Tom Holland should speak up in Romeo + Juliet harassment; Eclipse 2024!; No politics on Instagram?; Fake podcasts exposed! – NEWS ROUNDUP

like blah blah blah. Iyes was like, oh, well, I've seen it from my office in eclipse classes from like downtown Washington, DC. Is that not the same thing? And people are like no, And I always felt a little bit raw about it, if I'm being honest. My I did not know this, but my father is an eclipse chaser, and I only learned that when I tried to say that I experienced an eclipse in a partial eclipse in DC,

and he was like, no, you haven't. If you haven't been in totality, you haven't experienced shit.

this morning? Just this morning, somebody was like complaining about the eclipse because and then he got into the article and they were like it was so beautiful that now I don't know what to do with myself. But the headline was like clickbaity and anti eclipse, and so it's just I don't know, it's like, can't we have anything nice where we just feel good about something?

childlike wonder. Like I think like being around all these people who just wanted to mar at this this celestial magic thing that happened in the sky, and I don't know, it's just like it felt like a whole day where people got to be excited about something that's pure and good, and just like I don't know reading about how the only reason why we get eclipses this is because like, are the sun and the moon happen to be the same size? Is that right?

But I should also say that because I'm in Mexico still, I am still really close to a beach where there are roaming bands, which I learned actually they are called bonda bands. And Mazatlan, Mexico is the place where that tradition of like playing music on the beach and like wandering around. This is the hometown of that tradition. So go Mazatlan, Mexico. But you might hear a little bit of jubilation in the background, is what I'm saying.

of nature in the universe. I think that's sort of what that anti eclipse article I read this morning was like pushing back against for complaining about because you know, they had experienced it during the brief, sublimely beautiful moment and then it passed, and the author almost sounded like mad that now they had to go back to their normal, humdrum life and they struggled to remember what it had

been like during totality. And you know, I just think anger at the eclipse is one path a person could take to deal with those feelings. Another path could be to try to seek out opportunities to marvel at the world more regularly. Right, Like, our lives don't have to be soul crushing grinds. We can look up and wonder every now and again.

Because Francesca is a dark skinned black woman, that means that her being cast as Juliet has led to this torrent of racist, sexist online abuse, people saying she's too ugly and too black to be a beautiful Juliet figure and that her casting is quote woke, and that she

did not deserve the role. So the Jamie Lloyd Company, which is the company behind the production, put out a statement saying, following the announce of our Romeo and Juliette cast, there has been a barrage of deplorable racial abuse online directed toward a member of our company. This must stop. We are working with a remarkable group of artists. We insist they are free to create work without facing online harassment.

Jamie Lloyd, the director of The company said that it would continue to support and protect everyone at our company at all costs. Any abuse will not be tolerated and will be reported. Bullying and harassment have no place online, in our industry or in our wider communities. I will say this statement is good. Like something that I say again and again on this show, is that when somebody is being targeted in this way, you need to show

clear and ambiguous support. You need to have a plan in place for what you will do, and you need to make sure that there is no confusion about where you stand and how you are supporting the person targeted. So the fact that the Jamie Lloyd Company didn't ignore it spoke to what was happening right away in very clear terms. This is how I think that organizations and industries should be reacting when somebody somebody is targeted in

this way. Luckily, if there is one thing that black women are going to do, it is support each other. More than eight hundred predominantly black women and non binary actors signed on to an open letter in solidarity with Francesca.

The letter was organized by and Nola Holmes, actor Susan Wacoma, and writer Somalia Nanie seton, and the letter really has two kind of important bits, one just generally supporting Francesca, and two pointing out that this kind of thing, these kind of racist attacks and harassment, happened to black performers all the time. The letter reads, when news of Francesca's casting and Jamie Lloyd's production of Romeo and Juliet was announced,

so many people celebrated and welcomed this news. Many of us took to social media to shower our babysits with love and congratulations. A huge deal for someone so young in their career, a huge rising talent. But then what followed was a too familiar horror that many of us visible black, dark skinned performers have experienced. The racist and misogynistic abuse directed at such a sweet soul has been

too much to bear. For a casting announcement of a play to ignite such twisted, ugly abuse is truly embarrassing for those so empty and barren in their own lives that they must meddle in hateful abuse. Also, that is a that is a read like somebody had time when they wrote this letter, so they really drill in on one of my sticking points that in a lot of cases when this kind of thing happens, the people in charge just kind of do nothing. They don't put out

a statement. They maybe hope it'll like blow over. Maybe they're privately supporting the person targeted, but like they're not communicating that to the public, and that is that doesn't work. The letter reads. Too many times theater companies, broadcasters, producers, and streamers have failed to offer any help or support

when they're black artists face racist or misogynistic abuse. Reporting is too often left on the shoulders of the abused, who are then expected to promote said show, which I think is also like a really good point, Like it is a racism and sexism issue, to be sure, like an identity issue, but it's also just like a work place equity issue, right, Like she is meant to promote this project on social media that she is a part of, which will only lead to more of the abuse that

she is already shouldering. And so it's not an equitable situation if like, yeah, you're going to be in this play, you need to promote this play on social media, but in order to do that, you just have to individually shoulder this kind of unacceptable racist and sexist harassment that other people in your production are not having to deal with. It's not equitable.

So we should talk about what's going on here. One is that I've seen a lot of people say like, oh, well, I'm not I don't have a problem with her that she's black. I have a problem with her is that she's not beautiful. Juliette is meant to be beautiful. She's meant to be beautiful enough to have, you know, Romeo go against his family to be with her. I'm not saying it's a problem because she's a black she's a black woman. I'm saying it's a problem because she's not beautiful.

So I think there's a really specific racially coded thing happening here that I can tell you quite a bit about. As a black woman with dark skin, you know, people saying that, oh, well, it's that she's not attractive and Juliette should be attractive, saying that it's not a race issue,

it's an attractiveness issue. Is can be such a deeply coded, like racially coded claim, especially when you're talking about a darker skinned black woman with like thick hair, and you know, like I just have heard that my whole life, and it's like, oh, well, it's not a race thing. It's just that you're not pretty because you're a black woman. It's like, well, that does sound look like a race thing to me?

it's not about race. I just don't believe that anybody would ever find a black woman attractive.

that too deeply. And so I bet these people do think it's not about race, and that like spending a lot of inn and time to talk about whether or not they think this black woman Juliette is pretty enough for a production that they probably would never see, uh, is normal behavior. And I don't think that they're looking at their behavior in any kind of like critical lens.

Like you could see every iteration of race and gender identity in Shakespeare plays if you wanted, Like, diverse casting has been a thing for a while for generations when it comes to Shakespeare, right. But I think that because people are hearing that Tom Holland is in this particular production, they are thinking like, oh, Tom Holland, he is a movie star, right, like he was Spider Man in six

Marvel Cinematic Universe superhero movies. So I think that they think this is a movie that is going to be on in the theaters, right. I think that they see Tom Holland Romeo and Juliet, they are making a Romeo and Juliet movie. They do not realize that this is a theatrical production, wherein diverse casting is like commonplace and

has been for a really long time. They think it's a film, and so they're like, Oh, it's just a woke Romeo and Juliet, you know, just like all the other times where these kinds of people are like, oh, superhero movies have gotten so woke. They've ruined superhero movies with their diverse casting and their women and their people of color. Right. So I think that's what they think is going on, because that's the only frame of reference

they have. Let's just cut the shit. These people don't know anything about Like that is like very clear to me. These are not people who go to the theater. This is not people who have any frame of reference for what is or is not commonplace in theater. They just don't know, right, So they're not only racist and sexist, but they're also philistines. Like when I was researching this, I saw this very angry post that was like performing

pretty well in the Jordan Peterson subreddit. The post reads, why do we let woke moralists steal our classic stories of the Western tradition? We have no way to know if this black person was included for a reason besides capitulating to the wokes and virtue signaling, which I will pause there, because Romeo and Juliet is a play about

two warring families who have deep divisions. Like, you really can't think of another reason why you might cast a black person in a role about a production about deep divisions. You can't make up any reason why that might make narrative sense within the play other than just like virtue signaling and being woke in.

Romeo and Juliet actually sold out within hours. But again, it is not a movie like another box office bust. What are you talking about? These people don't even know what they're mad about.

her privately, which would be nice. But again, I do think that loud, clear public support is the only thing that works in situations like these, right, And I think, especially for somebody like Tom Holland, who is the face of this big Marvel Cinematic Universe Spider Man franchise, you know, certainly like a battlefield for you know, people who get angry about seeing black people or women or people of

color in their in their movies. I think having somebody like Tom Holland be like, no, you know, this kind of racist, sexist abuse will not be tolerated. You're not going to do this in our name. You're not gonna like, we don't want to see this as creatives and as storytellers and we don't like it. I think that would go a long way toward creating the conditions where this kind of thing would not be commonplace. And I guess I say that to say that I don't think it

should just be on the other black actors. Like the black actors who organize that letter to support Francesca. I think that's great, but it shouldn't just be on them to create a working environment free from this kind of abuse. Everybody should want a workplace where people can just do the jobs that they are hired to do without being harassed for it. Right, that benefits everybody, not just people

of color, not just traditionally marginalized people. I'm sure Tom Hall wants a kind of working environment where that kind of thing is not commonplace. Who wouldn't. And I just think it's just another unfair, unpaid burden that black women actors are being made to shoulder to get us there, right, Like, this is not a system that we created. This is

not a system that is benefiting us. However, it is like seems to be on us to be doing the work to fix that system and to get us to a place where that's kind of abuse is not commonplace. And yeah, I just I would like it's like when you are being targeted or harassed at work that is already a so you have to do your job, then you have to shoulder this abuse, and then you have to like be the one that's also doing all the organizing to create the conditions to not have that abuse

be commonplace. It's too much. And I just think that for somebody like Tom Holland, who certainly has a lot of privilege as a white male superhero actor. I think I think he can spend a little bit of that privilege getting us, getting us to a better system, a little bit. Not to mention the fact that he is

in an interracial relationship. He's in a relationship with Zindea, somebody who I really like because she is really open about the fact that, you know, as a lighter skinned black woman with like long hair, the kind of privilege that comes along with And so he's in a relationship with somebody who intentionally does a lot of public speaking about the very things that Francesca is dealing with. And yeah, I just think that we I wouldn't mind hearing from him.

good read. This is one of those stories that I definitely recommend, like reading the whole thing The piece says people running Instagram accounts for AI generated influencers and nude models are downloading popular Instagram reels of real models and sex workers, deep faking the AI models face onto them, and then using the altered videos to promote paid subscriptions to the AI generated models accounts on only fans or

other competitor sites. In some cases, these AI generated models have amassed hundreds of thousands of Instagram followers using almost exclusively stolen content. So it is a pretty messed up situation.

And it's even more messed up when you think about the fact that human sex workers and adult content creators are often really harshly moderated on the Internet, and so while those human content creators are sort of marginalized and pushed to the sides on the Internet, here we have these AI generated adult content stealing from those humans and

showing up online. It is really uncanny, like it will be the exact same video but with an AI generated fake influencer's head like swapped into that human's body like. I actually had to really look to see the difference between some of these real humans video and the version that puts an AI generated contact crater onto her face.

stolen from them to make somebody else money. And more disturbingly, fal for Media also found that there are very detailed instructions on how to do this on YouTube, where they recommend stealing reels on Instagram, specifically from small creators and small accounts to avoid detection. In one of these instructional videos. They say it's a fact that faceless OnlyFans accounts earned three times less than once with a face. This opens up a lot of possibilities for people to start earning

more in different ways imaginable. And now it's up to you build your own AI influencer and start monetizing your swaps, grow your social media accounts, get an account, start an only fan, and make it rain. So I We'll say something else is that this is like explicitly a money making enterprise wherein men feel like they are like turning the tables on women who make adult content. Like there's a real disdain that these men feel for women who

sex workers or women who make adult content. Like that is very clear, and I think that comments make very clear that like this is a thing where men feel like women have been exercising economic agency over their own content, over their own bodies, over their sexuality, and they want to like turn the tables on them. Like in one of those YouTube instructional videos. The comments make clear that the viewers of that content think that this is like

a big development for men on the internet. One comment says, can finally take all the simps money while being a male so comfy. Another one says, this may just be the end of influencers and the constant quest for internet

and vanity. Love this, so it's like when you when you really peel that apart, why are these men so mad about influencers, about women showing their bodies on the internet, like and making money from that, Like, why are they It's like they're they clearly have a lot of disdain for the women who are doing this, and it kind of conveniently leaves out the fact that, like it is men who are consuming that adult content. So it's like, if anything, this should be mad at themselves. It's this.

It's this weird combination of like lust and disgust where it's like I want to consume this, but I also am disgusted by this, and I want to shame her for making me want this. Like it's this, you know what I'm saying. It's it. I think it reveals it's very weird tension.

It's it's like, no one is forcing you to spend this money. Yeah, but don't hate the woman who is making this content because of that dynamic, do you know what I'm saying?

they pretend that they're in a romantic relationship. And then once these bad actors have those images, they then exploit and pressure the young people into sending the money or they'll release them to their friends and families. It is a real problem and to combat that, Instagram announce that they are testing out tools to detect when somebody is sending a nude image and having that image be blurred out in your DMS, where you would have to click a button to say like, okay, I want to see

this image. This feature is going to be automatic for Instagram users who are under eighteen, but everybody on Instagram is going to be prompted to turn that feature on in the coming weeks. So according to Instagram, it will use on device machine learning to detect nudes, and it's aimed at stopping sextortion schemes that target teenagers. When you try to send a nude you'll get a warning that says take care when sharing sensitive photos. The photo is

blurred out because nudity protection is on. Others can screenshot or forward your photos without you knowing. You can unsend a photo if you change your mind, but there's a chance others have already seen it. I don't have much to say about this. I mean, I do know that Instagram they really have pioneered like nipple detection software, like they really are quite good at knowing when there is nudity present or even like the suggestion of nudity present

in images. I kind of one of the reasons I'm having trouble with this announcement is that it just seems to I just wish that Instagram was offering something better than like their nudity detection software. Like I guess it's better than nothing, but I've seen Instagram really default to like quick fixes to signal that they're doing something, even if those quick fixes like really don't solve the problem.

And I just have been through this a lot with Instagram, and I can't help but wonder if they're like, oh, yeah, we're gonna get a ton of good press on this, like one small feature, and then we can all move on.

You know, we talked about that horrifying Wall Street Journal report about how Instagram is really enabling pedophiles by allowing pedophiles to subscribe to the Instagram accounts of children, using the loophole that those accounts are like parent run accounts, and so you are not, as an adult, allowed to use Instagram's subscribe feature where you pay money to get

exclusive content. You can't subscribe to a child as an adult, which makes perfect sense, but the loophole is that if that is a parent run account adults can subscribe to the accounts of children, and so that whole report was kind of a bombshell about how much that is enabling pedophiles to get direct access to young people, which is disgusting.

And so I just think that Instagram here is like just counting on everybody reporting this and being like, oh, looks like they're really taking it seriously, without actually demonstrating that it's going to meaningfully address the problems.

over into. And if somebody is running a long con on a teenager, you know, talking to them over days, maybe weeks, maybe months, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to think that they would just suggest let's move to a different app, let's go to WhatsApp, let's use text message, send me an email, like whatever. Pretty easy workarounds. So I think you're right that this is or like this protects Instagram and Meta more than I think it's going to protect the actual kids. But like, it's not

a harmful feature. What it really reinforces, though, is how sophisticated meta and other tech platforms can be when they want to. In terms of identifying harmful content. You know, so there's so many other areas, Like you talked about the people subscribing to exclusive kids content via the mommy blogger accounts. You know, there's racist content really like a lot of harmful content out there, setting aside like harmful

political content, like insurrectionist type content, QAnon stuff. There's so much harmful content out there, and this kind of policy here, this technology to detect nudes really reveals that all of that could be detected and dealt with if the platforms like wanted to write. It reinforces the extent to which failing to take action on those other types of harmful content is a choice, not some sort of technical limitation.

which is like less and less and less. I feel like, is thirty percent kind of viral videos and stuff like that of like people that I don't follow, maybe twenty percent people that I actually have chosen to follow, and then like the rest of it is like ads and just like scammy stuff. It just like doesn't feel good and I certainly don't feel like I'm like learning a

lot from scrolling Instagram. Well now, hundreds of political and news content creators, including activists and meme account administrators and journalists, signed on to an open letter asking Meta to reverse his decision to limit the reach of accounts posting political content on threads and Instagram. So Washington Post reports that, just as I suspected when this was first announced, it is impacting people who make content related to being marginalized

or like marginalized identity in some way. The piece reads the decisions alarmed users who post about social issues including LGBTQ rights, women's rights, racial inequality, and disability, and independent journalists and content creators say they've struggled to reach their audiences in recent weeks since the change was rolled out. The limits, they say, have significantly impacted creators who are black, female, disabled,

and LGBTQ. So none of this surprise of me because Facebook just has a whole track record of suppressing content related to marginalized people through moderation and inequities and things like that. This is stuff that we know about Facebook. How it works now is that you have to intentionally opt in to get content about political issues. We'll put directions on how to do that in the show notes. But the folks who signed the letter say that it should be the other way around. We should be given

the option to opt out of political content. The letter reads, as users of metas platform, we did not choose to automatically opt out of receiving suggested political content on civic activism and news updates. Removing political recommendations as a default setting and consequently stopping people from seeing suggested political content poses a serious threat to political engagement, education, and activism.

So I should also add that we still don't really have clarity on exactly how Facebook is determining, like whose experiences are political and whose aren't. I could look at Facebook's track record and make some guesses as to how they are doing that. All they have really said is

like things that are pretty vague. They say. Political content under the new restrictions includes any content that touches on politics or, in Meta's words, topics that affect a group of people and or society at large, which like that is so vague that it's clear to me that that's like purposely vague. These topics include content about LGBTQ and women's rights, as well as posts about racial and disability discrimination.

Many creators also have reported that the filter's restrict content on seemingly unrelated topics.

not want to rock the boat. And when people are not part of groups that are receiving targeted hate, ah, it can be a lot easier to just like look the other way and not want to feel and say and like, you know, in this case, be like, Oh, it's it's political content, We're not going to include that on the platform. People talking about their experiences being LGBTQ in this you know, current climate of trans hate and how But like that's so harmful to just not to

exclude that any conversation about that. It just feels. Yeah, I think that that letter is exactly right, that it is not just cruel of Instagram to exclude any kind of content that discusses people's experiences facing discrimination or whatever their experiences are. But it's like reckless to pretend as if, you know, we can have a conversation that doesn't include those things. Like what a harmful, reckless conversation that would be.

social issues don't bleed into that. That's not true. Theater is a political issue. That first story illustrates that. It's not that Francesca was like making it a political issue. Other people were making it a political issue, and therefore that story about theater it's also a race issue, is also a political issue. Movies, entertainment, sports, technology, those things are identity issues. They are political issues, they are social issues, and pretending like that's not how we live our lives

is just it's a farce. I think that anybody who is of any kind of like marginalized identity or also not from any kind of marginalized identity, is really familiar with the ways that there are all these intersections of the way we live our lives and our identity in all of these other things that might not look so identity driven on its face. And so one I think that Instagram is like totally trying to pee on our leg and tell us it's raining to quote my girl,

judge Judy two. Facebook has had a huge direct hand in polarizing our democracy, polarizing our communities. Right, they've made money off of that. I don't even think that Facebook would disagree that they've done that. Their internal reporting makes that very clear that they have. I've had a huge direct hand in that, and I've made money from that. To now turn around and be like, oh, well, we don't want to do anything. We don't want to show

people anything that's going to rile them up. Bit, you made a bunch of money off of riving people up, and so now to tell me that I can't post about my experiences after you have made money and contributed to a climate where people are polarized, it just doesn't work. I'm not I'm just not willing to accept that.

But yeah, they, like you said, they had a huge direct hand in creating the climate that we now have of like polarization and riling people up, and they just want to walk away and wash their hands of the whole thing. It's at least they're consistent.

elections this year, Nicole Gill said in a statement. Limiting the reach of creators without notice or definition of what constitutes political content threatens their identities and livelihoods, while leaving hundreds of millions of users without access to critical news

content during the biggest global election year in history. Today's fragmented media environment that meta helped create has resulted in social media platforms having outsize influence over the way information is presented and disseminated, and this decision will have negative

effects both on and off their platforms. And I guess, like to your point, like that's what I think, like, we shouldn't have to just rely on Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseerri to determine whose experience and whose life is politics and whose isn't We already know how they use that power when they when they have it, they don't use it well, they don't use it equitably, right, And so I don't think that we should just allow them to create and maintain this system that marginalizes people who

are already marginalized, and they get to make money off of it, right, Like going back to that Francesca Romeo and Juliet story. I didn't decide that my existence as a black woman is political. Other people did, and so telling me that I can't then talk about that and that if I do, I'm going to be deprioritized, I

don't accept that. I don't think that we should be relying on these wealthy, white, straight ciss tech leaders and billionaires to define whose experiences count as politics and who's don't.

just earned that money up. What if he had taken like a fraction of that and put it towards like research and innovating in a way to like increase literacy and connection and compassion among their users, right, Like, wouldn't that have been nice?

again every time I say it blows my mind. But if this proposal succeeds, it could establish something again to the European Union's landmark privacy law known as the General Data Protection Regulation or the GDPR, and kind of attempt to curb this like totally unregulated wild wild west that we have in the United States where all of our personal data is just for sale by the highest bidder whoever wants to use it to make money. That's the situation, and so this could ring in some of that if passed.

different things that are in it. Internet service providers will now be forced by law to clearly include a breakdown of the broad band facts that you're paying for, so like the monthly price of your internet, you know, the additional charges, all of that, and they have to clearly label this both online and at physical stores. It looks almost exactly like the nutritional label that you would find

on a box of cereal. And what I was so struck by by that story is that, first of all, the fact that we did it, that there was nothing requiring that kind of clarity to consumers to begin with, and the fact that internet service providers like Comcast really fought this. They were like, no, we shouldn't have to do this, and it just really struck me of like, y'all just want to scam. Y'all just want to take

people for a ride. You just want to bait and switch, and you want that the ability to do that to be protected and enshrined by law, your ability to scam and lie to people. And so I remember when I moved into a new apartment signing up for Comcast and they were giving me like a deal on Internet and being like, okay, so is this deal going to be forever or is this a you know, an introductory rate and then it's going to go up And they were like, oh,

it's the deal forever and deal forever, deal forever. I was like, are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? They were like, oh, yeah, your price will never go up. Well that was a lie because my price did go up. And then they were like, oh, well it was this or that we had to add thief. And it's like people deserve clarity, like it should be a given that people are knowing what they are being asked to pay for like this idea that you should just be able

to obscure that and it's fine. And not only is it fine that like it is your right as a corporation. I don't know. I just the fact that we we are finally now just getting around and being like, oh wait, maybe consumers do deserve some protections. Maybe it shouldn't just be like, fuck, you pay me and I can lie to your face like maybe that's not a helpful dynamic for anybody.

was mad. I'm still mad ten years later.

so many functions of day to day life. Like we use it to communicate, we use it to work, we use it for entertainment, we use it to get information about the world so that we can be civic participants. It's so absolutely critical to everything we do. And that just makes it even more mind blowing that we still have no federal laws protecting our privacy when we are on the Internet.

to all of y'all for listening. We've gotten such interesting feedback from that episode. Thank you for going down that rabbit hole with me, because it was certainly a rabbit hole as I wanted to go down, so thank you for letting me do that. But I ended that episode talking about how I really feel like podcasting is this tricky space where listeners really trust podcasters and help podcasts, for whatever reason, kind of automatically convey a certain level

of authority. I've talked about it on the podcast before, but I have noticed these TikTok videos where people look like they are recording a podcast in a podcast studio. There's a microphone in front of them. They've got like the neon sign behind them, but I know I can tell that that mic is not turned on, and in some cases it's not even plugged into anything. It's just like a prop that is in front of them.

uploading going to? You know, Well, my suspicions have been confirmed by this piece in Bloomberg breaking down the cottage industry of hired actors who are you know, selling their services on websites like fiver, who take money to make fake podcasts as user generated content style advertising. They even have an upsell where they will make a fake podcast in front of one of those glowing neon signs to

make it look like a real podcast. So in the piece they talk to this guy named Wolf who is like always in these tiktoks that make it look like he is podcasting, wherein he's like talking up a product asually mentioning it's benefits and why he loves it. Maybe you'll think this podcast feels slightly excessive and it's enthusiasm for a particular thing. But TikTok's content onslought doesn't leave much time for questioning. The takeaway is here's a passionate

person speaking authoritatively on a podcast. In reality, these clips are not coming from podcasts. In fact, Wolf is being paid one hundred and ninety five dollars for each of these one minute advertisements designed to look like a podcast. On the freelance service website fiver, where he sells his service to brands, Wolf claims, I will make a UGC podcast, video ad or a user generated content ad using the client's own script to talk about the product. The custom

neon sign is an up charge. So this is just fascinating to me. Honestly, it actually kind of sounds like a pretty good racket. He says that he makes almost twenty thousand dollars a month doing this like France. If y'all are listening and you want this, not only do I have a podcast, Mike, I actually even know how to turn it on. So if you want to give me twenty k a month to do this, I will gladly do for you.

So Ryan's theory is that during COVID, the podcast mic became a symbol of authority or a visual signal of importance, sort of like how during the era of peak ted Talk, a bunch of guys would film themselves on stages, add some inspirational music, and then post it to Facebook. If there's a microphone in front of you, I assume the logic goes it means you're important enough to record, which I can tell you. Anybody can buy a podcast mic like it doesn't mean anything.

show name on it and everything. If you were publishing a podcast clip, you would probably put the name of the podcast that you wanted people to listen to on that clip. It didn't have that. And it turns out this woman just as a content creator who was making this as a way to promote her only fans, which I don't have many a problem with, Like good for her.

But Ryan connects this to a darker trend in kind of the overlap of podcasting and marketing where they have this thing that I've definitely seen where it will be like a pod a real podcast, where part of the way that they are marketing their podcas is making these short viral clips of them interviewing is too strong, really just like humiliating a woman on the podcast, Like the podcast whatever is really known for this, and Fresh and Fit was really known for this, where they would have

they would make these very short videos of them like humiliating a woman who has gone on the podcast, and then that video would go viral. He writes, there's an entire universe of post Andrew Tait sexuality and relationship podcasts that put young women in front of microphones, ask them outrageous questions and turn it into viral clips and then let audiences tear them apart. Some of these podcasts even have like casting calls on their websites to find new guests.

I hate this. So maybe making fake podcasts to hawk items is one thing, But this dynamic where microphone plus misogyny equals authority equals profit, that dynamic is a little bit more toxic.

and I think it is. I wanted to talk about this as sort of like a funny, weird thing, but it does. It does connect back to that very real dynamic where massage, noir and massogyny will always be profitable online, which is why we need to have a better Internet landscape that doesn't allow for that.

There Are No Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget tod 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 Amado is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate and review us.