I'd guess its because it doesn't actually out them as paid shills? It outed them as being paid. I fucking HOPE journalists are being paid. There's nothing about that hit piece that says anything even approaching "they're shills" with any amount of believable evidence.
>Takes Dem Party money >pushes Dem Party talking points I mean it's now like you need a lot of evidence...
Except it’s not Dem Party money, bc the party is not in charge or chorus. It’s a progressive nonprofit. And several of the creators asked Ritchie Torres and Jakeem Jeffries and “other Zionists” to resign months ago. Is that a Dem party talking point? Seems u fell for the propaganda
Can you demonstrate the dem money? Or do you just assume it's Dem money because it agrees with Dems sometimes? Where is the proof? That Chorus paid them? Because Chorus agrees with them? Yeah, turns out companies pay influencers who agree with them. How crazy
They fact that influencers typically disclose their paid partnerships is also kind of a red flag. Look, I get literally nothing anyone says will convince you, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and pretends it's not a duck.... is a duck
If only the group being accused of giving money to influencers had any indication on their website about which influencers were getting money. The horror! The shame! You're buying right wing propaganda from a dipshit who was literally *days ago* talking about how fascists are nicer.
Dude, every single organization has a nice "about us" page. Raytheon and Palantir are the heros in their about us page too....weak argument at best, openly trolling at worst
YOURE ARGUING THAT THIS IS SOME HIDDEN MONEY SHIT YOU WEIRD MORON
Yes, 1630 fund is a dark money organization for left leaning projects. Like, this is not new to anyone but you.
What do you think dark money means
What do YOU think it means? Because you seem to have been confused on every topic this far.
I'll be honest, Just watch this shit and stop being a fucking rube so that fascists can continue to win. Please. I'm begging you. I'm SURE you're not a total moron. But you're acting like one right now because you actually have no clue what's happening. youtu.be/YcxeVkBJTQE?...
The group most people didn't know existed until the article came out? If you learned 4 months from now that a company called Jingopingo pays me to skeet and I told you it's not shady because they say so on jingopingo dot com how would that help if you had never heard of Jingopingo or its website?
Stupid Kibby never visited every website on the planet to see if one of them was for a company that pays ICRockets for his posts, what a lazy goof Kibby is for not doing this very reasonable due diligence.
The cope is heavy with kibby.
You've never been paid for saying what you believe? I'm ignorant on the example being discussed, as far as I know I have no horse in this race, but someone getting paid for a thing doesn't automatically make them inauthentic.
No. I have never once been paid for saying something I believe. In fact, all of the things I strongly believe in, I say for free.
Okay so if someone said "hey here's like $1k so you can say it louder and more without having to slave away at a Walmart forever" would that make you a sellout? Or would it be the obvious thing to do?
"Creators in the program are not allowed to use any funds or resources that they receive as part of the program to make content that supports or opposes any political candidate or campaign without express authorization from Chorus in advance and in writing, per the contract."
Okay? And? They can support or oppose any candidate, just not using the specific money from this group? Wow how terrible man. Glad we are policing ever taking money from political groups ever in any way when fascists are in charge. Fuck you for real lmao fucking moron
Do you not get that means that they would then have to prove to Chorus that they didn't use any of the money they recieved to produce that content? Meaning Chorus would still have editorial oversight or at least influence in all political content?
I don't even know who chorus is. I was just speaking I general that writers deserve to get paid for doing the homework so that the rest of us can cheat off of em while trying to make sense of the world. Most jobs don't let us research the world. Clearly I should step out of this discussion.
What is this? What are you quoting at me?
My random guess is it’s the Details from the “Taylor Lorenz Wired piece” in @wired.com that is the central element of the thread, but I have language disorders and Dan only experience snippets of langie so I don’t know for sure.
Yeah. I can’t read but I copied the chick of text and put in in a web search and the @wired.com articel that is the point of the thread showed up so I think it’s a safe bet that that is the source … the article that the thread is about.
I am now realizing I am likely not coming off as helpful and I am going to leave the conversauons befoe I make any bigger social mistakes as I am vey disorient and shouldn’t be online eifht Joe a
Having a good labor day weekend? Or should I be concerned?
Sounds like its legalese like you might find in a contract, like one you might sign in exchange for money. Complete with strings attached.
are you a bot. are you aware of the world around you. do you need help seeing that this is a convo you were already participating in.
I think the problem arises when they say: this week's agenda is X. Can you work that into your pieces this week? At that point you're not a journalist, you're a campaign asset. And that's fine, but they need to be honest about it.
I'd love to see data on how many times they go against the party line.
Oh. Well it's possible to do both. Just so you know
This is EXACTLY what's happening. Austin Archer did a way better job than I ever will and apparently uploaded within the last few hours too so honestly fuck me, watch this youtu.be/YcxeVkBJTQE?...
"Look everyone, a content creator did a video defending the group that pays content creators who say what the group wants people to hear and doesn't let them disclose their affiliation! Personally I see no reason to approach that with even the tiniest degree of skepticism."
Personally I am not a content creator. I simply acknowledge that writing is a profession. How could somebody receive a paycheck from some faceless entity with NO political interest? Writers do the homework the rest of us cheat off of when forming our opinions about contemporary issues Pay them
If you receive a paycheck from an entity with political interest that entity should not be faceless and the paycheck should not be a secret. Genuinely, how the fuck is this difficult for anybody over the age of 7 to comprehend
Hey man, I just stumbled into the middle of a conversation and tried to provide a bridge. The details are unknown and uninteresting to me. They might have eventually become interesting, and we could have had an actual discussion, but you're being a dick to a stranger trying to make peace Peace
"I don't know or care what we're talking about, I just wanted to jerk off in your face and you were rude about that"
I'm going to assume you're drunk.
You're going to assume that someone thinking it's fucked up to be told "I don't know what we're talking about nor do I care enough to learn before stating what is- I have to be very clear here again- a COMPLETELY uninformed opinion I'm pulling from my ass, be nice to me or else" must be drunk?
No?
They're not journalists. They're content creators. And Chorus isn't publishing their content. The whole point is that the connection between the creators and Chorus wasn't being publicized. Literally every parallel you're trying to draw here to journalism is false on its face.
It definitely did tho?
Show proof
I don't even like most of those influencers. It's just... So dishonest to act like this piece was anything other than getting mad about them being paid for their work. As if it should be frowned upon for anyone remotely left of fascist to be compensated for their coverage.
They're being paid to push pro democrat talking points. The very definition of being a shill.
paid to write/say specific things, with specific guidelines on what they can and cannot say. as well as not being allowed to disclose this paid relationship.
Show the proof. Literally show the proof. She didn't. She just claimed Chorus tells them to do what Dems say without proof. I'm serious. Give me proof! Show me!
Let's say for the sake of argument that there is no proof of this because they don't EXPLICITLY tell creators to toe the party line. Could it still be true and equally problematic for Chorus to exist as a dark-money slush fund exclusively for people who ALREADY reliably promote the party line?
the creators who told wired about the group also told them that the contract included that stipulation. it's in the article. www.wired.com/story/dark-m...
Paywalled. Does it tell me something I didn't know or suspect already, tho?
Careful, If you say something is paywalled they'll get really fucking mad that you're not paying for journalism, and then have absolutely no idea how ironic that is in this context lmao
From what I figure, Taylor Lorenz is rightfully suspicious of that 16-whatever group(of which the guy you posted doesn't disclose who funds them, which is where it gets even more suspicious), but her presentation was only effective to & advantageous for those who already are anti-Democrat.
I can, on some level, agree with this actually. I just... Don't care if I'm honest. I don't care for the same reason I kinda don't care how tim pool was funded--i care that MISINFORMATION was funded. The source is juicy, but the facts are what I give a shit about tbh and this just doesn't get there
Like, it would never matter to me how transparent a neo-nazi's funding is, and it will also never matter to me how hidden the funding of a children's food bank is as long as the kids are fed. This is a story about a non story to me and even the details are boring horseshit
it is not paywalled i can read the entire article just fine with no block why would you lie about something so easy to check
also even if it was, the internet archive exists if you wanna bypass paywalls... it's really fucking easy to do that
Paywalled. If you want a response, give me something that isn't. Until then, watch this and stop being a rube. youtu.be/YcxeVkBJTQE?...
The article isn't paywalled for me, either, and is pretty clear on the point. They weren't given a specific script per se, but there were a lot of strings attached that absolutely tarnishes their credibility and ethics. If you're going to be this angry about it, you should at least read it.
I'm not sure why I'm getting a paywall that y'all aren't but I can't read an article that I can't read, so I cant really respond to whatever y'all think you're seeing
here's a link without the paywall that you can pretend you can't read: archive.ph/7uEOS
Hey, actually appreciated! Now which part am I supposed to be mad about?
hell if i know, i never learned how to read
Based
the part where people were secretly paid to say specific things, without being allowed to disclose that they were being paid nor say anything the people paying them didn't want them to.
So like... Even Taylor Lorenz, the author of the article, says they were not paid to say specific things. Because she lied. Why does this not bother you
Except that isn't demonstrated in the article. That's the point.
i mean it comes across like you're pretending there's a paywall to not see the evidence
it was paywalled for me so i refreshed and downloaded the page. it almost always works. and did this time
Oh hey this actually seemed to work for me too, thanks. Someone else linked a version with no paywall as well for anyone unsure how to do this, but yeah, genuinely appreciated
it isn't paywalled for me. it's also full of testimony about the program. i understand you don't want it to be true for some reason, but it is. pretending otherwise just looks gross.
Not a single journalist on the list tho.