>> O'Connell: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON": I'M SUE O'CONNELL, IN FOR JIM BRAUDE.

WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW Facebook AND INSTAGRAM HARM TEENAGE GIRLS AND ENABLE DICTATORS TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA, MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO GET OFF THE PLATFORMS.

BUT THAT'S NO EASY FEAT.

"WASHINGTON POST" TECH REPORTER HEATHER KELLEY JOINS ME WITH TIPS ON HOW TO MIGRATE YOUR ONLINE LIFE ELSEWHERE.

THEN, LATER, THE STORY I AND MANY OTHERS HAVE BEEN OBSESSING OVER, BAD ART FRIEND.

>> O'Connell: THE Facebook FALLOUT JUST KEEPS BUILDING, WITH A SECOND WHISTLE-BLOWER NOW WILLING TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS OVER HER CONCERNS ABOUT HATE AND MISINFORMATION ON THE POPULAR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, PARTICULARLY FROM DICTATORS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

>> IT WAS VERY FRUSTRATING FOR ME.

I STARTED LOSING SLEEP.

THE FACT THAT MULTIPLE NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND PRESIDENTS FELT THE NEED TO EXPLOIT Facebook ON VAST SCALES TO MANIPULATE THEIR OWN CITIZENRY, WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO HIDE IT, THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THEY BELIEVE THAT TO BE, HOW IMPORTANT THIS ACTUALLY IS.

>> O'Connell: DATA SCIENTIST SOPHIE ZHANG FIRST SHARED HER CONCERNS IN A PUBLIC MEMO LAST YEAR, AFTER SHE WAS FIRED FROM Facebook, SAYING SHE FELT LIKE SHE HAD "BLOOD ON HER HANDS."

SHE SAID ON TWITTER SHE'S ALSO GIVEN "DETAILED DOCUMENTATION REGARDING POTENTIAL CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS TO A U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY" AND BELIEVES AN INVESTIGATION IS STILL ONGOING.

ZHANG'S CONCERNS ARE ALSO SHARED BY FELLOW Facebook WHISTLE-BLOWER FRANCES HAUGEN, WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE A SENATE PANEL LAST WEEK.

>> I BELIEVE Facebook'S CONSISTENT UNDERSTAFFING OF THE COUNTER-ESPIONAGE INFORMATION OPERATIONS AND COUNTER-TERRORISM TEAMS IS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE.

THEY HAVE PUT THEIR ASTRONOMICAL PROFITS BEFORE PEOPLE.

>> O'Connell: HAUGEN ALSO TESTIFIED AT LENGTH ABOUT THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS Facebook-OWNED INSTAGRAM HAS HAD ON YOUNG GIRLS, WITH MANY BOTH ADDICTED TO AND HURT BY SOME OF THE PLATFORM'S CONTENT.

SHE SAID THE COMPANY KNOWS ALL ABOUT IT, BUT INSTEAD OF TAKING SERIOUS ACTION, IT'S BEEN "OPERATING IN THE SHADOWS, HIDING ITS RESEARCH FROM PUBLIC SCRUTINY."

>> O'Connell: IN RESPONSE, Facebook FOUNDER MARK ZUCKERBERG POSTED ON THE PLATFORM, IN PART: "MANY OF THE CLAIMS DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

IF WE WANTED TO IGNORE RESEARCH, WHY WOULD WE CREATE AN INDUSTRY-LEADING RESEARCH PROGRAM TO UNDERSTAND THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE FIRST PLACE?

WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT ISSUES LIKE SAFETY, WELL-BEING, AND MENTAL HEALTH."

MANY HAVE BEEN QUESTIONING THAT STATEMENT IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THE WHISTLE-BLOWERS HAVE SHARED, AND THIS LATEST SCANDAL IS MAKING SOME RETHINK THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COMPANY ALTOGETHER.

BUT AS WE LEARNED LAST WEEK, WHEN Facebook, INSTAGRAM, AND WHATSAPP ALL WENT DARK FOR SEVERAL HOURS AND HALF THE INTERNET LOST ITS COLLECTIVE MIND, THAT'S EASIER SAID THAN DONE.

MY NEXT GUEST HAS A FEW TIPS, WHICH SHE LAID OUT IN A "WASHINGTON POST" ARTICLE TITLED, "YOU'VE DECIDED TO QUIT Facebook.

HERE'S HOW TO MIGRATE YOUR ONLINE LIFE ELSEWHERE."

THAT WOULD BE "WASHINGTON POST" TECHNOLOGY REPORTER HEATHER KELLY, WHO JOINS ME NOW.

>> O'Connell: HEATHER, THANKS FOR JOINING US.

>> SURE THING.

>> O'Connell: I FEEL LIKE WE NEEDED TO HAVE THIS PRE-NUP CONVERSATION 15 YEARS AGO AS WE WERE BUILDING ALL OF OUR VACATION PHOTOS AND OUR SOCIAL LIFE AND ALL OF OUR GROUPINGS ON Facebook.

YOU LAY OUT A PRETTY CLEAR STEP BY STEP THINGS THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER.

WHAT IS THE FIRST STEP ABOUT THINKING SHOULD I BREAK UP WITH Facebook?

AND BY ASSOCIATION, INSTAGRAM.

>> I THINK THE BIGGEST THING TO THINK ABOUT IS THERE NO WAY TO RECREATE Facebook.

YOU CAN FIND SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ELSEWHERE, BUT WHAT WE'VE BASICALLY DONE OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS IS WE'VE ALLOWED Facebook TO OWN THIS MAP OF OUR FRIENDS.

A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE YOUR FRIENDS WITH ARE IN YOUR CONTACT BOOK, MAYBE WRITTEN DOWN OR ON YOUR PHONE, AND MOST OF IT IS ON Facebook.

IT IS NOT EASY TO GET THAT WITH THE COMPANY.

KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GIVING UP WHEN YOU LEAVE, KNOW WHO YOU NEED TO FIND ALTERNATE CONTACT INFORMATION WITH YOU AND THEY MAY NOT GO WITH YOU.

>> O'Connell: I'VE HAD YEARS WHERE I'VE GONE BLACK, I'VE KEPT MY Facebook, BUT I'VE DEACTIVATED.

AND IT MADE ME VERY ANXIOUS, I'M ASHAMED TO SAY.

I WAS WORRIED I WAS MISSING THINGS AND PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO GET IN CONTACT WITH ME.

WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT AS A UTILITY, AND SOME PEOPLE THINK IT SHOULD BE REGULATED LIKE A UTILITY.

BUT IT IS SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT.

IT IS ALMOST LIKE THERE IS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MERGED WITH IT, RIGHT?

>> YES.

AND SOME OF US THINK THIS IS WHERE I FIND MY FRIENDS' BABIES AND DOGS, BUT THAT IS HOW PEOPLE COMMUNICATE IN A LOT OF COUNTRIES.

THAT IS THEIR TEXT MESSAGE SYSTEM, THAT IS WHERE THEIR FAMILIES ARE, SO ASKING THEM TO GIVE UP SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS A MUCH BIGGER DEAL.

>> O'Connell: LET'S SAY WE TAKE THE STEP, WE SAY, I THINK I WANT TO DISENGAGE FROM THE BOARD -- A LITTLE WILLIAM SHATNER SHOUTOUT TODAY -- WHAT IS ONE STEP YOU SHOULD TAKE AS YOU START TO TAKE INVENTORY ABOUT BREAKING UP WITH Facebook?

>> MY FIRST SUGGESTION IS DON'T JUST DELETE Facebook FIRST AND DECIDE TO POINT OF VIEW.

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THAT INFORMATION AS YOU'RE MOVING TO OTHER APPS.

I THINK ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS TO LEAVE BEHIND ARE THE GROUPS THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE ON Facebook.

GETTING THOSE PEOPLE OFF IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT.

TALK TO YOUR GROUP, IF YOU'RE ON THERE.

FIND OUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE ON, WHAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.

ESPECIALLY IF IT IS OLDER USERS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW, SO YOU HAVE TO TALK THEM THROUGH IT.

THE NEXT STEP IS FINDING WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.

YOU CAN USE SOMETHING CALLED Facebook LOG-IN, AND IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY FIND ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS ON THERE.

DO THAT FIRST.

>> O'Connell: SO WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE PHOTOS.

I'M ALWAYS CHECKING MY PHOTOS TO SEE WHAT I MIGHT HAVE POSTED THERE THAT I REALLY CARE ABOUT.

AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE TIME FUNCTION, I THINK, THAT PHOTO IS NOT REALLY IN MY PHOTOS.

I'VE BEEN WITH Facebook SINCE NEARLY THE BEGINNING, AM I GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE DAY OF POSTS IN ORDER TO SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING I WANT TO CAPTURE?

WHAT DO I DO, DOWNLOAD IT OR UPLOAD IT OR PUT IT IN THE CLOUD?

WHAT DO I DO?

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO RELIVE YOUR EARLY YEARS ON Facebook.

>> O'Connell: THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> IF YOU GO INTO Facebook, THERE IS AN OPTION TO DOON LOAD DOWNLOAD ALL OF YOUR PHOTOS.

I MOVED ALL OF MY TO GOOGLE PHOTOS, BECAUSE I'M A BIG GOOGLE PHOTOS FAN.

I PRESSED THE BUTTON AND WAITED A LONG TIME, AND THEY'RE ALL IN A NEW LOCATION, AND THEN I DELETED IT ALL FROM MY OLD Facebook ACCOUNT.

>> O'Connell: ONE OF THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT IS VERY FRAUGHT IS THAT WITH NEWSPAPERS AND NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN Facebook PRETENDED THEY WERE GOING TO BE THE NEWSPAPER'S NEW BEST FRIEND AND THEN DUMPED EVERYBODY.

A LOT OF PEOPLE GET DISINFORMATION AND ACCURATE INFORMATION ON Facebook.

I DON'T THINK THERE ARE VERY MANY PEOPLE WHO PICK UP THE NEWSPAPER OR GO DIRECTDIRECTLY TO THEIR LOCAL NEWS SOURCES; THEY GO TO Facebook AND FIND THOSE LINKS.

HOW DO YOU RECALCULATE YOUR BRAIN IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO Facebook ANYMORE?

WHERE DO YOU GO TO FIND THE COLLECTIVE OF ALL OF THE NEWS SOURCES YOU MAY WANT TO SEE EVERY DAY?

>> OBVIOUSLY I RECOMMEND YOUR NEWS SOURCE AND MY NEWS SOURCE.

>> O'Connell: OBVIOUSLY.

>> DEPENDING ON GOOGLE ON APPLE, BOTH HAVE NEWS APPS, AND THEY'RE FIND.

THEY'RE DOING A WAY BETTER JOB OF BLOCKING THIS INFORMATION THAN ANY Facebook ALGORITHM.

APPLE FEATURES A LOT OF THE BASIC NEWS THAT YOU WOULD FIND ON Facebook, BUT WITHOUT THE BAD PARTS.

AND THE SAME FOR GOOGLE NEWS, WHICH YOU CAN ACCESS ON iPHONE OR ON THE WEB.

AND I ALSO USE TWITTER, BUT THE SUCCESS DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE FOLLOWING.

>> O'Connell: LET'S TALK ABOUT INSTAGRAM A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THE CHALLENGE AROUND INSTAGRAM AND Facebook IS IT IT IS EMBLEMATIC OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A NEW SOCIAL MEDIA FORMER F.D.A PLATFORM THAT IS REMERGING AND THEN Facebook GOBBLES IT UP.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN FOR FOLKS WHY IT IS CONCERNING THAT Facebook OWNS INSTAGRAM AND WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN FOR TIKTOK IN THE FUTURE?

>> SO Facebook HAS A LONG HISTORY OF FINDING FEATURES SOMEBODY ELSE IS DOING WELL WITH A SMALLER COMPANY AND BLATENTLY COPYING IT.

INSTAGRAM, WHOEVER, IS A DIFFERENT CASE.

THEY PAID A BILLION DOLLARS, WHICH BACK IN THE DAY WAS A HUGE DEAL -- THEY PAID A MILLION DOLLARS TO INSTAGRAM TO BUY UP THE COMPETITOR.

NOW WHAT IT IS DOING WITH INSTAGRAM AND Facebook, IT IS JUST COPYING PICTURES.

IF YOU LOOK AT INSTAGRAM WHEELS, IT IS ALMOST ENTIRELY TIKTOK, AND THEY EVEN HAVE A LITTLE WATER LINE ON THEM.

Facebook CAN EASILY KILL THESE OTHER COMPANIES.

THEY DON'T REALLY STAND A CHANCE, ALTHOUGH TIKTOK IS DOING OKAY RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE.

>> O'Connell: TIKTOK HAS CARVED OUT A WIDE VARIETY OF LANES IN A NUMBER OF HIGHWAYS, NOT TO KILL A METAPHOR THERE.

INSTAGRAM, TOO, IS FASCINATING TO ME BECAUSE I SPEND ALL OF MY TIME TALKING TO YOUNG WOMEN AND FEMALE TEENAGERS IN MY LIFE SAYING THAT'S A FILTER, THAT IS PROFESSIONALLY LIT, SHE IS WEARING MAKEUP, YOU CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT THAT FAST.

AND I'M REMINDED THAT MY MOTHER SPOKE TO ME THE SAME WAY ABOUT MAGAZINES AND TELEVISION.

BUT MY MOTHER DEPUTY HAVE TODIDN'T HAVETO SPEAK TO ME EVERY HOUR ON THE HOUR.

IT SEEMS THE BURDEN ON PARENTS RIGHT NOW OF BEING TECH EXPERTS IS REALLY KIND OF CRUSHING.

DO YOU THINK THERE MIGHT BE A BACKLASH BEFORE PARENTS MIGHT SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY OF THE APPS, OR ARE WE GOING TO ADAPT WITH IT AND GROW WITH IT AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST?

>> A LOT DEPENDS ON THE PARENTS AND THE KIDS.

I TALKED TO SOME PARENTING EXPERTS, AND THEY ALL SAID YOU DON'T WANT TO JUST GO AND IMMEDIATELY DELETE INSTAGRAM.

THEY'RE GOING TO FIND A WAY.

AND ALL YOU'RE DOING IS CUTTING OFF CONVERSATION WITH THEM.

BUT YOU CAN MAKE IT A CONDITION OF THEM KEEPING IT.

LET ME KNOW WHO YOU ARE FOLLOWING.

LET ME KNOW WHO YOU'RE SEEING.

LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT YOUR SEEING, AND I THINK THAT IS FOR MOST PARENTS AND CHILDREN A SMARTER APPROACH.

>> O'Connell: I DON'T WANT TO GLOSS OVER THE WHATSAPP PART BECAUSE IT IS SO ESSENTIAL TO WHAT YOU MENTIONED TO OTHER FOLKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, AND IT WAS A LOT OF JOKING WHEN Facebook WENT DOWN, COINCIDENTALLY, WE HOPE.

BUT WHATSAPP IS A LIFELINE TO MANY PEOPLE.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT JUST BABY PICTURES AND PICTURES OF THEIR FOOD.

>> WHATSAPP FILLS IN THIS BLANK THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY CELLULAR COMPANIES.

AND SO THESE APPS HAVE COME ALONG THAT CAN WORK OVER CELLULAR OR WI-FI, AND IT LET'S YOU TEXT ANYBODY FOR WHATEVER YOUR CONNECTION IS, AND YOU'RE NOT PAYING EXTRA.

FAMILIES ARE OVER THERE, LARGE GROUPS, FRIENDS, AND EVERYBODY IN SOME COUNTRIES ARE BASICALLY COMMUNICATING OVER WHATSAPP, AND OTHER APPS LIKE LINE OR VIBER IN THE PHILIPPINES.

WITHOUT THAT, THEY'LL HAVE TO FIND AN ENTIRELY NEW PLATFORM TO COMMUNICATE WITH ALL OF THESE PEOPLE FOR THAT SAME NON-EXIST PRICE.

>> O'Connell: IF A SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY COULD HAVE AN ATTITUDE, I FELT LIKE WHEN THE OUTAGE WAS ON, I IMAGINE TWITTER WAS HAVING A SMUG ATTITUDE.

WHAT ARE OTHER PLATFORMS SAYING ABOUT THE SCRUTINY THAT Facebook IS UNDER AND INSTAGRAM AND WHATSAPP?

WHAT IS THEIR REACTION?

>> PROBABLY NOT A LOT.

THEY'RE PROBABLY JUST VERY HAPPY THAT PEOPLE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL OF THE OTHER PLACES THAT MISINFORMATION IS BEING SPREAD.

IT SUCCESSFULLY SORT OF DUCKS A LOT OF THE SCRUTINY, AND IT IS VERY ODD THAT THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE SO MUCH MISINFORMATION IS SPREAD, ESPECIALLY TO CHILDREN ON YouTube.

TWITTER HAD A LOT OF FUN, BUT I THINK THE RISKS ARE LOWER BECAUSE IT HAS VASTLY FEWER USERS.

I THINK ON ALL OF THE TECH COMPANIES, THE TECH TEAMS, THERE WAS JUST TERROR.

WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS TO US?

PROBABLY SOME EMPATHY, I HOPE.

BUT TWITTER DID HAVE A LITTLE FUN AT Facebook'S EXPENSE.

>> O'Connell: IMENT I'M NOT A TECH EXPERT, BUT THE FACT THEY HAD ALL OF THEIR EGGS IN ONE BASKET WAS A LITTLE HORRIFYING.

ONE IS SAYING THAT'S IT, IT IS THE END FOR Facebook, THEY'RE ON THE DECLINE, OR Facebook JUST GOT SLAPPED, BUT NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON WHAT THE FUTURE OF Facebook IS?

>> I THINK WHAT YOU'VE DISCOVERED IS IT IS AN ABSOLUTE MYSTERY AND NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.

BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER Facebook HAS NEARLY THREE BILLION USERS AROUND THE WORLD, AND SIMPLY ASKING THEM ALL TO LEAVE OR EXPECTING THEM TO BE SO MAD THAT THEY'LL GIVE UP AND GO TO ANOTHER PLATFORM, IS NOT REALLY REALISTIC.

IT COULD HURT Facebook A LITTLE, BUT IT IS KIND OF TEFLON WHEN IT COMES TO THESE ACCUSATIONS, CAMBRIDGE ANNUAL ANALYTICA -- >> O'Connell: I REMEMBER WHEN THEY WOULD CHANGE THE FEED, AND PEOPLE SAID, YOU CAN'T DO THIS AND WE'RE GOING TO QUIT.

AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE EVER GOING TO QUIT.

I DON'Tth THEY DON'T THINK THEY CARE IF THE CHRONOLOGICAL FEED ISN'T WHAT YOU'RE GOING.

WE'RE HAPPY YOU'RE ON TOP OF IT AND KEEPING US POSTED ON OUR PRE-NUP FOR THE NEXT SOCIAL MEDIA.

WE'LL COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

THANK YOU, HEATHER.

>> THANK YOU.

AWESOME.

>> O'Connell: WHO'S THE BAD ART FRIEND?

THAT'S THE QUESTION JUST ABOUT EVERYONE IS ASKING, OR HAS A FIRM OPINION ON, AFTER A VIRAL "NEW YORK TIMES" MAGAZINE ARTICLE DETAILED A YEARS-LONG LEGAL BATTLE BETWEEN TWO LOCAL WRITERS, AT LEAST ONE OF WHOM ONCE THOUGHT OF THE OTHER AS A FRIEND.

AS THE STORY DETAILS, DAWN DORLAND DONATED A KIDNEY, SHARING DETAILS ABOUT THE PROCESS IN A PRIVATE Facebook GROUP.

AMONG THOSE IN THAT GROUP WAS SONYA LARSON, WHO APPARENTLY DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS.

AND AFTER DORLAND PRIVATELY REACHED OUT TO ASK WHY, LARSON WROTE A SUCCESSFUL SHORT STORY ABOUT ORGAN DONATION AND WHITE SAVIORISM, WHICH, ACCORDING TO DORLAND, VERY CLOSELY ECHOED SOME OF THE PHRASES SHE'D WRITTEN ON Facebook.

SO DORLAND ACCUSED LARSON OF PLAGIARISM.

THEN CAME THE LAWSUITS.

LARSON SUED OVER CLAIMS DORLAND WAS SABOTAGING HER WORK; DORLAND SUED FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

A CASCADE OF LEGAL ACTIONS FOLLOWED, AND AS IT ALL PLAYED OUT, THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE WERE MADE PUBLIC, INCLUDING TEXTS, E-MAILS, AND GROUP CHATS THAT HAVE MADE JUST ABOUT EVERYONE RETHINK THEIR ENTIRE COMPUTER HISTORY AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IT WERE MADE PUBLIC.

SO WHO IS THE BAD ART FRIEND HERE?

JOINING ME TO DISCUSS IS SOMEONE WHO'S NO STRANGER TO ONLINE CONTROVERSY, BRIANNA WU, WHO WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE 2014 ONLINE HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN KNOWN AS "GAMERGATE," AND IS NOW THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF REBELLION P.A.C.

WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY KELCEE GRIFFIS, SENIOR TELECOM REPORTER FOR LAW 360, WHO RECENTLY TOOK A DEEP DIVE INTO THE COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN THIS CASE.

>> O'Connell: WELCOME TO BOTH OF YOU.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING US.

>> O'Connell: BRIANNA, I DON'T WANT TO REOPEN THE WHOLE THING AGAIN, BUT WE ARE.

CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A QUICK, AS PAINLESS AS IT CAN BE FOR YOU, SUMMARY OF WHAT GAMERGATE WAS AND WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU DURING THAT PERIOD?

>> SURE.

GAMERGATE WAS AN ONLINE HARASSMENT CAMPAIGN TARGETING WOMEN IN THE GAME INDUSTRY, MANY OF THEM RIGHT HERE IN BOSTON.

THEY WENT THROUGH MY ENTIRE LIFE, VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IS HAPPENING TO BOTH OF THESE WOMEN RIGHT NOW.

YOU FOUND YOURSELF CONTROVERSIALIZED, AND HALF THE INTERNET THINKS YOU'RE A GOOD PERSON, AND HALF THE INTERNET THINKS YOU'RE A TERRIBLE PERSON.

HAVING BEEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE BAD ART FRIEND, IT IS NOT SOMEWHERE I WOULD BE FOR A $400 SHORT STORY.

>> O'Connell: THAT'S THE OTHER KIND OF DETAIL OF IT, THAT THE STORY DIDN'T GO ON TO MAKE MUCH MONEY YET.

THE OTHER PART THAT IS FASCINATING TO ME REGARDING THIS, BRIANNA, THE IS THAT YOUR TRAUMA AND YOUR STORY WAS TURNED INTO THE PLOT LINE OF A LAW AND ORDER EPISODE.

AS WE KNOW THEY OFTEN SAY "RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES," AND I'M AN EMPLOYEE OF NBC IN MY OTHER JOBS.

BUT THEY DIDN'T ASK YOUR PERMISSION TO DO THAT STORY, DID THEY?

AND HOW DID YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT?

>> I DIDN'T CARE.

WHEN I WAS A JOURNALISM STUDENT, YOU LEARN THERE IS A THING CALLED A LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE.

I WAS IN THE NEWS, AND IT WAS THEIR RIGHT.

I THINK THE MORE INTERESTING STORY HERE IS, YOU KNOW, THE "NEW YORK TIMES" HAD EVERY RIGHT TO PUBLISH THIS STORY.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS IN THE NEWSROOM FOR WAS IT REALLY WORTH THE DAMAGE THAT THEY'VE DONE TO THESE TWO WOMEN'S LIVES?

I LOOK AT THE CONVERSATION ONLINE.

I HAVE ONE OPINION ABOUT WHO IS MORE AT FAULT THAN THE OTHER, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS BOTH THESE WOMEN'S LIVES ARE NEVER GOING TO BE THE SAME.

WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT FOR THAT PARTICULAR STORY?

I KNOW IT IS A LAWSUIT, I KNOW IT IS ALL PUBLIC, BUT IS WASWAS IT REALLY WORTH IT?

I THINK THAT IS A VERY GOOD ETHICAL QUESTION.

>> O'Connell: AND WE SHOULD ALSO NOTE THAT GIVING A KIDNEY WHILE YOU'RE ALIVE TO SOMEONE IS AN ADMIRABLE THING TO DO.

THERE AREN'T ENOUGH KIDNEYS OUT THERE, AND PEOPLE NEED KIDNEYS.

YOU CAN DO LIVE DONOR AND CERTAINLY BE A KIDNEY DONOR OR ORGAN DONOR AFTER THE FACT.

I THINK IT IS OKAY TO BRAG ABOUT THOSE THINGS TO RAISE AWARENESS.

KELCEE, I THINK ANY OF US WHO HAVE BEEN FRIENDS WITH WRITERS, ESPECIALLY FICTION WRITERS, KNOW THAT -- I MYSELF ONCE ENDED UP IN A LOCAL WRITER -- CAROLYN NAPP HAD THE ADVENTURERS OF ALICE KAY, AND I WAS THRILLED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WAS CLEARLY FICTION AND FUN.

BUT IF SHE WENT ON TO WRITE A BIG BOOK AND IT BECAME A MOVIE, I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SO THRILLED ABOUT DONATING MY LIFE, NOT THE SAME THING AS A KIDNEY, BUT DONATING MY STORY FOR FREE.

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF TAKING SOMEONE'S STORY, FICTIONALIZING IT AND MAKING IT YOUR OWN?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

AS WE KNOW FROM THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE AROUND THE STORIES, COPYRIGHT LAW, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT INTERSECTS WITH PERSONAL ELEMENTS OF PEOPLE'S LIVES, IT GETS VERY COMPLICATED AND MESSY VERY, VERY QUICKLY.

I BELIEVE A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE GO INTO A COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT OR GO AROUND COPYRIGHT CLAIMS WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL PROTECTIONS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES.

WHAT I FOUND OUT WHEN I WAS TALKING TO LECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS IS THAT THERE IS THIS KIND OF SENSE THAT PERSONAL WORK -- OR, YOU KNOW, YOUR STORY -- SHOULDN'T BE SHARED BY SOMEBODY ELSE.

THE COPYRIGHT LAWS VERY MUCH PROTECT THE CREATOR OF SECONDARY WORKS.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE FACTORS THAT JUDGES AND COURTS LOOK AT WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE IF WORK HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY TRANSFORMED OR CHANGED ENOUGH OR PUT IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAT IT DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL, BUT THOSE FACTORS ARE STILL PRETTY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION, AND OFTEN THE SECONDARY CREATOR COMES OUT ON TOP.

>> O'Connell: WE SHOULD NOTE PART OF WHAT IS AT THE BASIS OF THIS IS THERE WAS A Facebook POST, A LETTER, THAT DAWN DORLAND POSTED THAT WAS, I BELIEVE, SAFE TO SAY WAS REPURPOSED AND -- SONYA REPURPOSED IT AND PUT IT IN HER SHORT STORY.

WHICH LED ME TO THINK -- I KNOW THAT LETTERS ARE YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE CONTENT OF YOUR LETTERS ARE YOUR PROPERTY, EVEN AFTER YOUR DEATH OR EVEN IF YOU MAILED THEM TO SOMEONE, BUT IF YOU POST SOMETHING ON SOCIAL MEDIA, IS IT STILL YOUR PROPERTY?

OR IS IT PUBLIC PROPERTY?

WHAT IF I'M TAYLOR SWIFT ANDDATING TAYLORSWIFT AND THEN WE BREAK UP AND SHE WRITES A SONG ABOUT IT?

WHAT HAPPENS THERE?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COURTS LOOK FOR WHEN THEY'RE ANALYZING WHETHER SOMETHING HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY TAKEN OR NOT IS WHETHER THIS PIECE OF MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN LIFTED AND PUT INTO OTHER WORK ACTUALLY HAS COMMERCIAL VALUE OR WHETHER IT IS DIMINISHING THE COMMERCIAL VALUE FROM THE ORIGINAL CREATOR.

I THINK IT IS PRETTY SAFE TO ARGUE THAT THE ORIGINAL Facebook POST DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL VALUE.

I THINK THAT DAWN DORLAND HAS A BIT OF AN UPHILL BATTLE IF SHE IS TRYING TO ARGUE THAT THIS Facebook POST HAD VALUE ON ITS OWN, ESPECIALLY IN A COMMERCIAL MARKET.

>> O'Connell: I'M STRUCK BY THIS STORY -- I'M SAD TO SAY I'M COMPLETELY RIVETED BY IT AND HAVE ON MY TWEET DECK A COLUMN FOR UPDATES ON BAD ART FRIENDS.

BECAUSE I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN THE DISCUSSION IT HAS BROUGHT FORWARD, BOTH OF RACISM AND WHITE PRIVILEGE AND WHITE SAVIORISM AND ALSO OF CLASS, OF HOW SOMEONE MAKES THEIR WAY IN THE WORLD WHEN THEY COME FROM MAYBE A LOWER, MORE RURAL COMMUNITY AND THEN FIND THEMSELVES IN AN ELITE WORLD OF WRITERS IN A MAJOR CITY, AND HOW THEY BEHAVE AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN.

I'M JUST WONDERING, HOW -- YOU TURNED YOUR CRISIS AND YOUR TRAUMA INTO ADVOCACY WORK.

AND ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU'VE NOW KIND OF RECLAIMED THE STORY AND HAVE AN ENTERTAINMENT DEAL THAT IS GOING TO COME OUT TALKING ABOUT GAMERGATE, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'RE WORKING ON A TV SERIES ABOUT THAT.

IN FACT, I'M WORKING ON THE PILOT WITH THE WHOLE TEAM RIGHT NOW TO GET THAT OUT.

I DEFINITELY THINK THERE IS VALUE IN RECLAIMING THE TRAUMA.

I THINK WHAT MAKES BAD ART FRIENDS SUCH A CAPTIVATING STORY FOR EVERYBODY I KNOW IS YOU REALLY SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT.

I MEAN, I THINK YOU CAN SEE SOMEONE THAT DID A GOOD THING AND HAVE THE WORST POSSIBLE INTENTIONS TAKEN BY SOMEONE.

AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE IT FROM THE OTHER PERSON'S POINT OF VIEW, THAT THEY'RE COMING ALONG AND LOOKING FOR ATTENTION, AND THEY FEEL REALLY THIS OWNERSHIP OF THE CONCEPT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T SEEM REASONABLE TO ONE PARTY.

IT IS A REALLY HUMAN DRAMA.

AND I THINK BECAUSE THE STAKES WERE SO LOW, IT JUST MAKES IT THAT MUCH HIGHER.

ALSO, I THINK IT IS REALLY WORTH SAYING, YOU AND I -- I SAW A SEGMENT OF YOURS RECENTLY WHERE YOU WERE INTERVIEWING A MUTUAL FRIEND OF OURS THAT HAD DONATED A KIDNEY RIGHT HERE IN BOSTON TO ANOTHER ACTIVIST FRIEND.

MY BIG WORRY IS PEOPLE WILL GET THIS WRONG MESSAGE THAT SOMEHOW DONATING A KIDNEY MAY BE INTERPRETED AS ATTENTION-SEEKING BEHAVIOR.

I REALLY HOPE PEOPLE DON'T GET THAT MESSAGE.

>> O'Connell: EVEN IF IT IS, IT IS STILL OKAY.

LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE REACTION THAT FOLKS HAVE HAD ONLINE.

WE PULLED SOME QUOTES FROM THE STORY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO POINT OUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT DAWN DORLAND WAS FACING FROM COMMENTS THAT WERE IN THE ARTICLE.

>> DUDE, I COULD WRITE PAGES AND PAVES MORE PAGES MORE ABOUT DAWN, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO RACE.

THE WOMAN IS A GOLD MINE.

THIS FROM THE "NEW YORK TIMES" MAGAZINE ARTICLE.

MAYBE SHE WAS TOO BUSY WAVING FROM HER FLOAT AT THE MACY'S DAY PARADE INSTEAD OF WRITING STUFF.

THERE WAS A PARADE SHE WAS DOING ABOUT PUBLIC AWARENESS ABOUT KIDNEY DONATION.

I GUESS MY QUESTION IS: THE WRITER OF THIS STORY FOR THE "NEW YORK TIMES" COULD SELL THE RIGHTS TO THIS STORY TO, SAY, REESE WITHERSPOON, WHO COULD GET A DEVELOPMENT DEAL WITH HULU, AND THEY COULD DO A LIMITED TV SERIES, PROBABLY STARRING NICOLE KIDMAN, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT THE WRITING OF THIS STORY AND NEITHER DAWN DORLAND OR SONYA LARSON COULD NECESSARILY MAKE ANY MONEY FROM IT.

IS THAT A LIKELY PATH THAT COULD HAPPEN?

>> YOU RAISE A VERY INTERESTING POINT.

UNFORTUNATELY, I SPEND MOST OF MY WAKING HOURS SPEAKING TO ATTORNEYS, BUT I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY MYSELF.

SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU A DETAILED LEGAL ANALYSIS ON THE SECONDARY QUESTION, BUT I DO THINK YOU'RE THINKING ALONG THE RIGHT LINES.

THIS RIGHTING ABOUT ART FRIENDS AND RETELLING OF IT COULD BE VIEWED BY COURTS AS TRANSFORMATIVE ENOUGH, TAKING SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS THAT EXISTED PREVIOUSLY, PUTTING THEM IN A NEW CONTEXT, GIVING THEM A NEW MEANING, AND RETELLING SOMEWHAT OF A DIFFERENT STORY, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE USING SOME OF THE SAME MATERIALS.

SO, YES, I THINK IT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY.

>> O'Connell: BRIANNA, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE FOR THEM?

>> YES.

YOU HAVE TO GET A SUPPORT GROUP.

I WOULD IMAGINE BOTH OF THESE WOMEN ARE TRAUMATIZED, TWITTER, Facebook, EVERYBODY HAS AN OPINION ABOUT YOU.

FOR ME, I COULDN'T MOVE FORWARD IN MY CAREER UNTIL I SAW A VERY SPECIALIZED TRAUMA SPECIALIST RIGHT HERE IN BOSTON.

SO I WOULD GEFITINIB GET SUPPORT.

YOU'RE GOING TO COME OUT ON THE OTHER END A STRONGER PERSON, BUT DON'T GO IT ALONE.

>> O'Connell: KELCEE, THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE SUBPOENAS ON WHAT I IMAGINE ARE PERSONAL AND PRIVATE TEXT CHAINS AND CHATS.

WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT ANYTHING WE WRITE ANYWHERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AT SOME POINT IN A COURT DOCUMENT?

>> I THINK THAT IS ABSOLUTELY THE CORRECT ASSUMPTION TO MAKE.

AND WHAT SOME OF THE ATTORNEYS TOLD ME IS WE OFTEN GO INTO PRIVATE Facebook GROUPS THINKING THESE THINGS ARE PRIVATE, BUT WE HAVE TO EXPAND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT INTERNET PRIVACY MEANS, AND OFTEN IT IS NOT NEARLY AS PRIVATE AS WE THINK IT IS.

>> O'Connell: BRIANNA AND CELLS KELCEE, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING ME.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> O'Connell: THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

WE'LL BE BACK TOMORROW.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

♪♪