Subtitles section Play video Print subtitles - We've got huge concerning updates on the deep fake scandals, monsters are setting aid for earthquake victims on fire, the Supreme Court may be about to destroy the internet as we know it based on their decision around section 230, there was another huge hazardous chemical spill. We're gonna talk about all that and so much more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco show. So, buckle up, hit that like button. And, very quickly, quick announcement, I have heard your pleas, so we'll be leaving up until the weekend all the new stuff we've been dropping over at BeautifulBastard.com. I go through the texts, I saw the screw you, I don't get paid till Friday, texts. I'm gonna give y'all a little extra time if you wanna snag the I Love Naps gear, because people will come and go, but naps will always be there for you. emotionally exhausted on an absurd number of colorways, but also the classics. And, screw it, I'll even let you get some of the Go Easy On Yourself gear. Yeah, grab any and all that you want while you can, 'cause I run that company like a chaotic idiot. With that said, let's just jump into it. We've got a big update regarding that deep fake porn controversy we talked about a few weeks ago, right? That whole thing got a big spotlight on it when a streamer by the name of Atrioc was caught with an open tab to a deep fake porn website, which notably hosted explicit deep fakes of very high profile female streamers, including his colleagues. And, in addition to the general outrage and disgust, you had some of the women that have been featured on that site like QT Cinderella speaking out about how just fucked up deep fake porn is. And, with that, vowing to sue the creator of the website even after they took the site down. But, the update there is, no, apparently that's not gonna happen. But, they're reportedly telling NBC News that the legal framework for a potential path forward is disheartening and adding, "every single lawyer I've talked to essentially have come to the conclusion that we don't have a case." There's no way to sue the guy. And, that's apparently because, while many states have laws regarding revenge porn, only a handful have laws specifically regarding deep fakes. And, this as, even though that website was taken down, those videos made without her knowledge or consent can still be spread around the internet like wildfire. Which also I think the unfortunate side effect of that news breaking is this may embolden those who want to do this. Though, to those people, I would warn not only is that fucked up and I think wrong, it's important to remember there was a time where there were not laws against revenge porn. The story also makes me think for a second about just how fucking weird the internet is and also what a weird place it must be to be a female content creator, and because you have all these photos and videos that you didn't even fucking make being spread all over the internet, but at the same time, on mainstream social platforms, you have consensual photos being over moderated, right? There were things like another massive streamer, Pokimane, dealing with Instagram removing one of her photos over "sexual solicitation". And, oddly it pertained to a photo that was posted back in July. It was her in a pink blazer. And, apparently the platform had an issue with her caption, "anybody need a sugar momma?" And, apparently all that violated the rules of the site. because you cannot facilitate, encourage, or coordinate sexual activity on Instagram. So, something to keep in mind the next time you post on social media, anyone want to get filled in together. But, also I think the issue on Instagram isn't just female focused. I think it it's scale focused. And, the reason I say that is because the number of people I've seen get banned on like Twitter and other platforms, 'cause they made a punch you in the throat joke, which, if you're new here, is like an inside joke between me and all you beautiful bastards, right? Algorithms not taking into context or jokes or any of that. But, back to the main story, I will say personally I am disappointed that there's apparently no legal path forward, because while I know there were a myriad of different opinions on the topic, I think at the very least I think there's an argument and a case for harassment. And, then we've got big Dhar Mann updates to talk about, because we're seeing him double down on his fight against the allegations that have been levied against him and his studio. We talked about this last week, he's a massive creator, some of his videos getting hundreds of millions of views, videos that are normally about moral and inspirational lessons. But, a number of his actors ended up actually protesting over what they said was inadequate pay among other issues, things like there was a toxic culture at the studio, and if you spoke out about it, you were fired. And, saying when they tried to address this and to have a meeting with Dhar Mann, they couldn't, instead only getting a meeting with the head of production and HR. Now, for his part, Dhar Mann says he pays his actors well and says that these allegations are false, saying that he has feedback forms and other means for actors to bring up problems. And, we're starting to see more updates to this story, like with one of the actors, Dylan Harris. He posted a video claiming that Dhar Mann threatened him with legal action. - If you want to keep threatening to sue me, guess what, dude? I really love playing chess. - And, then including screenshots of emails with the subject line, "Confidential and Privileged Settlement Communications, Cease and Desist Regarding Dhar Mann", though one of those screenshots did notably say that because Dylan had deleted a post in question, the team would no longer be pursuing action. And, it's also worth noting that the TikTok we just showed about the cease and desist is no longer on Dylan's page, but that's also not where this story ends, because Dhar Mann is continuing to defend himself and proclaim his innocence, versing things like this TikTok of what appears to be people for Dhar Mann Studios patting him on the shoulder to comfort him while the song "We Are Family" plays. And, then more concretely, in an Instagram post yesterday, he said, he is saddened for those affected by everything going on and for the various misleading stories that have spread, saying he and some of the original actors who have been with the studio since the start are working together to get through this. Also claiming that the actors who were protesting haven't worked with the studio in years and they only represent a small percentage of the thousands of actors that have been in Dhar Mann videos. And, regarding that meeting that was mentioned, he said that the formal meeting request would start with production and HR, not him, and claiming he was never told to or supposed to attend that meeting, and saying the actors were asked to put their concerns in writing, but instead they came to our studio to disrupt production, causing stress to crew members and actors, and claiming certain protestors even spread false information to hurt the studio, my family, and me. That's the reason why I have not met with these individuals. And, again, saying the claims against unfair pay are misinformation, saying he recently came up with plans to improve the studio's booking system, boost communication, and give out more consistent hours and pay. But, while all this is happening, the protestors have not stopped, even holding a press conference with ABC7 News yesterday where they reiterated a lot of their issues. - If you're gonna profit off of these morals, you need to at least give the people that are working underneath them the respect of what you're preaching. - There are just basic elements to running a motion picture company that are not being met. - So, who's lying? Who's telling the truth? What is going on? We're gonna have to wait to see what all comes from this. And, while we wait, I'd love to know your thoughts on what the answers to those questions are. And, then a bunch of garbage people just burned aid for earthquake victims, right? So, this just happened in Germany at a Turkish supermarket where a huge pile of donations, including canned food and clothing, was collected for the Turkey, Syria earthquake. But, late one night, these two dumpster bros come over and light the stash on fire with one of them also throwing a Turkish flag into the fire suggesting they may have had xenophobic motives. Were those sentiments possibly on the rise, given that the German government just announced plans to ease visa restrictions for earthquake victims with relatives in the country. Now, as far as the fire, firefighters took two hours to extinguish the flames. And, according to a police estimate, the damage reportedly totals over $20,000, which is just an out of nowhere unnecessary gut punch for the survivors and everyone working around the clock to save lives, especially since we're continuing to see the death toll rise going from 36,000 on Monday to 41,000 today. And, this as millions have been left homeless and much of the region sanitation infrastructure has been damaged and health authorities are desperately trying to prevent a disease outbreak, right? But, because the devastation from the earthquake was so widespread, you've got tons of people who haven't even showered or cleaned off since the earthquake. As well as there're being a shortage of cleaning water and toilets making cholera and typhoid more likely. But, still, despite all of this devastation, we're still seeing amazing stories of survival emerge from the rubble, like these two brothers who are trapped under debris for around 200 hours, staying alive by rationing body building supplements, drinking their own urine, and swallowing gulps of air, or stories coming out like a father and daughter who were stuck for 209 hours before being rescued. And, so again, if you can and want to help out, I'm gonna link to places where you can donate in the description. And, for those touched by this tragedy, I wish you the best of luck. My heart goes out to you. And, then... Y'all, what's going on? There has been yet another hazardous chemical spill. Right over the last few days, we've been covering the train carrying hazardous materials that derailed in Ohio, prompting officials to do a controlled burn, we've also been seeing other trained derailments, and now we're seeing the second major chemical spill in a month after a truck carrying nitric acid was involved in a crash on Interstate 10 in Tucson, Arizona yesterday, with nitric acid being a highly corrosive material, often used in manufacturing fertilizer and explosives. And, according to the CDC, exposure to it can cause irritation to the eye, skin, and mucus membrane. It can also cause delayed pulmonary edema, pneumonitis, bronchitis, dental erosion. And, as far as what we know about this crash, actually very little information has been released so far, including what caused the accident. We've seen government officials saying that the incident involved a commercial truck tractor hauling a box trailer that rolled over killing the driver. A hazardous materials response unit, the Tucson Fire Department, and a number of local police departments responded to the scene closing off I-10. And, actually, as of recording, the busy freeway is still shut down in both directions. The Arizona Department of Public Safety also evacuated all people in a half mile perimeter around the area and ordered those within one mile to shelter in place. With a few hours later, the shelter in place order being lifted, but then it was reinstated again at around 5:00 AM local time, with the department advising that anyone within the one mile perimeter turn off heaters and or air conditioning systems that bring in outside air, and adding that, while crews were attempting to remove the load from the commercial vehicle, gassing occurred, and then, a few hours after that, the shelter-in-place order was actually extended to those within a three mile perimeter of the spill with the agency saying recovery and mitigation efforts on the hazardous materials experienced temporary setbacks overnight due to weather condition, and saying crews have now removed the material from the truck and are utilizing dirt to mitigate further off gassing, but, very significantly here, it also said that those who have been evacuated should expect to remain displaced until approximately midday. Though it's unclear if evacuees will want to go back to their homes later today anyway, especially given the height and concern around the Ohio spill. And, then did you know that two outta three guys will experience some form of male pattern baldness by the time that they're 35? Maybe you have that friend, that family member that's dealing with hair loss, and, well, thanks to the sponsor of today's show, Keeps, you don't have to just sit around and wait for that to happen. Whether you're looking to prevent hair loss, stimulate hair growth, or just take better care of the hair that you have, Keeps has you covered. Keeps helps you stop hair loss before it's too late with a scientific and affordable approach to treatments that are up to 90% effective at reducing and stopping further hair loss. And, in addition to clinically proven treatments, Keeps has an award-winning all natural thickening shampoo and conditioner system. And, you can get these products delivered directly to your door, meaning no more going in person to the doctor's office for your prescription, saving you both valuable time and money. Hair loss stops with Keeps. So to get your special offer, go to keeps.com/defranco or just click that link in the description, that's keeps.com/defranco. And, then the Supreme Court could fundamentally change how the internet works and content creators could be totally screwed, right? In just a few days, the high court is set to hear a landmark case that has the potential to change the last two plus decades of content moderation policy as well as upend the business practices of big tech as we know it. So, details, the case in question is called Gonzalez v Google, and it focuses on Section 230, the Communications Decency Act. And, as we've talked about before, Section 230 is a 1996 statute that protects social media platforms for being liable for the content that users post. So, not only does it shield them from lawsuits over what's posted on their sites, but it also safeguards them from being sued when they take down posts. But, as battles over content moderation have grown in recent years, Section 230 has come under fire. And, with Gonzalez, this may be the tipping point. The case was brought by the family of a 23 year old US citizen who was killed in Paris during a 2015 terrorist attack by the Islamic State with the family arguing that Google, YouTube's parent company, aided in embedded terrorism, because its algorithm recommended Islamic state videos recruiting members and inciting violence. But, and this is the crux of their claim here, Google's algorithmic recommendation should be considered as their own form of content. So, Section 230, which only shields platforms from the content of third parties, doesn't apply. Now, notably here, similar cases alleging that social media companies have supported terrorist content that led to actual attacks have been dismissed by courts for years. And, this case itself was actually dismissed by a lower court. But, very notably, this conservative Supreme Court has decided to hear the appeal. And, because of that, I really cannot understate how much is at stake here. So, to get a better idea of how serious the impacts all this could be, we talked to Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law who specializes in internet law, and is an expert on Section 230. And, he told us that the Court's decision to take up this case is especially consequential, because there's past precedent for Section 230 applying to those algorithmic recommendations. And, that's the crux of Google's argument against this case. - The main legal argument against the plaintiffs is that Section 230, by its own terms, made no distinction between algorithmic recommendations and other ways that services gather, organize, and promote third party content. So, it's just a pure statutory argument. You read the text, it doesn't say what the plaintiffs are saying, they're having to manufacture arguments, why it should say what they're trying to say. Section 230 has applied uniformly to that for the last 25 years. And, so the plaintiffs are really asking for a dramatic and unprecedented change to how we think about Section 230. - Professor Goldman also saying that another one of Google's central arguments is that this ruling could have such a massive and devastating impact on the internet, that the Supreme Court can't ignore the policy implications. Now, as far as what would actually happen if the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs, well, Goldman says that it's actually hard to anticipate just how big this ruling will be, because it depends on a number of factors, which we will actually get to a bit later, but he did give us a general idea. - The short story is, one possible conclusion, is that the Court will say, if the services take efforts to promote user content, they lose Section 230. They can still host it, they can still gather it, but they... If they do anything to promote it, they will no longer have this legal shield. In a situation like that, then the internet starts to look a lot more like Google Drive or Dropbox, where people upload content, there's a hosting function, the services give them a URL, and then we all have to do our own work in order to get an audience for our content. That would just change the internet at its very core how we think about the internet. And, that would be a bad outcome. - And, if the Court decides that algorithmic recommendations aren't covered by Section 230, social media platforms would be stuck in what Goldman calls the moderator's dilemma, where they're essentially a force to choose between all bad options, first, because they'd be liable for all content they recommend, they'd have to moderate everything with extreme precision and perfection, but that's essentially impossible for these companies. And, if they actually tried to do this, it would likely result in them over blocking and potentially censoring anything that anyone says is defamatory, because to not do so at risk lawsuit after lawsuit. The second option would be to go the complete opposite direction, provide no moderation at all. And, if they end up getting sued, basically they would just argue willful blindness, right? If I never tried, I never failed. Well, that was an argument that lawyers told clients to make before Section 230 existed. It hasn't really been tested in court since, but if a judge did rule in favor of such a claim, it would basically give social media companies a blank check to allow offensive and violent speech to run wild. And, then there's a third option. - The third note is to say, I can't win this game. I can't do it perfectly. I can't let everyone have their say, because I'm gonna be overrun by garbage content. And, the only way then to win that game is not to play at all. And, so that's the real stakes I think in this case. - With Goldman saying he thinks that the more likely outcomes are some combination of the first and third options, the platforms will be forced to regulate content super intensely or shut down altogether. Which, key thing here, would be absolutely devastating for content creators. And, actually to illustrate exactly how bad this could be, Goldman gave us a helpful example of what the world would look like on our own platform here. - So, the one likely scenario is that YouTube would scale back any recommendations at all. It would simply reduce the ability of users to find the content that they think is relevant, make it harder for them to do so. That's not really a good business experience for the users of YouTube. One other possibility is that YouTube could say, instead of reducing recommendations, they'll keep doing recommendations like they have in the past. They'll just constrain the number of people who are allowed to publish on YouTube in the first place. - But, the people who would be allowed to publish are only those who YouTube decides are not legally risky, right? And, obviously only a small percentage of creators would get that privilege and everyone else would kind of just get kicked off the service. - From that perspective, one likely scenario of any change to Section 230 here is that we're gonna see "the rich get richer", the people who already have audiences and already have power in the marketplace of ideas, they're gonna continue to get the same kind of treatment in the... That they've got in the past. It's everyone else, the small players, the people who could become big influencers in the future, but haven't gone that far yet. They may never get that chance, because the doors will be closed to them. - But, also, with all this, let's be clear, this isn't just something that's going to apply to Google and YouTube. This would impact all social media companies that host third party content and are currently protected by Section 230. And, just in case you thought the story couldn't get worse, it does. While those are some scenarios that Goldman says are likely to come out of this whole ruling, Gonzalez isn't the only case where the Supreme Court could totally upend the internet. Literally one day after they hear Gonzalez, the justices are set to consider a very similar case called Twitter v Taamneh, with that focusing on whether platforms are liable for terrorist related content posted by their users under federal anti-terrorism law. And, very notably hear, Goldman says that content monetization is at play in these cases, right? Because, lower courts have said that paying terrorists for content could violate the law. And, if that's upheld, there's a possibility that companies like YouTube would have to stop monetizing content, because they can't manage the risk, or at least very significantly pair down who gets monetization. And, then actually even beyond those two cases, there are two others that the Supreme Court could take up regarding new laws in Florida and Texas, laws as it aim to ban social media companies from taking down certain political content or accounts among other wide ranging regulations. And, just at the end of January, the justices asked the Biden administration to weigh in on the cases, effectively delaying a decision to take them up, at least for now. But, it's widely believed that the Court will have to consider these matters eventually, and even possibly in the next term beginning this October. And, all four of these have the potential to completely change the internet. - Just assume for a moment, this is like a package of bad ideas. So, it's not just one bad idea. There's a lot going on there. In other words, for the internet to look like it does today, we have to win all four of those cases perfectly. And, those are really long odds that make me very, very nervous. - Right? And, to that last point, Goldman noted, we really don't know where the justices are going to fall on this question, right? Justice Clarence Thomas has written a couple of statements criticizing Section 230, but because this issue cuts across partisan lines, Goldman says he really has no idea where the other justices will land. And, while it's unknown when or if the Court will take up the Florida and Texas cases, we will have an answer on both Gonzalez and Taamneh by the end of the term in June. - So, basically I'm marking June 30th is basically that the RIP internet date that I'm gonna have a little head stone carved for. - So, hey, I guess mark your calendars. But, on that, cheery note, the way I wanna close this out is what are your thoughts? What do you make of all this? And, then I wanna take a second to thank one of the fantastic sponsors of today's show, Hello Fresh. Hello Fresh gets farm fresh, pre-portioned ingredients, and seasonal recipes delivered right to your door, making healthy, eating at home fun, easy, and affordable. And, with there fast and fresh options, you can get dinner ready in 30 minutes or less. Yeah, fast and fresh recipes are the newest meals that you can cook in under 15 minutes with great options like falafel, power bowls, and steak and potatoes with bearnaise, which by the way, bearnaise sauce on everything, please. That's right, you stan musicians, I stan condiments. And, y'all, it's easy to customize select meals. You can swap out proteins and sides and upgrade to your favorites, including organic chicken and organic ground beef. And, no matter your lifestyle or meal preferences, Hello Fresh has recipes sure to please everyone at your table, even for the pickiest of eaters. And, I know that because Hello Fresh comes in clutch for me and my family and I really don't wanna undersell that point, because, for me, oh, it's so frustrating to make a meal and then a child not eat it. This has genuinely made it so much easier, especially because the pre-portioned ingredients save time and the recipes are consistently good. It makes putting a home cooked meal on the table, not only delicious, but I would say more importantly, easy. So, make meals easier and better tasting by going to hellofresh.com/phil65 and use code Phil65 for 65% off, plus free shipping. And, then this is a fun story, 'cause I gotta get on an airplane soon. There have been way too damn many close calls involving airplanes recently. In fact, there have been so many that the acting head of the Federal Aviation Administration just issued a rare safety call to action for the industry, right? In a memo, acting FAA administrator, Billy Nolan, said he would form a safety review team, convene a safety summit, and order a review of aviation safety data to see whether there are other incidents that resemble ones we have seen in recent weeks. Now, notably here, Nolan did not flag any specific instances, but there have been multiple ones that have made the headlines in recent weeks. But, there's so much random crazy bullshit happening right now, very possible you missed it, right? There have been a handful of events that a National Transportation Safety Board spokesperson said presented a significant risk of a catastrophic outcome, with the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board currently investigating those. The first, which we talked about at the time, took place at JFK Airport on January 13th when an American Airline's jet crossed runway right in front of a Delta Airlines flight that was getting ready to take off. Then, just under two weeks ago, a FedEx cargo plane almost landed on top of a Southwest Airline's passenger flight at Austin Bergstrom International Airport. This after an air traffic controller had cleared the FedEx jet to land on the runway where the Southwest plane had been cleared to take off. The NTSB saying those two planes came within just 100 feet of each other. And, according to the Washington Post, the NTSB said just yesterday that it's investigating two other situations involving United Airlines flights at airports in Hawaii, with one of those incidents taking place in Honolulu and was very similar to the events in Austin and New York, right? A cargo jet operated by the company Cessna and a United Passenger airplane. While there's been very little reporting on this, according to the post, the FAA said an air traffic controller told the United crew to stop on a taxiway before reaching the runway, but the aircraft just crossed instead, with the Cessna stopping about 1,170 feet from the United jet. And, then that other Hawaii United episode was totally different, with this one actually happening back in December. But, there's only been extensive news coverage of it in the last 48 hours or so. And, that was a United flight full of passengers taking off from the Maui Airport climbing for about a minute and then just taking a sudden nose dive, though luckily not crashing, but coming just 775 feet above the Pacific Ocean. So, I think it's a good thing that the FAA is taking action here, but also notably this comes at a time where the FAA is facing growing scrutiny, not only because of what we just talked about, but because of that insane incident last month when a key safety bulletin system went down prompting the agency to ground all flights nationwide for the first time since 9/11. And, regarding that, last week, representatives on the House Transportation Committee expressed their concern that the FAA had not responded quickly enough to safety and management issues that have existed for a while now. And, to that point, timing's always important with these stories. Nolan just so happened to issue a safety memo one day before he was set to testify before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding the safety bulletin system outage. Although that hearing is taking place as we're recording today's show, so we're gonna have to wait to talk about that tomorrow at least. But, unfortunately, whatever happens there, it's really unclear how they're going to make this situation better. And, that's in part because there's a huge fundamental barrier here, the total lack of stable leadership, right? Many federal lawmakers have argued that the biggest obstacle the FAA faces is the fact that it hasn't had a permanent leader since the last administrator stepped down back in March. And, all these recent issues just underscored that. And, President Biden has actually nominated Phillip Washington, chief executive of Denver International Airport to head the agency, but the Senate hasn't confirmed him, because there are concerns about his qualifications. And, so you take all of that and it's why we're gonna obviously keep our eyes on this story. And, then churches and drugs, let's talk about 'em, because Vice recently published the article where they interviewed the founder of the Divine Assembly, a church based in Salt Lake City, Utah. And, they are just one of the growing number of churches that worship psychedelics like mushrooms, peyote, and others. With the Divine Assembly not providing the drugs to their 5,000 members or telling people how they should host mushroom ceremonies. It goes through other spiritual experiences like meditation rooms, mushroom growing courses, and ice baths. Notably, the Divine Assembly's founder is both a former state legislator and an ex-Mormon who has also acknowledged their strange set of circumstances saying, I think a lot of people look at what we do if they come out of organized religion and they say, this is bullshit. These people are just using the idea of religion to get around drug laws, and saying, I wish they could see inside my mind, inside my heart, and just see the changes that have happened, and are happening, and just see how I am seeing the divine on a daily hour by hour basis. And, to his point, it's not quite that easy to circumvent drug laws. There are only three religious organizations that have legal exemption to use drugs in their practice. And, while the rest believe that they're protected under religious freedom, their use is still technically illegal. But, reportedly they can be legally defensible if the churches prove that they are sincere in their use of drugs as a religious experience, as well as taking safety measures to protect their congregation. Well, that may sound easy enough to you, the Divine Assembly specifically fights to keep their group informal, so they don't actually tell people how to worship in any capacity. And, according to a New York based attorney who wrote a guide for churches like this to navigate the law, the Divine Assembly's dedication to being non-dogmatic and a lack of protocol could make it harder for them to defend themselves. But, she also added, there has to be an understanding that religion is an incredibly broad spectrum and that there are going to be leaders who say, this is how I believe, which is to not force beliefs upon someone. However, another key thing, their founder, after his years as a legislator, is on good terms with law enforcement, even reportedly informing them that the Divine Assembly uses a Schedule One controlled substance. Also saying he's not concerned about being pursued for their drug use, but did mention that the church will not defend any individual members arrested. And, when talking about this, it's important to note, we've seen churches like this be on the receiving end of law enforcement before, like the Zide Door Church in East Oakland that was raided by police in 2020. Though that isn't quite the one-to-one comparison, because Zide Door did distribute mushrooms and cannabis to their congregation in exchange for a donation unlike the Divine Assembly. But, for now, we're gonna have to wait to see what happens with this church specifically, and also the continued rise of churches like this. Personally, I'm of the opinion of, if you're a grown adult, your brain is done growing. I think if you have medical supervision, you should be able to take mushrooms. And, if that happens, in let's say a church of some sort, cool. I'd rather a church use their tax exempt status to help try to expand someone's mind, let them look into themselves, see how they're connected to other human beings, rather than, let's say, spend hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying to keep rights from people, because they were like born gay or something, or who hide and move predators in their flock. And, then we've had another prime minister tapping out, though technically this is a first minister, but the sentiment's the same. For just a few weeks ago, we talked about New Zealand's prime minister, Jacinda Arden, resigning, saying she's burned out, didn't have enough in the tank to do the job. And, most Americans were like, wait, what? You're just willingly letting go of a position of power? That's a thing? Well, now Scotland's first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has just done the same thing. Well, she didn't specifically cite burnout as a reason for resigning. It's pretty clear she's exhausted, right? Sturgeon's been Scotland's longest longest serving first minister. She's also the first woman to ever hold the position. She's been in politics since '99, leading the charge for Scotland's independence from the UK, guiding the country through the COVID-19 pandemic as first minister. But, today announcing that she was stepping down, though she made sure to mention that her decision was not in response to the latest political pressure, this after recent controversies regarding gender reform, instead saying that her reasons were rooted in her own personal struggle with whether she can continue to do the job well. - To be clear, I'm not expecting violins here, but I am a human being as well as a politician. My point is this, giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job is the only way to do it. The country deserves nothing less, but in truth, that can only be done by anyone for so long. For me, it is now in danger of becoming too long. - Though I do think it's important to note and it is a key thing here is that her approval ratings right now are reportedly the lowest they have been since she has taken office. But, regardless, many political figures in Scotland as well as UK have applauded Sturgeon in her historic service as far as ministers. And, so right now as we move forward, there are a number of unknowns, starting with who the hell's gonna replace her. However, Sturgeon said that she'll continue to serve until someone else is elected. Also, the push for Scotland's independence is hanging in limbo. People really don't seem to know what that looks like without Sturgeon's leadership, though there she did mention that she doesn't intend to fully leave politics and will still fight for the cause, saying that the support for Scottish independence needs to be solidified and grow. And, that is where today's show ends. Thank you so much re a part of my daily dives into the news for you. My name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been filled in. I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.
B1 US content section goldman court mann faa Why People Are Freaking Out About That Deepfake Lawsuit & Section 230's Supreme Court Problem 13 1 何庭昀 posted on 2023/02/16 More Share Save Report Video vocabulary