The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 9.3 The Markiplier Penguinz0 Youtube Controversy, & How To Vote Without Committing a Felony

Starting point is 00:00:00 Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you had a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show, buckle up, hit that like button, and let's just jump into it. And the first thing we need to talk about today is this news, this situation, this outrage around YouTube and their community guidelines.

Starting point is 00:00:14 So this whole situation effectively kicked into gear Tuesday when Charlie White, better known as Critical, among a ton of other nicknames, took to Twitter to voice his frustration about a community guideline strike that he received on his YouTube channel. The video that prompted the strike appeared to be taken down for including violent or graphic content, and according to the screenshot that he received on his YouTube channel. The video that prompted the strike appeared to be taken down

Starting point is 00:00:25 for including violent or graphic content. And according to the screenshot that he shared, he appealed the decision, but that appeal was rejected. Okay, so one of the first questions here and in situations like this is what was the content that YouTube had an issue with? Well, his video featured a pretty viral clip from 2014 that you've probably seen before.

Starting point is 00:00:39 It's a supposed road rage incident where people dressed as cartoon characters like SpongeBob and Mickey Mouse get into a brawl with another driver. And if you've seen the video, you probably thought it was funny, harmless, most likely staged. So then that same day we see Critical post a video talking about this whole situation,

Starting point is 00:00:53 saying that he believed a human moderator was not behind the decision because his YouTube contacts agree that it was not worthy of a strike. Though here he notes that those contacts are pretty disconnected from YouTube's manual review team, which can only be reached through email. Every department I've talked to has no direct means of communication with them,

Starting point is 00:01:08 and I'm talking heads of these departments have no way of getting in contact with this group here. You know how alarming that is? They actually shared with me the message they sent in regards to the road rage video they took down. It's two lines. It is one line that says, we are maintaining our decision to keep the video down and the second line is a copy and paste of the rules regarding shocking content that's taken right off the right off the Google help page. That's it. There's no conversation. There's no proof that a human being even wrote that email. It is literally looking like an automated reply. That is what they sent to a head of one of these departments who put tried to get in contact and fix this issue. That is what they sent to a head of one of these departments who tried to get in contact and fix this issue.

Starting point is 00:01:46 That is a problem. Also linked to his video below because he talks a lot about YouTube ignoring other types of graphic content, things like animal abuse, even when people have been very vocal about particular channels breaking rules before. You know, he posts this video pretty confident that YouTube would reply to his tweet,

Starting point is 00:01:59 maintaining their decision. And what followed is they did exactly that, saying the footage contained graphic content, fights, beatings, et cetera, with the intent to shock. So then he and his fans start using the hashtag answer us YouTube calling for more of an explanation of what actually goes on during these reviews. Also to further point out how ridiculous this strike was

Starting point is 00:02:15 and also how YouTube enforces their rules. Critical pointed to a Markiplier video from four years ago that features the exact same clip asking when will he be getting his strike? You know, that was a notable point out. Markiplier is a very massive creator, also kind of seen as a preferred safe for work creator. He's worked with YouTube in the past

Starting point is 00:02:30 as a very cool YouTube original series. Also critical here clarifying that he's obviously not trying to snitch on Markiplier, rather trying to highlight how ridiculous this situation is. And that appeared to be understood by Markiplier who tweeted at YouTube, "'Fair is fair, team YouTube, where's my strike?" To which YouTube seemingly responded, "'Oh, sorry Mark, right here.'" With YouTube actually giving Markiplier who tweeted at YouTube, "'Fair is fair, team YouTube, where's my strike?" To which YouTube seemingly responded,

Starting point is 00:02:45 "'Oh, sorry, Mark, right here.'" With YouTube actually giving Markiplier his own strike, which was the first he's ever received. So then Mark uploads his own video talking about this whole situation, which is actually currently sitting at number two trending on YouTube's trending page. In this video, Mark makes a very strong and smart point

Starting point is 00:03:01 saying he's not actually against the rules themselves, since there is content that falls within them that should be taken down. But he notes that there are huge problems with uneven enforcement, communication, and YouTube's review process. I'll also link to that video down below because he makes some great points and suggestions.

Starting point is 00:03:14 However, it should be noted that Markiplier and Critical were both clear in saying that their YouTube partner contacts are great, but have to fight so hard for them when it shouldn't be that difficult. Also to insert myself into the story in the smallest way, that is incredibly accurate. I don't know who their contacts are, but that's the exact same situation I feel with mine. Though, even having to deal with those stresses and struggles, we're lucky and fortunate to have those contacts. But the next thing we see with the situation is after the strike on Markiplier, a lot of people were surprised,

Starting point is 00:03:38 including Critical, who tweeted, I'm absolutely shocked YouTube is deciding to die on this hill, striking even the most wholesome creator on their site, rather than admit it was a mistake in the first place. With that tweet blowing up with thousands of likes and retweets, both of the videos garnering millions of views, till we finally saw an update from YouTube. With team YouTube writing on Twitter, "'We're not going to die in this hill. "'You were right,' after even further review.

Starting point is 00:03:59 "'Your video and others are back up "'and these strikes have been removed.' "'This was an over enforcement of our policies, "'especially with the added context, commentary, commentary as you originally pointed out. And you know what followed is you had Mark and Critical both saying they appreciated the reversal. Critical adding that he hopes we can all have more open dialogue about issues like this in the future. Also uploading another video to YouTube recapping everything that happened, thanking everyone for their support. Still, there were a number of people concerned by this whole ordeal. You know,

Starting point is 00:04:20 because while things worked out for these very large creators, you also have people noting that smaller creators don't usually get this type of resolution. They don't have the voice, the ability, the contacts. And I will say, I'm very happy that everything got resolved here, but I understand why this receives so much attention and outrage. And we can all hope that this situation

Starting point is 00:04:36 sparked change within YouTube, that they're more aware of these issues. But what I'll say as a creator on this platform for 14 years now, I do have doubts. I am hopeful, but I have doubts. That's because during that time span, the only thing that I've seen consistent for creators is that stuff doesn't get done, it does not change

Starting point is 00:04:52 unless people openly complain and complain constantly. And that's in part because we're dealing with an imperfect system because the scale of YouTube is unthinkable. Like how much content is uploaded to this platform every single minute, wild. I think the implementation and enforcement of rules that has to take in mind context,

Starting point is 00:05:08 I have serious doubts about the success rate we could see there. You know, that is where I'm gonna leave this and I wanna pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here? Are we seeing actual change, progress, openness for a conversation? Or do you maybe see this as an outlier situation

Starting point is 00:05:20 that YouTube put out the fire because it was too big? Also, do you think this system in place can get to a point or a new system could be implemented that could actually enforce things properly? Right, the hope is that through situations like the one we discussed today, progress can be made, but do you think that it will get there? Yes, no, why, why not? I'd love to know your thoughts here. And then let's talk about this. Let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system's as good as they say it is, then obviously they won't be able to vote. If it isn't tabulated, they'll be able to vote. So that's the way it is. And that's what they should do. Send it in early and then go and vote. And if it's not tabulated,

Starting point is 00:05:55 you vote and the vote is going to count. You can't let them take your vote away. These people are playing dirty politics, dirty politics. So if you have an absentee ballot, or as I call it, a solicited ballot, you send it in. But I would check it in any event. I would go and follow it and go vote. I feel a little crazy even having to say this. Just so we're on the same page here and there is no confusion, it is illegal to vote twice. And in North Carolina, where Trump was encouraging voters to do this, it is a felony. twice. And in North Carolina, where Trump was encouraging voters to do this, it is a felony. Right, and while you have some supporters

Starting point is 00:06:27 of the president saying, well, he's just telling people to double check and ensure that their vote was counted because these systems are going to be overwhelmed. You also have others saying, no, he is telling people to willfully try and vote twice. That is the president of the United States encouraging his supporters in North Carolina to commit a felony.

Starting point is 00:06:41 Right, you have a president who has spent how many months trying to undermine and take away any trust in mail-in voting results, now seemingly trying to create the fraud that he baselessly claimed already existed for the other side, or at the very least, and I think this is more likely, just adding further chaos to November 3rd.

Starting point is 00:06:55 And by having people do both, you're leading to longer in-person lines for people who don't need to vote a second time. Also with the longer lines and more people in-person unnecessarily, you potentially lead to further spread of COVID. So that's why this morning we saw the North Carolina State Board of Elections

Starting point is 00:07:09 pushing back against Trump's claims and trying to do some damage control. When you visit their site now, there is a big banner that says double voting is illegal. And when you click on that, it takes you to a statement from the board's executive director that reiterates that voting twice is illegal

Starting point is 00:07:20 and a class one felony in the state. And adding, attempting to vote twice in an election or soliciting someone to do so also is a violation of North Carolina law. With a statement going on to say that there are numerous checks in place that prevent double voting. Also noting that the state board conducts audits

Starting point is 00:07:34 after each election that would detect if someone tries to vote more than once in an election. So if someone tried to get around the system, their ballot would be found and not counted. And in addition to the audit, the board also has a team that investigates allegations of double voting, which are referred to prosecutors when warranted.

Starting point is 00:07:47 With a statement then going on to list a number of ways for people who sent in absentee ballots to track them and make sure that they were counted. And finally concluding, the state board office strongly discourages people from showing up at the polls on election day to check whether their absentee ballot was counted. That is not necessary and it would lead to longer lines

Starting point is 00:08:01 and the possibility of spreading COVID-19. And one of the things that's frustrating about the situation is the president and the people around him know what he's doing. They know that telling people to vote by mail and then go in person at the very least, it's just gonna add to the chaos. And if people actually wanted to double check

Starting point is 00:08:14 if their ballot was accepted and they weren't just double checking, there are several ways that people can do so from the comfort of their home that the North Carolina State Board of Elections even outlines in that same statement from before. You can check your voter record at the state board's voter search tool

Starting point is 00:08:26 to find out whether your ballot was accepted by your county board of elections. In North Carolina, you can also sign up for ballot tracks when it launches in the next few days to track your ballot through the system. It's a new service that will allow voters to track their ballot through the mail and confirm receipt by the county board of elections.

Starting point is 00:08:38 Noting that it's much like you can track your online order or pizza delivery. And also noting you can contact your county board of elections if you have questions about your ballot status. But just minutes after the board of elections shared that statement on their Twitter page, you had Trump posting a series of tweets directly

Starting point is 00:08:50 contradicting their request that people use online resources rather than showing up in person. Saying pretty much exactly what he had said the day before. And telling people to try and vote twice to make sure their vote was counted. And here, a few hours later, we actually saw Twitter flagging that post saying in their warning that the tweet violated the Twitter rules

Starting point is 00:09:05 about civic and election integrity. And actually around the same time that Twitter flagged those tweets, we also saw Facebook announcing that they'll be removing videos of Trump encouraging voters to vote twice with a spokesperson telling Axios, this video violates our policies prohibiting voter fraud, and we will remove it unless it is shared

Starting point is 00:09:19 to correct the record. And actually kind of good transition here, even though I'm now calling it out and thus making it less of a good transition. We should talk more about Facebook because today, in addition to all of that, the company made a major announcement about steps that it's taken to protect the upcoming election.

Starting point is 00:09:32 And those steps reportedly include not accepting new political ads in the week before the election, removing posts that use COVID-19 to discourage voting, adding an informational label to posts that seek to delegitimize the outcome of the election or voting methods, and adding a label to post if a candidate attempts

Starting point is 00:09:45 to declare victory before final results are in, as well as then redirecting Facebook users to official results. You had Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg releasing a statement further explaining these policies and the reasons behind them, writing, "'This election is not going to be business as usual. We all have a responsibility to protect our democracy.

Starting point is 00:10:00 That means helping people register and vote, clearing up confusion about how this election will work, and taking steps to reduce the chances of violence and unrest. And saying that they will limit the new ads because in the final days of an election, there may not be enough time to contest new claims. Also talking about the likelihood that it could take a while for the election results to come in, right?

Starting point is 00:10:17 We talked about that earlier this week on the show. Here you had Zuckerberg saying, it's important that we prepare for this possibility in advance and understand that there could be a period of intense claims and counterclaims as the final results are counted. And ultimately with him closing, I believe our democracy is strong enough

Starting point is 00:10:30 to withstand this challenge and deliver a free and fair election. But it's going to take a concerted effort by all of us, political parties and candidates, election authorities, the media and social networks, and ultimately voters as well, to live up to our responsibilities. Reuters will also be working with Facebook

Starting point is 00:10:44 when it comes to providing accurate election results and information, with Facebook also working to register voters live up to our responsibilities. Reuters will also be working with Facebook when it comes to providing accurate election results and information, with Facebook also working to register voters leading up to the election. And this is a fairly big deal because it is one of the most sweeping actions that Facebook has taken combating misinformation, especially when it comes to the election.

Starting point is 00:10:56 Zuckerberg has continually opposed banning political advertising on the site, despite facing pressure to do so, especially when Twitter opted to make that move. And so of course, with this new move, we've seen a ton of responses, especially about Facebook's choice to not allow new political ads in the week

Starting point is 00:11:08 leading up to election day. As of recording, it looks like the Biden campaign has not issued an official response to this news, but you do have Samantha Zager, the Trump campaign's deputy national press secretary, condemning this, saying in a statement, "'In the last seven days "'of the most important election in our history,

Starting point is 00:11:20 "'President Trump will be banned from defending himself "'on the largest platform in America.'" Though here, I do wanna note know for what it's worth, Facebook is not banning political speech, right? These rules don't say that Donald Trump cannot post to his massive audience on Facebook, just that he can't run new ads. But still to note, there was criticism of this policy

Starting point is 00:11:36 from all sides, though we've seen different reasons, right? While the Trump campaign thought that it went too far, those who have called on Facebook to do more to combat political misinformation do not think that it's nearly enough. For example, you have people like Dipayan Ghosh, the co-director of the Harvard Kennedy School's digital platforms and democracy project telling ABC News that the move is narrow, saying, I think we have to acknowledge that in prohibiting new political advertising over that last week, the company is essentially volunteering the position that it believes that political ads have the potential to harm the democratic process.

Starting point is 00:12:02 The question then is why stop them just one week before election day, especially in an election cycle when many people will have voted well before election day because of mail-in ballots or early voting. You also have the president of media matters issuing a statement saying this new policy is pointless. Adding of all the issues with disinformation and extremism on Facebook, political ads are at the bottom of the list.

Starting point is 00:12:20 Also adding that misinformation can still spread on the platform since it does not ban all political ads, just new ones. And closing here by saying, this is just another PR stunt from Facebook, don't buy it. Though, there are also some people who are at least cautiously optimistic about these new policies.

Starting point is 00:12:34 Right, thinking they had potential as long as they are actually executed properly. I guess kind of bringing it back full circle to the first story, you can have policies, but how you enforce it is the key here. Which is why we saw the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights tweet, Facebook's announcements about policing voting

Starting point is 00:12:48 misinformation, including by politicians and defending a fair election are significant improvements and come after much pressure from the civil rights community. But everything, any impact rests on enforcement. We'll remain vigilant. Yeah, for now, that is where that story ends. And of course I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts here?

Starting point is 00:13:04 When it comes to Facebook and this announcement, which one of these camps do you land in? Are you somewhere in the middle? You're cautiously optimistic. Are you for it? Are you against it? Why, why not? I'd love to know.

Starting point is 00:13:12 And that is where I'm going to end today's show. As always, thank you for being a part of these daily dives in the news. Also, if you're new here, definitely subscribe, tap that bell to turn on notifications. And of course, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've just been filled in. I love yo faces and I'll see you next time.

Your Ad Here

The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 9.3 The Markiplier Penguinz0 Youtube Controversy, & How To Vote Without Committing a Felony

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