There Are No Girls on the Internet - Self-driving car company hid crash video; Gender discrimination at Google; Bipartisan agreement that Facebook is bad; What Gen-Z wants from media; Wage slavery is not your friend – NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Date: October 27, 2023

Calif. DMV says Cruise hid video of SF crash, suspends driverless car firm's permits: https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/cruise-driverless-permits-suspended-dmv-18445296.php Meta and kids lawsuit from 41 state Attorneys General: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/24/meta-lawsuit-facebook-instagram-children-mental-health/?utm_source=reddit.com Don’t be misogynistic! Gender pay and promotion discrimination at Google: Google owes executive $1 million after losing gender bias lawsuit  Our episode with Ifeoma Ozoma: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pay-us-what-you-owe-why-black-women-in-tech-are-tired/id1520715907?i=1000509470950 Read more about Ifeoma’s Silenced No More Act: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/24/technology/pinterest-whistle-blower-ifeoma-ozoma.html UCLA report on young people and what they want to see in the media. Spoiler: it isn’t drugs or toxic relationships: https://www.scholarsandstorytellers.com/css-teens-and-screens-2023-report  Employees are so sick of the five-day workweek that most would take a pay cut to make a four-day week happen: https://fortune.com/2023/10/20/uk-workers-four-day-week-pay-cut-work-less/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than adds supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHeart's twice as large as the next two combined.

Learn how podcasting can help your business. Call 844-844-I-Hart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano. It's our favorite time of the year on our podcast point game, the playoffs. We're digging into the biggest surprises of the season. And I'm looking back on some of my greatest playoff moments. If we didn't talk ever again, I was honed.

You just understood. That's how personal it got. Wow. Then after that game seven, Marquis keep coming to him. He's like, you know I love you, dog. You know, it's all love. This was just playoffs. This was just basketball.

So listen to Point Game on the Iheart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. There Are No Girls on the Internet. There Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Mike, welcome back to the show. Thanks for being here. Hey, thanks for having me. It's been a couple weeks. Nice to see you again. Nice to see you too. And here's a couple of stories that y'all might have missed on the internet this week. So we've talked about the nightmare that is autonomous driverless cars being tested on public roads.

When I first heard about this, I was like, oh, there's no way that they're just testing autonomous driverless cars on the street while regular people are just like walking around going about their business. But it turns out that was exactly what was going on. Ordinary people like you and me are serving as unpaid crash test dummies for driverless technology by companies like Cruise on public roads. But that is maybe changing after a pretty bombshell situation over in San Francisco. SFGate reports the California Department of Motor Vehicles has suspended Cruz's permits to deploy driverless vehicles as commercial taxis in the state or run any tests on public streets without backup. up drivers behind the wheel. So this suspension all stems from a pretty bad crash that happened in San Francisco on October 2nd that left a pedestrian severely injured. In that crash, an unrelated car struck a pedestrian knocking them into the path of a driverless cruise car. The autonomous vehicle

braked hard, but still collided with and ran over the pedestrian before coming to a complete stop. Cruise representatives then met with officials from both the DMV and the California Highway Patrol, and during that meeting, cruise employees played footage from the car's onboard cameras, which ended once the car came to a stop. So it looks like, oh, okay, well, the cruise stopped like it should have, end of story. However, as SFGate reports, DMV officials say that they later learned that there was more to the story and requested additional footage from cruise, which the company sent 10 days after the initial meeting. The extended footage showed that after the initial stop, the car then resumed driving and attempted a

quote, pullover maneuver, traveling about 20 feet while the pedestrian was still caught under the vehicle. So basically, it kind of sounds like Cruz was trying to hide the most damning part of what happened from California regulators. That's terrifying. If there's one thing scarier than getting hit by an autonomous car, it's being dragged around underneath an autonomous car. And then having the company that makes the autonomous car basically lie about it. Cruz failed to disclose that the AV executed a pullover maneuver that increased the risk of and may have caused further injury to the pedestrian, the DMB wrote in a report. Cruise's omission hinders the ability of the apartment to effectively and timely evaluate the safe operation of Cruz's vehicles and puts the safety of the public at risk. Now, this is a really awful story, and there is a lot I could say about it, right?

I think it highlights how dangerous it is to have the public basically serving as unpaid and unwitting crash test dummies for technology that isn't safe anytime they leave their homes. I also think that cities that allow these cars to be tested in the first place on public streets are really putting corporate interests and business interests above public safety, which should be number one. And on top of that, never mind the fact that Cruz employees, I guess, felt fine lying to public. safety officials to try to keep their dangerous cars, cars that they knew were dangerous, on the road with the public. So yes to all of that. But I really want to take this moment to really applaud S.F. Gate. They have really been on this story and staying on this story since day one. And, you know, I don't think we would know any of this information. I don't think the public would know any of this, if not for them. It really shows the importance of having robust local

journalism who is going to get a story and stay on a story and how important that is for public safety because we as the public deserve to know this information. If you're walking around in San Francisco, you deserve to know how these driverless cars are being deployed and whether or not they're safe because you can encounter them and you could be hit like this pedestrian was. And so I really think of all the different angles of this story, the one that to me, I just really want to double-click on is just the importance of having robust local journalism. At a time when local journalism is being decimated all over the country, it's local outlets and local papers and local journalists who are going to stay on the stories that really impact all of our day-to-day lives locally. So thank you to

the journalists who stayed on this story to help better inform the public about a public safety risk they're all facing. Let's move on to Google. A jury just found Google guilty of sexual discrimination and awarded a female Google Cloud executive named ULka Rowe, who filed a complaint $1.1 million. Roe said that Google gave higher pay to less experienced male cohorts and that it later denied her promotions in retaliation for her complaints. So it sounds like Roe was passed over for a promotion device president. And after she did not get that job, it was given to a man who neither applied nor was qualified, which like, the tail is old as time, am I right?

Yeah, that would be pretty frustrating. So after she filed the lawsuit, the company again denied her another similar promotion. Another point of contention is how Google and many other tech companies deal with their level system. Roe says that she was initially brought in at a lower level than she should have been when she was hired. She came to the job with 23 years of experience in the financial services and tech sector, but she was hired as a level 8 employee, while other men who were hired at the same time as her and allegedly had less experience were hired at a level 9. As a level eight employee, Roe made about $750,000 a year, while some of the level nine employees made over $1 million a year.

Now, this level system is something we hear a lot about in tech hiring. It's the same kind of thing that whistleblower, Ifoma, Usoma, talked about experiencing at Pinterest when she was on the podcast. Depending on what level you're initially hired in at, you're kind of locked into that salary. And it's sort of like, you're making, if they bring you at the wrong level, you're sort of making less from the get-go. Yeah, that makes sense. I think that's something that a lot of people can probably relate to. And, you know, I've got two reactions to that. One, God, I hate the whole, like, level system and how, like, rigid it is.

And two, people at Google are making, like, $750,000 a year. Like, am I the only one who is just learning this? Like, that's a lot of money. Yeah, people at Google make. bank, I think. Yeah. I mean, I guess I knew that, but I had not looked at a number. It sounds like you might be rethinking your life to science and, like, public health and like research. Maybe you're in the wrong field. I guess I'm still into it, but, you know, this is some new knowledge. I'm just going to like sit with this for a minute. If you work

at Google, it can be totally anonymous. Drop us a note and let us know. Like, what's the salary vibe like over there? Inquiring minds want to know. If we were like hypothetically coming off of a podcast, what kind of level would we be coming on at? We should start rolling out levels for the contributors of this podcast. Like, I'm obviously a level 10. Or is it like out of 100?

I don't know the levels. I mean, 100 feels like way too many. I think the federal government has like 15. or 16 or something. I should know that I live in D.C. That feels like a reasonable number of levels. Okay, so back to Google. The jury found that while Google did treat Roe differently than other employees because of her gender,

she was unable to prove that the company violated New York law by paying her less than two of her male counterparts. Google, I have to say, like, it brings me no pleasure to say this, but it's just the truth, does have a history around gender bias complaints. And this lawsuit that Roe filed was the first lawsuit after Google staff walked out to protest have a company handled sexual misconduct claims by a male senior staffer, which basically involved like giving this guy who had been accused of sexual mistreatment and harassment, a golden parachute for being a creep.

Roe's attorney, Kara Green, credited, quote, the efforts of thousands of Googlers who walked out in 2018 and demanded reforms. Over 20,000 Google employees and contractors staged. a walkout protest that year after a New York Times investigation revealed that the company had given Android co-founder $90 million as he left the company over sexual assault allegations. So it really just seems like the vibe at Google that the staffers were protesting was that if you were accused of misconduct, if you were a creep, if you were somebody who was a sex pest at the job, you might be given a golden parachute.

and a big fat check to go away. It really highlights something that I think gets missed in conversations like this, which is that keeping abusers around, hiring abusers, promoting abusers, like empowering abusers is not just wrong because it's wrong and like you shouldn't be empowering creeps in your organization, but it costs money, $90 million payout to somebody who was a creep. That is a lot of money.

And so for all of the reasons why organizations, especially organizations as powerful as Google, as Google, but all organizations should not be in the business of, you know, coddling and empowering creeps and abusers. It also is very expensive. It is a bad business decision to continue to empower people like this. Folks should really listen to the episode that we did with the FOMA Usoma that I mentioned earlier. After filing a discrimination suit against her former employee, Pinterest, Ufoma went on to draft legislation that invalidates NDAs if somebody is facing racial mistreatment. previously, NDAs could be made invalid if somebody was facing gender-based harassment or

mistreatment, but not if the mistreatment was racial in nature. After facing both racial and gender-based harassment at Pinterest, Othoma's Silence No More legislation changed all of that. But back to Google, I really just think that, like, they are a company that likes to talk a big game around inclusion and diversity and gender equity. Like, I, they have definitely had efforts there that I would applaud. So like, I can't speak to like how sincere or not those efforts are. But it really does sound like the vibe there is that people from traditionally marginalized backgrounds can work at Google. Like they can be there, but don't take up too much space, right? Like, don't demand your worth. Don't demand pay equity. You can be here. But like, we don't really

want you to be here. That seems to be the vibe I'm getting from what folks are saying. Wow, what a terrible vibe at a tech company. Yeah, it's like that line. I can't remember where I heard it, but diversity is being invited to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy,

not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman, help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and headwriter Streeter Seidel help an a cappella band with their between songs

banter. There's the worst singer in the group. The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard birds, right? That's the name.

The Harvard Yard. But they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle aged. One erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smygel and Friends on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny.

Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your. message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-4-8-4-i-heart to get started. That's 844-Eyheart. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano, and our podcast Point Game is about defying the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without

Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows. Without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game. We get a player's perspective on the challenges of the playoffs. I think Joker's going to be exhausted this series because when they don't have Rudy in the lineup, he has to really guard guys like Nas Reid. He has to guard Julius Randall.

And then he has to give us everything he gives us on the night-to-night basis on offense. And when IT's friends stop by, like Quentin Richardson, we dive into some playoff history too. Steve Nash will get that thing. That man, hell get the flying. He running up the court, licking his fingers, why he got the ball. Like, after you go through a training camp with that, 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.

And we're back. So if you listen to this podcast, you already know that social media platforms have such a tight grip on all of our lives. And this week, Facebook got the biggest legal challenge to the toxic grip the platform holds on young people. 41 different states and Washington, D.C., all took Facebook to court this week, alleging that Facebook harms children by building addictive features into Instagram and Facebook. Y'all might recall, whistleblower Francis Hogan's 2021 report in the Wall Street Journal all about how Facebook knowingly harmed the mental health of young people, especially teen girls.

So this lawsuit really stems from some of the charges that we found out from that report. The Washington Post reports, a 233-page federal complaint alleges that Facebook engaged in a scheme to exploit young users for profit by misleading them about safety features and the prevalence of harmful content, harvesting their data, and violating federal laws on children's privacy. State officials claim that the company knowingly deployed changes to keep children on the site to the detriment of their well-being, violating consumer protection laws. States say that Facebook designed psychologically manipulative product features to induce young users compulsive and extended use. The company's algorithms were designed to push kids and teenagers

into rabbit holes of toxic and harmful content with features like infinite scroll and persistent alerts to hook young users. The attorneys general also charged Facebook with violating a federal children's online privacy law, accusing it of unlawfully collecting the personal data of its youngest users without their parents' permission. If there's one thing that folks might know about American government and politics and democracy is that it doesn't always work so well. There's, you know, I think we've seen a lot of examples of that pretty recently of how the works can kind of get gumbed up. So it is kind of a rare thing when both Republicans and Democrats come together to stick it to anybody. And that is what's happening with Facebook. It is a rare instance of bipartisanship.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is co-leading the federal suit, said at a news conference, at a time when our nation is not seeing the level of bipartisan problem-solving collaboration that we need, you can see it here among this group of attorneys general. He actually compared Facebook to Big Tobacco, saying, just like Big Tobacco and the vaping companies have done in years past, META chose to maximize its profits at the expense of public health, specifically harming the health of the youngest among us. as somebody who kind of works in the tobacco cessation space, what do you think about that comparison?

I think it's a good comparison. I think it's an apt one. Yeah, I think there's a long history of attorneys general from the states getting together and actually taking action through courts when Congress and the federal government has failed. And I think the comparison of Facebook to big tobacco is a good one. I think it's absolutely spot on that they have mined the health and well-being of young people for their own private profits and sort of exported all the harms onto the rest of us. Whether those harms come in the form of increased medical bills that states have to, pick up for their populace or all the societal harms that are done when we have a generation of young people who are suffering from all the mental health challenges, I guess, that social media has created in them over the past 10 years. So I think it's a good comparison. Well, you know, who doesn't think it's a good comparison? Facebook, you might be wondering, what does Facebook's

response to all this been? Well, not a very good one, if you ask me. Facebook spokesperson Lisa Crenshaw said in a statement that the company is, quote, disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear age-appropriate standards for the many apps teams use, the attorneys general have chosen this past. Well, oh, we're so disappointed. We can't hurt kids for profit anymore. Can't a company get rich off of hurting kids anymore? Is this even America? Yeah, it's so funny to hear them complain about wanting, like, the government to create standards across the many apps that teens use. And, like, you know, there's, like, two,

maybe three, right? Like, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, like, these are the apps kids are using, right? Like, maybe there's a couple more. But the idea that the government should be, like, the end-all, be-all to create standards. and regulations, this same spokesperson, I'm sure, turned around the very next day and talked about all the reasons why the government should not be creating regulation and standards of private industry. Oh, it's complete BS. Like, if you were to take that statement at face value, you'd be like, okay, great.

So then you agree the government needs to be regulating the F out of your harmful product, as you've just said. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You're trying to hurt small businesses? Think about the small social media farmers out there and there's small plots of land, you know, just trying to tend to the family farm, raise an engagement. You know, back to the big tobacco comparison for a second. Having grown up in Virginia, I, they truly like had us thinking that Philip Morris, which was the biggest tobacco company in Virginia when I lived there, they probably probably still are. What am I saying?

They changed their name to Altria. Also, isn't that funny, that comparison? Remember when Francis Howgan blew the whistle on Facebook? And they were like, Facebook, who? We don't know her. It's a meta now. Like, talk about that. Talk about taking a page from Big Tobacco's Playbook.

But they truly had us Virginians out there believing that like the majority of people producing tobacco for Philip Morris, this like massive corporation, were like Ma and Pa Farmer, Ma and Pa Virginia farmer. Sure. And you got to have a big. family so the kids can help roll the cigarettes and then bring them down to the community store and the horse-drawn carriage. Yeah, it's complete nonsense. It's like a global franchise. Keeping in mind with that comparison, you would always hear tobacco companies

talking about things like, oh, we're making a safer cigarette or like, oh, we want there to be regulation. Like, we're really trying to keep our products away from kids, yada, yada, yada, talking such a big game. I feel like it's one of those things where it's like, if you really cared about safety, you would shut down. And I feel the same thing about Facebook. There are plenty of tech platforms that are responsible for plenty of harm. But there are platforms out there that they're like harmful, but they also do something that is a value. Like Google is a company that definitely spreads harm. But like, they're the world's biggest search engine. You could say like, okay, it's providing value.

I would actually argue that at this point, I think Facebook is such a bad actor that I think that like, it is like the opposite of a do-goorery factory, a do-battery factory. Like, they're just like a marketplace for evil and doing bad things. Yeah, they're bad news. I mean, they've just demonstrated over and over again that they're going to choose profits every time over the health of young people,

the health of entire populations. Yeah, they've been very clear with us. And I think ultimately, I mean, stepping back, I think that the business model of tech platforms like Facebook are just at odds with not doing increasing harms to kids. Like, think about how Facebook intentionally rolled out reels to compete with TikTok because they knew that young people were flocking the TikTok for short form video. Facebook has a very clear business and financial interest in keeping young people whole. hooked on the platform and keeping young people spending as much time on the platform as possible so that they can make more and more money.

Like, don't forget that right before Francis Hogan released that really damning report we were talking about, about Facebook knowingly harming children, Facebook was already in the mix building a social media platform specifically for kids under the age of 13. Think about that. They only scrapped this, like, Facebook for kids they were making after pressure from, like, advocacy groups, state attorneys general, and lawmakers. So, like, let's be for real, like, regardless of what measures they might trot out to say that they're trying to, like, make Facebook safer, like, oh, like, here's a little alert that we've got where your kid

spends too much time on Facebook, he gets a little beep or, like, you know, parental controls. Whatever little things they are rolling out to sort of signal that they're doing anything, at the end of the day, they have a vested interest in making sure that kids are locked in and hooked on their harmful products as much as possible. Yeah. And, you know, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that just because they are extremely good at turning that harmful business model into profits, they didn't invent it. And they're certainly not the only ones, right?

Like any of these tech companies where their main revenue is advertising, all those same pressures are there. Right. Like Google doesn't have a social media platform, but they definitely have an interest in keeping our attention hooked so they can learn more about us, learn our preferences, sell us ads. You know, TikTok is right there too. you know, it's surveillance capitalism. That's like inherently the entire thing of it. Exactly. And I think, I mean, I think I've said this before, but truly, we really got to ask ourselves,

is this okay with us? Do we think that our children, the most vulnerable and youngest among us, the people who we as adults have been, you know, have a responsibility to keep safe and keep from harm? is it okay to feed them through Facebook's meat grinder so that Mark Zuckerberg can get another zero at the end of his bank account? That is really the question that I think that we should be asking because they're not going to stop targeting kids unless someone makes them stop. That is very clear to me, right? Like, I will say that when they were rolling out their Facebook for kids under 13, they said that they were doing that because they found that kids were lying about their age to get on Instagram. Like, I think you have to be older than 13 to get on Instagram.

So that really tells me all I need to know, right? That like rather than figure out what they can do to keep kids from accessing products that they know are harmful that they make, they're like, oh, we'll just make one just for kids. We'll make a harmful product just for them. It'll be like if, well, I don't know, it's going to say it would be like if tobacco companies made a cigarette for kids. Yeah, they've definitely done that. They've, you know, they've got menthol, they've got candy flavored cigarettes. They've got camel crush. they've got a thousand products,

all of them pushing the boundaries of what's legal so they can market directly to kids. So I have a slightly unpopular opinion about like we need rules to protect kids from big social media. Yes, it's good that we have, that we should have special protection for kids. We like kind of don't right now

and like it would be great if we had some. But I don't know that we should stop there. like because I think like social media is out of control for people of all ages and just focusing on the harm that it does to kids. I feel it's like maybe like step one or like it's something which would be better than nothing. But there are plenty of like older adults like me included who would really benefit from, I don't know like, strong, like some sort of privacy protections in this country, uh, to protect us from companies that just, you know, are like harvesting all of our private data to try to sell us ad, ads. And also serving up content that like riles us up, which maybe is, maybe is not accurate and, uh, turns us

against other people. I think, I feel that social media protection is one area where like, save the children is perhaps steering us away from like bigger, more comprehensive fixes. Oh, I completely agree. I think that everybody deserves a safer, better social media landscape, full stop, end of sentence. I think the reason why lawmakers so often focus on children, one, it's the thing that we've talked about a lot when we've talked about legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act, things like that. Like, when something is presented as a harm to kids, I think it justifies a lot more action, whether that action is good or bad.

I think it gets people like, oh, we have to do something. But I also do, so I see your point that, like, everybody deserves data privacy. Everybody deserves a better, safer internet landscape. Absolutely, yes. But I do think there is a philosophical point to be made about what happens when tech companies target kids. What happens when kids' privacy is for sale? You know, I do think, like, it raises a kind of deeper philosophical question of what tech companies feel entitled to, who they feel comfortable harming, and what we as adults are also okay with. Does that make sense?

So I agree with you kind of on paper, but philosophically, I do think that something is very different when Mark Zuckerberg feels completely fine giving a generation of young girls, you know, body image issues and disordered eating, knowingly to make money. Yeah, it does feel worse there. Yeah, it shouldn't be okay to do that to anybody, but definitely not to kids, for sure. You know, I was at a talk with the founder of a great organization called Glitch UK, which is an online safety advocacy organization. And she made this great point. Like, what other kind of industry would the public tolerate this kind of behavior from? Like, if there was a food product that was popular with kids and adults ate it too, where some big percentage of people

who ate it got very sick, would we accept that they could just keep selling it, that they could sell it to kids, they could get kids addicted to it? Would we accept that it would be okay that that company would be not transparent at all about how their product is affecting people, would we, would we accept that? Probably not. And that is exactly what is happening with big tech companies. And I thought that was such an interesting comparison because really no other sector would we tolerate that from, possibly the gun industry, but not really a lot of others. Yeah, it's a good analogy. And, you know, Bridget, you and I just the other day were talking about food safety regulation and how that's an area where the public really demands this extremely

high level of safety that does not translate to other industries. Right? Do you remember that? I do. People are going to be thinking like, what kind of conversations are Bridget and Mike having when they're not on the podcast? Oh, you know, just a good, just a conversation about food safety regulations on the United States, you know. Yeah, food safety and risk perception. You know, how people think about all the different risks in our lives and how inconsistent it can seem where there will be, you know, something like food safety where, like, nobody wants to get diarrhea. So we have all these, like, intense laws about food safety that do keep us safe. And they're, you know, good things, you know, I don't want diarrhea. But then there are also all these other areas like social media, for example, where like the mental health of young people, particularly girls, is being like systematically reduced.

And we all just kind of collectively shrug. Like, oh, that's just how it is. You know how it is. What was the phrase that you used to explain that phenomenon? There was a phrase for it that I never heard before. Oh, God, I was trying not to get into it. But if you're going to subject the listeners to it, I was talking about the concept of dread risk,

which is a concept from risk perception, from the psychologist Paul Slovak, who studied this very phenomenon of risk perception and how people around the world, he mainly looked at Americans, but he also studied people from other countries about the different risks that they perceived and their demand for the authorities,

typically government, to take some sort of actions to protect them from it. And he found that there were two factors that determined how people perceived risk and the extent to which they demanded protection from it. One of them was the actual risk, you know, what is the likelihood that this is going to cause someone to be injured or killed, you know, per 1,000 or per 100,000, or per 100. thousand people. That's obviously an important one. But then almost equally important was the concept of dread risk, which is how scary is it? Right. It's like the idea that dying in your

sleep from carbon monoxide poisoning is less horrific than being like torn apart by wolves or something. In either scenario, you're dead. But one of them seems much worse than the other, right? And that's the concept of dread that it just like feels terrifying in some particular way. And it feels like social media here is an area where that dread factor is really reduced, right? Like, oh, it's just stuff that happens on computers. It just happens to girls. It's pretty long term, like, oh, I guess it makes some girls sad. Ha, ha, ha. Big deal. But it is like a very serious thing. And I think it's, I don't know, useful to think about what are the factors or the characteristics of some particular risk and how does that inform the public's demand or lack of demand for government to do something about it. Look at you throwing around your psychology PhD.

Folks, in case you didn't know, Mike has a psychology degree. Yeah, they all know now. I'm sorry, everyone. You ask. No, it is, it is useful. I ask, and it's interesting and it's useful. And like, I do think it makes sense that like there are just some things that we're like, we got to regulate that.

And then it's like there are other things that were just like the risk is, I don't know, like less real or less acute or something. And I think there we're only now starting to really grapple with the reality that that risk presents us with because I think it maybe took a little while for it to be apparent. Like it seems like social media has been around forever, but it really isn't that old if you think about it. think that we're really starting to get to know the very serious offline impacts now. And so I think like, yeah, we're just sort of like catching up.

I'm like, oh, actually, this is very serious. We need to do something. Yeah. And it's, it's often a little bit delayed, right? Like, it's not like somebody posts on social media and then all of a sudden their self-esteem is destroyed and they commit an act of self-harm or something. Like those things are decoupled in time in a way that really makes it seem like it's not as big of a factor as it is. But yeah, it's social media. It's scary.

It has a profound impact on young people. Well, let's talk more about that because speaking of youth and social media, I listen, I am a certified old. I am not a Gen Zier. But I do think it is really important to be paying close attention to what young people say they are experiencing when it comes to digital media and digital culture. And when they talk about what they want, the Center for Scholars and Storytellers at UCLA just released a really fascinating report on what they're calling teens and screens, all about analyzing what different young people want from their media experiences.

We will put a link to the report in the show notes, but it's like fascinating. It's also like just to nerd out for a minute. It's like really nicely designed. Like people send me reports to cover other. the podcast all the time and I'm like, oh, this dense 65 page document with single spacing and no images, I'll definitely read this. Thanks for sending it. Oh, really big PDF. Cool. Thanks. But this one was actually interesting to read. It's like designed very nicely. Yeah, it's really beautifully designed. It's colorful. They did an excellent job packaging it up. And I also really like

that this survey focused on what young people want, uh, like what, what their interests are, I feel like most surveys, population surveys that we have of young people are focused on their behaviors, what drugs are they doing, what other risky behaviors are they doing, what are their attitudes about this or that thing that, you know, us old people are in, you know, care about. And so we want to know what the young people think about it because we care about it. But this one really, I don't know, I haven't seen one like this before where it was like, what do young people want? Yeah, that's such a, that's such a good point because so often, I feel like it's us old, like voyeuristically, like, what are the youth up to? Like, what are they

thinking? Like, I don't know, it's kind of nice to give young people a little bit of space to talk about what their wants, their needs. And it really, like, as a media maker of a kind, it really almost challenged me to be like, well, if young people are saying that this is what their needs are, how does my content serve or not serve those needs, right? And so, like, I agree. It's like, it's interesting to really put the spotlight and give the microphone to young people for them to be like, here's what we think, here's what we want, here's what we like, here's what we don't like. So how young folks engage with media is actually really important. The study points out that youth develop a clearer sense of their personal identity through messages they receive through culture and environment, which is increasingly dominated by media. So this survey looked at 1,500 adolescents, ages 10 to 24, and different categories of young people too. So like young adolescents, middle adolescents, gender non-conforming adolescents, people of color adolescents, and LGBTQI plus adolescents. So I learned a couple of really interesting points from this survey.

One is that, perhaps unsurprisingly, social media is still rated the most authentic media platform. Among social media platforms, young people said that TikTok was the most authentic. So another interesting thing that surprised me is that young people are apparently not that interested in content that glorifies drug use and partying and drinking. So shows like euphoria that are like over the top of drug use. they're not really feeling that so much. And I guess that was sort of a theme from this survey is that I don't know that I would say that our current media landscape is really serving what young people say their needs actually are, what they actually want from media. So for instance, very few adolescents say that they prefer aspirational content. So they don't really want to see

content about people who are super rich or super famous or have these like super aspirational lives. But I feel like that is a lot of the content that we are giving them. That's like, oh, don't you want to see the Kardashians? Don't you want to see Charlie Demilio? Don't you want to see like these rich influencers who live like fabulous lives? Young people are like, nah, I'm good. I would rather see people whose lives kind of look like mine. It's interesting.

Yeah, it makes some sense. Feels a little counterintuitive, but interesting. So the majority of young people also prefer content. over IP-based content. But, like, that's so much of what we have to offer right now is, like, oh, do you want to see, like, I don't know, some 12th iteration of a Marvel IP? Like, that is so much, like, and no shade to, like,

the MCU, the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But, like, we are offering, in terms of media, a lot of existing IP right now. And young people, if this survey is to be believed, aren't really that interested in that. You know, it's interesting you bring up the MCU, the Marvel Cinematic Universe as an example for this point that the majority of young people favor original content

over IP-based content. Because, I mean, that's not just like an example you picked out of a hat, right? That was like the major piece of cultural content being created during the majority of the lives of Gen Ziers, right? Like over the past like 10, 15 years, like, it was Marvel, the Avengers, fear Thanos. Yeah, like, no shit they want some other content.

Listen, if you are a young person out there, I'll, I'm going to quote one of my heroes and idols on this, John Waters, fucking living legend. Go, I also like the MCU. I also enjoy. That's a John Waters quote? Oh, my God. Shut your mouth. dare you he would never. No, John Waters once said, get more out of life, go and see a

fucked up movie. And that is something that I live by. There is so much interesting content out there. It is a shame that like, if you were paying attention to media in the last few years, like if aliens came down and they were like,

what media is going on in the last 10 years, a big chunk of that pie would be existing IP. There's so much interesting, hokey, dark, fucked up, weird stuff out there. Go out, find your thing. You will, you will, you will, you will thank me later. And stay tuned for there are no girls on the internet, the movie, uh, to be followed with the docu series and the read at home companion. Maybe, you know, maybe. What if there's like a tangoity cinematic universe? Like,

I guess that kind of is if you think about it because I do have multiple podcasts. Maybe they can start having like little dramas with each other like, oh, Mike really doesn't get along with, I don't know, whoever from whatever podcast. Eh? Is that something? Maybe. Except it would have to be you. Like, nobody wants, like, a spinoff where two side characters have adventures.

Yo, tell that to fucking Marvel. From your lips to Marvel's ears, my friend. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an acapella band with their between songs banter. There's that worst singer in the group? The worst?

Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The yard herds, right? That's the name. The Harvard Yard. They're open. Do you have a name suggestion?

We're open. Since you guys are middle 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 podcast. Podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ads supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora.

And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-8-4-I-Hart.

What's up, fam? Miss Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano and our podcast Point Game is about defining the odds. Like LeBron heading into the playoffs without Luca and Austin Reed. And finding ways to win no matter what. He's the smartest player to ever play the game. His IQ is at a level that we've never seen before. And he knows without Luca and Austin Reeves, I got to manipulate the game.

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

Steve Nass would get that thing. That man, hell get the flying. He run up the court licking his fingers while he got the ball. After you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah, you figure it out real quick. Get your ass up and down the court, and you're going to get the ball.

So listen to Point Game on the, iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get right back into it. So y'all might have seen a headline or a tweet about this survey that says that Gen Z want less sex and less romance on screen. That is true. The majority of adolescents in this survey, 51.5% expressed a desire for more content centered around friendships and platonic relationships. A near majority felt that romance and media is overused and a surprising 39% want to see more aromantic and or asexual characters on screen. 47.5% of adolescents said that sex is not needed for the plot of most TV shows and movies.

Young people ranked forced unnatural or toxic romantic and sexual relationships for out of the top 10 most disliked stereotypes on TV. They also do not care for tropes like love triangles, relationships being a necessity to be happy, and male female leads always ending up together. And this actually mirrors what young people are doing in real life. They're having less sex and they're staying single for longer. And they're reporting that they don't feel the need to be in a romantic relationship to really feel fulfilled.

So I saw this in like headlines or on tweets kind of being framed as like, oh, young people are prudes or young people are like afraid of sex or young people are like, I don't know, like they've had their brains warped from the. prevalence of pornography to the point where they don't even want to see sex on screen. All of that is like completely strips out the nuance of what these young people are telling us about what they want from media. I love this part because you, Bridget, were like, you dug deeper into the data. You're like, I just feel there's a deeper story here and you dug in and it was there. Well, thank you for that. I will say Mashable did a lot of the hard work for me by talking to two of the authors of the study.

But I will say that like when I saw the tweets that were like young people, it was kind of framed in a way that was really uncharitable. And it sort of whenever you see something on Twitter that is like framed in a way that it's just like, it just got my spidey senses up that something more was going on here. I will say I will agree with you on that. And I think it's an easy dunk on young people to make it seem like, oh, they don't know what rock and roll is. They're too young to be out there. And I say this as someone who like, when I was an adolescent, all I wanted to see was two characters kiss on screen. All I was writing about, all I was thinking about. A lot of my time was consumed around like wanting characters to be involved in sexual entanglements on screen. So I was not in this kind of youth. I was like, watch a show about two friends and I'm like, what if they had sex? Wouldn't that be good? Well, yeah, we've been getting that for the past 20 years, you know?

I was not the kind of young person that they are describing here, but I think it is really uncharitable and really unfair to paint young people as being uncomfortable with sex or prudes from what they are telling us. Yeah, right. Like actual young people are also not the young people who are being portrayed here. Yes, and think about this. In 2023, we have less and less of what we call third places, you know, places where people, but especially young people, can congregate with each other and really find and build community and friendship. But just like everybody, young people still have a need for that kind of friendship and camaraderie. So media then becomes the place where that need for platonic relationships and friendships is being met. So if all you're giving young people is like, sexual content, romantic content, romantic triangles, love triangles, all of that, it really is not serving what they have identified as a need from the media they consume.

So one of the authors of the study talked to Mashable, which explains, were well aware of the loneliness epidemic in the United States. Well before COVID, people have felt less connected to others. The pandemic only exacerbated this, and young people today are twice as likely to report feeling lonely than those over 65. third places, third to home and school or work, for young people to hang out in person or dwindling. While many go online for connection, Gen Z are social beings that need face-to-face interaction. So that is one of the reasons why they are reporting, like, we are interested in more explorations of platonic friendships that don't center romantic or sexual parents. This is really so sad to me.

The survey authors pointed to a survey response from a 12-year-old about the movie The Sandlot. This person said, quote, the Sandlot is a baseball movie, I like. I wish I could go outside and play like they did at the time. Today, it's not safe. Though simple, his words felt like a plenient representation of what many are about respondents seem to be hinting at, that the core essence of kids at heart and teens will always be the same, from camaraderie to curiosity and a sense of adventure or even as playing outside. And it appears that somewhere along the way this may have been forgotten in storytelling.

That is devastating. Quite a quote from authors Herald Cotetcha and Stephanie Revis Lara. Yeah. And I think like going back to those tweets about young people being prudes, it's just like, yeah, it's just so not the full. story of what youth today are dealing with. And it is a really scary time to be a kid. Like, I feel very grateful that I was a kid when I was a kid because I feel like some of the realities that youth today are dealing with, I don't think I would be strong enough to deal

with it. And not only are they dealing with it, they're dealing with it and they're continuing to be creative, to connect with each other, to be roasting people like me on social media for like wearing the wrong kind of jeans or whatever. Like, They're up against a lot and they have not lost the spark that, that, you know, that spark of youth. And yeah, young people inspire me every day. Like, I find them very inspirational, even though they are dealing with so much. I don't know how they do it. Yeah, this was a really interesting survey.

I'm so glad that the authors collected this because it, I think it does say a lot about what young people are looking for what they're experiencing. And I'm so glad you dug deeper than those headlines because, you know, the headline that like kids today aren't interested in sex, like, but it also just like obscures all of this nuance of like what's actually going on, not just in their lives, but in like what our human needs are as social beings. So speaking of failing young people, I got to talk about this woman on TikTok. So this young woman made a TikTok recently about getting a job out of college, a job that she says that she actually likes, but just kind of talking about how tough it is. She has to get up while it's still dark out, commute pretty long for her job. I think it's like two hours because she doesn't make enough money to live closer to work. She goes to work. She, by all accounts, like, enjoys her job and coworkers.

But then she has to commute home from work. By the time she gets home, it is dark. She doesn't have much energy to do anything. anything beyond like just feed herself and go to bed, right? She's like, when do you have time for going to the gym or seeing friends or finding a partner, like, or having hobbies or taking care of yourself or meaningful connection? There's no time for that. And she's a little emotional in the video, like she's crying. She's upset. She does say that she has her period, which like, holy moly, cannot relate to that. But the whole thing is like a really relatable complaint, I think.

but the internet is going to internet and some people had very cruel responses like basically calling her like a whiny brat blibs of TikTok we posted the video with a caption making fun of her a lot of the responses were just like

straight up sexes because she's a young woman she is wearing makeup she has manicured nails people are saying things like oh she doesn't have enough time to get her nails done where

Jason Callasinas who is this wealthy tech investor and the co-host of the podcast All In, which I feel like I've talked about a few times. It is like one of the most popular tech podcasts in the world. If you want to see them, just go to the Apple Tech podcast charts and look for like number one or number two. Look way, way, way, way, way, way down. You'll find mine. But they're always like one or two.

I would say like the closest thing to maybe like a podcast, not nemesis, but it is like for wealthy tech investors like drinking bourbon and smoking cigars and like talking about how wealthy they are and technology and yada, yada, yada. So this person who is like a wealthy tech dude tweeted, oh princess violin emoji, I'm sorry you had to commute and work and have a job and everything. It's like so extra, which like it's just a rude tweet. I will say what's really funny is that, as I said, Jason is just, like, wealthy tech investor. And Twitter added a community note to that tweet crapping on that young woman. Just reminding everybody that, hey, just so you know, Jason has not worked a nine to five job since 1990.

So, like, if he's going to complain, this is context that y'all should know, which I agree. That's a funny, rude community note. I know. I love a, I'm here for a salty community note. So a tech journalist that I love, Morgan Sung, made a really insightful TikTok post about how, I don't know, like idealizing grind and corporate life, this makes it really difficult to have empathy for other people, especially younger people. And it's really kind of keeping us away from meaningful generational solidarity. Right. Like there's this attitude of like, I did it. You should have to do it too. Like suck it up. If I could do it, you could do it. And I think especially like this woman. is like a young woman. If you're an entry-level person, like, new to the workforce, historically, these are not folks who have a lot of power in the workforce. So, like, it's people like Jason who have been working successfully for longer than this young woman

have been alive, like, punching down and crapping on her. But here's the thing. She is 100% correct. Like, I remember this absolutely visceral reaction I had when I had my first, like grown-up job. I was living in in Brooklyn. I was working in Manhattan. And I had to get up while it was still dark outside to commute to my job. And I didn't live in like cool hipster Brooklyn. I lived in like Brooklyn, Brooklyn, like deep into Brooklyn, like almost queen. So my commute was pretty hellish. I would leave for work when it was dark out. I would get back to work when it was dark out. And I basically was like just making enough money to exist, to live. It was certainly not a like thriving, healthy life.

And I think I did have a moment where I was like, oh, wait, like this is adult life. This actually really sucks. I actually don't like this. And, you know, I'm really have a lot of empathy for this young woman in this experience because she's not wrong. And more and more workers are waking up to the fact that killing yourself at work just to make money that you then don't get to really abandon on anything other than sleep and food to fuel yourself for more work is not a great dynamic. It is not a dynamic that feels good. And yes, I get that this is like a white girl who probably went to college and it seems like, oh, that you don't get to complain. But, you know,

a lot of young people I think were sold a bunk bill of goods. And if you go to college and work hard, you can make this good life for yourself. Finding out that that good life is just endless work and toil, and also commuting on top of it, is kind of a bus. Like, she's not wrong. The way Americans work is broken. In fact, a new study from the job search site, indeed, found that two-thirds of UK employees would take a pay cut for a four-day work week instead of a five-day work week. So I don't think that this young woman is saying anything that is not correct. I think that more and more workers are seeing this, you know, adult wage earning life in the United States is a grind by design, right? Things like long commutes, lack of childcare, having your health care attached to

your employment, the high cost of housing, all add to it. And if you have kids or are a caregiver for a family member or have other stuff going on on top of it, it's even worse. So I was really disappointed to see people acting like this woman was like an entitled brat for pointing that reality out. Like, it makes me wonder if one of the reasons why it's so hard to expect better is because people will crap on anyone who points out like, hey, y'all, the status quo is actually not working. Yeah, I think you're onto something there. I think there are a lot of people who have been grinding away jobs that don't make them feel fulfilled for so long that they feel defensive when anybody suggests like maybe that's not the best way to live.

Yeah. And I think that's part of it. I think that like people are, it's so easy to get so entrenched in this corporate mindset that says that like this is, this is like the only way to live, that somebody just being like, oh, actually this is really hard. Elicit sneers and jokes and, you know, crapping on her rather than empathy. And rather than being like, yeah, we. all deserve better. It shouldn't have to be this way. You should not have to, you were not put on this

earth just to do wage earning labor for someone else. You should be able to have a life. You should be able to have harmony in your life. You should be able to work and still have time to take care of yourself and enjoy life. Like, that is the point of being on this earth. Yeah. And also, you know, her complaint was not so much about the work itself, but about the commute. And I feel that was kind of glossed over, but she said she's commuting two hours in each direction. That's like four hours out of her day. That's like half a day of work. No wonder she's miserable.

That would make anyone miserable. I know people like older than her that have good jobs with like salary and benefits and, you know, nominal flexibility who for whatever reason have made the decision to commute for like close to two hours. And they're also miserable, right? Like that's that's just not a life mode that makes sense. Like this is just my take, but like nobody should be commuting two hours. Like if you're doing that, you're doing it wrong and you need to be doing something else immediately.

Yeah, I mean, it is such a privilege for me to like not have to commute. I work mostly remotely and I have since before COVID. In times where I was commuting, it just didn't work for me. Like I was miserable and it wasn't even like the job made me miserable. I hated having to budget in an extra hour on both ways. An extra two hours in the like eight hours of my day that is not spent sleeping or at work went to commuting. When I would get to work, I'm already in a bad mood because like you're on the fucking subway. You're late. It smells. People are screaming.

Like you've got to like be wearing clothes you don't want to wear having conversations you don't want to have. It's just like and then I would always like, oh my God, like even just thinking about it. that it is, it's almost like, takes me back to that, that headspace. But all of that is to say, my, I, for a very long time when I was working in offices, I thought I was like a screw up employee. I thought I was like, just a fuck up who like couldn't work properly. And like, that was something I really internalized. Come to find out, I just hated commuting and I hated working in an office. Like, when I was working with a little bit more flexibility, pat it into my schedule, I was like, oh, I actually enjoy producing. I actually enjoy doing a lot of this

work. The office commute vibe just did not work for me. I used to regularly, oh my God, I hope my old NMSNBC boss in to hear this, but Farah, if you're listening, you know I was a shitting employee, so like, whatever, deal with it. I would regularly, like, leave the office, go outside and just like walk around the block several times. Sometimes I would scream and then just like come back in. It was the fucking worst. And it is such a, I'm, I'm, it is such a privilege for me to be in a different place now where my work life doesn't look like that. But just because I did that, I don't want people coming up behind me to have to needlessly suffer through that. If you love being in the office and you love commuting and it's working for you, that is great. But if you feel like this

young lady did, which is definitely how I felt when I was her age, you are not crazy. It is normal to feel that way. It is not a sustainable system to spend two hours each way commuting. You should be able to have time for yourself, time to take care of yourself, time to have a life that is not work or sleep. And I guess I'll end it there. Mike, thank you so much for being here. Yeah, thanks for having me. It was good talking with you. This was our least musky episode in like quite a while. When we were putting together the outline, you were like, you know who's not in this outline? Elon Musk. If you want some musk, I can give you some. I know exactly what he's been up to, but it sounds like you're. We're good.

We're good. Yeah, we can just let it go for a week. Elon Musk will give you the week off, but we'll see you next week. I'm sure it'll be doing something. Thanks so much for listening. And as always, for ad-free bonus content, you can check out our Patreon. The last Patreon episode that we did was like me on a tear about something happening. So for folks who listened and reached out, thank you. But if you want to know more, check out the Patreon.

And we will see you next week. 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 tangoity. There are No Girls on the Internet was created by me, Bridget Todd. It's a production of IHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. Edited by Joey Pat.

Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. 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 IHeartRadio 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 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. 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 keep coming to you.

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. On paper, the three hosts of the Nick Dick & Poll show are geniuses. We can explain how AI works, data centers, but there are certain things that we don't necessarily understand. Better version of Play Stupid Games win Stupid Prizes. Yes. Which, by the way, wasn't Taylor Swift, who said that for the first time. I actually, I thought it was. I got that wrong. But hey, no one's perfect.

We're pretty close, though. Listen to the Nick, Dick, and Paul show on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.