- Sup you beautiful bastards?
Hope you're having a fantastic Tuesday.
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show.
Buckle up, hit that like button,
and lets just jump into it.
And the first things we're gonna talk about today
are some internet-y slash business news quickies.
First up is an update to a story
that we've been covering,
about how streaming services have been acquiring
streaming talent, signing them to exclusive deals.
And it's kind of just been changing
the streaming entertainment landscape.
You know, the past news we saw,
you had Ninja, Shroud, then King Gothalion
all moving over to Mixer.
And the newest player in the exclusive game
was CouRage, a.k.a Jack Dunlop,
but, of massive note here,
he didn't ditch Twitch to go to Mixer
he signed exclusively to YouTube Gaming.
Which is kind of funny
since the last time we talked about
these exclusive deals,
I kind of joked that YouTube was like,
"Hey, why do have to all of a sudden
play this game?"
Which, it appears, apparently they are
and it's actually believed
by those in the community that this is by far
not the last person we're gonna see.
And actually on that note,
you had esports and gaming consultant,
Ron Breslau, tweeting
"CouRage's agency Loaded negotiated the deal,
the same agency who represents Ninja,
Shroud, TimTheTatman, Lirik, and Summit
among other clients.
Nearly all of Loaded's clients are in
current negotiations with other
streamer platforms, most of them with Mixer,
or have already signed deals
to stay at Twitch sources say."
We also saw Ryan Wyatt, the Global Head of Gaming
and Virtual Reality at YouTube,
also a man who gave me
my first fantasy football loss this weekend,
tweeting, "We're investing heavily into
on-platform creators."
And when asked does this mean YouTube will be
investing more resources into developing
the live part of their platform,
Ryan Wyatt responded, "Yes."
Just this phase in general
right now is fascinating.
Because you know, I mean, a lot of people
when they're talking about the Streaming Wars,
they're talking about HBO Max,
Disney's new venture, Netflix,
and here it's, you know,
YouTube, Twitch and Mixer,
but it's really Microsoft, and Amazon, and Google.
And just like the other streaming war,
it appears that there is a heavy focus
on exclusives.
I guess we'll just have to wait to see who wins
while a lot of these streamers
just make crazy money.
Then, it feels like it really snuck up,
we have the KSI versus Logan Paul rematch.
They're fighting this Saturday here in L.A.
There's been a lot of talk of, you know,
is this going to be as successful,
less successful, more successful.
Some of the big changes with this one
is it's pro-fight, right?
So lighter gloves, no head guards,
also the undercard is filled with pro,
legitimate boxers.
It's also, notably, not being streamed
on YouTube, it's being streamed on DAZN.
Right now, some people are saying
it's leaning towards, maybe,
this is going to be less successful.
This because, according to reports,
there are still thousands
of tickets still available for the fight.
But of course that could just be kind of
lower excitement based off the region.
The last fight was in the U.K.,
KSI has a larger audience,
so maybe that plays a role.
Also right now, there's no way to know
if in person ticket purchases versus
you know, DAZN subscriptions,
if those kind of trend the same way.
But ultimately, we'll have to wait to see
what the numbers are after the event.
Personally, I'm really interested to see
what happens when you take this
very strange, wild thing, that was the first event
and you mix it with something that's
far more mainstream.
Does it kill it?
Do you limp through it?
Does it evolve into something even
bigger and more awesome?
You know, we'll have to wait and see there.
And then, finally, with these quickies,
we had the news around a ban.
Specifically here, we're talking about a
YouTube creator by the name of Jarvis.
You look through his channel,
he's getting hundreds of thousands,
if not millions, of views on Fortnite content,
but it appears that that may have come to an end
because Epic, the creator of the game,
hit him with a lifetime ban.
This because Jarvis was using an aimbot
in Fortnite's noncompetitive mode.
And also, for those that are not gamers,
an aimbot essentially makes it so you like
almost miss none of your shots.
And the way a lot of people learned about this
is that Jarvis himself made the video.
He even in the video kind of breaks down crying.
And he acknowledges that he was
completely wrong here,
and in general the majority reaction
to this video were a lot of people
calling for Epic to unban him.
Some arguing that the permanent ban was unfair.
A number of people pointing to an instance
where you had players in a pro tournament
that were cheating, but instead of a lifetime ban
they were hit with a temporary ban
and were even able to compete in
Fortnite World Cup.
But also at the same time,
you have people countering that argument
saying "Well, it's a different kind of cheating."
That was pro players cooperating,
teaming up when they were
supposed to be competitors,
but what Jarvis did
is that he used cheating software.
Granted, it wasn't in a pro tournament.
It wasn't in a competitive mode,
but it was still cheating software,
which Epic says they have a
zero tolerance policy for.
Right, and essentially the idea of that
zero tolerance policy is
even if it's in a noncompetitive mode,
if you're using cheating software,
you're giving other players
an infuriating experience.
Maybe you keep getting killed
by people using aimbots, you think,
"Why the fuck am I playing this game?"
In theory, it hurts the community
and the game itself.
Yeah, with this one, I'd really love
to know your thoughts because, I mean,
once again, if you look at the content,
and obviously creators can pivot
to different things all the time, his career,
and I know when I'm talking about games
some of you roll your eyes,
but his career is heavily focused on this content
and all of a sudden (snaps fingers)
it's gone.
But yeah, with this one,
and of course anything,
I'd love to know you're thoughts on this.
But from that, I want to share
some stuff I love today.
And today in Awesome, brought to you by Audible,
and if you didn't know,
Audible is an amazing platform
that is the largest selection of
audio books on the planet.
And fantastically, members get a credit
every month good for any audio book
in the Audible store, regardless of price,
and unused credits automatically
roll over to the next month.
Another reason Audible is great is because
it gives you the ability to listen
on any of your devices anytime, anywhere,
whether you're at home, the gym,
you're on a commute, you're traveling.
And for me, personally, it's how I kind of start
and end my work days.
On my way in and on my way out,
it allows me this kind of buffer period
that I feel like my brain can switch gears.
And actually, right now,
I've been diving into "The Testaments",
which is Margaret Atwood's highly anticipated
sequel to "The Handmaid's Tale".
But, main point, whether you want to join me
in checking that out or anything,
just make sure you head on over to
audible.com/phillyd or text "phillyd" to 500-500
to get a free audio book,
two free audible originals,
and a 30 day free trial.
And the first bit of awesome today,
is if you're looking to spread some holiday cheer
the beautiful bastard way,
today we're launching our limited run
of the special edition ugly holiday
long sleeve shirt.
That way, when you go back home for the holidays,
or you're having a holiday party,
you can let people know you want them to have
a great fucking holiday.
Available now at shopdefranco.com.
And I also put a few things on sale
in case you want to get a few things
at the same time.
Then Conde Nast Traveler gave us
50 Trying To Name Their
Representatives In Congress.
TED-Ed gave us Game Theory Challenge:
Can you Predict Human Behavior.
Then in Friend Of The Show Awesome,
we got a trailer Reina Sculley's new
First We Feast series,
also, maybe I'm on an episode in the future.
Then we got the season two trailer for
Nailed It! Holiday!
And I mean this in a positive way,
some of my favorite garbage series,
with Willem Dafoe breaking down his career.
Then we got a trailer for Bad Boys For Life,
of course staring YouTuber Will Smith.
And if you want to see the full versions
of everything I just shared,
the secret link of the day,
really anything at all,
links, as always, are in the
description down below.
And then in Sometimes I Just Hate Humans news,
lets talk about this news surrounding Popeyes.
A little while ago they did this kind of
limited release of their new chicken sandwich.
You had reports and people saying
"Hey it's better than Chick-fil-A."
Almost instantly, people started swarming Popeyes.
All of a sudden, they were sold out.
People were getting angry.
Then last Popeyes comes out with the announcement,
"Hey, yeah, we know that you love the sandwich.
They're all back on Sunday."
All right, seemingly kind of another
little jab at Chick-fil-A,
which is closed on Sundays.
And, you know, Sunday rolls around
and the sandwiches are released.
A lot of people lining up once again.
And then, we got the news last night
at a Maryland Popeyes.
People were lined up, you know,
waiting to give their order,
apparently someone cuts, or allegedly cuts,
that leads to an altercation that ends up outside,
and then someone got stabbed to death.
A 28 year old man was killed,
and according to police,
"We have been able to determine, preliminarily,
that this is related to the release
of the sandwich here at this restaurant.
This individual was in line specifically
for the sale of the sandwich
when another customer and he got into
an altercation and that ended with the victim
being stabbed outside of the business."
Which, a massive note here,
as of recording this video,
the person who killed the other man
is still out there.
Police are searching for him.
And that's a story based off of
what we know from police right now.
Because every now and then,
when I see a story like this, I'm like,
"Maybe we should just hit the reset button."
There's no lesson to learn with this story.
It's not like you're like,
"Oh wait, so we're not supposed to kill people
because of an over hyped sandwich?"
Just kind of another daily confirmation
that human beings are capable of
the dumbest, most horrible shit.
So there's that.
Also, completely unconnected to this story,
I got the chicken sandwich yesterday.
It's just okay.
I feel like I should be able
to sue Popeyes for false marketing.
They call that a spicy chicken sandwich?
Spicy to who?
Anyway, moving on.
And then, finally, let's talk about
the United States and Climate Change.
And so, if you didn't see,
yesterday the Trump Administration announced
that it was officially withdrawing
from the Paris Agreement.
That international accord signed by 195 countries
that pledged, among other things,
to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
One of those countries was the United States
under the Obama Administration,
which signed in 2016 and was also
a key leader in crafting the agreement
and getting others to sign on.
But, you know, as we've seen,
Donald Trump has long been critical of
the Paris Agreement,
arguing that it hurts U.S. competitiveness
and the economy.
So while the Trump Administration move
to formally withdraw the United States
from this agreement is a big deal,
it is also not a surprise.
In fact, even back in June of 2017
Trump officially announced that
he was going to take the United States
out of the agreement.
But, after that announcement the United States
did not immediately leave the accord.
And that's because when all the countries
signed on back in 2016,
they agreed to rules set by the U.N.
that said no country could leave for three years,
and if a signatory country did decide
to leave the agreement they would then
be subject to a one year waiting period
before the withdrawal took affect.
So, on November 4, 2019, exactly three years
to the day after the agreement was finalized,
the Trump Administration pulled
the United States out of the deal,
with Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo,
announcing the move on Twitter writing,
"Today we begin the formal process
of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
The U.S. is proud of our record
as a world leader in reducing all emissions,
fostering resilience, growing our economy,
and ensuring energy for our citizens.
Ours is a realistic and pragmatic model."
Now the timing of all this
is actually somewhat interesting.
Now that this has been done,
the United States has one year
before it is fully out of the climate agreement.
Which, interestingly enough, means that
the United States would be entirely withdrawn
from this agreement one day
after the 2020 election.
And while most of the Democratic
presidential candidates have said if elected
they would rejoin this deal,
even if Donald Trump were to lose to one of them
and then a transition
of power happened as it should,
that person still wouldn't be in office
until January 2021,
so it looks like the United States
is definitely getting out and they would be
the first and only to do so.
Now with all of that said,
what does this mean moving forward.
Well there are three main implications here.
First, is the general impact of climate change.
One of the main over arching goals
of the Paris Agreement was
to keep global warming well below a rise
of 2 degrees Celsius,
with the general aim of not letting it
go above 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change backed by a massive scientific
consensus has said that in order
to reach that ambitious goal,
we as a global community need
to slash carbon emissions in half by 2030
and net-zero in 2050.
And if we fail to do so,
scientists and experts have warned
that we could face irreversible
impacts of climate change.
And so, in signing the Paris Agreement,
each country set its own goals
to reduce emissions and many wealthier
and more developed countries,
which at that time included the United States,
also agreed to help poorer and developing
countries cope with the effects of climate change.
And critics of Trump's decision
to withdraw the United States from this agreement
have said that this is a massive step backward
in the fight against climate change,
especially because the United States
is the second biggest emitter
of greenhouse gasses in the world after China.
Which brings us to the second implication,
which is the impact of the United States
withdrawing from the Paris Agreement
on the effectiveness of the whole deal itself.
Without the United States,
these other signatory countries have
to figure out how this agreement works
without the United States.
And specifically, that means other major
polluters, like China and India, have to step up
and fill the vacuum left by the United States.
As the number one polluter,
China has made big promises to cut their emissions,
but they've done little to deliver
on those promises.
Also, not a shocker if you watched yesterday's show,
India also has a long way to go.
They're in the middle of a growing,
massive pollution crisis.
And these big players matter,
because in 2017 the United States, China,
and India together accounted for almost
50% of global emissions,
but, a note here, and it's one of
the biggest differences between the United States
and the other two countries here,
is that under U.N. rules China and India
are still considered developing countries
and so they're actually not obligated
to curb emissions.
In fact, under the Paris Agreement
China actually said that it would
peak emissions in 2030 while
the United States said that it
would cut them drastically.
But also, as reports have pointed out,
both India and China still agreed
to cut emissions as part of this agreement
in large part because the United States was taking action.
So with the United States being gone,
it could be argued that China and India
will now be even less likely
to reduce their emissions.
Which, and this is a massive thing
with the Paris Agreement,
none of the commitments
countries make are binding.
It was kind of seen as this double edged sword.
It's beneficial because it got
other countries that would otherwise
not agree to legally binding commitments to sign,
but it also means that none of the countries
are actually held to their commitments.
And so, if a big power player
in climate change later,
like the United States,
pulls back on those commitments,
it could signal to other countries
that they could do the same.
And then the third major implication here
is the economic impacts.
In addition to the scientific warnings
about rising sea levels, extreme weather,
and the disastrous effects climate change
will have on agriculture and wild life,
many have also said that withdrawing
from the agreement is actually
a bad economic decision.
This because the Trump Administration
has not wanted to invest in clean energy
and renewable technologies that
are becoming a huge market.
As Andrew Steer, the President of the
World Resources Institute, said in a statement,
Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement
fails people in the United States
who will lose out on clean energy jobs,
as other nations grab the competitive
and technological advantages that
the low-carbon future offers.
But also, it should be noted,
long before yesterday, the Administration
has essentially moved forward like
the withdrawal from the agreement
was already done,
pushing ahead with plans and actions
that went entirely against the U.S.'s
pledge under the agreement to reduce
its greenhouse gas emissions by nearly
a quarter of 2005 levels by 2025.
Among other things, the Trump Administration
has continually rolled back Obama era
environmental rules that attempted
to reduce carbon emissions,
things such as regulations
on coal fired power plants and
other regulations aimed at increasing
fuel efficiency standards.
And already this has made an impact
on the United States' carbon output,
2018 U.S. carbon emissions increased significantly.
You have the Environmental Protection Agency
chief, Andrew Wheeler, specifically saying
that the rise was cause by
"an uptick in manufacturing and industrial output."
And Trump, for his part,
has made it abundantly clear
that he views increasing fossil fuel
and coal production as a more important
priority than addressing climate change.
Even if those plans go against
the findings of his administration's
own scientists.
And while speaking in France this summer,
the president said,
"I feel that the United States
has tremendous wealth.
The wealth is under its feet.
I've made that wealth come alive.
I'm not going to lose that wealth.
I'm not going to lose it on dreams,
on windmills."
But regarding that money,
it's important to point out
that many economists and other experts
have said that investing in the clean
and renewable energy sector is actually
a huge economic investment.
And as one report framed,
"Many climate policies pay off
in the near term in jobs, economic growth,
or reductions in local air and water pollutants,
even putting aside their climate-specific benefits.
In short, many carbon-reducing policies
are things it makes sense for countries
to do anyway, for reasons beyond saving
the world from climate change."
And finally, regarding my opinion on this,
I'm actually a little bit torn.
I will say, I think without a doubt
the United States and other countries
need to move to cleaner energy,
but also, we shouldn't be blind to the fact
that most of the countries that were
in this agreement have not hit their goals.
If you have a non-binding agreement
and most of the countries aren't even doing
what they said they would do,
it's not an agreement.
It's like a general idea.
It's like if me and a bunch of my other
overweight friends are like,
"We're gonna lose weight.
Let's all sign this paper saying
we will stop eating our feelings.
Greg don't worry,
it's not like we're gonna charge you
if you don't do it.
Just sign, we're in this together."
It's not an agreement.
That's a general idea and a positive thought.
And to reiterate,
this is not me saying fuck the planet,
we should go the complete opposite way
because of the flaws around this agreement.
Action needs to be taken
and, unfortunately, the one thing,
even if it is symbolic leaving of an agreement,
it is a showcasing that the actions
are not going in the right direction.
Actions on, actually, six key issues.
And I'm not pulling that six number
out of nowhere.
There was actually a report put out today
signed by over 11,000 scientists
from over 150 countries,
and on top of saying that if action is not taken
that humanity will experience untold suffering
thanks to climate change,
they list six key issues that need
to be addressed,
replacing fossil fuels,
cutting the emissions of climate pollutants
such as methane and soot, eating less meat,
restoring and protecting ecosystems,
building a carbon-free economy,
and stabilizing population growth
by investing into family-planning services
and girls education.
But hey, that's where we are with this story,
a little bit of my opinion,
some more updates,
and, of course, now I pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts on this?
And that is ultimately where
I'm going to end today's show.
And hey, if you liked this video,
let us know.
Hit that like button.
Also, if you're new here,
definitely tap that subscribe button.
Tap that bell to turn on notifications.
Also, if you're not 100% filled in,
you can check out my latest podcast
and/or maybe just missed yesterday's
Philip DeFranco Show,
you wanna catch up,
you can click or tap right there
to watch either of those 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.