The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 7.27 I'm Sorry, Burn Out, Shawn Mendes, Pokimane, & What Video Games Really Do To Your Brain Discovered...

Starting point is 00:00:00 Oh god, do you remember Miranda Wilson from Monday? She made that now-deleted viral video where she talked about how she would fix Natalia Dyer's face. And a ton of people, including myself, are like, What are you doing? It's so weird and creepy and disgusting that you're just like injecting insecurities into people and saying how you'd change their face even though they didn't come to you or consent to it in any way. Well, this morning, she decided to apologize, but not really because I think she completely missed the point. Let's watch, shall we?

Starting point is 00:00:26 So I just wanted to come on here and basically clear the air. I did not mean to offend anyone, including Natalia. I was simply just offering suggestions, not on what you have to do, just on what the possibilities are. Natalia, she's not saying you need to fix yourself in these very specific ways. She's just saying that you could to look better than you currently do.

Starting point is 00:00:51 Oh, and I love where it goes. They're simply just options. So I thought I'd do my face. I'm just going to stop. She goes on to describe all the stuff that she does to herself. And it really does seem to confirm what many people in the comments were saying. She was essentially saying what she would change to Natalia's face based off of her own insecurities. For me, it kind of feels like it confirms what I thought. She's not like this evil or horrible or ill-intentioned person.

Starting point is 00:01:12 She's just kind of a dense, dumb, smooth brain. And so because of that, Miranda, if you are watching, I'm going to try and say this in the simplest way. When you say, I was just simply offering suggestions, yeah, that's the problem that most people had. You gave a public consultation to someone that didn't ask. If she asked you, that's you doing your job. If she didn't ask you, that's just you being a dick. Let's all look at what I'm going to call this woman's flaws and how I would fix it. And unfortunately, I think based off of this reaction, I think that you think people are misunderstanding you and that you're the victim, which is immensely frustrating. Anyway, welcome to the show. Welcome to the Philip DeFranco Show.

Starting point is 00:01:47 It's a show that is the best show that's not really a show, but it's me talking to a camera for 15 to 24 minutes. Yeah, yeah. And then y'all can call me Dr. DeFranco because I'm prescribing you a little dose of playing more video games. I remember when I was a kid, my mom would be like, these things are going to rot your brain. Well, mom, guess what? According to a new study from Oxford, we're all good. Finding that

Starting point is 00:02:08 gaming essentially had no impact on a person's mental health. And in fact, in this study, which according to Oxford, they say is the largest study on the topic to date, looking at the habits of nearly 40,000 gamers over the course of six weeks, playing seven games ranging from Animal Crossing to Apex Legends, using real-time gaming data accumulated by gaming platforms after the tens of thousands of participants signed off in its use, found that no matter what games were played, there was no causal link found between gaming and poor mental health. And adding that the only distinct difference was between players who play because they want to and ones who play because they feel like they have to. With Professor Andrew K. Chbulski explaining,

Starting point is 00:02:39 we found it really doesn't matter how much gamers played in terms of their sense of well-being. It wasn't the quantity of gaming, but the quality that counted. If they felt they had to play, they felt worse. If they played because they loved it, then the data did not suggest it affected their mental health. And adding, in fact, it seemed to give them a strong positive feeling. But what about how much time you're playing? Well, the report found that in most cases, that doesn't actually have too big of an impact either. With a study explaining their model indicated 99% probability that the effect of increasing daily playtime by one hour on well-being is too small to be subjectively noticeable. And adding, even if effects steadily accumulated over time, an unrealistic assumption,

Starting point is 00:03:10 players would notice a difference only after 17 weeks. And further adding that based on linear findings, the average person would have to increase their gaming time by 10 hours per day, not per month, not per week, per day, before they would notice changes. Though, notably, and to be fair, that would likely need some more research, as the study did not include gaming sessions below zero or above 10 hours. And that is something that the people involved know needs work. They don't consider this the final verdict on gaming. They know that more needs to be looked into, with Chbulski saying, these are just the first steps

Starting point is 00:03:36 into the world of understanding how gaming fits into gamers' lives. About 1 billion people are playing video games worldwide. There are 3,000 games on the Nintendo platform alone. People play multiple games, and we were able to access information about 39,000 people playing just seven popular games. But still, I would argue based off of what they have here, it's a great kind of base, at least for the majority of gamers, because I don't believe the majority of gamers are commonly having 10 plus hour gaming sessions. That said, I have binged for over 10 hours if I was kind of marathoning through a game, but that isn't kind of my everyday, and I think that would really only be for, like, Twitch streamers and professional gamers.

Starting point is 00:04:07 And maybe people in South Korea. And or anyone that has, like, a Chinese gamer tag that always crushes me in any fucking game that I play where those pop up. But also, I would say those outliers are relevant for a few different reasons. Becoming a streamer, right, someone that's streaming games is becoming more and more common.

Starting point is 00:04:21 And we have, luckily, seen more and more open discussion about mental health in that space And even one of the biggest streamers in the world right now Pokimane taking a mental health break right now from streaming has been gold also recently taking a little break to address how streaming is Destroyed a sleep schedule. I've even had to privately talk to three different people about just stopping for a little bit I think that's because unfortunately a lot of creators they just like they put their mental health second either out of fear that they'll fall Off or out of a feeling of obligation for their audience, which is an immensely shitty thing to feel. I mean, for me personally, I know 96% of my audience with me, but it's also not just like online creators. I saw Shawn Mendes in the news

Starting point is 00:04:53 recently announcing this morning that he was postponing several shows and of his tour saying, I was not at all ready for how difficult touring would be after this time away. The decision was premature and unfortunately the toll of the road and the pressure has caught up to me and I've hit a breaking point and saying after speaking to health professionals, it's become more clear that I need to take the time I've never taken personally and adding, audience, I don't know the breakdown of, like, awesome understanding fans and assholes. When you're as big as Shawn Mendes, even a tiny percentage of your audience, that's a fuckton of people. And so while, yes, we saw a lot of people supporting him, saying, hey, just take the time you need. It's all about you being okay. You also had a good share of people just being assholes.

Starting point is 00:05:29 Writing things like, I'm sorry, but how can you sit there and cancel a full ass tour because you have a little anxiety? Like, man up. You wanted this life, so deal with it. And dude has one of the easiest jobs in the world and it was just too hard, boo hoo. And of course the fantastic, yet he manages to fly to other locations

Starting point is 00:05:42 for holidays, et cetera. So please don't fully buy his excuses and reasons. And I'm not like a Shawn Mendes fanboy. I don't know the last song I heard from him, but to all those people, I gotta say, go fuck yourself. Like, you can be disappointed and have feelings about the show being canceled, but then to lash out at the person that you were going to give money to bring you joy because they need to take care of themselves first? Like, what the fuck? You're not a fan. You're someone that sees this person as like a consumable product there to do your bidding.

Starting point is 00:06:07 Yes, Shawn Mendes is in a privileged position where he's able to take time off for his mental health, whereas the majority of the American public cannot. For many of you, if you were to do that, that would put your livelihood in danger. But that's not a get angry at Shawn Mendes moment. That's a get angry at our society moment. The world doesn't magically become a better place

Starting point is 00:06:21 because you're taking swings at the guy that's able to do what you should also be able to do. Don't even get me started on the toxic masculinity man-up bullshit. But apparently we live in a society where, hey, mental health matters especially for men, unless it inconveniences me, apparently. And to a degree, I think it comes down to something we've talked about constantly, that people don't look at famous people as, like, actual people. It kind of makes me think, like, when I was growing up and I was watching football, and there'd be, like, whole shows like, Look at this insane hit where someone was almost paralyzed. And it's like some helmet to helmet hit where someone launched themselves like a missile and they're like, yeah, awesome. Not taking into account the true damage

Starting point is 00:06:51 that was being done for everyone's entertainment. So while obviously I'm biased because I am a creator, I'll never fault a creator for being like, you know what? I got to take a minute for me, especially because we only get this one life and quality of life is the name of the game. Also, holy shit. I just realized this story started with video games. Oh god. But there was a natural path to this. Yeah, fuck it, I'm keeping it all in. And then when you're running a small business, every second counts. You can't afford to waste a single moment. That's why I want to talk about and thank today's sponsor, Stamps.com slash Phil. Whether you're a small office sending out invoices, an Etsy shop sending out products, or a giant warehouse sending thousands of packages out a day, Stamps.com is there for you.

Starting point is 00:07:25 We're all busy enough as it is, and personally, I love how convenient and cost-effective this is for me and my business. I can get all the mailing and shipping done without ever leaving my house. And for more than 20 years, Stamps.com has been indispensable for over a million businesses. You can print official U.S. postage from your computer 24-7, no special supplies or equipment needed. With Stamps.com slash Phil, you also get exclusive discounts on post office office rates like 30% off USPS rates and 86% off UPS rates. And to put it plainly, stamps.com saves me time and money, freeing me up to produce this show, work on the new studio, work on new beautiful bastard designs, or, this is a shocker, just live and enjoy life. That's been a new venture for me. It's been very exciting. So yeah, save time, save money,

Starting point is 00:08:02 and go to stamps.com slash phil to get a four-week trial plus free postage in a digital scale. There's no risk, no long-term commitments, no contracts, and you never have to go to the post office again. You're welcome and thank you. That's stamps.com slash phil. We should also talk about why so many people online have been calling for people to boycott Hulu this week. So here's how it's been playing out. Earlier this week, the Washington Post puts out a piece speaking to members of the Democratic Party who claimed that Hulu was blocking ads about things like gun control, abortion, and January 6th, with several Democratic campaign groups saying they tried to purchase joint ads about the topics on Disney-affiliated platforms like Hulu and ABC Affiliate and ESPN, and saying while the last two took the ads, Hulu did not.

Starting point is 00:08:36 And part of the reason this is notable and interesting is that unlike broadcast television, Hulu is a digital provider and is therefore not bound by the Communications Act of 1934, which would require them to air equal access to political advertising. But even with that being the case, you had people frustrated here with Hulu's decision, with the directors of the three major Democratic campaign committees saying, Hulu's censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country. Voters have the right to know the facts about MAGA Republicans' agenda on issues like abortion. And Hulu is doing a huge disservice to the American people by blocking voters from learning the truth

Starting point is 00:09:05 about the GOP record or denying these issues from even being discussed. And as far as why Hulu is opting to block these ads, Suraj Patel, a candidate out of New York, said that Hulu representatives told his staff that the service had a, quote, unwritten Hulu policy to censor ads that covered topics that were too sensitive for the platform.

Starting point is 00:09:19 With another source telling the Post it doesn't allow commercials about any controversial subject, political or not. But still, you had Patel penning a letter to Hulu's president and Disney CEO, accusing them of not addressing the most important issues facing the United States. And that outrage was echoed by tons of other people on Twitter, leading to the hashtag Boycott Hulu. With some saying they could not support a company that refuses to take responsibility on these issues, and others even accusing it of promoting the GOP playbook.

Starting point is 00:09:40 Even though, the way Hulu has explained its policies, it would impact both parties, though reports only focused on censorship of Democratic ads. But all of that brings us to the reason we're talking about this today. Disney has now officially changed their stance, saying in a statement today, After a thorough review of ad policies across its linear networks and streaming platforms over the last few months, Disney is now aligning Hulu's political advertising policies to be consistent with the company's general entertainment and sports cable networks and ESPN+. Hulu will now accept candidate and issue ads covering a wide spectrum of policy positions, but reserves the right to request edits or alternative creative in alignment with industry standards. So yeah, seemingly a win for Democrats until maybe the platform is

Starting point is 00:10:13 inundated with Republican ads. And then people get angry that certain Republican ads are airing, but then some Republican ads won't air. And then people get angry about that censorship, apparently. And everyone will be forever angry. I think that's right. But also I understand why Democrats would care about this. Statistically, more of their base consumes media online. So that's where the ads are going to matter most for them. But to bring it back to the part that's most interesting to me and the question I'll pass off to you is,

Starting point is 00:10:35 do you think that the Communications Act of 1934 does need to be updated to include the internet? Especially as more and more platforms are adding ad-supported tiers like Netflix. Yes, no, maybe so. Why, why not? Let me know in those comments down below. And then finally today, in potentially huge news, but also at the same time, until something happens, I'll say cool story bro news. Because maybe I'm wrong, maybe my feelings aren't that of the general public,

Starting point is 00:10:55 but it feels like we- there's no real expectation of accountability. But we should still talk about this major news regarding Trump in January 6th. Right, so multiple outlets reported yesterday that the Justice Department is investigating Trump's actions and conversations and its criminal probe into the effort to overturn the 2020 election. The news was first reported by the Washington Post, which cited four anonymous sources, though other unnamed people familiar with the matter

Starting point is 00:11:14 have also since spoken to additional outlets. And according to multiple reports, while questioning witnesses in front of a federal grand jury in recent days, federal prosecutors have asked about conversations with Trump and his close allies regarding the plan to substitute fake pro-Trump electors for key battleground states Biden had won, and this including two of the most senior aides to Mike Pence, his former chief of staff and chief counsel, with the Post reporting that prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about

Starting point is 00:11:34 meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021, his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election, and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisors about fake electors and sending electors back to the states, and adding some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump's involvement in the fake elector effort led by his outside lawyers. With two of the sources that spoke to the outlet also saying that back in April, DOJ investigators seized phone records with key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. And that news is massive because as the Post notes, both the degree of prosecutors' interest in Trump's actions and the review of phone records have not been previously reported.

Starting point is 00:12:05 Now, to pull in expectations, notably here, this does not mean that the DOJ has opened a criminal probe specifically into Trump. According to the Post, one person familiar with the probe said that investigators are trying to understand how Trump allies try to change the election, and, at the very least, what the former president told senior officials and lawyers to do on this front. But, it is very significant that the DOJ's sprawling probe, which had previously focused on the rioters who breached the Capitol, is now looking at Trump's actions. Where it potentially and seriously raises the stakes and signals that the inquiry is headed into a more aggressive and polarizing phase. And according to two of the sources that spoke to the Post, there are two main tracks that this inquiry could follow that could ultimately lead to the additional scrutiny of Trump. The first would focus on seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding, which are the kind of charges that we've seen levied against those who stormed the Capitol, including leaders of far-right groups. And the second centers on the potential fraud connected to the scheme to substitute false electors or

Starting point is 00:12:49 alleged pressure put on the DOJ and others to promote the big lie. And beyond that, there's still also the possibility that the DOJ could open an entirely separate probe into Trump, which it's faced pressure to do, especially now given that multiple members of the January 6th panel have said that they believe there is evidence that Trump committed crimes that should be investigated. And actually, to that point, during an interview with NBC yesterday, Attorney General Merrick Garland did not rule out the possibility of prosecuting Trump and saying, look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6th for any attempt

Starting point is 00:13:17 to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable. That's what we do. But ultimately, that is where that story and today's show ends. As always, thank you for watching, being a part of that conversation down below, being subscribed for these daily dives in the news, which if you're looking for more news, I got you covered here and here. But as always, my name's 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 7.27 I'm Sorry, Burn Out, Shawn Mendes, Pokimane, & What Video Games Really Do To Your Brain Discovered...

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