DISINFORMED: Tech CEOs testify before Congress + Carrie Goldberg on Section 230

Published Mar 26, 2021, 8:04 PM

This week, CEOs of Google, Facebook, and Twitter testified before Congress about misinformation on their platforms and Section 230. In this week’s episode, we heard from digital rights activist Evan Greer about why she fights to protect Section 230. Now, let’s revisit attorney Carrie Goldberg’s position on why she says Section 230 needs to be changed.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

You're listening to this informed a mini series from There Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm Bridget Todd. Yesterday, the ceo is of Facebook, Google, and Twitter went before Congress to testify about the role that their platforms played and spreading the misinformation that led to the insurrection. In January, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg proposed some limited reforms to Section two thirty, legislation that says that tech platforms can't be held liable for what people post on those platforms. First, platform should have to issue transparency reports that state the prevalence of content across all different categories of harmful content, everything from child exploitation to terrorism, to incitement of violence to um intellectual property violations to pornography, whatever that the different harms are. On this week's episode, we heard from Evan Greer, digital rights activist, about why she works with the organization Fight for the Future. Tip deserve Section to thirty now. In the episode, Evans said that rushed changes to Section to thirty could do more harm than good. This is not about defending the companies. I don't particularly care very much about um, you know, the company's profits or uh, you know how much money they have to spend on lawsuits. What I care about is the impact that that then has on marginalized people's speech in particularly social movements, And for me, section to thirty is such a crucial law for protecting speech like, for example, a video of police violence, which in a world without Section to thirty would almost certainly invite lawsuits from law enforcement who would claim that it's defamatory or that its incitement, right like the Me Too movement, where you know people are able to speak out about abusive behavior, and platforms are willing to host that speech because they know that they're not going to get sued for giving people a platform to speak and speak their truth, and so I always think about the impact on those movements. Fight for the Future sees Section to thirty as one of the most important laws protecting free speech and human rights in the digital age. And that doesn't mean that we don't think it can ever be changed. Right, no law is sacrosanct. Laws are just laws. But we are very concerned that you know, rushed or uncareful changes to Section two thirty will do far more harm than good. So you might have already gleaned there's a lot of debate about section to thirty. Some people say it shields big tech companies from accountability. Well others say it's the backbone of what makes the Internet the Internet. Last season, we heard from Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who fights things like revenge born stalking, and harassment on social media. In a groundbreaking case about a horrific harassment campaign being run on the dating app Grinder, Carry argued in favor of changes to section to thirty in front of the Supreme Court. Let's listen into Carrey's story and why she says section to thirty needs to be changed. There used to be a time when we didn't really have a term for the idea of revenge porn. Spreading someone's intimate content online without their consent was just a thing that happened on the Internet. Just last week, nineteen year old Aaron Coleman won the Democratic primary for a Kansas House seat, even after admitting to obtaining nude photos of a girl when he was fourteen, trying to blackmail her into sending him more photos and spreading them online when she refused On Twitter. Journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept called Aaron's behavior quote bad middle school bullying, but This kind of behavior isn't just bullying, it's a serious sex crime. When we minimize revenge porn, we're contributing to an attitude that says, once someone takes an intimate photo of themselves, they deserve whatever happens next, even if it means their life is destroyed, they're harassed, or worse. Luckily, women are fighting to build a better Internet, one where we have the right to feel safe online. You could be forgiven for thinking of Carrie Goldberg as a real life superhero instead of a cape. She rocks heels, bold statement glasses and sometimes even caps it off with a baseball hat. Reading I sue abusers with her law firm. She spent her professional life holding all manner of Internet creeps, abusers, and stalkers accountable. Going head to head with powerful abusers and their enablers is scary, but Carrie has never been one to back down from a challenge. She represented Lucia Evans and Paz de la Huerta, who were among the first women who made public allegations against Harvey Weinstein, which led to his arrest. Her book, Nobody's Victim, is about her own experiences with an abusive X who vowed to use the Internet to ruin her life and her journey to become the lawyer she needed. Carrie has been responsible for creating a massive cultural change around the kind of experiences marginalized people can expect from the internet. Her work creating accountability for people who misuse the internet to cause harm forces us to ask why should we accept mistreatment as a given? Why can't things be better? Carrie, it turns out has been holding creeps accountable since the very beginning. So one of the stories I read about you is that when you were in school, one of your classmates was bragging about having gotten a hand job from one of your girlfriends, and you responded by gluing a bunch of amputated doll hands to a poster and giving it to him with a card that says, we'll give you a hand has holding people accountable for their bad behavior always been a mission of yours? It didn't feel like it was a mission of mine, no, but it was a fun pastime. And I remember um, one of my friends was on the boys soccer team and she was the only girl on the team. We didn't have a girls soccer team in Aberdeen, and there was an incident where she was on the school bus and they were going to an away game, and she fell asleep with her mouth open, and she told me about how when she woke up there were all these pubes in her mouth and all I guess a bunch of of her teammates had like plucked their pubes and put it put them in her mouth. Now, I was a member of the eurote team and I got assigned to write this story about the boys soccer team, and I got kicked off the yearbook team or the year robe class because the teacher had realized that the first letter of each word in the first couple of sentences spelled out pubic pluckers. So um, you know, now that's just like that's a Title nine situation, you know, like her waking up and having you know that that's a disciplinary issue. Back then, it was, it was. We didn't think that much of it. It was playful, but I mean she was the only girl on that team, you know, it was it was. It's certainly impacting her enjoyment of it. Boys will be boys. It's just a joke. She deserved it. I'd never let something like that happen to me. It's difficult for me to admit, but I've had these kinds of harmful victim blaming reactions to hearing about the sexual abuse of a classmate. I was fifteen, and it was gossip, something to whisper about on home room. I got to feel like part of the in group, judging another girl for something that was done to her. It was wrong, and I wish I had known better. Young me contributed to a culture that treated serious crimes and violations like some big joke. It wasn't a joke. Your work has been incredibly impactful for me for my own process of understanding the cultural change that needs to happen around those kinds of stories. Right. Um, when I was in high school, I think that was in tenth grade. You know how every school has that big scandal that happens in your in your in your class, or in your school that everybody's talking about. In my school, it was a girl had sent intimate pictures to her boyfriend currently just for him, and he sent them to everybody. You know, he said. We lived a went to a pretty small school. There was an all girls school where there was an all boys school nearby, and these pictures were seen by everybody. And I hate to say this, it's like a shameful confession, but fifteen year old Bridget I thought this was a joke, right, Like, fifteen year old Bridget thought that because she had taken these pictures at all, she deserved what happened to her, she deserved to be shamed. And you know, I got I was very young, but looking back, I thought about it as a as a joke, right, I didn't think it was serious, and I thought that, you know, it was okay to make fun of her, to shame her because she had done this to herself and she deserves it. And it wasn't until becoming older did I really step back and think, like I was really complicit in continuing a cultural attitude that a when things like this happened, that it's just a joke, it's not serious, it's not a big it's not a crime, and be that the victims deserve to whatever, like scorn or shame they get because they put themselves in this situation. And I guess my question is how do we get to a place where we more people go through that process of being like, oh, well, actually I believe some pretty funked up stuff about victims about sexualized violence, and I have a role in making sure that that people everybody understands that these are very serious. I'm appreciate what you're talking about. Is is like it is the issue. You know, like most of my underage clients, almost all of them are that victim, are the person that the scandal um around the high school is is orbiting around, and um, it's you know, it's it is like the The issue is that kids don't learn empathy, and they don't develop empathetic skills until later on, and they can't roll reverse with with the victims, and so instead they want to be there's a natural instinct in all of us to want to be part of the gossip and part of the story and to see the picture that everyone else is seeing and talking about, and not to be the like upstander who is like, that's actually a sex crime. And everyone who's looking at that and has it on their phone and is sending it to other minors is is actually engaging in a felony, you know, child pornography, like floneous behavior. But the issue is that that attitude of a victim blaming and stuff, which is really natural in kids. It's also frequently present in the administrators, um in the school resource officers who are cops, and even in the people UM in the parents who get involved, including sometimes the victims parents. A lot of times her clients don't take immediate action because they're afraid of UM, their parents disciplining them UM. And it's just, you know, we talk about consent education and how we need to teach kids about consent, but a big component of that is is about empathy and just you know, doing role reversal exercises where kids have to imagine what it's like to be in somebody else's shoes. And I think that's important when we're talking about race and gender and and also UM victimization. One of Carrie's clients, a Brooklyn team with mental disabilities, was raped in a stairwell while at school. When she reported what happened, her school counselor decided that she was at fault and spended her Sadly, her story is not really that uncommon. School aged black and brown girls are more likely to face interpersonal violence at school and are also disproportionately criminalized and punished. Carrie's client wan a ninety settlement against the city and the city spokesperson promised forty seven million dollars annually in school climate trading programs. It won't undo the hell she suffered, Carrie said, but it will buy her some comfort and healing. You know, it's not necessarily about suing, although I am a big believer in that when it's when the circumstances are right. But it's it's like making amplifying your boys. And I mean sometimes when I would be writing my legal complaints in preparation of lawsuits, I would get so emotional that I would just go on these like tweeter Twitter, like like storms, you know, just like deva fits. But even that, you know, those would get retweeted, And by the time I filed my complaints, I had a lot of earlists that were um that we're in line to cover them. Um sometlem It's just like letting the natural rage of the injustice let's speak for itself. Let's take a quick break enter back. Kley has a real connection to our clients. She rages about the injustices they face on Twitter. She uses her own experiences to help them combat stigma and shame and let them know they're not alone. I feel very invested in in um making the process of the litigation or getting justice tolerable because they can take years and you need you need them to be able to to feel like it's worth it, and it's um. It's stressful at times, and it can be very um invasive of you know, like when you're having to relive when you're only sixteen seventeen, you're having to relive this awful thing that happened to you when you're thirteen. You need you need to like feel like it's it's for something really important and um and also just getting back to what you're talking about, bridget about how um you know, when we're young, we can actually be complicit in some of the violation. It makes me think about how much more traumatizing it is to be a victim when you're when you're young and we were not only have have our violators not developed uh, the skill of empathy, but the victims haven't figured out how to cope. And you can feel like your whole world is crushing around you if if you are not only sexually violated, but then all the students in your class, you know, think you're a jill. They're spreading it and you know you're afraid your parents are going to punish you, and you're afraid your school's gonna punish you. And like kids are ready don't have control over their lives. And and then to to be kind of socially ostracized or or put in this category of other and have your friendships kind of crumble like that is that can create such desperation. Um And every single one of our young clients has been suicidal during during those moments. It's just like they don't have the coping skills. I didn't when I was that age. When Carrie was younger, she was victimized by abusive XS. One had intimate images of her and vowed to use them to ruin her life. This was before revenge porn was even really a thing. People didn't know how to talk about it or deal with it when it happened, and lawyers didn't really know how to handle what she was going through. In your book, you talk about how you became the lawyer that you you wish you had had in your thirties. Can you tell me a bit about that? Yeah, Well, I had some uh violence, you know, I was the victim of some dating violence and incident of sexual violence. Before I started my law firm, and um, when I was trying to escape my ex boyfriends stalking and he was just besieging me with with text messages and threats and and false police reports and it was never ending. UM, I had trouble finding a lawyer. UM. You know, I I work with somebody on the domestic violence piece. I worked with somebody on the um the focus criminal complaints peace. But for everyone that I talked to, this was a real like abnormal case for them. UM, And you know it. You don't want to be the the the outlier when it comes to getting legal help and having a lawyer. UM, you know, be kind of learning as they go, and and it was unpredictable for them, you know, what would happen or or kind of the profile of my offender was something really new to them. And UM, when I finally got my orders of protection and he played guilty, which was six months after the breakup, M I quit everything and started my law firm a few months later, when I was you know, in retrospect, I was still in the midst of a lot of trauma. But UM, I started this law firm basically to become the kind of lawyer that I'd needed because I've gotten this kind of involuntary education into um, into into the world of of you know, being stalked and having no control over what's happening in the Internet. And I learned that in New York we didn't have a law criminalizing um, you know, somebody sending around your naked pictures. And so the internet component of the attack on me was was the most scary thing. That um, the scariest part about it because even after I got my order of protection, I knew that legally he could still be sending around my images. He you know, as far as I know, he didn't. But but there was always this like thing, this that he had threatened to and and he had sent me emails saying that he with the picture of saying that he'd blind copied um, you know, people that I was like other lawyers and judges and stuff. Um. But it was like there's a constant anxiety that like I wasn't I wasn't protected. Even after all the legal issues had had seemingly wrapped up. Kelly became one of the most prominent lawyers specializing and revenge born and offers victims legal support and a pathway to justice, whatever that looks like for them. Our expertise is dealing with people who have been stopped and harassed and um, victims of sexual assault and sexual trauma, and and getting justice for them. Sometimes it's just about getting in order of protection or helping advocate in the criminal justice system, or just sending a cease and as system getting the offender to go away forever. Other times it's we have to um if the victim doesn't want to take any legal action but just wants those images to be removed from the Internet. And then we also do sometimes have really big cases against uh, the City of New York when there's a retaliation against a student, or our big case against Grinder because we felt they were facilitating our client being stopped. UM, but they're there. But basically the whole idea is that we every client that comes to us has either been attacked or is under attack, and so we know what to do. And we've seen all these these behavioral profiles over and over again, and the more you do something, the more expert you get. And so we we can predict, you know, well, by sending a season to this letter to this kind of behavioral profile who is mentally ill and unrelenting and assess we can know that's just gonna escalate things. Um, Whereas oh, this other person, he's threatening revenge porn, but he's actually got a really stable job and um lives with with and has a kid, and she's actually going to feel um scared of a threat because it could take things away from from him. More after this quick break, let's get right back to it. Carrie's case against the dating app Grinder was one of the biggest fites of her career. In it, she sets her side a legislation called Section to thirty, which basically says that tech platforms can't be sued for what people say on those platforms. Now, free speech advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation say Section to thirty is what makes the Internet the Internet, but Carrie says that's exactly the problem. Forgive me if I like bungle this from my kind of like lay person's research, I understand that it really comes down to Section to thirty, which I know that is something that you really really have an issue with. You know, this is the section that allows tech companies to not be held liable for things that that are said on their platform way that their platforms are used. UM, free speech advocates say that that section is like what makes the Internet what it is. But you say, that's exactly the problem, right, that we should be thinking about the Internet in a different way, we should be building a different Internet. I guess how do we reconcile those two those two arguments. I guess you know, Um, is there some way to preserve free speech online while also not letting tech companies just like avoid accountability for the way that their platforms are are misused. Oh my gosh, I have so much to say to this pretinue. You've you've framed it like better, better than I could. Our client, Matthew Herrick was a waiter slash actor slash former reality star who lived in Manhattan in Harlem, and he had just ended a relationship with a really controlling and abusive man. And among the ways that that man's stalked Matthew was he UM started creating fake profiles on Grinder, the gay dating app, and then luring people to Matthew's job and to his home using Grinder's deal locating technology and d m ng with with the unknowing people, and over the course of several months over individuals came in person to Matthew's apartment and to his job thinking that they were there to have sex with him. So imagine, just like in the course of this interview, if your buzzer rang three times with you know, like it was sometimes as many as twenty three people a day, bridget and um, and you know, each time he didn't know who it was going to be. He didn't know if that person was going to be dangerous. Sometimes, Um, Matthew's X would would torment and taunt the visitors and say home of full big or racist things, or say that Matthew had free drugs, and so sometimes the visitors would um come really angry or tweaked out. Um, but always they were there thinking that Matthew had had great fantasies and and stuff. So, I mean, it was scary, like it was. It was a crime that was happening to Matthew day in and day out, every single day. And Matthew had gone to the police ten times, he'd gotten an order protection that the offender was violating over and over again, and nothing nothing mattered. Matthew flagged the accounts with Reinder about fifty times by the time we came along, and then I was, Um, I had just worked with a bunch of big tech companies at the time. This is like, um, the fall or the the end of and I've worked with a bunch of tech companies on the revenge porn policies. And so I was super like, I'll just call up Grinder's general counsel and get them to remove this this user. And they ignored me too, and so I was like raging, raging with him, and we UM ended up getting a restraining order against Grinder UM saying that they had to remove this user, which you know, it's not super common to get a restrainding order against a tech company, UM, but we got it. And Grinder even ignored that the visitors kept coming and we UM, as we you know, plotted our lawsuit against Grinder, we had to worry about, UM the communications de since the Act Section to thirty, which was this law as you mentioned, that went into effect UM back in UH five when the Internet looked nothing like it does now. And UM the law was actually you know, it's just a twenty six word law that was part of a bigger law that basically banned pornography on the Internet. But the other part of that law got got deemed unconstitutional. Case you're wondering, um, why we have porn on the internet, Um, it's it's not constitutional to to outlaw it. But but this little section survived, and it originally was was supposed to just make it so that you know, if if a bulletin board, which was basically the way that you know, people talked to one another online, if if somebody posted something defamatory UM on the bulletin board, there wouldn't be a lawsuit against the bulletin board, but but the defamation would be user to user. And you know, it kind of makes sense because then, um, the platforms are not tasked with this burden of of having to moderate all all the speech and all the posts and stuff like that. But the issue is that over the last you know, five years, UM, that law has been interpreted by our courts in this really expansive way. And so anytime you know, Twitter or Facebook or anybody gets sued for something that's happening to a user, they say, we're not liable because of section to thirty. Um, you know, like you can't hold this accountable for anything that one user does to another. And courts of you know, said you're right, because all the other cases before you didn't. It's important to emphasize that Carrie isn't just talking about what someone says on a platform. If a platform allows an abusive user to impersonate you and set you up for a dangerous encounter in real life, it's a pretty big flaw. The issue is that the Internet and apps and and you know are so much different now than they were. And we're not just talking about defamation. We're talking about you know, geolocating technology and um, you know, social media companies which have so much function ability, and we're talking about you know, dating apps, you know, and apps that are playing a role in matching users and so but we had to make it when we were filing this lawsuit so that we were not suing Grinder for anything that Matt's X was doing to Matt, because we knew it would get kicked out of court for violating Section to thirty. And so when Grinder's lawyers finally came to court and told us that they didn't have the technology to ban an abusive user, we were like, what, Like, you have the world's biggest dating app and it's so foreseeable, the big biggest dating app, you know, for for gay people, it's so foreseeable. But sometimes it's going to be abused by stalkers, by predators, and you've not designed into it like a way to stop abusive users. Well, then you've you've released a dangerous product into the stream of commerce. And just like our product liability laws for cars you know that have air bags that don't go off, or or broken bread breaks or something like, Grinder had created a dangerous product and we say you shouldn't have been on the market in the first place. And the fact that you are, well, that's how we're gonna sue you. Grinder still said, you're at the end of the day, you're still holding us liable for stuff that's users done to Matthew. It's not us. And the judge agreed with with Grinder, And we appealed and and and kept losing at every stage and ultimately petitioned to the Supreme Court and lost and um which happened. You know, this was from the beginning a re I'll um. It was a very experimental lawsuit, Like at the time that we filed it, it was novel for us to even be for anybody to even be referring to UM apps as products. Everyone was saying their services, their services. But but now this idea has caught on and UM and it's kind of changed the way that UM that we think about apps and Internet products. And the fact that we did have such you know that Mattithew experienced such a horrific thing and he couldn't get justice. That's actually helped us fight for legislation. And and so as you mentioned, you've got all these people on the other side that And I don't actually think it's all these people. I think they're just very vocal and they're getting paid a lot of lobbying money from from big tech. Is the Internet we have now working for everyone? Is that the version of the Internet we want? Is it one worth preserving as is? Karen doesn't really think so. But they're saying that UM basically the Internet as we know it when it exists UM without section two three, and we're going to lose you know, all the this wonderful free exchange of ideas if we if we lose section two three. And I hoped total bs on that, because number one, you're assuming that the Internet as we know it is a great place and as we know it like should be you know, like preserved just you know, it's kind of like any constitutional argument or or make America great again. You're assuming that it is. The things are great, um and you know you're assuming that you know that everyone has the same level of free speech. But I mean speech on the Internet really belongs to those were the loudest and and you know, for basically for companies Amazon, Facebook, Um, Microsoft and Apple. I mean they control the Internet and we've got all our our issues with with anti trust um and and then you and also the quantity, So the most hostile people on the Internet are the ones who have the greatest protections. Um. But also when we're talking about lawsuits and and the right to sue, it's such a fundamental right. Carrie says that as long as tech companies have the kind of legal protection afforded to them by Section to thirty, it creates a situation where there's not a lot of avenues to hold them accountable. You know. Like the thing is like as you see with our our cases against the New York City Department Bed, like for the cost of an index number, which is a couple hundred bucks, which you can get waived. I had a client who you know, whose mom was a part time home healthy and didn't speak English, you know, and they had they had no money to speak of. I had her suing the city of New York, which is where multibillion you know, multibillion dollar dollars. And that's the great equalizer in our country is that anybody can sue, even you know, if there's been a harm. And and it's it's fundamental and it's also how we keep our big organizations are companies from being total assholes because the threat of being being sued is is hits you in the bottom you know, it's a bottom line issue. It costs money and um and it's what you know, like so many safety measures, whether we're talking about pharma, suitables, or cars, it's because of litigation that happened, or it's because of the fear of litigation. And also it's because most companies want people to be safe. They want their customers and clients to not have a bad experience. You don't see that with big tech though, you know, like the the wall off, you know, like if you had a crisis on Facebook. If let's say you're a parent and your kid was manipulated into giving nudes to a pedophile and then he was sharing them online. You're a parent, your first instinct was who you know? Is who do I talk to? Who do I talk to? What's the phone number? Who's live to help me with this crisis? And it's just like a one way street here where we're giving these companies all this information about us and and and stuff, and we can't. I mean, they are like it's like OZ, like they're the behind this magic curtain and don't have to in act with us users. As you were talking, it occurred to me that when you first started your law firm, the idea of revenge porn didn't even really exist, And it was through advocating for legal protections and working with victims that you helped us are in both a legal change and a cultural reimagining of what revenge porn actually is. And in listening to you talk about tech companies just now, it seems like you're poised to do that same kind of thing again when it comes to reimagining what role tech companies should play in creating an Internet that's safe for everyone, like a hard reset of how these companies operate. Yeah, I mean, it's it's true, Bridget there's so much there's so much work that can be done, and like it's it's a really critical time because you have all this concentrated power and wealth in such a few number of you know, just a few companies, and that the inequality in our in our society is just getting greater, you know, because of these companies, because and and also of power, and the omniscience is also you know another thing that's just creating so much more inequalities and in our country. And the thing is, I do have so many cases where it's you can't ignore that the facts are horrific. You know, an eleven year old who was sex started and made to create all these videos and they were sent around on Instagram, or my my client who's who was who's murder was basically life streamed um or another client who was raped and murdered on a first date through match dot Com by a known sex offender. Like there's gonna come become a point where the more cases like that, Okay, if even if these cases can't be brought in court, get kicked out, Like you can't deny that there is extreme negligence by these companies and we're just I'm gonna just keep producing them until we get new law. And it's just like any other case where if you don't feel like you can become a victim, then you're not going to care. But the whole purpose of my book and and everything is to is to pound into this and into the consciousness that we're all a moment away from becoming victims. Like all it takes is one person to decide they want to destroy you. One bad interaction at the supermarket with somebody who finds out your name. They then have the right to to, you know, go to pedophile websites and and tell the world that you're a pedophile. And good luck getting that down, you know, Like, um, it's anybody can become a victim, but it shouldn't take that in order for us to have empathy toward victims and want to change the Internet. And it's you know, like this we're not talking about you know, somebody call somebody else a bitch on Twitter. That's not the kind of speech that's going to be impacted. And we're not even talking about speech really because this is all conduct, you know, And but our law doesn't even see the difference there I would, you know, like with Grinder, we weren't suing them for any words of the profile or any words on the d M. We were suing them because this product was being used, you know, hundreds of times a day to try to get get our client injured. It's not a speech issue. This is unjust. Kenny's work isn't just about the law. It confronts the cultural attitude that people who are victimized online deserve it, or that it's just a sexy scandal rather than a serious crime, or that we should just expect that the internet is a place where we'll be mistreated. Why can't it be better than that? So, what has it been like to have such a personal hand in challenging the internet to be better and safer and stronger and working to build one where people will power are held accountable. Well, it's it's so kind of you too to describe me that way if you really, um feel flattered about that. Um, you know, I love my job and I love that as the owner of this law firm, I can decide what direction we go in and what fights to choose. I mean, that is an incredibly privileged and inquisition to be in. And you know, like there are ways to use your law degree in a super awesome, fun, creative way. I mean, what's it been like? It's just like been fun. But there aren't moments where I wake up and I feel like, oh, I'm just like really, you know, I've done it, you know, like like I've made it, because there's always, um, somebody waiting to give me a bad verdict or you know, a troll that you know cuts me down to size, or you know, like, um, there's you know, there there's very fleeting moments of um, well what should I call fleeting moments of like success. I'm proud of what we do. I'm so proud of my staff, um, but we're always humbled by by the next fight. On her website, Carrie says the clients she works with aren't fragile like a flower. They're fragile like a bomb. Through her work with those clients, Carrie is blowing up our understanding of the Internet by asking the big, bold questions about how it can be better. She's taken the darkness she faced and used it to build a brighter future. If you enjoyed this podcast, please help us grow by subscribing. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or just want to say hi. We'd love to hear from you at Hello at Tango dot com. Disinformed brought to you by There Are No Girls on the Internet. It's a production of iHeart Radio and Unbust Creative. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tory Harrison is our supervising producer, and engineer. Michael Lamato is our contributing producer. I'm your host Bridget Tod. For more great podcasts, check out the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

There Are No Girls on the Internet

Marginalized voices have always been at the forefront of the internet, yet our stories often go over 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 292 clip(s)