There Are No Girls on the Internet - Charlie Kirk Snitch App Data Leak; TikTok Rapture; David Lynch AI Reddit Revolt; Meta Exploits Parents' Photos – NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Date: September 26, 2025

App for outing people who were insufficiently mournful of Charlie Kirk critics leaked its own users’ personal data through security blunders: https://san.com/cc/app-for-outing-charlie-kirks-critics-leaked-its-users-personal-data/ Meta is using parents’ back-to-school photos of their girls to advertise Threads to grown men: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/20/parents-outraged-meta-uses-photos-schoolgirls-ads-man AI-Generated YouTube Channel Uploaded Nothing But Videos of Women Being Shot: https://www.404media.co/ai-generated-youtube-channel-uploaded-nothing-but-videos-of-women-being-shot/ Controversy on subreddit r/TwinPeaks over AI: https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comments/1npqm2k/ai_generated_content_is_no_longer_allowed/ YouTube to reinstate users banned for spreading COVID misinformation and election misinformation: https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/youtube-reinstate-channels-banned-election-covid-misinformation-1236527333/ Jessica Chastain's new show about preventing extremist violence postponed by AppleTV. Smells like censorship: https://www.instagram.com/p/DO_V2EyEZmj/ If you’re listening on Spotify, you can leave a comment there to let us know what you thought about these stories, or email us at [e-mail] Follow Bridget and TANGOTI on social media!  ||  instagram.com/bridgetmarieindc/ || tiktok.com/@bridgetmarieindc || youtube.com/@ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting. Think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than adds supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. Learn how podcasting can help your business.

Call 844-844-I-Hart. The story I've told myself can then shape my behavior, and that can lead me to sabotage the possibility of connection. This mental Health Awareness Month, tune into the podcast deeply well with Debbie Brown if you've been searching for a soft place to land while doing the work to become whole. This podcast is for you to hear more. Listen to Deeply Well with Debbie Brown from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Hey, it's Edwin Castro, also known as Castro 1021. And I'm Conkie, his best friend and business manager. And we've got a new show called The 1021 Podcast.

I'm taking you behind the scenes on how I became one of Twitch's most popular streamers. We also love sports. And with the World Cup right around the corner, we'll be breaking down the biggest storylines ahead of the big tournament here in the USA. Listen to the 1021 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Why are we all so obsessed with romance? On the Radio 831 podcast, join us, Sanjana Basker and Tyler McCall, as we unpack all the trending tropes,

fuzzy adaptations, book talk drama, and celebrity love stories with hot takes and sharp guests. Each episode digs into what these stories reveal about desire, fantasy, identity, and how we love now. Listen to the Radio 831 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. There are no girls on the internet. as a production of IHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative.

I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome to There Are No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the intersection of social media, technology, and identity. And this is another installment of our weekly news boundup, where we break down all the stories on the Internet that you might have missed so you don't have to. This is a bit weird, but producer Mike, we are, you and I are still here, still on planet Earth, as far as I know, we did not get raptured like an evangelical TikTok thought we might. I have so many bills and outstanding debts that I unexpectedly need to take care of now.

Oh, I saw a few TikToks from people who were like, oh, I'm racking up credit card debt because I'm not to get raptured, baby. I'm not going to be paying that back. Yeah, I totally thought that I would be kicking it in heaven, you know, tossing back cocktails with St. Peter. But I'm still here on this earthly rock. So September 23rd or 24th, depending on who you ask, was supposed to mark the rapture the day that Jesus Christ would return to earth, gather up all the true believers and leave behind everybody else to endure seven years of God's judgment. As far as I can tell, and also according to the cut, this prediction traces back to a South African pastor named Joshua Michaela.

In a sermon clip shared on a very official sounding YouTube channel, he said that he received a direct vision from JC himself, Jesus Christ, warning at the end of the world was going to be taking place on September 23rd or possibly the 24th. If you're listening to this, I guess it is possible the rapture did happen and that we all did not get raptured and we have not yet faced judgment. Or maybe we're all in purgatory. So like, if that's the case, welcome to the world's first purgatory podcast. That's possible. Maybe zero humans made the cut. Maybe Jesus took a look around.

It was just like, nah, you all, you all just got to stay here. Sorry, I came, I'm leaving. Good luck. Honestly, I was looking forward to it. I was ready for this all to be over. I was like, I'm ready for what's next. Bring it on. You know, I was really rooting for all the evangelicals who thought that they were going to get rapture.

to get raptured. Like they give what they want. I feel like we could adapt without them down here. But we're all still here together. We all still have to make our way in this earthly plane together. Oh, well, should we get into some of the stories that folks might have missed on the internet this week? I mean, we're still here, so I guess we have no choice.

Also, just FYI, if the rapture comes, there are no girls on the internet. published Tuesdays and Fridays come hell or high water, we will have internet takes for you. The Tangoti team will be putting out episodes regardless. So if that day does come, it doesn't sound like it was, it actually happened on the 24th. But if it does come, you can rest assured we will have internet takes for you still, even if the rapture happens. I bet there'll be some really funny takes on blue sky when it happens. Oh God, I can't wait for the takes. The rapture takes. So we told you about the website and app that sprang up in the aftermath of the death of Charlie Kirk,

that was really a place for Charlie Kirk fans to dock people who they deemed as not being mournful enough of Kirk's death. Well, according to Straight Arrow News, that site is now exposing the personal data of the people making those submissions. So initially the site was called charlie's murderers.com and quickly rebranded to cancel the hate. And they launched in the wake of Kirk's assassination on September 10th. The website says, Cancel the Hate aims to, quote, hold individuals accountable for their public words and calls on users to express concern by submitting intel

on alleged offenders, including their names, locations, and employers. For some reason, they're really interested in targeting medical professionals. This is from Straight Arrow News. Cancel the Hate highlights a particular interest in medical professionals whose conduct could endanger patients, the website says, as well as public officials, business owners, entertainers, influencers, teachers, and educational administrators. That is pretty curious, and I think we can only speculate why,

but we know that these people love to target doctors who are associated with providing abortions or reproductive care or providing gender affirming care. So, you know, one can be a lot of people. only guess why they would have this special interest in medical professionals, but, you know, one hypothesis could be that this whole enterprise is mainly interested in collecting data that they can then use to target people that they don't like. And if so, medical professionals are pretty high on that list for them. So that could make some sense. Oh, well, just listen, if you're thinking

this whole thing is some sort of enterprise to collect data and maybe not be super, careful with that data. Just listen. So according to Straight Arrow News, cancel the hate says users who submit data on others will not have their personal details made public. However, they later then launched a social media style app that was launched alongside the website that appears to have been exposing exactly that. According to Straight Arrow News, a flaw in the app discovered by a security researcher who goes by Bob DeHacker enabled an exposure of user information such as email addresses and phone numbers. So it sounds like just by default, the people turning in others on this app

have their email addresses publicly listed in their bio, which is pretty unusual. And that even if they did change their privacy settings to turn that off, their email addresses were still exposed. So Straight Arrow News set up a test account on the app. And then this researcher, Bob DeHacker, was able to provide Straight Arrow News with a sample of data from 142 users, which included that test account that they had started.

So it does seem to prove that, yes, that data was accessible. Bob DeHacker also demonstrated how the security flaw allowed them to remove users by deleting Straight Arrow News' test account. So Straight Arrow News then reached out to a user who was listed in this leaked data, and that person confirmed that they had, in fact, downloaded this Cancel the Hate Charlie Kirk app. That user who did ask to remain anonymous over fears of retribution, expressed concerns that cancel to hate might be a, quote, scam after receiving an influx of donation requests to their email. It really goes back to what we talked about in our episodes

about the T app, that these sites or these apps that pop up very quickly to take advantage of a certain kind of culture, war, or social or political climate, they kind of have to cut quarters in order to kind of go to market with the quickness to take advantage of the moment that everybody is talking about. And because they're cutting those corners, they are putting things like, I don't know, the privacy of their users at risk, just so they could take advantage of that cultural moment. I really feel like this is so similar to exactly what we saw with the Tapp. I agree. It does sound very similar. I feel bad for this user that the news network reached out to who, you know, expressed concern and thought that maybe it could be a scam. And it's like, honey, if you think this is a scam, just like expand your scope a little bit. The whole thing

is a scam. Yeah, the entire thing is a scam. And genuinely, in our episode about Charlie Kirk, I went to this website myself and I kind of can't believe anybody would put their information into it. But I do feel like it gives a kind of a false sense of security because The whole website is like, oh, you're the one who's reporting others. You are giving, you are providing the information of others so that they will be dothed, so that they will have their security put at risk. I think that something about that dynamic creates a false sense of security where they're certainly not going to put my information at risk.

I'm the one that's meant to be putting others information at risk. I hate to give these people the benefit of the doubt, but, you know, the people who are doxing others for being insufficiently mournful. But I do feel bad for them because this whole enterprise, this website, has the trappings of an organizing endeavor where we're all in this together. We're on the same team guys. We're trying to punish these libs who are celebrating Charlie Kirk's death, I guess. I think that was kind of the gist of what they were going for. That's right.

But, you know, in like a real organizing effort where you are. you know, someone is truly in good faith trying to organize their community, taking care of people in that community is a big part of it. And that's just not present here at all, like pretty clearly. Like, not only did they not have their security buttoned up to allow information to be unintentionally accessed by Bob DeHacker, but by default, people's email address was exposed. Like, that is just not even. taking the first step to protect the people

who you are trying to ostensibly organize and recruit into this collective effort. And again, I feel bad for the users who were trying to use this thing in good faith, I guess. But, you know, to someone like myself who views this whole enterprise as just like a right-wing scam to collect data and like punishes,

lives and achieve power, it is completely not surprising that they would build this in a way that does not respect or protect their users at all. Oh, no. I mean, to be super clear, in my opinion, no one is submitting the names of someone else because they were, they deemed them as insufficiently mournful in good faith. So I don't think that anybody going to this website and submitting the name of somebody else is doing so in good faith. However, this is just my blanket warning. these websites that spring up to take advantage of some sort of a hot button social or political or cultural moment, nobody should trust enterprises like that. I think that we should be a lot more careful about where we put our personal information and who we trust and what organizations we trust with that information. But a website that sprang up within 12 hours, certainly that is going to be a website that is cut in quarters because they care more about seizing on that hot cultural moment.

then they do about caring for the data or the privacy of their users, just bottom line. And when you go to cancelthehate.com right now, the website is down. It says, changes are coming. Please check back soon for the new service provider. And I think that really says a lot that this happened. They were like, oh, we got to take this down. I don't think that websites like this really give a shit about anybody. They give a shit about money.

They give a shit about harnessing people's data and potentially exploiting that data. using that data. And I mean, the kind of person that is trying to submit other people's information because they deem them being insufficiently mournful of Charlie Kirk, that is not the kind of person I think is operating in good faith. However, everybody should be aware and have just a general awareness of the fact that these kinds of organizations and these kinds of sites are not anybody's friend. They are the only person they are looking out for is themselves. And I don't know, Maybe it sounds weird to tell, to give that kind of a warning to the kind of people who would be gleefully submitting other people to be docs to a website like this. And maybe it's turnabout as fair play.

But I don't think it makes our internet landscape any better when these kinds of operations are able to pop up so quickly. And people are are so caught up in the moment of retribution to others that they will give their information so willy-nilly to bad actors. Yeah, I agree. I think everybody would be well served by everyone across the political spectrum being more wary and skeptical, just in general. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and headwriter, Streeter Seidel, help an Acapella band with their between songs banter.

There's the worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right?

That's the name. The Harvard Yard. But they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle aged. One erection Listen to humor me with Robert Smygle and friends

On the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me I need some jokes to make me seem funny Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio.

Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-844-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-8-4-I-Hart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast Point Game is about defying the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed.

And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game. We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the playoffs. I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup,

he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall. And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash will get that thing. That man, hell get the flying.

He running up the court, licking his fingers why he got the ball. Like, you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah. You figure it out real quick. Get your ass up and down the court, and you're going to get the ball. So listen to Point Game on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can have opinions. You can have like a strong stance. And then there's your, body having its own program. I'm Dr. Maya Shunker, a cognitive scientist and hosts of the podcast, a slight change of plans, a show about who we are and who we become when life makes other plans. We share stories and scientific insights to help us all better navigate these periods of turbulence and transformation. There is one finding that is consistent, and that is that our resilience rests on our relationships. I wish that I hadn't resized.

for so long the need to change. We have to be willing to live with a kind of uncertainty that none of us likes. Listen to a slight change of plans on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Jared Adano. You might know me as that loud guy who yells out, help on the internet. Help! Somebody! Please!

But there's so much more to me than me. I'm an actor. I'm a comedian. And recently, I've become quite the helper. And on my new podcast, Hope from a Hypocrite, I'll be changing lives, helping people in need with my sage advice and thoughtful solutions. Sike, I'm a comedian. I'm not qualified to give good advice. Join me and my comedian friends as we riff, rant, recommend some of the most legally dubious advice known to man. If I'm calling you, even if you're on your phone, let it ring twice.

One ring is too scary. Oh, cream of chicken suit. Hey, cream. Cream of chicken suit. This is Help from a Hypocrite, the worst advice from the dumbest people you know. Listen to Help from Hypocrite as part of the Mike Pulturra podcast network available on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back. Okay, speaking of bad actors, I have to talk about this Guardian report because it made me sick. So according to The Guardian, meta used back-to-school pictures of school girls to advertise one of its social media

platforms to at least one 37-year-old grown man. That man who ended up reporting these posts first noticed these posts encouraging him to get threads were being dropped into his Instagram feed and embedding posts that included images of little girls as young as 13 years old with their faces visible wearing school uniforms and in a lot of cases included their names. How did meta get images of these school girls? Well, well-meaning parents posted them as part of those classic sort of back-to-school pictures that you probably see all over social media during this time of year. Do you know the photos I'm talking about? Sometimes the sometimes a kill will be holding a sign that says where they go to school and their teacher's name or it's a

picture of like kids lined up on the soup of their house ready to go to school in a school's uniform. You know what I'm talking about? Yeah, of course. Those are classic photos. I have seen a lot of them in private group chats that I'm part of from like family or friends where their kid is going off to like first day of kindergarten or first day of third grade or whatever. Well, I have seen those photos too. And when I was putting together my thoughts about this part of the episode, I was going to say, oh, well, no parent should be posting those back to school pictures. If you want to share them with people, they should be shared in a group chat.

I will own that I myself am not a parent yet. I do have pretty strong feelings about, you know, how. parents should be posting their kids on social media, which is not at all. I think that when you're posting those kinds of pictures, they should be for, as you said, private group chats, private groups of friends and family. When I was putting my thoughts together, I do feel like I just want to say, even though for safety's sake, I still think that is the case, particularly when you look at the story that we're talking about right now. However, I do think that parents should be able to post totally normal pictures of their kids on social media

without worrying those pictures are going to be used by meta in completely inappropriate ways. I am very wary of not wanting to sort of blame the victim because we should have an internet landscape where parents can post totally commonplace pictures of their kids and it's not going to be used by anybody, not creeps and certainly not corporations, Facebook, but unfortunately, that is just not the reality that we live in, especially when you

look at what's going on in this story. Because according to The Guardian, the parents were completely unaware that meta settings, when they uploaded these photos, permitted meta to surface these images of their minor children, 13-year-olds and schoolgirls out that's going to school, to grown men in an attempt to entice these grown men into downloading threads. One mother said her account was set to private, but the posts were automatically cross-posting to threads where they were visible. Another said she posted the picture to a public Instagram account. The posts of their children were highlighted to the stranger as, quote, suggested threads. Now, parents understandably felt like these images were sort of being framed by meta in a way that was sort of sexually provocative.

The father of a 13-year-old who'd appeared in one of these posts said it was, absolutely outrageous because there were images of schoolgirls in short skirts with bare legs or stockings. He said, quote, what I found out an image of her had been exploited in what felt like a sexualized way by a massive company like that to market their product, it left me feeling quite disgusted. So here's what Meta said happened. It said that it recommended people to visit threads by showing them publicly shared photos that comply with its community standards and recommendation guidelines. Meta says that its systems do not recommend threads shared by teenagers or minors, but because the images of the minors were actually posted on their parents' Instagram accounts,

according to Meta, that made them fair game to be used in this way. What a disgusting take. Like, meta over and over, they just demonstrate to us how little regard they have for their users, for decency of any kind, like, it's just disgusting. They are a disgusting company who will use technicalities to take parents' photos of their kids and use that to market their products towards creeps. What disgusting people?

A spokesperson for Meta told The Guardian pretty much exactly what you just described. They didn't say, they didn't even acknowledge that this was inappropriate or even something. Like there wasn't even an, oh, our bad, this was our, we had a blind spot here. They said, quote, the images shared do not violate our policies and are back to school photos posted publicly by parents. We have systems in place to make sure that we don't recommend thread shared by teens or that go against our recommendation guidelines. And users can control whether meta suggests their public posts on Instagram.

So to me, that statement is really blaming the parent. It's like, well, you posted a back to school picture of your 13-year-old. with bare legs that said her full name and where she went to school. And you posted it publicly on our platform. So if you didn't want it to be shown to a 37-year-old stranger, you shouldn't have done that. Their statement completely blames the parents and doesn't even give a nod to the fact that,

okay, yes, perhaps you have guardrails in place that are not surfacing the accounts of minors in this way. But you know that parents post these kinds of back-to-school pictures. Like, not even a nod to the fact. that maybe this is less than ideal. That's exactly right. He's completely blaming the parents. And most perversely, implicit in this whole argument

is the idea that the parents knew that this would happen. And when they posted the photos, we're consenting to allow this to happen. So META's position here is that these parents wanted the photos of their children to be served up in this sexualized way. It's so disingenuous, and it so betrays the complete,

lack of even basic care and concern that meta has for their users. Yes, and listen to this because one parent who was clearly not buying what meta is selling here really points out that when you look at how her normal content performs on her kind of modest Instagram page, and when you look at how this content of her daughter, her minor daughters back to school picture performed, clearly meta, there's something going on here. So the Guardian reports, the one parent who, unwittingly posted the image of her kid, said that the image performed much better than her typical content. With 267 followers, her Instagram account usually had modest reach, but the post

of her child attracted nearly 7,000 views, 90% from non-followers, half of whom were over the age of 44, and 90% of whom were men. So she's not in charge of Instagram's algorithm. She's not in charge of determining who her images are shown to and surface to in Instagram's algorithm. The fact that her content generally does not get 7,000 views is not shown to 90% people that she doesn't know, strangers, non-followers, and is not generally shown to the majority men who are over 44 years of age. Clearly, Facebook is determining this. So to your point that Facebook is saying, oh, well, the parents wanted. their images of their

13-year-old daughter in a school uniform doing back to school to be shown to these, to, you know, a bunch of 40-year-old men, Facebook is doing that. The parents aren't doing that. Facebook is doing that. 100%. That's exactly,

that's a perfect way to describe it. Facebook is doing that. The parents aren't doing that. Facebook is doing that. They can point to whatever policies they have and say like, oh, this doesn't violate, this or that policy, but Facebook is choosing to do that. Another mom who said that a picture of her 13-year-old was used in promotional post said,

quote, meta did all of this on purpose, not informing us as they want to generate content. It's despicable. And who is responsible for creating threads ads using children's photos to promote the platform for older men? At every opportunity, meta privileges profit over safety and company growth over children's right to privacy. It is the only reason that they could think it is appropriate to send pictures of schoolgirls to a 37-year-old man-ass bait. META is a willfully careless company. Yes, I totally agree with this mom.

This story like really has my blood boiling. Like we talk about how shitty meta is all the time and they are a very bad company that has done very bad things. Causing much more severe harm than this particular story. But something about the fact that they are taking. these parents' photos of their children. These parents are, like, proud of their children who are going back to school. It's like a sweet thing.

And using it in this twisted way and then not even acknowledging that there's anything wrong with that, this might win the word for like most disgusting thing we've covered meta doing on this show. And there have been a lot. Yeah, and it's interesting to me that it's happening on threads.

I am on threads because I don't really use X anymore. and threads is where I sort of scratch that, that X Twitter itch. And I have a few times now encountered these Threads accounts where every post on this account is a video as a very young girl. And the girls are fully closed, but they are doing things like, oh, they're wearing a skirt and doing a cartwheel or they're stretching in a kind of way. And as somebody that's been in a lot of these spaces, to me, I'm like, oh, this is a a child, this is an account that is trying to skirt a line when it comes to child exploitation. And so I have,

whenever, I have personally reported a handful of these accounts many times and they never get taken down. And I don't know, maybe I'm seeing something that's not there or I am being approved, but you just, you just know when an account is doing something that they, that's not cool, that's not good. Like you just, you just can tell. And when I see these, accounts. I can tell this is an account that is not on the level. And the fact that I keep reporting it and that I keep seeing it. It's not, it's not being taken down really concerns me. And I guess I just, I think I made this point before, but the fact that all of this is happening against the backdrop of we're all being told that as adults who are trying to navigate the internet, the internet needs to be

restricted in XYZ, very impressive ways so that children can be kept safe. Meanwhile, the biggest social media platforms on the planet can do stuff like this and get away with it. And even when they're asked about it can blame the parents, boils my blood. So I am right there with you, Mike. It is some just really despicable stuff that I think really shows how far we have come to genuinely giving a shit about keeping kids safe online. Well, and stay with this account that you talked about that is, keeps posting. this material that is like exploitative of children, but it doesn't violate any explicit policies because the children are wearing clothes, thank fucking God. It's interesting to juxtapose

that against COVID misinformation and electoral misinformation where there's, you know, this debate that has been happening about whether platform should restrict it or not and even setting aside the merits of that, it at least makes sense to me that there is a powerful constituency of right-wing people who want that information to exist on the internet, and therefore it does. But when we think about this information of like wink and nod, clothed, but provocative child exploitation material, who is the constituency for that? It's not like there's some powerful representatives or like Senate committees demanding that meta keep this on their platform.

They're doing that for them. They're doing that to keep selling their product, to keep getting engagement, to keep selling ads. And it's despicable. It's despicable. I mean, that's what these parents are calling out. And when you look at the way that Mark Zuckerberg

talks about some of their other products like AI chatbots, he has been very explicitly vocal. We've got to pump the gas a little bit if you want to have people be staying engaged on our platform and staying engaged in our bots, that's why they ended up having that internal document that said that it was totally a-okay if their bots had sensual role play with minors. Yeah, one does have to wonder how far META can take this thing before there is some sort of accountability because it does seem like every other week we're talking about something that META has done

where they are using, I want to be careful with my words, but like material that is in some way exploitative of children to sell their product that I don't think anybody thinks is okay and they get away with it because they are so powerful. But at some point, I don't know, they are not going to be able to get away with it, I hope. I don't know what that point looks like and I hope that they pull back way the hell ahead of that point.

Well, speaking of accountability really quickly, did you know that YouTube, owned by Google, back in 2020, they kicked some people off of their platform for things like spreading COVID-ness information or 2020 election denialism? Well, Variety reports that a lawyer for Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube, is essentially starting a program to welcome those creators back. According to this report, they said that the Biden administration pressured YouTube into cracking down on content that was election or COVID misinformation. This is according to a statement of facts from Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube and Google, which they said in response to subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio. The letter reads, YouTube's community guidelines allow for a wider range of content regarding COVID-19. and election integrity. Reflecting the company's commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform

if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect. YouTube values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes that these creators have extensive reach and play an important role in civic discourse. The company recognizes that these creators are among those shaping today's online consumption landing must-watch interviews, giving viewers a chance to hear directly from politicians, celebrities, business leaders, and more. So if you were kicked off of YouTube for COVID misinformation or election demilism in 2020, welcome back. Although, guess who tried to sneak in under

that? I was like, oh, they're letting people back. Guess who tried to sneak their way back in and YouTube was like, uh-uh-uh, not you? Can you guess? Oh, this is not in the notes. I'm so excited. There's two people. I don't know. Who are the two people who might have, who are the two people who tried to sneak back in here? Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. YouTube was like,

we will, listen, if you are a fucking degenerate scumbag who is profiting off of harmful, dangerous lies, walk him aboard. Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes, not you. Not so fast.

That's good. At least they have some standards. Okay, good. Keep those asses. holes the hell out. So they are welcoming back COVID misinformation spreaders and election deniers back to their platform. But guess what is also on their platform? You are not going to be able to guess. Let me just tell you hyper realistic AI generated videos of women being shot in the head. Oh my God. So we talked earlier this summer about how some folks were using Google's new AI video

content generation tool V-O-3 to make very racist AI-generated videos of black women as gorillas that flooded TikTok this summer. And now there is an entire YouTube channel of just AI-generated videos of women being shot in the head. The channel named, I got to say, aptly named, Woman Shot AI started on June 20th of this year. It posted 27 videos and had a thousand subscribers. And it had more than 175,000 views according to the channel's publicly available data. Now, major shout out to 404 media for not only breaking this story, but also being the ones who had this channel taken down, because when 404 reached out to YouTube, YouTube took this channel down. A YouTube spokesperson told 404 that it terminated the channel for violating its terms

of service, and specifically for operating a YouTube channel following a previous termination, meaning that this was not the first time that YouTube had to remove the person operating woman shot AI from the platform. This channel is just gruesome. 4-4 reports that all of the videos posted by this channel all follow the exact same formula. It is a nearly photorealistic video that shows a woman begging for her life while a man with a gun looms over her and then shoots her. Some of the videos, they say, have different themes like compilat. of video game characters like Laura Croft being shot, or, quote, Japanese schoolgirls being shot in breast or sexy housewife shot in breast,

female reporter tragic end, and Russian soldiers shooting women with Ukrainian flags on their chests. They even have a poll where viewers can ask, what kind of women they want to see be shot next, an Asian woman or even a black woman who they describe with the N-word. How charming! This is truly, when people talk about AI being the linchpin of our global economy, this is the kind of content they're talking about. Yeah, they're like poisoning entire cities in Tennessee so that we can have this content. My God. This is horrific.

It's horrific. What's also well to me is that 404 points out, whoever is running this account also goes on YouTube and complains about the costs. This person said, quote, the AI I use is paid per account. I have to spend around $300 per month, even though one account can only generate an eight-second video three times, the channel's owner wrote on a public post on YouTube. So imagine how many times I generate a video once I upload. I just want to say that every time I upload a compilation consisting of several eight-second clips, it is not enough for just one account. I have to spend quite a lot of money just to have fun, they said. Oh, this poor guy.

Wow, he's just trying to do this community service of creating this art for the world to enjoy. I almost sort of, it's almost comical that it's like, oh, I am making this despicable AI content and consider the cost to me. So all of this obviously goes against Google's policies, but that has not stopped their tool from being used this way. 404 actually reached out to Google who said, our gen AI tools are built to follow the prompts a user provides. We have clear policies around their use that we work to enforce, and the tools continually get better at reflecting these policies. So that really says nothing.

That doesn't say anything at all. Yeah. I mean, it's interesting that Google is on both sides of this because it sounds like Google is kind of implicitly acknowledging that their AI tools were using. to generate this video. Well, the videos have the Google V-O-3 watermark. So I don't think it's in dispute that that tool

is the tool that it's being used to create these. I guess if I had to choose where they were going to put their resources to prevent this content, it would be on the platform, right? Like, the fact that their tool created this and they're saying like, oh, well, our tool just follows the prompts

that people give it okay, I guess. but it feels to me like the responsibility they have for their platform YouTube which then surfaces these videos to mass numbers of people around the world is much greater, right? Like they have a much bigger responsibility

there on their platforms to prevent this kind of content and the fact that 404 had to reach out to them for them to take it down. At least they did take it down. They didn't take the path of meta and be like, this is fine, this is what people wanted.

Women actually, if they don't want to, be shot in the head. They really shouldn't be reporting the news out in public. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smigel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. The worst singer in the group. The worst? Yeah.

Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open.

Since you guys are middle aged, one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. You for me, I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHeart's twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message.

Plus, only I-Heart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think I-Hart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-844-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-8-4-I-Hart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast's Point Game is about defining the odds.

Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows. Without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game. We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the playoffs. I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup,

he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall. And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night bases on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nass would get that thing. That man, hell get the flying.

He running up the court, licking his fingers, why he got the ball, like, After you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah, you figure it out real quick. Get your ass up and down the court, and you're going to get the ball. So listen to Point Game on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can have opinions. You can have like a strong stance. And then there's your body having its own program.

I'm Dr. Maya Shunker, a cognitive scientist and host of the podcast, a slight change of plans. a show about who we are and who we become when life makes other plans. We share stories and scientific insights to help us all better navigate these periods of turbulence and transformation. There is one finding that is consistent, and that is that our resilience rests on our relationships. I wish that I hadn't resisted for so long the need to change. We have to be willing to live with a kind of uncertainty that none of us likes. Listen to a slight change of plans on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Jared Adano.

You might know me as that loud guy who yells out, help on the internet. Help! Somebody! Please! But there's so much more to me than that. I'm an actor. I'm a comedian. And recently, I've become quite the helper myself.

And on my new podcast, Hope from a Hypocrite, I'll be changing lives. Helping people in need with my sage advice and thoughtful solutions. psych! I'm a comedian! I'm not qualified to give good advice! Join me and my comedian friends as we riff, rant, recommend some of the most legally dubious advice known to man. If I'm calling you, even if you're on your phone, let it ring twice. One ring is too scary. Oh, cream a chicken suit. Hey, cream. Cream a chicken suit.

This is Help from a Hypocrite, the worst advice from the dumbest people you know. Listen to Help from Hypocrite as part of the Mike Cultura Podcast Network available on the IHartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get right back into it. Okay, so I wanted to quickly talk about this Apple TV show that was pulled. So the actress Jessica Chastain, her new show, The Satha, about homegrown extremist terrorism in the United States, was meant to be released today, Friday. However, Apple TV pulled the show only days. before it was due to be released. And Jessica Chastain, unsurprisingly, is not happy.

Chastain is also a producer on the show, and she put out a statement saying, we are not aligned on the decision to pause the release of the savant. So the Apple TV show The Savant that was pulled was inspired by a true story as reported by Cosmopolitan, in which Chastain plays an anti-extremism operative who infiltrates white supremacist forums online

to prevent explosive acts of violence. violence. Chastain was not only an actor in this show, she was also a producer, and unsurprisingly, she was not happy that this show was pulled only days before it was met to premiere. In a statement, she said, these incidents, though far from encompassing the full range of violence witnessed in the United States, illustrate a broader mindset that crosses the political spectrum and must be confronted. I've never shied away from difficult subjects, and while I wish this show wasn't relevant, Unfortunately, it is. The savant is about the heroes who work every day to stop violence before it happens

and honoring their courage feels more urgent than ever. So I was really, when I saw this story, I was really curious what was going on. It's pretty unusual to pull a show that is already done and like ready to go, just days before it's meant to premiere. And Vulture reported that Apple might have pulled the plug because they felt cold feet about the climate that we're in currently, just really. where Trump is suing CBS News successfully and tried to sue the New York Times for billions of dollars and his FCC is pressuring media companies about their hiring and firing decisions.

Wolcher writes, it's not a huge leap to think that Apple TV Plus, about to release a show that deals with political flashpoints and fighting white supremacism, might be wary of releasing it, especially if it wants to stay on Trump's good side, whenever the president opens up should social or announces the next tariff. Apple TV Plus has not commented on the release of the Savant beyond its confirmation that the show was postponed. It is sad and also not hugely surprising that Apple TV would think twice and be concerned that just airing this show that addresses the existence of white supremacist violence might attract the ire of the Trump. administration, given how aggressively the administration has just gone after critics in all areas, especially in media. Yeah, it's scary, but not surprising. I don't know. We almost like need a

word for that. Yeah, I agree. But Jessica Chastain is right. I cannot imagine a show that is more prescient and of the moment than a show that is about homegrown extremism. We talked about this in our last news roundup that according to the Department of Justice, when it comes to homegrown terror, right-wing homegrown extremism is the biggest bucket. The Department of Justice did scrub that study from their site, but that doesn't make it any less true. And I think Jessica Chastain is right that if I were Apple, I would want to be telling stories right now that are about this moment. And whether we like it or not, this is a story that is about the moment. Yeah, absolutely it is.

I mean, I totally agree. There couldn't be anything more relevant to the moment. And I hope that Apple publishes this. I haven't even seen this show. And also, I sort of resent that, like, here we are being asked to weigh in about, like, this show that we haven't even seen. It could be a bad show.

We don't know. It could be a good show. But it's just, like, being dragged into this, like, us versus them discourse that the Trump administration is so good at promoting it does drive me

up a wall that they just are able to with their threats and their lawsuits bully so many people including enormous media

companies that have the resources to resist it and really should be resisting it, but just like bully them into promoting this fictional worldview that aligns with how they want the world to be, that is just a step away from where we actually are. Yes, and you really said it. I obviously have not seen this series, but what's obnoxious, in addition to the idea that these platforms and big organizations that might be caving to the Trump administration, if that's what's going on. It forces you to root for content and people and stories that you have not even seen. You're like, I feel like I have to be like, well,

I need, we need this story now more than ever. I haven't even seen it. People who don't want this kind of content to get lots of eyeballs, if anything, they should want this content to be seen so that people can judge it on its actual merits, when you don't let people see it and don't let people actually make up their own mind about it and judge it by their merits, it kind of martyrs the content unfairly. We were talking about this with the Jimmy Kimmel thing.

I mean, we did a whole episode about Jimmy Kimmel. I have not. I can't, I mean, I don't think I've ever uttered the words, we have to watch Jimmy Kimmel tonight. But Trump's FCC taking Jimmy Kimmel off the air, I was like, and we live, We live in D.C. They weren't playing it.

Our Sinclair local affiliate was not playing it. When I went to turn on the channel where Jimmy Kimmel's show was meant to be, it happened to be a very flattering news broadcast about Trump, which, no surprise there, Trump and I are watching the same ABC affiliate. But I don't want to watch Jimmy Kimmel's show. The fact that they were making me defended and making me curious to see what they have to say, that's really the big travesty here. Yeah, it's nuts.

Yeah, I felt the same way. I was like, it's my patriotic duty to watch Jimmy Kimmel's monologue. What? Like, he's been on the air for 23 years. That shocked me when I learned that. I don't think I've ever watched this model like, ever. But I was like, I must. This, as an American, it is my duty to, like, protect freedom of speech by watching this monologue,

even though Sinclair broadcasting is trying to prevent me, specifically because they're trying to prevent me. That's exactly the thing. I was like, like, oh, got to go to the VPN. Like, how are we going to watch this? The fact that they were, the fact that some corporate interest was making it hard for me to watch it, I was like, oh, now I have to watch it. Even though I have never voluntarily or willingly watched a Jimmy Kimmel show in my life.

It's just one more way that everything is upside down and insane right now. It's like hard to keep one's head, uh, I don't know. rooted, grounded. We're all just trying to get by. I don't even know where I'm going with this, but I guess I'm watching Jimmy Kimmel now. Maybe the rapture did happen and this is purgatory. I have thought that several times.

Maybe we all did die. Something happened and we're all just, that's why things feel so weird right now because this is purgatory. Oh my God, I think you're right. Kimmel is on every night. We all have to watch him. It is our duty. We are required to watch Jimmy Kimmel because it is purgatory. Okay. When I was scrolling the news for not negative stories to talk about, I found one story courtesy of Matthew Gault at 404 Media. Shout out to them

because I feel like we would not be able to do any kind of a podcast if not for 404. We are subscribers. Become a subscriber. We love them. But they published a story that I feel was made in a lab for me. We have talked about stories where I feel like they were made in a lab specifically to make me mad. This might be the first story that I feel was made in a lab specifically to peak my interest. Will you allow me this? Oh, it's a little unorthodox, but proceed. This is me doing my best S&L Stefan.

This story has everything. Reddit drama, yes, please. About a David Lynch subreddit, yes, please. But as... I'm sorry, Bridget. This is not a gay enough, Stefan. I'm going to need you to step it up a little bit. Oh, this is a story about Reddit drama.

Yes, please. About a David Lynch subreddit, yes, please. That is revolting because of rules around AI content. Give it to me, inject it right into my goddamn veins. So the moderators at the subreddit for the David Lynch show that originally aired in the 90s, Finn Peak started allowing AI content. Mike, did you watch Twin Peaks? I did not watch it when it originally aired,

but I have watched it three times from beginning to end as like a rewatch. And I love it. It was a great show. That second season, you know, halfway through when they got rid of David Lynch, it kind of took a turn and like we could do without the chess playing subplot. But like,

it is a great show. I could go on and on about Twin Peaks. Love it. It is great. It is great. And so I will say people who like David Lynch like myself, we are a weird bunch. I guess I'll just put it that way. Like, we're a particular bunch.

David, people who like David Lynch, David Lynch fans, we really like David Lynch. So when the subreddit for the David Lynch show Twin Peaks started allowing AI content in protest, these like very, very dedicated David Lynch fans started flooding the subreddit with AI generated twin peak flop. We'll put some of them in the show notes, but they are, I almost like them.

They're so strange. There are such strange pieces of AI slop content about a piece of media that was already strange in its own way that I almost sort of am like, oh, this is art,

but all kind of. Okay, well, we're going in a different direction out, but like, yeah, that does sound interesting. Now I kind of want to see them. We'll put some of them. them in the show notes. But, so the big question here is, did David Lynch fuck with AI? It's a little bit in dispute. After Lynch died this year, a few interviews and clips and things resurfaced that kind of made it sound like David Lynch liked AI. And people really ran with this to make the late David

Lynch the mascot for AI art and pro AI sentiments in art, which to me is creepy because David Lynch has passed away. He is not around to weigh in or say whether or not he actually genuinely likes this, whether or not these comments were, you know, aligned with how he actually feels. Yeah, I do agree with you there. I think it is messed up to use a dead person in like an activist way to advocate for like a new technology. That doesn't feel right. That does not feel like honoring a legacy that feels like expropriating. Especially a new technology that so many creatives and artists have been really clear about the fact exploits their work, steals their work without credit or compensation.

I just don't feel great about this. And one of the people who has kind of done this is Natasha Leone, who I love. In a vulture piece, they described Natasha Leone, who herself was working on an AI film production company with her partner, filmmaker and entrepreneur, Brian Moser. Folks might recall that Natasha Leone was sort of called out for this, But then she said that this project is sort of meant to be a more ethical AI creative project

because they say that all of their AI is trained on content that creatives consented to be used in this way. So this vulture piece says that not long ago, Natasha Leone had an opportunity to speak with David Lynch, one of the giants of a previous generation of filmmakers and an early convert to digital cameras. Before he died, Lynch had banned Natasha Leone's neighbor. One day last year, Natasha Leone asked David Lynch for his thoughts on AI. She says that Lynch picked up a pencil and said, Natasha, this is a pencil. Everyone has access to a pencil. And likewise, everyone with a phone will be using AI if they are not already.

It's how you use the pencil, he told her, you see? Yeah, we've had other guests on the show who've made a similar argument, you know, making the analogy that AI is like drum machines or synthesizer. and that it's just a tool for making art and that real artists will take it and run with it and use it to create great art. I'm somewhat sympathetic to that, or at least I maybe was more so in the past.

But we've also heard from people on this show who say that that analogy is deceptive because you don't need to rip off artists to build a drum machine or synthesizer, and that actually that analogy is like oversimplifying in a way that, really biases towards AI in a way that is not great. And so some of those people argue that AI is an inherently parasitic technology

and that there is no ethical way to use it for art or anything else. Yeah, it's kind of complicated. And, you know, I could see people coming down on one side or the other of it. But again, it feels a little weird to be invoking a dead man on one side of the argument. Yes, you know, I love Natasha Leon, but I'm a cheerleader is like queer cinema canon. However, if you were asking for just Bridget's old opinion on this, I do think Natasha Leon is being a little bit self-serving here. I think that when she got some heat for this AI production company that she's doing with her

partner, I think that quoting David Lynch conveniently after he was no longer alive, to push back or offer any context was a way to add a little bit of indie street cred to this project that she was otherwise being criticized for. I do think that's a little bit of what's going on. And I think the fact that David Lynch has become kind of this pro-AI in art mascot in death is concerning for me. 404 reports that an image in a pro-AI art subreddit depicts Lynch wearing an open AI t-shirt and pointing at us, the viewer, saying, you can't be punk and also be anti-AI, AI-phobic, or an AI denier. It's impossible.

Nothing like somebody in an open-a-I t-shirt telling me what isn't punk. Yeah, I don't like it. No, that's kind of gross. So in any event, the Twin Peaks subreddit moderator posted an announcement this week, that opened the doors to AI in the sub Reddit. So in a now deleted post titled AI generated content on our Twin Peaks, the moderator outlined the position that the sub was a place for everyone to share memes, theories, and anything remotely creative as long as it has loose strings to the show,

or in this case, its themes, AI generated content is included in all of this. We are aware of how AI art and AI generated content can hurt real artists. The post said, unfortunately, this is just the reality of the world we live in today. And at this point, I don't think anything can stop the AI train from coming. It's here. This is only the beginning. AI content is becoming harder and harder to identify. They also asked folks in the sub to be cool.

They said there's going to be an honor system where if you post AI content, you've got to label it. So, you know, this moderator said, you can't stop the AI train from coming. Guess who could stop the AI train from coming in this David Lynch subreddit? can you guess? Was it the subreditors themselves? It was the subreditors themselves. I know that you love acts of malicious compliance. I almost think this was a kind of malicious compliance issue.

Oh my God, I love Reddit so much. I love the community on Reddit. Like everybody is so petty and shitty and mean, but in like a really creative way, it's like perfect for me. It is where I want to be on the internet. It is, I know Reddit has had problems. in the past couple years

and I could certainly complain about things, but the community on Reddit is like what the internet is when is that is best, in my opinion. Oh, I agree. And as somebody who was worked on platform moderation for many years, people often ask me,

what are some platforms that are doing it right? I have lots of thoughts about how Reddit is doing in this iteration when it comes to things like AI content, that notwithstanding. And like five years ago,

I would have said Reddit for sure. Yes. So back to this story then. So, okay, the moderator posted this note that was like AI is cool, can't stop the freight train. So how did people respond? They really showed what it looks like when no one can stop the AI train from coming by flooding the subreddit with horrifying AI-generated Twin Peaks and David Lynch Slop in protest, including horrifying pictures of the series protagonist Cooper doing an end zone dance on a football field

while Laura Palmer screamed in the sky and many, many, many, many awful chat GPT generated scripts. Oh my God, you used the word horrifying so many times that I am like really excited to check this out. Yeah, I can't describe it. People need to see it for themselves. I almost sort of feel in the lynchian way, it's so bad, it has flipped back around to, is this art for me?

I'll just say that. So the moderator of the Twin Peak subreddit actually resigned over this. They explained what happened in an interview with 404 and said that the post that they made about accepting AI content was not run by other moderators of the team. They said it was poorly worded, a bad take on a bad stance, and it blew up in their face. It's viral because it was condescending and basically told. told the community, we don't care that it's theft, that it's unethical, we'll just flare it so you can filter it out. They missed the point that AI art steals from legit artists and damages

the environment. Well, that's a nice statement of contrition, I guess. Like, it sounds like the moderator who posted that thing realized that it was out of step with what the community wanted and expected and, like, legitimately tried to acknowledge their, concerns and wrote an apology, that this sounds like a nice story. I think it kind of is. It does sound like that they had been internally debating whether or not to ban AI content and what to do about AI content and that this one moderator just sort of jumped the gun. Obviously, the subreddit reversed course and put out a new statement saying that going

forward posts, including generative AI art or chat ShpT sell content, we're going to be disallowed. But I think it's a good example of when people say, oh, you can't stop the AI train. I don't think that that's really a thoughtful statement. And I think the fact that this, it's pretty low stakes, but the fact that this subreddit rose up and was like, let us show you what if you're saying that we just have to accept that AI art is the future,

let me show you what that future actually looks like. And you tell me if that's a future that you actually want for this community. Yeah, it's a nice example of organizing in a creative way. for community to democratically enforce the standards that it wants to exist for itself. And so, bravo David Lynch community or whatever subred of this was. I think David Lynch would be proud. I mean, who can say? Dude's dead.

Okay. Before we go, I did want to just make one quick announcement, which is, do you know those podcasts where they'll do, mailbag episodes where if it's just an episode where we answer your questions, I want to do one of those. I don't think we've ever done on it. We've been on the air since 2020. That's five years. I don't, we've gotten a slew of new listeners. New listeners, thank you. We love you. And old listeners, thanks for rocking with us. We love you too. But people might have questions. People might want to know who we are, why we do what we do. I don't really talk a ton about anything involving my actual offline life.

So people might have questions about who the hell I am, why they should listen to me. If you are listening and you have questions, whether it's about me, our team, how the show comes together, why the show exists, or things about things that are happening online, things that you want to know my takes on

on our big, wide internet and social media landscape and ecosystem, let us know. I want to do a mailbag episode, but I don't want to do it where it's just, You're like, oh, we've got a vacation coming up, and I got to scrounge something together. Let me just go through random emails that we've gotten. I want to seed actual good questions. And if we don't get good questions, we don't have to do it.

And if people don't want to do a mailback episode, we don't have to do that either. What do you think, Mike? I think it's a great idea. We do get some great emails from, you know, some really thoughtful listeners who often they're, like, sharing interesting stuff with us. And, you know, sometimes we respond, I apologize that we aren't able to respond to all of them. But like people write in with really interesting things to say, but but not often questions. So I think this is a good idea, Bridget. I think let's invite listeners to write in with whatever questions they have either. Oh, and it doesn't have to be a question. If you just, if you,

because people will send this emails and unless they explicitly say, I want this to be read on the podcast, I won't. I will assume that people don't want it to be read on the podcast. But if you do want it to be read on the podcast, even if it's not a question, it's just something. you want out there. I'll read that. Why not? Should we give people like a deadline? Because I feel like that motivates me to make things happen. If I don't have deadlines, I don't

do anything. Let me pull up the calendar. Yeah, let's pull up the calendar. A super producer over here. Okay, how about, okay, today is the 25th, we're recording on the 25th, by the 10th of October, if you've got an email that you specifically want engaged with

on the podcast in an episode, shoot us an email. And it comes late, that's also fine because I am also a neck of the deadline. But we want to hear from you. So the 10th would be,

that's a soft deadline. It's a hard deadline. I'm going to pull producer rank here. It's going to be a hard deadline. I think it's a reasonable one. So yeah, right in by October 10th, it gives you almost like a full two weeks.

Yeah. Right in. We would love to hear from each and every one of you listeners are the best. Thank you so much for listening and for allowing us to do this show. You know, I, for me,

the ability to do this show is like one of the more gratifying things I've ever done in my professional life. And it's so touching that listeners want to listen to it week after week. So thank you very much. Yeah, I know it's cheesy at the end of podcasts where the host just gushes about the listeners, but it just, truly it's the reason I do this.

I would, like, you all, I am so lucky that people listen to this show. I am so lucky I get to make this show. I'm so lucky I get to work with you, Mike, Joey, Tari, Jonathan, our whole team. I cannot believe I get to do this. I cannot believe anybody listens to this show, listens to what we have to say. But I'm so glad that you do, and we wouldn't be doing any of this without you. And I don't say that in the sort of way that. people say it on podcast, but I genuinely mean it. It really does mean so much. And especially when

things are hard, it's, it's hard, we're in these hard times or it's hard to find things to latch on to that don't make you feel like flinging yourself off of a building. And for me, it is the listeners and it is this podcast. So yeah. Yeah. I want to give people a prompt because I think that might help facilitate some emails because I want to get a lot of them. What's your, okay. Okay. We're doing this is, we're doing this in real time. So I kind of sprung this on you, Mike. So I'm, I'm impressed that you had a prompt ready to go. What is one thing about the internet that like brings you joy, gives you hope, makes you feel good? Oh, I love it. Yeah. Okay. Well, hopeful, semi-hopful mailbag episode coming. And also doesn't have to

be hopeful. We'll take whatever. We'll take whatever you got. Give us your emails. We'll read them on the show. We'll do a mailback episode. Thank you so much for listening. Mike, thank you for being here. We will see you on the internet. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or just want to say hi? You can reach us at hello at tangoody.com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tangoody.com. There are no girls on the internet was created by me, Bridget Todd. It's a production of IHeart Radio and unbossed creative.

Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. Edited by Joey Pat. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, write and review us on Apple Podcast. For more podcasts from IHartRadio, check out the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite.

Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel. Help an Acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for band. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Joey Dardano. And on my new podcast, Hope from a Hypocrite, I'll be changing lives, helping people in need with thoughtful solutions. Sike, I'm a comedian. I'm not qualified to give good advice. Join me and my comedian friends as we riff, riff, rant, recommend some of the most legally dubious advice known to me. This is Help from a Hypocrite, the worst advice from the dumbest, people you know. Listen to Help from Hypocrite Wednesdays on the Iheart radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The story I've told myself can then shape my behavior,

and that can lead me to sabotage the possibility of connection. This mental health awareness month, tune into the podcast deeply well with Debbie Brown if you've been searching for a soft place to land while doing the work to become whole. This podcast is for you to hear more. Listen to Deeply well with Debbie Brown from the Black Effect Podcast Network on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Why are we all so obsessed with romance? On the Radio 831 podcast, join us, Sanjana Basker, and Tyler McCall, as we unpack all the trending tropes, fuzzy adaptations, book talk drama, and celebrity love

stories with hot takes and sharp guests. Each episode digs into what these stories reveal about desire, fantasy, identity and how we love now. Listen to the Radio 831 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Edwin Castro, also known as Castro 1021. And I'm Conky, his best friend and business manager. And we've got a new show called The 1021 Podcast.

I'm taking you behind the scenes on how I became one of Twitch's most popular streamers. We also love sports. And with the World Cup right around the corner, we'll be breaking. down the biggest storylines ahead of the big tournament here in the USA. Listen to the 1021 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.