The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.20 Shane Dawson Billie Eilish Toxicity, Is Privacy Dead, & Warren's War On Mike Bloomberg

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you've had a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, otherwise we'll punch you in the throat and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're going to talk about today covers the topic of internet toxicity. And it's really against my best interest to say this because if you strip away the relationship, all the niceties, ultimately your time and your attention that through YouTube and other social media is turned into fuel for my career and or dollars. Really, I think we live in a time where we would all benefit

Starting point is 00:00:28 from pulling back from social media. And I mean that for everyone, whether you're a consumer, an everyday user, or even a big creator. If you can, sorry, apparently I'm giving you homework. After today's video, try and carve out 10, 15 minutes and assess how much you're consuming online and also how that's affecting you mentally.

Starting point is 00:00:44 I think about things like how stressed is it all and specific things making me, what's making me so sad, what's making me very aggressive, right? And then figure out the pros and cons of that, right? I mean, obviously the news can make us stressed out and it can make us sad, but if we limit the amount of time or we dedicate certain blocks

Starting point is 00:01:00 rather than letting it control our entire existence, which is hard because I mean, you look at these apps, they are designed to be addictive. And this is something that was in my head because in the past 24 hours, I've seen two notable people having notable problems with social media. For example, one Billie Eilish,

Starting point is 00:01:12 one of the most on fire artists right now, recently in an interview she said, I stopped reading comments fully. Because? Because it was ruining my life. What was it? Once again, just the internet is a bunch of trolls, you know?

Starting point is 00:01:23 And it's like, the problem is a lot of it's really funny I think that's the issue. That's why nobody really stops because it's funny largely. It's a lack of accountability I think even if it's your own face and your profile picture and it's your own name It's still everybody's much braver behind a cell phone screen. They they would be if they walk down the street It's like it's worse. It's like way worse than it's ever been right now I essentially saying it's worse than it's ever been comments ruining our life. We all saw YouTube's own massive success Shane Dawson Also sharing a moment tweeting. Hey Shane. Why don't you post more? Why don't you upload more? Well this you would think after 13 years on YouTube comments wouldn't get to me

Starting point is 00:01:55 But damn, they still feel like the very first time sharing a screenshot of a comment reading I love Shane But it's a damn shame to watch him putting all this weight back on while everyone around him laughs and enables it You know in following that there was a massive wave of support. And it really made me think of a number of things because one, this is not a necessarily unique situation. Pretty much anyone that is thrust in the limelight, they get this. But also understand I'm not saying that makes everything okay in any way. Also too, as far as why this still happens and if anything is more prevalent than ever, I think it's actually related to something Phineas said in that interview.

Starting point is 00:02:24 And I even think like just taking how I felt when I was younger, maybe. Yeah think it's actually related to something Phineas said in that interview. And I even think like, just taking how I felt when I was younger maybe, it's like when you feel that you have no public voice, and somebody does have a public voice, it seems so immeasurable in the equality scale of whose voice is louder, and you feel like your voice is very quiet, even though on platforms like Twitter and Instagram,

Starting point is 00:02:42 it can reach them directly. So I think you might see someone who's like a famous celebrity and you might think, nothing I, you know, sticks and stones, nothing I can say is gonna actually be potent to them. But it all is, it's all very equal online. And I'll say, as someone that's been on both sides of those interactions over the years,

Starting point is 00:03:02 I definitely find that to be accurate. Also three, I think it's important to echo a statement that Stephen Fry made today, responding to a video clip on Twitter of him talking about online interactions like this, and he said, I think another point is to imagine that the person you're tweeting about slash to might just be at the end of their tether at that moment. Your snide post, even if you didn't mean to be cruel, could be the thing that tips them into real misery. Worth considering that. Well, I think it's important to get that statement, that thought further out to more. I will add four, one of the most freeing things in the world is realizing you cannot control

Starting point is 00:03:28 other people's actions. You can only control how you react to others. And since I'm a cynic at heart and I do not see a future where we all hold hands and saying, kumbaya, I think it ultimately comes back to us making the choice to pull back from technology and social media when we realize that it's getting to a bad place. Because really, once the spotlight is on you,

Starting point is 00:03:44 and this is a guarantee, if it doesn't happen initially, just give it time. People on social media will publicly validate all of the secret worst thoughts you've ever had about yourself. And that is really only the jumping off point. That's not even considering the harassment, the lies, the, you know, you get the idea.

Starting point is 00:03:58 Yeah, that's the stories from my thoughts on it. I've been thinking about this. And actually on that note, I'd love to pass a question off to you. What are your thoughts about this whole situation? Because sure, the story here is about Billie Eilish and Shane Dawson and to a microscopic comparatively degree, me, but what's your relationship these days

Starting point is 00:04:15 with social media? And then let's talk about a story about something that almost happened, but didn't happen, but it is likely, it's even more and more likely like a taste of our future to come. So this story is about facial recognition, starting on college more and more likely, like a taste of our future to come. So this story is about facial recognition, starting on college campuses and more specifically today, the University of California, Los Angeles.

Starting point is 00:04:30 And the reason for that is they just dropped their plans to use the technology. Now, for those that don't know, facial recognition technology creates a kind of template from a facial image captured via security camera or another device. And then it matches that template to preexisting images found in places like identification records

Starting point is 00:04:43 or even social media. And UCLA had been having conversations about potentially using facial recognition in security systems on its campus for around a year now. But concerns from students and activist groups ultimately swayed the school into not using them. Many students spoke out and were vocal about their fears that it could cause problems for student privacy

Starting point is 00:04:57 and racial profiling. With an editorial in UCLA's paper, The Daily Bruin saying, "'Facial recognition technology would present "'a major breach of students' privacy "'and make students feel unsafe on a campus they are supposed to call home. It is one thing to monitor campus activity with security cameras,

Starting point is 00:05:10 but it's another entirely to automatically identify individuals and track their every move on campus. Also noting that these kinds of systems are often inaccurate, especially when recognizing women and people of color. And actually there appears to be research to support this. According to a study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology,

Starting point is 00:05:24 in terms of one-to-one matching, there are higher rates of false positives for Asian and African American faces in comparison to white faces, with it specifically being noticed for African American females. We also saw Fight for the Future, which is an organization that says it works

Starting point is 00:05:35 for fighting for rights and freedoms in the digital age, doing its own tests. For their tests, they use faces found in UCLA's records. According to a post on their findings, they say they used Rekognition, a software made available by Amazon, then scanning publicly available photos of UCLA athletes and faculty

Starting point is 00:05:48 and compared them to a mugshot database. And of the 400 faces in total, they said that 58 were falsely matched. And they noted that the vast majority of incorrect matches were of people of color. In many cases, the software matched two individuals who had almost nothing in common beyond their race and claimed they were the same person with 100% confidence.

Starting point is 00:06:05 But ultimately, like I mentioned at the top, UCLA backed down, with Michael Beck, the administrative vice chancellor of the school, giving a statement, saying, "'We have determined that the potential benefits "'are limited and are vastly outweighed "'by the concerns of the campus community.'" But with all of that said, it's important to note

Starting point is 00:06:16 that's not the end of the story. First off, you have other schools. And in fact, Fight for the Future has been specifically keeping a scorecard of schools that have stated their intentions on using facial recognition. While you do have big schools like Harvard, MIT, Michigan State, and NYU saying they do not intend

Starting point is 00:06:29 on using it, you do have schools like Ohio State, Princeton, and the University of Georgia stating that they might. Also outside of colleges, other localities have already been working on fighting against facial recognition technology. Remember back in May, San Francisco became the first US city to ban facial recognition technology.

Starting point is 00:06:42 Somerville, a city in Boston, did the same shortly after, with Oakland and Berkeley following suit. But also, facial recognition technology is still used in a variety of places. According to reports, in states like Texas, Florida, and Illinois, the FBI uses it to scan through DMV databases. In many airports, Customs and Border Protection

Starting point is 00:06:56 uses it for screening passengers on international flights. In Maryland, police officers have also made use of this technology, and there are a lot of concerns about the use. I mean, just last week, Senators Jeff Merkley and Cory Booker proposed legislation that would ban federal use of facial recognition until proper regulations and rules have been established by Congress for it.

Starting point is 00:07:10 And that legislation noting that that technology has been used at places like protests and rallies. And saying, it is critical that facial recognition not be used to suppress First Amendment-related activities, violate privacy, or otherwise adversely impact individual civil rights and civil liberties. And so it's gonna be interesting to see what happens there, if any other places ban it,

Starting point is 00:07:26 or if legislation controlling it is actually enacted, because we are definitely at a moment where massive institutions, including the US government, are really starting to look at the bigger picture when it comes to facial recognition technology. And when I mention institutions, it's not just the government. The Daily recently covered this company called Clearview,

Starting point is 00:07:39 which matches photos found online from places like Facebook, Twitter, employment sites. And you can take someone, they talk about a criminal suspect, but really anyone and identify them within seconds. While some police officers have been able to use this software saying that it's helped them solve cases, there are also huge dangers.

Starting point is 00:07:53 Which is why companies like Google, which has had this ability to do this, have held back. Right, and we also need to talk about this in two avenues. Obviously we're talking about the government, law enforcement, but Clearview has even acknowledged that someday this tool may be available to the public. So imagine a possible world where you're anywhere, you're at a bar, you're minding your own business,

Starting point is 00:08:10 someone takes a photo of you. They can all of a sudden know everything about you, who you are, where you work, where you live. I also recommend, and I'll link to it down below, listening to that episode. There is some perceived sketchiness about that company, Clearview, as well. And I'll just leave it at that,

Starting point is 00:08:22 I'll let you go down that road. But I mean, since that episode aired, Facebook, Twitter, and Venmo have asked Clearview not to use their photos, but it's unclear if that company, Clearview as well. And I'll just leave it at that. I'll let you go down that road. But I mean, since that episode aired, Facebook, Twitter, and Venmo have asked Clearview not to use their photos, but it's unclear if that company will actually comply. Also the New Jersey police that were using that app have since stopped, but the rest of the country's law enforcement still can.

Starting point is 00:08:34 And so with all of that said, I will say it really feels like the end of privacy is inevitable. Unless there's some sort of regulation or something forcing people to pump the brakes, but really, I don't know. But with that said, I did wanna ask you, what are your thoughts regarding that?

Starting point is 00:08:47 Do you think that more people say they want privacy than actually care about it? Are you concerned about this technology? Or do you think that the benefit outweighs the privacy concern? And then let's take a moment to talk about all of those Democrats who want to become president of the United States.

Starting point is 00:09:01 There are still so many. But last night in Nevada, in the lead up to the caucus there, we saw the Democratic debate and wow, if you were someone and your problem with the Democratic debates is that they were boring, last night, it was not a problem. The pressure was on and that was something really reflected in last night's debate.

Starting point is 00:09:17 Also, it definitely did not hurt that in addition to Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg, you had the billionaire out of nowhere who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get to this point. Mike Bloomberg was also on stage. And one of the main things we learned last night

Starting point is 00:09:34 is if Michael Bloomberg ever wants to just quit his life, right, quit all the ways that he's made money and jump into a new career, he can definitely become a human punching bag. I feel like last night, a large number of people learned that one of their kinks is watching a billionaire just being completely dismantled on stage. And one of the main people that went after Bloomberg's throat was Elizabeth Warren. I feel like she, realizing she's not pulling that well, just went guns a-blazing on everyone, but then specifically Bloomberg. I'd like to talk about who we're running against, a billionaire who calls women fat broads and

Starting point is 00:10:06 horse-faced lesbians. And no, I'm not talking about Donald Trump. I'm talking about Mayor Bloomberg. Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women, and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk. Look, I'll support whoever the Democratic nominee is, but understand this. Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another. Later in the evening, Bloomberg was asked a question regarding the harassment of women, a hostile work environment. And there, after his answer, we saw Warren go after him again.

Starting point is 00:10:47 And I hope you heard what his defense was. I've been nice to some women. The mayor has to stand on his record. And what we need to know is exactly what's lurking out there. He has gotten some number of women, dozens, who knows, to sign non-disclosure agreements, both for sexual harassment and for gender discrimination in the workplace. So Mr. Mayor, are you willing to release all of those women from those non-disclosure agreements so we can hear their side of the story? So you've always been picky about your produce, but now you find yourself

Starting point is 00:11:25 checking every label to make sure it's Canadian. So be it. At Sobeys, we always pick guaranteed fresh Canadian produce first. Restrictions apply. See in-store or online for details. We have a very few non-disclosure agreements. How many is that? Let me finish. How many is that? None of them accuse me of doing anything other than maybe they didn't like the joke I told. There's agreements between two parties that wanted to keep it quiet, and that's up to them. They signed those agreements, and we'll live with it.

Starting point is 00:12:08 So wait, when you say it is up to—I just want to be clear. Some is how many? And when you say they signed them and they wanted them, if they wish now to speak out and tell their side of the story about what it is they allege. That's now OK with you. You're releasing them on television tonight. Senator, no. Is that right? Senator, the company and somebody else in this case, a man or a woman or could be more than that. They decided when they made an agreement, they wanted to keep it quiet for everybody's interest.

Starting point is 00:12:45 They signed the agreements and that's what we're going to live with. I'm sorry. No, the question is, are the women bound by being muzzled by you? And you could release them from that immediately because understand this is not just a question of the mayor's character. This is also a question about electability. We are not going to beat Donald Trump with a man who has who knows how many nondisclosure agreements and the drip, drip, drip of stories of women saying they have been harassed and discriminated against. Like I said, in addition to really going in on Bloomberg, Warren also took shots at everyone, especially on health care. But we need to get everybody's health care plan out here.

Starting point is 00:13:30 Mayor Buttigieg really has a slogan that was thought up by his consultants to paper over a thin version of a plan that would leave millions of people unable to afford their health care. It's not a plan, it's a PowerPoint. And Amy's plan is even less. It's like a post-it note, insert plan here. Bernie has started very much, has a good start, but instead of expanding and bringing in more people to help, instead, his campaign relentlessly attacks everyone who asks a question or tries to fill in details about how to actually make this work. And then his own advisors say, eh, probably won't happen anyway. Also, before moving forward, I do want to say, I'm talking about some of the highlights. I'm going to link to the whole thing down below. If there was one debate to watch full through,

Starting point is 00:14:27 or at least the first two thirds last night was definitely the one. You know, we saw others going after one another. Pete Buttigieg going after Bloomberg and Bernie for being too polarizing. Bernie went after Bloomberg for voting for George W. Bush and donating to Republican candidates, even as recently as this last cycle.

Starting point is 00:14:40 Also one of the most tense interactions of the night came from Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. To me, it felt like Amy Klobuchar was gonna put hands on Pete Buttigieg and not in the Joe Biden sort of way. The most notable of these moments came after one of the moderators asked Klobuchar about an interview she did last week. And there, she couldn't remember the name

Starting point is 00:14:55 of the president of Mexico and had trouble discussing his policies. And I will say, Klobuchar actually ended up doing something we don't often see from politicians these days. She owned up to that. Yes, that's right. And I said that I made an error. I think having a president that maybe is humble and is able to admit that here and there maybe wouldn't be a bad thing. But still, at that point, there was blood in the

Starting point is 00:15:15 water. And so we saw Pete Buttigieg take aim. But you're staking your candidacy on your Washington experience. You're on the committee that oversees border security. You're on the committee that does trade. You're literally in part of the committee that's overseeing these things. And we're not able to speak to literally the first thing about the politics of the country to ourself. Are you trying to say that I'm dumb or are you mocking me here, Pete? I'm saying that you shouldn't trivialize that knowledge. I made an error. People sometimes forget names. And that kind of went on for a while with Klobuchar talking about Pete's past failures.

Starting point is 00:15:48 We also saw Warren kind of trying to bail Klobuchar out here. Can I just defend Senator Klobuchar for a minute? This is not right. I understand that she forgot a name. It happens. It happens to everybody on this stage. Also on the note of Buttigieg,

Starting point is 00:16:03 in addition to going after Bernie, he also went after his supporters. And it's because of a flyer made by Nevada's Culinary Workers Union saying that Sanders would quote, "'End culinary healthcare' under his Medicare for All policy." And after that, the union accused Sanders supporters of viciously attacking the group, with some union leaders saying that they received

Starting point is 00:16:17 threatening phone calls, emails, and tweets, and that their personal information was docs. Regarding getting pressed over some of his supporters, we saw Bernie say, We have over 10.6 million people on Twitter and 99.9% of them are decent human beings, are working people, are people who believe in justice, compassion, and love. And if there are a few people who make ugly remarks, who attack trade union leaders, I disown those people. They are not part of our movement.

Starting point is 00:16:52 But following that, we saw the judge really lean into this. Senator, when you say that you disown these attacks and you didn't personally direct them, I believe you. But at a certain point, you got to ask yourself, why did this pattern arise? Why is it especially the case among your support? I don't think it is especially the case. That's just not true. I think you have to accept some responsibility and ask yourself what it is about your campaign in particular that seems to be motivating this behavior more than others. And the final note that I want to hit on from last night's debate was the conversation around plurality versus majority.

Starting point is 00:17:24 So right now, with all the candidates still in, right? If nothing changes, we're seeing forecasts like that from FiveThirtyEight.com saying one of the most likely outcomes going into the Democratic National Convention is that no one will have more than half of the delegates, right, they will not have a majority. The latest odds are showing there is that no one at 41%, Sanders 35, Biden 13, Bloomberg nine,

Starting point is 00:17:43 with Buttigieg and Warren with one or lower. But then all things remaining the same, we talk about plurality. Who 538 predicts will have the most delegates going into the convention? Right, the most, but still under half, so not a majority. And there they give Sanders a 54% chance, Biden 22, Bloomberg 18, Buttigieg three, and Warren two.

Starting point is 00:17:57 So right now, if they go into the convention and no one has a majority, that is what they call a contested convention. And so regarding this possibility, this question came up last night. Should the person with the most delegates at the end of this primary season be the nominee, even if they are short of a majority?

Starting point is 00:18:13 And all of the candidates except Bernie Sanders pretty much said there is a process in place, no. But we saw Bernie Sanders say this. Well, the process includes 500 superdelegates on the second ballot. So I think that the will of the people should put down. Yes. Thank you guys. Definitely here, Warren has taken the brunt of the criticism. This largely due back in 2016. She said, quote, I'm a superdelegate and I don't believe in superdelegates, which I will say, if you're a little lost at this point,

Starting point is 00:18:41 the way that I want to end this video and this story is to talk about what would happen if there was a contested convention and kind of explain the superdelegate part. First of all, it's important to understand that delegates are pledged to certain candidates based on how many votes that candidate gets in primaries and caucuses. Those delegates then show up to the convention

Starting point is 00:18:56 and vote for the candidate that they were pledged to on a ballot. But if no one gets a majority on that first ballot vote, it then goes to a second ballot vote, and there are two key differences that happen there. First of all, super delegates like DNC members and democratic members of Congress who were not allowed to vote on the first ballot can vote on the second one.

Starting point is 00:19:10 And then secondly, those pledged delegates, right? The ones that voted the first time, they would no longer be bound to their original candidate and could vote for whoever they like. Each candidate's delegates are chosen by that campaign. And so it's likely the campaigns will choose delegates who will be loyal to them. Right, so like a Bernie delegate would likely vote

Starting point is 00:19:24 for him again on the second ballot and not a Biden or someone else. But one thing that could happen there is that the candidates could essentially give each other delegates. So for example, if a Bernie almost got a majority, right? Let's say he's at 45%. If Warren got 10% of the delegates, she could then decide to give him her delegates, right?

Starting point is 00:19:37 Telling her delegates to vote for Bernie instead of her on the second ballot. Or, and maybe this is more likely, we could also see that happen with the more moderate candidates, right? You have Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Biden, right? There's been a rise in criticism of the moderates that there are too many of them, they're splitting the vote.

Starting point is 00:19:51 Right, so we see all of them or some of them essentially mega-zorting their delegates together. And all of that is happening while also you have to keep in mind that there are now several hundred new votes. Those superdelegates, especially in a race this split, have a lot of power. Yeah, ultimately that is where I'm going to end this one. Any and all thoughts you have regarding

Starting point is 00:20:09 that first and second vote, any and all thoughts you have regarding that debate, I'd love to hear them in the comments down below, but yeah, that is where we're going to end today's show. Of course, remember if you liked the video, hit that like button. If you're new here, subscribe, that way you don't miss these daily shows,

Starting point is 00:20:21 which actually on that note, if you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show, or you wanna check out the brand new podcast I did with Sean Evans, you can click or tap right there to watch either of those right now. 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 next time.

Starting point is 00:20:36 I hope you liked the video. Subscribe if you like it.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.20 Shane Dawson Billie Eilish Toxicity, Is Privacy Dead, & Warren's War On Mike Bloomberg

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