Chapters
Shownotes Transcript
Radio Lab is supported by Apple Card. Reboot your credit card with Apple Card. Earn up to 3% daily cash back that you can grow at 4.40% annual percentage yield, APY, when you open a savings account through Apple Card. Apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app on iPhone.
Subject to credit approval. Savings is available to Apple Card owners. Subject to eligibility. Savings and Apple Card by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch. Member FDIC. Terms and more at applecard.com. Radiolab is supported by Progressive. Most of you aren't just listening right now. You're driving, exercising, cleaning.
What if you could also be saving money by switching to Progressive? Drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average, and auto customers qualify for an average of seven discounts. Multitask right now. Quote today at Progressive.com, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. National average 12-month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023.
Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.
See Mint Mobile for details.
Listener supported. WNYC Studios. Hey folks, just a quick warning before we get started. This episode contains some swear words as well as some frank discussions about sex and suicide. Listener discretion is advised. Wait, you're listening? Okay. Alright. Okay. Alright. You're listening to Radiolab. Radiolab. From WNYC. See? Come on, come on.
I'll be a sassafras. Hello, hello, hello. Hey. Lovely. Hey, this is Radiolab and I'm Simon Adler sitting in for Lulu and Latif this week. How do you feel that the B team has been sent in?
For this. Yeah, they're like, you know, the understudy of the understudy was out today, so you're going to have to take some. So you're going to have to take just the ushers. Because a while back, our reporter producer, Rachel Cusick, she sat me down in the studio to tell me a story about both how beautiful we humans are, but also just how downright awful we can be.
And the tricky business of deciding who should be held responsible when that ugly part of us shows. Let's hit it. Mm-hmm. So, okay, so we are going to start on a stoop in Harlem. Over in West Harlem in, what, 2016? Yeah.
Yeah, 2016. With this guy? Matthew Herrick. Wait, do you go by Matt or Matthew? Most people call me Matthew. Cool. At the time, Matthew had recently moved from LA to New York City. It was definitely, you know, a punch to the face, if you will. Trading palm trees and sunshine for a smelly city stoop. Yeah. Anyway. I think it was around October, mid-October.
I was sitting on my stairs, just like in the front of my building. What's this guy look like, do we know? Like tall, muscular, salt and pepper hair nowadays. I think probably just pepper back in the day. And I was having a cigarette and a gentleman walked up and
and just stood in front of me. And, you know, it's New York, so you have a lot of fucking weirdos. So I just, you know, figured it was just some weirdo being weird. Like, whatever. I'm just going to ignore them. Yeah, like, it's all good. So I'm, like, kind of avoiding eye contact, but then I realized that they're standing there for, you know, an extended period of time, so I, like, looked up. And it's someone that he doesn't know, someone that he doesn't recognize. But this guy... He went, "'Hey, Matt.'" And I was like, "'Hi.'"
Like, how the hell do you know my name? And he says, it's so-and-so. We were talking on Grindr. Grindr, dating app used primarily by gay men. And so this stranger tilts his phone towards Matthew, and he's like, look. And it's a profile on the app with, you know, a picture of me.
And I was like, that's not possible. Like, that is a photo of me. But that's not me. That is not a profile that I made. I'm not on Grindr, you know? So he looks up at this guy. Like, I don't know how to explain this. I don't know who you're talking to. I'm very confused right now. Like, you need to leave. And I got up and I went inside. And I remember I looked at my roommate, Michael, and I was like, someone just showed up looking for me from Grindr. Like, how weird is that? Yeah, exactly.
Little did I know. Because after that, another guy came and then another. People started showing up. It just keeps happening. Sometimes I would be home or sometimes I'd be leaving the building and there'd be people outside. Each time a different man. You know, one or two a week. All saying the same thing. Like we were talking on Grindr. Let's have sex.
So he reports the profile to Grindr, got the like automatic reply. We'll get back to you soon or whatever the hell it said. But he doesn't actually hear back from anyone at the company. And meanwhile, people were showing up to my home in large volumes and like, I'm living my life. Leave me alone. Can I get a break? And finally, one night he's annoyed. He's fed up. I stood up and said, fuck this.
And he decides he is going to get to the bottom of this. Yeah, so I downloaded Grindr. He makes a profile. Without a photo. And then logs on. And I saw the fake profile of myself, very close proximity. Grindr actually has this map feature where you can see where other people are who are on Grindr. And this person who had Matthew's name and his photo is like right there. Right outside his apartment.
So I walked outside and I remember looking down the street and he took off running.
And I went and chased after him. And while he's running, Matthew is looking at the Grindr app, scanning for the fake him. Because you can refresh it and it'll tell you how far that person is away. And this fake Matthew, he was like 20 feet away. So I'm walking along Morningside Park, refresh the app. Then 15. I was walking and I was walking. Then 10. And I remember I looked down and I was like, he's five feet away. How is he five feet away? And I stood on the park bench and I looked over the fence and
And laying face down in the bushes was JC. His ex, JC. And I screamed, I fucking caught you. I caught you. I knew it was you. JC started yelling back at him. Matthew ran away. JC chased him. The cops got called. It was a mess. So an ex-lover made a fake profile for the purpose of...
Terrorizing him? Yeah. Matthew and this guy, JC, had started dating not long after Matthew arrived in the city. And we dated for, I want to say, eight to ten months. Matthew saw some little red flags and ended things. And that's when these people started coming. I think once Matthew broke up with him, he was like,
If you don't want to date me, then like screw you. I'll make your life a living hell. Anyhow, once he knew it was JC. I ended up getting an order of protection against him. And so JC couldn't go anywhere near him in real life. But an order of protection doesn't really apply when JC's sending other people to his door. There was no ramifications for what he was doing. There wasn't anything the courts or the cops could do about it.
So Matthew contacts Grindr again and is like, this is the guy. Shut him down, please. But still... Nothing. No acknowledgement. We reached out to Grindr for comment. Didn't hear back. Anyhow, with Grindr doing nothing...
JC went on the offensive. He actually made multiple fake Matthew profiles. There were two to three existing on the platform. And that's when, you know, the gay zombies started coming for me. Do you call them gay zombies? Yeah, it's because it's like everyone's like mad. Just like must get sex now. Yeah. Yeah.
I would leave at 6 o'clock in the morning to walk my dog. There would be somebody outside waiting for me. I would come home at night, 11.30, 12 o'clock at night. There'd be somebody waiting for me. Literally every single day of my life.
And it wasn't just a lot of awkward but harmless encounters, because these profiles... Said I was looking for rape fantasies. Matthew would try to explain the situation to people, calmly, but then... The profiles were telling these individuals it was part of my turn-on. So to stay and then approach me again...
Just diabolical. Yeah. And so, again, he tries reporting the profiles. I had friends reporting profiles, family reporting profiles, sending emails to the company. Again, nothing. I was slammed against the wall. Oh, my God. There was someone who broke into my...
He goes to the cops. JC started making profiles that promised people crystal meth and said they should show up at the restaurant where Matthew worked. I was taking an order at a fucking table, and I remember this guy is tapping on my shoulder saying my name.
high out of his mind. And I'm looking at the people that are sitting down and they're looking back up at me and they're like, what is going on? And my eyes are just welling up with tears because I'm like, oh my God. And I'm like, how do you want your burger cooked? You know what I mean? And this went on for months. Jesus. Jesus.
Did you hate hearing your name at that point in your life? Oh, I hated it. I hated everything about existing. I hated it all. Like, I remember sitting there saying to myself, like, I either want to fucking blow my brains out or throw myself off a building. And then one day, Matthew's talking to his lawyer. My family court lawyer, she said, hey, there's this woman named Carrie Goldberg. She might be able to help you. And at that time, I was so...
Just beat to a pulp. I just heard the word help. And I was like, yeah. So he takes the train to downtown Brooklyn. I sat in her office and she told me a little bit about herself. I mean, as background, I started this law firm after I had been the target of a malicious and creative business.
and relentless ex. Attorney, Carrie Goldberg. One of the most malicious things that my ex was doing was blackmailing me with naked pictures and videos that he had.
contacting everybody in my life. He's making false IRS reports against my family. Now, at that time, Carrie was already a lawyer herself, but she really only did family law stuff, wills, guardianships, things like that. And I had so much difficulty during that process finding a lawyer who knew what to do and was at the intersection of intimate partner violence and
and internet law and First Amendment and knew how to get an order of protection. I was really desperate. And so after this all ended, I became the lawyer I needed. A lawyer for people like Matthew. So she told me her story and I told her mine. And before I could finish, she said, I would like to represent you.
I think we can slow this attack on you. And the way to do that, Carrie said, was to go after Grindr, take him to court and argue that this guy, JC, used Grindr essentially as a weapon, that Grindr knew all about it and did absolutely nothing to stop it. And so, day of the hearing, Carrie and her team file in.
sit down confident looking at their little table. We're pretty badass litigators. And across the aisle is, of course, Grindr's lawyers. And as the hearing begins, the Grindr guys, they stand up. I'm imagining they do that thing that men do where they like put their tie tucked in like inside their jacket and they're like, Your Honor, we don't have to do anything because of Section 230.
Section 230. Yeah. And the judge is like, you're right. We don't have to go any further. That's the end of this. It was over. It was over. And I said, what the fuck is Section 230? I didn't even understand what that meant.
Okay, so let's start there. Section 230 is a provision passed by Congress in 1996. That's not a typo. 1996, right? Attorney and justice correspondent at The Nation magazine, Ellie Mistal. So that's how old this law is. Now, it's worth pointing out that most of the rest of the law is no longer good law.
It's been amended. It's been shaped. It's been overcome with kind of newer, better laws that take into account what the Internet has actually become. But Section 230 is the beating core that remains. And 230, it does one simple thing. It relieves Internet companies from
of liability for illegal things posted on their websites. Meaning, he says, not only in Matthew's case, but in others like it, when someone lies about someone else or threatens them or even tries to do them some kind of harm using an app or a website,
These tech companies, they get off scot-free. That's exactly what's happening. Section 230 is fundamentally, at core, a liability shield. A shield that no other industry gets except the tech industry. In short, Section 230 makes the tech world untouchable.
It's just not fair. So unlike Matthew, Carrie already knew about Section 230. She knew the Grindr lawyers would use it against Matthew. And so she had actually been trying out this way to get around 230 by arguing that Grindr was a faulty product, harmed Matthew as a consumer. But the judge wasn't buying it. And with Matthew, appeal after appeal after appeal, the case just kept getting dismissed each time because of Section 230.
And so... Section 230 is my nemesis. She hates it. I can only talk about it once a day because I get so aggravated that I then can't do my job. I think it can be totally decimated and thrown into the sun.
And weirdly enough, this hatred Kerry feels — As you know, Google enjoys a special immunity from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency. — is shared by a lot of people. A lot of Americans have concerns. Conservative lawmakers like Ted Cruz. Calling on Congress to get rid of special immunity for social media companies. President Joe Biden called to have it removed. Section 230, we have to get rid of Section 230 politicians. And so did former President Donald Trump.
That is the thing about Section 230. It's kind of built this like king-sized mattress of strange bedfellows who are all teaming up and saying, we want it gone. It is literally this like ominous looming monster. But Matthew? I don't think they should get rid of it. Is not one of those people.
Because even though this law lets companies like Grindr completely ignore what happens on their platforms. Without Section 230, we couldn't live the way we do today. It is the law that makes the internet possible. And so now we're really getting into the heart of Section 230. That heart and what our lives might look like without it after the break.
Radio Lab is supported by Apple Card. Reboot your credit card with Apple Card. Earn up to 3% daily cash back that you can grow at 4.40% annual percentage yield, APY, when you open a savings account through Apple Card. Apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app on iPhone.
Subject to credit approval. Savings is available to Apple Card owners. Subject to eligibility. Savings and Apple Card by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch. Member FDIC. Terms and more at applecard.com. Hey, Jon Favreau here. There's no shortage of political takes in 2024, but quantity doesn't cut it. We need a better conversation about the latest biggest election of our lives. On Pod Save America, me and my co-host cut through the noise to help you figure out what matters and how you can help.
Every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday, Pod Save America is breaking down the political news that makes us laugh, cry, and snap our laptops in half. Expensive year for laptops. Make sure to check out new episodes of Pod Save America on your favorite podcast platform or our YouTube channel now.
Simon. Rachel. Radiolab. And we are back. And we're going to go backwards. All right. To a time not that long ago when what the internet would be, what it would look like and feel like was a very open question. A time when sort of anything seemed possible. It's the world of this website. Sorry, what year are we in? I don't know. Okay, so...
1992. Things are starting to happen. Things are starting to happen. Back when getting on the internet required somebody else in your house to get off the phone. Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. The internet has evolved from this thing that really only academics use. It's taken us five years of real hard work to develop a system like this. To something niche and nerdy communities are playing on in the form of chat rooms. Ask him why not go talk to real people.
to finally... Introducing the Power of Prodigy.
Something that everyday people like you and me were using through these bulletin boards. What Prodigy does is connect our computer with a fantastic range of services. Prodigy was one of these main early bulletin boards. And, you know, it let people post something on there and then other people would comment on it. It had no graphics, no pictures of any kind. It was only text. And although it may have been primitive, you had access to information all around the world. And it's a...
as amazing as that was, as more and more people were logging on to get world news or share recipes or share their opinions about financial markets. Prodigy needs your attention. You have new mail. These bulletin boards, they began to get heated. Goodbye.
And so guys like Chuck. Chuck Epstein, moderator of the Prodigy Money Talk bulletin board. Were brought in to turn down the temperature by removing posts that went too far. So, you know, I just took down swear words, derogatory words, racial slurs.
And it's just you there. You're all by yourself. That's correct. I was the only one who had the software, the moderating software. And there were easily a couple thousand posts per day on the Money Talk bulletin board about stocks, bonds, real estate, equities. So it was exciting. And so Chuck, he managed to create this little neighborhood. Yeah.
Where people could connect and say what they wanted, but where he could also be a kindly curator. Make sure that no one got out of line. Until... Well, one evening I was at my house, took my poodle out the front door for a walk. Love you, little fella. He was a miniature French poodle, Beau. And we walked down the street about, you know, 40 paces. Beau does his business. Chuck stretches his legs. And a man literally jumps out of the bushes. Oh, my God. It was like from the spy movies.
I didn't know what this guy was doing. And standing there under a streetlight. He says, like, Mr. Epstein. I said, yes. And he hands me a piece of paper. It was an envelope. And he says, thank you. Have a nice night. I thought you were going to say he said, I'm here to have sex with you. I've been sent. I am a gay zombie of yesteryear.
This is where it all started. Anyhow, so Chuck turns around, walks home quickly. I went back in the house and opened the envelope. The first thing that he sees on this piece of paper, it says... Stratton Oakmont versus Prodigy. And big letters at the very top. And I said, what the hell is this?
Turns out that Stratton Oakmont was suing Chuck's employer, Prodigy, claiming that someone had used Chuck's bulletin board to smear their company, saying that their president...
and the honesty and the ethics of Stratton Oakmont. And that these posts constituted defamation. In this $100 billion lawsuit. Now, as would be discovered years later, these posts were not defamatory. In fact, Stratton Oakmont and their president were doing so many illegal things that they would one day inspire Leonardo DiCaprio. Was all this legal? Absolutely not.
In the film, The Wolf of Wall Street. We don't work for you, man. You have my money taped to your boobs. Technically, you do work for me.
Yeah. Jonah Hill's character was actually based on the guy who cried defamation. But at the time of the suit, nobody knew anything about that. And so... The lawsuit was about a... It went over a... When the thing went to trial, these wolves of Wall Street, they argued that because Prodigy employed people like Chuck, moderators who left posts up and took posts down, that they were responsible for every defamatory post they left up.
And this judge agreed. The judge ruled that Prodigy was responsible. The world of Prodigy.
Now, the irony here is that right around this time, there was another company. Access to the internet. Enter CompuServe. CompuServe. And CompuServe did not hold itself out to be a family-friendly bulletin board. They were just like Prodigy, but they had no moderators, no chucks, didn't take anything down. All the swear words, defamation, racial slurs, all of it stayed there. And when they went to trial in a very similar online defamation lawsuit, they won. Yeah.
And so, weirdly, in this situation, if Prodigy had never set out to be a family-friendly place, if they said, "Whatever you want, have it," they would not have lost this lawsuit.
Well, that seems completely ass backwards. Yes, yes. What the law was saying is that if your approach is anything goes, then you'll be scot-free. But if you attempt to have rules of the road, then we're going to make you responsible for every piece of content that's uploaded by every single one of your users. Former Republican representative of California, Chris Cox.
And when he learned about this, he was like, this is not the way we want the Internet to be regulated. Because of the obvious consequences. You know, the rate of increase in users of the Internet was exponential. And it was clear that this new means of communication was going to be of vital importance, either for good or for ill. And he worried that this precedent set by these two cases, like reward the Wild Wests, punish the family-friendly sites...
that that could be disastrous. And one of the great things about being a member of Congress is that when you pick up the newspaper and you see something that needs to be fixed, you say, there ought to be a law. And then your next thought is... You're like, who can do this for me? Yeah, I could do that. But he needed a partner. So... I made a beeline to my friend Ron. Ron Wyden, one of Oregon's United States senators. Democrat, little buds, they get ice cream together.
Chocolate chip for me. I'm chocolate, although when I'm being very extravagant, I have one scoop of vanilla and one scoop of chocolate. That's living the life. Thank you.
And he says, run. Like, I think it's really, really important that we do something about this. Explain these two cases and how... You know, online platforms would offer the choice. You could either police your website and be liable for everything, even if something slipped through, or you could turn a blind eye and not police anything. And Chris and I said, maybe we can come up with something that really promotes the best internet.
An internet where sites could take down what they wanted without getting in trouble. And the point was to keep it really simple. So Chris and I went to the house dining room, sat by ourselves, and we put this together. A couple days later... We're done. It wasn't perfect by any means. And do either of you know it by heart? I'm sure you do because you talk about this all the time. But could you just say it just so we have it on the recording? Yeah, sure. What it says is that...
no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. In other words, these internet companies could control the things that got posted on their sites as they saw fit without the threat of being sued.
And so right now, we're going to take you over to the Library of Congress for this signing ceremony. Mr. Clinton used the same February 8th, 1996. Today, our world is being remade yet again by an information revolution. In a wood paneled hall, President Clinton signed these 26 words into law. This historic legislation recognizes that with freedom comes responsibility.
This bill protects consumers against monopolies. It guarantees the diversity of voices our democracy depends upon. Perhaps most of all, it enhances the common good. Thank you very much.
I mean, just as one example, if it hadn't passed and sites remained liable for every little thing that we posted. You couldn't imagine a project like Wikipedia taking off as it has. Or the Me Too movement. Or that ice bucket challenge that raised millions of dollars for ALS research. Or Black Lives Matter. They absolutely could not exist without Section 230.
I mean, Section 230 let websites moderate as best as they could without the threat of constantly being dragged to court, which allowed space for this massive online wave that we're all still surfing today. But of course, waves can be dangerous.
And now, more than ever, it's starting to feel like we could use some more lifeguards. Because, you know, these wonky little bulletin boards that sparked all of this, they evolved into comment sections, which evolved into social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter and Instagram, and then into dating apps like Tinder and Grindr.
And before we knew it, billions of people were on these things. And while these sites have enabled lots of good things to happen, they've also given us this whole new universe of ways to be cruel to one another. And
And even though the platforms make some efforts to weed out the bad stuff, so much of it gets through. And when someone comes to them and says, please make it stop, like Matthew, our grinder guy, or countless other people, they say, it's not our problem. Section 230.
I really don't think I'll ever get these images down from the internet. And I just, I'm sorry to my husband and I'm sorry to my children. Again, Section 230, while critical to how the internet was made, critical to how it functions...
Once again, Justice Correspondent Ellie Mistal. And contemplates a late 90s internet world that simply no longer exists. Yeah. So, yes, it's a sense of like our laws should be updated to reflect how the internet works today, not how it worked in 1996. And so there is a coalition amongst us.
hardcore conservatives and some progressives to do something about Section 230 and take it away. - It seems not unlike 1996 when Section 230 passed. Like there's this open question again of what is the sort of internet that we want? - However, the other side of it is also, you know, we're kind of backing into the actual point. So do you mind, I wanna start the point differently, right? - Yeah, do it.
Because here's the thing. One of the reasons why we don't know what's going to happen with Section 230. Sorry, the best way of saying it. You're your own producer. I'm going to get there. Thank you, Ellie.
The bottom line is that we don't know what's going to happen to the internet if we take away Section 230. One way it could go is for everybody to go back to a Wild Wild West scenario where there is no moderation anywhere at all, right? However, the other way it could go would be to have extreme moderation, right?
Nobody has open comment threads. Nobody has a forum where they can say whatever they want. Everything is either completely closed off or highly monitored by an AI, by the algorithm that is just without pride or prejudice, just running around and smacking people based on keywords. Doesn't matter the context, right?
Which, you know, it would take out racial slurs, problematic stuff, but it also might weed out these kernels of ideas that led to the Arab Spring and Black Lives Matter and Me Too. So only the most kind of anodyne, Disney-fied, I like soup kind of content.
Are those options like both equally likely if Section 230 were to go away? Well, are you conservative or are you liberal? Because what you think is more likely really tracks with your politics right now. Liberals are...
At least the ones who think Section 230 should be taken away think these the social media platforms will go full on aggressive, stopping hateful comments.
However, conservatives like Josh Hawley really think that it's going to go the other way, that in a post-Section 230 world, because of the threat of liability, these companies, they would go in a Wild West format and just let everything ride so nobody gets in trouble. But the problem there, Ellie says, is... You've got to be able to turn the internet upside down and shake money out of it.
Right. Like this happens if somebody can't make money off of it. Right. Meaning in most cases, sometimes I just want to rent a car, go, you know, I do know. And I think I can help you with that. Really? Advertisers. Yeah. I love Hertz. Oh, yes. Love Hertz. And what the advertisers want is,
is for there to be moderation because they make more money when things are, for lack of a better word, nice. So it's highly likely that the advertisers simply will not stand for a wild, wild west scenario where, like, when you click on the page, all the comments are like, F you, you dumb N-word.
And if that happens, you're basically calcifying the internet as we have it today. Like these small companies, these startups, these homespun sites, they will not have the resources to moderate. If you put these moderation controls on them, the next Twitter, the next Facebook, the next TikTok, there will be no way for them to compete. So what we will have is basically just the titans that we have today. So we are...
Stuck between like a rock, a hard place and a freaking like dagger right in front of our face. Like there's no it feels like there's like no clear way to tackle 230 without then destroying the Internet as we know it.
It wouldn't be a complicated issue if it wasn't a complicated issue. Once more, Matthew Herrick from the beginning of this episode, whose life got literally destroyed by Section 230, but still thinks we shouldn't get rid of it. I'm so surprised that you don't want to just get rid of it altogether. I don't know. It's like a freaking shark came and bit your arm and you're like, well, the shark has done some good for the ocean, you know? Well, because I understand how complicated it is. I mean...
I don't want to sound, you know, I mean, obviously I'm fucking pissed, but like I'm launching a coalition with, you know, a nonprofit organization to help survivors. I'm trying to like seek out women
what I can utilize through that experience to create positive in the world. And I think that's all I can do. But I'd be bullshitting you if I said that I had the right answer. I just know all the wrong answers. And he's not alone. Like, no one's quite sure how to fix this thing. So the decision for now just seems to be to just leave it.
And the Supreme Court said so. Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, Section 230C1... So, this past term... The Supreme Court heard two cases about Section 230. ...11333, Gonzalez versus Google. Google v. Gonzalez and Twitter v. Tamina. And during one of these trials from the bench... Elena Kagan says... Why is it that the tech industry gets a pass? A little bit unclear. ...a little bit unclear.
And they decided to leave it in place. There is a reason why a law from 1996 is still the law today. And it's because, not because it works, but because it is the least bad option.
This story was reported by Rachel Cusick and produced by Rachel and myself with mixing from Arianne Wack. Special thanks this week to James Grimmelman, Eric Goldman, Naomi Leeds, and an extra, extra big thank you to Jeff Kossoff. All right, that's about it for it here. I'm Simon Adler. This is Radiolab. Thanks for listening.
Hi, this is Mr. Fiedler's fifth grade class calling in from Monona, Wisconsin. This video was created by Chad Arbor. It's an edited by Story.
Is there a party?
Anna Couette-Paz, Sarah Sandbach, Ariana Locke, Pat Walters, and Molly Webster. With help from Sachi Kijima-Molke. Our fact checkers are Deanne Kelly, Emily Krieger, and Natalie Middleton.
Hi, this is Jeremiah Barba, and I'm calling from San Francisco, California. Leadership support for Radiolab science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, Simons Foundation Initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
