There Are No Girls on the Internet - From George Santos to Anna Delvy, do we reward scammers for their cons? — BEST OF TANGOTI

Episode Date: December 29, 2023

Netflix’s Inventing Anna presents a flashy version of fake German heiress Anna Delvey’s scams. Rachel Deloache Williams was scammed out of $62,000 by Anna on a disastrous trip to Morocco.  Rachel discusses true crime shows like Inventing Anna and Hulu’s The Dropout and what it means for all of us when liars and scammers are elevated and amplified.   Anna ‘Delvey’ Sorokin Almost Ruined My Life. Now She’s Being Rewarded for Her Crimes: https://time.com/6146419/inventing-anna-rachel-williams-anna-delvey/ Check out Rachel’s book My Friend Anna: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/My-Friend-Anna/Rachel-DeLoache-Williams/9781982114107See 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, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined.

Learn how podcasting can help your business. Call 844-844-I-Hart. If you're watching the latest season of the Real Housewives of Atlanta, you already know there's a lot to break down. Portia accusing Kelly of sleeping with a merry man. They holding Kay Michelle back from fighting Drew. Pinky has financial issues. On the podcast, Reality with the King, I, Carlos King, recap the biggest moments from your favorite reality shows,

including the Real House Wise franchise, the drama, the alliances, M&T, everybody's talking about. To hear this and more, listen to Reality with the King on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. George Santos, disgraced former congressional representative and professional scammer, was voted out of Congress. And rather than slinking into the shadows, he's doing sit-down interviews and allegedly making bank on cameo. Now, if you believe him, he says that he's already made more money since being kicked out of Congress than he ever would have as an elected official.

When asked during an interview by Z-way, what it would take for him to just go away, he said, stop inviting me to events, but you'll never do that because you'll never do that because you're not. You want the content. And honestly, he's kind of right. So does crime pay? That's the question that Rachel Deloise Williams asked when we sat down together last year. Rachel was scammed out of thousands of dollars by notorious fake German heiress, Anna Delvey. And she asks, are we incentivizing scamming as a culture?

Listen to our episode from 2022 and find out. She definitely committed so many offenses that harmed real life people. So I think to flatten something like that into this very frivolous, like fun, glossy slog of a TV show, full stop. I don't know. Dot, dot, dot. There Are No Girls on the Internet is a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. We spend a lot of time on this show talking about lies and the Internet.

And I have to say that part of the reason why I personally work on disinformation issues is because of my intense fascination in things that are not true. How do lies function? Why do we believe them? Who profits off of them? And how do they shape our world? So in 2018, when the story first broke about the fake German heiress Anna Delvey, I was of course fascinated. Anna, real name Anna Sorokin, had been scamming investors, hotels,

even her own friends in pursuit of opening an art foundation and private club called the Anna Delvey Foundation. The club, like the millions of dollars, of family money that Anna said that she was supposedly worth, never materialized. Anna's former friend, Rachel Deloche Williams, first introduced the world to Anna after she wrote about their disastrous trip to Marrakesh. Anna initially agreed to pay for the trip, but never managed to put down a working credit card at the pricey villa where they were staying. When hotel staff insisted that somebody put down a functioning credit card, Rachel was

pressured into quitting the cost of the entire trip. $62,000, more than a year of her salary, on her work and personal credit cards. Now, Anna assured her that she would wire her the money to pay her back, but she never did. In the end, Rachel helped lead police to Anna's whereabouts, which led to Anna's arrest and conviction for one count of attempted grand larceny, three counts of grand larceny, and four counts of theft of services related to her various scams. but she was found not guilty of the $62,000 Rachel was out for the trip.

Last month, Netflix released Inventing Anna, a fictionalized, very sympathetic retelling of her con, based on the reporting of Jessica Pressler at New York Magazine. Anna's crimes were so flashy and outlandish, it was hard not to pay attention, and that, Rachel says, is kind of part of the scam. In her book, My Friend Anna, Rachel writes,

I have come to understand that your attention is an investment. Giving someone your attention is the act of being influenced, whether or not you're aware of it in the moment. And especially in this age of constant simulation, with endless people and stories competing for your clicks, likes, follows, and time, your attention has value. It has power. It's worth something.

It can even put money in someone's pocket. Be careful where you spend it and understand the cost. I spoke to Rachel about why our current digital media landscape is presenting a golden age for scammers and what that means for all of us. And just one quick note, we were recording on a noisy day in Brooklyn. So the audio quality might not be what you're used to from this podcast. Why do you think this is? Why do you think we're in this era where people cannot get enough of people who lie and scam and steal and cheat others? Yeah, it's a good question.

And I've certainly asked myself the same one. but I think I have a kind of unique vantage point in that I lived through like a con first hand. And I know that's sort of how it works. It's sort of this larger than life, flashy illusion, like a magic trick that is meant to grab your attention. So that while you're busy sort of puzzling over it, you know, whatever sort of business is going on behind the scenes can can happen without too much focus or analysis, I suppose. So I think there's a fascination with, you know, tricksters and with, like, it is in many ways like watching a magician at work. And so that people want to want to watch as like a voyeur to understand where this light of hand occurred, how someone fell for it. And, you know, especially in this age where it is kind of hard with the Internet and with all of these different media forms coming at us to discern between fact and fiction to get to watch something.

in an arena that seems pretty low stakes because it's billed as entertainment. I think people enjoy, maybe they don't think about it that hard, but they enjoy getting to see something that straddles that divide on purpose. In talking about the Netflix show inventing Anna, you write really compellingly about this, that one of the reasons why the show is kind of dangerous is that it does sort of aim to straddle that line.

Each episode starts with, this is a completely true story except for the things that are fictionalized. And I think as a viewer, you might not really know that you're acting like, it can be used as a way to heavily, deeply fictionalize

something that actually, people actually experience. And I think that could, the purposeful straddling of that line of facts and fiction and kind of blending them can be a little bit dangerous because the stakes do feel low. It just feels like entertainment. Exactly. I mean, you've said it in some ways better than can say it myself, but that's exactly right. And it's kind of disheartening. I mean, I appreciate

that, like, you're speaking up about this too. And other people, you know, are certainly paying attention now. But I think part of the reason I chose to continue talking about this, which, you know, the story, which is well and truly behind me, and I would love to, like, move on from and not be discussing today. But the reason I'm speaking up is because I see something happening that sets a precedent that I do think is troubling, that I do think is dangerous. And I do think it requires viewers to ask questions probably more so than we can expect a media company who profits from it to do. But the Netflix show, Inventing Anna does do this thing where it like sticks that label up as a disclaimer, but it blends, you know, factual information with things that are

completely made up as it says it does. But it makes viewers go online, look things. up, see that some things are true, and then that creates this, like, foundation of credibility that allows them to think, well, if this is true, I believe the narrative that they've woven with, you know, this big, big budget production and all this, like, whistles and bells in, like, how compelling is that? You know, storytelling is really powerful, and I think that's why it requires a level of responsibility. I think people are apt to believe things that they watch in stories or that they connect to in terms of a narrative more than sometimes dry facts that they hear on the news. Yeah, you know, you describe this in your book in talking about the way that Anna's crimes have been glamorized,

in part by places like Netflix, that you see it as a big picture problem. Is that sort of what you are referring to, like that's sort of the big picture problem that you're describing? Yeah, that I think specifically I have become very mindful of the ways that our attention can be commodified. So when Anna was released from prison the first time before she was detained by ICE, I was asked to do a bunch of media appearances commenting on her release. And I declined because I was like, why would I do that? I've already written the book. It's out. I've moved on. I have no interest in sort of coming out and speaking or hypothesizing about what somebody may or may not do after jail. She did she did her time. All we can do is like hope that, you know, Godspeed, let's. I hope this doesn't happen again. But while I was declining things, I saw that she was being given various media platforms. And that would be fine if she had something productive to say.

But it felt as though these different outlets were just giving her space to rationalize her behavior, to continue peddling belief in this, you know, fictional in my mind, like this fictional intention, you know, like I was really going to do it. I didn't mean to never pay someone back. Like all of these things that I believed for far too long and that she's now getting to sell to a broader audience. So as I was watching that, what I realized is our attention to her,

our attention to people like this, our attention to things is what gives them influence and power. So when I say it's a big picture problem, I think what I'm really referring to is the attention economy and the way that we think we're watching something just without stakes, but our viewership in itself is actually something that does have a monetary value and also a value in terms of our own behavior, our beliefs, and how we move through the world. You write about how Anna would be given these, like, very convivial interviews where it's clearly

the interviewer was like, wow, this Anna Delvey, can you believe it? And they would have had these buzzy headlines. And I guess part of me is like, how can you print the words of somebody who lies? If you're a journalist or a reporter, like somebody asked like, oh, are you going to talk to Anna for this interview? And I was like, why would I? Why would I want to talk to somebody who lies? Yeah. I mean, I think there's a way to do it. There's actually a 60 Minutes Australia interview. I thought it was, I mean, it's of course still kind of sensationalized around the edges, but at least the viewer had a very firm, like, framing device in which he, you know, it's the same way I think the most successful interviews with someone like Donald Trump were

conducted, where you have a baseline foundation of truth, fiction, you know, some, some degree of commonly shared right, wrong when it comes to, like, ethics and reality. And you actually try to hold someone to account. That's interesting. And then I think it's actually like journalism. But I think what I do find puzzling, or I understand it, but I think I find it, you know, problematic is the way that so much of our media and our news sources today are driven by, not by quality, but traffic. So places are incentivized to come up with these clickbait headlines with these really sensationalized recaps of, you know, events that in real life were interesting, but, you know, are so much more interesting. these details and it was troubling for me because watching like even during the child, the way people were reporting on what she was wearing or like, you know, oh, she's so audacious. Can you believe?

Like, yeah, she is. That's what, you know, that's what drew me into the friendship, friendship too. Here's this person you can't quite figure out. Like she's, she's wacky. She's really confident. She's doing these things that kind of break your brain and make you sit there and stare and kind of ask questions. But that's how it works.

While we're doing that, no one's asking, where's the money coming from? Like, who's, what's the impact of this person's behavior and why does it matter? According to BBC News, which filed a Freedom of Information Act request, Netflix reportedly started paying Anna before she had ever even gone to trial. They paid $30,000, which went toward paying her lawyer. Then, Netflix paid for the rights to adapt Anna's story into the show inventing Anna. In total, Netflix reportedly paid. $320,000.

Now, that money was initially frozen to give her victims a chance to sue. And even though some of her victims did file claims for a portion of those funds, whatever is left over that didn't go to paying the lawyers just goes right to Anna. And what did Anna spend that money on? Designer clothing. You've written about the fact that Netflix paid Anna, you know, it's a little bit of one of those things where she used the money to pay. pay legal fees. However, I would argue that it's not like, it's not like, I mean, they're her legal

fees. And so if somebody gives me money and I'm like, oh, I use that money to pay my bills, I feel like it's a bit of a stretch to say that I'm not benefiting from that, but whatever. Do you feel that Netflix is contributing to an ecosystem where lying and scamming can be financially rewarding and financially lucrative? Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, this is like very cut and dry evidence of that because they moved so quickly to option the story that they ended up paying Anna before her case even went to trial, before she even went to trial. And that's the money that was used initially to pay the criminal defense lawyer whom she chose to pay his initial fees.

And then beyond that, they started their writer's room the day that the trial began. There were Netflix writers in the courtroom. Her lawyer was representing her in her entertainment dealings at the same time he was representing her in a criminal trial. And I knew that at the time, which is part of why I think I went into it feeling, I mean, of course, I was also so raw and it was all so fresh and I was so emotional. I wish I had had had like a little more distance from everything or a little more composure, but I just felt frankly so gaslighted by the fact that I was being accused of using my testimony. as content for entertainment, quote, unquote, because I was writing a book. While at the same time, I knew that everybody there was doing that, and I actually wasn't. Like, you know, I was left $60,000 in debt.

Like, I was just finding a way to, like, heal, to understand, to move forward. So, yeah, it was really topsy-turvy, and I do think Netflix certainly not only influenced the criminal justice proceedings, but also gave this person who, you know, we can all think what we want to think, but looking on paper at her past actions, she is a convicted criminal and they have created for her a glamorized version of her crimes, given her a platform, given her an audience, and set her up with a viewership that she can now continue to monopolize. Like, she will continue to make money on the notoriety that she achieved through committing criminal acts.

Let's take a quick break. podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy not quite on humor me with robert smigel and friends me and hilarious guests from jim gaffigan to bob odenkirk to davidl help make you funnier this week my guest s nL's mikey day and head writer streeter sidel help an acapella band with their between songs banter there's that 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 your parents made a huge donation. The group.

The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard Yard. 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-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-844-I-Hart. What's up, fam? This 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 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 run up the court licking his fingers why he got the ball.

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 I, iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. At our back. Scammers are not a new phenomena.

They've always existed. But in the age of streaming services and social media, it seems like we're living in a golden age for scammers, where if your scam is flashy enough and captures our attention in just the right kind of way, what might have started as a scam can be laundered into a more legitimate platform. For instance, Netflix's The Tinder Swindler, a documentary. that chronicles Simon Lavev, who posed as a wealthy jet-set playboy by duping women that he met on the dating app Tinder out of thousands of dollars. Lavev's con involved convincing women to loan him money throughout landish lives.

And since the documentary, Lavev is clearly trying to parlay the attention and notoriety from his con into a pathway of a more legitimate, not to mention lucrative platform. So as Anna once intimated to a BBC reporter, it's kind of hard to say that crime doesn't pay because it seems like in our current media landscape, it kind of does. Do you think that we live in a climate where people who scam and lie, people like, she was, as you said, she was convicted of this. It's not like it's some big secret. It's not like it's you saying this. Exactly. These are just the facts of what happened.

I feel like we are allowing pathways to legitimize. these people and like, you know, maybe it started as a con and it started as a scam, but by the end of it, you'll have money and an audience and people who are interested to see what happens next and that you can sort of legitimize that. Like, for instance, if you watch the Netflix documentary, the Tinder Swindler, the scammer in that case, Simone, Simon. Simon Levive, I think. Something like that, yeah. You know, he got this big bump in social media followers and also is making pretty good money on Cameo right now. He's charging $300 for a personal shoutout and $1,400 for business shoutout. He has a manager. He's talked about wanting to do a podcast.

You know, are we creating, is the media creating pathways for folks to legitimize what started out as a scam or a con or a lie? Absolutely. And I think, you know, looking back, it's actually really interesting book about this called The Attention Merchants by this man called Tim Wu with the rise of reality television and this model of normal person to celebrity as like a model for business. And then it evolved into social media where people not, you know, they could, it wasn't like winning the lottery. Everybody too could do this if they found a way to brand themselves, to market themselves that was compelling enough to attract attention. But as we've just realized, unless you have some kind of outlandish loud stick or personality, like no one is really paying attention.

And I think this is like now evolved into curation, not just through digital media, but here are these people. And these people have always existed, mind you, but we live in an age where that kind of behavior is really rewarded. You know, it's not an age where it's about, you know, morality or like, like, which sounds so like polyanish and hokey, but it's very much about the sort of the cult of personality and who attracts our attention and like obviously who we voted our president is a testament testament to that. What you just articulated is one of my biggest issues in making in the show is the way that we have our entire digital ecosystem and media ecosystem is biased toward outrageousness and lies and scams. It's been a documented thing that on social

media, incorrect information travels much faster and much farther than accurate information. There's that saying, like, a lie can travel around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes or some variation of that, but it's very true. Absolutely true. And so, you know, we talk a lot on this podcast about the ways that our landscapes have become this, like, marketplace for extremism. And who's really losing is us, the general public. You know there's a problem when the weather channel is sensationalized.

For the Weather Channel to be like, whoa, like, you know, and giving these like hokey names to things and like making everything seem like a doomsday event. And it's like it's like sprinkling outside. Like there's no news here. They rely on viewership the same way as any other channel does. So like for our entire economy to run based on like clicks or attention, like that is scary. There are certain things that I think probably would, we, we all might. be a little better off if there were other motivators. We all deserve timely, thoughtful, accurate information.

And so even your example of the weather channel, if I need to know whether or not to bring an umbrella and I turn on the weather and it's like, you know, monsoons and hurricanes and oh my God. And it's like, well, I'm being underserved because I don't know if I need to bring an umbrella when I'm going down the street. And so we all lose out.

We all lose when we don't, when we have any kind of media ecosystem that is biased towards sensationalism or lies or scams or clicks and outrageousness rather than thoughtful, accurate, nuanced content. And it pushes us to the extremes of either total belief or complete disbelief because either you buy into whatever, you know, cool age you're looking for, like whether that's Fox News or, you know, some like extreme version of like CNN, like, you know, they all have their, their biased reporting techniques, right? But like, I think you either sort of hop on a bandwagon or you say none of it's objective. I don't believe anything. And then that's not great either because there are still things

that should be believed. So I do agree that it is a disservice to everybody because it creates a system in which it's really hard to tell truth from fiction. In my day job, I do a lot of work combating conspiracy theories and things like that and trying to understand why people fall prey to them. And a big part of it is just complete lack of distraud. complete lack of trust in media institutions. And I think that's a big reason why. It's like, I can understand why somebody would just lose all trust in media when that is the thing that fuels it. Yeah, absolutely. And there is a lot of similarity. Obviously, I mean, stakes are just sort of, it's apples and oranges when it comes to like someone like Anna and like

masculine conspiracy theories. But there is similarity in the way that both, I guess, like, lie structures or are manipulations. techniques rely on framing arguments in a way that makes them almost irrefutable because they speak to these sort of like cryptic abstracts or things that you literally just can't disprove even though they are false. It's like a flawed framing device. And I think it's really hard for people, especially if you're isolated, to keep your feet on the ground and understand and what's happening if you're not familiar with that type of behavioral pattern.

After the disastrous trip to Marrakesh, Rachel was left with a $62,000 credit card bill that her credit card company eventually forgave. But before that, Rachel struggled to pay rent and took loans from loved ones to cover bills to get by. She eventually published her book about what she learned from her relationship with Anna, called My Friend Anna,

and sold the rights to develop her story for television to Lena Dunham at HBO. Rachel takes a lot of criticism for, quote, profiting off of her relationship to Anna. So I wanted to go back to something that you mentioned, which is that you sometimes take criticism for the fact that you, you know, published a book about your experiences. You've written about your experiences. I interviewed Amanda Knox, the exonerie. You probably know who she is. And something that she said in that interview that I will never forget is that, you know, she's often criticized for making money, you know, writing books about what happened to her.

And, you know, however, producers, filmmakers, writers, they make a lot of money retelling sometimes like a really harmful, deeply fictionalized account of something that like sort of happened around her, but like it's always like deeply, deeply fictionalized. And something that she said was that it's apparently everyone else is allowed to profit off of something that happened to me except for me. Everybody else can make money off of my story but me. And I guess, you know, why do you think this is? You know, I guess I should say a side note, which is that if I lost a lot of money, anybody who wanted to pay me to tell the story of what happened to me to recoup my expenses,

I would absolutely say yes. And I think that most people would. But I feel that we have this expectation where victims are kind of expected to be kind of holier than now. Meanwhile, the people who harmed them, it's like they can do whatever. They can make money, however. And so I think, like, why do you think that is where do you think that comes from? I mean, first of all, I do completely agree with you. It often feels like the victims are on trial more so than the criminals.

And also, like, there's this odd thing that I've realized the word victim has so much, like, packed into the connotations around the word. It's like people think as soon as you're no longer in debt or as soon as you've been made hold, no matter how hard you had to work to actually become okay, you're not a victim anymore. Like, you're now, you know, and someone who's exploiting a situation if you, you know, keep moving forward or if you're seen to succeed. And it's like, what is a victim? Like, does a victim, what does a victim look like? I've had so many people reach out to me on social media to say, you don't look like a victim. And I think that is such a loaded, odd thing to say to

somebody. Like, saying that you were the victim of a crime is not a request for pity. It's a request for acknowledgement of a wrong that was committed. It is not like I'm still stuck in this stalled state in perpetuity. It's like this happened and that's a fact. It doesn't matter what you do afterwards to be okay, you know, to repair the damage, to find a way out of it. Like that is really not relevant. But I think there are a lot of things that are distracting, especially when these stories get retold through the lens of media or entertainment, people tend to fixate on the whistles and bells and the flashy trips and the money. And they hold that, I think the jury did the same thing. They sort of hold that lens up and say, well, you know, looking at the net gain,

you were doing this before, Anna, and now you're doing this. You came out okay. Therefore, nope, the crime didn't happen. It's like, wait, so you're saying I was too good at, you know, finding, like fighting tooth and nail to find a way forward. Like, therefore, it didn't happen. Like, what? Why do I think it happens? I think it's really easy for people to hold on to really simplified recaps of something that was actually very complex and nuanced.

And, of course, looking back, red flags look like this very tidy pattern. But when you're living through something where you're dealing with a master manipulator, you know, there's time between these things. that might have tipped you off to trouble ahead. There's an actual relationship between real-life people and everything is much grayer than it appears in hindsight. Yeah, it's so funny because I feel like a lot of people I've seen, and I saw like, I guess this idea of, you know,

while that was happening, she definitely wanted to go to Morocco or she definitely wanted this. And it's like, who gives a shit? Like it just seems so like picking apart. It feels very victim-blaming. It's very convenient, and I think people want to look for a reason to explain why something bad has happened to somebody, especially if it is not, like, you know, death. You know, when it seems like someone's come out okay, then it's like, okay, we all have, like,

carte blanche to just sit here and talk about why you deserved it. And, you know, at the end of the day, like, everybody wants to be understood. It like it stinks to be misunderstood and it seems to have things framed in a way that's not true, especially when they're so personal. And so many people are forming opinions about you from so little information and flawed information. But at the end of the day, like everybody looks at a story like this, which, you know, is not a new story. It's like a tale as old as time. It's just in a modern iteration of it. but people look at it and they project their under,

like they come away with an understanding of it based on their own life experiences. And if it's important for people to think, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Or, you know, don't get sucked into materialism. Or like, you know, everybody looks at it and thinks these things. But I think that's actually more telling of their own life experiences than it is necessarily of mine. Like, have I asked myself those questions?

Of course I have. Like, if I hadn't, I think, you know, it's really, important to look at, that's why I wrote a, I guess, to start. I wrote what turned into the book, but it was so that I could frame, you know, piece together this like narrative of experience that I lived through, look at it, try to like dig into it, understand what happened, what to make of it, like why it happened and how to learn, heal, and move forward. Something that you said, you said people want an explanation for why this happened to you. I think what they're actually looking for is an explanation for why this would never happen to them. I think it's, I think it's,

It's about them. Right. I mean, absolutely, as they don't even know me. And, like, even if someone did meet me through this experience, this is something that happened. It was a friendship. I knew her for a year. We were close friends for about three months, three brief months.

Like, she never bought me clothes. She never bought me shoes. She never bought, like, did I work out with her? Yes. Did she pay for some dinners? Yes. Did she invite me on this crazy vacation? 100%.

But to say that anybody on. understands someone else's entire values, like value system and personality and character through like a few months of what is a, you know, 30-some-odd-year life with so many more important, like, and like, I don't know, telling things. Any, it's just, life is weird, huh? Life is weird. I kind of say, I love, this is kind of a side note. I love your perspective on this. I feel like if this happened to me, I guess, I guess, you know, you were saying earlier how people don't really see the work involved in getting you to a place where you're like, well, this is behind me. I'm speaking about it now, not because I want to relitigate what happened, like the minutiae

of our relationship, but because I want to ask these like thoughtful questions about what it says about our culture and all of that. You really try to be as someone who is like, you know, I know we don't see that work, but where you are today, it just seems like you're, I really appreciate your perspective of where you're at right now. I really appreciate you like acknowledging or understanding that because it's very hard, you know, like even I guess being a photo producer is much the same way. It's like if you're doing it well, nobody pays attention to how it happened or why it's happening in this way.

But like, I mean, it's irritating except that like there's that thing I can do people who are want to be wrong or it's going to be wrong. But like when people are like, oh, you just want the spotlight or oh, you just want attention. It's like, I have turned down. so many more things than I have said yes to. Like this is a spotlight that I did not want. You know, I have done the best I could with with something that was very negative and I've done the best I could to make it into something positive, not just for myself, but ideally for others who may have gone through the same thing or to prevent others from going through the same thing. But you're,

like, thank you. You're completely right. My very specific and clear objective as to why I'm still talking today does does uh it really is about this spotlight that I didn't want and and I thought very hard about whether or not to just sort of like lie low not comment when the Netflix thing came out. It just like not say anything at all. But I recognize the value of attention and I recognize the fact that whether or not I choose to engage with it, there would be this attention coming my way. And it felt like there are so many really important causes in the world that need. attention. There's so many important issues even relating to this specifically that can't get people to pay attention to them. So I really wanted to like yield the time towards asking questions.

And then ideally, I mean like finding people like you or finding a way to sort of redirect the spotlight towards activation partners who can speak to these issues in a thoughtful way and and make people think a little harder or differently about something that on the surface just just seems so sort of frivolous. Our attention has value, and it's also, we only have so much of it. And so when lies and outrageousness are amplified to get our attention,

what's not getting our attention? What important issues are just going overlooked because of that? Exactly. And that's, I think that's so right. It's like, you know, do I watch bad TV? Of course I do. Do I eat junk food? Of course I do. Like, it's not to say don't do it. It's just to be. mindful that if that's all you do, like that really will inform the health of your life.

Like, like, you know, when you are paying attention to these things that are designed to suck up your attention, that are designed to make you want more of them, they're addicting, you are not paying attention to something else. You are not, you know, necessarily having the autonomy me you may think you have over the direction of your, you know, purpose. I definitely know what you mean. 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 that 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 you. 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, IHeart's 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. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com.

That's iHeartadvertising.com. 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 they would.

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, after you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah, you figure it out real quick. Oh, yeah. 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.

Let's get right back into it. So you can probably tell that I did not really enjoy the Netflix show inventing Anna. And one of my biggest issues with it is the way that it frames Anna's crimes with a kind of of girl boss hustle mentality, that she came to this country as an immigrant with nothing, and that if she did maybe do a little lying and scamming here or there, it was only in pursuit of building something that she truly believed in. After all, isn't that the American dream? Over on another scammer story, who lose the dropout, which chronicles the story of Elizabeth Holmes, former CEO of Serenos, a blood testing company that turned out to be a total scam,

actually does a pretty good job of showing how empty, not to mention dangerous, it can be when scamming and lying is rebranded as vision or leadership. One of the questions I did have for you is that the inventing Anna show does this, but I've also seen it kind of glimmers of it and other scammers and just sort of in media in general, this idea of like scamming and lying

kind of being rebranded as hustling or trying to achieve the American dream or worse, girl bossing. I get, I completely, like, logistically understand why that's how it's framed or why it's reframed. And it's such an easy narrative. But, you know, I think it's kind of harmful to reframe stealing from people and lying from people as hustling and girl bossing and leadership.

And I guess my question is, like, what are your thoughts about that? Have you seen this? And what do you think about it? Yeah, I think it's lazy. I just, I think it's lazy. And I do think it does, it does. do damage to the reality. You know, it's so backwards to to attempt to make something about like classism, racism, sexism, and then to frame it in a way that is promoting someone who

couldn't care less about those issues unless they're serving their own agenda. Like, that is such a disservice to people who are actually working to, you know, to explore. And explore these issues and create positive change in ways that are actually meaningful and substantive, especially in the past, I don't even know how many years, I guess, like 10 years or so, maybe less, like these sort of catch-all buzzwords like feminism are like, um, good grief. There's a performative activism that features words that have become trendy and, and, like, missions that have become trendy. And I think shows like this

have kind of glommed on to that. I told you, I watched the finale of the show on Hulu, the dropout about Elizabeth Holmes, the Serenose scam lady. There was a time in feminism where, like, a woman, like, a woman, like, making money,

that was feminism. I do think there's a kind of, it's a sort of, like, era of feminism I'm not proud of, where, yeah, if you were just a woman, who was make, like, out for herself and making money, that was seen as like a feminist win.

And we didn't really ask a lot of questions about, are you harming people? Are you, you know, like, we didn't really ask a lot of questions. And I think that I kind of see this era kind of maybe coming to a close, I hope. But I think that that era really allowed for women to be lauded as feminist icons for doing things that actually hurt other people at their own expense. I don't think the answer to chauvinism is a form of feminism that mirrors the same thing, like that reverses that negative way of being.

Like I do think sometimes pendulums swing too far before they kind of find their middle. And it seems like that's what happened. It's like, well, you did this for so long. Therefore, like, it's my time to do it and we should celebrate the fact that I'm doing it. I think it's hard sometimes to see that when you're in it and when it's a reaction rather than like it's reactive rather than proactive, right? So it's like finding a way to exist as a woman in reaction to what men have done wrong rather than just finding a way to exist as a woman. I don't have solutions, but I see the trend as well. And I guess one thing related to the Hulu show, but I think

that show actually strikes me as I mean obviously what she did does not strike me as something that was done well but the show I thought did a a good job actually of of dramatizing real life events because they framed her in a way that felt very true to the actual sequencing of what happens like I read bad blood by John Kerry you and it felt like it you know it followed a fact pattern And it framed her not as someone that everybody was, I mean, you saw how she was celebrated, but that was true to the way that it happened in real life. It was very true to the mixed reactions she received. And I thought Amanda Sefrey did an amazing job of not of like gleefully sort of relishing the,

like the schick of the con, but just in framing this sort of very misguided, probably like psychologically unhealthy person who like just kind of, lacked a certain, like, human ship that allowed her to understand the importance of her decision-making on real lives. It just was such a foil for me when I watched that versus what I had seen in inventing Anna, which really just looked like something that had been made by people who really bought into what Anna was selling. Oh, my gosh. I, so I am happy to hear you say this. I felt the exact, first of all, inventing Anna, all of the issues that you brought up with it, yes, but also just like was a slog to watch.

Like, I wanted to watch it before I talked to you. And literally my partner was like, I feel like you've been watching this show for a decade and I was like, you and me both, but just like wasn't an entertaining show. And I guess having that, having, like, I felt the drop out was different because it had empathy for the people who were harmed, right? Like, you saw these people who were, you know, had cancer and were involved in the these blood, these blood trials, you know, it had empathy for the whistleblowers who risked so much of their, of their selves to come forward. I felt like it was a show that managed to demonstrate

the kind of seductive, you know, cult of personality around a scammer without falling prey to it. And inventing Anna was exactly the opposite. It was done, yeah, it was done so thoughtfully. It had such depth to it because, yeah, of course, there are people who, who like hopped on the bandwagon and celebrated her. Like it was just the full range of people who were made to, to read like real life people. You know, I think inventing Anna flattened everybody.

And there's a way that can be done in like a show like Gossip Girl or a show that is meant to be, and in some ways I guess this is, but meant to be about materialism and superficiality. But to reduce something like this where real crimes were committed, real people's lives were impacted. It wasn't just these like faceless things. There are people who lose jobs. There are people who obviously, or not obviously, if it were obvious, that wouldn't be a problem, but there are people who weren't included in the court, you know, the court case. She definitely

committed so many offenses that harmed real life people. So I think to flatten something like that into this like very frivolous, like fun, glossy slog of a TV show, full stop, I don't know, dot, dot, dot. Yeah, I mean, it's, there were times. I was like, are you meant to be rooting for Anna in this show? And then I think the richest part is at the end where the biggest crime the show seems to suggest has been committed is the character that shares your same name. She's like, like, Neff is like, you're a bad friend. And it's like, well, Anna went to jail. Like, come on.

I know. I get, I mean, and people really believe all that as fact. Like, you were like, she bankrupted you for two years. And I know better than to feed the trolls on the internet. Like it's not my job to, to, to, like, educate people about, like, what. Like, the truth is out there if anybody wants to look for it. But, like, I didn't even know her that long. She did nothing.

Like, but yeah, so to have, have it framed as though, like, where's the loyalty? It's like, this is someone, you know, we were not best friends I knew her for her. And also, look what she did. Look, look at the pattern of her behavior. At what point? why are you suggesting people who are in these like manipulative relationships, be they friendships or whatever, like that they are doing something wrong by choosing to leave something that is so harmful?

Like that's bizarre. That's like that's a very bizarre thing to say. Also the show rearranged it as though I had been reimbursed before the trial and that I like kept the secret of my involvement with her arrest like or kept that a secret like didn't happen. I was protected two years after Marrakesh, after the trial concluded. I didn't keep my involvement in the sting, some kind of like grand secret. I wasn't ashamed of it, but I wasn't that close with like Nafra Casey. I, you know, I like them. I don't, I have nothing negative to say. It's like fine. Everybody can look back and see things through their lenses and that's, you know, it is what it is.

But we weren't in touch. It's not like I owed people explanations. I was. out more than they made any, they were not left in any kind of, like, debt or, like, there was no ongoing relationship there. So to suggest that by not reaching out to say, hello, like, this is what I have done. And, like, it, like, that's just weird. It doesn't make any sense. Yeah. And I think people, people understand the way these relationships and acquaintanceships work in their own lives. And it's like, of course that would be, like, you wouldn't owe these people anything or you wouldn't owe like, you know, but when it's someone else and that the minutia of those relationships are like projected for everyone to pick apart, suddenly it's like,

oh, well, why would she do this? Doesn't she have loyalty? And it's like, well, calm down. Think about how this would actually go down if it was you. Like we all understand that in our own lives, but when it's somebody else, I think it's like different. Yeah, evidently. And I understand people don't tune in the shows like this to really think very analytically. It's mostly about just getting a good laugh at other people's expense. And like, I, you know, I do too. It's fine. Like, I'm not, I certainly can't, like, hate on people for being human. Like, that's how this works. I just, I think that the frivolity of it does conceal something that is a bigger picture problem, as I have said, which is why I figure if I'm stuck in this, this was, like, dumpster

fire anyway, I might as well try and, like, send up a smoke signal about, you know, red flags that I know a little too well from firsthand experience. Yeah. Speaking of your firsthand experience, one of the last questions I have is like, what has it just been like for you, Rachel, the person going through this,

getting the social media trolls, getting people who have maybe been misled about what happened from the television show. What has it been like to deal with that online? Yeah. I mean, it's definitely not even, but I'm mindful of the, like, I'm mindful of my, my privilege and my luck just to have, like,

such supportive family and friends, to have an awareness of exactly what it is that is happening. You know, part of it I learned the hard way just through gaslighting with Anna to begin with. And now through what I've learned in looking back at what happened looking, like, I guess, I mean, writing the book helped me a lot just in terms of sort of looking at the pattern of behavior as a pattern rather than like this. When you're in a relationship like that, it's really hard to see anything as black and white because it's not. Life is gray. But looking back, things seem so much clear to me. So I'm grateful to have had people who believe me, like a platform to speak from the opportunity to speak, which all that is to say, it's hard.

but part of the reason I'm speaking up about it is because I think the structure of the Netflix show or this broader pattern that's happening, it does a disservice to people who don't have that ability to understand what's happening to them, who might not get to hear stories like this because people are ashamed or they're scared of the victim blaming, which is completely fair. It's not, it's, I mean, it's wild. And it, you know, I can have my feet on the ground and my head on my shoulders. And if I sit there and read that for longer than maybe like 10 minutes, like, it, even if you know that it, you know, it's actually not about you, it doesn't feel good to have that kind of energy coming. Like, I mean, that sounds so woo-woo, but like that kind of hostility coming at you.

Like, it's like death by paper cuts. Like, you can be the strongest rock in the water. But like, if it keeps running, like, you're going to get worn down. So it's hard. But I recognize that it's harder, so much harder for so many other people. And, yeah, then I can be pretty nasty. We've talked a lot about how the dangers that come when we willingly give our attention away to liars and scammers and people who are outrageous and extreme. Do you ever see a situation where things like nuance, thoughtfulness, honest, accurate content will be amplified over that kind of extremism?

and lies? Do you think that we're, this is just it forever? Or do you see, do you see a change coming? I mean, as evidenced by past behavior, I'm kind of a willful optimist through and through, and that is just who I am. So I always hope for that, you know. I do think the damage done by what you just said, like the, the pattern. What I'm trying to say, says the truth will out. And it's one thing to think the pattern of celebrating these individuals does do harm that is and will be visible until there is a movement in the opposite direction. So I think we've already seen that from like Me Too forward, where people are starting to pay attention to things in a different way and actually attempt to hold outlets and

individuals to account. I just think it's in very specific arenas thus far that that seems to be happening. And I think people like to sort of pretend that things they do for entertainment don't touch on the same subjects or don't have the same impact or seriousness. And that to me is that that's the slippery slope. I hope that people will recognize these things. are not separate. They're inextricably linked to the way that we as a culture, um, celebrate people and, and, uh, former beliefs.

That's really smart. 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 IHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer, Tari Harrison and 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, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from Iheart Radio, 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 Smigel 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 Side.

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 I-Heart Radio 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, rant, and 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 a 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. 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. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.