0:00

What is up ladies and gentlemen?

0:02

It's time for the land show again.

0:05

That's right. I am a short king. I

0:07

still don't get it. As crowned by Smosh.

0:10

What? I know. I actually

0:13

am hearing about this for the first time now as

0:15

well. Here in the WAN Show document,

0:17

but I figured, hey, it's a good title

0:20

for the video. So let's lean into

0:22

it and hopefully a short king is not

0:24

something really insulting. I don't think it

0:26

is. In other news this week,

0:28

Microsoft and Google has

0:30

laid off thousands of workers

0:33

again, which is

0:35

kind of terrifying. It's like five percent of

0:37

Microsoft's workforce or something. Big

0:40

building deal. AI art generators

0:42

face first two major

0:45

copyright lawsuits. And from

0:47

a party that you might not be too surprised

0:49

to be involved. Also, US farmers win

0:52

right to repair farm equipment while

0:54

Samsung undermines independent screen repair

0:56

at the same time. Oh,

0:59

and there's one more thing before I roll the intro.

1:01

We have got a not

1:03

just producer, like Dan the producer,

1:06

but not the bad news for the land

1:08

show, but we've got someone whose

1:10

entire full time job is to make the WAN

1:12

Show better. And this may be yeah. I know.

1:14

Right? I was gonna say this may be the first

1:16

dirt hearing of it. Yeah. But

1:19

she just started, and so she's still in

1:21

her probation. So I guess I should not

1:23

have disclosed anything about this individual.

1:26

Because you never know how things will

1:28

go. But any rate, it

1:31

means we are going to have things like

1:33

fun new segments. Meet

1:36

the wheel of pain. Hey.

1:38

So, yeah, I can't read

1:40

it. Don't worry too much about it for now. We

1:42

will deal with the wheel of pain later. For now I so

1:44

at this point in time, I literally

1:46

know less about that than any of you

1:48

do because I couldn't read that I

1:51

have no idea what it is. I've been told

1:53

I'm not allowed to read a certain part of the dock. All

1:55

I know is there's a wheel and it's of

1:57

pain. It's of pain. Yeah. No. No.

2:00

Okay. Try again. The wheel of pain.

2:02

No. No. No. No. The wheel of pain. Pain.

2:04

Much better. Got it. Alright. Oh,

2:28

oh, wow. That was weird. The shows brought to you

2:30

today by Vessey, audible and

2:32

one that kinda glitched out a little

2:34

bit there. forum. The forum. Oh,

2:36

yeah. That's gonna be an interesting one to talk

2:38

about and show you. Why don't

2:40

we jump right into our first topic of

2:42

the week? I know this is not exactly a tech

2:44

topic, but it peaked

2:46

my curiosity, Smosh.

2:49

The once popular oh, that's editorializing

2:52

a little bit. Oh, that's not what it said. the

2:54

most popular channel on YouTube -- Okay.

2:56

Yeah. Bade a video called They

2:58

said they're doing really wrong. Short kings

3:00

rank short kings on

3:03

their sister channel smash pit.

3:05

Spencer, one of the rankers called

3:07

Blindness, the gold standard for

3:10

tech youtubers. Oh, Okay. So here,

3:12

hold on a second. So I'm I'm gonna bring

3:14

this up. Am I able to screen share with the with the

3:16

stream? Is that is that a thing that it works

3:18

now? Okay. Let's go.

3:20

Here we go. I think it's clean. This is Spencer

3:22

Agnew. Right? I think, I believe.

3:24

Okay. Here we go. I was in a kick

3:26

there for a long time where I was watching a bunch of smosh

3:29

content. Here we go. Hey. Line is tech tips.

3:31

Yeah. Yeah. See you. Here we go.

3:33

Five six. Yes. That is true.

3:36

Is it? Yes.

3:38

Yes. That is true. Come on. I'm not gonna

3:40

lie about it. Are you do you get asked

3:42

here? Does he give you an estimate here?

3:44

I think he's great. He's funny. Oh,

3:46

that's he's niche. That's

3:48

He's really true. That's true. That's true. That's true. That's true. That's true. That's true. That's your

3:50

niche. Okay. They'd

3:53

be like, what the stop. Let's let's

3:55

put him in. Let's put him in.

3:57

Let's throw him ABI don't know if b

3:59

makes you a k. Hold on a second. Hold on a second.

4:01

Wait a second. Wait a second. Was that Tom

4:04

Holland's next to me on in on B

4:06

show, though? Oh, okay. Because I I

4:08

didn't feel bad at that point. Hold on.

4:10

Hold on. Who else be looking at here? Hold

4:13

on. That's Markiplier. That's

4:16

Tom Holland. Alright. Alright. Okay.

4:18

You're doing pretty good. Alright. So that's a that's a

4:20

strong b. That's a strong b. A

4:22

strong b. What the

4:24

hell makes you an a on this

4:26

list? It's gotta be

4:28

pretty intense, I think. Wow. What's

4:30

an what's an a? Who's an a

4:32

tier king? Hold on a second here.

4:35

K. Let's just wait till they zoom in on the

4:37

thing, jump in the end. Yeah. Yeah. I want I want

4:39

I just wanna see that board. Stop.

4:41

Show me the board. I wanna see the board. Where's

4:43

the board at? Oh my god.

4:45

It is hard to find because it's quite short.

4:48

You piece of shit.

4:51

You know,

4:56

you're not allowed to make those jokes. You know

4:58

that's how that works. Right? Got

5:03

him. Oh, see, that's real insecure.

5:06

Spencer here with the half inch.

5:08

Okay. But for my metric friends out

5:10

there, A half inch is not a

5:12

lot. It's it's

5:14

not worth it. It's not it's not worth

5:16

it. It makes you seem insecure. If

5:18

you have to put the half inch in, I

5:24

wouldn't recommend it. Okay.

5:29

Can they can they show Wanna

5:31

zoom in on the board? Oh,

5:33

my god. There's a tier above a, though.

5:35

There's s tier. They don't zoom into

5:37

the board. I

5:40

can zoom myself. Danny DeVito.

5:42

Danny DeVito? Wait. King

5:45

little? That's a fictional

5:48

character. K.

5:50

I don't recognize any of these other people. It's a little

5:52

blurry. K. Who's my a tier? Some

5:56

soccer player mega man's in there?

5:59

Okay? What is this Jesus

6:01

with a trimmed beard? Okay. I

6:03

don't know who any of these people are. You know

6:05

what? I am I'm

6:07

pretty happy. I got Elmer Fudd

6:09

up in here. B too looks

6:11

strong. Yeah. B too, legitimately looks strong.

6:13

B tier seems like honestly,

6:15

I feel like the a and the s tier, they were

6:17

mostly just memeing except Danny DeVito, who

6:19

is amazing. Yes. And and

6:21

B tier is like, kinda where the solid

6:23

shortcut Seriously, Jack Black was an s tier?

6:25

No. Jack Black was an s tier. I mean alright.messy

6:28

is up there. I don't someone said lost

6:30

to Messi, but they didn't say if it was a

6:32

or s. But either way.

6:34

Alright. Yeah. That's fine. I'm happy with it. Lord

6:37

Farfetch. Why do you beat Tom Cruise? I beat

6:39

Tom Cruise. That's pretty good.

6:41

I mean -- That's pretty good. --

6:43

sort of. It's a strong beat. It really depends

6:45

on how you're ranking Tom Cruise. That's

6:47

true. If you rank Tom Cruise as a successful

6:49

movie producer, then

6:51

he probably belongs in Ester.

6:53

Yeah. If you rank Tom Cruise as

6:56

also Ester. As a runner. Yep.

6:58

Yeah. I mean, I've seen him run on a broken ankle.

7:00

For real though, like, he, like, broke

7:02

his ankle doing a stunt and then

7:04

just kept running, which is, like,

7:07

he's actually extremely good at running, like,

7:09

genuinely. Yeah. But if you

7:11

rank Tom Cruise as an individual

7:13

with both hinges attached to the wall.

7:17

Sometimes when you're extremely

7:20

excessively good at

7:21

something, other things kind of

7:23

fall off a little bit. I mean, that's one way

7:25

of talking about it. Either

7:28

way, I'm I'm happy with my b tier

7:30

ranking and we can move on now.

7:33

Maybe we'll get all the space here. In

7:35

worse news, Microsoft

7:37

and Google have laid off thousands

7:40

of workers. And this is not

7:43

No. This is not deja vu. You are not

7:45

watching an old land show from a

7:47

few weeks ago. This is like

7:49

this is like again. This is still

7:51

happening in the tech sector. Is

7:53

shedding workers like there is absolutely

7:56

no tomorrow. Microsoft

7:58

announced it is cutting ten thousand jobs.

8:00

That's nearly five percent of its workers.

8:03

These stated reasons include changes

8:05

in consumer preferences and

8:09

macroeconomic conditions While

8:12

Microsoft is cutting jobs in some areas though, they

8:14

are actually still hiring and others

8:16

notably in the AI department. I

8:18

mean, we've talked about this a fair bit over

8:20

the last couple of months. But GPT3,

8:23

the upcoming GPT4,

8:25

Microsoft's major investment in OpenAI

8:28

seems to indicate that they are

8:31

laser focused on

8:33

what chatbots mean for their

8:35

future business, whether it's Azure,

8:38

Whether it's Bing, whether it's

8:40

Windows, I think we're gonna see

8:42

extremely deep integration.

8:43

All the stuff that that Microsoft has

8:46

openly shown that they care about on the

8:48

consumer side of things for the last very

8:50

long time. Cortana, Bing,

8:53

other things like Would be

8:55

aided very heavily by

8:57

the popular thing in AI right now, which is

8:59

large language models. So

9:01

improve versions of that. Would be

9:03

extremely valuable to Microsoft. That makes sense.

9:05

Interestingly, Microsoft announced the layoffs

9:07

on January eighteenth, one

9:09

year to the day after they

9:11

announced their plans to acquire Activision

9:13

Blizzard for sixty nine billion

9:15

dollars. And one week

9:17

after reports indicated the company plans to

9:19

invest ten billion in

9:22

OpenAI. So they

9:24

have money. Interesting. They have just

9:26

chosen not to spend it

9:28

on retaining

9:30

workers. So I I don't have notes

9:32

for this, so I'm gonna say things that are wrong. I'm

9:34

just prefacing it nice. Like that. We

9:36

like you better last week. That's

9:39

what I just couldn't talk. At least you didn't say

9:41

anything inaccurate. As

9:44

far as I know, once Open

9:47

AI makes enough money that they can pay

9:49

back whatever. Like the

9:51

Microsoft's investment, you mean? Yeah. The, like,

9:53

shares are gone and everything kind of reverts

9:55

back to being owned and

9:57

operated under OpenAI. So I

9:59

wonder if this ten billion dollar investment

10:02

is to try to stave that off.

10:05

0II actually III

10:07

have no way I have no clue. The terms

10:09

of No clue. I don't remember what the

10:11

terms were blah blah blah blah. But I feel

10:13

like this might be kind of like a defensive

10:15

maneuver because they see them potentially

10:17

doing too well too fast.

10:19

They need to up their investment potentially. I don't know.

10:22

Maybe. I know nothing. Moving

10:24

on. Meanwhile, Google is

10:26

cutting twelve thousand employees

10:28

or around six percent of its

10:30

workforce. Google's CEO

10:32

stated that following two years of dramatic

10:34

growth, Google hired for a

10:36

different economic reality than the one they

10:38

are currently facing. Over the course

10:40

of the pandemic, Google's workforce increased

10:43

by seventy eight thousand

10:44

jobs. I

10:47

mean, that's

10:49

so much. I don't know,

10:51

man. See, this is the thing that's so frustrating

10:53

to me, is when

10:55

management gets it right, management

10:58

benefits. And when management

11:00

gets it wrong,

11:02

at most

11:04

companies, the employees get

11:06

hit. Yeah. So, I mean, we've talked a

11:08

lot about sustainable

11:11

hiring. IIII think

11:13

I've talked about this on land show before,

11:15

but basic the way that

11:17

Yvonne and I forecast when we

11:19

sit down and we set a budget for hiring

11:22

is we look at the previous

11:24

year and basically go,

11:26

okay, assuming

11:28

no growth whatsoever

11:31

next year based on that

11:33

year. So we we we basically build

11:35

in that we could revert back

11:37

to last year's performance and

11:39

not grow at all. Can we

11:41

afford whatever it is that

11:43

we're hiring for this year

11:45

is was that clear?

11:47

So our hiring budget for this

11:49

year is affected by how we

11:51

performed last year and assuming that the

11:53

following year will be like that.

11:55

What has actually happened is

11:57

for Eight out of

11:59

our ten years. We have

12:02

experienced significant growth.

12:04

For two out of our ten years, we've had what

12:06

we've kind of called reinvestment years.

12:09

And that's a big part of the reason

12:11

that we take that approach is because it

12:13

gives us the flexibility to

12:15

have a reinvestment year

12:17

where we can make long term investments

12:20

that might not pay off for two

12:22

years or or three years. I'm

12:24

expecting this year that we're in right now to

12:26

be what we would call a

12:28

reinvestment year. I'm not

12:30

expecting well, actually, we're forecasting less

12:33

profit this year than last

12:35

year. For

12:39

any l, line of media group,

12:41

float plane, or a creative warehouse, employees

12:44

who are watching. That's okay. Yeah. Yeah.

12:46

It will pay off in twenty twenty

12:48

four. It'll be fine. Everything's good. And

12:51

and if it didn't, we'd still be able

12:53

to afford it because it's all kinda based on how

12:55

last year went. Anywho I

12:58

don't know. It's it's frustrating to me because

13:00

this feels like such a management

13:03

failure and yet I pretty

13:05

much promise that Google's

13:07

stock went up this

13:07

week. Like, here, I don't actually

13:10

know. I don't actually know. Response

13:12

stock does go up in these situations. Do

13:14

I have Google on my thing? Oh, no.

13:17

Oh, wait. Yes. Google

13:19

stock is up like five percent today.

13:22

Genius. Investors

13:25

like it when a bunch of people get fired. Yeah.

13:28

Which I I

13:31

don't know. Here's here's an alternate way

13:33

of looking at it. Should investors

13:35

like it when management is

13:37

so incompetent that they accidentally

13:39

hire twelve thousand

13:41

too many people that

13:44

they then can't afford

13:46

to pay and presumably

13:49

whose projects, whatever it is that they're working

13:51

on are now stalled. Like,

13:53

I I just I don't understand

13:55

this way of thinking, and it's

13:57

it's frustrating. Yeah.

13:59

Ben Mitchell and Flow Plain Chat says

14:01

Google stock went up five percent when they fired

14:03

five percent of their employees. Maybe.

14:07

If they want the stock to go up a hundred

14:09

percent. Just fire everybody.

14:12

Including Cook. Okay. I'm gonna buy some Google real

14:14

quick here. On

14:17

that, excuse me. On that subject, I

14:19

actually have some more details to

14:21

share on my next investment

14:23

that is now final. The

14:26

wire has gone through. They

14:28

have effectively deposited the

14:30

funds. They've cashed the check. I'll tell you

14:32

guys a little bit more about it. But first,

14:34

Let's talk through the rest of this Google stuff. So

14:36

affected employees from Google will receive

14:38

sixty days of pay, followed by at

14:40

least sixteen weeks of severance.

14:43

mean, you gotta at least give them credit

14:44

there. That is a pretty decent

14:47

severance package. Like, if I had

14:48

Sixteen weeks of severance is,

14:51

like, Yeah, if I had six months to kind of

14:53

figure out what I'm gonna do next,

14:55

if I receive sixty

14:58

days pay followed by at least

15:00

sixteen weeks severance. What's the difference

15:02

here? I'm not sure. I'm sure there's some

15:04

distinction, like, legally. But

15:07

like Microsoft, Google's AI department

15:10

is unaffected, and the

15:12

speculation here is likely because

15:14

of the threat that ChatGPD poses to Google's

15:16

done this, honestly. Asking

15:18

ChatGPT things is

15:20

so much better than Googling them.

15:22

You do have to I

15:25

know you know this. I know it's an old

15:27

dataset, old dataset. It's an old dataset, and

15:29

you have to remember that it will confidently

15:31

be wrong. So you have

15:33

to keep your mind about you, but

15:35

it it is Oh, yeah.

15:37

Google search results can be confidently

15:39

wrong too. Absolutely. That's the thing.

15:41

Yeah. Here's the challenge though. I've read a

15:43

really interesting article a while back.

15:45

I really I wish I had it in front of me so I could

15:47

give you guys a more

15:49

accurate summary of it. But essentially, it

15:51

made the argument that voice assistance

15:54

as we know them are doomed.

15:56

They're going away. The the

15:58

model was supposed to be that by

16:00

collecting all of this information,

16:02

building these natural language models, and

16:05

making these voice assistance ubiquitous in

16:07

our lives, either in the

16:09

phones in our pockets or

16:11

in the smart speakers in our kitchens or

16:13

wherever else they happen to be found in our

16:15

TVs, they would

16:17

somehow start to sell us

16:19

things. And therefore generate a value

16:21

to advertisers, generating a value to the

16:23

companies who have built them. As far

16:25

as anyone can tell, Cortana's

16:28

gone Alexa

16:30

seems to be losing copious

16:32

amounts of money. The whole

16:34

experiment has fundamentally

16:37

failed. And what I

16:39

wonder is, was

16:41

the problem that they weren't good enough?

16:44

Yes. That was part of

16:46

it, at least part of it. Yeah. They

16:48

are fairly crap. Or

16:52

was the problem that

16:54

people will simply not

16:56

interact with someone who is

16:58

constantly trying to sell them something.

17:00

So what I'm trying to say

17:02

is Is Chat GPT

17:05

going to only

17:07

be a viable alternative to

17:09

Google searching until

17:11

it starts trying to sell us

17:13

crap. And if it's a paid service If

17:15

it can't successfully sell us crap,

17:18

then will it ultimately just

17:21

not find a way of being

17:23

commercialized. Because, like, if you

17:25

think about it, I

17:27

don't mind looking up

17:29

information by myself

17:31

and being bombarded with ads. It's just

17:33

kind of part of the process, whether I

17:35

am seeking out information in

17:38

a newspaper TV or or on a

17:40

webpage. But and

17:43

maybe I'm maybe I'm outing myself

17:45

as a bit of an introvert

17:47

here. If I to communicate

17:49

with someone and be

17:51

sold something, I like

17:54

I I would rather just buy nothing

17:56

and walk away. Like, like, there's

17:59

certain types of purchase experiences

18:01

that I I just like,

18:03

I dread them. Like

18:06

I I was I was thinking, hey, I

18:08

have not adorned

18:11

my wife with any precious

18:13

metals or jewels in

18:16

solid seven to eight

18:18

years. Maybe we're due.

18:21

I should probably take her jewelry shopping.

18:24

And I just met. You ever gone, like, jewelry shopping?

18:26

The mall? They're, like,

18:29

they're they're they're, like,

18:31

hyenas. I hate it. They're

18:33

so aggressive. Yeah. You you tell

18:35

them, no, I'm I'm just browsing for now. Like,

18:37

I'll even my body language

18:39

is completely closed. I

18:42

I will preemptively, before they

18:44

even get a chance to inhale, to

18:46

open their mouths and start talking to me, I'll

18:48

say, I'm just browsing for now. Thank you.

18:51

And they hover. They

18:53

hover. They're practically breathing down

18:55

your neck. And and it drives me crazy

18:58

because And maybe I'm about

19:00

to prove myself wrong. Right?

19:02

It drives me crazy because they wouldn't do

19:04

it if it didn't work on somebody. Oh,

19:06

yeah. But if if if

19:09

the more natural you make

19:11

the interaction for me with

19:13

this chatbot or with this voice

19:15

assistant or whatever it

19:17

is, I feel like the more personally

19:21

offended or bothered or attacked or whatever the

19:23

word is. The more personally anxious

19:26

I'm gonna be when they try to sell

19:28

me something ultimately. Does that

19:31

does that make sense or am I way off

19:33

base here? No. That makes sense.

19:35

I just I think and

19:37

I'm I'm probably going to be

19:39

wrong, and they're probably gonna go with a different

19:41

model, and that will be

19:43

super bad. But I'm really hoping they

19:45

go for a prosumer type

19:48

of approach and

19:50

charge for it. Not

19:53

if it's Microsoft, I

19:55

mean Microsoft doesn't even charge for Windows

19:58

anymore, essentially. Yeah. Like,

20:01

what even what even is

20:03

Microsoft's business is pretty clear they're

20:05

they're chasing

20:05

that. I mean, why else would they

20:08

have kept beating this dead

20:10

Bing horse? Yeah. It it's

20:12

gotta be an advertising model.

20:14

I mean, obviously, they're they're

20:16

certainly open to to

20:18

software as service. I mean, we we see that

20:20

with Game Pass, but, like, again,

20:24

back to what the

20:26

best way to monetize

20:29

something that interacts out of curiosity.

20:30

Like, if there was, like, a YouTube

20:33

premium chat GPT or a

20:35

YouTube premium being powered by

20:37

chat GPT, whatever, I would

20:39

pay for that. Like, being premium. Yeah. They

20:41

they won't be, though. Because they would

20:43

they they you don't want your brand

20:45

to be sullied by the crappy version. I mean,

20:47

Microsoft learned this back in the day with Windows

20:49

two thousand and Windows MEI

20:53

mean, what they look at the why are we

20:55

maintaining a good kernel?

20:58

It kernel. Why don't we just

21:00

have one good kernel?

21:02

Yeah. There

21:04

was a thread on Twitter where people were

21:06

talking about, like, what they would pay

21:10

for chat GPT powered

21:12

by PT four point o, whatever. Sure.

21:16

And that you and I both know

21:18

that that type of interaction is

21:20

always useless trash.

21:22

Because all the people talking are like, oh, pay whatever and

21:24

then it comes time to do it and they

21:26

don't. Pulling your actual credit card out of

21:28

your actual wallet is much higher

21:31

friction than talking about how you're like,

21:33

spend money on the Internet.

21:34

Yeah. Yeah. It like never means

21:37

anything. It's completely useless.

21:40

Conversation. But I was a little bit

21:42

surprised knowing all

21:43

of that. How many

21:46

people were enthusiastically wanting

21:48

to line up to pay for it.

21:50

And I think if they made

21:52

it a I don't even

21:54

know if it's prosumer. Potentially just

21:56

straight up professional application.

21:59

I think they can make a lot of money from

22:00

businesses. Because businesses

22:03

I think would like

22:05

powerful four

22:08

point o powered chat GPT

22:12

reinforced employees. And

22:15

you can you look at how much these

22:18

platforms are charging companies for

22:20

such basic crap. Yeah.

22:22

But it's worth it for the company so they just pay it

22:24

anyways. Yeah. Like the bill for

22:26

Teams. Yeah. Enormous.

22:31

Yeah. But it's like,

22:32

worldwide, are we gonna not have, like,

22:35

guests will pay for it? Like,

22:37

enter int intra company communication? Are we just

22:39

gonna not have that, I guess? It's it's

22:41

text chat. When text chat

22:43

was free, like, twenty

22:46

years ago. I know.

22:48

But we pay out the nose.

22:50

Like, it's really expensive. Yes, sir.

22:52

I know how

22:53

much it is. It

22:56

just drives me Thank you. It's it's

22:58

crazy to me. Don't forget. We also pay for

23:00

g Suite. And then it's And it will be sweet

23:03

and Slack. And everything else.

23:06

Yeah. It's it's and

23:08

they're they're they're

23:10

really expensive. So if you're advertising

23:12

out, that was actually powerful and

23:14

wasn't literally a text chat

23:16

that barely works. Yeah.

23:18

I think people would pay a lot for it as a company,

23:21

maybe not so much

23:23

as a person. I don't know.

23:25

Yeah.

23:25

I mean, there's because it it's

23:28

all it's kinda like how

23:30

we talked about the issue with real estate.

23:33

Where when people are buying it to live

23:35

in it, the calculus is very different

23:37

compared to when people are buying it

23:39

based on and pricing it based

23:41

on how much money they can make

23:43

from it. Like, from my point of view, when I

23:45

look at the cost of something, I'm looking at

23:47

it in terms of how

23:49

much time which equals money

23:51

it saves. So I was

23:53

talking to Dan actually before the

23:55

show, and I was saying hey,

23:59

Dan, merch messages. Like,

24:01

wouldn't it be cool if

24:03

when merch messages come in? Okay. So

24:05

when people ask a question or something like that

24:07

down here. When you guys see a

24:09

response that is almost always from Dan.

24:11

Occasionally, I reply to them. Do you ever reply

24:13

to them? To what? Sorry? messages. They're like the text

24:15

reply. Okay. So occasionally, I reply to them. I didn't know

24:17

you did. Yeah. Here's a reply. There's a reply

24:19

right there. Usually, that's

24:21

handled by Dan and he

24:23

replies to people just from hearing us talk on

24:25

the Rancho because he's like always here, or

24:27

just from things he knows internally, he'll try

24:29

to answer your questions as best you can.

24:32

And I was telling Dan, I was like, hey, a,

24:34

it would save you a ton of time

24:36

and b, I think it

24:38

would help you filter Which

24:41

ones have been addressed before versus

24:43

which ones we've talked about? Or

24:45

which ones we haven't talked about? If

24:47

you could just take the transcript

24:49

of every WAN show,

24:51

dump it into a chat

24:53

GPT prompt, and

24:55

then say, based on this

24:57

library of information. What's

25:00

the answer to this? You do a quick

25:02

sanity check and then you just paste

25:04

it in. It's like,

25:06

Oh. You can do that.

25:08

I know. Well, I know you can't. Yeah.

25:11

But how much will it cost? Right?

25:14

Yeah. Right now -- We don't. No. -- right

25:16

now nothing, but it's it's in

25:18

a testing phase. Yeah. They've

25:20

been very open about the fact that it's just in a

25:22

testing phase. Yeah. But But and look

25:24

like for that integration? Like, will there be

25:26

will there be API access so that

25:28

the merch messages dashboard? Will

25:31

properly integrate with

25:33

that. So people's questions could come

25:35

in automatically run

25:37

through this process and then our dashboard could

25:39

be updated so that Dan

25:42

only has to see their original

25:44

message and the suggested

25:45

output. So there's

25:48

two things. One of those -- Sure. -- a bunch of people

25:50

in chat were like, won't you guys just run IRC?

25:52

It's not the point. It's not

25:55

the point. It's not the point. It's

25:57

not the point. I don't even explain

25:59

the point. It's just not the point. And

26:03

two, something that I think is gonna be a

26:05

really interesting reckoning -- Yeah. --

26:07

is whenever ChatGPT's model

26:10

changes, And these tools that

26:12

people are

26:12

building, that are based on

26:14

it, now have to react

26:17

to the model change. That's gonna

26:19

be interesting. I know people that have

26:21

sold tools built on chat GPT for

26:23

ten k plus to

26:25

companies that are trying to buy these tools

26:27

that are chat GPT powered. And

26:29

they don't seem to understand that it's just

26:31

in a testing phase and it's

26:33

gonna change a lot. When it happen eventually,

26:36

they're gonna commercialize it some way eventually,

26:39

like soon. Yeah. It

26:41

seems strange. There are people making

26:43

customer support bots. For

26:46

commercial pages right

26:49

now based on chat GPT, which

26:51

like yeah. Right now,

26:53

honestly, it probably works pretty good. Yeah. But when it

26:55

costs you ten cents message

26:57

or whatever that Well, you just have

26:59

no idea. Yeah. We have no

27:02

clue. No clue. They

27:03

might just yoke it. Right. Yeah.

27:05

Then

27:05

we might just say, hey. Testing phase is

27:08

over. Yeah. That's too many calls. Yeah.

27:10

Don't worry that. Yeah. You'll get it. Like

27:13

I don't know. I would I

27:15

wouldn't wanna do that right now. That's

27:17

that's that's all I'm I'm saying.

27:20

But there's some there's some, like, pretty

27:23

big, like, core feature infrastructure that

27:25

is being put on on

27:28

on chat EPT, which is interesting.

27:34

Okay. Speaking of of

27:36

people missing the point sometimes, I

27:38

have an update on that thing

27:40

that I said and then reversed

27:42

course on. And now I'm just

27:44

like, I don't know what to do. Okay. You

27:46

know how I said I was just gonna start gonna block

27:48

it. I was gonna just start shadow banning

27:51

people who were just, like, made

27:53

my brain

27:54

hurt. And then the next week, I was like, you know what?

27:56

I shadow band, like, five people.

27:58

And then I was like, no, this is this is not

28:01

this isn't helping anything anyway.

28:03

It's gonna do nothing for improving the

28:05

quality of discourse because it's an endless

28:07

sea of of bad takes or or whatever

28:09

else. And and I don't wanna create

28:11

an environment where people feel like

28:14

by by expressing their

28:16

thoughts, they could, you know, end up

28:18

shadow band, which is, like, sucky.

28:20

Right? Like, that's never really been

28:22

our approach community feedback. Never been the girl. Yeah. But

28:24

you can you can find a nugget of

28:26

gold in a mountain of

28:29

poo. And that's that's always

28:31

kind of been my philosophy about it. So I guess

28:33

I better keep all the poo so

28:35

that there's a chance I'll find some

28:37

gold. Then the next day, I

28:39

read this. So this is

28:41

on our forty seventy TI

28:44

review, linus. Dyson

28:46

made everyone post a review at the same time.

28:48

We don't work with them anymore and we don't condone

28:50

this behavior. Also, linus,

28:53

when a new computer part launches,

28:55

Yes, corporate daddy will post at the same time as

28:58

everyone. Why don't I just

29:00

shadow ban that person? Why

29:02

not? A, that first thing never

29:05

happened. We worked with Tyson

29:07

after

29:07

that. The part that was around We

29:09

just thought it was kinda

29:11

stupid. Yeah. The part that was bad was that

29:13

without telling everybody that

29:15

everyone else would be posting these vacuum

29:17

cleaner videos at exactly the same

29:20

time, they had, like,

29:22

an embargo lift on sponsored

29:24

vacuum cleaner videos, and it was it

29:26

was a

29:26

fiasco. I bought back. Yeah.

29:29

It was but

29:31

I never said we wouldn't work

29:33

with them anymore. And I never said we

29:36

don't condone a

29:38

coordinated product launch.

29:42

Also, linus when a new computer part

29:44

launches no. It's not, yes, corporate

29:46

daddy will post at the same time as

29:48

everyone. It's yes viewer.

29:50

We understand that once the news

29:52

cycle is over, you're not going to

29:54

watch it. Like a perfect example of this

29:56

is we pushed back

29:58

on separate NDA lifts for unboxings

30:00

-- Yeah. Yeah. -- hard

30:02

when that started to materialize. I think one

30:04

of the first to do it in the

30:06

IT space was

30:07

Nvidia. And I'm

30:10

so super I already knew that, but like Yeah. It won't be

30:12

surprising to anybody. Yeah. You were you were

30:14

there. You were literally there. there

30:16

was like this separate unboxing embargo

30:18

that who was at Paul I think

30:21

technically didn't break because

30:24

the card was just there and

30:26

open and not in a box or

30:28

whatever. Was that how it went down? There's something about

30:30

It was either Paul or Kyle. It was one of them. I don't

30:32

know. But the point is that

30:34

we push back hard on

30:36

these on these separate NDAs and

30:39

separate embargo dates for unboxings

30:42

compared to full reviews. Now,

30:45

I still don't mind that

30:47

as much as long as the

30:49

embargo lift. For the full

30:51

review is at the same time as sales availability.

30:54

That's fine because that means before you're

30:56

taking people's money, they

30:58

will have an opportunity to see the product properly evaluated. But

31:02

I do think that

31:04

a separate NDA lift for

31:07

unboxings. So, I mean, we're we're

31:09

up to like three NDAs for our product

31:11

launch at this point. There's the announcement

31:14

embargo. There's the unboxing

31:16

embargo, and then there's the review

31:18

embargo. And then sometimes they'll try

31:20

and sneak another one in there like like

31:22

a preview. Umbargo where you can run

31:24

specific titles or or whatever

31:26

else. And it's gotten kind of

31:28

ridiculous, but you guys have to understand

31:30

why they're doing it. It's because

31:32

they are leveraging the the

31:34

short attention span or really

31:36

the shortness of the news cycle

31:40

to great effect. And

31:42

this this is one of those

31:44

things that I just

31:45

I I don't know what you guys want me to do

31:48

because I don't like it. But you guys are

31:50

ultimately the ones who create this

31:52

game that I'm playing. I see a lot of

31:54

people blame the algorithm. Okay?

31:58

For clickable titles

32:00

and

32:00

thumbnails. Right? Or for the The

32:03

problem just reacts to people. Or

32:05

the proliferation of of garbage content on

32:07

YouTube. We, the people, are the reason why

32:09

micro transactions are so

32:11

incredibly smart to

32:14

put in your game. All the

32:16

algorithm is. And this was this was such a

32:18

great conversation. Well, multiple conversations

32:20

because I was very resistant to it at first,

32:22

but One of one of my favorite

32:25

contacts at YouTube, Head

32:27

of Search and Discovery, basically,

32:29

has drilled into me. And and

32:32

he's right. Every

32:35

time you open your mouth to

32:37

say something something algorithm

32:39

something something something something try

32:41

replacing algorithm with the word audience and

32:44

you will find a much more

32:47

you will find a much more accurate

32:50

understanding of what exactly is going on.

32:52

So so this is this is what ultimately

32:54

bothered me. For

32:57

the launch of the seven thousand nine hundred

32:59

XT and seven thousand nine hundred

33:01

XTX. AMD played

33:03

the game. They had two separate

33:06

embargos, one for unboxing or well three. Right?

33:08

Announcement, unboxing, and then the full

33:10

review. The unboxing video,

33:12

which I'm not gonna pretend

33:14

that it's anything other than what

33:16

it

33:16

is. It's it's low effort content.

33:20

Right? I've got this box

33:22

I open it. There's

33:25

some specs. Right?

33:27

Yeah. I give some thoughts on

33:30

it, but if I have measured the performance of it,

33:32

I'm not allowed to tell you,

33:34

right? We can

33:36

extrapolate. I feel like we added a little bit of

33:38

value to some of our our pre

33:40

review coverage of the seven thousand nine hundred

33:42

series by, you know,

33:44

taking what AMD had provided,

33:46

recreating that bench as closely as

33:48

we could, and then and

33:50

then extrapolating, you know, how

33:52

we would expect it to perform against the competition

33:54

when AMD wasn't disclosing that. Like, we

33:56

did everything we could with it. But

33:59

at the end of the day, that's

34:01

pretty shallow content. That

34:04

video ended up with one point

34:06

nine million views took a

34:08

grand total of about an

34:10

hour of prep time for someone to just

34:12

kind of put together a spec

34:14

list and you know,

34:16

grab some cards, some

34:18

relevant comparison cards off the shelf for

34:20

me. Then

34:22

about another forty minutes of me sitting down in front of a

34:24

camera. That's

34:26

it. That is the the grand total

34:28

time we spent on it. Okay.

34:32

Then our full review. And, you know, we gotta

34:34

remember too that both of these are

34:36

are with us throwing the the

34:39

full power of our you

34:41

know, our wonderful thumbnail artist,

34:44

Maria, and all the expertise we have

34:46

internally in terms of of

34:48

titling videos and you know, trying

34:50

to create catchy intros and all that

34:52

kind of stuff. Our full

34:54

review ended up with a

34:56

whopping one point nine

34:58

million views. Now, that

35:00

doesn't sound like a problem.

35:02

Right? Okay. So the

35:04

unboxing in the review ended up with similar

35:06

view counts except for a a

35:08

couple of things. Number one

35:10

is that that review

35:12

is in

35:14

in my humble opinion, the second best

35:16

GPU review we've ever done,

35:18

followed only by the forty seventy t

35:20

I, and that's only because it came a little bit later

35:22

once we'd had once we our

35:24

workflow settled in a little bit

35:26

better. And number

35:29

two, it's on

35:31

a way bigger channel. Like,

35:33

way bigger. And I'm

35:36

just I don't know, man.

35:38

I'm I feel like I'm rambling a little bit now at

35:40

this point. I'm just I'm kind of bothered by how

35:42

many people look at that short circuit video,

35:44

which we never call a review, we

35:48

never we never put a review in the

35:50

description. I never say review in the the number of people that think it's a review.

35:52

And just the appetite

35:55

for for deeper more

35:58

analytical content is

36:01

is just not

36:03

there compared to

36:06

just this this this this surface level surface

36:09

level content. So

36:14

how did I

36:14

how did I arrive here? Don't remember

36:17

talking about the comment and

36:19

how you wanted to remove

36:21

it because it's annoying. Yeah. Okay. It's

36:23

just bad faith arguments

36:23

like that. It's really frustrating.

36:26

Yeah. There

36:28

you go.

36:32

Well, I mean

36:35

-- No. -- I

36:36

think it's like you're you're

36:37

screwed if you do any screwed

36:39

if you don't. Yeah. Because, I mean, there's no you

36:41

know, unless I were to unless I were to publish some kind

36:44

of, you know, official,

36:46

like, you

36:48

know, policy. Like like a like a

36:50

code of conduct by which I decide to, you know, if someone is shadow bound

36:52

or not. Like, I I read a particularly frustrating

36:54

thread on the forum either

36:58

today or yesterday, where there there

37:00

were a number of people making again, these

37:02

just extraordinarily bad faith

37:04

arguments. In this case, it was about the screwdriver in

37:06

the backpack. And one

37:08

in particular wrote this wall

37:10

of text about this long

37:13

after someone challenged them. Because what

37:15

they said before was I could go on AliExpress and get

37:17

that screwdriver in that backpack for a fraction

37:19

of the price.

37:22

The cost on that screwdriver is, like, this

37:24

low. And someone was, like, okay,

37:26

then do do it. Show me.

37:29

And they wrote this wall of text. I'm not gonna

37:32

bother because it's not worth my time, but

37:34

here's all the knowledge

37:36

I have about how that that

37:38

So I replied, I was just like, I will give you

37:41

ten grand. I will give you ten thousand dollars if you can

37:43

do that. It's worth your time now. It's

37:45

worth your time now. It's

37:48

just on AliExpress. Where's your excuse?

37:51

Yeah. And it's just, like,

37:56

I don't know how to

37:58

I don't know how to have a conversation

38:00

when the person on

38:03

the other side of table is is not

38:05

capable of existing in the same plane of reality

38:07

that I'm in. You know,

38:10

they say, I can get that

38:12

screwdriver for ten dollars and I

38:14

say, you cannot.

38:16

Would you like to reevaluate your position?

38:19

No. Thank you. And

38:24

I don't know how I don't know how to deal with that.

38:27

You know? Yeah. It's

38:30

like, what what do you want from me? Do you need my

38:32

invoices from Megapro, from

38:35

pH molds -- Mhmm. --

38:37

from ITD Tool and Die? Do

38:40

you do you like,

38:42

we're we're pretty transparent, actually.

38:45

Someone's asking if they

38:47

can enter the

38:48

contest. You can't do it. Go for it. You can't whole

38:50

point. There is no there

38:52

is no AliExpress vendor.

38:56

Those handles our our

38:58

our injection molded in Pitt

39:00

Meadows or, excuse me,

39:02

Maple Ridge, British Columbia. Like,

39:06

you can't. It just doesn't work that

39:07

way. What a thing?

39:08

You're missing the point, my

39:10

dude. And it's, like, it's one of

39:12

those things where, you know, you

39:14

were willing to open your eyes and open your mind,

39:17

you would know. I mean, we have

39:19

footage of me in

39:22

the injection molding facility,

39:24

hand building screwdrivers. Here,

39:28

you know,

39:30

It was I I

39:32

can't. So So Yeah. Go

39:34

ahead. No. I keep going. I

39:37

was trying to derail if you have

39:39

more assistance. No. I mean, no, it's great. I mean, honestly, like, obviously, you

39:41

guys are you guys are the Wancho audience. You guys you

39:43

guys get it and you're you've got

39:45

my best interest hard

39:47

I think and you're sitting here going line is don't

39:50

engage. And you're right,

39:52

but the thing that you haven't experienced

39:55

And, you know, one of the reasons that,

39:58

honestly, you know, Luke, or are are

40:00

the other people internally

40:01

here, or my fellow YouTubers, are some

40:03

of the only people that I

40:05

feel like I can really talk to

40:07

about these things is that you've

40:10

never experienced these

40:14

these thousands or hundreds

40:16

or even dozens of

40:19

attacks that come and you're

40:21

not allowed to defend generally. And you guys are

40:23

basically saying, don't

40:26

defend yourself. But

40:28

the thing is is that it doesn't go away. And

40:30

in some cases, what can happen

40:32

is it can even grow. And

40:35

so, you know, I'm kinda looking at it going, you know,

40:38

okay, a perfect example

40:40

is when we had that

40:42

when we had that that that assault accusation.

40:45

Right? And I basically took

40:47

the very controversial

40:52

internally move of kinda

40:54

going, okay, here is

40:56

my entire relationship

40:58

history. Start to finish. The

41:00

only part that was controversial with me was

41:03

the details. I I didn't

41:05

I didn't need to know a taste

41:07

like smoke Okay. I will never forget that.

41:09

I just thought it

41:11

was kinda funny for that one. It was

41:13

is the most memorable thing about it. Yep.

41:15

Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. So

41:20

I took the controversial move of basically

41:22

going, okay, fine then, you know,

41:24

full transparency. Here's everything.

41:26

So anything that doesn't match that,

41:28

I will not be acknowledging because

41:31

that didn't happen. So now I don't

41:33

have to talk about it anymore. But, like, there's

41:35

there's this there's kind of this contingent

41:38

that refuses to acknowledge any

41:40

sort of, you know, fact

41:42

or reality and

41:44

is always just kinda I mean, haters gonna hate, I guess, is the bottom line.

41:46

And it wears on you. Yeah. Like,

41:48

it really does. And you wanna do

41:51

something about it? And, like,

41:56

This happened this happened on my on

41:58

my tour of of

42:00

OVH, but

42:02

there was

42:03

Let me see.

42:06

Yeah. The

42:07

RTX six

42:10

thousand. And, like Who

42:13

whose fault

42:16

is it? That there's a card called the RTX

42:18

six thousand. It's well, it's Nvidia's fault.

42:21

But I had to say it in the video and

42:23

I knew when I said it that people

42:25

are gonna go, and there's all

42:28

and this is so light and

42:30

who cares? But there's all these

42:32

comments everywhere on Flowplane, on on YouTube, on everything.

42:34

Wouldn't idiot? That card

42:36

doesn't exist. Would it dummy?

42:40

And the whole time every single and this is so light

42:42

compared to what he's talking about. But every single

42:44

time I read that, I'm just like, man,

42:48

there's a bunch of parts in the video that are not that

42:49

great. Like, you could call me out on

42:52

that. But why are you calling me

42:54

out

42:55

on this? And then

42:57

I wanna respond to every single one of them. And then it's just like, okay, no, I need

42:59

to not do this. Yeah. And

43:01

it's

43:01

just not reasonable. And it it it bothers you,

43:04

right,

43:05

because Like, especially in cases where

43:08

you you know it were you know you were right,

43:10

you just kinda go Well,

43:15

now now you're gonna sit and think that that

43:17

forever. Yeah. And given that our

43:19

entire job is trying to inform

43:21

people about technology, III

43:25

just, like, I could sit at my keyboard all

43:27

day, correcting misconceptions, literally

43:30

all day and do absolutely

43:33

nothing else.

43:34

Be a funny video. I mean, we've done

43:37

lioness response to haters. I guess or

43:39

no. We've done lioness response

43:41

to mean

43:42

comments. Should do like the thumbnails like

43:44

you pointing at the screen. It just says you're wrong

43:46

is the thumbnail. But here's the problem.

43:49

So we, I guess,

43:51

about about six months ago. We

43:53

created well, I shouldn't say we. James

43:56

created it doesn't matter.

43:58

Time line doesn't matter. Sometime in the last

44:00

little while, James created a document called how to

44:02

make good videos. And

44:04

in how to make good

44:06

videos, he created a

44:08

section based on a conversation that we

44:10

had had called the laws

44:12

of sinus. And

44:14

there's a bunch of really interesting

44:16

stuff in here that I have,

44:19

even though not all of it is actually from me. It was a it

44:21

was a team effort building building it. And

44:24

I probably wouldn't have

44:26

called it that just because it's

44:28

sort of a silly thing. But it's got he put

44:30

a flat spot on the acronym. Right? Yeah. I

44:32

guess so. Sure. Well yeah. So the

44:34

lulls the

44:36

lulls. Got

44:38

them. Really did like you better when you

44:40

couldn't talk. It's a better

44:43

show that way. So it

44:45

was all disheartening how many people were like, this was the best show.

44:47

I was like, alright. Yes.

44:50

Me contributors. Okay. I have to

44:52

tell you though. And this is the first time I'm telling

44:54

him on air, but I I told you after the

44:57

show last week as well. It is

44:59

actually far more helpful. Then

45:02

you and you guys probably

45:05

realize to have

45:07

a friendly presence. Like

45:10

essentially a living, breathing,

45:12

laugh track slash

45:14

supporter, just sitting next to you while

45:16

you ramble on and on about things

45:19

kinda nodding or raising

45:21

an eyebrow when you say something

45:23

stupid. Like, I could imagine at the height

45:25

of the pandemic, you know, being

45:27

an athlete, performing in an empty stadium. Yeah.

45:29

You know, I don't know. Did did did

45:32

I play that

45:34

shot good?

45:34

Yeah. Like, there's no feedback. There's no feedback whatsoever.

45:37

Yeah. And it really does it really

45:39

does get you going. Anyway, back to

45:41

the laws of sinus, One

45:44

of the laws is never insult

45:47

the audience. It doesn't go

45:49

well. Yeah. And

45:52

I do it from time to time. I break the rules. You know,

45:54

someone on I honestly feel more

45:56

liberated with the float plane audience

46:00

because, realistically, they pay for the subscription. They're probably hardcore. They can

46:02

probably handle it. And, you know, every once

46:04

in a while, you know, there'll be a brain dead

46:06

enough take that I'm just like, you know what? No.

46:08

We're gonna gonna talk about this

46:10

because that's that's pretty bad.

46:12

But I shouldn't. I

46:14

shouldn't. Because Hold on. I'm

46:16

trying to find the plenty part of it.

46:18

This is driving me

46:20

absolutely crazy. Okay. Fine. I will resort

46:22

to find

46:24

and replace. In is it insult or

46:25

no. It must be attack. Guys, I'm I'm fine. You don't

46:28

have to Yeah. Here it is.

46:30

Do not personally attack the viewer no matter

46:32

how wrong

46:34

or stupid their beliefs are, not even an implied attack. And this

46:36

has actually helped us a lot over the last

46:38

little while because there have been

46:40

a few videos where we

46:43

you know, we'd make an offhand

46:46

joke, say for example

46:48

about like DDR two

46:51

memory, you know, being old. And it's

46:53

like, well, hold on a second. In

46:56

a lot of parts of the world, DDR

46:58

two is like still expensive and

47:00

still current.

47:02

And it's easy to live in our in our North American bubble

47:04

and to and it's

47:06

not even necessarily wrong to live in our

47:09

North American bubble because that's where

47:12

solid like almost sixty percent

47:14

of our viewership comes from with

47:16

probably another thirty percent from,

47:19

you know, Western Western Europe.

47:22

So, like, your Japanese and and

47:24

UK's and France's of the world places

47:26

like that.

47:28

Yeah. But you've gotta understand that when you are

47:30

broadcasting to literally millions

47:34

of people, If only

47:36

one percent of them are

47:38

personally attacked by what you

47:40

say, then you just

47:42

upset a

47:44

thousand ten thousand people? For what?

47:47

Yeah. Why? To what end?

47:49

Yeah. Like, why? So one of the things that

47:51

I'll do during script review with

47:54

people now is I'll say like,

47:56

hey, why are we poking fun at

47:58

people who liked Windows

48:00

Vista? That's just just

48:02

an example. Why are we doing

48:04

that? And they're like, because it's funny, because they're

48:06

dumb. I'm like, well,

48:08

hey, I like Windows Vista.

48:11

Not so

48:11

funny. Now is it?

48:14

But that's not even the point because

48:16

b, who

48:18

cares? Is there a benefit? Yeah. And

48:20

honestly, this is something where Ivan has been a really good influence

48:22

on me because she has

48:24

basically said, hey, look,

48:27

I think that you're too agro.

48:30

And I think that you're going to catch a lot

48:32

more flies with honey than with vinegar.

48:34

And she's

48:36

she's right. I have

48:38

basically never.

48:40

1II should

48:42

say, I I have never. I

48:45

I have rarely witnessed like,

48:49

an aggressive approach winning

48:51

an argument on the Internet.

48:53

Think about it. I

48:56

so I I agree with the

48:58

statement in

48:59

general. I think sometimes It

49:03

is not

49:04

okay. So this is a this is a

49:06

tech channel we're talking about tech topics.

49:08

Yeah. So it should basically always be honey.

49:11

Because who cares. Sure.

49:12

But I don't

49:13

think this applies to all arguments

49:15

one could have, if

49:17

that makes sense.

49:19

We've talked about this

49:22

before. I don't remember

49:24

how I phrased it, but I think it was like sometimes you

49:26

want to catch them with the vinegar or whatever.

49:28

Like, I there's certain times

49:30

where, like, I'm not willing to

49:34

acknowledge any potential

49:36

benefits of the argument on the other side. So I'm not going to approach it.

49:38

But you don't have to

49:40

acknowledge merit you don't have to acknowledge

49:42

any merit of their argument when there

49:44

isn't any.

49:45

But you could acknowledge maybe how they

49:48

feel.

49:49

No. Okay. There's there are

49:52

certain arguments where I I

49:54

think no.

49:55

There is not like a ton of them

49:58

necessarily, but there are certain arguments

50:00

where I think

50:02

no. That's fair. I don't

50:04

know. Intolerance will not be

50:06

tolerated. Yeah.

50:08

Yes. I mean, that's fair enough.

50:11

What we will also

50:14

not tolerate is AI art

50:16

generators blatantly

50:19

ripping off the source material

50:21

on which they were trained.

50:23

That's right. I called this.

50:25

There is already

50:28

a two major copyright lawsuits

50:30

against AI art generators.

50:32

Getty images claims that

50:36

stability AI scrape the Getty

50:38

Images site using it as a database to

50:40

train its own AI

50:42

art generator. These

50:44

claims are corroborated by an independent study that

50:47

found that stable diffusion was trained

50:49

on hundreds of thousands of images

50:51

sourced from stock image sites.

50:54

Notably, stable diffusion has a funny habit of recreating

50:56

the Getty images watermark in

50:58

the images that it produces.

51:02

And this is figure two down below. This

51:05

is hilarious. Hi, hilarious.

51:07

That's really funny. Whoops.

51:15

This is a

51:18

super weird image. It is. Is this supposed to be

51:20

like A baseball catch up. It's

51:23

like baseball mixed with football. It

51:25

really does. I do have

51:27

to wonder what the prompt

51:29

was. Also, I kinda have to wonder what

51:31

kind ofroids this guy's go got going

51:33

on here. So if

51:36

you take steroids, that is your

51:38

own life choice. Don't be upset. Not

51:42

insulting the audience. I like it.

51:44

Yeah. I I

51:45

actually just don't care. Like,

51:47

if that's what you

51:49

wanna do to your testicles,

51:52

then, like Mine are bigger.

51:56

Okay. I've learned my role sometimes. Might be short,

51:59

but he's got them big ones. A

52:08

study from the University of Maryland --

52:10

Wrong. -- found that stable diffusion can

52:12

sometimes end up closely replicating images from its

52:14

training database. These aren't pixel

52:16

perfect copies, but the

52:18

derivation is

52:20

pretty blatant. That

52:22

is figure one over here where Yep.

52:26

I don't think it takes a genius

52:30

to to see that

52:32

the there's a

52:34

relationship here.

52:36

Yep. I mean, you can't even you can't

52:38

even move the wolves around a little bit. Where's the moon? Give

52:40

me three wolves and a moon, you know?

52:44

Give me something to work with here. Make it defensible.

52:46

The second major lawsuit

52:48

is a class action against stability

52:52

AI. A deviant art and mid journey, claiming that their art

52:54

generators are simply remixing the

52:56

copyrighted works of millions of artists.

53:00

The lawsuit's website calls such AI generators

53:02

twenty first century collage tools.

53:04

And it's an interesting

53:07

thing because

53:10

like the like the blood borne one for instance. If

53:12

the lower image, which I believe

53:14

is the AI generated image,

53:18

I think. I actually don't know.

53:20

I actually don't know. But I

53:22

I kinda doesn't matter because they're similar

53:24

enough to each other that it's you know, and that's

53:26

sort of the point. So say the AI

53:28

generated image is used

53:30

for, let's say, a mobile

53:32

game. Right? If if it

53:34

was called white blood

53:38

cell birth, and it

53:40

was on the Apple store. They

53:43

would be gone after because their blood borne would

53:46

say that's too close to our logo because you just

53:48

clearly ripped off our

53:50

logo. Right? Yeah. So

53:52

it's the same thing. And then, like,

53:54

I I've been caught in this

53:56

argument a little bit because I went anti

53:59

AI art and I

54:01

went pro AI large language

54:03

model and people didn't like that I was

54:05

kind of on each side of the

54:06

fence, but this is kind of the example. And

54:09

I don't know a hundred percent really where

54:11

it ends up being okay because

54:13

it's still a hundred percent true that the large

54:15

language model is trained off

54:17

of other people. Stuff. It's not not true that that is

54:19

a thing, but it's a lot less

54:22

apparent. It's

54:25

way less apparent. You don't have

54:27

it do this. You can get chat GPT to spit out things that other people

54:29

have written. Yes. It's happened, but it's

54:32

not as egregious. It doesn't seem

54:34

as common. Stuff

54:36

like that. It seems like it's done better, but

54:39

it also seems like it was easier

54:41

to do it better. Because

54:44

it's a large language model and the way that works is easier. But

54:46

when it comes to art, we're seeing a

54:48

lot of this. I had the

54:51

example that I gave in the previous way and showing

54:53

these three examples are just as

54:56

blatant. I

54:56

mean, here's the thing though.

55:00

Are people they're

55:03

okay. I'm gonna ask I'm gonna

55:05

ask a spicy question.

55:08

Does it matter what the law is if

55:11

the overall social benefit

55:14

outweighs the

55:16

drawback? To to those

55:18

few who are affected by it.

55:20

And to be clear, I'm not

55:22

taking the position that, you

55:24

know, the ends justify the means here.

55:27

I'm just asking, if

55:30

we all collectively kind of decide,

55:33

this is okay because it has to be okay, because

55:35

this is really convenient for our lives that we

55:38

can, you know, create a children's

55:40

book from scratch in

55:42

a weekend. Without needing an illustrator because we never

55:44

learned to draw.

55:46

Is this ultimately going to fizzle

55:49

out? And are these lawsuits going to just eventually go away? I

55:52

don't think that's the average

55:52

stance though, so I don't think it

55:55

would. Well, it's not the

55:57

average stance now. But

56:00

most people have not used an AI

56:02

image generator yet. Once people

56:04

get used to the convenience, of

56:07

an AI image generator, will they be willing to let

56:09

it go? Yeah.

56:14

My pessimism would say no.

56:17

Right? Like, I mean Okay.

56:20

Another another perfect example

56:22

of of sometimes the

56:24

the gulf that exists between what

56:26

is ethical and and

56:28

legally acceptable versus

56:32

what is socially acceptable would be something

56:34

like the way that some creators

56:36

approach React

56:38

content. And I I know. This is

56:40

gonna this is gonna be a a

56:41

hot egg. A spicy potato. There's gonna be a

56:43

a hot take. Oh, I can't believe he's talking about

56:45

this, but it's like it's it's

56:47

actually pretty cut and dried.

56:50

Right? Like, I I'm not gonna I'm not gonna there's

56:52

no point not being transparent about

56:54

it because the Internet never forgets anything. So I

56:56

might as well just tell you guys, we're working

56:58

on a react channel. Like, it's

57:04

it is effort easy content

57:08

and it is up like,

57:10

obscenely obscenely

57:12

profitable if you can generate

57:14

a bunch of views on content

57:16

that takes almost literally no time.

57:18

That's what it is. That's what React content

57:21

is. And What's your approach to the

57:24

I'm very intrigued. What is the

57:26

approach to the React content channel? Well, first,

57:28

I'm gonna talk about, you know, what are

57:30

the what are the obvious problems some

57:32

of the React content that's out there. Okay.

57:34

The defense that is used by and I'm

57:36

not gonna name anyone because I just don't I don't

57:38

need any beef in my life. I just like,

57:41

it's a waste of brain energy for me. But

57:43

the argument that it's often used

57:45

to defend it is

57:48

fair use. Fair

57:50

use is a gray

57:52

area for one thing.

57:54

It actually has to be it actually

57:56

has to be defended in court. It is

57:58

is not as simple as, well,

58:00

it's fair use, therefore, it's fine.

58:03

The only reason that

58:05

you might get away with

58:07

saying, its fair use is if nobody

58:09

chooses to challenge you on it. So in

58:11

a way, you could look at that fair

58:14

use argument for

58:16

React content as basically just a way that large

58:18

creators can

58:20

turn their nose up at

58:24

small creators who can't afford to defend their work

58:26

by saying essentially because you

58:28

can't afford to sue me, it's

58:32

fair use. That's a

58:34

pretty shitty stance. Yeah.

58:38

And a lot

58:40

of what gets defended as fair use is clearly

58:42

not. You know, Google has a

58:44

has a support doc for this

58:46

because they run a little site you might have

58:48

heard of

58:50

before. Called YouTube. And so they have a lot of kind

58:52

of, like, legal legal q and a

58:54

on there. And the four factors of fair

58:56

use are laid out or pillars, if

58:59

you wanna call them that are laid out pretty clearly.

59:01

So there's the purpose and character of the

59:03

use, including whether such use is

59:06

commercial or is for

59:08

non prom at educational purposes. If

59:10

it's commercial, that's a big strike against

59:12

you. And the second, you

59:14

hit monetization or

59:16

pimp t shirts or screwdrivers or whatever else, that's

59:19

that's very that's very

59:21

commercial use. Right? Cords

59:24

typically focus on whether the use

59:26

is transformative. That is whether

59:28

it adds new expression or

59:31

meaning to the original, or whether

59:33

it merely copies from the original. And this is a spectrum. Right? This

59:35

is not just black and

59:38

white. It It adds new

59:40

expression or it doesn't. It's up

59:42

to the interpretation and it's up to the arguments

59:44

that get made. Number

59:46

two is

59:48

the nature of the copyrighted

59:50

work. Right? So using material from

59:52

a factual work is more likely to

59:54

be fair than from a fictional work.

59:58

Number three. The amount and substantiality

1:00:00

of the portion used in relation to

1:00:02

the copyrighted work as a whole. And this

1:00:04

is where a lot of React

1:00:06

content as it is right now in deep doo doo.

1:00:09

A lot of people in the chat are talking

1:00:11

about the h three ruling. Yes.

1:00:15

That did go in favor of Ethan, but you've also to remember

1:00:17

and understand that

1:00:20

fair use is

1:00:22

something that is tackled on a case by case basis by

1:00:24

the courts. And in the case of

1:00:26

h three productions versus that

1:00:30

guy, can't remember his name. Ethan,

1:00:32

to his credit, did not use

1:00:34

the entire original source.

1:00:38

And the

1:00:40

The the bulk of

1:00:42

the video was for

1:00:45

better or for worse. H

1:00:49

three's commentary, right, as opposed to just

1:00:51

the original work being

1:00:54

consumed in a way

1:00:56

that is not benefiting the original rights holder in any

1:00:58

way. Number four. And

1:01:00

this is another huge one that is

1:01:02

highly problematic with a lot of React

1:01:04

content right

1:01:06

now. The effect on the potential market

1:01:08

for or the value of the

1:01:10

copyrighted work. If you

1:01:13

play the entire video. As

1:01:16

part of the video, the

1:01:18

impact is enormous.

1:01:20

Like, if like, let's say for example,

1:01:23

Someone did a React video to one of ours where

1:01:25

they pulled a few key things but

1:01:27

largely transformed it.

1:01:30

Largely contributed their own thoughts and their own expression.

1:01:34

That is pretty obviously

1:01:36

fair use even though it is commercial

1:01:39

So usually, I wouldn't consider our

1:01:42

I wouldn't consider our content to be

1:01:44

primarily are are purely fictional

1:01:47

I'd say that we we strive to

1:01:50

create factual works,

1:01:52

so it is more likely to be

1:01:54

covered by fair use. The character of the

1:01:56

use while it is commercial, it would

1:01:59

be highly transformative. And the

1:02:01

amount of that is

1:02:03

used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole could

1:02:05

be quite low. There also is

1:02:08

potentially a positive effect on the

1:02:10

potential market for the

1:02:12

copyrighted work. So in the

1:02:14

case of something like, let's say, a

1:02:17

No. No. Let's stick with the example

1:02:19

that we're using just for the sake of of

1:02:21

ease of following along. So if you only

1:02:23

provide snippets of the original video, but explicitly in

1:02:25

your content you say, but

1:02:27

there's some key parts

1:02:30

of it you should go check out. I've got it linked down There's

1:02:32

a much stronger argument for fair

1:02:34

use. As it is right now,

1:02:37

if you upload a video that is

1:02:40

essentially the entire original

1:02:42

work for profit for yourself,

1:02:45

with some chunks where you respond

1:02:48

to or react to or

1:02:50

talk over the original work, there

1:02:53

is no reason whatsoever to

1:02:55

go watch the original work. And so you'll see these

1:02:57

large creators that are getting, in some

1:03:00

cases, many times,

1:03:02

the viewership.

1:03:04

Of the original work at the cost of the

1:03:06

original work. And I honestly don't

1:03:08

have I don't have the solution

1:03:11

to this right now. Because like,

1:03:13

it's pretty clear that YouTube's copyright system is pretty

1:03:15

broken. Like, even if something

1:03:17

was clearly not

1:03:20

fair use, you know,

1:03:22

a, I don't necessarily think that I would

1:03:24

be entitled to one hundred

1:03:26

percent of the revenue, which to

1:03:28

my knowledge is the only way you can

1:03:30

copyright claim something. You basically just

1:03:32

say, I think

1:03:34

that's all mine or you can say,

1:03:36

I think I deserve nothing. There

1:03:38

there's no middle ground whatsoever.

1:03:40

And two, the community backlash is just not worth it

1:03:42

because there's this perception that

1:03:48

I don't III don't know.

1:03:50

I actually I actually just don't really understand why because sitting

1:03:54

as someone who is relatively

1:03:58

speaking on the top of

1:04:00

the online creator pyramid, I

1:04:02

can tell you right now that

1:04:04

the community backlash

1:04:06

that follows any smaller

1:04:08

creator who's trying to enforce

1:04:11

a copyright is

1:04:14

wrong. Yeah. It's wrong. It's just

1:04:16

plain wrong. It benefits the people

1:04:18

who are at the top who don't need

1:04:20

it. They actually have money.

1:04:23

They could hire staff, create something

1:04:26

original, get equipment,

1:04:28

whatever, whereas the people who

1:04:30

are at the bottom actually

1:04:32

need it. They they can't build a screwdriver from scratch and

1:04:35

sell a hundred thousand units. Right? Like,

1:04:37

they don't they don't have the

1:04:39

same tools. And so to

1:04:42

to ignore to

1:04:45

ignore these arguments

1:04:48

just because You

1:04:50

know, we don't like what people being mean to people we've formed

1:04:53

a parashocial relationship with. It's

1:04:55

messed up,

1:04:56

man. Okay.

1:04:57

So all of that being said -- Yes. -- yours is gonna

1:05:00

work. So what I've got

1:05:02

in the I'm not

1:05:04

signed into that account on here. One

1:05:06

sec. Good. Yes. Yes.

1:05:08

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

1:05:10

Yes. So basically,

1:05:12

I oh, shoot. It's in the comments.

1:05:14

General reaction channel guidelines. Timeliness is

1:05:17

hugely important. Blah blah blah. Nope.

1:05:19

Nope. Where is it?

1:05:22

Shoot. Okay. At that time someone reacted to one of

1:05:25

our things. Yeah. It was really, really

1:05:27

interesting. So again, as a as a

1:05:29

content creator, I have

1:05:32

you know, actual numbers for how beneficial reaction content

1:05:34

is to the original creator, the

1:05:36

answer is much. In

1:05:39

case you guys are wondering. And that's even

1:05:42

as someone with a

1:05:44

substantial following already and whose

1:05:46

content might already have

1:05:48

significant momentum. On

1:05:50

on a channel from someone who's only ever upload

1:05:52

or on a channel that's only ever uploaded one

1:05:54

video or something like that where they don't

1:05:56

have that that critical mass. I

1:05:59

I do think there's multiple

1:06:01

arguments here. Sure. And it it depends

1:06:03

on the nature of the

1:06:05

inclusion. Yes. If you include so so this

1:06:07

is okay. I'm getting to it.

1:06:09

Okay. Okay. I'm

1:06:10

getting to it. Unfortunately, I

1:06:13

just don't have Basically, I laid

1:06:16

I don't know. I can't find it. I

1:06:18

laid out some scene at work. I've laid out

1:06:20

some guidelines for what I would consider

1:06:22

to be like like ethical reaction content.

1:06:25

Where the goal, the

1:06:27

stated purpose, and not just the stated

1:06:29

purpose, but the actual goal of the content needs

1:06:31

to be to uplift the original creator.

1:06:33

As to coming back to the pillars of fair

1:06:36

use, harm

1:06:38

the value or potential market

1:06:40

for the original

1:06:42

work. And I think that's something that just

1:06:44

been completely lost. I

1:06:46

think there's I think there's been

1:06:50

I think there is and there

1:06:52

has been reaction content that is, like, clearly exploitive

1:06:56

exploitive exploitive.

1:06:58

Yes. He hasn't been

1:07:00

practicing talking for a week. It's actually true.

1:07:02

That's probably not the reason

1:07:04

why that just happened, but

1:07:07

it it is true. But I

1:07:09

have also seen reaction content that has, like, made

1:07:11

channels basically. For sure. For sure.

1:07:13

It totally happens.

1:07:16

And I think a lot of it we were talking

1:07:18

about earlier, but like how instead of the algorithm you should say community, I think a lot of it

1:07:20

has to do with the community that follows that person.

1:07:24

Are they only ever going to watch this person's

1:07:26

content because of the host

1:07:28

and they have no real cares about

1:07:31

the source? they're never gonna follow through. They're

1:07:33

never gonna go to that channel. They're never gonna check

1:07:35

it out. Whatever. Or is it a

1:07:37

community of people that are gonna

1:07:39

follow through and are gonna give support when they want

1:07:42

when the creator watches different videos. So

1:07:44

whatever The problem with that argument is it's not up

1:07:46

to you. Yeah. It's up to the original

1:07:48

copyright holder. Well, for sure. Yeah. So it doesn't matter what

1:07:50

you think.

1:07:51

No. I well, That's

1:07:53

not a good take. Well, it

1:07:54

doesn't though. Well, it doesn't matter. That's

1:07:57

not my statement. Oh, I thought you

1:07:59

were saying that I as the reactor --

1:08:01

No. -- can just decide. Well, No.

1:08:03

My audience isn't really gonna follow through on this, so I

1:08:05

should just show it to them. No. Oh, okay. I

1:08:08

misunderstood you. No. Because I was like, really What

1:08:10

I'm saying is that in in

1:08:12

And I think especially the current era, there's a big mix of ones that

1:08:14

are good and aren't good. And obviously Even within

1:08:20

individuals, There's a mix of doing

1:08:22

the right thing and being extremely lazy. I've seen example clips of someone --

1:08:24

Yep. -- who will

1:08:27

go from really good reactionary

1:08:30

content to a piece of content that

1:08:32

probably wants you to that probably makes you want to

1:08:35

go follow through and see the original

1:08:36

creator, all that kind of stuff. And then

1:08:38

the next clip, they're like eating. So it just

1:08:40

plays

1:08:41

the video and they literally

1:08:42

never say a whole thing other than just like,

1:08:46

Yeah.

1:08:46

They're chewing. And it's like, wow. Alright. Yeah.

1:08:49

Well, I don't really

1:08:51

know what to say about this.

1:08:53

But Mine, like, decided it.

1:08:55

But I'm I may they might watch LTT and I'm not supposed to

1:08:57

insult the audience. Got them.

1:09:00

But but yeah.

1:09:02

I don't know. It's it's I know of channels that exist

1:09:04

that basically only exist because

1:09:06

reaction channels blew them up,

1:09:08

but then I also know

1:09:10

of channels that hate it. And

1:09:12

have openly tried to get people

1:09:14

to stop and people just keep doing it. Yep. And it's like, okay. Well, it's

1:09:19

rough. Well, the answer is really simple. The answer is

1:09:21

-- You should ask. -- reach out and

1:09:24

ask. Yeah. And

1:09:26

that Do also know people

1:09:28

that do

1:09:29

that right now. And that's the worst part.

1:09:31

Like, I I have personally had

1:09:35

content used in montages

1:09:38

or or or

1:09:40

or like mashups or

1:09:43

reaction videos or

1:09:44

whatever. Yeah. Like, someone brought

1:09:46

up in float plane chat. Gartner Bryant was a Linux creator

1:09:48

that reacted to some of

1:09:50

our Linux challenge -- studios.

1:09:53

I watched them. I thought they're really good.

1:09:55

Yep. Yeah. But hold on. Hold on. Okay. I'll get to

1:09:57

that in a second. But I I have I have personally

1:10:00

known of huge

1:10:02

creators, like enormous creators

1:10:05

that did not did

1:10:07

not have a valid

1:10:09

fair use argument for their use of

1:10:11

our content. Gotcha. And could

1:10:14

have reached out. Like,

1:10:16

it like, like,

1:10:18

absolutely could have reached out. Or

1:10:20

had their staff reach

1:10:22

out? Like, I'm talking creators with a staff. You know,

1:10:25

like Star

1:10:28

Wars Kid. That's an old

1:10:30

preference anyway. I just didn't.

1:10:32

And that's just

1:10:35

that's just pure laziness. Yeah.

1:10:37

Even people even people I know. So there's there's a handful of

1:10:39

creators that I have like a standing agreement with. Like

1:10:42

Austin, Marquez, for example,

1:10:46

It's like, hey,

1:10:48

can we just have a mutual like, if I need

1:10:50

to use a clip from you and I'm, like, sure

1:10:52

I'd, like, say it mute or whatever.

1:10:54

And if you use a clip from me and make sure that you do the same, can we just, like, every

1:11:00

time? Sure. But

1:11:03

that's a positive. That's a

1:11:05

constructive way to build

1:11:07

community. Just taking stuff

1:11:09

And they're like, oh, it'll probably benefit the man when maybe

1:11:11

that's not cool. And it should never be acceptable. And, you know, you

1:11:13

have to ask for some of the pillars

1:11:16

of urea. Channel

1:11:19

gonna be that you reach out every time for every video. I think

1:11:21

we should. Yeah. I think that Well,

1:11:23

you're speaking out against it, so I think

1:11:25

it would have to be. Right? Well, it

1:11:28

depends. Right? So if you are

1:11:30

reacting to okay. So a perfect example of this would be the recent Coffee Zillow

1:11:35

Logan Paul controversy. Locapal is

1:11:37

not gonna give Coffeyzilla permission to to utilize portions

1:11:39

of his video. But

1:11:43

in that case, Coffee Zillow

1:11:46

is clearly transforming the original work. That is not

1:11:51

sitting and eating while the

1:11:53

Logan Paul video plays, as like a weird spectacle or whatever

1:11:56

else. So in the

1:11:58

case of of a of

1:12:00

a

1:12:01

clear an obvious, fair use argument. I don't think we have

1:12:04

to. So we just

1:12:06

have to What would

1:12:08

you?

1:12:10

Sorry? Is

1:12:11

that reaction channel going to

1:12:13

cover a device of things

1:12:15

like that? I

1:12:17

don't know. We're we're not sure. Yeah. Is

1:12:19

it is it a tech reaction channel? Is

1:12:19

it So go. Let's let's talk about some

1:12:22

of the things we we have in

1:12:24

here. So,

1:12:28

you know, one of the things we could do is, like, we've

1:12:30

done a few of these on the main channel, like reacting

1:12:32

to community submissions. Like, best and worst builds

1:12:35

and stuff like that. Reacting to -- Okay. -- these submissions is totally different thing. But

1:12:37

it's still it's it's reaction

1:12:38

content. But it's not It's ethical

1:12:43

reaction reaction content in the way

1:12:45

that the internet would would interpret the

1:12:47

term reaction content. Really?

1:12:49

Internet. Would you consider that to be

1:12:52

reaction content? I don't think they would. Because

1:12:54

if you say reaction Let's pull it.

1:12:56

Okay. Let's pull

1:12:58

it. I'm gonna do my poll dance.

1:13:01

Oh my god.

1:13:04

You're gonna get some reaction

1:13:06

content

1:13:07

from that? They're gonna side with you. They're

1:13:09

gonna side with you even if I'm right. Because you're

1:13:11

wrong. No. It's reaction content.

1:13:15

Anyway, it it is reaction content by definition of the term.

1:13:17

It is not reaction content by how

1:13:19

the Internet interprets

1:13:22

that. If you say But you have React Channel. Yeah. People

1:13:24

are going to think that you're reacting to

1:13:26

videos because that's how that works

1:13:30

right now. If it's user submitted videos

1:13:32

that is seen as a different thing. Alright. Like

1:13:34

like, I pulled

1:13:35

I'm working on pulling as well. So I

1:13:37

think even if you're so confident, why don't you put up a

1:13:40

pulse mark? I'm typing it

1:13:42

out, come on. Okay. So

1:13:44

some other ideas, you know,

1:13:46

I really love what Corridor Crew

1:13:48

does. Where they will bring on

1:13:50

experts to react to You know, so that's

1:13:52

actually that's such a good

1:13:54

example of how you can take

1:13:58

very obviously copyrighted

1:14:00

work from very aggressive

1:14:02

IP companies, like like

1:14:05

a Disney, for

1:14:07

example, and confidently include stills or even

1:14:10

motion from their content

1:14:12

in your

1:14:14

video. Because if you are, for example, doing

1:14:17

a detailed breakdown of

1:14:19

how the CGI was

1:14:21

done for a particular scene,

1:14:23

You're sitting there. You're talking about how much work it was

1:14:25

and how cool it was. You are not

1:14:27

using a substantial amount. The

1:14:30

effect on the original work

1:14:33

is obviously positive. The

1:14:35

nature of your your own

1:14:37

work is is clearly more

1:14:39

informative and or educational slash

1:14:41

factual. And even though the

1:14:44

nature of the copyrighted

1:14:46

work is is purely fictional, the

1:14:48

way it is being transformed

1:14:50

into something that is educational is very very

1:14:54

cut and dried. Right? So

1:14:56

anyway, bringing in experts. You know, something that I've wanted to do

1:14:58

for a long time on the LTT channel, we just haven't

1:15:00

gotten around to. It might have even gotten as

1:15:03

far as an email to Wendell.

1:15:06

Upwindle, is

1:15:08

I wanna do LTT reacts

1:15:10

to, like, bad hacking scenes

1:15:14

and movies. That'd be amazing. Is that react enough for

1:15:16

you?

1:15:17

That that fits

1:15:18

my term. Right. Right. That's

1:15:20

what I'm

1:15:21

saying. Is that so, yes,

1:15:23

Okay. Is that acceptable? Well, maybe not. Is that under the umbrella

1:15:25

of reaction content? I don't know if it

1:15:28

is. Okay. bad

1:15:32

because it makes it seem like a

1:15:34

binary choice. Because I didn't include it

1:15:38

both. Oh, yeah. Float plane chat does not like it. Yeah.

1:15:40

Because they want them both.

1:15:42

Okay. But that's complete that

1:15:45

defeats the whole point. Alright. And they don't

1:15:47

get that and you don't get that, but

1:15:49

it defeats the whole point. We wanna do

1:15:51

reacting to, like, bad product

1:15:53

listings. So, like, going through,

1:15:55

like, you know, Facebook Marketplace, you know, people

1:15:57

who think their computers worth way too much. We

1:15:59

actually did one of

1:16:03

those before.

1:16:03

Technique. Lead the question. I didn't

1:16:05

lead the question. Reacting to old

1:16:08

people. Found that more people will

1:16:10

click the top option. I put the top

1:16:12

option is not the one that I was

1:16:14

saying. It's cool. They're right. They don't like your poll in there. Right? No. They're wrong.

1:16:16

They're all wrong. The whole they're

1:16:19

the whole audience is wrong. We've

1:16:21

got reacting to old videos of ours. So one of the suggestions was linus finally

1:16:23

watches what it's like to work for linus and

1:16:27

reacts to it. Which I I commented on.

1:16:29

I said I won't do. I said you never would. Yeah. I was like, no. We can't do that one. That one's off

1:16:31

limits.

1:16:31

But, like, overall, that's not

1:16:35

a bad idea. Yeah.

1:16:38

Best and worst of TikTok, stuff

1:16:40

like that. But again, that's getting into the

1:16:42

gray area unless we're doing a

1:16:44

really good job of reaching out to

1:16:47

people, which I will tell right now, for our for

1:16:49

our trying TikTok hacks videos in

1:16:51

the past, I

1:16:53

don't think we've reached out to people.

1:16:55

However, what we've done has been highly transformative. We are we

1:16:58

are actually doing things.

1:17:00

We're actually trying them. I'm not

1:17:03

eating a box of noodles while

1:17:05

I watch other people's content. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

1:17:07

Yeah. Yeah. So I think what

1:17:12

it basic it comes down to is

1:17:14

just being ethical about it and adhering to the

1:17:16

four pillars of fair

1:17:18

use and making sure that

1:17:21

regardless of who it is and

1:17:23

whether they could afford to take us to court over it, making sure that we

1:17:25

would have a strong fair

1:17:27

use argument that we

1:17:31

believe with certainty that we would

1:17:33

win. That's I think the bottom

1:17:35

line and or just

1:17:37

getting permission from the

1:17:40

original creator. Right. That's where we're

1:17:42

that's where we're at on it because at this point, like, you're

1:17:44

kinda stupid not to

1:17:47

have a React channel. It's

1:17:49

kind of like eclipse channel. Now, do you guys have any

1:17:51

idea how long they pushed me around here to do eclipse channel

1:17:54

for the WAN Show?

1:17:57

Do you know how successful the

1:17:59

clips channel

1:17:59

is? I think it makes more money than the actual Probably. Just

1:18:04

like does

1:18:05

that even make any sense? It's just It's

1:18:07

like must actually. Yeah. Because you're dividing it up into bunch of content in each

1:18:10

one of those content

1:18:12

pieces. Doing well.

1:18:13

LNG clips gets ten million views a month. Yeah. It is actually in

1:18:15

terms of just overall viewership.

1:18:18

It is on par

1:18:20

with like,

1:18:23

what I would consider to be, like like, beat

1:18:25

your tech channels. And I'm I'm

1:18:27

sitting here going, what what how how

1:18:29

is that even how's it even possible?

1:18:31

They know they can just they know they can just link to a time stamp in the WAN

1:18:33

show. Right? But that's not how people that's not

1:18:35

how people engage

1:18:38

with content. They want it to be digestible. And there's a

1:18:40

huge contingent of our viewers

1:18:43

that is absolutely just

1:18:48

militantly opposed to watching long format content like the

1:18:50

win show, but does wanna hear about what we talk about on the

1:18:52

win

1:18:52

show. And I've said this

1:18:55

before, like, I I I'm not gonna sit

1:18:57

down and watch the whole land show. Oh, yeah. Yvonne's the same

1:18:59

way. Yeah. She is she never looks at land

1:19:02

show, but she's like, chilled of

1:19:04

hour clips. Klipsch. He's like, yeah. What are the line of sleep talking

1:19:06

about this week? Yeah. Yeah. And I've always understood why people like the the

1:19:11

the the the time stamp guy in the description or

1:19:13

in a pinned comment -- Yep.

1:19:15

-- because, like yeah.

1:19:17

It's a really especially

1:19:20

lately, man. We've had

1:19:22

some, like, three hour, three and a half hour show. Based on how many of our topics we've hit so far today -- It's gonna

1:19:27

be a marathon. You

1:19:31

down dad. Like, they they get pretty

1:19:33

intense. So being able to sit

1:19:35

down and watch the whole thing,

1:19:37

especially in one sitting, it's like,

1:19:39

It's like half half a And you know what? The reality of it is

1:19:42

that a good title and thumbnail works. Like, this

1:19:46

is great this is great. A prime in the float plane chat

1:19:48

who is Alex Alex p, one

1:19:50

of our one of our editors.

1:19:52

He goes, I watch

1:19:54

when, I edit tech tips,

1:19:57

I'm gonna add something here. I am

1:19:59

really good at like creating YouTube thumbnails. I am

1:20:02

I am literally like

1:20:05

like AAAA creator

1:20:07

of the of the drug. Right? I'm a I'm a dealer. Yeah. I still end up being

1:20:10

click baited into ant

1:20:12

clips. It

1:20:15

is literally content he has

1:20:17

seen before from people he

1:20:20

can talk time

1:20:23

he wants who he works

1:20:25

in the same building as, at least

1:20:27

some of them. Yeah. And

1:20:30

and he still manages to click on it. That's so funny. I don't make the rules. Right? Like, I

1:20:36

don't it comes back to

1:20:38

that conversation about, is it the algorithm or is it the audience?

1:20:41

I don't determine

1:20:44

what works Yeah.

1:20:45

You just have to kinda go with the flow. You have to go with

1:20:47

the flow? Uh-uh. You gotta go with the flow. So we're

1:20:49

gonna make a

1:20:52

react channel. We're also gonna tell

1:20:54

you about

1:20:54

our sponsors. Also names of things matter. III

1:20:57

was I dove into this

1:20:59

recently. I was playing Tarkov

1:21:01

with a Tarkov creator and he made a clip I killed a cheater in a game

1:21:03

that we were playing in and he made a

1:21:05

like YouTube short thing of it. But

1:21:07

he called it First

1:21:11

of all, his name is Gote

1:21:12

Moth, but the goat,

1:21:15

the owen goat is

1:21:18

A0K? Just like, yeah, if you'd never wanna be searchable

1:21:21

ever, that's probably good. And then

1:21:23

-- Let's see. --

1:21:25

he named the Short. How to kill a gaming

1:21:28

chair. Assuming that people

1:21:30

would understand the meme

1:21:32

of, like, they're not cheating, they

1:21:34

must just have a really good gaming

1:21:36

chair. I'm like,

1:21:38

man. Man. Like, man, I'm not really in the game anymore, but but

1:21:41

but come

1:21:44

on brother. Boom

1:21:52

roasted. Anyways, Okay.

1:21:54

Sponsors. Oh, and then we're going to do the evil wheel or whatever

1:21:56

the thing is called. The wheel of paint. Of paint. I

1:21:58

still don't know what it is. Don't worry about it.

1:22:03

Okay. Okay. The show brought you today. Bye.

1:22:08

Forum. Hey.

1:22:11

Cool. Forum, hand makes wedding

1:22:13

bands and rings from

1:22:15

rare unique materials. They

1:22:17

work with everything from

1:22:19

whiskey barrels to antlers, to

1:22:21

Damascus Steel, to World War II

1:22:23

rightful stocks, and even to dinosaur fossils. Well,

1:22:28

the aloha is made out

1:22:30

of black tungsten carbide with a Hawaiian coa wood inlay. Are you proposing

1:22:32

to

1:22:33

me? I mean. Is

1:22:35

it finally happening? I

1:22:38

mean, if you say no, then

1:22:40

no, I wasn't. But if you

1:22:41

say yes, I might let it happen nonetheless. I'll

1:22:43

just check it out. Hawaiian

1:22:47

coa is regarded as one of the most beautiful timbers in the

1:22:49

world, and you'll have no worries of rest or tarnishing.

1:22:51

Thanks to the tungsten carbide. Well,

1:22:55

the rest of it. Yeah. Their selection is as

1:22:57

unique as your taste. Sorry. I'm not I'm

1:22:59

not a ringsmith. Nice. I

1:23:03

don't know what that part of the rig

1:23:05

is going. Their selection is as unique

1:23:07

as your taste and

1:23:09

one of the best parts It seems to

1:23:11

have fallen. Yeah. It looks good. I lost it. Sure.

1:23:14

They make it easy to get a ring sizer

1:23:16

kit on their website to make figuring

1:23:18

out what ring size fits to best,

1:23:20

easy. Every ring ships within one

1:23:22

business day and comes with a free thorium silicone activity band. Oh, no. That's what it was. Well,

1:23:27

I lost it. And

1:23:29

a beautiful wooden ring box. With over ten years of experience and over five thousand happy customers,

1:23:31

Thorim is there for you whether you need a wedding band

1:23:33

or just a cool looking ring. So what are you

1:23:36

waiting for? To

1:23:39

link in the video description to get twenty percent off today with code

1:23:41

when. The show is also brought to

1:23:43

you by Audible.

1:23:48

Audible. That's a blast from the past. Yeah.

1:23:50

I don't remember the last time we worked

1:23:52

with Audible. It's good service. That's

1:23:54

a minute. I hate to use

1:23:56

it. Audible is the leading audiobook service,

1:23:58

man. I wonder how much their talking points have changed. It's been like four years.

1:24:00

Their extensive library includes all

1:24:02

the best sellers, new releases, and

1:24:07

timeless classics. And with a membership,

1:24:09

you'll get one credit per month to

1:24:11

use on any book you want as

1:24:13

well as exclusive sales and discounts.

1:24:15

With Audible Plus, you'll have unlimited access to their entire

1:24:18

catalog all at your fingertips

1:24:20

or your ear

1:24:22

tips as it were and that just makes it perfect for

1:24:24

busy individuals who wanna make the most out of their

1:24:26

time. You can listen to your books while you're running

1:24:28

errands, working out, or

1:24:31

doing the dishes, or Anything

1:24:33

else? In bed. Yeah. I mean, hey, look, if they're not gonna sponsors for a

1:24:35

long time, they're gonna get a spicy first

1:24:39

one back. Okay? I

1:24:42

wouldn't recommend listening to audiobooks

1:24:44

during, you know, bedroom activities,

1:24:46

but you could. You could. Yeah.

1:24:49

So it's great for commuters, road

1:24:51

trippers, and anyone who wants to make their daily grind just a little more

1:24:56

enjoyable. Imagine being transported to different

1:24:58

worlds and experiencing new adventures all while sitting in your car or

1:25:01

lying on

1:25:04

your back thinking of the queen. Follow the

1:25:06

link below then to sign up for Audible and get a free thirty day Audible Plus membership,

1:25:12

happy listening. Finally, the show is brought to you

1:25:14

or sorry, not thinking of the queen, thinking of England. I mean, you don't you could think of the queen.

1:25:20

Anywho? Betsy footwear is That's

1:25:22

a that's a reference to the pre show. Okay.

1:25:24

You'd have to be there. Okay.

1:25:26

You'd have to be there. I understand.

1:25:30

Yeah. The show's also brought to you by Foot playing where you can

1:25:32

find the pre show -- Yeah. -- both

1:25:34

live and in VOD form. It's the

1:25:37

only place to find it in VOD. Yep. Vessey

1:25:39

footwear is known for being waterproof, lightweight,

1:25:41

easy to pack and

1:25:44

breathable. Their dual climate

1:25:46

knit material keeps out water and keeps your feet warm in winter

1:25:49

and cool during the summer. I

1:25:51

want to make it clear

1:25:54

that absolutely nothing on Earth is completely waterproof. The Grand

1:25:56

Canyon was created by water, and if water

1:25:58

can cut through rocket, can cut through a

1:26:03

shoe. But But Vessey does an excellent job

1:26:05

of building their shoes out of materials

1:26:07

that are about as waterproof

1:26:09

as you can make a

1:26:12

shoe. That's the compromise we've landed on. So

1:26:14

the best thing about it though is you don't need to worry about the weather, whether it's hot, cold,

1:26:19

dry, or wet, Vesey has got you covered. They're super easy

1:26:21

to slip on and off, comfortable for traveling,

1:26:23

fit almost any occasion, and They

1:26:27

are one hundred percent vegan. Get fifteen percent off

1:26:29

with offer code WAN Show at the

1:26:31

link down below. Alright.

1:26:35

What do you wanna talk about

1:26:37

next, mister Luke? What's the wheel? Tell me

1:26:39

what the wheel. Let's do

1:26:42

the wheel of pain. I

1:26:44

don't know if this is gonna be a regular segment.

1:26:46

I don't know if we're gonna come up with, like, different segments or

1:26:50

whatever else. But basically, I asked for a

1:26:53

wheel and I pitched kind of

1:26:55

a fun idea for the

1:26:57

show today. We're gonna play a game

1:27:00

called Devil's ADVOCATE. Okay. I feel

1:27:02

like that's just how the show

1:27:04

works. No. But

1:27:05

this this way is a little

1:27:07

different. Okay? So I still care for you. You

1:27:09

are going to spin the wheel.

1:27:11

Okay. And -- I'm right

1:27:13

excited. -- whatever bone headed

1:27:15

thing that happens in

1:27:18

the world of tech this week. Oh, apparently, I'm supposed to spin the wheel. Okay?

1:27:20

I'm supposed to spin the wheel. I'm

1:27:22

not excited. Oh, well, let's let's take turns.

1:27:27

Okay. We each get to spin the wheel. Beautiful. Alright. So whatever boneheaded

1:27:29

thing happened in the world of

1:27:31

tech -- Okay.

1:27:33

-- you have to defend it. Oh, okay. Okay.

1:27:36

Okay. So the topic list for this

1:27:38

week. Oh, so these topics -- Yes.

1:27:40

-- is Twitter's ban on

1:27:42

third party apps -- Okay. Apple

1:27:45

TV's terms of service requiring a separate iOS device to

1:27:48

accept them.

1:27:52

Okay. Samsung's attempt to use

1:27:54

patents to block refurbished screen imports. AI

1:27:59

art generators, but I feel like we should rule out AI art generators just because we've

1:28:01

already talked about it on the show. So

1:28:03

we'll if it lands

1:28:05

on that, we'll spin

1:28:07

again. Yeah. And Wyoming's bill that

1:28:09

was introduced to phase out EV sales by twenty

1:28:12

thirty five. Okay.

1:28:16

Okay. Okay. Do you wanna go first or something like

1:28:18

that? Sorry. What happens if if the is the spinner defending

1:28:20

it? The spinner will

1:28:22

defend whatever topic comes up.

1:28:24

Okay. On the wheel of pain. I

1:28:26

I don't care who goes first. Okay. Whatever works. Go for it. Okay. Either

1:28:29

way. Right?

1:28:30

Yeah. I don't think Wow.

1:28:33

Really, that's your spin. That's a week. But but you can't spin it again. I didn't see what it

1:28:35

was, so it doesn't matter. Well, they did. You must oh,

1:28:39

no. What is it? Oh,

1:28:43

no. You must defend Twitter

1:28:45

banning third party

1:28:48

apps. I feel like

1:28:50

I should run through so here's how we'll do it. The sorry, guys. This is our

1:28:52

first time doing it. We should talk about the topic. I

1:28:55

will run through the topic. Okay. And then --

1:28:57

Okay. Of you. -- we'll defend it.

1:28:59

Yeah. I like it. Last

1:29:01

Thursday, all or nearly all third party Twitter

1:29:03

apps broke. The

1:29:08

same day, A clause was quietly

1:29:10

added to its developer agreement banning the creation of a substitute

1:29:12

or similar service

1:29:15

to the Twitter application. So

1:29:18

in effect, I don't even remember some of the names of third party Twitter clients that I've used in the past, but I have

1:29:20

used them. Food

1:29:23

Suite. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Okay.

1:29:26

Yeah. In in effect, tools like hootsuite

1:29:28

or no. There there used to be, like,

1:29:31

okay. For example, on Windows phone, there

1:29:33

wasn't a first party Twitter client. There was like

1:29:35

a third party one that just hooked into the API and

1:29:37

made it, you know, use it wasn't

1:29:39

great, but it was usable. After

1:29:42

a long silence, Twitter has

1:29:45

announced that it was simply

1:29:47

enforcing its long standing

1:29:50

API rules which may result in some apps

1:29:52

not working. Twitter has not

1:29:54

responded to any questions about

1:29:57

which longstanding rules were broken. Or they

1:29:59

don't have a PR department. Questions that were

1:30:01

posed by prominent members of the tech community,

1:30:03

like our friend, over

1:30:06

at MKBHD, one Mark has Keith Brownley in high definition.

1:30:14

In twenty twenty one, Twitter had actually

1:30:16

removed a clause, discouraging but

1:30:18

not banning third party apps as

1:30:21

a way of building a warmer

1:30:23

relationship with these

1:30:23

developers. In other news, Twitter

1:30:26

is now being sued by

1:30:28

a consulting firm claiming

1:30:30

that it has not been paid services

1:30:32

rendered to Twitter during its lawsuit to force Musk

1:30:34

to follow through on his purchase of the company. That's really funny. Sure.

1:30:39

We'll talk about that more later. That's really really

1:30:43

funny anyway. Okay.

1:30:46

I think you saw it.

1:30:47

I think you saw it. Isn't

1:30:50

there one more thing? Nope.

1:30:52

Oh, that's just not very

1:30:54

interesting. No. Okay. Twitter is going

1:30:56

through a a re facing right now. It has

1:30:58

a new CEO. It has a lot of new

1:31:00

employees. It has a lot less total employees.

1:31:02

Does it have a lot of new employees?

1:31:05

Believe so. Don't didn't they? Aren't

1:31:07

they hiring? Twitter? Yeah. Twitter. Yeah. Didn't

1:31:07

they let go, like, seventy five percent of

1:31:10

their workforce? I think they're also hiring. Oh,

1:31:12

okay. Yeah.

1:31:15

Okay. So they've got new employees. Be true. Okay. What if that I

1:31:17

have some new employees. Oh, yeah. Did I mention that the

1:31:19

other person is allowed

1:31:21

to poke holes in your defense the whole

1:31:23

time? Sure. Yeah. I haven't made

1:31:25

one yet. Okay. You can sit

1:31:27

the f down. This

1:31:30

is gonna be so hard. No. You have to be straight faced.

1:31:32

You're not allowed

1:31:35

to acknowledge it. Alright. Yeah. Okay.

1:31:37

So, yeah, they have a new face and they need to be able to control their image because -- Okay.

1:31:39

-- image matters. Right? And having

1:31:42

all these third party apps

1:31:45

running around, making custom experiences that are different to what they are

1:31:47

trying to tailor make for their audience could be bad

1:31:49

for the platform, and they

1:31:52

should enforce various

1:31:55

rules that they have. You shouldn't just set rules and then

1:31:57

not enforce them. It can be frustrating to be

1:31:59

on a platform where the rules are really

1:32:01

loosey goosey and they get applied to

1:32:03

some people in a certain way and other

1:32:05

people in a certain way. It's a lot easier if it's very clear what you can and cannot do. So

1:32:07

if rules exist Okay. --

1:32:11

they should be enforced. No. No. No. I have to you right there because it's obviously not

1:32:13

clear what rules -- What --

1:32:16

because they're trying

1:32:18

to make it clear. No.

1:32:19

They're not trying to make it clear. They're not responding. Oh, they don't have

1:32:21

a yard of birth. When people But that's not

1:32:23

part of the debate, so

1:32:26

it's okay. No. That is not okay

1:32:28

because a key

1:32:31

foundational piece of

1:32:33

your argument is that they are trying

1:32:35

to improve the clarity of their rules -- Yeah. -- by

1:32:37

enforcing them. By enforcing them. But if no one can figure out what

1:32:39

rules are being violated then

1:32:43

they obviously aren't clear enough. just don't make third party

1:32:45

apps. Just don't make third party apps. That's

1:32:47

not a defense of it.

1:32:49

That's the conclusion of

1:32:52

it. Yeah.

1:32:53

But it's okay. So you're just saying it's okay. Yeah. Just

1:32:55

don't make her a pretty Fundamentally, that's all you got.

1:33:00

I think it's fine. Twitter doesn't Twitter doesn't want

1:33:02

you to make third party apps, so don't make third party

1:33:04

apps. I it seems

1:33:07

pretty clear to me. Don't

1:33:09

see why they would need a PR department because the

1:33:11

answer is very obvious. Don't make third party? I see. And just to

1:33:13

kind of bring us back

1:33:15

a little bit to

1:33:17

your argument that Twitter is concerned about the image that it presents to the rest of the world. Of

1:33:19

course. And the damage that third party

1:33:22

apps could do to

1:33:24

it I

1:33:27

mean, do I even have to

1:33:29

explain how wrong that is? When it's doing

1:33:31

They're trying to release new features. They're

1:33:34

trying to release new functionality. And if

1:33:36

these these third party apps don't support

1:33:38

those features and functionality, then those aren't gonna get to the users. The the

1:33:41

image, the the

1:33:44

the wave people interpret and and use Twitter could

1:33:46

be deeply affected by these third party apps, not responding

1:33:48

and reflecting the experience that Twitter

1:33:50

is trying to create for its users.

1:33:53

So maybe they just shouldn't exist. And if it follows the rules to get rid of them, well, they should get rid of them because they

1:33:56

enforce

1:33:59

their rules. I see. So if

1:34:02

your goal in life is to have your products be

1:34:04

as much of a

1:34:07

dumpster fire as possible, then

1:34:09

you are well within your rights to ensure that every user who interacts with

1:34:11

it experiences the dumpster fire. I wouldn't

1:34:14

word it that way, but

1:34:17

they are fully within

1:34:19

their rights. Correct? Okay. Your argument

1:34:21

boils down to legally there within

1:34:24

their rights.

1:34:27

That is a true state. Again, wouldn't word

1:34:29

it that way, but that is a true statement.

1:34:31

Again, they're they're they're

1:34:34

creating new features. There's I

1:34:36

believe there's I'm not super familiar with

1:34:38

Twitter features, but I believe there's new

1:34:42

home feed I believe there's new feeds in your home.

1:34:44

I don't know. Okay. I don't know Twitter

1:34:46

features very well. But if the third

1:34:48

party apps don't reflect that and that's a

1:34:50

big thing that they wanna push because they have this massive wave

1:34:52

of new users. So clearly, they're

1:34:54

doing something. Right? And their servers

1:34:57

have not gone down despite everyone

1:34:59

saying that they would. They want to

1:35:01

push Twitter in a new direction and you don't

1:35:03

want third party

1:35:07

people rolling what direction your platform is able to

1:35:09

go in -- Okay. -- because they're able to

1:35:11

do. Imagine you were releasing videos -- Alright. --

1:35:14

and you started releasing a new type of video

1:35:16

but some third party thing was just

1:35:18

like, we're just not gonna release that type of video whenever they release it.

1:35:20

Would that annoy you

1:35:23

as a video creator? But what

1:35:25

about user choice? What did I know you as a video creator?

1:35:27

As a video creator, if someone created a curated

1:35:30

feed of my videos,

1:35:32

If you started making No. And that's the reason no.

1:35:34

And that's the reason that Twitter has engaged with

1:35:38

these third party apps over

1:35:40

the course of their entire history is

1:35:42

because overall, they benefit from a broader ecosystem compared to

1:35:45

a closed more narrow one. If

1:35:47

you were using Twitch, Sure.

1:35:51

And you make a fixed say

1:35:53

twitch does more things than it does. Say

1:35:55

twitch was successful when they tried to

1:35:58

do mods. Sure. Shot's fired.

1:36:00

And you started releasing a

1:36:02

new type of review content.

1:36:05

And it's compatible

1:36:08

with Twitch. But Twitch just decides to not upgrade the

1:36:10

I I don't know. Say it's like AV1 or something -- Sure.

1:36:12

-- and Twitch doesn't update. So a

1:36:14

bunch of users on Twitch are now

1:36:18

unable to view those videos. But

1:36:20

you've curated a massive user base

1:36:22

on Twitch -- Mhmm. -- that

1:36:25

sees your standard content. So now you

1:36:27

have these weird segmented content. Yes. You have

1:36:29

some stuff that's going on. Yeah. And and

1:36:31

other stuff that can't go on to it. Yeah.

1:36:33

And if that is they're refusing

1:36:34

to update their And if that third party if that third party

1:36:37

platform doesn't update, then

1:36:39

obviously they're going

1:36:41

to shed users or that's really tricky. Communicate

1:36:43

to those

1:36:45

users directly

1:36:48

about

1:36:48

this. Communications

1:36:50

of those users is controlled by that

1:36:52

platform. Why is this a good thing

1:36:54

for you? There's no benefit. The

1:36:56

the benefits -- Yeah. -- till all

1:36:59

So third party apps. Okay. So you can actually

1:37:01

control feature functionality. Alright. So

1:37:03

the last new rule I'm going to add to

1:37:05

this segment is that we're gonna have to add a

1:37:08

time limit because that took

1:37:10

too long. Okay. Yeah. Fair enough. And

1:37:12

two, our adjudicator will be Dan. So Dan, can you

1:37:14

give Luke a rating out of ten for his defense

1:37:19

of Twitter just cutting off third party

1:37:21

apps. I don't know. That

1:37:22

did seem pretty

1:37:23

weak. I'm probably gonna give you a

1:37:25

three out of ten because they're legally allowed

1:37:27

to

1:37:27

do it. Like, no,

1:37:30

that's that's kind of

1:37:32

weak.

1:37:33

That wasn't my argument. That's

1:37:35

that's because I said your argument wasn't clear that it's still a three out

1:37:37

of ten defense. Okay. I need to make sure that

1:37:39

I just completely oh, you

1:37:41

do the thing that you

1:37:44

don't like. What did

1:37:46

I do? I need a shadow band minus. What did I do?

1:37:48

It just wasn't my argument

1:37:50

and that you said that it

1:37:52

was. No.

1:37:55

I just

1:37:55

twice. Yeah. You did. When? Just now the

1:37:58

dance in it. He regurgitated what

1:38:00

you said. Well, that was the argument you

1:38:02

were making at all times and

1:38:03

Fine. That was

1:38:05

when I was paying it. I was saying if

1:38:07

they're going to legally rights. Yeah.

1:38:11

But they don't they they haven't made these

1:38:13

rules clear. They don't seem to have them. You if they had

1:38:16

these rules, then they should

1:38:18

reply and say what the rules

1:38:20

are. But it's clear

1:38:22

that they don't want anyone to know what the rules are because then they might be able to

1:38:24

adjust their third party apps

1:38:26

to adhere to the rules.

1:38:30

That

1:38:30

they don't want to throw it through pretty house. And that

1:38:33

I will that's fair

1:38:35

enough. Yeah. But but to

1:38:37

say that they want clarity

1:38:39

in their rules, That's a bad. That's a

1:38:41

bad. I didn't

1:38:42

say they want clarity. You did say they want to enforce them.