There Are No Girls on the Internet - Drake Defamation Diss; Trump loses Nobel Prize; Robin Williams’ daughter slams Open AI’s Sora; Google Drops Women; YouTuber kills as "vengeance" for Charlie Kirk - NEWS ROUNDUP!

Episode Date: October 11, 2025

Welcome to the weekly News Roundup! Bridget and Producer Mike recap the week's tech stories that you might have missed.  It’s True: The Internet Skews the Reality of Women (and Men) in the Workforce https://www.motherjones.com/media/2025/10/nature-study-berkeley-haas-online-internet-images-gender-bias-workforce-false-reality-women/ Read the study (Guilbeault et al., 2025)  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09581-z  Google Women Techmakers moves to Technovation, but not everyone is cheering https://piunikaweb.com/2025/10/08/google-women-techmakers-moves-to-technovation/ Robin Williams’ daughter begs fans to stop sending her AI videos of her late father: ‘Just stop doing this to him' https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/films/news/robin-williams-daughter-zelda-ai-videos-b2840650.html and https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/10/dj-bruce-lee-and-jackass-mr-rogers-dead-celebrities-become-puppets-in-sora-2-videos/ 'Coward of a man' kills 2 teenage girls in NJ after mom's warnings were dismissed. https://archive.is/aMOV9  Kendrick's Drake Diss Defamation Dismissed  https://www.billboard.com/pro/drake-lawsuit-kendrick-lamar-not-like-us-dismissed-judge/  Send us an email for the upcoming mailbag episode! [e-mail]  If you’re listening on Spotify, you can leave a comment there to let us know what you thought about these stories. Follow Bridget and TANGOTI on social media!  ||  instagram.com/bridgetmarieindc/ || tiktok.com/@bridgetmarieindc ||  youtube.com/@ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternet  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.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. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano. It's our favorite time of the year on our podcast point game, the playoffs. We're digging into the biggest surprises of the season. And I'm looking back on some of my greatest playoff moments. If we didn't talk ever again, I was harmed.

You just understood. That's how personal it got. Wow. Then after that game seven, Marquis come in to you, he's like, you know I love you, dog. You know, it's all love. This was just playoffs. This was just basketball. So listen to Point Game 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 IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. You're listening to There are No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the intersection of technology, social media, and identity. And this is another installment of our weekly news roundup, where we round up all the stories online that you might have missed so you don't have to. Producer Mike, I think we have to gear up for a Trump tantrum incoming because Trump has been saying for the longest time that he feels that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

I guess the people who decide who deserves a Nobel Peace Prize and who doesn't disagree because he didn't win. He did not win. And also, he's like the only person on earth who is aggressively campaigning to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Like, it's so shameless. We were talking about this before we started a recording, but there was a time where most people did not care nor even know who the Nobel Peace Prize winners were. I looked up a list this morning of the people who had won it for the last 30 years. Maybe I'm uninformed, but I only knew a handful of people on that list. For the last 30 years, one of them, notably Barack Obama, did win it.

I know who Barack Obama is, so anybody who tells you otherwise is misinformed. However, you have these people who were acting like they were very invested in who wins the Nobel Peace Prize all along. No, you weren't. You just want to be a Trump sycophant. No, you weren't. Yeah. When we looked at that list, it really underscored to me how American-centric our news bubble is. Like, I like to think of myself as a pretty informed guy, but I didn't know, like, most of those people.

And Donald Trump certainly did not. No, of course not. So the Nobel Peace Prize's actual recipient is Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado. It sounds like a very deserved win. I did love this post on Blue Sky from Kieran Healy. White House staff should just make and show Trump an AI general. video where he wins, fly him to Duluth and tell him it's Oslo and dare the New York Times to say anything more than experts disagree about whether or not Mr. Trump was awarded the Nobel Prize.

It's such a good solution because I know he would fall for it. And I know the New York Times would go along with it. Like they wouldn't even need to be dared. That would just be their default thing that they would write. No, and absolutely 100% for sure it would turn into a conversation where who's to say what the truth is. You know, it just underscores this. this fractured reality that we're living in where some people say this, some people say that, and there's no expectation of finding the actual truth anymore. I genuinely feel that. No, and there would definitely be a New York Times opinion piece about how like the truth is somewhere in the middle. But I do love this so much. So as we're recording this, the news was just announced

a few hours ago. So I don't believe Trump has officially reacted yet or posted on his social media slash crypto platform. I can only assume he is waking up and throwing things around in the Oval Office and a rage, which is a wonderful image. But I just love this high-level trolling from the Nobel Committee, because after all of Trump's bluster and, like, demands that he win, they chose to highlight this democracy activist of a country that Trump is, like, murdering their citizens and threatening and perhaps actively gearing up for war with.

But like it's really messed up what the Trump administration is doing with Venezuela. And it's really scary. And I love so much that the Nobel Committee has lifted up this democracy activist instead of giving into Trump. Yes. And speaking of this idea that if the White House just told Trump that he won, you wouldn't really have people disputing that probably in legacy media. They would be saying, oh, some people say he did. Some people say he didn't. That reminds me so much of this new open AI platform, SORA AI, their tool that lets anybody make hyper-realistic AI videos from text prompts. It's kind of like Google's platform V-O-3, which we've talked about extensively on the podcast.

Have you seen any of the SORA AI videos on social media or have you played with it yourself yet? I have not played with it myself. I'm actually curious to because we make this show. But I believe it's still invite only. So they're using that exclusivity to gatekeep. And so I've seen a few videos but have not directly used it myself yet. So I have also not used it myself. And generally I try to not give my opinion on consumer.

tech that I have not personally played with. I've seen a couple of videos floating around. I will say this. Some people, for whatever reason, do seem to like it. They seem to be enjoying it. I've seen people creating videos using SORA and then posting it on social media. And something that makes SORA unique is that it has a feature where people scan in their face or their friends faces and then put them in these AI generated scenarios, which we'll talk more about in a second. So I have a few friends. People that I trust who have posted SORA AI kind of... content. And they were like, oh, it's so fun. I'm having so much fun on this platform. So I don't know. I have not played with it myself. And maybe I will eat my words. But I have seen people say this platform is so fun and it's such a joyful experience that it's going to rock social media. And I just don't see it. I really just don't see it. Again, maybe I'll eat my words. I'm happy to to take this back if it turns out that I'm incorrect. But it really reminds me of a few years of, when a lot of folks are posting those AI-generated futuristic-looking selfies on Facebook a few years ago,

I think the reason why people who are using it are saying it's so fun, they're just excited to see themselves and their friends in AI-generated scenarios. Do you know what I mean? I don't think that that necessarily means that the kind of content that is coming out of these platforms are interesting, unique, the kind of thing that's actually going to hold someone's attention. I just think people are excited because, hey, that's me and my friend. in a scenario. It almost reminds me of, you might remember this. Do you ever Yikyak? I do from like the early internet. Like we're talking early 2000s, right?

Yes. So for folks who don't remember, Yikyak was this app from, I want to say 2013. Oh, apparently it just relaunched in 2021. So maybe we can get back on it. But you would take a picture of your face and you can put it in these animated cards. So I remember making one for Christmas where it was my face and my best friend Kristen's face in like dancing animated elves. So it looks like our faces were on the bodies of elves and we were dancing and we sent it to all of our friends and we thought it was just hilarious. That is genuinely what this reminds me of. I think people are just excited to see their own faces and the faces of their friends in

these AI generated scenarios. When people post them on social media, they post in the handful of posts that I've seen, people post them saying, oh, this is so incredible. Can you believe this? Can you believe this? And it just reminds me of when people post super hyper specific to them content on social media. And of course, they like it because it's about them. But will other people like it?

I'm not so sure. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right that it probably doesn't have a lot of staying power. Because for one thing, it's just like the novelty of like, oh, look, I can put myself in an AI generated video. It reminds me of something that one of my friends who was a visual artist told me about self-portrait. it's one time how he considers them to be like one of the laziest forms of art. You can probably guess which friend this is because it's just it's just a subject that is always there. If you don't have any other ideas, you can do it.

It's just like yourself. And I feel that that's a pretty good analogy for this kind of tech that is just like, hey, look, it's a picture of you. This is like a mirror. but there's some cool AI wizardry behind it. Well, don't tell that to Frida Kahlo, but sure. That's true. Yeah.

It wasn't my opinion. It was his. I know exactly the person that you're talking about also. I know. That's true. Next time I see him, I'm going to ask him about Freed up. Anyway, we digress. So I've actually seen tech tools that both remove and add a SORA AI watermark to any video,

whether or not it's AI and whether or not it's made with SORA of. Because right now when you make these SORA AI videos, there's a watermark that kind of moves around that's kind of meant to be a way for anybody to see it and say, hey, that's AI. Even though it has not stopped people from commenting on videos that have that SORA AI watermark as if these videos are real, which again, I think it goes to show that it's not just that these AI videos

are hard to tell that they are AI, which it is hard to tell. And it's not just that they're everywhere, it's that we live in this climate that has completely eroded our trust in everything that we see online. And I know people are having fun with it. I get it. I don't want to be a party pooper, but I just don't love it.

I mean, I'll be a party pooper. I feel that's like kind of my role on this show. Yeah, I think all those problems you mentioned are also compounded by the ADD nature of social media where everything is like fast cuts, super short form videos, a lot of videos are only a few seconds long, and no surprise, people when they're scrolling through videos,

are not taking the time to critically evaluate, is this real or not before commenting, which is unfortunate, and we should do that, but let's be honest, a lot of people don't. I'm certainly guilty of the same, and the algorithms in a lot of cases, and the platforms, the way they're designed, do everything they can to encourage,

people to not critically evaluate. They just want to connect with feelings and emotions to keep people clicking and engaged. Yes. And you know who is really raising the alarm about that right now? Family members are famous dead people because Sora lets anybody use the likeness of anyone, public figures, copyrighted characters, whoever. So to back up a little bit, Open AI's first position was that anybody who objected needed to opt out of having their likeness used in this way on Sora, which to me is why.

and truly not how consent works in any other context, where you would have to object and opt out, otherwise it's just understood that you've given your consent. But eventually, as Ars Technica reports, OpenAI was forced to change the way that Sora handles fictional copyrighted works. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote this weekend that copyright holders now have to opt in

to allow their characters in Sora 2 videos, rather than opting out as it was when the service first launched. And those folks might share in some of the revenue from any Sora videos of their characters. So Open AI calls these cameos, which I do think is a pretty kind of genius bit of marketing. This lets living users, including public figures, opt into Sora's cameo feature

by scanning their own face with their phone to drop themselves into any Sora scene with remarkable fidelity. Open AI says that cameo users are, quote, in control of your likeness end to end. And the feature is designed, quote, to ensure that your audio and image likeness are used with your consent.

Folks might have seen that Logan Paul opted in, and since then there's been a flood of AI videos of him coming out as gay, which he actually spoke up and said, oh, I don't love these videos. They're kind of causing me issues, but I guess he opted into them, so what are you going to do? Obviously, dead public figures cannot consent to opt into this feature, and they're all over the platform.

When OpenAI was asked about this, they basically said, yeah, that's the situation. So already I have seen SORA AI generated videos of things like Stephen Hawking in his wheelchair, but he's doing skateboard tricks on a skateboard ramp, or Kurt Cobain from Nirvana, eating a bunch of KFC chicken fingers. I don't know why one of the early use cases in this is bringing back dead celebrities, but there you have it. And that's also how you end up with content like AI generated Martin Luther King,

giving his, I have a dream speech at a podium, but instead of words, he's making racist monkey noises. I have seen a ton of MLK AI-generated content being made with SORA. I saw content where he was eating a crab boil with Malcolm X. I saw content where instead of giving his speech, he gives that, do you know that meme of the kid who is saying, do you ever believe you think you dream that you think you could do anything? Have you ever had a dream that you had your, you could, you'll do, you want, you could do so, you, you, you'll do, you, you, you want, you want them.

Where, when Martin Luther King gets up to give his speech, that's what he says. And the wildest thing to me is that Bernie's King, MLK's daughter, says that people send her these videos, not necessarily to try to troll her because they don't like her. They send her these videos because they think she might like it. And Zelda Williams, daughter of the actor Robin Williams, who died by suicide, shared that she also doesn't like this, that people will send her these AI-generated videos of her late father, maybe thinking that she will like it or get a kick out of it. In a statement, she said, please just stop sending me AI videos of dad.

Stop believing I want to see it or that I'll understand. I don't and I won't. If you're trying to troll me, I've seen way worse. I'll restrict and move on. But please, if you've got any decency, just stop doing this to him and to me, to everyone even. whole stop. It's dumb. It's a waste of time and energy. And believe me, it's not what he would want. To watch the legacies of real people be condensed down to, this vaguely looks and sounds like them, so that's enough. Just so people can turn out horrible TikTok slop, puppeteering them is maddening. You're not making art.

You're making disgusting, over-processed hot dogs out of the lives of human beings, out of history and art and music, and then shoving them down someone else's throat, hoping they'll give you a little thumbs up and like it. Gross. AI is just badly recycling and regurgitating the past to be consumed. You are taking in the human centipede of content. And from the very, very end of the line, all while folks at the front laugh and laugh, consume and consume. That is a powerful condemnation of AI. And she's not wrong. It's really pretty gross that this is like one of the big use cases of this technology. And you mentioned that in response to threatened copyright lawsuits, Open AI changed their policy to require copyrighted characters to be opted in. And, you know, that seems all well and good for the owners

of the copyrights. But it, that policy is doing nothing to protect the descendants of these recently deceased public figures like Zelda Williams or Steve Irwin's kids. And I think that's a pretty good example of the inhumanity of these tech companies and AI companies in particular that they'll go out of their way to protect copyrighted assets. before protecting real humans. I can't help but think of that new law they have in Denmark to try to push back against this that grants every living person in the country copyright to their likeness.

As AI continues to blur the line between fiction and real life, I remain hopeful, I guess, that that kind of solution to protecting people is going to be viable. Yeah. And I have to add, this is a little bit of a tangent, but when my mom passed away last year, my mom was, my mom was somewhat of a public figure. She was definitely a public figure in our town.

And I don't know. I think that people really need to understand what it feels like when you are grieving someone, someone that you had an intimate private relationship with that nobody else in the world had. Even though people might think that they had an intimate relationship with that person, they didn't. They, you know, they might have liked them or enjoyed their work or respected them, when your loved one, your deceased loved one, when their image and likeness and story is taken in that way, it just really hurts. And it's so confusing. And the fact that there's a dynamic where the people who do this and the people that profit from it think that you might like it just disgusts me.

So I've certainly never experienced this on the level of Zelda Williams or Bernice King. But I know a little bit about how invasive that feels. And then the feeling of, of, of, of it being out of your control, right? The feeling of, I cannot stop this. I cannot stop the internet. So you know how they say like, once something is on the internet, it's on the internet forever?

Imagine that feeling when the intimacy and the privacy of somebody that you are grieving, somebody that you have lost is taken, and you know there's nothing that you could do about it. It's just out there in the ether because people decided it belonged to them. And it doesn't. I think there's really something so wrong about this.

And then hearing people say, oh, but the platform is a lot of fun. I can see myself and my friends. Look, I made a video where it looks like we're doing a funny thing. I don't think that's a fair trade-off, but I also understand that we don't have a culture that asks people to understand the stakes of that trade-off. They will only understand that if it happens to them,

and I hope it doesn't because it fucking sucks. So, yeah, it's a little hard for me to see people just talking about how they don't care about any of those issues that you just brought up, Mike, because this platform, it's fun for a laugh, It gives them a dopamine hit, and they can make a little bit of content with their friends and get 20 likes on it or whatever. Boy, yeah, thanks for sharing that. You mentioned consent a little bit earlier in this discussion, and I do think that's a good framework to understand this, where I get the sense that a lot of these videos that people are making are just for laughs or for trolling, which is messed up in its own way.

But it's really interesting that some of these people sending these AI slop videos to the people, to people. that feature their deceased parents thinking that they're going to like it, it just seems really interesting and that seems like something different than just fun and lulls. It seems like this technology it's enabling the creators of these videos

to be in relationship with the deceased person. And, you know, it's certainly not new that celebrities have had fans where the fans want to have, be in relationship, with the person. And I think that's a big, you know, it's related to why people listen to podcast. People like to connect with the hosts that they like and, you know, it can feel like a bit of a parasycial relationship and hosts like to connect with their fans as well. But there's a separation

there. I think there's a way to look at this technology where it is a way to non-consensually break down that separation and be like, no, we are in relationship, whether you or your deceased parent consent to it or not. And it's gross and people shouldn't do it. And not for nothing, I promise you that if Zelda Williams or Bernice King wanted to use AI to make this kind of content about their dead fathers, they could. You don't need to send it to them. They have access to the same internet that everybody else has access to.

If they wanted to make these videos, they could. Yes, and making them with AI strips the unique. of these figures that made them the exceptional public figures that they are. Every time you run something through AI, it just makes it feel right based on all of the other data that was used to train the model and strips away a little of that uniqueness. So in using these people, these deceased figures, it diminishes them, which is another part of what's, I don't know, not great about it. That's what when Zelda says that it's the human centipede of content, that's exactly what she's referring to, I think.

And it's, yeah, I've changed my mind. I don't think sorry is good. I don't mind being a party pooper about this one. Not good. I don't like it. Yeah. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy, 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 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, uh, you only got in because you're parents. Parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name.

The Harvard Yardt Yardt. They're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle age. One erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smygel and friends on the I-Heart 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 IHart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-844-IHart to get started. That's 844-8-4-4-4-4. I heart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast, 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 basis 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 run 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 iHeartRadio 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 now. 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 IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

At our back. Don't you like, Bridget? Well, I don't love what Google is allegedly doing to their women in tech initiatives. So this is a little bit of a developing story. Is Google dropping their women tech makers initiative? So I saw this post in the Women in Tech Subreddit on Reddit. It reads, I was part of Google's initiative Women Tech Makers or WTM for short. Our job was to organize events and help other women find their way in the tech sphere.

Occasionally, we will be invited to Google events with travel costs covered and merch. nothing big, but it was nice to be acknowledged, while also supporting women in STEM. Since the end of last year, beginning of this one, support was dwindling. First, they stopped hosting webinars, then made us request funding pre-approved and would only pay us back what they thought was reasonable and not would be spent our own money out of pocket. The final blow was when they invited us to the event in Europe and provided zero travel cost funding for us, while Google Developers Group, their other initiative, received what 100% of their travel paid for. Like that wasn't bad enough.

They didn't allow us to come to the community mixer. Women Techmakers was the only community not allowed to join the community event. Now they straight kick us out of the platform, removing all access to the resources, and new home us to some nonprofit, painting it as a fantastic opportunity and how cool it would be. Seven years of being an ambassador, curated and organized more than 40 events, including huge IT conferences with 400 plus attendees, a team of 13 women, everything is now in shambles and demoralized because the Big G decided that the community that was promoting and supporting women in STEM is to DEI for their brand. So that sounded pretty messed up to me.

A lot of the comments were essentially saying, yes, this has been the vibe. You know, they have been, their support has been dwindling. So I did some digging and I found a piece that explains that Google officially did hand over their women technakers to a nonprofit called technovation. A nonprofit that says that they've spent nearly 20 years in power. young innovators to solve real world problems through tech and entrepreneurship. I want to be clear that tech novation sounds good. Like, this is not to be smirch them at all. They seem genuinely interested in supporting women tech makers.

And it is entirely possible that they're capable of doing more with this program and taking this program further than Google ever did or ever would. So I'm not trying to be smirks them at all. But even the name, tech novation, like taking identity out of it, specifically is telling to me. And I also really couldn't find this explained anywhere. If this was really meant to be this fantastic thing, this fantastic partnership with these great opportunities, like Google told the women tech makers ambassadors that it was going to be for them, I would then expect Google to make some comment about it somewhere or announce it on the Google

blog. However, it seems like Google is keeping this move a little bit quiet. When you go to the Women TechMakers site, it now just says, Women TechMakers is now with Technovation, a trusted organization dedicated to empowering girls and women in STEM, and then redirects you to the TechNovation site. In a piece called Google Women TechMakers moves to TechNovation, but not everyone is cheering, it explains, quote, for many longtime ambassadors,

this transition feels less like a celebration and more like closure for something that had already been quietly fading. Several members say the signs were there as early as late 2024, with dwindling support, fewer sponsored events, and an overall sense that Google's enthusiasm for the program was waning. That is disappointing and just the way that this fits so neatly with the larger trends of companies that aren't just retreating from diversity commitments that they have made and have supported for years,

but seemingly like performatively running from them to demonstrate to the Trump administration and their allies, how anti-woke they are. It's just so disappointing and depressing, but I guess it really shouldn't be surprising that, you know, these giant tech companies were not as firmly behind those commitments as they claimed to be back when that was the invogue thing to do.

Yes, and when it was the invogue thing to do, they did it with such fanfare, such PR pushes. They really wanted a lot of attention, attention for doing this. And now that they're retreating, they want to do it quietly. And I just, I don't think that's fair. If you said it with your full chest when it was in vogue that you were doing this, say it with your full chest that you are abandoning these commitments that you no longer want to do this. And that's what you're going to be doing. I don't like that they're doing it quietly. It feels a bit sneaky to me. And Google can say whatever they want, but I do, as you said,

think it's a clear symbol of how vocally championing women and other marginalized folks in technology is so easily and callously discarded by some of these big companies and institutions, especially given that tech layoffs are rampant right now and that they have disproportionately impacted marginalized people like women. One study by eight-fold AI found that women are more than 65 percent more likely than men to lose their jobs in tech layoffs. The Women Tech Council reported that women were 1.6 times more likely to be let go than their male peers. Another study from Ravilio Labs back in 2022 found that black workers make up 6.05% of the tech workforce, but accounted for 7.42% of all tech layoffs.

So they were laid off at a higher rate than their proportion of tech employment. Same is true for Latino or Latinx workers who are definitely overrepresented in tech layoffs. And so I think against that backdrop, Google also backing away from all of these commitments that they made for marginalized people in STEM and tech. It's just craven to be so sneaky about it against that backdrop. Yes, and if the MO here is to do it quietly, you know, and we still notice some of these big things like, you know, supporting an initiative to organize conferences for women in tech,

when the funding for that goes away, people notice there's no way to do that completely behind closed doors because it was a public-based event. But things like employment and who gets laid off or not, that's so much harder to see. And so if they're doing the publicly visible stuff quietly on the down low, it just makes you have to wonder what is going on with things that are less visible. Like you just mentioned those employment or those layoff statistics. And also those layoff statistics, they're all for, you know, you mentioned that women are being more likely to be less. laid off during this round of tech layoffs, black workers were Latin X workers are,

and those are independent effects. I have to suspect, based on decades of evidence, that the interactive effects, the intersectional effects are even greater, right? Where, like, you can have the independent effect of if you're a black tech worker, you're more likely being laid off

as that Ravaleo Lab study effect, If you're a woman, you're more likely to be laid off than your male peers as that Women Tech Council report found. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would bet good money that even above those independent effects, being a black woman in tech right now puts one at even greater risk of layoff than just the independent additive effects of being black and a woman. We've seen that so many times in analyses of labor statistics. Oh, absolutely, right? I mean, I can confirm they probably wanted to get rid of us first, you know, but let's use this tech climate to get her out of here. And I think to put all of this back into perspective,

even if you don't work at one of these companies, it is better for all of us. It is safer for all of us. Our tech landscape is better when the people who are making in the decisions about the technology that we all use, use look like the people who will use that technology. And yeah, it's not just about, I know I've said this a million times, inclusion at tech companies is not just the right thing to do ethically, which it is. It also makes technology in the entire tech landscape better, safer for all of us, everyone.

We just talked about SORA from a consent framework, right? How it's, you know, from a certain perspective, it is violating consent in a way that is harming people. You have to suspect that if most most of the people working on that project were women, they might be waiting consent a little bit higher in their policies. Oh, it reminds me so much of the story we talked about when Instagram rolled out that feature that displayed all of your stories on an interactive map. I think that how they rolled that out would be totally different

if they had more women making decisions about that kind of technology. The way they, I really will take this to the bank, the way they rolled out a tool that allows you to see on a map where photos were taken, I think if they had more women making decisions, they would have rolled that out a little bit differently because most women will tell you, yeah, I don't really love the idea. Even if it's not so at tracking my real-time location, I don't love the idea of giving the internet or whoever a visual map of my frequent locations. Yeah.

I mean, this conversation is getting pretty close to the like core essential premise of this show, which is that women and girls are so often the subject of the internet, but often left out of decisions about how it is shaped and how it functions. Yeah, that reminds me of this thread post that I saw from Kento Morita that says, us, we can make anyone, any being in the world with this new technology, they can be genderless, they can be a mystic creature. What should we do first? Developers, make a woman that does what we tell them. References, Tilly Norwood, that AI actress we talked about last week. Alexa, Siri, Google Assistant, Eliza. Like, the way that consuming and controlling women and girls is at the core of our entire

tech ecosystem, it just is. You see it everywhere. Yeah. And yeah, we see it in the content that is produced. We see it in the boards and leadership of tech companies. And we see it in the images and the language that makes up the internet. So it's funny that you bring this up because I was reading this study that basically suggests that on the internet in technology, all the grown women are actually girls. This is according to new research from Solene Delacourt, who is an assistant professor at UC Berkeley's Hath School of Business and the co-author of this study published in nature where researchers

looked at images and text across some of the most well-traffic spots on the internet. ChatchipT, Google Wikipedia, IMDB, and found that women are regularly depicted as younger than men and devalued in the real world and real world spaces because of it. This was such a cool study and just staggeringly impressive

in its methods and its scope and its ambition. I just wanted to shout that out before you get into it. They had over 6,000 human coders rating over 650,000 images. It's like a breathtaking amount of data, and it's orders of magnitude more data than many studies that look at similar topics. We'll link to it in the show notes. And also, I want to give them credit for, like,

it is a pretty accessible read. As far as studies go, I found it quite accessible. Yeah, as our resident podcast scientist, I knew that you would be excited to talk about the methodology. How did I know that you were going to have a little big up to the methodology used in the study? But I read a summary of the study in Mother Jones called It's True. The Internet skews the reality of women and men in the workforce. And it really is quite interesting.

So basically the researchers analyzed over half a million images from Google Search, in which women consistently appeared younger than men. This serves as a measure of cultural bias because it's basically trying to give you content that you are most likely to click on. That is from co-author Douglas Gouldolt, who is an associate professor at Stanford. He said, that has a way of being prone to bias

because it ends up just amplifying whatever most people click on. So across the internet, women are most commonly shown in their 20s, while men are usually shown in their 40s or 50s. And it's not just that women in these images look younger, often they are younger. On IMDB and Wikipedia, the researchers were able to collect information about the actual ages of the people in these photos that were all over the internet,

and that trend really persisted. So importantly, this trend does not accurately reflect reality. In both online images and text, the researchers found similar skewed depictions of men and women in thousands of occupations and other categories. But in census data across most of those fields examined, There were no age differences among men and women. In the few professions where an age gap existed in the census data, the women tended to be older on average than men, but the online images presented an inverted picture. The pattern we see in the data just does not match reality, Devilcourt said.

The average woman in the U.S., and actually in the world has a higher life expectancy. The average woman is older, so what we see in online images and text and videos is wrong. So the internet is really out here making us think that the only women around are younger than we actually are, even in situations where the data confirms, okay, women in these specific positions do tend to be older. Even in those situations, the women are still reflected as younger than we actually are. Not just in the United States globally. And since, as the study said, this is all being shaped by our biases, I guess this is just anti-older woman bias being reflected back at us via the internet.

it speaks to this assumption that underlies so many of these large language models and AI tools. There's this assumption that the training data, right, they're scraping data from the internet, all the different corners of these huge corpices of text and images. And I think there's often an assumption that that data accurately represents the real world, the natural world, but it definitely does not. It reflects what people want to see on the internet, what platforms want to serve up to people on the internet. And so it is not at all surprising that, you know,

the distribution of women's ages in photos on the internet is not a perfect match for the distribution of women's ages among the living women on the world. these are two different things. The internet, the images that are on the internet are serving a particular purpose. And like in that sense, it's not a new idea, but I think it's very easy to forget that fact when we're talking about training data or a bunch of other phenomena about the internet. And I think this study has done a really good job of numerically quantifying

that gap, that difference between the real world and the data that exists on the internet. Yeah, and something else about that study is that they really make it clear that even though these images do not reflect reality, it goes on to shape our perception of IRL reality. This age gap myth impacts how people view women in the workplace. As part of the study, the researchers asked participants to find photos of people working across different professions. When the participants selected photos of women, they assume, that the people with that job would generally be younger and have less experience. And it is funny to me,

just as a woman of a certain age, you know, I do think that people have this idea that when you hit 30 as a woman, you basically dig a grave and crawl into it and die. You are pretty much out to pasture. I do think that there is an impression that there aren't women in their 30s, 40s, 50s, out here live in our dynamic lives that once you hit a certain age as a woman, you just go out to a lovely idyllic farm and they give you some overalls and you're never to be seen from again. You're certainly not in public. You're certainly not making podcasts and living your life and on television.

They just give you a pair overalls, a sun hat, some clogs, a thriller novel, and a mug of cranberry tea. and they send you to that pasture. I mean, except for the part of being sent out to pasture, that does kind of sound like something that you would like. No, being a woman of a certain age fucking rocks, right? You don't, first of all, you don't give a shit what anybody has to say about you. You're like, whatever you say about me, go ahead and say it, that's fine with me.

You completely stop giving a shit about the way that you present physically. All of that stuff is for you and anybody who doesn't like it could kick rock. You basically become whoever it was you wanted to be or were at 15 or 16 or 60. But this time around, you're totally cool with it. You've got zero insecurity about it. And if you're lucky, you've got a little bit of coin to support whatever that thing is. Tea, herbal tea really hits different.

I feel sometimes I'm drinking a lot less these days and sometimes a good mug our herbal tea really does hit different. Aging is awesome. And anybody who tells you otherwise just hasn't hit that age yet. I've heard people say that this is what they love about the Real Housewives franchises, that they show women in this age. age bracket that you're talking about, just demolishing those stereotypes of what they're supposed to

be doing with their lives. I'm sure that you got that for me because that is exactly what I love about these shows. Like Ramona Singer is almost 70 years old. Where else are you going to see a woman in her late 60s throwing back box wine and throw an ass? Where else are you going to see that? I want to see that. I want, I think we need reminders that people live full dynamic. lives into their 70s. We need to dispel this notion that you just fall off a fucking cliff or crawl into a grave once you hit 30, especially as women. And there's not really a lot of places where you get to see what that looks like.

Bravo, for better or for worse, is giving it to us and I like it. I don't know. I feel like every conversation comes back to Housewives with me. You know, I'm like an algorithm. I'm just trying to give you what you want. It's talking about Housewives. More after 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 head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella 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, uh, you only got in because you're, Your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard Yardt.

They're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle age. One erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel 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-Eyheart. 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 Nass would get that thing. That man, hell get the flying. He running up the court licking his fingers while 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.

you're going to get the bomb. 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 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 IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get right back into it. Okay, I have to give a trigger warning to this story because it is very disturbing,

but I don't think it's gotten a ton of coverage, so I did want to quickly talk about it. And that is a story out of New Jersey, where 17-year-old Vincent Battalaro was charged with intentionally hitting and killing two 17-year-old girls, Isabel Salas, and Maria Niotis, at 70 miles per hour with his car as they rode e-bikes around their house. So before this, Vincent shared these rambling live streams. He was a YouTuber who would YouTube about sports, but also, according to New Jersey Today, would also talk about his need for vengeance against one of these girls.

He would post these rants on YouTube live about false allegations against him, including child sexual exploitation material and this one girl from his school who was causing him legal trouble, he said. So he really blamed 17-year-old Maria. one of the girls that he would go on to kill and her mother for, I guess, legal trouble and legal problems he was having at school. And he began harassing her,

according to her neighbors and family. He delivered pizzas to her house, the kind that you're meant to pay cash for upon delivery, as some kind of a bizarre revenge for what he says was a critical post on social media that she made about Charlie Kirk after Kirk's death. So after he delivered these pizzas to her house, Vincent went on YouTube and said,

whenever Maria sees the pizza guy come, better think of Charlie Kirk for making fun of his fucking death. Stupid-ass clown, just remember that. So he started stalking her, even staking at her home in the months before he struck and killed her and her friend Isabella as they rode their bikes on the street. So her mom basically had been reporting this creep to the police for harassing her daughter for a while,

and it just genuinely sounds like nothing was done. According to NJ. advanced, Vincent even referenced all of this the fact that her mom had been reporting this and nothing was done on his live stream. He referenced a police investigation several times on his live stream this summer, saying, because I got into her relationship business and now the school, and now I'm going to tell you all this, cops got involved and the school got involved in the shit.

Somehow they're believing this crap. They suspended me basically indefinitely until they figured it out, which makes, again, no sense. But by June, he said the police told him, quote, that the case is going to be dismissed and I am not going to be facing any charges. he said during a live stream. He also compared himself to an ex-Dodgers pitcher, Trevor Bauer, who was suspended over sexual assault allegations back in 2021, but never faced any criminal charges.

Vincent said on his live stream, quote, I'm basically cleared of any wrongdoing. It says a lot. It says a lot. If they're closing the case on me for this and they're bringing me back to school, it says how much of an innocent I was in the first place. Now, people are trying to treat me like Trevor Bauer to make me feel like the bad person.

So I wanted to talk about this, one, because I don't feel like, it's gotten enough coverage that this person who was holding out a vendetta against one of these girls for comments she allegedly made about Charlie Kirk ended up murdering her after harassing her both in person and online. And I wanted to bring it up because it is absolutely tail as old as time that a woman or a girl reports dangerous behavior that typically has an online component. Nothing is done. It is belittled. It is dismissed. It is chalked up to just, oh, it's just internet, And then when nothing is done, it leads to larger violence that could have been prevented. It sounds like to me this was preventable.

The fact that this girl's mom had been reporting this creep for a long time and there's a documented, even he talks about this documented history of these reports and saying, oh, they found out I was innocent. They dismissed it. It was nothing there. I was innocent. I was innocent. Just goes to show that when we do not take online harms against women and girls seriously,

it has violent consequences. Absolutely. What a tragic story. I cannot begin to imagine the rage that that mom must feel that she clocked this guy as a threat. She was reporting him to the authorities and nothing was done. And then he made good on that threat. It's such a failure. And I don't know enough about the threat.

I don't want to just blame the police. I don't want to blame the school. It's hard to know exactly who should be responsible and accountable here, but clearly this was a huge failure, and it's so tragic. Tragic and preventable. Okay, while switching gears a little bit, will you allow me to talk about Drake really quickly? Yes, please.

We need a pallet cleanser after that last story. Okay, so do you understand how deep a distract has to hit for the target of said distract to try to sue over it. Because that is what Drake did. So after Kendrick Lamar's epic disc track, not like us, that basically was the song of the summer, where Lamar heavily implies that Drake is a pedophile.

And I mean, not for nothing, Drake did have some kind of a friendship with Millie Bobby Brown when she was 14 and he was 31, where Millie Bobby Brown said, oh, we're buds, we text all the time. I don't know, maybe this is just the old woman in me talking, but what the fuck would a 31-year-old have to be texting a 14-year-old about? Nothing good.

Exactly. So, as we like to say in the South, a hit dog will holler, I guess, and Drake was so hit, but he took it to the courts. Damn, that is sad. Like, I grew up in the 90s when rappers were shooting each other, right? Which is obviously, like, very bad. But, like, we have. come a long way to file a lawsuit. Like, come on, Drake. Well, this week, the court deemed that a song

that implies someone is a sex criminal is not legally actionable. So this is from Billboard. A federal judge dismissed Drake's defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar's not like us, ruling that a quote, war of words during a heated rap battle did not violate the law in that some of the case was logically incoherent. So, Drake filed this suit earlier this year, claiming that UMG, the music company, defamed him by releasing Kendrick Lamar's disc track, which tarred him as a, quote, certified pedophile. He likes to call himself a certified lover boy more like a certified pedophile. Drake argued that millions of people took that lyric literally, severely harming his reputation. But this week, the judge granted UMG's motion to dismiss that case, ruling that Kendrick's insulting lyrics were the kind of hyperbole that cannot.

be defamatory because listeners would not think they were statements a fact. The judge ruled that, quote, the artist seven-track rat battle was a war of words that was the subject of substantial media scrutiny and online discourse. Although the accusation that the plaintiff is a pedophile is certainly a serious one, the broader context of a heated rat battle with incendiary language and offensive accusations held by both participants, would not incline a reasonable listener to believe that not like us imparts verifiable facts about the plaintiff. I mean, it reminds me of the classic example of Bob Marley's track, right? Like when he says, I shot the sheriff, no one thinks that he actually shot a sheriff, right?

This is singing. This is, it's art. So I do have a point that I do feel I need to make whenever we're talking about this Drake and Kendrick Lamar beef, which is that ultimately we are talking about allegations of harm against women and girls. And I think it's important that that not get lost in all the hoopla and fanfare around disc tracks and all of that. I think it's incredibly easy for the fact that we're having a conversation about actual harmful allegations to go overlook because we're talking about something that is so amplified and big. So I do think it's important to just name that. But also, it reminds me of, I don't even know if I should tell this story on the podcast, but I once got in fairly serious trouble at a job because of a karaoke song choice that I did during a work conference where I sang L.A.

L. Cool J's Mama said, knock you out. And I dedicated it to, let's just say, some public figures. And then I nailed the rendition. That is my song. If you've ever heard that song, it's like a tough one to sing. But I didn't really think about the lyrics that are actually quite violent. And I didn't, you know, when I got up to do this karaoke song, I wasn't thinking, this is going to be taken as a literal promise or a literal

threat. After the performance, I'm slapping high fives. I'm feeling good. The next business day, the next Monday, my manager calls me into her office and she's got the lyrics to Mama said, knock you out, printed out for me to look at. And I know this song from singing it at the gym and from being a fan of LL Cool J, but I had never actually sat down and looked at these lyrics, which are quite explicitly violent. Like in the song, L.L. Cool J explicitly says, these are lyrics that will make you call the cops. Like there's one in particular line that he says, don't you never ever pull my lever?

Because I explode and my nine is easy to load. And I remember my boss reading that to me and thinking like, oh, is this really the kind of song you want to be singing on stage with such a gusto? And, you know, she was right. Looking back now, I can see how it wasn't super appropriate and it wasn't super cool and I understood that. But yeah, I wish I could, I wish I could have pointed to this. judge's ruling saying, a, a judge has ruled that we don't take song lyrics literally, even at a work karaoke event.

I'm so glad you told that story. I think it's so funny. I've heard that story before, and I just love to picture young Bridget, like, screaming that into the mic. I bet you did kill it. Oh, my God. Not literally killed anything or anybody, but like. No one is literally wanting to kill anybody.

The other funny thing about this Drake story is that that same judge, Jeanette Vargas, she's been involved in a lot of these Trump cases. and, like, most notably earlier this spring was, like, weighing in on whether Doge and Elon Musk could access treasury information. So she's been involved in, like, really high profile, high stakes cases affecting, like, the way that America functions. And I just find something funny about the fact that she had to take time out from that to weigh in on Drake's hurt feelings. I know. I wonder if she was, like, you know, those half glasses that judges wear kind of at the bottom of their notes? Is she pouring over these lyrics and watching Kendrick Lamar kind of wink, wink at the camera during his Super Bowl performance saying, oh, Drake likes a minor.

You know, was she pouring over all of this? I'm so curious. Yeah. I mean, she seems like a thorough judge, so I suspect she probably was. That's so funny. The world we live in where one day you're making a ruling on high-level Trump administration shenanigans, and the next day you're mediating a beef between Drake and Kendra. Lamar. What a country. Yeah, what a country. So Bridget, we got to wrap it up here, but I wanted to promote the mailbag if that works for you. Please promote the mailbag. Yeah, so we're going to do a mailbag episode. We've gotten some great submissions. Thank you so much to everybody who wrote in. We need just like a couple more to really have like a full episode. So if you're listening, please write in with a mailbag question. It doesn't even need to be a question.

It could just be something that you're thinking about, that you want to get Bridget's take on. Just write in and let us know. Or if you do have a question for Bridget or for me or about the show or about anything, something you want us to look into for you. Happy to do it. But please write in to hello at tangoati.com. And we're going to sweeten the pot that if you want a free sticker,

you get a free sticker for writing in. We've got these cool new Tangoti stickers. We'd love to give you one. Just includes your address. We're not going to use it for anything other than sending you a sticker. But yeah, right in and let us know. I don't know. We're going to leave it open for one more week.

We're going to extend it a little bit. So Bridget, do you have anything to add to that? The stickers are vinyl. You can put them on water bottles, which I love. Yeah, they're high quality stickers. These are not the cheap things. They're the good ones. So write in, let us know.

We want to do this mailback episode. If we don't get enough submissions, I'll just answer the questions that we got, I guess, to the people who asked questions. I will just answer them. But yeah, Mike, thank you for being here as always. And thanks to all of you for listening. I 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 tangoity.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. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, write and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from IHeartRadio, check out the IHeart Radio 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, S&L's Mikey Day and headwriter, 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. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano. It's our favorite time of the year on our podcast point game, the playoffs. We're digging into the biggest surprises of the season. And I'm looking back on some of my greatest playoffs. moments. If we didn't talk ever again, I was funny. You just understood. That's how personal it got. Wow. Then after that game seven, Marquis come until he's like, you know I love you, dog. You know, it's all love.

This was just playoffs. This was just basketball. So listen to Point Game 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 season on Dear Chelsea, with me, Chelsea Handler, we have some fantastic guests like Amelia Clark.

When, like, young people come up to me and they want to be an actor or whatever. And my first thing is always, can you think of anything else that you can do? You'd rather be disappointed in. Do that. David O'Yelloo. I love this podcast, whether it's therapy or relationships or religion or sex or addiction or you just go straight for the guts. Dennis Leary, Gait and Moderato from Stranger Things. Tena Mongeau.

Camilla Morone. Carrie Kenny Silver. and more listen to these episodes of dear chelsea on the iHeart radio app apple podcast or wherever you get your podcasts this is an iHeart podcast guaranteed human