Like, it's pretty unlikely someone is going to take money from someone and go "Thanks for the money! Now here's why I hate you". Even if subconsciously, you become indebted to them and are going to be less willing to criticize them.
Replies
And you know how I know I'm right on this? Because every video I've seen from people in this group, team, whatever has been the same: Extremely defensive, insincere, and frankly sneeringly condescending.
sep 1, 2025, 9:40 pm • 1 0 • view
So what would you like to see? How can progressives fund efforts to reach the public on platforms that are already dominated by the right, talking about issues that are algorithmically handicapped? Is it more about disclosure? Or the funding model?
sep 1, 2025, 10:00 pm • 2 0 • view
Well I'm primarily worried about disclosure, yeah. If they hadn't been so secretive about it, and been so defensive when the expose came out, I wouldn't have nearly as big of an issue with it. I'm still concerned about the potential for soft influence, even subconsciously
sep 1, 2025, 10:08 pm • 2 0 • view
But that's par for the course with electoral politics, I suppose. It just really bothers me how defensive and condescending they were when confronted. And how they lied to defend it, too. It makes it look shady.
sep 1, 2025, 10:08 pm • 2 0 • view
I'm already negatively polarized against the Dem Party in general as a lefty, so maybe I'm not the target for this, but I can't imagine that "Democrats are paying influencers to push the party line" sits well with the public either.
sep 1, 2025, 10:08 pm • 1 0 • view
Ultimately the problem with this is the same as with everything involving the Dems at the national level: they come across as out of touch elites who hate the general public and especially their voter base.
sep 1, 2025, 10:10 pm • 2 0 • view
Disclosure would be great. Chorus didn't do that, they just sort of exist in the background, like most super PAC stuff does. The funding model requires front-to-back transparency. If a single cent is being funneled through a special interest group, that requires disclosure front and center
sep 1, 2025, 10:09 pm • 1 0 • view
This was really obvious stuff before Citizens United. Chorus wouldn't have been able to legally do what it's doing prior to 2010 and it's nuts that people don't see why it's a problem
sep 1, 2025, 10:12 pm • 3 0 • view
It definitely doesn't feel good. I'm genuinely trying to understand what a digital media landscape for the left looks like (pre-overturning CA). Transparency and disclosure, foremost, and on both sides of the arrangement. Per-video grants and not giant creator stipends that buy them out wholesale.
sep 1, 2025, 10:39 pm • 1 0 • view
Part of it is letting people like Sarah just do her thing, right? Like, that's a good thing, not saying it isn't. Bottom line: there is a lot of distrust of money connected to PACs, and for good reason. Politicians, like it or not, are already responsible for how the attention economy operates
sep 1, 2025, 10:45 pm • 1 0 • view
They've failed miserably to rein in the likes of Google, and modern digital media is a clusterfuck of sponsorship arrangements that's barely regulated to begin with. If progressive political funding groups want to earn the trust of media consumers, Chorus sure the fuck isn't how to go about it
sep 1, 2025, 10:49 pm • 2 0 • view