My take? Avoid Non-Disclosure and Non-Competes wherever possible.
I really can’t stand NDAs and Noncompetes. And it’s because it’s so often involving corruption, inappropriate control, mistreatment, or covering up something that definitely people should know about, maybe even crime, so often it’s covering up crimes like sexual harassment, and or it just involves various harmful things. I’m not the only one who finds coverups off-putting.
Public officials who sign NDAs should resign because they don’t understand the job. And there really ought to be a law to prevent any such thing from ever happening where elected officials sign agreements to keep secrets from the communities they serve. Chloe Humbert Aug 12, 2025
Noncompetes have harmed healthcare too. But industry interests want that harm to continue. Chloe Humbert Apr 24, 2024
Noncompetes hurt employees and patients This isn’t just a labor issue, it’s a healthcare issue. Chloe Humbert Mar 16, 2023
I was under the impression dark money and being sketch just isn’t popular with people on the broad left. But the Chorus scandal where some left media voices have been shown to have unknown sources of funding with contracts with stipulations on their work and secrecy, it seems to show that there’s a split on that maybe, with some people defending unknown origin money funding of independent media. But I really don’t think it’s a fringe attitude to have a problem with dark money. People don’t trust unknown funding, and hiding stuff seems suspect. People don’t like to find out that someone they thought was organically speaking truth to power is actually towing prescribed talking points.
There’s some misrepresentation that the operation was “DNC” funded, but the fact is there’s no way to know who is actually funding it, DNC or otherwise, there’s no way to know because that’s what it means when it has dark money funders; we don’t know where the money is coming from. It could be coming from a political party, it could be coming from some gross tycoon. I have heard that the fossil fuel industry gets involved in funding climate initiatives that essentially slow walk the issue, or otherwise dilute climate action. Controlled opposition is a real thing. So who knows what the true motives are, and what they will favour, if you don’t know who’s footing the bill.
By Elizabeth Spiers — 27 Aug 2025 Why Dems Keep Screwing Up Media Efforts “Because these things are run by political people and not, say people with newsroom experience, they wildly underestimate the importance of transparency in building trust, and wildly overestimate the downside of disclosure. The reality is, audiences trust content with disclosed backers if it’s good and resonates with them. Content that feels like it’s being pushed on them with an agenda they’re not being told about is a recipe for automatic dismissal and resentment. It feels like a cover up, even if it isn’t. I’ve been in meetings with some of these groups, worked with some of them, and advised some of their donors–mostly fruitlessly because the political consultants who do this sort of thing just tell them what they want to hear or what will get the check written, and I can’t do that. Sometimes funny, but mostly irritating and counterproductive: a lot of them have an obsession with turning every single thing they do into an overcomplicated cloak and dagger operation.”
The irony is that the right-wing & others hire outfits which do actual cloak and dagger stuff. Stuff like PR groups, mercenary operations, and foreign run troll farms and inauthentic activity which INDIRECTLY pay many influencers with operators who go around hitting like and subscribe (including paid subs) on stuff with inauthentic accounts, and induce audience capture so the influencers themselves are sometimes unaware who’s influencing them. This can create the illusion of consensus the way that a top down edict from an umbrella organization cannot do.
Australian Army Occasional Paper No. 8 The Effectiveness of Influence Activities in Information Warfare by CASSANDRA BROOKER “This propaganda feedback loop demonstrates the power of inundation, repetition, emotional/social contagions, and personality bias confirmations, as well as demonstrating behaviours of people preferring to access entertaining content that does not require ‘System 2’ critical thought. Audiences encountered multiple versions of the same story, propagated over months, through their favoured media sources, to the point where both recall and credibility were enhanced, fact-checkers were overwhelmed and a ‘majority illusion’ was created.”
Flooding the zone with repetition from a bunch of small time sources pumping out the same or similar messaging is much more compelling than more formal groups with branding partnerships, umbrella organizations. It just looks more organic if you have a lot more small time messaging coming from different places.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. doi:10.1086/225469 “Imagine, to begin with, a community completely partitioned into cliques, such that each person is tied to every other in his clique and to none outside. Community organization would be severely inhibited. Leafletting, radio announcements, or other methods could insure that everyone was aware of some nascent organization; but studies of diffusion and mass communication have shown that people rarely act on mass-media information unless it is also transmitted through personal ties (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955; Rogers 1962)”
A united official sounding organization may have the appearance of greater power, but people are skeptical of large organizations (with good reason) and so organizations do not have the same social capital as receiving the information from in-groups, friends, underdog heroes, favoured publications, niche outlets, subculture communities and personal social networks.
The Weaponisation of Everything: A Field Guide to the New Way of War by Mark Galeotti – Feb 2023
“Outsourcing goes beyond direct warfare and into non-kinetic contests. This century has also seen the explosion of the gig economy. Individual freelancers and temporary workers sometimes recruited directly, sometimes through online platforms or third party matchmakers. It may seem ridiculous to draw comparisons with the cycle courier that brings you your pizza. But this is less fanciful than might appear in an age when conflicts may be fought through the medium of carefully curated newspaper articles highlighting a grievance or attacking a government. And when online influencers can pivot from hyping a hair product to pushing a political cause.”
“This may be the age of multinational corporations, mass social movements, and powerful governments, but a coincidence of technological, social, and political change means that it is also the age of the individual, and many of them are for hire. Suddenly the world is full of people who seem to be doing the work of states. Yet not as direct employees, nor even out of ideological commitment or patriotic passion. Journalists hired to write hit pieces. Scholars saying the right things for a grant. Think tanks producing recommendations to order. There may be no geopolitical equivalent of Uber yet, but lobbying, strategic communications – were I a cynic, I would suggest this is what we call propaganda when we do it ourselves – and similar consultancy and service companies often act as the middlemen.”
I believe this is happening with left influencers as well already. I have reasons to suspect they’re trying indirect audience capture tactics, just from my own very modest metrics and engagement. I can see what gets more play from where, the patterns are there. But not just from “the democrats” and not from the left actually, I mean that industry money is doing what industry does, attempting co-option. And maybe the right-wing as well, since the industry money is typically aligned right. And we have seen how left media pundits and left leaning journalists sometimes switch sides.
Walker, E. T., & Le, A. N. (2022). Poisoning the Well: How Astroturfing Harms Trust in Advocacy Organizations. Social Currents, 10(2), 184-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294965221123808 (Original work published 2023) “Abstract. Sociological research on social movements and politics holds that advocacy organizations are typically trusted to be authentic agents of their constituents. At the same time, however, businesses and other outside interests often engage in covert “astroturfing” strategies in which they ventriloquize claims through apparently independent grassroots associations (but which are entirely funded and staffed to benefit the sponsor). These widespread and deceptive strategies may harm trust in advocacy groups overall, extending beyond those revealed to be involved, through a mechanism of categorical stigmatization. This study is the first to test how revealed covert patronage may “poison the well” for all advocacy groups, with implications for how social movements and other advocacy causes suffer harm from illegitimate political practices by other organizations. The authors carried out two survey-experiments in which a local advocacy organization was revealed to be operating, respectively, as a “front” for either a corporation or think tank; in each experiment, conditions varied depending upon whether the sponsor was presented as highly reputable, low reputation, or with no specified reputation. In both experiments, astroturfing led to significant declines in trust in advocacy groups overall. We highlight implications for theory and research on social movements, organizational theory, and political processes.”
Sometimes astroturfing is about diversion, and sometimes it’s about discouraging activism, or just luring in would be effective activists and sabotaging them. Sometimes it’s about straw-manning, woke-washing darvo, or just straight up flooding the zone with confusion, the way the tobacco industry, and other product industries have done with science.
Brandt AM. Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. Am J Public Health. 2012 Jan;102(1):63-71. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300292. Epub 2011 Nov 28. PMID: 22095331; PMCID: PMC3490543. The industry campaign worked to create a scientific controversy through a program that depended on the creation of industry–academic conflicts of interest. This strategy of producing scientific uncertainty undercut public health efforts and regulatory interventions designed to reduce the harms of smoking. A number of industries have subsequently followed this approach to disrupting normative science. Claims of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof also lead to the assertion of individual responsibility for industrially produced health risks.
What’s actually progressive?
I want universal healthcare and I want climate change mitigated and environmental abuse stopped & reversed. The Sixteenthirty Fund wants to advance “access” to “affordable healthcare” and to “confront” climate change. Is this really progressive? Is it really promoting progress?
Most progressives know that it was long ago revealed that using the word “access” to healthcare is a talking point pushed by people who are fundamentally opposed to universal healthcare. This is something that became public knowledge around the time that a public option was dropped from the ACA law. So it’s well known to be a huge red flag for code meaning just that people should, minimally, “have a shot at” getting healthcare affordably in the market.
Looking at the money.
I looked up SixteenThirty Fund’s 990 Schedule I form for 2024 to see who all they’re funding, and I found 2 local groups to me: Action Together NEPA got $140,000 in 2024, which is the same amount they gave to Moveon.org. Action Together NEPA has always been a center liberal organization bringing “Never Trumpers” and conservative former Republicans into the fold. I see nothing at all wrong with activists organizing that way with people. Go for it; someone has to. And I don’t fault media that comes from that position either, like The Bulwark which has genuinely good reporting and opinion pundits that come across as genuinely pro-democracy. The pivotal issue is that they are very up front about their positions. There’s no mystery there. They aren’t luring you in with one idea and then pulling a bait and switch.
SixteenThirty Fund also gave $159,000 to Pennsylvania Stands Up, which does actually seem to attract lefties into the mix, and the org has endorsed candidates that seem pretty progressive on the left. (Disclosure: I have donated minimally to PA Stands Up, and I have attended a few general meetings where there was a virtual option.) Tthere were were various grants listed to pro-democracy or voting related orgs in the Midwest too. I think SixteenThirty Fund was funding orgs in NEPA (Northeastern Pennsylvania) because we had a vulnerable Democratic congressional seat, as proven by Republican Rob Bresnahan in that seat now. The irony is that I believe that Matt Cartwright tacking right during his campaign was part of the problem.
SixteenThirty Fund give $221,135 to Third Way in 2024.
Influencers and activists are not the same thing, even when there’s overlap.
Ordinary people turned up for organized “No Kings” protests, and these protests attracted unprecedented in turnout.
A lot of people on the left, even people who vehemently disagree with Gavin Newsom’s political policy stances, nevertheless have a minimum attitude of Go For It, regarding any Democrat politician is actually showing some backbone and not just sticking finger into the air and then cowering behind some political consultancy slop talking points. But nobody I know on the broad pro-democracy spectrum actually wants to switch out the republican orange king for a democrat bouffant king. No, people are saying NO KINGS.
Yet digital strategist and content creator Olivia Julianna seemed to have no awareness of that grassroots concept, or the democracy the people want (to have a say in making the rules for example); she seemed to be clueless on these points when she tweeted out that Gavin Newsom is “now the King of America” and added “I don’t make the rules.”
Maybe this was supposed to be funny, but if so it should’ve been farcical instead of fawning to work. This just makes it seem like Olivia Julianna thinks he’s got boy band appeal for real. I’m not sure what her intent was it’s hard to know, and that’s the problem. It almost seems peculiar that this person is a paid content creator or strategist for anything because isn’t the first seemingly clueless gaffe by this person. It’s almost like this influencer exists as a straw man. Just a few months earlier she planned to do a Substack Live event with Richard Hanania, a right-winger who has been described as saying racist things and not just back when he wrote for white supremacist outlets under the pseudonym Richard Hoste. Richard Hanania now complains about the Trump administration and categorizes MAHA and crypto bros as “scammers” but he was a contributor to the Project 2025 document so one imagines he must’ve read the thing, right? It’s too soon and way too little to even think about rehabilitating that guy, even if he isn’t doing some kind of both sides con. The event was cancelled after there was widespread condemnation.
The bottom line is that if any of this stuff is coordinated messaging, it doesn’t seem all that particularly savvy, nor does it seem like an honest and engaged team is surrounding people like this to prevent embarrassing missteps.
And these influencers don’t seem to be taking input from grassroots activists. And that’s where change comes from historically. This idea that there’s going to be top down leadership from rich people and party insiders to upend the status quo or advance the interests of the hoi polloi is pure fantasy and flies in the face of all historic evidence going back to the Roman Empire.
In reality true power comes from the people. But figuring out how is daunting when there’s endless diversions flooding the zone.
The information landscape is full of pitfalls and mirages.
But I think what we’re looking at in the weaponized information space is largely people indulging in social climbing cloak and dagger fantasies of being in a digital army like Peter Thiel’s Maga3x. People who want to get close to what they think is power, and feel powerful. They like being in a big group chat with “important” people who share with the group their personal email exchanges with famous people high up in government. I’ve seen it myself in these kinds of group chats. I’ve been in some of these groups. Obviously it’s natural to form groups, to network or commiserate about work related issues, or for friendship and social connections. But there should be a practical and understood purpose and no confusions about the nature of people’s relationships. For example, I’ve been a in a lot of big chat groups, and some of them I was initially lured into with the false impression they were advocates organizing for coordinating spreading the word on actions and activism, only to then realize they were mercenary influencers just there to indiscriminately boost each other’s debunks, dunks, hate follows, product promotion, and fan stanning, and not actually concerning themselves with the truth or advocacy or even shared values… unless by values you mean view count numbers and likes and follows. In some cases people claim very insistently to be doing activism when what they’re doing is product promotion. Some groups out there seemed to get rather culty, lure in women looking for connection, and then allow unseemly behaviour by men toward women if they had enough followers.
I figured out that I was an activist awash in a sea of influencers undermining activism, and even undermining truth. If it is not deliberate, and I know sometimes it is, then it’s because sometimes people have their own goals that diverge from effective civic engagement or are in fact diametric to it. And I’m convinced that some of that is part of this stuff going on in the information space is the reason that the left has been losing.
”The liberals were outraged at Trump. But they expressed their outrage in cyberspace so it had no effect. Because the algorithms made sure that they only spoke to people who already agreed with them. Instead ironically their waves of angry messages and tweets benefitted the large corporations who ran the social media platforms. one online analyst put it simply — angry people click. It meant that the radical fury that came like waves across the internet no longer had the power to change the world. Instead it became a fuel that fed the systems of power making them ever more powerful.” — Adam Curtis in the Hypernormalisation documentary, 2016.
Obviously I think a lot of people have simply been misled. Even people who are jockeying for influencer clout when what they really want is to effect change in the world and make money at it. Even though there just isn’t the kind of huge money in representing the common people’s interests as there is for representing the interests of big industry or tycoons for a rather obvious reason: billionaires just have endless money, and they’re not looking to have society thrive, they’re trying to manipulate to ensure their survival in a dying society. They say it out loud, it’s not a secret, and that’s what that network state stuff is about.
Of course some people who get involved have genuine motives, even people in astroturfed orgs, or groups that have been infiltrated and derailed. Some know what’s up and just stick with it for a paycheck of course, but others have no idea that the people pulling the strings are working toward other ends. I’ve noticed operatives in media and apparent advocacy or digital marketing, who are paid, sometimes don’t even seem to know who they are working for, or the true reasons they’re doing what they’re doing. The Tenet media stuff, where those right-wing content creators say they didn’t know it was funded by Russia; the numbers were big there and it’s a foreign operation which makes it notable, but the situation is NOT an isolated incident, and it’s believable that maybe they didn’t know.
How could you know when the money is DARK MONEY?
Some people even believe they’re working toward the ends they say they are, even though if you understand how things work, you know it can’t possibly be the case. But if your paycheck depends on you not understanding that… It’s going to be really hard to see. Volunteers figure it out faster than people who are being paid or people who depend on an organization for professional or other compelling reasons and develop betrayal blindness. So when things blow up or go wrong, invested people blame someone else, or they blame mistakes, or even incompetence when it might actually be sabotage.
David Pakman, as it happens, had an interview where he contrasted the difference between his motives for doing political punditry, and that of Heather Cox Richardson. David Pakman said that he hoped, that with his media work, he could spur people into civic engagement. I believe that’s a genuine sentiment on his part, whatever objections one might have about the policies he might hope to engender support for, I don’t think he’s some mercenary. And wanting to motivate people to political engagement is a valid motivation for various types of journalism and media engagement by individuals, activists, newspapers, or advocacy groups. It’s appropriate.
“Part of the job of of Human Rights Watch is to is to report on these underreported conflicts and to create a sense of moral outrage, which is appropriate, to get people interested, to get people to identify through the voice of the victims and the witnesses, with what they’re suffering and to create a sense of moral outrage and hopefully then beseech upon the international community and key actors responsibility to intervene.” — Corinne Dufka in an interveiw about her work in Rwanda ; Human Rights Watch, Mar 28, 2014
Heather Cox Richardson said she has had readers emailing her, asking her to promote activism, or even asking her for leadership in taking action, and Heather Cox Richardson told David Pakman, in no uncertain terms, that her “project” is not encouraging people to civic engagement. She described her project as documentation and commentary basically. And she even said that her role is the most important role. I guess she thinks it’s more important than activism, indeed… It kind of came across as that she thinks it’s just important to document our downfall. I don’t actually think it’s wrong for people to take up that role, or that work. That’s not the point. Documentation and commentary has its role. But I don’t think it’s more important than civic engagement, networking, local activism, and grassroots movements. I’ve had this gripe with a lot of public health pundits and doctor influencers who are, as I once heard a scientist streamer call it, “all theory no praxis” in regards to Abby Cartus and Justin Feldman and people in public health that comment on the horrible state of public health but don’t actually do anything but publish books and articles, and sometimes even try to claim industry propaganda doesn’t exist or doesn’t work. And so a lot of these people, wanting readers and followers, seem to cultivate people looking to them as a type of guru to people looking for a way to create change. And for the most part a lot of these people are not interested in doing more than to “critique the system that they themselves benefit from” as described by someone on social media with a video essay about left-wing academia.
But I’m not actually denigrating the profession of scholar. It’s a valid profession. And it’s a labor issue that these people have been driven into the content creation space, and doing communication to a general audience on platforms with built in problems and with perverse incentives. The problem I see here is that people look to people like this, like Heather Cox Richardson, for leadership and direction. And anyone buying into that, or letting their friends and movement cohorts be misled about this, is in danger of being wholly ineffective.
And I know people are being misled about this because sometimes when I tell people I’m engaged in activism or doing civic engagement, I regularly have people who excitedly tell me about whatever elite doctor or academic I should be following on social media. Many people have told me they subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson and either ask me if I subscribe, or refer me to her substack for ideas, or direction, or information, or whatever. I always find it both peculiar and a little insulting. It’s as if they think I can’t decide for myself what I need in my life and my community? As if I’m unaware of the plight of my own situation and an ability to speak that truth myself to my elected representatives or my community? That I won’t know what I want or need until I consult with a fancy person? (I can’t help noticing it’s typically people above my economic class that are recommending HCR or various prominent academic authors, by the way. Just sayin.) Or maybe they assume that I don’t already know how to engage in activism or political life without guidance from an historian content creator, and really just think they’re being helpful. That’s a likely explanation for most. Though that’s obviously problematic since, again, Heather Cox Richardson herself says that’s not what she’s there for. Or maybe some are referring me to her because they see we both use the platform Substack, and they think that because she’s got this huge audience, and I do not, somehow I have something to learn from her about effecting change in the world. I may indeed have something to learn from Heather Cox Richardson in regards to her knowledge of certain areas of history, she’s a credentialed scholar, after all. And I say certain areas because history is vast, and you can spend a lifetime for example like Dr. Bart just specializing in the history of Christianity. But aside from that, having a huge audience of, even paying, subscribers does not necessarily translate into me getting something done at city hall here in Scranton Pennsylvania, and having millions of followers may get you invited to the White House, to take pictures with the POTUS, but it doesn’t automatically mean you’ve effected real things in government for example.
But beyond that people don’t seem to realize that the same things that get you lots of subscribers or making lots of money in the media are not necessarily some “tips and tricks of the trade” or “content ideas” or strategies. It’s about your project; are people with money interested in funding your project? And how much money do those people have? And who exactly is funding your project and why?
I have to point out again what I’ve said before on this topic, that some of Heather Cox Richardson’s paid subscribers don’t honestly know what they’re funding. Because in that interview with David Pakman, she specifically said she gets emails from readers that sound like they’re begging her to promote action that she has no intentions of promoting, and she has to be talking about paid subscribers, because Heather Cox Richardson has 2.6 million subscribers altogether and people with that many subscribers or even far less, tend to only read the emails of paid subscribers.
So the lines are sure blurred for a lot of people about just what activism is and isn’t, how power works, who is funding what, what’s effective, and so on and so forth. I noticed over the years that a lot of people I came across a few years ago who had “political operative” in their Linkedin, or maybe even “actor”, later describe themselves as “journalists” or “social media specialist” or involved in “advocacy” work. And the truth is that a lot of these people are actually in PR or advertising, or to put it more bluntly propaganda.
Media roles cross a range and people switch career tracks all the time. I see nothing wrong with people being a paid spokesperson for a cause or an organization or a political candidate, or even anything inherently wrong in doing PR. There’s no shame or scandal in doing that type of work. There’s nothing wrong with bias, the problem comes in when it’s like Fox News claiming to be “fair and balanced” when they’re anything but. If you mischaracterize it and get caught trying to be something you’re not, if you present it as “unbiased journalism” for example, and then it comes out you’re taking money for attending messaging meetings to get message discipline across media voices, and coordinating with partisan efforts, then that’s going to be egg on your face. It’s not about the money, and maybe not even about the money being dark in some cases. It’s not even about the content control. It’s about being honest, or not being honest.
This is a labor issue.
I do NOT judge content creators who make money from the work. I have unfortunately heard this is a red herring that’s been floated in attack talking points, to say that if you question or object to dark money from large orgs with gatekeeping, that you’re just against people earning a living making media. That’s ridiculous. I don’t have a problem with grants just because they’re grants. And I’m not opposed to someone working employed in media or even PR positions, if that’s how they make a living and that’s made apparent. And I’m not opposed to people making money from having advertising. I think some of the money is problematic or bad, and I wouldn’t actively accept advertising of certain types, but I do think that the content creators who just accept random advertising of some sort is one of the better ways to go about it. Certainly better than surreptitious product peddling with “personal testimonials” and failure to properly disclose conflicts, that’s for sure. The really important part is that advertising is clearly advertising and separate from the content. I would never do embedded product placement not clearly defined as advertising. And regardless of whatever, I would never sign a contract where I had to keep funding secret for advertising or grants or anything like that, because in some ways this definitely sounds like it’s veering into regulatory pitfalls for one thing. But also I would just disclose funding, and let the chips fall where they may, let people decide whether or not it matters to them or how. Because if it’s all above board, and you’re not trying to deceive anyone, there shouldn’t be a problem.
But something that struck me about this story, and a point I’m shocked people on the pro-labor left is ignoring about it, is that this Chorus outfit sounds a little like it might be an employer misclassifying employees as contractors, at least in some cases. They have downsides of being an employee without for example, healthcare.
By Elizabeth Spiers — 27 Aug 2025 Why Dems Keep Screwing Up Media Efforts Reading Taylor’s first story about the influencers who flew to DC and then were treated like they should be grateful to be there reminded me of my early days at New York Magazine when I was editing and writing front of the book and had to cover celebrity events. I was 25 and I didn’t like entertainment reporting and was hoping to transition out of it. At the last minute I had to cover one event that conflicted with a friend’s birthday dinner and wasn’t happy about it, and when I showed up the Four Seasons prepared to ask Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher about their new relationship, I got physically blocked by the same PR guy who begged me to come. Frustrated, I walked over to the co-host, Glenda Bailey, then the editor in chief of Harper’s Bazaar, pulled out my recorder and tried to get a quote from her. She told me no one was doing interviews. “Then why am I here?” I said. She told me I should just enjoy the party because I got free drinks and got to “be in a room with” the celebrities. I did not give a flying fuck about being in a room with celebrities. The PR guy emailed later to ask why there was no coverage of the event. Because you wasted my time, I said. That was the exact vibe I got from the DC episode. Influencers with real audiences flew to DC at their own expense and probably in lieu of other opportunities and once there, the organization did nothing to help them and also insinuated that they should just be happy to be there. (On top of that, this new contract with Chorus stipulates that any interviews they do with politicians outside of their work with the org has to be done through the org.) The balls on these people. I’m a freelancer and if anyone I freelanced for said, we’re not your employer but I want you to run all of your other work through us, I would laugh and laugh and laugh. I have an agent at CAA and even they don’t ask for that.
I don’t know about anyone else but that all doesn’t seem pro-labor and doesn’t seem very progressive to me. Surely we should have some acknowledgement and maybe have the gumption to actually at least articulate out loud that this isn’t cool.
I have seen people saying well these people aren’t told to say things. But were they chosen because they say or don’t say certain things. What happens when they start saying something, or stop saying something? There may be a contract, but there are always loopholes. It’s easy to say that someone doing content creation for a living could just pull out of an arrangement where they are not ok with what’s being asked of them, but we all know that’s not how jobs work. The argument I’ve seen floated is that this outfit allows people do to content creation full time by paying $8k a month or $5k a month, or even $2k a month. The median household income in Lackawanna County Pennsylvania is $5,390 per month. If they have a mortgage and a car payment based on that income and they already quit their day job, how easy is it going to be to turn down that money once someone has obligations on it? That argument that falls apart when you consider related to the asymmetry of power between employers and employees, between people with lots of money to the people being paid, especially without union representation. The influencer industry really is built on precarity. And hopefully most content creators understand that some grant from dark money with unknown motives is not job security.
Tech Won’t Save Us podcast – 23 06 08 [#171] The Influencer Industry Is Built on Precarity Emily Hund Technology has changed — a lot has changed. But the sort of basic principles of economic uncertainty, a sense of professional precarity, a sense of uncertainty about the future, and the sort of pressure to rely on yourself, and figure out how to survive on your own. And also this sense of social distrust sense of sort of powerlessness or resignation to the monopolist billionaires that are seemingly taking over more and more functions of our lives, the sort of fundamental, negatively tinged feelings of uncertainty really haven’t changed. And so, that I think keeps the appeal of becoming a successful content creator influencer. And it continues to sort of lock people into this sort of loop of: I have to find ways to create a safety net for myself, so maybe I should start posting on TikTok, even though I’m a vet, or even though I am a school teacher; I should start making content on TikTok because you never know. And so that sort of fundamental uncertainty and the economic reality that many people, even super educated professionals are living paycheck to paycheck in many cases. And so that kind of keeps gas in the tank of this industry.
Attacking the messenger is a known influence tactic.
A well known influence technique of undermining a message is by smearing the messenger, by the proverbial shooting of the messenger. This is well known to military influence operations and marketing & PR professionals. So that’s why I haven’t addressed the messenger at all. I’ve not been secretive over the past couple of years about my criticisms (unrelated to this) of the author of the WIRED article. But I think it’s irrelevant because WIRED is a professional news outlet with editors. If lawsuits against WIRED happen, we can talk about that then. But all my interest in this issue hinges upon what is known, and specifically what we know is not known, and the potential conflicts or implications of that. Any speculations about the WIRED article’s author means nothing to me and is irrelevant to the topic as far as I’m concerned. I found out about this topic because I saw and read the Elizabeth Spiers piece. I only even brought this up at all just so I can mention that attacking the messenger is a very heavily used influence tactic, in case anybody didn’t know just how effective experts consider this tactic to be. Ahem.
Content creators aren’t just workers, but also constituents.
I’m fairly sure I’ve never been approached by that Chorus operation. I don’t have those kind of metrics. But I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be approached because I criticize Democratic politicians after all. It’s been noted by others that people who do haven’t been asked to join. And to the monied fancy people — it doesn’t matter that the reason I’m criticizing Dem advisors is because they seem right-wing and I don’t think Democratic voters actually want that, I know I don’t. And elites do not care that the reason I criticize Democratic party politicians is because I’m a constituent crying out for help and representation.