There Are No Girls on the Internet - Jordan Peterson copies Countess Luann; Elon Musk mutes critics and threatens removing the block button; ChatGPT bans books in Iowa schools; Illinois law protects kidfluencers; Wisconsin bill infantilizes adults; $1 billion fine for online harassment campaign; YouTube policy against cancer lies is big if true — NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Date: August 18, 2023

Listen to TANGOTI producer Joey Patt talk with the hosts of Stuff Mom Never Told You to break down why the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is actually a threat to kids and the to the Internet: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-is-kosa-and-why-is-it-so-scary/id304531053?i=1000624187418    New Illinois law entitles kid influencers to earnings: https://fortune.com/2023/08/13/social-media-influencer-law-illinois-kids-sue-parents/     Iowa educators use ChatGPT to identify naughty books: https://www.popsci.com/technology/iowa-chatgpt-book-ban/    Jury awards Jane Doe 1 Billion dollars in damaged in vast online abuse campaign: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ex-boyfriend-explicit-photos-lawsuit_n_64da58f4e4b030f54dc70598     In a spectacularly ill conceived bill, Wisconsin state Senator wants to assume all Internet users are children and enforce lights out at 10pm: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/14/wisconsin-pushing-bill-that-requires-websites-to-treat-all-users-as-if-theyre-children/     Elon Musk throttles traffic to sites that criticize him because he loves free speech: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/15/twitter-x-links-delayed/    YouTube announces a policy to remove cancer misinformation; sounds great but will they enforce it?: https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/15/23832603/youtube-cancer-treatment-misinformation-policy-medical    Don't forget: emergency contraception is legal in all 50 states (plus DC!): https://www.americansocietyforec.org/    Jordan Peterson is cherry picking his blurbs: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66520089   Where do you think he got that idea? LUANN: https://pagesix.com/2019/10/23/reviewer-talks-luann-de-lesseps-license-with-review-of-her-cabaret-show/   Don't miss out: Claim your share of the class action lawsuit against Facebook for improperly sharing your data (link is a redirect to the official site): www.TANGOTI.com/zuckbucks 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.

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. Here's what you may have missed this week on the internet. So technically, this happened late last week, but honestly, I'm dying to discuss it anyway, so we're going to cheat a little bit and add it to the roster. So we talked about the dangers and complexities around social media accounts that use children as their focus. Children cannot consent, but that does not keep parents from building followings, sometimes huge followings, and making real money off of their kids on social media.

If you listen to the episode that we did with Sarah, also known as Moms Unchartered on TikTok, we'll put that episode in the show notes. We talked all about the complexities and dangers of why she actually says that people who are influencers and have their entire influencer career based around their kids, why she doesn't think that's the safest idea. And one of those reasons is because of the lack of legislation around how kids can be used on social media for money. That is, until now. late last week, Illinois became the first state in the U.S. to take some legislative steps to ensure that kids who make money from social media are compensated for their work from their parents. That law will go into effect in July of next year. So we have child labor laws in this country, or at least in some parts of the country anyway. And child performers who are models or actors typically have laws that legislate how their work is performed.

They can only work so many hours at a time. and the money that they earn legally has to be set aside for them in some cases. But this is not the case when it comes to social media. It's one of those situations where the reality progresses a lot more quickly than the laws can and the laws really need to catch up. And that's exactly what's happening in Illinois. The new law in Illinois is the first to specifically legislate how kids can show up for money on social media. So this is not a law that is meant to legislate folks who are just like sharing the occasional picture of

their kid to their nana and their pop pop on Instagram, it's really about people who are making money and have big followings from their kids. The new law entitles kids under the age of 16 to a percentage of earnings based on how often they appear on online content that generates at least 10 cents per view. The content has to have been made in Illinois, and kids have to be featured in at least 30% of that content over a 30-day period to qualify under this law. So parents are responsible for keeping records of this and setting aside the gross. earnings until a child becomes 18, and if parents fail to do this, those kids can sue. This legislation actually came from a young person. Shreya Nalamuthu was scrolling social media

one day when she realized there's actually no legislation protecting kid influencers online. Shrea said, I realize there's a lot of exploitation that can happen within the world of kid influencing. And I realized that there was absolutely zero legislation in place to protect them. So she ended up reaching out to Senator David Kohler of Peoria, and he and the up sponsoring that bill and the bill will sign into a law. Now, this comes up a lot in the mom's uncharted episodes that I referenced earlier, but even though it doesn't feel that way, social media is actually pretty new, right? Like, I still remember the first time I ever got social media. It was happened in my lifetime. So it seems like something that has been around forever.

And if you're a younger person listening, maybe it has been for you. But it's important to point out that it is so new that we don't really know that much about how it is impacting specifically kids who grew up on social media. And similarly, as those first waves of kids who were really used as content by mommy bloggers and mom run accounts and all of that get older, they are just now starting to speak up publicly about the impacts. And I'm really curious. Like, I think that we should definitely be taking our cues from these young people who are speaking up about what it was like to be essentially like a moneymaker for your family, a source of income for your family. There's a really interesting teen vogue piece where they talk to now older young people who were kids who were

used as the sole focus of their mom's blog or online content. And it really doesn't sound like it was good for them. They describe how when they were sick or when they were having a big moment in their life, their mom would whip out the camera and they knew they had to perform. And so I think it's going to be really interesting to listen to these kids as they speak up about how this and packed with them. And honestly, I think a good first step in that conversation is instituting a little bit more policy around how those kids get paid because influencing is labor. If somebody is putting a camera on your face and they're expected to perform, that's not that different than getting up on a stage like Judy Garland and being expected to perform. But now the laws are

slowly starting to catch up with that reality. And honestly, I could see more states passing similar legislation as we continue to hear from these young people about what it was like to be used as content when they were too young to really consent to it. Yeah, I could see that too. I mean, we hear so much all the time about protecting the children. Everybody wants to protect the children. And often when we talk about it on this show, it's just being used as a smokescreen or a fig leaf to dress up some kind of anti-sex worker or morality piece kind of legislation. but here's an actual opportunity where like real kids are being harmed and it seems like legislation is maybe going to help that. So hooray.

Hooray for finally a little legislation that might actually be helping kids online. We'll see. So speaking of kids, this story, I swear that it sounds like a story that was written by AI just to mess with me specifically, Bridget, but it's real. So over in Iowa, educators are using chat GPT to determine which. books should be removed from their library to legally comply with the new Republican-backed state legislation prohibiting any instruction related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Infuriating, right? Yeah.

I mean, that sounds like a pretty weighty issue. And the idea that ChatGPT is going to decide what a bunch of kids get to read and what works are like off limits to them and forbidden feels like. Kind of weird. So I was about ready to raise hell around this story until I read a little bit more into it. So back in May, I was governor, Republican Kim Reynolds, signed off on a new bill, which only gave administrators three months before the start of the new school year to comply. So administrators are understandably scrambling. They have to legally comply with this new legislation that says that no instruction, no books in the library can have anything to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. Pop Science spoke to Mason City's assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction, Bridget X-Men,

who argued that it was simply not feasible to read every book and filter for these new requirements, saying, frankly, we have more important things to do than spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to protect kids from books. But at the same time, we do have a legal and ethical obligation to comply with the law. Our goal here really is a defensible process. And honestly, I kind of get it. educators and school administrators really do have more important things to do than try to read every single book to see if it complies with this new bigoted law and only do it in three months. I think that's one of the many, many reasons why these laws around libraries and education are so

problematic. You know, they create a lot of work for educators, many of whom are already overwhelmed, underpaid, and overworked. And in some cases, these are near impossible tasks, giving administrators three months at the end of the, toward the end of the school year to do this is kind of a lot. And a little bit of a side note, like, I don't want to go too far off the rails because, boy, this is one of those topics that if you get me going, you'll go all day. But I think that that is a feature, not a bug, of these kinds of laws. The extremists who advocate for laws like book bans and saying that certain kind of materials around gender and sexuality can't be taught, I think that they know that they are giving these

educators a really difficult and in some cases impossible task. And that's kind of the point of these laws. It creates these complex hoops that schools legally have to comply with. And I think the entire point of these laws is to erode the public school system and public institutions more broadly. And this is one plank of how they're doing that, creating these needlessly complex hoops that educators have to legally comply with. Yeah, I mean, I'm sure there's some sort of legal consequences if they don't comply. And, you know, the easier thing for the school to do would just be to remove all the books. They just have no books, the perfect school.

No books, just traditional gender vibes. Yeah. So I actually, again, when I first heard this story, I was really mad. But reading into it more, I kind of get why educators are just like, you know, we need to be able to demonstrate that an attempt was made to comply with this law. And using chat GPT is a way to do that quickly. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea, right? So you might be wondering, like, how does this all work? Well, administrators first compiled a master list of commonly challenged books, then removed all those challenge for reasons other than sexual content.

Administrators then asked chat GPT the specific language of Iowa's new law. does XYZ book contain a description of a sex act? Things like that. If the answer was yes, the book was removed from circulation and stored. But if you listen to the show, you already know that ChatGPT is pretty janky. So that means that the tool that they're using to comply with the enforcement of this law might also be pretty janky. So as much as I hate, hate, hate, hate this whole situation, I think that, like, it's really bad. I think that using ChatGPT as this quick tool to just comply with this law is bad for a lot of reasons,

not the least of which is that ChatGPT is pretty inconsistent. I guess I, on the one hand, get why they felt they had to do this. One of the school administrators that Pop Science spoke to explained, realistically, we tried to figure out how to demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the law with minimal time and energy. When using ChatGPT, we use a specific language of the law. does XYZ book contain a description of a sex act? Being a former English teacher, I have personally read and taught many of the books that are commonly challenged. So I was able to verify chat GPT's responses with my own knowledge of some of the text. After compiling the list,

we ran it by our teacher librarian, and there were no books on the final of the 19 that were surprising to her. So I guess it's good that in this case, the school feels like chat GPT was able to help them comply with this like bogus law that is. ridiculous in the first place. But I just think this is really, to me, a story about how these laws will just create the conditions where people do feel like they need to fall back on technology, technology that can be inconsistent, problematic, racist, sexist, all of that, because they just have to like rush and demonstrate that an attempt was made to comply. And so I think that their use of chat GPT here to me is a symptom of a much,

deeper and much larger problem. Yeah. I mean, I agree. I'm not sure exactly what that problem is. This is a complicated one. Well, I think the problem is that, like, that's what happens when you make laws that are bigoted and also needless and also require administrators to scramble to comply. Like, that's so, the three months to comply thing is so arbitrary. If they, if the school was genuinely interested in an assessment of what kids are reading, are their materials good, whatever, and all of that. You don't do that in three months without some sort of a lazy workaround.

And that lazy workaround is Chad GPT. Yeah, I guess so. It sure feels like a weird precedent to say. 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 headwriter, 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,

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 to change. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle.

A one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smygel 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-Ehart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas.

And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast Point Game is about defying the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows. Without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game. We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the playoffs.

I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup, he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall. And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash will get that thing.

That man, hell get the flying. He running up the court, licking his fingers why he got the ball, like, after you go through a training camp with that, I said, you figure it out real quick. Get your ass up and down the court, and you're going to get the ball. So listen to Point Game on the IHeart Radio app,

Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back. Okay, I need to give a pretty big trigger warning and heads up on this next one because it involves a pretty gnarly abuse situation. That's because a jury just awarded a woman only known as her initials, D.L., $200 million for past and future mental anguish,

and $1 billion with a B, in punitive damages against her ex-boyfriend, Marquise Jackson, who waged a horrific, years-long online abuse campaign against her. So these two got romantically involved in 2016, during which time this was her like romantic partner. So she trusted him to have access to her digital life, right? Her computer, her online baking information, her social media footprint, her home security system, things like that, which I feel like in this day and age, it's not uncommon for

people who are living together to have that level of trust and intimacy with each other's digital lives. In 2020, things started to deteriorate. And she says that Jackson started getting jealous, paranoid, and devil. delusional. They had what she described as a long, drawn-out breakup. When D.L. finally broke up with him and moved from their shared home in Chicago to live with her mom in Texas, she asked her ex, Jackson, to return or delete some intimate material that she had consented to him having when they were together, but obviously wanted him to delete now that they were no longer a couple. And that's when

the abuse started. So the scope and scale of the abuse waged via online platforms and technology is truly jaw-dropping. When I was researching this for the episode, every time that I added something to the list, I was like, well, surely, this must be the last instance. And then there would be another thing to add. Like, it just went on and on and on. I should say that online abuse is often dismissed as like people think that you're talking about, like, someone said mean words to me or, oh, this woman, you know,

took intimate photos with her boyfriend and then regretted it when they broke up. or some other such nonsense, right? Like it often is dismissed, but this situation is a good example of how deep and involved online abuse can be, right? It is sexual. It is financial. It is psychological and more. So the messenger reports that the lawsuit alleged that her ex created fake profiles,

published intimate images and videos of DL on Facebook, Twitter, and Pornhub. Jackson also emailed the photos and videos to the woman's relatives, friends, and coworkers. He posted images on public Dropbox links that also included her home address. Importantly, he used more than just the intimate images that she had asked for him to delete when they broke up because he hacked into her online home surveillance cameras in order to watch her, surveil her, and spy on her, and was able to get more intimate images and videos of her from hacking into those cameras. So if she logged on to a Zoom meeting for work, Jackson would hack into her account and then post those private images in videos.

It was also financial. He emailed her loan officer with a claim that she'd taken out fraudulent loans, accessed her personal bank account, and used her money to pay his rent and make purchases without her consent. She says that she tried everything to get him to stop. This went on for years. She tried restraining orders, pressing criminal charges, and contacting online social media platforms to take the material down.

But she never got a helpful response from anybody. And honestly, I think I think I'm, I know why that was. It's because the powers that be just really do not take it seriously when someone is being abused in this way using technology as a facilitator. You know, platforms, they will pass the buck every which way they can, every chance they'll get. And I think when it comes to this kind of abuse, which is sometimes called technology enabled abuse, oftentimes the way that people talk about tech enabled abuse really negates the fact that tech enabled abuse is systemic and that it is every bit as real, dangerous, and scary as physical domestic violence.

So after D.L. was unable to get any help via restraining orders or the police, she started documenting every instance of abuse in an Excel spreadsheet, itemizing the types of attacks and publication method and addresses of those attacks, and then linking to the specific evidence of the attack. That spreadsheet spans five pages of activity over the course of three plus years. So her ex Jackson sent her a message saying, you will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet. Everyone you ever meet will hear the story and go looking.

Happy hunting. I know that $1.2 billion seems like a lot of money, but D.L's attorney told the New York Times that he doesn't actually expect Jackson to pay out the full $1.2 billion, but that that amount was really about sending a message. So you know how her ex told her that you will spend every day of, your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet? Well, D.L's lawyer said that Jackson will spend the rest of his life trying and failing to wipe this financial debt clear. And the irony here is that clearly Jackson wanted this to be something that was going to follow DL around for the

rest of her life, be something that anybody who ever Googled her would see. But the irony is that that's now him, right? As D.L.'s attorney points out, every time this man tries to apply for a job or tries to apply for credit or maybe even gets a new girlfriend, all they need to do is Google are Marquis Jamal Jackson and what comes up is a $1.2 billion judgment. So be careful what you ask for. And that will follow him too because I'm pretty sure that in most states, maybe all the states, punitive damages, you can't get rid of them with bankruptcy. So like, oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, like he owes that money, which assuming he's not a billionaire, he will never be able to repay.

I mean, that amount is clearly about sending a message that if you wage this kind of terror campaign using the internet, the punitive damages that you will have to pay out will be so much that you can work a million hours every day for the rest of your life and you will still die owing that money. And I think it's meant to send a signal. And I hope it does because this is very serious. Like, I truly was only able to scratch the surface of how many, different things this guy did to D.L. How much hell he put her through. He, like, I read some of

the court documents. They describe him at 3 a.m. up making multiple fake phone numbers on multiple burner phones and multiple profile. Like, for hours and hours and hours, like he was waging a campaign of terror to terrorize this woman and make her life hell. And so, yeah, I think that, like, it sounds like a lot of money, but I think that people need to understand how serious of a thing this is. Like, his actions are horrific. So Jackson was found guilty of violating Texas's revenge porn laws. And that's been a term that folks have used to talk about this case with revenge porn. A lot of advocates, myself included, don't tend to use language like that. I find that language not particularly useful because I think it kind of implies that, you know, if somebody is, quote,

getting revenge on you, it kind of implies that you've done something wrong. And these people who become victims of this or targets of this have not done anything wrong. And so I don't really like that language. I think that, like, it implies that they've done something to, quote, deserve it. And instead, most advocates use the phrase image-based sexual abuse, which is what this is. Dee's lawyer says that the scope of what Jackson did to her is so much more than what we think of, typically when you think of, quote, revenge porn. Like the scope is much deeper. And it's really heartbreaking because D.L. says that at one point, she felt completely hopeless. But after the trial, she encouraged anyone who was dealing with this kind of online abuse to stay strong.

She said, you are more than the shame you may feel. And you deserve to be your biggest advocate. And know that there are people who recognize this behavior as the terrible crime it is. As we brought in knowledge on this type of abuse, we can collectively influence laws to better protect us in the digital age. And honestly, shout out to D.S. Like what she went through sounds horrific. The fact that she documented all of this came out the other end of it and is trying to use what she went through to help encourage other targets of this kind of abuse, which is much more common than we think. Like I think that what she went through was a real extreme case.

But I think like if you are a young person, you've definitely had someone threaten you with like. like, I'm going to post these pictures or blah, blah, blah, blah. Like, that is so common and it's so normalized to the point where, like, it's a punchline in, like, movies and television. And I think DL is exactly right. We need to have a systemic culture change around this kind of digital abuse. We need to understand that just because it's happening through technology or through a computer does not mean that it is not abuse because it definitely is. It is a crime. And we need to collectively do better and influence laws.

to better protect us in the digital age so that this is not so commonplace. But I think it's both legislative changes and also culture changes, that we don't allow this, we don't minimize this, we don't stigmatize the people that it happens to, and that we really take it seriously as the crime that it is. Hell yeah, Bridget. So this is kind of like an unusual news roundup, right? Because we are two for two of the power of the law being used to protect people and, like, do good and achieve justice. Can we keep this going? Well, you know how much I love law and order.

Do you know how big of an advocate I am for the U.S. criminal justice system, which I think is great and has no flaws. And I never bring up those flaws ever. But unfortunately, we cannot keep it going because I have a pretty crummy law to tell you about. So y'all know that we've been keeping an eye on the flurry of legislation ostensibly aimed at keeping kids safe. If you could, if you, if you, if you, if it sounds like I'm doing quotes, but you can't see them because it's a podcast. I am. Keeping kids safe online that would, or it's already deeply changing our internet landscape, things like the Kids Online Safety Act and online age verification in states like Virginia and Mississippi. A little update on that because this time Wisconsin wanted to get in the mix, TechDurts, Mike Mansonick has a great

roundup of Wisconsin's new Senate Bill 385, which basically treats everybody online as if they're a child unless they can specifically prove otherwise. All right. So what's in this bill? How is it going to keep kids safe? Well, under the bill, social media companies must ensure that all accounts created on or after January 1st, 2019, are designated as youth accounts that complied with the youth account requirements of the bill. So basically, under this bill, everybody on social media is assumed to be a minor and treated as such. Social media companies can remove what the bill calls youth account designations.

from accounts if those social media companies estimate that an account is from somebody who is not a minor through employment of a process or a program that provides a 95% accuracy rate of estimating age within 24 months of their actual age. So it like gets like pretty nitty gritty. It does and you know provides these, based on the notes here, provides these three different routes to have a person turned or have an account converted. from a youth account to an adult account, I guess. But, like, if you think about that for a second, that means that, like, every single social media account

needs to know the age of every user. It's, like, a pretty intense, I don't know, threat to privacy. Yeah, I'm sure I've said this before, but I wholly reject this dynamic where, in order to keep kids online safe, we need to everybody, regardless of age, needs to be giving more information to social media platforms. I reject that whole cloth. That is not a reasonable solution to this issue that we find ourselves with. The legislation would also introduce nighttime lockouts for people who have not verified their age. That's right. Internet open and closed hours. The bill reads that it would

ensure that the account cannot be used or accessed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. So I would be so screwed. Like if I was under, if I was like a, like, if I was 16 year old Bridget and this law were in play, I would be so screwed because I genuinely do not think there was ever a homework assignment ever in my whole life that I ever started before 10 p.m. the night before it was do. That was just like not what I was doing. I was a student who was like someone would like, I would be on aim, remember aimed? It would be like, hey, did you

finish the report? I'd be like, report. Like, that was always me. So if I wasn't able to use the internet after 10 o'clock at night, I would be so screwed. Yeah. Well, I think I would be screwed now. Just earlier today, I left my main

laptop at work. And so right now I'm on my like backup laptop that I recently had to reinstall the operating system on. And so I'm not logged into anything. And so if I wanted to access any social media accounts from this laptop,

I don't know. I'd have to like find my password, which I guess isn't like the biggest thing in the world. But it's like, you know, not something that I have ready to go. But if I didn't do that, I wouldn't be able to use the internet after 10 p.m. That would enrage. me. And I think most

adults would feel the same way if they were just locked out of the internet because they were assumed to be a child who needed to go to bed at NBN. But like, that's not what the internet, that's not how the internet works, right? Like, you can't

legislate it in this way that assumes that everybody is a child and makes what TechDirk calls it like an online version of Disneyland. That's not the internet. And I think that we're really we absolutely do need to be having this conversation around online privacy as it pertains to kids and adults. However, I feel like the people who are doing the actual loudest talking, the people who are writing the legislation,

are people who are doing it badly at best and at worst, extremists who have already explicitly talked about wanting to use these conversations around keeping kids safe online to further censor our interest. internet and further make our internet less hospitable places for marginalized folks to show up. Because this bill also gives parents a whole heck of a lot of access over what kids do online. The bill provides to parents of minor account holders certain accesses, including full access to the account and all of its posts and messages, the ability to change the time limits on the account and to opt out the minor's account from the youth account designation. This legislation, of course, does not take into account if the child is estranged from a or if they have an abusive parent, or if the child is coming to the internet to get support

around questions that they don't feel comfortable asking their parent. Like, I don't know. I, I, this upsets me, if you can't tell. It's ridiculous. Yeah, there's, this, this would be like so onerous for social media companies to implement, like, to ensure all of these. kinds of controls like you know they're not california they don't get to set the national standards like that it's just it really seems like legislation written by people who don't

really know what they're talking about and really don't have any thought about like how to actually impact the things that they're concerned about yeah i hate that i hate that we have seated this conversation to people who I don't think really get the internet. So I take this incredibly personally. I think I've talked about this on the show before, but, you know, growing up in a small town in Virginia, it was the internet that really set me free. And I don't want to make it seem like I, my parents are like bad people. But I was definitely the kind of kid who like didn't feel like I could come to my parents

with a lot. And if you were that kind of kid, you know what I mean. And it was the internet that saved me. It was the internet that set me free. It was the internet that really helped me understand that there were more people out there than in my small town and that when I got older, I would be out there among them. And so I was for sure also having experiences

I probably shouldn't have had on the internet, but that's a story for another time. But, you know, I really feel grateful for those experiences. for those experiences. I don't know where I would be if my parents had never bought me a computer and never got me on America Online. I don't know how I would...

I don't know if I would recognize myself. I don't know if that sounds weird, but I truly don't know if I would recognize me as me because that was such a confusing time. And so making it so that whatever your kid searches or talks about online is just

always visible to mom and dad, not because of some sort of norm that you have set in your household as a parent, because I do think that parents should be like involved in what their kids doing online, but because the government, this legislation has established that. I don't think that's right.

And I don't think that's how the internet was meant to be. I don't think that's how kids learn to have safer internet experiences. I think there are so many things that are legislators could be doing to ensure that young people are having safer experiences online. I'm an advocate for that. But laws like this don't make kids safer. They just make the internet worse for everybody. Yeah. And it's worth pointing out it's just a bill. It is pretty difficult to imagine this becoming law when somebody who's not just interested in political grandstanding outside of

Green Bay actually takes a look at it and realizes how completely unworkable it is. Is this you getting into your like Wisconsin, one-time Wisconsin roots? Yeah, I know Senator Cowles from Green Bay. What are your thoughts? This is par for the course. You know, they're not serious people. Classic Cowles. Well.

Not busting out the succession quotes for Senator Cowell. The scary thing, though, is that, like, you get enough of these people gerrymandering enough districts and they win power and they put these cuckoo laws into place. Well, that's what I'm saying is that, like, I know this is just a bill, but that age verification legislation in Virginia, I never in a million years thought that that would be something that would be actually showing up on people's computer screens. And here we are. I think that the conversation around what do we do with the internet has gotten. so out of hand and so hijacked by people who don't know what they're doing or actively have bad intents and are trying to use those conversations to hijack them to spread harm and agendas. So I don't know.

It's something to keep an eye on. We will keep an eye on it. Our very own Joey Pat, super producer of this very podcast, was on another podcast that we love, stuff mom never told you. To talk about age verification, why it is so harmful and why it is so dangerous specifically to marginalized youth. Yeah, I'll echo that. I listened to that episode. It was really good.

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 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, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. 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-aged. One erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

Huber 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 podcast. Call 844-844-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-8-4-I-Hart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast, Point Game is about defying the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what.

He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows. Without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game. We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the play. playoffs. I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup, he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall. And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash will get that thing.

That man, hell get to fly. He running up the court, licking his fingers why he got the bar. Like, after you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah, you figure it. 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.

Okay, so we got to talk about our favorite person. Do you know what I'm talking about? The person that in the last news roundup, I declared as the Shiree Whitfield of Tech. If you know, you know, do you know? Do you know who I'm talking about? It's Elon. What's he done now? Well, he's throttling traffic to sites he does not like on Twitter.

According to a new report from the Washington Post, the company formerly known as Twitter, which, by the way, I like what the post did there, but Prince would be absolutely appalled to be associated with Twitter or Elon Musk. So I like what they're doing there. They're not calling it X, but they're kind of giving a little Prince now, but Prince deserves better than that association. So the company formerly known as Twitter has been slowing down the sports. speed with which users can access links to the New York Times, Facebook, and other news organizations and online competitors, a move that appeared targeted at companies that have drawn the ire of owner Elon Musk. The post did a test that showed that when you clicked on a site like

Facebook or the New York Times on Twitter, you are made to wait for about five seconds before that page opens. I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but think about when you are scrolling Twitter, a site like Twitter moves so quickly, are used to being able to just click things. and then boom, it opens like that. That five seconds, like one banana, two banana, three banana, four banana, five banana. In Twitter scrolling time, that is an eternity. And it is enough to, like, shape your behavior a little bit. Like, I have a timer on my phone that when I open TikTok, I have to wait three seconds.

And more times than not, that three seconds is enough time for me to be like, do I really need to open this app? So it doesn't sound like a lot, but it is enough to make an impact and enough, like, people will definitely choose to not go to those sites if there's a five-minute delay. The sites where this is happening are all sites that have been singled out by Musk for ridicule or attack, Facebook, Instagram, Blue Sky, and Substack, as well as Reuters, Wire Service, and the New York Times. You'll probably remember that this is not the first time that Elon Musk has used Twitter to further his own personal grievances and grudges. Right after he bought Twitter, he banned the Twitter account that used FAA data to track his own personal jet and then

banned journalist who reported on that band and even suspended the Twitter account of the social media platform Mathadon because that account referred to it as well. So Elon's reign of being the self-proclaimed free speech absolutist continues. Yeah. Just more evidence of what he's about.

And it's also like stepping back though more seriously evidence of just how much power we've allowed not just him, but social media platforms to have. Like, you probably remember a few years ago the fight over net neutrality, you know, which was basically the same idea that internet service providers shouldn't be allowed to control the speed with which you can access different websites based on how much they paid or which ones they happen to like. And it was like a huge deal that people fought over for years.

years and currently is unfortunately dead thanks to the Trump administration, but like, you know, maybe we'll get it back someday. But here's Elon doing the exact same thing effectively. But it's like not even something that we're talking about. Like how quickly things just change and degrade. Yeah. And like the fact that one person who basically their whims and grudges and grievances dictate what happens on one of our largest digital communications platforms. I mean, it really says so much that like one person is able, this thing that like, I don't know, if you were like a nerdy online person when the net neutrality conversations were happening, you remember that, you remember that, right? And the fact that we had so much debate

about it. And now it's just like, oh, Elon can just do it on a whim, you know, no big deal. Yeah. All right. So I feel like things have gotten a little bit heavy lately. And so let's return to some of our better news, lighter news, good news. I'm going to start with some like cautious good news. We'll call this like, what's in between good and bad? Okay news. Okay to good news. That doesn't sound, that doesn't sound like. When you ask what's between good and bad, I thought you were going to get all like profound. Then okay is really. What else would be in between good and bad? Like, give me a, give me, you know, it's fine news.

Give me a profound reading of that. I don't know, like between good and bad is temptation or something like that. I see. That's like my favorite Tennessee Williams quote, the opposite of death is desire. I always love that quote. It was like, yeah. You thought I was going to get like artsy on you. Yeah, I thought you were going to get artsy.

I thought I was recording this with Tennessee Williams. Mama, this flower. is welcome. I do, when it's hot out in D.C., and it's like, it's like very humid today, I do, I do, I don't know if you've heard of me do it, and that's why you're referencing it, but I do sometimes do an exaggerated impression of a Tennessee Williams character. And, yeah, it brings me a great joy. Yeah. Perhaps the listeners would, would like to hear it, like how you feel about all this humidity. Oh, this muggy D.C. weather gives me the horribles.

Something people might not know about me is that I love doing bad impressions. I enjoy hearing people do impressions. I enjoy doing impressions. I feel like it's like the lowest form of comedy. And comedy is even too far. It's like the lowest form of discourse or communication. But, you know, I am who I am. I love a good, you've heard my, I know that you know this.

What is my favorite niche impression to do that I love to do? Oh, your favorite niche impression to do. I'll give you a hint. Okay. When it was my birthday, I was like, is it whack to buy a cameo of this entity for myself? Oh. A birthday cameo for myself of this person. Or not person, this figure saying happy birthday to me.

Entity? Yeah. It's not. And you actually, you do a pretty good cryptkeeper. I'm not going to do it on this episode. Because you know what? The listeners couldn't handle it. But just know, I have that in my back pocket.

Yeah, you can't bust that out in August. You've got to save that for October. Ooh. Maybe we'll do a spooktacular. Anyway, don't get me on a tangent about the cryptkeeper and tales from the crypticep because I'll go all day. Okay, where was I? Oh, good news. that didn't work that. Really went off the rails there. Hold it together. Okay. So things have been

a little bit heavy lately. So let's do a little bit of good news. So first is sort of middle good news, cautious good news. So on August 15th, YouTube took a strong, bold, courageous stance. And that stance is people should not be using their platform to lie about cancer or lie to people with cancer. Huge. So all those videos that are like essential oils can cure cancer or berries can cure cancer. You can drink this juice. It'll cure cancer. Those will no longer be allowed on YouTube. Verge reports that this enforcement comes as YouTube is attempting to streamline its medical moderation guidelines based on what it has learned while attempting to tackle misinformation around topics like COVID, vaccines, and reproductive health. This, I have to say,

like, to be super clear, this is like the bare minimum that a platform like YouTube needs to be doing to create a healthier ecosystem, you know, not allowing dangerous lies about cancer on your platform is like a very small step, but it is a step in the right direction nonetheless. So I think it's a good, you know, a good step. However, the real question always with YouTube is like whether or not they enforce it, how they enforce it, what that enforcement looks like, what that accountability looks like. Because a policy that does not have robust enforcement is just like a wish. It's not really anything. And so Google, which owns YouTube, unfortunately, does have this track record of making a big, flashy announcement and then either failing to really enforce it

in a meaningful way or just like walking it back quietly altogether. But I think this would be a great policy. I hope that we actually see YouTube enforcing this policy a little cautiously good, cautious, good news. It is positive news. You know, It's nice to be reminded that at least they're interested in putting on the front, like, there is a floor. There are standards, you know, they've been able to get behind this controversial topic of cancer and reach a strong position that they are against inaccurate information about cancer. Yeah. I mean, it's hard to be so brave, but taking the stance of people shouldn't lie about cancer for profit. You know, you got to, it's brave.

It's really, it's a bold stance. It is. I just hope they have the guts to see it through. So speaking of reproductive health, I also wanted to do a little bit of a good news roundup around abortion. I was actually looking through my bookcase the other day and I found this journal entry that I wrote the day that Roe was overturned by the Supreme Court. And boy, that was a dark day. I was really feeling a lot of feelings of. despair and it was reading that entry today in in 2023 a little over a year later. I don't know.

It just was really, we, you know, we continued to, we continue to fight. You know, I was really distraught that day and I didn't see a light. I didn't see any, I was like, this is just going to be bad and like, it has been really bad. But I did not, from that entry, I did not have the ability to think about how things might be better in the future. And I'm happy that here in 2023, things are, you know, it's not all despair. Because here's one good thing. And that is emergency contraception. Emergency contraception is legal to purchase over the counter in all 50 states. Although I actually did some reading that suggests that even though that is true, a lot of people surveyed either didn't know about the legality of emergency contraception over the counter in their

state or they just weren't clear on how to get it. So like it is available over the counter everywhere in the United States. And now there are 39 universities across 17 states that are putting emergency contraception in on-campus vending machines. And according to the American Society for Emergency Controception, at least 20 more universities are considering these vending machines as well, even in places like the University of Tulsa and Oklahoma, where abortion is severely restricted. So that was a, I was like, oh, that's like an interesting use of technology to help young people have access to reproductive care on campuses in an accessible way. Love that. Very positive. And also, I saw this headline over at NBC. Abortion rights have won

in every election since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Abortion has been on the ballot in seven States since June 2022. In each instance, anti-abortion groups have lost. So I was feeling pretty good coming out of that win in Ohio. You know, it's just a good reminder that like when you're, when you're confronted with a recent bout of deep despair and then come out of it and people are still helping, people are still organizing, people are still fighting, we're still winning. Yeah.

So it's not all bad. Yeah. That is a really optimistic. take, you know, like the obstacle becomes the way. It's good news. So we don't usually do this. Today is Friday, August 18th. Usually we record on Thursdays and then put the episode out on Fridays, but we had to come to you with a little bit of breaking brand new just in what's Elon done now news to report. And that is because just a few hours ago, Elon Musk tweeted that he is planning on getting rid of the block feature on Twitter, except for its use in DMs. So, I have

actually seen people suggest that this might be because so many people are blocking verified blue check marks on Twitter, or maybe like somebody pulled Elon Musk aside and showed him how many users have him blocked on Twitter. And he was like, I don't like this. Let's get rid of that feature. In any event, I mean, those are, I think both of those sound like reasonable reasons for why he would be doing this move to me. But in any event, he tweeted that he intends to get rid of the block feature on Twitter. Now, he just tweeted this, and Elon Musk is known for being someone who doesn't always tell the truth.

Like, the man lies. You can't really report on what he says without actually talking about the fact that he often says things, and those things do not come to fruition. So who knows if it is really happening? Because both Google and Apple require social media apps available on their platforms to have blocking features on them. And so if he says he's planning on getting rid of a blocking feature, you know, I'm no expert and how this all works, but to me, it means that Twitter might not be able to be included on the

Apple App Store or the Google Play Store for Android. So curious to me that he's just like saying this. I don't know if he's run this by his legal team, his development team, on whether or not that's actually possible, or if he's just like tweeting it and expecting the entire team to figure out how to make it happen. Yeah, that sounds like the way that he typically operates at, like, test love for sure. Hopefully not SpaceX, but who knows? I mean, imagine going to space and he just like gets an idea, didn't run it by anybody, and like intents for that idea to come to fruition,

and you're in space, and you're like tethered to this person's decision making while you're in space. I cannot even imagine. So when we're talking about the ability to block people, it is kind of a deep, complicated conversation. We've talked about this before, but since Elon Musk has taken over at Twitter, the use of slurs, like the inward has increased. And blocking is a feature that helps people, particularly women, black folks, queer folks, trans folks, and other marginalized people protect themselves from harassment. Like, Twitter does not have a lot that protects people from harassment or allows people to, like, control how they engage with people or not. But blocking is one feature that is generally accepted across social media platforms that gives the user the ability to be like, this is not somebody I want showing up in my mentions. I don't want to see their content on social media.

giving people that little bit of control over the experience they're having, and he's taking that away. I cannot understand the rationale behind that other than as an endorsement of harassment on the platform. And it's not just marginalized people, right? It's also journalists, people who work in disinformation, like our very first episode of this season, speaking to Nina Jankowitz, who was tapped by the Biden administration to help combat disinformation, horribly harassed on social media because of it, right? So people who are trying to do their jobs, jobs require them to be public-facing on social media, but their jobs also come with the threat of harassment and online abuse. The block feature is key for people like that. And so it's hard for me to see this as anything other than an endorsement of Twitter as a platform where abuse is okay

and tolerated, where abuse is treated like discourse. I've seen people showing screenshots of the kind of harassment and abuse and slurs that they get in their mentions. Like a couple, I said this on a podcast recently that I was on, I got called a slur the other day, the N-word, right? I have been on the internet for a very long time and I was like, this is definitely a return of a vibe that I was kind of happy that it seemed like we were moving on from, but now we're back. And so if somebody is making it their mission to camp out in your mentions and hurl abuse and harassment at you, the one feature that allows you to turn that, turn off that fire hose of abuse, he's rolling back. And it just, it's hard for me to not see this as an endorsement.

of abuse. I've seen many people say on Twitter that this would actually be their last draw with the platform. But again, we'll see what happens. You know, it's, I mean, I don't even know if Elon is actually planning on genuinely taking away the block feature. Notably, this is being reported, like Elon tweeted it and then it's just being reported as a thing that is going to happen, a gospel truth by a lot of tech outlets. Notably, Linda Yaccarino, Twitter's CEO hasn't said a word about it, didn't tweet about it, no statement about it. So it's interesting again, like if I were the CEO of a company and all these outlets reporting about this pretty big change in my platform, as CEO, I probably would have something

to say about it. Makes me wonder if Elon just tweeted this, didn't check it with her. She had no earlier warning that he was planning on tweeting this and now it's everywhere. So we'll see what happens. Okay, so last week on the Roundup, I was talking about how Elon was. to me is the Sherey Whitfield from Real Housewives of Atlanta of tech because Shire don't pay her bills and best believe Elon Musk doesn't either. This really speaks to this theory that I have that all of the right-wing extremist types

and their behavior can really be boiled down to and understood through the lens of Real Housewives. Like their behavior always has this like griftiness, this stuntiness and this drama that can really only really rival Housewives. behavior. So take Jordan Peterson, for instance. If you don't know who Jordan Peterson is, he's this kind of right-wing traditionalist who has really made his thing talking about things like wokeism and cancel culture and how having a curvier model on the cover of Sports Illustrated is offensive to him and it's like an attack on everything that we hold true in our society and oh my God. Anyway,

that's Jordan Peterson. So Jordan Peterson is being accused of cherry picking bits from scathing reviews of his new book and misrepresenting them as positive on the blurb on the back of the book. Like this one blurb on the back of his book was from a review in the New Statesman by Joanna Thomas Carr, which said, Jordan Peterson's new book was a, quote, philosophy of the meeting of life. But it didn't mention that that specific line described that philosophy as, quote, bonkers. So he just cut out the bonkers part. It was like, oh, it's a philosophy on the meaning of life. dot, dot, that is fucking bonkers.

Pretty important, relevant context for what she was trying to say in this review. I went back and read that entire review, and it is objectively a review panning the book. There is no way to read it as a positive review. It is very much panning that book. Joanna Thomas Carr said that using that one sentence from her 2,500 word review is a, quote, gross misrepresentation of what she said. She said, I don't have it in me to write some casually witty thing about how horrifying this is and that the blurb should be removed. Okay, so you know who might have inspired Jordan Peterson to do this?

A real housewife? Louvand de la Seps from Real Housewives of New York. Because when Louvann was doing her cabaret show, the New York Times reported that one of her cabaret shows was sold out. Inspiring, underlined, her team to add a second show. Well, guess what Luann did? She blew up her poster, had blown up the word, inspiring, in quotation marks, and then attributed that to the New York Times.

So you would think that the New York Times had called her cabaret show inspiring. But what they really said was she was inspired to add a second show. So I actually am here for the bold face lying when a housewife is as shameless as Luan to just like outright. misrepresent something like that, I kind of love it. Like, I love the delusion where we love a delusional queen. And so if Elon Musk is the Shiree Whitfield of tech CEOs, Jordan Peterson is the Luann de la Sepps, Countess Luan of like right-wing grievance monger grifters. So I truly think there is something to this idea. And if you're listening and you've got an idea about who in the right-wing griftovers might have a housewives doppelganger.

I deeply need to hear this information. You can write into us. You can DM me. If it's good, we'll read it on the show. I deeply, deeply think there is something here. You know, we've got two. I think we can flesh out the entire Bravo universe using these right-wing grifter types.

I love this. I can't wait to see what people write in for. So before we wrap, I have a quick public service announcement for everyone listening. If you are listening to this in the United States and you have used Facebook in the last 16 years, you can get a piece of a $725 million settlement.

That is because Facebook improperly shared your information and my information and all of our information with third-party sources such as advertisers and data brokers. Well, Facebook says that they didn't do that. They're denying any liability or wrongdoing, surprise, surprise. However, they did still create a class action website set up to pay out this money to all of us who used Facebook. So that means U.S. residents who used Facebook between May 24th, 2007, and December 22nd, 2022,

can file for a monetary claim as long as they do so before Friday, August 25th. That is a week from the day this episode is dropping at 1159 p.m. Pacific time. Everybody should do this. I'm going to do this. I don't know if you were on Facebook at that time, Mike, but you were on Facebook at that time, Mike, but you should do this. You should tell your friends and your family to do this. I believe that everybody should do this.

It only takes a few minutes. Just go to tangoody.com slash zuckbucks. That's tangoadie.com, t-a-n-g-o-t-t-i-com slash zuckbucks, and fill out the form from Facebook. It only takes a few minutes. You don't need to have that much information. It is not clear how much money you might get paid out. It might not even really be a lot.

It might be like $10. Like I always do these settlement things when I get a chance to do them because I feel like it's, sometimes it can feel like we don't have a lot of ways to, like, hit these big tech companies in their pocketbooks. So I make a point of every single time there's any, even if it's going to be $5, I buy a coffee and I'm like, yeah, take that Bezos and buy a coffee on your dime. So everybody should do this. It's not clear how much money you can get. I think it depends on how many people submit a claim, but you should all submit a claim. That is money owed to us for wrongdoing that Facebook has yet.

to admit to, but it's just being like, okay, fine, we'll just give a couple million dollars. Let's just say $725 million. That's enough. We didn't do anything wrong, but if we did, here's a little something. And so even though that is a drop in the bucket to Facebook, I think it's very important to like get what little we can from them. That money is owed to us. So go to tangoody.com slash Zuckbucks, fill out that form.

Get your money. Bridget, I think this might have been like the most positive news roundup we've ever done. to start to doing these. Yeah, because you can put a little a little Zuck bucks in your pocket. I'm here for that. That's always positive. Yeah, like some good news about reproductive rights,

some decent laws that are actually, like, legit helping the children. And then a couple of Zuckbucks. A couple of Zuckbucks. Always a good place to end. Remember, folks, the deadline is Friday, August 25th, a week from the day this episode drops at 1159 p.m. Pacific time. Go fill that out.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for being here. If you would like to support the show, you could always do so at patreon.com slash tangoiti for ad-free bonus content. I am given my most wild takes. Maybe my cryptkeeper impression. I don't know yet. Please check it out.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for being here, Mike. Be well. If you're looking for ways to support the show, check out our merch store at tangoody.com slash store. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech or just want to say how to say how to 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. Edited by Joey Pat. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tarry 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 IHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. 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. you get your podcasts. Will Ferrell's Big Money Players and IHart Podcasts presents soccer moms. So I'm Leanne. Yeah.

This is my best friend, Janet. Hey. And we have been joined at the hips since high school. Absolutely. A redacted amount of years later, we're still joined at the hip. Just a little bit bigger hips. This is a podcast. We're recording it as we tailgate our youth soccer games in the back of my Honda Odyssey.

With all the snacks and drinks. Why did you get hard seltzer instead of beer? Oh, they hit a bogo. Well, then you got it. Listen to soccer moms on the IHeart Radio. Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. American Soccer is about to explode. The World Cup is coming.

Ramers sending on to earn a story of the chip. I'm Tab Ramos. I'm Tom Boe. On our podcast, inside American soccer, you'll get the real storylines, the biggest decisions, and the truth about the U.S. national team. It wouldn't be a huge surprise if our team ends up in the quarterfinals or potentially a great run into the semifinals. Listen, Inside American Soccer with Tom Bogart and Tab Ramos

on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHeart podcast, guaranteed human.