The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 1.12 Pick A Side Youtube, Cr1TiKaL, Ethan Klein, Dr. Fauci, Rand Paul, Rule 21, & More in Today's News

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show. My name, oddly enough, what a twist, Philip DeFranco. And before we jump into the news of the day, yes, hit that like button, subscribe. But also as we enter the first story, text someone you know that you love them, that you care for them, because you don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. One day you're going to die and cease to be. But until that day, I'll be your resident bringer of sadness and talk about the news of the day. And so let's just jump into it on that happy note. You know, the first thing that we're going to talk about today, not to day. And so let's just jump into it on that happy note. Y'all, the first thing that we're gonna talk about today, not to just immediately bias you,

Starting point is 00:00:27 but I just think it's incredibly stupid. And I say that because reports have come out saying that at least 20 students at LJ Alamo Middle School have been expelled for participating in a TikTok trend on school grounds. Right, and for me personally, I hear, okay, kids at school TikTok trend, is it one of those things where they're destroying property?

Starting point is 00:00:42 Looking into this, it wasn't that. According to reports, the students filmed two TikToks back in December as part of a trend using Nardo Wick's song, Who Wants Smoke? With that video featuring some students making finger guns, others using their phones to imitate firearms. Right, and these aren't the exact videos that we're talking about today.

Starting point is 00:00:56 Those have actually been taken down, and even some parents say they haven't seen the posts themselves. But I did want to kind of give you an idea of what we're talking about here. When the school caught wind of this, they acted immediately, suspending the students and citing them under Discipline Code 70 for crime of violence, assault, and battery, which states there was an aggressive action directed at students,

Starting point is 00:01:12 which may involve threats or unwanted physical contact while on school grounds with or without the use of a weapon. So because that's what the school threw at these kids, we saw one parent telling reporters that the school was, quote, trying to make an example of these kids and make it look like they handled a threat threat that didn't even exist another mother saying it was not assault. It was not battery It was not violent and the code that's being used and the level of infraction associated with that code is completely unwarranted Unfair and horrible and so reportedly is the school system considered expulsion It then changed the offense of what these kids did to a code 21 violation, which basically covers anything else. And I mean anything else. Here's the definition.

Starting point is 00:01:46 Any other serious offense not covered by any other of these codes resulting in, or not resulting in, the need for law enforcement intervention. What an insane catch-all. Like the definition or the reason included might as well just say, "'Cause I said so." Which is also why we saw Pat McGee,

Starting point is 00:02:01 a lawyer representing some of the families, saying, "'They're making the rules up as they go along. "'They made some mistakes as any organization would, "'because this is all new. "'But the problem is now they don't wanna say "'that this was wrong. "'We're handling these children wrongly. "'Aunt, let's step back, take a breath,

Starting point is 00:02:13 "'and figure out how to fix this "'for the good of all the kids.'" I am possibly saying that because this situation doesn't necessarily just exist in a bubble. The disciplinary action reportedly already having a ripple effect. With the news coming out that one student was allegedly denied acceptance to a high school

Starting point is 00:02:24 over this issue. With McGee adding, "'We're was allegedly denied acceptance to a high school over this issue. With McGee adding, we're not saying there needs to be an absence of punishment. No, but the punishment needs to fit the behavior. That's why you have a rubric. And when you misuse the rubrics by saying it's any other serious offense, then you know they don't really have a cause of action

Starting point is 00:02:37 to justify what they're doing. As far as the other side of things, a spokesperson for the Lafayette Parish school system told reporters that it does not comment on information regarding disciplinary action against students and staff. But be that as it may, heat against the system has continued to grow over the last few days. In fact, and this doesn't surprise me

Starting point is 00:02:51 because the internet, people reportedly dug up a photo showing some of the school's teachers making gun gestures while wearing cowboy attire for a contest, with parents saying that this was done to prove a point to see if the teachers would be held to the same standard, and adding, if it's not okay for a child to do it, it's not okay for an adult to do it. But ultimately with this story,

Starting point is 00:03:06 I kind of want to end on two things. One, of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on this story. Like, what do you think in general? Do you think the students should be punished? Yes or no? If you're on the side of yes, do you think expulsion is a road too far? Or you think that's right?

Starting point is 00:03:17 And two, I would say at the very least, we just have to look at rule 21. How do you make, because I said so after after the fact a rule? That's insane. That's like, that sounds like a rule from a king or a dictator or an incredibly bad parent. I personally, I don't know if I can support anything other than maybe a warning because everything that I've heard about this, it doesn't seem like they were threatening anybody. Like if the caption to the video was like, hey, Greg in third period, this is for you. Okay, sure. No, no, no. The whole thing just reeks of stupid to me. And that's why I'd love to know your thoughts.

Starting point is 00:03:46 And then, is YouTube doing enough to combat misinformation? That is the question at hand for a lot of people right now. And according to a group of more than 80 fact-checking organizations from around the world, they say the answer is no. Which is why we saw that group publish an open letter to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki today, calling on the platform to make improvements.

Starting point is 00:04:01 Now understand, concerns about misinformation have existed for years now, especially in regards to election and health claims. So in the pursuit of this, we've seen platforms like YouTube taking steps to try to limit the spread of such content while also trying to provide links to credible resources, suspending figures

Starting point is 00:04:13 for violating COVID-19 misinformation policies. But now we're seeing fact checkers calling on YouTube to do four things. One, commit to meaningful transparency about disinformation on the platform, saying that it should support independent research into misinformation campaigns, as well as, quote, publish its full moderation policy regarding disinformation and misinformation, including the use of artificial intelligence and which data powers it. Two, go beyond removing content and focus on providing context and offering debunks

Starting point is 00:04:37 clearly superimposed on videos or as additional video content, which the group says would have to come from investing in independent fact-checking among other meaningful actions. Three, take stronger actions against repeat offenders which includes doing more to stop promoting their content. And finally, four, extend its current and future efforts to languages other than English. With the group noting that YouTube shortcomings in moderating non-english language content are incredibly notable in the global sound. In response to this letter, a YouTube spokesperson stressed that it was heavily invested in policies and products that connect people to authoritative content and reduce the spread of misinformation. And adding that it has seen important progress, but is always looking for meaningful ways to improve and will continue to strengthen our work

Starting point is 00:05:11 with a fact-checking community. And you know, personally, when it comes to this topic, I feel somewhat defeated when it comes to misinformation on social media. I also am a bit torn to a lesser extent on some things. I mean, just think about like when you've seen the biggest pushers of misinformation, like they wear those like you putting resources

Starting point is 00:05:26 underneath their video or their tweet as a badge of honor. And then if a platform removes that content, it essentially turns into this Barbara Streisand effect where then it's just uploaded to another place. It turns into this big promotional event to go, hey, this is what they don't want you to see. Then in what feels like 99 out of 100 cases, they allow those bad actors

Starting point is 00:05:42 to then still continue using their platform. So those bad actors get to treat these videos, get to treat these moments as promotional events, whether to push to content off platform or usually to paid subscriptions or donations. But also, and this is where I get torn, I don't wanna call for YouTube to remove more content, suppress more content,

Starting point is 00:06:00 because they already do that on a lot of content that shouldn't. For example, while I was out on vacation, a YouTuber by the name of Mama Max put out a video called YouTube Pick a Side. Personally, I found that he had a lot of really important and I think very on the point critiques of YouTube. The fact that YouTube suppresses and at times removes content they deem as controversial,

Starting point is 00:06:16 which inadvertently protects the worst of society. How can we talk about and expose horrible people doing horrible things to, at times, the people that need to be most protected in this world, when you're not going to allow us to have a voice. And that is actually a point that creators like Charlie White, a.k.a. Moist Critical, had when responding to Mama Max's video, with him saying things like... For a lot of people, they feel like YouTube just prefers to bury this kind of information, instead of trying to help the people that are affected by the bad actors that get investigated.

Starting point is 00:06:44 YouTube instead just punishes the people for investigating it. Clearly a pretty dog solution because if the content's getting taken down, less people know about it, which means more victims. Also, a little inside baseball, you know how sometimes I upload morning videos in addition to the PDS on this channel? I do that because I genuinely don't believe that YouTube is going to make the situation better or easier, and I don't want those stories that I still want to get out there to tank my show. And it also troubles me the number of times I've come across

Starting point is 00:07:07 a creator that I know talking about a bad actor and they feature the video and somehow their video gets removed, but the original post stays up. So the batting record there doesn't make me feel great about where their batting record would be if they imposed even harsher restrictions. And I just sometimes look at that content. I'm like, YouTube, make it make sense.

Starting point is 00:07:23 Which is why my final point on this story is I don't think that we should remove videos I think we should remove the internet. We tried y'all it didn't work I don't know what I'm gonna do with the ten hours a day that I'm plugged into the matrix But you know whatever the alternative is probably better at this point. I'll take the pay cut I'll take the hit on the bank account But until then I'd like to take a second to thank the sponsor of today's show Keeps did you know that two out of three guys will experience some form of male pattern baldness by the time that they're 35? Maybe you have that friend or that family member that's dealing with hair loss right now,

Starting point is 00:07:50 and you don't want to just wait around for that to happen to you, and hey, now is the time to do something about it. Keeps helps you stop hair loss before it's too late with their scientific and affordable approach to treatments that are up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss. And Keeps offers generic versions of the only two FDA approved hair loss products that are out there. So some of you may have actually already tried them before, but probably never at this price.

Starting point is 00:08:09 And you can get these products delivered directly to your door, meaning no more going in person to the doctor's office for your prescriptions, if you need both valuable time and money. So if you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss, go to Keebs.com slash DeFranco, or just click that link in the description down below to receive 50% off your first order.

Starting point is 00:08:23 And then while it is a new year, we got some of the same shit in the news, like the situation with YouTuber Ethan Klein and Triller co-founder Ryan Kavanaugh. Right, where we left things last year, we talked about Ryan filing a defamation suit against Ethan, arguing that Ethan was causing constant harm to his reputation, writing in an essay that Ethan, quote, has posted video after video attacking and slandering me personally. With this also notably coming after Triller had filed a lawsuit against Ethan and H3 Productions

Starting point is 00:08:46 over alleged copyright infringement. With that, you had Ethan shooting back at all of these lawsuits, including the defamation suit. And saying then, while he has referenced negative information while talking about Ryan, he is quote, not creating any of these claims, but merely reading what has already been published by well-respected news sources.

Starting point is 00:08:59 And arguing that it's not defamation if he's citing information that has already been published. But we also have an update to this story thanks to this morning. With Ethan Klein posting a video claiming that Ryan has now filed a fourth lawsuit against him. And I'll link to it down below, but the case in question here involves a website

Starting point is 00:09:13 that Ethan made called Does Ryan Kavanaugh Look Like Harvey Weinstein? With the website having compare and contrast images of Ryan and Harvey's faces. Additionally, it includes photos of them together as well as a timeline laying out, quote, "'Ryan Kavanaugh's terrible record.'" And with this, in the defamation essay that Ryan wrote,

Starting point is 00:09:27 he said that the creation of this site has resulted, quote, "'to further false articles and sites to be published and directed traffic to these false articles and sites.'" Adding, he has sent paid traffic to the site to push it to page one of Google search results for my name. He has encouraged people on Reddit, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and elsewhere to click on this site, upvote comments, and engage to keep pushing it higher

Starting point is 00:09:43 in my search results. With Ethan also claiming here that Ryan is now trying to get that website removed, upvote comments and engage, keep pushing it higher in my search results. With Ethan also claiming here that Ryan is now trying to get that website removed, sharing a link at one point saying, Ryan Kavanaugh files a cyber squatting case against YouTuber. That's right. Ryan Kavanaugh filed a UDRP to try to take down the website.

Starting point is 00:10:04 With a website that Ethan shared explaining a UDRP is a uniform domain name dispute resolution policy with Ethan saying that he thinks that Ryan was hoping that he just wouldn't respond resulting in a default judgment. So yeah, this dispute expectedly is now bled into 2022. It continues to grow and who knows where this is gonna end. That said, I do have to kind of wonder

Starting point is 00:10:21 with how much we've actually talked about Ethan Klein over the years, if we're looking at amounts of time, which would be longer, the amount of time that extends while H3 is being sued or the times where he's not? I've never seen a YouTuber have to deal with this amount of litigation.

Starting point is 00:10:35 And then let's talk about Dr. Fauci speaking at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions yesterday. If you were online, you saw it got very heated, even leading to a point where Fauci called a Republican Senator a moron. But before we get to that specific moment, let's start with Rand Paul and Fauci having this back and forth. You keep coming back to personal attacks on me that have absolutely no relevance to reality. Do you think anybody has had more influence over a response to this than you have? I have life threats upon my life, harassment of my family and my children with obscene phone calls because people are lying about me.

Starting point is 00:11:14 Why would Senator want to do this? So go to Rand Paul website and you see fire Dr. Fauci with a little box that says contribute here, you can do $5, $10, $20, $100. So you are making a catastrophic epidemic for your political gain. So the only thing- You have politically attacked your colleagues and in a politically reprehensible way- Notably, this is by no means the first time that Dr. Fauci has said directly to Senator Rand Paul's face that Paul is spreading totally inaccurate baseless claims that are making the pandemic worse.

Starting point is 00:11:51 But it was a key point for Fauci to directly point to how Rand Paul and others like him are trying to monetize and fundraise off of the villainization of Fauci. And also, if you're wondering what even led to all of that, as Fauci explained yesterday. Senator, we are here at a committee to look at a virus now that has killed almost 900,000 people. And the purpose of the committee was to try and get things out, how we can help to get the American public. The last time

Starting point is 00:12:19 we had a committee or the time before, he was accusing me of being responsible for the death of four to five million people, which is really irresponsible. And I say, why is he doing that? It distracts from what we're all trying to do here today, is get our arms around the epidemic and the pandemic that we're dealing with, not something imaginary. So you have all of that, and then you had this other heated exchange with Republican Roger Marshall. With Marshall asking Fauci a totally unrelated question about his personal finances, which are actually already public knowledge, and asking Fauci if he would file a financial disclosure, which if you even took a second to look at this, he already has. But still,

Starting point is 00:12:56 despite Fauci explaining that, we saw Marshall saying- Big tech giants are doing an incredible job of keeping it from being public. We'll continue to look for it. Where would we find it? All you have to do is ask for it. You're so misinformed. It's extraordinary. That exchange finally devolving into this. You are totally incorrect. We look forward to reviewing it. Senator Marshall, Dr. Fauci has answered you. It is public information and he's happy to give it to you if you were to ask. Senator Moran.

Starting point is 00:13:27 What a moron. Jesus Christ. But ultimately, that is where that story in today's show ends. I love your faces, and I'll see you tomorrow.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 1.12 Pick A Side Youtube, Cr1TiKaL, Ethan Klein, Dr. Fauci, Rand Paul, Rule 21, & More in Today's News

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