- What's up, you beautiful bastards?
Welcome back to "The Philip DeFranco Show."
And hey, a quick friendly reminder,
you only have five days left to head on over
to beautifulbastard.com to get in on the October Drop.
Right, I'm talking about our awesome gold foil,
"One day, we'll all be skeletons," gear,
that bad-ass tie-dye.
Vertically stacked, "Don't be stupid" gear.
And of course, our puffy-ink, "Exhausted" line.
There for now, then gone forever.
Grab some awesome, help support the show.
Hit that like button, and hey, let's just jump into it.
And y'all, first up-to-date,
we need to talk about the entirety of Twitch
leaking online today.
I mean, as one creator explained,
"I feel like calling what Twitch just experienced as 'leak',
is similar to me, shitting myself in public,
and trying to call it a minor inconvenience.
It really doesn't do this situation justice."
All right, we talking 125 gigabytes of source code
uploaded to 4Chan this morning, and there is a lot.
The leak, including Twitch's internal security tools,
as well as code related to software development kits,
and its use of Amazon web services,
data related to an unreleased steam competitor
from Amazon Game Studios, code named "Vapor".
So insight on yet another industry and vertical
that Amazon's looking to take over.
However, by far the most notable bit of data
that has come out, what people are focusing on,
is money; specifically how much Twitch has paid out
to each of its top creators over the last two years.
I don't feel comfortable showing the exact numbers,
but at the very top of the list,
you have CriticalRole, followed by XQcOW,
then others like Tfue, ludwig, HassanAbi, aka Hassan piker,
moistcr1tikal, pokimane, Ninja, Amouranth.
And it's been interesting to see
the creators responding, right?
xQc, saying, "Twitch, explain?"
Amouranth saying, "This is our version
of the Pandora papers."
Pokimane tweeting, "At least people can't over-exaggerate me
'making millions-a-month off my viewers' anymore."
Honestly, people like moistcr1tikal and Hassan Pike
are essentially going, "Why is this such a big deal?"
Hassan, who many people know,
outrageously owns a house, tweeting,
"Can't wait for people to be mad at me
about my publicly available sub count again."
Side note, Hassan has to feel so weird about this right now.
Like he was trending higher
than the Twitch leak itself on my page.
Mostcr1tikal, saying, "Super weird to see people
freak out about Twitch income,
and act like it was some big secret
when sub-count is publicly available.
Take that number and multiply it by 2.5 or 3.5,
and you're there."
It's also been very interesting to see people's responses.
Some are saying, "Oh wow, that's so much money."
Some saying, "Oh wow, that's less
than what I thought it would be."
Twitch, I would note to both parties here,
keep in mind, these are only from Twitch payouts.
Right, this doesn't include sponsorships, or donations,
which is where a lot of money can come from.
Also in unrelated news, I will now be streaming
"The Philip DeFranco Show" 9 hours-a-day.
Obviously, I'm kidding.
Because one, a lot of people don't keep in mind,
like how much of a skillset it is
to be engaging for that long.
And two, you have me live stream that much a day, per week,
I'm getting canceled in a week.
I also understand I'm biased here,
because I really liked them, I saw some people
taking aim at CriticalRole.
Being like, "Look how much money they're bringing in.
We need to stop treating them
like they're an indie group, this is a company."
But as someone that watches them from time-to-time,
like I'm not the most avid fan,
it always feels like they talk about it
like it's a business.
I've had Maricia and Matt on my podcast,
they were very transparent.
And to me, this criticism felt very much
like when people are like, "Oh, the- this indie band
that I found, they've gone too mainstream."
Like why do we root for people to be successful,
and then get angry that they're successful?
And that's without getting into the nitty gritty
of like how much a show like that costs
to produce, taxes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But, also going back to the leak,
things might not be done yet.
This, because the leak was labeled as part one,
and if true, there's no reason to think
that the leakers would not publish a part two.
Especially because it appears to the people behind this
are not too fond of Twitch saying
that they hope this data dump, quote,
"Fosters more disruption and competition
in the online video streaming space."
And calling the platform, "A disgusting toxic cesspool,"
and including the hashtag, "Do better Twitch",
which very notably has been used in recent weeks
to drive boycotts against the platform,
as smaller creators protest the ease at which trolls
can use bots to spam their chats
with racist, sexist, and homophobic messages.
And the last thing I'll tack on to this
is that currently it doesn't appear
that password and address information
from Twitch users is out there,
but that doesn't necessarily mean
that the people behind this don't have it.
So I would definitely say change your passwords.
And if you have doubles of passwords,
probably change those as well.
And while you're at it,
implement two-factor authentication
in case a hack happens like this again.
Because I mean, right now, while this mostly seems
targeted against Twitch itself,
rather than the users, you're better off safe than sorry.
Especially if bad actors starts trying to use Twitch's
source code to find crack in its security.
But ultimately where I want to end this story today
is on two key notes and two key questions.
And that is, one, what do you think about the leakers
connecting this to the "Do better Twitch" campaign, right?
I mean, look, I'm talking about this,
other outlets are talking about it,
everyday people talking about it.
And so, hey, does it raise awareness?
Does it put a bigger spotlight on the story?
So it's successful and it's good?
Or no, do you think they're using it
to like protect themselves, deflect from the fact
that a lot of stuff got exposed,
they put a lot of creators on blast, among other things.
And two, regarding the creators here
that got their private monetary information exposed.
A, if separately from this, you saw the specific numbers,
or you just have the knowledge that the numbers range
from the hundreds of thousands,
to the multi-millions of dollars, like,
did that change your opinion
on any of those content creators?
And B, what are your thoughts regarding
the public reaction to this?
Because, I mean, I use some specific examples,
but there seems to be a lot of people
genuinely bothered that some of the people
that they've been watching are making that much money.
I will say I was a little surprised with that, because yes,
while that has always existed, it feels like, you know,
I've been doing this for 15 years.
One of the most drastic changes, as far as like,
the creator and their audience,
one of the biggest things is like,
it seems like people are rooting for creators
to make more money, right?
If you're in this space,
you've seen people get hyped where someone signs
an exclusive deal to a YouTube, a Facebook gaming,
a Twitch, or whatever.
They get a big sponsorship, or a big partnership.
It seems like people like, "Yes, we're legitimate."
Whereas back in the day,
like if you had a sponsor in a video,
you were 100% considered a sellout.
See, I don't know, I would love if you could help me
unpack this, digest the situation.
And yeah, let me know what you're thinking
in those comments down below.
Then, in news, and a story I just absolutely love,
because it just- it sounds so ridiculous.
It feels like every day,
the universe is just mad-libbing it up.
Let's talk about how Taylor Swift is being used
to impact the Virginia Governor's race.
So for those unfamiliar with the Virginia
gubernatorial race, you have Democrat Terry McAuliffe,
and Republican Glenn Youngkin, two candidates at play here,
polling, at times, seeming to show them pretty close.
And now, in an interesting strategic move,
Terry McAuliffe is running ads to get Swifties
involved in the election.
And that's because Glenn Youngkin
used to be the CEO of Carlyle Group,
which financially backed the controversial sale
of Taylor's masters to Ithaca Holdings and Scooter Braun.
A sale that Taylor spoke on numerous times,
calling it, "The worst case scenario".
As you might imagine, many of Swift's fans-
again, Scooter Braun, and anyone who played a part
in Taylor losing ownership of her life's work.
And so that is what McAuliffe's campaign
is now playing into, with him running ads on Instagram,
and Google that bring up the sale of Taylor's masters.
With a report showing a screenshot of an image,
using the hashtag, "We stand with Taylor."
With texts reading, "Did you know the Republican candidate
for Governor, Glenn Youngkin, helped buy Taylor Swift's
masters out from under her
when he was Co-CEO of Carlyle Group?"
An ad that resulted in a Youngkin spokesperson
releasing a statement, saying, "Terry McAuliffe
has reached the stage of desperation in this campaign
where he's rolling out the most baseless attacks
to see what sticks.
It's a pathetic fall that could only be achieved
by a 43-year-old political hack".
But, as far as, you know, will any of this stick,
will it change turn out, anything like that,
we'll have to wait and see.
Reportedly this ad buy was in the five-figure range,
specifically targeting people that Google Taylor's name,
as well as people that engage with her content
on Facebook and Instagram.
I will say, as far as attack-ads go,
it's a little bit weird.
It's kind of like, if they were like,
"Terry McAuliffe was part of a Pepsi challenge
three years ago, this mother fucker didn't even pick
Pepsi or Coke; he liked RC Cola.
Look at me directly in my eyes.
Is that who you want as your Governor?
Some RC Cola fuck-boy?"
Then that blows up in their face.
As it turns out, the silent majority loves RC Cola.
Anyway, the main point of the story
is this is kind of interesting, but everything is stupid.
Thank you for watching "The Philip DeFranco Show".
Although, I will say, on a more serious note,
if the polling here is correct,
like whatever happens in this race,
it can be interesting to see, but if this is accurate,
Democrats should be worried.
This is a state where Biden won by 10 points.
You know, I understand there's a difference
between voting for the president in 2020,
and then who's the governor?
But, like wouldn't you know it, another thing that dropped
about 10 points was Biden's favorability-rating.
Back in April, it was at about 54%.
And now? 44%.
And this is something to keep an eye on, yes,
for this gubernatorial race, but also going into 2022.
But from that, I want to take a second to thank the sponsor
of today's show, Olipop.
And Olipop is a brand new soda that looks and tastes
exactly like your favorite childhood soda,
but without all that processed sugar
and artificial ingredients.
Olipop tastes like the real thing,
but has less than 5% of the sugar
and net carbs of the sodas we all grew up on.
And it's also got 1/3 of your daily fiber intake,
which makes it not only a soda, but also good for your gut.
Olipop is gluten-free, vegan, paleo-friendly,
and only 35 calories.
Basically, it'll satisfy your sweet tooth,
and curb that soda addiction all-in-one.
A variety 12-pack, including root beer, strawberry,
vanilla, cherry vanilla, ginger lemon,
vintage soda, and orange squeeze.
So for example, if you love classic root beer,
or Stewart's orange cream soda as a kid,
I'm telling you, Olipop really is just like the real thing.
Because so many of you responded to the variety pack offer,
right now they're offering you beautiful bastards,
15% off site-wide, on all their flavors.
Just go to drinkolipop.com/defranco,
and be sure to use code DeFranco at checkout.
And we had Bretman Rock in the news,
because this week he made history as the first-out gay man
to appear on the cover of "Playboy".
And whether that was news, in its own right,
you had many people happy.
The next piece of news was that the outlet received
a lot of hateful remarks.
So much so that Playboy even addressed it,
saying that there were, "Far too many offensive comments".
And saying they were the same kind of comments they received
when they put the first African-American model on the cover,
or when they featured a transgender model
for the first time.
Bretman also taking a jab at people sending hate his way,
writing on Instagram, "Posting to piss off
more straight men, if you're pissed because I turn you on,
then say that, geez."
Personally, my response to this is,
"Hey, good for Bretman."
If people see this and they're like,
"Yes, equality, progress," that's dope.
But also there is a cynical part of my brain,
that's like, "This is just a PR marketing move
for 'Playboy'", because I mean, to their credit,
they do have this history, albeit a complicated one,
of pushing boundaries and being progressive.
But there is also the fact,
that over the last several years,
as the magazine industry has changed,
they've had to fight to stay alive and relevant.
I don't imagine there's a world where they didn't know
that these hateful reactions would come out,
and they'd be able to grandstand,
and so they kind of get to just use Bretman
for some relevance.
I don't know, maybe you could also argue
that's how everything works.
Everything's performative, everyone's using one another.
And as long as maybe progress is being made, that's good.
I don't know.
Main point, Bretman, you sexy mother fucker, keep doing you.
Also, Twitch not the only massive platform in the news.
We're dealing with leaks, and troubles, right,
where you have abusive-alcoholic Step-daddy Facebook
dealing with some stuff.
In addition to the leaks we've been talking about,
when Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp went down on Monday,
that exposed some major issues.
Down for six hours, people flooding other social media sites
like Twitter, TikTok, and Snapchat.
With WhatsApp down, Telegram ended up gaining
70 million new users in a single day.
But also this blackout exposed many people
to how important Facebook's platforms are to people.
Whether they're conducting business, arranging medical care,
responding to emergencies, holding virtual classes.
Hell, internationally, WhatsApp and Facebook
are so important to a lot of countries,
especially third-world countries, the Monday blackout
was essentially like the internet
just didn't exist for these people.
In part, because of all these issues blowing up,
we saw people like
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeting
during the blackout that Facebook needs to be broken up,
saying, "It's almost as if Facebook's monopolistic mission
to either own, copy, or destroy any competing platform
is incredibly destructive effects
on free society and democracy".
Remember, WhatsApp wasn't created by Facebook.
It was an independent success.
Facebook got scared and bought it.
We're seeing Facebook getting hit there,
having to deal with that situation.
But also, we had the leak and whistleblower situation.
With yesterday, Frances Haugen,
the whistleblower who turned over thousands
of internal Facebook documents to Federal Law Enforcement,
testifying before a Senate Subcommittee.
They're accusing Facebook of using anger and hate speech
to fuel engagement, and in turn, ad dollars.
- Facebook wants you to believe that the problems
we're talking about are unsolvable.
They want you to believe in false choices.
They want you to believe that you must choose
between a Facebook full of divisive and extreme content,
or losing one of the most important values
our country was founded upon: free speech.
That you must choose between public oversight
of Facebook's choices, and your personal privacy.
I am here today to tell you, that's not true.
These problems are solvable.
A safer free speech, respecting
more enjoyable social media is possible,
But there's one thing that I hope everyone
takes away from these disclosures.
It is that Facebook can change,
but it's clearly not going to do so on its own.
- And at one point yesterday,
Haugen told Congress that some of the documents
she provided prove that CEO Mark Zuckerberg
knew that Facebook could have done more to stop hate speech,
but saying that he didn't, because it would have
negatively affected, quote, "meaningful social interaction".
Well, Haugen said that she was personally against
the idea of breaking up Facebook.
She did urge Congress to change section 230,
which protects big tech companies
from what their users post.
And essentially saying they would force these companies
to have to be responsible,
to think about what these algorithms are doing,
other than just the money that they're bringing in.
But also, while that was happening during her hearing,
Facebook threw the kitchen sink at her.
Facebook using its full force, trying to discredit her,
with Executives noting that Haugen didn't work on it,
thus didn't have adequate context around
many of the projects she leaked.
With this, even seeing Zuckerberg taking a break
from smoking his meats to say,
"Many of the claims don't make any sense.
The argument that we deliberately push content
that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical.
We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us
that they don't want their ads
next to harmful or angry content.
And I don't know any tech company that set out to build
products that make people angry or depressed".
However, it is also important to note there,
that during her "60 Minutes" interview over the weekend,
Haugen actually phrased that characterization
a bit differently.
- I have a lot of empathy for Mark.
And Mark has never set out
to make a hateful platform,
but he has allowed choices to be made
where the side-effects of those choices,
are that hateful, polarizing content
gets more distribution, more reach.
- Right, Haugen, essentially saying,
"I don't think Mark Zuckerberg was like,
'I want to destroy the world, make it a less safe place',
it's just the side effects of the choices
that he and the company have made".
But, for now, that's where we are.
I mean, there's an extremely strong
bipartisan agreement among lawmakers
that action must be taken against Facebook.
But as far as, what does that look like?
I mean, we don't know, there's the option
of trying to break up Facebook,
changing parts of Section 230.
Okay, then what are the fallouts from those things?
I mean, this is gonna be something we're gonna have to wait
and see what actually happens, what's proposed.
But of course, with all of that,
this is "The PDS", I'd love to know your thoughts.
And ultimately that is where that story,
and actually today's show-
and whether it be this final story,
really anything else stood out to you today?
I'd love to hear from you in those comments down below.
With that said, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco,
you'll just been filled in,
I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.
Hassan, who many people know,
outrageously owns a house tweeting- (laughs)
I love that I was able to say that with a straight face.