The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.29 Katie Hill's MESSY Downfall Has People Shouting "Double Standard", & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you've had a fantastic Tuesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is this interesting and massive news around Facebook and really just truth. And if you've missed some recent shows,

Starting point is 00:00:13 we've talked about Facebook on the show recently, specifically about its recent decision to not remove posts made by politicians that violated the platform's rules, even if those posts contain false information. And following that, a lot of people criticized that move, saying that the company was basically allowing politicians to just lie on Facebook.

Starting point is 00:00:28 And the reason we're talking about this once again today is because those criticisms are now hitting exceptionally close to home for Facebook. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Facebook employees had written a letter to Mark Zuckerberg and other top executives calling on them to change the policy. According to the Times,

Starting point is 00:00:40 the letter was posted on Facebook Workplace, which is the company's internal communication board for employees and has been there for two weeks now. And according to the Times, the letter was posted on Facebook Workplace, which is the company's internal communication board for employees and has been there for two weeks now. And according to multiple sources, as of Monday, more than 250 employees had signed the message. And in this letter, the employees say that Facebook is a place of free expression, but that they are worried that the policy would undo all the work that they've done since the 2016 election to fight misinformation. Writing, free speech and paid speech are not the same thing. Our current policies on fact checking people in political office or those running for office

Starting point is 00:01:07 are a threat to what Facebook stands for. We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn't protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe the content posted by political figures is trustworthy. They then go on to say that they believe the policy has the potential to increase distrust on the platform

Starting point is 00:01:23 and adding, it communicates that we are okay profiting from deliberate misinformation campaigns by those in or seeking positions of power. And continuing that the policy could undo integrity product work that the teams had done to prepare for the 2020 election, and adding that this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections

Starting point is 00:01:39 around the world. And the letter doesn't kind of just object or complain, it also outlines six proposals for improvement, which include holding political ads to the same standards as other ads, stronger design for political ads so people can distinguish them as ads, restricting political ads from being targeted

Starting point is 00:01:53 to custom audiences, observing election silence periods for all elections around the world, also setting joint ad spending caps for both politicians and PACs, and finally making clearer policies for political ads if Facebook does not change its current policy. Things such as updating the way that they are displayed so that it's clear that Facebook policies

Starting point is 00:02:09 for fact checking and misinformation do not apply to that content. With the Facebook employees closing this letter saying that they want to have an open dialogue and see actual change and that they are, quote, "'Looking forward to working towards solutions together.'" Okay, so that's the letter and it's a really big deal for a few reasons.

Starting point is 00:02:22 First of all, it shows that even some of the people who work at Facebook are opposed to the company's political speech policy and so much so that they're willing to speak out. And that in of itself is massive because internal resistance at Facebook is pretty damn rare. And you know, when you're looking at a company that is just as massive as Facebook,

Starting point is 00:02:34 it's very easy to just kind of look at it as this one giant blob rather than a collection of people with different opinions. And as many others have pointed out, you know, Facebook has not usually been included in the recent wave of internal revolts and protests at other big tech companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft.

Starting point is 00:02:48 Places where employees have held mass protests against their company's impact on climate change, sexual harassment policies, and contracts with military and law enforcement bodies. Notably, at Amazon, Jeff Bezos announced that he would accelerate the company's climate goals back in September. And that after Amazon workers,

Starting point is 00:03:02 who for years had pressured Bezos to do more to address the company's carbon footprint, planned a 1700 worker walkout. You know, with Facebook, it's publicized, you know, they have a strong sense of mission and a tight-knit corporate culture among its rank and file employees. So, you know, dissatisfaction among employees

Starting point is 00:03:15 is rarely put into public view. And as I think Vice rightly points out, most of the time that we've seen employee activism at Facebook, it's often tacked on to other activist movements at other companies. And the reason it's important to note that is it just shows how divisive this policy is at Facebook. Following this letter getting out there in the world,

Starting point is 00:03:29 we saw a number of people support the employees. With politicians like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez applauding the Facebook employees' efforts, writing on Twitter, courageous workers at Facebook are now standing up to the corporation's leadership, challenging Zuckerberg's disturbing policy on allowing paid targeted disinformation ads

Starting point is 00:03:44 in the 2020 election. We also saw several senators chiming in, like Elizabeth Warren, who tweeted, "'Facebook's own employees know just how dangerous "'their policy allowing politicians to lie "'in political ads will be for our democracy. "'Mark Zuckerberg should listen to them, "'and I applaud their brave efforts

Starting point is 00:03:57 "'to hold their own company accountable.'" And those reactions, of course, not surprising. Both AOC and Warren have been arguably some of the most vocal critics of the new Facebook policy. You know, like we talked about before, we saw Warren run a fake ad, as if Zuckerberg had endorsed Trump in the 2020 election. But that ad going on to say that this is not true. But what Zuckerberg has done is given Donald Trump free rein to lie on his platform,

Starting point is 00:04:16 and then to pay Facebook gobs of money to push out their lies to American voters. And when it comes to AOC, I mean, just last week, while questioning Zuckerberg at a congressional hearing, there was this clip that went viral. Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal? Sorry, can you repeat that? Would I be able to run advertisements on Facebook targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal? I mean, if you're not fact-checking political advertisements, I'm just trying to understand the bounds here. What's fair game? I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.

Starting point is 00:04:50 You don't know if I'll be able to do that. I think probably. And in fact, since then, a PAC run by Adriel Hampton, a political activist who owns a marketing firm in San Francisco actually tested what AOC was describing, running an ad that spliced together audio clips of Senator Lindsey Graham so it sounded like he was saying that he supported the Green New Deal.

Starting point is 00:05:05 And there, Facebook later said that it had removed that ad. Although, it's believed that's probably because PACs and independent organizations are not individual politicians so the policy exempting political figures does not apply to them. But that's not where Hampton's efforts stop. Just yesterday, Hampton himself registered as a candidate for governor of California.

Starting point is 00:05:21 But it appears that he's not running to try to make the world a better place to be the best governor for California. Instead, it's just so he can run false Facebook ads. And while speaking to CNN, Hampton said, "'The genesis of this campaign is social media regulation "'and to ensure there is not an exemption "'in fact checking specifically for politicians "'like Donald Trump who like to lie online.

Starting point is 00:05:40 "'I think social media is incredibly powerful.'" And adding, "'I believe that Facebook has the power to shift elections. But ultimately that is where we are with this story right now. You know, moving forward, it's gonna be really fascinating to see if other politicians respond with similar tactics,

Starting point is 00:05:52 like running ads with just blatant lies. Also, it'll be interesting to see if we see other people run for office just so they can do the same. Also, I mean, as far as what Facebook does from here, so far they've responded to the letter with a spokesperson saying in a statement, "'Facebook's culture is built on openness,

Starting point is 00:06:04 so we appreciate our employees voicing their thoughts "'on this important topic.'" But then adding, "'We remain committed to not censoring political speech, "'and we'll continue exploring additional steps we can take "'to bring increased transparency to political ads.'" So like I said, we're gonna have to wait to see if anything happens here,

Starting point is 00:06:18 if any of the pressure both internally and externally will get to Facebook. And of course, connected to this story, I would love to know your thoughts. Then, albeit a quickie, let's talk about the massive news coming from the NCAA. You know, on past shows, we talked about California's Fair Pay to Play Act,

Starting point is 00:06:32 a bill that would allow college athletes in California to be paid for their image, their name, their likeness. And when this was happening, there were a number of people saying, you know, this is forcing colleges to pay athletes. That's not what it was. And of course, in the buildup to the signing of the bill and after the signing of the bill,

Starting point is 00:06:46 you had the NCAA saying, well, one, if this goes through, they might have to take away California College's eligibility in the NCAA. And while there was a lot of support for this bill from athletes, former athletes, you also had some exceptions like that of Tim Tebow. But the reason we're talking about this today is according to reports,

Starting point is 00:07:01 the NCAA's Board of Governors voted Tuesday to allow college athletes to receive compensation for their names, images, and likenesses. With Michael V. Drake, the board's chair and president of the Ohio State University, saying in a statement, "'We must embrace change to provide "'the best possible experience for college athletes.

Starting point is 00:07:17 "'This modernization for the future is a natural extension "'of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken "'in recent years to improve support for student athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships. Are you really trying to take credit for this? What we're really seeing here is California stood up to the NCAA and said, hey, you greedy fucks, let's strip back some of the ownership you feel you have

Starting point is 00:07:37 on these young athletes who are putting their minds and their bodies on the line every week because what you're doing is predatory in nature and in this game of chicken, the NCAA swerve. But because that quote really feels like you want it, I guess props for making the right decision even though you seemingly were forced to. One, so the inevitable was less painful for you

Starting point is 00:07:57 and two, so you could seemingly try to save face and take ownership of this positive change. But also I do wanna know, technically as of right now, no change has been implemented. There are guidelines that the NCAA says any changes to name and image rights rules should follow. And per the NCAA statement, any changes made to the rules would be implemented January, 2021,

Starting point is 00:08:17 but it's not in place yet. And notably on the NCAA's website and the questions and answers on name, image and likeness section, which says it was updated today. The NCAA still views the action taken by California as likely unconstitutional. And regarding the questions they ask themselves, is the NCAA challenging it in court?

Starting point is 00:08:34 They say the NCAA is closely monitoring the approaches taken by state governments and the US Congress and is considering all potential next steps. Right, and so that fine print BS leaves me skeptical. You know, we'll see, time will tell. And then let's talk about this really interesting situation and debate and scandal around Katie Hill's resignation. This is a really messy story.

Starting point is 00:08:52 I was looking online, there's also a lot of confusion around this story. So we're gonna try and break down what actually happened here, what happened when, what it means for Hill, for politics and women in general. Right, so Katie Hill is a 32 year old Democratic representative from California, and this is her first term.

Starting point is 00:09:05 And notably here, she actually defeated the incumbent Republican Steve Knight in last year's midterms, right? And this is a massive deal. And I know that if you're unfamiliar when you think of California, you probably just think all blue districts. Not the case, Hill's district had actually

Starting point is 00:09:16 been Republican controlled since 1993, right? So it was massive news when she flipped that seat. But the reason we're talking about Hill today is not this ultra belated, wow, can you believe it happened story. It's about what we've seen happen over the last month. And it all starts earlier this month. You had a right-wing political blog publish allegations

Starting point is 00:09:31 that Hill was in a three-way relationship between her husband and a female staffer. It then went on to make another allegation, this time that she was having an affair with her legislative director. Also to note here, Hill and her husband were reportedly estranged at the time of the second allegation,

Starting point is 00:09:43 with Hill actually calling her estranged husband abusive and saying that he tried to humiliate her. However, there's actually another aspect of this story because the blog didn't just make allegations of inappropriate relationships. It was followed up by also including private text messages and even nude photos of Hill in that story, which for the record, those photos were somewhat censored,

Starting point is 00:09:58 but for a lot of people, that wasn't the point because the blog still published those photos without her consent. And regarding those photos, Hill has actually implied that she thinks that her husband might have supplied those photos to the blog. Right, so after that, Hill went to the US Capitol Police who opened an investigation to find out

Starting point is 00:10:11 who leaked the photos. But on October 23rd, the House Ethics Committee announced that they would also open an investigation. But this one focused on whether or not Hill had that inappropriate relationship with her legislative director. And of note here, right, one of the things is that if they found the allegation to be true,

Starting point is 00:10:23 even if it was consensual, Hill would be guilty of violating a new ethics rule passed by Congress last year. A rule prohibiting members of Congress from engaging in sexual relationships with their aides. And what we ended up seeing that same day is that Hill sent out an email to her constituents. In it, she admits that she had an inappropriate relationship with a female staffer, but also noting that it had happened before she became a congresswoman, which is why that allegation was not part of the ethics investigation. Hill then denied having an affair with her legislative director and promised to cooperate with the investigation.

Starting point is 00:10:47 But then this story took another massive turn on Sunday when Hill tweeted, it is with a broken heart that today I announce my resignation from Congress. This is the hardest thing I have ever had to do, but I believe it is the best thing for my constituents, my community, and our country. With Hill also sharing the photo

Starting point is 00:11:00 of her official resignation letter reading, this is what needs to happen so that the good people who supported me "'will no longer be subjected to the pain "'inflicted by my abusive husband "'and the brutality of hateful political operatives "'who seem to happily provide a platform "'to a monster who is driving a smear campaign

Starting point is 00:11:14 "'built around cyber exploitation.' "'And continuing, having private photos "'of personal moments weaponized against me "'has been an appalling invasion of my privacy.'" And following that up by calling the action illegal and saying, we are currently pursuing all of our available legal options. And a lot of this debate has been focused on that aspect,

Starting point is 00:11:29 on cyber exploitation, or as it's more commonly known, revenge porn. Because you have people essentially arguing, politician or not, ultimately what you have is a blog leaking Hill's nude photos without her consent. And also, notably in California, revenge porn is illegal. Like we've seen with other stories where people have had their nude photos leaked

Starting point is 00:11:44 without their consent. We saw a number of people criticizing the person in the photo saying, if you don't want things leaked, then don't be in the photos. You know, we saw people like Greg Gutfeld on The Five on Fox News saying things like. The fact, the reason why this story is big, unfortunately, is because there were visuals.

Starting point is 00:11:59 There were pictures. And when you have pictures, you get the Daily Mail, you get TMZ, you get Drudge, right? Because that's, and unfortunately, those pictures were leaked after an erotic adventure went awry. I mean, everything was having, everybody was having fun. And then when it breaks apart, that's why you don't take pictures. That's the moral lesson here. But on the other side of this, you had people like Senator Kamala Harris saying that Hill is actually the victim of a double standard for female politicians.

Starting point is 00:12:27 And of Hill, she said she respected her decision to resign, but also said it was clearly meant to embarrass her. There's so much that people do about women and their sexuality that's about shaming them. Right, and what she said there is also another big point that people have focused on here. You have people saying, you have this rising Congresswoman, a woman who says that she was in an abusive relationship, her nude photos are leaked, you have allegations of a consensual affair,

Starting point is 00:12:40 and suddenly she finds herself being forced to resign as the whole story blows up and makes front page news. Which one, some places have highlighted Hill's resignation as another generational issue. With the New York Times pointing out that lawyers and activists have said that these new kinds of internet exposure could impact a whole class of rising politicians.

Starting point is 00:12:55 But we ultimately are where we are. We have Hill saying that she'll resign. Also it appears that Hill already knows her next move after she formally resigns. Yesterday announcing that she was vowing to fight revenge porn. There is one thing that I know for sure. I will not allow my experience to scare off other young women or girls from running for office. For the sake of all of us,

Starting point is 00:13:13 we cannot let that happen. I'm hurt. I'm angry. The path that I saw so clearly for myself is no longer there. I never claimed to be perfect, but I never thought my imperfections would be weaponized and used to try to destroy me and the community I've loved for my entire life. Yeah, ultimately that's where we are with this story. You know, one of the key things with this story, and I've actually seen it used for kind of completely opposite reasons, is the mentioning of a double standard. You know, you have some people making the claim that it only got this bad because you're talking about a female candidate, also same sex relation,

Starting point is 00:13:47 but also at the same time on the other side of this, you have some people saying, yes, there is a double standard, but they argue that Katie Hill is actually being treated better because she's a woman. The people and the media would hit way harder for let's say a male candidate, with a greater focus on a male candidate's use

Starting point is 00:13:59 of his position of power in a relationship with someone beneath him, whether it be with allegations while that person was a representative or on the campaign trail. Yeah, it's been really interesting to watch the fallout from this, the debate that has stemmed from it.

Starting point is 00:14:11 And of course, I pass the question off to you around this. What are your thoughts on this situation in general? Do you believe there is a double standard here? If so, what kind? Yeah, any and all thoughts around this, I'd love to see in those comments down below. And that's where we're going to end today's show. And hey, if you're not 100% filled in,

Starting point is 00:14:24 you should definitely check out that brand new deep dive we put out today, or maybe just missed yesterday's show, you wanna catch up, you can click or tap right there to watch either of those. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in,

Starting point is 00:14:36 I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 10.29 Katie Hill's MESSY Downfall Has People Shouting "Double Standard", & More

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