The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.5 Why We Need To Talk About This RIDICULOUS Meghan Rienks Situation, SCOTUS, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Today, start working on not touching your face because one main way viruses spread is when you touch your own mouth, nose, or eyes. We're all gonna die, aren't we? Sup, you beautiful bastards. Hope you've had a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it.

Starting point is 00:00:25 And the first thing we're gonna talk about today are tweets and fleets. And if your reaction is, what the hell is a fleet, Phil? Yeah, so Twitter announced yesterday that they're testing a new feature, specifically in Brazil, that allows users to publish content on Twitter that will disappear after 24 hours.

Starting point is 00:00:39 As far as why they're called fleets, it's supposed to be a mixture of tweet and fleeting thoughts. And pretty much just like a regular tweet, it is text-based, but can also be accompanied with a photo, a video, a GIF, just like with a Snapchat or an Instagram story, it disappears after 24 hours.

Starting point is 00:00:51 So essentially, Twitter pretty much the last to the game on this. I mean, even Facebook and YouTube have their versions of stories. And before going further, I want to point out that my opinion on this pretty much doesn't matter. Back when Instagram stories came out, I was like, "'Wow, I can't believe they ripped off Snapchat.

Starting point is 00:01:04 "'That'll never go off.'" And now, I mean, as far as stories go, I Back when Instagram stories came out, I was like, wow, I can't believe they ripped off Snapchat. That'll never go off. And now, I mean, as far as stories go, I primarily use Instagram stories. So you never really know until things are implemented, what people will actually use, what'll catch on. Now, as far as this test in Brazil, of course, if it works there, they're gonna test it out in other countries.

Starting point is 00:01:18 And as far as why the company is testing out and rolling out this new feature, you have the company's product lead tweeting out. People often tell us that they don't feel comfortable tweeting because tweets can be seen and replied to by anybody, feel permanent and performative. We're hoping that fleets can help people share the fleeting thoughts that they would have been

Starting point is 00:01:32 unlikely to tweet. And my gut reaction to that is no! Just think about 90% of people that have been at the focal point of any sort of cancel situation. It's tweet, you already gave people the ability to go, I had a thought, I should share that with the entire world. What's the worst that could happen, happen, happen?

Starting point is 00:01:49 You're gonna launch this product that's essentially like, hey, you know the stuff that you left in your draft folder and that's probably a good thing? Just say it, just do it. Like people aren't gonna screenshot and screen record what you did and throw it in a regular tweet. And as far as the general reaction, I was definitely not alone in people thinking

Starting point is 00:02:02 this is not the best idea. Some going as far as to mock it. Some more in the middle thinking, hey, I'm kind of lukewarm on this idea, but I'm disappointed that alone in people thinking this is not the best idea. Some going as far as to mock it. Some more in the middle thinking, I'm kind of lukewarm on this idea, but I'm disappointed that Twitter's focusing on this rather than other positive changes. Then also some excited about the idea that maybe, like it's done on other platforms, it increases engagement.

Starting point is 00:02:16 With that said, that's the story. My personal reaction, of course, I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this idea? I mean, allowing people to do this will probably give me more content, so maybe I shouldn't be so negative about it. I also don't wanna think about it in that way.

Starting point is 00:02:27 And then let's talk about this concerning YouTube story. It's been heavily requested. I, since I've learned about it, have been trying to contact my people, see if there's anything that can be done. Since I did that then and we're seeing updates now, I thought, okay, let's finally talk about it. So ultimately, this is a story about a creator

Starting point is 00:02:41 by the name of Megan Rinks and her YouTube channel's being hacked. She's got 2 million subscribers, been on the platform for around a decade, and on Monday she made this video explaining that over the past several months, her accounts had been hacked and YouTube's response was pretty disappointing.

Starting point is 00:02:51 Now that video is 45 minutes long. I'm gonna kind of try and break it down, give you a TLDR, hit the highlights. So the first incident starts in October when she realizes that her main channel looks fine for herself, but it's not appearing online for her viewers. She says that she was in contact with YouTube

Starting point is 00:03:03 for over a week about the situation, only for them to eventually just say that there was no suspicious activity on the channel. And then after a series of sort of empty worded emails, YouTube says that they had actually been looking into her other channel, which in addition to being rage-inducing was also strange because it doesn't appear that they ever discussed

Starting point is 00:03:18 or linked that channel. So then YouTube appears to try to help her again, but then they send her the wrong link, right? So you get the general feel, a lot of mistakes happening on their end, but finally they send the proper link. It looks like it was all sorted out, right? After two weeks, they finally send her the right tool,

Starting point is 00:03:31 but it does not end there. Because while all of this was going on, Megan also noticed a suspicious upload on her vlog channel. But essentially with the chaos happening with her main channel, it kind of faded into the background of what she was doing until January 2nd when she realized that her blog channel had been fully hacked.

Starting point is 00:03:47 She found that the channel was now called Beauty Dior and even though the URL to the channel was the same, the actual content was just re-uploads of other beauty videos. The imaging, the logos all changed. It was rebranded and she said the hackers had deleted the email associated with it so she could not recover it.

Starting point is 00:04:00 And so she reaches out the next day to her contacts at YouTube from her last hacking to let them know. Essentially thinking, okay, we went through the craziness with the first account, but this should be an easy fix now, right? No, that does not appear to be the case. She says throughout the month of January, there are these back and forths with YouTube,

Starting point is 00:04:12 with them just giving kind of meaningless updates. They don't include her on some of the emails instead, just sending them to her manager. In one, they apparently call her Alex, which is not her name or the name of anyone involved here. Megan's saying she gets the feeling that she's not even talking to real people who are solving this.

Starting point is 00:04:25 And then on February 22nd, a massive update. She gets an email yet again saying they found no signs of abnormal activity on the channel. So she follows up saying, what do you mean? This is not my content. Hi there, thanks for your reply. I understand why you're wondering that the investigation resulted that no hijacking activity happened on the channel.

Starting point is 00:04:42 However, I can assure you that our internal team carefully investigated this and didn't found any. Right, so seemingly an incredibly lazy response from YouTube. They also tell her to increase her password security, something that she says that she's actually been doing all over her account since the first time she was hacked. And so following that, the next morning,

Starting point is 00:04:59 Megan does what a lot of creators have learned that we often have to do. She has to complain publicly because unfortunately, the company has trained us to know this is the main way things get done. And so she hops on Twitter sharing part of the story, noting that at that time, that account had lost almost 50,000 subscribers,

Starting point is 00:05:13 though now it's closer to 60,000. Also sharing some of the emails where YouTube's saying that there was no hacking. That tweet and the situation really blew up after 2 p.m. that day when Shane Dawson saw it and responded, hey YouTube, this is really scary, help. And then just 45 minutes after that, she says that she gets an email from YouTube saying

Starting point is 00:05:28 that while phone support was not an option, her case was now being marked as high priority. She says she starts DMing team YouTube, who says that they had been looking into the wrong channel. At this point, I'll say, "'I'm not even the person this happened to, "'and I'm already exhausted.'" Right, so it appears that they bring up

Starting point is 00:05:39 kind of the same sort of error and excuse again. Then after a long back and forth, she says YouTube realizes, "'Oh, they have been looking to the right channel, but they have no idea how they came to the conclusion that it was not hacked. They also tried to reassure Megan that she had in fact been talking to real people. Team YouTube also apologizing,

Starting point is 00:05:53 say it should not have to take her going to Twitter for her to get results and responses. But still she says basically the same day that all this is still going on, the hacked account is still posting to the channel. She went on to say that she eventually saw it on a website where it was being sold for $500. Then while she was recording the video,

Starting point is 00:06:06 it appears that she actually gets an email from YouTube, which boiled down to this. The email YouTube just sent is that I can have my channel and they're transferred over to me. I just have to agree to not sue them. And also I can't have any of the videos that were privated, which is all of them. She then adds that after looking it over again

Starting point is 00:06:24 and sending it to her attorney, what YouTube had sent was not actually a legal document or legally binding in any way. Right, it didn't even require signatures, but that's essentially how that video ends. Though I do wanna note, she sort of sums up her frustrations well at one point. This is a failed system and it's not working.

Starting point is 00:06:37 And also through all of this, I found it's not working for me, it's not working for so many creators who have much smaller channels. And I think it's that last part that really hammers everything home. If this is happening to people that have substantial audiences,

Starting point is 00:06:48 what's happening to the even smaller guy? Or the people that are not big enough to get another larger creator to add their megaphone to the situation? Now with that said, the video goes out, that gets a lot of attention, even more people either behind the scenes contacting their YouTube contacts

Starting point is 00:07:00 or publicly adding YouTube. And we see Tuesday that YouTube finally agreed to do a call with her. But the most recent update to that situation is this post. "'Update, it wasn't great.'" And adding on her Instagram story that it looks like she won't be able to get her old videos back.

Starting point is 00:07:15 And actually, as I'm recording this video, I do wanna note, Beauty Dior is still alive and well. Their most recent video is not super recent, but it's only a week old. And that's where we are. Hopefully the coverage of this story can add fuel to the fire of there actually being a system in place that can properly help creators. At the very least, for creators and just consumers alike, enjoy this brief glimpse into what it is like to be a third-party contractor with the drunken stepfather who sometimes pays attention to you.

Starting point is 00:07:42 That is YouTube. But we'll see. I understand from YouTube's point of view when there's an account that's hacked, there are so many different security measures and things you have to keep in mind. But looking at the overwhelming unnecessary fumbling in this situation, I think they would even have to admit,

Starting point is 00:07:55 we have to do better. I don't know, we'll see. Then in quickie primary news, we should mention that the Democratic primary field is now even smaller thanks to Elizabeth Warren, who has now officially ended her campaign. As we talked about yesterday, she had a very poor Super Tuesday showing,

Starting point is 00:08:08 even losing in her home state. And as far as who she endorsed, no one right now. For now, we'll have to wait and see. But what I will say, as of right now, if this morning consult poll is to be believed, 43% of Warren supporters backed Bernie Sanders as their second choice candidate, versus 36% who said former Vice President Joe Biden.

Starting point is 00:08:24 Though notably, that poll also had a 5% margin of error. I definitely expected Sanders to be like the number one second choice. I was surprised that it was actually that close to Biden. But yeah, we'll have to wait and see what this does to the upcoming primary. And then let's end today's show on a topic that people probably won't have a lot of opinions on,

Starting point is 00:08:41 abortion. So if you haven't heard, there is a massive and controversial case that was argued in the Supreme Court yesterday. And this is a pretty historic one. The case in question is called June Medical v. Rousseau, and it is the first major abortion case that will be heard with this set of justices,

Starting point is 00:08:52 notably including the two appointed by Donald Trump. And the case in question centers around a law in Louisiana called Act 620. And that law says that doctors cannot provide abortion services unless they have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they provide care. The big thing to note is Louisiana already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the United States, cannot provide abortion services unless they have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they provide care. The big thing to note is Louisiana already has

Starting point is 00:09:06 some of the strictest abortion laws in the United States, and this law pretty much aims to close clinics in the state. In fact, right now there are only three in the entire state of Louisiana. And so if this law goes through, there would likely only be one doctor in Louisiana who could provide abortions, but also something else to note about this case

Starting point is 00:09:22 in Act 620. It is pretty much the same as a law in Texas that already made its way to the Supreme Court in 2016. With that law, according to Skoda's blog, stating that physicians providing abortions must be near a hospital and that clinics need facilities comparable to a surgical center. In that case, which was called

Starting point is 00:09:35 Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, ended with the Supreme Court saying that the law was unconstitutional. With Justice Stephen Breyer writing in the decision, "'The court concluded that there exists an undue burden "'on a woman's right to decide to have an abortion, "'and consequentially, a provision of law "'is constitutionally invalid if the purpose or effect

Starting point is 00:09:50 "'of the provision is to place a substantial obstacle "'in the path of a woman seeking an abortion "'before the fetus attains viability.'" Right, so this was considered a major win for pro-choice activists. Now with this new case, even though it's similar, you have new justices, so we may get a different result. They could rule that the Louisiana law is constitutional.

Starting point is 00:10:06 And as far as the arguments, we saw a number of things that we expected. We saw the previous whole woman's health case brought up a lot with the Louisiana solicitor general, Elizabeth Merle, who argued in favor of act 620, maintaining that the law was not identical to the law in Texas. So that case's decision should not have an impact saying,

Starting point is 00:10:20 quote, the law was different. The facts are different. The regulatory structure is different and the record is different. And all of those things dictated a different result. And around this, the law was different, the facts are different, the regulatory structure is different, and the record is different. And all of those things dictated a different result. And around this, we saw Chief Justice John Roberts pressing her on if there were real differences state to state, which Merle insisted

Starting point is 00:10:33 that the law serves a greater benefit in Louisiana. She also said that the law was justified by, quote, abundant evidence of life-threatening health and safety violations, malpractice, noncompliance with professional licensing rules, legislative testimony from post-abortive women, testimony from doctors who took care of abortion providers, abandoned patients.

Starting point is 00:10:48 But on the other side of this, we saw Julie Reichelman, who was arguing against 620 and representing June Medical Services saying, "'This case is about respect for the court's precedent.' Nothing, however, has changed that would justify such a legal about-face." Adding, in fact, even more medical organizations have joined the AMA, American Medical Association,

Starting point is 00:11:04 and ACOG, American Medical Association, and ACOG, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to say that admitting privileges impose barriers to abortion with no benefit to patients and that this impact is not state dependent. Adding abortion in Louisiana in the years before the law was extremely safe with a very low rate of complications, and adding that on top of an extremely low complication rate, when complications do occur, it's almost always after the woman has left the clinic, meaning that a doctor's admission or proximity to a hospital from that clinic are not relevant to the patient anymore.

Starting point is 00:11:31 After arguments were made, Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, backed these ideas up, saying in a statement, the arguments made clear that we are refighting a legal issue that we have already won, and we're refighting that legal issue because Louisiana is an open defiance

Starting point is 00:11:43 of the Supreme Court's ruling in the whole woman's health case. But with that said legal issue because Louisiana is an open defiance of the Supreme Court's ruling in the whole woman's health case. But with that said, this story was also about what happened outside of the Supreme Court. Because outside we saw pro-choice activists gathering, protesting. The Center for Reproductive Rights definitely had a strong presence there.

Starting point is 00:11:55 This, including the likes of celebrities like Elizabeth Banks, as well as Busy Phillips. But the person that everyone was really talking about after this was Chuck Schumer. And the reason for that is this specific moment in clip. Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they're taking away fundamental rights. I wanna tell you, Gorsuch, I wanna tell you, Kavanaugh,

Starting point is 00:12:17 you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. That actually resulted in Chief Justice Roberts issuing a statement saying, "'Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, "'but threatening statements of this sort "'from the highest levels of government

Starting point is 00:12:36 "'are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.'" President Trump also jumping onto this, tweeting, "'There can be few things worse "'in a civilized, law-abiding nation "'than a United States Senator openly "'and for all to see and hear "'threatening the Supreme Court or its justices. "'This is what Chuck Schumer just did.

Starting point is 00:12:50 "'He must pay a severe price for this.'" Right now, in general, there were a number of reactions, a lot of people echoing the points from Roberts and Trump, but also people accusing Trump and others of being hypocrites, specifically because of the things that Donald Trump has said in the past. But regardless of that, we did see Schumer this morning saying that he regretted those statements.

Starting point is 00:13:07 Saying, I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They didn't come out the way I intended them to. In no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing. But as far as what happens from here, we actually have to wait to either late spring or early summer. That's when we'll see the decision.

Starting point is 00:13:21 And honestly, with the justices we have now, who knows what the results will be. Right now, we're gonna have to wait and see. And that is where I'm going to end today's show. And of course, if you liked the video, hit us with a like. If you're new here, subscribe. Also, if you're looking for more to watch,

Starting point is 00:13:32 you can check out that brand new podcast I did with Sophia Nygaard and Tyler Williams, or maybe just missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show, you wanna catch up, you can 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.

Starting point is 00:13:44 I love yo faces and I'll see you next time. I hope you liked the video. Subscribe if you like it.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 3.5 Why We Need To Talk About This RIDICULOUS Meghan Rienks Situation, SCOTUS, & More

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