1
00:00:00,320 --> 00:00:04,720
Speaker 1: Hi, this is Future Bridget. We did a whole, very

2
00:00:04,720 --> 00:00:08,799
Speaker 1: detailed episode breaking down the controversy about how political content

3
00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,640
Speaker 1: creators in a program called Chorus are paid, and I

4
00:00:12,760 --> 00:00:15,880
Speaker 1: realized after that episode was recorded that I did not

5
00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:18,599
Speaker 1: make it explicitly clear that I am not connected to

6
00:00:18,680 --> 00:00:21,279
Speaker 1: Chorus in any capacity. I am not on their payroll.

7
00:00:21,320 --> 00:00:23,840
Speaker 1: I am not a Chorus member. By way of my

8
00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:27,760
Speaker 1: own financial disclosures for the last year, the majority of

9
00:00:27,760 --> 00:00:31,080
Speaker 1: my income has come from my various podcast gigs and

10
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:34,519
Speaker 1: a few speaking training gigs, and I just wanted to

11
00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:41,800
Speaker 1: make that clear. Okay, here's the episode There Are No

12
00:00:41,880 --> 00:00:44,280
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet, as a production of iHeartRadio and

13
00:00:44,360 --> 00:00:51,199
Speaker 1: Unbossed Creative. I'm Bridget Todd, and this is There Are

14
00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:57,960
Speaker 1: No Girls on the Internet. Last week, journalist Taylor Lerenz

15
00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:01,040
Speaker 1: published a piece in Wired called a dark money group

16
00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:06,119
Speaker 1: is secretly funding high profile democratic influencers. The article blew

17
00:01:06,240 --> 00:01:09,319
Speaker 1: up on social media, namely on threads, and here to

18
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:12,399
Speaker 1: talk through it with me is producer Mike. Mike, thank

19
00:01:12,440 --> 00:01:13,400
Speaker 1: you for being here.

20
00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:16,720
Speaker 2: Happy to be here, Thanks for inviting me. This is

21
00:01:17,880 --> 00:01:20,080
Speaker 2: continuing to be a pretty big story, and I know

22
00:01:20,160 --> 00:01:22,200
Speaker 2: it's something that you have been spending a lot of

23
00:01:22,240 --> 00:01:24,880
Speaker 2: time thinking about and so I'm excited to hear what

24
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 2: you've got to say, Bridget.

25
00:01:25,959 --> 00:01:28,080
Speaker 1: Well, before we get into the weeds, let me set

26
00:01:28,120 --> 00:01:30,200
Speaker 1: the stakes here a little bit, because this is not

27
00:01:30,560 --> 00:01:35,679
Speaker 1: just some influencer drama unfolding on social media. The steaks

28
00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:38,399
Speaker 1: are very real. This is about money and how it

29
00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:43,320
Speaker 1: shapes what we see online. But still, the conversation about

30
00:01:43,360 --> 00:01:48,240
Speaker 1: Taylor Lorenzo's article very quickly shifted from that bigger picture

31
00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:51,200
Speaker 1: into a lot of stuff that I have to be honest,

32
00:01:51,360 --> 00:01:55,240
Speaker 1: I was not super excited to be waiting into I

33
00:01:55,280 --> 00:01:57,480
Speaker 1: actually was kind of trying to stay out of this

34
00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 1: whole thing. But you know what, I guess I'm waiting

35
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:00,800
Speaker 1: into it.

36
00:02:00,840 --> 00:02:04,960
Speaker 2: Wish me luck, Yeah, good luck, Bridget good luck out

37
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:09,880
Speaker 2: there in here, everywhere, good luck everywhere. Why are you

38
00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:14,880
Speaker 2: so interested in staying out of it? Is seems like this,

39
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:18,960
Speaker 2: you know, tech politics, this is your beat, No, it

40
00:02:19,040 --> 00:02:19,720
Speaker 2: is my beat.

41
00:02:20,200 --> 00:02:22,360
Speaker 1: I feel I would be remiss to not mention that

42
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:26,920
Speaker 1: this particular article has become something of a battleground for

43
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:29,959
Speaker 1: what seems like litigating a lot of grievances. There have

44
00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:34,360
Speaker 1: been lots of personal attacks flying on social media in

45
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:38,040
Speaker 1: the wake of this article, and honestly, it just is

46
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 1: not the kind of thing I'm super interested in or

47
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:44,200
Speaker 1: comfortable waiting into. Like as much as I love talking

48
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:47,480
Speaker 1: about the Internet and talking about what's unfolded on social media,

49
00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:50,640
Speaker 1: I don't love getting mixed up in this level of

50
00:02:50,720 --> 00:02:53,440
Speaker 1: back and forth as it happens. In my opinion, it's

51
00:02:53,480 --> 00:02:57,240
Speaker 1: like a little bit harder to thoughtfully talk about Internet

52
00:02:57,320 --> 00:03:00,919
Speaker 1: drama internet disputes if you are also super mixed up

53
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:04,320
Speaker 1: in them. So generally speaking, I try to stay out

54
00:03:04,320 --> 00:03:05,160
Speaker 1: of that kind of thing.

55
00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:08,959
Speaker 2: You know, something that I've always admired slash marveled about

56
00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:11,880
Speaker 2: with you is the way that you are really tuned

57
00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:15,200
Speaker 2: into these conversations in a way like much closer than

58
00:03:15,240 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 2: I am, like multiple orders of magnitude more closely than

59
00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:23,519
Speaker 2: I am. But still you're not actually part of what's

60
00:03:23,919 --> 00:03:29,280
Speaker 2: happening online. Sometimes you're not getting caught up in I

61
00:03:29,320 --> 00:03:31,640
Speaker 2: guess that the Internet drama, Mike.

62
00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 1: This article came out on August twenty seventh, and currently

63
00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:40,360
Speaker 1: right now, as of today, September seventh, the fallout and

64
00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:44,520
Speaker 1: back and forth on social media is ongoing. It's still

65
00:03:44,520 --> 00:03:48,160
Speaker 1: happening as we speak. That is like ten days of

66
00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 1: internet drama, basically the Coachella of Internet drama. I know

67
00:03:51,880 --> 00:03:54,240
Speaker 1: myself and I know that I simply do not have

68
00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:55,640
Speaker 1: the stamina to be involved.

69
00:03:56,000 --> 00:03:58,400
Speaker 2: Ten days is a crazy long time for anything to

70
00:03:58,440 --> 00:04:02,760
Speaker 2: be news. Like Trump like blew up some civilians off

71
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:06,160
Speaker 2: the coast of Venezuela last week, and we've already moved

72
00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:07,280
Speaker 2: on from talking about it.

73
00:04:07,480 --> 00:04:10,840
Speaker 1: Yeah, that ten ten days is staying power. So all

74
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:12,960
Speaker 1: of that to say, I'm going to try to keep

75
00:04:13,040 --> 00:04:17,160
Speaker 1: this conversation really focused on the substance of the article,

76
00:04:17,720 --> 00:04:21,120
Speaker 1: not the ongoing social media fallout. Maybe we could do

77
00:04:21,160 --> 00:04:23,560
Speaker 1: a follow up episode about the social media conversation the

78
00:04:23,640 --> 00:04:26,440
Speaker 1: article generated, because it has been a lot. If you're

79
00:04:26,480 --> 00:04:29,240
Speaker 1: listening and you want to know what's going on with that,

80
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:32,640
Speaker 1: just check threads. It will be very clear what's happening.

81
00:04:32,720 --> 00:04:35,279
Speaker 1: Just check threads. But I'm going to try to be

82
00:04:35,320 --> 00:04:38,599
Speaker 1: as fair as possible, stick to discussing the facts of

83
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: the article, and where something is my opinion, I'll try

84
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:41,599
Speaker 1: to let y'all know.

85
00:04:42,120 --> 00:04:44,760
Speaker 2: All right, bridget so what is in this article?

86
00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:48,159
Speaker 1: So in this article, Taylor Lorenz digs into a program

87
00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:52,279
Speaker 1: called Chorus, where a handful of progressive social media creators

88
00:04:52,480 --> 00:04:55,599
Speaker 1: are paid along a tier system, the highest end of

89
00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:58,760
Speaker 1: the tier being eight thousand dollars a month, the lowest

90
00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:00,720
Speaker 1: end of the tier being two one hundred and fifty

91
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:01,320
Speaker 1: dollars a month.

92
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:05,360
Speaker 2: Okay, and so in this program, what are these influencers

93
00:05:05,400 --> 00:05:06,159
Speaker 2: getting paid for?

94
00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:09,400
Speaker 1: It sounds to me like a training program or a

95
00:05:09,400 --> 00:05:12,760
Speaker 1: fellowship on social media. Creators in the program have described

96
00:05:13,080 --> 00:05:15,720
Speaker 1: getting training on things like how to make better use

97
00:05:15,760 --> 00:05:18,040
Speaker 1: of YouTube and how to tighten their messaging and stuff

98
00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:20,359
Speaker 1: like that. The creators say that they are paid to

99
00:05:20,400 --> 00:05:23,120
Speaker 1: attend these meetings and trainings, which is pretty typical of

100
00:05:23,160 --> 00:05:25,839
Speaker 1: a fellowship. Here's a bit from the frequently asked questions

101
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:29,120
Speaker 1: on the Chorus website question will I be paid to

102
00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:33,600
Speaker 1: make content? Answer? Nope. Coorus is a creator led, nonpartisan

103
00:05:33,680 --> 00:05:36,480
Speaker 1: nonprofit with a really different model in the creator space.

104
00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:39,479
Speaker 1: We don't pay creators to produce content. We just give

105
00:05:39,480 --> 00:05:41,680
Speaker 1: you the space to learn about how to communicate effectively

106
00:05:41,680 --> 00:05:44,560
Speaker 1: and grow your platforms. In other words, creators are free

107
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:47,160
Speaker 1: to post what they want when they want. This includes

108
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:50,000
Speaker 1: their affiliation with Chorus. I should say that I don't

109
00:05:50,040 --> 00:05:53,839
Speaker 1: know when this information was added to their website. So essentially,

110
00:05:53,880 --> 00:05:57,200
Speaker 1: this article says that these high profile progressive creators with

111
00:05:57,320 --> 00:06:00,760
Speaker 1: millions of followers signed on to this restrict of contract

112
00:06:00,760 --> 00:06:04,240
Speaker 1: with Chorus that puts restrictions on what they can talk about,

113
00:06:04,640 --> 00:06:07,360
Speaker 1: how they can engage with Leston officials, and forbid them

114
00:06:07,400 --> 00:06:11,200
Speaker 1: from disclosing any of the finances around it publicly. A

115
00:06:11,240 --> 00:06:13,600
Speaker 1: piece that does not seem to be in dispute here

116
00:06:13,680 --> 00:06:15,440
Speaker 1: is that this is in no way the kind of

117
00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:19,760
Speaker 1: program where Coorus is paying creators to push specific talking

118
00:06:19,800 --> 00:06:23,559
Speaker 1: points or messaging or make specific posts. All parties seem

119
00:06:23,600 --> 00:06:25,960
Speaker 1: to agree there, but I am going to try to

120
00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:28,920
Speaker 1: sketch out some of the pieces that are in dispute here.

121
00:06:29,480 --> 00:06:32,120
Speaker 1: The first is whether or not creators, by signing a

122
00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:35,840
Speaker 1: contract with Chorus, are handing Chorus control over how they

123
00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:38,320
Speaker 1: are able to connect with elected officials. A lot of

124
00:06:38,320 --> 00:06:42,159
Speaker 1: the contact creators in this cohort have been regularly interviewing

125
00:06:42,200 --> 00:06:45,960
Speaker 1: and speaking to elected officials on their platforms, which I

126
00:06:46,080 --> 00:06:47,680
Speaker 1: know is kind of a big deal if you're an

127
00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:51,240
Speaker 1: independent creator and not affiliated with a larger news network

128
00:06:51,279 --> 00:06:54,840
Speaker 1: or agency. Right like having a big name political figure

129
00:06:54,960 --> 00:06:57,240
Speaker 1: on your Instagram or on your TikTok to do an

130
00:06:57,279 --> 00:06:59,960
Speaker 1: interview is a big deal, and I think the implicate

131
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:03,279
Speaker 1: in the article is that Chorus could be trying to

132
00:07:03,320 --> 00:07:06,760
Speaker 1: control how creators signed to the program deal with elets

133
00:07:06,800 --> 00:07:09,680
Speaker 1: of officials. If I'm able to book an interview with

134
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:13,400
Speaker 1: let's say, Kamala Harris on my own, the piece argues

135
00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:16,320
Speaker 1: that I would still have to funnel that interview through

136
00:07:16,400 --> 00:07:19,040
Speaker 1: Chorus to not be in breach of my contract. The

137
00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:21,400
Speaker 1: piece includes this bit that includes a quote from a

138
00:07:21,440 --> 00:07:25,400
Speaker 1: creator who declined to participate in the program. Many creators

139
00:07:25,440 --> 00:07:28,960
Speaker 1: expressed concerns about some of the stipulations. According to copies

140
00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:31,960
Speaker 1: of the contract viewed by Wired, creators in the program

141
00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:35,680
Speaker 1: must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through Chorus.

142
00:07:36,240 --> 00:07:39,480
Speaker 1: Creators also have to loop Chorus in on any independently

143
00:07:39,600 --> 00:07:43,240
Speaker 1: organized engagements with government officials or political leaders. If I

144
00:07:43,280 --> 00:07:45,440
Speaker 1: want to work with another politician, I have to fully

145
00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:48,400
Speaker 1: collaborate with them, said one creator who was offered the

146
00:07:48,440 --> 00:07:51,240
Speaker 1: contract but ultimately declined to take it and asked not

147
00:07:51,320 --> 00:07:53,880
Speaker 1: to be named. If I get Zoron and he wants

148
00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:55,760
Speaker 1: to do an interview with me, I don't want to

149
00:07:55,760 --> 00:07:59,000
Speaker 1: give that to them. So some creators pushed back on

150
00:07:59,040 --> 00:08:01,440
Speaker 1: this claim on social media and have said that not

151
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:04,240
Speaker 1: only does Chorus not require them to book all their

152
00:08:04,280 --> 00:08:08,080
Speaker 1: interviews with electeds through Chorus, that even this implication, you

153
00:08:08,080 --> 00:08:11,120
Speaker 1: know that they can't use their own hard won lists

154
00:08:11,120 --> 00:08:15,560
Speaker 1: of contacts on relationships to book their own interviews was insulting.

155
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:19,080
Speaker 1: And in a follow up interview with popular live streamer

156
00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:22,320
Speaker 1: and sex pest Destiny whose real name is Stephen Bondell,

157
00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:24,960
Speaker 1: who yes, if you know about Destiny, just know that

158
00:08:25,040 --> 00:08:27,240
Speaker 1: I have thoughts about him, but I am going to

159
00:08:27,280 --> 00:08:30,680
Speaker 1: try to stay focused here, Taylor Lorenz clarifies in an

160
00:08:30,720 --> 00:08:34,640
Speaker 1: interview with Destiny just a heads up, it's kind of

161
00:08:35,000 --> 00:08:37,720
Speaker 1: an urally unpleasant clip.

162
00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:43,080
Speaker 3: That funnel like heavily implies that you the way that

163
00:08:43,120 --> 00:08:45,640
Speaker 3: the article is written is that Chorus can block you

164
00:08:45,679 --> 00:08:48,160
Speaker 3: from doing your own independent media.

165
00:08:48,760 --> 00:08:51,040
Speaker 4: I guess we don't make that claim in this story,

166
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:53,560
Speaker 4: and I'm sorry if the word funnel sort of implied

167
00:08:53,559 --> 00:08:57,600
Speaker 4: that to you, but we don't make that claim. So, Stephen,

168
00:08:57,640 --> 00:08:59,160
Speaker 4: you brought something up that I think.

169
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:01,760
Speaker 3: Is an one more one more quickly and then you're okay.

170
00:09:01,760 --> 00:09:03,520
Speaker 3: You said okay, because I don't know why, because you

171
00:09:03,600 --> 00:09:06,640
Speaker 3: use loop Chorus in on the next sentence, why not

172
00:09:06,720 --> 00:09:09,559
Speaker 3: just say loop in, because I've never my life heard funnel.

173
00:09:09,640 --> 00:09:14,120
Speaker 3: Funnel always means you're handing the reins over to somebody else, right,

174
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:14,920
Speaker 3: like we.

175
00:09:15,080 --> 00:09:17,160
Speaker 4: Are using their program to book it.

176
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:18,600
Speaker 1: But sure you.

177
00:09:18,520 --> 00:09:20,200
Speaker 3: Could also book it on your own, right, because the

178
00:09:20,200 --> 00:09:22,920
Speaker 3: next sentence you have is that you can look any

179
00:09:22,920 --> 00:09:25,680
Speaker 3: independent organizing them in. Yeah, right, but loop in is

180
00:09:25,679 --> 00:09:26,120
Speaker 3: not funnel.

181
00:09:26,160 --> 00:09:26,960
Speaker 1: Those are two really.

182
00:09:26,840 --> 00:09:29,480
Speaker 4: Different things, right, Okay, okay, so.

183
00:09:30,679 --> 00:09:32,479
Speaker 3: Two really different things to loop somebody.

184
00:09:32,200 --> 00:09:36,920
Speaker 4: In personally, don't interpret it that way, but if you

185
00:09:36,960 --> 00:09:39,160
Speaker 4: want to interpret it that way, you're welcome to interpret

186
00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:39,600
Speaker 4: it that way.

187
00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:42,920
Speaker 1: I wanted to include this clip because I think it

188
00:09:43,000 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 1: illustrates very well a bit of what I suspect is

189
00:09:46,360 --> 00:09:49,880
Speaker 1: happening here. Parts of the article are written in such

190
00:09:49,880 --> 00:09:53,560
Speaker 1: a way that, in my opinion, could probably lead a

191
00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:57,000
Speaker 1: reasonable reader to think that something more nefarious than what

192
00:09:57,160 --> 00:10:01,040
Speaker 1: is actually being described is happening. Because when I read

193
00:10:01,160 --> 00:10:04,080
Speaker 1: that bit, I thought, oh, it sounds like Chorus is

194
00:10:04,160 --> 00:10:08,000
Speaker 1: controlling how these creators can connect with elected officials. But

195
00:10:08,240 --> 00:10:10,640
Speaker 1: in that follow up interview that Lorenz did with Destiny

196
00:10:10,640 --> 00:10:13,200
Speaker 1: that we just heard, it actually sounds like she's not

197
00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:15,920
Speaker 1: saying that at all. It sounds like Taylor is actually

198
00:10:15,960 --> 00:10:20,160
Speaker 1: saying these creators can book interviews with elected officials through Chorus,

199
00:10:20,520 --> 00:10:23,439
Speaker 1: or they can book interviews with elected officials on their

200
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:26,720
Speaker 1: own independently, as they've always been doing, just as long

201
00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:29,120
Speaker 1: as they give Coorus a heads up. So Lorenz is

202
00:10:29,240 --> 00:10:33,559
Speaker 1: correct that the article never flat out explicitly says creators

203
00:10:33,679 --> 00:10:37,160
Speaker 1: contracts gives Chorus control over what elected officials they can

204
00:10:37,200 --> 00:10:39,000
Speaker 1: and can't speak to you at about what and how.

205
00:10:39,320 --> 00:10:41,640
Speaker 1: But then my question would be, then what is meant

206
00:10:41,679 --> 00:10:44,480
Speaker 1: to be the takeaway from even including that bit if

207
00:10:44,559 --> 00:10:48,240
Speaker 1: really it is just a standard humdrum provision that like, oh,

208
00:10:48,240 --> 00:10:50,120
Speaker 1: creators are basically free to do whatever they want when

209
00:10:50,160 --> 00:10:53,000
Speaker 1: it comes to booking interviews, just give us a heads up. So,

210
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,080
Speaker 1: in my opinion, there are pieces of the article that,

211
00:10:56,480 --> 00:11:00,640
Speaker 1: inadvertently or not are leading to the impression that something

212
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: more nefarious is going on than what is actually stated

213
00:11:03,920 --> 00:11:08,480
Speaker 1: to be happening. And that sort of nefarious yet unstated

214
00:11:08,480 --> 00:11:12,560
Speaker 1: implication is the thing being litigated on social media, not

215
00:11:12,720 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 1: what the article actually says is going on.

216
00:11:15,559 --> 00:11:17,839
Speaker 2: That makes a lot of sense, because you know, I've

217
00:11:18,440 --> 00:11:21,440
Speaker 2: read through this article and it does give one the

218
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:25,079
Speaker 2: sense that something the farious is happening. But then that

219
00:11:25,600 --> 00:11:27,720
Speaker 2: quote that we just read being talked about in the

220
00:11:27,720 --> 00:11:30,839
Speaker 2: interview there, I think is a good example where one

221
00:11:30,880 --> 00:11:34,200
Speaker 2: sentence says that creators in the program must funnel all

222
00:11:34,240 --> 00:11:37,400
Speaker 2: bookings with lawmakers and leaders through course, but then the

223
00:11:37,440 --> 00:11:40,480
Speaker 2: next sentence says that actually they don't need to do that,

224
00:11:40,520 --> 00:11:42,960
Speaker 2: And so it's not even just the word funnel, but

225
00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:45,720
Speaker 2: it's like the words around it, you know, must funnel

226
00:11:45,840 --> 00:11:50,840
Speaker 2: all bookings. It really strongly implies something that is then

227
00:11:51,080 --> 00:11:54,599
Speaker 2: contradicted in the next sentence. And yeah, to your point, like,

228
00:11:54,640 --> 00:11:56,200
Speaker 2: what are we meant to take away from that, Like

229
00:11:56,360 --> 00:11:59,520
Speaker 2: all bookings must be funneled except for the ones that aren't.

230
00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:03,280
Speaker 1: Yeah, creators must funnel all bookings through chorus unless they

231
00:12:03,280 --> 00:12:04,720
Speaker 1: don't want to, then just give them a heads up.

232
00:12:05,440 --> 00:12:08,080
Speaker 1: I genuinely don't know what we as the audience are

233
00:12:08,120 --> 00:12:10,160
Speaker 1: meant to take away from that. So it's not clear

234
00:12:10,200 --> 00:12:12,880
Speaker 1: to me why it's included. And this is just one

235
00:12:13,040 --> 00:12:15,760
Speaker 1: specific piece that stood out to me, But there's more

236
00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:18,320
Speaker 1: stuff like this throughout the piece that we'll talk more about.

237
00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:35,680
Speaker 1: Let's take a quick break at our back. I think

238
00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:38,880
Speaker 1: probably the biggest piece in dispute, and kind of the

239
00:12:38,960 --> 00:12:41,200
Speaker 1: crux of why I think this article blew up on

240
00:12:41,200 --> 00:12:43,680
Speaker 1: social media the way that it did is the question

241
00:12:43,840 --> 00:12:47,320
Speaker 1: of whether or not the Chorus contract restricts what kind

242
00:12:47,320 --> 00:12:50,240
Speaker 1: of issues creators can speak on. Here's an example of

243
00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:53,640
Speaker 1: what I mean. The piece reads that the contracts placed

244
00:12:53,720 --> 00:12:57,199
Speaker 1: quote restrictions on what sort of political content the creators

245
00:12:57,240 --> 00:13:00,880
Speaker 1: can produce. But the only specific exam that the article

246
00:13:00,960 --> 00:13:04,079
Speaker 1: mentions of the contract stipulating what kind of political issues

247
00:13:04,240 --> 00:13:07,040
Speaker 1: creators in the program can speak to is a clause

248
00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:11,320
Speaker 1: quote prohibiting the disparagement of other creators. Not being able

249
00:13:11,360 --> 00:13:15,080
Speaker 1: to criticize anyone else affiliated with Chorus felt restrictive to some,

250
00:13:15,360 --> 00:13:18,920
Speaker 1: according to text messages posted to the chat. So maybe

251
00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:21,760
Speaker 1: there's more to it than that. But if that's the case,

252
00:13:21,960 --> 00:13:24,600
Speaker 1: it is certainly not mentioned in any kind of specific

253
00:13:24,679 --> 00:13:27,840
Speaker 1: way in this article. And when one of the creators

254
00:13:27,880 --> 00:13:31,120
Speaker 1: in the cohort, Aaron Parness, pointed out on social media

255
00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:34,120
Speaker 1: that the creators were not being paid to create specific

256
00:13:34,160 --> 00:13:38,000
Speaker 1: content or specific messaging, Lorenz says that he is correct,

257
00:13:38,040 --> 00:13:41,480
Speaker 1: saying Aaron is correct that Chorus didn't pay them to

258
00:13:41,520 --> 00:13:44,599
Speaker 1: post specific content. But I do think that the contract

259
00:13:44,679 --> 00:13:48,320
Speaker 1: was unethical in how it banned disclosures. So I think

260
00:13:48,559 --> 00:13:50,720
Speaker 1: this is a big piece of what's going on here

261
00:13:50,760 --> 00:13:54,080
Speaker 1: and why this article touched a nerve in my opinion.

262
00:13:54,200 --> 00:13:58,200
Speaker 1: The article seems to suggest, without outright saying it, that

263
00:13:58,320 --> 00:14:02,360
Speaker 1: progressive influencers are being paid by dark money to say

264
00:14:02,960 --> 00:14:07,240
Speaker 1: or not say certain things about certain political issues. But

265
00:14:07,280 --> 00:14:11,000
Speaker 1: then the article doesn't really ever actually illustrate any of

266
00:14:11,000 --> 00:14:14,000
Speaker 1: that in any kind of specific way beyond saying that

267
00:14:14,040 --> 00:14:16,760
Speaker 1: the creators are not allowed to criticize other creators in

268
00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:19,400
Speaker 1: the cohort. But then when you check out the conversation

269
00:14:19,480 --> 00:14:22,160
Speaker 1: on social media about the article, you have people saying

270
00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:25,760
Speaker 1: things like, oh, well, this explains why big progressive creators

271
00:14:25,880 --> 00:14:28,720
Speaker 1: were silent on Gaza, because they were being paid not

272
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:31,440
Speaker 1: to talk about it. But to be clear, the piece

273
00:14:31,520 --> 00:14:35,480
Speaker 1: itself never outright says this, but that is clearly the

274
00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:38,160
Speaker 1: way it was interpreted by a ton of people online,

275
00:14:38,360 --> 00:14:40,400
Speaker 1: to the point where some of the creators in the

276
00:14:40,480 --> 00:14:44,520
Speaker 1: program started posting receipts of them publicly talking about Gaza

277
00:14:44,560 --> 00:14:47,000
Speaker 1: and their content. Some of the creators in the program

278
00:14:47,040 --> 00:14:49,280
Speaker 1: have been very vocal about the issue, and some of

279
00:14:49,320 --> 00:14:52,440
Speaker 1: them haven't Lorenz even did a bit of this herself

280
00:14:52,520 --> 00:14:56,600
Speaker 1: in an at Times he did exchange with Elizabeth Booker,

281
00:14:56,640 --> 00:14:59,840
Speaker 1: a black woman attorney and public health professional and content

282
00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:04,640
Speaker 1: who is in Chorus. Lawrenz spoke directly to her, saying, Hi, Elizabeth,

283
00:15:04,920 --> 00:15:08,080
Speaker 1: how many creators in the sixteen thirty fund dark money

284
00:15:08,120 --> 00:15:11,320
Speaker 1: scheme have used their platform to fight against the Zionist

285
00:15:11,360 --> 00:15:14,600
Speaker 1: apartheid and speak aut against the genocide and Gaza. Out

286
00:15:14,640 --> 00:15:16,840
Speaker 1: of the ninety creators, it seems like you can only

287
00:15:16,880 --> 00:15:19,440
Speaker 1: point to Heidi and Ali, whom was included in the

288
00:15:19,440 --> 00:15:22,600
Speaker 1: program after siding with you in an online controversy. How

289
00:15:22,640 --> 00:15:25,440
Speaker 1: many of the other of those ninety influencers are calling

290
00:15:25,480 --> 00:15:30,080
Speaker 1: out Zionism? Are you some? First? I have followed Elizabeth

291
00:15:30,120 --> 00:15:32,640
Speaker 1: Booker and I can say that she has spoken out

292
00:15:32,640 --> 00:15:36,120
Speaker 1: about Gaza. But to be honest, this post from Taylor

293
00:15:36,680 --> 00:15:40,120
Speaker 1: kind of confused me, because if Taylor Lorenz agrees that

294
00:15:40,280 --> 00:15:43,720
Speaker 1: Chorus is not controlling, what kind of contact the Cohort

295
00:15:43,760 --> 00:15:46,480
Speaker 1: can post? I don't understand what she is trying to

296
00:15:46,520 --> 00:15:50,320
Speaker 1: imply here. Is she saying that Chorus actually is preventing

297
00:15:50,400 --> 00:15:53,400
Speaker 1: members of the Cohort from speaking out about Palestine? Then

298
00:15:53,480 --> 00:15:56,320
Speaker 1: how come as she points out in this post, some

299
00:15:56,400 --> 00:15:58,680
Speaker 1: of the cohort has been able to be very vocal

300
00:15:58,720 --> 00:16:02,040
Speaker 1: about it, Like I genuinely don't understand the implication here

301
00:16:02,040 --> 00:16:04,840
Speaker 1: and I don't really have an answer for what's going on.

302
00:16:05,440 --> 00:16:09,080
Speaker 1: And if these influencers are being paid to not talk

303
00:16:09,120 --> 00:16:13,200
Speaker 1: about Gaza, that would be a huge story. But it

304
00:16:13,240 --> 00:16:16,880
Speaker 1: seems like Lorenz isn't saying that that's what's going on here,

305
00:16:17,200 --> 00:16:20,160
Speaker 1: but it's also kind of acting as if that's what's

306
00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:22,320
Speaker 1: going on here. So when I say that, the piece,

307
00:16:22,360 --> 00:16:25,400
Speaker 1: in my opinion, has led to people kind of inferring

308
00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:28,840
Speaker 1: something nefarious is happening without really outright saying what that

309
00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:32,040
Speaker 1: nefarious thing is beyond the financial disclosures, which we'll get

310
00:16:32,040 --> 00:16:33,840
Speaker 1: to in a minute. That's kind of what I mean.

311
00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:36,480
Speaker 1: And a bit of a side note about this, I

312
00:16:36,520 --> 00:16:39,400
Speaker 1: have what I will own might be a bit of

313
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:43,000
Speaker 1: an unpopular opinion about this. Something that I find really

314
00:16:43,040 --> 00:16:47,640
Speaker 1: interesting is how the genocidem Gaza online has become kind

315
00:16:47,680 --> 00:16:50,080
Speaker 1: of a litmus test to keep track of who said

316
00:16:50,080 --> 00:16:54,280
Speaker 1: what and when right. There is absolutely reason to side

317
00:16:54,360 --> 00:16:57,040
Speaker 1: eye people with huge platforms who have not been using

318
00:16:57,040 --> 00:16:59,720
Speaker 1: those platforms to speak up about Gaza. But to me,

319
00:17:00,200 --> 00:17:03,160
Speaker 1: sometimes online it can sort of turn into a way

320
00:17:03,280 --> 00:17:06,680
Speaker 1: to datcha people to prove that they aren't just progressive

321
00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:09,600
Speaker 1: or something. And I just sort of don't like the

322
00:17:09,640 --> 00:17:13,000
Speaker 1: idea of a genuine genocide that is killing people children

323
00:17:13,440 --> 00:17:16,359
Speaker 1: being turned into a way to win an online argument

324
00:17:16,520 --> 00:17:19,800
Speaker 1: or score points on social media. And the fact that

325
00:17:20,280 --> 00:17:22,880
Speaker 1: some of this response to the article has turned into

326
00:17:22,920 --> 00:17:25,960
Speaker 1: these creators essentially having to prove that they were not

327
00:17:26,080 --> 00:17:29,480
Speaker 1: paid by the Democrats to be silent on Gaza, even

328
00:17:29,560 --> 00:17:32,600
Speaker 1: though the article never specifically even alleges that to be

329
00:17:32,640 --> 00:17:35,240
Speaker 1: the case, I think just shows how reductive some of

330
00:17:35,240 --> 00:17:39,040
Speaker 1: the conversation online has gotten. And to me that reveals

331
00:17:39,160 --> 00:17:43,080
Speaker 1: another point. The article itself never says this whole thing

332
00:17:43,160 --> 00:17:45,520
Speaker 1: is connected to the Democratic Party, but I can see

333
00:17:45,560 --> 00:17:47,679
Speaker 1: how readers would walk away with that impression.

334
00:17:48,440 --> 00:17:50,679
Speaker 2: Yeah, me too, you know, I think even though the

335
00:17:50,760 --> 00:17:54,720
Speaker 2: article is explicitly say it, the implication is clear that

336
00:17:54,840 --> 00:17:58,280
Speaker 2: there's this effort by powerful forces on the left to

337
00:17:58,560 --> 00:18:02,080
Speaker 2: control the left, even though, as you said, it isn't

338
00:18:02,119 --> 00:18:05,359
Speaker 2: explicitly stated in the article. But the vagary is a

339
00:18:05,560 --> 00:18:07,560
Speaker 2: feature of it, not a bug. And then people can

340
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:12,360
Speaker 2: project whatever worldview they have onto that vagary.

341
00:18:12,920 --> 00:18:15,119
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good way to put it. You know.

342
00:18:15,160 --> 00:18:19,920
Speaker 1: The piece calls the creators in the program democratic political influencers,

343
00:18:20,359 --> 00:18:23,159
Speaker 1: and some of them do have documented relationships with the

344
00:18:23,160 --> 00:18:27,000
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, things like attending the Democratic National Convention as

345
00:18:27,000 --> 00:18:31,359
Speaker 1: a contact creator, which full disclosure, I also attended the

346
00:18:31,400 --> 00:18:35,520
Speaker 1: Democratic National Convention as a content creator. I was not paid,

347
00:18:35,680 --> 00:18:39,400
Speaker 1: not by a long shot. I actually paid several hundreds

348
00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:41,840
Speaker 1: of dollars out of my own pocket to go to

349
00:18:41,880 --> 00:18:45,480
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Convention as a contact creator. I actually

350
00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:47,959
Speaker 1: have been kind of meaning to make an episode about

351
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:50,840
Speaker 1: what that experience was. Like, I'm still sort of wrestling

352
00:18:50,840 --> 00:18:54,240
Speaker 1: with whether or not this would actually be interesting for

353
00:18:54,320 --> 00:18:56,719
Speaker 1: anyone to listen to or not. You know, it was

354
00:18:57,080 --> 00:19:02,560
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party's inaugural class of kind of influencers contact creators,

355
00:19:02,560 --> 00:19:04,800
Speaker 1: sending them to the Democratic National Convention the same way

356
00:19:04,800 --> 00:19:07,400
Speaker 1: that you would send other journalists. Well, I've attended both

357
00:19:07,400 --> 00:19:11,080
Speaker 1: the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention as

358
00:19:11,560 --> 00:19:16,080
Speaker 1: a traditional journalist and as part of this like cohort

359
00:19:16,200 --> 00:19:19,639
Speaker 1: of contact creators influencers. I don't know, maybe I'll make

360
00:19:19,640 --> 00:19:21,560
Speaker 1: an episode about that, but the main thing that I

361
00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:24,760
Speaker 1: took away from that experience was that and I mean

362
00:19:24,840 --> 00:19:27,760
Speaker 1: no shape to contact creators because I respect them, and

363
00:19:27,800 --> 00:19:30,119
Speaker 1: I in some ways I think I am adjacent to

364
00:19:30,200 --> 00:19:34,240
Speaker 1: contact creators. But going to the DNC as part of

365
00:19:34,240 --> 00:19:36,960
Speaker 1: a cohort of contact creators really illustrated to me that

366
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:38,960
Speaker 1: I am not a contact creator. Like I don't know

367
00:19:39,000 --> 00:19:41,239
Speaker 1: exactly what I am, but I know that I am

368
00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:43,240
Speaker 1: something else, if that makes sense.

369
00:19:43,920 --> 00:19:47,080
Speaker 2: I have been after you to make that episode since

370
00:19:47,119 --> 00:19:49,560
Speaker 2: you came back because I thought what you had to

371
00:19:49,560 --> 00:19:52,720
Speaker 2: say was pretty interesting and I suspect listeners would too.

372
00:19:52,920 --> 00:19:55,680
Speaker 2: And so listeners, if you want Bridget to talk about it,

373
00:19:56,000 --> 00:19:58,200
Speaker 2: send us an email hello to tangyote dot com.

374
00:19:58,359 --> 00:20:01,720
Speaker 1: I mean, I gotta stay focused on this, but we

375
00:20:02,600 --> 00:20:04,159
Speaker 1: can make we can make that episode. We can make

376
00:20:04,160 --> 00:20:04,879
Speaker 1: that episode.

377
00:20:04,960 --> 00:20:05,880
Speaker 2: I found it interesting.

378
00:20:06,200 --> 00:20:08,000
Speaker 1: So the piece just sort of lumps all of these

379
00:20:08,080 --> 00:20:11,040
Speaker 1: creators as being in with the Democratic Party in a

380
00:20:11,080 --> 00:20:14,399
Speaker 1: way that kind of suggests that they are essentially paid

381
00:20:14,520 --> 00:20:18,800
Speaker 1: mouthpieces for the Democratic Party on social media. Consider the

382
00:20:18,880 --> 00:20:22,400
Speaker 1: subhead of the article, which reads, an initiative aimed at

383
00:20:22,400 --> 00:20:26,440
Speaker 1: boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to eight thousand dollars

384
00:20:26,520 --> 00:20:29,040
Speaker 1: a month to push the party line. But when one

385
00:20:29,040 --> 00:20:31,720
Speaker 1: of the creators in the cohort asked Taylor Lorenz on

386
00:20:31,760 --> 00:20:34,879
Speaker 1: Threads what evidence that she had that these creators were

387
00:20:34,880 --> 00:20:38,840
Speaker 1: being paid specifically to push democratic messaging online like the

388
00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:42,359
Speaker 1: subhead says, she said, quote, I hear you on the feedback.

389
00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:46,399
Speaker 1: Reporters don't write subheadings. Horus was always public, but the

390
00:20:46,440 --> 00:20:49,679
Speaker 1: funding was not. I do think that funding sources across

391
00:20:49,720 --> 00:20:53,960
Speaker 1: the political spectrum should be disclosed. Transparency is good. So again,

392
00:20:54,000 --> 00:20:55,960
Speaker 1: it kind of sounds like what Lorenz is repeating is

393
00:20:55,960 --> 00:20:59,720
Speaker 1: that the whole thing is about financial disclosure, not how

394
00:20:59,800 --> 00:21:02,800
Speaker 1: much is being used to control what influencers can and

395
00:21:02,840 --> 00:21:05,560
Speaker 1: can't say online, Which makes the fact that all of

396
00:21:05,600 --> 00:21:07,679
Speaker 1: the dust that has been kicked up around this article

397
00:21:08,280 --> 00:21:11,160
Speaker 1: is really about whether or not these creators are essentially

398
00:21:11,200 --> 00:21:14,199
Speaker 1: paid shills for the Democratic Party really curious to me,

399
00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:18,119
Speaker 1: Which brings me to my biggest and most complicated, and

400
00:21:18,240 --> 00:21:22,480
Speaker 1: to be honest, probably most boring dispute raised in the piece,

401
00:21:22,760 --> 00:21:26,080
Speaker 1: which is exactly who is funding Chorus and is that

402
00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:30,760
Speaker 1: funding being properly disclosed? So who is funding Chorus? Well,

403
00:21:30,800 --> 00:21:33,560
Speaker 1: this is from Chorus's website. Chorus is a five h

404
00:21:33,720 --> 00:21:37,960
Speaker 1: one c four nonprofit organization with grassroots support from over

405
00:21:38,040 --> 00:21:40,920
Speaker 1: five thousand individuals since launching in December twenty twenty four.

406
00:21:41,359 --> 00:21:44,120
Speaker 1: We're grateful to those who understand the importance of investing

407
00:21:44,160 --> 00:21:47,080
Speaker 1: in the independent media ecosystem to make sure that content

408
00:21:47,119 --> 00:21:49,880
Speaker 1: creators have access to training and tools that help them grow.

409
00:21:50,200 --> 00:21:54,440
Speaker 1: But the Wired article names the sixteen thirty fund as

410
00:21:54,520 --> 00:21:58,360
Speaker 1: Chorus's donor. I will say right now that the relationship

411
00:21:58,359 --> 00:22:01,920
Speaker 1: between sixteen thirty and Chorus is a little bit unclear

412
00:22:01,960 --> 00:22:04,960
Speaker 1: to me. The article does not give, as far as

413
00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:08,399
Speaker 1: I can tell, any evidence to confirm that sixteen thirty

414
00:22:08,560 --> 00:22:12,160
Speaker 1: is actually the entity funding the cash that then goes

415
00:22:12,200 --> 00:22:15,560
Speaker 1: to pay creators. To be clear, it is entirely possible

416
00:22:15,560 --> 00:22:18,080
Speaker 1: that that is the case. I just can't personally speak

417
00:22:18,119 --> 00:22:20,280
Speaker 1: to it, and I don't feel like the article paints

418
00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:23,200
Speaker 1: a clear enough portrait to say one way or the other. Definitively,

419
00:22:23,640 --> 00:22:25,480
Speaker 1: this is a little bit wonky. But I have seen

420
00:22:25,560 --> 00:22:29,800
Speaker 1: folks say that sixteen thirty is not actually Coorus's funder,

421
00:22:30,080 --> 00:22:33,520
Speaker 1: in the sense that it is not providing money to Chorus,

422
00:22:33,880 --> 00:22:36,440
Speaker 1: you know, the money that then goes to pay the creators.

423
00:22:36,880 --> 00:22:41,280
Speaker 1: But that sixteen thirty is actually Coorus's fiscal sponsor. A

424
00:22:41,280 --> 00:22:45,040
Speaker 1: fiscal sponsor is a nonprofit organization that agrees to let

425
00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:48,199
Speaker 1: another project or group, usually one that does not have

426
00:22:48,320 --> 00:22:52,480
Speaker 1: its own nonprofit status, use its legal tax exempt status.

427
00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:57,000
Speaker 1: This is a totally commonplace occurrence in the nonprofit world,

428
00:22:57,520 --> 00:23:00,879
Speaker 1: so I sometimes do trainings on how to spot things

429
00:23:00,920 --> 00:23:04,760
Speaker 1: like medium manipulation and disinformation online. If I wanted to

430
00:23:04,800 --> 00:23:07,879
Speaker 1: continue doing that work as a nonprofit and try to

431
00:23:07,880 --> 00:23:11,080
Speaker 1: get grant funding to support it, I could either one

432
00:23:11,560 --> 00:23:14,879
Speaker 1: go through the very complicated process of setting up my

433
00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:19,320
Speaker 1: own nonprofit for myself, or two, I could find another

434
00:23:19,440 --> 00:23:22,520
Speaker 1: organization that is already a nonprofit and they could act

435
00:23:22,560 --> 00:23:25,040
Speaker 1: as my fiscal sponsor so that I could do that

436
00:23:25,160 --> 00:23:28,879
Speaker 1: work under their nonprofit umbrella and be eligible for grant

437
00:23:28,880 --> 00:23:31,760
Speaker 1: funding to do it. So I don't know if this

438
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:34,239
Speaker 1: is the kind of arrangement that Chorus does have with

439
00:23:34,280 --> 00:23:37,639
Speaker 1: sixteen thirty. Here's what the article says about the sixteen

440
00:23:37,720 --> 00:23:41,280
Speaker 1: thirty Fund and Corrus's relationship with them. In twenty eighteen,

441
00:23:41,359 --> 00:23:43,879
Speaker 1: the sixteen thirty Fund provided one hundred and forty one

442
00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:46,520
Speaker 1: million dollars to more than one hundred left leading causes

443
00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:50,320
Speaker 1: in order to bolster democratic support during the midterms. According

444
00:23:50,320 --> 00:23:53,119
Speaker 1: to a tax filing of pain by Politico in twenty twenty,

445
00:23:53,200 --> 00:23:56,080
Speaker 1: the fund distributed more than four hundred million dollars according

446
00:23:56,080 --> 00:23:59,159
Speaker 1: to the organization's public tax filing, which Politico said was

447
00:23:59,240 --> 00:24:02,040
Speaker 1: used in efforts to unseat then President Donald Trump and

448
00:24:02,080 --> 00:24:05,800
Speaker 1: Republicans Senate majority. In twenty twenty two, sixteen thirty Fund

449
00:24:05,800 --> 00:24:08,520
Speaker 1: spent one hundred and ninety six million dollars backing state

450
00:24:08,600 --> 00:24:12,000
Speaker 1: ballot measures on abortion rights heading into midterms. According to NBC,

451
00:24:12,760 --> 00:24:15,520
Speaker 1: just four donors accounted for close to two thirds of

452
00:24:15,520 --> 00:24:17,800
Speaker 1: the funds revenue in twenty twenty three. According to its

453
00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:21,160
Speaker 1: tax filings, the major donor group gave fifty point five

454
00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:25,040
Speaker 1: million dollars, with others donating thirty one point four million dollars,

455
00:24:25,200 --> 00:24:28,080
Speaker 1: twenty one point eight million dollars, and thirteen point six

456
00:24:28,119 --> 00:24:31,560
Speaker 1: million dollars. The sixteen thirty Fund, which is not required

457
00:24:31,600 --> 00:24:34,560
Speaker 1: to disclose its contributors, has for years been a major

458
00:24:34,640 --> 00:24:38,240
Speaker 1: funding source for liberal and progressive causes in groups, including

459
00:24:38,280 --> 00:24:41,360
Speaker 1: those that spend in elections, says Walker Davis, a research

460
00:24:41,359 --> 00:24:44,560
Speaker 1: director for the open government group Citizens for Responsibility and

461
00:24:44,560 --> 00:24:48,119
Speaker 1: Ethics in Washington. Though their recent tax returns indicate that

462
00:24:48,160 --> 00:24:50,840
Speaker 1: they have pulled back from the eye popping sums they

463
00:24:50,920 --> 00:24:53,800
Speaker 1: raised and spent In twenty twenty, the organization is still

464
00:24:53,800 --> 00:24:57,120
Speaker 1: one of the top spending politically oriented nonprofits in the country.

465
00:24:57,920 --> 00:25:00,359
Speaker 1: So here's what it has to say about the actual

466
00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:05,200
Speaker 1: relationship between Chorus and sixteen thirty. Chorus, which is described

467
00:25:05,240 --> 00:25:08,800
Speaker 1: in contracts reviewed by Wired as a project of the

468
00:25:08,840 --> 00:25:12,800
Speaker 1: sixteen thirty fund that handles operations for the Creator program

469
00:25:13,080 --> 00:25:16,359
Speaker 1: launched in November twenty twenty four with Ties to Good Influence,

470
00:25:16,880 --> 00:25:20,840
Speaker 1: a for profit influencer marketing agency aim at helping content

471
00:25:20,880 --> 00:25:25,040
Speaker 1: creators connect with social good campaigns. So this is really

472
00:25:25,240 --> 00:25:27,840
Speaker 1: kind of all that it says, and I think that

473
00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:32,800
Speaker 1: Chorus being a quote project of sixteen thirty could honestly

474
00:25:33,040 --> 00:25:35,840
Speaker 1: mean a lot of things. I could pretty easily see

475
00:25:36,119 --> 00:25:40,160
Speaker 1: an organization calling themselves a project of their fiscal sponsor.

476
00:25:40,600 --> 00:25:41,920
Speaker 1: This is the kind of thing that happens in the

477
00:25:41,920 --> 00:25:44,639
Speaker 1: nonprofit space all of the time. I would need to

478
00:25:44,680 --> 00:25:47,600
Speaker 1: see more information to be able to say one way

479
00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:50,800
Speaker 1: or another, but to me, whether or not sixteen thirty

480
00:25:51,080 --> 00:25:55,639
Speaker 1: is a financial backer or fiscal sponsor is critical to

481
00:25:55,680 --> 00:25:58,720
Speaker 1: the central argument that is being made in this article,

482
00:25:59,240 --> 00:26:01,399
Speaker 1: so it's kind of a shame that we don't know

483
00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:04,640
Speaker 1: more specifics about what is going on here. If sixteen

484
00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:08,440
Speaker 1: thirty is indeed the fiscal sponsor, I think the entire

485
00:26:08,520 --> 00:26:10,760
Speaker 1: premise of the article kind of falls apart. So it

486
00:26:10,800 --> 00:26:13,000
Speaker 1: would have been a good thing to clarify and make

487
00:26:13,160 --> 00:26:16,680
Speaker 1: super duper clear in this piece. So without knowing more

488
00:26:16,720 --> 00:26:20,040
Speaker 1: information myself, it's hard for me to really say much

489
00:26:20,080 --> 00:26:23,680
Speaker 1: about this particular piece of it. However, I did use

490
00:26:23,760 --> 00:26:26,480
Speaker 1: to work as an online organizer for the Sunlight Foundation,

491
00:26:26,600 --> 00:26:30,600
Speaker 1: an organization that was dedicated to government transparency and transparency

492
00:26:30,640 --> 00:26:33,520
Speaker 1: around money and politics, so I can sort of speak

493
00:26:33,560 --> 00:26:37,119
Speaker 1: to it. Generally. Sixteen thirty is what's known as a

494
00:26:37,240 --> 00:26:42,040
Speaker 1: dark money group, a political nonprofit organization usually operating under

495
00:26:42,080 --> 00:26:44,240
Speaker 1: what's known as a five oh one C four that

496
00:26:44,320 --> 00:26:47,959
Speaker 1: can spend money to influence elections and public policy without

497
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:52,000
Speaker 1: disclosing its donors. But not every five ZHO one C

498
00:26:52,200 --> 00:26:54,960
Speaker 1: four is a dark money group. The big piece to

499
00:26:55,040 --> 00:26:57,720
Speaker 1: understand here is that what distinguishes a five OHO one

500
00:26:57,760 --> 00:26:59,760
Speaker 1: C four from a dark money group is that a

501
00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:03,560
Speaker 1: five one four is a social welfare organization. They're allowed

502
00:27:03,560 --> 00:27:06,240
Speaker 1: to do a mix of charitable or community work and

503
00:27:06,400 --> 00:27:09,919
Speaker 1: political advocacy. Many of them do things that are only

504
00:27:10,080 --> 00:27:13,679
Speaker 1: loosely political or not political at all, like community groups,

505
00:27:13,840 --> 00:27:17,120
Speaker 1: local civic leagues, or issue based non profits. You can

506
00:27:17,160 --> 00:27:19,359
Speaker 1: probably think of some five oh one c fours that

507
00:27:19,440 --> 00:27:22,000
Speaker 1: are doing great work, like the Sierra Club or the

508
00:27:22,080 --> 00:27:25,800
Speaker 1: leg of Women Voters. So yes, these groups do advocacy

509
00:27:25,800 --> 00:27:28,600
Speaker 1: and they do lobbying, but they are not just passed

510
00:27:28,600 --> 00:27:32,359
Speaker 1: throughs for anonymous money into election ads like they're known

511
00:27:32,480 --> 00:27:37,040
Speaker 1: organizations with visible memberships and transparent public activities. So it

512
00:27:37,080 --> 00:27:40,399
Speaker 1: separates these five oh one c fours from traditional dark

513
00:27:40,480 --> 00:27:44,400
Speaker 1: money groups is that dark money groups spend significant amounts

514
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:47,440
Speaker 1: of money in elections on things like ads for and

515
00:27:47,520 --> 00:27:51,639
Speaker 1: against candidates, voter mobilization, et cetera. They do that while

516
00:27:51,720 --> 00:27:55,680
Speaker 1: intentionally going out of their way to keep their donors secret.

517
00:27:56,320 --> 00:27:58,200
Speaker 2: I just want to jump in briefly because I feel

518
00:27:58,200 --> 00:28:02,440
Speaker 2: obligated to remind listeners that we, as Americans briefly had

519
00:28:02,440 --> 00:28:07,080
Speaker 2: a period when dark money in politics was more severely restricted.

520
00:28:08,000 --> 00:28:09,560
Speaker 2: A lot of our listeners, I think might be too

521
00:28:09,600 --> 00:28:12,439
Speaker 2: young to remember, but the McCain fine Gold Act of

522
00:28:12,480 --> 00:28:16,199
Speaker 2: two thousand and two substantially reduced its impact. There was

523
00:28:16,200 --> 00:28:20,360
Speaker 2: this bipartisan agreement that was pretty effective for a few

524
00:28:20,440 --> 00:28:23,720
Speaker 2: years at reducing the amount of dark money in politics,

525
00:28:24,320 --> 00:28:26,640
Speaker 2: and it was great for democracy for all of eight

526
00:28:26,720 --> 00:28:30,560
Speaker 2: years until John Roberts and the Supreme Court pretty much

527
00:28:30,600 --> 00:28:33,480
Speaker 2: decimated it in twenty ten. And I think this is

528
00:28:33,560 --> 00:28:37,439
Speaker 2: important context for this conversation, even though it hasn't been

529
00:28:37,440 --> 00:28:39,920
Speaker 2: the law for the past fifteen years. But I think

530
00:28:39,960 --> 00:28:42,640
Speaker 2: it's important to remember that Congress, acting on behalf of

531
00:28:42,680 --> 00:28:45,040
Speaker 2: the American people, was like, Nah, this dark money stuff

532
00:28:45,080 --> 00:28:46,600
Speaker 2: is no good. We have to get it out of here.

533
00:28:47,000 --> 00:28:49,080
Speaker 2: And so they passed a law to outlaw it. But

534
00:28:49,120 --> 00:28:51,760
Speaker 2: then the Supreme Court, led by John Roberts, who is

535
00:28:51,800 --> 00:28:55,719
Speaker 2: still there today continuing to lead it, essentially just gutted

536
00:28:55,760 --> 00:28:58,520
Speaker 2: that law. And so now dark money is everywhere, and

537
00:28:58,560 --> 00:29:01,880
Speaker 2: so pretty much any political ad you might see, unless

538
00:29:01,880 --> 00:29:05,560
Speaker 2: it's coming directly from a Canada's official campaign, is probably

539
00:29:05,560 --> 00:29:07,959
Speaker 2: funded with dark money. It's just everywhere. That's just the

540
00:29:08,000 --> 00:29:10,200
Speaker 2: reality that we are living in in America.

541
00:29:10,760 --> 00:29:14,840
Speaker 1: Yes, that is important context. I will say it does

542
00:29:15,240 --> 00:29:17,960
Speaker 1: get a little bit murky, this distinction between five oh

543
00:29:18,040 --> 00:29:20,959
Speaker 1: one c fours and dark money, because it's not one

544
00:29:21,120 --> 00:29:24,560
Speaker 1: hundred percent cut and dry. These days. The IRS only

545
00:29:24,600 --> 00:29:27,400
Speaker 1: requires that politics not be a five zho one C

546
00:29:27,560 --> 00:29:33,160
Speaker 1: fours quote primary activity, but primary is not very curly defined,

547
00:29:33,240 --> 00:29:35,480
Speaker 1: so in practice a lot of five oh one C

548
00:29:35,640 --> 00:29:39,960
Speaker 1: fours do spend quite heavily on politics without being considered

549
00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:43,240
Speaker 1: traditionally dark money groups. This is why people are able

550
00:29:43,280 --> 00:29:45,400
Speaker 1: to say, like, oh, if you took money from move On,

551
00:29:45,840 --> 00:29:48,440
Speaker 1: you took dark money, and they can say that and

552
00:29:48,560 --> 00:29:52,480
Speaker 1: have it be I guess sort of technically a tiny

553
00:29:52,600 --> 00:29:55,920
Speaker 1: little bit true, because groups like move On can receive

554
00:29:56,000 --> 00:29:59,240
Speaker 1: anonymous donations because they have a C four arm, But

555
00:29:59,480 --> 00:30:02,160
Speaker 1: it is at actually mostly not true because they're not

556
00:30:02,240 --> 00:30:05,720
Speaker 1: really dark money groups because their political activities are public.

557
00:30:06,040 --> 00:30:08,040
Speaker 1: It is a bit nuanced, because I think it goes

558
00:30:08,080 --> 00:30:11,440
Speaker 1: to show that whether group is technically a traditional dark

559
00:30:11,480 --> 00:30:14,080
Speaker 1: money group or not, it is hard to know the

560
00:30:14,160 --> 00:30:17,480
Speaker 1: exact sources of every single dollar when it comes to

561
00:30:17,480 --> 00:30:20,560
Speaker 1: these kinds of organizations, even those organizations that are not

562
00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:24,720
Speaker 1: technically traditional dark money groups, precisely because there are structures

563
00:30:24,720 --> 00:30:27,120
Speaker 1: that those groups can use to obscure it. It's just

564
00:30:27,160 --> 00:30:29,360
Speaker 1: not very cut and dry. So I know that's a

565
00:30:29,360 --> 00:30:31,840
Speaker 1: little bit in the weeds and wonky. But remember that

566
00:30:31,960 --> 00:30:34,480
Speaker 1: distinction because it's going to become important for a claim

567
00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:37,720
Speaker 1: that is being personally made against Taylor Lorentz in a moment.

568
00:30:38,160 --> 00:30:39,880
Speaker 2: And Bridget, I just want to commend you for the

569
00:30:39,880 --> 00:30:43,240
Speaker 2: clarity of that piece about fiscal sponsors and five oh

570
00:30:43,280 --> 00:30:47,360
Speaker 2: one c fours Like, man, I know that is not

571
00:30:47,440 --> 00:30:51,360
Speaker 2: your bread and butter talking about that stuff, but you know,

572
00:30:51,760 --> 00:30:53,440
Speaker 2: good work getting through it clearly.

573
00:30:53,600 --> 00:30:56,440
Speaker 1: Well, that's why That's kind of my thing about this

574
00:30:56,640 --> 00:31:00,440
Speaker 1: article is that the actual substance of it is like

575
00:31:00,600 --> 00:31:04,080
Speaker 1: wonky and quite boring, and it's not surprising to me

576
00:31:04,120 --> 00:31:07,280
Speaker 1: that people are like focusing on something else when the

577
00:31:07,320 --> 00:31:10,480
Speaker 1: actual meat of it is comes down to the distinction

578
00:31:10,560 --> 00:31:12,360
Speaker 1: between five oh one seed fours and five oh one

579
00:31:12,400 --> 00:31:14,880
Speaker 1: seed threes and fiscal sponsors, Like, I understand why people

580
00:31:14,880 --> 00:31:17,160
Speaker 1: are like, oh, boring, Let's just attack a bunch of

581
00:31:17,200 --> 00:31:19,040
Speaker 1: creators on social media. That's much better.

582
00:31:22,520 --> 00:31:22,680
Speaker 3: More.

583
00:31:22,720 --> 00:31:35,120
Speaker 1: After a quick break, let's get right back into it.

584
00:31:36,800 --> 00:31:40,280
Speaker 1: We were talking about what exactly a dark money group is.

585
00:31:41,000 --> 00:31:43,240
Speaker 1: I swear I am almost done with this part of

586
00:31:43,280 --> 00:31:46,400
Speaker 1: the podcast, but just to wrap it up, the big

587
00:31:46,480 --> 00:31:49,080
Speaker 1: piece to understand about all of this is that classic

588
00:31:49,280 --> 00:31:53,520
Speaker 1: dark money groups are extremely high dollar, opaque, and most

589
00:31:53,560 --> 00:31:59,000
Speaker 1: importantly deliberately structured to mask donor identities while spending very

590
00:31:59,040 --> 00:32:03,000
Speaker 1: heavily on election judicial bites and ballot initiatives. So whether

591
00:32:03,080 --> 00:32:06,160
Speaker 1: or not sixteen thirty is actually the financial backer, like

592
00:32:06,240 --> 00:32:08,840
Speaker 1: Taylo Lorenz says, and the piece or is simply the

593
00:32:08,880 --> 00:32:13,040
Speaker 1: fiscal sponsor, essentially lending Chorus its nonprofit status for them

594
00:32:13,040 --> 00:32:15,240
Speaker 1: to be able to operate as a nonprofit, I cannot

595
00:32:15,280 --> 00:32:18,840
Speaker 1: personally say, but I can say that Taylor Lorenz is

596
00:32:18,840 --> 00:32:22,080
Speaker 1: one hundred percent correct here that sixteen thirty is a

597
00:32:22,160 --> 00:32:25,040
Speaker 1: dark money group. I wanted to make that point really

598
00:32:25,080 --> 00:32:29,160
Speaker 1: really clear, probably too clear, because I have seen something

599
00:32:29,240 --> 00:32:32,800
Speaker 1: kind of floating around online basically acting like dark money

600
00:32:32,920 --> 00:32:35,920
Speaker 1: is just kind of a bad vibe that Taylor Lorenz

601
00:32:35,960 --> 00:32:38,960
Speaker 1: is attaching to certain pasts of money she doesn't like

602
00:32:39,000 --> 00:32:41,920
Speaker 1: willy nilly when she is right that it is a

603
00:32:41,960 --> 00:32:44,920
Speaker 1: pretty specific thing, like it is the kind of thing

604
00:32:44,920 --> 00:32:46,760
Speaker 1: that has special tax forms.

605
00:32:47,160 --> 00:32:48,760
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a real thing.

606
00:32:49,040 --> 00:32:52,320
Speaker 1: And Lorenz's article in Wired says that the contract that

607
00:32:52,400 --> 00:32:55,680
Speaker 1: all of these creators signed says that they are not

608
00:32:56,000 --> 00:32:59,560
Speaker 1: able to disclose their relationship to Chorus or sixteen thirty.

609
00:33:00,560 --> 00:33:03,479
Speaker 1: According to copies of the contract viewed by Wired that

610
00:33:03,560 --> 00:33:07,000
Speaker 1: Creators signed, the influencers are not allowed to disclose their

611
00:33:07,080 --> 00:33:10,640
Speaker 1: relationship with Chorus or the sixteen thirty one, or functionally

612
00:33:10,960 --> 00:33:14,040
Speaker 1: that they are being paid at all. So this piece

613
00:33:14,080 --> 00:33:17,040
Speaker 1: is a little bit tricky. First, the article suggests that

614
00:33:17,080 --> 00:33:20,560
Speaker 1: they are contractually prevented from disclosing their relationship with Chorus,

615
00:33:20,960 --> 00:33:24,920
Speaker 1: but creators online are saying, Hey, I've been talking about

616
00:33:24,960 --> 00:33:27,440
Speaker 1: being part of Coorus in my content since I started

617
00:33:27,480 --> 00:33:30,440
Speaker 1: up with the cohort. My picture is on the Chorus website.

618
00:33:30,560 --> 00:33:32,480
Speaker 1: How could you say that I have not disclosed my

619
00:33:32,520 --> 00:33:35,080
Speaker 1: relationship with them and that I've been doing it in secret.

620
00:33:35,240 --> 00:33:37,479
Speaker 1: When this has come up on social media, Taylor Lorenz

621
00:33:37,480 --> 00:33:40,800
Speaker 1: has pointed out that yes, Creators have not made their

622
00:33:40,880 --> 00:33:44,120
Speaker 1: relationship with Chorus a secret, but that they have not

623
00:33:44,320 --> 00:33:48,160
Speaker 1: disclosed sixteen thirty's relationship with Chorus, whatever that might be,

624
00:33:48,720 --> 00:33:51,120
Speaker 1: and that they are barred from doing so because of

625
00:33:51,160 --> 00:33:54,840
Speaker 1: their contract. I get what Lorenz is saying here. I

626
00:33:54,960 --> 00:33:58,440
Speaker 1: really do. Financial disclosure is important and there should be

627
00:33:58,480 --> 00:34:01,800
Speaker 1: a standard of disclosing financial ties just to keep everything

628
00:34:01,880 --> 00:34:06,200
Speaker 1: above board. But if indeed sixteen thirty is the financial

629
00:34:06,280 --> 00:34:09,200
Speaker 1: backer of Courus and not just the fiscal sponsor. I

630
00:34:09,200 --> 00:34:12,400
Speaker 1: could also see creator saying, well, how far back am

631
00:34:12,440 --> 00:34:15,640
Speaker 1: I expected to go to trace and disclose the origin

632
00:34:15,760 --> 00:34:18,799
Speaker 1: of where every dollar I get comes from? You know,

633
00:34:19,600 --> 00:34:22,440
Speaker 1: I myself got a grant for ten thousand dollars for

634
00:34:22,600 --> 00:34:24,879
Speaker 1: some work I was doing several years ago. I could

635
00:34:24,880 --> 00:34:27,120
Speaker 1: tell you the name of the organization that I applied

636
00:34:27,160 --> 00:34:28,960
Speaker 1: to to get that grant. I could tell you the

637
00:34:29,000 --> 00:34:31,080
Speaker 1: name of the organization that was on that check. Could

638
00:34:31,080 --> 00:34:34,520
Speaker 1: I tell you every funder and every dollar that funded

639
00:34:34,520 --> 00:34:38,000
Speaker 1: that organization that wrote that check. I honestly probably could not.

640
00:34:38,480 --> 00:34:42,040
Speaker 1: So I really do see both sides here. Lorenz is

641
00:34:42,239 --> 00:34:45,759
Speaker 1: absolutely correct that transparency and disclosure is important and an

642
00:34:45,760 --> 00:34:47,839
Speaker 1: ethical thing to do. And I also kind of see

643
00:34:47,840 --> 00:34:50,200
Speaker 1: where these creators are coming from when they say, you know,

644
00:34:50,239 --> 00:34:52,200
Speaker 1: if I say I'm a Chorus partner, if I talk

645
00:34:52,200 --> 00:34:55,480
Speaker 1: about my relationship with Chorus publicly, that should be enough disclosure.

646
00:34:55,760 --> 00:34:58,440
Speaker 1: Like how far back am I, as a Chorus creator

647
00:34:58,520 --> 00:35:01,480
Speaker 1: expected to go when I'm to closing? And who sets

648
00:35:01,520 --> 00:35:04,560
Speaker 1: that standard? It sounds like what these creators are saying

649
00:35:04,600 --> 00:35:08,040
Speaker 1: on social media is that this feels like Taylor Lorenz

650
00:35:08,360 --> 00:35:11,280
Speaker 1: setting a standard that they don't personally feel as fair.

651
00:35:11,880 --> 00:35:15,400
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so what is the standard, right? And what

652
00:35:15,440 --> 00:35:19,200
Speaker 2: are we talking? Are we're talking ethical standards or legal standards.

653
00:35:19,800 --> 00:35:21,800
Speaker 1: Well, if you want to get into what the law says,

654
00:35:22,040 --> 00:35:26,000
Speaker 1: the law is actually not super clear here because political

655
00:35:26,000 --> 00:35:29,560
Speaker 1: influencers don't face the same kinds of disclosure rules that

656
00:35:29,719 --> 00:35:32,840
Speaker 1: product influencers do. You know, when somebody is paid to

657
00:35:32,840 --> 00:35:36,040
Speaker 1: promote a product like a handbag or makeup, the FTC,

658
00:35:36,239 --> 00:35:39,239
Speaker 1: the Federal Trade Commission requires them to use things like

659
00:35:39,360 --> 00:35:42,879
Speaker 1: hashtag ad or otherwise disclose that it is a sponsorship.

660
00:35:43,239 --> 00:35:47,600
Speaker 1: But the FTC's authority is limited to commercial speech, not politics.

661
00:35:48,040 --> 00:35:52,120
Speaker 1: Political content falls under the FEC. The Federal Elections Commission,

662
00:35:52,280 --> 00:35:55,760
Speaker 1: which mainly requires campaigns and packs to report their spending

663
00:35:55,800 --> 00:35:58,840
Speaker 1: to the government, not for influencers to disclose it directly

664
00:35:58,880 --> 00:36:02,160
Speaker 1: to their followers in their That means that political influencers

665
00:36:02,520 --> 00:36:05,520
Speaker 1: really don't have to add hashtag ad or any kind

666
00:36:05,560 --> 00:36:09,160
Speaker 1: of similar tags, even if they're being paid. In the article,

667
00:36:09,239 --> 00:36:12,760
Speaker 1: Taylor Lorenz quotes Graham Wilson, a lawyer working with Chorus

668
00:36:12,800 --> 00:36:15,080
Speaker 1: from a zoom he did with the creators where he said,

669
00:36:15,360 --> 00:36:17,680
Speaker 1: there are some real advantages to housing this program in

670
00:36:17,719 --> 00:36:20,479
Speaker 1: a nonprofit. It gives us the ability to raise money

671
00:36:20,480 --> 00:36:23,480
Speaker 1: from donors. And also with this structure, it avoids a

672
00:36:23,480 --> 00:36:25,799
Speaker 1: lot of the public disclosure of public disclaimers you know,

673
00:36:26,120 --> 00:36:28,400
Speaker 1: paid for by blah blah blah that you see on

674
00:36:28,440 --> 00:36:30,719
Speaker 1: political ads. We don't need to deal with any of that.

675
00:36:31,040 --> 00:36:33,880
Speaker 1: Your names aren't showing up on reports FOD with the FEC.

676
00:36:34,680 --> 00:36:39,160
Speaker 1: So this strikes me as not great, and also it

677
00:36:39,239 --> 00:36:42,759
Speaker 1: strikes me as the actual substance of the article. Now,

678
00:36:42,800 --> 00:36:46,080
Speaker 1: to be clear, Wilson is correct that legally, creators don't

679
00:36:46,080 --> 00:36:49,040
Speaker 1: have to disclose their financial relationships with their funders to

680
00:36:49,320 --> 00:36:55,200
Speaker 1: their audiences in their content. Legally, no, Ethically, well, that's

681
00:36:55,239 --> 00:36:58,759
Speaker 1: a much more complicated story, and I think the actual

682
00:36:59,239 --> 00:37:02,600
Speaker 1: question the article raises has been a bit buried, and

683
00:37:02,640 --> 00:37:06,280
Speaker 1: that is what ethical obligation to creators have to disclose

684
00:37:06,560 --> 00:37:08,960
Speaker 1: what funding they have gotten and when do they have

685
00:37:09,040 --> 00:37:12,279
Speaker 1: that obligation? If a creator joins a trading program where

686
00:37:12,280 --> 00:37:15,480
Speaker 1: they learn media skills but have creative control over what

687
00:37:15,520 --> 00:37:18,400
Speaker 1: they say online, do they still need to disclose funding

688
00:37:18,480 --> 00:37:22,000
Speaker 1: for that media trading. This kind of became a flashpoint

689
00:37:22,080 --> 00:37:24,919
Speaker 1: because when the article came out, some people were really

690
00:37:24,960 --> 00:37:28,440
Speaker 1: trying to attack Taylor Lorenz personally by saying, well, she

691
00:37:28,640 --> 00:37:32,320
Speaker 1: herself is in a journalism fellowship funded by Pierre Omitiar,

692
00:37:32,560 --> 00:37:36,319
Speaker 1: the billionaire donor who founded eBay. So the question was, well,

693
00:37:36,360 --> 00:37:39,080
Speaker 1: why doesn't Taylor Lorenz have to disclose that she is

694
00:37:39,200 --> 00:37:42,920
Speaker 1: also taking dark money? The difference here is that Omitir

695
00:37:43,080 --> 00:37:46,200
Speaker 1: is not a dark money group traditionally. Again, you could

696
00:37:46,320 --> 00:37:48,319
Speaker 1: kind of sort of try to make the argument that

697
00:37:48,320 --> 00:37:50,120
Speaker 1: they are because they do have a C four arm,

698
00:37:50,160 --> 00:37:52,480
Speaker 1: which technically means that some of its money could be

699
00:37:52,520 --> 00:37:55,880
Speaker 1: classified as dark money because those donors don't have to

700
00:37:55,880 --> 00:37:59,239
Speaker 1: be disclosed. But Omitir is not a dark money group

701
00:37:59,280 --> 00:38:02,640
Speaker 1: in the traditional set because with omdir you generally know

702
00:38:03,000 --> 00:38:06,440
Speaker 1: who was behind the money, Piero Midir, and you know

703
00:38:06,480 --> 00:38:09,000
Speaker 1: where that money goes. It is not set up to

704
00:38:09,040 --> 00:38:12,200
Speaker 1: obscure that fact like a true dark money group like

705
00:38:12,239 --> 00:38:14,920
Speaker 1: sixteen thirty is set up. So to me, that is

706
00:38:14,960 --> 00:38:17,600
Speaker 1: not really a fair critique of Taylor Lorenz at all.

707
00:38:18,160 --> 00:38:20,600
Speaker 1: I think folks, we're trying to make the point that

708
00:38:20,680 --> 00:38:24,360
Speaker 1: it actually is sometimes complicated to know where every single

709
00:38:24,480 --> 00:38:27,560
Speaker 1: source for every single dollar of your income is coming from.

710
00:38:27,880 --> 00:38:30,359
Speaker 1: And then if you're going to be calling out other

711
00:38:30,440 --> 00:38:32,920
Speaker 1: people on that, you then kind of have to be

712
00:38:32,960 --> 00:38:36,520
Speaker 1: willing for folks to start watching your pockets. And under

713
00:38:36,560 --> 00:38:39,880
Speaker 1: a system like capitalism, when you follow the source for

714
00:38:40,040 --> 00:38:43,160
Speaker 1: most money that moves around in this country, there might

715
00:38:43,200 --> 00:38:46,200
Speaker 1: be stuff in there that, yeah, we don't love. And

716
00:38:46,320 --> 00:38:49,160
Speaker 1: I think one of the reasons why people brought this

717
00:38:49,280 --> 00:38:51,759
Speaker 1: up as a critique on Taylor Lorenz and the wake

718
00:38:51,800 --> 00:38:54,600
Speaker 1: of the article is that, you know, being paid to

719
00:38:54,640 --> 00:38:59,400
Speaker 1: make content online, especially leftist content, is hard. Trust me,

720
00:38:59,760 --> 00:39:02,680
Speaker 1: the very few people out there are getting rich from

721
00:39:02,719 --> 00:39:06,600
Speaker 1: making leftist content on the internet. It is a hustle.

722
00:39:07,040 --> 00:39:09,719
Speaker 1: So I get the sense that these creators sort of

723
00:39:09,719 --> 00:39:12,279
Speaker 1: feel like they're being pocket washed a little bit, you know,

724
00:39:12,400 --> 00:39:14,080
Speaker 1: from you know that phrase pocket watched.

725
00:39:14,440 --> 00:39:17,520
Speaker 2: I don't know that phrase, no, but you have my attention.

726
00:39:17,560 --> 00:39:18,000
Speaker 2: What does it mean?

727
00:39:18,120 --> 00:39:20,640
Speaker 1: So it might be more of a black community phrase,

728
00:39:20,719 --> 00:39:24,960
Speaker 1: but it's basically the idea that someone is really scrutinizing

729
00:39:25,080 --> 00:39:28,120
Speaker 1: where the money of someone else comes from. And it's

730
00:39:28,160 --> 00:39:30,319
Speaker 1: not a good feeling. And so my sense is these

731
00:39:30,360 --> 00:39:33,520
Speaker 1: creators feel like they are being pocket watched in public,

732
00:39:33,600 --> 00:39:34,280
Speaker 1: right now.

733
00:39:34,760 --> 00:39:37,719
Speaker 2: Oh, interesting, I had not heard that, but that is

734
00:39:37,760 --> 00:39:42,000
Speaker 2: a useful phrase. I've definitely had that sensation of being

735
00:39:42,000 --> 00:39:43,600
Speaker 2: pocket watched. Now I have a label for it.

736
00:39:43,640 --> 00:39:47,040
Speaker 1: Yes, pocket watched. So I do think the ethics of

737
00:39:47,320 --> 00:39:51,040
Speaker 1: taking money without disclosing it is a very fair question.

738
00:39:51,800 --> 00:39:54,440
Speaker 1: And just because it seems to not be in dispute

739
00:39:54,480 --> 00:39:57,319
Speaker 1: that Chorus is not paying creators to say or not

740
00:39:57,440 --> 00:40:00,600
Speaker 1: say specific messages, that doesn't mean there is no question

741
00:40:00,719 --> 00:40:02,839
Speaker 1: around the ethics of all of this. I think it's

742
00:40:02,880 --> 00:40:05,399
Speaker 1: really about trust. I want a world for us where

743
00:40:05,400 --> 00:40:08,360
Speaker 1: people are able to trust the massive political platforms that

744
00:40:08,360 --> 00:40:11,279
Speaker 1: they follow and have a sense of how and if

745
00:40:11,360 --> 00:40:13,600
Speaker 1: money is shaping the kinds of messages we're all seeing

746
00:40:13,600 --> 00:40:16,400
Speaker 1: on social media, and I do think that being cagey

747
00:40:16,480 --> 00:40:19,560
Speaker 1: about how you're paid probably gets us further from that ideal.

748
00:40:19,960 --> 00:40:22,439
Speaker 1: But I also think that this handful of creators didn't

749
00:40:22,480 --> 00:40:25,640
Speaker 1: set up this broken, complex system that we're all navigating,

750
00:40:26,160 --> 00:40:29,120
Speaker 1: And this, I think is the real meat of the article.

751
00:40:29,800 --> 00:40:33,200
Speaker 1: These creators are disclosing that they're members of this cohort,

752
00:40:33,520 --> 00:40:37,480
Speaker 1: but according to Lorenz, they are contractually prevented from disclosing

753
00:40:37,480 --> 00:40:41,320
Speaker 1: the financial relationship they might have with chorus and sixteen thirty.

754
00:40:42,040 --> 00:40:44,239
Speaker 1: And what is tough about this is that I have

755
00:40:44,320 --> 00:40:47,479
Speaker 1: no idea whether or not this is true. Lorenz says

756
00:40:47,520 --> 00:40:50,400
Speaker 1: that Wired looked at the contract, but it's not reprinted

757
00:40:50,440 --> 00:40:53,360
Speaker 1: in the article or anything, because that could potentially reveal

758
00:40:53,560 --> 00:40:56,919
Speaker 1: who that contract belongs to if they reprinted it. When

759
00:40:56,920 --> 00:40:58,920
Speaker 1: I was gearing up to do this episode, I was

760
00:40:58,960 --> 00:41:01,920
Speaker 1: all gung ho to send the contract to my own attorney,

761
00:41:01,960 --> 00:41:04,399
Speaker 1: who works on all of my contracts, to get his take.

762
00:41:04,719 --> 00:41:07,719
Speaker 1: Shout out to podcast attorney Lindsay. He is like a

763
00:41:07,800 --> 00:41:11,480
Speaker 1: certified silly goose and y'all would have loved hearing from him.

764
00:41:11,800 --> 00:41:14,759
Speaker 1: But the article doesn't publish any contract or any part

765
00:41:14,760 --> 00:41:17,000
Speaker 1: of any contract, so I couldn't even do that. And

766
00:41:17,040 --> 00:41:19,839
Speaker 1: that's an issue because the creators are saying, oh, well,

767
00:41:19,880 --> 00:41:23,720
Speaker 1: our contract doesn't say this, or they're saying, Taylor Lorenz,

768
00:41:23,719 --> 00:41:26,440
Speaker 1: who is not an attorney, is a misunderstanding what our

769
00:41:26,480 --> 00:41:29,040
Speaker 1: contract says. So there is a little bit of kind

770
00:41:29,080 --> 00:41:32,160
Speaker 1: of trust us in this article because readers cannot see

771
00:41:32,200 --> 00:41:35,520
Speaker 1: the contract for themselves. Lorenz has been very vocal on

772
00:41:35,560 --> 00:41:38,640
Speaker 1: social media saying that the creators in the cohort should

773
00:41:38,680 --> 00:41:42,000
Speaker 1: simply publish their contract if they think that she has

774
00:41:42,040 --> 00:41:45,600
Speaker 1: misrepresented it in her piece, and those creators are saying, well,

775
00:41:45,600 --> 00:41:47,920
Speaker 1: the burden of proof should be on the person making

776
00:41:47,960 --> 00:41:50,239
Speaker 1: the claim or the allegation. Why should I have to

777
00:41:50,280 --> 00:41:53,040
Speaker 1: provide my contract to speak to a claim that Taylor made.

778
00:41:53,200 --> 00:41:56,040
Speaker 1: So it's essentially a stalemate. So that's one of the

779
00:41:56,080 --> 00:41:59,120
Speaker 1: reasons that I can't really speak to the contract part

780
00:41:59,160 --> 00:42:01,960
Speaker 1: of this. I would have really liked the opportunity to

781
00:42:02,040 --> 00:42:05,360
Speaker 1: check out the contract for myself. I'm certain that Wired's

782
00:42:05,480 --> 00:42:08,839
Speaker 1: fact checkers and lawyers reviewed the piece before publishing it,

783
00:42:09,040 --> 00:42:11,040
Speaker 1: but I would have liked for it to be spelled

784
00:42:11,080 --> 00:42:15,160
Speaker 1: out that a lawyer who specializes in these kind of contracts,

785
00:42:15,160 --> 00:42:17,840
Speaker 1: like not just wires general counsel, somebody who is a

786
00:42:17,920 --> 00:42:22,080
Speaker 1: contract specialist, read the contract and confirmed that it said

787
00:42:22,280 --> 00:42:24,040
Speaker 1: all the things that the article says that it does.

788
00:42:24,400 --> 00:42:26,600
Speaker 1: I don't say that to criticize Taylor Lorenz. I just

789
00:42:26,640 --> 00:42:30,120
Speaker 1: know that contract legallees can be complex to parse. I

790
00:42:30,160 --> 00:42:32,920
Speaker 1: was actually just having a conversation with an attorney about

791
00:42:32,960 --> 00:42:36,839
Speaker 1: how attorneys who don't specialize in certain kinds of contracts

792
00:42:37,120 --> 00:42:41,440
Speaker 1: don't necessarily have the experience to know what those contracts say, so.

793
00:42:41,480 --> 00:42:43,680
Speaker 1: I think the article could have really dis benefited from

794
00:42:43,719 --> 00:42:46,799
Speaker 1: more of a needy deep dive into what the contract

795
00:42:47,000 --> 00:42:49,719
Speaker 1: actually says, because it is at the crux of the

796
00:42:49,800 --> 00:42:52,879
Speaker 1: argument being made in the article. But I also don't

797
00:42:52,880 --> 00:42:55,080
Speaker 1: want to make it seem like I'm just dismissing what

798
00:42:55,120 --> 00:42:58,200
Speaker 1: Lorenz has brought up here. There are pieces raised in

799
00:42:58,239 --> 00:43:00,760
Speaker 1: the article that I think are absolutely worth talking about.

800
00:43:01,040 --> 00:43:04,600
Speaker 1: A big one is should dark money groups even exist?

801
00:43:05,040 --> 00:43:07,879
Speaker 1: You know, the sixteen thirty Fund is a dark money group,

802
00:43:07,880 --> 00:43:11,120
Speaker 1: but even their executive director, Amy Kurtz, has written publicly

803
00:43:11,120 --> 00:43:13,200
Speaker 1: about this. In an op ed written after the twenty

804
00:43:13,200 --> 00:43:17,360
Speaker 1: twenty four election, she writes, we recognize that our campaign

805
00:43:17,360 --> 00:43:20,440
Speaker 1: finance system needs to be changed. Sixteen thirty Fund has

806
00:43:20,480 --> 00:43:23,120
Speaker 1: been on the record actively supporting a massive rewrite of

807
00:43:23,160 --> 00:43:26,759
Speaker 1: the rules to provide more transparency and disclosure in our elections.

808
00:43:27,440 --> 00:43:30,160
Speaker 1: As we prepare to welcome the one hundred and nineteenth Congress,

809
00:43:30,320 --> 00:43:33,040
Speaker 1: sixteen thirty Fund will continue to advocate for reform that

810
00:43:33,080 --> 00:43:36,480
Speaker 1: restores our faith in our campaign finance system. No matter

811
00:43:36,560 --> 00:43:39,520
Speaker 1: where you fall on the ideological spectrum, everybody reaps the

812
00:43:39,520 --> 00:43:44,520
Speaker 1: benefits of democracy and transparency. So thanks to citizens United.

813
00:43:45,000 --> 00:43:48,600
Speaker 1: Dark money groups are able to have an opaque, unchecked

814
00:43:48,640 --> 00:43:52,200
Speaker 1: grip on our democracy. All dark money groups are not

815
00:43:52,280 --> 00:43:55,839
Speaker 1: doing nefarious things I can see from looking them up

816
00:43:55,880 --> 00:43:58,000
Speaker 1: on open secrets, which is a site that tracks money

817
00:43:58,000 --> 00:44:01,680
Speaker 1: in politics that sixteen thirty funds a ton of work

818
00:44:01,719 --> 00:44:05,160
Speaker 1: that I think is great and I'm totally ideologically aligned with.

819
00:44:05,680 --> 00:44:08,640
Speaker 1: But maybe we still shouldn't have a democracy that can

820
00:44:08,680 --> 00:44:12,360
Speaker 1: be controlled financially by forces that the public does not

821
00:44:12,480 --> 00:44:14,640
Speaker 1: really get to know about, even if they're doing it

822
00:44:14,680 --> 00:44:17,359
Speaker 1: along ideological lines that I personally agree with.

823
00:44:18,160 --> 00:44:21,480
Speaker 2: Yes, it's a good point, but also we shouldn't have

824
00:44:21,480 --> 00:44:26,560
Speaker 2: a democracy helmed by a fascist, narcissistic, pervert weirdo.

825
00:44:27,680 --> 00:44:33,319
Speaker 1: But here we are, Yes, here we are. More after

826
00:44:33,360 --> 00:44:48,040
Speaker 1: a quick break, let's get right back into it. Well,

827
00:44:48,040 --> 00:44:51,240
Speaker 1: that really brings me to one of the pieces raised

828
00:44:51,280 --> 00:44:53,279
Speaker 1: in the piece that we have talked about quite a

829
00:44:53,320 --> 00:44:56,760
Speaker 1: bit on the show, which is how democrats can compete

830
00:44:56,800 --> 00:45:00,399
Speaker 1: with the vast shadowy creator and media ecosystem on the right.

831
00:45:00,719 --> 00:45:03,040
Speaker 1: We know that when you see a right wing or

832
00:45:03,200 --> 00:45:07,759
Speaker 1: men's rights or manosphere creator on social media, odds are

833
00:45:07,760 --> 00:45:10,719
Speaker 1: that they're being funded by some big, wealthy, shadowy right

834
00:45:10,760 --> 00:45:13,239
Speaker 1: wing organization, and you can bet your ass that they

835
00:45:13,239 --> 00:45:16,040
Speaker 1: are not always disclosing the kinds of financial relationships or

836
00:45:16,080 --> 00:45:18,480
Speaker 1: money that they might be being paid to say those

837
00:45:18,520 --> 00:45:21,919
Speaker 1: things online. So the ethical question the piece raises, which

838
00:45:21,960 --> 00:45:24,880
Speaker 1: I think is a worthwhile one, is should Dems be

839
00:45:25,000 --> 00:45:29,040
Speaker 1: replicating the same questionable playbooks that folks on the right

840
00:45:29,120 --> 00:45:33,120
Speaker 1: are expertly utilizing, because when it comes down to dominating

841
00:45:33,160 --> 00:45:36,280
Speaker 1: the media ecosystem, it seems like folks on the left

842
00:45:36,320 --> 00:45:38,920
Speaker 1: are bringing a tote bag of books to a gunfight.

843
00:45:39,640 --> 00:45:42,120
Speaker 1: There has been so much talk of meeting the Joe

844
00:45:42,200 --> 00:45:44,440
Speaker 1: Rogan of the left, and a lot of the reaction

845
00:45:44,560 --> 00:45:47,440
Speaker 1: to Lorenz's piece has been people saying, while if folks

846
00:45:47,440 --> 00:45:49,439
Speaker 1: on the right are doing it, folks on the left

847
00:45:49,440 --> 00:45:51,120
Speaker 1: need to catch up, and we can't really do that

848
00:45:51,160 --> 00:45:53,880
Speaker 1: if it's going to be criticized and demonized like this

849
00:45:54,040 --> 00:45:56,719
Speaker 1: when we do it. Honestly, I don't really have the

850
00:45:56,760 --> 00:46:00,440
Speaker 1: answer here. I care quite a lot about transparentarancy in

851
00:46:00,480 --> 00:46:04,080
Speaker 1: government and politics. I think that people should have information

852
00:46:04,160 --> 00:46:07,400
Speaker 1: about whose money and what money drives our government and

853
00:46:07,400 --> 00:46:10,239
Speaker 1: our politics and our democracy. And sure I don't want

854
00:46:10,320 --> 00:46:12,680
Speaker 1: Dems to be unable to make use of the same

855
00:46:12,760 --> 00:46:15,759
Speaker 1: tactics that the right is kicking their ass with. But

856
00:46:15,800 --> 00:46:18,520
Speaker 1: I also don't like the idea of a government dominated

857
00:46:18,520 --> 00:46:22,239
Speaker 1: by big money with no transparency. Essentially, it is one

858
00:46:22,280 --> 00:46:25,839
Speaker 1: thing to say dark money groups should not exist. It

859
00:46:25,920 --> 00:46:29,400
Speaker 1: is another to say dark money groups exist, but only

860
00:46:29,520 --> 00:46:32,720
Speaker 1: the right should use them to further their ideology. Because

861
00:46:32,760 --> 00:46:36,120
Speaker 1: the right is really using them to further their ideology.

862
00:46:36,640 --> 00:46:39,280
Speaker 2: They are really using them, and they are really using

863
00:46:39,280 --> 00:46:41,960
Speaker 2: them effectively. It gives me no joy to say it,

864
00:46:42,000 --> 00:46:44,239
Speaker 2: but they've kind of been crushing it with respect to

865
00:46:45,120 --> 00:46:48,080
Speaker 2: dominating the narrative and taking over our democracy lately.

866
00:46:48,360 --> 00:46:51,560
Speaker 1: Well. The article brings up the Tenet media scandal, which

867
00:46:52,360 --> 00:46:54,600
Speaker 1: I think that should have been one of the biggest

868
00:46:54,640 --> 00:46:57,560
Speaker 1: stories of the year, but somehow it wasn't. Where it

869
00:46:57,640 --> 00:47:01,160
Speaker 1: was revealed that right wing media personality like Tim Poole

870
00:47:01,239 --> 00:47:04,800
Speaker 1: were being paid by Russia to make content. The Wired

871
00:47:04,840 --> 00:47:08,439
Speaker 1: piece reads the structure of the program highlights the vast

872
00:47:08,480 --> 00:47:12,880
Speaker 1: differences between how Democrats and Republicans attempt to amass online influence.

873
00:47:13,120 --> 00:47:16,279
Speaker 1: Republicans have spent decades of building up a powerful independent

874
00:47:16,360 --> 00:47:19,759
Speaker 1: media ecosystem, though the right wing influencer world is far

875
00:47:19,800 --> 00:47:23,480
Speaker 1: from transparent. In September twenty twenty four, a federal indictment

876
00:47:23,480 --> 00:47:27,640
Speaker 1: alleged the Russian state sponsored network RT was covertly providing

877
00:47:27,719 --> 00:47:30,520
Speaker 1: millions in funding to Tenant Media, a company working with

878
00:47:30,600 --> 00:47:34,799
Speaker 1: major rightling influencers including Benny Johnson, Timpole, Dave Ruben, and

879
00:47:34,880 --> 00:47:35,720
Speaker 1: Lauren Southern.

880
00:47:36,280 --> 00:47:41,399
Speaker 2: That story is so unbelievable. I can't believe it wasn't

881
00:47:41,440 --> 00:47:44,040
Speaker 2: a bigger deal. If we lived in a sane country,

882
00:47:44,120 --> 00:47:47,560
Speaker 2: there would have been intense fallout from that. There would

883
00:47:47,560 --> 00:47:50,600
Speaker 2: have been outrage all around, people still be talking about

884
00:47:50,600 --> 00:47:54,280
Speaker 2: It would have been like a historical violation of national security.

885
00:47:54,800 --> 00:47:57,719
Speaker 2: New laws would have been created to outlaw that very

886
00:47:57,760 --> 00:48:01,040
Speaker 2: specific method for foreign countries to influence in US elections.

887
00:48:01,760 --> 00:48:05,239
Speaker 2: But we did nothing. Absolutely nothing changed. And that's the

888
00:48:05,400 --> 00:48:09,560
Speaker 2: media environment we live in, so, you know, And it's

889
00:48:09,600 --> 00:48:13,600
Speaker 2: been like this since the Supreme Court gutted McCain fine

890
00:48:13,600 --> 00:48:17,759
Speaker 2: Gold fifteen years ago. And so I also love transparency

891
00:48:17,760 --> 00:48:19,120
Speaker 2: and think we should have so more of it, But

892
00:48:19,160 --> 00:48:21,399
Speaker 2: it's just pretty hard for me to wrap my head

893
00:48:21,440 --> 00:48:25,359
Speaker 2: around the idea of the left unilaterally disarming while our

894
00:48:25,440 --> 00:48:28,280
Speaker 2: information ecosystem is just absolutely on fire.

895
00:48:28,840 --> 00:48:31,520
Speaker 1: Yes, and so I think that that question that you

896
00:48:31,680 --> 00:48:35,440
Speaker 1: just brought up is what we're sort of not grappling

897
00:48:35,480 --> 00:48:39,040
Speaker 1: with because we're talking about whether these individual creators are

898
00:48:39,080 --> 00:48:42,680
Speaker 1: good or bad, or shills or whatever, and not examining

899
00:48:42,760 --> 00:48:47,200
Speaker 1: the larger sort of dark money ecosystem at play here.

900
00:48:48,080 --> 00:48:51,920
Speaker 1: I really hate that the resounding fallout has been around

901
00:48:52,640 --> 00:48:56,080
Speaker 1: conversation around specific creators, to the point where the dark

902
00:48:56,160 --> 00:48:59,719
Speaker 1: money aspect of it and the information ecosystem aspect of

903
00:48:59,760 --> 00:49:02,680
Speaker 1: it really feels like an afterthought. And you know, it's

904
00:49:02,719 --> 00:49:06,560
Speaker 1: not like these creators wrote the Chorus contract themselves. In fact,

905
00:49:06,600 --> 00:49:09,440
Speaker 1: the piece includes text messages from a group chat where

906
00:49:09,480 --> 00:49:12,680
Speaker 1: the creators are pretty clearly not thrilled about a lot

907
00:49:12,719 --> 00:49:15,640
Speaker 1: of the contract. It honestly sounds to me like these

908
00:49:15,640 --> 00:49:18,960
Speaker 1: creators got kind of high pressured into signing a not

909
00:49:19,080 --> 00:49:22,120
Speaker 1: great contract, which is something I know a thing or

910
00:49:22,120 --> 00:49:24,400
Speaker 1: two about in my day. You know, one bit of

911
00:49:24,440 --> 00:49:27,680
Speaker 1: the article says that Chorus only gave the creators seven

912
00:49:27,760 --> 00:49:30,279
Speaker 1: days to sign the contract and that they were not

913
00:49:30,360 --> 00:49:32,799
Speaker 1: allowed to have their attorneys redline it, which is a

914
00:49:32,920 --> 00:49:36,840
Speaker 1: major major red flag for me personally. I would never

915
00:49:37,040 --> 00:49:40,440
Speaker 1: agree to an exploding offer. If you are offering me

916
00:49:40,520 --> 00:49:42,560
Speaker 1: something and you don't want me to take the time

917
00:49:42,600 --> 00:49:44,920
Speaker 1: I need to fully examine it and think about it.

918
00:49:45,239 --> 00:49:47,600
Speaker 1: That is not an offer that I want to sign. Personally.

919
00:49:48,120 --> 00:49:50,239
Speaker 1: I also would never agree to a contract where I

920
00:49:50,280 --> 00:49:52,799
Speaker 1: was specifically told I was not allowed to show it

921
00:49:52,800 --> 00:49:56,200
Speaker 1: to my attorney or redline it. You know, in this game,

922
00:49:56,400 --> 00:49:59,239
Speaker 1: everything is negotiable, and especially as somebody who doesn't make

923
00:49:59,280 --> 00:50:01,759
Speaker 1: a ton of money any one thing, I do the

924
00:50:01,800 --> 00:50:04,319
Speaker 1: ability to look at a contract and say, well, can

925
00:50:04,320 --> 00:50:06,600
Speaker 1: we change this? Can we change that? Like when you're

926
00:50:06,600 --> 00:50:08,560
Speaker 1: not making a ton of money, sometimes that's the only

927
00:50:08,640 --> 00:50:12,640
Speaker 1: real power or currency you have. And so personally it

928
00:50:12,680 --> 00:50:16,200
Speaker 1: does sound like to me Chorus is operating under some

929
00:50:16,239 --> 00:50:21,560
Speaker 1: shady contract dynamics. But now these creators are essentially being

930
00:50:21,640 --> 00:50:24,560
Speaker 1: held to account for the details of this contract that

931
00:50:24,640 --> 00:50:27,560
Speaker 1: they did not write. When I think the real entity

932
00:50:27,680 --> 00:50:29,880
Speaker 1: on trial here should be the people who work the

933
00:50:29,880 --> 00:50:33,279
Speaker 1: contract and our campaign finance system that allows for this

934
00:50:33,400 --> 00:50:36,000
Speaker 1: kind of thing to be legal. Like, don't hate the player,

935
00:50:36,080 --> 00:50:36,680
Speaker 1: hate the game.

936
00:50:37,680 --> 00:50:40,359
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's plenty to hate in the game of

937
00:50:41,120 --> 00:50:45,120
Speaker 2: American campaign finance. There's plenty to hate there. But you're right,

938
00:50:45,160 --> 00:50:48,480
Speaker 2: that doesn't really seem to be Like at the center

939
00:50:48,520 --> 00:50:52,239
Speaker 2: of the online controversy. The online controversy that has been

940
00:50:52,280 --> 00:50:57,200
Speaker 2: sustained for ten days now, which is longer than the

941
00:50:57,200 --> 00:51:00,799
Speaker 2: most news stories. It has seemed like pretty personal about

942
00:51:00,800 --> 00:51:04,840
Speaker 2: the specific creators, about Taylor Lrenz herself. And so it

943
00:51:04,920 --> 00:51:07,799
Speaker 2: is interesting that the Tenant media case where a bunch

944
00:51:07,800 --> 00:51:10,760
Speaker 2: of right wing influencers were caught taking money from Russia

945
00:51:10,840 --> 00:51:15,320
Speaker 2: to promote pro Russian points got comparatively so little attention

946
00:51:15,920 --> 00:51:20,560
Speaker 2: compared to this story about a handful of left leaning influencers.

947
00:51:20,800 --> 00:51:23,799
Speaker 1: Yes, and I would say that if I had any

948
00:51:23,920 --> 00:51:27,120
Speaker 1: kind of big point about this whole thing is that

949
00:51:27,200 --> 00:51:30,480
Speaker 1: I think that how we talk about this stuff online

950
00:51:30,680 --> 00:51:35,720
Speaker 1: is completely broken. First of all, that article, I'll just say,

951
00:51:35,840 --> 00:51:38,719
Speaker 1: in my opinion, it is no short read. I read it,

952
00:51:39,200 --> 00:51:40,960
Speaker 1: you read it. This is gonna be where you're like, oh,

953
00:51:41,000 --> 00:51:43,520
Speaker 1: I regularly read ten thousand word articles all the time.

954
00:51:43,560 --> 00:51:46,799
Speaker 1: It's for fun. It's like, would you categorize it as

955
00:51:46,800 --> 00:51:47,319
Speaker 1: a long read?

956
00:51:47,680 --> 00:51:49,920
Speaker 2: It was a long read. It was a long article.

957
00:51:51,680 --> 00:51:56,359
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say that it was like redundant or the like. Oh,

958
00:51:56,400 --> 00:51:59,400
Speaker 2: obviously they should have cut this, this and that, But

959
00:51:59,560 --> 00:52:03,000
Speaker 2: it was a long article. I just you know, kept

960
00:52:03,040 --> 00:52:05,359
Speaker 2: reading and reading, and there was more to read. There

961
00:52:05,440 --> 00:52:07,360
Speaker 2: is a lot to it, and so yeah, I do

962
00:52:07,440 --> 00:52:10,040
Speaker 2: wonder how many people have, like, actually sat down and

963
00:52:10,080 --> 00:52:10,879
Speaker 2: read the whole thing.

964
00:52:11,000 --> 00:52:12,880
Speaker 1: I would wager to guess that a lot of people

965
00:52:12,960 --> 00:52:16,080
Speaker 1: commenting on the article on social media have not actually

966
00:52:16,160 --> 00:52:18,440
Speaker 1: read the whole thing. They are going from what the

967
00:52:18,480 --> 00:52:22,319
Speaker 1: social media chatter has been about it online. Even after

968
00:52:22,360 --> 00:52:25,080
Speaker 1: listening to this episode, I do think that people should

969
00:52:25,120 --> 00:52:27,200
Speaker 1: read the article for themselves and make up their own

970
00:52:27,239 --> 00:52:29,759
Speaker 1: minds about it, because, you know, don't take my word

971
00:52:29,760 --> 00:52:32,680
Speaker 1: for it. Read the article yourself. But as somebody who

972
00:52:32,680 --> 00:52:35,880
Speaker 1: has read the article several times and knows a little

973
00:52:35,880 --> 00:52:38,400
Speaker 1: bit about some of the issues that it raises, I

974
00:52:38,440 --> 00:52:41,359
Speaker 1: can tell you the online chatter about the piece has

975
00:52:41,520 --> 00:52:46,040
Speaker 1: really misrepresented it, regardless of where you fall on the

976
00:52:46,080 --> 00:52:48,360
Speaker 1: spectrum of agreeing with the piece or not agreeing with

977
00:52:48,400 --> 00:52:52,040
Speaker 1: the piece. I saw people say, oh, this article explains

978
00:52:52,120 --> 00:52:55,960
Speaker 1: why all the progressive influencers and creators all started fawning

979
00:52:56,000 --> 00:52:59,080
Speaker 1: over Gavin Newsome at the same time. But the article

980
00:52:59,440 --> 00:53:02,160
Speaker 1: never said is that that creators were paid to post

981
00:53:02,160 --> 00:53:06,239
Speaker 1: specific messages or content online. I also saw people saying

982
00:53:06,239 --> 00:53:11,239
Speaker 1: the article had been corrected or retracted. Wired did add

983
00:53:11,280 --> 00:53:13,000
Speaker 1: an update to the end of the piece, but the

984
00:53:13,080 --> 00:53:16,759
Speaker 1: article hasn't been retracted or corrected. Like, those are specific

985
00:53:16,840 --> 00:53:19,280
Speaker 1: things that have specific meaning, and they have not happened

986
00:53:19,280 --> 00:53:23,359
Speaker 1: in this article. But here is my ultimate takeaway. I

987
00:53:23,400 --> 00:53:26,400
Speaker 1: think even though this piece is about a kind of

988
00:53:26,560 --> 00:53:31,239
Speaker 1: boring specific thing, you know, financial disclosures of political influencers,

989
00:53:31,719 --> 00:53:34,960
Speaker 1: in my opinion, it is written in a kind of

990
00:53:35,000 --> 00:53:38,600
Speaker 1: way that gives the impression of a larger, more nefarious

991
00:53:38,680 --> 00:53:41,839
Speaker 1: thing happening. You know, that dark money is being used

992
00:53:41,880 --> 00:53:45,440
Speaker 1: to control what big leftist influencers say online, and thus

993
00:53:45,719 --> 00:53:50,280
Speaker 1: our media ecosystem is being manipulated to push Democratic party messaging.

994
00:53:50,880 --> 00:53:54,640
Speaker 1: Now that very well may be true, but this article

995
00:53:54,880 --> 00:53:58,479
Speaker 1: does not paint that portrait at all in any specific way,

996
00:53:58,840 --> 00:54:01,200
Speaker 1: And I get why read it would be inclined to

997
00:54:01,280 --> 00:54:05,400
Speaker 1: ignore the less sexy but also important question of financial

998
00:54:05,440 --> 00:54:09,360
Speaker 1: disclosures that I think the piece is actually trying to raise. Like,

999
00:54:09,360 --> 00:54:11,239
Speaker 1: who would want to focus on the difference between five

1000
00:54:11,239 --> 00:54:12,839
Speaker 1: oh one C threes and five oh one C four

1001
00:54:12,920 --> 00:54:15,719
Speaker 1: tax designations when you could be speculating about whether or

1002
00:54:15,800 --> 00:54:18,400
Speaker 1: not this big influencer who was mean to you two

1003
00:54:18,480 --> 00:54:21,040
Speaker 1: years ago on social media is a paid shill, I

1004
00:54:21,120 --> 00:54:23,960
Speaker 1: get it. I think the article can be interpreted in

1005
00:54:24,000 --> 00:54:26,480
Speaker 1: such a way that invites readers to sort of read

1006
00:54:26,560 --> 00:54:30,000
Speaker 1: between the lines and speculate that any of the frustrations

1007
00:54:30,040 --> 00:54:32,120
Speaker 1: that they might have felt with the Democratic Party is

1008
00:54:32,160 --> 00:54:35,040
Speaker 1: explained by this article, and that is just not the case.

1009
00:54:35,600 --> 00:54:38,759
Speaker 1: I think that's why it has caused such a stir online.

1010
00:54:38,920 --> 00:54:41,439
Speaker 1: The article has given people carte blanche to project their

1011
00:54:41,480 --> 00:54:45,799
Speaker 1: broader frustration with Democrats onto these creators, treating them as

1012
00:54:45,920 --> 00:54:49,600
Speaker 1: paid party shills, even though that does not even seem

1013
00:54:49,600 --> 00:54:52,160
Speaker 1: to be the point the piece itself was making. So

1014
00:54:52,280 --> 00:54:56,200
Speaker 1: to me, this piece is not really about individual creators

1015
00:54:56,200 --> 00:54:58,480
Speaker 1: and whether they're good or bad, or shills or whatever.

1016
00:54:58,960 --> 00:55:01,560
Speaker 1: It is about the big system. We all live in

1017
00:55:01,960 --> 00:55:05,000
Speaker 1: a campaign finance system that lets billions of dollars move

1018
00:55:05,120 --> 00:55:09,360
Speaker 1: through politics without much transparency. Whether it's Chorus sixteen thirty

1019
00:55:09,360 --> 00:55:12,920
Speaker 1: fun or the right wing media machine, money in politics

1020
00:55:13,040 --> 00:55:16,520
Speaker 1: shapes the information we all see online, and until that changes,

1021
00:55:16,760 --> 00:55:18,880
Speaker 1: we're going to keep running into stories like this one.

1022
00:55:19,160 --> 00:55:22,160
Speaker 1: That's why I think the real question isn't which influencer

1023
00:55:22,239 --> 00:55:24,840
Speaker 1: got paid what, but how do we build a media

1024
00:55:24,880 --> 00:55:28,520
Speaker 1: and political ecosystem that people can actually trust. Who do

1025
00:55:28,600 --> 00:55:31,239
Speaker 1: we trust to shape our politics? And what happens when

1026
00:55:31,239 --> 00:55:35,120
Speaker 1: even good creators get pulled into systems designed to obscure

1027
00:55:35,200 --> 00:55:38,799
Speaker 1: power instead of revealing it. We can't get caught in

1028
00:55:38,840 --> 00:55:41,840
Speaker 1: the weeds of internet drama and miss the bigger story

1029
00:55:42,040 --> 00:55:45,520
Speaker 1: how money disclosed or not shapes the future we are

1030
00:55:45,560 --> 00:55:50,200
Speaker 1: all living in. So that is my attempt at summarizing

1031
00:55:50,400 --> 00:55:53,160
Speaker 1: what is going on with this article and some of

1032
00:55:53,200 --> 00:55:56,439
Speaker 1: the responses to it online. I would love to hear

1033
00:55:56,480 --> 00:55:58,719
Speaker 1: what folks think. This was not an easy one. I

1034
00:55:58,760 --> 00:56:01,479
Speaker 1: spent quite a lot of time doing having a big

1035
00:56:01,480 --> 00:56:03,960
Speaker 1: think and putting my thoughts together. So I want to

1036
00:56:03,960 --> 00:56:06,200
Speaker 1: hear what folks think about this article. If you read it,

1037
00:56:06,520 --> 00:56:09,359
Speaker 1: if you follow the reaction, what are your thoughts? Feel

1038
00:56:09,360 --> 00:56:11,600
Speaker 1: free to disagree with me, That's always welcome. I really

1039
00:56:11,600 --> 00:56:14,319
Speaker 1: want to know. How can folks get in touch producer Mike.

1040
00:56:14,800 --> 00:56:17,759
Speaker 2: People can send an email to share their thoughts to

1041
00:56:17,960 --> 00:56:22,239
Speaker 2: Hello at tangoty dot com. They can leave comments on Spotify,

1042
00:56:22,520 --> 00:56:25,160
Speaker 2: although for this one, I don't know. Maybe maybe an

1043
00:56:25,160 --> 00:56:29,080
Speaker 2: email might get a little tweaky for the casual listener

1044
00:56:29,200 --> 00:56:31,279
Speaker 2: in the future, who might be scrolling. But you know,

1045
00:56:31,320 --> 00:56:33,040
Speaker 2: if that's where you want to leave your comments, go ahead.

1046
00:56:33,200 --> 00:56:36,040
Speaker 1: I read all the Spotify comments personally. It's my favorite

1047
00:56:36,280 --> 00:56:39,279
Speaker 1: mechanism of commenting. Yeah, there's a lot of comments on

1048
00:56:39,320 --> 00:56:42,479
Speaker 1: there now. People seem to really enjoy commenting there, which

1049
00:56:42,520 --> 00:56:45,319
Speaker 1: makes sense. You're already there listening to the podcast anyway. Yeah.

1050
00:56:45,360 --> 00:56:48,320
Speaker 1: I hate email, and so if you send an email,

1051
00:56:48,880 --> 00:56:51,680
Speaker 1: it's like a crapshoot of whether I will read it

1052
00:56:51,760 --> 00:56:53,440
Speaker 1: or Mike will read it, or Mike will read it

1053
00:56:53,440 --> 00:56:56,920
Speaker 1: and forward it to me. I find the Spotify comments

1054
00:56:56,920 --> 00:57:00,360
Speaker 1: to be a much more pleasing space. I don't know why.

1055
00:57:01,160 --> 00:57:04,000
Speaker 2: Oh, I didn't know you felt this way, but yes,

1056
00:57:04,080 --> 00:57:06,840
Speaker 2: Spotify comments, all right, that's where it's at for you.

1057
00:57:08,320 --> 00:57:12,280
Speaker 2: And then you can also find Bridget on social She's

1058
00:57:12,440 --> 00:57:18,160
Speaker 2: on Instagram, Bridget Marie in DC. Same for TikTok, and

1059
00:57:18,920 --> 00:57:20,960
Speaker 2: you can find there are no girls on the Internet

1060
00:57:21,040 --> 00:57:23,840
Speaker 2: on YouTube, but you probably won't find a click from

1061
00:57:23,920 --> 00:57:24,760
Speaker 2: this episode.

1062
00:57:25,760 --> 00:57:28,720
Speaker 1: I love that. It's like, wait, are we now the

1063
00:57:28,840 --> 00:57:34,960
Speaker 1: Shadowy Organization, the Secret Shoes? I mean, this is this

1064
00:57:35,040 --> 00:57:38,120
Speaker 1: is this is my personal opinions for you. Me and

1065
00:57:38,760 --> 00:57:41,120
Speaker 1: are good friends listening? Keep it between you and me.

1066
00:57:42,040 --> 00:57:45,240
Speaker 2: Yeah, just the listeners. The video people will give them

1067
00:57:45,280 --> 00:57:47,440
Speaker 2: something else, but they don't need to be part of this.

1068
00:57:47,760 --> 00:57:51,160
Speaker 2: They don't want to hear about pass through organizations or

1069
00:57:51,160 --> 00:57:52,280
Speaker 2: fiscal sponsors.

1070
00:57:52,680 --> 00:57:57,000
Speaker 1: Yeah, they're notably disinterested in campaign finance. Well, thanks so

1071
00:57:57,080 --> 00:57:59,480
Speaker 1: much for listening, y'all. I will see you on the interhead.

1072
00:58:04,280 --> 00:58:06,320
Speaker 1: Got a story about an interesting thing in tech, or

1073
00:58:06,400 --> 00:58:08,240
Speaker 1: just want to say hi, You can reach us at

1074
00:58:08,240 --> 00:58:10,960
Speaker 1: Hello at tangody dot com. You can also find transcripts

1075
00:58:10,960 --> 00:58:13,440
Speaker 1: for today's episode at tengody dot com. There Are No

1076
00:58:13,520 --> 00:58:15,560
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet was created by me Bridget Tod.

1077
00:58:15,960 --> 00:58:19,400
Speaker 1: It's a production of iHeartRadio and Unbossed Creative. Jonathan Strickland

1078
00:58:19,440 --> 00:58:22,120
Speaker 1: is our executive producer. Tari Harrison is our producer and

1079
00:58:22,200 --> 00:58:25,959
Speaker 1: sound engineer. Michael Almado is our contributing producer. I'm your host,

1080
00:58:25,960 --> 00:58:28,760
Speaker 1: Bridget Todd. If you want to help us grow, rate

1081
00:58:28,800 --> 00:58:32,560
Speaker 1: and review us on Apple Podcasts. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,

1082
00:58:32,640 --> 00:58:34,960
Speaker 1: check out the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you

1083
00:58:35,040 --> 00:58:35,920
Speaker 1: get your podcasts.