- What's up, you beautiful bastards?
Hope you've 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 a story connected to why you've seen
so many dang old people in your timeline
these past few days.
And the reason, as you might be aware of,
because you've seen the trending hashtag
or you've actually taken part in the challenge yourself,
is the FaceApp challenge, which for those who don't know,
FaceApp is an app that uses artificial intelligence
to alter photos of people's faces.
And right now, one of the popular ways to use the app
is to use its aging filter
which adds a couple of decades to your face.
Also in the past, we've seen popularity
in their gender swap filter
which adds either traditionally female or male features,
depending on which option you click.
For those who follow me on Twitter,
you might remember Philamina and Phil
if he actually had a much stronger jaw and facial hair.
You know and this app actually
goes even further back than that.
It actually came to popularity around two years ago,
but it is now experiencing a resurgence.
And now you have people using the app,
changing their photos, posting it to social,
telling other people to use it.
And one of the biggest sources of fuel for this fire
are celebrities taking to Instagram to share their photos.
With Drake showing us what promo
for his farewell tour might look like.
The Jonas Brothers giving us a glimpse of the year 3000.
With Scooter Braun seemingly using it
to make light of his recent controversy with Taylor Swift.
And finally, you have Piers Morgan showing us
what happens when you don't dip him in water
before he's on camera.
It's not even just people uploading themselves.
There are whole dedicated Instagram accounts
taking photos of celebrities, putting them on the app.
Right, so we've seen examples of Jojo Siwa,
James Charles, PewDiePie, the Dolan twins,
Tana Mongeau and more.
But the reason we're talking about this isn't just,
hey, look it's a kind of cool app.
There's actually a big controversy and concern
around FaceApp and the access that it has
to the information on your phone.
The developer Joshua Nozzi saying
that he believes the app is uploading your photos.
In a tweet, he said,
"As soon as I granted access to my photos,
"it started listing them slowly a row at a time,
"almost like network delays.
"I quickly hit Airplane Mode
"and it instantly listed them all,
"refusing to let me select any because I'm offline.
"It's uploading all your photos."
Others also shared concerns about the privacy policy,
saying "FaceApp warning, do not use it.
"Their privacy policy is purposely vague
"and mentions sharing with affiliates.
"Affiliate is nothing more than a different term
"for a third party in this context.
"You're giving them your face and info to sell."
Others have also brought up the app's Russian ownership,
some saying to think twice,
you're pretty much giving Russia
complete access to your phone.
And looking at all this,
some people's concerns are definitely valid,
but there are also some rumors out there
that are just a bit of a stretch.
So with that said, let's look at the privacy policy
and the terms of service to see
what some potential red flags are.
Many have been pointing to this line
in the terms of service that says,
"You grant FaceApp a perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive,
"royalty-free, worldwide, fully-paid,
"transferable sub-licensable license to use,
"reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate,
"create derivative works from, distribute,
"publicly perform and display your user content
"and any name, username, or likeness provided
"in connection with your user content
"in all media formats and channels now known
"or later developed without compensation to you."
Which essentially boils down
to the app being able take your photos
and use them on their own.
And then they're saying,
this could mean content gets used for marketing purposes.
Others are noting a line in the privacy policy
that implies it can look at your browser history.
It reads, "We use third-party analytics tools
"to help us measure traffic
"and usage trends for the Service.
"These tools collect information
"sent by your device or our Service,
"including the web pages you visit, add-ons,
"and other information that assists us
"in improving the Service."
Even though this policy says that it will not sell your data
to third parties, it does say that it can quote
"share certain information such as cookie data
"with third party advertising partners."
And so after all of this talk and debate
about what the app can see and share,
we saw FaceApp give a statement.
They told Tech Crunch the photos are processed in the cloud,
but they pushed back against the theory
that it's downloading all the photos from your camera roll,
saying "FaceApp performs most of the photo processing
"in the cloud.
"We only upload a photo selected by a user for editing.
"We never transfer any other images
"from the phone to the cloud."
And at the bottom, they link to Joshua Nozzi's tweet
which has actually now been deleted,
but they link to it to specifically
really hit this point home, adding "We don't do that.
"We upload only a photo selected for editing.
"You can quickly check this
"with any of the network sniffing tools
"available on the internet."
And adding, "We might store an uploaded photo in the cloud.
"The main reason for that is performance and traffic.
"We want to make sure that the user
"doesn't upload the photo repeatedly
"for every edit operation."
And adding, "Most images are deleted from our servers
"within 48 hours from the upload date."
The statement also went onto say
that they accept requests from users
for removing all their data from its servers
and that the app's features are available without logging in
and that 99% of its users do not log in.
Therefore, they say they don't have access
to any data that could identify a person.
In their final points, they say
they do not sell data to third parties
and they do not transfer information to Russia.
But still with them saying all that,
many still don't think that the statement
answers enough questions.
For example, you have people saying that this statement
did not address its right to use your data
that are mentioned in the terms of service
nor did it address other marketing concerns.
But regarding that, outlets like the Independent have noted
that this is actually fairly standard within such apps.
In general, the privacy policy, the terms of service,
it's supposed to be this grandiose thing
that's supposed to protect the company.
But still, obviously there are concerns with the app
because of the vague privacy policy
which also many have noted has not been updated
since the app came out in 2017.
And of course, that statement didn't fully say
what the app can actually do with the photos uploaded.
And as far as the final verdict here,
as far as my opinion in this matter,
I think that you should be concerned,
I think you should be skeptical,
but I do believe that a lot of the accusations
that are being made are overblown.
Right, I look at examples like that of Will Strafach,
he's the founder and CEO of Guardian Firewall.
He tweeted out, "Using a network traffic analyzer,
"I tried to replicate the thing people are talking about
"with FaceApp allegedly uploading your full camera roll
"to remote servers,
"but I did not see the reported activity occur.
"However, they do appear to upload single images
"in order to apply the filter server-side.
"While not as egregious, this is non-obvious
"and I am sure many folks are not cool with that."
Right, when it comes to the broad, vague language
in their privacy policy, I think you might be horrified
if you look through the privacy policy
of a lot of the things you already currently use.
And I mean that in general
and probably even more-so
when the company is in Russia or China
which actually regarding the note of Russia,
one of the last updates to this story,
reportedly the Democratic National Committee
has warned 2020 campaigns to not use this app.
And adding, "If you or any of your staff
"have already used the app,
"we recommend that they delete the app immediately."
I guess there's that to be considered as well.
But, hey, ultimately that's where this story ends,
and I pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts around this?
Do you think the fear and concerns
around this specific app are overblown
or no, you are actually genuinely worried here?
Yes, no, maybe so, and why.
Let me know in those comments down below.
But from that, I want to share some stuff I love today
in Today in Awesome brought to you by Postmates.
Postmates, if you don't know,
is the fantastic delivery on demand app.
You want something from the store, your favorite restaurant,
you wanna just snag some drinks,
boom, just open up the app,
they'll deliver it to where you work,
where you live, wherever.
And I give those examples
because that's actually how I've personally used it.
You know, I've used it to get drinks delivered
when I definitely should not be out driving.
I've purchased clothes on the app,
specifically Lululemon, don't judge me.
It is so comfy.
And of course, meals from the restaurants I want
without the drive or the wait or any of that that I don't.
And very awesomely for you beautiful bastards,
if you've never actually used the app,
you can download it now, click the link in the description,
or just to postdefranco.com
And after you download it,
just make sure you enter in promo code PhillyD
and they will give $100 in free delivery fee credit.
So you have to check it out,
see if you love it as much as I do, and then just enjoy.
The first bit of awesome today is
wow, I just have to share and promote
this new creator on the scene.
Her name is Jenelle Eliana
and she has just burst onto the scene.
She is a young woman who lives in her own
customized decked out van.
She only has two videos on her channel.
The first one hit over three million.
The second one just hit over four million.
She now has over 700,000 subscribers
and the next day to next week,
she's probably gonna be over a million.
And so far, even though it's obviously only two videos,
I'm fascinated.
All right, she's kind of the perfect zag
to everyone else's zig.
It feels like so many of the top creators these days,
right, it's like, look at my amazing car
and my amazing house or houses or my amazing clothes.
And so as that gets more and more saturated,
as that loses more and more of its luster,
you got Jenelle.
I just love it.
Obviously I benefit the most
if you click on more of my things
after you're done with this video,
but I definitely recommend you check her out.
I'm a new fan, and excited to see what she does next.
Then, we have Kevin Smith getting schooled
by a seven-year-old Marvel fan.
We got the trailer for the Red Sea Diving Resort
starring Chris Evans.
The National Geographic giving us
What The Apollo Missions Meant.
Then, Comedy Central gave us Latin Pop Star, White Audience.
Then the phil.chrono.gg partner game of the day today is
Farm Together.
It is a fantastic single or co-op farming sim
that has overwhelmingly positive reviews on Steam.
And if you snatch it up
using our link before 9 a.m. tomorrow
and or while supplies last,
you can get it not for the regular $20, but just $12.99.
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.
And for today's quickie award
for headline I did not expect to wake up to,
we award the Associated Press who gave us
"City hopes Baby Shark song will drive homeless away."
Reportedly, the city in question is West Palm Beach,
and according to the report, officials in the city
are hoping a continuous loop of children's songs
played throughout the night will keep homeless people
from sleeping on the patio of a city-owned
rental banquet facility.
And so, yeah, that's essentially it.
They played Baby Shark,
other songs reportedly like Raining Tacos,
and I don't think that this will work.
I say that because I imagine noise-blocking earbuds
are a lot easier for a homeless person to get
than a home.
Also, for those wondering if any other place
has tried something like this before, yes.
Looking into it, according to CBS News,
the city of Lake Worth tried using classical music
to drive homeless people away from the town's cultural plaza
but they ended up liking the songs.
Obviously Baby Shark and Raining Tacos
is not Bach or Beethoven, but you know,
one, it's going to be interesting
to see what actually happens.
Will people stop sleeping there?
Because even in the AP article,
someone was like, I'm gonna still sleep there,
I just hear the songs over and over.
And two, it's gonna be interesting to see
what the public reaction to all of this is
now that it's getting bigger and bigger.
Right, are you gonna have people saying
that this is cruel and unusual
for people already in a horrible place?
Right, I mean, I've already seen some people saying,
you know, in the past we've used loud music
as a kind of a torture device.
Although the potential argument against that
is we don't know how loud the music is in this instance,
also the people can escape the music by leaving.
So actually around this story,
do you think is kind of a silly whatever story
or does this bother you?
Or what are your thoughts around this?
Also, actually while we're at it, I know that I started this
as kind of a quickie throwaway story,
what are your thoughts around sonic devices in general?
I don't know if you saw,
but there was this recent report out of Philadelphia.
According to NPR, in Philadelphia,
30 parks and recreation centers
are outfitted with a small speaker called the Mosquito.
It blares a constant high-pitched ringing noise
all night long, but one, that only teenagers
and young adults can hear.
And they say that because anyone over age 25
is supposed to be immune
because basically their ear cells have started to die off.
Right, and the defense for this
is it's supposed to prevent loitering.
It's supposed to prevent vandalism.
But of course, as you'd expect, there's also pushback there.
With reportedly Philadelphia City Council member Helen Gym
referring to the device as a sonic weapon,
and so she's fighting to try to get rid of them.
So a little bit different, a little bit of the same,
still, though, I'm fascinated to know your thoughts on this.
And the last thing we're gonna talk about today
are updates around a story
that we initially covered on Monday.
And for some quick context here,
if you haven't seen our previous coverage
or if you haven't seen the news in the last few days,
on Sunday, President Trump tweeted,
"Progressive Democrat Congresswomen
"who originally came from countries
"whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe
"now loudly and viciously
"telling the people of the United States
"how our government is to be run."
And continued, "Why don't they go back
"and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places
"from which they came, then come back
"and show us how it is done."
Those tweets got a lot of backlash,
largely because they seemed to be
about a group of freshman representatives
who are known as The Squad.
And that group includes Representatives
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar,
Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley.
And we saw a ton of people criticizing these tweets.
Some calling it xenophobic,
some just calling it outright racist,
especially because all of these elected officials
who are women of color
were actually born in the United States
with the exception of Omar who was a Somali war refugee
as a child, and she became a U.S. citizen as a teenager.
While most of the people who condemned Trump were Democrats,
we also saw a number of Republicans
both in the House and Senate
speak out against the tweets as well.
If you want a more detailed breakdown of all of this part,
I'll link down to our previous coverage.
With that said, it brings us to the updates
where last night the House voted in favor of a resolution
condemning Trump's remarks.
And among other things, the text of the resolution
says that the House, quote,
"strongly condemns President Donald Trump's racist comments
"that have legitimized and increased fear and hatred
"of new Americans and people of color
"by saying that our fellow Americans who are immigrants
"and those who may look to the President like immigrants
"should go back to other countries."
And that resolution was passed 240 to 187,
mostly along party lines with only four Republicans
and one independent voting in favor.
Now, of course one of the big notes here
is this measure is a non-binding resolution
which means that there is no policy action or law
connected to it,
but even though the resolution is entirely symbolic,
it's still being seen as significant,
largely because condemning a sitting president
is just something the House doesn't do.
And in fact, according to the New York Times,
it was the first House rebuke of a president
in more than 100 years.
But that was not the only update here,
and as you can see from the 240 to 187 vote,
the decision to condemn the president
was nowhere near unanimous.
You have many members feeling strongly
about their support or opposition to the resolution
and what resulted was an incredibly polarizing floor debate.
And one of the most contentious and unusual things
that happened during this debate
came after a statement from Nancy Pelosi.
- These comments from the White House
are disgraceful and disgusting,
and these comments are racist.
And there's no excuse for any response to those words
but a swift and strong unified condemnation.
Every single member of this institution,
Democratic and Republican, should join us
in condemning the President's racist tweets.
To do anything less would be a shocking rejection
of our values and a shameful abdication
of our Oath of Office to protect the American people.
- And immediately after that statement,
we saw Republican representative Doug Collins
ask Pelosi if she wanted to rephrase that comment.
To which Pelosi responded
that she had cleared her remarks in advance
and that is when things went off the rails 1800s style.
And the reason I say that style is because
Collins went on to ask that Pelosi's statement
be removed from the record because they violated a rule
outlined in an 1801 text by Thomas Jefferson.
That text, known as the Jefferson Manual,
sets the rules and precedents
for House procedures on the floor.
And under a long-standing precedent set by that text,
Congress members can't make disparaging comments
about the President.
So in other words, they cannot call the President
or even his words racist while speaking on the House floor.
After that, the members debated for a full hour
if Pelosi's words should be struck,
and that debate got so heated
that Representative Emmanuel Cleaver
who was presiding over the House banged his gavel
and walked out of the chambers in anger saying,
"We don't ever, ever want to pass up, it seems,
"an opportunity to escalate, and that's what this is.
"We want to just fight, I abandon the chair."
A little later, it was announced that members decided
that Pelosi's comments were not in order
which meant she was banned from making comments
for the rest of the day.
But then the Democrats voted to overrule
striking her remarks from the record,
and Pelosi was once again allowed to speak.
Now, this whole ordeal took about two hours.
Eventually, the resolution was passed.
And afterward, Pelosi told reporters,
"I stand by my statement.
"I'm proud of the attention that's being called to it
"because what the president said
"was completely inappropriate against our colleagues,
"but not just against them,
"against so many people in our country."
Also yesterday we saw Trump on Twitter
responding to the vote.
Before the House approved the resolution, Trump tweeted,
"Those tweets were not racist.
"I don't have a racist bone in my body.
"The so-called vote to be taken is a Democrat con game.
"Republicans should not show weakness
"and fall into their trap.
"This should be a vote on the filthy language,
"statements and lies told by the Democrat Congresswomen
"who I truly believe, based on their actions,
"hate our country."
Also saying that Omar is polling at 8%, Cortez at 21%.
Also for those wondering
where the heck he got those numbers,
it appears that he may have gotten those numbers
from a poll that was reported on by Axios.
And very notably there,
if that is the source of where he's getting those numbers,
it is a huge misrepresentation.
That poll was reportedly very specific
in that is reportedly only included 1,003
likely general-election voters who are white
and have two years or less of college education.
And the numbers among this specific group
was Cortez favorable 22%, Omar favorable 9%.
But also, even with all that said, a thing to keep in mind
is that Axios also didn't release the whole source
or any other information,
which has led to experts questioning the methodology
and the validity. Just something I wanted to fact check.
We also saw AOC respond to that, tweeting
"You're right, Mr. President,
"you don't have a racist bone in your body.
"You have a racist mind in your head
"and a racist heart in your chest.
"That's why you violate the rights of children
"and tell the Congresswoman who represents your home borough
"to go back to my country."
Also of note here, Trump isn't the only one
that's arguing that the House should condemn the things
that AOC and the other women on The Squad have said.
You had some Republicans defending Trump's tweets,
saying that they are in fact not racist,
like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
Also Republican representative Sean Duffy who said,
"In those tweets, I see nothing that references
"anybody's race, not a thing,
"I don't see anyone's name being referenced in the tweets,
"but the president's referring to people,
"congresswomen, who are anti-American."
And a lot of the Republicans
who spoke on the floor last night
argued that it should be the women of The Squad
who should be condemned for their comments.
But that was very much a Republican thing
because the Democrats at least seemed unified
in defending The Squad.
But that unity could also be short-lived
because obviously there was an issue
between AOC, The Squad, and Pelosi before all of this.
There's also still a disagreement among Democrats
regarding impeaching the president.
And ultimately, you know,
that's kind of where we are right now.
Right, on Twitter, we've also seen Trump
quoting Louisiana Senator John Kennedy
calling The Squad the four horsewomen of the apocalypse,
calling them whackjobs.
Right, as time goes on, the further we get away
from the initial posting of a tweet that read
"Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken
"and crime infested places from which they came",
the more defenders of the president
minimize and dilute that initial statement.
And the thing is, there are very few reasons
that have popped up for him to act any other way.
In fact, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll,
support among Republicans for the president
went up after this statement.
Reportedly his net approval among the Republican Party
went up five points.
And sure, that same poll showed
that he dropped among Independents and Democrats.
Although the polling note that I have hit on constantly,
I will continue to do it up to the 2020 election,
is really the only polls that matter are the swing states.
Specifically those states that Obama had won in the past
and then Trump won in 2016.
But as I said on Monday, this is not a slip.
This is not anything else,
this is part of the Trump strategy.
Trump and his people know that his core
will not abandon him for anything.
Right, and this confidence goes all the way back
to when he first said--
- I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue
and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?
- And these years later, it doesn't appear
that that confidence has been misplaced.
And so with Trump and his people knowing
that there's this base that he cannot lose,
all he has to do is really get them riled up
so that they go out and vote en masse.
Right, and how do you do that?
How do you motivate people outside of just,
they love you, they support you,
you give them an enemy.
You give them fear and hate of an enemy.
And AOC and The Squad are the perfect enemy.
One of my favorite descriptions of AOC
that I've ever seen is that she's Fox News catnip.
Right, and AOC and that group,
they're polarizing individuals.
There's a lot of love for them,
there's a lot of hate for them.
And the more Donald Trump and the rest of the Republicans
can attach the full Democrat Party to these four people,
I believe they think that they will do
in the upcoming election.
And I say all of this because if I was to guess anything,
I think it's just going to escalate from here.
With a split Congress and a base that doesn't move,
what's to hurt him?
Granted, there are arguments and reports
that his words now could be used against him in court.
As the Washington Post reported,
"In conjunction with other factors,
"they could help persuade judges to block policies."
But as far as electability, I don't know.
And that's where we're going to end today's show.
And, hey, if you like this video, let us know.
Take that second to hit that like button.
Also, if you're new here,
you want more of these dives into the news,
be sure to hit that subscribe button.
Definitely ring that bell for all notification.
Also if you're not 100% filled in,
you wanna learn some more about the world,
you can watch the brand new Rogue Rocket video,
you can watch yesterday's Philip DeFranco show
if you missed it.
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.