The fact they took the initiative on this means they have already seen how this is going to happen and are getting ahead of it. God I love this timeline.
What this tells me is that they are anticipating their slop machine will kill people. They KNOW it will kill people. And rather than stop it from doing that, they're going to try to legally exempt themselves from punishment before it happens.
Are we surprised after these people committed the single largest copyright infringing art stealing spree in the world? And then started selling their software to military companies?
Software can never be held responsible, so software should never be allowed to make a managerial (or life and death) decision. Anyone using AI to make these decisions should be liable for the repercussions.
"We cant let them win"...They will win. The US is lost. Corporation can do whatever the freak they want. At least, thats what it looks like here from europe.
Ai already brings back answers with a warning about how it can make mistakes in the 0.0000000001 seconds it took to do the job. If Ai is so fucking clever and fast - you can fucking check it before doing the job, you pointless waste of electricity and drinking water.
I get that this is important information, but why the fuck is every video just spliced together? He's talking in normal sentences, but he's jumping from one location to the next. It's not like he's cutting out expository dialogue because the sentence structures flow together. Pretty much every video these days is someone saying a few words, stopping the video, going somewhere else, recording some more words, moving somewhere else, rinse and repeat.
This is, I'm sure, not what happened here but reminds me of the RobWords video I just saw where he was like mid-sentence in a public space and someone just walked up and put a piece of food in his mouth, and he didn't edit it out. He just started over. I've seen other videos where people leave in & react to interruptions like train horns, someone coming up to talk to them, etc., and then they start over, but none of that is to say that explains it. I think it's probably just a trend in editing.
This is possibly the intent of the title, but just to be clear: the McDonald's "hot coffee lawsuit" was absolutely not frivolous, but the company spent a LOT of money getting the public to think that it was. Here's a PBS report on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENTaHxjN4xI
My friend growing up had to have his entire leg skin grafted pretty much from hot coffee at Burger King. Set him up some money for college which he used well, but I wouldn’t trade that for his disfigurement. Happened when he was seven years old.
On the subject of caution hot. I had a friend who worked for Quick Trip. He dmsaid a woman came to him and said she burned herself on their coffee they should have a sign up. He went back and counted 13 different places it said caution hot. People only see what they want to see.
I think the point of the title is that saying "caution: coffee is hot," and then serving unsafe coffee that causes severe harm like McD's did, didnt make it ok for them, and a mealy-mouthed warning on an AI product shouldn't excuse deaths it causes by being intrinsically unsafe.
Yeah. This goes back to a really important point about case law: you gotta fucking read the facts and know the legal precedents to understand it. Looking at you armchair constitutional experts….
She had 3rd degree burns to 16% of her body including the groin and needed graft surgery at the age of 79 years old. The coffee was estimated to have been served to her 180-190°F, just shy of boiling.
Anyone who thinks that's a frivolous reason to sue is welcome to pour a cup of boiling water on themselves and let me know how it goes. Oh and do it while buckled up in your car, where you can't get up and react easily.
And McDonald's KNEW the coffee could cause third degree burns, burned people before, had meetings about it, and decided it was better to settle burn cases than reduce the temperature of their coffee.
Also important (imo) to point out is the fact she wasn't even suing for anything beyond compensation for her bills. She wasn't trying to extort them or anything, just fairness.
Also, it’s important to note that the millions was not set by a dollar figure. It was set by looking at how McDonald’s had done it over and over, and did the judgement to fine them 2 days of just the profit from selling just coffee.
That would be like fining you a portion of your pay for 2 days, based on what your budget has as available for luxuries after paying for all necessary expenses like health insurance and retirement savings. Honestly, should be more common.
And those facts included that it wasn't even the first time they had caused injuries like that but they just kept doing it. And she didn't actually get the often quoted sum, they ended up with a settlement later that got her far less.
I’m not sure this is what this is saying but if some idiot uses ChatGPT to help make decisions that in turn lead to people’s deaths it’s not ChatGPT’s fault. It’s the idiots fault. I’m not saying I am for anyone in positions with that much power using ChatGPT either. They absolutely should not be. But that’s that persons job and responsibility, it shouldn’t be blamed on ChatGPT or the company for existing.
Arguably in concept. I suspect the real pressure is on to get it out into law and quickly specifically so that it can go to court and be pushed up to the Supreme (-ly corrupt) Court while it’s stacked and virtually guaranteed to go above and beyond in setting precedent in favor of the corp.
So less about killing that number of people (it’s just a side note to make sure the scale of the precedent is clear when they win) and more about getting it on paper so that it can be set in stone.
Or they already have killed 99 people and are trying to slip this by before it comes out. Considering how many people ask it for medical advice, I'd be surprised if they havent killed a lot of people.
It feels odd that the bill specified 100. Not more than 100, or nearly 100, or 101 before they could be held liable... but 100 exactly (unless this whole clip was worded poorly). Kinda makes you want to check ALL of their closets. Like RIGHT NOW.
Ya I'm really curious if this implies immunity for more than or less than 100. Like sorry, only killed 62, we are still liable. Gotta pump those numbers up!
let them die. lets weed out the stupid already. im done with this if your stupid enugh to eat that wild mushroom that chatgpt said is safe to eat... and you DIE 15 mins later.. that is on YOU! and quite honestly the world is better off without you. we want people that can think outside the prompt
Firstly, you'll die about two days later in incredible agony. And so will everyone else you fed them to.
The scariest thing about this shit is that, much like cars, the people lazy enough to rely on it won't be the only ones dying. They'll be killing the rest of us as well.
If you ask chatgpt if a mushroom is safe to eat and die as a result in one sense we could say it's your fault because you shouldn't trust chatgpt with anything more dangerous than a wet spaghett but in another sense chatgpt killed you because it gave you advice that directly lead to your death.
But given the numbers involved I suspect their real concern is one of these two scenarios:
1) Somebody involved in building infrastructure, such as a bridge, asks chatgpt for help and follows bad advice resulting in a collapse that kills dozens or hundreds of people or
2) Somebody asks chatgpt how to build a bomb, gets good advice, and kills dozens or hundreds of people.
that's not ai though, that's the person using it as a reference. like, if i go down to the pub and ask someone for advice on your examples, the person giving me advice isn't responsible for my actions. that's the way i look at it at least
Morally, maybe. Legally? Definitely could be liability for open ai.
Imagine if Excel had a flaw that caused a billion dollars in damages because some spreadsheet didn't math right. M$ would definitely face liability for that because they sell the software and advertise its ability to do those tasks correctly.
The problem for AI companies is that they advertise LLMs as a kind of panacea that can handle any software task you ask of it while in reality it's kinda shit at everything. 1/2
That's obviously for the chatgpt says something wrong and people die case.
The chatgpt says something right and it helps somebody kill people case I suspect is a weaker one but they definitely don't want to get dragged through the courts for it all the same.
Plus there's pretty strong anti LLM sentiment around. There's a possibility that even if they shouldn't technically face liability for it they might get an unsympathetic judge and jury who find against them anyway.
Does someone have an explanation of how those 100 people are expected to be killed? The wording sounds like they are asking for forgiveness just to murder people in the name of their company...
There are proposals for involving AI with air traffic for example. CrashGPT would likely not lightly boop the bread truck while coming into Runway 29...
The first scenario to come to mind would be using AI to identify a military target, and having the AI incorrectly identify a school as a military base.
Probably like everything else on this planet: War. Betcha they are chasing war contracts and want to be off the hook if it fails miserably in target identification. Also see it’s close cousin militarized police departments
Families are suing OAI about their family members who have committed suicide and were chatting with GPT at the time about it and were potentially encouraged by their GPT to go through with it. In one case the teen had gone around guardrails because the GPT kept discouraging him and trying to give him helpline numbers and the kid didn’t want to hear that anymore. So I assume this is more to stop families from suing when their loved one talks themself into suicide via AI.
Encouragment of suicide, posting false health-related information, inducing psychosis with deadliny results, providing weapon information, etc. Not sure what OpenAIs body count is at this time, but it's far above "zero" where it should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots
Probably related to cases of people asking AI to identify if a plant or animal is deadly, AI saying "nope, you are good!" and then dying. Or having bad advice given that leads to death. I saw a post a while back about on of these AI things almost causing a woman to die by incorrectly stating that a plant wasn't lethally poisonous when it really was, and her double-checking on another computer/source saved herself.
Holding lapel mics is a YouTube trend that's developed in response to more corporate, more professional, videos becoming common on the platform as a way to differentiate the "homegrown" YouTubers from the late night hosts and Hollywood marketing campaigns.
Not as any conscious act, mind you, just the normal process of subcultures developing in–group cues to signal membership. As soon as mainstream content starts holding lapel mics YouTubers will move on to something else.
It is another wannabe trend, just like the black nitrile gloves and squishing all the juices out of cooked steaks or cutting freshly baked bread loaf in half.
I don't think it has anything to do with knowing how the equipment is supposed to be used. I think it's just a trend. There has been many trends of unconventional mic usage. Think it has something to do with being different from established news media.
The point is to have high production quality and seem professional. While also be quirky and different enough to be seen as more authentic than legacy media. Stupid is part of the point. It's something the establishment wouldn't do because it's stupid. Until legacy media see it working and try to copy it, that's when we get a new trend like that.
IntegratedTraumaEarnedSecure
A law he wrote, sexy
gft8gd5khn101
Elon Musk got a free pass for killing over 200,000 people, mostly children. They're just treating corporations like people now.
Terran81
The fact they took the initiative on this means they have already seen how this is going to happen and are getting ahead of it. God I love this timeline.
urusername2
They want the law because they know there is a high likelihood of ChatGPT causing 100's of deaths thru hallucinations.
unluckyandbored
What this tells me is that they are anticipating their slop machine will kill people. They KNOW it will kill people. And rather than stop it from doing that, they're going to try to legally exempt themselves from punishment before it happens.
DerpyWombat13
As long as they are billionaires
Akule
Hmmm.
https://apnews.com/article/character-ai-chatbots-medical-advice-pennsylvania-46502067ed5b3cd9f9173f194ad30070
Salticido
Headline: "Pennsylvania sues AI company, saying its chatbots illegally hold themselves out as licensed doctors" Wow.
Fargus57
Hasn't Musk essentially had the same lack of responsibility applied to Tesla for killing people with the 'self-driving' tech?
ps238principal
Some exec is writing up a "freebie hit list," I'm sure.
MentalFest
Are we surprised after these people committed the single largest copyright infringing art stealing spree in the world? And then started selling their software to military companies?
OnyxTurret
Software can never be held responsible, so software should never be allowed to make a managerial (or life and death) decision. Anyone using AI to make these decisions should be liable for the repercussions.
KillingTlme
So according to them, an average person with worth 10 million dollars.... remember that!
LostCaterpillar
I'm honestly surprised the value us that highly...
krynny
.
hamulusrex
Oh they'll kill way more than 100 le sigh
ThisIsYourLifeNow
"We cant let them win"...They will win. The US is lost. Corporation can do whatever the freak they want. At least, thats what it looks like here from europe.
DaisyfromDownunder
Ai already brings back answers with a warning about how it can make mistakes in the 0.0000000001 seconds it took to do the job. If Ai is so fucking clever and fast - you can fucking check it before doing the job, you pointless waste of electricity and drinking water.
PonyMadness
I get that this is important information, but why the fuck is every video just spliced together? He's talking in normal sentences, but he's jumping from one location to the next. It's not like he's cutting out expository dialogue because the sentence structures flow together. Pretty much every video these days is someone saying a few words, stopping the video, going somewhere else, recording some more words, moving somewhere else, rinse and repeat.
Salticido
This is, I'm sure, not what happened here but reminds me of the RobWords video I just saw where he was like mid-sentence in a public space and someone just walked up and put a piece of food in his mouth, and he didn't edit it out. He just started over. I've seen other videos where people leave in & react to interruptions like train horns, someone coming up to talk to them, etc., and then they start over, but none of that is to say that explains it. I think it's probably just a trend in editing.
bippityboppitybuttsex
Then we get to kill 100 Chat GPT employees in response... one for one seems fair.
NickRivieraMD
starting at the highest level of responsibility, and working down from there, I guess
Emjayen
In descending order of wealth.
Anfalicious
How about 100 ai invested vc's instead?
ThingsThatDontJustifyGenocide
I'd say "executives", personally. Not that anyone should.
SixSixxtySix
We start with the sibling rapist in charge of that shitheap.
Akule
Well, according to them, a company is a person, so you just end the company instead.
CorrectMostOfTheTime
So we get to end 100 ai companies at once then
UnaccomplishedWatcherImNotaBot
Sooo you're saying we're cutting not one, but a hundred companies? I can get behind that
MajorasTerribleFate
"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one" is the saying, I think.
Emjayen
Is this actually a legal thing in the US? I recall hearing about it in the late-2000s.
Salticido
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
CambreathdTheSecound
An inspirational story based on the gun industry... /S
IWouldLickThat
Maybe it's an insurance thing? Like, their premiums would spike at 100 or more, so they decided it's cheaper to legislate/lobby.
UNHchabo
This is possibly the intent of the title, but just to be clear: the McDonald's "hot coffee lawsuit" was absolutely not frivolous, but the company spent a LOT of money getting the public to think that it was.
Here's a PBS report on it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENTaHxjN4xI
ButtTrumpett
My friend growing up had to have his entire leg skin grafted pretty much from hot coffee at Burger King. Set him up some money for college which he used well, but I wouldn’t trade that for his disfigurement. Happened when he was seven years old.
Isthe4thtimethecharm
On the subject of caution hot. I had a friend who worked for Quick Trip. He dmsaid a woman came to him and said she burned herself on their coffee they should have a sign up. He went back and counted 13 different places it said caution hot. People only see what they want to see.
Evenmoreuselessname
I think the point of the title is that saying "caution: coffee is hot," and then serving unsafe coffee that causes severe harm like McD's did, didnt make it ok for them, and a mealy-mouthed warning on an AI product shouldn't excuse deaths it causes by being intrinsically unsafe.
imeatingpizzaandfuckit
Yeah. This goes back to a really important point about case law: you gotta fucking read the facts and know the legal precedents to understand it. Looking at you armchair constitutional experts….
SacrificialClam
Was this the Hot Coffee Lawsuit between Rockstar and McDonalds
MostAwesomeDan
She had 3rd degree burns to 16% of her body including the groin and needed graft surgery at the age of 79 years old. The coffee was estimated to have been served to her 180-190°F, just shy of boiling.
Anyone who thinks that's a frivolous reason to sue is welcome to pour a cup of boiling water on themselves and let me know how it goes. Oh and do it while buckled up in your car, where you can't get up and react easily.
thegarts
I thought it was hotter because it was under pressure and didn’t boil.
Emjayen
I remember the photos; they were quite shocking. According to the medical report it was so hot that it "fused her labia together"
uncleslam7
McD did such an effective smear campaign that
people truly don’t know this. Which is why it’s taught day one in law school
quietconfetti
The training docs also explained why it was too hot. It was to discourage people from getting a free refill.
crazyspelling
And McDonald's KNEW the coffee could cause third degree burns, burned people before, had meetings about it, and decided it was better to settle burn cases than reduce the temperature of their coffee.
MostAwesomeDan
Chuck Palahniuk called it out when he wrote Fight Club
WholeWheatBunnyHugger
Same with the Exploding Pinto.
Yoshimaster
Also important (imo) to point out is the fact she wasn't even suing for anything beyond compensation for her bills. She wasn't trying to extort them or anything, just fairness.
Gerokeymaster
Yep. She wanted less than $30k. The *jury* ordered McDs to shell out in the millions instead after hearing the facts.
nicelyvillainous
Also, it’s important to note that the millions was not set by a dollar figure. It was set by looking at how McDonald’s had done it over and over, and did the judgement to fine them 2 days of just the profit from selling just coffee.
That would be like fining you a portion of your pay for 2 days, based on what your budget has as available for luxuries after paying for all necessary expenses like health insurance and retirement savings. Honestly, should be more common.
Colopty
And those facts included that it wasn't even the first time they had caused injuries like that but they just kept doing it.
And she didn't actually get the often quoted sum, they ended up with a settlement later that got her far less.
UNHchabo
They were deliberately making the coffee too hot because that made a brew last longer. Specifically against their own rules
sochilln
CrapGPT says https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1OTMzZGpiYzY3dWE1bzh5YmJqbW5qN3o5eXdxanQ0N3MzajZ1emVyZyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/3ohzdYJK1wAdPWVk88/200w.webp
buttcreambandit
I’m not sure this is what this is saying but if some idiot uses ChatGPT to help make decisions that in turn lead to people’s deaths it’s not ChatGPT’s fault. It’s the idiots fault. I’m not saying I am for anyone in positions with that much power using ChatGPT either. They absolutely should not be. But that’s that persons job and responsibility, it shouldn’t be blamed on ChatGPT or the company for existing.
BeckyLookAtHerButt
So, they have incentive to reach 100 as quickly as possible.
frozenlake247
Arguably in concept. I suspect the real pressure is on to get it out into law and quickly specifically so that it can go to court and be pushed up to the Supreme (-ly corrupt) Court while it’s stacked and virtually guaranteed to go above and beyond in setting precedent in favor of the corp.
So less about killing that number of people (it’s just a side note to make sure the scale of the precedent is clear when they win) and more about getting it on paper so that it can be set in stone.
GuysJustWannaFish
Or they are lobbying because they have already or credibly have knowledge that they will kill 100 ppl
BeckyLookAtHerButt
ShinksAvoHazaar
BLAHB, I’d have drinks with you. That’s exactly where my mind went. Corpos shouldn’t have any type of immunity at all.
senyu
Well there is a law that sort of treat corporations as a person, but if that is the case execution should be applicable to them.
ShinksAvoHazaar
You’re coming for drinks too.
mikeatike
Or they already have killed 99 people and are trying to slip this by before it comes out.
Considering how many people ask it for medical advice, I'd be surprised if they havent killed a lot of people.
Nuclearun
It feels odd that the bill specified 100. Not more than 100, or nearly 100, or 101 before they could be held liable... but 100 exactly (unless this whole clip was worded poorly). Kinda makes you want to check ALL of their closets. Like RIGHT NOW.
GuysJustWannaFish
Ya I'm really curious if this implies immunity for more than or less than 100. Like sorry, only killed 62, we are still liable. Gotta pump those numbers up!
WishyMissy
I think he said, "100 or more"
Nuclearun
Ok, that's a *little* less incriminating.
Colopty
Someone should just casually submit a bill requesting immunity for a weirdly specific amount of deaths, injuries, time span, and location.
RooGryphon
let them die. lets weed out the stupid already. im done with this if your stupid enugh to eat that wild mushroom that chatgpt said is safe to eat... and you DIE 15 mins later.. that is on YOU! and quite honestly the world is better off without you. we want people that can think outside the prompt
LostCaterpillar
Firstly, you'll die about two days later in incredible agony. And so will everyone else you fed them to.
The scariest thing about this shit is that, much like cars, the people lazy enough to rely on it won't be the only ones dying. They'll be killing the rest of us as well.
RooGryphon
Remind me never to eat anything from someone that used chat gpt in the last week to.lookup anything about it. If you question it its deadly
pancreas
are people acting like following bad advice from an ai model counts as killing them?
LostCaterpillar
If you ask chatgpt if a mushroom is safe to eat and die as a result in one sense we could say it's your fault because you shouldn't trust chatgpt with anything more dangerous than a wet spaghett but in another sense chatgpt killed you because it gave you advice that directly lead to your death.
1/2
LostCaterpillar
But given the numbers involved I suspect their real concern is one of these two scenarios:
1) Somebody involved in building infrastructure, such as a bridge, asks chatgpt for help and follows bad advice resulting in a collapse that kills dozens or hundreds of people or
2) Somebody asks chatgpt how to build a bomb, gets good advice, and kills dozens or hundreds of people.
pancreas
that's not ai though, that's the person using it as a reference. like, if i go down to the pub and ask someone for advice on your examples, the person giving me advice isn't responsible for my actions. that's the way i look at it at least
LostCaterpillar
Morally, maybe. Legally? Definitely could be liability for open ai.
Imagine if Excel had a flaw that caused a billion dollars in damages because some spreadsheet didn't math right. M$ would definitely face liability for that because they sell the software and advertise its ability to do those tasks correctly.
The problem for AI companies is that they advertise LLMs as a kind of panacea that can handle any software task you ask of it while in reality it's kinda shit at everything. 1/2
LostCaterpillar
That's obviously for the chatgpt says something wrong and people die case.
The chatgpt says something right and it helps somebody kill people case I suspect is a weaker one but they definitely don't want to get dragged through the courts for it all the same.
Plus there's pretty strong anti LLM sentiment around. There's a possibility that even if they shouldn't technically face liability for it they might get an unsympathetic judge and jury who find against them anyway.
TheVoidFrog
Does someone have an explanation of how those 100 people are expected to be killed? The wording sounds like they are asking for forgiveness just to murder people in the name of their company...
Filanwizard
There are proposals for involving AI with air traffic for example. CrashGPT would likely not lightly boop the bread truck while coming into Runway 29...
kbryant414
The first scenario to come to mind would be using AI to identify a military target, and having the AI incorrectly identify a school as a military base.
Stark1y
The USA doesn't need AI to do that
tidepool
That’s how it happened though. Outdated info via AI. Palantir I believe.
Stark1y
AI wasn't really around when they bombed a hospital in Afghanistan
Tarmaccian
Bob The Bomber might ask ChatGPT about chemistry homework, and under current U.S. law, that exposes OpenAI to liability when Bob goes on a rampage.
mohavewolfpup
Probably like everything else on this planet: War. Betcha they are chasing war contracts and want to be off the hook if it fails miserably in target identification. Also see it’s close cousin militarized police departments
TimeAWastin
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/29/tech/openai-tumbler-ridge-canada-shooting-lawsuits
tidepool
Families are suing OAI about their family members who have committed suicide and were chatting with GPT at the time about it and were potentially encouraged by their GPT to go through with it. In one case the teen had gone around guardrails because the GPT kept discouraging him and trying to give him helpline numbers and the kid didn’t want to hear that anymore. So I assume this is more to stop families from suing when their loved one talks themself into suicide via AI.
ElbowDeepInAPoliceState
There's been a couple mass shootings and a lot of suicides that their product has played a role in causing
ElbowDeepInAHeadlessHorseman
I think AI providing lethally bad advice (such as mushroom misidentification) and encouraging suicide are the most common ways.
forreference
Or teaching people how to make and use explosives.
stronomer
Encouragment of suicide, posting false health-related information, inducing psychosis with deadliny results, providing weapon information, etc. Not sure what OpenAIs body count is at this time, but it's far above "zero" where it should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots
Kalavier
Probably related to cases of people asking AI to identify if a plant or animal is deadly, AI saying "nope, you are good!" and then dying. Or having bad advice given that leads to death. I saw a post a while back about on of these AI things almost causing a woman to die by incorrectly stating that a plant wasn't lethally poisonous when it really was, and her double-checking on another computer/source saved herself.
Salticido
AI is also just straight up recommending people commit suicide.
MothMonsterMan
Does he know those microphones are meant to be clipped on his lapel and not held like he is at a children's tea party?
LostCaterpillar
Holding lapel mics is a YouTube trend that's developed in response to more corporate, more professional, videos becoming common on the platform as a way to differentiate the "homegrown" YouTubers from the late night hosts and Hollywood marketing campaigns.
Not as any conscious act, mind you, just the normal process of subcultures developing in–group cues to signal membership. As soon as mainstream content starts holding lapel mics YouTubers will move on to something else.
3ifish
That's your takeaway (seems odd to me)?
Whatdoyousaytoanicecupoftea
Have you seen him in real life? Dude could be massive
chittychittybangbanglovesustoo
I see online people doing this all the time now. Weird.
elmesito
It is another wannabe trend, just like the black nitrile gloves and squishing all the juices out of cooked steaks or cutting freshly baked bread loaf in half.
tiredviking
I don't think it has anything to do with knowing how the equipment is supposed to be used. I think it's just a trend. There has been many trends of unconventional mic usage. Think it has something to do with being different from established news media.
MothMonsterMan
To me it makes them look stupid. Not exactly the look they need if they are attempting to not look "established"
tiredviking
The point is to have high production quality and seem professional. While also be quirky and different enough to be seen as more authentic than legacy media. Stupid is part of the point. It's something the establishment wouldn't do because it's stupid. Until legacy media see it working and try to copy it, that's when we get a new trend like that.
RetrogradeLlama
I down vote any video of a dweeb doing this.
There’s always another source for the Information that doesn’t include a dweeb trying to get Internet points.
jaecyk10
Funny that, I downvote any dweeb complaining about how people use microphones.
Salticido
And *I* downvote any dweeb complaining about complaining about-- just kidding, I upvoted you
jtwood
I was gonna piss and moan about it, too, but he’s actually out there doing real things… so I’ll give him a pass on this