The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 8.14 WOW! Youtubers Sue Youtube For Unfair Treatment, James Charles Pointed Out, & 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. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is YouTube and Google are being sued by some of their creators. And specifically we're talking about LGBTQ YouTubers who reportedly filed a lawsuit last night. And they're throwing a variety of claims against YouTube. From suppressing recommendations for LGBTQ videos to demonetizing them or altering thumbnails. Notably some of the creators in this, you have Bria Cam and Chrissy Chambers who are part of this lawsuit,

Starting point is 00:00:27 and they claim that they should be making around $3,500 a month, but are only bringing in $500 because their videos are being suppressed. And they use the music video for their song "'Face Your Fears' as an example. After it was posted, they say it was categorized under restricted mode. The video was filmed as a dedication

Starting point is 00:00:39 to the Orlando pole shooting. It features Bria and Chrissy kissing in front of anti-gay protesters. And in a video posted to their channel this morning, they say incidents like this have hurt their ability to reach out to the LGBTQ community. Our LGBTQ plus content is being demonetized, restricted, and not sent out to viewers, which has highly affected our ability to reach the community that we strongly want to help. Other creators in the suit include Chase Ross, who last year accused YouTube of age-gating his videos. Also, Amp Somers from the Sex education channel What's the Safe Word saying? Growing up, I was in a very religious household.

Starting point is 00:01:11 I didn't get any sort of gay education, let alone queer education, that applied to me and the sex that I was going to have. I create content on the internet that I wish I would have had growing up. But we're finding it harder and harder to create content on this platform. Google and YouTube continue to censor us and tell us that we're not breaking any rules, but that our content is still not allowed and going to be restricted on this platform. The creators also claim YouTube is restricting LGBTQ content featuring words like gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer. And while we saw a YouTube spokesperson reply no comment to this lawsuit, YouTube has denied similar claims in the past.

Starting point is 00:01:44 And in fact, just last week, YouTube CEO to this lawsuit, YouTube has denied similar claims in the past. And in fact, just last week, YouTube CEO, Susan Wojcicki pushed back against the claims that videos are demonetized for falling under LGBTQ categories. And in an interview with vlogger Alfie Deyes, they had this exchange. We do not automatically demonetize LGBTQ content.

Starting point is 00:02:00 Cause I've had rumors like, I have the word lesbian in your tags, your thumbnail, or your title, instant flag. So we work incredibly hard to make sure that our systems are fair. We have an ML fairness initiative. ML stands for machine learning to make sure that our algorithms and the way that our machines work are fair. Officially, YouTube also doesn't have a policy to demonetize a video if it has a certain word in the title.

Starting point is 00:02:27 And like I said, YouTube hasn't officially said anything on the lawsuit, but this morning we did see Wojcicki tweet out that interview with Alfie Deyes, and they say that both the process of recommending videos and determining ads are independent of each other. But another part of the lawsuit says that because YouTube is by far the largest video streaming website, it has a near monopoly.

Starting point is 00:02:42 Specifically stating Google quote, "'Used their monopoly power over content regulation to selectively apply their rules and restrictions in a manner that allowed them to gain an unfair advantage to profit from their own content to the detriment of its consumers. And basically what they're claiming here is that YouTube goes easy on some of its biggest creators, which is a concern and accusation that we have heard before. And the creators filing the lawsuit are actually using James Charles as an example of YouTube giving its top creators special treatment. They cite

Starting point is 00:03:04 examples of recent videos on Charles's channel showing him wearing a G-string or spanking a woman's bare butt while at Coachella, saying that those videos are still sponsored and monetized. And so they're saying that's not fair, and they're not really saying go after James Charles, but they're saying that this is on YouTube, that they're blaming YouTube for what they see as unequal treatment. And actually on this note, according to the Washington Post 11 current and past moderators who have worked on the front lines of content decisions believe that popular creators often get special treatment in the form of looser interpretations of YouTube's guidelines. This including demeaning speech, bullying and other graphic forms of content which for YouTube's part they have denied those claims. Now in response to this lawsuit we've seen a lot of people online saying that they are standing with these creators who are suing YouTube and Google. People saying YouTube has silenced

Starting point is 00:03:45 LGBTQ plus creators for way too fucking long and I'm so goddamn happy people are standing up to it now. YouTube needs to listen don't be evil. Another writing, my LGBTQ videos on YouTube have been restricted and or demonetized from day one causing me to lose the watch time I needed. When I earned the amount of watch time back YouTube refused to reinstate my monetization and I couldn't justify making LGBTQ plus content anymore. But ultimately, that is where we are with this story right now. It's gonna be very interesting to see

Starting point is 00:04:09 what comes from this lawsuit. And I mean that both in YouTube's responses, the lawsuit itself, any information that comes out from it, as well as will we hear anything from the larger LGBTQ plus creators out there, right? Including James Charles, who was specifically cited in the lawsuit. And yeah, I think it'll be very interesting to see.

Starting point is 00:04:24 Then, even though it's a quickie, I feel like at the very least, I do need to mention that Tumblr has sold. Tumblr, which of course sold to Yahoo for $1.1 billion in 2013. And then of course, famously announced in December of last year that they would be banning porn, which many people were like,

Starting point is 00:04:40 people use Tumblr for things that are not that? And then following the ban, they proceeded to lose traffic. And this week, Tumblr was in the news because it sold to Automatic, the company behind WordPress, for a reported $3 million. With an M, not a B. To which, there were two main responses.

Starting point is 00:04:54 One, oh that's a huge loss. With many people posting other things that you could buy for $3 million. And two, people asking, does that mean we get porn back? And it turns out, no. Automatic's chief executive says that he intends to keep the ban But some of the good news and maybe this is in part why they went with automatic Reportedly, they're gonna be bringing over the staff of over 200 like all of them, you know people not losing jobs I think is always always a positive

Starting point is 00:05:17 So there was that then we should talk about Republican representative Steve King of Iowa in the news as we were recording today's show This story just started blowing up according to the Des Moines Register on Wednesday King was speaking with the news. As we were recording today's show, this story just started blowing up. According to the Des Moines Register, on Wednesday, King was speaking with the Westside Conservative Club. And while speaking to this group, he reportedly discussed his defense of an anti-abortion bill that he tried to get through Congress that notably

Starting point is 00:05:33 had no exceptions for rape or incest. And as far as his defense, you know, he says that it's not the baby's fault. But then he goes on to say this. What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Will there be any population of the world left if we did that?

Starting point is 00:05:50 Considering all the wars and all the rape and pillage that's taken place and whatever happened to culture after society I know I can't certify that they're not part of a product of that. And following this video's spreading there were a lot of reactions, a lot of what did he just say? Headlines like Steve King questions if humanity would exist without rape or Incest Steve King under fire for questioning if humanity would exist without rape and incest Steve King credits rape and incest for society's existence I will say I also think it's an odd defense to say because Rape and incest happened and so because of that some of us are here that we should continue to force women to give birth to Babies that are the result of incest and or rape.

Starting point is 00:06:26 But also notably we've seen a few other things happen. We saw 2020 candidates calling for King to resign. You saw Beto O'Rourke promoting the Dem Challenger to King. Also notably we had Randy Feenstra, who is a Republican Iowa State Senator running for King's seat, who tweeted, I am 100% pro-life, but Steve King's bizarre comments and behavior diminish our message and damage our cause. Trump needs defenders in Congress, not distractions. I will ensure we win this seat and I'll be an effective conservative leader in Congress." So that was the thing, and of course, I'd always love to know your thoughts on everything.

Starting point is 00:06:53 And then let's talk about this massive news coming out of New York. As of today, adult victims who were sexually abused as children but didn't take legal action in the required time period will now be given a year to sue their abusers. And actually not only their abusers, but any institutions or organizations

Starting point is 00:07:07 that allowed the abuse or were complicit. Right, and this one year period, which is known as a look back window, is huge. There are a number of cases that have expired due to the statute of limitations, which is the amount of time someone has given to file legal charges. And in New York specifically, this is a massive deal

Starting point is 00:07:19 because New York has one of the most restrictive statute of limitations for child sex abuse victims in the country. Under the previous statute, people who had been sexually abused as minors had to file charges by the time that they were just 23 years old. But also this new law called the Child Victims Act extends that time limit as well. So now accusers can actually sue until they are 55. And this change in New York has been a long time coming. Lawmakers in New York's legislature have been trying to extend the statute of limitations for child sex abuse victims for more than a decade.

Starting point is 00:07:43 But every time they had tried before, they were stopped by opposition from the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Orthodox Jewish organizations, as well as the insurance industry. And the biggest sticking point for these groups was the look-back window, which they claimed would create a huge financial burden for them. Before this law passed,

Starting point is 00:07:55 the New York Catholic Conference claimed that the look-back window would, quote, "'Force institutions to defend alleged conduct decades ago "'about which they have no knowledge "'and in which they had no role.'" A New York State Assembly had passed the law several times but the Senate kept preventing a vote. And as far as what changed, was it a change of heart?

Starting point is 00:08:10 No, it was just a change of who was there. Democrats took over the state Senate back in November and the bill passed the Senate unanimously right after they took office in January. Now of course with this, there's the question of, well okay, what happens now? Well, according to reports, hundreds and maybe even thousands of lawsuits are expected to be filed

Starting point is 00:08:23 just on the first day that the window takes effect. Also reportedly many of the major institutions like the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts that had opposed the law because of the financial questions are bracing for the impact. The Catholic Archdiocese of New York is already suing their insurance providers to make sure that they provide coverage

Starting point is 00:08:35 for the lawsuits that they're about to face. Also the Rockefeller University Hospital, which is being sued by hundreds of people who allege that they were abused by a doctor, is doing the same. That's probably a smart move on their part because the financial hit that these institutions could take just over the next year is huge.

Starting point is 00:08:48 And the reason we know that is there are examples from other states that prove it. In 2003, California implemented a similar year-long look-back window, and in that time, hundreds of millions of dollars were paid out and thousands of lawsuits were filed, most of which were against the Catholic Church, which also eventually forced the Diocese of San Diego

Starting point is 00:09:02 to file bankruptcy protection. Also, after Minnesota closed its look-back window in 2016, numerous Catholic diocese filed for bankruptcy protection as well. Although regarding New York, a church spokesman told the New York Times, While we do not know what will transpire when the CVA window opens, at this point in time we have no expectation of needing to file for bankruptcy protection. And according to reports, this may be based on officials in the church looking at look-back windows in previous states to try to estimate what could happen here.

Starting point is 00:09:23 But some say that studying look-back windows in other states might not be the best metric. Some experts having noted that the look back window in New York could possibly create even more lawsuits than we've seen filed in other states. And that's in part because the national discussion about sexual misconduct scandals, especially regarding minors, has grown significantly over the last few years. Also things like the Me Too movement have put accusations against and focus on religious organizations, private schools, sports programs, celebrities. This has both increased awareness and prompted other victims to come forward. Some of the notable examples people have been pointing to,

Starting point is 00:09:50 you have of course the multiple allegations against R. Kelly, as well as the dozens of women who have accused Jeffrey Epstein of sexually assaulting them, many of whom were minors at the time. Which, actually on that note, the Child Victims Act is also expected to allow Epstein's victims to sue his estate for damages. And this cultural shift that we're seeing

Starting point is 00:10:04 of victims having more attention and power to take action is not limited to allow Epstein's victims to sue his estate for damages. And this cultural shift that we're seeing of victims having more attention and power to take action is not limited to just New York. In fact, New York is just one of 18 states in DC that pass similar laws extending their statutes of limitations for children who face sexual abuse. Though, only a few, including New Jersey, pass look-back window provisions. But regardless, this is a big, big deal.

Starting point is 00:10:18 As the chief executive of the child protection think tank Child USA told the New York Times, "'The significance of it is a switch "'in the balance of power. There was a severe imbalance of power that led to their abuse in the first place.' And adding, the culture shut them out of the legal system until now. For them, this is validation." And until these laws were passed, victims often had very few avenues to seek financial compensation.

Starting point is 00:10:36 Catholic diocese had previously made independent reconciliation and compensation programs where victims could apply for settlements if they agreed not to file lawsuits. Which, according to reports, the Archdiocese of New York alone made agreements with more than 300 people and paid out $65 million to abuse victims. But at the same time here, some have noted that the look back window creates both an opportunity and a problem.

Starting point is 00:10:55 For victims of child abuse, seeking justice can be powerful but it can also bring up a lot of pain and trauma. And that is also made more complicated by the fact that the new statute of limitations for filing charges against abusers does not apply retroactively. Meaning that victims in future cases have until they're 55 to file charges. Basically any abused victims over the age of 23 who were abused in the past have to bring claims through this look back window. Right it essentially is creating this now or never situation. And so that's what we're looking at now and as far as my opinion on this I think this change is

Starting point is 00:11:20 massive and it is great. I think the advocacy group Safe Horizon said it best the Child Victims Act opens the door to the courthouse. And it's opening the door for those it was previously closed on for, yes, a limited time, a year. So there is the potential that some people who haven't kind of worked through it won't take advantage of it in this time period

Starting point is 00:11:35 and they might get locked out. But the opportunity that had previously not been there for the people knocking on the door, maybe even thinking about it, it is there now. And knowing that in the future, victims will have this door open to them for much, much longer. Right, and so these fucking monsters

Starting point is 00:11:46 and the organizations that enabled them, that were complicit in it, don't get to just get away scot-free. But that's the story, my personal takeaway, and of course I'd love to see your thoughts on this. And that's where I'm going to end today's show. Thanks so much for watching, and of course, remember if you wanna help the show,

Starting point is 00:11:59 you can hit that like button, subscribe, definitely share. Also, hey, if you're looking for more to watch, I posted a non-news random other video today. You can click or tap right there to watch that. Or maybe you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco show, you wanna catch up, you can click or tap right there to watch that. But with that said, of course, as always,

Starting point is 00:12:13 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 8.14 WOW! Youtubers Sue Youtube For Unfair Treatment, James Charles Pointed Out, & More

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