There Are No Girls on the Internet - Nancy Mace's Bot Army; Abortion Surveillance Tech; New Tinder Feature; Scumbag Landlord Tech in the Budget Bill – NEWS ROUNDUP w/ Sammy Kanter

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

Bridget recaps the week in tech news with guest co-host Sammy Kanter, founder of newsletter Girl and the Gov ®, Instagram creator, and communications specialist. Can you sue someone for stealing your vibe? https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/influencer-accuses-creator-of-copying-minimalist-grey-aesthetic Software company "RealPage" helps landlords coordinate to keep rents high. We're not fans! But apparently House Republicans are. https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/23/24226885/doj-realpage-antitrust-lawsuit-rent-fixing-software Police are using a database of license plates from software company 'Flock' to conduct warrantless searches across the company, including a Texas sheriff who tracked a woman for having an abortion. https://www.404media.co/license-plate-reader-company-flock-is-building-a-massive-people-lookup-tool-leak-shows/ South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace directed former staffers to create burner social media accounts to defend her online, and commands a bot army from her couch. https://www.wired.com/story/nancy-mace-former-staff-burner-accounts/ Let us know what you think! Email us at [e-mail]   Follow Sammy on social, and book time with her to pick her brain on all things comms and PR!  Newsletters: https://tinyurl.com/mr4ytp5k TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/ycyzrb56 IG: https://tinyurl.com/5c4y9pnf Office Hours Booking Link: https://tinyurl.com/5cabdv4e Additional Consulting Offerings: https://tinyurl.com/mr2j5ejp   Follow Bridget and TANGOTI!  IG: @BridgetMarieInDC   TikTok: @BridgetMarieInDC   YouTube: ThereAreNoGirlsOnTheInternetSee 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 times when the mind becomes a difficult place to live. This is David Eagleman with the Inner Cosmos podcast. and for Mental Health Awareness Month, we'll talk with singer-songwriter Jewel about anxiety. I started living in my car, and then my car got stolen. I was having panic attacks. I was agoraphobic. This is a month of deeply personal and honest conversations

about what happens when the brain goes off course. Listen to Intercosmos on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. There are no girls on the internet as a production of IHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Welcome back to There Are No Girls on the Internet.

And this is another installment of our weekly roundup where we big into the stories that you might have missed on the internet so you don't have to. And I am thrilled to introduce my guest co-host, Sammy Cantor, founder of Girl on theGub, one of my favorite newsletters. Thank you so much for being here, Sammy. Oh my gosh, thank you so much for having me. I am such a fan girl. So apologies in advance because you see me fainting over here to be on the show, beyond. I'm so excited to get into it all. So thank you so much. Oh my God. I'm very excited to have you on. You're one of my favorite Instagram follows. You do something that I think is really tough that I aspire to do where you find a good way of blending all of the fun of social media with also the politics and government stuff that people need to know about. I often feel sort of torn between, well, I want my audience to know about this, like they should know about this. But I don't want to bore them with some like government topic, even though it's very important. I feel that you have really threaded the needle on social media of how you do that.

Honored, first of all. We'll be clipping that and sending that to anyone I ever pitch for funding in The Mirror and Distant Future all at the same time. But yeah, it's an interesting way of looking at politics or trying to really essentially get it in front of new eyes. And we've learned anything from the last number of years is that the old formula isn't working. And what I really, you know, try and do, whether it's on Insta or TikTok or YouTube shorts, for God's sake, is figure out a way that it slips into people's day-to-day, their radars, what they're scrolling through anyways. So if that's an aesthetic outfit video that also happens to have three news stories on it in a way that's explained how we actually speak, then by all means, I'll keep doing it.

Okay, well, the first story I want to talk about, I think kind of fits in your wheelhouse. And that is this story about influencer vibe theft. So the question is sort of, can someone sue you for copying your vibe or aesthetic on social media? Did you hear about this story? I did. And so what was interesting is I heard just sort of the general overview and the People article. And I opened my phone maybe an hour before actually we hopped on here. And the influencer that was suing was giving her feel about like what actually went down. and how she felt like the People article and also any other sources that I covered it were like missing the beef of it. The real, you know, the real core of what the lawsuit was, which I found so interesting and does also show sort of that angle, like how sometimes things can get lost in the social media sauce, aka where's nuance? Miss her.

Nuance is M-I-A. So in her TikTok, she says that this is so much more than her trying to copyright a beige aesthetic and that the media is sort of failing. to tell this story accurately because they're focusing on the most ridiculous parts of her suit, the beige aesthetic part of it, and ignoring the more interesting, meaty aspects of it. I believe her intention was to look so similar to me and copy my post so similarly that she could profit off my business. A lot of articles are claiming I'm suing over a beige aesthetic. I have never claimed to own beige and I'm not suing anyone over a color or a trend. The story the media is telling is missing so many details and the way that they're saying.

spinning it to make it seem like it's all about an aesthetic to create drama is misrepresenting the importance of this case. So the meat of what's happening here is that it's a lawsuit where one influencer is not just saying that somebody else is mimicking her aesthetic, which is this beige, neutral vibe, but going so much further to mimic many aspects about her business as an influencer that she argues is being done intentionally to create brand confusion and siphon from her business as an influencer and content creator. So while you might have heard of this law, suit as, oh, this influencer thinks she owns the color beige. And yeah, that part of it might be kind of funny. The issue is so much deeper than that. It goes to can someone essentially steal

the entire look and feel of someone else's business, even if that business relies on visual aspects or visual aesthetics that may not traditionally be able to be copyrighted as somebody else's intellectual property, you know, the way that somebody wears their hair or a specific tattoo or a specific manicure or a specific pose and photos. So I looked both of these influencers up and it is uncanny. Like, it goes so much further than just a beige look. Here's what meant down. Influencer Cindy Nicole Gifford did a joint photo shoot in 2023 with another influencer named Alyssa Sheal. After this shoot, Gifford's claims that Sheel started copying her sort of minimal beige aesthetic and specific poses in her content. But it's not just about the specific

pose because when she would do that, you know, well-worn influencer pose where you have the phone in front of your face in a mirror, like obscuring your face, the two are essentially identical. Like, it is very difficult to tell one influencer from the other. Like, she's not wrong. It is uncanny. And if you're making money from your look as an influencer and somebody else comes in and starts doing that exact same thing to maybe create a little bit of brand confusion, I get it. Then she'll block her on Instagram and TikTok.

So Gifford sent a cease and desist, and those cease and desists were ignored. So Gifford filed a first of its kind federal lawsuit in 2024, alleging copyright infringement, trade dress, misappropriation, and unfair competition. So like you, Sammy, I don't think of this as like a frivolous lawsuit. Like I was like, oh, this is deeply interesting because as we know, influencers and content creators are a big part of the lifeblood of, like, e-commerce. And so it's like how brands like Amazon become very economically successful. So we're not talking about just like, oh, she stole my look.

What she's arguing about is like a very specific kind of copyright and IP dispute. And so it raised the question of can somebody sue somebody for allegedly like stealing their intellectual property on social media, which again, I just find super interesting. According to the fashion law site, Giffords, who commands over half a million followers across platforms like, Instagram, TikTok, and Amazon storefront, alleges that Sheel systematically replicated her content an online persona to mislead followers and unfairly compete in the influencer marketing space. Central to Gifford's suit were her claims that she'll copied her copyright-protective images mimicked her appearance down to specific physical traits such as a flower tattoo and appropriated the distinctive visual and stylistic elements associated with her brand.

So something I do find interesting about this is I just, I mean, I'm no attorney, but visually when I look at both women's content, there is definitely a lot of aesthetic overlap happening. One of the women just recently had a child and I'm like, oh, well, luckily that is one way to make, I was like, okay, well, that is a distinction because they're so, otherwise they're so similar. And it makes me wonder, like, in the age of Instagram, is, can anybody claim to sort of be unique or distinct when so much of what gets popular on Instagram because of a

algorithms is things that seem like copies of each other, right? Like all of the influencers use the specific pose. They're all, they have a specific manicure, a specific look. If both of these women are sort of shilling for Amazon's Amazon clothing, like it's not surprising that they might have some overlap. But the case actually was essentially dropped with the influencer, the one accused of doing the copying, having to pay nothing. So it seems like that case might have answered that question of like, can you copyright an aesthetic? I'm not. an attorney, but it seems like from this lawsuit, the answer is perhaps no. Yeah, I think it's super interesting. And what the girl that was suing said in her TikTok

was that she had to drop the case because it was getting incredibly expensive. So had she had the funds, like there may have been a continued pursuit, at least on some frame here, which I find interesting in and of itself. And I do think that in the creator's fear, too, money gets in the way, right? We think about how many people would actually sue if they had the money to do so in terms of somebody copying them. We see it with small brands all the time with big brands.

We have, I don't know if you saw this, but there is in the city this vintage brand called Kissing Cowboys. And it's run by also like an influencer. One of those people that's just like at the cross-section of many things. And Brandy Melville allegedly copied her logo. which she went on to say that is not just like a Canva logo or something like that. Her and her sister handmade the logo.

And the brand has copy and pasted the exact logo onto a T-shirt that they have, God knows how many skews of that they're selling in their stores. And so you have a small creator that has a small brand that doesn't have the funds most likely to sue and pursue this. So I think like that also is particularly interesting to me because if creators had more monetary means and same with small brands, where would that really lie? Like, what would the decision process actually look like for that? It just lives me with more questions.

But I do think in this particular case, the thing that gave me the, oh, that's a little creepy. And maybe it's almost like a different angle is seeing the matching tattoos, the blocking, almost the intentionality of it. Because you also go into that other frame, right? If you are an influencer, you expect people to copy you, right? That's part of the job is to push people to do things that you're doing or to lead them to an idea to consider it. So where does that start and where does that end? I think there definitely is some gray area when the person is starting to get exactly the same body art and copying things at the same timetable. Yes.

That's where I'm like, ooh. She alleges that she got, she has a very distinctive flower tattoo on her arm. And she says that this influencer who was copying her got the same distinctive tattoo. Like, first of all, that is commitment to the bit. That is you were really committing to copying this woman. But it is uncanny. And the fact that they're both specifically Amazon influencers, they both do the Amazon storefront, you know, hashtag Amazon finds.

She basically is arguing that she is intentionally trying to confuse what would be their, like, audience market into like associating the two, which I think is like a very good point. So reflecting on this, Professor of Law and Media, faculty director of the Center for Law, Information and Creativity, Alexander Roberts wrote, surprising or not, deeming any of the Giffords claims plausible for creators posting similar content has serious implications. Thanks to the fact that influencer marketing has become increasingly central to commerce and social media content, more broadly, is built on trends and served to users via

algorithms, which are quick to push content related to what users click and or linger on in their feeds. Roberts asserts that intellectual property law has not turned to do. protected the way somebody styles their hair, makes up their face, or decorates their home, whether or not those choices are photographed and shared. And I do think it's sort of, I mean, had this case, had the influencer who was making these allegations been able to have the funds to see this case through, it could have been very different. But had it been, you know, had it gone differently, this could have potentially like set an entire new precedent when it comes to

IP online, which I just find fascinating. Totally, which I do think could be troubling for the larger creator industry because sometimes you don't understand that like you used XYZ sound and it came from this person and they created a trend off of it like what where's the origin it's really hard to trace that origin of a trend uh you know a concept or or whatnot so struggle let's take a quick break another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide not quite unhumor me with robert smigel and friends me and hilarious guys from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk 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. 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. 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, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-844-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 our... 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

is our offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash would get that thing. That man, hell get to fly. He running up the court,

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

Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Deanna Maria Riva, actress, mother, lover, and a Gen X woman walking through life one hot flash and hormonal crying jag at a time. You ladies know what I mean. I'll bet you a paramedipausal chin here you do. So let's talk about it.

Join me on my new podcast. How hard can it be with the Anamanea Riva, where I call on my Gen X squads from Ohio to Hollywood as we navigate midlife's most fantastic BS. All of a sudden I'd had hanginess happening on my own. I was like, what the hell is that? I was married when I had her,

so I didn't even consider. how empty that nest is going to be. Mood swings, night sweats, fupas, sex drive, wait, what sex? Dating at 45, how hard can it be, getting naked at 50 with the new guy? That one's kind of hard, well, that's lighting. They say we can't polish a turd,

but we're sure going to try. So let's get blunt with laughs, tears, or tears of laughter, and dive into it, unfiltered and unbothered and ask, how hard can it be? I cannot believe I'm about to say this out loud in public. Listen to how hard can it be with Diana Maria Riva as part of my culture

Podcast Network available on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back. Okay, so I have to talk about this story with Real Page really quickly. I will say right up, right off the top, it doesn't really fit with the content that we usually do. But Real Page is my personal, like, I think of them as my personal enemy. So any time that I get an opportunity to talk shit about them, I will take it. So indulge me. So on the episode last week, we were talking about this provision.

vision buried in Donald Trump's big, beautiful budget bill that would ban states from enforcing laws on AI for 10 years. Did you hear about this? Oh, yeah. Yeah, state states rights. Oh, what happened to those? Yeah, exactly. Again, like, okay. Exactly. So one of the kind of real world examples of how this might impact people that I talked about when we talked about that bill was how scumbag landlords are able to use technology like Real Page that allow landlords in a whole area to work together, to coordinate to essentially algorithmically determine how much they can raise your rents, right? So the government has called this price fixing, which I happen to agree. So these are scumbags who make scumbag

technology for scumbag landlords. And as a lifelong renter, these people are my biggest ops. Like, I cannot stand this. I think this technology is ruining cities. I hate it. In 2022, a report from Republica linked Real Page to rising rent price. across the United States, alleging that its algorithm allows landlords to coordinate pricing. And the Department of Justice in eight states sued Real Page last year, claiming that it deprives renters, like me, of the benefits of competition on apartment leasing terms. So cities like Minneapolis, Jersey City, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and others have passed laws that are meant to ban the use of this kind of algorithmic, AI-based rent-setting software. And other states have legislation

like this in the works. But if this budget bill passes, that means that states can no longer enforce those kinds of laws, which would be a real win for scumbag landlords and the company that makes this threat raising technology, Real Page. So now senators are basically asking, did Real Page pay to get that provision buried in the budget bill? This week, lawmakers say that they believe Real Page might have spent millions of dollars pushing for this provision in a letter that they sent to Real Page's CEO. Democratic senators Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Booker, and Smith are asking for more information about Real Page's potential involvement. The letter reads, in light of this, we seek information

on Real Page's lobbying efforts and how the Republicans' reconciliation provision would help the bottom line of Real Page and other large corporations, allowing them to take advantage of consumers. So I just have to shout that out. First of all, just the feeling of reading senators doing something that I feel like does have a real impact on the lives of constituents. Like, it's just nice to be like, oh, yeah, governing. Somebody's out there doing it. For sure. No, literally, especially in these chaotic times, it sort of is like, is anyone doing

anything, I think is often how people feel. Sometimes there's the feeling versus the reality. You know, did somebody actually go and go to Gov track and see what bills were introduced, right? There's always sort of like that mixture of things. But I think for me, when I think, about this, I'm excited to see that they're actually looking at a tech piece of something, right? I think that we understandably look at Congress at large and go, oh my gosh, these old dudes that have

no idea how to even open Instagram unless like some assistant helps them, you know, how could they ever understand AI and its possible implications and everything else under that sun? So I think to even see that they're reacting. I mean, I'm not surprised that Elizabeth Warren was reacting given sort of her expertise, but elsewise. And I hope that it continues to expand because, A, I honestly, it freaks me the fuck out. Like, I really, really, like, am not a fan. I know it's integrated into so many things that we do, even the things that we don't

even realize, but I just don't like it. I don't think it's a thing for good. Oftentimes, I really think, especially given the hands that it's coming out of, that it's a thing for bad. and that if we are going to have it, that it needs guardrails. And the fact that this bill would get rid of those guardrails, right? And make it, I mean, if thinking about like how much AI has come into our lives, like, literally the last year and a half, how much it's taken over the conversation. I mean, a year and a half ago, I wouldn't even imagine that we were talking about AI as much as we are.

So think about what that looks like on an accelerated pace for 10 years. Right. And I mean, I think it comes down to like, do people want a world where the, not just the rent in your building, but the rent in your entire city goes up. So the CEO of Real Pages, scumbag, A High price fixing tool can make more money. Is that a better world for you? You and me? Probably not. Definitely a better world for the CEO of this technology company who is making money from it and profiting from it. But yeah, I would just argue like, I can't, I mean, I could talk all day. The fact that this provision would so clearly benefit the owners of this tech company and harm just regular people trying to make rent. You and me, renters, like people who, you know, just regular folks, I think is pretty clear. And so, yeah, I'm with you. I think when you think about the values of the people who make technology like this, I tend to think it's not going to be technology that makes our lives.

better. I think it's really poised to exploit. And certainly this budget bill is not the way to solve any of those potential problems. We look at this budget bill too and how it's going to increase the deficit astronomically over the next 10 years. So you pair that with crashing essentially in a long ways the economy by knocking out the biggest, you know, entry level segment for white collar jobs. What, like, what are we doing? Yeah, it's not good. And I have to say like another story that I was reading this week that kind of speaks to the ways that advancements of technology like AI really are hurting us and particularly the most marginalized among us. This story that this came out from 404 Media, like shout out to them for being on this. We use their reporting on the show all the time because they are experts over there. So the vast network of surveillance that we have in this country like license plate reader surveillance tools, well, all of that is being used. to track people who are suspected of getting abortions.

This is not shocking. Like, it's what abortion advocates and, like, tech privacy advocates have been warning is going to happen. And it's happening. So 404 media found that authorities in Texas performed a nationwide search of over 83,000 automatic license plate reader cameras while looking for a woman that they said had self-administered an abortion, including looking at cameras in states where abortion is legal, such as Illinois and Washington. So this technology, this license plate reader camera technology, is made by a company called Flock.

And it is usually marketed as being able to track and stop carjackings or like find missing people, but it can also be used to surveil people suspected of getting abortion care across state lines. So the Texas sheriff in this case says, oh, we were not trying to surveil her for having gotten an abortion. On May night, an officer from the Johnson County Sheriff's Office in Texas searched flop cameras and gave the reason for why he was searching these cameras as, quote, had an abortion search for female according to multiple sets of data. So whenever officers are searching flock cameras, they're required to provide a reason for doing so. And so they don't need a court order or a warrant, but like that was the reason that he stated that female had an abortion. So he claims that

the only reason he did this is because, oh, the woman's family had contacted us and that they were worried. He says, her family was worried that she was going to bleed to death. And we were trying to find her to get her to a hospital. We weren't trying to block her from leaving the state or whatever to get an abortion. It was absolutely about her safety. So I got my start in abortion advocacy. So it's something I know quite a bit about. I have a lot of questions about this because when you're talking about like a self-managed abortion, typically you're talking about a pill-based abortion, which is incredibly safe. While some bleeding is common, the risk of complications and death is very, very low. And so I'm curious why they would think that this woman was at risk of bleeding

from having what I assume as a pill-based abortion. And even if they were worried about her safety, that doesn't mean she can't be criminalized for it. 404 Media spoke to Elizabeth Ling, senior counsel for if, when, how, a reproductive rights group that runs a reproductive legal rights hotline who pointed out that many of the criminal cases that they have seen of people being criminalized

for trying to get an abortion originate after somebody close to that person reports it to the police. They say that a research report published by the group found that about a quarter of adult cases were reported to law enforcement by acquaintances entrusted with information like friends, parents, or intimate partners. So even if they were like, oh, we were just worried about her,

that is not a situation that would protect her from being criminalized, especially in a state like Texas, where abortion is essentially, in most cases, criminalized already. A thousand percent. And I just, I also just question the way it's presented, right, that the family's first reaction would be to call the cops. for them to help. I can't think of a situation where if I thought somebody was in need of medical care, that my first call would be to the cops. Right. When I know that I'm in Texas, a place where that

call could potentially wind with her behind bars. Totally. Also, like, to give like a slight benefit of the doubt, I do think that there are so many people in this country in every state that have no idea what's going on with abortion laws. This has not crossed their desk. I know it seems like one of those things like, how could it not have? But as we've seen with also other cases too, people are really, really unaware until oftentimes they are in a situation, either miscarrying, trying to get their own care, whatever it may be, that they are realizing, oh, shoot, like this is not what I realized a reality was. So, like, yes, I could understand a family not understanding that they are actually putting their family member in legal jeopardy, but I still just find that being their first call

a little strange, not like the EMTs, you know, or not going after trying to find your relative yourself. It just seems strange. It's not the behavior that I would think most people would have. Perhaps I'm in the minority on that, but I just find it odd. And I find it worrying, too, that this is what we're using this tech for, which is, again, all the worries are back. It's like, if we're going to have certain technology available, we need to be very specific on how we're using that. And there needs to be guidelines, laws, regulations on how that is actually able to be used. The organization Privacy International actually just came out with a new report looking at how much very sensitive data that apps like period trackers are collecting and sharing and how that data

can be potentially dangerous in a landscape where abortion is increasingly criminalized. So the news is kind of mixed in that their report showed that apps have gotten better with their privacy policies, but the landscape has actually gotten worse. And so the bar needs to be higher when it comes to privacy. To your point about this is what we're using, this technology. for. I think that technology and AI makes things that were not uncommon in the abortion fight just much easier to scale. Like back in the day, you know, I was doing abortion advocacy work for a really long time. Back in the day, it used to be that anti-abortion advocates would like stand in parking

lots and manually write down the license place of people who drove into clinics. And then they were incredibly well coordinated. And I can tell you from my personal experience that they essentially it felt like the police were on their side, right? And so like, that was just from my experience. It's like they, they would, they were these people who were like incredibly dedicated to busying themselves of the business of others. And it took a lot of work and coordination and like in real life, you know, coming out to stand outside of clinics and things like that. But now companies like Block are selling the ability to do that at scale, maybe without even having to like leave your home with this technology. And it's an incredibly terrifying.

harbinger of how technology will be used to like further surveil and criminalize both the people who need abortions and the people who help them like people who you know in texas i believe it's even criminalized to like support or help somebody who is looking for an abortion right and so it's just a really scary vision of where we might be heading when it comes to the use of this technology to further criminalize people from getting abortions totally yeah i don't think we're headed in a great spot. And I will be curious to see if any blue states react legislatively on anything like this. I haven't seen anything cross my desk so far. But I'd be curious to see if anything in terms of data sharing, it sort of pops up in the next few months for anyone

that's continuing to be in session or also next year. Me too. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman, help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter.

Who's the worst singer in the group? The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, uh, You only got in because 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 I-Heart Radio app,

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

Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's IHeart Advertising. Advertising.com. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas.

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

don't have Rudy in the lineup, he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall. And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash will get that thing. That man, hell get the flying. He running up the court, licking his fingers why he got the ball. Like, you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah, you figure it out real quick.

Get your ass up and down the court, and you're going to get the ball. So listen to Point Game on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, I'm Deanna Maria Riva, actress, mother, lover, and a Gen X woman walking through life one hot flash and hormonal crying jag at a time. You ladies know what I mean. I'll bet you a perimenopausal chin here you do. So let's talk about it. Join me on my new podcast. How hard can it be with Deanna Maria Riva, where I call on my Gen X squads from Ohio to Hollywood as we navigate midlife's most fantastic BS.

All of a sudden, I'd had hanginess happening. My, I was like, what the hell is that? I was married when I had her, so I didn't even consider how empty that Ness was going to be. Mood swings, night sweats, fupas, sex drive. Wait, what sex? Dating at 45. How high can it be getting naked at 50 with the new guy? That one's kind of hard.

Well, that's lighting. They say we can't polish a turd, but we're sure going to try. So let's get blunt with laughs, tears or tears of laughter, and dive into it, unfiltered and unbothered and ask, How hard can it be? I cannot believe I'm about to say this out loud in public. Listen to How Hard Can It Be with Diana Maria Riva as part of my Cultura Podcast Network available on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get right back into it.

So I want to switch gears a little bit. So I am not, I don't use dating apps and not on the market. However, I'm so fascinated by them. But when they make changes to, like, entice users, like I'm always like very curious. is what those changes are. Well, Tinder is testing letting user set a height preference. So Tinder is testing out this feature that lets paid subscribers add height preferences to their profile. So it will not be a hard filter. Rather, the setting will indicate a preference. And that means it won't actually block or exclude profiles with that height preference. But that height

preference if they add it will inform what kind of recommendations you see when swiping. So this is one of the ways that we already know that dating apps inform people's preference. as TechCrunch puts it. It is not uncommon to come across profiles where women state they're only looking for matches who are at least six feet tall, for instance, even if in real life they would be more flexible about this requirement. So I will say we've talked a bit about this on the podcast before. It's not just about height. Like we did an episode with sociologists and author of the book, Not My Type, Automating Sexual Racism and Online Dating, Dr. April Williams. And she's an entire body of research about this when it comes to race. She found in her research that dating apps oftentimes are not just like reflecting our biases, but they're actually reinforcing our biases. And it makes me wonder if dating apps are also doing this thing, the same thing with height. And I actually did want to, I don't want to put anybody on the spot here, but I think we have a short, I mean, you, you, I don't want to put words in your mouth. How, how do you, Mike, producer, Mike, how do you identify? How do you identify? I don't know, I'm a shorter guy. I'm a shorter guy. I'm a

shorter guy. I am five, six and change. I will own that. It's who I am. And, you know, a few years ago, I was on the dating apps, and yeah, there were a lot of women who had put in their profiles, you know, only men six feet or above,

or whatever their arbitrary threshold was. And that's fine. Like, I do have zero interest in dating a woman who would put that in her dating profile. I wish her luck. I think there's a lot of women out there who probably would prefer taller guy, but maybe they're open to a shorter guy.

Great. That's, you know, a more appropriate woman for me. So that's fine. I don't know. I feel like there's already a bit of an auto filter. I would put my height in my profile just to like skip that whole song and dance. So I don't know that this is going to be like the magic bullet that saves Tinder. but, you know, let them try.

Yeah. I don't think so because also for Hinge, you automatically have your height on there. Right. So you can pay to filter that, I believe. I mean, you're not going to find me paying for a dating app. Like, that is ridiculous, in my opinion. Sorry. Just like, I can't.

But it is already a thing. So I don't know how they're so late to this feature. Like I just, I feel like it's like we're going back to, I don't know, 2015. Like, where have you been? In terms of Tinder. So this is what I think too. And this is what I found like almost a little offensive about the story. In the tech crunch piece on this, they say,

the company may hope if the addition of a height setting could encourage more women to use and pay for the app, which tends to be heavily dominated by men in both the U.S. and internationally. So this to me, I think really says it all. It seems to suggest that what women really want is the ability to weed people out by height. And that's what women are willing to pay for. When in reality, I think the reason why dating apps are in trouble and that like women don't want to use them is because they're not serving up women or really anybody good experiences. And they're not serving up good experiences for anybody, men either. And so the people designing these apps, like if that's what they think will meaningfully woo women into paying for Tinder premium, I think that perhaps that,

That gives us insight into like why women are not paying for Tinder premium or abusing these apps at all. Because I just don't think that they really are functionally understanding what it is that women want or like how to give women dating experiences that don't feel so bad. Also, I have to say, Mike, when we were talking about this before we got on the mic, you were like, oh, well, we have data that suggests that men are just lying about their heights on dating profiles. Right. It wouldn't even work. Oh, it's true. You're both women. And so I'm curious if you've ever experienced this phenomenon of a man lying.

Oh, first of all, that, right? Like, just cut and clip. But second to that, I mean, you know, like, when you go on Pinge, for example, and the guy says 510 that he's 5'8, you have to subtract two inches from any height. Sammy, it is so funny that you say this because according to OKCupid, who published this data, they say that that is exactly the amount that men are adding. So they're they're suspiciously adding two inches taller to their height. So when a man says 5-8, you got to take two off of that because that's the lie.

And what I feel like is like, okay, one inch, I'll give you that. Two, that's a little much. They think that they can get away with it if they're wearing a hat. They're like, oh, like, see, it's like that high. Like, that's the extra extra inch there. He shows up in platform boots and a stow top hat. What is it? What is the Abraham Lincoln hats?

Yeah, like a top hat. Yeah. And then he just has to wear that for the rest of the relationship. Like he wears it to bed. He wears it to work. Honestly, at least he'd have a sense of humor. You'd be like, wow. Bringing something to the table.

Live S&L. You know? Yeah, as a tall woman, so I'm 5.11 and a half. In any kind of shoe, I'm six feet. when I, the short period that I was on dating apps, I did put my height in my profile because I, I mean, I, I, I mean, maybe I'm biased. I feel like the sort of, you know, height wars stuff is like a little overblown. And I never found anybody who had an issue with my height. But Mike, similar to you, I didn't want to be on a date with somebody who would like not want to be with someone who was six feet tall. But again, I do think it like, it just suggests to me that dating, the people who make dating apps are just not. really thinking too hard or thoughtfully about the kinds of experiences they're trying to curate for people. And I think that that is the root of the problem as to why they're in trouble. These little gimmicks about height or whatever, not only, as you said, are they like out of

out of 2015 or something? They're very late. But I just don't think they're what is going to save these platforms. I think they need to really be thinking about like how to improve experiences in a more meaningful way. Totally. And I think there's this idea out there. I don't know if this is technologically accurate or not. But people feel like they're being served matches that aren't accurate to them or just absolutely trash. So, and then if they pay for the better, you know, the upgraded premium version, whatever it's called, but then they're going to be provided better matches. And so that paywall to better matches is also making people being like this isn't worth it because then if you do pay, it isn't necessarily better. And it's a whole other, like,

level of gatekeeping. Like, no one's getting anything more necessarily from it. We're just creating more barriers when I think people in the dating sphere already feel like there's tons of barriers to meeting anyone. So I think there's that element. And I also think even too, I mean, like, to your point about these people that are making these apps, like maybe they should look at the prompts available. Some of them are like, if you were, doing orientation freshman year at college and you're all looking around the room like this cannot be real this is so cringe that's what these are so I just I think per use the people in charge of the tech are not asking the right questions and they don't know their audience they think they

know their audience they think that a subset of data has told them oh this is who our audience is but they clearly haven't spoken with those people because I think and that's seems to be a missing link across the whole space, whether it's tech, whether it's the consumer space, whether it's politics. I feel as though people just aren't having conversations with their actual target market. Yeah. Because if they did, the feedback would be so much different. Because I'm having those conversations and I could give you like 15 different, you know, points that are so different from what they are sharing in their big reports. Yeah. And I think you really nailed it. Like we are so much more complex than like a set of data that a tech company.

has on us. And I think that they are trying to make decisions about platform experiences based on narrowing us down into a very specific set of data that they have on us. Like, I think that's exactly right. Totally. Because like even think about someone's past like dating experience that wouldn't be a part of that data necessarily. Say they had their, they were dating their high school sweetheart for 10 years and they were a short king and then they had a terrible breakup, right? And then this was their first entree onto the dating apps. And so they don't want to do anything with any short kings.

They're over it. So therefore, it's going to inform their height preferences, which obviously the dating app wouldn't know because this is their first time on the app and swiping. And they're only going to think of it as, oh, this person's a snob about tall versus short, not understanding their past personal, interpersonal relationships, right?

So, like, there's so many of those things that aren't captured that, again, we're just, They're just missing it. They're just missing it. That's a good way to put it. Okay. So I have to ask you about this Nancy Mace report from Wired. It is a lot. I mean, South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace is a lot herself. Like there's all, I mean, she's just a lot. There's a lot going on with her. So according to Wired, who spoke to a bunch of her former staffers, Nancy Mays would frequently monitor her image on social media, even going so far as to create bots to comment across social media in support of her

and in this attempt to boost her image. And she allegedly also asked her staff to create fake profiles on social media in order to keep an eye on the discourse about her and generally boost her image online. According to one of her former staffers, they told Wired, we had to make multiple accounts, burner accounts, and go and reply to comments, saying things that were not true, even on Reddit forums. We were congressional staff, and there were actual things we could have been doing to help our constituents. I would say that it was at least a weekly comment, if not daily.

People magazine called her staff or her office today for comment, and they kind of like made a little joke. They were like, oh, well, apparently we're too busy creating bots and making comments to answer your query. But this is just my opinion. I absolutely could see her doing this. Like, I absolutely see it. I have no trouble believing this about her. None. Oh, none.

And also her past staff clearly hates her. Oh, my God. Yes. Within an inch of her life. Like, absolutely hates her guts because, obviously, it's a hell of the story. But it doesn't, it just doesn't help anyone. So you really have to be quite bitter to get yourself in a mess like this, talking about your old boss. So that was the first thing that pops up.

Second to that, I really doubt. that she is the only member of Congress doing this. Like, I don't know anyone personally doing this. Let me just go on record saying that. But it's, and also second to that, I do wonder if it comes into violation of campaign finance laws. That's a really good question. Very good question.

Yeah, I bet she's not the only person doing this, but something tells me, like, I feel like if you're going to do this and get your staff mixed up to them, better be treating that staff pretty good. And the fact that your staff is this leaky and that they're like running to wire to be like, she makes us do this. I think you're right. It really says something about the dynamic on her staff. And the report actually quoted a deposition from Wesley Donahue, a South Carolina-based campaign consultant who previously worked closely with basis campaigns.

Donahue told a court, quote, she programs her own bots, sets up Twitter burner accounts. This is the kind of thing she does. She sits all night on the couch and programs bots because she's very, very computer savvy. She controls her own voter database. She programs a lot of her own website. She programs Facebook bots and Instagram bots and Twitter bots. It's what she does for fun. And let me tell you, what a, like, grim projection of what an evening at Nancy Mace's house must look like.

Like, her just on the couch, having a great time controlling her bot army. Like, pretty grim. No, for sure. I mean, holy narcissism. And it's so wild to think that when Nancy Mace first came on the scene, many, many, many years ago, was because she was the first woman trying to get into the Citadel. Like, she has had a very long kind of life in public. And yeah, it just seems like something's going on.

And subsequently, I have no trouble believing this report from Wired. I guess I'll just put it that way. Totally. And again, I would a thousand percent guarantee she is not the only one doing it. Maybe at the obsessive capacity in which she is clearly doing it, aka the night at Nancy Mesa's, right? But, I mean, if you say, spend as we both do, you know, being chronically online people, you start to understand what is a bot,

what is a bot, what their sort of characteristics are and how they pop up. Occasionally I bully one, to be honest, a nice little bot and bully just to see them prove themselves as a bot can be a little fun. Asking them insane questions and sort of seeing what they spin out, it is satisfying. But I think just seeing sort of, you know, knowing that that is the way of the world, that there's so many bots. I mean, there are also so many people paying for these bots and creating them on both sides of the aisle. So and beyond that, beyond our borders. So yeah, we're in a war of clips and we're in a war of bots.

But I think the more that people know the media landscape, like that is the reality that we are in to be aware when you go to a comment section, that what you are seeing might not be reality, right? That comment on TikTok that has 50,000 likes from user 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Like, but that particular comment is trying to curate a reaction. And it's also being utilized to curate more, you know, not just reactions in terms of the likes to it, but the comments. And then the video is off of, can you believe this comment section? So I think at least if we're in a position where people understand

what they're actually intaking and what risks there are to seeing a comment section. I think we're at least a little bit better of a spot, but hey, that's another area where I say, hey, where's the regulation on this bot situation? Because it's crazy. And people really believe what they read no matter what. So, and even it doesn't matter how smart the person is. Like, I think we're all guilty of it, too, being like, wait, oh, my God, all the vibe shock on this comment section, people are really feeling XYZ way.

And, right, it's just how you feel about something. And we, as people, I think oftentimes want to see the best in what we're taking in and the best of intentions, but oftentimes that's not the case. So, Sammy, you are somebody who has a ton of experience with this. This is very much in your wheelhouse. You've had 10 years in media, PR, or comms, politics. And, you know, we were talking earlier about how people are always just sort of wanting to pick your brain and get advice about how these things share.

so much of our discourse. So you were telling me about this new thing that you're doing called office hours. Yeah. So office hours really borne out of getting loads and loads of questions as to how on earth to deal with this new media sphere, right? From podcasting, which we're doing right now, to social, to newsletters, to everything else in between, how to actually activate in this space. And basically office hours, you can book it for an hour, you can book it for a half hour, you get to pick my brain on strategy development across the board. It can really be anything across that larger calm space, again, whether it's marketing, PR strategies, social, understanding what you're seeing online, how to actually develop a strategy, how to react, what works, what doesn't, everything in

that bucket and more. You're able to book an office hour and chat with me about it and we can figure out bust path forward for what you're working on. And I do this on the political end of things, but I also do it in the consumer space too. So everybody's welcome at office hours and you can book a time with the old link in bio situation. It's always a classic. So we'll put the link for folks to join in the bio, but it is really important. Like I used to do like disinfo trainings and media trainings. And I think especially right now when as you said, the media landscape is shifting so quickly that it can be really hard for folks to get a handle on it. Like it's hard for me sometimes. And so I think that's a valuable service that you're offering. And I actually know somebody who I think could probably

be like take good use of this. And that is the last story that I want to want to talk about, which is that readers who read fantasy author Lena McDonald's book called Dark Hollow Academy Year 2 noticed an interesting editing note embedded into chapter 3 that suggested that she might have used AI to write this book. The note said like sandwiched in between the regular dialogue of the book, there was a note that said, I've rewritten the passage to align more with Jay Bree's style, which features more tension, gritty undertones, and raw emotional subtext beneath the supernatural elements. So, not only was this author using AI, allegedly, she did not delete the AI note that made an end to her published book, and she was using AI to make her writing sound more like

another person's writing. What I told you, I would simply have to die. Like, I don't know if there would be any coming back from this. Like, I would be so embarrassed. I would pack it up. No, literally, like, you'd never see me again. I'd be off on some island with no Wi-Fi and just maybe a nice little canoe. Like, that would be truly all.

And it reminds me of, I'm blanking on her name, but she's a cookbook author. And this wasn't her fault at all. The editor unfortunately missed it. But there, I guess, for an image of her, was a note left in the book. the book to like tone her arms more. Ah! It was just... And all the copies went out, like, just horrendous.

I think it was, I don't think it was her first book at me. But, and again, it wasn't her. It was, you know, sort of the editor, which I still feel badly for it, because obviously that was not their intent. But yikes. Yikes. Yikes. And it makes me just think about how one of the areas of expertise that we really really have let lead out are out of us, right? People that catch these things, that do the

due diligence, that go back through things. We look at technology and we go, oh, it's going to, it's got us, it's fine. I can't tell you how many times I've controlled F on a spreadsheet and it's missed something. Okay? So I just think that the personal touch, the human to human, does get some of the things that are missed. And that is just so, wild and uncomfortable. And I just, yeah, I don't know what one does. I mean, I could probably think of a PR way out of that one. I had, I admit. But yikes, that's a long road. That's definitely not a quick fix. I'll tell you that much. Yeah, Lena, reach out to Sammy for some, for some for some crisis comms. But also, it's just a good reminder that, like, there are so many

reasons why people should be careful about the way they use AI, but you can, in their creative work, you know, so many reasons why you should be a, if you're going to use AI, you need to like really be careful. But the biggest one now is like you could be horribly embarrassed all across the internet when your AI note is published in your fucking book. My God. So bad. So bad. I just hope that if she does decide to write another book, that AI as just in its existence, right, is integrated into the storyline. mine. Oh, that would be good. Yeah. That would be like a way to partially solve it. You're like, actually, it was an Easter egg. You guys caught it. Again, I'd have to read the book to

really think if that was a good strategy or not. But, you know, there's something. This is why you're the PR master, Sammy. That was actually quite masterful. Thank you. Thank you. Sammy, thank you so much for being here and helping us break down all of these stories across the internet. where can folks keep up with all the things that you are doing across the internet? Well, thank you so much for having me. This has been so much fun. You can all tap in at grow-on-the-gov.com. You can find the newsletters there.

And then for social, Girl on theGub and Girl on the Gov, the podcast. Check it out. It is a very useful newsletter. The podcast is great. You all talk to, like, legitimately important people, like elected officials and, like, have genuinely important conversations that are impactful for everyday lives. So I really, really respect what y'all are doing. Thank you. Yeah, it's been crazy. Sometimes I forget that we've interviewed some of these movers and shakers myself in this, you know, just that way that your career sometimes moves. You're like, oh, yeah, I can't believe I did XYZ thing, but we've done it. And there's definitely some interesting conversations on the podcast feed and then also on the social. We've been mini-miking it up, okay? Those mini mics are living 10 lives. I'll tell you that much.

Giving them a workout. Well, thank you so much for being here. And if folks want to follow me, you can follow me on Instagram at Bridgett Marie in D.C., on TikTok at Bridgett Marie in D.C. And on YouTube at There Are No Girls on the Internet. Thank you so much for listening. We will see you on the Internet. If you're looking for ways to support the show, check out our merch store at tangooty.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 tangooti.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 IHartRadio, check out the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, 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. 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 crying. You just understood. That's how personal it got. Wow. Then after that game seven, Marquis come into 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 times when the mind becomes a difficult place to live. This is David Eagleman with the Inner Cosmos podcast, and for Mental Health Awareness Month, we'll talk with singer-songwriter Jewel about anxiety. I started living in my car, and then my car got stolen. I was having panic attacks. I was agoraphobic. This is a month of deeply personal and honest conversations about what happens

when the brain goes off course. Listen to Inner Cosmos on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Sanchi Plummer from Fud Around and Find Out. This week, AZ Fudd and I sat down with Step and Curry. Step talks pressure, confidence, and what it really takes to stay great. There's different categories, I guess, so on like conditioning, shooting drills where you try to simulate kind of games. Look at her face.

We have a love-hate relationship with those because you know you're getting something out of it. You don't look forward to those days. Listen to Fud around and find out on the IHart Radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHart podcast. Guaranteed Human