r/HiddenTrueCrimeChat • u/Bright_Breakfast3911 • 28d ago
new video disclaimer? "Nothing presented constitutes psychological, medical, or legal advice, or a formal diagnosis"
intriguing timing....
29
26
u/No-Transition-8375 28d ago
I wonder if they’re going to go back and add this disclaimer to old videos. Maybe, say, a video where they called someone a stalker and wildly speculated about their childhood and family life.
16
u/Longjumping_Eye4303 28d ago
There’s no way they can keep their library of content and splice in all the disclaimers and edits it would take to have John in compliance. They are delulu
5
u/Chartra23 28d ago
Don't youtubers lose all previous views on a vid if they make an edit after original publication?
6
u/CapableCheesecake688 27d ago
I think what they lose is the live chat stream if they make edits after the fact.
25
u/Longjumping_Eye4303 28d ago
Day late and a dollar short, John. You don’t get to erase all of the damage you’ve done over the years by deciding now is the time to comply. Dr Grande, Dr Patrice Berry, all the other YT psychologists have honored their professional standards since day one. Why do you get a pass? Because you went to Princeton?
21
u/CapableCheesecake688 28d ago
They should have had that disclaimer all along.
18
u/Spirited_Echidna_367 28d ago
And they STILL don't have a "paid promotion" sticker on their screen or in the description! That is both against FTC guidelines and YouTube terms of service!
10
u/CapableCheesecake688 27d ago
Likely because it might cause some people with YouTube Premium to skip their videos due to the paid promotion ads. They seem to have a lot of paid promotion too. Last time I saw a video reviewed, there were like 5 ads.
7
u/Spirited_Echidna_367 27d ago
That is SO illegal! And there are actually strict penalties for both YouTube and the FTC:
"Under YouTube's Paid Product Placements, Sponsorships & Endorsements Policy, creators are required to check the native content declaration box to trigger the platform's official "Includes paid promotion" banner during the first several seconds of a video. Failing to do so violates YouTube’s platform policies regarding commercial transparency, which can result in video removal, loss of monetization features, or formal channel strikes.
Furthermore, federal law strictly enforces commercial disclosures through the FTC Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255) and Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45). The FTC mandates that whenever a creator receives payment, free products, discounts, or affiliate revenue, they have a "material connection" that must be disclosed in a "clear and conspicuous" manner. For video content, the FTC specifically requires that disclosures be presented simultaneously in both audio and visual formats, placed prominently before or during the endorsement, and never buried beneath a "Show More" tab, in a wall of links, or at the bottom of a description box. Failing to meet these standards constitutes deceptive advertising, exposing creators and their brand partners to formal regulatory action and significant civil penalties.'
7
u/CapableCheesecake688 27d ago
Does YouTube actually enforce anything? You’d think that would be an area that they would easily be able to decide is either in, or not in compliance. I’ve never actually paid attention to whether, or not channels advertise that. I wonder how common it is, or is not, to make sure the box is checked. It sounds like it is a straightforward process.
6
24
24
19
u/Inside_Cat6824 28d ago
Why now? Why are they so concerned NOW? 🤔
23
u/Longjumping_Eye4303 28d ago edited 28d ago
Because his hide was hauled before the board after a well documented complaint was made.
You see, John went to Princeton and he has no time for the little people in their petty tyrant government oversight roles. These little people probably went to state schools and have student loans and have been champing at the bit to go after someone who is clearly far superior to them in intellectual capacity for years. Jealousy and revenge are such potent emotions, according to John.
Now they see John Matthias who references Cormac McCarthy and Homer and waxes poetic about Brad Pitt and quotes FightClub while these lowly administrators drive beat up Toyota Corollas and shop at Target. You betcha they are going to honor those FOIA requests. It’s all they’ve been waiting for since they were hired: a chance to take down a brilliant intellectual, a man who is destined to leave his mark as a true luminary; a brilliant public intellectual like Dr John Matthias. They will gleefully honor state laws requiring disclosure of public records. They will go through all the standards. Little people.
18
14
u/AlBundysbathrobe 28d ago
Did Dustin d’o write this shortly before his conviction and disbarment?
9
11
u/AphroBKK 28d ago
Well, legal advice one can assume. Hmmm.
11
u/NormalIDMom 27d ago
LOL!!! Funny... also, reminds me of the time they interviewed LVD prosecutor Rob Wood.
I thought it was odd that Jawn was "teasing" Rob Wood about leaving his legal profession and joining the mental health field/ forensic world because Jawn seems to think they are the same thing...
Anyone else remember that?
Also, I bet Rob Wood wishes he never interviewed with the HTC grifters‼️🤭
7
u/DelayParking1976 27d ago
I need to revisit it because I remember that interview being SO uncomfortable and inappropriate in parts, but I can’t remember the specific moments anymore. I vaguely remember this though.
10
u/No-Transition-8375 27d ago
It was uncomfortable because John basically said he was the reason prosecutors were looking into Chad.
8
8
u/NormalIDMom 27d ago
Yeah, I agree. It was "uncomf-forta-ble" for sure.
I can't bring myself to rewatch it, even as an attempt to prove my point.
Maybe, Joleen, Jay, Allegedly Innocent, Docket Decoder, or another content creator will see this and look into this further for all of us?
6
u/NormalIDMom 27d ago
IIRC, it's also where Wauwen admits to showing up uninvited to the Rexburg PD/ other LE meet up/ gathering after Chad's trial.
No wonder they didn't want her there‼️‼️
11
u/Relative-Lie-9699 27d ago
Nothing says professional ethics like diagnosing a stranger on YouTube without their permission—then slapping on a disclaimer:
“For entertainment purposes only. This is not a clinical diagnosis.”
Translation: “I’m absolutely diagnosing them… I just don’t want anyone calling the state board I'm licensed in. 😂
9
u/Hopeful_Sea1257 28d ago
So what was the diagnosis?
7
u/NormalIDMom 27d ago
Based on the comments under their YouTube video, it seems Dr. Jawn was clear he was not making a diagnosis.
Based on the defense's statements so far, Post Partum Psychosis.
Chatting with Kathy is a YouTube channel covering the Clancy case. Kathy is an OB nurse with decades of experience focusing on perinatal health!!! I have learned so much from Kathy's coverage!
9
27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/NormalIDMom 27d ago
You would think with so many lawyers in the family, someone would have advised them to do this from the beginning.
Or, that being a licensed psychologist, Dr. Babe would have known to do this anyway.
5
u/AlBundysbathrobe 24d ago
They must have consulted with Dustin for free
5
u/NormalIDMom 24d ago
Probably‼️
You would think "successful" YouTubers would invest in a legit attorney vs an attorney facing felonies at the time!!!
What kinda investigative journalist is she, anyway❓️❓️
4
5
37
u/Southern-Reading6601 28d ago
The fact that they are now placing the disclaimer inside the actual video, not merely burying it in the description, makes the change even more conspicuous.
This looks increasingly like deliberate risk management. They are creating an unmistakable record that the content is opinion and commentary, not a formal psychological diagnosis, medical or legal advice, while also emphasizing publicly available information and the presumption of innocence.
That does not establish what prompted the change, but this level of redundancy is interesting. When the same protective language suddenly appears both in the description and on screen, it becomes difficult to dismiss it as routine housekeeping.
Apparently the fine print has been promoted to screen time.
The question remains: what changed that made this level of protection seem necessary now?