- Sup, you're beautiful bastards.
Welcome back to the-
♪ Phillip, Phillip ♪
♪ Phillip Defranco ♪
Show, it is Tuesday, and let's just jump into.
In our first up today,
I have to ask you what is more American
than having a billionaire attempt to fix an issue
that many have been asking the government
to deal with for decades.
And obviously, yeah, I've been a little inflammatory there,
but Mark Cuban right now is aiming to do just that,
and he may be able to do it.
So last Wednesday he announced
that he was starting an online pharmacy called the
Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company or MCCPDC.
With a homepage reading, no middlemen,
no price games, huge drug savings.
Okay, what is the game plan?
Well, MCCPDC will offer generic versions
of drugs at cost plus just a small fee in market.
And in most cases it's expected
that it will end up being substantially cheaper that way.
For example, a 30-day supply of Atorvastatin,
the generic version of laboratory costs
between 50 and 100 plus dollars retail with insurance.
But at MCCPDC, it's just $3.60 cents plus $5 shipping,
which I mean, you don't even have to be good with numbers
to see that's huge.
Now that that's it, some have criticized this saying, Hey,
that they're not the only one.
It's actually pretty easy to get coupons
for other generics at places like goodrx.com,
but still in this case,
Cuban's company is very competitive.
Right, the cheapest I could find this drug was
for $6 at HEB and that wasn't including shipping,
but keep in mind, that's just one example of one drug.
I mean, the further we looked into this,
we found the savings can get even crazier
if you're on some sort of specialty medication
like Albendazole, which is used to get rid of worms.
However, there do seem to be potentially a handful of issues
or at the very least let's call them limitation.
First up, I mean, you have the limited selection,
currently they only offer 100 generic drugs
and are missing some pretty common one.
Things like the generic version of Benicar,
which is used for high blood pressure.
Also there's the issue of insurance.
MCCPDC is not accepting insurance.
Although here Cuban is confident
that his prices would still be lower
than what many people with insurance would normally pay,
but still to insert my opinion here,
I think this is a fantastic start, right?
Sure, it's unclear how quickly other medications
will be added.
But if this starts to get movement,
this could impact the whole industry,
which I think is part of the reason
why Cuban's efforts have been generally praised, right?
Everyone hates drug prices.
In fact, back in December,
Gallup released a poll that found
that 18 million Americans could not afford
at least one doctor prescribed med
over the previous three months.
That is insane.
And if you know anyone that's on medication,
or if you were on medication yourself,
I'm sure you also have a story of someone
that should not be doing it,
but out of just desperation is like trying to figure out
how they construct a pill out over a longer period of time
even though they're not supposed to take a smaller dose.
And so for those reasons and so much more
I'm rooting for Mark Cuban here,
there needs to be more competition like this
because if there is none,
the rich folks will just fuck and try
and drain the American public for as long as they can
until you're just a husk of your former self.
So with this story, I mean, one,
what are your general thoughts?
And two, if you take the time to actually go to this site
and maybe price check what you
or your medications would cost,
see what the difference is?
Is it there? Is it not? Gonna be helpful? Is it not?
Because hopefully at least one of those things is there
and maybe your life becomes a little easier.
And then let's talk about YouTube CEO, Susan Wojcicki
in a little bit of controversy right now,
also this relating to the future of YouTube.
So Susan put out a letter today
called "Our 2022 Priorities."
And in this letter she is talking
about the state of the creator economy,
talking about the momentum across the platform,
including on shorts,
saying that shorts have now hit 5 trillion,
that's with a T all time views,
adding the number of channels around the world,
making more than $10,000 a year is up 40% year over year.
And then specifically regarding money and shorts,
because it's kind of this known in the industry
that money made from short form content like this,
it's usually small.
Susan announced at YouTube
we're testing out new monetization features
for our shorts creators.
Things like looking into integrating much stores
into shorts, connecting shorts creators to brands
through YouTube's BrandConnect.
And all that, coming after the company
has already established a $100 million fund
that was meant to encourage creators
and start using shorts.
With Wojcicki just be saying that YouTube shorts experiment
has actually been good and bringing in new talent,
revealing that upwards of 40% of those getting money
from the shorts fund aren't in the partner program.
Then after that, we get to the controversy.
Wojcicki stating that the company
to help creators capitalize on emerging technologies,
including things like NFTs.
Now, with that said, it's important to note
that YouTube is not like the first big company
to kind of embrace or at least to dabble with NFTs.
I think most companies right now are thinking about,
or at least worried about what Web 3.0 is gonna look like,
what our NFT is going to look like.
Some big ideas, I'm kinda dipping the toe.
Right last week we saw Twitter announcing, Hey,
you can put your NFT as your profile image
and it'll look like this is an hexagon.
Well, I know the majority of this audience,
not a fan of NFTs.
I truly believe that NFTs,
maybe not with 99% of them are right now,
but NFTs, I think are gonna be a part of our future.
Granted, I don't think it's gonna be,
Hey, look, I bought an image for a million dollars
and it has no utility, I think that's fucking stupid.
Like that shit just feels like rich people taking money
from other rich people
and everyone's kinda playing this game of hot potato.
The things like, I mean, if they do it correctly,
the Elk Boys recently think what you want about them.
But they launched an NFT project.
It's believed they made $23 million from their launch.
But if the utility connected to their NFT actually
like gives people exclusive access
to like in real life events,
clothing discounts for life or whatever.
I see potential value in that for the same reason
why I see potential value in,
I don't know if you saw Garry Vee,
he's part of this new thing, the Flyfish Club,
it's a dining club and to get access,
you have to actually have an NFT,
which to me just feels like the evolution is something
like the Soho House and its memberships.
But instead of a place just having like a membership
and then, you know, when you're done going to that place,
you just no longer have the membership,
you could actually technically sell your membership
or with five Flyfish Club,
you can actually like rent it out.
And so in a weird way,
like early adopters of the NFT can kinda be seen almost
as like investors who can profit
or benefit from then other people embracing this place.
Like that, it could still fail,
but at least that I kind of understand.
Still with all that we saw a lot of people pushing back
on Wojcicki there.
But it's also not the only place.
We saw Susan doubling down on the company stands
towards dislikes, specifically not showing them publicly.
There was extremely controversial,
a lot of negative feelings.
People saying, you know, those are the dislikes
that helped me gauge whether our video is worth it or not.
But according to Wojcicki,
"Every way we looked at it,
we did not see a meaningful difference in viewership,
regardless of whether or not
there was a public dislike count.
And importantly, it reduced dislike attacks."
And actually to that point,
we've seen some creators like Hank Green taking
to Twitter saying, "Hey, I know it's an unpopular opinion,
but I feel far less anxious now
that there's not this public dislike count."
Which, I will say, even as someone
that I don't like that YouTube did this,
I think Hank is actually right.
I haven't been anxious about likes or dislikes
since the change.
Still I don't like you to removing that,
but I think Hank does have a point to a degree.
With all of that said,
I'd love to know your thoughts on this situation.
And also specifically regarding entities.
And I know a large portion of this audience
they just see a hater.
But I do wanna know when you see more established companies
like a Twitter and a YouTube kind of embracing it,
dabbling, does it add to their legitimacy or no,
you think they're just testing with like a passing fad.
And then of course we have to talk
about the Joe Biden Fox news reporter situation,
which if somehow this evaded your radar, here's the clip.
- [Peter] Do you think inflation is a political liability
in the coming midterm election?
- No it's a great asset. More inflation.
What a stupid song of a (beep)
- Okay, so not very presidential,
but in president Biden's defense wondering
why Peter Doocy is asking such stupid fucking questions
is a time-honored American tradition.
- Your relationship the president Fred
to the point that you are not going to support anything
that he comes to you and asks for?
- Why would you say something that's stupid?
Why would ask something that damn?
- But no, I mean, not joking about it.
When I look to the internet and all the reactions I've seen,
I've seen a lot of hypocrites on both sides,
though I don't wanna say equivalent hypocrites.
So I'll start is, you know, to be honest,
when I first saw that clip,
I audibly laughed because I just didn't expect that.
Though at the same time,
I don't like to see a president speaking
to a member of the press like that.
Well, whether you think Doocy is a fucking moron or not.
Well, I understand why a lot of Democrats were like,
ha-ha, I love it.
Especially after just seeing Trump between 2016 and 2020,
are like, oh, finally, our team has given you a taste
to your own medicine.
But it doesn't automatically make it right
that Biden did this
and that maybe he should do it more
and become a Trumpian figure for the left,
then on the right Holy fox.
Some of like the blind hypocrisy I've seen.
Like are people who I saw on social media
between 2016 and 2020 joking about drinking liberal tears,
every time Trump was just berating reporters
or just somebody.
- That's son of a (beep)
It feels right now.
He's sleeping son of a (beep) I'll tell you.
- What do you say Americans who are watching you right now,
who are scared?
- I say that you're a terrible reporter.
This sleazy guy right over here from ABC,
he's a sleaze in my book.
- [Llamas] Why am I a sleaze?
- You're a sleaze.
And you know who is a criminal?
You're a criminal for not reporting it.
You are a criminal for not reporting it.
- We have people like Jim Banks, straight face tweeted.
"Have we ever seen a president attack
and malign the free press like Joe Biden has?"
Yeah motherfucker, we have,
you and the rest of these pro collectors,
like people who were in a coma for four years,
between 2016 and 2020.
The constant attacks from Trump
and members of the press,
the many of these same people who were offended, rooted on,
or just acted blind to.
His constant undermining of what the truth really is,
which unfortunately has been very effective.
And I am so surprised that people have like,
not really pointed this out.
Did everyone just like collectively forget one
of the staples of like all his rallies
or big events was the moments
where you would get the audience to essentially turn
and look at and scream at members of the press?
People he labeled enemies of the people daily.
Right, and then in addition to that,
you have these people that are like, Hey,
they're both equally bad,
which I personally think is a silly argument
because you're comparing four years
of continuous attacks from Trump and this moment from Biden,
it doesn't excuse what Biden said, but it is just,
it is beyond moronic to compare the two as equals.
And that is all I got to say about that.
But from that, I wanna take a second
to thank the sponsor of today's show, Roman.
Roman is a digital health platform for men
that makes high quality care accessible and convenient
by connecting it with a US licensed physician,
delivering treatments from their pharmacies,
all from the comfort of your home.
It's a new year.
And if you're one of the many men who experience ED,
Roman is there to help.
Roman provides effective FDA approved treatment for ED.
With Roman you get a free online evaluation
and ongoing care for ED,
all from the comfort and privacy of your home,
no need for that awkward doctor's office visit
and a trip to the pharmacy.
When you go to getroman.com/Phil,
a US licensed healthcare professional will work with you
to find the best treatment plan.
And if medication is appropriate,
Roman will ship it to you for free with two-day shipping.
The whole process is straightforward and the story end.
Getting started is as easy as going to getroman.com/Phil.
And if you are prescribed,
you'll get $15 off your first ED treatment plus,
free two-day shipping.
And take advantage of this special discount by February 9th
to get $15 off your first month of treatment
with the link in the description.
And then let's talk about the news,
threesome that is Neil Young, Joe Rogan and Spotify.
So to start, if you don't know who Neil Young is,
maybe ask your parents, also depending on your age,
maybe ask your grandparents or you guys to save you time
'cause technically it's my job to let you know,
he is a singer and he just wrote an open letter
to his management label demanding
that his music be taken down from Spotify.
And this because he said Spotify
allows vaccine misinformation to thrive on the platform,
with him specifically citing Joe Rogan.
Right, because like what's been widely reported before,
Rogan's promoted anti-vax drug on his podcast,
time and time again.
Well, now the letter that was posted
to Young's website has been removed.
According to Rolling Stone,
which was the first to report on this, it said,
"I want you to let Spotify know immediately today
that I want all my music off their platform.
They're gonna have Rogan or Young, not both.
I'm doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information
about vaccines, potentially causing death
to those who believe
that disinformation being spread by them.
Please act on this immediately today
and keep me informed on the time schedule."
With Young's manager confirming to The Daily Beast,
that the letter is authentic, telling me Outlet,
"It's something that's really important to Neil.
He's very upset about this disinformation.
We're trying to figure this out right now."
Well, the letter was the Young's management,
not Spotify directly with people wondering, you know,
are they going to do something,
but that there's really no reason to think
that Spotify is going to do anything different
than what we've been seeing for a while now.
Because let's say ideologically,
the upper people at Spotify,
they don't even agree with Rogan.
Maybe they're even horrified by it.
I don't think that's the case, but let's say that.
Spotify and their actions have made it clear
that they are big believers and the market will decide,
what the market will decide.
Also, they probably lean that way
because they spend a flock ton of money
to bring Joe Rogan to the platform.
And so we base this just on the numbers, I mean,
Young has around 6 million monthly listeners on Spotify.
Whereas Joe Rogan is the number one podcast on Spotify
and pretty much in the world.
So they're deciding by the market and numbers.
It's not exactly selfish choice.
But where it could potentially become an issue is
if other artists see what Young did and go, yeah,
I'm gonna follow suit.
And or if it led to fans
of other big mainstream musical artists going, oh,
what Young I did not even realize that was an option.
I'm gonna tell my favorite artists
they should do the same thing.
But personally, I don't really see that happening
to a point that moves the needle in any way.
I mean, I've been wrong before,
but I don't think I'm gonna be wrong on this.
You know, there's that idiom "Money moves mountains,"
but also money keeps things in place too.
But, Hey, with all of that said,
what are your thoughts on this situation?
And then let's talk about this controversy with Taylor Swift
and to a lesser degree, Billie Eilish.
The British musician, Damon Albarn did an interview
with the Los Angeles Times and in it,
he and the interviewer were discussing modern music
when the interviewer brought up Taylor, by saying,
"She may not be your taste,
but Taylor Swift is an excellent songwriter."
To which Damon respond, 'She doesn't write her own songs."
The interviewer then clarifying
that "Yes, Taylor writes or co-writes her own songs,"
but Damon responded by saying "That doesn't count.
I know what co-writing is.
Co-writing is very different to writing.
I'm not hating on anybody,
I'm just saying there's a big difference
between a songwriter and a songwriter who co-writes.
Doesn't mean that the outcome can't be really great.
And as far as the current musician,
that Damon really admires today, he said,
"A really interesting songwriter is Billie Eilish
and her brother.
I'm more attracted to that than to Taylor Swift.
It's just darker, less endlessly upbeat.
Way more minor and odd.
I think she's exceptional."
And so this prompted a ton of backlash
because you here people saying,
even if Taylor had a collaborator,
she's still writing all her own songs.
Noting tons of artists co-write,
but that no way lessens the fact
that they write their own music.
And in fact, sometimes Taylor does do it alone.
There are songs in some of our most recent albums
like Lover, and Folklore, she penned alone and back in 2010,
when she was 20 years old,
she released an album called Speak Now,
which she wrote entirely by herself.
That, and you had a ton of people thinking it made no sense
that he slammed Taylor for co-writing,
but then went on to praise the writing
of Billie Eilish and Finneas
who are both co-writing songs together.
So to a lot of people,
this criticism from Damon was pretty unjust,
but then Taylor herself also responded saying,
"I was such a big fan of yours until I saw this.
I write all of my own songs.
Your hot take is completely false and so damaging.
You don't have to like my songs,
but it's really up to try and discredit my writing."
Wow, "PS I wrote this tweet all by myself
in case you were wondering."
And tons of people came to Taylor's defense,
including artists that she's worked with,
even the president, elect of Chile.
All of that, then leading to Damon,
responding on Twitter, saying,
"I totally agree with you.
I had a conversation about songwriting
and sadly it was reduced to clickbait.
I apologize unreservedly and unconditionally.
The last thing I want to do is discredit your song writing.
I hope you understand."
But then even that response got slammed by people who said,
how has that reduced to click bait?
Unless the interviewer is lying,
you said she doesn't write her own songs,
directly to this reporter.
And so with this story, I wanna know your thoughts, right?
Do you think the comments or the interview itself,
maybe it's being blown out of proportion?
Yes, no, why or why not?
And in connection to that,
what are your thoughts about kind of the Damon's defense
saying, you know, this has been reduced to clickbait,
is that kind of this week walking back, he's like, oh shit,
I got in trouble.
Or do you see a way that this could have all kind
of been misconstrued or what?
And then let's talk about Alabama.
(audience chorusing)
A panel of federal judges tossed
out Alabama's new congressional map yesterday,
ruling that the current version significantly weakens
the voting power of black residents.
In their decision, the three judges know that
while nearly one out of every three Alabamians are black,
the map drawn by the Republican led legislature
after the 2020 census,
was gerrymandered to leave just one
of the state's seven districts with a black majority.
With them writing, "Black voters have less opportunity
than other Alabamians to elect candidates
of their choice to Congress.
We find that the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable harm
if they must vote in the 2022 congressional elections based
on a redistricting plan that violates federal law."
And so as a result, the judges also ordered state lawmakers
to redraw their maps so that it includes two districts
in which black voters either comprise of voting-age majority
or something quite close to it.
With them giving the legislature 14 days to redo their map
before they appoint a special master to do so.
But shortly after the ruling a spokesperson
for the Alabama attorney general,
Steve Marshall said in a statement that is of his quote,
"Strongly disagrees with the court's decision
and will be appealing in the coming days."
And according to reports that matter could ultimately go
to the Supreme Court,
which would then decide whether lawmakers can draw maps
that are gerrymandered along racial lines.
Now, notably here, the high court ruled back in 2019
that the federal courts do not have the power
to block congressional maps
that are gerrymandered to skew districts
in a partisan manner,
unless a state's constitution explicitly prohibits
such gerrymandering.
But the justices did key parts of the Voting Rights Act
that ban racial or ethnic gerrymandering,
which the federal panel claims is the case in Alabama.
So clearly a situation that shaping up
to be a major legal battle,
but Alabama's congressional map isn't the only one drawn
by Republicans that's been thrown out in recent weeks.
Earlier this month,
Ohio Supreme Court ordered lawmakers to redraw a map
that would have given the Republicans 12 congressional seats
and Democrats just three.
Despite the fact that recently the GOP had only won
about 55% of the popular vote statewide,
almost a 50-50 split in a popular vote,
but a split of seats, 12:3.
With a state's High Court ruling at the map,
clearly violated a constitutional amendment
overwhelmingly passed by voters in 2018
that effectively banned partisan gerrymander.
And of course, all of that is in addition
to a number of other ongoing legal battles
over other maps and other states,
and with primaries for the midterms just around the corner,
we can expect a lot of this to come to our head soon.
Yeah, ultimately that is where we are
with this gerrymandering redistricting situation
and of course, with that,
I want to pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts here?
And ultimately that is where that story end,
today's show ends.
As always thank you for watching, liking,
joining the family by subscribing.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.