Tech News: X's Sign Becomes An Ex Sign

known as Twitter. I had mentioned that the San Francisco Police had paid a little visit to x HQ when a construction crew blocked off a couple of lanes of traffic on a city street in San Francisco while removing letters from the Twitter sign that hung on the headquarters building. Ultimately, the cop did not charge anyone with a crime, but it did mean that the removal process was interrupted and for a while the er stayed up there. They had

removed the twit, but the er was still up. And since a lot of us typically now we'll look at the former Twitter and say er, I think it was

appropriate that the er was still there. But anyway, after all that Musk's financial sinkhole of a company erected a big ol X sign, an illuminated X sign on the top of their HQ, so it lit up a lot, and it was bright enough and lighting up and like strobe effects and stuff that it prompted several people in the neighborhood to lodge complaints, saying that it was garish and disruptive and making it real difficult to get any sleep if the X was flashing lights through bedroom windows

and stuff. This prompted the city to send a bill inspector around to make sure that the news sign was up to code, but the inspector says that they were denied roof access multiple times, so the city took issue with this as well as with musk erecting an quote unquote illuminated structure without first securing a permit to do it. There were also concerns that the sign itself was not properly secured to the roof, which could be a truly dangerous situation in the event of something like high winds

for example. Now the company is likely to face some fines from the city. I haven't seen how much those fines might be, But then if San Francisco wants to get money out of x it's gonna probably have to get in line behind the various landlords, vendors, and former employees who are also awaiting payment. So I suppose one of the big secrets to being rich is that you know, you just don't pay your bills, then you get to

keep your money. It's genius. According to Casey Newton's Excellent Tech newsletter, today marks a big day inside X SO. Back when Musk bought Twitter, he famously did so at fifty four dollars twenty cents per share. That's why I

ended up being more than forty billion dollars overall. And a lot of Twitter employees had guaranteed stock grants, meaning that they had vested shares with the company or shares that were in the process of vesting, and that they would then receive a payout for those shares that's part of their compensation. They would get fifty four dollars twenty cents per share vested with the company. According to Newton, today marks the day when the remaining employees who were

still receiving stock grants will then be paid out. And if that happens, it might mean we could see another wave of resignations out of the company, because it's possible that some folks at X stayed on really just so that they could reach this moment to get that final payout, and then potentially they could go skip off to find greener or at least less chaotic pastures, though there is still a concern that a lot of people would not be able to find a job that pays, you know,

at the same level as what they're getting over at X. And as we've already said, Musk has racked up a pretty big history of refusing to pay bills, including to former employees, So there is a fear that those who should be receiving this compensation may be left waiting around indefinitely and that worst case scenario, the payout might not ever come. So maybe by the end of the day we'll have more news about that, but that's how it

stands as I record the episode. In other awful news, the Center for Countering Digital Hate or CCDA, which is now in Elon Musk's crosshairs for daring to you know, chronicle the rise of hate speech on X now. Musk has claimed that hate speech impressions are actually on the decline on X, but the CCdh argue that the opposite is true, that there's been an increase across the board

in hate speech as well as in disinformation. And if you've been following the news, you know that Musk has reinstated the Twitter accounts for people who previously had received bans for spreading things like hate speech on the platform. So at least you know, from that perspective, you could say, well, it seems to be logical that you would find an increase in hate speech. They are re platforming people who

were banned for spreading hate speech. So anyway, the CCdh says that they found a two hundred to two percent increase in messages on the platform that contain slurs. They also said that Twitter Blue subscribers, which maybe they're called X blue subscribers. Now the X makes everything really confusing because you think that it means former as opposed to subscribed to X. Anyway, people who have subscribed to the platform and who have subsequently posted messages that violate the

platform's policies seem to suffer no consequences. Their messages don't appear to be removed or anything like that. The company's own Trust and Safety Council resigned ages ago, right, the people who were actually in charge of formulating those policies and to make sure that the platform was doing well to adhere to them, they left, and the department as a whole is reportedly in a bit of the shambles.

And now Musk is sending legal threats and is arguing that the CCdh has an agenda, that the cs intent is to hurt X by spreading falsehoods in an attempt

to scare off advertisers. The CCDCH refutes those claims and points out that the organization is neither government funded, so it doesn't receive money from the government, nor is it connected to any other competing social network, so it's not like it's you know, conspiring with Meta to take down X. In fact, the CDCH has also reported on issues like hate speech and disinformation on other platforms besides X. The CCDCH released a statement indicating that should X and Musk

actually pursue a legal case against the organization, because so far it's just been threats about doing that, the organization will fight back. So I'm sure we will have more on this as it continues. And on a less dramatic and less important side, of the whole x Twitter story, one of the few remaining holdovers from the Twitter days

has actually changed. So it used to be that if you wanted to post something on Twitter, you would hit a little, you know, button that says tweet on there after you've written your message, right, you would tweet and that would post it. And now that icon no longer says tweet. It now says host. It's changed back and forth a couple of times over the last two days. But as I record this, at least in my own instance on the web based version of Twitter, I checked

and it says post now, not tweet. I guess we should be thankful it's not X seat or you know, because it's X is the name of the company. And Musk said that tweets would now be called x eats or zeats or skeets if you're pronouncing X like if it were, you know, an anglicized Chinese word, then it would mean we'd be using the sound, so it'd be sheets then. But I'm guessing Musk doesn't like that because if you're using the X sound as sh then Twitter

would become well, I won't say it. Over in the Netherlands, a court has ruled that Meta Ireland must reveal the identity of an anonymous user as part of a defamation lawsuit.

This one gets really ugly, y'all. So the plaintiff in this case is a man who says he has been defamed by this anonymous user who has posted in a couple of different Facebook groups that are dedicated to people talking about their dating experiences and kind of like horror stories with dating experiences in general, and that this anonymous user has said that this man has done stuff like secretly recorded the women he was dating, which would definitely

be a red flag if that's true. But the man denies these charges and he wants to sue this anonymous user for defamation. He says his reputation has been harmed as a result of these posts. But here's the rub. You can't sue someone if you don't know who they are.

So the man has brought this lawsuit to the Court of the Hague in the Netherlands, and the court considered the case and has now sent an order to Meta Ireland to cough up the identity of the anonymous poster who was behind these messages in these Facebook groups, and Meta Ireland is going to comply because it's a legal court order. And you might think, huh, that sounds like a precedent that could potentially set the stage for a lot of abuse and discourage people from coming forward as

whistleblowers and such. In this case, the argument is that the posts could be illegal if in fact they are defamatory and untrue. But the court also went beyond this. The court said, quote, according to settled case law and under certain circumstances, Meta has an obligation to provide identifying data even if the content of the relevant messages is

not unmistakably unlawful. So, in other words, the government in the EU, in the form of the court system, has the right to force platforms to strip away anonymity even if the posts at the center of the matter do not contain any overtly illegal content within them, which is a big ol' yikes, right, Like that is stripping away

security and privacy. Now, on the flip side, you could say, yeah, but if this is a real case of defamation, if these claims are untrue, and this person has had their reputation suffer as a result of this, and it's and through no fault of his own because he didn't do the things that were claimed against him. There needs to be recourse. So you can see that this is a

complicated issue. On the flip side, if the claims are absolutely true, then ripping the anonymity away from the person who came forward is a real potential threat to their safety. So it's a very complex situation and I can't pretend like I have the answer. Okay, we're gonna take a quick break. When we come back, We've got some more news stories to talk about. Okay, we're back, and now let's get into the AI part of this news episode.

So Meta is reportedly preparing to launch its AI powered chatbots pretty soon, perhaps as early as September, according to the Financial Times. The chatbots will have different personalities, some based off famous historical figures, others based off more stereotypes, kind of like surfer dude. According to the Financial Times, the pushes in part meant to stem the rise and then fall of participation on Threads. So when Threads first launched,

it took off like a rocket, right. It hit one hundred million users in less than a week, But since then, more than half of those users haven't really been back on Threads. They dropped off super quickly, and it suggested that Threads was really more of a flash in the pan moment and not the Twitter substitute that a lot of people were kind of hoping for. Apparently, Meta is going to lean on these chatbots to help drive engagement.

I guess I can see the logic behind that, because if you're on a social platform and you're posting stuff but no one ever engages with anything you post, then really you just end up keeping a journal, and that

might be enough for some folks. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think a lot of people feel that they want others to treat the stuff they say as if it matters, right, The reason you're on social is to stay in touch with other people and to get some validation that the stuff you're posting is interesting or funny or relevant. You know that people care about what you have to say, and if you're not getting that, you're not likely to be very satisfied with your experience on

the social platform. Maybe an artificial reaction provided by a chatbot that's imitating Abraham Lincoln is the answer. Though it should point out that the official explanation for these chatbots is that they're going to serve as a way to answer things like search queries and to give recommendations for stuff, and not necessarily to stand in as some sort of

surrogate follower or friend. So we'll see. I don't know if this will actually be a useful tool, or you can count on Abraham Lincoln to be your plastic pal who's fun to be with. Shout out if you've got that reference. Anyway, Meta isn't the only company putting AI to a new use. According to The Verge, YouTube is testing AI for the purposes of summarizing video content, so, in other words, telling you what a video actually is

about before you click in on the video. So the test only cover a quote limited number of English language videos and will only be viewable by a limited number of users end quote. That's according to John Porter of The Verge. Porter also writes that while the intent is to create a quick summary that ideally helps users decide which videos to watch, those summaries are not going to

replace the human written video descriptions. Personally, I'm having a bit of trouble imagining what this actually looks like in practice when you're on YouTube. I mean, do the videos have two separate descriptions one that was written by AI. But anyway, it shows how companies are looking at this crazy tool called artificial intelligence, and now they're scrambling to

find quote unquote problems that this tool can quote unquote fix. Obviously, anything that leads to greater engagement on one of Alphabet's many platforms is going to be counted as a win. So I can understand the whole throw noodles at the wall and see what sticks aproach that they're taking here. I'm curious to see one of these summaries myself. I want to see what it looks like. But as far as I can tell, I haven't come across anything like

that yet. But it is in a limited test run, so it is far more likely that I am just not in the pool of folks who are included in that test. I hold out hope that we'll get at least a few hilariously weird video summaries out of this that we're clearly written by a robot. So I'll just have to wait and see. NewsCorp, the giant media company, has been using artificial intelligence to generate news articles that

are publishing across seventy five hyper local publications across Australia. So, according to the Guardian, the AI, which is kind of like chat gpt, is writing around three thousand pieces a week and the topics range from stuff like weather reports to giving updates on fuel prices and specific cities and

that kind of thing. The company says that the articles are written by AI, but they're overseen by journalists, which kind of reminds me of what how stuffworks dot Com said about its recent embrace of artificial intelligence generated articles. As a reminder, the editorial staff was let go at how stuffworks dot com and that means that folks that I used to work with found themselves out of a job.

So I am definitely biased on this topic. I'm saying that so that you understand that I have a very particular point of view on this that is pretty darn negative, but that I completely admit this is my own bias. Anyway, I think you can make an argument that the types of pieces the AI is said to be tackling are ones that human writers actually wouldn't find interesting or rewarding

to write in the first place. They are tedious exercises at best, and goodness knows, I would occasionally get assignments at how stuff works. That definitely fell into the tedious category. You still had to do your best on those articles, but you questioned the value of writing them in the first place. You're like, this is a garbage article. Even if I do my best work on it, it's just

the article itself is not very interesting. There is still a need for a human person to oversee the work that the AI is doing, because, as we know, AI can sometimes get real loosey goosey with reality. And it makes me wonder how much the companies and staff are actually saving on time and effort, because if there's a frequent enough need to do revisions and rewrites, really all you're doing is just making more work for fewer people.

But it's hard to say, I bet there's a human writer out there who really wants to essentially rewrite the same article every day for the rest of their careers, because if it's something like what are the current fuel prices in your city, well, that's something you would have to research and write every single day. That's probably not a lot of fun to do. So maybe that is

a good use for AI. Right If the AI is reasonably accurate and reliable, then it could mean that human writer ideally could get a different assignment that's more interesting and rewarding to work on. So I can see the use for AI for specific versions of writing for stuff that people genuinely need to know but is genuinely tedious

to research and write. The problem is I worry about companies overstepping that and just saying, oh, wow, AI is way cheaper than having humans, right, Let's just have them write everything, and then we get an even bigger decline in journalistic integrity and quality. California here in the United States, has a new Department of Privacy regulators who are actually authorized with power now, and this week they are hearing

their first case. They are looking at how auto manufacturers are incorporating data gathering technology within the vehicles that they make and sell, and how those companies then collect, use, and protect that information because there are really no rules in place to serve as a parameters for that. So the agency is looking at the types of information that are collected, which can include everything from geolocation data to

camera images depending on the vehicle. There's a concern that data collection has become an important component in cars, but there's such a lack of regulations and rules. Now companies can use that information that it could lead to real problems. Now, ideally manufacturers use this info to keep eyes on things like vehicle performance and maybe even detect issues before they become huge problems, and that could lead to a much

more effective method of dealing with stuff like recalls. For example, maybe a company sees, oh, this isn't a critical problem yet, but it's going to be if we don't do anything about it, So let's do the recall earlier and save ourselves a lot of green from the long run. That's a legitimate use for that kind of data collection. But if you go a step outside of the actual vehicle and you think about what does the data say about the driver who's inside that vehicle, that's where concerns start

to pop up. I mean that vehicle data could be used to do a lot of things, like you might be able to draw conclusions about the actual driver's life. So imagine that you are having to seek regular medical treatments for some condition you have, and that the car is essentially gathering information about the fact that you're going

to a medical facility on a regular basis. That's information you probably wouldn't just freely share with a car company for no reason, right, I mean, that's private healthcare information. And so this is really this regulation agency's first step to get a full understanding of the scope and depth

of data collection in the auto industry. And I hope it's an indication of a seed change shift in how the United States in particular approaches data collection and use, because for too long it's just been open season for information out there. Okay, I've got a few more stories to cover before we get to those. Let's take another quick break. All right, we're back, and hey, let's head

back down to Australia. I got some bad news. So Disney announced that after Guardians of the Galaxy Volume three hits store shelves in DVD and Blu Ray formats this month, the company is done producing physical media for the Australian market. So moving forward, fans in Australia will have to use stuff like streaming services or cable or satellite or whatever in order to watch future Disney properties. So there will be no more Marvel, Star Wars, or Disney DVDs or

Blu Rays. So why is that, Well, Disney says it's because the home media market in Australia has slowed to a point where it's just no longer profitable to produce physical copies of stuff. And I get that a lot of people have moved away from physical media, but personally, as someone who has recently gotten back into that, I am bummed by this news. For one thing, we are now all aware that just because something is currently available on a streaming service today, it doesn't mean it's going

to still be there tomorrow. We have seen dozens hundreds of titles disappear off of streaming services, including Disney Plus, and then become unavailable. A lot of streaming exclusive content never even makes it to physical home media at all, so once it goes, it just becomes inaccessible. It still exists, but there's no way for you to watch it. Well. With Disney making this move, it means for Australians everything Disney makes is potentially in that category of stuff that

one day could just disappear. And there's an understandable concern that other studios are going to follow Disney's lead. In fact, I'd be shocked if that doesn't happen. But from a business perspective, it's hard to fault the decision. You don't get into the business to not make money. From a fan perspective or from an archives perspective, this is a huge blow, and I wouldn't be surprised to see similar stories play out in other regions as more people migrate

away from physical media. Personally, I'm going to be buying Blu ray and DVD copies of the stuff I love while I still can, because I've had plenty of experiences where something I really enjoyed was on a platform and then an agreement expires and it's gone and there becomes no legal way for me to access it anymore. And I'm not the type of person to lean on illegal MEAs means to get access to content if there are

legal alternatives. But when there are no legal alternatives, that really I mean, you either do without or you break the law. Those are really your only options. I guess the responsible thing is I guess to do without. But it just to get so frustrating when you think I want to see this, I am happy to pay for the ability to see it. There just isn't that option. Video Game Chronicle reports that Nintendo is preparing to launch its next console sometime next year, likely in the fall.

In time for the holiday season. Nintendo launched the Switch back in twenty seventeen, and while titles like Tears of the Kingdom show that this portable system, or at least system capable of going into portable mode, can still pack a surprising amount of punch, it is safe to say that the hardware is now kind of pushing against its upper limits. The VGC says that Nintendo has already started to ship development kits to various partner studios in anticipation

of this launch next year. Details are understandably scarce, but it sounds like the next console will again be capable of being used in a portable method, you know, like a handheld system similar to what Switch can do, and that the company is choosing to use LCD screens instead of o LED screens, likely in an effort to keep manufacturing costs down. Hopefully that will also mean it will help keep consumer prices down that they won't be too

expensive either. VGC also says that the system will include a cartridge slot for physical media, so we're not going all digital with this one. Not a big surprise, then. Tendo has a long history of supporting physical media and to kind of kind of drag its feet on things like connected features for its consoles. But that's all that's known right now, and here's hoping that this console is another big success story like the Switch and not another

misfire like the WEU. Speaking of video games, Call of Duty recently held a culling. The game targeted players who are found to have been relying on cheats and hacks in an effort to get advantages over other players. According to the game's x feed or Twitter again, this is so confusing x feed just whatever. Anyway, according to the video game, the publisher has banned more than fourteen thousand

accounts for cheating and hacking within just twenty four hours now. Personally, I don't play Call of Duty, but there are a couple of British content creators I watch regularly who do play it. I hope this means that they will encounter fewer instances of people using cheats and hacks. It is frustrating enough just as a viewer to watch someone who is really good at the game they play, but then they encounter cheaters and it becomes this unfair exchange, like

when they're up against genuinely skilled players. That's exciting when they're against cheaters. It's just frustrating, but I imagine it's way worse to actually experience it firsthand. I have encountered cheaters in a few games I've played. I remember a game of PUBG where the person who took me out it turned out they were using a cheat where they were just getting headshots, like they weren't even pointing at people and getting headshots, and it was such an obvious

cheating mechanism. It was really frustrating. It convinced me to stop playing PUBG. So that's fun. So really, game developers have an incentive to crack down on this kind of thing because otherwise they do run the risk of players becoming frustrated with the title as a whole and just abandoning it. And finally, a weather satellite called Eolis came crashing down to Earth this week, but this was planned. The European Space Agency launched Eolis about five years ago.

It carried a laser doppler tool called a Leyden or Aladdin if you prefer. It just has one D, so I called it a Leyden, and the scientist were using this to help monitor and study wind speed and direction at various elevations through the atmosphere. So this was part of a broader study on weather and climate and just gathering a lot of scientific information. But earlier this year, the ESA made plans to deorbit the satellite. It was

reaching the end of its mission. It's also reaching the end of its fuel, and as it turned out, the satellite did not have enough fuel in it so that the ESA could do a fully controlled deorbit. Instead, the ESA used the remaining fuel to carry out what they called an assist, which is kind of between a controlled deorbit where you are using thrust to target a specific

location for touchdown or crash down. I guess it is a better word for it, and an uncontrolled deorbit where nature just takes its course and you have no idea where that satellite's going to end up going. The ESA couldn't guide the satellite the entire time, but it could ensure that the spacecraft was able to use its fuel and thrusters to manu itself above the Atlantic Ocean in an effort to minimize any terrestrial issues, you know, like

having the satellite fall in someone's house or something. Deorbiting the satellite also means that EOLIS would not become another piece of space junk serving as a potential hazard in lower orbit. So rest in pieces. Eolis, you did good work out there. That's it for today's news. Hope you are all well and I will 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.