0:00

ABC Listen, podcasts,

0:02

radio, news, music and

0:05

more. Do

0:13

you ever wonder just how private your scrolling

0:15

is on the internet? Is your browsing really

0:17

that secure? Yes, this week on Download

0:19

This Show, the government is set to bring in new privacy regulations

0:22

to strengthen data protection. So exactly

0:25

what will it look like? Next on the show, how

0:27

social media companies can tackle disinformation

0:29

during a time of war, all of that and much

0:31

more coming up. This is your guide to the week in

0:34

media, technology and culture. My

0:36

name is Mark Finnell and welcome

0:38

to Download This Show.

0:50

Yes indeed, it is a brand new episode of

0:52

Download This Show and in a weird

0:54

twist of fate, I actually have

0:57

two guests in the studio. Because

0:59

you're listening to this on podcast, you have no idea that normally everyone's

1:01

spread across the country, but the amazing

1:03

Meg Coffey, digital strategist

1:05

and managing director of Coffee&Tea, you're

1:07

actually in the studio. I know,

1:09

I'm so excited. So real.

1:12

I am real for the first time face

1:14

to face with you. Not

1:17

AI, finally confirmed. I know,

1:19

hard to believe.

1:20

And Daniel Van Boom, technology correspondent at Capital

1:22

Brief. Welcome back. Thank you. It

1:25

feels like it's 2019. The

1:28

good old days.

1:29

Magical magical times. All right.

1:31

Nothing more fun than new privacy

1:33

legislation. There had to be a better throw than that,

1:36

but that's what I'm committing to. We are talking

1:38

about potential changes in privacy

1:40

legislation. It has been broached

1:42

by the government. Daniel, what has been discussed?

1:45

So much. So this, so

1:47

the original privacy act. Really dropped the ball on that intro.

1:50

Everyone knows it. That's right. I'll

1:52

drop the ball on the answer. The original privacy act

1:54

came in in 1988, which was like

1:57

before the internet became a thing properly. So

1:59

in like.

1:59

2019 the government was like we should probably

2:02

give that a look in early this year

2:04

the Attorney General's office Handed

2:06

down its report on potential things that they

2:09

could do to reform that act key among

2:11

them are things like the ability to to

2:13

delete the the ability

2:16

to ask companies to delete the data they have on

2:18

you to opt out of Companies

2:20

like Facebook and Google from targeting

2:23

advertisements out you things of that nature And

2:25

now we have the government's

2:27

response to the responses to that report.

2:30

God. I love bureaucracies Yeah, the wheels move

2:32

slow man, but we're getting there, but they're methodical

2:35

So of the things that have been tabled Meg.

2:38

What do you think is the most urgent that needs to

2:40

be dealt with? Asap.

2:42

Oh what needs who that's a good one There's

2:44

a lot of them I think it's probably the fact that we sort

2:46

of can have control of our own

2:49

data now I think that was the one that was the most interesting

2:52

to me Is that we actually can

2:54

control it and we can say look you need to delete my

2:56

data that I have the right to request that

2:59

Deletion now that was that was the one

3:01

that was the most important to me what yes There

3:04

are things that we're getting closer to GDPR We're

3:06

getting closer to you know more Regulations

3:08

around what small businesses need to do there is

3:10

a lot in that that I think a lot of people need

3:12

to pay attention To but from the

3:15

the human personal point of view the

3:17

thing that I like most about it is that I

3:19

can say hey

3:19

Stop stop tracking me. What's

3:22

missing from it? And because I know you have lots

3:24

of thoughts and feelings on privacy in general and

3:26

you're like the social media strategist that has the most

3:28

Like complex opinions about social media

3:30

that I've ever met and it's one of the many reasons why we

3:33

love having What

3:35

do you feel like is isn't being discussed

3:37

that you would like to see discussed? Is there anything that

3:39

stands out look

3:40

I think I mean it is a double-edged

3:42

sword, right? I love personalization in

3:44

that I want ads that are

3:46

the right ads for me. I don't want ads of

3:48

nonsense So I like that

3:50

I can be targeted but at the same

3:53

time I don't want all my data being sold

3:55

and it's it's wrong that

3:57

I'm not in control of the things that

4:00

I'm not in control of my own data.

4:03

And so I think that we do need more regulation

4:05

around that about controlling your own

4:07

data and who has access to it. And

4:09

then what happens when there are breaches?

4:11

Because

4:13

I don't think that we have enough enforcement

4:15

around that. And I think that

4:17

every business, no matter the size, should

4:20

be responsible for data. If you are collecting

4:22

someone's personal information and

4:25

things that are personal, whatever that

4:27

is, whatever that data point is, you need

4:29

to have strict precautions

4:32

in place to protect that. It's

4:34

horrible to say that data is the new oil. But

4:37

these things are important. And all of these data

4:39

points together are an important

4:42

profile. And that's really valuable. And I

4:44

don't think businesses are paying enough attention to

4:46

that. And so we do need more attention paid

4:48

to the protection of personal data.

4:51

There is a bit of a balancing act here, though, isn't there? Because

4:53

often we talk about the responsibility

4:55

shifting on people that manage our data. And we

4:58

instinctively think of the Facebooks and Googles of

5:00

this world. But I suppose if we're talking about legislation

5:02

that exists in Australia, that is going to affect

5:05

smaller businesses, maybe businesses that don't have as

5:07

much infrastructure. And I suppose there is a bit of a balancing

5:09

act here, Daniel, for doing

5:12

something that puts the data of users forefront

5:14

but isn't so onerous that companies

5:16

and businesses can't keep up. Has there

5:18

been any consideration for how that's being managed?

5:21

Yeah, there is. So as part of the response, there's

5:23

a bunch of things that the government said that they

5:25

will put into legislation next year. And

5:28

a bunch of things they said they've agreed to in

5:30

principle but need to flesh out more. And one of those

5:32

is the data responsibilities

5:34

of small companies. They are companies under $3 million

5:37

in revenue, I believe. And yeah, to

5:39

that exact point, it does bring

5:41

to mind the big behemoth companies. But data

5:44

is everywhere. And so small companies collect

5:46

a lot of data, sometimes maybe unbeknowingly. And

5:49

now it is likely that they will

5:51

have to be responsible. Yes, thank you for

5:53

saying that. That was teamwork.

5:56

I like teamwork. It's hard,

5:57

right? I get it. And if you are a

5:59

small business, you probably You probably don't have the infrastructure.

6:01

You're not thinking about it as much the

6:03

security of things and the security

6:05

of your website

6:06

or the security of your database or

6:08

your

6:09

PAWS system, right, your point of sale system.

6:11

But if you are doing these things, if you are

6:14

interacting with customers, you need

6:16

to think about that end to end of how

6:18

you are protecting your customer's data.

6:20

Meg, you brought up GDPR, which

6:22

is an acronym that basically speaks

6:24

to the privacy legislation that exists in the EU.

6:27

And of course, it's basically why every time you

6:29

go to a website, there's a little thing that says, we

6:32

use cookies. Are you okay with that? If

6:34

you're not, go away. How would

6:36

these kind of proposed

6:38

changes, you know, differ

6:40

or be similar to what GDPR has put in

6:42

place? Does anyone know?

6:44

I think it's pulling us in line with GDPR. It's

6:46

bringing us closer to that. I

6:48

don't know that necessarily GDPR is the perfect

6:52

solution, but I think it is a

6:54

good solution. And I think that globally

6:56

we

6:56

should be all more aligned.

6:59

Well, I think the other thing to say is that while

7:01

GDPR is the big one, Europe hasn't

7:03

stayed still. It's moved on since then. And so for instance,

7:06

one of the things that the government is very unlikely

7:08

to do, one of the recommendations from the

7:10

report that it's not likely to legislate is

7:13

to allow you to opt out of getting

7:15

targeted advertisements, which is something

7:18

that the Digital Services Act, which

7:20

in Europe went into effect in August, allows

7:22

people to do. So obviously,

7:25

Meta makes most of its money, 97% of

7:29

its money from targeted advertising.

7:32

And so as a result, it's been reported that they

7:34

are looking into doing ad-free subscriptions,

7:37

like 10 euros a month subscriptions for Facebook

7:39

and Instagram. That's- Wait,

7:42

wait, wait, ad-free Facebook. Yeah, yeah, ad-free

7:44

Facebook, ad-free Instagram. This is reported. It's

7:46

not a skit yet. But yeah,

7:48

so actually, Norway in

7:50

July started finding Facebook $150,000

7:53

a day per day, as

7:55

long as it does targeted advertising. So it's

7:58

not just the EU, Norway as well.

9:29

data

10:00

of people to data brokers. So data brokers

10:02

could start to advertise as being like, hey, Daniel's

10:05

walked by that ice cream shop three times today.

10:07

I think you should advertise some ice cream. So the

10:09

amount of data that they have on Australians

10:11

is, yes, quite concerning. And

10:13

I just want ice cream. You want to get

10:15

ice cream? So let

10:18

me talk to my phone. Hey, phone, tell

10:20

all the advertisers I want ice cream. Download the

10:22

show is what you're listening to. It is your guide to the week

10:24

in media, technology and culture. Mark

10:27

Fennell is my name. Ice cream is what I want. And our guests

10:29

this week are Meg Coffey, digital strategist

10:31

and the managing director of Coffey and Tea, and

10:34

Daniel Van Boom, technology correspondent

10:36

at Capital Brief. It's been a pretty awful

10:38

couple of weeks in the news. When you combine

10:40

also not just the conflict in the Middle East, there's also

10:43

the conflict in Ukraine. There's been a lot

10:45

of really horrific violence in the news.

10:47

But combined with that is also misinformation. It

10:50

seems that social media platforms have been swamped

10:52

with fake news about the conflicts unfolding

10:54

around the world. And in fact, it's become much worse

10:56

than anyone really predicted, Daniel.

10:59

Yes, it sure has. So obviously in the

11:01

last 10-ish days, there's been a pretty

11:03

harrowing conflict in the Middle East, Israel and

11:05

Hamas. And in the days following that conflict,

11:08

social media in general, but I would say ex-Twitter

11:11

in particular, was swamped with some

11:13

pretty insane disinformation, what

11:15

we maybe used to call fake news. Among

11:19

them are videos of purporting

11:21

to be attacks from Hamas

11:23

onto Israel. They were actually from a video game from 2015.

11:26

Other things like, again, purported

11:29

attacks from Israel into Hamas that were

11:31

actually attacks from earlier this year or

11:33

from years ago. Yeah, there's

11:35

a real don't believe what you see vibe happening

11:38

on social media right now. And I say ex-Twitter

11:40

in particular because some of

11:42

the changes that Elon Musk made to the platform

11:45

after buying it, well, most. People

11:48

often talk about the content moderation thing. He slashed

11:51

a lot of the team, which is probably

11:53

a problem. But I would say the bigger

11:55

problem is the verification badges. So

11:58

in the past, journalists and... official

12:00

people of some description were given the blue tick.

12:03

Now if you pay $8, you get the blue tick. And journalists

12:06

and official people don't automatically have it. In

12:08

addition to that, people with that $8 membership

12:11

can get paid if they get enough engagement. And

12:13

so now you have this this kind of twin incentive.

12:16

So you have the you have the blue ticket kind of

12:18

you look official, and you want to get as much engagement

12:20

as possible. And so you people now

12:22

it's not just trolling, people have an incentive

12:25

to spread that misinformation, and it can

12:27

be hard at certainly at a glance to discern

12:30

who is who really. We'll

12:32

get into the I guess the ways in which it's we've

12:34

arrived at this situation and the ways in which we could

12:37

potentially get out of it. But I I'm

12:39

sort of more interested in this on a psychological

12:41

level, which is as it becomes

12:44

more ubiquitously understood that the

12:46

things that you see on the internet may be misinformation,

12:48

maybe disinformation may just be a mistake,

12:51

right? Does it change the way

12:54

in which you interact with the internet? Do you

12:56

become more distrustful of what you

12:58

see, Meg? Yes.

13:00

And as someone who does social

13:02

media for a living, I shouldn't

13:05

say that traditional media is more

13:07

important than ever. But

13:09

that's exactly where we're at. I think

13:11

that

13:11

we are at the point where we need to be relying

13:14

on our trusted traditional

13:17

sources that we know are real

13:21

more than what we see online, because

13:24

we just online is

13:26

a fantasy world these days. And

13:28

it is very much anybody

13:31

can make anything online. And that's a great thing. I mean,

13:34

you know, I am I'm ever the optimist,

13:36

I always want to see the good in it, right?

13:38

And I think that the internet is a fantastic place.

13:40

And I think that technology is incredible. And what we

13:43

can create with it is incredible.

13:45

And what AI has allowed us to do is amazing.

13:48

The art we can create is amazing. But

13:50

I think that we have to believe we have to be at

13:52

the point now, that nothing that we

13:55

see online is real, just like we

13:57

used to be with magazine covers when you

13:59

see a magazine. cover, that is not what that person

14:02

looks like. And you just have to

14:04

come to terms and understand that. But

14:06

there's a media literacy that needs to be happening.

14:09

And I think it needs to be happening at the lowest

14:11

levels,

14:11

the earliest ages possible. I

14:14

suppose the part about that

14:16

I find maybe not

14:18

challenging, but difficult to navigate is at the moment

14:21

social media has become such a, it's

14:23

a powerful activist tool as well. Honestly,

14:26

Daniel, what is the impact on us as humans? Really,

14:29

really bad, I would think, because you kind

14:31

of have a, like you said, you look

14:34

at scans, like any information

14:36

that you feel like could be designed

14:38

to target your heartstrings or manipulate

14:41

you in some way, you kind of look at it and think like, well,

14:43

maybe that is the case. I mean, one of the

14:45

issues I had over the weekend was I saw Ben

14:48

Shapiro was trending, who's a very, very famous

14:50

conservative pundit. And I

14:52

thought like, Oh, what's going on here? What did he say now? And

14:54

he had shared a photo that I will not describe

14:57

because it's really, really intense, but to

14:59

put it mildly, it was of a dead person,

15:01

let's say. And then he was trending

15:03

because it turned out that that photo was apparently

15:06

generated by AI. And so I thought, all

15:08

right, well, that's interesting because I had like 50 million

15:11

impressions kind of thing. Um, and I thought

15:13

like that might be the most shared AI image maybe

15:15

ever. And then it turned out that the people

15:18

saying that it was AI with themselves

15:20

trolling, they had made fake, fake images

15:22

of it, of it being detected in an AI, like,

15:25

is this a real image or an AI detector? And

15:27

so the images actually came from, I

15:29

think, America's security department. But so

15:32

they were real. That happened over a series of

15:34

days. Like the, the narrative was like, this was fake.

15:36

Actually, no, it's not fake. Oh, it's from the government. And it

15:38

took me a digitally literate person. Like

15:41

after days of it happening, five or 10 minutes of like

15:43

explicitly looking at it to find

15:45

the veracity. And we're talking about a very

15:48

famous person. So in the, and

15:49

that's the thing, it took you a digitally

15:51

literate person days to

15:53

figure it out. What hope

15:56

do we have for the average person on the

15:58

street who is just, who's just an AI? the average

16:00

person living their lives consuming media

16:02

the average person right i think

16:05

your question to to the annual few minutes ago what

16:07

does this mean for humans we're

16:09

in a really bad place

16:11

i think that this is again

16:13

via social media is what i do but i think

16:15

social media is really bad and really

16:17

detrimental

16:18

to

16:19

to humans at the moment i think that

16:21

it is is pushed us to a point where

16:23

we are not meant to be disconnected we are not

16:26

meant to the this eternally on mine and

16:28

we have lost that ability to communicate

16:30

with our friends with last that's that's

16:32

in i think of back to the arab spring it and when twitter

16:35

was is so incredible a few years ago and

16:37

what it did for people we

16:38

are so far past that

16:40

or something struggled over last couple of weeks

16:43

and what i have noticed in the last seven

16:46

days as if i am accidentally

16:49

encountering really

16:51

for receipts visually

16:54

full on violence and

16:58

he makes and is our i guess

17:00

i have a conflict within a because of the part of me is like

17:02

we can't turn why there is something awful

17:04

happening right now arm and

17:06

as a few awful tasting rooms will to the moments

17:09

and a part of his like we shouldn't be turning

17:11

away from this we shouldn't be looking at a sanitized

17:13

version of his buttons on the part of me going every

17:15

time i open up any of the platforms

17:18

it's if i would be there was a sort of chapman's any

17:21

platform on worried about what

17:23

i mean to say and i kind of navigated a

17:25

common navigate in a really different why and i am i do

17:27

wonder if it is changing move

17:29

i wondered sizing may but i also wonder if inciting

17:32

the way i approach those services now the

17:34

thing that in some instances makes

17:37

twitter good is how you can

17:39

track them minute moment to moment happenings

17:42

by think when something is a flashpoint

17:44

for all the feelings that this

17:46

complete your arm brings

17:48

up ah i think distance

17:51

is probably a better than enough what i'm

17:53

doing i can i think that noise to

17:55

signal ratio of moment to moment in something

17:57

like this is just like so out of proportion

18:00

I think, you know, waiting a day or two or three

18:02

to kind of see what things

18:05

that have been verified come to the surface is

18:07

probably a better approach. And do you worry that

18:09

you... No, I agree with you, but then the other

18:11

concern I have with that is, am I putting my head in the sand

18:13

as this horrific humanitarian crisis

18:16

is unfolding? Is that the right thing to do

18:18

as well? Because that would be the flip side of that.

18:20

No, I don't think you're putting your head in the sand because you're acknowledging

18:22

it. You're aware that it is. It's just you're

18:25

making sure that you're only consuming the verified

18:27

news. We were not meant to be

18:30

connected and plugged in like this.

18:32

We were not meant to have video

18:35

footage of this stuff put in our faces 24 hours

18:37

a day. That is not... I

18:40

mean, I'm not a psychiatrist, right? I'm not... So

18:42

I don't know, but I would assume that that is not

18:44

good for our brains and that is not good for us as humans

18:46

to have that. So you're making the

18:49

choice for your own personal health to distance

18:51

yourself from that. You're not putting your head in the sand. You're

18:54

still getting the information. You're just waiting

18:56

until it's verified information and you're distancing

18:58

it. One of the things that we saw I think

19:00

the last week is schools,

19:03

not just in Australia, but actually around the world started to warn

19:05

parents about kids and what

19:07

they can see in the coming days. I

19:10

know in the EU and other places, there's

19:13

actually been more of a push to the social media companies

19:15

going, hey, this isn't actually... This is a thing that you

19:17

guys need to manage as well. For

19:20

lack of a better term, is there a smoking

19:22

gun here or is it going to come down to a combination

19:24

of us managing our own

19:27

digital hygiene whilst also expecting

19:29

more from our tech company, Daniel? I think

19:32

unfortunately, TBC on that, we'll actually

19:34

find out maybe progress on that question

19:37

soon because the EU as part of the Digital

19:39

Services Act legislation I mentioned before,

19:42

their investigation in Elon Musk basically to say, have

19:45

you done enough to read your platform of this

19:47

illegal content, deeming

19:50

the misinformation illegal? I

19:52

suspect that they will pursue a

19:55

similar thing in terms of violent content

19:58

which young people can see. I

20:00

think there is actually movement on that. I know there's something we've

20:02

talked about forever, and it's always been like, well, maybe

20:04

some government somewhere will do something about it, or maybe

20:06

some tech company will do something about it. Neither of which

20:08

has happened. But I think we are actually beginning to get movement

20:10

on that.

20:11

Nick, what do you think? I think it'll come from both sides.

20:13

I

20:13

think this conflict, or which conflict,

20:16

but I think what's currently happening now might

20:18

be an impetus to push it a little

20:20

bit more, mixed with the

20:22

way that Elon is handling Twitter, might

20:25

be an impetus for some of the other tech companies

20:27

and people just to sort of come together and

20:29

go, we actually, we need to

20:31

do something about this. Twitter is

20:35

off the rails, and we

20:37

don't want our platforms to be like

20:39

that. As TikTok, as Meta, as whatever,

20:42

we actually, we need to do something, and

20:44

the consumers are going, yep, we

20:47

need to fix this. I think,

20:50

I mean, you'll always be fighting this information, I think,

20:53

until we can come back with a proper verification.

20:55

I mean, I don't

20:57

have a solution for it. I think a lot of it does

21:00

rely on us as humans to measure

21:02

our own consumption,

21:04

but there is pressure on the companies like maybe

21:07

there hasn't been before. Download this show is

21:09

what you're listening to. It is your guide to the week in media,

21:11

technology, and culture. Mark Fennell

21:13

is my name, and I want you to visualize

21:15

yourself. You're in your lounge room, you're sitting down,

21:17

you turn on the screen, you grab a controller,

21:20

and you're destroying the planet,

21:22

and apparently, you're

21:24

making the Earth worse for everyone, maybe.

21:27

There's been a new article, it's actually on the ABC science

21:30

page, about whether or not video

21:32

gaming produces more carbon emissions

21:34

than other kinds of interaction with technology.

21:37

Walk me through it, Daniel. Yeah, so firstly, it is

21:39

your fault. No, it's taken. But

21:42

it isn't, because I haven't played a game since, oh wait, I

21:44

did Mario Kart with my kids on the weekend. Dammit! Yeah.

21:47

So there's actually an Australian researcher that

21:49

tracks how much carbon

21:51

emissions the global gaming industry produces every

21:54

year. And so the tech

21:56

industry is about 80 million tons of

21:58

carbon emitted into the. into the atmosphere

22:01

and gaming is about 15 million of that. But

22:03

the paradox is, well not the paradox, the

22:05

catch is, you probably

22:07

burn, the usage, as

22:09

in you burn more carbon playing the game

22:11

than you would using your iPhone.

22:14

But the reason why the techs here makes

22:16

more carbon is because the manufacturing

22:18

in the tech products you buy and also the

22:20

servers that run big tech, that

22:23

produces more carbon emissions in the

22:25

air. I think what you've done is you've highlighted

22:28

there's a number of paradoxes at play here.

22:30

So it's a question of how do you

22:32

measure the environmental impact of technology?

22:34

Do you measure it in the act itself? Because

22:37

for years we've talked about the fact that, for example,

22:39

mining cryptocurrencies. The number

22:42

one thing I can guarantee you as soon as somebody

22:44

brings up a cryptocurrency, firstly I walk

22:46

away. Secondly, there'll be a person there

22:48

going, well it's very bad for the environment and why didn't

22:50

you talk about that? Every time. And

22:52

if you're the person prepared to write me that email right now, don't,

22:55

I'm across it. But there's a debate around

22:57

certain kinds of technology about the environmental impact.

23:00

But then we sort of transfer it every

23:02

time we discuss it, right? So as you say, gaming,

23:04

yes, because of presumably the amount

23:07

of computing power required, it probably burns

23:09

more energy. But then you compare

23:11

it to the manufacturing of these old things, he says

23:13

as he waves around a mobile phone, forgetting that it's not TV, they

23:16

produce a different kind of environmental impact.

23:18

I guess the thing I'm curious about is

23:21

do they compare?

23:22

Everything we do, everything we do is bad

23:24

for the environment. Everything we

23:26

consume. Can you put that on a t-shirt? This

23:29

made it an unethical factory, don't get carried

23:31

on. Everything we touch electronically,

23:33

everything we consume is bad

23:35

for the environment in one way or the other.

23:38

I think we just have to measure how

23:40

bad is it, pick your battles,

23:42

right? Like is... Surely

23:45

choose your fighters is the best analogy there. Can

23:48

you tell I'm not a gamer? But

23:51

the thing is with the usage, it's kind of unfair

23:53

to be like you, the person playing that game are

23:55

at fault, because if the grid was

23:58

green, then you wouldn't necessarily have it.

25:25

So

26:00

if you have that pressure from the

26:02

market, then mixed with the transparency,

26:05

then you have an incentive for these companies to

26:07

develop more efficiently. I will say that

26:10

they have got a metric here. If you want, you can

26:12

check out this article. It is on the ABC News site. What

26:15

they do is they measure the total carbon emissions

26:17

per year per employee. That

26:20

does take into acknowledgement that some companies are big

26:22

and some companies are small. It is noticeable that

26:25

Ubisoft, one of the biggest

26:27

makers of AAA games, who are famous for Daniel,

26:29

Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Tom

26:32

Clancy games. Thank you for doing my job for

26:34

me. They rank really low.

26:37

Their total carbon emissions are quite low, comparative

26:39

to something like a Sony or an

26:41

Apple or a Nintendo that is at

26:43

the other end. Nintendo of course being famous for? Mario,

26:47

Zelda, Donkey Kong. God, I am

26:49

surplus to requirement. Anyway, it is an interesting

26:51

comparison nonetheless. Well, can

26:53

I just say for that one, it is hard because

26:55

Nintendo and Sony make consoles and

26:57

Ubisoft doesn't, which is probably why they

27:00

are higher. Microsoft is sort

27:02

of ranking somewhere in the middle of that ranking and they do. They

27:05

do? They do. They make consoles. But

27:07

I think that, like I said before, they have... Well, is

27:09

that net? Because

27:13

total carbon emissions per year per employee. That

27:15

is very interesting. I retract everything. I

27:17

said I apologize. I don't think I need to retract.

27:21

I wasn't here. It's

27:23

an official apology going from Daniel Van Boom.

27:27

And with that, we are out of time. Huge

27:30

thank you to our guests in person this week.

27:32

Meg Coffey, Digital Strategist extraordinaire. Thank you

27:34

for joining us on the show. Thank you so much for having

27:36

me. And Daniel Van Boom, Technology Correspondent

27:39

at Capital Brief. Thank you so

27:41

much. Thank you for having me. If you enjoyed this show,

27:43

please

27:44

leave a review on whichever one of

27:46

those podcasty

27:47

apps you use. Maybe you're

27:49

a Pocket Cast person. Maybe you're an Apple person.

27:51

You do you. I'll leave a review. And

27:53

with that, I shall leave you. My name is Mark Fennell. My voice

27:55

was very high pitched then. Catch you next week for

27:57

another episode of Downlazy Side.

28:27

You've been listening to an ABC

28:29

podcast.

28:29

Discover more great ABC podcasts,

28:32

live radio and exclusives on

28:34

the ABC Listen app.