- 'Sup you beautiful bastard.
Hope you've had a fantastic Wednesday.
Welcome back to The Philip Defranco Show
and let's just jump into it.
The first thing we're gonna talk about today
is an update on the Brooke Houts situation.
As you may or may not remember,
last month there was almost universal outrage
against Brooke Houts, who's a YouTuber.
She of course famously accidentally uploaded
unedited footage that showed her
smacking, pushing, and seemingly spitting on her dog.
The video went viral, you had people
demanding that her YouTube channel be shut down,
that the authorities got involved.
Brooke released an apology where she also said
that she didn't spit on her dog.
Also LAPD officials said that their
Animal Cruelty task force was investigating.
And the big update to that situation is
according to new reports, police have decided
not to press charges,
with police reportedly telling Buzzfeed news
"Animal Task Force looked into the matter-
obviously they saw the video the public had seen.
They determined it didn't rise
to the level of animal cruelty",
with TMZ also sighting a LAPD source who said
there wasn't enough evidence to support criminal charges.
Houts has been allowed to keep custody of
the dog throughout this investigation,
but LAPD officials said they would reopen her case
if new evidence was presented.
Now online, many have expressed their disappointment
over this news, with some also saying that while the
police might not be able to take action,
the public will always remember Houts as an animal abuser.
Some saying that the system is a failure,
people calling out the LAPD.
And then what seemed to be a common thread
was the mentioning of the Criminal Justice system
and the online social justice system with one tweet reading
"The police department forgave you.
But remember, the internet never forgets, though.
And every generation that has access to the internet
will know who you are. Dog abuser."
And I guess where I want to end this story
update is kind of a question.
I mean one, what are your thoughts
in general regarding this topic,
but also two, what are your thoughts kind of
regarding that last note, that while the law says
we can't actually charge anything criminal,
this idea that there is a second system,
the public in general, the online continuing knowledge
continually recognizing and reminding people
of this exposed moment.
And actually, kind of connected to this line of thinking,
this general head space, we have another massive update
regarding a story that we covered multiple times
over the past few years.
And that story is around Brock Turner
who some of the media have called an ex-Stanford swimmer,
others calling rapist Brock Turner,
others saying registered sex offender Brock Turner.
And understandably in the past he's been
the focal point of his story.
One, because of the horrific act he inflicted upon another,
and two, for what I and many others consider
a miscarriage of justice due to his light sentencing.
Brock Turner was of course convicted
of Felony Sexual Assault,
but was only sentenced to six months in jail
and ended up only actually serving three months,
seemingly because the judge was worried
about Brock Turner's future.
Now some of you might remember,
Brock Turner's father was arguing for
probation rather than jail time because
"That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action
out of his 20 plus years of life."
And while we were able to read the words of the story,
of this young woman who was sexually assaulted,
we never knew her name.
She was referred to as Emily Doe, Brock Turner's victim,
but the big update to this story is that has changed.
Chanel Miller, the young woman in this story,
has now revealed her identity and is speaking out.
And among what we've now seen,
you had Chanel reading her victim impact statement
where she was addressing the court,
but also specifically Brock Turner.
- You don't know me, but you've been inside me.
In newspapers, my name was unconscious intoxicated woman.
Ten syllables, and nothing more than that.
I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity.
To relearn that this is not all that I am.
That I am not just a drunk victim
at a frat party found behind a dumpster,
while you are the All-American swimmer at a top university,
innocent until proven guilty with so much at stake.
You cannot give me--
You cannot give me back the life I had.
Along with this we also learned that Miller
is going to be releasing a memoir called "Know My Name".
It's set to come out September 24th,
and I personally love that she is doing this.
I think unfortunately and incorrectly there is
this sense of, even with how detested Brock Turner is,
that there is this sense of shame of being a victim.
Chanel Miller also said something in an essay
that I think is very true.
"Victims are not victims,
not some fragile, sorrowful aftermath.
Victims are survivors, and survivors are going
to be doing a hell of a lot more than surviving".
I think her taking control of the situation,
putting her name out there, being the face of it.
It's an inspiring and impressive showcase of power
to reclaim the situation and not only
for her situation, but as a way to let others
know that they are not weak, they are not alone.
And that is why Chanel Miller, you are our BAMF of the day,
and also, as always, fuck Brock Turner.
But from that, I want to share some stuff I love today
and today an awesome, brought to you by Drop
formally known as MashDrop.
And right now, exclusively on Drop
you'll find the Control Keyboard.
It's the flagship model in Drop's mechanical keyboard line.
They sent me a few to try out and
they are now my new normal.
The Control is a premium mechanical keyboard
for people that want a better typing experience,
and honestly one that looks good too.
It is a sleek design, solid aluminum frame,
built in media controls, space gray aesthetic,
and customizable LED lighting.
And honestly, and this may just be a personal preference,
mechanical keyboards are just so much
more satisfying to type with.
And it's in part the feel but also even the sound.
(keys tapping)
Aw man!
(whispers) Welcome to my ASMR channel.
(whispers) Today we're doing data entry ASMR.
Also, fantastically Drop has a
no hassle 30 day return policy,
making it an easy move to try it out.
And best of all, just for you beautiful bastards,
if you go to DropDeFranco.com right now,
you can click the link in the description,
type it in, however you do it,
you'll get $20 off so just click it,
buy it, and enjoy.
The first bit of awesome today is I was reunited
with my buddy Steve Zaragoza.
I haven't seen him and it's honestly just been way too long.
So we shot a podcast together,
kind of a little bit reminiscing ScourceFed,
talking about what's happened since,
maybe I blackmailed him.
But it was great fun,
of course with Steve Zargoza it was a sloppy mess of a time.
And if you'd like to listen and/or watch,
because it's available in all the places you could,
I'll include tap links to it in the description down below.
Then Architectural Digest gave us a
$75 million lake Taho mansion with a private beach house,
you know, so we can dream and/or just be jealous.
We had Bill Hader and Finn Wolfhard interviewing each other.
We got the official trailer for "Bad Boys For Life"
we got another episode of Feast Mansion.
We had Naomi Scott sharing some of her firsts,
and finally the phil.chrono.gg partner Game of the Day
today is Vanquish! You may have guessed it.
The fantastically well reviewed action shooter.
And if you snag it using my link before 9 A.M tomorrow
and/or while supplies last,
you can get it not for the regular $20, but just $4.49.
%78 off.
And if you want to see the full versions
of everything I just shared, the secret link of the day,
really anything I talked about in today's show and even more
links, as always, are in the description down below.
Then, lets talk about porn.
It's this really cool new thing that they just invented.
Granted, I doubt that you've ever seen it,
or even heard about it, but let's talk about it.
There are actually two pieces of news, somewhat connected.
And the first part of this involves
the porn production company BangBros and
a site called PornWikileaks,
which if you don't know PornWikileaks is a website
that doxxes performers in the porn industry
and shares their personal information online.
This including not only their real names,
but their addresses, phone numbers,
information about their families.
And since it was created in 2010
upwardly PornWikileaks has revealed
the personal information of around 15,000 adult film stars,
and allegedly got that information from
a leak on a patient database managed
by a company called Aim Medical Associates
where many performers go to get STD tested
and which has since been shut down.
Also, in addition to sharing personal information
the website also included whether or not
the performer did crossover, meaning
they did both gay and straight porn.
But with all that said, the reason
I feel comfortable even talking about this story,
mentioning that website, is because in the past week
BangBros announced that they had acquired PornWikileaks
and they did it for a good reason.
In a statement on the PornWikileaks homepage saying
"For too long this site has unfortunately been
a resource for hate, lies, and sensitive information",
adding "We have purchased this site with the intention
of shutting it down and removing all
information associated with it".
They of course then note "While shutting this site down
doesn't purge the internet of all possible ties
to real names and whatnot, it does make it one less place
to harbor and find these things easily.
A forum that had 300,000 posts on it,
most of them negative and hate-filled, has now disappeared".
And that statement, including a link to
a video titled "All the PornWikileaks Data"
which showed someone pouring flameable liquid
on a bunch of hard drives and lighting them on fire.
And finally, as we saw, a number of
adult film stars respond very positively.
Rachel Starr tweeting "This is amazing",
Diamond Foxxx thanking them, adding
"I was affected terribly by this site.
To the point I was forced to sell my home and move
and also change my phone number several times.
This is a serious godsend".
And while all of these stars, and even I,
I commend them for doing this,
it is also important to know the lasting damage
that the website has done to so many people.
And that actually connects us to the other bit
of news in this industry.
This announcement from BangBros comes actually right after
a lawsuit filed against the amateur website GirlsDoPorn
has started its trial proceedings
in San Diego Superior Court.
There in that lawsuit, 22 women claim that they
were tricked into preforming pornography
after responding to ads for models for
photos and videos on Craigslist.
Many of the women in the lawsuit reportedly
still agreed to make the pornographic videos
after they were promised that they would
never be posted to the internet.
But, not only were the videos then posted on
the GirlsDoPorn webiste and
distributed on sites like Pornhub,
the way that these stories connect is that
after the videos were posted the women's
names and private information appeared on PornWikileaks,
with the women also saying that the videos
were sent to their families and college classmates.
As a result, some of the women in the lawsuit
reportedly lost their jobs, or were expelled from college
as a result of their names being leaked on PornWikileaks.
One of the most high profiling talked about from this
was the Miss Teen Delaware winner
who was stripped of her crown.
And now the women in the lawsuit
are asking for $22 million in damages.
And also an update that came in just yesterday
is that Vice reported that a videographer
named in this lawsuit admitted to lying to women
by promising them these videos would not be posted online.
But ultimately, that is where we are with this story now.
It's going to be interesting to see
what happens moving forward.
And I wanna end this, and this seems
like a very basic thing, like even yesterday I joked
about how racism is bad, and I took an award.
But people deserve privacy, and that includes sex workers.
Sex workers are people too.
They have a job to preform a service that is in demand,
that is legal, that unfortunately people will try
to shame them for, or ruin their lives for, for some reason,
which is why you see so many going by stage names
because they don't want that information to be out there.
So why?
But hey, that's the story, a little bit of my take away,
and of course I pass the question off to you.
And then we have some genuinely massive news
regarding Google and YouTube.
And this is something that matters and will have an impact
on people in general consuming content online,
as well as certain specific creators.
So, it was finally announced today that
Google will be paying a $170 million fine,
with today the Federal Trade Commission, the FTC, saying
"Google LLC and its subsidiary YouTube, LLC will pay
a record $170 million to settle allegations
by the FTC and the New York Attorney General that
the YouTube video sharing service illegally collected
personal information from children without
their parents' consent".
Going on to specifically say $136 million of that
will go to the FTC and $34 million to New York
for allegedly violating COPPA, which is
the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
And the fine there is massive, but also not.
Historically, it is the largest penalty from a COPPA case.
For example, back in February TikTok got hit
with a COPPA violation, but they were fined $5.7 million.
That is a significant number, but it's also
kind of a drop of a drop of a drop in the bucket
as far as YouTube's concerned,
with money that they make each quarter.
So there's the general fine part of the story,
and that is meaningful, general news.
But the other part is what happens now.
There were allegations, there was an investigation,
now a settlement.
Other than a fine, how do you make things better?
Well, as the FTC explained, they alleged that
"while YouTube claimed to be a general-audience site,
some of YouTube's individual channels--
such as those operated by toy companies--
are child-directed and therefore much comply with COPPA".
And while the FTC explains in their release
what is going to be required from YouTube and Google,
YouTube's official blog kind of cuts to the core
of the matter, and they explain,
"We are changing how we treat data for
children's content on YouTube.
Starting in about four months, we will treat
data from anyone watching children's content on YouTube
as coming from a child, regardless of the age of the user.
This means that we will limit data collection and use
on videos made for kids only to what is needed
to support the operation of the service".
Notably here, this is a big one,
"We will also stop serving personalized ads
on this content entirely, and some features will
no longer be available on this type of content,
like comments and notifications",
also adding
"In order to identify content made for kids,
creators will be required to tell us when their content
falls in this category, and we'll also use
machine learning to find videos that
clearly target young audiences,
for example those that have an emphasis
on kids characters, themes, toys, or games".
When I talked to YouTube regarding this specific part of it,
it appeared that even though YouTube does consistently
and even in the post that kids under the age of 13,
that they go and they use YouTube Kids instead,
there's no way to ever fully know who is actually watching
a video when they're logged out,
or maybe they're logged into a parent's account.
So that's why this change and the focus on
the content itself is being made.
That part is very big news.
It's going to be devastating to a number of channels.
Personalized ads are by far the vast majority,
so if you have content that is directed for younger viewers,
then this is going to be a bad time for you.
When talking with YouTube it appeared that
contextual ads will still be possible,
but once again that is very much a
minority of ads being put out there.
Which, it appears, is also why YouTube went on to say
"We know these changes will have a significant
business impact on family and kids creators who
have been building both wonderful content
and thriving businesses, so we've worked to
give impacted creators four months to adjust
before changes take effect on YouTube",
which I will say, to me reads very much like
they fought for that in their settlement
with the FTC and New York.
They go on to say "We recognize this won't be easy
for some creators and are committed to working
with them through this transition and
providing resources to help them better
understand these changes.
We are also going to continue investing in the future
of quality kids, family, and educational content.
We are establishing a $100 million fund,
disbursed over three years dedicated to the creation
of thoughtful, original children's content on
YouTube and YouTube Kids globally".
And so with all of that said, where we are right now,
it is going to be interesting to see
what actually happens four months from now.
Regarding that fund, how will that money be disbursed?
Regarding kid directed content and
the creators making that content, how will they adjust?
How will they change?
Also, are there going to be people
hit that we're not expecting?
Part of the question here would be
how do you specifically define
what is directed towards kids?
In YouTube's blog post they wrote
"For example those that have an emphasis
on kids characters, themes, toys, or games".
So there are going to be some that are clearly defined.
You have your counting and coloring videos,
with maybe Disney characters or the minions,
a kids unboxing channel where you have a kid
seemingly talking to other kids, kids directed.
What happens when you get closer and closer to the line?
You have a young kid playing Roblox or Minecraft.
Okay, that seems kids directed.
But then lets say what if it's a father
and son playing together?
Is that kids directed content or
because you have an adult, maybe it could be said
that it's targeting the parents of children.
Also, to focus on the gaming community somewhat here,
does the game itself matter?
For example, recently, Minecraft.
There's been this resurgance, in large part
thanks to people like PewdiePie bringing it back.
And Minecraft does have a very young audience,
though I know more adults than ever that are playing it,
so is it specifically put in the kids box
because it's rated E for everyone?
And I kind of mean this as a joke, but kind of not.
If a game is kind of deemed to have maybe
a younger audience, or maybe geared towards kids,
are creators going to have to kind of adultify that content?
Are we going to have to start seeing creators
drop the F-bomb so you can be like
"Hey, the content's not geared towards kids.
I would never use that word around a child".
It's going to be very interesting to see
and with all of that said, of course,
I'd love to know your thoughts on this.
And that's where we're going to end today's show.
And hey, if you liked this video
be sure to hit that like button.
Also if you want more of these deep dives on the daily
be sure to hit that subscribe button
and definitely ring that bell to turn on notifications.
Also, if you're not 100% filled in,
and you wanna watch or listen to
the reuniting of my podcast with Steve Zaragoza,
and/or maybe just missed yesterday's show and wanna catch up
you can click or tap right there
to watch those videos right now.
But with that said, of course, as always
my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.