The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.27 IG Nudity Scandal, Cyberpunk 2077 Backlash, SpaceX, Amy Coney Barrett's Immediate Impact &

Episode Date: October 27, 2020

To get a free audiobook, full access to the Plus Catalog and a 30 day free trial, Visit http://www.audible.com/phil or text phil to 500-500.  WATCH my podcast with Steve Zaragoza: https://youtu.be/gIYQVswNw9w  Follow me off of Youtube: https://linktr.ee/PhilipDeFranco -- Voting Resources:  http://Vote.org https://www.axios.com/how-to-vote-by-state-2020-307c3d17-ee57-4a1b-8bad-182ca1cdb752.html https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/how-to-vote-2020/ https://nationalvoterregistrationday.org/  https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-delayed-is-your-mail-in-ballot-11603706400 -- WATCH Full “A Convo With” Podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/ACW  LISTEN On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://LinksHole.com WATCH the ACW Clips channel!: https://youtube.com/ACWClips -- 00:00 - Cyberpunk 2077 Delayed 02:54 - SpaceX Expanding Starlink Beta 05:16 - Instagram's New Censor Policy 08:15 - TIA 10:16 - Amy Coney Barrett Sworn In and What That Means -- ✩ SUPPORT THE SHOW ✩ ✭ BUY our GEAR, Support the Show!: http://ShopDeFranco.com ✭ Lemme Touch Your Hair: http://BeautifulBastard.com ✭ Paid Subscription: http://DeFrancoElite.com  ✩ TODAY IN AWESOME ✩ ✭ Stock up while you can: https://beautifulbastard.com/ ✭ Saved by the Bell | Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/O0uCr5-5p5Q ✭ "Time Warp": https://youtu.be/0aZPJBjutY0 ✭ Netflix + Assassin's Creed: https://twitter.com/NXOnNetflix/status/1321081578697621508?s=20 ✭ Among Us In Real Life: https://youtu.be/oXRRlBImXT0 ✭ Honest Trailers | The Mandalorian: https://youtu.be/WlxuSILjRl0 ✭ Secret link: https://youtu.be/w138XJNuL8U ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩  Cyberpunk 2077 is delayed again to December 10th:  https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/27/21536662/cyberpunk-2077-cd-projekt-red-delay-december SpaceX's Starlink to Provide Families in Rural Texas With Internet: https://roguerocket.com/2020/10/27/starlink-texas/ Instagram Changes Policy After Model Campaigns Against It: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-technology-race-trfn-idUSKBN27B1PA Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed to Supreme Court: https://roguerocket.com/2020/10/27/amy-coney-barrett-sworn-in/  ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ What’s Happening in Philadelphia https://roguerocket.com/2020/10/27/wallace-philly/ Hospitalizations Go Up, Worrying Experts: https://roguerocket.com/2020/10/27/case-hospital-increase/ ——————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Maxx Enright Produced by: Amanda Morones Art Director: Brian Borst  Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Cory Ray, Neena Pesqueda, Brian Espinoza Production Team: Zack Taylor, Luke Manning  ———————————— #DeFranco #SCOTUS #ElonMusk Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Just looking at my phone and I'm sorry, what's that? I did, I did vote today, thank you for noticing. Also, since we're on the subject that you just brought up, if you wanna vote in this election and you have not thus far, the reasons I'll get to in 10 or so minutes, it might be in your best interest to not mail it out if you haven't already done it,

but rather instead go to a drop box or do it in person, which I know is not ideal. But anyway, I'll see you later. I'm gonna go try not to have a panic attack for the next one to three weeks. Great, see ya. Sup, you beautiful bastards. Hope you had a fantastic Tuesday.

Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. And the first thing that we're gonna talk about today is news that has a lot of people having a lot of big reactions. And actually, just for fun, I'm gonna try and frame this story

in the most positive way possible. You know, in 2020, it's been a hard year for a lot of people for a lot of different reasons. But one of the big things is you just never know what to expect. So many surprises, so many unexpected letdowns. And that's why I love the fact that we know for a fact and can count on CD Projekt Red,

the developer and publisher of Cyberpunk 2077 to delay their game when they get, you know, kind of close to when they're supposed to release it. This incredibly hyped, believed know, kind of close to when they're supposed to release it. This incredibly hyped, believed to be game of the year contender initially set to be released April 16th, then September 17th, then November 19th, and then as of a few hours ago, December 10th.

With CD Projekt Red releasing a statement saying, "'Most likely there are many emotions "'and questions in your heads.'" Which, side note is how from here on out, I'm going to start every conversation with my wife. Yes, most likely there are many emotions and questions in your heads." Which, side note, is how from here on out, I'm going to start every conversation with my wife. But yes, most likely there are many emotions and questions in your head, so first and foremost, please accept our humble apologies.

Noting that right now they're actually having to prepare and test nine versions of the game, right, it's on a number of platforms, as new consoles are also being introduced. And noting that they're currently working from home, and adding, we need to make sure that everything works well and every version runs smoothly. We're aware it might seem unrealistic

when someone says that 21 days can make any difference in such a massive and complex game, but they really do. And going on to explain, even after passing certification or going gold, this is the time where many improvements are being made, which will then be distributed via a day zero patch. This is the time period we under-calculated. And closing, we feel we have an amazing game on our hands

and are willing to make every decision, even the hardest ones, if it ultimately leads you to getting a video game you'll fall in love with. And so following this announcement, we saw a lot of big reactions, a lot of people disappointed, some angry, some understanding. And I will say personally, and it could be because I have not been super, super invested beforehand,

I land in that camp. I think one, if you're putting out these games, of course you wanna put out the best game possible. But two, I think that's more true than ever given how hyped this game has been. And you know, for most games, you only get that first impression. Examples like No Man's Sky are outliers.

But that's a story, then my opinion. And you know, I want to pass the question out to you, gamers of the nation. What are your thoughts around Cyberpunk 2077 getting delayed again? Personally, I'm like, okay, that makes it easier to play Assassin's Creed Valhalla and Watch Dogs Legion.

Yeah, I'd love to know your thoughts. And then for the 50% of people that click off when I talk about video game stories, hi, welcome back. Then let's talk about Elon Musk and SpaceX back in the news. And this is actually a two-part story because first we got the news that SpaceX is expanding the beta test

of its Starlink satellite internet service. If you're unfamiliar, Starlink is SpaceX's plan to build an interconnected internet network with thousands of satellites designed to deliver high-speed internet anywhere on the planet. Right now, they've launched about 900 Starlink satellites, which is only a fraction of the total they need for global coverage, but is enough

to start providing service in some areas. And for the last few months, the company has conducted a limited private beta test with employees. So what we're actually seeing today marks the launch of its public beta testing. It is reportedly called the, and it's such an Elon Musk name,

the better than nothing beta. And it was offered to an unspecified number of users via email. As far as the price, it's priced at $99 a month on top of a $499 upfront cost for the Starlink kit, which includes a user terminal to connect to the satellites, a mounting tripod, and a wifi router. Now it's unclear where exactly the service

will be available, but Musk has recently suggested that the public beta would be offered in the Northern United States and Southern Canada. As far as the quality, what people should expect, you had SpaceX saying, "'Expect to see data speeds vary from 50 megabits per second "'to 150 megabits per second and latency "'from 20 milliseconds to 40 milliseconds

"'over the next several months "'as we enhance the Starlink system. There will also be brief periods of no connectivity at all. And adding, as we launch more satellites, install more ground stations, and improve our networking software, data speed, latency, and uptime will improve dramatically. Noting here, for latency,

we expect to achieve 16 milliseconds to 19 milliseconds by summer 2021. All right, so there was that, but then we also got the news that SpaceX has agreed to provide internet to a rural school district in Texas starting by summer 2021. All right, so there was that, but then we also got the news that SpaceX has agreed to provide internet to a rural school district in Texas, starting in early 2021. With SpaceX set to supply internet to 45 families who do not have broadband access

and who live in the Pleasant Farms area of South Hector County. Now the internet will be free for the families, but the school district is actually paying $300,000 per year with 150,000 of that coming from a nonprofit. But the district also saying that the services will later expand to 90 more families in the same area as the network evolves.

You know, even outside of this pandemic where you have more people working from home, more kids going to school on their computer, but even outside of that, this could be a very big deal because while you and I have probably gotten very used to our high speed internet access, there are still millions of Americans that one, just don't have internet access and two,

even more don't have high speed internet access. Right, with it being far more severe in rural communities. But ultimately that is where we are with this story. Now it is gonna be an interesting thing to follow as far as the beta test as well as SpaceX and their progress with this program. And then let's talk about a story and news that involves your body, what is okay to show of it

and social media. And the reason for that is that starting tomorrow, both Instagram and Facebook say that they will allow content showing someone hugging, cupping or holding their breasts. With this change notably coming after people accused the platforms of discriminately applying their nudity rule. I sort of explained back in August,

Instagram repeatedly deleted photos from a confident shoot posted by Naomi Nicholas-William. She's a black plus size model. And those photos showed her with her arms over her bare chest. With Naomi arguing that Instagram was censoring her while simultaneously allowing similar photos of thin white women to stay up on the platform

with little or no penalties. I mean, you can look for yourself, right? Many have pointed to similarly posed photos from traditional celebs like Kendall Jenner, Ashley Benson, Emily Radichkowski. Others pointing to more social media focused stars like Tana Mongeau or Corinna Copp. And at the time we saw a wave of creators speak out

claiming that the platform repeatedly discriminated against black people, plus size users, and other marginalized communities by deleting their photos or failing to promote them in the same way it did white users. And so we saw many speaking up and doing so with the hashtag, I want to see Naomi. Now Instagram eventually catches wind of this campaign

and they deny that she had been racially discriminated against, instead saying that her post was actually removed because they quote, do not allow breast squeezing because it can be most commonly associated with pornography. But to that, we saw the photographer from that shoot, Alexandra Cameron saying, there is more flesh to hold or place your arm around

if you have bigger boobs. There was no suggestion of pornographic squeezing. My photos are explicitly about the female gaze and about empowering women. So what we ended up seeing was eventually Instagram going, fine, have the boobs. Or rather, Instagram acknowledged that the shoot showed the model quote, holding her breasts in,

images intended to demonstrate self-love and body acceptance. Adding, as we looked into this more closely, we realized it was an instance where our policy on breast squeezing wasn't being correctly applied. Hearing Naomi's feedback helped us understand where this policy was falling short and how we could refine it.

But to be clear about its policy change, Instagram said, with the new update, we'll allow content where someone is simply hugging, cupping or holding their breasts. And if there's any doubt, we'll ask that reviewers allow the content to stay up. But also going on to say, we do have to draw the line somewhere.

So when people squeeze their breasts in a grabbing motion with bent fingers, or if there is a clear change in the shape of the breasts, that content will still break our rules." Side note, it feels far weirder to be so analytical about this than if I were to use kind of like more vulgar words. But that said, with this update,

we saw Naomi and her supporters celebrating this response, where they're saying that by adding more nuance, this policy change should allow them to better differentiate self-expression slash art from pornographic content. And adding, hopefully this policy change will bring an end to differentiate self-expression slash art from pornographic content. And adding, hopefully this policy change will bring an end to the censorship of fat black bodies. Yeah, that's essentially where the story ends.

And actually with this, I want to ask a very specific question because yes, you can give me your opinion on the story as a whole, but very specifically, and I feel like it's what the story boils down to is where is the line? Right, like you can have the opinion that pornography can be an art form, but at what point do you feel like art crosses the line into something

that is pornographic? Or you can have that argument of, well, I can't define it, but you know it when you see it, but put yourself in the position of one of these platforms. You have to describe it. Yeah, let me know what you think. And then finally, let's talk about the Supreme Court and what may be impacted near and far.

Or because of course, yesterday, the Senate officially approved the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in a vote of 52 to 48, almost entirely along party lines. With Senator Susan Collins being the only Republican to vote against this appointment. And actually with no Democrats voting to confirm Barrett, it marked the first time in 151 years

that not one member of the minority party voted to confirm a justice. But regardless of how historic this appointment is, both in terms of how lightning fast the nomination process and how close we are to the election, there were really no surprises here. Once she was nominated, it was understood that she was gonna get rammed through.

All right, whatever criticisms there were, whatever hypocrisy, whatever call-outs, at the end of the day, the net result was gonna be, she's gonna get confirmed. And so now with just seven days to go before the election with tens of millions of votes already cast, Republicans have their new Supreme Court Justice as well as a solid conservative majority

on the highest court in the land for the first time since the 1930s. Now, with that said, as far as what happens from here, let's talk about what is most immediate and then further down the road. It's the most immediate and incredibly significant you have cases that involve elections in some absolutely key battleground states.

In fact, this Friday, the justices are expected to meet privately to decide what cases could still be added to this term's docket. And two of the cases they are considering are emergency orders regarding ballot extensions in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. And you know, when you hear ballot extensions in Pennsylvania, you might be thinking,

oh, wait a minute, Phil, didn't the Supreme Court just rule on that? Didn't you talk about that on the show? Yes, and it was recent. We talked about this last week. The Supreme Court denied a request from Pennsylvania's Republican Party to shorten the deadline

which state election officials could receive absentee ballots. This after Pennsylvania's state Supreme Court sided with Democrats and allowed them to extend the deadline that mail-in ballots could be received up to three days after the election. But very notably here, the US Supreme Court did not directly rule

against the Republicans. Rather, they split the decision four to four, which means that the court was deadlocked and thus the decision from the lower court stood. But now with that ninth seat filled with Barrett, of course, is conservative, Pennsylvania Republicans are asking for the court to reconsider blocking the extension

and to fast track this decision. Now, given the fact that the court literally heard this case last week and with the only difference being that there is a new justice, it is unclear if they will take it up again. Though I think as a lot of people have realized this month, this year, the past few years,

nothing ever feels like it's ever fully off the table or known. Though I really would not be surprised if they took it up again. Also keep in mind, this is not the only election case they may hear. Another key election case of the court we'll consider hearing involves a very similar legal battle

in North Carolina. And there the Trump campaign and the North Carolina. And there, the Trump campaign and the North Carolina Republican Party are asking the Supreme Court to block a mail-in ballot extension approved by the State Board of Elections last month. With that extension allowing officials to receive ballots postmarked by election day

for nine days after the election. That extension already being held up by a district court and a federal appeals court. And these cases are very significant because in the last few weeks and days, we've seen the Supreme Court taking up a lot of similar legal battles. Right in addition to Pennsylvania,

like we mentioned in Monday's show, in a five to three decision last week, the court reinstated a state-ordered ban on curbside voting in Alabama. Just yesterday, in another five to three decisions, SCOTUS also rejected attempts by Democrats in Wisconsin to extend the deadline for accepting mail-in ballots to six days after the election,

with them also ruling that mail-in ballots in the state can only be counted if they arrive on election day. While the court did not provide a reason for the decision, as is normal in cases like this, we did see some justices file opinions. With the most notable, including Brett Kavanaugh, who defended his decision to strike down the extension by arguing that deadlines were important, saying,

"'Those states want to avoid the chaos "'and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue "'if thousands of absentee ballots flow in "'after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those states also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night or as soon as possible thereafter.

Right, and that received a ton of backlash as well as just being seen as a massive red flag. Many people saying, what about ballots that arrive late through no fault of the sender? Right, there have been concerns regarding the USPS, which is now headed by a Trump loyalist. But others also arguing that this wouldn't be flipping an election.

And I don't just mean other politicians or everyday people. I mean, people like Justice Kagan. With Kagan taking aim at Kavanaugh's argument in a footnote in her own opinion writing, "'There are no results to flip "'until all valid votes are counted.' "'And nothing could be more suspicious or improper "'than refusing to tally votes

once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times is to deserve the electoral process. The Washington Post also pointing out the fallacy in Kavanaugh's argument that mail-in ballots that arrive after election day will change the outcome that a majority of voters wanted, writing, "'If Trump leads by 10 votes on November 3rd,

"'but 6,000 ballots arrive the day after having been sent on October 24th, most of them preferring former vice president and democratic nominee, Joe Biden, Kavanaugh worries that this constitutes an unfair rejection of the will of the public. Right, when in fact, a situation like that would be an example of thousands of voters being disenfranchised due to restrictive election laws

and a failure of the US postal system. Which once again, as of this year, has a postmaster general that is a Trump loyalist who made very broad changes that had to be kind of reeled in as much as possible. Also regarding Kavanaugh's opinion, you have some saying that this is an especially concerning comment coming from a Supreme Court justice

because right now in at least 18 states and DC, election officials do actually count ballots that arrive after election day. With one report noting that in those states, there is no result to flip because there is no result to overturn until all valid ballots are counted. Right, which is why with this, we saw a lot of people taking aim at Kavanaugh

because he is effectively echoing claims that Trump has made with many pointing to the fact that literally earlier that same day, Trump tweeted, "'Big problems and discrepancies with mail and ballots "'all over the USA. "'Must have final total on November 3rd.'" A tweet that actually got quickly flagged as misinformation about the election.

And so with all of that said, where I want to end this section is on this keynote. If you are someone that wants to, is going to vote against Donald Trump and or the people that have enabled him over these years and you have not yet cast your vote, you are unfortunately being put into a position where depending on your state,

you are either going to have to brave the polls in person, or if you're able to before November 3rd, instead of trying to mail out your ballot now, put it in a drop-off box. Because while USPS is telling people to mail in their ballots at least a week before their state's due date for it to be counted, many others say it might take longer.

And actually on this, the Wall Street Journal has a great resource called How Delayed Is Your Mail-In Ballot? And it uses data provided by a mail tracking firm to tell you how the mail is traveling or not traveling in your state. And according to their data from September, in multiple states, including Wisconsin, it takes more than 10 days to deliver a first-class letter. As always with stories like this, I'm going to

link down to resources, including vote.org, where you can locate polling places, find early voting locations, locate a Dropbox, and truly treat this as, especially if you're in a swing state, as your last chance to be heard or have an impact. Because in my opinion, what we are witnessing is a concerted, broad effort to disenfranchise and invalidate as many votes as possible by using, and it's really insane, by using the fear and limitations that exist because of the mishandling of the pandemic

by the people in power. Statistically, more Democrats are nervous about COVID-19, which has killed over 225,000 Americans. That's where we're seeing things that say that Democrats are far more likely to use mail-in votes and what's trying to be suppressed? Mail-in votes, but yeah, that's where I'm gonna leave this section.

So there's all of that and then you have some further down the road, but still incredibly massive cases very soon. With one of the most significant being the latest challenge against the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments starting November 10th, just a week after the election. This is also something that was talked about a ton

during Barrett's nomination process because she has publicly criticized the Supreme Court decision that upheld Obamacare as constitutional, with her arguing in a 2017 article that under an originalist reading of the Constitution, interpreting it the way that it was originally written, Obamacare would not be allowed.

And in that same article, she criticized Chief Justice Roberts' stance on the ACA, saying that he considered too many factors outside of the Constitution. Now, notably, despite that, when pressed on this topic during her Senate confirmation hearing, she did give some supporters of the law hope. This when she outlined her views on the legal doctrine

known as severability, which allows for parts of a law to be struck down without getting rid of an entire law. And regarding that, Barrett told the senators that the presumption is to always favor severing parts of a given law rather than scrapping the whole thing. But still, you had a lot of people saying that based on her views and conservative record as a judge, Barrett could still sway the court to get rid of the ACA.

Thus, in general, but also in the midst of a pandemic, leaving more than 20 million Americans without health insurance. So obviously we'll have to watch and wait for that. But even before hearing the ACA arguments, the Supreme Court is also set to take up another key case that would allow private agencies that receive taxpayer funding to provide government services

the right to deny those services to people based on their sexual orientation. That case stemming from a lawsuit filed against the city of Philadelphia by Catholic Social Services in 2018. That after city officials canceled a contract with the agency to provide foster care services to children after learning that CSS refused to accept same-sex couples

as foster parents because of their own religious objections. There, we saw a lower court rule that the city was allowed to end the contract because it fell under the enforcement of its anti-discrimination policy and an appeals court upheld that decision. But now that case is set to go before the Supreme Court and the consequences could be massive.

As the Washington Post explains, "'A broad ruling could decide "'when religious organizations deserve exemptions "'from anti-discrimination laws that the groups say "'would cause them to violate deeply held beliefs "'such as what constitutes a marriage.'" And so with that, you have people worried about how Barrett might swing the court.

And a ton of people have criticized Barrett for her controversial views on LGBTQ rights, with many pointing to a lecture that she gave in 2016 where she defended Supreme Court justices who argued against making gay marriage legal. Others noting a separate speech where she argued that Title IX does not apply to trans people. And notably, during the Senate hearings,

Barrett was largely tight lipped about her views on key Supreme Court decisions, including most significantly refusing to say whether she believed the SCOTUS case that established gay marriage is legal had been decided properly. But like with everything else, the stage has now been set and we have to wait and see.

And that is where I'm going to end today's show. And of course, as always, thank you for being a part of my daily dives into the news here. Also, if you're new here, you wanna join the family, get more of these videos, just hit that subscribe button. Also, I always recommend and I love when people text me

at 213-4423 for notifications, behind the scenes, early updates, a bunch of stuff. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.