WOW! Obama’s Cancel Culture Call-Out, Harley Quinn, Twitter vs Facebook Election Controversy & More

WOW! Obama’s Cancel Culture Call-Out, Harley Quinn, Twitter vs Facebook Election Controversy & More


– Sup you beautiful bastards, hope you’re havin’ a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to The Philip DeFranco Show, and hey, if ya like these longer episodes that we’ve been puttin’ out, let us know. Hit that like button,
otherwise I’m gonna have to punch you in the throat. But with that said,
let’s just jump into it. And the first thing we’re gonna talk about today is pervert news. Pervert news should legitimately
be it’s own segment. Maybe, it already feels like our videos are gettin’
fucked over this week. Main point, if you don’t
know, one of the smartest, most interesting things, to me at least, that Pornhub does, right, and adult, uh, I was about to say
dispensary, that’s disgusting. Destination, that’s the
word I was looking for. One of the interesting
things that they do is every now and then they share analytics. And this year, around Halloween of course, it’s today, they shared
the most popular searches for costumes and characters. Now unsurprisingly, and I’m
kind of probably exposing myself with that statement, Harley
Quinn came in at number one. Then followed by the Joker,
then it kinda gets more general, teacher, maid, succubus, bunny, kitty cat, and then the list goes on. But then, interestingly, they also shared the different searches between men and women. All right, so not most
searched by men or women, but most searched
comparing men versus women. And for men, we saw Jean
Gray, Dark Phoenix, Elvira, Captain Marvel, the devil, and then the most popular
for women was cowboy, Michael Meyers, okay? Then a quick pullback to Harry Potter, followed by the web-slinger
himself, Spider-Man. And so yeah, there it is. And in general, once again,
I love seeing the analytics for stuff like this. You know we get this kinda
quick, general insight on this thing that a lot of
people don’t openly talk about. Even looking at kinda some of the themes, the trends here, it feels like there’s an interesting conversation
around power differentials. Right, how that works in a
human beings brain connected to attraction or temporary lust. I dunno, it’s just something
that’s interesting to me, maybe it’s interesting to
you, but at the very least, feel free to use this
new information as a way to create the most awkward ice-breaker for someone that’s in a costume
that was mentioned tonight. I take no credit or responsibility for how those conversations play out. Happy Halloween, and you’re
welcome, and I’m sorry. And then I wanted to talk about and highlight the story
regarding cancel culture. You know on this show, over the years, we’ve talked about a vast number of people and situations where, you know, the general idea is okay,
this person’s canceled. This person did this bad thing, and now they’re locked in a box, that is who they are forever,
throw ’em out in the trash. And around this kind of
thinking, we saw this clip of former president
Barack Obama going viral, where in part he says, and you know, following that, while of course nothing is universal, we saw a lot of bipartisan
support around that idea. And obviously, you know,
all actions aren’t equal. Like, someone having said a stupid or really offensive thing,
is not the equivalent of someone like throwing
a baby in a dumpster. It’s the general idea around
the real world situations, and the seemingly everyday
canceling of someone or another that I think hearing
these words is important. And what I would say is, for maybe someone that doesn’t
agree with this, right, you think you’re kinda
the last bastion of good. Time has a fun way of humbling you. We are all humans, we are all flawed. You give someone enough time,
and they will make a mistake. They’ll make a poorly thought decision, they’ll make a bad move. And those who expect or
demand perfection will constantly be disappointed. The pursuit of perfection
I think is fine, right, that’s just trying to be the
best version of yourself. But also, fun enough, when
time isn’t humbling you, it also allows you opportunity. Opportunity to hopefully change and grow. But yeah, understand,
I say this as someone that’s not kinda like, speaking
down to you off of a cliff, but really like over
the course of 13 years, someone who has lived this. I’m talking about on both sides of it. But yeah, that’s where I’ll end that one. But from that, I wanna share
some stuff I love today, and today and awesome, brought to by Drop. And for those that don’t know, Drop is the fantastic free app that’s giving out millions
in cash rewards just for you spending the way you do every day. And it’s all free, ya just go in, ya link your debit or your
credit cards to the app, and you start earning points automatically when you shop at places
like AMC, Best Buy, Apple, SeatGeek, and even Uber and Lyft. And then you simply
redeem your Drop points for free gift cards to
places like Starbucks, Amazon, Sephora, and
really just so many more. A little tip is that their shop page has over 300 deals every day, so it’s always helpful to kinda
make sure you check it out before you shop. And it’s simple, you find
your store in the app, ya tap on the offer, ya tap shop now. That’ll take you directly
to the online store, and then you just shop and
ya check out like normal. And Drop will automatically
add points into your account once your transaction clears. Honestly, it’s the best way to make sure you’re
gettin’ the best deals, not only for Black Friday, but
all of your holiday shopping. Also, fantastically with
this partnership with Drop, 100 of you beautiful bastards
will actually be chosen at random to receive gift
cards ranging from $5 to $25. All you gotta do is download
the app by clicking the link in the description down
below, then use code PHIL, and then just finish setting
up by linking your cards for a chance to win. But yeah, don’t wait, get in while ya can, because the contest ends
on November 30th, 2019. And the first bit of awesome
today is, after today’s show, if you’re eyes and your ears, they’re still cravin’ some more, one, you should definitely
check out my brand new podcast, with the fantastic Jacksfilms, and or today we put out
an extra new deep dive on museum artifacts and the
controversy around them. While of course all of the
links are in the description, those two will be in the top links. Then we got Binging with Babish, giving us how to make a pie. We have the official
trailer for The Stranded. Funny or Die gave us a
bot review for Scream. We had Benedict Cumberbatch
going undercover on the internet, we had
the manliest of men, Nick Offerman, on Hot Ones. We got the I’m really interested to see if it’s gonna be good
trailer for The Witcher. 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. And then, let’s talk about
this just kinda crazy story out of Colorado, and after
we kind of go through the roller coaster of it,
I’m really fascinated to know where you land as far as your opinion. And this story has a few moving pieces, but the main point is, back in 2015, an armed shoplifting suspect by the name of Robert Jonathan
Seacat fled a Wal-Mart prompting a police chase. According to the affidavit,
officers followed his vehicle until Seacat parked his car, got out, and hopped a fence by a highway. He then was able to cross
all the lanes of traffic, despite there being
highway speed level traffic on those roads, and
then he climbed a fence onto the other side. He then continued on foot until he ended up barricading himself in a stranger’s home in
the suburbs of Denver. Now the person who
owned the home was a man by the name of Leo Lech, he
bought the house for his son, his son’s girlfriend and
her nine-year-old son. Which, regarding the occupants of the house when Seacat broke in, reportedly the nine-year-old
was the only one present. The child was saying that
he was home alone watching YouTube videos when he heard
the home alarm being activated. He saw Seacat, noticed the gun. Then saying that Seacat told him he didn’t wanna cause any harm, he was just looking for a vehicle. The boy was later able to
leave the home without injury. And Seacat wound up in the garage, attempting to use one of the cars, but by that time, police
were already in the driveway. Now at this point, according
to the courts ruling, Seacat made the very intelligent decision of firing a shot at police officers. I guess because he was like, I should definitely try to get as many years as possible in prison. You know he fires, this allows officers to deem the situation high risk. They then reportedly attempt
to negotiate for five hours, this fails, they then
begin to employ tactics that eventually destroy the home. The court ruling saying that
officers fired several rounds of gas munition into the home, breached the home’s doors
with a BearCat armored vehicle so they could send in a robot
to deliver a throw phone to Seacat, and used explosives to create sight lines and
points of entry to the home. They also sent in a team
to apprehend Seacat, but then they exited when
Seacat fired his gun. They then used the BearCat
to open multiple holes in the home, and again
sent officers inside, who were then able to
successfully apprehend and disarm Seacat who, by the way, ended up being convicted
on 17 felony counts and sentenced to 100 years in prison. But, the main point of this story wasn’t BearCat versus Seacat, which by the way, is definitely the title
of a Michael Bay movie that I would still probably
watch, it’d be a matinee. The story that we’re actually talking about today is the home, because all in, the stand-off
reportedly lasted 19 hours, and rendered Lech’s home uninhabitable. According to the Denver Post, the cost of building a new home was high. There were reports saying
that the house was appraised at 580,000, that insurance
gave them 345,000. He then ended up taking
a $600,000 mortgage loan to build the new house, and
I will say, at this point, I guess, I ignorantly
believed that the city, right, they fill in whatever the gap is. Right, my only experience in
this world is action movies, when someone’s like you
caused $5 million in damages. I’ve got the mayor up my ass
on how we’re gonna pay for it. Turns out, no, according to the report, the city ends up offering Lech $5,000. And so Lech turns down this offer, he ends up actually suing
the city of Greenwood Village as well as a few police officers. Here, alleging a violation
of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment
of the Constitution, which, for the non-Fifth Amendment stans, states that private
property cannot be taken for public use without compensation. And the reason we’re
talking about this today is the courts ruling has come in, and it says that the city
is actually not responsible for the damages. With the ruling saying
because the officers damaged the Lech’s home while attempting to apprehend a criminal suspect, the district court
reasoned their actions fell within the scope of the
state’s police powers and not the power of eminent domain. All right, so essentially it’s saying that it doesn’t violate the clause because the police had to do their job. Also following this ruling, you
obviously had Lech not happy about the decision, also saying to NPR under no circumstances in this country should the government be
able to blow up your house and render a family homeless. The family was thrown out into the street without any recourse. There needs to be a line drawn for what police departments can do and what they need to do
to compensate citizens for this kind of damage. I didn’t want to sue anyone for millions, I just wanted fair market
value for my house. And on the other side of this, you had the city of
Greenwood Village defending the courts decision, saying
the courts have recognized that while these types of events present difficult questions, the
police should value life over property and may act pursuant to their police powers accordingly. And as far as what happens
from here, you know, this could obviously go to another court, and in fact, several reports have said that Lech is actually
considering trying to fight this all the way to the supreme court. But ultimately, that is
where we are with this story. And like I said, I’m
really fascinated to know, what are your thoughts on this? And then, let’s talk about
this just massive news, coming from Twitter. It actually dropped as we were releasing yesterday’s episode. Yesterday we saw the CEO
of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, announce that the platform will
soon ban all political ads. And in a series of posts,
Jack Dorsey talked about why the platform made this decision. And among those reasons,
he said we believe political message reach
should be earned, not bought. Also that while internet
advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for
commercial advertisers, that power brings significant
risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions, and internet political ads
present entirely new challenges to civic discourse. Machine learning-based
optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked
misleading information, and deep fakes, all at
increasing velocity, sophistication and overwhelming scale. Dorsey also saying that initially, they debated on only
removing candidate’s ads, but then noted that they
scraped that decision because ads featuring
political issues present a way to circumvent. Also saying he believes
that there would’ve been a basic lack of fairness to such a move. Also with this move, we’ve seen a new question
regarding fairness. You know you have incumbents, new-comers, right, so you have a
politician already in office, wouldn’t this policy make it harder for say an unknown to gain traction? Which Dorsey seemed to
address those points, saying that some might see this
move as favoring incumbents. However, he has also said that many social movements have reached a quote massive scale without
any political advertising. And Dorsey ended all of this by saying that Twitter will publish the
final policy by November 15th, and that it will go into
effect on November 22nd. Also noting that the one exception to this rule would be allowing ads in support of voter registration. Obviously, this is a huge announcement, not only internationally,
but of course domestically we have the upcoming 2020 elections. Now of course, a big
thing to note is the fact that Twitter will still
be keeping any posts made by any politicians. Right, it is still a
fact that back in June, Twitter said that it would
allow misleading posts from politicians. Though notably, there it also
claimed that they would demote those posts and tag them as false. I just wanted to quickly point that out, because those are two separate issues that, you know, it does
still effect the same thing. Now regarding the change around ads, of course there were a
lot of big reactions. Some of the most notable
to me though were those in the political world. For example, you had
President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign manager
calling the move nothing more than a partisan attack,
saying in a statement Twitter just walked away from hundreds of millions of
dollars of potential revenue, a very dumb decision
for their stockholders. This is yet another attempt
to silence conservatives since Twitter knows President Trump has the most sophisticated
online program ever known. Meanwhile, on the other side of things, you saw spokesperson for former
Vice President Joe Biden, saying it would be unfortunate to suggest that the only option available
to social media companies to do so is the full withdrawal
of political advertising, but when faced with a
choice between ad dollars and the integrity of our democracy, it is encouraging that, for
once, revenue did not win out. But also, a thing to note
here that is not surprising, earlier this month, Biden urged
Twitter and other platforms like Facebook to ban
misleading political ads. We also saw Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez jump into the mix, saying
this is a good call. Technology, and social media especially, has a powerful responsibility
in preserving the integrity of our elections, and
then adding I believe that if a company cannot or does not wish to run basic fact-checking on
paid political advertising, then they should not run
paid political ads at all. Now, of course, with this
news, there is a very obvious elephant in the room here, Facebook. And, more specifically, does
this move pressure Facebook to change it’s policy? I mean just last week, we
saw the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, testify before congress. If ending the platforms
decision to not ban or label misleading ads
and posts from politicians, and as we talked about, we then saw more than 250
Facebook message sign a message asking Zuckerberg to change that policy. And notably, in that letter, those employees saying free speech and paid speech are not the same thing, and adding our current policies
on fact-checking people in political office, or
those running for office, are a threat to what Facebook stands for. So among other things,
they asked Zuckerberg to hold all ads to the same standard and to restrict political ads from being targeted to custom audiences. But ultimately, it appears as
Zuckerberg saw those concerns, was like we love, you know,
just open discourse at Facebook, but fuck y’all. And we learn that Zuckerberg
appears to be sticking to his plan, thanks to
a post that actually, kinda funny enough, was published
a little more than an hour after Dorsey’s announcement. Though I should say, at
least from Facebook’s side, it’s probably kind of happenstance, this post appears to be a
planned third quarter report. All right, so it was
probably already written by the time that Dorsey made
the Twitter announcement, although, it brings up the question of well did Dorsey time
it this way on purpose? But, main point, in the Facebook post, Zuckerberg directly addressed
political ads saying Google, YouTube, and most
internet platforms run these same ads, most cable
networks run these same ads, and of course national
broadcasters are required by law to run them by FCC regulations. I think there are good reasons for this. In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for private companies to
censor politicians or the news. And although I’ve considered
whether we should not carry these ads in the past, and
I’ll continue to do so, on balance so far I’ve
thought we should continue. Zuckerberg then continued saying it would also be hard to
define where to draw the line. He then pointed to transparency, noting Facebook’s ad library, which archive all political
ads, who saw them, and how much was spent on them. Zuckerberg then went on to say that the decision wasn’t driven by money, saying that political
ads make up less than .5% of all Facebook revenue. Zuckerberg also addressing recent concerns that he’s trying to appease
conservative politicians, saying frankly, if our goal were trying to make either side happy, then we’re not doing a very good job because I’m pretty sure
everyone is frustrated with us. Our values on voice and free
expression are not partisan. But unfortunately, in
our current environment, a lot of people look at every
decision through the lens of whether it’s going to
help or hurt the candidate they want in winning their next election. But of course, following that post, you still had people saying, well, if it’s only going to
makeup .5% of your revenue, it is not driven by money, then why not follow Twitter,
and just remove the option? Which I will say, regarding
argument structure, I will say Facebook, they
did a really smart thing. Right, among others, they
specifically name drop Google and YouTube, kind of
using the group as a shield. Right, essentially saying hey, we’re not the big bad, look
at all these other guys. But yeah, ultimately with this story, I would really love to know your thoughts regarding this move by Twitter and kind of the stance from Facebook here. Do you think that this move
from Twitter is the right thing, or at the very least a good first step? Right, essentially the
company acknowledging that there is this massive
problem, it’s an imperfect world, no one really knows
how to fully handle it, but their choice is to not
monetize and profit off of it. Or do you think that it’s a bad move? And it’s been interesting,
because the argument here, it’s some Trump supporters,
actually some Trump opponents. Or do you think that this
is a partisan move aimed to hurt Donald Trump? Or do you think that this is
something that either one, hurts Donald Trump’s opponents, or two, hurts kind of
new-comers versus incumbents? And I dunno how much Twitter
advertising Donald Trump needs with his 66 plus million followers, right, and don’t even consider
the presidential election. What if you’re someone
like Joe or Jane Blow, that’s running for a House seat? And right, an incumbent, of course, is going to have name value. Right, there are a lot of
votes that are just based off of familiarity. Right, and all of a sudden
this new-comer can’t specifically target
people in their district. Right, is that gonna make it harder for new people to break through? And in general, I think this
is just a fascinating move and story, I feel very
much like I’m still trying to digest it, compare, contrast, and of course with that, I’d love to pass a question off to you. What’re your thoughts on this? And that’s where I’m
going to end today’s show. And hey, if you liked today’s
video, hit us with a like. Also, if you’re new here,
be sure you subscribe, definitely tap that bell
to turn on notifications. Also if you’re looking for more to watch, you should definitely check
out that brand new podcast I did with Jacksfilms,
and or that deep dive we just put out on Rogue Rocket. You can click or tap right there to watch either of those right now. 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 next time.

100 thoughts on “WOW! Obama’s Cancel Culture Call-Out, Harley Quinn, Twitter vs Facebook Election Controversy & More

  1. Obama hates cancel culture because he is afraid history will frown upon his war mongering and his corporatism. I dont believe I cancelling people over something they say or do once in their life but to ignore someone's history is ridiculous. Actions speak louder than words. If someone apologizes for something their apology only carried weight if their actions follow it.

  2. Phil, Great point on Obama's call-out on Cancel Culture. I've felt that way for a while, I'm glad someone with his and your influence are saying it out loud. Maybe people will realize how cancel culture doesn't fit into normal human behavior. I'm all for trying to offer your best, but everyone will make mistakes. And with regards to the first story, a person's kink shouldn't be shamed. Look at the politician that quit because her ex husband decided to use images and personal information to attack her character. Personally, a persons sexuality isn't something that should be attacked. I feel the government should rank it up there with religion. Something you shouldn't be able to fire a person over. Unless you break a law with ill intent, you shouldn't be charged or fired over ethics violations. A person's kinks are personal and don't really have any bearing on how they act professionally…unless they are taking advantage of their subordinates. But if people are okay with engaging in activity and are adults understanding the situation, there shouldn't be any issues. That woman shouldn't have been forced to quit, she was violated with a revenge porn situation. The wrong action happened against her, not what they did behind closed doors in agreement.
    Phil, that poor guy with his home was totally screwed. He needs to hold that reckless use of power accountable. At this point a bunch of people should have gathered their militia and defended their second amendment right against the corrupt government. They knew they didn't have to use that much force, what a bunch of a-holes. And they should have just killed the intruder…he obviously is going to be a drain on the system for 100 years (if he lives this long) and didn't value the lives of the officers trying to gain control of the situation. I hope the man wins, even if he does have to go all the way up to the SCOTUS. Great show, thanks for doing what you do!

  3. Since Phil's a goober and forgot… 0:14: PornHub, 1:54: Obama/Cancel Culture, 4:52: TIA, 6:36: Denver Police Destroy Home, 10:30: Twitter vs Facebook

    You're welcome.

  4. 100% agree. When it comes to saving a life police can't be thinking "which action do I take to cause the least amount of property damage". What CAN be done (insert 10-15 expletives) is PAY for the damage. It's the nature of to serve and protect, but how the [email protected]&k does this land in the responsibility of the home owner. At the very least the city should be paying the increased insurance premiums for repairing the home under insurance.

  5. On the homeowner who’s house was blown up by the police I think that the guy sitting in jail should have all his assets seized and it should be given to the family as compensation and if it’s not enough the family of this man should be sued too as well as the police department/state government.

  6. The left wants to censor social media because it puts everyone on a level playing field. Once you can't use social media for politicals ads, what is left? The news stations are the only thing left. The political leaning of the news stations are mostly left except for Fox. That, in my opinion, is election interference. Social media allows you to look at something without a lens.

  7. To anyone within the KPop fandom that watches Philly D, please like this to have him pay attention to this issue:

    or your next show, please mention what happened to Wonho from Monsta X. The KPop community would appreciate it since you seem like a fan(you mentioned BTS so many times, NCT once, Day6 once, Got7 once and even Monsta X once). I hope you don't tear up as much as everyone within the community.

  8. Cable television has been running dishonest political adds since the beginning of television, and before/during that time it was written in newspapers, and flyers etc.

  9. I like that a man who codified killing people with robots into a mechanized process is now going to moralize at people. And fuck me too.

  10. That dude is lucky the cops didn't kill him LMFAO. The police fucked over someone else instead. An entire family, in fact.

  11. On the house the police destroyed:
    I would have thought that it was the suspect that should have been sued, not the police. The suspect was the one that created the situation that the police had to react to.

  12. Before this I honestly felt Zuckerburg was being unfairly targeted by people looking for collateral damage on the social media …”castrophe” that was the 2016 elections.

    His position on paid election adds has completely reversed my thinking. He IS part of the problem, he IS leading the charge of big business using the power of its money and influence to bend politics to his will.

    Americans should choose their politicians, not big business elite who have so bent politicians to their will that they pay no taxes while America’s infrastructure is crumbling, and the middle class continues to descend into poverty.

  13. Greenwood village has their head up their ass. There likely isn't legal territory for this well established, but if employees of the state act for the state, then protect their live at the cost of your most valuable possession (short of your life), there has to be repercussions. I'd love to see the alternate universe where cops accidentally drive a bearcat through the base of the twin towers, mysteriously vacant for the holidays, and look straight into news cameras saying, "hey, we were acting to preserve life over property". I know that's a hyperbolic as hell statement, but the line has to be drawn SOMEWHERE. Any level of liability is infinitely better than zero. Use any degree of actual reason.

  14. I am absolutely LIVID about this home vs. city decision. Take it to the Supreme Court forreal. This wasn't the homeowner's fault in anyway shape or form, a STRANGER came in and the police took it so far. They didn't need to use all the ammunition. With that said I'd be interested to see if the homeowner gave the police the go ahead to do all that.

  15. Yes, he needs to keep pushing it up to higher courts and even the supreme court if needed, end of the day the department took the path that lead to the house being unlivable, they could of had a stand off if needed, surround the house and send in swat, or many other less damaging tactics, but they went to this wall needs to go over a single suspect, so they should bare the burden of the cost they did

  16. Just adds to the bad story's of police. Many morons wear a badge. From my understanding no one was in immediate danger. He fired at police..ok they volunteered for the job and trained for this. It is not ok to have destroyed a home effecting the lives of those who live there just to get a suspect hiding in there. The city and or the officers should be held responsible. They are no better than the criminal at this point. Is America keeps up this way no one will support nor trust police.

  17. Sue that police department if they don't compensate. And if the insurance company won't help, LEAVE THEM.
    I'd be camped out in front of the damn department HQ making bbq if they did that to me!

  18. i one hundred percent believe that the city should be covering the rest of the cost for rebuilding that home. the homeowners did nothing but exist in their home until that guy showed up. the police should have to take responsibility for what they ended up doing to someone's shelter, which is vital for a prosperous life in this country. the family did not invite this person into their home, they did not obstruct anything. all they want is for the city to take responsibility for disrupting their lives in such a destructive manner. it really isn't that difficult of a moral question. you have to do what is needed to apprehend or stop the criminal, but then you have to take responsibility for what you did and help with the damages that ensued. civilians' lives, all aspects of them, should not be seen as collateral damage.

  19. Yo, cover what's going on with Lee Newton and The Valley Folk.
    Seems like they dropped her.
    They say it was amicable, she says she got voted out.

  20. Facebook has a point. To paraphrase "does NBC/ABC/YouTube/Fox/Etc. fact-check EVERY political ad (or regular ad even) to assure truthfulness?" nope. they take the money.

  21. Politician's found ways to target their audiences before social media, so I think they'll be fine, even the new guys. If anything, it will just force politicians to interacts with their voters beyond the cyber landscape.I think this is a great move by Twitter.

  22. Sounds like the cops just wanted to use their toys. There are several other tactics they could have used to lure him out without any casualties or half a million dollars in damages and leaving a family homeless.

  23. I think Zuck's collecting data to determine his next steps. He cannot do that if no one can do political ads, but allowing to not make any changes would allow him to get clean data.

  24. Why are the police being thrown under the bus for doing their job? The city should pay for the damages, not the police.

  25. Regarding the political ad bans: I wholeheartedly agree with the concept. We live among the age of misinformation – there's a lot more bogus articles out there than you think, and the sources for them are hard to find. I urge you to look at some of the news articles you glance over, and see where they actually get the information. You'd be surprised to see that a lot of the sources come from far-right or far-left viewing people, or those who simply have weird viewpoints in general, and are therefore susceptible to making more bogus claims that these news outlets either accept or overlook to get a story out. It is ridiculous.

    Regarding the home: Yes! He needs to be reimbursed. While legally, what they did was allowed by a very thin line – the judge should be able to have a level of seeing both sides and factoring in everything, instead of sticking 100% to the book. The decision was unjust to the person and his property being damaged against his own will. A good judge needs to make a fair decision whilst maintaining the legality factors that were in play for the situation.

  26. Philly. You better have grady smith on your show. Look at his video.

    PUT GRADY ON YOUR SHOW OR I PUNCH YOU IN THE THROAT!

  27. I agree with both twitter and fb. Either all in or all out no restrictions by the platforms. I don't trust a faceless entity to decide if a political ad is true or not. I do think that making sure that all ads, not just political ads, should be very clearly marked as ads and not be something sneaking through as legitimate news or reports. Like on tv they have to make the 'paid for by…' announcement anytime a political ad is run.

  28. This case should be brought higher than the district court so the common law ruling isn’t a violation of the fucking 5th amendment lol wtf

  29. Also with cancel culture, we need to accept their apologies. We are all so quick to say "they're only apologizing because they got caught"… It implies we can't change and learn.

  30. While I do agree with Obama, there are certain aspects that the "woke community" have actually helped with (mostly for celebrities or famous people). The difference between "cancel" and "hold accountable" is that mostly these people do, say or think whatever they want without any repercussions, and they are actually praised by it; comparing their actions with ours, the difference is that we actually have serious consequences for them, while they just say "sorry", make a joke out of it, and keep gaining millions.

  31. The internet should handle political ads just as cable networks have with some tweets regarding spending and fact checking. Not a Trump fan but always interested in what the new day brings in Trump showing his true face (or ass… Perhaps one in the same) on social media. New incumbents should have the same platform. By denying this entirely we have only the past to look to.

  32. Wait wtf. A man breaks into the house. Cops then basicaly blow the house up, and then the home owner who asked nothing of this cant even get the houses actual worth to rebuild said house that was destroyed by events that had nothing to do with natural occurences or his own wrong doing….

  33. You know, the Zuck raised a good point though. Those ads ARE aired everywhere else. On the radio, on the tv, everywhere. I never noticed until I left my job to take care of my disabled father, but… yeah. Why should it be censored on one specific platform? Because it's the most used of all of them? That wasnt an excuse EVER before, it never has been one in fact. Honestly… And, as someone who hasnt really used facebook since the 2016 election (because seriously people need to just freaking chill man) I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with the lizard man.

  34. he forgot the timestamps in the comments so, aw shit, here we go again.
    0:14 Harley Quinn | 1:54 Obama | 4:52 TIA | 6:36 Bearcat & Seacat Colorado Shooting Home | 10:30 Facebook controversy

  35. It's no but the criminal's fault this happened. But the government is meant to serve the people, part of that service is looking after it's citizens, especially in this situation.

  36. Being an SJW does not equate to activism, and it’s so nice to see to someone on the left point this out. I lean left because generally more actual solutions to help people come from that side, but both sides have their cons, whether it be the Hollywood elite or the politically corrupt.

  37. Not to undermine the importance of the homeowner being compensated… But am I the only one concerned that a 9-year-old was left home alone? That's illegal where I come from.

  38. Just saw that guys home blown apart if that isnt reason enough to NOT cooperate with law enforcement in these kinda if situations I dont know what is as a home owner Im telling you if the police said they were going to blow apart my house to get a criminal and not pay for the damage I would be joining the criminal IN my house and fire a few rounds in DEFENSE of MY home theres NO WAY this is legal someones losing there jobs PLUS all I hear from Trump is me me me me there targeting me all the news about me is fake news me me me me oh by the way did you know im a cool president I use twitter and abandon allies

  39. I really don't see what was wrong with what Obama said…. literally all he's saying is "Don't be so far up your own ass that you forget that you are also human and have made mistakes. People are complex creatures, we all say/do stupid things, but we all need to be allowed to grow and move past them."

  40. just because you are "doing your job" doesnt mean you cant assume responsibilities. Shouldn't be surprising from a government though who bombs cities into the ground then tells them they need to take responsibility

  41. Zuckerberg makes a lot of sense on this, it's the same ads other platforms are allowed or even required to run. And on the other hand it feels like Dorsey is virtue signaling, trying to shame another platform specifically while giving everybody else a free pass, shady business tactics.

  42. Please make sure Philip sees this:
    Apparently that show The Masked Singer Australia has been caught red handed stealing music covers from small time youtube artists! Here’s the link to the couple who had their cover of “Bad Guy” stolen note for note
    https://youtu.be/8y2KgBdhXbY

  43. Gotta love obama's words on this one. Not a president I agree with much, but one I always found respectable by far and this proves my point even more.

  44. I cannot believe they destroyed that mans house and then didn’t think it right to pay for the damages. They didn’t get to choose the fact a criminal broke into their house!

  45. Advertising in the middle of the video? You make 50k a month on patreon WTF bro. I remember why I stopped watching now. Greedy bastard.

  46. Cancel culture needs to die. All of us have flaws. I understand few are exceptions like Spacey, Franco, Weinstein….others like Aziz…a weird date at best and gets pummeled.

  47. God how I miss President Obama's wisdom & honest realness! It's sadly missing in the last 3yrs!

    "Thank you and I'm sorry!"
    Love your honest realness too Phil LoL🦋

  48. Regarding the demolished house, I hope they family takes it up to higher courts. That is BS. The city should split the difference and now pay for legal costs and damages (of time lost and pain in the ass cost) that the Lech family has incurred.

  49. Obama calling out cancel culture gimps. Then them same gimps stop worshipping him as a bastion of morality and social justice because he bombed the fuck out of people all around the world and decimated states around the world and they finally realise this and call him out for it is a beautiful moment in time.

  50. The unfortunate thing that Obama said is we should be surprised that people don't think like that…… to me that was obvious but I know it isn't for everyone.

  51. Why is it a partisan issue? They're talking about fact checking and not allowing LIES. Do you want to be lied to? 🙄🙄

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *