The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.17 Is Youtube Guilty Of Double Standard, Roseanne vs The Conners, Duck Boat Update, & More

Episode Date: October 17, 2018

Latest episode of The Philip DeFranco Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're going to talk about today is some industry entertainment news. We'll start things off light. And the first part of this is, as you may have seen, YouTube was just down yesterday. And it turned out to be an even larger problem with Team YouTube tweeting, Thanks for your reports about YouTube, YouTube TV, and YouTube Music Access issues. We're working on resolving this and we'll let you know once fixed.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and we'll keep you updated. Although in recent days, this isn't the only problem YouTube has had with many users complaining that for some reason after posting a video, it glitches to private and sometimes it just stays that way. But specifically regarding last night's outage, after about an hour and a lot of people going through a crisis of what are we going to do without YouTube, the site went back up and everything was A-OK. And as of recording this video, YouTube has not explained what exactly happened. But that said, what I would say to fellow YouTube creators is you should use this instance, we had a lot of them back in the day, you should look to this instance as a reminder

of why you need to build out what you're doing in a lot of different places. At the end of the day, we really have no control over the platforms that we post on, so the best thing to do is to diversify. So there was that, but then there was the other big news and it revolves around YouTube and Logan Paul. And the reason for that is apparently,

at least on the business side, Logan Paul's redemption arc has been successful. Logan of course started the year off with the suicide forest controversy that had a massive effect, not only on him, but the community. But along with the backlash in general, it was reported that Logan Paul was removed

from the Google Preferred Ad program. It was also reported that his YouTube original movie, The Thinning New World Order, was put on indefinite hold. Although, as I mentioned in those initial reports, there was word from the Google Preferred Ad program. It was also reported that his YouTube original movie, The Thinning New World Order, was put on indefinite hold. Although, as I mentioned in those initial reports, there was word around the community that this was really just kind of a smokescreen that eventually it would be released. But long story short, that brings us to last night

because Logan Paul tweeted, surprise, devil face smiley emoji, with a link to the trailer of this movie. And as far as when the movie releases, at the end of the trailer, he says very soon, and in fact, it dropped today. As far as a statement from YouTube, according to The Verge, a representative said,

the project was never intended to be canceled entirely, but was shelved following Paul's behavior, saying the entire cast and crew worked extremely hard to complete this film last year, and adding in fairness to all of them and the fans who have been asking for the sequel, we decided to release the thinning New World Order. And following this news, as far as my personal takeaway,

I feel like a ton of people are expecting me to just rip into YouTube and Logan Paul, but I really don't know how to feel anymore. I mean, personally, I'm more interested in what someone like PewDiePie feels about this, given his history with controversy and losing his YouTube Red series. Which on that note, as of recording this video,

I haven't seen Felix comment publicly about this, but you've seen a lot of people online saying, "'Okay, well, if YouTube is gonna do this, "'where is season two of Scare PewDiePie?'' And with a story like this, I think a lot of it just ultimately boils down to perception and feeling. How do people feel inside and outside of his community as well as just the YouTube community in general? And so I pass that question off to you. After everything that has happened over this year, you know, the initial outrage, the kind of redemption arc and everything that's happened, how do you feel about this announcement and release

today? Do you think this is the right move or the wrong move? What would you like to see happen or not happen? Also, do you feel like there is a double standard here in how YouTube is treating Logan Paul versus PewDiePie? Or do you think those are just two vastly different situations? Any thoughts you have here? I'd love to hear it.

And I also think this is an interesting question because I mean, all of this is happening. Just last night, The Conners premiered, which of course is the spinoff of Roseanne, where Roseanne was actually fired. And that situation has been a thing that's been fascinating to watch. Since Roseanne was canceled after the controversy

and the outrage, and it was announced that there would be this Conners spinoff, there's been a big question of, could this show actually survive? Would fans of Roseanne essentially throw up the middle finger to ABC and this show? And after seeing what happened last night, the answer is maybe we're gonna have to wait

one to two weeks to see. And the reason I say that is while you're seeing headlines like the Connors premiere slips 35% from Roseanne return in early ratings, that is a one-to-one comparison of series premieres. The Roseanne return and season premiere brought in a Nielsen score of 11.6 and the Connors premiere last night brought in a 7.5.

But if you end up comparing the season and series premiere of the Connors to the last episode of Roseanne, it actually went up. Reportedly the Connors to the last episode of Roseanne it actually went up Reportedly the Connors doing 3% better But still even with that said this could be horrible for the Connors because going into last night's premiere It's not crazy to think that there were people checking it out to see what they would do How would they write off and or kill the Roseanne character and then they want to have nothing to do with the series? So that's why we're gonna have to wait to see who shows up to watch episode 2 and episode 3

I mean for any other property, it wouldn't be surprising to see a drop off of around 25%, but given the unique circumstances here, it could be even more. And with this story, rather than just asking everyone, I'm specifically interested in fans of the Roseanne show. I never really watched the show back in the day, and that's not a bash.

I just, I, for some reason, never watched it. But if you're one of the people that watched it back then, you were excited when it came back, what do you feel about everything as far as how it's gone down and also the Connors? I'm really interested as far as your takeaway with this one. And then let's talk about possibly the sexiest news story of the day, immigration.

And it's a story that involves immigration in general, but also specifically Central American immigration. You might remember around six months ago, there was a caravan with around 1200 people that traveled from Southern Mexico trying to reach the United States. And as far as the size of the group, it's believed that traveling in a large group

increases safety, it prevents exploitation of migrants. And that specific group was mainly made up of people from Honduras who said they were fleeing violence and political oppression. You also might remember the number of people in that specific caravan dwindled down by the time it reached the US border. There ended up being only a few hundred migrants

that were able to actually enter the United States to try and claim asylum. Although on that note, it's unclear how many are actually still in the United States. But the reason I mentioned that caravan is there is now another one. And this one is currently making its way through Central America.

And like the last one, a lot of the people are from Honduras. This group meeting up last Friday in the Northern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula. And according to volunteers with the group, the caravan began with 160 people, but reportedly it's now 4,000 people and it's split into two groups. So we're talking about a group that is already bigger

than the last one we were talking about. As far as hearing from individual people, we had one Honduran woman who joined the caravan with her husband saying, "'I saw the caravan on the news "'in the same instant I decided to come. "'I didn't want to miss this chance.'" Another woman who's reportedly a 21-year-old nurse

who was two months pregnant saying she was migrating to save her and her unborn child after being threatened with death, adding, "'We are not criminals, we are migrants.'" There was a 32 year old farmer traveling with his seven year old son who seemingly was trying to escape poverty. Saying, every day I earn about five dollars,

that isn't enough to feed my family. And members of this caravan have traveled on foot and in vehicles and reached the border of Guatemala on Monday. And according to reports, the caravan was actually blocked by Guatemalan police wearing riot gear at a roadblock near the town of Esquipulas for several hours. Members of the caravan refused to turn back

and eventually they were allowed to enter. And after staying the night at a Catholic school in the area of Esquipulas for several hours. Members of the caravan refused to turn back and eventually they were allowed to enter. And after staying the night at a Catholic school in the area, the caravan crossed the border Tuesday morning. And as we saw before, it is believed that as they make their way through Central America, this group will grow even larger. And in response to the growing caravan, the Mexican government has reportedly sent

an additional 500 federal police to its border with Guatemala. Now that's part of the story. The other part is that this has caught the attention of the Trump administration. The day before the formation of the caravan, you had Vice President Mike Pence telling the president of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala,

"'Tell your people, don't put your families at risk "'by taking the dangerous journey north "'to attempt to enter the United States illegally.'" You also had Donald Trump tweeting out, "'The United States has strongly informed "'the President of Honduras that if the large caravan "'of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped "'and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid

"'will be given to Honduras effective No more money or aid will be given to Honduras effective immediately. However, on that note, it's unclear right now what the government of Honduras could do right now because they've already crossed the border. And as far as what aid is Trump talking about, in the 2019 fiscal year, Honduras is expected to receive $66 million from the United States.

Now around this situation, you had Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for the United States Department of Homeland Security saying in a statement that the caravan is a result of well-advertised and well-known catch-and-release loopholes. Catch-and-release, if you don't know, refers to the practice of U.S. immigration authorities detaining asylum seekers and then releasing them with ankle bracelets while their immigration status is reviewed. You also had Waldman saying, And as far as the record numbers she's talking about, looking into it, it actually does look like it is blown up.

The Washington Post today reported on unpublished Homeland Security statistics, and they said they found US Border Patrol agents arrested 16,658 family members in September, the highest one month total on record. And also adding that it was an 80% increase from July. Also an important note here is while the number of family unit arrests have gone up,

as the Washington Post points out, the number of single adults and minors who arrived without a parent remained essentially flat last month, adding another indication that more migrants who might have traveled alone in the past are now bringing children with them. This because, as they point out, courts have limited the amount of time minors can be held in immigration jails to 20 days, thus connecting it to catch and release and what Waldman was talking about. As far as what happens with this caravan in particular, we're gonna have to wait and see just like we did with the last one. And along with this caravan, I'm interested to see what happens with others moving forward because obviously while people are in groups to prevent risks, at the same time, while they grow, while it is more publicized, it gets the attention of the Trump administration. It's more easily monitored.

It becomes less of an individualized story. It becomes more of an international situation where we're seeing Donald Trump threatening to cut aid. And so like with any story I cover, I wanna pass the question off to you as far as what is your takeaway from all of this? And obviously the whole conversation in general becomes a little muddy because we're dealing

with two different things, but they're connected. There's illegal border crossings and individuals and groups trying to seek asylum through the normal process. Because of issues there, that often leads to other people trying to cross illegally. Which on the note of asylum, do you think the United States should grant asylum to any of these people? What are your thoughts around the threats of cutting aid? Do you think that's horrible, it's disgusting, or no, it's just? The United States gives millions and millions of dollars to this other country,

but that country is not actively trying to stop people from burdening the United States. Although of course that is a simplified version that doesn't take into account why people are fleeing. But yes, with that said, I'd love to know any and all of your thoughts here. And then let's talk about an update around the duck boat story. And if you don't remember, back in July, we covered this duck boat tragedy in Missouri. And that was where that amphibious vehicle capsized

during a storm, killing 17 people on board. And it was just this heartbreaking story with specifics like Tia Coleman, who lost nine family members with the youngest being one year old. And one of the key pieces of information here is you had Coleman telling reporters that during the safety talk at the beginning of the ride,

passengers were told they didn't need life jackets by the driver. Reportedly once the storm set in they were never told to put them on. We've seen many questions over the safety of duck boats including the presence of canopies which the NTSB recommended be removed in 2002. And of course questions of how could you be so negligent as to decide to go out into the water while there was a severe thunderstorm warning that was active. As you might remember where we last left off there was a statement made by Ride the Ducks saying they were cooperating fully with investigators. They had also offered to pay for funeral expenses, medical bills, travel for the families impacted by the incident.

With Ride the Ducks Branson and their owner Ripley Entertainment along with the owners of the boat Branson Duck Vehicles facing multiple civil lawsuits related to the incident. But the big update this week is in a court filing, Ripley Entertainment has denied negligence in the incident and has cited an 1851 maritime law to claim limited liability.

That law saying, except as provided in section 30506 of this title, the liability of the owner of a vessel for any claim, debt, or liability described in subsection B shall not exceed the value of the vessel in pending free. So according to the filing, because the boat was properly maintained, prepared for the trip, and after sinking was a total loss,

the company has limited liability. Also according to a statement released by the company, they are still doing all they can prepared for the trip, and after sinking was a total loss, the company has limited liability. Also, according to a statement released by the company, they are still doing all they can do for the survivors and the families of the deceased, which includes mediation. They also go on to say that this is a common move and, "'While this filing may limit the company's liability, "'we are filing this request at the same time "'we are actively pursuing mediation and settlement

"'with those most affected and have already scheduled "'or are in the process of scheduling mediation.'" However, on the other side of this, you have one of Tia Coleman's attorneys disputing their claim, saying, "'Ripley's claim that the lives of the family members "'they killed with their outrageous and criminal conduct "'are worthless is yet another insult

"'to these grieving family members "'from the Ripley's organization,' adding, "'Let us be clear, "'there have been no offers of settlement, none.'" Also going on to predict that the complaint will be dismissed, saying, "'Ripley's inhuman legal ploy will sink as fast "'as their death trap duck boat did.

"'We will legally and factually demolish this frivolous claim. And all of this is happening while Coleman also filed a wrongful death lawsuit last month on behalf of her husband and three children who all died in this incident, saying in a statement, Ripley's legal claim that my husband and children are worthless is incredibly hurtful and insensitive, and adding, anyone who cares about people or has any human decency should boycott Ripley and their attractions. And reportedly in addition to that lawsuit, the estates of two other members of the Coleman family also filed wrongful death lawsuits against the company and are seeking $100 million in damages. And as far as the maritime law in question

that is being used here, according to a maritime lawyer, it is being misused, but also at the same time, it's not unique. Maritime lawyer Daniel Rose explaining, the law was intended to bolster a fledgling maritime shipping industry. Congress was trying to encourage people to buy vessels and improve the maritime system. This was 1850, there a fledgling maritime shipping industry. Congress was trying to encourage people to buy vessels and improve the maritime system.

This was 1850, there was no insurance for maritime vessels. The incentive was that if you go ahead and buy a vessel, we're going to protect you if anything goes wrong. And adding, fast forward two centuries, it's still on the books. It comes up in every one of these major high-profile disasters. And so what I would say is hearing that last part,

it makes me, I guess, not less furious, but I guess more it shifts my focus to this law should change. If you have a maritime lawyer saying that in high profile disasters, this is used and it obviously was not the intent, then close that loophole. I'm pretty sure in 1851, duck boats were not top of mind. But ultimately we'll have to wait to see

if this is seen as a valid defense and what comes from here. And that's where I'm going to end today's show. But of course, remember with this being the PDS, I wanna hear from you. So whether it's the last story, the first one, anything in between where I'm going to end today's show. But of course, remember with this being the PDS, I wanna hear from you. So whether it's the last story, the first one, anything in between, I'd love to see what you're thinking in those comments down below.

Also, while you're at it, if you like these daily dives into the news, hit that like button. If you're new here, hit that subscribe button to make sure you don't miss more. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in.

I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.