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% (2,590 of 21,169 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 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.3%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Joseph Cox: 5.7%404 Media: 3.9%Availability Heuristic11.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.6%404 Media: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Joseph Cox: 13.2%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 3.5%404 Media: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%Joseph Cox: 20.0%404 Media: 11.6%Negativity Bias18.9%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.4%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.8%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.5%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.1%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 4.0%404 Media: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.4%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.9%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.3%Joseph Cox: 9.5%404 Media: 8.0%Hasty Generalization12.3%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.1%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 6.3%404 Media: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.8%404 Media: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 1.7%404 Media: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 19.7%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal19.7%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 4.6%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.0%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 4.8%404 Media: 2.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.7%404 Media: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.0%Joseph Cox: 9.8%404 Media: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice18.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.2%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 2.5%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joseph Cox: 0.2%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 33.3%Joseph Cox: 7.7%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…33.3%

228 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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