[0:00] Yeah, I had a feeling it was going to be
[0:01] a pretty poisonous topic where the only
[0:03] winning move is not to play in regards
[0:05] to covering the H3 vers IDs lawsuit, but
[0:09] sometimes you put your hand on the stove
[0:10] to see if it's still hot. And boy howdy
[0:13] is it ever. Like I've always said, I
[0:15] treat this channel like a diary. I just
[0:18] blabber about things that I feel like
[0:20] talking on. just sitting in my chair
[0:22] kicking my little 5'6 petite leggies
[0:25] around and just giving my thoughts from
[0:28] the old steel trap up here on it. And
[0:30] one topic I've always covered is creator
[0:33] lawsuits. So when I heard about the H3
[0:35] vers Idubbbz defamation case, I wanted
[0:38] to take a peek into it, sink my teeth in
[0:40] there, and see what's going on because
[0:42] that is a pretty wild thing to learn
[0:44] about. And learn about it I did like a
[0:47] little scholar. It was a new lawsuit. It
[0:50] was only public knowledge for like 24
[0:54] hours. So, I did as much research on it
[0:58] as I could and watched the Idubbbz
[1:01] stream that started that is like the
[1:04] main catalyst of it. I watched uh the H3
[1:08] stream where he explains his lawsuit and
[1:11] I talked to both parties, Idubbbz and
[1:13] Ethan, to try and get the clearest, most
[1:15] complete picture of everything going on
[1:17] here. And then I just gave you my view
[1:19] on it from the old Fidian homunculus
[1:22] eyes. And I think I've always made it
[1:25] abundantly clear. You're always welcome
[1:28] to disagree with me. I've always kept
[1:30] that door wide open because I actually
[1:32] value differencing differences of
[1:35] opinion. I hate echo chambers. I spit on
[1:38] that constantly. I'm I actively shut
[1:41] down the idea that you have to agree
[1:44] with everything I say or else I hate
[1:45] you. you're tacky and I hate you.
[1:47] Throughout all my content, from the womb
[1:49] to the tomb, I have always welcomed
[1:52] discussion and people having a
[1:53] difference of opinion because, as I've
[1:54] always said, I think when you surround
[1:56] yourself with sick offense and you only
[1:58] lock yourself into one way of viewing
[2:00] things, you do yourself a disservice. I
[2:02] think it is a bad thing to just be
[2:04] constantly locked in a bubble. Now, the
[2:06] reason I mention that is because
[2:08] I made the mistake. I committed the old
[2:11] sin of taking a peek at what the
[2:13] discussion was around this video on like
[2:16] Reddit and Twitter, which something I
[2:19] haven't done in in quite a few moons
[2:21] now. I was expecting like actual
[2:24] discussion because I'm new to this topic
[2:25] and I wanted to see, okay, well, what
[2:27] are some things that I didn't know
[2:29] about? What can I learn about here and
[2:30] dive deeper on? And there was some very
[2:33] valid critiques and some information
[2:35] that I could get my hands on and learn
[2:37] more about. But boy howdy, there was a
[2:40] lot of hoopla that I couldn't have even
[2:44] imagined would be like a like a
[2:46] controversial thing. And there were
[2:48] people that were probably stating they
[2:51] didn't watch the video and then getting
[2:52] angry at things they assumed I might
[2:54] have said in it or attacking me for
[2:56] things that I never said that aren't in
[2:58] the video because they didn't watch it.
[3:00] or they're replying to someone who's
[3:03] just actually making [ __ ] up that
[3:05] they're pulling out of their ass that I
[3:07] never said. So, it just feels [ __ ]
[3:09] useless to even engage in the topic in
[3:11] that case. Like, that's it's so odd.
[3:14] Like, one that I didn't expect was just
[3:17] me mentioning that I'm not online as
[3:19] much as I used to be was apparently like
[3:21] a highly debated topic. The guy whose
[3:24] entire career is front running whatever
[3:26] is going viral is saying that he doesn't
[3:29] know what's going on the internet. All
[3:31] right. I mean obviously we got to take a
[3:33] we got to take his word for it, right?
[3:35] Let's see what videos he's been making.
[3:37] Lego watch Mojo got even more pathetic.
[3:40] Degenerate cringe. Lego vigilantes. Lego
[3:44] scandal keeps getting messy but responds
[3:47] to the Lego scandal. Lego scandal is
[3:50] getting extremely dangerous and scary.
[3:53] cringe officer embarrasses himself. Lego
[3:56] scandal keeps getting crazier.
[3:58] >> The gist of it is when I was talking
[3:59] about the defamation lawsuit, I also
[4:01] mentioned that Ethan has other active
[4:04] lawsuits against other creators. And I
[4:06] called him the Nintendo of YouTubers
[4:08] because he's become extremely latigious.
[4:10] But I didn't dive into those other
[4:11] lawsuits because I didn't know much
[4:13] about them. And that claim is apparently
[4:16] extremely hard to believe because
[4:18] everyone thinks and assumes that I am
[4:21] terminally online like I used to be two
[4:23] or three years ago. But when I said
[4:25] that's not the case, there are quite a
[4:28] few people that just don't believe me.
[4:30] Unfathomable moment. So it must be a
[4:32] lie. So, here's a streamer debunking by
[4:36] going through my channel and noticing
[4:38] I've posted a lot of videos on Lego, for
[4:41] example, because of the big Lego
[4:43] scandal, which I think is a very
[4:44] interesting example to use off the point
[4:48] he's making about me frontr running
[4:50] every viral story. Because with the
[4:53] reckless bin verse bricks and mini figs
[4:55] Lego scandal, I actually was getting
[4:58] called out for avoiding that and
[5:00] ignoring it because I was late to
[5:03] covering it. Reckless Bin dropped part
[5:05] one on May 21st and I heard about it
[5:08] from Stream Chat and then a friend sent
[5:10] it to me as well and I made my video
[5:14] covering it on May 26th, 5 days later.
[5:17] But in that interim, people were saying
[5:19] I was avoiding the topic. I just find it
[5:21] fascinating how if I cover something
[5:23] quickly or extensively like in the case
[5:25] of the Lego scandal, that's a problem.
[5:28] I'm just front running [ __ ] to
[5:30] capitalize off the virality of it. But
[5:33] if I am late to covering something,
[5:36] well, that means that I was avoiding it
[5:38] and I must have known about it the whole
[5:39] time and had ulterior motives to avoid
[5:43] the topic out of cowardice. And I only
[5:45] talk about it when pressed. Feels like a
[5:48] lose lose. If I'm too quick to something
[5:51] or too interested in something, so I
[5:53] make a lot of content on it, well then
[5:55] I'm just there to frontr run it and
[5:57] capitalize off it being popular. But if
[6:00] I'm too slow to it, well, it means I was
[6:02] actually avoiding it the whole time. And
[6:04] when I do cover it, well, it's only
[6:06] because people pressured me.
[6:08] So where's the Goldilock zone? I can't
[6:12] be too quick to something or too
[6:13] interested in it because that's frowned
[6:15] upon. But I also can't be too slow to it
[6:18] or not cover it at all because then that
[6:21] must mean that I knew about it the whole
[6:22] time. I'm damn near omnisient. I guess I
[6:25] I see everything and thus if I am slow
[6:28] to it or don't talk about it then there
[6:30] was an ulterior motive and a deeper
[6:32] reason that's nefarious. So where is the
[6:34] Goldilock zone? I personally don't see
[6:37] why it's so hard to believe that
[6:40] considering in a lot of the stories I
[6:43] cover, they have already been covered by
[6:45] others. Like Dolan Darcis, for example,
[6:47] Slop Live has beaten me to like every
[6:50] topic for the last year basically. And
[6:53] the way I find out about a lot of the
[6:55] things I cover is through, like I said,
[6:58] friends sending it to me or when I do
[7:00] stream, which isn't daily. I'm a
[7:02] semi-retired streamer, but when I do
[7:04] stream stream chat, putting things on my
[7:06] radar, and naturally, what people are
[7:08] probably going to be sending are the
[7:10] popular things cuz that's what they've
[7:12] seen. So, that's usually what I get
[7:15] sent, but it's not all the time either.
[7:17] Like on his stream, as he was scrolling
[7:19] around talking about how it's only like,
[7:21] you know, the big popular stuff, he
[7:23] passed multiple things that weren't like
[7:25] that video about um not enough people
[7:28] think about this. That's about sand.
[7:30] It's literally just about sand and sand
[7:32] related crimes like the sand mafia. And
[7:35] he also even called out another one
[7:37] about ranking every item on Panda
[7:39] Express's menu. He used that to like
[7:42] belittle me about like, you know, it's
[7:43] not good is the
[7:45] thing he was insinuating there. But it's
[7:48] not like a viral story. It's not like
[7:50] Panda Express is a huge topic you got to
[7:53] strike while the iron's hot. My channel
[7:55] has always just been things that I'm
[7:57] interested in at the time. And yeah,
[7:59] there are a lot of stories I get sent
[8:01] that I do find interesting and do yap
[8:03] about, like the Lego scandal. But I
[8:06] really do miss a lot more these days
[8:09] than I did when I was very online all
[8:12] the time, like two or three years ago. I
[8:16] I I don't I don't know like how else to
[8:19] prove it to you. I mean, I guess like
[8:21] you can look at my Twitter page and see
[8:24] that I have two tweets in like the last
[8:27] two years or on Instagram I make like a
[8:30] post every month and a half and a lot of
[8:32] them are just me hanging out with my
[8:34] farm animals. Like you can check my my
[8:37] streaming history and see that I'm not
[8:40] an active stream. like I'm an active
[8:41] streamer, but I'm not streaming with the
[8:43] same frequency I used to. And I'm not
[8:45] putting in really long hours aside from
[8:47] when I did Destiny 2, uh, Salvation's Ed
[8:50] Salvation's Edge Blind recently, which
[8:52] is [ __ ] exciting. But I I don't
[8:54] really know how else to say it. I I just
[8:58] don't see everything that happens
[8:59] online. And I can't believe that's
[9:00] something that's
[9:02] uh apparently like a big issue or so
[9:05] unbelievable. Like, in fact, it's
[9:08] embarrassing for me that people can't
[9:09] imagine that I'm not online all the
[9:11] time.
[9:12] >> All the lazy ass [ __ ] thumbnails.
[9:14] Also, he has the Asmin Goldian outfit
[9:17] where he only wears a dirty white
[9:19] t-shirt in every [ __ ] thumbnail. God,
[9:22] every single video is like, "Guys, we
[9:25] got to he's got to stay offline to make
[9:27] his Panda Express tier list."
[9:29] >> Well, now you gone way too far. How
[9:32] [ __ ] dare you. I have been wearing
[9:34] white t-shirts. Not dirty white
[9:36] t-shirts, by the way. Pristine gym mint
[9:38] white t-shirts since high school. Since
[9:40] Asmin Gold was in diapers.
[9:43] It's like me saying that you have a
[9:45] moist critian hair and beard combo. But
[9:48] anyway, now let's talk about the other
[9:50] lawsuits here because that was a big
[9:52] point that people were very upset with
[9:54] that I didn't extensively cover those as
[9:57] well when talking about the defamation
[10:00] lawsuit. And since I didn't do so, and
[10:03] people didn't believe that it was
[10:04] because I didn't know about it, they are
[10:07] accusing me of uh knowingly avoiding it
[10:11] or even silently championing for those
[10:14] lawsuits, which I find befuddling
[10:17] because throughout my entire time on
[10:19] YouTube, the 18 or 19 years on YouTube,
[10:21] I think I have made it beyond crystal
[10:25] clear how much I dislike this latigious
[10:30] approach. approach to online discourse
[10:33] and really just this excessive use of
[10:36] the legal system for strongarming or
[10:39] silencing like I have made I don't know
[10:42] how many videos covering cases even
[10:45] outside of like the internet scope of
[10:47] like you know sometimes the legal toilet
[10:50] paper flying back and forth but like
[10:51] just in general like the willy-nilly
[10:54] lawsuits that fly around from like
[10:56] corporations attempting to bully people
[10:58] too like I don't know why anyone would
[11:01] think for a second that I would be
[11:05] avoiding talking about that or uh
[11:08] agreeing with it. Why would I? I never
[11:12] have in the past. So why would I start
[11:14] now? You just don't like me, which is
[11:17] totally fine. I get it. Not everyone
[11:20] likes the old Florida peach. But you're
[11:23] just viewing it in bad faith and making
[11:26] that assumption. And it's incorrect
[11:29] because the truth is, and this shouldn't
[11:32] come as a shock to anyone, after
[11:34] learning more about those other lawsuits
[11:36] that Ethan is engaged in, like the fair
[11:38] use lawsuits and such, guess what? I
[11:41] don't agree with those either. Now,
[11:43] obviously, I don't know all the
[11:45] nitty-gritty around every single
[11:47] lawsuit. I've only just begun learning
[11:50] about all of these, but from everything
[11:52] I've seen from the lawsuits that he has
[11:55] actively going on, there's nothing in
[11:57] there that makes me think that this is
[12:00] like the right way of doing things or
[12:02] that this is different from other times
[12:04] in the past where creators have sued
[12:06] each other over uh disputes. Now,
[12:10] clearly, I don't know all the nuance and
[12:12] intricacies of fair use law. Ethan would
[12:15] certainly know that better than I and
[12:16] many others would. So maybe he has some
[12:18] strong cases here. And in one of the
[12:20] instances with one of these streamers,
[12:23] it did seem like they were just
[12:24] uninterrupted playing the video without
[12:27] even an attempt to transform it. So
[12:30] maybe that could be like a easy fair use
[12:32] win for Ethan. But I just don't think
[12:35] that's a win overall. Like for as long
[12:39] as I've been on the internet, that kind
[12:40] of behavior is been frowned upon. And I
[12:43] really think if the targets were
[12:44] different, if it wasn't streamers that a
[12:46] lot of people don't like, the response
[12:48] would be very different to these
[12:49] lawsuits. Right now, a lot of people
[12:50] celebrate them because they just hate
[12:52] the people that Ethan is suing. So, they
[12:57] go yee-haw for it. But these individuals
[13:02] like the streamers in particular for
[13:04] fair use, they are a fraction of the
[13:08] size of Ethan. So, it's a to me a hard
[13:11] case to make that he was genuinely like
[13:13] losing eyeballs because of them
[13:15] streaming it on their Twitch channel.
[13:17] And yeah, that is like a big [ __ ]
[13:19] thing for them to do. But let's be real,
[13:22] it's not hurting you. It's just you
[13:24] don't like them and they don't like you.
[13:26] So, this was a way of being able to get
[13:29] a big jab in there. And since a lot of
[13:31] the internet doesn't like them, they get
[13:33] to rally behind you as well as opposed
[13:36] to start asking the question, why even
[13:39] bother? You already won again against
[13:44] that kind of behavior. the internet.
[13:46] From what I can tell, this is kind of
[13:49] post-mortem now since I'm super late to
[13:52] it, but from what I can tell, no one was
[13:54] really on the side of the streamers that
[13:55] were just blatantly streaming it without
[13:57] any kind of transformation or anything
[14:00] like that. So, you already won. What's
[14:03] the point in continuing this further,
[14:05] paying big bucks to the lawyer just so
[14:07] you could also financially hurt them to
[14:10] further,
[14:12] you know, get them? It just it it seems
[14:16] like it's less about, you know, fighting
[14:18] a just cause for fair use and more about
[14:20] like here's here's some more ammunition.
[14:24] The big one that I've spent the most
[14:25] time looking into is the Denim's case
[14:28] because it's the most recent and is
[14:31] being touted as a tentative loss for
[14:33] Ethan, which I don't know what a
[14:35] tentative loss really means because it's
[14:38] not an official loss. It's still an
[14:40] ongoing uh lawsuit here, but the judge
[14:44] had like a very seemingly stern view on
[14:47] it that even cited Ethan Klein's
[14:50] previous fair use victory against him in
[14:53] his suit against Denims. Ethan Klein a
[14:57] while back had a landmark achievement in
[15:01] the fight for fair use against good old
[15:03] bold guy Matt Hos and that ruling was
[15:07] cited here against him in this fair use
[15:10] lawsuit. So to me that illustrates that
[15:12] maybe these lawsuits aren't coming from
[15:14] a genuine place of trying to enforce
[15:17] real fair use and are potentially just
[15:19] coming from a place of revenge.
[15:22] Now, I don't know the intricacies of
[15:24] everyone that's being sued and their
[15:26] relationship to Ethan and the Snark
[15:28] community. I don't know. I don't know.
[15:31] But from everything I've seen in these
[15:33] lawsuits, I just don't agree with going
[15:36] this extremely latigious path. There are
[15:38] very few lawsuits in this space that I
[15:40] think make sense. And like I said
[15:41] yesterday, the one that does is him
[15:43] going after the snarking community that
[15:46] allegedly did send a fraudulent CPS
[15:48] check to his house and human skulls,
[15:51] which apparently is taboo to even
[15:53] mention now for some reason. I got
[15:54] [ __ ] dogpiled for bringing that up,
[15:56] but from everything I've seen that that
[15:58] did happen, right? Like I didn't
[16:00] hallucinate that or anything. I So like
[16:04] that's a pretty [ __ ] big deal. That's
[16:05] a pretty traumatizing thing. That is
[16:06] psychopath behavior. So, if the snarking
[16:09] community is responsible for that, then
[16:10] yeah, it makes sense to go that path
[16:12] because that is extremely unhinged and
[16:15] that is something that should be pursued
[16:18] legally to stop that from ever happening
[16:20] again. But yeah, I honestly am very
[16:21] surprised how many people were so quick
[16:24] to jump to the conclusion that I was
[16:27] avoiding this and lying about not
[16:28] knowing about it and secretly
[16:32] championing for those lawsuits and that
[16:35] kind of thing. It's so upsetting because
[16:37] good faith is something that's just
[16:38] gone. It's completely flushed down the
[16:40] [ __ ] Anyone who would watch the
[16:43] video in good faith would be able to
[16:44] recognize, okay, maybe he is telling the
[16:46] truth and doesn't know about those
[16:48] lawsuits, which is why he hasn't
[16:49] included them there. I feel like that
[16:52] would be a normal thing to do, a
[16:54] courtesy to extend considering I have
[16:56] always vocally advocated against this
[17:00] kind of extremely latigious path in
[17:02] online discourse and online communities.
[17:06] So why now is that no longer afforded
[17:08] the courtesy of oh nope, he definitely
[17:11] he definitely fell back on his
[17:12] principles. He doesn't believe in that
[17:14] anymore here. But I guess to be honest,
[17:16] good faith is kind of viewed as weakness
[17:18] online. People are far more interested
[17:20] in scalp, far more interested in the
[17:22] spectacle and as much shits slinging as
[17:24] possible. So if it's trying to approach
[17:26] things with a level head, you kind of
[17:28] get attacked by everybody because no one
[17:31] really wants that anymore. So like
[17:33] yesterday, I feel like I did a very good
[17:36] faith uh look at everything and I spent
[17:39] three hours going through like the
[17:43] essentials of what was going on,
[17:44] learning about it from the ground up.
[17:47] And once I did that, then I dove into
[17:49] watching Idubbbz's stream where the
[17:52] lawsuit spawned from. I watched H3
[17:54] stream and I talked to them and
[17:57] continued to look deeper into it across
[17:59] the span of most of that day.
[18:03] And I approached it, I believe, in very
[18:05] good faith across the board. And in
[18:07] doing so, you will always earn that
[18:10] prestigious title of fencitter. If
[18:13] you're not extreme on either side of the
[18:16] drama, you are fencesitting it, which I
[18:21] think is a term that's really lost all
[18:23] its luster because in that video, I
[18:25] think it's a pretty strong stance. I
[18:27] don't agree with Ethan's defamation
[18:29] lawsuit. And I spend 36 minutes yapping
[18:32] about all of my reasons why. And boy
[18:35] howdy, I repeated myself multiple times.
[18:38] I watched it back and I literally made
[18:42] the same point like three times by
[18:44] accident. Like I said, I do most of
[18:45] these in only a handful of takes. So
[18:47] sometimes I lose track of what I've
[18:48] already said. So like I really did make
[18:51] it very clear what my stance is that
[18:55] this is not something that gives it gets
[18:57] too big thumbs up for me. But because I
[19:01] also mentioned that Idubbbz stream was a
[19:04] very poorly handled one that I think
[19:07] used a disgusting comment to try and
[19:09] illustrate his point and that it was a
[19:11] very painful stream to sit through
[19:12] because I mentioned that people are
[19:14] accusing me of both sides it. You were
[19:17] [ __ ] on Idubbbz for most of the
[19:18] video actually which I don't know how
[19:21] you walk away with that impression.
[19:22] Idubbbz himself will also tell you that
[19:24] that was a bad stream and he is
[19:26] regretful of it. he has publicly come
[19:29] out, apologized for it, and said that
[19:31] that was bad and that it was too far.
[19:34] But me giving my perspective that, yeah,
[19:36] it was pretty torturous to sit through
[19:38] is apparently, you know, a big no no.
[19:40] Now, I'm going to go ahead and repeat
[19:41] myself again before getting into the
[19:43] next stuff I want to talk about because
[19:46] again, a lot of the drama from this
[19:48] isn't even about my take on it. It's
[19:50] about clips of my take on it without
[19:53] even giving why I think that. So, I want
[19:56] it really front and center that there
[19:58] can be no confusion. Why I disagree with
[20:02] this defamation lawsuit? So, to do that,
[20:04] let's take it from the top, from the
[20:06] start. What started this defamation
[20:09] lawsuit? It's okay. So, I do want to say
[20:12] I don't agree with what's being said in
[20:15] this um comment here. Uh, but I I'm
[20:19] putting it on screen because I think it
[20:21] should be addressed because it's a big
[20:24] bold accusation that's very [ __ ] up.
[20:27] >> That comment he is showing was not made
[20:29] by him. He then goes on to explain what
[20:32] he's actually trying to accomplish by
[20:34] having that comment on his stream for so
[20:37] long as a watermark.
[20:38] >> Also, I do I will say that I think Ethan
[20:41] Klein is uh terrified of this guy. So,
[20:44] it's just kind of like legit. It's it is
[20:48] To me, it's super funny
[20:50] uh that uh he he has so much smoke for
[20:54] everyone that he thinks he can bully,
[20:56] but the person that he's [ __ ]
[20:58] terrified, he just keeps very overtly
[21:00] running from. And it's like, yeah,
[21:03] >> I think he made this point pretty dog
[21:05] shittily and used a very gross comment
[21:09] for it, which is what I said yesterday
[21:12] and I still stand by that and I said it
[21:16] to Idubbbz as well. The point that he is
[21:18] making by showing this comment on his
[21:21] stream is look at what Destiny can say
[21:24] and get away with without Ethan's wrath.
[21:27] Yet, he has smoke for so many other
[21:29] people. Destiny has said something
[21:31] unthinkably heinous and Ethan isn't
[21:34] going after him. He's going after other
[21:36] people. He must be afraid of him. That
[21:38] is his point with showing that Ethan has
[21:41] gone on to say that this is
[21:43] significantly more malicious from
[21:45] Idubbbz than Destiny cuz Destiny said it
[21:47] in passing and you know he was just
[21:49] being a [ __ ] and disavowed it. But
[21:54] Idubbbz isn't saying it. And he even
[21:57] openly states without any guesswork,
[22:00] without any riddles, and without any
[22:01] sarcasm that he doesn't agree with it,
[22:03] that he doesn't believe it. He is not
[22:05] presenting it as true. But Ethan is
[22:07] saying it's more malicious cuz Ian
[22:10] Idubbbz did meet his family, meet his
[22:12] kids, and now he has that comment on his
[22:13] stream. And I agree that is filthy and
[22:15] it is very low, which is why I'm saying
[22:17] it wasn't a good stream from Idubbbz. It
[22:19] just wasn't. And it's something he
[22:20] admits as well. But at no point in that
[22:23] stream that I sat through did Idubbbz
[22:26] ever try and make the argument that
[22:27] Destiny's comment reflects the truth or
[22:30] is real in any way. He openly says he
[22:33] doesn't agree with it. He is using it to
[22:35] make a point and he doesn't do a great
[22:37] job of expressing that point super
[22:40] clearly. But what he does express
[22:42] clearly and there's no ifands or buts
[22:45] about it is that he doesn't agree with
[22:46] the comment. So, it just doesn't make
[22:49] sense to me why Ethan is super willing
[22:51] to say like that didn't mean anything
[22:53] coming from Destiny, but Idubbbz having
[22:55] it on his stream means malicious intent
[22:57] and that it's lending an air of
[22:59] credibility to it. I just disagree
[23:00] because he's never putting credib
[23:02] credibility into it. Him sarcastically
[23:04] saying that this is a serious allegation
[23:06] that he should really look at is him
[23:08] making the point that why are you
[23:10] ignoring something this gross from
[23:13] Destiny but going so hard on others for
[23:15] much less. And in Ethan's statement,
[23:17] like I pointed out, he does outright say
[23:20] that he had a much better chance of
[23:22] winning against Idubbbz in Canada
[23:24] because of their laws there being very
[23:27] different than the laws here in the US.
[23:29] So, he didn't believe he could actually
[23:30] win against Destiny in the US, but felt
[23:33] he could against Idubbbz in Canada. So
[23:35] to me that feels like trying to
[23:38] capitalize off Lax's free speech laws in
[23:41] Canada to get revenge and using this as
[23:44] a convenient excuse of exacting that
[23:46] revenge and punishing him further for
[23:48] associating with snarkers as opposed to
[23:51] actually pursuing a real defamation
[23:53] case. Because if it's a if it's a
[23:55] defamation case you're only willing to
[23:57] pursue in Canada and not here in the
[23:58] States, then to me it doesn't feel like
[24:00] a defamation case worth pursuing. And
[24:02] people were upset at me for saying that,
[24:04] but I just truly believe that free
[24:06] speech laws around speech in general
[24:08] should be very protected. And I feel
[24:10] like the US does a pretty strong job
[24:12] compared to other countries. And I think
[24:14] that should be extended to every country
[24:16] on the planet to have laws that are
[24:18] strong to protect real free speech. And
[24:21] like I said, if Idubbbz was going around
[24:24] saying that the Destiny comment was
[24:25] accurate, it was true, and promoting it
[24:27] as a legitimate claim that he believed
[24:29] in and used his previous friendship with
[24:32] Ethan as this place of credibility to
[24:34] try and convince his argument that this
[24:36] is a claim that is really got some merit
[24:38] to it, some real oomph, then I would
[24:40] completely agree that wouldn't be free
[24:42] speech and that wouldn't be protected in
[24:44] the US either, by the way. So, in that
[24:46] case, I would get that if he was going
[24:48] around knowingly spreading this
[24:50] fraudulent, disgusting uh allegation and
[24:53] promoting it as though it were true,
[24:55] then yeah, that would be a defamation
[24:58] case that I would understand. But that's
[25:00] just not the truth of what happened in
[25:02] that stream. I am still just not a fan
[25:06] of extremely latigious uh avenues for
[25:10] handling the online space. I don't think
[25:13] there's ever any winners in it at all,
[25:15] except for, of course, the [ __ ]
[25:17] lawyers that are salivating. And yes, I
[25:19] do believe this sets a bad example that
[25:21] can open a big can of worms in the
[25:23] online space. Not just with commentary
[25:25] YouTubers, by the way, just in general.
[25:27] People were upset about stifling voices,
[25:29] but didn't bother to hear the entire
[25:31] take. The reason why I think something
[25:32] like this could stifle voices is because
[25:34] if this does become commonplace where
[25:36] people learn from this example that
[25:38] going through litigation to handle
[25:40] issues is the proper channel, people
[25:42] will be less willing to cover
[25:45] controversial stories. Like for example,
[25:48] when you make a video calling out like a
[25:50] potential scam, you are taking a very
[25:52] real risk. And in the case of this,
[25:56] who's to say that company that may or
[25:59] may not be scamming sees that and just
[26:00] immediately goes this path, shutting it
[26:02] down. You are showing this customer's
[26:04] perspective and it's hurting our brand.
[26:06] It's defamatory. We are coming after you
[26:09] with litigation. It would be, I believe,
[26:12] an issue that could be wide reaching.
[26:14] and other YouTubers that are, you know,
[26:17] in a beef with each other, maybe they do
[26:20] the same thing, like, uh, you said this
[26:23] about me or you posted a screenshot of a
[26:26] tweet that was slanderous about me, so
[26:28] now I'm coming after you legally and
[26:32] then it just becomes a big problem.
[26:33] Like, take for like I'll I'll use a
[26:35] commentary uh example because I think
[26:37] that's the one people are very focused
[26:39] on. You remember the whole Mr. Beast and
[26:41] Dog Pack thing? Well, that was perhaps
[26:43] the biggest payday for tons of
[26:45] commentary channels that latched onto
[26:46] that bosom hard. Tons and tons and tons
[26:50] of videos were being turned out daily
[26:52] covering that situation there. And fast
[26:56] forward a length of time, turns out a
[26:59] lot of the allegations were either
[27:01] misleading or just outright false and
[27:04] incorrect. So, should Mr. Beast then
[27:08] turn around and issue a lawsuit to every
[27:10] commentary channel that was covering
[27:11] that saga and siding with Dogpack and
[27:13] promoting the Dog Pack allegations as
[27:15] truth and putting them forward as
[27:17] legitimate and real. I don't think so. I
[27:19] don't think that would be a good thing.
[27:21] But he realistically probably does have
[27:24] a pretty strongish case he could build
[27:26] for defamation lawsuits against a lot of
[27:28] channels that were actively preaching
[27:31] dog packs allegations as gospel. uh
[27:34] titles and thumbnails talking about how
[27:36] he's a fraud and a scammer based on the
[27:38] dog pack allegations, many of which
[27:39] turned out to be incorrect, but they
[27:41] were still promoting them as the truth.
[27:45] So, should Mr. Beast issue defamation
[27:48] lawsuits to all those commentary
[27:50] channels? And should this end in a
[27:52] victory here and have a favorable ruling
[27:54] in the books for this defamation case,
[27:57] well, then Mr. Beast could point to look
[28:00] at that. He won here already. We can we
[28:04] can use that.
[28:06] Not saying that would happen, but maybe
[28:07] it could. It's again probably just not
[28:09] best to just have that ammunition as a
[28:11] possibility. Now, at the end of the day,
[28:13] that's just one Crow Magnum's
[28:15] perspective on it. And it is completely
[28:17] fine to disagree with it, even healthy.
[28:20] You know what's not healthy is this
[28:22] trend where people don't even watch the
[28:25] video and only engage through select
[28:28] Twitter clips in order to get outraged
[28:31] at and form their whole opinion around
[28:33] the video they didn't watch from. Now, I
[28:35] don't want to just dive into some
[28:37] unhinged takes, but this one actually
[28:40] tilted me. And for some reason, I saw
[28:42] this quite a bit. He spoke with Ethan
[28:44] Klein, but not Idubbbz. Pathetic. Like
[28:47] Maximleian Pegasus here. Pathetic. Yugi,
[28:51] if only they watched the video because I
[28:54] didn't just speak to Ethan Klein. I also
[28:58] spoke with Idubbbz and it's right there
[29:01] in the very beginning of the video.
[29:02] Like, it's early in the video. Now, I
[29:04] did also have a brief conversation with
[29:06] Idubbbz about this as well, letting it I
[29:08] mean, what can you do? I did say I
[29:11] talked with both of them about it, and
[29:13] yet people are still saying I only heard
[29:15] one side of the story.
[29:18] I mean, really, what can you do? Like,
[29:20] actually, what can you do? It's just
[29:21] it's incorrect, but you're making a
[29:23] whole argument around this dream you had
[29:26] that didn't actually happen because you
[29:28] didn't watch the video. You just already
[29:30] had a preconceived image of me that you
[29:33] want to ensure stays intact so that way
[29:35] you can continue to not like me. And
[29:37] that's fine. You can not like me. You
[29:39] don't. Not everyone likes the fun-sized
[29:41] Florida man over here. That's completely
[29:44] fine. Absolutely.
[29:46] But can you at least be right about
[29:49] something that you're not liking me for?
[29:51] Just watch the video first. I just
[29:53] realized I have been yapping for almost
[29:55] 30 minutes and I already know without
[29:58] even a semblance, not even an iota of
[30:00] doubt that almost nobody is watching to
[30:04] this point. They've already formed their
[30:06] opinion even before clicking the video
[30:08] or within the first couple of minutes to
[30:10] start fighting on different points.
[30:12] There's there's no reason to keep going
[30:13] down there. Like it does feel useless to
[30:17] even like engage with a lot of online
[30:20] discourse. It it does just feel useless
[30:23] because it doesn't even matter what the
[30:24] take is. People don't even really care
[30:26] about the take per se. It's just they
[30:29] already have an opinion of you and no
[30:31] matter what it's not changing. Sometimes
[30:33] they don't even bother to watch the
[30:34] video to try and [ __ ] on you for
[30:36] something that they think you might have
[30:38] said in the video or they saw like a
[30:39] tweet that references the video and
[30:41] that's good enough for them to [ __ ] on
[30:43] you for that even if it's entirely
[30:45] wrong. So like it it does it it is not
[30:49] not very productive. Anyway though, just
[30:51] just wanted to yap. It's about it.