There Are No Girls on the Internet - Kate Middleton TMZ video; Don’t trash your boss on Glassdoor; Birth control misinfo online is out of control; AI Marylin Monroe – NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Date: March 22, 2024

WE RECORDED OUR UPDATE ON KATE MIDDLETON BEFORE THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED NEWS THAT SHE HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER. READ MORE ABOUT THAT HERE: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/22/world/princess-kate-middleton-cancer Staff at clinic where Kate had surgery ‘tried to access her medical records’ https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/19/inquiry-reportedly-begins-after-claims-clinic-staff-tried-to-access-princess-of-waless-records  TMZ’s Kate video: https://www.tmz.com/2024/03/18/kate-middleton-seen-new-video-windsor-farm-shop-prince-william/ Users say Glassdoor added real names to user profiles without their consent: https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/20/glassdoor-added-real-names-profiles-without-consent/ A third of Bumble’s Texas workforce moved after state passed restrictive ‘Heartbeat Act’ abortion bill: https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/08/bumble-lost-a-third-of-its-texas-workforce-after-state-passed-restrictive-heartbeat-act-abortion-bill/  Washington Post report: Women are getting off birth control amid misinformation explosion https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/21/stopping-birth-control-misinformation/  AI Marilyn Monroe Marks Another Step Forward In Extending Celebrity Brand Value Beyond The Grave: https://deadline.com/2024/03/ai-marilyn-monroe-marks-another-step-forward-in-extending-celebrity-brands-1235850875/ 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 ads 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. 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. Syke, I'm a comedian. I'm not qualified to give good advice. Join me and my comedian friends as we riff, rant, recommend some of the most legally dubious advice known to me. This is Help from a Hypocrite, the worst advice from the dumbest people you know.

Listen to Help from Hypocrite Wednesdays on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, this is Future Bridget. So we've recorded this week's News Roundup on Thursday afternoon, the day before, The New York Times just broke a story about Kate Middleton being diagnosed with cancer. You can read The New York Times as full story in the show notes. But this news came out just as we published the episode for this week.

So we pulled the episode down so that I could re-record this introduction that you're hearing right now to give that context. Okay, thanks for listening and here's the episode. 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. This is There Are No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the intersection of technology, social media, the Internet, and identity. And you're listening to another one of our weekly roundups where we summarize and break down the news that you might have missed on the Internet this week. Mike, thank you for being here again. The last time we saw each other on the mic, we were talking about Kate Middleton.

That's right. It was a story that had been going on for a little while, and it seems to continue to be going on. It has continued. So I did want to give folks a little bit of a brief update on what's happened in Kate Middleton, Royals world, since we last spoke. So this week, TMZ released a video of Kate out shopping. The video was shot by like a random person on a cell phone, just somebody off the street who then provided it to TMZ. So TMZ also published the metadata of this video. Metadata tells you when and where a piece of was recorded, which confirms that this video was indeed recorded next to Kate Middleton's home and was recorded on that Saturday, just like they said it was. Case closed, right? Maybe. Maybe is a good way to put it, because just like we talked about in that episode, really breaking down Kate Middleton, but really talking about how conspiracy theories move online more generally,

once a conspiracy theory reaches a certain point, there is like no amount of hard evidence that will satisfy people who are deeply, deeply convinced that something fishy is going on. However, that said, I have to say that the way that TMZ is acting right now after having published this video is weird. Like, they're acting a little bit weird. So after publishing this video and saying it is Kate definitively, case clothed, here's the metadata, let's put all the conspiracy theories to rest. Then two of their executive producers went on TMZ Live, which is like TMZ's live's television show, and basically kind of walked back whether or not they thought it was actually her.

Here's what they said. So she looks great. Where's the security? Where is the security? That's a good question. And why is it with all the people that were there? This is the only video that surfaced. that we secured.

Why is it that they're in the store moseying around, going to the catch register? Nobody's taking any pictures, any photos, any video, but we got this. So I genuinely do not know what is going on here because I think that TMZ would have authenticated this video as being Kate before publishing it

and saying that it's Kate. Now, I can hear people out there listening who are thinking, Bridget, TMZ is a shady tabloid. Why would you expect them to verify what they put out or confirm what they put out before they publish it? To which, I won't say I'll push back on that, but I would complicate that a little bit because, yes, TMZ is an outlet that is run by pieces of human garbage who have no ethical or moral compass whatsoever. They are not good people. We could do a whole other episode on this. However, TMZ is not an outlet that tends to get stuff wrong.

That is one thing I can say about them. Like, if TMZ reports that somebody is dead, that person is probably dead, even if no other outlet is reporting it because they're TMZ. Like, I remember when Michael Jackson died, they were the first to run with that story. And everybody was like, well, it's TMZ. Let's wait until we get another outlet. But the reason why TMZ tends to always sort of get it right on these big breaking stories is because, like, they are known to have police on their payroll and like pay off police, like folks might remember back when Kobe Bryant and his daughter died in that helicopter

crash, TMZ reported that news first, and it started a whole conversation of whether or not they should have reported that because the police had still not notified all of the family members. And so TMZ is an outlet that is known for reporting things first and correctly, perhaps because they are unethical ghouls with no souls. So if TMZ, TMZ is publishing something, generally speaking, that is, like, they're not an outlet that is known to put out. Just, like, lies. But it sounds like maybe this story and this photo are a little different? Well, I genuinely don't know what's going on here.

Like, it's possible that TMZ has just sensed that, like, they have, like, what they see as a juicy story. So they're putting out a video and saying, this is confirmed to be Kate. And then their producers are going on their channel and saying, like, oh, we don't know if it's, it's Kate or not. Maybe they're thinking that this will lead to more engagement on a story that they perceive as like juicy. Maybe they did not authenticate that video before publishing it. I really don't know. Like anybody's guess is as good as mine in terms of what is actually going on here. Yeah. And it's probably one of like a thousand stories where we might never know. Exactly. But I will say like there are images floating around on social media right now that are

purporting to show a, quote, enhanced still from that video, purporting to prove that, like, oh, it's not really cade, it's a, it's a body double, it's a stand-in. Those are what 110% fake. Like, I can, I can assure you that if anybody is pushing around images that are purporting to use AI to, like, enhance these, these, this video. So that's not even how it works. Those are fake. As Google's Adriana Porter felt wrote on Twitter, I keep seeing people post photo, enhancements as fact. This does not actually enhance the original photo. It invents a plausible new photo and overlays it on the blurry original. The generated version is actually less trustworthy than the original blurry video. Don't do this. Like, I think it's this idea that we all live in a CSI episode

where you can just type, type, type, type, type, type, enhance. Type, type, type, enhance using AI. It doesn't work that way. These are all BS. Yeah, that's right. I think you and I were talking about false precision in some other context this morning, right? Like the idea, and I think it applies here too, right, that you can have this photo that looks very highly detailed and precise, and it tricks your brain into thinking that, like, oh, this more precise, sharper image clearly must be more true, but that's just like not the case for exactly the way that, that, well-spoken quote from that Google person mentioned. Like, it looks sharper, but it's just, an invented plausible image. And that's why I think some of the conspiracy theories about this won't

die because your brain tricks you into thinking this sharp, clear image must be correct, when in fact it is less trustworthy than that grainy video. So I have to say this, and this is pretty horrifying, Kate's private medical information was involved in a data security breach after at least one member of the staff at the hospital where she was staying back in January, attempted to view her medical records while she was a patient there. Authorities are actually now investigating whether or not the hospital broke the law by failing to report this breach in a timely manner. So there is no ambiguity or gray area here. This is just so deeply, deeply messed up.

End of sentence, period. And I think this was the point I was trying to make in the episode that we, did breaking all of this down last week, that there is a difference between the public asking questions about how Kensington Palace, right, a political and social institution is moving and how the Kensington Palace is communicating with the public without demanding access and, you know, an entitlement to information about an individual's like private, sensitive health information, right? You know, I think that when a public who is voracious for, any kind of information about Kate as a person blurs those lines, we get this dynamic where people

really do feel like it is okay to try to obtain an individual's personal, private, medical information to satisfy that question. And it's not. Not only is it illegal, it is wrong. And so I think that's really where we're kind of getting into this problem of, I think it is totally fair to scrutinize and criticize and ask questions about the way that the institution that is the royal family is communicating with the public. That is totally fair game. That is different than demanding information about an individual. In this case, Kate's private medical information.

Does that make sense? It does make sense. And, you know, I know that we got a few emails from listeners after that previous episode. And I think it's worth, you know, clarifying why we're talking about this story on this show. And, you know, so like Bridget, are we talking about this because you have some sort of personal interest in the royal family or like some expertise in the royal family? Or because you feel like, you know, all of, you have some personal feelings about Kate Middleton and feel like we have a right to know, like, what's going on with her personal life. Are those your motivations for wanting to talk about it on this show? Absolutely not.

I don't know anything about Kate Middleton. of all of the royals that I know anything about. She is the one that I have followed the least, and I don't really follow any of them, so that's actually really saying something. But I do think that when it comes to institutions that wield public power and do enjoy a level of public support,

it is not just okay to ask questions and scrutinize how they are communicating with the public. I think it's necessary. And I think that when we get into these gray areas of people being like, well, how dare you demand private information about Kate? I don't think that anybody should be demanding private information about Kate. I certainly don't think that if you are someone working in a clinic where she may have stayed,

but you should be going through her private health records. My God. However, that is different than asking questions about, well, who in Kensington Palace used Photoshop to doctor images in a way that they had to have known was against newswire rules and then tried to submit them if they were not doctored. I think that's a totally fair question and a question that speaks to how institutions are communicating with the public. But that's a different thing than like, what kind of medical issue did Kate have and when did she have it. Like, that's a completely

different question that I think is Kate's private business. Before we got on the mic, I was reading about how another image, another holiday image of the late queen, it was revealed that Kensington Palace had doctored that image similarly to the one that, Kate and, you know, did not tell anybody and it got past, it got past fact checkers, and it was distributed via newswire. And I was surprised to see a lot of the commenters saying things like, they're celebrities. It's news now that celebrities are photoshopping wrinkles out of their images and like using Photoshop to make them look better. And no, first of all, these people are not normal celebrities. So I'm not even interested in whether or not the late Queen used

Photoshop or whatever. The question is, did they knowingly violate the very clear and explicit rules around how you submit authenticated photos to newswire services to get distributed out in an official capacity? Did they violate that? I'm not interested in web. If they just put Photoshop images on their own personal Instagrams and leave it at that, who cares? But this is a very different thing. And again, I just think that the blurriness between individual actions, individuals and the way that this massive, powerful, publicly supported institution is communicating with the public. Those are two different things. One of them is fair game. And in fact, I would argue we should be asking questions about the other, who cares? And I think that's sort of the thread that we're

losing in this conversation. You know, I think the world has really changed a lot in terms of like, what are the rules and norms around touching up photos? Perhaps the, you know, the rules for the wire services haven't changed, but just common practices around what people do personally. You know, I'm willing to grant that that has changed a lot in the past couple of years with AI filters. But they, it really feels like there's a lot of room for Kensington Palace who receives, I believe, hundreds of millions of dollars of like taxpayer support. Hopefully this lights a fire for them to get up to speed on.

on what's needed to ideally play an active role in helping reestablish rules so that people can have trust in the information that they see. Well, that's a great segue to this glass door story, which is a weird one. Like, one of the reasons I'm excited to talk to you about this because you have a background in PII, what is it, personal identifying information. That's right. So here's what's going on. If you have ever talked crap about your job anonymously on the website Glassdoor, which is an anonymous forum for people to rate and review their workplaces, you might want to think twice because we are seeing multiple reports that Glassdoor collected and added people's names to their user profiles without their consent. So TechCrunch reports that one user, who they're calling Monica, wrote in a post on her personal blog that Glassdoor added her name in the city where she's, she lives to her Glassdoor profile following an email exchange that she had with Glassdoor customer

support, despite never having consensually provided her name during the initial sign-up process, which would happen to years earlier. So basically, it kind of sounds like if Glassdoor learns your name or learns some kind of personal identifying information about you, even if you do not provide it to them when you're signing up for Glassdoor, they will add it to your profile without your consent. So how does she say that they got her name? from this email exchange that she had with Glassdoor customer support, that when she signed up for Glassdoor years earlier, she didn't use her name, she wanted to stay anonymous,

that years later she had a back and forth email exchange with Glassdoor customer support. Her email signature includes her name and location, and they just took from that email her name, first and last name and location, and added it to her profile, even though she never consented to that and didn't want that. And to be clear, like, Glassdoor is a place where anonymity would be really important. Like if you were trashing your boss or you had something really important to say, it makes sense why you wouldn't necessarily want to have your first and last name attached to what you thought was an anonymous review of a workplace. And one of the reasons why I'm having a little bit of trouble with this story is that this really sounds like a change. I know from being in the space for a while that Glassdoor really used to thrive on user anonymity and was like kind of an industry leader in protecting PII, personal,

identifying information. But what sounds like changed was a corporate acquisition. So ours technical reports that although it is common for many users online to link services at sign up to their Facebook or their Gmail account to verify identity and streamline logins, for years, Glassdoor has notably allowed users to sign up for its service anonymously. But in 2021, Glass Door acquired Fishbowl, a professional networking app that integrated with Glass Door last July. This acquisition meant that every Glass Door user was automatically signed up for a Fishbowl account. And because Fishbowl requires users to verify their identities, Glass Door's terms of service changed to require all users be verified. So I should be clear that this is not a theoretical concern. Lawyers for companies who have been negatively reviewed on Glass Door have regularly tried to learn the identities of the people leaving anonymous reviews on the site. The organization, the Electronic Frontier, regularly defends Glassdoor users from being unmasked by retaliating employers. Particularly for employees who fear retaliation for reviews, the lawyer for EFF said that Glassdoor

users could historically choose never to share their real names, and the company is now storing names for all users makes it much more likely that users could be linked to their reviews, should Glass Door's data ever be subpoenaed or leaked? Yeah, I think that's such a good point that it's worth like reemphasizing it. That, you know, it's one thing for Glass Door to have a privacy policy that says, like, we will not release your name. That's great. That's good. But to truly have your name be protected, it would be better if they never had it in the first place, right? Like, we've seen this very concern play out with concerns about the Kids Online Safety Act, right?

That it's going to be collecting all of this information. And even if that information is nominally protected, the fact that it is stored somewhere puts it at risk, right? It's at risk of there being some kind of breach that makes that information public, despite the company not wanting to be public. And it's also at risk if there's like a change in ownership and a change of privacy policy, which seems to be the situation here. It's funny to hear you say this because just before we were talking, you were annoyed.

And I was like, oh, what's going on? You were like, oh, I'm trying to track a package. that I bought, but it wants me to sign up for shop to do that. And I have to give Shop, this Shop app, access to all my emails. And I was like, oh, I use Shop all the time. And you were like, it doesn't concern you. Like, you don't give your information to anybody. No, I really try to jealously protect my privacy. I think we all have an obligation to occasionally inconvenience ourselves to jealously protect our privacy against the constant encroachment of tech companies that want all of our data. Yeah, I wasn't going to bring it up.

But since you've brought it up, I'll go down this tangent, that I was so annoyed at shop this morning. Generally, I find shop, like, fairly convenient to use. They do a good job tracking packages when I'm buying from some kind of retailer. But the limitation that drives me up the wall is that, so like earlier this week, I ordered two different packages from two different retailers. They're both being delivered and tracked by shop. Okay. I got a text message notification that says, like, hey, your package is being delivered today. I was curious, which of my two items was it going to be?

I can't know that without using the shop app. There's no way to do it through the web. There's no way to do it unless I install the shop app on my phone. I was surprised that I didn't have the shop app on my phone, so I went to install it, and then remembered that I had been here before, and the app will not install properly unless I give it access to read all of my emails.

Why in the world do they need to read all of my emails? not okay and I'm not going to do it. And, you know, I looked on Reddit and people were complaining about this. And one of the top comments was like, oh, just read their privacy policy. They're, you know, they're not going to do anything with your data. They just have, they just want to help you. That's the stupidest take I've read all day. Right?

Like, oh, yeah, I'm just going to trust this online retailer with, you know, all of my personal, the contents of all of my personal emails. What could they possibly want with that, right? an online retailer that is into like trying to get me to buy more things. I couldn't imagine.

Yeah. So tangent ended, but I'm glad that I had the opportunity to connect it to this story because, you know, once your information is out there, it's out there. Let's take a quick break.

Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Oden, to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and headwriters, 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 group.

The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle-aged, one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert 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 ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHeart's. twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only 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. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in.

I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise. Breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athletes themselves. Their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaders to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context and ask the questions everybody wants answered.

Sports slice brings you closer to the action. with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to SportsSlice on the Iheart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Slicelife Life 12 and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. And we're back. Well, so the thing that really worries me about the glass door situation is that I think, I have to imagine that it's going to be a lot of traditionally marginalized people who are going to suffer if this is just how glass door functions from now on.

I can imagine that it is women, trans folks, queer folks, people of color, who are raising the alarm about things like racial or gender discrimination or like sexual harassment. And I can't help but understanding this story against this creep toward not being able to use forums that were previously available to you to privately raise the alarms about concerns. you know, especially given that we're seeing more and more people who do speak up about, you know, wrongdoing, facing things like defamation lawsuits for doing so. It's, you know, we're not just talking about people who are complaining about their boss's coffee breath or whatever. It is people who a lot of times are raising serious alarms or serious concerns in a forum that one might think would be anonymous or private for them to do so safely. And so I really can't help but see the story against that backdrop of like, well, shoot,

Like, are people going to be able to use Glassdoor safely to report genuine real concerns? That's my question. Yeah, mine too. This story, like, really surprised me and makes me a little bit sad because I view Glassdoor as a very valuable resource. And historically, a very good actor towards transferring some power back to workers to somewhat reduce the massive asymmetry between workers and people who own companies and employ them. historically they've been pretty good about this stuff. And so this feels really out of character, really disappointing. And I think it'll, it just happened like pretty recently.

I think this story, we'll link it to it in the show notes, but it was just published yesterday. And I thought surely Glass Door is going to like put out a statement saying that this was a mistake. They haven't done that yet. and what little they said in quotes to that Ars Technica reporter was pretty unsatisfying. They really seemed to say that there wasn't an issue here. But then there's also a bunch of articles across the Internet from other publications and like some big ones like NPR really amplifying this story and this concern in ways that are very unflattering for Glass Door. So I'm remaining hopeful that they will recognize what a catastrophic misstep this is for their product that really depends on anonymity and that they will take some corrective action to reassure people that, like, Glass Door is still a place where you can post anonymous reviews that will truly be anonymous.

Because without that, like, what even is it? Well, speaking of missteps and hopeful corrections on them, let's talk about. the dating app Bumble. So y'all might remember that a lot of tech companies were relocating from San Francisco or like other places in California to Texas, specifically a lot of them relocating to Austin. Well, that is maybe not working out for a whole host of reasons, but one of those reasons is Texas's restrictive abortion laws. So at a panel at South by Southwest, ironically, held in Austin, the council for the dating app Bumble that is sort of supposed to be like a more woman-focused dating app,

revealed that the company has lost a third of its Texas workforce in the months since the state passed horribly restrictive abortion laws, known as SB8, sometimes called the Texas Heartbeat Act over a year ago. Because of these very extremist laws that are

completely out of step with what the majority of the country wants, Bumble no longer requires people to work at their Austin headquarters. Bumble actually became the first company to join an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against the Texas abortion law filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights. So I wanted to talk about this for a couple of reasons.

One, because I think it's really important to highlight the very real risk that laws like this pose to people who are pregnant or the people who support people who are pregnant. However, this also highlights the business ramifications of extremist abortion laws as well. The Chief Counsel for Bumble said, we were looking at the lens and what we are putting forth in the brief was talking about the increased cost to us to attract and retain talent in Texas, the increased costs for us to provide health care benefits to our employees, we found that because of our position, having been founded with women at the forefront from the beginning, and having that voice and that legitimacy to begin with, we could combine that with this very business-centric argument and help support that case. This actually led to a bunch of businesses from all over Texas signing onto this amicus brief, pointing out that these kind of

extremist abortion laws really do put their business in jeopardy by making it harder to recruit top talent. Bumble specifically said that they had started to offer like an enhanced healthcare coverage that includes things like gender affirming care and IVF because those kinds of health care have been threatened in the state. Although, like part of me wonders, you know, it's good to have that coverage included. But if those, if that kind of health care is illegal and you can't access it in Texas, it does kind of seem like a moot point. Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, I'm curious about that, but I don't know anything about it. Yeah, but overall, I mean, I do think that of all the different avenues to be talking about

how restrictive abortion laws impact people negatively, I do think I want to hear more from the business community because certainly it is an economic issue, not just for the people who need abortions, for the people who do any kind of business all over the country, in addition to being a reproductive health issue. And so I do want to see more businesses. particularly businesses who are, you know, are about, you know, sticking up with women, sticking up with marginalized people. I want to see more of these businesses weighing in as we go into this more and more extremist restrictive climate.

Yeah, that would be great. I mean, there's so many reasons why giving people reproductive freedom and allowing them to make their own medical choices is like a win-win for society, right? like not just businesses, but also in terms of like the huge costs of unwanted pregnancies, right? Like to individuals, to health care systems, to social services for years and years. Well, to that end, we have to talk about the growth in misinformation swirling around social media around birth control. So there was this new, very detailed report by the while. Washington Post about how social media platforms are awash in medically inaccurate content about

birth control and how it is leading to real world consequences. You should definitely read the entire thing. It is very detailed. We'll put it in the show notes. But basically, you have these, like, health influencers. I'm using that in heavy scare quotes. And also right-wing extremists really trying to scare people into thinking that birth control is dangerous. Now, birth control, like, Like any other medication does have side effects. In rare cases, it can cause things like blood clots. That is real. But these people are not trying to foster fact-based conversations about the real concerns

around birth control. They're saying nonsense, like, oh, birth control, if you take it, it will change your entire personality. It will change the kind of people that you are sexually attracted to, things that are just fearmongering and nonsense. So you have these health influencers suggesting natural forms of non-hormonal birth control, like only having sex on your period, which, by the way, does not work. And this is all particularly fraught, given how restrictive abortion access is in this country right now and how criminalized it is.

So you have people with these big platforms essentially suggesting people stop using birth control and instead only have sex on their periods, a method that is known for unintended pregnancies in a country where you cannot easily access abortion care if you need it, or can be criminalized and sent to prison for doing so. So this is really one of those issues where you can see how tech issues and social media platform issues are also reproductive rights issues and gender issues. Doctors are saying that they're seeing an explosion of birth control misinformation online, targeting a very vulnerable demographic, people in their teens and early 20s, who are more likely to believe what they see on their phones because of algorithms that feed them

a stream of videos reinforcing messages often divorced from scientific evidence. While doctors say hormonal contraception is safe and effective, they worry about the profession's longstanding lack of transparency and some of the serious but rare side effects that have left many patients seeking information from unqualified online communities. So I have actually personally seen a lot of this on social media. I'm sad to say. Just like most abortion advocates told us, anti-choice extremists and people who want to tell other people what to do with their own bodies, were never going to stop at abortion. It was going to be birth control. Weirdly, it was also tampons. Like for a while, I was seeing that bubble up. Like,

right-wing extremists, basically suggesting that having tampons in school bathrooms meant that teachers and schools were, like, sexually abusing young people because, like, I remember seeing this post that was someone being like, as a father, it should be up to me whether or not my daughter uses a tampon. And if a school, a school should have no say in whether or not my daughter uses a tampon. and he was angry at the schools providing tampons in the watchrooms. So anybody watching this could have told you it was not going to stop with abortion. It was going to be all of these different things that pertain to reproductive health being demonized. So this backlash to birth control really comes at a time where we see this rampant misinformation about basic health combined with really, really poor digital literacy and this wider political debate.

around reproductive rights in which far-right conservatives argue that the broad acceptance of birth control has altered traditional roles and weakened the family. And so if you're wondering, what does Ben Shapiro or Candice Owen care whether or not I use birth control? That's sort of their ultimate point is that birth control is changing gender roles, is changing how we think of traditional families and therefore it's bad. So in a daily wire video, Candice Owens denounced birth control and IUDs as, quote, unnatural, saying she is a big advocate of getting women to realize this stuff is not normal. She also says that her viewers told her that IUDs can harm fertility, which medical experts agree there is no evidence that birth control impacts long-term

fertility. So that's just not true. Also, she's kind of doing a little bit of an Elon Musk thing. I don't know if you watched any of that Elon Musk interview with Don Lemon, where Don Lemon is like, what evidence do you have that black pilots are being held to lower standards? And he's like, well, people on Twitter say that all the time. And it's like, no, that doesn't make it true. I feel like, Candace Owens is like, oh, well, people are saying that IUDs cause long-term fertility issues. And it's like, it doesn't. It doesn't. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true. Ben Shapiro noted reproductive health expert, not really. he claims that birth control makes women attracted to less manly, less masculine men.

Like, people are just so fucking stupid. Like, part of me is like, what even, what point is there even, I don't, obviously that's not true. And I don't even, I don't even have a little joke to make. It's just such a ridiculous point that I can't believe that somebody with a massive platform is allowed to just go on TV, go on their platform, spread dangerous falsehoods that are not just untrue but also silly. Many of these people who are like railing against birth control, it's not like they have families of like 20 kids, right? Like a lot of these political commentators have pretty small families,

and one has to imagine that that has helped them in their professional careers to achieve the massive platforms that they have. Are we supposed to believe that none of them have used birth control? control? Well, the thing with Candace Owen is she's a liar and a grifter and a scammer, baby. Like, she does not, she'll say anything about anybody does not, like, it's not worth it to try to hold her to any kind of a standard that makes sense. That is not what she is about. And I would say, like, publicly is just not what she, I don't, I think that she would agree that's not what she's about. Like, she says things about how women shouldn't work, how when she gets on a plane and she

sees a woman pilot, she thinks, oh no, we're going to die today. Baby, you have a job. You have a career. You are a woman who works. You are a working mom. So when you go on TV and you go on your little podcast and you demonize working moms, look at a mirror because you are a mom with a job. You make a ton of money. You go to work every day. I don't want to hear it. Obviously, if you are a person of reproductive age who is building a career. You have probably used birth control at some point to buttress that career and to have control over your life and more power to you. You should, everybody should be able to make health decisions for themselves. However, Candace Owens, she just says whatever. And so when it comes to her especially, I don't think it's worth trying to make heads or tails of what she's

saying because she'll say anything for a check. She's like Mia off a real housewives of Potomac. She'll say whatever. If you don't watch Potomac, Mia, That's my point. Mia just catching strange. Doesn't she have enough problems right now? She does. She does. I should lay off Mia.

And also Mia, this is a whole other topic, but Mia has kind of like become my fan favorite. So even though she's a liar. So Washington Post spoke to Brittany Martinez, who was the founder of Ev Magazine, which you can kind of think of as like a right-wing Cosmo. And she said in an email to the post that her outlets work has made questioning birth control

mainstream, saying women have been silenced and shamed by legacy media, the pharmaceutical industry, and in many cases by their own doctors, who have gaslit them about their experiences with hormonal birth control. So this comment to me really illustrates nicely how bad actors like this work, right? They seize on the very real and very legitimate anxieties or fears or baggage that marginalized people have. She is right up until a point that women really, have been, like, silenced and ignored about our medical issues by doctors and a pharmaceutical industry that do not often seem to really care about our pain, about our health, about our bodies. So that part is true. But where she fucks up is that she then cruelly exploits these anxieties

and these very real tensions and baggage that we have to push her own dangerous agenda. And that is something we see time and time again with bad actors and extremists like this. Something else this report points out is how these bad actors are exploiting racialized and gendered fears and anxieties around medical information to further push harmful and accurate information about birth control. The report reads, Women of Color, whose communities have historically been exploited by the medical establishment may be particularly vulnerable to misinformation given the long history of mistrust around birth control in this country. That's from Kimberly Baker, an assistant professor at UT Health, Houston School of Public Health for sterilization of tens of thousands

of primarily black, Latina, and indigenous women happened under the U.S. government programs in the 20th century. That's another huge reason why these negative videos around birth control get a lot of fanfare, because there's already stigma attached to it, and that's steeped in our history. And so you really do see these bad actors cruelly and callously picking at and exploiting these very real traumas that our communities have been carrying around for decades for real reasons and exploiting it. And sometimes they're exploiting people and their anxieties and baggage and trauma for money. Like a lot of these people, when they're like health influencers, in quotes, they'll be talking about how birth control is unnatural or dangerous.

And then you go to their page and they're selling some kind of a hormonal supplement or hormonal coaching, something that is just like BS. And so they're, they're scaring people in order to scam them and they have a financial incentive to do so. And honestly, doctors are already seeing the IRL impact. The reports talks about how doctors are seeing more and more people come into their offices asking about something related to birth control that they saw on TikTok. One doctor says, people are putting themselves out there as experts on birth control and speaking to things that the science does not bear out. I'm seeing the direct failures of this misinformation. He says that women frequently come into his office for abortions after believing what they saw

in social media about the dangers of hormonal birth control and the effectiveness of tracking periods to prevent pregnancy. Many of these patients have traveled from states that have completely or partially banned abortions, such as Texas, Idaho, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. And we really can't even have this conversation without talking about how, it is supported by algorithms. Because algorithms really, I mean, if you've ever scrolled on TikTok, you probably know what I'm talking about. It really supports people to be surfaced information that is similar or thematically similar to what they just watched, right? And so rather than giving them some sort of an alternate viewpoint, it just completely builds up this rabbit hole and buries them in it.

A 20-year-old college student who went down an algorithmically supported rabbit hole on birth control misinformation said, it created this sense of fear that if I ever needed to be put on birth control, I would become a completely different person. I would gain a bunch of weight and my life would be over. I was like, well, obviously this is true. This applies to everybody because it's the only thing I'm seeing. So I do think that platforms bear some responsibility here to make sure that the people that use their platforms are not just being sent down more and more extremist dangerous rabbit holes when it comes to something as important as their reproductive health. Yeah, it sure would be nice.

And I do think that, like, this is related to something I feel I've seen more and more, where people, I just feel like there is a subset of people who will believe absolutely anything they see on TikTok. Yeah, I think that's probably right. And I don't think it's limited to TikTok. We've talked about this a lot. And definitely digital literacy is a big thing. but I think, you know, we should be really careful not to put it on the people who are, you know, digitally illiterate and being swayed by this information and keep the focus on the people who are pushing it.

So I, you know, saw that we were going to talk about this today. And I had this big question, like, who are these people? What is their motivation for pushing this misinformation? Right. We talked about misinformation on this show a lot, you know, like political misinformation or, disingenuous accounts that are trying to create racial disharmony just to like destabilize things. But this one really like got me. It's like what sort of monster would push anti-birth control information and why?

And I guess you provided a couple pretty good explanations here. Just like the engagement farming of it. It gets it gets engagement. And people who have a financial. investment in it. So if I'm selling hormonal supplements and I'm like, oh, hormonal birth control is bad.

If you take it, you've ruined your hormonal system. But if you buy my pills, we can get this back on track. Money, please. Yeah. And then also it connects to stuff we talked about before where it feels like there's a big effort largely on the right, but not limited to the right, to just discredit

the medical and scientific community in general and just destroy the idea of expertise and promote the idea that every influencer can be their own expert and do their own research. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman, help make you funnier.

This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel. help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. There's the worst singer in the group. The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation.

The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle aged. One erection.

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

Plus, only 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. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise, breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source. athlete themselves. Their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear.

The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context and ask the questions everybody wants answered. Sports Slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to Sports Slice on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Slices Life 12. and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. Let's get right back into it. Well, the piece really does a good job of speaking to doctors

who are looking inward at the medical profession and wondering, like, have we created this problem by failing to have transparency and failing to make patients, many of whom are women, feel like we are adequately listening to them and answering their questions? And I would argue that, like, typically speaking,

sort of dynamic like this where bad actors and BS influencers and grifters are able to really take up a lot of space, there is some like institutional failing that is allowed those people to take up so much space in a conversation. And I think that's really what we're seeing. Like people, women, when it comes to reproductive health, women have historically not really been listened to. There's an entire legacy and history of the medical community not listening to and not taking seriously the pain and issues of women. And, you know, we also live in a world where any health care that is about people who are not cisgender men, so when it comes to queer people or trans people, that, I think that that is like inherently othered. And so I think

that these doctors are not wrong to be like, well, in what ways have we really failed the people who will come to us looking for care that allows for grippers and extremists to take over the conversation and for that to feel like something that is actually accurate. But I do think that you're right that there is this larger demonization of expertise and medical professionals and people who know what they're talking about. That report talked to this, I guess like a sort of hormonal influencer who had her content taken down from TikTok for being medical misinformation. And she was like, oh, well, I actually think it's fine to take it down because I think

that people should be doing their own research. And it's like, well, yes, but if you're not a doctor, doing your own research into medical information is kind of a tall order. Right. Like, I'm not a doctor. I would not pretend to be able to make heads or tails of medical research. And so it's really cunning how they put it back on people to really further erode trust in the medical profession more generally. And I think you're right that we should not be demonizing people who fall for this because I think a lot of people, when you're in a place where you've just been consuming a lot of information that is really scary, and you're already in a mental or emotional place where you're not feeling heard, not feeling supported, you're looking for alternative avenues for information out there. I think that it can put anybody in a place where they're more receptive to these kinds of grifters and extremists, right?

And it is being buttressed by an incredibly powerful algorithm that is like pushing you toward that conclusion, right? So it's not you're not, it's not just you're stupid and gullible. There are forces that are pushing you toward it and we should be honest about that. But like, I mean, I don't like to talk about my own health and body. stuff on the podcast because I just think it's your people's health is so specific and unique to them and so personal to them. But like, ask some of y'all who know me in real life, no, like I had a pretty tough go of it with COVID. And I got COVID multiple times. And I got it one time that was so bad that it really like, it just really like knocked the wind out of my

sales for a very long time. Right. And so like long COVID is one of those things that I do think that like, I've gleaned that it's not the kind of thing that people want to hear about. And so it's this kind of thing that you're like often dealing with in a way that feels very isolated because it's like, you know, you're dealing with the symptoms and you're dealing with the fatigue

and you're dealing with the brain fog. But then you've gleaned that people don't really want to hear you complain about it. So then you're dealing with all of that alone. And when you're dealing with stuff alone, it pushes you to the internet, which then algorithmically supports you to fall down rabbit holes that are not necessarily good for you and also happen to be inclusive of people who are trying to make a quick buck off of your issue, off of your

isolation, off of your anxieties. And so I know I am somebody who talks about this for a living and even I got pretty wrapped up in taking advice, like wellness and health advice from Randoes on TikTok, right? And so I started like, because I felt so crummy and because I was so isolated in feeling crummy, it really did lead me to, like, using social media to figure out what was going on and figure out how I might be better. So I started taking supplements that, like, Randos are suggesting you take on social media in a kind of a low, dark moment. Then I'm like, wait a minute, maybe it's time for a blood test. I go to a doctor. I get a blood test. The doctor is like, yeah, whatever supplements you're on, stop taking them. They're not, they're like not doing

anything for you and they're actually making your health worse. And so I don't feel good sharing that, but I look back on that and I'm like, yeah, I was at a low moment when I didn't feel like I had a lot of support and I didn't feel like I could really talk about what I was experiencing, but was desperate for a quick fix. And it got me, right? The algorithms are powerful. The algorithms get you. You see somebody on TikTok who looks like they have their shit together who like is presenting a kind of a a life or a version of yourself that you are, that you see something in and you're like, oh, I want that to be me. Next thing you know, you're buying supplements that don't even fucking regulate it. And so I just think that like, nobody should be getting, take it from me,

somebody who had to see a real doctor to straighten that out. Don't get your health or medical advice from some rando on TikTok who might not even have any actual qualifications or also might have an agenda that it's actually harmful to you. These people are scammers. They are grifters. they are making money from your isolation, from your fear, from your concern, from your worry, from your late nights. The most radical thing we can do is break that system that tells us that these people know what we need. I know it is tough. I know that we are silenced. I know that we're not listened to. But like, forking your money over to a grifter is never the answer. And so back to what's happening with these birth control grifters, none of this stuff is happening in a vacuum because

We are already seeing legislation trying to limit access to birth control. These influencers, their messaging, really helps drive this legislation limiting access to hormonal birth control. This is from Amanda Stevenson, a sociologist, demographer, and assistant professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, who is studying how anti-abortion activists and lawmakers are trying to restrict birth control. Already, Republican legislators in Missouri have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to stop the state's Medicaid program from covering IUDs and emergency contraceptives. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit this month upheld a Texas law requiring minors to obtain parental permission before accessing birth control. So all of this is sort of like working together, right? These grifters and influencers using social media to drum up fear about birth control and anxiety about birth control as harmful and then right-wing lawmakers passing legislation to then limit and legislate birth control more harshly. It's a real cluster fuck. So speaking of cluster fucks, Mike, do you ever hear one of those stories that it sounds like was made in a lab to bother you specifically? Yeah, it happens all the time every day.

So this is one of those stories for me. 60 years after her death, we have the invention of digital Maryland, an AI-facilitated Marilyn Monroe, chatbot, I guess, that answers questions in Maryland's style and voice. Here's Digital Maryland in her own words. Hi, darlings. I'm Digital Maryland. Come visit me at Soul Machines. It'll be such fun. I hate it. I hate everything about it. I hate the way she speaks. I hate the whole idea. Hate it. Thumbs down. Zero out of 10. So Digital Maryland was revealed at South by Southwest and is the brainchild of Soul Machines, which is a company that creates what it calls

biological AI-powered digital people and authentic brands group, which is a company that acquired the rights to Marilyn Monroe's intellectual property back in 2018. Soul Machine said in a blog post, it's as if the spark of Maryland herself has been translated into the AI age. Yikes. So how does this work? Well, according to deadline, Digital Maryland can interact in real time using advanced natural language processing, deep learning, and open AIs chat GPT 3.5, which means it is another step forward in extending the ability to monetize celebrities even after their death. So we talked about this a little bit in the episode that we did about the Whitney Houston hologram and her residency in Las Vegas. But Soul Machines is clear that this is another step

forward in terms of celebrities or their like AI likeness being able to connect with consumers on behalf of brands. They say, this collaboration exemplifies the transformative power of AI in connecting brands and consumers. Digital Maryland showcases our biological AI, bringing an iconic personality to life through engaging dialogues and emotional intelligence. It's more than nostalgia. It's a glimpse into the future of immersive interactions.

Bridget, why do you hate this so much? Great question. Well, I think part of the reason why I hate it so much is the same reason why the Whitney Houston Hologram, I hate that so much, is because we're talking about women who spent their entire lives being exploited by men. And I just see that exploitation continuing after their deaths. Like, did you know that Hugh Hefner is buried in the burial plot above Marilyn Monroe? He bought it after she died because, as he said, quote, spending eternity next to Maryland is an opportunity too sweet to pass up.

This was somebody who financially and sexually exploited Marilyn Monroe all the time when she was still alive, totally cut her out of the profits for her own likeness using his money to basically suspend eternity on top of her even in death. And so I hate that. And I just see this AI reimagining of these celebrities as another iteration of that. I hate that they have yet another way to flatten out these iconic people who lived and existed and were dynamic and complicated into these like AI tech-enabled caricatures of themselves. I find it really gross. We've covered this happening on the show before, like that George Carlin AI enabled stand-up impersonation. The family of Robin Williams has also really been clear that they don't appreciate AI imitations of his likeness. I just think, you know, even though in this situation this company, it sounds like, did purchase the intellectual property of Merle Monroe's likeness fair and square. I just think that it grosses me out to think of a celebrity, especially a woman who was exploited for most of her life, having her likeness controlled by a group of tech bros who

unveil it at South by Southwest like a sideshow for all eternity. I just don't like it. And I think in all the different ways that we have seen AI be used, it's not lost on me that some of the first are how can we use it to exploit women? I just don't like it. Yeah, it does feel gross. I guess it's not surprising that that's where it all got started. Yeah, yuck. Yuck is right.

But you know what I don't hate? What's that? Breaking down all of these internet and tech stories with you, Mike, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Bridget. And thanks to all of you for listening. I will see you on the internet. 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 hi? You can reach us at hello at tangoity.com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tangoody.com. There are no girls on the internet was created by me, Bridget Todd. It's a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. Edited by Joey Pat. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer.

Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from IHeartRadio, check out the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert 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 Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Why are we all so obsessed with romance? On the Radio 831 podcast, join us, Sanjana Basker and Tyler McCall, as we unpack all the trending tropes, fuzzy adaptations, book talk drama, and celebrity love stories with hot takes and sharp guests.

Each episode digs into what these stories reveal about, desire, fantasy, identity, and how we love now. Listen to the Radio 831 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. 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.

This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.