The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.4 Are Logan Paul & Other Celebs Scamming Fans With This? NFTs, Sofia Vergara, & More

Episode Date: March 4, 2021

Thanks to Bespoke Post for sponsoring this video. Get 20% off your first monthly box when you sign up at http://bspk.me/defranco and use promo code DEFRANCO20 at checkout! Watch Yesterday's Show: https://youtu.be/Xb22rh-y4d4 -- WATCH Full “A Convo With” Podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/ACW  LISTEN On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://LinksHole.com WATCH the ACW Clips channel!: https://youtube.com/ACWClips -- 00:00 - Vaccine Brand Hesitancy 00:42 - Sofia Vergara Wins Embryo Legal Battle 02:11 - Kings of Leon To Sell Their New Album As NFT 06:14 - Sponsor 07:09 - Arizona Law Might Bring Fortnite Back To Apple and Android 08:45 - South Carolina Adds Firing Squad To Death Penalty 10:49 - House Passes Voting Rights Bill -- ✩ SUPPORT THE SHOW ✩ ✭ BUY our GEAR, Support the Show!: http://ShopDeFranco.com ✭ Lemme Touch Your Hair: http://BeautifulBastard.com ✭ Paid Subscription: http://DeFrancoElite.com  ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩  Health Officials Urge Public to Trust Johnson & Johnson Shot: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-would-have-no-hesitancy-taking-johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-2021-2 L.A. Court Sides With Sofia Vergara: https://roguerocket.com/2021/03/04/court-sides-with-sofia-vergara/ Kings of Leon to Sell Album as NFT: https://roguerocket.com/2021/03/04/kings-of-leon-nft/ AZ Advances Bill That Could Restore Fortnight on Google and Apple App Stores: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/3/22309284/arizona-app-store-bill-2005-apple-30-percent-cut-bypass-legislation South Carolina Bill Would Expand Capital Punishment Options: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1366949709387075587?s=20 House Passes Voting Rights Bill: https://roguerocket.com/2021/03/04/house-elections-bill/ ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩  Netflix Launches “Fast Laughs,” a TikTok-Like Feed of Funny Clips: https://roguerocket.com/2021/03/04/netflix-launches-fast-laughs/ Death Toll in Myanmar Surpasses 50 People: https://roguerocket.com/2021/03/04/myanmar-death-toll-skyrockets/ ——————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg, Maxx Enright Produced by: Amanda Morones Art Director: Brian Borst  Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Cory Ray, Neena Pesqueda, Brian Espinoza Production Team: Zack Taylor ———————————— #DeFranco #SofiaVergara #LoganPaul Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You know, the more that I look around, the more I see these kind of misleading headlines about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. It feels like it's getting a really bad rap because yes, its effectiveness rate is like 74% compared to the 94 and 95% of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines but it's only one shot instead of the two for others and its rate of preventing serious illness

is like the others, which is almost 100%. So hey, if in addition to vaccine hesitancy, there is brand hesitancy and people do not want that J&J vaccine, I mean, it was in a different context, but you quote your mother, stick it in me now. Oh my God, I need it in me, please. I don't even care if I can't walk tomorrow,

that is how bad I need it. Welcome back to the show. The first thing that we're gonna talk about today is technically a celebrity story, but it's really just because they are celebrities and the real issue, it's so weird. So you have Sofia Vergara, of course, famed actress, fantastic roller of ours.

And the news that we're seeing today is that a Los Angeles court has ruled in her favor and against her ex-fiancee, Nick Lowe. And as far as what this lawsuit was about, her ex-fiancee was trying to use their embryos without her consent. So the way this story goes is that these two were together until 2014 and had undergone

in vitro fertilization within the year before their breakup. And Moab has been fighting for permission to use those embryos on his own via a surrogate with TMZ reporting that to do so, he tried to take custody of them through a trust and even named the embryos in a lawsuit. Also arguing in the Louisiana court

that the embryos should be recognized as people with rights, which that court did reject though. Reports at that time said he might try to appeal. And now, according to court documents obtained by People Magazine, an LA court has granted Vergara's request for a permanent injunction, preventing him from using the embryos without her explicit written permission.

Citing the fact that both of them, right, this former couple previously signed an agreement that both parties would have to consent to use the embryos. Though there Loeb unsuccessfully tried to argue that he was under duress when he signed that contract. With this news, Loeb reportedly issued a statement where, oh wow, he said the judge, quote, "'was clearly influenced by Hollywood,

"'which is a pattern I expose in my upcoming film.'" And I'm not gonna say the name because did you, did you just try to plug your movie during a statement about a lawsuit where you're trying to use Sofia Vergara's, what? Also saying essentially that what Sofia is doing here is intentionally killing babies. And then let's talk about NFTs.

I'm gonna start with a story, then I'm gonna kind of tell you what I think about them. So tomorrow, Kings of Leon will become one of the first bands in history to release an album as an NFT, AKA a non-fungible token. While NFTs have actually existed for a little while now, they've been popping up more and more in the news. Right, maybe you've seen some of the headlines

like Grime selling $6 million worth of NFTs as digital art. You also have creators like Logan Paul who first sold $5 million worth of NFTs last month before then raking in another $880,000 from NFT sales. With this news, understandably, you have many people confused. And when you're confused, you have people asking, okay, are these creators,

including Logan Paul, scamming their fans? What is an NFT? What are these things? I mean, for example, if you look at a sales page for Logan Paul, some of his NFTs are public clips of Pokemon card pulls, with some of them selling for up to $20,000 with their descriptions reading,

"'Total mint of three NFTs for this moment. "'This product represents digital ownership "'of the NFT video of this moment only. "'This does not represent ownership in a card, "'a physical asset, or of the YouTube video.'" Right, so ownership of the NFT video of this moment only. This does not represent ownership in a card, a physical asset or of the YouTube video." Right, so ownership of the moment, but not actually like the copyright of the video. And so if you're still like,

okay, but what the hell is an NFT? But before going into what I think they can be, you have places like The Verge trying to explain it by saying, non-fungible more or less means that something's unique and can't be replaced with something else. For example, a Bitcoin is fungible. Trade one for another Bitcoin

and you'll have exactly the same thing. However, a minted moment within a clip, for example, is non-fungible because you can't trade it for the exact same moment. And going on to say, NFTs can really be anything digital, such as drawings, music, your brain downloaded and turned into an AI. But a lot of the current excitement is around

using the tech to sell digital art, right? And so in that sense, a lot of people see NFTs as sort of a collector's item. But where things get a lot more controversial and where a lot of the skepticism comes from is the fact that with digital art, right? And so in that sense, a lot of people see NFTs as sort of a collector's item. But where things get a lot more controversial and where a lot of the skepticism comes from is the fact that with digital files, pretty much anyone can find a way to access or view them. Right, for example, the Logan Paul NFTs,

whether it be the little Pokemon card, people can see that image or the video, you can actually find that video on YouTube. And the way that we're seeing NFT believers kind of trying to frame the situation is in terms of, let's say a physical art collection, where they have the argument of anyone can buy a Monet print, but only one person can own the original.

And so looping back around to Kings of Leon, releasing their new album as an NFT, it's being seen as a collector's item, right? It'll be available for two weeks, but no more NFTs of the album will ever be made. However, at the same time, this album will also be released tomorrow in places like Spotify and Apple Music.

Or because once again, the final product, the actual music itself is not exclusive, but the NFT is. Which I know that sentence makes sense to some and just seems completely ridiculous to others. Which is why I will say I'm somewhat conflicted. As far as NFTs in the art space, it is 100% having a moment and to see artists actually making money directly,

I will always be happy. I don't know if there is a genuine future in it, but it makes me happy to see artists getting paid. Though I will say every day we see another story, like for example, the famous auction house Christie's, they're selling an NFT, a digital piece of artwork that was exclusively minted for them. Like the current bid is at $3.5 million

with about a week left, right? Every day we see another story like that, it adds to the legitimacy, the potential future for this to be a continued avenue for artists. But, and I'll preface this as I'm not a financial advisor, or any blah, blah, blah, blah stipulations. Use your own mind. Where I do see NFTs being very interesting

is if they can have a utility. Let's say for example, you go to a live event, you had to pay for a ticket, or you're a part of a membership service that I launched in the next few months and you hit your year milestone. By going to that place or being a part of that membership for a certain amount of time, you get an NFT.

They're limited, they're exclusive. Maybe having that or a certain number of NFTs for a certain creator or a certain brand allow you access certain deals, things like that. And because you have an NFT, instead of just having the experience of going to a place or having that ticket and that memory or really having enjoyed that year,

the consumer and in these cases, the people that have the NFTs have something that they can then resell because yeah, maybe someone's trying to collect all the Philip DeFranco or all the Logan Paul NFTs. Maybe it gets them access to things. Maybe it allows them to kind of cut the line because they got into this thing late.

They can buy the year membership NFT from someone that is no longer interested. And obviously that's just one example, but that's where I personally get excited about the opportunity here down the road. Yeah, hopefully that helped a little bit if you've had the question of what the hell is NF what? In these past few weeks, I don't know, hopefully I did that.

Then let's talk about Arizona because hot off the heels of deciding the future of America in this last general election, it appears that Arizona may be bringing to an end the only situation more important than the last general election, and that is Arizona may be bringing to an end the only situation more important than the last general election, and that is Fortnite versus Google versus Apple. And this because the Arizona House of Representatives

has passed a bill that could ultimately end up restoring Fortnite on Apple and Google's app stores. Right, and if you don't remember, back in August of last year, both companies booted Fortnite from their app stores after the game's developer, Epic Games, snuck in an update that allowed users to directly pay Epic for in-app purchases,

which notably was a massive change from the officially sanctioned system that requires app developers to use Apple and Google's payment processing services. A system, that key thing here, charges developers up to 30% in commissions, something that Epic and others have criticized as monopolistic.

But now what we're seeing in Arizona is that if they pass this legislation, it would prevent app store operators from forcing developers to use a preferred payment system. However, that's only if the developers are based in the state and are able to maintain more than 1 million downloads a year, which does not currently include Epic Games because they're not based in Arizona. Though, that said, the bill also covers users in Arizona from having to pay for apps through exclusive payment systems. So it's not immediately clear if that means developers

outside Arizona can avoid paying commission fees when they sell something to a state resident. But even if this bill can't restore Fortnite on the app stores by itself, it could pave the way for legislation in more and more states. And actually, for example, similar bills have also been proposed in Georgia, Hawaii, and Minnesota.

Or I guess technically Epic Games could move their offices to Arizona, which I mean, would kind of be the ultimate fuck you. Like I'm gonna move my entire business. Though, if you're able to get back in the app stores and not have to give 30%, I mean, that's a lot of V-Bucks. The move probably instantly pays for itself. But also, Arizona isn't the only state right now

with very interesting and important legislation. In a completely different tier, we have South Carolina poised to approve a bill that would restart executions in the state and add the firing squad as an option for the death penalty. I know, we kind of just went from zero to 100 V bucks to death. So for some context here,

South Carolina has not actually executed death row inmates for nearly a decade, but not because they don't want to. The state, which is one of the 28 where the death penalty is legal, has had a shortage of drugs used for lethal injections since 2011. So essentially what happens is that under the current law, death row inmates can choose between lethal injections

and the electric chair. But if they choose lethal injection, the state cannot force them to die by electrocution, which has resulted in inmates picking that method, so it cannot be done. But now with this bill, it would force inmates to choose between lethal injection, electrocution, or the firing squad.

And if the drugs are not available, the state could mandate one of the other two options. Now, for those of you watching going, but why the firing squad, Phil? Well, initially the bill, which was introduced by Republicans would have just forced the inmates to be electrocuted. But then one Democratic Senator proposed an amendment

to add the firing squad, which some believe is more humane because it causes nearly instant death while injections and electrocutions have been botched in the past. And on Tuesday, the South Carolina Senate voted 32 to 11 to approve this amendment with the full bill expected to pass the chamber later this week. Well, yes, we saw some Democrats joining the Republicans who introduced the bill in Tuesday's vote.

Others have argued against it, citing racial disparities. Right, and this, because according to the South Carolina Department of Corrections, 208 of the 282 people who have been executed in the state since 1912 were black, right? That is nearly three out of every four. Of the 37 inmates currently on death row in the state, nearly half are black.

But Republicans have pushed back against this, arguing that this legislation isn't about whether or not the state should have the death penalty, but rather that it's an effort to make an existing law they've been unable to enforce functional. As far as what happens next, it's likely to pass the Senate, it's likely to pass the House. You also have the governor saying

that he would proudly sign it. So unless we see something drastically change, we should expect to see executions resume in South Carolina soon. Which, I mean, hey, I don't think I've asked this question in years. What are your thoughts on capital punishment? Do you think that we as a country

should have the death penalty, that the government has the right to take a life? Yes, no, why, why not? I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below. Then, let's definitely talk about how now the House has passed a sweeping elections bill that aims to significantly expand federal voting rights all over the country.

And so this bill, called the For the People Act, was proposed by Democrats and passed 220 to 210, almost entirely along party lines. And according to reports, if signed into law, it would be the most comprehensive enhancement of federal protection since the 1960s. And this bill would do a lot of things, but the most significant provisions fall

into two broader categories, creating uniform standards for voting and increasing financial transparency. Regarding the voting rights standards, among other things, the bill would weaken restrictive state voter ID laws, mandate that state governments use existing records to automatically register voters, guarantee no excuse mail voting,

and at least 15 days of early voting for all federal election, make it harder to purge voter rolls, restore voting rights to former felons, and end partisan gerrymandering by requiring states to appoint independent commissions to draw congressional districts. And then, as for what the bill aims to do

regarding expanding transparency, it would impose new disclosure requirements for dark money donations used to finance campaigns, create a public financing option for congressional campaigns, require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, which was kind of a standard but never a law, and require tech platforms

to disclose political advertising information. With all of this, Democrats have argued that the legislation is essential to protecting and ensuring that all Americans have the right to vote. Something they argue is especially important right now because as we talked about earlier this week, you have places like Georgia that are trying to pass restrictive election bills.

And in general, we're seeing Republican-controlled state legislatures proposing tons of bills that would roll back voting access. This largely seen as a reaction to Trump's loss and efforts to undermine the election results by spreading misinformation about voter fraud. Something the Democrats for their part have described as a very transparent attempt by loss and efforts to undermine the election results by spreading misinformation about voter fraud. Something the Democrats for their part have described

as a very transparent attempt by Republicans to consolidate their power because they know that they benefit from lower voter turnout. Thus, their strategy to win more races in the future is to simply make voting harder. Which is why we've seen things like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, "'Everything is at stake.

"'We must win this race, this fight.'" But as far as if this bill actually has a chance, probably not because even with this going to the Senate, I mean the Senate back in 2019 struck down an almost nearly identical version of this bill. Even though the Democrats do have a razor thin majority, right, 50-50 split, Kamala Harris can split the tie. You'd still need 10 Republicans to join all 50 Democrats

to break the 60 vote legislative filibuster. And that is where I'm going to end today's show. Of course, I'd love to know your thoughts on this or any story that stood out to you today. Let me know what you're thinking in those comments down below. Also, as always, thank you for being a part of my daily dives in the news,

subscribing, hitting the like button, all the good stuff. If you're looking for more to watch, I got more news coverage right here that you can check out. 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.