June 22, 2024 • 63 mins
Richard Hoeg discusses the Doctor Disrespect Twitch exclusivity deal, the impact of Mixer's shutdown, and the 2022 legal settlement. He explores Twitch's whisper function, California penal code implications, and Doctor Disrespect's response to allegations, wrapping up with viewer questions and engagement.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:38):
Hello, and welcome to another episode ofVirtual legality.
I'm your host Richard Hoag, managing member ofthe Hoaglaw Business Law Firm of Northville,
Michigan.
Today is a Saturday, but we're here doing alittle bit of law because a big news story
broke this morning, and I wanna talk to youall.
About it.
So without further ado, I'm planning on puttingtogether this video in the format of going back
(00:59):
in the last 4 years Talking about why doctordisrespect to popular Twitch streamer was
banned at the time how that looked in 2020 Thenhow it looked in 2022 where there was an update
with a legal settlement and then talking aboutwhat happened this morning, what I see
happening and leaving space for your questionsand comments at the end of this video.
So please do save those up.
(01:21):
I know you have a lot of them.
I've seen in my DMs and in other places, a lotof good questions, and I've even got a tweet
that someone put out that I think summarized alot of them that we're gonna go over as part of
this video as well.
So welcome.
Thank you for being here.
And thank you for supporting comments andcommentary like this.
I love to talk about the law and video gamesand gaming and pop culture in general.
(01:42):
So if this is your first trip to virtualreality, thank you, and welcome.
And let's get started.
So without further ado, let's talk about doctordisrespect.
So Doctor disrespect, the Twitch band saga isactually one of the longest running playlists
on this channel.
Not the big that would go to Microsoft andActivision, which has just an oodle of videos.
But the longest running, if you look at thisfirst video from the playlist, and I will try
(02:06):
to add this to the front page of channel.
If I remember after the show is done, so youcan catch up on all of these at your
discretion.
We see that virtually y'all the number 254 wasthe start of all this.
And that it was 3 years ago, really 4 yearsago, at this point in time.
And that continues on all the way up untiltoday.
June 22nd 2024, and with the legal settlementhappening 2 years ago from that point in time.
(02:31):
So Who is doctor disrespect?
Why do we care what is happening?
If you don't know who doctor disrespect is andI said this in the first video of this series,
I'm not a big Twitch viewer.
I'm not a big Follower of game streams.
I mostly play games and talk about them here invirtual reality and elsewhere.
Doctor disrespect is a very popular streamer.
Who in March of 2020 signed a massive deal withTwitch to be exclusive to the Twitch platform.
(02:58):
And this was a big deal because Twitch wasfighting with a lot of other streaming
possibilities for big name Twitch streamers.
So as the Hollywood reporter puts it here, withmore than 4,000,000 followers on the Amazon
owned streaming platform, the doc whose realname is GuyBeen the 4th, He's one of the
world's most popular internet personalities,regularly streaming to more than 24,000
(03:21):
concurrent viewers.
And I know we can get up there, guys.
Let's have a 24,000 concurrent viewer virtuallegality.
Right?
As the battle to sign streaming talent toexclusive deals continues to heat up among
various platforms, YouTube gaming, Facebookgaming and Microsoft's mixer, Poor went out,
have been poaching and cannibalizing streamersover the past few months, stars like Beam have
(03:42):
taken to announcing their intentions to stay onTwitch.
And this was a big deal.
This was a multi year contract, and it wasrumored to be in the multi 1,000,000 of
dollars.
This isn't reported but you can see it'sreported in the Hollywood reporter.
Why?
Because doctor disrespect, Mister Bean, wasrepresented by CAA, a major talent agency So
when we talk about doctor disrespect, we talkabout what was happening in this contract
(04:05):
dispute and what might have happened during 202022, not 2024, we have to take it under the
assumption that both Amazon and doctordisrespect, despite the name are being
represented by well healed and wellstrategizing legal counsel.
Right?
So when all of this happened, in 2020.
(04:28):
And by all of this, I mean, we're going to getthere.
First, mixer goes under As we can see inWindows Central here, mixer is closing on June
22 2020.
How 4 years of unrealized potential onexperimental live streaming startup become
Microsoft's next service shut down, and that inless than a week later, results in doctor
(04:51):
disrespect being banned from Twitch, docstatement, and what we know, which I'll shorten
this particular article for you.
We don't know anything.
As of June 2020.
And one of the questions is do we know anythingnow in June 2024?
And I'll tell you why I think we know a littlebit of something, but maybe not the whole
story.
Twitch abruptly banned celebrity streamer guydoctor disrespect Bean last night, leading to a
(05:12):
day of speculation about what currently remainmysterious circumstances.
At this point, it remains unclear why Twitchtook the extraordinary step of abruptly banning
one of its most popular if most problematicstreamers, even in 2020, at this point, Doctor
disrespect had been banned once before, fromTwitch for doing a live stream from a public
bathroom at e3.
(05:34):
In the past, many have been critical of Twitchfor not enforcing its rules against large
streamers.
And in fact, there is an entire series ofTwitch videos that I've done talking about
their terms of service, talking about how theytreat various people on their service, whether
it's, Pokemon, and I never pronounce her nameright, Amaranth or any of the other folks that
you might see, those are all discussed on thischannel if you're interested.
(05:55):
But what was most important to me about thisstory in 2020 was that journalists and people
with Twitter and everyone else was runningrampant with speculation.
Right?
This is a big deal guy.
He had a CAA representative.
He had signed a multi year contract withTwitch, and they just snapped their fingers and
got rid of him.
And that was the story that people want me totalk about, and that's what that first video in
(06:18):
this series talks about.
Speculation has run rampant.
In fact, we saw some tweets Here's Rod BrettBrushlau at Slasher who says he's been
permanently ban from Twitch, and then Iactually have these tweets from 4 years ago.
For several hours, now I've been told fromcredible sources, the reason doctor disrespect
has been banned.
However, due to the importance and sensitivityaround the subject, I've refrained from going
(06:40):
on it.
I don't feel comfortable with it currently.
And we can take a look at this as it happened.
And one of the things that I said in that firstvideo is that this is nice.
This is this is good to see people out theretalking about what they know from a
journalistic perspective, but From the outsidelooking in, we can't really take much from this
particular tweet because, of course, it'simportant it was a multimillion dollar contract
(07:03):
for many years that was terminated with thesnap of the finger.
So that's important, and it was likely to besensitive with nobody talking about it for a
period of time.
So this didn't really say a whole lot.
But we will see later on that Mister Breslaucomes back today and says I wasn't lying,
essentially.
And I he also commented on or or liked or reposted the video, the tweet that was describing
(07:27):
this video.
So I we'll hear from Rod again.
In just a bit.
But Twitch, in response, said, as is ourprocess, we take appropriate action when we
have evidence that a streamer has acted inviolation of our community guidelines.
Or terms of service.
These apply to all streamers regardless ofstatus or prominence in the community, which
had me go through their terms of service andtalk about what could be applicable here, what
(07:48):
they could reach, of course, Doctor Disrespecthad a separate exec exclusive agreement with
Twitch, so that wasn't the entire story evenwhen they made this statement.
And doctor disrespect in that same period oftime said Twitch is not notified beyond the
specific reason behind their decision.
And I had talked to you all about fact thatwhile they might not have officially given him
(08:09):
a notice compliant with his contract, it wasclear that they had said something to why they
were doing this even if it wasn't legallysomething that he could say was actionable.
Then fast forward to 2 years later, and we getthe update that doctor disrespect and Twitch
have settled their legal dispute.
Or as it is put in this particular picture onTwitter, I have resolved my legal dispute with
(08:33):
Twitch, no party admits to any wrongdoing.
And as I said back then, and as I will sayright now, this is language that is clear to me
is vetted by legal counsel This is settlementadjacent language.
So when 2 parties have a dispute, and in thiscase, the dispute, we're gonna get to why we
think Twitch did what they did or what has beenrevealed this morning in just a minute, but
when 2 parties have a dispute, they can choosenot to go through the legal system or
(08:58):
arbitration or is gonna be put forth in theircontract and instead just say we're gonna
settle.
We're gonna release whatever claims we haveagainst each other and one side or another is
gonna pay money or do something for the other.
And then as part of that settlement, you sayneither side admits that they were wrong.
Right?
Because the ordinary inference when one sidepays the other money, which is what seems to
(09:20):
have happened here.
Certainly, doctor disrespect will say and hassaid even today that he was paid in full on his
contract is that that notion of being paid infull is going to be in inferred by people to
mean that Twitch was in the wrong.
And so as part of any settlement, you have kindof a boilerplate bit of language that says both
(09:41):
parties agree that neither admits that theywere in the wrong and that they won't disparage
one another on these particular points or somelanguage of that effect and that appears to be
what happened here.
And I bring this up because I think thislanguage is important to keep in mind when we
talk about some of the things that doctordisrespect has said today.
So no party admits to any wrongdoing isstandard settlement language.
(10:06):
We're gonna talk about that language in just aminute, but remember it.
Keep it in mind as we go a little bit forward.
And then again, that's where we left thisplaylist as of 2 years ago.
Now 2 years later, it's 2024.
The sun is high in the sky.
Everybody's happy.
We have one other thing to talk about.
(10:27):
Piss.
Hey.
You.
Let's whisper.
Says Twitch, and perhaps they would prefer thattheir blog post didn't sound quite so
incendiary with the news this morning, butwe'll see.
This is Twitch talking about a feature in theirservice, which is very similar to direct
messages on Twitter or in other tech servicesthat you might have, which is essentially that
(10:50):
you can pick somebody It appears that I'vedisappeared.
(11:16):
Hang on one second.
(11:40):
Alright.
We'll see if I can bring my camera back up in aminute.
Can you all hear me?
Just wanna make sure that I'm still being heardduring microphone here.
Let me know in the chat.
I apologize for the technical difficulties.
These things always seem to happen live onstream.
(12:07):
Very different quality.
Is it better or worse?
Alright.
That's worse.
Alright.
Let's see if I can bring this back on 1.
(12:29):
Sorry about that.
Everybody?
(16:14):
Thank you for bearing with me, everybody.
Hopefully you can hear me now.
And if you took that minute to put a lightdown, I bless your soul because I wasn't saying
anything for like a good couple of minutes.
But hopefully you can hear me.
Hopefully, you can see me.
Hopefully, this is all working now.
I apologize for that.
It is the technical world in which we live.
(16:34):
And I'm not always great at hitting the rightbuttons in time at speed.
So thank you for staying with me.
Thank you for being here.
And now let's talk a little bit about thewhisper function on Twitch.
So hey.
You.
Let's whisper, says Twitch, and they probablywish they didn't have that particular heading
(16:55):
for today, but this is a blog post from 2015,as we can see here, of their whisper function,
which is very similar to direct messaging onTwitter or where you wherever you might be
familiar on social media, and it says now youcan send private chat messages without leaving
your current chat.
Whisper to friends, followers, and subscribersto chat privately one on one across all of
(17:16):
Twitch.
Your whisper will show up in line with the restof chat on web and mobile apps no matter what
channel you're on.
If you're watching lyric, and your friend iswatching man versus gang, and apologies if I
pronounced any of those people incorrectly, youcan still whisper to him or her as long as you
are both online.
But only you and the user you're whispering towill be able to see the conversation.
(17:37):
I'm gonna give some instructions.
This is actually A function that has apparentlybeen removed from Twitch, whether or not that's
related to the story we're gonna talk about injust a minute, is a question but there are some
facts here.
Can I block whispers from a user?
Yes.
Can I change my settings if I'm not allowed towhisper?
Sure.
Can I whisper to more than one user at a time?
Yes.
(17:57):
I do a group whisper?
No.
This is for one on one conversations only.
So it's very similar to DMs, although you cangroup DMs on Twitter and this is important
because this is gonna come up as part of thisstory.
So what's important so far is the language fromthe settlement, which we talked about, I've
resolved my legal dispute with Twitch, no partyadmits to any wrongdoing, and this whisper
(18:18):
notion.
And on that score, we get to the 2 years later,and we talk about what I have, Ghibli described
as a whisper campaign, in the title to thisvideo, and we see the Wikipedia entry for that.
A whisper campaign is a method persuasion inwhich damaging rumors or innuendo are spread
about the target, which is really the referencethat I wanted to make.
While the source of the rumors seeks to avoidbeing detected while they are spread, that is
(18:41):
not the case here because this is an individualby name on Twitter that we're gonna talk about
who actually goes out this morning with thefollowing.
He got banned because got caught sexting aminor in the then existing Twitch whispers
product.
He was trying to meet up with her at Twitchcon.
The powers that be could read in plain text.
(19:03):
Case closed gang says Cody Conners who, if welook at his description, is a member of Twitch
or was a member of Twitch.
The former CPM explainer clicks per mil, howyou get paid on Twitch.
Currently wood box with magnets in a band.
As far as I can tell a guitar player in a band,and I have a number of questions about this
(19:24):
particular individual.
I don't know them from Adam.
Of course.
But if we looked at, like, the LinkedIn postsfor Amazon, we have a Cody Conners, and maybe
they have more than 1 Cody Conners, I suppose.
But there's no indication in his post right nowor in the timeline that I could see on his,
Twitter that he still works at Amazon.
(19:45):
It only really talks about his band, music, andaudio functionality for things like streaming,
but However, it looks.
This has been reported on by a lot of folks asessentially someone inside Twitch or that was
formerly inside Twitch finally talking aboutwhy doctor disrespect got banned.
And I do wanna note just a few things aboutthis particular bit of commentary that I
(20:06):
haven't seen discussed too often.
One The assumption is that Mister Conners hasseen these particular texts that doctor's
respect got caught putting out.
I don't see that actually claimed in thisparticular message, and I think that's
important.
He says the powers that be could read in plaintext Most people have read that to me that he's
part of the powers that be, and maybe he was,but it's important to note that this doesn't
(20:30):
actually say that.
This doesn't say I put eyes on this.
This says that I was in the inner circle, andthere were rumors at the time of there
essentially being an inner circle of peoplethat Twitch was trying to keep it close to
because something big was happening, doctor'sdisrespect.
There were rumors flying all over the place in2020.
And if he was in that inner circle, it'spossible that he was told what they were
(20:52):
worried about, but he might not have seen theprimary source material.
And this is important because there's a lot ofthings that can be said in DMs that maybe don't
look great from the outside, but that maybehave some kind of let's call it a genteel
understanding that somebody could read and andit could look wrong.
(21:14):
Right?
We've seen this in court cases on my friend'schannels.
We've seen this in various places throughout,kind of litigation in public where people
disagree on what a message or DM might say.
We've seen this for a number of years now.
And so one of the things I wanna say about thisis first, This has the ring of truth to me, and
(21:38):
I'm speculating just as much as anybody elsehere.
So take it with whatever grain of salt you wantto apply.
This story that doctor disrespect got introuble for using the Twitch whispers product
to essentially DM in a manner that Twitchdidn't approve of, does make sense to me for
what we know, which is that both sides wentquiet.
(21:59):
They were well represented.
Doctor disrespect hasn't gone public since withwhat was claimed against him other than to say
it was settled.
And this is the kind of thing that Twitchwouldn't necessarily wanna get out there from
one of its major kind of representativefigureheads.
So with that said, This does have the ring oftruth.
It doesn't necessarily mean that Twitch isright.
(22:23):
Right?
This is Cody Connor speaking about those powersthat be.
This is what he was told or this is what hethinks happened.
Case closed is not in fact the case, which weknow because Twitch did settle here and didn't
tell anybody that this had happened, which I'veseen a lot of commentary about, well, didn't
twitch have a responsibility to tell someonethat this was happening if doctor disrespect
(22:46):
had a pattern of this or was taking advantageof kids across the country.
Obviously, we wanna protect kids but this isthe reason why we have things like mandatory
reporting laws and your streaming platform isnot a mandatory reporter for child crimes or
anything else as far as I know.
I I know I haven't seen a law that writes thatin anywhere so when we talk about mandatory
(23:08):
reporting, that's why it's important for peoplethat are really close to kids.
That's legally.
Right?
That's not morally.
That's not ethically.
And I've said it before, on this channel, I'llsay it again, which is that what is right may
not be legal, what is legal may not be right.
So if you wanna say Twitch was hiding the ballhere.
And if they had this notion, they should havegone public with it.
They should have told the police about it.
(23:29):
They should have mentioned this to YouTube thatis now currently platforming doctor disrespect.
I'm not gonna blame you for any of that, but Idid wanna point out that there can be a dispute
about whether or not this, in fact, is thecase.
And certainly without any receipts, we can'tjudge for ourselves.
Right?
We don't have the DMs in front of us.
We don't know what was said.
We just have somebody that was at Twitch thatat bare minimum, heard from the powers that be
(23:54):
that this is what they were doing againstdoctor disrespect.
He says no one made the wrong decision, screwhim and his boys as it were presumably his boys
being his fans, which is not the best way to goout there.
With this type of messaging.
But one thing I will say is that if you dothink that this happened, and if you're sure of
it, maybe you saw it in person, maybe CodyConners is part of that powers that be group,
(24:18):
then I think you can make an argument that thewrong decision was made by not telling anybody,
certainly.
If you truly believe that this was happening,not going forward and telling anyone not
protecting others from what you think is achild predator is the kind of thing that could
be deemed a wrong decision by reasonable folks.
And that's one of the reasons why we're gonnatalk about Twitch what might not go public with
(24:39):
this kind of information.
Right?
This is not Twitch speaking.
This is a former Twitch employee and you seeexactly why Twitch would have stayed silent
just like doctor Disrespect would have becausea lot of this kind of damage falls on Twitch as
an enterprise and not just doctor disrespectbecause they hid it as it were if it happened
for 4 plus years.
(24:59):
We don't know when this would have occurred.
We just know that Twitch discovered itpresumably pretty adjacent in time to the 2020
banning.
So that's one of the first problems.
One of the next problems we have, we can we cango forward a little bit here, is doctor
disrespect.
So doctor disrespect comes on and says, hey,Jake, seriously, I get it.
(25:20):
It's a hot topic, but this has been settled.
No wrongdoing was acknowledged, and they paidout the whole contract.
Right, which we can see now because Ihighlighted it and underlined it twice, is
definitely a reference to what was approved forhim to say back in 2022.
And I've seen clients I've interacted withfolks that do this kind of thing all the time,
(25:40):
which is, okay, that was vetted by legalcounsel I can use that same kind of language
right here and tries to kind of be a halflawyer and go out with a statement without
vetting it through legal counsel.
And so I look at this and say, okay.
That's clearly a reference to the settlement.
That's not terribly offensive, but so manyother people will say that see this on social
media and say, no wrongdoing was acknowledged.
(26:03):
That sounds a lot like and I didn't admitanything.
Right?
That's not I didn't do anything.
That's I didn't admit anything, and most peopleare gonna read it that way.
They're gonna read it rightly that way, butthat doesn't appear to be the intent of the
statement and I even tweeted that out earlierthis morning to say that's why half lawyer
speak is perhaps the worst communicationstrategy.
Either talk like a normal per person or have alawyer review, or, of course, don't talk at
(26:25):
all, but I'm limited in my characters onTwitter.
The alternative is to sound like you areconfirming a rumor, which I do think it sounds
like, when you likely intend to just mirror theterms of your settlement.
And that's how you get in trouble.
Right?
This is one of the reasons why the first orderof, advice from lawyers is don't say anything
because you're not really thinking about thetone of how this is gonna be perceived by the
(26:48):
world.
And, yeah, I get it.
There's rumors flying people have just calledyou a sexual predator, but you have to really
think about what you're gonna say out there inpublic.
Now the next thing I wanted to talk about waswhy Twitch might have an issue of their own,
not just with everything we've mentioned withrespect to them saving money, but with what is
(27:10):
happening in this kind of claim, Right?
So Twitch, if we give it the full benefit ofthe doubt, has gone into the whispers of doctor
disrespect and finds him to be soliciting aminor.
Now there's a couple of reasons that that's anissue.
One of which is that people that are underthirteen are not supposed to use Twitch, so we
(27:30):
don't know the age of this particular claimant,but if it was under 13, this would be a cop of
violation.
This is collection of data of a child on theinternet.
And if you look at 2020, you know that thekappa was big in the news.
I have a whole series in my playlist talkingabout kappa and YouTube, and Twitch isn't
supposed to to let those kids use theirservice.
(27:54):
Now, obviously, they stream video games so thatthey're probably not the best at keeping those
kids off the the service, but it is somethingto know when we talk about what's happening
here is that if Twitch is allowing minors tocommunicate with the streamers, then Twitch
could be looking at liability on their own ofsome kind.
Right?
Like, if you're general counsel for Twitch andyou're having these conversations and you just
(28:17):
found these whispers, that's one thing thatyou're gonna be talking about with your client
is, okay.
So this happened, and we're not a mandatoryreporter, do we want to go public with this?
Because what's gonna happen is we're gonna saywe're we're we're taking you down doctor
disrespect.
We're terminating your contract Doctordisrespect, well represented by CAA says, no.
(28:39):
That's 1,000,000 of dollars in my pocket.
I'm not going to just walk away and let youterminate contract.
So if you wanna terminate me for a moralsclause or anything else for a contract we can't
see on the outside, we're gonna have to takethis to court.
You're gonna have to prove whatever your claimsare.
And part of that is going to be establishingthat there are apparently minors on your
platform communicating with your streamers, andyou didn't really do a good enough job of
(29:02):
keeping that under control.
So that's one thing.
The other thing is the no notion of thewhispers themselves, which is to say that If
Twitch is reading doctor disrespects whispers,that means that they could read them in as
described your plain text from anyone.
Right?
And that's something that people that are usingTwitch may or may not know.
(29:26):
So if this comes out, one of the things thatdoctor disrespect could say, in his defense or
or to to push towards settlement, is, well, ifwe have to go public in a court case, then
everybody's gonna bodies are reading theirrandom whispers and anybody else that might
possibly have any kind of issue with you andcan make their lives living hell like you've
(29:52):
made mine, might decide not to use your serviceanymore.
And Twitch is not the most profitable arm ofAmazon as it were.
So that's the kind of thing that might be aneffective argument as well.
So we know that they've got a potential withminors a potential problem with minors on their
platform.
They've got a potential problem going live withthis notion that they can just read what your
(30:16):
private messages are just by calling themprivate in a number of places.
We don't have data protection that we wouldhope for, and I would always recommend people
look at the platforms they're using and themessages they're sending and understand that
for the most part, these things are notencrypted, and that the platform itself can, in
general, read them.
(30:36):
So just keep that in mind when you write thingson the through whatever service you're doing
here.
We have a tech crunch article about Twitter,having a secret encrypted messages feature that
they hadn't quite launched yet.
And then we have, Elon Musk later saying thathe was going to put forth unencrypted DMs,
particular technology through Twitter.
(30:59):
And I I think this is an interestingconversation, but certainly it's one that was
being had as early as 2018, certainly in 2020,definitely in 2022.
And so it's a part of what could have beenmotivating them to settle and not talk about
where this information came from because theydon't want to have go public that they're
(31:19):
reading everybody's private messages.
Now doctor disrespect eventually does put out amessage that is a little bit stronger, maybe
vetted, maybe not, but certainly attack towardswhat you would expect somebody accused of this
kind of thing to say later on in the day today.
Listen, I'm obviously tied to legal obligationsfrom the settlement with Twitch, meaning that
(31:40):
there is probably a non disparagement clause,what we would consider an NDA in common
parlance for this settlement but I just need tosay what I can say since this is the internet,
I didn't do anything wrong.
All of this has been probed and settled Nothingillegal, no wrongdoing was found, and I was
paid.
Eldon ring Monday, which I presume means he'sstreaming Eldon ring on Monday, and he's not
(32:02):
just clearing at elven ring Monday, like afederal holiday.
But I think this is a better message than whatwas originally put forth you don't have to
believe him, of course, but I wanted to talkwith you all about the fact that you you can
believe him and just still arrive at, hedoesn't believe he did anything wrong, and you
(32:23):
can believe the Twitch leak and still have thisplace where there's a gray area where one side
could believe they're in the right and theother side could also believe they're in the
right.
And that's predominantly where settlementshappen.
Right?
I'm talking to you about reasons why Twitchmight wanna settle at all.
But settlements for the most part happen whereboth sides think that they're ultimately going
(32:43):
to win if it were if it came down to a case,combined with the potential liabilities of
having information they don't want exposed,exposed in that same kind of public outing.
So we're at a place when in this discussionwhere we've got a doctor disrespect He says he
didn't do anything wrong.
All this has been probed and settled, and we'retrying to figure out why Twitch would have done
(33:06):
that.
We get back to the Cody Connor's tweet here.
And then I think I just wanted to flag forpeople a couple of things.
1, In my last video, I had talked about thefact that I was gonna take down my player in
Patrons, because I wasn't making enough videos,and I didn't feel I was getting enough content
to the people that were supporting thischannel.
(33:27):
First of all, I want to say, that I am veryappreciative of all the support they have put
forth.
But after a number of comments and messagesfrom people, I am gonna keep those support
channels open.
So if you do like this kind of commentary, ifyou wanna have these kind of conversations,
Please do let me know.
And please do support the channel withmembership, super chats, comments, questions
(33:49):
like subscribes, player in Patreon, the bestways to support it separate from YouTube.
And if anybody from the past year and a halfsince my stroke wants to, talk about what they
think they should have gotten in terms of,reference or otherwise from the channel and
then they feel that they didn't.
(34:11):
Please do DM me in an encrypted fashion thatcould be read by Elon Musk, or email me and let
me know, and I will definitely make it right.
That is that is what I wanna do.
I wanna allow people to support the channel ifthey want to, and I wanna make sure that
everybody gets what they think that they wereowed from that support.
So I am happy to make that happen.
(34:34):
Alright.
Or As I like to say, just subscribe.
Tell your friends.
We'd love to have these conversations here.
So now as promised, Let's talk about somequestions and some comments.
I know you have them.
I have a lot of thoughts on this, obviously,and we're gonna start with a set of questions
that I really liked from Hunter on Twitter, whywould Twitch have settled and paid out his
(34:57):
contract if they had proof of wrongdoing?
And one thing I would say there is that proofof wrongdoing is not as crystal clear as you
might think it is.
Right?
It's not just a very specific thing.
If we look at the California penal code, whichI'm using California as the reference point
here because the Twitch terms of service areunder California law.
(35:18):
That doesn't mean that that would be the lawthat applies here.
There's a whole lot of facts and specifics thatboth councils would have to consider about
where he was and where the person that wasbeing texted to was that under California law,
every person who's motivated by an unnatural orabnormal sexual interest in children who ranges
a meeting with that minor or person here, shebelieves to be a minor to give you the Chris
(35:41):
Hansen's of the world, right, for the purposeof exposing his or her bathing suit areas,
having their child exposed his or her bathingsuit areas or engaging in lewd or lascivious
behavior, shall be punished by a fine or byimprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 1
year.
And every person described in paragraph 1, itactually goes to the arranged meeting place
(36:02):
ator about the range time shall be imprisonedby an, imprisonment in state prison for 2, 3,
or 4 years.
So I've highlighted some of the language herethat you can really get into a fight about, but
you can imagine a set of messages that areasonable person could look at and say, oh,
that's clearly beyond the pale.
That is unknown, natural, or abnormal.
Clearly for the purpose of engaging in lunarlascivious behavior, and doctor District says,
(36:24):
well, this is for 1,000,000 of dollars.
This was a fan I was trying to be polite tooand the language in the message is being
misconstrued.
And, clearly, what we do know is that it's notobvious enough that Twitch could just say,
alright.
Let's go to court over it if they didn't have aproblem with the other things that we've talked
about with respect to COPPA and reading ofwhispers.
(36:48):
If they did, that's a whole other ball of wax,but you can see in this bit of language, that
it it's going to be a controversial kind offight, especially when 1,000,000 of dollars are
on the line.
And so we don't know without the messages whatwas actually being said to this person.
We don't know what the relationship was.
We also have to put it in context with thatmixer.
(37:11):
Destruction, right, which is to say we knew atthe time that Twitch had entered into very
expensive contracts with exclusive streamersthose contracts did not appear to be moving the
needle for the popularity of the Twitch serviceand further that their primary competitor to
those contracts, which would have driven up theprice they had to pay for their talent, had
(37:32):
just disintegrated next to them.
So We posited at the time that whether or notTwitch actually did this, they certainly had an
incentive to go and try to examine all of thevery expensive contracts they had recently
entered into to see if there was a way thatthey could terminate them.
So with Twitch already focused on that, you cansee how this kind of configuration develops,
(37:54):
but you don't get to a place where Twitch isdefinitely in the right and doctor disrespect
is definitely in the wrong certainly withoutbeing evaluate, able to evaluate those messages
ourselves.
Similarly, just talking about the mandatoryreporting aspect of this.
I did wanna point out, this is an informationbulletin from the division of law enforcement
(38:14):
in California from 2020.
Talking about when you have to report problemsfor kids.
I'm gonna shorten this a little bit, and it youhave to have a reasonable suspicion that there
is a potential for abuse, etcetera, etcetera,and you're a mandated reporter if you're a
coach, an assistant coach, a teacher, aninstructional aid, an administrator of a day
(38:34):
camp, Administrator of an employee or youthrecreation program or an administrator board
member or employee of a public or privateorganization whose duties require direct
contact and supervision of children.
In fact, Twitch is the opposite of that.
They are supposed to not allow children to evenuse their service at all.
So Borily and ethically, we can absolutely sitin judgment of Twitch deciding not to talk
(38:58):
about any of this, but legally, this is not thekind of thing that they would have to go
forward and tell anybody about.
So from a legal liability perspective, you cansee how Twitch might arrive at the decision to
not do so.
And you don't have to like that.
I don't like that.
That feels bad to me.
But when we talk about that, I think that isimportant.
(39:21):
The other aspect of this is that if the childwas under the age of thirteen, let's pretend
that they just didn't have the necessarymechanisms to keep those kids out.
They now are collecting that data, thatinformation of the DMs of that child, and then
they're holding them to get out of the doctordisrespect contract, a motivated attorney on
(39:42):
doctor disrespect's side could point out thatby their own policy and COPPA compliance, if
Twitch learns the personal information ofpersons under 13 has been collected on or
through the Twitch services, Twitch will takethe appropriate steps to delete this
information.
They're not allowed to use it.
Right?
They weren't supposed to collect it in thefirst place under the law.
They aren't allowed to use it for any reason,which is all to say There are a number of
(40:03):
circumstances that we don't know.
We don't understand about what happened in thisparticular story, that would could be used as
leverage by doctor disrespect to ensure that hegets to settlement.
And you don't have to like that.
I don't love that particular version of eventseither.
But this is how these things happen.
It's important to understand the legal processis not designed to ensure a perfect society.
(40:27):
It isn't designed to make sure everybody is asmaximally protected as possible.
In this particular case, a civil dispute undercontract terms.
It's designed to make sure that both sides getwhat they had agreed to you in that contract.
And you can think that the laws are writtenpoorly for that purpose.
And maybe you're right.
Maybe they should incorporate a certainreporting aspect of social media now in the
(40:50):
21st century.
I can't speak to that.
That's a policy question, but it is notmandated for Twitch right now.
And it's certainly understandable from thecorporate law side of things, how it would have
gotten to a place where Twitch wouldpotentially want to settle if any or more of
these things kind of flipped.
As for the next question, if they didn't admitwrongdoing, why would they've been liable for
(41:11):
something, or did they think it would hurt thereputation?
This is standard language, in a settlementcontext.
Right?
So if you imagine that Twitch is paying out therest of the contract, is what doctor disrespect
has said.
We have no reason to believe that's not thecase because Twitch could have easily said that
isn't what happened.
So doctor disrespect gets paid immediately.
They are saying that we are not responsible fora breach.
(41:31):
We didn't maliciously breach.
He's releasing them of all of the other kind oflaws that he could potentially claim against
them.
Just like they're releasing him of anythingthat they had potentially, able to bring
against him.
So you have a mutual, release of claims, Youboth don't admit to doing anything wrong.
And in exchange, we're gonna pay out the restof your contract, and we're never gonna talk
(41:53):
about this again.
Unless one of our employees decides part of hisrock band initiative to tweet out something in
2 years from now.
And that's not our problem.
Maybe.
We'll see if any lawsuits develop from here.
But Would they have been liable for something?
They they're they're worried about being liablefor breach of contract and malicious breach if
he wants to bring that.
(42:13):
How would doc have managed to get them to notrelease anything and pay him out all the way in
court?
We talked about that as part of this video,right, which is to say if we imagine that there
was a conversation and it does, like I said,have the ring of truth to me, that there was a
conversation between somebody that probablylooked bad to someone that maybe had an
innocent explanation, maybe didn't, but thatthere was a conversation and there was a
(42:37):
dispute about whether or not that conversationrose to the level of violating his contract.
Then if you have that dispute, you don't wantall the rest of this to go public.
You don't wanna have a conversation where oneof your representative pieces of talent is
having these communications at all that youdidn't do anything about it, and that you're
reading people's whispers in order to figureout what is happening on your service.
(42:58):
And then if you delay that, if your doctordisrespects team and you delay it long enough,
multiple months, years until the settlementactually happens, then doctor disrespect's
leverage actually goes up in that contextbecause now you've made Twitch look like
they're hiding something.
Right?
One of the reasons why this is a big storytoday is not just because of doctor disrespect,
but because Twitch looks bad as part of allthis.
(43:21):
That's why all these questions at the top areabout Twitch why did this random X employee
know the details and why was it held out for 4years?
If true, why now?
So I think as we said as part of this video,This random x employee isn't so random, and he
actually doesn't really claim to know a lot ofthe details.
He has the kind of specific broad brush whisperis that you might hear around the office if
(43:44):
you're working in the headquarters kind ofnotion.
And that's why he's saying it now.
Why why is he saying it now?
I don't know.
I don't know what his purpose is to get thatout there.
It sounds like he's angry.
So it sounds like he's responding to someonethat was bugging him about doctor disrespect
and Twitch, but I can't speak to the specificsthere, with any amount of certainty.
(44:07):
Why did all these journals journals supposedlyknow this, but not release info.
Seems like a pretty serious situation to justnot say anything about.
So here I can definitely talk about this.
We saw, Rod earlier say he didn't feelcomfortable talking about it.
We saw other people say this is the kind ofthing that they had heard, through the
grapevine.
From games journalists on social media today,but they all are liable for what they write
(44:32):
about a person.
Right?
So they can hear a story.
And if they can't get some level ofverification, they aren't willing to go out
with it because especially the ones at biggeroutlets, they're liable for whatever amount of
money that bigger outlet has in their coffers.
And that's why their stuff has to go throughlegal in the first place to make sure that they
aren't wrongfully defaming anyone or try tomake sure they're not wrongfully defaming
(44:55):
anyone, and keep the institution from gettingsued to high heaven.
As for the single people out there that arejust kind of journalists without a big outlet
behind them, I can't speak to that, except thatgood practices, of course, to verify with
multiple sources And even right now talkingabout this, we don't have the sources or
backing necessary to give a pure news kind ofunderstanding of the situation to an outside
(45:22):
party.
That's why I'm commenting and couching so manyof my terms here because we don't know what we
don't know.
Surely Cody has to have proof.
Otherwise, it's an easy lawsuit for doc, or isthat why he didn't directly mention the name?
Well, we know that mentioning the name isn'tspecifically required because everybody
understood that this was about doctordisrespect, including me.
As it was said, we talked about this withrespect to Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard.
(45:45):
The Amber Heard op ed in the Washington Postfamously did not mention Johnny Depp, but it
was easy enough for everybody to understand.
That's who she was talking about, and she woundup losing that defamation claim.
So surely Cody has to have proof.
I have news for you.
Some people don't act on a fully rationalbasis.
So he may have those texts, but if he never hadaccess to them, he may just trust the people
(46:07):
who told him the story.
And so Either way, it's not required that hehave proof.
He may be silly to go out with this news atthis point in time and create such a kind of
hurricane, but that doesn't mean, that he hasto have the proof.
Otherwise, this is an easy lawsuit for doc.
Maybe maybe not.
Right?
Certainly, the use of the term, sexting, is,pretty aggressive for what even Twitch would
(46:32):
have needed to show as a violation of hiscontract, and texting a minor is probably
pretty close to what we call defamation per se.
Which is to say you don't even have to provethat you were damaged by that because the
damage is so obvious if you're accused of thatkind of thing.
But Winning any kind of defamation lawsuit inAmerica is tough.
Right?
Doctor disrespect, probably a public figure, interms of his level of fame, And so you have to
(46:58):
show actual malice if you're gonna win adefamation case against the person making the
claim.
And if Cody Did in fact hear these thingsthrough the grapevine or put his eyes on the
messages directly and believed them in hisopinion to be sexting of a minor, then you're
gonna have a very high level of difficultywinning that defamation claim, and any lawyer
(47:18):
for doctor disrespect is gonna tell him heneeds to be very careful about those kinds of
lawsuits because the public tends to read themthat if you lose that, the claim was verified.
And so you have to make a lot of judgment callsthere as to whether or not you wanna fight it
in that way.
But certainly, predation of a minor is the kindof thing that you would expect a pretty strong
reaction to if it was claimed against you.
(47:41):
Would Twitch really let Doc call them PurpleSnakes for years and act like they wronged him
if this was the case?
Yeah, depending on the terms of the contract.
Right?
They're trying to put it behind them as we haveseen on the internet throughout its long life.
Actually responding to the trolls tends to feedthem.
Right?
So if Twitch thought the best thing was to staysilent and not to respond to every time doctor
(48:04):
back said something about them, then that wasprobably good advice.
And would a grown ass man really be usingwhispers on Twitch to do this?
I think if he's a Twitch streamer, probably,And am I naive to think that that's WACC?
I don't know the precise legal definition ofWACC, but I do think that somebody in 2020
(48:26):
could be using a DM service to do those kindsof things as much as I would prefer that not be
the case.
As the father of 2 young girls, but I I dothink that this particular story matches up
with what we know about the timeline.
Everybody staying quiet in the way that theydid and matches what I would, assume, got to a
settlement here.
It has this it has the holes that I wouldexpect on the Twitch side to not wanna run it
(48:49):
through a public trial or an arbitration eventhat could otherwise need to be enforced
publicly.
And so It does have that ring of truth to me.
But I I do think that reasonable minds probablycan differ as to what was actually said in that
conversation.
And maybe tomorrow, it'll all be leaked out,and I'll be proven wrong.
It'll be obvious as all heck.
(49:11):
That it's a a bad, bad thing, but I can't saythat for right now.
And I would caution everybody that's jumping onthis particular tweet as indicative of the
absolute verified truth as jumping ahead of thegun a little bit.
So that being said, that's basically myresponse to all these questions What all do you
(49:34):
have in chat?
Let me see if I can grab any.
I haven't been following it very well, as Imade this video.
So let me see if I can grab any of thesethings.
First vintage Willow.
Thank you so much for gifting 5 Hoglememberships, and thank you as well to Jeremy
Morton for gifting 5 Hogle memberships.
I really appreciate that support, folks, andthank you so much.
Now I'll try to look for questions.
(49:55):
So please use a queue or an at home log to makesure I can see these.
But otherwise, Let me know if you have anythoughts.
Anything you've seen on social media or thatyou wanna talk about?
The journalists do have to watch the liabilityfor their organizations, and then we will go on
with the rest of our Saturday.
(50:21):
Do people really think he would have gottenpaid if they had something like that on him?
We're talking 1,000,000 of dollars.
There's no shot.
It's true.
It's I I I hate to say it this way, but to talkabout it from an economics business law kind of
standpoint, it's a pure math problem.
Right?
We could talk about the ethics and morality ofif you think he's really this bad guy that you
have some obligation to society to go protectit from a predator of some kind.
(50:45):
But if they owe him a couple $1,000,000 on thecontract and they think he's gonna make it
difficult for them and he's gonna keep this inthe news for a number of years just in the
court case alone.
And then he's going to bring up things likethey're reading your private messages and
they're not keeping any of it secure.
And by by the way, they are allowing, if notfacilitating kids to get on the service and use
(51:07):
these direct messages to talk to their heroesand that I'm I know of a lot more people that
are doing this kind of thing.
Imagine all of the kind of Chinatown badnessthat could exist at Twitch that doctor
disrespect might have the bodies to show.
Right?
Then I do think there's a world in which Twitchsettles because this is way too much heat for
them, and that they don't want to go throughthat entire process and that this was done a
(51:33):
little bit haphazardly in the first instance.
We know it happened so fast, and that's one ofthe reasons why these things don't usually
happen that fast is that you go and you workout all the permutations of what can happen,
where you're willing to hold the line, and it'sclear that Twitch didn't do that here.
Katie says, hey.
People who act like this tend to repeat thisbehavior.
Wouldn't we have heard about it again by now?
(51:54):
I don't really know doctor disrespect.
I know true crime.
I can't promise you that we would.
I can't promise you that if he did this badthing, he isn't repeating it.
Like, we don't know.
We don't know what we don't know.
We can't see into these people's lives.
But whether or not he did repeat it, this iswhere we get into the question whether Twitch
had an obligation to tell anybody if this wasin fact the reason why they terminated the
(52:17):
contract.
Renov says until I've seen any receiptswhatsoever, I'm gonna sit on the side of
innocent until proven guilty too easy to saystuff, especially on the internet where
accountability is severely reduced.
And that's one of the reasons why I madevirtual legalities.
I did see people kinda jumping on things from alegal and business perspective in the gaming
(52:37):
and other pop cultural communities that Ithought could maybe use a little bit more
context.
Right?
I've talked to you all in virtual legalityabout the fact that I can't speak to what I
don't know.
I'm not in the room looking at thesesituations.
I certainly haven't seen any messages to thiseffect, from, doctor disrespect or from Twitch.
But I do have experience being in rooms likethis, and hopefully that experience and
(53:00):
expertise helps illuminate some of this stufffor folks like you.
M Davis has a lot of peers, GamDev on a quickpodcast speculated that part of the reason for
Twitch going silent was to help protect theminor involved, Any thoughts as to the
likelihood of this?
Well, I it's it's possible.
Although the court system, if it came down toit, should be protecting the names of minors.
(53:24):
And certainly in California, you would expectit for anything like this.
So it's a possibility But that's very generousto Twitch.
And maybe I'm being a little bit non generousto them on this, but I do tend to see things
from a corporate dollars incense point of view,and I can certainly see how council, or other
advisors to Twitch would come out and say, youknow, we don't want any of this to go public
(53:46):
for reasons that relate to our bottom line,versus the minor.
Now we don't know We don't know.
We don't know whether they were under 13.
We don't know what age they were, whatjurisdiction they were in.
We don't know if the communications were morebenign than are suggested.
We don't know any of that.
Juanito says Twitch wouldn't hide a felony.
They wouldn't they wouldn't protect people likedoc, Nick Merx, and the others.
(54:09):
I think that is another very generous kind ofreading.
We didn't see it as a felony, and this is oneaspect that I wanted to talk about before.
We looked to the California penal code reallybriefly, and we saw that the solicitation
itself was more at the misdemeanor level,right, like less than a year, a fine.
(54:29):
One thing that might have happened is thatTwitch, jumped the gun a little bit, either
didn't didn't get the evidence that they neededor by kind of interfering and preventing him
from going to Twitch Con You can say saved, theminor, or you could say didn't allow the
process to go forward far enough for them toactually have inactionable claim and to get
(54:55):
into that felony level, with doctor disrespect.
Now I want I want companies.
I want institutions to be protecting our kids.
But it's possible, that if we give Twitch thefull benefit of the doubt by acting when they
did, with what is described in that tweet thatwe were looking at as he wanted to go to Twitch
Con, presumably because he didn't go to TwitchCon and meet up with that child or minor.
(55:19):
Then they could have gotten a place where theyactually limited what would have been his legal
exposure and potentially the exposure that hehad for termination of his contract.
So it's possible that Twitch actually acted ina way that limited their options from a legal
perspective, accidentally.
(55:42):
A says, remember when doc walked into abathroom while real life streaming and it had
kids inside?
L m a o.
I have not actually seen that stream.
I know he was banned for, I think it was aweek.
From Twitch for going into a bathroom.
I think it was an e 3 in 2019.
I have not seen that particular video, so Idon't know whether there were kids in there or
(56:03):
not.
Alright.
So I think that's all the questions for rightnow.
I will continue to follow this story online onsocial media.
My hope is that anybody that's been in thisstream that has watched this video will share
it around with people that are interested inthis topic and that also people will just
(56:24):
understand that there are multiple ways to seeeven what we've been shown today.
And, unfortunately, That is gonna be missed bya lot of people that comment on these things.
So I don't think that the tweet itself is onethat you can just take a sacrosanct.
I don't think even Mister Conners here isclaiming to have direct proof of what he's
(56:48):
saying.
He has knowledge of what Twitch was looking atat the time, which is important.
That's a good data point for us, but itshouldn't be assumed that we know what
happened, and we all we do know from a dataperspective is that Twitch and doctor
disrespect did settle it in 2022.
And doctor disrespect is trying to make thepoint pretty poorly early in the day a little
(57:11):
bit better later in the day, that the fact thatthey paid him should be taken as certain
evidence of the strength of the 2 party'spositions when they were having this particular
dispute.
And I do think that that is a fair kind ofrequest from the people that are following this
to say Twitch did wind up paying him, but I didwanna go over the reasons why I could see from
the outside looking in as to why Twitch wouldpay him even if they thought they had him
(57:36):
relatively dead to rights.
So Akaruki says an unfortunate side effect ofconsuming law tube.
Everything is now hearsay in my mind until Isee receipts.
I I know it sounds like an unfortunate sideeffect, Doctor Ruki, but I think it's actually
good.
Right?
I would frame that as critical thinking.
I I want people to look at what is beingpresented to them and say, okay.
(57:58):
But do I actually have the foundational truththere, or is there more that could happen?
And everybody that speaks has their own agenda,has their own tilt, has their own biases,
including me.
Right?
So take everything I say with whatever grain ofsalt you wanna apply to it, but Cody has some
reason for going out with this information, hassome tilt to the understanding that he has been
(58:19):
presented, is certainly a little bit defensiveabout the actions the Twitch took back in 2020
and presumably in 2022.
And so we have to take it with thatunderstanding as we look at these kinds of
things.
Michael Mooney, what's the Californiadefinition of minor male or female UK?
That's between 16 18 with age dropped recentlyif gay, I I honestly don't know, Michael.
(58:39):
I didn't look at that portion of the Californiapenal code.
I I would be willing to bet that minor for thispurpose is 18 with some exceptions for people
that are within range of each other.
That tends to be how the states have draftedtheir language on these things, but I don't No.
So I don't wanna speak with, expertise on thatto you.
So thank you for the question.
Thank you so much for the super chat and thesupport for the channel.
(59:03):
But, yes, I think we're probably talking aboutsomebody under the age of eighteen or under the
age of sixteen as best as we understand it.
From what Twitch has has not said, what, MisterConners has said.
So Oli Carrivos has broed the story so weird.
(59:24):
All I know this morning was something aboutsexual advance to minors.
Yeah.
And that's really all anybody know.
But a lot of people have gone forward with thisbeing a a big break, in the story, and I wanted
to talk about it with you all because I don'tthink doctor disrespect helped himself when he
went out with, no wrongdoing was acknowledged.
(59:45):
Right?
And I do think this was a situation where nonlawyer was trying to use mirror language for
what was already approved by his legal certstaff in 2022 and it got in the way of what he
actually wanted to communicate, which hecommunicated later in the day, which is I
didn't do anything wrong.
So you don't have to believe him, of course,you lee you leave doctor disrespect with the
(01:00:06):
same grain of salt that you leave everybodyelse with in this story.
But I think that's ultimately what happened ishe made it a bigger story with this particular
text, and when, of course, you didn't mean to.
So Katie says ho holy cow.
That's more tabs than I've ever had.
I usually have 10 to 15 open, but wow.
Yeah.
When I do a full virtual legality, I tend touse a lot of tabs And part of the trick of
(01:00:30):
doing videos nowadays is trying to remember thetransitions and what I actually have set up to
talk with you all about So that's always anadventure for me as I go through these videos,
but I appreciate you going on it with me.
So thank you.
What if instead of no wrongdoing wasacknowledged?
He used the language fully exonerated.
Well, exoneration is the notion of a prosecutorat failing in his task of getting somebody
(01:00:54):
convicted, so he wasn't exonerated.
He entered into a settlement in which bothsides agreed that no one was admitting to
anything.
So that doesn't mean that no wrong was done.
It does mean that neither side admitted thatthey did anything wrong, which is different.
Right?
(01:01:14):
That wrongdoing park does seem a bit.
Sus though says, Leo.
I agree.
I I agree with the people that read it and saidthat seems a questionable bit of language.
It sounds like I didn't admit anything in thiscontext.
Not I didn't do anything.
And I think it was a mistake to go out therewith this language if I'm doctor disrespect,
but this is the nature of being a lawyer.
Right?
Clients do this kind of thing all the time.
(01:01:37):
And you have to say, okay.
Now this is why we bet our messaging.
This is why we talk about our contractprovisions because I know you thought this was
something you could say because you said it in2022, and it was okay in that context.
But right now, it sounds like you're admittingto doing this.
And that's not really what you wanted to do.
(01:01:58):
Alright.
Well, with that being said, Thank you so muchfor joining me on this episode of virtual
legality.
This was even a bit longer than I thought itwould be today.
So I really appreciate it, and I appreciate youguys hanging with me during our little
technical difficulties where I was knocked offthe Internet for a minute there.
So much appreciated.
I'll be back in virtual reality or in Hangoutsand headlines or what have you.
(01:02:22):
Sooner rather than later, I hope if you'reinterested in seeing me again, I will be on the
big cast talking about video games andhopefully slightly less important, less
potentially dark stuff than this.
On the big cast on season gaming and the HoaglaYouTube channel tomorrow.
So please join us for that as well.
Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time.
(01:02:43):
Virtual legality is a YouTube video series withaudio podcast versions presented as commentary
and for education and entertainment purposesonly.
It does not constitute legal advice and doesnot create an attorney client relationship.
If you have legal questions about the topicsdiscussed, please consult your own legal
counsel.
Hello, and welcome to another episode ofVirtual legality.
I'm your host Richard Hoag, managing member ofthe Hoaglaw Business Law Firm of Northville,
Michigan.
Today is a Saturday, but we're here doing alittle bit of law because a big news story
broke this morning, and I wanna talk to youall.
About it.
So without further ado, I'm planning on puttingtogether this video in the format of going back
(00:59):
in the last 4 years Talking about why doctordisrespect to popular Twitch streamer was
banned at the time how that looked in 2020 Thenhow it looked in 2022 where there was an update
with a legal settlement and then talking aboutwhat happened this morning, what I see
happening and leaving space for your questionsand comments at the end of this video.
So please do save those up.
(01:21):
I know you have a lot of them.
I've seen in my DMs and in other places, a lotof good questions, and I've even got a tweet
that someone put out that I think summarized alot of them that we're gonna go over as part of
this video as well.
So welcome.
Thank you for being here.
And thank you for supporting comments andcommentary like this.
I love to talk about the law and video gamesand gaming and pop culture in general.
(01:42):
So if this is your first trip to virtualreality, thank you, and welcome.
And let's get started.
So without further ado, let's talk about doctordisrespect.
So Doctor disrespect, the Twitch band saga isactually one of the longest running playlists
on this channel.
Not the big that would go to Microsoft andActivision, which has just an oodle of videos.
But the longest running, if you look at thisfirst video from the playlist, and I will try
(02:06):
to add this to the front page of channel.
If I remember after the show is done, so youcan catch up on all of these at your
discretion.
We see that virtually y'all the number 254 wasthe start of all this.
And that it was 3 years ago, really 4 yearsago, at this point in time.
And that continues on all the way up untiltoday.
June 22nd 2024, and with the legal settlementhappening 2 years ago from that point in time.
(02:31):
So Who is doctor disrespect?
Why do we care what is happening?
If you don't know who doctor disrespect is andI said this in the first video of this series,
I'm not a big Twitch viewer.
I'm not a big Follower of game streams.
I mostly play games and talk about them here invirtual reality and elsewhere.
Doctor disrespect is a very popular streamer.
Who in March of 2020 signed a massive deal withTwitch to be exclusive to the Twitch platform.
(02:58):
And this was a big deal because Twitch wasfighting with a lot of other streaming
possibilities for big name Twitch streamers.
So as the Hollywood reporter puts it here, withmore than 4,000,000 followers on the Amazon
owned streaming platform, the doc whose realname is GuyBeen the 4th, He's one of the
world's most popular internet personalities,regularly streaming to more than 24,000
(03:21):
concurrent viewers.
And I know we can get up there, guys.
Let's have a 24,000 concurrent viewer virtuallegality.
Right?
As the battle to sign streaming talent toexclusive deals continues to heat up among
various platforms, YouTube gaming, Facebookgaming and Microsoft's mixer, Poor went out,
have been poaching and cannibalizing streamersover the past few months, stars like Beam have
(03:42):
taken to announcing their intentions to stay onTwitch.
And this was a big deal.
This was a multi year contract, and it wasrumored to be in the multi 1,000,000 of
dollars.
This isn't reported but you can see it'sreported in the Hollywood reporter.
Why?
Because doctor disrespect, Mister Bean, wasrepresented by CAA, a major talent agency So
when we talk about doctor disrespect, we talkabout what was happening in this contract
(04:05):
dispute and what might have happened during 202022, not 2024, we have to take it under the
assumption that both Amazon and doctordisrespect, despite the name are being
represented by well healed and wellstrategizing legal counsel.
Right?
So when all of this happened, in 2020.
(04:28):
And by all of this, I mean, we're going to getthere.
First, mixer goes under As we can see inWindows Central here, mixer is closing on June
22 2020.
How 4 years of unrealized potential onexperimental live streaming startup become
Microsoft's next service shut down, and that inless than a week later, results in doctor
(04:51):
disrespect being banned from Twitch, docstatement, and what we know, which I'll shorten
this particular article for you.
We don't know anything.
As of June 2020.
And one of the questions is do we know anythingnow in June 2024?
And I'll tell you why I think we know a littlebit of something, but maybe not the whole
story.
Twitch abruptly banned celebrity streamer guydoctor disrespect Bean last night, leading to a
(05:12):
day of speculation about what currently remainmysterious circumstances.
At this point, it remains unclear why Twitchtook the extraordinary step of abruptly banning
one of its most popular if most problematicstreamers, even in 2020, at this point, Doctor
disrespect had been banned once before, fromTwitch for doing a live stream from a public
bathroom at e3.
(05:34):
In the past, many have been critical of Twitchfor not enforcing its rules against large
streamers.
And in fact, there is an entire series ofTwitch videos that I've done talking about
their terms of service, talking about how theytreat various people on their service, whether
it's, Pokemon, and I never pronounce her nameright, Amaranth or any of the other folks that
you might see, those are all discussed on thischannel if you're interested.
(05:55):
But what was most important to me about thisstory in 2020 was that journalists and people
with Twitter and everyone else was runningrampant with speculation.
Right?
This is a big deal guy.
He had a CAA representative.
He had signed a multi year contract withTwitch, and they just snapped their fingers and
got rid of him.
And that was the story that people want me totalk about, and that's what that first video in
(06:18):
this series talks about.
Speculation has run rampant.
In fact, we saw some tweets Here's Rod BrettBrushlau at Slasher who says he's been
permanently ban from Twitch, and then Iactually have these tweets from 4 years ago.
For several hours, now I've been told fromcredible sources, the reason doctor disrespect
has been banned.
However, due to the importance and sensitivityaround the subject, I've refrained from going
(06:40):
on it.
I don't feel comfortable with it currently.
And we can take a look at this as it happened.
And one of the things that I said in that firstvideo is that this is nice.
This is this is good to see people out theretalking about what they know from a
journalistic perspective, but From the outsidelooking in, we can't really take much from this
particular tweet because, of course, it'simportant it was a multimillion dollar contract
(07:03):
for many years that was terminated with thesnap of the finger.
So that's important, and it was likely to besensitive with nobody talking about it for a
period of time.
So this didn't really say a whole lot.
But we will see later on that Mister Breslaucomes back today and says I wasn't lying,
essentially.
And I he also commented on or or liked or reposted the video, the tweet that was describing
(07:27):
this video.
So I we'll hear from Rod again.
In just a bit.
But Twitch, in response, said, as is ourprocess, we take appropriate action when we
have evidence that a streamer has acted inviolation of our community guidelines.
Or terms of service.
These apply to all streamers regardless ofstatus or prominence in the community, which
had me go through their terms of service andtalk about what could be applicable here, what
(07:48):
they could reach, of course, Doctor Disrespecthad a separate exec exclusive agreement with
Twitch, so that wasn't the entire story evenwhen they made this statement.
And doctor disrespect in that same period oftime said Twitch is not notified beyond the
specific reason behind their decision.
And I had talked to you all about fact thatwhile they might not have officially given him
(08:09):
a notice compliant with his contract, it wasclear that they had said something to why they
were doing this even if it wasn't legallysomething that he could say was actionable.
Then fast forward to 2 years later, and we getthe update that doctor disrespect and Twitch
have settled their legal dispute.
Or as it is put in this particular picture onTwitter, I have resolved my legal dispute with
(08:33):
Twitch, no party admits to any wrongdoing.
And as I said back then, and as I will sayright now, this is language that is clear to me
is vetted by legal counsel This is settlementadjacent language.
So when 2 parties have a dispute, and in thiscase, the dispute, we're gonna get to why we
think Twitch did what they did or what has beenrevealed this morning in just a minute, but
when 2 parties have a dispute, they can choosenot to go through the legal system or
(08:58):
arbitration or is gonna be put forth in theircontract and instead just say we're gonna
settle.
We're gonna release whatever claims we haveagainst each other and one side or another is
gonna pay money or do something for the other.
And then as part of that settlement, you sayneither side admits that they were wrong.
Right?
Because the ordinary inference when one sidepays the other money, which is what seems to
(09:20):
have happened here.
Certainly, doctor disrespect will say and hassaid even today that he was paid in full on his
contract is that that notion of being paid infull is going to be in inferred by people to
mean that Twitch was in the wrong.
And so as part of any settlement, you have kindof a boilerplate bit of language that says both
(09:41):
parties agree that neither admits that theywere in the wrong and that they won't disparage
one another on these particular points or somelanguage of that effect and that appears to be
what happened here.
And I bring this up because I think thislanguage is important to keep in mind when we
talk about some of the things that doctordisrespect has said today.
So no party admits to any wrongdoing isstandard settlement language.
(10:06):
We're gonna talk about that language in just aminute, but remember it.
Keep it in mind as we go a little bit forward.
And then again, that's where we left thisplaylist as of 2 years ago.
Now 2 years later, it's 2024.
The sun is high in the sky.
Everybody's happy.
We have one other thing to talk about.
(10:27):
Piss.
Hey.
You.
Let's whisper.
Says Twitch, and perhaps they would prefer thattheir blog post didn't sound quite so
incendiary with the news this morning, butwe'll see.
This is Twitch talking about a feature in theirservice, which is very similar to direct
messages on Twitter or in other tech servicesthat you might have, which is essentially that
(10:50):
you can pick somebody It appears that I'vedisappeared.
(11:16):
Hang on one second.
(11:40):
Alright.
We'll see if I can bring my camera back up in aminute.
Can you all hear me?
Just wanna make sure that I'm still being heardduring microphone here.
Let me know in the chat.
I apologize for the technical difficulties.
These things always seem to happen live onstream.
(12:07):
Very different quality.
Is it better or worse?
Alright.
That's worse.
Alright.
Let's see if I can bring this back on 1.
(12:29):
Sorry about that.
Everybody?
(16:14):
Thank you for bearing with me, everybody.
Hopefully you can hear me now.
And if you took that minute to put a lightdown, I bless your soul because I wasn't saying
anything for like a good couple of minutes.
But hopefully you can hear me.
Hopefully, you can see me.
Hopefully, this is all working now.
I apologize for that.
It is the technical world in which we live.
(16:34):
And I'm not always great at hitting the rightbuttons in time at speed.
So thank you for staying with me.
Thank you for being here.
And now let's talk a little bit about thewhisper function on Twitch.
So hey.
You.
Let's whisper, says Twitch, and they probablywish they didn't have that particular heading
(16:55):
for today, but this is a blog post from 2015,as we can see here, of their whisper function,
which is very similar to direct messaging onTwitter or where you wherever you might be
familiar on social media, and it says now youcan send private chat messages without leaving
your current chat.
Whisper to friends, followers, and subscribersto chat privately one on one across all of
(17:16):
Twitch.
Your whisper will show up in line with the restof chat on web and mobile apps no matter what
channel you're on.
If you're watching lyric, and your friend iswatching man versus gang, and apologies if I
pronounced any of those people incorrectly, youcan still whisper to him or her as long as you
are both online.
But only you and the user you're whispering towill be able to see the conversation.
(17:37):
I'm gonna give some instructions.
This is actually A function that has apparentlybeen removed from Twitch, whether or not that's
related to the story we're gonna talk about injust a minute, is a question but there are some
facts here.
Can I block whispers from a user?
Yes.
Can I change my settings if I'm not allowed towhisper?
Sure.
Can I whisper to more than one user at a time?
Yes.
(17:57):
I do a group whisper?
No.
This is for one on one conversations only.
So it's very similar to DMs, although you cangroup DMs on Twitter and this is important
because this is gonna come up as part of thisstory.
So what's important so far is the language fromthe settlement, which we talked about, I've
resolved my legal dispute with Twitch, no partyadmits to any wrongdoing, and this whisper
(18:18):
notion.
And on that score, we get to the 2 years later,and we talk about what I have, Ghibli described
as a whisper campaign, in the title to thisvideo, and we see the Wikipedia entry for that.
A whisper campaign is a method persuasion inwhich damaging rumors or innuendo are spread
about the target, which is really the referencethat I wanted to make.
While the source of the rumors seeks to avoidbeing detected while they are spread, that is
(18:41):
not the case here because this is an individualby name on Twitter that we're gonna talk about
who actually goes out this morning with thefollowing.
He got banned because got caught sexting aminor in the then existing Twitch whispers
product.
He was trying to meet up with her at Twitchcon.
The powers that be could read in plain text.
(19:03):
Case closed gang says Cody Conners who, if welook at his description, is a member of Twitch
or was a member of Twitch.
The former CPM explainer clicks per mil, howyou get paid on Twitch.
Currently wood box with magnets in a band.
As far as I can tell a guitar player in a band,and I have a number of questions about this
(19:24):
particular individual.
I don't know them from Adam.
Of course.
But if we looked at, like, the LinkedIn postsfor Amazon, we have a Cody Conners, and maybe
they have more than 1 Cody Conners, I suppose.
But there's no indication in his post right nowor in the timeline that I could see on his,
Twitter that he still works at Amazon.
(19:45):
It only really talks about his band, music, andaudio functionality for things like streaming,
but However, it looks.
This has been reported on by a lot of folks asessentially someone inside Twitch or that was
formerly inside Twitch finally talking aboutwhy doctor disrespect got banned.
And I do wanna note just a few things aboutthis particular bit of commentary that I
(20:06):
haven't seen discussed too often.
One The assumption is that Mister Conners hasseen these particular texts that doctor's
respect got caught putting out.
I don't see that actually claimed in thisparticular message, and I think that's
important.
He says the powers that be could read in plaintext Most people have read that to me that he's
part of the powers that be, and maybe he was,but it's important to note that this doesn't
(20:30):
actually say that.
This doesn't say I put eyes on this.
This says that I was in the inner circle, andthere were rumors at the time of there
essentially being an inner circle of peoplethat Twitch was trying to keep it close to
because something big was happening, doctor'sdisrespect.
There were rumors flying all over the place in2020.
And if he was in that inner circle, it'spossible that he was told what they were
(20:52):
worried about, but he might not have seen theprimary source material.
And this is important because there's a lot ofthings that can be said in DMs that maybe don't
look great from the outside, but that maybehave some kind of let's call it a genteel
understanding that somebody could read and andit could look wrong.
(21:14):
Right?
We've seen this in court cases on my friend'schannels.
We've seen this in various places throughout,kind of litigation in public where people
disagree on what a message or DM might say.
We've seen this for a number of years now.
And so one of the things I wanna say about thisis first, This has the ring of truth to me, and
(21:38):
I'm speculating just as much as anybody elsehere.
So take it with whatever grain of salt you wantto apply.
This story that doctor disrespect got introuble for using the Twitch whispers product
to essentially DM in a manner that Twitchdidn't approve of, does make sense to me for
what we know, which is that both sides wentquiet.
(21:59):
They were well represented.
Doctor disrespect hasn't gone public since withwhat was claimed against him other than to say
it was settled.
And this is the kind of thing that Twitchwouldn't necessarily wanna get out there from
one of its major kind of representativefigureheads.
So with that said, This does have the ring oftruth.
It doesn't necessarily mean that Twitch isright.
(22:23):
Right?
This is Cody Connor speaking about those powersthat be.
This is what he was told or this is what hethinks happened.
Case closed is not in fact the case, which weknow because Twitch did settle here and didn't
tell anybody that this had happened, which I'veseen a lot of commentary about, well, didn't
twitch have a responsibility to tell someonethat this was happening if doctor disrespect
(22:46):
had a pattern of this or was taking advantageof kids across the country.
Obviously, we wanna protect kids but this isthe reason why we have things like mandatory
reporting laws and your streaming platform isnot a mandatory reporter for child crimes or
anything else as far as I know.
I I know I haven't seen a law that writes thatin anywhere so when we talk about mandatory
(23:08):
reporting, that's why it's important for peoplethat are really close to kids.
That's legally.
Right?
That's not morally.
That's not ethically.
And I've said it before, on this channel, I'llsay it again, which is that what is right may
not be legal, what is legal may not be right.
So if you wanna say Twitch was hiding the ballhere.
And if they had this notion, they should havegone public with it.
They should have told the police about it.
(23:29):
They should have mentioned this to YouTube thatis now currently platforming doctor disrespect.
I'm not gonna blame you for any of that, but Idid wanna point out that there can be a dispute
about whether or not this, in fact, is thecase.
And certainly without any receipts, we can'tjudge for ourselves.
Right?
We don't have the DMs in front of us.
We don't know what was said.
We just have somebody that was at Twitch thatat bare minimum, heard from the powers that be
(23:54):
that this is what they were doing againstdoctor disrespect.
He says no one made the wrong decision, screwhim and his boys as it were presumably his boys
being his fans, which is not the best way to goout there.
With this type of messaging.
But one thing I will say is that if you dothink that this happened, and if you're sure of
it, maybe you saw it in person, maybe CodyConners is part of that powers that be group,
(24:18):
then I think you can make an argument that thewrong decision was made by not telling anybody,
certainly.
If you truly believe that this was happening,not going forward and telling anyone not
protecting others from what you think is achild predator is the kind of thing that could
be deemed a wrong decision by reasonable folks.
And that's one of the reasons why we're gonnatalk about Twitch what might not go public with
(24:39):
this kind of information.
Right?
This is not Twitch speaking.
This is a former Twitch employee and you seeexactly why Twitch would have stayed silent
just like doctor Disrespect would have becausea lot of this kind of damage falls on Twitch as
an enterprise and not just doctor disrespectbecause they hid it as it were if it happened
for 4 plus years.
(24:59):
We don't know when this would have occurred.
We just know that Twitch discovered itpresumably pretty adjacent in time to the 2020
banning.
So that's one of the first problems.
One of the next problems we have, we can we cango forward a little bit here, is doctor
disrespect.
So doctor disrespect comes on and says, hey,Jake, seriously, I get it.
(25:20):
It's a hot topic, but this has been settled.
No wrongdoing was acknowledged, and they paidout the whole contract.
Right, which we can see now because Ihighlighted it and underlined it twice, is
definitely a reference to what was approved forhim to say back in 2022.
And I've seen clients I've interacted withfolks that do this kind of thing all the time,
(25:40):
which is, okay, that was vetted by legalcounsel I can use that same kind of language
right here and tries to kind of be a halflawyer and go out with a statement without
vetting it through legal counsel.
And so I look at this and say, okay.
That's clearly a reference to the settlement.
That's not terribly offensive, but so manyother people will say that see this on social
media and say, no wrongdoing was acknowledged.
(26:03):
That sounds a lot like and I didn't admitanything.
Right?
That's not I didn't do anything.
That's I didn't admit anything, and most peopleare gonna read it that way.
They're gonna read it rightly that way, butthat doesn't appear to be the intent of the
statement and I even tweeted that out earlierthis morning to say that's why half lawyer
speak is perhaps the worst communicationstrategy.
Either talk like a normal per person or have alawyer review, or, of course, don't talk at
(26:25):
all, but I'm limited in my characters onTwitter.
The alternative is to sound like you areconfirming a rumor, which I do think it sounds
like, when you likely intend to just mirror theterms of your settlement.
And that's how you get in trouble.
Right?
This is one of the reasons why the first orderof, advice from lawyers is don't say anything
because you're not really thinking about thetone of how this is gonna be perceived by the
(26:48):
world.
And, yeah, I get it.
There's rumors flying people have just calledyou a sexual predator, but you have to really
think about what you're gonna say out there inpublic.
Now the next thing I wanted to talk about waswhy Twitch might have an issue of their own,
not just with everything we've mentioned withrespect to them saving money, but with what is
(27:10):
happening in this kind of claim, Right?
So Twitch, if we give it the full benefit ofthe doubt, has gone into the whispers of doctor
disrespect and finds him to be soliciting aminor.
Now there's a couple of reasons that that's anissue.
One of which is that people that are underthirteen are not supposed to use Twitch, so we
(27:30):
don't know the age of this particular claimant,but if it was under 13, this would be a cop of
violation.
This is collection of data of a child on theinternet.
And if you look at 2020, you know that thekappa was big in the news.
I have a whole series in my playlist talkingabout kappa and YouTube, and Twitch isn't
supposed to to let those kids use theirservice.
(27:54):
Now, obviously, they stream video games so thatthey're probably not the best at keeping those
kids off the the service, but it is somethingto know when we talk about what's happening
here is that if Twitch is allowing minors tocommunicate with the streamers, then Twitch
could be looking at liability on their own ofsome kind.
Right?
Like, if you're general counsel for Twitch andyou're having these conversations and you just
(28:17):
found these whispers, that's one thing thatyou're gonna be talking about with your client
is, okay.
So this happened, and we're not a mandatoryreporter, do we want to go public with this?
Because what's gonna happen is we're gonna saywe're we're we're taking you down doctor
disrespect.
We're terminating your contract Doctordisrespect, well represented by CAA says, no.
(28:39):
That's 1,000,000 of dollars in my pocket.
I'm not going to just walk away and let youterminate contract.
So if you wanna terminate me for a moralsclause or anything else for a contract we can't
see on the outside, we're gonna have to takethis to court.
You're gonna have to prove whatever your claimsare.
And part of that is going to be establishingthat there are apparently minors on your
platform communicating with your streamers, andyou didn't really do a good enough job of
(29:02):
keeping that under control.
So that's one thing.
The other thing is the no notion of thewhispers themselves, which is to say that If
Twitch is reading doctor disrespects whispers,that means that they could read them in as
described your plain text from anyone.
Right?
And that's something that people that are usingTwitch may or may not know.
(29:26):
So if this comes out, one of the things thatdoctor disrespect could say, in his defense or
or to to push towards settlement, is, well, ifwe have to go public in a court case, then
everybody's gonna bodies are reading theirrandom whispers and anybody else that might
possibly have any kind of issue with you andcan make their lives living hell like you've
(29:52):
made mine, might decide not to use your serviceanymore.
And Twitch is not the most profitable arm ofAmazon as it were.
So that's the kind of thing that might be aneffective argument as well.
So we know that they've got a potential withminors a potential problem with minors on their
platform.
They've got a potential problem going live withthis notion that they can just read what your
(30:16):
private messages are just by calling themprivate in a number of places.
We don't have data protection that we wouldhope for, and I would always recommend people
look at the platforms they're using and themessages they're sending and understand that
for the most part, these things are notencrypted, and that the platform itself can, in
general, read them.
(30:36):
So just keep that in mind when you write thingson the through whatever service you're doing
here.
We have a tech crunch article about Twitter,having a secret encrypted messages feature that
they hadn't quite launched yet.
And then we have, Elon Musk later saying thathe was going to put forth unencrypted DMs,
particular technology through Twitter.
(30:59):
And I I think this is an interestingconversation, but certainly it's one that was
being had as early as 2018, certainly in 2020,definitely in 2022.
And so it's a part of what could have beenmotivating them to settle and not talk about
where this information came from because theydon't want to have go public that they're
(31:19):
reading everybody's private messages.
Now doctor disrespect eventually does put out amessage that is a little bit stronger, maybe
vetted, maybe not, but certainly attack towardswhat you would expect somebody accused of this
kind of thing to say later on in the day today.
Listen, I'm obviously tied to legal obligationsfrom the settlement with Twitch, meaning that
(31:40):
there is probably a non disparagement clause,what we would consider an NDA in common
parlance for this settlement but I just need tosay what I can say since this is the internet,
I didn't do anything wrong.
All of this has been probed and settled Nothingillegal, no wrongdoing was found, and I was
paid.
Eldon ring Monday, which I presume means he'sstreaming Eldon ring on Monday, and he's not
(32:02):
just clearing at elven ring Monday, like afederal holiday.
But I think this is a better message than whatwas originally put forth you don't have to
believe him, of course, but I wanted to talkwith you all about the fact that you you can
believe him and just still arrive at, hedoesn't believe he did anything wrong, and you
(32:23):
can believe the Twitch leak and still have thisplace where there's a gray area where one side
could believe they're in the right and theother side could also believe they're in the
right.
And that's predominantly where settlementshappen.
Right?
I'm talking to you about reasons why Twitchmight wanna settle at all.
But settlements for the most part happen whereboth sides think that they're ultimately going
(32:43):
to win if it were if it came down to a case,combined with the potential liabilities of
having information they don't want exposed,exposed in that same kind of public outing.
So we're at a place when in this discussionwhere we've got a doctor disrespect He says he
didn't do anything wrong.
All this has been probed and settled, and we'retrying to figure out why Twitch would have done
(33:06):
that.
We get back to the Cody Connor's tweet here.
And then I think I just wanted to flag forpeople a couple of things.
1, In my last video, I had talked about thefact that I was gonna take down my player in
Patrons, because I wasn't making enough videos,and I didn't feel I was getting enough content
to the people that were supporting thischannel.
(33:27):
First of all, I want to say, that I am veryappreciative of all the support they have put
forth.
But after a number of comments and messagesfrom people, I am gonna keep those support
channels open.
So if you do like this kind of commentary, ifyou wanna have these kind of conversations,
Please do let me know.
And please do support the channel withmembership, super chats, comments, questions
(33:49):
like subscribes, player in Patreon, the bestways to support it separate from YouTube.
And if anybody from the past year and a halfsince my stroke wants to, talk about what they
think they should have gotten in terms of,reference or otherwise from the channel and
then they feel that they didn't.
(34:11):
Please do DM me in an encrypted fashion thatcould be read by Elon Musk, or email me and let
me know, and I will definitely make it right.
That is that is what I wanna do.
I wanna allow people to support the channel ifthey want to, and I wanna make sure that
everybody gets what they think that they wereowed from that support.
So I am happy to make that happen.
(34:34):
Alright.
Or As I like to say, just subscribe.
Tell your friends.
We'd love to have these conversations here.
So now as promised, Let's talk about somequestions and some comments.
I know you have them.
I have a lot of thoughts on this, obviously,and we're gonna start with a set of questions
that I really liked from Hunter on Twitter, whywould Twitch have settled and paid out his
(34:57):
contract if they had proof of wrongdoing?
And one thing I would say there is that proofof wrongdoing is not as crystal clear as you
might think it is.
Right?
It's not just a very specific thing.
If we look at the California penal code, whichI'm using California as the reference point
here because the Twitch terms of service areunder California law.
(35:18):
That doesn't mean that that would be the lawthat applies here.
There's a whole lot of facts and specifics thatboth councils would have to consider about
where he was and where the person that wasbeing texted to was that under California law,
every person who's motivated by an unnatural orabnormal sexual interest in children who ranges
a meeting with that minor or person here, shebelieves to be a minor to give you the Chris
(35:41):
Hansen's of the world, right, for the purposeof exposing his or her bathing suit areas,
having their child exposed his or her bathingsuit areas or engaging in lewd or lascivious
behavior, shall be punished by a fine or byimprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 1
year.
And every person described in paragraph 1, itactually goes to the arranged meeting place
(36:02):
ator about the range time shall be imprisonedby an, imprisonment in state prison for 2, 3,
or 4 years.
So I've highlighted some of the language herethat you can really get into a fight about, but
you can imagine a set of messages that areasonable person could look at and say, oh,
that's clearly beyond the pale.
That is unknown, natural, or abnormal.
Clearly for the purpose of engaging in lunarlascivious behavior, and doctor District says,
(36:24):
well, this is for 1,000,000 of dollars.
This was a fan I was trying to be polite tooand the language in the message is being
misconstrued.
And, clearly, what we do know is that it's notobvious enough that Twitch could just say,
alright.
Let's go to court over it if they didn't have aproblem with the other things that we've talked
about with respect to COPPA and reading ofwhispers.
(36:48):
If they did, that's a whole other ball of wax,but you can see in this bit of language, that
it it's going to be a controversial kind offight, especially when 1,000,000 of dollars are
on the line.
And so we don't know without the messages whatwas actually being said to this person.
We don't know what the relationship was.
We also have to put it in context with thatmixer.
(37:11):
Destruction, right, which is to say we knew atthe time that Twitch had entered into very
expensive contracts with exclusive streamersthose contracts did not appear to be moving the
needle for the popularity of the Twitch serviceand further that their primary competitor to
those contracts, which would have driven up theprice they had to pay for their talent, had
(37:32):
just disintegrated next to them.
So We posited at the time that whether or notTwitch actually did this, they certainly had an
incentive to go and try to examine all of thevery expensive contracts they had recently
entered into to see if there was a way thatthey could terminate them.
So with Twitch already focused on that, you cansee how this kind of configuration develops,
(37:54):
but you don't get to a place where Twitch isdefinitely in the right and doctor disrespect
is definitely in the wrong certainly withoutbeing evaluate, able to evaluate those messages
ourselves.
Similarly, just talking about the mandatoryreporting aspect of this.
I did wanna point out, this is an informationbulletin from the division of law enforcement
(38:14):
in California from 2020.
Talking about when you have to report problemsfor kids.
I'm gonna shorten this a little bit, and it youhave to have a reasonable suspicion that there
is a potential for abuse, etcetera, etcetera,and you're a mandated reporter if you're a
coach, an assistant coach, a teacher, aninstructional aid, an administrator of a day
(38:34):
camp, Administrator of an employee or youthrecreation program or an administrator board
member or employee of a public or privateorganization whose duties require direct
contact and supervision of children.
In fact, Twitch is the opposite of that.
They are supposed to not allow children to evenuse their service at all.
So Borily and ethically, we can absolutely sitin judgment of Twitch deciding not to talk
(38:58):
about any of this, but legally, this is not thekind of thing that they would have to go
forward and tell anybody about.
So from a legal liability perspective, you cansee how Twitch might arrive at the decision to
not do so.
And you don't have to like that.
I don't like that.
That feels bad to me.
But when we talk about that, I think that isimportant.
(39:21):
The other aspect of this is that if the childwas under the age of thirteen, let's pretend
that they just didn't have the necessarymechanisms to keep those kids out.
They now are collecting that data, thatinformation of the DMs of that child, and then
they're holding them to get out of the doctordisrespect contract, a motivated attorney on
(39:42):
doctor disrespect's side could point out thatby their own policy and COPPA compliance, if
Twitch learns the personal information ofpersons under 13 has been collected on or
through the Twitch services, Twitch will takethe appropriate steps to delete this
information.
They're not allowed to use it.
Right?
They weren't supposed to collect it in thefirst place under the law.
They aren't allowed to use it for any reason,which is all to say There are a number of
(40:03):
circumstances that we don't know.
We don't understand about what happened in thisparticular story, that would could be used as
leverage by doctor disrespect to ensure that hegets to settlement.
And you don't have to like that.
I don't love that particular version of eventseither.
But this is how these things happen.
It's important to understand the legal processis not designed to ensure a perfect society.
(40:27):
It isn't designed to make sure everybody is asmaximally protected as possible.
In this particular case, a civil dispute undercontract terms.
It's designed to make sure that both sides getwhat they had agreed to you in that contract.
And you can think that the laws are writtenpoorly for that purpose.
And maybe you're right.
Maybe they should incorporate a certainreporting aspect of social media now in the
(40:50):
21st century.
I can't speak to that.
That's a policy question, but it is notmandated for Twitch right now.
And it's certainly understandable from thecorporate law side of things, how it would have
gotten to a place where Twitch wouldpotentially want to settle if any or more of
these things kind of flipped.
As for the next question, if they didn't admitwrongdoing, why would they've been liable for
(41:11):
something, or did they think it would hurt thereputation?
This is standard language, in a settlementcontext.
Right?
So if you imagine that Twitch is paying out therest of the contract, is what doctor disrespect
has said.
We have no reason to believe that's not thecase because Twitch could have easily said that
isn't what happened.
So doctor disrespect gets paid immediately.
They are saying that we are not responsible fora breach.
(41:31):
We didn't maliciously breach.
He's releasing them of all of the other kind oflaws that he could potentially claim against
them.
Just like they're releasing him of anythingthat they had potentially, able to bring
against him.
So you have a mutual, release of claims, Youboth don't admit to doing anything wrong.
And in exchange, we're gonna pay out the restof your contract, and we're never gonna talk
(41:53):
about this again.
Unless one of our employees decides part of hisrock band initiative to tweet out something in
2 years from now.
And that's not our problem.
Maybe.
We'll see if any lawsuits develop from here.
But Would they have been liable for something?
They they're they're worried about being liablefor breach of contract and malicious breach if
he wants to bring that.
(42:13):
How would doc have managed to get them to notrelease anything and pay him out all the way in
court?
We talked about that as part of this video,right, which is to say if we imagine that there
was a conversation and it does, like I said,have the ring of truth to me, that there was a
conversation between somebody that probablylooked bad to someone that maybe had an
innocent explanation, maybe didn't, but thatthere was a conversation and there was a
(42:37):
dispute about whether or not that conversationrose to the level of violating his contract.
Then if you have that dispute, you don't wantall the rest of this to go public.
You don't wanna have a conversation where oneof your representative pieces of talent is
having these communications at all that youdidn't do anything about it, and that you're
reading people's whispers in order to figureout what is happening on your service.
(42:58):
And then if you delay that, if your doctordisrespects team and you delay it long enough,
multiple months, years until the settlementactually happens, then doctor disrespect's
leverage actually goes up in that contextbecause now you've made Twitch look like
they're hiding something.
Right?
One of the reasons why this is a big storytoday is not just because of doctor disrespect,
but because Twitch looks bad as part of allthis.
(43:21):
That's why all these questions at the top areabout Twitch why did this random X employee
know the details and why was it held out for 4years?
If true, why now?
So I think as we said as part of this video,This random x employee isn't so random, and he
actually doesn't really claim to know a lot ofthe details.
He has the kind of specific broad brush whisperis that you might hear around the office if
(43:44):
you're working in the headquarters kind ofnotion.
And that's why he's saying it now.
Why why is he saying it now?
I don't know.
I don't know what his purpose is to get thatout there.
It sounds like he's angry.
So it sounds like he's responding to someonethat was bugging him about doctor disrespect
and Twitch, but I can't speak to the specificsthere, with any amount of certainty.
(44:07):
Why did all these journals journals supposedlyknow this, but not release info.
Seems like a pretty serious situation to justnot say anything about.
So here I can definitely talk about this.
We saw, Rod earlier say he didn't feelcomfortable talking about it.
We saw other people say this is the kind ofthing that they had heard, through the
grapevine.
From games journalists on social media today,but they all are liable for what they write
(44:32):
about a person.
Right?
So they can hear a story.
And if they can't get some level ofverification, they aren't willing to go out
with it because especially the ones at biggeroutlets, they're liable for whatever amount of
money that bigger outlet has in their coffers.
And that's why their stuff has to go throughlegal in the first place to make sure that they
aren't wrongfully defaming anyone or try tomake sure they're not wrongfully defaming
(44:55):
anyone, and keep the institution from gettingsued to high heaven.
As for the single people out there that arejust kind of journalists without a big outlet
behind them, I can't speak to that, except thatgood practices, of course, to verify with
multiple sources And even right now talkingabout this, we don't have the sources or
backing necessary to give a pure news kind ofunderstanding of the situation to an outside
(45:22):
party.
That's why I'm commenting and couching so manyof my terms here because we don't know what we
don't know.
Surely Cody has to have proof.
Otherwise, it's an easy lawsuit for doc, or isthat why he didn't directly mention the name?
Well, we know that mentioning the name isn'tspecifically required because everybody
understood that this was about doctordisrespect, including me.
As it was said, we talked about this withrespect to Johnny Depp versus Amber Heard.
(45:45):
The Amber Heard op ed in the Washington Postfamously did not mention Johnny Depp, but it
was easy enough for everybody to understand.
That's who she was talking about, and she woundup losing that defamation claim.
So surely Cody has to have proof.
I have news for you.
Some people don't act on a fully rationalbasis.
So he may have those texts, but if he never hadaccess to them, he may just trust the people
(46:07):
who told him the story.
And so Either way, it's not required that hehave proof.
He may be silly to go out with this news atthis point in time and create such a kind of
hurricane, but that doesn't mean, that he hasto have the proof.
Otherwise, this is an easy lawsuit for doc.
Maybe maybe not.
Right?
Certainly, the use of the term, sexting, is,pretty aggressive for what even Twitch would
(46:32):
have needed to show as a violation of hiscontract, and texting a minor is probably
pretty close to what we call defamation per se.
Which is to say you don't even have to provethat you were damaged by that because the
damage is so obvious if you're accused of thatkind of thing.
But Winning any kind of defamation lawsuit inAmerica is tough.
Right?
Doctor disrespect, probably a public figure, interms of his level of fame, And so you have to
(46:58):
show actual malice if you're gonna win adefamation case against the person making the
claim.
And if Cody Did in fact hear these thingsthrough the grapevine or put his eyes on the
messages directly and believed them in hisopinion to be sexting of a minor, then you're
gonna have a very high level of difficultywinning that defamation claim, and any lawyer
(47:18):
for doctor disrespect is gonna tell him heneeds to be very careful about those kinds of
lawsuits because the public tends to read themthat if you lose that, the claim was verified.
And so you have to make a lot of judgment callsthere as to whether or not you wanna fight it
in that way.
But certainly, predation of a minor is the kindof thing that you would expect a pretty strong
reaction to if it was claimed against you.
(47:41):
Would Twitch really let Doc call them PurpleSnakes for years and act like they wronged him
if this was the case?
Yeah, depending on the terms of the contract.
Right?
They're trying to put it behind them as we haveseen on the internet throughout its long life.
Actually responding to the trolls tends to feedthem.
Right?
So if Twitch thought the best thing was to staysilent and not to respond to every time doctor
(48:04):
back said something about them, then that wasprobably good advice.
And would a grown ass man really be usingwhispers on Twitch to do this?
I think if he's a Twitch streamer, probably,And am I naive to think that that's WACC?
I don't know the precise legal definition ofWACC, but I do think that somebody in 2020
(48:26):
could be using a DM service to do those kindsof things as much as I would prefer that not be
the case.
As the father of 2 young girls, but I I dothink that this particular story matches up
with what we know about the timeline.
Everybody staying quiet in the way that theydid and matches what I would, assume, got to a
settlement here.
It has this it has the holes that I wouldexpect on the Twitch side to not wanna run it
(48:49):
through a public trial or an arbitration eventhat could otherwise need to be enforced
publicly.
And so It does have that ring of truth to me.
But I I do think that reasonable minds probablycan differ as to what was actually said in that
conversation.
And maybe tomorrow, it'll all be leaked out,and I'll be proven wrong.
It'll be obvious as all heck.
(49:11):
That it's a a bad, bad thing, but I can't saythat for right now.
And I would caution everybody that's jumping onthis particular tweet as indicative of the
absolute verified truth as jumping ahead of thegun a little bit.
So that being said, that's basically myresponse to all these questions What all do you
(49:34):
have in chat?
Let me see if I can grab any.
I haven't been following it very well, as Imade this video.
So let me see if I can grab any of thesethings.
First vintage Willow.
Thank you so much for gifting 5 Hoglememberships, and thank you as well to Jeremy
Morton for gifting 5 Hogle memberships.
I really appreciate that support, folks, andthank you so much.
Now I'll try to look for questions.
(49:55):
So please use a queue or an at home log to makesure I can see these.
But otherwise, Let me know if you have anythoughts.
Anything you've seen on social media or thatyou wanna talk about?
The journalists do have to watch the liabilityfor their organizations, and then we will go on
with the rest of our Saturday.
(50:21):
Do people really think he would have gottenpaid if they had something like that on him?
We're talking 1,000,000 of dollars.
There's no shot.
It's true.
It's I I I hate to say it this way, but to talkabout it from an economics business law kind of
standpoint, it's a pure math problem.
Right?
We could talk about the ethics and morality ofif you think he's really this bad guy that you
have some obligation to society to go protectit from a predator of some kind.
(50:45):
But if they owe him a couple $1,000,000 on thecontract and they think he's gonna make it
difficult for them and he's gonna keep this inthe news for a number of years just in the
court case alone.
And then he's going to bring up things likethey're reading your private messages and
they're not keeping any of it secure.
And by by the way, they are allowing, if notfacilitating kids to get on the service and use
(51:07):
these direct messages to talk to their heroesand that I'm I know of a lot more people that
are doing this kind of thing.
Imagine all of the kind of Chinatown badnessthat could exist at Twitch that doctor
disrespect might have the bodies to show.
Right?
Then I do think there's a world in which Twitchsettles because this is way too much heat for
them, and that they don't want to go throughthat entire process and that this was done a
(51:33):
little bit haphazardly in the first instance.
We know it happened so fast, and that's one ofthe reasons why these things don't usually
happen that fast is that you go and you workout all the permutations of what can happen,
where you're willing to hold the line, and it'sclear that Twitch didn't do that here.
Katie says, hey.
People who act like this tend to repeat thisbehavior.
Wouldn't we have heard about it again by now?
(51:54):
I don't really know doctor disrespect.
I know true crime.
I can't promise you that we would.
I can't promise you that if he did this badthing, he isn't repeating it.
Like, we don't know.
We don't know what we don't know.
We can't see into these people's lives.
But whether or not he did repeat it, this iswhere we get into the question whether Twitch
had an obligation to tell anybody if this wasin fact the reason why they terminated the
(52:17):
contract.
Renov says until I've seen any receiptswhatsoever, I'm gonna sit on the side of
innocent until proven guilty too easy to saystuff, especially on the internet where
accountability is severely reduced.
And that's one of the reasons why I madevirtual legalities.
I did see people kinda jumping on things from alegal and business perspective in the gaming
(52:37):
and other pop cultural communities that Ithought could maybe use a little bit more
context.
Right?
I've talked to you all in virtual legalityabout the fact that I can't speak to what I
don't know.
I'm not in the room looking at thesesituations.
I certainly haven't seen any messages to thiseffect, from, doctor disrespect or from Twitch.
But I do have experience being in rooms likethis, and hopefully that experience and
(53:00):
expertise helps illuminate some of this stufffor folks like you.
M Davis has a lot of peers, GamDev on a quickpodcast speculated that part of the reason for
Twitch going silent was to help protect theminor involved, Any thoughts as to the
likelihood of this?
Well, I it's it's possible.
Although the court system, if it came down toit, should be protecting the names of minors.
(53:24):
And certainly in California, you would expectit for anything like this.
So it's a possibility But that's very generousto Twitch.
And maybe I'm being a little bit non generousto them on this, but I do tend to see things
from a corporate dollars incense point of view,and I can certainly see how council, or other
advisors to Twitch would come out and say, youknow, we don't want any of this to go public
(53:46):
for reasons that relate to our bottom line,versus the minor.
Now we don't know We don't know.
We don't know whether they were under 13.
We don't know what age they were, whatjurisdiction they were in.
We don't know if the communications were morebenign than are suggested.
We don't know any of that.
Juanito says Twitch wouldn't hide a felony.
They wouldn't they wouldn't protect people likedoc, Nick Merx, and the others.
(54:09):
I think that is another very generous kind ofreading.
We didn't see it as a felony, and this is oneaspect that I wanted to talk about before.
We looked to the California penal code reallybriefly, and we saw that the solicitation
itself was more at the misdemeanor level,right, like less than a year, a fine.
(54:29):
One thing that might have happened is thatTwitch, jumped the gun a little bit, either
didn't didn't get the evidence that they neededor by kind of interfering and preventing him
from going to Twitch Con You can say saved, theminor, or you could say didn't allow the
process to go forward far enough for them toactually have inactionable claim and to get
(54:55):
into that felony level, with doctor disrespect.
Now I want I want companies.
I want institutions to be protecting our kids.
But it's possible, that if we give Twitch thefull benefit of the doubt by acting when they
did, with what is described in that tweet thatwe were looking at as he wanted to go to Twitch
Con, presumably because he didn't go to TwitchCon and meet up with that child or minor.
(55:19):
Then they could have gotten a place where theyactually limited what would have been his legal
exposure and potentially the exposure that hehad for termination of his contract.
So it's possible that Twitch actually acted ina way that limited their options from a legal
perspective, accidentally.
(55:42):
A says, remember when doc walked into abathroom while real life streaming and it had
kids inside?
L m a o.
I have not actually seen that stream.
I know he was banned for, I think it was aweek.
From Twitch for going into a bathroom.
I think it was an e 3 in 2019.
I have not seen that particular video, so Idon't know whether there were kids in there or
(56:03):
not.
Alright.
So I think that's all the questions for rightnow.
I will continue to follow this story online onsocial media.
My hope is that anybody that's been in thisstream that has watched this video will share
it around with people that are interested inthis topic and that also people will just
(56:24):
understand that there are multiple ways to seeeven what we've been shown today.
And, unfortunately, That is gonna be missed bya lot of people that comment on these things.
So I don't think that the tweet itself is onethat you can just take a sacrosanct.
I don't think even Mister Conners here isclaiming to have direct proof of what he's
(56:48):
saying.
He has knowledge of what Twitch was looking atat the time, which is important.
That's a good data point for us, but itshouldn't be assumed that we know what
happened, and we all we do know from a dataperspective is that Twitch and doctor
disrespect did settle it in 2022.
And doctor disrespect is trying to make thepoint pretty poorly early in the day a little
(57:11):
bit better later in the day, that the fact thatthey paid him should be taken as certain
evidence of the strength of the 2 party'spositions when they were having this particular
dispute.
And I do think that that is a fair kind ofrequest from the people that are following this
to say Twitch did wind up paying him, but I didwanna go over the reasons why I could see from
the outside looking in as to why Twitch wouldpay him even if they thought they had him
(57:36):
relatively dead to rights.
So Akaruki says an unfortunate side effect ofconsuming law tube.
Everything is now hearsay in my mind until Isee receipts.
I I know it sounds like an unfortunate sideeffect, Doctor Ruki, but I think it's actually
good.
Right?
I would frame that as critical thinking.
I I want people to look at what is beingpresented to them and say, okay.
(57:58):
But do I actually have the foundational truththere, or is there more that could happen?
And everybody that speaks has their own agenda,has their own tilt, has their own biases,
including me.
Right?
So take everything I say with whatever grain ofsalt you wanna apply to it, but Cody has some
reason for going out with this information, hassome tilt to the understanding that he has been
(58:19):
presented, is certainly a little bit defensiveabout the actions the Twitch took back in 2020
and presumably in 2022.
And so we have to take it with thatunderstanding as we look at these kinds of
things.
Michael Mooney, what's the Californiadefinition of minor male or female UK?
That's between 16 18 with age dropped recentlyif gay, I I honestly don't know, Michael.
(58:39):
I didn't look at that portion of the Californiapenal code.
I I would be willing to bet that minor for thispurpose is 18 with some exceptions for people
that are within range of each other.
That tends to be how the states have draftedtheir language on these things, but I don't No.
So I don't wanna speak with, expertise on thatto you.
So thank you for the question.
Thank you so much for the super chat and thesupport for the channel.
(59:03):
But, yes, I think we're probably talking aboutsomebody under the age of eighteen or under the
age of sixteen as best as we understand it.
From what Twitch has has not said, what, MisterConners has said.
So Oli Carrivos has broed the story so weird.
(59:24):
All I know this morning was something aboutsexual advance to minors.
Yeah.
And that's really all anybody know.
But a lot of people have gone forward with thisbeing a a big break, in the story, and I wanted
to talk about it with you all because I don'tthink doctor disrespect helped himself when he
went out with, no wrongdoing was acknowledged.
(59:45):
Right?
And I do think this was a situation where nonlawyer was trying to use mirror language for
what was already approved by his legal certstaff in 2022 and it got in the way of what he
actually wanted to communicate, which hecommunicated later in the day, which is I
didn't do anything wrong.
So you don't have to believe him, of course,you lee you leave doctor disrespect with the
(01:00:06):
same grain of salt that you leave everybodyelse with in this story.
But I think that's ultimately what happened ishe made it a bigger story with this particular
text, and when, of course, you didn't mean to.
So Katie says ho holy cow.
That's more tabs than I've ever had.
I usually have 10 to 15 open, but wow.
Yeah.
When I do a full virtual legality, I tend touse a lot of tabs And part of the trick of
(01:00:30):
doing videos nowadays is trying to remember thetransitions and what I actually have set up to
talk with you all about So that's always anadventure for me as I go through these videos,
but I appreciate you going on it with me.
So thank you.
What if instead of no wrongdoing wasacknowledged?
He used the language fully exonerated.
Well, exoneration is the notion of a prosecutorat failing in his task of getting somebody
(01:00:54):
convicted, so he wasn't exonerated.
He entered into a settlement in which bothsides agreed that no one was admitting to
anything.
So that doesn't mean that no wrong was done.
It does mean that neither side admitted thatthey did anything wrong, which is different.
Right?
(01:01:14):
That wrongdoing park does seem a bit.
Sus though says, Leo.
I agree.
I I agree with the people that read it and saidthat seems a questionable bit of language.
It sounds like I didn't admit anything in thiscontext.
Not I didn't do anything.
And I think it was a mistake to go out therewith this language if I'm doctor disrespect,
but this is the nature of being a lawyer.
Right?
Clients do this kind of thing all the time.
(01:01:37):
And you have to say, okay.
Now this is why we bet our messaging.
This is why we talk about our contractprovisions because I know you thought this was
something you could say because you said it in2022, and it was okay in that context.
But right now, it sounds like you're admittingto doing this.
And that's not really what you wanted to do.
(01:01:58):
Alright.
Well, with that being said, Thank you so muchfor joining me on this episode of virtual
legality.
This was even a bit longer than I thought itwould be today.
So I really appreciate it, and I appreciate youguys hanging with me during our little
technical difficulties where I was knocked offthe Internet for a minute there.
So much appreciated.
I'll be back in virtual reality or in Hangoutsand headlines or what have you.
(01:02:22):
Sooner rather than later, I hope if you'reinterested in seeing me again, I will be on the
big cast talking about video games andhopefully slightly less important, less
potentially dark stuff than this.
On the big cast on season gaming and the HoaglaYouTube channel tomorrow.
So please join us for that as well.
Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time.
(01:02:43):
Virtual legality is a YouTube video series withaudio podcast versions presented as commentary
and for education and entertainment purposesonly.
It does not constitute legal advice and doesnot create an attorney client relationship.
If you have legal questions about the topicsdiscussed, please consult your own legal
counsel.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.