The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 12.13 Youtube Rewind's Historic Fallout & Response, Taylor Swift Privacy Controversy, & More

Episode Date: December 13, 2018

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

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you've had a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're gonna talk about today is we had two bits of news around YouTube. The first most likely only matters to creators. First up we had YouTube announcing that people will be going down in the number of subscribers they have. They say this is because they are removing what they're calling spam subscriptions. Writing in a blog post, We regularly verify the legitimacy of accounts and actions on your YouTube channel. And adding, we've recently identified and fixed an issue that caused some spam not to be removed.

Today slash tomorrow, we'll be taking action and removing subscribers that were in fact spammed from our systems. And I'll include a link down below to the post there. But the main thing here, I just wanted to spread the word so people weren't freaking out and going like, what did I do? I didn't even think that video was so controversial.

But that said, the second bit of YouTube news is international news because it's history. YouTube Rewind 2018 is now the most disliked YouTube video in history. With over 10 million dislikes dethroning the previous most disliked video, which was Justin Bieber's Baby. Although I do think it needs to be pointed out

there is a big difference between the two videos. One, it took Bieber's video a much longer time to get that number of dislikes. And two, his video also has 10 million likes and actually is more liked than Disliked whereas YouTube rewind has 2.1 million likes to over 10 million dislikes personally I'm left wondering how is inner YouTube reacting to all of this because as far as I've seen a lot of the creators that were in it have kind of just been Joking about how bad it's been received and they've been rolling with the punches Casey Neistat for example

I believe like 70% of his response is on Twitter to people over the past few days has been just K-pop. K-POP! And Marques Brownlee, MKBHD, he posted, We made history! So I think the community and audience at large realizes that it's not any of these one creators that created this piece, that they were just brought in there, they were, I mean, a lot of people kind of know the story. A lot of creators are invited, you're there for a long time, they use you like that, which was also one of the big complaints from a number of people that were featured in YouTube Rewind 2017. But the reason I wonder

how YouTube is receiving all of this is because of something that MKBHD hit on, I think, really, really well in his video. They obviously are a company that has to make money, and the way they do that is by pairing advertisers to content. So they started seeing YouTube Rewind as a place to showcase all the best stuff that happens on YouTube for advertisers. And so now fast forward to this era of brand safety and post-adpocalypse and all these things. It's become more important than ever for that relationship between YouTube and advertisers to remain strong and for them to show the best stuff on the platform to those advertisers. So YouTube Rewind turned into this like, hey, check out all these advertiser friendly things

for you to spend your money on, all these super clean creators and these late night show hosts and all these things that you want your ads next to. So YouTube Rewind in a way just turned into a giant ad for YouTube. That's the truth. And also a big note here, just so it doesn't seem like I'm misrepresenting him.

This was him seeing it from their point of view before going into all the problems that created. But the note that he hits on is incredibly important, that YouTube Rewind is seen by YouTube as a way to say, hey, brands, look at the things you can throw money at. And so it brings up the question, community reaction aside, is this still going to be effective for the brands that are out there? Are brands that are looking for safe places to put their advertising in and go, oh well this video got 10 million dislikes, that makes me change my mind. Or will they just go, no this is a single video,

this is a small moment in time, all of these other brand safe people, them separately, we're still really interested in this, we're gonna throw money at those things. My honest answer to that is I have no idea because depending on the brand or the agency you're dealing with you're dealing with Someone that either really gets it or a different kind of crazy I think a big part of this is how YouTube and a big thing to consider is that there are a lot of different people With different mindsets there how they see the community, right? Do they see this as a moment that they want to learn from that they want to incorporate more things or maybe like Marquez hits? Not include everything because that's when what you exclude

becomes even more apparent or do they look at this reaction that they don't like is essentially a bunch of kids in the back seat that won't stop screaming and personally I don't know because you have so many players over there and at the end of the day like Marquez said they are a company and so they're of the mindset of to keep everything moving and going they got to make a dollar that's why I've always said while I love YouTube I'll always be thankful for YouTube for giving me this platform and essentially my career I personally think of YouTube as a business partner and when I think of a relationship I don't have one with YouTube. I have one with the community

Like I don't expect YouTube to care about my feelings Although last I can update to the story it appears that YouTube is trying to kind of roll with the punches tweeting new record Oh wait And also saying thanks to the creators that took part in Rewind and the community that responded. We hear what you're saying, and we want to make next year better for all of you. Watch this space.

But with all of that said, I do wanna pass a question off to you, the community. What are your thoughts about this reaction we're seeing here and what do you think YouTube is going to do moving forward? Do you think they're just gonna scrap Rewind? Do you think they're gonna keep it going as is? Are they gonna try and modify? Right now it's seeming like more of the modifications,

but I mean, what modifications and tweaks will they make and will they be effective? And on that note, it's a question of what do you think they'll do and what do you want them to do? And then we had Taylor Swift in the news for a tech slash privacy reason. According to reports, Taylor Swift's security team

installed a kiosk that was scanning fans' faces without them knowing. Reportedly, they were using facial recognition technology to see if they could identify any of Taylor Swift's stalkers that may have gone to the venue. According to Rolling Stone, at least one of the places that it was deployed was at a kiosk that was playing rehearsal footage of Taylor Swift,

so people were looking at this thing, not realizing that they were being scanned. And with this, we've seen privacy advocates raise a red flag. A lot of questions have been posed. What happens to those photos and that data are there limitations to the data is it primarily? Security and we know for a fact that it's not going to be sold to someone that wants information on people right data about what? You do online is heavily monetized It's a topic and thought that keeps popping up if you're using a free service most likely you are the product but at the same time

A big part of this conversation isn't so much a legal one this This because as other experts have pointed out, what you're talking about is a private event where they wouldn't be required to inform people. And so if anything, it's more of a moral question, a question about the limitations, and a question about privacy and how much people care in general. And so with this story, I want to pass the question off to you. What do you think about this? Do you think this technology is very useful? It should be implemented, you're completely fine with it? Or no, do you think that this is bad outright? It's a slippery slope and obviously it's not just a pure black-and-white issue There are small modifiers like are you okay with it as long as they make people more aware that this is happening or no They should be required to do that because they're trying to find people that might be there to harm people like Taylor Swift

So I'd love to know your thoughts on this one And also if you will let me know where you are from because I know that based on region the opinions on this really vary. Then let's talk about California taxes because apparently people in California not paying enough. At least it seems to be the opinion of California's Public Utilities Commission otherwise known as the CPUC. They are reportedly considering a plan that would tax text messages. And this they say would be in order to fund programs that would bring connectivity to underserved residents. And what it would aim to do is expand the current surcharge on phone services to text messages. And this they say would be an order to fund programs that would bring connectivity to underserved residents. And what it would aim to do is expand the current surcharge on phone services to text messages. Although the exact structure right now

is likely to vary between carriers, so we don't know exactly what this would look like. And right now it's believed that this would increase funding by around $44.5 million a year. But the money would reportedly go to things like 911 services, subsidized phone service for low-income residents, and equipment for deaf and hard-of-hearing users.

So I guess if we're against this tax, we hate deaf people and the police. That's just great. But as far as why this is happening now, this is coming after the CPUC published a report last month saying that tech should be eligible for taxes. And that report argues that a tech surcharge is necessary due to a lack of funding for public purpose programs. And for those unfamiliar, these programs were actually set up back in the 90s by state and federal governments, which charged all phone users a surcharge that went to programs for low earners. And those charges are already included in every phone bill, but because people aren't making phone calls as much anymore, revenue has fallen. And for my very young listeners out there, if you're unfamiliar, a phone call is essentially like an interactive audio podcast, but even less necessary.

But main point, revenues have fallen and at the same time, the budget has reportedly grown by 50% and the report says the surcharge rate has had to rise to keep up with the funding, but the report says that this is unsustainable. Additionally, there was a decrease in the surcharge rate back in 2017 when the prepaid mobile telephony services surcharge was put into place. And so this inclusion of MTS also means that some texts are already included in the surcharge

and is actually what prompted the commission to clarify whether text messages were included. And according to a spokesperson for the commission, the industry filed a petition asking the CPUC to clarify whether text messaging should be included in the bill amount that is subject to the existing surcharges. The pending draft proposal recommends that the CPUC include text messaging revenue as part of the total bill amount subject to surcharge. And to put it into just very basic terms, they're arguing that we need to change because the market is changing. Also, according to current reports, it's not just text messages moving forward. Reportedly, the CPUC is also looking to retroactively tax five years worth of text messages.

But that said, as you might imagine, there are people against this. In response to the report, the CTIA, which is a group that represents the U.S. wireless communications industry, they filed a comment saying that the CPUC was wrong in its assessment that text messages were telecommunication services. And to argue this, they pointed to a draft declaratory ruling from the FCC that included text as information services. Right, so similar to emails which are exempt from text.

Also claiming, you know, this isn't really simple, that this text would create an inequality between traditional carriers and messaging apps like WhatsApp and iMessage. And calling this move illogical, anti-competitive, and harmful to consumers. And some of the big news here is that onage, and calling this move illogical, anti-competitive, and harmful to consumers. And some of the big news here is that on Wednesday, the FCC actually adopted that draft officially,

making text an information service. And this resulted in Jamie Hastings, Senior Vice President of External and State Affairs of CTIA saying, "'We hope that the CPUC recognizes "'that taxing text messages is bad for consumers. "'Consumers exchanged 1.77 trillion messages in 2017, "'making text messages one of the most common

and effective means of communication for Americans. Taxing this service would burden those who rely on and use this service each and every day. Now, as of recording this video, the commission has not officially responded to the FCC's decision, but they still do have an opportunity to change the draft proposal before it is voted on, which is expected to be January 10th.

And as far as my reaction to this, I mean, one, as someone that lives and works in California, more taxes? Which I wouldn't be as angry about the taxes that we have here if driving to work didn't feel like I was on a fucking wooden roller coaster. But also, two, I think it's just an eventuality that they're gonna have to find a different place to get money. If you're just taxing old-school text messages and people are aware of this change, people are just going to migrate to services like WhatsApp.

The market, thanks to in general technology, but also younger people having their own preferences and being very savvy, it might not be what you're projecting. But with that said, that's the story, my personal opinion, and I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts around this change? Do you think it's understandable? You know what? The market's changed. We have to fund these programs more. Or no, do you agree with some of the other assessments that it is anti-competitive, that it will just hurt the consumer, that it doesn't do what it needs to do? And then we also had more or no, do you agree with some of the other assessments that it is anti-competitive, that it will just hurt the consumer, that it doesn't do what it needs to do.

And then we also had more tax news, although this was not related to just text messages, I guess it would be closer to sex or not really harassment. And what we're talking about here is there's been this push for reforming the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, which picked up steam in the wake of the Me Too movement, especially after several lawmakers were accused of sexual harassment.

And around that same time, it was also especially after several lawmakers were accused of sexual harassment. Around that same time, it was also revealed that several lawmakers had used taxpayer funds to pay settlements to their accusers. People like Representative Patrick Meehan from Pennsylvania and Blake Farenthold from Texas. Also under the current law, you had things like Capitol Hill staffers who claimed that they were harassed

or discriminated against have to undergo counseling, mandatory arbitration, and a 30-day cooling off period before going to court. And so what we saw this year is the House and Senate both passing bills to improve the policy, but these bills were actually pretty different. And before going into what we're talking about today, I wanted to talk about the differences

because it's pretty interesting. For example, some of the differences, the Senate bill would have let lawmakers still use taxpayer funds for their settlements and legal fees, whereas the House bill required people to pay out of pocket. Also, the House bill wanted to address both harassment and discrimination settlements,

but the Senate version only wanted to deal with harassment. Also, the Senate bill would not have provided legal representation to all accusers, whereas the House bill did. And the Senate bill was also criticized for how it narrowly defined sexual harassment as severe or pervasive and required that such harassment be unwanted. But, main point, after nearly seven months of back-and-forth, Congress finally came to an agreement yesterday. And here are some of the main points and changes. Members of Congress will be personally liable for awards and settlements stemming from harassment and related retaliation they personally commit, even if a member leaves office. Mandatory counseling, mediation, and cooling off periods

for accusers would be eliminated. The bill also includes a provision that would require a review by the House or Senate Ethics Committee on any settlement that is made, as well as an annual report on settlements involving members. Additionally, these protections will extend to unpaid staff, including interns and fellows.

It also provides opportunities for accusers to work remotely or request paid leave without fear of retribution. And it says that a staff survey would be conducted each Congress about workplace culture. Also, there are some differences for Senate and House staffers. As far as legal representation for accusers, Senate staffers who file complaints will have access

to a confidential advocate who must be an attorney, but cannot provide legal representation. But House staffers will have access to full legal representation. Also, interestingly, the bill leaves out some provisions sought out by Republicans and Democrats in the House, including one that would hold members personally liable for discrimination in their offices, meaning that for now, taxpayers would still foot the bill for any discrimination settlements. But also on that note, House lawmakers say they plan to take up the issue and others in next Congress, and overall, lawmakers on both parties were pleased with

This compromise now with all of that said this is not technically a law yet But the bill is expected to reach the president's desk before the end of the year So it's an interesting move. I don't know really what question to attach to this story I don't think there's a lot of support behind do you think taxpayer money should go to settlements or regarding sexual harassment? So maybe a better question is how do you feel about the the discrimination exemption? And also, of course, I'm interested in your thoughts in general on this. And that's where I'm going to end today's show.

And remember, if you liked this video, you like the now seven news videos you've been getting each week, support the show, hit that like button. Also, if you're new here, you want more in the future, hit that subscribe button. Also ring that bell for notifications. Also, if you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show

or this morning's deep diving, click or tap right there to watch those. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. or this morning's deep diving. Click or tap right there to watch those. 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.