Not for nothing but WIRED is like one of a very few media outlets whose journalism people on here (and similar) take seriously anymore. Some great exposes on the Republicans; I guess this is, what, fair and balanced? because, sure, you WANT to be GENUINELY fair and balanced. But, um.
Why is it bad form to point out when Ds are siding with Rs on issues that will definitely impact the public in spurious ways?
Yeah I think people are reading her with the least amount of charity possible. I've known Taylor for a few years and, while we're not close, I respect her work a lot, and I've never heard a hint of malice from her. People are trying to put the worst intentions in her mouth which is wild as fuck.
I'm not even sure people are accusing her of malice. I think "useful idiot who's circling around a horseshoe bend without perhaps being fully aware of it, like a number of folk on the so called post left" is closer. though, again: that screenshot with the redacteds she reposted, redacted = "k__e"
As far as the malice part goes, I'm more talking about people making up rumors about who she has professional contacts with, and the content of the Wired article and what the intent is there, which I think she's correct on. It's worth keeping the Democratic party free of dark money for sure.
no idea who she has professional contacts with, I'm just seeing some of the shit she says on social media and this is not the vibe.
I can't speak to details about the WIRED piece at this point, but I've seen a number of posts pushing back about the idea that it is, in fact, "dark money," and it's being framed as more sinister than it actually is. I know people on here who've gotten funded by CHORUS & feel slandered also.
Care to link me to some stuff? I'm down to listen to all sides of this, and I've watched a few videos from creators that I do like in that ecosystem talking about it, but I haven't seen anyone outright refute what she wrote there.
Like my concerns are sort of twofold here on this (not sure if this helps my position be more clear): 1. I'm wary of billionaires dumping money into left-leaning politics because they will almost always end up propping up pro-capitalist forces 2. Using people's name and likeness without permission
is a huge red line for me. And both of those things are verifiably true of what's happening with Chorus/1630. And I do want creators to get paid, so I'm not gonna tell people not to get their bag, but I think it's a thing worth knowing about and examining the impacts of.
I'm willing to say I haven't delved deeply into Chorus itself; my interest was mostly piqued at the alt right shit.
Like I'm worried that this is more of a push for the moderate consultant wing of the party to take over the party and keep the generally pro-labor and anti-capitalist side down.
Well, ok. I'm concerned that there's a push from the alt-right to, as TL herself noted, recruit; and there's some evidence among other journalists and influencers that one way or another, the journey is real.
Like she's right to say that Nazis are better at recruiting than the left. She's been reporting on how the far right recruits using social media for years, and like...they're winning right now! They're running the show. We need to understand how they operate, and I think she takes that seriously.
and yeah. I understand she's been reporting on them for a number of years. I'm sure she thinks she's immune to the skillful recruiting she observes. That doesn't mean she's right.
Why is she boosting an actual Nazi account without noting that they're, you know, Nazi, and instead agreeing that they have a point about "them" going to mass censor the internet?
I don’t see that screenshot as agreement. I took that tweet as: Libs misguidedly hopped on a bandwagon that R’s got rolling (moral panic on social media) & enabled laws around age/face ID for social media. And here’s an example of the far-right’s take which leads to the same censorship outcome…
Like, that was an example of the gross bedfellows Libs have made & are playing into when they voted for censorship laws. As in: Libs only wanted to *appear* morally superior instead of thinking about the tertiary outcomes of those laws.
I don't know what specifically you're referring to here, but this is a wide brush of "libs." The people I know on here fighting shit like KOSA are--well, they're not in PSL, put it that way; they're progressive Dems who yell at their Reps as needed but also know what triage is.
That sentence construction feels winding & I can’t tell the point you’re making so I’ll restate mine w your references Libs/Ds passing COPPA/KOSA shows their desire to appear morally superior w/o regard of the internet censorship outcomes those laws will foster (& Rs want internet censorship badly)
It hasn't passed yet, & while I am exasperated by the Dems who do fall for this shit it isn't all of them; Wyden is the one (Dem) senator who actually understands how this works; people actively fighting it I know from here are not elected Dems; they're also not dead enders who abstain from voting
When did I bring up people fighting COPPA/KOSA? They have nothing to do with this conversation. That’s a false flag. And you keep redirecting the point of the convo. Ya gotta stay on point or just stop the convo at some point. Otherwise this is sealioning territory.
Yeah this one I can't speak to as much. I don't think it's as wise of a choice, certainly, and while I do think there's a lot to be said for how pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist content and posters get censored, this is not how I'd do that.
That Twitter post - from a month ago - had nothing to do with this WIRED piece published this week. That post was about the recent Internet verification laws (bsky.app/profile/eff....) It was re-posted in this thread out of context - seemingly as a bit of rage baiting. And looks like that worked.
Right, I don't think anyone was saying that Twitter post was directly related to the WIRED piece, except insofar that TL was connected to both of them.
Then why re-post something from the other site from a month ago here/now (if not as rage bait)?
It's Beijing Palmer's thread; you can hunt it down yourself if you haven't seen it. If you think the redacted screenshot is wildly mischaracterized and have some evidence, sure, I'm listening.
To provide evidence for some feelings people were already having about TL based on her social media, more so than the article itself, but it colors how trusting they feel of the author's uh journalistic rigor let's say.
As far as the piece she wrote for Wired, it's talking about how dark money (funding where the funders are largely secret), once largely a tool of the right, has been being used to create a centrist/party-line Democrat media ecosystem. She's right to be concerned about this! I can't speak to the
responses from her to the backlash to that, or what the backlash is in general, because I think that's complex, but the concern that a bunch of big money moderate dipshits are funding the "liberal response to Joe Rogan" kind of thing is very legitimate.
And as far as her concern over masks goes, I honestly don't blame her. Homegirl has been through some shit from COVID, as have a lot of people (I lost a parent to it, almost lost my life because of it, and also spent a lot of long weeks working on antivirals for it), and I think it's worth
I can't speak to this myself: the person who is taking her to task over Covid isn't upset that she's pushing masks, but rather--according to this other person, I have not confirmed myself--she's gone antivax.
She's definitely not antivaxx, just of the belief (correctly, I think) that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission, and that a lot of people with disabilities can't get vaccinated.
actually looking at her work and life as a whole instead of trying to figure out what she's saying from a couple of posts out of context. Like if you come to the same conclusions after all that, fine, whatever, but she's someone who has done a lot to warn about the far right in the past, and
I think her work has been very important in understanding how the far right operates.