BREAKING: Taylor Lorenz Dark Money Influencer Scandal – Truth or Defamation?

If you're watching this, you probably found your way here because of the Wired dark money article or because you're confused about what's really happening with influencers and political funding online. You might have seen creators being blasted on social media or heard wild accusations about secret money, NDAs, or hidden agendas. Maybe you're wondering what's the truth and are these exposees telling the whole story or is there more behind the headlines?

I am not a political influencer or activist. I am bipartisan when it comes to talking about truth in the media. I know something about how these stories get constructed because a few years ago, the same journalist who wrote that piece about me, Taylor Loren, also wrote the Wired article that is targeting content creators. And if you are on the right and you think it's hilarious that liberal content creators are being called out, I say pause for a second because if we side with lies, then we're no better than anybody, right? And if you're on the left and you're mad at these creators, I feel like it's important that you understand the full story. And if you're one of the creators on part of this chorus group that got talked about and you're wondering, am I gonna make it through this because I'm losing followers. I made it and I was like a nobody. I had no following and I made it through. So hopefully this piece will be some hope for those that get smeared by the likes of Taylor Loren or anybody else.

And I'm here early today because I have a business that I run full-time and I don't really have time to make content. I do it for fun. In this situation, I do it because I feel like I've been called to do it. A lot of people helped me out when Taylor destroyed my business in 2020. And so, I speak out when I see her lying and hurting people. What was the result of Taylor Lauren's targeted hit piece about me? My business was destroyed. I was dragged through the mud and I sued her. And a ton of people still have no idea what really happened. That's the power of these narratives in action. And I'll show you receipts that prove otherwise. Taylor told everybody that my case got thrown out. That's not the case at all. In fact, I was able to get some really amazing attorneys to file the lawsuit against Taylor. And it took four years. and a lot of statements that if you go through the lawsuit and look, they did get tossed by the judge in some scenarios, but it wasn't because Taylor didn't get those facts wrong. In fact, we had a bunch of screenshots and receipts and text messages and everything that we included. But the problem was that anytime that you talk about somebody that is just even a little bit public, that person in order to sue you has to prove malice. In other words, you have to prove with no without getting like any type of discovery in terms of like them handing over Taylor's text messages or anything before you get to see any of that. You have to prove that she knew she was lying when she wrote something. So, if she made a mistake and she claims that that's what I thought, so I wrote it, then it's really hard. But my case did get through and it get got past a motion to dismiss on one claim. And that's because I had an email where Taylor said, "I'm not saying that you did this." And then she posted in the article that I did that thing.

This video is not about me. It's about you and the questions that you might have right now. And I'm going to break everything down. What's really going on with these dark money programs? What's actually standard practice? And what's just media spin? the behind-the-scenes connections of how powerful agencies and journalists shape these stories and how the same tactics used to sneer me and shut down my side are used to shape the conversation around every controversial topic online. So, whatever brought you here, we're whether you're here for the creators, against them, or just skeptical about their reporting, I hope you guys stick around because I'm going to walk you guys through some of these receipts and the law and the patterns that no one else is really talking about because it's really hard to articulate some of this stuff. You guys, I think that if I could give a little advice to any content creator, political or not, if you're talk about like news and just any type of thing like the how the mainstream media talks about things, use the hard things to explain as an opportunity to be a better journalist because Taylor went on her private friend stories on TikTok and basically called everybody stupid. And just I think that if you are so smart that you're the only one that understands what you're talking about and you don't have the ability to explain it in a very simple manner where anybody could understand it, even a 12-year-old, then that's you problem. That's not the public's problem. and to go around and call people stupid because you're not explaining your point very well or maybe you're getting so frustrated because you're a narcissist or you know you just can't handle like explaining yourself. You can criticize other people but when they call you out you absolutely lose your mind. So let me show you just a little example of Taylor Loren's losing her mind. All right. I don't even know what other way to describe it other than I have to do a friendly video because I am just dying at how [ __ ] dumb people on this app are. Like shockingly dumb. And I know that sounds mean, but I don't even know what other way to describe it other than zero media literacy. It's like a level of boldness that I've never seen where I'm just like, you're literally just making things up and it's depressing. I'm an independent journalist now. am a huge believer in journalism because recently I've been feeling like oh maybe I like derailed my career by doing these mainstream media jobs like maybe I should have just in 2017 when I decided to be a full-time writer like just gone hard into social media and now that I see like what it's become I'm just like oh no thank god I like got the reporting experience that I did because these people are just liars like pathological liars and there's no media literacy and then the cult fandoms around them like not a single fact has been disproven and there's no correction. And so they're just like making up these conspiracy theories. Anyway, I've been talking too long, but I just don't even know what to do. Like it's so bizarre. Oh my gosh, the irony is just so thick, guys. I don't know how to describe it.

But we're talking about this article in Wired. I know that a lot of progressive creators have lost a bunch of followers because of this reporting that Taylor has done. And although I have a lot of friends that are conservative, I also have a lot of friends that are progressive. And here's the thing, I don't think anybody deserves to be lied about or smeared. It's not just lies that stand out to me about this article. It's also the way things are framed. And that is troubling because you can't really sue for opinion. We live in a country where if you live in America, you're allowed to have freedom of speech. And so defamation laws are really stringent. Let's just say. But let me explain what this whole thing is all about. So actually, let's read a little bit of the article. Where did it go? Here we go. A dark money group is secretly funding highprofile democratic influencers. So today I was at the hairdresser and I was like, "Hey, do you know what dark money is?" And she's, "No." And I said, "It sounds bad, doesn't it?" Dark money is actual a real term, which I didn't know when I was researching this whole story. I didn't know what it was. And it did sound bad. Dark money isn't a fringe conspiracy. It is a legal tool that both the left and the right use every single election cycle. But there's also money that's outlined for different things, not just to like back an election or whatever like that. Dark money groups spend millions to shape our elections without revealing where their money came from. I think that I was bringing it up last year during the election. Apparently the SEC the I don't even know what SEC SEC stands for but they are the ones that control the election spending. Is it the SEC? Yeah, I think election committee or something like that. But anyway, that's why like when you see the political ad, it says this was brought to you by XYZ. And basically there's no rules around having to disclose where your money like even if you're not part of a 501c4, which is what one of these dark money organizations that was in Taylor's piece. I guess it's really a nonprofit. It's a nonprofit that doesn't have to disclose who their funders are. And so anyway, both sides use it and whatever, but actually if you do a political ad on as like an influencer and you get paid literally by Trump himself or George Soros himself, you do not have to disclose that. But right now, it's just yes, federal, not SEC. You're right, FC like with a F as in Frank. So this is stuff they need to bring up to lawmakers because you don't have to disclose. You could literally get paid to do a political ad as an influencer and you don't have to. Now the FTC, they are the ones that oversee if you do a brand deal as an influencer where you get paid by a brand and you have to disclose. And even if you don't get paid, if you got something for free, that's also considered a brand deal and you have to disclose it.

Now, what is so funny is that if you follow my channel, you know that I just did an expose following the fact that this writer Taylor Lauren, who wrote the Wired article, she was caught basically lobbying almost for children to have phones at school. And she doesn't believe that people should get that she doesn't believe that kids should get their phones taken away. And so she's like a big advocate for this and she's reporting on it and she's saying, "Oh, all these people in media, I'm sorry, all these experts she says claim that it's helpful for them to have phones in schools." And then at the same time of doing that, she's posting all these ads on her Instagram and Tik Tok, which she's now taken down because she got some flak for it by other journalists. And so she's basically kind of like a lobbyist, right? You can really tell how somebody lies in my opinion when they get like really bent out of shape when somebody's like asking them direct questions. I expose that Taylor added the hashtag ad or whatever on Tik Tok because she said they were going to boost the posts. That means that the company put money behind Taylor Loren's post in order to amplify the posts to more people and more parents and more kids. You know what we don't need in this world is Taylor Lauren's telling parents how to parent their kids and becoming the online authority for children on the internet and on phones and in the digital space because seriously that is just like really bad for humanity. But let's just watch Taylor completely lose her mind when they push back on her just a little bit. That it's a gateway to age verification laws and certain things that do genuinely encroach on civil liberties and creativity and freedom and all of that. Before we go into that, I wanted to get you to address the related controversy that you're inside. Now, you've been going back and forth with a couple people on Twitter, including uh Rachel Cohen Booth, who flagged Maybe we can put up what do we decided to say that I was paid by a phone company. I am not paid by a phone company. Never have been paid by a phone company. Uh I don't know what that really bothered me. You did. You did put up the tag ped sponsor. Let's So she's literally gaslighting them, you guys, because she did put paid ad. We have the receipts. Look, they put the receipts on there. That's why I'm proud to partner with the Bark phone. They put it up on screen and she's No, that's not true. What do you mean, babe? We got you. Well, let's put out her in their case and then have you respond to it. Their case is that so you did a Tik Tok for that you that about bark which is a you can tell us child safety software. Yeah. In the post it said hashtag ad and it had a link that had a long code at the end of it and you said tracking code. Tracking code. You said you're doing this in partnership with Barks. The screenshot we had right there did have the tag paid partnership which I think I know guys. Oh my god. derailing thing. The way that I understand, oh my god, I don't want to talk about this because you guys got me. It's like she's just so pissed that she got caught. I don't want to talk about this, guys. Why are we talking about my story? Because we got you like literally being like a lobbyist right now. Talk about not disclosing where you get your money. It doesn't matter. Okay, watch her admit that she was doing an ad that the company puts money behind, which is literally giving her more views and it's payment in kind, aka the company is using her profile to advertise the Bark phone to kids and parents on Tik Tok. People that don't use Tik Tok, they don't understand this. There's only one way to tag promotional content. So, you click There's only one way to tag promotional content. She said, "This isn't an ad. It's promotional content." It's the same thing, bestie. Click promotional content on Tik Tok. It comes up as paid. And that just means that the brand can put money behind. It doesn't mean that you got money. I've been extra extra careful where even things that I'm not paid for, I'll mark it as promotional because I am making something promotional. Hey, I really like this product. But me making a Wait, this is the irony of this, you guys. Okay, let's just I'm going to be bigger for a sec. The irony of Taylor Loren's saying, "I used this product and I liked it." Is that this program, this product is literally, it's literally a way to control what your kids see on their phone? So, was she restricting herself from using Tik Tok? Was she grounding herself? She's grounded now. like how did she she keeps saying I used this and I liked it and she doesn't have kids. I don't have kids either. But the point is I'm not over here being like yeah I used this product. Like you could that would be like me like reviewing a pacifier and being like I used this product and I liked it. What is this argument? How can anybody with a brain literally believe anything she says? like free promotion for child safety software that I use that by the way is completely is unrelated and is actually on the same side as you guys on these bands is just so absurd and ridiculous and I think it just same side as you guys. So that's now she's just pandering to conservatives shows the attempt that people will go to to smear and attempt to discredit anybody that even raises issues with this. I have been reporting. Oh, right, Taylor. They're just going after you because you believe phones should be in schools. No, they're going after you, babe, because you claim to be a serious journalist, but yet you're basically lobbying. you are using your big platform, which she has her own magazine that she writes for now, because she was fired from the Washington Post because she called Joe Biden a war criminal. But that's not why she got fired. I'm pretty sure she got fired because she posted that on her Instagram story and then when she was asked about it or whatever by her editor, she lied. And the funniest thing about her getting fired from the Washington Post is that the people that outed her were part of her close friends. Like she marked the story so only her close friends could see it and somebody on her close friends is not really like her very much. You know what I mean? But yeah, it's just funny how she gets so bent out of shape on this topic for eight years. Like I've been writing about all of these laws, the broader political effort. I've been talking about people like Jonathan Height who are going into these school districts and specifically lobbying for these laws, the interest groups around that. This is and she's basically lobbyist too. Something that I've covered for a long time and I'm actually one who's actually paying me is this reporters and residence program that I'm in right now where I got into the program talking about covering these laws. That's what I am being paid for is basically this fellowship program. So don't forget about that guys. This is going to be important because remember that she said she's getting paid by a fellowship and this is the fellowship that she's part of. It's called the Omidr network reporters and residents program. Taylor Loren is a technology journalist and content creator with over half a million followers, excuse me, on Tik Tok and nearly 150 whatever subscribers on YouTube. She is the founder of User Magazine, a tech and online culture newsletter and host of the weekly tech podcast power user. She is formerly technology comist at the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Atlantic, and Business Insider. She's written for New York Magazine, Rolling Stone, and the Hollywood Reporter. So, here's why it's really important to know where she's worked because that's a lot of places where she has allies, right? In fact, when she came against me, it was really hard for me to get anybody to cover my story because so many people in journalism or whatever that that reported on tech were like her friends. So, she was like a gatekeeper to anybody that could possibly tell the other side of the story. So, she's she has a lot of allies. So, Taylor gets fired and then she has to go on her own and she's acted like she was excited about it. But here's the funny part. In 2020, was it 2020? 2021. 2021, when Taylor was still really popular, she got offered a deal with Substack. So, she smeared me in 2020. 2021, she still had some power. She still was like a lead tech person. And so, Jason Calcanis had her on his show. Now, don't forget the Wired article is about basically how progressive content creators are part of this cohort thing which basically teaches them how to make thumbnails, how to do YouTube better, how to be the left-wing Joe Rogan is like what the incubator, in my opinion, is set up to do. But Taylor totally destroys like all these bunch of the creators that she named in her article are getting unfollowed or getting harassed. And it doesn't seem like there's a couple big ones like David Pacman. And by the way, like I want to be I want to make a distinction here between what Glenn Greenwald is doing and some other people are doing and what I'm doing. I disagree with a lot of what David Pacman says. I can empathize by the fact that him and others have been smeared by Taylor by being linked in this way in this article where we'll go through it. But they didn't really do anything wrong. They didn't do anything illegal. They didn't even do anything shady in my opinion. But I really feel for the influencers that are like the little guys that are getting destroyed over this. And so if another journalist was making up stories about Taylor Loren's, I would speak out in her support as well. If I found out somebody was saying something that was like totally a lie about her, I would speak up. Like I would probably speak up. No, I would because that's what I believe in. That's like my whole thing. That's why I even go on the internet to talk about this stuff. Otherwise, I would just be like making content about social media stuff because that's my day job is. And that's a good I'll plug creator genius.com right now. But here's what I want to talk about. Taylor Loren is smearing content creators that are essentially learning how to do the ropes and be independent. And they're getting a little help from Chorus, which is paying up to from $250 a month to $8,000 a month. And I'm guessing that the people that are taking $250, they're just happy to be there. They're just glad that somebody is they're just glad that somebody is like teaching them this stuff so that they can maybe go become content creators. Listen to what Taylor Loren said in 2021 when Jason Calcanis asks her why didn't she take the deal. Why didn't she take the deal from Substack that was going to offer her 300 grand? $300,000. And the funny thing is she didn't take that deal, but now she's on her own at Substack. can't get rid of the whack-a-ole for sure. Yeah. I would say though like exposing like it's useful to know, right? As a company, you want to know who's blocking and who's getting a lot of blocks that that should inform maybe their distribution in the hallway or something. But that's that data that you want to expose to the users because it's a default negative thing. So let's talk about Substack for a second because it relates to Clubhouse. There is a explicit strategy at Andre and Horowits to take on mainstream media. You have been targeted specifically by them as has the New York Times. They have a lot of gripes. But putting that aside, what do you think about this giving writers ginormous advances to move to Substack or to regularly contribute content and basically buying the rights to some of the bigger names? Do you think this is a vindictive strategy? What do you hear on the back channel from other journalists? Do they feel like this is great for them because they can double their or triple their salary and become independent and set their own schedule or do they think it's nefarious that Andre is using their billions of dollars to fund companies to then gut media companies and compete with them? So, I can't speak for other journalists, but I'll share my thoughts. I think that it's a very good thing. If you think about the last year, right, like 16,000 reporters have lost their job recently. That is a huge amount of talent and writing and people and then not to mention all of the people that never had reporting jobs, right? That are fascinating, interesting people and want to build new their own newsletters. I I think it's great and I think that Substack offering these advances upfront is a great way to basically help these people have a little bit of security where they can make the leap to go full-time. I think if media companies are losing people to Substack, that's on the media companies. Like media companies are losing those people's substack because they're not providing a good financial reward for staying there. Right? If you can make 10 times more money on substack, why wouldn't you do that? That's a positive thing. That should encourage media companies to value top writers more, pay them more, give them more of a split if they do an in-house newsletter, cut them in on the deal. We saw this with podcasts where a lot of journalists were starting their own podcast and so media companies New York Times did. You had Wesley and Jana on Still Processing, which I love that podcast because for me that's just leaving is for financial independence and because of all of this stuff that you get with that. It's the freedom. It's not about the format as much. And I think I I think that's a good I think what Substack has done in terms of giving people a platform. It is a like it's competition, right? So you're a capitalist, I believe, or are you socialist? Where do you stand to talk about politics? Not allowed to talk about politics. Whoa. Whoa. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I never saw that. We did find a smoking gun, you guys. Because Taylor, didn't she just say in that other thing, I've been talking about politics for 7 years. Wait, wait. I guess not this not like a complete smoking gun, but that's funny. So, when she was at the New York Times, she actually wasn't allowed to talk about politics. It's an interesting little cut. I think I'm gonna clip that because she thinks she's like the authority on politics today and this was only like a couple years ago. Interesting. I think that the thing that's funny with these media organizations is I think that they keep taking this lesson of oh people are leaving. So you're a capitalist I believe or you're socialist. Where do you stand on the spectrum? You talk about politics. That's a weird thing as a talk about like you mentioned freedom. You're not allowed to talk on this podcast about your politics when fairly obvious to me from your Twitter what your politics are. Um, you're certainly left. Jason, who's to say? I think I mean, you say on your Twitter would never say. Okay, this is what I wanted to show you because it's very hypocritical that Taylor Loren is smearing tiny content creators that are just trying to have their business. And this is why she says she didn't go to Substack. My take on it. Speaking of money, you're well paid and probably not as well paid as people think. I always tell people like journalist your position of media for the money. Your position pays 100 to 150 a year which is very well paid but there was a report substack offered you 300,000. Putting aside whether you want to confirm that or not did you consider it because you were talking before about hey it's a free market and it's a lot of freedom and let's face it you built up quite an audience. I think you would thrive. Let me share my thinking on that. I've gotten a lot of offers um over the years for for difference and especially to go independent. I tried to launch a whole media company in 2015 on my own. Most of my career has been spent on the business side and in strategy and I think having that experience has made me like not I mean I was full-time. I I started my own consulting company for a year and a half and I I wouldn't do it again. So, let me just break down what she said is that she had a media company and a consulting company and it didn't go very well because she ended up in journalism where she gets a salary and when she writes stories she gets a budget in order to pay for travel or any type of research and then she gets to have the lawyers from AXYZ media company behind her when she gets in hot water. It's interesting that she goes after entrepreneurs or anybody that's bootstrapping or she went after me and dozens of other entrepreneurs. Yeah. Entrepreneurial women. And then listen to what she says. Only because I sacrificed a lot to become a writer. And I know I like emotionally accepted that I'm going to make a significant amount less than I would in other things because I feel like it's what I love to do and I think long term it'll pay off. I guess my feeling with going independent is covering the creator economy and having a lot of friends who are YouTubers, independent media people. It's so much work. It's so much work. And my job now, it's work, but it's not like running your own business work. Bingo. Taylor Loren does not have it in her to be an entrepreneur. She doesn't have it in her to get hit by people like Taylor Loren's in the media and have to be in the trenches and eat dirt and get back up every single time. Not like staring at the ceiling at 3:00 a.m. work wondering if you're going to make payroll. Exactly. You file and you can then go have a drink or go do Pilates or Netflix and chill or whatever you want to do without grinding your teeth to your gums. You have the security. You have the security. I don't know if I'm entrepreneurial entrepreneurial enough. So, she has to go and attack people that are and that is so gross to me. But I respect everyone that does it. Like I just I just want to tear them down and make sure they can't make money. You're definitely learning on the job. That's for sure. To be charitable. Yeah. The value did it a couple of times. Yeah. I value that experience. Like I don't know that I would get the same stuff as it So, but okay. So, under what circumstance would you would is it just a matter of they didn't make you a big enough offer or is it just a matter of you would have to get fired from every other place that Harit's connection is just too toxic for you? No, it's more Look, when you think about this, the offers, right? It's only for a year. So, they're giving you upfront money for a year. Even if that's hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'm a reporter, so I'm a news reporter. I travel a lot. There's a lot of reporting costs, especially legal. Everyone wants to sue everyone and what I cover. So, I feel like this this aged like aged like milk because a lot of people want to sue Taylor. How we're going to go through the article. I don't know if they'll be successful, but me ultimately I have to pay an outside editor covering all of my own travel expenses, reporting expenses, like taxes, having it. It's just a lot that ends up not being like totally worth it, especially because it's only for a year. Then you're on your own. and I've been on my own. I've had to chase and I haven't done very well with it. So, I want to go after other people that that do. That's just so sick people down. But I mean, what is Matthew? What's his last name? His Yeah, his terms came out and man, but he I know he the thing is like people on Twitter, I think my writing is much more like reporting than it is like opinion. Like somebody like Charlie Warswell, of course, it makes sense for him to do that. No, her [ __ ] is opinion. Giving a break for me. I love breaking news. Like I love getting scoops. I love I love that part of it. And so I Yeah, I think if I was going to leave, like if I was like, "Look, I'm just going to sell out. I'm just going to do whatever makes me the most money." I would go back to working in advertising. Did you enjoy that advertising? I did. I like the creativity of it. Working on brand stuff is never as interesting as reporting. I love journalism and I This beat is a beat. An initiative aimed at boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to $8,000 a month to push the party line. By the way, that is an opinion, just FYI. It makes it sound like they have specific talking points that they have to do, it's just an opinion. It's not a fact. So, anybody saying that where they're going to sue Taylor over that line, she's allowed to say that in that way. So, it sounds negative. All they have to do is keep it a secret because they had an NDA. Like anybody would have if you had if you somebody was paying you eight grand a month for something, you would have to have a contract. And almost in every single contract in the world, there's a non-disclosure clause. And the reason why, but she uses these like specific words. That's what she did in the article about me for fun, even though gives me PTSD. She had a very specific reason for writing this article this way. Trying to make it big online getting signed isn't everything because United Talent Agency, which I didn't know at the time, but they were my direct competitors, but they were like behemoths. It was like David and Goliath. Those guys were huge. And I had signed influencers to contracts. And so that made it very hard for them to it made it hard for them to steal my clients because I had them under contract. So I could sue them for tortuous interference if they stole the clients. So if they can't take the clients by stealing them, then just bankrupt my company and then they could have them. Back to this article. Okay, so here's how she sets it up. She is part of a group or she's she gets leaked messages from a group chat and this is my understanding. Basically a bunch of these influencers, they were asked to be part of this program and they when they started talking about maybe joining they all got part of this group chat and were like talking about the deal together. Now this is really dangerous because influencers are how do we say it inherently want to be front and center right? So, if you are a content creator and you hear that one person got offered more money than you, somebody's contract was different than yours, it just breeds this air of jealousy. Somebody's going to be mad that they didn't get the deal and other people got a better deal and all this kind of stuff. So, she starts the article by saying, "In a private group chat in June, dozens of Democratic political influencers discussed whether to take advantage of an enticing opportunity They were being offered $8,000 per month. Later, she says that some were not. But anyway, she's saying that here that it's that they were all offered $8,000. They were being offered $8,000 per month to take part in a secretive program. Now, she can say secretive because they signed an NDA, but okay. Aimed at bolstering democratic messaging on the internet. But the contract sent to them from Chorus, the nonprofit arm of a liberal influencer marketing platform, came with some strings. What do you mean? There's always going to be strings attached if you're accepting $8,000. What does she expect that they're just going to give away money and they don't the people don't have to do anything? That's just weird way of framing it. It could just say they had to sign a contract because they're going to get paid and there were things that they had to do. But she frames it as it came with some strings. Okay, fine. Another piece of opinion. So, good luck suing for that. The nonprofit arm of a liberal influencer marketing platform came with some strings. Among other issues, it mandated extensive secrecy about disclosing their payments. Again, I think she's pointing to standard NDA language, but like my contracts with my influencers, they weren't allowed to go around and talk about what our deal was because that was work product. That was my that was stuff that we came up with. I don't think that like the anybody on any type of production or even like the people on the Bachelor, there's rules. You're being asked to be part of something. This is like just standard among other issues. But so among other issues that Taylor had with the agreement, it mandated that they couldn't break their NDAs. Okay. And had restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce. Now, that is really sneaky to say that because they didn't actually have restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce. I think the contract likely, which she doesn't link here, probably said some things like there's probably some guard rails around things that they could do just like in my case for example, I had contracts with the influencers that I managed. It's if you live in the house and you go on a bigoted rage on the internet, I should have the right to kick you out of said house. You feel me? So probably there's things and guard rails in this contract so that somebody couldn't go off the rails and then be associated with said contract or said company. Okay. So she says that she doesn't point to the exact part of the contract. So again, restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce. You could frame it that way and really the article could just be like, "Yeah, they couldn't go on racist rants and that would be called a restriction." In the group chat, influencers debated the details. Should we send a joint email with all of our email addresses or are we just going to send things separately and hope that they change everything for everyone? Lorenzo, a nonbinary creator in Columbus, Ohio with over 8,800 884. Wow, guys. 800K. Almost 900k Tik Tok followers or almost a million. Here's how I can tell in the story who Taylor likes and who she doesn't like. I have a hunch that this Desesso Lorenzo person was one of Taylor's sources because she links back to his page. Let's click on it. Yeah. So, she links to this person's page. Ask the group. Okay. Lorenzo Nonbar, should we are we just going to send things separately? Some joked about collective bargaining. Any newsy f any newsies fans here? Eliza Orland, a public defender and reality TV star known for her appearances on Survivor posted in the group or a union just by saying so. How about that? Why didn't she link to Eliza Orland? Need to write these down. I'm going to I'm going to write down all the ones she didn't link so we can keep track. Alrighty. Public defender and reality star known for her appearance. Okay. Public defender. So that means she's an attorney, right? The influencers in the chat collectively had at least 13 million followers across social platforms. They represented some of the most well-known voices online posting in support of Democrats and their key to whether the party moves next, but ultimately the group didn't make much progress. Influencers in in the chat posting in support of networks and their key okay but ultimately the group didn't make much progress as to what as to like their own social media. Reading through this revi or just like talking to chorus. Okay. I don't know. Reading through this revised chorus contract like you win some you lose some. A reproductive justice influencer named Pari who posts under the handle. Ah, she likes Pari cuz she linked to Pari. How much you guys want to bet that Pari and this other guy spoke to Lauren? You know what I mean? I'm going to write this. I'm just going to take a note of who she linked out to. Why does it matter? Because anybody that reads this article and wired can then go find these people. So it's like a free plug, right? So reading through this revised course contract. Okay, so this is a non lawyer who's reading through the agreement, but everybody can have their opinion about a contract. It's not an attorney that's reading it. I also think that there's at least four other things that should change, but the vibe I got from their email was that there would be minimal, if any, changes. That's the vibe. Till Lorenz is writing a whole ass piece on vibes, guys. That's interesting. And then she says, Lorenzo, Orleans, and Pari did not reply to requests for comment. I wonder if that was a lie or if they really didn't. Cuz what if they spoke to her on background and then she's do you want me to include you and then they were like no just say that you reached out. I don't know if that's like legal if Wired could do that but why didn't she link the other creator? You know what I mean? Like why did she I don't know. Just questions I have of good questions. All right. I don't feel strongly about pushing to be honest said Aaron Parnes who she did not link. She did not link him. Write that down. The Jenzie news influencer has been called the Jenzie Walter Kronhite. She did link to Rolling Stone who she's associated with, of course, and has been lauded in legacy media outlets. And she linked to the cut. Let's see if Taylor Loren works with the cut. Let's just see. I can't find it. But interesting. She linked to the cut and to Rolling Stone, which I know she writes for Rolling Stone. Alrighty posted. So, I do feel strongly about I don't feel strongly about pushing to be honest. Yeah, cuz there's no really re I mean, I don't have the contract yet, but they aren't going to modify it anymore. Seems like a take it or leave it. Paris declined to comment. Seems so they're all basically they're not even saying, "Hey guys, we're told they won't even redline the contract." They're just like literally I don't know how old they are, but if they're in their like young 20s, it's like they don't freaking know. They're like looking at a contract that looks scary to them. It's get an why don't we get an attorney to weigh in? Maybe their attorneys looked at it and was like, "Hey, it's fine." And we also don't know anything else that was in that group chat. I believe we are in stage five acceptance. Par responded. Creators began signing on to the deal. For years, Democrats have struggled to work with so far no smoking gun. For years, Democrats has struggled to work with influencers. In 2024, President Joe Biden's White House snubbed several prominent content creators after they lightly criticized the administration over policies on climate change. Taylor got fired for that thing about Biden for lying. Coaza, and the Tik Tok ban. What? Who got in trouble for talking about the Tik Tok ban? Nobody. Taylor, come on. Give me a freaking break. The Tik Tok ban. No, nobody got I would like to see who got in trouble for that. content creators who challenge Kla Harris. Including Hassan [ __ ] what is her like love for Hassan [ __ ] I really would love to know. Including Hassan [ __ ] a well-known influencer on the left. We're similarly unwelcome at campaign events. After the Democrats lost in November, they faced a reckoning. It was clear that the party had failed to successfully navigate the MU media landscape. While Republicans spent decades, let's look at these links. Okay. Hassan [ __ ] She links to another Wired story in 2024. President Joe's BY House. She links to a Washington Post story that, let me guess, she wrote. Yep. Wired story about Hassan and then Wired story about the new media landscape. Wired story about Republicans. They tried to keep it within their own realm. It makes sense because they're we're on wwired. After the Democrats lost in November, they faced a reckoning. maximizing controversy to drive attention and maintaining tight relationships with creators despite their small disagreements with Trump. And Democrats have largely relied on outdated strategies and traditional media to get their messages out. Now, Democrats hope that the secret chorus creator incubator program funded by a powerful liberal dark money group called the 1630 fund might tip the scales. The program kicked off last month and creators involved were told by chorus that over 90 influencers were said to take part. creators told Wired that the contract stipulated that they'd be kicked out and essentially cut off financially if they even so much as acknowledged that they were a part of the program. So later in this article, she says that they have the contract. They have it. So why not just say in the contract it says that creators will be kicked out and cut out financially? No, she doesn't do that. Instead, she says, "Creators told Wired. Creators told Taylor that they'd be kicked out and essentially cut off financially." That is how you keep it opinion. No, you can't sue over that. I know. It's frustrating. It's frustrating if you're here because you want them to be sued. It's kind of hard. Has Epstein a pillar per biker. I see Chiby's a fan. All right. Some creators also raise concerns about a slew of restrictive clauses in the contract. Here's the thing, guys. Anytime you have a contract that you're going to sign, hopefully if you have any wherewithal with business or you have an attorney, you're going to negotiate that contract. So, anybody that's ever negotiated a contract, you could say there was some restrictive clauses that raising concerns about. You get what I'm saying? You could frame it like that. She didn't say like the lawyers at Chorus said absolutely no. She says like some people were in a group chat and they're like what do you think? Do you think they're they would let us change it? It's like she's like asking about their like business acumen. You think we could negotiate this or not? Sometimes when you don't feel like you're in a position of negotiating like you got to take the deal if you want it. But that's not like somebody being oppressive over you. That's just hey here's our deal. Do you want it or do you not want it? Because we're all adults. We're all We're not six-year-olds using Bark phones. All right. Influencers included in communication about the program and in some cases an onboarding session for those receiving payments for the 1630 fund include Olivia Giuliana, the centrist Gen Z influencer who spoke at the 2024 National Convention, Lauren Puretra, gonna assume she doesn't like her either, a former Playboy executive turned political influencer who hosts a podcast for Occupy Democrats. Barrett Adair, content creator who runs an American doll themed pro DNC meme account. God dang, she's going over after American Doll meme accounts. Like, for [ __ ] sake, leave them alone. Let them make their money. Thank you. You're the best. Thanks for hanging out, you guys. Taylor and Han use

The program on her phone. She's probably, "She's Somebody on my TikTok was like, 'Congrats to the person that's physically restraining Taylor from commenting on your posts about her cuz I've been making some fun TikToks about her.'" A cond. And by the way, that she got nobody to talk to me is cuz I went on Tucker Carlson to tell my story about my lawsuit. So, she just told everybody I was a crazy right-wing influencer. Yeah, I have a lot of friends on the right, but it doesn't make me a faright, whatever. God dang, she's got a lot of problems with a lot of these people. She's not linking. Don't worry, Taylor. I'll be calling all these people pretty soon. An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

That is Ariel Fedor, an educator creator with 1.4 million followers on TikTok. Sander Jennings, a former TLC reality star and el older brother too. Jazz Jennings, a former TLC star and older brother. Oh, yeah. David Pacman. Now, this guy's got like a lot of followers. I wonder why he was even doing the program. Like, you only get paid eight grand. I reached out to somebody that knows him, though, and I was like, "Hey, I'll I'll talk to him." A lot of these people probably don't talk to me because I'm on Tucker and they think I'm a crazy right-winger. So, basically, nobody wanted to comment because, by the way, these people have an NDA. So, if they comment, they're breaching their contract that they got paid for. So, they're between a rock and a hard place, right? And this was she did the same thing to me. She came to me like 24 hours before the story broke and then she's like, "Get us send us all your contracts." But I had contracts with like big brands and the brand and my lawyer was like, "You can't disclose what's in those contracts with the brands or you could get sued by the brands." And I'm like, "I don't want a lawsuit with Target or XYZ brand."

So, according to copies of the contract, okay, so now she says that they had the contract. According to the copies of the contract re reviewed by Wired that creator signed, the influencers are not allowed to disclose their relationship with Chorus or the 1630 fund or functionally that they're being paid at all. I will give Taylor this. I think that she was the only one that broke that Chorus was actually sponsored by the 1630 fund. That's the only piece of this that's true. The one thing that I think Taylor did break in the story was that the 1630 fund was backing Chorus, a nonprofit that does not have to disclose who its funders are that leans liberal was basically backing this or is backing this or so she's saying the influencers are not allowed to disclose their relationship with Chorus or the 1630 fund or functionally that they're being paid at all. Okay, but she doesn't show us the contract. It could just be a standard NDA, right? What how does it help them if it's not illegal to not say that they're paid? So, I guess what would the point be? I don't know. I guess I do understand people wanting to know ethically, but that's a different question because Taylor Loren breaks a lot of ethics rules and she did in my situation. She did in the Bark situation. So, it's like rules for thee but not for me. I'm not allowed to talk about politics when I'm at the New York Times. I can't believe that was a funny clip. Soros could literally pay an influencer to make a post and they don't have to disclose it. That's not really the content creator's fault. That is to be brought up with lawmakers. And I do think that they should ethically and legally have to disclose. But if the FTC requires Kim Kardashian, I think a bunch of people were sued over not sharing things like that. But the politics can do it. That's a little weird. So that's the issue that should have gotten brought up, not attacking these like little content creators that I also think it's just like political content creators. Like you're not going to get many brand deals. It's hard to survive on the right. You got to have like ranchers. They did good or buy gold on the left. I don't know what they have.

They were told that Chorus appreciated their work that they were doing online and asked if they'd be interested in being part of this first core cohort that was running to help expand their reach and impact. But following the initial outreach, many creators expressed concern about some stipulations. Oh, here we go. Here comes the infighting. I didn't get offered 8,000. I only got offered 2,000. F that guy. So, if they decide not to join, then they're going to smear them. Shmear them. You know what I mean? It's not just not the first time this happens. But following the initial outreach, many creators expressed concern about some stipulations. Okay, that's fine. It's not a smoking gun. Some people didn't like the contract. Some people don't like cottage cheese. You're allowed to have an opinion there, but doesn't mean anything is nefarious with the contract.

According to copies of the contract viewed by Wired, creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through Chorus. So that's also an interesting framing because here okay I had a content creator house and creator houses and they weren't political but there was a stipulation in the production contract that said you must funnel any PR opportunities and things that you're going on with the company mainly because we want to be the ones that book you. Now the funny thing is if you are represented by a talent agency like Taylor Lauren is like United Talent Agency you have to funnel all your deals through UTA. That's like pretty standard. So if this company is acting as like mentors to these people of course they're going to want to have some oversight to help the creators. That's what I'm guessing. You could look at it. There could be a nefarious reason why you have to funnel it through Chorus. Or there could be a perfectly logical reason like, hey, we want to help them out. We want to make sure that they get media trained. We want to help them any way we can cuz we're their support system. This is like a grant type of thing is what I'm seeing here. So, still not really nefarious. Okay. You got to let us know when you're making so that we can also promote it. We could be like one of our Chorus people. Like I just don't see how that's nefarious at all. But when you're reading through it, oh damn, they had to get approval for everything. They couldn't even breathe without having Chorus approve it. God damn.

Creators also have to loop in Chorus in on any independently organized engagements with government officials or political leaders. Independently organized. So a big part of the Wired article and a lot of the online outrage is over these supposed restrictive NDAs and contract clauses. And let's be totally clear about what's in these contracts and why it's in there. If you're getting paid by a nonprofit like the 1630 fund, specifically a 501c4, the contract isn't just them trying to control you. It's them following the law. If a creator even accidentally uses that money to directly support or oppose a political candidate without being preapproved, the entire fund could be in violation of Ir. That's right. Not just the creator, but the fund itself could lose its nonprofit status, which would be very bad. They could face fines or get dragged into a federal investigation. So, because it's funded by a nonprofit, of course, they have to disclose. So, when a contract says you cannot use these resources to book or attack a specific candidate unless you get written authorization, that's not a hidden agenda at all. It's a legal requirement. If they break that rule, it's not just a PR nightmare. The whole organization could get shut down for breaching federal law. Makes sense why it's in there now, doesn't it? This is standard for every political non nonprofit on the left or on the right. So imagine an organization gives a grant and their influencer spends it making pro-Trump or pro-Newsome ads. That is crossing the line that gets the IRS involved. These clauses are responsible governance, not necessarily censorship. Okay, so here's the bottom line. Those NDAs and approval rules are there to keep both sides honest, the creators and the nonprofit to keep them out of legal jeopardy. If they're not in the contract, that's when you should actually be suspicious. The real shock would be if they weren't there. And so what Wired and Taylor Loren called sinister is really just federal law spelled out in black and white, baby.

To be. I was under a contract with Bill Graham management in the early 90s and had to get approval for interviews or contact contacts by other bands. If I want to work with another politician, I have to fully collaborate with them, said one creator who was offered the contract but ultimately declined to take it. Maybe he You know what it doesn't say? It doesn't say he tried to redline it and they said these are the things he tried to redline and they said no. Interesting. And okay. Oh, I see. She doesn't name this person. This person's off the record. Oh, so she can smear people liberally and use their names, but she can't use her source off background. Of course. Of course. Cuz that's Taylor Lauren's MMO. So, somebody said, "If I want to work with if I get ran and he wants to do an interview with me, I don't want to give them that." It was funny because when I represented those TikTokers, they would be like, "Ari, I signed them to contracts with spending thousands of dollars on helping them and all this stuff." And then they'd get like an email from a big brand. And then they'd be like, "Why do we have to give that to you?" Because I'm your agent. What do you mean? That's the deal. That's the whole freaking deal. I'm part You're part of my production. That's the whole deal. What do you mean you don't want to share? You don't want to share the contacts? That is just greedy and not how the world works. My dear, if you want to get Zoron on your own, Zoron, I don't know if I get Zor and he wants to do an interview with me. I don't want to give that to him yet. So, you want to take the $8,000 a month, but you don't want to give them anything. You don't want to It's just not how life works, guys. If somebody's paying you, then they need to be involved. Then go get Zoran on your own and don't take the money and let somebody else take that sponsorship or whatever the creator program, whatever they're doing.

Creators in the program are not allowed to use any funds or resources that they receive as part of the program to make content that supports or oppose any political candidate or campaign without express. Yeah, we just talked about that because it could be illegal. Now, that would be illegal if they didn't have that in there, bestie. Come on. So, it's still a nothing burger. The contracts reviewed by Wired prohibit standard partnership disclosures, declaring that creators will not publicize their relationship with Chorus or tell others that they're members of the program without Chorus's prior express consent. A screenshot from a slideshow was shared with Wired following the article's publication by Graham Wilson, a lawyer working with Chorus. That offers several talking points if a member of the cohort want to discuss Chorus publicly. They also forbid creators from disclosing the identity of any funer and give Chorus the ability to force creators to remove or hey, this seems totally normal to me. They give Chorus the ability to force creators to remove or correct content based solely on the organization's discretion if that content was made at a Chorus organized event. So, they're not saying that they get to tell the creator to take something down off of their YouTube page, but it's kind of like this. If you come to my event and we're going to be doing we're going to make thumbnails today and you make a thumbnail and a video at my event and it's hateful or it's bigoted or something like that, it doesn't stand with the morals of Chorus, then I'm allowed to take to tell you to take it down. Hell yeah. That's what any any type of contract like this would be. Totally normal. Thank you. Thank you. Oh man. Yeah. Who is Zo Zoran Mamandi that from New York for mayor? Oh, okay. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know anything about politics really.

So then she says there are some real advantages to dot housing this program in a nonprofit. So he could have said maybe he said there are some great advantages to Chorus and by the way guys we are housing this program in a nonprofit. We don't know what he actually said. They're shady especially Taylor Lorren Wilson said to creators on a Zoom call reviewed by Wired. It gives us the ability to raise somebody was the who was the mole? They got to figure out who the mole was. It gives us the ability to raise money from donors. It also with this structure, it avoids a lot of public disclosure or public disclaimers paid for by blah blah blah. Yeah. Because no influencer wants to post on every single thing paid for by blah blah blah. And you don't have to. That's what she also doesn't. Like Taylor's trying to educate supposedly trying to educate people on this stuff, but she doesn't tell them. Did you know that nobody has to disclose when they get money from politicians on the left or on the right anyway that you see on political ads? Your names aren't showing up on like reports filed with the FEC. Yeah, which is true. Those did not reply for a request for comment before the article was published. The Federal Election Commission declined to comment. So the FEC's we don't want anything to do with this. The goal, according to a fundraising deck obtained by Wired, is to build new infrastructure to fund independent progressive voices at scale. The creators who join the incubator are expected to attend regular advocacy trainings and daily messaging check-ins. This is the only part where I don't know, I don't love that because what are they getting talking points? If this is how you want to run your political stuff, that's fine, but it's a little culty. I'm just kidding. Not culty, but you know what I'm saying. It's a little but then again like you can't just join the program, take the money and you don't have to do anything. Come on now.

The creators who join the incubator are expected to attend. Okay, of course they have to do something. Those messaging check-ins are led by Cohen in rapid response days. The creators also have to attend at least two Chorus newsroom events per month which are events Chorus plans often with lawmakers. Okay. And she says it like they have to attend. I bet you the creators are super excited to attend. If you get to go to the White House or a lot of the things that Taylor got to do when she reported at the New York Times, she can get excited about those perks, but when the other creators go, they have to go. You could frame anything like that. Taylor Loren as part of her job at the New York Times had to go to special New White House events. It's like, how about Taylor Loren got to go a lot of cool stuff because she's a reporter at the New York Times and they paid for her to do all that stuff. Uh, same thing, different framing. The creators who join the incubator are expected to attend. Elizabeth Dub Dubois, an assistant professor blah blah blah who has researched the ways influencers are reshaping US political system. She does link to her thing, says that we are seeing influencers being pulled into these dark campaigns or shadow campaigns where the legal aspect is murky at best. It's actually clear that influencers are being used to, for example, evade spending limits. But Taylor doesn't accuse Chorus of evading spending limits. So why is it in the article to make them sound more guilty? I think that we need to remember that for democracy to thrive, we do need transparency around who is paying for political messages, which is honestly a good opinion. I agree. Don Haidider, the chief executive of blah blah blah ethics at Santa Clara University says that the outline restrictions violate ethical norms in his opinion. It might as well have said that. Ethical norms, things like what Taylor breaches all the time, like by being read by UTA but then destroying a's competitor and then not disclosing that she was in the New York that she worked for the new or that she was represented by UTA when she wrote this story called these top Hollywood agents or signing all the influencers. That's her those are her agents and those were my clients. She wants everybody to know that I'm amateur hour but these people are the [ __ ] Yeah. Says she includes these quotes that have nothing to do with Chorus, but it makes it sound bad. Okay, so then she quotes an ethics guy. I wonder what this ethics guy would think about Taylor Lauren promoting phones to six-year-olds whilst she is actively doing unpaid ads for this company, but ads nonetheless. If the contract for getting money from a particular interest group says you can't disclose it, then it's pretty simple. You can't take the money, he says. I mean, it she doesn't say that it's his opinion, but then she frames it like this. It sounds like it's against the law, but no, that's just what this guy believes. We're living in an era where a lot of powerful people have basically taken the rule book and throw it out the window. Taylor really throws up the rule book when it comes to disclosing conflicts of interest. Wilson maintained in a post-publish email that the creators are free to work with other groups or take other partnerships outside the Chorus program and say whatever they want as part of that work or on their own. Of course said that they are free to work to whatever Keith Edwards a Democratic content creator she links to this guy that's one of her friends gonna write that one down too interesting who has skyrocketed to fame on YouTube since starting his channel last year was not invited to be part of the program she quotes all these people that weren't invited but believes that the way that it is structured seemed predatory now here's the problem I have with this because that's also opinion guys is it's very likely that Taylor Loren called this guy Keith Edwards and hey I want to get you to comment on Chorus and he's like yeah okay I wasn't really I wasn't invited to be part of it but tell me like do you what do you know about it she's did you know that they have these really like restrictive contracts and like they're not allowed to do this and do that and like they're funded by dark money and then the guy gives her the quote gosh that sounds predatory oh thank you that's all I needed I'll link back to you in the article bye-bye now can you call Taylor funny names like Perez would like Blake I know you You guys have to come up with some funny ones. I just call her Tilo or Tay- Tay. But oh, she's just gives me the heeie-jeebies. But you see how she does that.

So, in my case, check this out. I don't think I've ever shared this with you guys on a stream. So, this was a sworn statement by Adam Cohen, one of my creators who at the time when Taylor wrote about him was 17 years old or 16 or 17, but I didn't. He lived with his parents. His parents and I were really good friends and he was just like, "I need to be represented by you. Like, I have to be." I'm like, "I'm not repping anybody that's not over 18." And he's pleased. And then I talked to his mom and I'm like, "Okay, fine." But he didn't live in any of the content houses or anything like that. Anyway, he says, "I, Adam Cohen, blah blah blah. I declare scholars. I'm currently 18 years old." And he goes to US UCLA. In around December 2019, I sent a DM to the Influences Instagram account managed by Ariadna Jacob. It was well known that Influences was working with Charlie D'Amelio who was one of the most influential people on TikTok at the time. I was also looking for a social media manager. Miss Jacob had a very good reputation at the time. On or around January 27th, 2020, my father and I signed a management agreement with Influences. I was 16 years old at the time. From approximately January 2020 until August 2020, I was managed by Influences and Miss Jacob talked to my parents regularly. She brought me many opportunities that helped my career. During the course of working with Miss Jacob, I attended many collaborations at three content houses Miss Jacob managed, including Girls in the Valley, Drip Crib, and Kids Next Door. I witnessed that all the content houses that were managed by Influences had an iPad at the entrance with a system that required people to sign in and sign a waiver. The waiver stated that creators knew that everything filmed on property belonged to Influences, that they could not disparage Miss Jacob or Influences, and that there were cameras throughout every property. In other words, you can't come to my house and make a bunch of content and use my houses that I'm paying for and talk [ __ ] about me. Point freaking blank. No, that's like business 101. If you're going to do this stuff like I was doing with these content houses, then my friends, you're going to you need to you need to sign the iPad and say that you own the content, too, but we can use it. There wasn't really any content that we were using, but it's just in there just to protect us in case just in case. What if we want to make a documentary or something like that and we had the content? It was well known across TikTok at creator industry that Influences required guests of the content houses to sign an NDA, non-disparagement, and liability waiver. This was common practice at other collab houses that existed at the time, including Jake Paul's in or around May 2020 while I was working with Miss Jacob on a collab house of my own called Al Alpha House. I followed Dale Loren on Instagram because Miss Jacob told me that Miss Loren wrote an article about Charlie D'Amelio published in the New York Times that made Charlie and others very successful. The title of that January 2020 article was Hype House and the Los Angeles TikTok mansion gold rush. I wanted Miss Lauren to know who I was and know about my Alpha House project. I started communicating with Miss Lauren through Instagram DM. So Taylor starts talking to a 16-year-old through Instagram DM that I managed. Okay, fine. And he knows that she's powerful and can, you know, help his career. In or around May 2020, Ms. Lauren contacted me about a story on collabous. Ms. Lauren asked if I could talk on the phone with her about a story, but it was late at night, so I asked if we could talk in the morning. When we spoke the next morning, Miss Lauren asked how old I was and asked me about my Clubhouse project. The conversation was positive, although I felt very intimidated, nervous, and scared of Miss Lauren because of the power dynamic. My parents never spoke to Miss Lauren, and she did not ask to speak to them at the time. Miss Lauren also asked who my manager was, and I told her it was Miss Jacob and Influences. My Instagram profile had my email displayed at adamatinfluences.com so brands and journalists could contact my manager to get in touch with me and it shows he had Adam influences. Ms. Lauren's story in the New York Times titled Delayed Moves Poolside Videos and Postmade Spawn included a quote about Alpha House which I was very proud of at the time. It was a big accomplishment for any content creator to be mentioned in the New York Times. By the way, shout out to freaking Adam Cohen because let me show you guys. See, I wasn't such a bad influence. This is the one guy, one kid that spoke out on my behalf. He's now goes to UCLA. And check this out. He freaking raised $16 million. Or no, I don't know how much he raised, but he his startup is worth $16 million. Isn't that so cool? So proud of this kid. And he did the right thing and honestly spoke on my behalf to just show what kind of person Taylor Loren is. Immediately after the article was published, I received an increase in emails from brands who wanted to work with me and other creators who wanted to be part of my house. That whenever Taylor does a mainstream media article that's positive about an influencer, they get more press and they make more money. So, she uses it as a little carrot on a stick. Hey, I'm going to write about you in the New York Times and that's going to be helpful. I'm going to write about you in Wired. I'm going to link to your YouTube page. It's a little dangled carrot on you. So, if you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you.

In or around June 2020, many of the girls in the valley and drip crib members began posting photos and videos of themselves at parties. I was aware of the parties and understood that Miss Jacob was stressed because photos and videos showed that the creators were behaving badly and not following the rules. Miss Jacob and I exchanged texts discussing the parties at the drip crib and the girls in the valley were attending. I texted Miss Jacob, "Don't let them be mean to you." in reference to the creators who were breaking the rules and disrespecting Miss Jacob. I believe Miss Loren knew about most or all of the content house parties that occurred during the pandemic and which creators were in attendance because there were many outlets covering the subject at the time. So, Loren knew that they were breaking the rules and that this was not good at all. These were public parties that they were having like literally in the middle of the pandemic. I'm sorry, but you can't be doing this stuff. All right. Sorry, guys. I lost my spot. Anyway, they were partying. They were partying, guys. And I did not like it. I was like, great. Now I'm going to get sued. Now they're all going to get co. Oh jeez. It's going to be terrible. It was nice of Adam to have my back. Very nice.

In or around August 2020, Ms. Loren called me again. This time, her tone was very different from the first time we spoke. I recall her asking me I recall her asking me if I was still working with Miss Jacob to which I responded yes. She followed by asking if I had heard all the stuff going on with Miss Jacob about her manipulating talent, behaving badly, and other things that sounded very negative about Miss Jacob and Influences. So why do I have a suspicion that Laurens called these other creators and they're like, "Oh, did you join Chorus?" No. Did you hear about everything they have to sign? You know what I mean? It's not. You don't have to guess that far. That's how she does. She told me that she had spoken to Alex Yumazo, Emmy Combmes from Girls in the Valley, and other influential creators who had been managed by Influences at different points in time. Although I felt pressured to give Miss Loren negative information about Miss Jacob, I had never experienced those negative interactions at any point during the seven months I'd been working closely with Miss Jacob. I did not witness Miss Jacob behaving unprofessionally around any creators. My response to Miss Lauren was that I knew Miss Jacob for who she was and I didn't experience what she was describing. Miss Loren continued to share more negative information for a few minutes, but I did not go along with what she was saying. This seemed to anger Miss Lauren and she seemed pissed. She became very short with me and she became very short with me after I did not share negative information about my manager and we ended the conversation on or around August 12th, 2020. Not too long after my conversation with Miss Loren about Miss Jacob, Miss Loren texted me. So selfish and irresponsible, Adam. I'm very disappointed to see this. In reference to a tweet about Alpha House, the text made me feel upset. Miss Loren knew I was just 16 years old and this was my first business endeavor. It felt like Miss Loren was shaming me because of a business failure during an event I had hired security and an experienced event producer for content. Look what she texted him. This is horrible. So selfish and irresponsible, Adam. I'm very disappointed to see this. She texting all those other creators that were going to parties. What a jerk she is. She sent that to a 16-year-old. So selfish and irresponsible. Adam, I'm very disappointed to see this. I believe that Miss Loren acted in bad faith by spreading misinformation about Miss Jacob and Influences unfairly. Based on what I witnessed of Miss Jacob and Influences from December 2019 to the article in New York Times, I believe Miss Lauren was one of the people who could have originated the negative information that was being spread about Miss Jacob and not the TikTok creators. Before Ms. Lauren published the art August 2020 article, I had never seen or heard any negative press about Miss Jacob or Influences online or on social media.

In or around 2020, after August 14th article about Miss Jacob Influences attempted to continue overseeing Alpha House project as my manager, Miss Jacob had given me an iPad guest for guest signins. At this point, the creators were upset when they saw the Influences logo on the iPad and did not want Miss Jacob or Influences to be involved with Alpha House. At this time, it was very unpopular to say anything positive about Miss Jacob or Influences. And those who didn't speak negatively about Jacob were bullied by other creators. Unlike what I witnessed at the December 2019 Instaskate event, where Miss Jacob was popular and respected amongst creators, after the August 14th, 2020 New York Times article, I witnessed creators who had never even met Miss Jacob or anyone from Influences express very negative feelings about Miss Jacob and Influences. Oh, sad. I have PTSD from that. I'm so glad I'm beyond that. Following Miss Lauren's negative article about Miss Jacob, I did not feel like I could speak up about what happened. Due to Miss Lauren's influence and power, I also feared being retaliated against and bullied by other content creators who spoke to Miss Lauren. What a good kid, right? It's just it's just a glaring example of how honestly page three out of I think it might have just been Miss No, I read them all. Yeah, I read them all. So, yeah, she's just not a nice person.

Okay, so this guy says that the that Chorus seems predatory, but he's not part of it. And he doesn't say why it seems predatory because Taylor Loren told him that. He said he would never agree to take part in a program that was run in secret or wouldn't allow him to disclose funding. Okay, but he wasn't even invited into it. Apparently, Chorus says that it's not run in secret. It's interesting, but you get how all these are opinions. So far, nothing to sue over, unfortunately, for anybody that got smeared in this. What I don't understand is why wouldn't you just donate to creators directly who have already built something and just need to put gasoline on the fire, says Edward. So, he's saying, why don't you just give money to people that already have a lot of followers? This group wants to fund like little baby creators and give them some funding, but he's he doesn't care. He never says, right? And this guy never says, "I would never take money from dark money. I would never take money from 1630." He doesn't say that. He says, why don't they just give it the money to us directly? Why do they have because it's not they're not getting paid to post Chorus. And I think this is important is it's not a Chorus is a is not a typical political influencer program where people are just paid to post certain content. It's structured as an incubator, an educational initiative. Paid to the creators isn't simply for direct promotion but for participation in trainings, mentorship, production support and community building activities. Chorus is what's called a creator incubator and that means it's basically a talent development program. So yes, participants can get stipends, sometimes a few hundred, sometimes $8,000 a month, but those payments aren't just for posting political content. They're just to support the creators as they go through training workshops and peer networking with peers and experts. The idea is to build up a diverse pipeline of progressive creators teaching them everything from how to build an audience to legal basics to production skills. And this is the same model used in music tech startups. So it's just applied to political digital creators. So when Wired framed it as if creators are being paid to secretly push party propaganda, that's really not the full story and that's not doesn't seem very accurate, but it could be Taylor's opinion, which is why she's allowed to say it. And most of what Chorus provides is educational value and professional support, not just a script and a check. If you actually read the contracts, a lot of the requirements they're talking about are just to show up to meetings and learning how to avoid these legal landmines probably by having to just like I think that they're trying to help them. You could frame it. Yeah, sure they could be doing something nefarious, but they could be doing something totally not nefarious and Taylor's just picking one side over the other with no evidence to say that they're doing something nefarious. The distinction is really critical because most dark money outrage assumes creators are like these mercenaries. In reality, they're just like students in a fellowship. And the legal compliance rules being discussed protect both sides because spending for education or advocacy is legal for a 501c4 while outright campaign ads or endorsements are not legal.

Okay, so this guy's like, "Why don't you just donate to me?" The influencers offered the funding were given just days to sign the contract. Essentially presented on a take it or leave it basis. Where does it say in the contract that it's take it or leave it? Oh, they felt like it was. And so I guess it is because Taylor says so. She even says the word essentially. What does that mean? She uses that on on purpose. At least one cohort was specifically told they could not have their lawyers redline it. She doesn't say like why or whatever. It doesn't necessarily have to be nefarious, but the way she writes it makes it seem like it is. In the group chat form to discuss contract negotiations. The group chat form to discuss contract negotiate. No, the group chat was formed so a bunch of people could collaborate. How much are you going to charge? How much are you going to get paid? Have you talked to a lawyer about this? What do you think about this? Should we all go together and be like, pay us more money? This always happens when you get creators all in a room and you get This is why I so happy I don't represent TikTok stars anymore because this was absolutely stressful cuz they would all they would never they just never it's not like all ships rise together with them. It's who's getting paid more. It was always like a jealousy thing. Always sad.

Okay. In the group chat forum discuss contract negotiations. Some creators discussed a clause prohibiting disparagement of other creators. Yeah. If you're going to be on Saturday Night Live, one guy can't talk about crap about the other guy. If you sign to Fox News, one guy can't disparage the other guy. Probably the Daily Wire. If you sign to the Daily Wire one, unless you're Candace Owens, they can disparrage you. My creators weren't allowed to disparage me. If you stay in my house, can't talk [ __ ] about me. My rules. My house, baby. You don't have to live by it, but you don't have to be here if you don't want to live by my rules. Perfectly normal. Nothing wrong with that. And imagine fighting about $8,000 and you're like, "But I want to talk crap about other people that are in the same group." Nah, we're good then. We don't really want to work with you. That's okay. I wouldn't want to work with difficult people that are like eating their own. Disparage is different than disagree. By the way, that's something she also doesn't clarify. You could disagree. And it doesn't say that you can't disagree with another creator in Chorus. It says you cannot disparage them. Let's look up what disparaging is. I think that's a good distinction, right? What about the distinction of the twisted green with creators and disparaging? Here's how to frame and explain. Okay, so yes, so we just talked about that. Some groups that some group chat leak showed creators were worried about not being able to criticize anyone else's anyone else affiliated with Chorus felt. Sorry. Some group chat leaks showed creators worried that not being able to criticize anyone else affiliated with Chorus felt restricted. That sounds pretty sinister on the surface, right? But let's break down what this actually means. There's a major difference between disagreement, which every healthy team or creative project needs, and disparagement, which is targeted, destructive, and potentially defamatory speech about others in your group. In every professional business, from Disney to Google to any talent agency, you'll find nondisparragement clauses and contracts. Why? Because publicly trashing your co-workers, partners, or fellow creators, creates toxic environments and legal risk for everyone, including the nonprofit or company paying you. You can absolutely debate and disagree with other members behind the scenes, in meetings, and in group chats. But what the contract is stopping is public character attacks, sabotage, and brand destruction. If you've ever worked a real job or sign any kind of entertainment tech or brand deal, you've almost certainly agreed to similar terms. Wired spins this as muzzling or censorship because what they're describing is how every successful creative industry retains professionalism. The real question is, would you want to sign onto a project where anyone could publicly trash others with no consequences? Yeah. But disparagement clause doesn't prohibit disagreement. A disparagement clause absolutely does not prohibit disagreement. This is key legal and ethical distinction and why spinning it as you can't criticize anyone is misleading. Disparagement makes means making public statements that damage your the reputation, character, and the goodwill of a person or organization. Examples, public insults. Oh, this guy's a POS. Accusations of wrongdoing. Personal attacks, spreading rumors, or trying to undermine someone's status with the group, company, or brand. Disagreement, critique, or debate within group channels, meetings, or the course of creative organizational discussion. Honest, constructive differences of opinion, internal feedback. What about external disagreement on that particular issue in politics? Is that allowed or considered? Pretty sure it's not considered disparagement, but we'll see what Perplexity has to say. Great question. Public disagreement on a political issue is not considered disparagement unless it crosses the line into personal attacks. Okay, there we go. Publicly voicing an opinion that differs from other creators organization. Example, I don't agree with Chorus's stand on climate policy, so I won't be participating in that campaign. Yeah, that's what I thought. Screenshot this cuz I think I want to tweet it.

All right. Are we even like halfway through this article? Because I might have to do a part two. It is 4 in the morning, guys. Yeah, I'm gonna have to do a part two. I'm tired. I'm really glad y'all hung out with me for a little bit here. Thank you so much. So, yeah, Taylor Lauren to Taylor Lauren's no good as usual. And I would shut up about it like I am. I'm definitely have a good night warning. Yeah, I'm definitely like researching all the Laura Owen stuff. I connected Yuzi Clayton with Megan and I think they're gonna do something coming up here soon. And then this weekend um it's my mom's birthday so I'm going to be hanging out with my mom. I'm going to try to touch grass and not be on the internets. But I will come back and finish this story tomorrow. If you haven't seen my new little fun series that I just posted tonight, it's it's called Did I deserve to get cancelled? Did I deserve it? And we have a subreddit so you guys can post your if you ever got cancelled or if you have a story that you want me to cover, but I covered the US Open hat stealer and it did he deserve it? You guys have to watch to find out. But that's like a fun little short series where I am inspired by Charlotte Do I the a-hole series. I think those are so funny. Make sure you check that out. And then I'm going to continue with the Frasier bomb case, the case where of a crash in on PCH in Malibu, the woman who claimed she got pregnant from a BJ and obviously was lying. And so, uh, that's a crazy case. And my friend Clayton happens to be the one that she lied about. And she lied about two other guys and told them she was pregnant, too. So, it's it's a crazy story and haven't even been able to dive in. But if you guys know anybody that has a business, if your dentist, has bad social media, plastic surgeons, med spas, restaurants, e-commerce, side do social media, short form videos, which is the only way to grow on social media these days. We give you a month's worth of content and our pages for our clients are growing really fast. So, it's pretty awesome. And anyway, I'll leave you guys. Let's roll the outro. Thank you for hanging out with me and I'll see you on the next one. [Music] Little she is fierce. This is the little Miss Jacob show. Bullies beware.