An AI chatbot pushed a teen to kill himself, a lawsuit against its creator alleges - Ep. 60
Download MP3Welcome to litigation nation. I'm your host, Danessa Watkins, along with my co host, Jack Sanker. And this is the show where we discuss recent legal news and exciting court decisions from across the country. Our shows come out every 2 weeks, and you can listen on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. So, Jack, what did you find for us to discuss this week?
Jack Sanker:Unfortunately, the tragic death of a 14 year old boy, who'd become obsessed with an AI chatbot raises questions about the ethical implications of this technology and draws a lawsuit from the grieving parents.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, boy. Well, I will say that my story is a little lighter. I'm I'm going to cover a recent ruling at the Georgia Supreme Court level, throwing out the contempt conviction against attorney Brian Steele, who is representing young thug in a criminal Rico trial. All that and more, here's what you need to know. In what is now Georgia state's court's longest criminal trial in history, we're currently on month 11.
Danessa Watkins:The state has brought a 56 count Rico action against Jeffrey Williams, who is a successful rapper, otherwise known by his stage name, Young Thug, and a number of codefendants, including 26 members of the record label Young Stoner Life, AKA YSL. The indictment characterized YSL as a criminal street gang alleging 182 instances of participation in gang activity and criminal conspiracies, citing both lyrics and social media posts of the defendants. Now many of the defendants did take plea deals early on. So as of now, there are only 6 defendants on trial, the district attorney, Fanny Willis, has promised to fight, but the district attorney Fanny Willis has promised to fight but has, really, I guess, drawn some criticism throughout the hip hop community where many have argued that this trial is just one of many instances of the criminal justice system unfairly tying rappers to violent crimes because of their art. So this case has been absolutely wild from the start, and I've been covering it or following it for a while, kinda just waiting until there was something that I thought I could bring to the show, and that happened just recently.
Danessa Watkins:So there was a ruling at the Georgia Supreme Court level, which threw out the contempt conviction against Young Thug's attorney, Brian Steele. Now all of this started and just for a minute, it's not common for a criminal defense attorney to be held in contempt Right. Let alone be, you know, hauled off in, in what do you call them?
Jack Sanker:Handcuffs?
Danessa Watkins:Handcuffs. Yeah. Thank you. Handcuffs.
Jack Sanker:Litigation attorneys here. Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. We're not used to that. Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:That's not the norm. So this for this to go up to the Supreme Court level, you know, was obviously appropriate because this is a rare situation. But let's go back. So this all started in June, and it's surrounding the testimony of the prosecutor's star witness, Kenneth Copeland, who goes by Lil Woody. So Lil Woody was offered immunity for his testimony, but then he refused to take the stand when it was his time.
Danessa Watkins:So the judge at the time, Glanville, held Lil Woody in contempt. I'm gonna have to just call him Copeland because that's instead of saying little. So, held Copeland in contempt and called a meeting in chambers between him, so the judge, Copeland, Copeland's attorney and the prosecutors. Now this is what we call an ex parte communication, which essentially is a communication between 1 party in a lawsuit and the judge without the other party present. As a general rule, and this is both in criminal and civil actions, ex parte communications with a judge are strictly prohibited.
Jack Sanker:Especially in criminal, though. I mean, it's it's equally bad in any other case, but, I mean, this is, you know, someone's right to not be in prison that we're talking about.
Danessa Watkins:Exactly. I mean, it's, you know, due process rights. You have to maintain the neutrality of the judge and also just have an opportunity for both sides to present their positions. There are, you know, certain rare circumstances where ex parte communications are allowed, but certainly this is not one of them. So here the morning, one of the mornings key witness met in secret.
Danessa Watkins:The defense team was never told about the meeting, given a heads up or anything. So they were just showed up for trial. We're sitting there for hours waiting. And then when court finally We're sitting there for hours waiting. And then when court finally started, somehow the defense attorney, attorney Steele, he found out about the meeting.
Danessa Watkins:Now he addressed this issue to the judge in open court. He objected to the ex parte meeting and filed an oral motion and probably later a paper motion for judge Glanville to recuse himself.
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm.
Danessa Watkins:Now the footage of the argument that ensued between the judge and attorney Steele is unbelievable. I have to I'm gonna try to play the clip here. I'm hoping it'll come through, but it's just to kind of tee it up. So attorney Steele has just stood up to make a statement, and he revealed to the courtroom, to make a statement, and he revealed to the courtroom, the jury was out at the time, but everyone else was in the courtroom, that it had come to his attention that the judge had this improper ex parte meeting. And you'll hear the judge's immediate response was to question how the attorney learned about it.
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Attorney still doesn't answer the question, but instead starts to read case law confirming that all defendants have a right to be present for communications with the court. I mean, he didn't even need to cite a case for that. That's just common knowledge. So that's what's happening right before this part of the clip then ran a play.
Judge Glanville:Mister Williams and every other person wrongly charged here is entitled under the Georgia Constitution to be present. That's critical stage. It it's just like when you meet with me and you and mister Adams meet with me and others have met with me, it's it's also ex parte for for a lot of different other reasons, but I will I will certainly note that for purposes of record. While I'm going forward, what I was told was that mister Copeland said And you haven't answered my question yet.
Attorney Brian Steele:I'm not
Judge Glanville:How did you that question. You're not? No. I will not answer that question. You not answer that question?
Judge Glanville:Because I wanna make sure that what I say is accurate, and I'm not trying to No. No. No. No. I'm asking you, how did you get this information?
Judge Glanville:I'm not telling the court. What I'm saying is based upon information Okay. Well, listen. If you don't tell me how you got this information, then you and I are gonna have some problems. We can have this I have problems right now.
Jack Sanker:Okay. I I know.
Judge Glanville:I look. I don't I don't wanna know about your problems, okay, at this point in time. All I'm asking you at this point in time is, how did you come upon this information? You're look. If the case gets reviewed, the record's gonna be available for for for for our appellate court and for whatever reason, but it's disturbing that how somehow you have surreptitiously gotten information in regards to the court's private ex parte conversation with the party.
Judge Glanville:I mean, I want to Yes. Witness who was sworn in Friday, the court's telling this is what I was told. If this is not true, not true. This court Just to get it. Asking Copelyn.
Judge Glanville:Tell me how tell me how you got the information. Listen.
Attorney Brian Steele:Tell me
Jack Sanker:how you wanna do that. Tell me
Judge Glanville:how you got the information, then we can go ahead and go forward. I'm not gonna say that. What I'm gonna say is this. I was told, and I hope this concerns the court. It it concerns me that you have proprietary information Why is it important?
Judge Glanville:Information that that that you should not be having that was ex parte Why? With a party Why? State of Georgia. How about the witness? How about mister Copeland who supposedly announced he's not testifying, and he'll sit for 2 years and then supposedly, this honorable court Okay.
Judge Glanville:Excuse me. Let me rephrase that. This court supposedly said, I can hold you until the end of this trial. Miss Hilton supposedly said, actually, all of the defendants and then all 26 people are disposed of. If that's true, what this is is coercion, witness intimidation, ex parte communications that we have a constitutional right to be present for.
Judge Glanville:So I understand that you're upset towards me, but I don't know what I did. Mister Steele, I don't wanna know. How did you come upon this information? Who told you? What I wanna know is why wasn't I there?
Judge Glanville:Why Sir, I'm gonna hold you in contempt if you don't tell me who this I'm I'm Tell me tell me who this information is gonna help. In contempt. Well, not answering that question. That's attorney client privilege information. I am not Attorney client privilege unless you were in my chambers.
Judge Glanville:That's the only way you can figure out. I am telling you what. I'm gonna give you 5 minutes. If you don't tell me who you don't have to if you don't tell me who it is, I'm a put you I'm I'm I'm gonna put you in contempt because that is not attorney client privilege. Attorney work product privilege.
Judge Glanville:I am not How did you how did you get that information supposedly from my chambers? Did somebody tell you? I'm not. You should've told me. You got 5 minutes.
Attorney Brian Steele:Well, you
Judge Glanville:know, I don't need it. I wanna continue. Have you got 5 minutes? This is what I was told. Mister Koper He says Mister Koper made statements that he admitted to killing Donovan Thomas and was don't take my notes.
Judge Glanville:No. No. No. No. No.
Danessa Watkins:I mean, wild.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I like when he amends his statements. He addresses the court as this court and says, excuse me. Actually, this this court
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. No. Like, what a g. And then for the judge to call proprietary information, I mean, clearly, the judge was rattled and immediately went into, like, defensive mode.
Jack Sanker:A 100%.
Danessa Watkins:You know? For him to say, you know, we have a right to to these ex parte communications with a party. I and I don't know if this was clear from the the audio, but, so this the star witness for the prosecution, said he's gonna take the 5th, said, you know, he'll do his time, essentially ripping up the immunity deal. And after this meeting, decided to take the stand. So that I mean, something happened in chambers.
Jack Sanker:Well or or the judge could have denied and which was the question. The question was, is this true? Did this did this indeed happen?
Attorney Brian Steele:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:And the judge said, where did you find that out from?
Danessa Watkins:Exactly. Instead of
Jack Sanker:saying, you know, if it didn't happen, right, the the the court could have said, you know, counsel, you're mistaken. That that's not that happen. You must be confused. At which point, they probably would resolve the issue. Instead, the judge is like, wait a second.
Jack Sanker:You're not supposed to know about that is what it seems like.
Danessa Watkins:Right. Exactly. He wants to he wants to find out the leaks in his, you know, system.
Attorney Brian Steele:Did the
Jack Sanker:I think it's later in this because I've seen this clip too. It it may not have been in the part that you played, but the, the attorney, request that he serve his Mhmm. His, his contempt time with his clients so he could prepare for trial Yeah. Which is, like, a pretty slick move.
Danessa Watkins:Oh my god. I mean, this was like I we obviously don't do criminal defense work, but this to me is, like, you know, you hold this guy on a pedestal. Like, if you're a criminal defendant, you want a an attorney like this.
Jack Sanker:His phone has never stopped ringing after this Oh, for sure. Out. Like, every and this is I mean, Young Thug is about as high profile a client as you can get. But, like, this I remember when this happened a not all that long ago, but maybe a couple months ago. And I remember, like, the amount of, like, just people, social media, and even friends and family just being like, that's who I would want is my attorney
Attorney Brian Steele:A percent. Who's willing to go to jail for me, for willing to spend a couple of
Jack Sanker:nights in prison.
Attorney Brian Steele:Willing to
Jack Sanker:go to jail for me,
Attorney Brian Steele:for
Jack Sanker:willing to spend a couple of nights in prison, you know, to protect my rights to trial, which is, I mean, courageous.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Well, because he knew it was wrong.
Jack Sanker:It was. But a lot of people would say, well, I'm not going to prison for my clients.
Danessa Watkins:Clients. Exactly. Yeah. No. He's so he got a 20 day jail, sentence, which he was supposed to serve on the weekends so that he could, you know, continue trial.
Danessa Watkins:But, yeah, when he was he got escorted out of the courtroom in handcuffs, and, yeah, ultimately said, sure. I'll serve my time, but it better be in the same jail as my client so we can continue preparing for trial. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:That was and then I think there is a moment in the video where, like, he, like, says that or whatever, and his client, like, fist bumps him across the table, and it's like a like a pretty, like, epic moment. You know? Mhmm. Like, this this guy is gonna advertise on this for the rest of his career.
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm.
Danessa Watkins:Like Yeah. Yeah. And what a bad look, obviously, too for the Fulton County judiciary. I mean Yeah.
Jack Sanker:And it may not have even I don't know the fault. May maybe I don't wanna take away from the rest of your story, but I don't know if it even was necessarily malicious or nefarious like that communication. It could have been. I don't know. But Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:I don't know.
Jack Sanker:The fact is that's the reason why ex parte communications are prohibited.
Danessa Watkins:Right. And I'm sure you've come across this too. There have been times where sometimes, like, an email is sent to the judge and you leave somebody off or whatever. And the judge takes it upon themselves to say, just so you know, this communication was sent. You know, the judge is supposed to keep like, because sometimes things happen.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. But the judge is supposed to have that, you know, that duty to then inform the other side that this occurred.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I mean, if you walk into the the courthouse and you get there, you know, 10 minutes early before your hearing and the judge is sitting behind the bench, you might just start chatting.
Attorney Brian Steele:And
Jack Sanker:then the moment the other lawyer walks in the room, at least for me, you always explain, you know, counsel, we were just chatting about, like, the the Bears game. Or Sure.
Attorney Brian Steele:You know,
Jack Sanker:we were talking about the traffic this morning. We weren't talking about the case. Mhmm. Or if the case did come up, you would immediately go, you know, this wasn't an important issue, but, hey. We saw that there's a deadline next week.
Jack Sanker:I was gonna suggest once you got here that we move this deadline.
Danessa Watkins:You know, something Right.
Jack Sanker:Like benign or not important. A criminal case like this, you you wouldn't do that.
Danessa Watkins:No. I mean, this this trial started late November of 2023. So they're now, you know, 7 months into trial. And the
Attorney Brian Steele:key witness for the prosecutor is is, you know, the one that
Danessa Watkins:was at issue here. So, yeah, you can't be having communications with that witness Yeah. Without the other side present. Or if you
Attorney Brian Steele:did, you
Danessa Watkins:it is incumbent on the court to be
Attorney Brian Steele:like, you know, hey. Thanks for telling me that information or whatever. I have to
Jack Sanker:now hey. Thanks for telling me that information or whatever. I have to now share it with the other side.
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm. You know? Right. Right. It cannot
Jack Sanker:be that the other
Attorney Brian Steele:side finds out independently.
Jack Sanker:Right. And then you
Attorney Brian Steele:deny it. And then you take,
Danessa Watkins:yeah, take
Jack Sanker:offense to Yeah. And then you put the guy in jail for it.
Danessa Watkins:Right. Yeah. I mean The the judge ought to
Jack Sanker:be, you know
Danessa Watkins:Sanctioned.
Jack Sanker:Well, the judge ought to be apologizing
Attorney Brian Steele:Right.
Jack Sanker:To counsel. Like, when this comes up, you know what? That is what happened. At the moment, you know, the guy just walked in my office and started talking. Right?
Jack Sanker:I can't stop someone from doing that. Mhmm. It was ex parte. Let me tell you everything that went down. We're gonna do a hearing on this on the record outside the presence of the jury.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:You know, I will sign an affidavit as to, like, what was said. You do whatever you can to make it right.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:Exactly. Throw the guy in jail.
Danessa Watkins:I know. Yeah. So so, obviously, the the attorney appealed, the contempt, and, he and other defense counsel did file the motion to have the judge recuse himself. That process took about 2 weeks, and then they they did take judge Glanville off the case. At the Supreme Court level of Georgia, this ruling just came down.
Danessa Watkins:So attorney Steele had filed a 46 page long appeal, excuse me, to the contempt conviction. And the the justices, they really didn't even address much of his arguments. They just said, look. Judge Glanville clearly should have recused himself from handling the contempt charge. Like, you you cannot have that same judge issuing, you know, this contempt.
Danessa Watkins:So for that basis alone, they threw it out. So yeah. So the judge was removed from the case. Now to get into some of the craziness of this of this case, and this is just tip of the iceberg stuff. After that, judge Shikura Ingram was appointed to the case, but then she had to quickly recuse herself because one of her former deputies had a romantic involvement with
Jack Sanker:Alright.
Danessa Watkins:One of the codefendants. So she's off the case. Then there was, at some point, there was a 6 week hiatus, and trial resumed again in August. Now the new presiding judge is Paige Reese Whitaker, who I have to say I like a lot. I've I've been listening to some of her rulings, and she's really taking control of this courtroom and just enforced, you know, the level of decorum and professionalism that we really should expect from our profession.
Danessa Watkins:She's also come down really hard on the prosecutorial team, which, you know, in some ways is a bad look for the DA's office. But but really, the judge is holding them to their duties. And I think that that's, you know, important for a lot of reasons. But to that just come to mind is that we've already had an instance of an ex parte communication with a prior judge. And judge Whitaker then did what that former judge should have done, in a recent situation.
Danessa Watkins:There was another ex parte email from the DA's office that failed to include the defense counsel. She brought it up in open court and flat out said, like, you all know better. Like Yeah. Stop this. Especially now, especially after, you know, everything
Jack Sanker:that's already happened.
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm. Yep. Nope. She called them right out on it. And, also, I mean, this case is gonna hit the year mark in November.
Danessa Watkins:It takes a lot of money, taxpayer money, to prosecute a case like this.
Jack Sanker:Yes.
Danessa Watkins:And with everything that's been going on, there are just so many potential arguments for a mistrial, certainly for an appeal.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. And That's the other thing is, like, I don't know anything about the merits of the the prosecution, but, like, good luck with this conviction Seriously? Withstanding Yeah. The the, like, roughly 50 appealable issues that we just mentioned.
Danessa Watkins:Right. And yeah. So judge Whitaker is really just, I think, trying to do everything she can to right the ship and not make, you know, the last year for, you know, worthless. So, it's interesting. So what she did when she took over the case, she essentially said that the jury she instructed the jury.
Danessa Watkins:They have to ignore all the prior testimony of Lil Woody, Copeland, that came after that improper ex parte meeting in Judge's Chambers. So he had to pretty much restart his testimony. Now in another crazy twist, in mid August, Copeland's attorney was unexpectedly suspended from practicing law.
Jack Sanker:Amazing.
Danessa Watkins:I wish and this this was in the middle of his testimony. This stemmed from unrelated issues that involved a a 2017 child support case. So but this left the, you know, testifying witness without legal representation, so that, you know, had the court scurrying to try and make sure he had representation so that they could continue. The prosecutor had played hours of tapes of Copeland's 2015 confessions to the police, which implicate young thug and other YSL members in a murder. However, However, when Copeland was questioned about his prior statements, he backtracked, said, no.
Danessa Watkins:I was just trying to protect my family, and I, you know, had to falsely implicate young thug in various crimes. So he's now, you know, now that he's been forced to testify, he's going back on every he's now, you know, now that he's been forced to testify, he's going back on everything, essentially. There were also multiple things that even though he testified to them a few months ago, he's now saying, I can't recall. Now if This
Jack Sanker:is the prosecution's star witness.
Danessa Watkins:Star witness. Yes. Now if that wasn't enough, another dramatic twist is soon after giving all of this testimony of I can't recall, Lil released a song titled, I don't recall Amazing. Which directly
Attorney Brian Steele:so good.
Danessa Watkins:Directly references his courtroom testimony, and does, you know, the song lyrics just echo his repeated use of the phrase, I don't recall, during cross examination where he just
Attorney Brian Steele:Listen.
Danessa Watkins:You know?
Jack Sanker:There's no such thing as bad press. Right?
Danessa Watkins:So, I mean, we have a jury that's gonna have to weigh this this witness' credibility, determine whether, you know, he's just capitalizing on his testimony or if he's blurring these lines of his role as a witness versus a public figure. But, obviously, this is just a ridiculous blow for the prosecution team.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I mean, a lot of this is self imposed. I mean, you know, it it's good lawyer on on the part of the defense, it seems like, but these are a lot of these are completely self inflicted wounds that you just, you know, don't don't need to do. And, like, as a prosecutor, you if you find out that a witness has walked into the judge's office and wants to tar like, and you find out, you're like, oh my god. This is
Attorney Brian Steele:gonna blow
Jack Sanker:up my case Right. On appeal. Like, I
Attorney Brian Steele:I am
Jack Sanker:you know, I'm prosecuting this person. This is I'm going to run to the defense Mhmm. And tell them that this happened. You know? I would immediately do my best as the, you know, as the prosecutor to remedy this Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:Even if the court doesn't, which the court should, because I'm I I've created this massive appellate issue. Right. So, yeah, it's
Danessa Watkins:Now this and judge Whitaker has more than once shown her clear frustration with the prosecutors. She went so far in in one one of the days of trial. She essentially said, like, this case has gone on for so many months because you are flying by the seat of your pants. Like, it's clear you had, like, no direction in in bringing this and really, like she ended up having to, like, stop herself and take a recess because you could tell she was, like, holding back so much frustration.
Jack Sanker:Right.
Danessa Watkins:Because I think she sees at the end of the day, like, this is potentially such a waste of time and money. And, you know, it could have been handled so differently.
Jack Sanker:Or I mean, the other concern is that this and, again, I don't know anything about the merits of the case, but, like, a legitimate concern is that the accused are guilty.
Danessa Watkins:Right. Exactly. And and you're blowing it.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. And you're blowing your opportunity to put someone behind bars who should be behind bars. And, again, I'm not saying that's the case. I don't know the facts.
Danessa Watkins:But, yeah, that's the other side of it. Exactly.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. So as, like, a member of the public, you should be frustrated for all those reasons. Like, a basically, like a I don't wanna say frivolous prosecution, but, like, one that is just not being done properly.
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:And that's a waste of time and money that you should be upset about. And, and slash or, this is the state's one opportunity to address these alleged criminal acts, and they're blowing it. Mhmm. So both of those things should be infuriating. Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Absolutely. And then, you know, just because I have to put my my free speech twist on this. Mhmm. I am just kinda digging into this case a little bit more.
Danessa Watkins:I have to say I just take issue with this idea of
Jack Sanker:The song lyrics.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Using an artist's work as evidence against them in a criminal trial. I mean, there I know New York. I'm sure there are other states that have come out with with, statutes against this. But, I mean, music artists take on personas, like, you know, especially the rap culture, like, they're they portray themselves as tough streetwise, you know, walking the fine line, if not jumping over the line of criminal activity.
Danessa Watkins:But, you know, do musicians write about real life events? Sure. But do they also write about things that never actually happened or skew the truth and, you know, tell a story in a way that's gonna be, you know, attractive to the pa? Of course, they do. And when I was thinking about this, I was like, alright.
Danessa Watkins:Let's take it out of, you know, rap culture for a minute. What's another genre? Country.
Jack Sanker:Sure.
Danessa Watkins:Alright. Carrie Underwood. I dug my key into the side of his pretty little souped up 4
Jack Sanker:wheel drive.
Attorney Brian Steele:She
Danessa Watkins:might have done that. Carved my name into his leather seats. Like, she's literally singing
Jack Sanker:about property damage. Yeah. So if Probably, like, stalking
Danessa Watkins:and harassment. Yeah. So if an ex boyfriend came forward and said, you know, I dated her and then suddenly I don't even know. My my prized baseball card collection got ripped up. Like, are they gonna play that song in court and be like, yuck.
Danessa Watkins:This is her m o. Like, you know, but I'm just like like to take it to that level. Like, we think that's silly, but I'm sure these rappers feel the same way. Like, you are you seriously holding me, you know, accountable for things I put out as an artist?
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I don't know. I I because I I also think that I mean, it would depend on the specific statements in the song as they relate to the specific allegations of the crime.
Danessa Watkins:No doubt.
Jack Sanker:If there's, like, a, you know, a part of the song that's, like like, hi. It's young thug, and I committed the following crimes on these dates with these people, then I you know, I think that's I do think that's fair game.
Attorney Brian Steele:Well, I
Danessa Watkins:think there has to be a threshold. Right? Right. Like, there has to be a a clear, like, evidentiary hearing of, showing. And I don't know if that did or didn't happen in this case.
Danessa Watkins:So, you know, I can't say one way or another. But,
Jack Sanker:because What's the object is it a relevance objection then? Because it's I mean, it's not hearsay. Right? Because it's a it's an admission. It's so it would be, like, a 403 type relevance.
Jack Sanker:This is more Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:More damaging.
Attorney Brian Steele:Pro
Jack Sanker:or is it unduly prejudicial
Danessa Watkins:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Compared to probative.
Danessa Watkins:Right. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:I mean but that's, like, a normal thing that judges have to deal with in every case. You know? I I I guess that would be the ruling I'd be interested in. I should have read it, frankly.
Danessa Watkins:Well and I don't know, like, I don't know if this came up in pretrial in this case or not. I would assume, you know, this attorney seems to know what he's doing. So Yeah. I would think it came up. But, but, yeah, I just I don't know.
Danessa Watkins:It's it raises red flags for me for sure.
Jack Sanker:Right. Right. Well yeah. I mean, it's it's one of those, like, chilling things. Like, you it could theoretically have a chilling effect on speech.
Jack Sanker:Right. And, you know, there's reliability questions as well about whether you could rely on the that type of thing. Yeah. I I mean, people make up things in music all the time for sure. That said, there probably is a time and a place for it to for the prosecutors to to use those statements if, like I said, if it's, like, hyper specific.
Jack Sanker:Right?
Danessa Watkins:Hyper specific. Yeah. But if you're just going to play a bunch of songs and say, you know, this is and and make that, like, your character evidence Yeah. You know, of a of a person, it's, that, obviously, I take issue with. And, yeah, what are we gonna do?
Danessa Watkins:Like, someday, we're gonna end up with, you know, bland songs with happy go lucky lyrics. Yeah. But, like, that's all because people are gonna be scared to, you know, talk about anything real.
Jack Sanker:Right.
Danessa Watkins:Right. I don't know. I that's probably taking it too far. I'm sure people will always put out things, but I who knows? I mean
Jack Sanker:Yeah. No. And this I mean, I I was thinking about, like, the the Reasonable Doubt album. Like, Jay z did a whole album about how he got off from his Mhmm. Criminal charges.
Jack Sanker:And it's like, you know, I I imagine the prosecutor hearing that being, like, damn it.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. You know? Have you seen now too, all the the other things that are coming out about Diddy and how all of these artists have for decades been telling us
Jack Sanker:Oh, yeah.
Attorney Brian Steele:Like
Danessa Watkins:in their lyrics. Yeah. Yeah. Like, Eminem has put out a bunch of songs or yeah. He's calling Diddy out, and only now are we like, oh, shoot.
Danessa Watkins:He was warning us. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Oh, that's another thing.
Attorney Brian Steele:I That's
Danessa Watkins:a totally different subject.
Jack Sanker:But That's probably we'll get an episode of that down the road because I I don't think that the
Danessa Watkins:We need to get yeah. That case needs to get moving a little further before
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Cover it. But, alright. Since this is an ever evolving case, that's continues to be on trial Yeah. It's a it's a wild one.
Jack Sanker:That's I mean, it's fantastic case to to kind of watch as an outside observer
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:Setting aside, like, the merits of the accusations and all that stuff. Good lawyering, interesting stories. I mean, it's it's been everywhere, social media.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Yep. So we'll keep you updated.
Jack Sanker:Alright. Our next story is a is a bit of a it is it is a downer, I shouldn't say. It's a bit of a downer. It's it is a depressing story, but it's, I I it's I think it's important to cover. It it very much is in line with the story that was, we covered on our last episode, relating to the TikTok lawsuits.
Jack Sanker:And on that episode and the lawsuits we talked about there, basically boiled down allegations that, like, TikTok and social media more broadly, it poses a mental health, threat, to to young people. It's addictive, and it can, you know, exacerbate mental health conditions, whatever. This is, you know, an extreme version of that, and this is as it relates to a number a a specific AI chatbot app by the name of character dotai. So we'll start with what what is the app. Character dotai, and kind of more broadly, there's a lot of AI companionship slash friend apps that are on the market.
Jack Sanker:Some of them are, like, just overtly pornographic, so you can, like, have, like, you know, like, sexual exchanges with these chatbots or or whatever. And other of them are just, like, goofy, playful. Like, you you could just chitchat like a friend. I mean, I remember as far back as yeah. My producer's nodding along.
Jack Sanker:I remember as far back as, like, the early 2000s. Remember AIM?
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm. Do you
Jack Sanker:remember Smarter Child?
Danessa Watkins:Yes.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Wow.
Danessa Watkins:Blast from the past.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. And and so you could and it was like something you did, like, with your friends at a sleepover.
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm. And
Jack Sanker:you would just be like, hey, sport or child. Like, you know, why do you stink? You know?
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:It's like stupid things. Like, it was, like, funny to get a response back from a robot.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:So some of them are like that, and then some of them are, you know, adult, like, explicitly adult. Some of them, I mean, a lot of them are, like, the ones that, you know, some of the listeners are maybe using, like like, chat gpt where you can, you know, use it for more practical things.
Danessa Watkins:So these are but some of them are legitimately, like, you're just chatting. And then you know you're chatting with AI.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Yeah. They don't the the app does not try overtly to deceive the user. Like, it there's they're not saying, you know, you aren't talking to a real person. Like, they're open about that.
Jack Sanker:And even in in the chats that you have on character dotai, like, in the text box, it says, like, a as a reminder something along the line of, like, reminder you were chatting with an AI.
Danessa Watkins:Got it.
Jack Sanker:Something like that. So the idea is, like, you know, hopefully, you don't forget that. Yeah. Character dotai, their users get to kind of create their own custom chatbot based on, like, whatever preferences they want. You could talk to, like, historical figures.
Jack Sanker:I'm gonna be relying today a lot on the recent New York Times article, which is from October 23rd by Kevin Ruz. And in that article, he describes character dotai as follows, quote, users can select from a vast array of user created chat box that mimic celebrity celebrities like Elon Musk, historical figures like William Shakespeare, or unlicensed versions of fictional characters, unquote. In this case, it would be Daenerys Targaryen, which is the character from Game of Thrones.
Judge Glanville:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:That is who the individual the the 14 year old boy that we're gonna be talking about here in a moment, decided to set up this, like, chatting relationship with. As an aside, yes. All of these anytime they're using these, like, fictional characters that are, like, licensed IP, like, they are not paying licenses fees. So so, like, there's, like that's a whole another conversation, but this, yeah, I think is also doing blatant intellectual property infringement, but, you know, separate discussion. Anyways Allegedly Oh,
Danessa Watkins:Anyways Allegedly Allegedly as your
Jack Sanker:defamation attorney.
Danessa Watkins:My opinion Okay. Okay. Yeah. That's not gonna
Attorney Brian Steele:save you,
Jack Sanker:but Yeah. Go ahead. My yeah. Anyways, some so there's a lot of different ways you can use them, and they're marketed differently. They're marketed towards all types of things.
Jack Sanker:This app in particular, has some concerning traits, I would say, that that make it stick out at least in light of what actually happened here. Going back to the New York Times piece, quote, some of character dot ai's most popular chat box had
Attorney Brian Steele:names like aggressive teacher and high school simulator, and many seem to
Jack Sanker:be tailor made for aggressive teacher and high school simulator, and many seem to be tailor made for teenage wish fulfillment. The description of 1 particular character, which has received 176,000,000 messages from users, read, your best your boy best friend who has a secret crush on you, unquote.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, so these are, like, preloaded, you're not making up these,
Jack Sanker:I'm not sure. I think
Danessa Watkins:Or maybe it's a little bit of both. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:I think maybe you can make your own and then others can use it.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, okay.
Jack Sanker:I'm not exactly sure. But but some of the most most popular ones on this platform are, like, clearly targeted at people under the age of 18. Yeah. Okay. A spokesperson for the company said, quote, Gen z and younger millennials make up a significant portion of our community and that younger users enjoy the character experience both for meaningful and educational conversations as well as for entertainment.
Jack Sanker:The average user spend more than an hour a day on the platform, unquote. So, theoretically, they are at least, acknowledging that a lot of their users are are young children, which, you know, should imply a certain amount of, like, safety and and things like that. Mhmm. So, the individual that we're gonna be talking about here, and and I I'm gonna say this, and I'm gonna try not to dwell on it. But for those of you that are listening that are, sensitive to this type of thing, this story does involve, the death of a 14 year old boy, and does involve, you know, him taking his own life as a result.
Jack Sanker:So, there's really no way to say that. That expresses enough, enough, you know, sadness about that fact, but that is what the story is. So, skip to the end if you wanna get past the sad part. So, the individual is a 14 year old boy from Orlando, Florida, whose name I'm not gonna mention. He apparently had spent months talking to, chatbots on character dotai.
Jack Sanker:He, specifically, as I mentioned before, was using one that was created to mimic, the nanny's Daenerys Targaryen from Game of Thrones. And he knew or he would have known that, you know, this was an AI model. Like, there's there's a lawsuit that came out of this. There's no allegations that, you know, he was confused, that he was talking to a real person. So, nonetheless, he developed, frankly, according to, his mother who's in who's interviewed for this piece and who eventually filed a lawsuit, which we'll talk about.
Jack Sanker:And, records that were reviewed by The New York Times clearly developed an emotional attachment. He texted the bot constantly, talking to it, you know, dozens of times a day, engaging in long, like, role playing dialogues where he, like, pretended to be a Game of Thrones character, which is I don't know. That is not all that weird for a a little boy, like, to let No. That's playful. Yeah.
Jack Sanker:But some of their chats got romantic, and some of them got even sexual. But a lot of the times, at least according to the the article here, the the chatbot acts like a friend, quote, a judgment free sounding board he could count on to listen supportively and give good advice, who who really broke character and always texted back, unquote.
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:So, the kind of level of attachment here that, the deceased, 14 year old, got to is, I think, revealing about how even though you're looking at something in the face, which says, you know, I am a chatbot. I am not real. Like, emotions don't work that way.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:So he kept the journal as well. The the boy did, and he wrote in his journal, quote, I like staying in my room so much because I start to detach from this reality. I also feel more at peace, more connected with Danny. Danny is the chatbot. Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:And much more in love with her and just happier, unquote. The boy in this case did have, mild Asperger's syndrome, which I do think is relevant, but he never had behavioral mental health problems before according to his mother. And he quoting from the piece earlier this year, he started getting in trouble at school. His parents arranged for him to see a therapist. He went to 5 sessions.
Jack Sanker:He was giving a new diagnosis of anxiety and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder, unquote. The the kid here, apparently really used the chatbot like therapist at times and discussed, you know, his personal problems and things you know, issues at school, etcetera.
Danessa Watkins:Or you could even say, like, a friend.
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:Which, I mean, I could see the good side of that if there are kids that are lonely, but I can also see, like, that sad, you know, at the same time.
Jack Sanker:Oh, man. I mean so that's what's interesting. The whole, like, loneliness angle because that is actually what a lot of these tech founders of these different, like, chatbots are expressly saying, hey. We're addressing, loneliness. We are selling a product that we can help people be less lonely.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yes.
Jack Sanker:And and it is like an optimistic thing. So, like,
Danessa Watkins:But also, like, then at the same time, targets potentially a more vulnerable, you know, group of people.
Jack Sanker:Well yeah. I mean, there's a lot going on here, and I didn't get too far into the actual lawsuit. I was more caught up with the details of the background of of what this, chatbot does and and what, you know, the relationship that it formed with this child. But there's nothing stopping these chatbots from, like, engaging in, like, sexual conversations with a minor, which I think is
Danessa Watkins:So, yeah, there's no, like, restrictions on
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:The the
Jack Sanker:content. That's gotta be
Danessa Watkins:That's an issue.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yeah.
Jack Sanker:Big time.
Attorney Brian Steele:I
Jack Sanker:mean, that's gotta be something that is addressed, like, bare minimum. Right? That that's gotta be the same, but then you get into, like, these, like, gray areas of, like, emotional attraction and, you know, manipulation. I don't wanna say I mean, there's not, as far as I know, allegations that the chatbot was manipulating this kid towards taking his own life. And from the the logs that I saw, it didn't seem like there was like, no one was encouraging but I think that a neutral observer would view these chat logs as, like, an unhealthy relationship given that this is not a real person.
Danessa Watkins:Right. And I'm just I mean, you know, we've talked about this before where, like, AI is only as good as, you know, the the data you put into it. And it would just seem like you could quickly lose control
Jack Sanker:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:As a company of, you know, what AI is is saying because it's gonna it's gonna keep evolving, you know, based on the inputs it gets from all these users.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. So here's, going back to The New York Times piece kind of on this quote. There's now a booming largely unregulated industry of AI companion apps for monthly subscription free usually around $10. Users, of these apps can create their own AI companions or pick from a menu of prebuilt personas, chat with them in a variety of ways, including text messages and voice chats. Many of the apps are designed to simulate girlfriends, boyfriends, or other intimate relationships, and some market themselves as a way of combating the so called, loneliness epidemic.
Jack Sanker:And later in the piece, there's a quote from, Noam Shazir, who's one of the founders of of Character dotai, and he says, quote, it's gonna be super, super helpful to a lot of people who are lonely or depressed, unquote. The piece goes on to discuss, the reports of of other users. For some users, AI companions, AI friends, tend to worsen social isolation? I
Danessa Watkins:was just thinking that, and I didn't wanna, like, cut you off. No. Yeah. I I it's like we're addressing this issue in our day and age where everybody is, you know, looking at their phones and obsessed with social media, and we interact in, you know, a a digital world as opposed to face to face. But then if you're creating this product that's supposed to, like, help that, except it's only making them turn inward more.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. And and and, you know, you only have so much, like, emotional availability in the day. And these AI chatbots are, like, are, like, an emotional availability sync. You know? If you like, if I have, you know, 5 hours of energy to, like, be empathetic towards my fellow human beings, you know, like, if that's how much time and energy I have in a given day, you know, I'm now wasting it, literally wasting it on this chatbot.
Danessa Watkins:Right. Because he said he he liked to keep himself locked in his room.
Jack Sanker:He preferred it over anything else. And that's, yeah. I mean, that's I don't know. There's no other way to say it, I think, than that seems really sad. So, I don't wanna get into details of the actual, you know, event of of him, taking his own life.
Jack Sanker:You can look that up if you want to. But it's really sad. And there's there doesn't seem to be you know, there's never a moment where the chatbot is saying, like, I want you to do this. Right? But there's it's kinda playing along, frankly.
Jack Sanker:It's staying in character and, like, you know, it just it just is a weird conversation that it has basically, the moment up till, he does it. He's the last person, you know, person he talks to is this chatbot. Mhmm. So, yeah, it's it's a really sad story. There's and it it kind of illustrates in a really painful way some of the pitfalls of applying AI to, you know, every problem under the sun, which is what, you know, tech founders TikTok lawsuits.
Jack Sanker:You know, it it's, I mean, it's, it's, the TikTok lawsuits, you know, it it's, I mean, it's a chatbot. It the most charitable way you could describe it is is its attention harvesting. You know, it's trying to just get the attention of its users for whatever reasons. I don't know. Maybe it just displays ads on the bottom or something stupid like that.
Jack Sanker:Probably does. Mhmm. But the byproduct of that is, like, whatever you wanna call this weird relationship that this this poor kid had with it. And, and maybe, you know, 1,000 or millions of other people are are developing in lieu of, like, real personal relationships with people. I I think it's a bizarre claim from this from the founder of the company that, like, oh, this can help with loneliness
Danessa Watkins:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:Because that assumes that, like, having a relationship with the chatbot is identical to having a relationship with a person. I would say it's not. You know? And it therefore, it's exacerbating loneliness. You know?
Jack Sanker:Yeah. You can't be unlonely by talking to a chatbot, I think. Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? In any event, the, this you know, the reason we're talking about it is because it did it did draw a lawsuit from the, from the child's mother, whose name is Megan Garcia.
Jack Sanker:She's an attorney. She is we are recording today. It is Wednesday, October 23rd. She has done some, like, online media appearances for, like, YouTube channels that that talk about these things, and she's been around kind of pitching her lawsuit to different, publications and and is is told folks that she intends to file her lawsuit today, so October 23rd.
Danessa Watkins:Okay.
Jack Sanker:So I haven't seen the lawsuit.
Danessa Watkins:Actually, yeah, it looks like I'm reading an article on Reuters. It looks like she did file it yesterday
Attorney Brian Steele:Okay. Maybe late,
Danessa Watkins:and said this is just what she quoted. I don't know if this is in the lawsuit or what she said to the this article, but she said the company programmed its chatbot to misrepresent itself as a real person, a licensed psychotherapist, and an adult lover, ultimately resulting in her son's desire to no longer live outside of the world created by the service.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. I mean, without looking looking at it, I have no idea the merits of the lawsuit and everything else. You know, unlicensed practice in medicine seems like an interesting claim there.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. Really. Well, yeah. It says
Jack Sanker:In some comments that during some interviews that she did in the lead up to this, she she said, she accused character dotai of harvesting teenage, data to train its models, using indicative design features to increase engagement, steering users towards intimate and sexual conversations in the hopes of luring them in. She said, quote, I feel like it's a big experiment. My kid was just collateral damage, unquote. Allegations which are pretty similar, at least
Attorney Brian Steele:overall, to what
Jack Sanker:the attorneys general of general of state of Illinois Mhmm. And 13 other states have alleged against TikTok.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:So
Danessa Watkins:Well, actually, yeah, almost identical because The Guardian, reported on this and said her claims are negligence, wrongful death, but also deceptive trade practices.
Jack Sanker:So that's very interesting.
Danessa Watkins:That's exactly what was brought
Jack Sanker:against that talk. You you do have a private cause of action under most of those statutes. So that's actually quite interesting because and I bet that she is actually, I don't have to guess because, the New York Times piece talks about it. Miss Garcia, the the mother, found a couple of different law firms who are starting to create niche practices in this area. Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:The, Social Media Victims Law Center, which is a a plaintiff's firm, based in Seattle that that has brought lawsuits against Meta, TikTok, Snap, Discord, and Roblox. Seemingly, they're building up a practice that specializes in kind of this type of thing, which is very interesting.
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:The firm, the Social Media the social media victims law center started by an attorney named Matthew Bergman, and he said in an interview, quote, the theme of our work is that social media and now character dotai poses a clear and present danger to young people because they are vulnerable to persuasive algorithms that capitalize on their immaturity, unquote. There is also another law group that's involved, the Tech Justice Law Project, which I believe I actually filed the lawsuit on on the mother's behalf. And there's another group, like a nonprofit that has gotten involved as a technical adviser, Center For Humane Technology. So there it's interesting that there are now, like, places to go, professionals, experts, people with experience that are offering these services to, you know, potentially aggrieved victims like the mother in this case. Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:It seems like an area of law that will, I mean, it has to evolve. Right? And
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:And this is, by the way, like say what you want about I mean, I I'm a defense attorney. I I but I I started my career on the plaintiff side. People have strong opinions about plaintiff's attorneys. I will say this. They move typically a lot faster than regulators do, to when it comes to, like, consumer actions, things like this.
Jack Sanker:So if, like, there's a company that's doing something bad and harmful, like, plaintiff's lawyers will be on it. Right. And that's what's happening here because they're way ahead of whatever congress thinks they're gonna do. You know? And, by the way, the attorneys generals of the states have filed these lawsuits because TikTok as well.
Jack Sanker:But, like, congress doesn't have a clue.
Danessa Watkins:Well, yeah, I just our legislature doesn't move that fast
Attorney Brian Steele:Right.
Danessa Watkins:To keep up with the technology. That's always been the case, but it you know, it's only getting faster. So But
Jack Sanker:if these I mean, if these companies get, you know, crushed with, like, huge verdicts for, under the relevant consumer fraud statutes, like, that will regulate their activity.
Danessa Watkins:Oh, for sure.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yeah. That will regulate their activity faster than a law would Right. Like, than a than
Jack Sanker:a statute would. Regulate their activity faster than a law would Right.
Attorney Brian Steele:Like, than a than a statute would. So Right.
Jack Sanker:So, yeah, I mean, again, really sad story, but, like,
Danessa Watkins:this type
Attorney Brian Steele:of I I
Jack Sanker:feel like we're moving a 1000000 miles an hour with Mhmm. AI and it it just applying it to everything.
Danessa Watkins:Well and I think that there's just not it's it's still the wild west, you know, and we and it's the unpredictability of it, I think, requires companies to, you know, have some forethought and put some real responsibilities on them to think ahead of, you know, what are the potential outcomes and how do we put in place protections in advance. Like, I just found this Forbes art I mean, these articles are coming out like this came out a minute ago. You know, like, this is a hot issue right now. The
Jack Sanker:lawsuit hit last night.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. So it's yeah. But, Should
Judge Glanville:we get there
Danessa Watkins:first? Right. Yeah. Move over New York Times. But it does note that, the the boy confided in the bot about feelings of depression and suicide, and there was no intervention from the platform.
Danessa Watkins:So that's a perfect example of there has to be, and I don't do anything in techno you know, as far as, like, writing programs, but I would imagine there's some way where, you know, if a conversation starts to steer a certain way, there should be, you know, there should be some reporting mechanism or some red flags. I mean, even, like, thinking about, patient and and their psychiatrist, there is a basis for a psychiatrist to break the confidentiality when they think that their client is gonna harm themselves.
Jack Sanker:And and
Danessa Watkins:So why shouldn't there be that, you
Judge Glanville:know, the same thing here.
Jack Sanker:It's a bit rich, you know, that this I mean, these AIs are they're large language models. Their whole thing is being able to interpret human speech and, in a way that, you know, is relatable and, mimics, you know, having conversation with a real person. So, like, this AI, right, is is listening to this boy say these things. This company advertises they have, you know, an AI that can mimic human interactions. It actually would be cheaper, you would think, for them to have some type of, I don't know, another AI that monitors the activity of its AIs.
Jack Sanker:Right? So if
Attorney Brian Steele:if
Jack Sanker:if, like, one of these chatbots is talking to a kid who's talking about, like, I'm depressed, like, that ought to be flagged.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yep. And that
Danessa Watkins:doesn't have to be
Jack Sanker:that doesn't have to involve paying a 1000000 people to read these things. Right. That should be automated.
Danessa Watkins:Like, let's start monitoring this and then, you know, how often are they talking about these feelings
Jack Sanker:and pull up? Company is, like, uniquely built to do that probably pretty easily.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. You're right.
Jack Sanker:That's the the weird part to me is, like, you're already you already have a product that reviews text conversations.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:Like, just make it review the ones that you create with your other product.
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:And flag certain things, you know. And and if those things happen, like, you know, whatever needs to happen after that, I don't know. I mean, maybe there's state regulations about mandatory reporting, you know, maybe, you know, it would be great if the parents got some type of notification or, like, that's probably never gonna happen. Right.
Attorney Brian Steele:Or it
Jack Sanker:just turns it off. You know?
Danessa Watkins:Right.
Jack Sanker:Yeah. Or it just says, you know what? You're banned.
Danessa Watkins:Well and then I I could see that turning to deeper depression for the user Right. For 2, you know, then feeling ultimately rejected.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yes.
Danessa Watkins:But yeah. No. There has to be some way to, you're right. Of course, they they know how to create these. You know?
Danessa Watkins:But, I
Jack Sanker:mean, it's that's
Attorney Brian Steele:what's it's bizarre to me because, like,
Jack Sanker:they have the the technology already. Because everyone else that was, like, doing like, so, like, 10 years ago or 20 years ago, like,
Attorney Brian Steele:it was always a
Jack Sanker:thing on, like, Internet forums. Like, if there was, like, content that was, like, you know, awful or or depressing or people talking about, like, do you know, harming themselves or whatever on, like, Internet forums. Like, that was a topic of, like, what do you what is the forum supposed to do? So what is, like, Facebook supposed to do? Yeah.
Jack Sanker:What is Reddit supposed to do? Like and and the the thing was, like, well, listen. We can't monitor all that. Right. There's billions of posts every second.
Jack Sanker:We can't possibly do that. Well, now you actually can. Like, it's and in fact, you build a product that can do it. So, yeah, it does seem like yeah. You don't think this would happen?
Jack Sanker:Mhmm. Especially when the whole thing is, like, cartoon characters and fantasy characters and, you know, boyfriend simulators and stuff that, like, teenagers are gonna be interested in.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yep.
Jack Sanker:So I don't know.
Danessa Watkins:Yeah. It's and it's just unfortunate that it, you know, takes something like this for it to, you know, be addressed. Like, these companies should be taking that, you know, that responsibility in the forefront, especially when you know, like you said, you're targeting a group of, adolescents who have issues regulating their emotions without this.
Attorney Brian Steele:Yeah.
Danessa Watkins:I mean,
Jack Sanker:I mean, adults are adults, and, you know, the standard needs to be different there. But when and it's also different if a kid, you know, gains access to something that's meant for adults, like, by lying about their age or something like that. That that to me is different. But not here where they're seemingly targeting, you know, children
Attorney Brian Steele:Mhmm.
Jack Sanker:And adolescents. So, anyways, I'll be interested to see, what motion to dismiss they file. Yeah. Yeah. And, and just the litigation around this issue.
Jack Sanker:To me, this goes in the same bucket as the TikTok lawsuits as, like, you know, private actors trying to push back against, social media, algorithmic, like, social coercion,
Attorney Brian Steele:you know,
Jack Sanker:things like that. So we'll see. It's it's a it's an it's an interesting thing that, you know, I personally wanna keep my eye on just because it's fascinating. But, yeah. Sad story but an important one, I think.
Danessa Watkins:Absolutely.
Jack Sanker:Folks, if you or someone you know is having trouble or having thoughts of self harm or anything like that, there are resources. You can call or text 988 to reach the 988, suicide and crisis lifeline or go on to speaking of suicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources. Alright, everyone. That's the show. Thanks for listening.
Jack Sanker:Reminder, you could find us anywhere you get your podcast, YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etcetera. We publish every 2 weeks, and we'll talk to you then.
