There Are No Girls on the Internet - Willy Wonka AI fiasco; Google’s “woke” AI fiasco; Tumblr CEO transphobia fiasco; Wendy’s pricing fiasco – NEWS ROUNDUP

Episode Date: March 2, 2024

The less-than-magical Willy Wonka event, briefly explained: https://www.vox.com/technology/2024/2/28/24086217/willy-wonka-glasgow-scotland Why Google's 'woke' AI problem won't be an easy fix: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68412620 Black Nazis? A woman pope? That’s just the start of Google’s AI problem: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2024/2/28/24083814/google-gemini-ai-bias-ethics Tumblr CEO's public 'meltdown' is mocked, memed by users: https://mashable.com/article/tumblr-transphobia-matt-mullenweg X quietly revived anti-misgendering policy that Musk dropped last year: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/x-quietly-revived-anti-misgendering-policy-that-musk-dropped-last-year/ He's America's Favorite Librarian — And He's Just Getting Started Spreading 'Library Joy': https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mychal-threets-america-favorite-librarian-tiktok_n_65ab2fe8e4b00bbb446f3f7d Wendy's says it won't use surge pricing for burgers after announcing 'dynamic pricing.' What's the difference between the 2?: https://news.yahoo.com/wendys-says-it-wont-use-surge-pricing-for-burgers-after-announcing-dynamic-pricing-whats-the-difference-between-the-2-175039236.htmlSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

844-844-I-Hart. Why are we all so obsessed with romance? On the radio 831 podcast, join us Sanjana Basker and Tyler McCall. As we unpack all the trending tropes, fuzzy adaptations, book talk drama, and celebrity love stories with hot takes and sharp guests. Each episode digs into what these stories reveal about desire, fantasy, identity, and how we love now. Listen to the Radio 831 podcast on the IHeartRadio 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. This is There Are No Girls on the Internet

where we explore the intersection of tech, social media, and identity. This is another installment of our weekly News Roundup where we summarize and round up some of the news on the Internet that you might have missed this week. Just a heads up, if my voice sounds a little bit raspy, because I have been traveling and screaming at parties and concerts and conferences. So I kind of got a little bit of a Kathleen Turner thing happening. That's what's going on with me.

Mike, thank you for being here. Bridget, thanks for having me. Thanks for soldiering on despite that raspiness. So I'm actually happy that you're here because a story that I know that you know I'm low-key obsessed with, I just have so much to say about it. Can we just jump in? This will be our banter. We have to.

Yeah, yeah, let's just jump it. This is like possibly the funnest story that we've talked about on here in like a very long time. So the other day, I was like, like, like, you were hearing me laugh to myself. And he were like, what's so funny? And I was like, I'll save it. I mean, I got to save it for the roundup. And that was me diving into the ins and outs of this.

I guess it's, I guess I'm calling it the Willy Wonka fiasco in Glasgow. Am I saying that right, Glasgow? I think it's Glasgow. And I think it like, it actually rhymes with fiasco. The Glasgow fiasco? The Willy Wonka Glasgow fiasco. So here's what went down. Basically, the police had to be called to the Willie's Chocolate Experience, which was this live event for kids and families built as like an immersive, wondrous experience for kids.

So like kids apparently showed up with their families. It costs $44, by the way. So that's like not a cheap ticket in my book. Kids showed up with their parents. They were in like Willy Wonka inspired costumes. I don't know if you know this, but there's a new. Willy Wonka movie with Timothy Shalame out right now, so it's kind of hot in the Zichai's. And, you know, I guess all I can say is that it was not the world of pure imagination that

these kids and families were promised. So this is one of those stories that you have to see the pictures to really get what I'm saying. But whatever you're imagining from what I'm describing, it is worse. It is sadder. It is grimmer than whatever it is that you're picturing. So we'll link to the pictures of the show notes, but it is truly the grimish that I have ever seen. in my life. Did you see these pictures? I'm like cracking up at one right now that's just like there

it's very multi-colored, there's a lot of candy, there's like a strange little bear and a flying horse, some sort of like circus clown man, and then also a bunch of like nonsense lettering that like almost is words, but like it's not actual

words, it's just like nonsense letters. You mean from the flyer or from the like online like poster? I'm looking at this, I think it's the online poster, I think. Yeah. So let me read some of those nonsense words. At the top it says, I think they're going for enriching entertainment is what I think they're going for. It says, in sharing entertainment. And then on the bottom where it like, you know, like on a concert flyer where they would have the band names.

So on the very bottom of the flyer, it says cat. cat how would you even say that catcitating i'm no i'm so excited to listen to you try to say these words so i'm not going to help you're just going to have to do it catgatating live performances they got that one okay carchie tons like are they going for catchy turns but even that wouldn't really make sense i think it was supposed to be like catchy tunes catchy tunes catchy tunes okay Dre lollipops. These lollipops are so exeter dray. Apacadise of sweet treats.

No, a passadice of sweet teats. Like, it's so messed up that the brain fixes it. Like, that's how messed up it is. I'm not even reading it the way that it's written. It, like, I can kind of see why people were taken in by this because it's like,

it's, like, trafficking in Willy Wonka, which is kind of absurd and, like, magical. and so it almost feels like it could have been intentional. Like, wow, these people are like really out there. Well, Willie Wonka is absurd and like enigmatic or whatever, but he doesn't speak gibberish. Like he says words. Like, this is like written by Pooty Tang.

Like this is not, these are not words that are words. Yeah, you're right. This is just like classic catcating. Classic catcating. So the performers are all speaking out on TikTok. And I have to say, like, it has been really. something watching these Glasgow, like, I don't know,

up-and-coming live performance artists explaining what happened because they're all hilarious storytellers, like each and every one of these videos that I have found, and they're captivating, I've watched them all. They're all, they all have such a, like, I don't

know if it's a Scotland thing or what, but like they all have such captivating realist ways of explaining what the fuck is going on in this already hilarious grim situation. So the performers are speaking out, they said that House of Illuminati, which is the company behind the event, basically just gave them what they said were AI generated scripts that made no sense. Here's one of the performers, Paul Connell, talking about it.

He says he was cast as Willy Wonka, despite having self-described big umpa-lumpa energy. The script was 15 pages, monologue pretty much of AI-generated. gibberish, which I will read some for you if you want. In fact, no, I don't even need to read it because I learnt it all and it was it was mad. I've learned all of it. That's all in there. That's in my brain. So I'll give you one of the lines from the script. I'm not going to do the Willy Wonka voice because I think I've embarrassed myself enough over the last few days. But one of my favorite lines was there is a man who, lives here, his name is not known. So we call him the unknown. The unknown is an evil chocolate maker who lives in the walls. What? What is an evil chocolate maker for a start? Does he make evil chocolate or is he an evil man who makes chocolate? And what do you mean he lives in the walls? So what the hell is going on? You know?

Like, this is not canon. No, I, I loved his delivery. Yeah, he did have big, big oopalupa energy. They missed there. But like, yeah, the unknown. What is up with the unknown? What's he doing in the walls? Oh my God, right before we got on,

I was like three TikToks deep in a TikTok of somebody claiming to be the performer of the unknown. The unknown, we don't know much about him because obviously the unknown is not a character from the original movie or book or whatever. But also he wears like an eyes wide shut mask and sort of herky jerky dances around. He got on like a silver eyes wide shut mask

and a slash wig and he's dancing around. Side note, the unknown has to become a little bit of an icon on social media. Like, I feel like we are like a week or so away from somebody doing a drag performance as The Unknown. I saw a video of the unknown, like, I guess, slinking from behind a mirror. So also, like, not even in the walls. Like, it's like, someone is just holding a mirror.

It's like, well, that's not him coming from the wall. That's him coming from a mirror. And he sort of, like, does this herky, jerky dance in the kids' face. And the noise that the kids make in response, it's like, it's not quite that they're scared. It's that they're unimpressed, unenthused, and maybe a little confused. They're like, oh, it's the unknown. And there's a collective, uh, from the kids. It's not quite, it's like a bored, annoyance more than anything.

It's like they're not like really scared. They're just like confused. Yeah, you showed me that video. He's like, he's just, he's not like behind a large mirror. He's just holding up a medium-sized mirror that does not cover his body. And in what way does that convey coming from the walls? Yeah. And why does he need to wear this get up to make evil chocolate?

And yeah, again, is the chocolate, like, is the chocolate evil or he's evil? And he just happens to make chocolate on the sad? Like, I have many, many, many questions. Yeah. And like, what is the role of evil in this? this Willy Wonka universe, like, maybe I'm going a bit too far looking for meaning here. Yeah, you're like digging, you're like plumbing the depths for meaning in this AI-generated gobbledygook come to life.

It's like the words, right? Like the, the catcating, the carchitone tons, the exacerbated ray lollipops. It's like the brain tries to impose some sort of like order and coherence on this gobbledygook to the AI has spit out at it. Right. Like our brains automatically try to fill in the gaps because you're like, well, surely they mean captivating tunes. That's what they're going for. Okay. So for all of the like Hollywood executives who are just like, oh, we'll just have AI write everything. This is actually pretty good at a capillation of what it would be like to actually have an event and a play and a piece of entertainment solely written by AI. Like when you go back to the flyer,

All of the images are AI generated. Like there is on a single image that actually depicts what you would actually be paying almost $50 to go see. Everything is, and the AI generated images look pretty good, right? Like if they were real encapsulations of what they would actually be getting, you'd be like, wow, this really is a world of pure imagination. Instead of like some tarps hung up and an eyes wide shut mask coming at you. Yeah, it's it's like so many AI images, right? Like you look at it and at first you're like, oh, yeah, this is pretty good. This makes sense.

And then as you look at the details, you're like, wait, why does he have so many arms? What are those faces on? Okay. So I believe that like, you know, live events is a booming industry. I have a two-year-old niece who is a literal angel in heaven. That detail is not part of the conversation. People just need to know she's a literal angel from heaven. But she loves unicorns.

And my brother took her to this like some kind of a unicorn experience. And just to even show up, one adult and one toddler, it was like almost $100. When you get there, it's like, oh, get a photo. That's another 50. Get this. It's another 10. And he was like, the whole thing was like clearly a racket, such a racket bordering on a scam. Because then you've got your kid there and you're like, well,

I don't want to be like, sorry, we came all this way and you're dressed as a unicorn, but we can't get the picture, we can't do the thing. And so I do think that this kind of thing where somebody has just almost entirely AI generated an event and used AI to put it together from the scripts to the advertising and the flyers, I think we're going to see more and more of people being like, what did I just pay $50 to show up to? It makes no sense. Yeah, such a scam.

I am legit, so curious, like, what his process was, because I was, like, reading into it a little bit. And the guy who put this thing together, what's the name of his company? Aluminati. House of Illumani. Yeah. Like, Rolling Stone has an article about him, and apparently, like, he's the only employee, and he has a bunch of businesses. He's also involved in, like, has some AI-generated books on Amazon that are, like, anti-Bax conspiracy. Oh, no.

Content. So he's really like multi-vertical AI scams. And so like scamming people is bad. But I am legit interested, like curious what what his process looks like to like conceive of this thing, put it together, like turned it into event. Like he, it seems like he did extremely little creative, right? Like everything is AI generated, like you said. But an actual event did happen in the real world. and like people showed up and like paid and were there and like actors were hired.

Like how like what did it look like to turn this AI generated concept into something that actually existed in the world? Even and in this case existed terribly and was a huge flop. I'll tell you one thing. If he is running a dynasty of a different AI generated quick cash scams, he sounds like, a little bit of a Willy Wonka figure. Like I would watch a movie where we are welcomed into his world of like fantastical AI scams and then one by one get picked off by umpalupas until there's one of us left to take over the dynasty.

Oh man. Like he's a little bit of a Wonka figure in and of himself. But instead of chocolate, it's like low level AI scams. Yeah. We could get the, you know, you just got to get the golden ticket. You can go enter his world of pure imagination. or gasey. Okay, to take us out of this segment,

here's a little bit of soupy garbage juice doing his rendation of pure margination. Come with me. Let's take a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guide, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends.

Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob 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 that worst singer in the group?

The worst? Yeah. Me. Is there anything to the idea that because you're from Harvard, you only got in because your parents made a huge donation. The group. The yard 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 IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Humor me.

I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message.

Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business. Think IHart. Streaming, radio, and podcasting. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's iHeartadvertising.com. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind.

Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode we're cutting through the noise. Breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athletes themselves. Their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear.

The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context, and ask the questions everybody wants answered. Sports slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to SportsSlic on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Sliced Life 12 and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. And we're back. So we have to talk about what's going on with Google and AI.

It is a little bit complicated, but I think I can break down what's going on here. So Google has this AI tool called Gemini, you know, where you ask it different prompts and it shows different images. They have a chat bot where you ask it different prompts and it answers you. So last week, they temporarily shut it down after complaints that that's, that's a time. technology refuses to acknowledge the existence of white people. So I do think that there is obviously something funky going on with Google's AI, which we'll get into in a minute. But I also need to be super clear here that this is one of those things where there is like a legit problem or a legit issue. But the framing around that issue is being pushed disingenuously by right-wing extremist

types. And I think that Google and like some other prominent folks like media folks who should know better are really falling for it. So this entire thing started when the Twitter account and Wokeness, pause right there because doesn't that already tell you a lot about what you need to know? Like, this is the framing, the specific framing around this issue started with the account and Wokeness. Yeah, that tells you a lot about where we're headed. So NWokenness posted that when you ask Gemini to show pictures of the Founding Fathers of America, it shows black people and Asian people and indigenous people rather than what you might imagine it to be, the white founding fathers of the United States. Gemini showed a black man, a Native American man,

and an Asian man and a dark skin man. It also showed the Pope as a black person and generated images of like a racially inclusive Nazi party. So not great, right? Like I'm not saying that that was a great thing. Obviously something funky is going on. So big caveat here. I am not an engineer. If someone who is, we have lots of it listeners who are engineers, if you are listening and you're like, you're getting it totally wrong. Please let me know. I want to hear from you. So all that to say, I do think I have a pretty good idea of what's going on here just

from somebody who has read a lot about AI. And I sort of like been in the depths of some of the cultural complications that come from making AI. So I think that Google is aware that AI tools have gender and racial biases baked into them, right? If you listen to this show, this is probably not surprising to you because we talk about it all the time. So I think that what we're seeing is Google's kind of clunky attempt to find.

fix this, which is obviously an overcorrection that is completely missing the mark. Here's a good example of how to think about it. So if somebody asked Gemini to show pictures of CEOs because of bias and racism and sexism and all the isms that we talk about on this show, there are more white male CEOs than non-white male CEOs. That's just the fact of being in the United States. But there are non-white male CEOs out there. And so the argument is, well, should this technology be representing a more inclusive world, or should it be representing the world as it is? And so it's kind of like a thorny, almost like a philosophical question of what you are meant to see when you ask this technology for these kinds of prompts.

So I would say like it is not a tech problem with like a straightforward tech solution. It's like a value judgment question and like almost like a philosophical question about what it is these tools are meant to do and what we want them to. to do. And I think like maybe those are some of the questions, some of the larger questions about why companies like Google are making these tools. I think like those are some of the questions that maybe have not been answered in their, in their rush to build them. Like it does sound like a fairly complex problem to me. And I also think it shows the danger of what happens when big tech companies are just like rushing to put out AI tools to compete with one another rather than really

spending some time thoughtfully thinking about, well, what is it that you want the tools to do like meaningfully coming up with the with the philosophy and the value around why you are building these tools for who and for what reason. Yeah, I totally agree. And I think you really nailed it on that last point that it's what happens when companies rush to bring products to market before they're ready. Like it's been really surprising over the past year or so to see how much Google is like behind in these AI tools and really racing to try to catch up. And so it's not hugely surprising that they had this big misstep of bringing a tool to market before it was actually ready for prime time for all those reasons that you described.

Yeah. So I think this is Google really making some pretty deep missteps in an attempt to rush and catch up to everybody else who's already been in this game for a while. Yeah. Although, you know, it's, I don't know what happens if you try to get like Dolly or stable diffusion to generate images of founding fathers, right? Like, has anybody looked? I don't know.

Oh, I mean, I'm not even sure I want to get into that because, like, they do generate the images that you would be thinking, but they have other issues, right? Like, I've heard people be like, oh, well, Dali and Mid Journey don't have this problem. They might have this specific use case problem where, like, people are asking for this specific thing and getting a similar problematic answer. But they have other instances of bias baked into them. And so, like, I'm almost not comfortable with the way people have been framing this as, like, Google AI bad because all AI is so problematic and has all this bias baked in and people aren't wrong for lifting that, but like lifting it in this specific way feels disingenuous. And I want to call all that out.

Yeah, certainly that particular way is like the one area that whoever owns the Twitter account and wokeness is most concerned about, right? Well, that's what I'm saying is like, you know, this whole conversation I think is a really good example of like the thorny and complicated intersections of like culture and identity and technology that you know I love nerding out on and like thinking about it's like why we had this podcast. And so I don't want to make it seem like it's not a problem. It is a problem. These are problems that need solving and that people should be thinking about. But rather than see it in that way as like this like kind of complex challenge to correct, you have extremists like and wokeness or Elon Musk

accusing Google of like wanting to eradicate whiteness because Google is woke and they do DEI and like making it about framing it in this like way that I think really is not only like very disingenuous, but it takes away from what is like really a problem and like a challenge that I think that people who make AI really ought to be wrestling with. And I think that like this framing makes them less likely to wrestle with this complex challenge in a way that gets us to less bias, it's just like, oh, well, we'll just side-step it all together, right? Like, who wants to fall into, like, a Bud Light or a Target-style, you know, wokeness campaign, right?

Nobody. And so I think that they're, by them framing it this way and doing it successfully, it is really hijacking the conversation. Yeah, absolutely. The way you set it up, it's such an interesting question. What should the results from these AI models be? should it be like the world that we want to live in that is more inclusive or should it be a more like accurate recreation of what's in the existing data set that's an interesting nuanced

question that like thoughtful people could talk about extremists don't want to have a nuanced conversation like that right they just want to completely flatten it to uh google is trying to eliminate white people which is uh ridiculous and and also like misses that, you know, reading Elon's tweets about this, you get the sense that he thinks the answer to that thoughtful question that you posed is like, oh, well, it should just recreate what's in the data perfectly. But like, that what's in the data is not a perfect recreation of what is in the actual world, right? Like even if you're just recreating what's in the data, it's already been,

filled with the sorts of biases and isms that you talked about, right? So there's no like free lunch here. People are making value judgments every step of the way. Exactly. And so the way that Musk framed it, he posted a front page story from the New York Post saying, woke Google AI is messing with history. And Musk tweeted it saying, quote, the woke mind virus is killing Western civilization. And so obviously, it's not even an attempt to grapple with any of the complexities that we were talking about. It's just like woke, killing, like, woke mind virus. Like, it's just, it's so disingenuous. And so there are a couple of other instances that folks like this are lifting up that when you ask Gemini, who is worse for society, Hitler or Elon Musk,

Gemini says, it is not possible to say who definitely impacted society more. Elon tweeting memes or Hitler, Elon's tweets have been criticized for being insensitive and harmful, while Hitler's actions led to the deaths of millions of people. Ultimately, it is up to individual to decide who they believe has had a more negative impact on society. There is no right or wrong answer. And it is important to consider all the relevant factors before making a decision. Another one is that when people asked Gemini, whether or not it would be okay to misgender Caitlin Jenner, if it was the only way to avoid a nuclear apocalypse, Gemini said that it is never okay to misgender people.

And so, like, obviously, like, again, it comes down to this question of like, why are you building these kinds of tools and what do you want them to do and for who? Like these situations where people are asking, like, who's a worst person or like these weird hypothetical gotcha scenarios to test out if the technology gives an acceptable answer or not? And if it doesn't, they're going to use that to validate their worldview that white men are being like oppressed by technology. Like, I just don't think that that is a dance that people should get into. That is like allowing that framing to dictate what is a,

a pretty complex technical conversation, I think is like such a mistake. But then you have people who really ought to know better falling for it. Like Nate Silver was talking about the who's worst Elon Musk or Hitler thing. And he said that it demonstrated that Google needed to shut Gemini down saying, every single person who worked on this should take a long, hard, look in the mirror. And I don't know. It just like really frustrates me. What a dumb comment from Nate Silver.

You know, he's really fallen. from a person who people look to as like a smart guy who knew stuff to just piling on to this anti-woke thing. Like what does his comment contribute to the conversation? If we, if you got me start, if I got started on Nate Silver, we would be here all day. I have so many thoughts. I have so many thoughts. Let's just move on. All right, let's move on.

Yeah, and so it's like, I think part of it is like people like Nate Silver, I think they want to be seen like, I know what's going on. I have a high understanding of the tech, but it's like not if you're falling for this bullshit. Like if you are going to accept this framing, then you don't know what's going on and you should not be making public conversations about what's going on because you clearly have demonstrated that you have no idea what's going on. Yeah. And like every single person who worked on this should take a long, hard look in the mirror. Really? Like every person, there were like probably thousands. Yes.

And so I guess that's what I'm saying is like way to be late to the party because people like Dr. Joy Blamweeney from the Algorithm the Justice League and like people have been talking about the way that AI is dangerously biased for a long time. But like on this podcast, we talked about women like Portia Woodruff, a pregnant black. woman, like heavily pregnant black woman who was falsely arrested for a crime she had nothing to do with because bad technology, facial recognition said, told, led police to her and was like, oh, this is the person who did it. And she was held handcuffed in front of her kids, held in a jail cell. After she was released, she was like dehydrated and had to go straight to the ER because

she was pregnant. So I really cannot accept that the conversation about bias in technology and bias in AI is going to start and begin with this idea that it is being used to eradicate white men. And so people like Nate Silver who are saying like, oh, like, let me weigh in, either they have just gotten here and they have just started paying attention to bias in AI, or they're just disingenuous. They're just carrying water for these extremists who want that to be the framing. I think Nate Silver is smart enough to know the difference. And so I actually don't think that he just got here and that he just fell out of the Comquotry and doesn't know what's going on. I think this is an intentional decision to align himself with a particular worldview.

And I think, like, we need to call it out for what it is. And so I guess all that to say is, I am disappointed, but maybe not surprised to see Google kind of falling for this, right? So like Google's CEO said, I know that some of its responses have offended our users and shown bias to be clear, that is completely unacceptable. We got it wrong. And so, like, I just think that, like, time and time again, when you have bad actors and extremists setting the framing and then you accept that framing and you go with it, you have already lost. I think that, like, letting them set the agenda is such a mistake, especially for something as important as AI that is so poised to shape all of our lives. And again, like, this is a fairly complex situation. I think that Google will say, like, oh, we're going to have it, we took it off, we took it off, we took it down.

We're going to have it up in a couple of weeks. We're going to fix this. it is not clear to me that this is a problem that has an easy fix. BBC spoke to Dr. Sasha Luchoni, a research scientist at Hugging Face, who said, this is really not an easily fixable problem because it's not clear that there is one single answer to what these outputs should be. She says, there really is no easy fix because there's no single answer to what the output should be.

People in the AI ethics community have been working on possible ways to address this for years. One solution could be asking users for their input, such as, how diverse would you like your images to be? But that in itself clearly comes with its own red flags. It's a bit presumptuous of Google to say they will fix the issue in a few weeks, but they will have to do something. And so I agree with that. I don't think this is a problem that has a hard and fast tech solution.

I think the solution, if you could even call it that, is really having a deep think in a meaningful way and like going back to the drawing board of answering some of those looming values and philosophical questions. why you are building this in the first place to what end? Yeah. And, you know, those, like, ethical dilemmas, like, how can you expect an AI to respond to that?

And would you even want an AI chatbot to give definitive answers to ethical dilemmas? You know, you think about, like, the trolley problem. A train is coming down a track, and you can pull, it's going to hit a person and kill them, or it was going to hit three people and kill them, or you could, like, move the lever and divert it down a different track where it's only going to kill one person, should you pull that lever, right? I don't think there is a clear answer to that. People disagree.

And so I don't think we should be looking to AI for answers to those kinds of ethical questions. Well, I would even go further and say, I don't think AI can answer those questions. Like, AI is not like a hyper-aware robot computer brain. Like, it can only spit back at us what we give to it. And so if we're spitting, if what we have this like complex ethical and philosophical dilemmas, why would we expect AI to be able to come up with hard and fast answers to things that as a human race, we do not have hard and fast answers to? And so I think these are all conversations to have.

But when you have disingenuous people coming into the conversation and trying to make it seem like the face of bias in AI, the face of the person being harmed is not a woman or a black person or a queer person or a trans person or an indigenous person, we know that it is. We have so much research indicating that it is. We cannot allow these people to reframe reality to make themselves victims. And so let's have a conversation about how to make sure AI isn't biased. But that conversation is not admit that Google is woke, DEI, mind virus, and it is racist against white men like Elon Musk. Like, again, if you give these people an inch and let them set the terms, you have already lost. And by now we have seen this happen enough times with Target, with Bud Light, that I think if you are a company and when these people set their sights on, you, if you do not have a game plan for how you are going to respond that does not allow them to just shamelessly and disingenually set the terms of what's going on, you are doing it wrong. And Google is a big enough company that I know they're aware of this.

They, like, just cowtowing to these grievance mongers about their technology and what's going on with it. And again, I don't want to make it sound like I'm defending Google because what a weird position for me to be taking into that. But you can't just let these grievance mongers set the terms because, once you've done that, you've already lost. The conversation is already over. More after a quick break. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guide. Not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Jim Gaffigan to Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman,

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

That's the name. The Harvard Yardt. They're open. Do you have a name suggestion? We're open. Since you guys are middle-aged, one erection. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and Friends on the I-Heart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.

Humor me. I need some jokes to make me seem funny. Run a business and not thinking about podcasting, think again. More Americans listen to podcasts than ad-supported streaming music from Spotify and Pandora. And as the number one podcaster, IHearts twice as large as the next two combined. So whatever your customers listen to, they'll hear your message. Plus, only IHeart can extend your message to audiences across broadcast radio. Think podcasting can help your business.

Think IHeart. Streaming, radio, and. and podcasting. Let us show you at iHeartadvertising.com. That's iHeartadvertising.com. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying,

and nobody's telling you exactly what happened. That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise, breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athlete themselves,

their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context, and ask the questions everybody wants answered. Sports Slice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them. Listen to Sports Slice on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Slical Life 12 and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok.

Let's get right back into it. So let's talk about what's going on at Tumblr, where stuff is getting weird and bad. It's going from worse to worser, as that one viral TikTok says. So Tumblr CEO, Matt Mullenwing, was supposed to be on a sabbatical, but he came back online to talk about the banning of a specific trans Tumblr user. And I think it really just signals another instance of Tumblr making bad decisions that really are impacting their LGBTQ users. base. So Rita, who was a Tumblr user who runs a micro blog called Predstrogen, had been experiencing and reporting transphobic harassment on the platform for a while and was very frustrated that nothing was being done about it. Then she posted her frustrations on Tumblr saying that she hopes

the CEO dies a forever painful death involving a car covered in hammers that explodes more than a few times and hammers go flying everywhere. So like, this really sounds like the Simpsons, you know, oh, like, what are you going to do? Are you going to sit the dogs on me and the dogs have bees in their mouth? And when the dogs bark, the bees come out of their mouth and sting me. Like, it's obviously a pretty

cartoony over-the-top way of expressing frustrations. Like, I'm not trying to make it seem like I condone the kind of harassment that I know that people who work for platforms can deal with. But it does seem like this person was pretty clearly kind of like venting in a cartoony way.

But that comment got her banned from Tumblr for life. So on Twitter, Rita posted, Tumblr CEO threatened to call the police on me and deleted my account when I pointed out that he was calling law enforcement on a trans woman. Tumblr has not emailed me about my harassment in months. They've done nothing. So Tumblr CEO actually replied to that tweet saying, reporting credible deaths of violence or terrorism is actually a legal requirement.

So this was like one comment that Tumblr CEO made in like a natural. of very concerning commentary in public from him. In posts about the moderation of Tumblr, he revealed something that I actually found very concerning that a contract content moderator

on the team was not only making intentionally transphobic moderation decisions, but was also taking money under the table, a.k.a. bribes to make specific moderation choices. Mullen Wang says, as soon as we were aware that

person was fired and later terminated the entire relationship with that contracting firm, and I've brought everything in-house at great cost, which like, side note, if that's what's going on with your content moderation team, like, I don't care how much it costs. Like, you clearly have big problems. And yeah, it's going to take money to solve these problems that come running a platform like Tumblr. I don't really want to hear you like patting yourself on the back about how much it cost. Yeah, well, this is a complete side note, but that is completely consistent with my long-standing view that subcontracting out, like, core functions of what your business is supposed to be doing is almost always an expensive mistake that leads

to bad outcomes. And it kind of, like, in this particular case, it reinforces how they think about moderation, right? Like, you're on this show that, you know, or I guess I can only speak for myself, but like, I think moderation and trust and safety is a core function that any platform should be, like, really invested in. And the fact that they're contracting it out just shows how seriously they think about it. Yeah. And it's, I mean, you're right. And we've seen it with so many platforms, like Facebook's contracts out. They had a relationship with a company called SAMA. And those contractors eventually went on to sue Facebook for. the way they were treating them.

And so, like, moderation is a core function of how these platforms operate. It just is. And so, like, it just isn't something that you can cheaply have someone who is not in-house manage, not really pay them very well, not give them a lot of oversight because you're not even really their boss, have all of these intentional setups that remove you from their labor because you don't want to call them employees to give them zero support and then act surprise when that doesn't turn out in your favor and ends up being a costly mistake that you later have to spend a lot of money and headaches dealing with. Like, of course. So the CEO of Tumblr's

most recent behavior really kind of just sounds like an escalating pattern and a pattern of decisions that have marginalized their LGBTQ users. Folks might remember back in 2018 when Tumblr banned adult content, it wasn't just like pornography they banned. It was really anything that could be considered adult or sexual or gendered in a lot of ways. And so people who were using Tumblr to find like queer community or trans community or resources really did feel marginalized from that sweeping decision. Elizabeth Deluna at Mashable has a really beautifully written comprehensive breakdown that will link to, which includes this bit that I did not know. So the way that Tumblr enforced the porn ban in 2018 actually led to an inquiry by the New York City's Commission on Human Rights

into how the site's moderation practices may have disproportionately affected LGBTQ plus content and users. When Tumblr was sold to Mullen Wing's company Automatic by Verizon in 2019, Automatic's cooperation in the process constituted a turning point in the investigation. In 2022, Tumblr and Automatic settled with the commission on human rights, agreeing to train human moderators in diversity and inclusion issues, hire an expert to identify potential biases in its moderation algorithms,

revise its user appeals process and review thousands of old moderation cases. And so this is not a new thing. I think it is just a new kind of more extreme instance of some patterns that are pretty troubling for your LGBTQ user base, especially when you're Tumblr, when so many of the folks there, like Tumblr wouldn't be Tumblr without queer folks and trans folks using that platform to build community. So these folks on Tumblr say that they experience and witness just a bunch of trans, rhetoric and targeted harassment on Tumblr, which has led to pretty deep criticism of Tumblr's

moderation policies and staff who users say do not protect them from harmful speech. Trans users say that they will post images demonstrating like a transition and those images are routinely taken down because they are flagged as being sexually explicit content while things like hate speech remain visible on the platform. So this whole situation with the CEO like going on a public meltdown or whatever just seems like another mark in the wrong direction. It's also just not a good look for Mullenweg to be weighing in publicly about individual users and the content moderation decisions around them. At one point in his like tweet storm, he revealed the different Tumblr micro blogs that

that trans user Rita had. On Tumblr, it's pretty common to like kind of snag a certain URL and just sort of camp out on it even if you don't use it. And so nobody would would know that you have that URL except for you. But he was talking about this person's, what private URLs they have publicly, right? All while doing it in this like late night typo-filled social media post stream, like it just is not a good, during your sabbatical, no less, it's just not a good look.

Tumblr user Illyriam also pointed out that at one point, he started like searching for his name on Tumblr and then would DM trans users who were posting him at the same. situation. Allerium writes, for posterity's sake, I want people to remember that during his meltdown last night, he DM'd dozens and dozens of people near exclusively trans women for some inexplicable reason, sometimes less than a minute after they left a reply, respond that to a post of his, or even just made their own post about it. Pure intimidation tactic at their most blatant and obvious, why else would you sit on your name search, refreshing and refreshing and

instantly jumping into our DMs the second we participate in the conversation? That isn't normal, not for a CEO and not for like anyone else for that matter. And I completely agree that is like not, is this not okay behavior to be engaging in as a CEO? Yeah, very unbecoming, doesn't seem strategic. Anytime you're like writing a bunch of social media posts late night in a rage, that's probably a good signal that you should step back and, like not do that. Oh my God, nothing good. And I've been there. I say that as somebody who has been there.

Nothing good comes of it. Like, if I, if you ever see me post like more than two times in an evening, something is up with me and I need to like have my phone taken away because nothing good comes from it. And I say that as somebody who has been there. One person who was watching this whole thing unfolding said to the Tumblr CEO, you are posting normal things. A CEO of a large social network would post. And in a tone of respectability and competence tonight, dude, very cool. And it's like, yeah, this is just like not a good look. Everyone is seeing it. Stop.

And so when Tumblr users were pointing out like all of the transphobic harassment that goes undelt with on the platform in comparison to what Rita was banned for, he was like, oh, well, lots of people who work at Tumblr are trans and queer. And they would have told me if I was doing something that was wrong, but they didn't speak up. And other users were like pretty quick to point out like, my dude, it just really does not work that way. You can't be like, well, none of the trans people who work at Tumblr said anything. So I guess we're all good, right? Yeah, maybe there are other reasons that employees didn't speak up. Like maybe they know that their boss is a transphobe. Yeah, one of the Tumblr users watching this whole thing unfold said exactly that.

Maybe your trans employees didn't say anything because they see the kinds of priorities staff demonstrates. and they know it is not safe to speak up. If I worked for you, this is how unhinged you're willing to get in public about a trans woman that hurt your feelings. I would hate to invoke whatever I are you would let loose in private. And so he put out another post clarifying that he cannot be transphobic because the companies, health insurance policies,

have supported staff's transitions and things like that and because he supports people using different pronouns and things. But Elizabeth Deluna in that Mashable piece really responds to that well, writing, here Mullen Wang again misses the point, Tumblr users continue to express their frustration, specifically with the site's treatment of trans people, by conflating his support of the entire LGBTQ plus community with his support of trans people.

Mullenweg shows he does not yet understand the difference. And I think that really is true. Like I think when your users are telling you, hey, these decisions are actually harming us, hey, we're actually not feeling supported and hurt on this platform, from being like, oh, well, I can't be transphobic because of yada, yada, yada policy, healthcare policy. It's really missing the point.

Yeah. I mean, it is nice that he supports those policies, but I guess maybe this is another nuanced conversation that illustrates the distinction between supporting a group of people and actually caring about them. Yeah. I mean, support and caring is great. But like, what are your policies?

And not just the policies for the people who work for you, your staff. What are your policies around how you are helping your largely LGBTQ plus user base make sure, feel supported? It's like they're able to safely show up on this platform. And I guess that's what they're really asking. And that's a question I don't really see him answering. It does sound a little parallel with the way that he was talking about their moderation, that it's like he has these trans-supporting policies for their employees that like check the box because he knows that it's important to check the box.

But then when trans and other LGBTQ people on the platform are speaking up saying, like, hey, this is a problem. We're being harmed and not responsible. responding to that, or in fact, responding to it, but with, like, anger and pushback, uh, it reveals the sort of shallowness of that check the box approach. Exactly. I completely agree. People should be able to have more than just like shallow, check the box support and policies. They should, they should have meaningful safety. They should have policies that allow them to show up safely. And before we wrap this up,

shout out to listener Marty for flagging that topic for me, because I'm no, longer on Tumblr, and I would not have known it was happening, if not for you. So thank you. And speaking of moderation, I have a tiny little shred of, like, good-ish question mark news from Twitter. So as you all might know, one of the first things that Elon Musk did when taking over at Twitter was reversing a change that I personally worked on on a previous job, and that is a policy that Twitter had to ban misgendering on Twitter. Musk removed that, like, very quickly after taking over. But this week, Twitter quietly announced an update to how misgendering would be handled on Twitter. So rather than resulting in a ban, posts that misgender people will be

deprioritized algorithmically on the platform. So you'll, like, see less of them. They will not be boosted. One thing to know about this policy is that it puts the onus on the person targeted to report being misgendered. And so like, if I saw somebody being misgendered, I would not, as the person who has not been misgendered, I would not be able to report it or flag it. If that person is not on the platform, let's say they weren't on the platform because they were sick of dealing with like transphobic nonsense,

which I think is probably true for a lot of folks, and they don't see it happen there. If nothing will happen. So let's say that somebody is being misgendered on Twitter and they have left the platform after not wanting to deal with a lot of transphobic nonsense, which I'm sure is something that is happening for a lot of folks. that person, if they're not on Twitter to personally flag it, I don't think anything will happen

in that instance. And so that's not a great policy. Like it definitely puts too much of a burden on the specific person who has been harmed to like see it and do the work and be there. But I do think it's kind of like a tiny step in the right direction doesn't even sound like the right word. I suspect that like, you know, Twitter as a platform, wants to woo back advertisers. I just don't think that people want to show up to platforms where people are being harassed and misgendered in mass. And like, I just don't think, I think they're realizing like,

oh, yeah, we can't have that be a core plank of the platform and are kind of walking it back in the teenest, teenest, teenyest, tiny little way. When this policy change was announced, Chaya Racheck, lives of TikTok creator, asked Musk about it on Twitter, and then misgendered a bunch of public figures, to like test it out. And Musk replied, oh, don't worry.

I would never boot you from the platform. Don't worry. So like, I don't want to make it seem like Elon Musk is bending over backward to keep misgendering off the platform completely. So it's still pretty clear where his values lie. But this is a change that people should be aware of. Yeah. And it is notable.

And because like, I can't remember the last time that Twitter did something made like a positive change, right? Like everything they have done for the longest. time since Elon took over is just like one step in the wrong direction after another step in the wrong direction. So it is kind of notable here. It's quite notable. Yeah. And I think I've shared this example on the podcast before. And it's like it's such a small minor one. But a couple of weeks, a couple of months ago, I was having a conversation about my favorite pastime, which is watching Real Housewives on Bravo. And we were talking about the need to like reboot the New York,

the New York branch. And we were like, oh, who could be a good person? And And, like, somebody was talking about this woman who was trans, T. Madison, who, side note, I love T. Madison and think she'd be great on the show. Can read, like, nobody's business should be on the show. Andy, call T. Madison. And I was like, oh, T. Madison. Like, that'd be so cool. Like, first black trans woman on Bravo. That'd be amazing. And then it was all these people intentionally misgendering her. And I was just like, I'm not even trans, but it was a fucking bummer. And I was like, I can't even, we can't even like, I can't. If I feel this way, how must trans people feel just trying to have conversations about Bravo on platforms? And it's like, it just like not, it just didn't feel good to deal with. I don't know why, but I was just like, like, I'm not even trying to engage in like a social or political conversation. I'm just trying to talk about housewives and I don't want to like, like, I don't think people should have to see that. It's garbage and I don't think people should have to see it.

So Jenny Olson of Glad told ours technical of this change, this is not about accidentally getting. someone's pronouns wrong. That happens. This is about targeted misgendering and dead naming with the clear intent of expressing hate and disrespect and contempt. Shout up to Jenny. We worked together in a previous life. Jenny is amazing. But yeah, I think that Jenny's comments are important because I think when some people hear about these policies, they think like, oh, well, now if I just make an accidental mistake, I will be facing consequences. And so I think it's important to show like, no, there's a difference between that and like intentional targeted misgendering, which frankly just like nobody want nobody should have to deal with. It's just like not not a cool thing. Yeah. Again,

the extremist just going out of their way to flatten and distort. Exactly. And speaking of flattening and distorting, another listener, Aaron wrote in about what's happening with Michael Threats, who is a California librarian who I love his platform. Like basically he's a librarian who, just uses TikTok to talk about his love of books, his love of libraries, and really foster a lifelong love of reading and libraries for kids and adults. So he's a librarian at the Solano County Public Library in California. Thank you for flagging this to us, Aaron. I had seen it, and I'd been sort of wrestling with my thoughts on it. But basically, Michael is lovely. He is upbeat. He is enthusiastic. He is passionate for helping kids learn about libraries. And like,

he's one of those people that has been. passion for it really is clear. Like, it's hard to see him talking about libraries and books and not feel good. He is a black man, which is notable. In 2021, numbers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that nearly 87% of librarians are white and only 7% are black. And so having this, like, very visible black librarian is important. Like, I don't think I ever saw a black library. In all of my K through 12 schooling, we did not, I did not encounter a single black librarian. I can tell you that. And so that would have meant a lot to me to have a very visible librarian who looked like me,

who was excited about reading and books. That would have meant the world to me as like a young, nerdy person growing up. So he has been really passionate about promoting what he calls library joy, which I love this. He says, library joy in its simplest form is just the joy of the library. What that means is just what I try to embody and hope that all library workers embody. It is the fostering of the sense of belonging. I keep saying that the library is for everybody. Library kids, library grownups, mentally ill, unhoused.

I love telling people that they don't have to leave their anxiety, depression, or PTSD outside the library. There's no sign that says you can't bring your anxiety in. And I just like this idea of reminding folks that libraries are for everybody and that, like, it really, like, that is what a community resource means and is. Here in D.C., we are blessed to have a very robust library system. You can check out power tools. You can check out music.

They can help you with your resume. Like the ways that it is a community resource, it truly is magical. And like the work that he has done of making that clear, I think, is really special. And so like many people who are enthusiastic or passionate about something, there are people out there who just use that as a way to be awful to him. There was a viral quote about him on Twitter that was just a video that he had posted about the library on TikTok, taken to Twitter with the caption, people are getting weirder. People imply that he has autism, which obviously there's nothing wrong with people who have autism. But they were saying that in a way that was like clearly meant to be an insult to him.

in a piece for the Washington Post, he talked about being at his grandmother's 90th birthday party when all of these posts insulting him started to go viral and getting messages from his friends being like, don't look at them, are you okay? While he's trying to like spend time with his family. So when

this happened, people really rallied in support of him, which was awesome to see. But then just a couple days ago, another person on social media took one of his videos and like accused him of having a darkness behind his enthusiasm. Like, I'm not even sure what she was trying to imply. This person did apologize,

and he accepted that apology publicly. But this week, he announced that he's resigning from his position at the library to protect his mental health, which honestly, I can understand. And I just hate it so much that we have this person who is doing something that is good, is like getting people passionate about libraries, passionate about reading, advocating for libraries as a resource, doing so in a way that is passionate and inclusive and all of these different things. And then people just like bullying him out of that position for no reason. And I do have to say that I have really seen an upkick in this kind of content. It is sort of the libs of TikTok strategy of social media gamification where somebody who is making a video for TikTok, someone else takes that

video puts it on Twitter with a mean or accusatory or insulting caption. And then it does numbers. It goes viral, gets lots of engagement. And it's generally people who are like authentic or genuine or passionate or being a little bit weird. Like something I like about Michael is that when he was accused of like being weird, he was like, yeah, I am a little bit weird. All my friends that are weird, we're very passionate. It's like being weird is what makes us who we are. And like, I don't take that as an insult, which I thought was nice. But like, I'm, I'm a little bit. But like, I am a little bit weird. I I think we're seeing more and more of that as like an engagement tactic where these people expect to have their own little corner of TikTok

or they can talk to people who are like-minded. And then someone comes along, rips it onto Twitter, where the context just feels different and uses it to create a pylon on this person. And so like he hasn't done anything wrong. Like he, other than being passionate about libraries, he's not done anything wrong. And I do think there's something else going on where like, there is something about people who you can tell are like living their genuine authentic lives and

like being their genuine authentic selves. And like, you know, when you, when you are your authentic self, it is clear that you are comfortable and passionate and happy. And like, I think people pick up on that. And I think for people who are not living that way themselves, I think that's triggering to them. I think they have to like bully it and smash it because it's like, don't you know that we're all living lives and that you're not meant to be authentic and happy and passionate? And like, how dare you show up as your happy, authentic, passionate self? This is threatening. I need to smash this down. I think, I think it's really something that is within people to like see somebody who is passionate and

happy and feel the need to crush that and squash that. Do you know what I mean? Oh, absolutely. That's definitely a thing. I mean, there's something vulnerable about being earnest and positive. And this tendency within people to smash it and tear it apart and ridicule it, it feels sort of juvenile a little bit. You know, it feels like everybody goes through, not everybody, many people go through like an angsty teenage period, right, where they start to realize that all of the things,

that their parents and the grownups in their life have, you know, presented them with as like, this is what being a, you know, this is what a life is supposed to look like. You get a little, you know, as people enter their teenage years, they realize that all those things are not perfect. And, you know, in some cases, there are, like, problems. And you just have to, like, deal with it and make the most of it. That's what, like, being an adult is in a lot of cases. And so it's just like really easy and juvenile, I think, to to just rip apart anything that is earnest or trying to be positive.

And it is sad. But it's not surprising that it does that sort of thing does well on social media, right? Particularly on Twitter, right? Where anger and outrage and meanness are cultural values. Yeah, I agree. And it just like, it doesn't make us any happier or feel good. And earnestness is okay. Like, be cringe. Love what you love. Be, shout it from the rooftops. If you've got something that feels like passion and excitement, you should be able to lean into that. Like, I don't know, the internet was created for people who were excited about shit. And like, I just hate this idea that like, no, we can only be removed and cynical and mean. And, like, I don't know. And angry. That's obviously part of the internet, but like being unabashedly passionate about stuff is part of what makes the internet the internet. And if we lose that and only see that as something to be mocked and bullied, we lose something important in all of us. And not to mention, we lose a

dope-ass librarian at the library. Like Michael is stepping down. However, there is a bit of a happy ending, though, because he announced that PBS offered him the role of resident librarian for a social media series. And so this is going to involve. him doing book suggestions, talking about literacy, and of course, spreading library joy. And so, yeah, I'm happy that it has a happy ending, but I'm sad that someone can't just be a really engaged, passionate librarian on the 2024 internet

without being bullied for it and bullied into stepping down. We all lose when that's the case. Yeah, I'm glad there was a happy ending on that one. That feels nice. 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. 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 yard words, 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.

Huber 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 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. Last night, a blown call changed a game. This morning, the internet lost its mind. Highlights are trending, opinions are flying, and nobody's telling you exactly what happened.

That's where Sports Slice comes in. I'm Timbo. Every episode, we're cutting through the noise, breaking down the plays, the controversies, and the stories behind the headlines. We go straight to the source, the athlete themselves. Their locker room stories, their reactions, the stuff nobody gets to hear. The laughs, the drama, the triumphs, the moments that never make the highlight real. From viral moments to historic games, from buzzer beaters to controversial calls, we break it down, give you context and ask the questions everybody wants answered. SportsSlice brings you closer to the action with stories told by the people who live them.

Listen to SportsSlice on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more, follow Timbo Slicleaf 12 and the TikTok podcast network on TikTok. Let's get right back into it. Well, I don't know how this is going to go because, our last topic is something that I know that we maybe don't see eye to eye on. And that is... Are we going to talk about self-checkout? No, we've already done it.

Like, it's been done, dude. Okay, cool. Well, I mean, what else do we disagree about? Wendy's. Oh, we're going to talk about Wendy's. Okay, so do you remember when I was like, did you see that Wendy's is doing search pricing? And you had a...

I will describe it as a big reaction. Do you remember how you reacted when I told you that information? Yeah, I do. I was like, that's, that can't be true. That's banana pans bonkers. Like, that doesn't make any sense. No one will tolerate that. People will hate it.

People rebel. People will be like burning Wendy's to the ground. Something must be wrong about this story. Well, let's get into it. So is Wendy's doing search pricing? I don't feel confident saying yes or no. I will tell you what I know. So in Wendy's Q4 earnings call, the company announced plans to use AI-enabled dynamic pricing.

Remember that phrase, saying, beginning as early as 2025, we will begin testing more enhanced features like dynamic pricing and day-part offering, along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling. As we continue to show the benefit of this technology in our company-operated restaurants, franchisee interest in digital menu boards should increase further supporting sales and profit growth. across the system. We will continue setting the pace in generative AI and have now rolled out Wendy's fresh AI in several restaurants where we see ongoing improvement and in speed and accuracy. So importantly, that comment, though weird as fuck, I think, but does not say the word surge pricing. It says dynamic pricing. So there is a difference between these two pricing structures. I think that when we hear dynamic pricing, most people are probably most. familiar with it from things like Uber and Lyft where they like charge more when there's more

demand. So if it's like raining and a concert just let out, it's going to cost more than if it's an offseason and not many people are using the app. So I think people understandably assume that this meant that Wendy's is going to be charging more for food at times of high demand. I did see a lot of reporting on this issue that used the phrase surge pricing. However, surge pricing and dynamic pricing are different things, right? Like surge pricing means like, oh, the price will be higher at certain times. Dynamic pricing, this means, oh, the price can change based on certain factors, not necessarily going up or down.

After this announcement, the phrase surge pricing actually started trending on social media, and even lawmakers were weighing in, like Senator Bob Casey accused Wendy's of corporate greed. Elizabeth Warren added, it's price gouging, plain and simple. So I did a search of the entire transcript of that Wendy's Q-4 call, great use of my time, And it is true. Nowhere in that call did the Wendy CEO ever specifically say that they were planning on doing surge pricing, only dynamic pricing. And there is a difference, right? Wendy's then clarified saying they do not plan on instituting surge pricing. They said in a statement, we said these menu boards would give us more flexibility to change the display of featured items. This was misconstrued in some media reports as an intent to raise prices when demand is highest at our restaurants. We have no plans to do that. and would not raise prices when our customers are visiting us most. Any features we may test would be designed to benefit our customers and restaurant crew members. Digital menu boards could allow us to change the menu offerings at different times of the day

and offer discounts and value offers to our customers more easily, particularly in the slower times of day. Wendy's has always been about providing high-quality food at great value, and customers can continue to expect that from our brand. So here's where Mike and I disagree. I see you. Why don't you go ahead? What do you think about this?

Well, I mean, I want to be clear that I have no illusions that Wendy's is some benevolent actor. I don't know this CEO. It's like a giant corporation. It's like fine. As far as I can tell, there's no more or less evil than any other giant corporation, right? But it just never made sense. Nobody's going to tolerate that surge pricing. So when he issued this.

clarification the next day and said, no, we're not planning to do surge pricing where we would increase prices at certain times when there's extra demand. But instead we would just want to have more flexibility to offer different discounts at different times of the day. I was like, oh, okay, that makes a lot of sense. That like actually seems like something that people would not be infuriated by. But then it got me thinking, how silly we human. are with our like gain loss framing and like loss aversion that the idea that something would increase in price at certain hours of the day is completely unacceptable. I would just never, I couldn't tolerate that in my burgers, right?

That's insulting to me as a person. But the idea that I would get a price discount at some hours of the day, oh, okay, cool. yeah, what's the discount? Is it like half off? Tell me. And like, that's kind of dumb of me and humans in general because in either scenario, there's one price at one time a day and another price at another time of the day. And it's almost like semantics of what we're calling it an increase or a decrease. And yet apparently those semantics are extremely important given that Wendy's became front page news for 24 hours based on this distinction between surge pricing and dynamic pricing, which I had never even thought of until this was an issue. Yeah. I mean, I mostly agree with you. The thing I want to pull out, which is my take, is that I don't think that how they clear, I don't, I don't think that their clarification walks back this enough because

they very well truly and could raise their prices and then be like, oh, well, raise their prices across the board and then be like on off-peak times we're going to have a cheap menu and that would be the same thing that people got upset about. So it is like a semantics of like, well, and so I, this is what I think.

Wendy says they would not raise prices when our customers are visiting most. That kind of gets my PR statement brain buzzing because I think what they're saying is like, well, we never said we weren't going to raise prices. We just said we weren't going to raise prices when people are eating here the most. And so I believe what they are saying is we plan to raise prices and then lower them via

our dynamic menu, which is subsequently kind of the same thing. That's what I think is going to happen. So I think that people are like cheering this as like, yeah, we really like bullied Wendy's into doing the right thing. I don't know that I agree. I really don't. Yeah, I feel like you're really reading. much further between the lines than is warranted here.

I mean, okay, here's two other examples of companies that do stuff like this, right? Like bed, bath, and beyond before they went out of business, there was one of those in Columbia Heights where I live, and I would go there to try to buy things sometimes, and it was expensive as hell. Every single item was, like, really expensive, so much that I would, like, never buy their things there. I would many occasions I would go there wanting to get an item, take a look at the price and be like, this is absurd. And the reason was because they were one of these stores that had a coupon-based economy where it only made sense to shop there if you were clipping coupons, which they prolifically distributed. So people would walk in there with like a handful of coupons for like 75% off, buy one, get one, whatever. And I just really resented that little dance that we had to do to try to buy an item at a reasonable price.

So hopefully that's not what Wendy's is approaching here. I once went into that Bed Bath and Beyond and I was standing in line, I think holding a blender. And there was a guy in there who had an entire, I kid you not an entire book of Bed Bath and Beyond coupons. And he was giving them out to people in the line like cash. Like he was like making it rain coupons and I got my blender for 25% off. I'll never forget it. Yeah. I, I, there are already plenty of things in society that use dynamic pricing like airline

tickets. They're cheaper depending on demand. Movie tickets. You know, you buy a matinee when less people are going. It's cheaper is a thing in our society. But I do think what's interesting here is that how big the reaction was. And I think that's got to be that like people are so fucking sick. rightly so, a feeling squeezed right now.

Like, it feels like the new model is like anything that can rip people off, must rip people off. And so I think that people are sensitive to it right now because we're feeling it in multiple different ways. That just feels like the way that it is right now. And I don't know, our burgers are our last, like, if we lose the burgers, what else have we lost, right? Like, this is our last, the last thing that we can sort of rely on. Yeah, exactly.

I don't want to have to bring coupons to Wendy's. I don't want to have to strategically time when I get my burger. I don't want to have to, you know, do a bunch of math. Yeah, let's just keep it simple. Let's just keep it simple. But I do want to clearly reiterate my point for you, Mike, because if, comma, when Wendy's raises. I'm going to stay on, you know I'm going to stay on this story. If and perhaps when Wendy's quietly raises.

all of their prices across the board and their dynamic pricing is rolled out to lower those prices back down to what we are familiar with which is my argument of what they are doing. We will record this again and I want a, I want to say it clearly now so that I can get a clear

I told just so from me on the record and then a clear you were right from you on the record. We'll have that all as audio forever so that we'll all, you know, be on the same page. Is that cool? I mean, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Yeah. You know, it also makes me thinking, then I'll let us finish up here. So in D.C., we have this new law. I guess it's not even new. It's been here for like two or three years now where all restaurant workers have to make a living wage. It's great law, good for everybody.

But restaurant owners hate it. And so there's been this phenomenon in the city of you go into a restaurant and the prices on the menu are the prices, and then when you get your bill, there'll be like a 5% surcharge that is not a tip. It doesn't go to the servers. It's just for the restaurant.

It'll be like the living wage fee or something. And that infuriates me, right? That like just raise your prices across the board. If that's what you have to do to keep this business going, don't like deceptively hide it. So I hope Wendy's doesn't raise their prices, but I would rather that than a bunch of weird gimmicky tricks that make me have to do math when I'm trying to get my food.

Well, I believe what Wendy's will roll out is a weird gimmicky trick that forces you to do math and like follow the Wendy's prices like a goddamn stock market just to buy your food. I'll leave it there. I hope you're wrong. I mean, that's not what Dave Thomas would have wanted. Dave Thomas is rolling over on his great.

in his grave. Mike, thank you so much for going through these stories with me. I will see you on the internet. Thanks, Bridgett. See you there. And thanks to all of you for listening and to the listeners who sent in suggestions and flags of stories that we should cover. Thank you. Please keep doing that. We love it. How can they do that, Bridget? Oh, you can email us at hello at tangoity.com. You can find me on social media, though I'm not really there that often anymore, but you could try. Yeah, please keep doing it. Yeah, they could also go to the Patreon, right? There are quite a few listeners who message us there at patreon.com slash tangoady or tangoody.com slash patreon. It works both ways. Oh, a tech, marvel. Thanks for listening. If you're looking for ways to support the show,

check out our merch store at tangoity.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 tangoati.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 IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy, not 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 I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Why are we all so obsessed with romance? On the Radio 831 podcast, join us,

Sanjana Basker, and Tyler McCall. As we unpack, the trending tropes, fuzzy adaptations, book talk drama, and celebrity love stories with hot takes and sharp guests. Each episode digs into what these stories reveal about desire, fantasy, identity, and how we love now. Listen to the Radio 831 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, it's Edwin Castro, also known as Castro 1021. And I'm Kunky, his best friend and business manager. And we've got a new show called. called The 1021 podcast.

I'm taking you behind the scenes on how I became one of Twitch's most popular streamers. We also love sports. And with the World Cup right around the corner, we'll be breaking down the biggest storylines ahead of the big tournament here in the USA. Listen to the 1021 podcast on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.