- Oh, God, do you remember Miranda Wilson from Monday?
Where she made that now deleted viral video
where she talked about how she would fix
Natalia Dyer's face.
And a ton of people, including myself, are like,
"What are you doing?
It's so weird and creepy and disgusting
that you're just injecting insecurities into people
and saying how you'd change their face,
even though they didn't come to you
or consent to it in any way."
Well, this morning she decided to apologize, but not really,
because I think she completely missed the point.
Let's watch, shall we?
- So I just wanted come on here and basically clear the air.
I did not mean to offend anyone, including Natalia.
I was simply just offering suggestions,
not on what you have to do,
just on what the possibilities are.
(Philip grunts)
- Natalia, she's not saying
you need to fix yourself in these very specific ways.
She's just saying that you could,
to look better than you currently do.
Oh, and I love where it goes.
- They're simply just options.
So I thought I'd do my face.
- I'm just gonna stop.
But she goes on to describe all the stuff
that she does to herself,
and really does seem to confirm
what many people in the comments were saying,
that she was essentially saying
what she would change in Natalia's face
based off of her own insecurities.
And for me, it kind of feels
like it confirms what I thought.
She's not this evil or horrible or ill intentioned person.
She's just kind of a dense, dumb, smooth brain.
And so, because of that, Miranda, if you are watching,
I'm gonna try and say this in the simplest way.
When you say, "I was just simply offering suggestions."
Yeah, that's the problem that most people had.
You gave a public consultation
to someone that didn't ask.
If she asked you, that's you doing your job.
If she didn't ask you, that's just you being a dick.
Let's all look at what I'm gonna call this woman's flaws
and how I would fix it.
And unfortunately, I think based off of this reaction,
I think that you think people are misunderstanding you
and that you're the victim, which is immensely frustrating.
Anyway, welcome to the show.
♪ Welcome to the Philip DeFranco Show ♪
♪ The show that is the best show ♪
♪ That's not really a show ♪
♪ But it's me talking to a camera ♪
♪ For 15 to 24 ♪
♪ Minutes yeah yeah ♪
And then y'all can call me Dr. DeFranco,
'cause I'm prescribing you a little dose
of playing more video games.
I remember when I was a kid,
my mom would be like,
"These things are gonna rot your brain."
And well mom, guess what?
(Philip grunts) (button buzzes)
According to a new study from Oxford, we're all good.
Finding the gaming essentially had no impact
on a person's mental health.
And in fact, in this study,
which according to Oxford,
they say is the largest study on the topic to date,
looking at the habits of nearly 40,000 gamers
over the course of six weeks,
playing seven games
ranging from Animal Crossing to Apex Legends.
Using realtime gaming data
accumulated by gaming platforms
after the tens of thousands of participants
signed off in its use,
found that no matter what games were played,
there was no causal link found
between gaming and poor mental health.
And adding that the only distinct difference
was between players who play because they want to
and ones who play because they feel like they have to.
With Professor Andrew K. Przubylski explaining,
"We found it really doesn't matter
how much gamers played
in terms of their sense of well-being.
It wasn't the quantity of gaming,
but the quality that counted.
If they felt they had to play, they felt worse.
If they played because they loved it,
then the data did not suggest
that it affected their mental health."
And adding, "In fact, it seemed to give them
a strong, positive feeling."
Well, what about how much time you're playing?
Well, the report found that in most cases
that doesn't actually have too big of an impact either.
With the study explaining
their model indicated 99% probability
that the effect of increasing daily play time
by one hour on well-being
is too small to be subjectively noticeable.
And adding, "Even if effects steadily accumulated
over time- an unrealistic assumption- players would notice
a difference only after 17 weeks."
And further adding, that based on linear findings,
the average person would have to increase
their gaming time by 10 hours per day.
Not per month, not per week, per day,
before they would notice changes.
Though, notably, and to be fair,
that would likely need some more research
as the study did not include gaming sessions
below zero or above 10 hours.
And that is something that the people involved
know needs work, right?
They don't consider this the final verdict on gaming.
They know that more needs to be looked into
which Przybylski's saying.
"These are just the first steps
into the world of understanding
how gaming fits into gamer's lives.
About one billion people are playing video games worldwide.
There are 3000 games on the Nintendo platform alone.
People play multiple games
and we were able to access information about 39,000 people
playing just seven popular games."
But still, I would argue based off of what they have here,
it's a great kind of base,
at least for the majority of gamers,
because I don't believe the majority of gamers
are commonly having 10 plus hour gaming sessions.
That said, I have binged for over 10 hours
if I was kind of marathoning through a game,
but that isn't kind of my every day.
And I think that would really only be
for like Twitch streamers
and professional gamers
and maybe people in South Korea,
and/or anyone that has a Chinese gamer tag
that always crushes me in any fucking game that I play,
where those pop up.
But also, I would say those outliers are relevant
for a few different reasons.
Becoming a streamer, someone that's streaming games
is becoming more and more common.
And we have luckily seen more and more open discussion
about mental health in that space.
Even one of the biggest streamers in the world right now,
Pokimane, taking a mental health break
right now from streaming.
Asmongold, also recently taking a little break
to address how streaming has destroyed is sleep schedule.
I've even had to privately talk to three different people
about just stopping for a little bit.
And I think that's because unfortunately, a lot of creators,
they put their mental health second.
Either out of fear that they'll fall off
or out of a feeling of obligation for their audience,
which is an immensely shitty thing to feel.
I mean, for me personally,
I know 96% of my audience with me,
but it's also not just like online creators.
I saw Shawn Mendes in the news recently
announcing this morning that he was postponing
several shows of his tour saying,
"I was not at all ready for how difficult touring would be
after this time away.
The decision was premature,
and unfortunately the toll of the road
and the pressure has caught up to me
and I've hit a breaking point."
And saying, "After speaking to health professionals
it has become more clear that I need to take the time
I've never taken personally."
And adding, "Unfortunately I have to cancel
the rest of the tour dates
in North America and the UK/Europe."
And while that's not my audience,
and I know with the breakdown
of awesome understanding fans and assholes,
when you're as big as Shawn Mendes,
even a tiny percentage of your audience,
that's a fuck ton of people.
And so while yes,
we saw a lot of people supporting him saying,
"Hey, just take the time you need.
It's all about you being okay."
You also had a good share of people just being assholes.
Writing things like, "I'm sorry, but how can you sit there
and cancel a full ass tour
because you have a little anxiety?
Like man, up, you wanted this life, so deal with it."
And, "Dude has one of the easiest jobs in the world
that it was just too hard, boo-hoo."
And, of course, the fantastic,
"Yet, he manages to fly
to other locations for holidays, et cetera.
So please don't fully buy his excuses and reasons."
And I'm not like a Shawn Mendes fanboy.
I don't know the last song I heard from him.
But to all those people, I gotta say, go fuck yourself.
Like you can be disappointed
and have feelings about the show being canceled,
but then to lash out at the person
that you were going to give money,
to bring you joy,
because they need to take care of themselves first?
What the fuck?
You're not a fan.
You're someone that sees this person as a consumable product
there to do your bidding.
Yes, Shawn Mendes is in a privileged position
where he is able to take time off for his mental health.
Whereas the majority of the American public cannot.
For many of you, if you were to do that,
that would put your livelihood in danger.
That's not a get angry at Shawn Mendes moment.
That's a get angry at our society moment.
The world doesn't magically become a better place
because you're taking swings at the guy
that's able to do what you should also be able to do.
Don't even get me started
on the toxic masculinity, man up bullshit.
Right, apparently we live in a society where,
"Hey, mental health matters, especially for men,
unless it inconveniences me apparently."
And to a degree, I think it comes down
to something we've talked about constantly,
that people don't look at famous people as actual people.
It kinda makes me think like when I was growing up
and I was watching football
and there'd be like whole show's like,
"Look at this insane hit
where someone was almost paralyzed."
And it's like some helmet to helmet hit
where someone launched themselves like a missile.
And they're like, "Yeah, awesome."
Not taking into account the true damage
that was being done for everyone's entertainment.
So while obviously I'm biased because I am a creator,
I'll never fault to creator for being like,
"You know what, I gotta take a minute for me."
Especially 'cause we only get this one life
and quality of life is the name of the game.
Also, holy shit, I just realized
this story started with video games.
(Philip chuckles)
Oh God, but there was a natural path to this.
Yeah, fuck it, I'm keeping it all in.
And then when you're running a small business,
every second counts.
You can't afford to waste a single moment.
And that's why I wanna talk about,
and thank today's sponsors, Stamps.com/Phil.
Whether you're a small office
sending out invoices in Etsy shop,
sending out products
or a giant warehouse, sending 1000s of packages out a day,
Stamps.com is there for you.
We're all busy enough as it is,
and personally I love how convenient
and cost effective this is for me and my business.
I can get all the mailing and shipping done
without ever leaving my house.
And for more than 20 years,
Stamps.com has been indispensable
for over a million businesses.
You can print official US postage from your computer 24/7,
no special supplies or equipment needed.
With Stamps.com/Phil, you also get exclusive discounts
and post office rates
like 30% off USPS rates and 86% off UPS rates.
And to put it plainly,
Stamps.com saves me time and money
freeing me up to produce this show,
work on the new studio,
work on new beautiful Bastard designs.
Or this is a shocker, just live and enjoy life.
That's been a new venture for me.
It's been very exciting.
So yeah, save time, save money,
and go to Stamps.com/Phil to get a four week trial.
Plus, free postage in a digital scale.
There's no risk, no long term commitments, no contracts.
And you never have to go to the post office again.
You're welcome, and thank you.
That's Stamps.com/Phil.
We should also talk about why so many people online
have been calling for people
to boycott Hulu this week, right?
So here's how it's been playing out.
Earlier this week, the Washington Post puts out a piece
speaking to members of the democratic party
who claimed that Hulu is blocking ads
about things like gun control, abortion, and January 6th.
With several democratic campaign groups saying,
they tried to purchase joint ads
about the topics on Disney affiliated platforms like Hulu
and ABC affiliate and ESPN and saying,
"While the last two took the ads, Hulu did not."
And part of the reason this is notable and interesting
is that unlike broadcast television,
Hulu is a digital provider
and is therefore not bound
by the Communications Act of 1934,
which would require them to air
equal access to political advertising.
But even with that being the case,
you had people frustrated here with Hulu's decision.
With the directors of the three major
democratic campaign committees saying,
"Hulu's censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive,
and another step down a dangerous path for our country.
Voters have the right to know the facts
about MAGA Republican's agenda
on issues like abortion.
And Hulu is doing a huge disservice
to the American people by blocking voters
from learning the truth about the GOP record
or denying these issues from even being discussed."
And as far as why Hulu is opting to block these ads,
Suraj Patel a candidate out of New York said,
"That Hulu representatives told his staff
that the service had a, "unwritten Hulu policy
to censor ads that covered topics
that were too sensitive for the platform."
But another source telling The Post,
it doesn't allow commercials
about any controversial subject, political or not.
But still you had Patel, penning a letter
to Hulu's president and Disney;s CEO,
accusing them of not addressing the most important issues
facing the United States.
And that outrage was echoed
by tons of other people on Twitter,
leading to the hashtag #BoycottHulu.
With some saying they could not support a company
that refuses to take responsibility on these issues.
And others even accusing it of promoting the GOP play book.
Even though the way Hulu has explained its policies,
it would impact both parties.
Though, reports only focused on censorship
of democratic ads.
But all of that brings us to the reason
we're talking about this today,
Disney has now officially changed their stance
saying in a statement today,
"After a thorough review of ad policies
across its linear networks and streaming platforms
over the last few months,
Disney is now aligning Hulu's political advertising policies
to be consistent with the company's general entertainment
and sports cable networks and ESPN+.
Hulu will now accept candidate and issue ads
covering a wide spectrum of policy positions,
but reserves the right to request edits
or alternative creative,
in alignment with industry standards."
So yeah, seemingly a win for Democrats
until maybe the platform is inundated
with Republican ads.
And then people get angry
that certain Republican ads are airing,
but then some Republican ads won't air
and then people get angry.
But about that censorship apparently,
and everyone will be forever angry.
I think that's right.
But also I understand why Democrats would care about this.
Statistically, more of their base consumes media online,
so that's where the ads are gonna matter most for them.
But to bring it back to the part
that's most interesting to me.
And the question I'll pass off to you,
is do you think that the Communications Act of 1934
does need to be updated to include the internet?
Especially as more and more platforms
are adding ad supported tiers like Netflix.
Yes, no, maybe, so why, why not?
Let me know when those comments down below.
And then finally today in potentially huge news,
but also at the same time until something happens,
I'll say cool, story, bro news.
Because maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe my feelings aren't that of the general public,
but it feels like there's no
real expectation of accountability,
but we should still talk about this major news
regarding Trump in January 6th, right?
So multiple outlets reported yesterday
that the justice department
is investigating Trump's actions and conversations
and its criminal probe
into the effort to overturn the 2020 election.
The news was first reported by the Washington Post,
which cited four anonymous sources.
Though, other unnamed people familiar with the matter
have also since spoken to additional outlets.
And according to multiple reports
while questioning witnesses
in front of a federal grand jury in recent days,
federal prosecutors have asked
about conversations with Trump
and his close allies
regarding the plan to substitute fake pro Trump electors
for key battleground states Biden had won.
And this including two of the most senior aides
to Mike Pence,
his former chief of staff and chief counsel.
With The Post reporting that, "Prosecutors have asked
hours of detailed questions
about meetings Trump led
in December, 2020 and January, 2021,
his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election,
and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers
and advisors about fake electors
and sending electors back to the states."
And adding, "Some of the questions focused directly
on the extent of Trump's involvement
in the fake-elector effort
led by his outside lawyers."
With two of the sources that spoke to the outlet also saying
that back in April DOJ investigators seized phone records
with key officials and aides in the Trump administration,
including his former chief of staff Mark Meadows.
And that news is massive because as The Post notes,
"Both the degree of prosecutor's interest in Trump's actions
and the review of phone records
have not been previously reported."
Now, to pull in expectations notably here,
this does not mean that the DOJ has opened a criminal probe
specifically into Trump.
According to The Post one person familiar with the probe
said that investigators are trying to understand
how Trump allies tried to change the election.
And at the very least what the former president
told senior officials and lawyers to do on this front.
But it is very significant that the DOJs sprawling probe,
which had previously focused on the rioters
who breached the Capitol,
is now looking at Trump's actions.
Potentially, and seriously raises the stakes and signals
that the inquiry is headed
into a more aggressive and polarizing phase.
And according to two of the sources that spoke to The Post,
"There are two main tracks that this inquiry could follow
that could ultimately lead
to the additional scrutiny of Trump.
The first would focus on seditious conspiracy
and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding,
which are the kind of charges that we've seen
levied against those who stormed the Capitol,
including leaders of far-right groups.
And the second centers on the potential fraud
connected to the scheme
to substitute false electors
or alleged pressure put on the DOJ and others
to promote the big lie."
And beyond that, there's still also the possibility
that the DOJ could open
an entirely separate probe into Trump,
which it's faced pressure to do.
Especially now, given that multiple members
of the January 6th panel
have said that they believe there is evidence
that Trump committed crimes that should be investigated.
And actually to that point,
during an interview with NBC yesterday,
Attorney General Merrick Garland
did not rule out the possibility
of prosecuting Trump in saying,
"Look, we pursue justice without fear or favor.
We intend to hold everyone,
anyone who is criminally responsible
for the events surrounding January 6th,
for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer
of power from one administration to another, accountable.
That's what we do."
But ultimately that is where that story
and today's show ends.
As always, thank you for watching,
being a part of that conversation down below,
being subscribed for these daily dives in the news.
Which, if you're looking for more news,
I got you covered here and here.
But as always, my name's Philip DeFranco.
You've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.