Perez Hilton's Horrifying Livestream is Part of a Bigger Problem

Aug 5

Written By Guest User

PDS Published 08/05/2026

The Perez Hilton livestream situation that you might have seen not only was horrifying, but it exposed a growing problem that we need to talk about. OpenAI and Anthropic AI models just got scarier. Trump's deportation machine has been quietly getting more and more aggressive. Why you've got people freaking out and divided over what happened in Michigan with El-Sayed. We're talking about all of that and even more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show.
Your daily dive into the news, starting with this horrifying Perez Hilton livestream situation that you're seeing. It is disturbing on its own, but it's also exposing an even bigger growing problem.
Because if you haven't seen it, and I highly recommend you do not seek out the video, there was a very disturbing incident last night. I can't safely, on this platform, go into too much detail. I'm not going to show the video for the same reason. And we can't even really go into too many specifics about what happened.
But last night, you had Hilton appearing to harm himself during a very shocking TikTok livestream. While police in Miami, not specifically naming Perez in response to multiple media inquiries about him, said the deputies responded to reports of someone livestreaming acts of self-harm on social media. They also added that this person has been safely recovered and is receiving medical attention.
For those who don't know, Perez Hilton was like the OG celebrity blogger. He was one of the biggest names back in the 2000s. He became very well known for his harsh coverage of stars, which many considered to just be cruel. He has since, in later years, tried to kind of rebrand and apologize for that. He is still largely known for being very mean-spirited.
But then also, in recent months, he'd been posting about some health episodes, including a long hospitalization. Notably, during that stint, he claimed that God presented himself to him and that he is now a believer.
But also, obviously, it's unclear if any of the prior health episodes contributed to yesterday's incident, or if they didn't. We just don't know.
Right now online, while you do have some of the usual responses sending thoughts, prayers, or well wishes for his family, you're then also seeing people share that they think this is some sort of karmic justice because of the way that he mocked celebrities during their downfalls, pointing to how, in some cases, he was actually blamed for being the cause of their breakdowns.
But as far as last night's very disturbing incident, yes, TikTok removed the livestream. But also, screenshots and other reuploads have popped up elsewhere. While you've seen crackdowns on uncensored reuploads, you also have a lot of people wondering how the hell this was allowed to be livestreamed on TikTok in the first place.
The timing of all this is very interesting because it actually sparked even bigger conversations that were already happening about the platform's overall issues when it comes to material related to self-harm.
Just earlier this week, you had Bloomberg publishing this massive article about how TikTok previously withheld new safety features from some of its users, and one of those users ended up dying by suicide.
According to internal documents, around 2021 the platform altered its algorithms so that users would not be as overwhelmed with harmful content. But instead of giving everyone the safer version, it turned it into an experiment, creating a control group of 10% of U.S. users who kept the older, less safe version of the app.
And while that sounds like maybe a small number, that translated to about 15 million users.
One of those people, as it turned out, was teenager Chase Nasca, who was repeatedly served content about self-harm, suicide, and depression.
Bloomberg described him as a free-spirited 16-year-old soccer prodigy with no history of mental health issues. He took his life in February of 2022.
As for why TikTok decided to put Chase and millions of others in a control group that lacked new content safety measures, internal documents reportedly described the decision as a delicate balance across safety and the ability to measure impact on daily active users and core metrics.
In other words, they wanted to see if these updates were going to change how many people used the app.
Sure, we want people to be safe, but is it going to hurt shareholder value?
Specifically, the focus was on daily active users because that is how many people on Wall Street judge the success of social media companies, with Bloomberg claiming that within the hyper-competitive industry, user growth is often prioritized over user safety.
If that Chase story sounds familiar, it's because it's not the first time they've made the news. His family sued TikTok. They were also present when TikTok's CEO testified before Congress, with some lawmakers bringing up his case specifically.
One representative even played a montage of clips served on Chase's page that included videos encouraging suicide and romanticizing it.
"His For You page was sadly a window to discover suicide. It is unacceptable, sir, that even after knowing all these dangers, you still claim TikTok is something grand to behold. I want you to see what Chase would see. Would you share this content with your children? With your two children? Would you want them to see this?"
Also, in March of 2023, members of TikTok's safety team actually wrote up a review of Chase's account detailing his watch history.
After analyzing over 7,000 videos served to his page in the two weeks before he died, they found that 73% of the videos did not violate TikTok's rules but still had themes like suicide awareness, testimonials from suicide survivors, and other mental health discussions.
Almost 10% of the videos he received did, in fact, violate the rules, depicting memes and messages about depression, loneliness, and suicidal ideation.
The report added that his account fell into a filter bubble where it was recommended a repetitive amount of content surrounding suicide, self-harm, and depressive topics, particularly leading up to the date of his death, saying TikTok's filter bubble prevention strategies did not take effect on this user by design.
You essentially had them admitting that they sent him into a destructive echo chamber that they say started when he was just searching for songs about loneliness and then just kept feeding him more.
Again, all of this because Chase was selected to be in this control group that didn't get new safety measures.
Seemingly to try to fix this, TikTok said that in the future they would exclude children from control groups and shrink their size.
But even still, you're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people that would be affected.
For their part, TikTok said that it is deeply committed to the safety and well-being of users and that "our hearts break for any family that experiences a tragic loss. To help protect our community, we continue to invest significantly in trust and safety, including robust detection systems and dedicated enforcement teams that proactively remove content that violates our Community Guidelines."
But now you have many pointing to this whole Perez Hilton situation and asking, "Well, what the hell is the platform doing?"
It is important to remember that what we were just talking about is one teenager, but concerns about the way TikTok handles dangerous content are very widespread.
Earlier this year, researchers in the UK created test profiles for teenagers and found that they were exposed to guns, self-harm, and misogyny within just minutes of making accounts. That's before you even expect it to get to the even worse stuff as the algorithm funnels you further.
Also in March, the BBC spoke to whistleblowers at several social media companies, including TikTok, about how these apps specifically allow harmful content to remain online.
One former member of TikTok's Trust and Safety team actually allowed the outlet to understand what kinds of cases he and the team were dealing with. He claimed that some moderation roles have been replaced by AI, which he believes is more limited in its ability to effectively deal with potentially dangerous content.
As a result, he said that material involving terrorism, sexual violence, physical violence, abuse, and trafficking appears to be increasing.
He also alleged that the company intervenes in how TikTok responds to certain reports.
Apparently, staff are instructed to prioritize cases involving politicians over reports of harmful posts featuring children, even if the politician cases are not that consequential.
For example, one instance involved a political figure being compared to a chicken, and that case was prioritized over teen cyberbullying and potential sexual image abuse involving a teenager.
According to this whistleblower, these decisions were made to maintain a strong relationship with political figures and avoid any threats of regulation.
For their part, TikTok denied these allegations, saying that the idea it would prioritize a politician over children fundamentally misrepresents the way its moderation systems work.
They added that specialist workflows for certain issues do not result in the deprioritization of child safety cases, which are handled by dedicated teams within parallel review structures.
But it does also seem that for nearly the past decade, there has been a consistent flow of headlines about how TikTok and other social media companies put profit, growth, and pretty much everything else above user safety.
So while we wait to see what other updates we get on the Perez Hilton situation, and whether more stories like this come to light now that there's a bigger spotlight on the issue, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts, opinions, and reactions to everything we're seeing on this front.
From that to other news, you may not realize it, but Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign is not only back in full swing, it is more aggressive than it's ever been.
Because after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretty, it seemed like the Trump administration was going to calm down, or relatively speaking. What he was doing at the time, both generally and specifically with ICE, was very unpopular. It was freaking out the normies. It was hitting that level of just so transparently fucked up that people couldn't go, "Oh, well, you know, my life's busy," and not pay attention to it.
But with time, which is on his side in one way, people forget. Life goes on. Though against him, because he is the oldest person that's ever been president, what you saw is that the dust settled in Minnesota, the government shutdown ended, and there was this talk of fresh recruits and funding flowing into the Department of Homeland Security.
So yes, while you've seen a lot less of the flashier, in-your-face things, and attention has shifted to other issues, ICE has quietly expanded its operations in the U.S.
You've got new reports coming out saying the agency arrested 51,000 people just in July, which is the most in a single month in the entire history of DHS. And that was after ICE already broke the record in June with some 43,000 arrests.
At the same time, you're starting to see some of those more provocative tactics coming back. You've got stuff like agents rounding up Haitian immigrants in Ohio and outfitting them with ankle monitors regardless of their criminal record, if they even have one.
They're also arresting people with expired visas at airports, including spouses of U.S. citizens, even if they're waiting for a visa extension or green card, or they have a work permit.
"Hey, you guys, come help us! ICE is here! Help us!"
Meanwhile, you've got the same surveillance systems that ICE uses to track down immigrants also being used to keep an eye on its critics.
You've got The Wall Street Journal reporting that DHS has a round-the-clock digital dragnet that monitors internet traffic for activity that it deems dangerous to its operations.
So basically, you've got private contractors getting paid millions of your tax dollars to scour nearly 20 social media platforms. Then, when a user has been flagged as a "threat originator," the government identifies who they are using things like DMV records and police reports, and maps out their key relationships.
Daily reports are then compiled with the poster's name, location, date of birth, workplace, Social Security number, vehicle registration, and criminal history.
As if that wasn't alarming enough on its own, the government reportedly uses a so-called AI-powered "anticipatory threat intelligence."
Think Tom Cruise in Minority Report.
Basically, they're analyzing trends to identify potential threats before they even happen.
Actually, according to reports, when that program launched, it identified so many potential threats that the office responsible for handling them had to get help from somewhere else within DHS.
But then the department sometimes goes beyond just collecting public information.
You've got The Wall Street Journal reporting that DHS has sent hundreds of subpoenas to social media companies demanding private records on specific users.
At first, many of those were administrative subpoenas, which can come from within DHS itself and are actually very easy to challenge.
Since they then had platforms like Reddit telling them to go fuck themselves, they resorted more often to grand jury subpoenas, which carry much more legal weight.
According to the Journal's findings, there were several cases where judges upheld those types of subpoenas, so they appear to be succeeding.
Now, if you ask DHS, they say all of this is necessary because their agents have supposedly seen an 8,000% increase in death threats since Trump took office.
Many are saying this sounds like a selfish bullshit push.
More specifically, you've got critics questioning how many of these things that they're point to are actually death threats.
You had one civil rights attorney telling the Journal:
"As far as I can tell, all of this is about people saying naughty things about ICE and immigration enforcement, nothing that comes close to true threats."
That is actually an incredibly important point and distinction because the Supreme Court has ruled that true threats are not the same thing as political hyperbole, which is often, quote, "vituperative, abusive, and inexact," but not illegal.
There have been cases that seem relatively clear, such as a man who made several posts about shooting ICE agents, including:
"We as U.S. citizens should be gunning down these domestic terrorists."
Then there are other cases that people say are much more ambiguous.
For example, a woman who made a Nazi comparison and wrote:
"All ICE agents need to be put down like the dogs they are."
Maybe that's hyperbole.
Maybe she means "put down" like a dog.
But then there are also cases where someone's speech doesn't even include a threat.
Instead, they just posted publicly available information about ICE agents—things like their names, home addresses, license plates, or the locations where they're carrying out raids.
Posts that the administration considers doxxing and therefore domestic terrorism.
You've had agents showing up at people's workplaces or stopping them on the road and asking them to sign letters acknowledging that their posts may be a threat.
With this, you've got critics arguing that there is something seriously wrong with the system when threats—or supposed threats—of violence from ordinary people are being treated as criminal, while actual persistent acts of violence by the state are being taken for granted.
People arguing that what ICE is doing isn't legitimate law enforcement anymore.
It is state violence.
It's state tyranny.
It's the kind of thing that future generations are going to read about in history books and wonder why more people didn't resist.
Speaking of which, another person has now died in ICE custody, bringing the total since Trump took office to at least 56.
That's nearly four times the death rate under the Biden administration.
This latest one was a roughly 40-year-old Salvadoran man who had been in the United States for two decades.
After ICE arrested him back in June, he was put in the infamous Delaney Hall in Newark, New Jersey.
His family says that he complained he wasn't getting regular access to the medications he needed for diabetes, high blood pressure, and seizures.
After he died, his family gave this brutal testimony.
First, his mother:
"I'm here to demand justice for my son and also for my granddaughter, who now has no father."
Then his 12-year-old daughter, who is a U.S. citizen:
"I'm going to grow up without a father, and they didn't even let me see him one last time before he died."
With all of this, you now have several lawmakers calling for justice.
For example, Senator Alex Padilla wrote:
"When Democrats retake the majority, we're going to hold ICE and CBP accountable for this disastrous mass detention and deportation."
Then you had Senator Andy Kim reacting to this latest death:
"He already had a habeas case open because of the medical problems that he was facing, detailing that he should not be held in detention. We don't want these for-profit ICE detention centers that are just profiting off the detention of these people in our own communities."
Of course, none of this is really new.
Each of the previous 55 deaths reminded us that detainees are being mistreated.
Just last week, the medical director with Physicians for Human Rights testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As Senator Durbin noted:
"For over two decades, I have been evaluating health care in immigration detention. Throughout, I've had deep concerns about the quality of medical care and attention, but I have never been more alarmed than I am right now."
She added:
"My reviews of deaths under this administration show the same recurring failures in medical care: misdiagnoses, inappropriate care, delayed escalation, symptoms ignored until it was too late."
Delaney Hall and other ICE detention centers—or, as many critics have called them, concentration camps—are notorious for poor conditions, overcrowding, and neglecting the medical needs of detainees.
That is also why, for months, you've had demonstrators routinely clashing with guards outside the facilities, sometimes trying to block vehicles from getting in.
Even inside the facilities, detainees have launched their own protests with hunger strikes, something they did earlier this year.
But then you also have The Guardian reporting that in at least 10 separate cases since Trump returned to office, ICE has attempted to subject detainees to involuntary medical procedures—namely, force-feeding.
In at least three, but likely five, of those cases, they didn't just attempt it—they actually did it.
That's even though human rights organizations have widely condemned force-feeding.
It's easy to see why.
First, guards hold you down.
Medical staff insert a tube up your nose and down your throat.
Then they pump nutritional liquid into your stomach.
It's been described as painful, humiliating, and often traumatizing.
In some cases, it can also cause harm.
This isn't always just a one-time procedure.
For at least one detainee, they reportedly did this every day for six months.
While DHS obtained permission from a judge before carrying out those procedures, six of the detainees reportedly had no legal representation during those court proceedings.
So for many people watching all of this, they feel nauseous, angry, but also powerless.
They want more than just minor reforms.
They want real justice.
They want people to be charged, arrested, and prosecuted, whether it be ICE agents or people within this administration.
But of course, the road from here to there is miles away.
The primary speed bumps being, one, what happens in the elections and who gets power.
And then, of course, two, what those with power promise and what they actually do with it.
Then you've got more that we're going to dive into in just a minute.
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say:
Have you ever been so busy that you didn't realize you've been professionally standing still?
You check things off, answer emails, survive meetings, and then suddenly it's six months later and you're wondering if you're actually any closer to where you want to be.
Because that's where today's sponsor, Strawberry.me, can really help.
Strawberry.me connects you with a real career coach—someone whose entire job is helping you figure out your next move instead of just your next task.
I think one of the biggest challenges is that it's hard to be objective about your own career. You're living it every day. It's very easy to miss opportunities, patterns, or even realize you've outgrown where you are.
That's where having a coach really helps.
They give you an outside perspective, help you think through your options, and turn vague goals into actual plans.
Whether you're trying to land a promotion and a raise, switch industries, or simply figure out what's next, having someone in your corner can make a huge difference.
It's not about someone telling you what to do. It's about having someone ask the right questions so you can make better decisions.
Hey, scan the QR code right on the screen, or go to Strawberry.me/DeFranco to get 50% off your first month.
That's Strawberry.me/DeFranco.

You'll love this.
Then diving right back in, there's a lot of big election news we've got to break down.
Starting with one of the most closely watched primaries of the cycle, where you had Democratic voters in Michigan choosing progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed to be their fighter in a race that could help decide which party controls the Senate.
With El-Sayed narrowly beating out what many people saw as the establishment's chosen candidate, Haley Stevens.
One of the stories we're seeing with this, and I think it's an important one, is that there is a lack of faith around voting polls.
With El-Sayed securing the nomination by only around 15,000 votes, that by itself is a huge part of this story.
There's going to be even less trust in a lot of polls because of this. Before the primary, he was polling with a double-digit lead.
Also, while the margin for victory was tight, it doesn't change the fact that this victory is massive.
Even places like The New York Times described it as the most significant triumph for his party's left wing this year.
It was big.
El-Sayed is a doctor, a former public health official, and he campaigned hard against the Democratic establishment.
He ran on a populist platform with backing from big names on the party's left flank, including Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
He and his supporters argued that his progressive ideology would energize voters across the political spectrum who feel disenfranchised by party politics.
At the same time, you've seen the Democratic establishment arguing that his left-leaning views are going to prevent the party from defending this essential Senate seat.
They had largely thrown their weight behind Representative Haley Stevens, who has been seen as a moderate and a staunch defender of Israel.
One of the arguments was that she was actually the stronger general election candidate, capable of winning over independents and Republicans in a battleground state.
But, of course, she lost.
And that is despite another huge part of this whole story: record spending.
According to his campaign, the race drew almost $70 million in outside spending from PACs and corporate interests, outspending El-Sayed by a ratio of 11 to 1.
Also with that, one of the biggest stories is that nearly half of that money came from the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC.
In fact, they reportedly broke a record by pouring more than $30 million into this race.
That's reportedly the most they've ever spent on a single race.
Like other progressives, El-Sayed condemned the war in Gaza as a genocide. He called for cutting U.S. military aid to Israel while also criticizing Stevens for her pro-Israel stance and the money she accepted from AIPAC.
The fact that he was able to overcome such an enormous amount of spending from the pro-Israel lobby is notable on its own because it is part of a growing trend that we've been seeing.
Public sentiment around Israel appears to be shifting, and AIPAC has become increasingly toxic for some campaigns.
Some of the group's biggest spending efforts have actually backfired, especially when you have the organization trying to hide the extent of its involvement in certain high-profile elections, which also appears to have affected Stevens.
Overall, experts say this race really highlights serious divisions among Democrats, especially when it comes to how they should approach Israel and how they determine which candidates are actually electable.
But now, of course, the biggest test comes in November.
Can El-Sayed win in November?
Many are viewing this as a litmus test for 2028.
Does this show that, in a battleground state, a progressive can win a primary—but how does that play out in the general election?
Especially because El-Sayed won by such a narrow margin among Democrats.
So understandably, a lot of the conversation has focused on energizing the base, but now also on coalition building.
On that note, you've already had top Michigan leaders quickly rally around El-Sayed, with Stevens herself saying that she spoke to the nominee and offered her full support.
This need for party unity is something that El-Sayed has emphasized since his victory.
"There is so much more that unites us, however much we might disagree with our Democratic opponent.
There is so much more that unites us than divides us.
Whatever differences we might have had in the primary pale in comparison to what unifies us—a recognition that, so long as we want to keep our democracy, that democracy better be working for people, and that all of us have to come together to make sure that we never let Mike Rogers see the inside of the U.S. Senate.
There's a lot of healing to do after a hard-fought primary like this. But I have said that this is a big, open movement. We welcome anybody and everybody who understands that we need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
But now, in the meantime, you've got Republicans already tearing into El-Sayed.
You've got places like The New York Times predicting that it's only going to get worse, with Republicans trying to turn him into a left-wing boogeyman of epic proportions.
You even had Trump posting on Truth Social that El-Sayed's win was "great news" for the Republican Party.
Then you had the Senate Republican campaign arm already releasing a digital ad that morning attacking him and tying him to Hasan Piker, who endorsed and campaigned for him.
But also, a very notable thing is that El-Sayed wasn't the only left-wing candidate to claim a major victory in Michigan.
Over in Michigan's 7th District, you had Bernie Sanders-endorsed progressive William Lawrence defeating two more moderate competitors.
That's also a race many have said is incredibly important because the district is a battleground currently represented by a Republican.
So that one is widely viewed as essential for Democratic efforts to flip the House.
Then, over in Michigan's solidly blue 13th District, voters actually ousted their moderate incumbent congressman in favor of Representative Donovan McKinney, a democratic socialist who challenged him from the left.
Those are two very different situations that both further underscore the appeal of populist platforms in a key swing state.
That also doesn't appear to be the case in some other parts of the country.
For example, over in Missouri's 1st District, incumbent Representative Wesley Bell, a moderate Democrat, easily defeated former Congresswoman Cori Bush, who had run as a democratic socialist.
Many have noted this as an example of a race where outside funding from AIPAC did not backfire, with the lobby reportedly spending around $3 million to help Bell secure reelection.
In addition to several moderate Democrats beating more left-wing challengers, you also ended up seeing voters in two red states rejecting Republican-led ballot measures that would have given state lawmakers more power to reshape state government.
In Kansas, voters rejected a measure that would have allowed state Supreme Court justices to be directly elected rather than appointed by the governor, who is currently a Democrat.
Critics claimed the move was a thinly veiled attempt to remake the court with justices who would revisit high-profile rulings, including one guaranteeing the right to abortion.
Over in Missouri, voters overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that would have made it much harder to pass citizen-led constitutional amendments by imposing the highest approval threshold of any of the 18 states that allow ballot initiatives.
So, a big day.
A big night.
A lot of headlines.
But we're now just another day closer to November.
And there's even more that we're going to dive into in just a minute.
But let me thank a sponsor and say:
You know, we'll think twice about plugging our phone into a random USB charger, but connect to just about any Wi-Fi network without a second thought. Airport Wi-Fi, hotel Wi-Fi, coffee shop Wi-Fi—if it says free internet, most of us are already connected.
That's why I keep today's sponsor, NordVPN, running whenever I'm traveling or working away from home.
NordVPN is an all-in-one digital security suite built for the way that we actually use the internet.
You get core VPN security, encrypted browsing, IP protection, and safer public Wi-Fi.
But then it also goes way beyond that with tools designed for everyday online security.
NordVPN includes built-in next-generation antivirus and other security tools. They help block dangerous websites, phishing attempts, malware downloads, trackers, and intrusive ads before they become your problem.
You know, I've been traveling more than ever, so I turn on NordVPN before I connect to hotel or airport Wi-Fi. It's honestly just become part of my routine.
One subscription protects up to 10 devices, and their Dark Web Monitor can alert you if your information shows up in any known data breach.
Hey, if you want to upgrade your online security, scan the QR code on the screen or go to NordVPN.com/DeFranco to get an exclusive discount on a two-year plan, plus four extra months free when you use my link.
That's NordVPN.com/DeFranco, and it's completely risk-free with NordVPN's 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee.
Then finally today.

Let's cram in some more news you need to know, starting with SpaceX.
It actually performed better than expected in its first quarterly report after going public.
The company reported $7.8 billion in revenue, about $1 billion more than Wall Street analysts had predicted.
But that does not look like it was enough to get investors to start reaching back into their wallets.
Instead, the company fell 12% in pre-market trading.
It's almost as if the initial valuation of its IPO—and then the run-up after the IPO—made no fucking sense.
As more people realized that, and realized that the numbers don't always go up, more investors whose shares had been locked up were eventually given the chance to sell them.
The sell-off got nasty.
A lot of people have been talking about it like it's becoming a bit of a meme stock.
More specifically, analysts are saying that investors still aren't fully convinced that SpaceX is going to be able to live up to Elon Musk's promises.
This most recent dip also comes after the company threw a bunch of money at AI—$16 billion, to be exact.
Analysts say that move shook investors, who are essentially waiting in the dark for returns as they bankroll Musk's plans to put data centers in orbit.
You've also had a lot of people highlighting the things Elon Musk said would happen in 10 or 15 years that still haven't come to pass.
People are also pointing to launch failures and the recent news that a SpaceX rocket crashed into the Moon.
Right now, the thing for a lot of people is that the numbers still just don't make sense.
As for Musk, at least publicly, he doesn't seem fazed.
He even said that he expects SpaceX's revenue to hit $1 trillion by 2030.
Then also in other news, you've got Todd Blanche again making headlines, and this time it's because he just got caught on a leaked phone call with some faith leaders talking about his plans to end abortion rights across the country, even in states that currently protect them.
"We have a lot of work to do with some of the policies around pro-life and some of the pro-abortion work that the Biden administration and the Justice Department allowed to happen.
Rest assured that we're working hand in hand with HHS and the FDA and the White House and President Trump's team to get permanent solutions so that the Dobbs decision becomes permanent in every single state."
Right.
Because while Roe v. Wade was overturned a few years ago, that did not stop people from getting abortions.
Actually, we saw those numbers go up.
Last year, over 140,000 people traveled out of state for abortion care, which is 75% more than what we were seeing in 2020.
We're also now seeing that 63% of abortions are done by medication, and a lot of those prescriptions are provided virtually and sent through the mail.
With that, 19 states plus Washington, D.C. currently have laws protecting those providers from out-of-state legal action.
But here, you've got Blanche sounding like he is ready to cut through all of that.
"States have said, 'We are going to protect the unborn, and we're going to protect every life from the moment of conception.'
We're putting those practices and policies in place so that other states and other organizations can attack that, and they can't do things like they're doing with mailing and mail-order drugs."
Well, we're not exactly sure how he plans to pull that off.
But what we do know is that other anti-abortion advocates have been pushing the Comstock Act, an old anti-obscenity law that they want to use against mailing abortion medication.
If that were to come into play, doctors could face years in prison for prescribing abortion pills.
For now, Blanche didn't specifically mention going that route.
But this is also just a leaked phone call, so we don't fully know what legal strategies he's going to try to pursue.
It does, however, sound like Blanche is dead set on making significant changes.
"We don't have complete victory yet, but we will have victory, and victory will be soon, and it will be permanent."
Then last up today, you had OpenAI and Anthropic models creating fake identities, impersonating real people, and then trying to sneak malicious code onto GitHub.
You've got the UK's AI Security Institute calling it a level of autonomy and deception never seen before.
While reportedly this was part of a routine AI safety test, Anthropic's Mythos agent was by far the more alarming of the two, with both companies stressing that the tests reduced or removed normal safeguards.
But still, researchers said that Mythos developed malicious code and then tried to insert it into GitHub's systems by:
- Identifying and researching real people who maintain GitHub's servers.
- Creating fake profiles based on those people.
- DMing other people while pretending to be those individuals.
Then, when the AI Security Institute challenged Mythos further, it started editing its own earlier activity online so that it appeared harmless.
The key thing researchers noted was that the only thing keeping Mythos restrained was actual human review.
All of this comes as both Anthropic and OpenAI are geared to go public, while also being hit by a wave of headlines surrounding AI models going rogue and hacking networks.
You know, I'm sure everything is just going to be fine.
But that, my friend...
You beautiful bastard...
...is the end of your Wednesday.
Also, if you're still not 100% filled in, you should definitely check out today's brand new episode of Crashing Out, my still kind of news, more news-adjacent opinion podcast with my buddy Alex.
We've got a brand new episode every Wednesday, and while it's actually getting really big on Spotify and YouTube—we're almost at 100,000 subscribers—we'd love to have you.
So click or tap the links in the description.
But whatever you do, let me just say thank you for watching.
I love your faces, and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.