Georgia Hampton: Friends, hello, and welcome to Never Post, a
podcast for and about the Internet. I am producer Georgia.
This intro was written on 03/31/2026 at 03:50PM central
time, and we have a litigious show for you this week. In this
episode, we're bringing back our series Terms and Conditions,
where we spend some time with Internet related concepts,
practices, and ideas to better understand how they work and the
context in which they exist. Today, I am chatting with
author, professor, and digital piracy expert, Aram Synreich,
about torrenting.
Peer to peer file sharing isn't new, nor are the ongoing legal
controversies surrounding it. But what is torrenting? Why does
it have such a marred reputation, and what is its role
in our online lives? But first, we're gonna take a quick break.
You'll listen to some ads, unless you're on the member
feed.
And when we return, we'll talk about a few of the things that
have happened since the last time you heard from us. I have
got six news items for you this week. Firstly, in show news,
we've been nominated for a Webby award. Eagle eared listeners
will remember that we won the Webby for best podcast live
recording last year for our xoxo fest live show in 2024. This
year, we're up for best individual episode in the news
and politics category for Mike's incredible episode titled AI and
New American Fascism.
If you'd like to vote for us, we will include the link to do so
in the show notes. Huzzah. The Federal Communications
Commission has banned all new consumer based Internet routers
made outside of The United States. Importantly, the ban
does not affect any foreign made routers that are already being
sold in The United States, nor ones that already exist in
American homes. But any new foreign made models are banned,
unless they can be approved by the FCC and the Department of
Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
This comes as a result of alleged national security
concerns around these newer models. With the FCC writing in
a statement that, quote, malicious actors have exploited
security gaps in foreign made routers to attack American
households, disrupt networks, enable espionage, and facilitate
intellectual property theft. But how real that threat actually is
remains unclear. Virtually all Internet routers sold in The
United States are manufactured at least in part overseas. And
it is also unclear what elements of manufacturing process fall
under this ban.
But as a spokesman from TP Link told Wired, quote, it appears
that the entire router industry will be impacted, unquote. And
that, invariably, includes us as consumers. Hachette Book Group
has pulled one of its latest releases from shelves after
suspecting that the novel was written by AI. The book in
question is Shy Girl, the debut novel written, allegedly, by Mia
Ballard. The book was first self published in February 2025, and
later picked up by Hachette in the fall.
The novel revolves around a young woman who is forced to
live as the pet of an abusive, controlling man. And in some
corners of the internet, this shocking, brutal story was first
celebrated as a kind of extreme feminist horror. But over time,
more and more readers started to post online with theories that
the story wasn't just badly written, but the product of AI
slop. Flash forward to March 19 when the New York Times broke
the story that Hachette was both canceling Shy Girls debut in The
United States and removing it from shelves in The UK because
of widespread allegations of AI use. Mia Ballard, for her part,
has completely denied these claims, telling the New York
Times that it was actually her editor who had used AI when
working on the text.
But Ballard did not elaborate on how exactly this AI editing took
place. A New Mexico jury found Meta guilty guilty of misleading
its consumers about the safety of its platforms and enabling
child endangerment. Now, Meta owes $375,000,000 in civil
penalties. That would be a story worthy in and of itself, except
that one day later, Meta was back in court again, losing big
time. In the second trial, Meta and YouTube were found liable in
creating addictive social media platforms that endanger the
emotional well-being of its users.
A young woman using the pseudonym Kaylee sued both tech
giants, blaming them for her childhood social media
addiction. Kaylee has now been awarded $6,000,000 in damages.
In response, Meta released a statement saying that, quote,
teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to
a single app. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously
as every case is different, and we remain confident in our
record of protecting teens online. Sure.
Totally for sure. Where have all the doge bros gone? Turns out,
they've gone viral. Earlier this month, video footage from the
deposition of former Department of Government efficiency
employees, Justin Fox and Nate Kavanaugh, spread like wildfire
across the social Internet. The videos showed the two men
admitting to using ChatGPT to filter out grants based on words
like black or homosexual, but not terms like white or
Caucasian.
They also struggled to answer simple questions about what
exactly DEI even was. The videos from these depositions were
originally posted on YouTube and shared across social platforms
before a judge ruled that they needed to be taken down out of
concern for the safety of Fox, Kavanaugh, and their families.
This ruling was reversed a little over two weeks later,
citing the first amendment. But what's most interesting was what
happened in those two weeks. Because, yes, the videos were
taken down from YouTube.
But it turned out that doing that didn't really make a
difference because they had already been backed up online.
Four zero four media reported that only a single day after the
videos were taken down, the Internet Archive had already
reuploaded a saved version of the videos. Plus, both
depositions had already been saved another way. They had been
torrented. Arrr.
And speaking of torrenting, oh, how far we have strayed from the
days of Limewire. In a surprising unanimous supreme
court ruling, the internet service provider Cox
Communications was found not liable for the illegal
downloading and sharing of copyrighted music done through
its services. The case was brought to court by dozens of
major music companies who claimed that Cox Communications
hadn't done enough to sufficiently stop its users from
engaging in piracy. But as it turns out, that wasn't enough to
convince the court to put the responsibility of this behavior
on any given Internet provider. Justice Clarence Thomas read
aloud his opinion that, quote, under our precedence, a company
is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a
service to the general public with knowledge that it will be
used by some to infringe copyrights.
Hahar, medicate. This is exactly why the conversation you're
about to hear felt so important to share right now. Torrenting
is one of those countless Internet y things that gets
talked about a lot, but at least for me, was something that was
never explained clearly enough for me to feel like I really
understood it. So for this installment of terms and
conditions, that is exactly what we are going to try to do. So
after the break, we'll talk Torrenting.
There's something you should know up top. Out of the entire
Never Post staff, I undeniably know the least about Torrenting.
Going into the research for this episode, this is basically
everything I knew. One, Torrenting is a kind of
decentralized file sharing done through peer to peer networks.
So stuff like the now defunct platforms of Napster and
Limewire.
Two, it's how a lot of people I know downloaded and watched
movies. And three, once, my friend got a cease and desist
letter from DreamWorks because she did not realize that the
Torrent file for she's the man that she was trying to download
never stopped downloading for, I kid you not, multiple years. But
that's basically it. So this episode of terms and conditions
is partially for my own benefit. Because as a kind of Internet
journalist, it is ridiculous for me not to know more about
torrenting.
And also, frankly, considering the ongoing news about the
topics of file sharing and piracy, I don't really think I
can afford to not know about this. So to better understand
torrenting as a practice and as a concept within a broader
cultural context, I brought in Erem Sinreich. Erem is a media
professor at American University in the School of Communication.
He's a musician and he's an author. But the reason I knew he
would be the best person to talk about Torrenting is that he has
spent decades covering Torrenting and file sharing and
piracy.
Aram has written multiple books about those topics, including
The Secret Life of Data and The Piracy Crusade. You'll hear the
two of us talk more specifically about The Piracy Crusade in a
little bit. Suffice it to say, I knew he would be the perfect
person to help me understand the basics of torrenting and to
contextualize it in a culture that has I mean, for my entire
life, demonized peer to peer file sharing as something as
unforgivably illegal as stealing a car. So I started out our
conversation with a very simple question. In the simplest
technological terms, how does torrenting work?
Aram Sinnreich: So in order to torrent, you have to first
download a file that's like a little pointer file. You don't
you don't go onto the internet and download an m p three. You
download like a little like 100 k file that says, here's what
the m p three looks like in a bit torrenting network and some
of the places you could go to ask if anyone has one. And then
you load that little file into a BitTorrent client and then the
BitTorrent client asks everyone in the network, do you have this
file? And then you get to download it.
So those websites where you download the little Torrent file
became social websites. And they actually developed their this
whole very well articulated system of social credit where
people would have like credit scores, and those credit scores
would then be interpreted through the technology to say
how much permission people had to download how many files and
how quickly. And people developed reputations for being
seeders rather than leechers, That is people who are willing
to upload as well as download. And and all this kind of social
language and these social protocols emerged around this
practice. But again, because it wasn't built into the tech,
people had to kind of build it themselves.
Georgia Hampton: I like that there's this community component
here. But I also have to imagine that this process isn't one
that's smooth every single time. Right? Like, I have virtually no
experience with torrenting, but I do know that it comes with a
certain set of risks. Obviously, you have the possibility that
the file you download is actually a virus.
There's also, like, legal threats in the sense of
downloading a movie might get you unwanted attention from a
giant movie studio or something. So in that case, what are the
best practices for torrenting? What tools do you need?
Aram Sinnreich: The number one thing you need is to use a VPN
because all of the litigation is based on IP addresses. So you
need to effectively mask your IP address and you need a VPN that
doesn't log your own online traffic, make sure you have good
antivirus. Scan everything that you download. And then there are
some BitTorrent trackers that are laden down with malware and
scammy porn ads and and sports betting ads and stuff like that.
And you want to kind of figure out which ones those are and go
to more altruistically oriented BitTorrent trackers to download,
you know, the little 100 k file.
So so I would say like, look at a blog like Torrent Freak, which
has been out for a long time, and get their advice about the
best software to use, the best websites to visit, the best VPNs
to employ, and and practice data hygiene.
Georgia Hampton: I wanna shift us to a more cultural context
with Torrenting because it has, I mean, it has a reputation, you
know? Like, I synonymize torrenting with piracy. So does
torrenting always mean piracy?
Aram Sinnreich: No. No. Of course, it doesn't. In fact, the
vast majority of torrenting has nothing to do with so called
piracy. These days, most if you took a look at Internet traffic
and you analyzed it, most of what is classified as torrenting
is really kind of back end content management for big media
companies.
Georgia Hampton: Say more about that. What does that mean?
Aram Sinnreich: So the thing that torrenting is really good
at is taking big files and breaking them up into super tiny
pieces, and then spreading them through the network and
reassembling them. And as it turns out, companies like
Spotify and Netflix need that kind of back end infrastructure
in order to manage their huge content libraries and move them
seamlessly all around the world. So in addition to kind of edge
of network service, servers, and peering arrangements, torrenting
and similar technologies have for the last fifteen years been
an important part of that back end.
Georgia Hampton: I had no idea that a place like Spotify uses
torrenting.
Aram Sinnreich: I think they replaced it with a torrent like
protocol a couple years back.
Georgia Hampton: Okay.
Aram Sinnreich: But they did use torrenting for many years as so
did Netflix, so did I think YouTube, if I remember
correctly.
Georgia Hampton: How ironic.
Aram Sinnreich: Yeah. It is. It is. Even as they're all the
Hollywood studios were were demonizing it. It's funny, you
know, one of the things I've done over the years is I've been
an expert witness on a bunch of court cases about file sharing.
Woah. Actually, first one was Grokster, which went to the US
Supreme Court back in 2003.
Georgia Hampton: Oh my god.
Aram Sinnreich: I know. Yeah. Had I didn't know it was gonna
go to the Supreme Court, you know. Otherwise, I would have
done a better job. But you know, I still do I still do a fair
amount of expert witnessing and and Torrenting still comes up.
And what you see, I can't reveal the details of any of these
cases because a lot of it is under seal. But generally
speaking, the arguments that you see the plaintiffs make in these
cases is, we looked at this traffic analysis and it said 7%
of all internet traffic is BitTorrent. Therefore, it's a
massive piracy problem. And then my job is to say, actually, out
of that 7%, you know, 6.85% is like back end systems for the
Spotify's of the world. And that remaining point one five
consists of all kinds of other stuff of which music is only
this teensy little piece.
So like, you know, don't get like too exercised about it.
This is actually a tiny tiny problem, not a huge huge
problem.
Georgia Hampton: That's that seems so different than my,
like, layperson understanding of what that means, what that
practice is. And I'm curious kind of why that is. Like, if if
torrenting isn't always piracy, and if anything, like you just
said, it kind of often really isn't at all, and is used by
these massive companies that would otherwise, you know, take
legal action against something like torrenting as piracy. How
did torrenting come to be defined by its use circumventing
access and copyright restrictions? Like, how did it
become synonymous, at least from my perspective, with a kind of
piracy?
Aram Sinnreich: There was a sustained public relations
campaign undertaken mostly by the music industry from 2003 to
2008, which resulted in a massive change of the framing of
this technology in mainstream media. And that framing has
stuck with us ever since.
Georgia Hampton: So this dovetails very nicely into
something I know you've written about, which is this notion of
this legal affront on piracy and on, I guess, torrenting in in
some capacity as part of that as a kind of crusade. Why why is
the term crusade so apt?
Aram Sinnreich: So so the fight against torrenting by media
industries, it kind of puts this moralistic screen on what's
really a form of economic self interest and and short term
economic self interest that doesn't really pay attention to
the kind of knock on consequences of waging the war
itself. And in my book, The Piracy Crusade, I squander a lot
of ink talking about all of those knock on consequences and
the way that they in in unexpected ways come back to
bite the industry in the butt.
Georgia Hampton: Yeah. I'm curious to hear a little bit
more about that because I was very interested to see in the
introduction of your book, how you specifically say that this
is a short term solution and that it doesn't actually protect
the long term interests of these so called crusaders or the
government that serves as their allies. So so why is that?
Aram Sinnreich: I mean, you have to remember the context in which
peer to peer file sharing first emerged in The US and elsewhere.
You know, flash all the way back pre BitTorrent to 1999 when this
thing called Napster comes out. Some kid in his college dorm
named Sean Fanning invented this little piece of software that
allowed anybody who had access to it to freely share all of
their m p threes with anybody else on the internet and to
download all of the m p threes from everyone else. Prior to
that time, in like May 1999, the music industry estimated that
there were half a million m p threes on the entire Internet.
And and then June, Napster comes out and by like August, there
are billions of m p threes being transacted every day among tens
of millions of active users of this platform.
Georgia Hampton: Wow.
Aram Sinnreich: Modernity was born that day. Like the world
that we now live in was was born in June 1999. Now, at the time,
I was a music industry and Internet industry analyst. And
along with a bunch of other of my contemporaries, we were
arguing that because of the Internet and because of digital
technology and the kind of low cost of storage, the future of
media wasn't going to be the kind of like pay for access to a
single thing model that we've seen during the twentieth
century where you walked up to a store and you gave them $20 and
they gave you a CD with 12 songs on it, And then you went back
the next time your allowance was topped up. But that now, the
problem was that there was so much abundance of information
that the business model had to be prioritizing this song or
this movie over all of the other millions of ones that someone
could have access to.
And that meant you were switching to a model that we now
think of as the streaming model. And I was an early and, you
know, loud advocate for that model. So I did some research,
big survey at the time, and I found out that by the 2000,
people who'd been using Napster were actually buying more music
than the people who weren't using Napster. Even if you
controlled for like how much money they made, how much music
they bought in the past, Like every other factor, people who
are demographically identical to each other, if they were using
Napster, they were like half again as likely to have
increased the amount of money they spent on music in the last
year. So people were like actually discovering and
learning about it.
And I I went running to my record label clients and I was
like, you guys, the best thing in the world just happened.
Like, I know that you've got record revenues now, but you're
about to grow your revenues by 50% just by licensing to this
cool new platform. And they literally, not only stopped
being my clients more or less overnight, but issued a press
release about how I was full of shit and and I was I was not to
be listened to.
Georgia Hampton: Oh. Oh, yeah. Oh my god.
Aram Sinnreich: Yeah. Like a smear a genuine smear campaign.
The first of several that I've experienced at the hands of the
music industry over the years. Yeah. And then this interesting
thing happens where all of these people at the record labels
would call me up or or meet me for lunch or whatever and be
like, you know what?
You're a 100% right. I wish you'd come in and tell like the
higher ups in my organization what's going on because they
don't understand it.
Georgia Hampton: So let me get this straight. The short term
reaction by these like bigwigs in, I mean, the music industry,
but also it sounds like in Hollywood and all these
entertainment industries, is basically just a financial one
of being like, we can make so much money by suing these
people. Like, we don't care about this model.
Aram Sinnreich: Right. And damn the future. Like, what what why
license and make a little when you can sue and make a lot?
There was so much pressure on companies to show massive
quarterly growth that they were strategically compelled almost
by through fiduciary duty in the case of the public companies to
do whatever it took to just boost those numbers. And like,
we'll worry about the future when the future comes.
Georgia Hampton: Well, mean, then the future came, especially
with streaming. Because I mean, now that's the standard.
Aram Sinnreich: It took a decade. Right? A decade during
which the the music industry as we were talking about before,
spent its resources demonizing technology rather than embracing
it. But the real change didn't happen until Spotify came to The
US and integrated with Facebook in 2011. So reintegrating that
social function back into the tech, which had been missing
since Napster had been sued and shut down.
Because the the tech that replaced it, which was mostly
Torrenting, was decentralized and didn't have a social
component in it. It was much more utilitarian.
Georgia Hampton: I mean, it again, as an as a outside
observer, it certainly seemed like torrenting was sort of,
yeah, the work of an individual person for individual needs or
desires.
Aram Sinnreich: Well, when it's used for that function, yes, to
a certain extent. There is a social para network surrounding
torrenting that was not imminent to the technology itself, but
that people built around it because people like to be
social.
Georgia Hampton: Right. Like sort of what you mentioned
earlier. This self created system that also has this very
communal component. Like, it's a a practice that is, I mean, very
trusting, like one based on trust.
Aram Sinnreich: Yeah. That's a good way to put it. Right?
Mutuality, reciprocity, and trust in so far as you don't
think you're downloading a spoof file or a piece of malware are
integral to it. And and also all of those, like like all human
systems of trust, and interdependence, it it got
exploited by all kinds of bad actors.
Right? So BitTorrent has been used to seed malware, which
create botnets and are used for denial distributed denial of
service attacks, you know, basically since day one.
Georgia Hampton: I mean, it it seems like such a to use, I feel
like, the often used way of codifying things, like a true
neutral tool. And that you can use it for these sort of
beautiful free access egalitarian desires, and then
also can be used kind of quite literally as, like, a almost
like state sanctioned, like, cultural Terrorism? Assault.
Yeah. Terrorism.
Aram Sinnreich: Yeah. Yeah. Both of those things are true.
There's so many reasons why people, you know hold a knife or
drive a car. Right?
It's a piece of technology that has many uses. We haven't even
begun to plumb the depths of the kind of altruistic functions of
it. You know there are all these people and institutions that
began using BitTorrent as a kind of, distributed archival system.
So that, you know, if if, Amazon Web Services went down or
somebody's hard drive crashed, all of their valuable content
wouldn't be lost. It would be distributed throughout the cloud
using BitTorrent.
So there's a ton of public domain stuff. Know, the bible is
on BitTorrent and, you know, silent films are on BitTorrent
and, you know, all all this, you know, government websites and
and government archives are on BitTorrent just to keep them
because some altruistically oriented person decided that
that would be a safer place to store it than in one in one
spot.
Georgia Hampton: I mean, and then you kind of also touch on
the now contemporary troubles with streaming and very much
platforms owning and distributing this content, which
is, you know, the movie that you love Netflix right now, they can
decide to just take it down and now it doesn't exist.
Aram Sinnreich: Well, it doesn't exist on Netflix. It's still on
BitTorrent. And, you know, I'm not gonna lie. There are times
where, you know, I lost access to streaming media that I had
paid for access to, and I resorted to BitTorrent to find
it because it wasn't available anywhere else. But morally, I
feel absolutely fine about it.
Georgia Hampton: Why do you feel that way? Like, why why not feel
dissuaded by the technical illegality of of torrenting?
Aram Sinnreich: Well, am dissuaded by the technical
illegality because if somebody identified my IP address with
that Torrent, I could be sued. And I'd probably have to settle
for a couple thousand dollars, which is what usually happens
when the hundreds of thousands of people who have been caught
like that get sued. But also, this is a movie that to your
point had been removed from streaming and download services
perfuncturally without my knowledge, without without
taking the interest of consumers or the interest of the our
cultural legacy to heart. And I felt that whoever is
distributing this film via BitTorrent is doing a mitzvah
because they're keeping the film in the public eye.
Georgia Hampton: I know you've written in the Piracy Crusade
about kind of the extremely high stakes of this. I mean, you
you've written about how it affects, like, democratic
institutions. So how does something like piracy or
torrenting affect something as enormous as literally democracy?
Aram Sinnreich: I think the the most important way to answer it
is to think about what is the collateral damage in these
battles. Sharing information is part of how we exert power,
especially in a democratic society. Right? That's why The
US has a first amendment. So that battle always becomes
especially pitched at moments of technological, ecological
change.
When it's possible for people and institutions that have been
constrained to exert to have newfound powers, and it's
possible for institutions that have been powerful to become
even more powerful. If you look at the technologies that have
been put into place to limit consumer access to information,
And if you look at the policies that have been put in place to
reify those technologies and support them, they tend to be
very censorious and surveillance. And censorship and
surveillance are anathema to a healthy democracy. In a free
society, torrenting and similar technologies are tolerated
because the cost of policing them is not worth the benefits.
Georgia Hampton: And the benefits are cultural, societal?
Aram Sinnreich: Well, I I guess what I'm saying is the cost to
society of policing them is not worth the benefits to society of
policing them. I'm not pretending that torrenting is
like an unalloyed benefit to the world. Right? It has upsides. It
has downsides.
It helps the industry. It hurts the industry. It's complex. But
the question is, what are we willing to At what price are we
willing to stop this technology and this behavior? And if the
price is surveilling the whole internet and creating these
systems of electronic gates that prevent different people from
spreading and accessing different kinds of information,
right, to me, the cost of putting that in place is so
great that it's not worth whatever benefits accrue from
putting it in place.
Georgia Hampton: But it does feel like piracy is is part of I
mean, is a political conversation. And I'm curious
what your thoughts are for, like, the near future of piracy
and torrenting, especially at a time when a lot of corporate
media is being consolidated and turned into these just like
enormous monopolies.
Aram Sinnreich: I think most politics are small p politics,
not big p politics. And most people who are engaging in
political activities don't conceptualize it as such. Right?
I think most of people torrenting and and most of
people, you know, secure online platforms are not really
thinking about the kind of larger picture so much as
they're just trying to live their lives and be free. And
they want they want to watch what they want to watch.
They want to listen to what they want to listen to. They want to
associate with people though, you know, freely and to
participate and to feel like meaningful participants in the
public conversation. And all of that is political, but it's not
framed politically. And it doesn't need to be framed
politically for people to to feel that reflexively. So I I
think that that we are at a moment as you point out of such
extreme media consolidation and monochromatic overdetermination
of the public sphere that there will be increasing popular
resistance to that, and that decentralized systems like
BitTorrent will play a role in that.
I also think that The US is busy squandering every last shred of
goodwill it's ever had around the world. And because of that,
there is going to be an increasing interest, big big p
politically, from foreign governments and corporations,
not to mention general citizenry in how do we get big tech out of
our lives and especially American big tech out of our
lives. And platforms like BitTorrent are gonna be part of
that as well.
Georgia Hampton: I was gonna say it. In a world of big tech, it
feels at least to me like something like BitTorrent is
like little tech or like accessible for everybody tech?
Aram Sinnreich: Very much. At some point soon, I think we're
gonna see a real breakout kind of popularly embraced unlicensed
streaming service that that has BitTorrent on the back end. And
then history will repeat itself. There'll be a moral panic about
it, and there'll be lawsuits, and maybe I'll have to testify
before the supreme court again. And, you know, the cycle
continues.
Georgia Hampton: Well, in that case, as someone who has watched
this cycle already happen, if someone was just going to start
getting into torrenting right now, what advice would you give
them?
Aram Sinnreich: I would say, first of all, you need a good
reason. Streaming, especially music streaming, has now become
like a commoditized kind of add on for other kinds of online
service relationships. So so if you have free streaming, you you
know, unless you want that, like, documentary that you can't
find anywhere else, there's not a really good reason to use
BitTorrent at this point for those kinds of functions. And
you have to balance your tolerance like, what's my
tolerance for advertising? What's my tolerance for
Melania's face versus my tolerance for like malware?
Right now in this current environment, adding BitTorrent
to your life increases your threat surface meaningfully. So
if you're concerned about the integrity of your laptop, your
phone, and if you're keeping sensitive files on it, you might
not want to open that window. And and even if you do, be aware
that you are undertaking a level of risk that you might not be
tolerant for. There is not a safe version of BitTorrent.
There are only safer ways of approaching it.
Georgia Hampton: That is the news we have for you this week.
We'll be back here in the main feed next week on or around
April 9. I want to say a huge, huge thank you to Erem Syndreich
for talking with me about the ins and outs of Torrenting along
with its history within culture. If you wanna learn more about
him and find more of his work, head on over to his website,
synreich.com. And thank you for listening.
What could $4 get you nowadays? Well, at the food co op in my
neighborhood, you could buy exactly one single vegan
chocolate chip cookie, or you could get an entire month of
membership to Never Post's bonus content, and in the process,
help your favorite Internet theorists and critics keep this
beautiful show a rolling. If you know us, you love us, and you
wanna support us, head over to neverpo.st and become a member.
Never Post's producers are Audrey Evans, me, Georgia
Hampton, and the mysterious doctor first name, last name.
Our senior producer is Hans Buto.
Our executive producer is Jason Oberholzer. The show's host is
Mike Rugnetta. I improvised. I never remembered. Now it's your
turn to be driven.
You're the one who demands to know. Why do I suffer? Why am I
ignorant? Cells in a great darkness. Some machine made us.
It is your turn to address it, to go back asking, what am I
for? What am I for? Excerpt from Mother and Child by Louise
Gluck. Never Post is a production of Charts and Leisure
and is distributed by Radiotopia.