The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.1 What Is Instagram Hiding?! HUGE Debate Sparked, Youtube CEO Responds, & More

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you're having a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show and let's just jump into it. Actually, quick note, for all you beautiful bastards that are constantly like, man, I love it when you do the really long videos, you do not hit the like button on this video, I will throat punch you, not really. But do not let the stress and tears coming from Editor James be for nothing. And so with that said, let's just jump into it. The first thing we're going to talk about today in interesting social media news

Starting point is 00:00:22 is we had Instagram announcing a test. And that test will specifically hide the like count from photos and videos on Instagram in an effort to get people to focus on content rather than the number of likes. As far as who is going to be a part of this test, it's going to begin this week and will only be rolled out in Canada.

Starting point is 00:00:35 And it's really interesting because obviously the like feature is a core element of the platform. But you've also had people arguing that it's actually had a negative impact on both the quality of the content and users' mental health. The head of Instagram, Adam Masseri, is saying, "'We want people to worry a little bit less "'about how many likes they're getting on Instagram

Starting point is 00:00:48 "'and spend a bit more time connecting "'with the people they care about.'" And the thing is, this new move, this new test, is not completely out of character for Instagram. If you don't recall, back in November of last year, they had a different rollout. In that specific test, we saw Instagram deemphasizing the follower counts on profiles,

Starting point is 00:01:01 placing them off center in a much smaller font. And it's interesting looking at what the experts say on this because it's partly mental health and then partly content quality. Right, you have some people saying the content is less interesting because there's almost like a formula for what is likable content.

Starting point is 00:01:14 And so there's kind of this argument that if you take away the benefit for just working in a formula, the content will be more interesting and it adds to the stickiness of your app. People are gonna be looking for more and more rather than going, oh, this is so much of the same thing. But on the mental health side, the chase for likes

Starting point is 00:01:27 has also been linked to damaging perceptions of one's self-worth. According to a 2017 report from the Royal Society for Public Health in the UK, Instagram is the most detrimental social networking app for young people's mental health. With Matt Caracher, the author of the report, saying that the app draws women to, quote,

Starting point is 00:01:40 "'compare themselves against unrealistic, "'largely curated, filtered, "'and Photoshopped versions of reality. But there's also a third element here that has not been talked about as much. And I mean, it could be devastating to a certain industry. Right now, the test only hides the number of likes, right? So there's a question of,

Starting point is 00:01:55 are we looking at a total removal? Because if this is rolled out more broadly and likes in general are removed, I mean, this could massively change the influencer marketing industry and social media marketing in general. So many people out there are buying followers on Instagram and so many other platforms. Right, they bulk up their numbers whether it be for, you know, perceived self-worth or they're trying to get sponsors,

Starting point is 00:02:12 but because those followers are bought or in cases like mine and many kind of OG creators, you get a large number over a long period of time. Right, even here on YouTube we have more than 6 million subscribers. While yes, around 4 million plus uniques will go to our videos over the course of let's say like 3 to 4 weeks, our average expected daily audience is 1 to 1.5 million. That's because we accrued those subscribers over a long period of time and, you know, the real engagement, that is always going to be different. So if you remove one of the largest indicators of engagement, the like, it's gonna be so hard for agencies and marketers to feel secure in using a brand new influencer.

Starting point is 00:02:44 And of note, Instagram isn't the only one looking at this kind of idea. For example, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was on stage back in April and he discussed what he would do differently if he launched Twitter now. And Dorsey said, I don't think I would create likes in the first place. And adding that he also wouldn't make the follower count as prominent. And in fact, Twitter's prototype app, Twitter, which is just the same word without vowels, is designed for testing new features. It currently explores the idea of letting people read tweets in a tighter design without being distracted by likes and retweets if they want. But the main point here is we may be seeing a shift in the online space regarding these kind of numbers.

Starting point is 00:03:14 I want to know your thoughts on this. Obviously, if you're an influencer or a marketer, I'd be fascinated in your thoughts regarding that angle. Which actually since the news is now spreading more and more, we are seeing some massive Instagram influencers like the the Logan Pauls of the world speak out about what they think. They're growing up being taught how much to love themselves based on what other people think of them. It is so dangerous. Yeah. And even, even, yo, even me, it's like, yo, a post get gets less likes. I'm like, did I do something wrong? Am I okay with myself? And I think it'll be so much healthier if people are more focused on what you're posting

Starting point is 00:03:45 rather than how many likes and comments it's getting. Which of course is meaningful considering that he has over 15.8 million followers. But I think the far more interesting thing for me is how kind of everyday people see this shift. For you, when you're using social media, whether you're posting something or you're consuming something, does the number of likes matter to you? Does the act of acknowledging kind of a tip of the hat the like button in general does what does that mean to you although? Maybe part of your reaction is similar to a larger influencer since Everyone kind of because of the way everything is developed is a content creator in some way I know interesting weird times and then let's talk about we had the CEO of YouTube back in the news Susan

Starting point is 00:04:21 Wojcicki as we mentioned the last time we talked about her, we were kind of just waiting for a new update and we have now gotten that. Yesterday we saw Susan posting to the creator's blog to address some of the complaints that she's heard and talk about her focuses in 2019. She begins by talking about the necessary trade-offs that YouTube has to weigh and balance when making decisions. Like back in February when there was a problem

Starting point is 00:04:38 with pedophiles in comment sections, I was brought into the spotlight. YouTube responded by removing comments on any video that included young children. Wojcicki saying, We did this to protect children from predatory comments, with the exception of a small number of channels that have the manpower needed

Starting point is 00:04:50 to actively moderate their comments and take additional steps to protect children. Which as you might remember, we talked about in the past, specifically around complaints from Colleen Ballinger and special books by special kids about the impact this has had on innocent channels. And Susan says that while she understands the impact this has had, she adds,

Starting point is 00:05:04 but in the end, that was a trade-off we made "'because we feel protecting children on our platform "'should be the most important guiding principle.'" Another example she brings up is after the Christchurch shooting when YouTube tried to keep videos with violent imagery of the attack off of the platform. But while removing these videos,

Starting point is 00:05:17 they also removed some videos that did not violate the community guidelines, like news and commentary videos, which were reinstated after an appeal. Then she addresses supporting creators, a topic which she says has helped when she sat down and talked to creators like Korea Grandma, Mostly Sane, Shane Dawson, James Charles,

Starting point is 00:05:30 Collins and Devin Key, Ethan and Hila Klein, and Sophia Nygaard. Here, Susan starts by addressing one of the most mentioned YouTuber topics, monetization and what makes something ineligible for it. And here she says they're hoping to improve this by making the actual guidelines more detailed to help creators make decisions

Starting point is 00:05:44 that could affect their chance of getting demonetized. She then brings up complaints about what makes it to the trending page, which of course is something that is constantly brought up, but especially when you have like the PewDiePies or the Shane Dawson's of the world putting out a video that just blows up. Right, sometimes six or twelve times things that are on the trending page, yet somehow it's not on trending itself. And regarding this, Susan says, One thing to keep in mind is that trending is meant to show content that a wide range of viewers would find interesting. So we're especially careful about the safety of these videos and we ensure they don't contain profanity or mature content. Then going on to say, eligible videos are then ranked based on a calculation of their, quote, temperature, or rather how quickly that video is generating views.

Starting point is 00:06:19 But then going on to say that moving forward they want at least half of the videos on trending to come from a diverse set of YouTubers and the rest to be kind of your music and traditional media. She then goes on to talk about manual copyright claims and a complaint that many have had where an entire video will be copyright claimed for just seconds of content. And here there are just numerous examples, large and small creator alike, someone maybe kind of like sort of sings something in the background, they get hit with a copyright claim. And sometimes after an appeal that can be reversed, but I mean you have to think about the number of smaller creators that are probably being preyed on. And regarding this, Susan says, "'We were already looking into this issue,

Starting point is 00:06:49 "'but hearing this directly from creators was vital. "'We are exploring improvements and striking the right "'balance between copyright owners and creators.'" And then Wojcicki addressed complaints that some creators are being harassed by others, saying, "'While criticism from fellow creators "'can be constructive, any threats or doxing "'crosses the line.

Starting point is 00:07:03 "'Such behavior is already prohibited by our policies, but stay tuned as we will do more to discourage this from happening on the platform." Which kind of brings up the question mark of, are we going to see somewhat of a smackdown on our existing commentary community, which has just been blowing up? And that's not saying that the entire commentary community

Starting point is 00:07:19 is toxic and they're doxing everyone. Obviously when anything becomes the focus, there's a big question of, well, where is YouTube going to say the line is? We also had Wojcicki addressing the passing of the EUCD with Article 13, now 17, specifically how there is still hope to impact the way that the laws are rolled out,

Starting point is 00:07:33 saying that this is not the end. And then the final section, Wojcicki talks about improving communication, this including adding new features to the YouTube Studio Beta and the update to the Community Guideline Strike System that they rolled out back in February that includes more details on the reason for each strike.

Starting point is 00:07:44 And ultimately, as far as my opinion on this, one, I do think that it is good back in February that includes more details on the reason for each strike and ultimately as far as my Opinion on this one I do think that it is good that Susan is taking a more active role in speaking out to the community I mean that both with these blogs as well as reaching out to creators I'm also glad that it appears that she is reaching out to the Ethan and Hila Clines of the community since I feel like they might go even further and deeper and more critical regarding her last point about Updates and more details if I were to make a creator request, I would love if they also had an indicator icon

Starting point is 00:08:08 for when a video is being suppressed. And when I say suppressed, I mean when a video, because of the content, it doesn't pop up in recommended, it doesn't pop up on the front page. YouTube constantly defends itself by saying that, you know, if a video gets demonetized, that doesn't mean we're suppressing it. And while technically accurate,

Starting point is 00:08:22 because technically there are two different systems, it is a very weak defense. And having more details around why a video will not pop up in the places that so many people now consume that content, where they've been trained to click that content. That would be immensely helpful for, I think, a good number of people, but then also specifically for this channel,

Starting point is 00:08:38 because it feels like we're often penalized because we're talking about very serious, hard to deal with situations. But that's where I'll leave that one. Of course, I'd love to know your thoughts about her reaction and response and her words in general on any of the topics that she addressed. Yeah, let me know what you're thinking

Starting point is 00:08:52 in those comments down below. And then let's talk about what the hell happened in Paris today. Before fully diving into it, we need to talk about the Yellow Vest movement in general, which of course we've talked about before, but it has been a while. So just to give you a quick little refresher,

Starting point is 00:09:03 the Yellow Vest protests started back in November. They were initially to fight against proposed fuel tax, and while all of these protests started out peaceful, some did turn violent, with cars being burned, windows being shattered, and according to AP, at least four deaths were linked to the protest. And after about three weeks of people taking to the streets, French President Emmanuel Macron caved

Starting point is 00:09:19 and scrapped the fuel tax. But Yellow Vests are still fighting Macron's economic policies. They believe that their president is out of touch with ordinary people and is protecting the wealthy class over lower and middle class citizens. Specifically saying they want higher taxes on wealthy people, lower taxes for workers and pensioners, and they want more public spending that would benefit the working class in France. Some also want Macron to resign and are pushing for the country to hold early elections so they can be voted out sooner. But with that said, what does the rest of France think?

Starting point is 00:09:44 Well, back when the movement started, and it was at its peak, around two thirds of French citizens were in support of the protest. But support for the movement is declining. A poll at the end of February said that over half of French citizens believe that the Yellow Vest protest should end. But still, that's not to say that many people in France

Starting point is 00:09:57 do not have problems with Macron. At the lowest, his approval rating was just 23%, and right now it is only around 30. Also, it appears he's still trying to appease the yellow vest. Just last week he proposed a 5 billion euro tax cut for lower and working classes, but some protesters may not see this move as enough, which actually brings us to today.

Starting point is 00:10:13 We saw thousands of people participate in May Day demonstrations and protests in Paris. The French Interior Ministry said about 28,000 people turned out, but news outlets like France 24 and other labor groups and unions said the number was as high as 40,000. And for those who aren't familiar with May Day, May Day demonstrations are common because May 1st is International Workers' Day. Throughout history, labor and socialist groups have held rallies on May 1st.

Starting point is 00:10:32 And in France specifically, it's actually a public holiday where there are annual marches to defend workers' rights. Unfortunately, these protests turn violent, which I will note violence at May Day protests in Europe is actually pretty common. But this year, authorities knew that the situation could be worse than usual. And that was because in addition to the yellow vests, there were also warnings this year, authorities knew that the situation could be worse than usual. And that was because in addition to the yellow vests, there were also warnings that 2,000 black bloc protesters would be present. And the black bloc is often described

Starting point is 00:10:50 as a far left anarchist group. Both the yellow vests and the black blocs clashed with the police officers. We saw car windows smashed, small fires started. We saw protesters throwing rocks and other objects at police. 7,400 officers were reportedly deployed in Paris. Right now, at least 200 arrests have been made.

Starting point is 00:11:05 Officers also allegedly used tear gas to control the large crowds. Officers also reportedly took preventative measures before the protest, searching over 12,000 bags. They ordered 580 local shops and businesses to close for the day. Police have also been urging peaceful protesters to break away from the violence so that they can intervene.

Starting point is 00:11:19 Which I will say is an important note to hit on because I think that when these things go wrong, because you can have this Peaceful protest, but obviously the cameras will go to the people destroying stuff It becomes very easy even on a subconscious level to just associate the entire thing with damage destruction Violence also a big note here is that these mayday protests weren't just happening in Paris reportedly there were 230 other protests all around France and except for Paris the rest reportedly remained peaceful also We saw protests popping up all over Europe and around the globe.

Starting point is 00:11:46 In Sweden we saw reports of protesters allegedly threw cobblestones at police. Although here, reportedly that was because they were being blocked from a neo-nazi rally, that they were upset, received approval to have a May Day march. Then in Russia we saw reports of over 100 people being detained from demonstrations. 68 alone were in St. Petersburg where people were calling for a fairer election process. Italy we saw two protesters and a police officer being injured. There you had people demonstrating against a high-speed railway being built

Starting point is 00:12:07 between Italy and France. But also a thing to keep in mind, these are just some examples. This was far more widespread. But with all that said, I'd love to know your thoughts on the May Day demonstration, specifically what's happening in France. Also, if you're one of the beautiful bastards,

Starting point is 00:12:18 part of the DeFranco nation, you live in France or around France, what's it like there? What are your personal thoughts on this movement? Yeah, of course, let me know what you're thinking in those comments down below. And then let's try and talk about and consolidate all this news that we're getting around

Starting point is 00:12:30 Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General William Barr. So, it's been a little while since we talked about this, but the redacted version of Mueller's two-year investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election was released to the public on April 18th. But a large part of what we're gonna be talking about today actually goes back to March 24th.

Starting point is 00:12:45 And that is when Attorney General William Barr sent a four page summary of the report to Congress. And we covered Barr's letter on the show in the past, but kind of a quick TLDR takeaway. He wrote that Mueller did not find that Donald Trump or anyone in his campaign conspired with Russian officials to interfere in the election. And two, that Mueller did not reach a conclusion

Starting point is 00:12:58 as to whether or not Trump obstructed justice, leaving it up to Barr to decide if obstruction happened, which he concluded it did not because he believed there was not enough evidence. And I mention that because yesterday, the Washington Post reported that they had reviewed a letter Mueller sent to Barr on March 27th. Right, and the timing is important

Starting point is 00:13:12 because this is three days after Barr's summary was sent to Congress. And this letter reportedly said that Barr's summary of the report conclusion did not accurately capture Mueller's work and created public confusion about the results of the investigation. And Mueller's letter to Barr was released to the public this morning, so we're gonna take a look at that.

Starting point is 00:13:26 In the letter to Barr, Mueller writes, aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the department appointed the special counsel to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigation." Mueller also saying that he sent Barr a redacted version of the introductions and executive summaries of both volumes of his report, the first volume detailing Russian interference and the second detailing possible obstruction of justice. And writing that while Barr was reviewing the full report, he should still release the already redacted introductions and summaries stating that the release of those documents, quote, would alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen and would answer congressional

Starting point is 00:14:09 and public questions about the nature and outcome of our investigation. Reportedly, the day after Mueller sent the letter, he and Barr spoke on the phone regarding the situation. The Justice Department spokesperson, Kerry Kupik, describing the call in a statement saying that Mueller did not believe that anything Barr said was, quote, inaccurate or misleading,

Starting point is 00:14:23 but saying that Mueller, quote, expressed frustration over the lack of context and the resulting media coverage regarding the special counsel's obstruction analysis. Also saying that Barr and Mueller talked about releasing the introductions and executive summaries, but Barr ultimately determined that it would not be productive to release the report in piecemeal fashion. Reportedly the next day, Barr sent a letter to Congress reiterating that his initial letter was not intended to be a summary of the report and only stated Mueller's main conclusions. Just so we understand here, basically, Mueller's argument isn't that Barr lied, but rather that Barr created a narrative that didn't provide enough context on the obstruction debate that was spread around by the media for almost a month before the public saw the report. And so, you know, now we have kind of three things. We have the report that was made available to the public, we have Barr as four pages, we now have Mueller's letter.

Starting point is 00:15:01 So we're gonna try to unpack some of the statements that Barr has made that could use some more context per Mueller's letter. As we noted before the first section of the report investigated Russian interference in the election and as you might have seen Barr gave a press conference before the full report was released. And during that he repeated many of the things that he said in the four page summary that he put out in March. He said the report had not proven that the president obstructed justice and that there was no evidence of collusion. Also defending the fact that he had gone farther than the report does and cleared Trump of obstruction. And this statement is true. Mueller's report did conclude that Trump and his campaign did not conspire with Russia. However, Mueller had a more nuanced take on the subject than just quote, no collusion. And this is partly because collusion is not a legal term. The actual charge is conspiracy,

Starting point is 00:15:36 which Mueller did not find enough evidence of to prosecute. And when you look at the full context of the section on the Trump campaign ties to Russia, it says, the investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign adding that the investigation Established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and work to secure that outcome and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts But adding the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities which on that note, the investigation also looked into the hacking of the DNC in the release of the hacked information through WikiLeaks.

Starting point is 00:16:09 And there it said that Trump asked those close to him to find Clinton's deleted emails. Writing after candidate Trump stated on July 27th, 2016 that he hoped Russia would quote, "'find the 30,000 emails that are missing,' Trump asked individuals affiliated with his campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails. However, Mueller did not find any evidence

Starting point is 00:16:25 that Trump or anyone associated with his campaign coordinated the release with WikiLeaks. Mueller also looked at the connections between people close to Trump and their ties to Russia, including a detailed rundown of the Trump Tower meeting, but again, ultimately, could not find enough evidence to back up a conspiracy charge. Which brings us to the second part of the report,

Starting point is 00:16:38 focused on whether or not actions taken by the president towards the Russia investigation could be considered obstruction of justice. Barr, of course, said that the report did not come to a final conclusion, and so he took it upon himself to clear the president towards the Russia investigation could be considered obstruction of justice. Barr, of course, said that the report did not come to a final conclusion, and so he took it upon himself to clear the president, which, of course, brings us to the questions, well, why doesn't the report actually clear him,

Starting point is 00:16:51 and what does it actually say? In Barr's four-page summary, it included this quote from the Mueller report, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. However, it's been pointed out that Barr did not provide the full context of this quote.

Starting point is 00:17:03 In Mueller's report, the full excerpt states, justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, which we're gonna touch on in a second, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. And the report itself lays out multiple instances that could have been obstruction of justice, including Trump reportedly trying to get former director of the FBI,

Starting point is 00:17:38 James Comey, to drop the investigation, which Comey did not. Trump reportedly trying to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal and get him back on the Russia investigation, which Sessions did not do. Trump firing Comey did not. Trump reportedly trying to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal and get him back on the Russia investigation, which Sessions did not do. Trump firing Comey. Trump reportedly directing former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller,

Starting point is 00:17:51 which he ended up just choosing to resign instead. Trump reportedly tried to prevent the disclosure of Trump Jr.'s involvement in the Trump Tower meeting. And Trump and his team reportedly urging people not to, quote, flip for the investigation. And in every instance, Mueller avoids coming to a conclusion on whether an action is or is not obstruction of justice,

Starting point is 00:18:06 which gets us closer to one of the key things that I said we were gonna touch on. Right, Barr has said multiple times that because Mueller did not reach a conclusion, it was up to Barr himself to decide if Trump committed obstruction of justice. And during Barr's press conference, before the full report was released,

Starting point is 00:18:18 he was asked if Mueller had actually intended for Congress rather than the Attorney General to determine if Trump had obstructed justice, to which Barr responded by telling reporters Special Counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. But it turns out that is actually not true. In fact, Mueller explicitly outlines legal and constitutional arguments explaining that the power to decide whether or not Trump obstructed justice is left to Congress, with the report stating that this decision is not the job of either the Special Counsel or Attorney General

Starting point is 00:18:41 Barr. And Mueller makes two key arguments here to back up this claim. First, he points out that Congress has the ability to apply obstruction laws to sitting presidents under the constitutional system of checks and balances. Right, and this is one of the key things that Mueller hit on. It's Robert Mueller's belief that because of current Department of Justice policies, he is prohibited, he is prevented from charging a sitting president.

Starting point is 00:18:58 And the special counsel dives into this a little more regarding Congress, writing, "'We concluded that Congress has authority "'to prohibit a president's corrupt use of his authority "'in order to protect the integrity "'of the administration of justice.'" And another argument that Mueller makes is, writing, "'We concluded that Congress has authority "'to prohibit a president's corrupt use of his authority "'in order to protect the integrity "'of the administration of justice.'" And another argument that Mueller makes is, quote, "'The Constitution does not categorically

Starting point is 00:19:11 "'and permanently immunize a president "'for obstructing justice.'" And he combines these arguments to say that giving the president immunity, quote, "'would seriously impair Congress's power to enact laws.'" And so what Mueller is saying here is that it would, in fact, be constitutional to apply obstruction laws to Trump

Starting point is 00:19:24 if Congress were to find that he did obstruct justice. And that's important to know because that is a claim that is in direct opposition of Barr. Barr has repeatedly argued during his time as Attorney General and in fact before his appointment that the Mueller investigation was overstepping and that Trump could not be charged with obstruction of justice. However, Mueller's report and findings mean that Barr doesn't actually have the authority to make this decision. Instead, that goes to Congress, Which brings us to all the updates around this story that's happening today that we can't even get to. As of recording this video today,

Starting point is 00:19:48 we had Barr testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Regarding that, I'll link to video of a livestream as well as just several places where this was being covered. You know, as far as a final reaction to all of this, I mean, a big chunk of this for me ultimately boils down to net result politics. Like many others, I think we should be incredibly concerned about Russia's efforts to interfere in our election process.

Starting point is 00:20:07 With the current makeup of Congress, the level of partisanship that we have seen over, I mean, the past two years, but really the past 10 years, makes me think that this situation does not further develop or get more negative for Trump or his administration. And so I don't really know where it all goes from here. But with all that said regarding the comparing and contrasting what we know now,

Starting point is 00:20:24 I'd love to know your thoughts. So much of this happened while I was out. I've been really interested to know your thoughts on this. And also keep in mind due to time limitations, we're not talking about every single aspect of this, but some of the concerning pieces. Yeah, I'd love to hear from you. That's where we're going to end today's show. And remember if you like this video, you want to support the channel, take a second, hit that like button. Also, if you're new here and you want to be filled in more consistently, be sure to hit that subscribe button. Also, if you're not 100% filled in, if you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show the last deep diving click or tap right there

Starting point is 00:20:48 Or you can check out all the other stories that we haven't covered on the show over at rogue rocket.com But with that said of course as always my name is Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in I love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.1 What Is Instagram Hiding?! HUGE Debate Sparked, Youtube CEO Responds, & More

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