Rational Security: The “Authentic Flavors, Real Fruit” Edition

Oh, what is that? Oh.

“It sounds so Kalimansi-la and the best flavor.”

What is that? What is this drink? It's the bougie's sensor. You could possibly conceive of. It comes from all foods.

It surely comes from elsewhere too. It's authentic Asian flavors made with real fruit. Nothing suggests that it's not real fruit. More than authentic Asian flavors. I'm glad they clarified that.

Yeah, not just Asian flavors authentic ones. I need to. It tastes really good. It's so good, but it's, it's somehow they made spin drift even more expensive and even more of not cheap.

Give us the product place. Let's go for it. Maybe we'll get some ad revenue out of this. Throw it out there. What's the name of the brand gun?

Sonso. I would love to be sponsored by Sonso. Sonso. Give us up Sonso.

“Save me a lot of money to be given Sonso for free.”

Let me tell you. Hello everyone and welcome back to Rational Security. This show will be invite you to join members of the law fair team as we try to make sense of the week's big national security news stories. We are getting in the weeds on this week's episodes.

We have a couple of stories that have been percolating. Few which have just broken literally in the last hour or so. That we have been tracking. We think we'll be interesting to talk about even though they may be a little bit a step beneath the headlines.

At least until this news broke this last hour or two that people may not have been following this closely. We think they're pretty interesting things that we should be paying attention to. But I'm thrilled to have a set of my colleagues here to talk about them with me.

First off, join us for the first time in a while.

Throwed to have her back. Law for contributing editor Renee Doresta. Thank you for coming back on the podcast, Renee. Thank you for having me. And it's in fact your segment.

The one I'm going to lean most heavily on you for it. That has now broken news. So we have very timely thanks to discuss. Thank goodness. So we'll all be scrambling and no doubt making many errors.

Let's read discuss exactly what just happened in the last hour. So don't hold us to accountable listeners. The delivery just happened. We'll get that in just a minute. Also joining us law firm managing editor Tyler McBrion.

Tyler, thank you for coming back on the podcast. Thank you for having me. And now an old stand by on the podcast officially. Having made more appearances at her what six months or so with law fair. Then it's fair to come here a little more than that.

That six seven eight months now is law fair. Senior editor Molly Roberts. Molly, thank you for coming back on the podcast. Thank you. Thank you for calling me old.

The old reliable store. None of it sounds great when you say it. But they're all good things in this context. I mean them. There's just no nice way to say it.

But we appreciate you coming back here on the podcast. As we break into a couple of big nasty security news stories. Starting with topic one, the metaverse of madness.

On Tuesday, a New Mexico jury reach a $175 million verdict against meta after a seven week trial.

And the podcast on whether the social media company knowingly harmed children went to health and still Tated child sexual exploitation through its algorithms. And just before recording, another verdict came down in a jury trial in California about whether Facebook and YouTube are proven to addictive in a way that harms an individual plaintiff in that case. Several other similar civil cases are set to go to trial in the coming months.

What do we make of these verdicts? Do they signal a turning tide against social media companies for the algorithms that make them both comfortable and addictive? Release potential addictive. Topic 2, saving face.

President Trump and Republican congressional leaders went back and forth this week over a deal that would put forward a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security, or at least big less controversial parts of it. Despite President Trump's threats not to sign any piece of legislation until Congress passes his Save America Act.

Trump views the Save America Act as vindication for a criticism of the 2020 election. Republicans in the Senate have hedged and resisted his calls so far to blow up the filibuster in order to pass it. Instead, they now appear to have a deal in place that will allow less controversial parts of the funding for DHS to go forward and for the funding for the most controversial parts, particularly ICE and removal operations to go forward through reconciliation on what

is likely to be a party-line vote along with select chunks of that Save America Act. All this still can get to be finalized this at the plan as we understand it at the current moment.

“Why is President Trump so determined to pass the Save America Act?”

And what does the compromise he now appears to have reached with Senate Republicans mean for its future? Anthopic 3. Poly wants to crack up. Flight monitors, pizza place trackers and Google Earth. The past few years have brought open source intelligence, but are known as OSINT into Vogue.

Counts on X have racked up millions of followers by a quote unquote monitoring the situation for news events spanning from Russia's invasion of Ukraine to natural disasters. But this explosion of OSINT accounts has brought a wave of disinformation. And co-host sites with the growth of online prediction markets, such as Polymark and Kalshi, whose better use OSINT to gain an advantage at a time to manipulate the results.

How is OSINT contributed to the online media landscape and how has it hurt it?

So for our first topic, Renee, I want to come to you.

So we literally did just, as you can tell from me, stumbling over my effort to adapt the pre-written paragraph to describe and spread the topic. We just got news on this just a little bit that we've been struggling to catch up with.

Literally just in the last hour or so, another verdict has come down as Los Angeles case.

Both in state court, both advancing somewhat different, but related theories of liability under state law. Talk to us about these verdicts and why they represent a potentially significant new avenue or opening for accountability or liability, whether you think it's properly accountable or not, for social media companies that we haven't seen at least as clearly capitalized on by plaintiffs in the past.

“Right. So I think one of the things that we're seeing here is a shift from lawsuits that focused on the content”

to the dynamics, the product design specifically, rate the conduct.

The argument being that the product design and then what the platform chooses to recommend,

how the platform chooses to engage people is moving more into the realm of platform conduct as opposed to just adjudicating content disputes. So the case in New Mexico was, for listeners, you're not familiar with it. The state's sort of smoking gun was something that they called Operation Medophile, where undercover agents set up accounts posing as 12 and 13-year-old girls.

And then within a month, one of these fake children had about 7,000 followers, almost all of whom were adult men. And then the kind of kicker with this particular situation was that instead of metasystems flagging the suspicious adult activity, it instead started to send the child automated tips on how to monetize their account, grow their following, you know, do the sorts of things, put them on the influencer path. So the jury found that that was a kind of a consumer protection issue, right, that platforms were telling parents that these platforms were safe,

internal data, and they also had a couple of internal whistleblowers who testified, internal commentary showing that inappropriate actions,

“I think something like over half a million inappropriate actions with minors were happening every single day.”

So that was the scope of the new Mexico case. So this is not a question of, you know, is this a user's speech that needs to be protected? This is the platform nudging people in particular directions. When I worked at Stanford International Observatory, we actually did a research project where we got a tip about underage users, real underage users, in this case, who were marketing their content on Instagram is illegal.

And so one of the challenges there, we did reach out to the company, obviously, we did responsible disclosure. But one of the things that was challenging about that was once you engage with a few of those accounts, it pushes you more. The users and the others, the dynamics of the recommendation engine are such that the platform is actually actively nudging and making suggestions to users to do certain things.

“So I think this question now that we're getting into, and then the Los Angeles case was about mental health, right, content that is pushing teenagers and particular to see things that are intentionally addictive as the dynamic, right?”

So it's, it's an intentionally addictive product and then the content they are pushing, it may also be harmful, this is two different facets of the question. So I think, you know, what we're seeing here, it's, it may be think a little bit about, they're talking very much now these court cases about defective product features. So almost like a car having bad breaks, right, you know, when an algorithm chooses to push a specific video to a child to keep them addicted, the platform isn't just a passive condo it anymore.

It is actually the designer of the harmful experience. So that's where we're starting to see things, the comparison here, I think you're seeing come up now, actually metaphor that I think for Ston Harris and others, we're using almost a decade ago at this point, is that they're more like tobacco companies than than just public squares. And that's the, that's the shift that we're seeing in the decisions, the findings and also the legal approaches to pursuing in that direction. It is a really, really fascinating development. I mean, we have followed section 230 questions, which is the big, you know, a set of immunities that has always been the bare barrier for accountability for these companies for a long time.

And that's, you know, focuses on providing immunity for the actual underlying content, which has always been interpreted fairly broadly.

So here, the question, but come, when can you draw the line between the harm is what stems from the content versus the way the content is accessed packaged and delivered essentially to the user, struck me as the distinction. Yes, which is, it can be a fine line in some of these cases, so I'm kind of curious about like breaking it down across these three sorts of avenues. One, we have the one that's the Los Angeles case where it's clearly the case where the plaintiff says, you know, I got addicted to this.

I don't even think in that case, it's necessarily clearly harmful underlying content, but it was because of the mode of delivery, the type of delivery that it was, I think particularly the, what is the endless scroll feature that I think specifically a feature in meta. That at least got picked up at the media coverage, I don't know if I imagine because of YouTube was involved as well, the things were in that in that case as well, like that sort of design features what fed to the addiction obsession kind of compulsive behavior.

Another one was actually specifically about the marketing on their state law, and particularly where essentially they were trying to point out that meta had said they met certain safety standards and were safe certain words and they didn't quite get there. So the case in particular, I guess my question for you is like both these cases are unique because they at least particularly the NewX cookies unless you're with Los Angeles case seems to have heavily leaned on both the this meta files investigation you described and the fact that you have a lot of whistleblowers who come out about met as specifically we know for a couple years now that meta has a very messy and complicated record with safety and it's relationship to safety despite public statements to the country and that we've had whistleblowers bring information.

The Congress to other venues about this that we saw featured in play here is that something that's replicable with other social media companies does that make meta uniquely vulnerable to these claims and like do we have a sense about how important that is to the the viability of these claims.

“I don't think that meta is going to be all that unique here. I think a lot of the a lot of them have very similar types of features very I think career point maybe the question is what do they say about them.”

I think that in copy you know like cleaner for TikTok maybe I don't know but that that dynamic that these are safe places for teenagers these are perfectly fine there's nothing addictive the research is wrong et cetera et cetera they've spent a lot of time this is where I think the tobacco comparison also comes in right merchants of doubt the idea that you know you can't prove that this is bad you can't prove that this is harmful now you're starting to see. I think juries and others finding that in fact they are there was an interesting case on the CD a 230 thing I was actually trying to see what the latest on it was but there was a it was like the Anderson versus tiktok case which said that tiktok's recommender system might actually constitute the platform's own speech and that it could be held liable for content that it promotes as it represents first party speech rather than just hosting third party content so where's the 230 line there.

that is another that that was another one that came to mind as we were.

“You know thinking through what are the shifting dynamics where you're starting to see kind of chips in the.”

wall so to speak that has held back some of the accountability for a very very long time. Scott you know as you were a plaintiff. And it's a big plan for better for worse that people hop in there. Yeah I mean that really gets like the fundamental question here is like when does these algorithms become something independent of the underlying content. The metaphor I can't remember I came up with this or was in the oral argument during the guns out of some time that cases a few years ago I remember I thought of this in the context of those I almost used it in a piece and didn't but it's kind of the idea of like the serial killer notes you see in movies where people cut individual letters out of a out of magazines and piece and together in a note.

In theory is that just third party content being packaged a particular way or is actually individual speech and that that line you know while clearly there are opposite end to that and we can see the two pillars of it. We're the trade off is exactly can be hard to draw. Well that will invariably come up with AI content too. Yeah exactly 100% that that's why I'm very curious to see how some of those cases come out particularly where you know the AI is actively disseming people things like this or giving actually harmful product and you know giving harmful medical advice giving harmful health advice harmful food advice actually I got some pretty remarkable tips on.

What happens when what do you do with rotten food well you can wash it you know.

This is like the raw pieces. It's moldy that's okay just scrape it off you know.

“But no I think so that piece of it is it's kind of unclear I think what is going to happen but I was actually pulling from meta's widely viewed content report for a”

Talked them about to give them one of the things that they put out that's actually very interesting is over time the dynamics around widely viewed content you know what what people are engaging with how they're recommending there's a little There's put in a little pie chart and then a little pie chart it tells you where it's sourcing the content from so as it is creating your feed what percentage roughly people are seeing from their friends their family news organizations things they follow.

It's a 41% unconnected at this point and I remember last time I.

I connected means like outside of. I was connected so unconnected no no no unconnected content means you don't follow the account you have no relation to a creator you're not you haven't opted in essentially you haven't formed you know you're not following me and then seeing my content instead. 41% now is the platform in tweeting what you want to see right is it's almost like the tick-tockification of of all feeds because that was tick-tock secret sauce the idea that.

You see things other people are engaging with popularity a whole bunch of different ways to wait what it selected could actually be a much heavier driver of engagement than just saying.

The recommended system because AI slot was starting to be in the widely viewed content report and I think around that time as two years ago is about 26% was unconnected content so again a pretty significant shift if I remember incorrectly of that that evolution 41% actually surprised me how high it is now. Totally totally. But I guess the platforms could say something even when you talk about unconnected content like. We're still not that different from a bookstore that decides to look to put on the shelves right and right and that so that's that's what I wonder with all of this and I'm kind of hurting to see that the.

Protections that section 230 provides are not now being interpreted to be as absolute as they were a few years ago but also I'm surprised and a little skeptical and I wonder where this is going to go because again I just see the companies saying well we're still doing content moderation. Our algorithmic choices are designed choices are just contemporary content moderation and that's exactly what section 230 lets us do it says we can't be punished for doing it it the whole point of section 230 is that it's a sword and the shield it lets us do moderation without making us be in trouble because we moderated.

“So that's what I imagine they'd say and I think that's a tough argument when it comes to something like you have endless scroll and people are suffering from the mere fact of being addicted from being online if that can be proven.”

I think it's harder and this is what you were kind of speaking to earlier both of you Scott and Renee I think it's harder if it's well you were online and you saw content that promoted body dysmorphia because then that is speaking to the content the content is just downstream of those algorithmic choices. Yeah it is really tricky to figure that I totally agree that's the spectrum of arguments we're going to see and we should note like new Mexico has another bundle arguments they're going to make which is actually like really directly inspired by the tobacco cases which is the idea of meta being a public nuisance or creating a public nuisance that's going to allow them to pursue.

I think it's substantially more damage than this is a three hundred seventy five million dollar judgment so like if I think that's a number big big scale judgment, but that's because they had a huge number of cases.

Each of which was capped at only five thousand dollars a day images so it's kind of like a volume thing.

I think they can go for much more of a public nuisance and importantly they can do which they've done with tobacco companies pharmaceutical companies things like that and really push for remediation plans and meta to fund programs that aren't just providing. I think that's a lot of that is providing damages and particularly like statually nominal statutory damages.

“But in fact actually like have to address the underlying problem or at least that's what they successfully done in those other prior cases.”

How where that fits and I don't know because I don't know exactly what the legal standard of a nuisance is and how much it depends on I think they're theory about how much of it ties back to the underlying substance of the content versus your choice to steer it. I do wonder whether like this gets into what was in the Gonzales and Tom look is like there the issue was well look we have fairly what the I think the justice is really neutral or agnostic algorithms that yeah they do favor and push things to certain people but that's based on our assessment of what they're looking for their search for their past history.

It's not neutral agnostic towards anyone particular like content or interest stream it's just but inevitably it will wait things different ways depending on how people engage with that.

And they are the court ultimately debated decision based off something like wonky stuff about the anti terrorism act but like did seem to suggest and I believe even in the final opinion did suggest like this isn't the sort of stuff that at least in the ATA context maybe any content and notably the ATA context is like basically imports common law toward standards. So it's a good reasonable guide post for that that's not the sort of thing that you understand to be reach the kind of men's rare requirement of eating and embedding of knowing and intentionally doing something but like.

“I think the question becomes if you have evidence and you know evidence of like systematic trends of steering like children toward sexual predators right.”

Like does that cross a line at some point where it is knowing and involved and there is this harm and you become aware of it they said in that case like they tried to point of evidence that there was knowledge on the part of companies that this did sometimes happen. But yeah did sometimes happen but we actually actively like took measures to kind of act that maybe not 100% effective all the time but it was still result of this broader kind of neutral program not deliberate steering but like at a certain point that does seem to break down like you can only claim neutrality so far.

So it's steering things toward these particularly harmful outcomes I think but but I don't know it isn't it is an easy line I think those claims are harder certainly than the things that are so intrinsically about the design features like the addiction which really could be addiction to any sort of completely benign underlying content but it's being fed to you and a super super problematic sort of way.

So like maybe maybe maybe the companies don't ultimately want to bring the Supreme Court because they think they're where they may lose but if they don't it's going to go to release the state probably Supreme Court eventually to resolve some of the stuff. And because there's got the section 230 hook they they very well may bring it to federal court so how do you think they were responding business why set aside the appeal question like they're going to have to live with us at least for the next year or two well these appeals are ongoing maybe longer and they have a lot of other cases coming down the pike does this affect their business model the fact that how they do things.

It's an interesting question you know they had actually scaled down trust and safety operations rather significantly it's going to be interesting to see if they scale some of that back up meta made some announcements about using AI to moderate more it's going to be interesting to see how they're going to again. Is the public going to trust that I think the public sentiment also is a very big deal here people increasingly do not trust them this narrative that their harmful for kids is very very prevalent and I think that is one of the key challenges that they're also going to face just that that public opinion dynamic is it's going to be heavily influenced by these verdicts as well.

So what they're going to do to make them tell seem like good faith players when they've actually really swung very very hard in the opposite direction away from content moderation as they allowed that bullshit political campaign that the hard right ran to reframe it all a censorship they're going to have to walk that back in some way and now it's going to be interesting to see how they do it. It does seem like they put themselves in a difficult disadvantageous position especially if you're are if you're defense to your like our algorithms have all these problems is that but we have other algorithms embed an AI that will try and fix it and enhance it like it kind of layers back and I think that kind of leads like the the last tissue that's worth talking about here like what does this tell us all about.

And I like ability potentially in my mind this seems like it opens the door to a lot of more this model of liability around AI right I at its core is kind of repackaging content you've heard people raise well maybe you can make section through 30 defensive about that's certainly what it's acting like kind of like a search engine a research spot you may have stronger arguments there it becomes harder when there's not attribution when it's really actually repackaging reselling and that is ultimately what AI is doing a lot of the time.

Is this the sort of model we're going to see this kind of like product liability I mean it seems like it is it seems like those are the sort of cases we've already started seeing in the AI context but I like I wonder where there's an intersection here maybe even if like the prevalence of AI the fact that how much people talk about and think about it in the last year to compare to you know when it's awesome time now we're decided one of these cases were last really heavily debated at the highest levels maybe has people a little more sensitive to that kind of algorithmic harm sort of argument.

“But I'd also add I mean these these the really visceral horrible stories of AI models directing seemingly directing people to self harm or to kill themselves I mean it seems like they'd be like.”

The it's a lot easier to attribute the harms to today I model that is like directing you and exactly telling you how and and why you should rather than just being kind of fed algorithmically and like it's a it's been grabbing headlines I think for good reason because it's some of these chat transcripts are just so disturbing.

Yeah and like what where where does the liability adhere is it when the chat bot like refers you to a manual to like commit self harm.

“In which case you're protected by section 230 if they pursue pursue the accident manual or is it in the kind of coaching leading up to it.”

And here we seem to see a line dividing there which is that it says it's really the latter not the former.

But you know where that line is and practice could be tricky in a variety of cases I suspect.

“And I do think partly because of AI we've now entered the age where people are kind of afraid of their phones and afraid of the world that is coming where younger people who maybe aren't afraid of their phones are going to be.”

In kind of this virtual reality world all the time talking to AI instead of talking to humans and that's extremely troubling and scary and maybe has made people who are already skeptical of the social media companies get even more serious about the perceived harms. Well speaking of efforts to save americans let us go to the save america act that is now being debated in congress president trump has had a be in his bonnet about the save america act this is like pride predominantly as far as I can tell I will not pretend like I sat down or through the thing in elections reform bill aimed at doing a variety of things many of which are responsive to not very well substantiated claims about 2020.

And many of which appear to get about certain bug booths that people have had about elections and things like voter ID for a long time and certain circles combined with a couple of new measures.

Both directions really we've now got this compromise solution that looks like part of it may at least be submitted to majority vote.

In the reconciliation process which bypassed the filibuster although only if they can get path past the senate parliamentarian and the in a tourist bird path process through which all these reconciliation bills have to go through. So so Molly tell us a little bit about what the president's broader ambitions are with the save america act and where they appear to have been windowed down to. And what happens I guess both to the rest of the bill if this reconciliation package is the vehicle by which senate republicans say this is all we can do on this.

Yeah so republican say election reform democratic say voter suppression that's generally what's going on with the conversation about the save america act.

“I think that you know president trump has said that the outcome of the midterms hinges on this act whether that's really true whether the.”

The particular reforms that they want to push through would very clearly be to republicans benefit everywhere. I don't know but that seems to be the perception and it's not that difficult to believe because essentially what this is.

Mostly is a bill that makes it harder to register to vote and then harder to vote by requiring you to show your papers in various ways.

So there's the showing your papers of proving or citizen and there's the showing your papers of providing photo ID but super specific types of photo ID that are not possessed by most Americans. And so the people who'd be most likely to be effectively disenfranchised by that would be low income people minorities and also particularly harmed would probably be women who have gotten married and changed their names because then you have a mismatch. You have a mismatch in what your birth certificate says and what your ID says.

“So yeah, looks like that would benefit republicans probably that's what trump seems to be saying or what trump is saying but also I think kind of separate from what the act would.”

Actually substantively do is the idea that this is a narrative that says elections need to be saved right now elections can get rigged and so even if this doesn't pass you know Democrats have rigged the elections if they win because we needed this act to make republicans have a fair shot. So I think those are the reasons that he cares so much about it as far as what's happening now it's a little complicated it ties into the fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security there's a lot more urgency now among the Republicans to do that because of the situation the airports that is making the shutdown of the department way more visible to Americans now people are actually getting upset at the Republicans.

So they want to fund DHS but the Democrats don't want to fund ice so there's a compromise budget deal kind of in the works that would fund all parts of DHS except ice is removal operations and the question for that is will enough Democrats go for it. They're not really getting all the reforms to ice that they want and there's this sort of weird situation where it's like okay if they're willing to fund more of ice maybe they can get more reforms if they won't fund any of ice maybe they get no reforms so that's where that conversation is but trump said.

I don't want there to be any compromise unless we also get the Save America act done and that's what brings us to the reconciliation conversation because what it's looking like is going to happen is that Congress is going to try to pass this compromise bill and then. It's like care of the parts of ice that haven't been funded later in reconciliation okay that's not all that's surprising has to do with spending but they're also going to try to get portions of the Save America act through reconciliation.

The problem there of course is that the bird rule says that anything you're doing through reconciliation has to be related to the budget all the stuff I just described about the Save America act doesn't have anything to do with the budget so how do you tie it into the budget. That's where we get to kind of the winnowing down that you're talking about so I'll stop for now there. Yeah, maybe I can throw another question your way or anyone's way.

“I'm curious whether you see this the Save America act more as a last gasp of this so called election integrity movement of you know and I think a big question that people had and the last presidential election is when trump won.”

Where all of this energy and it's organizing and this movement like where it would go would it just dissipate because trump won or is it did it actually. It had so much momentum that it had to be there had to be some sort of outlet and is this what we're seeing or is this actually like.

Trump is not the election integrity movement just to be clear trump is the fake.

The election is stolen bullshit movement must just be really totally candid about that and everything that is happening is him trying to optimize his chances it is transparently political we all know that. I just want to point out that he says this is not a partisan statement that is just a recantation of like of what is actually quite plainly said in fact. If you go when you look at. Kato or heritage particularly heritage you can you can look at their database of non citizen voting incidents and I think it was 24 instances that heritage found between 2003 and 2023 that's what we're dealing with here we're not even in the three digits on on

heritage database there right so the idea that this is an election integrity movement is bullshit I think that we can't use that frame I think we need to be constantly reinforcing whatever you think about voter about voter ID that is a completely separate question.

“Then is there an epidemic of illegal voting in our elections the answer that is categorically not yet why agree with that totally and I think that to me the save America act is kind of frightening.”

For two reasons that go back to the second point of him doing it which is to create all this doubt and create the perception that.

We have this election integrity crisis which as Renee said we don't have you know I think if the act passes it's dangerous not only because it might disenfranchise a lot of people but also because. Yeah this will probably benefit Republicans even if it were a wash the stricter the rules are the more ways you can get someone disqualified the easier it is to say when you lost that you lost because a bunch of people who should have been disqualified were able to vote so that's something to me that's super scary about it.

As to whether it is the last gas the election integrity not integrity of the of the so called like an integrity movement the self proclaimed election integrity movement. I don't think so I think they're going to try to do this in a lot of ways I think that if they can't do it through Congress and we can go back to whether they'll succeed through reconciliation but I think it's going to be tough to do anything meaningful there. It's already doing this on their own some of them at least also it's possible that the president and this is the subject of a piece that Annabauer and I wrote for law fair and we did a podcast about it as well but it's possible that the White House would try to achieve at least some of this on its own though that would be almost certainly unconstitutional.

“Essentially I think there are various ways they're going to try to get at least pieces of this done some more realistic than others.”

And I'll say like this is a lot of these proposals have origins that will predate Trump or 2020 election I mean these are things that I remember talking about when I used to do voter protection work like in 2008 and before that even to some extent like their proposals that have always been out there dominated by myths like with some kernels of reality about like whether it's a handful of cases whether it's like there are certain administrative inefficiencies that in theory might lead to.

It might lead to situations but that in practice there hasn't really been any evidence of it being any sort of large scale or meaningful or pivotal sort of change.

And what the trading off is a trade-off is I mean that's the real question here like how much do you value absolute security of elections if it deters people who can vote. But our half about from being able to do so and that's it's a values trade-off. There actually isn't a right answer. I know what I think the right answer is which is that I think more people should vote. We should be able to vote unless there's a real problem of fraud we shouldn't be wasting time deterring them.

“But it is ultimately like one of these value trade-offs and I think we're just going to see continuing cycles of that.”

The one thing that's really interesting about this though I think is that. Twenty-twenty-four was the election that when it came out of it showed that a lot of voters that are vulnerable to some of these measures. Older voters, Hispanic voters, voters that with like large occasion rates who are on various surveys show they have left likely more likely to have limited access to like ID information that they need to be able to vote. Donald Trump carried a lot more of that vote than prior Republican candidate to have.

And that was a conversation coming out of twenty-twenty-four that I remember vividly that I've been of all those was volunteer live in their election. And came out and remember coming out of election people saying this really looks like such a different sort of electorate and pattern in this case. And I do wonder like whether that is if anything a sign of maybe maybe not the death now of these claims but it's signed that there may be getting a different sort of reception or emphasis because the way that they cut is isn't that clear.

And that the actual reality is and there's I'm looking at kind of scrolling through and looking through studies from right in center of view other groups show that like.

Really strong suggest that the impact is going to be really all over the place depending on like local elections what population is a particular area is how it affects and what the nationwide impact of that be can be hard to judge. So I mean maybe that's one of the things that has people people Republicans in the Senate a little more nervous about this because. You don't really know what the outcome is and maybe it's better to do with the flawed system you have but you know and that got you elected if you're an incumbent than one that you don't.

Yeah, or at least skeptical enough to not want to blow up the filibuster over it, right? That's a better way to describe it. Yes exactly exactly which is really interesting. So so where do we think that this leads Donald Trump in his broader 2020 motivated campaign? So Molly you've talked about like some of this stuff might come through executive order. We can talk a little bit about that. That's one avenue. I don't think there's a lot of other legislative chances if this doesn't get through because if if they get this DHS bill.

There's there's there's doesn't seem like there's anything else that they're going to have if if the president could not persuade them to break the filibuster over this sort of stuff doesn't seem like they're going to get the filibuster broken over other stuff seems like enough Senate Republicans are still on board with that.

So if if that's where we are where does he channel his energies and concerns about this elsewhere or does he finally have to accept.

Which something that reportedly a lot of Republican advisors and supporters of the president have been telling him which is that is a political loser and we need to drop it. I don't think he drops it. I don't think he drops it. I don't think he drops it.

“I think he's got a lot of skin in the game on this one.”

No, I mean I think he if the midterms don't go his way blames it on the failure to have the Save America act past and says that we tried to save the elections and they wouldn't let us save the elections and they stole the elections. I think I think that's what happens. Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean like it is one of these catch 22s of the sole process because there's like you know you're trading out these values.

You can create those arguments no matter what the actual underlying rules are. Because you could say well these people were able to vote who shouldn't have been able to vote and theory all these other people. Like you can say these arguments because it's all kind of a relative system but like you know other than broad in the absence of like widespread evidence of. You know, actual fraud just seems like you know the availability of this argument doesn't necessarily mean they like should be persuasive.

It's just something that people are going to be able to make and if people are motivated enough to believe in it that that's kind of the decider. I don't I just don't know if we can plan around the ability to make these arguments that much. I want to wear the other before you've on it.

“I think I should go on the record and say I don't think this is a bad election integrity.”

Good clarification down. So there's one more part of this which is of course whether all of this is even really feasible. And that comes down this question of the bird bath and the reconciliation process and the politics that are ending that. So Molly tells you what your sense of this is like is this a compromise that's actually going to go anywhere. I guess either on the DHS front or on the same American front. Yeah, I was pretty amused to see that Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana earlier this month said that what they have to do is they have to hire a really smart lawyer to figure out how to make this survive a bird bath.

But I think that was also in a speech or statement where he said that the Karen wing of the Democratic party is an ascendancy. So there were a lot of kind of funny fraisings in it, but I think you do need a really really really really smart perhaps genius lawyer to do it or at least do it in any meaningful way.

So basically what you have to do and what it seems like Republicans would try to do is incentivize pay states to change their rules to do some of the things in the say that.

But that's a far cry from the binding national requirements that are really supposed to save our elections. It doesn't seem nearly as impressive if that's all that you managed to achieve is to incentivize it to have states do this voluntarily rather than forcing them to. And it seems like what's circulating, what they're trying to incentivize states to do is implement voter ID laws require proof of citizenship for voter registration and share some voter data with federal agencies for verification and then post election audits, which makes sense because part of the ideas we can say the election was stolen after the election.

“So it seems like that's what they're trying to do, but again the only way that they could even possibly do it is to suggest to states, hey, we'll give you some money, you do it on your own.”

And even then it's not clear that that would survive the Senate parliamentarian scrutiny at which point the question becomes well, do the Republicans want to just ignore the Senate parliamentarian, but they haven't shown much interest in that and that's basically if you break the bird roll to that degree, it's basically like blowing up the filibuster, which they don't want to do also. So I think it's where it leaves us, I don't think that many Republicans would even vote for the reconciliation bill that included these provisions of the say that if they survived the parliamentarian scrutiny.

So here it might include social safety net cuts.

It might include a bunch of money for the Pentagon and so just controversial provisions that many Republicans might not want to vote on in this party line bill and that would make it even harder for the say that stuff to get through if it makes it that far. Yeah, and one other tool they seem to be leveraging, like trying to work in say the American version through is through the conditioning of different grants and an additional grand money. So providing money and then saying, but if you want this money, we're going to have to like make a conditional upon things like documentary proof of citizenship for getting voter registration.

And that's when plays where might have some teeth, but I know those provisions, this is where I wish our colleague Molly Reynolds could be on the podcast. So unfortunately, it's out the other Molly R because she, of course, has literally written the book on this and that is that is the sort of thing that I know has run into bird bath problems in the past. I can't 100% remember exactly where the line is. So I know some cases we see in children things like that get through and other cases not I don't know how well to find it is or how we know whether this gets through.

“And that's why you need not just a lawyer, you actually don't even really need a lawyer, you need a parliamentarian.”

I understand Senate practice about this, which is I will say something with the law school, not something you learn about school that didn't particularly extend unless you really go down some odd paths. So yeah, we will have to see exactly where this leads, but certainly it is an interesting legislative development to watch in the weeks to come.

So speaking of watching and predicting things to come let us transition to our third topic, which is all about the future predicting the future understanding what's going on around the world.

And then potentially sometimes even making money on that future Tyler, you wrote a really phenomenal piece in the bath where that highly recommend to folks and I don't have the title in front of me, which I meant to have and I actually close that window, but you can tell us in a second why in the microphone video. That's worth reading all about the kind of flowering and mass proliferation of Ocent as a practice on social media. In some ways that have been good, I know you've taken interest in Ocent, I have relied on Ocent practices and producers at various points at various moments, but that may have reached a critical tipping point in the other direction, at least in certain context.

Talk to a little bit about us a little bit about your article and the trends you're observing in that and some of the positive and negative implications we're seeing coming out of it. So I called it a situational unawareness. There we go, I can't believe I forgot that. I've been embarrassed now. Okay, it grew out of I'm sure many listeners have also seen these these dashboards that I've just exploded on mostly on Twitter that are essentially promising this immense surveillance capacity that you can just have on your browser.

There's styled after a Bloomberg terminal or they say, you know, you can have like palentere in your pocket or you can basically, probably seeing the capabilities of an intelligence agency.

“But in reality, these are just, I think, vibe-coded AI Slop that just Frankenstein together, ticker symbols, maps, different, like news wires, different Twitter accounts, and it just becomes this, this cacophony that's pretty useless unless you have.”

Contextual knowledge if you have if you know how to just read the signals in the noise and it just seemed like this really silly thing at first but then kind of a dangerous proliferation because a lot of them look good and therefore seem authoritative and they sort of give this illusion that you know it's happening. I think it became really dangerous when this marriage started to emerge between these ostent style dashboards and then prediction markets. A lot of prediction markets now have their own dashboards, so there's one thinking of called polyglobe where it grew out of the the pentagon pizza index if some listeners are familiar with that, which is this.

This idea that an increase in traffic among pizza restaurants around the pentagon is a good proxy for there being a buzz of activity in the pentagon and they're up all night planning military strikes so they got to eat all the pizza night it's it's I think anyone with knowledge.

“You who follow it understands sometimes you feel like Chinese and that's what you order it on your strike nights the need a Chinese restaurant monitor as well to supplement but.”

It has just I mean it was kind of like a little joke on Twitter for a while and these tweets would go viral that. There was an increase in activity before a certain event but obviously the tweets that it that showed an increase in activity when no event happens don't go viral.

Yeah, so I can I can leave it there for now and happy to talk about any parts of it, but yeah I encourage listeners to go look at some of these things because.

“There's so many of them out there now and you must be a crazy person to think that you can kind of clean any insights any actionable intelligence from these this just mess of data.”

I was in a small town in Maine and I walked into this shop and the woman who was in middle aged woman at the. The town was being really chatty and asked where we were from and we said D.C. and then she started talking about the pizza index. So it just shows exactly how far this thing is spread and she was really sold on it.

And so it was kind of funny I mean the the one that I was talking about there's there's one connected to the pizza index and and they have like.

“And instead of DevCon they call it DoCon and it's like very kitschy but then it just gets very unsafe everyone it's then you can't they have a disclaimer at the bottom about.”

The use of this data but it was liter when I was scrolling out it was literally blocked by a polymarket banner ad encouraging you to go there to. That's that's you know in the prediction markets and the idea obviously is that you can have an edge in these markets because of all these streams of data that you're monitoring every second and it just seemed like this. This makes of doom scrolling and AI slap that just it felt very like of the moment and then I'm sure people saw that a polymarket had this pop up in D.C. at a bar where you could monitor their situation in real life and this is this is like a was a manifestation of a very common type of tweet that I've seen over the past few months which is like.

“The pros imagine a bar where but all the screens are like Bloomberg and you know etc and maps and whatever so they actually did it and and I think much to.”

A lot of people's delight it was a complete fiasco a lot of the monitors we're not working on the first day and it was this sort of like fire festival ask. And that blew up in the phases of of a often maligned company at least right now I have to say I saw the pictures of the event which some of our colleagues went to I know to do a little on the ground reporting.

I have never seen a less fun looking party it's not entirely fair because of course they're using like.

Photographers I think knowing that story is going to have a slightly critical bet are using full flash photography what is probably a dark apart room night is kind of like at the night at 4am in the club when they turn all the lights on everybody's like. This is shocking and terrifying. Yeah exactly but it is it is very entertaining. I look at the picture like wow this looks terrible even by my standard that I made 42 year old father of two. I do not get out. I would not come to this party which is not a good sign.

So when I you spent obviously like you know a huge chunk of your career thinking about disinformation how to intersect with the internet and prediction markets and relate it and related issues and like talked was a little about how you make sense of it like there is obviously some degree of value in the lowering of barriers and treat to. Yeah yeah for sure yeah there but welfare is a benefit of that in a lot of ways for the welfare gets to do stuff now that you had to be a newspaper to do 15 or 20 years ago right or a lot for more able to do a lot of it cheaper and frankly it's getting cheaper and cheaper by the minute between AI and.

That is a lot of those sources that if you do them properly vet them but then you run to the risk of this information slot. How do you manage this as a consumer and and maybe even as a policy maker like how do you approach differentiating these things so so much of it is incentives right I was in a back in the day I'm trying to. I remember the year now it would have been maybe 2017 2017 is almost a decade ago now gosh we had a slack called data for democracy and a lot of it was ocent research right because there's sort of the early days then 10 years ago where it was the recognition that you could get really interesting signal from stuff that people were just putting on Twitter right there would be like remember when I says was a thing even like five years before that you'd have these like jihadis who would like not turn off the.

So like you tagging on their phone pictures post a picture and like boom you've just got a ton of information from that you could do triangulation of where people were belling cat emerges right and and this is I think like the pinnacle of fantastic ocent and and you can start to see how these independent investigators actually can pull together quite a lot of things and some of the work that we did on Russia and the internet research agency. Was exactly that right it was people thinking like hey I think I've got a signal here anybody anybody here want to look at this with me and then it's very collaborative process very fun process candidly I love investigations where you're in there just trying to figure out what is the reality of the situation on the ground.

Well, can you what can you learn what can you find even prediction markets to even even before that so going like five to eight ten years maybe before that I was part of the thing called the good judgment project which was I think.

Markets being markets when I was a James street we would talk a lot about that right how can you get as much information out there people putting their information together.

“I think overall again it can be really fantastic.”

But the question is incentives because what you start to see is the rise of the fake oath into counts on x right the explicitly manipulative ones that are actively trying to put garbage out there to particularly around the time when Russia invades Ukraine right to mislead people about what's going on there. You start to see them using even age-generated content at times to kind of flood the zone and that question of how do you differentiate I think is a broader information.

Environment question at this point it's not just the ocent accounts that are you know.

Participants in this ecosystem but but their scene is being kind of authoritative right their scene is being synthesis accounts and that is where I think you start to get in some interesting questions around.

“But particularly because they're also often anonymous right belling cat is interesting and that very much is not really shows its work so I think to to answer your question of how do you know if it's good the question is do they show their work.”

Are you racing to get something into the media are you racing to profit from and are you racing to like blast it out or are you going to do a very methodical investigation put it out and like walk people through essentially replicable. A replicable set of steps the ability to kind of gamble on it is where you do start to get to unethical things like markets being placed where then people go and actively try to shift the outcome and that I think is the other thing we're talking about here. Yeah, I totally agree with Renee that a lot of it comes down to just kind of fundamental media literacy things but specifically a dose and the show your work thing I think you know anyone trying to figure out if it's a legitimate ocent effort or not is they they often will publish a very lengthy methodology and you can see step by step and so could be replicable.

And also this just more of a like humility and just a some recognition of the limitations of what they're doing and corroborating multiple data points instead of just saying like.

Drawing one very authoritative sounding conclusion from a single video like no one who's actually trained in those and would actually do that and I think that a lot of the more legitimate accounts essentially have their own beat you know there's the guy who tracks shipping and he knows she's knows which ships there are and he is very knowledgeable he doesn't really go beyond that lane because a lot of a ocent is it looks easy or it looks a lot easier than it actually is it takes a lot of technical knowledge and a lot of like.

That's you know subject matter expertise that is often not displayed and you know then product. And when we did investigations at SIO like we know early on in 2019 we found some pages my colleague Shelby Grossman who teaches a great ocent class herself. We found some pages that we thought were Wagner group right so you made a progression operating in Africa did a whole big internal investigation we did reach out to the platforms again responsible disclosure. Hey you guys is what we're seeing what do you think this is right so the attribution is done jointly and then before publication I absolutely reach out to Velancat and I was like.

Hey. Is what I want another pair of eyes on all of this right and you reach out to a bunch of different as many different people as you can possibly get.

“Honestly who have the time or bandwidth to look over your work and make sure that you're not going to put out something that's just going to be wrong or embarrassing.”

Or if you're going to mention somebody right if you're going to attribute an account to an operation you're making a real statement there right you're saying this is not what it seems to be this is not authentic. Sometimes there's a real person attached to that they're using their real name and you're saying this is linked to this other thing and and I think in order to do that. I can't imagine lightball risks. Right exactly when there's so many risks that go you know you would be so stressed for the night before the report comes out you're just like you read every sentence five thousand times I can't even tell you.

So watching people just yellow it is kind of remarkable to me. The other thing that's been really really bugging me is these tweets that I'm sure a lot of people have seen from Pauli market or mostly mostly Pauli market sometimes calls she I think that there's they're tweeting like they're a news wire with also you know breaking and then some very. Just one sentence very simplified version of something that probably actually did happen but it's there's no attribution there's no source there's no further contacts it's single statement.

And then they followed up with a reply to eat that's like here are the crying odds for this thing that's related and it's just it seems like very very very toxic and then you look at the numbers that these tweets do and it's like in the thousands and sometimes over million views and doesn't seem good. Yeah, I mean, it strikes me as kind of like the like a version of mass kind of wave version kind of the institution process and if the court court I think it's Cory Doctores like term right where the whole idea is like you had at least some of these platforms like.

Then it got popular to the point that people in even a role main are talking about it then it started getting a lot of clicks and then it wanted to make money off this clicks.

“And then all of a sudden you start getting banerats and these polymarket input and it becomes by the way potentially less effective and it's trumpeting its own effectiveness much more probably because it needs more clicks and needs more money that.”

It's this whole incentive structure like you talk about what actually delivering it is. But the the challenge I do think I do feel like there's like fundamentally like a real difficulty that I'm curious about what the era of AI I don't think's dragging this will actually. Maybe because easier or harder about verifying the the even the methodology like the credibility that you all tie to which is that a lot of people aren't in a position to actually assess the methodology like effectively right you actually need a level expertise to even do that I'm like reminded of.

Now if you guys have been in the museum of drastic acknowledges of my favorite place in the world in Los Angeles it's like a museum dedicated to oddities in theory but it's really I think like a big examination of like the structure construction of knowledge and authority and like how they relate because it presents everything as like a museum so it feels very authoritative and it's presenting these completely oddity things like a bat that can fly through a wall and in that particular exhibit about this bat that can normally fly through a wall it gives you this like very old school long dry boring.

I remember being like a deep German accent I'm not sure that's 100% right like description of the methodologies these naturalists pursued and studying this bat and the details of the bat and then like eight minutes in or something I think I'm exaggerating but like a good way into this recording more than any normal person ever listen and then the bat flew through the wall and you're like oh okay. Like I have no way of knowing if that's true it has all the hour indicators of authority right it didn't museum it has this like fancy scientific voice describing this with sounds like a reasonable methodology to a layman.

But it's a real challenge like do you really like what does AI mean for this environment like does it mean on the one hand it means yeah you can gather synthesize all these things does it also mean we can stress test it a lot more effectively or at scale like is is that actually a spot where AI maybe real virtue in a way that.

Doing things at a scale and effectiveness that like lay people just can't.

Meaning do you mean using AI tools to do the investigations like for one thing that's interesting or certain aspects like geolocation in other areas where. You know I will occasionally ask an AI to tell me what's happening in this picture where is this where would you where would you guess this is. Just again not because I'm going to use it in a professional full follow through thing but I'm just interested in where the capabilities are at a given moment. Tracking where your children are understand me.

We all need to know you know.

“No I think it's actually it's also you also want to know like which ones are good right who's who's got the best you know best technology for doing these sorts of things.”

Then there are actually the the rise of AI detection companies that are trying to that offer services that will tell you if something is AI or not. Those are an interesting mix also I think because you have both false positive problems and false negative problems in the resulting. Challenges confidence I think teaching people that there are that there's sort of like a confidence interval here that these are not actually. The binary determinations a lot of the time it's giving you a guess right this is how likely we think this is we did a project looking at fake faces on LinkedIn and trick and tracking in network of inauthentic accounts on LinkedIn they were AI generated accounts and we partnered with a detection company and we're like this is here's our list of profiles we believe to be.

“We're going to take for the following reasons can you run through these these images right and give us back the basically the assessments and and they come back as course that's that's how we're given that information.”

So when you have these detectors that just say to the public AI or not AI I think it's actually obscuring it's it's trying to make it simple but in making it simple it's actually obscuring some of the information that is actually most useful to people who are doing serious analysis which is. How confident are we actually in this and that is a real a real issue because the other problem though is that people do want to know and you're starting to see this phenomenon up you know the at grock is this true right and their at grock is this real at grock is this AI right which is basically trying to use grock to do again the thing that I was talking about which of these models are.

Adapted detection and the answer is like honestly not very many of them so so they're using the tools that they have available to them but they're not the tools that are right for the job.

And and you know that's the binary the outcomes of a bedding on the prediction markets and so that all like there's it in there too like you need to know yes or no did this and that happen so that there can be a payout or not and. It's a really fascinating space and one that intersects with our work in all sorts of ways I'm sure we're going to have opportunities to revisit it we are out of time for this week's episode.

That is finally out the third episode came out on Tuesday March 24th it's series so there's a few more episodes in store it's called who blew up the guide stones yeah you can check it out any podcast platform or. I could say from personal experience that I saw Tyler take physical ailments in the form of poison ivy. Investigations I think and bed bugs that assorted other ailments that we mostly died bet it here on rhapsody in the travails of recording this podcast so it is well earned and there's a lot of blood sweat and tears going into it on Tyler behalf.

“If not others among other friends of the law fair family at corodio so really excited I've just checked out the first episode is great it's a great listen I've looked for this series so definitely check that out.”

Molly what did you bring for us this week so.

Yeah the prediction market stuff in the bedding I mean my understanding is that 90% of the volume is sports bedding but obviously a lot of what we've seen that I have found to be. Distressing and an extremely poor taste is voting on stuff like when we'll be boner on and so I brought this this old like vintage don't ask why I have it strategic air command hat that says new come till they glow. It says more than two it says and use their asses for runway lights. I think you live in a very esoteric TGI Friday because you have a bright variety of like weird household objects that you're breaking object lessons and I do appreciate this is why I keep having you on Molly because I'm eventually going to run out of part of cool household object if lying around.

Unless you're speed ordering these on Amazon or something.

“No I am I'm simply going down to the war room and taking them and bringing them upstairs I got that genuinely what I'm doing this is that but anyway I think it captures both the kind of vibe of oh let's.”

Bed on the end of the world and let's bet on people's lives and devs and also perhaps the sort of. What since we've been talking about gambling I thought I would throw in I'm going to throw in a more normal recommendation I'll throw in a local one just kind of local ones aren't that useful for other folks. Of course I think he's a lot of the document the McKay coppins piece about sports gambling which he's very a pro of this particular conversation sucker is the title that's actually not I always have thought I got it through my little social media is my year as a jitter dinner gambler my guess sucker is a former title formal title and I pulled up this in the Atlantic talks about how he spent a year doing sports gambling on the Atlantic's time.

And ultimately came out concluding that he was essentially addicted to sports gambling I was said this article by every living person I know because I occasionally dabble in sports gambling for the record very small stakes not that often actually I didn't even do it once this past season but the last few seasons I did a little bit but you know it is it is you know not a great story about this phenomenon of gambling that is now not just about sports but about all sorts of things in our lives. I will repeat the joke to my wife when she noticed me which is that what you didn't understand is that year two is where you're luck really kicks in but not true not actually true.

It's a really interesting piece worth checking out about the broader phenomenon and for my local recommendation I realize I don't think I've actually said this is my favorite places in DC so I'm going to throw it out there just so a local business that I would do five times for some reason last week and a half. That I really really value and that is the best bakery I've ever been to which is here at Washington DC called salue S.E.Y. L.O.U. over on ninth street it's phenomenal I don't know why I used to live right next to it didn't go nearly off and enough.

Now I live have I rather have I down the city and I still go there all the time I went five times this past week it's phenomenal it's great for every possible occasion breads pastries whatever you got they got pizza once the night that's phenomenal. Definitely check it out if you're in the DC area so throw it a little left towards salue salue you know I'm a beloved customer and you're I have a quick special place my heart I feel about having thrown you a recommendation here on the podcast I'm on all my other local fonts here in DC in the past and with that Renee I'll turn over to you.

What do you have for us this week? Mine are so late I'm in a hotel room in Portland right now. I literally like I could show you a pillow. I think it's important that way. It is very happy I'm going to go outside and find myself some donuts after this it's lunch time here.

And I was in Madison the last couple days I had a brandy old fashion for the first time that was very interesting that was my yes never had one of those before but no I feel like I've been

“I've been working on work stuff the only thing that's been dominating in our house that my kids have been texting me about nonstop is like that and the New York Times pushed me an entire”

It's like six article series on this was like the BTS reunion in Seoul the giant kpop concert that happened and so I am on the road getting delugeed with kpop concert clips from my children

Paying will take it will take it when it would lies ahead for any of us with small children perhaps is a big kpop you

“And that is fine. That is fine. Even under is this getting me past into it.”

But regardless that brings us to the end of this week's episode rush. It's pretty is of course a production of law fair. So be sure to visit law fairmedia.org for our show page for linked to past episodes for our written work and the written work by the law for contributors And for information law fairs other phenomenal podcast series while you're at it be sure to follow law fair and social media wherever you socialize your media be sure to leave rating or view wherever you might be listening and be sure to sign up to become a material supporter of law fair on patreon

“For an ad free version of this podcast among other special benefits for more information visit law for media dot org slash support”

Our audio engineer producer this week was me of me and our music as always was performed by Sophia Yan and we are once again edited by the wonderful Jen patch.

On behalf of my guests Molly Tyler and Renee I am Scott our Anders and we will talk to you next week until then goodbye