Hey, this is Future Bridgid. So we recorded this week's news roundup on Thursday afternoon, the day before The New York Times just broke a story about Kate Middleton being diagnosed with cancer. You can read the New York Times as full story in the show notes. But this news came out just as we published the episode for this week, so we pulled the episode down so that I could re record this introduction that you're hearing right now to
give that context. Okay, thanks for listening, and here's the episode, There Are No Girls on the Internet, as a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd and this is There Are No Girls on the Internet. This is There Are No Girls on the Internet, where we explore the intersection of technology, social media, the Internet, and identity. And you're listening to another one of our weekly roundups where we summarize and break down the news that you
might have missed on the Internet this week. Mike, thank you, thank you for being here again. The last time we saw each other on the mic, we were talking about Kate Middleton.
That's right. Uh.
It was a story that had been going on for a little while, and it seems to continue to be going on.
It has continued, So I did want to give folks a little bit of a brief update on what's happened in Kate Middleton Royal's world since we last spoke. So this week, TMZ released a video of Kate out shopping. The video was shot by like a random person on a cell phone, just somebody off the street, who then provided it to TMZ. So TMZ also published the metadata
of this video. Metadata tells you when and where a piece of content was recorded, which confirms that this video was indeed recorded next to Kate Middleton's home and was recorded on that Saturday. Just like they said, it was case close right.
Maybe maybe is a good.
Way to put it, because just like we talked about in that episode, really breaking down Kate Middleton, but really talking about how conspiracy theories move online more generally, once a conspiracy theory reaches a certain point, there is like no amount of hard evidence that will satisfy people who
are deeply, deeply convinced that something fishy is going on. However, that said, I have to say that the way that TMZ is acting right now after having published this video is weird, Like it is they're acting a little bit weird. So after publishing this video and saying it is Kate definitively case clothed, here's the metadata. Let's put all the
conspiracy theories to rest. Then two of their executive producers went on TMZ Live, which is like TMZ's live television show, and basically kind of walked back whether or not they thought it was actually her.
Here's what they said.
So she looks great.
Where's the security?
Where is the security?
That's a good question. And why is it with all the people that were there, this is the only video that surfaced, the video that we secured. Why is it that they're in the store, moseying around, going to the cash regiser. Nobody's taking any pictures, any photos, any video, but we got this.
So I genuinely do not know what is going on here because I think that TMZ would have authenticated this video as being Kate before publishing it and saying that it's Kate. Now, I can hear people out there listening
who are thinking, bridget TMZ is a shady tabloid. Why would you expect them to verify what they put out or confirm what they put out before they publish it, to which I won't say I'll push back on that, but I would complicate that a little bit because yes, TMZ is an outlet that is run by pieces of human garbage who have no ethical or moral compass whatsoever. They are not good people. I will we could do a whole other episode on this. However, TMZ is not
an outlet that tends to get stuff wrong. That is one thing I can say about them, Like, if TMZ reports that somebody is dead, that person is probably dead even if no other outlet is reporting it because they're TMZ. Like I remember when Michael Jackson died. They were the first to run with that story, and everybody was like, well it's TMZ, let's wait until we get another outlet.
But the reason why TMZ tends to always sort of get it right on these big breaking stories is because, like they are known to have police on their payroll
and like payoff police. Like folks might remember back when Kobe Bryant and his daughter died in that helicopter crash, TMZ reported that news first, and it started a whole conversation of whether or not they should have reported that because the police had still not notified all of the family members, and so TMC is an outlet that is known for reporting things first and correct actually perhaps because they are unethical.
Goules with no souls.
So if TMZ is publishing something generally speaking that is like they're not an outlet that is known to put out just like blies.
But it sounds like maybe this story and this photo are a little different.
Well, I genuinely don't know what's going on here. Like it's possible that TMZ has just sensed that, like they have like what they see as a juicy story.
So they're they're.
Putting out a video and saying this is confirmed to be Kate, and then their producers are going on their channel and saying like, oh, we don't know if it's Kate or not. Maybe they're thinking that like this will lead to more engagement on a story that they perceive as like juicy. Maybe they did not authenticate that video before publishing it. I really don't know, Like anybody's guest is as good as mine in terms of what is actually going on here.
Yeah, and it's probably one of like a thousand stories where we might never know exactly.
But I will say, like there are images flowing around on social media right now that are purporting to show a quote enhanced still from that video, purporting to prove that like, oh, it's not really caids, it's a body double, it's a stand in. Those are one hundred and ten percent fake, Like I can, I can assure you that if anybody is pushing around images that are purporting to use AI to like enhance these this video, that's not
even how it works. Those are fake. As Google's Adriana porter Felt wrote on Twitter, I keep seeing people post photo enhancements as fact. This does not actually enhance the original photo. It invents a plausible new photo and overlays it on the blurry original. The generated version is actually
less trustworthy than the original blurry video. Don't do this, Like, I think it's this idea that we all live in a CSI episode where you can just type type type type type enhance type type type TI type enhance using AI. That doesn't work that way.
These are all bay.
Yeah, that's right.
I think you and I were talking about false precision in some other context this morning, right, like the idea, and I think it applies here too, right, that you can have this photo that looks very highly detailed and precise, and it tricks your brain into thinking that, like, oh, this more precise, sharper image clearly must be more true.
But that's just like not the case, for exactly the way that that well spoken quote from that Google person mentioned like it looks sharper, but it's just an invented, plausible image.
And that's why I think some of the conspiracy theories about this won't die, because your brain tricks you into thinking this sharp, clear image must be correct, when in fact it is less trustworthy than that grainy video. So I have to say this, and this is pretty horrifying.
Kate's private medical information was involved in a data security breach after at least one member of the staff at the hospital where she was staying back in January attempted to view her medical records while she was a patient there. Authorities are actually now investigating whether or not the hospital broke the law by failing to report this breach in a timely manner. So there is no ambiguity or gray area here. This is just so deeply deeply messed up.
End of sentence period, and I think this was the point I was trying to make in the episode that we did breaking all of this down last week, that there is a difference between the public asking questions about how Kensington Palace, right a political and social institution, is moving, and how the Kensington Palace is communicating with the public without demanding access and you know, an entitlement to information
about an individual's like private sensitive health information right. You know, I think that when a public who is voracious for any kind of information about Kate as a person blurs those lines, we get this dynamic where people really do feel like it is okay to try to obtain an individual's personal, private medical information to satisfy that question, and it's not. Not only is it illegal, it is wrong.
And so I think that's really where we're kind of getting into this problem of I think it is totally fair to scrutinize and criticize and ask questions about the way that the institution that is, the Royal family is communicating with the public.
That is totally fair game.
That is different than demanding information about an individual, in this case, Kate's private medical information.
Does that make sense?
It does make sense, And uh, you know, I know that we got a few emails from listeners after that previous episode, and I think it's worth, you know, clarifying
why we're talking about this story on this show. And you know, so like Bridget, are we talking talking about this because you have some sort of personal interest in the royal family, or like some expertise in the royal family, or because you feel like, you know, all of you have some personal feelings about Kate Middleton and feel like we have a right to know, like what's going on with her personal life? Or are those your motivations for wanting to talk about it on this show.
Absolutely not. I don't know anything about Kate Middleton. Of all of the royals that I know anything about, she is the one that I have followed the least, and I don't really follow any of them, so that's actually really saying something. But I do think that when it comes to institutions that wield public power and do enjoy a level of public support, it is not just okay to ask questions and scrutinize how they are communicating with
the public. I think it's necessary, and I think that when we get into these gray areas of people being like, well, how dare you demand private information about Kate? I don't think that anybody should be demanding private information about Kate. I certainly don't think that if you are someone working in a clinic where she may have stayed, but you should be going through her private health records.
My god.
However, that is different than asking questions about, well, who in Kensington Palace used photoshop to doctor images in a way that they had to have known was against Newswire rules and then tried to submit them as if they were not doctored. I think that's a totally fair question and a question that speaks to how institutions are communicating with the public. But that's a different thing than like, what kind of medical issue did Kate have and when
did she have it? Like, that's a completely different question that I think is Kate's private business. Before we got on the mic, I was reading about how another image, another holiday image of the late Queen, it was revealed that that Kensington Palace had doctored that image similarly to the one of Kate, and you know, did not tell anybody, and it got past it got past fact checkers, and it was distributed via Newswire, and I was a prize to see a lot of the commenters saying things like
they're celebrities. It's news now that celebrities are photoshopping wrinkles out of their images and like using photoshop to make them look better. And no, first of all, these people are not normal celebrities. So I'm not even interested in whether or not the Late Queen use photoshop or whatever. The question is, did they knowingly violate the very clear and explicit rules around how you submit authenticated photos to newswire services to get distributed out in an official capacity?
Did they violate that? I'm not interested in with If they just put photoshopped images on their own personal instagrams and leave it at that, who cares? But this is a very different thing. And again, I just think that the blurriness between individual actions of individuals and the way that this massive, powerful, publicly supported institution is communicating with
the public, those are two different things. One of them is fair game, and in fact that I would argue we should be asking questions about the other.
Who cares?
And I think that's sort of the thread that we're losing in this conversation.
You know, I think the world has really changed a lot in terms of like what are the rules and norms around touching up photos. Perhaps the the you know, the rules for the wire services haven't changed, but just you know, common practices around what people do personally. You know, I'm willing to grant that has changed a lot in the past couple of years with AI filters, but they it really feels like there's a lot of room for Kensington Palace, who receives I believe hundreds of millions of
dollars of like taxpayer support. Hopefully this lights of fire for them to get up to speed on what's needed to ideally play an active role in helping re establish rules so that people can have trust in the information that they see.
Well, that's a great segue to this glassdoor story, which is a weird one. Like I've one of the reasons I'm excited to talk to you about this because you have a background in PII. What is it personal identifying information?
That's right.
So here's what's going on.
If you have ever talked crap about your job anonymously on the website Glassdoor, which is an anonymous forum for people to rate and review their workplaces, you might want to think twice because we are seeing multiple reports that Glassdoor collected and added people's names to their user profiles
without their consent. So tech Crunch reports that one user who they're calling Monica, wrote in a post on her personal blog that Glassdoor added her name in the city where she lives to her Glassdoor profile following an email exchange that she had with Glassdoor customer support, despite never having consensually provided her name during the initial sign up process,
which would happen two years earlier. So basically, it kind of sounds like if Glassdoor learns your name or learn some kind of personal identifying information about you, even if you do not provide it to them when you're signing up for Glassdoor, they will add it to your profile without your consent.
So how does she say that they got her.
Name from this email exchange that she had with Glassdoor customer support that when she signed up for Glassdoor years earlier, she didn't use her name she wanted to stay anonymous. That she had a years later, she had a back
and forth email exchange with Glassdoor customer support. Her email signature includes her name and location, and they just took from that email her name, first and last name, and location and added it to her profile, even though she never consented to that and didn't want that, And to be clear, like Glassdoor is a place where anonymity would be really important, like if you weren't trashing your boss, or you had something really important to say, it makes
sense why you wouldn't necessarily want to have your first and last name attached to a what you thought was an anonymous review of a workplace. And one of the reasons why I'm having a little bit of trouble with this story is that this really sounds like a change. I know from being in the space for a while that Glassdoor really used to thrive on user anonymity and was like kind of an industry leader in protecting PII personal identifying information. But what sounds like changed was a
corporate acquisition. So ours Technical reports that although it is common for many users online to link services at sign up to their Facebook or their Gmail account to verify identity and streamline logins, for years, Glassdoor has notably allowed users to sign up for its service anonymously. But in twenty twenty one, Glassdoor acquired Fishbowl, a professional networking app
that integrated with Glassdoor. Last July, this acquisition meant that every Glassdoor user was automatically signed up for a fish Bowl account, and because Fishbowl requires users to verify their identities, Glassdoor's terms of service changed to require all users be verified. So I should be clear that this is not a theoretical concern. Lawyers or companies who have been negatively reviewed on Glassdoor have regularly tried to learn the identities of
the people leaving anonymous reviews on the site. The organization the Electronic Frontier Foundation regularly defends Glassdoor users from being unmasked by retaliating employers, particularly for employees who fear retaliation
for reviews. The lawyer for EFF said that Glassdoor users could historically choose never to share their real names, and the company is now storing names for all users makes it much more likely that users could be linked to their reviews should glassdoors data ever be subpoenaed or leaked.
Yeah, I think that's such a good point that it's worth like reemphasizing it that. You know, it's one thing for Glassdoor to have a privacy policy that says like we will not release your name. That's great, that's good, but it's if to truly have your name be protected. It would be better if they never had it in
the first place. Right, Like we've seen this very concerned playout with concerns about the Kids Online Safety Act, Right that it's going to be collecting all of this information, And even if that information is nominally protected, the fact that it is stored somewhere puts it at risk. Right, It's at risk of there being some kind of breach that makes that information public despite the company not wanting
to be public. And it's also at risk if there's like a change in ownership and a change of privacy policy, which seems to be the situation here.
It's funny to hear you say this because just before we were talking, you were annoyed and I was like, Oh, what's going on. You were like, Oh, I'm trying to track a package that I bought, but it wants me to shine up sign up for Shop to do that, and I have to give shop this shop app access to all my emails.
And I was like, oh, I use Shop all the time.
And you were like, it doesn't concern you, Like you don't give your information to anybody.
No, I really try to jealously protect my privacy. I think we all have an obligation to you occasionally inconvenience ourselves to jealously protect our privacy against the constant encroachment of tech companies that want all of our data. And yeah, I wasn't going to bring it up, but since you've brought it up, I'll go down this tangent that I was so annoyed at shop this morning. Generally I find
shop like fairly convenient to use. They do a good job tracking packages when I'm buying from some kind of retailer. But the limitation that drives me up the wall is that so like earlier this week, I ordered two different packages from two different retailers. They're both being delivered and tracked by Shop Okay, I got a text message notification that says like, Hey, your package is being delivered today. I was curious which of my two items was it
going to be. I can't know that without using the Shop app. There's no way to do it through the web. There's no way to do it unless I install the Shop app on my phone. I was surprised that I didn't have the Shop app on my phone, so I went to install it, and then remember that I had been here before and the app will not install proper. Really, unless I give it access to read all of my emails. Why in the world do they need to read all of my emails? Not okay, and I'm not going to
do it. And you know, I looked on Reddit and people were complaining about this, and one of the top comments was like, oh, just read their privacy policy. They're you know, they're not going to do anything with your data. They just have They just want to help you. That's the stupidest take I've read all day, right, Like, oh, yeah, I'm just going to trust this online retailer with you know, all of my personal the contents of all of my personal emails.
Uh, what could they possibly want with that? Right?
An online retailer that is into like trying to get me to buy more things I couldn't imagine. Yeah, so tangent ended. But I'm glad that I had the opportunity to connect it to this story, because you know, once your information is out there, it's out there.
Let's take a quick break that are back.
Well, So the thing that really worries me about the glassdoor situation is that I think I have to imagine that it's going to be a lot of traditionally marginalized people who are going to suffer if this is just how glass Door functions from now on, right, I can imagine that it is women, trans folks, queer folks, people of color who are raising the alarm about things like
racial or gender discrimination or like sexual harassment. And I can't help but understanding this story against this creep toward not being able to use forums that were previously available to you to privately raise the alarms about concerns. You know, especially given that we're seeing more and more are people who do speak up about you know, wrongdoing facing things like defamation lawsuits for doing so. It's you know, we're not just talking about people who are complaining about their
boss's coffee breath or whatever. It is people who a lot of times are raising serious alarms or serious concerns in a forum that one might think would be anonymous or private for them to do so safely. And so I really can't help but see the story against that backdrop of like, well, shoot, like, are people going to be able to use glass door safely to report genuine, real concerns?
That's my question, Yeah mine too.
This story like really surprised me and makes me a little bit sad because I view Glassdoor as a very valuable resource and historically a very good actor towards transferring some power back to workers to somewhat reduce the massive asymmeagery between workers and people who own companies and employ them. Historically, they've been pretty good about this stuff, and so this feels really out of character, really disappointing, and I think
it'll it just happened like pretty recently. I think this story, we'll link it to it in the show notes. But it was just published yesterday, and I thought, surely Glassdoor is going to put out a statement saying that this was a mistake. They haven't done that yet, And what little they said in quotes to that Ours Technica Reporter was pretty unsatisfying. They really seem to say that there
wasn't an issue here. But then there's also a bunch of articles across the internet from other publications, and like some big ones like NPR really amplifying this story and this concern in ways that are very unflattering for glass Door.
So I'm maating hopeful that they will recognize what a catastrophic misstep this is for their product that really depends on anonymity, that they will take some corrective action to reassure people that, like Glassdoor is still a place where you can post anonymous reviews that will truly be anonymous, because without that, like what even is it?
Well, speaking of missteps and hopeful corrections on them, let's talk about the dating app Bumble. So y'all might remember that a lot of tech companies were relocating from San Francisco or like other places in California, to Texas. Specifically, a lot of them are relocating to Austin. Well, that is maybe not working out for a whole host of reasons,
but one of those reasons is Texas's restrictive abortion laws. So, at a panel at south By Southwest, ironically held in Austin, the council for the dating app Bumble that is sort of supposed to be like a more woman focused dating app, revealed that the company has lost a third of its Texas workforce in the month since the state passed horribly restrictive abortion laws known as SB eight sometimes called the
Texas Heartbeat Act, over a year ago. Because of these very extremist laws that are completely out of step with what the majority of the country wants, Bumble it no longer requires people to work at their Austin headquarters. Bumble actually became the first company to join an amarchist brief in support of a lawsuit against the Texas abortion law filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights. So I wanted
to talk about this for a couple of reasons. One because I think it's really important to highlight the very real risk that laws like this poth to people who are pregnant or the people who support people who are pregnant. However, this also highlights the business rambifications of extremist abortion laws
as well. The chief council for Bumble said, we were looking at the lens and what we are putting forth in the brief was talking about the increased cost to us to attract and retain talent in Texas, the increased costs for us to provide healthcare benefits to our employees.
We've found that because of our position, having been founded with women at the forefront from the beginning and having that voice and that legitimacy to begin with, we could combine that with this very business centric art and help support that case. This actually led to a bunch of businesses from all over Texas signing on to this anarchist brief, pointing out that these kind of extremists abortion laws really do put their business in jeopardy by making it harder
to recruit top talent. Bumble specifically said that they had started to offer like an enhanced health care coverage that includes things like gender affirming care and IVF because those kinds of healthcare have been threatened in the state. Although, like part of me wonders, you know, it's good to have that coverage included, but if that kind of healthcare is illegal, you can't access it in Texas. It does kind of seem like a moot point.
Yeah, that's a good point.
I yeah, I'm curious about that, but I don't know anything about it.
Yeah, But overall, I mean, I do think that of all the different avenuess to be talking about how restrictive abortion laws impact people negatively, I do think I want to hear more from the business community, because certainly it is an economic issue, not just for the people who need abortions, for the people who do any kind of business all over the country, in addition to being a
reproductive health issue. And so I do want to see more businesses, particularly businesses who are you know, are about, you know, sticking up with women, sticking up with marginalized people. I want I want to see more of these businesses weighing in as we go into this more and more extremist, restrictive climate.
Yeah, that would be great.
I mean, there's so many reasons why giving people reproductive freedom and allowing them to make their own medical choices is like a win win for society, right, like, not just businesses, but also in terms of like the huge costs of unwanted pregnancies right like to individuals, to healthcare systems, UH to social services for years and years.
Well.
To that end, we have to talk about the growth in misinformation swirling around social media around birth control. So there was this new very detailed report by the Washington Post about how social media platforms are awash in medically inaccurate content about birth control and how it is leading to real world consequences. You should definitely read the entire thing. It is very detailed. We'll put it in the show notes.
But basically, you have these like health influencers I'm using that in heavy scare quotes, and also right wing extremists really trying to scare people into thinking that birth control is dangerous.
Now.
Birth control, like any other medication, does have side effects. In rare cases, it can cause things like blood clots.
That is real.
But these people are not trying to foster fact based conversations about the real concerns around birth control. They're saying nonsense like, oh, birth control, if you take it, it will change your entire personality, it will change the kind of people that you are sexually attracted to. Things that are just fear mongering and nonsense. So you have these health influencers suggesting natural forms of non hormonal birth control, like only having sex on your period, which by the way,
does not work. And this is all particularly fraught given how restrictive abortion access is in this country right now and how criminalized it is. So you have people with these big platforms essentially suggesting people stop using birth control and instead only have sex on their periods, a like a method that is known for unintended pregnancies in a country where you cannot easily access abortion care if you need it, or can be criminalized and sent to prison
for doing so. So this is really one of those issues where you can see how tech issues and social media platform issues are also reproductive rights issues and gender issues. Doctors are saying that they're seeing an explosion of birth control misinformation online target a very vulnerable demographic, people in their teens and early twenties, who are more likely to believe what they see on their phones because of algorithms that feed them a stream of videos reinforcing messages often
divorced from scientific evidence. While doctors say hormonal contraception is safe and effective, they worry about the profession's long standing lack of transparency and some of the serious but rare side effects that have left many patients seeking information from unqualified online communities. So I have actually personally seen a
lot of this on social media. I'm sad to say I just like most abortion advocates told us, anti choice extremists and people who want to tell other people what to do with their own bodies were never going to stop at abortion. It was going to be birth control. Weirdly, it was also tampons. Like for a while I was seeing that bubble up, like right wing extremists basically suggesting that having tampons in school bathrooms meant that teachers and
schools were like sexually abusing young people. Because like I remember seeing this post that was someone being like, as a father, it should be up to me whether or not my daughter uses a tampon, and if a school should have no say and whether or not my daughter uses a tampon. He was like angry that the school was providing tampons in the watchrooms. So anybody watching this could have told you it was not going to stop with abortion. It was going to be all of these
different things that pertain to reproductive health being demonized. So this backlash to birth control really comes at a time where we see this rampant misinformation about basic health combined with really really poor digital literacy, and this wider political debate around reproductive rights in which far right conservatives argue that the broad acceptance of birth control has altered tradition
roles and weaken the family. And so if you're wondering, like what does Ben Shapiro or Candace Owen care whether or not I use birth control, that sort of their ultimate point is that birth control is changing gender roles, is changing how we think of traditional families, and therefore it's bad. So in a Daily Wire video, Candace Owens denounced birth controls and iud's as quote unnatural saying she is a big advocate of getting women to realize this
stuff is not normal. She also says that her viewers told her that IUDs can harm fertility, which medical experts agree there is no evidence that birth control impacts long term fertility, so that's just not true. Also, she's kind of doing a little bit of an Elon musk thing. I don't know if you watched any of that Elon musk Uh interview with Don Lemon, where Don Lemon is like, what evidence do you have that pilot that black pilots
are being held to lower standards? And he's like, well, people on Twitter say that all the time, and it's like, no, that doesn't make it true. I feel like Candice Owens, It's like, oh, well, people are saying that iud's cause long term fertility issues, and it's like, it doesn't that does it? Just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true. Ben Shapiro, noted reproductive health expert
not really. He claims that birth control makes women attracted to less manly, less masculine men, like these.
People are just so fucking stupid.
Like part of me is like like what even what point is there even I don't. Obviously that's not true, and I don't even I don't even have a little joke to make. It's just such a ridiculous point that I can't believe that somebody with a massive platform is allowed to just go on TV, go on their platform spread dangerous falsehoods that are not just untrue but also silly.
Many of these people who are like railing against birth control, it's not like they have families of like twenty kids, right, Like a lot of these political commentators, I have pretty small families, and one has to imagine that that has helped them in their professional careers to achieve the massive platforms that they have. Are we supposed to believe that none of them have used birth control?
Well, the thing with Candice Owen is she's a liar and a grifter and a scammer baby like she does not she'll say anything about anybody does not like this.
It's not work that to.
Try to hold her to any kind of a standard that makes sense.
That it's not what she is about.
And I would say, like publicly, this is not what she don't don't think I think that she would agree that's not what she's about. Like she says things about how women shouldn't work. How when she gets on a plane and she sees a woman pilot, she thinks, oh, no, we're going to die today.
Baby.
You have a job, you have a career. You are a woman who works. You are a working mom. So when you go on TV and you go on your little podcast and you demonize working moms, look at a mirror, because you are a mom with a job, You make a ton of money, you go to work every day.
I don't want to hear it.
Obviously, if you are a person of reproductive age who is building a career, you have probably used worth control at some point to buttress that career and to have control over your life.
And more power to you.
You should everybody should be able to make health residence for themselves. However, Candice omens she just says whatever, like and so when it comes to her, especially, I don't think it's worth trying to make heads or tails of what she's saying, because she'll say anything for a check.
She's like Mia off a Real Housewives of Potomac. She'll say whatever. If you don't watch Potomac, Mia lies, That's my point.
Mia, just catch it straight. Doesn't you have enough problems right now?
She does, She does, I should lay off Mia and also Mia, there's a whole other topic, but Mia has kind of like become my fan favorite.
So even though she's a liar.
So Washington Post spoke to Brittany Martinez is the founder of ev Magazine, which you can kind of think of as like a right wing Cosmo, and she said in an email to the Post that her outlet's work has made questioning birth control mainstream, saying women have been silenced and shamed by legacy media, the pharmaceutical industry, and then many cases about their own doctors who have guessed lit them about their.
Experiences with hermonal birth control.
So this comment, to me, really illustrates nicely how bad actors like this work, right. They seize on the very real and very legitimate anxieties or fears or baggage that marginalized people have. She is right up until a point that women really have been like silenced and ignored about our medical issues by doctors and a pharmaceutical industry that do not often seem to really care about our pain, about our health, about our bodies.
So that part is true.
But where she fucks up is that she then cruelly exploits these anxieties and these very real tensions and baggage that we have to push her own dangerous agenda. And that is something we see time and time again with bad actors and extremists like this. Something else this report points out is how these bad actors are exploiting racialized and gendered fears and anxieties around medical information to further
push harmful and accurate information about birth control. The report reads, women of color, whose communities have historically been exploited by the medical establishment may be particularly vulnerable to misinformation given the long history of mistrust around birth control in this country. That's from Kimberly Baker, an assistant professor at ut Health Houston School of Public Health. For sterilization of tens of thousands of primarily black, Latina and Indigenous women happened under
the US government programs in the twentieth century. That's another huge reason why these negative videos around birth control get a lot of fanfare, because there's already stigma attached to it, and that's deeped in our history. And so you really do see these bad actors cruelly and callously picking at and exploiting these very real traumas that our communities have been carrying around for decades for real reasons, and exploiting it.
And sometimes they're exploiting people and their anxieties and baggage and trauma for money.
Like a lot of.
These people when they're like like health influencers in quotes, they'll be talking about how birth control is unnatural or dangerous, and then you go to their page and they're selling some kind of a hormonal supplement or hormonal coaching something that is just like BS And so they're scaring people in order to scam them, and they have a financial incentive to do so. And honestly, doctors are already seeing
the irl impact. The reports talks about how doctors are seeing more and more people come into their offices asking about something related to birth control that they saw on TikTok. One doctor says, people are putting themselves out there experts on birth control and speaking to things that the science does not bear out. I'm seeing the direct failures of
this misinformation. He says that women frequently come into his office for abortions after believing what they saw on social media about the dangers of hormonal birth control and the effectiveness of tracking periods to prevent pregnancy. Many of these patients have traveled from states that have completely or partially banned abortions, such as Texas, Idaho, Georgia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina. And we really can't even have this conversation without talking about how it is supported by algorithms, because algorithms really, I mean, if you've ever scrolled on TikTok, you probably know what I'm talking about. It really supports people to be surfaced information that is similar or somatically similar to what they just watched, right, And so rather than giving them some sort of an alternate viewpoint, it just completely builds up this rabbit hole and buries them
in it. A twenty year old college student who went down an algorithmically supported rabbit hole on birth control misinformation said it created the sense of fear that if I ever needed to be put on birth control, I would become a completely different person. I would gain a bunch of weight, and my life would be over. I was like, well, obviously this is true. This applies to everybody because it's
the only thing I'm seeing. So I do think that platforms bear some responsibility here to make sure that the people that use their platforms are not just being sent down more and more extremist, dangerous rabbit holes when it comes to something as important as their reproductive health.
Yeah, sure would be nice.
And I do think that, like this is related to something I feel I've seen more and more where people I just feel like there is a subset of people who will believe absolutely anything they see on TikTok.
Yeah.
I think that's probably right, and I don't think it's limited to TikTok. We've talked about this a lot, but and definitely digital literacy is a big thing. But I think, you know, we should be you really careful not to put it on the people who are you know, digitally illiterate and being swayed by this information and keep the
focus on the people who are pushing it. Like so, I, you know, saw that we were going to talk about this today, and I had this big question, like who are these people and what is their motivation for pushing this misinformation? Right? We talked about misinformation on this show a lot, you know, like political misinformation or disingenuous accounts that are trying to create racial disharmonies. To like destabilize things.
But this one really like got me. It's like, what sort of monster would push anti birth control information?
And why?
And you know, I guess you provided a couple of pretty good explanations here. The just like the engagement farming of it, it gets.
It gets engagement and people who have a financial investment in it. So if I'm selling hormonal supplements and I'm like, oh, hormonal birth control is bad. If you hate it, you've ruined your your hormonal system. But if you buy my pills, we can get this back on track.
Money please, Yeah.
And then also the it connects to stuff we talked about before. It feels like there's a big effort, largely on the right, but not limited to the right, to just discredit the medical and scientific community in general and just destroy the idea of expertise and promote the idea that every influencer can be their own expert and do their own research.
More after a quick break, let's get right back into it.
Well, the piece really does a good job of speaking to doctors who are looking inward at the medical profession and wondering like, have we created this problem by failing to have transparency and failing to make patients, many of whom are women, feel like we are adequately listening to them and answering their questions are And I would argue that, like typically speaking, when you have some sort of dynamic like this where bad actors and bs influencers and grifters
are able to really take up a lot of space, there is some like institutional failing that has allowed those people to take up so much space in a conversation. And I think that's really what we're seeing, Like people women when it comes to reproductive health, women have historically not really been listened to. There's an entire legacy and history of the medical community not listening to and not
thinking seriously the pain and issues of women. And you know, we also live in a world where any healthcare that is about people who are not cisgendered men. So when it comes to queer people or trans people that I think that that is like inherently othered. And so I think that these doctors are not wrong to be like, well, in what ways have we really failed the people who come to us looking for care that allows for grifters and extremists to take over the conversation and for that
to feel like something that is actually accurate. But I do think that you're right that there is this larger demonization of expertise and medical professionals and people who know what they're talking about. That report talked to this, I guess, like some sort of hormonal influencer who had her content taken down from TikTok for being medical misinformation, and she was like, oh, well, I actually think it's fine to take it down because I think that people should be
doing their own research. And it's like, well, yes, but if you're not a doctor, doing your own research into medical information is kind of a tall order, right, Like, I'm not a doctor. I would not pretend to be able to make heads or tails of medical research. And so it's really cunning how they put it back on people to really further eroad trust in the medical profession
more generally. And I think you're right that we should not be demonizing people who fall for this, because I think a lot of people when you're in a place where you've just been consuming a lot of information that is really scary, and you're already in a mental or emotional place where you're not feeling heard, not feeling supported,
you're looking for alternative avenues for information out there. I think that it can put anybody in a place where they're more receptive to these kinds of grifters and extremists, right, And it is being buttressed by an incredibly powerful algorithm that is like pushing you toward that conclusion. Right, So it's you you're not it's it's not just you're stupid and gullible. There are forces that are pushing you toward it,
and we should be honest about that. But like, I mean, I don't like to talk about my own health and body stuff on the podcast because I just think it's your people's health is so specific and unique to them
and so personal to them. But like as some of y'all who know me in real life, no, like I had a pretty tough go of it with COVID, and I got COVID multiple times, and I got it one time that was so bad that it really like it just really like knock the wind out of my sales for a very long time, right, And so like long, COVID is one of those things that I do think that like I've gleaned that it's not the kind of thing that people want to hear about and so it's
this kind of thing that you're like often dealing with in a way that feels very isolated, because it's like, you know, you're dealing with the symptoms, and you're dealing with the fatigue, and you're dealing with the brain. But then you've gleaned that people don't really want to hear you complain about it, so then you're dealing with all of that alone.
And when you're dealing.
With stuff alone, it pushes you to the Internet, which then algorithmically supports you to fall down rabbit holes that are not necessarily good for you and also happen to be inclusive of people who are trying to make a quick buck off of your issue, off of your isolation,
off of your anxieties. And so I know, I am somebody who talks about this for a living, and even I got pretty wrapped up in taking advice like wellness and health advice from Randos on TikTok right, And so I started like, because I felt so crummy, and because I was so isolated in feeling crummy, it really did lead me to like using social media to figure out what was going on and figure out how I might
be better. So I started taking supplements that like randos are suggesting you take on social media in a kind of a low dark moment. Then I'm like, wait a minute, maybe it's time for a blood to I go to a doctor, I get a blood test. The doctor is like, yeah, whatever supplements you're on, stop taking them. They're not They're like not doing anything for you, and they're actually making your health worse. And so I don't feel good sharing that.
But I look back on that and I'm like, yeah, I was at a low moment when I didn't feel like I had a lot of support and I didn't feel like I could really talk about what I was experiencing, but was desperate for a quick fix. And it got me right. The algorithms are powerful. The algorithms get you. You see somebody on TikTok who looks like they have their shit together, who like is presenting a kind of a life or a version of yourself that you are that you see something in and you're like, oh, I
want that to be me. Next thing, you know, you're buying supplements and don't even fucking regulate it, And so I just think that like nobody should be getting take it from me. Somebody who had to see a real doctor to straighten that out. Don't get your health or medical advice from some rando on TikTok who might not even have any actual qualifications or also might have an agenda that is actually harmful to you. These people are scammers,
They are grifters. They are making money from your isolation, from your fear, from your concern, from your worry, from your late nights. The most radical thing we can do is break that system that tells us that these people know what we need. I know it is tough, I know that we are silenced. I know that we're not listened to. But like forking your money over to a grifter is never the answer. And so back to what's
happening with these birth control grifters. None of this stuff is happening in a vacuum because we are already seeing legislation trying to limit access to birth control. These influencers, their messaging really helps drive this legislation limiting access to hormonal birth control. This is from Amanda Stevenson, a sociologist, demographer, and assistant professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder who is studying how anti abortion activists and lawmakers are
trying to restrict birth control already. Republican legislators in Missouri have tried all yet unsuccessfully, to stop the state's medicaid program from covering iud's and emergency contraceptives. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this month upheld a Texas law requiring minders to obtain parental
permission before accessing birth control. So all of this is sort of like working together, right, these grifters and influencers using social media to drum up fear about birth control and anxiety about birth control as harmful, and then right wing lawmakers passing legislation to then limit and legislate birth control more harshly.
It's a real clusterfuck.
So, speaking of clusterfucks, Mike, do you ever hear one of those stories that it sounds like was made in a lab to bother you?
Specifically?
Yeah, it happens all the time, every day.
So this is one of those stories for me.
Sixty years after her death, we have the invention of Digital Maryland, an AI facilitated Lyn Monroe chatbot. I guess that answers questions in Maryland's style and voice. Here's Digital Maryland in her own words.
Hi, darlings, I'm Digital Maryland. Come visit me at Soul Machines.
It'll be such fun.
I hate it. I hate everything about it. I hate the way she speaks, I hate the whole idea.
Hate it. Thumbs down zero out of ten.
So Digital Maryland was revealed at south By Southwest and is the brainchild of Soul Machines, which is a company that creates what it calls biological AI powered digital people and Authentic Brands Group, which is a company that acquired the rights to Marilyn Monroe's intellectual property back in twenty eighteen. Sole Machine set in a blog post it's as if the spark of Maryland herself has been translated into the AI age.
Yikes. So how does this work? Well?
According to Deadline, Digital Maryland can interact in real time using advanced natural language processing deep learning and open ais chat GPT three point five, which means it is another step forward in extending the ability to monetize celebrities even after their death.
So we talked about this.
A little bit in the episode that we did about the Whitney Houston hologram and her residency in Las Vegas. But Soul Machines is clear that this is another step forward in terms of celebrities or their like AI likeness being able to connect with consumers on behalf of brands. They say this collaboration exemplifies the transformative power of AI in connecting brands and consumers. Digital Maryland showcases our biological AI bringing an iconic personality to life through engaging dialogues
and emotional intelligence. It's more than nostalgia. It's a glimpse into the future of immersive interactions.
Oh, Bridget, why do you hate this so much?
Great question?
Well, I think part of the reason why I hate it so much is the same reason why the Whitney Houston hologram I hate that so much. Is because we're talking about women who spent their entire lives being exploited by men, and that I just see that exploitation continuing after their deaths. Like, did you know that Hugh Hefner
is buried in the burial plot above Marilyn Monroe? He bought it after she died because he, as he said, quote, spending eternity next to Maryland is an opportunity too sweet to pass up.
This was somebody who.
Financially and sexually exploited Marilyn Monroe all the time when she was still alive, totally cut her out of the profits for her own likeness, using his money to basically supend eternity on top of her even in death. And so I hate that, and I just see this AI
reimagining of these celebrities as another iteration of that. I hate that they have yet another way to flatten out these iconic people who lived and existed and were dynamic and complicated into these like AI tech enabled caricatures of themselves.
I find it really gross.
We've covered this happening on the show before, like that George Carlin AI enabled stand up impersonation. The family of Robin Williams has also really been clear that they don't
appreciate AI imitations of his likeness. I just think, you know, even though in this situation, this company, it sounds like, did purchase the intellectual property of marily Monroe's likeness fair and square, I just think that it grosses me out to think of a celebrity, especially a woman who was exploited for most of her life, having her likeness controlled by a group of tech gros who unveil it at south By Southwest like a.
Side show for all eternity.
I just don't like it, and I think in all the different ways that we have seen AI be used, it's not lost on me that some of the first are how can we use it to exploit women?
I just don't like it.
Yeah, it's it does feel gross. I guess it's not surprising the tests were ah got started?
Yeah, yup, yuck is right. But you know what, I don't hate?
What's that breaking down all of these internet and tech stories with you?
Mike.
Thank you so much for being here.
Thanks for having me, Bridget.
And thanks to all of you for listening. I will see you on the Internet. 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 teangody 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 Unboss Creative, edited by Joey Pat Jonathan Strickland is 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 us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, check out the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Have to w