Refrain from discussing program details means they can't discuss what they are doing. Disclosure can be both working with a group or what you are doing for the group.

???

“We don't list individual participants” and they ask participants to not share program *details*. It doesn’t say they can’t disclose being in the program.

Yes and Allie O'Brien showed in her video that the contract clause is there, said it's to "protect vulnerable creators" and they want you to talk to them first before divulging participation, but said ultimately the program doesn't care if you "tell your friends". It's nibbling around the edges.

Wanting creators to talk to them before divulging participation is not the same thing as telling creators to keep it a secret.

people have made videos entirely about their membership, talking about the program in detail, etc www.threads.com/@heidytorr/p...

I'm not incredibly invested in this I just think the wordplay about "this has never happened to me" when it comes to their contracts doesn't mean it doesn't have the potential to be enacted or that others aren't under those restrictions. Obviously the website is going to list the OG ambassadors.

this person is also bitterly critical of Democrats over Gaza. the last person you'd want as a Dem partisan face of the effort

sure, and in time I'll prob go through her stuff too... until then my outlook is going to remain the same. Taylor reached out for comment, didn't get any replies, and ran with the contracts, initial creators willing to go on record, and the recorded calls. Transparency would have prevented this.

yeah it seems like the same thing that the video above says within the first 2 minutes (some of the creators are pretty small and from vulnerable communities)

The mere fact that they had a public website where they showcased a bunch of the creators, and where they said they paid people to participate, destroys the article's claim that there was secrecy. That, and the fact that there were videos of the creators talking about the group weeks or months ago.

If you read the article you'd know they were caught putting images of people they don't have access to, and not all of the images the people under these contracts. Saying you, a pr firm, can supply someone as a taling head is not the same as telling them if you do the hit you can only say x, y, z.

The fact that the creators are ideologically heterogeneous and some of them have been very critical of Democratic politicians undermines the claim that the group was paying the creators for pro-establishment content. This and the fact that all the creators deny having been paid for content.

This whole article appears to have been just terrible journalism. The author of the article read a standard contract where there's a lot of legalese and then they conjured up a conspiracy without even a basic fact check.