I'm still waiting for the disclosure of the list of 600 who were taking payments from Putin.

Was absolutely certain the context would be Clarence. Reckon the ol' attention span is obsolete at this point. And the sense of proportion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This makes me so angry even though I’m not a fan of influencers as it is.

The assertions in that article are wildly untrue. Wired made a mistake publishing it.

I see your check cleared

Fuck all the way off.

what part of the article is untrue?

Thread: bsky.app/profile/ryan...

@ctxplz.bsky.social

Sure thing, @ianthe.online. Please tap 👇 to see the ctx chain for your parent post

The world of influencers can’t die fast enough

Based on that read I just unfollowed Orlins. Don’t believe I’m following any of the others but will need to check. Seems sketchy af and ethically completely fails the sniff test.

So much for " secrecy " lol Dark money from both sides is destroying us.

I keep seeing folks say part of the article was retracted - do you know if that is true?

The article was updated with additional comments, all of which is openly laid out in the article which is free to read on Jared's link

Thanks.

They updated it to include info from a source who contacted after publication (which is an ethical thing to do if their info is relevant) but I'm not aware of a retraction

Thanks. A lot of passionate folks saying lots of things about this topic. I like to keep my facts straight.

"Dark money" is how political nonprofits get funded. Nature of the beast, thanks to this nation's tax laws/incentives. It is often pretty benign, but if that money is directing your content you should definitely a) try to figure out who's signing the checks and b) disclose that to your audience

ryan cooper has a thread of creators pushing against the article bsky.app/profile/ryan...

I hadn't seen that! Certainly makes this seem... well, not like something I'm ready to cut a free pass for but maybe not as severe as I thought after reading that piece? Kind of confusing -- feels like a lot of discrepancy between what these influencers are saying and what the article states?

Does this ring a bell?

yeah not exactly sure what to believe, but another data point at least

The right wing base had no idea who was funding their messaging machines for decades. And they won. I don’t give a shit who funds good over evil. It’s pure Sarandonism to chose to inflict evil upon your peers and allies in the name of some notion of ideological purity. It’s suicidal.

lol that you think these influencers were being funded by “good” The “good” of not advocating for Palestine or leftist policies. Ok!!!

bsky.app/profile/iant...

Your “good guys” were arming and abetting a genocide.

Many vehemently opposed Biden’s funding of genocide. I would have voted for anybody that wouldn’t continue that policy. We didn’t have that choice. Now we are fighting genocide and facism. We are losing on both fronts now. Incrementalism can be better than putting out a campfire with your face

Hey thats cool man. You know you can just take the money and say who is paying you right? Like thats an option. And it tells everyone what your biases might be. So why did Chorus try to cover it up?

"I, TexasSkeleton, Have Promised My Friends, Family, And Foes One Thing: 1 Will Never Stop Going In." * *unless those funding this battle choose to fight anonymously then I will choose to lose.

Man, really skipping over the never huh? lol Literally just said take the money but disclose who you got it from. Problem is, you cant disclose a source if the source is dark money.

Who gives a shit. I imagine you and I would make fast friends and kick some fascist ass as we race into the battle. In solidarity, Dan

Attaching this thread in the interest of fairness. Seems like a lot of distance between the article and what these influencers are saying? Now I'm feeling sort of confused. bsky.app/profile/ryan...

Those aren't actual refutations.

good. look deeper. look at who wrote this piece. look at her background.

This is stan nonsense. It's Anita Sarkeesian 2.0. This has to stop. She is good at what she does, which is connect with influencers and new media types and report on them and their ecosystem.

idk, she seems bought into the ideas

Wired has copy editors. This os good journalism, and these influencers are lying to you. It doesn't make it okay bc they claim to be on your side. They are not.

ps. look at the photo with her & rfkjr at a trump party

That's her job. She goes to those things to talk to sources, and plays the game to get info. She is completely transparent about it too.

? www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8BbRRSy/

she wrote the same article about the gop...

She wrote it for Wired, also your assessment of the character of the individual who wrote it has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

“Look at anything but the paid propagandists for a failed, dying conservative political party.”

Is what she’s saying inaccurate? Because who cares who she is if what she’s saying is true.

Every criticism of this article I see is a criticism about her directly. I don't like her myself, but no one is actually refuting what the article is saying

also that she lied about the company controlling talking points

Did you read the article? This is right in line with what it said.

i did, just forgot to post her admitting she misrepresented the “controlling subjects posted”. To be clear, I think it’s a bit shady, but her own standards implicate her. she doesn’t say she’s funded by 1630 even though another group (Omydar) she is affiliated with/paid by is funded by 1630 as well

maybe that she’s a hypocrite www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8BbRRSy/

Again, this still doesn't refute what she said in the article.

She's not. Well, she may be for other reasons, but this talking point's already been debunked.

Good catch!

She's great. Thanks for the recommendation.

_iamblakeley on IG has been fierce about this and I highly recommend giving those posts a watch. No quiet payola. Even if you may have issues with the personality of the source. 🤷🏻‍♂️

They're grifters, they're gonna form ranks to protect each other. Not one of them has actually addressed any of the issues raised in the article.

I'd be trying to create distance too if it got revealed i sold for such a grubby little (relatively speaking) amount of money

Hmmmm trust Wired, or trust either major political party's money pile to not lie?? It's quite a conundrum

then research the claims of the article. talk to the influencers. look at their contracts with a law pro.

So this is where I say the following; The issue here with the article is the framing. The veiled implication that their messaging is controlled. This has lead to many people in the group, including minorities to be harassed. These are unfounded claims that this is why they dont say more about

Gaza or they are soft on Dems in office. If they are then it is not enough. Dead serious, you should see their socials. It is purity politics. What she was banking on. Ultimately though, she has had a target on Chorus' back for a while. She wrote a piece on them back in April in Usermag

No substance, just slinging mud. this was a hit piece plain and simple. Side note here, she takes dark money too. You can split hairs but her founder Pierre Omidyar has funded 1630 Fund. 1630 Fund has given money to Omidyar Network. Omidyar network has given money to Kamala

and other Democratic candidates (even Joe Biden) AND Pro Genocide Ritchie Torres. This is why her character is in question. Her motives knowing it will only incite the far far left into a foaming legion, to what is my best guess, to exact whatever weird revenge/hate she has on BTC.

Anything connect to grifter Aaron Parnas is suspect