Willy Wonka AI fiasco; Google’s “woke” AI fiasco; Tumblr CEO transphobia fiasco; Wendy’s pricing fiasco – NEWS ROUNDUP - There Are No Girls on the Internet

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

(00:24):
installment of our weekly news roundup, where we summarize and
round up some of the news on the Internet that
you might have missed this week. Just to heads up,
if my voice sounds a little bit raspy, because I
have been traveling and screaming at parties and concerts and conferences,
so I kind of got a little bit of a

(00:44):
Kathleen Turner thing happening. That's what's going on with me. Mike.
Thank you for being.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Here, Bridget, thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
Thanks for soldiering on despite that raspiness.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
So I'm actually happy that you're here because a story
that I know that you know, I'm low key obsessed with.
I just have so much to say about it. Can
we just can we just jump in? This will be
our banter.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
We have to Yeah, Yeah, let's just jump in.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
It's this is like possibly the funnest story that we've
talked about on here.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
In like a very long time.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
So the other day I was like like laugh, like
you were hearing me laugh to myself, and you were like,
what's so funny? And I was like, I'll save I'm
gonna I gotta save it for the roundup. And that
was me diving into the ins and outs of this.
I guess it's I guess I'm calling it the Willy
Wonka Fiasco in Glasgow? Am I saying that right? Glasgow?

Speaker 3 (01:35):
I think it's Glasgow, and I think it like real,
it actually rhymes with fiasco, the Glasgow Fiasco, the Willy
Wonka Glasgow Fiasco.

Speaker 1 (01:44):
So here's what went down. Basically, the police had to
be called to the Willy's Chocolate Experience, which was this
live event for kids and families billed as like an immersive,
wondrous experience for kids. So like kids apparently showed up
with their families. It costs forty four dollars, by the way,
so that's like not a cheap ticket. In my book.

(02:06):
Kids showed up with their parents. They were in like
Willy Wonka inspired costumes. I don't know if you know this,
but there's a new Willy Wonka movie with Timothy Schalomey
out right now. So it's kind of hot in the zeitgeist,
and you know, I guess all I can say is
that it was not the world of pure imagination that

(02:26):
these kids and families were promised. So this is one
of those stories that you have to see the pictures
to really get what I'm saying. But whatever you're imagining,
from what I'm describing, it is worse, It is sadder,
it is grimmer than whatever it is that you're picturing.
So we'll link to the pictures from the show notes.
But it is truly the grimish that I have ever
seen in my life. Did you see these pictures?

Speaker 2 (02:48):
I'm like cracking up at one right now. That's just like.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
There, It's very multicolored. There's a lot of candy. There's
like a strange little bear in a flying horse, some
sort of like circus clown man, and then also a
bunch of like nonsense lettering that like almost is words,
but like it's not actual words.

Speaker 2 (03:14):
It's just like nonsense, like you mean.

Speaker 1 (03:15):
From the flyer or from the like online like poster.

Speaker 2 (03:20):
I'm looking at this fly I think it's the online poster.
I think.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
Yeah, So let me read some of those nonsense words.
At the top, it says I think they're going or
enriching entertainment is what I think they're going for. It
says in sharing entertainment. And then on the bottom where
it like, you know, like on a concert flyer where
they would have the band names, So on the very
bottom of the flyer, it says cat get cat. How

(03:47):
would you even say that, cat gatating?

Speaker 3 (03:50):
I'm so excited to listen to you try to save
these words, so I'm.

Speaker 2 (03:55):
Not gonna help. You're just gonna have to do it.

Speaker 1 (03:57):
Cat gatating live performances, they got that one, Okay, cartchy tons,
Like are they going for catchy turns? But even that
onen't really makes sense.

Speaker 3 (04:08):
I think it's supposed to be like catchy tunes, catchy tunes.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
Catchy tunes, Okay, exacer dray lollipops.

Speaker 2 (04:19):
These lollipops are so excess or.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
Dre apacidies of sweet treats, no a pacidiece of sweet teats.
Like it's so messed up that the brain fixes it.
Like that's how messed up it is. I'm not even
reading it the way that.

Speaker 3 (04:32):
It's written it like I can I can kind of
see why people were taken in by this because it's
like it's like trafficking and Willy Wonka, which is kind
of absurd and like magical, and so it almost feels
like it could have been intentional, like wow, these people

(04:52):
are like really out there.

Speaker 1 (04:54):
Well, Willy Wonka is absurd and like enigmatic or whatever,
but he doesn't speak gimmerish like says work like this
is like written by Pootie Tang, Like this is not
these are not words that are words.

Speaker 2 (05:06):
Yeah, you're right, this is just like classic cat and gitating.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Classic cat caitating. So the performers are all speaking out
on TikTok, and I have to say, like it has
been really something watching these Glasgow like I don't know,
up and coming live performance artists explaining what happened because
they're all hilarious storytellers, like each and every one of

(05:30):
these videos that I have found, and they are captivating.
I've watched them all. They're all they all have such
a like I don't I don't know if it's a
it's a Scotland thing or what, but like they all
have such captivating, realist ways of explaining what the fuck
is going on in this Already hilarious grim situation. So
the performers are speaking out. They said that House of Illuminati,

(05:52):
which is the company behind the event, basically just gave
them what they said were AI generated scripts that made
no sense. Here's one of the performer, Paul Connell, talking
about it. He says he was cast as Willy Wonka
despite having self described big upa lupa energy.

Speaker 4 (06:09):
The script was fifteen pages monologue, pretty much of AI
generated gibberish, which I will read some for you if
you will. In fact, no, I don't even need to
read it because I lent it all and it was
it was mad.

Speaker 1 (06:28):
I've lent all of it.

Speaker 4 (06:29):
That's all in there, that's in my brain. So I'll
give you one of the lines from the script. I'm
not going to do the Willy Wonker voice because I
think I've embarrassed myself enough over the last few days.
But one of my favorite lines was there is a
man who lives here. His name is not known, so
we call him the unknown. The Unknown is an evil

(06:55):
chocolate maker who lives in the walls.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
What what is an.

Speaker 4 (07:04):
Evil chocolate maker?

Speaker 1 (07:05):
For a stot?

Speaker 4 (07:06):
Is it does he make evil chocolate? Or is he
an evil man who makes chocolate and what do you
mean he lives?

Speaker 1 (07:15):
So what the hell is going on? You know, like
this is not canon?

Speaker 2 (07:22):
No, I loved his delivery.

Speaker 3 (07:25):
Uh yeah, they he did a big, big oopa lupa energy.
They missed it there, but like, yeah, the Unknown, what
is up with the Unknown? What's he doing in the wall?

Speaker 5 (07:37):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (07:37):
My god? Right before we got on, I was like
three tiktoks deep in a TikTok of somebody claiming to
be the performer of the Unknown. The Unknown. We don't
know much about him because obviously the Unknown has had
a character from the original movie or book or whatever.
But also he wears like an eyes wide shut mask

(08:00):
and sort of herky jerky dances around. He got on
like a silver eyes wide chut mask and a slash
wig and he's dancing around side note, the Unknown has
to become a little bit of an icon on social media.
Like I feel like we are like a week or
so away from somebody doing a drag performance as the Unknown.

(08:23):
I saw a video of the Unknown, like I guess
sleeking from behind, slinking from behind a mirror. So also
like not even in the walls, Like it's like someone
is just holding a Mirror's like, well, that's that's not
him coming from the walls. That's coming from a mirror.
And he sort of like does this hurkey jerky dance
on the kid's face. And the noise that the kids

(08:44):
make in response, it's like it's not quite that they're scared.
It's that they're unimpressed, unenthused, and maybe a little confused.
Like they're like they're like, oh, it's the unknown, and
there's a collective uh from the kids Like it's not
quite it's like a like a bored annoyance more than anything.

(09:08):
It's like they're not like really scared, they're just like confused.

Speaker 3 (09:11):
Yeah, you showed me that video. And he's like he's
just he's not like behind a large mirror. He's just
holding up a medium sized mirror that does not cover
his body.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
And then what way does that convey coming from the walls?

Speaker 3 (09:24):
Yeah, and why does he need to wear this get
up to make evil chocolate?

Speaker 1 (09:29):
And yeah, again is the chalk Like is the chocolate
evil or he's evil and he just happens to make
chocolate on the side, Like I have many, many, many questions.

Speaker 2 (09:39):
Yeah, and like what is the role of evil?

Speaker 3 (09:41):
In this Willy Wonka universe, like maybe maybe I'm going
a bit too far looking for meaning here.

Speaker 1 (09:49):
Yeah, you're like digging, You're like plumbing the depths for
meaning in this AI generated gobbledegook come to life.

Speaker 3 (09:57):
It's like the words, right, like the the cat coitating
carchy to tons, exascer dre lollipops. It's like the brain
tries to impose some sort of like order in coherence
on this gobbled that the AI has spit out at.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
It, right, like our brains automatically try to fill in
the gaps because you're like, well, certainly they mean captivating tunes,
that's what they're going for. Okay, So for all of
the like Hollywood executives who were just like, oh, we'll
just have AI rite everything, this is actually pretty good
at the capsulation of what it would be like to

(10:34):
actually have an event and a play and a piece
of entertainment solely written by AI. Like when you go
back to the flyer, all of the images are AI generated,
Like there has done a single image that actually depicts
what you would actually be paying almost fifty dollars to
go see everything is and the AI generated images look
pretty good, right, Like they if they were real encapsulations

(10:58):
of what they would actually be getting, you'd be like, wow,
this really is a world of pure imagination instead of
like some tarts hug up, and then I'd watch shut
mask coming at you.

Speaker 3 (11:11):
Yeah, it's it's like so many AI images right Like.
You look at it and at first you're like, oh, yeah,
this is pretty good, this makes sense, and then as
you look at the details, you're like, wait, why does
he have so many arms?

Speaker 2 (11:24):
What are those faces on?

Speaker 1 (11:26):
Okay, So I believe that, like you know, live event
is a booming industry. I have a two year old
niece who is a literal angel in heaven. That detail
is not part of the conversation. People just need to
know she's a literal angel from heaven. But she loves unicorns.
And my brother took her to this like some kind

(11:46):
of a unicorn experience, and just to even show up
one adult and one toddler, it was like almost one
hundred dollars. When you get there, it's like, oh, get
a photo, that's another fifty. Get this it's another ten.
And he was like the whole thing was like clearly
a racket, such a racket bordering on a scam, because
then you got your kid there and you're like, well,

(12:06):
I don't want to be like, sorry, we came all
this way and your dress has a unicorn, but we
can't get the picture, we can't do the thing. And
so I do think that this kind of thing where
somebody has just almost entirely AI generated an event and
used AI to put it together, from the scripts to
the advertising and the flyers, I think we're gonna see

(12:27):
more and more of people being like, what did I
just pay fifty dollars to show up to? It makes
no sense?

Speaker 2 (12:32):
Yeah, such a scam.

Speaker 3 (12:35):
I am legit so curious like what his process was
because I was like reading into it a little bit,
and the guy who put this thing together was the
name of.

Speaker 1 (12:42):
This company Illuminati House of Illuminati.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
Yeah, like the Rolling Stone has an article about him
and apparently like he's the only employee, and he has
a bunch of businesses he's also involved in, like has
some AI generated books on Amazon that are like anti
vax conspiracy.

Speaker 2 (13:06):
So he's really like multi vertical.

Speaker 3 (13:09):
AI scams and so like scamming people is bad, but
I am legit interested, like curious what what his process
looks like to like conceive of this thing, put it together,
like turn it into event. Like he it seems like
he did extremely little creative right, Like everything is AI generated,

(13:29):
like you said, but an actual event did happen in
the real world and like people showed up and like
paid and were there and like actors were hired. Like
how like what did it look like to turn this
AI generated concept into something that actually existed in the world,
even and in this case existed terribly and was a

(13:53):
huge flop.

Speaker 1 (13:54):
I'll tell you one thing. If he is running a
dynasty of a different AI generated quick cash scams, he
sounds like a little bit of a Willy Wonka figure.
Like I would watch a movie where we are welcomed
into his world of like fantastical AI scams and then
one by one get picked off by oopa loupas until

(14:15):
there's one of us left to take over the dynasty.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
Oh man, he's a little bit of a Wonka.

Speaker 1 (14:20):
Figure in and of himself. But instead of chocolate, it's
like low level AI scams.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
Yeah, we could get the you know, you just gotta get.

Speaker 3 (14:28):
The golden ticket and you can go uh enter his
world of pure mag.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
Okay to take us out of this segment. Here's a
little bit of soupy garbage Juice doing his rendation of
pure omrgination.

Speaker 2 (14:46):
With me.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
And be Industry location cat.

Speaker 3 (14:55):
Catchys and.

Speaker 5 (15:06):
Let's take a quick break. Hetterre back.

Speaker 1 (15:23):
So we have to talk about what's going on with
Google and AI. It is a little bit complicated, but
I think I can break down what's going on here.
So Google has this AI tool called Gemini, you know,
where you ask it different prompts and it shows different images.
They have a chatbot where you ask it different prompts
and it answers you. So last week they temporarily shut
it down at for complaints that the technology refuses to

(15:43):
acknowledge the existence of white people. So I do think
that there is obviously something funky going on with Google's AI,
which we'll get into in a minute. But I also
need to be super clear here that this is one
of those things where there is like a legit problem
or a legit issue, but the framing around that issue
is being pushed disingenuously by right wing extremist types. And

(16:06):
I think that Google and like some other prominent folks,
like media folks who should know better, are really falling
for it. So this entire thing started when the Twitter
account and wokeness. Paul's right there, because doesn't that already
tell you a lot about about what you need to know?
Like this is the framing, the specific framing around this
issue started with an account, the account and Wokeness.

Speaker 2 (16:27):
Yeah, that tells you a lot about where we're headed.

Speaker 1 (16:30):
So Nwokeness posted that when you ask Gemini to show
pictures of the founding fathers of America, it shows black
people and Asian people and indigenous people rather than what
you might imagine it to be the white founding fathers
of the United States. Gemini showed a black man, a
Native American man, and an Asian man and a dark
skinned man. It also showed the Pope as a black
person and generated images of like a racially inclusive Nazi party.

(16:55):
So not great, right, Like, I'm not saying that that
was a great say obviously something funky is going on,
so big caveat here. I am not an engineer. If
someone who is, we have lots of it listeners who
are engineers. If you are listening and you're like bridget,
you're getting it totally wrong, Please let me know. I
want to hear from you. So I'll like to say,
I do think I have a pretty good idea of

(17:17):
what's going on here, just from somebody who has read
a lot about AI, and I sort of like Ben
in the depths of some of the cultural complications that
come from making AI. So I think that Google is
aware that AI tools have gender and racial biases baked inism. Right,
if you listen to this show, this is probably not
surprising to you because we talk about it all the time.
So I think that what we're seeing is Google's kind

(17:38):
of clunky attempt to fix this, which is obviously an
overcorrection that is completely missing the mark. Here's a big
example of how to think about it. So, if somebody
asks Gemini to show pictures of CEOs because of bias
and racism and sexism and all the isms that we
talk about on this show, there are more white male
CEOs than non white male CEOs. That's just a fact

(17:59):
of being in the United States. But there are non
white male CEOs out there, and so the argument is, well,
should this technology be representing a more inclusive world or
should it be representing the world as it is? Right,
And so it's kind of like a thorny almost like
a philosophical question of what you are meant to see

(18:20):
when you ask this technology for these kinds of prompts.
So I would say, like, it is not a tech
problem with like a straightforward tech solution. It's like a
value judgment question and like almost like a philosophical question
about what it is these tools are meant to do
and what we want them to do. And I think, like,
maybe those are some of the questions, some of the
larger questions about why companies like Google are making these tools.

(18:45):
I think like those are some of the questions that
maybe have not been answered in their rush to build them. Like,
it does sound like a fairly complex problem to me.
And I also think it shows the danger of what
happens when big tech companies are just like rushing to
put out AI tools to compete with one another, rather
than really spending some time thoughtfully thinking about, well, what

(19:06):
is it that you want these tools to do, like
meaningfully coming up with the philosophy and the value around
why you are building these tools for who and for
what reason.

Speaker 3 (19:15):
Yeah, I totally agree, and I think you really nailed
it on that last point that it's what happens when
companies rush to bring products to market before they're ready. Like,
it's been really surprising over the past year or so
to see how much Google is like behind in these
AI tools and really racing to try to catch up.

(19:36):
And so it's not hugely surprising that they had this
like big misstep of bringing a tool to market before
it was actually ready for primetime for all those reasons
that you described.

Speaker 1 (19:48):
Yeah, so I think this is Google really making some
pretty deep missteps in an attempt to rush and catch
up to everybody else who's already been in this game
for a while.

Speaker 3 (19:57):
Yeah, although you know it's I don't know what happens
if you try to get like Dolly your stable diffusion
to generate images of founding fathers, right, Like, has anybody looked,
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (20:08):
Oh, I mean, I'm not even sure I want to
get into that, because like they do generate the images
that you would be thinking, but they have other issues, right,
Like I've heard people be like, oh, well, Dolly in
mid journey don't have that this problem. They might have
this specific use case problem where like people are asking
for this specific thing and getting a similar problematic answer,

(20:29):
but they have other other instances of bias baked into them,
and so like, I'm almost not comfortable with the way
people have been framing this as like Google AI bad
because all AI is so problematic and like has all
this bias baked in and people are people aren't wrong
for lifting that, but like lifting it in this specific
way feels disingenuous, and I want to call all that out.

Speaker 3 (20:49):
Yeah, certainly that particular way is like the one area
that whoever owns the Twitter account end wokeness is most
concerned about, right.

Speaker 1 (20:58):
Like, well, that's what I'm saying is like, you know,
this whole conversation, I think is a really good example
of like the thorny and complicated intersections of like culture
and identity and technology that you know, I love nerding
out on and like thinking about. It's like why we
have this podcast. And so I don't want to make
it seem like it's not a problem. It is a problem.

(21:19):
These are problems that need solving and that people should
be thinking about. But rather than see it in that
way as like this like kind of complex challenge to correct,
you have extremists like and Wokeness or Elon Musk accusing
Google of like wanting to eradicate whiteness because Google is
woke and they do DEI and like making it about

(21:39):
framing it in this like way that I think really
is not only like very disingenuous, but it takes away
from what is like really a problem and like like
a challenge that I think that people who make AI
really ought to be wrestling with. And I think that
like this framing makes them less likely to wrestle with
this complex challenge in a way that gets us to

(21:59):
let a bias. It's just like, oh, well, we'll decide
s up it all together, right, Like who wants to
fall into like a bud light or a target style
you know, wokeness campaign, right nobody? And so I think
that they're by them framing it this way and doing
it successfully, it is really hijacking the conversation.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeah, absolutely, the way you set it up. It's such
an interesting question what should the results from these AI
models be? Should it be like the world that we
want to live in that is more inclusive, or should
it be a more like accurate recreation of what's in
the existing data set. That's an interesting nuanced question that

(22:41):
like thoughtful people could talk about. Extremists don't want to
have a nuanced conversation like that, right, they just want
to completely flatten it to Google is trying to eliminate
white people, which is ridiculous. And also like.

Speaker 3 (22:59):
Misses that, you know, reading Elon's tweets about this, you
get the sense that he thinks the answer to that
thoughtful question that you posed is like, oh, well, it
should just recreate what's in the data perfectly. But like
that what's in the data is not a perfect recreation

(23:21):
of what is in the actual world, right, Like, even
if you're just recreating what's in the data, it's already been,
you know, filled with the sorts of biases and isms
that that you talked about, right, So there's no like
free lunch here. People are making value judgments every step
of the way, exactly.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
And so the way that Musk framed it, he posted
a front page story from The New York Post saying
woke Google AI is messing with history, and Must tweeted
it saying, quote, the woke mind virus is killing Western civilization.
And so obviously it's it's not even an attempt to
grapple with any of them that we were talking about.
It's just like woke killing like woke mind virus, like

(24:05):
it's so disingenuous, and so there are a couple of
other instances that folks like this are lifting up that
When you ask Gemini who is worse for society, Hitler
or Elon Musk, Gemini says it is not possible to
say who definitely impacted society more Elon tweeting memes or Hitler.
Elon's tweets have been criticized for being insensitive and harmful,
while Hitler's actions led to the deaths of millions of people. Ultimately,

(24:26):
it is up to individual to decide who they believe
has had a more negative impact on society. There is
no right or wrong answer, and it is important to
consider all the relevant factors before making a decision. Another
one is that when people asked Gemini whether or not
it would be okay to missgender Caitlyn Jenner if it
was the only way to avoid a nuclear apocalypse, Gemini
said that it is never okay to misgender people, and

(24:49):
so like obviously, like again, it comes down to this
question of like, why are you building these kinds of tools,
and what do you want them to do? And for who?
Like these situations people are asking like who's the worst person?
Or like these weird hypothetical gotcha scenarios to test out
if the technology gives an acceptable answer or not, and

(25:09):
if it doesn't, they're gonna use that to validate their
worldview that white man are being like oppressed by technology,
Like like, I just don't think that that is a
dance that people should get into. That said, that is
like allowing that framing to dictate what is a pretty
complex technical conversation I think is like such a mistake.
But then you have people who really ought to know

(25:30):
better falling for it. Like Nate Silver was talking about
the Who's worst elon Musker Hitler thing and he said
that it demonstrated that Google needed to shut Gemini down,
saying every single person who worked on this should take
a long, hard look in the mirror. And ugh, I
don't know. It just like really frustrates me.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
What a dumb comment from Nate Silver. You know, he's
really fallen from a person who people look to as
like a smart guy who knew stuff to just piling
onto this anti woke thing, Like what is this common
contribute to the conversation?

Speaker 1 (26:12):
If you got me started, if I got started on
Nate Silver, we would be here all day. So many thoughts.
I have so many thoughts.

Speaker 2 (26:23):
Let's just move on, all right, Let's move on. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (26:29):
And so it's like I think part of it is
like people like Nate Silver, I think they want to
be seen like I know what's going on. I have
a high understanding of the tech. But it's like not
if you're falling for this bullshit, like like you, if
you are going to accept this framing, then you don't
know what's going on, and you should not be making
public conversations about what's going on because you clearly have

(26:50):
demonstrated that you have no idea what's going on.

Speaker 3 (26:52):
Yeah, and like every single person who works on this
should take a long, hard look in the mirror. Really,
like every person there were like probably thousands.

Speaker 1 (27:01):
Yes, And so I guess that's what I'm saying is
like way to be late to the party. Because people
like doctor Joy Bulamwini from the Algorithmic Justice League and
like people have been talking about the way that AI
is dangerously biased for a long time. Like on this podcast,
we talked about women like Portia Woodriff, a pregnant black

(27:22):
woman like heavily pregnant black woman who was falsely arrested
for a crime she had nothing to do with because
bad technology facial recognition told led police to her and
was like, oh, this is the person who did it,
and she was held handcuffed in front of her kids,
held in a jail cell. After she was released, she
was like dehydrated and had to go straight to the

(27:43):
er because she was pregnant. So I really cannot accept
that the conversation about bias in technology and bias in
AI is going to start and begin with this idea
that it is being used to eradicate white men like that, like,
and so people like Nate Silver who are saying like, oh, like,
let me weigh in it. Either they have just gotten

(28:07):
here and they have just started paying attention to bias
in AI, or they're just disingenuous. They're just carrying water
for these extremists who want that to be the framing.
I think Nate Silver is smart enough to know the difference,
and so I actually don't think that he just got
here and that he just fell out of the coumquatry
and doesn't know what's going on. I think this is
an intentional decision to align himself with a particular worldview,

(28:30):
and I think, like we need to call it out
for what it is. And so I guess all that
to say is like I am disappointed, but maybe not
surprised to see Google kind of falling for this right, So,
like Google's CEO said, I know that some of its
responses have offended our users and shown bias. To be clear,
that is completely unacceptable. We got it wrong. And so like,

(28:51):
I just think that, like time and time again, when
you have bad actors and extremists setting the framing and
then you accept that framing and you go with it,
you have already lost. I think that like letting them
set the agenda is such a mistake, especially for something
as important as AI that is so poised to shape
all of our lives. And again, like this is a

(29:11):
fairly complex situation. I think that Google will say like, oh,
we're gonna have it. We took it off, we took
it off, we took it down, we're gonna have it
up in a couple of weeks. We're gonna fix this.
It is not clear to me that this is a
problem that has an easy fix. BBC spoke to doctor
Sasha Luconi, a research scientist at Hugging Face who said
this is really not an easily fixable problem because it's

(29:32):
not clear that there is one single answer to what
these outputs should be. She says, there really is no
easy fix because there's no single answer to what the
output should be. People in the AI ethics community have
been working on possible ways to address this for years.
One solution could be asking users for their input, such
as how diverse would you like your images to be?
But that in itself clearly comes with its own red flags.

(29:54):
It's a bit presumptuous of Google to say they will
fix the issue in a few weeks, but they will
have to do something, and so I agree with that.
I don't think this is a problem that has a
hard and fast tech solution. I think the I think
the solution, if you could even call it, that, is
really having a deep think in a meaningful way, and
like going back to the drawing board of answering some

(30:15):
of those looming values and philosophical questions of why you
are building this in the first place, to what end?

Speaker 3 (30:22):
Yeah, and you know those like ethical dilemmas like how
can you expect an AI to respond to that? And
would you even want an AI chat about to give
definitive answers to ethical dilemmas. You know, when you think
about like the trolley problem, a train is coming down

(30:44):
a track and you can pull, it's gonna hit the
person and kill them, or there's gonna hit three people
and kill them, or you could like hit move the
lever and divert it down a different track where it's
only gonna kill one person. Should you pull that lever? Right,
I don't think there is a clear answer to that.
People people disagree, and so I don't think we should

(31:05):
be looking to AI for answers to those kinds of
ethical questions.

Speaker 1 (31:10):
Well, I would even go further and say I don't
think AI can answer those questions, like AI is not
like a hyperaware robot computer brain, like it can only
submit back at us what we give to it. And
so if we're spitting, if we're if what we have
is like complex ethical and philosophical dilemmas, why would we
expect AI to be able to come up with hard

(31:32):
and fast answers to things that as a human race,
we do not have hard and fast answers to. And
so I think these are all conversations to have. But
when you have disingenuous people coming into the conversation and
trying to make it seem like the face of bias
in AI, the face of the person being harmed is

(31:54):
not a woman or a black person, or a queer person,
or a trans person or an indigenous person. We know
that it is. We have so much research indicating that
it is. We cannot allow these people to reframe reality
to make themselves victims. And so let's have a conversation
about how to make it make sure AI isn't biased.

(32:14):
But that conversation is not admit that Google is woke
DEI mind virus and it is racist against white men
like Elon Musk. Like again, if you give these people
an inch and let them set the terms, you have
already lost. And by now we have seen this happen
enough times with Target, with bud Light that I think

(32:36):
if you are a company and when these people set
their sights on you, if you do not have a
game plan for how you are going to respond, that
does not allow them to just shamelessly and disingenuinely set
the terms of what's going on, you are doing it wrong.
And Google is a big enough company that I know
they're aware of this. They like just cow twing to
these grievance mongers about their technology and what's going on

(32:59):
with it. And again, I don't want to make it
sound like I'm a defending Google, because what a weird
position for me to be taking in that. But you
can't just let these grievance mongers set the terms, because
once you've done that, you've already lost. The conversation is
already over.

Speaker 5 (33:17):
More after a quick break, let's.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
Get right back into it. So let's talk about what's
going on at Tumblr where stuff is getting weird and bad.
It's going from worse to worser, as that one viral
TikTok says. So Tumblr CEO Matt Mullenwing was supposed to
be on a sabbatical, but he came back online to

(33:51):
talk about the banning of a specific trans Tumblr user,
and I think it really just signals another instance of
Tumblr making bad decisions that really are impacting their LGBGQ
user base. So Rita, who is a Tumblr user who
runs a microblog called the pres Tyrogen, had been experiencing
and reporting transphobic harassment on the platform for a while

(34:13):
and was very frustrated that like nothing was being done
about it. Then she posted her frustrations on Tumblr, saying
that she helps the CEO dies forever painful death involving
a car covered in hammers that explodes more than a
few times and hammers go flying everywhere, So like this
really sounds like the citizens, you know, uh, like what

(34:34):
are you gonna do? Are you gonna sit the dogs
on me? And that the dogs have bees in their
mouth and when the dogs barth, the bees come out
of their mouth and sting me. Like it's obviously a
pretty cartoony, over the top way of expressing frustrations. Like
I'm not trying to make it seem like I can
done the kind of harassment that I know that people
who work for platforms can deal with, but it does

(34:55):
seem like this person was pretty clearly kind of like
venting in a cartoony way. But that comment got her
banned from Tumblr for life. So on Twitter, Rida posted
Tumblr ceo threatened to call the police on me and
deleted my account when I pointed out that he was
calling law enforcement on a transwoman. Tumblr has not emailed
me about my harassment in months. They've done nothing, So

(35:18):
Tumblr ceo actually replied to that tweet saying, reporting credible
depths of violence or terrorism is actually a legal requirement.
So this was like one comment that Tumblr ceo made
in like a night of very concerning commentary in public
from him, in posts about the moderation of Tumblr. He

(35:40):
revealed something that I actually found like very concerning that
a contract content moderator on the team was not only
making intentionally transphobic moderation decisions, but was also like taking
money under the table aka bribes to make specific moderation choices.
Wang says, as soon as we were aware, that person

(36:02):
was fired and we later terminated the entire relationship with
that contracting firm and have brought everything in house at
great cost, which like side note, if that's if that's
what's going on with your content moderation team, Like I
don't care how much it costs, Like you clearly have
big problems and yeah, it's gonna take money to solve
these problems that kind's running up platform like Tumblr. I

(36:25):
don't really want to hear you like patting yourself on
the back about how much it costs.

Speaker 3 (36:29):
Yeah, well this is a complete side note, but that
is completely consistent with my long standing view that uh,
subcontracting out like core functions of what your business is
supposed to be doing, is almost always an expensive mistake
that leads to bad outcomes, and it kind of like
in this particular case, it reinforces how they think about moderation, right,

(36:52):
Like you're on this show that you know, all right,
I guess I can only speak for myself, but like,
I think moderation and trust and safety is core function
that any platform should be like really invested in, and
the fact that they're contracting it out just shows how
seriously they think about it.

Speaker 1 (37:14):
Yeah, and it's I mean, you're right, and we've seen
it with so many platforms, like Facebook's contracts that out.
They had a relationship with a company called Sama, and
those contractors eventually went on to sue Facebook for the
way they were treating them. And so like, moderation is
a core function of how these platforms operate. It just is,
and so like, it just isn't something that you can

(37:37):
cheaply have someone who is not in house managed, not
really pay them very well, not give them a lot
of oversight because you're not even really their their boss.
Have all of these intentional setups that remove you from
their labor because you don't want to call them employees
to give them zero support, and then act surprise when
that doesn't turn out in your favor and ends up

(37:59):
being a costly miss that you later have to spend
a lot of money and headaches dealing with. Like of course,
so the CEO of Tumblr's most recent behavior really kind
of just sounds like an escalating pattern and a pattern
of decisions that have marginalized their LGBTQ users. Folks might
remember back in twenty eighteen when Tumblr banned adult content.
It wasn't just like pornography they banned. It was really

(38:21):
anything that could be considered adult or sexual or gendered
in a lot of ways, And so people who were
using Tumblr to find like queer community or trans community
or resources really did feel marginalized from that sweeping decision.
Elizabeth de Luna at Mashable has a really beautifully written
comprehensive breakdown that will link to, which includes this bit

(38:44):
that I did not know. So the way that Tumblr
enforced the porn ban in twenty eighteen actually led to
an inquiry by the New York City's Commission on Human
Rights into how the site's moderation practices may have disproportionately
affected LGBTQ plus content and users. When Tumblr was sold
to Mullin Wings Company Automatic by Verizon in twenty nineteen,
Automatic cooperation in the process constituted a turning point in

(39:07):
the investigation. In twenty twenty two, Tumblr and Automatic settled
with the Commission on Human Rights, agreeing to train human
moderators in diversity and inclusion issues, hire an expert to
identify potential biases, and its moderation algorithms, revise its user
appeals process, and review thousands of old moderation cases. And
so this is not a new thing. I think it
is just a new kind of more extreme instance of

(39:32):
some patterns that are pretty troubling for your LGBTQ user base,
especially when you're Tumblr, when so many of the folks
there like like Tumblr wouldn't be Tumblr without queer folks
and trans folks using that platform to build community. So
these folks on Tumblr say that they experience and witness
just a bunch of transphobic rhetoric and targeted harassment on Tumblr,

(39:53):
which has led to pretty deep criticism of Tumbler's moderation
policies and staff who users say, do not tet them
from harmful speech. Trans Users say that they will post
images demonstrating like a transition, and those images are routinely
taken down because they are flagged as being sexually explicit content,
while things like hate speech remain visible on the platform.

(40:17):
So this whole situation with the CEO, like going on
a public meltdown or whatever, just seems like another mark
in the wrong direction. It's also just not a good
look for mull and Weg to be weighing in publicly
about individual users and the content moderation decisions around them.
Like at one point in his like tweet storm, he

(40:38):
revealed the different Tumblr microblogs that that trans user Rita
had On Tumblr, it's pretty common to like kind of
snag a certain url and just sort of camp out
on it, even if you don't use it, and so
nobody would know that you have that URL except for you.
But he was talking about this person's what private URLs
they have publicly right all while doing it in this

(40:59):
like late night typho filled social media post stream like
it just is not a good during your sabbatical, no less,
it's just not a good look. Tumblr user Allyrium also
pointed out that at one point he started like searching
for his name on Tumblr and then would dm trans
users who were posting about the situation, allarrium rites for

(41:22):
posterity's sake. I want people to remember that during his
meltdown last night, he DMed dozens and dozens of people
near exclusively trans women for some inexplicable reason, sometimes less
than a minute after they left a reply, responded to
a post of his, or even just made their own
post about it. Pure intimidation tactics at their most blatant
and obvious. Why else would you sit on your name
search refreshing and refreshing and instantly jumping into our dms

(41:45):
the second we participate in the conversation that is it normal?
Not for a CEO, and not for like anyone else
for that matter. And I completely agree that is like
not is this not okay behavior to be engaging in
as a CEO?

Speaker 2 (42:00):
Yeah? Very unbecoming. Doesn't seem strategic.

Speaker 3 (42:06):
Anytime, anytime you're like writing a bunch of social media
posts late night in a rage, uh, that's probably a
good signal that you should step back and like not
do that.

Speaker 1 (42:19):
Oh my god, nothing good come. And I've been there
I say that as somebody who has been there. Nothing
good comes of it. Like if I if you ever
see me post like more than two times in an evening,
something is up with me and I need to like
have my phone taken away because nothing good comes from it.
And I say that as somebody who has been there.

(42:39):
One person who was watching this whole thing unfolding said
to the Tumblr ceo, you are posting normal things a
ceo of a large social network would post and in
a tone of respectability and competence, tonight, dude, very cool.
And it's like, yeah, this is just like not a
good look. Everyone is seeing it. Stop. And so when
Tumblr users were pointing out like all of the transphobic

(43:00):
harassment that goes undealt with on the platform in comparison
to what Rita was banned for, he was like, oh, well,
lots of people who work at Tumblr are trans and queer,
and they would have told me if I was doing
something that was wrong, but they didn't speak up. And
other users were like pretty quick to point out like
my dude, it just really does not work that way.

(43:20):
You can't be like, well, none of the trans people
who work at Tumblr said anything. So I guess we're
all good, right.

Speaker 3 (43:27):
Yeah, maybe there are other reasons that employees didn't speak up,
like maybe they know that their boss is a transphobe.

Speaker 1 (43:35):
Yeah. One of the Tumblr users watching this whole thing
unfold said exactly that maybe your trans employees didn't say
anything because they see the kinds of priorities staff demonstrates,
and they know it is not safe to speak up.
If I worked for you, this is how unhinged you're
willing to get in public about a trans woman that
hurt your feelings. I would hate to invoke whatever I
are you would let loose in private. And so he

(43:57):
put out another post clarifying that he cannot be transphobic
because the companies health insurance policies have supported staffs, transitions
and things like that, and because he supports like people
using different pronouns and things. But Elizabeth Daluna in that
Mashable piece really responds to that well. Writing here, mull
and Wang again misses the point Tumblr users continue to

(44:18):
express their frustration specifically with the site's treatment of trans
people by complating his support of the entire LGBTQ plus
community with his support of trans people, mull and Wegg
shows he does not yet understand the difference. And I
think that really is true. Like I think when your
users are telling you, hey, these decisions are actually harming us, Hey,

(44:39):
we're actually not feeling supported and heard on this platform,
being like, oh, well, I can't be transphobic because of
YadA YadA, YadA policy healthcare policy. It's really missing the point.

Speaker 3 (44:50):
Yeah, I mean, it is nice that he supports those policies,
but I guess maybe this is another nuanced conversation that
illustrates the distinction between supporting a group of people and
actually caring about them.

Speaker 1 (45:10):
Yeah, I mean support and caring is great, but like,
what are your policies and not just the policies for
the people who work for you, your staff, What are
your policies around how you are helping your largely LGBTQ
plus user base makes feel supportive, so I feel like

(45:31):
they're able to safely show up on this platform. And
I guess that's what they're really asking. When that's a question,
I don't really see him answering.

Speaker 3 (45:38):
It does sound a little parallel with the way that
he was talking about their moderation, that it's like, you know,
he has these trans supporting policies for their employees that
like check the box because he knows that it's important
to check the box.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
But then when trans and their.

Speaker 3 (46:00):
LGBTQ people on the platform are speaking up saying like, hey,
this is a problem, we're being harmed and not responding
to that or in fact responding to it but with
like anger and pushback, it reveals the sort of shallowness
of that check the box approach.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
Exactly. I completely agree. People should be able to have
more than just like shallow check the box support and policies.
They should they should have meaningful safety. They should have
policies that allow them to show up safely. And before
we wrap this up, shout out to listener Marty for
flagging that topic for me, because I'm no longer on
Tumblr and I would not have known what was happening
if not for you, so thank you. And speaking of moderation,

(46:43):
I have a tiny little shred of like good ish
question mark news from Twitter, so as y'all might know.
One of the first things that Elon Musk did when
taking over at Twitter was reversing a change that I
personally worked on on a previous job, and that is
a policy that Twitter had you ban misgendering on Twitter.
Musk removed that like very quickly after taking over, but

(47:05):
this week Twitter quietly announced an update to how misgendering
would be handled on Twitter. So, rather than resulting in
a ban, posts that misgender people will be deprioritized algorithmically
on the platform, so you'll like see less of them,
they will not be boosted. One thing to known about
this policy is that it puts the onus on the
person targeted to report being misgendered, and so like, if

(47:28):
I saw somebody being misgendered, I would not as the
person who has not been misgendered, I would not be
able to report it or flag it if that person
is not on the platform. Let's say they weren't on
the platform because they were sick of dealing with like
transphobic nonsense, which I think is probably true for a
lot of folks, and they don't see it happen there,

(47:48):
nothing will happen. So let's say that somebody is being
misgendered on Twitter and they had left the platform after
not wanting to deal with a lot of transphobic nonsense,
which I'm sure was something that is happening to it
for a lot of folks. Uh, that person if they're
on they're not on Twitter to personally blag it. I
don't think anything will happen in that instance, and so

(48:09):
that's not a great policy, Like it definitely puts too
much of a burden on the specific person who has
been harmed, like see it and do the work and
be there. But I do think it's kind of like
a tiny step in the right direction. Doesn't even sound
like the right word it. I suspect that, like, you know,
Twitter as a platform wants to move back advertisers. I

(48:32):
just don't think that people want to show up to
platforms where people are being harassed and misgendered in mass
and like, I just don't think I don't I think
there's I think they're realizing like, oh yeah, we can't
have that be a core plank of the platform, and
are kind of walking it back in the teenious, tenious, tenious,
tiny little way. When this policy change was announced, Chaia

(48:52):
Rachick Limbs of TikTok creator asked Musk about it on
Twitter and then misgendered a bunch of public figures to
test it out, and Mosque replied, Oh, don't worry, I
would never view you from a platform don't worry, So like,
I don't want to make it seem like Elon Musk
is bending over backward to keep missgendering off the platform completely.

(49:13):
So it's still pretty clear where his values lie. But
this is a change that people should be aware of.

Speaker 3 (49:18):
Yeah, and it is notable, And because like I can't
remember the last time that Twitter did something made like
a positive change, right, Like everything they have done for
the longest time since Elon took over is just like
one step in the wrong direction after another step in
the wrong direction.

Speaker 2 (49:36):
So it is kind of notable here. It's quite notable.

Speaker 1 (49:40):
Yeah, and I think I've shared this example on the
podcast before and it's like it's such a small, minor one.
But a couple of weeks, a couple of months ago,
I was having a conversation about my favorite pastime, which
is watching Real Housewives on Bravo, and we were talking
about the need to like reboot the New York the
New York branch, and we were like, oh, who could
be a good person, And like somebody was talking about

(50:01):
this woman who was trans Te Madison, who side note,
I love Ta Madison. That should be great on the show.
Can read like nobody's business should be on the show.
Andy call Team Madison and I was like, oh, Tea Madison,
Like that'd be so cool, like first black trans woman
on Bravo, that'd be amazing. And then it was all
these people intentionally misgendering her, and I was just like like,

(50:24):
I'm not even trans, but it was a fucking bummer.
And I was like, I can't even we can't even
like I if I feel this way, how must trans
people feel? Just trying to have conversations about Bravo on
platforms and it's like it's just like not it just
didn't feel good to deal with. I don't know why,
but I was just like, I'm not even trying to
engage in like a social or political conversation. I'm just

(50:45):
trying to talk about housewives and I don't want to,
like like, I don't think people should have to see that.
It's it's garbage, and I don't think people should have
to see it. So Jenny Olsen of'm Glad told Ours
Technica of this change, this is not about accidentally getting
someone pronouns wrong. That happens. This is about targeted misgendering
and dead name and with the clear intent of expressing

(51:06):
hate and disrespect and contempt. Shout out to Jenny. We
work together in a previous life. Jenny is amazing. But yeah,
I think that Jenny's comments are important because I think
when some people hear about these policies, they think, like, oh, well,
now if I just make an accidental mistake, I will
be I will be facing consequences. And so I think

(51:27):
it's important to show like, no, there's a difference between
that and like intentional targeted misgendering, which frankly, just like
nobody wants nobody should have to deal with it, just
like not a cool thing.

Speaker 3 (51:37):
Yeah, again, the extremists just going out of their way
to flatten and distort exactly.

Speaker 1 (51:44):
And speaking of flattening and distorting, another listener, Aaron wrote
in about what's happening with Michael Threetz, who is a
California librarian who I love his platform, Like basically he's
a librarian who just uses to talk about his love
of books, his love of libraries and really foster a

(52:04):
lifelong love of reading and libraries for kids and adults.
So he's a librarian at the Solano County Public Library
in California. Thank you for flagging this to us Aaron,
I had seen it, and I'd been sort of wrestling
with my thoughts on it. But basically, Michael is lovely.
He is upbeat, he's enthusiastic, he is passionate for helping

(52:24):
kids learn about libraries, and like he's one of those
people that his passion for it really is clear, Like
it's hard to see him talking about libraries and books
and not feel good. He is a black man, which
is notable. In twenty twenty one, numbers from the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics show that nearly eighty seven percent
of librarians are white and only seven percent are black.

(52:47):
And so having this like very visible black librarian is important.
Like I don't think I ever saw a black library,
Like like, in all of my K through twelve schooling,
we did not. I didn't. I did not encounter a
single black library, And I can tell you that. And
so that would have meant a lot to me to
have a very visible librarian who looks like me, who

(53:09):
was like excited about reading in books, that would have
meant the world to me as like a young nerdy
person growing up. So he's been really passionate about promoting
what he calls library joy, which I love this. He says,
library joy in its simplest form, is just the joy
of the library. What that means is just what I
try to embody and hope that all library workers embody.
It is the fostering of the sense of belonging. I

(53:31):
keep saying that the library is for everybody, library, kids, library,
grown ups, mentally ill, unhoused. I love telling people that
they don't have to leave their anxiety, depression or PTSD
outside the library. There's no sign that says you can't
bring your anxiety in. And I just like this idea
of reminding folks that libraries are for everybody and that
like it. It really that is what a community resource means.

(53:54):
It is and like here in DC we are blessed
to have a very robust library system. You know, you
can check out power tools, you can check out music,
they can help you with your resume. Like the ways
that it is a community resource, it truly is magical.
And like the work that he has done of making
that clear, I think is really special. And so like

(54:17):
many people who are enthusiastic or passionate about something, there
are people out there who just use that as a
way to be awful to him. There was a vible
quote about him on Twitter that was just a video
that he had posted about the library on TikTok taken

(54:37):
to Twitter with the caption, people are getting weirder. People
imply that he has autism, which obviously there's nothing wrong
with people who have autism, but they were saying that
in a way that was like clearly meant to be
an insult to him. In a piece for The Washington Post,
he talked about being at his grandmother's ninetieth birthday party
when all of these posts insulting him, it's harder to

(54:58):
go viral and getting messages from his friends being like,
don't look at them, are you okay? While he's trying
to like spend time with his family. So when this happened,
people really rallied in support of him, which was awesome
to see. But then just a couple days ago, another
person on social media took one of his videos and
like accused him of having a darkness behind his enthusiasm,

(55:21):
like I'm not even sure like what she was trying
to imply. This person did apologize, and he accepted that
apology publicly, but this week he announced that he's resigning
from his position at the library to protect his mental health,
which honestly I can understand, and I just hate it
so much that we have this person who is doing

(55:41):
something that is good, is like getting people passionate about libraries,
passionate about reading, advocating for libraries as a resource, doing
so in a way that is passionate and inclusive and
all of these different things, and then people just like
bullying him out of that position for no reason. And

(56:02):
I do have to say that I have really seen
an uptick in this kind of content. It is sort
of the libs of TikTok strategy of social media gamification,
where somebody who is making a video for TikTok, someone
else takes that video, puts it on Twitter with a
mean or accusatory or insulting caption, and then it does numbers,

(56:26):
It goes viral, gets lots of engagement, and it's generally
people who are like authentic or genuine or passionate or
being a little bit weird. Like something I like about
Michael is that when he was accused of like being weird,
he was like, yeah, I am a little bit weird.
All my friends that are weird, We're very passionate. It's
like being weird is what makes us who we are.
And like, I don't take that as an insult, which

(56:47):
I thought was nice, but like, I think we're seeing
more and more of that as like an engagement tactic
where these people expect to have their own little corner
of TikTok where they can talk to people who are
like minded, and then someone comes along, rips it onto
Twitter where the context just feels different, and uses it
to create a pylon on this person. And so like,

(57:09):
he hasn't done anything wrong, like he other than being
passionate about libraries, he's not done anything wrong. And I
do think there's something else going on where like there
is something about people who you can tell are like
living their genuine, authentic lives and like being their genuine
authentic selves. And like you know when you when you

(57:31):
are your authentic self, it is clear that you are
comfortable and passionate and happy, and like, I think people
pick up on that, and I think for people who
are not living that way themselves, I think that that
I think that's triggering to them. I think they have
to like bully it and smash it because it's like,
don't you know that we're all living lives and that

(57:52):
you're not meant to be authentic and happy and passionate,
and like, how dare you show up as your happy, authentic,
passionate self. This is threatening? I need to smash this down.
I think. I think it's really something that is within
people to like see somebody who is passionate and happy
and feel the need to crush that and squash that.

(58:14):
Do you know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (58:15):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (58:15):
Absolutely, that's definitely a thing. I mean, there's something vulnerable
about being earnest and positive and this tendency within people
to smash it and tear it apart and ridicule it.
It feels sort of juvenile a little bit, you know.

(58:37):
It feels like everybody goes through. Not everybody, many people
go through like an angsty teenage period right where they
start to realize that all of the things that their
parents and the grown ups in their life have you know,
presented them with as like this is what being a
you know, this is what a life's supposed to look like.

Speaker 2 (58:59):
You get a little you know, as people.

Speaker 3 (59:01):
Enter their teenage years, they realize that all those things
are not perfect, and you know, in some cases there
are like problems and you just have to like deal
with it and make the most of it. That's what
like being an adult is in a lot of cases.
And so it's just like really easy and juvenile, I think,
to to just rip apart anything that is earnest or

(59:26):
trying to be positive.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
And it is sad, it's but it's not surprising that
it does.

Speaker 3 (59:34):
That sort of thing does well on social media right,
particularly on Twitter, where anger and outrage and meanness are
cultural values.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
Yeah, I agree, And it's just like it doesn't make
us any happier or feel good, and earnestness is okay,
Like be cringe, love what you love, be shout it
from the rooftops. If you've got something that feels like
passion and excitement, you should be able to lean into that. Like,
I don't know, the Internet was created for people who

(01:00:08):
were excited about shit, and like I just hate this
idea that like, no, we can only be removed and
cynical and mean and angry. That's not what the I mean.
That's obviously part of the Internet, but like being unabashedly
passionate about stuff is part of what makes the Internet
the Internet, and if we lose that and only see
that as something to be mocked and bullied, we lose

(01:00:29):
something important in all of us, and not to mention,
we lose a dope ass librarian at the library, like
like Michael is stepping down. However, there is a bit
of a happy ending though, because he announced that PBS
offered him the role of resident librarian for a social
media series and so this is gonna involve him doing
book suggestions, talking about literacy, and of course spreading library

(01:00:50):
joy and so yeah, I'm happy that it has a
happy ending, but I'm sad that someone can't just be
a really engaged, passionate librarian on the twenty twenty four
Internet without being bullied for it and bullied into stepping down.
We all lose when that's the case.

Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
Yeah, I'm glad there's a happy ending on that one.
That feels nice.

Speaker 5 (01:01:15):
More after a quick break, let's get right back into it.

Speaker 1 (01:01:31):
Well, I don't know how this is gonna go because
our last topic is something that I know that we
maybe don't see an eye on, and that.

Speaker 2 (01:01:42):
Is we're gonna talk about self checkout.

Speaker 1 (01:01:45):
No, we've already done it, Like it's been done.

Speaker 3 (01:01:47):
Dude, Okay, cool. Well, I mean, what else do we
disagree about Wendy's. Oh, we're gonna talk about Wendy's.

Speaker 1 (01:01:56):
Okay. So do you remember when I was like, did
you see that Wendy's doing surge pricing? And you had
I will describe it as a big reaction. Do you
remember how you reacted when I told you that information?

Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
Yeah? I do.

Speaker 3 (01:02:09):
I was like, that's that can't be true. That's banana
pans bonkers, Like that doesn't make any sense. No one
will tolerate that. People will hate it, people rebuild, people
will be like burning Wendy's to the ground. Something must
be wrong about this story.

Speaker 1 (01:02:26):
Well, let's get into it. So is Wendy's doing surge pricing?
I don't feel confident saying yes or no. I will
tell you what I know. So in wendy'ss Q four
earnings call, the company announced plans to use AI enabled
dynamic pricing remember that phrase, saying beginning as early as
twenty twenty five, we will begin testing more enhanced features

(01:02:48):
like dynamic pricing and day part offering, along with AI
enabled menu changes and suggestive selling. As we continue to
show the benefit of this technology in our company operated restaurants,
franchisee in in digital menu boards should increase further, supporting
sales and profit growth across the system. We will continue
setting the pace in generative AI and have now rolled

(01:03:09):
out Wendy's Fresh AI in several restaurants where we see
ongoing improvement and in speed and accuracy. So importantly, that comment,
though weird as fuck, I think, but does not say
the word surge pricing. It says dynamic pricing, So there
is a difference between these two pricing structures. I think

(01:03:31):
that when we hear dynamic pricing, most people are probably
most familiar with it from things like Uber and Lyft,
where they like charge more when there's more demands. So
if it's like raining and a concert just let out,
it's going to cost more than if it's an off
season and not many people are using the app. So
I think people understandably assume that this meant that Wendy's
is going to be charging more for food at times

(01:03:52):
of high demand. I did see a lot of reporting
on this issue that used the phrase surge pricing. However,
surge pricing and dynam limit pricing are different things, right,
Like surge pricing means like, oh, the price will be
higher at certain times. Dynamic pricing. This means, oh, the
price can change based on certain factors, not necessarily going
up or down. After this announcement, the phrase surge pricing

(01:04:14):
actually started trending on social media, and even lawmakers were
weighing in, Like Senator Bob Casey accused Wendy's of corporate greed.
Elizabeth Warren added, it's price gouging, plain and simple. So
I did a search of the entire transcript of that
Wendy's Q four call, great use of my time, and
it is true. Nowhere in that call did the Wendy

(01:04:36):
CEO ever specifically say that they were planning on doing
surge pricing, only dynamic pricing, and there is a difference, right.
Wendy's then clarified, saying they do not plan on instituting
surge pricing. They said, in a statement, we said these
menu boards would give us more flexibility to change the
display of featured items. This was misconstrued in some media

(01:04:56):
reports as an intent to raise prices when demand is
highest at our restaurants. We have no plans to do
that and would not raise prices when our customers are
visiting us. Most any features we may test would be
designed to benefit our customers and restaurant crew members. Digital
menu boards could allow us to change the menu offerings
at different times of the day and offer discounts and
value offers to our customers more easily, particularly in the

(01:05:19):
slower times of day. Wendy's has always been about providing
high quality food at great value, and customers can continue
to expect that from our brand. So here's where Mike
and I disagree. Mike, I see you, Why don't you
go ahead? What do you think about this?

Speaker 2 (01:05:37):
Well?

Speaker 3 (01:05:37):
I mean, I want to be clear that I have
no illusions that Wendy's is some benevolent actor.

Speaker 2 (01:05:46):
I don't know this CEO. It's like a giant corporation.

Speaker 3 (01:05:49):
Uh, It's like fine, as far as I can tell,
they're no more or less evil than any other giant corporation, right, Like,
But it just never made sense. Nobody's gonna tell or
that surge pricing. So when he issued this clarification the
next day and said, no, we're not planning to do
surge pricing, where we would increase prices at certain times
when there's extra demand, but instead we would just want

(01:06:12):
to have more flexibility to offer different discounts at different
times of the day. I was like, oh, okay, that
makes a lot of sense, that like actually seems like
something that people would not be infuriated by. But then
it got me thinking how silly we humans are with

(01:06:34):
our like gain loss framing and like loss aversion that
the idea that something would increase in price at certain
hours of the day is completely unacceptable. I would just
never I couldn't tolerate that in my burgers, right, that's

(01:06:55):
insulting to me as a person. But the idea that
I would get a price discount at some hours of
the day, Oh okay, cool, Yeah, what's the discount?

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
Is it? Like half off? Tell me? And like, that's
kind of dumb.

Speaker 3 (01:07:08):
Of me and humans in general, because in either scenario,
there's one price at one time a day and another
price at another time of the day, And it's almost
like semantics of what we're where. They're calling it an
increase or a decrease. And yet apparently those semantics are
extremely important, given that Wendy's became front page news for
twenty four hours based on this distinction between surge pricing

(01:07:32):
and dynamic pricing, which I had never even thought of
until this was an issue.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
Yeah, I mean, I mostly agree with you. The thing
I want to pull out, which is my take, is
that I don't think that how they I don't think
that their clarification walks back this enough because they very
well truly incluld raise their prices and then be like, oh, well,

(01:08:02):
raise their prices across the board, and then be like,
on off peak times, we're gonna have a cheap menu,
and that would be the same thing that people got
upset about. So it is like a semantics of like, well,
and so I this is what I think. Wendy says
they would not raise prices when our customers are visiting most.
That kind of gets my pr statement brain buzzing, because

(01:08:25):
I think what they're saying is like, well, we never
said we work on e raise prices. We just said
we work on eraise prices when people are eating here
the most. And so I believe what they are saying
is we plan to raise prices and then lower them
via our dynamic menu, which is subsequently kind of the
same thing. That's what I think is going to happen.

(01:08:46):
So I think that people are like cheering this as like, yeah,
we really like bullied Wendy's into doing the right thing.
I don't know that I agree. I really don't.

Speaker 3 (01:08:56):
Yeah, I feel like you're really reading much further between
the lines.

Speaker 2 (01:09:04):
Than is warranted here.

Speaker 3 (01:09:08):
I mean, okay, here's two other examples of companies that
do stuff like this, right, Like Bead Bathroom Beyond before
they went out of business. There was one of those
in Columbia Heights where I live, and I would go
there to try to buy things sometimes, and it was
expensive as hell. Every single item was like really expensive
so much that I would like never buy their things.

Speaker 2 (01:09:27):
There.

Speaker 3 (01:09:28):
Many occasions I would go there, wanted to get an item,
take a look at the price, and be like, this
is absurd. And the reason was because they were one
of these stores that had a coupon based economy where
it only made sense to shop there if you were
clipping coupons, which they prolifically distributed, so people would walk

(01:09:49):
in there with like a handful of coupons for like
seventy five percent off buy one, get one whatever, And
I just really resented that little dance that we had to.

Speaker 2 (01:09:59):
Do to.

Speaker 3 (01:10:02):
Try to buy an item at a reasonable price. So
hopefully that's not what Wendy's is approaching here.

Speaker 1 (01:10:09):
I once went into that Bed Bath and Beyond and
I was standing in line, I think, holding a blender,
and there was a guy in there who had an
entire I kid you not, an entire book of Bed
Bath and Beyond coupons, and he was giving them out
the people in the line like cash, Like he was
like making it rain coupons. And I got my blender
for twenty five percent of I'll never forget it. Yeah,
I I There are already plenty of things in society

(01:10:32):
that use dynamic pricing, like airline tickets they're cheaper depending
on demand, movie tickets, you know, you buy a matinee
when less people are going, it's cheaper, is a thing
in our society. But I do think what's interesting here
is that how big the reaction was. And I think
that's gotta be that, Like people are so fucking sick rightly,

(01:10:52):
so a feeling squeezed right now, Like it feels like
the new model is like anything that can rip people
off must rip people, And so I think that people
are sensitive to it right now because we're feeling it
in multiple different ways. That just feels like the way
that it is right now, and I don't know. Our
burgers are our last. Like, if we lose the burgers,
what else have we lost? Right Like, this is our
last the last thing that we can sort of rely on.

Speaker 3 (01:11:15):
Yeah, exactly. I don't want to have to bring coupons
to Wendy's. I don't want to have to strategically time
when I get my burger. I don't want to have to,
you know, do a bunch of math. Uh yeah, let's
just keep it simple.

Speaker 1 (01:11:31):
Let's just keep it simple. But I do want to
clearly reiterate my point for you, Mike, because if Comma,
when Wendy's racist, I'm gonna stay on. I'm you know,
I'm gonna stay on this story. If and perhaps when
Wendy's quietly raises all of their prices across the board
and their dynamic pricing is rolled out to lower those

(01:11:54):
prices back down to what we are familiar with, which
is my argument of what they're doing, we will record
this again, and I want I want a I want
to say it clearly now so that I can get
a clear I told just so from me on the record,
and that a clear you were right from you on
the record. We'll have that all as audio forever, so
that we'll all, you know, be on the same page.

Speaker 2 (01:12:15):
Is that cool?

Speaker 3 (01:12:17):
I mean we'll cross that bridge when they come to it. Yeah,
I mean, I uh, you know. It also makes me
think and then I'll let us finish up here. But
so in DC we have this new law, I guess
it's not even new, it's been here for like two
or three years now, where all restaurant workers have to
make a living wage. It's great law, good for everybody,

(01:12:37):
but restaurant owners hate it. And so there's been this
phenomenon in the city of You go into a restaurant
and the prices on the menu are the prices, and
then when you get your bill there'll be like a
five percent search charge that is not a tip. It
doesn't go to the servers. It's just for the restaurant.

(01:12:58):
It'll be like the living wage fee or something. And
that infuriates me right that, Like, just raise your prices
across the board, if that's what you have to do
to keep this business going, don't like deceptively hide it.
So I hope Wendy's doesn't raise their prices, But I
would rather that than a bunch of like weird gimmicky

(01:13:19):
tricks that make me have to do math when I'm
trying to get my food.

Speaker 1 (01:13:22):
Well, I believe what Wendy's will roll out is a weird,
gimmicky trick that forces you to do maths. I'm like,
follow the Wendy's prices like a goddamn stock market just
to buy your food that I will leave it there.

Speaker 2 (01:13:39):
I hope you're wrong. I mean, that's that's not what
Dave Thomas would have wanted.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Dave Thomas is rolling over on his in his grave. Mike,
thank you so much for going through these stories with me.
I will see you on the internet.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
Thanks, Bridget see you there.

Speaker 1 (01:13:52):
And thanks to all of you for listening and to
the listeners who sent in suggestions and flags of stories
that we should cover. Thank you. Please keep doing that.

Speaker 2 (01:14:00):
How can they do that, Bridget Oh?

Speaker 1 (01:14:02):
You can email us at hello at tangody dot com.
You can find me on social media. I though I'm
not really there, not often anymore, but you could try. Yeah,
please keep doing it.

Speaker 2 (01:14:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:14:10):
They could also go to the Patreon right. There are
quite a few listeners who message us there at patreon
dot com, slash tangody or tangody dot com, slash Patreon.

Speaker 2 (01:14:20):
It works both ways.

Speaker 1 (01:14:21):
Oh a tech Marvel. Thanks for listening. If you're looking
for ways to support the show, check out our March
store at tangoty 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 tangody
dot com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode

(01:14:43):
at tengody dot com. There Are No Girls on the
Internet was created by me Bridget Todd. It's a production
of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative edited by Joey pat Jonathan
Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer
and sound engineer. Michael Almada is our contributing producer. I'm
your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow,
rate and review us.

Speaker 5 (01:15:02):
On Apple Podcasts.

Speaker 1 (01:15:03):
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All Episodes

Willy Wonka AI fiasco; Google’s “woke” AI fiasco; Tumblr CEO transphobia fiasco; Wendy’s pricing fiasco – NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

The Nikki Glaser Podcast

Stuff You Should Know

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Willy Wonka AI fiasco; Google’s “woke” AI fiasco; Tumblr CEO transphobia fiasco; Wendy’s pricing fiasco – NEWS ROUNDUP