24
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10788 readers
79 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
One thing stood out:
Not really sure what to make of BTC's involvement in this. I'm one of those 4.6 million subscribers, and this seems really shady. I get the idea is to fight fire with fire after seeing the failure of "when they go low ..." as a strategy, but this just screams for "investigations" by the likes of Project Veritas to spin up yet another liberal conspiracy.
We're seeing norms being shattered on a daily basis by the junta, and calling the Dems' response "flaccid" is being kind. How about getting better candidates aligned with the base that "influencers" can full-throatedly endorse? There are a few, but the fact that they're the exception to the neoliberal gerontocracy tells you pretty much everything you need to know.
Messaging is important, but so is the candidate. And actually stifling what these online folks with followers say, well, that actively defeats the whole authenticity aspect that drives the "influencer" market.
not a hard decision. he's dead to me. voted off the island. persona non grata. exiled from the realm and condemned to spend the rest of his years wandering the desolate wasteland.
if I had to guess, 70% chance that he doesn't respond to this at all and hopes it blows over, 30% chance he tries to downplay his involvement as "oh my role was totally minor, they just pulled me in for one meeting to ask my advice" or some other "well yeah I rode on Epstein's plane but I never went to his island" type of bullshit excuse.
YouTube short from him, from November 2024: Progressive creators debut MAJOR announcement
"I'm part of a team of creators that's created Chorus Media. Chorus is a creator-led group of voices..."
"I'll be focused on message coordination"
"creator-led" and "message coordination" hits a little bit different with the additional context in this reporting...
if you want to stay subscribed to his channel, go ahead, I can't stop you. but every time you watch a video of his, and he interviews some "up-and-coming activist" or "exciting progressive candidate" there needs to be a nagging question in the back of your head about whether that person is there for authentic reasons, or because of an undisclosed sponsorship from Chorus (or whatever new group they create after this).
there's also an opportunity cost aspect. 10 minutes spent watching a Brian Tyler Cohen video is 10 minutes not spent watching a video from a progressive creator who doesn't take illicit dark money like this. the shitty reality is that YouTube and similar platforms care only about views and clicks, etc. if you want to reward authenticity, it's necessary to vote with your eyeballs.