Tech News: All a Twitter about Tech News

bunch of Twitter news. But first, I wanted to talk about an intelligence leak in the United States, which kind of leads itself to all sorts of snarky jokes. But no, this is about top secret documents that have been leaked. And apparently this is a thing that's been going on since at least January. And you may have heard that images of top secret documents, some of them apparently edited, have escaped out into the world and they're causing some

real problems among them. Ukraine reportedly had to change some of its strategy with regard to Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine, and Russia expressing how upset they are that the West and NATO have been supporting Ukraine, which seems like a really poorly kept secret in the first place. But whatever. But the text side of this is really what I want to focus on. Because these documents weren't submitted to wiki leaks or anything like that. They appear to have

initially emerged on a Discord server. Now, y'all may know that the original concept behind Discord was to act as a means of communication, primarily voice chat for gamers, because in game voice systems are frequently not very good. But obviously Discord has grown beyond the gaming community, and apparently, in a Discord server that appeared to at least partly be dedicated to a YouTube figure from the Philippines, someone

started sharing top secret documents. Who that person is and how they got access to the documents and why they felt the need to share them is unknown, at least to me, though there's speculation that it might have been a low level official who had access to such documents through their job and also was a member of this particular server. Anyway, the leaks expanded beyond that one Discord server,

which has since been deleted. There were new leaks that surfaced in a Discord server that was dedicated to Minecraft, of all things, and then it spread to other platforms like four Chan. Now, obviously this is a huge concern to the US government. It could potentially be a threat to national security. So the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense are really interested to learn more about the source of that leak. Now, clearly the fault does

not lie with the platforms themselves. Rather it lies with whomever was responsible for posting images of the documents in the first place. You can read more about the story in the New York Times, and Eric Tohler has a great article on Bellingcat and it's titled from Discord to four Chan, The Improbable Journey of a US Intelligence leak. So I highly recommend checking that out if you want to learn more, and I'm sure we'll continue to cover

it as the story develops. Okay, now I've got a whole suite of Twitter updates to deliver my guesses they'll take up the bulk of this episode. And before I really jump into it, I have to give a shout out to Casey Newton's newsletter called Platformer, which grouped together a ton of these resources. Now I've talked about Casey's work on this show before, and he continues to do an amazing job. Platformer is well worth the subscription. It is a newsletter you subscribe to. It's a paid subscription.

And I do not personally know Casey. I have no connection to him, and I also don't have any connection to Platformer other than the fact that I'm a subscriber myself. I'm just saying that if you're really into tech news and like a deep dive into it, it's a good resource. Anyway, Casey gives his opinion on Twitter, and he thinks that we might be seeing sort of the middle of the

end for Twitter. You could argue the beginning of the end was even before Elon Musk made his move to acquire it, but Elon is certainly a big part of why Casey feels that the platform could potentially be heading to an ignominious end, mostly due to Musk's tendency to make mercurial changes to the platform and then frequently reverse those changes after facing harsh criticism, and then the platform itself seems to be failing with various functions and features.

So let's cover some of the stories about Twitter and how that forty four billion dollar investment is going first. Up is a story that Casey actually didn't cover in the most recent platformer, as I believe the news broke after he had already sent that newsletter out to be published. And that's the fact that Twitter Incorporated doesn't exist anymore.

So Twitter the service still exists, but the company doesn't because some court documents revealed that on the corporate back end, another one of Musk's company's x Corps has absorbed Twitter Incorporated. This is according to Natish Pawa and Mark Joseph Stern, who jointly published a piece in Slate yesterday afternoon. And

here's how the whole story unfolded. A woman named Laura Lumer, who's known for her right wing politics and social presence, sued Twitter for banning her account a few years ago. She claims that this is an abuse of racketeering laws. The Slate authors say that, in their opinion, her case has no merit, and based upon just the very surface level glance I got, I am inclined to agree with them. This seems like a case that really has no teeth

to it. But one thing that the case does is it requires Twitter to disclose corporate disclosure statements to the court, and then by looking at court filings, you can actually see those and one of those statements revealed the fact that the Twitter company doesn't exist anymore. But anyway, even though Twitter is now part of xcort, the lawsuit still remains viable. It just transfers to xcort instead of Twitter Incorporated.

And you could argue that the corporate move really doesn't change anything other than the name of the company that's running Twitter the service, all the debt, all the lawsuits, all of the troubles still exist. They just transfer to

this other entity. Apple Insider further goes on to suggest that perhaps this move is another sign that Musk intends for Twitter to become an everything app, that Twitter will eventually become x and this app will support all sorts of transactions beyond just posting about lunch and alienating advertisers, be handling stuff like shopping and payment transfers and all this other kind of stuff. So Twitter Incorporated is dead all hail x Coort. I guess let's cover one of

the things that's going wrong at Twitter. Over the last week or so, according to tech Crunch, several users have reported seeing Twitter circle messages popping up in the for U tab on Twitter, and you might be wondering what all that means, because I sure was, which just shows you how out of the loop I've been with Twitter in general. So a Twitter circle is like a group of close friends or trusted acquaintances. Twitter circles are meant to allow you to post too smaller, more private groups

of people. The messages are not meant to go out to Twitter's general population, and yet apparently some Twitter circle messages have done just that. So if you were browsing the for you tab in Twitter, you might actually see some messages that you weren't ever meant to see. And you could imagine how that could be a big problem. I mean, if the same thing were to happen to direct messages, all sorts of shenanigans could follow. Tech crunches.

Amanda Silberling points out that getting a response from Twitter is pretty much impossible because Elon Musk famously set the pr email address to auto reply to requests by sending

a poop emoji because that's professional and mature. Oh and just assume for all the Twitter stories I'm talking about today that at some point within that story the author pointed out that it's impossible to get an official response from Twitter that isn't a poop emoji, because trust me, almost every story I read while writing this includes that,

let's call it nugget of information. Some former Twitter executives, including the former CEO of the company, are now suing Twitter, or rather excres now, I guess, because they have been saddled with legal fees that I guess the company should have covered. This includes legal fees for various government and investigations into Twitter that we're leading up to Musk's purchase of the company, which, as I'm sure you all remember,

was in itself a total chaotic mass filled with legal wrangling. Anyway, it should come as no surprise that Twitter slash x Corps has not paid these legal fees, because well, the

company pretty much stopped paying all of its bills. It stopped paying for rent with the office space, it stopped paying for contract work, and stopped paying for janitorial staff, etc. And heck, we also know the company laid off or drove away about seventy five percent of its workforce since late last year, and according to this lawsuit, the company is contractually bound to pay these legal fees for former executives these are the executives that Elon Musk famously fired

the day he took possession of the company. So this matter has now gone to court and we'll see how long it sits there while Twitter continues to not pay the bills. All right, So now let's talk about a couple of instances where Elon Musk Institute to change and then, upon receiving backlash, reversed or at least altered that change. And first up is how Musk handled NPR. So, for those who don't know, NPR, National Public Radio is a

media outlet here in the United States. So late last week, Twitter appended the label state affiliated media to the NPR Twitter account, which I think is a pretty blatant attack on NPR's reputation. The phrase state affiliated media typically refers to a media outlet that is under the direct control of a government, often with the implication that the media outlet is biased and the government in question is, to

at least some degree authoritarian. Think about China and its state sponsored media outlets, NPR's Bobby Allen was not about to let this go, and so Allen challenged Musk, pointing out that the US government has no control over the content or editorial voice of NPR, and Musk really had nowhere to go on that he could not disagree with the statement, so instead he just had Twitter changed the label so that it then read that MPR is quote

unquote government funded, which, while less of an outright lie, is still not entirely accurate. NPR receives only about one percent of its funding directly from the government. The rest comes from lots of other sources, including listeners like you.

As NPR often includes in their messages, receiving a single percent of funding from the government doesn't sound like the term government funded should really apply to NPR, and Alan pointed out again that one of Musk's other companies, Tesla, has received literally billions of dollars in government subsidies, and yet the Tesla Twitter account does not include the government funded label when it seems like conciderning the amount of money that company has received in the form of subsidies

and such. It certainly should if we're being fair about labels. So I think it's pretty clear that Musk's intent was to try and discredit or dismiss INPR, because well, the organization has this irritating habit of calling Musk out on his own bs. Okay, I've got a lot more stories, including more Twitter ones, but first let's take a quick break. We're back, and we're back with a couple more Twitter news items. Next we have the substack brew Haha brew haha,

ha ha ha. Shout out to any firestiying theater fans out there anyway. So substack is a platform that lets people create and monetize subscription newsletters. So platformer, the Casey Newton newsletter that I mentioned at the beginning of all this Twitter mess is actually built on top of substack. Casey Newton builds platform or using substack. Well, one thing that substack is working on is a product called notes,

which works a bit like Yeah, you guessed it. It works a bit like Twitter does, and it at least appears that Musk isn't very fond of such potential competition. Though you could argue that some of the problems that popped up, maybe those were coincidental. Maybe those problems were more evidence that Twitter itself is breaking as a posted to an outright decision to try and penalize substack. For one thing, the ability to embed tweets into a post

on substack appeared to be broken. In fact, if you were to try and embed a tweet in a substack entry at that time, you would get the message quote Twitter has unexpectedly restricted access to embedding tweets in sub posts end quote. I'm not sure how unexpected it was on Twitter's side, honestly, anyway. On top of that, it seemed that Twitter was restricting visibility and the promotion of tweets that contained links to posts on substack, and users who tried to like or retweet a post that linked

to substack itself also received error messages. So it seemed like Musk was trying to pull a similar tactic that he used to head off people jumping ship from Twitter to Mastodon a few months back. You might remember he began banning links to Mastodon and some other platforms, saying that saying all sorts of things to justify the decision,

none of which really held much water. Anyway. After numerous folks raised a stink about Twitter's new direction with substack, the service appeared to do a one eighties So links are now working again, and it just seems like Musk has backed down a little bit on his stance on how to handle this but yeah, I mean, considering his history,

it's again not exactly shocking. Moving right along, Politico's Jessica Piper reports that Twitter has failed to disclose political ads, despite the service outlining a transparency policy saying it would do that. So, Twitter, according to its own rules, is supposed to label posts that are part of a paid political campaign so that you can see as a user

that the post is a paid political advertisement. But it turns out that several ads that were running on Twitter in March, you know, just last month, were not labeled that way, even though they were clearly actual paid for campaign ads. And so I'm not sure exactly what's happening here.

It turns out that, you know, Politico asked Twitter to comment on this, and Twitter sent over a spreadsheet that's supposed to track these things, like, supposed to track all the instances of paid political ads, and they failed to include at least three instances of different campaigns running ads on the platform. So to me, that suggests that Twitter's

own internal systems may be failing here. That you know, maybe it's a case of the right hand being unaware of what the left hand is doing, because obviously someone had to sell that ad space, right, that had to be an actual transaction that happened on Twitter's end, But somehow that data didn't make it to the proper place for disclosure, It didn't make it into this spreadsheet, and therefore the tweets were never labeled. Now, to be clear,

there's not necessarily a law that's been broken here. This is Twitter failing to live up to its own policies. But it is important for citizens to be able to detect and track things like political ads and political spending. For one thing, knowing that something's an AD helps you separate it from being, say, an unbiased news source, or even a purported unbiased news source. If it says add on there, you know, all right, well this is this is a message that has a specific agenda, otherwise it

wouldn't be an ad. For another, it helped different groups keep tabs on campaigns and campaign spending, as well as the activities of not for profit organizations that may not be subject to really strict campaign laws. Actually using the term really strict as being far too generous in the United States, but campaign laws really it all comes down to tracking money and using that info to determine whom you can trust. And it all gets really cynical from

that point forward. Honestly, I feel like this is an indication that systems within Twitter are not working as intended, rather than a potential indication that the company is actively trying to hide that some political tweets are in fact paid advertising. I don't think Twitter was trying to get one over on users. I just feel like this was a failure. So this feels more like a case where it's incompetence rather than malevolence. That just is how it

feels to me. I admit, you know, I could be totally wrong about that, but it doesn't I don't see where the gain is for Twitter to not be transparent about this stuff. So I think, to me, this feels like an indication that things at Twitter are breaking, and Twitter no longer has the engineering staff on hand to

prevent or repair that stuff in a timely fashion. Something else that happened on Twitter last week with several Kremlin related Twitter accounts, including Vladimir Putin's presidential account, became reinstated on the service. So last year, last April, Twitter chose to restrict the promotion and reach of Russian state media accounts and Kremlin linked accounts in the wake of Russia's

invasion of Ukraine. Obviously, Russia was leaning heavily on social platforms to spread propaganda and misinformation, but The Telegraph reports that those restrictions seem to no longer be in place, and that when searching for certain topics, the Kremlin linked accounts were frequently in the results, sometimes at the tippy

top of search results. And The Telegraph also reported that they created a brand new Twitter account, they didn't have it following anyone in particular, and they noticed that when they went to the four utab, the curated tab to check and see what accounts were showing up there, some of the Kremlin linked accounts were showing up in the four U tab, even though this brand new account had

not followed any of those. So hey, apparently Musk thinks NPR should not be trusted, but actual state backed accounts from Russia and also from China are AOK. Agree. Twitter sounds more and more like a dystopian nightmare to me. By the way, if you want to suggest topics, you can use Twitter and send a message to tech Stuff HSW though, I think I need to come up with an alternative for getting in touch with me and wrapping

up the Twitter section of our news. Finally, is a report that Twitter appears to have acquiesced to the Government of India's demands that objectionable messages, that is, messages that the Government of India objects to, should be suppressed not just in India, but around the entire world. And if this is true, then it means that Twitter is actually censoring itself globally at the direction of the Government of India.

You know, typically in the past, when Twitter would agree to government demands in India, they would suppress a message, but it would just be within India itself. If you are outside of India, you could still see the tweets in question. But apparently journalist and activist sarov Dos posted some messages and when they went back to look over their Twitter history, saw that the tweets had been tagged with the phrase that the content was quote withheld in

worldwide in response to a legal demand end quote. So DAWs included screenshots of these tweets, which were made in twenty twenty two, and they said that they couldn't remember the context of those messages or why they would be suppressed worldwide. A website the Hindu dot Com attempted to use a virtual Private network or VPN to see if those suppressed tweets could be viewed in the United States, because, again, typically these sort of suppressions only would happen within India itself.

But the Hindu discovered that even if they were looking at Twitter from a United States server, they would not be able to see those messages, which is a pretty huge deal, particularly for a company led by someone who proclaimed to be all about free speech. I'll just gets worse and worse. But thankfully we are done with Twitter. So when we come back from this break, we will move on to something else. Okay, we're back. Yeah, we're

moving on to something else. And that something else is Tesla, son of a All right, let's get through this and then we'll get on to something else. All right. So last week Reuters reported that from twenty nineteen through mid twenty twenty two and possibly beyond, some folks in Tesla,

including management, would occasionally pull images captured by Tesla car cameras. Remember, Tesla has used optical systems, in fact, to the point where they've started to remove things like ultrasonic systems and just rely on optical systems for the purposes of collision detection, navigation, that kind of stuff. Well, these cameras can also work

as part of the security system. When you're charging your vehicle, those cameras can be active, and it turns out that Tesla employees were sometimes just peeking in on what these camera systems were able to see, whether the car was in operation or was in recharge mode, and then they

were sharing images and videos captured by those cameras. So it's as if these Tesla employees had implanted cameras in the homes of Tesla customers essentially, and this includes stuff that clearly the owners of those Tesla vehicles would not want to share with the outside world. Now, some of the photos were fairly mundane, like it might be a

funny road sign. So someone for some reason in Tesla started to look at the video feed created by this particular person's car and see a funny road sign, and they might clip that and share it with other people. It's still rings the question why did they access the video feed in the first place. And also there must be policies at Tesla that say, you don't do this right, you don't take images from someone's vehicle and just share

it within the company. Apparently a lot of the messages included, hey, don't share this, or don't talk about this, or delete after you see it, And it was just people who just thought it was such a good picture or video or funny idea that they had to share it. But no one else should do that because you'll get in trouble. So some of the stuff as being captured was not just simple funny road signs or a pet behaving in

a goofy way. There were cases of people being say, in the garage stark naked, but you know, I have no clue why they were in their garage and they were naked, but I don't have any business knowing that. It's none of my business, and I'm pretty sure that the owner in question wasn't thinking that they were at risk it being in a candid camera like situation at the time. Anyway, I think the whole sending photos and videos around is an incredibly deep violation of trust, and

again it has to be violating some Tesla policies. So now there is a class action lawsuit that's been brought against Tesla about this very issue to hold the organization accountable for this behavior and to force a change. Now, I'm sure we're going to hear a lot more about this as the case continues. It would shock me if Tesla does not settle out of court. I am certain that that's going to be the ultimate end of this, because I don't think the company has a leg to

stand on. Even if they argue that this is the behavior of a few outlying bad apples, it appears that it was widespread enough to really be an issue within the company, and ultimately the company does have to be held accountable. And plus Tesla where this particular lawsuit is being filed the state of California. Tesla is not a big hero in the state of California right now among the government, and also the state of California has some really tough privacy laws, some of the toughest in the

United States. So I suspect that Tesla is going to be trying to negotiate some sort of settlement and then potentially create a policy where people who do this will face some heavy consequences for behaving in this way in the future, or one can hope. Anyway, Now, I do have some other news to talk about that is not Twitter or Tesla related. So, while this episode is longer than I had hoped it would be, I'm gonna kind

of summarize some of the next few news items. So first up, there's a growing movement in the US government to look into ways to deal with the evolution and proliferation of AI, largely by concerns about chat GPT in particular. Now, I think I'm going to have to dedicate an entire episode to this topic because I think it's actually incredibly complicated and it requires a lot more thought and analysis than I could ever deliver in a news episode, So

be on the lookout for that in the future. I'll just say that while the recent emergence of tools like chat GPT creates concerns, legitimate concerns, the matter of AI is far more broad than a chat bought built on a large language model, and so we really need to have a full discussion. Also, I have very little hope that the government will come up with anything really meaningful or useful on this topic, not because I have a total lack of faith in government. I do not. I

have faith in government. It's that a lot of the people who are in government positions don't understand AI. Not on a level that would make it useful. So my guess is that any legislation or regulation that was created would be painted with a very broad brush and not be as effective as it needs to be because of a lack of understanding among government officials. But again, I'll have to do a full episode about this to really dive into it. Also, I want to recommend an amazing

article written by BENJ. Edwards. Let's Bee and J Edwards, and this is at ours Technica. So if you go to Ours Technica you should look up why chat GPT and bing chat are so good at making things up? So this article is really great at explaining how chat GPT works at a very high level and how that basic mode of operation results in stuff that you can't

always trust. Now, I have frequently said that one of the problems you have is that chatbots like chat GPT don't necessarily know the difference between a good source of information and a bad source of and that is part of it. But Edwards points out that it actually goes beyond this. It's a little more complicated than that, and the explanation is fantastic. The argument is very well done, so definitely check out that article why Chat, GPT and

being chat are so good at making things up. I'll probably have to do a full episode about that as well, and talk about the phenomena of chat bought quote unquote hallucinations. Now, a quick note about Meta's verification process. So Meta rolled

out this a few weeks ago. Of course, Meta's the parent company to Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp, and this new policy allows users to pay for verification, so they have to not just pay a fee to do this, they also have to submit information about themselves to prove to Meta that they are who they claim to be, and if their qualifications meet Meta's standards and the payment goes through, they get a little check next to their

name showing that they are verified. And this ends up being one a social status thing, but two verified accounts get access to some other perks, including better customer service and also some stuff that I think should just be freaking standard for everyone on Meta's platforms. I mean, you know, one of those things is like being protected against impersonators. And if I'm told, hey, if you pay, us will help make sure that folks pretending to be you are stopped.

That's that's a message that screams to me that I don't want to be on that platform if users have to pay to receive that kind of baseline protection or what I think should be baseline protection, Like, to me, that's that's something that should just go without saying, and it shouldn't be oh, well, you know, if you pay then we'll we'll take care of you. But you know me,

I'm a grouch anyway. Crunch reports that a big issue among some of met as users is that as part of the system, the company is requiring users to use their real names as their user name in their profiles. That the name of their profile has to reflect their actual legal name, and that can be a real problem for folks and say the sex work industry or the trans community. These are people who may use names that are not their actual legal name as their public persona.

And as some have said, this is like the company is asking you to pay it fifteen dollars and in return, it will dox you that you might remember that Google went through a very similar thing a few years ago when Google tried to align its former social platform of

Google Plus with YouTube and other Google products. As part of that, Google was requiring people to use their legal name, and the thought process behind it was stuff like, oh, if people are using their legal names, especially on YouTube, then that's going to cut back on abuse because people will feel that they're being accountable right because they're no longer hiding behind a user name that's their real name.

But Google also faced the same sort of objections. People said having to use our legal names sometimes puts us at danger depending upon who we are and what we do, and ultimately Google backed off of that policy. But so

far we haven't seen meta budge. And while I understand the need to verify with meta that you are who you say you are, I mean, that's the whole purpose of verification in the first place, I don't actually see how that should pertain to the user name itself, particularly if people know you better by like a stage name or something. So yeah, I don't see where that part

needs to come in. The only thing I under I see is that to get that verification check, you have to verify with the company who you are, But then that information should remain secure and not have to be publicly disclosed. Oh and hey, a couple more quick things. You know, those public charging USB stations you can find in some places like an actual little USB port you can plug your cable in and then charge your phone

at airports or certain hotels or sometimes cafes. Well, the FBI says you shouldn't use those which honestly makes sense. So apparently some hackers have compromised some of these stations and they're using them to inject malware into stuff like phones and tablets. So the malware might do your typical

identification theft stuff of logging passwords and user names. Maybe it even does stuff where it can access things like your microphone and your camera, and that is a pretty darn steep trade off for getting a few more minutes of battery life. So rather than use those ports, the FBI recommends that you use an actual like wall outlet and a plug that plugs into the outlet and then you know the cable to your device. Don't just plug a USB cord into a USB jack and then hook

up your phone, which is fun times. Anyway, this advice is good advice. It's healthy to think about those public charging stations being similar to a USB drive that's been left on the floor. You wouldn't want to pick up that USB drive and just plug it into whatever device you happen to own because you're just you're playing roulette Russian roulette that that USB device doesn't have malware that's

immediately going to install itself on your device. You've got to use that same sort of thought process when you're talking about USB charging stations. Finally, YouTube continues to add support for podcasts. There's now a podcast tab on channels, so when you go into channels you'll see things like videos and playlists and stuff like that. Well, podcast is a new tab that's going to be appearing on channel pages.

So this way creators can classify videos as podcast episodes and use the podcast tabs, which can really help with discovery. If someone is interested in looking up a specific episode and they don't want to filter through all the different videos on a channel, then it makes it a lot easier. I think that's pretty darn cool. I know there are quite a few podcasts out there that release part or

all of episodes as video on YouTube. I think some of my colleagues are looking into doing something along those lines, and I think that's super awesome. I don't think I'm going to jump on that wagon myself, but only because tech stuff is most of the time a solo show, and I just can't imagine that any of you out there would be interested in just seeing me talk to a microphone by myself for forty minutes or whatever. I just don't see how that would be at all appealing

to you. So I don't think I'm ever going to be using this particular feature unless you know, I get a co host or something. So for multi host shows, I think this is great. By the way, I'm also of the opinion that podcasters should try to get on all platforms in order to reach their audience. Like, you shouldn't be platforms specific. You should try and be on all of them if you can, unless you're a superstar who can put their podcasts behind a paywall and folks

will still flock to you. But you know, for the rest of us, I think making your show as accessible as possible is a great strategy. You're going to find a lot more listeners that way, and you're not going to prevent people from finding you, which is really good. So yeah, I think this is a good thing overall. Again, I don't have my show on YouTube. I don't have any connection to YouTube. I just think that this is this is a cool thing for people who do like

to consume podcasts through YouTube. I occasionally will look up clips from podcasts I subscribe to on YouTube, like i'll watch a clip of of a recording, but typically I listened to podcasts just in audio form. I don't tend to do that on YouTube exclusively. I usually rely on my phone, but sometimes shows that I like will also upload video clips, and I like to watch those just to see the people that I listened to actually go through the reactions they have. My bim BAM or my brother.

My brother and me does this with the little clips from their shows, and I always enjoy that because they tend to be pretty entertaining. But yeah, I think it's cool. I love to see more support for podcasts across the board. And that wraps up this news episode. Lots of Twitter stuff in there, but like I said, it's been a while since I had really covered it, and a ton of information had come out over the last week, so

I kind of want to barrel through it. Hopefully on Thursday, we won't have nearly as much to say about that, and we can look at other news in the tech space in the meantime. I hope you are all well and I'll talk to you again really soon. Tech Stuff is an iHeartRadio production. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.