The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 5.28 Myka Stauffer Gives Up Adopted Son, Exploitation Claims & Outrage, Tana Mongeau OnlyFans

Episode Date: May 28, 2020

You have 4 days left to get our new limited edition gear! http://ShopDeFranco.com Check out SimpliSafe http://simplisafe.com/DeFranco to get award-winning, reliable, 24/7 home security w/ no contracts! My PODCAST is BACK! Watch NEW Ep w/ Joe Bereta: https://youtu.be/5UlbR-pXtU8 -- 00:00 - Announcement 00:50 - Myka Stauffer 07:09 - TIA 08:36 - Tana's OnlyFans Controversy 12:05 - Trump vs Twitter -- WATCH Full “A Convo With” Podcasts: https://www.youtube.com/ACW LISTEN On The Podcast Platform Of Your Choice: http://LinksHole.com WATCH the ACW Clips channel!: https://youtube.com/ACWClips ✩ FOLLOW ME ✩ ✭ TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PhillyD ✭ INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco/ ✩ SUPPORT THE SHOW ✩ ✭ BUY our GEAR, Support the Show!: http://ShopDeFranco.com ✭ Lemme Touch Your Hair: http://BeautifulBastard.com ✭ Paid Subscription: http://DeFrancoElite.com ✩ TODAY IN AWESOME ✩ ✭ Dakota Johnson is a “Would You Rather?” Icon on Stir Crazy: https://youtu.be/E99YmCYs0I4 ✭ Jewelry Expert Critiques Even More Rappers' Chains: https://youtu.be/xEd4gBNUtNg ✭ F is for Family Season 4 | Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/8HmQZxDTpe0 ✭ Secret Link: https://youtu.be/WHdrLnTJ8UA ✩ TODAY’S STORIES ✩ YouTuber Myka Stauffer Slammed: https://roguerocket.com/2020/05/28/myka-stauffer-adoption/ Tana Mongeau Joins OnlyFans: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/tana-mongeau-joins-onlyfans/ Trump To Issue Executive Order Against Social Media Platforms After Fact Check War with Twitter https://roguerocket.com/2020/05/28/twitter-executive-order/ ✩ STORIES NOT IN TODAY’S SHOW ✩ Pennsylvania Democrats Claim Republicans Hid A House Member’s Diagnosis: https://roguerocket.com/2020/05/28/pa-dems-rant/ ——————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg Produced by: Amanda Morones Art Director: Brian Borst Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Cory Ray, Neena Pesqueda, Brian Espinoza Production Team: Zack Taylor, Luke Manning ———————————— #DeFranco #TanaMongeau #MykaStauffer ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey, today is Thursday and actually just like yesterday, out of necessity, we're having to split today's Philip DeFranco show into two parts. Part two of today's Philip DeFranco show will be live on this channel in two hours. There, I have to be really vague about it in this video, I'll be talking about a very heavy, important graphic topic. It's the kind of story that often gets suppressed

on YouTube, not popping up and recommended or not as much, same with the homepage. So we split it into two pieces so that can live there and then this, part one of the Philip DeFranco show can one, be a good show on its own, as well as serve as a reminder for you to not miss that video, which once again, it's great that you're subscribed.

Thank you, make sure you have that bell clicked. And it looks like this, your bell is filled in and has like two little lines. I know this is a weird dance we've been having to do, but I don't want to not talk about important things just because I'm worried that it's gonna hit us. But with that said, welcome to part one of the Thursday Philip DeFranco Show.

Buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is one of the most requested stories today. So this story, it revolves around a YouTube couple, and don't worry, you don't need to know who they are to understand the story. Before this, I didn't know who they were.

So the people at the center of this story are Micah Stauffer and her husband, James. Micah, she runs a YouTube channel with over 700,000 subscribers subscribers where she posts videos about home organization, her experience as a mother. She also posts vlogs on a separate family channel that has over 300,000 subscribers. Also, I'd give you numbers regarding the vlog channel, but currently there's no content there. And you know, for years this couple has shared intimate details about their lives as parents, from pregnancies to births and beyond. Notably for this story today, one of the most emotional experiences that they've shared has been their international adoption journey,

with the Stauffers adopting a young boy by the name of Huxley from China in October of 2017. And actually the video of him being brought home is the most viewed video on Micah's channel with over 5.5 million views. And you know, with this, Huxley ended up being kind of a big part of the channel. I mean, just according to Micah's channel,

she shared 27 videos about her adoption journey, which is something that we'll touch on in a moment because the reason we're talking about all of this, the reason Micah and James' faces have been in thumbnails on news sites all over this week, is that they released an update video and confirmed to the world that Huxley had actually been taken in by a new adoptive family.

And in this video, the couple says that medical professionals in the adoption agency felt that it was best to find a better fit for Huxley after several evaluations. However, following this video, a ton of people are outraged with this news, accusing the family of exploiting the child and his story for sponsorships and monetized videos,

then giving up on him because of his special needs. Which regarding that last point in the video, James says that Huxley has been in numerous therapies over the last few years to help with his severe special needs. Micah has also previously said he has reactive attachment disorder and level three autism, though the adoption agency initially told her he had

brain damage and a brain tumor. And according to James, over the last year specifically, Huxley's therapy sessions have been more intense. After multiple assessments, after multiple evaluations, numerous medical professionals have felt that he needed a different fit and that his medical needs, he needed a different fit and that his medical needs, he needed more. It also appears that in part, they put out this video because fans have been asking about Huxley for months. He hadn't appeared in any of their social media posts for a while, some even making Instagram accounts

dedicated to finding answers about his whereabouts. And so as far as why they waited to announce this news to the world, James said. It's because we've been trying to protect his privacy, his rights, and also just try to not mess up his future that was laid out in front of us. We're trying our best to make sure we don't impact that at all by making this video.

Micah also explaining that she tried to share as little as she could about Huxley's situation because. Anything that happened in the home that was hard for Hux, that's not fair for me to put out there publicly. That's his privacy. So we're not gonna talk about that. That's not appropriate. And that'll never be appropriate.

I didn't adopt a little boy to share these things publicly. Also saying they waited to talk about this because medical professionals have been allowing Huxley to spend time with different people to help him find his new quote, forever family. And ultimately they say that talk about this because medical professionals have been allowing Huxley to spend time with different people to help him find his new quote, forever family. And ultimately they say that Huxley is now in a home that the adoption agency feels is the best fit for him with a parent that has medical professional training.

And in this you have the couple saying that they're grieving, they've tried to help him as much as possible because they never wanted to be in this position. Do I feel like a failure as a mom? Like 500%. So when you get like insidious, hurtful comments, it just really makes it hurt worse.

It's not about me at all, but it's just like this journey has been, the last couple months have been the hardest thing I could have ever imagined going to, choosing to do. With the couple closing out their video by asking followers to respect their privacy and understand that they are hurting even if they are seen

on social media in positive spirits. Right, so like I said following this video there was a lot of backlash, really brutal stuff out there. Some of the responses I can include though include I'm sorry, but you did fail as a mom. You wouldn't have given up your own child. Another writing autistic children aren't puppies They don't have forever families. They don't get rehomed They get abandoned which brings us back to the vlog channel where as of recording this video, there is no content on it. Right, so it appears that they were deleted or recently turned private following all of this outrage. And on top of that, there are a ton of people

who feel that the couple exploited Huxley for their channel, pointing to the fact that they monetized adoption videos and took sponsorships for them. We've also seen a number of people calling for the family to take all the videos of Huxley down, while others are sharing a Change.org petition asking YouTube to remove monetization from those videos. Others have slammed Micah because she was viewed

as an adoption advocate who wrote for parenting blogs and magazines and she posted things suggesting she wouldn't trade Huxley for anything. Also with this story there's a screenshot of a pinned YouTube comment that was allegedly written by Micah that's circulating the internet. However, I do want to note that comment is not currently pinned under her video so I can't personally confirm right now if that is real. A member of the team has reached out for comment but we haven't gotten anything back yet. The comment says that the family would never just give up a child with special needs. This is a personal matter to Hux.

It had nothing to do with him just having autism. Going on to say, multiple scary things happened inside the home towards our other children. If these events happened with one of my biological kids, after all the help and after the behaviors we witnessed, sadly, we would have no other choice than to seek help and get their needs met.

That comment also claiming that Huxley wanted this decision 100%. And added, we saw that in family time with other people, he constantly chose them and signed and showed tons of emotion to show us and let us know he wanted this. Ultimately, that is where we are with this story. Of course, I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this?

Because right now, as far as my opinion on this topic, even though we had so many people asking for us to cover this, I didn't know if I wanted to. You know, because the moment that I see the story, I hear the story, I immediately get enraged. Then I kind of have to take a step back because I know that my reaction is based off of my own personal experience.

I don't really talk about my childhood a lot, but one of the things that stemmed from it is a lot of the time I felt like I was not wanted, like I should not, I was always getting in the way, I was a problem. And so I don't want to take those feelings that I've probably never fully processed and project it onto these people in this situation

and maybe I'm blinded to nuance in a complicated situation. So I don't wanna go with their throats, but I know that I feel something. So I think the best way to end this story is one, to pass the question off to you to help me maybe even process my feelings on this. What are your thoughts when it comes to this story in general?

And two, if there is a note that I can end on, I just end up hoping that Huxley is okay. I hope it is true that he is happy and he is better off in this other place and that the people love him and they want him and they're equipped to handle any and everything now that they have him. Because love is important, but support is important

in the good and the bad. Right, so if there is that kind of hopeful thought, hopefully there's not like scars and emotional trauma and he is in a much better place. Yeah, I think that's where I have to end this one. Then, let's talk about an entertainment story I've been asked if I could give an opinion on. So there's this big YouTuber by the name of Tana Mongeau.

We've covered her on the show for a number of times, usually controversies, lies, stuff like that. But the reason her name popped up in the news this week is that she has now launched an OnlyFans. A very large creator and personality, all of a sudden going R and X rated. If you're unfamiliar with OnlyFans, a lot of what people post over there,

it's like lewd photos, sexy photos, sometimes nude, pornographic. There's a bunch of different ways of the people who post that content can make money from it. Now I have personally not subscribed to Tana's OnlyFans, but I've seen some people who have gone and followed her and there are purchases where it's like, if you want to see something, you have to pay like $44.

People getting messages like, Hey, join my VIP thing for $200. Looking at that, as far as my opinion on it, for her, sure, why not? I don't care. If someone wants to drop any money, let alone 44 or $200, okay, I think that's insane. But if you want to, fine.

And I mean for her, one, it doesn't seem too off-brand, this seems like something that she'd be like, yeah, why not? Part of her brand and appeal in general appears to be because she over shares, and this is just a different version of that. But also, two, this opinion comes from someone that I don't think that it's a big deal

if someone creates an OnlyFans or like starts sharing their body. I don't, that said, all I would say to someone that's thinking about doing it is, you know, ask yourself two questions. One, human beings can be pretty shitty. You know this, you live amongst them. It is unfortunate and wrong,

but you kind of have to ask yourself the question, am I okay if someone tries to hold this over my head in the future, they try to make me feel less than, or what would happen if people I care about, they saw it or their friends saw it? Is that something you're emotionally fine with, ready to navigate and deal with? Also, are you fine with the way that it might limit

personal and business goals for you in the future? And two, if you're younger and you're asking yourself that question, understand that like, you know, if what you're thinking when you're 18 to 24 isn't necessarily where your mind is going to be or who you are going to be when you're 35. And one of the things I've seen critics and shamers say is like, oh my God, like, let's say you're older

and you could imagine what the kid's gonna say when they find out their mom did blank. In my head, I'm like, I don't know, thank you for private school. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. It could also be where my head's at because for 14 years, I thought of myself and others, unfortunately, as products. If you told me right now, over the course

of the next few years, I could make low millions of dollars because I showed my nipples, let's do it. Wait, what's that? I don't have to work nine to 10 hour days anymore so the next few years I could make low millions of dollars because I showed my nipples. Let's do it. Wait, what's that? I don't have to work nine to 10 hour days anymore talking about the most depressing stuff in the world? I can just do what I want and then every now and then whip out my boobs?

Yes, please. I'd love to see the sun between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. on a weekday. Who cares? We're dumb piles of sentient meat. Once again, understand when you're making life choices that will affect you for the rest of your life. Understand that my opinion is not everybody's opinion.

Now, like I even said, your opinion now may not even be your opinion later. Like we've literally seen teachers in the past lose their jobs because it turned out they modeled before and then someone found it and was like, oh, that's too risque. There's no way Ms. Thompson can teach history if she had the self-confidence to take that photo.

But all of that said, I guess the main point of this story is I'm very excited to announce philsnips.com, where right now a premium subscription is 90% off, meaning that nine out of the 10 nips that you see in my photos are essentially free. This is so dumb. I can't include this in this show. I don't know what I'm doing with this.

Actually, no, I am including this because I need something light and stupid amidst the horrible chaos. But sticking with PDS values, I do want to pass a question off to you. What are your thoughts on this? And it can be about Tana, but not even specifically about Tana. What do you think about, I mean, there's really been a rise in the number of people starting OnlyFans accounts. What do you think? Bad move or not a big deal? Good for you. And then let's talk about and expand on Donald Trump and Twitter and the the implications we may now see.

Right, so we touched on this yesterday, link down below to that, but we've seen a number of updates now. Let's talk about and expand on Donald Trump and Twitter and the implications we may now see. Right, so we touched on this yesterday, link down below to that, but we've seen a number of updates now. Now if you missed that video, the oversimplified version is you had Trump tweeting about mail-in ballots. And in those tweets, he's really pushing the idea

that mail-in ballots will lead to massive voter fraud, even though a majority of experts disagree. He also claims that California governor Gavin Newsom plans to send mail-in ballots to everyone living in the state, quote, no matter who they are or how they got there. Notably, that is not true. Newsom actually plans to send ballots onlyin ballots to everyone living in the state, quote, no matter who they are or how they got there. Notably, that is not true. Newsom actually plans to send ballots only

to registered voters. And because these two tweets had misleading information, or as some people would put it, fear-mongering and a lie, you then saw Twitter slapping a fact check warning over both of them. Trump lashes out saying it's stifling free speech and that he would strongly regulate or even close down social media platforms.

Right, and with that, you had a number of people saying, well, how would he do that? What would that look like? Can he do that? Right, so look like? Can he do that? Right, so that happens and then the next thing we see are reports that Trump plans to take action against social media companies by way of executive order. That announcement coming yesterday evening

from the White House Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. As I'm recording this video, we don't know the details of that executive order yet, but Trump is expected to sign it by the end of the day. But according to a draft order that was allegedly obtained by CNBC, it'll target a 1996 statute that shields big tech companies from liability from their users' content. And that is because the statute also contains a section

that allows platforms to remove material they find objectionable, all without them being treated like a publisher or the speaker. Right, so that's pretty much the basis of why you have Trump and a lot of Republicans repeatedly accusing social media platforms of having an anti-conservative bias,

essentially accusing them of getting rid of or invalidating conservative viewpoints. In fact, last night a Trump administration official told Politico, These platforms act like they are potted plants when in reality they are curators of user experience, i.e. the man behind the curtain for everything we can see or hear. That official going on to describe the order as broad and high-level, saying it'll address complaints that the online platforms are deceiving people by picking and choosing what content to allow or block instead of acting as politically neutral platforms or moderators.

Now, despite all of that, and in the face of it, we've seen Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey defending the move, saying that Trump's tweets quote, "'May mislead people into thinking they don't need "'to register to get a ballot. "'Only registered voters receive ballots.'" Dorsey also adding that Twitter will continue to issue fact check warnings, and adding,

"'Fact check, there is someone ultimately accountable "'for our actions as a a company and that's me. Please leave our employees out of this. We'll continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally and we will admit to and own any mistakes we make. This does not make us an arbiter of truth. Our intention is to connect the dots

of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves. More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions." And notably there, Dorsey used that phrase, "'Arbiter of truth'," and this seemingly to hit back at Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who told CNBC yesterday. I don't think that Facebook or internet platforms

in general should be arbiters of truth. I think that's a kind of a dangerous line to get down to in terms of deciding what is true and what isn't. And I think political speech is one of the most sensitive parts in a democracy, and people should be able to see what politicians say. And there's a ton of scrutiny already. Political speech is the most scrutinized speech already by a lot of the media. But with all of that said, with this story, there is the very big question of, well, how much power does Trump actually have to regulate social media platforms? And the answer

found while looking into this is that without congressional action, it is limited. But it's also not unlikely that we could see congressional action here. This 1996 statute has been widely controversial on both sides of the aisle. I mean, for example, while he's not in Congress, earlier this year, we saw Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, saying that the section which allows companies to remove objectionable content, it should be revoked. Yesterday we also saw Republican Senator from Missouri,

Josh Hawley, say, "'Why should Twitter continue to get special treatment "'from government as a mere distributor "'of other people's content if you were going to "'editorialize and comment like a publisher?' "'Shouldn't you be treated like a publisher?' With Hawley also going on to say that he'll introduce legislation to end these special government giveaways

and that Twitter should be divested of its special status under federal law. We've also seen Trump ally, Representative Matt Gaetz, announcing that he plans to propose similar legislation in the House. Still, with that said, legislation like this will likely face opposition. And I say that partly because, you know,

back in October we saw Republican Representative Kathy McMorris Rogers say, "'I want to be very clear. "'I'm not for gutting Section 230. It's essential for consumers and entities in the internet ecosystem. Misguided and hasty attempts to amend or even repeal Section 230 for bias or other reasons

could have unintended consequences for free speech and the ability for small businesses to provide new and innovative services. We've also seen Senator from Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, essentially blaming Trump and other Republicans of playing political theater with these fact check labels, saying whatever the credible criticisms of current law,

Trump's demagogic meat-axe attack is exactly wrong. He intimidates free speech and imperils responsible reform. It's condemnable. Also, interestingly enough, and understand I am filming this before we have a finalized definitive version of what this executive order is, we're seeing reports that if the finalized version of this

is similar to the draft, the executive order would quote, "'Seek to strip liability protection in certain cases "'for companies like Twitter, Google, and Facebook "'for the content on their sites, "'meaning they could face legal jeopardy "'if they allowed false and defamatory posts. "'Without a liability shield, they presumably "'would have to be more aggressive about policing messages

"'that press the boundaries, like the president's.'" Especially because as that report points out, while the president has talked about censorship, his tweet is still up there, it's not deleted, it is just now also accompanied by that link to get more information. And update, as we were preparing to put this video out, we actually saw Trump sign that order.

And all of this, of course, still developing, but it does appear that this order is in line with the draft that we just talked about. On top of that, you also had Trump saying that he plans to pursue legislation in Congress, as well as Attorney General William Barr saying that the Justice Department is preparing to sue social media companies,

saying those companies have stretched the statute way beyond its original intention. But that is where we are with this right now. We're gonna keep an eye on the situation. We're gonna have to wait and see what happens here. But you know, yesterday I asked, what do you think about Twitter? What they're doing?

What should they do? The question I'll pass today is what do you think about Trump's posturing here? And are you concerned, happy, confused about what he may be doing here? Of course, let me know what you're thinking and why. And that is where I'm going to end today's show. As always, thank you for watching,

hitting that like button on this video, being a part of the conversation in those comments down below. If you're new here and you liked this video or you hated this video, but you want more of that in the future, be sure to hit that subscribe button. Definitely tap that bell

to turn on notifications all the time. Also, if you're looking for more to watch, maybe you missed one of yesterday's shows. I have a brand new podcast out or in the description. If it's been that long, you can watch part two of today's Philip DeFranco show. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco.

You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you next time. I hope you liked the video. Subscribe if you like it.