- What's up you beautiful bastards?
I hope you had a fantastic Wednesday.
Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show
and let's just jump into it.
And the first thing we're gonna talk about today
is YouTube and Google are being sued
by some of their creators.
And specifically we're talking about LGBTQ
YouTubers who reportedly filed the lawsuit last night.
And they're throwing out a variety
of claims against YouTube from suppressing recommendations
for LGBTQ videos to demonetizing them
or altering thumbnails.
Notably some of the creators in this,
you have Bria Kam and Chrissy Chambers
who are part of this lawsuit and they claim
that they should be making around $3,500 a month
but are only bringing in $500 because their videos
are being suppressed.
And they use the music video for their song
"Face your Fears" as an example.
After it was posted, they say it
was categorized under restricted mode.
The video was filmed as a dedication
to the Orlando Pulse shooting.
It features Bria and Chrissy kissing
in front of anti-gay protestors.
And in a video posted to their channel this morning,
they say incidents like this have hurt
their ability to reach out to the LGBTQ community.
- Our LGBTQ plus content is being demonetized,
restricted, and not sent out to viewers
which has highly effected our ability
to reach the community that we strongly wanna help.
- Other creators in the suit include Chase Ross
who last year accused YouTube of age-gating his videos.
Also Amp Somers from the sex education channel,
"What's the Safe Word" saying.
- Growing up I was in a very religious household.
I didn't get any sort of gay education,
let alone queer education that applied
to me and the sex that I was going to have.
I create content on the internet
that I wish I would've had growing up
but we're finding it harder and harder
to create content on this platform.
Google and YouTube continue to censor us
and tell us that we're not breaking any rules,
but that our content is still not allowed
and going to be restricted on this platform.
- The creators also claim YouTube
is restricting LGBTQ content featuring words
like gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or queer.
And while we saw YouTube spokesman reply no comment
to this lawsuit, YouTube has denied similar claims
in the past.
And in fact just last week, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki,
pushed back against the claims that videos are demonetized
for falling under LGBTQ categories.
And in an interview with vlogger Alfie Deyes,
they had this exchange.
- We do not automatically demonetize LGBTQ content.
- 'Cause I've heard rumors like,
have the word lesbian in your tag
for your thumbnail, your title, instant flag.
- So we work incredibly hard to make sure
that our systems are fair.
We have an ML fairness initiative,
ML stands for Machine Learning,
to make sure that our algorithms
and the way that our machines work are fair.
- Officially YouTube also doesn't have
a policy to demonetize a video if it
has a certain word in the title.
And like I said, YouTube hasn't officially said anything
on the lawsuit, but this morning
we did see Wojcicki tweet out that interview
with Alfie Deyes and they say that both
the process of recommending videos and determining ads
are independent of each other.
But another part of the lawsuit says
that because YouTube is by far
the largest video streaming website, it has a near monopoly.
Specifically stating Google quote,
"used their monopoly power over content regulation
"to selectively apply their rules and restrictions
"in a manner that allowed them to gain
"an unfair advantage to profit from their own content
"to the detriment of its consumers."
And basically what they're claiming here
is that YouTube goes easy on some of
its biggest creators which is a concern
and accusation that we have heard before.
And the creators filing the lawsuit
are actually using James Charles
as an example of YouTube giving
its top creators special treatment.
They site examples of recent videos
on Charles's channel showing him wearing
a g-string and spanking woman's bare butt
while at Coachella.
Saying that those videos are still sponsored
and monetized and so they're saying
that's not fair and they're not really saying
go after James Charles, but they're saying
that this is on YouTube, that they're blaming YouTube
for what they see as unequal treatment.
Actually on this note according
to the Washington Post,
"Eleven current and past moderators, who have worked
"on the front lines of content decisions,
"believe that popular creators often get special treatment
"in the form of looser interpretations
"of YouTube's guidelines."
This including demeaning speech,
bullying and other graphic forms of content,
which for YouTube's part, they have denied those claims.
Now in response to this lawsuit,
we've seen a lot of people online saying
that they are standing with these creators
who are suing YouTube and Google.
People saying, "YouTube has silenced LGBTQ+ creators
"for way too fucking long and I'm so goddamn happy people
"are standing up to it now.
"YouTube needs to listen, don't be evil."
Another writing, "My LGBTQ videos
"on YouTube have been restricted and/or demonetized
"from day one, causing me to lose
"the watch time I needed.
"When I earned the amount of watch time back,
"YouTube refused to reinstate my monetization,
"and I couldn't justify making LGBTQ+ content anymore."
But ultimately, that is where we are
with this story right now.
It's gonna be very interesting to see
what comes from this lawsuit.
I mean that both in YouTube's responses,
the lawsuit itself, any information that comes out
from it, as well as will we hear anything
from the larger LGBTQ+ creators out there, right?
Including James Charles, who is specifically sited
in the lawsuit.
And yeah, I think it'll be very interesting to see.
But from that, I wanna share some stuff I love today
in Today in Awesome, brought to you by MVMT.
And MVMT, is a whole lot of awesome.
You have MVMT watches, I'm actually wearing
a MVMT watch right now.
MVMT watches start at just $95.
Sunglasses at $60, which is fantastic
because usually at a department store
or a name brand, you're looking
at really expensive price tags.
They have tons of different styles
in a variety of products for both men and women.
From watches and sunglasses to rings and bracelets,
MVMT is great for everyone.
And on the note of them having much more
to offer than watches, I mean, my face.
Not my actual, what's on my face.
I decided to order some of their blue light glasses
to see if it helps with my eye strain and headaches
that I get from staring at screens all day.
And with Movement, there's no risk.
They're on top of their stuff.
They've sold over two million watches
to customers in over 160 countries.
They've got free shipping and free returns worldwide
so you can try out one of their watches
or even a new pair of sunglasses risk free.
So if you wanna snag some new gear,
you can just click that link in the description,
or go to MVMT.cc/DEFRANCO.
And awesomely enough, right now they are having
their six year anniversary sale
so everything is 26% off.
So do not wait, instead hurry before this ends.
But also hey, if you miss out on this sale,
don't worry, I've got you covered.
You can always go to MVMT.cc/DEFRANCO
to get 15% off and free shipping on your order.
So click that link in the description down below
and grab some new gear today.
In the first bit of awesome today
is I posted an extra bonus video.
This one is not news related,
it's on my kind of just mess around channel,
YouTube.com/DeFrancoDoes, go subscribe now.
I'm personally offended you weren't subscribed already.
I was offered a very awesome opportunity.
I was too busy to actually do it.
So we made a lemonade out of the lemons my schedule gave us.
It's a fun show time, I highly recommend it.
Then TED-Ed gave us the high stakes race
to make quantum computers work.
Then HBO gave us a Black Ladies Sketch Show featurette.
First We Feast gave us Joji and Rich Brian
having a pizza battle with Sean Evans.
We had the cast of Queer Eye teaching you
their hometown slang.
We got the final trailer for season three
of 13 Reasons Why.
You got a really interesting trailer
for the movie Last Christmas with Emilia Clarke.
Also a fantastic trailer for the movie Parasite.
And if you wanna 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.
Then even though it's a quickie,
I feel like at the very least I do need
to mention that Tumblr has sold Tumblr
which of course sold to Yahoo for $1.1 billion
in 2013 and then of course famously announced
in December of last year that they would
be banning porn, to which many people were like,
people use Tumblr for things that are not that?
And then following the ban, they proceeded to lose traffic.
In this week, Tumblr was in the news because
it sold to Automattic, the company behind WordPress
for a reported $3 million, with an m, not a b.
To which there were two main responses.
One, oh that's a huge loss.
With many people posting other things
that you could buy for $3 million.
And two, people asking, "Does that mean we get porn back?"
And it turns out, no.
Automattic's chief executive says
that he intends to keep the ban.
But some of the good news, and maybe this is
in part why they went with Automattic,
reportedly they're gonna be bringing over
the staff of over 200, like all of them.
And you know, people not losing jobs
I think is always a positive.
So there was that.
Then we should talk about Republican representative
Steve King of Iowa in the news.
As we were recording today's show,
this story just started blowing up.
According to the Des Moines register on Wednesday,
King was speaking with a Westside Conservative Club.
And while speaking to this group,
he reportedly discussed his defense
of an anti-abortion bill that he tried
to get through Congress that notably
had no exceptions for rape or incest.
And as far as his defense, you know,
he says that it's not the baby's fault.
But then he goes on to say this.
- But what if we went back through all
the family trees and just pulled those people out
that were products of rape and incest.
Would there be any population
of the world left if we did that?
Considering all the wars and all the rape and pillage
that's taken place and whatever happened
to culture after society.
I know I can't certify that, that I'm not part
of a product of that.
- And following this video spreading,
there were a lot of reactions.
A lot of "What did he just say?"
Headlines like Steve King questions
if humanity would exist without rape or incest.
Steve King under fire for questioning
if humanity would exist without rape and incest.
Steve King credits rape and incest for society's existence.
I will say I also think it's an odd defense
to say because rape and incest happened,
and so because of that, some of us are here,
that we should continue to force women
to give birth to babies that are the result
of incest and/or rape.
But also notably we've seen a few other things happen.
We saw 2020 candidates calling for King to resign.
We saw Beto O'Rourke promoting the Dem challenger to King.
Also notably we had Randy Feenstra,
who was a Republican Iowa state senator running
for King's seat who tweeted,
"I am 100% pro-life but Steve King's bizarre comments
and behavior diminish our message and damage our cause.
Trump needs defenders in Congress, not distractions.
I will ensure we win this seat and I'll be
an effective conservative leader in Congress."
So, that was a thing.
And of course I'd always love to know your thoughts
on everything.
And then let's talk about this massive news
coming out of New York.
As of today, adult victims who were sexually abused
as children but didn't take legal action
in the required time period will now be given
a year to sure their abusers.
Actually not only their abusers,
but any institutions or organizations
that allowed the abuse or were complicit.
Right in this one year period
which is known as the look-back window is huge.
There are a number of cases that have expired due
to the statute of limitations which is
the amount of time someone is given to file legal charges.
And in New York specifically this is a massive deal
because New York has one of the most restrictive statute
of limitations for child sex abuse victims in the country.
Under the previous statute, people who
had been sexually abused as minors had
to file charges by the time that they
were just 23 years old.
But also this new law called the Child Victims Act extends
that time limit as well.
So now, accusers can actually sue until they are 55.
And this change in New York has been a long time coming.
Lawmakers in New York's legislature have been trying
to extend the statute of limitations
for child sex abuse victims for more than a decade.
But, every time they have tried before,
they were stopped by opposition
from the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts,
Orthodox Jewish organizations as well
as the insurance industry.
And the biggest sticking point for these groups
was the look-back window which they claimed
would create a huge financial burden for them.
Before this law passed,
the New York Catholic Conference claimed
that the look-back window would quote,
"Force institutions to defend alleged conduct decades ago
"about which they have no knowledge
"and in which they had no role."
A New York state assembly had passed the law several times
but the Senate kept preventing a vote.
And as far as what changed, was it a change of heart?
No, it was just a change of who was there.
Democrats took over the state Senate back in November
and the bill passed the Senate unanimously right after
they took office in January.
Now of course with this, there's the question of,
well okay, what happens now?
Well, according to reports,
hundreds and maybe even thousands
of lawsuits are expected to be filed just
on the first day that the window takes effect.
Also reportedly, many of the major institutions like
the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts
that opposed the law because of the financial questions
are bracing for the impact.
The Catholic Archdiocese of New York
is already suing their insurance providers
to make sure they provide coverage
for the lawsuits they're about to face.
Also the Rockefeller University Hospital,
which is being sued by hundreds of people
who allege they were abused by a doctor is doing the same.
It's probably a smart move on their part
because the financial hit that these institutions
could take just over the next year is huge.
And the reason we know that is there are examples
from other states that prove it.
In 2003, California implemented
a similar year long look-back window.
And in that time, hundreds of millions of dollars
were paid out and thousands of lawsuits were filed,
most of which were against the Catholic church.
Which also eventually forced the diocese of San Diego
to file bankruptcy protection.
Also after Minnesota closed its look-back window
in 2016, numerous Catholic diocese filed
for bankruptcy protection as well.
Although regarding New York,
the church spokesman told the New York Times,
"While we do not know what will transpire when
"the C.V.A. window opens, at this point in time
"we have no expectation of needing to file
"for bankruptcy protection."
And according to reports, this may be based
on officials in the church looking
at look-back windows in previous states
to try to estimate what could happen here.
But, some say that studying look-back windows
in other states might not be the best metric.
Some experts having noted that the look-back window
in New York could possibly create even more lawsuits
than we've seen filed in other states
and that's in part because the national discussion
about sexual misconduct scandals,
especially regarding minors, has grown significantly
over the last few years.
Also things like the Me Too movement
have put accusations against and focus
on religious organizations, private schools,
sports programs, celebrities,
both increased awareness and prompted other victims
to come forward.
And some of the notable examples people
have been pointing to, you have of course
the multiple allegations against R. Kelly
as well as the dozens of women
who have accused Jeffrey Epstein
of sexually assaulting them.
Many of whom were minors at the time.
Which, actually on that note,
the Child Victims Act is also expected
to allow Epstein's victims to sue his estate for damages.
And this cultural shift that we're seeing
of victims having more attention and power to take action
is not limited to just New York.
In fact, New York is just one of 18 states in D.C.
that passed similar laws extending their statutes
of limitations for children who faced sexual abuse.
Though only a few, including New Jersey,
passed look-back window provisions.
But regardless, this is a big, big deal.
The chief executive of the child protection think tank
CHILD USA told the New York Times,
"The significance of it is a switch
"in the balance of power.
"There was a severe imbalance of power
"that led to their abuse in the first place."
And adding, "The culture shut them out
"of the legal system until now.
"For them, this is validation."
And until these laws were passed,
victims often had very few avenues
to seek financial compensation.
Catholic diocese have previously
made independent reconciliation and compensation programs
where victims could apply for settlements
if they agreed not to file lawsuits.
Which according to reports, the Archdiocese
of New York alone made agreements with more
than 300 people and paid out $65 million to abuse victims.
But at the same time here,
some have noted that the look-back window creates
both an opportunity and a problem.
For victims of child abuse seeking justice
can be powerful but it can also bring up
a lot of pain and trauma and that
is also made more complicated by the fact
that the new statute of limitations
for filing charges against abusers
does not apply retroactively.
Meaning that victims in future cases have until
they're 55 to file charges,
basically any abuse victims over the age of 23
who were abused in the past have to bring claims
through this look-back window.
Right, it essentially is creating
this now or never situation.
And so that's what we're looking at now.
And as far as my opinion on this,
I think this change is massive and it is great.
I think the advocacy group Safe Horizon said it best.
"The Child Victims Act opens the door
"to the courthouse."
And it's opening the door for those
it was previously closed on for, yes,
a limited time, a year.
So there is the potential that some people
who haven't kind of worked through it,
won't take advantage of it in this time period
and they might get locked out.
But the opportunity that had previously not been there
for the people knocking on the door,
maybe even thinking about it is there now.
And knowing that in the future,
victims will have this door open to them
for much, much longer.
Right, and so these fucking monsters
in the organizations that enabled them,
that were complicit and don't get
to just get away scot-free.
That's the story, my personal take away.
Of course I'd love to see your thoughts on this.
And that's where I'm going to end today's show.
Thanks so much for watching and of course remember
if you wanna help the show, you can hit that like button,
subscribe, definitely share.
Also hey, if you're looking for more to watch
I posted a non-news random other video today,
you can click or tap right there to watch that
or maybe you missed yesterday's Philip DeFranco Show,
you wanna catch up, you can click or tap right
there to watch that.
But with that said of course as always,
my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in.
I love yo faces and I'll see you tomorrow.