 So, and then once someone does it and is incredibly successful, we will wait for like five to six years and when their company is big enough and then sue them for something copyright. Trade secrets. Trade secret. Yeah. It's a big one. Of course, we're talking about Patrick's amazing idea to take the slogan Nixon now and apply it to a digital assistant like Google now, except Nixon. But, you know, there is huge. Are you worried about privacy? Try Nixon now. Well, our Dixon says I should do this. I'm trying to do Nixon saying that Nixon says stuff. I don't know if I'm really successful. But get a sweep of the room for bugs. That was much better. Thanks, it's closer anyway. All my all my Nixon now cards just say I am not a crook, though. They it's not terribly helpful. I am not. You won't have Google now to kick around anymore. I think I'm actually imitating the Futurama version of Nixon, not the actual Richard. It sounds like, yeah. But, you know, I think it works. All right. I believe we are ready. I feel like Roger's got his screens ready and he's holding the baby and things are good. So here we go. Daily Tech News Show is powered by its audience, not outside organizations. To find out more, head dailytechnewshow.com slash support. This is the Daily Tech News for Tuesday, July 19th, 2016. I'm Tom Merritt, joining me as he does most Tuesdays. A Frenchman in Finland, Patrick Beja. How are you, sir? I am excellent. I am energized. I'm happy. And soon the internet and Twitter will bring all of that down in our discussion topic. I know, actually, in light of a couple of recent events, we're going to talk about online harassment, but but not so much what we think anybody should do. But sort of stepping back a little and saying, OK, this isn't a new problem. Why haven't we, you know, what is what is the nature of this problem that makes it so hard to solve? Maybe we'll kick around some some solutions. Maybe we'll inspire one of you guys to think of a solution. But we've got some other stories to talk about. First, Microsoft earnings came in above expectations. Good for them. Twitter will now let anyone apply to be verified. If you go to twitter.com slash form slash verify. And, hey, BlackBerry want a contract to supply crisis communication software to the United States Senate's Chief Security Service. Now here are some more top stories. And one must feel a little bit like the movie Groundhog Day for those involved. Judge Daniela Barbosa, Asantiao Desuza in the state of Rio de Janeiro has ordered an indefinite suspension of WhatsApp for failing to provide data as ordered. Yes, my friends, you are listening to the Tuesday, July 19th, twenty sixteen version of the show. This is happening for the third time. And for the third time, WhatsApp says the data is not stored on our servers. It's encrypted anyway, and we don't store it. We can't give you what we don't have. It has won twice previously on appeal based on the fact that they don't actually have the data. Reuters notes that Brazil's Attorney General even says, I think the judges are incorrectly interpreting a twenty fourteen law meant to provide a legal framework for the Internet when they do this. Appeals, judges, the Attorney General, WhatsApp, they're all saying they can't, you know, you can't suspend them for not forgiving you something they don't have. I don't know that they can't suspend them. I guess maybe yes, they actually right. No, they can't. They absolutely can't because they've done it three times. But the question becomes, does the judge, which by the way, awesome name. I think, you know, Spanish and Spanish sounding names are super long and awesome. Yeah, I assume it's Portuguese, right? Because Brazil, but oh, Brazil, of course. Yeah, but Spanish names work the same way. Anyway, does that judge have like, does he not understand the situation or is he trying to make a point? So what is his end game there? What does he actually want? Because clearly, WhatsApp can't and won't and can't give them what they want. So what is this going to accomplish? Do they want them to change the way they operate? Well, and with the Attorney General weighing in and saying, I think they're misinterpreting this law, it feels to me like what the judge might be saying. I know it's it's easy to say, oh, this judge just doesn't understand. I think the judge judges generally understand more than we give them credit for, I feel like these days. I think what the judge may be saying is the way I'm interpreting this law, it doesn't matter if you don't have the data. If you don't have the data, that is your fault for creating a system that prevented you from being able to hand over the data. In other words, we've talked before about, you know, there was a proposal here in the United States for a law that would say it would be illegal to create a system that would prevent you from handing over the data. That may be a little bit of the same logic that's behind these judges. Yeah, it would make sense. I think that could be made more clear, though. Yeah, well, and the appeals judges are all overturning this saying, no, they don't have the data. You can't make you can't suspend them for not handing over something they don't have. It is not, in fact, illegal to have end to end encrypted services in Brazil. And so they get let off the hook. So yeah, there is a disconnect between one level of judges and another. It would be a different thing if they said if they started a different proceeding saying you have a system where you can you can't give access to data when it's requested. Hence, we are applying these rules and doing these penalties to you. But this is not what is happening here. So I mean, it doesn't seem so, at least so social network, Snapchat and personal emoji maker, Bitmoji, announced a partnership in a blog post earlier today. Snapchat users can now use custom stickers and not Snickers from Bitmoji in both snaps and chat to participate users must have or create a Bitmoji account. Then link it to their Snapchat account. This is brilliant. And those of you who don't use Snapchat or Bitmoji or maybe even just use one of those two probably don't care at all. But there is a big cross section between these two and Snapchat continues to read their audience well. The fact that they had acquired Bitstrips, I think is one of the things that allows them to do this. They can bring that integration into Snapchat because of that team. So you have now another move for Snapchat to say, hey, here's a very popular way of communicating on the internet in a segment of the audience that we want to keep really happy and using Snapchat. The more I look at those things, the more I think that this is not for me, which is fine. But you know, it creates a kind of visual clutter that I don't think I'm a big fan of. That's I respect that opinion. I you are a better man than I am. I am a user of both these things and actually got a little excited when I realized that I could send my Bitmoji's on the Snapchat. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that I'm old man Patrick going like, oh, Bitmojis, why do you need to do all of this on your pictures to communicate back in my day? We used to send regular pictures with simple filters on Instagram. Yeah. And you know what? The thing about it that I enjoy is that our dear friend Scott Johnson had a birthday on Sunday. And instead of just writing happy birthday Scott or trying to rock my brain for something clever to say, I sent him a Bitmoji of me slaying a dragon in his name and said happy birthday under it. See, how perfect is that? You know what, you got me a little bit excited for a Bitmoji right now. So there you go. Bloomberg reports that on the strength of consumer demand for Pokemon Go, sorry, folks, it is a phenomenon and I know a few of you are really tired of hearing about it. You can skip ahead 30 seconds to a minute, but we're talking about market capitalization. Like Pokemon Go is having a huge effect on Nintendo's stock market cap rose to 39.8 billion in early trading this morning. This represents a doubling of the company's value and pushes the company's market value past Sony, at least for the moment. Additionally, the game is scheduled to launch in Japan on July 20th. It's going to be huge in Japan. They had been saying they were delaying launch in Japan because they didn't think they had the servers to cope with the demand. And one of the things that will launch with Japan will be trial sponsorships of gym locations in partnership with McDonald's. Gyms are an element of the game where you go and train your creatures or your monsters. John Russell at TechCrunch reports that further launches in Asia will come within the next two weeks. This is in my personal opinion, I'm not a financial analyst in any way. I think this is a gross misreading of what's happening here. Nintendo is the only company involved in this entire thing, I believe, which is publicly traded. So this is why all of the money, I don't think it can go into Niantic, it can go into the Pokemon company, but Nintendo owns a third of the Pokemon company and Nintendo is publicly traded. And of course, Pokemon games are usually exclusive to their consoles. So this is probably why the markets are seeing a lot of excitement for Pokemon Go, as are we all and they're trying to think, OK, where can I invest in something that's related to this? But Nintendo, I believe, is not making a lot of money out of that Pokemon Go hype and revenue. Most of it is probably going to the app stores, to Niantic, and to the Pokemon company itself. And you might say, well, it's an opportunity for Nintendo's own console to benefit from the popularity of Pokemon. But that has never stopped. Pokemon has always been a hugely successful and popular franchise, and they have put out Pokemon games every two or three years that have sold incredibly well. So the future of Nintendo still rests on what's going to happen with the Nintendo NX, which is going to be presented later this year and come out early next year. And that might still be either a great, you know, it might be great, but it's not going to have much to do with Pokemon. So I'm still skeptical. I have three reasons why this might be happening. And again, neither one of us are financial analysts, but one is that everyone had been clamoring for Nintendo to have a mobile success. Their Mitomo app was fairly successful, and this one is even more successful. So now they've got a track record. They're involved in two successful mobile apps. The other is that this is visible. You are seeing this covered. I'm seeing this covered on Spanish national television. I'm seeing it covered on the morning shows in the United States. I mean, it is it is being talked about everywhere. And that leads to my third point is when something is talked about everywhere, some investors just jump in because they figured the buzz will make the stock rise for whatever reason and they'll be able to cash out when they feel like it's gotten to the top. Yeah, it would make sense. I'm still not sure this is a sound. I mean, it's kind of a bet without bases in my mind. And it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like one investor may say, oh, yeah, no, I realize that this isn't really bringing in as much money as this market capitalization should justify, but I know that everybody's buying it, so I better get in and ride that wave to the top. And so if all of those people are doing that, it does drive it up short term into into some some high numbers. At the same time, on a side note, I have had a few people take issue with us calling Pokemon Go Augmented Reality, because it doesn't, in fact, augment the reality. It superimposes a graphic over a picture, right? The Pokemon doesn't stick in the corner of the room. And so that that's fair to say, well, usually when people use augmented reality, they mean that it's actually putting something in your environment that isn't really there. And if you turn away from it, it goes away. Pokemon Go rides that line. If you're using the augmented reality part of the app and they call it that when you turn away from it, it disappears. So it is the barest minimum, but it isn't really true augmented reality. It doesn't put its characters in like real world situations. They don't they can't fall through greats. They can't sit on coffee tables, etc. Fair enough. Also, it might be worth mentioning that I believe even with this huge rise, the market capitalization for Nintendo is far from its highest point that it was in the 2000s at some point during the week. Oh, yeah, that is that is a good point. Definitely. Seagate announced the availability of a new hard drive in their Barracuda Pro line, topping out capacity at 10 terabytes. The platter based mechanical hard drive is aimed at network and surveillance storage. The new drive will retail for five hundred and thirty five dollars. But you know what happens when they make it for the server people in a little while, the price comes down and I can get it in my laptop. Ten terabytes, though. Yes, please. I'm always maxing out my terabyte. I need two terabytes at least. Ten terabytes would just make me feel comfortable. So I have, I think, four or five terabytes. This is more than I can ever do anything with. But I have some particular affection for the Barracuda line. I used many of them and was very happy with them for a long time. So it makes me happy to see that actual disk drives are not dead and still progressing tremendously. Yeah, we're getting to the point where solid state drives are starting to catch up in capacity, but magnetic drives or traditional platter drives are are still ahead if you need the the total amount of storage. I think that, yes, go ahead, never mind. No, no, you got something more to add. That's great. Yeah, I think the one terabyte SSDs are now in a comfortable place financially for a serious system. If you need a terabyte, you're probably going to be OK for a laptop or something like that, even for a desktop. And this is why it's going mostly to servers and surveillance storage, that kind of thing. I imagine most laptops are going to have SSDs nowadays and most computers are laptops. And the trend is for people to only have a small amount of storage and try to keep things in the cloud anyway. So yeah, I'm sure last thing I'm sure we're going to get lots of people who are going to write in and say, I need 30 terabytes for this. And I don't doubt you exist. Former St. Louis Cardinals Baseball scouting director Christopher Correa has been sentenced to forty six months in jail for accessing the Houston Astros Baseball team's email and database to look at confidential information, things like scouting reports, drafting strategies. He was also fine, two hundred seventy nine thousand dollars, two hundred seventy nine thousand thirty eight dollars. He pleaded guilty to five violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He gained access by guessing the password of a former Cardinals employee who then went to work for the Astros and used a similar password in both places. Sounded to me like it was a password centered around David Eckstein, the way they were describing it. The Cardinals fired Correa last year after the allegations surfaced. He's no longer an employee of the base and he did plead guilty. The question here, I mean, first of all, a lot of people put this on the subreddit. I imagine because they know I'm a Cardinals fan and this is deeply embarrassing to my favorite team. But side note to that, OK, a guy guessed a password and he he did an unauthorized thing. He should be punished, not for guessing the password, but for accessing the data, which he absolutely did. So some people are looking at this and saying, Hey, wait a minute, computer fraud and abuse act overreach again. This guy guessed a password and he gets 46 months in jail. If you look at it that way, it's absolutely ridiculous. I ask you, Patrick, if you look at it as, you know, forget that it sports an employee of one company accessing confidential information at another company and stealing it to help that company compete with an advantage. Just 46 months sound like it fits the crime to you. I have no idea, but certainly there should be a serious sentence. I mean, this is illegal. It's a crime. And I think it's not something. I mean, at some point, people are going to argue, well, 46 months is too much. How much do you think that he should get? 12 months, three months, nothing in jail time for stealing information? I think is the real question. I think some people think, yeah, absolutely. You've you've harmed a business. You've harmed people and you you should go to jail for that. I think other people say, look, this is a soft crime. Yes, he harmed them, but it wasn't long lasting. And did he really harm their lives in a way where did he ruin lives? I guess that's, yeah, that's a good point. But then the the question sort of gets transferred to should soft crimes, quote unquote, deserve actual jail time. And that's a different question, which I don't think I'm. I think the biggest problem for me that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should not enter into this really. And this is my biggest problem with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is what should be illegal is accessing the information and it really shouldn't matter how you do it. If he like had super leet hacking skills and got in and got the information or in this case, so a little bit of social engineering and just like, hey, I bet that guy used the same passwords or something similar. I'm going to guess him. It doesn't matter. That part doesn't matter. What should matter is what did he do and what damage did he cause? And maybe this is an appropriate punishment for that. I think opinions vary. The fact, though, that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act enters into this because it has computers is I think the thing that really bugs me because the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act should apply specifically to did you access a computer and that is the crime. That is the extent of the crime. Otherwise, you can just punish people for what they do after they access the computer. If all you do is access computer and you don't damage anything and you don't steal anything, should you be punished? Yeah, probably, but misdemeanor type punishment. If you steal corporate. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right, let's let's move on from that one. Starting later this year, Salesforce will only offer support for the Android version of its Salesforce one app to users of Google Nexus or Samsung Galaxy devices. Recode notes in support documents, Salesforce rights that we are targeting our support to a select number of Android devices to continue improving our overall Salesforce one for Android user experience. Users unsupported Android devices can download and install the app, but they won't get bug fixes or support. Yeah, this is a really interesting move by a company that can affect policy and purchases. Salesforce is used by large enterprises all across the world, and if suddenly they need to buy Samsung or Google Nexus phones to keep up to date with patches, that is a problem. The Salesforce will cause sales of Samsung and Google Nexus devices to go up because of this. And it's also, I think, a concern or manifestation of the concern of the Android ecosystem and Google should be paying very close attention to this because we're talking all the time about the fragmentation of the Android install base. And it's sort of basically, I understand it's not just talk because developers have to manage it every day, but this has a real world business implication that could, you know, if one doesn't change everything, but if two, three, four companies start operating in that kind of way, it could become something of a bigger concern. So in that way, I think it's worth keeping an eye on. And this has become somewhat of a religious argument. There are Android supporters who point to iOS and say, well, if you look at it a certain way, it's just as fragmented. You have you have iPads and you have older iPhones and things that don't work. And yes, there is complexity to both sides. But, you know, Oculus CTO John Carmack said that they decided to partner with Samsung on Gear VR to bypass, in his words, the development hell of Android. Now, he's probably overstating it, but developers do seem to say, yeah, it is a pain to try to make your Android apps work on as many devices as possible. And Salesforce is throwing in the towel on that for right or wrong. And maybe even if it were just perception, that is a perception that Google has not been able to beat down and Apple has. Well, so I think this is, you know, catering to the zealotry of some, whether they are Apple fanboys or Android fanboys is kind of silly. In this case, honestly, arguing that the Android ecosystem is not somewhat fragmented, at least is doesn't hold water at all. Certainly it has huge advantages compared to Apple, the Apple ecosystems. And in turn, Apple's ecosystems have advantages in different ways. There are different ecosystems and thanks for that. You know, that's what we want. However, one of the problems that we have in the Android world is that fragmentation. Now, the level of issues that it becomes, certainly it can be handled. It can be managed. But sometimes, apparently in this example, it is a significant issue and blinding, being blind to it and saying, oh, it's the same everywhere. I think it's not productive. In this case, it's probably something Google. Actually, let me rephrase that. Google has been taking a look at this and tried to improve in subsequent versions of Android that issue and has been improving it. So, yeah, it's it's simple. Look, simply looking at reality. Still at work in our chat room says it's an open market. Salesforce's competitors can support more phone types now. That that's where this will play out. If competitors are able to support more phone types and in such a way that it steals business from Salesforce, you'll see Salesforce start to support more phone types here. That but if other competitors go, well, you know what, it really isn't worth it for us to do that either. Then that advantage may not matter. And and that that that I'm not saying which way it will happen, but you will see how big of a problem this is because that's what the argument's all about. Right. There is fragmentation in iOS. There is fragmentation in Android. The argument is that the fragmentation in Android is worse, that the fragmentation in iOS is not very bad. And and and so you can have an argument about that all day long, but it takes some moves like this to show whether it's actually having an effect or not. Right. I think that's why I was saying this move specifically is interesting, but I don't think alone it means a lot. If we see two, three or four other examples of this, at that point, it could become a concern. If this, you know, if Salesforce is the only company ever doing this, it's going to have an impact for Salesforce customers, but I don't think it's going to be much beyond that. So yeah, thanks to all those who participate in our subreddit. You can submit stories and vote on them at dailytechnewshow.reddit.com. Mackwin UXIT is in there today, SP Sheridan, Steve Io, Motang, Mayor McCheese spelled M-A-H-E-R and more. Get in there and vote. Do some submitting Daily Tech News Show at reddit.com. That's a look at our top stories. All right. So I want to get right to the heart of this because we can get very much caught up in the incidents. Recently, the BBC interviewed four of its Urdu journalists about online hate, excellent segment on BBC World Service. And there is an online component of that as well, describing the things you would expect, everything from simple comments about appearance, when they should be talking about issues all the way up to vitriol and hatred and people telling them to be quiet. Yesterday, a lot of you may have seen actress Leslie Jones making a series of posts on Twitter about hate and racism and just being tired of dealing with it, asking Twitter to do more to combat harassment. And of course, the most dramatic is Pakistani social media celebrity, Kandil Baloch, who posted controversial videos on Facebook and including most recently a selfie with a senior member of the Pakistani clergy and she was murdered by her brother who confessed or at least she was murdered and her brother confessed to the murder, calling it an honor killing. And that brings in a whole different side of this story. But it just shows that online harassment can be everything from making someone uncomfortable all the way up to to causing a society to have deadly consequences. It's not just awful because there are so many people using social networks and we're not just talking about Twitter. We're talking about all different types of social networks out there. This problem isn't new either. That was the thing Patrick and I were talking about when we were looking at this story today. I experienced all of these examples of all of these kinds of things when I was running a forum on Subbrilliant.com in the 1990s. You had people who would come in and just spew hate. You had people who would come in and try to undermine other people. I definitely saw this happen in the CNET communities where they had to clamp down on people. They had to ban people. They had to silence people. You had to manage the communities to stop it from getting out of control. Of course, Twitter, obviously, very famously has a problem keeping control of its audience. Facebook has more internal walls and they have fought their battles. But it has been a little easier because they compartmentalized things more, but they don't have the wide open nature of anybody being able to post. Snapchat has gone the other way and said that we almost have no way for you to react directly to each other, certainly not in public. So Patrick, why do you think these problems reoccur? Why do you think we're still dealing with this and dealing with it on a more massive scale all the time has to do with Internet adoption? But it doesn't seem like we've figured out the best practices for dealing with it. Yeah, for sure. Before I go into that, I'll just mention, because I'm sure we're going to get emails about this, the case in Pakistan, the honor killings are a societal problem that also exists outside of social networks. So I don't think this is just to make that clear. Also, the issue, it seems that these things affect, it doesn't seem. It's true that these issues of harassment affect minorities and we can include women in that category a lot more than other people. Now, we're two white men discussing this, so I don't think it's very easy for us to discuss that specifically. But the issue of harassment is, as you were saying, a constant problem that has existed for a long time online. I think a lot of people are saying that the common wisdom about this is anonymity breeds these kinds of behaviors. And the more I used to think that was the case, but the more I look at examples where there is limited anonymity, maybe you're identified by a nickname, but your account can be identified by the company that manages it, or even the authorities. And you still see these kinds of things happening all the time. So I'm honestly not sure that it's about anonymity anymore. I'm wondering if there isn't some kind of dysfunctional, either human or societal trigger that makes some people in certain situations let go of their... So basically it might not be anonymity, it might be the remoteness of not being right in front of the person that lets your basest instincts and comments out for a lot of people. Yeah, one of the things that I learned over the years was if someone is being rude to someone else online, responding with respect and directness often undermines it because that person may not have realized how their words were coming out over the Internet. So there's one part of it is I say something in the Internet that I don't think is offensive, and it turns out it can be read that way. Or I say something like because I'm angry and then when someone confronts me on it, I realize, oh, that other person is a real person. I'm not speaking to someone who is anonymous. I'm speaking to a real person and I feel bad about it. But that doesn't seem to solve the ills because that works well when you have a limited number of people involved, when you're a famous person or even just commenting on a hashtag that has a lot of pickup, you'll have thousands of eyes on what you're writing and you can't respond to the number of people who are spewing things at you. It would tire anyone out. I think yeah, there are two elements to this. The first one is of course the person receiving the abuse and how the person or the authority trying to manage it and how do you respond? And we've largely been proven to be ineffective, I think. We can try and it's like this game where you try to bash the little things that come out of the holes with a hammer. How is that called? Wack-a-mole. Wack-a-mole, there you go. It's a Wack-a-mole game and you can never get everyone. The other element is the people, you know what we were talking about, why do people get these? I'm sure there are a few people that are actually bad people. There are the rotten apples, the rotten souls, however you wanna call them and in some of those cases it very much feels like they are actually bad people. But most people I don't think are that way. I'm wondering if it's not, you know, coming back to that idea of the remoteness, when you see something silly happening on TV or when you see someone being an idiot on TV or something you don't like happening on TV, you might throw out an insult at your TV and that obviously doesn't reach the person in any way. So I'm wondering if people aren't reacting in the same way and as you were saying, not realizing that it's a real person behind it and it's not even, you know, we're saying they don't realize it's a real person. Obviously they know it's a real person but they don't react as if they were. They don't act as if they were. We're not as a society used to people being able to hear you, right? Yeah, and you know, in the chat room Shane is saying, for example, there should be real world consequences. It's too easy and there should be real world consequences. I'm not even sure, I mean, unless again, each person that does something offensive gets a little jolt of electricity, for example, you know, how do you, and I think the big issue there in how to handle these is it is incredibly easy to swing the hammer all the way the other way and start punishing for lack of a better word by banning, you know, all these things. Something that is just expressing an opinion that you disagree with. So it's difficult to handle, but I'm not sure that it's about society getting older. You're saying we're not used to these kinds of interaction anymore. That's why I was asking, maybe it's something about human nature. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, yes, people like us have been living with this for decades, most people haven't. So I wouldn't give up yet on the idea that we will learn to deal with this newfound capability. I don't think we have matured in our ability to use the internet yet as a world because more and more people are still getting used to using it until it's been around for a while for most people. I don't think that will happen, but there is something within us that isn't solved. And you can see that in the micro communities. One thing that strikes me as we're talking here is the communities that worked the best always had a strong sense of identity and who they were and why they were there, strong support from all of the people involved. And the biggest deal was the ability to give consequences, real world consequences, not necessarily punitive consequences, but to say like, oh, well, if you say that, you may lose your account privileges for a while. You may get kicked out of the chat room. You may not be able to post on the forum. Managed communities and not all communities can be managed the same way. So I'm not giving a prescription here, but I'm saying the ones that I know that work, the ones like CNET community that worked, they worked because they had in CNET's case, Lee Koo, the community manager, constantly in there figuring out how to keep the community healthy. And I think that may be one of the reasons we see Twitter as the poster child of bad community behavior, because it is one big pool and that is impossible to manage. And the problem is, you're right. If we, you know, society is kind of old already, our civilization. And still, I think you see issues of racism, sexism, intolerance and gender, right? And you're always going to have a percentage, I don't know, 10, 15%, which is already too high a number in my opinion, but I'm wondering if it's not low bowling that number of people who are intolerant to something. And in that percentage, it represents millions of people. So when you have someone expressing something on Twitter, it's always, there is always going to be hundreds or thousands of people ready to harass them in return. And as we've said and as we've seen, some categories of people are way more bigger victims of this than others. So I don't know that it's going to disappear. So maybe the solution would be for Twitter to get back to what you were saying, for Twitter to hire hundreds or thousands of moderators. But then, you know, and then you get into the situations as we do, for example, with the Apple App Store, where someone or, you know, every once in a while, someone gets accused wrongly of doing something or their app gets blocked. And in this case, someone gets their voice shut down and we accuse the company of infringing our rights to free speech. When I say that Twitter's community is impossible to manage, I am not giving Twitter an out. I'm not giving them an excuse. I'm certainly not saying that they have nothing more they could do. I'm not trying to let them off the hook. What I'm saying is, attempting to manage all of the world, 500 million daily active users or whatever it is they have, as one community is an impossible task. You have to break it down. And that's what Facebook did. They built these internal walls so that yes, you can share with each other, but you're also able to isolate yourself to just your friends, just your friends and family, just your friends and friends, et cetera. You can withdraw into that space. With Twitter, you can protect your account and improve your followers, certainly, but it's not easy. But that's not the point of Twitter. Yeah, and it's not the point of Twitter. So is it that Twitter is just too big and it needs to be broken down into more manageable, more cohesive communities that want to be together and have publications? Can we not have a massive wide open platform like that without amplifying the small bad actors? Like I say, it's the spam effect. You don't have that many people causing a problem, but even a small percentage of 500 million is enough to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people. I believe Bill Gates had it right when he suggested we charge each email we wanted to send a very small sum and that would make the problem of Sam go away. Maybe that was a good idea. Twitter should charge people a small amount to post. Exactly. No, but I mean, seriously, I'm wondering, I asked about, I talked about it half as a joke, but I'm wondering if it might not be an actual thing to explore to hire thousands of people to moderate it. It's expensive, you know. It's very expensive to hire people, but. Yeah, but I think it might be time for Twitter to declare a war on harassment. Well, and that's what other communities have done is they hire moderators, they hire people. AOL got in big trouble by having volunteer moderators back in the day, but AOL was famous for having fairly healthy communities, relatively speaking. So yeah, and people talk about Twitch chat and they talk about YouTube chat as being cesspools and they quite often are, the majority of the time they are. But I think part of the reason that the ones that aren't are successful is because they have very active moderators. So yeah, I don't know that we've come up with the solution, but I hope maybe we've pointed in some directions about what we can do and maybe what we're ignoring and what certain companies are ignoring. Let's get to our pick of the day. Philip Shane writes, I've been doing a lot of trip planning lately and for a long time I've been a fan of searching flights with Kayak.com, I've also used Hipmunk, but I just discovered that you can enter an airport code like JFK into Google and get a list of flights and airfares. And if you wanna go right to it, you can go to google.com slash flights. It's incredibly easy, faster than the other sites I've used to purchase a plane ticket. You click on the button and you're taken directly to that flight on the airline's site. Someday maybe Google will have self-flying planes, but until then you can use this. Have you tried the Google flights thing? I will now. Yeah, this is one that they're getting in antitrust controversies over because it's preferring Google's flight service over Travelocity, Hipmunk, et cetera. So they have to be very careful with this. But the airline's like it because it sends the purchase to the airlines, which Google can afford to do. Google doesn't really make much money out of this. Maybe some referral fees, that's it. Send your picks to the feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. You can find more picks at dailytechnewshow.com slash picks. Real quickly, on yesterday's show, Russell said, you and Lamar were talking about the cost options for watching the upcoming Star Trek series. He does the math on purchasing them. He says, if you bought them in SD, it would be $8 a month, HD, $12 a month. You might get a slight discount. So it seems to me that $6 a month for CBS All Access is likely an okay deal by comparison. I'm sure there are gonna be other options, but just doing a little math this morning for fun. So he's like, yeah, you know what? CBS All Access is priced where it's cheaper per month to watch the shows with commercials than it is to buy them and watch them without the commercials. So there you go. There's your price differential in HD. It's $6 a month extra to watch them without commercials and not have to deal with CBS All Access's app interface. If I was a Star Trek person, I would pay that in an instant. You'll get it on Netflix because you live in the not United States. Do I? Yeah. Well, and the thing that will get me a lot of hate is that I do get it on Netflix and I'm probably not going to watch it, are you? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, that is it. That is it. That is it. We're done. No, we really are done. That's the end of the show. Thank you, Patrick Meija, for all of the non-trekkers out there that still wanna follow you. Where can they find more of your works? They can go to twitter.com slash notpatrick or facebook.com slash notpatrick. They can also go to frenchspin.com and there you will find the latest episode of the Phileas Club where, so if you remember, last week I talked about the Brexit episode where we talked amongst probably more Brexit stay camp people than leavers. Well, last episode, we recorded last week, was with someone from the lead camp. And wouldn't you know, we actually had a civil constructive conversation. It is possible. And he was a perfectly logical and reasonable person who had his own understandable reasons for supporting leave. Yeah, I disagreed with all of them. Sure. No, but that doesn't mean that he was a ranting, raving loom majority here. Yeah, exactly. So yeah, if you wanna have a little bit more of an example of how people can actually have questions on things they disagree, you can go to frenchspin.com and listen to the Phileas Club. I love that episode. And I love that you went out of the way to find that that countering argument, that reasonable countering argument. That was fantastic. DailyTechnewshow.com slash support is the way to help us out. We rely entirely on you to make the show happen and you, most of you, some of you do it. If you're willing to help the show, you can go there or patreon.com slash DTNS, which gets you all kinds of extra perks as well. If you want just the headlines, subscribe to our new show, Daily Tech Headlines, and get the tech news of each day in less than 10 minutes at dailytechnewshow.com slash subscribe, or you can search for Daily Tech Headlines in your podcast app. Our email addresses feedback at DailyTechnewshow.com. You can get to the show live Monday through Friday, 4.30 p.m. Eastern at diamondclub.tv and alphageekradio.com. And you can visit our website, DailyTechnewshow.com. Back tomorrow with Scott Johnson, talk to you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com. I hope you have enjoyed this program. Butchakong. Thank you. Excellent. Good show. It was fun. Yeah, that was a good conversation. I like that. Good topic. Thank you, Roger. It's definitely an interesting one and the one that isn't talked about a lot. Well, it's talked about in the, they need to do something about it. Yes. And my opinions on this have evolved over time, mostly because a lot of the things that worked, and I didn't even mention Tech TV, but Tech TV's forums and chat rooms as well, things that worked there don't work in this massive scale. No, they definitely don't scale. But speaking of scales, show about titles. The scales will fall from our eyes as we read these show about titles. What do we got? Brazil, blocking, baffling, buffoonery. Baffoonery, I think it's... Points for alliteration, Silverblade. Greater Internet F forward theory. Okay. Lune comment, abandon all ye who hate, or who Twitter here. Abandon all hate ye who, right. Abandon all hate ye who Twitter here. Yes. A Frenchman in Finland, that was just an earlier. Old's fair in hacking and baseball. I like that one. There's no hacking and baseball. Would be another one. That was actually really good, too. Custom sneakers. Strike at Rich is like, Strike at Rich and Shane are topping the charts today here. What about, does the internet destroy empathy? It's a very, it's not clever, but it's a very... I feel like we didn't give a good, very good answer to that question. Yeah. We're just asking questions. Yeah. Well, sometimes that's how the discussion starts. Sure, sure. Playing whack-a-troll. Ah, I like that, too. I like that. That might be my favorite so far. Whack-a-troll, whack-a-troll. All right, let's go with playing whack-a-troll. What do you guys think? Yep. You have already voted for this. I know I'm just highlighting it so I can copy it. Sorry. Jeez, your butt, relax. Well, now that we've fixed online drooling and the Brexit, what do we do next? Brexit. Oh, he did on the Philius Club. Yeah, that was another show. Well, next, I believe fixing the US election is what we should do. Well, fixing the election means sitting different ahead of you. I think some people may be trying to fix the election on both sides, mind you. Well, the election actually broke in, though. I mean, it does raise that question. You might not like the people involved. Apparently, my vote won't count at all because they've already given all 55 electoral votes to the Democratic nominee. Wait, what? There was a story in, what was it in? New York Daily News? They're like, they did a poll, one of those polls, and it was so far in one direction. They're like, it's not even a battleground. Well, California's never been really a battleground state. No, but it's been closer sometimes. I just saw a message on my Slack channel. A friend of mine says, my brother just sent me a message. WhatsApp is blocked in Brazil. Can you tell dad to use Telegram, please? Ha, ha, ha! Well, that's the, you know, that's the side of it. We've almost forgotten, in the ridiculousness of them continuing to go after it, we forget like, and blocking WhatsApp doesn't even really do anything. I think that you could mention this if it comes up next time. Yeah, yeah, I might, I will. That's great. Can you tell dad to use Telegram? Then people will be like, well, you know, Telegram is not nearly as secure as the signal protocol. Which is not. I'm sure WhatsApp is just as secure as Telegram. Oh, WhatsApp uses the signal protocol. Oh, well, you know what? Telegram is nowhere as secure as the signal protocol. Tell him to use signal. Who else picked up the signal protocol? It was Facebook Messenger, wasn't it? But that's that weird thing where you have to turn it on each conversation. You don't get it every time. Each conversation, you have to do it? Yeah, you have to go into secret mode or... That is bad. No, yeah. There's good reasons for it. They want to provide these services in Messenger that they can't if you're end-to-end. Because the messages are stored only on your phone. So they have to be able to read them to do bots and stuff like that. Right, no, of course. But I thought you could set up people with whom your conversations would always be. You know what? Don't overinterpret what I'm saying. Maybe there is a way to have a persistent system like that. I just mean that it's not on by default. And I think you have to set it up per conversation. Although once you set it up for a conversation, I imagine that conversation stays secret. Right. So is the patch for WoW live? Oh, maybe it's live in the US. Oh, it's supposed to go live today, right? Yeah, yeah. Yes, many of you who are watching this live may want to pop over on DiamondClub.tv to BitTorrent News. Justin Robert Young going live, kicking it, man. I don't know, did you get a chance to watch any of it, Patrick? He was doing a great job. What's happening? He is hosting BitTorrent News coverage of the Republican National Convention. Oh, really? Yeah. That's awesome. Yeah, and doing some field reporting as well. He helped break the story yesterday about the attempt to do a roll call vote to unbind the delegates, which didn't succeed. But they were able to cover that as it was happening. So what's the call on the news on the speech plagiarism thing? Well, that depends on where you stand. No, but is it? Do we have a? No, I mean, if you are someone who supports her, you're going to say, look, sometimes things sound the same because people say the same things all the time, which is perfectly reasonable. And if you're against her, you're going to say, no, she ripped off that paragraph and she's a plagiarist. Do you honestly? I mean, we're live. I know you want to stay neutral. Do you honestly believe that this is? I mean, I can. What I honestly believe is that if you prefer one candidate over the other, it's going to absolutely change your perception of this. That is dodging the question. No, it's not. Yes, it is. You're being coy. No, I'm not being coy. There is no way to prove that it's plagiarism. The one thing that I would like to see someone say is plagiarism. I would like to see someone show how many other instances of one political speech having a paragraph that is very similar to another political speech unintentionally. Tom, I think you're part of the problem. And I'm being very serious. I think being neutral as a journalist is incredibly important. I think sometimes you need to call out things when they happen. And you're valuing your neutrality. This is not one of those things in my opinion. We're just having a difference of opinion. Well, I disagree with your assessment. Because I think you prefer one candidate over the other. I do, but that's not why I'm saying this. I would call the other person doing something similar in the same way. Well, and that's what I would like to know is how many other times has this happened that we've either forgot about or didn't notice? You know, I think, well, maybe this is getting into political territory, and you don't want to do that in this channel. Well, it's already in political territory. Yeah, but this is reasonable. I was going to get less reasonable. Well, yeah. And honestly, it isn't the thing that makes a difference. When you're saying you need to call BS when it's important, I don't think this is that thing. I don't think this is important. It really doesn't matter whether she did that or not. Well, yeah, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I agree. I do think, however, that BS has not been called in the past. I think it's being called now. Well, you guys were talking about this a little on the Brexit episode of the Phileus Club. And the fact of the matter is a lot of times calling BS on things for people backfires because it assumes that, well, if I can just show people that this is BS, they'll change their mind. And the fact of the matter is, no, they won't. It'll actually solidify them in their position. And they'll come up with even more mental gymnastics and reasons why they need to continue to believe what they believe. If you actually want to change someone's mind, you have to move towards them and say, well, you're right about a lot of these things. But what about this one thing? That is a, there's a great artistic article about it, is when you call bullshit and say, hey, what you're believing isn't true, people actually retreat and say, no, it is true. Which is what we've seen a lot in things like climate change. That's one where I will say, yes. No, the climate is in fact changing. There's solid evidence about this. But you won't hear me going and shouting about it all the time because that's what caused people to kind of say, no, I don't want to believe it. And so you guys keep telling me it's going to be a dangerous and it's not dangerous yet. And so I'm going to deny it. Yeah, I understand the thought process. I still think that for some things, like climate change or the age of the earth or these kinds of things, at some point, first, you know, for some things we can argue a lot, you know, the right to bear arms, the right to choose. There are many things that are highly divisive, but I agree there needs to be a conversation about. Some things, however, are plainly untrue. And in those cases, I think it's untrue or unacceptable. And the thing is, it's hard to decide when something is or isn't unacceptable, but it's kind of when I know it when I see it. And sometimes people are not, you know, are playing with these ideas, but there's been a lot of unacceptable things happening. Like, I really want to have an episode of the Phileus Club where people explain to me how the Clinton, which I don't know a lot, but a lot of people are saying, well, you know, you have to choose between the plague and, you know, another plague when you talk about Clinton and Trump. And I don't know Clinton enough, and I'm sure she's a politician, but, and this is my personal opinion. Some of the things that I'm hearing from the Trump side make me make it difficult to believe that she would be as bad as this. I'm sure she's bad, but, you know, I don't understand how it's like, oh, it's the same thing. Many of the things from the Clinton side that are being said about Trump are not true. No, I'm not hearing stuff that, I don't know what the Clinton side is saying. I'm just hearing what Trump is saying. Well, there's your problem. Okay. Oh, what you're saying is they're there. And you know, you're only listening to one voice. Well, it's the voice. Wait, I don't understand. There's apparently one voice telling you, look, listen to this crazy stuff he's saying. No, and you're not hearing anyone saying, listen to the crazy stuff she's saying. No, I'm just, I'm not hearing someone tell me, listen to what the crazy stuff to the crazy. There are people saying that. Okay, but I'm just hearing what he's saying. Like just, you know, tweets and speeches and these kinds of things, right? Yeah, but you're hearing it from where? From here? You're getting called, your attention is getting called to it. Also, he's better at that game. But yeah, like, if you are in a particular mindset, you will want to see the crazy things in the person you think is crazy. Okay, is there anything that someone would ever say that would cause you to say this is unacceptable and it should not be like that? Yeah, and that's where I go back to saying, like, let's say she did, that her speechwriter, which by the way, she didn't write the speech. Her speechwriter copied a speech over it. That is something where I'm like, yeah, honestly, it's probably an accident if it is true. But it doesn't really matter. That's all I was saying. Now you're trying to bring me over into another argument and make me come up with something. And I'm like, yeah, of course, there are things that if someone said them, I'd be like, no, actually, there was a Holocaust. The climate is changing, evolution is true. Like there are definitely things that I believe because I am of a very high level of confidence that they're true. Okay, so I guess I'm gonna go back to another question which we discussed in the fitness club, as you said, is it possible, and this is beyond the US election, is it possible to find a way to make reality matter in those debates and those questions? When we talked about it in the fitness club, it was about 350 million pounds sent a week to the U that the Brexit leave camp was covering. Your follow-up conversation, he mentioned like, yeah, but there were also lots of lies being said on the other side. And that's always the problem is you choose which lies you want to identify. But I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case. I think in this instance, the reason for the lies on the other side was exactly for what you were explaining, which is if you confront the people who are convinced of something, then if you tell them, well, listen, this is inaccurate, this is untrue, they don't believe it, right? So I think the other camp was trying to do a sort of an arms race saying, well, if we leave then it's gonna be World War III, these kinds of things, which obviously are CD as well. But at the core of it, there is still an argument that is inaccurate, like objective. I guess what I'm trying to say is there are some things that are objectively untrue and they don't seem to matter. And I would say almost all the time that's true on both sides of an argument where one person is spinning or saying something that is objectively untrue. I want to go to the chat room and Shane is saying 10 seconds to Hitler being mentioned. And I want to point out that we didn't. Oh, now it's Godwin's law, boom. I want to point out that we didn't. So I think we- Well, no, I didn't mention the Holocaust, so. Oh, you did, damn it. That exactly got, I don't know. Yeah, I put a link to an LA Times article. It's not the Ars Technica article I was thinking of, it's a more recent one. But it's just talking about a study, this is a more recent study, showing that we truly believe that in most intractable conflicts, the real problems are not the real issues. There are psychological barriers that prevent societies from identifying opportunities for peace. And they say if you want to change attitudes, don't argue, agree extremely. I'll read the article, it seems. Well, a part of it, I mean, I think the trouble you're having, Patrick, is you assume everyone's rational and that they would be persuaded or at least moved by- No, I think you guys are being too rational. This is an issue of some point leaving rationality out of it and just saying, this should not happen, this is not true, this is unacceptable. And maybe the problem is it happens all the time on trivial issues. So the value of powerful disagreement loses all meaning. And that's where it becomes difficult to make a point when you are actually right, like things like the earth is not 6,000 years old. Right. Because you're dealing on an emotional level and when you get to that point, you're intersecting a bunch of other things, one of them being identity of the person, personal identity, social economic situation. Like what Tom was saying is true, it's like people aren't necessarily arguing that direct point, but for them, it is a metaphor for a number of other issues that might be lying underneath, whether it's socioeconomic inequality, what they see is some people doing better than they are and they can only do that because they're in a privileged position and because they're in a privileged position and they tell you something that you firmly believe is not the case, it's effectively your only weapon against them, like people will argue because that's the only thing they have to fight back. I mean, it's a very complicated topic and it's probably something that a psychology major would have a better time explaining. Yeah, I don't know. To a certain extent, I agree with you that if there is something untrue being said, there needs to be someone pointing out that it's untrue. That's why I love PolitiFact and factcheck.org, but at the same time, waving those facts around doesn't change people's opinions and that's been shown to be true too. I'm wondering if that's actually, it's not gonna change some opinion. The people who are entrenched are not gonna change their opinion, but I don't think that in the case, maybe I'm wrong, but in the case of Brexit, the Brexit debate, I don't think that there were actually 50% of the people, I think it was a lack of understanding and education on the issue. Maybe, but that's also true in almost every election and you will always hear the losing side make that argument. And that doesn't mean that you're not right this time, but it's also always the argument. Whoever loses says, we just didn't, the people who voted for that thing I don't like aren't educated in why it's a bad idea. Actually, the Brexit thing is a very rare occurrence. It's not a regular election. It's an issue that is very specific and that was, it's not just like every other thing. One of the best points that came out in the Phileus Club was it didn't allow for subtlety. You were either leave or stay. That was it, leave or remain. And there were lots of people like, well, I don't love the EU. I do like this part about it, but I really don't like this other part about it. But you were like, well, you either have to be leave or remain, you can't be like, well, couldn't we just change this one bit, right? And it's a much more complex issue than that. And I know that was Cameron's attempt was to say, I went, I negotiated a change in our agreement, and this is what I brought back, but it wasn't enough to really make a difference for most people. They couldn't see what he had gotten changed. Well, it was too minor, I think, for the people who wanted to leave anyway. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think there should have been a third option saying, yeah, I would really like to change that bit. As you said, Tom, I think that would have been an absolutely valid third answer to the question. But read that LA Times article. Not even just to, you know, just because it's a really interesting article, I hadn't read it. I'm gonna go read it too. Hey, do you wanna end on an actual Godwin point? Sure, why not? We might as well. This is how we got Nazis, because people didn't stand up. There you go, are you happy? That is a really, really good point. There has to be a line where you say, wait a minute, no, it is not okay to do whatever that is, right? Okay, you're being reasonable. Trump is Hitler. This is what I say, is that okay? Clint is also Hitler. We're all Hitler. I'm Hitler. You know, and that's the point, and that's one of the shameful aspects of kind of doing something where this is Nazism, this is Hitler, is that at some point, you tend to water it, the effectiveness of those terms down where they become like, eh, able to shrug their shoulder, eh. Yeah, of course. That's nice. All right, and clearly I wasn't being serious in those last three. No, of course. Neither was I. Just in case. Thanks everybody, if you made it this far, for continuing to watch next time, we hope. Thanks, bye.