There Are No Girls on the Internet - TikTok mutes the music in dispute with artists; Drag Race performer wins libel suit; Zuckerberg bullied into apology at Senate hearing; Australian news photoshops lawmaker – NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Date: February 3, 2024

WELCOME TO THE THE MELANINOCRACY  Get out of the way! It’s Black History Month!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Mf0X1oDHM Universal Music Group to remove songs from TikTok after failing to reach deal: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/universal-music-group-remove-songs-tiktok-rcna136506 FKA twigs says ‘all record labels ask for are TikToks’: ‘I got told off for not making enough effort’: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/fka-twigs-tiktok-instagram-label-b2082496.html  Senators use mean words to demand tech executives take action to protect kids online: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/01/31/technology/child-safety-senate-hearing These ‘toys’ are killing our kids op ed by Julie Scelfo in the Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/4438362-these-toys-are-killing-our-kids/ Joey on Stuff Mom Never Told You breaking down Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA): https://omny.fm/shows/stuff-mom-never-told-you/what-is-kosa-and-why-is-it-so-scary FCC moves to criminalize most AI-generated robocalls: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fcc-moves-criminalize-ai-generated-robocalls-rcna136347 Photo of Australian lawmaker digitally altered by news channel to have bigger boobs and a cropped top: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/31/world/australia/australia-georgie-purcell-9news-photoshop.html  RuPaul’s Drag Race star Crystal speaks out after Laurence Fox loses libel case: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/crystal-drag-queen-laurence-fox-high-court-b2487199.html  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, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined.

Learn how podcasting can help your business. Call 844-844-I-Hart. Hey, I'm Deanna Maria Riva, and on my new podcast, How Hard Can It Be? I call on my GenX squad from Ohio to Hollywood as we navigate Midlife's most fantastic BS. Unfiltered conversations from night sweats to futas to scheduling sex. Wait, what sex? Is it just me or does every woman my age want to look at Pinterest instead of having sex sometimes? They say we can't polish a turn, but we're sure going to try.

So let's get blunt with laughs, tears, or tears of laughter. Listen to How Hard Can It Be with Diana Maria Riva 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, and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. Hey, Mike, thanks for being here. It is finally February. Happy February. Thanks for having me, Bridget, and Happy Black History Month.

Thank you. Happy Black History Month to you, too. You know that I've been on my crusade of wishing random strangers. Happy Black History Month the same way that you might be like, Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas. It's been funny because universally, black people are like, hey, happy Black History Month. Non-Black people, either they will just, like,

look at me weird and not be sure how to respond, which I think is really funny. Or they'll instinctively be like, oh, happy Black History Month to you too. Like when you say like, when you get your ticket taken at the movies and they're like, enjoy your movie and then you're like, oh, you too. And they're like, wait, was that the right response? That's been my favorite. The instinctual like, you too. And I'm like, wait a minute. Was that appropriate?

Yeah, you know, we're all doing our best out here. Is there any content out there, like Black History Month content that you particularly like? I'm really glad that you asked because this time of year I always share my favorite TikTok about commemorating Black History Month. And it's this, I think she might be Australian, like an influencer who is standing in the middle of the sidewalk. She's got sneakers and running shorts and one of those fanny packs for runners. and she's doing kind of an outfit check, like outfit of the day going running. And then this black man behind her is like, move out of the way.

It's Black History Month and just keeps going and interrupts her like outfit of the day influencer TikTok. Something about that video really commemorates my feelings on Black History Month. All right. I'm looking forward to checking it out. And speaking of TikTok, I have to say, I mean, I know that you're not a big user of the platform, but have you heard that big changes might be coming to TikTok? I have, and it seems interesting. I haven't really looked too far into it, so I'm hoping that you can hit me with some facts here. Well, so if you use TikTok, you know that one of the big things about it is music. Like, people upload from very big databases

of songs across different record labels to sync with their TikToks. And it's kind of a big part of the music ecosystem on TikTok. Like songs from artists can really blow up if they're being used in TikToks that go viral. TikTok is clearly part of like marketing strategies for new songs. It is a big thing. And particularly that TikTok started like in the earliest early days of TikTok, it was called bike dance and it was really much more associated with music and dancing. When people say, oh, TikTok is just an app with kids dancing, it's never really been that, but that's what they're referring to. And so music has always been a big part of what makes TikTok work. But all of that might be changing because the music label UMG is threatening to pull all of their artists from

TikTok permanently because they say TikTok has not been paying artists to use their music on the platform. They say TikTok proposed paying our artists and songwriters at a rate that is a fraction of the rate that similarly situated music social platforms pay. UMG represents some of the biggest and most popular artists in the world, both on TikTok and across the music scene more generally. People like Taylor Swift, Drake, Olivia Rodriguez, the Beatles, U2, Ariana Grande, Ronde, Siza, Billy Eilish, Adele, Coldplay, and a whole lot more. And it really doesn't sound like either party is planning on backing down. TikTok is accusing UMG of, quote, putting their greed above the interests of artists and songwriters. So I will say it does kind of sound like UMG has a point here.

NBC reported that UMG says TikTok only accounts for 1% of its revenue, despite its artists representing eight out of 10 of the most popular bands and singers on the platform last year. and around 60% of TikTok videos do include music. U&G published an open letter to their artists about why it's time to call out TikTok, saying, ultimately, TikTok is trying to build a music-based business without paying fair value for the music. I absolutely agree with that. Like, music is an integral part of TikTok. There is no TikTok as we know it without music.

And it does seem like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. They're trying to build a music-based platform. full of a library of music and maybe like not pay for that music. So some of the things that UMG is also concerned about are the growth of AI tools used in TikTok videos and that effect on intellectual property, while also complaining about the amount of content that commits copyright infringement, as well as, quote, a tidal wave of hate speech, bigotry, bullying, and harassment. These are all valid concerns that UMG is bringing up.

Like none of these things is wrong. All of these things run rampant on the platform. I don't think TikTok would even disabute that. UMG continues, saying, as our negotiations continued, TikTok attempted to bully us into accepting a deal worth less than the previous deal, far less than market value, and not reflective of their exponential growth. UMG also says that TikTok is trying to bully them and threaten them by taking music from developing artists off of the platform,

while keeping audience-driving global stars. So as far as I know, TikTok has not really given like a good response, They've said the fact is they've chosen to walk away from the powerful support of a platform with well over a billion users that serves as free promotional and discovery vehicle for their talent. That response kind of gives me pause because it feels like, oh, well, whenever somebody tells me that I'm the reason why I'm not getting pay or money is because I'm getting promotion, it just gets my, it just makes my ass it. I'm like, wait, you're telling me that promotion is the same thing as money here. And I sort of see what they're getting at. But the fact that they're trying to use that language of like, oh, no, no, promotion is actually better. Kind of gives me some warnings, some warning flags about this whole situation.

Yeah, definitely. I mean, that's like a cliche, right, that people are going to get paid in exposure. Like, you can't eat promotion. Yeah, I have tried giving my landlord promotion to pay my rent. And he doesn't accept it. So I don't know. I will say something that I think is really important here is that, you know, UMG in their, messaging. They sound really like, we're doing this for the artists. We want the artist to get

paid. We want the artist to get with their words. Stop splitting the artists. I don't believe that either. I think that what UMG is actually saying is that TikTok needs to be paying our label, like our suits, our executives. We need to be making more of that money. I don't think it's a situation where they're planning on like sharing all of that money with like independent artists who need it. I don't see a record label behaving that way. I think that they're trying to trying to get a bigger payout for themselves and just sort of using this like support the artists, pay the artist's language because they know it will be sort of a more sympathetic argument. However, I do think that TikTok is trying to get around paying artists.

And I think that it mirrors a lot of the conversations that we're seeing in other platforms, too. Like, you know, Facebook at a time making money from news content and the content that news outlets put out, but intending to not pay them for that content, right? Like you could say like, oh, we're promoting you and people are reading your content, but it's like, well, is that really translating to off platform downloads or metrics or sales or whatever? Probably not, right? And so I think this is sort of a cut from the same cloth kind of situation. I don't know. I'm almost sort of not excited about this, but I'm interested to see how this changes the platform already since this was announced, if people have uploaded TikToks that have music of these artists, those TikToks are completely muted. So like if I was doing a TikTok where I was talking at the camera and there was a Taylor Swift song playing, the whole thing would be muted, not just the music also what I was saying. And so I've already seen that happening on the platform. But I mean, I don't know.

I am curious if this will actually lead to smaller or less well-known artists having their heyday on the platform, which could be kind of cool. Like one of my favorite music TikTokers that I follow posted a TikTok with the song, one of my favorite songs actually, Cruel Summer by Banana Ramma. And the commentary was like, oh, now that Taylor Swift's song, Cruel Summer, is no longer allowed on the platform, the superior cruel summer, the one by Banana Ramma, can finally rise. That's pretty funny. Boy, it's really interesting, the comparison you made to Facebook not wanting to pay. news outlets. Because it is very similar. I hadn't thought about that, but it kind of, it does raise questions about these platforms,

business models that depend on serving up content to their users, to keep their users engaged, but not wanting to pay the creators of that content. Yeah, it seems incorrect. That seems to be a squared, a circle of what it, means to be on the internet these days of it people like platforms that are big business want to be like oh well we're just like it's user generated content or we're just taking content from the internet or like we're just you know we're promoting like essentially they want to build huge lucrative platforms using content and then also somehow get around paying for that content and

it's like we think of music like that's somebody's labor that is somebody's intellectual property that is somebody's somebody put a lot of time and intention and thought and work into that. You don't think you have to pay to use it? Of course you do. Yeah. And it would be one thing if like an artist records a video of them performing their song and uploads that. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about some, you know, just some random user choosing a song that a professional

artist has recorded and using that. Like obviously they should get paid for that. Yeah. And I think when it comes to music, I do think we are overdue for some conversations about how technology has shaped music in 2024. Like with Spotify, maybe the model where virtually any song ever that you could ever think of is available on Spotify to be listened to unlimited amounts. And maybe the model that we have just like isn't working without somebody. getting screwed. And I think that somebody is the artists. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right.

You know, especially like you talked about emerging artists who are not a big name trying to make it like your Taylor Swift's, your U2s, your drakes. They're going to be fine, but somebody who's trying to make it, they're really caught in a bind because they really do need that promotion, but they also need to make a living. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right that. it's tough out there for musicians. You know, like streaming platforms like Spotify already exponentially reduced the amount they get paid

when people listen to their music, and now TikTok is trying to cut that, you know, a fraction of that fraction. Yeah, but again, I don't want to make it seem like the music labels are being so altruistic, like they're just like riding for their artists to get a payout because I don't think that's what's happening either.

This musician Chelsea Collins, her brother said, My sister Chelsea Collins is only signed to the publishing side of UMG, but they took down both her universal-owned songs from years ago and her songs that she released independently on the master side. And so I just feel like smaller artists are going to get screwed, whether by this TikTok decision and TikTok trying to like, you know, play hard about this or from the label.

And I already think that TikTok has shaped what it means to be a musician in this day and age in some ways that I don't think are great. Musicians, especially independent and up-and-coming musicians, have really been candid about the ways that TikTok has forced them to sort of be their own marketing arm. And so, you know, before social media, before TikTok, if you were a musician, you were making music, you were in the studio, you were songwriting, you were being creative,

you were like doing the labor that it takes to make a creative project. Now, on top of that, you need to be like, essentially your own one-person documentary filmmaker making content, in quotes, about the music. And it's like, well, how are you meant to make the music if you also have to be like documenting you making the music to get any traction? There's that thing that happens where it'll be like, it's the cringiest thing, but I understand why they do it. It's like somebody will make a musician makes a TikTok and they say, did I just make the song of the summer? and it has their song playing in the background. And there was another one where a woman made,

a songwriter had made us a TikTok where she was like, kind of complaining about how boring her life is. And it's just like you have to have this very curated specific kind of schick on TikTok to get any traction. And in an earlier era, your record label, that would have been them paying money to do the labor of marketing your album. And because of TikTok, they've just like put.

that on to the plate of the musician, squeezing into the time that the musician can be actually making the music the thing they want to be doing. And like, it just is, I don't know that it's been a great thing for musicians. One of my favorite musicians, FCA Twigs, she talked about how she has had to put her music on TikTok in ways that make her incredibly uncomfortable that don't feel true or aligned with the vision for the song or the vision that she had as an artist. Like, I'm of her song Celophane, which is this like incredibly beautiful song that has kind of been turned into a little bit of a joke on TikTok. Like they've sped it up and they've made the audio wonky. If you know the song, you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you've ever heard

that song on TikTok that is used a lot that's like, let me do it for you, but it's all like wonky. It has like weird inflections and stuff. That's FCA Twigs is a song, Celopane. and it's an incredibly beautiful, intimate, vulnerable song. So the song's Hall of Thane, from what I understand, is about the fracture of Twigs' relationship with that actor Robert Pattinson. So Twigs is black, Pattinson is white, and Twigs was targeted for, like, deeply messed up, racist online harassment because she and Pattinson were together, and Pattinson had been in that movie Twilight and had been in a relationship previously with his Twilight co-star, Kristen

Stewart. I guess the fans like really wanted this like perfect twilight couple to get back together. So they flooded Twigs' social media with horrible racist harassment and online abuse. So the song Celopane is about the role that like this racist hate campaign played in this tough breakup of their relationship. But on TikTok, somebody did an impression of I guess their version of the song as sang by Miss Piggy. It's like them doing an impression of Miss Piggy singing that song. And so whenever you hear that sound on TikTok, what you're actually hearing is somebody doing a Miss Piggy impression

of an FCA Twig song about the role that racist online harassment played in the breakup of her relationship. And it's a sound that people use on TikTok to like illustrate jokey, silly situations. And the way that that song has been kind of turned into a joke on TikTok, but also it's kind of good for her as an artist because the song gets more attraction and more play. It's like we're asking artists to do things that are incredibly unusual. And like, I don't know. I just think, I don't know that TikTok has been a net good for artists.

Yeah, I could imagine that probably doesn't feel great for FK Twigs to have this like vulnerable song turned into a joke like that. And she sounds like she's like not really even getting paid for it either. Yeah. And I think last year, another one of my favorite artists, Fiona, completely took her music off of TikTok. And I totally get it. Like, you know, Fiona Apple has, again, incredibly poignant songs about her sexual assault as a child

to see those songs take off on a platform and become jokes. Or I'm not even saying that her song would have become a joke, but like to be used in a way that you had not intended and does not feel aligned with what you put out into the world and then be told like, oh, no, actually it's good because that means people are listening to it and it's being marketed. I do think that it's, we should be having a serious conversation about what TikTok and social media in general has done to the process of making art and music in 2024. I don't necessarily think that UMG as a label is actually altruistically trying to have that conversation to make sure that artists are getting the pay they deserve that I'm a little skeptical of, but I do think it's a conversation we should be having.

I'm just trying to imagine so many artists are famous for being. being very private. I'm trying to imagine Prince like making TikToks or something and the image just doesn't work. Right. First of all, Prince would never. Even though Prince was a huge techie, Prince would never be on TikTok.

But that's what I've always said this. If Kurt Cobain was still alive, can you imagine how annoying he would be on Twitter? Like some of these musicians, like not every musician is made better by getting a lens into their life.

into their creative process. And I think that we've created this dynamic where if you want to succeed and you either A, you better be like an industry plant or have a huge apparatus behind you or something or have some sort of connection. Or B, you better be ready to like be a one person content machine shooting the behind the scenes footage of how this thing came together.

And as somebody who makes a creative thing, like the creative process, not that I'm a musician, but like, you know, I make things. it's really boring a lot of the times and it has to be. It's like trying things. It's like writing. It's like journaling. It's like, you know, it's not terribly exciting. And so having to like make it seem really cool and engaging and like tell a cool story

about why people should want to check it out on top of it while you're already trying to make the thing. It would get really hard. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy, not quite on humor 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. Who's the worst 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 to the group. side to the group.

The yard birds, right? That's the name. The Harvard yard, but they're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle aged, one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me.

I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans. listen to podcasts, then add 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 IHart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Call 844-4-I-Hart to get started. That's 844-Ehart. What's up, fam? This Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano

in 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 Nass would get that thing. That man, hell get to fly.

He running up the court licking his fingers while he got the ball. Like, after you go through a training camp with that, Isaiah, you figure it out real quick. 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. you get your podcasts. And we're back. So let's talk about another big story this week, which is that CEOs of basically all the major social media platforms, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Snap, all went before

Cinnett to testify about how their platforms have harmed children safety. Some of them came voluntarily, but others, like Twitter's CEO, Linda Yaccarino, were subpoenaed. The hearing lasted four hours, but really ended with not many clear resolutions. But I will say that the tenseness and the vibe of that hearing, made it clear to me that tech CEOs are realizing that this is a problem that is not going away, that they're not going to be able to just vibe out of this one, that people are really going to want answers. And I also think that that era that we've talked about on the show before in our episode that we did with Paris Marks from the podcast, Tech Won't Save Us, that era of

the early aughts, the early 2000s of tech CEOs are all geniuses and they're all doing really cool things. They're going to save the world. We should have endless optimism on what they're doing, that era is like firmly coming to an end. I think that we, I think that tech CEOs have enjoyed this like benefit of the doubt culturally for a really long time. I think that this hearing makes it clear that that era is over and that people want answers on how they got rich from hurting kids. So if you didn't watch the hearing, here are the highlights that you should know. So first of all, as I said, it was just like their, the tone was very aggressive. Lawmakers were demanding that like CEOs apologize for hurting kids.

Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said that companies had blood on their hands. You have blood on your hands. You have a product. You have a product that's killing people. And we got to talk about Mark Zuckerberg here because he actually, as far as I know for the first time ever, directly apologized to the families of kids who were hurt by Instagram and Facebook. In the hearing room, the families of.

young people who died by suicide and those deaths were linked to Instagram or Facebook, they were there in the hearing holding up framed pictures of their lost children. And at one point, Josh Hawley was like, turn around and apologize to those families. And Zuckerberg actually did it. Here's what he said. There's families of victims here today. Have you apologized to the victims? Would you like to do so now?

Well, they're here. You're on national television. Would you like now to apologize to the victims who have been harmed by your products? Show him the pictures. Would you like to apologize for what you've done to these good people? So even though Zuckerberg gave this apology to the families in the room, he would not agree to set up any kind of compensation fund to compensate the families of young people hurt by his products. And so, yeah, he'll give you an apology that's kind of like harangued out of him by Josh Hawley.

but financial compensation, a compensation fund cannot do. But take these apologies, though. These words might help. It's like one of my favorite Futurama episodes when Hermes' son has like broken a window. And so Hermes is taking him to apologize. And his son says like, oh, am I going to have to pay for it? And he's like, oh, no, no, just cheap, cheap words. Yeah, cheap, cheap words.

It's all Mark Zuckerberg's got for us. So I'll throw a link to it in the show notes, but there was this great op-ed in the hill from Julie Skelfo, who was a journalist and the executive director of Get Media Savvy, a nonprofit working to establish a healthier media vibe for kids and families. And it really gets to the heart of the ghoulishness that was on display when tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg treat our children like commodities. So the whole piece is worth a read, but listen to this. As a CEO, Zuckerberg isn't willing to spend a cent over $270 each to keep our kids safe, not even if their lives depend on it. And they might. Just ask the parents of Engley Roberts, a 14-year-old from Louisiana who took her own life after Instagram's algorithm sent her numerous mentally harmful posts, they say, including one modeling self-strangulation,

or asked the parents of Gavin Guffey, a 17-year-old from South Carolina, who died by suicide after being sex storted. Although META has denied putting a monetary value on kids, a recently released, unredacted version of a lawsuit brought by attorneys general from 33 states includes an internal email showing how META characterized its youngest users in 2018. Quote, the lifetime value of a 13-year-old is roughly $270 per teen. The email went on to caution META employees that this number is core to making decisions about your business. And accordingly, you do not want to spend more. than the lifetime value of the user.

In other words, our kids are profit centers, and it doesn't make business sense for META to spend more than $270 to make the platform safe for them. As a corporation, META's goal is to maximize profits, even apparently if that means more kids die. And I feel like that really gets at what we're talking about here, that they are putting a monetary value on the lives of our children, and that's core to their business model.

And, you know, I think it's going to take a little more than Zuckerberg's cheap, cheap words here to make that right in any meaningful capacity. Yeah, well, there's so much more harm, too, than, you know, kids who don't die, right? There are kids whose self-esteem is really hurt. They can end up with a lot of trauma that they have to carry around.

and a friend of mine is a defense attorney. He's a public defender. And so he's often dealing, you know, defending young people who've been involved in some kind of dumb crime. And he says that all of them have some sort of social media component. So that's like even another way that social media can, is like, can destroy lives. Yeah, the harm, it makes, it's upsetting that we're talking about children who are no longer, with us, our babies, but the harm is so vast and diverse. It's just, it's just sickening and the scope is sickening and shocking. And in addition to compensating the families who've been affected,

it's also important to put something in place to stop new kids from being exposed to these same harms. Well, that's what I'm saying is that I, it feels like the dynamic that we have when it comes to big tech and just harms in general is that at the very the very best they can offer is compensation after harm has occurred. And when we're talking about dead kids, I don't give a fuck how much money you give me if my kid is hurt. If my kid dies by suicide. Like there is not a dollar amount on this earth that would satisfy me. I, yeah. So I would hope for a dynamic that can be better that can say like we can prevent harm. We can do more than just do something. Do something. reactive after something bad happens, we know it's happening, we know it's going to continue to

happen. What if we put things in place to prevent it from continuing to happen? Like, I just think that it sickens me that this is apparently like the best they can do is like after a harm has occurred, maybe we can step in and talk. What if we had a better system that did not need for people to be hurt before somebody did something? Yeah, it would, that would be nice. You know, I was talking with a friend yesterday about that hearing. And this friend was like, seems really optimistic about some sort of meaningful change would come out of this. He was talking about all, you know, seemed like there was bipartisan support and both Republicans and Democrats were really like giving it to the tech executives. But it's, as far as I can tell, it's a lot of bipartisan

support for grandstanding and stunts and, you know, yelling at C.E. and forcing them to apologize, I would really love to see some, like, actual action, some legislation that would do something meaningful here. Absolutely same. So, of course, it would not be a Senate hearing where lawmakers talks to TikTok CEO Shosey Chu without getting real racist with it. Here's Tom Cotton. So you said today, as you often say, that you live in Singapore.

Of what nation are you a citizen? Singapore. Are you a citizen of any other nation? No, Senator. Have you ever applied for Chinese citizenship? Senator, I served my nation in Singapore. No, I did not. Do you have a Singapore in passport?

Yes, and I served my military for two and a half years in Singapore. Do you have any other passport from any other nations? No, Senator. Your wife is an American citizen, your children are American citizens. That's correct. Have you ever applied for American citizenship? No, not yet. Okay.

Have you ever been a member of the Chinese Communist Party? Senator, I'm Singaporean. No. Have you ever been associated or affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party? No, Senator. Again, I'm Singaporean. So, yeah, Tom Cotton. What is there even really to say? Yeah, it's bad. I can't believe that wasn't a bigger thing. That's what I'm saying.

And that's all they've got really. It's like, not only is it grandstanding, but it's like racist grandstanding. where are the solutions? All they've got is the Kids Online Safety Act, which as we've talked about before, is not going to do it. It's just not meaningful legislation that's going to be workable to protect kids,

but that's all they've got. So that is actually the only tangible thing that came out of this hearing. Like for all of the grandstanding, and all of that. It ended with some leaders of platforms agreeing to support the Kids Online Safety Act, which y'all probably know from listening to this podcast, we are not too thrilled about over here. Separately, Microsoft also came out in support of the Kids Online Safety Act this week, too. Our producer and guest co-host, Joey, has a great episode of the podcast Stuff Mom ever told you,

breaking down how the Kids Online Safety Act is poised to hurt LGBTQ youth. So a legislation that is all about protecting youth is actually poised to hurt those same youth. We will put the episode in the show notes, definitely worth a listen. Yeah, out of these hearings, Evan Spiegel, the CEO of Snap and Linda Yaccarino, who leads Twitter, both agreed to support the kids' online safety act. And yeah, it's just not, that's what makes me think that all of this is just bloviating and grandstanding, right? For all of this grandstanding, for all of this like Josh Hawley, making Zuckerberg

turn around and apologize to those families, none of it. really means anything. It just feels like theater. It feels like submitting your wheels. Like, despite years of railing against big tech, no meaningful legislation has moved through Congress to be signed into law. So I, again, I've said this. I think this is just grandstanding to look like we're being tough on big tech without actually doing anything to be tough on big tech. They want to signal the people that they're doing something big and taking it seriously. they want to throw a little like anti-Asian xenophobia in there for good measure and call it a day and call it good. Yeah, they've got to do better.

So I have a little update on a story that we talked about last week, and that is that AI generated Joe Biden deep fake robocall that voters in New Hampshire got right before the primary asking them not to vote. Well, I guess that was a literal wake-up call to the powers that be because the FCC now wants to criminalize virtually all AI-D generated robocalls because of it. This proposal would outlaw such robocalls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, which is a 1991 law that regulates automated political and marketing calls made without the receiver's consent. If the TCPA sounds familiar, it is because it's been used before around people who make illegal robocalls. A big case happened last year, and the FCC imposed a $5 million penalty against conservative activists who arranged for black voters to receive calls falsely telling them that voting could expose them to debt collectors and police departments in 2020.

So obviously a disinformation tactic really grounded in stoking very real, highly racialized fears and traumas. Like, oh, if you vote, you know, the police are going to get you. Debt collectors are going to get you. I've heard of this kind of thing happening all the time, like with paper flyers being left at black churches that say, like, oh, if you go to vote, you know, they run your name through the outstanding warrant database, which is not true. Or they run your name through the outstanding child support database, which is not true. And obviously, those are like racialized, racially charged tactics meant to stoke at like very real fears and traumas that our communities have. So that's bad

enough when it's paper flyers being put on cars. But with the power of AI and robocall technology, there is no end to how damaging this could be to democracy. Yeah. That's, that's. sounds like a good regulation, right? Like government using its authority to prohibit like a whole category of AI generated deception. That seems great. So NBC reports that basically this change will particularly empower state attorneys general to take legal action against spammers who use AI. So yeah, I think if that Joe Biden AI deep fake robocall was any indication, we need legislation like this to make sure people aren't out there running wild with AI. Yeah, and you know they're gonna.

It's already clear they're going to. Again, just like what I was saying before, we don't need to wait until the harm happens. We can see it. Like, it's clear they're going to keep doing it. We can make changes now to prevent it, people. Yeah, prevention, you know. That's so much better than trying to fix something after it's broken.

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, uh, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The yard herds, 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 seem funny.

Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts. an 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 IHeart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's iHeartadvertising.com. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toledano,

and our podcast Point Game is about defined 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 Nass would 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, IZE, 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. Let's get right back into it. So speaking of AI, let's go to Australia because this is a weird situation happening with an Australian lawmaker. Victoria's parliament member, Georgie Purcell, saw a picture of herself on local news and was like, wait, something is off with this picture. She was originally photographed wearing a white sleeveless dress, but in the picture that she saw on the local news, her torso or like her middrip is exposed. And she was like, wait a minute, I am heavily tattooed on my dress. torso area, the part of my body that is exposed in this image doesn't have the tattoos that I know

I actually have. The picture also made her chest look a little bit fuller too. And her dress, which initially had been a one piece, had been turned into like a crop top where her midriff was exposed. She says, they'd given me chiseled abs and a boob job. I felt really, really uncomfortable about it. Well, nine news in Australia apologized and said it was a quote, graphics error and blamed Photoshop's automation tool, saying that in trying to resize the image, the automation by Photoshop created an image that was not consistent with the original. However, the New York Times was like, I don't know about that. They talked to Adobe, the company that makes Photoshop, and a representative for Adobe said that the edits to the image would have required human intervention and approval.

So this New York Times write up is actually very interesting. It says, some commentators familiar with working with Photoshop have suggested that if artificial intelligence is at fault, the modifications could have been made using a Photoshop tool that fills in blank space above or below an image with an automatically generated continuation of the image. Others, like Rob Nichols, a professorial fellow at the University of Technology, Sydney, said the changes could have been made with an automatic enhancement function similar to selfie filters that modify someone's facial features. The broadcast of the image, seemingly without someone checking that it was an accurate depiction of Ms. Purcell shows that using AI without strong editorial controls runs the risk of making

very significant errors. The incident shows that AI can replicate existing biases. I don't think it's coincidental that these issues tend to be gendered. This is something that we know about AI. Like, if there was one thing about AI that I wish people understood, it is that it is not like robot computer brains making decisions because they're hyper-intelligent artificially. It is built by humans, it is made by humans. Everything that we're seeing when we use AI has been put there by a human. So all of the biases and shortcomings that we know humans have, AI is simply replicating those exact same biases and stereotypes and shortcomings because it was put there by a human. And so it's no wonder that people, particularly people who are not cis men, have reported that when they

use AI image generators of themselves. The images are made more conventionally attractive. Their busts get bigger. Their waist get smaller. When I have used AI technology in the few times that I have used it, it makes my nose more narrow, my lips more narrow. It makes my facial features more Eurocentric. As a black woman, it makes it me feel like they're saying like, oh, well, we want you to look pretty. And by pretty, we mean we want you to look more white. Sometimes it lightens your skin, all of these are biases that AI is replicating because the people who built it have those biases. And I think Rob Nichols is exactly right that AI is just replicating existed deeply gendered biases here. Yeah, definitely. Well said, you know, it's an algorithm

that is trying to replicate the data that it's fed and trained on. And if the data is sexist and racist. Yeah, that's what you're going to end up with in the AI. But it's not clear to me that this even, I mean, I guess it was AI, but I feel like the news company is really trying to pull a fast one saying that like a human didn't do this. Like when you resize an image, it doesn't, Photoshop doesn't like automatically alter it in this way. Like there, there wasn't, there, it's not just the case that like the, you know, the AI here is replicating biases from the world, which it is, but also like there was a human sitting at a desk clicking the button to like enhance the image or something like that. A human sitting at a desk clicking a button to enhance the image. And then most importantly,

not double checking the image after that human clicks the button. Like that's the, that's the big thing here is like, okay, using an automated tool to fill in blank space, sure. But then you have to look afterward. Like, that's the thing about these AI tools. It's like if you're going to use them, you as the human that need to double check that if you're showing this person's torso, that it is an accurate, if you've made the already weird fucking choice to show this person's torso who did not show their torso in the original image,

at least be like, well, is this an accurate representation of this person's torso? So the whole thing is already weird. Yeah, it is weird. And it feels like the dog ate my homework kind of excuse. Or like, you know, I couldn't figure out how to print so I didn't do my assignment. What were you? What did you have microphones in conversations I had with my parents and teachers when I was in school? That's a, that's a Bridget excuse if I ever heard one.

Yeah, that's what this news company is like. basically pointing to here. Listen, as someone who is in my academic career used every excuse in the book, sometimes he's got to be like, yeah, I should have done a better job, and this is on me. So something else that Purcell,

that Australian lawmaker whose image was distorted, says here, is that she suspects that her identity is the reason why the news would feel comfortable using this kind of technology to make her look a certain way without her permission at all.

She says, I'm young, I'm blonde, I'm covered in tattoos, I have a past in sex work. So I think that she is rightly picking up on something that whoever was in charge of making this image just didn't feel like they needed to have her consent to distort the way that she looks in this way. And I do think there's something, it kind of gets back to that conversation we had about the Taylor Swift deep stakes that there's something about it that is like, your body is public property. and I actually don't need your permission or consent to manipulate it using the technology that I have to do that. I think that Purcell is on to something here that there are identity aspects that make people feel like they don't need to get permission. They don't need to get consent.

The way that your body and physicality manifest is just up to me. I have control over that and I don't need to get your permission to do that. Yeah, this is like a trend that I've noticed with news stories lately that, you know, And we all on my phone, on social media, I have lots of places where I'm looking at a feed of news stories, right? And they're all trying to get me to click on them. And I've noticed this trend where there'll be a lot of news stories in there that are not important news stories, but they're about a woman who is conventionally attractive. And, you know, it'll be like, oh, this woman from some county in a different state hasn't paid her taxes. It's like, why is this a news story?

And I think it's just because that's a way for whatever algorithm is serving up content to get an attractive woman there and just like use, yeah, use her body, use her image as clickbait. It feels weird and kind of gross. So I would actually argue that that is not a bug of our current media landscape. It is very much a feature using. people, people who happen to all be traditionally marginalized, to generate engagement and thus clicks and thus money for somebody who is likely to not be traditionally marginalized, that is like the system that keeps the whole, that is that the whole thing is built on.

And so when we have these situations where it exposes, you know, that our internet landscape is deeply misogynistic or transphobic or queerphobic or racist, those are not, you know, weird instances of something happening, they are reminders that like, oh yeah, that's because those things are baked into our entire internet landscape right now. And so we're just going to keep repeating that because that's the whole thing. That's what the whole thing, the whole house of cards that is today's current digital landscape is built on all of those things. And so is it any wonder that this same system is not fairly or accurately or consistently representing women, queer people, trans people, black people of color, or anything like that.

Yeah, it's not surprising at all. So have you got some good news to end to send us out with? I sure do. I've been saving this story because it's one that is near and dear to me. Because you all know I love a good justice to serb story. So basically, Sandsbury's, which is a grocery store chain in the UK, was supportive of Black Lives Matter. And like, I think they were doing some sort of like black history month thing for their black employees, fairly standard stuff. Well, right-wing activist Lawrence Fox, who founded the right-wing populist political party,

reclaim, and is generally the kind of person who makes his whole thing, like hating anything related to diversity. You know the type. We don't need to like, you know what I'm saying. Well, he didn't like this. And so he called for a boycott of Sandsbury's. So he got into it on Twitter with Colin Seymour, who is a drag performer,

Colin's drag performer name is Crystal. So during this exchange on Twitter, Lawrence called Colin Seymour a pedophile, which we know is like a dangerous smear, this idea that people who do drag or that LGBT people or the people who support them are dangerous sexual threats to children. It is absolutely baseless,

not to mention dangerous in a time of QAnon. Well, Colin Seymour was like, I don't think so, and sued Lawrence for liable. And this week, he won. In a ruling at the High Court, Justice Collins Rice described Fox calling him a pedophile as seriously harmful, defamatory, and baseless, saying the law affords few defenses to defamation of this sort. Mr. Fox did not attempt to show these allegations were true, and he was not able to bring himself on the facts within the terms of any other defense recognized in the law. So Fox tried to counter sue Colin Seymour for calling him a racist, but the court dismissed that counterclaim, saying that, the tweets were unlikely to cause him serious harm to his reputation.

So this is a good story because I love like justice is served. Some people, if you listen to old, old stuff mom ever told you, you might remember that in the episode that we did revealing our problematic faves, you might know who mine was. Oh, that's right. Who is your, oh. Who is my number one lady who serves up justice every, every day? Oh, Judge Judy, of course.

I thought you meant a different problematic fave. Oh, my God, I have so many. We don't have to get into it. Maybe that's Patreon content. I don't want to get like, we can move on. But yeah, so I... It's already a long episode. We don't have time to go through your long list of problematic faves.

I know, I know. No, but I basically what I'm saying is like, I love justice. I love watching somebody get what they've got coming to them. And so this story I like, but I want to be clear that like, this shit is dangerous. Seymour did an interview with the Independent, which honestly the whole thing is worth reading, but in it, he was talking about like why he sued Fox for defamation. And basically talks about how all of this anti-gay bigotry is a real dangerous problem. And that calling someone a pedophile baselessly is basically the first line of a very dangerous attack. He told the Independent, for some, anti-gay bigotry never died, but they realized that it becomes socially unacceptable.

for them to express it. So now they found a new avenue where they feel emboldened and think that they're going to get away with it. Calling somebody pedophile, groomer, or Nazi is often the first line of attack, a new way of framing very old homophobia, and it's all bound up in modern transpanic. The Independent asked if Fox had given any kind of like remorse during this case, and the answer is, no, of course not. Seymour says, it's always doubling down and digging the hole deeper, and I think until he demonstrates some actual willingness to examine his own behaviors, I can't feel anything for him except contempt. And you know what?

He is right because rather than just like shutting up, Fox is back at it tweeting about the case, quote, The Lifeblood of Progressivism is the myth of white privilege and systemic racism. Both lies. Certainly in this wonderful country, which is being eaten away at from the inside by those who would want to replace a meritocracy with a melaninocracy. Is that a word that you've seen before?

This is my first time. I have not seen melanocracy. In case you don't know, melanin is the thing that makes people of color our skin the way that it is, beautiful brown shades. I have not heard melanocry before, but best believe I'm about to steal it, because this whole month we are celebrating what we're now calling the melaninocracy. So how does it work in a melanonocracy? Like, do the people with the most melanin get to be in charge? Is that what it is here? I think that's what he is implying is how it works.

And you know what? I'm here for it. So we're having a one month melaninocracy for February, spread it around. It's going to be the new thing. That's it. Yeah, all right. Well, I mean, it's your month. So here we go.

Melanine reign supreme. I'll hail our new melanin overlord. That's right. It's about time. Mike, thank you so much for being here. Thanks for having me, Bridget. Always a pleasure. And thanks so much to all of you for listening. Happy Black History Month.

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 tangoody.com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at tangoity.com. There are no girls on the internet was created by me, Bridget Todd. It's a production of IHeartRadio and Unbossed creative.

Edited by Joey Pat. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Taray 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 guide. Quite on Humor Me with Robert Smygel and Friends, me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, S&L'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. Hi, everyone. I'm Cheryl Stray, author of Wild and tiny beautiful things. I'm excited to share that I have a new podcast called Mind Over Mountain. In each episode, I interview athletes, adventurers, and adrenaline seekers to discuss the

inner landscapes that informed and inspired their extraordinary feats. So we too can better understand how to face our own seemingly insurmountable challenges. Listen to Mind Over Mountain every Thursday on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. What's up, fam? It's Isaiah Thomas. And I'm C.J. Toadano. 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 hungry.

You just understood. That's how personal it got. Wow. Then after that game seven, Mark keep coming 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. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human