There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm Bridget Todd and this is there are No Girls on the Internet. I'm here with my producer Mike and here's what you may have missed this week on the Internet. So, in news that will probably shock no one, it turns out Twitter under Elon Musk is not doing a very good job of dealing with anti LGBTQU hate speech on the platform. Who would have guessed, Am I right?

There Are No Girls on the Internet. As a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative, I'm Bridget Todd and this is there are No Girls on the Internet. I'm here with my producer Mike and here's what you may have missed this week on the Internet. So, in news that will probably shock no one, it turns out Twitter under Elon Musk is not doing a very good job of dealing with anti LGBTQU hate speech on the platform. Who would have guessed, Am I right?

You know, savvy listeners might have guessed.

You know, savvy listeners might have guessed.

So this is all According to glad's annual report on the Safety of Social media Platforms for LGBTQ users. GOD said that all five of the major social media platforms examined had taken steps to improve safety over the past year, with the single exception of Twitter. Twitter not only scored the lowest but also changed its policies to become even less safe. I gotta say that one is sort of personal for me. Policies that I personally worked on in my platform accountability work. It was a little bit rough to see them rolled back, but you know that is to be expected when you're dealing with somebody like Elon Musk who just clearly does not take these issues seriously.

So this is all According to glad's annual report on the Safety of Social media Platforms for LGBTQ users. GOD said that all five of the major social media platforms examined had taken steps to improve safety over the past year, with the single exception of Twitter. Twitter not only scored the lowest but also changed its policies to become even less safe. I gotta say that one is sort of personal for me. Policies that I personally worked on in my platform accountability work. It was a little bit rough to see them rolled back, but you know that is to be expected when you're dealing with somebody like Elon Musk who just clearly does not take these issues seriously.

Sometimes it's easy to feel like progress is inevitable towards a more inclusive world where we all recognize that other people are valuable and respect them. But that's not something that is inevitable, and it is due to the hard work of people like you Bridget who push and fight to make that positive change happen. And it's awesome when it does. And then there are times like this where there's a reminder that there are counter forces who will push back against it.

Sometimes it's easy to feel like progress is inevitable towards a more inclusive world where we all recognize that other people are valuable and respect them. But that's not something that is inevitable, and it is due to the hard work of people like you Bridget who push and fight to make that positive change happen. And it's awesome when it does. And then there are times like this where there's a reminder that there are counter forces who will push back against it.

I say this and I mean it pretty much how it sounds that whenever a tech company does something good nine times out of ten and is not because they went to bed and woke up and their their hearts grew three sizes like the Grinch's heart when it breaks out of that thing. Usually there is someone, an organizer, a professional pain in the ass who is pushing them to be better. And so I means, as much as I hate that Twitter is is not just failing to moderate their platforms in a way that allows for LGBTQ users to feel safe there, and you know is actually rolling back those policies, it is good to see that other platforms are taking some steps in the right direction.

I say this and I mean it pretty much how it sounds that whenever a tech company does something good nine times out of ten and is not because they went to bed and woke up and their their hearts grew three sizes like the Grinch's heart when it breaks out of that thing. Usually there is someone, an organizer, a professional pain in the ass who is pushing them to be better. And so I means, as much as I hate that Twitter is is not just failing to moderate their platforms in a way that allows for LGBTQ users to feel safe there, and you know is actually rolling back those policies, it is good to see that other platforms are taking some steps in the right direction.

Yeah, that's right. Twitter is an outlier here, right, even among like Facebook and YouTube, Twitter is an outlier in rolling back protections for LGBTQ people. So that's worth noting.

Yeah, that's right. Twitter is an outlier here, right, even among like Facebook and YouTube, Twitter is an outlier in rolling back protections for LGBTQ people. So that's worth noting.

So the reports scored each platform in twelve areas of specific relevance to LGBTQ users, like the platform should have a policy that to protect LGBTQ users from hate, and the platform should have a policy that prohibits targeted dead naming. I really think this should really be a wake up call that Twitter under Elon Musk is really going out of its way to signal that anti trans, anti LGBTQ hate is welcome on the platform. And I think it's a problem because it leaves marginalized people out of the conversation and it keeps us from being able to be equal participants in our discourse and democracy. For a platform that wants to be the public square, that is really a problem. You know, Twitter is the place where news is broken, where stories become news. It moves so much faster than other platforms like Facebook or Instagram that I think that's one of the reasons why you see this battle for it, and like it's really a proxy war for power and who gets to take up space and who gets to be part of the conversation. The fact that because of Elon Musk rolling back what little policies there were to protect LGBTQ users, that anti trans bigots would feel comfortable showing up there and feel embolden and empowered, which sounds like what is happening is a real problem for a platform that heretofore have been about, you know, making news where journalists and newsmakers are congregating, and so if people don't feel safe or good about spending time there, that's a real problem. And I also think it's not just an issue of you know, the user experience of LGBTQ users. It's also about the security and the safety of these platforms, because when extremists and hate bongers are allowed to gather in these platforms, they become less secure, they become more polarized, they're easier to have bad actors disrupt them. And so it's not just it is about the LGBTQ users and their experiences online, but also it makes it less secure and less safe for all of us, whether you identify its LGBTQ.

So the reports scored each platform in twelve areas of specific relevance to LGBTQ users, like the platform should have a policy that to protect LGBTQ users from hate, and the platform should have a policy that prohibits targeted dead naming. I really think this should really be a wake up call that Twitter under Elon Musk is really going out of its way to signal that anti trans, anti LGBTQ hate is welcome on the platform. And I think it's a problem because it leaves marginalized people out of the conversation and it keeps us from being able to be equal participants in our discourse and democracy. For a platform that wants to be the public square, that is really a problem. You know, Twitter is the place where news is broken, where stories become news. It moves so much faster than other platforms like Facebook or Instagram that I think that's one of the reasons why you see this battle for it, and like it's really a proxy war for power and who gets to take up space and who gets to be part of the conversation. The fact that because of Elon Musk rolling back what little policies there were to protect LGBTQ users, that anti trans bigots would feel comfortable showing up there and feel embolden and empowered, which sounds like what is happening is a real problem for a platform that heretofore have been about, you know, making news where journalists and newsmakers are congregating, and so if people don't feel safe or good about spending time there, that's a real problem. And I also think it's not just an issue of you know, the user experience of LGBTQ users. It's also about the security and the safety of these platforms, because when extremists and hate bongers are allowed to gather in these platforms, they become less secure, they become more polarized, they're easier to have bad actors disrupt them. And so it's not just it is about the LGBTQ users and their experiences online, but also it makes it less secure and less safe for all of us, whether you identify its LGBTQ.

Or not absolutely like it is about the LGBTQ users, but also it's not about them, right like the right wing fascist types who love to hate, they're going to find somebody. It's always going to be somebody. So yes, it's about them, but no, it's not about them. It's about oppression.

Or not absolutely like it is about the LGBTQ users, but also it's not about them, right like the right wing fascist types who love to hate, they're going to find somebody. It's always going to be somebody. So yes, it's about them, but no, it's not about them. It's about oppression.

Folks can read the full report in our show notes. But in addition to ranking the platforms for LGBTQ safety, the report also highlights other dangerous trends on platforms. One of those trends is called stochastic harassment. If you don't know what that is, it is a form of harassment where online accounts or media figures don't directly attack individuals or call for violence, but instead amplify a general narrative that indirectly dehumanizes specific groups, in doing so, increasing the likelihood that others will engage in such violence. A great example right now would be the groomer narrative, which we know like baselessly claims that queer folks and their allies are trying to recruit children into sexual acts. We talked quite a bit about this in our opening episode this season with Nina Jenkowitz. How you know Tucker Carlson would spend hours talking about her on Fox News, never directly threatening her, but people would get the message.

Folks can read the full report in our show notes. But in addition to ranking the platforms for LGBTQ safety, the report also highlights other dangerous trends on platforms. One of those trends is called stochastic harassment. If you don't know what that is, it is a form of harassment where online accounts or media figures don't directly attack individuals or call for violence, but instead amplify a general narrative that indirectly dehumanizes specific groups, in doing so, increasing the likelihood that others will engage in such violence. A great example right now would be the groomer narrative, which we know like baselessly claims that queer folks and their allies are trying to recruit children into sexual acts. We talked quite a bit about this in our opening episode this season with Nina Jenkowitz. How you know Tucker Carlson would spend hours talking about her on Fox News, never directly threatening her, but people would get the message.

You know.

You know.

Trump did a lot of this where he would specifically call out black women or women of color journalists by name to his like fan base and followers, never saying, you know, harassed this person, attack this person, but it was a kind of a wink wink, nudge nudge thing where people would get the message pretty quickly.

Trump did a lot of this where he would specifically call out black women or women of color journalists by name to his like fan base and followers, never saying, you know, harassed this person, attack this person, but it was a kind of a wink wink, nudge nudge thing where people would get the message pretty quickly.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I thought it was a really interesting part of that Glad report that they called that out explicitly, because I had never heard that term before, stochastic harassment, and it's it's so common now that we have a term for it. We see it everywhere in Nina Jenkowitch was a great example where, you know, and Trump is a master of it, right of never directly explicitly calling for violence against a particular person, but talking about them in a way that just incites all theirs to violence.

I thought it was a really interesting part of that Glad report that they called that out explicitly, because I had never heard that term before, stochastic harassment, and it's it's so common now that we have a term for it. We see it everywhere in Nina Jenkowitch was a great example where, you know, and Trump is a master of it, right of never directly explicitly calling for violence against a particular person, but talking about them in a way that just incites all theirs to violence.

Yeah, I've definitely seen right wing extremists are so good at this. They're so good at knowing what to say to have that sheen of plausible deniability where it's like, oh, well, I never said to attack so and so, I never said to storm the capitol. I never said to do this, but it's just like, well, here are eighteen different examples where you all but said that. So knowing how to stay right on that line is something that these folks are very good at. And that's something that the Glad Report really spotlights that folks are really utilizing this as a loophole in social media platforms policies, which is contributing to the rising tide of anti lgbtqu hate and legislation that we're all currently living through. And so it's this is all very distressing. It's like hard to hear, but it's good to have some insight into this. You know, for a long time, we would only have social media's companies and they're like pr leadership to be able to like have any understanding of what's going on on these platforms. And so having visibility into this is good because that's really going to be the first step of creating a better system where folks can show up and meaningfully make their voices heard on digital platforms, you know, the same way that all of us deserve to.

Yeah, I've definitely seen right wing extremists are so good at this. They're so good at knowing what to say to have that sheen of plausible deniability where it's like, oh, well, I never said to attack so and so, I never said to storm the capitol. I never said to do this, but it's just like, well, here are eighteen different examples where you all but said that. So knowing how to stay right on that line is something that these folks are very good at. And that's something that the Glad Report really spotlights that folks are really utilizing this as a loophole in social media platforms policies, which is contributing to the rising tide of anti lgbtqu hate and legislation that we're all currently living through. And so it's this is all very distressing. It's like hard to hear, but it's good to have some insight into this. You know, for a long time, we would only have social media's companies and they're like pr leadership to be able to like have any understanding of what's going on on these platforms. And so having visibility into this is good because that's really going to be the first step of creating a better system where folks can show up and meaningfully make their voices heard on digital platforms, you know, the same way that all of us deserve to.

In public health, one of the things we say sometimes is that like if you don't measure something it doesn't exist. And so I think it's extremely valuable that GLAD is measuring these policies with respect to how they protect LGBTQ people to show up online and you know how that contributes to a more to an inclusive internet where we can all show up and enjoy the internet. You know, who doesn't want to enjoy the internet exactly.

In public health, one of the things we say sometimes is that like if you don't measure something it doesn't exist. And so I think it's extremely valuable that GLAD is measuring these policies with respect to how they protect LGBTQ people to show up online and you know how that contributes to a more to an inclusive internet where we can all show up and enjoy the internet. You know, who doesn't want to enjoy the internet exactly.

And I do think that something that did not get enough attention is the very clear ways that Elon Musk's ownership of Twitter, the way that he's running Twitter is connected to transphobia. Documents revealed that it was a protecting the ability of the Babylon Bee to say a transphobia joke about Rachel Levine, who is a trans woman in the Biden administration. Uh, that was the thing that first prompted him like, I gotta buy Twitter this, you know, and make it make it a free a quote free speech haven. And so he's been pretty clear that transphobia is a big part of his mo O. And we you know, I don't think I would be telling tales out of school to say that his ownership of Twitter has been a disaster by pretty much every metric. He's losing money, it's bleeding users people. It's not a fun place to show up anymore. And I think that's the thing that's the gag about transphobia is that doubling down on transphobia is unpopular. It makes it makes everything worse.

And I do think that something that did not get enough attention is the very clear ways that Elon Musk's ownership of Twitter, the way that he's running Twitter is connected to transphobia. Documents revealed that it was a protecting the ability of the Babylon Bee to say a transphobia joke about Rachel Levine, who is a trans woman in the Biden administration. Uh, that was the thing that first prompted him like, I gotta buy Twitter this, you know, and make it make it a free a quote free speech haven. And so he's been pretty clear that transphobia is a big part of his mo O. And we you know, I don't think I would be telling tales out of school to say that his ownership of Twitter has been a disaster by pretty much every metric. He's losing money, it's bleeding users people. It's not a fun place to show up anymore. And I think that's the thing that's the gag about transphobia is that doubling down on transphobia is unpopular. It makes it makes everything worse.

Right.

Right.

It took a platform that was like not perfect but like usable and made it garbage, right, And so it really I hope that this is something that I want to see all their business and tech leaders taking note that trafficking in transphobia is not just cruel and hateful and bigoted and all the things that we know it is, but also building a trying to build a community around transphobia, it's always going to fail, And so I wish that we saw more reporting that tied Elon Musk's clear and explicit transphobia with his tanking of a you know, of businesses and tanking of community and experience and vibes. Listen, if I was throwing a party and a transphobe showed up and started spouting transphob shit, of course it would kill the vibe and I would make them leave. And so Elon Musk is throwing the party and he's the transphobe, so of course the vibes are off.

It took a platform that was like not perfect but like usable and made it garbage, right, And so it really I hope that this is something that I want to see all their business and tech leaders taking note that trafficking in transphobia is not just cruel and hateful and bigoted and all the things that we know it is, but also building a trying to build a community around transphobia, it's always going to fail, And so I wish that we saw more reporting that tied Elon Musk's clear and explicit transphobia with his tanking of a you know, of businesses and tanking of community and experience and vibes. Listen, if I was throwing a party and a transphobe showed up and started spouting transphob shit, of course it would kill the vibe and I would make them leave. And so Elon Musk is throwing the party and he's the transphobe, so of course the vibes are off.

Thank you for calling that out. We don't acknowledge it enough to just say, like, yeah, Elon Musk is a transphobe. His whole free speech thing. Transphobia is really at the center of it. It has been. You know, remember when he went out on stage in San Francisco at the Dave Chappelle con not concert but comedy show, you know, comedy and scare quotes whatever Dave Chappelle does now, and people booed him like that's the common denominator of these folks, and it's just like not palatable, it's not interesting. It reminds me of Dennis Miller. Most of our listeners are probably too young to even remember him, but like, his whole gag was that he was like a right wing comic and he would have these like right wing jokes, but it was all just punching down, and it's just it's not funny to punch down.

Thank you for calling that out. We don't acknowledge it enough to just say, like, yeah, Elon Musk is a transphobe. His whole free speech thing. Transphobia is really at the center of it. It has been. You know, remember when he went out on stage in San Francisco at the Dave Chappelle con not concert but comedy show, you know, comedy and scare quotes whatever Dave Chappelle does now, and people booed him like that's the common denominator of these folks, and it's just like not palatable, it's not interesting. It reminds me of Dennis Miller. Most of our listeners are probably too young to even remember him, but like, his whole gag was that he was like a right wing comic and he would have these like right wing jokes, but it was all just punching down, and it's just it's not funny to punch down.

Oh my god. I think about that Elon Musk and Dave Chappelle thing so often because I think it was it was either in Austin or in San Francisco, one of the other. I can't remember which one, but I can't think of an audience more primed to be sympathetic to Elona Musk's whole thing. People who are going to see Dave Chappelle in twenty twenty three or twenty twenty two or whenever that happened in Austin or San Francisco or wherever it was. I think it was San Francisco. And no, that I'm thinking about it, I can't think of an audience more prime to be like, yeah, we love Elon Musk and they boot him. That's the thing is, like, you know, imagine hating trans people so much that you light forty four billion dollars on fire, Like that really says a lot about who you are as a person. And it's not bad enough that you need to be a trans phobe and be running a website into the ground. You also got to be like a vibe killer. Two. Come on, it's too much. Kick a lane.

Oh my god. I think about that Elon Musk and Dave Chappelle thing so often because I think it was it was either in Austin or in San Francisco, one of the other. I can't remember which one, but I can't think of an audience more primed to be sympathetic to Elona Musk's whole thing. People who are going to see Dave Chappelle in twenty twenty three or twenty twenty two or whenever that happened in Austin or San Francisco or wherever it was. I think it was San Francisco. And no, that I'm thinking about it, I can't think of an audience more prime to be like, yeah, we love Elon Musk and they boot him. That's the thing is, like, you know, imagine hating trans people so much that you light forty four billion dollars on fire, Like that really says a lot about who you are as a person. And it's not bad enough that you need to be a trans phobe and be running a website into the ground. You also got to be like a vibe killer. Two. Come on, it's too much. Kick a lane.

Let's take a quick break at our back.

Let's take a quick break at our back.

Let's talk about women and gaming, because it turns out and be gaming more than half fifty two percent of all Nintendo Switch players in the United States are women. This is based on a new report from Sircana Player Pulse. So women be gaming and Nintendo's Switch ownership is following a more broad trend in the United States when compared to other gaming consoles too, So Nintendo Switch does have the highest amount of female users at fifty two percent, but fifty percent of gaming PCs are also owned by women. The next closest is the Xbox series, with forty five percent of those being owned by women. PlayStation five is the lowest at forty one percent. This year, in the United States, forty seven percent of console video game players were women, and half of all PC video game players are women, and fifty four percent of mobile video game players are women. So guess who is not thrilled about all this, Mike, Is.

Let's talk about women and gaming, because it turns out and be gaming more than half fifty two percent of all Nintendo Switch players in the United States are women. This is based on a new report from Sircana Player Pulse. So women be gaming and Nintendo's Switch ownership is following a more broad trend in the United States when compared to other gaming consoles too, So Nintendo Switch does have the highest amount of female users at fifty two percent, but fifty percent of gaming PCs are also owned by women. The next closest is the Xbox series, with forty five percent of those being owned by women. PlayStation five is the lowest at forty one percent. This year, in the United States, forty seven percent of console video game players were women, and half of all PC video game players are women, and fifty four percent of mobile video game players are women. So guess who is not thrilled about all this, Mike, Is.

It the shittiest segment of the American public?

It the shittiest segment of the American public?

Yes, gamer guys, like not all gamer guys, but like a very specific type of gamer guys is not thrilled about this and is really working over time to poke holes in these findings. So when Matt Piscatella, the executive director of Sirkana, tweeted out these stats showing how women were into gaming, he had these angry dudes in his mentions whose whole worlds were being shattered by the idea that women make up a big part of the gaming market in some cases more than men. So I would say that the replies really fell into a couple of buckets. First was this idea that you know, taking issue with the methodology, saying that since men are far too busy being I don't know, titans of industry or whatever, they don't have time for silly surveys, So that survey itself and all surveys are skewed toward women because only a woman would take a survey. As somebody who does a lot of surveys for a living, what do you think about.

Yes, gamer guys, like not all gamer guys, but like a very specific type of gamer guys is not thrilled about this and is really working over time to poke holes in these findings. So when Matt Piscatella, the executive director of Sirkana, tweeted out these stats showing how women were into gaming, he had these angry dudes in his mentions whose whole worlds were being shattered by the idea that women make up a big part of the gaming market in some cases more than men. So I would say that the replies really fell into a couple of buckets. First was this idea that you know, taking issue with the methodology, saying that since men are far too busy being I don't know, titans of industry or whatever, they don't have time for silly surveys, So that survey itself and all surveys are skewed toward women because only a woman would take a survey. As somebody who does a lot of surveys for a living, what do you think about.

That, Mike well Bridget, as someone who does a lot of surveys for a living, I think it's stupid.

That, Mike well Bridget, as someone who does a lot of surveys for a living, I think it's stupid.

That was very emphatic. I appreciated how emphatic that was. Another is that the data couldn't possibly be correct, because if there are really so many women playing video games out there, why haven't these guys found them and, like I don't know, made contact with them, Which, yeah, I can kind of imagine why these women aren't going out of their way to buddy up with these guys who sound so charming. Probably the most infuriating bucket of the responses from men who could not believe this idea that women are playing games is that women don't play real games. Like there was some conversation about the games that women are playing, like the sims are not real games, like the games that men play. There's something else, and that really reminds me of this classic George Carlin routine that I'm sure I've talked about on the show, that I've probably gotten more wisdom and use out of than anything I've ever read in any kind of history book or philosophy book or anything. You ever notice how your shit is stuff and everybody else's stuff is shit. It's like, oh, no, I'm a man, So whatever those women are playing, they're not real games. The only real games are the games that I play, because only the things that I engage in are real and worthy of any kind of like intellectual rigor.

That was very emphatic. I appreciated how emphatic that was. Another is that the data couldn't possibly be correct, because if there are really so many women playing video games out there, why haven't these guys found them and, like I don't know, made contact with them, Which, yeah, I can kind of imagine why these women aren't going out of their way to buddy up with these guys who sound so charming. Probably the most infuriating bucket of the responses from men who could not believe this idea that women are playing games is that women don't play real games. Like there was some conversation about the games that women are playing, like the sims are not real games, like the games that men play. There's something else, and that really reminds me of this classic George Carlin routine that I'm sure I've talked about on the show, that I've probably gotten more wisdom and use out of than anything I've ever read in any kind of history book or philosophy book or anything. You ever notice how your shit is stuff and everybody else's stuff is shit. It's like, oh, no, I'm a man, So whatever those women are playing, they're not real games. The only real games are the games that I play, because only the things that I engage in are real and worthy of any kind of like intellectual rigor.

I hate the adjective real. I feel it is code for others, like dehumanized others, like real gamers, real games, real Americans, real men. It's it's a complete It's like a vacuous term that doesn't actually have any meaning other than them versus us.

I hate the adjective real. I feel it is code for others, like dehumanized others, like real gamers, real games, real Americans, real men. It's it's a complete It's like a vacuous term that doesn't actually have any meaning other than them versus us.

Totally absolutely, and like some of the tweets I saw, I saw one was like half of the women who responded to this survey are probably wine moms playing Candy Crush on their iPad or things like that. And it's like, what difference does it make, you know, if you're trying to get a landscape of who is playing games and who is making up this industry in like who is representative of the space, what difference does it make what they're playing? What difference does it make? Like, I don't know, it just seems like such a weird, arbitrary distinction. And it's a way of like creating a hierarchy where there is none, right, because it's not like if you're playing Call of Duty that game is so high falutin that oh my god, like it's the you know, most philosophical game out there or something like. It's just another I mean, it's honestly just misogyny. It's another way to dress up misogyny and say that the things that women enjoy, the things that women that are bringing women enjoy the way that women are spending their time when they're gaming is worse than less worthy than less worthy of scrutiny, and you know, looking at less serious than what men are doing. It's just misogyny. And you know, I honestly am not surprised by this data. Most of my friends who are women play some kind of game. I think a lot of them do have Nintendo switches. I would love to own a switch. Nintendo. If you are listening, you can send me a switch. I will happily like make content about it. So there is a historical precedence of this, as journalist Zach Zewyn points out, writing Barbie Fashion Designer outsold Doom and Quake in nineteen ninety six and was the ninth best selling PC game of that year. Of course, women were also playing Doom and Quake back then too, So angry dudes online maybe stop acting so defensive and shitty about games being played by women and instead realize that they've always been here, and if you feel like they're hiding from you, maybe ask yourself why that is. And so I love that as a response, and I think it's really it's really about the gaming industry catching up with this information that we have. If nearly half of gaming consumers are women, then it is imperative that gaming companies act like it and catch up and make sure that these platforms are places where everyone all of their consumers can safely show up to and you know, have things like better safeguards against harassment or more gender inclusive games.

Totally absolutely, and like some of the tweets I saw, I saw one was like half of the women who responded to this survey are probably wine moms playing Candy Crush on their iPad or things like that. And it's like, what difference does it make, you know, if you're trying to get a landscape of who is playing games and who is making up this industry in like who is representative of the space, what difference does it make what they're playing? What difference does it make? Like, I don't know, it just seems like such a weird, arbitrary distinction. And it's a way of like creating a hierarchy where there is none, right, because it's not like if you're playing Call of Duty that game is so high falutin that oh my god, like it's the you know, most philosophical game out there or something like. It's just another I mean, it's honestly just misogyny. It's another way to dress up misogyny and say that the things that women enjoy, the things that women that are bringing women enjoy the way that women are spending their time when they're gaming is worse than less worthy than less worthy of scrutiny, and you know, looking at less serious than what men are doing. It's just misogyny. And you know, I honestly am not surprised by this data. Most of my friends who are women play some kind of game. I think a lot of them do have Nintendo switches. I would love to own a switch. Nintendo. If you are listening, you can send me a switch. I will happily like make content about it. So there is a historical precedence of this, as journalist Zach Zewyn points out, writing Barbie Fashion Designer outsold Doom and Quake in nineteen ninety six and was the ninth best selling PC game of that year. Of course, women were also playing Doom and Quake back then too, So angry dudes online maybe stop acting so defensive and shitty about games being played by women and instead realize that they've always been here, and if you feel like they're hiding from you, maybe ask yourself why that is. And so I love that as a response, and I think it's really it's really about the gaming industry catching up with this information that we have. If nearly half of gaming consumers are women, then it is imperative that gaming companies act like it and catch up and make sure that these platforms are places where everyone all of their consumers can safely show up to and you know, have things like better safeguards against harassment or more gender inclusive games.

Right.

Right.

So I think for me, it's really about the people who have power in the space recognizing the reality of who makes up that space, who their consumers, and who their demographic actually is. And according to this data, it's a lot of women because women be gaming.

So I think for me, it's really about the people who have power in the space recognizing the reality of who makes up that space, who their consumers, and who their demographic actually is. And according to this data, it's a lot of women because women be gaming.

Yeah, women be gaming. You know. The there's so many domains where this sort of like misogynistic gatekeeping plays out. But one nice thing about video games is that there are very well defined metrics of success, right, and that metric is money, Right, how much money do you make from the sale of your game? And games that appeal to women, it turns out sell so many more copies than games that do not appeal to women, because there's a lot of women in the world, right, Like I was just looking at up. Animal Crossing is a game that a lot of women I know, like a lot of men I know. Like it's not a gendered game, right, Like you're not. Yeah, it's just like a fun game that a lot of my friends really love. And just looked it up. It made like a quarter billion dollars in the past couple of years. That's so much money.

Yeah, women be gaming. You know. The there's so many domains where this sort of like misogynistic gatekeeping plays out. But one nice thing about video games is that there are very well defined metrics of success, right, and that metric is money, Right, how much money do you make from the sale of your game? And games that appeal to women, it turns out sell so many more copies than games that do not appeal to women, because there's a lot of women in the world, right, Like I was just looking at up. Animal Crossing is a game that a lot of women I know, like a lot of men I know. Like it's not a gendered game, right, Like you're not. Yeah, it's just like a fun game that a lot of my friends really love. And just looked it up. It made like a quarter billion dollars in the past couple of years. That's so much money.

I mean, like this gets into like a whole other there's a whole other topic. But I have seen and I have so many examples where industries would rather leave money, good money on the table that not be misogynistic and not you know, not perpetuate visogyny and racism and all of the badisms. Right Like, you know, look at Blizzard, look at their you know, their lawsuit where it sounded like for women working at the uber popular video game company Blizzard, it sounded like a terrible environment. And it's like, if you are a company that is producing a product that half of your consumer base are women, that you just can't you just can't run a company like that. But I think that there are definitely other incentives than money that the people have. And I think that people are very entrenched in and bought into the idea that this is a boys club. They're not women around. And so even if that's not true, even if all the evidence is showing them that's not true, even if they can make more money by acknowledging that reality, the sirens song of misogyny and perpetuating it in that industry is just too much to resist.

I mean, like this gets into like a whole other there's a whole other topic. But I have seen and I have so many examples where industries would rather leave money, good money on the table that not be misogynistic and not you know, not perpetuate visogyny and racism and all of the badisms. Right Like, you know, look at Blizzard, look at their you know, their lawsuit where it sounded like for women working at the uber popular video game company Blizzard, it sounded like a terrible environment. And it's like, if you are a company that is producing a product that half of your consumer base are women, that you just can't you just can't run a company like that. But I think that there are definitely other incentives than money that the people have. And I think that people are very entrenched in and bought into the idea that this is a boys club. They're not women around. And so even if that's not true, even if all the evidence is showing them that's not true, even if they can make more money by acknowledging that reality, the sirens song of misogyny and perpetuating it in that industry is just too much to resist.

This is a weird moment in the history of there are no girls on the Internet, Bridget, because it's like, I feel like you and me are both being like, yes, capitalism, that is what will free us from the chains of misogyny. I don't know, there's a lot of damn women out there right, Like it's like it's almost incompatible with a system where women are just like devalued and locked out.

This is a weird moment in the history of there are no girls on the Internet, Bridget, because it's like, I feel like you and me are both being like, yes, capitalism, that is what will free us from the chains of misogyny. I don't know, there's a lot of damn women out there right, Like it's like it's almost incompatible with a system where women are just like devalued and locked out.

Yeah, welcome to patriarchy. It it harms everyone. It doesn't just harm the people who are its targets women, It harms us all that keeps us all back from innovation. With did a great episode about how misogyny and bias and you know, really rigid incorrect thinking around gender stifles innovation. And it does it harms us all.

Yeah, welcome to patriarchy. It it harms everyone. It doesn't just harm the people who are its targets women, It harms us all that keeps us all back from innovation. With did a great episode about how misogyny and bias and you know, really rigid incorrect thinking around gender stifles innovation. And it does it harms us all.

Yeah, it really does. And like what does it say about the people who really cling to the misogyny that like they value it so much that they're willing to throw away innovation, inclusivity, a larger market share, everything in order to protect a gender hierarchy, and like what happened to them?

Yeah, it really does. And like what does it say about the people who really cling to the misogyny that like they value it so much that they're willing to throw away innovation, inclusivity, a larger market share, everything in order to protect a gender hierarchy, and like what happened to them?

I mean, misogyny is a hell of a drug. Let's talk about this story Dad in Georgia, where a radio host is suing open ai for defamation because of something a chatbot said about him. So last week, a radio host in Georgia filed the first, but probably not the last, lawsuit against open ai, the company who created chat gpt, over false statements that chat gpt made about him. It's sexually a pretty notable case, partly just because it's so novel and interesting, and partly because it connects to two themes that we've been talking about a lot on this season of the podcast. One the fact that AI is making it harder to tell what's real from what's fake, and two, the fact that we know that legal frameworks are necessary and are going to be necessary going forward, since it's clear that platforms and tech companies cannot be trusted to police themselves. In this case, chat gpt just completely made up a bunch of negative, slimy, grimy lies about this radio host. Chat gpt confidently stated that he had been the treasurer of an advocacy organization until he was forced to resign following a lawsuit over misappropriation of funds. Except none of that ever happened. It was just a made up thing that chat gpt pulled out of its computer butt. I guess I'll say he was never the treasurer of that organization, he was never accused of embezzling funds, and he was never part of that lawsuit. Chat GPT just made it up. So you've probably seen stories about chat GPT hallucinating. That's what it's called when chat gpt spits out facts that are not true, like getting math problems wrong, or saying that planets have extra moons, or just getting basic facts wrong. Most of these hallucinations are kind of funny. It's easy to laugh at them, and if nothing else, they provide kind of a smug piece of evidence that maybe AI isn't going to displace us all after all. But this one is different because it wasn't a hallucination about some abstract fact. It was about a specific person who exists, and based on this person's lawsuit, that person is pissed. So it raises a good question. Are tech companies responsible for false statements made by their AI chatbots? Hopefully from this lawsuit we will find out, and personally, I'm hoping that the answer is yes. Because our information ecosystem is already overflowing with mis and disinformation. We can't just say it's okay for big tech companies to add more fake information on top of that information economy with impunity. You know, there needs to be standards, There needs to be accountability, especially when specific living people are harmed by this technology.

I mean, misogyny is a hell of a drug. Let's talk about this story Dad in Georgia, where a radio host is suing open ai for defamation because of something a chatbot said about him. So last week, a radio host in Georgia filed the first, but probably not the last, lawsuit against open ai, the company who created chat gpt, over false statements that chat gpt made about him. It's sexually a pretty notable case, partly just because it's so novel and interesting, and partly because it connects to two themes that we've been talking about a lot on this season of the podcast. One the fact that AI is making it harder to tell what's real from what's fake, and two, the fact that we know that legal frameworks are necessary and are going to be necessary going forward, since it's clear that platforms and tech companies cannot be trusted to police themselves. In this case, chat gpt just completely made up a bunch of negative, slimy, grimy lies about this radio host. Chat gpt confidently stated that he had been the treasurer of an advocacy organization until he was forced to resign following a lawsuit over misappropriation of funds. Except none of that ever happened. It was just a made up thing that chat gpt pulled out of its computer butt. I guess I'll say he was never the treasurer of that organization, he was never accused of embezzling funds, and he was never part of that lawsuit. Chat GPT just made it up. So you've probably seen stories about chat GPT hallucinating. That's what it's called when chat gpt spits out facts that are not true, like getting math problems wrong, or saying that planets have extra moons, or just getting basic facts wrong. Most of these hallucinations are kind of funny. It's easy to laugh at them, and if nothing else, they provide kind of a smug piece of evidence that maybe AI isn't going to displace us all after all. But this one is different because it wasn't a hallucination about some abstract fact. It was about a specific person who exists, and based on this person's lawsuit, that person is pissed. So it raises a good question. Are tech companies responsible for false statements made by their AI chatbots? Hopefully from this lawsuit we will find out, and personally, I'm hoping that the answer is yes. Because our information ecosystem is already overflowing with mis and disinformation. We can't just say it's okay for big tech companies to add more fake information on top of that information economy with impunity. You know, there needs to be standards, There needs to be accountability, especially when specific living people are harmed by this technology.

Bridget I'm so glad you brought this story up. I love this story. I'm so interested in it. I can't wait to see what comes of it. You know, last week and I think maybe in the week before, we were talking about this idea of how with all this generative AI, it's increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction, and this feels like one route to try to restore the importance of fact right and protect against the proliferation of fake information that makes it harder to know what's real.

Bridget I'm so glad you brought this story up. I love this story. I'm so interested in it. I can't wait to see what comes of it. You know, last week and I think maybe in the week before, we were talking about this idea of how with all this generative AI, it's increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction, and this feels like one route to try to restore the importance of fact right and protect against the proliferation of fake information that makes it harder to know what's real.

So, speaking of facts versus fici, can you guess a platform that is currently caching in breaking in that sweet sweet dough from fiction?

So, speaking of facts versus fici, can you guess a platform that is currently caching in breaking in that sweet sweet dough from fiction?

Ashley Medicine.

Ashley Medicine.

Google. It turns out that Google is cashing in from fake clinics. This is according to a new report from the Center for Countering Digital Had which found that Google made more than ten million dollars over the past two years from ads for crisis pregnancy centers. If you don't know what crisis pregnancy centers are. They're basically anti choice clinics that try to convince people not to have abortions, but they often do so by masquerading as real medical facilities or clinics, which they are not. But because they're not clinics, they're often just basically unregulated outfits. Their primary goal is to prevent people from getting abortions. They'll sometimes give out really unscientific, sometimes harmful medical advice or make lofty promises of services that they can provide for somebody after they have a baby. Ultimately, their goal is to waste the time of the person who is pregnant so that they can no longer obtain an abortion within the window of legality, so essentially tricking folks into carrying the pregnancy to term even if they don't want to. Because they are not real medical facilities, they're unregulated, which means that they're not subject to data privacy and patient confidentiality laws that govern legitimate medical facilities, So listen to this. The Center for Countering Digital Hate found that one hundred and eighty eight crisis of pregnancy centers placed ads on Google worth an estimated total of more than ten million dollars over ten years. Now, obviously, there was a major spike in advertising about six months before the Supreme Court's decision on Roe versus Wade. Many of these fake clinics are registered as five OHO one C three nonprofit organizations, and that means that they get to take advantage of Google's ad grant program, which allows qualifying nonprofits to get up to ten thousand dollars worth of ads for free per month. So it's really just like a scam. They're able to for free put ads on Google that you know, are filled with lies and harmful, inaccurate information about abortion, and then Google makes money from that. It's just like a scam on top of a scam on top of a scam.

Google. It turns out that Google is cashing in from fake clinics. This is according to a new report from the Center for Countering Digital Had which found that Google made more than ten million dollars over the past two years from ads for crisis pregnancy centers. If you don't know what crisis pregnancy centers are. They're basically anti choice clinics that try to convince people not to have abortions, but they often do so by masquerading as real medical facilities or clinics, which they are not. But because they're not clinics, they're often just basically unregulated outfits. Their primary goal is to prevent people from getting abortions. They'll sometimes give out really unscientific, sometimes harmful medical advice or make lofty promises of services that they can provide for somebody after they have a baby. Ultimately, their goal is to waste the time of the person who is pregnant so that they can no longer obtain an abortion within the window of legality, so essentially tricking folks into carrying the pregnancy to term even if they don't want to. Because they are not real medical facilities, they're unregulated, which means that they're not subject to data privacy and patient confidentiality laws that govern legitimate medical facilities, So listen to this. The Center for Countering Digital Hate found that one hundred and eighty eight crisis of pregnancy centers placed ads on Google worth an estimated total of more than ten million dollars over ten years. Now, obviously, there was a major spike in advertising about six months before the Supreme Court's decision on Roe versus Wade. Many of these fake clinics are registered as five OHO one C three nonprofit organizations, and that means that they get to take advantage of Google's ad grant program, which allows qualifying nonprofits to get up to ten thousand dollars worth of ads for free per month. So it's really just like a scam. They're able to for free put ads on Google that you know, are filled with lies and harmful, inaccurate information about abortion, and then Google makes money from that. It's just like a scam on top of a scam on top of a scam.

Those yeah, pregnancy crisis centers. I feel like we've been talking about them for years. They were a genius move by the anti choice forces because they just like skirt under the radar of like so many things, and they seem so benign and not even benign but like benevolent. But they're bad.

Those yeah, pregnancy crisis centers. I feel like we've been talking about them for years. They were a genius move by the anti choice forces because they just like skirt under the radar of like so many things, and they seem so benign and not even benign but like benevolent. But they're bad.

They're bad. And the fact that Google is essentially making money from propping up their badness and allowing them to do it for essentially you know, if not for free, like probably not for that much money. If they're getting ten thousand dollars worth of ads for free, this is really telling.

They're bad. And the fact that Google is essentially making money from propping up their badness and allowing them to do it for essentially you know, if not for free, like probably not for that much money. If they're getting ten thousand dollars worth of ads for free, this is really telling.

You know.

You know.

I described these a moment ago as scams, but it really is, like think of the scammiest SEO practices that you have ever encountered. Like when you are googling something and the first thing that comes up, you click on it and you're like, oh wait, it's a scammy spammy ad, and then they do that thing where like to click out of it. The ex is really hard to click, and then you try to click it and then you actually click into it, and then it like think of like the scammiest Internet stuff that drives you out of your fucking mind. That's what these clinics are doing, and Google is allowing them to do that. Center for Digital Hate found that several marketing firms help these fake clinics hijack search keywords to ensure that their content appears next to legitimate reproductive health information. So if you google something that is a obvious keyword for somebody looking for an abortion, like I need an abortion or pregnant and scared help, you might find results that max real health information alongside these fake clinics which are peddling harmful lies. And the fact that we're talking about this with Google is a really big deal. Ninety three percent of all searches worldwide happen on Google. And when someone doesn't know what to do, or they find themselves in a situation where they need answers and they're looking to the internet, odds are the first thing they're going to do is a Google search, And when they do that search, they should not be served up lies, and certainly Google should not be profiting off of those lies. Like it is an economy. It is a scam economy of lies and grifts, and Google is cashing in on it. And it really takes me back to something that Ifoma Uzoma, who you know, formerly worked at pinterest combating medical misinformation, a lot of which was misinformation around abortion. She always says that these people, these extremists who are pushing lives about abortion, they are scammers and spammers, and they have built an industry of lives for profit, and Google, as the country's number one search platform, should not be in the business of amplifying these lies, and they certainly should not be in the business of profiting from it.

I described these a moment ago as scams, but it really is, like think of the scammiest SEO practices that you have ever encountered. Like when you are googling something and the first thing that comes up, you click on it and you're like, oh wait, it's a scammy spammy ad, and then they do that thing where like to click out of it. The ex is really hard to click, and then you try to click it and then you actually click into it, and then it like think of like the scammiest Internet stuff that drives you out of your fucking mind. That's what these clinics are doing, and Google is allowing them to do that. Center for Digital Hate found that several marketing firms help these fake clinics hijack search keywords to ensure that their content appears next to legitimate reproductive health information. So if you google something that is a obvious keyword for somebody looking for an abortion, like I need an abortion or pregnant and scared help, you might find results that max real health information alongside these fake clinics which are peddling harmful lies. And the fact that we're talking about this with Google is a really big deal. Ninety three percent of all searches worldwide happen on Google. And when someone doesn't know what to do, or they find themselves in a situation where they need answers and they're looking to the internet, odds are the first thing they're going to do is a Google search, And when they do that search, they should not be served up lies, and certainly Google should not be profiting off of those lies. Like it is an economy. It is a scam economy of lies and grifts, and Google is cashing in on it. And it really takes me back to something that Ifoma Uzoma, who you know, formerly worked at pinterest combating medical misinformation, a lot of which was misinformation around abortion. She always says that these people, these extremists who are pushing lives about abortion, they are scammers and spammers, and they have built an industry of lives for profit, and Google, as the country's number one search platform, should not be in the business of amplifying these lies, and they certainly should not be in the business of profiting from it.

Yeah, this it doesn't feel so terrible, but like, these are some of the more disgusting actors that we've talked about on this show, because they are preying on people who are at their most part vulnerable, often young, probably terrified if they have suddenly discovered that they are unintendedly pregnant and looking for some kind of like information about what the hell to do, and to deceive people at that moment is terrible. Yeah, it's It's infuriating, and the fact that Google is profiting off it to such an extent is not surprising but shameful.

Yeah, this it doesn't feel so terrible, but like, these are some of the more disgusting actors that we've talked about on this show, because they are preying on people who are at their most part vulnerable, often young, probably terrified if they have suddenly discovered that they are unintendedly pregnant and looking for some kind of like information about what the hell to do, and to deceive people at that moment is terrible. Yeah, it's It's infuriating, and the fact that Google is profiting off it to such an extent is not surprising but shameful.

It is shameful, and if you're the biggest search engine in the world, some responsibility comes with that, and you should be in the business of amplifying actual information and not lies and scams. Some of the lies that these fake clinics are pushing are actually dangerous and harmful, things like telling people that they can have their medication abortions reversed and you know, telling them to take certain medications to reverse pill based abortion, which can harm them and also is not true. Google should not be in a place where they are amplifying these lies and certainly not making money off of it. I mean, it's really ghulish. Speaking of Ghulish, let's talk about Tesla. So this report, like, people should read the whole report, because I found myself gasping each paragraph. I was like, oh God, oh God, oh God, it just got worse and worse. So a new report from the Washington Post says that there have been seven hundred and thirty six crashes in the US since twenty nineteen involving Tesla's in autopilot mode, which is far more than previously reported. According to the report, the number of crashes has surged in the last four years because of the increase of the number of Tesla's on the road. Some of these crashes sound pretty serious. The number of deaths and serious injuries associated with autopilot has also grown significantly. When authorities first released a partial accounting of accidents involving autopilot in June of twenty twenty two, they counted only three deaths definitively linked to this technology, But the most recent data includes seventeen fatal incidents, eleven of them happening since May of twenty twenty two, and five serious injuries. So you might be asking, why is the number of crashes so much higher now than was previously reported. What we know all of this because of a twenty twenty one federal order that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is the country's top auto safety regulator, required automakers to disclose crashes involving driver assistance technology. Now, I should say that the total number of crashes involving this technology is really small compared to all road accidents, but it's so pretty troubling now. Since this new reporting requirements were introduced, we now know that the vast majority of the eight hundred and seven automation related crashes have involved Tesla's and it's linked to almost all deaths involving automation, in part because Tesla has experimented much more aggressively with automation than other carmakers have. The uptick and crashes also coincides with Tesla's aggressive rollout of full self driving mode, which has expanded from about twelve thousand users generally four hundred thousand users in a little more than a year. And this is not just Tesla either. After a mass shooting in San Francisco, there was a video of a cruise, which is General Motors's line of driverless cars blocking first responders from being able to administer aid to the victims. In the video, you can see the police screaming about this. He's screaming, you know that this driverless car is blocking emergency, medical, and fire. They need to get it out of there. In another video, you can hear an officer worrying that the car might crash into an ambulance or a firetruck when they're trying to get out. So General Motors has said that although the vehicle did stop at the crime scene, the car did not actually obstruct any emergency vehicles. They said, our car initially stopped as it was approaching an active emergency scene, then proceeded to perform a U turn and pull over. Throughout this time, all vehicles, including emergency response vehicles, were able to proceed around our car. Emergency personnel in San Francisco seemed to more or less confirm this. They told SFGate that the car did not technically obstruct emergency vehicles because another road happened to be available that was in an adjoining lane that they could use to get around this driverless car. But honestly, they didn't sound too thrilled that this was something they had to navigate in order to help nine people who had just been shot. And it's pretty clear like had this been a car with a human, a human would have been able to be like, oh, this is an active emergency scene, let me immediately do a quick U turn or whatever. But because it was driverless, there wasn't a real protocol of what to do or how to move it. They're just very lucky that there was an available lane in order to maneuver around this car. So Elon Musk argues that autopilot is safer than human drivers and that the use of autopilot will usher in a safer, virtually accident free future. In a March presentation, Tesla claim that cars in full self driving mode crashes at a rate of at least one fifth that of vehicles with normal driving in a comparison of miles driven per collision. But that claim and musks characterization of autopilot as unequivocally safer, is impossible to test without access to the detailed data that Tesla possesses, So it's basically impossible to say how many accidents this technology has diverted. But what is super clear is how dangerous it is to be testing this out on actual roads with the public because it is killing people. So I didn't know this. I don't have a Tesla because I'm a broke bitch. But I was reading this and I was thinking, surely they're not just out here testing out full self driving mode with just regular motorists on our public road and making anybody who exists out in public. They'reea Tesla's guinea pig. But I'm sorry to say that is kind of exactly what is happening.

It is shameful, and if you're the biggest search engine in the world, some responsibility comes with that, and you should be in the business of amplifying actual information and not lies and scams. Some of the lies that these fake clinics are pushing are actually dangerous and harmful, things like telling people that they can have their medication abortions reversed and you know, telling them to take certain medications to reverse pill based abortion, which can harm them and also is not true. Google should not be in a place where they are amplifying these lies and certainly not making money off of it. I mean, it's really ghulish. Speaking of Ghulish, let's talk about Tesla. So this report, like, people should read the whole report, because I found myself gasping each paragraph. I was like, oh God, oh God, oh God, it just got worse and worse. So a new report from the Washington Post says that there have been seven hundred and thirty six crashes in the US since twenty nineteen involving Tesla's in autopilot mode, which is far more than previously reported. According to the report, the number of crashes has surged in the last four years because of the increase of the number of Tesla's on the road. Some of these crashes sound pretty serious. The number of deaths and serious injuries associated with autopilot has also grown significantly. When authorities first released a partial accounting of accidents involving autopilot in June of twenty twenty two, they counted only three deaths definitively linked to this technology, But the most recent data includes seventeen fatal incidents, eleven of them happening since May of twenty twenty two, and five serious injuries. So you might be asking, why is the number of crashes so much higher now than was previously reported. What we know all of this because of a twenty twenty one federal order that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is the country's top auto safety regulator, required automakers to disclose crashes involving driver assistance technology. Now, I should say that the total number of crashes involving this technology is really small compared to all road accidents, but it's so pretty troubling now. Since this new reporting requirements were introduced, we now know that the vast majority of the eight hundred and seven automation related crashes have involved Tesla's and it's linked to almost all deaths involving automation, in part because Tesla has experimented much more aggressively with automation than other carmakers have. The uptick and crashes also coincides with Tesla's aggressive rollout of full self driving mode, which has expanded from about twelve thousand users generally four hundred thousand users in a little more than a year. And this is not just Tesla either. After a mass shooting in San Francisco, there was a video of a cruise, which is General Motors's line of driverless cars blocking first responders from being able to administer aid to the victims. In the video, you can see the police screaming about this. He's screaming, you know that this driverless car is blocking emergency, medical, and fire. They need to get it out of there. In another video, you can hear an officer worrying that the car might crash into an ambulance or a firetruck when they're trying to get out. So General Motors has said that although the vehicle did stop at the crime scene, the car did not actually obstruct any emergency vehicles. They said, our car initially stopped as it was approaching an active emergency scene, then proceeded to perform a U turn and pull over. Throughout this time, all vehicles, including emergency response vehicles, were able to proceed around our car. Emergency personnel in San Francisco seemed to more or less confirm this. They told SFGate that the car did not technically obstruct emergency vehicles because another road happened to be available that was in an adjoining lane that they could use to get around this driverless car. But honestly, they didn't sound too thrilled that this was something they had to navigate in order to help nine people who had just been shot. And it's pretty clear like had this been a car with a human, a human would have been able to be like, oh, this is an active emergency scene, let me immediately do a quick U turn or whatever. But because it was driverless, there wasn't a real protocol of what to do or how to move it. They're just very lucky that there was an available lane in order to maneuver around this car. So Elon Musk argues that autopilot is safer than human drivers and that the use of autopilot will usher in a safer, virtually accident free future. In a March presentation, Tesla claim that cars in full self driving mode crashes at a rate of at least one fifth that of vehicles with normal driving in a comparison of miles driven per collision. But that claim and musks characterization of autopilot as unequivocally safer, is impossible to test without access to the detailed data that Tesla possesses, So it's basically impossible to say how many accidents this technology has diverted. But what is super clear is how dangerous it is to be testing this out on actual roads with the public because it is killing people. So I didn't know this. I don't have a Tesla because I'm a broke bitch. But I was reading this and I was thinking, surely they're not just out here testing out full self driving mode with just regular motorists on our public road and making anybody who exists out in public. They'reea Tesla's guinea pig. But I'm sorry to say that is kind of exactly what is happening.

More.

More.

After a quick break, let's get right back into it. So if you don't drive a Tesla, here's what you need to know. Teslas have three modes. One is autopilot, which is standard on all Teslas, which has intelligent cruise control that matches the car to the speed of the surrounding traffic and a lane centering function that helps keep the vehicle in the center of its lane. Then there is Enhanced Autopilot, which adds navigating highway on and off ramps and interchanges. On top of what autopilot does, it also adds a self parking system and a summon feature that lets owners call the car to them at parking lot speed from nearby and lastly, full self driving, which Tesla says will do all of the above, but also read and react to traffic lights and stop signs, and steer around some terms with the driver's quote active supervision. Now, according to Tesla's own website, full self driving mode is still being tested out. It's still in beta. It is not fully ready to go. The Tesla website says a full self driving mode this feature is in beta and may not stop for all traffic controls. Yeah, that's pretty scary. This is from blue Book. The term test would seem to suggest some sort of laboratory conditions or controlled experiment with close monitoring, but that's not how Tesla is testing the software. Instead, it's allowing owners to use it on public roads with the rest of us as if it were a finished product. Now, Tesla does require owners to sign a waiver to use this mode, but what about the rest of us? You know, I never consented to or opted into being whenever I was out on a public roadway being part of Elon Musk's text kitchen on whether or not this technology is safe.

After a quick break, let's get right back into it. So if you don't drive a Tesla, here's what you need to know. Teslas have three modes. One is autopilot, which is standard on all Teslas, which has intelligent cruise control that matches the car to the speed of the surrounding traffic and a lane centering function that helps keep the vehicle in the center of its lane. Then there is Enhanced Autopilot, which adds navigating highway on and off ramps and interchanges. On top of what autopilot does, it also adds a self parking system and a summon feature that lets owners call the car to them at parking lot speed from nearby and lastly, full self driving, which Tesla says will do all of the above, but also read and react to traffic lights and stop signs, and steer around some terms with the driver's quote active supervision. Now, according to Tesla's own website, full self driving mode is still being tested out. It's still in beta. It is not fully ready to go. The Tesla website says a full self driving mode this feature is in beta and may not stop for all traffic controls. Yeah, that's pretty scary. This is from blue Book. The term test would seem to suggest some sort of laboratory conditions or controlled experiment with close monitoring, but that's not how Tesla is testing the software. Instead, it's allowing owners to use it on public roads with the rest of us as if it were a finished product. Now, Tesla does require owners to sign a waiver to use this mode, but what about the rest of us? You know, I never consented to or opted into being whenever I was out on a public roadway being part of Elon Musk's text kitchen on whether or not this technology is safe.

Yeah, I'm so curious what the content of that waiver is, Like, what is being waive? What sort of liability is the owner assuming like, is the owner of the Tesla just deciding or just like taking on all lives ability to themselves, because yeah, like what about you and me who don't own a Tesla. We're just out there walking around, driving around, being at risk. What does this test status of full self driving mode mean for us?

Yeah, I'm so curious what the content of that waiver is, Like, what is being waive? What sort of liability is the owner assuming like, is the owner of the Tesla just deciding or just like taking on all lives ability to themselves, because yeah, like what about you and me who don't own a Tesla. We're just out there walking around, driving around, being at risk. What does this test status of full self driving mode mean for us?

The report speaks to a young person who was really lucky to be alive after tesla using this technology crashed into him. I think he fractured his neck and like you know, was on a ventilator and still has a lot of issues. I think he's from North Carolina, and it is really scary, and I think it really speaks to this idea that we talk about a lot, which is just this very messed up relationship between the people who make this technology and the public. Like we should not have to be unpaid lab rats in this experiment with potentially harmful or deadly consequences just because Elon Musk says it's cool. I don't think that's very cool. I've never signed up for that. Before we go, I want to talk about this interesting poll that I read in Fast Company. So, according to a new Harris poll shared exclusively with Fast Company. Most Americans would prefer to live in eras before the rise of things like social media, smartphones, and the Internet. This sentiment is particularly true for older millennials and Gen xers. When asked if they would like to return to a time before smartphones and social media, seventy seven percent of Americans age thirty five to fifty four said yes, the highest of any group. So you might be thinking, oh, like, these people are just nostalgic because they're old enough to remember, you know, using payphones and you know, wired internet and all of the things that you and I talk about because we're old, right, But that's actually that might be some of it. But it actually might not be totally the case, because according to this poll, even younger people who have no memory of a world before social media indicated that they would like to return to the pre internet vibe. That's sixty three percent of eighteen to thirty four year olds agreed with that idea versus only thirty seven percent who disagreed. So I don't actually find that surprising at all. But can you guess the demographic who are most likely to be like, Actually, I like how things are right now. I don't want to go back to the pre social media days. I can't baby boomers. So baby boomers do not share that feeling. Only sixty percent of people over the age of fifty five say that they would like to return to those times. And this does not surprise me at all. My mom loves Facebook, you know, she's completely obsessed with it. I think that baby boomers love the Internet. Like, who is keeping Facebook afloat in twenty twenty three. It's baby boomers.

The report speaks to a young person who was really lucky to be alive after tesla using this technology crashed into him. I think he fractured his neck and like you know, was on a ventilator and still has a lot of issues. I think he's from North Carolina, and it is really scary, and I think it really speaks to this idea that we talk about a lot, which is just this very messed up relationship between the people who make this technology and the public. Like we should not have to be unpaid lab rats in this experiment with potentially harmful or deadly consequences just because Elon Musk says it's cool. I don't think that's very cool. I've never signed up for that. Before we go, I want to talk about this interesting poll that I read in Fast Company. So, according to a new Harris poll shared exclusively with Fast Company. Most Americans would prefer to live in eras before the rise of things like social media, smartphones, and the Internet. This sentiment is particularly true for older millennials and Gen xers. When asked if they would like to return to a time before smartphones and social media, seventy seven percent of Americans age thirty five to fifty four said yes, the highest of any group. So you might be thinking, oh, like, these people are just nostalgic because they're old enough to remember, you know, using payphones and you know, wired internet and all of the things that you and I talk about because we're old, right, But that's actually that might be some of it. But it actually might not be totally the case, because according to this poll, even younger people who have no memory of a world before social media indicated that they would like to return to the pre internet vibe. That's sixty three percent of eighteen to thirty four year olds agreed with that idea versus only thirty seven percent who disagreed. So I don't actually find that surprising at all. But can you guess the demographic who are most likely to be like, Actually, I like how things are right now. I don't want to go back to the pre social media days. I can't baby boomers. So baby boomers do not share that feeling. Only sixty percent of people over the age of fifty five say that they would like to return to those times. And this does not surprise me at all. My mom loves Facebook, you know, she's completely obsessed with it. I think that baby boomers love the Internet. Like, who is keeping Facebook afloat in twenty twenty three. It's baby boomers.

Yeah, I guess that's right. It's a weird way to think about it.

Yeah, I guess that's right. It's a weird way to think about it.

So what's interesting is that overwhelmingly all people still feel like technology is important. Ninety percent said that being open minded about new tech is important. Of finding that is held up across all the demographics that they looked at, And I think that's really to like. I almost think that what that shows is that people are just really tired. I think as we're seeing like the cost of being connected all the time and being like hyper aware of what that feels like being connected via technology all the time, and the ways that tech is becoming even more entrenched in our daily lives, it's like we don't like it, but we're aware of it, and it's just kind of like resignation that we're gonna have to accept it, right, Like we're gonna have to accept that these digital tools and experiences are part of our lives, whether we like it or not. And it turns out we don't really like it that much. Like I almost see this as a kind of like, I don't know, I find it interesting that people don't like this. They yearn for a time, even sometimes in the case of young people, a time that they never even experienced before social media, but they understand the importance of keeping up with technology.

So what's interesting is that overwhelmingly all people still feel like technology is important. Ninety percent said that being open minded about new tech is important. Of finding that is held up across all the demographics that they looked at, And I think that's really to like. I almost think that what that shows is that people are just really tired. I think as we're seeing like the cost of being connected all the time and being like hyper aware of what that feels like being connected via technology all the time, and the ways that tech is becoming even more entrenched in our daily lives, it's like we don't like it, but we're aware of it, and it's just kind of like resignation that we're gonna have to accept it, right, Like we're gonna have to accept that these digital tools and experiences are part of our lives, whether we like it or not. And it turns out we don't really like it that much. Like I almost see this as a kind of like, I don't know, I find it interesting that people don't like this. They yearn for a time, even sometimes in the case of young people, a time that they never even experienced before social media, but they understand the importance of keeping up with technology.

It makes you wonder if they is a different in appreciating the costs of what has been lost and like what we have to deal with, Like we talk on this show all the time about this information climate we live in where there's like so much disinformation, And we were talking about stochastic harassment earlier, where people are just like repeating harmful, hateful narratives that are just sufficiently under the radar that they don't violate terms of service of social media platforms. And it feels like that's just like normal and how it is. And like, you know, with AI, we've talked a lot about the how it's increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction, and as we look into the future, it's probably only going to get harder. And that doesn't feel good. Doesn't make me feel like we're going to be approaching a future where things are better than they are now. And you know, no offense to the baby boomers, but maybe they're just not like as clued into all of these harms.

It makes you wonder if they is a different in appreciating the costs of what has been lost and like what we have to deal with, Like we talk on this show all the time about this information climate we live in where there's like so much disinformation, And we were talking about stochastic harassment earlier, where people are just like repeating harmful, hateful narratives that are just sufficiently under the radar that they don't violate terms of service of social media platforms. And it feels like that's just like normal and how it is. And like, you know, with AI, we've talked a lot about the how it's increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction, and as we look into the future, it's probably only going to get harder. And that doesn't feel good. Doesn't make me feel like we're going to be approaching a future where things are better than they are now. And you know, no offense to the baby boomers, but maybe they're just not like as clued into all of these harms.

I don't know.

I don't know.