Video ltT7W_KSS4Y

[00:00] Yeah, I had a feeling it was going to be

[00:01] a pretty poisonous topic where the only

[00:03] winning move is not to play in regards

[00:05] to covering the H3 vers IDs lawsuit, but

[00:09] sometimes you put your hand on the stove

[00:10] to see if it's still hot. And boy howdy

[00:13] is it ever. Like I've always said, I

[00:15] treat this channel like a diary. I just

[00:18] blabber about things that I feel like

[00:20] talking on. just sitting in my chair

[00:22] kicking my little 5'6 petite leggies

[00:25] around and just giving my thoughts from

[00:28] the old steel trap up here on it. And

[00:30] one topic I've always covered is creator

[00:33] lawsuits. So when I heard about the H3

[00:35] vers Idubbbz defamation case, I wanted

[00:38] to take a peek into it, sink my teeth in

[00:40] there, and see what's going on because

[00:42] that is a pretty wild thing to learn

[00:44] about. And learn about it I did like a

[00:47] little scholar. It was a new lawsuit. It

[00:50] was only public knowledge for like 24

[00:54] hours. So, I did as much research on it

[00:58] as I could and watched the Idubbbz

[01:01] stream that started that is like the

[01:04] main catalyst of it. I watched uh the H3

[01:08] stream where he explains his lawsuit and

[01:11] I talked to both parties, Idubbbz and

[01:13] Ethan, to try and get the clearest, most

[01:15] complete picture of everything going on

[01:17] here. And then I just gave you my view

[01:19] on it from the old Fidian homunculus

[01:22] eyes. And I think I've always made it

[01:25] abundantly clear. You're always welcome

[01:28] to disagree with me. I've always kept

[01:30] that door wide open because I actually

[01:32] value differencing differences of

[01:35] opinion. I hate echo chambers. I spit on

[01:38] that constantly. I'm I actively shut

[01:41] down the idea that you have to agree

[01:44] with everything I say or else I hate

[01:45] you. you're tacky and I hate you.

[01:47] Throughout all my content, from the womb

[01:49] to the tomb, I have always welcomed

[01:52] discussion and people having a

[01:53] difference of opinion because, as I've

[01:54] always said, I think when you surround

[01:56] yourself with sick offense and you only

[01:58] lock yourself into one way of viewing

[02:00] things, you do yourself a disservice. I

[02:02] think it is a bad thing to just be

[02:04] constantly locked in a bubble. Now, the

[02:06] reason I mention that is because

[02:08] I made the mistake. I committed the old

[02:11] sin of taking a peek at what the

[02:13] discussion was around this video on like

[02:16] Reddit and Twitter, which something I

[02:19] haven't done in in quite a few moons

[02:21] now. I was expecting like actual

[02:24] discussion because I'm new to this topic

[02:25] and I wanted to see, okay, well, what

[02:27] are some things that I didn't know

[02:29] about? What can I learn about here and

[02:30] dive deeper on? And there was some very

[02:33] valid critiques and some information

[02:35] that I could get my hands on and learn

[02:37] more about. But boy howdy, there was a

[02:40] lot of hoopla that I couldn't have even

[02:44] imagined would be like a like a

[02:46] controversial thing. And there were

[02:48] people that were probably stating they

[02:51] didn't watch the video and then getting

[02:52] angry at things they assumed I might

[02:54] have said in it or attacking me for

[02:56] things that I never said that aren't in

[02:58] the video because they didn't watch it.

[03:00] or they're replying to someone who's

[03:03] just actually making [ __ ] up that

[03:05] they're pulling out of their ass that I

[03:07] never said. So, it just feels [ __ ]

[03:09] useless to even engage in the topic in

[03:11] that case. Like, that's it's so odd.

[03:14] Like, one that I didn't expect was just

[03:17] me mentioning that I'm not online as

[03:19] much as I used to be was apparently like

[03:21] a highly debated topic. The guy whose

[03:24] entire career is front running whatever

[03:26] is going viral is saying that he doesn't

[03:29] know what's going on the internet. All

[03:31] right. I mean obviously we got to take a

[03:33] we got to take his word for it, right?

[03:35] Let's see what videos he's been making.

[03:37] Lego watch Mojo got even more pathetic.

[03:40] Degenerate cringe. Lego vigilantes. Lego

[03:44] scandal keeps getting messy but responds

[03:47] to the Lego scandal. Lego scandal is

[03:50] getting extremely dangerous and scary.

[03:53] cringe officer embarrasses himself. Lego

[03:56] scandal keeps getting crazier.

[03:58] >> The gist of it is when I was talking

[03:59] about the defamation lawsuit, I also

[04:01] mentioned that Ethan has other active

[04:04] lawsuits against other creators. And I

[04:06] called him the Nintendo of YouTubers

[04:08] because he's become extremely latigious.

[04:10] But I didn't dive into those other

[04:11] lawsuits because I didn't know much

[04:13] about them. And that claim is apparently

[04:16] extremely hard to believe because

[04:18] everyone thinks and assumes that I am

[04:21] terminally online like I used to be two

[04:23] or three years ago. But when I said

[04:25] that's not the case, there are quite a

[04:28] few people that just don't believe me.

[04:30] Unfathomable moment. So it must be a

[04:32] lie. So, here's a streamer debunking by

[04:36] going through my channel and noticing

[04:38] I've posted a lot of videos on Lego, for

[04:41] example, because of the big Lego

[04:43] scandal, which I think is a very

[04:44] interesting example to use off the point

[04:48] he's making about me frontr running

[04:50] every viral story. Because with the

[04:53] reckless bin verse bricks and mini figs

[04:55] Lego scandal, I actually was getting

[04:58] called out for avoiding that and

[05:00] ignoring it because I was late to

[05:03] covering it. Reckless Bin dropped part

[05:05] one on May 21st and I heard about it

[05:08] from Stream Chat and then a friend sent

[05:10] it to me as well and I made my video

[05:14] covering it on May 26th, 5 days later.

[05:17] But in that interim, people were saying

[05:19] I was avoiding the topic. I just find it

[05:21] fascinating how if I cover something

[05:23] quickly or extensively like in the case

[05:25] of the Lego scandal, that's a problem.

[05:28] I'm just front running [ __ ] to

[05:30] capitalize off the virality of it. But

[05:33] if I am late to covering something,

[05:36] well, that means that I was avoiding it

[05:38] and I must have known about it the whole

[05:39] time and had ulterior motives to avoid

[05:43] the topic out of cowardice. And I only

[05:45] talk about it when pressed. Feels like a

[05:48] lose lose. If I'm too quick to something

[05:51] or too interested in something, so I

[05:53] make a lot of content on it, well then

[05:55] I'm just there to frontr run it and

[05:57] capitalize off it being popular. But if

[06:00] I'm too slow to it, well, it means I was

[06:02] actually avoiding it the whole time. And

[06:04] when I do cover it, well, it's only

[06:06] because people pressured me.

[06:08] So where's the Goldilock zone? I can't

[06:12] be too quick to something or too

[06:13] interested in it because that's frowned

[06:15] upon. But I also can't be too slow to it

[06:18] or not cover it at all because then that

[06:21] must mean that I knew about it the whole

[06:22] time. I'm damn near omnisient. I guess I

[06:25] I see everything and thus if I am slow

[06:28] to it or don't talk about it then there

[06:30] was an ulterior motive and a deeper

[06:32] reason that's nefarious. So where is the

[06:34] Goldilock zone? I personally don't see

[06:37] why it's so hard to believe that

[06:40] considering in a lot of the stories I

[06:43] cover, they have already been covered by

[06:45] others. Like Dolan Darcis, for example,

[06:47] Slop Live has beaten me to like every

[06:50] topic for the last year basically. And

[06:53] the way I find out about a lot of the

[06:55] things I cover is through, like I said,

[06:58] friends sending it to me or when I do

[07:00] stream, which isn't daily. I'm a

[07:02] semi-retired streamer, but when I do

[07:04] stream stream chat, putting things on my

[07:06] radar, and naturally, what people are

[07:08] probably going to be sending are the

[07:10] popular things cuz that's what they've

[07:12] seen. So, that's usually what I get

[07:15] sent, but it's not all the time either.

[07:17] Like on his stream, as he was scrolling

[07:19] around talking about how it's only like,

[07:21] you know, the big popular stuff, he

[07:23] passed multiple things that weren't like

[07:25] that video about um not enough people

[07:28] think about this. That's about sand.

[07:30] It's literally just about sand and sand

[07:32] related crimes like the sand mafia. And

[07:35] he also even called out another one

[07:37] about ranking every item on Panda

[07:39] Express's menu. He used that to like

[07:42] belittle me about like, you know, it's

[07:43] not good is the

[07:45] thing he was insinuating there. But it's

[07:48] not like a viral story. It's not like

[07:50] Panda Express is a huge topic you got to

[07:53] strike while the iron's hot. My channel

[07:55] has always just been things that I'm

[07:57] interested in at the time. And yeah,

[07:59] there are a lot of stories I get sent

[08:01] that I do find interesting and do yap

[08:03] about, like the Lego scandal. But I

[08:06] really do miss a lot more these days

[08:09] than I did when I was very online all

[08:12] the time, like two or three years ago. I

[08:16] I I don't I don't know like how else to

[08:19] prove it to you. I mean, I guess like

[08:21] you can look at my Twitter page and see

[08:24] that I have two tweets in like the last

[08:27] two years or on Instagram I make like a

[08:30] post every month and a half and a lot of

[08:32] them are just me hanging out with my

[08:34] farm animals. Like you can check my my

[08:37] streaming history and see that I'm not

[08:40] an active stream. like I'm an active

[08:41] streamer, but I'm not streaming with the

[08:43] same frequency I used to. And I'm not

[08:45] putting in really long hours aside from

[08:47] when I did Destiny 2, uh, Salvation's Ed

[08:50] Salvation's Edge Blind recently, which

[08:52] is [ __ ] exciting. But I I don't

[08:54] really know how else to say it. I I just

[08:58] don't see everything that happens

[08:59] online. And I can't believe that's

[09:00] something that's

[09:02] uh apparently like a big issue or so

[09:05] unbelievable. Like, in fact, it's

[09:08] embarrassing for me that people can't

[09:09] imagine that I'm not online all the

[09:11] time.

[09:12] >> All the lazy ass [ __ ] thumbnails.

[09:14] Also, he has the Asmin Goldian outfit

[09:17] where he only wears a dirty white

[09:19] t-shirt in every [ __ ] thumbnail. God,

[09:22] every single video is like, "Guys, we

[09:25] got to he's got to stay offline to make

[09:27] his Panda Express tier list."

[09:29] >> Well, now you gone way too far. How

[09:32] [ __ ] dare you. I have been wearing

[09:34] white t-shirts. Not dirty white

[09:36] t-shirts, by the way. Pristine gym mint

[09:38] white t-shirts since high school. Since

[09:40] Asmin Gold was in diapers.

[09:43] It's like me saying that you have a

[09:45] moist critian hair and beard combo. But

[09:48] anyway, now let's talk about the other

[09:50] lawsuits here because that was a big

[09:52] point that people were very upset with

[09:54] that I didn't extensively cover those as

[09:57] 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.