The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.4 Iowa Caucus MELTDOWN & RESULTS, Youtube's NEWEST Crackdown, Logan Paul, KSI, & 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. Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. The first thing we're going to talk about today is some YouTube, Google, internet-y, both entertainment and business news. And we'll start off here with the lighter stuff. First up, if the last week is any indication, YouTube slash celebrity boxing not going anywhere. The most recent one happened last Thursday.

Starting point is 00:00:22 It was Jake Paul versus a Nissan Gibbs. Ended up actually barely being a fight. It was a first round TKO, Jake Paul won. I personally have never been so disappointed to win money. But you know, you wager with your brain, not your heart. But probably the most notable thing regarding that less than three minute fight was after the fight it appeared

Starting point is 00:00:38 that they were setting up a KSI versus Jake Paul fight, which, hey, I hate myself for it, but I would actually pay to watch that fight. Also, for those of you that are like, you know what, YouTubers fighting each other, that, I hate myself for it, but I would actually pay to watch that fight. Also, for those of you that are like, you know what? YouTubers fighting each other, that's not weird enough for me. We're now seeing reports that Logan Paul

Starting point is 00:00:49 and Antonio Brown have agreed to fight. According to Fox Business, DAZN has confirmed that they are talking, but it's not finalized yet. But the back and forth between the two has increased, and once again, I hate myself for it, I would pay to watch that fight. But I will say, if that actually happens, almost no matter what happens,

Starting point is 00:01:04 it seems like a win for Logan Paul and a loss for Antonio Brown. I think about it, obviously, you know, money is money. When you look at these two, image, ego, likely plays a massive role in their life, right? And if you think about it, right? If Antonio Brown goes in there, he wins. Okay, he made some money, there was a weird circus,

Starting point is 00:01:19 but if he loses, one of the best wide receivers to ever play the game surrounded by controversy, allegations, self-inflicted wound after self-inflicted wound, gets knocked out or loses in front of millions of people to a guy that I'm not holding it against him, but a guy that still the general public, if you do not follow him or you're not part of the community

Starting point is 00:01:37 still think of him as the suicide forest guy. But lawyers are also expensive, so I imagine he's gotta pay bills. Although he's tweeted about the money and said that he would donate what he made. I don't know, connected to this, of course I'd love to know your thoughts on it. But then on the more serious side of YouTube, Google News,

Starting point is 00:01:50 we should talk about money and the election. Specifically, election related news and how YouTube will regulate political content on their platform. Right, so in a blog post, Leslie Miller, Google's Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, lays out a new plan. Right off the bat, Miller says YouTube will remove

Starting point is 00:02:03 election related content that violates its policies. Notably here, that includes banning content that is, quote, technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users beyond clips taken out of context and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm. For example, a video that makes a government official appear to be dead. Also, for example, that slowed down Nancy Pelosi video

Starting point is 00:02:19 that made it look like she was slurring her words. However, there is something that I want to hit on there. It's the out of context part. And that's because videos like that still play a big role in misleading content. I mean, just last month, there was an example where there was a video that was cut to make it look like former vice president Joe Biden

Starting point is 00:02:32 had made racist remarks at a campaign event. But according to YouTube spokesperson, Ivy Choi, a video like that, even though misleading, would be allowed to stay on YouTube. It's something people have been pointing out, people are concerned about. Also, YouTube says that it will remove content that misleads people about things

Starting point is 00:02:44 like voting dates and the census. Also content that advances false claims related to the technical eligibility requirements for current political candidates and sitting elected government officials to serve in office. So essentially talking about people like birthers. YouTube also saying that it will continue to terminate channels that impersonate another person

Starting point is 00:02:57 or channel as well as channels that artificially increase views, likes, and comments. With Miller also saying that all of this is done without regard to a video's political viewpoint. Also in the post, Miller talks about a goal to raise up authoritative election news. Right, basically saying here that major news outlets, let's say like CNN and Fox News,

Starting point is 00:03:12 will be more likely to show up in search results and also the Watch Next panel. Though it is important to point out that that part isn't actually new. YouTube actually talked about making this a commitment in a different blog post back in December. They've also actually been making changes in this area over the last couple of years,

Starting point is 00:03:24 and Miller says that because of those changes, consumption of content from authoritative news grew by 60% last year. And finally, Miller says YouTube will recognize and reward campaigns, candidates, and political creators. But also, it's important to understand that just because they say it doesn't mean that we shouldn't scrutinize.

Starting point is 00:03:37 I mean, as even the New York Times pointed out, YouTube is still likely to face questions about whether it applies all of these policies consistently. I think that is a very valid question and a noted criticism from many in the past. Also, even if we're to believe that they go in with the intent to treat everything equally, not every situation is equal

Starting point is 00:03:53 and you have to have some nuance. Or that same YouTube spokesperson said that if a deep fake video was created with malicious intent, then it would be taken down. But parody videos could remain up depending on their content and context. When you have 500 hours of video uploaded to your website every minute, maybe I'm a cynic here.

Starting point is 00:04:08 I think there's no way you have a 100% success rate. And I would argue probably nowhere near that. But also understand this as actually a true cynic. I think that there is no proper way to handle this. Yeah, ultimately, as far as this implementation, we're gonna have to wait and see. And then finally, the last bit of YouTube news is what? Demonetization problem, apparently.

Starting point is 00:04:27 Seems it's not an everyone problem because the news came out yesterday that YouTube raked in $15 billion in ad revenue in 2019. This a nice little jump from 2018 where they only pulled in a measly 11 billion. Right, and reportedly that's not even including money coming in from things like YouTube TV. And then let's talk about what the heck happened

Starting point is 00:04:44 and is happening in Iowa. On yesterday's show when I included Iowa caucus confusion in the title, I did not think it was gonna get this bad. So last night, people all over Iowa showed up to over 1600 precincts to cast their vote for the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Right, first big vote of the primary season.

Starting point is 00:05:00 It's widely watched, highly anticipated. It's also notably a pretty good indicator of how candidates will do in other primaries and caucuses. And so last night, tons of people glued to their TVs, glued to their phones, waiting for results that never came. And in fact, even as I was recording this entire show, never showed up until the very end, which we'll touch on in a few minutes,

Starting point is 00:05:18 but let's talk about how we got here. And so here's essentially what we've seen go down. Early on, we saw the Iowa Democratic Party or IDP tweeting out pictures of caucus goers saying voter turnout was high. But then almost three hours after the caucuses began, the IDP hadn't released any official results. And that's pretty unusual because usually what happens

Starting point is 00:05:35 is that the party starts reporting early returns. You know, as we mentioned yesterday, sometimes the caucus is smaller, sometimes it's bigger. There's less movement between the first round and second round. And so while people were waiting, wondering what the hell, IDP spokeswoman Mandy McClure said that the delays were due to quality checks.

Starting point is 00:05:49 And that's because the caucus chairs were reporting three different sets of results instead of just one final result for the first time. Right, and so right off the bat, we saw people questioning what quality control meant, with some speculating that it was rigged, including Trump's campaign manager. We also started seeing reports that caucus officials were having problems with a new app that they were supposed to use for reporting results.

Starting point is 00:06:06 And so then a little later, McClure issued another statement where she said that the party quote, found inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results. And adding, this is simply a reporting issue. The app did not go down and this is not a hack or an intrusion. Because this was going so long into the night,

Starting point is 00:06:19 there were no results, we started seeing candidates just give up and give their speeches. Which I will say was a weird thing to witness because since there were no results, technically no one really lost. You see people like Amy Klobuchar saying, "'Oh, we're punching above our weight class.'" Also notably, despite no official numbers being released,

Starting point is 00:06:35 Pete Buttigieg seemed to declare victory saying, quote, "'Because tonight, an improbable hope "'became an undeniable reality. "'We don't know all the results, "'but we know by the time it's all said and done, "'Iowa, you have shocked the nation. Because by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.

Starting point is 00:06:49 We will say that received a lot of backlash, which we'll dive into more in a minute. But then after that, we saw the Bernie Sanders campaign release their internal numbers, which they said represented nearly 40% of precincts reporting. And those numbers seem to tell a different story, showing Bernie in the lead with 29%,

Starting point is 00:07:03 followed by Buttigieg with 24%, tailed by Elizabeth Warren with 21%, and then Joe Biden with 12%. And following that, all hopes for seeing official results last night ended with IDP Chairman Troy Price saying that party officials were expected to report results later on Tuesday.

Starting point is 00:07:16 We then jumped to this morning where Price released another statement where again, he said that the systems were secure and that there was not a cybersecurity intrusion. Also saying that the systems were tested by independent cybersecurity consultants. And going on to say that as the results came in, it was clear that there was not a cybersecurity intrusion. Also saying that the systems were tested by independent cybersecurity consultants. And going on to say that as the results came in, it was clear that there were inconsistencies

Starting point is 00:07:29 with the report, which required them to investigate. And regarding the investigation, the party, quote, "'Determined with certainty that the underlying data "'collected via the app was sound,' and adding, while the app was recording data accurately, "'it was reporting out only partial data. "'We have determined that this was due to a coding issue "'in the reporting system.

Starting point is 00:07:44 "'This issue was identified and fixed. The application's reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data accurately. With Price then going on to say that because of the paper documentation as well, they've been able to verify that data on the app, which the app, let's talk about this thing kind of at the center of this shit show.

Starting point is 00:07:59 All right, the IDP says that the error was caused by a coding issue. And while most reports indicate that that's not wrong, it's also not the full story. According to reports, it is true that the main problem came when caucus chairs were successful in reporting results from the app. And that's because the election data

Starting point is 00:08:11 was reportedly transferred from the app into another system built by the same vendor. But then, according to reports, when party officials looked at the numbers, they found that the second system the data was sent to only gave them partial results, with that vendor allegedly discovering a coding error in that system, which they fixed.

Starting point is 00:08:24 But that's just part of the problem. The other part was human error. According to reports, the app was not properly tested at a statewide scale, and not all precinct chairs were taught how to use it before the election. Right, something that matters when statewide you have over 1,600 locations. And so reports came in last night

Starting point is 00:08:38 that officials had problems logging into the app or even just downloading it. This then created another problem for the party, because people started phoning in caucus results. Right, and so this clogged up the phone lines, making the process take even longer. And to make matters worse, this wasn't even the first time

Starting point is 00:08:50 that questions had been raised about this app. It wasn't even until January that the IDP announced that it was going to use the app. But notably, the party wouldn't say the name of the app or give details about it, which prevented the public or experts from looking into it more. Also, because of this secrecy,

Starting point is 00:09:03 cybersecurity experts were concerned that the app had not been properly evaluated and tested and was rolled out way too fast. And to that point, acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said this morning that the department's cyber agency offered to test the app, but Iowa declined. And even beyond that,

Starting point is 00:09:16 the chair of the Polk County Democratic Party told the Washington Post that local officials had known about the problems with the app since last Thursday. But when they requested state officials resolve the issue, the dedicated staffer was not able to fix it. And now because this whole thing happened, it's also now been confirmed that the app was developed

Starting point is 00:09:30 by an independent for-profit tech firm with the most unfortunate name ever, Shadow, which sounds like a secret organization in a Bond movie. Shadow, which was originally and less nefariously called GroundBase, was acquired by Acronym, a nonprofit digital firm, in 2019. And according to records, the IDP spent about $63,000 on services from Shadow in November and December

Starting point is 00:09:48 of last year. And very significantly, the same app was reportedly set to be used in the caucuses in Nevada on February 22nd. Although it's now being reported that Nevada is no longer planning on using this app after seeing Iowa. Shadow for its part responded to all of this in a statement on Twitter this afternoon, writing, "'We sincerely regret the delay in the reporting

Starting point is 00:10:03 "'of the results of last night's Iowa caucuses "'and the uncertainty it has caused to the candidates, "'their campaigns, and Democratic caucus goers.'" And also saying that the goal of the app was to ensure accuracy in the complex reporting process and that they will apply the lessons learned in the future. As for Acronym, the firm said in a statement last night that it did not provide technology to the IDP

Starting point is 00:10:19 or other Democratic Party organizations. So essentially kind of a not us response. Although you had many people pointing out a tweet that Akronen posted in January of 2019, where they announced they had bought the company Groundbase to form Shadow and wrote, "'We've acquired SMS tool Groundbase "'and are launching Shadow,

Starting point is 00:10:33 "'a company focused on building the technology "'infrastructure needed to enable Democrats "'to run better, more efficient campaigns.'" Also regarding Shadow, there's even more interesting information. And that's because Buttigieg's campaign said that they had worked with Shadow Inc. in the past. So to be clear here, I mean the company

Starting point is 00:10:47 that created the app, not the actual app itself. And in fact, in a statement, Buttigieg's campaign said they quote, "'Have contracted with this vendor in the past "'for text messaging services to help us contact voters. "'Totally unrelated to any apps they built for the party.'" It's also important to note that it wasn't just Buttigieg.

Starting point is 00:11:01 This actually seems like a pretty common company for Democratic candidates to contract. For example, the Biden and Gillibrand campaigns also use them. But in large part on social media, we saw a lot of this just landing just Buttigieg. This actually seems like a pretty common company for Democratic candidates to contract. For example, the Biden and Gillibrand campaigns also use them. But in large part on social media, we saw a lot of this just landing on Buttigieg, who we've also seen today defending his victory claim. On Morning Joe today, Buttigieg was pressed

Starting point is 00:11:13 about making those statements, even though the Democrats have not released anything. Well, we were looking at the internal numbers that we had and beginning to realize that something extraordinary had happened last night. And as far as what those external numbers are, Pete for America released a document describing them. They said the information comes from 75% of precincts

Starting point is 00:11:29 and they maintain that the Democrats' numbers should reflect this. But again, he didn't provide other candidate information to really compare it to. And at this point, we still didn't have the final tally. Though I will say, as we were finishing up today's show, the Iowa Democratic Party did release numbers. With those numbers saying regarding delegates,

Starting point is 00:11:43 Buttigieg got 26.9%, Sanders, 25.1%, Warren, 18.3%, and Biden, 15.6%. But also again, these are reportedly the numbers from 62% of the precincts that caucused on Monday, which I will say is very interesting because according to CNN, in the first vote, with 62% of the precincts in, Sanders had the popular vote by 3,422.

Starting point is 00:12:02 In the final round, had the popular vote by 1,190. But final round had the popular vote by 1,190. But still when it came to state delegates at this point, 26.9% to Buttigieg. And I will say it's gonna be so interesting to see what these final numbers are. And also to see if this hurts Buttigieg. I mean, this morning we saw Mayor Cheat trending on Twitter, kind of a play on his Mayor Pete name.

Starting point is 00:12:19 So with all of that said, I wanna come back to a point that I said yesterday before everything got way worse. I understand there are probably people out there that are like, yes, the election process should involve a lot of people kind of debating and trying to talk each other into joining their side in a school gymnasium. But my counter argument to that is, but what if we didn't?

Starting point is 00:12:37 And instead I would propose that during primaries or at least very specifically towards this primary where it seems very much like it's just the anti-Trump vote, you have four front runners, which is crazy. That you instead just use a rank choice voting system. I wanna vote for this person, but if it wasn't them, this person, and then if it wasn't them, this person.

Starting point is 00:12:53 And I also understand, right, with a caucus, it can be, you know, the history, the experience, the spectacle, but it's also not how people actually vote in generals and midterm elections. Remember back in 2016, the number of people who said they were gonna vote Trump and the number of people that actually voted were gonna vote Trump and the number of people

Starting point is 00:13:05 that actually voted for Trump? Or yeah, stick to a format that can literally be decided by a coin toss. No, I'm not joking. Multiple caucuses last night were reportedly decided by a coin toss. I don't know, last night made my brain hurt. With that said though, I'd love to know your thoughts

Starting point is 00:13:21 on what the heck happened in Iowa and everything else kind of in the fallout. Let me know in those comments down below. Also, given the timing of when today's show went up, the results, I'll include in the description down below as updates come in, what the vote appears to actually be. Also, who's ready for whatever the hell tonight's State of the Union's gonna be?

Starting point is 00:13:38 What interesting times we live in. And that is where I'm going to end today's show. Thank you as always for watching my little daily news show, whether it be a small part of a much bigger news diet or your one shot of poison a day, I appreciate you. Also, if you're not done, if you were looking for more to watch, maybe you missed the last show

Starting point is 00:13:52 or you wanna watch the newest Rogue Rocket video, 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, I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow. I hope you liked this video. Subscribe if you like it.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 2.4 Iowa Caucus MELTDOWN & RESULTS, Youtube's NEWEST Crackdown, Logan Paul, KSI, & More...

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