Jordan Peterson copies Countess Luann; Elon Musk mutes critics and threatens removing the block button; ChatGPT bans books in Iowa schools; Illinois law protects kidfluencers; Wisconsin bill infantilizes adults; $1 billion fine for online harassment campaign; YouTube policy against cancer lies is big if true — NEWS ROUNDUP

children as their focus. Children cannot consent, but that does not keep parents from building followings, sometimes huge followings, and making real money off of their kids on social media. If you listen to the episode that we did with Sarah also known as Moms Uncharted on TikTok, we'll put

that episode in the show notes. We talked all about the complexities and dangers of why she actually says that people who are influencers and have their entire influencer career around their kids, why she doesn't think that's the safest idea, And one of those reasons is because of the lack of legislation around how kids can be used on social

media for money. That is until now. Late last week, Illinois became the first state in the US to take some legislative steps to ensure that kids who make money from social media are compensated for their work from their parents. That law will go into effect in July of next year. So we have child labor laws in this country, or at least in some parts of the country anyway, and child performers who are models or actors typically have laws

that legislate how their work is performed. They can only work so many hours at a time, and the money that they earn legally has to be set aside for them in some cases, but this is not the case when it comes to social media. It's one of those situations where the reality progresses a lot more quickly than the laws can, and the laws really need to catch up, and that's exactly what's happening in Illinois. The new law in Illinois is the first to specifically legislate how kids

can show up for money on social media. So this is not a law that is meant to legislate folks who are just like sharing the occasional picture of their kid to their nana and their pop pop on Instagram. It's really about people who are making money and have big followings from their kids. The new law entitles kids under the age of sixteen to a percentage of earnings based on how often they appear on online content that

generates at least ten cents per view. The content has to have been made in Illinois and kids have to be featured in at least thirty percent of that content over a thirty day period to qualify under this law. So parents are responsible for keeping records of this and setting aside the gross earnings until a child becomes eighteen, and if parents fail to do this, those kids can sue.

This legislation actually came from a young person. Shreyannlamuthu, was scrolling social media one day when she realized there's actually no legislation protecting kid influencers online. Shreya said, I realized there's a lot of exploitation that can happen within the world of kid influencing, and I realized that there was absolutely zero legislation in place to protect them. So she ended up reaching out to Senator David Kohler of Peoria, and he ended up sponsoring that bill and the bill

will sign into a law. Now this comes up a lot in the Mom's Uncharted episodes that I referenced earlier. But even though it doesn't feel that way, social media is actually pretty new, right, Like I still remember the first time I ever got social media. It has happened in my lifetime, so it seems like something that has been around forever, and if you're a younger person listening,

maybe it has been for you. But it's important to point out that it is so new that we don't really know that much about how it is impacting, specifically kids who grew up on social media. And similarly, as those first waves of kids who were really used by as content by mommy bloggers and mom run accounts and all of that get older, they are just now starting to speak up publicly about the impacts. And I'm really curious.

I think that we should definitely be taking our cues from these young people who are speaking up about what it was like to be essentially like a money maker for your family, a source of income for your family. There's a really interesting Teen Vogue piece where they talk to now older young people who were kids who were used as the sole focus of their mom's blog or online content, and it really doesn't sound like it was

good for them. They describe like how when they were sick or when they were having a big moment in their life, their mom would whip out the camera and they knew they had to perform. And so I think it's going to be really interesting to listen to these kids as they speak up about how this has impact with them, And honestly, I think a good first step in that conversation is instituting a little bit more policy around how those kids get paid, because influencing is labor.

If somebody is putting a camera in your face and you're expected to perform, that's not that different than getting up on a stage like Judy Garland and being expected to perform. But now the laws are slowly starting to catch up with that reality, and honestly, I could see more states passing similar legislation as we continue to hear from these young people about what it was like to be used as content when they were too young to really consent to it.

gender identity and sexual orientation. Infuriating, right, Yeah.

with sexual orientation or gender identity. Pop Science spoke to Mason City's Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction, Bridget x Men, who argued that it was simply not feasible to read every book and filter for these new requirements, saying, frankly, we have more important things to do than spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to protect kids from books. But at the same time, we do have a legal and ethical obligation to comply with the law.

Our goal here really is a defensible process, and honestly, I kind of get it. Educators and school administrators really do have more important things to do then try to read every single book to see if it complies with this new bigoted law and only do it in three months. I think that's one of the many, many reasons why

these laws around libraries and education are so problematic. You know, they create a lot of work for educators, many of whom are already overwhelmed, underpaid, and overworked, and in some cases these are near impossible tasks. Giving administrators three months at the end of toward the end of the school year to do this is kind of a lot and a little bit of a side note, like I don't want to go too far off the rails, because boy, this is one of those topics that if you get

me going, you'll I'll go all day. But I think that that is a feature, not a bug of these kinds of laws. The extremists who advocate for laws like book bands and a thing that certain kind of materials around gender and sexuality can't be taught, I think that they know that they are giving these educators a really difficult and in some cases impossible task, And that's kind

of the point of these laws. It creates these complex hoops that schools legally have to comply with, and I think the entire point of these laws is to erode the public school system and public institutions more broadly, and this is one plank of how they're doing that, creating these needlessly complex hoops that educators have to legally comply with.

Administrators first compiled a master list of commonly challenged books, then removed all those challenge for reasons other than sexual content. Administrators then asked chat GPT the specific language of IWA's new law. Does XYZ book contain a description of a sex act? Things like that. If the answer was yes,

the book was removed circulation and stored. But if you listen to the show, you already know that chat GPT is pretty janky, So that means that the tool that they're using to comply with the enforcement of this law might also be pretty janky. So as much as I hate hate this whole situation, I think that, like, it's really bad. I think that using chat GPT as this quick tool to just comply with this law is bad for a lot of reasons, not the least of which

is that chat GPT is pretty inconsistent. I guess I, on the one hand, get why they felt they had to do this. One of the school administrators that Pop Science spoke to explained, realistically, we tried to figure out how to demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with the law with minimal time and energy. When using chat GPT, we use a specific language of the law. Does X Y Z book contain a description of a sex act.

Being a former English teacher, I have personally read and taught many of the books that are commonly challenged, so I was able to verify chat gbt's responses with my own knowledge of some of the text. After compiling the list, we ran it by our teacher librarian, and there were no books on the final of the nineteen that were surprising to her. So I guess it's good that in this case the school feels like chat GPT was able to help them comply with this like bogus law that

is ridiculous in the first place. But I just think this is really, to me a story about how these laws will just create the conditions where people do feel like they need to fall back on technology, technology that can be inconsistent, problematic, racist, sexist, all of that, because they just have to like rush and demonstrate that an attempt was made to comply. And so I think that their use of chat GPT here to me is a symptom of a much deeper and much larger problem.

online abuse campaign against her. So these two got romantically involved in twenty sixteen, during which time this was her romantic partner, so she trusted him to have access to her digital life right her computer, her online banking information, her social media footprint, her home security system, things like that, which I feel like in this day and age, it's not uncommon for people who are living together to have that level of trust and intimacy with each other's digital lives.

In twenty twenty, things started to deteriorate, and she says that Jackson started getting jealous, paranoid, and delusional. They had had what she described as a long drawn out breakup.

When Dill finally broke up with him and moved from their shared home in Chicago to live with her mom in Texas, she asked her ex Jackson to return or delete some intimate material that she had consented to him having when they were together, but obviously wanted him to delete now that they were not no longer a couple, and that's when the abuse started. So the scope and scale of the abuse waged via online platforms and technology

is truly jaw dropping. When I was researching this for the episode, every time that I added something to the list, I was like, well, Charlie, this must be the last instance, and then there would be another thing to add, Like it just went on and on and on. I should say that online abuse is often dismissed as like people think that you're talking about like someone said mean words to me, or oh, this woman you know took intimate photos with her boyfriend and then regretted it when they

broke up, or some other such nonsense. Right Like, it often is dismissed. But this situation is a good example. Of how deep and involved online abuse can be. Right. It is sexual, it is financial, it is psychological, and more so. The Messenger reports that the lawsuit alleged that her ex created fake profiles, published intimate images and videos of dll on Facebook, Twitter, and pornhub. Jackson also emailed the photos and videos to the woman's relatives, friends, and

co workers. He posted images on public dropbox links that also included her home addressed. Importantly, he used more than just the intimate images that she had asked for him to delete when they broke up, because he hacked into her online home surveillance cameras in order to watch her, surveil her, and spy on her, and was able to get more intimate images and videos of her from hacking into those cameras, So if she logged onto a Zoom meeting for work, Jackson would hack into her account and

then post those private images and videos. Wi so financial, he emailed her loan officer with a claim that she'd taken out fraudulent loans, accessed her personal bank account, and used her money to pay his rent and make purchases without her consent. She says that she tried everything to get him to stop This went on for a year. She tried restraining orders, pressing criminal charges, and contacting online social media platforms to take the material down, but she

never got a helpful response from anybody. And honestly, I think I know why that was. It's because the powers that be just really do not take it seriously when someone is being abused in this way using technology as a facilitator. You know, platforms, they will pass the buck

every which way they can, every chance they'll get. And I think when it comes to this kind of abuse, which is sometimes called technology enabled abuse, oftentimes the way that people talk about tech enabled abuse really negates the fact that tech enabled abuse is systemic and that it is every bit as real, dangerous, and scary as physical

domestic violence. So, after DL was unable to get any help via restraining orders or the police, she started documenting every instance of abuse in an Excel spreadsheet, itemizing the types of attacks and publication method and addresses of those attacks, and then linking to the specific evidence of the attack. That spreadsheet spans five pages of activity over the course

of three plus years. So her ex jackson sent her a message saying, you will spend the rest of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet. Everyone you ever meet will hear the story and go looking happy hunting. I know that one point two billion dollars seems like a lot of money, but DL's attorney told The New York Times that he doesn't actually expect Jackson to pay out the full one point two billion dollars, but that that amount was really about sending a message.

So you know how her ex told her that you will spend every day of your life trying and failing to wipe yourself off the internet. Well, DL's lawyer said that Jackson will spend the rest of his life trying and failing to wipe this financial debt. Clear and the irony here is that clearly Jackson wanted this to be something that was going to follow DL around for the rest of her life, be something that anybody who ever googles her would see. But the irony is that that's

now him. Right. As DL's attorney points out, every time this man tries to apply for a job, or tries to apply for credit, or maybe even gets a new girlfriend, all they need to do is google our Marquise Jamal Jackson, and what comes up is a one point two billion dollar judgment, so be careful what you ask for.

much hell he put her through. He like the I read some of the court documents, they describe him at three am up making multiple fake phone numbers on multiple burner phones and multiple profile like for hours and hours and hours, like he was waging a campaign of terror to terrorize this woman. And make her life hell. And so yeah, I think that, like it sounds like a lot of money, but I think that people need to understand how serious of a thing this is, Like his

actions are horrific. So, Jackson was found guilty of violating Texas's revenge porn laws, and that's been a term that folks have used to talk about this case, with revenge porn. A lot of advocates, myself included, don't tend to use language like that. I find that language not particularly useful because I think it kind of implies that, you know, if somebody is quote getting revenge on you, it kind

of implies that you've done something wrong. And these people who become victims of this or targets of this, have not done anything wrong. And so I don't really like that language. I think that I think that like it implies that they've done something to quote deserve it, and instead most advocates use the phrase image based sexual abuse,

which is what this is. Dee's lawyer says that the scope of what Jackson did to her is so much more than what we think of typically when you think of quote revenge porn, like, the scope is much deeper and it's really heartbreaking because Dille says that at one point she felt completely hopeless, but after the trial, she encouraged anyone who was dealing with this kind of online

abuse to stay strong. She said, you are more than the shame you may feel, and you deserve to be your biggest advocate and know that there are people who recognize this behavior as the terrible crime it is. As we brought a knowledge on this type of abuse, we can collectively influence laws to better protect us in the

digital age. And honestly shout out to DL like what she went through sounds horrific, the fact that she documented all of this came out the other end of it, and as trying to use what she went through to help encourage other targets of this kind of abuse, which is much more common than we think. Like I think that what she went through is a real extreme case, but I think, like, if you are a young person, you've definitely had someone threaten you with like I'm gonna

post these pictures or blah blah blah. Like that is so common and it's so normalized the point where like it's a punchline in like movies and television, and I think DL is exactly right. We need to change have a systemic culture change around this kind of digital abuse. We need to understand that just because it's happening through technology or through a computer does not mean that it

is not abuse, because it definitely is. It is a crime, and we need to collectively do better and influence laws to better protect us in the digital age so that this is not so commonplace. But I think it's both legislative changes and also culture changes that we don't allow this, We don't minimize this, we don't stigmatize the people that it happens to, and that we really take it seriously as the crime that it is.

If you if it sounds like I'm doing quotes but you can't see them because it's a podcast, I am keeping kids safe online? That would or it's already deeply changing our internet landscape, things like the Kids Online Safety Act and online age verification in states like Virginia and Mississippi. A little update on that, because this time Wisconsin wanted

to get in the mix. Tech Dirt's Mike Mansnik has a great roundup of Wisconsin's new Senate Bill three eighty five, which basically treats everybody online as if they're a child unless they can specifically prove otherwise.

treated as such. Social media companies can remove what the bill will calls youth account designations from accounts if those social media companies estimate that an account is from somebody who is not a minor through employment of a process or a program that provides a ninety five percent accuracy rate of estimating age within twenty four months of their actual age. So it like gets like pretty nitty gritty.

The bill reads that it would ensure that the account cannot be used or accessed between the hours of ten pm and seven am. So I would be so screwed, like if I was under if I was like a like if I was a sixteen year old bridge and this law were in play, I would be so screwed because I genuinely do not think there was ever a homework assignment ever and my whole life that I ever started before ten pm the night before it was due.

That was just like not what I was doing. I was a student who was like someone would like I would be on aim remember aimed. It would be like, hey, did you finish the report? I'd be like report? That always me. So if I wasn't able to use the Internet after ten o'clock at night, I will be so screwed.

ready to go. But if I didn't do that, I wouldn't be able to use the Internet after ten pm. That would enrage me. And I think most adults would feel the same way if like they were just locked out of the Internet because they were assumed to be a child who needed to go to bed at ten pm.

online privacy as it pertains to kids and adults. However, I feel like the people who are doing the actual loudest talking, the people who are writing the legislation, are there are people who are doing it badly at best, and at worst, extremists who have already explicitly talked about wanting to use these conversations around keeping kids safe online, to further censor our internet and further make our internet

less hospitable places for marginalized folks to show up. Because this bill also gives parents a whole heck of a lot of access over what kids do online. The bill provides to parents of minor account holders certain accesses, including full access to the account and all of its posts and messages, the ability to change the time limits on the account, and to opt out the miner's account from

the youth account designation. The legislation, of course, does not take into account if the child is a strange from a parent, or if they have an abusive parent, or if the child is coming to the internet to get support around questions that they don't feel comfortable asking their parent, Like I don't know, I this upsets me if you can't tell it's ridiculous.

kind of kid, you know what I mean. And it was the Internet that saved me. It was the Internet that set me free. It was the Internet that really helped me understand that there were more people out there than in my small town and that when I got older, I would be out there among them. And so I was for sure also having experiences I probably shouldn't have had it on the Internet, but like that's a story for another time, but you know, I really feel grateful

for those experiences. I don't know where I would be if my parents had never bought me a computer and never got me on America online. I don't know how I wouldn't. I don't know if I would recognize myself.

I don't know if that sounds weird, but I truly don't know if I would recognize me as me, because that was such such a confusing time and so making it so that whatever your kid searches or talks about online is just always visible to mom and dad, not because of some sort of norm that you have set in your household as a parent, because I do think that parents should be like involved in what their kids doing online, but because the government, this legislation has has

established that. I don't think that's right, and I don't think that's how the I don't think that's how the Internet was meant to be. I don't think that's how kids learned to have safer Internet experiences. I think there are so many things that our legislators could be doing to ensure that young people are having safer experiences online. I am an advocate for that, but laws like this don't make kids safer. They just make the Internet worse for everybody.

conversations to hijack them to spread harm and agendas. So I don't know, it's something to keep an eye on. We will keep an eye on it. Our very own Joey Patt, super producer of this very podcast, was on another podcast that we Love Stuff. Mom never told you to talk about age verification, why it is so harmful and why it is so dangerous specifically to marginalized youth.

but Prince deserves better than that association. So the company formally known as Twitter has been slowing down the speed with which users can access links to The New York Times, Facebook, and other news organizations and online competitors, a move that appeared targeted at companies that have drawn the ire of owner Elon Musk. The post test that showed that when you clicked on a site like Facebook or The New York Times on Twitter, you are made to wait for

about five seconds before that page opens. I know that doesn't sound like a lot, but think about like when you are scrolling Twitter, a site like Twitter moves so quickly or used to being able to just click things and then boom and opens like that that five seconds like one banana, two banana, three banana, four banana, five banana in Twitter scrolling time, that is an eternity and it is enough to like shape your behavior a little bit.

Like I have a timer on my phone that when I open TikTok, I have to wait three seconds, and more times than not, that three seconds is enough time for me to be like do I really need to open this app? So it doesn't sound like a lot, but it is enough to make an impact and enough like people will definitely choose to not go to those

sites if there's a five minute delay. The sites where this is happening are all sites that have been singled out by Musk for ridicule or attack, Facebook, Instagram, Blue Skide, and Substack, as well as Reuter's Why service and The New York Times. You'll probably remember that this is not the first time that Elon Musk has used Twitter to

further his own personal grievances and grudges. Right after he bought Twitter, he banned the Twitter account that used FAA data to track his own personal jet and then banned journalist who reported on that ban, and even suspended the Twitter account of the social media platform Mathodon because that account referred to it as well. So Elon's reign of being the self proclaimed free speech absolutist continues.

which ones they happened to like. And it was like a huge deal that people fought over for years and currently is unfortunately dead thanks to the Trump administration. But like, you know, maybe we'll get it back someday. But here's Elon doing the exact same thing effectively. But it's like not even something that we're talking about, Like how quickly things just change in degrade.

And the fact that we had so much debate about it, and now it's just like, oh, Elon gonna do it on a whim, you know, I'm gonna big deal. Uh yeah, all right, So I feel like things have gotten a little bit heavy lately, and so let's return to some of our better news, lighter news, good news. I'm gonna start with some like cautious good news or oh we'll call this like what's in between good and bad? Okay news? Okay to good news? That isn't that doesn't sound.

good news, cautious good news. So on August fifteenth, YouTube took a strong, bold, courageous stance, and that stances people should not be using their platform to lie about cancer or lie to people with cancer. Huge. So all those videos that are like essential oils can cure cancer, or berries can cure cancer, you can drink this juice little cure cancer, those will no longer be allowed on YouTube.

Verge reports that this enforcement comes as YouTube is attempting to streamline it's medical moderation guidelines based on what it has learned while attempting to tackle misinformation around topics like COVID vaccines and reproductive health. I have to say, like to be super clear, this is like the bare minimum that a platform like YouTube needs to be doing to

create a healthier ecosystem. You know, not allowing dangerous lies about cancer on your platform is like a very small step, but it is a step in the right direction, nonetheless, So I think it's just a good, you know, a good step. However, the real question always with YouTube is like where whether or not they enforce it, how they enforce it, what that enforcement looks like, what that accountability looks like, Because a policy that does not have robust

enforcement is just like a wish. It's not it's not really anything. And so Google, which owns YouTube, unfortunately, does have this track record of making a big, flashy announcement and then either failing to really enforce it in a meaningful way or just like walking it back quietly altogether. So but I think this would be a great policy. I hope that we actually see YouTube enforcing this policy a little cautiously good cautious good news.

year later. I don't know, it just was really we you know, we continued to we continue to fight, you know, I was really distraught that day, and I didn't see a light. I didn't see any I was like, this is just going to be bad, and like it has been really bad. But I did not from that entry. I did not have the ability to think about how things might be better in the future. And I'm happy that here in twenty twenty three, things are. You know, it's not all despair, because here's one good thing, and

that is emergency contraception. Emergency contraception is legal to purchase over the counter in all fifty states, although I actually did some reading that suggests that even though that is true, a lot of people surveyed either didn't know about the legality of emergency contraception over the counter in their state or they just like weren't clear on how to get it.

So like, it is available over the counter everywhere in the United States, and now there are thirty nine universities across seventeen states that are putting emergency contraception in on campus vending machines, and according to the American Society for Emergency Contraception, at least twenty more universities are considering these vending machines as well. Even in places like the University

of Tulsa in Oklahoma, where abortion is severely restricted. So that was a I was like, well, that's like an interesting use of technology to help young people have access to reproductive care on campuses in an accessible way. Love that very positive. And also I saw this headline over at NBC abortion rights have won and every election since Roversus Wade was overturned, abortion has been on the ballot in seven states since June twenty twenty two. In each instance,

anti abortion groups have lost. So I was feeling pretty good coming out of that win in Ohio. You know, it's just a good reminder that like when you know when you're when you're confronted with a recent bout of deep despair and then come out of it and people are still helping, people are still organizing, people are still fighting, We're still winning. Yeah, so it's not all bad.

on Twitter except for its use in DMS. So I have actually seen people suggest that this might be because so many people are blocking verified blue check marks on Twitter, or maybe somebody pulled Elon Musk aside and showed him how many users have him blocked on Twitter, and he was like, I don't like this, Let's get rid of that feature in any event, I mean those are I think both of those sound like reasonable reasons for why

he would be doing this move to me. But in any event, he tweeted that he intends to get rid of the block feature on Twitter. Now he just tweeted this. And Elon Musk is known for being someone who doesn't always tell the truth, Like the man lies. You can't really report on what he says without actually talking about the fact that he often says things and those things do not come to fruition. So who knows if it

is really happening? Because both Google and Apple require social media apps available on their platforms to have blocking features on them, and so if he says he's planning on getting rid of a blocking feature. You know, I'm no expert in how this all works, but to me, it means that Twitter might not be able to be included on the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store for Android. So curious to me that he's just like

saying this. I don't know if he's run this by his legal team, his development team on whether or not that's actually possible, or if he's just like tweeting it and expecting the entire team to figure out how to make it happen.

kind of a deep complicated conversation. We've talked about this before, but since Elon Musk has taken over at Twitter, the use of slurs like the inward has increased, and blocking is a feature that helps people, particularly win in black folks, queer folks, trans folks, and other marginalized people protect themselves

from harassment. Like Twitter does not have a lot that protects people from harassment or allows people to like control how they engage with people or not, but blocking is one feature that is generally accepted across social media platforms that gives the user the ability to be like, this is not somebody I want showing up in my mentions. I don't want to see their content on social media, giving people that little bit of control over the experience

they're having, and he's taking that away. I cannot understand the rationale behind that other than as an endorsement of harassment on the platform. And it's not just marginalized people, right, it's also journalists, people who work in disinformation, like our very first episode of this season speaking to Nina Jankwitz, who was tapped by the Biden administration to help combat disinformation,

horribly harassed on social media because of it. Right, So, people who are trying to do their jobs where their jobs require them to be public facing on social media, but their jobs also come with the threat of harassment and online abuse. The block feature is key for people like that, and so it's hard for me to see this as anything other than an endorsement of Twitter as a platform where abuse is okay and tolerated, where abuse

is treated like discourse. I've seen people showing screenshots of the kind of harassment and abuse and slurs that they get in their mentions, like a couple I said this on a podcast recently that I was on. I got called the a slur the other day, the N word, right. I have been on the internet for a very long time, and I was like, this is definitely a return of a vibe that I was kind of happy that it seemed like we were moving on from. But now we're back.

And so if somebody is making it their mission to camp out in your mentions and her abuse and harassment at you, the one feature that allows you to turn that turn off that fire hose of abuse, he's rolling back. And it's hard for me to not see this as an endorsement of abuse. I've seen many people say on Twitter that this would actually be their last straw with the platform. But again, we'll see what happens, you know, it's I mean, I don't even know if Elon is

actually planning on genuinely taking away the block feature. Notably, this is being reported like Elon tweeted it, and then it's just being reported as a thing that is going to happen a gospel truth by a lot of tech outlets, notably Linda Yakarino. Twitter's CEO hasn't said a word about it,

didn't tweet about it, no statement about it. So it's interesting again, like if I were the CEO of a company and all these outlets reporting about this pretty big change in my platform as CEO, I probably would have something to say about it. Makes me wonder if Elon just tweeted this, didn't check it with her, She had no earlier warning that he was planning on tweeting this,

and now it's everywhere, so we'll see what happens. Okay, So last week on the Roundup, I was talking about how Elon Musk to me is the Chara Whitfield from Real House. I was of Atlanta of tech because Chary don't pay her bills and best believe Elon Musk doesn't either. This really speaks to this theory that I have that all of the right wing extremist types, and their behavior can really be boiled down to and understood through the

lens of real housewives. Like their behavior always has this like griftiness, this stuntiness, and this drama that can really only really rival housewives behavior. So take Jordan Peterson for instance. If you don't know who Jordan Peterson is, He's this kind of right wing traditionalist who has really made his thing talking about things like Wokhism and cancel culture and now having a curveer model on the cover of Sports Illustrated is offensive to him and is like an attack

on everything that we hold true in our society. And oh my god, anyway, that's Jordan Peterson. So Jordan Peterson is being accused of cherry picking bits from scathing reviews of his new book and misrepresenting them as positive on the blurb on the back of the book. Like this.

One blurb on the back of his book was from a review in The New Statesman by Joanna Thomas Carr, which said Jordan Peterson's new book was a quote philosophy of the meeting of life, but it didn't mention that that specific line described that philosophy as quote bonkers, so he just cut out the bonker's part. It was like, oh, it's a philosophy on the meaning of life dot dot dot. That is fucking bonkers, pretty important relevant context for what

she was trying to say in this review. I went back and read that entire review, and it is objectively a review panning the book. There is no way to read it as a positive review. It is very much panning that book. Joanna Thomas Carr said that using that one sentence from her twenty five hundred word review is a quote, gross misrepresentation of what she said. She said, I don't have it in me to write some casually witty thing about how horrifying this is, and that the

blurb should be removed. Okay, so you know who might have inspired Jordan Peterson to do this?

she was inspired to add a second show. So I actually am here for the bold face lying when a housewife is as shameless as Luanne, to just like outright misrepresent something like that, I kind of love it, like I love the delusion, where we love a delusional queen. And so if Elon Musk is the Chara Whitfield of tech CEOs, Jordan Peterson is the Luenne de la SEPs, Countess Luanne of like right wing grievance monger grifters, So

I truly think there is something to this idea. And if you're listening and you've got an idea about who in the right wing griftovers might have a Housewives doppelganger, I deeply need to hear this information. You can write into us, you can DM me if it's good, we'll read it on the show. I deeply deeply think there is something here. You know, We've got two. I think we can flesh out the entire Bravo universe using these right wing grifter types.

do that. They're denying any liability or wrongdoing. Surprise surprise. However, they did still create a class action website set up to pay out this money to all of us who used Facebook. So that means US residents who used Facebook between May twenty fourth, two thousand and seven and December twenty second, twenty twenty two can file for a monetary claim as long as they do so before Friday, August

twenty fifth. That as a week from the day this episode is dropping at eleven fifty nine pm Pacific time. Everybody should do this. I'm gonna do this. I don't know if you're on Facebook, if you run Facebook at that time, Mike, but you should do this. You should tell your friends and your family to do this. I believe that everybody should do this. It only takes a few minutes. Just go to tangoty dot com slash zuckbucks. That's tangoty dot com, ta Nngoti dot com slash zuckbucks

and fill out the form from Facebook. It only takes a few minutes. You don't need to have that much information. It is not clear how much money you might get paid out. It might not even really be a lot. It might be like ten dollars. Like I always do these settlement things when when I gets a chance to do them, because I feel like it's sometimes it can feel like we don't have a lot of ways to

like hit these big tech companies in their pocketbooks. So I make a point of every single time there's any even if it's gonna be five dollars, I buy a coffee and I'm like, yeah, take that, bezos, and buy a coffee on your dime. So everybody should do this. It's not clear how much money you can get. I think it depends on how many people submit a claim. But you should all submit a claim that is money owed to us for wrongdoing that Facebook has yet to

admit to. But it's just being like, okay, fine, we'll just give a couple million dollars. Let's let's just say seven hundred and twenty five million dollars. It is enough. I'll we didn't do anything wrong, but if we did, here's a little something. And so even though that is a drop in the bucket to Facebook, I think it's very important to like get what little we can from them, and that money is owed to us. So go to Tango, do dot com slashes bucks. Fill out that form get your.

for listening. Thank you for being here, Mike. Be well. If you're looking for ways to support the show, check out our merch store at tangoti dot 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 tangody dot com. You can also find transcripts for today's episode at TENG Goody dot 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 as our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and sound engineer. Michael Almada is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and review.