There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridgett and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. I am here with my producer Mike. Mike, thank you so much for being here.

There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridgett and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. I am here with my producer Mike. Mike, thank you so much for being here.

Thanks for having me Bridget and I'm excited to talk all about the tech news.

Thanks for having me Bridget and I'm excited to talk all about the tech news.

And here's what you may have missed this week on the Internet. So we're gonna be kind of mixing it up a little bit today. Honestly, there was so much to talk about. A lot of it is related to Twitter. So we're gonna start with some news that you might have missed and then do a bit of a deep dive on Twitter. Mike, how does that sound?

And here's what you may have missed this week on the Internet. So we're gonna be kind of mixing it up a little bit today. Honestly, there was so much to talk about. A lot of it is related to Twitter. So we're gonna start with some news that you might have missed and then do a bit of a deep dive on Twitter. Mike, how does that sound?

It sounds pretty good.

It sounds pretty good.

I hope people are ready, because there's a lot to say about Twitter.

I hope people are ready, because there's a lot to say about Twitter.

I know it's like a we do our little segment what's Elon Musk up to? And this is like an extended, supersized version of what Elon Musk is up to. I hope y'all are ready, But first let's talk about what else is going on. So this is a little bit delicate. I don't make any kind of judgments about what kind of extra curricular internet searching activities listeners and folks are up to. However, here is some news because if you've tried to watch pornography online recently, you might have encountered some trouble. And that's because a handful of states have rolled out age verification policies to access adult sites, where folks have to essentially prove that they're over eighteen. So, if you've ever spent any time at all on adult sites more recently, it's been like a little checkbox that you have to check to confirm that you are over the age of eighteen. It feels pretty loose, like I think you could probably just say I am over the age of eighteen, and I don't think it doesn't really stop you from lying about that if that's what you want to do. But that is no longer the case now. When you go to sites like porn hub in these states, it redirects you to a government run website to prove that you were over eighteen by submitting your government ID, driver's license, or passport information. Currently, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, and Utah all have these policies in place. Virginia's went into effect just last week, and according to the Verge, traffic dropped by eighty percent for Pornhub after it first began enforcing age verification in Louisiana earlier this year, and after that, it sounds like Pornhub just decided to start taking its sites offline instead of enforcing this age verification policy, so just sidestepping the issue altogether, kind of in protest. So that also goes for other porn tube sites that its parent company runs, like red Tube. So that means that thanks to Virginia's new rollout of this law, users in Virginia will not be able to access porn tube sites like red Tube or Pornhub either. Perhaps not surprisingly last week, in the days immediately following this policy going into effect, according to Google Trends, Virginia ranked as the highest state when it came to searches for VPNs or virtual private networks networks that allow you to circumvent these location specific barriers to accessing websites. So I don't know if this is tacky to mention, but at one point ExpressVPN as a sponsor of the show. I don't think they are anymore as a as a What's Your Producer had on Mike, is it taky to throw out the promo code for folks who want to try out ExpressVPN?

I know it's like a we do our little segment what's Elon Musk up to? And this is like an extended, supersized version of what Elon Musk is up to. I hope y'all are ready, But first let's talk about what else is going on. So this is a little bit delicate. I don't make any kind of judgments about what kind of extra curricular internet searching activities listeners and folks are up to. However, here is some news because if you've tried to watch pornography online recently, you might have encountered some trouble. And that's because a handful of states have rolled out age verification policies to access adult sites, where folks have to essentially prove that they're over eighteen. So, if you've ever spent any time at all on adult sites more recently, it's been like a little checkbox that you have to check to confirm that you are over the age of eighteen. It feels pretty loose, like I think you could probably just say I am over the age of eighteen, and I don't think it doesn't really stop you from lying about that if that's what you want to do. But that is no longer the case now. When you go to sites like porn hub in these states, it redirects you to a government run website to prove that you were over eighteen by submitting your government ID, driver's license, or passport information. Currently, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, and Utah all have these policies in place. Virginia's went into effect just last week, and according to the Verge, traffic dropped by eighty percent for Pornhub after it first began enforcing age verification in Louisiana earlier this year, and after that, it sounds like Pornhub just decided to start taking its sites offline instead of enforcing this age verification policy, so just sidestepping the issue altogether, kind of in protest. So that also goes for other porn tube sites that its parent company runs, like red Tube. So that means that thanks to Virginia's new rollout of this law, users in Virginia will not be able to access porn tube sites like red Tube or Pornhub either. Perhaps not surprisingly last week, in the days immediately following this policy going into effect, according to Google Trends, Virginia ranked as the highest state when it came to searches for VPNs or virtual private networks networks that allow you to circumvent these location specific barriers to accessing websites. So I don't know if this is tacky to mention, but at one point ExpressVPN as a sponsor of the show. I don't think they are anymore as a as a What's Your Producer had on Mike, is it taky to throw out the promo code for folks who want to try out ExpressVPN?

I don't think so. You know, it's a useful service. We like ExpressVPN. Maybe they want to sponsor us again, we'd love to have them back. But in the meantime, yeah, maybe listeners want a three three months off their subscription. Where can they go to get that?

I don't think so. You know, it's a useful service. We like ExpressVPN. Maybe they want to sponsor us again, we'd love to have them back. But in the meantime, yeah, maybe listeners want a three three months off their subscription. Where can they go to get that?

Bridget You can go to ExpressVPN dot com slash no girls to get an extra three months off with a twelve month plan. Yeah, I this is again, this is They're not paying me to say this. I'm a big fan of VPNs. I think it's just a good thing to have, especially when that's like super easy to use, hit a button and then you know it's working behind the scenes. But I do think that legislation like this, I think that we're going to be seeing more and more location specific internet legislation, and so having a VPN knowing how to use one wouldn't be the worst idea in the world for somebody, even if you were you know, don't think of yourself as a techie who's going to need it. Do you remember that time that I was in South Africa? And you were in the United States and you wanted to watch Weekend at Bernie's two, and it was available in its entirety on YouTube in South Africa but not in the United States. So you used a VPN to try to access it, and then you couldn't, and we ended up doing like a zoom screen share so that we can both be watching at the same time.

Bridget You can go to ExpressVPN dot com slash no girls to get an extra three months off with a twelve month plan. Yeah, I this is again, this is They're not paying me to say this. I'm a big fan of VPNs. I think it's just a good thing to have, especially when that's like super easy to use, hit a button and then you know it's working behind the scenes. But I do think that legislation like this, I think that we're going to be seeing more and more location specific internet legislation, and so having a VPN knowing how to use one wouldn't be the worst idea in the world for somebody, even if you were you know, don't think of yourself as a techie who's going to need it. Do you remember that time that I was in South Africa? And you were in the United States and you wanted to watch Weekend at Bernie's two, and it was available in its entirety on YouTube in South Africa but not in the United States. So you used a VPN to try to access it, and then you couldn't, and we ended up doing like a zoom screen share so that we can both be watching at the same time.

It was a very bad cinematic experience, but we did technically watch that movie.

It was a very bad cinematic experience, but we did technically watch that movie.

Yeah, thanks to VPNs. So I think that age verification online is a terrible idea for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it just doesn't really work. The day that the Virginia law took up that last week, people on Reddit were complaining about not being able to access porn sites despite not living in or near the states where it's the law. That's because IP addresses are notoriously kind of janky at being able to actually locate where a user is. For instance, here in DC, it's not terribly unusual for a user's IP address to say that they're in a nearby state like Virginia or Maryland, even if they have never been to one of those states. Because it's a little bit chanky.

Yeah, thanks to VPNs. So I think that age verification online is a terrible idea for so many reasons, not the least of which is that it just doesn't really work. The day that the Virginia law took up that last week, people on Reddit were complaining about not being able to access porn sites despite not living in or near the states where it's the law. That's because IP addresses are notoriously kind of janky at being able to actually locate where a user is. For instance, here in DC, it's not terribly unusual for a user's IP address to say that they're in a nearby state like Virginia or Maryland, even if they have never been to one of those states. Because it's a little bit chanky.

Yeah, it's true.

Yeah, it's true.

So in some of my research, we try to geolocate people who use various digital tools that we provide, and it's hard to geolocate people.

So in some of my research, we try to geolocate people who use various digital tools that we provide, and it's hard to geolocate people.

IP addresses just very unreliable.

IP addresses just very unreliable.

And personally, I don't think that we should be getting in the habit of being comfortable with having to give over our real names and government information and IDs in order to access the Internet. Our government does not keep our private data secure and private right now. In our episode about Doc Saying with Shanna Sigelow, the digital security expert, we talked all about how if you've ever voted, or paid a parking ticket, or had the power or electricity turned on in your apartment, your state or local government could be selling your personal data to whoever wants it because that's what they do. And so I think giving over more of our information under the guise of like, keeping us safer, just does it make sense to me, especially when it's under the guise of like, quote protecting kids online, because if we really cared about protecting kids online, there's one hundred other things that we would be doing to actually protect them from the corporate Internet forces that we know are exploiting and harming them, and I think Wired really summarized it well. They right, the Internet isn't a child friendly place. However, introducing age verification across the web is technical and complex. In twenty nineteen, the UK ditched a multi year plan to in introduced age checks after encountering myriad problems. The porn we watch is also highly sensitive, kinks are incredibly personal, and leaks of data online can be devastating. Privacy advocates, porn companies, and some regulators say the move to introduce age verification introduces significant problems. The concerns about young people accessing adult websites are real and widespread. Less widespread is the understanding of the limitations of various age verification tools and the new dangers they might pose. This is from Arena Resu, director of the Internet Ethics Program at Santa Clara University's Marcula Center. Many regulators and others seem to think of age verification as a solved problem. Technologists and privacy activists, including activists focused on protecting children, are trying to explain that that's not the case. And I think that's absolutely true. I think that you know, when we talk about legislation state specific legislation, for instance, around TikTok bands and things like that. I think that giving giving states and platforms more access to information about us, I find that a really wonky explanation for how that's supposed to make us more secure online. And we just know how legislation can creep when people feel motivated by a desire to protect kids online, like in Mississippi. For example, Another piece of new legislation means that nobody under the age of eighteen will have access to digital materials made available through public and school libraries without explicit parent or guardian permission, So no Libby access for ebooks for teens, and book Riot reports that even if they do get a parent's permission, miners can't access digital materials if vendors do not ensure that every single item within their offerings meets this new, wide reaching definition of quote obscendity. Per the state, This legislation went to affect July first, and libraries had to sort of scramble to figure out how to comply with it.

And personally, I don't think that we should be getting in the habit of being comfortable with having to give over our real names and government information and IDs in order to access the Internet. Our government does not keep our private data secure and private right now. In our episode about Doc Saying with Shanna Sigelow, the digital security expert, we talked all about how if you've ever voted, or paid a parking ticket, or had the power or electricity turned on in your apartment, your state or local government could be selling your personal data to whoever wants it because that's what they do. And so I think giving over more of our information under the guise of like, keeping us safer, just does it make sense to me, especially when it's under the guise of like, quote protecting kids online, because if we really cared about protecting kids online, there's one hundred other things that we would be doing to actually protect them from the corporate Internet forces that we know are exploiting and harming them, and I think Wired really summarized it well. They right, the Internet isn't a child friendly place. However, introducing age verification across the web is technical and complex. In twenty nineteen, the UK ditched a multi year plan to in introduced age checks after encountering myriad problems. The porn we watch is also highly sensitive, kinks are incredibly personal, and leaks of data online can be devastating. Privacy advocates, porn companies, and some regulators say the move to introduce age verification introduces significant problems. The concerns about young people accessing adult websites are real and widespread. Less widespread is the understanding of the limitations of various age verification tools and the new dangers they might pose. This is from Arena Resu, director of the Internet Ethics Program at Santa Clara University's Marcula Center. Many regulators and others seem to think of age verification as a solved problem. Technologists and privacy activists, including activists focused on protecting children, are trying to explain that that's not the case. And I think that's absolutely true. I think that you know, when we talk about legislation state specific legislation, for instance, around TikTok bands and things like that. I think that giving giving states and platforms more access to information about us, I find that a really wonky explanation for how that's supposed to make us more secure online. And we just know how legislation can creep when people feel motivated by a desire to protect kids online, like in Mississippi. For example, Another piece of new legislation means that nobody under the age of eighteen will have access to digital materials made available through public and school libraries without explicit parent or guardian permission, So no Libby access for ebooks for teens, and book Riot reports that even if they do get a parent's permission, miners can't access digital materials if vendors do not ensure that every single item within their offerings meets this new, wide reaching definition of quote obscendity. Per the state, This legislation went to affect July first, and libraries had to sort of scramble to figure out how to comply with it.

Yeah, it's not clear what harm they're trying to solve here. I guess they're going to I guess the goal here is to protect kids from pornography, which, like I said, is a reasonable, laudable goal that I think.

Yeah, it's not clear what harm they're trying to solve here. I guess they're going to I guess the goal here is to protect kids from pornography, which, like I said, is a reasonable, laudable goal that I think.

Most people could get behind.

Most people could get behind.

But it seems like the result of this law is like huge numbers of adults not being able to access something that they should have every right to be able to access. And I completely agree that it is scary to have to enter your government ID to do something that some people in power have decided is not okay, right, because you have to imagine that part of the goal here is just to like eliminate pornography entirely, which is a laughable goal. But you know, these a lot of these people who are caught up in this moral panic about protecting the kids.

But it seems like the result of this law is like huge numbers of adults not being able to access something that they should have every right to be able to access. And I completely agree that it is scary to have to enter your government ID to do something that some people in power have decided is not okay, right, because you have to imagine that part of the goal here is just to like eliminate pornography entirely, which is a laughable goal. But you know, these a lot of these people who are caught up in this moral panic about protecting the kids.

It's not like.

It's not like.

They are coming from a place of you know, evidence based concern or evidence based solutions to actual problems, right. They're like living in a fantasy land where librarians are grooming children by reading them stories that feature gay people. And these are the same people who you know are pushing for these sorts of age restrictions like you said in Louisiana, and I guess Virginia now too, where you have to put in your government driver's license, which is nuts. You know, I absolutely wouldn't want to give those same people who are putting these laws in place access to data about what I'm looking at online.

They are coming from a place of you know, evidence based concern or evidence based solutions to actual problems, right. They're like living in a fantasy land where librarians are grooming children by reading them stories that feature gay people. And these are the same people who you know are pushing for these sorts of age restrictions like you said in Louisiana, and I guess Virginia now too, where you have to put in your government driver's license, which is nuts. You know, I absolutely wouldn't want to give those same people who are putting these laws in place access to data about what I'm looking at online.

That is like the last thing I want to do.

That is like the last thing I want to do.

And it really I completely agree, And it really comes down to something that doctor Olivia Snow said that when we talk to her, that when you hear you're a lawmaker talking about legislation regulating the Internet in a new way that is meant to keep kids safe, that that should be your big red flag that they are talking about cracking down on the behavior online of consensual adults, right, And that like how often protecting kids online is used as a smoke screen in order to crack down on what adults are doing online consensually. And like, yeah, I just who who out there when they are doing their thing, when it's just them in their computer having their private moment. Who wants to get their government ID with their first, last and middle name and whatever like their address on it. Who wants to get that involved in that exchange? Nobody? Nobody, nobody, Like who is this servant? Right? And I think it's I think it's really interesting that we're allowing lawmakers to introduce these new laws into our lives and tell us they are for our own good. When I think that anybody who's ever looked at online porn knows that, like, you can't close those windows out fast enough. When you're done doing what you're gonna do, do you want your license attached to it? Of course not.

And it really I completely agree, And it really comes down to something that doctor Olivia Snow said that when we talk to her, that when you hear you're a lawmaker talking about legislation regulating the Internet in a new way that is meant to keep kids safe, that that should be your big red flag that they are talking about cracking down on the behavior online of consensual adults, right, And that like how often protecting kids online is used as a smoke screen in order to crack down on what adults are doing online consensually. And like, yeah, I just who who out there when they are doing their thing, when it's just them in their computer having their private moment. Who wants to get their government ID with their first, last and middle name and whatever like their address on it. Who wants to get that involved in that exchange? Nobody? Nobody, nobody, Like who is this servant? Right? And I think it's I think it's really interesting that we're allowing lawmakers to introduce these new laws into our lives and tell us they are for our own good. When I think that anybody who's ever looked at online porn knows that, like, you can't close those windows out fast enough. When you're done doing what you're gonna do, do you want your license attached to it? Of course not.

That's a great question. Who is it serving?

That's a great question. Who is it serving?

You know?

You know?

And relatedly, who would it most harm? You know, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to picture scenario where somebody is being taken to you know, they're engaging like a custody battle or something, and somebody gets access to somebody else's records and now it's like part of the public record that like so and so looked at online pornography.

And relatedly, who would it most harm? You know, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to picture scenario where somebody is being taken to you know, they're engaging like a custody battle or something, and somebody gets access to somebody else's records and now it's like part of the public record that like so and so looked at online pornography.

Yeah, and I think that's a great point. And it also just reminds me of how often, and we're talking about the way the Internet is legislated, how often it will start in one place with online pornography, and then it'll start someplace completely different. When Yahoo bought Tumblr, they were like, oh, we're not going to have there be sexual content. You might be thinking that's like nudity, but by the end it was a whole host of content that wasn't necessarily sexual was content about people learning about their sexual or gender identities, right, and so that's not necessarily sexually explicit. But how quickly the bucket of what they were cracking down on expanded, And I think with legislation like this, you have to imagine that like, yeah, maybe they're going to say starting with pornography, but who knows where that could end up? And that actually is a great segue to what's happening in France.

Yeah, and I think that's a great point. And it also just reminds me of how often, and we're talking about the way the Internet is legislated, how often it will start in one place with online pornography, and then it'll start someplace completely different. When Yahoo bought Tumblr, they were like, oh, we're not going to have there be sexual content. You might be thinking that's like nudity, but by the end it was a whole host of content that wasn't necessarily sexual was content about people learning about their sexual or gender identities, right, and so that's not necessarily sexually explicit. But how quickly the bucket of what they were cracking down on expanded, And I think with legislation like this, you have to imagine that like, yeah, maybe they're going to say starting with pornography, but who knows where that could end up? And that actually is a great segue to what's happening in France.

Let's take a quick break.

Let's take a quick break.

At or back. So, lawmakers in France's National Assembly passed a bill that lets police surveil suspects by remotely activating their cameras, microphones, and GPS location systems on their phones, laptops, cars and connected devices. Now, a judge will have to approve the use of these powers, and a recently amended bill does forbid the use against journalists, lawyers, and other people who work in sensitive professions. Now. Proponents of this measure say that it is meant to be limited in scope to serious cases, and that the maximum amount of time that police can surveil suspects is six months, and geolocation can only be limited to crimes that are punishable by at least five years in prison. Now. Unsurprisingly, digital privacy experts are, to put it, lightly concerned. According to n Gadget, the digital rights group La quadrechur dunet I apologize for my bad French previously pointed out the potential for abuse because the bill is just not clear in terms of what it constitutes as a serious crime. There are fears that the French government could use this to target environmental activists and others who are not grave threats. You'll notice that even though they say that this won't be used against folks with sensitive professions, does that include activists? Right? Does that include dissidents? They also point out that just like in the United States, security policies do have a habit of expanding, just like we were talking about with that peign legislation, right, that they have a habit of expanding to less serious crimes. They give the example of genetic registration, which used to only be used for sex offenders in France, but La Quadrature says, has now been expanded to being used for almost every crime in France.

At or back. So, lawmakers in France's National Assembly passed a bill that lets police surveil suspects by remotely activating their cameras, microphones, and GPS location systems on their phones, laptops, cars and connected devices. Now, a judge will have to approve the use of these powers, and a recently amended bill does forbid the use against journalists, lawyers, and other people who work in sensitive professions. Now. Proponents of this measure say that it is meant to be limited in scope to serious cases, and that the maximum amount of time that police can surveil suspects is six months, and geolocation can only be limited to crimes that are punishable by at least five years in prison. Now. Unsurprisingly, digital privacy experts are, to put it, lightly concerned. According to n Gadget, the digital rights group La quadrechur dunet I apologize for my bad French previously pointed out the potential for abuse because the bill is just not clear in terms of what it constitutes as a serious crime. There are fears that the French government could use this to target environmental activists and others who are not grave threats. You'll notice that even though they say that this won't be used against folks with sensitive professions, does that include activists? Right? Does that include dissidents? They also point out that just like in the United States, security policies do have a habit of expanding, just like we were talking about with that peign legislation, right, that they have a habit of expanding to less serious crimes. They give the example of genetic registration, which used to only be used for sex offenders in France, but La Quadrature says, has now been expanded to being used for almost every crime in France.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't know about France, but here in the US, I feel like every time there's been some law that expands police surveillance powers one two. Three years later, there's a bunch of stories about how that law was abused, used in ways it wasn't intended, targeted people that weren't supposed to be targeted. You know those newspaper headlines too. It's like the most obvious thing in the world.

I don't know about France, but here in the US, I feel like every time there's been some law that expands police surveillance powers one two. Three years later, there's a bunch of stories about how that law was abused, used in ways it wasn't intended, targeted people that weren't supposed to be targeted. You know those newspaper headlines too. It's like the most obvious thing in the world.

This is all happening against the backdrop of protests in France sparked by the police shooting and killing teenager not Hilim Razzak. Gizmodo reported that French President Macron actually threatened to shut down social media platforms as he claimed that protesters were filming, posting, and organizing on platforms like TikTok, Telegram and snapchat. And I think that it really goes back to what we were talking about in the last story about how it may seem like something that it's easy to think that these are things measures that we should be taking to keep us and our communities safe. But it's so often that they sort of start out as being about one thing and then can sort of slowly become about another. That is a tale as old as time when it comes to surveillance policies like this one. And so I think that these digital rights groups in France are really right to be pushing back on this and saying, hey, giving the police power to turn on remotely, turn on the camera or the microphone to your phone, to your car, to your laptop, that should be something that we're really concerned about and don't just you know, become okay with lightly.

This is all happening against the backdrop of protests in France sparked by the police shooting and killing teenager not Hilim Razzak. Gizmodo reported that French President Macron actually threatened to shut down social media platforms as he claimed that protesters were filming, posting, and organizing on platforms like TikTok, Telegram and snapchat. And I think that it really goes back to what we were talking about in the last story about how it may seem like something that it's easy to think that these are things measures that we should be taking to keep us and our communities safe. But it's so often that they sort of start out as being about one thing and then can sort of slowly become about another. That is a tale as old as time when it comes to surveillance policies like this one. And so I think that these digital rights groups in France are really right to be pushing back on this and saying, hey, giving the police power to turn on remotely, turn on the camera or the microphone to your phone, to your car, to your laptop, that should be something that we're really concerned about and don't just you know, become okay with lightly.

Absolutely, I think privacy is something that we all need to take very seriously and protect.

Absolutely, I think privacy is something that we all need to take very seriously and protect.

It is under assault.

It is under assault.

You know, people have been saying that privacy is dead for years, and I don't think that's the case. I think we still have a lot of privacy in our lives, thankfully, and I think it's super important that we all protect what privacy we have and resist efforts to make us all register with government ID if we want to watch corn resist giving the state authority to like turn on our phones and record from our cameras without our permission. It's yeah, it's a scary world. These technologies really enable a lot of surveillance activity that would have been unthinkable years ago, that like despots of the past wish.

You know, people have been saying that privacy is dead for years, and I don't think that's the case. I think we still have a lot of privacy in our lives, thankfully, and I think it's super important that we all protect what privacy we have and resist efforts to make us all register with government ID if we want to watch corn resist giving the state authority to like turn on our phones and record from our cameras without our permission. It's yeah, it's a scary world. These technologies really enable a lot of surveillance activity that would have been unthinkable years ago, that like despots of the past wish.

They could have had access to.

They could have had access to.

And we've talked a lot on this show about some of the paradoxes of the Internet. How at the outset. It promised this like bright democratic future where everyone would have a voice and everyone would be connected, and like, we kind of got that, but we also kind of got something very different where no one is anonymous and everything you say is traced back to people. And that comment from Macron that you just read that he was going to shut off social media because people were organizing. How many despots throughout history have wanted that power but just like didn't have it. But now that we are all, you know, communicating on apps that are centralized across you know, maybe half a dozen different apps, suddenly that does become possible. And what a scary proposition that is.

And we've talked a lot on this show about some of the paradoxes of the Internet. How at the outset. It promised this like bright democratic future where everyone would have a voice and everyone would be connected, and like, we kind of got that, but we also kind of got something very different where no one is anonymous and everything you say is traced back to people. And that comment from Macron that you just read that he was going to shut off social media because people were organizing. How many despots throughout history have wanted that power but just like didn't have it. But now that we are all, you know, communicating on apps that are centralized across you know, maybe half a dozen different apps, suddenly that does become possible. And what a scary proposition that is.

Yeah, and I don't know, have you seen that episode of that first episode of Black Mirror Joan is awful? Oh yeah, So something I won't give it away if folks haven't seen it, But something that that episode really makes clear about the current future that we're or there, the present that we're all in, is how surveillance is sold to us as for our own good or even for our own entertainment. We should like being surveiled. We should find it funny, We should enjoy the information that we that you know, our apps and our platforms have collected about us and sold us back, sold back to us, and so it's kind of scary, how I mean, I'm I'm not immune to it either. I like looking at my Spotify end of the Year list just like anybody. I'm not a monster, of course, I find that fascinating about information about myself. But the way that we've been able to be desensitized to it and sort of more and more and more and more of our privacy is sort of for sale, and we are consistently told that it is for our own protection that we should be happy that it's happening. And another great example is what's happening in Sacramento. So listeners of this show know that since the Supreme Court overturned Row last year, we have been following the very deep connections between technology, digital surveillance, and abortion rights. And here's another update on that front. The digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation sent a letter to Sacramento Sheriff Jim Cooper, urging the Sheriff's department to stop their practice of sharing automated license plate reader data with out of state authorities in anti abortion states including Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas. Adam Schwartz, he's the EFF's senior staff attorney, said that this practice is a threat to security and privacy, and that a sheriff in Texas, Idaho, or any other state with an abortion ban on the books could use that data to track people's movement around California, knowing where they live, where they work, and where they seek reproductive medical care, including abortions. So back in May, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a report showing that seventy one law enforcement agencies in twenty two California counties, including Sacramento County, were sharing this kind of data, and that this practice was actually in violation of a twenty fifteen law that states that a California law enforcement agency shall not sell, share, or transfer automatic license plate reader information except to another California law enforcement agency. And so they're just it sounds like, I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like they're just not doing that. They're just not following that law. The Sacramento Sheriff's Office had a pretty weird response to those allegations, accusing Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of being involved in some sort of like vast conspiracy to read lawlessness I don't know. You tell me. Here's what they said back in May. Law enforcement agencies commonly use information from license plate readers to investigate serious crimes such as homicide, child kidnapping, human trafficking, and drug trafficking across state borders. So very much like what we were just talking about, right that, like, oh, us collecting this data is actually good for you because it makes you safer. Fine, However, they go on. Some organizations, such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have lied that law enforcement sharing this information is an attempt to violate people's legal rights. These false claims are intentional and part of a broader agenda to promote lawlessness and prevent criminals from being held accountable. So like, I don't know if the Electronic Frontier Foundation is in on this, like vast conspiracy to enable criminals to just be lawless out on the streets. I don't know. That seems like a pretty big allegation from the Sheriff's office in Sacramento County.

Yeah, and I don't know, have you seen that episode of that first episode of Black Mirror Joan is awful? Oh yeah, So something I won't give it away if folks haven't seen it, But something that that episode really makes clear about the current future that we're or there, the present that we're all in, is how surveillance is sold to us as for our own good or even for our own entertainment. We should like being surveiled. We should find it funny, We should enjoy the information that we that you know, our apps and our platforms have collected about us and sold us back, sold back to us, and so it's kind of scary, how I mean, I'm I'm not immune to it either. I like looking at my Spotify end of the Year list just like anybody. I'm not a monster, of course, I find that fascinating about information about myself. But the way that we've been able to be desensitized to it and sort of more and more and more and more of our privacy is sort of for sale, and we are consistently told that it is for our own protection that we should be happy that it's happening. And another great example is what's happening in Sacramento. So listeners of this show know that since the Supreme Court overturned Row last year, we have been following the very deep connections between technology, digital surveillance, and abortion rights. And here's another update on that front. The digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation sent a letter to Sacramento Sheriff Jim Cooper, urging the Sheriff's department to stop their practice of sharing automated license plate reader data with out of state authorities in anti abortion states including Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas. Adam Schwartz, he's the EFF's senior staff attorney, said that this practice is a threat to security and privacy, and that a sheriff in Texas, Idaho, or any other state with an abortion ban on the books could use that data to track people's movement around California, knowing where they live, where they work, and where they seek reproductive medical care, including abortions. So back in May, the Electronic Frontier Foundation released a report showing that seventy one law enforcement agencies in twenty two California counties, including Sacramento County, were sharing this kind of data, and that this practice was actually in violation of a twenty fifteen law that states that a California law enforcement agency shall not sell, share, or transfer automatic license plate reader information except to another California law enforcement agency. And so they're just it sounds like, I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like they're just not doing that. They're just not following that law. The Sacramento Sheriff's Office had a pretty weird response to those allegations, accusing Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU of being involved in some sort of like vast conspiracy to read lawlessness I don't know. You tell me. Here's what they said back in May. Law enforcement agencies commonly use information from license plate readers to investigate serious crimes such as homicide, child kidnapping, human trafficking, and drug trafficking across state borders. So very much like what we were just talking about, right that, like, oh, us collecting this data is actually good for you because it makes you safer. Fine, However, they go on. Some organizations, such as the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have lied that law enforcement sharing this information is an attempt to violate people's legal rights. These false claims are intentional and part of a broader agenda to promote lawlessness and prevent criminals from being held accountable. So like, I don't know if the Electronic Frontier Foundation is in on this, like vast conspiracy to enable criminals to just be lawless out on the streets. I don't know. That seems like a pretty big allegation from the Sheriff's office in Sacramento County.

Just chaos agents. Their only interest is spreading chaos disorder. Yeah, that's what they're doing. That's where they get the big bucks because they're out there just trying to foment chaos anywhere they can.

Just chaos agents. Their only interest is spreading chaos disorder. Yeah, that's what they're doing. That's where they get the big bucks because they're out there just trying to foment chaos anywhere they can.

And honestly, it sounds like Electronic Frontier Foundation was accusing the Sheriff's office of not following the law, so then for the Sheriff's office to turn around and be like, actually, y'all are the ones who are lawless liars. And it's interesting, right, It's like their allegations are so specific, and the response is like, well, y'all are lawless liars who are just trying to help criminals, you know, murder children. One of these allegations seems a lot more believable than the other to me. I don't know, that's just me.

And honestly, it sounds like Electronic Frontier Foundation was accusing the Sheriff's office of not following the law, so then for the Sheriff's office to turn around and be like, actually, y'all are the ones who are lawless liars. And it's interesting, right, It's like their allegations are so specific, and the response is like, well, y'all are lawless liars who are just trying to help criminals, you know, murder children. One of these allegations seems a lot more believable than the other to me. I don't know, that's just me.

It's such a good follow up to those two stories we just talked about about the creep of surveillance authority, because exactly like you said, it sounds like from this letter, the EFF was saying, hey, you guys are currently violating the law by sharing this information that you have collected through police surveillance apparatus. I don't know what the term is, but like, through these license plate readers, thro are reading licenses and you're sharing that with people who the law forbids you to share it with, and people are going to get hurt, and the response was, shut up. We're going after criminals, and you're a criminal too, even though the police are the ones breaking the law and the people pointing that out and pointing out this overreach of a law that was intended to have limits and the fact that the police are disrespecting those limits that were placed around this law to get it passed. But you have to assume we're put there by legislators who couldn't get the law passed without them, so they were like, Okay, okay, we'll put these limits around it. They can't share it outside of California to get the law passed, and this sheriff is just like uninterested in that right. He's going after criminals and lawlessness. And why should any god fearing good citizens be concerned that their data is just illegally being shared across state lines.

It's such a good follow up to those two stories we just talked about about the creep of surveillance authority, because exactly like you said, it sounds like from this letter, the EFF was saying, hey, you guys are currently violating the law by sharing this information that you have collected through police surveillance apparatus. I don't know what the term is, but like, through these license plate readers, thro are reading licenses and you're sharing that with people who the law forbids you to share it with, and people are going to get hurt, and the response was, shut up. We're going after criminals, and you're a criminal too, even though the police are the ones breaking the law and the people pointing that out and pointing out this overreach of a law that was intended to have limits and the fact that the police are disrespecting those limits that were placed around this law to get it passed. But you have to assume we're put there by legislators who couldn't get the law passed without them, so they were like, Okay, okay, we'll put these limits around it. They can't share it outside of California to get the law passed, and this sheriff is just like uninterested in that right. He's going after criminals and lawlessness. And why should any god fearing good citizens be concerned that their data is just illegally being shared across state lines.

Okay, So if you liked that response. After the Electronic Frontier Foundation sent the Sacramento sheriff their letter asking him to stop this practice this week, he replied on Twitter that first response I read to you was like Sacramento Sheriff's Department like official Twitter this. He took to his personal Twitter to give this response. He said quote, the bill and this law has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive rights. My record on women's and reproductive rights has been strong throughout my time in the State Assembly, and nothing has changed since becoming sheriff. Electronic Frontier Foundation has the track record of protecting child molesters, ventanal traffickers, rapists, and murderers. Perhaps they should focus more on helping victims rather than continuing to shield criminals from prosecution. So if you thought the first response back when eff first made these allegations was a little much being like, oh no, no, you are too busy holding hands with child molesters and fentanal traffickers and rapists and murderers. Like it's just it's just a very intense response from what is like a very measured letter about about how they are following the letter of the law. Now, I should say that Adam Schwartz, the attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, does say that he was not aware of any cases where license plate data was used to prosecute someone forgetting an abortion, but added quote, we think we shouldn't have to wait until the inevitable happened, And honestly, I could not agree more and I think that the fact that the sheriff is going back and pointing to his record when he was in the Assembly on abortion and reproductive care, I just I mean, I honestly think this is kind of a normal or expected take from somebody who has not really thought very seriously about the landscape of abortion rights here in twenty twenty three. And I think a lot of people one did not expect Roe to ever be threatened the way that it was, and when it did, Fall really had a kind of myopic view on the actual threats that folks who are looking for abortions or need abortions, are allies to people who need abortions would face. You know, It's one of the reasons why when I was in the reproductive justice space, we're not We were like, oh, don't use like coat hanger imagery or talk about like back alley abortions, because in twenty twenty three, that's not the threat. The threat is surveillance and criminalization. Sheriff Cooper saying that this kind of data tracking and sharing with other states has nothing to do with abortion and reproductive rights just goes to show how limited his understanding of the reality of our abortion landscape in twenty twenty three really is because if he's never thought about how tracking somebody's license plate data in California and then sending it to a state where abortion is criminalized like Texas or Idaho could play a role in someone's ability to access abortion care, If he's never thought about that, that really tells me all I need to know about how he's thinking about this issue. Because even if that license plate data is not being used today on Thursday, July sixth, twenty twenty three, as we've just talked about in this episode, that does not mean that they that there will not be an expansion of how that data is used. And in my opinion, it is not a question of if. It's a question of when that data will be used to criminalize people who are looking for abortions. And just because Sheriff Cooper doesn't see it and it is does not have that clear of a view of the landscape of abortion rights in twenty twenty three does not mean that it's not our risk. And it's really I can't believe that he would say like this has nothing to do with abortion when I'm sorry, get real in twenty twenty three, when you share license plate data from California to stateside, Texas, A and Alabama. It has everything to do with abortion rights.

Okay, So if you liked that response. After the Electronic Frontier Foundation sent the Sacramento sheriff their letter asking him to stop this practice this week, he replied on Twitter that first response I read to you was like Sacramento Sheriff's Department like official Twitter this. He took to his personal Twitter to give this response. He said quote, the bill and this law has absolutely nothing to do with reproductive rights. My record on women's and reproductive rights has been strong throughout my time in the State Assembly, and nothing has changed since becoming sheriff. Electronic Frontier Foundation has the track record of protecting child molesters, ventanal traffickers, rapists, and murderers. Perhaps they should focus more on helping victims rather than continuing to shield criminals from prosecution. So if you thought the first response back when eff first made these allegations was a little much being like, oh no, no, you are too busy holding hands with child molesters and fentanal traffickers and rapists and murderers. Like it's just it's just a very intense response from what is like a very measured letter about about how they are following the letter of the law. Now, I should say that Adam Schwartz, the attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, does say that he was not aware of any cases where license plate data was used to prosecute someone forgetting an abortion, but added quote, we think we shouldn't have to wait until the inevitable happened, And honestly, I could not agree more and I think that the fact that the sheriff is going back and pointing to his record when he was in the Assembly on abortion and reproductive care, I just I mean, I honestly think this is kind of a normal or expected take from somebody who has not really thought very seriously about the landscape of abortion rights here in twenty twenty three. And I think a lot of people one did not expect Roe to ever be threatened the way that it was, and when it did, Fall really had a kind of myopic view on the actual threats that folks who are looking for abortions or need abortions, are allies to people who need abortions would face. You know, It's one of the reasons why when I was in the reproductive justice space, we're not We were like, oh, don't use like coat hanger imagery or talk about like back alley abortions, because in twenty twenty three, that's not the threat. The threat is surveillance and criminalization. Sheriff Cooper saying that this kind of data tracking and sharing with other states has nothing to do with abortion and reproductive rights just goes to show how limited his understanding of the reality of our abortion landscape in twenty twenty three really is because if he's never thought about how tracking somebody's license plate data in California and then sending it to a state where abortion is criminalized like Texas or Idaho could play a role in someone's ability to access abortion care, If he's never thought about that, that really tells me all I need to know about how he's thinking about this issue. Because even if that license plate data is not being used today on Thursday, July sixth, twenty twenty three, as we've just talked about in this episode, that does not mean that they that there will not be an expansion of how that data is used. And in my opinion, it is not a question of if. It's a question of when that data will be used to criminalize people who are looking for abortions. And just because Sheriff Cooper doesn't see it and it is does not have that clear of a view of the landscape of abortion rights in twenty twenty three does not mean that it's not our risk. And it's really I can't believe that he would say like this has nothing to do with abortion when I'm sorry, get real in twenty twenty three, when you share license plate data from California to stateside, Texas, A and Alabama. It has everything to do with abortion rights.

And the important thing is that I think this isn't about this one sheriff getting it wrong, and like, isn't he a bad guy or isn't he clueless or something? I have no idea about him. The concerning thing is that he is the one who has the authority to decide how this private data that has been surveiled gets shared. And like you just said, he either is clueless about the landscape of reproductive rights and legal threats to people seeking abortions in twenty twenty three, or he's faking it. But either way, the data that he is sitting on of who has been driving around in Sacramento has real consequences for people, and he, by his own admission, is making decisions about who could access that data and who can't without having apparently any clue about the legal risks to the people that he has been entrusted to keep safe.

And the important thing is that I think this isn't about this one sheriff getting it wrong, and like, isn't he a bad guy or isn't he clueless or something? I have no idea about him. The concerning thing is that he is the one who has the authority to decide how this private data that has been surveiled gets shared. And like you just said, he either is clueless about the landscape of reproductive rights and legal threats to people seeking abortions in twenty twenty three, or he's faking it. But either way, the data that he is sitting on of who has been driving around in Sacramento has real consequences for people, and he, by his own admission, is making decisions about who could access that data and who can't without having apparently any clue about the legal risks to the people that he has been entrusted to keep safe.

I would take I agree, I would take it one step further, and I would say, because it is he like it is not men. I don't think that he. I don't this might be a controversial take. I think that for a lot of men, it's difficult to see the realities and the concerns of people who are not also CIS men. Seriously, I think that he's like, I'm pro choice. That's all I need to do is like be pro choice, And it's like, no, you need to also not buttress a vast network of interstate surveillance if you truly want to advocate for reproductive rights in this country. That's what it looks like in twenty twenty three. It's not nineteen eighty, right. Just being supportive of abortion rights and voting along those lines is not enough in twenty twenty three. If you are propping up a vast surveillance network that is going to get people who need abortions criminalized one way or another. And if you're it's really something to see people who are casked with supporting and advocating for these constituents not get that and so loudly proclaim that they don't get that, like I would. He should be embarrassed. So I looked up his record and it does seem to be a little bit all over the place in terms of his record on abortion care. But he obviously from his statement, wants to think of himself as somebody who is a champion of reproductive care. And if that is the case in twenty twenty three, you have got to be thinking about this issue a little bit more thoughtfully and a little bit more with a little bit more foresight about how it's playing out, because in twenty twenty three, you cannot be propping up a vast digital surveillance network and tell me that you're on my side when it comes to abortion rights. And I'll leave it there.

I would take I agree, I would take it one step further, and I would say, because it is he like it is not men. I don't think that he. I don't this might be a controversial take. I think that for a lot of men, it's difficult to see the realities and the concerns of people who are not also CIS men. Seriously, I think that he's like, I'm pro choice. That's all I need to do is like be pro choice, And it's like, no, you need to also not buttress a vast network of interstate surveillance if you truly want to advocate for reproductive rights in this country. That's what it looks like in twenty twenty three. It's not nineteen eighty, right. Just being supportive of abortion rights and voting along those lines is not enough in twenty twenty three. If you are propping up a vast surveillance network that is going to get people who need abortions criminalized one way or another. And if you're it's really something to see people who are casked with supporting and advocating for these constituents not get that and so loudly proclaim that they don't get that, like I would. He should be embarrassed. So I looked up his record and it does seem to be a little bit all over the place in terms of his record on abortion care. But he obviously from his statement, wants to think of himself as somebody who is a champion of reproductive care. And if that is the case in twenty twenty three, you have got to be thinking about this issue a little bit more thoughtfully and a little bit more with a little bit more foresight about how it's playing out, because in twenty twenty three, you cannot be propping up a vast digital surveillance network and tell me that you're on my side when it comes to abortion rights. And I'll leave it there.

More after a quick break, let's.

More after a quick break, let's.

Get right back into it. So it's not all vast surveillance networks. Let's talk about the sun. So we have talked a bit about Megan Merkle and how the coordinated hate campaign that she gets online targets her. But one of the weirdest aspects of this story is that it's not just random hate mongers on YouTube publishing videos like ten of Megan Markle's micro expressions that show that she is actually a huge, mean person. I almost said a swear word. I'm trying to swear less. I got some feedback about my swearing. I was gonna I was gonna put a swear word there. But I didn't, So you're welcome listeners with children. So it's not just we like weird YouTube hate mongers. It's also the press, like big newspapers, who are targeting her. Last week, the newspaper The Sun had to print a front page apology for an opinion piece about Megan Markle written by Grand Tour star Jeremy Clarkson the piece, I can only really describe it as a lot. Here's a bit from that piece, he writes. I hate her, not like I hate Scotland's first Minister, Nicola Sturgeon or serial killer Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level. Oh no, Megan is definitely worse than a serial killer, right obviously, Like what do you think of Megan Markle? You think serial killer is her? Megan Markle much further on the on the hate spectrum, he goes on, quote at night, I'm unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets on every town in Britain while the crowds chant shame and throw lumps of excrement at her. Everyone who is my age thinks the same way. I don't know, dude, I don't know if that's I don't know if that's correct, But like everybody, who is your who is your age? Is like, yes, I stay awake at night gritting my teeth thinking about her. Now, in his defense, he did say that he was going for like a Game of Thrones reference with that. I don't watch Game of Thrones, So, like, I you watched the show, is this? Does that? Does that check out?

Get right back into it. So it's not all vast surveillance networks. Let's talk about the sun. So we have talked a bit about Megan Merkle and how the coordinated hate campaign that she gets online targets her. But one of the weirdest aspects of this story is that it's not just random hate mongers on YouTube publishing videos like ten of Megan Markle's micro expressions that show that she is actually a huge, mean person. I almost said a swear word. I'm trying to swear less. I got some feedback about my swearing. I was gonna I was gonna put a swear word there. But I didn't, So you're welcome listeners with children. So it's not just we like weird YouTube hate mongers. It's also the press, like big newspapers, who are targeting her. Last week, the newspaper The Sun had to print a front page apology for an opinion piece about Megan Markle written by Grand Tour star Jeremy Clarkson the piece, I can only really describe it as a lot. Here's a bit from that piece, he writes. I hate her, not like I hate Scotland's first Minister, Nicola Sturgeon or serial killer Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level. Oh no, Megan is definitely worse than a serial killer, right obviously, Like what do you think of Megan Markle? You think serial killer is her? Megan Markle much further on the on the hate spectrum, he goes on, quote at night, I'm unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets on every town in Britain while the crowds chant shame and throw lumps of excrement at her. Everyone who is my age thinks the same way. I don't know, dude, I don't know if that's I don't know if that's correct, But like everybody, who is your who is your age? Is like, yes, I stay awake at night gritting my teeth thinking about her. Now, in his defense, he did say that he was going for like a Game of Thrones reference with that. I don't watch Game of Thrones, So, like, I you watched the show, is this? Does that? Does that check out?

Yeah? That does check out.

Yeah? That does check out.

That is a reference to a scene from the show, But it doesn't diminish it in any way. Like it's it's not like she liked being paraded through the streets naked and having excrements throw at her, you know, the character who was having to who legitimately was like she didn't enjoy it. It was like very bad and it was just as sexist in the show as it is in real life, you know.

That is a reference to a scene from the show, But it doesn't diminish it in any way. Like it's it's not like she liked being paraded through the streets naked and having excrements throw at her, you know, the character who was having to who legitimately was like she didn't enjoy it. It was like very bad and it was just as sexist in the show as it is in real life, you know.

So even if he was going for like a specific reference, I just think it's a little much to be printed in the newspaper, Like I can't believe that an editor read that and was like, Okay, doesn't sound unhinged at all. Definitely dis publish it. It's quick published and the way if.

So even if he was going for like a specific reference, I just think it's a little much to be printed in the newspaper, Like I can't believe that an editor read that and was like, Okay, doesn't sound unhinged at all. Definitely dis publish it. It's quick published and the way if.

We go, Yeah, literary illusions aren't like like get out of jail free card for writing messed up stuff, right, Like they add some context and maybe some meaning or something, but they don't just like make it all okay because it was a reference.

We go, Yeah, literary illusions aren't like like get out of jail free card for writing messed up stuff, right, Like they add some context and maybe some meaning or something, but they don't just like make it all okay because it was a reference.

Well, the UK newspaper regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organization, agrees with you. After this was published, they got twenty five thousand complaints about the piece and they ended up launching an investigation into whether the piece breached its editor's code of practice. Although interestingly, the IPSO chairman Lord Fox said that the article was quote humiliating and degrading towards the duchess, but according to Deadline, also rejected complaints that the article was racist in tone, inaccurate, or sought to harass the duchess. The piece was ultimately removed and The Sun was forced to print an apology to Megan on the front page. It is so interesting to me that they specifically go out of their way to say the peace was sexist. It was humiliating, but it was not racist, and it was not meant to harass her, nor was it inaccurate. I find that so interesting because I mean, it really goes back to so much of our conversations that we've had on there are No Girls on the Internet, and also Internet hate Machine about how the responses to Megan Markle kind of work and how it's always right online line of racist. So it's like they're not going to overtly call her a slur. But I just have a hard time believing that if not for Megan's race, that this would have been somebody would have found this acceptable to print in the newspaper, right. And I also think that because of the way that identity works, gender and race and class and everything else, it's so linked that it is the idea that if someone printed this about me in the paper as a black woman, I would not be able to say, oh, they printed it because I'm a woman, not because I'm black. The idea that you could parse it and say like definitively not racist, sexist, but not racist. It is not how it works because of the way that layered identity and the intersections of identity work. And so it's fascinating to me to see this, you know, Ethics Board be able to say like, Nope, not racist, a big red stamp on that, Like, I would be curious to know how they determined that.

Well, the UK newspaper regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organization, agrees with you. After this was published, they got twenty five thousand complaints about the piece and they ended up launching an investigation into whether the piece breached its editor's code of practice. Although interestingly, the IPSO chairman Lord Fox said that the article was quote humiliating and degrading towards the duchess, but according to Deadline, also rejected complaints that the article was racist in tone, inaccurate, or sought to harass the duchess. The piece was ultimately removed and The Sun was forced to print an apology to Megan on the front page. It is so interesting to me that they specifically go out of their way to say the peace was sexist. It was humiliating, but it was not racist, and it was not meant to harass her, nor was it inaccurate. I find that so interesting because I mean, it really goes back to so much of our conversations that we've had on there are No Girls on the Internet, and also Internet hate Machine about how the responses to Megan Markle kind of work and how it's always right online line of racist. So it's like they're not going to overtly call her a slur. But I just have a hard time believing that if not for Megan's race, that this would have been somebody would have found this acceptable to print in the newspaper, right. And I also think that because of the way that identity works, gender and race and class and everything else, it's so linked that it is the idea that if someone printed this about me in the paper as a black woman, I would not be able to say, oh, they printed it because I'm a woman, not because I'm black. The idea that you could parse it and say like definitively not racist, sexist, but not racist. It is not how it works because of the way that layered identity and the intersections of identity work. And so it's fascinating to me to see this, you know, Ethics Board be able to say like, Nope, not racist, a big red stamp on that, Like, I would be curious to know how they determined that.

Yeah, me too. It's it's like, how do you prove that it's racist.

Yeah, me too. It's it's like, how do you prove that it's racist.

Right when, like you said, identity is this big web of intersecting identities. Uh, and the systems of oppression that traffic and benefit from public sexist and racist attacks are so good at writing that line.

Right when, like you said, identity is this big web of intersecting identities. Uh, and the systems of oppression that traffic and benefit from public sexist and racist attacks are so good at writing that line.

It's it's a tough thing.

It's it's a tough thing.

It's it's almost it's almost impossible to look at one isolated incident like that, or you know, one isolated piece of writing, even as terrible as this, And like you said, he didn't include a slur, didn't reference the color of her skin, so like prove that it's racist. But then when you step back and look at the pattern of how this piece fits into a whole ecosystem and industry around smearing and harassing her, obviously it's racist.

It's it's almost it's almost impossible to look at one isolated incident like that, or you know, one isolated piece of writing, even as terrible as this, And like you said, he didn't include a slur, didn't reference the color of her skin, so like prove that it's racist. But then when you step back and look at the pattern of how this piece fits into a whole ecosystem and industry around smearing and harassing her, obviously it's racist.

It's it's a challenge. I guess.

It's it's a challenge. I guess.

It's also hard for me to think about the like, what is this guy's title.

It's also hard for me to think about the like, what is this guy's title.

The IPSO chairman.

The IPSO chairman.

Yeah, it's like it's also a little challenging to me to think about this IPSO chairman, who is, like I guess in England, he's like the top person in charge of the newspapers. Like what would that even look like in the United States.

Yeah, it's like it's also a little challenging to me to think about this IPSO chairman, who is, like I guess in England, he's like the top person in charge of the newspapers. Like what would that even look like in the United States.

I can't even wrap my head around it.

I can't even wrap my head around it.

Well, if you asked me, he should come on as a producer and co host of the podcast. Yo, is this racist? Because this white man apparently is the arbiter of what is and is not definitively racist, And we got to get him on that podcast as co host asap because his talents are being wasted. More.

Well, if you asked me, he should come on as a producer and co host of the podcast. Yo, is this racist? Because this white man apparently is the arbiter of what is and is not definitively racist, And we got to get him on that podcast as co host asap because his talents are being wasted. More.

After a quick break, let's get right back.

After a quick break, let's get right back.

Into it, all right, bridget we got all the hard news out of the way. What's Elon done now?

Into it, all right, bridget we got all the hard news out of the way. What's Elon done now?

Well, something was definitely up with Twitter over the weekend. I have so much to say about it. Let's break down what was going on. First, Twitter started limiting who could and could not read posts on the platform. They limited it to only people with Twitter log in, so if you didn't have a Twitter log in, you could not see Twitter. If he went to Twitter dot com, it would redirect you to a login page. Then yesterday they quietly walked that policy back without ever acknowledging it. So they rolled it with that acknowledging it, walked it back with that acknowledging it weird. Then Elon Musk tweeted that they were going to start limiting the amounts of tweets that users could see. If you were a Twitter Blue subscriber, you could see six thousand tweets a day. If you were an unverified account, you could see six hundred tweets to day, and if you were a new unverified account, you could see three hundred tweets per day. Elon Musk tweeted that this was a temporary measure to prevent data scraping. There was some concern about like AI potentially scraping Twitter data to train its models. Seems a little suspicious. I'm not we'll get into that, but I'm not totally sure. But that's what he tweeted. So I don't know how it was for you all. But by this happened on Saturday. By Sunday, I was totally unable to see any tweets at all. Right, So like when I woke up on Sunday, the obviously, like the clock should have restarted in that twenty four hour period, but the moment I logged in, I was already getting the error that I had seen all the tweets that I could see, even though I had not been on the platform at all. So by Sunday. The platform was just a no go for me. I don't know how it was for y'all, but let me know. I'm curious. And in case you're wondering, this also applied to official Twitter accounts for emergency services like a National Hurricane Center or Amber alerts. They also could only you know, see the six thousand tweets perdy if they were Twitter Blue subscribers, or six hundred if they were unverified, which is pretty concerning, like had there been a hurricane or had there been an Amber alert, maybe there was. It's probably good to have these organizations be able to see more than a couple of tweets, you know, particularly if they're paying for Twitter Blue. That's something that I fully kind of don't understand is how if I'm paying for like a subscriber experience, am I how am I getting my tweets capped? It's like, what was the point of paying If it's like, oh, you get all these features and also can only see six thousand tweets The amouth like, what's the point of paying?

Well, something was definitely up with Twitter over the weekend. I have so much to say about it. Let's break down what was going on. First, Twitter started limiting who could and could not read posts on the platform. They limited it to only people with Twitter log in, so if you didn't have a Twitter log in, you could not see Twitter. If he went to Twitter dot com, it would redirect you to a login page. Then yesterday they quietly walked that policy back without ever acknowledging it. So they rolled it with that acknowledging it, walked it back with that acknowledging it weird. Then Elon Musk tweeted that they were going to start limiting the amounts of tweets that users could see. If you were a Twitter Blue subscriber, you could see six thousand tweets a day. If you were an unverified account, you could see six hundred tweets to day, and if you were a new unverified account, you could see three hundred tweets per day. Elon Musk tweeted that this was a temporary measure to prevent data scraping. There was some concern about like AI potentially scraping Twitter data to train its models. Seems a little suspicious. I'm not we'll get into that, but I'm not totally sure. But that's what he tweeted. So I don't know how it was for you all. But by this happened on Saturday. By Sunday, I was totally unable to see any tweets at all. Right, So like when I woke up on Sunday, the obviously, like the clock should have restarted in that twenty four hour period, but the moment I logged in, I was already getting the error that I had seen all the tweets that I could see, even though I had not been on the platform at all. So by Sunday. The platform was just a no go for me. I don't know how it was for y'all, but let me know. I'm curious. And in case you're wondering, this also applied to official Twitter accounts for emergency services like a National Hurricane Center or Amber alerts. They also could only you know, see the six thousand tweets perdy if they were Twitter Blue subscribers, or six hundred if they were unverified, which is pretty concerning, like had there been a hurricane or had there been an Amber alert, maybe there was. It's probably good to have these organizations be able to see more than a couple of tweets, you know, particularly if they're paying for Twitter Blue. That's something that I fully kind of don't understand is how if I'm paying for like a subscriber experience, am I how am I getting my tweets capped? It's like, what was the point of paying If it's like, oh, you get all these features and also can only see six thousand tweets The amouth like, what's the point of paying?

What other cons about not being able to say tweets if you're not logged in is that it has caused Google to remove all tweets from Google results. So it used to be that if you were searching for something online and Google thought that a tweet was relevant to what you were searching for, it would include that tweet in your search results. But that's no longer the case because because of this change that only logged in users can see it. And that's a pretty big deal because Google's responsible for over ninety percent of all searches in the US and I don't know how much Twitter traffic was coming from Google, but I have to assume some, and Twitter being removed from Google seems like one more big step towards Twitter becoming less relevant in the overall information ecosystem that we all live in and get our information from.

What other cons about not being able to say tweets if you're not logged in is that it has caused Google to remove all tweets from Google results. So it used to be that if you were searching for something online and Google thought that a tweet was relevant to what you were searching for, it would include that tweet in your search results. But that's no longer the case because because of this change that only logged in users can see it. And that's a pretty big deal because Google's responsible for over ninety percent of all searches in the US and I don't know how much Twitter traffic was coming from Google, but I have to assume some, and Twitter being removed from Google seems like one more big step towards Twitter becoming less relevant in the overall information ecosystem that we all live in and get our information from.

So what the heck is going on here? Well, the short answer is we don't totally know. So there was some speculation that it was related to Twitter not paying their bills. This is from BBC data scientist. An ex Twitter employee, doctor Rumin Chadri, told the BBC that it was unclear if AI organizations had actually been scraping data from Twitter, but suggested that financial issues could be behind the changes. Frankly, I think I'm in the majority of people who believe that it's due to Elon's lack of payment of his bills and that he's attempting to produce his cost She said, I have since seen other people who kind of claim to be in the know saying that it was not related to unpaid bills, So I really couldn't say. Former Twitter head of Trust and Safety Joel Roth said that Elon Musk's official explanation about trying to prevent data scraping doesn't sound totally right, saying it just doesn't pass the sniff test. That scraping all of a sudden created such a dramatic performance problem that Twitter had no choice but to put everything behind a log in. So a lot of theories being floated around. I should be clear that we don't know which one is the truth. Don't don't leave me a weird comment on Instagram Elon Musk allah a certain magazine because I'm just speculating and summarizing other people's theories. We don't know what's going on. But Mike, you actually have a theory we were talking about the other day. No, yeah, I mean.

So what the heck is going on here? Well, the short answer is we don't totally know. So there was some speculation that it was related to Twitter not paying their bills. This is from BBC data scientist. An ex Twitter employee, doctor Rumin Chadri, told the BBC that it was unclear if AI organizations had actually been scraping data from Twitter, but suggested that financial issues could be behind the changes. Frankly, I think I'm in the majority of people who believe that it's due to Elon's lack of payment of his bills and that he's attempting to produce his cost She said, I have since seen other people who kind of claim to be in the know saying that it was not related to unpaid bills, So I really couldn't say. Former Twitter head of Trust and Safety Joel Roth said that Elon Musk's official explanation about trying to prevent data scraping doesn't sound totally right, saying it just doesn't pass the sniff test. That scraping all of a sudden created such a dramatic performance problem that Twitter had no choice but to put everything behind a log in. So a lot of theories being floated around. I should be clear that we don't know which one is the truth. Don't don't leave me a weird comment on Instagram Elon Musk allah a certain magazine because I'm just speculating and summarizing other people's theories. We don't know what's going on. But Mike, you actually have a theory we were talking about the other day. No, yeah, I mean.

It's not like my theory. But like you said, nobody really knows what was behind all of these like large surprise changes, some of which were announced, some of which just like quietly happened. Uh, but clearly something was up. One thing I saw over the weekend was a post from someone speculating that this was due to Twitter unintentionally releasing some very bad code in their attempts to restrict the site to only authenticated users who were logged in. So the idea here is that for whatever reason, Twitter wanted to make that change so that people who weren't logged in and couldn't see it, and to do that, they had to change some of their code about how Twitter works, and the code that they released to do that was just bad and caused a lot of problems. And the evidence that this person had for it was that they shared a screenshot of their console from their web browser showing that, you know, as they were logged into Twitter, their computer was just like hammering away at Twitter servers with a bunch of network requests. And so they were speculating that perhaps that was what caused Twitter to have to put up put in place these limits, because you know, first they tried to restrict it to only logged in users, but they executed that so poorly that it created this enormous drain on their on their resources, and so they had to put the limits in place just to be able to keep things moving at all. And so for a while, the hashtag selfdos was going around for self distributed denial of service attack, making fun of Twitter for crashing its own servers through its bad code. So that seems consistent with the screenshot that he had shared, and it seems consistent with the chaotic, scattershot approach to decision making that Twitter seems to do under Elon Musk. But like I said, it's just speculation.