh, well, I've
seen it from my office in eclipse classes from like
downtown Washington, DC. Is that not the same thing? And
people are like no, And I always felt a little
bit raw about it, if I'm being honest. My I
did not know this, but my father is an eclipse chaser,
(01:52):
and I only learned that when I tried to say
that I experienced an eclipse in a partial eclipse in DC,
and he was like, no, you haven't. If you haven't
been in totality, you haven't experienced shit.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Yeah, totality really But he was right, He's right. I
mean he didn't have to say so rudely, but totality
really is a whole different thing.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
You know.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Somebody described being in ninety nine percent eclipse as like
driving ninety nine percent of the way to Disney World,
And I feel that's like a good description, right, Like
unless you actually get all the way there, you're not
experiencing it. Yeah, the eclipse was beautiful. It was sublime.
(02:31):
Can't wait for the next one.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Did you see this thing where there was like eclipse backlash.
I'm not just talking about all the different wacky conspiracy
theories that people said the eclipse was going to trigger,
which obviously that's bunk. I mean reasonable people who were like,
stop being excited about the eclipse, like you don't have
you I'm not going to be pressured into caring about
this eclipse. Did you see any of that?
Speaker 2 (02:54):
I did, and I found it super baffling and sort
of like disappointing about society. Yeah, it was like a
whole category of content of people expressing anti eclipse sentiment
like don't be excited about it, it's not that great.
Who cares? And then even after the eclipse, I've seen
some content that was like framed that way with like
(03:17):
clickbaity headlines about what was the headline that I saw
this morning? Just this morning, somebody was like complaining about
the eclipse because and then he got into the article
and they were like it was so beautiful that now
I don't know what to do with myself. But the
headline was like clickbaity and anti eclipse, and so it's
(03:40):
just I don't know, it's like, can't we have anything
nice where we just feel good about something?
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Well? That's my thing is that post eclipse, I'm actually
feeling a lot of, for lack of a better phrase,
childlike wonder. Like I think like being around all these
people who just wanted to mar at this this celestial
magic thing that happened in the sky, and I don't know,
it's just like it felt like a whole day where
(04:07):
people got to be excited about something that's pure and good,
and just like I don't know reading about how the
only reason why we get eclipses this is because like,
are the sun and the moon happen to be the
same size? Is that right?
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Yeah, I mean it is kind of like I want
to say, magical magic isn't the word, but uh yeah,
like the the sizes are it seems like quite quite
a coincidence that the sizes are so aligned the way
that they are considering how far apart these objects are.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Yeah, and I just think that's nice that it's this
like coincidental thing that we as humans just get to experience,
and how lucky for us. And yeah, we should have
more things that are just purely about Marvel for Marvel's sake,
and look up at the sky and wonder. We don't
get a lot of opportunities for childlike wonder collectively. So
(05:06):
I'm still feeling the warm fuzzies from it, I guess.
But I should also say that because I'm in Mexico still,
I am still really close to a beach where there
are roaming bands, which I learned actually they are called
bonda bands. And Mazatlan, Mexico is the place where that
tradition of like playing music on the beach and like
wandering around. This is the hometown of that tradition. So
(05:30):
go Mazatlan, Mexico. But you might hear a little bit
of jubilation in the background, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Oh, that's pretty cool. I like to like the idea
of roving bands of musicians traveling up and down the beach,
going back to that like childlike wonder at the beauty
of nature in the universe. I think that's sort of
what that anti eclipse article I read this morning was
like pushing back against for complaining about because you know,
(05:58):
they had experienced it during the brief, sublimely beautiful moment
and then it passed, and the author almost sounded like
mad that now they had to go back to their normal,
humdrum life and they struggled to remember what it had
been like during totality. And you know, I just think
(06:23):
anger at the eclipse is one path a person could
take to deal with those feelings. Another path could be
to try to seek out opportunities to marvel at the
world more regularly. Right, Like, our lives don't have to
(06:43):
be soul crushing grinds. We can look up and wonder
every now and again.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Sounds like somebody's in the pocket of Big Eclipse.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Mike, Yeah, I'll admit it. I'm on the dole for
Big Eclipse.
Speaker 1 (06:55):
Well, speaking of soul crushing, not everything is childlike wonder.
And this is something that I've been experiencing, a childlike
sense of rage and infuriation. I guess I might.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Say, Yeah, I guess children really do like whatever they're feeling.
They just really feel it intensely. Yeah, So what do
you feel a childlike rage about? Bridge? So?
Speaker 1 (07:18):
Francesca Amaouda Rivers is an actor who was cast as
Juliet in an upcoming London West End production of Romeo
and Juliet alongside Tom Holland, who you might know from
those Spider Man movies or datings, and Daia alongside him
as Romeo. So the entire production is pretty racially diverse.
Because Francesca is a dark skinned black woman, that means
(07:38):
that her being cast as Juliet has led to this
torrent of racist, sexist online abuse, people saying she's too
ugly and too black to be a beautiful Juliet figure
and that her casting is quote woke, and that she
did not deserve the role. So the Jamie Lloyd Company,
which is the company behind the production, put out a
statement saying, following the announce of our Romeo and Juliette cast,
(08:01):
there has been a barrage of deplorable racial abuse online
directed toward a member of our company. This must stop.
We are working with a remarkable group of artists. We
insist they are free to create work without facing online harassment.
Jamie Lloyd, the director of The company said that it
would continue to support and protect everyone at our company
at all costs. Any abuse will not be tolerated and
(08:21):
will be reported. Bullying and harassment have no place online,
in our industry or in our wider communities. I will
say this statement is good. Like something that I say
again and again on this show, is that when somebody
is being targeted in this way, you need to show
clear and ambiguous support. You need to have a plan
in place for what you will do, and you need
(08:41):
to make sure that there is no confusion about where
you stand and how you are supporting the person targeted.
So the fact that the Jamie Lloyd Company didn't ignore
it spoke to what was happening right away in very
clear terms. This is how I think that organizations and
industries should be reacting when somebody somebody is targeted in
this way. Luckily, if there is one thing that black
(09:04):
women are going to do, it is support each other.
More than eight hundred predominantly black women and non binary
actors signed on to an open letter in solidarity with Francesca.
The letter was organized by and Nola Holmes, actor Susan Wacoma,
and writer Somalia Nanie seton, and the letter really has
two kind of important bits, one just generally supporting Francesca,
(09:25):
and two pointing out that this kind of thing, these
kind of racist attacks and harassment, happened to black performers
all the time. The letter reads, when news of Francesca's
casting and Jamie Lloyd's production of Romeo and Juliet was announced,
so many people celebrated and welcomed this news. Many of
us took to social media to shower our babysits with
love and congratulations. A huge deal for someone so young
(09:47):
in their career, a huge rising talent. But then what
followed was a too familiar horror that many of us
visible black, dark skinned performers have experienced. The racist and
misogynistic abuse directed at such a sweet soul has been
too much to bear. For a casting announcement of a
play to ignite such twisted, ugly abuse is truly embarrassing
for those so empty and barren in their own lives
(10:10):
that they must meddle in hateful abuse. Also, that is
a that is a read like somebody had time when
they wrote this letter, so they really drill in on
one of my sticking points that in a lot of
cases when this kind of thing happens, the people in
charge just kind of do nothing. They don't put out
a statement. They maybe hope it'll like blow over. Maybe
they're privately supporting the person targeted, but like they're not
(10:31):
communicating that to the public, and that is that doesn't work.
The letter reads. Too many times theater companies, broadcasters, producers,
and streamers have failed to offer any help or support
when they're black artists face racist or misogynistic abuse. Reporting
is too often left on the shoulders of the abused,
who are then expected to promote said show, which I
(10:52):
think is also like a really good point, Like it
is a racism and sexism issue, to be sure, like
an identity issue, but it's also just like a work
place equity issue, right, Like she is meant to promote
this project on social media that she is a part of,
which will only lead to more of the abuse that
she is already shouldering. And so it's not an equitable
situation if like, yeah, you're going to be in this play,
(11:13):
you need to promote this play on social media, but
in order to do that, you just have to individually
shoulder this kind of unacceptable racist and sexist harassment that
other people in your production are not having to deal with.
It's not equitable.
Speaker 2 (11:26):
Yeah, and not just shoulder that. You know, it's not
just abuse, but it's coordinated abuse, right, like people across
the internet coordinating to target one particular performer, and like,
of course that's going to be like too much for
one person to take on. Of course, people you know,
(11:49):
facing that sort of vast network of international bigots need
some institutional support to help hold them up.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
Yes, letter really speaks to that in a beautiful way.
They write, we want to send a clear message to
Francesca and all black women performers who face this kind
of abuse. We see you, We see the art you
managed to produce with not only the pressures that your
white colleagues face, but with the added traumatic hurdle of
massage noire. We are so excited to watch you shine.
(12:19):
So we should talk about what's going on here. One
is that I've seen a lot of people say like, oh, well,
I'm not I don't have a problem with her that
she's black. I have a problem with her is that
she's not beautiful. Juliette is meant to be beautiful. She's
meant to be beautiful enough to have, you know, Romeo
go against his family to be with her. I'm not
saying it's a problem because she's a black she's a
(12:40):
black woman. I'm saying it's a problem because she's not beautiful.
So I think there's a really specific racially coded thing
happening here that I can tell you quite a bit about.
As a black woman with dark skin, you know, people
saying that, oh, well, it's that she's not attractive and
Juliette should be attractive, saying that it's not a race issue,
it's an attractiveness issue. Is can be such a deeply coded,
(13:03):
like racially coded claim, especially when you're talking about a
darker skinned black woman with like thick hair, and you know,
like I just have heard that my whole life, and
it's like, oh, well, it's not a race thing. It's
just that you're not pretty because you're a black woman.
It's like, well, that does sound look like a race
thing to me?
Speaker 2 (13:18):
Yeah, And I mean there are a few things more
subjective than beauty.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
Yes, And it's like the fact that these people could say, like, oh,
I'm just talking about beauty standards, the fact that they
could try to conveniently divorce all of that from race,
from the fact that we live in a white supremacist society,
you know, eurocentric beauty standards like all of that. It's like,
I don't know, it's like playing in my face, Like
it's very clear what's going on, but they don't want
(13:45):
it to say what's going on, so they're like, oh, no, no, no,
it's not about race. I just don't believe that anybody
would ever find a black woman attractive.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Yeah, And I truly wonder how many of them are,
you know, talking saying it's about beauty as an tensional
way to like hide the racism that they know that
they have within them, versus like how many are just
so un self critical and unreflective that they don't see
(14:13):
what's going on in their own head. Like that almost
is like sadder. I think for somebody to live such
an uncritical life that they would not realize that, right,
I don't know. Maybe that's just a dumb point.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
No, I don't think it's a dumb point. So I
spent a lot of time digging into what people who
are behind this harassment are saying, and I think that
you're right. It's clear to me that these are not
people who are thinking very deeply about the things that
they're saying, the things that they are claiming to feel
about this person, and why they're making such a big
(14:50):
deal of it. I don't think that they're really analyzing
that too deeply. And so I bet these people do
think it's not about race, and that like spending a
lot of inn and time to talk about whether or
not they think this black woman Juliette is pretty enough
for a production that they probably would never see, uh,
is normal behavior. And I don't think that they're looking
(15:11):
at their behavior in any kind of like critical lens.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Yeah, because you bring up another good point. Why do
they care? Right? Like how many of these people are
going to travel to London's West End to take in
this Shakespeare production?
Speaker 1 (15:26):
Okay, So I have been racking my brain trying to
figure this out and figure out like what's going on
with this? And I think something really particular is happening here.
So anybody listening who is into theater, particularly Shakespeare, y'all
know that diverse casting and I'm talking diverse with regard
to race and gender is pretty common in Shakespeare productions.
(15:50):
Like you could see every iteration of race and gender
identity in Shakespeare plays if you wanted, Like, diverse casting
has been a thing for a while for generations when
it comes to Shakespeare, right. But I think that because
people are hearing that Tom Holland is in this particular production,
they are thinking like, oh, Tom Holland, he is a
(16:11):
movie star, right, like he was Spider Man in six
Marvel Cinematic Universe superhero movies. So I think that they
think this is a movie that is going to be
on in the theaters, right. I think that they see
Tom Holland Romeo and Juliet, they are making a Romeo
and Juliet movie. They do not realize that this is
a theatrical production, wherein diverse casting is like commonplace and
(16:33):
has been for a really long time. They think it's
a film, and so they're like, Oh, it's just a
woke Romeo and Juliet, you know, just like all the
other times where these kinds of people are like, oh,
superhero movies have gotten so woke. They've ruined superhero movies
with their diverse casting and their women and their people
of color. Right. So I think that's what they think
is going on, because that's the only frame of reference
(16:56):
they have. Let's just cut the shit. These people don't
know anything about Like that is like very clear to me.
These are not people who go to the theater. This
is not people who have any frame of reference for
what is or is not commonplace in theater. They just
don't know, right, So they're not only racist and sexist,
but they're also philistines. Like when I was researching this,
I saw this very angry post that was like performing
(17:19):
pretty well in the Jordan Peterson subreddit. The post reads,
why do we let woke moralists steal our classic stories
of the Western tradition? We have no way to know
if this black person was included for a reason besides
capitulating to the wokes and virtue signaling, which I will
pause there, because Romeo and Juliet is a play about
(17:42):
two warring families who have deep divisions. Like, you really
can't think of another reason why you might cast a
black person in a role about a production about deep divisions.
You can't make up any reason why that might make
narrative sense within the play other than just like virtue
signaling and being woke in.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
The statement, like, we have no way to know if
this black person was included for a reason besides capitulating,
like every casting decision needs to be like super justified.
Like what what do you mean you have no way
to know? Like what business is it of yours?
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Well, he closes that comment with this is a story
which has defined romantic love for generations, and now will
be just another example of dun, dun, dun, anti white racism,
Like what are you talking about?
Speaker 2 (18:33):
Yeah, how is an interracial couple falling in love? Anti
white racism?
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Now?
Speaker 2 (18:40):
It's just it's so stupid, like trying to like logically
pick apart the internet writings of an imbecile.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Yeah, I mean, I completely agree, And I don't know
how these people would feel about the fact that in
Shakespeare's day the characters that are women would probably be
played by men in drag. I'm curious how how that
hits them.
Speaker 2 (19:09):
Yeah right, this is like what does he say, like
the classic story of the Western tradition? Yeah, it was
like two dudes making out on stage? Is that what
he loves to see?
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Something tells me he wouldn't appreciate that either. So the
top comment on that Jordan Peterson reddit threat is wow,
looks like another box office bust, Like kind of a
reference to that idea of like go woke, go broke,
that when Hollywood makes movies that feature diverse cast that
like they're going woke and that people aren't going to
support that. Now, never mind that this particular production of
(19:43):
Romeo and Juliet actually sold out within hours. But again,
it is not a movie like another box office bust.
What are you talking about? These people don't even know
what they're mad about.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
No, they're just what are they mad about? Right? And
like they clearly they're mad about something. How sad that
they have to direct it at this like young woman, right, Like,
can't they find anything more productive to direct that childlike
rage at?
Speaker 1 (20:13):
I will say this though, like, and I don't want
to make it sound like I'm speculating on celebrities, because
That's not what I like to do. But in the
fact that so many other actors, mostly black women actors
and non binary black actors, are speaking up for Francesca
in that open letter, I'm a little bit surprised that
(20:34):
we have not heard Tom Holland speaking up for her.
You know, they are co stars. He is the Romeo
to her Juliet. It's entirely possible that maybe he's supporting
her privately, which would be nice. But again, I do
think that loud, clear public support is the only thing
that works in situations like these, right, And I think,
(20:56):
especially for somebody like Tom Holland, who is the face
of this big Marvel Cinematic Universe Spider Man franchise, you know,
certainly like a battlefield for you know, people who get
angry about seeing black people or women or people of
color in their in their movies. I think having somebody
like Tom Holland be like, no, you know, this kind
(21:19):
of racist, sexist abuse will not be tolerated. You're not
going to do this in our name. You're not gonna like,
we don't want to see this as creatives and as
storytellers and we don't like it. I think that would
go a long way toward creating the conditions where this
kind of thing would not be commonplace. And I guess
I say that to say that I don't think it
should just be on the other black actors. Like the
(21:39):
black actors who organize that letter to support Francesca. I
think that's great, but it shouldn't just be on them
to create a working environment free from this kind of abuse.
Everybody should want a workplace where people can just do
the jobs that they are hired to do without being
harassed for it. Right, that benefits everybody, not just people
of color, not just traditionally marginalized people. I'm sure Tom
(21:59):
Hall wants a kind of working environment where that kind
of thing is not commonplace. Who wouldn't. And I just
think it's just another unfair, unpaid burden that black women
actors are being made to shoulder to get us there, right, Like,
this is not a system that we created. This is
not a system that is benefiting us. However, it is
like seems to be on us to be doing the
(22:20):
work to fix that system and to get us to
a place where that's kind of abuse is not commonplace.
And yeah, I just I would like it's like when
you are being targeted or harassed at work that is
already a so you have to do your job, then
you have to shoulder this abuse, and then you have
to like be the one that's also doing all the
organizing to create the conditions to not have that abuse
(22:42):
be commonplace. It's too much. And I just think that
for somebody like Tom Holland, who certainly has a lot
of privilege as a white male superhero actor. I think
I think he can spend a little bit of that
privilege getting us, getting us to a better system, a
little bit. Not to mention the fact that he is
in an interracial relationship. He's in a relationship with Zindea,
(23:05):
somebody who I really like because she is really open
about the fact that, you know, as a lighter skinned
black woman with like long hair, the kind of privilege
that comes along with And so he's in a relationship
with somebody who intentionally does a lot of public speaking
about the very things that Francesca is dealing with. And yeah,
I just think that we I wouldn't mind hearing from him.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Let's take a quick break utter back.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
So we've talked a lot about how AI is being
used to exploit women's bodies to basically make men rich,
and this new four or four media report is exactly
what I mean. AI generated adult content creators are stealing
from actual human adult content creators. This is all from
a deeply reported four to four media piece that we
will link in the show notes. It is a really
(24:07):
good read. This is one of those stories that I
definitely recommend, like reading the whole thing The piece says
people running Instagram accounts for AI generated influencers and nude
models are downloading popular Instagram reels of real models and
sex workers, deep faking the AI models face onto them,
and then using the altered videos to promote paid subscriptions
to the AI generated models accounts on only fans or
(24:30):
other competitor sites. In some cases, these AI generated models
have amassed hundreds of thousands of Instagram followers using almost
exclusively stolen content. So it is a pretty messed up situation.
And it's even more messed up when you think about
the fact that human sex workers and adult content creators
are often really harshly moderated on the Internet, and so
(24:51):
while those human content creators are sort of marginalized and
pushed to the sides on the Internet, here we have
these AI generated adult content stealing from those humans and
showing up online. It is really uncanny, like it will
be the exact same video but with an AI generated
fake influencer's head like swapped into that human's body like.
(25:13):
I actually had to really look to see the difference
between some of these real humans video and the version
that puts an AI generated contact crater onto her face.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
This sounds like a fun house mirror situation of what
we have talked about several times with new toifi apps,
where you know, in the past, people were using these
apps to put celebrities and real humans faces onto AI
generated bodies, and now these scammers and bad actors have
(25:46):
found a way to do the opposite thing of putting
AI generated faces on human bodies. There's just like no
end to the ways that people can use AI to
steal from women.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
It's all scams and sexual exploitation the whole way down.
And I think you're exactly right. Like we talk a
ton about what deep fakes means for celebrities, but they
just goes to show it is not just celebrities who
are being targeted here, We're talking about ordinary women whose
bodies are being used without their consent, Like the labor
(26:21):
and the content that these women are making is being
stolen from them to make somebody else money. And more disturbingly,
fal for Media also found that there are very detailed
instructions on how to do this on YouTube, where they
recommend stealing reels on Instagram, specifically from small creators and
small accounts to avoid detection. In one of these instructional videos.
(26:43):
They say it's a fact that faceless OnlyFans accounts earned
three times less than once with a face. This opens
up a lot of possibilities for people to start earning
more in different ways imaginable. And now it's up to
you build your own AI influencer and start monetizing your swaps,
grow your social media accounts, get an account, start an
only fan, and make it rain. So I We'll say
(27:05):
something else is that this is like explicitly a money
making enterprise wherein men feel like they are like turning
the tables on women who make adult content. Like there's
a real disdain that these men feel for women who
sex workers or women who make adult content. Like that
is very clear, and I think that comments make very
(27:26):
clear that like this is a thing where men feel
like women have been exercising economic agency over their own content,
over their own bodies, over their sexuality, and they want
to like turn the tables on them. Like in one
of those YouTube instructional videos. The comments make clear that
the viewers of that content think that this is like
(27:46):
a big development for men on the internet. One comment says,
can finally take all the simps money while being a
male so comfy. Another one says, this may just be
the end of influencers and the constant quest for internet
and vanity. Love this, so it's like when you when
you really peel that apart, why are these men so
(28:06):
mad about influencers, about women showing their bodies on the internet,
like and making money from that, Like, why are they
It's like they're they clearly have a lot of disdain
for the women who are doing this, and it kind
of conveniently leaves out the fact that, like it is
men who are consuming that adult content. So it's like,
if anything, this should be mad at themselves. It's this.
It's this weird combination of like lust and disgust where
(28:30):
it's like I want to consume this, but I also
am disgusted by this, and I want to shame her
for making me want this. Like it's this, you know
what I'm saying. It's it. I think it reveals it's
very weird tension.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Yeah, it's it's like a twisted logic. I'm like the
previous story where you know it was just the nonsensical
logic of an imbecile. Here it's like a twisted logic
of yees hating women and also being like strangely jealous
of them. Yeah, it's it does not seem like the
(29:07):
behavior or the statements of healthy, well adjusted men.
Speaker 1 (29:11):
That's definitely one way to put it. And I do
think it's like I think that what they hate is
this idea that women have been able to exercise economic agency,
and they feel like because the people who are consuming
this content are largely men, that like, men are being
fleeced into giving money to like human women who make
(29:34):
only fans content or whatever, and it's like it's like
they see that as a kind of economic exploitation. But
it's like, well, you're the one who's spending the money.
It's it's like, no one is forcing you to spend
this money. Yeah, but don't hate the woman who is
making this content because of that dynamic, do you know
what I'm saying?
Speaker 2 (29:53):
Yeah. And there's also like some more realistic positioning of like,
we're finally taking this back from the women who have
been scamming us by making us attracted to them. And
the way that we're we as men are taking it
back is to like steal their content so that we
(30:16):
become the scammers of other men. Like what like it doesn't.
It doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
It doesn't make sense. That's a good way to put it, except.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
Because I guess like it does because they're making money, right,
Like that's that's why they're doing this, to make I mean,
to steal and make money.
Speaker 1 (30:33):
They're scamming. Yeah, like it does make scams always make sense.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Yeah, yeah, the layers people do it. Yeah, the layers
of like moralistic misogyny, which is kind of a weird
phrase in itself, But like that that's the part that
doesn't make sense. But the stealing and making money, that
part makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 1 (30:54):
Speaking of adult content online, new anti nude technology is
to Instagram. So we've talked a lot on the show
before about sextortion schemes that really blossom on Instagram that
are mostly targeting young boys, wherein bad actors like lure
young people into sending them nudes by pretending to be
(31:15):
interested in them and like doing a long come where
they pretend that they're in a romantic relationship. And then
once these bad actors have those images, they then exploit
and pressure the young people into sending the money or
they'll release them to their friends and families. It is
a real problem and to combat that, Instagram announce that
they are testing out tools to detect when somebody is
(31:35):
sending a nude image and having that image be blurred
out in your DMS, where you would have to click
a button to say like, okay, I want to see
this image. This feature is going to be automatic for
Instagram users who are under eighteen, but everybody on Instagram
is going to be prompted to turn that feature on
in the coming weeks. So according to Instagram, it will
use on device machine learning to detect nudes, and it's
(31:58):
aimed at stopping sextortion schemes that target teenagers. When you
try to send a nude you'll get a warning that
says take care when sharing sensitive photos. The photo is
blurred out because nudity protection is on. Others can screenshot
or forward your photos without you knowing. You can unsend
a photo if you change your mind, but there's a
chance others have already seen it. I don't have much
(32:18):
to say about this. I mean, I do know that
Instagram they really have pioneered like nipple detection software, like
they really are quite good at knowing when there is
nudity present or even like the suggestion of nudity present
in images. I kind of one of the reasons I'm
having trouble with this announcement is that it just seems
(32:41):
to I just wish that Instagram was offering something better
than like their nudity detection software. Like I guess it's
better than nothing, but I've seen Instagram really default to
like quick fixes to signal that they're doing something, even
if those quick fixes like really don't solve the problem.
And I just have been through this a lot with Instagram,
(33:02):
and I can't help but wonder if they're like, oh, yeah,
we're gonna get a ton of good press on this,
like one small feature, and then we can all move on.
You know, we talked about that horrifying Wall Street Journal
report about how Instagram is really enabling pedophiles by allowing
pedophiles to subscribe to the Instagram accounts of children, using
(33:27):
the loophole that those accounts are like parent run accounts,
and so you are not, as an adult, allowed to
use Instagram's subscribe feature where you pay money to get
exclusive content. You can't subscribe to a child as an adult,
which makes perfect sense, but the loophole is that if
that is a parent run account adults can subscribe to
the accounts of children, and so that whole report was
(33:47):
kind of a bombshell about how much that is enabling
pedophiles to get direct access to young people, which is disgusting.
And so I just think that Instagram here is like
just counting on everybody reporting this and being like, oh,
looks like they're really taking it seriously, without actually demonstrating
that it's going to meaningfully address the problems.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
I agree it is. It seems like a fine good
feature to have. It's hard to imagine that this is
really going to put a meaningful curb on the sort
of sextortion schemes that you talked about earlier, you know,
when you set up the story, because there's a lot
(34:30):
of other apps out there that people could easily switch
over into. And if somebody is running a long con
on a teenager, you know, talking to them over days,
maybe weeks, maybe months, it doesn't take a lot of
imagination to think that they would just suggest let's move
to a different app, let's go to WhatsApp, let's use
(34:53):
text message, send me an email, like whatever. Pretty easy workarounds.
So I think you're right that this is or like
this protects Instagram and Meta more than I think it's
going to protect the actual kids. But like, it's not
a harmful feature. What it really reinforces, though, is how
(35:16):
sophisticated meta and other tech platforms can be when they
want to. In terms of identifying harmful content. You know,
so there's so many other areas, Like you talked about
the people subscribing to exclusive kids content via the mommy
(35:36):
blogger accounts. You know, there's racist content really like a
lot of harmful content out there, setting aside like harmful
political content, like insurrectionist type content, QAnon stuff. There's so
much harmful content out there, and this kind of policy here,
(36:03):
this technology to detect nudes really reveals that all of
that could be detected and dealt with if the platforms
like wanted to write. It reinforces the extent to which
failing to take action on those other types of harmful
content is a choice, not some sort of technical limitation.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I completely agree. So, speaking of meta and political content,
we told you all a while back about Meta deciding
to deprioritize content related to political and social issues on
threads and Instagram. I have just anecdotally definitely seen this
happening and felt the impact on my own feed on Instagram.
(36:46):
Like I feel like when I scroll Instagram these days,
which is like less and less and less. I feel like,
is thirty percent kind of viral videos and stuff like
that of like people that I don't follow, maybe twenty
percent people that I actually have chosen to follow, and
then like the rest of it is like ads and
just like scammy stuff. It just like doesn't feel good
(37:08):
and I certainly don't feel like I'm like learning a
lot from scrolling Instagram. Well now, hundreds of political and
news content creators, including activists and meme account administrators and journalists,
signed on to an open letter asking Meta to reverse
his decision to limit the reach of accounts posting political
content on threads and Instagram. So Washington Post reports that,
(37:29):
just as I suspected when this was first announced, it
is impacting people who make content related to being marginalized
or like marginalized identity in some way. The piece reads
the decisions alarmed users who post about social issues including
LGBTQ rights, women's rights, racial inequality, and disability, and independent
journalists and content creators say they've struggled to reach their
audiences in recent weeks since the change was rolled out.
(37:52):
The limits, they say, have significantly impacted creators who are black, female, disabled,
and LGBTQ. So none of this surprise of me because
Facebook just has a whole track record of suppressing content
related to marginalized people through moderation and inequities and things
like that. This is stuff that we know about Facebook.
How it works now is that you have to intentionally
(38:13):
opt in to get content about political issues. We'll put
directions on how to do that in the show notes.
But the folks who signed the letter say that it
should be the other way around. We should be given
the option to opt out of political content. The letter reads,
as users of metas platform, we did not choose to
automatically opt out of receiving suggested political content on civic
activism and news updates. Removing political recommendations as a default
(38:35):
setting and consequently stopping people from seeing suggested political content
poses a serious threat to political engagement, education, and activism.
So I should also add that we still don't really
have clarity on exactly how Facebook is determining, like whose
experiences are political and whose aren't. I could look at
(38:56):
Facebook's track record and make some guesses as to how
they are doing that. All they have really said is
like things that are pretty vague. They say. Political content
under the new restrictions includes any content that touches on
politics or, in Meta's words, topics that affect a group
of people and or society at large, which like that
is so vague that it's clear to me that that's
(39:18):
like purposely vague. These topics include content about LGBTQ and
women's rights, as well as posts about racial and disability discrimination.
Many creators also have reported that the filter's restrict content
on seemingly unrelated topics.
Speaker 2 (39:34):
This really reminds me to the first story that we
talked about about the actor who is receiving so much
online hate and Tom Holland not more vocally standing up
to support her. You know, it seems like Instagram is
(39:54):
really trying to just create a pleasant, non threatening, non
controversial experience. Uh. And I think it's easy to, yeah,
not want to rock the boat. And when people are
(40:16):
not part of groups that are receiving targeted hate, ah,
it can be a lot easier to just like look
the other way and not want to feel and say
and like, you know, in this case, be like, Oh,
it's it's political content, We're not going to include that
on the platform. People talking about their experiences being LGBTQ
(40:38):
in this you know, current climate of trans hate and
how But like that's so harmful to just not to
exclude that any conversation about that. It just feels. Yeah,
I think that that letter is exactly right, that it
(40:58):
is not just cruel of Instagram to exclude any kind
of content that discusses people's experiences facing discrimination or whatever
their experiences are. But it's like reckless to pretend as if,
you know, we can have a conversation that doesn't include
(41:20):
those things. Like what a harmful, reckless conversation that would be.
Speaker 1 (41:24):
Yeah, I mean I have so much to say about
that one. I think that Facebook is trying to tell
us something that I just we know is not true. Right, So,
for instance, if you're a theater buff and you're really
interested in theater, this is the story that we led
with about Francesca's racist sexist harassment. Is that a theater
story or a political story because it deals with race.
Facebook is trying to act as if your people's interests
(41:47):
are so siloed that identity and things like politics and
social issues don't bleed into that. That's not true. Theater
is a political issue. That first story illustrates that. It's
not that Francesca was like making it a political issue.
Other people were making it a political issue, and therefore
that story about theater it's also a race issue, is
also a political issue. Movies, entertainment, sports, technology, those things
(42:11):
are identity issues. They are political issues, they are social issues,
and pretending like that's not how we live our lives
is just it's a farce. I think that anybody who
is of any kind of like marginalized identity or also
not from any kind of marginalized identity, is really familiar
with the ways that there are all these intersections of
the way we live our lives and our identity in
(42:32):
all of these other things that might not look so
identity driven on its face. And so one I think
that Instagram is like totally trying to pee on our
leg and tell us it's raining to quote my girl,
judge Judy two. Facebook has had a huge direct hand
in polarizing our democracy, polarizing our communities. Right, they've made
(42:53):
money off of that. I don't even think that Facebook
would disagree that they've done that. Their internal reporting makes
that very clear that they have. I've had a huge
direct hand in that, and I've made money from that.
To now turn around and be like, oh, well, we
don't want to do anything. We don't want to show
people anything that's going to rile them up. Bit, you
made a bunch of money off of riving people up,
and so now to tell me that I can't post
(43:13):
about my experiences after you have made money and contributed
to a climate where people are polarized, it just doesn't work.
I'm not I'm just not willing to accept that.
Speaker 2 (43:22):
Yeah, Like they broke our democracy. And then they were like, oh,
you know what, this is getting too messy. We're just
gonna like leave it. Like, no, you broke it. You
created this huge information ecosystem, uh, and like intentionally shaped
it and distorted it from what it was. You have
(43:43):
a responsibility to try to fix it. And like I'm
not saying that, like it's meta's responsibility to fix democracy.
But yeah, they, like you said, they had a huge
direct hand in creating the climate that we now have
of like polarization and riling people up, and they just
(44:08):
want to walk away and wash their hands of the
whole thing. It's at least they're consistent.
Speaker 1 (44:15):
So that is exactly what Nicole Gill, who is a
co founder at Accountable Tech, which is the organization that
organized this letter. That's exactly what Nicole Gill had to say.
And I think she points out something really important here
is that they're making this decision right before a big
election year. It's not just a big election year for
the United States. Multiple countries around the world will have
elections this year, Nicole Gill said in a statement. Limiting
(44:37):
the reach of creators without notice or definition of what
constitutes political content threatens their identities and livelihoods, while leaving
hundreds of millions of users without access to critical news
content during the biggest global election year in history. Today's
fragmented media environment that meta helped create has resulted in
social media platforms having outsize influence over the way information
(44:58):
is presented and disseminated, and this decision will have negative
effects both on and off their platforms. And I guess,
like to your point, like that's what I think, like,
we shouldn't have to just rely on Mark Zuckerberg and
Adam Mosseerri to determine whose experience and whose life is
politics and whose isn't We already know how they use
(45:20):
that power when they when they have it, they don't
use it well, they don't use it equitably, right, And
so I don't think that we should just allow them
to create and maintain this system that marginalizes people who
are already marginalized, and they get to make money off
of it, right, Like going back to that Francesca Romeo
and Juliet story. I didn't decide that my existence as
a black woman is political. Other people did, and so
telling me that I can't then talk about that and
(45:42):
that if I do, I'm going to be deprioritized, I
don't accept that. I don't think that we should be
relying on these wealthy, white, straight ciss tech leaders and
billionaires to define whose experiences count as politics and who's don't.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Yeah, I some of the I like to just like
close my eyes and imagine a world, like an alternate,
parallel universe where I don't know, maybe Mark Zuckerberg got
like hit on the head, or maybe he took some
LSD and had a revelation or something and decided to
like radically change what he's doing and instead of like
(46:19):
dumping forty six billion dollars into the metaverse, which like
just earned that money up. What if he had taken
like a fraction of that and put it towards like
research and innovating in a way to like increase literacy
and connection and compassion among their users, right, Like, wouldn't
(46:40):
that have been nice?
Speaker 1 (46:41):
Knowing him, he'd find a way to muck that up to.
Speaker 2 (46:49):
More.
Speaker 3 (46:49):
After a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
So I do have a little bit of news kind
of on that front, which is that lawmakers unveiled a
new proposal that would for the first time give consumers
broad rights to control how tech companies like Meta and
TikTok and Google use their personal data. I say this
a lot, but surprisingly here in the United States we
do not have any real data privacy protections here, which
again every time I say it blows my mind. But
(47:25):
if this proposal succeeds, it could establish something again to
the European Union's landmark privacy law known as the General
Data Protection Regulation or the GDPR, and kind of attempt
to curb this like totally unregulated wild wild west that
we have in the United States where all of our
personal data is just for sale by the highest bidder
whoever wants to use it to make money. That's the situation,
(47:48):
and so this could ring in some of that if passed.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Thank god, it's wild that it's twenty twenty four and
we're just getting around to this in this country now.
It is completely banana pants that we do not have
any laws protecting our data privacy.
Speaker 1 (48:10):
Yeah, I mean, I was just reading about how the
FCC just i think yesterday, passed a law that internet
service providers have to give the same way that when
you buy a box of cereal, it has the nutritional
label that tells you what's in it and all the
different things that are in it. Internet service providers will
now be forced by law to clearly include a breakdown
(48:34):
of the broad band facts that you're paying for, so
like the monthly price of your internet, you know, the
additional charges, all of that, and they have to clearly
label this both online and at physical stores. It looks
almost exactly like the nutritional label that you would find
on a box of cereal. And what I was so
struck by by that story is that, first of all,
the fact that we did it, that there was nothing
(48:55):
requiring that kind of clarity to consumers to begin with,
and the fact that internet service providers like Comcast really
fought this. They were like, no, we shouldn't have to
do this, and it just really struck me of like,
y'all just want to scam. Y'all just want to take
people for a ride. You just want to bait and switch,
and you want that the ability to do that to
be protected and enshrined by law, your ability to scam
(49:17):
and lie to people. And so I remember when I
moved into a new apartment signing up for Comcast and
they were giving me like a deal on Internet and
being like, okay, so is this deal going to be
forever or is this a you know, an introductory rate
and then it's going to go up And they were like, oh,
it's the deal forever and deal forever, deal forever. I
was like, are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?
They were like, oh, yeah, your price will never go up.
(49:37):
Well that was a lie because my price did go up.
And then they were like, oh, well it was this
or that we had to add thief. And it's like
people deserve clarity, like it should be a given that
people are knowing what they are being asked to pay
for like this idea that you should just be able
to obscure that and it's fine. And not only is
it fine that like it is your right as a corporation.
(49:58):
I don't know. I just the fact that we we
are finally now just getting around and being like, oh wait,
maybe consumers do deserve some protections. Maybe it shouldn't just
be like, fuck, you pay me and I can lie
to your face like maybe that's not a helpful dynamic
for anybody.
Speaker 2 (50:13):
I love how raw you are about this Comcast bill,
like a decade ago that yeah, you're still like grinding
this axe and we're like, we finally have a bill
to protect privacy. You know what the real like thing is, though.
Speaker 1 (50:30):
Mike, I was in grad school. I had no money
when that bill increased. I mean I asked, in every
which way is my bill going to get going to increase?
And they insured me No. I even had my dad,
who is so good on the phone dealing with like
salespeople and like that kind of thing. I called him
while he was in the room to coach me through
(50:50):
what to ask to make sure because I was like,
I really cannot afford if my bill goes up and
when my bill went up. Yeah, I was heated. I
was mad. I'm still mad ten years later.
Speaker 2 (50:58):
Yeah, I can oh a minute I.
Speaker 1 (51:01):
Comcast.
Speaker 2 (51:03):
Yeah, I mean if yeah, we're gonna go down this path.
I remember years ago when I lived in Madison, when
I was going to grad school there, there were a
couple internet service providers in town, and I think every
year I would like switch from one to the other
so I could get some kind of promotional deal. What
a stupid way to like manage one's internet right, And
(51:24):
it just especially given how central the Internet is to
so many functions of day to day life. Like we
use it to communicate, we use it to work, we
use it for entertainment, we use it to get information
about the world so that we can be civic participants.
It's so absolutely critical to everything we do. And that
(51:48):
just makes it even more mind blowing that we still
have no federal laws protecting our privacy when we are
on the Internet.
Speaker 1 (51:59):
Yes, such to the Internet, like the UN says, it's
a human right, but it's like to go through it,
I have to deal with an Internet service provider that
is allowed to lie to me and scam me and
exploit me. I don't think so. So this last thing
I wanted to talk about, it's not really news, but
it's something that I find deeply interesting that I just
wanted to share with all of you. So in our
Andrew Huberman two part episode, which, by the way, thanks
(52:20):
to all of y'all for listening. We've gotten such interesting
feedback from that episode. Thank you for going down that
rabbit hole with me, because it was certainly a rabbit
hole as I wanted to go down, so thank you
for letting me do that. But I ended that episode
talking about how I really feel like podcasting is this
tricky space where listeners really trust podcasters and help podcasts,
for whatever reason, kind of automatically convey a certain level
(52:43):
of authority. I've talked about it on the podcast before,
but I have noticed these TikTok videos where people look
like they are recording a podcast in a podcast studio.
There's a microphone in front of them. They've got like
the neon sign behind them, but I know I can
tell that that mic is not turned on, and in
some cases it's not even plugged into anything. It's just
(53:04):
like a prop that is in front of them.
Speaker 3 (53:05):
Right.
Speaker 1 (53:06):
I've seen that where I'm like, fact, this the way
this setup doesn't make any sense because when I record
my podcast, it looks like you can just tell that
there are wires everywhere your microphone is plugged into something
that is recording. It's not just sitting wirelessly in front
of you, like like's where where's the audio that you're
uploading going to? You know, Well, my suspicions have been
(53:27):
confirmed by this piece in Bloomberg breaking down the cottage
industry of hired actors who are you know, selling their
services on websites like fiver, who take money to make
fake podcasts as user generated content style advertising. They even
have an upsell where they will make a fake podcast
in front of one of those glowing neon signs to
(53:49):
make it look like a real podcast. So in the
piece they talk to this guy named Wolf who is
like always in these tiktoks that make it look like
he is podcasting, wherein he's like talking up a product
asually mentioning it's benefits and why he loves it. Maybe
you'll think this podcast feels slightly excessive and it's enthusiasm
for a particular thing. But TikTok's content onslought doesn't leave
(54:10):
much time for questioning. The takeaway is here's a passionate
person speaking authoritatively on a podcast. In reality, these clips
are not coming from podcasts. In fact, Wolf is being
paid one hundred and ninety five dollars for each of
these one minute advertisements designed to look like a podcast.
On the freelance service website fiver, where he sells his
service to brands, Wolf claims, I will make a UGC podcast,
(54:34):
video ad or a user generated content ad using the
client's own script to talk about the product. The custom
neon sign is an up charge. So this is just
fascinating to me. Honestly, it actually kind of sounds like
a pretty good racket. He says that he makes almost
twenty thousand dollars a month doing this like France. If
y'all are listening and you want this, not only do
(54:54):
I have a podcast, Mike, I actually even know how
to turn it on. So if you want to give
me twenty k a month to do this, I will
gladly do for you.
Speaker 2 (55:01):
Yeah, no doubt. We'll even throw a neon sign for free,
no up charge, part of the basic package.
Speaker 1 (55:10):
So a lot of the services they are hawking, which
I guess doesn't really surprise me. Are crypto or like
financial services or like men's health and wellness related friend
of the show Ryan at one of my favorite newsletters,
Garbage Day, he called them weird gen z hustlebrow influencers,
which I love that. I love that name for them.
So Ryan's theory is that during COVID, the podcast mic
(55:34):
became a symbol of authority or a visual signal of importance,
sort of like how during the era of peak ted Talk,
a bunch of guys would film themselves on stages, add
some inspirational music, and then post it to Facebook. If
there's a microphone in front of you, I assume the
logic goes it means you're important enough to record, which
I can tell you. Anybody can buy a podcast mic
like it doesn't mean anything.
Speaker 2 (55:56):
Yeah, you can get with for like sixty bucks, especially
if you're not gonna plug it. You know, you don't
even need to. Who cares about quality when it's not
plugged in.
Speaker 1 (56:04):
It sounds like there was one kind of white whale
TikTok video that made Ryan like skeptical that these people
were making actual podcasts. It was this very viral TikTok
of a woman in front of a podcast Mike talking
about how she would like sexually please her husband. It
went super viral on Twitter. But then Ryan was like,
what the hell podcast is this? Even like there wasn't
(56:25):
a watermark or any kind of branding with like a
show name on it and everything. If you were publishing
a podcast clip, you would probably put the name of
the podcast that you wanted people to listen to on
that clip. It didn't have that. And it turns out
this woman just as a content creator who was making
this as a way to promote her only fans, which
I don't have many a problem with, Like good for her.
But Ryan connects this to a darker trend in kind
(56:48):
of the overlap of podcasting and marketing where they have
this thing that I've definitely seen where it will be
like a pod a real podcast, where part of the
way that they are marketing their podcas is making these
short viral clips of them interviewing is too strong, really
just like humiliating a woman on the podcast, Like the
(57:09):
podcast whatever is really known for this, and Fresh and
Fit was really known for this, where they would have
they would make these very short videos of them like
humiliating a woman who has gone on the podcast, and
then that video would go viral. He writes, there's an
entire universe of post Andrew Tait sexuality and relationship podcasts
that put young women in front of microphones, ask them
(57:30):
outrageous questions and turn it into viral clips and then
let audiences tear them apart. Some of these podcasts even
have like casting calls on their websites to find new guests.
I hate this. So maybe making fake podcasts to hawk
items is one thing, But this dynamic where microphone plus
(57:52):
misogyny equals authority equals profit, that dynamic is a little
bit more toxic.
Speaker 2 (58:00):
Yeah, there's a lot going on there. It was this
was just kind of like a sort of weird, funny
story until it took that dark turn at the end.
Speaker 1 (58:09):
I think that the fact that podcasters like Fresh and
Fit and Andrew Tate that they know that this kind
of thing does go viral on social media. It just
really is about the fact that massogyny and massage noir
and all of that will always find a welcome home
on the Internet. Like, I think this is not a bug.
It's a feature of the internet landscape that we have
where a video where a man in front of a
(58:32):
microphone is humiliating a woman that will always find an audience,
and I think it is. I wanted to talk about
this as sort of like a funny, weird thing, but
it does. It does connect back to that very real
dynamic where massage, noir and massogyny will always be profitable online,
which is why we need to have a better Internet
(58:52):
landscape that doesn't allow for that.
Speaker 2 (58:54):
Yeah, if only meta would start excluding that kind of
content rather than political exactly.
Speaker 1 (59:02):
Well, Mike, thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 2 (59:05):
Bridget, thanks for having me. I hope you have a
safe trip home from Maza Lan and to the.
Speaker 1 (59:09):
Rest of you, thanks for listening. We will see you
on the Internet. If you're looking for ways to support
the show, check out our merch store at teangody dot
com slash store. 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 teng Goody dot com.
(59:31):
There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by
me Bridget tod It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unboss Creative,
edited by Joey pat Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer.
Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amado
is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If
you want to help us grow, rate and review us.
Speaker 3 (59:49):
On Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 1 (59:50):
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.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.