Bridget Todd (00:03):

You're listening to Disinformed, a mini-series from There are No Girls on the Internet. I'm Bridget Todd. Yesterday, the CEOs of Facebook, Google and Twitter went before Congress to testify about the role that their platforms played in spreading the misinformation that led to the insurrection in January. Facebook's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, proposed some limited reforms to section 230, legislation that says that tech platforms can't be held liable for what people post on those platforms.

Mark Zuckerberg (00:33):

First, platforms should have to issue transparency reports that state the prevalence of content across all different categories of harmful content; everything from child exploitation, to terrorism, to incitement of violence, to intellectual property violations, to pornography, whatever the different harms are.

Bridget Todd (00:52):

On this week's episode, we heard from Evan Greer, digital rights activist, about why she works with the organization Fight for the Future, to preserve section 230. Now, in the episode, Evan said that rushed changes to section 230 could do more harm than good.

Evan Greer (01:08):

This is not about defending the companies. I don't particularly care very much about the companies' profits, or how much money they have to spend on lawsuits. What I care about is the impact that, that then has on marginalized people's speech, and particularly social movements. And, for me, section 230 is such a crucial law for protecting speech like, for example, a video of police violence, which, in a world without section 230, would almost certainly invite lawsuits for law enforcement who would claim it's defamatory, or that it's incitement, like the Me Too Movement, where people are able to speak out about abusive behavior. And platforms are willing to host that speech, because they know that they're not going to get sued for giving people a platform to speak, and speak their truth. And so, I always think about the impact on those movements.

Evan Greer (02:07):

Fight for the Future sees section 230 as one of the most important laws protecting free speech and human rights in the digital age. That doesn't mean that we don't think it can ever be changed. No law is sacrosanct. Laws are just laws, but we are very concerned that rushed, or uncareful changes to section 230 will do far more harm than good.

Bridget Todd (02:31):

You might have already gleaned, there's a lot of debate about section 230. Some people say it shields big tech companies from accountability. While others say it's the backbone of what makes the internet, the internet. Last season, we heard from Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who fights things like revenge porn, stalking, and harassment on social media. In a groundbreaking case about a horrific harassment campaign being run on the dating app, Grindr, Carrie argued in favor of changes to section 230 in front of the Supreme Court. Let's listen in to Carrie's story and why she says section 230 needs to be changed.

Carrie Goldberg (03:05):

There used to be a time when we didn't really have a term for the idea of revenge porn. Spreading someone's intimate content online without their consent was just that thing that happened on the internet. Just last week, 19 year-old Aaron Coleman won the Democratic primary for a Kansas House seat, even after admitting to obtaining nude photos of a girl when he was 14, trying to blackmail her into sending him more photos and spreading them online when she refused. On Twitter, journalist Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept, called Aaron's behavior "bad middle school bullying," but this kind of behavior isn't just bullying. It's a serious sex crime.

Carrie Goldberg (03:45):

When we minimize revenge porn, we're contributing to an attitude that says once someone takes an intimate photo of themselves, they deserve whatever happens next, even if it means their life if destroyed, they're harassed, or worse. Luckily, women are fighting to build a better internet, one where we have the right to feel safe online.

Bridget Todd (04:06):

You can be forgiven for thinking of Carrie Goldberg as a real life superhero. Instead of a cape, she wraps heels, bold statement glasses, and sometimes even caps it off with a baseball hat reading, "I sue abusers." With her law firm, she spent her professional life holding all manner of internet creeps, abusers and stalkers accountable. Going head-to-head with powerful abusers and their enablers is scary, but Carrie has never been on to back down from a challenge. She represented Lucia Evans and Paz de la Huerta, who were among the first women who made public allocations against Harvey Weinstein, which led to his arrest.

Bridget Todd (04:45):

Her book, Nobody's Victim, is about her own experiences with an abusive ex, who vowed to use the internet to ruin her life, and her journey to become the lawyer she needed. Carrie has been responsible for creating a massive cultural change around the kind of experience as marginalized people can expect from the internet. Her work, creating accountability for people who misuse the internet to cause harm, forces us to ask, "Why should we accept mistreatment as a given? Why can't things be better?" Carrie, it turns out, has been holding creeps accountable since the very beginning.

Bridget Todd (05:23):

One of the stories I read about you is that when you were in school, one of your classmates was bragging about having gotten a hand job from one of your girlfriends, and you responded by gluing a bunch of amputated doll hands to a poster and giving it to him with a card that says, "We'll give you a hand." Has holding people accountable for their bad behavior always been a mission of yours?

Carrie Goldberg (05:43):

It didn't feel like it was a mission of mine, no. But it was a fun pastime. I remember one of my friends was on the boy's soccer team, and she was the only girl on the team. We didn't have a girl's soccer team in Aberdeen. There was an incident where she was on the school bus, and they were going to an away game, and she fell asleep with her mouth open. And she told me about how, when she woke up, there were all these pubes in her mouth. I guess a bunch of her teammates had plucked their pubes and put them in her mouth.

Carrie Goldberg (06:20):

Now, I was a member of the yearbook team, and I got assigned to write this story about the boy's soccer team. I got kicked off the yearbook team, or the yearbook class, because the teacher had realized that the first letter of each word in the first couple sentences spelled out pubic pluckers. Now that's a Title IX situation, her waking up and having... That's a disciplinary issue. Back then, we didn't think that much of it. It was playful. But, I mean, she was the only girl on that team. It's certainly impacting her enjoyment of it.

Bridget Todd (07:11):

Boys will be boys. It's just a joke. She deserved it. I'd never let something like that happen to me. It's difficult for me to admit, but I've had these kinds of harmful, victim blaming reactions to hearing about the sexual abuse of a classmate. I was 15 and it was gossip, something to whisper about in homeroom. I got to feel like part of the in group, judging another girl for something that was done to her. It was wrong, and I wish I had known better. Young me contributed to a culture that treated serious crimes and violations like some big joke. It wasn't a joke.

Bridget Todd (07:46):

Your work has been incredibly impactful, for me, for my own process of understanding the cultural change that needs to happen around those stories. When I was in high school, I think I was in 10th grade, you know how every high school has that big scandal that happens in your class, or in your school, that everybody's talking about? In my school, it was a girl had sent intimate pictures to her boyfriend, clearly, just for him, and he sent them to everybody. We went to a pretty small school. It was an all girls school, but there was an all boys school nearby. And these pictures were seen by everybody. I hate to say this, it was a shameful confession, but 15 year-old Bridget thought this was a joke. 15 year-old Bridget thought that because she had taken these pictures, at all, she deserved what happened to her. She deserved to be shamed.

Bridget Todd (08:42):

I was very young. But looking back, I thought about it as a joke. I didn't think it was serious. And I thought that it was okay to make fun of her, to shame her, because she had done this to herself and she deserves it. And it wasn't until becoming older that I really stepped back and think, I was really complicit in continuing a cultural attitude that: A) when things like this happen, that it's just a joke, it's not serious, it's a crime; and B) that the victims deserve to whatever, scorn, or shame they get, because they put themself in the situation. I guess, my question is, how do we get to a place where more people go through that process of being like, "Well, actually, I believed some pretty fucked up stuff about victims, about sexualized violence, and I have a role in making sure that everybody understands that these are very serious."

Carrie Goldberg (09:43):

Bridget, what you're talking about is the issue. Most of my underaged clients, almost all of them, are that victim, are the person that the scandal around the high school is orbiting around. The issue is that kids don't learn empathy. They don't develop empathetic skills until later on, and they can't role reverse with the victims. And so, instead, they want to be... There's a natural instinct in all of us to want to be part of the gossip, and part of the story, and to see the picture that everyone else is seeing and talking about. And not to be the upstander, who is like, "That's actually a sex crime, and everyone who's looking at that, and has it on their phone, and is sending it to other minors, is actually engaging in a felony, child pornography, felonious behavior."

Carrie Goldberg (10:46):

But the issue is that attitude of victim blaming and stuff, which is really natural in kids, it's also frequently present in the administrators, in the school resources officers, who are cops, and even in the parents who get involved, including sometimes the victim's parents. A lot of times clients don't take immediate action because they're afraid of their parents disciplining them. We talk about consent, education, and how we need to teach kids about consent, but the big component of that is about empathy and just doing role reversal exercises, where kids have to imagine what it's like to be in somebody else's shoes. I think that's important when we're talking about race, and gender, and also victimization.

Bridget Todd (11:49):

One of Carrie's clients, a Brooklyn teen with mental disabilities, was raped in a stairwell while at school. When she reported what happened, her school counselor decided that she was at fault and suspended her. Sadly, her story is not really that uncommon. School aged black and brown girls are more likely to face interpersonal violence at school, and are also disproportionately criminalized and punished. Carrie's client won a $950,000 settlement against the city, and a city spokesperson promised $47 million annually in school climate training programs. "It won't undo the hell she suffered," Carrie said, "but it will buy her some comfort and healing."

Carrie Goldberg (12:28):

It's not necessarily about suing, although I am a big believer in that when the circumstances are right, but it's like amplifying your voice. I mean, sometimes when I would be writing my legal complaints, in preparation of lawsuits, I would get so emotional that I would just go on these Twitter storms, just like deva fits. But even that, those would get retweeted, and by the time I filed my complaints, I had a lot of journalists that were inline to cover them. Some of it is just like letting the natural rage of the injustice speak for itself.

Bridget Todd (13:13):

Let's take a quick break.

Bridget Todd (13:22):

And we're back.

Bridget Todd (13:23):

Carrie has a real connection to her clients. She rages about the injustices they face on Twitter. She uses her own experiences to help them combat stigma and shame, and let them know they're not alone.

Carrie Goldberg (13:35):

I feel very vested in making the process of the litigation, or getting justice, tolerable, because it could take years. And you need them to be able to feel like it's worth it. It's stressful at times, and it can be a very invasive, when you're having to relive... When you're only 16, 17, you're having to relive this awful thing that happened to you when you're 13. You need to feel like it's for something really important. And also, just getting back to what you were talking about, Bridget, about how when we're young we can actually be complicit in some of the violation. It makes me think about how much more traumatizing it is to be a victim when you're young. Where not only have our violators not developed the skill of empathy, but the victims haven't figured out how to cope. And it can feel like your whole world is crushing around you if you are, not only sexually violated, but then all the students in your class think you're a joke. They're spreading it.

Carrie Goldberg (15:02):

You're afraid your parents are going to punish you. And you're afraid your school is going to punish you. Kids already don't have control over their lives, and then to be socially ostracized or put in this category of other, and have your friendships crumble. That can create such desperation, and every single one of our young clients has been suicidal during those moments. They don't have the coping skills. I didn't when I was that age.

Bridget Todd (15:37):

When Carrie was younger, she was victimized by abusive exes. One had intimate images of her and vowed to use them to ruin her life. This was before revenge porn was even really a thing. People didn't know how to talk about it, or deal with it, when it happened. And lawyers didn't really know how to handle what she was going through. In your book, you talk about how you became the lawyer that you wish you had in your 30s. Can you tell me a bit about that?

Carrie Goldberg (16:04):

Yeah. Well, I had some violence. I was a victim of some dating violence and sexual violence before I started my law firm. When I was trying to escape my ex-boyfriend's stalking, and he was just sieging me with text messages, and threats, and false police reports. It was never ending. I had trouble finding a lawyer. I worked with somebody on the domestic violence piece. I worked with somebody on the bogus criminal complaints piece. But for everyone that I talked to, this was a real abnormal case for them. You don't want to be the outlier when it comes to getting legal help and having a lawyer be learning as they go. It was unpredictable for them what would happen. The profile of my offender was something really new to them.

Carrie Goldberg (17:26):

When I finally got my orders of protection and he pled guilty, which was six months after the breakup. I quit everything and started my law firm a few months later. In retrospect, I was still in the mist of a lot of trauma. But I started this law firm, basically, to become the kind of lawyer that I needed, because I'd gotten this involuntary education into the world of being stalked and having no control over what's happening in the internet. I learned that in New York we didn't have a law criminalizing somebody sending around your naked pictures.

Carrie Goldberg (18:22):

The internet component of the attack on me was the scariest part about it, because even after I got my order of protection, I knew that, legally, he could still be sending around my images. As far as I know, he didn't, but there was always this thing, that he had threatened to, and he had sent me emails with the pictures saying that he blind copied people, like other lawyers and judges and stuff. But it was this constant anxiety that I wasn't protected, even after all the legal issues had seemingly wrapped up.

Bridget Todd (19:14):

Carrie became one of the most prominent lawyers specializing in revenge porn, and offers victims legal support, and a pathway to justice, whatever that looks like for them.

Carrie Goldberg (19:24):

Our expertise is dealing with people who've been stalked and harassed, and victims of sexual assault, and sexual trauma, and getting justice for them. Sometimes it's just about getting an order of protection, or helping advocate in the criminal justice system, or just sending a cease and desist and getting the offender to go away forever. Other times we have to, if the victim doesn't want to take any legal action, but just wants those images to be removed from the internet, and then we also do sometimes have really big cases against the City of New York, when there is a retaliation against a student, or a big case against Grindr, because we thought they were facilitating our client being stalked.

Carrie Goldberg (20:13):

But, basically, the idea is that every client that comes to us has either been attacked, or is under attack. So we know what to do, and we've seen all these behavioral profiles over and over again. The more you do something, the more expert you get. And so, we can predict by sending a cease and desist letter to this behavioral profile, who is mentally ill and unrelenting in attest, we can know that's just going to escalate things. Whereas this other person, he's threatening revenge porn, but he's actually got a really stable job and has a kid. And he's actually going to feel scared of a threat, because it could take things away from him.

Bridget Todd (21:08):

More after this quick break.

Bridget Todd (21:18):

Let's get right back to it.

Bridget Todd (21:20):

Carrie's case against the dating app, Grindr, was one of the biggest fights of her career. In it, she sets her sight on legislation called section 230, which basically says that tech platforms can't be sued for what people say on those platforms. Now, free speech advocates, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, say section 230 is what makes the internet, the internet. But Carries says that's exactly the problem.

Bridget Todd (21:43):

Forgive me if I bungle this from my layperson's research. I understand that it really comes down to section 230, which I know that is something that you really, really have an issue with. This is the section that allows tech companies to not be held liable for things that are said on their platform, the way that their platforms are used. Free speech advocates say that, that section, is what makes the internet what it is. But you say that's exactly the problem, that we should be thinking about the internet in a different way. We should be building a different internet. I guess, how do we reconcile those two arguments, I guess? Is there some way to preserve free speech online, while also not letting tech companies just avoid accountability for the way that their platforms are misused?

Carrie Goldberg (22:34):

Oh my gosh, I have so much to say to this. Bridget, you framed it better than I could. Our client, Matthew Herrick, was a waiter/actor/former reality star, who lived in Manhattan in Harlem, and he had just ended a relationship with a really controlling and abusive man. Among the ways that, that man, stalked Matthew was he started creating fake profiles on Grindr, the gay dating app, and then luring people to Matthew's job and to his home using Grindr's geo locating technology and DM-ing with the unknowing people. Over the course of several months, over 1300 individuals came, in person, to Matthew's apartment and to his job, thinking that they were there to have sex with him.

Carrie Goldberg (23:33):

Imagine, just in the course of this interview, if your buzzer rang three times. It was sometimes as many as 23 people a day, Bridget. Each time, he didn't know who it was going to be. He didn't know if that person was going to be dangerous. Sometimes Matthew's ex would torment and taunt the visitors and say homophobic or racist things, or say that Matthew had free drugs. And so, sometimes the visitors would come really angry, or tweaked out, but always they were there thinking that Matthew had rape fantasies and stuff.

Carrie Goldberg (24:16):

I mean, it was scary. It was a crime that was happening to Matthew day in and day out, every single day. Matthew had gone to the police 10 times. He'd gotten an order of protection that the offender was violating over and over again, and nothing mattered. Matthew flagged the accounts with Grindr about 50 times, by the time we came along. And then I had just worked with a bunch of big tech companies, at the time. This is the end of 2016. And I'd worked with a bunch of tech companies on their revenge porn policies. And so, I was super like, "I'll just call up Grindr's general counsel and get them to remove this user," and they ignored me too.

Carrie Goldberg (25:11):

And so, I was raging with him. We ended up getting a restraining order against Grindr saying that they had to remove this user, which it's not super common to get a restraining order against a tech company, but we got it. And Grindr even ignored that. The visitors kept coming. As we plotted our lawsuit against Grindr, we had to worry about the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, which was this law, as you mentioned, that went into effect back in 1995, when the internet looked nothing like it does now.

Carrie Goldberg (26:03):

The law was just a 26 word law that was part of a bigger law that, basically, banded pornography on the internet. But the other part of that law got deemed unconstitutional, in case you're wondering why we have porn on the internet. It's not constitutional to outlaw it. But this little section survived, and it originally was supposed to just make it so that if a bulletin board, which was basically the way that people talked to one another online. If somebody posted something defamatory on the bulletin board, there weren't be a lawsuit against the bulletin board, but the defamation would be user to user. It makes sense, because then the platforms are not tasked with this burden of having to moderate all the siege and all the posts and stuff like that.

Carrie Goldberg (27:06):

But the issue is that over the last 25 years, that law has been interpreted by our courts in this really expansive way. So anytime Twitter, or Facebook, or anybody gets sued for something that's happening to a user, they say, "We're not liable because of section 230. You can't hold us accountable for anything that one user does to another." And courts have said, "You're right, because all the other cases before you didn't."

Bridget Todd (27:45):

It's important to emphasize that Carrie isn't just talking about what someone says on a platform. If a platform allows an abusive user to impersonate you, and set you up for a dangerous encounter in real life, it's a pretty big flaw.

Carrie Goldberg (27:58):

The issue is that the internet, and apps, are so much different now than they were. We're not just talking about defamation. We're talking about geo locating technology, and social media companies, which have so much function-ability. We're talking about dating apps, and apps that are playing a role in matching users. But we had to make it, when we were filing this lawsuit, so that we were not suing Grindr for anything that Matt's ex was doing to Matt, because we knew it would get kicked out of court for violating section 230.

Carrie Goldberg (28:35):

And so, when Grindr's lawyers finally came to court, and told us that they didn't have the technology to ban an abusive user, we were like, "What? You have the world's biggest dating app, and it's so foreseeable that... The biggest dating app for gay people. It's so foreseeable that sometimes it's going to be abused by stalkers, by creditors, and you have not designed into it a way to stop abusive users? Well, then you've released a dangerous product into the stream of commerce." And just like our product liability laws for cars that have airbags that don't go off, or broken brakes, or something, Grindr had created a dangerous product. We said, "You shouldn't have been on the market in the first place. And the fact that you are, well, that's how we're going to sue you."

Carrie Goldberg (29:33):

Grindr still said, "At the end of the day, you're still holding us liable for stuff this user has done to Matthew. It's not us." The judge agreed with Grindr. We appealed and kept losing at every stage, and ultimately petitioned to the Supreme Court and lost, which happens. This was, from the beginning, a real... It was a very experimental lawsuit. At the time that we filed it, it was novel for anybody to even be referring to apps as products. Everyone was saying they're services, they're services. But now this idea has caught on, and it's changed the way that we think about apps and internet products.

Carrie Goldberg (30:29):

The fact that Matthew experienced such a horrific thing, and he couldn't get justice, that's actually helped us fight for legislation. And so, as you mentioned, you've got all these people on the other side that... I don't actually think it's all these people. I think they're just very vocal and they're getting paid a lot of lobbying money from big tech.

Bridget Todd (31:02):

Is the internet we have now working for everyone? Is it the version of the internet we want? Is it one worth preserving as is? Carrie doesn't really think so.

Carrie Goldberg (31:11):

But they're saying that, basically, the internet, as we know it, wouldn't exist without section 230. We're going to lose all this wonderful free exchange of ideas if we lose section 230. I call total BS on that, because, number one, you're assuming that the internet, as we know it, is a great place. And that, as we know it, should be preserved. It's like any constitutional argument, or make America great again. You're assuming that things are great. You're assuming that everyone has the same level of free speech. But, I mean, speech on the internet really belongs to those who are the loudest and basically for companies, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple. I mean, they control the internet. We've got all our issues with antitrust, and also the quantity.

Carrie Goldberg (32:24):

The most hostile people on the internet are the ones who have the greatest protections. But also when we're talking about lawsuits, and the right to sue, it's such a fundamental right.

Bridget Todd (32:38):

Carrie says that as long as tech companies have the legal protection afforded to them by section 230, it creates a situation where there's not a lot of avenues to hold them accountable.

Carrie Goldberg (32:49):

The thing is, as you see with our cases against the New York City Department of Ed, for the cost of an index number, which is a couple hundred bucks, which you can get waived, I had a client whose mom was a part-time home health aide and didn't speak English. They had no money to speak of. I had her suing the City of New York, which is worth multi-billion dollars, and that's the great equalizer in our country, is that anybody can sue, if there's been a harm. It's fundamental and it's also how we keep our big organizations, our companies, from being total assholes. Because the threat of being sued hits you in the bottom line. It's a bottom line issue. It costs money. Like so many safety measures, whether we're talking about pharmaceuticals, or cars, it's because of litigation that happened, or it's because of the fear of litigation.

Carrie Goldberg (33:57):

And also, it's because most companies want people to be safe. They want their customers and clients to not have a bad experience. You don't see that with big tech though. The wall off... If you had a crisis on Facebook, let's say you're a parent, and your kid was manipulated into giving nudes to a pedophile, and then he was sharing them online. You're a parent. Your first instinct was, "Who do I talk to? Who do I talk to? What's the phone number? Who's live to help me with this crisis?"

Carrie Goldberg (34:41):

It's just like a one way street here, where we're giving these companies all this information about us, and stuff, and we can't... It's like Oz. They're behind this magic curtain, and don't have to interact with us users.

Bridget Todd (35:01):

As you were talking, it occurred to me that you first started your law firm, the idea of revenge porn, didn't even really exist, and it was through advocating for legal protection and working with victims that you helped usher in both a legal change and a cultural reimagining of what revenge porn actually is. I'm listening to you talk about tech companies, just now, it seems like you're poised to do that same kind of thing again, when it comes to re-imaging what role tech companies should play in creating an internet that safer for everyone, like a hard reset of how these companies operate.

Carrie Goldberg (35:31):

Yes. I mean, it's true, Bridget. There's so much work that can be done. And it's a really critical time, because you have all this concentrated power and wealth in just a few companies. The inequality in our society is just getting greater because of these companies. And also, the power and the omniscience is also another thing that's just creating so much more inequality in our country. The thing is, I do have so many cases where you can't ignore that the facts are horrific. An 11 year-old who was sex-torted and made to create all these videos. And they were sent around on Instagram. Or like my client who's murder was basically live streamed. Another client who was raped and murdered on a first date though match.com by a known sex offender.

Carrie Goldberg (36:44):

There's going to become a point where the more cases... Even if these cases can't be brought in court, or get kicked out, you can't deny that there is extreme negligence by these companies. I'm just going to keep producing them until we get new law. It's just like any other case where, if you don't feel you can become a victim, then you're not going to care. But the whole purpose of my book, and everything, is to pound into the consciousness that we're all a moment away from becoming victims. All it takes is one person to decide they want to destroy you. One bad interaction at the supermarket with somebody who finds out your name, they then have the right to go to pedophile websites and tell the world that you're a pedophile and good luck getting that down.

Carrie Goldberg (37:46):

Anybody can become a victim, but it shouldn't take that in order for us to have empathy toward victims and want to change the internet. We're not talking about somebody calling somebody else a bitch on Twitter. That's not the kind of speech that's going to be impacted. And we're not even talking about speech really, because this is all conduct. But our law doesn't even see the difference there. With Grindr, we weren't suing them for any words on the profile, or any words on the DM, we were suing them because this product was being used hundreds of times a day to try to get our client injured. It's not a speech issue. This is unjust.

Bridget Todd (38:33):

Carrie's work isn't just about the law. It confronts the cultural attitude that people who are victimized online deserve it, or that it's just a sexy scandal rather than a serious crime, or that we should just expect that the internet is a place where we'll be mistreated. Why can't it be better than that?

Bridget Todd (38:53):

What has it been like to have such a personal hand in challenging the internet to be better, and safer, and stronger, and working to build one where people with power are held accountable?

Carrie Goldberg (39:01):

Well, it's so kind of you to describe me that way. I really feel flattered about that. I love my job, and I love that, as the owner of this law firm, I can decide what direction we go in, and what fights to choose. I mean, that is an incredibly privileged position to be in. There are ways to use your law degree in a super, awesome, fun, creative way. I mean, what's it been like? It's just been fun. But there aren't moments where I wake up and I feel like I'm just really... I've done it. I've made it. Because there's always somebody waiting to give me a bad verdict, or a troll that cuts me down to size. There's very fleeting moments of... Well, what should I call it? Fleeting moments of success.

Carrie Goldberg (40:11):

I'm proud of what we do, and so proud of my staff, but we're always humbled by the next fight.

Bridget Todd (40:19):

On her website, Carrie says the clients she works with aren't fragile like a flower. They're fragile like a bomb. Through her work with those clients, Carrie is blowing up our understanding of the internet by asking the big bold questions about how it can be better. She's taken the darkness she's faced and used it to build a brighter future.

Bridget Todd (40:45):

If you enjoyed this podcast, please help us grow by subscribing. Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or just want to say hi, we'd love to hear from you at hello@tangoti.com. Disinformed is brought to you by There are No Girls on the Internet. It's a production of iHeart Radio and Unbossed Creative. Jonathan Strickland is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our supervising producer and engineer. Michael Amato is our contributing producer. I'm your host, Bridget Todd.

Bridget Todd (41:13):

For more great podcasts, check out the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.