Wassup you beautiful bastards. Hope you are having a fantastic Thursday
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show and let's just jump into it
The first thing we're to talk about today is we had two bits of news around YouTube the first most likely only matters to creators
first up we had YouTube announcing that people will be going down in the number of subscribers they have and they say this is because
They are removing what they're calling spam subscriptions writing in a blog post
we regularly verify the legitimacy of accounts and actions on your YouTube channel and adding we've recently identified and fixed an issue that caused some
Spam not to be removed today/tomorrow. We'll be taking action and removing subscribers that were in fact spam from our systems
I'll include a link down below to the post there the main thing here. I just want to spread the word
So people weren't freaking out and going like what did I do?
I don't even think that video is so controversial, but that's that the second bit of YouTube news is
international news because its history YouTube rewind
2018 is now the most disliked YouTube video in
History with over 10 million dislikes dethroning the previous most disliked video, which was Justin Bieber's baby
Although I...I do think it needs to be pointed out. There is a big difference between the two videos, One:
it's took Bieber's video a much longer time to get that number of dislikes and Two: his video also has 10 million likes and actually
Is more like than dislike whereas YouTube rewind has 2.1 million likes 2 over 10 million dislikes personally
I'm left wondering how is in ur YouTube
reacting to all of this because as far as I've seen a lot of the creators that were in it have kind of just been
Joking about how bad it's been received and they've been rolling with the punches
They see nice that for example
I believe like 70% of his response is on Twitter to people over the past few days has been just kpop
And marques Brownlee mkbhd he posted we made history
So I think the community and audience at large
Realizes that it's not any of these one creators that created this piece that they were just brought in there
They were I mean a lot of people kind of know the story a lot of creators are invited you're there for a long time
They use you like that
Which was also one of the big complaints from a number of people that were featured in YouTube's free one 2017
the reason I wonder how YouTube is receiving all of this is because of something that mkbhd
Hit on I think really really well in his video
They obviously are company that has to make money and the way they do that is by pairing advertisers to content
So they started seeing YouTube rewind as a place to showcase all the best stuff that happens on YouTube
for advertisers and so now fast-forward to this era of
Brand safety and post ad pocalypse and all these things. It's become more important than ever for that relationship between YouTube and
Advertisers to remain strong and for them to show the best stuff on the platform to those advertisers
So YouTube rewind turned into this like hey
Check out all these
advertiser friendly things for you to spend your money on all these
Super clean creators and these late-night show hosts and all these things that you want your ads next to you
So YouTube rewind in a way just turned into a giant ad
For YouTube, that's the truth and also a big note here just so it doesn't seem like I'm misrepresenting him
He this was him seeing it from their point of view before going into all the problems that create
Well, the note that he hits on is incredibly important that YouTube rewind is seen by YouTube as a way to say
Hey brands, look at the things you can throw money. And so it brings up the question community reaction aside
Is this still going to be effective for the brands that are out there?
Our brands are looking for safe places to put their advertising in a go. Oh, well this video got 10 million dislikes
That makes me change my mind or will they just go? No, this is a single video
This is a small moment in time. All of these other brands save people them separately
We're still really interested in this we're gonna throw money at those things
My honest answer to that is I have no idea because depending on the brand or the agency you're dealing with you're dealing with
Someone that either really gets it or a different kind of crazy
I think a big part of this is how YouTube and a big thing to consider is that there are a lot of different people
With different mind since their how they see the community
Why do they see this as a moment that they want to learn from that they want to incorporate more things or maybe like marques?
hits not include
everything because that's when what you exclude becomes even more apparent or do they look at this reaction that they don't like is essentially a
Bunch of kids in the backseat that won't stop screaming and personally
I don't know because you have so many players over there and at the end of the day like Marcus said they are a company
And so they're of the mindset of to keep everything moving and going they got to make a dollar
That's why I've always said while I love YouTube
I'll always be thankful for YouTube forgivingly me this platform and essentially my career
I personally think of YouTube as a business partner and when I think of a relationship
I don't have one with YouTube. I have one with the community
I like I don't expect you to if you care about my feelings, although last second update to the story
It appears that YouTube is trying to kind of roll with the punches Sweeting new record
Oh wait, and also saying thanks to the creators
I took part in rewind to the
Community that responded hear what you're saying and you want to make next year better for all of you. Watch this space
But with all of that said I do want to pass a question off to you the community
What would your thoughts about this reaction?
We're seeing here. And what do you think YouTube is going to do moving forward?
Do you think they're just gonna scrap rewind do you think they're gonna keep it going as is are they gonna try and modify?
right now it's seeming like more of the
Modifications but I mean what modifications and tweaks will they make and will they be affected on that?
No, it's a question of what do you think they'll do and what do you want them to do?
And then we had Taylor Swift in the news for a tech
privacy reason according to reports taylor swift security team
Installed a kiosk that was scanning fans faces without them knowing reportedly they were using facial recognition
Technology to see if they could identify any of Taylor Swift's stalkers that may have gone to the venue
according to Rolling Stone
At least one of the places that it was deployed was at a kiosk those playing rehearsal footage of Taylor Swift
So people were looking at this thing not realizing that they're being scanned with this
We've seen privacy advocates raise a red flag, right?
A lot of questions have been posed what happens to those photos and that data are there limitations to the data is a primarily security
And we know for a fact that it's not going to be sold to someone that wants information
On people like data about what you do online is heavily monetized
Right is that topic and thought that keeps popping up?
If you're using a free service most likely you are the product but at the same time a big part of this
conversation isn't so much a legal one is because as other experts have pointed out what you're talking about is a private event where they
Wouldn't be required to inform people
And so if anything
it's more of a moral question a question about the
Limitations and a question about privacy and how much people care in general and so with this story
I want to pass the question off to you. What do you think about this?
Do you think this technology is very useful? It should be implemented. You're completely fine with it or no?
Do you think that this is bad out, right?
It's a slippery slope and obviously it's not just a pure black and white issue. There are small modifiers
Like are you ok with it?
As long as they make people more aware that this is happening or no
They should be required to do that because they're trying to find people that might be there to harm people like Taylor Swift
So I'd love to know your thoughts on this one
And also if you will let me know
Where you are from because I know that based on a region the the opinions on this really vary
But from that I want to share some stuff
I loved today in today in Austin brought to you by Nord VPN comm slash
If you're not familiar with VPNs
they allow users to securely access a private network and share data remotely through public networks, or
To put it more simply much like your firewall protects our data on your computer VPNs protected online
It's a perfect thing for you to have just in general at home traveling with the family for holidays online shopping season
In fact Nord VPN could make a great holiday gift for all your family and friends. You have no idea what to get them
otherwise and part of the reason Nord VPN is so
fantastic, is they have
Thousands of superfast servers in 61 countries and have absolutely no data log and the two best things here one you can do this risk
For either as a 30-day money-back
guarantee and two
If you go to North Vee PN comm slash ville
You use code fill you will get 75% off a three-year plan and an extra month for free the special offer makes it the equivalent
of just
$2.99 per month
so if you want to make a smart move like many from the nation already have just go to Nord VPN comm slash field the
First bit of Awesome is if you haven't seen it yet
Which is incredibly possible because it was not unexpected
YouTube hit our video this morning did a morning bonus a news video
I have been blown away by the positive reaction from you guys
It's not over the topic, but obviously of the the presentation of the video a main point after today's video
I'll include in the outro card linked down below. I highly recommend it. Then we had lin-manuel Miranda answering the web's most searched question
We had half as interesting giving us. What's the shortest international border in the world with a fantastic Vanessa Hudgens on hot ones? Damn?
I got a clip for a movie that I'm so excited to see spider-man into the spider verse binging with babish giving us some holiday
cocktails and we have the daily hit because this fruitcake
Actually sucked. We had Ted ed giving us a brief history of cheese if you want to see the full versions of everything
I just share the secret link of the day really anything at all
links as always are in the description down below and then let's talk about
California taxes because apparently people in California not paying enough leaves. It seems to be the opinion of California's Public Utilities Commission
Otherwise known as the CPUC
They are reportedly considering a plan that would tax text messages and as they say would be in order to fund programs
That would bring connectivity to underserved residents and what it aim to do is expand the current
surcharge on phone services to text messages
Although the exact structure right now is likely to vary between carriers. So we don't know exactly what this would look like right now
It's believed that this would increase funding by around forty four point five million dollars a year how the money would reportedly go to things
Like 9-1-1 services subsidized phone service for low-income residents and equipment for deaf and hard-of-hearing users
So I guess if we're against this tax, we hate deaf people and the police. That's just great
But as far as why this is happening now
This is coming after the CPUC published a report last month saying a tech should
be eligible for taxes and our board argues that a tech surcharge is necessary due to a lack of funding for public purpose program if
That was unfamiliar
These programs were actually set up back in the 90s by state and federal governments
Which charged all phone users a surcharge that went to programs for a little earner?
Those charges are already included in every phone bill
But because people aren't making phone calls as much anymore revenue has fallen for my very young
Listeners out there if you're unfamiliar a phone call is essentially like an interactive audio podcast
But even less necessary the main point revenue is have phone and at the same time the budget has reportedly grown by 50%
And report says the surcharge rate has had to rise to keep up with the funding
but the report says that this is
Unsustainable e there was a decrease in the surcharge rate back in 2017 when the prepaid mobile
Telephony services surcharge was put into place
and so this inclusion of MTS also means that some texts are already included in the
Surcharge on is actually what prompted the Commission to clarify whether text messages were included and according to a spokesperson for the Commission the industry
Filed a petition asking the CPUC to clarify whether text messaging should be included in the bill amount that is subject to the existing
surcharges depending draft proposal recommends that the CPUC
Include text messaging revenue as part of the total bill amounts subject to surcharge and to put it into just very basic terms
They're arguing that we need to change because the market is changing. Also according to current reports
it's not just text messages moving forward portal II the CPUC is also looking to
Retroactively Li tax five years worth of text messages
But that said as you might imagine there are people against this in response to the report the CTIA
Which is a group that represents the u.s. Wireless communications industry
They filed a comment saying at the CPUC was wrong in its assessment
the text messages were telecommunication services and to argue this they pointed to a draft declaratory ruling from the FCC that included tax as
Information services, right so similar to emails which are exempt from tax also claiming, you know
This isn't really simple that this tax would create an inequality between traditional carriers and messaging apps like whatsapp and iMessage and following this move
Illogical anti-competitive and harmful to consumers and some of the big news here
is that on Wednesday the FCC actually adopted that draft officially making text and
information service this resulted in Jamie Hastings senior vice president of external and state affairs of CTIA saying we hope that the CPUC he
recognizes that taxing text messages is bad for consumers consumers exchanged one point seven seven trillion messages in
2017 making text messages one of the most common and effect means of
communication for
American taxing this service would burden those who rely on and use the service each and every day now as of recording this video the
Commission is not officially responded to the FCC's decision
but they still do have an opportunity to change the draft proposal before it is voted on which is expected to be January 10 and
As far as my reaction to this, I mean one as someone that lives and works in, California
More taxes, but it wouldn't be as angry about the taxes that we have here
If driving to work didn't feel like I was on a fucking wooden roller coaster, but also to I think it's just an eventualities
To get money if you're just taxing old school text messages and people are aware of this change
People are just going to migrate to services. Like what's at the market thanks to in general technology
But also younger people having their own preferences and being very savvy it might not be what you're projecting
But with that said that's a story my personal opinion and I pass the question after you what do you thoughts around the this chain?
Do you think it's understandable, you know what the markets changed? We have to fund these programs more or no?
Do you agree with some of the other assessments that it is anticompetitive?
That it will just hurt the consumer that it doesn't do what it needs to do
And then we also had more tax news, although this was not related to just text messages
I guess would be closer to sex or not. Really
Harassment and what we're talking about here is there's been this push for reforming the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995
Which picked up steam in the wake of the me2 movement?
Especially after several lawmakers were accused of sexual harassment around that same time
it was also revealed that several lawmakers had used taxpayer funds to pay settlements to their accuser people like representative Patrick Mian from
Pennsylvania and Blake Farenthold from Texas also under the current law
You have things like Capitol Hill staffers who claimed that they were harassed or discriminated against have to undergo counseling
mandatory arbitration and a 30-day cooling-off
Period before going to court and so what we saw this year is the House and Senate both passing bills to improve the policy
But these bills were actually pretty different before going into what we're talking about today
I want to talk about the differences because it's pretty interesting
for example
Some of the differences the Senate bill would have let law makers still use tax payer funds for their settlements and legal fees
Whereas the House bill required people to pay out-of-pocket
Also, the House bill wanted to address both harassment and discrimination settlements
But the Senate version only wanted to deal with harassment. Also, the Senate bill would not have provided legal representation to all accusers
Whereas the House bill did and the Senate bill is also criticized for how it narrowly defined sexual harassment as severe or pervasive
And required that such harassment be unwanted but main point after nearly seven months back and forth Congress finally came to an agreement
Yesterday and here are some of the main points and changes members of Congress will be personally liable for awards and settlements stemming from harassment
and related retaliation
They personally commit even if a member leaves office and Ettore counseling
Mediation and cooling-off periods for accusers would be eliminated
the bill also includes a provision that would require a review by the House or Senate Ethics Committee on any settlement that is made as
well as an annual report on settlements involving members additionally these
Protections will extend to unpaid staff including interns and fellows it also provides opportunities for accusers to work remotely or request paid leave without fear
Of retribution and it says that a staff survey would be conducted each Congress about workplace culture
also
There are some differences for Senate and House staffers as far as legal representation for
Accusers Senate staffers who file complaints will have access to a confidential advocate who must be an attorney but cannot provide legal representation
But House staffers will have access to full legal representation
also interestingly the bill leaves out some
Provisions sought out by Republicans and Democrats in the house including one that would hold members personally liable for discrimination in their offices
Meaning that for now taxpayers would still foot the bill for any discrimination
Settlements also on that note House lawmakers say they plan to take up the issue and others and next Congress and overall lawmakers on both
Parties were pleased with this compromise now with all of that said this is not technically a law yet
But the bill is expected to reach the President's desk before the end of the year. So it's an interesting move
I don't know really what question to attach to this story
I don't think there's a lot of support behind do you think taxpayer money should go to
Settlements or regarding sexual harassment so maybe a better question is how do you feel about the discrimination exemption?
And also, of course I'm interested in your thoughts in general on this. That's where I'm going to end today's show
Remember if you like this video you like that now 7 News videos
You have been getting each week support the show hit that like button
Also, if you're new here, you'll want more in the future hit that subscribe button also ring that bell for notifications
also
If you missed yesterday's Philip defranco's show or this morning's deep dive
You can click or tap right there to watch those spots with that said of course as always my name's philip. Defranco
You've just been phill'd in a love yo faces, and I'll see you tomorrow