Tech News: Jonathan Gets Mad at the News

number on me. So I will do my best, all right. So the BBC and the Wall Street Journal continue to pull back the curtain with regard to Facebook and Instagram and some of the not so awesome things that have been going on with these companies or early I should

just say companies, since Facebook owns Instagram. You know, I've talked about how Facebook conducted internal studies that showed the company how their platform was facilitating and amplifying the spread of misinformation, and also how they did another internal study and showed that Instagram has contributed to mental health problems, particularly among teenage girls. Well, this story is also horrifying. This is not recent news. It is something I hadn't

heard about before, But that's on me. It's not because you know, people had been reporting on it. I just missed it. But there has been an update to it, and I'll get to all of this. So the original news was that back in two thousand nineteen, the BBC investigated Facebook and Instagram, saying that the sites were hosting ads that were for essentially slaves. The ads were for domestic workers in Arabic markets in which people were literally bought and sold. Now that is sickening in of itself.

One update here is that the Wall Street Journal, as part of its series of expose s about Facebook that had been coming out over the last week or so, found that a two thousand nineteen internal report. It always comes back to those internal reports, doesn't it. Anyway, That indicated that the company was already aware of this and had done some investigation into it before the BBC report blew the lid off the problem and alerted the general public.

Now I should add that they were doing some investigations, but they had not taken any action. A Facebook employees stated in the report quote throughout two thousand eighteen and two thousand nineteen, we conducted the global understanding exercise in order to fully understand how domestic servitude manifests on our platform across its entire life cycle, recruitment, facilitation, and exploitation

end quote. But it looks like it was actually the BBC expose that prompted Facebook to take action, first banning a hashtag that was used in many of those ads, and then taking subsequent steps. In June two thousand twenty, the Facebook reps stated, quote, following an investigation prompted by an inquiry from the BBC, we conducted a proactive review of our platform. We removed seven Instagram accounts within twenty four hours and simultaneously blocked several violating hashtags. End quote.

All Right, first, I'm glad that Facebook took those steps. However, I want to get real here, folks. Okay, the phrase quote following an investigation prompted by an inquiry from the BBC. End quote. That means that the phrase they used, which was quote, we conducted a proactive review end quote is horse bucky. I'm gonna try and control myself here. It is not proactive if you are doing something after being prompted by an investigation from journalists. That's not what proactive

means okay, that is reactive. The company reacted to being investigated. It was not proactively taking these steps to protect people, despite having its own internal investigation that predated the BBC's report. Now, they might argue that they were proactively scanning for more examples of this, but that's not how it was worded

in the statement. Right. I can accept that they have subsequently put in systems that proactively look for this, and that I, you know, I don't have objection to that kind of language, but the way this was worded just infuriates me. This is also another example of how Facebook angers me in general, because it allows stuff to happen, terrible,

terrible things. It allows horrible things to happen, and then we find out that Facebook was fully aware of the problem, like it wasn't like Facebook was somehow ignorant that this was happening and was just as surprise at the rest of us to see it, And and then finding how that they didn't take any steps to solve it until it becomes a public issue, until pressure is put on the company. This is like just a double dose of evil, or at least of apathy, which you know, in my

book amounts to being the same thing anyway. The Wall Street Journal also revealed, and this is new information, that Facebook received pressure from Apple back in two thousand and eight. Two nineteen, the company reportedly threatened to remove Facebook's apps from the Apple App Store, an enormous threat, and you can bet that is the sort of stuff that Facebook

actually pays attention to. Again, it's upsetting to me that companies allow such terrible thing to proliferate on their platforms as long as the company is safely protected against consequences, and then they only act to help people if there happen to be negative consequences. If the company fails to help people, it's just plane gross and other Facebook news.

A lawsuit from shareholders alleges that the company paid the FTC nearly five billion dollars over a settlement agreement in order to make certain that some certain kind of problems just got away in the wake of the Cambridge Analytical

Now scandal several years ago. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that quote Zuckerberg, Sandberg and other Facebook directors agreed to authorize a multibillion settlement with the FTC as an express quid pro quo that means this for that to protect Zuckerberg from being named the f TCS complaint made subject to personal liability or even required to sit for a deposition end quote. So in other words, that they paid you know, hush money to the FTC so that the FTC wouldn't

go after Zuckerberg at all. So if that lawsuit actually holds merit and Facebook did do this, we have ourselves a fun story not just of unethical corporate behavior, but also government corruption as well. It's nothing like more confirmation that the rules just don't apply if you have enough money. Right, we all know that, but this is yet more proof

of that. So this lawsuit was actually filed last year in it only became public information this week due to an update that got filed to the lawsuit that then made it a public and so it's just being reported on now. Okay, let's get away from Facebook for a second, or at least directly from Facebook. That still kind of involves Facebook. So it was only a matter of time before someone challenged the Texas law HB twenty, which makes it illegal for social media companies from removing content or

banning users based on that person's quote unquote viewpoint. Uh that time is now because the Computer and Communications Industry Association, as well as the organization net Choice have brought a lawsuit against Texas challenging that law. A similar law had been passed and subsequently blocked in the state of Florida.

Those two organizations I just mentioned they were also responsible for the lawsuit that brought that before a judge in Florida who ultimately barred the law from being put into effect. This comes in the wake of the various moves by social platforms to ban users and delete content that violated the platform's policies, and that included some high profile users,

such as the former President of the United States. The laws are kind of ironic because proponents say that the laws are there to promote freedom of speech to make sure that these entities like Facebook and Twitter aren't able to infringe upon the speech of others. But the US Guarantee of freedom of speech protects citizens and companies from the government intervening and telling you what you can and

cannot say. It protects you against government censorship. Companies like Facebook and Twitter are not the government, and as such, they can have content policies, and they can enforce those policies and that doesn't mean that they're violating a constitutional guarantee, because you know, they're not the government, and the communications

take place on the virtual property of these companies. However, you could argue that telling a company that it cannot police the content on its own platform is an example of the government violating an entities right to freedom of expression. So while under the banner of freedom, this law, you could argue is actually violating the very thing it allegedly protect X. Of course, that's just one interpretation, and I am not a legal expert. It may come down to

a court fighting in favor of the Texas law. We'll have to wait and see. Okay, I think I need to take a quick break, and when we come back, more stuff what makes me angry? Okay, we're getting back to tech and politics. This one doesn't actually make me angry, which is good. I think you all need a break from Jonathan getting on his high horse. So this time

we're gonna talk about currency. The Federal Reserve is preparing to release a paper regarding the agency's study into whether or not it's a good idea to create a US based digital currency. This would be a type of c B d C. Now that stands for central bank digital currency, and really you could say this is just a virtual form of a government issued currency or fiat currency. So in other words, this would just be like a digital

version of a US dollar. Now it's something that can have a lot of benefits, including benefits to the unbanked people who don't have bank accounts, because this allows for a digital payment, but it doesn't require the person to have a bank account. They would have to have some sort of digital wallet in order to accept and then spend digital dollars, but they wouldn't have to have a

bank account associated with them. So this is not the same thing as cryptocurrency, so it's not like saying that the FED is looking to make its own version of bitcoin. Bitcoin is also digital, but there are big distinctions between c B d c s and your typical cryptocurrencies. Both typically depend upon a secure ledger that cannot be changed.

This is necessary so that you can keep track of transactions and you prevent people from being able to spend the same digital dollar twice, right, you know, this is the protection to make sure that someone can't get a digital dollar and then quote unquote counterfeit it by copying it a billion times and making themselves a billionaire. You've got to have protections in place against that, just as you would against you know, counterfeiting, uh, you know, physical currencies.

And there are a ton of differences between cryptocurrencies and c B d cs. So with cryptocurrencies, you typically have a shared ledger, so everyone participating in the system is is technically able to see this ledger. Thus you can't have anyone cheat the ledger because everyone can see it. You can't go back and change things in the past because it would affect everything that followed, and that would be impossible for the all the different parties to ignore.

You would be caught immediately. With c B dcs, you technically you know or you typically don't have a shared ledger. You have a centralized ledger, but it's under the authorization of that centralized authority. And cryptocurrencies don't depend upon a centralized institution. The currency does. There are good and bad things connected with that, and I think your opinion about which is best largely depends on whether you buy into the cryptocurrency. Ethos are not um. I definitely see benefits

and I see drawbacks to each either way. The study that the FED is doing and is soon going to report on. It's just an indication that the FED is considering the possibility of creating a U S C B d C. It's not, you know, a done deal or anything. We will have to wait and find out what happens next. Today the U s Secretary of Commerce is meeting with representatives from big automakers as well as some major tech

companies like Microsoft and Apple. And the heart of the matter is the ongoing semiconductor chip shortage, which is affecting multiple industries out there, but it's really having a profound negative impact on the automotive industry at that you know, right now. Presumably this group of experts will discuss what the current problem is and you know, define the parameters and maybe talk about some potential ways to perhaps alleviate

some of the pain points in the supply chain. I'm not sure that there's going to be a ton of solutions to that, because the problem is a truly enormous one. It's a global issue, and it includes a lot of parties that are not in the United States, and you can only churn out stuff so quickly. In a way, you could say this shows that the world's supply chain is, you know, very much a chain. It is dependent upon the weakest links, right. It's only as strong as those

weakest links because it is interlinked. It's not if you break a link in a chain, then you've got to you know, segments of chain, you no longer have a real full chain. Same thing with supply chains. And this is not to say that I'm passing judgment on countries like Vietnam or Malaysia that are having massive issues and thus are quote unquote the weakest link in the supply chain. These are regions that are experiencing rising COVID nineteen infection rates.

These countries frequently are struggling to get doses of vaccines that can then be administered to citizens. There's an amazing vaccine shortage in most of the world. Here in the United States, it's easy different get that because it is readily available, But in other parts of the world that's not the case. This is a really big ecosystem and

humanitarian crisis. We here in the United States, we're fortunate and that we mostly see it through the stuff like skyrocketing automobile price tags or graphics card shortages, which, don't get me wrong, those are problems. But when you look at it in the in the context of people in other parts of the world who are responsible for delivering components that go into those things literally can't get vaccinated because there aren't enough doses, it really kind of brings

everything into perspective. Apple CEO Tim Cook recently sent out a memo that complained about how some Apple employee had leaked a previous memo, and then, of course this memo got leaked, so Apple's got a leaking problem. The earlier memo, the one that necessitated Tim Cook's second memo, was about how Apple would not require employees to be vaccinated, but the company would instead require unvaccinated employees to take COVID

tests on a frequent basis. Someone leaked that, and then Cook sent out a memo essentially saying, hey, don't leak stuff to the press or you'll be in trouble. And of course here we are with this memo now leaked to everyone. This also comes at a time when a subset of Apple employees have been calling out the company to be held accountable for issues ranging from pay disparity to a hostile work environment um the Apple Me Too movement.

Then there are the employees who had been pushing back against Cook's earlier insistence that Apple employees returned to work in person for at least three days a week starting this fall. That's a requirement that has now been pushed off to two. I wouldn't be surprised to see more leaks. I think there are enough folks in Apple who are upset or concerned, and they're just not willing to stay

quiet about it. Meanwhile, over at Epic Games, the company behind the massively successful Fortnite, Apple has denied that company's request to bring Fortnite back into the App Store now. According to the CEO of Epic Tim Sweeney, Apple had previously indicated it would allow Fortnite back in the App Store, but now is determined to keep it banned until the company has exhausted every legal appeal it can make to the courts, which so far have ruled more in epics

favor than in Apples. So at the heart of all this, in case you're not familiar, year, is that Apple and Google both have policies that state if you have an app that has in app purchases built into it, then the company takes like in this case, Apple takes a percentage up tot of that transaction for themselves, and that you are not allowed to use any other method to sell to people in app for an Apple app so

or an app that's in the Apple Store. So Fortnite has in game items you can purchase, but to do so on the Apple version, you were supposed to go through Apple's payment system, and instead Fortnite offered players an alternative work around where more of the money would go to Epic Games and none of it would go to Apple. Apple then took the move of banning Fortnite from the App Store, and we got into this big legal battle.

Well recently, the courts have said that Apple's policy is anti competitive, not monopolistic, but anti competitive, and that Apple needs to allow companies to have apps on the App Store to offer up alternative payment processes that are outside the Apple one. Apple has not yet done this, and in fact Apple is appealing that decision. And Sweeney said, hey, we'd be happy to come back and obey your rules if you let us back in the App Store, we will play by your policies as long as you have

conformed with the court decision, which Apple refuses to do. So. The battle continues. This has been a pretty public one and Tim Sweeney has not been shy about taking this battle to the public, probably because Fortnite has such an enormous following that he knows he can get a lot of support in a short amount of time. So we will see how this battle plays out, but it's going

to take a while longer. The e USE European Commission has announced that it will soon propose that all smartphones sold in the EU will have to comply with the u s b C charging Port standard, so that means all smart phones sold in the EU will have to have a us b C charging port. These are kind of shots you know, fired at Apple, which uses a

proprietary charging connector. It uses the Lightning connector for iPhones. Now, this despite the fact that the Apple also moved to us b C for its Mac computers, which drives a lot of Apple users nuts that you know, the company has moved from Lightning to USBC for some of its products, but not all of it. This requirement only applies to devices that use wired charging, so if you have something that charges wirelessly, that's exempt from this rule. And this

is not a rule that's set in stone yet. It's more like a recommendation. So the e C sends this recommendation to the European part Elament and then that has to vote on the matter before it can become law. That being said, the feeling is that most of the EU Parliament is in favor on settling on a common charger. Uh. The argument is that this benefits consumers because it simplifies the equipment you need when you get a new phone.

Let's say you switch from Android to iPhone. Well, it's already standard practice in Europe to ship phones without a charger, So the idea is that everyone out there already has chargers, and they already have cables, so you don't need to include that with your phone. This cuts down on cost, it cuts down on waste, cuts down on packaging. Like it has a lot of benefits. But if you have a phone that has a proprietary connector, then you know

none of your cables are going to work. You would have to go out and buy new ones, and that generates more waste. I should also point out that not all USBC cables are actually equal. There's a variety of them. Some of them can carry a higher voltage than others. For example, or provide more data throughput. So while it might seem like you're talking about simplifying things, you are, but not not fully. So it's still a little complicated.

Apple representatives responded by expressing disappointment in this recommendation not a big surprise. They have argued that, you know, settling on a single charging cable discourages innovation. I would say that there's a balance to be made here. There is a need for standardization which removes confusion in the market and benefits a consumer. And of course there's an argument to be made that Apple really doesn't, you know, isn't

calling out about restrictions on innovation. Apple wants proprietary connectors because then Apple can make more money selling all those different components, the phones, the chargers, the cables, everything. But if it's forced to conform to a universal standard, then it could lose out on a lot of sales because you could just buy those cables from anyone anyway. We'll see if the European Parliament takes the recommendation and makes it into law on the EU, and then we'll see

what Apple does about it. Finally, people who spend a lot of time looking at patents found one from Valve that suggests the company could be working on a way that would let you play a game while you are downloading it, with a product called Steam Instant Play. This is similar to features that you find on some video game consoles where you purchase a digital copy of a game, and once a sufficient amount of the game has downloaded

onto your device, you can start playing. Now, you might only be able to play in a specific mode, like the single player campaign or something, but you can get started and meanwhile, the rest of the game continues to download in the background. This is a pretty darn handy feature to have, particularly as games get increasingly gargantuan with regard to how much hard drive space they can take

up and the limitations of broadband speeds. For folks who are fortunate enough to have a gigabit connection or even better, it's maybe not that big of a deal. But for mere mortals like myself, having a way to play a game without having to wait, you know, the hour or so to get the full thing installed as a pretty big benefit. Anyway. The patent describes the system that would potentially allow for that kind of experience on Steam, which

is of course Valves Online Computer games store. It's like it's like a physical game store, except of course they're all digital downloads, but they carry games from all different publishers. So for those who aren't into PC games, Steam is like the leading store for selling online you know, games over the Internet, or rather games online over the internet, because they're not just they're not all online games. Some of them are you know, single player, no internet connectivity

type games. Steam is so successful the Valve doesn't even have to make video games of its own anymore, really, much to the despair of those who are waiting for another Half Life game. I should also add we don't need to hold our breath on this particular instant feature. We're talking about a patent. We're not talking about an actual product yet. One day Valve could implement instant play, or it might never roll it out at all. And

that's it for the news for Thursday, September one. I'm gonna go and light like some scented candles and stuff and listen to some relaxing music so that I don't have as many anger outbursts as I did today, So my apologies for that, but these are things I care about. If you have suggestions for things I should cover on tech stuff. Reach out to me. The handle on Twitter is text stuff H s W and I'll talk to you again really soon. Text Stuff is an I Heart

Radio production. For more podcasts from my Heart Radio, visit the i Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.