404 Media49%

Podcast: Flock is Tracking People, Not Just Cars 88%

By Joseph Cox67%

7/22/2026, 1:56:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 33.3% saturation with 76 hits. Analysis detected 281 faulty-reasoning hits from 228 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.8% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,591 of 21,171 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.80% of the article peer group.

We start this week with Joseph’s story on how cops are using Flock to track actual people, not just cars, with searches like “male with tattoos.” 
After the break, Emanuel tells us all about the company that is explicitly selling mountains of books to AI companies and promising to keep the sales a secret. 
In the subscribers-only section, Jason tells us how he learned about the Suno hack and what it showed us. 
Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube. 
Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. 
If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! 
You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. 
The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. 
It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player. 
* You're Invited: 404 Media's Third Anniversary Live Podcast and Party! 
* How Cops Use Flock to Track People, Not Cars 
* AI Companies Are Buying Tons of Old Books Because They're Free of AI Slop 
* Hack Reveals Suno AI Music Generator Scraped YouTube, Deezer, and Genius 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
11.4%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
4.4%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
18.9%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
5.3%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
12.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
19.7%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
18%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
33.3%

228 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.