The Philip DeFranco Show - Nick Fuentes Bot Scandal is Crazy & Social Media Banned For Kids 16 & Under

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wait to see if there's a long-standing impact here or it's just a blip. And then I've got more news for you in a second, but do you ever wonder how many subscriptions you're actually paying for? Because if you're like me, it's more than you think. Right, and thanks to today's sponsor, Rocket Money, I found subscriptions I totally forgot about, like the random app I hadn't touched in months. And Rocket Money, it's the personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors you're spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings.

Starting point is 00:00:23 I also found I've been paying for a service I hadn't used years. You know, Rocket Money, it gives you an all-in-one, easy-to-digest, dashboard overview of your financial life, subscription, spending habits, bills, and more. And Rocket Money will help you cancel unwanted subscriptions in just a few taps. But it also doesn't stop there. The app also helps you cut back on spending like it did for me with dining expenses I didn't realize we're adding up. Plus, it lets you set budgets and tracks your spending automatically. I mean, Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of $500 million in cancel subscriptions and

Starting point is 00:00:49 saves members up to $740 a year when using all of the app's premium features. And you can choose the plan that fits your budget. So cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Just go to rocketmoney.com slash PDS today. That's rocketmoney.com slash PDS. Rocketmoney.com slash PDS. And then next up in the news. Reason number 59 why Nissan is built for our winter.

Starting point is 00:01:11 Because when winter storms make on-road feel like off-road, we've got you. Rogue comes standard with intelligent all-wheel drive and remote engines start to conquer even the harshest winter conditions. Now lease a 2026 rogue S for 0.9% for 36 months. or get $4,000 cash purchase bonus on remaining 2025 models. Visit your local Nissan dealer today or Nissan.C.8 for more details. Conditions apply. The scandal around Nick Fuentes is a very interesting one, because it's not one you might be expected. A lot of the recent focus was on Pierce Morgan interviewing Nick Fuentes. They talked for two hours, there was yelling, there was fighting, there were insults, clips galore.

Starting point is 00:01:50 There's also been a conversation and debate about something that Pierce Morgan and Nick Fuentes actually agree on. And let's be clear, the main reason you're hearing about him, It's because he's popular. I'm making a lot of money now. Yeah. Now that I'm the number one live streamer in America, because people agree with me more than they agree with you. We're tired of hearing about slavery and the Holocaust and Jim Crow.

Starting point is 00:02:09 We're done hearing about that. There, you're starting to see more and more people questioning if that's really true. Are people asking, is Nick Fuentes actually on all these shows, from Tucker Carlson to Pierce Morgan because he's just too popular to ignore? Part of the reason that you're seeing more and more people bring this up is because of this new study from the Network Contagent Research Institute that suggests that the answer is no. In fact, in their opening lines, they say,

Starting point is 00:02:28 Nick Fuentes' surge into national visibility did not originate from a broad or sudden shift in American political sentiment. It emerged from a pattern of online amplification that was unusually fast, unusually concentrated, and unusually foreign in origin. And you had the researchers coming to that conclusion by sampling 20 of his most recent posts on Xon, then comparing them to similar posts from Elon Musk, Hassan Piker, Ian Carroll, and the streamer destiny. What they say they found is that the engagement within the first 30 minutes of Fuentes posting something routinely outperformed all the others, even accounts 10 to 100 times as large. And then with that, saying that just over 60% of that engagement came from the same repeat accounts, which they said is highly suggestive of coordination or automation.

Starting point is 00:03:05 With 92% of those repeat early reposters being fully anonymous, having no real name, no real photo, no location, and no contact information. And with that, they said that a majority were openly or functionally single-purpose accounts dedicated to promoting Fuentes and related extremist positions. And then on top of all that, they said that roughly half of all the accounts that promoted Fuentes' most viral pose before the assassination in Charlie Kirk, They came from foreign countries like India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. So all sites of known content engagement farms.

Starting point is 00:03:31 So then, they say that after the Kirk assassination, that artificial engagement made Fuentes appear active, relevant, and in position when a replacement narrative became available inside the broader MAGA ecosystem. Or I guess in other words, when Kirk was no longer on the throne, bot farms offered up Fuentes as his natural heir. So then, as a result, you had mainstream media coverage of Fuentes increasing more than three-fold since September. And also, very interestingly, even the way that he was covered, that changed. With him describing so-called high-status descriptions, which portrayed him as vastly more consequential and influential than any material changes would warrant, increasing 60%. Whereas before, according to the study, outlets presented Fuentes in ghoulish, unattractive terms, saying even left-liberal ones have adopted markedly more polished visual treatments up and those, including studio-grade portraits, controlled lighting, shallow depth of field, and editorial framing that visually positioned Fuentes is a consequential political figure.

Starting point is 00:04:18 And so then, when Fuentes gets a chance to speak for himself on these mainstream platforms, he accepts his polished image. So for example, on Pierce Morgan, he claimed that most of the worst racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic stuff that you've heard him say on Rumble. That's really all rhetoric, hyperbole and jokes. Also, in that interview on question after question, he was pretty unapologetic about things that he said. You think women want to be raped, dear? That's what the studies show, Pierce. Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:04:46 But you're basically saying, yeah, I'm a racist, aren't you? Yeah, yeah, I'm fine with that. You think Hitler was very fucking cool? Yes, I do. And I'm tired of pretending he's not. He murdered 12 million people. What is very fucking cool about that? Tell me.

Starting point is 00:05:06 The edits, it's just cool. The uniforms, the parades, the, it's cool as a guy. You look at World War II, and it's fascinating, and it's interesting, and it's compelling, and it's cool. And with all this, I think that I do want to hit on and clarify, is that just because Quentes, maybe became popular artificially, that does not mean that his popularity now is still artificial. Because as the study even notes, after Kirk's assassination, the distribution of accounts that are promoting him, they shifted from those Asian and African ones to Western ones. And in the meantime, Groyper accounts, the name for Fuentes' followers, they began rating the comment sections

Starting point is 00:05:38 of Turning Point USA's content. All of which, according to the report, suggests that non-Western bot farms gave Fuentes the initial boost that he needed, and then genuine Western engagement followed suit. And you know, all of this has continued to snowball to a place where it really it seems like Nick Wentz is trying to conquer the Republican Party, which I will say, I mean, my personal opinion is he could do it, especially because even probably to his own detriment, he is singularly focused. Have you ever had sex? No, absolutely not. Wow. Have you ever been in love in your life? Uh, no. You're not gay. No. But I will say that women are very difficult to be around. But then next up in the news, let's talk about how millions of kids and teens in Australia

Starting point is 00:06:19 just lost access to social media. Because Australia is now implementing a world first ban on social media for people under the age of 16. And so under the law, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, kick, kick, and threads. They're all expected to have taken steps to deactivate underage profiles as well as prevent those users from signing up for new accounts. And if someone creates a new platform, that could be added to the list in the future. And those that don't comply, they risk fines of up to almost $50 million.

Starting point is 00:06:43 And actually, on that note, X is the only company on the list that, as of recording, hasn't publicly confirmed it would comply with the ban. You know, we're gonna have to see what happens with Musk and them, but even for the companies that do comply, there is still a very real question of how effective will this actually be? I mean, we're already seeing reports that some people under the age of 16, they've been able to get past facial recognition scans that are meant to keep them off platforms.

Starting point is 00:07:02 And you're even seeing things like one parent telling the Guardian that their 15-year-old daughter, she was very distressed because all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age-verified as 18 by Snapchat. And then you had another parent saying he'd actually shown his child how to get around age restrictions using VPNs and other methods. Though, I will say parents like that seem to be in the minority, at least in Australia, with polls showing that around two-thirds of Australian voters supported the ban.

Starting point is 00:07:24 But also, if you look at the people affected most by the ban, that paints a different picture. Right, one survey of kids between the ages of 9 and 16, they found that over half thought that the ban was not a good idea. And that is three-quarters of them said they intended on continuing to use social media. And seemingly, they didn't just mean finding workarounds or using VPNs. I mean, you had two 15-year-olds bringing a legal challenge against the ban to the country's highest court. And so, of course, we're going to have to see what happens with that. But, you know, in the meantime, you were the country's prime minister writing an opinion piece this weekend. Saying from the beginning, we acknowledge this process won't be 100% perfect.

Starting point is 00:07:52 But the message this law sends will be 100% clear. And then adding, the fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn't diminish the value of having a clear national standard. But again, not everyone is agreed here. Where we all know about the negative effects of social media, especially with young people, there are those who worry that blocking it could have negative effects as well. Though I guess some of the good news here is that as part of all this, there's an independent academic advisory group that's supposed to look into the show. short, medium, and long-term impacts here.

Starting point is 00:08:16 And with that in mind, you had the official in charge of the band saying, it will look at the benefits over time, but also the unintended consequences. And then with that, noting that the other potential unintended consequences could include whether children end up moving on to other platforms or, quote, darker areas of the internet. And so at the very least, I mean, this could provide some really useful information for the rest of the world.

Starting point is 00:08:33 Though also, as far as the rest of the world, I mean, you have other governments including Malaysia, Denmark, and Norway, I mean, they're already moving ahead with their own versions of this policy. And then, I mean, with the European Parliament, they've also passed a resolution calling for a band. And so, you know, if you're one of the beautiful bastards from Australia or any of these places that are looking at this ban, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts.

Starting point is 00:08:49 But then also, no matter who you are, I'd really love to know your thoughts because there are these pushes in many countries. We're going to dive into even more in just a minute, but first let me say, you ever notice how debt feels like a subscription that you never signed up for, but the banks just keep auto-renewing anyway? Because that is exactly why today's sponsor PDS debt exists, or because someone finally needed to pull the plug on that nonsense. And if you're juggling credit card balances, medical bills, personal loans, or collections, PDS debt looks at your real situation. not the fantasy version that banks think you live in. No minimum credit score, no judgment, no budgeting advice from people who think you can fix debt by buying fewer lattes.

Starting point is 00:09:22 Their team, they build a custom plan to help you break the cycle instead of sinking deeper into it. And people swear by them. A plus rating with a BBB, thousands of five-star reviews on Google and Trust Pilot and hundreds of thousands already helped. Meanwhile, banks are throwing confetti every time interest piles up because your struggle is literally their business model.

Starting point is 00:09:38 But letting it sit, I mean, that just means more fees, more interest, and more stress you don't need. You know, if I ever needed backup, this is who I'd call, not a bank, not a spreadsheet, actual humans whose entire job is helping you get your life back. You know, right now, you could be 30 seconds away from starting your journey to get a fresh start. So, hey, get your free debt assessment at PDSdebt.com slash DeFranco. That's PDSDET.com slash DeFranco or just use that QR code on the screen.

Starting point is 00:10:02 But then, next up to date, let's talk about who is going to lead the Democrats in 2028. Because you hear chirping here and there, but this new poll just revealed a clear early frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nominee for 2020. And also, one of the things that shows in hard numbers is that Democrats are much more divided than Republicans are about who should be the next president. And so in getting into the details, this newly released Yale Youth Poll, it surveyed more than 3,400 registered voters, including around 1,700, age 18 to 34. What they found is that California Governor Gavin Newsom is the top choice among Democrats for the presidential primary, leading by 25%. And Newsom, he's followed by Kamala Harris at 18%, AOC at 16%, and Pete Buttig judge at 14%. And those four are the only candidates who receive more than 5% support right now.

Starting point is 00:10:44 But then also, when you break it down by age, the numbers, they tell a very different story. Right, a huge plurality of Newsom support, they come from voters 65 and up, with 38% of that group saying that they vote for him if the primaries were held today. But then, for the three different categories of voters age 18 to 34, AOC takes a lead, gaining nearly 30% or more among all those age groups. In fact, AOC absolutely dominated Newsome across those demographics. She's got nearly double the support he has for voters 18 to 34, and she still majorly outperforms him with 35 to 44 year olds. But then, support for AOC, it really starts to drop off among respondents 45 and older. Right among the 45 to 64 age group, AOC is half as much support as both Newsom and Harris, who clocked in at 22 and 23%. Also, very significantly here, Democrats are pretty evenly split over whether the party should embrace moderate or progressive policies.

Starting point is 00:11:29 49% said that them should moderate their policies, while 45% said that they need to focus on turning out their voter base by running progressive platform. And then with all that, unsurprisingly, you see a breakdown by age. were the majorities of voters 18 to 34, saying the party should shift progressive, while a larger share of 45 to 65 plus groups said that it needs to be more moderate and then voters 35 to 44 were evenly split. And so clearly we see that progressive policies and left-leaning candidates like AOC, they have a lot of sway with a big chunk of younger Americans, but then also the real question is whether she or really anyone can mobilize voters.

Starting point is 00:11:59 Rate data from Pew Research Center shows that voters 50 and older, they were literally the only age groups that had a higher ratio of voters to non-voters in the last two presidential elections. For every other age group, under 50, people who chose not to vote at all, they outnumbered those who actually voted. Now, with all of that said, we shouldn't say that this is a done deal or even going to give us fantastic insight. None of these three people have even officially announced that they're going to run. Though with that, back in October, you would do some telling CBS that he'd be lying if he said he wasn't considering a potential run. Harris, too, has left the option open saying she's not done when asked about a potential second run.

Starting point is 00:12:31 And then, while this new poll shows that she's the clear progressive frontrunner, AOC hasn't publicly hinted that she's interested in the job at least in 2028. But then also with this, I'll say, you know, very interestingly, despite the fierce and ongoing Republican Civil War that's been playing out, the Republicans, they actually appear to have a much clearer picture on what they might want in the next election, at least, compared to the Democrats. Because, well, the Democratic frontrunner led with just 25%, a majority of Republicans, 51%, said that J.D. Vance was their preferred presidential nominee. And possibly even more important, that is more than six times the amount of support of the second-ranking candidate, which, oddly enough, was Donald Trump Jr. at 8%. And then after that, you get kind of a trickling, Rhonda Santas, clocking in just below. that Nikki Haley and Marco Rubio each getting 5%, though, notably, you also had RFK Jr. and Tucker Carlson making it on the leaderboard with 3%.

Starting point is 00:13:14 But also, maybe most significantly here, the polls showed that the Republicans, they are still very much the party of Trump. Because when Republicans were asked who they would vote for in the primaries, if they were held today and Trump was allowed to run for a third term, the president just took the cake. 50% of Republicans said that they backed Trump again for a third term, more than double the 19% that JD Vanska. And so, you know, all of this, I think it's important to know, like, this is not a crystal ball. It doesn't even necessarily show us the path, but I think it does show us the temperature

Starting point is 00:13:41 at this moment. But then, next up today, we should talk about how Ron DeSantis, Florida's governor just designated one of the largest Muslim advocacy groups in the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. And across the political spectrum, you've seen some loving this, some hating this, some saying, where is this energy for A-PAC? But the group that we're talking about today is the Council on American Islamic Relations, also known as CARE. And this move from DeSantis isn't actually breaking new ground. It follows a similar declaration that was made last month by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. And actually, both of the order is applied not only to care, but the Muslim Brotherhood. Right? And the Muslim Brotherhood started in Egypt almost a

Starting point is 00:14:12 century ago, and it now has a number of affiliated groups overseas. And while their leaders say that they've renounced violence, right, they're seeking to set up Islamic rule through elections and other peaceful means, it's viewed as a threat by certain governments in the Middle East and it's been accused of supporting terrorism. And so the Trump administration, for example, they've accused certain Muslim Brotherhood factions of backing attacks against Israel and other American partners in the region as well as providing material support to Hamas. And actually with that, the White House recently began the process of designating certain chapters as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.

Starting point is 00:14:39 Right, and the dissent disorder actually references that process as justification for its own designation, and they extended to care by claiming that the organization was founded by persons connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. And with that, they reference alleged links to the Holy Land Foundation, which is a group that was federally designated as a terrorist organization back in 2001. And, you know, some of its leaders are now serving sentences of up to 65 years in federal prison. Though there, I also have to know that some have questioned how that case was handled. A human rights watch, for example, they condemn the process and called for the release of those convicted. But in any case, as far as what the Florida order actually means for care, it's not totally clear yet, and it doesn't carry anywhere near the same way it is a federal designation, but still you had DeSantis writing.

Starting point is 00:15:14 Florida agencies are hereby directed to undertake all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities by these organizations, including denying privileges or resources to anyone providing material support. But looking into it, the order actually doesn't appear to prohibit care or the Muslim Brotherhood for that matter from buying land in the state. And I mentioned that because the Texas order unlike the Florida order does bar both groups in purchasing property in the state, and it also authorizes the state attorney general to sue to shut them down in Texas. And also speaking of the Texas order, CARE has already sued Abbott in federal court, as well as announced its plans to sue DeSantis over what the group described as an unconstitutional and defamatory order. And then with that, accusing DeSantis of being an

Starting point is 00:15:49 Israel first politician and addict. Governor DeSantis knows full well that Care Florida is an American civil rights organization that has spent decades advancing free speech, religious freedom and justice for all, including for the Palestinian people. But as far as, you know, what's going to happen from here, I will say, you know, it's probably going to be an uphill battle for the group. Right, I mean, on top of the executive order, you had DeSantis claiming that the Florida legislature is crafting legislation to, quote, stop the creep of Sharia law. And then adding that he hopes the legislature codifies these protections for Floridians against care and the Muslim Brotherhood in their legislation. Also a big thing here is that at the federal level, you've had Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting in the past that similar actions were in the works.

Starting point is 00:16:23 And that is conservative lawmakers have previously urged Trump to investigate care and have even introduced legislation to designate it as a terrorist group. We've got more to dive into in just a minute, but first let me say, you may be thinking, why does Phil keep talking about digital security? And it's for a lot of reasons, including, you know, smishing scams like the ones run out of China where people click fake toll or delivery links and these guys stole over a billion dollars doing it. You know, those pay this one dollar toll fee texts, those. So here I go again, that's why today's sponsor NordVPN is a must have. NordVPN's threat protection, it blocks shady links, malicious downloads, and trackers before they load, so those scam texts, they can't yank your bank information. And all your internet traffic,

Starting point is 00:16:59 encrypted, meaning that your data stays yours, even when the site that you're using is held together by duct tape and hope. I mean, I use NordVPN everywhere, including where I shouldn't trust Wi-Fi. Airports, hotels, coffee shops with routers older than my career. You know, it keeps my browsing private, it lets me switch virtual locations with one click, and yeah, it is fast enough to stream anything without buffering. Plus, NordVPN has a strict no logs policy. They're not tracking you, storing you, or selling you. They protect you, period. And right now, you can get an exclusive discount on a two-year plan, plus four extra months free when you use my link.

Starting point is 00:17:26 And it's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee. So just scan that code or go to NordVPN.com slash Phil. It's NordbPN.com slash Phil. Canada's Wonderland is bringing the holiday magic this season with Winterfest on select nights, now through January 3rd. Step into a winter wonderland filled with millions of dazzling lights, festive shows, rides, and holiday treats. Plus, Coca-Cola is back with Canada's kindest community, celebrating acts of kindness nationwide with a chance at 100,000. thousand donation for the winning community and a 2026 holiday caravan stop. Learn more at canadaswunderland.com. So getting back into the news, I really wanted to dive deeper on this whole paramount

Starting point is 00:18:11 Netflix Warner Brothers situation. Because among other things, more and more people are worried that David and Larry Ellison, they're going to shape CNN to President Trump's will. And again, that's just one of many concerns that people are bringing up as Trump has found himself right in the middle of this Warner Brothers merger. Because as you've probably seen, Netflix already announced They'd be buying WB, but Paramount then launched a hostile takeover bid. And while often hostile takeover bids, they fail, and both of these options, they come with red flags, this is a unique situation. Right, there's the Trump of bit all, and among other things, you have tons of people worried

Starting point is 00:18:37 about Paramount's ties to Donald Trump. You know, its CEO is David Ellison, the son of Trump ally, Larry Ellison. And the funding for Paramount's offer is backed by Ellison family money, foreign wealth funds, and Trump's own son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Something that many found alarming because of Paramount succeeds in its bid, it'll own CNN, a major news network that Trump loves to openly hate. And with all this, it's been reported that David Ellison has been speaking directly to Trump's administration about his plans for. You had the Wall Street Journal claiming that on a recent trip to D.C., David Ellison offered assurances to Trump administration officials that if he bought Warner, he'd make sweeping changes to CNN, and Trump has told people close to him that he wants new ownership of CNN as well as changes to CNN programming.

Starting point is 00:19:14 And this also comes as the Guardian actually previously reported that Larry Ellison had been talking to the White House about firing CNN anchors that Trump hates the most. And you know, if the idea of media moguls wooing Trump by promising to reshape a news network sounds like corruption to you, you'd be right. The width, I'll say, at least as of right now, neither the White House or Paramount has commented on that reporting. But for his part, yesterday you had David Ellison laying out plans for CNN saying it could be combined with CBS News, which Paramount already owns, and adding, we want to build a scaled news service that is basically, fundamentally, in the trust business, that is in the truth business, and that speaks to the 70% of Americans that are in the middle. Though there, you also had a lot of people kind of rolling their eyes and pointing to Barry Weiss being the head of CBS News now. But that said, you know, Trump's rolling all this. It's still one of the biggest conversation points right now. And interestingly, in his most recent comments, he's actually tried to distance himself from the merger.

Starting point is 00:19:58 Telling reporters yesterday that he had not discussed Paramount's bid with Jared Kushner and claiming that neither Netflix or Paramount are particularly great friends of mine. But the thing is, Trump himself already said that he would be involved in the decision. That's even though he shouldn't be, right? Presidents are not supposed to have influence over corporate deals. But that obviously is not how Trump wants to play. And with that, you had the journal reporting further. The president will want Paramount and Netflix to compete for his approval of a deal. You know, with everything that we've talked about here, this is just the politics of it.

Starting point is 00:20:23 There are also concerns about what this means for the future of movies, the entertainment industry, people's jobs, and consumption of media. And there, I'll say, it does feel like, to me, whoever wins, it feels like consumers will ultimately lose. But also, there are tons of other antitrust concerns coming from all angles. Right, this morning, Reuters reported that Netflix is facing a consumer lawsuit over its bid for WB. And you have op-eds left and right discussing how both of these deals stand to impact and harm the movie theater industry. And so because there's just so much going on here, I spoke to Senator Elizabeth Warren this morning. Because she's been sounding off the alarm saying that a Paramount Warner Brothers merger would be a five-alarm antitrust fire. And so I wanted her to unpack that as well as respond to defenses of these deals.

Starting point is 00:21:00 So Senator Warren, I mean, what is what is your biggest concern with Paramount trying to takeover Warner Brothers? You know, where do we start? Let's back up just a tiny little bit about takeovers. And that is there are basically three groups of actors in any business. And one are the people who actually. produce the stuff, you know, make movies and drive trucks and pitch scripts and do all those things. Then there are the people who buy that, the customers, right? And they pay for it. That's terrific. And then there are the investors who put up the money to make this happen. And so what's

Starting point is 00:21:40 happening right now is that we have Netflix, for example, and now Paramount saying, hey, to their investors. We can make so much more money. We can make buckets of money. We can make wheelbarrows of money. And you've got to stop and ask yourself, how are they going to do that? They don't have some pitch that somehow, by making either of these murders, they're going to make better movies. They don't have some pitch that by either one of these, they're somehow going to get more customers in. No, what the pitch ultimately is, is they're going to, squeeze the people who actually make the movies. They're going to squeeze the truck drivers and the people who pitch movies. There are going to be fewer options, fewer places for them to go. And that means

Starting point is 00:22:32 you pay less, you make less of it. And the other is they'll squeeze the customers. In case of streaming, they'll up the prices on the streaming. So between the three, the game is, can they merge and get a bigger market share. And as a consequence of that, bring more money out of the other two groups. And that's my problem here. We have antitrust laws to say, no, you can't do that.

Starting point is 00:23:03 These are not new antitrust laws. They were not written for the movie business. Shoot, they were written back when the aluminum business was a problem. They were written back when the railroad business was a problem. And the whole idea behind it is to say, we value a competitive economy. We value there being multiple studios where you can go and pitch your idea, where you can offer your services as a makeup artist, where your union can negotiate on your behalf to say,

Starting point is 00:23:36 here's how there's going to be something there for your retirement, and here are what your health benefits are. But as you lose the number here, There's one Goliath, one giant that dominates the field. You lose that competition and that increases the ability of that giant to squeeze more out of the workers and to squeeze more out of the customers. So that's my concern overall. Well, with where we are right now, I mean, is there any buyer that is actually good for consumers or least bad? because right, with Netflix, there are the monopolistic concerns. Their argument is that we're looking at it wrong, that, you know, Nielsen says that Netflix is actually sixth for total TV watching, that YouTube is number one. HBO Max would put them at like 9%. They'd still be under Disney, Hulu, ESPN. They'd put them in line with NBC Universal. But then for Paramount, there's obviously the concern that it enables Trump and or Ellison to go after

Starting point is 00:24:40 received enemies with CNN. And also there's a different kind of monopolistic concern there. So, I don't know, do you have a best case scenario that you're looking at right now? So I'm going to put it the other way around. And that is to say, notice the arguments you're hearing. They're very legalistic arguments from Netflix. My opposition is when you break the law. And so they're trying to get into the definition. It's like, we came right up to the edge of the law. We're skirting the law. We're shaving an edge off the law. And, okay, I get it.

Starting point is 00:25:14 They can make that argument. I just think they're wrong here. And that's the fundamental problem. You don't get to break the law. And by the way, can we bring in one more law here? We've got antitrust laws, powerfully important. I think we should use them. They very much apply in the Netflix case,

Starting point is 00:25:32 no matter how they try to slice and indice it differently. But there's also a law called, the shorthand for it is syphias. But what it has to do with is foreign investment that could put our country at risk. So, for example, we have laws that say no foreign country can invest in defense contractors, right? We don't want them owning the companies that would help us with our national defense. Well, same kind of thing maybe comes up when you're talking about meatpackers. Do you want a foreign country deciding cleanliness standards or how much meat gets produced as people need it and want it. Think about that in the example of do we want a foreign country making a big

Starting point is 00:26:20 investment and owning a big piece ultimately of CNN or any other. Not only the news part of the business, but also the movie part of the business. Do we want some foreign investors like potentially, Saudi Arabia, saying, whoa, you only get to tell certain kinds of stories. You only get to make certain kinds of movies. We only carry certain kinds of things in streaming. I'm reminded in this whole dust up right now how important our movies are for helping us understand who we are as human beings, what it means to be part of this country. issues that movies tackle that are hard, hard issues about race and about immigration and about gender and all of those issues. Again, we have laws in place. They weren't written specifically for any one industry, but they're there to say that it is the job of the Department of Justice

Starting point is 00:27:29 to enforce those antitrust laws and to enforce those laws about foreign investment. So, I think both of the proposed mergers here create real problems because I think they violate the law. Other kinds of investments could be made that don't. I'm all in favor of that, but not these two. With that last bit that you mentioned, I mean, do you trust this DOJ? It's a fairly review-a-deal involving Ellison's in Trump Center Circle. And also with that, I mean, what are your reactions to Trump saying that he's going to be personally involved in who gets Warner Brothers? Well, let me do the last one first. I am very concerned about Donald Trump, in effect, reminding

Starting point is 00:28:10 everybody that he could be the ultimate decision maker. I mean, we've never had a president do anything like that. But for very good reason, let's just talk about the C word for a minute here, corruption, right? We've been worried for a long time in this country about the power of giant corporations and how they throw their weight around at a lot of different. ways. And now Donald Trump has come into the White House and just put corruption, what appears to be right out on full display. Just last week, I sent a letter to six giant corporations that have two things in common. They all have antitrust actions of one form or another pending in front of the Trump administration. They want to do a merger. They're under an investigation. They've engaged in

Starting point is 00:28:58 violations of the law and would like charges dropped. And they have all made giant contributions to Donald Trump's golden-crusted ballroom. And I want to know what's going on here? I mean, is this just a, is it a quid pro quo? You know, we'll do things to suck up to Donald Trump. And then Donald Trump will make the decision that we will be favored by his justice department. If that is happening, it is corruption, plain and simple. And it's right out there for the American people to see. And it's powerfully important that we call it out. For Donald Trump to be stepping in right in the middle of this deal and saying, in effect, look at me, look at me, what have you done for me? Is deeply worrisome that he is inviting another form of suck up to Donald

Starting point is 00:29:54 Trump, make Donald Trump richer than ever through his cryptocurrency, follow through on Donald Trump's beloved, he wants to build the ballroom, he wants to build the arc de Trump as you enter Washington, D.C. And ultimately, understand, you can't just roll your eyes and say, well, you know, that's just how it is now. There's a real cost to corruption. Because instead of decisions being made as this is a good movie, or at least I think it's a good movie, I want to get out there, I want to make it, I want to try it, others invest in it, decisions get made by who paid the biggest bribe. And when that's the case, we lose that energy that makes us the country we are. We lose that competition, that sense that things happen because, because you

Starting point is 00:30:54 did have a good idea, because you believed in it, because you sold other people on the idea, brought them in. Not because you're the son of a billionaire and you could pay the biggest bribe to somebody who will be the ultimate power decision-making, maker in government. So that's my real concern. My concern starts with Trump, but obviously it filters down then to Pam Bondi and his Department of Justice. Clearly, this is not a Department of Justice that is independent and it should make every American worry that the decision will not be made based on law,

Starting point is 00:31:33 but will be made based either on the politics of who they want to favor or just who's offering the best and the most for Donald Trump individually. Senator Warren, thank you for the time. I appreciate your having me here, and I'm glad you're talking about this. It's really important. But that, my friends, is the end of today's show,

Starting point is 00:31:57 but you have even more a click away. You can check out that full hour I just did with Representative Jim Himes over on the End of Faith podcast. It's available on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or really wherever else you can get podcasts. And or if you miss yesterday's Philip DeFranco Show, definitely check it out. There's a lot we had to dive into

Starting point is 00:32:10 and really anything you need. I've got links in the description. But that said, thank you for watching. I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow. Because it already looks like we're going to have a lot to talk about.

The Philip DeFranco Show - Nick Fuentes Bot Scandal is Crazy & Social Media Banned For Kids 16 & Under

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.