The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 4.07 The Trump Zuckerberg Situation is Crazy & The AI Gambling Problem is Worse Than You Know

Episode Date: April 7, 2025

Go to http://rocketmoney.com/pds to cancel your unwanted subscriptions with Rocket Money. Go to http://meundies.com/philipdefranco and use code philipdefranco to get 20% off your first order, + free shipping on orders of $75 or more. https://BeautifulBastard.com Get 15% off the best tees and hoodies out there with CODE: "PDS15" on top of select 50% OFF sale items. Subscribe for New shows every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, & Thursday @ 6pm ET/3pm PST & watch more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oATIraJ8zNI&list=PLHcsGizlfLMWpSg7i0b9wnUyEZWI-25N3&index=1   – ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ – 00:00 - Mark Zuckerberg & Meta Go All in on MAGA 9:36 - Sponsored by Rocket Money 10:49 - How the Gambling Industry Uses AI to Exploit Customers & Fuel Addictions 19:52 - Sponsored by MeUndies 21:07 - FBI Debating Whether to Charge Animal Activists with Using WMDs ——————————   Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino Associate Producer on Meta: Jared Paolino Associate Producer on Gambling & AI: Chris Tolve Associate Producer on Animal Activists: Lili Stenn ———————————— For more Philip DeFranco: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2V Twitter:   https://x.com/PhillyD Instagram:   https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco Newsletter: https://www.dailydip.co TikTok:   https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco?lang=en ———————————— #DeFranco #DonaldTrump #AI ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So you're hosting the family barbecue this week, but everyone knows your brother is the grill guy, and it's highly likely he'll be backseat barbecuing all night. So be it. Impress even the toughest of critics with freshly prepared Canadian barbecue favorites from Sobeys. The real reason that tech billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg are going all in on MAGA, flip-flopping on issues like hate speech and content moderation, and what that could mean for the future of free speech online. And then how the gambling industry is leveraging the AI boom

to hypercharge its exploitations of customers, fuel addictions, and drive new laws as it sinks its teeth even deeper into the American economy. We're making the deep dive today on your brand new Philip DeFranco show. You daily dive into the news, how it's being covered,

and how people are reacting to it. Right in that, because a little announcement is this week is gonna be a little bit different. I promised my wife we could go on a vacation, and I would not spend half of it in a hotel room shooting the show. So this week, across your four Philip DeFranco shows, I shot 11 deep dives into really, really important news

you should know about. We're deep diving into some of the most interesting, concerning, and or downright scary stories that I've seen over the last few weeks and months that matter in the now and in the future. But that said, let's jump into deep dive week and today's show, starting with this. I wanna do a little bit of a deep dive with you today.

Because these days there's one main billionaire in Trump's orbit that we talk about a lot. But right now, I wanna talk about one who's now circling the president closer than ever though. He doesn't have as big of a spotlight on it. Because it seems like after years of flip-flopping or playing both sides on issues like free speech, content moderation and diversity,

Mark Zuckerberg and Meta along with him, they're going all in on MAGA. And to fully appreciate and understand the situation, we gotta go back to 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency for the first time. And as you might remember, there were a lot of people trying to explain what happened, with one of them being Facebook.

Critics at the time, not only painting the platform as an online echo chamber, but also blaming it for the near unchecked spread of fake news, disinformation, and conspiracy theories that they say propeel Trump to victory. And as far as Mark Zuckerberg, of course, Facebook's founder and CEO, he defended the company at first, right?

Denying that the platform had any impact on the election. And in fact, he called the claim that fake news on Facebook influenced the election crazy. But then just a few days later, he was writing an apologetic post and announcing a series of steps meant to deal with its spread saying, the bottom line is we take misinformation seriously.

With that, he previewed Facebook's fact-checking program, which would actually be launched just a month later. But of course, you know, despite that, the criticism, it kept coming. With the same outlets continually reporting on the shortcomings of the company's fact-checking efforts. And by 2018, for example, the company was increasingly being blamed

for contributing to the ethnic cleansing and genocide in Myanmar. With reporting at the time beginning to show how the country's military had waged a systematic multi-year propaganda campaign on the platform. With then, not long after that, Facebook again apologizing, admitting that the site had been used to incite violence. And that led to Zuckerberg expanding moderation teams and better defining rules around acceptable speech, with him also sometime that year speaking to Stephen Levy, who wrote a book called Facebook, the inside story about how the

solution to disinformation and hate speech was more content moderation. With him reportedly telling the author, it is no longer enough to give people tools "'to say what they want and then just let our community "'flag them and try to respond after the fact,' saying, "'We need to take a more active role "'in making sure that the tools aren't misused. "'I think we're doing the right thing. "'It's just that we should have done it sooner.'"

But then, a year later, facing accusations of censorship by conservative politicians, including Trump, Zuckerberg seemingly began swinging back the other way. With him stirring controversy at the time, right? Facebook refusing to take down a Trump ad, making false claims about Joe Biden. With Zuckerberg then defending the decision in a speech at Georgetown,

hailing his side as a bastion of free expression. And this is he seemingly aimed to rewrite the true origin story of the platform with a new founding myth, talking about how when he was in college, the country had gone to war in Iraq. And with that saying that he felt we were acting without hearing

a lot of important perspectives and claiming those early years shaped his belief that giving everyone a voice empowers the powerless and pushes society to be better over time. Which appears to be a very interesting revisionist history version of the creation of Facebook. Because like, if you look into it, he initially made Face Smash,

which is a website where you could rate the attractiveness of their female classmates. And he did so by hacking into the so-called Facebooks of the different houses at Harvard. With him even writing in a journal published on the site itself at the time. The Kirkland Facebook is open on my computer desktop, and some of these people have pretty horrendous Facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive. But in any case, with that history set aside and a newly connected origin story to take its place,

Zuckerberg just kept pushing back. But this then seeing things like in 2020, Zuckerberg claiming that Facebook's commitment to free speech was a reason to not act on inflammatory posts from Trump regarding the Black Lives Matter protests. Though also notably around the same time, you had activists and human rights groups

who use Facebook to document human rights abuses in the Middle East, accusing the company of deleting their accounts. All while in the United States, Zuckerberg defended Facebook's policies and resisted pressure to act more forcefully against hate speech. Though a big thing I will say

is that the company still had a hate speech policy at the time and Zuck claimed that they were proactively removing roughly 90% of it. But then something changed again. Biden won the election, Trump lost and hundreds of his supporters invaded the Capitol. And again, Facebook got some of the blame

and we saw them ban Trump indefinitely for the role that he played in inciting the insurrection. With Zuck then soon after telling investors that the company was considering steps to straight up reduce political content across Facebook, which was done shortly after. But of course, that didn't stop fact checkers, researchers in the media from finding ways

that the platform was still being used to spread misinformation and increase political polarization. And come 2024, you had Zuck getting brutalized before the US Senate, then reinventing his image. And last August, he wrote that letter to Congress accusing the Biden administration of pressuring what had by then become meta into censoring more COVID-19 content than he said he felt comfortable with, as well as then announcing that he wouldn't repeat the contributions he made in 2020 to support nonpartisan electoral infrastructure because the gifts made him

appear not neutral. Though notably, that spending was also part of the reason that Trump accused Zuckerberg of plotting against him during the 2020 election, something that also reportedly involved threats to throw him in jail for the rest of his life. But then, despite all that, within weeks of Trump's reelection, Zuckerberg was dining with the then-president-elect

at Mar-a-Lago. And it was also at this time, according to reporting by the New York Times, that Trump advisor Stephen Miller told Zuckerberg that he had an opportunity to help reform America, but it would be on Trump's terms. With Zuckerberg reportedly signaling to Miller and to help reform America, but it would be on Trump's terms. With Zuck there reportedly signaling to Miller and his colleagues, including other senior Trump advisors,

that he would do nothing to obstruct their agenda. And in fact, according to the Times, Zuck reportedly began preparing to make sweeping changes to Meta 2, and the words of the Times, remake Meta for the Trump era. And notably with that, the Times interviewed more than a dozen current and former Meta employees

as well as executives and advisors to Zuckerberg. And they reportedly described his shift as serving a dual purpose. Right on one hand, it's and former Meta employees as well as executives and advisors to Zuckerberg. And they reportedly described his shift as serving a dual purpose. Right on one hand, it's about positioning Meta for the current political climate with Trump and Republican power ascendant. But also too, and maybe even more notably, people close to him reportedly say

that the shift reflects Zuckerberg's personal views of how his company should be run, views that he no longer wanted to keep quiet. You know, with all that, according to the Times, this whole process, it was highly unusual. Because in the past, Meta would modify policies affecting its apps by inviting employees, civic leaders, and others to weigh in.

And so with that, the process would generally take months, but this time it was a quote, six week sprint, blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity team. With then, on January 2nd, Meta appointing Republican Joel Kaplan to lead its global policy team to implement the changes. And then a few days later, he added three new men to the board with one,

of course, being Trump's friend, Dana White. And on January 7th, most of Meta's 72,000 employees reportedly learned about the rest of Zuckerberg's plans along with the rest of the world. Zuck, of course, famously announcing that it was killing its fact-checking program in favor of a community note system similar to X's. Or with him also revealing the political concept

would no longer be suppressed. And finally, declaring that the company would be loosening restrictions on how people can talk about contentious social issues, such as immigration, gender, and sexuality. And notably here, all of that came not just in a written statement from Joel Kaplan, but it was also announced by Zuckerberg

in a video that had him say, "- After Trump first got elected in 2016, the legacy media wrote nonstop about how misinformation was a threat to democracy. We tried in good faith to address those concerns without becoming the arbiters of truth. But the fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they've created, especially in the US. The recent elections also feel like a cultural tipping point towards once again prioritizing

speech. So we're going to get back to our roots and focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms. And then, in the days after, the full extent of the changes became clear, with the company ending its hate speech policy, now calling it hateful conduct, with this policy now allowing posts saying you hate people of certain races, religions, and sexual orientations, and that including permitting, quote, allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation. With also an intercept investigation claiming examples of other newly permissible speech

highlighted in Meta training materials, including immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of shit and gays are freaks. We're seeing Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and notably someone who has criticized Meta for what she described as over moderation in the past, saying, these examples demonstrate criticized Meta for what she described as over-moderation in the past, saying, these examples demonstrate that Meta's policy changes are political in nature and not intended to simply allow more freedom of expression. And then beyond that,

we've seen things like the company also reportedly removing the transgender and non-binary themes on Messenger. Instagram at one point blocked LGBTQ hashtags and marked them as sexually suggestive content, though Meta said afterwards that it was a mistake. And then off the platform, facilities managers were reportedly instructed to remove tampons

from men's bathroom and Meta's offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York. And of course the company also announcing that it would be ending its work on diversity, equity and inclusion. With reportedly a memo being sent to staff referring to the fact that quote, "'The legal and policy landscape surrounding diversity,

"'equity and inclusion efforts in the United States "'is changing.'" And you know, since then, Zuck's kind of just been handing Trump more wins. Where you have Meta paying $25 million to settle a Trump lawsuit dating back to his, since then, Zuck's kind of just been handing Trump more wins. Where you have Meta paying $25 million to settle a Trump lawsuit, dating back to his ban from Facebook. Zuck's been praising the Trump administration openly,

and now he's reportedly hunting for a home in DC to be closer to Trump. Though I will say notably, right, Trump and his team, not fully buying it maybe. Because according to Rolling Stone, various members of his inner circle are skeptical of Zuck's MAGA makeover. With one senior Trump administration official

even reportedly telling the outlet, there is a lot more ass kissing that needs to be done. Saying he just needs to prove himself. are skeptical of Zuck's MAGA makeover. With one senior Trump administration official even reportedly telling the outlet, there is a lot more ass kissing that needs to be done. Saying he just needs to prove himself. It's a good start, but he can't just snap his finger and make the past not happen. So, you know, with all that, I'd love to know your thoughts on the situation in general,

but also with Zuckerberg and what we've seen with a number of multi, multi millionaires or billionaires, do you think this is kind of the evolution, the final form? They finally feel free to be this version of themselves? Or do you see this more as them being shape shifters? They go in whichever way the wind blows for better financial or personal gain. What do you think and why?

And then I've got more important news for you in just a moment, but you know, quick question. Can you list every subscription that you are currently paying for? You can pause if you wanna try, but I mean, how'd you do? Right, for me, I cannot keep track. Or rather, I couldn't keep track until I found today's sponsor, Rocket Money, which uncovered subscriptions I didn't even remember signing up for.

This app, it's like having a financial detective tracking down every single sneaky subscription bleeding your bank account dry. And if you don't know, Rocket Money, it's a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps you lower your bills so you can grow your savings. And Rocket Money's dashboard, it gives you a clear view of your expenses across all of your accounts. You can even create custom budgets, track spending trends, and get price alerts.

And their goals feature, it can help you save for things like paying off credit cards or building savings. Hell, Rocket Money, it'll even try to negotiate lower bills for you. They'll automatically scan your bills to identify savings opportunities, and then you can ask them to negotiate for you.

And so they're dealing with customer service, not you. And this is, Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year when using all the app's premium features. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and reach your financial goals faster with Rocket Money. Just go to rocketmoney.com slash pds today. That's rocketmoney.com slash pds, rocketmoney.com slash pds. If I's RocketMoney.com slash PDS. RocketMoney.com slash PDS. If I were to ask you over the course of a year, how many Americans engage in some form of gambling,

what do you think that number would be? Think about it, ponder it, give me that answer. The answer is 55%. Right, that is according to a survey conducted last summer for the American Gaming Association. With that, up from 49% the year prior. So, I mean, we're talking about tremendous sums of money, like some $150 billion on sports alone last year,

according to estimates. But it's even seeing FiveThirtyEight founder, author, and famed data nerd, Nate Silver, estimating in his new book that the total wages placed by Americans every year passes $1 trillion. Which, I mean, if true, would mean that in 2022, Americans bet the equivalent

of nearly 4% of their nation's GDP and lost over 10% of that money. Which, you know, really shouldn't be that shocking since today we bet on just about everything. Sports, political elections, stock prices, meme coins, online lotteries, casino apps, Luigi Mangione's play, the existence of aliens. Hell, places like Polymarket that even let people

bet on different aspects of the Los Angeles wildfires, like how fast they'd spread and when they'd be contained. But to be clear there, that's technically only supposed to be available to bettors outside of the United States. But clearly, the most prominent driver of the new gambling culture in recent years has been sports. And that because ever since the Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on sports betting in 2018, merely 40 states and DC have legalized the practice. So notably the two most populous states in the country, California

and Texas have yet to join them. And so if those two joined, you'd expect the gambling numbers to get even more insane. And I mean, you better believe that industry executives' mouths, they are watering at the idea. Because companies like DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars, MGM, and Disney through ESPN, they've raked in the profits from this gambling boom. Even the big sports leagues

who have historically opposed betting now caving in as they're signing partnerships with sports books. And we've seen a whole cottage industry sprout around these markets with one very controversial goal, which is the reason that we're talking about this today. Using the revolution in artificial intelligence to turbocharge the gambling boom, right? And they're doing this in a number of

ways. So we're going to start with the mildly concerning and end with the downright dystopian. It's the first step. You've got things like companies using AI to streamline many of the creative tasks that the gambling industry already does, namely writing persuasive marketing copy. With Narrativa, for instance, a firm that reportedly gets a quarter of its business from gambling clients, churning out everything from automated summaries of sports games to SEO-friendly reviews of online casino games to promotional social media posts. But then you've also got firms like Sharplink that use AI in somewhat more innovative ways, namely to convert regular sports fans into sports bettors. But they're reportedly doing this by gathering data about each individual, analyzing it for patterns, and then personalizing betting offers specifically

designed for them. So for example, if you've got a favorite sport, team, or player, you'll get targeted with bets for those things. But then also, once you're already in the betting game, the technology does everything it can to keep you there, making more and bigger bets. Right in there, one of the prominent examples is micro bets. You know, they're not exactly new. You just bet in real time throughout the game on stuff like who gets the next touchdown or makes the next tackle or whether the next play will be a run or a pass. You know, they're especially low value, high frequency, and they get settled within minutes or even seconds.

But also as outlets like Business Insider have pointed out, artificial intelligence gave those kind of bets a shot of adrenaline right in the ass. But the same things recently like DraftKings acquiring SimpleBet, whose automated processes reportedly raised the maximum number of possible micro bets by an order of magnitude. And so according to the outlet, no longer bottlenecked by the capabilities of human sportsbook odds calculators, every moment of a sports game can be turned into a wager. With them saying, when you bet that Lamar Jackson would throw on second and 10, why not bet again that he'll scramble for the first down on third and three?

But it's also not just sports betting that's getting a taste of AI. You're also seeing traditional casino websites giving each visitor a personalized dynamic homepage with the perfect game, be it bingo, slots, poker, pick your poison. Then adapting to meet the player's desire at any moment and offering bonuses if they're getting dejected. But then also it goes beyond the websites, right?

If you go to the casino in person, you're now dealing with things like the startup Ncube, which reportedly uses machine learning to optimize the placement of slot machines on the casino floor. And in fact, according to Insider, removing the total number of machines can actually increase the casino's win

if the machines are arranged in a way that redirects players to games where they'll make larger bets. And this is casinos have figured out how to personalize the experience for each player as well, with some locations reportedly putting RFID chips inside every gambling chip and then tracking each person's behavior,

building a digital profile, and automatically directing human workers to intervene accordingly. You know, whether that means a free drink, a bonus bin, or any other perk that keeps them playing longer. And I mean, when it comes to the marriage between gambling and AI,

I mean, we're really just getting started, right? I mean, when you look at what industry insiders are imagining for the future, it starts to get a little Brave New World-y. With, for example, the consultant Deloitte's Global Lottery and Gambling Center of Excellence publishing a research paper last spring, predicting that games could be personalized

in real time for each gambler. With them writing that AI could allow the games themselves to generate content based on the explicit or even implicit actions of players, from instantly generating new items and playing levels to in-game characters that have lifelike discussions. And you know, with all this, you can probably guess what the human cost of all this profiteering is,

and that is a virtual pandemic of gambling addiction. With the National Council on Problem Gambling estimating now that about 1% of American adults have a severe gambling problem, and 2% to 3% have a mild or moderate problem. Which I mean, just talking about the United States, we could be talking about 7 1⁄2 to 10 1⁄2 million people. And I mean, if you go global,

the numbers get really shocking. We're seeing a recent report from the Lancet Public Health Commission on gambling, finding nearly half million people. And I mean, if you go global, the numbers get really shocking. With us seeing a recent report from the Lancet Public Health Commission on gambling, finding nearly 450 million people worldwide have experienced at least one behavioral symptom or negative consequence from gambling. You know, as you'd expect, the habit can take a nasty bite out of a person's finances.

But for example, researchers at UCLA finding that states that have legalized sports betting saw bankruptcies jump 28% and debt collections rise by 8%. And that's in addition to lower credit scores, more auto loan delinquencies, and more debt consolidation loans. But then another paper finding that for every dollar a household puts into betting, it takes $2 out of safer long-term investments like retirement accounts. Or, I mean, in places like Brazil, or probably the world's third largest sports betting market, people now spend as much as one-fifth of their welfare money

on gambling, according to the Associated Press. But you know, with this, many critics and supporters alike, they agree that none of this is inevitable and even the application of AI doesn't have to be exploitative, right? In theory, the same software that profiles individual players so it can feed them more bets could instead be used to identify problem gamblers and wean them off.

And so as one company even proposed, you could look for patterns, things like unusually large bets, declined deposits playing at unexpected times and then intervene to stop them. But I mean, really with so many different ways and places to gamble, you could look for patterns, things like unusually large bets, declined deposits playing at unexpected times, and then intervene to stop them. But I mean, really, with so many different ways and places to gamble, you'd almost certainly need regulators to get involved

and protect consumers from predatory business practices in themselves. With some even throwing around the idea of placing a cap on deposits or imposing a maximum bet limit. And actually with that, back in September, Democrats Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Paul Tonko introduced the Safe Bet Act to get the ball rolling. And that bill included limits on advertising, affordability checks, and

restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence to create bets and target bettors. We then also saw in December the Senate Judiciary Committee holding its first hearing to address the harms to public health caused by sports betting. It is virtually impossible to watch a sporting event today without being barraged by ads encouraging you to bet or hearing from a celebrity endorser about the latest parlay you should try. NCBG estimates that every dollar spent to prevent and treat gambling addiction

saves government at least $2 in criminal justice and healthcare-related social costs. With gambling addiction, the risk of suicide is omnipresent. Research shows that one in every two people suffering will contemplate suicide and one in five will attempt. But also I would say, you know, keep in mind that was from the last congressional session

and you know, this one's got different people and different priorities. And so recently you had Bill Miller, the president of the American Gaming Association, telling the National Council of Legislators from gaming states that he expected an industry friendly federal government. With him saying, we have a Republican president,

Republican Senate, and Republican House. And so what does that mean for the gaming industry? It means probably less pressure. You know, if he's right, that it could be a striking development for the GOP, which, you know, used to be the party of kind of the moral majority and just say no. But as Manhattan Institute fellow Charles Lehman

argued in a New York Times op-ed, they've embraced a new constituency of young men whom some have labeled barstool conservatives. Right with him pointing out the president's relatively liberal attitudes towards things like sports betting, marijuana, and cryptocurrency with him, concluding Trump seems willing, even eager, to embrace vice. But also, I would say, to be fair there, Kamala Harris wasn't exactly a moral crusader on those issues either. Right, she also ran campaign ads on DraftKings, supporting legalizing marijuana, and promised to encourage the growth of crypto markets.

And of course, all of this, I mean, it comes at a time when it seems like virtually everything in American life is designed to be as addictive as humanly possible. I mean, you've got social media platforms, streaming services, online marketplaces, video games, pornography, cannabis, painkillers, even the Philip DeFranco show.

Why can't you quit me? You know, all of those things and more, they're constantly competing for your money or your attention or both. And then you've got people like Nate Silver, whom I cited earlier, You quit me. You know, all of those things and more, they're constantly competing for your money or your attention or both. And then you've got people like Nate Silver, whom I cited earlier, arguing that even putting capital G gambling aside,

Americans have drifted toward a more volatile culture of risk-taking in general. You know, whether it's dating apps, venture capital, public health, politics. You know, with all that said, I really, I gotta pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? Because I will say, you know, that's a story,

then now this is my personal opinion. I personally have conflicting feelings on this. I personally enjoy gambling. I am personally able to keep that in check. But as I've also looked more and more at the situation and the data, I've no longer, you might've noticed this, I no longer feel comfortable having those sorts of ads

on this show and promoting it. And even though that was like fantasy sports rather than like straight up sports books, I was like, ah, even if I'm gonna engage in those things and gamble myself, I don't wanna promote it. You know, that's the news. And then a little bit of my opinion. And of course I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? And then I've got even more news for you in just a moment. But first, you know, underwear drawers are like the wild west of wardrobes. No rhyme or reason to them. Anything goes. You've

got pairs from three birthdays and two Christmases ago from five different brands with five different fits. When you open that drawer, you have no idea what to expect. But there, I will say, when I felt the buttery soft comfort of today's sponsor, MeUndies, my other pairs just got thrown out because MeUndies is all I need. I was hooked, right?

I've tried countless brands over the years, but nothing compares to the comfort of these guys. Plus, there's something for everyone, from black classics to fun, expressive prints and sizes extra small to 4XL that actually fit real bodies. Or you can find your style and have fun mixing it up a bit. Plus, MeUndies, it's not just comfortable underwear.

I mean, you gotta check out their joggers, hoodies, onesies, and more. Their signature fabric, it's soft and warm, while more importantly, being breathable and stretchy. To put it simply, it's an ideal all-day wear. Plus, they use sustainably sourced materials, working with partners that care for their workers. And if you're somehow still not convinced,

they've got a problem-free philosophy. You're not happy with your first pair? It's on them. So hey, just go to MeUndies.com slash Philip DeFranco or scan the QR code and use code Philip DeFranco to get 20% off your first order, plus free shipping on orders of $75 or more. That's MeUndies.com slash Philip DeFranco, code Philip DeFranco. MeUndies, comfort from the outside in.

But then jumping away from that, I wanna do a little bit of a deep dive on something with you. Because the FBI is exploring whether to charge animal activists who break into factory farms with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, which key thing is a charge

that can carry a life sentence in prison, right? And this is what got revealed in agency records obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation by an animal rights group and has been seen by the Intercept. With the outlet there reporting that the FBI has been collaborating with the meat industry to gather information on animal rights activism

under its directive to counter weapons of mass destruction. And specifically, the Bureau reportedly floated the possibility of charging these activists under a statute that pertains to biological weapons, you know, which is a subtype of WMD that includes things like toxins, viruses, and microorganisms intentionally used to spur disease outbreaks or death. But with that, you have many experts saying the charges are totally bogus. We're saying that it is true

that the activists are breaking and entering, which is definitely a crime. But in the cases in question here, they're committing misdemeanors like trespassing to take pictures of the conditions that these animals are in or stealing some of the smaller animals. And you have animal rights lawyers and advocates saying that any effort to charge them under WMD laws, it's just a pretense to scapegoat activists and justify harsher prosecution. According to Justin Marceau, for example, a law professor who runs a legal clinic for animal activists at the University of Denver, this is an attempt to blame activists for the disease outbreaks that are already rampant on these big corporate farms. Outbreaks that happen because of the unsanitary pack conditions

these animals live in. And so you have Marceau saying, it's a transparent form of scapegoating and blame shifting that avoids talking about the disease risks that come from having animals intensively confined in these high stress conditions. We know these are just petri dishes of disease and contamination. And adding, this kind of escalation in charging or threats of charges is textbook escalation by government actors against successful efforts by social movements that they disagree with or find subversive. And adding here, the very framing of civil disobedience against factory farms is terrorism is a form of government repression. Now, very notably here, it does not appear that any activists have been charged under WMD statutes yet, but just the fact that they are targets of the FBI's WMD directive is absolutely massive.

In the FBI records, they have real examples of this happening. Like for example, there was an incident back in 2019 involving Holmes Foods, which is the largest privately owned chicken producer in Texas. And there, Holmes Foods reportedly tipped off the FBI that activists from the group Meet the Victims had broken into a poultry boiler that the company bought chickens from. The records show that Holmes Foods simply asked the FBI's Dallas outpost for guidance on preparing for future incidents. But in response, the office's local WMD coordinator had a phone call with the producer and other FBI agents. And despite the fact that the company's executives told the FBI that, quote, no damage or product loss was immediately identified, Dallas's WMD program, they still recorded the event as part of its intelligence

gathering on animal rights environmental extremism, which the FBI classifies as a form of domestic terrorism. And that's not the only example that came out of the FBI's WMD outpost in Dallas. The next year, the Meat Institute, which is the biggest trade association for poultry and livestock industries in America, they reportedly invited an FBI agent for Dallas's WMD program to its 2020 Animal Care and Handling Conference to, quote, provide insight into agro-terrorism and federal law enforcement's approach to protecting the United States meat industry. And there you're the intercept saying that the agent presented a slideshow called Agro-Terrorism in the Meat Livestock Industry. With that presentation reportedly detailing

what it called the emerging WMD and domestic terrorism threats posed by animal rights activist groups that often break minor criminal laws like trespassing. But the records show that during the presentation, the agent warned, quote, minor criminal actions associated with animal rights activist extremism have a tendency to escalate

towards substantial direct actions to include the unintentional introduction of biological materials, toxic chemicals, or other hazards into a herd and or flock. With the agent then also reportedly encouraging meat industry groups to report this type of behavior to its WMD directive or joint terrorism task forces. With the men going on to provide a glimpse into the various legal strategies the agency has been looking into, including charging activists under three different federal criminal statutes concerning WMDs. And after that, the agent reportedly noted that the Meet the Victims activists in Texas,

they were charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass, but also emphasizing the potential domestic terrorism and WMD food sector connections. And so with that, you had the Intercept claiming that move suggests that this is the type of activism the Bureau might target with criminal charges. But like animal rights lawyers and other advocates, some activists themselves also argue that this is just a fr activism the Bureau might target with criminal charges. But like animal rights lawyers and other advocates, some activists themselves also argue

that this is just a frivolous attempt to blame them and justify extreme crackdowns. With, for example, one member of Meet the Victims who was arrested on misdemeanor trespassing charges in the Holmes Foods break-in saying that the poultry farm didn't even lock its gate or barn door. So, quote,

they're obviously not too concerned about biohazards. With them then even arguing that the most serious bio risk would have remained hidden without the activist intervention explaining there. Nobody is coming in there and cleaning up the dead chicken bodies. If there's disease, you know,

disease is just going to spread rampant. But also with everything we're talking about here, the FBI's efforts went beyond Texas, where the agency also tried to paint animal rights activists as biosecurity and infectious disease threats in another incident in San Francisco back in 2019. And there you have a memo that shows that the FBI San Francisco field office claimed

that the activists with the group Direct Action Everywhere were breaking into poultry facilities and rescuing birds with quote, little to no regard for basic biosecurity measures. And there you have the FBI citing a handful of journal articles to determine that the activist actions helped contribute to the spread of a highly contagious bird illness

called Newcastle disease. And during the prosecution of one of the group's organizers, Zoe Rosenberg, a California prosecutor tried to frame her as a bioterror threat. Though there, you had Rosenberg disputing the bio-risk claims, telling The Intercept that direct action everywhere

goes above and beyond the biosecurity protocols outlined by federal and state agencies. Or with this, including wearing a biosecurity suit, gloves, hairnet, and shoe covers while working with farm animals. And adding with that, when leaving a facility, quote, all of that protective equipment is sealed and disposed of safely just in case it is contaminated with any bacteria or virus from within the facility. But with all that said, you know, for now, we're going to have to wait to see what happens, right?

If the FBI efforts grow and more people are targeted under the WMD directive, or, you know, if there is a major escalation, we start actually seeing WMD charges. But while we wait to see how all that's going to play out, I got to ask you, whether you support or you're against these animal rights groups or whatever their actions may be, what do you think about these charges? Let me know what you're thinking and why in those comments down below. Because remember, yes, this is a news show, but I also want it to be a conversation. But that, my friends, is where your deep dives into the news is going to end. And do not worry, you're not going to have to be alone with your thoughts for too long, because I will

be right back here tomorrow. Because remember, I got a brand new show for you every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 6 p.m. Eastern, 3 p.m. Pacific. Thank you for watching. I love your faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.