March 18, 2025 • 29 mins
(Tuesday 03/18/25)
In January, Meta announced that it would be replacing fact-checkers with a new system. Meanwhile, Apple executives are meeting this week for their annual offsite, which is a closed-door event. The primary topic of discussion will reportedly be the company's ongoing challenges with Apple Intelligence. Additionally, Trump has announced that he will release the remaining classified JFK files. Polls indicate that many Millennials prefer pets to children.
In January, Meta announced that it would be replacing fact-checkers with a new system. Meanwhile, Apple executives are meeting this week for their annual offsite, which is a closed-door event. The primary topic of discussion will reportedly be the company's ongoing challenges with Apple Intelligence. Additionally, Trump has announced that he will release the remaining classified JFK files. Polls indicate that many Millennials prefer pets to children.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're list Saints KFI AM six forty. The Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Our tech reporter is joining us, Mike. It's a pleasure
talking to you again. It's been a while since you
and I have connected, and I'm so glad that we
get to because of this Tech Tuesday, and I got
to find out what's going on with my Instagram. It
looks like we've got a lot of well trash littering
my insta feed.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
So Meta is rolling out a new approach to content moderation,
and that might be kind of what you're seeing in
your feed, though at this point, Meta says that a
lot of this stuff is still in testing that you're
not actually going to see it if you're just kind
of a run of the mill Instagram or Facebook or
threads user. So what are we talking about here. We're
(00:46):
talking about specifically Community Notes. This is their name for
their new approach to content moderation. This is something that
was first previewed back in January when Mark Zuckerberg, the
CEO of Meta, announced that they're moving away from fact checkers.
Community Notes is kind of the thing that's designed to
take the place of those fact checkers. This is a
(01:07):
community based system, a bunch of volunteers from Facebook and
Instagram and threads. Users of those platforms are gathering together
to basically write notes that will appear next to certain
pieces of content on those platforms. And that content, you know,
is thought to be sort of misleading or controversial or
(01:28):
harmful in some way, and these notes are designed to
add a little bit more context to those posts. So
you can imagine election misinformation, misinformation related to public health,
that type of thing. That's the content that we're talking
about here. And they say that they're rolling this out
and testing starting today, but again they want to get
it right, they say, so it's probably not going to
(01:49):
start appearing in your feed at least for the next
few weeks or so.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Mike, I've seen this on x before. Twitter, they've got
something similar, like the community votes. How do they decide?
Because if there's something that is blatantly wrong, for instance,
say you've got a flat earther that posts something and
then people are going to say obviously that's wrong, They're
going to issue a community notes.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
Deal.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
There must be tens of thousands of people that are
trying to put a community note on somebody's post. How
do they pick which one they're going to go with?
Is it the one that's the most popular, does it
get up votes of some sort? How do they know
which community note rides with that post.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
It's a great question, and it's part of the system
that they're figuring out right now, part of the reason
that you're probably not going to see a community note
in the next week or two as they figure this out.
So you're right to mention X there they are, of course,
formerly Twitter, they have used a community notes system for
the past few years, and Meta is actually borrowing an
(02:50):
algorithm from them, an open source algorithm that X is
made available to other social media platforms. This algorithm gets
at exactly what you were describing there. How do we
evaluate the validity of a note, the helpfulness of a note?
This algorithm is designed to do that. Because metas drawn
from a wait list about two hundred thousand volunteers. There's
(03:11):
a lot of people, a lot of different opinions, a
lot of different perspectives, and they kind of have to
coalesce behind one common note to add to any given post.
That's kind of complicated. So Meta says they want these
volunteers to come from a range of backgrounds. They want
people who you know, disagree normally to agree on the
(03:32):
content of a note, and all of that is going
to be decided by this algorithm. So there's still a
little bit of technology at play. It's not a purely
you know, like human system at the end of the day,
but ultimately these notes are going to be written by humans.
The algorithm will just dictate kind of the people who
(03:52):
are able to contribute to.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
Each specific note.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
So that's their idea that they're using this algorithm to
kind of draw from a range of different ideas and perspectives.
It's all part of this broader effort from CEO Mark
Zuckerberg to make things a little bit less moderated on
their platforms. He says they're stepping away not just from
fact checking, but from moderating content in general, handing it
(04:16):
a little bit more over to the communities on those platforms.
He says this is all part of an effort to
cut down on bias. He says this is a better
way to address bias on these platforms. He says the
old fact checking system made too many mistakes and overly
censored these platforms, and this is a better way to
do it.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
I'm interested in this, Mike, because the philosophy geek in
me says, doesn't this doesn't this invite by doesn't this
invite group bias?
Speaker 5 (04:47):
In Uh, it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
It isn't necessarily more accurate as much as it's it's
more of a democratic system where whatever the popular opinion
is will be considered the community.
Speaker 5 (04:57):
Note, I suppose.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
But is that less is it less biased or are
we just playcating a different bias.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Yeah, it is popularity correct necessarily, and that's the sort
of that's a very philosophical question at the end of
the day. That is a problem with the community note system.
This is something that you've seen crop up on X before,
which is that these are kind of easy to game,
these community notes. You can imagine people who are volunteers here.
They can kind of get together and make sort of
(05:26):
a jokey note or a note that might not be
totally correct, but you know it agrees with their politics
or their viewpoint or whatever it happens to be. That
is a potential way to gain this system.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
That's something that Meta is going to need to figure out.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
In addition to that, there's also just a logistical problem here, right,
Things so viral very quickly on these platforms. Billions of
people use metas products, and many of them get their
news from these platforms. That means that the length of
time it takes for a note to go from being
thought of to something that you can actually see in
(06:00):
your feed, it's going to be really important if something
goes viral and is seen by a lot of people
before a note shows up. As people are as the
volunteers are trying to figure out specific wording or whether
a note is helpful or not, you know, the damage
might have already been done by the time that note
shows up, and that's another thing that they're going to
need to address as they continue to roll this out
over the.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Next few weeks or so.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
For what it's worth, these notes aren't going to impact
the relative virality of any given post and the old
way of doing things in the fact checking system, you know,
a subject matter expert, a lawyer or political scientist, a doctor,
what have you would go in and say, yes, this
is definitively a piece of misinformation that could do harm. Right,
this is misinformation about the pandemic, for instance. Then Meta
(06:45):
would go in and down rank that piece of content,
they would allow it to not show up in as
many people's feeds in order to cut down on the
potential harm for it to do. Mark Sarthborg says they
overdid that, right, They over cranked that lever, and they
ended up with a biased system. These notes will not
impact the virality of any given post. Just because a
(07:06):
post has a note on it doesn't mean that it
won't go viral. That you might still see it. You'll
just see it with a note next to it.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Again, more popular means more eyeballs on it, and spreading
the misinformation is allowed, especially if you get more people
in their community and notes that spread their own biases. Interesting, like,
it's very it's very interesting. Mike Debusky is our ABC
News technology reporter. Mike, stick around for just a second.
I want to talk about I'm seeing some stuff about
(07:34):
Apple and people are mad at Apple for over promising
and under delivering. I want to talk about that, and
if you don't mind, I'll slide in some of the
astronaut news here when we come back as well. We'll
continue with Tech Tuesday.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Joining me is Mike Debuski, our ABC News Technology reporter.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
It is Tech Tuesday. Mike.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
I'm very excited. I wanted to just share this audio briefly.
This is the This was the sound as our an
astronauts made their way away from the space station. All
hooks are open, open hookers and on doc and confirmed.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
Freedom is free of its moorings. Freedom is free. Sonny
Williams and Butch Wilmore began a lot there.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
It is on their way home from ABC. Uh So, Mike,
that's exciting. It's been months or something since they.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Were up there.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
That's yes, I believe I'm writing saying that there. It's
the longest uh time that anyone has spent up there,
or at least a much longer than they planned.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Certainly they planned right, a little shy of the record.
I think the record is just over a year. But yeah,
they were supposed topt there for what a week?
Speaker 4 (08:50):
And then yeah, that's these I understand it. It was
kind of just a routine mission and then you know,
one thing led to another and.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Here we are.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
As a matter of fact, we spoke here at ABC
and Radio Department to one of the astronauts who was
supposed to be on that mission who ended up being
cut from it originally to go up and relieve those
astronauts who are up there, and that was in sort
of June of last year.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
So, you know, good ed its decites that they've been.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Up there for a long time, but it's good to
know that they're coming home.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Yeah, Mike, I know that there was a bit of controversy.
I'm not going to put you on the spot on this.
I'm just going to wax here not so poetically for
a moment. There was a bit of controversy around that,
especially when we had a president that came out and
said Biden left them up there, just totally abandoned them,
ditched them in space there, left them up there.
Speaker 5 (09:35):
Not exactly the case.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
There's always a contingency plan if something goes awry, there
are supplies that are sent.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
And there was another.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Mission that was planned to bring other astronauts back home
that had already been up there. So then the decision
had to be made, did we bring the other astronauts
back on schedule, or do we bring these astronauts back
and then leave those other ones up there that have
been up there already for a long period of time.
They decided, let's stay on schedule, We'll create another mission
to go get Butcher and Sonny. So that's what they
(10:09):
That's what they ended up doing. So it's part of
the reason that they were up there that long, is it.
That was the decision that was made. It wasn't anybody
about He's on the bus.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
At the end of the day, it seems like.
Speaker 5 (10:19):
In the spacecraft, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Maybe what we need to come up with this is
an extra long space craft, like like we have the
Suburban Excels or something.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
Right exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Yeah, So I'm seeing a lot of stories that pop
up on my homepage.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
You talk about Apple.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Kind of losing track of the narrative here when it
comes to their Apple Intelligence. And I got an iPhone sixteen.
It is my first new phone in six years or so,
so I held off. This is supposed to have Apple Intelligence,
This is supposed to be the hot new thing, and
there seemed to be a lot of delays in rolling
this out, at least the full version of it.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
Yeah, that is absolutely the case, and it's expected to
be the major topic of discussion at a pretty high
profile meeting of Apple executives this week. This is their
top one hundred meeting, Their top one hundred executives at
the company meet at an off site location. We don't
really know where, but.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
It's expected to be very.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
Fancy and presumably very minimalist and glamorous in the Apple fashion.
And this is a tradition at Apple that has stretched
back to the Steve Jobs era, and it's generally meant
to get all the sort of leading lights at the
company together so they can discuss the future of Apple,
this hugely prominent and hugely valuable company. Big topic of
(11:34):
discussion is expected to be Apple Intelligence and their continued
struggles with that technology. As a refresher, Apple Intelligence was
first introduced last year at their WWDC Developer conference in
the springtime. They promised a lot with regards to that technology,
that these new AI features were going to reshape how
(11:54):
we interact with our phones and our tablets and our laptops. Well,
almost a year later, a lot of those features have
not yet come to fruition, and that is raising some
major eyebrows at Apple. Bloomberg was the first to report
that kind of the big headline feature of Apple Intelligence,
which was this AI infused version of theory, This big
(12:16):
revamp of their Voice assistant, which had kind of fallen
behind competitors in the space. That is delayed, and Apple
actually confirmed last week that AI theory does not have
a firm release date. They just say it will be
out sometime within the next year. That was all over
the marketing for a lot of Apple intelligence features. This
sort of reason to upgrade your phone or upgrade your
(12:38):
device was to get access to this thing that now
we don't know when it's going to come out. This
really appears to underline this tension between Apple, their AI team,
specifically the people who are building the technology, and the
marketing department. Right the technology is still imperfect. We talk
about this all the time with generative AI. It makes
(12:59):
things up, makes mistakes, it hallucinates. That's not something that
Apple once associated with its three trillion dollar brand, and
I think that's why you're seeing the slow rollout of
this technology. Clearly the marketing department didn't really get that memo,
because that was a big part of the argument for
upgrading to the iPhone sixteen, which, as you outlined at
the beginning here, still doesn't have a lot of these
(13:21):
key features.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Yeah, it seems like Apple is one of these companies
that is a little bit.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
So they allow for Samsung for the Android phones, for
the Google phones, to introduce some other tech, and then
Apple comes in later and really tries to offer a
more perfect version of that tech. We've seen this play
out in the past, but it seems with this AI
they are they're over promising and under delivering in all regards.
(13:48):
What are they going to provide that could potentially be
anything better than we're seeing from what is a Gemini?
Speaker 4 (13:53):
What is the The Google is Gemini and Samsung is
Galaxy AI. Yeah, and you're absolutely right that Apple is
rarely the first to the party, or at least modern
tim cook. Apple is rarely the first, you know, in
a given market segment. They like to sit back, They
like to watch everyone else try something, fail, maybe learn
(14:15):
from those mistakes, and then they arrive kind of late
to the party, but with a really polished product. That
seemed to be the approach they were taking with Apple Intelligence.
Google and Samsung both beat them to market with quote
unquote AI phones. However, there's the larger context here, which
is that the impetus is on Apple to innovate. Right,
(14:37):
the iPhone has not changed in several years. Neither has
the Google Pixel, neither has the Samsung Galaxy S series phones. Right,
they are updated every year, but not in a radical way.
You mentioned at the off that you haven't updated your
phone in six years, and I think a large part
of that is because these phones don't really change radically
(14:57):
from year to year. Maybe every couple of years there
is a big upgrade, but you know, beyond that, it's
tough to get people excited about the smartphone market, in
large part because these phones are pretty good at what
they're intending to do. They all connect to the internet,
make phone calls, good cameras and so on. So AI
kind of came along as this potential game changer, right,
(15:18):
is this thing to get people excited about the market again,
get people to upgrade their phones. But as we've been saying,
the technology is still imperfect. It's still not quite there yet.
And I think that's also the pitfall that you're seeing
Apple fall into. They wanted this to be the thing
that got people excited about upgrading their phones every year,
but it just doesn't quite measure up to their standards
(15:40):
of very polished technology.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Mike Debuski, our ABC News technology reporter, on a Tech Tuesday. Mike,
great catching up with you man, Really appreciate I always
let's talk with you.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Yeah, happy to do it. Take care, Verry good.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Mike Debusky, ABC News pleasure. Can't wait until the next
time we get a chance to talk with Mike. Is
it possible that all the can conspiracy theorist were right?
Speaker 5 (16:02):
And if we don't have.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Evidence that they were right, does that mean that the
conspiracy runs deeper than we ever thought it did.
Speaker 5 (16:11):
We'll find out because we could be getting the truth,
the whole truth, and not all the truth. What next?
Speaker 6 (16:19):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Last time when he said it, he meant it, but
then they redacted a bunch of stuff. Very very bad,
very bad people redacting a lot of things. He now says,
there's a lot in here. I haven't read them all,
but they're very interesting. I haven't read it, but it's
very interesting. This is sort of like me giving a
book report on Little Women. I know it's a classic,
(16:46):
never read it, probably not going to tell you how
interesting it is.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Very interesting, very good read.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
The President said there's about eighty thousand pages that are
going to be released that's.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
A very very lot of pages.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Most people have never even heard of that many pages.
It's like a very big book. It's bigger than a dictionary.
Nobody's ever seen anything like that before. It's like it's
like all the Harry Potter books. Is even bigger than
Harry Potter. It's like Encyclopedia Britannica. I had the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
I had all the volumes except for Q. It was
very small.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Nobody needed Q. There's nothing in the Q volume at all.
It's the worst of all the volumes. But you're gonna
love this. Gonna be unredacted. There's gonna be no redactions,
very few redactions, probably no reactions. I was thinking about redacting,
but I'm not redacting. Haven't read it, but it's unreducted.
(17:44):
That's what we can expect, according to uh, the President.
I guess, So what are we going to learn? Are
we going to figure out that there were actually other
gunmen on the Grassy Knoll? Are we gonna find out
that CBE was behind it the whole time, that this
was all part of Castro's plan? Are we going to
(18:05):
find out that the CIA was in on it? That's
a good question. So I turned to News Nation, who
was talking about the potential for JFK conspiracies coming to light.
Speaker 7 (18:16):
Joining me, now, I have Phil sheenan investigative journalist and
author of a cruel and shocking act, The Secret History
of the Kennedy Assassination. Phil, good morning to you, I mean,
as some of those who has dedicated his career to
Kennedy's assassination. Your hopes and expectations for today, sir, I
look good.
Speaker 5 (18:35):
We really have no idea.
Speaker 8 (18:36):
This seems to have caught everybody by surprise yesterday.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
The guy who is the one of the leading experts
has no idea what to expect.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
That's great. This could be a total surprise, could be
a total dud.
Speaker 8 (18:49):
Eighty thousand documents. I really don't even know what that
refers to. We've previously been told that about thirty four
hundred documents were held back. Now these may be documents
related not to JFK, to his brother RFK, or to
Martin Luther King. But there's a great mystery about what
this is and when it will be released.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Yeah, and it was also fascinating.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Yeah, but he said the Kennedy files, So are they
just rolling it all into like all Kennedy's. We got
to find out that Joe Kennedy had the business dealings
overseas too, or this is not about JFK? Is this
about all Kennedy's.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
Yesterday when we heard the President say he's going to
leave these eighty thousand pages unredacted.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Actually the headline from the New York Times is Trump
promises again to release all Kennedy assassination files. Maybe they
do mean more than just JFK. Yeah, more than one
Kennedy assassinated.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
Ask them to be untouched. Do you think we walk
away with anything new and earth shattering?
Speaker 8 (19:50):
You know, I doubt it in the sense that you
know these We've had these releases periodically since President Trump's
first term, and most of them have turned out to
be pretty unrevealing. You know, there's certain names and addresses
we hadn't seen before. I don't think anything in these
documents will substantially change the history of the assassination. I
don't think they'll point to a second gunman in Dallas,
(20:11):
for example.
Speaker 5 (20:12):
Oh that's what we're all hoping for.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Although if the official documents don't point out a second gunman,
that must mean that there are unofficial documents hiding somewhere
that we're not being privy too.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
What is the government hiding?
Speaker 8 (20:30):
But there have always been these reports that Oswald told
people what he was going to do before the assassination,
and those people might have helped him or encouraged him,
And in that case, you might be talking about a conspiracy,
a conspiracy that really has never been revealed.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Yeah, you bring up the fact that.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Wait a minute, what was the conspiracy That he told
other people that he was going to do it, and.
Speaker 8 (20:50):
Those people might have helped him or encouraged him, and
in that case, you might be talking about a conspiracy,
a conspiracy that really has never been revealed.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Oh, okay, so he acted alone, but that other people
were like, good idea, Lee.
Speaker 7 (21:05):
I guess you bring up the fact that for years
he's been kept private because of identities being kept confidential.
Has that been the crux of why this has all
been secret for so long? Just people's identities who worked
on this case.
Speaker 8 (21:22):
I mean a lot of these documents do identify law
enforcement informants or secret sources for the CIA, people whose
identities should have been protected forty years ago. If those
people are still alive, they'd be very old right now,
and it's not quite clear why they would need to
be protected. And I think a lot of the reason
for withholding all these documents over the years has been
(21:44):
the fact that both the CIA and the FBI had
Lee Harvey Oswald under surveillance, pretty aggressive surveillance in the
weeks before the assassination and after the assassination. They didn't
want to admit that. They didn't want to admit that
they knew a lot about this man. A lot of
these documents refer to this surveillance that's never been fully explained.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Yeah, of course, so they're surveilling the guy and then
the guy goes and kills the president. They don't want
that revealed because the people are going to go, wait
a minute, they were watching this guy, how could this
happen under your nose? And it would have been an
egg on their face. So they didn't want that to happen. Obviously,
Jay Edgar Hoover had a lot of control over information
that was released at the time, and he didn't want that.
(22:25):
He didn't want that embarrassment either.
Speaker 7 (22:26):
If the files were to reveal major new evidence of
a cover up, which I'm assuming I mean you and
I both know what happens when you assume, but I'm.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
Assuming I know what happens you make an ass of
you and me.
Speaker 7 (22:38):
If that were the case, these wouldn't be revealed today.
But what would that mean for public trust in the
government moving forward?
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Nothing?
Speaker 8 (22:46):
Well, you know, any effort at transparency is welcome, even
though it's kind of fifty years late. And you know,
the Kennedy assassination really was the mother load of conspiracy theories.
It's what sort of gave us this era of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
Ooh, he's kind of right.
Speaker 8 (23:01):
The Vietnam War, Watergate, it ran contra everything that followed.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Yeah, but then the Pentagon papers came out and it
proved a lot of those conspiracy theories were true, so
that was a bummer. And then the Watergate proved that
a lot of conspiracy theories about what was going on
behind the scenes were true.
Speaker 5 (23:17):
So yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
The trouble with these conspiracy theories is that in the
sixties and seventies, a lot of them panned out, So
that gave curt blanche to everyone to use their imagination
of whatever could be the wildest of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 8 (23:32):
People believed.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
After the Kennedy assassination.
Speaker 8 (23:34):
The government wouldn't even tell them the truth about how
their president had died, and that suspicion I think has
sort of metastasized into the world we live in today.
Speaker 5 (23:43):
Yeah, totally true.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
So are we going to get any information that changes
anything we know about the Kennedy assassination?
Speaker 5 (23:51):
No, we're not. You're not going to get anything.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Eighty thousand pages unredacted, and what we're going to learn
is like what hotel room he stayed in when he
was visiting his mother, something like that.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
I mean, that'll be it. That's it. That's what you're
gonna get.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Eighty thousand pages of just what TV shows he watched
when he was falling asleep. That'll be it. I hope
I'm wrong because I would love for there to be
blockbuster news, but there won't be, and the conspiracy theories
will continue to flourish simply because there isn't validating information.
It's the beauty of a conspiracy theory, for every day
(24:31):
that you don't validate the conspiracy theory, it grows stronger
than it must be true, and that the conspiracy runs deep.
Speaker 5 (24:39):
There's a good chance.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
If you look around your house you take a look
at those family photos, and there is one. There is
one in that photo you love more than all the others.
It's not the middle child either, as much as they
want to brag about it, it's not. You'll find out
who we're loving the most in the family photos.
Speaker 6 (24:58):
Next, you're listening to Bill Handle on demand from kf
I AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
If you're visiting a friend and you you walk in
and they've got that picture up in the living room
and it's the whole family. They're so excited. You've got
dad who's standing tall. You've got mom who's on a stool,
and Dad's arm is on her shoulder. She's got one
hand on her on her own knee, and then another
hand around one of the children, and the other child
(25:24):
just sitting to the other side of that ratty kid.
So many ratty kids, all piled up. And then below
them is the is the family dog, just happy as
could be to be in the family photo.
Speaker 5 (25:35):
And you look, you look, you look at this, and
you think, what what a lovely family. Right?
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Would you assume that the parents in that photo have
a favorite family member? They all look so happy together.
The answer is yes. First, they have a favorite one,
and it's the dog. Pet Owners are spending over four
grand every year on their pets. Gen z Is lead
the way. They spend over six thousand dollars on their pets.
(26:02):
Millennials at five thousand. Boomers not pets are accessories. They
spend less than twenty five hundred dollars a year on
their pets, and that probably includes medical spending as well.
Pet Owners are willing to make significant sacrifices for their pets.
Sixty three percent say they give up years of their
own lives to stend their own kids. What else would
you give up to extend your pet's life? Would you
(26:23):
forego alcohol for a year? Two thirds say yeah? Would
you get off social media? Two thirds say yeah. Half
of people would give up three years of vacations, half
would give up ten thousand dollars, and about two out
of every five would pass up a job promotion if
it meant prolonging their own pets life.
Speaker 5 (26:43):
And this is turning.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
These stats are turning into a business decision. Pet Co
says their plan is to win back customers that were
lost after the pandemic by letting them know that their
fur babies are indeed their own a pet parent. Where
this turns into troubles. I have a friend of mine
(27:05):
I lose. I use that term loosely. So this friend
of mine goes to one of these restaurants. It's offering
free meals for Father's Day. My friend doesn't have kids,
he's not married, he's not even dating anyone.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
He doesn't, he doesn't have any kids.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
But he goes into the restaurant and he's wearing a
shirt that says cat Daddy on it. And he sits
down and then he says, I'm here for the free meal.
They gave it to him. They gave it to him. Hoffman,
Is that a ya or an a free meal on
Father's Day for pet owners?
Speaker 5 (27:38):
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 9 (27:39):
I love I love my dog, but I wouldn't consider
myself my dog's father. Nope, No, because I saw his
mother and I'm not his mother was a bitch.
Speaker 10 (27:51):
You guys, hey, as a lady, I would like to
defend my brethren. Where I almost said something totally cross,
let's just let's just say restraint has been shown early.
Speaker 5 (28:08):
We're off the rails.
Speaker 10 (28:09):
I think that's more of a people who don't have
kids things.
Speaker 5 (28:14):
But even I don't know.
Speaker 10 (28:16):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (28:17):
No, that's not true.
Speaker 10 (28:18):
I know people who call their their pets their babies
when they've had kids.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
So much lower maintenance. So I don't know.
Speaker 10 (28:25):
It all seems way too much for me.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I've raised three kids and four dogs. They'll think the
dogs any day of the week.
Speaker 9 (28:31):
How old are your kids?
Speaker 5 (28:34):
Thirty twenty? What seven? You like? Thirty? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (28:39):
No, I married old lady with three used kids. So oh,
you know, all broken in a little.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
Bit, broken in a little I'm going to walk away.
Smart move Gary and Shannon up next. I'm looking forward
to the show. Guys. Thanks off on the right foot.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Love it you've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Catch my Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're list Saints KFI AM six forty. The Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Our tech reporter is joining us, Mike. It's a pleasure
talking to you again. It's been a while since you
and I have connected, and I'm so glad that we
get to because of this Tech Tuesday, and I got
to find out what's going on with my Instagram. It
looks like we've got a lot of well trash littering
my insta feed.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (00:26):
So Meta is rolling out a new approach to content moderation,
and that might be kind of what you're seeing in
your feed, though at this point, Meta says that a
lot of this stuff is still in testing that you're
not actually going to see it if you're just kind
of a run of the mill Instagram or Facebook or
threads user. So what are we talking about here. We're
(00:46):
talking about specifically Community Notes. This is their name for
their new approach to content moderation. This is something that
was first previewed back in January when Mark Zuckerberg, the
CEO of Meta, announced that they're moving away from fact checkers.
Community Notes is kind of the thing that's designed to
take the place of those fact checkers. This is a
(01:07):
community based system, a bunch of volunteers from Facebook and
Instagram and threads. Users of those platforms are gathering together
to basically write notes that will appear next to certain
pieces of content on those platforms. And that content, you know,
is thought to be sort of misleading or controversial or
(01:28):
harmful in some way, and these notes are designed to
add a little bit more context to those posts. So
you can imagine election misinformation, misinformation related to public health,
that type of thing. That's the content that we're talking
about here. And they say that they're rolling this out
and testing starting today, but again they want to get
it right, they say, so it's probably not going to
(01:49):
start appearing in your feed at least for the next
few weeks or so.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Mike, I've seen this on x before. Twitter, they've got
something similar, like the community votes. How do they decide?
Because if there's something that is blatantly wrong, for instance,
say you've got a flat earther that posts something and
then people are going to say obviously that's wrong, They're
going to issue a community notes.
Speaker 5 (02:13):
Deal.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
There must be tens of thousands of people that are
trying to put a community note on somebody's post. How
do they pick which one they're going to go with?
Is it the one that's the most popular, does it
get up votes of some sort? How do they know
which community note rides with that post.
Speaker 4 (02:30):
It's a great question, and it's part of the system
that they're figuring out right now, part of the reason
that you're probably not going to see a community note
in the next week or two as they figure this out.
So you're right to mention X there they are, of course,
formerly Twitter, they have used a community notes system for
the past few years, and Meta is actually borrowing an
(02:50):
algorithm from them, an open source algorithm that X is
made available to other social media platforms. This algorithm gets
at exactly what you were describing there. How do we
evaluate the validity of a note, the helpfulness of a note?
This algorithm is designed to do that. Because metas drawn
from a wait list about two hundred thousand volunteers. There's
(03:11):
a lot of people, a lot of different opinions, a
lot of different perspectives, and they kind of have to
coalesce behind one common note to add to any given post.
That's kind of complicated. So Meta says they want these
volunteers to come from a range of backgrounds. They want
people who you know, disagree normally to agree on the
(03:32):
content of a note, and all of that is going
to be decided by this algorithm. So there's still a
little bit of technology at play. It's not a purely
you know, like human system at the end of the day,
but ultimately these notes are going to be written by humans.
The algorithm will just dictate kind of the people who
(03:52):
are able to contribute to.
Speaker 3 (03:54):
Each specific note.
Speaker 4 (03:55):
So that's their idea that they're using this algorithm to
kind of draw from a range of different ideas and perspectives.
It's all part of this broader effort from CEO Mark
Zuckerberg to make things a little bit less moderated on
their platforms. He says they're stepping away not just from
fact checking, but from moderating content in general, handing it
(04:16):
a little bit more over to the communities on those platforms.
He says this is all part of an effort to
cut down on bias. He says this is a better
way to address bias on these platforms. He says the
old fact checking system made too many mistakes and overly
censored these platforms, and this is a better way to
do it.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
I'm interested in this, Mike, because the philosophy geek in
me says, doesn't this doesn't this invite by doesn't this
invite group bias?
Speaker 5 (04:47):
In Uh, it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
It isn't necessarily more accurate as much as it's it's
more of a democratic system where whatever the popular opinion
is will be considered the community.
Speaker 5 (04:57):
Note, I suppose.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
But is that less is it less biased or are
we just playcating a different bias.
Speaker 4 (05:04):
Yeah, it is popularity correct necessarily, and that's the sort
of that's a very philosophical question at the end of
the day. That is a problem with the community note system.
This is something that you've seen crop up on X before,
which is that these are kind of easy to game,
these community notes. You can imagine people who are volunteers here.
They can kind of get together and make sort of
(05:26):
a jokey note or a note that might not be
totally correct, but you know it agrees with their politics
or their viewpoint or whatever it happens to be. That
is a potential way to gain this system.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
That's something that Meta is going to need to figure out.
Speaker 4 (05:40):
In addition to that, there's also just a logistical problem here, right,
Things so viral very quickly on these platforms. Billions of
people use metas products, and many of them get their
news from these platforms. That means that the length of
time it takes for a note to go from being
thought of to something that you can actually see in
(06:00):
your feed, it's going to be really important if something
goes viral and is seen by a lot of people
before a note shows up. As people are as the
volunteers are trying to figure out specific wording or whether
a note is helpful or not, you know, the damage
might have already been done by the time that note
shows up, and that's another thing that they're going to
need to address as they continue to roll this out
over the.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Next few weeks or so.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
For what it's worth, these notes aren't going to impact
the relative virality of any given post and the old
way of doing things in the fact checking system, you know,
a subject matter expert, a lawyer or political scientist, a doctor,
what have you would go in and say, yes, this
is definitively a piece of misinformation that could do harm. Right,
this is misinformation about the pandemic, for instance. Then Meta
(06:45):
would go in and down rank that piece of content,
they would allow it to not show up in as
many people's feeds in order to cut down on the
potential harm for it to do. Mark Sarthborg says they
overdid that, right, They over cranked that lever, and they
ended up with a biased system. These notes will not
impact the virality of any given post. Just because a
(07:06):
post has a note on it doesn't mean that it
won't go viral. That you might still see it. You'll
just see it with a note next to it.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
Again, more popular means more eyeballs on it, and spreading
the misinformation is allowed, especially if you get more people
in their community and notes that spread their own biases. Interesting, like,
it's very it's very interesting. Mike Debusky is our ABC
News technology reporter. Mike, stick around for just a second.
I want to talk about I'm seeing some stuff about
(07:34):
Apple and people are mad at Apple for over promising
and under delivering. I want to talk about that, and
if you don't mind, I'll slide in some of the
astronaut news here when we come back as well. We'll
continue with Tech Tuesday.
Speaker 6 (07:48):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Joining me is Mike Debuski, our ABC News Technology reporter.
Speaker 5 (07:57):
It is Tech Tuesday. Mike.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
I'm very excited. I wanted to just share this audio briefly.
This is the This was the sound as our an
astronauts made their way away from the space station. All
hooks are open, open hookers and on doc and confirmed.
Speaker 5 (08:18):
Freedom is free of its moorings. Freedom is free. Sonny
Williams and Butch Wilmore began a lot there.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
It is on their way home from ABC. Uh So, Mike,
that's exciting. It's been months or something since they.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Were up there.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
That's yes, I believe I'm writing saying that there. It's
the longest uh time that anyone has spent up there,
or at least a much longer than they planned.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Certainly they planned right, a little shy of the record.
I think the record is just over a year. But yeah,
they were supposed topt there for what a week?
Speaker 4 (08:50):
And then yeah, that's these I understand it. It was
kind of just a routine mission and then you know,
one thing led to another and.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Here we are.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
As a matter of fact, we spoke here at ABC
and Radio Department to one of the astronauts who was
supposed to be on that mission who ended up being
cut from it originally to go up and relieve those
astronauts who are up there, and that was in sort
of June of last year.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
So, you know, good ed its decites that they've been.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Up there for a long time, but it's good to
know that they're coming home.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
Yeah, Mike, I know that there was a bit of controversy.
I'm not going to put you on the spot on this.
I'm just going to wax here not so poetically for
a moment. There was a bit of controversy around that,
especially when we had a president that came out and
said Biden left them up there, just totally abandoned them,
ditched them in space there, left them up there.
Speaker 5 (09:35):
Not exactly the case.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
There's always a contingency plan if something goes awry, there
are supplies that are sent.
Speaker 5 (09:42):
And there was another.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Mission that was planned to bring other astronauts back home
that had already been up there. So then the decision
had to be made, did we bring the other astronauts
back on schedule, or do we bring these astronauts back
and then leave those other ones up there that have
been up there already for a long period of time.
They decided, let's stay on schedule, We'll create another mission
to go get Butcher and Sonny. So that's what they
(10:09):
That's what they ended up doing. So it's part of
the reason that they were up there that long, is it.
That was the decision that was made. It wasn't anybody
about He's on the bus.
Speaker 3 (10:16):
At the end of the day, it seems like.
Speaker 5 (10:19):
In the spacecraft, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Maybe what we need to come up with this is
an extra long space craft, like like we have the
Suburban Excels or something.
Speaker 5 (10:28):
Right exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
Yeah, So I'm seeing a lot of stories that pop
up on my homepage.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
You talk about Apple.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Kind of losing track of the narrative here when it
comes to their Apple Intelligence. And I got an iPhone sixteen.
It is my first new phone in six years or so,
so I held off. This is supposed to have Apple Intelligence,
This is supposed to be the hot new thing, and
there seemed to be a lot of delays in rolling
this out, at least the full version of it.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
Yeah, that is absolutely the case, and it's expected to
be the major topic of discussion at a pretty high
profile meeting of Apple executives this week. This is their
top one hundred meeting, Their top one hundred executives at
the company meet at an off site location. We don't
really know where, but.
Speaker 3 (11:11):
It's expected to be very.
Speaker 4 (11:12):
Fancy and presumably very minimalist and glamorous in the Apple fashion.
And this is a tradition at Apple that has stretched
back to the Steve Jobs era, and it's generally meant
to get all the sort of leading lights at the
company together so they can discuss the future of Apple,
this hugely prominent and hugely valuable company. Big topic of
(11:34):
discussion is expected to be Apple Intelligence and their continued
struggles with that technology. As a refresher, Apple Intelligence was
first introduced last year at their WWDC Developer conference in
the springtime. They promised a lot with regards to that technology,
that these new AI features were going to reshape how
(11:54):
we interact with our phones and our tablets and our laptops. Well,
almost a year later, a lot of those features have
not yet come to fruition, and that is raising some
major eyebrows at Apple. Bloomberg was the first to report
that kind of the big headline feature of Apple Intelligence,
which was this AI infused version of theory, This big
(12:16):
revamp of their Voice assistant, which had kind of fallen
behind competitors in the space. That is delayed, and Apple
actually confirmed last week that AI theory does not have
a firm release date. They just say it will be
out sometime within the next year. That was all over
the marketing for a lot of Apple intelligence features. This
sort of reason to upgrade your phone or upgrade your
(12:38):
device was to get access to this thing that now
we don't know when it's going to come out. This
really appears to underline this tension between Apple, their AI team,
specifically the people who are building the technology, and the
marketing department. Right the technology is still imperfect. We talk
about this all the time with generative AI. It makes
(12:59):
things up, makes mistakes, it hallucinates. That's not something that
Apple once associated with its three trillion dollar brand, and
I think that's why you're seeing the slow rollout of
this technology. Clearly the marketing department didn't really get that memo,
because that was a big part of the argument for
upgrading to the iPhone sixteen, which, as you outlined at
the beginning here, still doesn't have a lot of these
(13:21):
key features.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
Yeah, it seems like Apple is one of these companies
that is a little bit.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
So they allow for Samsung for the Android phones, for
the Google phones, to introduce some other tech, and then
Apple comes in later and really tries to offer a
more perfect version of that tech. We've seen this play
out in the past, but it seems with this AI
they are they're over promising and under delivering in all regards.
(13:48):
What are they going to provide that could potentially be
anything better than we're seeing from what is a Gemini?
Speaker 4 (13:53):
What is the The Google is Gemini and Samsung is
Galaxy AI. Yeah, and you're absolutely right that Apple is
rarely the first to the party, or at least modern
tim cook. Apple is rarely the first, you know, in
a given market segment. They like to sit back, They
like to watch everyone else try something, fail, maybe learn
(14:15):
from those mistakes, and then they arrive kind of late
to the party, but with a really polished product. That
seemed to be the approach they were taking with Apple Intelligence.
Google and Samsung both beat them to market with quote
unquote AI phones. However, there's the larger context here, which
is that the impetus is on Apple to innovate. Right,
(14:37):
the iPhone has not changed in several years. Neither has
the Google Pixel, neither has the Samsung Galaxy S series phones. Right,
they are updated every year, but not in a radical way.
You mentioned at the off that you haven't updated your
phone in six years, and I think a large part
of that is because these phones don't really change radically
(14:57):
from year to year. Maybe every couple of years there
is a big upgrade, but you know, beyond that, it's
tough to get people excited about the smartphone market, in
large part because these phones are pretty good at what
they're intending to do. They all connect to the internet,
make phone calls, good cameras and so on. So AI
kind of came along as this potential game changer, right,
(15:18):
is this thing to get people excited about the market again,
get people to upgrade their phones. But as we've been saying,
the technology is still imperfect. It's still not quite there yet.
And I think that's also the pitfall that you're seeing
Apple fall into. They wanted this to be the thing
that got people excited about upgrading their phones every year,
but it just doesn't quite measure up to their standards
(15:40):
of very polished technology.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Mike Debuski, our ABC News technology reporter, on a Tech Tuesday. Mike,
great catching up with you man, Really appreciate I always
let's talk with you.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Yeah, happy to do it. Take care, Verry good.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
Mike Debusky, ABC News pleasure. Can't wait until the next
time we get a chance to talk with Mike. Is
it possible that all the can conspiracy theorist were right?
Speaker 5 (16:02):
And if we don't have.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Evidence that they were right, does that mean that the
conspiracy runs deeper than we ever thought it did.
Speaker 5 (16:11):
We'll find out because we could be getting the truth,
the whole truth, and not all the truth. What next?
Speaker 6 (16:19):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (16:24):
Last time when he said it, he meant it, but
then they redacted a bunch of stuff. Very very bad,
very bad people redacting a lot of things. He now says,
there's a lot in here. I haven't read them all,
but they're very interesting. I haven't read it, but it's
very interesting. This is sort of like me giving a
book report on Little Women. I know it's a classic,
(16:46):
never read it, probably not going to tell you how
interesting it is.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Very interesting, very good read.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
The President said there's about eighty thousand pages that are
going to be released that's.
Speaker 5 (16:57):
A very very lot of pages.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Most people have never even heard of that many pages.
It's like a very big book. It's bigger than a dictionary.
Nobody's ever seen anything like that before. It's like it's
like all the Harry Potter books. Is even bigger than
Harry Potter. It's like Encyclopedia Britannica. I had the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
I had all the volumes except for Q. It was
very small.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
Nobody needed Q. There's nothing in the Q volume at all.
It's the worst of all the volumes. But you're gonna
love this. Gonna be unredacted. There's gonna be no redactions,
very few redactions, probably no reactions. I was thinking about redacting,
but I'm not redacting. Haven't read it, but it's unreducted.
(17:44):
That's what we can expect, according to uh, the President.
I guess, So what are we going to learn? Are
we going to figure out that there were actually other
gunmen on the Grassy Knoll? Are we gonna find out
that CBE was behind it the whole time, that this
was all part of Castro's plan? Are we going to
(18:05):
find out that the CIA was in on it? That's
a good question. So I turned to News Nation, who
was talking about the potential for JFK conspiracies coming to light.
Speaker 7 (18:16):
Joining me, now, I have Phil sheenan investigative journalist and
author of a cruel and shocking act, The Secret History
of the Kennedy Assassination. Phil, good morning to you, I mean,
as some of those who has dedicated his career to
Kennedy's assassination. Your hopes and expectations for today, sir, I
look good.
Speaker 5 (18:35):
We really have no idea.
Speaker 8 (18:36):
This seems to have caught everybody by surprise yesterday.
Speaker 2 (18:39):
The guy who is the one of the leading experts
has no idea what to expect.
Speaker 5 (18:45):
That's great. This could be a total surprise, could be
a total dud.
Speaker 8 (18:49):
Eighty thousand documents. I really don't even know what that
refers to. We've previously been told that about thirty four
hundred documents were held back. Now these may be documents
related not to JFK, to his brother RFK, or to
Martin Luther King. But there's a great mystery about what
this is and when it will be released.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Yeah, and it was also fascinating.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Yeah, but he said the Kennedy files, So are they
just rolling it all into like all Kennedy's. We got
to find out that Joe Kennedy had the business dealings
overseas too, or this is not about JFK? Is this
about all Kennedy's.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
Yesterday when we heard the President say he's going to
leave these eighty thousand pages unredacted.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
Actually the headline from the New York Times is Trump
promises again to release all Kennedy assassination files. Maybe they
do mean more than just JFK. Yeah, more than one
Kennedy assassinated.
Speaker 7 (19:44):
Ask them to be untouched. Do you think we walk
away with anything new and earth shattering?
Speaker 8 (19:50):
You know, I doubt it in the sense that you
know these We've had these releases periodically since President Trump's
first term, and most of them have turned out to
be pretty unrevealing. You know, there's certain names and addresses
we hadn't seen before. I don't think anything in these
documents will substantially change the history of the assassination. I
don't think they'll point to a second gunman in Dallas,
(20:11):
for example.
Speaker 5 (20:12):
Oh that's what we're all hoping for.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
Although if the official documents don't point out a second gunman,
that must mean that there are unofficial documents hiding somewhere
that we're not being privy too.
Speaker 5 (20:28):
What is the government hiding?
Speaker 8 (20:30):
But there have always been these reports that Oswald told
people what he was going to do before the assassination,
and those people might have helped him or encouraged him,
And in that case, you might be talking about a conspiracy,
a conspiracy that really has never been revealed.
Speaker 7 (20:43):
Yeah, you bring up the fact that.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Wait a minute, what was the conspiracy That he told
other people that he was going to do it, and.
Speaker 8 (20:50):
Those people might have helped him or encouraged him, and
in that case, you might be talking about a conspiracy,
a conspiracy that really has never been revealed.
Speaker 2 (20:57):
Oh, okay, so he acted alone, but that other people
were like, good idea, Lee.
Speaker 7 (21:05):
I guess you bring up the fact that for years
he's been kept private because of identities being kept confidential.
Has that been the crux of why this has all
been secret for so long? Just people's identities who worked
on this case.
Speaker 8 (21:22):
I mean a lot of these documents do identify law
enforcement informants or secret sources for the CIA, people whose
identities should have been protected forty years ago. If those
people are still alive, they'd be very old right now,
and it's not quite clear why they would need to
be protected. And I think a lot of the reason
for withholding all these documents over the years has been
(21:44):
the fact that both the CIA and the FBI had
Lee Harvey Oswald under surveillance, pretty aggressive surveillance in the
weeks before the assassination and after the assassination. They didn't
want to admit that. They didn't want to admit that
they knew a lot about this man. A lot of
these documents refer to this surveillance that's never been fully explained.
Speaker 2 (22:04):
Yeah, of course, so they're surveilling the guy and then
the guy goes and kills the president. They don't want
that revealed because the people are going to go, wait
a minute, they were watching this guy, how could this
happen under your nose? And it would have been an
egg on their face. So they didn't want that to happen. Obviously,
Jay Edgar Hoover had a lot of control over information
that was released at the time, and he didn't want that.
(22:25):
He didn't want that embarrassment either.
Speaker 7 (22:26):
If the files were to reveal major new evidence of
a cover up, which I'm assuming I mean you and
I both know what happens when you assume, but I'm.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
Assuming I know what happens you make an ass of
you and me.
Speaker 7 (22:38):
If that were the case, these wouldn't be revealed today.
But what would that mean for public trust in the
government moving forward?
Speaker 5 (22:45):
Nothing?
Speaker 8 (22:46):
Well, you know, any effort at transparency is welcome, even
though it's kind of fifty years late. And you know,
the Kennedy assassination really was the mother load of conspiracy theories.
It's what sort of gave us this era of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
Ooh, he's kind of right.
Speaker 8 (23:01):
The Vietnam War, Watergate, it ran contra everything that followed.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
Yeah, but then the Pentagon papers came out and it
proved a lot of those conspiracy theories were true, so
that was a bummer. And then the Watergate proved that
a lot of conspiracy theories about what was going on
behind the scenes were true.
Speaker 5 (23:17):
So yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
The trouble with these conspiracy theories is that in the
sixties and seventies, a lot of them panned out, So
that gave curt blanche to everyone to use their imagination
of whatever could be the wildest of conspiracy theories.
Speaker 8 (23:32):
People believed.
Speaker 5 (23:33):
After the Kennedy assassination.
Speaker 8 (23:34):
The government wouldn't even tell them the truth about how
their president had died, and that suspicion I think has
sort of metastasized into the world we live in today.
Speaker 5 (23:43):
Yeah, totally true.
Speaker 2 (23:45):
So are we going to get any information that changes
anything we know about the Kennedy assassination?
Speaker 5 (23:51):
No, we're not. You're not going to get anything.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Eighty thousand pages unredacted, and what we're going to learn
is like what hotel room he stayed in when he
was visiting his mother, something like that.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
I mean, that'll be it. That's it. That's what you're
gonna get.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
Eighty thousand pages of just what TV shows he watched
when he was falling asleep. That'll be it. I hope
I'm wrong because I would love for there to be
blockbuster news, but there won't be, and the conspiracy theories
will continue to flourish simply because there isn't validating information.
It's the beauty of a conspiracy theory, for every day
(24:31):
that you don't validate the conspiracy theory, it grows stronger
than it must be true, and that the conspiracy runs deep.
Speaker 5 (24:39):
There's a good chance.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
If you look around your house you take a look
at those family photos, and there is one. There is
one in that photo you love more than all the others.
It's not the middle child either, as much as they
want to brag about it, it's not. You'll find out
who we're loving the most in the family photos.
Speaker 6 (24:58):
Next, you're listening to Bill Handle on demand from kf
I AM six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
If you're visiting a friend and you you walk in
and they've got that picture up in the living room
and it's the whole family. They're so excited. You've got
dad who's standing tall. You've got mom who's on a stool,
and Dad's arm is on her shoulder. She's got one
hand on her on her own knee, and then another
hand around one of the children, and the other child
(25:24):
just sitting to the other side of that ratty kid.
So many ratty kids, all piled up. And then below
them is the is the family dog, just happy as
could be to be in the family photo.
Speaker 5 (25:35):
And you look, you look, you look at this, and
you think, what what a lovely family. Right?
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Would you assume that the parents in that photo have
a favorite family member? They all look so happy together.
The answer is yes. First, they have a favorite one,
and it's the dog. Pet Owners are spending over four
grand every year on their pets. Gen z Is lead
the way. They spend over six thousand dollars on their pets.
(26:02):
Millennials at five thousand. Boomers not pets are accessories. They
spend less than twenty five hundred dollars a year on
their pets, and that probably includes medical spending as well.
Pet Owners are willing to make significant sacrifices for their pets.
Sixty three percent say they give up years of their
own lives to stend their own kids. What else would
you give up to extend your pet's life? Would you
(26:23):
forego alcohol for a year? Two thirds say yeah? Would
you get off social media? Two thirds say yeah. Half
of people would give up three years of vacations, half
would give up ten thousand dollars, and about two out
of every five would pass up a job promotion if
it meant prolonging their own pets life.
Speaker 5 (26:43):
And this is turning.
Speaker 2 (26:44):
These stats are turning into a business decision. Pet Co
says their plan is to win back customers that were
lost after the pandemic by letting them know that their
fur babies are indeed their own a pet parent. Where
this turns into troubles. I have a friend of mine
(27:05):
I lose. I use that term loosely. So this friend
of mine goes to one of these restaurants. It's offering
free meals for Father's Day. My friend doesn't have kids,
he's not married, he's not even dating anyone.
Speaker 5 (27:17):
He doesn't, he doesn't have any kids.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
But he goes into the restaurant and he's wearing a
shirt that says cat Daddy on it. And he sits
down and then he says, I'm here for the free meal.
They gave it to him. They gave it to him. Hoffman,
Is that a ya or an a free meal on
Father's Day for pet owners?
Speaker 5 (27:38):
That doesn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 9 (27:39):
I love I love my dog, but I wouldn't consider
myself my dog's father. Nope, No, because I saw his
mother and I'm not his mother was a bitch.
Speaker 10 (27:51):
You guys, hey, as a lady, I would like to
defend my brethren. Where I almost said something totally cross,
let's just let's just say restraint has been shown early.
Speaker 5 (28:08):
We're off the rails.
Speaker 10 (28:09):
I think that's more of a people who don't have
kids things.
Speaker 5 (28:14):
But even I don't know.
Speaker 10 (28:16):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (28:17):
No, that's not true.
Speaker 10 (28:18):
I know people who call their their pets their babies
when they've had kids.
Speaker 5 (28:22):
So much lower maintenance. So I don't know.
Speaker 10 (28:25):
It all seems way too much for me.
Speaker 2 (28:27):
I've raised three kids and four dogs. They'll think the
dogs any day of the week.
Speaker 9 (28:31):
How old are your kids?
Speaker 5 (28:34):
Thirty twenty? What seven? You like? Thirty? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (28:39):
No, I married old lady with three used kids. So oh,
you know, all broken in a little.
Speaker 5 (28:46):
Bit, broken in a little I'm going to walk away.
Smart move Gary and Shannon up next. I'm looking forward
to the show. Guys. Thanks off on the right foot.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Love it you've been listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Catch my Show Monday through Friday six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.