🆕 Never Post! Lolcows and the Internet's "Digital Freakshow"

Executive Producer Jason Oberholtzer speaks to Dr. Jess Rauchberg about how the lolcow — a vulnerable Internet persona interacting with an unreliable and often malicious audience — relates to contemporary politics online and historic medieval spectacle.

–

Find Jess Rauchberg:

• The lolcow paper

–

• Call us at 651 615 5007 to leave a voicemail
• Drop us a voice memo via airtable
• Or email us at theneverpost at gmail dot com

–

Never Post’s producers are Audrey Evans, Georgia Hampton and The Mysterious Dr. Firstname Lastname. Our senior producer is Hans Buetow. Our executive producer is Jason Oberholtzer. The show’s host is Mike Rugnetta.

–

Never Post is a production of Charts & Leisure and is distributed by Radiotopia

Friends, hello, and welcome to Never Post, a podcast for and about the Internet. I'm your host, Mike Rugnetta, and we have a lullzy episode for you this week. Jason chats with doctor Jess Rosberg, assistant professor in the department of communication, media, and the arts at Seton Hall University about so called lull cows, about digital freakery, and how social media platforms repeat and recreate strains of ableism present in society since the middle ages. But first, we're gonna take a quick break. You're gonna listen to some ads unless you're on the member feed.

And when we return, Jason and doctor Roschberg.

For a while now, I've been looking for a way to cover the phenomenon known as Lolcows, that's l o l cows on Never Post. I find it to be a particularly complicated corner of the internet that illustrates a lot of complicated parts of human behavior. We will shortly get into a more nuanced description of what a Lolcow is, but in short, it's a streamer whose audience is there largely to gawk at their behavior and interact with them in ways that might be spurring the streamer on to increasingly bizarre or dangerous behavior. Towards the end of last year, there was some news from the world of Lolcows vaguely speaking that got some traction in outlets that normally wouldn't cover such things. Unfortunately, the event that precipitated that news was the death at the young age of 34 of Joshua Saunders, also known as Gothic King Cobra.

Now I was most familiar with King Cobra through clips that would find their way occasionally to my feed. He was a self proclaimed goth, like you might imagine. He sort of had an Ozzy Osbourne affect to him. He would wear this black crumpled up cowboy hat, and he liked black leather, and studs and spikes, and wearing eye makeup, and had a long beard, and shredded on the guitar, and he would spend his time on stream seemingly mostly drinking and smoking and chatting with his audience, and occasionally cooking truly bizarre meals often involving Doritos. And one feature that seemed to be present across all of these videos was this ambivalent relationship that his audience seems to have with him, where they were both pushing him in the way typical of Lolcows to do more outrageous and extreme things, drink more, smoke more, cook weirder things.

But also this affection that they seem to have for him, because he would say truly phenomenal one liners. He would have really astute observations about himself in the world. I found myself drawn to a lot of the clips I would see of him. But there was also a darkness to these interactions. People would send him prank gifts, like the can that you open up and the little snake like things fly out at you, and would try to convince him on stream that this time in fact, like Lucy putting the football down, it was actually Pringles, and he would let himself be talked into opening it and then be disappointed and surprised that once again he was tricked.

They would swat him sending police to his house. And these are all typical interactions between Lolcows and their fandom or whatever you can call it. But I always found there to be a bit of warmth and protectiveness in his fan base as well. And I certainly found a lot of moments where I was empathizing with him. Now this isn't to say he's without his controversies.

I don't know exactly what they are, but I know they're there. This is a complicated figure with a complicated relationship to the Internet. But I genuinely liked when his clips would show up, and found myself liking him in many ways. So I was pretty sad when I heard the news. And I thought about if then was a good time to do a story on Lolcows, but I didn't really know what I wanted to do, and I didn't really know if I wanted to do anything.

Especially because the next thought that would come to me was usually along the lines of, I wonder who is gonna die next. And the first name that often would come to me was Joshua Block or World of T shirts as he's known on TikTok where he first established his notoriety. And then a couple months ago, I came across a paper, Lolcows and the Mediation of Digital Freakshow by Jess Rosberg, an assistant professor at Seton Hall University. And the paper was covering not only Lolcows, but specifically Joshua Block, World of T shirts. And so I'm particularly grateful to Jess for wading into this territory and for agreeing to come on the show and talk to me a bit about her paper.

So Jess, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you so much for having me, Jason.

So first off, I am interested. Let's help set some stakes here in what exactly a Lolcow is, and how that term has evolved over the years. But first, would you be able to describe the quintessential Lolcow video?

So first and foremost, a Lolcow is an Internet persona who is perceived to be highly exploitable and someone who can be instigated or antagonized for another Internet user's entertainment. And so this is a portmanteau of the phrase lols and cows. So you're milking them for your entertainment. I think for me, and I've most closely looked at the live streamer and content creator, Josh Bloch, also known as World of T shirts, is a moment where he's on a live stream sitting at a cafe in New York City and somebody passerby screams, put the fries in the bag. And that's a phrase that's often used to insinuate that he's not capable of doing anything more than minimum wage labor and Josh is shown on the livestream biting himself, hitting himself, and threatening to attack this this young woman who's who has yelled at him.

And at the same time, she's said that because she knows it'll get a rise and maybe even a viral moment.

Let's go, Josh. Let's How dare you? And clearly, what is terrifying at this moment is that it has escaped the containment of The Forum, and this is now affecting his real life. And one assumes the viewers of this stream are having a great time.

Yeah. I think the form is a great analogy. It's more like an an arena, and we are all at in the front row seat.

And what is the general response to this interaction? What do the comments look like?

This is a very common interaction with this particular creator. The comments repeat, put the fries in the bag, bro. Maybe they'll make comments on what they speculate Josh's mental capacity or his mental abilities to be or not be. And in these types of videos, because they've happened so often, we'll see a smirk from the fry buyer who's who's screamed at Josh. Sometimes if he's hit them, there's another video where a woman at a club says that to him, she fry bites him and he smacks her on the head and she's stunned.

And it's almost this belief that, oh, Josh has agency. He can do things back. Not things that are nice and things that are pleasant, but he can create a reaction and yet people still do it because there's that promise of entertainment and amusement.

Okay. So let's take a moment to do a bit of the biography of Josh Block here, who is someone we've referenced a bunch already and probably will reference more. You reference a lot in your paper.

Yeah. So Josh is a pretty young creator. He's in his mid twenties now, and he gained notoriety on TikTok as a teenager. And so Josh has a socially awkward affect, but, really use the platform to try to connect with other people. So he would create dancing videos, he would go out into public and shout things.

He was living in Long Island with his grandparents at the time, and so he would take the train into Manhattan and record himself singing in Times Square.

Jungle wet dreams are made of

Some of those mentalities that his audience has now that he's reached full Lolcows status, they were there, but it was a little bit more endearing. Like, oh, Josh, he's so cute and innocent and awkward. It is perceived that Josh is autistic or has some kind of developmental disability. It is not clarified. He has never come out and said that, but his following sees him as a disabled person.

And so in my research, I use the language of apparency that he appears to be or he's perceived to be because that's something that shapes how people interact with him.

Mhmm.

When Josh turned 21, he started drinking excessively and during this time, he began working with his first handler and these when by handlers, I'm referring to a term that's used in Josh's fandom or community or anti fandom if we can call it that. Usually older men and now usually streamers who act as a manager for Josh, but it's a little bit more because Josh becomes really much attached to this person. And I think the term handler is used to almost dehumanize him, that he could not do these things on his own. And it's not the same as, you know, a neurotypical creator having a manager or an agent, but rather this is someone who provides not only a professional, but an emotional and personal caretaker role for Josh. Josh has had a very interesting climb to notoriety and the ways that he uses digital platforms has changed, especially as he moved away from short form content to live streaming.

But I think what has become more pronounced is his fans, whether on a live stream or in person, try to instigate him or even so his handlers try to instigate him, especially when he is most of the time very heavily under the influence of alcohol.

And so you in your paper sort of liken this to a legacy of behavior that this is maybe made more accessible now because we can follow this person on their livestream as they walk around New York City, but that in fact, this is core human nature behavior and has been for a very long time.

Yes. I've been conducting some research on the history of freakery and freakery as a form of entertainment. And so to understand the contemporary locale, we have to go all the way back to medieval Europe and thinking about the image of the the natural fool, Somebody who's what we would now call disability or neurodivergence in medieval Europe, their purpose divinely ordained is to entertain what we would now call probably neurotypical people. And this was a way to be part of communities. They were often, you know, accepted by patrons, nobles, kings, kind of like pets.

And they were taken care of, but are they on the same page, or are they in on it? And oftentimes, I think that depends on each individual locale creator in a contemporary sense, but oftentimes, no. They are not. And sometimes that is interpersonal, and many times that's structural. You are kept out of being part of the social structure.

You don't really have a say in how you're exploited even if that's what it appears to be. And so a thousand years later or so, we still have these same issues where these creators are gaining notoriety. Some of them have millions of followers. Josh, for example, has 4,000,000 over 4,000,000 TikTok followers. He had a exclusive contract with Party, which is a web three point o streaming platform that aims to be a competitor with Twitch.

But it's uncertain about how much power he actually has in his role as a digital worker and as a creator that has a pretty prominent following. And really, what is speculated is that his handlers or the streamers that kind of steer him around the country from event to event are the ones that have the power.

It seems like the image that is emerging here is of, like, an infrastructure needed to both, like, support the popularity of and the logistics of being a content creator at the scale of a Josh Block, as well as I think murkier areas of guiding and possibly enabling and I think even taking your original analogy here of the medieval court. The characters that have to appear to assemble that court and fill it and give it the resources it needs to support merriment, I suppose. I suspect this is sort of contested territory or at the very least unclear, but what is the general sense about the network of handlers and hangers on in the life of, I suppose, Josh Bloch most specifically, but also in this ecosystem? Are they helping? Are they enabling?

Are they mooching? What what what is it?

Yeah. This is a common discourse. There's some really interesting conversations about what purpose do they serve. What I can speak to is his relationships with them. As I mentioned,

you know, a couple

moments ago, he is working with these people very closely in ways that I think are very distinct from a traditional celebrity or or influencer who has an agent or has a management team. Mhmm. These people step in for Josh in in so many other capacities. And I think we use the term handler be almost like Josh is an animal, that he cannot handle himself when he does not have intervention from Tony or, he was previously recording a lot of his content with Jason Itzler. People may know him as mister Baste who has a very notorious background.

And they would put Josh in hotels or take him to the doctor. I know when he was making content with mister Baste, Josh had a monkeypox scare, so they made a lot of content of him going to the doctor and testing out some growths on his body. Other than that, if they these handlers are not around, Josh is often seen, you know, sleeping on a public transit system or just roaming around the city. Some of his fans claim to really miss those days and others have have different speculations on the handlers. Mhmm.

I think also what's important here is that the handlers act as liaisons to his followers. So for example, Josh was just in ten days of court ordered rehab, and so even some of his former handlers continued to talk with each other, and they helped shape some of the speculation that might emerge platforms where people talk and write about Josh, and they help create again the lore, the myth about about who Josh is and how he needs to be controlled. They will try to intervene. Some of those interventions do not work. So we can see in in Josh's current status, he's navigating a legal case after assaulting a woman in Newport Beach, California on July 4, where he was placed under arrest and he's, you know, navigating that court case.

He probably could not do that without Tony and the other handlers. While Josh does have a relationship, I I don't know how strained it is with his grandparents. His his parents are also not in the picture. His mom unfortunately passed away from ovarian cancer when he was a teenager. This is something that Josh has spoken about on his platforms and I think something that does elicit a lot of sympathy from his his followers and and watchers that an audience that they feel for this this person who has been very wounded by by the loss tragic loss of a parent.

And I believe Josh's dad has had his own battles with substance abuse and is is not in the picture. So Josh doesn't really have a family life. The handlers act in as a family. And in some ways, some may see the handlers as a plus, whereas others believe he is being exploited. But at the same time, I I'm curious about what that means because are you frustrated that he's being exploited on the platform itself and that you're upset that he's a Lolcow or are you upset that you think he's boring now because of who he's who's handling him and so therefore, the content is less amusing.

And so when people have approached Josh and his content or other locals as as these moral issues in Internet culture, I often think, you know, is this the issue with the locale or are you not being entertained enough? Which again, goes back to this analogy of the court jesters or even the rise of asylums in, you know, enlightenment era Britain where you could go visit inmates on Sundays and pay, and they'd put on a show for you. Josh provides that for viewers, but you don't have to go physically to the asylum where there are set hours for when you could visit. Now in 2026, you log on party, you log on to the streaming platform of choice, and Josh is there for your exploitation and pleasures.

Yeah. Let's talk about these platforms for a little bit. I guess Yeah. The court in which this is all happening. There's a line from your paper I particularly liked here.

Platform economies and affordances reconfigure the reach of freakery. Here, Lolcows are positioned as media objects that can now be mocked, belittled, antagonized, trolled, or stereotyped from anywhere, anytime. You say platform economies and affordances here. So it's not just that they are providing the arena in which this happens, but they are also providing some of the tools that makes the behavior what it is. What are those?

Before I go there, any media object is designed to solve the time and space issues. So how do we share information or connect across time and space? And a digital platform does that very well. It accelerates that time space collapse. If we think of a platform as a digital public square or a digital environment, when we do things in our physical environments, there's some kind of reaction or some kind of change and then that impacts all of us.

And I think that's something that we see a lot in in platform economies and and live streaming, particularly in the Lolcows space. So one feature of of live streaming platforms that are often used to instigate what we would call the meltdowns, the crash outs if you will, are is a feature called text to speech or TTS. And so this is a freemium feature on most platforms, at least it is on party where there's a chat alongside the stream where different viewers can interact with each other and interact with Josh. But if you pay a little bit more to the account yours or creator you're subscribing to, you can have your comment read aloud on the stream to everyone. Sometimes that's a couple thousand to 30,000 people depending on the stream.

You steal your phone, Josh. You will not be able to stop me or find me. Yes, I will.

I'll beat your ass. I'll your I'll beat your ass. Ass. That's read aloud for him and everyone else. So that not only instigates other people to act that way, but it also means you get a rise out of Josh where he will appear to bite himself, hit himself, scream, start those crash outs that are really what people are watching.

And so Mhmm. The platforms can really exacerbate things that we've always been doing, but they become intensified and and and how we can exploit these people.

Is part of that intensification the direct transactional relationship of the views, the emotions involved in those directly tied to those views on these platforms?

I think that's a that's a fair assessment. And particularly when he was working with Jason Itzler or mister Baste, we saw a lot more of those crashouts and they would make quite a bit of money per stream on Josh having reactions and having crash outs. And Josh was making a profit. So he would often say that he had this huge contract, he was making all this money with party and that is uncertain about, you know, how truthful that is, and it's a little bit difficult to empirically prove it. But what we can ascertain is that he is in some way benefiting from this exploitation.

And more so, the handlers are also benefiting it too. Because he has some kind of again, we don't know the details of the contracts, but we know that they have a working relationship.

I think this certainly makes more complicated counter criticism you hear frequently when people are wringing their hands about Lolcows. That if they didn't like it, if they weren't benefiting from it, if this was indeed triggering them so hard, they could just log off. But it is certainly more complicated than that when there are presumably contracts on the line with this series of handlers or network of people, and they're making a living.

Yeah. This is something that is not just a criticism of locals, but and again, not every locale is disabled or neurodivergent, but I do study disability and content creation. And so when I'm looking at other facets of disability and creative work, this is a common reaction that I get to. Well, if disabled people are being harassed on the platform, if they are being suppressed, can't they just make their own platform? Can't they just log off?

And I don't think that's fair because one, I think you're right. Contracts are contracts. And if you wanna keep your contract, you gotta keep making money and and vice versa. I also think that physical working spaces, particularly during the COVID nineteen pandemic and onward, which are that's still a reality for for most disabled people. The pandemic never ended.

It just, you know, most people forgot about it. Physical working environments are not always accessible. And the creator economy with its flexible hours, it's, you know, certainly with the advent of short form content and in app editing features that go on with it, it it becomes a lot more easy to enter. There's no huge gatekeeping that's happening anymore. Lookout creators who may or may not be neurodivergent, disabled, yes, they're being exploited, but at the same time, it may not be easy to leave.

It's also, these are often individuals who may not have support systems outside of their handlers and their their community. And I think it's a lot more easy to to make that suggestion than to consider, well, this is imbued in a larger structure and it can be very difficult for particularly for disabled locale creators to find work outside of content creation because those working environments may not be accessible to them in in various ways, or they lose all sense of support and connection and community. And I think we also may not think of disabled creators as workers in that way too. Because if we are saying, well, can just log off, then how are they supposed to support themselves and how are they supposed to contribute to our world? I think about throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century, most US cities had these unsightly beggar ordinances, which are colloquially known as ugly laws.

I'm being very facetious here, but it made it very difficult to be a visibly disabled person in public, whether you're physically disabled or you appear to be neurodivergent. And we don't have those laws anymore, but I think the the sentiments still stay and remain. And I often think of that when I hear that, that counter critique. So like, yes, it would be great if Josh and Daniel Larson and these other creators who, you know, appear to be disabled and occupy the Lolcows status. It would be great if they couldn't be exploited, but also, do we have other infrastructure for them?

And the answer is no. Mhmm. Daniel Larson's incarcerated. So that that was the infrastructure for him.

I think it's really interesting that you bring up the shift in accessibility here around COVID nineteen and after that. Because in many ways, I'm thinking that this mirrors other sorts of online behavior and indeed like online mindsets and politics that mainstream themselves after COVID. In particular, I'm thinking of another quote from your paper here. It says, Bloch's popularity is not related to inclusion, diversity, or agency. His disability is a resource which platforms and other creators can extract from in a political moment where disabled people are openly dehumanized.

Engaging both theoretical analysis and close readings of sample livestream recordings and other social media artifacts, I suggest that authoritarian politics and eugenics shape platform economies, ultimately rendering Lolcows creators into digital freak shows. I would love to know more of the detail you found on some of those close readings, and and in particular, where you think this political energy comes from in the discourse around these creators.

Yeah. Absolutely. So this is this research is part of a book I'm working on about algorithmic ableism and creator culture. And so I to understand algorithmic ableism as ableist attitudes, values, and politics that shape our on offline working culture and public life and cultural life. And what happens when they those ideas now begin to shape how we work on platforms?

Mhmm.

And it's not just disabled creators are censored, but also how do we treat each other? And I think about some of our reactions to COVID nineteen that that centered anti mask politics or also thinking about some of the intersections between the Black Lives Matter resurgence in 2020 in The United States and elsewhere alongside COVID nineteen, we had this moment where it seemed like, wow, we're having a cultural shift. We are starting to think about race and structural violences or or or political oppression in way where maybe we can change something, where maybe the world can be more accessible across, you know, political demographics. And I I don't mean necessarily how you vote, but how you move through the role Sure. Race, gender, sexuality, class, disability, etcetera.

And then that did not happen. And I I think about TikTok, for example, which was accused of in in 2019 and 2020 of of asking their content moderators to train the For You recommendation infrastructure to censor disabled creators and their response was, well, we're trying to prevent cyber bullying, we don't do that. And then they had all these events to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. But then, that's not really what's reflected on the platform. And, you know, we see this this rhetoric, this mouthpiece of, well, we look at all these things that we're doing, but then it doesn't actually change.

In terms of of disability, that has has become, I think, more and more pronounced. And it's also platforms reflect and and are shaped by, and media more generally is shaped by the political environment we're in. Mhmm. And I promise I'm I'm coming full circle here. I also think the ways that we not having in person communities and relying on the digital for so long during lockdowns and and during the majority of the COVID nineteen pandemic, I think that changed how we interacted with each other where we think of our interactions as more transactional, more exploitable.

And my argument in in this book project is not that it's just disabled creators. The way we treat disabled creators can actually teach us a lot about how we're treating each other online. And Mhmm. I think in environments where there's little room for context or nuance, it becomes really easy to respond with hate or to respond with animosity or to think of people as I think of this idea that now we all consider each other NPCs.

Mhmm.

And that's not a good thing if we are not thinking about that's a human on the other side. So we the the TLDR of algorithmic ableism and this idea about how does disability shape the creator economy, it shows us how ableism is pretty pervasive in creator culture because now we don't see people on the other side of the screen as human.

You know, speaking from my own experience, I find these videos difficult to engage with. I have never really gone to the livestream itself and taken it in raw. They feel cruel to me, but also it's it feels more complicated than that. Like, can't just sit on, oh, this is cruel and bad. It is like interactive and human, and to me at least complicated in who is gaining what, where, and why this is happening.

And so perhaps, like, it's not, to me, at least, simple enough to just say, this is an exhibition of cruelty.

For sure. There's an inhumanity to it, and I think it begs us to ask, do we see and again, not every locale is disabled, but many of them are perceived to be or are. Do we see disabled people as humans?

It's striking me that maybe that dehumanization cuts both ways though. Don't these people have the agency to engage in the marketplace of content creation and be subjugated to an audience's reaction? And it would be cruel to, like, assume that they don't have the agency or sufficient agency to participate like that?

This is why I'm a little bit reticent to say, it's just cool. And, yes, there are many ways that we interact with Lolcows creators that are really cruel and really horrible. But at the same time, as shitty as that might be, it also is wrong to deny that these creators have agency. That even if that agency might be different than a, you know, a different type of creator or maybe more neurotypical or less exploitable creator, we're still all getting exploited by the creator economy and the platforms where

we work.

The platforms encourage us to post a certain way, behave a certain way with how we interact with other people. And and I see this all the time, not just with disabled content creators or locale creators. And so I think to say that it's okay to treat locals like this is cruel, but it's also another type of cruelty to then believe that they don't have any agency or they're not making choices Right. Because they are. They just may not be choices we ourselves would make.

And the cruelty is within the machine somewhat. This is not like, you know, an a non cruel platform wielded or weaponized in a very specific way towards somebody.

Yeah. It becomes part of what we would call in social media research platforms, logics, meaning that, you know, when we post on Instagram, we're gonna post a certain way. And sometimes that's at our own expense. And to do that is to also be part of this community and to connect with other people. But that means we're gonna style ourselves in a way that might not feel right or might feel icky.

It might feel wrong. And yet, if we don't do it, are we really part of something? So it is beyond these particular interactions. It impacts all of us.

Do you think that there's things that the platforms could be doing, or does this ultimately boil down to human nature apparently, you know, millennia of human nature, where just this is an impulse that a lot of people have?

Yeah. I I think this is a great question, Jason. I think this is a larger issue with the creator economy. Mhmm. You know, we have about a 162,000,000 Americans who identify as creators working in some capacity, whether they're streamers, bloggers, influencers, or or making other kinds of of digitally shared content.

This is a late type of labor and work where there's no union. There's no protections. And thinking as well of the 1996 Telecommunications Act in section, I think it's section two thirty, which, you know, the 30 something words that change the Internet, where basically the platform is just hosting your content. They're not responsible for you. So they can wipe their hands.

I don't know if that needs to change because if we do sunset this section of the law, that can create some pretty dangerous things for creators. But I do think that having ways to protect and ways to regulate content creators is helpful because it's not just these local creators that are getting exploited or even visibly marginalized creators who are getting exploited. We all get exploited by the creator economy, even those who are at the top. And creative labor is interesting because it is sold to you with the promise of optimization and advancement and aspirational labor. If I work really hard now to do this, I can go viral.

I can make it big and I can make a living out of this. And you know, some people do make a lot of money and they're able to segue that into more substantial forms of work. But many of specifically Josh's audience, speculate that in a couple years, he might be homeless and on the street Mhmm. When when all of this dries up. I don't think the creator economy is going away.

It's such a powerful media industry at this point that it it will change and it will go through shifts. But I do think that that it's here to stay and in order for it to be successful and for people to thrive as much as they can in it, they are going to need protections. We're gonna need unions. We're going to need a creator bill of rights. And I wonder if we had those kinds of infrastructures in place, Josh and other creators like him might have a really different experience.

Yeah. I would speculate that a fair amount of the intrigue, the draw of the Lolcows as a set of streamers is a certain sense of there but for the grace of God go I. And I think that is especially true when you narrow it down to the creator economy. With all these stresses, all the reward structures put in place, all the enabling features of the creator economy, truly, this is an outcome that seems like predictable and almost undeniable if you get too close to the center of that economy.

I I think that's spot on and at the end of the day, platform these platform companies, because again, their domains are are legally, at least in The United States, only really entitled to host our work and they profit off of our attention. So the more time we spend looking at Josh or looking at any creator, at the end of yes, we might be lining those creators pockets, but we're really lining that that platform's pockets because they profit off of our attention.

Let's endeavor to have you, Jess Rosberg, profit off of some attention as well. Where can people find you assuming you wanna be found on the Internet?

I am very much on the Internet. I am on Instagram and blue sky under Jess Rauschberg, full name, all one word, and always happy to connect with listeners and and those who are interested in these things that occupy our minds on the Internet.

Well, thank you so much for coming in, Jess.

Thank you so much for having me.

That is the show we have for you this week. We are gonna be back here on the main feed on or around Thursday, April 2. Hey, can I borrow $4 every month indefinitely? Head to neverpo.st to become a member. Never Post's producers are Audrey Evans, Georgia Hampton, and the mysterious doctor first name, last name.

Our senior producer is Hans Buto. Our executive producer is Jason Oberholzer and the show's host, that's me, is Mike Rugnetta. The world is between tips. We say so to know. We go look over or out to its pivot, to its wobble and drift.

Terrible. We are leaving. Excerpt of 39, The Polar Circle by Lynn Hajianian. Never Post is a production of Charts and Leisure and is distributed by Radiotopia.