The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 7.24 Why People Are Freaking Out About Ariana Grande, Marcus Hyde, Facebook, & More

Episode Date: July 24, 2019

Happy Wednesday! Snag some http://BeautifulBastard.com pomade, beard oil, and more! NEW 20% OFF Subscribe & Save option! Watch My New Personal Bonus Vid! (Why I Haven’t Quit): https://www.youtube.com/defrancodoes?sub_confirmation=1 Watch More PDS!: https://youtu.be/y44v1WwpWpE Watch the latest Bonus News video!: https://youtu.be/Cd6MfymkqBk ———————————— SUBSCRIBE to DeFrancoDoes: https://www.youtube.com/defrancodoes?sub_confirmation=1 Follow me for the personal stuff: https://www.instagram.com/phillydefranco/ Need more news? Find more stories here: http://roguerocket.com Support this content w/ a Paid subscription @ http://DeFrancoElite.com ———————————— Follow Me On: ————————————         TWITTER: http://Twitter.com/PhillyD FACEBOOK: http://on.fb.me/mqpRW7 INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/phillydefranco/ ————————————     Today in Awesome: ———————————— Check out https://phil.chrono.gg/ for 80% OFF “Grim Dawn” only available until 9 AM! Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Roundtable: https://youtu.be/h_W12HmsIMY Ballinger, Rock & Graceffa Take a Friendship Test: https://youtu.be/2TG0M_c2Gv4 David Dobrik Takes on Ellen's 'Burning Questions': https://youtu.be/So-Y8Cks1EQ The Fanatic Trailer: https://youtu.be/YRS6V8RXIKE Secret Link: https://youtu.be/BPRFtBhDYUw ————————————         Today’s Stories: ————————————      Ariana Grande and Kim Kardashian Speak About Photographer: https://roguerocket.com/?p=12905 Facebook to Pay $5 Billion Fine: https://roguerocket.com/?p=12909 U.S. Politics Updates: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/23/senate-overwhelmingly-passes-911-victim-fund-bill-97-2.html https://apnews.com/95956020d2c34661b174940057190433 https://www.axios.com/mueller-hearing-obstruction-of-justice-trump-exonerated-8cdef5c2-80ab-4462-a615-1b062983b102.html ————————————     More News Not Included In Show Today: ————————————      Judge Rejects Juvenile Sentencing for 4 Michigan Teens in Fatal Rock Throwing Case: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1154119278167130112 N.Y. Is Trying to Stop a Fake Heiress From Profiting Off a Series About Her Crimes: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1153758674877206528?s=20 Pennsylvania School District Threatens Foster Care Placement Over Lunch Debt: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1153394601232748544 NJ Judge Who Spared Teen Because He Was From a “Good Family” Steps Down: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1152563881304371200 Senate to Vote on Victims Fund Bill: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1152307546251649025 Berkeley To Remove Gendered Language From City Code: https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1152367803002949635 Was an Iowa Official Asked to Resign Over His Love of Tupac? https://twitter.com/TheRogueRocket/status/1151945632992485376?s=20 Jury Finds an Iowa State Official was Discriminated Against: https://roguerocket.com/?p=12698 ————————————     Edited by: James Girardier, Julie Goldberg Produced by: Amanda Morones, Brian Espinoza         Art Director: Brian Borst Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton ———————————— #DeFranco #KimKardashian #ArianaGrande ———————————— Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you have a fantastic Wednesday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show, and a quick note before we get started. One, I actually uploaded two videos today. There's this one that you're watching and maybe liking and leaving a comment and enjoying right now. And two, that random channel that I launched around a month ago called DeFranco Does, which actually stands for DeFranco Does Whatever, because it's just my whatever channel. It's no schedule or plan or expectations, it's freeing. And today, I talk about why after 12 years on this platform,

I still haven't quit. Also, it's one of the most chaotic videos I've uploaded in recent memory, but yeah, it's not a news thing. If you're here for just the news, just watch this video. Yeah, after watching today's BDS, if you wanna watch something that doesn't make you angry or sad, click one of those top links in the description.

It should be there. But with that said, let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is the situation and controversy surrounding celebrity photographer Marcus Hyde. Now, most of you out there probably don't know much about Hyde himself, but you definitely know people that he's worked with.

He has shot with the likes of Kim Kardashian and Ariana Grande. He's a big name in the photography industry. Right now, he's making headlines after several models have accused him of predatory behavior and sexual assault. And this all started when one model, Sanaya Nash, posted screenshots of her DMs with him online. It appears that they were messaging about

potentially doing a free photo shoot, and in those we can see he asks for nude photos, to which she replies, "'I don't have nude photos. "'I'm comfortable shooting lingerie and partial nudity.'" He responds, "'It's 2K then.'" She replies,

"'LOL, but nude is free?' To which he tells her, "'Yes.'" She then says she will shoot nudes, but won't send him photos. And he maintains that if that is the case, it will still cost $2,000. And adding, gotta see if you're worth it.

Also telling her she can find someone else to shoot with. And when Ash says, quote, yeah you whack, he tells her he can just keep shooting celebrities. After that, she then shows him that she posted their messages to her IG story, which he responds by telling her to, quote, suck a fat big dick. Now following all of this,

Instagram removed her story with a screenshot saying that it violated community guidelines and could even result in her account being removed. But still, once on the internet, forever on the internet. So the screenshot spread, also the screenshots remain on her Twitter account where she used the hashtag cancel Marcus Hyde.

Also notably, these screenshots were reposted to a popular fashion Instagram called Diet Prada who called Hyde gross and also called on Ariana and Kim to speak out against him. And this story ended up blowing up more and more with models coming out, sharing their stories, claiming that Hyde behaved inappropriately with them. On Monday, we saw Nash post a thread on Twitter

with several accusations coming from women who DM'd her about their experiences. In one, a girl says during a shoot, he stuck his fingers in her mouth, which made her uncomfortable. The claim goes on that after the shoot, he took her to a bar, he got her shots. He then took her to her apartment

where she went to the bathroom to throw up. She says that she was hoping he would leave and adds, "'Finally he came in to check on me "'and I wouldn't even open the door. "'I felt terrified. "'I just yelled at him to leave through the door. "'I also left some of my wardrobe in his car "'and he wouldn't give it back to me

"'unless I would go on a date with him. "'Never saw him or my clothes again.'" Another said that he sexually assaulted her before he became popular. Another writing that she met Hyde when she was 18, saying when he asked if she would be okay with mild nudity, she said yes because she was afraid he wouldn't do the shoot Otherwise and writing quote when I got to his place

He immediately started pouring shots for us to drink one after another Eventually he told me to get into lingerie and we would start shooting This was after I had way too much to drink he began shooting me and then wanted to get some POV shots him covering my nipples With his hands him shooting my ass with his hand on it He stuck a finger in my vagina and I told him to stop and that I was uncomfortable with it. Then continuing, he told me I was being vain and poured me another shot. Next thing I know, I'm behind wasted. We shot some more, he tried to finger me again, and I was too drunk to say stop.

He had sex with me and photographed the entire thing. She says she ends up leaving because she was scared and uncomfortable. Adding, a couple days later, he asked if we could get dinner. And adding, when I refused, he asked if I wanted to receive the pictures he took of me. I said yes, and he said he would only give them to me if I went over to his place again. And you also had Nash sharing several other screenshots of girls who said Hyde had asked them for nudes,

gotten them drunk, or touched them during shoots. Later that night, Ariana Grande posted to her Instagram story addressing the incident, though she didn't call out Hyde by name, writing, I have just read some shocking and really heartbreaking stories. I hate that this is a conversation, but please do not shoot with photographers who make you uncomfortable or make you feel like you need to take your clothing off Writing, We also saw Kim Kardashian respond to the news, though once again she did not refer to Hyde by name. And also encouraging models to look out for one another and to keep each other connected to photographers with good reputations We also saw Kim Kardashian respond to the news though

Once again, she did not refer to Hyde by name writing I've been reading all of the messages and stories from women regarding inappropriate and inexcusable behavior of a photographer that I have worked with in the past adding my own experiences have always been Professional and I am deeply shocked saddened and disappointed to learn that other women have had very different experiences in closing I stand in full support of every woman's right to not be harassed, asked, or pressured to do anything they are not comfortable with. We cannot allow this type of behavior to go unnoticed,

and I applaud those who speak out. Following all of this, we saw Nash once again take to Instagram, saying the real credit deserves to be given to the girls who were brave enough to come forward and share their stories with me. Additionally, I've received some consistent information about a few other male photographers that have acted inappropriately, and I'm sorting out how to bring that to attention as well. But also closing, I also want some consistent information about a few other male photographers that have acted inappropriately

and I'm sorting out how to bring that to attention as well. But also closing, I also want to make a point clear. Marcus Hyde did not assault me personally, but the screenshots I posted of our messages led others to come forward that he did sexually assault them. Now as far as Marcus Hyde's response to all of this, he has so far not said anything. He has also turned his Instagram private and it's unclear what he is going to do from here. And as Nash seemed to reference, although disconnected from her, it does appear that women speaking out about photographers is spreading. Because, for example, now we're seeing Diaprada and a model named Haley Bowman

calling out predatory behavior by Teamer Emick, who has notably shot for Victoria's Secret. Specifically, there are allegations that he has touched women during shoots. Regarding that, he has deleted his account. But ultimately, that is where we are right now. It'll be interesting to see how Hyde responds or if he responds. Also, will we see more accusations with this specific story or regarding other photographers?

For now, we have to wait, and of course, I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts around all of this? And then, let's talk about Facebook. They're an awesome website. Nothing sketchy has ever happened there. I'm obviously joking. The reason we're talking about Facebook is this morning, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the FTC,

announced that they were fining Facebook a record-breaking $5 billion for privacy violations. And in addition to that, they're also instituting sweeping privacy restrictions and oversight measures. Now, this is a huge deal, right? Because this is the largest fine that the FTC has ever imposed on a tech company by far. And according to the FTC's announcement, the fine is quote, "'the largest ever imposed on any company "'for violating consumers' privacy, "'and almost 20 times greater than the largest privacy

"'or data security penalty ever imposed worldwide,' with it also being one of the largest penalties ever assessed by the US government for any violation." And the FTC's announcement isn't coming out of nowhere, it's coming after a year-long investigation of Facebook for privacy violations. That, as you might remember, started right after the New York Times and the Observer of London

reported that Facebook allowed British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to harvest the data of millions of Facebook users without their knowledge, also building voter profiles from those users' data without their consent, and specifically here, Cambridge Analytica got that data from Facebook users who use the third-party app called This Is Your Digital Life. And one of the most massive things there was,

although it's been estimated that only around 270,000 people use the app, the users who gave the app permission to access and acquire their data also gave the app permission to access some of the data of all of their Facebook friends. Right, and I think we can all agree, not a great thing. But if your friend Becky or Glenn, you know, equal opportunity, they sign up for a big

in their mouth, it shouldn't mean that all their friends also get signed up for that same. And unfortunately in this situation, it resulted in 87 million in the mouth. Or to break from this reference, it resulted in the personal information of nearly 87 million Facebook users

being collected by Cambridge Analytica. Right, so this despite the vast majority of those people never giving the firm permission to access their information or even playing the game. Also along with investigating Cambridge Analytica, the FTC's investigation also expanded to look at other privacy concerns. Things like Facebook's data sharing policies

with other third party apps and device makers that Facebook users might not have been aware of or understood. And all of that culminated in the report and announcement released today by the FTC. And so let's take a look at what they found and what it means for Facebook. The FTC's official announcement starts out by saying

that in addition to the $5 billion fine, Facebook will also quote, "'Submit to new restrictions "'in a modified corporate structure "'that will hold the company accountable "'for the decisions it makes about its users' privacy' "'to settle FTC charges that the company violated "'a 2012 FTC order by deceiving users

"'about their ability to control the privacy "'of their personal information.'" With the FTC going on to describe the 2012 order, which quote, "'Prohibited Facebook from making misrepresentations "'about the privacy or security "'of consumers' personal information "'and the extent to which it shares personal information.

And quote, required Facebook to maintain a reasonable privacy program that safeguards the privacy and confidentiality of user information. The FTC then continues to outline how Facebook violated the 2012 order and there are a lot of claims here so we're gonna kinda just hit the main one. In 2012, Facebook put a disclosure on their privacy settings page telling users

the information they shared with their friends could also be shared with the third party apps their friends use. And here the FTC claims that just four months later, Facebook removed the disclosure even though they were still sharing that data. Then in 2014, Facebook announced that they would stop letting third party developers collect data

about the friends of app users. But here the FTC says that Facebook separately told the developers that they could continue to access the data until April 2015. And even then, Facebook still waited quote, until at least June 2018' to stop sharing user information with third-party apps used by their Facebook friends."

The statement then goes on to say that the FTC alleges that Facebook did not screen the developers or their apps before granting them access to vast amounts of user data. Facebook claimed it had consequences for policy violations by third parties, but Facebook did not enforce such policies consistently and often based enforcement of its policies on whether Facebook benefited financially

from its arrangements with the developer. Now, with all of that said, let's take a look at some of the new restrictions and oversight measures that Facebook will have to comply with under the settlement. First up, we have accountability measures. To ensure accountability with Facebook's board of directors level,

the order will create an independent privacy committee of Facebook's board of directors. In order to remove, quote, "'Unfettered control by Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg over decisions affecting user privacy, the settlement also requires the company to designate compliance officers who will be responsible for Facebook's privacy program, and it gives a third-party assessor more power to evaluate Facebook's privacy program. Also, let's talk restrictions the settlement imposes.

Facebook will not have to conduct privacy reviews on any new or modified products and services before they can be implemented. It will also be required to document any data breach involving 500 or more users. The FTC then goes on to include a laundry list of new requirements. Notably, it requires Facebook to establish, implement, and maintain a comprehensive data security program. Also, a massively important note here is that this also applies to Facebook-owned companies,

so WhatsApp and Instagram are included. But ultimately, that is where we are right now, and it's gonna be interesting to see how this impacts the landscape. And I say that because some experts believe that this could signal a much larger crackdown on tech companies and privacy violations. But also we have others arguing, well, not really. Right, if you're as cynical as me, you could easily argue that this is kind of just a business expense to some companies.

Play fast, lose, you're making a lot of money. I mean, ultimately, $5 billion is just an unthinkable amount of money, but it's also, for Facebook, kind of a drop in the bucket. Maybe not a drop, maybe a squirt. And they're getting hit with a $5 billion fine, but they brought in $55.8 billion in revenue just last year alone. And you have some pointing out that the settlement actually doesn't do anything to change or restrict Facebook's ability to collect

and share their users' personal information, which is also why some critics in this situation are calling for the Facebook executives to be held personally accountable. But ultimately, that is where we are. This is also not the end for Facebook, I mean, and I mean that in regards to legal battles. There are similar investigations and suits in Europe.

Also notably the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that they had imposed a $100 million fine against Facebook. That's where we are. And regarding this story, I kind of have two questions. One, what do you think about this $5 billion fine? Do you think it's just a slap on the wrist? The price of doing business the Facebook way

or something meaningful? Or hey, maybe you're even against the fine. And also two, when it comes to privacy, do you think that most people care? And you can answer this question for what you personally feel for yourself and then other people. And I say that because there's this debate

out there right now that there are a lot of people that say they care about privacy, but most don't actually. Or like as long as someone's credit card information isn't getting stolen or their nudes are getting leaked or something that embarrasses them in some way, the general public has just kind of understood, well, if I'm using services for free, I'm the product and so the data is part of the deal.

Or no, do you think the public genuinely does care? And once again, even that part is kind of a two-prong question. The general public and also you. Yeah, I'd love to know your thoughts on that. Then in US politics, well, one, I know that everyone's talking about former special counsel Robert Mueller.

He's testifying in two back-to-back hearings today. The second of the two is still ongoing as I'm finishing up this video So I can't really dive deep into that. To oversimplify the situation It appears that the Republicans on the committee in general have been just trying to muddy Mueller's name, muddy Mueller's team, their methods, their findings Right, trying to expose what they perceive as bias or failure. As far as the Democrats it was about framing Mueller as a Patriot, a veteran, someone dedicated to this country. And since Mueller said that he would not be reading from the report there, where I think Democrats were really hoping to get those sound bites from him,

there was a lot of getting him to confirm and deny things verbally that were in this report that may have been overlooked or mischaracterized or in general just lied about by some. Right, and there was even an example of that very early on in the first hearing. You know, just about a half an hour before the first hearing you had Trump tweeting once again, no collusion, no obstruction. He and his administration have repeated this line over and over saying that, you know,

he was totally exonerated by Mueller's report. Seemingly regarding that claim, we saw this back and forth between Nadler and Mueller. The report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice. Is that correct? That is correct. And what about total exoneration? Did you actually totally exonerate the president? No. Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president. It does. And your investigation actually found, quote, multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.

Is that correct? Correct. Like I said, it's still ongoing. From a strategic standpoint, I understand why what's happening is happening. If you actually go through the Mueller report, it does not paint a pretty picture around Trump, which I will say, for a while, I was just kind of in awe that Trump has been able to push both narratives. Both the Mueller report totally exonerated him and also it was a rigged witch hunt by a band of angry Democrats.

Hey, ultimately, like I said, it's still ongoing. That said, the Trump administration was in the news getting a win today and this is specifically around a major immigration policy change. It's a policy that recently took effect and quote, it is to deny asylum to anyone who shows up "'on the Mexican border after traveling "'through another country.'" Right, so it's a move that's expected to mainly affect Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans. This change was immediately met with lawsuits,

but the news today is reportedly, the US District Judge Timothy Kelly denied a request for a temporary restraining order saying the immigrant advocate groups behind the suit did not show that their work would be irreparably harmed if the policy moved forward. District Judge Kelly was actually appointed by Donald Trump, is saying that the Trump administration

can enforce this new policy while the lawsuits play out. But then finally, hey, some US political news that is not divisive. Yesterday, the US Senate in a 97 to two vote, voted to extend the 9-11 Victims and First Responders Fund. And if you're not familiar, that's a fund that pays out claims for deaths and illnesses related to the 9-11 attacks.

9-11 first responders were at risk of losing their coverage for the claims in December of 2020. But hey, it passed here 97 to two, this after it passed through the House in a vote of 402 to 12. As far as the two who voted no in the Senate, you had Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky. As far as why Rand Paul voted no, he tweeted,

"'While I support our heroic first responders, "'I can't in good conscience vote for legislation "'which to my dismay remains unfunded. We have a nearly trillion dollar deficit and 22 trillion in debt. Spending is out of control. But regarding that, John Stewart, who of course, yes, is a comedian,

but also is one of the main faces that championed this bill, he criticized Rand Paul's reasoning here, saying that Paul raised the same objection to the tax cut, but he voted for that. But hey, the main good point here is the bill did pass the House and the Senate. The country can with this support and help the first responders who supported and helped on 9-11,

the survivors of 9-11 and their families. And that's where we're going to end today's show. And hey, if you liked this video, I'd love if you took a second to hit that like button. Also, if you're new here, maybe I did my job right. You want more of these videos in your life, be sure to hit the subscribe button. Definitely ring that bell to turn on notifications.

Also remember, if you're not 100% filled in, I put out an extra bonus news video for those of you who wanna have a chat that goes past news. And also maybe if you missed yesterday's giant Philip DeFranco show and you wanna catch up, you can click or tap right there to watch those. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in.

I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.