 Debra Sharkey has supported independent tech news directly for five years. Be like Debra. Become a DTNS member at patreon.com slash DTNS. This is the Daily Tech News for Wednesday, June 19th, 2019 in Los Angeles. I'm Tom Merritt. And from Studio Feline, I'm Sarah Lane. From Salt Lake City, Utah, I am Scott Johnson. And I'm the show's producer, Roger Chang. We are going to talk about the YouTube Kids app and how no kids use it, and instead use YouTube and what we think about that. We've also got a disturbing report from The Verge about working conditions at Facebook moderation contractors. So hold on, folks, there's there's also some pleasant news today. And let's start with a few tech things you should know. Amazon announced a new version of its eInk reader, the Kindle Oasis, with the ability to change the color temperature of the screen. Users can make the display show a more off-white tone for nighttime reading. The tone can be scheduled to auto adjust at a predetermined time or in relation to sunrise and sunset. Kobo readers have similar functionalities, as some of you might be familiar with this. The new Kindle Oasis goes on sale July 24th, starting at two hundred fifty dollars. Oh, that's expensive. Hey, look at this, making it expensive. Apple added 1000 Best Buy retail locations as certified repair centers for iPhones and other Apple products. Apple now has 1800 third party authorized service locations. That's just in the US. Samsung also authorized repairs for its galaxy phones at Best Buy as well. Sources tell CNET that Samsung is going to announce the Galaxy Note 10 on August 7th at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. That makes sense. That's where they announced the Galaxy Note 9. Samsung has not made the announcement official, though, so plans could still change. But now you got a little heads up. Google launched a Chrome extension called Suspicious Site Reporter. The extension looks for suspicious qualities and turns orange if it detects them. If you agree with the site being questionable, you can click a Send Report button, which then sends Google a screenshot, the URL and site HTML. All right, let's talk a little bit more about Casey Newton's Verge Report. The Verge that Casey Newton, as you mentioned, reports a disturbing working condition situation at Cognizant, a contractor conducting moderation for Facebook in Tampa, Florida. Three former Facebook moderators broke non-disclosure agreements to go on the record about their jobs at Cognizant. This is including office dirty jokes, sexual harassment claims, threats of violence from co-workers and widespread PTSD from the repeated exposure to graphic and often illegal content as part of their jobs. Facebook has about 30,000 people working in its safety and security efforts. About half are content moderators. Facebook plans to audit the program of contractors later this year, including surprise visits. It will raise contracted wages up to $3 an hour or three additional dollars an hour and add employee well-being to a contractor employment evaluation. Facebook is building a global resiliency team tasked with improving the well-being of both full-time employees and contractors. This is a disturbing read. Yeah, Casey Newton even has a has a warning at the top of that because it's talking about dirty conditions, bad office behavior and the fact that they have to look at horrible things. And I'm not even going to repeat the things that are described in the article. They largely in the article have to do with animals, not with humans. And they're still very disturbing. That's something you're going to have to deal with if you're doing content moderation like this. Facebook's employees should have to expose themselves in order to be able to stop that and have a human reviewer. That that's a danger of the job. What that's not what's so upsetting about this. What is upsetting is that it's a contractor who, honestly, I felt like the description of the contractor felt like every contractor I've ever encountered, whether I've worked for them or not. Dirty working conditions, sharing desk, not really caring about employees. That that's all very typical. But then when you add on top of that, the kind of work they're doing and how messed up that is, how messed up that can make you, how they don't really provide support for the trauma people feel going through that, how they don't properly screen to make sure like, hey, maybe this isn't the job for you. I think that's what's most disturbing about this report. Yeah, I in the in the report, several people are, you know, have gone on record to explain their working conditions and how they didn't necessarily understand what the job was before getting into it. Now, Cognizant would know that this is a sort of job that, you know, you're going to see some stuff, you know, you got to have got, you know, got to be tough about it. If you have a history of, let's say, anxiety and or depression, might not be the job for you. Doesn't sound like a lot of these folks were vetted properly. Now you might say, well, if you know that you have you're predisposed to these sorts of things, this isn't the job for you. But I'm not sure that some of those people who would be looking for, you know, full time wages would know this ahead of time. So that's where it gets tricky. I think a lot of people probably go into this job going, oh, well, what am I going to what do I expect here is once in a while, an image of partial nudity or I might run into something that just swears so bad it can't possibly be allowed. I don't think they have any idea what's waiting for them. There are some really, really cruel and greasy stuff that gets posted that we never see. We end up with just the sanitized version of the social network. Well, not even sanitize, but imagine the stuff you do see and imagine what they have, what they see that doesn't make it. All of it gets filtered out before it gets to our news feeds. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's like this incredible jump in scale or severity. And they're exposed to it so that they can then get rid of it so that we aren't exposed to it. It's a job you don't think about somebody having on your behalf as a user of the service. But there they are working at it and it sounds miserable. I read the entire article and it's awful. Some of the stuff these guys described saying. And I'm sure we're not even getting the worst of it in that article. And Facebook, you know, this is familiar on this show, certainly. Facebook using third-party companies and then saying after the fact, we didn't really realize they were doing what they were doing. And we thought that they were following procedures that maybe they weren't following. They weren't vetting people as properly as they were supposed to be vetting, et cetera. So Facebook saying, listen, we're going to audit the stuff. We've got companies across the North America that might not be in compliance with what we thought that they were. We're going to do better, raise some wages, et cetera. That's all the right thing. And, you know, maybe Facebook didn't have any reason to understand that this was as big of a problem as it is beforehand. So, you know, it's hard to kind of say, like, well, Facebook's at fault here because I think probably they were in the dark more than anything. You know, well, yes and no. The one thing I would like to add to that, because I agree with everything you said, Sarah. I think it's easy to want to throw sticks and stones at Facebook, but it's cognizant, the contractor that's at fault here, but also the wider culture of these companies, Google, Facebook, Amazon, using contractors to shield themselves from liability and cost, right? It's costly to employ 30,000 people in safety and security efforts, about 15,000 of them being content moderators. That's a lot of expense. And, you know what? That's not good for the bottom line. I know from experience with my wife working at YouTube that most of the people she worked with were not Google employees. They were they were part of a contractor that ran things for Google. So it didn't hit Google's bottom line in the same way. And this this is sort of a hidden part of business, not just in technology, but very much in technology where contractors are the ones doing the jobs for companies. And these companies therefore don't have a lot of control over what those contractors do. Roger, are you going to say something? No, I was going to make a very quick comment. This actually I had a good friend who was a police officer. And this a lot of what was told in that article reminds me of a lot of the experience that police officers deal with because you are dealing with, you know, as part of the job, you're dealing with the 80 percent 80 percent of your time is dealing with the bottom 10 percent of societal issues. And so you see that day in and day out. She's like in three years, she was burnt out. It's like she couldn't deal with it anymore. It's just like day after day. And it's not to say that every incident was was as bad, but it all builds up over time. Well, to move this story 180, YouTube is introducing an augmented reality feature to let users try on makeup from the YouTube app. A.R. Beauty Try On works in split screen so you can watch a YouTube makeup tutorial on top of the screen while trying out something like a shade of lipstick in the bottom half of the screen. The feature is an alpha testing with select YouTube creators. Matt Cosmetics, that's a big one, is the first brand to launch an A.R. Beauty Try On campaign and several other outlets have A.R. makeup, including L'Oreal, which partnered with Facebook last year. Yeah, I like this. You know, I think this is less. I originally my mind went to like, yeah, but you don't have a reference monitor. So is this really going to look like the right shade for you? And then I realized it's not so much about accuracy. It's not the same as going into a Sephora and trying stuff on, but it's fun. And that's what these beauty YouTubers want. They want their audience to be engaged. And what's more engaging than sitting there with the person on YouTube? How does it look like with your front facing camera? Yeah, yeah, they have a gigantic following for what everyone calls beauty YouTube. It makes sense to me that they would figure out ways to likely do with gaming, although that didn't exactly succeed. But, you know, saying, well, why don't we specialize a little bit in this one area? Add additional functionality, cater to that demographic. And I think that's pretty cool. It's funny, though, because my brains like Tom's, my initial thought was, well, how are they calibrating the monitors to exactly represent that? Like I couldn't get my head around how we would want to do that. But and someone like me, I'm like, it doesn't matter what you look. I can person as long as with this like beautiful Instagram filter, you look great. Yeah. So it's, you know, the rules are a little bit different. L'Oreal is also interesting because L'Oreal bought the company that's powering the AI for Amazon's style snap, I believe it's called, where you can take a picture of something and then buy something based on something that's familiar with it, not necessarily based on makeup. But it does seem that some of these large, incumbent, old guard cosmetic company cosmetics companies are getting creative. Yeah, there was a bunch of this kind of stuff at CES last year. I remember we did some some talking and some live stream and with folks doing this sort of thing. So yeah, I imagine this is going to be a continued use of augmented reality on YouTube, YouTube. Tell me I'm not the first person to coin that. I guarantee you can't you can't possibly be US House Financial Services Committee chairwoman Maxine Waters asked Facebook to stop developing its Libra cryptocurrency until Congress and regulators can examine the issues. Other US lawmakers also made similar statements in Europe. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire called on the G7 Central Bank Governors to prepare a report on Libra for the July meeting. Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said things like Libra must meet the highest standard of regulation. He also said he has an open mind about it. He actually met with Facebook about Libra before they announced it. Maybe that's why he has the open mind about it and says he will work with the G7, the IMF and the International Settlements and Financial Stability Board to evaluate the plan. Several international banks are engaged in similar systems to Libra. We didn't really make that point yesterday, and I want to make that today. There's Ripple. We've talked about Ripple on the show before. And interestingly, none of those efforts ever got the negative attention that Libra has got and also no banks are members of the Libra Association. So these are definitely competitive situations. Now, a Calibra spokesperson member Calibra is the wallet that Facebook is going to make to use Libra. A Calibra spokesperson also tells TechCrunch it won't launch in certain markets who have either taken a stand against cryptocurrency or are sanctioned by the United States. So India, Facebook's biggest market is apparently on the list where Calibra will not be available because the government is very much opposed to cryptocurrencies right now, proposing some legislation against them. There's also China, North Korea and Iran because Facebook doesn't operate there. Those make more sense to me. But the Indian one is interesting. That is a huge market for remittances. It's the biggest market Facebook has. And so I wouldn't be surprised to see heavy lobbying by the Libra Association and Facebook with the Indian government to say, we will do what needs to be done to make you accept this. We're not like the other cryptocurrency people. Yeah, I mean, as of last week, we were all like, well, well, what's up? Heavily used in India. Think of all the folks who might who might benefit from something like Libra cryptocurrency in the country of India, which has so many Facebook users. And whether or not you're a Facebook user or not, if it's not available, then that cuts down quite a bit on the potential adoption rate, at least at the beginning. I can't know what that has a payment system in India as well. Sorry, Scott, I was going to say, I can't help but wonder or feel and correct me if I'm wrong to fail this way. But it feels like if this was announced as Amazon or Apple or Google or any number of companies that are high profile, very large international forces, if they announced that they were working with an association to build a new cryptocurrency that would handle these transactions, all the same kind of stuff, would the freak out be quite as severe? And I don't think so. I think it's just this is another case of everybody's already looking at Facebook with a weird smirk on their face. And they don't I think there I think there would be a freak out because break up big tech is the clarion call amongst politicians right now. For sure. But I think you're right that Facebook gets a little extra boost these days. Yeah, just a little extra targeting, I think. And I could I could be totally wrong about that. But and I don't necessarily blame them. I think I think I feel like Facebook is kind of all over the place right now. But but as little as I understand crypto currencies and stuff, the way you explain it on TMS this morning really put me in a better headspace for why I think Libra might be kind of cool, regardless who, you know, what big company names attached to it. Yeah, it also gets it gets messy when, as you mentioned, Tom, chairwoman Waters said, well, let's let's pause this whole thing until we all understand it rather than Facebook has worked with us. We understand it and we have either decided or not decided that it's a good idea going forward. Well, Libra Association doesn't launch till January. The cryptocurrency isn't supposed to launch till the first half. Libra Association has been going around talking to central bank regulators. They've been talking to regulators in the United States. They don't say who, but they say they have. So I get I think a lot of this is posturing where I feel like in this particular case, not in all cases, Facebook has actually done a lot to lay the groundwork and say, we want to do this responsibly. We want to work with governments. But because you can win a lot of points by criticizing Facebook, a lot of people are standing up and criticizing Facebook in this case. Well, the Nikkei reports Apple has asked suppliers to evaluate the possibility of moving 15 to 30 percent of output. That is to say, manufacturing from China to Southeast Asia. The move would be necessary to avoid possible U.S. tariffs. Apple suppliers asked to evaluate the cost of such a move, include Foxconn, Pegatron, Winston, excuse me, Winstron, Quanta Computer, Compaul and Ventech, Lux Share ICT and GoerTech. Foxconn previously said it had enough capacity to build U.S. bound Apple products outside of China. So a little bit of, I don't know, corporate sable rattling, but not really. Yeah, this is important. It doesn't mean they'll move 15 to 30 percent of their assembly out of China. It means they are asking their suppliers, OK, this would be the most we would do. What would be the cost of that? My guess is some of this is probably planned anyway, whether there's tariffs or not. And this is a great time to explore those options and see what's there. And they wouldn't move all of it out, no matter what. They just do diligence. You want to see what the cost would be. But it is an important piece of information in the evolving story of the trade dispute between China and the United States, where Apple says, OK, we really need to pay a little extra attention to this and figure out just how much it would cost us to deal with it should these tariffs go into place. Netflix released its latest rundown of the TVs that it thinks are best for watching Netflix, something it's been doing since 2015. To make the list, the TV must meet some requirements, including TV Instant On, Fast App Launch, a Netflix button on the remote. Really? I didn't really realize those existed. Easy Netflix icon access in the app screen, the latest version of Netflix, the latest shows automatically refreshed in the background and a high res interface. Netflix recommends the Samsung's Q60R, Q70R, Q80R, Q90R and Q900R series, the RU-8000, the Serif and the Frame devices all from Samsung in the Sony Camp, the Bravio X85G and X90G series and 89G series and Panasonic's Vira, GX700, GX800 and GX900 series, all are incomparable in price. At first glance, this seemed like a story about, hey, where's Netflix going to run the best? And Tom was very quick to correct me and say, no, no, no. Where where are the best versions of the apps, basically? Yeah, it's not about the TVs. It's not about picture quality. It's not about any of that. It's do I turn on my TV and see Netflix right away and launch Netflix right away and get into my movies and all the movies I could possibly watch are there because it was updating in the background, which is probably why LG is not on this list. They may not be doing the background update. The Netflix app is in a row down at the bottom. Maybe that's not good enough for Netflix. I don't know because LG is universally thought to have some of the best quality looking televisions out there, but Netflix isn't impressed. By the way, they handle the app. It's so funny because I'm of the opinion and clearly this is a reaction to this. Maybe in a more general sense, but I've been to the opinion since they started showing up on smart TVs, that the apps that are on the TVs themselves are hot garbage. They're terribly implemented. They've gotten a lot better. That's the thing. You need to try out one of the more modern TVs because they definitely have improved, which is good. So, you know, this is going to help consumers make a decision, I suppose. So nice. To get all the tech headlines each day in five minutes, subscribe to dailytechheadlines.com. All right, let's circle back to YouTube, but this is, this is about YouTube and kids. The Wall Street Journal reports today that Google executives are mulling over whether or not to remove all children's videos, videos uploaded by children to the site and have them only exist on the YouTube Kids app. Now, maybe you don't have kids or you don't hang out with kids enough. And you might say, what's YouTube Kids? Well, YouTube Kids was created four years ago, and it filters videos from the main YouTube site specifically for children and specifically for children under the age of 13 who are protected by federal law from forms of digital data collection. It's very important. What's interesting about this is you say, that all sounds good. There was a report actually from Bloomberg yesterday. YouTube's main site has more than two billion monthly users. Highly trafficked. YouTube Kids has less than 20 million viewers per week. Still a fair amount of viewers, but significantly less considering how many kids are on YouTube. Now, there are other reported features that YouTube is mulling over that would be part of YouTube's main site. For example, turning off auto-playing another video after your video ends. The algorithm thinks you might want to see this other video. It might not be appropriate for kids. There's been a lot of gamification going on on the YouTube network about that. But Scott and Roger, obviously you're both dads, YouTube Kids. Scott, I know your kids a little bit older, but is this something that you've heard of? I actually wasn't really familiar with it until I read these stories. Well, it's funny because the older my kids get, the quicker their young nieces and nephews get older and they start running into this. I'm seeing it on two sides. It's been kind of what it's like as an actual parent of kids who grew up with YouTube. It was kind of there while they were little. And now that it's a mature platform and in some ways very immature in this regard, I see what some of my younger family members go through in terms of trying to decide what to do. But my main thing with all of it is YouTube is very weird for kids. And it always kind of has been including YouTube Kids. It is filled with decent stuff, but there are corners of that that is freaking weird. And I'm not 100% sure you could just say, oh, it's just weird entertainment for kids. That's one aspect of it. The other thing I would say is that 13-year-olds don't care about any of this. 12-year-olds don't care. In fact, I would say YouTube Kids and what you're trying to do here or what Google's trying to do here will last up until they're about six or seven. Then they get smart and they want nothing to do with YouTube Kids. So this idea that we're going to say, hey, seven to 12-year-olds, just be happy in this little YouTube Kids space is absolutely 1,000% not going to work. Well, you know, it's interesting, Scott, that you mentioned seven years old because from the Bloomberg article published yesterday, sources told Bloomberg that kids who watch YouTube Kids tend to shift to YouTube's main site before 13. And in India specifically, that departure age is more around seven years old. This is based on some research that has been done in the area. India's YouTube's biggest market by volume. So that is significant as well. It's very interesting that their solution to this is to kind of just shunt everything over to YouTube Kids because as Scott has alluded to that their curation on that isn't so hot either. I mean, the initial phases, I remember, of YouTube Kids and I was using with my daughter, there was some very questionable content that rolled in. And although it was child-centric in that there were children in it and they were playing games, some of the acts were a little... They weren't crude or lewd but they're very questionable. And as your child gets older, their interests tend to widen. And unfortunately, the way that YouTube Kids is curated, it's very hodgepodge. There isn't a very... There isn't an easy way to navigate it where you can run into the stuff that you want without running into a lot of stuff that you might not want. Yeah, it basically just run like YouTube. Like it's sort of a mini YouTube unto itself and it's kind of got its own same problems, maybe scaled down a little bit. It's darned if you do, darned if you don't for YouTube, right? If they... When they have tried, according to these articles, to curate more heavily, people stop using the app because they're bored and they're like, you know, the main YouTube has way cooler stuff. But when they loosen it up and say, okay, let's try to use some algorithmic stuff so that, you know, planes taking off shows up in the Kids app because that's a weird one that is inoffensive but some kids might... That's one example they use in one of these articles. Let's have that show up, then suddenly other stuff starts to show up but Roger goes, wait a minute, I don't know. That's a little weird. And so then you end up with people saying, well, first of all, YouTube Kids doesn't seem to be as strictly for kids as I want it to be. Second of all, it doesn't have all the good stuff that I want it to have either. So why bother with it? I'll just use regular YouTube. And this is where I think it ties back to the problem that YouTube is having is a problem that most of these internet companies are having, which is when it's the internet, you just let it go and generally a little bit of algorithmic special sauce makes it work. That's called Google. Google said, we'll index the entire internet. The internet is full of garbage, but we'll have a little algorithmic love that helps bubble the good stuff to the top and we have the most amazing search engine ever. If you don't remember Alta Vista and HotWired and Infoseek, you don't know how big of a deal that was when it happened. And what YouTube has tried to do is say, hey, what if we did that? We'll host the videos and then we'll do that for videos. And it turns out that when you do that as, oh, we'll host the videos, suddenly people have an entirely different expectation, right? They think, oh, you are programming this. So you are responsible for everything on the platform. There's also something parents don't want is just an endless pot of content. YouTube is that. And that's one of its strengths. It's like, oh, I can go there and just go a million miles in different directions and find crazy stuff everywhere I go. That's YouTube. Netflix Kids probably has an advantage in this case. Well, A, it's a subscription. So there's already that, you know, there's a mini wall there to get over it. But once you get in there, the kid curation stuff is actually people curating content for children, not some algorithm that has to dig through 50 million new videos every day being uploaded to then decide what's okay here and what's okay there. Like in a lot of ways they have a simpler, that's a simpler solution for somebody like Netflix or any other curated source. And it's also a simpler choice for parents because parents can say, Oh, this is where all the cartoons are. And I've watched them with my kid and they're okay. And this other one's a little violent. So that's off the table and I'll use the parental controls to block that one. Like the parents get more tools there on YouTube. You're being told that robots are doing some of it. Some of it's human controlled. Like it just feels like a Wild West nightmare over there. If you're talking just kids and parents. YouTube as a service for the thing that YouTube is. It's great. Like show me that failed videos. Oops, I ran into something that was kind of gross. I'm not watching that again. Hey, check out these replays of this basketball game. I love like whatever it's just that's the scattershot nature of it to try to get this narrow path working through there for kids has always been a bit of folly in my opinion. I try to, I try to liken this to when I started going to the internet. Well, I wasn't a little kid. You know, I was a teenager, you know, when the internet was a thing that I could access. And I went to the weirdest places on the internet, which was much smaller at the time because, because I was a, you know, that's because that's what the kind of kid I was and lots of kids. And, you know, many people probably echo my sentiments who are around the same age as me. So I think, okay, well, there was no YouTube. There was no video on the internet really at all. If I had access to a lot of things that could be potentially disturbing, confusing, upsetting all of the things that, that could be detrimental to me or my parents or anybody involved. Then yeah, I want to say measures should be taken. What are those measures? Well, we've talked about this before. Does YouTube need to be scanning all of these videos before they hit the public button? That's completely impossible the way that it's built now. So it's, it's, it's an interesting conundrum. Well, I, YouTube either needs to get confident about picking winners and losers, which it doesn't like to do or give up programming to kids. And I will add one thing you mentioned, Arco and I totally agree with is that they need to stop autoplay. They don't need to have one video. That's one thing they're considering too. Yeah. Yeah. That is 50% of the problem in my view, because there's stuff that you can't control in that space. And it just, it's. Also, if I was a kid and I started watching a thing and found out later that it was assembled by some computer in Taiwan to look like it was for kids, but it was purely just a bunch of weird 3d CG thrown together with bad computer generated music where no human was involved, which exists a lot on YouTube kids. I would be so annoyed. Like you're just getting suckered into like the worst, you know, the worst bandwidth ever. Anyway, sorry. Now I'm getting worked up for these kids. For the kids. Yeah. Yeah. Do it for the children, change the internet for the show. Wait, no, that's a horrible idea. Hey, thankfully on the show just now we solved the issue. So yeah, we did. Yeah. Great. So thank us. And also thank everyone who participates in our subreddit because that's where we get a lot of the great ideas for the stuff we talk about on the show. So make your stories and vote on them at dailytechnewshow.reddit.com and facebook.com slash group slash daily tech news show. Let's check out the mail bag. Let's do it. Mike A wrote in, we were talking about Libra yesterday at length and Mike A says being in financial markets, I wonder if one aspect to counterpoint against the positive scenarios of an essentially no transaction cost network is why and where fees for ingress and egress from fiat currency to Libra would be incurred. Apologies if this is covered by Facebook, but I would expect that there would be a buy-self spread on currencies entering and leaving the network. For example, if I wanted to deposit $100 into Libra, that would buy me 100 Libra tokens. But when I convert Libra back to dollars, they'd be a different rate, say $99 for those 100 tokens. The service provider who's giving me back fiat currency would quote that difference at a cost recovery for all their regulatory, for example, know your clients or anti-money laundering systems that they would need. The potential for cross-border money laundering is so enormous that I expect regulators to be prominent in regulating the core members. Yeah. And a significant portion of the Libra Association white paper is about know your client. It's about anti-money laundering. It's about saying we want to follow all the rules, just let's chat and make sure we're regulatory compliant. They are doing their due diligence on that part. I don't think they are doing cost recovery for it in the exchanges though. It seems like what they're saying, and I may be wrong here too, Mike, is they will pay for that sort of thing on the appreciation of the revenue basket. What I'm unclear of is how much your money in, money out contributes to that revenue basket. It may not at all. That basket that the currency is tied to may be entirely different. And the I'm putting money into by Libra, I'm cashing my Libra out, maybe an entirely separate line that just sort of is meant to balance out over time on its own. That though I am unsure on. But yeah, when you get 100 Libra, it might cost you $100. And then when you cash it out, it could be $101 or it could be $99. It's true. Thanks, Mike. And anybody who has any follow-up thoughts on this feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. Also thanks to Scott Johnson for being with us today, Scott. Where can people keep up with your work? Well, so in connection with this show, I do a little thing with Patrick Beja. I've mentioned it before. We call it the monthly video game briefing MVGB, which you can find at frogpants.com slash MVGB. And the reason I would point you there today is we did a big roundup of the Electronic Entertainment Expo E3, which was last week. And we did it in such a way that it was aimed directly at this particular audience. We'd spent so much time that week in every little detailed piece of a minutia around E3. And then somehow we figured out the strength to make this concise, easy to understand, 45 minutes or so show about everything that really, truly mattered from a bird's eye view of E3. And we put it in show form. So I want to recommend people go check that out, subscribe to it. It's a really fun monthly look at gaming from Patrick and I. And I think you can't go too wrong with it. So check that out. That's at frogpants.com slash MVGB. And you can also find me on Twitter. I'm at Scott Johnson. Folks, did you know that five years ago, Samsung launched the world's first Tizen OS operated smartphone? Well, you would know that if you're a co-executive producer of patreon.com slash DTNS, because we do a bonus show every month just for people at that level or above in order to tell them what was happening in our show rundowns from five years ago. So if you're a co-executive producer, look for that episode coming up soon in your feed. And if you're not a co-executive producer, become one at patreon.com slash DTNS. Our email address is feedback at dailytechnewshow.com. We're also live Monday through Friday. Join us if you can for 30 p.m. Eastern 2030 UTC and find out more at dailytechnewshow.com slash live. Back tomorrow with Justin Robert Young. Talk to you then. This show is part of the Frog Pants Network. Get more at frogpants.com.